An EV comments on the ongoing struggle between Catholics and LDS.

[JeanMichel]

Oh my.

You continue to make assertions without any historical support, and when asked to provide the “current history” that you referred to earlier, you don’t provide it, and instead throw out names (of Evangelicals and atheists as “current scholars”, hahaha) and say to look it up myself, essentially. It’s funny that you ask me for support of my viewpoint, yet when I asked you to do so (first), you do not. You have yet to answer the question of when the Catholic Church was founded. Of course Evangelical “scholars” would dispute what Catholic/Orthodox “scholars” have found in the historical record. This is not a surprise. I’ll wait until you can substantiate your claims with actual evidence, though it seems as if you are not interested in such a discussion, since you seem to make assertions, then when called on them, simply say “it doesn’t matter anyway”.

Karen Armstrong is not an EV, she is a former Catholic nun. Bart D. Ehrman is not an atheist, but an agnostic. He did have an Evangelical upbringing. L. Michael White, frankly I don’t know his religiouis affiliation. What I know of all three of them are they are immeniently qualified historians. They are recognized as such by their peers and by their research and the numerous books they have written.

I apologize if I haven’t met your expectations. You might the first claim that the Catholic Church began from the beginning and you did so with nothing but your opinion. I have disagreed with your position and I have stated that I respect your opinion of faith. I have also stated I would not argue this point because it is meaningless; that there was nothing to gain. You chose to denigrate all three historians and stating that somehow a Catholic scholar is superior to all others. I will not argue what is historical facts supported by historians from all religious faiths Christian and non-Christian alike.

It is never appropriate to rub one’s nose with an opposing view whent he topic is faith. All it does, as is so evident, is a strong defensive reaction. I would encourage you to read, “From Jesus to Christianity” by White, “Lost Christainities” by Ehrman, or “The First Christian: Saint Paul’s Impact on Christianity” by Armstrong. The first two approach the topic directly and are relatively easy reads for those accustomed to history. They do not have an axe to grind and are objective. In other words, they do not approach the topic from a position of faith.

I do not make assertions lightly. I again apologize if failed your standards, but I also will only bear witness to the reality of Jesus Christ. God bless you and keep you safe.

 

[JeanMichel]

Well, actually the Apostles were Catholic. The Catholic Church was born on Pentecost. The entire new Testament was written by Catholics and the canon of Sacred Scripture was determined by Catholics. Yes, the Bible which you attempt to use against us was given to you by us. You should spend some time reading the early Church fathers if you want to know what the early Church believed. If you think the doctrine of the Trinity is superfelous, I think you’ll be surprised. It is the most basic of all Christian doctrines and was revealed to us by Christ himself. You should read the posts above by absitinvidia for chapter and verse concerning this teaching.

As far as the definition of Chritian being found in the Bible, yes, of course it is. Read the New Testament. Christ very clearly laid out what is entailed in being one of his followers.

Steve, I am glad that you have faith in your sacred history. As a student of I disagree with your position, but that does not negate our opportunity to worship God the Father, His Son, and the Holy Spirit. I consider all of Catholicism by brothers and sisters in Jesus Christ. I am indebted to their long history and the great wells of truth I have found in reading about the lives of the Saints. I value the writings of Justin, Eusebius, Irenaeus, Clement, Tertullian, and Origen. I encourage all to study the teachings of the Catholic Church on the Eucharist. I also have fallen under the tutelage of Jean Paul II because of his brillant mind and sweet Spirit that accompanied all he did.

 

[SteveVH]

Steve, I am glad that you have faith in your sacred history. As a student of I disagree with your position, but that does not negate our opportunity to worship God the Father, His Son, and the Holy Spirit. I consider all of Catholicism by brothers and sisters in Jesus Christ. I am indebted to their long history and the great wells of truth I have found in reading about the lives of the Saints. I value the writings of Justin, Eusebius, Irenaeus, Clement, Tertullian, and Origen. I encourage all to study the teachings of the Catholic Church on the Eucharist. I also have fallen under the tutelage of Jean Paul II because of his brillant mind and sweet Spirit that accompanied all he did.

JeanMichel, thank you for your kind words. You stated “As a student of I disagree with your position…”. Of what are you a student? If you have read the wrtings of the ECF’s quoted above, how do you maintain your position?

 

[dianaiad]

Ah, but it was! The first Christians WERE CATHOLIC. It cannot be proven otherwise. Also, I’m still waiting for your answer to my post #171.

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

That’s a bigger topic, I think, than can be encompassed in this thread, since it is THE big question between Catholics and Mormons.

…and that’s the point. We claim the same thing y’all claim; that public revelation ceased upon the deaths of the original apostles, and that no more scripture was written. The difference is that we do not see any reason for this to be so…and you, because it WAS so, assume that it was supposed to happen. We claim that it happened as a result of apostasy, and was the cause of more apostacy.

Here’s the question: where in any of the scriptures, anywhere, does it say that revelation…the sort that resulted in scripture (i.e., public revelation) was supposed to stop?

Everything we know of Christ comes to us as a direct result of public revelation. One of the most important apostles, was not a follower of Christ before His death and resurrection; quite the opposite; he was an avowed enemy…yet his words are accepted as scripture.

Therefore, obviously, scripture was written after Christ’s death and resurrection.

Since this is so, and since there is absolutely NOTHING in Christ’s words (or those of any other writer of the scripture we all accept) to say that public revelation was to cease, then the burden of proof is not mine.

It’s yours. Where is there, in any of the scriptures anywhere, any hint that public revelation was supposed to end?

…and please, don’t give me anything that Paul wrote, because EVERYTHING that Paul wrote was a direct result of exactly that public revelation that those who quote him on the topic insist means that public revelation ceased with Christ Himself.

That’s exactly like you telling me that I"m not supposed to believe anything you tell me, because you don’t have the authority to tell me anything. One of the most paradoxical claims that Catholics and Protestants make.

You know the old paradox about the man who claims that he can tell nothing but the truth, no matter what, and then announces “I’m lying?”

Well, that’s exactly what you have when you interpret any of the NT writers as saying that revelation ceased with Christ.

 

[zaffiroborant]

You want to persecute one another for your differences in understanding in this belief.

Quite an accusation you make here. Weren’t you just complaining about pushing away the spirit or some such?

 

[Todd520]

To continue, The Trinity is the central Mystery of the Christian faith.

Absitinviia,
I always thought the incarnation, death and resurection of Christ was the central Mystery of the Catholic faith? Just want to reconfirm before I change my understaning.

 

[absitinvidia]

In Matthew 16:18-19, if you read it, you will find:

1. Peter, who became the first Bishop of Rome, singled out and declared by Christ to be the foundation of his Church.
2. The perpetual nature of the Church and Christ himself saying that evil cannot destroy it
3. Christ himself declares that he will give Peter the Keys to the Kingdom of Heaven, and with them the authority to “bind” and “loose” on earth and in Heaven.

The foundation of the Catholic Church is laid in these two verses. In other words, it is conceived.

In Acts 2, the members of the Church are all together in one place and the Spirit fills them, as promised by Jesus, and they are begun to be led into all Truth.

In Acts 2, the Church is born and begins to live.

As for the Primacy issue…Peter is mentioned 190 times in the Bible, 56 of those times in Acts. The next most-mentioned Apostle is John, who is mentioned 34 times. Peter, besides being singled out by Jesus, is always mentioned first in lists of the Apostles. In fact, look at Acts 2:14. It says, “But Peter, standing up with the eleven…” Peter is obviously the chief Apostle, otherwise he would not be singled out. And when in Acts 1 the decision is made to replace Judas, it is by the order of Peter, with scriptural support. (And here we see the Apostolic Succession.) When Jesus wants to know who the Apostles think he is, who does he ask (Matthew 16:13-19)? Peter. Whose boat does Jesus preach from (Luke 5:1-10)? Peter’s boat. Who does Jesus ask to feed his sheep? (John 21:17) Peter. Who leads the Church’s first council -the Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15:7)? Peter.

Peter was the first Bishop of Rome and the first Pope. The Pope now is the Bishop of Rome, and the Pope has always been the leader of the Church, the Vicar of Christ on earth. There was no vying with the other bishops for supremacy, because Christ gave the Keys to Peter, and that authority is passed down to Peter’s successors.

And if you want to quibble over the name “catholic” then: the letters of James, 1 and 2 Peter, 1,2, and 3 John, and Jude are actually known as the “Catholic Epistles.” Whether you want to admit it or not, the Bible you cleave to is dripping with history you deny.

 

[RebeccaJ]

[CCC 234](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/234.htm’) The mystery of the Most Holy Trinity is the central mystery of Christian faith and life. It is the mystery of God in himself. It is therefore the source of all the other mysteries of faith, the light that enlightens them. It is the most fundamental and essential teaching in the “hierarchy of the truths of faith”. The whole history of salvation is identical with the history of the way and the means by which the one true God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, reveals himself to men “and reconciles and unites with himself those who turn away from sin”.

 

[zaffiroborant]

It is never appropriate to rub one’s nose with an opposing view whent he topic is faith. .

Yes, it’s so much more appropriate to make vague claims concerning the church and then walk away from them claiming charity. Passive/aggressive a bit? And it is so very convincing when followed up by I’ve read … This type of thing goes right along with your previous accusations on this thread.

 

[Todd520]

Here is a good PBS article on the earlier followers of Jesus

The Jesus Movement

We call them christians now, but at the time they were more of a Jewish sect and did not have a strong cohesion or group identity.

 

[Javl]

That’s a bigger topic, I think, than can be encompassed in this thread, since it is THE big question between Catholics and Mormons.

…and that’s the point. We claim the same thing y’all claim; that public revelation ceased upon the deaths of the original apostles, and that no more scripture was written. The difference is that we do not see any reason for this to be so…and you, because it WAS so, assume that it was supposed to happen. We claim that it happened as a result of apostasy, and was the cause of more apostacy.

Here’s the question: where in any of the scriptures, anywhere, does it say that revelation…the sort that resulted in scripture (i.e., public revelation) was supposed to stop?

Everything we know of Christ comes to us as a direct result of public revelation. One of the most important apostles, was not a follower of Christ before His death and resurrection; quite the opposite; he was an avowed enemy…yet his words are accepted as scripture.

Therefore, obviously, scripture was written after Christ’s death and resurrection.

Since this is so, and since there is absolutely NOTHING in Christ’s words (or those of any other writer of the scripture we all accept) to say that public revelation was to cease, then the burden of proof is not mine.

It’s yours. Where is there, in any of the scriptures anywhere, any hint that public revelation was supposed to end?

…and please, don’t give me anything that Paul wrote, because EVERYTHING that Paul wrote was a direct result of exactly that public revelation that those who quote him on the topic insist means that public revelation ceased with Christ Himself.

That’s exactly like you telling me that I"m not supposed to believe anything you tell me, because you don’t have the authority to tell me anything. One of the most paradoxical claims that Catholics and Protestants make.

You know the old paradox about the man who claims that he can tell nothing but the truth, no matter what, and then announces “I’m lying?”

Well, that’s exactly what you have when you interpret any of the NT writers as saying that revelation ceased with Christ.

The LDS Church bases all its assertions and assumptions on “the Great Apostacy” and yet it cannot come up with any sort of concrete proof that this had occured. When proof is requested there has been some hemming and hawing with statements made, such as that “it was a gradual process”, etc. This is blowing against the wind.

When Catholics and Protestants make statements, with definte proofs to back up these statements, the LDS rejects and denies these proofs because they do not fit into the LDS definition or scheme of things. But, when the LDS makes a statement contradicting the Catholic or Protestant it is usually made without proof. When proof is requested, the request is generally ignored. This denotes poor integrity and does not help the LDS position, and again it is blowing against the wind.

The general (name removed by moderator)ression that is given to non-LDS is that it is trying extra hard to legitimize its existence and acceptance by non-LDS. To me, these LDS actions are dishonest and not conducive to honest dialogue. Therefore, I am quitting this thread and all LDS dialogue from this point forward.

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

 

[absitinvidia]

Todd,
We’re quoting from the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC). You can look up these passages on the Vatican website if you do not have the book.

CCC 232 states, “Christians are baptized in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.” Before receiving the sacrament they respond to a three-part question when asked to confess the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit: “I do.” “The faith of all Christians rests on the Trinity.”

(This alone shows how important the Trinity is.)

CCC 233 states, "Christians are baptized in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit: not in their names*, for there is only one God, the almighty Father, his only Son, and the Holy Spirit: the Most Holy Trinity.

And RebeccaJ has given us the very next paragraph. (Thank you, Rebecca.)

These reasons are why the Catholic Church is particular about the baptismal formula. If a denomination means something different by “Trinity,” then they cannot actually be classed as Christian, they would be a whole other religion, as in the case of the LDS movement and the JWs.

This is not meant, by the way, to slight any denomination or other religion. It’s just how it is.*

 

[dianaiad]

The LDS Church bases all its assertions and assumptions on “the Great Apostacy” and yet it cannot come up with any sort of concrete proof that this had occured. When proof is requested there has been some hemming and hawing with statements made, such as that “it was a gradual process”, etc. This is blowing against the wind.

Javi, I just did. That’s what my point about public revelation was about. I understand that you, as a Catholic, do not consider my argument sufficient, but I do…just as I do not consider your claims to be sufficient, even though you do.

My point is simple: everybody agrees that public revelation ceased upon the death of the last apostle. The question being raised is this: was it supposed to? Your claim is…yes, because it did indeed cease. My claim is…there is more than one reason for something to cease other than ‘it was supposed to,’ and when there is no, and I repeat, NO, indication or prediction that it was going to cease, or that such a cessation was going to be a good thing, then it seems to me that it’s cessation was, therefore, wrong.

Apostacy.

Whether you accept that or not, that’s the argument----and whether you accept it as proof or not, it’s a good one. I have yet to see an explanation of the cessation of public revelation that makes any logical sense…and the thing is, that cessation was a huge change. For close to a generation after the death and resurrection of Christ, there was public revelation; it continued…

And then it didn’t. So…you tell me. How is that NOT apostacy? Where, in any of the works you accept as scripture, is there anything that tells us that such revelation would, or should, cease?

(shrug) That’s the simplest point, right there.

When Catholics and Protestants make statements, with definte proofs to back up these statements, the LDS rejects and denies these proofs because they do not fit into the LDS definition or scheme of things. But, when the LDS makes a statement contradicting the Catholic or Protestant it is usually made without proof. When proof is requested, the request is generally ignored. This denotes poor integrity and does not help the LDS position, and again it is blowing against the wind.

]

Lots of generalization going on in the above statement, Javi.

The general (name removed by moderator)ression that is given to non-LDS is that it is trying extra hard to legitimize its existence and acceptance by non-LDS. To me, these LDS actions are dishonest and not conducive to honest dialogue. Therefore, I am quitting this thread and all LDS dialogue from this point forward.

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

 

[Todd520]

Here’s the question: where in any of the scriptures, anywhere, does it say that revelation…the sort that resulted in scripture (i.e., public revelation) was supposed to stop?

Where is there, in any of the scriptures anywhere, any hint that public revelation was supposed to end?

Javl,
I highlighting diana’s core question for you, in case you missed it by accident.

 

[JeanMichel]

JeanMichel, thank you for your kind words. You stated “As a student of I disagree with your position…”. Of what are you a student? If you have read the wrtings of the ECF’s quoted above, how do you maintain your position?

Steve,

Forgive me, I did not write a complete sentence. Seldom is my mind fast enough to outrun my fingers; such is the state of the feeble minded. I have studied religion all of my life. During my studies I have found such sublime moments as I have studied St. Francis, St. Bernadette, St. Rita, St. Teresa of Avila, St. Fracis de Sales, St. John Bosco (he taught me even those of us who are seen as rebellious are capable of performing good work on behalf of the Lord) come immediately to mind.

As one who seeks truth, I thresh the writings of those who are viewed as great men and women in Christianity. I have also read most of the recognized sacred books of the world. I fear that I have forgotten far more than I currently know. I have learned to truth is absolute; it is the same for all humanity. There are some truths that are more difficult to realize than others. The mysteries come slowly, but they are the fruit of those who ponder and strive to know them. I realize that in my youth I saw much black and white in the world, but as I have aged the black and white areas have become smaller and the gray areas predominate. I am not as quick to judge, confrontation is painful and avoided, and I know that I am a sinner.

I believe that each of us is in God’s hands. We may be recalitrant children, but we each are on a path to know him personally. Many attend a vast array of Christian churches. What I seek is that which binds them together rather than that which separates them. That which separates them is genearlly of little important, but that which binds them is the most precious and important truths.

I apologize, I have begun to dodder on too much. I have studied because I love truth. I am what I am because I find organized religion to err too often to make me comfortable. Every religion and church I have studied has taught me a great deal about God and our Savior. I hope that I do more than I believe every day of my life.

 

[mtolympus]

We believe in the same biblical Christ as other Christians. What President Hinckley meant when he said we don’t believe in the traditional Christ is that we don’t accept the concept of Christ from the Nicean Creed. We don’t believe that Christ is “of the same substance” as the Father.

 

[mtolympus]

CCC 232 states, “Christians are baptized in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.” Before receiving the sacrament they respond to a three-part question when asked to confess the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit: “I do.” “The faith of all Christians rests on the Trinity.”

These reasons are why the Catholic Church is particular about the baptismal formula. If a denomination means something different by “Trinity,” then they cannot actually be classed as Christian, they would be a whole other religion, as in the case of the LDS movement and the JWs.

I disagree. We have our own formula for baptism. That fact that we don’t follow your formula simply means we are not Catholic. By your deinition the Apostle Paul would not be a Christian since your definition of the Trinity did not exist until 325 AD.

 

[Todd520]

Todd,
We’re quoting from the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC). You can look up these passages on the Vatican website if you do not have the book.

CCC 232 states, “Christians are baptized in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.” Before receiving the sacrament they respond to a three-part question when asked to confess the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit: “I do.” “The faith of all Christians rests on the Trinity.”

(This alone shows how important the Trinity is.)

CCC 233 states, "Christians are baptized in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit: not in their names**, for there is only one God, the almighty Father, his only Son, and the Holy Spirit: the Most Holy Trinity.

And RebeccaJ has given us the very next paragraph. (Thank you, Rebecca.)

These reasons are why the Catholic Church is particular about the baptismal formula. If a denomination means something different by “Trinity,” then they cannot actually be classed as Christian, they would be a whole other religion, as in the case of the LDS movement and the JWs.

This is not meant, by the way, to slight any denomination or other religion. It’s just how it is.
Hi absitinvidia,
If we use the bible as our common reference, most baptisms appear to have been done in the name of Jesus only:

• Acts 8:15-16: “Who, when they were come down, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Ghost. (For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.)”
• Acts 10:48: And he [Peter] commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord."
• Acts 19:4-5: “Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus. When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.”

Some were done in the name of the Trinity: Matthew 28:19: “Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.”

Net, Net, most early followers of Jesus were probably baptized in his name only.

 

[absitinvidia]

Todd520,
Acts 8:15-16…Jesus had already given a specific baptismal formula, which the entire Church uses to this day. The “name” the author of Acts mentions here is exactly what Jesus commanded, “the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,” one name for the Trinity because they are one. When he says “of the Lord Jesus” he means that is where they received the formula. When he says “only” he is saying that they were baptized but did not receive the Holy Spirit, which is why Peter and John were sent to Confirm them, so they might receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. Reread this passage in light of this.

Acts 10:48…Again, this is the same name Jesus commanded for the baptismal formula. These passages are not referring to the name “Jesus,” they are referring to the name Jesus commanded them to use in Matthew 28:20.

Acts 19:4-5…Again, they were baptized with the formula Jesus commanded, with the name Jesus commanded, as in Matthew 28:20, not with the name “Jesus.”

mtolympus,
To believe in “the same biblical Christ” you must believe that Jesus is one in being with the Father because in John 10:30, Jesus says, “I and my Father are one.” The “one” means one in number, not just in purpose. If you believe in something different, then there is a serious flaw in your theology, since the Jesus you claim to believe in said the exact opposite of what you say you believe. Jesus is the Truth (John 14:6). So if Jesus says something it is the truth. So when Jesus relates the truth to you and you reject it in favor of something that is not the truth, then you have chosen to believe a lie. Simple. Now see John 8:44.

The Nicene Creed was not the beginning of the doctrine of the Trinity as Catholics know it. That doctrine began with Jesus Christ himself before he was even crucified, as evidenced by Scripture.To say otherwise is to call Jesus a liar, which he is not. What you misunderstand is the purpose of the Nicene Creed. Heresies had popped up which, like your religion, said that Jesus was someone or something different than who and what he said he was. The Creed was written out as a defense of the Faith against heresy, that all the Church would understand the Trinity, the central Mystery. Up until that time the Church had no need to have a creed. The need to combat heresy and misunderstanding meant the Creed was needed. So they wrote it all down. But just because they put pen to paper then does not mean that they did not believe it before. Your assertion holds no water. They believed it the whole time, and only had cause to write it down years later in order to defend the Faith. Refer to 1 Peter 3:15.

If you have your own baptismal formula, that is fine, since you are a completely different religion anyway, and not Christian. But you should not assert that you are Christian.

 

[SteveVH]

Steve,

Forgive me, I did not write a complete sentence. Seldom is my mind fast enough to outrun my fingers; such is the state of the feeble minded. I have studied religion all of my life. During my studies I have found such sublime moments as I have studied St. Francis, St. Bernadette, St. Rita, St. Teresa of Avila, St. Fracis de Sales, St. John Bosco (he taught me even those of us who are seen as rebellious are capable of performing good work on behalf of the Lord) come immediately to mind.

As one who seeks truth, I thresh the writings of those who are viewed as great men and women in Christianity. I have also read most of the recognized sacred books of the world. I fear that I have forgotten far more than I currently know. I have learned to truth is absolute; it is the same for all humanity. There are some truths that are more difficult to realize than others. The mysteries come slowly, but they are the fruit of those who ponder and strive to know them. I realize that in my youth I saw much black and white in the world, but as I have aged the black and white areas have become smaller and the gray areas predominate. I am not as quick to judge, confrontation is painful and avoided, and I know that I am a sinner.

I believe that each of us is in God’s hands. We may be recalitrant children, but we each are on a path to know him personally. Many attend a vast array of Christian churches. What I seek is that which binds them together rather than that which separates them. That which separates them is genearlly of little important, but that which binds them is the most precious and important truths.

I apologize, I have begun to dodder on too much. I have studied because I love truth. I am what I am because I find organized religion to err too often to make me comfortable. Every religion and church I have studied has taught me a great deal about God and our Savior. I hope that I do more than I believe every day of my life.

It is only when we stop seeking truth that we are, indeed, in trouble. I applaud you in your sincere search for Truth, which is God Himself.

Blessings.

Steve