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

[PaulDupre]

You’re not understanding the point. In Mormonism, one of the requirements for “eternal life”, i.e. exaltation, is an eternal marriage/sealing (heterosexual marriage). In Catholicism, marriage is not a requirement for eternal life.

Good point.

 

[LongJourney]

You’re not understanding the point. In Mormonism, one of the requirements for “eternal life”, i.e. exaltation, is an eternal marriage/sealing (heterosexual marriage). In Catholicism, marriage is not a requirement for eternal life.

And that Mormon teaching contradicts the teachings of the NT. Of course, Mormonism teaches that the NT is in error.

 

[SteveVH]

Yes…and that’s all you have, as well. Both claims are based upon evidence that one believes…and the other does not.

Except that I have never seen your evidence.

I need no other ‘evidence’ than this: we both agree that public revelation ceased after the last of the original apostles died. My 'claim" is based upon the fact that there is absolutely nothing in scripture to show that it was supposed to…and in fact, it DID continue after the death and resurrection of Jesus, even to the replacement of Apostles, who received revelation and guidance for the churches over which they presided.

Diana, this has been explained so many times. Do you think that we do not depend upon the Holy Spirit each time a Pope is chosen (replacement of the Apostles). You would call that public revelation, we would not. Even Paul did not receive “new revelation”. He received the same revelation, that of Jesus Christ. We have never claimed that “revelation” has stopped. What we have claimed, over and over and over and over again is that Christ is the fulfillment of all revelation. The fullness of God has been revealed to us in Him. As I stated before, the Church recognizes continuing revelation, but it all originates and concerns the ONE revelation of Jesus Christ. All you have to do is read the lives of the Saints in order to see very plainly that God continues revelation in His Church. Even the apparitions of Mary constantly point us to her Son. God revealed himself, slowly, through his prophets, and finally and completely in His Son, Jesus Christ.

See above. Nothing went wrong.

All you have to do is show me some evidence that public revelation was supposed to stop at such and such a point, or for such and such a reason. I would prefer that you find something that isn’t hopelessly circular, like claiming that public revelation was to cease at the death and resurrection of Jesus, considering that most NT scripture is a direct result of revelation received after the death and resurrection of Jesus.

Heb 1:1-2
"God, who at sundry time and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, Hath in these last days spoken to us by his Son" What do you suppose that might mean?

Jude 3
"Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints". There was one faith that had been revealed. They were not expecting anything more.

2Tim 2:2
“And the things that thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also.” They had received a complete deposit of faith which was to be handed on.

Gal 4:4
"But when the fullness of time was come, God sent forth his Son…"* What do you suppose the “fullness of time” means? It is a time of completion.

There are more, if you wish.

(continued…)*

[/QUOTE]

 

[SteveVH]

Continued…

Sure I can; added stuff, certainly, like infant baptism, celibate priests, celibate nuns, papal infallibility, purgatory (and all the stuff that goes with it) the idea of prayers to Saints and to Mary for intercession…none of that is found in the NT, y’know. You DON’T have apostles, you certainly don’t have public revelation (which was an integral part of the very early church…)

No need to get snippy. As you very well know, baptism replaced circumcision. When do you suppose most Jews were circumcised? There are references to baptizing entire households (Acts 16:15, 31, 33) (1Cor 1:16). That’s an old argument that holds no water.

As for celibacy, it is a discipline, not a doctrine. We have had married priests, even Popes. While I doubt it will ever change, it could change. Doctrines never change.

Papal infallibility is just stating the logical truth. Christ made a promise that the Church would be guided by the Holy Spirit into all truth (Jn 16:13). He also tells us that the Church would speak with Christ’s own voice (Lk 10:16). There are many more references to the relationship of God and his Church. In short, the Church is and must be protected from error in the matters of faith and morals. Remember Who’s Church this is. It is Jesus’ own Church and that is the reason it can and must speak infallibly, not because of any man.

As for Apostles, as you very well know, we can SHOW YOU an unbroken line of apostolic succession. You can’t. Neither can any other. Your claim to have Apostles, again, is nothing more than a claim. We have real, hard evidence. You don’t.

As for praying to saints to intercede for us. Do we really need to go over that? It all has to do with the fact that you do not cease to be part of the Body of Christ upon your death. Therefore, those that die in Christ are united to us through the Body of Christ, his Church. We are not separated by death. So, it is no different than asking you to pray for me. It is called the “communion of saints” and I know that you are familiar with this doctrine.

As for Public Revelation, we’ve already discussed that.

I asked you not to get all circular regarding this. We received that 'fullness of revelation in the Person of Jesus Christ," certainly…but then He went on to hand OUT public revelation, in spades. HE became the source of it; His walk on the shore with His apostles; His appearance to His mother at the tomb; His revelations and instructions to His apostles later: Paul’s experience on the Road to Damascus; Peter’s experiences in prison:what IS all that, if it’s not public revelation? We wouldn’t know anything about Jesus at all if His followers did not receive public revelation after His death and resurrection.

YOU guys claim that He did, Steve. Nobody is claiming that God stopped answering personal prayer, or that individual Christians were not guided by the Holy Spirit; that’s a very different discussion. We are not claiming anything that y’all do not also claim: public revelation ceased. Shoot, you acknowledge that, yourself, later in this post, with a very circular explanation of why it did.

You are claiming that public revelation continued?

It is becoming increasingly apparent that you have no concept what of the “fullness of revelation in Jesus Christ” means. What was he revealing, in every single circumstance you mention. He was revealing HIMSELF. Once we received that deposit of faith, His revelation was complete. That has nothing to do with ongoing communication from God through the Holy Spirit. Francis of Assisi received revelation directly from Jesus who spoke to him from the cross of San Damiano. He told Francis to “build my Church”. You would consider that Public Revelation, we would not. St. Faustina (a recent saint) received revelation from Jesus in which she was told to spread His message of “Divine Mercy” to the world. You would consider that public revelation. We would not. See what I mean? It all originates and emanates from the person of Jesus Christ, God’s ONLY word.

(Continued…)

 

[SteveVH]

Continued…

I’m sorry, but those things on the list I gave you were absolutely invented. There is no reference to, say…celibate nuns…in the NT. No reference to baptizing infants, or to prayer to Saints for intercession with God. NOTHING about praying to Mary for intercession. I do understand that y’all are not worshiping Mary or Saints; this isn’t about me trying to claim that you do something you do not do. This is me claiming that there is absolutely nothing in scripture that refers to intercessory prayer to Saints…or to Mary. So…that’s a change. since you claim that there was no public revelation to justify it, then what?

And why would there be anything in the NT concerning praying to Mary when she was still walking on the earth with them? In any event, I’ve already addressed the “intercessory prayer” thing.

As far as Catholic “inventions” are concerned, first of all I’m amazed that you would even want to bring that subject up. Of all who claim to be “Christian”, no one has spun inventions like the Mormon Church. I find no single uniquely Mormon doctrine in Sacred Scripture, not one. The Catholic Church, as time goes on, grows in its understanding of the deposit of faith handed down by the Apostles. We have had brilliant theologians, priests, bishops and lay persons who, through the gift of the Holy Spirit, shed new light on the Gospel. Our understanding continues to grow and deepen as one might expect when dealing with a truth that is eternal. Nothing has been “invented”.

Each time the Mormon Church changes anything, they claim it is due to public revelation, when in fact it is not. Why would God change his mind concerning the inclusion of different races of people into your priesthood? Why would he change his mind concerning polygamy? It is all a little too convenient, Diana. Your church gets into trouble and then “claims” that a new revelation has been received in order to get back into the good graces of the country. Sorry, not convincing, not convincing at all.

 

[zaffiroborant]

You’re not understanding the point. In Mormonism, one of the requirements for “eternal life”, i.e. exaltation, is an eternal marriage/sealing (heterosexual marriage). In Catholicism, marriage is not a requirement for eternal life.

I read that several times too, before I decided that I think Zaffirobrant was trying to draw a distinction between the perceived status of married vs. un-married, not that homosexuals are called to celibacy. That is, is the church somehow saying married is better than unmarried? (No, I would say.)

I agree with Todd520 that all persons in the church are called to celibacy outside of marriage. The standard is the same for priest, widower, teenager - everyone.

Yes and yes.

 

[absitinvidia]

Just a thought on the consecrated celibacy issue: In Matthew 19:12, Jesus says that some people renounce marriage for the sake of the Kingdom, and then goes on to say, “Whoever can accept this ought to accept it.” So not everyone can renounce marriage for the Kingdom, but those who can should.

And the idea for living together in monasteries and convents comes from Genesis 2:18, “The Lord God said, ‘It is not good for the man to be alone.’” The same applies to the rest of humanity. People by nature gravitate toward some type of community. It just took a while for it to become formalized.

 

[dianaiad]

Continued…

No need to get snippy

Not a snippy syllable in there, Steve.

Ok, there’s some snips…(only for room)

I concede that you have reasons that you believe all these things are valid; if you didn’t, you wouldn’t believe them. The point I’m making is that you can’t support them INSIDE the NT. You rely on support from Tradition. That’s fine, if you happen to accept Tradition.

The problem, of course, is that the question is about whether Tradition is valid…and the claim is that these things are CHANGES from the way things were done in the NT. They are, which of course is the whole point.

For instance, basing a very important, if not vital, part of your doctrine regarding baptism and salvation on the ABSENCE of something…that is, the absence of a statement that these ‘entire families’ didn’t include infants, is problematic. As it happens, entire families are a great deal more likely NOT to include infants than that they are; even, or especially, with extended families that include elders. (and we have no information regarding the makeup of the families involved.) The thing is, the birth rate of that time was high…and so was the infant death rate. One can certainly assume the presence of children…since the odds of that are at least 50%, but of infants? Nope.

As well, when on my own mission was was present at the baptism of two ‘entire families.’ Everybody except the kids under the age of 8…but because everybody ELIGIBLE for baptism was baptised, the assumption was that the ‘entire family’ was–because of course those children, when they reached the age of 8, would follow the example of the rest of their family and be baptised.

The fact is, there is no language in the NT, or in any document written by a Christian before the death of the last apostle, that supports the specific practice of infant baptism. There just isn’t. The most you can do is point to the ‘entire family’ verse, and say that they could have had babies,…

Sorry, not enough.

As to apostles, why are you arguing with me about that one? I know of no Catholic who claims that there were new apostles called, or that public revelation continued, after the death of the last one. Do you? Yes, I imagine that you can point to a long line of people who claim to trace their succession back to the apostles…and that’s fine. But we don’t argue with that. The argument is that way back when, some of those men went off the doctrinal path, so that what they passed on to you wasn’t correct any more; a change.

But you asked me to show you changes. I showed you. They ARE changes.

\
SteveVH;7049434:

It is becoming increasingly apparent that you have no concept what of the “fullness of revelation in Jesus Christ” means.

As it is becoming increasingly apparent that you are equivocating, Steve.

What was he revealing, in every single circumstance you mention. He was revealing HIMSELF.

Yes…and He continued to do so. That’s the POINT. He didn’t STOP talking to His apostles, and there was no indication whatsoever that there was a point at which He would.

Once we received that deposit of faith, His revelation was complete.

…and when was that supposed to be, Steve? Please show me the verse in the NT where Christ said “I’ve said enough, and I’m not going to talk to you any more?”

That has nothing to do with ongoing communication from God through the Holy Spirit. Francis of Assisi received revelation directly from Jesus who spoke to him from the cross of San Damiano. He told Francis to “build my Church”. You would consider that Public Revelation, we would not.

In terms of public revelation, in this case it is what you think it is that counts. Mind you, if St. Francis’ revelation didn’t apply to the whole church, (and it didn’t, evidently) then you are quite right. It wasn’t public revelation.

In fact, I would call your doctrine of papal infallibility ‘public revelation.’ if anything was. It fits the requirements better.

St. Faustina (a recent saint) received revelation from Jesus in which she was told to spread His message of “Divine Mercy” to the world. You would consider that public revelation. We would not. See what I mean? It all originates and emanates from the person of Jesus Christ, God’s ONLY word.

(Continued…)

Actually, no…we are still talking past one another, obviously. Public revelation is that communication FROM God TO the leaders of His church, for the purpose of guiding that church as a whole. What that revelation contiains does not define that it IS revelation; it’s what it’s FOR, and Who it’s FROM that does. In the NT, apostles and prophets continued to receive revelation for the specific purpose of guiding Christ’s church. They received that revelation from Jesus Christ Himself, and there is absolutely no verse, no indication, NOTHING that tells us that this situation was supposed to end–that His church would continue without Him at the helm, without His leaders receiving direct revelation from Him for the express purpose of guiding the church.

…but Catholics, and you, claim that this ceased upon the death of the last apostle. We agree with you on that. The difference between us is that we don’t think it was supposed to.

 

[dianaiad]

Continued…

And why would there be anything in the NT concerning praying to Mary when she was still walking on the earth with them? In any event, I’ve already addressed the “intercessory prayer” thing.

Why isn’t there? This would seem to be rather important, given the present Catholic dogma concerning her place in your theology. After all, there was quite a bit of information about Christ and what to do regarding Him while HE was still 'walking on the earth with them."

As to intercessory prayer…I"m sorry, but you have not shown me anything in the NT that addresses that…at all. Nothing.

As far as Catholic “inventions” are concerned, first of all I’m amazed that you would even want to bring that subject up. Of all who claim to be “Christian”, no one has spun inventions like the Mormon Church.

Ah, but we claim to have a prophet that actually does receive public revelation, Steve.

I find no single uniquely Mormon doctrine in Sacred Scripture, not one.

Well, there is that bit about baptism for the dead…but never mind. The problem with your argument here is this: Catholicism itself claims that public revelation ceased; therefore anything that is different has to come from something other than scripture/revelation. It represents change–and change that comes about because of something other than public revelation is, well…apostacy.

While I understand that you do not accept LDS doctrine, or our claims that we have prophets who currently receive revelation, the fact is, we DO claim that. Therefore the argument that you can’t find something we believe in the NT is irrelevant; we aren’t bound by that.

Catholics, however, by the very nature of their claim that public revelation ceased after the death of the last apostle, are.

The Catholic Church, as time goes on, grows in its understanding of the deposit of faith handed down by the Apostles. We have had brilliant theologians, priests, bishops and lay persons who, through the gift of the Holy Spirit, shed new light on the Gospel. Our understanding continues to grow and deepen as one might expect when dealing with a truth that is eternal. Nothing has been “invented”.

I understand that you believe this, Steve…but the fact is, if you can’t point to something in the NT that logically…not simply sort of supports the idea because it’s POSSIBLE that this could happen (such as it is possible that ‘entire families’ included infants…), but directly expresses it, it’s a change. “Possibilities” are not enough, especially when it is EQUALLY possible that, for instance, those families did not contain infants.

Each time the Mormon Church changes anything, they claim it is due to public revelation, when in fact it is not.

I know that you don’t believe that it is, but that is our claim.

Why would God change his mind concerning the inclusion of different races of people into your priesthood?

Why not? Jesus Christ Himself did exactly that…and that IS in the NT. Your attempt to pull a tu quoque is noted, though.

Why would he change his mind concerning polygamy?

Why not? The OT prophets practiced it…and it was practiced in Judaism until 1000 AD. Still is, in some Judaic cultures. Were you aware that Israel has a law that if you are a Jew with more than one wife and want to immigrate, you can keep your wives–you just can’t acquire more? It was indeed practiced in Christ’s time.

It is all a little too convenient, Diana. Your church gets into trouble and then “claims” that a new revelation has been received in order to get back into the good graces of the country. Sorry, not convincing, not convincing at all.

Steve. This isn’t about your opinion of whether we actually do have prophets. It’s about the claim; we make the claim that we do. SINCE that is our claim, additional scripture and doctrine not found in the bible is not only possible and permissable, it is pretty much a given; revelation requires writing down…and that’s scripture.

The question here isn’t whether WE have prophets, at all, It’s that you claim that you don’t…that public revelation ceased after the death of the last prophets, and yet you believe and do things, as a church, that were not believed and done in NT times.

Like, oh. infant baptism. or convents. Or unmarried bishops. Or prayer to Saints for intercession…or for that matter, the elevation of humans to a specific class called ‘Sainthood’ at all.

 

[mtolympus]

First of all, the most basic principle of Christianity is that it is monotheistic. LDS is not monotheistic. You believe in more than one God; at a minimum, three Gods, Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

First of all I must make it clear that I do not speak for my church but I speak only from my personal understanding which has developed as a life long member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Latter-day Saints are monotheistic in that they worship the only true God." When Jesus prayed to his Father he call him “the only true God.” (John 17:3) We believe in God the Eternal Father as the one true God. This does not deny the divinity of Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost. They with the Father make up the Godhead which is the presiding council of the universe. They are of one mind, of one voice, and of one authority. This divine authority originated with God the Father. (John 5:26). Paul expressed what we believe when he wrote: “To us there is but one God the Father… and one Lord Jesus Christ.” (1 Cor. 8:6)

Your comment that "anything that happened after 33 AD that makes LDS non-Christian will also make the Apostle Paul a non-Christian." is nonsensical, at least to me.
Maybe I’m misunderstanding your point. Did Paul believe something different than his contemporaries in the Church? Did he believe LDS doctrine which didn’t even exist until roughly 150 years ago?

Sorry, I forget that many do not understand the premise of the LDS Church. We believe that Jesus established his church when he lived on the earth. He selected apostles who would lead the church by revelation when he was gone. When the apostles were killed revelation ceased. The church continued, led by Bishops of local churches. However, with no revelation and no central authority it changed over time. We believe that Jesus Christ and angelic messengers returned to earth beginning in 1820 to restore (re-establish) the original Church of Jesus Christ as it existed during the first century. We believe that Peter, Paul and all the apostles believed what we believe today. And that by the First Ecumenical Council presided over by Constantine in 325 AD the teachings of the church had drastically changed.

What happened after 33 AD that makes LDS non-Christian is that the LDS church created doctrines that conflict with the most basic doctrines which are recognized as “Christian” by the rest of the world. The LDS core doctrines concerning the nature of God, in fact, are so far removed from Christian doctrine that they have carved out their own niche in the world of religions. As stated before (maybe in another thread) the Catholic Church does not even consider LDS doctrine to be heretical. It is considered another religion altogether.

My only purpose in writing is to show that Latter-day Saints are Christians, we believe the Bible and my strong belief that all Chriatians need to work together in the cause of Christ. The problem I see is that there are two different definitions of a Christian: Definition 1- One who believes that Jesus Christ is the Son of God (1 John 4:15), who rose from the dead on the third day (1 Cor. 15:3-4) and who strives to follow his commandments. (John 14:5) Definition 2- One who believes in the teachings as defined by the Nicean Creed and other Ecumenical Councils of the Catholic Church.

Most LDS members only know Definition 1 and therefore are deeply offended when we express our belief and then others say we are not Christian. As far as I know, no LDS members would have a problem with being excluded from Definition 2.

I am glad we are not heretics. However, if you continually referred to protestants a heretics I am sure you can see that this would not contribute to Christian unity. (even though that may be what you believe). The same is true about continually calling Latter-day Saints non-Christian. The solution to the problem seems simple. Someone should come up with a different word that describes those who fall into Definition 2. Perhaps Trinitarian?

 

[mtolympus]

Scripture supports what we are telling you and absolutely defeats the LDS claim.

You say that, but I am the one who is actually quoting scripture to support my case. (See my full response in my recent reply to SteveVH.)

I commend anyone who wants to follow the teachings of Jesus. And I believe that God looks kindly on those with a sincere heart who are misled, and will judge accordingly.

We agree on this point completely.

However, technically speaking, the LDS baptism is invalid and does not make you Christians.

The LDS baptism doesn’t make one a Catholic just like a Catholic baptism doesn’t make one a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. I think everyone is fine with that.

And before you think this is arrogance on my part, this was a declaration by the Catholic Church’s Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, not just little ol’ me.

I understand.

If you truly want to be Christian, and I believe you do, then belief in at least the basics of the Faith is a prerequisite.

I am a Christian. We are simply talking about two different definitions of the word Christian. (See my full response in my recent reply to SteveVH.)

 

[CatholicGuyNY]

While I understand that you do not accept LDS doctrine, or our claims that we have prophets who currently receive revelation, the fact is, we DO claim that. Therefore the argument that you can’t find something we believe in the NT is irrelevant; we aren’t bound by that.

Catholics, however, by the very nature of their claim that public revelation ceased after the death of the last apostle, are.

Dianaiad, perhaps it would be best if you learned a little more about Catholicism before speaking about it. Catholics are also not bound by the NT only (or the OT + NT for that matter). Catholics reject sola scriptura, and believe that the deposit of faith, the fullness of public revelation, is found not only in the Bible, but Sacred Tradition.

I assumed you were aware of this.

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

Hi all,

I want to be up front and say I don’t speak for all Evangelicals as my views aren’t normative in some respects. I represent myself . I have felt compelled to post this here.

Attention has been drawn to this debate amongst Catholics and LDS. In a number of respects I can the angst between the two groups. Each seems to make bold claims that they are the one true Church.

I don’t make claims that my specific denomination is the one true Church. Rather that all Christ believers are members of his Church.

In some respects, on the road of faith, we all stand upon the shoulders of those who have come before us to some degree. I suppose it is easy see where we think someone has made mistakes in their path, because we believe those that they followed were mistaken.

Ultimately, don’t we all stand upon the shoulders of Christ? I think between l the aforementioned faiths, none would disagree with the notion that salvation is something we can provide ourselves. I think we would all agree salvation is impossible without Christ.

I am hoping there comes a point when we realize we are all standing upon the shoulders of Christ and that we can honestly say. “I love you brother, I love you sister.”

Respectfully,

Mudcat

Here’s the problem.

Jesus started a Church. Jesus promised the leaders of this Church that the Holy Spirit would lead them into all Truth.

Outside of the Catholic Church we find division on many central doctrines of the faith.

ex. Necessity of baptism, OSAS, real presence in the Eucharist, infant baptism validity, necessity of tongues as proof of salvation, salvation by faith alone, etc.

How do you reconcile the promise of Jesus that the Holy Spirit would lead the Church into all truth with the confusion and contradictions found in protestantism?

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

I am glad we are not heretics. However, if you continually referred to protestants a heretics I am sure you can see that this would not contribute to Christian unity. (even though that may be what you believe). The same is true about continually calling Latter-day Saints non-Christian. The solution to the problem seems simple. Someone should come up with a different word that describes those who fall into Definition 2. Perhaps Trinitarian?

You seem to be missing a key point.

Christianity existed long before Joseph Smith started a Church.

Joseph Smith distorted Christian teaching, and the LDS is the result of these distortions.

The fact that you want to call yourself Christian doesn’t make it true.

 

[mtolympus]

You seem to be missing a key point.

Christianity existed long before Joseph Smith started a Church.
Joseph Smith distorted Christian teaching, and the LDS is the result of these distortions.
The fact that you want to call yourself Christian doesn’t make it true.

I am not missing any point. It can also be said that Christianity existed before the doctrines had changed by 325 AD. I used three scripture references to difine my understanding of a Christian. Please use bible verses to give your definition of a Christian. If the teachings of the Church did not change between the first century and 325 AD this should be a simple request to fill.

 

[LongJourney]

I am not missing any point. It can also be said that Christianity existed before the doctrines had changed by 325 AD. I used three scripture references to difine my understanding of a Christian. Please use bible verses to give your definition of a Christian. If the teachings of the Church did not change between the first century and 325 AD this should be a simple request to fill.

That is your belief. We believe differently. Why can’t you leave it at that?

 

[Todd520]

I’m always frustrated how the Catholic definition of Christian swings on Holy Tradition instead of Holy Scripture.

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

I am not missing any point. It can also be said that Christianity existed before the doctrines had changed by 325 AD. I used three scripture references to difine my understanding of a Christian. Please use bible verses to give your definition of a Christian. If the teachings of the Church did not change between the first century and 325 AD this should be a simple request to fill.

What do you claim changed in 325?

1 John 4
6We are from God, and whoever knows God listens to us; but whoever is not from God does not listen to us. This is how we recognize the Spirit of truth and the spirit of falsehood.

Matthew 18
17If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector.

Luke 10
16"He who listens to you listens to me; he who rejects you rejects me; but he who rejects me rejects him who sent me."

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

I’m always frustrated how the Catholic definition of Christian swings on Holy Tradition instead of Holy Scripture.

Scripture is part of Holy Tradition. Jesus didn’t write a book, he started a Church.

He gave the Church his authority to teach and proclaim the good news.

The Church then proceeded to write down his teachings and to carry on the Truth of these teachings in the liturgy and doctrines he gave us.

1 Timothy 3
15if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God’s household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth.

2 Thes 2
15So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the teachings we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter.

 

[dianaiad]

Dianaiad, perhaps it would be best if you learned a little more about Catholicism before speaking about it. Catholics are also not bound by the NT only (or the OT + NT for that matter). Catholics reject sola scriptura, and believe that the deposit of faith, the fullness of public revelation, is found not only in the Bible, but Sacred Tradition.

I assumed you were aware of this.

CatholicGuyNY, I am quite aware of this. This entire conversation is ABOUT that; Catholcis FOR THEMSELVES are not limited to the NT, and do indeed have access to Sacred Tradition.

Just as we have revealed scripture in these latter days.

the point I have been making is that, just as it is unreasonable of us to use Book of Mormon scriptures to prove to you that something we believe in is true (since you do not accept BoM scripture as scripture) then it is unreasonable of you to expect non-Catholics to use “Sacred Tradition” to inform our beliefs.