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

[SteveVH]

The formal doctrine of the Trinity came later; it became the official doctrine of all Christianity in 325. The Church purified itself with the Council of Nicea by purging all conflicting doctrine that was being preached within itself by then. Until that time, there were conflicting teachings that needed to be set right. Unfortunately, we did not start out with a Magisterium that could maintain pure doctrine from the beginning. Even in our own day we see those who kick against the pricks, reject the authority of the Pope and begin to create false teachings.

You misunderstand the entire purpose of the Councils, including Nicea. The Councils were not convened in order to arrive at doctrines, or to clear up some sort of confusion on the part of the Church. They were convened, for the most part, to affirm what had always been believed in the face of wide spread heretical notions. The beliefs, themselves, had not changed.

 

[JeanMichel]

You misunderstand the entire purpose of the Councils, including Nicea. The Councils were not convened in order to arrive at doctrines, or to clear up some sort of confusion on the part of the Church. They were convened, for the most part, to affirm what had always been belived in the face of wide spread heretical notions. The beliefs, themselves, had not changed.

Steve, thank you for sharing your thoughts. However, the first Council of Nicea was called by Constantine for the sole purpose of settling doctrine on the Trinity. Please go back and study the pretext for calling the Council. It was not a question of truth being taught, but the fact that there were competing doctrines that were dividing the Body. The division was so bad that the Council was called. I am speaking in broad strokes, but this summary is accurate. Heresy has ever been a problem within the Body of Christ and thankfully the Church as seen fit to purge itself constantly of such things.

 

[Stephen168]

You misunderstand the entire purpose of the Councils, including Nicea. The Councils were not convened in order to arrive at doctrines, or to clear up some sort of confusion on the part of the Church. They were convened, for the most part, to affirm what had always been believed in the face of wide spread heretical notions. The beliefs, themselves, had not changed.

Steve, thank you for sharing your thoughts. However, the first Council of Nicea was called by Constantine for the sole purpose of settling doctrine on the Trinity. Please go back and study the pretext for calling the Council. It was not a question of truth being taught, but the fact that there were competing doctrines that were dividing the Body. The division was so bad that the Council was called. I am speaking in broad strokes, but this summary is accurate. Heresy has ever been a problem within the Body of Christ and thankfully the Church as seen fit to purge itself constantly of such things.

I think you both just said the same thing; and it is the thing Mormons do not agree with.

 

[SteveVH]

Steve, thank you for sharing your thoughts. However, the first Council of Nicea was called by Constantine for the sole purpose of settling doctrine on the Trinity. Please go back and study the pretext for calling the Council. It was not a question of truth being taught, but the fact that there were competing doctrines that were dividing the Body. The division was so bad that the Council was called. I am speaking in broad strokes, but this summary is accurate. Heresy has ever been a problem within the Body of Christ and thankfully the Church as seen fit to purge itself constantly of such things.

Arainism was one of the most widespread heresies in Christian history even penetrating the Church heirarchy to some extent. It was recognized as heresy and the Church basically put its foot down and reaffirmed what the Church always believed. I’m not sure that we disagree with each other, but the notion that doctrine was formed at that Council is in error. It was, instead, defended. The doctrine of the Trinity can be demonstrated through the writings of the ECF’s long before the Council of Nicea. We may very well be saying the same thing.

 

[Todd520]

Arainism was one of the most widespread heresies in Christian history even penetrating the Church heirarchy to some extent. It was recognized as heresy and the Church basically put its foot down and reaffirmed what the Church always believed. I’m not sure that we disagree with each other, but the notion that doctrine was formed at that Council is in error. It was, instead, defended. The doctrine of the Trinity can be demonstrated through the writings of the ECF’s long before the Council of Nicea. We may very well be saying the same thing.

I think here is the nuance.

Before the council there were conflicting writings and beliefs on the Trinity.
Since there was no universal and agreed doctrine, there was no official heresy
Constatine called the council to formally define the doctrine and thus heresy

Another example to illustrate
Polygamy was practiced by Indians, and mountain men in addition to early mormons.
Let’s agree that the idea of one man one women also existed an was believed by the majority.
Eventually, the US Govt had a ‘council’ and voted to make one man one woman the official doctrine of the country.
From this point forward, polygamy became heresy (illegal)
However, it was not heresy before the Law was established by council.

 

[Stephen168]

I think here is the nuance.

Before the council there were conflicting writings and beliefs on the Trinity.
Since there was no universal and agreed doctrine, there was no official heresy
Constatine called the council to formally define the doctrine and thus heresy

Wrong

Eventually, the US Govt had a ‘council’ and voted to make one man one woman the official doctrine of the country.

When did the ‘council’ take place?

 

[Todd520]

Wrong

Stephen, since you are only going to respond with one word answers, I’ll just put you on ignore - no opportunity for a debate or for me to learn from you.

 

[JHow]

IAnother example to illustrate
Polygamy was practiced by Indians, and mountain men in addition to early mormons.
Let’s agree that the idea of one man one women also existed an was believed by the majority.
Eventually, the US Govt had a ‘council’ and voted to make one man one woman the official doctrine of the country.
From this point forward, polygamy became heresy (illegal)
However, it was not heresy before the Law was established by council.

Umm, this account kind of ignores the colonies and any laws they or England had, doesn’t it?

 

[Todd520]

Umm, this account kind of ignores the colonies and any laws they or England had, doesn’t it?

My understanding is polygamy has been illegal throughout the United States since the mid-nineteenth century. Ergo, before it was illegal (heresy), it was either considered legal or unclear. It was obviously a big concern and spurred the legislature (council) to meet and take action.

I offer this as an illustrative example that what is considered heresy (illegal) changes with time and depends on definitive doctrine or laws to be agreed upon.

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

I offer this as an illustrative example that what is considered heresy (illegal) changes with time and depends on definitive doctrine or laws to be agreed upon.

When was polygamy acceptable for Christians?

 

[Stephen168]

Stephen, since you are only going to respond with one word answers, I’ll just put you on ignore - no opportunity for a debate or for me to learn from you.

You don’t answer my questions at all, and I don’t put you on ignore. At least I give you the chance to ask follow up questions. When did the Government ‘council’ to end polygamy take place?

 

[Todd520]

Let’s try this again

Before the council there were conflicting writings and beliefs on the Trinity.
Since there was no universal and agreed doctrine, there was no official heresy
Constatine called the council to formally define the doctrine and thus heresy

Another example to illustrate
Before Prohibition in 1919, there was no minimum legal drinking age across the USA
Some people thought it was immoral or un christian for anyone to drink
Some people thought it should only be done by adults in moderation
Some people liked to drink and felt it was their right

Then the ‘council’ or US legislature meet and set the new ‘doctrine’ of prohibition that outlawed all consumption of alcohol,
It was thereby ‘heresay’ (illegal) for minors or adults to buy and consume alcohol.

Now in 2010, every council has since vote new doctrine that makes it heresy for anyone under 21yrs old to buy or consume alcohol.

Heresy by default requires a clear and agreed statement of ‘official doctrine’
There could be no heresy before Nicea because they had yet to meet and vote their agreement.

 

[Stephen168]

Let’s try this again

Before the council there were conflicting writings and beliefs on the Trinity.
Since there was no universal and agreed doctrine, there was no official heresy
Constatine called the council to formally define the doctrine and thus heresy

Wrong

When did the ‘council’ take place?

Does the fact you didn’t answer the question mean, you made up the idea of a government ‘council’ to ban polygamy?

 

[SteveVH]

I think here is the nuance.

Before the council there were conflicting writings and beliefs on the Trinity.
Since there was no universal and agreed doctrine, there was no official heresy
Constatine called the council to formally define the doctrine and thus heresy

Another example to illustrate
Polygamy was practiced by Indians, and mountain men in addition to early mormons.
Let’s agree that the idea of one man one women also existed an was believed by the majority.
Eventually, the US Govt had a ‘council’ and voted to make one man one woman the official doctrine of the country.
From this point forward, polygamy became heresy (illegal)
However, it was not heresy before the Law was established by council.

I don’t agree with this at all. You are trying to create an impression, most likely based upon your presumption of the “Great Apostasy”, that the Church was more or less in disarray as to what it believed concerning the Trinity. Even a cursory check of the ECF’s would prove you wrong. The Church possessed the deposit of faith handed down by the Apostles. The only conflicting writings were the propositions provided by the heretics. Granted, there were some bishops who even fell for it, but the Church was not fooled and defended the truth against the particular heresy, reaffirming and more definitively stating what it had always believed.

 

[JeanMichel]

I don’t agree with this at all. You are trying to create an impression, most likely based upon your presumption of the “Great Apostasy”, that the Church was more or less in disarray as to what it believed concerning the Trinity. Even a cursory check of the ECF’s would prove you wrong. The Church possessed the deposit of faith handed down by the Apostles. The only conflicting writings were the propositions provided by the heretics. Granted, there were some bishops who even fell for it, but the Church was not fooled and defended the truth against the particular heresy, reaffirming and more definitively stating what it had always believed.

Steve, you would be very hard pressed to have Justin viewed as a Trinitarian based upon his writings. I think you will find that several of the earliest Church Fathers either did not think it was important enough to discuss in detail or it was omitted entirely. We have to be careful with out statements. The Catholic Church stands on nothing but truth and history is our friend.

 

[Stephen168]

Steve, you would be very hard pressed to have Justin viewed as a Trinitarian based upon his writings. I think you will find that several of the earliest Church Fathers either did not think it was important enough to discuss in detail or it was omitted entirely. We have to be careful with out statements. The Catholic Church stands on nothing but truth and history is our friend.

I didn’t see where Steve listed Justin by name. Are you suggesting Steve was incorrect stating there are ECFs who affirmed the orthodox belief in the Trinity before the Council of Nicea?

 

[SteveVH]

Steve, you would be very hard pressed to have Justin viewed as a Trinitarian based upon his writings. I think you will find that several of the earliest Church Fathers either did not think it was important enough to discuss in detail or it was omitted entirely. We have to be careful with out statements. The Catholic Church stands on nothing but truth and history is our friend.

Are you implying that I am playing fast and loose with the truth because several of the ECF’s don’t mention it?

 

[Javl]

You are conflating “Christian” with “Catholic” again. Considering that you are talking to people who think that the church went doctrinally flooey before the Nicean Creed was adopted, you might have a little trouble getting others to agree with you on that.

First off, before the reformation the terms Christian and Catholic meant the same. Secondly, I am not “conflating” the two. As to whether or not you or others agree is of little consequence. The truth is the truth and cannot be changed.

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

 

[dianaiad]

First off, before the reformation the terms Christian and Catholic meant the same. Secondly, I am not “conflating” the two. As to whether or not you or others agree is of little consequence. The truth is the truth and cannot be changed.

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

Ah, yes, grasshopper…the truth is immutable.

I agree.

The question is—who knows what that is, exactly?

 

[Javl]

Ah, yes, grasshopper…the truth is immutable.

I agree.

The question is—who knows what that is, exactly?

I am quite certain that you do not. The truth, as given it by Jesus through the Apostles, has been deposited in the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church is the deposit of the Truth and the faith for 2000 years. This cannot be refuted or proven otherwise. Many have tried and all have failed. Jesus has promised to protect His Church and He has done so.

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem