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

[Todd520]

Can I assume you meant:The beliefs were there in 33AD. The explanations and deeper understanding took some time.

I don’t know what the apostles and ECF believed, if it was not recorded in Scripture or ECF letters.

Regarding the Trinity , it does not appear to have become common until 200-300 A.D.

• “In Scripture there is as yet no single term by which the Three Divine Persons are denoted together”
• “The word trias (of which the Latin trinitas is a translation) is first found in Theophilus of Antioch about A.D. 180”
• “Shortly afterwards it appears in its Latin form of trinitas in Tertullian”
• “In the next century the word is in general use.” (> 200A.D.)

 

[SteveVH]

Stephen,
I don’t deny that the kernels of the Catholic beliefs on transubstantiation and trinity are in the bible.
I just believe they are not explicit; they are open to alternate interpretation.
I respect the Catholic interpretations but feel they took some time to crystallize, they were not there in 33AD.

Todd, I would agree that, in the absence of the wisdom and the teachings and Tradition of the Church, very clearly founded by Jesus Christ who is God Himself, that those passages may be open to interpretation.

My niece married a man from Norway. I was absolutely amazed to find out that he, along with most Norwegians, still believe in a “Sun God”. It made perfect sense to him. The sun gives us light and warmth and brings life into the world. We are completely dependent upon the sun for our very lives and without the sun there would be no life. He was completely ignorant of Christianity and therefore had no basis on which to compare his beliefs.

The same would be true, to a lesser extent, certainly, with those non-Catholic denominations who have departed from the original source, the Catholic Church.

 

[Stephen168]

Stephen, please understand that I am probably more unorthodox in my understanding of church history. For example, the last sentence of your quote above is exactly the problem for non-Trinitarians, Mormons in particular. It poses the problem well: The Son of God is a God. Readers could easily understand this to be how does a Son exist as the Father; Father and Son are mutually exclusive positions.

How is this a problem for Mormons? I don’t really understand

 

[JeanMichel]

How is this a problem for Mormons? I don’t really understand

Mormons will take this as an example of an early understanding of non-Trinitarianism. It acknowledges that God is “a” God, Jesus also is “a” God, and that they are seperate persons. What is missing is the explanation that they are One God in three persons.

 

[Stephen168]

Mormons will take this as an example of an early understanding of non-Trinitarianism. It acknowledges that God is “a” God, Jesus also is “a” God, and that they are seperate persons. What is missing is the explanation that they are One God in three persons.

Wouldn’t the source of the quote matter?

 

[Stephen168]

I don’t know what the apostles and ECF believed, if it was not recorded in Scripture or ECF letters.

Regarding the Trinity , it does not appear to have become common until 200-300 A.D.

• “In Scripture there is as yet no single term by which the Three Divine Persons are denoted together”
• “The word trias (of which the Latin trinitas is a translation) is first found in Theophilus of Antioch about A.D. 180”
• “Shortly afterwards it appears in its Latin form of trinitas in Tertullian”
• “In the next century the word is in general use.” (> 200A.D.)

A gave you scripture (three times) which showed what they believed. Jesus is God. The ECF agree. The fact there was no name for it or they had no way to explain it, did not mean they didn’t believe it; as I explain in post #423

 

[Todd520]

A gave you scripture (three times) which showed what they believed. Jesus is God. The ECF agree. The fact there was no name for it or they had no way to explain it, did not mean they didn’t believe it; as I explain in post #423

Stephen, what you gave is in allignment with the LDS view of the Godhead.
The fact that scripture cites three beings or personalities has never been in dispute.
Wether they are of one purpose (LDS) or one nature (RCC) is the point of contention.
Their nature is not clear in Scripture and was not made clear by ECF until >200AD

My quotes were from the Catholic Encylopedia on the history of the Trinity

 

[Stephen168]

Stephen, what you gave is in allignment with the LDS view of the Godhead.
The fact that scripture cites three beings or personalities has never been in dispute.
Wether they are of one purpose (LDS) or one nature (RCC) is the point of contention.
Their nature is not clear in Scripture and was not made clear by ECF until >200AD

My quotes were from the Catholic Encylopedia on the history of the Trinity

Cool! I had thought from my reading that Mormon leaders considered the plain understanding of James 1:1-14 as one of the errors that plague the New Testament. Not sure if Exodus 3:14; John 8:58 are considered errors or not.

 

[Stephen168]

Cool! I had thought from my reading that Mormon leaders considered the plain understanding of James 1:1-14 as one of the errors that plague the New Testament. Not sure if Exodus 3:14; John 8:58 are considered errors or not.

Sorry not James 1:1-14 but John 1:1-14

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

These are good examples of discipline for those who reject the teachings of the Church. The LDS may see this from their perspective and Catholics view it from their own perspective. The passage from Matthew 18:17 is interesting but seems to apply to members of the Church who have gone astray. In the Catholic perspective this would apply more to Protestants than Mormons. So how do you know from this that Protestants are Christians?

It would apply to anyone hoping to follow Christ as he intended. Jesus only started one Church.

Why be in a different Church?

 

[Javl]

I understand and respect the depths of your beliefs, Javi.

You need to understand, in return, that those around you who believe differently than you are not deliberately choosing not to believe you. They believe as they do because the beliefs they hold seem true to them. This isn’t ‘relativism’ speaking–I’m not saying that truth changes according to the believer.

I do understand the position of those around me who believe differently than I do. From my studies of different and various religions and from my conversations with these believers, I do find it is “relativism”. Each “believer” picks and chooses that which either suits his/her purpose or accepts and rejects according to his/her idea of what should comprise truth. Many are duped into accepting certain beliefs as truth.

I AM saying that most non-Catholics believe as they do because what they have seems true to them. I doubt that Catholicism and Catholic beliefs even enter into their minds, unless they have some bitter ex-Catholics who want to feed them a bunch of hooey about you…and in that case, how can you claim that those exposed to anti-Catholicism can possibly be 'refusing to accept the truth of true Christianity?" They are, at most, refusing to accept the strawman version of your beliefs. Who could blame them for that?

Very few non-Catholic Christians, in one way or another, have not had contact with a Catholic or the Catholic Church. And believe me, if they accept and read the Bible they know about the basics of Catholicism. Leaving “bitter ex-Catholics” aside, the majority of these Christians either have pre-concieved notions or have been so “brainwashed” to despise Catholicism to the point of a deep hatred for the Church ( Jack Chick and Lloraine Boetner, as examples ).

I have also found that the major reasons for this is the discipline required by the Church and the authority given it by Jesus. If all this were not so we would all have one belief, one faith, and belong to the same religion.

However, I AM telling you that until you accept that honest and true faith can be held in something other than that which YOU consider to be true, you aren’t going to get anywhere convincing anybody that your beliefs are true. People do not react well to being told that their deeply held faith is nothing more than deliberate rebellion against whatever it is you believe.

You could, after all, be wrong.

The only honest and true faith is that which was given to the Church by Jesus, through the Apostles, and has remained unchanged down through the ages. My word and say so may not carry any weight, but when Ignatius, Clement, Commmodianus, Basil, Augustine, Thomas, Newman, Hahn, Grodi, and many other theologians and scholars who know of what they speak, you, and others, should listen.

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

 

[Stephen168]

There were always those who held to Trinitarian doctrines. However, there were a host of competing doctrines about the nature of God. At this time the church was not centralized and local bishops held sway in each respective city. For this reason you find regions supporting one doctrine and other regions conflicting doctrines. The Great Councils helped to centralize the Church and Bishops began to more closely follow in teaching and doctrine.

Each Bishop was in communion with his Patriarch (Rome, Alexandria, Jerusalem, or Antioch) and the Patriarchs were in communion with each other. They wrote letters to each other; some of which we still have. The Church was centralized.

Which has more truth?
“And that Christ being Lord, and God the Son of God,”
“the Son is God, since he who is born of God is God”
Or was it
“And that Christ being Lord, and a God the Son of *a *God,”
“the Son is a God, since he who is born of a God is a God”

Stephen, please understand that I am probably more unorthodox in my understanding of church history. For example, the last sentence of your quote above is exactly the problem for non-Trinitarians, Mormons in particular. It poses the problem well: The Son of God is a God. Readers could easily understand this to be how does a Son exist as the Father; Father and Son are mutually exclusive positions.

The last sentence of my quote was part of a question which you did not answer. Instead, you grabbed onto it as some kind of proof of ECF understanding.

Mormons will take this as an example of an early understanding of non-Trinitarianism. It acknowledges that God is “a” God, Jesus also is “a” God, and that they are seperate persons. What is missing is the explanation that they are One God in three persons.

You didn’t care enough about my question to notice the last two questions were the opposite of the first two. The first two are ECF quotes; the last two I added ever ‘a’ to each quote; just like the Jehovah Witness’ did to John 1:1 in their Bible. Like Joseph Smith, the Jehovah Witness’ changed their understanding of God and had to change the Bible.

I read all history skeptically and try to see how things can be interpreted from “the other side”. Until the Church taught the essence or being of God (Ousia) there was not a clear concept of how a Father could be the Son; three distinct persons in One God.

Explain Ousia.

Trying to find the ECF writings of essence as proof of the Trinity would be like looking for writings of transubstantiation as proof of their belief in the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist. Looking for an explanation instead of the belief itself. Yes, it doesn’t seem like they cared too much about the hows and whys of what they believed.

“And that Christ being Lord, and God the Son of God,”
“the Son is God, since he who is born of God is God”

God, Son and Holy Spirit are the same. Taught hundreds of years before the Council of Nicea.

I read history to find the truth of what happened. I once heard an ex-Mormon Catholic say that Mormon history lead him out of the Mormon Church; and Christian history lead him into the Catholic Church.

 

[Javl]

Once again I reiterate. St. John in his Gospel states that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are one not only in purpose but in essence ( or nature ):

St. John’s testimony is yet more explicit than that of the Synoptists. He expressly asserts that the very purpose of his Gospel is to establish the Divinity of Jesus Christ (John 20:31). In the prologue he identifies Him with the Word, the only-begotten of the Father, Who from all eternity exists with God, Who is God (John 1:1-18). The immanence of the Son in the Father and of the Father in the Son is declared in Christ’s words to St. Philip: “Do you not believe, that I am in the Father, and the Father in Me?” (14:10), and in other passages no less explicit (14:7; 16:15; 17:21). The oneness of Their power and Their action is affirmed: “Whatever he [the Father] does, the Son also does in like manner” (5:19, cf. 10:38); and to the Son no less than to the Father belongs the Divine attribute of conferring life on whom He will (5:21).* In 10:29, Christ expressly teaches His unity of essence with the Father: “That which my Father hath given me, is greater than all* . . .*** I and the Father are one.***” The words, “That which my Father hath given me,” can, having regard to the context, have no other meaning than the Divine Name, possessed in its fullness by the Son as by the Father.

Also, If the LDS believes in the 10 commandments that was given to Israel, through Moses, by God, then believing in the LDS version of the Trinity ( three separate Gods ) violates the first commandment: " you shal have no other gods before me".

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

 

[SteveVH]

Stephen, please understand that I am probably more unorthodox in my understanding of church history. For example, the last sentence of your quote above is exactly the problem for non-Trinitarians, Mormons in particular. It poses the problem well: The Son of God is a God. Readers could easily understand this to be how does a Son exist as the Father; Father and Son are mutually exclusive positions.

I read all history skeptically and try to see how things can be interpreted from “the other side”. Until the Church taught the essence or being of God (Ousia) there was not a clear concept of how a Father could be the Son; three distinct persons in One God.

It seems that this has been explained to you again and again yet it appears that you still misunderstand the Trinitarian belief.

The Father IS NOT the Son and the Son IS NOT the Father. The Father is eternally Father in relationship to the Son. The Son is eternally the Son in relationship to the Father. The unfathomable love between the Father and the Son is such that it constitutes another Person entirely, the Holy Spirit. They are three distinct Persons sharing the divine essence; one in being. “God from God, Light from Light, true God from True God”. Where the Father is, there also is the Son and the Holy Spirit. Where the Son is, there also is the Father and the Holy Spirit. Where the Holy Spirit is, there also is the Father and the Son.

I think one of the great stumbling blocks for Mormons in particular is that they believe that if we cannot comprehend this “unfathomable mystery” with our finite intellects, then it cannot be true, thus the insertion of words such as “a God”. It really comes down to anthropomorphism which makes God in our image. It is much like the story of St. Patrick, I believe, who found a child playing on the beach. The child had dug a hole in the sand and was pouring water into it. When asked what he was doing, the child replied that he was going to empty the sea into the hole in the sand. That is exactly what we are doing when we pretend to fully understand the nature of God.

 

[JeanMichel]

It seems that this has been explained to you again and again yet it appears that you still misunderstand the Trinitarian belief.

The Father IS NOT the Son and the Son IS NOT the Father. The Father is eternally Father in relationship to the Son. The Son is eternally the Son in relationship to the Father. The unfathomable love between the Father and the Son is such that it constitutes another Person entirely, the Holy Spirit. They are three distinct Persons sharing the divine essence; one in being. “God from God, Light from Light, true God from True God”. Where the Father is, there also is the Son and the Holy Spirit. Where the Son is, there also is the Father and the Holy Spirit. Where the Holy Spirit is, there also is the Father and the Son.

I think one of the great stumbling blocks for Mormons in particular is that they believe that if we cannot comprehend this “unfathomable mystery” with our finite intellects, then it cannot be true, thus the insertion of words such as “a God”. It really comes down to anthropomorphism which makes God in our image. It is much like the story of St. Patrick, I believe, who found a child playing on the beach. The child had dug a hole in the sand and was pouring water into it. When asked what he was doing, the child replied that he was going to empty the sea into the hole in the sand. That is exactly what we are doing when we pretend to fully understand the nature of God.

I apologize for being dense and causing you to think that you have to explain it “again and again”. I don’t know where you felt I have not apprehended the Trinity, but as I have stated multiple times before one cannot comprehend the Trinity, we can only apprehend.

The Trinity is a impossible for anyone to grasp because as you have stated it is a mystery. It is a mystery for everyone Catholics and Mormons alike. God has told us he made us in HIS image and likeness; that is not anthropomorphism, but God telling us what he did. These are the types of statements that we should use care before employing in discussion. A LDS would respond exactly as I demonstrated, “Hold it Steve, you speak about image as if it is something that we did to God. We did nothing, it was God who told us we are in his image and likeness.” When talking to Mormons use care.

The Trinity will always be a problem for Mormons. I agree with you, it is a problem because it is incomprehensible. They view the idea of Being or Ousia as an invention of man to address a perceived need to be monotheistic.

For me, the best way to teach it is to simply state it and let the Spirit take care of the rest. All Him to address the mystery.

 

[CatholicGuyNY]

I apologize for being dense and causing you to think that you have to explain it “again and again”. I don’t know where you felt I have not apprehended the Trinity, but as I have stated multiple times before one cannot comprehend the Trinity, we can only apprehend.

The Trinity is a impossible for anyone to grasp because as you have stated it is a mystery. It is a mystery for everyone Catholics and Mormons alike. God has told us he made us in HIS image and likeness; that is not anthropomorphism, but God telling us what he did. These are the types of statements that we should use care before employing in discussion. A LDS would respond exactly as I demonstrated, “Hold it Steve, you speak about image as if it is something that we did to God. We did nothing, it was God who told us we are in his image and likeness.” When talking to Mormons use care.

The Trinity will always be a problem for Mormons. I agree with you, it is a problem because it is incomprehensible. They view the idea of Being or Ousia as an invention of man to address a perceived need to be monotheistic.

For me, the best way to teach it is to simply state it and let the Spirit take care of the rest. All Him to address the mystery.

I think that it’s clear from your post implying that the Father is the Son (modalism) that you don’t understand what the Trinity doctrine is defined as as much as you think you do.

 

[JeanMichel]

I think that it’s clear from your post implying that the Father is the Son (modalism) that you don’t understand what the Trinity doctrine is defined as as much as you think you do.

That is very possible, but then again we are working with a mystery that overwhelms my feeble mind.

 

[CatholicGuyNY]

That is very possible, but then again we are working with a mystery that overwhelms my feeble mind.

The totality of the Trinity doctrine is not “a mystery”. The Trinity doctrine has a definition, especially since we can distinguish it from heretical beliefs, such as modalism.

 

[SteveVH]

I apologize for being dense and causing you to think that you have to explain it “again and again”. I don’t know where you felt I have not apprehended the Trinity, but as I have stated multiple times before one cannot comprehend the Trinity, we can only apprehend.

JeanMichel, I certainly didn’t mean to imply that you are in any way dense, however, after reading my own words I can see how you came to that conclusion. Sorry about that. What I am referring to is your seeming insistence that we believe the Father IS the Son, and the Son IS the Father. As I explained, we don’t.

The Trinity is a impossible for anyone to grasp because as you have stated it is a mystery. It is a mystery for everyone Catholics and Mormons alike.

Then you are very unique. I have read numerous Mormon writings that basically berate the Catholic Church for calling the nature of God a “mystery”. The response is usually along the lines that it is only mystery because the Catholic Church changed the Scriptures which were once “plain, pure and precious”.

God has told us he made us in HIS image and likeness; that is not anthropomorphism, but God telling us what he did. These are the types of statements that we should use care before employing in discussion. A LDS would respond exactly as I demonstrated, “Hold it Steve, you speak about image as if it is something that we did to God. We did nothing, it was God who told us we are in his image and likeness.” When talking to Mormons use care.

Well, we were not discussing being made in His image and likeness. We were discussing His divine nature. My point is this. A candle could be said to be in the image and likeness of the sun. It gives warmth and light, just as the sun does. But we would not attempt to study every aspect of the sun by studying a candle. As a Catholic, I would reject any notion that God made us to be exactly as He is. We are creatures. He is the creator. We will never be the creator but will always remain creatures. We were made in his likeness most especially within the context of a family. The two become one and the result of that oneness is life. From the Catholic perspective, God Himself, from all eternity, is a family; Father, Son and Holy Spirit. The Mormon view that being made in God’s image and likeness therefore means that the Father has a physical body like ours is turning the equation around to where we are creating God in our image and likeness. Nowhere in Scripture does it say that the Father has a physical body, but rather that He is invisible. Do you see my point?

The Trinity will always be a problem for Mormons. I agree with you, it is a problem because it is incomprehensible. They view the idea of Being or Ousia as an invention of man to address a perceived need to be monotheistic.

Except that monotheism was unique among all religions of that time. The fact that there is one God is a revealed truth that changed man’s perception of God. We didn’t invent the concept of monotheism and then try to fit the Scriptures to prove our point. It was the other way around.

For me, the best way to teach it is to simply state it and let the Spirit take care of the rest. All Him to address the mystery.

But He has addressed the mystery, in the Person of Jesus Christ, the fullness of God’s revelation of Himself to man. “If you have seen me, you have seen the Father.”. I will agree with you that we cannot, with our finite minds, grasp the infinite. That has always been the position of the Catholic Church.

God bless.

P.S. I have made the assumption, based on your posts, that you are Mormon. If not, sorry for jumping to conclusions. Would you mind clearing that up for me? Thanks.

 

[JeanMichel]

…

Then you are very unique. I have read numerous Mormon writings that basically berate the Catholic Church for calling the nature of God a “mystery”