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

[Todd520]

They would be labeled Heretics and …whatever happens to heretics.

I expect heretics would lose their standing as: most pre-eminent theologians of the Catholic Church

 

[LongJourney]

The

most pre-eminent theologians of the Catholic Church

gained that position because what they taught was CATHOLIC theology. They were not anointed as prophets, and then allowed to teach whatever they chose to teach. That is the difference.

 

[Todd520]

The gained that position because what they taught was CATHOLIC theology. :

LJ, the fact they taught Catholic theology makes them unacceptable to use as sole justification for the truth of Catholic theology - it should not be taken as an insult when others to claim they lack independence.

 

[RebeccaJ]

LJ, the fact they taught Catholic theology makes them unacceptable to use as sole justification for the truth of Catholic theology - it should not be taken as an insult when others to claim they lack independence.

Independence from truth verifies ________ ?

 

[Todd520]

Independence from truth verifies ________ ?

BUY theologians espousing LDS theology - not sufficient for Catholics and Protestants
Catholic theologians espousing RCC theology - not sufficient for Protestants and LDS

 

[LongJourney]

BYU theologians espousing LDS theology - not sufficient for Catholics and Protestants
Catholic theologians espousing RCC theology - not sufficient for Protestants and LDS

Fine. Repeated again: You just go ahead and believe as you believe, and allow us to believe as we believe. Simple. You seem to be offended that we Catholics exercise our freedom of religion.

 

[catholic-rcia]

Rich, what is your experience with those who go from rejection of LDS directly to Catholicism, compared to those who have a latency period of agnosticism?

I was taught the LDS religion as a child up until about 14 years old. I have been interested in it ever since. It wasn’t until I was in my late thirties that I started to learn about the Catholic faith. I did a lot of my own pondering from 14 years old until I began to learn the Catholic faith where all of my own pondering came to life. It was like I was Catholic all of my life but did not know it. I was open to learning about it with pretty much a clean slate. It is truly un deniable and breath taking. I mean this from the bottom of my heart. Ialways beleived in a Creator. Now I know my Creator because of the Catholic faith.

God Bless
www.utahmission.com

 

[LongJourney]

So, you progressed from a superficial agnosticism (which might be more aptly called “dark night of the soul”) to overt Catholicism. I think that is the the process for most. I think that those who go directly from LDS to Catholic might have more trouble getting rid of the mormonish thinking within Catholicism.

My progression was from Catholicism which was warped by mormonish thinking because of where I was raised, to lawless agnosticism from the confusion of being exposed to true Catholicism, to nondenominational pentecostal briefly, back to Catholicism, and finally becoming aware of mormonish influences in my life, studying Mormonism to become more aware of where it is flawed and what to get rid of.

So, although never Mormon, it has had a profound influence in my life. I never had that experience.

I was open to learning about it with pretty much a clean slate.

Because I was afraid of being called a bigot, I never realized that I was responding to the bigotry of some of them.

 

[catholic-rcia]

So, you progressed from a superficial agnosticism (which might be more aptly called “dark night of the soul”) to overt Catholicism. I think that is the the process for most. I think that those who go directly from LDS to Catholic might have more trouble getting rid of the mormonish thinking within Catholicism.

My progression was from Catholicism which was warped by mormonish thinking because of where I was raised, to lawless agnosticism from the confusion of being exposed to true Catholicism, to nondenominational pentecostal briefly, back to Catholicism, and finally becoming aware of mormonish influences in my life, studying Mormonism to become more aware of where it is flawed and what to get rid of.

So, although never Mormon, it has had a profound influence in my life. I never had that experience. Because I was afraid of being called a bigot, I never realized that I was responding to the bigotry of some of them.

Now I get your name, but a journey that is worth it right?

Rich

 

[LongJourney]

LOL Yes. Much wiser than a person who hadn’t been through all that. Still young, born in 1950.

 

[1holycatholic]

Not sure there is angst. When the Pope came to the US, he called for a meeting and sent invites to various churches…two LDS A’apostles" came when he called.

The essential problem is, the Catholic Church’s position on the LDS Church is that they are led by a false prophet.

If you are a Baptist, Lutheran, Methodist, etc. and become Catholic, your prior Baptist, Lutheran, Methodist, etc. baptism is recongnized. If you are Mormon and come to the Catholic, you must get rebaptized because the Catholic Church does not recognize an LDS Baptism.

Is that angst? No. It just is what it is.

Not rebaptized, but baptized.

 

[RebeccaJ]

BUY theologians espousing LDS theology - not sufficient for Catholics and Protestants
Catholic theologians espousing RCC theology - not sufficient for Protestants and LDS

There is only one truth, and that is what is sufficient.

To keep me from becoming conceited because of these surpassingly great revelations, there was given me a thorn in my flesh, a messenger of Satan, to torment me. Three times I pleaded with the Lord to take it away from me. But he said to me, “My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness.” Therefore I will boast all the more gladly about my weaknesses, so that Christ’s power may rest on me. That is why, for Christ’s sake, I delight in weaknesses, in insults, in hardships, in persecutions, in difficulties. For when I am weak, then I am strong.

(PS: Mormons don’t have theologians. They would first have to have a theology.)

 

[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?

Hi Chestertonrules,

Bold mine. I want to make sure I am understanding you clearly. You seem to be saying that divisions outside the Catholic Church are something you expect me to reconcile. The rather egotistical assumption behind your statement is that division doesn’t exist inside the Catholic Church and that the the CC has been led into “all truth”.

I don’t imagine I would have to browse the forum long to find two Catholics who have disagreed about something doctrinal.

I really think your request is a bit laughable, asking me to explain why other non-Catholic Christians believe differently.

Explain, why all Catholics don’t agree on every single point of doctrine unanimously first. If you set a standard, I will try to meet it.

Regards,

Mudcat

 

[Windfish]

Hi Chestertonrules,

Bold mine. I want to make sure I am understanding you clearly. You seem to be saying that divisions outside the Catholic Church are something you expect me to reconcile. The rather egotistical assumption behind your statement is that division doesn’t exist inside the Catholic Church and that the the CC has been led into “all truth”.

I don’t imagine I would have to browse the forum long to find two Catholics who have disagreed about something doctrinal.

I really think your request is a bit laughable, asking me to explain why other non-Catholic Christians believe differently.

Explain, why all Catholics don’t agree on every single point of doctrine unanimously first. If you set a standard, I will try to meet it.

Regards,

Mudcat

It’s not the point and never has been the point that individual Catholics are united in their thinking on everything - the point is that the Church as a whole is united and has been lead to all truth.

 

[Stephen168]

Stephen168; 7092610:

Good luck in your search for truth but remember; being relative is not truth and being contrary is not truth.

I don’t believe that truth is relative. Truth is either absolute or it is not truth.

That is a nice answer but you not wanting to give direct answers to posts #406 and #417 leaves me with doubts.

I am speaking in broad strokes, but this summary is accurate.

I suspect that I personally make a very strong effort in these types of discussions to not use broad generalizations.

I think you speak in specifics or in generalizations depending on what it takes to be contrary. I can understand taking what is generally true and working to discover what is more specifically true, but you just seem to want to be contrary. Contrary is not truth.

If I have stated anything about the ECF that is false, please let me know.

Review posts #406 and #417 and #442

 

[Javl]

Hi Chestertonrules,

Bold mine. I want to make sure I am understanding you clearly. You seem to be saying that divisions outside the Catholic Church are something you expect me to reconcile. The rather egotistical assumption behind your statement is that division doesn’t exist inside the Catholic Church and that the the CC has been led into “all truth”.

I don’t imagine I would have to browse the forum long to find two Catholics who have disagreed about something doctrinal.

I really think your request is a bit laughable, asking me to explain why other non-Catholic Christians believe differently.

Explain, why all Catholics don’t agree on every single point of doctrine unanimously first. If you set a standard, I will try to meet it.

Regards,

Mudcat

Hi Mudcat:

Chesterton is not speaking of individuals here. He is speaking about the Church itself. There are 22 Catholic Churches, of which the Roman Church is but one. All 22 are in communion with each other and in unity in belief of dogma, doctrines, tenets and teachings. There may be minor variations in definitions but the essence ( meaning ) is the same. This cannot be said of all those non-Catholic Churches. I hope you understand.

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

 

[JeanMichel]

That is a nice answer but you not wanting to give direct answers to posts #406 and #417 leaves me with doubts.

I think you speak in specifics or in generalizations depending on what it takes to be contrary. I can understand taking what is generally true and working to discover what is more specifically true, but you just seem to want to be contrary. Contrary is not truth.

Review posts #406 and #417 and #442

Stephen, I am disheartened that you are more interested in playing word games then actually discussing the topic. I answered your question in post 413, “You will not find the **earliest Church Fathers’ **writings in support of the Trinity. They simply omit talking about it. In the Ante-Nicene Fathers, St. Clement, Polycarp, Ignatius, Barnabas, Papias, and Justin Martyr all do not come close to explaining Ousia or mentioning the Trinity.” I guess you overlooked it.

One cannot say the ECF all taught about the Trinity; they did not. Against Heresies by Irenaeus does teach about it, but he is not among the earliest of Church Fathers. My sole point was that the earliest CF did not teach the doctrine of the Trinity.

As time passed, certainly by the 3rd century, the CF were all teaching the doctrine of the Trinity. One thing I try to do is use a more inclusive definition of what is Christian. For hundreds, more than a thousand, years, the definition of Christian needed to include an acknowledgment of the Trinity. My definition is easier, can they state the basics of the Apostle’s Creed that pertain to God, Jesus, and Holy Spirit, they are Christian.

If there are specific questions I have omitted, I apologize. I would be happy to clarify, but at this point, I am not sure there is a lot to be said.

God’s Peace be upon you,

 

[Javl]

Stephen, I am disheartened that you are more interested in playing word games then actually discussing the topic. I answered your question in post 413, “You will not find the **earliest Church Fathers’ **writings in support of the Trinity. They simply omit talking about it. In the Ante-Nicene Fathers, St. Clement, Polycarp, Ignatius, Barnabas, Papias, and Justin Martyr all do not come close to explaining Ousia or mentioning the Trinity.” I guess you overlooked it.

One cannot say the ECF all taught about the Trinity; they did not. Against Heresies by Irenaeus does teach about it, but he is not among the earliest of Church Fathers. My sole point was that the earliest CF did not teach the doctrine of the Trinity.

As time passed, certainly by the 3rd century, the CF were all teaching the doctrine of the Trinity. One thing I try to do is use a more inclusive definition of what is Christian. For hundreds, more than a thousand, years, the definition of Christian needed to include an acknowledgment of the Trinity. My definition is easier, can they state the basics of the Apostle’s Creed that pertain to God, Jesus, and Holy Spirit, they are Christian.

If there are specific questions I have omitted, I apologize. I would be happy to clarify, but at this point, I am not sure there is a lot to be said.

God’s Peace be upon you,

Putting my :twocents: in again, have you read the ECF’s? Clement of Alexandria ( d. 219 ) wrote about it in his missles. Also the ECF’s had to teach about the trinity to all new Catechumens. They were all taught that Jesus is Divine. How else would they know it unless they were taught it. The Divinity of Jesus and the existence of the Holy Trinity is a basic of Christianity.

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

 

[JeanMichel]

Putting my :twocents: in again, have you read the ECF’s? Clement of Alexandria ( d. 219 ) wrote about it in his missles. Also the ECF’s had to teach about the trinity to all new Catechumens. They were all taught that Jesus is Divine. How else would they know it unless they were taught it. The Divinity of Jesus and the existence of the Holy Trinity is a basic of Christianity.

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

I am re-reading the 10 volume set now. Of the ones I have mentioned, I have not found one of them in the first volume to discuss the doctrine. Have you read them?

Friend, at my age and after studying religoin for decades, it is certainly possible that I have forgotten things; however, religion is a fundamental building block of my life. It is a constant, daily pursuit. You ask good questions and they are worth much study and thought. What I understand is that the first CF did not discuss it; it was discussed in depth later. I would definitely agree they all taught that Jesus was divine and the Savior of the World, and the Son of God.

If nothing else comes of this discussion, it is a great opportunity for everyone to begin again to read the Ante-Nicene Fathers. They were men of God and have wonderful, inspirational stories to share with all of us.

 

[Stephen168]

Stephen, I am disheartened that you are more interested in playing word games then actually discussing the topic. I answered your question in post 413, “You will not find the earliest Church Fathers’ writings in support of the Trinity. They simply omit talking about it. In the Ante-Nicene Fathers, St. Clement, Polycarp, Ignatius, Barnabas, Papias, and Justin Martyr all do not come close to explaining Ousia or mentioning the Trinity.” I guess you overlooked it.

I’m not playing word games. You never answered post #417 (the topic).

One cannot say the ECF all taught about the Trinity; they did not. Against Heresies by Irenaeus does teach about it, but he is not among the earliest of Church Fathers. My sole point was that the earliest CF did not teach the doctrine of the Trinity.

You jumped in the middle of a conversation between Mormons claiming the Christian understanding of God was invented out of whole cloth at the Council of Nicea and Catholics claiming it was not. To support that claim I said the Christian understanding of God does not conflict with scripture or the ECF. Because you jumped in the middle of the conversation I asked you to clarify your contrary position in posts 406 and 417. Your response to post 406 answered a question I never asked and you have still not answered 417.

As time passed, certainly by the 3rd century, the CF were all teaching the doctrine of the Trinity. One thing I try to do is use a more inclusive definition of what is Christian. For hundreds, more than a thousand, years, the definition of Christian needed to include an acknowledgment of the Trinity. My definition is easier, can they state the basics of the Apostle’s Creed that pertain to God, Jesus, and Holy Spirit, they are Christian.

Generally when we refer to someone of a particular religion it is in reference to the God(s) they worship. Mormons do not worship the God of Christianity, so they are not Christian.

If there are specific questions I have omitted, I apologize. I would be happy to clarify, but at this point, I am not sure there is a lot to be said.

Three times I’ve asked you to answer post #417 to clarify your position in reference to the Christian, Mormon, and ECF understanding of God. Your avoidance of this post with a direct answer is why I believe your claims about the ECF are false.