Could The Mormon Church Be The "true Church" Of Christ

[MelanieAnne]

MelanieAnne;4789800:

I’m not depending on Wikipedia. I never do. I don’t consider it an authoritative or reliable source for any subject.

I checked the Missal. I checked the Daily Missal, the Weekly Missal and the readings for the entire Liturgical year that began in Advent 2008.

It’s just as I said. What you’re quoting is a phrase in one tiny portion of the Easter Vigil Mass. If you understood the Triduum, you would know that there was no Mass on Holy Saturday. It doesn’t make sense to have a Mass that day, the day in between Good Friday and Easter.

Ok, I have here a mention from the CATHOLIC BULLETIN that discusses when a Catholic may take Holy Communion twice in a day. Evidently there are very few times when this is allowed: first, if one is given the “Last Rites” he is also given communion at the same time, usually–even if he or she received communion earlier in the day. The second exception was to avoid irreverence–if a priest drops a communion wafer on the floor, he is supposed to pick it up and reverently eat it himself. According to this publication, in 1973 an additional exception was made: a Catholic may receive communion twice in one day IF he attended the Holy Saturday Mass (which sometimes extended into Easter Sunday) and then attended an Easter Sunday Mass…or if he attended a Christmas Eve midnight mass and later attended a Christmas Day Mass.

According to “New Advent”, a Catholic site, Holy Saturday did indeed have special services assigned to it–not simply the beginning of the Easter vigil, but in the morning.

Perhaps we have a communication breakdown here; I assumed that any Mass that BEGAN on a Saturday could be said to be held on Saturday. Perhaps the Mass I am referring to is the one you are talking about, that three hour marathon vigil. I don’t honestly know. I’m certainly not going to argue with you about a topic you know more about than I do!

I read with some interest your objection to the phrase…as being a little known line buried in a marathon Mass. Is it a line, or a position, that should be ignored, or be ashamed of? It is, after all, not some throw away line by some lay Catholic looking to pad out an article; it is an officially recognized and approved line in a rather important religious ceremony; a Mass.

Not that it matters one way or another; the Catholic position on original sin is well known. This one line doesn’t change it; all it does, for me anyway, is make me respect those who wrote it; simply acknowledging the concept in praise to Jesus is rather impressive; saying that all things, even Adam and Eve’s sin, work toward the glory that is His.

Diana, don’t mix up “MASS” with services. You may have a prayer service on Holy Saturday. Someone may meditate that day, either alone or as part of a group. If I remember correctly, back in my RCIA days we had to do something that day but I don’t remember what it was, but then that was a pretty long and eventful day. Whatever it was, it wasn’t Mass in the morning. Mass involves the Eucharist and isn’t done on Holy Saturday.

I’ve said this several times now. I’m not “objecting” to the phrase you’ve found so fascinating and that has been the subject of endless literary speculation. What I have said repeatedly is there is no MASS on Holy Saturday. If there once was some special service that day that paid more attention to this subject (not a Mass but a prayer service of some kind) I don’t know anything about it, but then I’m not a pre-Vatican II Catholic. I was Episcopalian back then.

As for the line itself, I don’t put the interpretation on it that you do. While I don’t see it as anything to be ignored or ashamed of, I also have never noticed that anyone has ever made a big deal about it. What got my attention (and perhaps the attention of other Catholics on this thread) was when you asserted (I’m capitalizing the key words here) that there was a

MASS on
HOLY SATURDAY and it was either
DEDICATED TO or
WRITTEN SPECIFICALLY FOR the phrase
“O happy fault, O necessary sin of Adam”

The reason it got my attention was that there is no Mass said on Holy Saturday. As the Missal explains it ~

On Holy Saturday the Church waits at the Lord’s tomb, meditating on His suffering and death. The altar is left bare, and the sacrifice of the Mass is not celebrated

. Only after the solemn vigil of the night, held in anticipation of the resurrection, does the Easter celebration begin, with a spirit of joy that overflows into the following period of fifty day. (emphasis supplied)

Note: In the above paragraph the “Church” is us, the people. It’s not a building or an institution.

There is no service of any kind in the missal for Holy Saturday but that doesn’t mean there can’t be a prayer service. Just not a Mass.

 

[dianaiad]

I’ve heard this before and really, I think your working definition of “prophet” is sloppy and uselessly imprecise.

Actually, ‘my definition’ of "prophet’ is extremely precise. it is what you call someone to whom God has spoken with a message for His people. God gives His Word to men–and those men to whom that Word is given are prophets, because that’s the word one uses to describe men who have been given that Word.

So…a prophet is someone to whom God has revealed a message for the world, and who actually delivers it and (hopefully) writes it down, or has someone else write it down.
Now tell me: what in the world is ‘imprecise’ about that definition?

In the times the Jews lived without active prophets, such as the (often cited) 400 year “silence” before Christ, did they not still have the Scriptures (the Law and the Prophets)? Did Jesus not still say that the Pharisees sat on Moses’ seat and people were to heed their teaching?

yes…and?

Something that has been revealed can always be repeated and studied. You don’t need to reveal it constantly over and over again.

Perhaps not, but if something needs to be said, and God needs to say it, then the proper title for the man to whom He gives the information is ‘prophet.’

That is where your imprecision is. You seem to be saying that any reading or studying or understanding of God can come only through a direct prophecy,

HUH?

I have never said that. What I DID say, in the post to which this was your reply, is that the idea that there were no prophets after Christ is ludicrous, since we wouldn’t know anything about Him unless there were prophets to write about Him. As well, Paul is the epitome of a prophet, no matter what qualifications you want to apply to one; he is one in both the OT AND the NT sense, in that the only contact he had with the Savior was AFTER Jesus died and was resurrected; absolute divine revelation. Then he wrote down what he was told, and those writings became scripture. Those things make him a prophet, by definition.

That’s what I was pointing out.

and then you extrapolate that to your “prophet”–despite the fact that even he does not do any such thing!

He doesn’t? Well, he hasn’t had a whole lot of time yet. Our last one most certainly did…

Most of what your church leaders do is just repeat what has already been said, or explain it and study it in new ways, without new scripture-writing prophecy. So they do just what all other people of God have done–study and pass on that which has already been revealed. Your claim really makes no sense at all to me.

(shrug) obviously, or you wouldn’t be a Catholic.

 

[ricko]

Are you telling me that **all **such women are at odds with Rome, or apostate or something?

**Some **of those “Catholic” nuns are not really nuns at all but have left the Church or they are in disobedience to Rome. From the words coming from her mouth that nun sounds like one of them.

 

[Arandur]

Actually, ‘my definition’ of "prophet’ is extremely precise. it is what you call someone to whom God has spoken with a message for His people. God gives His Word to men–and those men to whom that Word is given are prophets, because that’s the word one uses to describe men who have been given that Word.

So…a prophet is someone to whom God has revealed a message for the world, and who actually delivers it and (hopefully) writes it down, or has someone else write it down.
Now tell me: what in the world is ‘imprecise’ about that definition?

It’s imprecise because this may be what you SAY is your definition, but you make a leap to another conclusion that can only be done with the bridge that I described.

Here is the conclusion you used:

if every prophet that came after Jesus was a false prophet, we wouldn’t know anything at all about Him.

After all, HE never wrote a word (except for some drawing in the dirt…and we have no idea what it was He was doodling there). Everything we have of Him we have because of prophets who told us about Him, from Peter to Paul.

We can know things about him from what people told us about him. No groundbreaking new revelation required, just repetition of what he taught.

Now, if you’re being really expansive with this definition of “prophet” and want to call everyone who ever heard anything from Jesus or met him a “prophet,” then you can say that we wouldn’t know anything about Jesus were it not for those “prophets.” I think that’s a poor definition of prophet, though. And it doesn’t require anything more than the transmission of that information beyond that point for us to know about Jesus.

Perhaps not, but if something needs to be said, and God needs to say it, then the proper title for the man to whom He gives the information is ‘prophet.’

Just men? Wasn’t Anna a “prophetess,” and didn’t God speak to various women throughout the Scriptures? Just clarifying here. Catholics belief “prophet” is a role more than an office, primarily involves rebuking/convicting, can involve prophesy (in the sense of “prediction”), and does involve direction by God. But all true vocations and roles played are directed in varying degrees by God, and all believers are properly baptized Priest, Prophet, and King, sharing in Christ’s perfected threefold roles.

(shrug) obviously, or you wouldn’t be a Catholic.

I think beliefs and concepts can make sense without someone having to agree. I can see where you get something, but I can still think you’re wrong, there’s a flaw in your logic, etc. I would hope you see some “sense” in some of the beliefs that differ from yours. I was saying that I couldn’t make sense of what you seem to be doing with the idea of “prophets.”

 

[Stephen168]

Are you suggesting some matching of doctrine?

She might be, but so far she has not explained how this defends the irrational belief the Mormons have of the Fall. Hopefully she will, but so far all I see is the, “Hey, look over the there” defense.
At first I was thinking it might be the “Same to you but more of it” defense, but she hasn’t been able to show how the Catholic understanding of the fall and the Mormon understand is the same.

 

[MelanieAnne]

She might be, but so far she has not explained how this defends the irrational belief the Mormons have of the Fall. Hopefully she will, but so far all I see is the, “Hey, look over the there” defense.
At first I was thinking it might be the “Same to you but more of it” defense, but she hasn’t been able to show how the Catholic understanding of the fall and the Mormon understand is the same.

Stephen, I believe that Diana, from her literary studies that included works dealing with this subject, was led to believe that this particular item was something Catholics and Mormons had in common.

I sure would like for someone who has been around long enough to have been to a Mass in the 60’s to show up and tell us if there was something special about this phrase in some sort of service on Holy Saturday (or perhaps as part of an Easter Vigil Mass) back then. I was both a teenager and an Episcopalian back then, so I just don’t know.

 

[dianaiad]

I know the Articles of Faith. Is that all of your doctrine, then? Everything else is free game? That’s a big wide field left open, and it certainly explains the diversity of contradictory opinion that non-Mormons encounter among Mormons.

Yet, if it were just the Articles of Faith, why do the CoC, Remnant, and Restoration branches all hold to the same Articles of Faith, yet believe wildly different things and recognize that those beliefs cause schism between you?

I said “begin with the Thirteen Articles of Faith.”

Once those are expanded, you pretty much have it.

 

[dianaiad]

It’s imprecise because this may be what you SAY is your definition, but you make a leap to another conclusion that can only be done with the bridge that I described.

Here is the conclusion you used:

We can know things about him from what people told us about him. No groundbreaking new revelation required, just repetition of what he taught.

Except of course that we have nothing written about him by anybody who did NOT have an honest to goodness divine revelation from Him.

True, Josephus wrote about Him, but only as far as rumors go; he didn’t know Jesus at all. Every man who wrote in the NT had received revelation from Christ; not simply had known Him in life, but had received revelation from Him.

Now, if you’re being really expansive with this definition of “prophet” and want to call everyone who ever heard anything from Jesus or met him a “prophet,” then you can say that we wouldn’t know anything about Jesus were it not for those “prophets.” I think that’s a poor definition of prophet, though. And it doesn’t require anything more than the transmission of that information beyond that point for us to know about Jesus.

I addressed this already, but I’ll repeat it: we don’t have a single thing written in the NT by anybody who did NOT receive revelation from Christ after His death. That they did receive that revelation is the reason they DID write.

Just men? Wasn’t Anna a “prophetess,” and didn’t God speak to various women throughout the Scriptures? Just clarifying here. Catholics belief “prophet” is a role more than an office, primarily involves rebuking/convicting, can involve prophesy (in the sense of “prediction”), and does involve direction by God. But all true vocations and roles played are directed in varying degrees by God, and all believers are properly baptized Priest, Prophet, and King, sharing in Christ’s perfected threefold roles.

Does God speak to women? Sure…but of all the women you mention, do we have any writings from them? Did Anna write scripture?

Being a prophet is also a priesthood function. None of the women mentioned in the bible were given the sort of revelation that results in scripture.

I think beliefs and concepts can make sense without someone having to agree. I can see where you get something, but I can still think you’re wrong, there’s a flaw in your logic, etc. I would hope you see some “sense” in some of the beliefs that differ from yours. I was saying that I couldn’t make sense of what you seem to be doing with the idea of “prophets.”

If so, I hope I cleared it up.

 

[RebeccaJ]

No, that statement isn’t…but the idea BEHIND it is. Quite a few Catholic writers and thinkers have pondered upon it: if God IS omniscient, then He knew that Adam and Eve would fall; if He is all powerful, then He could have prevented it. If He is all benevolent, then He would have, of course, created the best world possible for His children.

Therefore…He knew what would happen, and it was for the best. From it we got the Savior.

It’s a concept/paradox that has been pondered by many of the most influential and important thinkers and religious leaders of the Catholic–and any other Christian–world.

Diana, it is something we believe and meditate on. However, we do not hold a belief of any kind, in any shape or form, that God planned the Fall (as Mormons do). God does not plan evil (sin). The Catholic position is that God knew the course of things, that He allowed evil to occur and planned our Redemption.

The Mormon position, as I understand it, is that God planned the Fall itself. That is, that He set up Adam and Eve for failure. Giving, two instructions that were in direct conflict of each other.

There is no Catholic in the world who has this view.

As for the Easter Vigil, my goodness yes, it is celebrated every Holy Saturday. It is the “mother of all vigils”. It is where new converts are baptized and new converts and non-confirmed Catholics are confirmed. It is a HUGE Mass, very long, and very incredible.

We are not celebrating the fall at this Mass, we are celebrating the Resurrection. Which of course, the fall has to be taken into account! We begin the Mass in darkness, all of the lights turned out. The priest or bishop lights a fire outside. From this fire, the Paschal candle is lit and from this candle, every person inside the church is holding a candle and we light the candle, each person lighting the person’s candle next to them.

This represents the light of Christ, coming into a dark world. We sing the litany of saints, and and the exsultet (which you referenced). The lights are slowly brought up in the church and we sing alleluia!

To understand our perspective, you need to understand the calendar. Every year we celebrate a Christian cycle. The cycle begins at advent, where we await Christ coming into the world. At which time, we celebrate Christmas, for 12 days. We then follow the life of Christ, and celebrate the Holy Family (and all families). Before Holy Saturday, we remember that Christ was gone from the world, for three days. We do not celebrate Mass. We do not sing alleluia. All our shrines are closed. No music is played. No canldes are lit. As we remember three days of the greatest darkness the world has known.

And then Easter Vigil. We light the world up with the Light of Christ. We open the shrines. And we sing alleluia with LOTS of music.

We baptize new converts and confirm the baptized. All who have been baptized and confirmed renew their baptismal vows. It is a celebration. A new beginning.

And always we remember that the Fall made possible what we celebrate. It is a recognition that the Goodness of God always prevails over the evil of Satan. What evil destroyed, God renewed even greater than it was before.

The exsultet is not a celebration unto itself. No one would celebrate the fall were it not for our Redemption. THAT is what we celebrate.

 

[mfbukowski]

Doctrine is based entirely on a Person, Jesus Christ. What He Wills, the Church Wills. What He taught, the Church teaches. This is what the Church has taught through the ages. The Resurrection is a central teaching of Jesus’, and thus, it is doctrine.

Doctrine cannot change. The Perfect Revelation of Jesus Christ cannot be added to, or taken from.

There is no teaching from Jesus on the fate of unbaptized infants. There is a lot of meditation, discussion and even argument around the subject, but no doctrine.

But you are not answering the question. Where is all the doctrine of the Catholic church written in one place?

It doesn’t exist! If so, tell me. The catechism is a description of doctrine, not a statement of doctrine. Otherwise, to speak ex cathedra, the pope would simple change the catechism. He does not.

The resurrection was never technically made dogma. Am I incorrect or not?

 

[mfbukowski]

Unique for being conceived without original sin? Hardly. Adam and Eve were first. The whole point of Christ was to atone for their original sin, and so Jesus is known as the new Adam. In true chiasmic form (something most Smithians I know are pretty fond of ), Adam, then Eve, begets ultimately New Eve then New Adam, after which we have the full Atonement and eternal life.

Have you ever read C.S. Lewis’s Perelandra? Or other of his works where he explores the question of whether or not it is inevitable or necessary for a new creation, Adam and Eve, for example, to sin. Mormon theology seems to assume that a creation MUST sin (e.g., Adam’s “necessary” sin). Yet are there created angels who have always been faithful in the Lord’s service? When we get to heaven, will we sin anymore?

If freedom from sin is the only true and complete freedom (sin being slavery), then it seems that sin is disordered. If disordered, then not necessary for order.

Considering at the least that we should all be sinless in heaven, why should it offend you that God can by the same Grace protect someone from sin for a special purpose? Moreover, in the creation of Mary God was really just repeating what He had already done with Eve–why should that seem so problematic to you? And if Mary was preserved from original sin as were Adam and Eve, then need she have sinned? Seems to me it would have been pretty counterproductive to what God was trying to do in ushering in a new generation, making all things new, making a new creation, through Christ, for the leading lady of His “Eve” role to screw up again and break things all over again.

Check out ricko’s post #467. He highlighted a few of the relevant Scriptures. There are plenty more having to do with Mary’s role and her status as the Ark of the New Covenant. An “ark,” by the way, was a seat or throne that the queen mother usually was carried on and processed into battle ahead of the tribe she was queen of. The unusual thing about the Israelites’ ark was that it was empty. This was all foreshadowing God did to set us up for Jesus, the ultimate and eternal Davidic King with his Queen Mother beside him.

This is so permeated with “Catholic think” that it is hard to respond. The ark of the covenant was not empty, and why would the queen mother be going into battle?

Since we don’t believe in original sin, I don’t think I was born with it either. Why would God give us someone else’s sin? The fall is an inherited condition of mankind, but is not a sin to those who inherit the condition. It is sort of like if your parents were alcoholics and you were born brain damaged, it would not be your sin but theirs, yet you would reap the consequences.

I agree with the chiasmus reference, and am totally personally theologically “into” the “second Adam” pov.

Sin is not necessary for order or disorder. That is very abstract and I am not quite sure what all that means. It is very Catholic like “perfect” being the same as “completed” Very Greek philosophically.

Adam’s “transgression” as we term it, was necessary for us to live in an earth with choice and freedom, so that sin would be possible. If you were standing in God’s presence, how likely would it be that you would choose to do something wrong?

You would not have freedom to choose the wrong in such a state.

I don’t know what “created angels” are. All spirits will have an opportunity to have a body if they have not already had one. For us angels are either pre-existent spirits or people who have died and are either spirits or resurrected beings. Another option is a “translated” being.

 

[mfbukowski]

Do you know how the Church determines ideas to be more than just ideas and actual truth? Or are you going to claim that we must consider every idea to be infallibly true?

No, I’m trying to find out – this is a bit like our “revelation” discussion – there was a good thread recently about dogma that I stopped posting on because I distracted the discussion-- but no I am interested in this. Where are all the doctrines of the church written in one place? I have heard that many things like the resurrection were never made dogma, and I don’t know what that means.

 

[mfbukowski]

I think what Stephen is trying to say is that without the sin of Adam and Eve, we wouldn’t have needed a Savior. He’s giving the Catholic interpretation of the phrase. It’s not that Adam and Eve needed to sin so that we could exist, it’s that their sin resulted in the need for Jesus to come.

I actually remember someone raising this question in our RCIA class. The idea that Adam and Eve “had to” sin was rejected by our teachers. Similarly, the idea that Judas “had to” betray Christ was also rejected.

Maybe seeing the context will be helpful. Here is the context of that phrase (I’m quoting right from the Easter Vigil Mass, the portion of the Exsultet where that phrase occurs.)

"This is the night when Christians everywhere, washed clean of sin and freed from all defilement, are restored to grace and grow together in holiness.

"This is the night when Jesus Christ broke the chains of death and rose triumphant from the grave. What good would life have been to us had Christ not come as our Redeemer?

"Father, how wonderful your care for us! How boundless your merciful love! To ransom a slave you gave away your Son.

“O happy fault, O necessary sin of Adam, which gained for us so great a Redeemer!”

(The proclamation continues basically thanking God for the reconciliation achieved between God and Man through Jesus.)

Ah yes, the culpa felix. Definitely from my time.

 

[RebeccaJ]

But you are not answering the question. Where is all the doctrine of the Catholic church written in one place?

bukowski, you know that Sacred Tradition is very integral to Catholicsim, including if not most importantly, doctrine.

Doctrine is decreed truth, that has been passed on orally and in writing, via the sacraments, the liturgies, Mass itself. Doctrine is experienced in Catholicism.

It doesn’t exist! If so, tell me.

Of course doctrine exists, otherwise, how could any Catholic say that doctrine cannot be changed?

The catechism is a description of doctrine, not a statement of doctrine.

The catechism IS doctrine, as doctrine and catechesis are are synonymous in Catholicism.

Otherwise, to speak ex cathedra, the pope would simple change the catechism. He does not.

When a pope speaks ex cathedra, he tells you. It then becomes a part of the catechism, ie, what is taught both orally, written, Sacramentally, liturgically, etc.

The resurrection was never technically made dogma. Am I incorrect or not?

Not. It is a very central doctrine. All doctrines are dogmas.

 

[mfbukowski]

How long have you been around MADB? I’ve seen really vigorous debates over very basic things among Mormons–and I’m not talking about details, I’m talking about major central contradictions. Just browsing through some old topics I participated in, there was one about this very subject that illustrated the problem (and it was commented about many other times on other threads):
mormonapologetics.org/index.php?showtopic=35948&hl=arandur
“How Does Something Become Official Doctrine?”

Other interesting ones that we’ve touched on here as well:
mormonapologetics.org/index.php?showtopic=36992&hl=arandurPhysical Body In Spirit Body’s Image?, or spirit body in physical body’s image?
mormonapologetics.org/index.php?showtopic=35973&hl=arandur
Can We All Be Christians?
mormonapologetics.org/index.php?showtopic=36047&hl=arandur
Are Non Mormon Christians Members Of God’s Church?
mormonapologetics.org/index.php?showtopic=36793&hl=arandur
“Is Mary Our Heavenly Mother?”

Well from a really quick cursory view, you have to realize 1) None of these topics are actually part of Mormon doctrine, (other than the first one) and are things that we might disagree about.

It’s funny that I never posted on any of those threads because they were clearly “fluff”(from an LDS perspective) and didn’t interest me. Debateable nonsense mostly.

And 2) most of the posts there are not from what I would call TBM’s or “true believing Mormons”. There are non-Mormons, ex-mormons, jack mormons and various assorted folks. If you want to have a statement BY THE CHURCH of what Mormon doctrine is, it is very simple and here it is:

newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/commentary/approaching-mormon-doctrine

Not every statement made by a Church leader, past or present, necessarily constitutes doctrine. A single statement made by a leader on a single occasion often represents a personal, though well-considered, opinion, but is not meant to be officially binding for the whole Church. With divine inspiration, the First Presidency (the prophet and his two counselors) and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (the second-highest governing body of the Church) counsel together to establish doctrine that is consistently proclaimed in official Church publications. This doctrine resides in the four “standard works” of scripture (the Holy Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price), official declarations and proclamations, and the Articles of Faith. Isolated statements are often taken out of context, leaving their original meaning distorted.single leader on a single occasion often represents a personal, though well-considered, opinion, but is not meant to be officially binding for the whole Church. With divine inspiration, the First Presidency (the prophet and his two counselors) and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (the second-highest governing body of the Church) counsel together to establish doctrine that is consistently proclaimed in official Church publications. This doctrine resides in the four “standard works” of scripture (the Holy Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price), official declarations and proclamations, and the Articles of Faith. Isolated statements are often taken out of context, leaving their original meaning distorted.

If it’s not in the standard works, it’s not doctrine. If it is, it is. So the way that doctrine gets into the standard works is that it becomes “canonized scripture” by being introduced and accepted by a general conference of the church. That’s it.

 

[mfbukowski]

This may have been answered already, but no, not “all that was necessary for salvation is found in the bible…” The Bible (NT) didn’t come till long after Christ was assumed into Heaven and the original Apostles died. He revealed all that was necessary for salvation. It was not just contained in the Bible. It was contained in Tradition (“hold fast to the traditions…”) and in the Church (“the pillar and foundation of truth”). The Spirit will bring us into all truth, remembrance of all things–through the action of the the Church. The Spirit guides us through our understanding of this these things via the Magisterium, senses fidelis, Petrine office, against the measure of sacred Scripture and Tradition.

Yet didn’t tradition supposedly come completely out of the bible, as developments of doctrine found there? Or let me ask it in a different way: Are there any doctrines that came strictly from tradition that are not found in the bible?

 

[mfbukowski]

If you left the Catholic Church without knowing these things, you really did a disservice to yourself and to God.

The Nicene Creed is an essential profession of faith containing these dogmas. The Ecumenical Councils have defined other dogma and have been careful about what they declare as such. The Catechism is a compilation of those core teachings and explanations about them. It does include some speculation at times, but Catechisms are pretty good about stating what is definitively true (generally referencing dogma).

The Nicene Creed. Dogma.

Doesn’t answer it. I know the creed is dogma. You have named at least 4 sources-- I am looking for one. Not all dogma is in the creed obviously. No immaculate conception etc there.

And I didn’t leave the church because of what I didn’t know, I left it because of what I did know and didn’t believe.

 

[MelanieAnne]

It is remarkable to see the same question asked and answered over and over and yet somehow the answer never penetrates sufficiently to break the cycle.

Or is there something else in play?

 

[RebeccaJ]

Yet didn’t tradition supposedly come completely out of the bible, as developments of doctrine found there?

The Bible came out of Sacred Tradition.

Or let me ask it in a different way: Are there any doctrines that came strictly from tradition that are not found in the bible?

You make a distinction where there is none. Doctrine is all that is passed on, orally, written, liturgically, Sacramentally, etc. Sola scriptura is an error of the reformation.

 

[RebeccaJ]

It is remarkable to see the same question asked and answered over and over and yet somehow the answer never penetrates sufficiently to break the cycle.

Or is there something else in play?

Mormonism makes it difficult to understand truth. That is my own personal experience anyway.