Mormonism: Restoration of Ancient Christian Church?

[SteveVH]

Again, it is the mormon claim that their was a total apostasy yet it has never been proven. The burden of proof is on you, and you have failed to provide it. All we have received is alot of “your” assumptions.

Good try though.

O,

Far from being proven, all evidence points 180 degrees away from apostasy. If there ever was an apostasy, a complete falling away from the true faith handed down by the Apostles, it would be the LDS Church (along with a few others).

 

[twopekinguys]

460 The Word became flesh to make us “partakers of the divine nature”:78 "For this is why the Word became man, and the Son of God became the Son of man: so that man, by entering into communion with the Word and thus receiving divine sonship, might become a son of God."79 "For the Son of God became man so that we might become God."80 "The only-begotten Son of God, wanting to make us sharers in his divinity, assumed our nature, so that he, made man, might make men gods."81

This section of the Catechism is greatly misquoted by many non-Catholic.

Notice the little “g”. Very important.

All these passages talk about us returning to the Father, and partaking in his glory.

Just because I partake in a meal, it doesn’t make me the Chef. Just because I partake in God’s glory doesn’t make me God, or a God.

Thanks for finding it TK.

 

[TexanKnight]

This section of the Catechism is greatly misquoted by many non-Catholic.

Notice the little “g”. Very important.

All these passages talk about us returning to the Father, and partaking in his glory.

Just because I partake in a meal, it doesn’t make me the Chef. Just because I partake in God’s glory doesn’t make me God, or a God.

Thanks for finding it TK.

I looked everywhere in the Catechism where it said God was once a sinful man…could not find it

 

[twopekinguys]

I looked everywhere in the Catechism where it said God was once a sinful man…could not find it

Did you find the section about Quakers on the moon? It is fascinating…

 

[twopekinguys]

here is a link to what tom is wanting. It doesnt talk alot but, well read it I guess.
romereturn.blogspot.com/2009/11/lds-view-of-deification-and-athanasius.html

Problem solved, now he has his long awaited answer.

Great find Kimg!!

 

[TexanKnight]

Did you find the section about Quakers on the moon? It is fascinating…

I also looked for anything about God saying you could only find Him with peep stones and that His cities would be hidden to test faith

 

[kimg901]

Problem solved, now he has his long awaited answer.

Great find Kimg!!

I got tired of him posting “If anybody can find a place where and ECF before Athanasius limits the final state of deified man, I will be surprised and I will read. NOBODY EVER DOES.” I have a question for you Tom and I hope you read this with an open mind. Now I dont know you but let me tell you something about myself and how I know that the C.C is the True Church of Christ. While I was away from the church (I no longer believed in God) my family prayed for me because I was in a bad way and was seeing demons. I had a vision and Jesus came to me and told me “To protect His Church”. He sent me out to a field and there sat a rock. So is Christ a false messiah whos prophesies never came true and His Words are just false too?

 

[KathleenGee]

Hi Tom,

I studied under Archbishop Levada’s formation, who later became head of orthodoxy for the Church. We studied practically all of the catechism through different classes that focused on different parts of faith and then would witness how they came across. We just gleaned a little on the last section, ‘Prayer’, …but just enough…that all prayer must center on the will of God, not ours.

In Christology, in the CCC, we went from part to part. And in no teaching in the CCC, did it ever say we become gods. When we came to CCC460, that was the only part in the entire passage, that our instructor told us to get our pens and clarify writing next to it…and it is still there, ‘partakes of the life of God, but separate’.

Jesus at the Transfiguration was very clear that He was separate from the apostles, when they witnessed the beginnings of His divine ministry.

Christ is both High Priest and the Sacrificial Lamb as the atonement of sin.

Authentic Christianity is about us being delivered from the bondage of sin and death and finding new life in Jesus Christ…by becoming more virtuous, by becoming more pure and free of sin, and becoming more charitable in who we are and in what we do, always in union with the Lord, Who is the source of life. There is nothing about us becoming gods.

There are footnotes attached to St. Thomas and St. Irenaeus, and Thomas’ refers to his piece on the Eucharist. I cannot quote Thomas’ Summa on God, so complex for me, but again, I studied that book through a Dominican and the whole motif was Who God is and who we are not.

You have to realize the early saints and ECF’s were experiencing the new life of Jesus Christ in the world and the forthcoming collapse of the Roman Empire, that was the actual source of being the Great Harlot.

It is not about becoming gods, it is about becoming more truly who we are, more truly human…more humane. Jesus Christ is the ‘lowest’ God can come down to in Man form, to reunite with us, Jesus our only source of righteousness.

Faith and Certitude reflect our constant effort to remain in the Lord, the Unmoved Mover and not be drawn to this and that, all sorts of allurements, and God calling us to take one firm step to Him, and He coming back to you with the other 9 steps.

 

[Porknpie]

Hi Tom,

I studied under Archbishop Levada’s formation, who later became head of orthodoxy for the Church. We studied practically all of the catechism through different classes that focused on different parts of faith and then would witness how they came across. We just gleaned a little on the last section, ‘Prayer’, …but just enough…that all prayer must center on the will of God, not ours.

In Christology, in the CCC, we went from part to part. And in no teaching in the CCC, did it ever say we become gods. When we came to CCC460, that was the only part in the entire passage, that our instructor told us to get our pens and clarify writing next to it…and it is still there, ‘partakes of the life of God, but separate’.

Jesus at the Transfiguration was very clear that He was separate from the apostles, when they witnessed the beginnings of His divine ministry.

Christ is both High Priest and the Sacrificial Lamb as the atonement of sin.

Authentic Christianity is about us being delivered from the bondage of sin and death and finding new life in Jesus Christ…by becoming more virtuous, by becoming more pure and free of sin, and becoming more charitable in who we are and in what we do, always in union with the Lord, Who is the source of life. There is nothing about us becoming gods.

There are footnotes attached to St. Thomas and St. Irenaeus, and Thomas’ refers to his piece on the Eucharist. I cannot quote Thomas’ Summa on God, so complex for me, but again, I studied that book through a Dominican and the whole motif was Who God is and who we are not.

You have to realize the early saints and ECF’s were experiencing the new life of Jesus Christ in the world and the forthcoming collapse of the Roman Empire, that was the actual source of being the Great Harlot.

It is not about becoming gods, it is about becoming more truly who we are, more truly human…more humane. Jesus Christ is the ‘lowest’ God can come down to in Man form, to reunite with us, Jesus our only source of righteousness.

Faith and Certitude reflect our constant effort to remain in the Lord, the Unmoved Mover and not be drawn to this and that, all sorts of allurements, and God calling us to take one firm step to Him, and He coming back to you with the other 9 steps.

Wonderful and true words my friend.

 

[SteveVH]

Wonderful and true words my friend.

Absolutely. Great post, Kathleen.

 

[TOmNossor]

Plus I havent gotten any responses from you about my comments. Care to comment on them Tom?

I am not sure which comments you mean. I really am not.

I have a question for you Tom and I hope you read this with an open mind. Now I dont know you but let me tell you something about myself and how I know that the C.C is the True Church of Christ. While I was away from the church (I no longer believed in God) my family prayed for me because I was in a bad way and was seeing demons. I had a vision and Jesus came to me and told me "To protect His Church

". He sent me out to a field and there sat a rock. So is Christ a false messiah whos prophesies never came true and His Words are just false too?
First, Christ is not a false Messiah and His Words are not false.
I hope to post on your link and Perry’s thoughts briefly (and then maybe more thoroughly soon), but I wanted to respond to your wonderful experience.

As a LDS I believe that personal spiritual experiences can and often are genuine connections with God that give our life meaning and direction. I am an inclusivist in that I do not believe salvific relationships with God are fostered only through one faith communion. I am a realist in that I believe there is an absolute reality (we might call it God’s reality as there is truth in the modern –and in the main false IMO- idea that we only perceive reality through ourselves. This view is false when it asserts that there is no objective reality. I lean toward the belief that subject/object distinction is a problem within all metaphysics other than Whitehead-ian metaphysics, but that is a point for another thread).
So, I celebrate God and His willingness to enter into your life to call you “To protect His Church.” My experience with being called to “protect His Church” is not as powerful as yours – though some of my experiences with one of the doctrines we discuss here I would say are as powerful.
That being said, my personal spiritual experiences and your personal spiritual experiences cannot IMO be used to CONVINCE others that our walk with God is correct for them. I believe the existence of personal spiritual experiences is the most powerful death-blow to atheism, and as an “inclusivist” I reject the atheist argument that conflicting messages in spiritual experiences are sufficient to dismiss with them. So I believe we are left with reason and evidence access-able to all when we try to define what God’s reality is. My spiritual experiences can inform me and MUST, and your spiritual experiences can inform you and MUST, but I do not believe that we should expect our personal spiritual experiences to convince others we are right.
As I explored Catholicism I got to know online and in real life a Catholic who IMO had given Mormonism a fair shake. I believe his problem is similar to mine that we rely too much on our fallible reason and too little on personal spiritual experiences. My Catholic friend is no longer Catholic because he now believes that Irreformable councils contradicted each other. I could not perfectly produce his arguments and have not tried. Newman called Dollinger’s departure from Catholicism a “failure of imagination” (if I remember correctly). I worry that I have a failure of imagination, but if I were to correct it as Newman advocates; it would likely just remove any problems I have with the CoJCoLDS not make me Catholic. In any case, the existence of someone who knew so much more about me and I truly believed gave the CoJCoLDS a fair reading demanded that I expand my worldview from the cookie cutter view that God has one true church and fair minded people will join me in it.
Seeing that honest rational people do not just become LDS because of the powerful reasons, that humble seeking people do not just become LDS because God reaches out and grabs them, and …; means to me that God is much greater and His ways are much higher than might make me comfortable. But somehow this only makes God more amazing and beautiful.

So, I will continue to offer reasons and critiques of reasons here. I have thought of offering a defense of the idea that “if ye lack wisdom ask God,” and may someday (but I doubt it). I will continue to hold my spiritual experiences dear and allow them to inform my walk with God (I believe God has mercifully spared me with the condition some have where reason and their spiritual witness conflict). I will continue to refuse to dismiss your spiritual experiences as … (insert the list of dismissive and even nasty things said about LDS and non-LDS spiritual experiences). I know God loves you and calls to you and is joyful when you respond to his call. He does the same for me.
Charity, TOm

 

[Stephen168]

I think the topic of the thread is Mormonism as a Restoration.

Yes it is.

I do not know how to answer your question.
I am quite sure that my view is within the spectrum of the views allowed for LDS …

Please explain how my view is faulty / illogical. That is really the view I think matters … If you think the Catholic Church stands above the CoJCoLDS in a reasoned consideration of history and theology, then you really should deal with a theology I embrace not some construction you wish I embraced…

If I relied upon your thinking to define what I as a LDS must believe, I would have left the church a long time ago.

This means that I do not care to define for you what the CoJCoLDS once believed about deification and what it believes now about deification because I do not believe such would produce any single answer …

So what you believe does not matter. What matters is; did Joseph Smith restore the ancient Christian Church. Clearly he did not.

Stephen168,
Perhaps you misunderstood me. I am saying that numerous ECF said in various ways, “men can become gods.”
I am then saying that no ECF every placed a limit upon the final state of men made gods. They are gods just as Christ is God in the end state per all ECF who write about men becoming gods before Athanasuis.

I am not arguing from ignorance, I am arguing from total absence of any evidence of what Catholics believe today. It is not there.
I am then challenging any Catholic to find it. Please justify your believe with what the ECF before Athanasius taught!

Again:If anybody can find a place where and ECF before Athanasius limits the final state of deified man, I will be surprised and I will read. NOBODY EVER DOES.

Yes, I did.

St. Irenaeus:

For the Uncreated is perfect, that is, God. Now it was necessary that man should in the first instance be created; and having been created, should receive growth; and having received growth, should be strengthened; and having been strengthened, should abound; and having abounded, should recover [from the disease of sin]; and having recovered, should be glorified; and being glorified, should see his Lord. For God is He who is yet to be seen, and the beholding of God is productive of immortality, but immortality renders one near unto God.

"St. Athanasius:

He said that God had made all things out of pre-existent and uncreated matter, just as the carpenter makes things only out of wood that already exists. But those who hold this view do not realize that to deny that God is Himself the Cause of matter is to impute limitation to Him, just as it is undoubtedly a limitation on the part of the carpenter that he can make nothing unless he has the wood. How could God be called Maker and Artificer if His ability to make depended on some other cause, namely on matter itself?

…, my first quote was about the final state of man as taught by St. Irenaeus. It also included a Christian progression of man to the final state. My question was “did Smith and Snow teach what Irenaeus taught?”

And you never answered

 

[TOmNossor]

wow…excellent article. Thanks.

Blows Tom’s position out of the water

So now that it has been read and your point brought to light, you now say you dont know what TK is refering to? Typical.

I do not know what in Perry’s thought “blows TOm’s position out of the water.”

Problem solved, now he has his long awaited answer.

Great find Kimg!!

I got tired of him posting "If anybody can find a place where and ECF before Athanasius limits the final state of deified man, I will be surprised and I will read. NOBODY EVER DOES”

All,
I have reviewed both threads (Dr. Beckwith’s and Perry’s to which Dr. Beckwith referred).
Perry as an EO embraces a view of deification unavailable to the Catholic IMO (and generally in his opinion as I read him), but that is not the point of discussion.
I didn’t get a chance to respond to the comment that I think is most relevant to this thread (and I guess the one that is supposed “blow TOm’s position out of the water.”)
cont…

 

[TOmNossor]

Here it is:

Perry:

In your response to Lojahw, you suggest that Athanasius is a turning point. First, I think this is at best an argument from silence and seems to turn on an equivocation. You write that prior writers didn’t limit theosis in terms of becoming what God is by essence. Suppose this is true, but it is only so if by this is meant that they didn’t speak to the issue one way or the other. It is not as if they maintained essential change and then Athanasius alters it.

1. When an ECF before Athanasius say that Christ became what we are and we are to become what He is, they are linking these two becomings. It is IMO doing violence to the Fathers to say that Christ became completely what we are, but we are to become associatively what He is. They never said this until Athanasius.
2. Perry seems to know of no ECF before Athanasius that limited deification, he is just arguing that Athanasius probably would not develop the idea of deification away from what earlier ECF ultimately believed even if they did not explicitly state it. This is begging the question because my position is that Athanasius developed this idea and he is just saying that Athanasius is in alignment with them so they believed like Athanasius did. His position is the one that lacks evidence and is built upon faith that Athanasius would not introduce something into Christian thought not present earlier.
3. My position is not so precise as to say that “prior writers didn’t limit theosis in terms of becoming what God is by essence.” My position is that prior writers followed the Biblical witness that we are to become what Christ is. The development of “essence” language in the early church may have precipitated the requirement that we do not become what God is in essence (and indeed precipitated the radical essence vs. energies separation in EO thought in OPPOSITION to Thomist and I think all scholastic Catholic thought), but the earlier writers had not taken divine essence and its incommunicability (per EO thought) into account. I reject such thinking anyway.

Concerning #3 this comment by David is important:
David Waltz:

As for the Eastern Orthodox view of deification, I have assessed from my studies that the Mormon apologist would be better served if he looked to the Catholic view of deification, rather than the EO, post-Palamas understanding. IMO the post-Palamas distinction between God’s “essence” and His “energies” makes ANY comparisons between the EO and Mormon views impossible.

David’s position if I read him right (and I have read and spoken to him a lot), is that EO thought post Palamas and Catholic thought on deification have diverged significantly. A Catholic must believe that the partakers of the beautific vision experience God’s essence not just His energies. An EO rejects this. So when the Palamas view of deification is espoused by a Catholic they are neglecting to recognize that Thomist and most Catholic thought demands that that deified humans experience God’s essence.

Anyway, I had a flashback / flash forward where in 2016 I was posting about the fact that:
If anybody can find a place where and ECF before Athanasius limits the final state of deified man, I will be surprised and I will read. NOBODY EVER DOES.
And someone said, “TOm knows this has been settled and is intentionally posting as if it has not been settled.”

Now, I there is something else in the links that I have not thought about that should mute the above statement, please share it and engage on it.
Charity, TOm

 

[TexanKnight]

Yes it is.

So what you believe does not matter. What matters is; did Joseph Smith restore the ancient Christian Church. Clearly he did not.

Yes, I did.

And you never answered

Tom will never address the difficult issues and challenges presented. He ignores, deflects, and acts like he can’t understand your points

 

[kimg901]

I am not sure which comments you mean. I really am not.

First, Christ is not a false Messiah and His Words are not false.
I hope to post on your link and Perry’s thoughts briefly (and then maybe more thoroughly soon), but I wanted to respond to your wonderful experience.

As a LDS I believe that personal spiritual experiences can and often are genuine connections with God that give our life meaning and direction. I am an inclusivist in that I do not believe salvific relationships with God are fostered only through one faith communion. I am a realist in that I believe there is an absolute reality (we might call it God’s reality as there is truth in the modern –and in the main false IMO- idea that we only perceive reality through ourselves. This view is false when it asserts that there is no objective reality. I lean toward the belief that subject/object distinction is a problem within all metaphysics other than Whitehead-ian metaphysics, but that is a point for another thread).
So, I celebrate God and His willingness to enter into your life to call you “To protect His Church.” My experience with being called to “protect His Church” is not as powerful as yours – though some of my experiences with one of the doctrines we discuss here I would say are as powerful.
That being said, my personal spiritual experiences and your personal spiritual experiences cannot IMO be used to CONVINCE others that our walk with God is correct for them. I believe the existence of personal spiritual experiences is the most powerful death-blow to atheism, and as an “inclusivist” I reject the atheist argument that conflicting messages in spiritual experiences are sufficient to dismiss with them. So I believe we are left with reason and evidence access-able to all when we try to define what God’s reality is. My spiritual experiences can inform me and MUST, and your spiritual experiences can inform you and MUST, but I do not believe that we should expect our personal spiritual experiences to convince others we are right.
As I explored Catholicism I got to know online and in real life a Catholic who IMO had given Mormonism a fair shake. I believe his problem is similar to mine that we rely too much on our fallible reason and too little on personal spiritual experiences. My Catholic friend is no longer Catholic because he now believes that Irreformable councils contradicted each other. I could not perfectly produce his arguments and have not tried. Newman called Dollinger’s departure from Catholicism a “failure of imagination” (if I remember correctly). I worry that I have a failure of imagination, but if I were to correct it as Newman advocates; it would likely just remove any problems I have with the CoJCoLDS not make me Catholic. In any case, the existence of someone who knew so much more about me and I truly believed gave the CoJCoLDS a fair reading demanded that I expand my worldview from the cookie cutter view that God has one true church and fair minded people will join me in it.
Seeing that honest rational people do not just become LDS because of the powerful reasons, that humble seeking people do not just become LDS because God reaches out and grabs them, and …; means to me that God is much greater and His ways are much higher than might make me comfortable. But somehow this only makes God more amazing and beautiful.

So, I will continue to offer reasons and critiques of reasons here. I have thought of offering a defense of the idea that “if ye lack wisdom ask God,” and may someday (but I doubt it). I will continue to hold my spiritual experiences dear and allow them to inform my walk with God (I believe God has mercifully spared me with the condition some have where reason and their spiritual witness conflict). I will continue to refuse to dismiss your spiritual experiences as … (insert the list of dismissive and even nasty things said about LDS and non-LDS spiritual experiences). I know God loves you and calls to you and is joyful when you respond to his call. He does the same for me.
Charity, TOm

I understand you point and and appreciate your honesty. I know one may say you cannot use your own personal accounts to sway people to convert. But I know what was told to me and given to me by Our Lord (And God the Father too ) I have had many visions in the last few years (before my return to the C.C and after) and other great things that have came to me. I just wanted to share with you my story because I was born a catholic, left for a brief time to mormonism, then I went to church with my in-laws (they are baptist), gave up on God and His Son, then returned to catholism after my visions. I only say this because if Jesus wanted me to return to mormonism, why wouldnt he say it?

 

[TOmNossor]

Yes it is.

So what you believe does not matter. What matters is; did Joseph Smith restore the ancient Christian Church. Clearly he did not.

Yes, I did.

And you never answered

Stephen168,
Here is my response:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=10182912&postcount=371

Your two quotes refer to the initial not the final state of man.
When you ask if Joseph Smith or Lorenzo Snow taught that God created ex Nihilo, I would say that no they did not teach that.
Earlier I pointed to Gerard May (non LDS scholar) who shows (well IMO) that creation ex nihilo was a later development. May actually thinks it is a necessary development.
Irenaeus by my recollection was the first to really get to creation ex nihilo. I think May says he is close but not all the way there, but it has been many years.
I will try to post some deification quotes since I am at my computer now.

If the “limit to deification (becoming gods) is God” why do you claim limited deification. Is it because God does not desire to deify us? Is it because he lacks the power to deify us? I agree that ultimately it is God who is responsible for all of this, what about God makes you believe He wants to limit us?

Charity, TOm

Again, the reason I pointed to creation ex nihilo here is that Irenaeus is building on the perfection that is God because He is uncreated. I think section of Irenaeus I see him coming close to saying that we become uncreated. We “receive a faculty of the Uncreated” through “eternal existence” “Not made gods from the beginning,… then at length gods.”
I see powerful deification language here and I have quoted it in the past. I do see a lot of “creation ex nihilo.” But, I do not see a limit on our final state. And again where Irenaeus employs the exchange formula (not here), he always says, “the Word of God, our Lord Jesus Christ, who did, through His transcendent love, become what we are, that He might bring us to be even what He is Himself.”
I may look up the Latin to see what “even” was translated from, but in English it is an emphasis of the completeness of the transition. (BTW, Irenaeus wrote in Greek, but the earliest complete source is a Latin translation.

Here is the full quote including mine and Stephens bolding mine from before:
cont …

 

[TOmNossor]

His wisdom [is shown] in His having made created things parts of one harmonious and consistent whole; and those things which, through His super-eminent kindness, receive growth and a long period of existence, do reflect the glory of the uncreated One, of that God who bestows what is good ungrudgingly. For from the very fact of these things having been created, [it follows] that they are not uncreated; but by their continuing in being throughout a long course of ages, they shall receive a faculty of the Uncreated, through the gratuitous bestowal of eternal existence upon them by God. And thus in all things God has the pre-eminence, who alone is uncreated, the first of all things, and the primary cause of the existence of all, while all other things remain under God’s subjection. But being in subjection to God is continuance in immortality, and immortality is the glory of the uncreated One. By this arrangement, therefore, and these harmonies, and a sequence of this nature, man, a created and organized being, is rendered after the image and likeness of the uncreated God,—the Father planning everything well and giving His commands, the Son carrying these into execution and performing the work of creating, and the Spirit nourishing and increasing [what is made], but man making progress day by day, and ascending towards the perfect, that is, approximating to the uncreated One. For the Uncreated is perfect, that is, God. Now it was necessary that man should in the first instance be created; and having been created, should receive growth; and having received growth, should be strengthened; and having been strengthened, should abound; and having abounded, should recover [from the disease of sin]; and having recovered, should be glorified; and being glorified, should see his Lord. For God is He who is yet to be seen, and the beholding of God is productive of immortality, but immortality renders one nigh unto God.

1. Irrational, therefore, in every respect, are they who await not the time of increase, but ascribe to God the infirmity of their nature. Such persons know neither God nor themselves, being insatiable and ungrateful, unwilling to be at the outset what they have also been created—men subject to passions; but go beyond the law of the human race, and before that they become men, they wish to be even now like God their Creator, and they who are more destitute of reason than dumb animals [insist] that there is no distinction between the uncreated God and man, a creature of to-day. For these, [the dumb animals], bring no charge against God for not having made them men; but each one, just as he has been created, gives thanks that he has been created. For we cast blame upon Him, because we have not been made gods from the beginning, but at first merely men, then at length gods; although God has adopted this course out of His pure benevolence, that no one may impute to Him invidiousness or grudgingness. He declares, “I have said, Ye are gods; and ye are all sons of the Highest.”44194419 Ps. lxxxii. 6, 7. But since we could not sustain the power of divinity, He adds, “But ye shall die like men,” setting forth both truths—the kindness of His free gift, and our weakness, and also that we were possessed of power over ourselves. For after His great kindness He graciously conferred good [upon us], and made men like to Himself, [that is] in their own power; while at the same time by His prescience He knew the infirmity of human beings, and the consequences which would flow from it; but through [His] love and [His] power, He shall overcome the substance of created nature. That is, that man’s human nature should not prevent him from becoming a partaker of the divine. **For it was necessary, at first, that nature should be exhibited; then, after that, that what was mortal should be conquered and swallowed up by immortality, and the corruptible by incorruptibility, and that man should be made after the image and likeness of God, having received the knowledge of good and evil. **

Charity, TOm

 

[KathleenGee]

Tom,

You are reading the ECF’s through a source that is cherry picking.

The Old Testament laid down the understanding of God, not only in tenants but also in the experiences of the ancient Jewish people.

The constant theme was the One True God and being faithful to Him. The two bad ones were: Infidelity and Idolatry. The Golden Calf was really an extension of the people themselves…using the Golden Calf to become prosperous and make their self will their own gods. That is what Satan did to Adam and Eve, tempting them to become gods.

Anyway, Christ came at the appointed time for all of humanity. And His focus was to break sin, to break the power of bondage over people, and to give them new life and freedom…through Him…in the Eucharist.

The Eucharist is the Counter point to the Forbidden Fruit.

To experience new life in Christ, to experience freedom from sin and human bondage, so apparent and overwhelming in the ancient Roman empire, the immense inhumanity, the collapsing of The Law within Judaism, the early Christians were most aware of the extreme difference of how life was before Christ, and now the new life in Him, whose effect caused them to say they were as gods. If you asked them if they were now separate as deified entities separate from Christ, they would say this is falsehood.

You have to take their claims in the context of the life they were living in.

For Jesus to have Peter go into Rome to establish the main headquarters of His Universal Church there is like Hans Solo going on his spaceship into the Evil Empire…this tiny space ship going into this huge globe…that is what Christ did.

Just placing His Church at the center of the Roman Empire was a sign of triumph and hope, even though this caused many martyrs for hundreds of years.

The Old Testament teaches us and acclaims to us there is only One, True God and that the greatest problem in the world is sin.

Only something of God Himself can appease sin and take it away and that is Jesus Christ.

 

[KathleenGee]

I would have to go back and find the source that shows the early Church Fathers affirming there is only One True God and Creator.

Also, I made a big mistake. The book that is on the Early Christian Mass, that would help clarify the belief in the Eucharist and our relationship to the Lord …

“The Mass of the Early Christians”, by Mike Aquilina. I was incorrect on giving you, Tom, Peter Madrid’s book, although I do think he has written on the Mass.

Another good read is Scott Hahn’s ‘Worthy is the Lamb’, although this addresses more the Protestant concern of justification.

Faith and Certitude covers issues of our thought processes and restlessness. True faith is always affirm and certain. But what is the criteria for such belief? Fr Thomas Dubay is the greatest spiritual director coming out of America, a Marist priest based in Washington, DC, who passed away several years ago. I read part of his book, ‘The Fire Within’, regarding SS Theresa of Avila and John of the Cross, Carmelite reformers.