M
mfbukowski
Guest
OK so rebecca says you do believe in revelation. Which is it?
- Status
S
Snow
Guest
Perhaps… but if so why is there no trace of the modern concept of the Trinity as decided upon in the 4th and 5th century in the New Testament era and for years and years thereafter? That is: how do you know that Christ revealed it if there is absolutely no record of it?
Another way to look at it: It was Constantine, a non-Christian, murderer who had the concept of homoousis formulated into the doctrine of the Trinity at Nicea. How did Constantine get the teaching on down from the apostles when other Church leaders didn’t and/or were opposed to it? And why would God choose a murderer to formulate that part of the doctrine instead of, for example, the Pope?
S
Snow
Guest
I don’t understand either. Ashley has taken the time to explain that there is no ongoing or current revelation.
Yet there are examples of Catholic beliefs that are not taught in the Bible. If there is no on-going revelation, then by what mechanism are new teachings, not in the Bible (or not explicitly in the Bible) introduced? Though reason and deduction?
W
why_me
Guest
I don’t think that the catholic church would claim that the holy ghost is god as my prayer book claims. It didn’t make a distinction. I think that the lds would claim that the trinity is made up of three separate gods. But I am no expert.
S
Snow
Guest
From the Athanasian Creed:
"3. And the catholic faith is this: That we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity;
- Neither confounding the persons nor dividing the substance.
- For there is one person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the Holy Spirit.
- But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit is all one, the glory equal, the majesty coeternal.
- Such as the Father is, such is the Son, and such is the Holy Spirit.
- The Father uncreated, the Son uncreated, and the Holy Spirit uncreated.
- The Father incomprehensible, the Son incomprehensible, and the Holy Spirit incomprehensible.
- The Father eternal, the Son eternal, and the Holy Spirit eternal.
- And yet they are not three eternals but one eternal.
- As also there are not three uncreated nor three incomprehensible, but one uncreated and one incomprehensible."
The Holy Ghost is God.
The Church of Jesus Christ believes that The Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are three separate ontological entities, who together and one God and comprise the “Godhead.”
D
dr23flavors
Guest
Where did polygamy go? I think if you brought that back, more people would join. Seems to be the main draw. I might consider it if i could have like 20 wives.
S
Snow
Guest
Boy, that’s clever.
D
dr23flavors
Guest
I thought so, but dont bring back the racism and cult aspects. That just might push people away.
B
BDawg
Guest
Since Mormons believe the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are separate beings who are completely united in will, purpose, love, covenant (and just about every other way except that they are separate beings,) we can either call them separate “gods” or “one God.” Depends on the context, and what you are trying to emphasize.
Since neither the Bible nor the earliest post-Apostolic Christians say anything about the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as “one being,” or “one substance,” etc., I see no reason why we should change our minds on this.
Since neither the Bible nor the earliest post-Apostolic Christians say anything about the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as “one being,” or “one substance,” etc., I see no reason why we should change our minds on this.
B
BDawg
Guest
My understanding (which might be off a bit) is that Catholics believe in some kind of continuing revelation, but they make a distinction between apostolic/pre-apostolic revelation and post-apostolic revelation.
Up through the Apostles, the revelations that were recorded added to the “Deposit of Faith.” Now the “Deposit” is full, but we don’t necessarily understand it completely, so the Holy Spirit might guide us to a more full understanding. But no completely new information is to be expected.
Here’s a relevant passage from the Catechism, paragraphs 66-67.
So, I think there are differences in what Catholics and Mormons believe about revelation, but those differences are probably smaller than they are usually made out to be.
Rebecca is a former Mormon, so I think her comments were appropriate for the Mormons around here, while Ashley was speaking Catholic-ese, but not necessarily disagreeing with Rebecca.
Up through the Apostles, the revelations that were recorded added to the “Deposit of Faith.” Now the “Deposit” is full, but we don’t necessarily understand it completely, so the Holy Spirit might guide us to a more full understanding. But no completely new information is to be expected.
Here’s a relevant passage from the Catechism, paragraphs 66-67.
It gets confusing when Catholics and Mormons talk about this, because we use the terms somewhat differently. Mormons make fewer distinctions–revelation is just communication from God, and the Church’s “doctrine” is just what is actually taught and officially sanctioned. We can say that our doctrine might change in some respects over time, and we mean that God gives us new information that may enhance or alter our understanding of what came before. Catholics typically want to claim that their “doctrine” never changes, but to them that means some kind of unchanging entity that we may not fully understand at any given point in time. So what is actually taught and officially sanctioned might change (somewhat) over time, but that’s something different than the “doctrine.”[66](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/66.htm’)
"The Christian economy, therefore, since it is the new and definitive Covenant, will never pass away; and no new public revelation is to be expected before the glorious manifestation of our Lord Jesus Christ."28 Yet even if Revelation is already complete, it has not been made completely explicit; it remains for Christian faith gradually to grasp its full significance over the course of the centuries. [67](javascript
So, I think there are differences in what Catholics and Mormons believe about revelation, but those differences are probably smaller than they are usually made out to be.
Rebecca is a former Mormon, so I think her comments were appropriate for the Mormons around here, while Ashley was speaking Catholic-ese, but not necessarily disagreeing with Rebecca.
A
AshleyBelle
Guest
Code:
I think you are getting closer to the heart of the issue, but the two types of revelation are still very distinctly different. In the Catholic church, revelation will never nulify, change or contradict an existing doctrine. If a private revelation goes in anyway against church teaching, it is automatically considered in-valid.THIS is crucial for understanding the difference. Catholic doctrine will NOT change…period. When a teaching becomes doctrine, it is given the approval of the church, with the protection of the Holy Spirit, as free from error, unchanging, truth. It is my understanding that in the mormon church, doctrines HAVE in fact changed over the years. Polygamy being a key one… earlier in mormonism, it was viewed as a great sign of faith for a man to “be able to maintain more than one household…” Later, under pressure from the government, the church was forced to change their stance.
Similarly, the church did not permit African American pastors, but under pressure from the government again, made changes to its stance.
The Catholic Church has not, nor will it ever hold a doctrine that can or will be changed. I challenge you to find one doctrine that the church has changed through the years. The reason being, TRUTH is not subject to private revelation or change. We believe Christ revealed ALL truth from the beginning, and through the years, we have grown in that truth. Like a tiny seed, growing into a beautiful maple tree.
You also made this statement:
You are making a strange distinction here between what is “taught” and what is “sanctioned…” The church may only officially TEACH what it knows to be true… Maybe you are confusing what individuals may believe, with what the church knows to be true? As individuals we may interpret scripture, study theology, theorize… But we may NOT teach our personal ideas as “church teaching” unless they are in fact sanctioned by the church.
For example… Scott Hahn has written some great books! I love to study His understanding of theology… But while his writing is inspiring, and in fact “in line” with church teaching… It is not given the indellible seal of "theology according to Scott Hahn, the Doctrine… His books are not “church teaching.” He doesn’t speak with the authority of the church. If he was ever to say something in his books that were NOT in line with church teaching, it would be branded as heresy,
This is the key… We may have personal revelation and interpretations, but only under the guidelines established through Christ’s church; through apostolic authority. If any revelation or idea seeks to 'change" or “add to” or go against church teaching, it is not a valid revelation.
(continued)
A
AshleyBelle
Guest
(2 of 2)
You also spoke of the mormon understanding of the Trinity.
I don’t know if you’re familiar with Arianism, but my husband found this article on the CAF library that you may be interested in. The exact notion of the trinity accepted by mormons was once posed to the church, under a different name at the time.Many scholars and bishops tried to “define” the true understanding of the trinity. Our understanding of the trinitarian nature of God developed through sorting out heresy from truth, under the authority of the church…
Here is the article:
catholic.com/thisrock/2006/0602fea5.asp
You also spoke of the mormon understanding of the Trinity.
I don’t know if you’re familiar with Arianism, but my husband found this article on the CAF library that you may be interested in. The exact notion of the trinity accepted by mormons was once posed to the church, under a different name at the time.Many scholars and bishops tried to “define” the true understanding of the trinity. Our understanding of the trinitarian nature of God developed through sorting out heresy from truth, under the authority of the church…
Here is the article:
catholic.com/thisrock/2006/0602fea5.asp
P
PaulDupre
Guest
Catholics believe in revelation. Many of us experience it often. What we don’t believe in (unlike Mormons) is the revelation of novel doctrines. We believe that all doctrine was finally revealed by and through Jesus. The doctrine revealed by and through Jesus was reported to us by the apostles and handed down to us as the Deposit of Faith (scripture and sacred tradition).
Continuing revelation to the Church and its members helps us to more fully understand what Jesus already fulfilled and revealed, and helps us to apply those truths to our current time and place.
In this way, Catholic doctrine “develops” but never changes, as Cardinal Newman said.
You know, mf, we’ve explained this to you many, many times before but you refuse to absorb it. Why is that?
S
Snow
Guest
How then was the novel concept of the Trinity introduced?
R
Ruthie
Guest
Snow, the only thing “novel” about the Trinity is its name. The Bible doesn’t mention the word “Trinity” anywhere. But it can be seen throughout the Gospels. I don’t feel like looking them all up right now, but Mt 28:19 comes to mind.
It was codified in the first Nicene Creed, at the Council of Nicea, in 325, in reaction to the Arian heresy.
“We believe in one God the Father All-sovereign, maker of all things visible and invisible;
And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten of the Father, only-begotten, that is, of the substance of the Father, God of God, Light of Light, true God of true God, begotten not made, of one substance with the Father, through whom all things were made, things in Heaven and things on the earth; who for us men and our salvation came down and was made flesh, and became man, suffered, and rose on the third day, ascended into the heavens, is coming to judge living and dead.
And in the Holy Spirit.
And those that say ‘There was when he was not,’
and, ‘Before he was begotten he was not,’
and that ‘He came into being from what-is-not,’
or those that allege, that the son of God is
‘Of another substance or essence,’
or ‘created,’
or ‘changeable,’
or ‘alterable,’
these the Catholic and Apostolic Church anathemizes.”
God bless us all,
Ruthie
It was codified in the first Nicene Creed, at the Council of Nicea, in 325, in reaction to the Arian heresy.
“We believe in one God the Father All-sovereign, maker of all things visible and invisible;
And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten of the Father, only-begotten, that is, of the substance of the Father, God of God, Light of Light, true God of true God, begotten not made, of one substance with the Father, through whom all things were made, things in Heaven and things on the earth; who for us men and our salvation came down and was made flesh, and became man, suffered, and rose on the third day, ascended into the heavens, is coming to judge living and dead.
And in the Holy Spirit.
And those that say ‘There was when he was not,’
and, ‘Before he was begotten he was not,’
and that ‘He came into being from what-is-not,’
or those that allege, that the son of God is
‘Of another substance or essence,’
or ‘created,’
or ‘changeable,’
or ‘alterable,’
these the Catholic and Apostolic Church anathemizes.”
God bless us all,
Ruthie
P
PaulDupre
Guest
The doctrine of the trinity is evident from scripture. The bible, throughout, is very clear that there is only one God, there has never been any other God and will never be any other God. Yet the New Testament reveals to us the persons of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Therefore, if the scriptures do not lie, there is one God in three persons. This is essentially the reasoning used by the early Church councils to define the doctrine of the trinity.
BTW, if one believed the BOM on its face he would also have to believe in the trinity as did the early LDS organization and as do the RLDS to this day.
S
Snow
Guest
Very well then … please cite the specific Biblical verses that demonstrate that the three persons of God are of the same ontological substance.
Okay… please cite the specific Book of Mormonl verses that demonstrate that the three persons of God are of the same ontological substance.
B
BDawg
Guest
Hi Paul,
I believe there is one God, and only one God. And I believe that three Persons are that God. I just don’t believe they are “one” in the same sense that you do. Where in the Bible does it say that the three Persons are a single “Being” or “Substance,” for instance? Where does it say anything that can reasonably be interpreted to imply such a thing?
S
Snow
Guest
Then my request of you is the same as my request of Paul.
Please cite the specific Biblical verses that demonstrate that the three persons of God are of the same ontological substance.
People say that the Trinity doctrine - the whole thing - is in the Bible but so far I have never found a single person who can name the specific verses that prove consubstantiality.
A Jesuit [Catholic] scholar says this:
“There is no formal doctrine of the Trinity in the New Testament writers, if this means an explicit teaching that in one God there are three co-equal divine persons. But the three are there, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and a triadic ground plan is there, and triadic formulas are there…The Biblical witness to God, as we have seen, did not contain any formal or formulated doctrine of the Trinity, any explicit teaching that in one God there are three co-equal divine persons.” Edmund J. Fortman, The Triune God: A Historical Study of the Doctrine of the Trinity (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1972), 32,35
“…there is no trinitarian doctrine in the Synoptics or Acts…nowhere do we find any trinitarian doctrine [in the New Testament] of three distinct subjects of divine life and activity in the same God head…These passages * give no doctrine of the Trinity, but they show that Paul linked together Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. They give no trinitarian formula…but they offer material for the later development of trinitarian doctrine…[Paul] has no formal Trinitarian doctrine and no clear-cut realization of a Trinitarian problem…in John there is no trinitarian formula.” Edmund J. Fortman, The Triune God: A Historical Study of the Doctrine of the Trinity (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1972), 14,16, 22-23,
“The God whom we experience as triune is, in fact, triune. But we cannot read back into the New Testament, much less the Old Testament, the more sophisticated trinitarian theology and doctrine which slowly and often unevenly developed over the course of some fifteen centuries.” Richard P. McBrian, Catholicism (Minneapolis: Winston Press, 1980), 347
“This double series of texts manifests Paul’s lack of clarity in his conception of the relation of the Spirit to the Son. Paul shares with the Old Testament a more fluid notion of personality than the later theological refinements of nature, substance, and person. His lack of clarity should be respected for what it is and be regarded only as the starting point of the later development.” J Fitzmyer, Pauline Theology: A Brief Sketch (Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey): Prentice-Hall, 1967), 42.*
A
AshleyBelle
Guest
The simple fact is that there are a lot of ideas about what the Bible implies about the trinitarian nature of God.
But amid all the differing opinions and beliefs, the Church made an authoritative statement, defining the Trinity. Once again it comes down to authority… You will not find speciffic passages in the Bible which reveal the true understanding of the trinity…it is open to interpretation. That is why we trust the church’s interpretation. We trust it because we have the promise of the Holy Spirit. When the church makes a statement on such things, it is not just stating “an interpretation.” It is stating THE TRUTH on the matter, no matter how anybody else wants to interpret it.
This is why the church is so important to us, and why it is such a blessing from God
But amid all the differing opinions and beliefs, the Church made an authoritative statement, defining the Trinity. Once again it comes down to authority… You will not find speciffic passages in the Bible which reveal the true understanding of the trinity…it is open to interpretation. That is why we trust the church’s interpretation. We trust it because we have the promise of the Holy Spirit. When the church makes a statement on such things, it is not just stating “an interpretation.” It is stating THE TRUTH on the matter, no matter how anybody else wants to interpret it.
This is why the church is so important to us, and why it is such a blessing from God
- Status