I was also born and raised LDS and lived my entire life in Utah. Everything that you stated in your post is so true!..whats amazing to me is that some of the teachings when I was growing up isn’t the same as what the mormon church teaches today. I was always told the church would NEVER change:shrug:From what I read above, I think the concern might be not that doctrine has developed, but that this development was done by prophets, not ECF’s.
doctrinal development as understood by Catholics is more of “fleshing out” of revealed doctrine. it can’t change to something opposite. ECF’s aren’t the same as LDS general authorities either. they are more like theologians. many also held ecclesiastical authority but that was limited to their specific office. Origen was not the pope nor was he the spokesperson for the church. we value the writings of the ECFs because it gives us great insight into what these early Christians thought and understood. For the most part Catholics would consider ECF writings to be more like Mconkie’s Doctrine than like JoD or other conference reports. and to directly respond to you… YES!!! some ECF’s were kind of renegades, hence my comparison to Mconkie and I might also accept a comparison to Orson Pratts the seer for some of them. Some ECF’s were respected bishops and did their best in their writings to teach what they believed but the magisterium doesn’t rest in them. The doctrine of the church can be seen clearly in cannon law and the catechism, the documents of the various councils and the various papal proclamations that were made ex cathedra on matters of faith and morals.
Ha, so you think McConkie was renegade. Well, we finally agree on something! In your quote above, you’re probably refering to something on another thread which has been well beaten before so I’ll try to stick to the subject of the OP.
Origen and the 15 anathemas against him:
That is an interesting speculation! One minor bit of detail overlooked: God is pure Spirit so ‘how could He have intercourse like any man!’
Oh please, for everyone who is tempted to make gratuitous statements like this, based on thin air, please, I would ask you all, to refrain.
However, it is interesting the similarity between Swedenborg’s heavenly levels and Joseph Smith’s. Not that it is very likely that Joseph knew about Swedenborg. Probably just a coincidence.
Can you be more specific? Your “wondering” about vague suggestions is not helping us to nail anything down. I’d be curious about doctrinal evolutions myself. If you could present two or three examples, then maybe we could get at them.
Actually no, we have a 20 century head start
i’m a little confused about what you are referring to. do you mean baptism of desire? limbo was/is a concept that applied to unbaptized infants (and children under the age of accountability) that expressed the fact that we do not what God does in those cases. The Catholic church has always left it up to God regarding who goes to heaven. could you be more specific?
I’m probably mixing concepts up here. I told you it was a vague memory. I thought that limbo had been discontinued and was replaced by the believer’s baptism. Unbaptised infants do grow into adults. So what becomes of them? It’s probably not baptism on behalf of the dead? Believer’s baptism? Is limbo part of the “deposit of faith?”
Hi Sixtus,That is an interesting speculation! One minor bit of detail overlooked: God is pure Spirit so ‘how could He have intercourse like any man!’
Why would the Creator have to rely on behaving like the created!
“Limbo” was never a doctrine. It was just a word used to describe the inability of us to know what becomes of babies and children under the age of accountability who die unbaptized.
I think the question was not whether Catholic doctrine has evolved “into truth” or “away from truth;” but whether it has evolved at all. The answer is that it has—and not always “into truth”. For example, once upon a time the Catholic Church taught that Children who died in infancy without baptism would go to hell. Then, when that became politically incorrect, they changed hell to limbo, which was not much better. Now they seem to be back-pedalling on that as well, and saying that we don’t know! I have already discussed that subject in this thread. That is a huge thread. Don’t start reading from the beginning. My discussion of the subject begins in post #584, and ends in post #627. That is the range you need to look at to see the full discussion.Actually no, we have a 20 century head start
Some have evolved but ‘away’ from the truth. I am not saying Mormonism is in that group. I am not qualified to say, that is for the True Church to decide. But we have not evolved away but evolved into the very truth and will continue to do so, while we remain loyal to Christ’s Holy authority vested in His appointed Shepherd the Bishop of Rome.
The Holy Church will continue to evolve and the deposit of faith continue to grow until the end of time when the then Bishop of Rome the successor of Peter will hand back the keys to Christ.
So, Zerinus announces that the question wasn’t whether Catholic doctrine has evolved “into truth” or “away from truth” yet then proceeds to answer the question that he says wasn’t asked. In any case, I doubt there is serious question whether there has been development of Catholic doctrine over the centuries. And since, according to Z, THAT is the question, then we can let it remain there, because it is clear that Z being a Mormon is under the impression that the Catholic Church is and has been apostate since the end of the first century A.D. Therefore, any evolution of doctrine therein is not worth consideration, and one doth wonder why he gives it so much.
What you mean, “we” kimosabe? You’re not a Catholic, so it seems your choice of pronouns is inappropriate.
Well! That is certainly a stinging rebuke of Catholic doctrine on Immaculate Conception, and one which we should immediately forward over to Pope Benedict so that he can be apprised. After such a thorough and scholarly condemnation of this important Catholic Doctrine by Zerinus, no doubt the Pope will want to revisit it with a view of reversing the 1854 definition.