My visit to Utah

[Todd520]

Todd,

The Church endured upheavals and persecution in its first three hundred years…a primitive church…When peace and acceptance came, and Greek was the international language, the word universal Christian was used as Christ came for all…and Catholic in Greek is Katholic.

I’m trying to seperate it as

• all catholics are christian but not all christians are catholic

Again, christian is the generic definition of people who follow Christs teachings, so

• everyone who knew and followed Christ, including the 12 apostles, were Christian
• the apostles were the forefaters of Catholicism, but they were not catholic.
• True Catholics appeared as the Church took form and structure (2nd century)

Another example
Pilgrims/settlers who came to North America and lived and died before the US became a country were ‘colonists’ and my forefathers, but they were not “Americans” Only someone alive and participating after 1776 can be ‘American’ I see Catholic in a similar light

 

[RebeccaJ]

**The Church Is Catholic (Matt. 28:19–20, Rev. 5:9–10, CCC 830–856) **
Jesus’ Church is called catholic (“universal” in Greek) because it is his gift to all people. He told his apostles to go throughout the world and make disciples of “all nations” (Matt. 28:19–20).

  				For 2,000 years the Catholic Church has carried out this mission, preaching 						the good news that Christ died for all men and that he wants all of us 						to be members of his universal family (Gal. 3:28).

  				Nowadays the Catholic Church is found in every country of the world 						and is still sending out missionaries to "make disciples of all nations" 						(Matt. 28:19).

  				The Church Jesus established was known by its most common title, "the 						Catholic Church," at least as early as the year 107, when Ignatius 						of Antioch used that title to describe the one Church Jesus founded. The 						title apparently was old in Ignatius’s time, which means it probably went 						all the way back to the time of the apostles.

Pillar of Truth, Pillar of Fire

 

[mrmagoo661]

Good Call Rebecca.

I’m sure the first Christians were a lot like Mormons. Right Todd?

But seriously Todd. What happened to those first Christians that you speak of? Did they just vanish? Oh… Yeah. The Great Apostasy. Ahha. That explains it. That explains everything.

 

[PeanutBono]

read this whole thing if you want the mormons take of what happened to them:

boap.org/LDS/History/History_of_the_Church/Vol_1

 

[SteveVH]

I’m trying to seperate it as

• all catholics are christian but not all christians are catholic

We’re talking about the early Church, not 500 years ago. There was only one Church and they didn’t even call themselves “Christians”. They were followers of “The Way”. “Christian” came later and “Catholic” even a little later. So what? We are still talking about the same Church regardless of what it was called at various times. It was one because it was Apostolic and believed one set of doctrines, not because it was called one thing or another.

Again, christian is the generic definition of people who follow Christs teachings, so

• everyone who knew and followed Christ, including the 12 apostles, were Christian
• the apostles were the forefaters of Catholicism, but they were not catholic.
• True Catholics appeared as the Church took form and structure (2nd century)

I’m not even sure what to say here, Todd. The forefathers of Catholicism were not Catholic? And what is a “True Catholic” ? The Church had form and structure from the beginning, for all intents and puposes. It ordained bishops and deacons and set up Churches headed by those in authority. Acts provides certain evidence of a structured Church (Council of Jerusalem).

Another example
Pilgrims/settlers who came to North America and lived and died before the US became a country were ‘colonists’ and my forefathers, but they were not “Americans” Only someone alive and participating after 1776 can be ‘American’ I see Catholic in a similar light

No. It is much more like the transition in names from “negro”, to “colored”, to “black”, to “African American”. They all reference the same race of people. The name does not change who they are any more than a name for the early Church changes what it is.

 

[mrmagoo661]

If he admits that the church never fell away then there is no Great Apostasy. If there was no Great Apostasy, there is no need for Joseph Smith.

 

[KathleenGee]

Another identity in areas of persecutions was adhering to ‘The Secret’…the other name for Eucharist…there were places people went daily…

There were also those who did not believe in the Eucharist, and it was the great heresy…not believing in the Sacrament…just as the prior followers of Christ did who turned away when He first said His followers would eat of His flesh and blood…

 

[PeanutBono]

If he admits that the church never fell away then there is no Great Apostasy. If there was no Great Apostasy, there is no need for Joseph Smith.

You would be correct, if there was no falling away then there would be no need for a restoration and no need for Joseph Smith but our church never has stated there was not a falling away so we believe a restoration had to take place. you can read our churches official stance in a link I posted a few posts back in this thread

 

[mrmagoo661]

You would be correct, if there was no falling away then there would be no need for a restoration and no need for Joseph Smith but our church never has stated there was not a falling away so we believe a restoration had to take place. you can read our churches official stance in a link I posted a few posts back in this thread

So when did this happen exactly. I know what your church says. They can’t pin it down. I want to know what you say.

 

[KathleenGee]

What little I understand of Mormon teachings…and I did reflect somewhat on the people’s faith and history while there…the only problem I have is that I never came across such teachings ever in my life reading other Christian beliefs until I came across the Mormons…

I mean, I haven’t seen anything unique like theirs…reflecting on protestant and eastern teachings, Nestorianism, and so on…the American Mormon teachings are quite unique.

 

[Timothy17]

Not everyone has a religious vocation.

It’s comparing apples and organges to take the Church Universal on one hand, which is as a loving Mother to fallen man, and to compare it with Mormonism, which demands active religiosity of each member. It would be like asking every Catholic to live a monastic life : surely, we could do and demand that, and quite quickly everyone would be talking about how disciplined, how well-behaved, how sober, how upright the Catholics are !

Admit it : Mormonism takes a lot of people, and makes them “better” people (sound familiar ? No, not a coincidence) ; but it cannot take the whole mass of man into its bosom - it would deny and discard large portions. Catholicism, as history shows, was, is, and likely always will be perfectly fit for nations and societies at large. That’s the difference. The Mormons bear fruit of active works : its the work that begets the benefits they enjoy. There is nothing stopping parishes from being more vigorous in a similar capacity.

Again, if the Church forced all Catholics into Monasteries for a certain period of time and formation, surely we would see remarkable results - but how many nations, societies or communities are made up of “monastic” people ? The Church’s teaching on vocation is important here, and in practice accurate : some are called to religious life and a stricter, more active obedience ; others are called to the lay life, and to family. Each has its peculiar capacity, its peculiar role, and its peculiar benefit to the whole.

Pax,
Tim

 

[PeanutBono]

So when did this happen exactly. I know what your church says. They can’t pin it down. I want to know what you say.

if you read the link I posted the church was very clear at p(name removed by moderator)ointing where. ( Yow will need to scroll down a bit to where there is a heading that says The Announcement of the Universal Apostasy.) I hold true that after the death of Peter and Paul there were great divisions amongst the remaining Chrisitians until they were united by Constantine emperor of Rome and when it became the official religion of Rome

 

[PeanutBono]

Not everyone has a religious vocation.

It’s comparing apples and organges to take the Church Universal on one hand, which is as a loving Mother to fallen man, and to compare it with Mormonism, which demands active religiosity of each member. It would be like asking every Catholic to live a monastic life : surely, we could do and demand that, and quite quickly everyone would be talking about how disciplined, how well-behaved, how sober, how upright the Catholics are !

Admit it : Mormonism takes a lot of people, and makes them “better” people (sound familiar ? No, not a coincidence) ; but it cannot take the whole mass of man into its bosom - it would deny and discard large portions. Catholicism, as history shows, was, is, and likely always will be perfectly fit for nations and societies at large. That’s the difference. The Mormons bear fruit of active works : its the work that begets the benefits they enjoy. There is nothing stopping parishes from being more vigorous in a similar capacity.

Again, if the Church forced all Catholics into Monasteries for a certain period of time and formation, surely we would see remarkable results - but how many nations, societies or communities are made up of “monastic” people ? The Church’s teaching on vocation is important here, and in practice accurate : some are called to religious life and a stricter, more active obedience ; others are called to the lay life, and to family. Each has its peculiar capacity, its peculiar role, and its peculiar benefit to the whole.

I too believe that God the Great Governor of the Universe of Heaven and Earth loves each of us individually and without prejudice he does not care who we are, his love is endless. I believe he will put us in places where we will find he most joy and happiness and where we can be of most use to serving him. No one religion can usurp this great love God has for us and his perfect wisdom. I found your response to be very concise and appreciated it greatly
Pax,
Tim

 

[Timothy17]

if you read the link I posted the church was very clear at p(name removed by moderator)ointing where. ( Yow will need to scroll down a bit to where there is a heading that says The Announcement of the Universal Apostasy.) I hold true that after the death of Peter and Paul there were great divisions amongst the remaining Chrisitians until they were united by Constantine emperor of Rome and when it became the official religion of Rome

I’m sorry, but this is fiction ; not history. Even a secular historian with a deep seated hatred of Christianity burning in his breast would have difficulty believing that.

Obvious truth :

Who founded Morminism ? The man, Joseph Smith.
Lutheranism ? The man, Martin Luther.
Anglicansim ? The man, King Henry et al.
Etc., etc., etc.

Who founded Catholicism ? We cannot say Constantine, for his mother was a nominal Catholic, and thus the religion preceded him ; furthermore, we already had the Church, and doctrines of the Church, as espoused by so many early Church Fathers, who each themselves received the doctrines from teachers via a discipleship. Constantine wrangled constantly with the Church, upset that the Church did not accept him as he saw himself, in a Caesaro-papist capacity : as the head of the Church. He wasn’t even baptized until his death bed. Funny thing to imagine that someone who wasn’t even officially a Christian somehow founded the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, which ever believed initiation into Christianity was by Baptism in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Constantine found the Church, as it were ; he did not found it, as it is.

You can hunt for the founder of Catholicism, and if you are honest in your academic pursuit, you will find yourself at Christ.

You can hunt for the source of the liturgy. You will find yourself at Calvary, and the Last Supper.

You can hunt for the teachers of Christianity, and you will find yourself at the Apostles, and their successors.

In sum, whereas so many congregations boast themselves as being the True Church, none can claim a direct lineage from Christ Himself, as the Church Catholic can and manifestly does.

Pax,
Tim

 

[PeanutBono]

I’m sorry, but this is fiction ; not history. Even a secular historian with a deep seated hatred of Christianity burning in his breast would have difficulty believing that.

Obvious truth :

Who founded Morminism ? The man, Joseph Smith.
Lutheranism ? The man, Martin Luther.
Anglicansim ? The man, King Henry et al.
Etc., etc., etc.

Who founded Catholicism ? We cannot say Constantine, for his mother was a nominal Catholic, and thus the religion preceded him ; furthermore, we already had the Church, and doctrines of the Church, as espoused by so many early Church Fathers, who each themselves received the doctrines from teachers via a discipleship. Constantine wrangled constantly with the Church, upset that the Church did not accept him as he saw himself, in a Caesaro-papist capacity : as the head of the Church. He wasn’t even baptized until his death bed. Funny thing to imagine that someone who wasn’t even officially a Christian somehow founded the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, which ever believed initiation into Christianity was by Baptism in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Constantine found the Church, as it were ; he did not found it, as it is.

You can hunt for the founder of Catholicism, and if you are honest in your academic pursuit, you will find yourself at Christ.

You can hunt for the source of the liturgy. You will find yourself at Calvary, and the Last Supper.

You can hunt for the teachers of Christianity, and you will find yourself at the Apostles, and their successors.

In sum, whereas so many congregations boast themselves as being the True Church, none can claim a direct lineage from Christ Himself, as the Church Catholic can and manifestly does.

We to claim the direct authority from Christ himself if you are familiar with our doctrine. He is the one who organized the church personally and physically according to our doctrines. I do not expect you to accept that that is your right. I do not wish to debate you on the Authenticity of your church claim to authority. As far as I am aware our two churches are the only two who claims to have a direct authority from Christ himself, others perhaps claim it through the spirit but I believe both of ours claim it directly and physically by the laying on of hands with a lineage back to Christ himself.

Pax,
Tim

 

[Timothy17]

We to claim the direct authority from Christ himself if you are familiar with our doctrine. He is the one who organized the church personally and physically according to our doctrines. I do not expect you to accept that that is your right. I do not wish to debate you on the Authenticity of your church claim to authority. As far as I am aware our two churches are the only two who claims to have a direct authority from Christ himself, others perhaps claim it through the spirit but I believe both of ours claim it directly and physically by the laying on of hands with a lineage back to Christ himself.

First, please insert your replies outside of my quotes, as it makes responding easier.

Second, you stated a manifest falsehood, which neither Faith* nor Reason can uphold ; namely, that the man Constantine founded the Church Catholic, which very name precedes him by centuries.

• Now, if your doctrines demand you confess with Christian Faith that Constantine is the founder of the Catholic Church, then your doctrines are manifestly fictions ; otherwise, you yourself stated a falsehood, which fault is academic and personal, and therefore you can recant of it, or at least defend it with standard argumentation. Either way, no reasonable person would admit you to take such liberty with facts, otherwise we would be at extreme difficulties to ever arrive at or determine singular truths.

Pax,
Tim

 

[Caprica]

Second, you stated a manifest falsehood, which neither Faith* nor Reason can uphold ; namely, that the man Constantine founded the Church Catholic, which very name precedes him by centuries.

Pax,
Tim

Where did he state that?

 

[PeanutBono]

Our doctrine does not demand we confess anything of any other Christian religion, I overstated in a manner to lead a person to believe that we think Constantine is the founder of the Catholic Church. If you read this link you will see our churches official stance on the matter. you need to scroll down to this part :
" It now becomes my melancholy task to trace through the early
Christian centuries the decline of the Christian religion. By this phrase
I mean that a really unChristian religion was gradually substituted for
the beautiful religion of Jesus Christ; that a universal apostasy from the
Christian doctrine and the Christian Church took place. So tracing the
decline of Christianity, I shall establish the truth of the first great
message with which the modern prophet, Joseph Smith, came to the world;
and shall also prove the fact, that a necessity existed for the
establishment of such a work as he claims, under God, to have founded, and
of which the several volumes of this work are the detailed history.

                Character of the Early Christians."

for me this was 22 scrolls on my mouse wheel down if that helps

here is the link: boap.org/LDS/History/History_of_the_Church/Vol_1

 

[Timothy17]

Where did he state that?

Peanut:

**I hold true that **after the death of Peter and Paul there were great divisions amongst the remaining Chrisitians **until they were united by Constantine emperor of Rome **and when it became the official religion of Rome

Which thing would, by logical consequence, make him the founder of some new thing (though stated politely and in a round-about way) ; namely, a new, “united” Christianity, which, up-to-that-point (according to this, which “[he] hold true”) had not existed.

He holds true that before Constantine there was one thing, and after him some new thing, that was begotten by him (Constantine), and thus through him (which, as Catholics, we know is no different than saying is founded or wrought by him, as when we confess of the Lord as Church, “In him, with him, through him…”) ; hence, he must argue that Constantine founded some new Church, which I am arguing against, as we know the Church Catholic preceded him and already had Apostolic tests and pedigrees for determining Catholicity, which process was made manifest to all, especially due to heresies that arose, which made Catholics demand evidence of Apostolicity, the first being of Simon Magus, which also demonstrated Peter’s use of the keys, which he was given by Christ Himself, as Scripture attests.

Pax,
Tim

 

[Timothy17]

…] If you read this link you will see our churches official stance on the matter …]

" It now becomes my melancholy task to trace through the early
Christian centuries the decline of the Christian religion.

Okay, first problem : this is an essay, not a doctrine : the author manifestly declares his intention to prove his thesis, “the decline of the Christian religion,” which quite stupendously he also confesses to actually be Christian religion. So he begins with his thesis, then sets to work proving it, and if as you believe the conclusion leads to such incredulous statements as Constantine in any way founding, organizing or constructing the Church Catholic, which history demonstrates to have preceded him by many generations, than what conclusion can we draw, except this doctrine is erroneous, and lends itself to errors ?

It is an easy thing to cherry pick historical facts and events in order to manipulate a desired conclusion or interpretation. It is also incredulous, but - I will give the author this much credit, at least he bothers to confess forthwith his particular intention, namely, to prove that the Christian religion he is exploring is somehow not actually Christian, though he quite speaks against himself by confessing it to be “Christian religion.”

Pax,
Tim