Petrine Papacy and Apostolic Succession

[MDK]

Well that’s an interesting take - The RCC, not the Bible is the source or pillar, of truth, not the Bible.

If that’s what you believe then you don’t have to find support for your beliefs (consubstantiality) in the Bible. The RCC can simply “create” new beliefs as it see fit. That’s a consistent positioni and logical so if that’s what you are asserting - I have no complaint. If you will read my claims, I asserted that it wasn’t in the Bible but added later.

It’s interesting for those who don’t understand what Christ did. It’s wonderful for those who do. This is what I was saying about your lack of understanding of authority and lack of background for a decent and smooth conversation. Do you understand the following Scripture passage?

1 Tim 3:15
“But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.”

 

[Snow]

"Around 180 Irenaeus of Lyons wrote that “Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching in Rome and laying the foundation of the Church. After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, did also hand down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter. Luke also, the companion of Paul, recorded in a book the Gospel preached by him. Afterwards John, the disciple of the Lord, who also had leaned upon his breast, did himself publish a Gospel during his residence at Ephesus in Asia” (Against Heresies 3:1:1).

Fifty years earlier Papias, bishop of Hieropolis in Asia Minor, wrote, “Matthew compiled the sayings [of the Lord] in the Aramaic language, and everyone translated them as well as he could” (Explanation of the Sayings of the Lord [cited by Eusebius in History of the Church 3:39]).

Sometime after 244 the Scripture scholar Origen wrote, “Among the four Gospels, which are the only indisputable ones in the Church of God under heaven, I have learned by tradition that the first was written by Matthew, who was once a publican, but afterwards an apostle of Jesus Christ, and it was prepared for the converts from Judaism and published in the Hebrew language” (Commentaries on Matthew [cited by Eusebius in History of the Church 6:25]).

Eusebius himself declared that “Matthew had begun by preaching to the Hebrews, and when he made up his mind to go to others too, he committed his own Gospel to writing in his native tongue [Aramaic], so that for those with whom he was no longer present the gap left by his departure was filled by what he wrote” (History of the Church 3:24 [inter 300-325])"

credit: catholic.com/thisrock/1993/9304qq.asp

Your claim was every Church Father said so, was it not?

I did not ask about what Eusebius said Papias said. I already posted what he said earlier.

Again: What did Polycarp have to say about it? Athanaisus? Gregory and Ambrose?

 

[Matariel]

It’s very simple. You said that you could demonstrate the Trinity, specifically consubstantiality, from the scriptures. Then you posted a bunch of scriptures none of which addressed the issue.

That’s irrelevant anyway, Snow; the Scriptures are the history of Man’s relationship with God, and it is not a complete doctrinal guide. So not all doctrines are found within the confines of the Bible (like being against abortion, embryonic stem-cell reseach, Assumption, etc.).

I’ll challenge you again. Pick your couple strongest scripture that speak to consubstantiality and then through exegesis demonstrate how they prove consubstantiality. If you can do it, you would be the first person in history.

Like I said, this is irrelevant. If I recall correctly, your unintentionally de-railing this thread. You’re supposed to be presenting proofs of the falling away in the early Catholic Church.

Who cares what you find ludicrous. No one.

You need to be charitable! Stop being condescending. Speak respectfully, if you want people to have a good image of the Latter-Day Saints Church.

 

[Snow]

It’s interesting for those who don’t understand what Christ did. It’s wonderful for those who do. This is what I was saying about your lack of understanding of authority and lack of background for a decent and smooth conversation. Do you understand the following Scripture passage?

1 Tim 3:15
“But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.”

I don’t need to be lectured by you. You SAY I do not understand and you cannot demonstrate that I misunderstand. Why is that? Why can’t you demonstrate what you claim.

What you really mean if that I don’t agree with you. I don’t, but that has nothing to do with me not understanding.

Now - stop obsessing about me and prove your claims.

 

[Snow]

That’s irrelevant anyway, Snow; the Scriptures are the history of Man’s relationship with God, and it is not a complete doctrinal guide. So not all doctrines are found within the confines of the Bible (like being against abortion, embryonic stem-cell reseach, Assumption, etc.).

Like I said, this is irrelevant. If I recall correctly, your unintentionally de-railing this thread. You’re supposed to be presenting proofs of the falling away in the early Catholic Church.

YOU say it is irrelevant but the people I have been discussing it with claim that it isn’t and that they can comes from the scriptures. You seem to agree with me which is why I am not debating with you.

You need to be charitable! Stop being condescending. Speak respectfully, if you want people to have a good image of the Latter-Day Saints Church.

You will note that I have not called posters names (at least not much - I do call on name-callers to stop acting childishly), I don’t assert as fact things I am not willing to support, that I don’t call the RCC a cult. I don’t start insulting and marginalizing posters with topics that are not part of the discussion… and you will note that I do not take kindly to those that do those things. Perhaps you ought to be admonishing them. I have not responded harshly to a single poster save they have first tried to marginalize and denigrate my faith.

 

[Matariel]

You will note that I have not called posters names (at least not much - I do call on name-callers to stop acting childishly), I don’t assert as fact things I am not willing to support, that I don’t call the RCC a cult. I don’t start insulting and marginalizing posters with topics that are not part of the discussion… and you will note that I do not take kindly to those that do those things. Perhaps you ought to be admonishing them. I have not responded harshly to a single poster save they have first tried to marginalize and denigrate my faith.

Well, it must be admitted, that our doctrine of the Trinity of God is a central dogma of our Faith.

Catholics say that God is three Hypostases in One.
We call this the Trinity.

Mormons say that God has three distinct Personages, and they are united in will, correct? And Mormons are henotheists, too, right?

So there is no denying that we have a fundamental difference. Would Mormons subscribe to the Nicene Creed (minus the “holy Catholic Church” line.)

 

[mercygate]

The understanding that the Persons of the Trinity was discerned apophatically as the Church came up against the various heresies that assaulted the faith in the first four centuries.

E.g.

Proposition: Jesus was a man but not truly God.

Church: Hmm. But the Lord says “I and the Father are one.” So Jesus must be truly God.

Proposition: Jesus is truly God but only appeared to be a man.

Church: Hmm. But the Lord says “spirits have not flesh and bone as I have.” So Jesus must be truly Man.

. . . and . . . so . . . forth.

As others have ably demonstrated, the doctrine of the Trinity is limned in Scripture but not defined in detail. The Holy Spirit, as Our Lord promised on his last night on earth, came to “guide you into all the truth.” IS the doctrine in Scripture? Yes. Is it fully delineated in Scripture? No. And that is NOT a problem.

Doctrine does not expand or contract. Our understanding of doctrine becomes clearer as we contemplate the mystery of Our Lord’s life from the heart of the Church.

 

[Snow]

Well, it must be admitted, that our doctrine of the Trinity of God is a central dogma of our Faith.

Catholics say that God is three Hypostases in One.
We call this the Trinity.

Mormons say that God has three distinct Personages, and they are united in will, correct? And Mormons are henotheists, too, right?

Kinda.

Catholic say that God is comprised of three hypostases who are One ontological substance.

Mormons all say that God is one, Father, Son Holy Ghost but the nature of their oneness is unity of purpose and will rather that substance.

Some people characterize Trinitarians as polytheist. I do not. Some may say that Mormons are henotheist. That’s one way to look at it though Mormons would generally say they are monotheistic. It wouldn’t be fair to say that we are henotheistic because of our belief in the Godhead as we believe that the member of the Godhead (trinity) together are one God. Perhaps you are referring to LDS teachings that there are other gods. In that regard henotheistic may apply but we really know nothing about them - are the omnipotent deities separate from God? Are they divine angel-like creatures that do God’s bidding? Don’t know. The Bible does speak of gods, besides God and typically most people don’t consider the Bible to be henotheistic.

So there is no denying that we have a fundamental difference. Would Mormons subscribe to the Nicene Creed (minus the “holy Catholic Church” line.)

Which creed? 325 or 381?

Regardless - no, we wouldn’t. We don’t believe in ‘the same substance,’ and our belief is better understood, probably, as subordinationist.

 

[Snow]

The understanding that the Persons of the Trinity was discerned apophatically as the Church came up against the various heresies that assaulted the faith in the first four centuries.

E.g.

Proposition: Jesus was a man but not truly God.

Church: Hmm. But the Lord says “I and the Father are one.” So Jesus must be truly God.

Lets test your logic for a minute.

You claim that since The Father is one with The Son, and The Father is God, that therefore The Son is God.

Right?

John 17 tells us: 20. My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, 21. that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me.

So, we are to be one with God in the very same way that Christ is one with the Father.

Using your logic, we must conclude that man will be God.

See the issue here?

 

[Matariel]

Some people characterize Trinitarians as polytheist. I do not. Some may say that Mormons are henotheist. That’s one way to look at it though Mormons would generally say they are monotheistic. It wouldn’t be fair to say that we are henotheistic because of our belief in the Godhead as we believe that the member of the Godhead (trinity) together are one God. Perhaps you are referring to LDS teachings that there are other gods. In that regard henotheistic may apply but we really know nothing about them - are the omnipotent deities separate from God? Are they divine angel-like creatures that do God’s bidding? Don’t know. The Bible does speak of gods, besides God and typically most people don’t consider the Bible to be henotheistic.

Yeah, I guess most other Christians see those other gods in Scripture as referring to fallen spirits worshipped by Pagans (as St. Paul said, “be there gods many and lords many”). That’s how I see it. But I don’t see these beings as divine in the same sense God is, that is, ontologically divine. “Spiritual” is the word I’m looking for, yeah, that’s it.

Which creed? 325 or 381?

“Nicene” usually refers to the 381 Creed, although Niceno-Constantinopolian would more aptly describe it.

Regardless - no, we wouldn’t. We don’t believe in ‘the same substance,’ and our belief is better understood, probably, as subordinationist.

Hm. I see. What do y’all thing of St. Athanasius and the heretic Arius? Where do you think they derived their views from? Do you consider St. Athanasius an heretic?

 

[Matariel]

Lets test your logic for a minute.

You claim that since The Father is one with The Son, and The Father is God, that therefore The Son is God.

Right?

John 17 tells us: 20. My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, 21. that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me.

So, we are to be one with God in the very same way that Christ is one with the Father.

Using your logic, we must conclude that man will be God.

See the issue here?

She was just giving an introduction to it, not a comprehensive thesis.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Using your logic, we must conclude that man will be God.

See the issue here?

What issue is that? Theosis is a catholic belief. There is a good thread on this topic here.

 

[Snow]

Yeah, I guess most other Christians see those other gods in Scripture as referring to fallen spirits worshipped by Pagans (as St. Paul said, “be there gods many and lords many”). That;s how I see it. But I don’t see these beings as divine in the same sense God is, that is, ontologically divine. “Spiritual” is the word I’m looking for, yeah, that’s it.

That’s an interesting topic… for another time I hope. I got to get away from my computer.

“Nicene” usually refers to the 381 Creed, although Niceno-Constantinopolian would more aptly describe it.

Hm. I see. What do y’all thing of St. Athanasius and the heretic Arius? Where do you think they derived their views from? Do you consider St. Athanasius an heretic?

Us all?

Generally rank and file Mormons aren’t very informed on the early Fathers, nor do we talk in terms of heresy. I personally don’t think Athanasius was a heretic, and understand that post Nicea Arius was viewed as a heretic.

However, I have a bunch of references that explain that prior to Nicea, sub-ordinationism was the “orthodoxy” if indeed you could really pin anything down to an orthodoxy.

 

[Matariel]

That’s an interesting topic… for another time I hope. I got to get away from my computer.

Hm. Yes. Perhaps we can discuss it in a new thread?

However, I have a bunch of references that explain that prior to Nicea, sub-ordinationism was the “orthodoxy” if indeed you could really pin anything down to an orthodoxy.

Well-- I’m not sure, but I think that Catholics-- I could be wrong-- believe that Christ *willfully submits *to the Father, as does the Holy Spirit. But this is not ontological subordination, which is against Catholic teaching. The Father is also the eternal Begetter and eternal Generator of the Son and the Spirit, respectively. I.e., the Father is the Source of the other two Hypostases.

Also, don’t Mormons believe in a Heavenly Mother? Catholics do-- Blessed Mary-- but she is in no way divine and we don’t worship her.

If Mormons do, do they believe she (the unnamed Heavenly Mother) is a Creatrix alongside of the Creator?

 

[mercygate]

Lets test your logic for a minute.

You claim that since The Father is one with The Son, and The Father is God, that therefore The Son is God.

Right?

John 17 tells us: 20. My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, 21. that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me.

So, we are to be one with God in the very same way that Christ is one with the Father.

Using your logic, we must conclude that man will be God.

See the issue here?

I did not provide a good example. It is more than a one-verse issue. The unity of the communion and the unity of the Godhead are two different things. It was just this sort of question that prompted the heresy of monothelitism. And I don’t even want to START on the matter of “theosis.”

 

[cazayoux]

Lets test your logic for a minute.

You claim that since The Father is one with The Son, and The Father is God, that therefore The Son is God.

Right?

John 17 tells us: 20. My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, 21. that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me.

So, we are to be one with God in the very same way that Christ is one with the Father.

Using your logic, we must conclude that man will be God.

See the issue here?

There is more than just this passage to discuss the divinity of Christ.
Reach John chapter 10 and tell me in your words what Jesus claimed, what these monotheistic Jews were about to do and WHY?

michel

 

[BDawg]

I did not provide a good example. It is more than a one-verse issue. The unity of the communion and the unity of the Godhead are two different things. It was just this sort of question that prompted the heresy of monothelitism. And I don’t even want to START on the matter of “theosis.”

Hi mercygate,

Where else in the Bible does it say anything about HOW the Father and Son are “one”? You can dismiss Snow’s point as “not a one verse issue,” but then it seems like it’s your turn to provide all those other verses that should mitigate his reading.

The passage in question says that we should be one in each other, and one in the Father and Son, “JUST AS” the Father and Son are one in each other.

It was very common for early Jews and Jewish Christians to believe that God had a body in human form (like the Mormons believe.) As Greek philosophical ideas were adopted into Christianity in the second century, this became less common, and instead God was thought of as something utterly foreign to human nature.

Likewise, the entire pre-Nicene church (sans the Modalists) was subordinationist (like the Mormons). So they could believe that the Father and Son were separate beings, but one in will, power, love, etc. (like the Mormons.)

Given the early context of belief, Snow’s reading of John 17 is quite reasonable.

 

[BDawg]

There is more than just this passage to discuss the divinity of Christ.
Reach John chapter 10 and tell me in your words what Jesus claimed, what these monotheistic Jews were about to do and WHY?

michel

Michel,

The question is, what other verses are there that discuss the Divine Unity? HOW is the Trinity ONE? I don’t know of any.

 

[mercygate]

Hi mercygate,

Where else in the Bible does it say anything about HOW the Father and Son are “one”? You can dismiss Snow’s point as “not a one verse issue,” but then it seems like it’s your turn to provide all those other verses that should mitigate his reading.

The passage in question says that we should be one in each other, and one in the Father and Son, “JUST AS” the Father and Son are one in each other.

It was very common for early Jews and Jewish Christians to believe that God had a body in human form (like the Mormons believe.) As Greek philosophical ideas were adopted into Christianity in the second century, this became less common, and instead God was thought of as something utterly foreign to human nature.

Likewise, the entire pre-Nicene church (sans the Modalists) was subordinationist (like the Mormons). So they could believe that the Father and Son were separate beings, but one in will, power, love, etc. (like the Mormons.)

Given the early context of belief, Snow’s reading of John 17 is quite reasonable.

But the early context of belief includes the great councils that settled the question: Nicea, Ephesus & Constantinople. Anybody can pick up a Bible, derive a non-Christian Christology out of it, and think it is “scriptural.”

 

[cazayoux]

Michel,

The question is, what other verses are there that discuss the Divine Unity? HOW is the Trinity ONE? I don’t know of any.

We can’t just skip over John 10, though. It’s part of the discussion.
Jesus claims to BE God.
The Jews considered this blasphemous and were about to stone him for it.

What to do with this claim of Jesus?
Is he lying?
Did the Jews not correctly understand what he was saying?
If the Jews misunderstood, why didn’t Jesus clarify?

Jesus IS God. Jesus said so.

michel