Smithsonian statement on Book of Mormon

[catholic-rcia]

Will post the nicene creed tonight with all the Biblical Notes

---

The Apostles’ Creed

The basic Creed of the Catholic Church, as most familiarly known, is called the Apostles’ Creed. It has received this title because of its great antiquity; it dates from very early times in the Church, a half century from the last writings of the New Testament. In order to make certain that each apostle taught the same message, they jointly composed the Apostles’ Creed before their departure to teach all nations. The creed thus was created in the early 1st century

I believe in God, the Father Almighty, the Creator of heaven and earth, and in Jesus Christ, His only Son, our Lord: Who was conceived of the Holy Spirit, born of the Virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate, **(Historical event) **was crucified, died, and was buried. He descended into hell. The third day He arose again from the dead. He ascended into heaven and sits at the right hand of God the Father Almighty, whence He shall come to judge the living and the dead. I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Holy Catholic Church, the communion of saints, the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body, and life everlasting. Amen.

This Creed has been adequate to the ordinary needs of the Church, as is witnessed by its constant use down to our time. As special needs arose, however, various articles in the Creed have been expanded for greater clarification. (But never changed) The most noteworthy of these clarifications was made during the general council of the Church at Nicaea in the year 325 A.D., and in the council of Constantinople in 381. Each of these councils gave unequivocal answers defining the belief of true Christians against movements which threatened Christ’s teaching. For example, the Council of Nicaea had to make clear the truth of the eternity of Christ’s existence, as taught in the Gospel of John 1:1, against the Arian heresy which held that there was a time before which the Word was not. This clarification was in the form of a longer version of the Creed, which is recited during the Catholic Mass. It is called the Nicene Creed.

 

[catholic-rcia]

the Council of Nicaea had to make clear the truth of the eternity of Christ’s existence, as taught in the Gospel of John 1:1 and in so many other areas of Scripture, against the Arian heresy which held that there was a time before which the Word was not.

The Word always was, but we were not always.

God Bless

 

[oat_soda]

According to Tertullian

, writing c. 199, the Roman Church claimed that Clement was ordained by St. Peter (De Praescript., xxxii), and** St. Jerome tells us that in his time “most of the Latins” held that Clement was the immediate successor of the Apostle (De viris illustr., xv). St. Jerome himself in several other places follows this opinion, but here he correctly states that Clement was the fourth pope.** newadvent.org/cathen/04012c.htm why would tertullian in 199 and st. Jerome consider Clement a successor of Peter if clement wasn’t catholic?? where is the evidence of this apostasy??

I actually told you that the final leap was a leap of faith. My words were, “Religious truth is not founded upon observation it is founded upon faith. The question becomes is there a sufficient foundation from which to build?

faith seeking understanding is valid. we obviously have to take peoples word for many things. what we do is question the trust worthiness of the source. for the catholic faith, i can look back to the writings of tertullian in the 2nd century or jerome in the 4th and see that it is the same faith. i can find lists of popes all the way back to the 2nd century. the bible is proven to be historically accurate. this makes the truth of the catholic church proper knowledge and not improper where i have to take another’s word for it.

your faith is totally dependent on joe smith’s testimony in the 1830s. my faith is dependent on the written and oral Gospel of Jesus as preserved by the successors of the apostles who we can trace back to Jesus.

joe smith’s fabrications are totally dependent on a so called “apostasy” so that they are immune to historical scrutiny. you then are left with his trust worthiness.

it depresses me that someone could be as blind and close minded as you. how anyone could just ignore the mile high mountain of evidence against joe smith’s trust worthiness and still believe. there are limits to how smart people can be, but there are no limits to how stupid.

 

[TOmNossor]

Oat Soda quoted:

According to Tertullian

, writing c. 199, the Roman Church claimed that Clement was ordained by St. Peter (De Praescript., xxxii), and****St. Jerome tells us that in his time “most of the Latins” held that Clement was the immediate successor of the Apostle (De viris illustr., xv). St. Jerome himself in several other places follows this opinion, but here** he correctly states that Clement was the fourth pope.** newadvent.org/cathen/04012c.htm

Then said,
oat soda:

why would tertullian in 199 and st. Jerome consider Clement a successor of Peter if clement wasn’t catholic?? where is the evidence of this apostasy??

TOm:

You really should read more closely when you quote from places. The Catholic Encyclopedia is highlighting that the list of Bishops of Rome is not uniformly witnessed by all ECF. Tertullian and Jerome both called Clement the 2nd in succession from Peter. Jerome also called Clement the 4th which is the generally accepted Catholic position. This conflict is not a strong point for the Catholic Church. You should pay more attention to the things you quote, especially when you choose to call others “stupid.”

Tertullian was very clear that Clement was a Bishop of Rome and that Peter was the one at the head of the Bishops. He was also clear that it was a usurpation by the Bishop of Rome to claim Peter’s authority. Had you read my previous posts you might be reluctant to point to Tertullian to make you points.

Tertulian, On Modesty Chapter XXI.-Of the Difference Between Discipline and Power, and of the Power of the Keys:

"I now inquire into your opinion, to see whence you usurp this right for the Church. Do you presume, because the Lord said to Peter, ‘On this rock I will build my Church, I have given you the keys of the kingdom of heaven,’ or ‘whatever you shall have bound or loosed on earth will be bound of loosed in heaven,’ that the power of binding and loosing has thereby been handed on to you, that is, to every Church akin to Peter? What kind of man are you, subverting and changing what was the manifest intent of the Lord when He conferred this personally upon Peter? On you, He says, I will build my Church; and I will give you the keys, not to the Church; and whatever you shall have bound or you shall have loosed, not what they shall have bound or they shall have loosed.”

TOm:
I have linked to my position that Clement and Ignatius had no idea the Bishop of Rome was the head of the church.

I have shown the above Tertullian quote calls this usurping Peter’s authority.

I have shown that the power of the Pope is different than the power of Peter according to the Catholic Church.

It is also true that the authority of the Pope took 1800 years to develop and was never accepted by the EO Church.

I frequently show errors in the things you put forth and you respond by calling me “stupid.” (and not addressing your mistakes).

I again ask that you examine your ideas and tactics.

Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

Catholic-RCIA,

Here is what I put together. I got a little more specific than I had original intended, but I think this is pretty solid.

The Articles of Faith were first written in the Wentworth Letter. Article #1 is the only one that deals directly with the nature of the Trinity. I looked at Article #1 and it is identical (the word “Eternal” may or may not have been capitalized in the Wentworth Letter, but it is capitalized in the AoF).

Here is Article #1 (the only AoF that deals with the Trinity):

We believe in God the Eternal Father, and in His Son Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost.

The Godhead consists of three persons, three individuals.

2 Corinthians 13:14

The Godhead is one God.

2 Nephi 31:21

THREENESS:

Aspects of the three-ness of God include the distinctiveness of the wills (although I would suggest that the Son and the Holy Ghost always subordinate their will to the will of the Father). Matthew 26:39

God the Father and God the Son appear as separate individuals (we suggest that the Holy Ghost is a personage of spirit). Joseph Smith History 1:17

God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit communicate together. Jesus Christ prays to the Father. The baptism of Jesus Christ involved all three members of the Godhead. (various passages)

“Separate and distinct.” Hinckley, 1998

ONENESS:

Glory, Perfection, Love. (most commentators say this verse refers only to a oneness of purpose) John 17:21-23

One will expressed Matthew 26:39

Indwelling John 14:10

“Alike in form and substance and purpose” Hinckley, 2002

“Members of the Godhead are perfectly united.” Hinckley, 1998

“One in purpose and effort.” Hinckley, 1998

Any questions?

Charity, TOm

 

[oat_soda]

i like how you try and get off subject. again, show us evidence of an apostacy.
TOm:I have linked to my position that Clement and Ignatius had no idea the Bishop of Rome was the head of the church where is the evidence?

Pope Clement I . . . Accept our counsel and you will have nothing to regret. . . . If anyone disobey the things which have been said by him [God] through us , let them know that they will involve themselves in transgression and in no small danger. . . . You will afford us joy and gladness if being obedient to the things which we have written through the Holy Spirit

, you will root out the wicked passion of jealousy" (*Letter to the Corinthians *1, 58–59, 63 [A.D. 80]).

Ignatius of Antioch "Ignatius . . . to the church also which holds the presidency

, in the location of the country of the Romans, worthy of God, worthy of honor, worthy of blessing, worthy of praise, worthy of success, worthy of sanctification, and, because you hold the presidency in love, named after Christ and named after the Father" (*Letter to the Romans *1:1 [A.D. 110]). “You [the church at Rome] have envied no one, but others you have taught. I desire only that what you have enjoined in your instructions may remain in force” (ibid., 3:1). here is implicit evidence of the primacy of rome. clement is writing to a church in greece and ignatius is from antioch (i think).
I have shown the above Tertullian quote calls this usurping Peter’s authority. tertullian was a condemned heretic -monatist. .

This conflict is not a strong point for the Catholic Church

the fact that clement was considered a successor of Peter is huge. this was written nearly 1800 years ago, way before the internet and printing press and during a time when the church underwent extreme persecution. how could you expect them to agree with one another 100% of the time when it comes to historical details between 200 and 400 years before thier time? the fact that they both acknowledge clement as bishop of rome and successor is remarkable for a persecuted church.

I have shown that the power of the Pope is different than the power of Peter according to the Catholic Church.what are you talking about? you haven’t shown anything. do you really think your the first person to try and make this argument? besides, this is way off subject.

It is also true that the authority of the Pope took 1800 years to develop and was never accepted by the EO Church. again, this is a totally different topic. it has been debated ad nauseum. the catholic church has more then enough evidence for the primacy of the church of rome.

 

[TOmNossor]

Oat Soda,

Thank you for your post. I will attempt to address most of what you pointed to. This will be a long post (or rather series).

On your 1st Clement quote: First, we should note that the passages you quoted were not found in the Letter to the Corinthians as it was originally preserved and as it can be dated to the AD65 or AD98 the date you assign to it. The passages you quote are in the First Letter to the Corinthians found with the Second Letter to the Corinthians. The Second Letter to the Corinthians has not been accepted as actually being from Clement. I generally believe that the extra paragraphs in 1st Clement found with 2nd Clement are authentic, while 2nd Clement is a later production (or at the very least of less value - Eusebius). As I understand it there is evidence within the Codex A that there was missing material at the end of 1st Clement, so I accept the new material while thinking it unlikely 2nd Clement is by Clement. That being said, there are those who do not accept your extra paragraphs as being produced by Clement.

I believe that there are a few things to note concerning that material you quote. First the pronoun “our” is used in Clement’s letter. Were this an exhortation to defer to the authority of the Pope, “our” is an inappropriate pronoun to use. I suggest that this exhortation is in alignment with the rest of his letter. The exhortation is to defer to the authority of the Bishop and Priests who were disposed by the Corinthian Church. Clement was not the only Bishop to send letters to other churches and call them to change the way they behaved.

Here are more reasons for rejecting the thought that Clement was exerting papal authority from the rest of the text.

• Chapter 53 and 54 (Codex A for all of these): If one reads these two paragraphs assuming that Clement, the author, knows that he is sitting in Peter’s Chair which is the New Testament equivalent to Moses Chair, it is quite confusing. Why does Clement use an Old Testament example to point to how someone might raise themselves up to take responsibility as Moses did and then shift gears radically and point to someone who has no similarity to Moses at all to be this person, when Clement himself should know that he is the equivalent of Moses. At the very least this peculiar two paragraphs would warrant some explaining, but Clement feels no need to explain. Does Clement know he is the closest thing in the world to the Old Testament Moses?
• Chapter 57: The Bishop of Rome has just explained the “Order of Ministers in the Church.” Why does he not mention anything about his position as the head of all the church? He mentions Apostles and Bishops, but he doesn’t point to himself (or the Bishop of Rome in general) as the head of the church on earth. Did Peter take this office with him without passing it on to the Bishop of Rome?
• Chapter 27-28: These also talk about authority in general, but do not mention that Clement has specific authority outside of Rome.
• Chapter 1 : This is a very neutral, equal, and none authoritative opening. The purpose of this letter is to tell the Corinthians that they are again behaving inappropriately. Clement, who should know he possesses authority over this church, does not mention it here or throughout the very long letter. He gives examples, quotes scriptures, and attempts to persuade the Corinthians to repent; but he never mentions his authority.

Cont…

 

[TOmNossor]

Concerning Ignatius’ statements about the Church of Rome. I will provide a Protestant Scholars comment (oh boy!!!) and I will comment on some of these for myself, but I would still like to understand were Catholic Answers got this wording, “Ignatius . . . to the church also which holds the presidency, in the location of the country of the Romans, worthy of God, worthy of honor, worthy of blessing, worthy of praise, worthy of success, worthy of sanctification, and, because you hold the presidency in love, named after Christ and named after the Father”
These words are unique to Catholic Answers. Other Catholic Apologetic websites do not use this version, and I have been unable to find it anywhere but here.

There is much controversy over which is the valid version of Ignatius. It seems to me that scholarly opinion leans toward the SHORT (GREEK) with the SYRIAC as a second most popular. In any case, I do not see “which holds the presidency” or “because you hold the presidency in love.” There most definitely are spurious versions of Ignatius’ letters (after all I will copy three here), but I am not sure where Catholic Answers got these quotes (and other Catholic apologist websites www.cin.org use the accepted wording not the Catholic Answers wording.

Here is the Protestant Scholar (not an internet scholar) in his introduction to Ignatius letters he specifically mention the letter to the Romans.

http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-01/anf01-15.htm#P1054_191234

The Epistle to the Romans is utterly inconsistent with any conception on his part, that Rome was the see and residence of a bishop holding any other than fraternal relations with himself. It is very noteworthy that it is devoid of expressions, elsewhere made emphatic, which would have been much insisted upon had they been found herein. Think what use would have been made of it, had the words which he addresses to the Smyrnaeans (chap. viii.) to strengthen their fidelity to Polycarp, been found in this letter to the Romans, especially as in this letter we first find the use of the phrase “Catholic Church” in patristic writings. He defines it as to be found “where Jesus Christ is,” words which certainly do not limit it to communion with a professed successor of St. Peter.

The versions that do not seem to agree with the Catholic Answers quote.

SHORT VERSION (GREEK):
Ignatius, who is also called Theophorus, to the Church which has obtained mercy, through the majesty of the Most High Father, and Jesus Christ, His only-begotten Son; the Church which is beloved and enlightened by the will of Him that willeth all things which are according to the love of Jesus Christ our God, which also presides in the place of the report of the Romans, worthy of God, worthy of honour, worthy of the highest happiness, worthy of praise, worthy of obtaining her every desire, worthy of being deemed holy,1 and which presides over love, is named from Christ, and from the Father, which I also salute in the name of Jesus Christ, the Son of the Father: to those who are united, both according to the flesh and spirit, to every one of His commandments; who are filled inseparably with the grace of God, and are purified from every strange taint, * abundance of happiness unblameably, in Jesus Christ our God.*

Cont…

 

[TOmNossor]

LONGER VERSION (GREEK):
Ignatius, who is also called Theophorus, to the Church which has obtained mercy, through the majesty of the Most High God the Father, and of Jesus Christ, His only-begotten Son; the Church which is sanctified and enlightened by the will of God, who formed all things that are according to the faith and love of Jesus Christ, our God and Saviour; the Church which presides in the place of the region of the Romans, and which is worthy of God, worthy of honour, worthy of the highest happiness, worthy of praise, worthy of credit,2 worthy of being deemed holy,3 and which presides over love, is named from Christ, and from the Father, and is possessed of the Spirit, which I also salute in the name of Almighty God, and of Jesus Christ His Son: to those who are united, both according to the flesh and spirit, to every one of His commandments, who are filled inseparably with all the grace of God, and are purified from every strange taint, * abundance of happiness unblameably, in God, even the Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ.*

SYRIAC VERSION:
Ignatius, who is [also called] Theophorus, to the Church which has received grace through the greatness of the Father Most High; to her who presideth in the place of the region of the Romans, who is worthy of God, and worthy of life, and happiness, and praise, and remembrance, and is worthy of prosperity, and presideth in love, and is perfected in the law of Christ unblameable: [wishes] abundance of peace.

I see two reasonable possibilities. Catholic Answers is using a translation not published on the web. Or Catholic Answers is using a version of Ignatius’ letters that are not among the three that are contenders for validity. I really have no idea which is correct, but I acknowledge that Ignatius had great respect for the Roman Church. But I do not think that the introduction to Ignatius’ letters indicated that the Bishop of Rome is Pope. Even the words used in the Catholic Answers tract (but not used on other Catholic websites) do not demand a Papal authority. The importance of Rome is acknowledge by me and the EO, it is the primacy that we reject.

cont…

 

[TOmNossor]

More on Ignatius from his other writings:

The Epistle of Ignatius to the Romans – Chapter IV – Allow me to Fall a Prey to the Wild Beasts:

“I do not, as Peter and Paul, issue commandments unto you. They were apostles; I am but a condemned man: they were free, while I am, even until now, a servant.”

Many things can be observed from this statement. First, as will be shown by Ignatius below, he as a bishop is not equal to an apostle. Next, he felt compelled to tell the Roman Church who is headed by the Bishop of Rome that he is not issuing “commandments.” How could anyone who knows of the Primacy of the Bishop of Rome feel it necessary to point out that he is not issuing commandments? Lastly, Ignatius specifically mentions Peter in a letter he is writing that will go to the Bishop of Rome. As he mentions Peter he is talking about authority to command, and he seems oblivious to the fact that the Bishop of Rome has this authority. Does this make sense if the Bishop of Rome was establish by the Apostles as the head of the Church on Earth?

The Epistle of Ignatius to the Ephesians – Chapter III – Exhortations to Unity:

“I do not issue orders to you, as if I were some great person. For though I am bound for the name [of Christ], I am not yet perfect in Jesus Christ. For now I begin to be a disciple, and I speak to you as fellow-disciples with me. For it was needful for me to have been stirred up by you in faith, exhortation, patience, and long-suffering. But inasmuch as love suffers me not to be silent in regard to you, I have therefore taken27 upon me first to exhort you that ye would all run together in accordance with the will of God. For even Jesus Christ, our inseparable life, is the [manifested] will of the Father; as also bishops, settled everywhere to the utmost bounds [of the earth], are so by the will of Jesus Christ.”

Here Ignatius is talking about unity. He specifically says he is not speaking as if, “some great person.” Should he have not said he is not speaking as if he was the Bishop of Rome? If he choose to devote a paragraph to unity, why would he neglect to mention the head of the unity, the Bishop of Rome?

The Epistle of Ignatius to the Magnesians – Chapter VI – Preserve Harmony:

“I exhort you to study to do all things with a divine harmony, while your bishop presides in the place of God, and your presbyters in the place of the assembly of the apostles, along with your deacons,…”

The bishop is not in the place of the apostles. God is superior to the apostles. The Bishop is superior to the presbyters, but this becomes confusing if the bishops ordained by the Apostles has the same authority. There are a few more of these from Ignatius in his other letters.

The Epistle of Ignatius to the Smyrnaeans –Chapter VIII – Let Nothing be Done Without the Bishop:

“See that ye all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as ye would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institutions of God.”

Again in this statement if the bishop holds the office of an apostle the above comparison becomes quite confusing.

I think it is certainly true that Rome is an important, powerful, and righteous see; but I think the early evidence does not point to a primacy. Cardinal John Henry Newman seems to agree when he suggests that the authority of the Pope developed. If the Catholic Church is God’s church, this development means that the Pope is the Vicar of Christ. If there was an Apostasy, this development is evidence of a usurpation of power through political and other means by the Roman Church. I subscribe to the later, but do not think the former is beyond reason.

cont…

 

[TOmNossor]

Miscellanea:

You quoted Tertullian first, I just quoted him back to you. It is likely the quotes we provided both occurred before he left communion with those who you consider orthodox. In any case, Tertullian was in position to see the usurpation of Peterine authority by the Bishop of Rome. He called it like he saw it.

Earlier in this thread I linked to this discussion were much of the above (and other things are discussed). This link includes quotations from 1st Clement. The link also include the all the things I claim to have or be able to show.

http://p080.ezboard.com/fpacumenispagesfrm63.showMessageRange? (about the third post on the page my 66th)

I do not think the fact that the authority of the Pope being not the same as the authority of Peter is off the subject. I do not think the fact that it took 1800 years to decide what the authority of the Pope was is off the subject. To be Catholic is to acknowledge that for 1800 years there was an authority of the Pope. Nobody had a clue what it was for almost 200 years. It has always been based upon the authority of Peter, but it has never been the same as the Peterine authority. In fact, the Newman Testament (as I like to call the period after the Apostles to today) introduces a wholly different way from God to lead his church than existed in the New Testament or the Old Testament. The Restoration Testament (what I like to call the witness of the CoJCoLDS) does not do this.

Charity, TOm

 

[catholic-rcia]

---

---

We Believe…

in one (Eternal) God, (Ex 20:2-3, Is 45:5, Is. 43:10, 1 Cor 8:4, John 17:3) the Father, the Almighty, maker (keep in mine / make/ made) of heaven and earth, (Gen 14:19, Ex 20:2-3) of **all **that is seen and unseen. (Col 1:16)

We believe in one (Eternal) Lord, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, (Luke 1:35, Heb 1:1-5) begotten of the Father, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God. Begotten not made, one in being with the Father. (Heb 1:3, John 14:1 - 12) Through Him** **all things were made. (John 1:2-3, Col 1:15-17)

1

1( God created **Him /Made ** the heavens and the earth, Gen 1:1)

For us men and for our salvation He (God) came down from heaven: (John 3:13) by the power of the Holy Spirit (God) He was born of the Virgin Mary, (Matt 1:18) and **became **man. For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate; (John 19:16) …….

(*For in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive. *1Cor.15:22)

………… he suffered, died, and was buried. On the third day he rose again in fulfillment of the Scriptures; (1Cor 15:3-4) he ascended into heaven (Luke 24:51) and is seated at the right hand of the Father. (Col 3:1) He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead, (2 Tim 4:1) and his Kingdom will have no end. (Luke 1:33)

We believe in the (Eternal) Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life, (Acts 2:17, 1 Cor. 2:11, John 14:26, 15:26, 16:7-8) who proceeds from the Father and the Son. (John 14:16) With the Father and the Son he is worshipped and glorified. He has spoken** through** the Prophets. (1 Peter 1:10-11)

We believe in **one **holy catholic and apostolic Church. (Rom 12:5) We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.(Acts 2:38) We look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. (Rom 6:5) Amen

 

[catholic-rcia]

1 Cor 12

1 Now in regard to spiritual gifts, brothers, I do not want you to be unaware.

2 You know how, when you were pagans, you were constantly attracted and led away to mute idols. Therefore, I tell you that nobody speaking by the spirit of God (Holy Spirit) says, “Jesus be accursed.” And no one can say, “Jesus is Lord,” (God) except by the Holy Spirit. (Through Baptism, Trinitarian formula we come to know) 3 There are different kinds of spiritual gifts but the same Spirit;

There are different forms of service but the same Lord;

There are different workings but the **same God **who produces all of them in everyone. To each individual the **manifestation **of the Spirit is given for some benefit. To one is given through the Spirit the expression of wisdom; to another the expression of knowledge according to the same Spirit;

to another faith by the same Spirit; to another gifts of healing by the one Spirit;

to another mighty deeds; to another prophecy; to another discernment of spirits; to another varieties of tongues; to another

interpretation of tongues.

But one and the same Spirit produces all of these, distributing them individually to each person as he **(God) **wishes.

4 As a body is **one **though it has many parts, and all the parts of the body, though many, are one body, so also Christ.

For in one Spirit we were all baptized into **one body **(Trinity), whether Jews or Greeks, slaves or free persons, and we were all given **to drink of one Spirit. **

Now the body is not a single part, but many. (The Body of Christ “us”)

5 **Now you are Christ’s body, and individually parts of it. **

---

 

[catholic-rcia]

As a Christian I have come to know God as my Soul Creator. There is no other but Him for a Christian. Take Him out of the center of ourselves and we do not exist in any sense. I give him thanks and praise for creating me in order to come to know Him, to know His love for me that comes to me by way of His only Son. It is through and in Jesus that I come to know my Father, that I come to approach Him, that I come to speak to Him, . When I am with Jesus in my prayer I am with the Father.

It is not hard for me to separate the three personages, just as it is not hard for me to see them as one. I may not be able to explain the Trinity, but yet I have seen it, it is as the Ocean; I have come to swim in it. God does not live in the realm of purpose and effort, as I see this as human reasoning, but rather as One always being as they always will be. I see them as One in an eternal relationship of Love, a Love that does not change or grow because God does not need to change or to grow. He is perfection as He is. He always has been, the Alpha and the Omega. I am not speaking of what Humans think perfection is, God has his own interpretations of such things.

God does not need us, nor would He ever rely on us, yet He is willing to give us everything that really matters to Him. This would be His Eternal Son in us, that which is loved about us. . Because it pleases Him to do so. We cannot separate our lives from Christ if we are to survive the world, not on earth or in heaven.

.All of are efforts to come into the relationship of Trinity are in vain. It is through Jesus that we come to the Father, and enter into this relationship. We are transformed from within because of Him, not because of us… It is a different approach than seeking approval from others while standing in a line to godhhod.

Become as children He said to us, not as adults will we enter into His Kingdom. Not with all of our adult wisdom through a seduction in a Garden will we enter… Throw that out the door and let the wolves feed off of it. It is what they eat. Forget all that progression because it really makes us small in the presence of our Father. How can we really come to love Him unless we become as children in great need? Put your trust in Him alone Tom and just hold on to Him. Let him be the only center in your universe. . Let go of your wisdom and hand it over, then you may become wise in Christ. Then you will find His Body of believers. They aren’t really much, but what they have is of great value. “The Cross of Great Price” It can’t be lost and it will never be taken away. Why? Because Jesus promised us.

 

[oat_soda]

I do not think the fact that the authority of the Pope being not the same as the authority of Peter is off the subject. I do not think the fact that it took 1800 years to decide what the authority of the Pope was is off the subject.

the debate about infallibility and the development of doctrine is a separate topic. it has been addressed in other forums.

show evidence of the apostacy.

 

[catholic-rcia]

Tom, I believe is One God, he is my everything. He has transformed my life. We walk with Christ daily my family and I. We love our friends around us, we see Christ in each other and over look the other. We Cherish all of our Traditions such as our yearly procession with Christ, to His birth, His daily teachings http://www.rc.net/wcc/readings/

to His one death and resurrection for us. For the most part our marriages are very strong and forgiving. We do have the lowest rate of divorce. For the most part we try to love others as our Father loves us. Our Mass always puts Christ Word in the forefront and not ourselves. When we fall short with each other we all pretty much know where to go in these matters. It’s no big deal. We look to the end of our lives with joy. If we suffer we put this in Gods hands as He knows our suffering very well. When we gather together at our homes, some drink and some do not, we laugh very much out loud, we get our Christmas trees together up in Idaho and we attend Baptisms, social functions and funerals. We cry sometimes and other times we are in bad moods. But all is ok. Because we have given our selves to Christ, in order to follow His lead. We look to heaven, not in knowing about it, but in knowing that God has some very good things in store for us. But loving others today is most important, not looking towards tomorrow.

What is it that you have to offer that is better, or more important than these things?

 

[TOmNossor]

Oat Soda,

I do not agree that these things are irrelevant.

Were I to be Catholic I would accept the following things.

1.The first Popes and their Bishop contemporaries did not know the Bishop of Rome was at the head of the church

2.The authority of the Pope developed over 1800 years.

3.This development started around 200AD and was built upon the fact that Peter was the head of the apostles and is at the head of the list of Bishops in Rome.

--------a.But the authority of the Pope is different than Peter’s authority.

--------b.But the fact is that Peter is the head of two chains of Bishop (Rome and Antioch).

4.The final state of Papal Infallibility while wholly different than the authority of Peter is what history tells us must be true and what Vatican I infallibly declared.

1)As a LDS I say that the first Popes and Bishops did not recognize the authority of the Bishop of Rome over the entire church because the Bishop or Rome had only local authority.

2)I say the development of the Papacy was a human development that we see in history were powerful men rise to the head of organizations. It is not uncommon.

3a)I say that the authority of the Pope is different than that of Peter because with the emphasis upon tradition it was not possible to claim the Pope could receive supernatural corporate revelation for the entire church.

3b)I say that Antioch was not as powerful of a See as Rome and this is the reason Rome rose to the top and not Antioch (Rome’s rise was underway before Constantine, but Constantine did have a part in sealing the authority of Rome).

4)I say the complex caveats upon the exercise of Papal Infallibility are the product of history dictating what could be true and men then defining in accordance with the restrictions history placed upon them. Effectively Papal Infallibility is a very limited charism (and there are debates about when it is being used and when it is not).

cont…

 

[TOmNossor]

In interest of fairness let me continue a little bit (although this is not directly in response to your point).

Now, LDS have some similar problems.

• Who was the successor of Joseph Smith?
• When is a Prophet acting as a Prophet?

We both have problems not associated directly with the authority claims of our leaders.

• Things like the behavior (alleged and/or real) of our leaders throughout history.
• Errors taught by our leaders (not withstanding the excuse that they were not under the charism of infallibility or “acting as a prophet.”)
• UnChristian things done in the name of our church.
• UnChristian things done by prominent members of our church today.
• …

We both have our individual problems.

• Where is the historical evidence for the BOM
• Where is the evidence that tradition was followed when the Trinity was defined (especially associated with being “co-equal.”

We both have our individual evidences.

• Supernatural Grace evident in so many Catholic Saints and members of the CoJCoLDS
• Newman’s 7 Characteristics of a True development.
• Modern miracles associated with Mary and the Eucharist.
• Things that support the antiquity of the BOM.
• Evidence of a Restoration of many doctrines not present in Joseph’s day.
• …

The above considerations and many others/subcomponents_of_the_above lead me to say that the CoJCoLDS’s position is stronger than the Catholic Church’s position. I can see why you might disagree. I cannot see how one could be both informed and totally dismissive of the opposite position. I am not suggesting it is necessarily a close call in my book, but I am suggesting that reasonable, intelligent, and informed people can emphasize different things and come to different conclusions.

Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

catholic-rcia:

What is it that you have to offer that is better, or more important than these things?

Catholic_RCIA,

First concerning our Trinity discussions, I was very focused on how God is one and how God is three. I do not think scripture tells us enough about the answers to those questions for us to point to differences. Perhaps you disagree. (your response was over 5000 words).

What do I have to offer? It is not that the extraordinary Catholic is closer or farther from God than the extraordinary LDS. I could not call that race it is too close. But the average member of the CoJCoLDS is amazing.

LDS are not perfect, but to be an active LDS is to experience the joy of living ones religion. To feel Christ’s love as He lifts you beyond what you could do of yourself. To be stretched by God and forgiven when you fall. To walk with others who struggle, rejoice, and love. To worship God in light and truth with the knowledge intellectually, spiritually, and experientially that He lives, He loves, He knows you, He is your Father, He is involved, and so much more.

I began to look at other churches because as a Catholic I felt like I attended mass with people who were indistinguishable from the rest of the world during the rest of the 167 hours of the week they were not at mass. I expressed this to friends as the thought that in the mad rush to leave church I could be run over by one of my parishioners. It seems God has a sense of humor because I was involved in a hit-n-run car accident caused by a Catholic leaving mass. The priest was helpful. The Catholic man who witnessed the accident was helpful, but the parishioner was never identified.

I have been of the opinion that the CoJCoLDS is better at infusing the average LDS with Christ’s spirit than is the Catholic Church. This is the witness I see having spent almost 2/3 of my life as a Catholic and the rest as a LDS. I agree the Catholic Church can and does produce Saints, I just believe the yield is lower.

The above is only one component associated with finding the correct church. We know that wheat and tares grow together. I investigated the Catholic Church intensely long after the above car accident. I know tares are within all of us and with all of us at church.

I am a LDS because I think it is a better intellectual solution to the question of which church is God’s church on earth. I think it is the church I was spiritually directed to PERSONALLY. I think it is inspired and more effective at helping people to live like God would like for us to live. I think it answers question that no other religion is able to answer as effectively (If God is omni-benevolent why is there evil?). There are many reasons that I know the CoJCoLDS is the church God has directed me to. There are many reasons I know God is at the head of the CoJCoLDS.

The thing I refuse to say is that you are not on the path back to God if you are not a member of the CoJCoLDS. My spiritual witness tells me nothing about you. My intellectual witness does not deny the wonderful aspects of the Catholic Church. I do not have to overstate what is truth to me.

But, if you are looking, the CoJCoLDS has a lot to offer. I think more than the Catholic Church, but you would have to give up the literal presence in the Eucharist. If I had believed and felt the truthfulness of that, I might have never been able to look at another belief structure. You must walk your own path and I mine. I have faith that if we seek we will find.

A man asked by his son for bread does not give a rock. Surely if we ask, God will give to us better than the man to his son. He is God.

Charity, TOm

 

[catholic-rcia]

Good luck on your journey.