Smithsonian statement on Book of Mormon

[FCEGM]

TOM:

I understand enough about deification to know that the restoration of the truth is powerful evidence that Joseph Smith was not shooting in the dark.

What makes it “the truth”? - Especially when these errors (or ones very similar to them, I should say) were soundly condemned before.

Former Father Vajda seemed to agree.

A great pity. However, one dissindent heretical priest does not amount to sound doctrine.

How the statement that “men may become gods” is true is shrouded in mystery within both our religions.

Not for us it’s not. We understand this as partaking of the Divine nature by association with Christ - of coming, by adoption into Him, to share in the very same Sonship which Christ Himself enjoys with the Father (e.g. Romans 8:15-17). This is distorted in Mormonism.

Matthias Joseph Scheeben includes it as one of his 7-9 (I cannot remember which # or exactly how many and I do not want to go check) mysteries in his book, The Mysteries of Christianity. He would suggest that the non-divine mind cannot grasp it unaided by the divine mind (I believe).

Ummmm. But, what you’re overlooking here is that we have been aided by the Divine mind insofar that God revealed certain truths about Himself to the Apostles, and this Apostolic Tradition (via the promised stewardship of the Holy Spirit) has been maintained within the Catholic Church. We do not claim to know everything about God. That would be impious and foolish. However, we do know what has been revevealed to us, and we are obliged to defend that against Johnny-come-latelies who are contradicting the Apostolic Deposit and making up their own doctrines to replace them.

continued. . .

 

[FCEGM]

TOM:

Surely many Jews also said that the Christian Christ failed because he was killed. The problem with this is that the Christian Christ (like His Church) rose again. To prevail is not to win every battle, but to conquer in the end. This is what happened at the Restoration.

This is a *non sequitur * at best, and a Satanic distortion at worst. Christ rose again to give life to His Church, therefore, it is not possible for His Church to “die,” and no need for it to “rise” again. If the Church of Christ “died” at some point, and so needed to be “restored,” then the Sacrifice of Christ was powerless to prevent it, and so guarantees nothing. Think about it.

(as is often the case, I can back up the above concept associated with “prevail” from a Catholic scholars assessment of Matthew 16:18. The text does not demand no apostasy).

The text demands that the power of hell cannot prevail against the Church Christ founded. You say that it can, and has. We deny that it can. We hold fast to the Word of Scripture, and you distort it.

As God communicated to the Paster of Hermas in the 1st or 2nd century the church built upon Christ was soon to be complete.

First of all, you presume that the “Shepherd of Hermas” represents a true and binding revelation. That’s a big presumption. Needless to say, neither Catholics nor Protestants are bound by the content of Hermas, and so whether or not it is a true revelation from God is very much up for grabs. Yet, even assuming its validity, the passage you refer to has to do with the consummation of the Church in glory, per the return of Christ …something which the author of the Shepherd (like the Gospels) presents as imminent. In this, Hermas is a work of apocalyptic literature; and so, like the Revelation of John, speaks in stylistic imagery, not in literal terms.

A lesser organization would emerge and those who did not align with Christ’s original church could be part of this lesser organization if they did not repent speedily enough to be part of Christ’s original church.

A reference to the Gnostics and other dissident heretics - not a big deal.

According to God’s communication this end was immediately at hand.

Apocalyptic literature. According to John’s Revelation, Christ Second Coming was immediately at hand too. So, did we fail to notice it??

While not canonized, this work was, “a work which had great authority in ancient times and was ranked with Holy Scripture.” – Catholic Encyclopedia.

It was never canonical, never read at the Liturgy, and so never seen as binding among the city-churches. Both Eusebius and the 2nd Century Muratorian fragment go to great lengths to distinguish it from Scripture.

Christ did not fail. The early Church of Jesus Christ, the Catholic Church (lesser organization), and the Restoration Church did not fail.

“Lesser organization” remains to be shown …especially when that “lesser organization” is CATHOLIC (universal) in nature. What’s more, Hermas never says that the Church of Christ will be “taken from the earth” and need to be "restored

Each had/has its place, but the fullness is today contained in the CoJCoLDS.

You are “borrowing” Catholic terminology there. You do not believe that you are merely the “fullness” of the Church. Rather, you believe that you ARE the Church, and we are not. In fact, if we are the Church in even the remotest sense, then there would be no need for the “CoJCoLDS.” There would be no need for a “restoration,” but merely a “reFORMAtion.” So, let’s be brutally honest: The two of us believe in different Christs. Either the Christ Who we believe in is false and unable to save a person, or the Christ who you believe in is false and unable to save a person. We Catholics totally reject your “Christ.” Ergo, we cannot be saved, let alone be any “part” of the “Church” as you see it - or do we get a second chance in the next life to reach a lower realm of Heaven?

This is attested to by a proper understanding of God’s words in Matthew, to Hermas, and to Joseph Smith.

And one of those three authors matter. Guess which one?

You just don’t understand scripture.

Silly us. What were we thinking with all that reading Scripture consistently for 2,000 years? If only we had a hat and some disappearing gold tablets. Oh! . . .and some additional, L. Ron Hubbard-style science fiction stories about “Israelites” in ancient America, which we could promote to be inspired Scripture. Yes, that would do it.

continued. . .

 

[FCEGM]

TOM:

This is absolutely incorrect. LDS universally or almost universally acknowledge that Jesus Christ was First.

I do stand corrected; I checked further after my initial posting. But I’m wondering about your “almost universally”. . .

My point was more that Lactantius was a Christian who held this view.

No; Lactantius was a NOMINAL Christian, with no ecclesial teaching authority, and was someone who held to popular Arian or semi-Arian beliefs of his time and imperial social circles. If you’re trying to prove that Arians or semi-Arians existed in the 320’s, that’s certainly no great accomplishment. Arius had a lot of admirers, as did Lucian of Antioch, from whom Arius got most of his ideas. Yet, your earlier assertion that Lactantius was a “CATHOLIC” is simply wrong and indefensible.

Before Nicea Arians were Christians

.

No, before Nicaea, Arians (and the other followes of Lucian) were condemned by various local councils, and by the full patriarchates of Alexandria and Rome by 321-22. If Arius had not had admirers at the imperial court, his heresy would have ended right there (as it did with the Sabellians a generation before). Arianism and Lucianism were both over-reactions against Sabellianism (the belief that Father, Son, and Spirit are merely three “manifestations” or “masks” of the same Divine Person), and the Church, even before the time of Constantine, universally condemned both extremes. For example, in about A.D. 250, St. Dionysius, Patriarch of Alexandria, trying to condemn Sabellianism, taught the opposite error of Subordination, ruling that the Father was distinct from the Son in the same way that a pot is distinct from the potter who makes it. Outraged by this, members of his Egyptian flock appealed to Pope St. Dionysius (who coincidentally had the same name) in Rome. Dionysius of Rome immediately condemned the doctrine, and Dionysius of Alexandria, realizing his error, recanted. And so, as St. Athansius tells us, Rome preemptively condemned the errors of Arius over 75 years before Nicaea, and before Arius was even born! In all this, it is plain to see that, like Monophysism against Nestorianism, Arianism developed as an over-reaction against Sabellianism, and was not the pre-existing or ancient Christian Faith. It was a regional phenomenon at best, limited originally to eastern N. Africa (Libya and Egypt). In the case of Arius himself, it is also quite clear that he tried to exploit the theocratic principals of Emperor Diocletian which were rampant during his childhood and intended as a compromise with Christianity whereby the Romans were commanded to worship “Jupiter the Father” (the patron of the senior Emperor or “Augustus”) and “Hercules the Son” (patron of the junior emperor, of “Caesar”). It was because it fit with this imperial, pagan tradition that Arianism rose to immediate popularity in the early 300’s’ - that is, because it was “pagan-friendly” and something that could be connected to the Empire’s classical heritage (i.e., “God is to Jesus as Jupiter/Zeus is to Hercules”), and this is also why Arianism was preferred by the Germanic tribes who eventually overran the Empire, because it also corresponded to their pagan traditions of an all-powerful Germanic sky god (Odin / Wodin) and his heroic half-divine son (Thor). This is the same skewed tradition that the Mormons follow today.

After Nicea at one point in time most Bishops were Semi-Arian (the Bishop of Rome of course signed a Semi-Arian statement).

Hate to break it to you, Tom, but Pope Liberius never signed the document. The belief that he did so was a 16th Century invention (in France …fueled by the Gallican movement), and has been since totally disproven. St. Jerome believed that Liberius caved, but his belief was based on one document (ascribed to Hilary of Poitiers), which turns out to be an Arian forgery. The entire Eastern church remembers Liberius as a saint and a hero against Arianism. It was only because of the statement of Jerome that the Libelus Pontificalis, in the Roman / Western tradition, denies the status of sainthood to Pope Liberius. In other words, it was a medieval mistake, later exploited by the French Gallicans.

continued. . .

 

[FCEGM]

As for most bishops being Arian after Nicaea: this only happened in the East, where Constantine’s son and Eastern successor, Constantius II, was an Arian. The West, and St. Athanasius, remained faithful to Nicaea, as did all of the Eastern monastic communities and the vast majority of the laity. Rather, the one and ONLY reason why the bishops turned Arian was because their Eastern Emperor and his entire court was Arian, and so they either kissed up to him to retain their positions; or if they disputed Arianism, they were immediately removed from their episcopal sees and replaced with an Arian anti-bishop (per Athanasius). So, as I said, the resurgence of Arianism after Nicaea was POLITICAL in nature - something forced upon the Eastern Church, and not an organic aspect of it.

Lactantius is called a Latin Father by some sources,

Not by the Catholic Church. Tertullian and Origen are called “fathers” by some people too, but both of them were also condemned heretics. Notice how it is not “Saint Lactantius.” Again, you tried to argue that he was a CATHOLIC.

but I am very comfortable with you rejecting his Catholicism. He lived and died as part of the Church, but Justin Martyr’s views on creation ex nihilo would make him a heretic post the 4th Lateran Council.

As I said, Lactantius was no bishop or theologian, and had no teaching authority in the Church. He was merely an educated Christian layman who was interested in defending Christianity against paganism, and directed his arguments to a pagan audience and mindset (thus explaining his Arian inclinations). His views do not present the Church’s doctrinal positions.

As for his membership in the Church, he was never officially excommunicated for his views, that is true. However, de facto excommunication depends on whether or not one who harbors heretical beliefs is obstinate in his or her position, or if they are open to correction, merely holding heretical views as an honest mistake. We have no idea what views Lactantius held by the end of his life; and this would dictate whether or not he died in communion with the Church.

As I said, Arianism was condemned by Alexandria, with Rome’s ratification, as early as 321. Since we know that Lactantius was in Trier (in Germany) - part of the Western / Roman patriarchate - in the mid-320’s, one would assume that he accepted the Roman condemnation of his hererical views and abandoned them. But, who knows?

As for St. Justin Martyr, he does not teach what you think he taught (since you misapply the sense in which *ex nihilo * and *ex materia * relate to each other in the traditional Jewish / Catholic understanding). What’s more, St. Justin was obedient to Church authority and would have, if condemned for a view, submitted to his bishop.

continued. . .

 

[FCEGM]

TOM:

And that statement would be known as attacking a straw man. I never claimed Lactantius was an ancient Mormon. Not even almost. Creation ex Nihilo was invented long before Lactantius began writing. He was solidly indoctrinated in this erroneous development.

Then why quote him? You inferred that he was recounting “the truth.” Yet, how would he have access to this “truth” if he was “solidly indoctrinated in this erroneous development.” You can’t have it both ways.

As I said, I am not suggesting that Jaki embraces ex materia creation. I am suggesting that Jaki supports my position that the Bible does not demand ex nihilo creation.

It does in the sense that God creates the world *ex nihilo * in its “formless and void” state (Genesis 1:1-2), and then produces the rest of Creation from this “matter.” That is all that Fr. Jaki is referring to - the fact that the Six Days of Creation do not describe individual ex nihilo generations, but God merely draws things out of that which existed before (e.g., “Let THE EARTH bring forth vegetation, etc. …”) However, this same “EARTH” is created ex nihilo, along with the heavens (the realm of angels, etc.), in Genesis 1:1-2: “In the Beginning, God CREATED (i.e., ex nihilo) the heavens AND THE EARTH, and THE EARTH was formless and void …” So, your Mormon belief about “eternal matter” is simply wrong. “Matter” comes into being in Genesis 1:1-2, and it comes into being from nothingness.

Your Genesis passage translates “bara” as “created,” but “formed” is more correct.

“Bana” (“formed”) ex nihilo. The terms mean the same thing in Hebrew. Think about it: One cannot “form” that which is “formless and void.” Rather, one can only bring that which is “formless and void” out of nothing. As logic dictates (and the Semitic Arabs, coming from the same ancient mindset as the Jews, were the first to point this out): ZERO is a numerical value. Zero exists. It is not “nothing,” but something. That is what Genesis 1:1-2 is describing as the original condition of the physical realm (the “earth”). So, you cannot define “bana” in the way you are doing without ignoring the rest of the sentence, which clearly says that the “earth” that God created was “FORMLESS and void.” One cannot “form” formlessness. One can only create it --ex nihilo!

E.A. Speiser (a very respected Protestant scholar) in the Anchor Bible translates Genesis 1:1-3 as follows:
When God set about to create heaven and earth - the world being a formless waste, with darkness over the seas…- God said, “Let there be light.” And there was light.

Bad translation.

E.A. Speiser also said:
To be sure the present interpretation precludes the view that creation accounts in Genesis say nothing about coexistent matter

Like a typical Protestant with a Western / Germanic literalist mindset, Speiser designed his translation to account for the “waters” (“seas” in his rendering) that apparently pre-existed God’s act of creation. But, in this, what Speiser fails to appreciate is that the “waters” described in Genesis 1 (and in the Flood account later on) are NOT literal, physical waters, but the ancient Babylonian / pan-Semitic concept of the “waters of chaos” - the first principal of Babylonian cosmology. In essence, they are the “earth” (personified by the dragon goddess Tiamat in the Babylonian mythic tradition) in its primeval form. And this earth comes into being “ex nihlio” ALONG WITH the heavens in Genesis 1:1.

BTW, I am not suggesting that Speiser is a Mormon. I am suggesting that the Bible does not demand (and IMO points away from) creation ex nihilo.

Genesis 1:1-2 says otherwise.

That does not mean the creation ex nihilo is incompatible with the Bible, just that creation ex materia is an excellent read of the Bible.

Only after Genesis 1:1-2. Ex materia depends on an initial ex nihilo. That is what the Scripture presents to us; and any other approach is tampering with the Sacred Text.

continued. . .

 

[FCEGM]

TOM:

You misunderstood me. I apologize. I am suggesting that Moslems and modern Jews can rightly demand that the Trinitarian structures of Catholics, Protestants, and LDS are “less monotheistic” than are their strict monotheistic structures. I do not distort history. And Moslems and modern Jews do in fact call Trinitarians polytheistic.

Only one problem with this: LDS are not Trinitarians in any realistic sense of the term. Why do you keep claiming that you are when you clearly are not? We clearly have vastly different understandings of what a “Trinity” refers to; and your conception of the Trinity is validly called a species of polytheism, given that you do not believe that Father, Son, and Spirit are One in Being - the ONE THING that frees Catholics and other Christians from any charge of polytheism.

But, no, any planet that may or may not have had some association with God the Father did not pre-exist God the Father

.

Then how did he live “as a man” on it?

To pre-exist is to exist before. Eternal matter did not exist before God existed for God is eternal as well.

So, where did the “eternal matter” come from, then?? (Seemingly, then, in LDS theology God and matter are co-equally eternal, whereas the Son (and the Holy Spirit) isn’t.) Clearly, it came from somewhere. So, are you saying that God CREATED it??? If so, then you cannot deny an *ex nihilo * aspect to creation.

And again, scholars are readily accepting that Genesis not only does not demand ex nihilo creation, but points strongly to creation from pre-existent matter.

Again: Who created the pre-existing matter? (You said the matter was “eternal” before, but we’ll ignore that for now). If the matter “pre-existed,” but did not pre-exist God and is not eternal, then it came into being from nothing, right??

You are really going to love what SAINT Justin Martyr has to say about this!

Am I?

Chapter LIX.-Plato’s Obligation to Moses.
And that you may learn that it was from our teachers-we mean the account given through the prophets-that Plato borrowed his statement that God, having altered matter which was shapeless, made the world, hear the very words spoken through Moses, who, as above shown, was the first prophet, and of greater antiquity than the Greek writers; and through whom the Spirit of prophecy, signifying how and from what materials God at first formed the world, spake thus: “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was invisible and unfurnished, and darkness was upon the face of the deep; and the Spirit of God moved over the waters. And God said, Let there be light; and it was so.” So that both Plato and they who agree with him, and we ourselves, have learned, and you also can be convinced, that by the word of God the whole world was made out of the substance spoken of before by Moses. And that which the poets call Erebus, we know was spoken of formerly by Moses.

Tom?I hate to break this to you, but St. Justin Martyr is merely addressing the very thing that I, and Fr. Jaki, have been addressing —namely, that, over the six Biblical days, God formed creation out of an initial, existing matter which He created in Genesis 1-2. But, what you are not addressing is: Where does this “formless and void” (“invisible and unfurnished”) earth (i.e., physical universe), described in Genesis 1:1-2, come from?? Clearly, God made it. The text tells you so. And, since, as with the heavens, there was nothing out of which to MAKE it, He had to create it ex nihilo!

 

[catholic-rcia]

The Eternal Wisdom

When I was just twenty it gave me great satisfaction that I managed to read, and understand, the Ten Categories of Aristotle without a teacher. I would mention the book at every opportunity, slipping the title in with a touch of awe, smiling to myself when lecturers would comment how difficult it had been for them to answer it. (Pride)

And much good it did me! Indeed, it was harmful, because it encouraged me to think of You, O Lord, as if you were part of what you had made, instead of being its essence and origin. Sadly, I had my back toward the light (Christ) and my eyes fixed on the darkness. I could understand without difficulty logic, rhetoric, geometry, music, and arithmetic, but I did not see that my intelligence itself was a gift of God and that all the true things I learned came from him, their source. What advantage was it to me that I had a nimble wit when all the while I turned from good and clung to evil? …St. Augustine

Catholic-rcia.com****

 

[FCEGM]

The Eternal Wisdom

When I was just twenty it gave me great satisfaction that I managed to read, and understand, the Ten Categories of Aristotle without a teacher. I would mention the book at every opportunity, slipping the title in with a touch of awe, smiling to myself when lecturers would comment how difficult it had been for them to answer it. (Pride)

And much good it did me! Indeed, it was harmful, because it encouraged me to think of You, O Lord, as if you were part of what you had made, instead of being its essence and origin. Sadly, I had my back toward the light (Christ) and my eyes fixed on the darkness. I could understand without difficulty logic, rhetoric, geometry, music, and arithmetic, but I did not see that my intelligence itself was a gift of God and that all the true things I learned came from him, their source. What advantage was it to me that I had a nimble wit when all the while I turned from good and clung to evil? …St. Augustine

Catholic-rcia.com****

Thank you for that! Something on which all of us should meditate

 

[FCEGM]

TOM:

Actually, as QUOTED by Catholic author Papini, Lactantius did in fact call Satan Jesus’ BROTHER.

That doesn’t make Satan God’s “son” …and certainly not in the same sense as Jesus. Who knows, maybe Lactantius believed that Satan was just the son of a “Heavenly Mother,” so Jesus’ “half-brother.” The truth, however, is that even the Arians did not believe that the angels were “sons of God” (per Job 1) in the same sense that Jesus was God’s Son.

Clement, Bishop of Rome, stated that God “made manifest (efaneropoiesas) the eternal fabric of the world (eu ten aennaon tou cosmou sistasin).”

Taken out of context. Clement is not even addressing theological cosmology here, but is speaking poetically. Elsewhere in the same epistle, Clement speaks about the ultimate destruction of the created elements. Therefore, for Clement, the “fabric of the world” was not “eternal” in the sense that you Mormons wish to use it. What’s more, the Greek does not employ the specific word “eternal.”

You then comment about Justin Martyr’s words that are not in alignment with the developed doctrine of the Trinity. You excuse this because the Trinity was not developed yet. I say to call Jesus Christ the “second God,” is not orthodox language. I recognize that Justin Martyr was not subject to the creedal statements of Nicea. I reject your statement that, “Yet, explored in context, their meaning is clear and quite in accord with the Catholic faith.” The fact is that explored in context, the fact that Justin rejected Creation ex Nihilo makes his statements much simpler to align with LDS Social Trinity.

“Pfui,” as Nero Wolfe would say. As I showed, St. Justin did not reject creation *ex nihilo * in the sense that the LDS do. Rather, he directly teaches, per Genesis 1, that the earth was first created in an “unfurnished and invisible” form (proto materia), and that all of Creation was drawn out of this. But, this proto materia, for Justin and for ALL of Apostolic Christianity (and Judaism), comes into being ex nihilo, as do the heavens as well. You are overlooking this aspect of the doctrinal Tradition.

He did not require the complex philosophical maneuvering necessitated by the adoption of Creation ex Nihilo.

Genesis 1:1-2 is not “complex philosophical maneuvering.” The Scriptures make a direct statement: “In the Beginning, God CREATED the heavens and the earth, and their earth was FORMLESS and VOID.” *Creatio ex materia * ONLY begins at this point. But, the materia itself (in Gen 1:1-2) is made ex nihilo - simple enough. This is what you will see in St. Justin and in all the fathers, as well as the rabbis of the Jews.

Genesis is probably not the oldest book in the Bible as I understand it, but as I mentioned above it does not teach creation ex nihilo.

Genesis’ age is beside the point. Either it is the inspired Word of God or it is not. You Mormons claim that it is, as do we. If it is, then you must take Gen 1:1-2 for what it directly says and presents: namely, the heavens and the “proto-earth” (physical universe) coming into being ex nihilo. *Creatio ex materia * only happens after that, with the “formless and void” “proto-earth” of (Gen 1:1-2) being the materia used to fashion the rest of Creation.

continued. . .

 

[FCEGM]

There is some debate upon this subject, but Gerard May (a Protestant Scholar) effectively argues that Creation ex Nihilo was a 2nd century AD invention. It was never before this embraced.

So what? Protestants are heretics, and just as divorced from sound Apostolic Tradition (though in less dangerous ways) than you Mormons are. So, it’s no wonder that a Protestant would arrive at some “shaky” views.

It has been my experience that many Catholics think that orthodox walked a clear unmolested path from the apostles to today’s doctrine.

Well, those Catholics happen to be correct about that. We can clearly show an unbroken succession of orthodoxy from Apostolic times until today. The reason you and other dissidents do not see this is because you confuse organic orthodoxy with formal academia and dogmatic terminology. The “wording” may not always be consistent, but the meaning behind the words very much is. Yet, to see this, one has to approach the historical record in context and without a pre-existing agenda …something that few persons like yourself do, needless to say. I refer to the need to validate your apostacy.

Those who recognize this to not be the case often think that the Maxim of St. Vincent de Lerins is applicable and produces orthodoxy.

I’m sorry, but the maxim of St. Vincent, taken correctly, very much does produce (that is, identify) orthodoxy. Only a cynic or a fool thinks otherwise.

Those who recognize this to not be the case often think that councils decided truth based on the clear witness of what Tradition was and that we can discern this from what survives to today.

Right. Because we can.

None of the above is true.

Says who??? This coming from someone who believes in disappearing gold tablets?!

I do however agree that apostolic doctrine (as constituted by Catholic orthodoxy) is more consistent than LDS seem to think.

Well, there are many things that LDS are mistaken about. If you seek the truth honestly you will see that.

Matt 16:18-19 is my favorite. Concerning the rest, I would like to acknowledge that the Spirit has guided the Catholic Church and it was the “lesser organization” that carried on after the more complete early church departed.

I see. But, that being the case, you STILL make Jesus into a liar in John 14:16-17 & 16:13. There He promises that the remaining and always-present Spirit would continue to lead the Church to “ALL truth” - not merely “lesser” or “incomplete” truth. Either 1 Tim. 3:15 is true or it’s not. Either the Church is the “pillar and foundation of truth” - a foundation which the gates of hell cannot prevail against - or it is not. If you say that Christ’s Church was diminished IN ANY WAY after Apostolic times, then you are saying that the gates of hell HAVE prevailed against the Church to some degree …again, making Jesus a liar.

continued. . .

 

[FCEGM]

The salvic truth contained in the Bible and the witness of Jesus Christ, did in fact remain and was never perverted such that it could not lead one to salvation.

This is a very Protestant perspective (LDS heresy stemming from the Protestant tradition). What you’re saying is that the Bible remained intact, but the Church itself did not - the Bible, therefore, being the actual and ultimate custodian of the Gospel, and not the Church itself. Sorry, but that is a totally unScriptural and unTraditional perspective. The Bible describes the Spirit-guided Church itself as the Christ-established custodian of the Gospel. You cannot have the Gospel without the true Church. Not possible. If the Church was diminished or “removed from the earth,” then so was the Gospel of Christ, along with its saving power. The “truth contained in the Bible” has no power to save anyone apart from the Body of Christ, the Church, the embodiment of the Covenant which Christ established with mankind, and the very thing a believer must join Himself to in order to be saved.

But, what you’re suggesting (which is VERY Protestant) is that the Covenant people (and thus the Covenant itself) of Christ has been ‘taken from the earth,’ thereby representing a “break” in the continuity of the Covenant of Christ on earth. Rather, men are merely saved, not by the Incarnational Covenant itself (membership in the one Body of Christ), but by “information” recorded in the Bible which can be used, not as a means for entering into an established Covenant people (the Body of Christ), but as a “recipe” for “repeating” and initiating a Covenant with Christ which is singular, distinct, and separate from (not depending upon) the Covenant people that He originally established. However, from both a Scriptural and a Traditional / Apostolic point of view, this is simply poppy-cock.

The only thing I propose is that the Restoration was in fact a restoration.

If it needed to be “restored,” then it was once missing; and if it was once missing, Christ’s promises are false and His Covenant did not continue unbroken. See, for example, 1 Cor. 11:25-26:

“In the same way, He took the Cup, after Supper, saying, ‘This Cup is the New Covenant in my Blood. Do this in remembrance of me.’ For, as often as you eat this Bread and drink the Cup, you proclaim the death of the Lord until He comes.”

So, the Covenant was instituted and to be celebrated UNTIL. . . when? Until the Lord returns to earth in glory! The Covenant was not, and will not be, removed from the earth until then. Rather, UNTIL the Lord comes, His one Covenant people will remain and will continue to celebrate the Covenant (the Eucharist). That is what the Bible teaches, and that is what Apostolic Christians have ALWAYS believed.

The authority to lead God’s church on the earth rests with the LDS Prophet and not the Catholic Pope.

The Catholic Pope can trace his unbroken succession to St. Peter, who was commissioned by Christ with authority over the Church (Matt 16:18-19, Luke 22:31-32, John 21:15-19). You, on the other hand, can’t even produce your gold tablets. So, what’s the more probable scenario here???

continued. . .

 

[FCEGM]

The purpose God had for the lesser organization that is the Catholic Church was in fact fulfilled (and perhaps continues to be fulfilled), but the restoration has corrected doctrinal errors and provided greater light and knowledge.

Well, before you “correct” those doctrinal “errors,” it might help if you could prove that they are “errors” to begin with …which you, of course, cannot.

For me, the question is, “Does Matthew 16:18-19 say that Christ’s church will not apostatize (as LDS say God says it did)?” An important thing must be noted when this question is answered. Catholics believe that an apostasy is the turning from Christ.

Not exactly. We believe that apostasy is turning from Christ, His Gospel, or any truth revealed by His Church.

Heresy is the accepting of errors concerning God’s truth. LDS do not believe the Catholic Church turned from Christ.

Well, that’s awfully funny, then, since the “Christ” you believe in is clearly not the one we believe in. We reject your false Christ. Therefore, you should believe that we “turned” from him.

We believe that the authority to publicly lead the church was removed from the earth.

The Bible says otherwise. Indeed, the only reason that you believe this is,not because of any Biblical tenet, but because of the general disillusionment of Protestantism, which did not lead to some ‘shining city on a hill,’ as the reformers promised it would, but to heterodoxy, disunity, and confusion. This is what Joseph Smith faced during the 19th Century; and, like Mohammad before him, he “solved the problem” via a creative flight of fancy rather than a proper exploration of historical and Catholic truth (which, as a 19th Century American Protestant, he was no doubt culturally unable to relate to).

We do not believe that the Pope has this authority today.

So much for Jesus’ promises. So much for Heb 13:17.

We believe that with the absence of this authority, dogmatic statements that are non in accordance with God’s truth have been embraced.

Since this authority has NOT been absent, those who reject that authority have “embraced” for various reasons theories some of which are so far removed from the apostolic testimony as to be wholly untenable and have “embraced” a false faith. A discovery of this false faith would free the person from his erroneous assent to it, unless there is denying the objectivity of the evidence through some sort of CREATION (illusory) of the mind.

We do not however suggest that these errors result in a loss of truth

You’re evidently saying that we fell into error, but did not lose truth, which, of course, is a silly thing to say and an unrealistic distinction. If we fell into error, then we DID lose truth; or did we lose some truth while retaining some? John 16:13, otoh, promises that we will be led to all truth by the remaining and ever-present Holy Spirit.

such that no Catholic today or throughout history is able to align themselves sufficiently with the will of God such that they receive the fullness of blessings available

If only we had some invisible gold tablets and a hat in which to read them, the Catholic’s worries would be over. The mind boggles at the blessings that St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Teresa of Jesus, St. John of the Cross, St. Damian of Molokai, St. Maximilian Kolbe, St. Therese of the Child Jesus, St. Teresa of Calcutta, etc., etc., etc., missed-out on in their lifetimes!

continued. . .

 

[FCEGM]

So, does Matthew 16:18-19 demand that an apostasy of authority will not happen?

Yes.

There are more complex positions than this that hinge upon what exactly the “Gates of Hades” are.

The gates of hell, all throughout the patristic record, are equated with the “mouths of the heretics” - those who teach untruths which lead to spiritual death. This interpretation fits perfectly with the context of Matt. 16, where Peter is given a direct, doctrinal revelation from God the Father (i.e., the only orthodox answer to the question, “Who do you say that I am?”), and the “gates of hell” (hades / death) are contrasted with that. What you are saying, however, is that a kind of spiritual death DID overtake the Church, and that solid Petrine orthodoxy was overcome by satanic error. Therefore, in your view, Christ is a liar and the Bible is wrong.

If you are really dissatisfied with what I post here then we may look at some of these, but to me it is sufficient to look to the word “prevail.” I have suggested the parallel that Christ prevailed over death, but did in fact die. “Prevail” is to win in the end.

Nice try. But, that is not the context of Matt. 16. Jesus point is that Peter is to be a firm and unmoveable foundation for the Church, and that the gates of hell will not prevail against this foundation - the meaning being that the foundation itself will remain. LDS heresy says that it will not remain; that it will not prevail as a foundation, but that it will falter. Therefore, your attempt at a semantic solution above does not work. “Prevail” is not used in the sense you suggest in Matt. 16. What’s more, v. 19 directly connects to Jesus’ promise about the Rock-like, Petrine nature of His Church in v. 18. And, in v. 19, Peter is told: “I will give to you the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven; whatsoever you bind on earth will be bound in Heaven, and whatsoever you loose on earth will be loosed in Heaven.” It, therefore, necessarily follows that the authority of the Church will remain on earth (where the “binding and loosening” is to be done so as to mirror the dictates of Heaven), and this, as I said, connects directly to the Church’s “prevailing,” Rock-like nature. Therefore, there will be no removal of the Church “from earth,” as you LDS would like to say.

It is not to win every battle.

It is not to be moved as a Christ-established foundation; and what it binds and looses will be the decision of Heaven itself - Heaven’s official and authoritative representative on earth. That’s what the passage says.

continued. . .

 

[FCEGM]

Matthew 16:18 could have said that the church will never leave the earth, but it did not.

That would be stupid, since we believe that the Church will leave the earth one day, when Christ returns (1 Thess 4). But, the meaning of Matt. 16 remains quite clear, and it clearly contradicts your LDS assertions.

The restoration is the fulfillment of Matthew 16:18. Christ’s Church has in fact prevailed through the restoration.

So, the Christ-established foundation (rock) did not stand, and a new foundation had to be created through Joseph Smith with his golden tablets. Again, Matthew 16 says otherwise. If the foundation needed to be “restored,” then Matthew 16 is a lie.

Here is a Catholic who acknowledges what Matthew 16:18 really says he uses “triumph of evil,’ again winning in the end, but specifically acknowledges that it is too much to say that his is associated with “survival of the church.”
Michael M. Winter, former lecturer in Fundamental Theology at St. John’s Seminary (Roman Catholic), in Saint Peter and the Popes, p. 17. states concerning Matthew 16:18
“although some writers have applied the idea of immortality to the survival of the church, it seems preferable to see it as a promise of triumph over evil.”

Yes. And a CONSISTENT promise - an established foundation which will not falter or succumb to the designs of the evil one (such, of course establishes the eternal survival of Christ’s Church since the Church is the life of Christ extended now and through eternity, Christ Who is the never-faltering Victor over sin and death). If you read Matthew 16 in any other way, then you make Jesus a liar.

In truth I have thought about it a great deal. I do not think Matthew 16:18 promises the immortality of the Church. I do not think Christ failed. I do not think Christ lied. I do not think my church is a Satanic distortion.

Of course not, since you do not believe in the REAL Christ either! Neither do you require doctrinal consistency. Yet, as Scripture says, Jesus Christ is the same “yesterday, today, and tomorrow.”

I would however agree that a certain evil was involved in the Jews rejecting and killing their God. Also, if you are saying that evil is involved in suggesting that Jesus failed because He was killed, I could agree with this.

Excuse me? What does this have to do with anything? Jesus did not fail because He was killed. He Himself says in Scripture that no one takes His life from Him, but that He lays it down willingly. So, while the sin of murder (really, theocide) was committed, and the Jewish leaders and Romans (representatives of the world government) were responsible for it, Jesus did not “fail” because He expected to be killed and made this sin a pawn of His Divine will.

But, to suggest that the earthly authority to lead the church is not present in the Pope is not evil, especially if it is in fact truth.

And if it is not true? Then where does it come from? Again, I give you the consistency of John 14:16-17 and 16:13 in regard to Truth.

continued. . .

 

[FCEGM]

I acknowledge that you believe the Pope has valid authority. I disagree.

And if you disagreed for valid reasons, I (and the Church itself) could excuse you for that. But, you disagree because you have joined an organization that violates the tenets of Christianity itself and places your own soul in jeopardy.

I do not think Matt 16:18 points the Popes authority (and neither did Tertullian)

When Tertullian denied that Matt 16:18 applies to the Pope, he happened to be a Montanist heretic who denied ALL ecclesial authority; and, in denying that Matt 16 applies to the Papacy, Tertullian was responding to a decree issued by Pope Callistus I (c. 220 A.D.), by which he relaxed the original Apostolic discipline for the Sacrament of Confession, making it possible, for the first time in history, for Catholics to receive the Sacrament of Confession more than once in one’s lifetime. For this decision, Callistus was opposed both on “the left” by Tertullian and on the “extreme right” by St. Hippolytus. However, what is not a matter of dispute is that Callistus a) claimed the authority to relax the original Apostolic discipline via his Petrine authority to bind and loosen (Matt. 16:19 …Tertullian himself tells us this in his angry, Montanist response to Callistus); and b) when it came to the Catholic Church itself (with the sole exception of Hippolytus, who eventually came around and was reconciled to Pope Pontian), all city-churches from Gaul to Mesopotamia ACCEPTED Callistus’ ruling …and this is why, in both Catholicism and in Eastern Orthodoxy, one is able to receive Confession more than once in one’s lifetime today. So, the witness of one Montanist dissident (Tertullian) means very little compared to the acceptance of the ENTIRE Catholic Church.

Polycarp and Ignatius wanted to be martyrs. Did the Apostles know the truths above and teach them to these early saints? Does this revelation explain the desire for martyrdom that seemed to exist?

Are you asking silly, open-ended questions like Eric Van Daniken and other pedestrian sensationalists? Ignatius and Polycarp desired martyrdom in order to imitate the Lord and to perfect their faith as Christians. Read Ignatius’ Epistles and the record Polycarp’s martyrdom, where both of them directly state as much. Likewise, as I said, the Shepherd is, a) not binding on Christians, given that it was never considered to be canonical (but an example of private revelation at best; and b) it is a work of apocalyptic literature and so not literal in nature, and is, of course, prone to numerous possible interpretations, including false ones - namely, its being used to try to validate strange Mormon doctrines.

Yet, needless to say, in doing this, you are pitting the Shepherd against the canonical Scriptures - Scriptures which clearly teach that Jesus’ Church will never fall to the designs of Satan, never lack the Spirit of Truth, and so never, as the “Smithian” doctrine asserts, ‘be withdrawn from the earth.’ So, in pitting the Shepherd against the canonical Scriptures, the Shepherd loses by default. Even you LDS do not have the Shepherd as part of your canonical scriptures. If it were so important to you, one would think you would have canonized it along with the Book of Abraham.

Hermas is pretty clear in what he reveals

Please! “Clear” according to whom? Since when is any work of apocalyptic literature (e.g. Ezekiel, Daniel, John’s Revelation) “clear.” That’s the whole point of apocalyptic literature - that it be unclear to those unfamiliar with the context and the Tradition behind it. And this applies to you, I’m sorry to say, since you are clearly disconnected from the mindset of the early Church.

 

[TOmNossor]

Cestusdei,

Welcome back from your trip. I am glad the historical foundations of the Bible are faith prompting for you.

You are mistaken about Hermas and probably Ignatius and Polycarp! So I assert!

Tlaloc,

Thanks for your comments. I think the position of the “diffusionists” will be more readily accepted long before the position of the LDS. The data seems to be there, but there is much intellectual momentum opposing it.

Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

Frances,

Up front I wish to mention three things. First, thanks again for a thoughtful response.

Second, I will comment on your uncharitable characterization of my beliefs. If you are being ugly for the sake of being ugly, that is sad. If you are attempting to attach ugliness to my beliefs so as to make them sound less true, that is a poor tactic that I also think you should avoid. And lastly, it seems that you have told me you will not allow me to define what I believe. I think this is silly. But where you do this, I will be unaffected by your mischaracterization of my beliefs. I hope you can recognize that it is important for you to allow me to define what I believe.

Concerning the SSPX folks. They claim to follow the Pope, they have a valid mass, valid baptism, and it seems valid holy orders. I believe very conservative non-SSPX Catholics have the best understanding of what Vatican II means. The SSPX organization may serve a purpose towards reforming the American Catholic religion, or they may depart farther and be cut off. My SSPX friend and I agree that it is not particularly important that I dwell upon these questions.

Frances:

Well, I ignore your “suggestion” because it is not rooted in objective reality. You believe in a made-up “Jesus,” not in the real one - not in the Jesus Who Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Eastern Monophysites, Nestorians, and Protestants believe in.

TOm:

First, my appeal is that you let me define what I believe to be true about Jesus Christ. You are going to ignore my “suggestion” and continue to tell me that what I believe is at odds with what you believe despite making little attempt to understand what I believe. It is very peculiar that your Jesus is the same Jesus as the one-nature Jesus preached by Monophysites, but where we disagree (which you have yet to understand or acknowledge) it results in a different Jesus. I suggest again that this inconsistency is not driven by real differences, but by your insecurity. You desire a polemic to use against me, but the Monophysites do not threaten you. I am sure you disagree.

cont…

 

[TOmNossor]

Frances:

I am not mischaracterizing that you believe in a made-up “Jesus”, Tom - in a Jesus which no orthodox Christian believed in until Joseph Smith found his “amazing disappearing gold tablets.” That is simply a historical fact

TOm:

“Amazing disappearing gold tablets,” is an example of an uncharitable way of referring to my beliefs. I think you do this in an attempt to make your position stronger by making my position sound silly. You follow in the footsteps of those who decry, “wafer worshipers” when you do this. Do you wish to behave like those folks?

There is nothing in the writings of Paul, Peter, James, John, Matthew, Mark, or Luke; or in Polycarp, Ignatius, and Clement of Rome that indicates they do not embrace the Jesus I embrace.

We may contrast this to the fact that there is much in the writings of pre-Nicean fathers that suggests they embrace a Godhead more similar to mine than to yours. Athanasius introduced something that was different from what existed in the writings of all the church fathers before him. I will quote Richard Hansen (a very well respected Anglican scholar).

Indeed, until Athanasius began writing, every single theologian, East and West, had postulated some form of Subordinationism. It could, about the year 300, have been described as a fixed part of catholic theology. (RPC Hanson, “The Achievement of Orthodoxy in the Fourth Century AD” in Rowan Williams, ed., The Making of Orthodoxy, New York, NY: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1989, reprinted 2002, p. 153.)

And

With the exception of Athanasius virtually every theologian, East and West, accepted some form of subordination at least up to the year 355; subordinationism might indeed, until the dénouement of the controversy [Arian], have been described as accepted orthodoxy. (RPC Hanson, The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God, Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1988, p. xix.)

As we will talk briefly about terms such as “Second God,” even saying that Jesus Christ was in the Second place with the Holy Spirit in the third were all through the ECF before Nicea. The Semi-Arian position was strongest at Nicea, emerged as within the spectrum of orthodoxy, was embraced by every Bishop of the church including the Bishop of Rome at one point post Nicea, and was only squelched (according to Newman) because the laity demanded it (not because the educated episcopate demanded it).

Frances:

Ah! But, here’s the difference: We Catholics can easily illustrate that we do not believe in polytheism. Our official teachings are very clear about that. However, your official teachings confirm my accusations. You clearly do not believe in the same Jesus Who Christians believe in. That is simply a fact.

TOm:

No, you cannot if those who you speak with will not let you illustrate what you do believe like you are unwilling to let me illustrate what I believe. You have likely spent less time defending Catholicism among a Protestant majority than I have if you have not encountered folks who demand that since you pray to saints you are polytheistic and no amount of explaining Dulia and Latria will do.

What have I said that is polytheistic or indicative of a different Jesus? I suspect that if we explore this you will find that it is your desire to demonize my beliefs that lead you to this conclusion not in any way an understanding of my beliefs.

cont…

 

[TOmNossor]

Frances:

You know what we Christians mean by it. The LDS mean something else, however; and that “something else” is a profound doctrinal error.

TOm:

Actually, no I do not know what you mean. What are the aspects of “beingness” that are one only? What are the aspects of “personness” that are three?

LDS for the most part have always misunderstood what Catholics mean when they say “one being.” I have tried not to misunderstand. As a result the unity of divinity can be expressed in acceptable LDS terms and can line up with the one-being-ness embraced by Catholics. The most straight forward definitions of “being” and “person” do not apply when speaking of the Trinity, because two persons are always two beings when using normal logic and understanding. I have tried to move past the confusion that folks with a non-Trinitarian foundation frequently experience. My conclusion is that we are not near so far apart as you might think.

When you use words like “different Jesus,” and “polytheistic,” I suggest you misunderstand. When I offer to explore this with you and instead of probing the issue you repeat your statements, I assume that it is not merely that you misunderstand, but that you want to maintain this distinction for your polemic purposes. Perhaps you feel your position is strengthened by this and you need the bolstering.

Frances:

Which is Sabellianism at best, polytheism at worst. However, your “formulations” are no better and no truer when it comes to Apostolic revelation. Rather, your doctrines contradict what has been revealed.

TOm:

I am not sure if you recognize that Sabellianims (modalism) and polytheism are on opposite sides of the spectrum. In any case, I am saying that I know you do not embrace the three-headed monster.

Concerning what has been revealed, if you mean in the Bible and what is evidenced of apostolic tradition pre-Athanasius, then LDS are in alignment with what has been revealed. If you mean what Athanasius put forth and what ultimately become what I call Augustinian Trinitarianism, then you are correct most LDS are uncomfortable with this formulations. And I myself reject the term “co-equal” that Athanasius seemed to use frequently.

cont…

 

[TOmNossor]

Frances:

Do you mean Eusebius of Caesaria or Eusebius of Nicomedia??? Eusebius of Caesarea was a semi-Arian, and Eusebius of Nicomedia was a full-blown Arian, who was condemned and deposed at Nicaea, and thereafter banished. St. Athanasius (then merely a deacon) ran rings around him, as did the other faithful bishops. Please read the history.

TOm:

Actually, I mean Eusebius of Caesaria, however you are in error when you say Eusebius of Nicomedia was a full blown Arian. He was a member of the moderate party. St. Athanasius ran rings around Arius and his follows principally in Arius’ opening statements were Athanasius maneuvered Arius into acknowledging that Jesus Christ was a creature. Arius was done and the moderate party was dealt a blow from which they really didn’t recover.

But the fact is that the majority of the Bishops at the council were of the moderate party. Here are the words of a couple of respected Catholic historians.

"At the beginning of the council, the party of moderate Arian views, of which Eusebius of Nicomedia was the most influential member, was in the majority…”

(Duchesne, Histoire ancienne de l’Eglise, vol. II, pp. 154).

“The opinions (of the members of the Council) followed three directions: The Egyptians and the Occidentals defended the orthodox doctrine (Athanasian) – Athanasius was the spokesman for Bishop Alexander of Alexandria; the majority of the Orientals (the moderate group) held for the divinity of Christ, but hesitated to recognize his perfect equality with the Father; about twenty adherents of Arius declared the Verb (Jesus) a simple creature.” (Albers-Hedde, Manuel d’Histoire Ecclesitique, vol. 1, p. 153)

cont…