The Great Apostasy Debate

[tkdnick]

TOmNossor:

The question is, “Do we have guilt inherited from Adam?” To my knowledge, Catholics say, “Yes.” LDS say emphatically, “No!” And my understanding is that EOs certainly do not say, “Yes.”

Straight from the Catechism regarding original sin:
397 Man, tempted by the devil, let his trust in his Creator die in his heart and, abusing his freedom, disobeyed God’s command. This is what man’s first sin consisted of.278 All subsequent sin would be disobedience toward God and lack of trust in his goodness.

398 In that sin man preferred himself to God and by that very act scorned him. He chose himself over and against God, against the requirements of his creaturely status and therefore against his own good. Constituted in a state of holiness, man was destined to be fully “divinized” by God in glory. Seduced by the devil, he wanted to “be like God,” but "without God, before God, and not in accordance with God."279

399 Scripture portrays the tragic consequences of this first disobedience. Adam and Eve immediately lose the grace of original holiness.280 They become afraid of the God of whom they have conceived a distorted image—that of a God jealous of his prerogatives.281

400 The harmony in which they had found themselves, thanks to original justice, is now destroyed: the control of the soul’s spiritual faculties over the body is shattered; the union of man and woman becomes subject to tensions, their relations henceforth marked by lust and domination.282 Harmony with creation is broken: visible creation has become alien and hostile to man.283 Because of man, creation is now subject "to its bondage to decay."284 Finally, the consequence explicitly foretold for this disobedience will come true: man will "return to the ground,"285 for out of it he was taken. Death makes its entrance into human history.286

cont…

 

[tkdnick]

401 After that first sin, the world is virtually inundated by sin. There is Cain’s murder of his brother Abel and the universal corruption which follows in the wake of sin. Likewise, sin frequently manifests itself in the history of Israel, especially as infidelity to the God of the Covenant and as transgression of the Law of Moses. And even after Christ’s atonement, sin raises its head in countless ways among Christians.287 Scripture and the Church’s Tradition continually recall the presence and universality of sin in man’s history:

• What Revelation makes known to us is confirmed by our own experience. For when man looks into his own heart he finds that he is drawn toward what is wrong and sunk in many evils which cannot come from his good creator. Often refusing to acknowledge God as his source, man has also upset the relationship which should link him to his last end; and at the same time he has broken the right order that should reign within himself as well as between himself and other men and all creatures.288

The consequences of Adam’s sin for humanity
402 All men are implicated in Adam’s sin, as St. Paul affirms: “By one man’s disobedience many [that is, all men] were made sinners”: "sin came into the world through one man and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all men sinned. . . ."289 The Apostle contrasts the universality of sin and death with the universality of salvation in Christ. "Then as one man’s trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one man’s act of righteousness leads to acquittal and life for all men."290

403 Following St. Paul, the Church has always taught that the overwhelming misery which oppresses men and their inclination toward evil and death cannot be understood apart from their connection with Adam’s sin and the fact that he has transmitted to us a sin with which we are all born afflicted, a sin which is the "death of the soul."291 Because of this certainty of faith, the Church baptizes for the remission of sins even tiny infants who have not committed personal sin.292

 

[tkdnick]

<A href=“javascript:OpenPopupWindow(”

<A HREF=# onclick=window.opener.SetPage(“pt3sect1chpt1art8.htm#1865”)>1865

<A HREF=# onclick=window.opener.SetPage(“pt3sect2chpt2art5.htm#2259”)>2259

<A HREF=# onclick=window.opener.SetPage(“pt3sect1chpt1art3.htm#1739”)>1739
")">401 After that first sin, the world is virtually inundated by sin. There is Cain’s murder of his brother Abel and the universal corruption which follows in the wake of sin. Likewise, sin frequently manifests itself in the history of Israel, especially as infidelity to the God of the Covenant and as transgression of the Law of Moses. And even after Christ’s atonement, sin raises its head in countless ways among Christians.287 Scripture and the Church’s Tradition continually recall the presence and universality of sin in man’s history:
What Revelation makes known to us is confirmed by our own experience. For when man looks into his own heart he finds that he is drawn toward what is wrong and sunk in many evils which cannot come from his good creator. Often refusing to acknowledge God as his source, man has also upset the relationship which should link him to his last end; and at the same time he has broken the right order that should reign within himself as well as between himself and other men and all creatures.288

The consequences of Adam’s sin for humanity
<A href=“javascript:OpenPopupWindow(”

<A HREF=# onclick=window.opener.SetPage(“pt1sect2chpt2art2.htm#430”)>430

<A HREF=# onclick=window.opener.SetPage(“pt1sect2chpt2art4p2.htm#605”)>605
")">402 All men are implicated in Adam’s sin, as St. Paul affirms: “By one man’s disobedience many [that is, all men] were made sinners”: "sin came into the world through one man and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all men sinned. . . ."289 The Apostle contrasts the universality of sin and death with the universality of salvation in Christ. "Then as one man’s trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one man’s act of righteousness leads to acquittal and life for all men."290
<A href=“javascript:OpenPopupWindow(”

<A HREF=# onclick=window.opener.SetPage(“pt4sect1chpt1art2.htm#2606”)>2606

<A HREF=# onclick=window.opener.SetPage(“pt2sect2.htm#1250”)>1250
")">403 Following St. Paul, the Church has always taught that the overwhelming misery which oppresses men and their inclination toward evil and death cannot be understood apart from their connection with Adam’s sin and the fact that he has transmitted to us a sin with which we are all born afflicted, a sin which is the "death of the soul."291 Because of this certainty of faith, the Church baptizes for the remission of sins even tiny infants who have not committed personal sin.292 cont…

 

[tkdnick]

[404](javascript:OpenPopupWindow()

How did the sin of Adam become the sin of all his descendants? The whole human race is in Adam "as one body of one man."293 By this “unity of the human race” all men are implicated in Adam’s sin, as all are implicated in Christ’s justice. Still, the transmission of original sin is a mystery that we cannot fully understand. But we do know by Revelation that Adam had received original holiness and justice not for himself alone, but for all human nature. By yielding to the tempter, Adam and Eve committed a personal sin, but this sin affected the human nature that they would then transmit in a fallen state.294 It is a sin which will be transmitted by propagation to all mankind, that is, by the transmission of a human nature deprived of original holiness and justice. And that is why original sin is called “sin” only in an analogical sense: it is a sin “contracted” and not “committed”—a state and not an act.

[405](javascript:OpenPopupWindow()

Although it is proper to each individual,295 original sin does not have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam’s descendants. It is a deprivation of original holiness and justice, but human nature has not been totally corrupted: it is wounded in the natural powers proper to it; subject to ignorance, suffering, and the dominion of death; and inclined to sin—an inclination to evil that is called “concupiscence.” Baptism, by imparting the life of Christ’s grace, erases original sin and turns a man back toward God, but the consequences for nature, weakened and inclined to evil, persist in man and summon him to spiritual battle.

406

The Church’s teaching on the transmission of original sin was articulated more precisely in the fifth century, especially under the impulse of St. Augustine’s reflections against Pelagianism, and in the sixteenth century, in opposition to the Protestant Reformation. Pelagius held that man could, by the natural power of free will and without the necessary help of God’s grace, lead a morally good life; he thus reduced the influence of Adam’s fault to bad example. The first Protestant reformers, on the contrary, taught that original sin has radically perverted man and destroyed his freedom; they identified the sin inherited by each man with the tendency to evil (concupiscentia), which would be insurmountable. The Church pronounced on the meaning of the data of Revelation on original sin especially at the second Council of Orange (529)296 and at the Council of Trent (1546).297

A hard battle . . .

[407](javascript:OpenPopupWindow()

The doctrine of original sin, closely connected with that of redemption by Christ, provides lucid discernment of man’s situation and activity in the world. By our first parents’ sin, the devil has acquired a certain domination over man, even though man remains free. Original sin entails "captivity under the power of him who thenceforth had the power of death, that is, the devil."298 Ignorance of the fact that man has a wounded nature inclined to evil gives rise to serious errors in the areas of education, politics, social action,299 and morals.

 

[TOmNossor]

tkdnick:

What is pedobaptism?

Infant Baptism.

I think “sin transmitted not sin committed” is still not in complete alignment with LDS views. I think the Catholic Church has been more dogmatic about original sin in the past, but I think we are not necessarily as far as some might say.

Again, I was responding to Tmaque who said that LDS beliefs were not a restoration, but this is not correct.

Charity, TOm

 

[tkdnick]

TOmNossor:

Infant Baptism.

So you believe that infant baptism was not pracited in the early church?

 

[tkdnick]

TOmNossor:

Again, I was responding to Tmaque who said that LDS beliefs were not a restoration, but this is not correct.

That’s your belief.

 

[TOmNossor]

tkdnick:

So you believe that infant baptism was not pracited in the early church?

I believe that the evidence is much more even with respect to infant baptism. I believe the evidence for the development of “original sin” is a clear win for the CoJCoLDS. Our belief lines up with earlier beliefs and your belief developed. You may argue that the subjects are related and that is true in today’s Catholic Church, but that was not true before Augustine.

tkdnick:

That’s your belief.

Tmaque used “original sin” as one of his examples. The concept of “original sin” as it is separated from LDS beliefs originated in the 5th century. This was specifically incorrect. Other things he said were debatable and where he repeated them I responded.

If you would like to pick the best one from his list, I can address it.

I already told you which two were best in my opinion and that “original sin” was very flawed.

Creation ex materia and its tie-in to the Trinity and Christology are places were I think LDS do very well.

Charity, TOm

 

[Tmaque]

TOmNossor:

I believe that the evidence is much more even with respect to infant baptism. I believe the evidence for the development of “original sin” is a clear win for the CoJCoLDS. Our belief lines up with earlier beliefs and your belief developed. You may argue that the subjects are related and that is true in today’s Catholic Church, but that was not true before Augustine.

Tmaque used “original sin” as one of his examples. The concept of “original sin” as it is separated from LDS beliefs originated in the 5th century. This was specifically incorrect. Other things he said were debatable and where he repeated them I responded.

If you would like to pick the best one from his list, I can address it.

I already told you which two were best in my opinion and that “original sin” was very flawed.

Creation ex materia and its tie-in to the Trinity and Christology are places were I think LDS do very well.

Charity, TOm

Tom,

I believe Origen mentioned original sin in the 3rd century in his reasoning for the baptism of infants. Like I mentioned earlier Tertullian wrote against the concept in the 2nd century(I think) because he believed the widespread and apostolic practice of infant baptism was unnecessary.

As far as the term “original sin” goes, we may be splitting hairs here. I was of the understanding (taught to me throughout my LDS upbringing) that the fact that we are mortal is the only consequence we have upon us as a result of Adam and Eve’s sin. There was no mention that we were in a “condition” of sin. There was no mention that the Fall made us much more susceptible to other sin. Both of these ideas are held by the E.O. and by the Catholic Church. I was not aware the LDS Church held the same view. This is my framework for LDS thought on original sin. Perhaps it is wrong or the concept has evolved.

 

[cestusdei]

Tom, you wrote:
From the earliest of the orthodox ECF, we see little or nothing that conflicts with LDS theology. As we walk forward in time we begin to see more and more things that are solidly non-LDS. Many of these things become orthodox and are then accented.

#You must be kidding. Mormons don’t believe in the real presence, monarchial bishops, baptismal regeneration, or much else that the early church believed. You don’t see temple ceremonies, garments, becoming gods, or much else that is integral to Mormonism. This is one of the strongest arguments against the lds. I have challenged you before. Think as you read the Fathers. Do they sound more Orthodox or Mormon? The answer is the former. Even Protestants agree with that.

 

[tkdnick]

TOmNossor:

I believe that the evidence is much more even with respect to infant baptism. I believe the evidence for the development of “original sin” is a clear win for the CoJCoLDS. Our belief lines up with earlier beliefs and your belief developed. You may argue that the subjects are related and that is true in today’s Catholic Church, but that was not true before Augustine.

I was confused before. So what you’re saying is that there is evidence in the early church that suggests both infant baptism and not infant baptism.

Tmaque used “original sin” as one of his examples. The concept of “original sin” as it is separated from LDS beliefs originated in the 5th century. This was specifically incorrect.

Could you show evidence?

If you would like to pick the best one from his list, I can address it.

Well obviously in Catholic - LDS discussions, the Trinity is a big difference, so that’s always a good one to shoot for.

 

[TOmNossor]

Tmaque,

I am interested in what you think Origin had to say about original sin. What leads you to suggest that he postulated this idea. I suggested above that Origin struggled with infant baptism (and the inequality he saw between people born to poor heathen parents verses well off Christian parents). He postulated a pre-existence when, but to my knowledge never formulated a concept of “original sin.”

Tertullian was opposed to infant baptism. Again, he recognized that it occurred. He recognized that Baptism was important, but to my knowledge he never postulated an “original sin” doctrine. What passages from Tertullian lead you to believe that he believed in “original sin?”

A quick bit on the EO positions.

Dr. Seth Farber “The Reign of Augustine,” The Christian Activist: A Journal of Orthodox Opinion, Vol. 13, Winter/Spring 1999, pp. 44

“The source of evil lies in the freedom of man. Sin is not in the nature of humanity but is entirely an act of will. Sin is sin because it is voluntary. Otherwise God would not condemn us for it”

This is good LDS theology. It properly emphasizes choose.

cont…

 

[TOmNossor]

Here is a good summary of LDS position.

Byron R. Merrill in The Encyclopedia of Mormonism:

While The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints teaches that the transgression of Adam and Eve brought death into the world and made all mortals subject to temptation, suffering, and weakness, it denies that any culpability is automatically transmitted to Adam and Eve’s offspring. All mortals commit sin, but they will be punished “for their own sins, and not for Adam’s transgression” (A of F 2)…

Latter-day Saints believe that infants inherit certain effects of the Fall, but not the responsibility for any sin as a result of Adam’s or Eve’s transgression. From the foundation of the world, the Atonement of Jesus Christ makes amends “for the sins of those who have fallen by the transgression of Adam” (Mosiah 3:11). Therefore, baptism is not needed until children reach a state of accountability, generally at the age of eight years, for little children cannot sin and are innocent… They are redeemed from the beginning by the grace of Jesus Christ (D&C 29:46-47), whose Atonement cleanses them of the effects of the Fall (D&C 137:10). The Prophet Mormon wrote the following words of Christ: “Little children are whole, for they are not capable of committing sin; wherefore the curse of Adam is taken from them in me, that it hath no power over them” (Moroni 8:8).

In one account in the Pearl of Great Price, Adam learned that he had been forgiven for his transgression in the Garden of Eden, and that “the Son of God hath atoned for original guilt, wherein the sins of the parents cannot be answered upon the heads of the children” (Moses 6:54). However, as a consequence of the Fall, evil is present in the world and all “children are conceived in sin, [and] so when they begin to grow up, sin conceiveth in their hearts, and they taste the bitter, that they may know to prize the good” (Moses 6:55). Begetting children in marriage is not a sin (cf. Heb. 13:4), but the propensity for sin is inherited.

No mortal person bears the burden of repenting for Adam’s transgression. Nevertheless, all inherit the effects of the Fall: All leave the presence of God at birth, all are subject to physical death, and all will sin in some measure. From the moment of conception, the body inherits the seed of mortality that will eventually result in death, but only as a person becomes accountable and chooses evil over good do personal sins result in further separation from God. Thus Adam was counseled: “Wherefore teach it unto your children, that all men, everywhere, must repent, or they can in nowise inherit the kingdom of God, for no unclean thing can dwell there” (Moses 5:57).

In a lesson I taught about 2 months ago:

I would like to start with Adam and Christ so we can set the stage.

---

1 Corinthians 15:22

For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.

What death resulted from Adam’s fall or transgression?

Physical and Spiritual. No more would man not taste of physical death and no more would man be in constant presence of God he would be separated which is a spiritual death. As a result of this separation from God we are subject to sin. There is none righteous, no, not one (Romans 3:10)

Do we believe that Adam’s sin/transgression is something we will be punished for?

No! Moroni 8:10-21 teaches us that we are not damned for the acts of Adam.

Instead our lack of righteousness results from the choices we make in this fallen world. All of us sin through commission and omission (save those who cannot choose such as those below the age of accountability) and this is why none are righteous.

Charity, TOm

 

[catholic-rcia]

The First Christians baptized infants because the first Christians have always done so. This practice was never challenged until the Middle Ages.

“Let the children come to me, and do not hinder them; for to such belongs the kingdom of God” (Luke 18:16). Some say that only an adult can make a conscious decision to be baptized. So what happens to the children who die before they have a chance to make this decision? We must remember that Salvation is a gift from God, and all are capable of receiving this gift,

For the promise is for you and your children (Acts 2:38,39)

The remission of sins for an adult is a treasure included in Baptism, but sinning is not a requirement for Baptism, it is a fact of our fallen nature. From the writings of the first Christians and from Scripture we find that the first Christians were baptized as adults to receive the gift of the Holy Spirit, because the church was just being formed. These adults who were first baptized began to baptize their own children at a very early age to bring them the same free gift of Salvation, the Holy Spirit that they had received as adults. "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you shall be saved, you and your household . . . and immediately he was baptized, he and all his household. (Acts 16:15a) "

It was the obligation of these parents to raise their children in the Christian faith, teaching them the many treasures that Christ had gifted them. You will be hard pressed to find in the early church writings an early Christian who had not been baptized as a child. There are no writings of early Christians who were born into Christian families who at an age of reason made the decision to be baptized into Christ, to be born again, because they already were being raised in the faith. It was and is only those who did not know of Christ, who found Christ at a later age, who were called to the water and made the choice to renounce their accumulated sin, to enter into the community of Christians through the Great Sacrament of Baptism, to join in the Sacrament of Confession, forgiveness and reconciliation, for the lifelong battle over sin while being embraced by Christ.

Baptism is not just a testimony in the soul of an adult who has come to believe in the saving power of Christ, but is the means by which we clothe ourselves in the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. For an infant, it is the receiving of the Holiest of Spirits, a blanket of security covered with the communion of saints in the One Body of Christ (Romans 6:4) (Galatians 3:27)

Peter said, “Repent, and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit” (Acts 2:38) “For the promise is to you and to your children and to all that are far off, every one whom the Lord our God calls to him”

After these first Christians were baptized, they naturally passed this saving Grace on to their first-born, second-born and so on. This baptism of infants was not for conscious sin, the remission of sins committed since their birth, because they had not yet consciously sinned. But it was for the receiving of the Holy Spirit for the remission of original sin, that which we are all born with and by which we are afflicted, the why and reason for needing our Savior. As you ponder Scripture about Baptism, try to find where baptism is restricted only to adults. Where do we find the so-called “Age of Reason as a degree for receiving Baptism in the Scriptures "? Either the gift of salvation is freely given to those who hear the Shepherd’s voice and follow, or it is not. Is this gift earned through our sin? Or is this gift given, because of original sin, to all who accept this gift? And what about those who are mentally ill who cannot make decisions on their own, is not the receiving of the Spirit put forth to transform them, as well? Do we have to be smart enough to receive the gift of the Holy Spirit at Baptism? What father or mother does not give the gift of life to his or her child before an age of reason? What conditions can we as mere creatures place on the special gift of life, the special gift of baptism? A life in Christ.

“Now they were bringing even infants to him that he might touch them; and when the disciples saw it, they rebuked them. But Jesus called them to him, saying, ‘Let the children come to me, and do not hinder them; for to such belongs the kingdom of God’” (Luke 18:15–16).

God Bless

Rich
catholic-rcia.com

 

[catholic-rcia]

**Definition of “Household” in Greek

**We know that the Greek word oikos, translated “house” or “household,” has traditionally included infants and children in its meaning for several reasons. There is no evidence of this word being used either in secular Greek, Biblical Greek,or in the writing of Hellenistic Judaism in a way which would restrict its meaning only to adults. The Old Testament parallel for “house” carries the sense of the entire family. The Greek translation of the original Hebrew manuscripts (completed in 250 B.C.) uses this word when translating the Hebrew word meaning the complete family (men, women, children, infants). Similarly, we know that the phrase “he and his house” refers to the total family; the Old Testament use of this phrase clearly demonstrates this by specifically mentioning the presence of children and infants at times.
unknown

 

[TOmNossor]

cestusdei:

Tom, you wrote:

From the earliest of the orthodox ECF, we see little or nothing that conflicts with LDS theology. As we walk forward in time we begin to see more and more things that are solidly non-LDS. Many of these things become orthodox and are then accented.

#You must be kidding.

No, actually I am not kidding. I do not think kidding would be a particularly effective method of communicating on threads like this.

cestusdei:

Mormons don’t believe in the real presence, monarchial bishops, baptismal regeneration, or much else that the early church believed.

I have suggested on this thread that the real presence is a strong point for the Catholic Church. There are clearly dissenting voices. The earliest of early witness is not any more clear concerning the real presence than is John 6. Now I will not suggest that a literal reading of John 6 is not pretty solid, but I will join with a number of important Catholics in saying that it can be read figuratively.

St. Augustine: “If the sentence is one of command, either forbidding a crime or vice, or enjoining an act of prudence or benevolence, it is not figurative. If, however, it seems to enjoin a crime or vice, or to forbid an act of prudence or benevolence, it is figurative. ‘Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man,’ says Christ, ‘and drink His blood, ye have no life in you.’ This seems to enjoin a crime or a vice; it is therefore a figure, enjoining that we should have a share in the sufferings of our Lord, and that we should retain a sweet and profitable memory of the fact that His flesh was wounded and crucified for us.” - Augustine (On Christian Doctrine, 3:16:24)

St. Basil: “‘He that eateth me, he also shall live because of me;’ for we eat His flesh, and drink His blood, being made through His incarnation and His visible life partakers of His Word and of His Wisdom. For all His mystic sojourn among us He called flesh and blood, and set forth the teaching consisting of practical science, of physics, and of theology, whereby our soul is nourished and is meanwhile trained for the contemplation of actual realities. This is perhaps the intended meaning of what He says.” - Basil (Letter 8:4)

Clement of Alexandria: “Elsewhere the Lord, in the Gospel according to John, brought this out by symbols, when He said: ‘Eat ye my flesh, and drink my blood,’ describing distinctly by metaphor the drinkable properties of faith and the promise, by means of which the Church, like a human being consisting of many members, is refreshed and grows, is welded together and compacted of both,–of faith, which is the body, and of hope, which is the soul; as also the Lord of flesh and blood. For in reality the blood of faith is hope, in which faith is held as by a vital principle.” - Clement of Alexandria (The Instructor, 1:6)

TOm:

I can also show were ECF denied/had unorthodox views of the real presence. Cardinal Newman specifically mentions this in his On the Development of Christian Docrine. However, my review of this subject despite a number of dissenting voices generally sides with the Catholic Church. You win. It is not a slam dunk, but this is Catholic evidence.

Cont…

 

[TOmNossor]

cestusdei:

monarchial bishops, baptismal regeneration

Actually, these are both solidly LDS. It may not appear that Bishops are Bishops for life, but unless they leave the church they are always Bishops. And I am not sure why you would suggest we do not believe in baptismal regeneration. In fact, our practice of proxy Baptism would seem to emphasize this necessary regeneration to a greater extent than would your developed doctrine of “Baptism of Desire.”

cestusdei:

You don’t see temple ceremonies, garments, becoming gods, or much else that is integral to Mormonism. This is one of the strongest arguments against the lds. I have challenged you before. Think as you read the Fathers. Do they sound more Orthodox or Mormon? The answer is the former. Even Protestants agree with that.

This actually does not address what I said which is that the earliest of the ECF do not CONTRADICT LDS beliefs. You might also search for “original sin,” the primacy of Rome, “creation ex nihilo,” the co-equal Trinity formulation, and a number of other Catholic things pre-160AD. I think you will not find them.

Concerning what you did say: Temple ceremonies and garments are esoteric aspects of Mormonism. You see little of this in our literature either and certainly no specifics. But document like the “Secret Gospel of Mark” and some Gnostic work provide support for the antiquity of LDS garments and temple practices.

I will post some deification quotes latter.

Charity, TOm

 

[catholic-rcia]

“Concerning what you did say: Temple ceremonies and garments are esoteric aspects of Mormonism. You see little of this in our literature either and certainly no specifics. But document like the “Secret Gospel of Mark” and some Gnostic work provide support for the antiquity of LDS garments and temple practices.”

I have been to Catholic weddings and I have been to the LDS Receptions. In a Catholic wedding all are invited not only to watch two become one, but to take an active role in it as the body of Christ. No one sits outside. None of us our worthy to even be in the Chapel, and yet we are invited by Christ with open arms and we are even embraced by them. Who is worthy to attend a Mormon wedding and who is not? Can you not see the distortion, the damage in this thinking? To think that one cannot enter because one has not been worthy is sad. But what is worst is to lead someone into thinking they are. It’s best to take the back seat, or not to enter at all with this kind of thinking. It’s best to feel less of yourself than more of yourself. When you come to think less of yourself you come to think more of Christ. Is this maybe the reason that those who cannot uphold the ordnances of your church come to the Catholic faith? Those that are less than perfect? I think so. It is a good thing to be left behind in your faith. It gives hope for one to find Christ. At Mass we all say this together: Lord I am not worthy to receive you but only say the word and I shall be healed. It is only Christ that is worthy, and because of this worthiness, his mercy and his love for us. All are welcome. All sinners are welcome in Gods Church, all are welcome in the Sacrament of Matrimony because you cannot separate the sinner from Christ and Christ does not come to us in our worthiness, he comes to us in our sin. When you get that, you get the message of the Cross. And all are welcome at the foot of the Cross. Unless for some reason you have no need to be there, or you can tell another that they are not welcome.

 

[cestusdei]

Tom,
Actually I can quote Basil, Augustine et al. and show where they do affirm the real presence and even the quotes you give do not deny it. I can quote Ignatius on the episcopacy, but I expect you have already read him. You can also read his reverence for Rome or how Ireneaus regards Roman primacy. It is all there even in the second century. We went over deification. None of them meant by it what Mormons mean by it. I have found that definitions are of vast importance when talking with Mormons.

Certainly some of the gnostics have some strange ideas. They weren’t Christian after all. However, I expect if you look at all they teach you would not want to claim they were Mormons. Origen’s logokoi do not resemble Mormon pre-existent souls. Remember though the Mormon Church claims it springs right from Jupiters head fully formed just like the ancient church. Even if you adopt the gnostics you will discover they were not lds.

 

[catholic-rcia]

This is said much better here:

In the Parable of the Pharisee and Tax Collector (Luke 18:10-14) the Pharisee was an honest man and very religious. Note that he fasted twice a week. According to Jewish law only one day in the year was an obligatory fast day. He paid tithes on his income, i.e. gave away 10%. He was probably much more religious than any of us. However he was proud, he was using religion to box God in. He was using his religious practices to keep God at a distance. It is easier to give donations than to love. When we give a donation it is over quickly but there is no end to loving others. God is asking us to love, it would be easier to give an offering. Being better than others is not what matters but becoming more like God. The prayer of the tax collector reminds me of the prayer of the Mass “Lord, I am not worthy to receive you, but only say the word and I shall be healed”. The parable calls us to be humble, let God be God and not pretend we are God.
“The proud cannot bring themselves to hold out empty hands to God, they insist on offering virtues, good works, self denials, anything in order not to have nothing. They want to be beautiful for him from their own resources, whereas we are beautiful only because God looks on us and makes us beautiful. God cannot give himself to us unless our hands are empty to receive him. The deepest reason why so few of us are saints is because we will not let God love us. To be loved means a naked, defenceless surrender to all God is. It means a glad acceptance of our nothingness, a look fixed only on the God who gives, taking no account of the nothing to whom the gift is made. To lose ourselves like this is the most radical of despoliations because the last shred of self-importance is discarded. The very words and acts of humility can be a barricade of well-nigh infinite subtlety. Jesus came to us precisely to break down the bars, something we could never have done of ourselves. Yet we cannot live the life of Jesus unless we consent to leave our own pitiful lives, and this is what pride finds unendurable. Striving for ‘perfection’ is the most disastrous of the mistakes good people fall into. It feeds the very vice it intends to destroy. Most fervent souls are prepared to give God any mortal thing, work themselves to death, anything except the one thing he wants, total trust: anything but surrender into his loving hands. ‘You must become as little children’, whose one virtue is that they know they are unimportant.”

by Ruth Burrows