The Inconsistent LDS Argument

[Tmaque]

Asa Ben Judah:

We need to remember that the teachnig authority of the C of JC of LDS lies with the Living General Authorities of the Church not with Dead ones. I do not consider it an inconsistency when the living President changes church doctrine and when he does then this superceeds that of his predecessors.

After all, the Pope and the Magisterium are doing it all the time.

You’ve missed my point entirely. I think it is inconsistent for LDS to use non-canonical writings to claim a doctrinal departure on the part of Catholics from early Church beliefs, and then turn around and complain when non-LDS do the same to them. Claiming that it’s ok to change doctrine because your church believes it’s ok is beside the point. Either God allows his church to change doctrines or he doesn’t. If a LDS believes that he does, then I can’t see how he can, in good faith, criticize doctrinal change on the part of the Catholic Church.

 

[Asa_Ben_Judah]

ben_dy:

Can you cite one example where “the Pope and the Magisterium” “changes church doctrine and when he does then this superceeds that of his predecessor”? Just one?

Well we could look at the turmoil caused by the conclusions of Vatican II the most controversial for the ambiguous language of the documents opened a Pandora’s Box to allow Church leaders and others to interpret dogma and doctrine in a Protestant light with an emphasis on humanism, ecumenism, religious liberty, and collegiality in an effort to conform to the modern world rather than the world adhering to what the Church had always taught. This council convened by Pope John XXIII on October 11, 1962 and, despite the latter’s pleas to “Stop the Council!”, it was carried on by his successor Paul VI for three more years, closing on December 8, 1965 and unleashing, by Paul’s own admission, the “Smoke of satan into the sanctuary.”

Asa

 

[TOmNossor]

Tmaque:

You’ve missed my point entirely. I think it is inconsistent for LDS to use non-canonical writings to claim a doctrinal departure on the part of Catholics from early Church beliefs, and then turn around and complain when non-LDS do the same to them. Claiming that it’s ok to change doctrine because your church believes it’s ok is beside the point. Either God allows his church to change doctrines or he doesn’t. If a LDS believes that he does, then I can’t see how he can, in good faith, criticize doctrinal change on the part of the Catholic Church.

I really think this is quite inaccurate.

If the priesthood is given to woman tomorrow in the Catholic Church, the Catholic Church ceases to be the Catholic Church. It is no longer the church with a 2000 year history. There is no question in my mind. The game is over. This is not because God cannot choose to only deliver the gospel to the Jews and then extend it to the gentiles too. This is because the Catholic Church has said it is impossible to change some things and this is one. If they change it then they are INTERNALLY inconsistent.

In logic it is impossible for both “A” AND “NOT A” to be true.

If the priesthood is given to woman tomorrow in the CoJCoLDS, through revelation to the Prophet, with acceptance by the highest quorums and by common consent; then so be it. Our church allows for this to occur. We claim the same prerogative present with Peter and the Old Testament prophets. We claim the prophet can receive supernatural public revelation for the guidance of God’s church on Earth. The Catholic Church specifically rejects this charism.

Now, both of our churches would say that God does not change. Both of our churches must recognize that the Jews had valid authority, but Christ came and valid authority was placed in the hands of Peter. Both of our churches must recognize that the worship practices by Jews with valid authority and the New Testament worship practices by Christians with valid authority are different. The way men interact VALIDLY with God does change.

The way the Catholic Church interacts with God has changed. What the phrase, “No salvation outside the Catholic Church” means has changed in the minds of Catholics. When Saint Pius X was around over 90% of Catholic thought this meant something different than do 90% of Catholics who recognize Benedict XVI. This is a recent and radical change, but can certainly be framed such that it is not “new and different” such that it must be the produce of supernatural public revelation.

The orthodox way of referring to Christ and God the Father changed through Nicea. At best (for Catholics) the far non-subordination end of the spectrum of pre-Nicea thought emerged as the only acceptable orthodoxy. At best (for those who choose not to be Catholic and want to see an apostasy) orthodoxy CHANGED to something “NEW and DIFFERENT” not in accordance with the charism claimed by the Catholic Church and thus we can dispense with any thought that the Catholic Church possesses any such charism and is God’s church.

The CoJCoLDS has its own issues, and change from the past teachings is not something to be totally unconcerned about. But fatal discontinuities are not introduced because the CoJCoLDS does not claim that there is no ability to reveal that which is NEW and DIFFERENT or even change that which was previously believed.

The CoJCoLDS can still be false. In fact it can still be false because it changes. But changing in the CoJCoLDS is not the type of absolute litmus test it is within the Catholic Church because we make different claims.

Charity, TOm

 

[Asa_Ben_Judah]

Asa Ben Judah:

Well we could look at the turmoil caused by the conclusions of Vatican II the most controversial for the ambiguous language of the documents opened a Pandora’s Box to allow Church leaders and others to interpret dogma and doctrine in a Protestant light with an emphasis on humanism, ecumenism, religious liberty, and collegiality in an effort to conform to the modern world rather than the world adhering to what the Church had always taught. This council convened by Pope John XXIII on October 11, 1962 and, despite the latter’s pleas to “Stop the Council!”, it was carried on by his successor Paul VI for three more years, closing on December 8, 1965 and unleashing, by Paul’s own admission, the “Smoke of satan into the sanctuary.”

Asa

A further concern with respect, is that the RCC began at the first Council of Nicea 325 CE when Constantine, a Roman Emperor, imposed a further apostacy upon a struggling Christian church - i.e. the notion of Caesaropapism, the phenomenon of combining the power of secular government with the spiritual authority of the Christian Church; in its extreme form it is a political theory in which the head of state is also also the head of the church.

Since then Jesus Christ was no longer the head of the RCC.

However, Christians including Catholics, Protestants and Mormon’s etc., who serve the Father through his son Jesus Christ in Spirit and in Truth comprise the true church which cannot be numbered nor labeled/categorised because they are known only by God.

I made this point elsewhere in these forums.

Love,

Asa

 

[tkdnick]

Asa Ben Judah:

A further concern with respect, is that the RCC began at the first Council of Nicea 325 CE when Constantine, a Roman Emperor, imposed a further apostacy upon a struggling Christian church - i.e. the notion of Caesaropapism, the phenomenon of combining the power of secular government with the spiritual authority of the Christian Church; in its extreme form it is a political theory in which the head of state is also also the head of the church.

Oh, please do provide evidence that proves that Constantine imposed this idea on The Church at the Council of Nicea

 

[arieh0310]

Asa Ben Judah:

A further concern with respect, is that the RCC began at the first Council of Nicea 325 CE when Constantine, a Roman Emperor, imposed a further apostacy upon a struggling Christian church - i.e. the notion of Caesaropapism, the phenomenon of combining the power of secular government with the spiritual authority of the Christian Church; in its extreme form it is a political theory in which the head of state is also also the head of the church.

That is totally inaccurate. For one, there has never been a secular authority who was the pope, nor vise versa. Additionally, Constantine convoked the Council of Nicea to, in his own words, “bring restoration of peace to the Church”. However, Constantine was partial to Arianism and was baptized on his deathbed by a heretical Arian priest and the bishop closest to the Emperor at the council was an Arian as well.

If Constantine wanted to grab control of the Church he didn’t do a good job, nor did any of his successors. It seems like you are looking at history from a Jack Chick perspective.

 

[TOmNossor]

tkdnick:

Oh, please do provide evidence that proves that Constantine imposed this idea on The Church at the Council of Nicea

I am not sure what Asa Ben Judah has to say about this, and proof in history is a slippery thing. But what is generally accepted by Catholics and non-Catholics seems to at least be the following two things.

1. Constantine called the council
2. Constantine imposed civil penalties (banishing generally I believe) upon those who did not submit to the will of the council.

Interestingly enough as the Bishops and the leaders of various portions of the Roman empire vacillated between Athanasianism and semi-Arianism for the next several decades people were removed from being bishop and banished or placed in the position of bishop based on the prevailing opinion at the top, and the civil authorities enforced these “sentences.”

Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

arieh0310:

That is totally inaccurate. For one, there has never been a secular authority who was the pope, nor vise versa. Additionally, Constantine convoked the Council of Nicea to, in his own words, “bring restoration of peace to the Church”. However, Constantine was partial to Arianism and was baptized on his deathbed by a heretical Arian priest and the bishop closest to the Emperor at the council was an Arian as well.

If Constantine wanted to grab control of the Church he didn’t do a good job, nor did any of his successors. It seems like you are looking at history from a Jack Chick perspective.

1. Constantine called the council of Nicea
2. Constantine imposed civil penalties (banishing generally I believe) upon those who did not submit to the will of the council.

Interestingly enough as the Bishops and the leaders of various portions of the Roman empire vacillated between Athanasianism and semi-Arianism for the next several decades people were removed from being bishop and banished or placed in the position of bishop based on the prevailing opinion at the top, and the civil authorities enforced these “sentences.”

Constantine seems to withdraw himself from Rome and leave the Bishop of Rome in SOME ways in his place.

Over time the authority of the Pope does exert itself over secular heads of government with things like religious leaders overseeing (and exerting seemed ratifying approval authority over) coronations. At the height of the Pope’s power he controlled almost all Christian nations in some respects, and this is evidence by threats to excommunicate Kings that resulted in subordination of the kings will to the will of the Pope. I do not suggest that it can be shown that the Pope did things like make laws concerning commerce, but his authority was certainly the greatest secular/non-secular authority on earth for a period of time (among Christian nations).

Augustine seemed quite comfortable with this arrangement as described in City of God.

Toward the actual decisions of Nicea that arieh0310 seem to allude too, I think the evidence suggest that Constantine was not quite as concerned about the outcome of Nicea as he was about a unified outcome. He did not see Paganism as a unifying force in his empire, but he though Christianity could be.

Concerning his baptism, I think you are correct that he was baptized during an Arian time and by an Arian bishop. This was not uncommon during the decade before and the several decades after Nicea.

And if you really want cool question, how about this, “Was Constantine’s baptism valid? Why are JWs baptisms not valid today?”

Anyway, the acceptance of Christianity by the Roman emperor has had profound and lasting effects upon the Catholic Church. I am generally more concerned about other things, but I do not think this can be historically denied.

Charity, TOm

 

[arieh0310]

Within ten years after Nicaea, Eusebius of Nicomedia and his Arianizing allies had persuaded Constantine to banish Athanasius, the unyielding defender of Nicaea, to Trier in Germany, nearly as far away as he could be sent and still remain within the Roman Empire. It was the first of five exiles for Athanasius in the course of his nearly half century as a Catholic bishop.

Eusebius and his allies also persuaded Constantine to allow Arius to return from his exile.

In 337 Constantine died. The imperial favor shown to the Arianizers continued, especially after his son Constantius became sole emperor in 350; the latter was a convinced Arian as well as an overweening tyrant, and he did not hesitate to use his imperial power to try to force his heretical views upon the bishops.

Athanasius described how Constantius once dealt with a group of recalcitrant bishops at a local council in Milan in 355. The bishops were refusing to sign a condemnation of Athanasius and to “receive the heretics into communion” they “protested against this innovation in Church discipline, crying out that such was not the ecclesiastical rule.” Whereupon the emperor broke in: “My will is canon law! Bishops in Syria make no such objections when I address them. Obey me or . . . exile.”

During the years between the councils of Nicaea and Constantinople more than a half-dozen local councils were convoked in various cities, usually to try to force imperial “compromise” solutions on the bishops on the Arian question. Many bishops gave in under terrific threats and pressures, and sometimes they even underwent torture or were murdered. No fewer than nineteen variations on the Nicene formula were at one time or another formally proposed for the Church, but no such formulas ever finally found acceptance.

The Church (especially the Bishop of Rome) held firm against heresy imposed violently by Roman Emperors. The Church had more influence on the Roman Empire than the other way around. History is the greatest ally of the Catholic Church, that against all odds the Truth prevailed. Truth could have been very easily watered down by bowing to imperial demands, but the Church refused.