The Mormon creed

[RebeccaJ]

Actually it’s quite the opposite situation I find myself in: Catholicism seemingly is very-anti-mystery and instead likes to define every thing. This generates a very long Catholic-specific jargon, which makes interfaith understanding hard.

Or at least that’s my experience, obviously other people’s experiences will vary.

Yeah, I get it. I studied Catholicism on my own for a couple of hours ever day, for a year. To begin with, Mormonism redefines Christian terms, so I had to study from a point that I didn’t know anything about Christianity. I looked up every word and every phrase, as though I had never heard them before, and quit using the Mormon definitions.

Then, I joined an RCIA group, with no intention to convert, just trying to “get it”. The entire year of RCIA I felt as though I had entered a foreign land, where I didn’t speak the language and didn’t know the culture. I continued to study that year, on my own as well as with RCIA.

In the midst of all that, everything I found confusing became beautifully clear. Now, from where I’m sitting, Mormonism makes Christianity over complicated. It’s really quite simple and quite beautiful. We’ve discussed here before, among us former Mormons, that Mormon teaching continued to influence our understanding of various Catholic things, in a manner that can be very frustrating. I call it the cult brain. . Sorry, but that is how it feels, that Mormon teaching is so engrained into every thought, that it unconsciously influenced my understanding of everything.

It’s been nearly 9 years since my baptism, and I don’t find anything left hanging around of the cult brain.

All that to say, it is a greater struggle towards truth for Mormons, and I have seen the same struggle in JW’s. There really has to be a great desire for God, for truth, for love, really. Without that desire, which I see entirely as the influence of the Holy Spirit, it is the Mormon who is going through the intellectual exercise. Not seeking Truth, the cult brain remains large and in charge. Once in a while that small spark of desire cracks open the door, and the Holy Spirt enters and does not let go. These are the Mormons who show up in our parishes, seeking Truth, and who I have seen over and over again, are brought to illumination.

 

[JMM1957]

Without even entertaining the date he gave (suffice it to say that Catholics believe that Marriage as a sacrament is Biblical and is part of the New Testament Church, which is the Catholic Church), you are cutting out part of my words, as I mentioned. I said:

"God is not all of a sudden going to come up with new commandments or new sacraments that are required for salvation,"

So, even if we entertain that marriage was established as a sacrament at the date given (which is an idea that I do not entertain), it still would not conflict with what I said, because I specifically and deliberately stated that God isn’t going to come up with new commandments or new sacraments required for salvation. Catholics don’t believe marriage is required for salvation.

Sorry, I wasn’t specific enough, Marriage as a Sacrament didn’t become canon law until 1547 at the Council of Trent, but that was just a formality meant to address Protestant protests about marriage being a Sacrament basically. Obviously, like you, I believe that Marriage was a Sacrament established by Jesus himself.

 

[JMM1957]

Honestly, because I find Catholicism to be very confusing. It is very intricate, very terminology heavy, and wants you to follow a very certain thought path with is an illogical path to me. This last page would be a good example that.

**I mean no offense by any of this, and realize that other people can find my faith equally confusing. I’ve studied lots of faiths (this is a hobby of mine), and am used to facing difference there and learning new ways of thinking. But Catholicism is… extra time required. I spent about 11 months in thorough study, and still come back to it occasionally. **

Growing up I had lots of Catholic friends and have attended many many Catholic events. However, nowadays I only know some Catholics from a distance, so not close enough to ask a million questions. And when I do ask some questions, I seemingly get very contradictory responses… Anyway, hence my original coming to the forum

Hi jane,

I have heard even Protestant’s say, who have converted to the Catholic Church, that they found the Church to be quite confusing. And Protestant’s are much, much closer to Catholic beliefs than LDS are, so don’t worry.

 

[JMM1957]

Another question about Catholic beliefs:
So I’m hearing that Catholics define “public revelation” as “revelation essential to salvation”, and that stopped at the end of the Apostolic era. No more. And papal infallibility/ Councils don’t count as public revelation. (Please correct me in the highly probable event I’m getting this wrong).

Do Catholics believe that a proper understanding of the Trinity is required for salvation?

I would like to give you some statements out of the Catechism of the Catholic Church that might help. If you have any questions, I know you’ll ask. (Bolding is mine)

GOD COMES TO MEET MAN

50 By natural reason man can know God with certainty, on the basis of his works. But there is another order of knowledge, which man cannot possibly arrive at by his own powers: the order of divine Revelation.1 Through an utterly free decision, God has revealed himself and given himself to man. This he does by revealing the mystery, his plan of loving goodness, formed from all eternity in Christ, for the benefit of all men**. God has fully revealed this plan by sending us his beloved Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit.**

Article 1

THE REVELATION OF GOD

I. God Reveals His “Plan of Loving Goodness”

51 “It pleased God, in his goodness and wisdom, to reveal himself and to make known the mystery of his will. His will was that men should have access to the Father, through Christ, the Word made flesh, in the Holy Spirit, and thus become sharers in the divine nature.”

52 God, who “dwells in unapproachable light”, wants to communicate his own divine life to the men he freely created, in order to adopt them as his sons in his only-begotten Son. By revealing himself God wishes to make them capable of responding to him, and of knowing him and of loving him far beyond their own natural capacity.

53 The divine plan of Revelation is realized simultaneously “by deeds and words which are intrinsically bound up with each other” and shed light on each another. It involves a specific divine pedagogy: God communicates himself to man gradually. He prepares him to welcome by stages, the supernatural Revelation that is to culminate in the person and mission of the incarnate Word, Jesus Christ.

III. Christ Jesus – “Mediator and Fullness of All Revelation”

God has said everything in his Word

65 "In many and various ways God spoke of old to our fathers by the prophets, but in these last days he has spoken to us by a Son."26 Christ, the Son of God made man, is the Father’s one, perfect and unsurpassable Word. **In him he has said everything; there will be no other word than this one. **St. John of the Cross, among others, commented strikingly on Hebrews 1:1-2:

In giving us his Son, his only Word (for he possesses no other), he spoke everything to us at once in this sole Word - and he has no more to say. . . because what he spoke before to the prophets in parts, he has now spoken all at once by giving us the All Who is His Son. Any person questioning God or desiring some vision or revelation would be guilty not only of foolish behaviour but also of offending him, by not fixing his eyes entirely upon Christ and by living with the desire for some other novelty.

There will be no further Revelation

66 “The Christian economy, therefore, since it is the new and definitive Covenant, will never pass away; and no new public revelation is to be expected before the glorious manifestation of our Lord Jesus Christ.” Yet even if Revelation is already complete, it has not been made completely explicit; it remains for Christian faith gradually to grasp its full significance over the course of the centuries.

67 Throughout the ages, there have been so-called “private” revelations, some of which have been recognized by the authority of the Church. They do not belong, however, to the deposit of faith. It is not their role to improve or complete Christ’s definitive Revelation, but to help live more fully by it in a certain period of history. Guided by the Magisterium of the Church, the sensus fidelium knows how to discern and welcome in these revelations whatever constitutes an authentic call of Christ or his saints to the Church.

Christian faith cannot accept “revelations” that claim to surpass or correct the Revelation of which Christ is the fulfilment, as is the case in certain nonChristian religions and also in certain recent sects which base themselves on such “revelations”.

---

I guess this is enough for now, don’t want to overwhelm you.

 

[wmscott]

The word “homoousian” goes beyond scripture.* In the linked posts, I describe what IMO exists in scripture and in the earliest of ECF.* There is a monotheism in scripture and in the ECF, but it is not an absolute metaphysical monotheism (MM) or ontological monotheism (OM).*

In either this thread or in the other thread, I have quoted Catholic and non-Catholic scholars who point to the word “homoousian” as specifically chosen because no definition from scripture would work.* Catholic scholar Mourett in A History of the Catholic Church (complete with Imprimatur) says that a definition exclusively from scripture was proposed.* It seemed to have great support, but the Athanasians turned against it.* Athanasius and Schaff both speak of “whispering and winking” among the Arians and thus the Athanasians knew this creed must be rejected because the Arians would not be excluded from the church.* Catholic Father Don Davis tells us that the word “homoousian” was particularly problematic for the bishops at Nicea.* He says there were many reasons for this among which was it not being in scripture AND it being condemned as modalist.* Davis even says that it is quite likely that the insistence of the Emperor Constantine was the deciding factor in this word being included (much of this comes from Eusebius if I remember correctly).* Davis claims that Constantine likely pushed the council to “homoousian” because he was encouraged by Bishop Hosius (I think).

So, two posters (you might have been one) posted a long list of scriptures they said supported the Nicene-Constantinople Creed.* I went only to the scriptures listed in support of the word consubstantial.* I found that Christ was called “light” and the God (presumably the Father) was called “light” and this was the “scriptural support” for “consubstantial.”* IMO this is extraordinarily weak.* If we call this “scriptural support” I imagine there are great volumes of divergent positions we can claim have “scriptural support.”
IMO it is clear that God is one.* It is quite clear that Christ is God.* Scripture says very little about HOW God the Father and God the Son are one.* John 17:20 gives more insight into this question than other scriptures IMO.
The Arian controversy was born of a commitment to MM/OM.* Arius embraced this and Athanasius embraced this.* The moderate party at Nicea embraced it too, but with a little less absoluteness.* Homoousian in the “generic sense” compromises MM/OM, but it was the understanding most of the Bishops who signed at Nicea embraced.* Athanasius made it clear, Augustine made it clear, and Thomas Aquinas has continued to make it clear that Homoousian must be used in the “numeric sense” when referring to the unity of God.

I am a Social Trinitarian.* I believe God the Father and God the Son and God the Holy Spirit are homoousian in the “generic sense,” but their oneness extends beyond just this.

Charity, TOm

Appreciate the answer, so it is just this one thing that has a sticking point for you? That would be logical since you are a Mormon. If I am not mistaken the Mormons do not believe in the Trinity correct? Not in the traditional Christian sense that is. So naturally you would find fault with it. I also understand that you consider the scriptural support for consubstantial to be extraordinarily weak, but as you say all of this is just “Your Opinion”.

 

[jane_doe]

I’m not talking about what you’re concerned with. I’m talking about what Catholics believe about “Public Revelation”, which is what we’re talking about, right?

My question was about (essentially) do Catholics believe God is mute in regards to talking to the world.

Perhaps you can start with the Second Vatican Council.

vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/index.htm

That should talk some time to read.

It was my previous understanding that Vatican II was a change in Earthly policy, and not divine in origin, and definitely not on par with scripture. Was I mistaken?

And if it was divine in origin, what would you say to the people who complain about the (they perceive) negative effects of Vatican II?

Also: Catholicism consider Trinitarian baptism to be essential to salvation. The Trinity was not hammered out unto Nicea. How does this work with the idea of no more salvation-essential revelation?

 

[jane_doe]

Hi jane,

I have heard even Protestant’s say, who have converted to the Catholic Church, that they found the Church to be quite confusing. And Protestant’s are much, much closer to Catholic beliefs than LDS are, so don’t worry.

I actually find that in many ways Catholicism is closer to LDS than some brands of Protestants, specifically those whom are anti any formal church sacraments/leadership/unity/works/etc.

 

[JMM1957]

I actually find that in many ways Catholicism is closer to LDS than some brands of Protestants, specifically those whom are anti any formal church sacraments/leadership/unity/works/etc.

As far as the last part of your statement, yes.

 

[LivingWaters7]

My question was about (essentially) do Catholics believe God is mute in regards to talking to the world.

I see. My point is simply that when one is trying to understand what Catholics mean by “Public Revelation” being complete, we must understand what it means (just like how we must understand what “consubstantiation” means if we are discussing that). The issue of “essential to salvation” is what we’re talking about in relation to Public Revelation, hence why it is important and why I brought it up, since Public Revelation is the Deposit of Faith.

It was my previous understanding that Vatican II was a change in Earthly policy, and not divine in origin, and definitely not on par with scripture. Was I mistaken?

Yes. The Second Vatican Council is an Ecumenical Council of the Catholic Church, the 21st such Council. As the Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches in relation to Ecumenical Councils:

891 “The Roman Pontiff, head of the college of bishops, enjoys this infallibility in virtue of his office, when, as supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful - who confirms his brethren in the faith he proclaims by a definitive act a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals. . . . The infallibility promised to the Church is also present in the body of bishops when, together with Peter’s successor, they exercise the supreme Magisterium,” above all in an Ecumenical Council. When the Church through its supreme Magisterium proposes a doctrine “for belief as being divinely revealed,” and as the teaching of Christ, the definitions “must be adhered to with the obedience of faith.” This infallibility extends as far as the deposit of divine Revelation itself.

And if it was divine in origin, what would you say to the people who complain about the (they perceive) negative effects of Vatican II?

People are entitled to their opinions. The view of the Catholic Church (which is really what matters) is that the Second Vatican Council is an Ecumenical Council of the Church, just like the other 20 such Councils throughout the history of the Church.

 

[jane_doe]

Yes. The Second Vatican Council is an Ecumenical Council of the Catholic Church, the 21st such Council. As the Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches in relation to Ecumenical Councils:

891 “The Roman Pontiff, head of the college of bishops, enjoys this infallibility in virtue of his office, when, as supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful - who confirms his brethren in the faith he proclaims by a definitive act a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals. . . . The infallibility promised to the Church is also present in the body of bishops when, together with Peter’s successor, they exercise the supreme Magisterium,” above all in an Ecumenical Council. When the Church through its supreme Magisterium proposes a doctrine “for belief as being divinely revealed,” and as the teaching of Christ, the definitions “must be adhered to with the obedience of faith.” This infallibility extends as far as the deposit of divine Revelation itself.

Ah, thank you for this informative response.

Next question: Catholicism consider Trinitarian baptism to be essential to salvation. The Trinity was not hammered out unto Nicea. How does this work with the idea of no more salvation-essential revelation?

 

[LivingWaters7]

Ah, thank you for this informative response.

Next question: Catholicism consider Trinitarian baptism to be essential to salvation. The Trinity was not hammered out unto Nicea. How does this work with the idea of no more salvation-essential revelation?

Catholics believe that the Trinity has always been believed by the Church. What Councils do is formally define and declare dogmas, especially in the face of heresies, such as modalism and Arianism. Councils such as Nicaea and the First Council of Constantinople may explicitly define the Trinity doctrine and use specific words to specifically state the belief, however we teach that the Trinity has always been believed (although that specific theological terminology may not have been employed). There will never be a Council that claims, for example, that the Trinity is actually a Quaternity.

So, Divine assistance is given to the Church to expand and expound upon the Public Revelation/Deposit of Faith.

As I quoted from the Catechism: “This infallibility extends as far as the deposit of divine Revelation itself.”

 

[JMM1957]

Catholics believe that the Trinity has always been believed by the Church. What Councils do is formally define and declare dogmas, especially in the face of heresies, such as modalism and Arianism. Councils such as Nicaea and the First Council of Constantinople may explicitly define the Trinity doctrine and use specific words to specifically state the belief, however we teach that the Trinity has always been believed (although that specific theological terminology may not have been employed). There will never be a Council that claims, for example, that the Trinity is actually a Quaternity.

So, Divine assistance is given to the Church to expand and expound upon the Public Revelation/Deposit of Faith.

As I quoted from the Catechism: “This infallibility extends as far as the deposit of divine Revelation itself.”

Looks like Tertullian was the first to use the Latin word for Trinity in early 3rd century to explain that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are “one in essence—not one in Person”.

 

[jane_doe]

Catholics believe that the Trinity has always been believed by the Church. What Councils do is formally define and declare dogmas, especially in the face of heresies, such as modalism and Arianism. Councils such as Nicaea and the First Council of Constantinople may explicitly define the Trinity doctrine and use specific words to specifically state the belief, however we teach that the Trinity has always been believed (although that specific theological terminology may not have been employed). There will never be a Council that claims, for example, that the Trinity is actually a Quaternity.

So, Divine assistance is given to the Church to expand and expound upon the Public Revelation/Deposit of Faith.

As I quoted from the Catechism: “This infallibility extends as far as the deposit of divine Revelation itself.”

So… Nicea does or does not count a Public Revelation, since a baptism with the baptizer believing in the Trinity is required for salvation?

 

[LivingWaters7]

Looks like Tertullian was the first to use the Latin word for Trinity in early 3rd century to explain that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are “one in essence—not one in Person”.

Again, the use of specific technical words isn’t the point. The point is that we believe that the belief has always been there.

So… Nicea does or does not count a Public Revelation, since a baptism with the baptizer believing in the Trinity is required for salvation?

Again, Councils expand and expound upon Public Revelation. Public Revelation is complete. Councils do not add to it. What they do is formally define and make explicit what has already been revealed in Public Revelation.

As the Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches:

**85 “The task of giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God, whether in its written form or in the form of Tradition, has been entrusted to the living teaching office of the Church alone. Its authority in this matter is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ.” This means that the task of interpretation has been entrusted to the bishops in communion with the successor of Peter, the Bishop of Rome.

86 “Yet this Magisterium is not superior to the Word of God, but is its servant. It teaches only what has been handed on to it. At the divine command and with the help of the Holy Spirit, it listens to this devotedly, guards it with dedication and expounds it faithfully. All that it proposes for belief as being divinely revealed is drawn from this single deposit of faith.”**

The underlined is what I am talking about.

 

[jane_doe]

Again, the use of specific technical words isn’t the point. The point is that we believe that the belief has always been there.

Again, Councils expand and expound upon Public Revelation. Public Revelation is complete. Councils do not add to it. What they do is formally define and make explicit what has already been revealed in Public Revelation.

But the Trinity was not explicitly believed until Nicea… and it is critical to salvation, which puts it under the the definition of Public Revelation… (this is honest confusion)

 

[LivingWaters7]

But the Trinity was not explicitly believed until Nicea… and it is critical to salvation, which puts it under the the definition of Public Revelation… (this is honest confusion)

This is Catholic belief: The Trinity has always been believed. The Church didn’t suddenly start teaching the Trinity at the Council of Nicaea, nor at any other Councils of the Church that address issues related to the nature of the Persons of the Trinity (noting that many non-Catholics/traditional Christians aren’t aware of the importance of other Councils, such as the First Council of Constantinople, in relation to the Trinity, focusing for some reason instead on Nicaea). What the Councils did was to use specific terminology to combat heresies related to the nature of Jesus Christ, and to explicitly state what has always been believed. In Catholic belief, it is not an addition to Public Revelation, but a making explicit what has always been believed. The Trinity was not invented at Nicaea. That is how Catholics view our own teachings.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches:

---

249 From the beginning, the revealed truth of the Holy Trinity has been at the very root of the Church’s living faith, principally by means of Baptism. It finds its expression in the rule of baptismal faith, formulated in the preaching, catechesis and prayer of the Church. Such formulations are already found in the apostolic writings, such as this salutation taken up in the Eucharistic liturgy: “The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all.”

250 During the first centuries the Church sought to clarify her Trinitarian faith, both to deepen her own understanding of the faith and to defend it against the errors that were deforming it. This clarification was the work of the early councils, aided by the theological work of the Church Fathers and sustained by the Christian people’s sense of the faith.***

 

[JMM1957]

Again, the use of specific technical words isn’t the point. The point is that we believe that the belief has always been there.

My intention wasn’t to make that point. I wasn’t even replying to you specifically. Was just giving the approximate time period when the word “trinity” was first used by a ECF, according to what I could come up with.

 

[LivingWaters7]

My intention wasn’t to make that point. I wasn’t even replying to you specifically. Was just giving the approximate time period when the word “trinity” was first used by a ECF, according to what I could come up with.

No problem, however we must be clear that the belief behind the word “Trinity”, and behind all the formal defining that Councils have done, has always been there, in Catholic belief.

 

[Stephen168]

No problem, however we must be clear that the belief behind the word “Trinity”, and behind all the formal defining that Councils have done, has always been there, in Catholic belief.

:thumbsup:exactly
This conversation remains me how anti-Catholics like to say the Catholic Church invented the ancient understanding of Christ in the Eucharist in the 16th century because that is when we defined transubstantiation

 

[LivingWaters7]

:thumbsup:exactly
This conversation remains me how anti-Catholics like to say the Catholic Church invented the ancient understanding of Christ in the Eucharist in the 16th century because that is when we defined transubstantiation