To Mormons: Did the gates of Hell prevail against the 'Church' when your president taught false doctrine?

[Stephen168]

Agreed, but that was not my point. My point is that the Catholic Church being wrong is not evidence that the LDS church is the restoration of the ancient Church. Tom Nosser claimed that it is.

Paul (formerly LDS, now happily Catholic)

I think it come from Orson F. Whitney’s faith promoting story which, for reasons you listed, doesn’t make any sense to a non-Mormon.

 

[TOmNossor]

Agreed, but that was not my point. My point is that the Catholic Church being wrong is not evidence that the LDS church is the restoration of the ancient Church. Tom Nosser claimed that it is.

Paul (formerly LDS, now happily Catholic)
You are correct that I wrote poorly. Sorry.
I think FathersKnowBest sufficiently clarified for me THANKS.
Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

Of course what? You post Biblical passages but your understanding is colored by the novelties of Joseph Smith, which makes you a disciple of Smith.

Catholicism is adverse to novelties, and rejects them for what they are.
If you do not think Catholicism’s understanding of the Bible is “COLORED” by the novelties of the Catholic Church, I think you have missed a great deal of Catholic and non-Catholic thought on the subject.
The Council of Nicea considered including only phrases from scripture to define Christ, but the Arians were able affirm all of this so the Athanasian party rejected this proposal in favor of something extra-Biblical.

So, I would suggest that Catholicism and Mormonism unlike Protestantism should own the statement, “We are not based upon the Bible, we are based on the same thing the Bible is based upon: God’s revelation to mankind.”
Charity, TOm

 

[Stephen168]

If you do not think Catholicism’s understanding of the Bible is “COLORED” by the novelties of the Catholic Church, I think you have missed a great deal of Catholic and non-Catholic thought on the subject.
The Council of Nicea considered including only phrases from scripture to define Christ, but the Arians were able affirm all of this so the Athanasian party rejected this proposal in favor of something extra-Biblical.

So, I would suggest that Catholicism and Mormonism unlike Protestantism should own the statement, “We are not based upon the Bible, we are based on the same thing the Bible is based upon: God’s revelation to mankind.”
Charity, TOm

Council of Nicea 325AD
Synod of Rome 382AD

 

[TOmNossor]

Tom,

It would serve to move the conversation along if you would offer a specific example of a Catholic doctrine (not a discipline) that you think has changed. So far you have not done so.

Paul
I will list two doctrines. I will be interested to know if you think either are irreformable doctrines, or just doctrines that happen to be taught and if irreformable when and why and …
The reason I offer two is that I could perhaps parse the WAY in which we should read an Ecumenical Council to explain either CHANGE. But, the “WAY” advocated in order to explain the first change would be diametrically opposed to the “WAY” advocated in order to explain the second change.

#1:
It was a doctrine of the universal church that unbaptized infants went to hell.
Thomas Aquinas (so far as I know) theorized that unbaptized infants go to Limbo, which is a part of hell in his description.
Today the universal church teaches that “limbo” was theological speculation (it was) and that we can hope that the unbaptized infant is not in fact in hell (that to my knowledge was never doctrine before the 20th century).

#2:
At the Council of Nicea it was declare that those who claimed Christ was a different hypostasis than the Father were anathema. At Nicea the Father’s were clear Christ was the same hypostasis as the Father.
Today, Catholics declare that the Father and Son (and Holy Spirit) are three hypostasis. I think this has been said since the initially regional council, Constantinope I (only later raised to the status of EC) deleted the anathema from the Nicene creed.

Related to this second one and important for the Catholic response I would offer is that the local Council of Antioch declared the idea that Father and Son were Homoousian a heresy, but the Council of Nicea declared that the Father and Son were Homoousian was de fide.

That should be enough for now.
If you think I am full of junk and these issues are stupid angels on the heads of pins junk (and you do not need to state I am full of junk), please believe that. These are really things in my warped mind, but I think they have very little to do with the worship of God by Catholics in the pew and perhaps should be ignored by most (again as long as you are not among the few who feel the need to suggest I am lying about having real examples). And I might point out that I think most of the criticisms leveled by folks here of my church have little to do with the worship of God by LDS in the pews.
Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

Council of Nicea 325AD
Synod of Rome 382AD

Your vague statement does point to something I said that should be revised. The Council of NIcea pre-canon proposed to use scriptural language (again pre-canon definition), but this was rejected by the Athansian party due to its celebration by the Arian party.
Charity, TOm

 

[FathersKnowBest]

The Council of Nicea considered including only phrases from scripture to define Christ, but the Arians were able affirm all of this so the Athanasian party rejected this proposal in favor of something extra-Biblical.

Sorry, your citation for this didn’t post. Could you re-post it?

 

[RebeccaJ]

If you do not think Catholicism’s understanding of the Bible is “COLORED” by the novelties of the Catholic Church, I think you have missed a great deal of Catholic and non-Catholic thought on the subject.
The Council of Nicea considered including only phrases from scripture to define Christ, but the Arians were able affirm all of this so the Athanasian party rejected this proposal in favor of something extra-Biblical.

So, I would suggest that Catholicism and Mormonism unlike Protestantism should own the statement, “We are not based upon the Bible, we are based on the same thing the Bible is based upon: God’s revelation to mankind.”
Charity, TOm

Catholicism is not a novelty. Sacred Tradition is not a novelty. The books canonized as the New Testament are not novelties.

• Baptism for the dead
• Marriage sealing
• Plurality of gods
• Polygamy
• Pre-existence
• Progression of man to gods

These are examples of novelties that exist neither in Sacred Tradition or Scripture, yet, are found in the 19th century novelties of Joseph Smith. ie, there is no continuity of these novelties to Scripture or Tradition. Making up “scripture”, ala, the Book of Mormon, Pearl of Great Price, Doctrine and Covenants, are ALL novelties that arose outside of Christianity.

 

[Stephen168]

Your vague statement does point to something I said that should be revised. The Council of NIcea pre-canon proposed to use scriptural language (again pre-canon definition), but this was rejected by the Athansian party due to its celebration by the Arian party.
Charity, TOm

You don’t need to revise it. You need to prove it.

How did the Arian party define Christ by using the Old Testament? What verses did they reference? Who was the secretary at the council that recorded the minutes of the meeting?
What is your source?

 

[FathersKnowBest]

It was a doctrine of the universal church that unbaptized infants went to hell.

News to me.

Does your software filter out citations?

Thomas Aquinas (so far as I know) theorized that unbaptized infants go to Limbo, which is a part of hell in his description.

Theories are NOT Doctrines.

Today the universal church teaches that “limbo” was theological speculation (it was) and that we can hope that the unbaptized infant is not in fact in hell (that to my knowledge was never doctrine before the 20th century).

It was never doctrine. You seem to be contradicting yourself.

At the Council of Nicea it was declare that those who claimed Christ was a different hypostasis than the Father were anathema. At Nicea the Father’s were clear Christ was the same hypostasis as the Father.

You are again contradicting yourself.

Today, Catholics declare that the Father and Son (and Holy Spirit) are three hypostasis. I think this has been said since the initially regional council, Constantinope I (only later raised to the status of EC) deleted the anathema from the Nicene creed.

What?

Related to this second one and important for the Catholic response I would offer is that the local Council of Antioch declared the idea that Father and Son were Homoousian a heresy, but the Council of Nicea declared that the Father and Son were Homoousian was de fide.

Which council of Antioch? Again, do you have a citation?

 

[RebeccaJ]

I will list two doctrines. I will be interested to know if you think either are irreformable doctrines, or just doctrines that happen to be taught and if irreformable when and why and …
The reason I offer two is that I could perhaps parse the WAY in which we should read an Ecumenical Council to explain either CHANGE. But, the “WAY” advocated in order to explain the first change would be diametrically opposed to the “WAY” advocated in order to explain the second change.

#1:
It was a doctrine of the universal church that unbaptized infants went to hell.
Thomas Aquinas (so far as I know) theorized that unbaptized infants go to Limbo, which is a part of hell in his description.
Today the universal church teaches that “limbo” was theological speculation (it was) and that we can hope that the unbaptized infant is not in fact in hell (that to my knowledge was never doctrine before the 20th century).

#2:
At the Council of Nicea it was declare that those who claimed Christ was a different hypostasis than the Father were anathema. At Nicea the Father’s were clear Christ was the same hypostasis as the Father.
Today, Catholics declare that the Father and Son (and Holy Spirit) are three hypostasis. I think this has been said since the initially regional council, Constantinope I (only later raised to the status of EC) deleted the anathema from the Nicene creed.

Related to this second one and important for the Catholic response I would offer is that the local Council of Antioch declared the idea that Father and Son were Homoousian a heresy, but the Council of Nicea declared that the Father and Son were Homoousian was de fide.

That should be enough for now.
If you think I am full of junk and these issues are stupid angels on the heads of pins junk (and you do not need to state I am full of junk), please believe that. These are really things in my warped mind, but I think they have very little to do with the worship of God by Catholics in the pew and perhaps should be ignored by most (again as long as you are not among the few who feel the need to suggest I am lying about having real examples). And I might point out that I think most of the criticisms leveled by folks here of my church have little to do with the worship of God by LDS in the pews.
Charity, TOm

The way I see it, Catholic teaching is that any who are not baptized risk being judged to hell. It is also Catholic teaching that in and through God’s Mercy and Love (Salvation), the non-baptized also have the possibility of being judged to heaven. (Ref. the thief on the cross.) A young age at the time of one’s death does not remove the possibility of being judged to heaven.

Catholics know this. It is those who focus on infant baptism as a Bad Thing, that struggle with the Catholic doctrines surrounding Sin and Grace. Sin and Grace are foundational to the Catholic faith, and they don’t change, and have not changed.

YOU focus on sin, Catholics never focus only on sin, to do so is to miss the point entirely, of what it means to be a Christian.

RE your point #2, I don’t see your point. Perhaps you would like to provide references?

 

[PaulDupre1]

It was a doctrine of the universal church that unbaptized infants went to hell.

Can you provide a credible source for this? I have never heard this taught in the Catholic Church nor read it in any Catholic book or history book (and I’ve read hundreds), although I have seen it portrayed in Hollywood movies and in anti-Catholic literature.

Paul

 

[Stephen168]

So, I would suggest that Catholicism and Mormonism unlike Protestantism should own the statement, “We are not based upon the Bible, we are based on the same thing the Bible is based upon: God’s revelation to mankind.”

The Catholic Church is based on God’s revelation; it pre-dated the Bible. Mormonism is based on an invention of Joseph Smith with doctrines and practices never found in Christianity.

 

[Stephen168]

It was a doctrine of the universal church that unbaptized infants went to hell.

This has been explained to you before:

While Christianity has never been lead by a prophet, the founder of Mormonism claimed to be one. He was the first in a line of Mormon ‘Prophets’ who “gave revelations on all kinds of subjects.” Revelation on the success of a bank, history of the American Indians, God the Father, Adam the Father, the Son, the Holy Ghost, blood atonements, etc. Of course we see that these revelations have been shown to be false, or contradict each other.

Christianity gets its revelation from the Word, the second person of the trinity, Jesus Christ. Christ establish a Church and his first Vicar, St Peter, encourages Christians to always be ready to give an account of the hope that is in them (1 Pet 3:15-16). The revelation of Christ gives the greatest hope to those who are baptized (Mark 16:16) and receive the Eucharist (John 6:53). We are to baptize in the singular name of the one triune God the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit (Matthew 28:19). Christ also told us that all things are possible with God (Mark 10:27). While we all died because of Adam we all live because of the resurrection of Christ (1 Corin 15:20-22). By the example of Christ we know he can save without baptism of water. He saved the penitent thief (Luke 23:42-43) and he also saved because of the faith of others (Mark 2:1-5). So the Word revealed that the ordinary way of salvation is by the sacraments of baptism and the Eucharist, but he can make all things possible.

While Mormonism rejects the Eucharist, the trinity, and has made the sin of Adam a goal, like limbo, we don’t know what their future holds, because Christ gave no revelation on Mormonism.

Of course you could not and did not respond to this because it proved you wrong. You then moved on to other subjects and disappeared. Now you bring it up again.

Are you being dishonest or didn’t you understand it? If you didn’t understand why didn’t you ask for clarification?

 

[TOmNossor]

News to me.

Does your software filter out citations?

Theories are NOT Doctrines.

It was never doctrine. You seem to be contradicting yourself.

You are again contradicting yourself.

What?

Which council of Antioch? Again, do you have a citation?

Briefly, doctrine=teaching.
Catholic doctrine absolutely changes.

I am of the opinion that things that SEEMED to be IRREFORMABLE seem to have changed and that this is a BIG problem. But doctrine changes is absolutely clear.

Concerning where you thought I misspoke about the Council of Nicea, I think I was correct. Different Hypostasis = Anathma. Doctrine = Father and Son are same hypostasis. This of course is heretical today because it is taught that Father and Son are different hypostasis (BTW, I am not sure how to use plural an singular here, but current doctrine is plural hypostasis).

I can provide citations for things you are quite sure I am wrong on, but it will be much later. Sorry.
So please highlight what I said that your research suggests is not true and I will investigate, but I do not have time to source all this stuff if you already know I am correct.
Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

RE your point #2, I don’t see your point. Perhaps you would like to provide references?

I am claiming that the Council of Nicea said that the Father and Son were the same hypostasis. That today the Father and Son and Holy Spirit are three hypostasis (plural). This is a change. I can probably document it, but are you saying you have researched this and I am wrong? I would rather you do the research for yourself.
Charity, TOm

 

[Stephen168]

I am wrong?

Yes

 

[Stephen168]

I would rather you do the research for yourself.

No, I’d rather you prove what you claim.

 

[PaulDupre1]

Briefly, doctrine=teaching.
Catholic doctrine absolutely changes.

All doctrine = teaching.

But NOT all teaching = doctrine.

Teaching by whom? That is the question.

BTW, your #1 “Changed doctrine” has never been a doctrine or even a teaching of the CC. You’ve been shown this before. Why do you keep bringing it up? Did you think we forgot?

I’m still trying to decode your #2.

Paul (formerly LDS, now happily Catholic)

 

[RebeccaJ]

It is interesting how you summarize things.

This is what I am saying:
Catholics claim they do not have continuing revelation. They claim that they preserve tradition. They claim to not CHANGE. Evidence that they change is evidence that Catholicism is not what it claims to be. To weigh potential CHANGES in Catholic doctrine is to investigate if the Catholic authority is in any way what it claims to be.
LDS do not make these claims. They claim to have access to continuing revelation. Changes can and will happen and it will not mean the same thing for CHANGES in Catholic doctrine.

Do you understand what I am saying? Do you agree with the above statements?

Development of doctrine is a sign of the living Church, but you should not confuse development of doctrine with innovation.

Truth was delivered once for all, in the Person of Jesus Christ. Through the ages we all seek to understand the objective Truth of the Son of God. Objective Truth is not subject to change. ie, our Object does not change, but our growth in understanding of the Object, certainly does.

It is Catholic teaching (both Orthodox and RCC) that through the Holy Spirit the Church, through the successors of the Apostles (our Bishops), grow in understanding. The Church is living, not dead, it is not a museum but alive in the Spirit.

So doctrines develop, and you will find enough written works, some by Newman who you seem to favor, regarding the development of doctrines. Newman, in particular, believed that if the Apostles would have accepted a current understanding of any topic (pick one), then the accepted understanding is Apostolic.

So, what does it mean that the Church is Apostolic, to you?

The LDS teaching that continuing revelation is a mark of the true church is a measuring stick that if applied to Catholicism quite simply proves Catholicism is not God’s church.

If I say to you, I hit a ball with a bat, does that make me a professional baseball player? If I say that I am a professional baseball player, wouldn’t it be wise to determine if a) I really do hit a ball with a bat, b) that I’m qualified to claim to be a professional baseball players and c) that I can actually show I do indeed play professional baseball?

Maybe you should take it on faith that yes, I do indeed play professional baseball.

Mormon Presidents fail all of these tests. a) Does a Mormon President really prophecy? b) What qualifies him as a prophet? c) What has been prophesied and when?

BTW, teaching from a pulpit does not qualify as prophesying.

I referenced above a “fallacy of fundamentalist assumptions.” Perhaps I should point out that some folks might place so much emphasis upon “consistency” that they do not believe a lack of consistency could exist within anything true. I think such thinking consistently applied results in some form of Judaism, but I can acknowledge it does not result in Mormonism. I also think such things are PART of what modern Sedavacantists suffer from.

Let me briefly mention that I personally reject the radical relativism that exists within some philosophical circles. At the very least I believe past necessity entails. This means that God either created human spirits ex nihilo at conception or spirits pre-existed before we were conceived. Both of these cannot be correct.
Of less import, I might say that either there is reason to hope for the soles of an unbaptized infant or there is no reason to hope for them. Or there is reason to hope for the salvation of Judas Iscariot or there is not. Our church leaders may change their opinions on these positions, but I do not believe God does.

Continuity is what is important to Catholics. From Adam to Jesus, we see continuity, what we call Salvation History. From Jesus to today, continuity in what is taught by the Church and professed by believers, is what we call Apostolic.

Heresies that arise, are known as heresies specifically because what is being taught or believed, is not Apostolic. ie, it exists outside of the continuity, from Jesus and the Apostles. Who knew Him, taught about Him and are witnesses to our Salvation.

Practices begun by actions of leaders may also change. Like married Roman rite priests or married priests in communion with the Bishop of Rome or no married priests in communion with the Bishop of Rome. Or priesthood to all worthy members instead of restrictions on blacks (or non-Levites).

Ummm, marital status is not something found in our DNA. A priest makes a conscious decision to not marry.

The problem with a 19th-20th century restriction on priesthood according or race or lineage, is that it doesn’t align to Christianity at all. It aligns to Mormonism.