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

[Stephen168]

Before I answer any of your questions, …

I don’t have any questions. I have a demand for proof. I hope you are not trying to set up a reason to not provide proof.

 

[LivingWaters7]

So…where are the quotes from the relevant Council documents about the supposed contradiction in the use of the word “hypostasis”?

 

[Stephen168]

There is no change if you believe that unbaptized babies are in hell.

There is no change because there is no change. You cannot provide any proof that two EC conflict with each other.

 

[Stephen168]

So…where are the quotes from the relevant Council documents about the supposed contradiction in the use of the word “hypostasis”?

I hope he didn’t see them with his spiritual eyes.

 

[TOmNossor]

Τοὺς δὲ λέγοντας, ὅτι ἦν ποτε ὅτε οὐκ ἦν, καὶ πρὶν γεννηθῆναι οὐκ ἦν, καὶ ὅτι ἐξ οὐκ ὄντων ἐγένετο, ἢ ἐξ ἑτέρας ὑποστάσεως ἢ οὐσίας φάσκοντας εἶναι, ἢ κτιστόν,] τρεπτὸν ἢ ἀλλοιωτὸν τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ θεοῦ, τούτους] ἀναθεματίζει ἡ καθολικὴ καὶ ἀποστολικὴ] ἐκκλησία.
The Greek translates to:
…
[But those who say: ‘There was a time when he was not;’ and ‘He was not before he was made;’ and ‘He was made out of nothing,’ or ‘He is of another substance’ (**OUSIA) or ‘essence,’ (HYPOSTASIS) or ‘The Son of God is created,’ or ‘changeable,’ or ‘alterable’—they are condemned by the holy catholic and apostolic Church.]

The **BOLD **above is my transliteration so we can know what is being said.

The initially local council of Constantinople claimed to be reproducing the Ecumenical Council of Nicea’s work but without explaining themselves they studiously deleted the above section. Unrelated to what I have been saying, I do not believe the Bishops gathered at Constantinople had the same idea of conciliar infallibility that the modern church does.
Anyway, with the above anathema deleted the way was free to promulgate the formula,
“God is one ousia in three hypostasis.”
The view that God is “three hypostasis” is a direct LITERAL contradiction of the idea that the Son is not another hypostasis. The “orthodox” Catholic view today was declared anathema in 325 AD.

I hope that answers your questions. Please reply thoroughly without asking me to provide more fodder.
Charity, TOm

 

[Nanotwerp]

Your above statement is wrong (but I think I know what you INTENDED ) The “text” says one thing. The accepted TEXT now say something different. The ONLY argument you have (which you offered in an earlier post is that the INTENT of the Bishops based upon the surrounding TEXT and writings of the time is that God is one ousia and that hypostasis should be viewed as synonymous with “ousia” in the Nicene document. This bit of MIND reading is not too difficult IMO. In future writings and Councils the Capadocian Fathers began to use hypostatis similarly to the English “person” (because they wanted to avoid the Greek “persona” since it was modalist - the ardent Arians avoided Homoousian for the same reason as it had been condemned as modalist at the Council of Antioch).

You may claim that if you want, but EVERY piece of writing from this timeframe makes the MOST clear read of the text obvious. Here is the text we are talking about. It is in both councils.

“** But the souls of those who depart this life in actual mortal sin, or in original sin alone, go down straightaway to hell to be punished, but with unequal pains.”**

What was the INTENT of these councils if it was not to say that the unbaptized pre-accountable human (infant or person before the age of accountability) will be in hell? What did they intend? How can anyone not believe they intended what I think they intended?

And all the writing before and until the 19th or 20th century intended the same thing and explicitly stated the same thing. Not to mention the Council of Carthage where the idea that the unbaptized baby would not be in hell was declared a Pelagian fable. And two popes approved of this declaration. (Council of Carthage is not an EC).

You may claim I do not know what they INTENDED, but I think that is a ridiculous suggestion.
Charity, TOm

Notice the actual part of the sentence that predates ‘mortal sin’.

“According to Roman Catholic tradition, “actual” sin as distinguished from original sin is an act contrary to the will and law of God whether by doing evil (sin of commission) or refraining from doing good (sin of omission)”

Our beliefs don’t change; only develop. To be honest, I wish I could say the same about your polytheistic sect.

 

[Nanotwerp]

Τοὺς δὲ λέγοντας, ὅτι ἦν ποτε ὅτε οὐκ ἦν, καὶ πρὶν γεννηθῆναι οὐκ ἦν, καὶ ὅτι ἐξ οὐκ ὄντων ἐγένετο, ἢ ἐξ ἑτέρας ὑποστάσεως ἢ οὐσίας φάσκοντας εἶναι, ἢ κτιστόν,] τρεπτὸν ἢ ἀλλοιωτὸν τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ θεοῦ, τούτους] ἀναθεματίζει ἡ καθολικὴ καὶ ἀποστολικὴ] ἐκκλησία.
The Greek translates to:
…
[But those who say: ‘There was a time when he was not;’ and ‘He was not before he was made;’ and ‘He was made out of nothing,’ or ‘He is of another substance’ (**OUSIA) or ‘essence,’ (HYPOSTASIS) or ‘The Son of God is created,’ or ‘changeable,’ or ‘alterable’—they are condemned by the holy catholic and apostolic Church.]

The **BOLD **above is my transliteration so we can know what is being said.

The initially local council of Constantinople claimed to be reproducing the Ecumenical Council of Nicea’s work but without explaining themselves they studiously deleted the above section. Unrelated to what I have been saying, I do not believe the Bishops gathered at Constantinople had the same idea of conciliar infallibility that the modern church does.
Anyway, with the above anathema deleted the way was free to promulgate the formula,
“God is one ousia in three hypostasis.”
The view that God is “three hypostasis” is a direct LITERAL contradiction of the idea that the Son is not another hypostasis. The “orthodox” Catholic view today was declared anathema in 325 AD.

I hope that answers your questions. Please reply thoroughly without asking me to provide more fodder.
Charity, TOm

Care for me to ask you about the people of dark skin in the early times of your church (before the revelation that negated the old revelation) that were banned from having the chance of ‘sealing’ a spouse?

Because of these human Mormon ‘revelations’, they would be spouseless; according to your theology, I presume.

 

[LivingWaters7]

Oh dear. This is what you’re going on about? This is a very simple matter that has been addressed for a long time.

No, there is no change in doctrine or contradiction in doctrine. You yourself demonstrate this in the very transliteration you provide. The anathema is of those who would say that the Son is of another “substance” or “essence” than the Father. This has always been the teaching of the Catholic Church (i.e. that there is only one Divine substance/essence). Clearly, at this time, the words “ousia” and “hypostasis” were used interchangeably (just like how “substance” and “essence” are used interchangeably in the English formulations of Trinity discourse). The Council was specifically defending the true doctrine against the heresy of Arianism, which would say that the Son is of a different substance/essence than the Father. This make the matter even more clear as to what the Council is anathemizing.

Later, language evolution distinguished the two words “ousia” and “hypostasis”, where “ousia” is referring to the being/substance/essence/nature, and “hypostasis” is referring to the Person (three hypostasis). This is something well established by scholars, Catholic/Orthodox and otherwise.

So no, there is no direct contradiction in conciliar teaching. The teaching has always been that there is only one substance or essence. There was an evolution in word usage, however the idea has always been the same. The view that God is three hypostases is therefore not a contradiction to Nicaea, if we understand exactly how the words are being used/defined, which is something well documented.

Nice try.

 

[Stephen168]

[But those who say: ‘There was a time when he was not;’ and ‘He was not before he was made;’ and ‘He was made out of nothing,’ or ‘He is of another substance’ (OUSIA) or ‘essence,’ (HYPOSTASIS) or ‘The Son of God is created,’ or ‘changeable,’ or ‘alterable’—they are condemned by the holy catholic and apostolic Church.]

It takes two text to conflict with each other. So you still need to provide the conflicting text.

 

[TOmNossor]

Notice the actual

part of the sentence that predates ‘mortal sin’.

“According to Roman Catholic tradition, “actual” sin as distinguished from original sin is an act contrary to the will and law of God whether by doing evil (sin of commission) or refraining from doing good (sin of omission)”

Our beliefs don’t change; only develop. To be honest, I wish I could say the same about your polytheistic sect.
“Actual” modifies “mortal sin.” “Original sin only” is compared and contrasted. It is the same in that both those who have “actual mortal sin” and those who have “original sin only” go to hell. It is contrasted in that there is unequal punishment for the two groups.
Florence makes itself more clear elsewhere with this:
“There is no other way to come to the aid [of little children] than the sacrament of Baptism by which they are snatched from the power of the devil and adopted as children of God"

So, do you believe that unbaptized babies are in hell?
Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

Oh dear. This is what you’re going on about? This is a very simple matter that has been addressed for a long time.

No, there is no change in doctrine or contradiction in doctrine. You yourself demonstrate this in the very transliteration you provide. The anathema is of those who would say that the Son is of another “substance” or “essence” than the Father. This has always been the teaching of the Catholic Church (i.e. that there is only one Divine substance/essence). Clearly, at this time, the words “ousia” and “hypostasis” were used interchangeably (just like how “substance” and “essence” are used interchangeably in the English formulations of Trinity discourse). The Council was specifically defending the true doctrine against the heresy of Arianism, which would say that the Son is of a different substance/essence than the Father. This make the matter even more clear as to what the Council is anathemizing.

Later, language evolution distinguished the two words “ousia” and “hypostasis”, where “ousia” is referring to the being/substance/essence/nature, and “hypostasis” is referring to the Person (three hypostasis). This is something well established by scholars, Catholic/Orthodox and otherwise.

So no, there is no direct contradiction in conciliar teaching. The teaching has always been that there is only one substance or essence. There was an evolution in word usage, however the idea has always been the same. The view that God is three hypostases is therefore not a contradiction to Nicaea, if we understand exactly how the words are being used/defined, which is something well documented.

Nice try.
Your “nothing to see here” is precisely what I thought before I thought about unbaptized babies.
The LITERAL words are problematic, but the INTENT of the Father’s is not a problem.
That is precisely the opposite of what is necessary to CHANGE the doctrine on unbaptized babies in hell.
The INTENT based on the text and all the writings of all Catholic prior to the 19th or 20th century is clear.

I previously thought that I could PARSE the words and drive through the literal text a view that aligns with the NEW teaching. Such a PARSING would make the NEW teaching not a violation of an IRREFORMABLE teaching, but still a CHANGE in doctrine just not in dogma/irreformable doctrine.
Do you understand what I am saying?
Do you understand what I am saying?
Again,
Do you understand what I am saying?

Now, do you disagree with what I am saying and why?
Charity, TOm

 

[Stephen168]

There is no other way to come to the aid [of little children] than the sacrament of Baptism by which they are snatched from the power of the devil and adopted as children of God

Have you found an EC that conflicts with that, yet

 

[LivingWaters7]

Your “nothing to see here” is precisely what I thought before I thought about unbaptized babies.
The LITERAL words are problematic, but the INTENT of the Father’s is not a problem.
That is precisely the opposite of what is necessary to CHANGE the doctrine on unbaptized babies in hell.
The INTENT based on the text and all the writings of all Catholic prior to the 19th or 20th century is clear.

I previously thought that I could PARSE the words and drive through the literal text a view that aligns with the NEW teaching. Such a PARSING would make the NEW teaching not a violation of an IRREFORMABLE teaching, but still a CHANGE in doctrine just not in dogma/irreformable doctrine.
Do you understand what I am saying?
Do you understand what I am saying?
Again,
Do you understand what I am saying?

Now, do you disagree with what I am saying and why?
Charity, TOm

Not sure why you’re talking about unbaptized infants when I’m talking about hypostasis. Let’s stick to one matter at a time.

This is very simple, as I already stated. You claimed that there is a contradiction in teaching of Councils on the issue of “hypostasis”. I pointed out what various scholars have for quite some time: the word “hypostasis” was used differently in Nicaea than it was used later on to claim that God is “three hypostases”. This is readily demonstrable in your very own post, where you showed that the anathema was against those that claimed that the Son is another “substance” (ousia) or “essence” (hypostasis) from the Father. As I stated, Catholics use those English words interchangeably in regards to the oneness of God. “Hypostasis” at that time did not refer to “person” (which is what is being referred to when we say that there are three hypostases (persons), not three essences. For there to be a direct contradiction, as you claim, you must demonstrate that the scholars are wrong and that the word “hypostasis” meant the same thing in Nicaea as it did at other Councils and documents that claim three hypostases. Please demonstrate that. As of now, I see no contradiction at all in doctrinal claims about God. Words have meanings. Understand the meaning.

 

[Nanotwerp]

“Actual” modifies “mortal sin.” “Original sin only” is compared and contrasted. It is the same in that both those who have “actual mortal sin” and those who have “original sin only” go to hell. It is contrasted in that there is unequal punishment for the two groups.
Florence makes itself more clear elsewhere with this:
“There is no other way to come to the aid [of little children] than the sacrament of Baptism by which they are snatched from the power of the devil and adopted as children of God"

So, do you believe that unbaptized babies are in hell?
Charity, TOm

" This teaching implies a very vivid perception of the divine favour displayed in the sacramental economy instituted by Christ; the Church does not know of any other means which would certainly give little children access to eternal life. However, the Church has also traditionally recognized some substitutions for Baptism of water (which is the sacramental incorporation into the mystery of Christ dead and risen), namely, Baptism of blood (incorporation into Christ by witness of martyrdom for Christ) and Baptism of desire (incorporation into Christ by the desire or longing for sacramental Baptism). During the 20th century, some theologians, developing certain more ancient theological theses, proposed to recognize for little children either some kind of Baptism of blood (by taking into consideration the suffering and death of these infants), or some kind of Baptism of desire (by invoking an “unconscious desire” for Baptism in these infants oriented toward justification, or the desire of the Church).[58] The proposals invoking some kind of Baptism of desire or Baptism of blood, however, involved certain difficulties. On the one hand, the adult’s act of desire for Baptism can hardly be attributed to children. The little child is scarcely capable of supplying the fully free and responsible personal act which would constitute a substitution for sacramental Baptism; such a fully free and responsible act is rooted in a judgement of reason and cannot be properly achieved before the human person has reached a sufficient or appropriate use of reason (aetas discretionis: “age of discretion”). On the other hand, it is difficult to understand how the Church could properly “supply” for unbaptised infants. The case of sacramental Baptism, instead, is quite different because sacramental Baptism, administered to infants, obtains grace in virtue of that which is specifically proper to the sacrament as such, that is, the certain gift of regeneration by the power of Christ himself. That is why Pope Pius XII, recalling the importance of sacramental Baptism, explained in the “Allocution to Italian Midwives” in 1951: “The state of grace is absolutely necessary for salvation: without it supernatural happiness, the beatific vision of God, cannot be attained. In an adult an act of love may suffice to obtain him sanctifying grace and so supply for the lack of Baptism; to the child still unborn, or newly born, this way is not open”.[59]This gave rise among theologians to a renewed reflection on the dispositions of infants with respect to the reception of divine grace, on the possibility of an extra-sacramental configuration to Christ, and on the maternal mediation of the Church.

1. It is equally necessary to note, among the debated questions with a bearing on this matter, that of the gratuity of the supernatural order. Before the Second Vatican Council, in other circumstances and regarding other questions, Pius XII had vigorously brought this to the consciousness of the Church by explaining that one destroys the gratuity of the supernatural order if one asserts that God could not create intelligent beings without ordaining and calling them to the Beatific Vision.[60] The goodness and justice of God do not imply that grace is necessarily or “automatically” given. Among theologians, then, reflection on the destiny of unbaptised infants involved from that time onwards a renewed consideration of the absolute gratuity of grace, and of the ordination of all human beings to Christ and to the redemption that he won for us.
2. Without responding directly to the question of the destiny of unbaptised infants, the Second Vatican Council marked out many paths to guide theological reflection. The Council recalled many times the universality of God’s saving will which extends to all people (1 Tim 2:4).[61] All “share a common destiny, namely God. His providence, evident goodness, and saving designs extend to all humankind” (NA 1, cf. LG 16). In a more particular vein, presenting a conception of human life founded on the dignity of the human being created in the image of God, the constitution Gaudium et Spes recalls that, “[h]uman dignity rests above all on the fact that humanity is called to communion with God,” specifying that “[t]he invitation to converse with God is addressed to men and women as soon as they are born” (GS 19). This same constitution proclaims with vigour that only in the mystery of the Incarnate Word does the mystery of the human being take on light. Furthermore, there is the renowned statement of the Council which asserted: “since Christ died for all, and since all are in fact called to one and the same destiny, which is divine, we must hold that the Holy Spirit offers to all the possibility of being made partners, in a way known to God, in the paschal mystery” (GS 22). Although the Council did not expressly apply this teaching to children who die without Baptism, these passages open a way to account for hope in their favour.[62]"

Funny how you don’t include the rest.

 

[TOmNossor]

Not sure why you’re talking about unbaptized infants when I’m talking about hypostasis. Let’s stick to one matter at a time.

This question illustrates you do not understand me.

If I look only at “hypostasis” I can say, "The LITERAL statements of the Fathers do contradict, but based on the context and the other writings of this period, there is no issue. "Hypostasis at Nicea was used synonymously with OUSIA. Later Hypostasis came to be used in a manner that loosely translates “person.” So the INTENT of the Fathers has not changed.

If I look only at what Lyons and Florence said, I can parse the LITERAL words of the Fathers and declare that the NEW teaching does not violate the LITERAL words in Florence and Lyons. But based on ALL of the writing from the Pelagian heresy until the 19th or 20th century and the context of the Councils (especially Florence) this “parsing of the LITERAL words” was not the INTENT of the Fathers.

So to get to what Catholics claim is Catholic doctrine today I must use a non-literal understanding at Nicea and a hyper literal understanding at Florence.

Do you understand what I am saying?
Do you understand what I am saying?

Do you disagree? Why?
Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

" This teaching implies a very vivid perception of the divine favour displayed in the sacramental economy instituted by Christ; the Church does not know of any other means which would certainly give little children access to eternal life. However, the Church has also traditionally recognized some substitutions for Baptism of water (which is the sacramental incorporation into the mystery of Christ dead and risen), namely, Baptism of blood (incorporation into Christ by witness of martyrdom for Christ) and Baptism of desire (incorporation into Christ by the desire or longing for sacramental Baptism). During the 20th century, some theologians, developing certain more ancient theological theses, proposed to recognize for little children either some kind of Baptism of blood (by taking into consideration the suffering and death of these infants), or some kind of Baptism of desire (by invoking an “unconscious desire” for Baptism in these infants oriented toward justification, or the desire of the Church).[58] The proposals invoking some kind of Baptism of desire or Baptism of blood, however, involved certain difficulties. On the one hand, the adult’s act of desire for Baptism can hardly be attributed to children. The little child is scarcely capable of supplying the fully free and responsible personal act which would constitute a substitution for sacramental Baptism; such a fully free and responsible act is rooted in a judgement of reason and cannot be properly achieved before the human person has reached a sufficient or appropriate use of reason (aetas discretionis: “age of discretion”). On the other hand, it is difficult to understand how the Church could properly “supply” for unbaptised infants. The case of sacramental Baptism, instead, is quite different because sacramental Baptism, administered to infants, obtains grace in virtue of that which is specifically proper to the sacrament as such, that is, the certain gift of regeneration by the power of Christ himself. That is why Pope Pius XII, recalling the importance of sacramental Baptism, explained in the “Allocution to Italian Midwives” in 1951: “The state of grace is absolutely necessary for salvation: without it supernatural happiness, the beatific vision of God, cannot be attained. In an adult an act of love may suffice to obtain him sanctifying grace and so supply for the lack of Baptism; to the child still unborn, or newly born, this way is not open”.[59]This gave rise among theologians to a renewed reflection on the dispositions of infants with respect to the reception of divine grace, on the possibility of an extra-sacramental configuration to Christ, and on the maternal mediation of the Church.

1. It is equally necessary to note, among the debated questions with a bearing on this matter, that of the gratuity of the supernatural order. Before the Second Vatican Council, in other circumstances and regarding other questions, Pius XII had vigorously brought this to the consciousness of the Church by explaining that one destroys the gratuity of the supernatural order if one asserts that God could not create intelligent beings without ordaining and calling them to the Beatific Vision.[60] The goodness and justice of God do not imply that grace is necessarily or “automatically” given. Among theologians, then, reflection on the destiny of unbaptised infants involved from that time onwards a renewed consideration of the absolute gratuity of grace, and of the ordination of all human beings to Christ and to the redemption that he won for us.
2. Without responding directly to the question of the destiny of unbaptised infants, the Second Vatican Council marked out many paths to guide theological reflection. The Council recalled many times the universality of God’s saving will which extends to all people (1 Tim 2:4).[61] All “share a common destiny, namely God. His providence, evident goodness, and saving designs extend to all humankind” (NA 1, cf. LG 16). In a more particular vein, presenting a conception of human life founded on the dignity of the human being created in the image of God, the constitution Gaudium et Spes recalls that, “[h]uman dignity rests above all on the fact that humanity is called to communion with God,” specifying that “[t]he invitation to converse with God is addressed to men and women as soon as they are born” (GS 19). This same constitution proclaims with vigour that only in the mystery of the Incarnate Word does the mystery of the human being take on light. Furthermore, there is the renowned statement of the Council which asserted: “since Christ died for all, and since all are in fact called to one and the same destiny, which is divine, we must hold that the Holy Spirit offers to all the possibility of being made partners, in a way known to God, in the paschal mystery” (GS 22). Although the Council did not expressly apply this teaching to children who die without Baptism, these passages open a way to account for hope in their favour.[62]"

Funny how you don’t include the rest.

Nanotwerp?
You are referencing the NEW doctrine. The OLD doctrine is that unbaptized babies are in hell. I am saying that there is a change. I am suggesting that the OLD doctrine is irreformable because it is in two Ecumenical Councils.
What have I left out?
Charity, TOm

 

[Stephen168]

You are referencing the NEW doctrine. The OLD doctrine is that unbaptized babies are in hell. I am saying that there is a change. I am suggesting that the OLD doctrine is irreformable because it is in two Ecumenical Councils.

This isn’t new doctrine. It is the same doctrine. You just don’t want to understand it or you haven’t read it.

Have you found the conflicting teaching at another EC, yet?

 

[Stephen168]

If ECs are infallible in INTENT, then the Vatican is putting out false doctrine (as my Ultra-Trad friends have been telling me for years.

If you read what the Vatican is putting out you will know it is the same doctrine. Like you, your “friends” reject the papacy and could care less about understanding. To even suggest that, we should take them seriously is very naive on your part.

 

[Stephen168]

Did the gates of hell prevail against Mormonism when they changed the Book of Mormon to agree with the change Joseph Smith made who God is?

 

[epan]

I would ask the Moderator, why has this thread been allowed? The very title would be offensive to some.