WHY do you [if you do?] think the RCC is not the One true Church founded by Christ?

[TOmNossor]

I am not reading that entire article to find out an answer to the question I raised concerning the possibility of Mormon Apostasy though I would like a clear answer which only has three real possible answers. Yes the Mormon church like the Church Christ established can Apostatise. No the Mormon Church unlike the Church Christ established cannot apostatise. Maybe the Mormon Church can like the Church Christ established can apostatise.

The LDS faith and my faith based answer is as Rebecca offered. Cannot happen.
My intellectual answer is “seems unlikely” and is largely built upon the LONG article to which I linked you.

I will however address a few points you bring up for the moment, that is you want to emphasis the lack of Prophecy and it’s primary role in leading the Church. I would simply ask, whose fault is that? Let’s assume the Mormon outlook for a second, the Apostles functioned much the same way modern LDS do today. They gave prophesy and authoritative proclamations for the Church.

Your answer to my question seems to imply it was churchmen who impiously sought to make the ecclesiastical elements of the Church more dominant over the prominent. Putting aside the fact that Tertullian didn’t suggest we need Apostles (nor did anyone I can think of at that time) why was there a lack of Apostles in the first place to not pronounce on these matters? Was there a conspiracy which the Church has obscured hiding and attempting to blot out the apostolic successors from history? This a lack of clarity from Mormons on what they believe historically concerning the Apostles and their succession. I would ask you to fill in the gaps. Did the Apostles appoint successors, if so why did those Apostles fail to be recognised in the Church? It simply doesn’t seem possible to me given the weight of apostolic testimony that any such men should be overthrown by ecclesiastics hungering for power in a Church with little to no power at the time. This of course relates to my previous question of whether or not it is possible for the Mormon church to apostatise.

The CoJCoLDS does not have an official position. The book I mentioned Early Christianity in Disarray addresses what you ask here. Nibley’s book Apostles and Bishops in the Early Chruch also discusses it.
You may or may not believe that St. Paul was a member of the 12 apostles. I believe he was. There were apostles that did not meet the Matthias requirements. But after a short period of time when Apostles and Bishop stood side by side with DIFFERENT responsibilities, there was a time when there were no more Apostles. Over time the idea that the Bishops were apostolic successors with all (but the ability to receive revelation) “keys” filled the void. Robert Eno and Father Sullivan are two Catholics who detail this DEVELOPMENT.
I do not believe persecution from outside the church lead to this (though it did not help and some LDS believe this was the cause). Instead, I believe that internal conflict between good men was the cause.
Of course, ultimately I believe God knew that during the unique time in history when men would kill their God, the structure of God’s church would also be “killed” by men. I believe Peter and probably the other apostles knew that God’s church fully formed would have revelatory leadership and that their apostolic office was not to continue. I think it likely that some non-apostles knew this as well, but the fact that and organization “more humble” would replace the fullness of God’s church is not well documented. (I lean toward the believe that Ignatius and Polycarp knew that this “more humble” organization was coming). Over time authority was created to fill the void. If Father Sullivan and Eno are correct, this was God designed and lead to the fullness of God’s church. If Nibley and I are correct, this lead to the “more humble” organization that replaced the fullness of God’s church. The term “more humble” comes from the Pastor of Hermas who claims that in vision he saw that the church was to come to an end and be replaced by a “more humble” organization. Folks who were not part of the church could repent and become a part of the “more humble” organization, but the culmination of the church was at hand.
I point to the “lack of revelation” because I believe it was restored. And while the idea that Bishops were full successors of the Apostles was developing the idea that “revelation ceased” also developed. It is common for non-LDS to claim the revelation was COMPLETE so revelation ceased, but that was not the position of the early church.

cont…

 

[TOmNossor]

Also where did Thomas Aquinas renounce the councils before him or the theologians before him? It seems to me you are reading into Thomas’ words which are known only to him what they mean. When Thomas says all that he is written before him is straw is he repudiating everything he has written with his pen or speaking in an eccentric manner to describe the great glory of God?

Thomas’s words are most clearly about his writings with his pen (I was not suggesting he repudiated the councils EXCEPT in the fact that his words logically follow from the councils and the thinking that lead to the councils). It is the position of the Catholic Church that Thomas’s writings are brilliant and largely true; he is a “doctor of the church.” Thus, his straw comment is viewed as a way to glorify God.
I suggest two things. The God Thomas described would be hard to see and experience even in a vision. Not because of a lack of corporeality, but because of the radical otherness and immutability, impassibility, asiety. If God is not as Thomas described but instead is as I believe such would appear to be true in an interaction with God (again not because of corporeality, but because of INTERACTION).
Second, as I recall reading about this, Thomas was pressed for WHY he claimed “straw.” He refused to answer. Would it not be quite simple to say, “The glory of God defies explanation thus I have no more to say.” Surely he knew his silence would open the door for a lot. I do not think my view of St. Thomas should cause any Catholic to doubt the validity of his writings. It is just something that aligns well with what I see as errors in Thomas.
Few Catholics in the pew actually believe God is as Thomas described anyway. I have tried to explore this here, but I am just told I am misreading Thomas; I do not agree.
If what I SPECULATE happened with Thomas, happened, I do not think separating from the “more humble” organization would be wise.
Charity, TOm

 

[PJM]

Response to Tom

I can’t speak for others, but I believe the difference between us Christians today and the Jews a thousand years before Christ are not critical issues dividing us or affecting our salvation. The Church then simply had not received the fullness of revelation which is in Jesus Christ. Mormons feel the need to say the fullness of revelation was not given with Christ but instead was given with Joseph Smith, doctrines such as who God exactly is, the absolute and vital necessity of marriage in this world and the next and etc (at one time blacks being excluded from the Mormon Priesthood or the acceptance of Polyamory and Polygamous marriage).

I suppose I can be corrected for believing Mormons believed the fullness of revelation was given with Joseph Smith, yet I do not think myself mistaken in thinking that Mormons seem to believe they themselves have more truth than the Apostles do, particularly on the nature of marriage, the fact they are able to transmit (Prophetic and Apostolic) authority whereas the Apostles were unable to do so. You might continue to receive revelations so I suppose a term like fullness of revelation is incorrect, rather you believe you have received more revelation than the (original) Apostles.

Here is the problem I see in the Mormon scheme of things and perhaps it is that which others have pointed out. Why did God allow his body to fall into such abominations? Our creeds are utterly abhorrent to Mormonism and Christian emphasis’ on celibacy actually contradicts what is actually best for us. Why did the Church of God fail and as I said, the gates of hades prevailed against it? Why should the world have been devoid of Apostolic or Priesthood authority for even a year, let alone one thousand eight hundred years?

We can see in the bible that despite the flaws of the people God cares for his people. They may fall away, yet a remnant is always there. We allow this in the case of the Old Covenant people who did not demonstrate the same zeal and tenacity as the New Covenant community yet that latter community which received a greater and more powerful revelation was so easily displaced? That the Christian community which you believe to adhere to an abomination managed to take over the empire and displace Paganism from the throne it had made for itself. To what end exactly? Why wasn’t Joseph Smith revealed much earlier when he could have put the Church on track? Was it beyond God’s power to stop the total apostasy from happening or even preserve a remnant for himself? Why is there 1800 years of silence?

Given that there was 1800 years of silence, how can the church be condemned for failure of God to send prophets and correct her. Since the RCC and the EO had no access to the Prophets, either due to the failure of the Apostles to appoint successors or the failure of subsequent Apostles to appoint successors, what more can be expected of a Church which God has seemingly abandoned? Abandoned in such a way that God was forced to start again with the LDS, a church that is not connected with the apostles in any way (except it’s mystical claims). It seems to me you would have to attribute evil motives on the behalf of leaders in the second century for deliberately corrupting the faith, a view which I think cannot be supported.

I suspect that there is no answer the Mormon can give to this question since it is a matter not known to them but only to God. Yet to me it stands out as one of the main reasons why I could never accept the Mormon viewpoint and why I find the God of Mormonism so repellent.

Thank YOU my friend, for an in-depth, lucid and SOUND defense of Christianityl
Continued Blessings

Patrick

 

[PJM]

LDS do in fact believe that God’s interaction with His children continues to unfold via revelation. The same revelation that lead to visions for Peter and to the 10 commandments for Moses. That being said, LDS believe that the “fundamental principles of our religion” are/were present with Moses and Peter and Abraham and Adam. While the “dispensation of the fullness of times” has more than the “meridian dispensation,” LDS do not believe that the gospel today is fundamentally different than when Peter was at the head of God’s church. It is a drifting away from truth in the absence of divine correction via revelation that leads to the bulk of the differences between what LDS teach today and what Catholics/EOs teach today. LDS reject most of the philosophical language of the councils. [edited 4 space]

TOm, my friend,

I find your position to be at best dubious; if not impossible.

The LDS absolute NEED to rewrite history in a light favorable them is clear and obvious in your positions.

At its root is a complete denial of the veracity of the now 2,000 year old Catholic/Christian bible and it’s inerrant veracity in teaching MORAL Truths.

Nothing is more evidential in this reality than the LDS absolute need to define for THEMSELVES:

GOD:
God the Father
God the son and HOW he came into existence
God the Holy Spirit

Who Christians for centuries have held as "Co-EQUALL & Co-Eterna

The “Gates of Hades” did not prevail as I have already pointed to in this thread.
The leadership of the early church so feared “revelation” when Tertullian claimed it was absent in the “orthodox,” that the orthodox declared that revelation was no longer needed to lead God’s church (I have been unable to find an earlier declaration that suggests that the revelation that Peter utilized would cease to function – other than the incorrectly understood Biblical passages which were not understood as Catholic do today by a mind as great as Tertullian’s) [edited 4 space]

The audacious position of the LDS to usurp a right [on what basis is at best unclear], to be the sole “correct???” translator of the bible, and then to dismiss it, in darn near entirety SHOUTS of a man-made religion founded on PRIDE.

You choose for yourself-defense terms like Aquinas & “straw”; and then ignore or gloss-over their explained meaning. In the case of T A & his straw comment being driven by TRUE humility. Aquinas, despite his brilliance was able to discern what you my friend cannot. That GOD by FACT is and shall be for all times on man’s mortality, a MYSTERY.

Hence despite ALL that Aquinas was able to discern, prove and share about God and the Mysteries of GOD; no man, and certainly NOT Joseph Smith and not the LDS, are going to be GRANTED the necessary grace to unravel God’s mysterious ways.

KNOW this TOm, that God will; BECAUSE as GOD, God must pass final judgment upon each of US, NOT on our chosen beliefs, life-choices and practices derived from these beliefs; RATHER it will be on what our Perfect & Just God has made POSSIBLE fpr EACH of us to know, accept, believe and practice. AMEN!

So it is WE, not God who determines where WE will spend eternity.

The FACT that LDS have even redefined this reality, will not alter what actually will take place.

So, God allows men freedom to reject His guidance. I know I have done it many times. [AND FOR THE RECORD YOUR DOING IT AGAIN RIGHT NOW] {INSERTED BY pjm} … LDS do not believe that the apostasy resulted in generations of people condemned to hell because previous generation rebelled. God did not cease to strive with mankind, but the leaders of the Christian churches refused to believe that revelation would/could come from God to CORRECT and guide them [edited 4 space]

And TOM, this IS because you personally & the [LDS] are not granted the grace to rightly understand what your rejecting. And NOT without culpability I might add, for God in order to BE GOD, commits Himself to OFFER “sufficient grace” that EVERYONE can, could and should actually know Him and what He Commands..

First, I do not KNOW. It has not been revealed to me or to the church as far as I know.

Second, I have two answers. One is that Christ was born, Christ died, and Christ was resurrected. The Bride of Christ followed this pattern. It was formed, apostatized, and was restored.

TOm, except for what you [the LDS] have invented; and even that lacks clarity and actual evidence; NO evidenchttps://www.amazon.com/How-Stayed-Catholic-Harvard-Faithful/dp/1621641287/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1477588417&sr=8-1&keywords=how+i+stayed+catholic+at+harvarde exist of your position. NONE!

The second answer has to do with the unique time when God’s people (the Jews) would kill God and the witness of Christ could be preserved and spread (because of Pax Romana), but two things could not happen during this unique time. One was the preservation unadulterated of esoteric doctrine and practices and two was the prevention of corruption by leaders who believed they were greater than the followers (see the essay I referred to you in my last post AND the history of different rules for the clergy as compared to the laity as evidence).
Cont…

TOm, “your” [the LDS] position is only defensible in your own minds; believing what “you” yourself have concocted.

Your position in an absolute sense HAS TO deny the Bible, History and Sacred Tradition, as nothing less would suffice to permit such contradictory thinking and philosophies. And your correct in that GOD does permit that; BUT equally GOD also permits humanity to seek in TRUE Humility, His TRUTHS so that man can and MIGHT choose the only path to their own salvation. God, Christ and their [HIS] Truths!

May God Bless and guide you my friend

Patrick

 

[PJM]

Amen!!

Quote:
Originally Posted by peter26 View Post
The one true church is the universal church of all believers. The alternative to this view is a sort of theological elitism whereby we all say our church is the “true” church and all others are not churches at all. Which is a divisive and unreasonable attitude. All Christians are part of the one true church of God[end quote

That is a common and an illogical; improvable TRUTH, IF, if, by that claim you mean to imply salvation is assured simply [and alone] by what EACH church chooses to believe.

There is a huge-multiplicity of “churches” .simply BECAUSE NO CHURCH can be separated from that Church’s chosen set of Faith beliefs. Because tuth can be nothing other than singular per defined issue; one then must conclude that the SET of “faith-beliefs” on ONLY one of them IS God’s truth; the reast man’s chosen understanding of them.

GBY

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

The LDS faith and my faith based answer is as Rebecca offered. Cannot happen.
My intellectual answer is “seems unlikely” and is largely built upon the LONG article to which I linked you.

cont…

I think I understand why you believe Christ’s Church could apostatise but Joseph Smith’s Christ Church could not. It seems to me that you believe the early Christians were woefully unprepared to face the unbelieving world, in so much dissaray and corruption that they failed to preserve even the Apostolic succession (in the Mormon sense) which was their duty. Correct me if I have misconstrued your position but I will respond to elements which will hopefully respond to this larger idea of a great apostasy.

Why would you include Paul among the twelve when the book of Acts doesn’t do that? Luke in Acts tells us why Matthias was elected to become an Apostle among the twelve, because Judas had betrayed Christ and if Paul had been elected an Apostle within the twelve I have no doubt Luke would have written it within Acts. Acts is largely written in an effort to defend Paul’s ministry and to leave such a thing out would be absurd, also Paul failing to mention he was one of the twelve when he speaks of himself as an Apostle (in the general sense of him being sent) also speaks against that idea.

I’m willing to grant that Bishops came to hold a higher position in the Church than they had when the Apostles were still around, but this seems to have happened by necessity and not by coup d’etat. Now how exactly did the Church come to an end? What is the Church? Is the Church the whole body or just the earthly heads (Apostles)? Were those faithful followers, men who listened to the Apostles (like Polycarp) and those raised in Apostolic communities (Like Ignatius in Antioch or Clement of Rome) left in the dust the moment the last of the Apostles died? I understand you believe John was assumed into heaven and yet I can’t think of the purpose for this other than depriving the world of God’s church. If we can prove that there was one man who was righteous in the Church, why should God abandon that one man or woman?

As far as Apostolic succession meaning that the Bishops are the full successors of the Apostles, that is wrong. Apostolic succession is the transmission of leadership in the Church which was first established with the Apostles. Christians don’t believe their bishops are living Apostles but are instead in the line of Bishops going back to the Apostles appointed to be leaders over the Church.

I am still confused how God allowed a situation where there would be no Apostles to guide the church. You say God didn’t abandon the Church, that men abandoned God yet how is that the case when there should have been Apostles appointed on earth? Were the Apostles incompetent at running the Churches to the level where they couldn’t co-ordinate with each other and discuss when one of them died and when one of them needed to be replaced? In arguing there was a more humble organisation are you saying the Church of the second century was so corrupt that it needed to be taken down a peg, abusing perhaps it’s apostolic powers that God deliberately withdrew from the world? There are specifics that need to be addressed, especially whether or not it was teh Apostles who failed to ordain successors (and John’s ascension into heaven within the LDS implies this) or their possible Apostolic successors.

In the end I am left wondering what the Church could have done better than it already did. I am left to question the very providence of God in starting something that he knew would fail within a hundred years and could only start up again 1800 years later. What was the point of it all? What was the point of breaking the line of faith going back to Abraham, allowing the abominations of Protestantism, Eastern Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism into the world that has so poisoned the world against the claims of the Mormon Church? Isn’t there a better explanation we can follow? That God saw that in revealing Jesus at the time he did that the Gospel would make use of the empire (their roads and common language) that sought to destroy God to spread it throughout the entire world? That though Christians would fail at times they would persevere and bring a light of hope and beacon to the world? Mormonism tells us all that history is Abomination. The Great apostasy is not a natural theory, is a theory born of necessity for the Mormon to explain why God wasn’t there.

 

[RebeccaJ]

The Great apostasy is not a natural theory, is a theory born of necessity for the Mormon to explain why God wasn’t there.

I see it as a conspiracy theory.

 

[Peter_J]

The article says that “the Roman Catholic Church was the only Church in western Europe until Martin Luther started the Protestant movement in 1517” but there was the Christian movement founded by Peter Waldo in 1173, known as the Waldensians.

The phrase “Roman Catholic” is sometimes used as shorthand for “Roman-Rite Catholic” … but it is used at other times to mean all Catholics ICWR.

Those of us who are ICWR but do not use the Roman-Rite (e.g. the Melkite Catholic Church, the Maronite Church, the UGCC, etc) are far from happy about that inconsistent usage.

 

[Peter_J]

This is a bit of a spur-of-the-moment post, but it seems appropriate to this thread regardless …

I was just watching The World Over Live on EWTN, and one of the guests said that dubia that some Cardinals recently sent Pope Francis concerning Amoris Laetitia was to ask him whether certain church doctrines had changed. I forget which guest it was that said that, but I’m inclined to think that he was wrong in saying that that is what the *dubia *was asking. Church doctrine does not change.

 

[spedteacherita]

Quote:
Originally Posted by peter26 View Post
The one true church is the universal church of all believers. The alternative to this view is a sort of theological elitism whereby we all say our church is the “true” church and all others are not churches at all. Which is a divisive and unreasonable attitude. All Christians are part of the one true church of God[end quote

That is a common and an illogical; improvable TRUTH, IF, if, by that claim you mean to imply salvation is assured simply [and alone] by what EACH church chooses to believe.

There is a huge-multiplicity of “churches” .simply BECAUSE NO CHURCH can be separated from that Church’s chosen set of Faith beliefs. Because tuth can be nothing other than singular per defined issue; one then must conclude that the SET of “faith-beliefs” on ONLY one of them IS God’s truth; the reast man’s chosen understanding of them.

GBY

Maybe I’m wrong but what I understood Peter to be saying is that there is the “invisible” church which includes all Christians who have a Trinitarian baptism and believe that Christ is the one true and final atonement for our sins.

You state, PJM, that “Because truth can be nothing other than singular per defined issue; one then must conclude that the SET of “faith-beliefs” on ONLY one of them IS God’s truth; the rest is man’s chosen understanding of them.” Are you stating this in regards to the Catholic church? While many denominations did come up with their doctrine as late as the late 19th century into the early 20th century can we not say the same of the doctrines of papal infallibility and the assumption of Mary as they were not official doctrines of the Church till 1870 and 1950 respectively? Why were they not official doctrines before then? Aren’t our faiths to be focused on Christ’s incarnation, His teachings, death, resurrection and His soon coming? Of course, we, as you do in your Catholic faith teach that the Eucharist was given to us on Maunday Thursday as well as baptism as a work of the Holy Spirit. To add more things to do begins to be like the Pharisees and Sadduccees and how they added to Moses’ laws in order to avoid breaking the law.

Just chewing through all of this - not trying to diminish anyone’s beliefs but to understand. Anyway, the explanation above is why I stated a resounding “amen” to Peter’s post.

God bless!

Rita

 

[TOmNossor]

Patrick and IgnatianPhilo,
I finally got through this. I am not sure how far I will get with your responses, but I will read them.

Nothing is more evidential in this reality than the LDS absolute need to define for THEMSELVES:
GOD:
God the Father
God the son and HOW he came into existence
God the Holy Spirit
Who Christians for centuries have held as "Co-EQUALL & Co-Eterna

Hello Patrick,
I have read a great deal of the ECF focusing on the earlier Fathers. I have made this point on this board many times. I have yet to see any reason to disagree with my conclusion.
The “co-equal” you demand is not the most clear read of the Bible and it is not the position of the pre-Nicene ECF.
Here is a thread written by someone who at the time embraced Newman’s Development theory and the Catholic Church.
articulifidei.blogspot.com/2008/10/subordinationism-and-pre-nicene-church.html
I will be happy to read why you think I should reject this view, but I find your position that “co-equal” is Biblical and Patristic to be a MODERN read that was absent in the ECF.

The audacious position of the LDS to usurp a right [on what basis is at best unclear], to be the sole “correct???” translator of the bible, and then to dismiss it, in darn near entirety SHOUTS of a man-made religion founded on PRIDE.

My position is that the Bible if read in total does not say God the Father and God the Son are “co-equal.” I read the Bible in many ways. I read it as a Catholic. I read it as a LDS. And I read it as best I can as neither. Where the “neither” conflicts with the LDS (with what I believe a LDS must believe not with what anti-Mormon’s claim I must believe), I accept the authority of the CoJCoLDS because I believe we have inspired interpretation of the Bible and extra Biblical revelation.
I have NEVER seen evidence from a Catholic on the Non-Catholic Board that they have any idea that the “neither” view ever conflicts with the “Catholic View.”
I have discussed here where the “neither” view is a more solid read of the Bible than the LDS view. This happens, but not near as often as folks who have not read the BOM and who do not know LDS thought claim. And not in the case of “co-equal.”

And TOM, this IS because you personally & the [LDS] are not granted the grace to rightly understand what your rejecting. And NOT without culpability I might add, for God in order to BE GOD, commits Himself to OFFER “sufficient grace” that EVERYONE can, could and should actually know Him and what He Commands.

This statement is a product of your FAITH and not reason. It is true that if a gift of God’s grace is necessary to understand, God might have chosen to not offer that gift to me (Calvin absolutely said this and most clearly so did Augustine) or God having offered it to me I might have rejected it through some culpable actions or choices.
What would you think if I told you:

And PATRICK, this IS because you personally & the [CATHOLICS] are not granted the grace to rightly understand what your rejecting. And NOT without culpability I might add, for God in order to BE GOD, commits Himself to OFFER “sufficient grace” that EVERYONE can, could and should actually know Him and what He Commands.

Furthermore, what if I said this after saying something about “co-equal” which Biblical and Patristic scholars who try to discuss what the WORDS MEAN totally reject as a MODERN reading?
Patrick, as best I know, I approach these questions from a, what do the historical facts point me towards? When I am done, I am a LDS. I recognize I do not possess ALL historical facts. I am not an ancient Greek speaker. I am not an ancient Mesoamerican. I am not an ancient Latin speaker. So, I continue to collect historical facts (upon your recommendation I am reading the Catechism of the Council of Trent). The “balance” has not shifted much for many years, but negatives for the CoJCoLDS do appear. Still I am a LDS.
THEN I try to approach these questions from the knowledge that without God’s grace, I am incapable of anything. AND “His ways are higher than my ways,” my judgments are not divine judgments. Maybe my attempts at reason are so flawed I cannot make judgments about the question of “what is God’s church on earth?” I just ask God in prayer which church is His. When I am done, I am a LDS. I continue to ask God for guidance and tell Him I will follow.
If, you Patrick, possess the truth what is the “prescription” so that I may see my errors. What is the culpability that leads me to not see it?
Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

I think I understand why you believe Christ’s Church could apostatise but Joseph Smith’s Christ Church could not. It seems to me that you believe the early Christians were woefully unprepared to face the unbelieving world, in so much dissaray and corruption that they failed to preserve even the Apostolic succession (in the Mormon sense) which was their duty. Correct me if I have misconstrued your position but I will respond to elements which will hopefully respond to this larger idea of a great apostasy.

The article I linked too suggests it was a structural thing concerning society.
The book Early Christian’s in Disarray says two things. There was conflict within the church that lead to the apostasy AND more research is necessary.

The Great apostasy is not a natural theory, is a theory born of necessity for the Mormon to explain why God wasn’t there.

I am not sure “theory born of necessity” is a big problem. Apostolic succession is a “theory born of necessity.” The difference IMO is that I readily admit that if it were not for the restoration, I would see PROBLEMS, but I would not be a “restorationist in waiting.”
So, it is because of the restoration that LDS look too history to see if we can see apostasy. There is a lot there and thus there are different opinions as to what it is. But, as I stated in this thread … I cannot fit the events that I think history shows likely happened into a framework that denies that something supernatural happened through Joseph Smith’s life/the restoration. In light of this, I see believing President Monson is the head of God’s church on earth as a far more rational position than believing the Pope is the head of God’s church. Thus, I am a LDS.

I’m willing to grant that Bishops came to hold a higher position in the Church than they had when the Apostles were still around, but this seems to have happened by necessity and not by coup d’etat. Now how exactly did the Church come to an end? What is the Church? Is the Church the whole body or just the earthly heads (Apostles)? Were those faithful followers, men who listened to the Apostles (like Polycarp) and those raised in Apostolic communities (Like Ignatius in Antioch or Clement of Rome) left in the dust the moment the last of the Apostles died? I understand you believe John was assumed into heaven and yet I can’t think of the purpose for this other than depriving the world of God’s church. If we can prove that there was one man who was righteous in the Church, why should God abandon that one man or woman?

I believe two things.
First, God did not abandon believing men and woman the day the last apostle left the scene. God did not abandon believing men and woman the day that ordained clergy, whose ordination perpetuated to today’s Catholic Bishops and Priests, declared God would not REVEAL anything for the entire church anymore and they were ONLY to preserve the truth. God did not abandon believing men and woman on the day that things like unbaptized babies go to hell OR Father and Son are co-equal was declared by folks in this ordination chain who claimed to have no ability to receive revelation. God did not abandon believing men and woman who lived in Italy or next door to Joseph Smith on the day that the authority to receive REVELATION for the entire world was restored. God strives with each individual person and never gives up upon them. They can find Him as long as they look. He stands knocking and we merely need to receive Him.
Second, God’s church most fully constituted is lead by men who receive PUBLIC REVELATION. This was true in the Old Testament, it was true in the New Testament. It was true of Paul. It was likely true of others shortly after the last book of the New Testament was received. God’s plan was to restore this ability in His time. He did.
cont …

 

[TOmNossor]

As far as Apostolic succession meaning that the Bishops are the full successors of the Apostles, that is wrong. Apostolic succession is the transmission of leadership in the Church which was first established with the Apostles. Christians don’t believe their bishops are living Apostles but are instead in the line of Bishops going back to the Apostles appointed to be leaders over the Church.

I can accept much of that. I merely suggest that the fine organization that existed before the restoration was the “more humble” organization. After the restoration, the “more humble” organization like Ciaphus and Judaism did not recognize God’s hand in the restoration. God works with this, but the restoration was God’s work.

I am still confused how God allowed a situation where there would be no Apostles to guide the church. You say God didn’t abandon the Church, that men abandoned God yet how is that the case when there should have been Apostles appointed on earth? Were the Apostles incompetent at running the Churches to the level where they couldn’t co-ordinate with each other and discuss when one of them died and when one of them needed to be replaced? In arguing there was a more humble organisation are you saying the Church of the second century was so corrupt that it needed to be taken down a peg, abusing perhaps it’s apostolic powers that God deliberately withdrew from the world? There are specifics that need to be addressed, especially whether or not it was teh Apostles who failed to ordain successors (and John’s ascension into heaven within the LDS implies this) or their possible Apostolic successors.

Again there are two thoughts on this. The book Early Christians in Disarray argues that conflict within leadership of the church resulted in God guiding the men at the head of the church such that full successors were not selected. Nibley says, “the lights went out,” and taught that the Apostles knew this was the path. If you read Robert Eno and Francis Sullivan (both Catholic scholars), you can see one of two things. The LDS sees the fumblings in the dark and the emergence of the lesser organization. The Catholics see DEVELOPMENT where the Bishops filled the void.
Second, the link I provided draws upon sociological research and points to the difficulties in a stratified and LARGE society were one group is viewed as better than another group. It suggests (in alignment with D&C 121) “it is the nature and disposition of almost all men, as soon as they get a little authority, as they suppose, they will immediately begin to exercise unrighteous dominion.” There were different rules for clergy and laity. The clergy became a privileged class. The checks upon this that exist in today’s society limit this, but it is a problem for my church and yours and the Catholics, but not IMO as stratified as it was in 1000AD and many years before and after. Some of the huge problems the “liberal democratic” society in which we live REQUIRED to be addressed in the Catholic Church (and others in my church the one I am thinking of for my church was primarily 1970s) would not have received the attention in 1000AD they did in the 1980s.

In the end I am left wondering what the Church could have done better than it already did. I am left to question the very providence of God in starting something that he knew would fail within a hundred years and could only start up again 1800 years later. What was the point of it all? What was the point of breaking the line of faith going back to Abraham, allowing the abominations of Protestantism, Eastern Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism into the world that has so poisoned the world against the claims of the Mormon Church? Isn’t there a better explanation we can follow? That God saw that in revealing Jesus at the time he did that the Gospel would make use of the empire (their roads and common language) that sought to destroy God to spread it throughout the entire world?

There will be things about God’s providence we do not understand, but I am not having the same difficulties you are. It seems we both recognize “Pax Romana” as a HUMAN component in God’s choice of the “meridian of time” for Christ’s ministry. I merely assert that God likewise choose the rise of “liberal democracies” and their radical concept of “human equality” for His restoration and perpetuation of the fullness of revelatory church leadership. This is laid out in the link I offered to you.
I see you suggesting that God’s faith community is an unbroken line from Abraham to Christ/Peter to today. I can get behind such a position. I just suggest that Ciaphus and modern Popes/Patriarchs are in the IDENTICAL position relative to God’s faith community. Ciaphus, his contemporaries and modern Jews did not / do not recognize that God was involved in Christ’s and Peter’s ministry. Popes/Patriarchs and modern non-LDS Christians do not recognize that God was involved in Joseph Smith’s ministry.

That though Christians would fail at times they would persevere and bring a light of hope and beacon to the world? Mormonism tells us all that history is Abomination.

I am not calling history an Abomination nor am I saying that Peter/Paul’s ministry was a failure. I am just saying that God has restored the ability for His chosen leaders to receive public revelation for the entire world.
I look/looked to history so I could reason about what was lost and what was restored. It is the events of the restoration that incline my reason towards being a LDS. When I look at history, I find the idea of supernatural public revelation to be the most obviously absent thing that required restoration.
Charity, TOm

 

[Stephen168]

In Post #48 You claimed to believe the Catholic Church is not the one true Church, because the Mormon Church, the restored church, is the one true Church.

In Post #88, you claimed a sign of the restored Church is that it can still write scripture. And in post #111, you claim public revelation as a sign of the restored church. You repeated these claims in post #114 and #191.

In post #164, you claim that the successors to Peter had no authority, but Joseph Smith claimed it was given to him.

In post #170, you claim Mormon beliefs are fundamentally the same as when Peter was alive.

In my point #176, I point out the prophecies of Joseph Smith, and the scriptures of Joseph Smith are scientifically proven false. The Book of Mormon and the Book of Abraham are not what Joseph Smith claimed them to be. Therefore your claim of continuing scripture is false.

Because everything Joseph Smith claimed which could be verified by science and history has been proven false, it stands to reason those things which can not be verified by science are also false. He NEVER had a vision from an angel, Peter, John, James, Moses or anyone else.

Because the unique beliefs of the Mormon Church come from the Book of Abraham which has been proven false there is NO chance the Mormon Church has the same fundamental beliefs as the early Christian Church. In fact, we can show historically that Joseph Smith guided his people away from many core fundamental beliefs of the early Church; again from the Book of Abraham.

Stephen,
I suspect you know well my position on this, but I will offer a few words just the same.
I have looked through the genesis of all the criticisms you offer. Most of them are negatives for the truth claims of the CoJCoLDS, few if any (of the ones you mentioned) produce problems when looked at thoroughly from the position I hold.

They are negatives because they are objectively true. Any position you hold doesn’t suddenly make them false.

I do not expect prophetic leadership to produced inerrancy and certainly not inerrancy when it comes to scientific understandings.

NOTHING Joseph Smith transcribed and prophesied required scientific understanding. Repeating the words of an angel, God, Peter, or John doesn’t require scientific understanding. When Joseph Smith makes claims which are recorded as Mormon scripture and can be scientifically verified, they should be true. When He claims an angel told him the Book of Mormon was a history of ALL the Indians of the Americas it should be true. It was false.

I do believe that evidence suggests that the BOM discusses a real group of Jews who traveled through the Old World and really landed somewhere (probably Mesoamerica) and really did things that combined with their insights on God lead to the BOM with its real historical background.

But this is not Mormon scripture. Mormon scripture says the Book of Mormon is a history of ALL the Indians of the Americas.

As I mentioned in the post you responded to, it is my inability to explain the positive evidences that lead to my conviction that God was involved in the restoration.

It is because there is no positive evidence which a reasonable person could use to arrive at your conclusion. You just believe.

I cannot be Catholic and recognize that God was involved in the restoration. So I carry with me the problems of Mormonism and do not pick up the problems of Catholicism.

I see that over 90 percent of your posting is your perceived problems with the Catholic Church while just ignoring the problems of the Mormon Church. So not only do you “pick up the problems of Catholicism,” you usually invent them. In this case, ignoring the problems with the Mormon Church you earlier had claimed as signs of a restored church.

Therefore, using your criteria, the Mormon Church is not the true church of Jesus Christ based on an objective evaluation of the facts.

 

[Sacred_Heart_1]

Dear friend in Christ;

If you hold to the position that the RCC is NOT the one true Chuch founded and desired by Christ, please explain why this is?

God Bless you

Patrick

Why can’t we look at all Christians as the brothers and sisters in Christ.

The body of Christ is like a tree. It has many branches, supported by its roots, belonging to the head (Christ).

Why not see the Catholic Church as a root that branches out to all these different denominations (each with their attributes–of strength and weakness.

Those that bear fruit, the Father prunes, so that they bear more fruit. And if a Church does not bear fruit then it can’t be Christian; for all are of the same vine, with Christ is the life of the vine. A Church either abides within him or doesn’t. Let the works of a Church speak for themselves.

Remember, the disciples came up to Jesus one day, and asked the Lord for a certain man that was preaching Jesus and curing the sick and do the works of the Lord; however, this certain man was not following Jesus with the disciples. And the Lord said to them do not prevent this man from his works; for whoever is for us cannot be against us.

The same is true with other denominations. Let the works speak for themselves; and you just may find that another denomination is headed by Christ.

Besides, before the Catholic Church came to be (there were in fact a multitude of denominations). Remember, the Lord was celebrated in peoples homes before they were celebrated within a temple. It’s just that as Christianity spread, a temple became necessary, in order to gather the faithful under one worship.

Even if in the worship of homes was a sort of proto-church, leading to the Roman Church, you must understand that before the Catholic Church came to be, the pieces had to be gathered and set into place like a jigsaw puzzle, saying that this is the Church because of so-and-so tradition.

In other words, the Catholic Church wasn’t built in a day. It all had to come together from the ways of the “proto-church”. Being gathered from it’s beginnings within people’s homes.

 

[PJM]

Maybe I’m wrong but what I understood Peter to be saying is that there is the “invisible” church which includes all Christians who have a Trinitarian baptism and believe that Christ is the one true and final atonement for our sins.

You state, PJM, that “Because truth can be nothing other than singular per defined issue; one then must conclude that the SET of “faith-beliefs” on ONLY one of them IS God’s truth; the rest is man’s chosen understanding of them.” Are you stating this in regards to the C But thanks for askingatholic church?

NO BUT thanks for asking:

Father John Hardon S J, one of the 20th Centuries most respected Theologians had this to say about truth. And BTW, thanks for picking up the FACT that it can be only singular per-defined issue.

“TRUTH IS THE CONDITION OF GRACE; IT IS THE CHANNEL OF GRACE; IT IS THE SOURCE OF GRACE; IT IS THE DIVINELY ORDAINED REQUIREMENT OF GRACE”

And because GOD can neither deceive OR be deceived; it HAS to be God’s Truth as I defined it as singular per defined issue. It can be nothing else.

While many denominations did come up with their doctrine as late as the late 19th century into the early 20th century can we not say the same of the doctrines of papal infallibility and the assumption of Mary as they were not official doctrines of the Church till 1870 and 1950 respectively? Why were they not official doctrines before then?

Dear FRIEND, because you [LDS] reject the bible in favor on the BOM, it seems to ME, reasonable that you do not understand correctly & FULLY:

Paying close attention to the HS guided SINGULAR tense words the GOD-Inspired Authors choose to use in

Mt 10:1-8
Mt 16:15-19
John 17:17-20
Mt 28:18-20

You can use this site to quickly look these up
www.drbo.org/

IN reading & rightly understanding these brief bur of critical importance passages we discover ALL of the following:

GOD freely choose directly & exclusively HIS 12 Apostles who HE sent out

GOD transferred to THEM a limited amount of HIS Godly Powers & Authority

GOD freely choose Peter to be the ROCK on which He Jesus WOULD, and has built “My Church” singular

GRANTING Him & by necessity [Mt 10:-8-9 vrs Mt 28:19-20] ALL of the the Key’s to Christ Kingdom [Heaven]

And committing to: "the gates of hell shall NEVER prevail against Her [Mother CC]

And the Powers of UNLIMITED Church Governance; with what the Catholic Magisterium teaches being accepted and warranted by GOD in heaven

In John 17:17-20

Jesus [GOD] precisely recounts SENDING THEM [directly & exclusively] just as “the Father had sent Him [Jesus]”

& Then giving HIMSELF [Christ] as the personal warranty of their teaching ONLY His truths. NO OTHER CHURCH; NO OTHER FAITH CAN MAKE AND SUPPORT SUCH A CLAIM; WHICH IS THE RCC’S FOUNDATION FOR “INFALLIBILITY.”

In Mt 28: again directly and exclusively; Christ [GOD], commands THEM to go and teach the ENTIRE WORLD “ALL That I have taught you”

John 14:26
But the Paraclete, the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things, and bring all things to your mind, whatsoever I shall have said to you

John 15:26
But when the Paraclete cometh, whom I will send you from the Father, the Spirit of truth, who proceedeth from the Father, he shall give testimony of me

What ALL of the above teach is that the RCC is the one true Church founded, desired, guided and guarded by the HS

To assume that God’s PLAN for His RCC was not to add to what was first taught to the Apostles directly. with no evolution of Doctrine and it’s meaning is a very short-sighted understanding. The Catholic Faith is not static; although neither Doctrine or Dogma are changeable in their BASE teachings.

Aren’t our faiths to be focused on Christ’s incarnation, His teachings, death, resurrection and His soon coming? Of course, we, as you do in your Catholic faith teach that the Eucharist was given to us on Maunday Thursday as well as baptism as a work of the Holy Spirit. To add more things to do begins to be like the Pharisees and Sadduccees and how they added to Moses’ laws in order to avoid breaking the law

Dear friend, I just addressed this above.

Just chewing through all of this - not trying to diminish anyone’s beliefs but to understand. Anyway, the explanation above is why I stated a resounding “amen” to Peter’s post.

God bless!

Rita

NOTED and truly appreciated:thumbsup:

GBY
Patrick

 

[PJM]

Patrick and IgnatianPhilo,
I finally got through this. I am not sure how far I will get with your responses, but I will read them.

Hello Patrick,
I have read a great deal of the ECF focusing on the earlier Fathers. I have made this point on this board many times. I have yet to see any reason to disagree with my conclusion.

The “co-equal” you demand is not the most clear read of the Bible and it is not the position of the pre-Nicene ECF.

addressed below

TOm my friend, the bible is “of” [FROM] the RCC; NOT the RCC from the bible.

The RCC birthed the bible, not the bible the RCC:thumbsup:

Here is a thread written by someone who at the time embraced Newman’s Development theory and the Catholic Church.

articulifidei.blogspot.com/2008/10/subordinationism-and-pre-nicene-church.html

I will be happy to read why you think I should reject this view, but I find your position that “co-equal” is Biblical and Patristic to be a MODERN read that was absent in the ECF

TOM, I don’t recall claiming either and with GREAT cause. Please keep on reading.

My position is that the Bible if read in total does not say God the Father and God the Son are “co-equal.” I read the Bible in many ways. I read it as a Catholic. I read it as a LDS. And I read it as best I can as neither. Where the “neither” conflicts with the LDS (with what I believe a LDS must believe not with what anti-Mormon’s claim I must believe), I accept the authority of the CoJCoLDS because I believe we have inspired interpretation of the Bible and extra Biblical revelation.

THANKS my friend,

The APOSTLES CREED was authored around the same time the Bible is thought to have been fully written; but not yet CODIFIED

I have NEVER seen evidence from a Catholic on the Non-Catholic Board that they have any idea that the “neither” view ever conflicts with the “Catholic View.”

I have given up on non-catholic boards as they too frequently lack charity, facts and right understanding

**Catechism of the RCC
194 The Apostles’ Creed is so called because it is rightly considered to be a faithful summary of the apostles’ faith. It is the ancient baptismal symbol of the Church of Rome. Its great authority arises from this fact: it is “the Creed of the Roman Church, the See of Peter the first of the apostles, to which he brought the common faith”.

CCC Search Result - Paragraph # 247 (629 bytes ) preview document matches
The affirmation of the filioque does not appear in the Creed confessed in 381 at … of 381. The use of this formula in the Creed was gradually admitted into the Latin” EQ**

THE DOGMA OF THE TRINITY

http://www.catholic.org/encyclopedia/view.php?id=5222

The Trinity is the term employed to signify the central doctrine of the Christian religion – the truth that in the unity of the Godhead there are Three Persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, these Three Persons being truly distinct one from another.
Thus, in the words of the Athanasian Creed : “the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God, and yet there are not three Gods but one God.” In this Trinity of Persons the Son is begotten of the Father by an eternal generation, and the Holy Spirit proceeds by an eternal procession from the Father and the Son. Yet, notwithstanding this difference as to origin, the Persons are co-eternal and co-equal: all alike are uncreated and omnipotent. This, the Church teaches, is the revelation regarding God’s nature which Jesus Christ, the Son of God, came upon earth to deliver to the world: and which she proposes to man as the foundation of her whole dogmatic system” EQ

I have discussed here where the “neither” view is a more solid read of the Bible than the LDS view. This happens, but not near as often as folks who have not read the BOM and who do not know LDS thought claim. And not in the case of “co-equal.”
blog.faithlife.com/blog/2015/04/the-apostles-creed-its-history-and-origins/

THE Apostles CREED around 100 AD [roughly the same time as the authorship of the bible, which would take hundreds of more years to be CANONIZED]

“I believe in God the Father almighty;
and in Christ Jesus His only Son, our Lord,
Who was born from the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary,
Who under Pontius Pilate was crucified and buried,
on the third day rose again from the dead,
ascended into heaven,
sits at the right hand of the Father,
whence he will come to judge the living and the dead;
and in the Holy Spirit,
the holy Church,
the remission of sins,
the resurrection of the flesh,
[life everlasting].
Which of course was later further clarified by Nicea [325 AD] as was permissible in the light of a HS enlightened deeper understanding” EQ

**end of pt 1 of 2 ****

 

[PJM]

Patrick and IgnatianPhilo

**START of pt 2 of 2 **

Also one ought not to dismiss that ALL of this time from Christ Resurrection to Nicaea the Church was so severely persecuted that it was literally driven underground. Not conducive to the development of Doctrines.

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/p...rc_com_archeo_doc_20011010_cataccrist_en.html

Origin of the creed

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01629a.htm

“Throughout the Middle Ages it was generally believed that the Apostles, on the day of Pentecost, while still under the direct inspiration of the Holy Ghost, composed our present Creed between them, each of the Apostles contributing one of the twelve articles. This legend dates back to the sixth century (see Pseudo-Augustine in Migne, P.L., XXXIX, 2189, and Pirminius, ibid., LXXXIX, 1034), and it is foreshadowed still earlier in a sermon attributed to St. Ambrose (Migne, P.L., XVII, 671; Kattenbusch, I, 81), which takes notice that the Creed was "pieced together by twelve separate workmen” EQ

This statement is a product of your FAITH and not reason. It is true that if a gift of God’s grace is necessary to understand, God might have chosen to not offer that gift to me (Calvin absolutely said this and most clearly so did Augustine) or God having offered it to me I might have rejected it through some culpable actions or choices.
What would you think if I told you:

Furthermore, what if I said this after saying something about “co-equal” which Biblical and Patristic scholars who try to discuss what the WORDS MEAN totally reject as a MODERN reading?

Then according to the Bible, History & Sacred Tradition, they would be lacking a Full & Correct Understanding if wnad when they read thses paying particular attention to the GOD-inspiried SINGULAR tense words used.

Mt 10:1-8
Mt 16:15-19
John 17:17-20
Mt 28:18-20

Patrick, as best I know, I approach these questions from a, what do the historical facts point me towards? When I am done, I am a LDS. I recognize I do not possess ALL historical facts. I am not an ancient Greek speaker. I am not an ancient Mesoamerican. I am not an ancient Latin speaker. So, I continue to collect historical facts (upon your recommendation I am reading the Catechism of the Council of Trent). The “balance” has not shifted much for many years, but negatives for the CoJCoLDS do appear. Still I am a LDS.

THEN I try to approach these questions from the knowledge that without God’s grace, I am incapable of anything. AND “His ways are higher than my ways,” my judgments are not divine judgments. Maybe my attempts at reason are so flawed I cannot make judgments about the question of “what is God’s church on earth?” I just ask God in prayer which church is His. When I am done, I am a LDS. I continue to ask God for guidance and tell Him I will follow.

If, you Patrick, possess the truth what is the “prescription” so that I may see my errors. What is the culpability that leads me to not see it?
Charity, TOm

TOm as I have previously indicated, I am NOT in the conversion “business.” We C’s hold this to be GOD"S private domain. That said; it seems to ME [personally] that your seeking a justification in, by and through LOGIC alone, and that itself is a major roadblock to Spiritual Truths.

Heb. 11:01-2 TEACHES
"Now faith is the substance of things to be hoped for, the evidence of things that appear not.For by this the ancients obtained a testimony"

I alluded to this reality eariler by quoting Isaiah 55:6-10. which TEACHES that GODS ways are NOT man’s way.

To attain God’s desired understanding; our journey must begin in true and deep humility and end with an open mind and heart.

The Lord Himself when asked" Teach US to pray"

Lk 11:1-4 in the first petition “THY Kingdom come”; was later expanded and amplified to mean & to include: “THY WILL BE DONE” on Earth [precisely] as it is in heaven"

So we are TAUGHT that it is BEST for our spiritual growth & health to return to GOD, what is among the GREATEST gifts He gives to each of US: namely our FREEWILL
Isiah 43: verses 7 & 21… That our lives goal is to Do HIS Divine Will, what GOD commands, over ALL other considerations.

THAT my friend is the goal and the path to God’s necessary graces.

GBY
Patrick

 

[PJM]

NOTE: IN 2 CONSECUTIVE PARTS DUE TO LENGTH

pT 1

spedteacherita:

Maybe I’m wrong but what I understood Peter to be saying is that there is the “invisible” church which includes all Christians who have a Trinitarian baptism and believe that Christ is the one true and final atonement for our sins

That would be an incomplete understanding.

Certainly GODS Truths begin with Sacramental Baptism and Belief and right understanding of the Blessed Trinity.

BUT that is the beginning NOT the the end, and not the entire essential reality & truth.

By failing to read as is critically necessary, noting the singular tense words the HS Inspired authors of the Bible [which BTW is a Catholic Book], passages like

Mt 10:1-8
Mt 16:15-19
John 17: 17-20
Mt 28:18-20
John 20:19-23

Very much is missed.

No “church” can be separated from THAT churches chosen set of 'faith-beliefs"; so in reading** Mt 16:18 **for example we find:these critical teachings

[18] And I say to THEE: That thou art Peter; and upon [YOU Peter] this rock** I will build my church,** SINGULAR **and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. **

Then in Mt 28: 19-20 we are able to discern this
[19] Going therefore, TEACH YOU ALL NATIONS [20] Teaching them to observe ALL THINGS whatsoever I have commanded [this word ALSO means “taught”] YOU and behold I am with YOU all days, even to the consummation of the world.

So clearly the Bible supports totally, with no exceptions; Just One God, who can and deos have just One set of Faith beliefs [anything else is impossible even for God]; and in and through His One True Church.

So while all other Christian faiths unite with, in and through the RCC; thay nevertheless lack the FULLNESS of God’s Faith and truths; which can only be singular per defined issues.
.

You state, PJM, that “Because truth can be nothing other than singular per defined issue; one then must conclude that the SET of “faith-beliefs” on ONLY one of them IS God’s truth; the rest is man’s chosen understanding of them.”

That is correct. Nothing esse is logical or possible.

Dictionary Definition of “Truth”

The true or actual state of a matter:
1.conformity with fact or reality; verity: the truth of a statement.
2.a verified or indisputable fact, proposition, principle, or the like: mathematical truths.
3. the state or character of being true.
4. actuality or actual existence.
5. an obvious or accepted fact; truism; platitude.
6. honesty; integrity; truthfulness.
7. (often initial capital letter) ideal or fundamental reality apart from and transcending perceived
experience:
8. agreement with a standard or original.
9… accuracy, as of position or adjustment.
10. Archaic. Fidelity or constancy.
TEN REALITIES of a single truth

Are you stating this in regards to the Catholic church?

Actually Y & N

It applies equally to all realities [with some possible exceptions I’m told in the scientific community]; BUT none regards Faith beliefs.

While many denominations did come up with their doctrine as late as the late 19th century into the early 20th century can we not say the same of the doctrines of papal infallibility and the assumption of Mary as they were not official doctrines of the Church till 1870 and 1950 respectively?

OK, and? I just responded to TOm, in a prior post above this one I think, that explains this. If you still have questions, PLEASE do ask again

Truth is neither debatable or changeable; what you’re asking about on Infallibility was held undefined by the early Fathers:

[1] churchfathers.org/category/the-church-and-the-papacy/

[2] americancatholictruthsociety.com/docs/ecfpapacy.htm

Please keep in mind the CC was severely persecuted to the point of being driven underground until the 4th Century. And as a FYI, John 17:17-20 is the Biblical foundation for the later defined Dogma of Infallibility.

End pt 1 of 2

 

[PJM]

Why were they not official doctrines before then?

Question: so your expectation is that EVERYTHING should have been foreseen and DICTATED by Christ along with fulfilling the MISSION the Father [the Trinity actually] Ordained for Jesus?

Jn 14:17
The spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, nor knoweth him: but you shall know him; because he shall abide with you, and shall be in you.

Jn 15:26
But when the Paraclete cometh, whom I will send you from the Father, the Spirit of truth, who proceedeth from the Father, he shall give testimony of me.

Jn 16:13
But when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will teach you all truth. For he shall not speak of himself; but what things soever he shall hear, he shall speak; and the things that are to come, he shall shew you

Now a bit of critical understanding: In reading the bible, especially the NT, it is CRITICALLY important to take note of the SINGULAR tense words the HS Inspired authors were prompted to use. The Bible is Inspired, not dictated.

Mt 16:17-19
And Jesus answering, said to him: Blessed art YOU, Simon Bar-Jona: because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but MY FATHER who is in heaven. And I say to YOU That thou art Peter; and upon [YOU] this rock I will build MY CHURCH [SINGULAR], and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give to YOU [ALL OF THEM IMPLIED HERE] the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever YOU shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also IN HEAVEN: and whatsoever YOU shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also IN HEAVEN

John 17: 17-20 TEACHES

1. Jesus sends directly and exclusively His Apostles & by absolute necessity their successors [see Mt 10:8-9 & Mt 28:18-9-20]
2. God sends then with Godly powers Mt 10:1-2
3. Jesus / GOD pledges Himself as the Personal warranty of their TEACHING ONLY His Truth; which no other church, no other faith can claim and support

Mt 28:19-20
[19] Going therefore, teach YOU ALL nations; [DIRECTLY & EXCLUSIVELY] baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Teaching them to observe ALL THINGS whatsoever I have commanded [HERE ALSO MEANS TAUGHT TO YOU] YOU: and behold I am with YOU all days, even to the consummation of the world.

Jn 20: 30-31
Many other signs [ALSO MEANS TEACHINGS] also did Jesus in the sight of his disciples, which are not written in this book. But these are written, that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God: and that believing, you may have life in his name.

Jn 21: 24-25
This is that disciple who giveth testimony of these things, and hath written these things; and we know that his testimony is true. But there are also many other things which Jesus did; which, if they were written every one, the world itself, I think, would not be able to contain the books that should be written.

So the summation of these 8 passages precisely indicates that Jesus / GOD had a different plan from what you seem to suggest.

FAITH IS:

Heb 11:1-2
Now faith is the substance of things to be hoped for, the evidence of things that appear not. For by this the ancients obtained a testimony. & read also Isaiah 55:6-10

Aren’t our faiths to be focused on Christ’s incarnation, His teachings, death, resurrection and His soon coming?

Absolutely; BUT the correct and FULL understanding of them, which is precisely why GOD choose just One

One True God Triune

**One **set of faith beliefs as even GOD can have nothing else

& to be taught 1. FULLY 2. Correctly 3. Guided by the HS 4. Warranted by Christ Himself
through His One True CC

Of course, we, as you do in your Catholic faith teach that the Eucharist was given to us on Maunday Thursday as well as baptism as a work of the Holy Spirit. To add more things to do begins to be like the Pharisees and Sadduccees and how they added to Moses’ laws in order to avoid breaking the law.

Thanks for sharing that. Its sort of off topic so I’ll pass on a reply unless you wish me to respond on this?

Just chewing through all of this - not trying to diminish anyone’s beliefs but to understand. Anyway, the explanation above is why I stated a resounding “amen” to Peter’s post

God bless!
Rita

THANKS ^ GBY!
Patrick