P
PJM
Guest
My friend, none of the 3 examples you list are a PART of the RCC, the One truth Church founded by Christ, at least as She Teaches. So I’m missing your point here:shrug:
GBY
WHY do you [if you do?] think the RCC is not the One true Church founded by Christ?
- Status
GBY
T
TOmNossor
Guest
Hello,
I think this page answers well what you ask:
moroni10.com/Mormon/Bible_References/The_Restoration.html
Now, I am quite aware that faithful Catholics misunderstand (IMO) these Scriptures.
The “learned” in Christ’s day misunderstood the Old Testament Scriptures that pointed to Christ “the suffering servant” instead of Christ “the conquering king.”
A modern Jew explains well the predicament Catholics find themselves in today as he explains why he does now and Jews anciently rejected Christ.
amazon.com/Why-Jews-Rejected-Jesus-Turning/dp/0385510225
Finally, let me point out that the early saints in Christ’s day primarily said “come and see” as they had “came and saw.” There are Scriptures in the Old Testament that point to Christ’s ministry. There are Scriptures in the Old and New Testament that point to the restoration. But it is not the absolute clarity (especially foresight clarity) in the Bible that lead ancient saints to embrace Christ and His Gospel or modern saints to embrace Christ and His restored Gospel. Instead, they and we “come and see” and then we know and then the clarity of the Scriptures unfolds before us.
Charity, TOm
T
TOmNossor
Guest
I appreciate prayers, but I do not think you understand my position.
I believe in absolute truth. Truth is not relative. God knows all true propositions. We are to seek to follow Him and we will learn true propositions.
God restored His Gospel through The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
That you reject this means you do not embrace God’s truth. Because I read you charitably I believe you THINK you embrace truth, you are merely mistaken (and probably not interested in evaluating what I actually believe, which is fine I do not spend time on many views of truth I find errant)
That you think my position is so radically different than it is results in you tilting at windmills. But, I still welcome prayers. Prayers can help even when those offering them misrepresent (on purpose or carelessly) the views I embrace.
Charity, TOm
P
PJM
Guest
NO
BUT you my friend are the one disagreeing, so please share where I’m wrong
God Bless you friend!
Patrick
P
PJM
Guest
Hi TOm,
Here’s the opening statement from the site you quote:
"The LDS church teaches that the Christian Church fell into apostasy after the deaths of the original Twelve Apostles. This doesn’t mean there weren’t believers during this time, it means that Priesthood Authority was lost and key teachings of the gospel of Christ were changed.** The apostasy was foretold in several bible passages that were covered on the Apostasy section of this site.**
Since God and Jesus knew the apostasy was coming, They wouldn’t forsake the world forever. The LDS Church testifies that the apostasy ended when God and Jesus appeared to a 14-year-old Joseph Smith, and through heavenly messengers, restored the true gospel and Priesthood Authority to the world. Just as the apostasy was predicted in the bible, so was The Restoration”
And here’s why it can’t possibly be true or proven.
I suspect that you like most LDS have not read the entire bible; or if you have, comprehended correctly what it teaches.
I have read your “Apostasy” passages which are simply not being correctly interpreted, and chosen as they are LDS agenda driven.
WHY do I make this claim?
2nd Tim. 3: 16-17 “[16] All scripture, [IS] inspired of God, is profitable to teach, to reprove, to correct, to instruct in justice, [17] That the man of may be perfect, furnished to every good work.”
I suspect that you {LDS} reject this teaching; BUT it is the foundation for the now 2,000 year old Bible, which would not have had longevity were it not thee TRUTH.
A major problem [self-inflicted] for LDS and many Protestants too, is not simply a lack of right understanding; even though that is a common occurrence; but as importantly, not using the entire bible
These two facts are the cause for the multiplicity of Protestant churches, each having its OWN set of differing faith-beliefs, as well as LDS, Mormon who reject God, Christianity, and the Bible, by insisting on their OWN books and teachings. While the terms are the same; BUT their definitions and meanings are NOT.
Please know TOM, that I make these comments based not just on your POST; but also on multiple in depth discussions with LDS / Mormon “Conversion Teams”, over the past years.
Here is WHY both of your suppositions are completely in error:
Mt 10: 1-8 **
“And having called his twelve disciples together, he gave them power over unclean spirits, to cast them out, and to heal all manner of diseases, and all manner of infirmities. And the names of the twelve apostles are these: The first, Simon who is called Pete**r, and Andrew his brother, James the son of Zebedee, and John his brother, Philip and Bartholomew, Thomas and Matthew the publican, and James the son of Alpheus, and Thaddeus, Simon the Cananean, and Judas Iscariot, who also betrayed him. These twelve Jesus sent: commanding them, saying: Go YOU not into the way of the Gentiles, and into the city of the Samaritans enter YOU not. But go YOU rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. And going, preach, saying: The kingdom of heaven is at hand. Heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse the lepers, cast out devils: freely have you received, freely give”
Mt. 16: 18-19
And I say to YOU: That YOU 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.
Jn 17: 17-20
Sanctify THEM in TRUTH. Thy word is truth. [As thou hast sent ME into the world, I also have SENT THEM into the world.** And for THEM do I sanctify myself, that THEY also may be SANCTIFIED IN TRUTH. And not for them only do I pray, but for them also who through their word shall believe in me;
Mt 28:19-20
“Going therefore, teach YOU all nations; 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 YOU**: and behold** I am with YOU all days, even to the consummation of the world**.
TOM, there is a great deal more that I could share, but if your unable [literally] to rightly grasp these truths, then there is no value in sharing more evidence.
GOD Bless you my friend,
Patrick
P
PJM
Guest
Actually TOM, I think that I do
PLEASE SEE the POST above this replyTOM, I respectfully HAVE to disagree with this statement for the following reasons
- We do NOT by definition believe even in the same God [Triune. not triune]
- We do NOT accept the same teachings as emanating FROM God
- Hence your position is to ALL Christians, untenable. LDS beliefs are not Christian, much less Catholic and Christian Bible beliefs
Actually TOM, in years past, until the Conversion Crews stopped coming"; I and we had many friendly in-depth discussions.
That you think my position is so radically different than it is results in you tilting at windmills. But, I still welcome prayers. Prayers can help even when those offering them misrepresent (on purpose or carelessly) the views I embrace.
Charity, TOm
I think your positions are radical firstly because they are NOT biblical. Secondly, because LDS have chosen to usurp Christian TERMS and then give them totally different and unique meanings.
PLEASE define for me LDS definations for
GOD
God the Son {Jesus]
God the Holy Spirit:shrug:
And prayers are still being said for you:thumbsup:
GBY TOM,
Patrick
T
Tomdstone
Guest
Is it true that the Book of Mormon contains references to various plants and animals and technologies that did not exist in the Americas at the time of the story?
T
Tomdstone
Guest
. And not for them only do I pray, but for them also who through their word shall believe in me;
Mt 28:19-20
“Going therefore, teach YOU all nations; 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 YOU**: and behold** I am with YOU all days, even to the consummation of the world**.
TOM, there is a great deal more that I could share, but if your unable [literally] to rightly grasp these truths, then there is no value in sharing more evidence.
GOD Bless you my friend,
PatrickThe problem is that some things in the Bible are taken figuratively.
R
Rasoleil
Guest
No one expects the Spanish Inquisition! Actually bought a shirt that says that and wore it to my wife’s church service ( Luheran LCMS) last Sunday.
P
Peter_J
Guest
Actually, I think everyone expects that.
I
IgnatianPhilo
Guest
I believe the true Church is found in Orthodoxy, though I don’t deny the baptisms in the name of the trinity of any church since it is not us who do the work in such things but God. A real communion, like the apostolic communion is necessary.
Arguably the Church was unable to hold an ecumenical council in the 2nd to 3rd centuries of the church, at a time when there was much discussion and concern about Gnosticism, yet we don’t maintain the church didn’t exist at such a time. The Orthodox inability to hold a council is problematic but not definitively necessary to a full Church order. Messiness seems inherent to any church system, even in the RCC.
None of these verses speak specifically of the doctrines that I have a problem with. Please take in mind I don’t deny Papal primacy, the Pope should be the Elder brother among his fellow Patriarchs. The Pope should have a leadership position in the Church. Perhaps he should even be a court of appeal as he functioned in much of the ancient Church. Yet what the Pope should not be is a King over his brothers, allowed to interfere without restriction in any Church he chooses for any reason, completely unhindered.
[1] Mt 10: 1-8
1] And having called his twelve disciples together, he gave them power over unclean spirits, to cast them out, and to heal all manner of diseases, and all manner of infirmities. [2] And the names of the twelve apostles are these: The first, Simon who is called Peter, and Andrew his brother, [3] James the son of Zebedee, and John his brother, Philip and Bartholomew, Thomas and Matthew the publican, and James the son of Alpheus, and Thaddeus, [4] Simon the Cananean, and Judas Iscariot, who also betrayed him. [5] **These twelve Jesus sent: commanding **them, saying: Go ye not into the way of the Gentiles, and into the city of the Samaritans enter ye not. [6] But go ye rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. [7] And going, preach, saying: The kingdom of heaven is at hand. [8] Heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse the lepers, cast out devils: freely have YOUreceived, freely give"
[2] Mt 16:18-19
[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. [19] And I will give to THEE [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.**
[3] Jn 17:17-20
[17] Sanctify THEM IN [MY[ TRUTH. Thy word is truth. [18] As thou hast sent me into the world,I ALSO HAVE SENT THEM into the world. [19] And for THEM do I sanctify myself, that they also may be sanctified in truth. [20] And not forTHEM only do I pray,** but for them also who through their word shall believe in me;**
God Bless you Brother!
Patrick
P
Peter_J
Guest
Interesting post. I would just like to say that, from a Melkite Catholic perspective, there have been seven Ecumenical Councils, not 21 as Roman-Rite Catholics believe.
T
Tomdstone
Guest
Do Melkite Catholics believe in the infallibility of the Pope and in the Immaculate Conception?
W
Wandile
Guest
This is what really confuses me about melkites. They have a disturbing intellectual dishonesty and I think it arises from a lack of identity (they aren’t sure if they are Catholic or Eastern Orthodox). The profess to be catholic but act like EO. Whereas their ancestors died for the catholic faith under various persecutions.
These same melkites who now say there are only 7 Ecumenical councils are the same melkites that signed the acts of Vatican II which stated that it was the 21st Ecumenical Council
The argumentation is that there are only seven councils because the EO were not present at the rest. This reasoning is flawed and discredits their own claim of 7 councils because if the presence of all apostolic churches constitutes an Ecumenical council, then there have only been 3 ( Nicaea I, Constantinople I and Ephesus I). And even Constanople I is tricky as not a single western bishop was present , it was a purely Eastern affair.
So if representation is the hallmark of Ecumenical Councils then only 2 can confidently be called Ecumenical (Nicaea I and Ephesus I).
However, if Papal confirmation of a council is the determining factor then here have been 21.
P
prodromos
Guest
The majority of those councils were not considered to be ecumenical by Rome until fairly recently in Catholic history. I am unable to determine exactly when it was, but I am fairly confident that prior to the 12th century, none of the earlier councils refer to earlier councils as ecumenical, except for the Seven.This is what really confuses me about melkites. They have a disturbing intellectual dishonesty and I think it arises from a lack of identity (they aren’t sure if they are Catholic or Eastern Orthodox). The profess to be catholic but act like EO. Whereas their ancestors died for the catholic faith under various persecutions.
These same melkites who now say there are only 7 Ecumenical councils are the same melkites that signed the acts of Vatican II which stated that it was the 21st Ecumenical Council
The argumentation is that there are only seven councils because the EO were not present at the rest. This reasoning is flawed and discredits their own claim of 7 councils because if the presence of all apostolic churches constitutes an Ecumenical council, then there have only been 3 ( Nicaea I, Constantinople I and Ephesus I). And even Constanople I is tricky as not a single western bishop was present , it was a purely Eastern affair.
So if representation is the hallmark of Ecumenical Councils then only 2 can confidently be called Ecumenical (Nicaea I and Ephesus I).
However, if Papal confirmation of a council is the determining factor then here have been 21.
W
Wandile
Guest
It doesn’t matter when they were raised to Ecumenical status (initially or subsequently like Constantinople I which only was made Ecumenical at Chalcedon after Rome heard about the council and confirmed it) what matters is what makes it Ecumenical. Papal confirmation made them so. And I find the claim of western synods being raised to Ecumenical status centuries later is deceptive. Many of them were called as Ecumenical/general councils. It’s jus that a comprehensive list was only made later.
P
prodromos
Guest
Rubbish! Councils were considered ecumenical and binding in the East before Papal confirmation. The only reason the pope’s confirmation was requested was because the popes were not present at the councils.
Call it what you like. Which ones were called as Ecumenical councils?
T
TOmNossor
Guest
Hello Tomdstone,
The simplest answer to your question is “yes.”
My more complex answer is that I find the responses to these problems sufficient and in the balance the Book of Mormon to be a book obviously sourced from God, but I care not to make such arguments here and now. On Goggle search for “horses” and “anti-Mormon” (or any problem you like and “anti-Mormon”) and you will find LDS who have addressed in books or articles these issues. Some responses eradicate the issue IMO, “adieu.” Some are reasonable but in isolation are not positives for LDS truth claims, “horses in the Book of Mormon.” And at least one problem is in my opinion not well explained by LDS.
That being said, my second response to this thread was for you:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=14366320&postcount=48
As best I can tell you are well versed in “reasons to not be …;” I am too. I hope this is because you sincerely want to know God’s will for your life. You and I are here on a Catholic board with Catholic hosts, so let me make post 48 more explicit for you.
1 I have met God. I know it and He knows it. I am thus a theist.
2 In addition …. I have not only experienced “divine forgiveness” which can only happen if sins exist and are forgiven by the divine, but I have experienced “divine rescue” which is a supernatural delivery from future sin and temptation beyond my power. The theological explanations that best align with such divine acts IMO all exist within Christianity. I am thus a Christian.
From the place where #1 and #2 are settled questions, I find the reasons to not be Catholic and the reasons to be Catholic sufficient to make me a faithful and committed Catholic. And if I ever concluded my church was not at all what it claimed to be, I would be at reconciliation with a Catholic priest in less than 24 hours.
If you have not met God, I do not believe you will while arguing for or against various religions on the Internet. Go to Rite of Christian Initiation of Adults (RCIA). Ask for a spiritual guide in addition to someone to address your intellectual arguments. Listen to and follow both prescriptions. If you find a good RCIA connected to a good priest and you are seeking God, I sincerely believe you will get through #1 and #2 and probably find plenty of reasons to be Catholic. Such IMO is a step towards God. Assuming you move from non-believer to believer, these actions will result in joy in your life.
Charity, TOm
W
Wandile
Guest
Then EO modern tradition disagrees with you as it says the whole consent of the church is needed before a council can be Ecumenical and binding. So even in your faith you are innovating:shrug:
The fathers disagree (with a particular emphasis on eastern) :
Patriarch Anatolius of Constantinople writes to Pope Leo after Chalcedon:
*"As for those things which the universal Council of Chalcedon recently ordained in favor of the church of Constantinople, let Your Holiness be sure that there was no fault in me, who from my youth have always loved peace and quiet, keeping myself in humility. It was the most reverend clergy of the church of Constantinople who were eager about it, and they were equally supported by the most reverend priests of those parts, who agreed about it. **Even so, the whole force of confirmation of the acts was reserved for the authority of Your Blessedness. ***Therefore, let Your Holiness know for certain that I did nothing to further the matter, knowing always that I held myself bound to avoid the lusts of pride and covetousness.” —Patriarch Anatolius of Constantinople to Pope Leo, Ep 132 (on the subject of canon 28 of Chalcedon)
St Theodore of Studion
"Let him [Patriarch St. Nicephorus of Constantinople] assemble a synod of those with whom he has been at variance, if it is impossible that representatives of the other Patriarchs should be present, a thing which might certainly be if the Emperor should wish the Western Patriarch [the Roman Pope] to be present, to whom is given authority over an ecumenical synod; but let him make peace and union by sending his synodical letters to the prelate of the First See"
Western Bishop St. Peter Chrysologus of Ravenna
"We exhort you, honorable brother, to submit yourself in all things to what has been written by the blessed Bishop of Rome, because St. Peter, who lives and presides in his see, gives the true faith to those who seek it. For our part, for the sake of peace and the good of the faith, we cannot judge questions of doctrine without the consent of the Bishop of Rome"
Greek church historian Socrates Scholasticus relates the following:
*Church History 2:8:
"Maximus, however, bishop of Jerusalem; who had succeeded Macarius, did not attend, recollecting that he had been deceived and induced to subscribe the deposition of Athanasius. Neither was Julius, bishop of the great Rome, there, nor had he sent a substitute, although an ecclesiastical canon commands that the churches shall not make any ordinances against the opinion of the bishop of Rome."*
Church history 2:17
“On the receipt of these contradictory communications, Julius first replied to the bishops who had written to him from Antioch, complaining of the acrimonious feeling they had evinced in their letter, and charging them with a violation of the canons, because they had not requested his attendance at the council, seeing that the ecclesiastical law required that the churches should pass no decisions contrary to the views of the bishop of Rome: he then censured them with great severity for clandestinely attempting to pervert the faith; in addition, that their former proceedings at Tyre were fraudulent, because the investigation of what had taken place at Mareotes was on one side of the question only; not only this, but that the charge respecting Arsenius had plainly been proved a false charge. Such and similar sentiments did Julius write in his answer to the bishops convened at Antioch…”
Almost all of them were called as general councils to address relevant problems of the time. Those that come to mind are Trent, Florence, Constance, the 5 Lateran councils, both councils of Lyons were all convoked as general/Ecumenical councils from the start and all had papal confirmation as such.
P
PJM
Guest
So MY Friend, are you suggesting that these teachings are NOT to be taken literally?
GBY
If so, on what grounds?
- Status