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

[jas84173]

I am Roman Catholic however I believe the Eastern Orthodox Churches have the same merit to make this argument. It is unfortunate the two are currently not in communion with each other but I pray they will reunite before Christ returns. Actually I have read some arguments that Christ will not return until the original Churches of Rome, Constantinople, Antioch, Alexandria, and Jerusalem are reunited.

 

[PJM]

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.

GREAT:thumbsup:

So if you don’t mind, what is it specifically that you disagree with?

GBY

 

[TOmNossor]

Actually TOM, I think that I do PLEASE SEE the POST above this reply

I hope to find time to offer a thorough response to your two posts, but for now let me say…
That you think your list of Biblical verses means you have the truth and your conclusion is that I do not care about God’s truth… is evidence of something I find problematic. At best it means you have not seriously considered and tried to understand views you don’t hold (mine included, but not solely mine).

I once thought that all sincere seekers would become LDS, but I cannot believe this because I refuse to believe that some were not sincere seekers.
You speak as if you have a degree of certainty about how evidence lines up that I didn’t even have before this (recognizing sincere seekers do not march inevitably towards my understanding). I think you are in error not only in your religious conclusions, but in your dismissive attitude towards those who have different conclusions.
Charity, TOm

 

[Stephen168]

Show from the Bible where it says the Church was to be “restored” at some point in the future? The OT Scriptures are full of prophecy concerning many things, the ultimate prophecies pointing to the revelation of the coming of the Son of God, our Savior and Lord, Jesus Christ. Where is there prophecy, OT or NT, about a great “restoration” of truth?

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.

In addition to the information ©1995 provided by Tom, I would like to included some more information ©1844. There was at time when the Latter-Day-Saint movement taught the date of the great apostasy was revealed to be 570 AD. This was believed when Joseph Smith would just rewrite the scriptures so there would be no misunderstanding of his exegesis.
KJV REV 12:6:

And the woman fled into the wilderness, where she hath a place prepared of God, that they should feed her there a thousand two hundred and threescore days.

1830AD-1260 days =570AD
Joseph Smith Translation Rev 12:1-5:

And there appeared a great sign in heaven, in the likeness of things on the earth; a woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and upon her head a crown of twelve stars.
And the woman being with child, cried, travailing in birth, and pained to be delivered.
And she brought forth a man child, who was to rule all nations with a rod of iron; and her child was caught up unto God and his throne.
And there appeared another sign in heaven; and behold, a great red dragon, having seven heads and ten horns, and seven crowns upon his heads. And his tail drew the third part of the stars of heaven, and did cast them to the earth. And the dragon stood before the woman which was delivered, ready to devour her child after it was born.
And the woman fled into the wilderness, where she had a place prepared of God, that they should feed her there a thousand two hundred and threescore years.

Restoration of all Things; Joseph Fielding Smith:

Time will not permit a thorough discussion of this vision, but in substance the interpretation is this. The woman is the church; she is glorified by the light of heaven. The twelve stars are the apostles. The son born to her is the Priesthood which is to rule the earth by the truth of the gospel, which is the rod of iron. Because of the persecution and power of the dragon, the Priesthood is taken back to heaven, and the woman is forced to flee from the face of the earth. The dragon is Satan who rebelled in heaven and prevailed upon one third of the spirits to follow him. He with his followers was cast out of heaven into the earth where he made war on the church and drove it into the wilderness. The dragon then made war on all those who tried to live the truth who are called the seed of the woman. Remember the angel was showing John what was to take place following the vision, or in later times. In the year 1830, this woman—the church—with her man child returned to the earth. The power of the dragon was overcome and the Lord has proclaimed that the gospel now restored shall never be taken from the earth, for this is the dispensation in which the Lord is gathering in one all things both which are in heaven and on earth

Times and Seasons Vol.5:

We are informed by the renowned historian, Whelpley, as also in the Revolutions of Europe, that the church of Jesus Christ was overrun, and driven into the wilderness, A.D. 570, and John the Revelator informs us it must remain there 1260 years, which makes exactly the time, the year 1830, that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter day Saints was organized, with the gifts and blessings.

 

[prodromos]

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:

Rome had already consented through the Papal legates who were present. The Pope signing off was just a formality. The same was expected of any bishopric not present at the councils.

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…”

As per usual you provide quote mines of fathers who do not represent the consensus of the Church.

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.

Did they claim to be ecumenical at the time? Did they claim the councils just prior were ecumenical?

 

[steve_b]

The Eastern Orthodox say that they are the one, true Church, because they have not changed the original Nicene Creed which did not contain the filioque clause.

I’ve asked this question many times over the last 12 years on these forums with no answer to the question … YET

Maybe you have the answer

When is the first time, in history, in writing, properly referenced, that we see the name “Orthodox Church”?

 

[steve_b]

I am glad that you put RCC in your question, not just ‘catholic church’. I believe that Christ founded the Catholic Church, and that the Roman CC is part of that catholic church, as are the various orthodox churches. They are all equal.

1. 
   *]The name of the Church is the Catholic Church. “Latin/Roman” is a rite, as are the other rites within the one Catholic Church. The Latin rite being approx 98% of the total number of Catholics in the world. All rites within the Catholic Church are 100% Catholic
   *]As for Orthodox, I would just add what Bishop John a Melkite Catholic, has to say on that matter
   
   Bp John includes this canon in his response
   
   “The bishop of the Church of Rome, in whom resides the office (munus) given in a special way by the Lord to Peter, first of the Apostles and to be transmitted to his successors, is head of the college of bishops, the Vicar of Christ and Pastor of the entire Church on earth; therefore in virtue of his office (munus) he enjoys supreme, full, immediate and universal ordinary power in the Church which he can always freely exercise.” (Canon 43 of the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches)

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

GREAT:thumbsup:

So if you don’t mind, what is it specifically that you disagree with?

GBY

Papal Supremacy.

 

[TOmNossor]

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

Hello PJM,
I have some time now so let’s see how far I get.
I have read both the Old and New Testament probably 2-3x. In 2006-7, 2010-11, and 2014-15. I was a LDS in 2002-3, but I suspect I didn’t get all of my lessons then and before (though many). In 2018-19 I will teach the adult class for the Old Testament(2018) and the New Testament(2019).
That you could suggest that faithful LDS do not read their entire Bible indicates to me that you really have spent little time trying to know what LDS think and do.
But, since you brought it up here are some statistics from Pew Research. Mormon’s are #1 when it comes to knowledge of the “Bible and Christianity” in the Pew Research survey.
Catholics were behind all but the “nones” and LDS (Mormons) were first: https://s24.postimg.org/kpxpj80zp/Mormons_knowledge_of_Christianity.jpg
Here is the link to the whole survey. I suspect there is some reason in there to reject their conclusion and continue to maintain that LDS just do not read/study/know the Bible.
pewforum.org/files/2010/09/religious-knowledge-full-report.pdf

The truth IMO is that LDS do not lay 2000 years of tradition over the Bible like Catholics do. LDS instead rely upon the same source St. Peter, St. James, and St. John (and St. Paul) when they wrote interpretations of the Old Testament. Namely, divine revelation delivered to God’s church leaders who could interpret scripture and write new scripture when called to do so. The Catholic Church acknowledges that this ability to write scripture is now absent in the Catholic Church, LDS just claim it was RESTORED. In fact, I might channel a comment from a previous poster, “How can Catholics claim the Pope is the successor of Peter and sites on the Chair of Peter / The Chair of Moses when the Pope cannot even write scripture under the influence of God as Peter and Moses did?” (BTW, I think I can answer this question as a Catholic would, I just find the answer to be lacking and suggest it was not believed by any Catholic before the late 2nd or early 3rd century).

If you believe that the Catholic Church is “based on the Bible,” you have been reading former Protestant Catholic apologists too much. Such an error (if you hold this view) would have been harder to embrace 30 years ago before the influx of former Protestants into Catholic apologetic circles. The Catholic Church is not a faith based on the Bible.
Of course, the CoJCoLDS (my faith) is not a faith based on the Bible either. I like to say that my church/religion/faith is based on the SAME thing the Bible is based on: The Revelation of God. I think Catholics should say this too, because there are things Catholic believe that are obviously not the “most clear” read of the Bible alone.
Now, if you want thorough responses from a LDS perspective to the scriptures you think prove beyond any question that I not only disagree with you but that I do not seek truth and/or do not read the Bible, you can easily find them. I will offer you a quick link to a post I made on this board over a decade ago before you began posting here:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=756151&postcount=6
I respond to one of your scriptures and I even quote a Catholic scholar who was lecturing at Catholic Seminaries.

I agree that the Bible should be viewed as a whole.
Because I have paid attention to Catholic scholars and Catholic writings concerning the Bible, I do not claim your errant interpretation of scripture is because you do not read “all of the Bible” or you do not care about “truth.” I believe that you are wrong, but not that you desire to be wrong and refuse to seek the light.
Charity, TOm

More later perhaps!

 

[Tomdstone]

When is the first time, in history, in writing, properly referenced, that we see the name “Orthodox Church”?

I thought that the Eastern Orthodox Church referred to itself as the “Orthodox Catholic Church”? According to that scenario, at first there was one Catholic Church, but as time progressed, one part remained “orthodox” while the western part, because of innovations such as the introduction of the filioque, was considered to be heterodox.

 

[Wandile]

Rome had already consented through the Papal legates who were present. The Pope signing off was just a formality. The same was expected of any bishopric not present at the councils.

Except that papal legates signed in his name but it did not suffice for Roman Bishops confirmation as he still needed to confirm the acts himself. There are numerous instances where legates overstep and the Roman Bishops corrected their actions. Like I said and as the fathers say, the confirmation of the councils was left for Rome, it’s bishop himself… the purpose of legates was to make the council legitimate ( representation of the highest see). As you seen Pope Julius in the early centuries already accused the eastern Bishops of violations the canons because his attendance wasn’t requested as per ecclesiastical law (a law we still have in force, a law the east forgot).

As per usual you provide quote mines of fathers who do not represent the consensus of the Church.

Standard Eastern Orthodox cop out:shrug: This is the consensus of the fathers. Hence I can show evidence for it. It’s amazing the EO always claim consensus of thebfathers but never actually have any evidence for their positions??? They struggle to muster quotes most of the time to support their positions. If your position were truly the consensus of the fathers then please show me fathers saying the Roman bishop is not needed to confirm the acts?

The fact is it’s not “quote mining”, it’s evidence mining… you guys just have no rebuttal to the evidence. Even the Ecumenical councils themselves teach this, the eastern fathers and your emperors as well as the western father teach this… it’s just that modern EO has changed its position on so many things their fathers once held and then hide behind an old liturgy so that they can still at least keep the appearance of the faith of the early church.

The Catholics actually have evidence for every doctrine they teach in the fathers. We can quote scores upon scores fathers… that’s is because our positions is the consensus of the fathers.

Just like the Filioque issue. You guys can’t even quote 10 fathers who outright deny it. Yet we can quote 100s who explicitly teach it. Yet you somehow still manage to twist it in your heads that we have innovated??? in fact this is a point your own delegates admitted at the council of Florence

Basilios Bessarion’s ( Eastern Orthodox Bishop of Nicaea at Florence ) summing up of the Greek defense

*"‘They brought forward passages not only of the western teachers but quite as many of the eastern… to which we had no reply whatsoever to make that they were corrupt and corrupted by the Latins. They brought forward our own Epiphanius as in many places clearly declaring that the Spirit is from the Father and the Son: corrupt we said they were. They read the text mentioned earlier in Basil’s work against Eunomius: in our judgment it was interpolated. They adduced the words of the Saints of the West: the whole of our answer was ‘corrupt’ and nothing more. We consider and consult among ourselves for several days as to what answer we shall make, but find no other defence at all but that…’

We had no books that would prove the Latin texts to be corrupt, no Saints who spoke differently from those put forward. found ourselves deprived of a just case in every direction. So we kept silent* ’ (.G. 161, 358CD).

CONTINUED

 

[Wandile]

CONTINUED

Genadios Scholarios shared Bessarion’s views as to the solidity of the Latin presentation of their doctrine

"But you all see that the Latins have contended brilliantly for their faith so that no one with a sense of justice has any reason to reproach them… They brought forward from the common Fathers of the Church the six most renowned in dignity, wisdom and the struggles for the faith (I pass over the others) as witnesses of their doctrine, each of whom must be judged the equal of all the men in the world, and those not just incidentally and casually but as if they were for us judges of the present dispute.

They argued so precisely and clearly, expressing the question in exact words and as befits teachers, appending also the reasons and the texts of Holy Scripture from which they had drawn that doctrine as an inevitable conclusion, just as they culled others from other texts… . . Besides, they put forward others from the common Fathers, those of the East I mean, adorned with an equal wisdom and honor, who also said just the same as those others, though not so plainly, if their words are examined in a spirit of truth and wisdom, and they offered in proof of their doctrine no merely specious reasoning, no coercion, but everything straightforwardly and as flowing from the divine Scriptures and the Fathers.** On our part nothing was said to them to which they did not manifestly reply with wisdom, magnanimity and truth, and we have no Saint at all who clearly contradicts them.**

If indeed there were such, he should in some fashion or manner be made to harmonize with the majority much more justly than that the multitude of the Teachers should be forced into his mould… Nor shall we say that the Doctors are mutually contradictory, for this is to introduce complete confusion and to deny the whole of the faith. Who is so simple-minded as to believe that the Latins wish to destroy the faith and to adulterate the trinitarian theology of all the Doctors? Surely a man who affirms this deserves nothing but ridicule, for no accusation would be disproved by more numerous, more weighty and more truthful arguments than this one.’ (Speech, ‘On the Need of Aiding Constantinople’, addressed to the Greeks by Scholarius in Florence, in Schol. I, pp. 297-8, 299).

Did they claim to be ecumenical at the time? Did they claim the councils just prior were ecumenical?

Yes they did. As to your second question; they hardly mention previous councils by manme but mention their assent to teaching of the general councils.

 

[prodromos]

Except that papal legates signed in his name but it did not suffice for Roman Bishops confirmation as he still needed to confirm the acts himself. There are numerous instances where legates overstep and the Roman Bishops corrected their actions. Like I said and as the fathers say, the confirmation of the councils was left for Rome, it’s bishop himself… the purpose of legates was to make the council legitimate ( representation of the highest see). As you seen Pope Julius in the early centuries already accused the eastern Bishops of violations the canons because his attendance wasn’t requested as per ecclesiastical law (a law we still have in force, a law the east forgot).

How do you explain the 2nd Ecumenical Council? Rome wasn’t represented and it was headed by Meletius with whom Rome had cut off communion.

Standard Eastern Orthodox cop out:shrug: This is the consensus of the fathers. Hence I can show evidence for it. It’s amazing the EO always claim consensus of thebfathers but never actually have any evidence for their positions??? They struggle to muster quotes most of the time to support their positions. If your position were truly the consensus of the fathers then please show me fathers saying the Roman bishop is not needed to confirm the acts?

I only need to show you the 2nd Ecumenical Council and canon 28 of the 4th Ecumenical Council. Both were accepted without Rome’s approval and in the case of canon 28, despite Rome’s explicit rejection.

The fact is it’s not “quote mining”, it’s evidence mining… you guys just have no rebuttal to the evidence. Even the Ecumenical councils themselves teach this, the eastern fathers and your emperors as well as the western father teach this… it’s just that modern EO has changed its position on so many things their fathers once held and then hide behind an old liturgy so that they can still at least keep the appearance of the faith of the early church.

I will not dignify the above excrement with a response. Good day to you sir.

 

[prodromos]

NO

BUT you my friend are the one disagreeing, so please share where I’m wrong

Get your hands on the Melkite Catholic text for the Service of the Anunciation and read the matinal canon. It completely contradicts the Latin dogma of the Immaculate Conception.

 

[Wandile]

How do you explain the 2nd Ecumenical Council? Rome wasn’t represented and it was headed by Meletius with whom Rome had cut off communion.

Meletius first of all was never actually officially excommunicated. Rome and Alexandria just preferred Paulinus because of the orthodoxy of his faith.

The second council initially was not even Ecumenical. It was a patriarchal synod of the east. Rome wasn’t notified which was a violation of the canons. Hence Rome never even knew, for centuries, about the council. When at Chalcedon the legates ,and after the council with Pope St Leo found about the 2nd council, they complained that Rome had not been notified as per tradition nor did the acts get sent to Rome against tradition.

IOW the second council can be explained in one word = Disobedience

I only need to show you the 2nd Ecumenical Council and canon 28 of the 4th Ecumenical Council. Both were accepted without Rome’s approval and in the case of canon 28, despite Rome’s explicit rejection.

FALSE. Actually , if you consult history, what happened is that the second council gained Ecumenical status at Chaclcedon tacitly through the legates signing off on the wests behalf (making the decisions universally binding) and actively when St. Leo confirmed the acts making the decisions of Chalcedon ecumenically binding (A prerogative actually alluded to in the acts of the 4th council itself and in the Ecumenical Patriarch’s letter to St. Leo)

Canon 28 was not actually accepted in the east unanimously but rather only within the sphere of Byzantine influence. Alexandria ,the real Alexandria of Orientals that succeeds St Mark, completely rejected it as innovation together with Rome. The Greek Alexandrian patriarch who accepted it was no more Alexandrian patriarch than the Crusader Latin patriarchs of eastern sees were actually patriarchs of those sees. Lastly, Antioch ,which was rife with divisions at the time due to Monophysitism and Nestorianism,was weak and the Chalcedonian flock was small and depended on Constantinople for support so logically they accepted the canon.
Jerusalem was an honorary patriarchate with an insignificantly small flock that also had a huge dependence on Constantinople and the Greek churches for support so they logically never objected to the canon.

The west never acknowledged it nor Alexandria. Pope Leo annulled he canon and proof of this was the Patriarch Anatolius of Constantinople himself apologizing about the canon to Saint Leo of Rome saying that all canons passed at Chalcedon needed confirmation from St Leo. Why would he do this if it had binding force? His actions would be illogical.

Additionally Greek historians, such as Theodore the Lector (writing in AD551 ), John Skolastikas (writing in AD 550 ), Dionysius Exegius (also around AD550 ); and by Roman Popes like Pope St. Gelasius (c. AD 495) and Pope Symmachus (c. 500) ,all of whom speak of only 27 Canons of Chalcedon, contrary to the Eastern Orthodox claim: " Leo of Rome rejected this canon, but the east has always recognized its validity."

This canon was only ever in force (amongst small and dead sees truth be told) in sphere of influence of Byzantium but nowhere else. This was in spite of pope Leo and Alexandria because of the growing ambitions of the Church of Constantinople and nobody of signifcance in the Chalcedonian east to object. Further this was allowed to flourish because the emperor needed a dignified city to represent his capital ecclesiastically. This is the ugly history they don’t tell EO.

I will not dignify the above excrement with a response. Good day to you sir.

Because you have no response to it. God bless you to

 

[PJM]

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

God Bless YOU TOM,

Thanks for sharing:thumbsup:

TOM, how is it that that CAN BE more than

One TRUE God

Who even as GOD, can [noting else is possible] Hold to just One True sets of Faith beliefs

& desired exactly what He accomplished: Just One True Church?

HOW TOm, is it possible that this One True God could have, would have or did wait some 1,800 years after the Incarnation and founding of HIS Roman Catholic Chuch for Joseph Smith to establish a faith nearly completely opposite of what He desired, taught and even DIED to establish:shrug:

God Bless you my friend?

Patrick

 

[PJM]

I am Roman Catholic however I believe the Eastern Orthodox Churches have the same merit to make this argument. It is unfortunate the two are currently not in communion with each other but I pray they will reunite before Christ returns. Actually I have read some arguments that Christ will not return until the original Churches of Rome, Constantinople, Antioch, Alexandria, and Jerusalem are reunited.

While in my heart I’s LIKE to agree with the “equal merit” part of your post; history [the Easter Schisms took place 500 & roughly 1,000 years AFTER the establishment of the RCC], and the CATHOLIC bible simply do not support such a condition.

I too long for unity; but it must come with conformity tto Christ delcared WILL. Amen

GBY!

Patrick

 

[Tomdstone]

HOW TOm, is it possible that this One True God could have, would have or did wait some 1,800 years after the Incarnation and founding of HIS Roman Catholic Chuch for Joseph Smith to establish a faith nearly completely opposite of what He desired, taught and even DIED to establish:shrug:

Jews may ask the question: how is it possible that God could have, would have or did wait some 1,400 years after Moses to establish the Catholic faith, which is not in accord with what Moses and his ancestors taught?

 

[PJM]

I hope to find time to offer a thorough response to your two posts, but for now let me say.

That you think your list of Biblical verses means you have the truth and your conclusion is that I do not care about God’s truth… is evidence of something I find problematic. At best it means you have not seriously considered and tried to understand views you don’t hold (mine included, but not solely mine)

NO TOm, I do not think you “do not care”

Rather I hold that you do not KNOW, nor do you rightly understand it. And I agree that is “problematic.”

I TRULY appreciate your participation on this FORUM and the string of which I am the OP:thumbsup:

But this is a Catholic Forum, and I have an obligation to Know, to share and when necessary, to even defend the Roman Catholic Faith which I fully embrace.

I once thought that all sincere seekers would become LDS, but I cannot believe this because I refuse to believe that some were not sincere seekers.

You speak as if you have a degree of certainty about how evidence lines up that I didn’t even have before this (recognizing sincere seekers do not march inevitably towards my understanding). I think you are in error not only in your religious conclusions, but in your dismissive attitude towards those who have different conclusions.
Charity, TOm

TOm my FRIEND; I am not being “dismissive” I AM being candid, honest, frank and even providing [or at least attempting too, the evidence of not JUST “MY”; but of the one BILLION PLUS world wide Catholics, whose history is provable, dates back to the Incarnation and the 12 Original Apostles.

What I DO hold strongly to is the definition of "TRUTH”

**Dictionary Definition:

noun, plural truths:

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.
   4. the state or character of being true.
   5. actuality or actual existence.
   6. an obvious or accepted fact; truism; platitude.
   7. honesty; integrity; truthfulness.
   8. (often initial capital letter) ideal or fundamental reality apart from and transcending perceived
   experience:
   9. agreement with a standard or original.
   10. accuracy, as of position or adjustment.
   11. Archaic. fidelity or constancy.

Eleven definitions of ONE reality Testify that “Truth” must be singular per defined issue in-order to actually be “The Truth.”

And TOM it is it would seem our different understanding of this TERM, that at the present cause our differences.

Pope Benedict XVI, in his first homily as our then “New Pope” had this to say about truth.
“There cannot [its impossible] for there to be your truth and my truth as then there would be NO truth.” … TOM, to ME, this seems to be irrefutable logic.

TOM, HOW am I honesty to consider other positions that I know in TRUTH simply cannot be THEE truth? That seems to be what your asking of me:shrug: I Do read and evaluate them against the only logical conclusion I know of; CAN this [or that] be THEE truth?

This becomes even more problematic when EVIDENCE of contrary to our Catholics beliefs is not provided; making the debate Objective verse Subjective in nature.

God Bless you, and please Do respond to my post.

Patrick

 

[PJM]

In addition to the information ©1995 provided by Tom, I would like to included some more information ©1844. There was at time when the Latter-Day-Saint movement taught the date of the great apostasy was revealed to be 570 AD. This was believed when Joseph Smith would just rewrite the scriptures so there would be no misunderstanding of his exegesis.

1830AD-1260 days =570AD

THANK YOU so much for all the research!

GBY