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

[PJM]

quote Originally Posted by PJM View Post
GREAT

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

GBY end quote

Papal Supremacy.

My friend, just what do YOU mean by “Supremacy”?

I wouod like to respond but first wish to make sure that I rightly understand your position

GBY and thanks for putting up with my questions

Patrick

 

[PJM]

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, [edited 4 space]

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!

Ho TOm,

I TRULY appreciate this effort. I have read it as well as the other post on the “Reformation” passages.

I posted in a REPLY one or two above this the issue of TRUTH and how THAT affects my thinking and my faith beliefs.

I BELIEVE I said that I have DOUBTS about you and LDS reading the entire bile AND/ OR not rightly understanding it; which frankly comes as NO surprise as the reality applies equally to our Protestant friends:

I am glad to see that you have read it, even if you have not rightly grasped its teachings

The necessary corollary here seems to be this:

How could GOD [even the LDS definition of God; who in essence HAS TO BE GOOD, have wait some 1,800+ years for Joseph Smith to make KNOWN His Conditions for salvation:shrug: And actually its more mike 3,800 YEARS

Unless, and until you can explain with evidence THAT point, that truth, that reality, your positions are purely subjective IMO.

At the ROOT of your page on the reformation “evidence”; I hasten to point put two truths
.
**1. The Bible is a CATHOLIC Book

It was the early CATHOLIC Fathers who guided by the Holy Spirit [whom, as I understand it, LDS deny; who selected the early Jewish faith & history works to be included in today’s Bible

It was The Early Catholic Fathers who actually, again guided by that same Holy Spirit GOD; who actually AUTHORED the entire New testament.

[2]** Therefore it is completely logical that it be the SAME Catholic Church who ALONE, again, guided by that same God the Holy Spirit, is ABLE to fully and rightly explain and translate it.**

Cf: Mt 16: 18-19
I give to YOU all of the keys to my kingdom heaven

The Gates of HELL shall never prevail against it

Cf: Mt 28:20
And I promise as GOD that I WILL BE with YOU until the end of time

Cf: John 17:17-20
And just as my Father [God the Father in Christianity] sent “Me” [again in Christianity: GOD the SON], so too I GOD now send “YOU” the Apostles and their successors

And for THEM do I {GOD} commit and sanctify MYSELF that THEY can and will ONLY be able to officially teach MY TRUTH

[3] So TOM, based on the above and all of my prior post, it seems reasonable to ask based on 4,000 YEARS of Objective history and Tradition AND 2,000 years of Catholicism; who it is exactly that is not being “opened minded.”

& thanks for taking the time for me:thumbsup:
Patrick

 

[PJM]

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”?

Will this reply DO?

The Original Catholic Creed is the Apostles Creed which preceded the Nicene Creed, and is credited to have been authored by the Apostles themselves.

It was the Apostles Creed that formed the foundation of the Nicene Creed which MEANS that same was Founded upon a RCC Teaching and AT a RCC Council.

Further it was the Orthodox who choose separate from the RCC; NOT the other way around

GBY

 

[Tomdstone]

Further it was the Orthodox who choose separate from the RCC; NOT the other way around:

That’s not true. It was Cardinal Humbertus who left a bull of excommunication on the altar of Hagia Sophia in 1054. The Vatican representative excommunicated Michael Cerularius, not the other was around.

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

quote Originally Posted by PJM View Post
GREAT

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

GBY end quote

My friend, just what do YOU mean by “Supremacy”?

I wouod like to respond but first wish to make sure that I rightly understand your position

GBY and thanks for putting up with my questions

Patrick

Supremecy as defined by the catechism is thus:

882 The Pope, Bishop of Rome and Peter’s successor, "is the perpetual and visible source and foundation of the unity both of the bishops and of the whole company of the faithful."402 "For the Roman Pontiff, by reason of his office as Vicar of Christ, and as pastor of the entire Church has full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered."403

883 “The college or body of bishops has no authority unless united with the Roman Pontiff, Peter’s successor, as its head.” As such, this college has "supreme and full authority over the universal Church; but this power cannot be exercised without the agreement of the Roman Pontiff."404

The last clause of 882 is particularly problematic (‘a power which he can always exercise unhindered’), for me for it suggests no limit on the power of the pope and Papal authority is universal. This means that the Pope can overturn anything within another jurisdiction which is not his own (I view the Pope’s jurisdiction as not universal and that he is limited in what he can do when contending with another Jurisdiction over matters he disagrees with.

 

[Stephen168]

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?

Catholics don’t claim to be the One True Church founded by Moses.

 

[Wandile]

That’s not true. It was Cardinal Humbertus who left a bull of excommunication on the altar of Hagia Sophia in 1054. The Vatican representative excommunicated Michael Cerularius, not the other was around.

Cardinal Humbert only excimmunicat Michael Cerularius not all the Eastern churches. But all the Greek churches followed him in his excommunication which is a choice they made which made the schism and east-west schism and no more a dispute between two Bishops.

 

[prodromos]

Cardinal Humbert only excimmunicat Michael Cerularius not all the Eastern churches.

And all who agreed with him. Since Michael was not guilty of any of the litany of false charges laid against him, it should not be surprising that they did not distance themselves from him.

But all the Greek churches followed him in his excommunication which is a choice they made which made the schism and east-west schism and no more a dispute between two Bishops.

The Greek Churches followed no one but remained as they had always been. Rome, by making one of the excommunicated legates a subsequent Pope, basically cemented their schism from the East.

 

[Tomdstone]

Cardinal Humbert only excimmunicat Michael Cerularius not all the Eastern churches. But all the Greek churches followed him in his excommunication which is a choice they made which made the schism and east-west schism and no more a dispute between two Bishops.

I don’t think that the papal bull only mentioned the excommunication of Michael Cerularius. Here is the relevant text:

“Michael, neophyte patriarch through abuse of office, who took on the monastic habit out of fear of men alone and is now accused by many of the worst of crimes; and with him Leo called bishop of Achrida; Constantine, chaplain of this Michael, who trampled the sacrifice of the Latins with profane feet; and all their followers in the aforementioned errors and acts of presumption: Let them be anathema Maranatha with the Simoniacs, Valesians, Arians, Donatists, Nicolaitists, Severians, Pneumatomachoi, Manichaeans, Nazarenes, and all the heretics — nay, with the devil himself and his angels, unless they should repent. AMEN, AMEN, AMEN.”
As anyone can read, the text says that in addition to Michael Cerularius, also excommunicated were Leo called bishop of Achrida; Constantine, chaplain of Michael, and all their followers.

 

[Wandile]

And all who agreed with him. Since Michael was not guilty of any of the litany of false charges laid against him, it should not be surprising that they did not distance themselves from him.

In fact the Antiochan Patriarch was annoyed by the dispute between Rome and Constantinople and urged them to reconcile. But later followed him in his schism as he had no choice really, Antioch depended on Constantinople for support.

And he was guilty of quite a few of the charges actually…

The Greek Churches followed no one but remained as they had always been. Rome, by making one of the excommunicated legates a subsequent Pope, basically cemented their schism from the East.

Remained as they had always been? They were in communion with Rome, then they broke it with Rome to follow their Ecumenical Patriarch. Rome never excommunicated them, only Cerularius and his sympathizers which is standard phrase for decrees of excommunication. The eastern churches chose to break communion with Rome whereas Rome only broke with Constantinople.

 

[Wandile]

I don’t think that the papal bull only mentioned the excommunication of Michael Cerularius. Here is the relevant text:

“Michael, neophyte patriarch through abuse of office, who took on the monastic habit out of fear of men alone and is now accused by many of the worst of crimes; and with him Leo called bishop of Achrida; Constantine, chaplain of this Michael, who trampled the sacrifice of the Latins with profane feet; and all their followers in the aforementioned errors and acts of presumption: Let them be anathema Maranatha with the Simoniacs, Valesians, Arians, Donatists, Nicolaitists, Severians, Pneumatomachoi, Manichaeans, Nazarenes, and all the heretics — nay, with the devil himself and his angels, unless they should repent. AMEN, AMEN, AMEN.”
As anyone can read, the text says that in addition to Michael Cerularius, also excommunicated were Leo called bishop of Achrida; Constantine, chaplain of Michael, and all their followers.

Michael actually was guilty of the charge of trampling on the he Latin Eucharist together with a mob after shutting down all Latin parishes. A hateful crime and sin.

 

[TOmNossor]

Hello Patrick,
I will try to post on the “concept of truth.” I hope you will consider what I say and explain how you see the TERM “truth” differently or what you see in my posts that suggests to you that I see the TERM “truth” different than you do.
You said:

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.

How do we understand the TERM “truth” differently?
I said:

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.

Let me say clearly what I think.

I think I use the TERM “truth” virtually identically to the way you use the TERM “truth.” How do you see this differently?

In hopes of moving our discussion on the TERM “truth” rapidly forward let me share a little more as you may have focused on some things I have said to the exclusion of others.

I can encourage Tomdstone to become a Catholic because I find the embracing of the Catholic faith to be a step towards God for someone who post like Tomdstone. This does not mean that you have a truth and I have a separate truth and they are equal. It means that if Tomdstone is a non-theist, the move from non-theist to Catholic Christian is a move towards truth. IMO, the move from Catholic Christian to LDS Christian is a move towards truth too. Also, I am not sure I have made this obvious, but it is some future day when we see God “as He is” John 19:26 when we will possess “all truth.” It is clear to me that Catholicism does not possess “all truth” and neither does the CoJCoLDS. LDS are moving towards “all truth” through study and by being guided by God’s prophet who can receive supernatural public revelation to be delivered to all mankind. Catholics move closer and farther from God’s fullness of truth as they follow good men who lack the ability to receive public revelation and thus learn about God not as St. Peter did, but as men do (I reject that the Catholic Pope or Catholic Councils have a divine “infallibility” but I know faithful Catholics believe this).
Anyway, it is not that there are equal truths, it is that there is one truth and God calls us to move towards it, but no flesh and blood human has “all truth” on this earth today.

How do we understand the TERM “truth” differently?
…
Let me say clearly what I think.

I think I use the TERM “truth” virtually identically to the way you use the TERM “truth.” How do you see this differently?

Please answer these questions so we can either continue to explore the TERM “truth” or move beyond it.
Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

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 …

Tombstone already offered a form of response to this.
Let me build no his and my previous statement in this thread:

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

God has been guiding mankind towards “all truth” throughout all of human history.
The evidence from history suggests that few Jews if ANY understood that God was Triune before Christ’s earthly ministry. If it is TRUE that God is Triune, why would God wait 1800+ years to teach it?
LDS actually believe that this was taught much more clearly than the Bible witnesses and that what we see is drift away from truth corrected by God raising up men who restore true teachings. Abraham knew much the same Gospel Moses did, Moses knew much the same Gospel Peter did. Peter knew much the same Gospel Joseph Smith did. That being said, two things are happening here. Abraham restores and teaches AND receives further light and knowledge, and people move away over time. Moses restores and teaches AND receives further light and knowledge, and people move away over time. This continues.

Patrick, it is you who must believe God waited 3000+ years to teach that God was Triune. Then after God finally delivered all truth, He removed the ability from the earth to receive public revelation and write scriptures.
As a LDS, I do not believe that God waited 3000+ years to teach His truth or that He “wait(ed) some 1,800 years after the Incarnation” to teach His truth. I believe that the ancient Christian church drifted from God’s truth just like the even more ancient Jews did. God again raised up men who can receive public revelation and write scriptures. Men like Abraham, Moses, and Peter. Catholics do not even believe the Pope can receive public revelation and write scripture.

I hope that answers your question here.
Please do not move past the “TERM of truth” in my previous post without responding to that so we can move on with a common understanding of the TERM of TRUTH.
Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

… for Joseph Smith to establish a faith nearly completely opposite of what He desired, taught and even DIED to establish:shrug:

Patrick,
Let me invite you to be more charitable and/or less hyperbolic by demonstrating how you sound to me.

You Patrick believe my faith is “nearly completely opposite of what He desired.”

I believe Christ was divine. I suppose you believe Christ was just a man?

I believe Christ lived a sinless life. I suppose you believe Christ sinned like all men do?

I believe Christ died from my sins, so I can embrace God after I die and live forever with Him. I suppose you do not think Christ atoned for sins?

And thousands of other points of agreement …

I do not believe you believe what I have just outlined. But, your statement was either hyperbole OR evidence that you have very little knowledge of what I actually believe. Either way, IMO it would be better for you change the way you interact.

I can encourage Tombstone to go to RCIA because I know that we share far more beliefs than we contest at least relative to folks who post like Tombstone. And while if I were a faithful Catholic who rejects LDS baptism, I probably would not encourage folks to become a LDS as easily, I would still not say our faiths are nearly completely opposite.

Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

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

My initial foray into this thread pointed out that it is not the reasons to not be Catholic that primarily motivate my rejection of Catholicism.
I said I could offer these reasons, and I can.
One I have mentioned a few times is that I believe the successor of Peter should be able to receive revelation and write scripture. Tertullian in the 3rd century believed this too, but in response to him, the orthodox bishops began to claim that “revelation had ceased.” They IMO were right, revelation to the orthodox bishops had ceased. There was no successor to Peter who could receive revelation and write scripture. That God’s church should/would no longer be led by folks who received revelation was their error. Had they not declared this and stuck by it, God could have continued to guide the faith through supernatural public revelation. But when folks like St. Thomas Aquinas received revelation that showed all he had written was “as straw,” he could not correct his errors because of the weight of Tradition and he NEVER wrote again.

I can talk about the fact that the “Bishop of Rome” as Peter’s sole, prime, … successor was not understood by the church in Rome for many centuries and has been continuously rejected by much of the Christian world since it DEVELOPED.
I can talk about the prohibition of CHANGE because Catholics believe that they have infallible truth AND the prevalence of CHANGE in the theology, including the radical blossoming of the term “Development” to include just about anything.

All that being said, while I see these things I know the Catholic responses because I have read them. I also know that there are LDS problems and I know the response to them.

I believe the BOM is a supernatural book. I believe this for spiritual and intellectual reasons. I cannot fit God’s work of bringing forth the BOM into a faithful Catholic framework. Thus, I reject Catholicism and embrace the CoJCoLDS. I put down numerous problems with Catholic truth claims and pick up numerous problems with LDS truth claims. This is my reasoned path. Independent of this, this is my God called path. I am a LDS for the positive within the CoJCoLDS not because of the negative in the Catholic Church.
Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

I can talk about the prohibition of CHANGE because Catholics believe that they have infallible truth AND the prevalence of CHANGE in the theology, including the radical blossoming of the term “Development” to include just about anything.

TOm!
You speak with the hyperbole you condemn when you say “anything!”
You know that is not true!

I do.
Sorry.
Charity, TOm,

 

[steve_b]

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.

The question is

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

This is a technical question. I’m looking for valid evidence properly referenced for what is underlined .
*

 

[steve_b]

Will this reply DO?

The Original Catholic Creed is the Apostles Creed which preceded the Nicene Creed, and is credited to have been authored by the Apostles themselves.

It was the Apostles Creed that formed the foundation of the Nicene Creed which MEANS that same was Founded upon a RCC Teaching and AT a RCC Council.

Further it was the Orthodox who choose separate from the RCC; NOT the other way around

GBY

As I responded to Tombstone, this question is a technical question.

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

I’m looking for valid evidence properly referenced for what is underlined .

 

[PJM]

And therefore it is in error And here is WHY

Jesus Gave to Peter [Mt 16:18-19] directly, personally and exclusively ALL of the keys to heaven and JESUS Himself warrants that what ever ROME [Peter & his successors Mt 10:1-8; Mt 16:18-19 & 28:18-20] “WHAT EVER YOU bind on earth” [teach] shall be accepted by Heaven! & WHAT EVER YOU Loose on earth" shall be affirmed by Heaven. Amen Further commits to being with “YOU” [meaning the Catholic Magisterium]. Amen

GBY

 

[PJM]

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?

Perhaps, but in doing so would they not be lacking FAITH?

Certainly Their idea was for warrior KING; NOT a religious King; Still many DID understand, believe and follow Him.

Good point

GBY