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

[PJM]

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.

God BLESS YOU!

My friend!

Have a Blessed New Year

 

[PJM]

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.

OK, I knew this, but am missing your point in sharing it [MY fault no doubt]

GBY

 

[PJM]

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:

How do we understand the TERM “truth” differently?

GOOD So we AGREE that TRUTH can be noting other than singular per defined ISSUE right?

And based on THAT agreement, PLEASE define for us the LDS definations for

GOD

Jesus Christ

And the Holy Spirit

Thank you TOm

I said:

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)

TOm. here I feel the need to interject that seeking GOD is a very good thing! Hoever IF, if your seeking God thorugh HIS Truths, your aim is off. [BASED on GOD"S TRUTHS]

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

AGREED

Which is precisely WHY God choose to establish the only provable truths

One True God [TRIUNE]

Just One set of Faith beliefs [even God can do nothing more

How do we understand the TERM “truth” differently?

TOm unless I am misinformed about LDS teaching; LDS definitions of God the Father [in origin and power]. Christ, and the Trinity, which I [ME] understand to ne at variance with Christian beliefs, for a start.

And establised One Church to teach these fundamental TRUTHS [Mt 10:1-8; Mt 16:15-19; Jn 17:17-20 & Mt 28:18-20]

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

So moving beyond “TRUTH”

I [ME] sensed from your last previous POST that your on CAF to sharpen your teaching skills and perhaps??? to make a convert or two???

Last week a friend from Church loaned me a book entitled “The Catechism of TRENT”

TOM if really wish to gain an in-depth understanding of Catholicism, may I SUGGEST that you acquire and read this book.

It;s the BEST I’ve seen in my own Faith formation stemming over 60+ years:thumbsup:

God Bless you TOM, I admire your tenacity!

Have a Blessed New Year!

Patrick

 

[PJM]

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

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?

TOm, please check these out

EVIDENCE IN THE OT OF THE TRINITY

[1] bible.ca/trinity/trinity-oneness-unity-plural-nouns-pronouns-verbs-adverbs.htm

[2 ] bible.ca/trinity/trinity-proof-texts.htm

[3] nak.org/catechism/3-the-triune-god/32-god-father-son-and-holy-spirit/321-references-to-the-triune-god-in-the-old-testament/

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

So MOSES knew Christ, and HIS Teachings?

Based on what evidence TOm?
.

Peter knew much the same Gospel Joseph Smith did{/QUOTE]

So you can explain what these LDS sights teach as being agreeable wit Peter? With Christ?

.LDS on the God-Head

[1] mormonnewsroom.org/article/mormonism-101

[2] donny.com/my_beliefs/lds-faith-holy-trinity/

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

On this we AGREE in PART

Mt 16:18-19
[18] And I say TO THEE: That thou art Peter; and upon this [YOU PETER] rock I will build my church, SINGULAR: and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. [19] And I will give to YOU [ALL OF THE ] 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"

And Mt 28:19-20
[19] Going therefore, teach YOU all nations; baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. [20] **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, 2 points

1. BY missing the singular tense words used in these passages you seem somehow empowered to your position of a church that failed and a GOD that therefore FAILED HIS PROMISES:shrug:

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

No my friend, BUY MY BOOK The 1st chapter tells otherwise as do the sites I referenced above

http://www.catholicandchristianbypatrickmiron.com/

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.

TOm which both hsitroy and th Bible declare as impossible to prove, or GOD reneged on HIS Promise which GOD [defined as: all good things perfected] cannot possibly do

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

THATS True BUT:

The Pope AND the Catholic Magisterium Can and DO write it’s NT-equivalent: Doctrine & Dogma’s

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

TOm, everything I write and share our our faith beliefs is based on THEE singular truth:thumbsup:

God Bless you my friend

Patrick

 

[PJM]

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

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

And except for YOUR terminology He and the Catholic Magisterium WITH the Pope DO:thumbsup: Only NOW we term it Doctrine and Dogma’s. AMEN

appears in the BIBLE right after the handing on of ALL of the Keys ie: ALL Access to heaven as the NORM, to Peter and the RCC]

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

ahhhhh, now I see your point Thank you

HOWEVER I explained it in the prior post and again above in this one

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

And God Did and GOD Does:thumbsup:.

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{?QUOTE]
Tom, please read Mt 10: 1-8 and the Mt 28:19-20, which is the historical evidence for Succession being instituted by Christ

THEN PLEASE check out this site

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

[2] fisheaters.com/easternfathers.html

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

NO my friend; I [ME again] don’t think that this statement is literally proveable.

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

Tom. To my limited understanding this would at-least imply that the BIBILE is NOT??? A position that is untenable. It is some 4,000 OT/ 2,000 NT years old.

I believe this for spiritual and intellectual reasons. I cannot fit God’s work of bringing forth the BOM into a faithful Catholic framework

Nor do I thing such is possible or GODS desire based on the evidence I have already presented

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

THANKS Tom,

While GOD does not desire this, He nevertheless permits it. Please keep-seeking HIS Truths.

God Bless you and be with you in this New Year?

Patrick

1st Tim 2:3-4 “ [3] For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour, [4]** Who will have all men to be saved, and to come to the knowledge of the truth”**

Mt 7: [7] Ask, and it shall be given you: seek, and you shall find: knock, and it shall be opened to you & [24] Every one therefore that heareth these my words, and doth them, shall be likened to a wise man that built his house upon a rock”

**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. “You” being singular tense to the Apostles & successors]

2nd Cor. 13: “ [8] For we can do nothing against the truth; but for the truth”
[/quote]
[/QUOTE]

 

[PJM]

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 .

I TRIED with no luck to GOOGLE this Q

So MY [personal] guess is as it is UNDERSTOOD TODAY, was with the advent of the “Great Eastern Schism” of 1054 AD

 

[Tomdstone]

EVIDENCE IN THE OT OF THE TRINITY

[1] bible.ca/trinity/trinity-oneness-unity-plural-nouns-pronouns-verbs-adverbs.htm

[2 ] bible.ca/trinity/trinity-proof-texts.htm

[3] nak.org/catechism/3-the-triune-god/32-god-father-son-and-holy-spirit/321-references-to-the-triune-god-in-the-old-testament/

Let us make man in our image can be the the Majesty plural. It expresses solemnity and dignity better than Let me make man. Further, generally speaking, us does not indicate exactly three persons.
And further, the Jews never accepted the Trinity and they were the inspired writers and interpreters of the OT.

 

[prodromos]

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.

Citation?

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

None, actually.

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.

Rome’s break with communion didn’t happen overnight, but they did slowly estrange themselves from the rest of the Eastern sees.

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

OK, I knew this, but am missing your point in sharing it [MY fault no doubt]

GBY

That this is the reason why I believe the RCC is not the One true Church. It claims prerogatives of the Pope that do not in my mind actually exist. I don’t know how I can explain why I reject Roman Catholicism.

 

[Wandile]

Citation?

I’m surprised you don’t know about this

See the discourse HERE between Peter of Antioch and Michael Cerularius

Cerularius was a schismatic from the beginning and his whole goal was to sever communion with Rome. As with his acts of closing down all the Latin churches in Constantinople ; historian J. B. Bury, notes that Cerularius’ purpose in closing the Latin churches was “to cut short any attempt at conciliation”.

None, actually.

Incorrect , I will highlight the ones he was actually guilty of and the blue are charges that arose from differences of tradition :

"Because like Simoniacs, they sell the gift of God;
Like Valesians, they castrate their guests and promote them not only to the clergy but to the episcopacy;
Like Arians, they rebaptize those already baptized in the name of the Holy Trinity, and especially Latins;
Like Donatists, they claim that with the exception of the Greek Church, the Church of Christ and baptism has perished from the world;
Like Nicolaitists, they allow and defend the carnal marriages of the ministers of the sacred altar;
Like Severians, they say that the law of Moses is accursed;
Like Pneumatomachoi or Theomachoi, they cut off the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Son;
Like the Manichaeans among others, they state that leave is ensouled (animatum);
Like the Nazarenes, they preserve the carnal cleanness of the Jews to such an extent that they refuse to baptize dying babies before eight days after birth and, in refusing to communicate with pregnant or menstruating women, they forbid them to be baptized if they are pagan;
And because they grow the hair on their head and beards, they will not receive in communion those who tonsure their hair and shave their beards following the decreed practice of the Roman Church.

Furthermore, when we, the Pope’s ambassadors, wanted to eliminate the causes of such great evils in a reasonable way, he denied us his presence and conversation, forbid churches to celebrate Mass, just as he had earlier closed the churches of the Latins and, calling them “azymites,” had persecuted the Latins everywhere in word and deed. Indeed, so much [did he persecute them] that among his own children, he had anathematized the apostolic see and against it he still writes that he is the ecumenical patriarch.

Therefore, because we did not tolerate this unheard of outrage and injury of the first, holy, and apostolic see and were concerned that the catholic faith would be undermined in many ways, by the authority of the holy and individuated Trinity and the apostolic see, whose embassy we are performing, and of all the orthodox fathers from the seven councils and of the entire catholic Church, we thus subscribe to the following anathema which the most reverend pope has proclaimed upon Michael and his followers unless they should repent.

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, ; 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.

Rome’s break with communion didn’t happen overnight, but they did slowly estrange themselves from the rest of the Eastern sees.

No actually Rome tried to maintain , and successfully did for a time, communion with the other eastern sees until they broke communion and stopped commemorating Rome. Russia up to the 12th century still sought blessing from the Pope of Rome for their king for example. Further after the eastern sees broke from Rome , Rome sent, on numerous occasions, envoys to Constantinople to try and secure union of the churches finally culminating in the second Council of Lyons.

Rome was actually shocked to find that a few decades before the mutual excommunication of 1054, that Constantinople stopped commemorating Rome in its diptychs

 

[TOmNossor]

GOOD So we AGREE that TRUTH can be noting other than singular per defined ISSUE right?

I would say we agree. You have not explained why you claimed we did not agree.
This still concerns me.

And based on THAT agreement, PLEASE define for us the LDS definations for

GOD

Jesus Christ

And the Holy Spirit

Term “GOD” has many meanings in the Bible and in LDS usage.

I will offer one, “God is love.” I think this is an important starting point for defining God. I would suggest that perfectly defining God is really beyond the human and certainly beyond human language.
If you wish you may define God and I will respond to your thoughts.

I can tell you a great deal about what Catholics like St. (and Doctor of the Church) Thomas Aquinas taught about God that I find problematic (of course I believe St. Thomas found his own teachings so problematic he called them “straw” after he actually experienced God).

I have thought greatly on the definition of God, so I have volumes of thoughts that are consistent with being a LDS. Most of them align with Ostler’s thoughts in his 3 volume Exploring Mormon Thought.

Jesus Christ is the Son of God or God the Son. He was born of the Virgin Mary. He atoned for our sins. He was resurrected. I also believe that He appeared to “other sheep” including the Nephites as discussed in the Book of Mormon. His Old World ministry is described in the New Testament.

The Holy Spirit is the third “personage” of the Godhead. In LDS thought He is usually described as a testifier and/or a guide. We LDS receive the “Gift of the Holy Ghost” after being baptized.

TOm, at this point we do not agree that the LDS way of practicing their faith qualifies as TRULY "being Christians:; hence the request for LDS definitions request

First, who is the “We” in your statement? Next …
I was wondering what lead you to ask me for definitions of God and …
I am a Social Trinitarian. You and I participated in a thread together where I explain that I think after Athanatius and Augustine most Catholic are neo-modalists. I quoted scholars (Catholic and Protestant) and discussed shifting definitions. If you can convince me that I misunderstand the scholars and/or their arguments are flawed, that would be great. If there is a position that I can embrace that is not modalism or tritheism that you and I both consider rational, I expect I will embrace it. As a Social Trinitarian, I am more tritheistic than the modalist Augustine. I choose not to embrace a “via negtiva” position that IMO does not exist (there is no number that is both not ≤3 and not ≥3, all numbers are either less than, equal to, or more than 3).
BTW, refusing to believe something that is irrational is IMO a rational choice even while I believe that God is beyond my reason. To not perfectly define God is no problem for me, but to accept irrationality in a definition is a BIG problem for me. I believe that my Social Trinitarian view is a far superior synthesis of the Bible than any POSITVE assertions made by Catholics about God in response to my Social Trinitarian views.

TOm. here I feel the need to interject that seeking GOD is a very good thing! Hoever IF, if your seeking God thorugh HIS Truths, your aim is off. [BASED on GOD"S TRUTHS]

And I think your aim is off. It is obvious to me that we both think the others aim is off, that is not the same as thinking that the other does not embrace the same “concept of the term truth.”

I [ME] sensed from your last previous POST that your on CAF to sharpen your teaching skills and perhaps??? to make a convert or two???

I claim (I think I have always claimed) that I am after two things.

1. Prevent my faith from being misrepresented because former Mormons or non-Mormons do all the presenting.
2. Expose myself to the BEST Catholicism has so that if I am not convinced it is not because I reject a stupid caricature of Catholicism.

On Catholic Answers Live many years ago the host and guest discussed the possibility that C.S. Lewis was “invincibly ignorant.” Such a view IMO would never be entertained by a Catholic before the 20th century (about someone like C.S. Lewis), but I will not choose to run away from “vincing.” If I am not Catholic may it be either because Catholicism is not God’s one true church or because through no fault of my own I am “invincibly ignorant.”

Last week a friend from Church loaned me a book entitled “The Catechism of TRENT”

TOM if really wish to gain an in-depth understanding of Catholicism, may I SUGGEST that you acquire and read this book.

If I had unlimited time and stamina I would complete that book before tomorrow.
This is it correct?
cin.org/users/james/ebooks/master/trent/tindex.htm

What do you think would be the most valuable place for me to start? I have my own ideas that I will likely pursue, but I can make time for yours too. Have you read the whole book? I am not familiar with the book, but have read much of the proceedings of Trent so I expect few surprises.

I will work on your next two posts if/when I have time.
Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

TOm, please check these out

EVIDENCE IN THE OT OF THE TRINITY

[1] bible.ca/trinity/trinity-oneness-unity-plural-nouns-pronouns-verbs-adverbs.htm

[2 ] bible.ca/trinity/trinity-proof-texts.htm

[3] nak.org/catechism/3-the-triune-god/32-god-father-son-and-holy-spirit/321-references-to-the-triune-god-in-the-old-testament/
TOmNossor;14374281:

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

So MOSES knew Christ, and HIS Teachings?

Based on what evidence TOm?

Based on the echoes you claim are “Old Testament examples of the Trinity,” for one.
Do you believe Moses knew God was Triune and Christ was God’s son? I generally do.
Do you believe the WEAK evidence we have in the Bible is a product of the fact that the Bible is not inerrantly guarded by God to ensure everything written is perfect and never altered throughout time? I think this is part of it and is possible.
What is your position?
Do you agree with the ECF on this? I generally do not.

BTW, my evidence is that the concept of dispensationalism has been taught within God’s church, the CoJCoLDS. The echoes you point to only serve as corroboration of my church’s teaching.

If your point is that my criticism of you as believing God choose to wait till 27AD to reveal the Triune nature of God is incorrect because you believe the Triune nature of God was revealed to Moses, then I was wrong about your view (but your view is not Catholic).

If that is not your point I am BAFFLED as to what you are saying.

PLEASE CLARIFY what you are saying?
Charity, TOm

 

[steve_b]

I TRIED with no luck to GOOGLE this Q

Don’t feel bad. After 12 years of asking, no one has given me an answer …YET. But I keep asking just the same

 

[PJM]

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:

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

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

We Catholics see TRUTH as having to be singular per defined issue.

Because your “truth” is different than mine, and mine [Catholics] is older and proven, I stay with what I know to be Christ truth,

Pope Benedict XVI is quoted as saying:

“There can’t be my truth and your truth or their would be NO truth”

Which I completely agree with.

TOm look carefully at your destination and understanding of God Triune

In origin in essence in nature, we differ.

God Bless you!
Happy and Blessed New year

Patrick

 

[PJM]

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

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

TOm this only shows that those Jews, like today’s Protestants and the LDS, lack the necessary guidance of the HS.

Conversions and right understanding are GOD"S exclusive domain. God may and at times uses others to aid the process, but even that is GOD controlled. Amen

GBY

 

[PJM]

Let us make man in our image can be the the Majesty plural. It expresses solemnity and dignity better than Let me make man. Further, generally speaking, us does not indicate exactly three persons.
And further, the Jews never accepted the Trinity and they were the inspired writers and interpreters of the OT.

So my FRIEND, allow me please to share with you briefly how to explain how Gen 1:26-27 {man made in the “image of our GOD”} & John 4:23-24

“But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true adorers shall adore the Father in spirit and in truth. For the Father also seeketh such to adore him. God is a spirit; and they that adore him, must adore him in spirit and in truth”

In the BILLIONS of THINGS in the God-Created Universe only one thing has been proven to be able to support the life-things we can identify: Planet EARTH

On Planet EARTH with its hundreds of millions of THINGS; only One; only humanity is rational and creative; is able to choose good or evil, is able to love or hate. And hence is alone enabled to know OF God; to actually Know God and able to choose to love or hate God; which then becomes the very reason for man’s existence. SEE Isaiah 43: verses 7 & 21 for evidence of this.

In order for mortal man to enables [gifted] to do these things it is an absolute essential that man possess a mind, a intellect and freewill [which BTW are permanently attached to mans Soul. I[ME here] refer to this as “OUR OTHER SELF”

Because when man dies he returns to the DUST from whence he was made

Genesis 3:19
In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread till thou return to the earth, out of which thou wast taken: for dust thou art, and into dust thou shalt return.

Ecclesiastes 12:7
And the dust return into its earth, from whence it was, and the spirit return to God, who gave it.

SO THEN WHAT REMAINS TO “BE JUDGED”?
It is this “Other self” which like God is now in Spirit FORM [until the End times and General Judgment], and like God is also immortal.

**And it is by absolute necessity that the Human Soul be immortal, & retain its mind, intellect & freewill in order to enjoy heaven or suffer eternally in HELL. Depending upon mans’ life choices. **

Heb.6: 10 “For God is not so unjust as to overlook your work and the love which you showed for his sake in serving the saints, as you still do.”

Rev.2: 23 “and I will strike her children dead. And all the churches shall know that I am he who searches mind and heart, and I will give to each of you as your works deserve.”

Matthew 22:30
For in the resurrection they shall neither marry nor be married; but shall be as the angels of God in heaven.

GBU TOm

Patrick

 

[PJM]

Let us make man in our image can be the the Majesty plural. It expresses solemnity and dignity better than Let me make man. Further, generally speaking, us does not indicate exactly three persons.
And further, the Jews never accepted the Trinity and they were the inspired writers and interpreters of the OT.

TOm. PLEASE see my POST #135

John 3:13-17

"[13] Then cometh Jesus from Galilee to the Jordan, unto John, to be baptized by him. [14] But John stayed him, saying: I ought to be baptized by thee, and comest thou to me? [15] And Jesus answering, said to him: Suffer it to be so now. For so it becometh us to fulfill all justice. Then he suffered him.

[16] And Jesus[GOD THE SON] being baptized, forthwith came out of the water: and lo, the heavens were opened to him: and he saw the Spirit of God [GOD THE HOLY SPIRIT]descending as a dove, and coming upon him. [17] And behold a voice from heaven, saying: This is my beloved Son, [GOD THE FATHER] in whom I am well pleased."

ALL 3 IN ONE PLACE AT THE SAME TIME

GBU TOm

Patrick

 

[PJM]

Let us make man in our image can be the the Majesty plural. It expresses solemnity and dignity better than Let me make man. Further, generally speaking, us does not indicate exactly three persons.
And further, the Jews never accepted the Trinity and they were the inspired writers and interpreters of the OT.

As to the JEWS,

1. They were from the time of Abram a people in FORMATION, surrounded by PAGANS on every side. Tet as I have indicated in prioe post their was PROVIDED BY GOD, evidence of the Trinity in the OT even if it was NOT recognized

And it is with certitude that the Trinity was introduced, explained and taught throughout the NT, NOW under GRACE, and not only just the LAW, which was necessary for the right understanding of this GREAT Mystery.

TOm, the practice of religion is term rightly as “FAITH”, because it requires FAITH to ACCEPT the many things God expects each of us to ACCEPT onFaith, as such is the very reason we can and ARE alwys reliant upon God:thumbsup:

GBU TOm

Patrick

 

[PJM]

I would say we agree. You have not explained why you claimed we did not agree.
This still concerns me.

Term “GOD” has many meanings in the Bible and in LDS usage.

I will offer one, “God is love.” I think this is an important starting point for defining God. I would suggest that perfectly defining God is really beyond the human and certainly beyond human language.
If you wish you may define God and I will respond to your thoughts.

I can tell you a great deal about what Catholics like St. (and Doctor of the Church) Thomas Aquinas taught about God that I find problematic (of course I believe St. Thomas found his own teachings so problematic he called them “straw” after he actually experienced God).

I have thought greatly on the definition of God, so I have volumes of thoughts that are consistent with being a LDS. Most of them align with Ostler’s thoughts in his 3 volume Exploring Mormon Thought.

Jesus Christ is the Son of God or God the Son. He was born of the Virgin Mary. He atoned for our sins. He was resurrected. I also believe that He appeared to “other sheep” including the Nephites as discussed in the Book of Mormon. His Old World ministry is described in the New Testament.

The Holy Spirit is the third “personage” of the Godhead. In LDS thought He is usually described as a testifier and/or a guide. We LDS receive the “Gift of the Holy Ghost” after being baptized.

GOOD then you’ll appreciate a fuller understanding of our Catholic Beliefs

First, who is the “We” in your statement?

The RCC and our beliefs

Next …
I was wondering what lead you to ask me for definitions of God and …
I am a Social Trinitarian. You and I participated in a thread together where I explain that I think after Athanatius and Augustine most Catholic are neo-modalists. I quoted scholars (Catholic and Protestant) and discussed shifting definitions. If you can convince me that I misunderstand the scholars and/or their arguments are flawed, that would be great. If there is a position that I can embrace that is not modalism or tritheism that you and I both consider rational, I expect I will embrace it. As a Social Trinitarian, I am more tritheistic than the modalist Augustine. I choose not to embrace a “via negtiva” position that IMO does not exist (there is no number that is both not ≤3 and not ≥3, all numbers are either less than, equal to, or more than 3).

TOM, do YOURSELF a favor and please DO read the TRENT Catechism on the CREED. It’s an excellent explanation of our Catholic Beliefs.

BTW, refusing to believe something that is irrational is IMO a rational choice even while I believe that God is beyond my reason. To not perfectly define God is no problem for me, but to accept irrationality in a definition is a BIG problem for me. I believe that my Social Trinitarian view is a far superior synthesis of the Bible than any POSITVE assertions made by Catholics about God in response to my Social Trinitarian views.

Here then is another example of your truth verses Catholic Truth.

We understand GOD to be a MYSTERY, while you seem to hold this position as irrational

And I think your aim is off. It is obvious to me that we both think the others aim is off, that is not the same as thinking that the other does not embrace the same “concept of the term truth.”

GOOD PONT! Thanks

I claim (I think I have always claimed) that I am after two things.

1. Prevent my faith from being misrepresented because former Mormons or non-Mormons do all the presenting.
2. Expose myself to the BEST Catholicism has so that if I am not convinced it is not because I reject a stupid caricature of Catholicism

**I and no doubt GOD applaud your candor and effort! **

On Catholic Answers Live many years ago the host and guest discussed the possibility that C.S. Lewis was “invincibly ignorant.” Such a view IMO would never be entertained by a Catholic before the 20th century (about someone like C.S. Lewis), but I will not choose to run away from “vincing.” If I am not Catholic may it be either because Catholicism is not God’s one true church or because through no fault of my own I am “invincibly ignorant.”

AMEN:thumbsup:

If I had unlimited time and stamina I would complete that book before tomorrow.
This is it correct?
cin.org/users/james/ebooks/master/trent/tindex.htm

What do you think would be the most valuable place for me to start? I have my own ideas that I will likely pursue, but I can make time for yours too. Have you read the whole book? I am not familiar with the book, but have read much of the proceedings of Trent so I expect few surprises.

I will work on your next two posts if/when I have time.
Charity, TOm

With limited time, may I suggest the 1st TOPIC covered which is the Catholic CREED:thumbsup:

GBY TOm,
Patrick

 

[PJM]

That this is the reason why I believe the RCC is not the One true Church. It claims prerogatives of the Pope that do not in my mind actually exist. I don’t know how I can explain why I reject Roman Catholicism.

Then dear friend PLEASE read carefully & prayerfully, TAKING note of the SINGULAR tense words:

Mt. 10:1-8
Mt 16:15-19
Jn17:17-20
Mt 28:19-20

GBY

Patrick