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

[PJM]

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

THANKS, I needed that

 

[PJM]

TOm this was worth a second pass

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

Sorry, that is not my intent.

In a prior post I pointed out with site evidecnce the differences in the LDS understanding by definition [not so much attributes, such as “Love.”

These difference are the very foundation of OUR faith-belief differences

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

.

God is TRIUNE: All 3 are Co-EQUAL & Co-ETERNAL

One True God with One nature, which each “Person” has in its totality, and being OF the same essence. [A Mystery]

What One Person desires, wants, thinks,; they ALL want, desire & think.

How each Person comes into “being” is another differing factor; and a critical one

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).

St. Thomas in doing so [the “straw” comment], HOPED to relate that despite the in depth and solid evidence of GOD; that GOD for the MOST PART remains a MYSTERY; unsolvable by mere and mortal man [Isaiah 55: 6-10]

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.

And that is WHY my friend that I urge you to read the CATECHISM OF TRENT; especially the 1st section on the Catholic CREED.

If noting else it will add depth and a rounding out of your understanding of what We Catholics understand about our God. It is a excellent expression of this Who is God-Dogma.

Jesus Christ is the Son of God or God the Son. He was born of the Virgin Mary. [TOm, AND JUST how DID MARY BECOME PREGNANT?] He atoned for our sins. [WHAT EXACTLY DOES THOS “ATONEMENT” MEAN?] He was resurrected. I also believe that He appeared to “other sheep” including the Nephites as discussed in the Book of Mormon. [SUCH IS YOUR CHOSEN BELIEF THAT AS FAR AS I KNOW HAS NO EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT IT???] His Old World ministry is described in the New Testament.[WHAT IS MEANT BY “OLD WORLD MINISTRY???”]

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.

BUT is he in LDS understanding: “Co-Equal AND Co-Eternal” as well?

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

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).
edited 4 space

TOm, please READ the TRENT Catechism, at least the section on the CREED; then we might better be able to discuss this

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.”

On this point we agree

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.

The TRENT Catechism will go a VERY long way in aiding you do exactly that.

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.”

My PRIOR reply on this point holds.

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

GBY

Patrick

And I still need to reply to your POST #131

God willing I will be able to do so tomorrow!

 

[Stephen168]

.

God is TRIUNE: All 3 are Co-EQUAL & Co-ETERNAL

One True God with One nature, which each “Person” has in its totality, and being OF the same essence. [A Mystery]

What One Person desires, wants, thinks,; they ALL want, desire & think.

How each Person comes into “being” is another differing factor; and a critical one

Today,The Solemnity of Mary, the Holy Mother of God, is a good day to remember that there is only one God and Mary is his Mother.

Something Mormons once believed but sadly Joseph Smith later rejected.

 

[JimmyDFG]

Some have objected to the Inquisition and the burning at the stake.

Is “the Inquisition and the burning at the stake” Church teaching or in any doctrine of the Church?

 

[JimmyDFG]

The Church is one because the founder is one. Jesus simply cannot be one teacher among many, and therefore those who walk in his way must be exclusively with him. Moreover , the God whom Jesus incarnates is one. This helps to explain why, on the last night of his life on earth, while sitting at supper with his disciples, the core of the church, Jesus prayed, “I pray not only for them, but also for those who will believe in me through their word, so that they may all be one, as you, Father, are in me and I in you…"(John 17:20-21)

 

[Peter_J]

This is what really confuses me about melkites. They have a disturbing intellectual dishonesty

Stop being so polite. Tell us what you really think.

 

[Tomdstone]

Is “the Inquisition and the burning at the stake” Church teaching or in any doctrine of the Church?

I think so. See Exsurge Domine. Bull of Pope Leo X issued June 15, 1520. Also see Council of Harbonne 1244, Council of Toulouse in 1229, papal bull Ad extirpanda of 1252. Also In 1542 Pope Paul III established the Congregation of the Holy Office of the Inquisition.

 

[PJM]

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?

Perhaps I was not clear enough. I was NOT claiming that the OT Hebrews RECOGNIZED the Trinity; ONLY that God made is at least remotely possible that they could.

I generally do

The concept was too sublime, too profound for them

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

TOm you’ll have to be more specific on what YOU think is WEAK evidence, for me to comment on it.

The BIBLE is inerrant in its MORAL-TEACHINGS, not its history.

The Bible is NEITHER a historical book as we NOW understand a History book to be, nor is it a science book. It is a by today’s standards two things primarily.

A story book telling account shared by word of mouth of the “history” of the Hebrew Nation

AND an account of MORAL lessons and MORAL absolutes to be learned, accepted and lived.

It is also the accounting of the learned WISDOM of the Hebrew Nation over a prolonged period of time

That said the MORAL teaching are WHAT God had protected, even to the point of inerrancy…

What is your position?
Do you agree with the ECF on this? I generally do not

I’m very tired, and perhaps ought to defer this reply???
Tom, I’m not clear of precisely what you’re asking me here. Please explain it further.

And of course you [LDS] do not agree with the 2,000 year old bible accepted by 1.2 BILLION Catholics and countless Christians in the present day; and BILLIONS Of them, in times past.so you wrote your own version of the bible and called it the BOM, so that you’d have a reference book to position you and certify your teachings.

Meaning your desired teachings PRECEDED the BOM, whereas the Bible simply records them.

Whereas the Bible recounted the Faith to be believed, in written form from verbal direction from the Christ. It was then to be shared [Mt 28:18-19] and accepted. And YES, it did flow from what Christ taught and Sacred Tradition; BUT not in the same manner as the BOM. The Bible was written to fulfill Mt 28:18-19 and just recounts Christ teachings, whereas the BOM was authored to support your man-made- religion.

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.

Tom my friend I don’t see ANY role for the theory of dispensationalism in the bible, as I think you intimate. There is of course different faith teachings over a period of time, as God was weaning the Nation from it surrounding PAGAN neighbors, and their own OLD Pagan beliefs and practices. BUT from the time of the Exodus and the 10 Commandments; the foundation of what GOD desired to be learned and accepted, stayed constant, and was added to, not really changed.

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.

The point I was TRYING to make is this

There can be ONLY One true God

Even GOD can have ONLY one true set of Faith beliefs

And God [Christ] freely choose to establish His One TRUE [and protected] Church [Mt 16:18; Eph. 4:1-7] who ALONE have the FULLNESS of ALL that God wished to share and teach.

So Pagans would have their Temples

Jews their Synagogues

& Catholics their Church [Mt 16:18]

PLEASE CLARIFY what you are saying?
Charity, TOm

TOm, my friend, I pray this addresses your concerns, and does so in charity.

God Bless
Patrick

 

[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 filioque is really a misunderstanding by the Orthodox.

It was Nicean II council that used the phrase, the Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son.

Scripturally, The Spirit is externally sent into the world by the Son as well as the Father (John 15:26, Acts 2:33), and HE internally proceeds from both Father and Son in the Trinity. **This is why the Spirit is referred to as the Spirit of the Son (Gal. 4:6) and not just the Spirit of the Father (Matt. 10:20). **

These expressions “and the Son” or “through the Son” mean the same thing. ***Orthodox Bishop Kallistos ***Ware, who once adamantly opposed the filioque doctrine, states: “The filioque controversy which has separated us for so many centuries is more than a mere technicality, but it is not insoluble. Qualifying the firm position taken when I wrote [my book] The Orthodox Church twenty years ago, I now believe, after further study, that the problem is more in the area of semantics and different emphases than in any basic doctrinal differences” (Diakonia, quoted from Elias Zoghby’s A Voice from the Byzantine East, 43).

Catch that? After further study, Bp Ware thinks this is a semantical issue not a doctrinal issue.

 

[JimmyDFG]

I think so. See Exsurge Domine. Bull of Pope Leo X issued June 15, 1520. Also see Council of Harbonne 1244, Council of Toulouse in 1229, papal bull Ad extirpanda of 1252. Also In 1542 Pope Paul III established the Congregation of the Holy Office of the Inquisition.

You may like to have a look at these sites…

catholic.com/tracts/the-inquisition

ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/L10EXDOM.HTM

catholiceducation.org/en/culture/catholic-contributions/inquisitive-about-the-inquisition.html

 

[Tomdstone]

The filioque is really a misunderstanding by the Orthodox.

It was Nicean II council that used the phrase, the Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son.

Scripturally, The Spirit is externally sent into the world by the Son as well as the Father (John 15:26, Acts 2:33), and HE internally proceeds from both Father and Son in the Trinity. **This is why the Spirit is referred to as the Spirit of the Son (Gal. 4:6) and not just the Spirit of the Father (Matt. 10:20). **

These expressions “and the Son” or “through the Son” mean the same thing. ***Orthodox Bishop Kallistos ***Ware, who once adamantly opposed the filioque doctrine, states: “The filioque controversy which has separated us for so many centuries is more than a mere technicality, but it is not insoluble. Qualifying the firm position taken when I wrote [my book] The Orthodox Church twenty years ago, I now believe, after further study, that the problem is more in the area of semantics and different emphases than in any basic doctrinal differences” (Diakonia, quoted from Elias Zoghby’s A Voice from the Byzantine East, 43).

Catch that? After further study, Bp Ware thinks this is a semantical issue not a doctrinal issue.

That is the opinion of one bishop, not necessarily the whole Eastern Orthodox Church. AFAIK, the EO accept the phrase “through the Son” but not “from the Son”. If Roman Catholics accept “through the Son” and if they want to unite with the EO Church, why don’t they change the creed to read “through the Son” ?

 

[Tomdstone]

You may like to have a look at these sites…

ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/L10EXDOM.HTM

See #33.

 

[Tomdstone]

catholiceducation.org/en/culture/catholic-contributions/inquisitive-about-the-inquisition.html

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

 

[JimmyDFG]

See #33.

Did you miss…

“Yet, with the advice of our brothers, imitating the mercy of almighty God who does not wish the death of a sinner but rather that he be converted and live, and forgetting all the injuries inflicted on us and the Apostolic See, we have decided to use all the compassion we are capable of. It is our hope, so far as in us lies, that he will experience a change of heart by taking the road of mildness we have proposed, return, and turn away from his errors. We will receive him kindly as the prodigal son returning to the embrace of the Church.”

 

[Tomdstone]

Did you miss…

“Yet, with the advice of our brothers, imitating the mercy of almighty God who does not wish the death of a sinner but rather that he be converted and live, and forgetting all the injuries inflicted on us and the Apostolic See, we have decided to use all the compassion we are capable of. It is our hope, so far as in us lies, that he will experience a change of heart by taking the road of mildness we have proposed, return, and turn away from his errors. We will receive him kindly as the prodigal son returning to the embrace of the Church.”

Of course I did not miss that, but it is irrelevant to the fact that #33 is condemned. How do you interpret the condemnation of #33 except that it allows burning a heretic at the stake?

 

[prodromos]

That is the opinion of one bishop, not necessarily the whole Eastern Orthodox Church. AFAIK, the EO accept the phrase “through the Son” but not “from the Son”. If Roman Catholics accept “through the Son” and if they want to unite with the EO Church, why don’t they change the creed to read “through the Son” ?

Bexause the Council of Florence has dogmatically stated otherwise. They no longer have that option unless they repudiate Florence.

 

[Tomdstone]

Bexause the Council of Florence has dogmatically stated otherwise. They no longer have that option unless they repudiate Florence.

I did not know that Florence rejected the phrase “through the Son”. Someone had implied that “through the Son” and “from the Son” are the same. So according to that, if a council had taught “from the Son” it would be the same as teaching “through the Son”.

 

[PJM]

The filioque is really a misunderstanding by the Orthodox.

It was Nicean II council that used the phrase, the Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son.

Scripturally, The Spirit is externally sent into the world by the Son as well as the Father (John 15:26, Acts 2:33), and HE internally proceeds from both Father and Son in the Trinity. **This is why the Spirit is referred to as the Spirit of the Son (Gal. 4:6) and not just the Spirit of the Father (Matt. 10:20). **

These expressions “and the Son” or “through the Son” mean the same thing. ***Orthodox Bishop Kallistos ***Ware, who once adamantly opposed the filioque doctrine, states: “The filioque controversy which has separated us for so many centuries is more than a mere technicality, but it is not insoluble. Qualifying the firm position taken when I wrote [my book] The Orthodox Church twenty years ago, I now believe, after further study, that the problem is more in the area of semantics and different emphases than in any basic doctrinal differences” (Diakonia, quoted from Elias Zoghby’s A Voice from the Byzantine East, 43).

Catch that? After further study, Bp Ware thinks this is a semantical issue not a doctrinal issue.

THANKS this is one f the best and most lucid explanations I have seen on thos critical issue

GBY

Patrick

 

[PJM]

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

Not to nit pick here, but perhaps Jimmy was speaking of LARGE &[dare I say significant] religions:shrug:

GBY

 

[Wannano]

Not to nit pick here, but perhaps Jimmy was speaking of LARGE &[dare I say significant] religions:shrug:

GBY

The attitude exemplified here is so characteristic of those motivated by bloated pride and Pharasacial blindness. Jesus Christ taught that we are to love one another and to love our neighbour as our self. To just shrug and say others are insignificant and didn’t really exist because they were few in number seems unchristlike since every single human being is significant to Him.

Apparently the Waldensians were significant enough to the Catholic Church of that time for the Church to participate in the raping, pillaging, killing of women and children in an effort to destroy them completely.

Thankfully we have a Pope in our current times who in 2015 felt the Waldensians were significant enough to warrant him going directly to them on their turf and ask them to forgive the Catholic Church for the atrocities committed by the Church. Pope Francis is portraying an example that his followers would do well to heed.

May God have mercy on us all.