madeleine1
-
Posts
117 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by madeleine1
-
-
All prophecy regarding our salvation, as found in the OT and prophesied by John the Baptist (the last prophet) is fulfilled in and through Jesus Christ. He is God's Word, perfectly revealed.
Prophecy is a gift of the Holy Spirit, which is still given to some. However, the need for a prophet to lead us to God, and to Salvation, is not necessary as we have Jesus Christ. The call of a Christian is to follow Him. He is the Way.
Hebrews chapter 3 is an excellent exhortation to take head to the words of Jesus Christ. We are in partner with Him, and all the baptized share in His prophetic ministry.
Jesus gave to His Church, the gift of the Holy Spirit. It is by the Holy Spirit that people are led to Christ, not by people with messages rooted in novelty.
-
I am suggesting that love is learned. I could say it is learned from G-d through the spirit - but I have come to believe that all truth is learned from G-d through the spirit. Like any other thing learned - learning starts with discipline.
There is a saying that there is none so blind as those that will not see. In the scriptures we are commanded to love. I do not see that learning to love is that different from learning any other discipline. That love is an acquired taste and deliberately developed attribute - that comes from practice and repetition - not desire out of control or a lucky chance encounter as the “world” seems to portray love.
Maybe I am off on this but it seems to me that the scriptures are clear - we learn to love G-d by keeping the commandments. If we think we can love G-d without the discipline of the commandments we are badly mistaken - or as the scriptures very harshly say - we lie. I honestly believe that those that try or think to love G-d without the discipline of the commandments are putting the cart before the horse - they have it all backwards.
I believe that without discipline the grace of G-d is wasted. I do also understand that without the Grace of G-d discipline is impossible. So if someone keeps the commandments the only possible result is to love G-d - which is not possible without keeping the commandments. Thus it is that G-d gives us commandments out of his love and grace and we become a partner with G-d’s grace by our efforts to learn the necessary “knowledge” to become disciplined by way of G-d’s commandments - we learn love of G-d and our fellow men.
The Traveler
How do you account for love of God before Moses?
-
Hi SteveVH :)
In my own conversion to Catholicism, that was one question that I kept asking. God could have redeemed us in any way, yet the way we are redeemed is through the suffering and death of the Son of God. Isaiah 43 teaches the redemptive value of the suffering servant, very beautifully.
Looking to the Sacrament of Anointing the Sick, we see Christ as physician. The one who heals us, body and soul. So we are not left to suffer alone, and suffering with another (such as a you did with your brother) is, I believe, the greatest act of charity.
-
madeliene1,
Many trimes I have had it pointed in sermons and bible studies that we (ie any member of the church) are saints, even had it personalized that we all individually are saints. I would have no problem saying I'm a saint, albeit only through the grace of God. It is not me that makes me a saint but what Jesus has done for me. (I might even change my posting name to St AnthonyB)
There is a song at the moment by "Third Day" that goes....
We are the saints, we are the children, we've been redeemed, we've been forgiven
We are the sons and daughters of our God
We are the saints, we are the children, we've been redeemed, we've been forgiven
We are the sons and daughters of our God
I agree. :)
-
Yes, that is one English translation. "Holy ones" is another translation. Writing to a group of people and calling them the holy ones, is not the same as walking around calling yourself a holy one.
We acknowledge we are made holy by Christ, we also acknowledge our sins, which makes us less than holy. So, walking around calling yourself a "saint"??? You'd get looks like this. 
But, I think LDS use the word saint in a different way, more like a title is what I perceive. -
If I may butt in for just a moment. :)
A little delving into the etymology of the word "saint" finds us at the Latin sanctus, which means holy or sacred.
In Catholicism, holiness is the word we use to describe several different things. A person is made holy by their baptism, a person lives a holy life, a person's soul is found holy before God (they are in heaven).
I think this compares closely to the Mormon idea of "sanctified", which is also rooted in the Latin sanctus.
In terms of the anglicized word "saint", it is then implicit in our understanding of holiness, that we are indeed sanctified, and thus we are saints. In Catholic writings you will find a distinction that is made, sometimes with "saint", lowercase, and "Saint" uppercase. Both are descriptive of a person who is holy, the lowercase being a living person, the uppercase being one who has died and their soul is in heaven.
"Saint" as LDS use it is acceptable to Catholics, in the form of describing the baptized, the Body of Christ, as a holy people. Just it is not our cultural tradition to use it in that manner. We use in English, as I already said, the word "holy", and as I said, in the root of its meaning (sanctus), we're still indicating the same thing.
If you look at non-English Catholic speakers and writings, as an example Italian, "saint" is translated to "santo", and "holy" is translated to "santo". There is no distinction in the meaning, or understanding.
Mormonism, being American-English in its origins, does not have the Latin meaning and usage of words that have been retained in Roman Catholicism. So it looks to us that the word "saint" has been redefined by LDS to mean something other than its original.
Hope that helps.
-
It is the deposit of faith.
Therefore, brothers, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught, either by an oral statement or by a letter of ours. (2 Thess 2:15)
O Timothy, guard what has been entrusted to you. (1 Tim 6:20)
I now feel a need to write to encourage you to contend for the faith that was once for all handed down to the holy ones. (Jude 1:3)
-
Quite a few former Catholics have told me they went to Catholic schools, yet, know nothing of the Catholic faith. I worked with a woman who says she was an altar server, but knew little of Church teaching. There's a small bunch at CARM, one who claims to have been a nun for a short while. So such a claim doesn't mean much to me. I go by what people are saying, inferring, and ultimately their actions. There is a wide gulf in what is conveyed as known and what actually is doctrine.
I have twice weekly access to very good teaching from good, orthodox clergy, and have so for nearly four years. I can see you are looking up stuff on the internet, but seem to be putting it together in a fashion that doesn't align to Church teaching. People at CARM do this too, so, you aren't alone.
Doesn't matter. Some stranger on the internet isn't going to convince you that you've gone off and made up your own idea of Catholicism.
Have a good evening.
-
A recent proclamation. Valid Apostolic Succession as far as the Catholics are concerned is through the throne of Peter and the seat of Rome. Communion with the Orthodox did not happen until post Vatican II and it presupposed that the Orthodox churches acknowledge that the Roman Pontiff leads all of them. And even then Anglicans are excluded. Some Orthodox churches are only in partial communion including the Protestants.
How long have you been Catholic? It doesn't seem like you've been a Catholic long.
I thought it was a rhetorical question. There's no difference between definitions of the Body of Christ between Catholic and LDS. The Body of Christ is His Church. Jesus is the Head, the Church is the Body.
The difference is - you believe that the One Holy and Apostolic Church is the Catholic Church. Of course, the LDS don't. We believe that the Body of Christ is the seat of the Holy Priesthood which, today, is held by the LDS Church. But, the Body of Christ is not a mortal concept. It's an eternal concept. We believe in pre-mortal existence and we believe that the work continues past the veil of death. All people - even those who live in the mountains of Coldiliera who has never heard of the name Jesus before will have the opportunity to join the Body of Christ after death. Because, madeleine, baptism is NOT OPTIONAL.
Like I said, you have not been Catholic long or you never studied your own Church's Doctrines or you are not really a Catholic.
Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus. Remember that from Catechism? How about Bull Cantate Domino of Pope Eugene IV. This doctrine has been in existence in the Catholic Church and still exists until today. In Bull Cantate Domino, Pope Eugne IV proclaims ex cathedra:
"The Most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, also Jews, heretics, and schismatics can ever be partakers of eternal life, but that they are to go into the eternal fire 'which was prepared for the devil and his angels' (Mt. 25:41) unless before death they are joined with Her... No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ can be saved unless they abide within the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church."
Maybe you need to study Catholicism more, madeleine.
You're not offending me. Unlike Catholic Answers Forum that bans people (yep, me included) for trying to explain non-Catholic faith and declare it proselyting, we welcome learning here on LDS.net.
And for your information, Joseph Smith was not alone when John the Baptist conferred the priesthood on his head. Oliver Cowdery was with him and he received his priesthood in the same manner on the same day.
And, it's kinda silly for you to say "we believe in this vision without evidence" when you're a Catholic who claims a history of Marian Apparitions. It's like the pot calling the kettle black.
The number of witnesses to an ordination does not make the ordination valid. Only God makes it valid - and there does not have to be a single person in witness for God to make it valid. He ordained Moses in this manner, the Apostle Paul in the same manner.
And since you're not well-versed on Catholic History, I'm not going to expound on the times of persecution when the Papal seat was in chaos. You can read up on it from your trusted Catholic sources so you will know I'm not just making it up.
Like I said multiple times before (I guess you don't read my posts), the Church is not a mortal ministry. It is an ETERNAL ministry. The Priesthood may not be on earth but it still continues to exist in the hands of the Saints past death. Paul did not receive his priesthood from the hands of man - he received it straight from Christ - after Chirst's death. And just like Jesus Resurrection from death on the cross, the Body of Christ is not put asunder by DEATH nor SIN.
I read your posts. Don't have a lot of time to reply to everything though.
Salvation outside the church, basic stuff, good resource hre:
Outside The Church There Is No Salvation
For those who leave Catholicism, most certainly true. Not hopeless, as there is always hope, found in Jesus Christ. For those who have never heard or accepted our most holy religion, as put in the link provided, Salvation is still possible.
What non-Catholics and many Catholics fail to understand is what Church is, as taught by the Catholic Church since the beginning. I tried to explain, but it isn't getting through.
At any rate, I am a convert to Catholicicsm yes, and there are cultural practices thoughout the world that aren't found where I am. The Phillipines has many cultural practices, that aren't practiced here, or anywherei have been to Mass. I have a couple of friends who are from the Phillipines, they lament that catechesis there wasn't strong on doctrine. I also am involved in our RCIA, where I teach people who are converting to Catholicism.
As for Marian apparitions, I converted without believing in them at all. I am a convert from atheism, and still have that skepticism about things people claim. The apparitions have many witnesses, so therefore more of a rational belief to them. I have never read the Joseph Smith's first vision had anyone there but himself. So I don't see that there is any rational thought behind believing his claims. I can see how a Catholic raised in a more superstious type of Catholic environment would find Smith's claims to be no different than the superstions they knew. Superstious Catolicism being an issue in some parts of the world. It isn't where I am, for the most part.
I will leave it at that, as there isn't anything going on here that requires my time, and I don't have a lot of it.
Peace.
-
Anatess, The Catholic a church is not just the Church in Rome, it is all churches that have valid Apostolic succession. This includes the Orthodox, who are in every sense catholic, with valid Holy Orders. John Paul II called the east and west the "two lungs" of the Church.
All who profess the One True God of the Christian faith, Father, Son and Holy Spirit comprise the Body of Christ. I asked what is this Body to you, you haven't answered.
It is a heretical belief to claim there is no salvation outside of Christ's Church. This has always been the doctrine of the Catholic church, and still is. This is understood in the light of Christ's Church being the means to salvation, via Baptism, Confirmation and Eucharist. Even a non-Christian is saved through Christ's Church, the Church being the presence of Jesus in the world until His return. The Holy Spirit seeks the hearts of all people, and calls them to Christ. I would never claim that the Holy Spirit is at work somewhere but not somewhere else, and it wouldn't be Catholic doctrine to make this claim either.
Church not being an institution but a sign and a communion. All who profess Jesus is Lord, are in this communion. This Communion is perfected through Christ, in the Sacraments of His Church. An extra pouring out of the Holy Spirit is given to those who receive the Sacraments of Christ's Church. This does not mean the Holy Spirit is absent elsewhere.
Our Bishops are in communion with each other. Individual Bishops can and have left the communion of the Catholic Church, do you think this doesn't happen in Mormonism? Why are you LDS and not a member of the Community of Christ? So you believe Jesus preserved the LDS church, protecting it and guiding it? If you do, why would you believe Jesus did not protect and guide the Church He established during His ministry?
I'm not seeking to offend you, because I know the LDS belief in the Joseph Smith's first vision is an important aspect of your faith. But there is no evidence for what he claimed to see, at all, none. There was no one with him to witness. You believe in this vision without evidence. Any person can claim to have visions, alone, in secret. I'm not bound to believe these visions.
On the other hand, no Bishop is alone, a Bishop is ordained with a community there to witness the ordination. The laying on of hands is done by more than one Bishop, so the ordination is not done by one person. A Bishop leads a group of people, which is canonically his own church, exactly the same as you will find in the New Testament and every Christian historical document until the Protestant reformation, when groups broke off and changed or stopped ordinations in their own churches. The catholic churches continue this same ordination, to this day. (Available on youtube now for anyone to see.) What more evidence would you like?
In addition to this, Jesus promised that the gates of hell would not prevail against His Church, and promised not to leave us as orphans. Certainly we believe what Jesus taught.
-
Some Catholics see signs of the apostasy spoken of in Thessalonians as now, given the state of a secular world that is based on relativism. However there is no description or prophesy of a total apostasy as Mormons believe.
To believe priesthood authority was lost is to believe the Apostles failed in their commission. One would have to view the Apostles and what they experienced in a strange sort of way n order to believe this. Let alone history, that shows clearly they were steadfast in following the Words of Jesus Christ, ordaining Bishops and Priests to replace themselves, as described by St. Ignatius in in 107AD.
As therefore the Lord did nothing without the Father, being united to Him, neither by Himself nor by the apostles, so neither do ye anything without the bishop and presbyters. Neither endeavor that anything appear reasonable and proper to yourselves apart; but being come together into the same place, let there be one prayer, one supplication, one mind, one hope, in love and in joy undefiled.
This apostolic succession was never lost, and remains in place today, every Bishop able to trace back very far the line of apostolic succession, which is sacramental, a sanctifying grace of the Holy Spirit. The first clergy ordained by the laying on of hands by the Apostles themselves, this being the Sacrament we call Holy Orders. They ordained successors, to this day. Apostolic succession being of major importance in the Catholic Church. The argument used against heresies that arose, such as Arianism, that there was in them no apostolic succession.
The Mormon view is this was completely loss, but given the importance it has always had, from the very beginning, and the historical evidence of Apostolic succession, a claim otherwise would require evidence.
So while you may say LDS teaching is that there is good in a lot of places, the teaching remains that none of this "good" is ecclesiastical. This is denying the role of God in His own Church, requiring a view that Jesus Christ, through the Holy Spirit, failed in keeping His own Body alive. You may see "good" but you don't see what is more important, and that is the workings of the Holy Spirit through the ages, the continuing existence of the Catholic Church only possible by the graces given to her. Given the trials she has been through, from within and without, there isn't any other way to explain the continuity of faith, the very faithful who have given witness of the Truth of Jesus Christ. The profession of His death, resurrection and our faithful watch for His return. All,of this would not exist today, we're it not for the Holy Spirit guiding what belongs to Jesus.
-
Ah, I get you now. Your opinion is based on several misconceptions. I'm okay with that. I can't expect you to understand where Mormons are coming from since I'm under the impression that you didn't "study" the Mormon faith. And that's just fine.
If you don't mind, I'll break some misconceptions you have just so we can have a better dialogue.
1.) The "Great Apostasy" (myth or otherwise) does not imply that there is NO TRUTH in the Catholic Church or any other church for that matter. Neither does it imply that the Holy Spirit ceased to testify to Catholics or any other church the truth of Jesus Christ.
If the LDS prophet proclaims, Jesus Christ is our Savior and Redeemer and only through Him do we find salvation, it is true. If the Catholic pope proclaims, Jesus Christ is our Savior and Redeemer and only through Him do we find salvation, it doesn't make it false.
It is so important that we all recognize and acknowledge this fact that Joseph Smith felt impressed to make this one of the LDS Articles of Faith:
"We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may."
and
"We believe in being honest, true, chaste, benevolent, virtuous, and in doing good to all men; indeed, we may say that we follow the admonition of Paul—We believe all things, we hope all things, we have endured many things, and hope to be able to endure all things. If there is anything virtuous, lovely, or of good report or praiseworthy, we seek after these things."
Note, that "anything virtuous, lovely, or of good report or praiseworthy" is not exclusive to the LDS faith. They are found everywhere - Catholic Church as well. We acknowledge it and give credence to it and to make sure everyone understands it, it is in the Articles of Faith - a brief summary of who we are.
2.) The "Great Apostasy" does not imply that Christ's Church and Christ's Plan for our Salvation got put asunder or "orphaned". Man does not have the power to do that. Catholics believe that the Church is an earthly organization that started in Christ's mortal ministry. We don't subscribe to that belief. We believe that the Church is an eternal organization with the Priesthood transcending the mortal experience. The Church was established when the Plan of Salvation was enacted with Christ elected as our Savior and Adam elected to be the first man to gain mortality. Adam, then, was the first prophet of the first gospel dispensation on earth. Noah re-established the Church on earth after the great flood, Jacob established the 12 Tribes of the Church on earth, Moses brought the Church out of Egypt and prophets after him established the Church in Israel, and so on and so forth until Jesus Christ came to re-establish the Church on earth and fulfill the Atonement, left the Church in the hands of Peter and re-established the Church on earth in the hands of Joseph Smith. The entire time, the Church continues to live, if not on earth, then in immortal life.
Therefore, just because Priesthood Authority was absent from mortal hands in the Great Apostasy (and all the broken mortal lines before that) doesn't mean that the Church is destroyed. The Church remains in the hands of Elijah, John the Baptist, Peter, etc., all of whom continue to minister to the Church beyond mortality. This dogma is present in the Atonement - the Church that is the Body of Christ is neither destroyed by death nor sin. He lives.
But, as a Catholic, I don't expect you to accept that the Great Apostasy is true. And that's just fine. But, when discussing differences between Mormon and Catholic doctrine, it is better not to throw dialogue-stopping commentary like "it's all make-believe" or "Mormons are just another form of Protestants" because both statements are very false. You will not find me telling you that the Marian Apparitions are "make-believe" - I may not believe that they are divine but I will not tell you your faith in the Marian Apparitions are "make-believe". Likewise, when I was Catholic, I may not believe that the Father and Jesus appearing to Joseph Smith was a true account, but I will not tell LDS people who have faith in it dabbling in "make-believe" or are "silly". And, of course, there is nothing Protestant about Mormons at all. We did not list a set of complaints against the Catholic Church to protest on... In any case, these types of comments is what stops dialogue and so it goes nowhere. And I say this to both sides of the discussion - LDS people are sometimes guilty of making dialogue-stopping comments as well.
Okay, hopefully, that re-establishes open dialogue on both sides. The point of the discussion is not to "win" an argument. The point of the discussion is to understand where the other person is coming from. The rest boils down to Faith. You have Faith in the authority of the Catholic Priesthood, we have Faith in the authority of the LDS Priesthood. And on that, we can only agree to disagree. Faith is not changed by these types of discussions. Faith is only changed by the promptings of the Holy Spirit.
Thank you for the explanation. A few points to clarify, the Church that Christ established is the Kingdom of God on earth, united by Christ to the Kingdom of God in heaven. This is the basis of the doctrine of the communion of saints. There is but one faith, one baptism, one Lord. Christ established the Kingdom of God on earth. It is here now, visible in His Church, and His Body, which are the baptized. My understanding is that Mormons are still waiting for Christ's Kingsom to be established, so in this view, the Mormon understanding of "Church" is seriously flawed. Who is the Body of Christ to a Mormon?
The idea that there was a "church" in the OT is not founded on anything scriptural. The OT prophecies of the establishment of the Kingdom of God, it never speaks of it being present to Noah, Moses or anyone else. This is because it was not yet established. It is prophesied to be established by the Messiah. So to claim it was established before the Messiah....I wouldn't even know where that idea would come from.
I have already known that Mormonism has a skewed view of the OT, and God's saving grace. God is eternal and ever present. People wander, but the clear message of the OT is God never abandons His people. Many, many times God's Mercy is revealed, His Final and Perfect Mercy revealed in Jesus Christ, who is the fulfillment of the prophecies and promises of the old testament. He is the New and Everlasting Covenant. I have never read any LDS material that shows even a glimmer of an understanding that the OT relates salvation history. Rather, I find only an idea that the OT relates a history of apostasy.
It is this skewed view that the idea of a great apostasy arises from. Rather than seeing God's work and glory, you see failure, expect failure. It is a skeptical way to see the world. His greatest work is made in us and through us, not around us. We are all sinners, in need of Salvation. God Saved us in our sin. The Mormon view has to deny the work of God. There is no other way to make the conclusions made by LDS without taking that stance.
This is not unique to Mormonism, it is a view of Protestants as well, just the ad hoc date given for the complete failure of Christ's Church is different.
You must understand, from a Catholic view, a claim that priesthood authority was lost is at best naive, at worse, ludicrous. There is no evidence for a claim, and mountains of evidence otherwise.
As for Mary and apparitions, this is not the first time a response to me has tried to make a comparison that cannot be made. The Marian apparitions are verified by either a large number of witnesses, such as at Fatima, or by miracles, signs that the person or persons were not making up a story, such as Our Lady Of Guadalupe and Juan Diegos's tilma. They also must be tested against the faith of the Church, at cannot be at odds with what has already been revealed by Jesus Christ. Lacking in any of these properties, an apparition is a personal revelation, and no one is bound to believe personal revelation as binding on the Church. At any rate, such apparitions are not dogmas or doctrines that must be believed. A person can be a devout Catholic, and never personally accept these apparitions. This is not the case for the Mormon teaching we are discussing. What we are discussing must be believed in order to be a Mormon. There is a lack of evidence for the claims...that is why I say, it is make believe. There is no evidence, and so appears to me to be believed for no other reason than it brings a level of personal satisfaction or happiness.
-
Shelly, I could never ignore you and your great comments.
I think my thought, as one reads more of Irenaeus, is his belief that one can actually become wholly divine, even as God is. This is different than what many Christians believe today. They believe one can become "divine" in a lesser sense than being as God is, because man is of other substance than God.
As St Augustine noted, "God became man, so man may become god." This goes beyond the concept of traditional Christianity of a divine being, such as an angel or glorified being that is similar, but not God.
St. Augustine was speaking of the Catholic faith, that is centered and sourced in the Eucharist. The Body, Blood and Divinity of Jesus Christ received into ourselves. St. Augustine also clearly rooted in the understanding that the creature does not become the Creator, but becomes by grace what he is not by nature. The sacramental graces imparting sanctifying graces, the first is baptism, where through Jesus Christ we are born in water and spirit as children of God, no longer creatures, but children of the light. We do not become the Light itself.
Th sacraments prefigure the life to come, just as the sacrificial lamb prefigures the Lamb of God.
-
Don't back out yet! The discussion is getting really interesting. I'd like to know what you see as make believe. I used to be Catholic, so I usually can understand where Catholics are coming from, but the "make believe" claim here is not something I get...
I'm not backing out, I just don't find that these kind of discussions go anywhere. Mormonism has a foundation that our creeds are an abomination and those who profess them are corrupt. (That would be me.)An unfounded myth of a "great apostasy", which all bleeds through in everything Mormons say. Such a belief must deny a lot of facts, faith and the working of Holy Spirit in the Church that Jesus established. Which all looks to me as only possible by pretending people, events, places, experiences, didn't and don't exist. Taken even deeper into make believe when you consider that all the witnesses of faith of Our Lord Jesus Christ need to be turned into a Mormon faith in order to be made valid.
-
Ouch. You hurt me. I guess that means you win? You say "with all respect" and then call it "silliness". I don't know how to read that, except maybe as hypocritical hogwash?
It isn't silliness. As noted, I am simply showing that your belief is not as monolithic as you claim. Nor is everything from the past definably Catholic, simply because your church is the oldest. Christ condemned the Jews for moving away from their true temple worship and faith. He brought a restoration of ancient things in his days, even though the Jews around him could make claim that their system had been in place since the Tabernacle of Moses. They were, after all, children of Abraham!
That I am showing evidence of ancient things that do agree with Mormonism and not with Catholicism is not calling Catholicism out. It is stating that Catholicism is not the ancient Christian church is may claim to be, but is just a very old Christian church. The Early Church Fathers are NOT Catholic Fathers. Otherwise, you would have to accept the writings of Origen, rather than St Augustine and St Jerome, who thought Origen was a heretic. Funny, he was not considered a heretic in his own day, only centuries later!
And that is the point I'm driving at. If you are going to exclusively make claims of ownership, then you must own ALL of it! Otherwise, you must change the claim to say that you use some of it, but not all. LDS do not follow all that the ECF wrote, either. But we do not make the faith claim that the original church continued since the days of Christ. Instead, we claim to be restorationist. Joseph Smith had ancient things revealed to him, as well as new things for a new world. By quoting some ECF and other ancient documents, we can see that Joseph Smith DID restore some ancient things that traditional Christianity has not believed in millennia.
That does not make traditional Christianity bad. Instead, it means they did the best they could without continuing revelation. Sadly, some things were lost along the way, or replaced by other teachings and beliefs. I mentioned Limbo before, which was recently rejected by the current Pope, even though the concept has been Catholic dogma for centuries. The history of Limbo Infantium is found here at the official Catholic Encyclopedia, New Advent: CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Limbo
In the Council of Carthage (418), St Augustine convinced the council to reject Pelagianism, or a Limbo for infants. He believed and successfully taught as Catholic dogma for centuries that infants would go to hell. It wasn't until St Anselm (1100) came along that the dogma of Limbo was put in place. And it remained for 900 years, until the current Pope agreed that there is no doctrinal evidence for Limbo Infantium.
That said, does this make the Catholic Church wrong, bad, or immoral? No. It means there is a serious issue concerning infant salvation that the Church has struggled with for a very long time. The LDS Church has had to struggle with certain issues, as well.
The only difference is that we may receive current revelation to answer such an issue and become new doctrine/scripture for us.
I respect the inherent dignity given to you by God, that gifts us with the desire to seek Him, and the gift to do so in freedom. This doesn't mean that I can't judge something as having an irrational foundation, which is what I mean by "silly".
Limbo is a subject that is thought about, theologically speaking, and has had different conclusions. Jesus teaching baptism is required, yet, Apostolic teaching that the saving grace of Jesus can extend to the non-believer. So it isnt a struggle, it is a subject that has no further Revelation. Theology is the practice of faith seeking understanding of what has been Revealed by God. Specific to a Christian, Revealed by the Word of God, Jesus Christ.
Contrary to the media coverage of the Vatican statement, the teaching of limbo has not changed. It remains, that Jesus taught baptism is required, and within the doctrinal teachings of the graces received in baptism, it wouldn't make any sense whatsoever to withhold baptism from an infant, not any more than it would to withhold food or clothing. Baptism being a joyous occassion, that is celebrated. The beginning of a child's initiation into the Body of Christ and the Kingdom of God.
What the Vatican clarifies is that it has always been Church teaching that the saving grace of Jesus Christ is the source, the very hope, of salvation for ALL, and so the hope for salvation of infants who have died without baptism, is the same hope we all have. This hope not being of the type that is wishing for something to happen that may or may not happen, it is a sure hope, Hope having a name, Jesus Christ.
At the same time Catholics are very careful about sins against the Holy Spirit. One being, the belief and associated actions that are based on thinking one can do whatever they like, and then just seek forgiveness. This is the sin of presumption. The other is, thinking that ones's sins are so terrible, that they can never be forgiven. This sin denies Jesus Christ. This is not to say, an infant need worry about actual sin, but that the Church has a responsibility to lead people to Christ. That is the reason for her existence, and is her sole mission, as commissioned by Jesus Christ.
-
Madeleine, this is a non-sequitur. It only follows if we all agree that Irenaeus and others are "Catholic sources", which many Christians do not agree with, including Mormons. I can show historically that Roman bishops were not considered THE Pope for centuries later. There were many groups, such as the Montanists, who rejected papal authority, believing the authority lay with the convention of bishops, or with the bishop in Constantinople or Jerusalem, etc. In fact, this led to the Great Schism. So, while you are welcome to make a claim that the early Christian Fathers were Catholic/patristic Fathers, I should be welcome to challenge that concept. This is, after all, a discussion forum.
The Early Christian Fathers attempted to understand the Bible and Christ from the teachings in their day. That Irenaeus described the Garden and Fall differently than many traditional Christians today is the point I wished to get at. He saw man as having a divine potential in his future, not as being divine when created. I am not saying he saw everything perfectly with Mormonism, as I know he does not. I am just showing that many early Fathers saw things differently than traditional Christianity does today.
The LDS Church is a restorationist Church. Therefore we believe that many ancient beliefs that have been lost are restored in the last days. That I can show evidence from ancient Jews and Christians that agree with some LDS restored concepts suggests that these concepts may indeed have been lost and restored. What it definitely shows is that traditional Christianity does not follow many of the concepts accepted by the early Church Fathers, etc.
I'm not out to rip the Catholic Church into pieces. I believe it to be a great Christian church. I'm just showing that each of our religions is different from the early Church, and yet also have similarities with the ancient Church. I do not expect the LDS Church to perfectly reflect the Church in Jesus' day, especially when we believe in continuing revelation. However, I also want to note that the Catholic and other traditional Christian churches don't follow several early beliefs, either.
*shrug* all things that are known and taught to any Catholic that has spent even a small amount of time studying their faith.
Mormons come from a Protestant tradition and make Protestant arguments, which are not new, have been addressesed, and at the root, deny the ability of Jesus Christ to keep His own Church in tact.
It isn't a Carholic view. We believe Jesus Christ has never orphaned what is His.
-
Actually, Catholicism and Mormonism has a unique relationship in that Mormonism doesn't stand unless Apostolic Authority is corrupted.
Rame's historical account vis-a-vis yours and Shelly's accounts of the origins of the doctrine of the nature of God are completely valid in determining the validity of the doctrine of the Godhead versus the Trinity.
Mormonism does not stand on tradition. It stands on a restoration by direct revelation from Jesus Christ Himself. The restored doctrine of the Godhead is a VISUAL account. Joseph Smith SAW God the Father and the Son. Whereas the doctrine of the Trinity is a concensus. Big difference. So that, the authority (or lack thereof) of the Councils become very very important as well as the presence of a similitude to a Godhead doctrine in the early church from Christ's mortal ministry to impress that the Mormon doctrine is truly a restoration and not a "new doctrine that only existed as of 200 years ago".
Thinking on the Mormon perspective as presented on this forum, and with all respect, there seems to be a lot of make believe going on in order to prop up faith. Ignoring the witness of 2000 years of the faithful is pretty astounding, to take that further and claim those faithful were really aspiring Mormons is just plain make believe.
Silliness, really. Which might be interesting to poke at, but can't be taken seriously. I think I've done enough poking, don't want to waste my time or that of people here.
Peace.
-
As I said, the patristics were Catholic, most certainly weren't Mormon, which didn't exist until 200 years ago.
There is a risk of sophistry when pulling out what you want to believe, disregarding the teachings as a whole. Dishonest looking to the people and traditions to whom the writings testify about and to.
If Mormonism were a true religion, it should be able to stand on its own claims, and not need to build itself by ripping Catholic sources into pieces.
-
Shelly,
That's a nice try at history, but it isn't quite as cut and dried as you make it. Several early Church leaders actually quoted Greek philosophers in trying to convert Gentiles to Christianity. This, however, went exactly opposite the teachings of Christ and his apostles.
That today many Catholics and Protestants believe that the councils were directed by the Holy Spirit into defining doctrines, is not as cut and dried, either. Constantine, who convened the Nicaea Council, was not a Christian, not baptized, etc. until near his death He made the final decision as to which form God would take at Nicaea. He was, btw, very Hellenistic in his beliefs. It became not so much as to what the council decided by the Spirit, but rather which bishops Constantine chose to back. History shows that even after this council, the form of God was not totally decided. For almost another century, Arianism almost overcame Athanasian belief in a Trinity.
Second, the gifts of the Spirit were essentially rejected by the proto-orthodox Church around the same time frame. They struggled to keep extraneous Christian writings from becoming accepted and canonized by the various sects. So, they made their own list of approved Bible writings and stated nothing else could be added; that revelation was finished. The Shepherd of Hermas is an example of an early revelatory book that was rejected by St Jerome in forming his Bible, because the Shepherd was not one of the apostles. Still, many early Christians embraced the teachings therein. So, with a rejection of continuing revelation, we cannot say that the convened councils could bring about new doctrine/dogma regarding things such as the form of God, how Christ could be both Spirit and resurrected flesh (duality), and even the Infallibility of the Pope (which does not have any Biblical evidence whatsoever for it).
So, here we have St Jerome and others claiming that only apostolic (original 12) statements have any spiritual authority. Otherwise, one must rely on the Bible alone for authority. This has been recently re-enforced by the current Pope, who has approved abandoning the concept of Limbo, because there is no Biblical evidence for it. IOW, the Catholic Church is now trying to figure out again whether little babies without baptism will be saved or burn in hell (St Augustine said they would). This was decided in a council, yet is now overturned due to the reality that it does not carry the ancient apostolic authority, nor any new revelation.
So, when we really get into the history, it is not as neat and tidy as one would hope for.
And this is one reason why I strongly believe in the need for modern prophets and apostles, who can receive new revelation regarding key issues, such as whether Athanasius or Arius were right, or whether both were wrong; or what will happen to little children who die without baptism.
Constantine was on the side of Arius. He was baptized on his death bed by an Arian Bishop, who he had relied on throughout his life for council. So if the council had gone the way of Constantine, Arianism would have prevailed. It didn't, all the Bishops present (about 300) were in agreement on the nature of Jesus Christ, but 5, one of whom was Arius.
The council was then comprised of Eastern Bishops, with a legate representing the congregation of the Western Bishops. The West having already rejected Arius and his heresies long before the council was held. Arius had been excommunicated by his Bishop in the west, and so had taken his teachings east.
It should be noted that excommunication in the Catholic Church is rare.
As for metaphysics, it isn't used to create doctrine, it is used to describe it. God created us with the ability to reason. Faith and reason are not in opposition, both being gifts that God has given us. The Holy Spirit guides and protects Christ's Church, and has done so since Jesus established it.
St. Jerome didn't decide the canon of the Bible, it had been decided before his time. He translated the canon into Latin. The canon itself wasn't completely set until the council of Trent. In response to the Protestants who were removing books from the OT, the council declared that books could not be removed or added to the canon as it had existed at that point for about a 1000 years, unchanged.
As for where which books are in the Bible, or not. The Catholic Bible consists of the OT as it was used at the time of Christ, in Jerusalem, which was the Greek Septuagint. The NT came into being over time, the writings known as the four Gospels and the letters of St Paul, the Johannine corpus and the letters of St. peter. These had been copied and shared among the churches. These, along with Sacred Tradition, is what comprise the faith handed on. Hebrews and James were the most controversial, some churches not using them.
In some of the Eastern churches you will find a different canon, such as the Coptics, who have included books that the western churches and most of the eastern churches do not.
This doesn't cause concern, as the Apostolic faith is what is important to all Catholics, east and west. Sacred scripture and sacred tradition are the two ways in which the Gospel of Jesus Christ is revealed. Our scripture, being a part of sacred tradition.
Non-canonical writings are valued, and used, as well as patristics writings, because they contain and convey sacred tradition, but they are not considered scripture.
-
Ever since the creation of the world, his invisible attributes of eternal power and divinity have been able to be understood and perceived in what he has made. As a result, they have no excuse; for although they knew God they did not accord him glory as God or give him thanks. Instead, they became vain in their reasoning, and their senseless minds were darkened. While claiming to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for the likeness of an image of mortal man or of birds or of four-legged animals or of snakes. (Romans 1:20-23)
I'm not trying to insult, but this is what I see in Mormon thought.
I found this article, written by a Lutheran pastor. I think it sums up well the differences I am seeing. Christianity is based on the theology of the Cross, Mormonism is based on the theology of Glory.
The Theology of the Cross: Cross-Shaped Theology by Todd Wilken
The foundational beliefs between Mormonism and Christianity are beyond divergent and I can't see where there is any area of agreement. I don't see any reason to stick around just to hit this fact over and over again.
Peace.
-
What? That question doesn't make sense. God is God. I'm kind of seeing an idea here that Mormons think they are gods. You are not.
-
Connie,
It comes from the Hellenism of Judaism and Christianity. Aristotle and other Greek philosophers described God, as being one being of Spirit. God was pure, and we are not, therefore we are of a different substance than God, and can never be exactly like him, as we can never be of the same pure substance God is made of.
Early Christianity accepted an anthropomorphic God, with Christ as a subordinate God under the Father. The early apologist Origen was very clear about this. However, more and more Christians sought to use Greek philosophy to convert the world to Christ. They determined that there is only one God, that he is a Spirit, that he is the Unmoved Mover, etc., all Aristotelian concepts. The Nicene Council was convened in 325 AD to determine just what God was - demonstrating clearly that the concept of the Trinity was not a settled idea from the days of the apostles and Christ. As I noted, those writings are very anthropomorphic (such as Stephen's stoning, or Christ on the cross asking God why he forsook Jesus, etc).
Even after the Nicene Council, it wasn't settled. For another century, the concept of separate Gods almost won out. The key leader for the Trinity, Athanasius was actually exiled for a time.
SonInMe notes a major difference in belief that has to do with ex nihilo creation (creation from nothing). This is also an Aristotelian concept. Yet, the best readings of the Bible show that the world was formed from previous material, and that there was a divine council of beings. Kerry Shirts made an interesting statement recently: They killed Joseph Smith for these teachings, yet today many universities give out advanced degrees for theses on such concepts!
Yet, Origen was Catholic, believing and speaking of the Real Presence of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist. And so, Origen is not speaking of the Mormon concept of deity, but of the Carholic, which is, we become by grace what we are not by nature. This being prefigured in the Eucharist.
Pagan converts to Christianity held anthropomorphic beliefs, some for a long time after their conversin to Christ. To make God in the image of oneself is considered a form of idolatry, and always has been.
-
As already stated Genesis, and then also Psalm 148.
It is also obvious, by reason, we do not have the attributes of God. We are not All Powereful, infinite and eternal. We are created. God begets God, God creates man, man begets man. God did not beget man. The only begotten of God is Jesus Christ. True God from True God.
God is God, and the belief that man is a god is the innovation.
-
According to the responses I've read so far, am I to understand that man without a body is a god?
I've seen maureen and madeline post this.
BTW, happy new year
No, I didn't post that and it is not belief or doctrine. What you just wrote is a categorical error. God is God, man is not, no matter what pieces you break us into.
We are made in the image and likeness of God. We are not God.
Ask a Catholic
in Christian Beliefs Board
Posted
In my diocese, we have a Catholic newspaper that spreads the word (Intermountain Catholic). There are also bulletins at Mass that have a section for all updates in the parish, diocese, and world of all things Catholic. In some instances announcements are given by the priest at Mass. I also am on the parish email list and get email updates that way. Most of the time the same information is in the Sunday bulletin. I pay attention to Catholic news services and blogs, off and on.