The Second Great Awakening and Mormonism

Patheos ^

[daniel1212]

That was the occasion, yet his statements expressed the broader Catholic doctrine, and as one of your own says,

Before Vatican II, it (Unam Sanctam) was typically considered Ex-Cathedra...In the context of Unam Sanctam, Pope Boniface had the (Greek) Orthodox in mind...The bull concludes with this powerful and unambiguous statement: Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff. (http://www.orthodoxanswers.org/media/documents/papalinfallibility.pdf)

But your raising the issue of Unum Sanctum shows that your position is stuck in the Middle Ages. Dominus Iesus is quite clear on this. And the divide between Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy hasn’t always been clear cut, particularly as far as the Patriarchates of Antioch and Alexandria have been concerned. Intercommunion remained a frequent occurrence until the 18th century when the Melkite Schism happened. As far as the contemporary magisterium is concerned, the Orthodox Churches enjoy a “certain although imperfect communion” with the Catholic Church.

Be assured i am aware of that, and am not stuck in the past, but it shows that what the affirmation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus can result in. The fact is that this “reformulation” of an statement held as Ex-Cathedra (although Roman Catholics have no infallible canon of all infallible statements, as EOs also point out) is problematic, as many including sedevacantists contend, as are other changes.

Intercommunion remained a frequent occurrence until the 18th century when the Melkite Schism happened. As far as the contemporary magisterium is concerned, the Orthodox Churches enjoy a “certain although imperfect communion” with the Catholic Church.

I am aware of that, but it remains that you are divided and critically opposed despite both holding to Scripture and tradition, and many Catholics are opposed to reconciliation of doctrinal grounds, and while Rome can claim universal jurisdiction and the power of coercive punishment, effectively she is as one denomination seeking to have dominion over the faith of all. And which your own contend against:

That was the occasion, yet his statements expressed the broader Catholic doctrine, and as one of your own says,

Before Vatican II, it (Unam Sanctam) was typically considered Ex-Cathedra...In the context of Unam Sanctam, Pope Boniface had the (Greek) Orthodox in mind...The bull concludes with this powerful and unambiguous statement: Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff. (http://www.orthodoxanswers.org/media/documents/papalinfallibility.pdf)

But your raising the issue of Unum Sanctum shows that your position is stuck in the Middle Ages. Dominus Iesus is quite clear on this. And the divide between Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy hasn’t always been clear cut, particularly as far as the Patriarchates of Antioch and Alexandria have been concerned. Intercommunion remained a frequent occurrence until the 18th century when the Melkite Schism happened. As far as the contemporary magisterium is concerned, the Orthodox Churches enjoy a “certain although imperfect communion” with the Catholic Church.

Be assured i am aware of that, and am not stuck in the past, but it shows that what the affirmation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus can result in. The fact is that this “reformulation” of an statement held as Ex-Cathedra (although Roman Catholics have no infallible canon of all infallible statements, as EOs also point out) is problematic, as many including sedevacantists contend, as are other changes.

Intercommunion remained a frequent occurrence until the 18th century when the Melkite Schism happened. As far as the contemporary magisterium is concerned, the Orthodox Churches enjoy a “certain although imperfect communion” with the Catholic Church.

I am aware of that, but it remains that you are divided and critically opposed despite both holding to Scripture and tradition, and many Catholics are opposed to reconciliation of doctrinal grounds, and while Rome can claim universal jurisdiction and the power of coercive punishment, effectively she is as one denomination seeking to have dominion over the faith of all.

[Syncro]

I have been taking communion as directed by the Bible for over 30 years.

Is your communion the Body and Blood of Christ? Or is it some sort of optional symbolic gesture?

I only answer condescending frivolous questions once.

You will have to crack open a Bible and study up on what "taking communion as directed by the Bible" means if you wish to do it the way Jesus directed.

If you prefer to do it the way men spiffed it up, I'm sure God will understand.

Line up a hundred "standard" Christians and you'll count 110 different beliefs.

I'm sorry you are so closed minded and hostile to the simple message of the Gospel that you have to try to make your point with an ad hominem straw man attack.

Merry Christmas to you in this season of the celebration of the birth of Jes...er, ah, well, that is the Eucharist.

[daniel1212]

Scripture is the supreme judge of all, and which does not lead to all the early church watching the same play every week.

[daniel1212]

Amen

“How shall we escape, if we neglect so great salvation; which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed unto us by them that heard him; God also bearing them witness, both with signs and wonders, and with divers miracles, and gifts of the Holy Ghost, according to his own will? “ (Hebrews 2:3-4)

[RobbyS]

Masonry in Spain and Italy tends toward hard atheism, because of its anti-clericalism.

[RobbyS]

Unam Sanctum was directed against the French. Under Phillip the Fair, France, which had been the Church’s chief ally against the German emperor, because to turn against the papacy.

[RobbyS]

The New Testament does not in fact tell us much about the liturgy. “The breaking of the bread.”might mean a communal meal to 16th Century radicals. but there is not reason to think they were doing any more than creating a replacement for the mass.

[CynicalBear]

>>Paul tells us that the Church (not CB) is the pillar and ground of truth.<<

Once again the RCC pollutes the truth of scripture. The RCC tries to convince people that it’s the “source” of truth. It is NOT. Christ is. Misuse of the term “pillar and ground of truth” is another way the RCC tries to control the masses and retain power.

The Greek word for pillar stulos which mean post, something that supports. The Greek word for ground used is hedraioma which means a support. Paul is saying that the church is to uphold the truth that has already been established. He is not saying the church is in any way the “source” of truth or the repository of truth.

The church is built on the foundation of Christ. In John 14:6 Jesus tells us that He alone is the “truth”.

John 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

The RCC tries to teach that the “church” is a building or an institution. It is not, the church is the people, those “called out” from the world to promote and preserve the truth taught in the gospels. It’s the “church” the people, those “called out” who are the “pillar and ground” of truth. The “upholders” of the truth that is Jesus and what He taught.

The New Testament is the testimony of truth that the Apostles wrote down for our instruction. The Greek word for scripture is graphe which means “a writing” or “anything written”. It was inspired by the Holy Spirit. Paul wrote in his letter to Timothy to “take heed”.

1 Timothy 4:16 Take heed unto thyself, and unto the doctrine; continue in them: for in doing this thou shalt both save thyself, and them that hear thee.

He also said that scripture was sufficient.

2 Timothy 3: 16-17 "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work"

>>Your presumption here is that you are qualified to pronounce sound doctrine and nobody else is, including the Church that Jesus Created and the Holy Spirit commissioned at Pentecost.<<

Pronounce doctrine? You have go to be kidding me. The RCC is NOT in any way given the ability to “pronounce doctrine”. Doctrine was pronounced by Christ and the Holy Spirit through the apostles and doctrine was settled. This whole attitude of “pronouncing doctrine” is nonsense and amounts to “adding to scripture”.

1 Corinthians 4:14 I write not these things to confound you; but I admonish you as my dearest children. 15 For if you have ten thousand instructors in Christ, yet not many fathers. For in Christ Jesus, by the gospel, I have begotten you. 16 Wherefore I beseech you, be ye followers of me, as I also am of Christ. 17 For this cause have I sent to you Timothy, who is my dearest son and faithful in the Lord; who will put you in mind of my ways, which are in Christ Jesus; as I teach every where in every church.

You will notice that Paul was NOT telling the “church” to “pronounce doctrine” but to “be ye followers”. He was even sending Timothy to “put them in mind” of Pauls ways of “following Christ”. You’ll also note that he was teaching the church.

The nonsensical position of the RCC that they are to “pronounce doctrine” is anathema to what Paul was teaching.

>>The Church is the authority<<

Not according to Jesus words in John 14 and other places. The RCC isn’t even following “pronounced doctrine” according to scripture.

The Apostles called Christ the foundation not the RCC.

1 Cor. 3:9-11 “For we are God's fellow workers; you are God's field, you are God's building. According to the grace of God which was given to me, as a wise master builder I have laid the foundation, and another builds on it. But let each one take heed how he builds on it. For no other foundation can anyone lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ.”

[Quix]

AMEN! AMEN! AMEN!

THX THX.

Cessationists sure mangle that verse to significant damage.

[Quix]

That was quite a stretch, even for you.

-------------------

I'm not emphatically certain about that.

Given all the rubberization of

--Scripture
--history
--daffynitionaries
--logic
--reason

Seems to me they are quite practiced and gifted at stretching. I wouldn't put almost any stretch beyond an idle, easy yawn for them.

LOL.

[Quix]

[Quix]

EXCELLENT AS USUAL POSTS.

SAVED IN BOTH HTML AND OTHER TO THE GROWING FILE OF WONDEROUS ANOINTED STUFF VIA DANIEL1212.

PRAISE GOD.

THX THX.

[daniel1212]

Thank God for what edifies, and for what encourages.

[daniel1212]

Elaborate static formal liturgies, Catholic or Protestant (and which can much be the case even in "Pentecostalism"), promote perfunctory performances, and in contrast to the O.T, what you do not see under the New Covenant is the institution of such. Rather than finding security in structure, the believer is to live by faith, being born of and led by the Spirit, (Rm. 8:14) so that if He were removed all would collapse; Being reliant upon His help and leading in carrying out what is written within the bounds of Scripture. And thus we see Lord and holy men so enabled and led. (Lk. 2:27; 4:1; Acts 8:29; 10:19; 11:28; 21:4; 15:19; 2Cor. 6:6,7)

The Lord's supper commemorates the death of Christ after the simple manner which is described in Scripture, and properly so by effectually recognizing each other as members of the Body of Christ, and repenting if one is not doing so (as per http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/Bible/1Cor._11.html#11).

But this is done "as often as ye do it," and while Christian meetings involved worship, prayer, preaching and fellowship, what we do not see is lengthy set liturgies or calendars, and instead what is most fully described requires manifest supernatural working and provides for communal participation with much liberty, with some basic rules and structure as needed to facilitate that. In addition to preaching “services” which could be unplanned and extended, (Acts 20:7ff) we have the regular type of meeting described in 1Cor. 14:

"If any man speak in an unknown tongue, let it be by two, or at the most by three, and that by course; and let one interpret. But if there be no interpreter, let him keep silence in the church; and let him speak to himself, and to God. Let the prophets speak two or three, and let the other judge. If any thing be revealed to another that sitteth by, let the first hold his peace. For ye may all prophesy one by one, that all may learn, and all may be comforted. " (1 Corinthians 14:27-31)

Needless to say, for much of church history services believers were more spectators than active participants as per the above.

As for days, the only day which the Holy Spirit records the church specifically meeting on is the first day, (Acts 20:7; 1Cor. 16:2; and not once is the command to keep the 7^th day reiterated in the New Testament), on which Christ arose and met with His disciples, and upon which Pentecost came, while Old Testament holydays, new moon feasts and sabbath days were a shadow made by the body of Christ to come. (Col. 2:16,17)

[daniel1212]

True, and Trent was directed against the Reformation, but in both cases it makes statements which encompass more than those immediate objects.

[boatbums]

This is a really interesting thread, and a good question. I hope I can explain it adequately, because it is not a simple concept, and you are very right to bring it up. This isn’t something I’ve had the opportunity to study until today. SO thank you.

Thank you, too, for your thoughtful and respectful responses. I believe that Scripture teaches not only will we be united with God when we get to Heaven, but we may also experience that same union right now. The Holy Spirit was given to us for a number of reasons - the earnest of our inheritance, to teach us the truths of God, to enable us to do the works that God has prepared beforehand for us to do - but also to give us the experience of that oneness with him in this earthly life. The main difference between then and now is that, in heaven, we will be rid of our mortal and fallible sinful human nature and body, with the evils all around us, and will be enabled to live in total communion with our God and Savior. While still in this mortal frame, we have been given the opportunity to sense what Heaven will be like and the closer we draw near to God through obedience, worship, prayer and knowledge of him the more "heaven-like" our time on earth will be. We still have battles against the old nature asserting himself from time to time, but the deeper our faith grows and the nearer we draw to Christ, the less effect the sin nature has. In Heaven, we will finally be free from that battle and we will finally be able to grasp the fullness of God's grace. We will "know even as we are known" and we will have "the mind of Christ" which both things in this earthly realm are not possible to conceive with our mortal and corrupt minds.

As far as the catechism and early church fathers' musings about man "becoming gods", I think this is but one more example, of many, that sometimes things are made more complicated than they are or are explained in ways that require complex and theological reasonings so our minds are "corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ." (II Cor. 11:3). It is unfortunate that you and other Catholics are left to try to reason out and unwind what their exact meanings are and are not. Paul reminds us in 2 Cor. 1:12 For our rejoicing is this, the testimony of our conscience, that in simplicity and godly sincerity, not with fleshly wisdom, but by the grace of God, we have had our conversation in the world, and more abundantly to you-ward.

Thanks again for the dialog. I hope you had a wonderful Christmas.

[boatbums]

Excellent, excellent Scripture proofs! A “keeper”. Thanks.

[boatbums]

14 All agrain is ordained for the use of man and of beasts, to be the staff of life, not only for man but for the beasts of the field, and the fowls of heaven, and all wild animals that run or creep on the earth;

I think lions and tigers, etc., may object to being told they have to eat only cereal! Cats, for example, would die without a meat diet. Strange how "God" didn't know that. ;o)

[BenKenobi]

Well, the Catechism is the starting point. It points you to where you can go to better understand things that are not simple at first glance.

[boatbums]

Maybe for some, but for standard Christians when one gives their life to Jesus, He lives inside of us. He permeates our very being and soul. Nothing external taken into the body can bring us closer.

Amen! My Mom was complaining a few months back that the Mass she attends on Sunday afternoon - the "Teen" Mass - disturbs her because after receiving the Eucharist, going back to her seat and contemplating and "adoring" the Lord, they played music - LOUD music. She felt that it was being disrespectful to the Lord and that this is supposed to be a quiet time of reflection. She was upset that it took her mind off of adoring the presence of Jesus. I suggested that she could get earplugs but she won't. I suggested she go to the outside area of the main room, but she won't. Then I asked if Jesus wasn't already present within us, she said, "It's just different." So, I don't think some Catholics see the point that Jesus is ALWAYS present and is within us and they, instead, see the Eucharist as the only time they are in the presence of Christ. I think this is their loss.