Jump to content
  • Announcements

    • Nemesis

      Contact Us Broken   09/27/2016

      Users, It has come to our attention that the contact us feature on the site is broken.  Please do not use this feature to contact board admins.  Please go through normal channels.  If you are ignored there then assume your request was denied. Also if you try to email us that email address is pretty much ignored.  Also don't contact us to complain, ask for favors, donations, or any other thing that you may think would annoy us.  Nemesis

ChristKnight

Members
  • Content count

    552
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

ChristKnight last won the day on February 26 2012

ChristKnight had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

195 Excellent

About ChristKnight

  • Rank
    Seasoned Member: Separates Light & Dark

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

2,504 profile views
  1. Papal opinions of Mormonism?

    I think I see what you're talking about (interestingly searching for "dogma" does not turn up the relevant post). MiserereNobis said this: "No. The Bible is one of the three legs. There are Catholic dogmas that are not found in the Bible because they are found in Tradition and decreed by the Magisterium." Right, he is referring to Revelation, as pointed out in the relevant excerpts from the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Not all Truths taught are contained in the Bible, and Catholics do not hold to the idea that all Truth, Truths, Revelation, Dogmas, etc. are only found in the Bible. See relevant quotes from Catholic documents given previously which expound on this.
  2. Papal opinions of Mormonism?

    Who said "dogma"? MiserereNobis? I searched this thread for "dogma", and the only two posts that come up are your own, and where MiserereNobis says "Isn't the Catholic Church in a better position to determine what is foreign to Catholicism than a Mormon apologist? The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith is the body who determines and applies questions of doctrine, dogma, and practice". No, Catholic teaching is that Revelation, the Truth, is found in both Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition, not just the Bible. For Catholics, the Truth, Revelation, existed before the Biblical texts were written and compiled. The Magisterium, or teaching authority of the Church, has Divine authority to interpret Revelation. Continuing from one of my links provided: The Magisterium of the Church 85 "The task of giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God, whether in its written form or in the form of Tradition, has been entrusted to the living teaching office of the Church alone. Its authority in this matter is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ."47 This means that the task of interpretation has been entrusted to the bishops in communion with the successor of Peter, the Bishop of Rome. 86 "Yet this Magisterium is not superior to the Word of God, but is its servant. It teaches only what has been handed on to it. At the divine command and with the help of the Holy Spirit, it listens to this devotedly, guards it with dedication and expounds it faithfully. All that it proposes for belief as being divinely revealed is drawn from this single deposit of faith."48 87 Mindful of Christ's words to his apostles: "He who hears you, hears me",49 the faithful receive with docility the teachings and directives that their pastors give them in different forms.
  3. Papal opinions of Mormonism?

    Huh? He said that, for Catholics, the Bible is not the only source of divine revelation. We are not sola scriptura. We do not believe that divine revelation is only found in the Bible (indeed, such a stance is found nowhere in the Bible itself). From the Catechism of the Catholic Church (the whole section on The Transmission of Divine Revelation would be helpful to those interested in understanding the Catholic perspective, as well as Dei verbum-Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation, from the Second Vatican Council): II. THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN TRADITION AND SACRED SCRIPTURE One common source. . . 80 "Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture, then, are bound closely together, and communicate one with the other. For both of them, flowing out from the same divine well-spring, come together in some fashion to form one thing, and move towards the same goal."40 Each of them makes present and fruitful in the Church the mystery of Christ, who promised to remain with his own "always, to the close of the age".41 . . . two distinct modes of transmission 81 "Sacred Scripture is the speech of God as it is put down in writing under the breath of the Holy Spirit."42 "And [Holy] Tradition transmits in its entirety the Word of God which has been entrusted to the apostles by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit. It transmits it to the successors of the apostles so that, enlightened by the Spirit of truth, they may faithfully preserve, expound and spread it abroad by their preaching."43 82 As a result the Church, to whom the transmission and interpretation of Revelation is entrusted, "does not derive her certainty about all revealed truths from the holy Scriptures alone. Both Scripture and Tradition must be accepted and honored with equal sentiments of devotion and reverence."44
  4. Mormon Leaks

    In case anyone is interested, the NYT has an article on the matter: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/07/us/mormon-videos-leaked.html?smid=tw-nytimes&smtyp=cur
  5. Adam-God doctrine explained

    Which of course isn't relevant to anything. The point is that your statements are quite clearly not representative of what the Trinity doctrine is actually teaching, but are representative of the modalist/patripassianist non-Trinitarian heresies, as I documented. What do you mean by "ordinary" Christian beliefs? Who are "conciliarists"? Interestingly enough, your references do not actually support what you said earlier ("Most so-called "christians" do believe that God the Father came down, took on a body, was crucified, and then resurrected. For them, the Holy Spirit, Jesus, and God the Father are all one and the same person"). None of those references state anything about "God the Father" coming down to the earth, being crucified, and being resurrected. None of those references state anything about the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit being "one and the same person". Indeed, you quote Wikipedia, which explicitly states that there are three Persons, and that they are distinct from each other. Anyway, thank you for trying. As mentioned earlier, I don't want to derail this thread. However, I did want to address a clear misrepresentation of the Trinity doctrine. Now, I will grant that there are many who do not understand the Trinity, and perhaps will describe it (incorrectly, as we have seen) as the Father incarnating, or the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit being one Person. However, it is clear that they are wrong, and are not representative of what the Trinity actually teaches (by your own references), and there is no evidence that "most so-called 'christians'" (as you say) believe such things. It is clear that the Catholic Church, the Orthodox Church, mainline Protestantism, and evangelical Christianity (representative of the vast majority of Christianity) all teach the distinction of Persons and God the Son (not God the Father) incarnating, against your characterization.
  6. Adam-God doctrine explained

    Unfortunately that would not be correct. As you quoted, it states that the Persons are distinct from one another in their relations of origin, and their relations with one another. So no, it would not be Trinitarian belief that God the Father came down on earth and died on the cross. Robert and yourself actually describe Trinitarian heresies denounced by Trinitarians. From wikipedia as well: 1) Patripassianism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patripassianism): patripassianism (as it is referred to in the Western church) or Sabellianism in the Eastern church (also known as modalism, modalistic monarchianism, or modal monarchism) is the nontrinitarian or anti-trinitarian belief that God the Father, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit are three different modes or aspects of one monadic God, as perceived by the believer, rather than three distinct persons within the Godhead - that there are no real or substantial differences between the three, such that there is no substantial identity for the Spirit or the Son.[1] In the West, this belief was known as patripassianism (from Latin patri- "father" and passio "suffering"), because the teaching required that since the Father had become incarnate in Christ, he had suffered.[2] From the standpoint of the doctrine of the Trinity—one divine being existing in three persons—patripassianism is considered heretical since "it simply cannot make sense of the New Testament's teaching on the interpersonal relationship of Father, Son, and Spirit."[3] In this patripassianism asserts that God the Father—rather than God the Son—became incarnate and suffered on the cross for humanity's redemption. This not only denies the personhood of God-the-Son (Jesus Christ), but is seen by trinitarians as distorting the spiritual transaction that was taking place at the cross, which the Apostle Paul described as follows: "God [the Father] was reconciling the world to himself in Christ [the Son], not counting people’s sins against them. . . . God [the Father] made him who had no sin [God-the-Son] to be sin for us, so that in him [the Son] we might become the righteousness of God [the Father]." (2 Corinthians 5:19, 21) 2) Modalism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabellianism): In Christianity, Sabellianism in the Eastern church or Patripassianism in the Western church (also known as modalism, modalistic monarchianism, or modal monarchism) is the nontrinitarian or anti-trinitarian belief that the Heavenly Father, Resurrected Son, and Holy Spiritare three different modes or aspects of one monadic God, as perceived by the believer, rather than three distinct persons within the Godhead—that there are no real or substantial differences among the three, such that there is no substantial identity for the Spirit or the Son.[1] Also, from the Catechism of the Catholic Church, on the Trinity: 254 The divine persons are really distinct from one another. "God is one but not solitary."86 "Father", "Son", "Holy Spirit" are not simply names designating modalities of the divine being, for they are really distinct from one another: "He is not the Father who is the Son, nor is the Son he who is the Father, nor is the Holy Spirit he who is the Father or the Son."87 They are distinct from one another in their relations of origin: "It is the Father who generates, the Son who is begotten, and the Holy Spirit who proceeds."88 The divine Unity is Triune. From the quote from the Catechism, we see that it is Trinitarian doctrine that the Son is not the Father, the Father is not the Son, the Spirit is not the Father nor the Son, etc. From all of this, we see that no, it is not Trinitarian doctrine that the Father came down and incarnated as the Son, nor is it Trinitarian doctrine that it was the Father that was crucified (as we see above, that is the non-Trinitarian heresy of patripassianism), nor is it Trinitarian doctrine that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are one Person (as we see above, that is the non-Trinitarian heresy of modalism). Anyway, sorry for going way off topic, but I had to address this clear misunderstanding of the Trinity doctrine.
×