Restoring The Ancient Church?-Ancient Lds Church?

[CASteinman]

Also, do you know how much public attention the discovery of a house in Nazareth dating roughly to the time of Jesus got in Israel? Hardly anyone tripped (not trooped) head over heels.

I remember reading about this and *I* was very excited.

What excited me about it was the idea that Jesus may have seen it -- and maybe Jesus and / or Joseph helped build it.

I really would like to go see it.

[volgadon]

I remember reading about this and *I* was very excited.

What excited me about it was the idea that Jesus may have seen it -- and maybe Jesus and / or Joseph helped build it.

I really would like to go see it.

I'm not saying that there is no reason for excitement-there certainly is- but in a predominantly Jewish society it made little ripples. Applying engineer's logic, this indifference completely undermines the truth claims of Christianity, or some such.

[CASteinman]

I'm not saying that there is no reason for excitement-there certainly is- but in a predominantly Jewish society it made little ripples. Applying engineer's logic, this indifference completely undermines the truth claims of Christianity, or some such.

I don't mind if no one else cares. It really captures my imagination. I would like to see the wood that Jesus saw -- and maybe handled.

I feel a little bit weird about it. Like I am idolatrous. But I still want to go see it.

[Robert F. Smith]

Each could be, and has been a thread of its own. My experience here is every thread around Catholicism devolves into a bashing of the God we worship. So, I have less interest in Mormons-pretending-to-know-anyting-at-all-about-Christianity, than you might imagine.

I don't engage in bashing Catholicism, and have always been an ardent defender of the RC Church. Too bad that you are not equally fair-minded. Last fall in Logan, Utah, I attended a symposium in which a Roman Catholic scholar (and a holder of RC priesthood) from England explained the many parallels of his Church with the Mormon Church. He recognized, for example, the fact that a kind of apotheosis had been a tradition in Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy (I did not know at the time that a Dominican Priest who was the author of one of the most important studies on that question had actually converted to Mormonism), and he noted that revelation in Catholicism was regarded as important for both the hierarchy as well as for the laity. Of course such things are not acceptable within Protestant tradition. Your following claims lack substance, and I note that you do not provide documentation to back up your empty assertions. You need to read more widely.

- no infant baptism - an assertion of your own, with little evidence. - baptism by immersion - also an assertion of your own, and lacking in the recognition that we do baptize by immersion. It isn't required that baptism be done by immersion. That is your innovation.

The Hebrew and Aramaic word for "baptism," and the Greek word translating it all mean "immersion." There is no early Christian tradition of infant baptism, although I can see how lustration of infants was later adopted by well-meaning people who had no authority. The pre-Christian Jewish practice of baptism of converts (now termed mikveh) continues today and is acceptable only for adults, and only by complete immersion as verified by witnesses.

- baptism for the dead - something mentioned in passing, distinctly described as "they", not "we". The innovation is everything Mormonism has built around a singular idea that cannot be shown to be doctrinal in the early church, anywhere.

I'll quote from a letter I wrote to an evangelical editor about how the late "great James Barr (your fellow countryman) has instructed all of us to understand I Corinthians 15:29 in light of II Maccabees 12:44-45 (and in the context of vv. 34-45), which Paul surely had in mind while writing his letter,* since the vicarious-expiation-resurrection reasoning is so similar, even though prayer and offerings constitute the ordinance employed by the earlier Jews. There is also the principle of intercession by dead Saints in Roman Catholicism (Maria stella maris, ora pro nobis), along with the notion of efficacious prayers for others by both living and dead (I Timothy 2:1, 5:5, James 5:15-16, Revelation 8:3-4), all of which might have been part of the justification for the sale of salvation through indulgences before the Counter Reformation, and which remains a part of priestly intercession to this day."

* James Barr, Holy Scripture: Canon, Authority, Criticism (Westminster, 1983), 40-43, n. 19; see also Rabbi Akiba's tale of a son's prayer saving his dead father from punishment in Hell (Joseph H. Hertz, ed., The Authorized Daily Prayer Book, 2nd ed. [N.Y.: Bloch, 1948], 270-271); cf. II Macc 7:9,36, 14:46, IV Macc 6:28-29; Isa 53:5-12 (4QM frag 5), Mk 10:45, Acts 24:21; Talmud Babli, Yoma 86b.

- continuing revelation / open canon - It is a Mormon assertion that everyone else but themselves thinks revelation ended. Perhaps someday you'll stop teaching each other this and actually learn what others believe. Which would help you understand why the canon is closed, as well. But I have to say, I have my doubts that could or would ever happen. It's better to continue propagating what you think others believe, rather than actually understanding what they do believe. I can't say that is innovative.

See my comments above, but please note, saemo saemo, that your tongue-lashing here is completely out of order and impertinent. When the Mormons speak of "continuing revelation" you know very well that this refers to more than the witness of the Holy Spirit that this or that matter is true (even Protestants accept that much, when they are not conversing with a Mormon). Mormons have in mind the continuation of formal prophecy and the continued production of Holy Scripture -- as in ancient times.

- priesthood ordination by one having authority (lay priesthood) - seriously- the innovation is you thinking this doesn't happen anywhere, that it was lost, and needed to be restored.

Here again you know very well that this refers to the Mormon claim to real priesthood authority and the denial that any other christians have that authority. And while you play the pot calling the kettle black, please note that the Roman Catholic Church makes a point of denying that other communions (except Eastern Orthodox) have priesthood authority. This is central to both Catholic and Mormon claims.

- Plan of Salvation / Great Plan of Happiness - same as priesthood ordination - this one always kills me. No one else in the whole wide world believes God planned for our Salvation or desires our happiness.

Save your sarcasm for those silly enough not to understand that the LDS version of the Plan of Salvation is not the same as the Roman Catholic and other communions. Indeed, you go out of your way to mock that Great Plan.

- Theosis / apotheosis / Deification - Innovation in what it means. LDS point to Catholic sources yet deny the context entirely.

See above, and note that LDS apotheosis is is not only a key ingredient in the Plan of Salvation, it is also the most authentically ancient. See for example

Jordan Vajda (the former Dominican priest), “‘Partakers of the Divine Nature’: A Comparative Analysis of Patristic and Mormon Doctrines of Divinization,” masters thesis (Berkeley: Graduate Theological Union, 1988).

Keith E. Norman, 1980 Duke Univ. doctoral dissertation, published as Deification: The Content of Athanasian Soteriology (Provo: FARMS, 2000).

- Premortal existence of spirits / coeternal with God - innovation entirely! Not to mention non-Biblical.

Another important ingredient of the LDS Plan of Salvation. See Robert Hammerton-Kelly, Pre-Existence, Wisdom and the Son of Man: A Study of the Idea of Pre-existence in the New Testament, SNTSMS 21 (Cambridge Univ. Press, 1973).

- Grand Council in Heaven - serious innovation. No where does anyone accept or believe in a council of Gods. To do so is polytheistic and polytheism is not accepted in Christianity. How many examples would you liked to see?

This is where the Plan of Salvation was proposed and accepted by two-thirds of the host of heaven. This is a well-accepted motif among biblical scholars:

Theodore Mullen, Jr., The Assembly of the Gods: The Divine Council in Canaanite and Early Hebrew Literature, Harvard Semitic Monographs 24 (Chico, Calif.: Scholars Press/Ann Arbor: Edwards Bros., 1980).

Richard J. Clfford, The Cosmic Mountain in Canaan and the Old Testament (Harvard Univ. Press, 1972).

- free agency - Another one of those where you think "we get it, no one else does" - that's the innovation...your assertion

Free agency or free choice is only possible for necessary beings. Since Roman Catholic theology defines people as entirely contingent, it is not possible for them to have free choice. This also entails creation from pre-existent matter, as understood by biblical scholars reading Gen 1 (Ephraim Speiser, Genesis, Anchor Bible 1 [Doubleday, 1964], 9-13), since both matter and the hosts of heaven are coeternal with God, having no beginning and no end in LDS theology.

- creation from pre-existent matter - not innovative in coming up with the idea, but innovative in thinking it has anything to do with Christianity.

See immediately above.

- corporeality of God the Father / anthropomorphic deities / naturalistic deities / solution to problem of evil-theodicy - same as above

The Bible describes God in fully anthropomorphic terms (Y. Muffs, Bible Review, XVIII/6 [Dec 2002], 23; cf. Ronald Hendel, “Aniconism and Anthropomorphism in Ancient Israel,” in K. van der Toorn, ed., The Image and the Book [Leuven: Peeters, 1997], 205-228; Benjamin Sommer, The Bodies of God and the World of Ancient Israel [Cambridge University Press, 2009]; Esther J. Hamori, "When Gods Were Men": The Embodied God in Biblical and Near Eastern Literature, Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 384 [berlin: de Gruyter, 2008]). Since LDS theology defines people in essence as being of the genus and species of God (realized only by those who obey him unto the end), worlds without end.

- Heavenly Mother / consort of YHWH - polytheism again, which is outside of Christianity, therefore innovative in context of claiming to be a Christian belief, at any time.

The biblical consort of YHWH is accepted by modern biblical scholarship of the OT. William Dever, Did God Have a Wife? Archaeology and Folk Religion in Ancient Israel (Eerdmans, 2008).

As for the Heavenly Mother, do you really have a problem with Mary as Regina caeli? Or as "Mother of God" (Theotokos)? How do you feel when Jews accuse Catholics of being polytheists?

- temple endowment / esoteric rites - I'm not going to discuss your temple rites.

I wasn't discussing LDS temple rites, but the restoration of the ancient esoteric rites, which are found in the Bible. According to N. T. Wright, for example, Gen 1-2 is "a temple text." There are dozens of such texts biblically, some of them clearly following the standard initiation sequence known from ancient times and widely published.

Edited March 23, 2013 by Robert F. Smith

[3DOP]

As a convert who found beauty in the English mass and who has never been to a Latin mass, I guess you don't need to worry about converts to Catholicism not being drawn to the Catholic Church by the English mass. I like to know what is going on and a mass in the vernacular is much more enjoyable to me. I attend a parish that is large and has liturgies that seem to inspire enough people that six out of seven masses are full in a large church every weekend. The youth group is thriving and we don't seem to be losing them to the world.

Hi Bart Burk,

My "worry" as you call it, was regarding the liturgical changes attributed to Vatican II by Robert F. Smith and questioned by ChristKnight who mentioned his experience with the Traditional Mass at St. John Cantius in Chicago. .

If you have a distaste for the Traditional Mass, even though you have never been to one, is it because of the study you have done on the subject? It might be helpful if there were some statistics which show how the faithful are now more knowledgable about their beliefs under the New Mass, but the stats I have seen point the other direction. It would help to see some popes and prelates over the years who have complained about the defects of the Old Mass and how the New Mass corrects so many of these errors and exaggerations that had creeped into the Mass of Sts. Francis deSales, Alphonsus Liguori, and Pius X. These and other saints all spoke about the Mass. It seems like we should be able to at least find some writings of the saints which indicate their misgivings, and the need for a revision of the Old Mass. Can you think of anybody?

Admittedly, I have read all of the wrong books if the New Mass is an improvement for the Church. I am actually unaware of any books written by Catholic authors who think the New Mass is great. How do you explain why there are so many books from Catholics with criticism of it? I mean, I have one here in my library that was written by a German priest for whom Cardinal Ratzinger, the future pope wrote a preface! This book points out lots of problems that don't seem easily fixed. I would be happy to ignore this kind of information if you have something to refute it. There is one section from the future pope's preface which is really rather shocking in its candor about the New Mass, but it makes complete sense given the way the New Mass was "invented". Anyway, here it is:

J. A. Jungmann, one of the truly great liturgists of our century, defined the liturgy of his time, such as it could be understood in the light of historical research, as a "liturgy which is the fruit of development..."

Okay think about that a little before you read what he wrote next. This means that good liturgy is a result of centuries of growth and pruning, but never all of a sudden. Anyhow that's how I understand it. Please tell me how you see it. Then get what he says next. This really makes a lot of sense to me. I'll be interested in your thoughts:

What happened after the Council was something else entirely; in the place of liturgy as the fruit of development came fabricated liturgy. We abandoned the organic, living process of growth and development over centuries, and replaced it-as in a manufacturing process-with a fabrication, a banal on-the-spot product.

---Cardinal Josef Ratzinger, from the preface to the French edition of the Reform of the Roman Liturgy, Its Problems and Background, by Monsignor Klaus Gamber

What do you think about that? Banal? But the worst of it is how he says the whole process was faulty. A little later, Cardinal Ratzinger praises Msgr. Gamber for having "opposed this falsification". Do you know how (even if you wanted to refute the future pope) to answer that? It just seems correct to me! Anyway, I'm just a converted truck driver, and don't read as much as I should, but I have managed to finish the Rhine Flows Through the Tiber and Iota Unum about some of the problems with Vatican II. Real eye openers for me. I guess lots of books have made me reevaluate former positions. I've lost friends over some of these things. But Cardinal Ratzinger says that Msgr. Gamber suffered for his views too. I have a feeling Cardinal Ratzinger/Pope Benedict could have been more popular too if he would have just kept such opinions to himself.

Are you familiar with Michael Davies' three volume work on the Mass and the Council where he really shows striking parallels between what the New Mass does and what happened in England when they reformed the liturgy when the split came with Rome? He calls the altar in the Church of England which was originally for a sacrifice, the "Cranmer Table". This is because Archbishop Cranmer who after consulting with Luther, turned his ministers around to face the people to have a fellowship supper instead of a sacrificial Mass. Wow. So far so good, right? No problem, the Anglicans were trying to get away from Catholicism. We can disagree with Cranmer. But that is exactly what they do with the New Mass, the "banal on-the-spot product" of Cardinal Ratzinger copies what Luther recommended to Cranmer! Do you not find that troubling?

Anyway, these things "worry" me, to use your characterization. I wouldn't concede that I lose peace of mind about it. I just face opposition from all sides. Even non-Catholics like Vatican II and see the New Mass as a much needed step for the Catholic Church. But then I see Cardinal Ratzinger praising Msgr. Gamber for his courage, because these opinions make some Catholics quite upset. And what am I supposed to do when I agree with Msgr. Gamber? Should I be quiet about it? I don't go around trying to be a nuisance with those who seem content, but if somebody else brings it up, I can't be silent.

The last thing I want is to scandalize the non-Catholics. But here are Robert F. and ChristKnight asking penetrating questions. Do I evade and pretend like St. John Cantius is for old nostalgics when I believe that many modern Catholics have been robbed of something and they don't even know it? These are guys that if they ever were to consider converting, they are going to do their homework anyway. It won't stay secret. It won't go away. They would have to wrestle with these issues as you and I have. They will probably agree with you anyway.

I look forward to your comments. Thanks.

3DOP

Edited March 23, 2013 by 3DOP

[ChristKnight]

Hi Bart Burk,

My "worry" as you call it, was regarding the liturgical changes attributed to Vatican II by Robert F. Smith and questioned by ChristKnight who mentioned his experience with the Traditional Mass at St. John Cantius in Chicago. .

If you have a distaste for the Traditional Mass, even though you have never been to one, is it because of the study you have done on the subject? It might be helpful if there were some statistics which show how the faithful are now more knowledgable about their beliefs under the New Mass, but the stats I have seen point the other direction. It would help to see some popes and prelates over the years who have complained about the defects of the Old Mass and how the New Mass corrects so many of these errors and exaggerations that had creeped into the Mass of Sts. Francis deSales, Alphonsus Liguori, and Pius X. These and other saints all spoke about the Mass. It seems like we should be able to at least find some writings of the saints which indicate their misgivings, and the need for a revision of the Old Mass. Can you think of anybody?

Admittedly, I have read all of the wrong books if the New Mass is an improvement for the Church. I am actually unaware of any books written by Catholic authors who think the New Mass is great. How do you explain why there are so many books from Catholics with criticism of it? I mean, I have one here in my library that was written by a German priest for whom Cardinal Ratzinger, the future pope wrote a preface! This book points out lots of problems that don't seem easily fixed. I would be happy to ignore this kind of information if you have something to refute it. There is one section from the future pope's preface which is really rather shocking in its candor about the New Mass, but it makes complete sense given the way the New Mass was "invented". Anyway, here it is:

Okay think about that a little before you read what he wrote next. This means that good liturgy is a result of centuries of growth and pruning, but never all of a sudden. Anyhow that's how I understand it. Please tell me how you see it. Then get what he says next. This really makes a lot of sense to me. I'll be interested in your thoughts:

---Cardinal Josef Ratzinger, from the preface to the French edition of the Reform of the Roman Liturgy, Its Problems and Background, by Monsignor Klaus Gamber

What do you think about that? Banal? But the worst of it is how he says the whole process was faulty. A little later, Cardinal Ratzinger praises Msgr. Gamber for having "opposed this falsification". Do you know how (even if you wanted to refute the future pope) to answer that? It just seems correct to me! Anyway, I'm just a converted truck driver, and don't read as much as I should, but I have managed to finish the Rhine Flows Through the Tiber and Iota Unum about some of the problems with Vatican II. Real eye openers for me. I guess lots of books have made me reevaluate former positions. I've lost friends over some of these things. But Cardinal Ratzinger says that Msgr. Gamber suffered for his views too. I have a feeling Cardinal Ratzinger/Pope Benedict could have been more popular too if he would have just kept such opinions to himself.

Are you familiar with Michael Davies' three volume work on the Mass and the Council where he really shows striking parallels between what the New Mass does and what happened in England when they reformed the liturgy when the split came with Rome? He calls the altar in the Church of England which was originally for a sacrifice, the "Cranmer Table". This is because Archbishop Cranmer who after consulting with Luther, turned his ministers around to face the people to have a fellowship supper instead of a sacrificial Mass. Wow. So far so good, right? No problem, the Anglicans were trying to get away from Catholicism. We can disagree with Cranmer. But that is exactly what they do with the New Mass, the "banal on-the-spot product" of Cardinal Ratzinger copies what Luther recommended to Cranmer! Do you not find that troubling?

Anyway, these things "worry" me, to use your characterization. I wouldn't concede that I lose peace of mind about it. I just face opposition from all sides. Even non-Catholics like Vatican II and see the New Mass as a much needed step for the Catholic Church. But then I see Cardinal Ratzinger praising Msgr. Gamber for his courage, because these opinions make some Catholics quite upset. And what am I supposed to do when I agree with Msgr. Gamber? Should I be quiet about it? I don't go around trying to be a nuisance with those who seem content, but if somebody else brings it up, I can't be silent.

The last thing I want is to scandalize the non-Catholics. But here are Robert F. and ChristKnight asking penetrating questions. Do I evade and pretend like St. John Cantius is for old nostalgics when I believe that many modern Catholics have been robbed of something and they don't even know it? These are guys that if they ever were to consider converting, they are going to do their homework anyway. It won't stay secret. It won't go away. They would have to wrestle with these issues as you and I have. They will probably agree with you anyway.

I look forward to your comments. Thanks.

3DOP

All very interesting (and slightly off topic, I say in a friendly voice! ). So I'll keep my response brief!

It does seem to me that a lot of traditionalist Catholics have issues with the Novus Ordo Mass (Mass of Paul VI, right?). Having attended both, I think there are things that I like and dislike about both. I like the Tridentine Mass (as opposed to the Novus Ordo in Latin) because it does seem to emphasize the role of a "priest" as, among other things, one that offers sacrifice on behalf of the people, and that Catholic priests are understood to participate in Christ's role of Priest (in persona Christi), re-presenting (not re-doing or re-sacrificing anew) the once-and-for-all sacrifice of Christ. I can also appreciate having a sacred language in the Latin (like Church Slavonic in many Eastern Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches), and a missal is provided with the English translation. I like the Novus Ordo because, obviously, it's in English. I think some prefer the "simpler" Mass since they imagine the early Christians having a simple Mass as well, though I think this would also ignore the temple parallels to the liturgy (and Revelation as a temple/liturgical text, if I understand that view correctly). I do appreciate the latest changes to the Mass to more reflect the Latin (and seem to place it more closely to the Eastern Divine Liturgy), such as "and with your spirit" in response to "the Lord be with you". But in the end, both Masses are understood to be "valid" in the Catholic Church.

And trying to tie this all to the thread, there is of course a difference in the LDS vs. Catholic/Orthodox understandings of the Eucharist/Sacrament, with Catholics/Orthodox accepting a belief in the Real Presence, while LDS view the Sacrament as symbolic, though also accomplishing the renewal of baptismal covenants. It would be interesting to learn about how the earliest Christians viewed it, as well as Jewish practices, if any, that relate to the Eucharist/Sacrament. I think various Catholic/Orthodox scholars relate the Bread of the Presence in the temple to the Eucharist, though i don't know the specifics of that relationship). Have you read Brant Pitre (PhD in New Testament and Ancient Judaism, Professor of Sacred Scripture at Notre Dame Seminary)'s "Jesus and the Jewish Roots of the Eucharist-Unlocking the Secrets of the Last Supper"? I've owned it for awhile, have yet to read it (looks like I already have a long reading list at the moment anyway!). Oh and Scott Hahn's upcoming "Consuming the Word: The New Testament and the Eucharist in the Early Church" looks interesting too.

Anyway, thanks for your thoughts! Are you SSPX?

Edited March 23, 2013 by ChristKnight

[Flyonthewall]

I find the whole notion of investigating miracles as an exercise in futility.

Would scientists investigate? Religious men? Magicians/Illusionists?

All they can determine is if it is duplicatable. If it is not, then how do they determine if it is from God or Satan?

When Moses had his staff turn into a serpent, Pharoah's magicians accomplished the same thing. How would it be determined who did it by the power of God or not?

Magicians now days have fairly sophisticated tricks. When it is such a simple thing for a magician to pull a rabbit out of a hat, if a true prophet of God did it without any tricks, how would an investigation team determine its authenticity when it is so easily duplicated?

Moses did not run out and have a team of investigators try to verify his claim of speaking with God from a burning bush, and all Christians everywhere have no problem accepting it as divine instead of from Satan. I wonder why Moses did not doubt the source of that miracle without a team of investigators? God had never done that before so there was no precedent to compare to.

As a matter of fact, none of the miracles of the bible were authenticated by a team of investigators. I wonder why an investigative team was not required in the scriptures?

JS did go to a local clergyman and reported his experience...

"21 Some few days after I had this vision, I happened to be in company with one of the Methodist preachers, who was very active in the before mentioned religious excitement; and, conversing with him on the subject of religion, I took occasion to give him an account of the vision which I had had. I was greatly surprised at his behavior; he treated my communication not only lightly, but with great contempt, saying it was all of the devil, that there were no such things as ^avisions or ^brevelations in these days; that all such things had ceased with the apostles, and that there would never be any more of them."

To think that the miraculous manifestations of God must be vetted by men is laughable. To me, that is the same as saying God cannot do anything unless a team of investigators give him the go ahead

Jesus made a point about having faith...not teams of investigators.

The religious leaders of the time declared Jesus' miracles were done by the power of Satan. Hmmm.

[3DOP]

ChristKnight

It does seem to me that a lot of traditionalist Catholics have issues with the Novus Ordo Mass (Mass of Paul VI, right?).

3DOP

Heh. I am sure everyone can see I have "issues". Yes. That Mass was promulgated during Paul VI's reign.

ChristKnight

Having attended both, I think there are things that I like and dislike about both. I like the Tridentine Mass (as opposed to the Novus Ordo in Latin) because it does seem to emphasize the role of a "priest" as, among other things, one that offers sacrifice on behalf of the people, and that Catholic priests are understood to participate in Christ's role of Priest (in persona Christi), re-presenting (not re-doing or re-sacrificing anew) the once-and-for-all sacrifice of Christ.

3DOP

The priest, who is facing God in the Tabernacle rather than the assembled people seems more appropriate if we want the liturgical action to reflect the Catholic doctrine of the sacerdotal priesthood and of the Holy Eucharist. That is why I mentioned what Cranmer did in England as being counter to the intuition that prevailed in the Church for centuries.

I relate to what you say about the Novus Ordo in Latin. I have been to dozens. Outsiders and even many Catholics think that the battle lines are drawn over Latin vs. Vernacular. I like the idea of a reversal of the division of tongues given to a rebellious world at the Tower of Babel whereas the Universal Church has been blessed with a universal tongue. But the language is of secondary importance. I would rather go to a Traditional Mass spoken in any language than a Novus Ordo Latin.

ChristKnight

I can also appreciate having a sacred language in the Latin (like Church Slavonic in many Eastern Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches), and a missal is provided with the English translation. I like the Novus Ordo because, obviously, it's in English. I think some prefer the "simpler" Mass since they imagine the early Christians having a simple Mass as well, though I think this would also ignore the temple parallels to the liturgy (and Revelation as a temple/liturgical text, if I understand that view correctly). I do appreciate the latest changes to the Mass to more reflect the Latin (and seem to place it more closely to the Eastern Divine Liturgy), such as "and with your spirit" in response to "the Lord be with you". But in the end, both Masses are understood to be "valid" in the Catholic Church.

3DOP

The parallels to the Temple are of great importance! Besides turning his back to the Congregation at appropriate moments, the silent prayers are of great significance. Specifically noting the immemorial importance of the silent prayers which are also noted by the Council of Trent, my 1962 Missal gives this enlightening instruction:

From all time, the Canon has been recited silently. The congregation present can contribute nothing to the sacrificial act itself; the people are present before a mystery which it is for the consecrated priest alone to accomplish. The Priest has entered alone into the Holy of Holies to pray and offer the sacrifice for the whole church.

Dom Gueranger's magnificent 15 volume work on the ancient liturgy, the Liturgical Year, makes us further understand why the time for audible vocalizing is not at the Canon:

After these words commences the canon, that mysterious prayer, in the midst of which heaven bows down to earth, and God descends unto us. The voice of the priest is no longer heard; yea, even at the altar all is silent. Let a profound respect stay all distractions, and keep our senses in submission to the soul. Let us respectfully fix our eyes on what the priest does in the holy place.

---The Liturgical Year, Vol. 5, p.76

There are times for listening to be sure. At other times, we must watch what is happening if we would appreciate best the grand mystery being accomplished. The New Mass forgets anything like a Holy of Holies where the people are attentively waiting in silence. Instead, changing the focal point where priest and people are facing the same way, the New Mass turns the priest into a chatterbox who has his choice between this immemorial canon and three others that were wholly made up in the 1960's.

I am also pleased that the English translations have finally been made to reflect the New Mass Latin. Forty years of "Et cum spiritu tuo" as, "and also with you"? Pro multis translated as "for all"? Any above average high schooler should recognize that spiritu means spirit and multis means many. Who was responsible for that kind of shoddy translating? What a fiasco for English people to go to Mass for forty years with that kind of loose monkeying around with precisely intended wording.

I affirm without any qualification that the New Mass is valid in its form, the words of consecration are all that is necessary, and they are retained. Of course, faulty matter, minister, or intention would invalidate any liturgical rite. While I affirm the New Mass form, I am afraid it fails to conform to the significance of the event. In my opinion, the changed surroundings, actions, or lack thereof, of both priest and faithful are defective. The ceremonial atmosphere of the New Mass seems more oriented to a community event than to a recognition of the arrival of our Saviour and the King of Creation as prefigured in the Old Testament Temple worship. The goal of Catholic ceremonies has never been to achieve mere validity. We want the proverbial "apples of gold in pictures of silver", with every word and action measured to reflect the reverence, joy, and awe we should experience at every encounter with the Blessed Sacrament.

ChristKnight

And trying to tie this all to the thread, there is of course a difference in the LDS vs. Catholic/Orthodox understandings of the Eucharist/Sacrament, with Catholics/Orthodox accepting a belief in the Real Presence, while LDS view the Sacrament as symbolic, though also accomplishing the renewal of baptismal covenants. It would be interesting to learn about how the earliest Christians viewed it, as well as Jewish practices, if any, that relate to the Eucharist/Sacrament. I think various Catholic/Orthodox scholars relate the Bread of the Presence in the temple to the Eucharist, though i don't know the specifics of that relationship). Have you read Brant Pitre (PhD in New Testament and Ancient Judaism, Professor of Sacred Scripture at Notre Dame Seminary)'s "Jesus and the Jewish Roots of the Eucharist-Unlocking the Secrets of the Last Supper"? I've owned it for awhile, have yet to read it (looks like I already have a long reading list at the moment anyway!). Oh and Scott Hahn's upcoming "Consuming the Word: The New Testament and the Eucharist in the Early Church" looks interesting too.

3DOP

I have not read Brant Pitre's work. It sounds very interesting. You should give us a book report sometime! I admit that I find Scott Hahn's writing style to be kind of cheesy, but it usually contains a lot of sound teaching.

ChristKnight

Anyway, thanks for your thoughts! Are you SSPX?

3DOP

You are welcome. I still owe you a post regarding some questions in relation to episcopal succession. Unfortunately, I have to leave again after Mass on Sunday. Motel rooms again. They keep promising me that they are going to stop tapping the old man (me) on the shoulder to go do these far away jobs. I won't haven't forgotten. I'll be back, tired but happy, Lord willing, late Tuesday. Easter is finally almost here. One more week of Lent. The Holy Week mysteries are truly a great blessing. But I always dread them. The desolation of Holy Thursday and Good Friday would be unbearable without the sure hope of Sunday morning.

Anyway, thanks for your patience with what might appear like an opportunity to ride a hobbyhorse. Our son is a Society of St. Pius X seminarian and my good wife and I are naturally supportive and sympathetic. Some would argue I have lost my objectivity! Heh. I'll still read a book from the other point of view.

St. Pio X,

Ora pro nobis,

3DOP

Edited March 23, 2013 by 3DOP

[Engineer97]

[quote

You might be very good as an engineer and claims investigator, but one needn't assume that the skills necessarily carry over into all other spheres.

Hmmm...actually it does..these skills carry over. I has helped me sift through illogic, discerning truth from a half truth...just for starters.

Weak reasoning. The "world" you are refering to has not only a large Judeo-Christian population, but also many non-believers who came from such societies, so of course it'll be interesting. On the other hand, when has the "world" gone ga-ga over, say, the archaeological work done in Adyghean dolmens? Doesn't diminish the signficance of the work for its sphere. All it means is that it isn't a big headline grabber.

What I am referring are the academics, historians...especially those independents....wjho troop to a mentioned discovery...that proves a Biblical event, place. But I have not seen any rush for any Mormon archaeological discovery....now, can you explain why is that?

[Engineer97]

Last I heard they weren't even sure which location was really intended as the "Nazareth" referenced in the New Testament, and they are equally not certain what sea it was that Moses crossed.

At least...there is a continuity of a town named Nazareth to a town named Nazareth to today....same as Bethlehem, Jerusalem, Jericho.

The Red sea has always been the red sea.

[Engineer97]

I find the whole notion of investigating miracles as an exercise in futility.

Would scientists investigate? Religious men? Magicians/Illusionists?

All they can determine is if it is duplicatable. If it is not, then how do they determine if it is from God or Satan?

To think that the miraculous manifestations of God must be vetted by men is laughable. To me, that is the same as saying God cannot do anything unless a team of investigators give him the go ahead

Jesus made a point about having faith...not teams of investigators.

The religious leaders of the time declared Jesus' miracles were done by the power of Satan. Hmmm.

Claims of miracles are investigated so that the faithful are not fooled, are not taken advantage of....and those authenticated affirm the truth and the faith.

As a suggestion...there are two of the most investigated miracles of the 20th century....Fatima and the Stigmata of Padre Pio.....if you care to investigate them further.

See, here is what is puzzling...the LDS claim to have restored true Christianity...why are there no associated miracles? Stigmatics? Incorrupted Bodies? .

Why the prophesies of Fatima given to the Catholic Church and not the LDS? Just asking...this just got me wondering.....

[mfbukowski]

Once you know, spiritually, you also know their true history too, though, don't cha. The truth of what they really were is a matter of history, even though you may not be relying on history to find out what they were.

And thus we see that it is unnecessary for cancer specialist to attend medical school, and just obtain their truth spiritually.

[Flyonthewall]

Claims of miracles are investigated so that the faithful are not fooled, are not taken advantage of....and those authenticated affirm the truth and the faith.

As a suggestion...there are two of the most investigated miracles of the 20th century....Fatima and the Stigmata of Padre Pio.....if you care to investigate them further.

See, here is what is puzzling...the LDS claim to have restored true Christianity...why are there no associated miracles? Stigmatics? Incorrupted Bodies? .

Why the prophesies of Fatima given to the Catholic Church and not the LDS? Just asking...this just got me wondering.....

I see you have got the quote function down....it does help keep things organized...

If you think there were no claims of miracles within the LDS church, then you are sorely mistaken.

Here is a link to an article that talks about different kinds of miracles, and gives some examples of miracles that have taken place towards the end of the article:

http://www.lds.org/ensign/2001/06/miracles?lang=eng

You mention Stigmatics... I do not understand why God would be the source of pain and suffering for those that are righteous. Sure, the early apostles were righteous and suffered, but the pain and suffering they experienced was at the hands of man...not God. In my mind, God is the source of releif from pain and suffering, not the source.

[volgadon]

At least...there is a continuity of a town named Nazareth to a town named Nazareth to today....same as Bethlehem, Jerusalem, Jericho.

You do realise that evidence of such a continuity was missing for Nazareth until recently?

The Red sea has always been the red sea.

Don't give up your engineer's job. Here is one example. http://books.google.com/books?id=A_ByXkpofAgC&pg=PA16&dq=location+red+sea+reed+sea&hl=en&sa=X&ei=O29OUZLPJOmqyQHghIGoAw&ved=0CFsQ6AEwBjgK#v=onepage&q=location%20red%20sea%20reed%20sea&f=false There is also a brilliant monograph published in the 70s by Cambridge, I believe, which examines the various traditions and locations.

[volgadon]

What I am referring are the academics, historians...especially those independents....wjho troop to a mentioned discovery...that proves a Biblical event, place. But I have not seen any rush for any Mormon archaeological discovery....now, can you explain why is that?

Don't be afraid to name names.

[ChristKnight]

3DOP

The parallels to the Temple are of great importance! Besides turning his back to the Congregation at appropriate moments, the silent prayers are of great significance. Specifically noting the immemorial importance of the silent prayers which are also noted by the Council of Trent, my 1962 Missal gives this enlightening instruction:

Thanks for those quotes, I did appreciate seeing those temple references. I also think Margaret Barker's work that is often cited on this forum is helpful in understanding the temple themes in Catholic/Orthodox liturgies.

3DOP

I have not read Brant Pitre's work. It sounds very interesting. You should give us a book report sometime! I admit that I find Scott Hahn's writing style to be kind of cheesy, but it usually contains a lot of sound teaching.

I agree. I didn't particularly like Dr. Hahn's "Signs of Life: 40 Catholic Customs and their Biblical Roots", as it seemed light on the "biblical roots" for some of the customs. I liked "Swear to God: The Promise and Power of the Sacraments", and have heard great things about "The Lamb's Supper: The Mass as Heaven on Earth", but it's one of the many books I own and have yet to read.

If you're interested, Dr. Pitre gave a presentation on "Jesus and the Jewish Roots of the Eucharist" that seems to provide an overview of a few of the topics covered in his book. He talks about the relationship between the Eucharist and the Passover, the Manna, and the Bread of the Presence in the Temple. Really interesting. You can view it here.

Admittedly, out of all of the doctrines and practices of the LDS faith that resonate with me, such as living apostles and prophets, emphasis on personal revelation, temples and temple ordinances, etc., the Eucharist has always been something that I've had difficulty with, especially when looking at how early Christians viewed it, at least from what I've read so far. While I'm not so sure about "transubstantiation" and its explanations of the "how" (as someone that studied and loves molecular biology and biochemistry, and now pursuing a health profession, I'm definitely not sold on that philosophical, not scientific, explanation), I can definitely appreciate the belief in the Real Presence (which doesn't necessitate transubstantiation, as we see in the East).

You are welcome. I still owe you a post regarding some questions in relation to episcopal succession. Unfortunately, I have to leave again after Mass on Sunday. Motel rooms again. They keep promising me that they are going to stop tapping the old man (me) on the shoulder to go do these far away jobs. I won't haven't forgotten. I'll be back, tired but happy, Lord willing, late Tuesday. Easter is finally almost here. One more week of Lent. The Holy Week mysteries are truly a great blessing. But I always dread them. The desolation of Holy Thursday and Good Friday would be unbearable without the sure hope of Sunday morning.

No problem, I look forward to your perspective on that whenever you get a chance. I'll be attending a few of the Holy Week liturgies this coming week (Palm Sunday with the family, Mass of Chrism on Tuesday, Mass of the Lord's Supper on Thursday, and Easter Sunday with the family, don't think I'll be able to make Sacrament Meeting). Wish I could attend Easter Vigil and the Solemn Liturgy of the Lord's Passion and Death, but work as always is in the way. I do appreciate the Catholic celebration of the liturgical year, especially Holy Week!

[ChristKnight]

Claims of miracles are investigated so that the faithful are not fooled, are not taken advantage of....and those authenticated affirm the truth and the faith.

As a suggestion...there are two of the most investigated miracles of the 20th century....Fatima and the Stigmata of Padre Pio.....if you care to investigate them further.

See, here is what is puzzling...the LDS claim to have restored true Christianity...why are there no associated miracles? Stigmatics? Incorrupted Bodies? .

Why the prophesies of Fatima given to the Catholic Church and not the LDS? Just asking...this just got me wondering.....

Why would Catholic-specific miracles need to be found in the LDS Church? I do understand the underlying point, but that doesn't make sense. Stigmata and Incorruptibility are not the only types of miracles, and LDS certainly believe in and talk about miracles occurring in these days, with stories about healings, visions, etc. I've heard a lot of stories about people having such experiences associated with the temple, usually in relation to proxy ordinances for the dead, the "veil being thin" in the temple, etc.

[Engineer97]

I see you have got the quote function down....it does help keep things organized...

If you think there were no claims of miracles within the LDS church, then you are sorely mistaken.

Here is a link to an article that talks about different kinds of miracles, and gives some examples of miracles that have taken place towards the end of the article:

http://www.lds.org/e...racles?lang=eng

You mention Stigmatics... I do not understand why God would be the source of pain and suffering for those that are righteous. Sure, the early apostles were righteous and suffered, but the pain and suffering they experienced was at the hands of man...not God. In my mind, God is the source of releif from pain and suffering, not the source.

I have not mastered the quote function yet. I sometimes get error messages...I do not know why...maybe you can offer some tips.

I read your link...and thanks. This is not what kind of miracles I am talking about. I am talking about miracles that have been investigated thoroughly....and proven of divine nature. These are the very special miracles that truly affirm faith. Example are Fatima, the apparition at Lourdes, the Stigmata of Padre Pio, and that of St. Francis, where even the nails showed on his....the at Lourdes, the verified cures...

http://www.indefenseofthecross.com/Lourdes.htm

http://www.miraclehunter.com/marian_apparitions/approved_apparitions/lourdes/miracles1.html

You asked.......You mention Stigmatics... I do not understand why God would be the source of pain and suffering for those that are righteous. Sure, the early apostles were righteous and suffered, but the pain and suffering they experienced was at the hands of man...not God. In my mind, God is the source of releif from pain and suffering, not the source

Let me ask....isn't the essence, the purspose of our life here, is to live our lives like Christ? to immitate Christ? If Christ sufferred, should be not also suffer like him?

Colossians 1:24

²⁴ Now I rejoice in what I am suffering for you, and I fill up in my flesh what is still lacking in regard to Christ’s afflictions, for the sake of his body, which is the church.

St. Paul says, we should embrace suffering. When looked in this view of this passage from Colossians...you can understand the Stigmata.

I learned there were also women stigmatics...St. Catherine of Sienna, St. Gemma Galgani, are some............this articles has a list of noted stigmatics....... http://www.catholic.org/saints/stigmata/

Cross references:

1. Colossians 1:24 : S 2Co 6:10
   
2. Colossians 1:24 : S 2Co 1:5
   
3. Colossians 1:24 : S 1Co 12:27
   

[Engineer97]

Why would Catholic-specific miracles need to be found in the LDS Church? I do understand the underlying point, but that doesn't make sense. Stigmata and Incorruptibility are not the only types of miracles, and LDS certainly believe in and talk about miracles occurring in these days, with stories about healings, visions, etc. I've heard a lot of stories about people having such experiences associated with the temple, usually in relation to proxy ordinances for the dead, the "veil being thin" in the temple, etc.

If the LDS is the true restoration church...why should not these miracles be transferred from the Catholics to the LDS? When I mention miracles, I mean the authenticated, investigated, verified ones.

Example is Fatima...with the prophecy of the end of WWI, another war if the world does not change...which became WWII.

The prophecy of WWII also said there would be a sign in heaven if the war was inevitable...which occurred about a year before the war broke out.

Why to the Catholic Church and not the LDS? Why is Mary telling the world, through the CC, telling the world to pray, repent, etc, and not the truly restored Church?

[Bart Burk]

Hi Bart Burk,

My "worry" as you call it, was regarding the liturgical changes attributed to Vatican II by Robert F. Smith and questioned by ChristKnight who mentioned his experience with the Traditional Mass at St. John Cantius in Chicago. .

If you have a distaste for the Traditional Mass, even though you have never been to one, is it because of the study you have done on the subject?

3DOP

I never said I had a distaste for the traditional mass. You had expressed concerns people would be less likely to convert through the new mass. I don't think you need to worry about that. The only reason I haven't attended a traditional mass is because it isn't easily available locally. I would actually like my parish to make one available for those who want it. Sorry my comment sent you into so much writing!

[3DOP]

I never said I had a distaste for the traditional mass. You had expressed concerns people would be less likely to convert through the new mass. I don't think you need to worry about that. The only reason I haven't attended a traditional mass is because it isn't easily available locally. I would actually like my parish to make one available for those who want it. Sorry my comment sent you into so much writing!

Bart Burk. Hi again.

I said "If". Heh. I enjoyed the writing exercise. It wasn't for you alone. I have to run. Thanks for the reply. See you later. A Blessed Palm Sunday to you and all.

God bless,

3DOP

[saemo]

I don't engage in bashing Catholicism, and have always been an ardent defender of the RC Church. Too bad that you are not equally fair-minded. Last fall in Logan, Utah, I attended a symposium in which a Roman Catholic scholar (and a holder of RC priesthood) from England explained the many parallels of his Church with the Mormon Church. He recognized, for example, the fact that a kind of apotheosis had been a tradition in Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy (I did not know at the time that a Dominican Priest who was the author of one of the most important studies on that question had actually converted to Mormonism), and he noted that revelation in Catholicism was regarded as important for both the hierarchy as well as for the laity. Of course such things are not acceptable within Protestant tradition. Your following claims lack substance, and I note that you do not provide documentation to back up your empty assertions. You need to read more widely.

The Hebrew and Aramaic word for "baptism," and the Greek word translating it all mean "immersion." There is no early Christian tradition of infant baptism, although I can see how lustration of infants was later adopted by well-meaning people who had no authority. The pre-Christian Jewish practice of baptism of converts (now termed mikveh) continues today and is acceptable only for adults, and only by complete immersion as verified by witnesses.

I'll quote from a letter I wrote to an evangelical editor about how the late "great James Barr (your fellow countryman) has instructed all of us to understand I Corinthians 15:29 in light of II Maccabees 12:44-45 (and in the context of vv. 34-45), which Paul surely had in mind while writing his letter,* since the vicarious-expiation-resurrection reasoning is so similar, even though prayer and offerings constitute the ordinance employed by the earlier Jews. There is also the principle of intercession by dead Saints in Roman Catholicism (Maria stella maris, ora pro nobis), along with the notion of efficacious prayers for others by both living and dead (I Timothy 2:1, 5:5, James 5:15-16, Revelation 8:3-4), all of which might have been part of the justification for the sale of salvation through indulgences before the Counter Reformation, and which remains a part of priestly intercession to this day."

* James Barr, Holy Scripture: Canon, Authority, Criticism (Westminster, 1983), 40-43, n. 19; see also Rabbi Akiba's tale of a son's prayer saving his dead father from punishment in Hell (Joseph H. Hertz, ed., The Authorized Daily Prayer Book, 2nd ed. [N.Y.: Bloch, 1948], 270-271); cf. II Macc 7:9,36, 14:46, IV Macc 6:28-29; Isa 53:5-12 (4QM frag 5), Mk 10:45, Acts 24:21; Talmud Babli, Yoma 86b.

See my comments above, but please note, saemo saemo, that your tongue-lashing here is completely out of order and impertinent. When the Mormons speak of "continuing revelation" you know very well that this refers to more than the witness of the Holy Spirit that this or that matter is true (even Protestants accept that much, when they are not conversing with a Mormon). Mormons have in mind the continuation of formal prophecy and the continued production of Holy Scripture -- as in ancient times.

Here again you know very well that this refers to the Mormon claim to real priesthood authority and the denial that any other christians have that authority. And while you play the pot calling the kettle black, please note that the Roman Catholic Church makes a point of denying that other communions (except Eastern Orthodox) have priesthood authority. This is central to both Catholic and Mormon claims.

Save your sarcasm for those silly enough not to understand that the LDS version of the Plan of Salvation is not the same as the Roman Catholic and other communions. Indeed, you go out of your way to mock that Great Plan.

See above, and note that LDS apotheosis is is not only a key ingredient in the Plan of Salvation, it is also the most authentically ancient. See for example

Jordan Vajda (the former Dominican priest), “‘Partakers of the Divine Nature’: A Comparative Analysis of Patristic and Mormon Doctrines of Divinization,” masters thesis (Berkeley: Graduate Theological Union, 1988).

Keith E. Norman, 1980 Duke Univ. doctoral dissertation, published as Deification: The Content of Athanasian Soteriology (Provo: FARMS, 2000).

Another important ingredient of the LDS Plan of Salvation. See Robert Hammerton-Kelly, Pre-Existence, Wisdom and the Son of Man: A Study of the Idea of Pre-existence in the New Testament, SNTSMS 21 (Cambridge Univ. Press, 1973).

This is where the Plan of Salvation was proposed and accepted by two-thirds of the host of heaven. This is a well-accepted motif among biblical scholars:

Theodore Mullen, Jr., The Assembly of the Gods: The Divine Council in Canaanite and Early Hebrew Literature, Harvard Semitic Monographs 24 (Chico, Calif.: Scholars Press/Ann Arbor: Edwards Bros., 1980).

Richard J. Clfford, The Cosmic Mountain in Canaan and the Old Testament (Harvard Univ. Press, 1972).

Free agency or free choice is only possible for necessary beings. Since Roman Catholic theology defines people as entirely contingent, it is not possible for them to have free choice. This also entails creation from pre-existent matter, as understood by biblical scholars reading Gen 1 (Ephraim Speiser, Genesis, Anchor Bible 1 [Doubleday, 1964], 9-13), since both matter and the hosts of heaven are coeternal with God, having no beginning and no end in LDS theology.

See immediately above.

The Bible describes God in fully anthropomorphic terms (Y. Muffs, Bible Review, XVIII/6 [Dec 2002], 23; cf. Ronald Hendel, “Aniconism and Anthropomorphism in Ancient Israel,” in K. van der Toorn, ed., The Image and the Book [Leuven: Peeters, 1997], 205-228; Benjamin Sommer, The Bodies of God and the World of Ancient Israel [Cambridge University Press, 2009]; Esther J. Hamori, "When Gods Were Men": The Embodied God in Biblical and Near Eastern Literature, Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 384 [berlin: de Gruyter, 2008]). Since LDS theology defines people in essence as being of the genus and species of God (realized only by those who obey him unto the end), worlds without end.

The biblical consort of YHWH is accepted by modern biblical scholarship of the OT. William Dever, Did God Have a Wife? Archaeology and Folk Religion in Ancient Israel (Eerdmans, 2008).

As for the Heavenly Mother, do you really have a problem with Mary as Regina caeli? Or as "Mother of God" (Theotokos)? How do you feel when Jews accuse Catholics of being polytheists?

I wasn't discussing LDS temple rites, but the restoration of the ancient esoteric rites, which are found in the Bible. According to N. T. Wright, for example, Gen 1-2 is "a temple text." There are dozens of such texts biblically, some of them clearly following the standard initiation sequence known from ancient times and widely published.

Hello Robert F. Smith,

Thanks for your reply.

My short reply isn't an indicator that I'm not widely read. It is an indicator I've lost interest in the apologetic discussion, both Mormon and Catholic. I've come to a point where I just don't care.

ChristKnight asked me to participate in this thread, which I did with hesitation, telling him I would participate if there was something Catholic. I get sucked into Mormon claims that are nonsense to me, which, is why I was hesitant in the first place. You believe what you want to believe, no amount of my reading or posting is going to change that.

I will say, I will also never understand Mormons who say they defend Catholicism while all the while are fighting against her. Joyous at her sons and daughters who leave.

So, I have nothing to say or add and wish you a blessed Palm Sunday.

Rebecca

Edited March 24, 2013 by saemo

[Flyonthewall]

I have not mastered the quote function yet. I sometimes get error messages...I do not know why...maybe you can offer some tips.

Each quote box begins and ends with "quote" and "/quote" withh square brackets around them [ ].

When you click on the "Quote" button, it will put the post you are responding to in a quote box. You can then go to the end of the sentence or paragraph and add a /quote with square brackets to put it in a quote box.

Each "quote" has to be paired with a "/quote" at the end or you will get an error message.

You can use the quote button on the icon bar at the top of the post to encapsulate a portion of a post in a quote box.

Your response should not be between the quote & /quote tags.

I am no master of the quote function either so hopefully what I wrote makes sense to you

I read your link...and thanks. This is not what kind of miracles I am talking about. I am talking about miracles that have been investigated thoroughly....and proven of divine nature. These are the very special miracles that truly affirm faith. Example are Fatima, the apparition at Lourdes, the Stigmata of Padre Pio, and that of St. Francis, where even the nails showed on his....the at Lourdes, the verified cures...

http://www.indefense...com/Lourdes.htm

http://www.miraclehu.../miracles1.html

You seem to put a great deal of credibility to a group of men/women to validate what God does. By what authority can any group of investigators validate God? They siimply cannot. They can only determine if there is a plausible natural explaination. If there is none, then they still run into the same problem you have put forth... is it from God? or Satan masquerading as God?

Let me ask....isn't the essence, the purspose of our life here, is to live our lives like Christ? to immitate Christ? If Christ sufferred, should be not also suffer like him?

Colossians 1:24

²⁴ Now I rejoice in what I am suffering for you, and I fill up in my flesh what is still lacking in regard to Christ’s afflictions, for the sake of his body, which is the church.

St. Paul says, we should embrace suffering. When looked in this view of this passage from Colossians...you can understand the Stigmata.

I learned there were also women stigmatics...St. Catherine of Sienna, St. Gemma Galgani, are some............this articles has a list of noted stigmatics....... http://www.catholic....aints/stigmata/

Cross references:

1. Colossians 1:24 : S 2Co 6:10
   
2. Colossians 1:24 : S 2Co 1:5
   
3. Colossians 1:24 : S 1Co 12:27
   

Your question is a 2 part question...Yes we are to live our lives like Christ, in obedience to his commands. And no, we are not to suffer like Him. He suffered for the sins of each of us, so we would not have to.

Again, the righteous will suffer, but not at the hands of God. Unrighteousness is always fighting against righteousness. The source of suffering of the righteous is unrighteousness. So no I do not understand the stigmata. It is one thing for Paul to rejoice in his suffering for the sake of righteousness but quite another to suffer as a reward for riighteousness.

God is the source of reward, of relief of pain and suffering of the righteous.

Jesus Christ preached:

10Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness’ sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

11Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake.

12Rejoice, and be exceeding glad: for great is your reward in heaven: for so persecuted they the prophets which were before you.

[MormonMason]

What is it about the language and structure of the text which leads you to believe it's not a reference to someone who appears to be a messenger of truth? I once had the idea you seem to have but later realized I was superimposing that idea onto those words. It could still refer to an immortal who comes here from some other realm without that person having a body that glows like a light bulb.

Paul's point was that even if what appears to be an "angel of light" appears to you, what he tells you isn't necessarily true.

If an "angel of light" was always a "messenger of truth", then what Paul said would be redundant, because a message from messenger of truth is always the truth. But Paul was talking about what could appear to be an "angel of light", while saying such an angel wouldn't necessarily be telling the truth. Thus what appears to be a "messenger of truth" isn't necessarily a messenger of truth, even though he would appear to be an "angel of light".

For starters, see the primary definition of the Greek word for 'light' in Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon. The relevant line of text within the primary definition is:

...a heavenly light, such as surrounds angels when they appear on earth: hence, ἅγγελος φωτός, 2 Cor. xi. 14, and illumines the place where they appear, Acts xii. 7; a light of this kind shone around Paul when he was converted to Christ, Acts xxii. 6, [9],...

http://archive.org/stream/greekenglishlexi00grimuoft#page/662/mode/2up

Additionally, one can read other pieces of relevant literature discussing the appearances of angels and how light is associated with these appearances. Paul and his readers would know full well what he meant by the term. Greek has terms for both "angel of light" and "messenger of truth" even with the overlap of the first word in the vocabulary. One should take literally unless the text is structured in such a way as to admit otherwise. 2 Corinthians 11:14 is not so structured as to allow for interpreting light abstractly such as would be the case to translate "light" as "truth" here. Oddly enough, you ended up doing precisely what you thought you were avoiding doing with this text.

The reasoning behind the passage relates to how Satan counterfeits by imitating the appearance of angels such as bring revelations from God. The people to whom Paul was addressing his remarks understood full well that angels who bring revelations from God are accompanied by the appearance of light. Satan himself knows this and seeks to imitate this so as to deceive more effectively.

[MormonMason]

Faith and reason compliment each other......and other evidences would affirm the faith and reasoning.

There are many evidences besides archaeological evidences. What of those?

Example, the Bible places and events are proved by archeological evidence.

Really??? OK. Please inform us as to where archaeologists claim the garden of Eden was located, and where is your archaeological evidence? Please find for me one archaeological evidence for the existence of Joseph in Egypt. I could go on but these two are sufficient to make the point.

The BOM has not been backed up by archaeological evidence.

Actually, that appears to be changing slowly and over time. Following are some examples.

An altar was found in recent years, on the Arabian Peninsula, that contained a name of a people who lived in a place, the name of which place was mentioned by the Book of Mormon.

Another finding, in Palestine, was a papyrus land deed confirming that Alma indeed was a male name among the Hebrews just like the Book of Mormon claimed, a claim for which the Book of Mormon was attacked by critics even after the finding. Scholars have since added the name to the newest Dictionary of Classical Hebrew.

Another two archaeological findings (Amarna Letters and the Dead Sea Scrolls) show that the Book of Mormon was correct to make reference to "the land of Jerusalem" in referring to the region of land surrounding Jerusalem the city. The Amarna Letters even named a city (Bit-Lahmi), that a biblical archaeologist identified as Bethlehem, as being in the land of Jerusalem. This also was a point upon which the Book of Mormon had been frequently attacked, the Book of Mormon claiming that Jesus would be born "at Jerusalem, which is the land of our forefathers" (Alma 7:10).

Genuinely Egyptian names and/or names based on authentic Egyptian names can be found in the Book of Mormon, such as Ani, Anti, Parhoron (Pahoran), Paanchi, etc., and that Anti forms with compound names in the Book of Mormon like with Egyptian names. Ani is the name of a person for whom was written the Papyrus of Ani, now in the British Museum. No one in America could read Egyptian, in 1830, when the Book of Mormon was published.

Besides this, there are many internal evidences within the text itself. If I thought you would read it, I would offer to recommend a text for you to read dealing with substantial amounts of internal evidences for the Book of Mormon. In any case, you certainly have more reading to do before making such claims.