Is There Not An Apparent Problem To The Doctrine Of The Trinity?

[Ran]

How can an unbaptized child enter heaven if he is tainted with original sin?

 

 

One could ask—as did the International Theological Commission—"whether infants who die without Baptism necessarily die in original sin, without a divine remedy" (The Hope of Salvation for Infants who Die Without Being Baptized 83, emphasis mine).

[3DOP]

 

 

Hey pogi, I have a few unexpected minutes.

 

pogi

I wouldn't call it small either, I was speaking in relative terms to the LDS idea heaven.  The qualifications for hell are vastly more restrictive in Mormonism than in Catholicism, that can only mean that our heaven is bigger. 

 

3DOP

Yes. I see what you mean now. However, I think I can demonstrate that our qualifications are probably not much more restricting than yours. I don't believe anyone can get to Hell unless they hate God. Admittedly, our two faiths might have different ideas about what it means to "hate God".

 

pogi

I think you are right about getting the word out to other Catholics about what they believe, because those are the very same scriptures that we used to teach about the different degrees of glory in the mission field, which in my experience, Catholics always rejected.  They always tried to spin those scriptures differently. 

 

3DOP

That's crazy stupid pogi. My apologies. The Philippines you say? My son is going this summer to the Philippines. If you have the address of these knuckleheads, I'll send him their way! So anyway, point taken. I trust they were not quoting ecumenical councils as proofs for their positions as I have done? One could hope that they were being deliberately obtuse or obstinate with the missionary. But sadly, modern Catholics are just so uninformed since the Second Vatican Council. They just don't know anything. Here I am, the supposedly rigid, hateful, and triumphalist radical traditionalist Catholic. But its the loving, ecumenical, broad minded Catholics catechized in the conciliar church that don't know what they are talking about and offer a religion that you rightly find repulsive. It also seems necessary that we get the word out to counteract the damage these misguided souls do in so misrepresenting their own faith.

 

pogi

Just curious, how do you reconcile these two ideas?  How can an unbaptized child enter heaven if he is tainted with original sin?

 

3DOP

I don't hold that an unbaptized child can enter heaven. Even those who don't believe in Limbo of the children anymore can't believe that. It has to be removed somehow. There are a few theories. I hold to Limbo. It is undefined. In no case may one believe that they are burning in Hell. Limbo allows for an immortal life enjoying with every natural pleasure that is described in many non-Christian views of heaven.

[mfbukowski]

 The qualifications for hell are vastly more restrictive in Mormonism than in Catholicism, that can only mean that our heaven is bigger. 

I have it on good authority that size doesn't matter. 

[Yirgacheffe]

 

 I have read a spiritual writer who affirmed that most adult Catholics probably go to Hell.

 

 

How can he affirm that?

[pogi]

That's crazy stupid pogi. My apologies. The Philippines you say? My son is going this summer to the Philippines. If you have the address of these knuckleheads, I'll send him their way! 

 

I am more than a little jealous!  Where in the Philippines is he going and why?  Send him down to the Bicol region if he wants to do some setting straight.  However, what the Philippine people lack in Catholic doctrinal understanding, they make up for in true Christian hospitality and kindness!

 

 

I don't hold that an unbaptized child can enter heaven. Even those who don't believe in Limbo of the children anymore can't believe that. It has to be removed somehow. There are a few theories. I hold to Limbo. It is undefined. In no case may one believe that they are burning in Hell. Limbo allows for an immortal life enjoying with every natural pleasure that is described in many non-Christian views of heaven.

 

 I forgot about limbo.  Is limbo the highest hope that a non-baptized person (Mormon) faces?

[3DOP]

How can he affirm that?

 

My mistake. He suggested it.

[3DOP]

I am more than a little jealous!  Where in the Philippines is he going and why?  Send him down to the Bicol region if he wants to do some setting straight.  However, what the Philippine people lack in Catholic doctrinal understanding, they make up for in true Christian hospitality and kindness!

 

 

 

 I forgot about limbo.  Is limbo the highest hope that a non-baptized person (Mormon) faces?

 

I forget which island. I'll ask again and let you know. I am pretty sure it isn't the island that has Manila on it. He is going, from how I see it, because he heard the District Superior of Asia speak about foreign missions, and was moved to talk to his spiritual director about going out there to help. I could see him spending his life on the foreign missions and I am preparing myself for the eventuality. But who knows? God's will be done. I know he is going to where this typhoon did some horrible stuff. I am glad to hear about the hospitality and kindness of the people. Shoot, that is more important than precise doctrine anyway.

 

No. Limbo is not the highest hope. Limbo is so low that it is classified as a compartment of Hell itself. Its pretty good really, but not being Heaven, it must be Hell. Anyway, for goodness sake, who could put a limit on the highest hope? Those who receive and persevere in baptism of desire are not some inferior subset of the saints in glory. Assuredly, there are disadvantages to never having the Sacraments, but to whom much is given, much is requires, and vice versa. God is good. God is fair, and those who find their way to Him, and who love Him in ignorance will be rewarded for their response to faith, and presumably more generously than those of whom, "much is required".

 

That is the context by which "the spiritual writer" to which I alluded, suggested that most adult Catholics may be lost. I am trying to remember who said this, and upon reflection, Yirgacheffe, it may have been referenced by one of the priests at a retreat I attended a couple of months ago. In any event, I wouldn't care to argue the point. My reason for mentioning it was to diminish the idea which pogi seemed to have, that what mattered ultimately was a valid water baptism. Again, because of the graces associated, sacramental baptism is ordinarily pretty important, but it doesn't necessarily save, and the lack of baptism doesn't necessarily damn. That was what I wanted to get across, and not to start a controversy over percentages of those who might be saved or lost.    

Edited April 27, 2014 by 3DOP

[3DOP]

I have it on good authority that size doesn't matter. 

 

mfbukowski. Hi.

 

Hmmm. From post #103, I am not sure know how you could have quoted me as saying what the quote says I said. Even in a whiskey induced haze...that doesn't sound like me, but there it is. Anyway, without saying it is false, because despite what I said, I at this moment have no opinion about the question...I retract what the quote says I said.

 

I even agree with you about the size of heaven, hoping to avoid discussion of its importance in other contexts.

[saemo]

Maybe you didn't intend it the way I read your comment, but you are speaking to a Christian.

...who quotes tired, old, anti-Christian material. The kind of argument I see coming from atheists. But long before atheism the arguments came from Protestants and long before that from Judaism, who level the charge against all Christians, including you.

Often it is changed up a bit to be anti-Catholic, particularly by some outspoken Evangelicals. Akin to "Mormons have horns".

I don't take the arguments seriously. But for what it's worth, it is an argument using fallacy.

http://www.catholic.com/tracts/is-catholicism-pagan

"Ultimately, all attempts to prove Catholicism "pagan" fail. Catholic doctrines are neither borrowed from the mystery religions nor introduced from pagans after the conversion of Constantine. To make a charge of paganism stick, one must be able to show more than a similarity between something in the Church and something in the non-Christian world. One must be able to demonstrate a legitimate connection between the two, showing clearly that one is a result of the other, and that there is something wrong with the non-Christian item.

In the final analysis, nobody has been able to prove these things regarding a doctrine of the Catholic faith, or even its officially authorized practices. The charge of paganism just doesn’t work. "

Edited April 27, 2014 by saemo

[mfbukowski]

mfbukowski. Hi.

 

Hmmm. From post #103, I am not sure know how you could have quoted me as saying what the quote says I said. Even in a whiskey induced haze...that doesn't sound like me, but there it is. Anyway, without saying it is false, because despite what I said, I at this moment have no opinion about the question...I retract what the quote says I said.

 

I even agree with you about the size of heaven, hoping to avoid discussion of its importance in other contexts.

Relax. It was a joke.

 

Isn't posting under the influence illegal?

[pogi]

mfbukowski. Hi.

 

Hmmm. From post #103, I am not sure know how you could have quoted me as saying what the quote says I said. Even in a whiskey induced haze...that doesn't sound like me, but there it is. Anyway, without saying it is false, because despite what I said, I at this moment have no opinion about the question...I retract what the quote says I said.

 

I even agree with you about the size of heaven, hoping to avoid discussion of its importance in other contexts.

 

Don't worry, it's not the whiskey! That was actually my quote.  It accredited it to you because it wasn't in a quote box.  I was interested in your comment about degrees of hell and made the observation that our ideas of the after life are reversed.  I was only making an observation (and not a well informed one), not trying to play the whole "my dad can beat up your dad" game. 

Edited April 27, 2014 by pogi

[pogi]

...who quotes tired, old, anti-Christian material. The kind of argument I see coming from atheists. But long before atheism the arguments came from Protestants and long before that from Judaism, who level the charge against all Christians, including you.

 

I don't know if you read the link, but it was not anti-Christian.  It was written by a Christian.  Second, the arguments in the link never would have come from Protestants as they too believe in the trinity.  Third, even if the argument was from an atheist, it doesn't mean it has no credit.  They are just as capable of learning history as anybody else.

 

Often it is changed up a bit to be anti-Catholic, particularly by some outspoken Evangelicals. Akin to "Mormons have horns".

I don't take the arguments seriously. But for what it's worth, it is an argument using fallacy.

 

I don't know, I think the history is pretty straight forward and is not based on fallacy.  What of the following from my link is based on fallacy or false history?

 

 

As emperor, Constantine was in the unusual position of deciding church doctrine even though he was not really a Christian. (The following year is when he had both his wife and son murdered, as previously mentioned).

Historian Henry Chadwick attests, "Constantine, like his father, worshipped the Unconquered Sun" ( The Early Church, 1993, p. 122). As to the emperor's embrace of Christianity, Chadwick admits, "His conversion should not be interpreted as an inward experience of grace . . . It was a military matter. His comprehension of Christian doctrine was never very clear" (p. 125).

Chadwick does say that Constantine's deathbed baptism itself "implies no doubt about his Christian belief," it being common for rulers to put off baptism to avoid accountability for things like torture and executing criminals (p. 127). But this justification doesn't really help the case for the emperor's conversion being genuine.

Norbert Brox, a professor of church history, confirms that Constantine was never actually a converted Christian: "Constantine did not experience any conversion; there are no signs of a change of faith in him. He never said of himself that he had turned to another god . . . At the time when he turned to Christianity, for him this was Sol Invictus (the victorious sun god)" ( A Concise History of the Early Church, 1996, p. 48).

When it came to the Nicene Council, The Encyclopaedia Britannica states: "Constantine himself presided, actively guiding the discussions, and personally proposed . . . the crucial formula expressing the relation of Christ to God in the creed issued by the council . . . Overawed by the emperor, the bishops, with two exceptions only, signed the creed, many of them much against their inclination" (1971 edition, Vol. 6, "Constantine," p. 386).

With the emperor's approval, the Council rejected the minority view of Arius and, having nothing definitive with which to replace it, approved the view of Athanasius—also a minority view. The church was left in the odd position of officially supporting, from that point forward, the decision made at Nicaea to endorse a belief held by only a minority of those attending.

 

 

"Ultimately, all attempts to prove Catholicism "pagan" fail. Catholic doctrines are neither borrowed from the mystery religions nor introduced from pagans after the conversion of Constantine. 

 

Constantine wasn't "converted" (baptized rather) until his death bed.  He was still a pagan when he was presiding over and influencing the council of Nicea.  Both Arius and Athanasius came from the same Apostolic church.  What is the likelihood that one was entirely right and the other was entirely wrong?  The likelihood is that there were elements of truth from both sides, as is the case in most arguments (this is further evidenced by the fact that the majority of members believed somewhere in-between the two).  

 

 

[Spammer]

Don't believe everything you read in the encyclopedia.  Everything we know about what happened at the Council comes from a couple of surviving eyewitness accounts.  Anyone can go online and read those in English translation.  It's true that Constantine presided.  It's also true that he proposed the key term (homoousious) that was eventually adopted into the creed to describe the divine essence shared by the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.  It's not true that Contantine proposed and the majority view was thereby authomatically ratified.  There was a vote and Constantine was not permitted to vote.  As he was not a bishop, he was ineligible.  It's also not true that the bishops were overawed by Constantine.  The Council was convened only 14 years after the worst of the anti-Christian persecutions (the Diocletian) came to an end.  Many of the attending and voting bishops bore the scars of their tortures on their bodies.  The Nicene church was the church of the marytrs, emerging from over two centuries of periodic torture, crucifixion, beheading, burning at the stake, and being fed to animals in the arena all at the order of Roman emperors. To suggest, as the encyclopedia article does, that the majority of Christian bishops were scared of Constantine is laughable.

 

Additionally, none of the attending bishops, whether of the Arian or the Athansasian party, believed what Mormons believe about the nature of God.  No early church father, not a single one, believed that the Father is a glorified man with a body of flesh and bones.  The primary issue during the Council was the Arian controversy, the issue of whether there was a time when the Son was not.  The Arians were in agreement with the Athanasians that the Father, like the Logos and Holy Spirit, is an immaterial Spirit that dwells beyong time and space (contra Joseph Smith); that matter and divinity are not coeternal and that all matter was created ex nihilo (contra Joseph Smith); and that the Father is uncreated (contra Joseph Smith).  There was a group of people in the post-New Testament era who, like Mormons, believed that God and matter are coeternal and denied ex nihilo creation.  Those were the gnostics and the neoplatonists. 

Edited April 27, 2014 by Spammer

[saemo]

I don't know if you read the link, but it was not anti-Christian. It was written by a Christian. Second, the arguments in the link never would have come from Protestants as they too believe in the trinity. Third, even if the argument was from an atheist, it doesn't mean it has no credit. They are just as capable of learning history as anybody else.

I don't know, I think the history is pretty straight forward and is not based on fallacy. What of the following from my link is based on fallacy or false history?

Constantine wasn't "converted" (baptized rather) until his death bed. He was still a pagan when he was presiding over and influencing the council of Nicea. Both Arius and Athanasius came from the same Apostolic church. What is the likelihood that one was entirely right and the other was entirely wrong? The likelihood is that there were elements of truth from both sides, as is the case in most arguments (this is further evidenced by the fact that the majority of members believed somewhere in-between the two).

Your argument contains general anti-Christian ideas and specific anti-Catholic ideas. If you support atheists arguments, then you are not a Christian.

So, you're suggesting that Christians dying for their faith, enduring persecution from Roman emperors for three hundred years, all of the sudden changed their minds and accepted pagan practices and beliefs? The question remains, what pagan practices or beliefs are you referring to that exist in Catholicism?

Constantine was not against Arius, exiled Athanasius, and supported Arius' return to communion. Constantine was baptized by an Arian bishop. Are you suggesting he was simultaneously Arian while inventing non-Arian doctrines?

Arius had been previously excommunicated in the West for teaching his heretical errors, long before the Council at Nicaea. He then went to the East, lacking a church in the West who will support him, where he continued to teach his heresies until he was excommunicated again by a synod of bishops that were primarily from the East. What apostolic church was he in communion with? None.

And as I said, please read a Catholic source.

Edited April 27, 2014 by saemo

[3DOP]

pogi, speaking to my contention that the Arian teachings appear to me to have been novelties.

On the other hand, there is not much evidence that the faithful were considering the ideas credited to the council of Nicea before the council began either.  It is at least accurate to say that the Arian ideas are more ancient than the Nicean creed. 

 

This is from wikipedia (snipped) : Such a deep controversy within the Church during this period of its development could not have materialized without significant historical influences providing a basis for the Arian doctrines.

 

3DOP

The best evidence that the faithful were "considering" the ideas credited to the Council is the Council. Yes. It is undoubtedly true that Arian ideas preceded the Council of Nicea, but when the Arian ideas arose, so did others in response which were crystallized at the Council. The Wikipedia article is acknowledging the different ways that historians have approached the question of Arianism. Of course, Jehovah's Witnesses say that Arius was defending original Christianity. Of course, I don't believe that, and neither should you. The highlighted quote seems reasonable to me.      

 

pogi

That is an interesting perspective.  Are you suggesting that it is possible that the original Apostles understanding of the Godhead may have been similar to LDS or Arius' theological views.

 

3DOP

No. How could I be suggesting that possibility as a Catholic? I am suggesting that Apostolic revelation and the knowledge the Apostles had was in the beginning, undeveloped. The Church, praying, pondering, and dealing with false ideas that arise, progresses in knowledge through the centuries. It seems certain to me that the Apostles did not as fully comprehend the revelations they passed on to us as we do today. This is not a criticism of the Apostles, but an admission of God's plan for the Church that it experience historical doctrinal progress.

 

pogi

The nature of God seems like a critical element of worship to me (It certainly is for Catholics today, why not back then?) that the Apostles of Christ surely understood.

 

3DOP

As far as God's nature goes, we hold that it is beyond our faculties of understanding. I agree that It is important to maintain that we cannot know God's nature in this life at least. Nevertheless, there are certainly witnesses that testify from the centuries before Arius came along that could never be reconciled with the Arian heresies which deny the eternality of the Son. These aren't put into the Nicene formulae until the Council, but it shows me that the doctrines of Nicea grew out of the beliefs of the early Church, and that the beliefs of the early Church were irreconcilable with Arius. For instance:

 

"The Father of Our Lord Jesus Christ is revealed through His Word, who is His Son--through Him is He revealed and made manifest to all to whom He is revealed. For they know Him, those to whom the Son has given revelation. The Son, however, always co-existing with the Father, of old from the beginning..."  (St. Irenaeus, Against Heresies 2:30:9) This is explicitly anti Arian and the belief that triumphed at Nicea. 

 

"And if, in your exceedingly great wisdom, it occurs to you to inquire what is meant by 'the Son', I will tell you briefly: He is the First-begotten of the Father, not as having been produced, - for from the beginning God had the Word in Himself, God being eternal mind and entirely rational..." (Athenagoras of Athens, Supplication for the Christians, 10)

 

It was Arius' idea that a transcendent God could not have a Son. Arius sought to inquire "what is meant by 'the Son'", and his conclusion was unacceptable to the Tradition of the Church. Accepting the pre-Nicene view of the transcendent nature of God, but reasoning like future Muslims would, Arius sought to diminish the full meaning of the revelation that the Word became flesh, and an eternal Son of the eternal Father was He who died for our sins.

 

pogi

What did they think of when they thought of God?  Who, or what exactly did they pray to?  Surely their God was not dissimilar to the Jewish idea of God.  Their writings have the sense to me that they knew what they were talking about.  They do not come off as mysterious and ill-understood revelations on the nature of God that they wrote without knowing what it really meant.

 

3DOP

They thought of a transcendent God, Creator of all things, who for His love of us, made in His image, sent His Son to be in human form, and to die for us. The incomprehensible God is one of us. Good news indeed. It is at the same time awe-inspiring and joyful to consider these mysterious truths. One can "ill-understand" by proposing error, but one can also "ill-understand" because the data is too much and of such a quality that our intellects would be overwhelmed.

 

"This name Christ contains an unknown significance, just as also the appellation 'God' is not a name but the notion implanted in the nature of men of a thing which can hardly be explained."

 

"After God we worship and love the Word who is from the unbegotten and inexpressible God, since he even became man for us, so that becoming a partaker in our passions He might also work their cure." (St. Justin Martyr, Second Apology 6 and 13)

 

"He is infinite and cannot be measured; and how great He is, is known to Himself alone. Our heart is too narrow to understand; and therefore we take His measure worthily by saying that He is immeasurable." (Minucius Felis, Octavius 18:7)

 

"The learning of these things, along with the pursuit of right conduct leads through Wisdom, the Craftsman of all things, to the Ruler of all, who is difficult to grasp and apprehend, ever receding and withdrawing from him that pursues." (St. Clement of Alexandria, Stromateis 2:2:5:2) 

 

"There is only one thing about the nature of God which man can most certainly understand: you must know and realize that nothing about Him can be brought out with mortal speech." (Arnobius of Sicca, Against the Pagans, 3:19)

 

pogi

I don't see any evidence that it was a problem at all for them (just like it is not for the LDS).  They certainly did not seem concerned by it.  There was no early controversy or question on the matter.  There was no need to create new terminology to define their beliefs or explain it to new converts.  It appears to be simply understood by all who professed Christianity at that time.

 

3DOP

I would suspect that the pre-Nicene writings I quoted from above were at least partly in response to controversies that arose here and there.

 

pogi

 If the nature of God (the very core and center of their worship) was not understood, it seems like there would have been more question and controversy over that matter than over matters as simple as circumcision.  A slight deviation from tradition always created great question and controversy.  That did not seem to be present with the nature of God.  Why not?  Did they not view this as more significant an issue than circumcision?  

 

3DOP

It was understood as intended. The Incomprehensible God, whose beneficence was visible to us through His creation, is even more thoroughly known through His Re-Creation of Redeemed Mankind. It has been revealed that the Father and Son and Holy Ghost are God. We can define that there is a God, and that Three Persons are One God. But this is not to define His nature as we would something we can examine by means of the senses. It seems clear to me that the early Church held to a Tradition that was compatible with the formula that come from the Council of Nicea.

 

It seems to me like LDS make a mistake if they would try to hold that the Apostasy occurred at the Council of Nicea. It seems to me like you need to back up a lot further than that. I think if you will do so you can understand why Nicea is not a corruption of what the early Church held. Instead you should say that "what the early Church held" is a corruption of what the Apostles taught.   

 

pogi

The Catholics of today certainly do.  So much so that the LDS baptism is disqualified due to our belief in the nature of the Godhead. 

 

3DOP

You probably didn't expect me to go the direction I did with "the nature of God". But it seemed to me that it is of utmost importance that we understand each other regarding the Catholic view of incomprehensibility of God's nature. On the other hand, you now mention something different, "nature of the Godhead." Scripture and Tradition have a lot to say about that.

 

For what it is worth, I am on record as saying that I think it was imprudent of the Church to change its policy regarding Mormons. Given the LDS tendency to orthopraxy instead of orthodoxy, it seems possible to me that some if not many baptisms are indeed valid. I don't want to get into it much more than that. I think a policy of conditional baptism would be entirely appropriate and think the Church is probably wrong if it judges that all LDS baptisms are invalid. 

 

pogi

I think you make some good points here.  However, as true as it may be that it is better to believe (due to spiritual impressions) than to understand.  I wouldn't expect all early Christians to live according to that mantra.  They were not afraid to create controversy or raise questions over things they did not understand, and the Apostles did not shy away from such questions and controversy.  They did their best to explain to the understanding of the lowest of the saints.  It just seems so strange that there was no controversy or question over the nature of God from the writings of the Apostles...no concern from new converts over who or what they were worshipping.  It really seems like it was well understood and accepted.

 

3DOP

Dearly beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits if they be of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world. By this is the spirit of God known. Every spirit which confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh, is of God: And every spirit that dissolveth Jesus, is not of God: and this is Antichrist, of whom you have heard that he cometh, and he is now already in the world. (I Jn. 5:1)

 

Apparently, there were already those who would "dissolve" the Son, trying to separate Jesus into either being human or divine when the Apostles insist upon both. But I agree there wasn't much controversy over God's nature either. Arius was orthodox in that respect. His problem from our perspective is that he would not grant to the Son what he readily granted of the Father. But we do think the Jews saw God the same way, as did the Gentile converts: 

 

"For if heaven and the heaven of heavens cannot contain thee, how much less this house which I have built." (3 Kings 8:27) (you would call this I Kings)

 

"Great in counsel and incomprehensible in thought: whose eyes are open upon all the ways of the children of Adam..." (Jer. 32:19)

 

"For what man knoweth the things of a man, but the spirit of a man that is in him? So the things also that are of God no man knoweth, but the Spirit of God." (I Cor. 2:9)

 

I do not suggest that these few passages of Scripture alone, which show immeasurability of God's attributes are adequate to maintain the idea of God's nature as incomprehensible. But they seem to be complimented by the earliest Traditions of the Church with which the concept is assuredly embraced. So anyway, I agree that there wasn't a lot of upheaval about whether or not man's finite intellect could grasp God's nature. This is why I think you should go for a very early apostasy instead of trying to see the Council of Nicea as a rupture with the writings of early Church leaders, and of the followers who read their writings. Of course, I would recommend that you go for "no apostasy" like me, but I think your best case would need to admit that the apostasy, or at least the ideas that led to it, were very actively promoted shortly after the Apostle's ministries.  

 

pogi

I hope I am not coming off as too adversarial, I just like some healthy dialogue and am interested in your perspective.  I like your responses. 

 

3DOP

Not at all pogi. I have enjoyed a spirited discussion.

Edited April 27, 2014 by 3DOP

[mfbukowski]

Don't worry, it's not the whiskey! That was actually my quote.  It accredited it to you because it wasn't in a quote box.  I was interested in your comment about degrees of hell and made the observation that our ideas of the after life are reversed.  I was only making an observation (and not a well informed one), not trying to play the whole "my dad can beat up your dad" game. 

HA!  Mystery solved!

[3DOP]

Don't worry, it's not the whiskey! That was actually my quote.  It accredited it to you because it wasn't in a quote box.  I was interested in your comment about degrees of hell and made the observation that our ideas of the after life are reversed.  I was only making an observation (and not a well informed one), not trying to play the whole "my dad can beat up your dad" game. 

 

Just for the record...every so often, I am not drunk. And I was pretty sure that wouldn't be me, and I was right! But...I don't know how the quote boxes work anymore. They seem kind of hard to figure out. That's why I have started italicizing instead.

[pogi]

Thanks 3DOP for the time and thought you have put into your responses.  It has helped me to understand your perspective as a Catholic better. 

 

It seems to me like LDS make a mistake if they would try to hold that the Apostasy occurred at the Council of Nicea. It seems to me like you need to back up a lot further than that. I think if you will do so you can understand why Nicea is not a corruption of what the early Church held. Instead you should say that "what the early Church held" is a corruption of what the Apostles taught.   

 

I agree with you.  We do not hold that the apostasy occurred at the council of Nicea.  We mostly just use the council and its results as evidence of it.  The apostasy is not viewed in terms of false teachings being introduced, but more in terms of authority being lost.  The council of Nicea is a perfect example of a lack of authority when it was convened and presided over by a pagan who actively participated in leading the discussions and even proposed the key term defining the trinity.  I think most Mormons hold that the authority, and divine guidance of the church had ceased long before pagans were permitted to influence doctrinal terms and ideas which previously required revelation through the presiding authority in the church.  I don't see how Constantine could be in a place to receive such revelation or even inspiration for the church.  He was a murderous pagan. 

 

By 325, it is evident that the understanding of the Godhead had become corrupt in different circles.  I think that Athanasius' early ideas of the Godhead were probably the closest to what the early apostles taught.  It wasn't until their oneness was defined as "homoousios" by the presiding authority Constantine, that the understanding of the Godhead had become irreversibly corrupt...that is, without a divine manifestation and revelation to restore previous truths.

 

Being that the ideas of Arius and Athanasius predated them, it is likely that they each had elements of apostolic teachings and truth.  It is unfortunate that the council decided that one idea had to be 100% right, while the other idea had to be 100% wrong.  The most unfortunate of all is that a prophet was not left on the earth for the Lord to reveal his secrets to (Amos 3:7). 

Edited April 28, 2014 by pogi

[pogi]

To suggest, as the encyclopedia article does, that the majority of Christian bishops were scared of Constantine is laughable.

 

Then why was he permitted to be there at all?

If they were not scared of him, they were at least attempting to butter him up and fawn over him.  I mean, this was their chance to bring Christianity out of obscurity and persecution and into power.  Heck, yes they were going to listen to him, be persuaded by him, and allow him to preside.  He may not have had a vote, but he certainly had a say.

 

Additionally, none of the attending bishops, whether of the Arian or the Athansasian party, believed what Mormons believe about the nature of God.  No early church father, not a single one, believed that the Father is a glorified man with a body of flesh and bones.  The primary issue during the Council was the Arian controversy, the issue of whether there was a time when the Son was not.  The Arians were in agreement with the Athanasians that the Father, like the Logos and Holy Spirit, is an immaterial Spirit that dwells beyong time and space (contra Joseph Smith); that matter and divinity are not coeternal and that all matter was created ex nihilo (contra Joseph Smith); and that the Father is uncreated (contra Joseph Smith).  There was a group of people in the post-New Testament era who, like Mormons, believed that God and matter are coeternal and denied ex nihilo creation.  Those were the gnostics and the neoplatonists. 

 

I agree that there are truths which were later revealed.  The core understanding of the relationship between the Father and the Son was understood however. 

Edited April 28, 2014 by pogi

[pogi]

Your argument contains general anti-Christian ideas and specific anti-Catholic ideas.

 

Being a Christian, I would not give you anti-Christian ideas.  I apologize if I am coming off as anti-Catholic.  I am not.  Because one does not believe in Catholicism doesn't make him anti-catholic.  Teaching about the apostasy is more pro-mormon than anti-Catholic on my part.

 

If you support atheists arguments, then you are not a Christian.

 

??? What makes me a Christian is my belief in and worship of Christ.  I think atheists are as apt at understanding history as any Christian.  We are talking about the history surrounding the Council of Nicea not any doctrinal arguments surrounding Christianity.  I don't even know what atheistic arguments you are referring to.  Can you please show me an atheistic argument that I have used that was written by an atheist?

 

So, you're suggesting that Christians dying for their faith, enduring persecution from Roman emperors for three hundred years, all of the sudden changed their minds and accepted pagan practices and beliefs? The question remains, what pagan practices or beliefs are you referring to that exist in Catholicism?

 

Homoousios - introduced by Constantine ( a pagan) from pagan Greek philosophy. 

 

Constantine was not against Arius, exiled Athanasius, and supported Arius' return to communion. Constantine was baptized by an Arian bishop. Are you suggesting he was simultaneously Arian while inventing non-Arian doctrines?

 

If everything you say is true, then yes, he was simultaneously inventing (rather, introducing from paganism) THE non-Arian doctrine.  You guys should have left him out of it all, he seems like a big mess of contradictions. 

 

Arius had been previously excommunicated in the West for teaching his heretical errors, long before the Council at Nicaea. He then went to the East, lacking a church in the West who will support him, where he continued to teach his heresies until he was excommunicated again by a synod of bishops that were primarily from the East. What apostolic church was he in communion with? None.

 

He was a Catholic wasn't he?  Then what do you mean what church was he in communion with?  He didn't come up with the idea that they were 3 distinct personages with different substance on his own.  He wasn't excommed until after Constantine introduced the new doctrinal terminology for the church.  

Edited April 28, 2014 by pogi

[mfbukowski]

Just for the record...every so often, I am not drunk. And I was pretty sure that wouldn't be me, and I was right! But...I don't know how the quote boxes work anymore. They seem kind of hard to figure out. That's why I have started italicizing instead.

When you click on "quote" you will notice a little icon that looks like a light switch, in the top left corner of the reply box- right up there next to your avatar.

 

Click on that and everything becomes easy- it goes back to the old fashioned interface and you can manually add quotes and do all kinds of cool stuff.  Just try it now- quote this and try it out

[saemo]

Being a Christian, I would not give you anti-Christian ideas.  I apologize if I am coming off as anti-Catholic.  I am not.  Because one does not believe in Catholicism doesn't make him anti-catholic.  Teaching about the apostasy is more pro-mormon than anti-Catholic on my part.

I'm not offended. I'm addressing your arguments, which are, anti-Catholic. The assertion that paganism has influenced Christian development was first defended against by Justin Martyr, in the early second century.

 

 

??? What makes me a Christian is my belief in and worship of Christ.  I think atheists are as apt at understanding history as any Christian.  We are talking about the history surrounding the Council of Nicea not any doctrinal arguments surrounding Christianity.  I don't even know what atheistic arguments you are referring to.  Can you please show me an atheistic argument that I have used that was written by an atheist?

An atheist argument is the same as the one defended in the early second century, and the same one you are making now.

A - Christianity is a product of pagan beliefs and practices mixed with Judaism. This argument is centered on Jesus, in an attempt to discredit his divinity at the least, his existence at the most.

B - The assertion that pagan practices and beliefs continued to exert themselves into Christianity via the emperor Constantine, is also used by atheists in an attempt to discredit Christianity.

You are focusing on B. for the purpose of discrediting Catholicism.

 

Homoousios - introduced by Constantine ( a pagan) from pagan Greek philosophy. 

Greek philosophy is not a religion. What religious practice or belief is found in Constantine's pagan background that homoousios applies to?

 

If everything you say is true, then yes, he was simultaneously inventing (rather, introducing from paganism) THE non-Arian doctrine.  You guys should have left him out of it all, he seems like a big mess of contradictions. 

I was asking what you are suggesting, out of incredulity, not support. If you're going to make stuff up about Constantine, at least consider all the possible things you could make up.

Constantine was not part of the council, so, he was indeed "left out".

 

He was a Catholic wasn't he?  Then what do you mean what church was he in communion with?

An excommunicated Catholic is just as the word says, not in communion. Which means, barred from receiving the Sacraments. If clergy then barred from performing Sacramental or pastoral duties, including teaching.

He didn't come up with the idea that they were 3 distinct personages with different substance on his own.

I didn't say he did, I said, he was excommunicated in the West for his heretical teachings.

 He wasn't excommed until after Constantine introduced the new doctrinal terminology for the church.

He was excommunicated twice. First in the West. He left for the East and found a sympathetic Arian Bishop in the East who reinstated him. Both were excommunicated at Nicaea.

[pogi]

An atheist argument is the same as the one defended in the early second century, and the same one you are making now.

 

My point is that it is not an atheist argument if it comes from a Christian to support his Christian religion.  When you take into account the restoration, arguing for an apostasy is indeed Christian.  Atheists don't argue for an apostasy at all because that suggests that there was indeed a church led by God to begin with.  

 

Greek philosophy is not a religion. What religious practice or belief is found in Constantine's pagan background that homoousios applies to? 

 

Sorry, I was typing faster than I was thinking.  I meant pagan Greek theology, not philosophy. It comes from his Hermetic background.

 

"Having once excluded any relationship of the Nicene homoousios with the Christian tradition, it becomes legitimate to propose a new explanation, based on an analysis of two pagan documents which have so far never been taken into account. The main thesis of this paper is that homoousios came straight from Constantine's Hermetic background. As can be clearly seen in the Poimandres, and even more clearly in an inscription mentioned exclusively in the Theosophia, in the theological language of Egyptian paganism the word homoousios meant that the Nous-Father and the Logos-Son, who are two distinct beings, share the same perfection of the divine nature."

 

http://www.thefreelibrary.com/The+word+%22homoousios%22+from+Hellenism+to+Christianity.-a089816070

 

I was asking what you are suggesting, out of incredulity, not support. If you're going to make stuff up about Constantine, at least consider all the possible things you could make up.

Constantine was not part of the council, so, he was indeed "left out".

 

 

Did I make up that Constantine presided over the council and actively took part in the discussions, suggesting the term homoousios?  I did not  make that up.  He did indeed introduce the non-arian term that was adopted by the church. The fact that he was later baptized by an Arian does seem ironic. 

 

I didn't say he did, I said, he was excommunicated in the West for his heretical teachings.

 

My point is that his ideas were likely passed down through the early church to him before he was excommunicated and still in communion with them.  He was probably excommed for denying the divinity of Christ rather than teaching about 3 separate personages of different matter.  It is more likely that the early fathers believed along those lines than the Hermetic homoousios idea which wasn't introduced until much later. 

Edited April 28, 2014 by pogi

[Spammer]

"My point is that his ideas were likely passed down through the early church to him before he was excommunicated and still in communion with them.  He was probably excommed for denying the divinity of Christ rather than teaching about 3 separate personages of different matter.  It is more likely that the early fathers believed along those lines than the Hermetic homoousios idea which wasn't introduced until much later."

 

The early fathers believed that matter was created ex nihilo, so, however they understood the divine 'substance', that substance was not material. You're barking up the wrong tree, reading Mormonism into the ancient sources.

Edited April 28, 2014 by Spammer

[Spammer]

Then why was he permitted to be there at all?

If they were not scared of him, they were at least attempting to butter him up and fawn over him.  I mean, this was their chance to bring Christianity out of obscurity and persecution and into power.  Heck, yes they were going to listen to him, be persuaded by him, and allow him to preside.  He may not have had a vote, but he certainly had a say.

 

Constantine convened the council at the suggestion of his chief advisor, Hosius, Bishop of Cordova in Spain, who had previously held a synod trying to settle the issue regionally.  Constantine convened the empire-wide council due to the failure of the synod and because of the growing disorder and violence produced by the Arian controversy.  People took their beliefs very seriously back then, thinking that holding to incorrect beliefs would have cosmic consequences.  Constantine was determined to bring the church together to put an end to the discord and facilitate religious unity in his newly-won empire.  The two rival understandings about the nature of Christ in the life of the Trinity existed prior to the council and were brought to the deliberations by their respective proponents.  Nothing new or innovative was decided by the council, apart from use of the term homoousious, which was applied to the already existing and agreed-upon idea of the immaterial, divine substance that created all matter ex nihilo.  This understanding of the nature of God was not invented at the council and was believed by the early church fathers.    As noted, Constantine was not permitted to vote.  He was not a bishop.  As is evident in the surviving eyewitness accounts, he convened the council, presided over the deliberations, took part in discussions (all of which was his right as emperor in an era when there was no concept of the separation of church and state and religion was understood as playing a civic, harmonizing role in society), played devil's advocate on behalf of both sides, and made suggestions in his efforts to bring the two parties together (which was his intent when suggesting the term homoousious).  In no way did he dictate the outcome (this is a myth believed in by atheists, some Protestants, and Mormons).  As well, none of the attending bishops, priests, and deacons, and none of the local churches they represented, believed that the three persons of the Trinity are separate material substances.  That was never the belief of the Church.  It's not taught in the New Testament and none of the early church fathers, including those who were disciples of the Apostle John, believed it.  Like the early church fathers before them, the Arian party and the Athanasian party believed, before the council was convened, that the divine substance is immaterial and created matter ex nihilo.  The controversy was solely over the issue of whether the Son was created/begotten out of nothing by the immaterial Father, an immaterial divine substance creating a subordinate, immaterial divine substance (the Arians); or whether the Son is eternally begotten/generated by the Father, belonging to the same immaterial divine substance as the Father (the Athanasians).  Constantine suggested the term homoousious, a Greek philosophical concept, as a way to explain what is meant by the Father and the Son having the same nature, substance, or essence.   That is the sum total of his contribution to the council's deliberations. 

Edited April 28, 2014 by Spammer