Mormonism And The Church Fathers

[Saint Therese]

[quote name='Justin86' post='1454856' date='Feb 3 2008, 08:11 AM']Oh come off it. This has nothing to with politics and I'm sick and tired of all the religious bigotry surrounding Romney (even though I can't stand his politics). Its no different then anything Catholics faced before JFK. I mean, get a clue.[/quote]
Your argument isn't valid because a Catholic's religious philosophy is vastly different from a Mormon's. And to say that his philosophy wouldn't influence his actions is just silly.

[Saint Therese]

[quote name='Justin86' post='1455251' date='Feb 4 2008, 02:38 AM']Well, there's a difference from being able to live forever, and being Eternal which is what I was trying to say. The Catholic Church threw out the idea that souls were co-eternal with God a long time ago.[/quote]
We are eternal beings. Finite and eternal.

[SanctitasDeo]

[quote name='mortify' post='1455608' date='Feb 4 2008, 09:59 PM']Sanctis,

Sorry, I actually meant to say that those quotes I posted (in my second post on this thread) *are his replies.*
God Bless[/quote]

Thank you. I was seriously questioning my understanding Catholic doctrine. It was a sort of a Twilight Zone moment, and I wondered if you forgotten a 'not' or three.

[quote name='Saint Therese' post='1455618' date='Feb 4 2008, 10:12 PM']Your argument isn't valid because a Catholic's religious philosophy is vastly different from a Mormon's. And to say that his philosophy wouldn't influence his actions is just silly.[/quote]

I won't argue that the religious philosophies aren't different. I can think of a few differences myself, but I am curious what differences you are referring to, and how they will influence Romney in such a way that is so antithetical to Catholics. Especially in such a banal arena as government policy.

[Apotheoun]

Justin, in Chapter 56 of his dialogue with Trypho, says:

[quote]ὅτι ἐστὶ καὶ λέγεται θεὸς καὶ κύριος ἕτερος ὑπὸ τὸν ποιητὴν τῶν ὅλων[/quote]
Now, all that Justin Martyr is saying is that the Logos (i.e., the Son) is God different (ἕτερος) from the Maker of all things (i.e., the Father), and so he is not asserting a multiplicity of gods, which is contrary to both Jewish and Christian belief; instead, he is simply confessing a distinction of persons (i.e., subjects or subsistences). In fact, the Niceno-Constantinopolitan creed teaches the same thing when it differentiates the Father from the Son by calling the Father the "one God, the Father Almighty, maker of heaven and earth and of all things visible and invisible," while referring to the Son as, the "one Lord, Jesus Christ, Son of God, the only-begotten, born of the Father before all ages, Light of Light, true God of true God, begotten, not made, of one essence with the Father."

That said, it is important to remember that the doctrine of the monarchy of the Father has always been a fundamental part of the Church's faith in the Triune God, for the Father is the sole font of divinity, and that is why the Son and Spirit are hypostatically dependent upon Him, while being equal to Him in divinity, since He (i.e., the Father) imparts His essence to them by eternally generating the Son and eternally processing the Spirit. In other words, Justin is simply asserting the distinction of persons within the Godhead, and nothing more. Finally, as far as the oneness of the divine will (and energy) is concerned, the Father and the Son can only have one will because they are one in essence. As the Eastern Fathers unanimously taught, oneness of energy requires -- of its very nature -- oneness of essence.

Edited February 5, 2008 by Apotheoun

[mortify]

[quote]Peace in Christ,

Regarding the references from Chapter 128 of Trypho you said,
[quote]"These references simply prove that Jesus is dependant upon the Father for his power and glory, he is inseparable from the Father just as we, when we give the words of the Father or do the works of the Father, are inseparable from the Father. We cannot do this without the Father, nor can we even exist on our own. We are inseparable, and the power of God is indivisible from Him. But this by no means makes us one being or essence with the Father."[/quote]


The problem with this interpretation is that it runs contrary to Justin's argument. His whole goal is to prove to these monotheists that Jesus is God. So if you go back to chapter 126 of Trypho, you'll see that he first distinguishes the Word of God from the Father, and then he says Jesus Christ is the Word of God in the following Chapter. When we get to chapter 128 he makes the following key points:

1) The Son is "indivisible" and "inseparable" from the Father
2) The Father and Son are "numerically distinct"
3) "[The Son] was begotten from the Father, by His power and will, but not by abscission, as if the essence of the Father were divided"

With regards to point 1, Justin is simply stating what the Jews already accept: that the Word of God is indivisible and inseparable from the Father. To them the terms "Word" and "Father" constitute titles for the same Person. Justin is trying to prove that there is a real *numerical* *distinction* between the Two:

[quote]"And that this power which the prophetic word calls God [...] [b]is not numbered [as different] in name [u]only[/u] [/b]like the light of the sun but is indeed something numerically distinct" Ch 128[/quote]


Again, this does not suggest polytheism since it would contradict point 1. Even though there is a *distinction* between the Father and Son, they remain inseparable and Justin affirms this in point 3:

[quote]"When I asserted that this power was begotten from the Father, by His power and will, but not by abscission, [b]as if the essence of the Father were divided;[/b]" Ch 128[/quote]


Here Justin is bringing points 1 and 2 together but lets get back to your interpretation for a second. If you're right about point 1, that inseparable and indivisible are used so loosely that they no longer signify unity in essence, why does Justin feel the need to address the point on the Father's essence? Clearly Justin is interpreting point 1 to mean a unity in essence, and therefore explains that the begetting of the Son does not divide the Father's essence. Since the essence remains one, and the Father and Son are inseparable, then the Father and Son are one in essence.


I think it's clear that in so many words Justin Martyr is describing what is called the Trinity: numerically distinct Persons sharing the same undivided essence.


God bless[/quote]

[mortify]

Thank you for the response Apotheoun

[Laudate_Dominum]

Δόξα Πατρί και Υιώ και Αγίω Πνεύματι, και νυν και αεί και εις τους αιώνας των αιώνων. Αμήν.

[N/A Gone]

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' post='1454469' date='Feb 2 2008, 08:58 AM']The language of “becoming gods” is sometimes used in elucidating the mystery of [i]theosis[/i] (plenty of Fathers, Scheeben, Marmion, the Catechism, et al.) but this does not in any way imply Mormon theology. The doctrine of [i]theosis[/i] is essential to authentic Christianity and presupposes orthodox belief about the Trinity, the Incarnation, the economy of salvation, et cetera, and to transplant these Fathers’ words into a Mormon theological context is pretty shoddy indeed.[/quote]


[quote name='Apotheoun' post='1454470' date='Feb 2 2008, 09:12 AM']Catholics must not shy away from the doctrine of [i]Theosis[/i] simply because Mormons misuse patristical sources.

Those interested in reading more about [i]Theosis[/i] from an Eastern Catholic perspective can do so by clicking the link below, or by doing a search of the Phatmass phorum using the word "[i]Theosis[/i]":

[url="http://www.geocities.com/apotheoun/theosis"]The Doctrine of Theosis[/url][/quote]

You guys are like a theological daily multivitamin.

[mortify]

I realized all cults and false religions follow a few basic principles:

i) Early on in Christian history there was a great apostasy resulting in the loss of truth.
ii) "X" amount of years pass, when God inspired Person XYZ to return to the original faith.
iii) Even though the cult of XYZ contains doctrines unheard of to older denominations, followers of XYZ believe them to be the teaching of God because of (i)

This line of thought is seen among the Protestants, Momons, Jehovah Witnesses, Muslims, and many others. They use it to attack the genuine faith which really is founded on Christ and His Apostles. The solution is when we realize for Christ to be true His truth had to *always* be preserved.


[color="#FF0000"]"Going therefore, teach ye all nations; baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world."[/color]

[Saint Therese]

Well, since Mormons deny the necessity of grace,absolutely,the way a Catholic would, I would think they might fall into the category of Manicheanism (spelling?). Also, I'm sure the Church Fathers had much to say about the Gnostics,which the Mormons definitely are.

Edited March 29, 2008 by Saint Therese

[Apotheoun]

Manicheanism is a gnostic form of dualism, while Pelagianism denied the necessity of grace for salvation, because Pelagius supposedly confused nature and grace.

[SanctitasDeo]

Mormons are most definitely not Pelagianists. And I don't feel at all like a Gnostic either.

[mortify]

Mormons remind me of Montanists.

[SanctitasDeo]

Montanists seem more like Pentecostals than Mormons.

[T-Bone _]

SanctitiasDeo, what exactly do Mormans believe about grace?

[SanctitasDeo]

First, here are a few scriptures from the Book of Mormon:

[quote]24 Wherefore, my beloved brethren, reconcile yourselves to the will of God, and not to the will of the devil and the flesh; and remember, after ye are reconciled unto God, that it is only in and through the grace of God that ye are saved.--2 Nephi 10:24

23 For we labor diligently to write, to persuade our children, and also our brethren, to believe in Christ, and to be reconciled to God; for we know that it is by grace that we are saved, after all we can do. --2 Nephi 25:23

...And by the law no flesh is justified....

Wherefore redemption cometh in and through the Holy Messiah, for he is full of grace and truth.

Behold he offereth himself a sacrifice for sin, to answer the ends of the law, unto all those who have a broken heart and a contrite spirit; and unto none else can the ends of the law be answered.

...no flesh...can dwell in the presence of God, save it be through the merits, and mercy, and grace of the Holy Messiah, who layeth down his life according to the flesh, and taketh it again by the power of the Spirit... --From 2 Nephi 2:5-8[/quote]

We believe that it is through grace we are saved, that the atonement was necessary. If our Saviour had not suffered and died for us, we would die in our sins, there would be no resurrection (and we would never be able to have a body again), and we would be in hell. We would never see the face of our Father again.

We believe that works are necessary. I think we might be similar to y'all in this respect. Through baptism, priesthood ordination and in the temples, we make covenants with God wherein we promise to be diligent in keeping his commandments and endure to the end, and he promises the mercy and grace of Christ in our lives, as well as eternal life and exaltation.

[mortify]

[quote name='SanctitasDeo' post='1488569' date='Mar 29 2008, 11:03 PM']Montanists seem more like Pentecostals than Mormons.[/quote]

I meant in the sense of a prophet claiming new revelation that should be added to the new testament. Not the doctrine itself.

Edited April 2, 2008 by mortify

[SanctitasDeo]

[quote]I meant in the sense of a prophet claiming new revelation that should be added to the new testament. Not the doctrine itself.[/quote]

Well of course, though the method of receiving revelation varies enough that it still reminds me more of Pentecostals. We don't really do the ecstatic revelation thing. Not like (it seems) the Montanists did, as well as the Pentecostals. But you are definitely right about the new revelation thing.

[johnnydigit]

too much reading to understand a misinterpretation..