madeleine wrote:...and...Mormons are the only ones I know stuck on naming a church. Catholic means universal, which is the unity of faith. One faith, one baptism. The Eucharist is found since the beginning. The description of our liturgy, is found since the beginning. Baptism, holy orders, Jesus Christ being defended as both human and divine.
Mormonism is not of this faith, so it is not possible to speak of Christian unity with Mormonism.
I hadn't thought of it this way, madeleine. Thanks!
"Petition wasn’t meant to start a witch hunt as I’ve said 6000 times." ~ Hanna Seariac, LDS apologist
Being a Christian is not the result of an ethical choice or a lofty idea, but the encounter with an event, a person, which gives life a new horizon and a decisive direction -Pope Benedict XVI
madeleine wrote: I'm sorry, it is you who is misinformed. There were, and still are, multiple Christian communities, who were and are all of one faith. Heresies arose, and still do, and always will. Orthodox are not heretical, they are in schism.
The Orthodox are catholic, and are of the same, one faith, one baptism. As are all Christians who worship Jesus Christ, as Lord and GOD. (Not the Mormon equivocation of "a" god.)
Mormons seek to impose an idea of "church" that has never existed.
Wrong again Madeleine but ignorance is bliss. Look, given my doubts about the LDS Church I have less skin in the game than others. But historically you are simply all wet.
Pick up a book by Bart Ehrman on early Christianity. Your Orthodox view may have ended up a heresy had someone else won. This is not a Mormon position Madeline. Your sect won and rewrote history that made them look like the winner from the start. But that just ain't true. Sorry.
By the way Mormons don't worship just a little g god, your condescension not withstanding.
"I believe in the holy catholic church." is in the Niceaen-Constantinople creed.
When a Catholic says this, we are speaking not only of our own rite, such as the Roman rite, but every catholic rite, east and west. We are including all the baptized, east, west and Protestant.
Church, being not an institution of common believers, but the Kingdom Of Heaven, on earth. Jesus Christ cares for her as a husband cares for his bride, so the Church is also called, the Bride of Christ. Jesus Christ has never forsaken His bride.
In the early Church, communities of Christians formed under the Apostles, who had been sent out by Jesus Christ. They ordained successors, who are our Bishops (east and west). The New Testament speak of these communities, the church in Jerusalem, the church in Ephesia, the church in Rome, the church in Antioch, etc. These were not separate churches, but churches in communion with each other, existing under the unity of one faith, one baptism...in, through, with and under Jesus Christ.
Many of the very old churches still exist, and can show succession from the Apostles to their current Bishop, including the church in Rome. As the Gospel of Jesus Christ spread, new churches were formed under the successors to the Apostles. The Latin church calls these churches "diocese", the Eastern churches calls these churches "patriarchies". They are the same thing, with names coming from the cultural tradition of where they are.
This is the physical description of "church", however all catholics understand "church" as mystical. United under Jesus Christ by the same grace that unites us under His Salvation. Christ died for all.
This same understanding of "church" exists in early Church writings.
Being a Christian is not the result of an ethical choice or a lofty idea, but the encounter with an event, a person, which gives life a new horizon and a decisive direction -Pope Benedict XVI
madeleine wrote: I'm sorry, it is you who is misinformed. There were, and still are, multiple Christian communities, who were and are all of one faith. Heresies arose, and still do, and always will. Orthodox are not heretical, they are in schism.
The Orthodox are catholic, and are of the same, one faith, one baptism. As are all Christians who worship Jesus Christ, as Lord and GOD. (Not the Mormon equivocation of "a" god.)
Mormons seek to impose an idea of "church" that has never existed.
Wrong again Madeleine but ignorance is bliss. Look, given my doubts about the LDS Church I have less skin in the game than others. But historically you are simply all wet.
Pick up a book by Bart Ehrman on early Christianity. Your Orthodox view may have ended up a heresy had someone else won. This is not a Mormon position Madeline. Your sect won and rewrote history that made them look like the winner from the start. But that just ain't true. Sorry.
By the way Mormons don't worship just a little g god, your condescension not withstanding.
You should get your history from better sources than Bart Ehrman.
Any God but the One True God, is not God. How is it that being faithful to my beliefs is condescending to yours?
Being a Christian is not the result of an ethical choice or a lofty idea, but the encounter with an event, a person, which gives life a new horizon and a decisive direction -Pope Benedict XVI
You should get your history from better sources than Bart Ehrman.
Any God but the One True God, is not God. How is it that being faithful to my beliefs is condescending to yours?
Ehrman is a perfectly good source.
If you must, then at least choose more than one source.
Being a Christian is not the result of an ethical choice or a lofty idea, but the encounter with an event, a person, which gives life a new horizon and a decisive direction -Pope Benedict XVI
Jason Bourne wrote:Wrong again Madeleine but ignorance is bliss. Look, given my doubts about the LDS Church I have less skin in the game than others. But historically you are simply all wet.
Pick up a book by Bart Ehrman on early Christianity. Your Orthodox view may have ended up a heresy had someone else won. This is not a Mormon position Madeline. Your sect won and rewrote history that made them look like the winner from the start. But that just ain't true. Sorry.
By the way Mormons don't worship just a little g god, your condescension not withstanding.
Jason,
Please, put down the Bart Ehrman book and read something else. I enjoy Bart Ehrman's books too, but it's time to branch out and read something else on early Christianity. He's a good text critic, and he has a good grasp of the historical Jesus and the New Testament. Once he goes beyond that he's out of his league.
Bart is a very angry fundamentalist who has a big ax to grind. The reasons Mormons love him so much (and cite him ad nauseum) is because he's grinding the same ax as Mormons are, they both think orthodox Christianity is out to lunch.
There is one area where the orthodox did win and suppress everyone else, and decisively so. But the funny thing is that you are in complete agreement that they should have done this, but may not know it. It was the orthodox who defined the canon in 367 AD (during the "great apostasy"), and ratified it a few decades later. The books of the New Testament were selected in part because they were orthodox. So to be really consistent, if the orthodox is nothing more than a bunch of baby eaters who triumphed over everyone else, it's time to stop using the New Testament.
Being a Christian is not the result of an ethical choice or a lofty idea, but the encounter with an event, a person, which gives life a new horizon and a decisive direction -Pope Benedict XVI
Has the Catholic church always accepted the baptisms of other religions as valid? Or were converts in the past required to be baptized within the Catholic faith?
We hate to seem like we don’t trust every nut with a story, but there’s evidence we can point to, and dance while shouting taunting phrases.