posted
Occasional, why would non-Catholics, at least non-Catholics that aren't experts in religious history, have any real understanding of the origins of the Catholic church?
Posts: 1990 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Constantine made Christianity the official religion of Rome... after he converted, which directly implies that the religion pre-dates him.
Dag, I think your statement is what I meant about Guadalupe being endorsed-- they had investigated and not found it incompatible with the faith, which, as far as I know, is as about far as they go with anything that isn't actually dogmatic, isn't it?
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Jim-Me, I am not saying that Christianity did not exist before the Catholic religion. I am saying that Constantine (by making a version of Christianity the official religion of Rome) founded the Catholic Church. He is the one who took the steps to convene councils that ultimately decided the future acceptable creeds of Christianity. He is the one, again through councils, who created the organizational structure of Catholic authority. He is the one, through councils, who decide the Biblical cannon. Without him Christianity would have remained a small group of a splintered faith.
"Occasional, why would non-Catholics, at least non-Catholics that aren't experts in religious history, have any real understanding of the origins of the Catholic church?"
Generally, I will concede I don't think they know a lot. However, you are dealing with a secterian more than scholastic question.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
Peter is "first" among the apostles. The Catholic Church is an apostolic church. He is considered to be the first "pope" (although that term wasn't in use and wouldn't have meant the same thing).
Paul was responsible for the spread and growth of Christianity in the first century. His writings make up a large part of the New Testament. He and Peter are considered the two major figures in the early church.
Constantine, when he embraced Christianity (when he converted is in some dispute) in 316 (or thereabouts - I could be off by a couple of years) was responsible for making Christianity the official religion of the empire. (Personally, I don't think he did us any favors, getting us all tangled up with power and politics.)
edit to add (cross posting!): What Constantine did with the Councils was basically saying, "now that Christianity is a state religion, we have to know what is "officially" Christian." You will notice that I say "Christian" as opposed to "Catholic". Since the split didn't happen until approximatly a millenium later, Constantine's influence must apply to non-Catholics as well.
posted
kmboots, from one point of view - yes. We are dealing with secterian arguments at this point. To be honest, even scholars question your view of the development of the Christian religion. Not that I agree with them, but I am not Catholic and therefore hold different beliefs and views than Catholics and even Protestants might.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Crossposting again: see my edit above. I am talking history rather than theology here. What different views are you holding?
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The view I hold is that as soon as Constantine said "now that Christianity is a state religion, we have to know what is "officially" Christian," that original Christianity no longer existed. It had become a mere shadow of itself in Catholicism.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think that would be a theological perspective rather than an historical one. And a not very widely held one, as well. Just out of curiousity, who are the scholars you mention earlier?
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
Constantine is when lds think Catholicism jumped the shark, requiring Jesus to go to America, I think? When and how did the lds come up with the specific belief that Christianity was fine until Constantine's changes?
I'd like to hear a protestant point of view too, ie Dana, about her understanding of the early church and this Constantine theory.
Posts: 1014 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Protestant denominations that trace their history through the reformation(s) (Lutheran, Presbyterian, Christian Reformed, United Church of Christ, Anglican, Episcopal, Methodist, etc.) would tend to agree with the Catholics on this, the ones that consider themselves “restorations” (Church of Christ, Christian Church (Disciples of Christ), etc.) would be with Occaisional’s position.
Personally, I think the idea that Constantine “founded” any church is historically unsupportable. He was influential in calling together the councils to rule on the various theological debates raging at the time, but that would likely have happened fairly soon in any case. However I do agree with Kate that making Christianity a required religion and enforcing that requirement did great harm, to the church as well as to those who ran afoul of the enforcement.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Constantine is when lds think Catholicism jumped the shark,
This is not correct. LDS believe the apostasy occurred shortly after the original apostles + Paul and so died. In other words, within the first century after Christ died.
Christ came to America shortly after he died and was resurrected - around the same time that he appeared as a resurrected being to the apostles in Jerusalem.
The apostasy of the original Christian church did not have anything to do with Christ coming to America, except perhaps indirectly because the Book of Mormon was part of the Restoration that needed to occur because of the apostasy. No connection two thousand years ago, however.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
All valid points, and I apologize if there was any inaccuracy in my post due to massive oversimplification of early Christian history
I find Christian discussions very entertaining, because there are so many different interpretations, understandings, and beliefs, even within a single sect. You have changing beliefs and understanding through the history of the religion, disagreements within any given period of time, and strangely worded and differently understood articles of faith to contend with, among so many other difficulties.
When you bring Catholics, various Protestant beliefs, and LDS all into the same discussion, it's a big, confusing party.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
God is a pretty big topic. It would be more astonishing if we had all the answers and our understanding never grew. We Catholics have a saying. "It's a mystery." In the past that has been interpreted to mean "because I say so". I prefer a more modern interpretation - that there is always more to discover.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hey! This is a Questions About Catholicism thread! If you want to talk about LDS start your own thread! Posts: 2596 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
Also, Occasional's thoughts about the early church seem different too. Is there an official place in lds literature where these beliefs are written down?
Posts: 1990 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Apostasy happened on Thursday, May 2, 287 at 6:39 a.m.
Nah, I don't know. But my feeling is that the Apostasy was a process (rather than event) that started in the first century--it's already apparent in the New Testament--and continues in certain forms to this day. I guess I would say that a general apostasy had occurred by about Constantine's time (though I'm not sure there's any causal link there).
Posts: 1068 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think there is. There are exact dates for the Restoration, but not for the other. I don't think that there was a line in the sand, exactly.
Although, come to think of it, if there had to be a line in the sand, it would be the day the priesthood passed from the earth for that dispensation. I'm not sure when Dante and Occasional believe that was.
Added: I think we were all writing at the same time. I concur that it was a process and not a single dramatic moment.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
no, I already asked my question. Sorry to interupt, I was feeling frisky. I've already swatted my own nose.
Posts: 2596 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by katharina: Although, come to think of it, if there had to be a line in the sand, it would be the day the priesthood passed from the earth for that dispensation.
What's this talking about?
Posts: 1990 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
"apostasy" is an awfully strong word... do LDS really believe all other Christians (or even Roman Catholics alone) are apostates?
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I just thought I would move this discussion back over to LDS and Philosophy so there isn't a distraction. I will answer some questions at the end of the second page soon as I have time.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:"apostasy" is an awfully strong word... do LDS really believe all other Christians (or even Roman Catholics alone) are apostates?
There's a difference, I think, in the connotations of the words apostasy and apostate. Apostasy, to me (and thus, in my mind, Mormonism), is a general, unspecific, state of being fallen away from God. Apostate, on the other hand, implies an individual, willful turning away from God and His truth.
Mormonism proclaims that it is the "one true church," but doesn't deny that other churches have truth.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Well, Mormons and Catholics agree on lots of things: the divinity of Jesus, the virgin birth, the importance of authority...
I don't think it's accurate to say that Mormons and Catholics agree on the divinity of Jesus. Just because they use the same word doesn't mean the teachings are at all similar, and the focus of the doctrine for Catholics rests heavily on the areas of disagreement.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
a short aside back to a previous discussion: adding on to what Dag (an others) were saying about miracles/appearances...
I think most of what you are talking about, Occasional, is a populous thing. Perhaps a folk-religion movement within the church. Seeing Jesus in a taco sign is generally not confirmed in any official capacity, though as long as there is no harm being done as a result would probably be deemed harmless and/or slightly beneficial by the church in general.
There are however "certified" miracles and have been at least in the range of 6-10 (possibly a few more or less) within the last century or so. (actually probably more than that, but I can only think of a handful, and others were probably more minor and/or less well-known). These occurances are carefully investigated by officers of the church (generally priests from a specific organization within the vatican whose name I can't recall. But I think other religious, i.e. brothers and sisters can sometimes be used) this will involve interviews with those involved, background investigations, investigations of the site/occurance etc... basically a very thourough investigation to make sure people aren't just making things up and/or this isn't just an odd natural phenomena. I'm sure there are some specific criteria they look for but it's an extensive process and fairly subjective in the end. At the end of the process I'm not sure that they technically declare the occurance a miracle so much as they might just declare it not a hoax.
Notable examples are the marian visitations at Fatima, various miraculous healings, and there was I believe a crucifix somewhere in southeast asia (maybe the phillipines) that bled human blood
Posts: 1038 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
EDIT: I think it's fair to note that I'm pretty sure the Catholic church doesn't consider the Mormon beliefs "Christian."
And I'm being deliberately non-confrontational.
I don't think honest discussion or acknowledgement of the differences is confrontational, even if we disagree. Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
I don't know whether RCC recognizes Mormon baptism or not -- I'd suspect not -- but I'm Catholic, and a well-informed one, and I don't see differences to be nearly severe enough to call us different religions. I don't know what LDS means by the divinity of Christ, of course, but for RCC, it's just that Christ is 100% God (and 100% human).
And if the catechism says something else, I guess I can take it . . . :~|
Posts: 1877 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Hat]](graemlins/hat.gif)
