- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
SamBee wrote:
The Roman Catholics like to claim the early Christian fathers, but anyone before the 600s barely qualifies as such. They never had the level of central control or influence, priests could marry, most of the contemporary monastic movements or the likes of the Jesuits were long into the future.
Isn’t that like saying early Church leaders weren’t really Latter-day Saints? All churches evolve. But even still, I don’t think your arguments are accurate.
-Bishops, Priests, and all clerics were barred from marriage in 305AD.
-St. Anthony established monasticism for the Church in 305AD.
-The Nicean Creed was made in 325AD.
-Augustine himself established the doctrine of “Original Sin”.
-There was a central authority, the Pope, Father Victor I. Many creeds and councils were established to decide on doctrine, including the Synod of Hippo, which canonized our modern bible.
Still, define them how you will, the pregenitors of Catholics, who identified as Catholics, under what they held to be Catholic authority, and led by the Pope Father Victor, decided what would be considered canon and what wouldn’t.
dande48 wrote:
SamBee wrote:
The Roman Catholics like to claim the early Christian fathers, but anyone before the 600s barely qualifies as such. They never had the level of central control or influence, priests could marry, most of the contemporary monastic movements or the likes of the Jesuits were long into the future.
Isn’t that like saying early Church leaders weren’t really Latter-day Saints? All churches evolve. But even still, I don’t think your arguments are accurate.
-Bishops, Priests, and all clerics were barred from marriage in 305AD.
-St. Anthony established monasticism for the Church in 305AD.
-The Nicean Creed was made in 325AD.
-Augustine himself established the doctrine of “Original Sin”.
-There was a central authority, the Pope, Father Victor I. Many creeds and councils were established to decide on doctrine, including the Synod of Hippo, which canonized our modern bible.
Still, define them how you will, the pregenitors of Catholics, who identified as Catholics, under what they held to be Catholic authority, and led by the Pope Father Victor, decided what would be considered canon and what wouldn’t.
Priests and monks were marrying far later than that even in the west – and surnames reflect that e.g. Abbott, MacNab, Haggarty etc. In Eastern areas which would later separate in the Schism, they’ve always been able to marry.
The Pope was often ignored until the Middle Ages. The Crusades consolidated their control but even that was not total.
Also you’ll note I say *contemporary* monastic orders. Not those of the first millenium but the Franciscans, Dominicans and Augustinians.
A lot of distinctly RC doctrine is of surprisingly recent origin or approval e.g. the idea of the immaculate conception of Mary, which underpins Mariolotary, was only rubber stamped in the 1850s, well.after the Reformation and after the foundation of the LDS! Much of contemporary Roman Catholicism is influenced by the Reformation which forced the church of Rome to a) try and put its house in order and b) maintain better control.
—-
The current LDS bears little resemblence to the church of Joseph or even Brigham.
The successor who most resembled Joseph Smith was Strang not Young, but still Young was much closer to JS than the current church. Think of all the other major differences – the lack of new revealed works or mysticism, no Gathering to Zion, gerontocracy, monogamy, correlation, incorporation into the mainstream etc. Early Mormonism lived on the edge, modern Mormonism wants desperately to be mainstream.
Guys. This is a thread to talk about poop. Reuben wrote:
Guys. This is a thread to talk about poop.
[img]https://medexaminer.files.wordpress.com/2014/02/expanded-bristol-stool-chart-01.jpg?w=1620&h=1118 [/img] dande48 wrote:
-Bishops, Priests, and all clerics were barred from marriage in 305AD.-St. Anthony established monasticism for the Church in 305AD.
-The Nicean Creed was made in 325AD.
…and pretty much tossed the idea of celibate clergy. As a result, it was generally ignored for another 800 years before finally being codified in 1139.
NightSG wrote:
dande48 wrote:
-Bishops, Priests, and all clerics were barred from marriage in 305AD.-St. Anthony established monasticism for the Church in 305AD.
-The Nicean Creed was made in 325AD.
…and pretty much tossed the idea of celibate clergy. As a result, it was generally ignored for another 800 years before finally being codified in 1139.
Exactly. The East-West Schism occurred in 1054. Early enough for the Orthodox Church to avoid taking the policy on board.
It’s not exactly encouraged but Orthodox clergy married.
The so called Celtic Church which existed for centuries after this supposed ban, also allowed marriage of clergy and monks.
NightSG wrote:
dande48 wrote:
-Bishops, Priests, and all clerics were barred from marriage in 305AD.-St. Anthony established monasticism for the Church in 305AD.
-The Nicean Creed was made in 325AD.
…and pretty much tossed the idea of celibate clergy. As a result, it was generally ignored for another 800 years before finally being codified in 1139.
They banned priests from marrying after ordination, which was loosened from absolute celibacy. In 385AD, the Pope decreed that married priests could no longer sleep with their wives. I agree it’s sticky, that the Church was large, and Christiandom as a whole couldn’t decide on their basic doctrines from the very beginning. They were also very fond of excommunicating anyone who disagreed. But policy is still policy, even if it has a hard time being enforced. 567AD decreed any clergy sleeping with their wife would be excommunicated. They were selling off the wives and children of clergy as slaves by 1095AD.
Back to the not-so-original post, do you believe that the Catholic Church, as it was from 300-400 AD, had the spiritual guidance and authority from God to choose which books were the “Word of God”, and would end up in our modern New Testament? As the original posts states, “Everybody Poops”. Do certain former “poopy” actions of any Church (whether the Catholics, the Mormons, or the Scientologists) negate the Divine legitimacy of other actions we may happen to agree with? Because, frankly, I think they do.
Priests were still marrying in more remote parts of Europe, and there was even hereditary priests in Ireland and Scotland up to the turn of the millenium. Haggarty/MacTaggart is a surname which derives from this tradition.
As previously stated, the Roman Catholic church was not really a thing at the time of the canon. It didn’t even emerge as a proper force until hundreds of years after the Roman empire fell.
They would not have considered themselves as anything apart from true believers – as opposed to gnostics and heretics – as there was no true split with the Orthodox church etc.
SamBee wrote:
As previously stated, the Roman Catholic church was not really a thing at the time of the canon. It didn’t even emerge as a proper force until hundreds of years after the Roman empire fell.
Alright, Sam. What do you call the those Christians who called themselves Catholics in 4th century?
dande48 wrote:
Do certain former “poopy” actions of any Church (whether the Catholics, the Mormons, or the Scientologists) negate the Divine legitimacy of other actions we may happen to agree with? Because, frankly, I think they do.
In life we must all wade through “poop”. We must learn to discern the good from the bad and learn to choose the good. Many churches can be vehicles of preforming much good here on earth and directing adherents to even higher good in the form of ideals and hopes. All churches that I am aware of also have elements of bad.
For me this is a separate question to claims of “divine legitimacy”. How much “poop” could God tolerate in a person and still give that person authority to bless and curse in His name? The question of authority is interesting because it depends entirely on elements that are unknown (Like who might really be speaking on God’s behalf and who is not).
Therefore, I believe it wise that each of us develop our own olfactory senses that we may determine more or less for ourselves what is “poop” and what is not.
dande48 wrote:
SamBee wrote:
As previously stated, the Roman Catholic church was not really a thing at the time of the canon. It didn’t even emerge as a proper force until hundreds of years after the Roman empire fell.
Alright, Sam. What do you call the those Christians who called themselves Catholics in 4th century?
Christians… that’s it. The Catholic thing came about in contradistinction to the later Orthodox and Protestant movements.
If I was struggling I would call them non-/anti-gnostics or Trinitarians which they would not identify as.
The Roman Catholic church has a terrible habit of appropriating the early church. There is little indication that Rome was to be the head of the church other than a dubious forged document and a mistranslated statement to Peter. The early “popes” were not supreme leaders of Christendom, they were at best primus inter pares due to being in the imperial capital.
Roy wrote:
dande48 wrote:
Do certain former “poopy” actions of any Church (whether the Catholics, the Mormons, or the Scientologists) negate the Divine legitimacy of other actions we may happen to agree with? Because, frankly, I think they do.
In life we must all wade through “poop”. We must learn to discern the good from the bad and learn to choose the good. Many churches can be vehicles of preforming much good here on earth and directing adherents to even higher good in the form of ideals and hopes. All churches that I am aware of also have elements of bad.
For me this is a separate question to claims of “divine legitimacy”. How much “poop” could God tolerate in a person and still give that person authority to bless and curse in His name? The question of authority is interesting because it depends entirely on elements that are unknown (Like who might really be speaking on God’s behalf and who is not).
Therefore, I believe it wise that each of us develop our own olfactory senses that we may determine more or less for ourselves what is “poop” and what is not.
This is a very good question. Where exactly do we draw that line? I believe we are all broken vessels, but where is that line?
History is full of such paradoxes. Stalin was an evil man and a mass murderer yet he may have actually changed history for the better (note not for the best).
SamBee wrote:
Christians… that’s it. The Catholic thing came about in contradistinction to the later Orthodox and Protestant movements.
No, the Catholic thing came about in 4th century for certain Christians to distinguish themselves from the other Christians who held “heretical” beliefs. How would you distinguish those in the fourth century, who called themselves and identified as “Catholic”(not Roman Catholic), and belonged to what they called “The Catholic Church” in order to distinguish themselves from other Christian groups?
dande48 wrote:
SamBee wrote:
Christians… that’s it. The Catholic thing came about in contradistinction to the later Orthodox and Protestant movements.
No, the Catholic thing came about in 4th century for certain Christians to distinguish themselves from the other Christians who held “heretical” beliefs. How would you distinguish those in the fourth century, who called themselves and identified as “Catholic”(not Roman Catholic), and belonged to what they called “The Catholic Church” in order to distinguish themselves from other Christian groups?
Trinitarian, orthodox plus a ream of terms about their theology.
SamBee wrote:
Trinitarian, orthodox plus a ream of terms about their theology.
Well, that’s just rude. 4th Century Trinitarian-Orthodox-Anti-Arian-Homoiousian-ists wouldn’t have liked that at all.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.