Was the Pre-Nicene Church Orthodox?

[Ironhold]

I did not realize Mormons had Eucharist in their service. Interesting.

"Sacrament meeting" is a standard part of the block of Sunday services.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

"Sacrament meeting" is a standard part of the block of Sunday services.

So Mormons have a Sacrament of the Eucharist and believe it is blood and body of Jesus Christ - again interesting - I did not know that.

 

[RevelationTestament]

So Mormons have a Sacrament of the Eucharist and believe it is blood and body of Jesus Christ - again interesting - I did not know that.

not exactly. Again, we do not believe in "transmutation" or the Catholic concept that the priest changes the sacrament to the actual body and blood of Christ. We take the sacrament in remembrance of his body which was "shed" for us.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

not exactly. Again, we do not believe in "transmutation" or the Catholic concept that the priest changes the sacrament to the actual body and blood of Christ. We take the sacrament in remembrance of his body which was "shed" for us.

Ok, thank you and that is kind of what I thought.

So in response to my earlier posting of a description byan ECF, a Saint talking about something most Catholics today would recognize as a Mass, your reply about that quote containing "important particulars" that are "like" the LDS Church you simply meant that some of the words the Saint used are "like" words heard in the LDS Church - not that the description of the service by the Saint is anything "like" what goes on regularly there today. Which was my point.

 

[14messenger]

The pre-nicene Church is Christs Church. Orthodox is a man made title. Perhaps for man made glory. A man wanted to pretend he was special before men, or perhaps a slang used and adopted by men.

Christ is it.
There is no other name under heaven to be glorified. God is already God.

 

[NYCGuy]

Are you asking if this is like an Unorthodox service or a Utah service?
Although I believe Justin Martyr had insights into the gospel I do not accept his words as scripture. Nevertheless:

It looks like they are already changing his words to eliminate baptism by immersion. Funny you should bring this up. Our priesthood quorems are led by a president.

Where does he say anything about a priesthood quorum being led by a president? He doesn't.

How about yours? Ours are "set apart." Our deacons and priest also take the sacrament to the elderly and sick not in attendance ie like he says "those absent." How about yours?[/quote]

Yes, Catholics do this. I work in a hospital, and I see this all the time. We also have lay people that take the Eucharist to those that are sick and unable to attend Mass.

While we do not believe in the "transmutation" of the sacrament - we do it in remembrance of Him - we are given express council not to partake of the sacrament unless we gain a testimony.

3 Nephi 18:29
29 For whoso eateth and drinketh my flesh and blood unworthily eateth and drinketh damnation to his soul; therefore if ye know that a man is unworthy to eat and drink of my flesh and blood ye shall forbid him.

So yeah, I'd say in the important particulars the LDS church is like the early church. Thank you

Not really.

From the quotes given, the Catholic Church does all of what is described, and has done so for over a thousand years. You need to pick and choose parts of the quotes to fit anything that occurs in the LDS Sacrament Meeting.

 

[RevelationTestament]

Ok, thank you and that is kind of what I thought.

So in response to my earlier posting of a description byan ECF, a Saint talking about something most Catholics today would recognize as a Mass, your reply about that quote containing "important particulars" that are "like" the LDS Church you simply meant that some of the words the Saint used are "like" words heard in the LDS Church - not that the description of the service by the Saint is anything "like" what goes on regularly there today. Which was my point.

I do not use the term "church father." A lot of these men weren't even bishops. Heavenly Father is the Father of the church. The Latin church used these kinds of terms, and they do rely on concepts these men wrote about to form a basis for much of their theology. I believe that is part of the problem.

I believe I gave a sufficient description of how the LDS service is like what Justin Martyr describes and how it is not. Again we do not believe in the "transmutation" of the sacrament. We believe it is symbolic to remind us of His sacrifice for us, and to signify that by doing so each of us is part of the body of Christ. In many of the other particulars it seems our organization, including the president of the quorem, and other practices of the sacrament are more like the early church than you care to acknowledge. Again does your church take the bread and wine/water to those not in attendance?

 

[NYCGuy]

I do not use the term "church father." A lot of these men weren't even bishops. Heavenly Father is the Father of the church.

Yes, God the Father is the Father of the Church. However scripture is also clear on the use of the word "father" in relation to spiritual fathers. This is a concept familiar to many.

The Latin church used these kinds of terms, and they do rely on concepts these men wrote about to form a basis for much of their theology. I believe that is part of the problem.

The ECFs demonstrate Catholic continuity with the ancient Church, since it is the ancient Church.

I believe I gave a sufficient description of how the LDS service is like what Justin Martyr describes and how it is not. Again we do not believe in the "transmutation" of the sacrament. We believe it is symbolic to remind us of His sacrifice for us, and to signify that by doing so each of us is part of the body of Christ.

The most ancient, demonstrable, understanding of the bread and wine is the Real Presence doctrine, not the Mormon one.

In many of the other particulars it seems our organization, including the president of the quorem, and other practices of the sacrament are more like the early church than you care to acknowledge.

Not really.

Again does your church take the bread and wine/water to those not in attendance?

Yes.

 

[RevelationTestament]

Yes, God the Father is the Father of the Church. However scripture is also clear on the use of the word "father" in relation to spiritual fathers. This is a concept familiar to many.

Not really. I believe it is in contradiction to the words of Christ. I believe this is exactly what he was addressing - "spiritual fathers" not earthly fathers, and told us not to call men "Father" in this way since only Heavenly Father is our Holy Father.
2 Thessalonians 2:4
4 Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.

The ECFs demonstrate Catholic continuity with the ancient Church, since it is the ancient Church.

They are part of the ancient church which it cares to follow. For instance a closer examination of the writings of early theologians reveals many different ideas about the godhead - none of which reveal the modern concept of the doctrine of the trinity. It evolved over time.

The most ancient, demonstrable, understanding of the bread and wine is the Real Presence doctrine, not the Mormon one.

Says you and Justin Martyr.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

I do not use the term "church father." A lot of these men weren't even bishops. Heavenly Father is the Father of the church. The Latin church used these kinds of terms, and they do rely on concepts these men wrote about to form a basis for much of their theology. I believe that is part of the problem.

I believe I gave a sufficient description of how the LDS service is like what Justin Martyr describes and how it is not. Again we do not believe in the "transmutation" of the sacrament. We believe it is symbolic to remind us of His sacrifice for us, and to signify that by doing so each of us is part of the body of Christ. In many of the other particulars it seems our organization, including the president of the quorem, and other practices of the sacrament are more like the early church than you care to acknowledge. Again does your church take the bread and wine/water to those not in attendance?

Actually I understood the initial response as a gross overstatement in attempting to connect the LDS Church with the service described by the Saint - which when asked it appears my initial understanding was correct - the connection was one of merely pointing to a couple of the various words the Saint used and saying "yeah we use those words too" kind of thing - like preside/president.
Whereas when I initially posted the Saints comments I was claiming that any Catholic would recognize not a couple of words, but the entire description of that service he described nearly two millennium ago as something that goes on hourly today all over the world.

A Baptist could claim they have a "Lord's Supper" and their Pastor "presides" over that too, but that is hardly the same as saying what the Saint described is replayed in EVERY Mass every hour of the day, which was my point.

 

[DancesWithGnostics]

"Paid clergy" in the history of Christian ecclesiology should delve into the "Forty Gallon Baptists" as opposed to the "Twenty Gallon Baptists"

(If you think I am making this up - you are simply IGNORANT of Baptist History)

There were always PAID MINISTERS who "lived of the Gospel", from ante-Nicene times and YOU KNOW IT!!.

Paul went to great extents to make tents and refuse THAT WHICH HE SAID HE COULD HAVE BY RIGHTS DESERVED!

Many Statements of Faith down throughout American history declared speficially how much of this, how much of that, etc., could be part of a pastor's salary -- including chickens, beef, and whisky. Yes -- I said WHISKY -- for a Baptist's preachers salary!!

Look it up.

I would have liked to be among the FORTY GALLON BAPTISTS!

Or Higher!

Robes - bah!!

let the choir wear the robes!

The exact colors of OT vestments are given in Rev 17 and Eze 16 -- yet people say Oh NO ! caint be Jerusalem -- Must be ROME!!

GUffaw

will yall ever read anything?

 

[yogosans14]

Nothing can compete with the Heresy (except JWs) that is the Mormon religion. It is so far from biblical truth that it makes me feel embrassed to even mention the word christian and mormon in the same sentence.

Good day, have fun with your heretical doctrines.

 

[NYCGuy]

Not really. I believe it is in contradiction to the words of Christ. I believe this is exactly what he was addressing - "spiritual fathers" not earthly fathers, and told us not to call men "Father" in this way since only Heavenly Father is our Holy Father.
2 Thessalonians 2:4
4 Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.

Sorry, that verse doesn't apply. Having spiritual fathers (as the Bible has shown) does not take away from God our Father in Heaven, nor do priests or Popes replace God or show themselves as God. Try again.

Call No Man "Father"? | Catholic Answers

They are part of the ancient church which it cares to follow. For instance a closer examination of the writings of early theologians reveals many different ideas about the godhead - none of which reveal the modern concept of the doctrine of the trinity. It evolved over time.

From very early on we see the essentials of the Trinity: there is one God, and there are three distinct Persons. Formal defining of the doctrine do not change the foundations. Nowhere do we see ancient Christians believing that the Father is married to a Heavenly Mother, that the Father progressed to/achieved Godhood, that the Holy Ghost is a literal spirit offspring of the Father (and Mother), etc.

Says you and Justin Martyr.

Uh no, says history. The LDS view is an innovation found nowhere in the ancient Church of Jesus Christ. Further, the Catholic/Orthodox view finds roots in ancient Judaism as well. See "Jesus and the Jewish Roots of the Eucharist" for a brief taste.

 

[NYCGuy]

.
No formal robes.

Wait, last I checked, when I went to the temple for an Endowment session, I was putting on "formal robes"...

 

[DancesWithGnostics]

I wear robes in the choir

ya gotta git the correct COLOR of the STOLE

fer that perticuler sunday of the liturgical year

and heck - ah'm jussa MEFADIST

but ya know -- I LIKE bein in the kwire

ah kin weaR BLUE JEANS

robe covers up everthang

think I oughtta ask to GET PAID?

guffaw

no muzzling the ox that sings out the hymns

or whatever

 

[RevelationTestament]

Wait, last I checked, when I went to the temple for an Endowment session, I was putting on "formal robes"...

No you weren't. You were putting on robes of righteousness which symbolize those in Revelation. It is to teach us - not to set us apart from anyone else - every participant dons them. Obviously they are not worn in services nor in public - except by mockers.

 

[RevelationTestament]

Sorry, that verse doesn't apply. Having spiritual fathers (as the Bible has shown) does not take away from God our Father in Heaven, nor do priests or Popes replace God or show themselves as God. Try again.

Call No Man "Father"? | Catholic Answers

I pulled this from your citation:

And God himself declares that he will give a fatherly role to Eliakim, the steward of the house of David: "In that day I will call my servant Eliakim, the son of Hilkiah . . . and I will clothe him with [a] robe, and will bind [a] girdle on him, and will commit . . . authority to his hand; and he shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem and to the house of Judah" (Is. 22:20–21).

This is an example of a biblical allegory - a usage of people to prophesy the future. It is not saying Eliakim himself would be the Father. In his role as the son of the High Priest, He said:
Isaiah 22:23
23 And I will fasten him as a nail in a sure place; and he shall be for a glorious throne to his father’s house.

Obviously, Eliakim himself was not crucified.
It appears the Catholics quite misunderstand this scripture.

From very early on we see the essentials of the Trinity: there is one God, and there are three distinct Persons. Formal defining of the doctrine do not change the foundations. Nowhere do we see ancient Christians believing that the Father is married to a Heavenly Mother, that the Father progressed to/achieved Godhood, that the Holy Ghost is a literal spirit offspring of the Father (and Mother), etc.

You seem to have a misunderstanding of LDS belief. I know you may have heard such things, but they are not taught as doctrine. I do not believe God is married to a "heavenly mother" or that the Holy Ghost is a spirit offspring anymore than the rest of us are his children.
As for your statement about the progression of the Father - no, we do not see the Father progressing further, but the gospel does contain many statements about the exaltation of the Son, and even followers such as king David. And things about the Father are contained in the scriptures for those who care to understand. For instance did you know the letters of His very name YHWH, mean: behold the nail, behold the hand?

Uh no, says history. The LDS view is an innovation found nowhere in the ancient Church of Jesus Christ. Further, the Catholic/Orthodox view finds roots in ancient Judaism as well. See "Jesus and the Jewish Roots of the Eucharist" for a brief taste.

No, this is not a "LDS innovation." Many Protestants have rejected the Catholic view regarding the sacrament.

 

[RevelationTestament]

Actually I understood the initial response as a gross overstatement in attempting to connect the LDS Church with the service described by the Saint - which when asked it appears my initial understanding was correct - the connection was one of merely pointing to a couple of the various words the Saint used and saying "yeah we use those words too" kind of thing - like preside/president.
Whereas when I initially posted the Saints comments I was claiming that any Catholic would recognize not a couple of words, but the entire description of that service he described nearly two millennium ago as something that goes on hourly today all over the world.

A Baptist could claim they have a "Lord's Supper" and their Pastor "presides" over that too, but that is hardly the same as saying what the Saint described is replayed in EVERY Mass every hour of the day, which was my point.

Firstly, I do not believe Justin Martyr was "a saint." I believe saints are determined by God. I believe the bishop of Rome to be the little horn of Daniel 7 who persecutes the saints of God.
And I wasn't just pointing out "various words" but our actual practice which is the same or similar such as the sacrament being blessed by priests and passed by deacons who are in a quorem led by a president. Yet, somehow you allege your church is the one who practices this every day. I know a little of Catholicism, and know you do not have any priests who serve as "president." Clearly, Justin Martyr was not speaking of a bishop. So your point is not taken. Basically, with the exception of the transmutation doctrine, the sacrament performed by the LDS church is the same or similar in every particular described by Justin Martyr in your quote - perhaps even more so than the Catholic church which has no president in charge of the sacrament.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

LOL, Greek "proestoti ton adelphon" in Latin reads: "qui fratribus praeest"
And from what I have seen the Greek has been translated two common ways 'the president of the brethren' or 'that one of the brethren who was presiding'. The leader, the person celebrating the Mass, not an office in the Church.

It is the actions of that "president" the Saint describes which Catholics would recognize matching those done at every hour globally at every Mass today by the "celebrant", a Bishop or Priest - and also consistent with the earliest liturgies of the Church.

Again, many Churches have Sacraments - my point was not that the Saint describes a Sacrament - true he does - but that the service being described resembles the liturgy of the common Mass today. And since it was brought up again, just as his description of a Mass matches, his description of the Sacrament matches the Church's. As described that Sacrament also further distances what the LDS claim regarding the connection of their "Sacrament" from the practices of the early Church.

 

[NYCGuy]

No you weren't. You were putting on robes of righteousness which symbolize those in Revelation. It is to teach us - not to set us apart from anyone else - every participant dons them. Obviously they are not worn in services nor in public - except by mockers.

This is semantics. They are "formal" robes. You claimed the pre-Nicene Church did not have them, yet the LDS Church quite clearly has "formal" robes. You're trying to obfuscate what "formal" means. Further, the priests of the Jerusalem temple(s) had "formal" robes, yet regular visitors didn't. Sorry.