An Answer To Theophan, Early Christian Doctrine And The Restoration.

[kirtland r.m.]

Early Christians where in line with the restored gospel doctrines. This includes the nature of God. Theophan has posed some questions I said I would answer. Here is his first question, evidence for"- the nature of God, specifically that the Father is an embodied human male, with a body of flesh and bone?"
That evidence that Theophan said twice on the f. forum that we don't have on this subject? I said we do. Here is a very good beginning.https://publications.mi.byu.edu/fullscr ... 0&index=10

Here is more. A sample, Fathers had claimed they were teaching exactly what the Apostles taught. A few exceptions may be noted, but the only pre-Nicene examples I have seen put for-ward by Catholics on this point are a very shaky foundation.https://www.fairmormon.org/wp-content/u ... ianity.pdf

[Theophan]

Early Christians where in line with the restored gospel doctrines. This includes the nature of God. Theophan has posed some questions I said I would answer. Here is his first question, evidence for"- the nature of God, specifically that the Father is an embodied human male, with a body of flesh and bone?"
That evidence that Theophan said twice on the f. forum that we don't have on this subject? I said we do. Here is a very good beginning.https://publications.mi.byu.edu/fullscr ... 0&index=10

Here is more. A sample, Fathers had claimed they were teaching exactly what the Apostles taught. A few exceptions may be noted, but the only pre-Nicene examples I have seen put for-ward by Catholics on this point are a very shaky foundation.https://www.fairmormon.org/wp-content/u ... ianity.pdf

Kirland r.m.,

Thanks for taking the time to share this information. You took the time for me, so responding to you is the least I can do.

It's been a while since I've read these essays, but I'm still not seeing much evidence there that early Christians believed what the LDS church teaches.

From Bickmore we have evidence of 1. "some [Christians who] supposed that God should be understood as a man" (Origen); 2. Second century Jewish rabbinic anthropomorphism; and 3. a weak attempt at using Irenaeus to support anthropomorphism.

From Paulsen we have evidence of the same (excluding Irenaeus), along with additional evidence of 2nd century Christian anthropomorphism (Melito and Celsus, cited by Origen; Tertullian). Paulsen spends much time discussing Tertullian's materialism and belief in God's corporeality, although Tertullian’s corporeal divine substance is a far cry from the glorified, resurrected human Father of LDS teaching.

Ok - there were at least some early Christians who believed God has a human form. This is not in question. What is in question is whether that belief came from the Apostles or somewhere else (e.g., Greek Stoicism, Greco-Roman paganism). The info you provided assumes it came from the Apostles, but provides no evidence to support the claim beyond the bare assertion itself.

Let’s examine the evidence that is provided. In what follows, I’ll only focus on ancient Christians, since that’s what I asked about.

Origen, Irenaeus and Tertullian all claimed that their teaching preserves what the apostles taught, yet none of them believed that the Father is a human male with a body of flesh and bones. To the authors’ credit, they don’t try to make these church fathers out to be proto-Mormons. Origen was a Platonist. Irenaeus believed God was an immaterial Spirit who created matter out of nothing (ex nihilo). Tertullian was a materialist who believed the Father's corporeal body was a kind of intelligent substance (like a gas) dwelling on the edge of the universe, a view which derives from Greek philosophy (Stoicism).

That leaves the evidence cited by Origen (Melito and the Christians described by Celsus). We don't know where Melito and Celsus's Christians got their belief that God has a human form, nor do we know what else they believed. Maybe it derives from Jewish rabbinic belief or perhaps from Stoicism, like Tertullian's belief. Maybe it came from Greco-Roman paganism. Who knows? At most all any of this gives us is evidence of agreement between some 2nd century Christians and LDS teaching on a single doctrinal point: God has a human form.

This is really pretty weak, if the goal is to support the claim that Joseph Smith restored primitive Christianity.

As a counterpoint, Irenaeus himself, while providing evidence of the apostolic pedigree of his teaching, states that when he was younger he listened to Polycarp preach and approved of his teaching; that Polycarp was appointed bishop of the Church of Smyrna by apostles in Asia (Tertullian and Jerome, translator of the Vulgate, say it was John who appointed Polycarp); and that Polycarp always taught things he said he had received from the apostles themselves.

Irenaeus and Polycarp were thus on the same page theologically. Irenaeus reiterated the same in a letter to a friend, Florinus, who was a priest and had been taken in by the heretical teaching of the Valentinians - who were gnostics, you know, the heretical group who taught that matter is eternal, the same as in Greek philosophy (Platonism and Stoicism) and LDS teaching.

In that letter, Irenaeus says::

"I can even describe the place where the blessed Polycarp used to sit and discourse - his going out, too, and his coming in - his general mode of life and personal appearance, together with the discourses which he delivered to the people; also how he would speak of his familiar intercourse with John, and with the rest of those who had seen the Lord; and how he would call their words to remembrance. Whatsoever things he had heard from them respecting the Lord, both with regard to His miracles and His teaching, Polycarp having thus received from the eye-witnesses of the Word of life, would recount them all in harmony with the Scriptures. These things, through God's mercy which was upon me, I then listened to attentively, and treasured them up not on paper, but in my heart; and I am continually, by God's Grace, revolving these things accurately in my mind."

There you have it. Irenaeus, the proponent of belief in the Father as an uncreated, spiritual essence who created matter out of nothing (ex nihilo), all very Nicene, said his teaching came to him from the Apostle John through Polycarp. I find Irenaeus’s testimony to be compelling.

So...do you have anything else? How about an ancient Christian writing about practices similar to LDS temple rites (washings and anointings, endowment, eternal marriage)? Even better, can you find me an ancient Christian who discusses both God's human embodiment and those temple practices? That would be a smoking gun, wouldn't it?

That said, all of the evidence is still rather sparse and confused, isn't it? The same evidences can be interpreted different ways, biblical or extra-biblical. When push comes to shove, all we really have is what makes sense to each of us individually - testimony. I'm sure you agree.

[kirtland r.m.]

Early Christians where in line with the restored gospel doctrines. This includes the nature of God. Theophan has posed some questions I said I would answer. Here is his first question, evidence for"- the nature of God, specifically that the Father is an embodied human male, with a body of flesh and bone?"
That evidence that Theophan said twice on the f. forum that we don't have on this subject? I said we do. Here is a very good beginning.https://publications.mi.byu.edu/fullscr ... 0&index=10

Here is more. A sample, Fathers had claimed they were teaching exactly what the Apostles taught. A few exceptions may be noted, but the only pre-Nicene examples I have seen put for-ward by Catholics on this point are a very shaky foundation.https://www.fairmormon.org/wp-content/u ... ianity.pdf

Kirland r.m.,

Thanks for taking the time to share this information. You took the time for me, so responding to you is the least I can do.

It's been a while since I've read these essays, but I'm still not seeing much evidence there that early Christians believed what the LDS church teaches.

From Bickmore we have evidence of 1. "some [Christians who] supposed that God should be understood as a man" (Origen); 2. Second century Jewish rabbinic anthropomorphism; and 3. a weak attempt at using Irenaeus to support anthropomorphism.

From Paulsen we have evidence of the same (excluding Irenaeus), along with additional evidence of 2nd century Christian anthropomorphism (Melito and Celsus, cited by Origen; Tertullian). Paulsen spends much time discussing Tertullian's materialism and belief in God's corporeality, although Tertullian’s corporeal divine substance is a far cry from the glorified, resurrected human Father of LDS teaching.

Ok - there were at least some early Christians who believed God has a human form. This is not in question. What is in question is whether that belief came from the Apostles or somewhere else (e.g., Greek Stoicism, Greco-Roman paganism). The info you provided assumes it came from the Apostles, but provides no evidence to support the claim beyond the bare assertion itself.

Let’s examine the evidence that is provided. In what follows, I’ll only focus on ancient Christians, since that’s what I asked about.

Origen, Irenaeus and Tertullian all claimed that their teaching preserves what the apostles taught, yet none of them believed that the Father is a human male with a body of flesh and bones. To the authors’ credit, they don’t try to make these church fathers out to be proto-Mormons. Origen was a Platonist. Irenaeus believed God was an immaterial Spirit who created matter out of nothing (ex nihilo). Tertullian was a materialist who believed the Father's corporeal body was a kind of intelligent substance (like a gas) dwelling on the edge of the universe, a view which derives from Greek philosophy (Stoicism).

That leaves the evidence cited by Origen (Melito and the Christians described by Celsus). We don't know where Melito and Celsus's Christians got their belief that God has a human form, nor do we know what else they believed. Maybe it derives from Jewish rabbinic belief or perhaps from Stoicism, like Tertullian's belief. Maybe it came from Greco-Roman paganism. Who knows? At most all any of this gives us is evidence of agreement between some 2nd century Christians and LDS teaching on a single doctrinal point: God has a human form.

This is really pretty weak, if the goal is to support the claim that Joseph Smith restored primitive Christianity.

As a counterpoint, Irenaeus himself, while providing evidence of the apostolic pedigree of his teaching, states that when he was younger he listened to Polycarp preach and approved of his teaching; that Polycarp was appointed bishop of the Church of Smyrna by apostles in Asia (Tertullian and Jerome, translator of the Vulgate, say it was John who appointed Polycarp); and that Polycarp always taught things he said he had received from the apostles themselves.

Irenaeus and Polycarp were thus on the same page theologically. Irenaeus reiterated the same in a letter to a friend, Florinus, who was a priest and had been taken in by the heretical teaching of the Valentinians - who were gnostics, you know, the heretical group who taught that matter is eternal, the same as in Greek philosophy (Platonism and Stoicism) and LDS teaching.

In that letter, Irenaeus says::

"I can even describe the place where the blessed Polycarp used to sit and discourse - his going out, too, and his coming in - his general mode of life and personal appearance, together with the discourses which he delivered to the people; also how he would speak of his familiar intercourse with John, and with the rest of those who had seen the Lord; and how he would call their words to remembrance. Whatsoever things he had heard from them respecting the Lord, both with regard to His miracles and His teaching, Polycarp having thus received from the eye-witnesses of the Word of life, would recount them all in harmony with the Scriptures. These things, through God's mercy which was upon me, I then listened to attentively, and treasured them up not on paper, but in my heart; and I am continually, by God's Grace, revolving these things accurately in my mind."

There you have it. Irenaeus, the proponent of belief in the Father as an uncreated, spiritual essence who created matter out of nothing (ex nihilo), all very Nicene, said his teaching came to him from the Apostle John through Polycarp. I find Irenaeus’s testimony to be compelling.

So...do you have anything else? How about an ancient Christian writing about practices similar to LDS temple rites (washings and anointings, endowment, eternal marriage)? Even better, can you find me an ancient Christian who discusses both God's human embodiment and those temple practices? That would be a smoking gun, wouldn't it?

That said, all of the evidence is still rather sparse and confused, isn't it? The same evidences can be interpreted different ways, biblical or extra-biblical. When push comes to shove, all we really have is what makes sense to each of us individually - testimony. I'm sure you agree.

Hi T., yes, I will post later in the week about your second question, the Temple. Have a good week everybody, be safe out there!

[Theophan]

Hi T., yes, I will post later in the week about your second question, the Temple. Have a good week everybody, be safe out there!

Hey there. I look forward to that.

One thing. Tomorrow is Ash Wednesday. Lent is beginning. Contrary to popular culture, which says we're to 'give something up,' like chocolate, Lent is about giving up anything that serves to replace doing God's will with doing our own will. It's about consciously emulating the self-denial and sacrifice of the Savior.

Among other things, one of my biggest time wasters is social media and surfing forums and Web pages like this one. Instead of spending time with family and in service to others, I indulge my love of online conversation and debate. I'll be spiritually fasting by cutting back my time online, and doing less reading about and thinking about God, and spending more time in prayer, increased almsgiving, and finding ways to serve others. I spend more time chatting online and reading books than praying and interacting with other human beings. Isn't that hilarious? Kind of sad, too. Yes, I know that's how it's supposed to be every day. So those are the things I'll be focusing on this Lent, praying for the grace to carry it forward at Easter and beyond, for the rest of my life.

So Lent is that time of year when whole Body of Christ strives mightily to become more like Christ, through conscious emulation of He self-denial and sacrifice during his 40 day fast and especially in his journey to the Cross. We also reduce the amount of food we eat each day and abstain from meat every Friday. That's the physical fasting component. The entire Liturgy during Lent provides an intense focus on that journey.

By the way, Eastern Catholics and the Orthodox practice the same spiritual fasts, but are more rigorous with physical fasting. For 40 days, they totally abstain from meat, fish, dairy and oil. They're vegans. Talk about a tough discipline! I've tried it before. It isn't easy.

I'll be checking in infrequently until Easter, so take your time. I really appreciate the conversation. May God bless you richly as we draw near to the glorious feast of His Resurrection.

Theophan

[Finrock]

Even better, can you find me an ancient Christian who discusses both God's human embodiment and those temple practices? That would be a smoking gun, wouldn't it?

We really don't have to dig too deep to find teachings on the embodiment of God. Its all over the New Testament. In fact, its a central tenant of Christianity that God has a body of flesh, that He died, and was resurrected with a immortal, glorified material body of flesh and bone. Hundreds of people witnessed this. They touched God's body and saw Him eat food. They all testified that God has a body and that He lives.

A very good place to look for evidence of temple rituals with very close parallels to the LDS temple rituals is from the lectures of Cyril of Jerusalem that he gives to the newly initiated disciples. It is important to recognize that the temple ritual is not static as even with the LDS Church the ritual aspects have changed over time. What's important is the symbolism and its meaning. Are there correlations and parallels?

As one example, the Cyril of Jerusalem taught about how the newly initiated were washed with water and anointed with oil. This washing and anointing with oil is a part of the LDS temple ritual, but, more importantly, what Cyril describes and how he explains the meaning of this washing and anointing is as applicable today to LDS as it was back then to whom St. Cyril was speaking to. Meaning, an LDS person who has been washed and anointed will find what Cyril describes relevant and meaningful.

-Finrock

[Theophan]

A very good place to look for evidence of temple rituals with very close parallels to the LDS temple rituals is from the lectures of Cyril of Jerusalem that he gives to the newly initiated disciples. It is important to recognize that the temple ritual is not static as even with the LDS Church the ritual aspects have changed over time. What's important is the symbolism and its meaning. Are there correlations and parallels?

As one example, the Cyril of Jerusalem taught about how the newly initiated were washed with water and anointed with oil. This washing and anointing with oil is a part of the LDS temple ritual, but, more importantly, what Cyril describes and how he explains the meaning of this washing and anointing is as applicable today to LDS as it was back then to whom St. Cyril was speaking to. Meaning, an LDS person who has been washed and anointed will find what Cyril describes relevant and meaningful.

-Finrock

Hi Finrock,

Have you read all of Cyril’s lectures? Not only his five ‘Mystagogical Lectures, ‘ from which your quoted snippets come, but the preceding 18 lectures - called ‘Catechetical Lectures.’

If not, you should read all 23 lectures beginning to end. Your interpretation is only possible if you remove Cyril from his Catholic context and view him through an LDS lens. Cyril is a Catholic Bishop and saint, a Doctor of the Church. In his ‘Catechetical Lectures’ (see no. 4), he states he is providing the instruction during Lent and says he will walk the people he’s instructing through the Creed. He then goes through a point by point exposition of the Nicene Creed.

Only then do you come to the Mystagogical Lectures, which you’ve quoted. Sorry to say, Cyril was a Catholic bishop, celebrated by his contemporaries for his Nicene Orthodoxy, for which he was exiled a few times by Arian emperors.

When Cyril discusses washing and anointing, he’s discussing Catholic baptism and confirmation, exactly as those rites are practiced to this day in Eastern Catholic and Orthodox churches. After the descriptions of Catholic baptism and confirmation you’ve quoted, he then describes the meaning of the Eucharist (Lecture 23) the most important if the Catholic/Orthodox sacraments, and explains what is meant by the Catholic doctrine of the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. Only those previously washed (baptized) and anointed with oil (confirmed) are permitted to receive the Body and Blood of Christ (Eucharist). Finally, Cyril walks the reader/hearer through the order of the Mass (Lecture 23).

My question to you is, why quote a Catholic bishop describing Catholic rituals if your goal is to find ancient mention of a separate, post-baptismal washing and anointing rite as practiced in in LDS temples?

[Finrock]

A very good place to look for evidence of temple rituals with very close parallels to the LDS temple rituals is from the lectures of Cyril of Jerusalem that he gives to the newly initiated disciples. It is important to recognize that the temple ritual is not static as even with the LDS Church the ritual aspects have changed over time. What's important is the symbolism and its meaning. Are there correlations and parallels?

As one example, the Cyril of Jerusalem taught about how the newly initiated were washed with water and anointed with oil. This washing and anointing with oil is a part of the LDS temple ritual, but, more importantly, what Cyril describes and how he explains the meaning of this washing and anointing is as applicable today to LDS as it was back then to whom St. Cyril was speaking to. Meaning, an LDS person who has been washed and anointed will find what Cyril describes relevant and meaningful.

-Finrock

Hi Finrock,

Have you read all of Cyril’s lectures? Not only his five ‘Mystagogical Lectures, ‘from which your quoted snippets come, but the preceding 18 lectures - called ‘Catechetical Lectures.’

If not, you should. Your interpretation is only possible if you remove Cyril from his Catholic context and view him through an LDS lens. Cyril is a Catholic Bishop and saint, a Doctor of the Church. In his ‘Catechetical Lectures’ (see no. 4), he states he is providing the instruction during Lent and says he will walk the people he’s instructing through the Nicene Creed. He then goes through a point by point exposition of the Creed.

Only then do you come to the Mystagogical Lectures, which you’ve quoted. Sorry to say, Cyril was a Catholic bishop, celebrated by his contemporaries for his Nicene Orthodoxy, for which he was exiled a few times by Arian emperors.

When Cyril discussing washing and anointing, he’s discussing Catholic baptism and confirmation, exactly as those rites are practiced to this day in Eastern Catholic and Orthodox churches.

My question to you is, why quote a Catholic bishop describing Catholic rituals if your goal is to find ancient mention of a separate, post-baptismal washing and anointing rite as practiced in in LDS temples?

He wasn't really a "Catholic" bishop in the sense that you seem to be using it. He was a Christian bishop. There was no schism at that time and the Christian faith was, essentially, united. So, to say he is a Catholic bishop, which today Catholicism is its own distinct flavor of Christianity, isn't wholly accurate, would you not agree?

And, no, I haven't read all of his works.

-Finrock

[Theophan]

A very good place to look for evidence of temple rituals with very close parallels to the LDS temple rituals is from the lectures of Cyril of Jerusalem that he gives to the newly initiated disciples. It is important to recognize that the temple ritual is not static as even with the LDS Church the ritual aspects have changed over time. What's important is the symbolism and its meaning. Are there correlations and parallels?

As one example, the Cyril of Jerusalem taught about how the newly initiated were washed with water and anointed with oil. This washing and anointing with oil is a part of the LDS temple ritual, but, more importantly, what Cyril describes and how he explains the meaning of this washing and anointing is as applicable today to LDS as it was back then to whom St. Cyril was speaking to. Meaning, an LDS person who has been washed and anointed will find what Cyril describes relevant and meaningful.

-Finrock

Hi Finrock,

Have you read all of Cyril’s lectures? Not only his five ‘Mystagogical Lectures, ‘from which your quoted snippets come, but the preceding 18 lectures - called ‘Catechetical Lectures.’

If not, you should. Your interpretation is only possible if you remove Cyril from his Catholic context and view him through an LDS lens. Cyril is a Catholic Bishop and saint, a Doctor of the Church. In his ‘Catechetical Lectures’ (see no. 4), he states he is providing the instruction during Lent and says he will walk the people he’s instructing through the Nicene Creed. He then goes through a point by point exposition of the Creed.

Only then do you come to the Mystagogical Lectures, which you’ve quoted. Sorry to say, Cyril was a Catholic bishop, celebrated by his contemporaries for his Nicene Orthodoxy, for which he was exiled a few times by Arian emperors.

When Cyril discussing washing and anointing, he’s discussing Catholic baptism and confirmation, exactly as those rites are practiced to this day in Eastern Catholic and Orthodox churches.

My question to you is, why quote a Catholic bishop describing Catholic rituals if your goal is to find ancient mention of a separate, post-baptismal washing and anointing rite as practiced in in LDS temples?

He wasn't really a "Catholic" bishop in the sense that you seem to be using it. He was a Christian bishop. There was no schism at that time and the Christian faith was, essentially, united. So, to say he is a Catholic bishop, which today Catholicism is its own distinct flavor of Christianity, isn't wholly accurate, would you not agree?

And, no, I haven't read all of his works.

-Finrock

If by ‘Christian’, you mean ancient churches that approved and recite the Nicene Creed each Sunday; have a hierarchical priesthood of bishop, priest and deacon; observe Lent; have a priest at the altar wearing robes using the order and structure of worship called the Mass in the Latin West and Divine Liturgy in the Greek and Syriac East; and believe in the real presence of Jesus in the bread and wine then ok, Cyril was a Christian.

Any Christian in the US today hearing all that who isn’t Catholic or Orthodox would call him a Catholic, though, unless he doesn’t know very much about the ancient Catholic Tradition. Which is all too common.

Yes, at the time the Catholic (Universal) Church was one, sadly now fractured into Roman, Orthodox, and Coptic branches. The point is, this is the Catholic Tradition we’re talking about, not some nebulous, non-Catholic Christianity and using Cyril as you’ve done abuses the source. It also disrespects Cyril himself, who most definitely was a Nicene Creedal Catholic Christian. As I said, Cyril is describing Eastern Catholic/Orthodox rites of baptism and confirmation, exactly as they’re practiced to this day in those churches. Making him out to be a kind of Mormon is only possible by removing Cyril from his Nicene Creedal (Catholic) context.

Don’t just take my word for it. I really recommend reading all of the lectures.

[Finrock]

A very good place to look for evidence of temple rituals with very close parallels to the LDS temple rituals is from the lectures of Cyril of Jerusalem that he gives to the newly initiated disciples. It is important to recognize that the temple ritual is not static as even with the LDS Church the ritual aspects have changed over time. What's important is the symbolism and its meaning. Are there correlations and parallels?

As one example, the Cyril of Jerusalem taught about how the newly initiated were washed with water and anointed with oil. This washing and anointing with oil is a part of the LDS temple ritual, but, more importantly, what Cyril describes and how he explains the meaning of this washing and anointing is as applicable today to LDS as it was back then to whom St. Cyril was speaking to. Meaning, an LDS person who has been washed and anointed will find what Cyril describes relevant and meaningful.

-Finrock

Hi Finrock,

Have you read all of Cyril’s lectures? Not only his five ‘Mystagogical Lectures, ‘from which your quoted snippets come, but the preceding 18 lectures - called ‘Catechetical Lectures.’

If not, you should. Your interpretation is only possible if you remove Cyril from his Catholic context and view him through an LDS lens. Cyril is a Catholic Bishop and saint, a Doctor of the Church. In his ‘Catechetical Lectures’ (see no. 4), he states he is providing the instruction during Lent and says he will walk the people he’s instructing through the Nicene Creed. He then goes through a point by point exposition of the Creed.

Only then do you come to the Mystagogical Lectures, which you’ve quoted. Sorry to say, Cyril was a Catholic bishop, celebrated by his contemporaries for his Nicene Orthodoxy, for which he was exiled a few times by Arian emperors.

When Cyril discussing washing and anointing, he’s discussing Catholic baptism and confirmation, exactly as those rites are practiced to this day in Eastern Catholic and Orthodox churches.

My question to you is, why quote a Catholic bishop describing Catholic rituals if your goal is to find ancient mention of a separate, post-baptismal washing and anointing rite as practiced in in LDS temples?

He wasn't really a "Catholic" bishop in the sense that you seem to be using it. He was a Christian bishop. There was no schism at that time and the Christian faith was, essentially, united. So, to say he is a Catholic bishop, which today Catholicism is its own distinct flavor of Christianity, isn't wholly accurate, would you not agree?

And, no, I haven't read all of his works.

-Finrock

If by ‘Christian’, you mean churches that approved and recite the Nicene Creed each Sunday; have a hierarchical priesthood of bishop, priest and deacon; observe Lent; have a priest at the altar using the order and structure of worship called the Mass in the Latin West and Divine Liturgy in the Greek and Syriac East, then ok, Cyril was a Christian. Any Christian who isn’t Catholic or Orthodox would call him a Catholic, unless he doesn’t know very much about the ancient Catholic Tradition.

The word "Catholic" wasn't used until the 2nd century. It just means, "universal". Christ didn't establish a "Coptic Church", and a "Eastern Catholic Church" and a "Roman Catholic" church and a "Greek Orthodox Church" and an "Eastern Orthodox Church" and so on. Jesus Christ established a "church". Jesus didn't say that a Christian is someone who recites the Nicene Creed each Sunday; have a hierarchical priesthood; observe Lent; have a priets at the alter using the order and structure of worship called the Mass/Divine Liturgy. Why would I mean something that Jesus didn't establish and define Himself?

That the Church that Christ established apostatized, changed, fractured, and turned in to various different things, with each group saying they are the authentic and their particular rituals and creeds are the truth is an unfortunate reality and has nothing to do with Jesus Christ.

So, no, I don't mean that.

The Roman Catholic Church today, can't really lay any claim to St. Cyril of Jerusalem. The Roman Catholic Church has diverged, greatly, from the Christianity that St. Cyril of Jerusalem practiced and observed (night and day; a practicing Christian from St. Cyril's day would not recognize their religion in the Roman Catholic Church of today). When it comes to this particular aspect (initiatory ritual), Christians from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints are more orthodox than the Roman Catholics.

Yes, at the time the Catholic (Universal) Church was one at the time, now fractured into Roman, Orthodox, and Coptic branches. The point is, this is the Catholic Tradition we’re talking about and using Cyril as you’ve done abuses the source. Cyril is describing Eastern Catholic/Orthodox rites of baptism and confirmation. Making him out to be a kind of Mormon is only possible by removing Cyril from his Nicene Creedal (Catholic) context.

Well, we need to make some things clear going forward. I'm not a Mormon. I'm a Christian who belongs to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. So, I'm not intending to make Cyril out to be any kind of Mormon.

St. Cyril of Jerusalem didn't make up the ritual that he was describing. So, the modern Catholic Church can't take ownership of it as you are attempting to do. This ritual of washing and anointing predates the Nicene Creed. It comes from the Jewish background of the early apostles and was practiced by Jesus Christ.

-Finrock

[Theophan]

Hi Finrock,

Have you read all of Cyril’s lectures? Not only his five ‘Mystagogical Lectures, ‘from which your quoted snippets come, but the preceding 18 lectures - called ‘Catechetical Lectures.’

If not, you should. Your interpretation is only possible if you remove Cyril from his Catholic context and view him through an LDS lens. Cyril is a Catholic Bishop and saint, a Doctor of the Church. In his ‘Catechetical Lectures’ (see no. 4), he states he is providing the instruction during Lent and says he will walk the people he’s instructing through the Nicene Creed. He then goes through a point by point exposition of the Creed.

Only then do you come to the Mystagogical Lectures, which you’ve quoted. Sorry to say, Cyril was a Catholic bishop, celebrated by his contemporaries for his Nicene Orthodoxy, for which he was exiled a few times by Arian emperors.

When Cyril discussing washing and anointing, he’s discussing Catholic baptism and confirmation, exactly as those rites are practiced to this day in Eastern Catholic and Orthodox churches.

My question to you is, why quote a Catholic bishop describing Catholic rituals if your goal is to find ancient mention of a separate, post-baptismal washing and anointing rite as practiced in in LDS temples?

He wasn't really a "Catholic" bishop in the sense that you seem to be using it. He was a Christian bishop. There was no schism at that time and the Christian faith was, essentially, united. So, to say he is a Catholic bishop, which today Catholicism is its own distinct flavor of Christianity, isn't wholly accurate, would you not agree?

And, no, I haven't read all of his works.

-Finrock

If by ‘Christian’, you mean churches that approved and recite the Nicene Creed each Sunday; have a hierarchical priesthood of bishop, priest and deacon; observe Lent; have a priest at the altar using the order and structure of worship called the Mass in the Latin West and Divine Liturgy in the Greek and Syriac East, then ok, Cyril was a Christian. Any Christian who isn’t Catholic or Orthodox would call him a Catholic, unless he doesn’t know very much about the ancient Catholic Tradition.

The word "Catholic" wasn't used until the 2nd century. It just means, "universal". Christ didn't establish a "Coptic Church", and a "Eastern Catholic Church" and a "Roman Catholic" church and a "Greek Orthodox Church" and an "Eastern Orthodox Church" and so on. Jesus Christ established a "church". Jesus didn't say that a Christian is someone who recites the Nicene Creed each Sunday; have a hierarchical priesthood; observe Lent; have a priets at the alter using the order and structure of worship called the Mass/Divine Liturgy. Why would I mean something that Jesus didn't establish and define Himself?

That the Church that Christ established apostatized, changed, fractured, and turned in to various different things, with each group saying they are the authentic and their particular rituals and creeds are the truth is an unfortunate reality and has nothing to do with Jesus Christ.

So, no, I don't mean that.

The Roman Catholic Church today, can't really lay any claim to St. Cyril of Jerusalem. The Roman Catholic Church has diverged, greatly, from the Christianity that St. Cyril of Jerusalem practiced and observed (night and day; a practicing Christian from St. Cyril's day would not recognize their religion in the Roman Catholic Church of today). When it comes to this particular aspect (initiatory ritual), Christians from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints are more orthodox than the Roman Catholics.

Yes, at the time the Catholic (Universal) Church was one at the time, now fractured into Roman, Orthodox, and Coptic branches. The point is, this is the Catholic Tradition we’re talking about and using Cyril as you’ve done abuses the source. Cyril is describing Eastern Catholic/Orthodox rites of baptism and confirmation. Making him out to be a kind of Mormon is only possible by removing Cyril from his Nicene Creedal (Catholic) context.

Well, we need to make some things clear going forward. I'm not a Mormon. I'm a Christian who belongs to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. So, I'm not intending to make Cyril out to be any kind of Mormon.

St. Cyril of Jerusalem didn't make up the ritual that he was describing. So, the modern Catholic Church can't take ownership of it as you are attempting to do. This ritual of washing and anointing predates the Nicene Creed. It comes from the Jewish background of the early apostles and was practiced by Jesus Christ.

-Finrock

Alright, let’s try this. I’ve provided evidence from Cyril himself that Cyril’s church in Jerusalem, of which he was bishop, believed in and uses the Nicene Creed; initiates new Christians by (in order): 1. baptizing (washing), 2. confirming (anointing) and 3. granting them access to the bread and wine (Eucharist) taught by Cyril to really be Christ’s own body and blood, not just some symbol. Cyril then walks us through his church’s order of worship, which is just like the order of Mass in Catholic Churches today. Visit any Catholic or Orthodox Church today and you’ll find all of the above on full display.

You, on the other hand, have only cited Cyril’s use of two words: washing and anointing, to suggest Cyril is discussing the LDS version of washing and anointing in LDS temples. Can you find any other evidence in Cyril to support your claim? I’ve provided examples of close Catholic parallels in Cyril’s writings to support my claim that Cyril belongs to the ancient Catholic Tradition that established the Creed and his washing and anointed should be interpreted accordingly. What else do you have from Cyril to support your claim of similarity between Cyril and the LDS temple besides Cyril’s use of a mere two translated English words? Take a look at all 23 lectures and let me know what you find.

BTW - I was endowed in 1985. I was washed and anointed in the Jordan River Temple. I’m also a baptized and anointed Catholic Christian. If all you have as evidence to support your claim is parallels with Cyril’s description of washing and anointing, excluding all other evidence from Cyril, as you must, I know through personal experience which washing and anointing (LDS or Catholic) is closer to Cyril’s actual description in his lectures.

[Finrock]

He wasn't really a "Catholic" bishop in the sense that you seem to be using it. He was a Christian bishop. There was no schism at that time and the Christian faith was, essentially, united. So, to say he is a Catholic bishop, which today Catholicism is its own distinct flavor of Christianity, isn't wholly accurate, would you not agree?

And, no, I haven't read all of his works.

-Finrock

If by ‘Christian’, you mean churches that approved and recite the Nicene Creed each Sunday; have a hierarchical priesthood of bishop, priest and deacon; observe Lent; have a priest at the altar using the order and structure of worship called the Mass in the Latin West and Divine Liturgy in the Greek and Syriac East, then ok, Cyril was a Christian. Any Christian who isn’t Catholic or Orthodox would call him a Catholic, unless he doesn’t know very much about the ancient Catholic Tradition.

The word "Catholic" wasn't used until the 2nd century. It just means, "universal". Christ didn't establish a "Coptic Church", and a "Eastern Catholic Church" and a "Roman Catholic" church and a "Greek Orthodox Church" and an "Eastern Orthodox Church" and so on. Jesus Christ established a "church". Jesus didn't say that a Christian is someone who recites the Nicene Creed each Sunday; have a hierarchical priesthood; observe Lent; have a priets at the alter using the order and structure of worship called the Mass/Divine Liturgy. Why would I mean something that Jesus didn't establish and define Himself?

That the Church that Christ established apostatized, changed, fractured, and turned in to various different things, with each group saying they are the authentic and their particular rituals and creeds are the truth is an unfortunate reality and has nothing to do with Jesus Christ.

So, no, I don't mean that.

The Roman Catholic Church today, can't really lay any claim to St. Cyril of Jerusalem. The Roman Catholic Church has diverged, greatly, from the Christianity that St. Cyril of Jerusalem practiced and observed (night and day; a practicing Christian from St. Cyril's day would not recognize their religion in the Roman Catholic Church of today). When it comes to this particular aspect (initiatory ritual), Christians from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints are more orthodox than the Roman Catholics.

Yes, at the time the Catholic (Universal) Church was one at the time, now fractured into Roman, Orthodox, and Coptic branches. The point is, this is the Catholic Tradition we’re talking about and using Cyril as you’ve done abuses the source. Cyril is describing Eastern Catholic/Orthodox rites of baptism and confirmation. Making him out to be a kind of Mormon is only possible by removing Cyril from his Nicene Creedal (Catholic) context.

Well, we need to make some things clear going forward. I'm not a Mormon. I'm a Christian who belongs to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. So, I'm not intending to make Cyril out to be any kind of Mormon.

St. Cyril of Jerusalem didn't make up the ritual that he was describing. So, the modern Catholic Church can't take ownership of it as you are attempting to do. This ritual of washing and anointing predates the Nicene Creed. It comes from the Jewish background of the early apostles and was practiced by Jesus Christ.

-Finrock

Alright, let’s try this. I’ve provided evidence from Cyril himself that Cyril’s church in Jerusalem, of which he was bishop, believed in and uses the Nicene Creed; initiates new Christians by (in order): 1. baptizing (washing), 2. confirming (anointing) and 3. granting them access to the bread and wine (Eucharist) taught by Cyril to really be Christ’s own body and blood, not just some symbol. Cyril then walks us through his church’s order of worship, which is just like the order of Mass in Catholic Churches today. Visit any Catholic or Orthodox Church today and you’ll find all of the above on full display.

The washing and anointing ritual pre-dates the Nicene Creed. St. Cyril of Jerusalem did not make up that ritual. The version St. Cyril uses is an apostate version of an earlier version of this ritual, yet, you see reminisce of the earlier ritual in the ritual St. Cyril describes. Furthermore, the Roman Catholic Church, at the very least, has greatly diverged from the Christianity that St. Cyril practiced, therefore, it makes no difference whether you he believed in the Nicene Creed or not. You're talking about too very different religions here.

My Russian Orthodox friend would disagree with your claim that Cyril's "order of worship" is "just like the order of Mass in Catholic Churches today". The Eastern Orthodox Church has more legitimacy to make such a claim as you are making than those who answer to the See of Rome.

The Roman Catholic Church of today does not look like, function like, or act like the Church that St. Cyril knew. Even the Orthodox sects have changed and varied over time.

You, on the other hand, have only cited Cyril’s use of two words: washing and anointing, to suggest Cyril is discussing the LDS version of washing and anointing in LDS temples.

I'm not making this argument. What is the "LDS" version? The physical ritual aspects have changed even within the LDS context. But, the washing and anointing has its roots in the Jewish tradition and this is where "Christianity" got this ritual from. What was the function and purpose of the ritual? What did it intend to do? Those are more relevant questions than if the ritual looks the same as St. Cyril's description. And, again, St. Cyril's description isn't the original. The washing and anointing pre-dates the Nicene Creed and has its roots in the Jewish tradition. We need to go back to that and then compare.

Does St. Cyrils version of this ritual match up with the Ante-Nicene practices?

The ideas presented in the LDS temple rituals, like the washing and anointing, trace their roots to antiquity and can be found in antiquity. We are looking for indicators. Many claim that there is nothing like the LDS temple ritual to be found in antiquity (which is what I understood your point to be). But, this is not so.

Can you find any other evidence in Cyril to support your claim? I’ve provided examples of close Catholic parallels in Cyril’s writings to support my claim that Cyril belongs to the ancient Catholic Tradition that established the Creed and his washing and anointed should be interpreted accordingly. What else do you have from Cyril to support your claim of similarity between Cyril and the LDS temple besides Cyril’s use of a mere two translated English words? Take a look at all 23 lectures and let me know what you find.

Let's get on the same page first. And, I'm not going to look at all 23 lectures right now. That isn't even rational for such a discussion as we are having and that isn't where we need to look, in my opinion.

BTW - I was endowed in 1985. I was washed and anointed in the Jordan River Temple. I’m also a baptized and anointed Catholic Christian. I know which washing and anointing (LDS or Catholic) is closer to Cyril’s actual description in his lectures.

Very good.

-Finrock

[Finrock]

1. Having been baptized into Christ, and put on Christ 2415 , ye have been made conformable to the Son of God; for God having foreordained us unto adoption as sons 2416 , made us to be conformed to the body of Christ’s glory 2417 . Having therefore become partakers of Christ 2418 , ye are properly called Christs, and of you God said, Touch not My Christs 2419 , or anointed. Now ye have been made Christs, by receiving the antitype 2420 of the Holy Ghost; and all things have been wrought in you by imitation 2421 , because ye are images of Christ. He washed in the river Jordan, and having imparted of the fragrance 2422 of His Godhead to the waters, He came up from them; and the Holy Ghost in the fulness of His being 2423 lighted on Him, like resting upon like 2424 . And to you in like manner, after you had come up from the pool of the sacred streams, there was given an Unction 2425 , the anti-type of that wherewith Christ was anointed; and this is the Holy Ghost; of whom also the blessed Esaias, in his prophecy respecting Him, said in the person of the Lord, The Spirit of the Lord is upon Me, because He hath anointed Me: He hath sent Me to preach glad tidings to the poor 2426 .

2. For Christ was not anointed by men with oil or material ointment, but the Father having before appointed Him to be the Saviour of the whole world, anointed Him with the Holy Ghost, as Peter says, Jesus of Nazareth, whom God anointed with the Holy Ghost 2427 . David also the Prophet cried, saying, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever; a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of Thy kingdom; Thou hast loved righteousness and hated iniquity; therefore God even Thy God hath anointed Thee with the oil of gladness above Thy fellows 2428 . And as Christ was in reality crucified, and buried, and raised, and you are in Baptism accounted worthy of being crucified, buried, and raised together with Him in a likeness, so is it with the unction also. As He was anointed with an ideal 2429 oil of gladness, that is, with the Holy Ghost, called oil of gladness, because He is the author of spiritual gladness, so ye were anointed with ointment, having been made partakers and fellows of Christ.

p. 150 3. But beware of supposing this to be plain ointment. For as the Bread of the Eucharist, after the invocation of the Holy Ghost, is mere bread no longer 2430 , but the Body of Christ, so also this holy ointment is no more simple ointment, nor (so to say) common, after invocation, but it is Christ’s gift of grace, and, by the advent of the Holy Ghost, is made fit to impart His Divine Nature 2431 . Which ointment is symbolically applied to thy forehead and thy other senses 2432 ; and while thy body is anointed with the visible ointment, thy soul is sanctified by the Holy and life-giving Spirit.

4. And ye were first anointed on the forehead, that ye might be delivered from the shame, which the first man who transgressed bore about with him everywhere; and that with unveiled face ye might reflect as a mirror the glory of the Lord 2433 . Then on your ears; that ye might receive the ears which are quick to hear the Divine Mysteries, of which Esaias said, The Lord gave me also an ear to hear 2434 ; and the Lord Jesus in the Gospel, He that hath ears to hear let him hear 2435 . Then on the nostrils; that receiving the sacred ointment ye may say, We are to God a sweet savour of Christ, in them that are saved 2436 . Afterwards on your breast; that having put on the breast-plate of righteousness, ye may stand against the wiles of the devil 2437 . For as Christ after His Baptism, and the visitation of the Holy Ghost, went forth and vanquished the adversary, so likewise ye, after Holy Baptism and the Mystical Chrism, having put on the whole armour of the Holy Ghost, are to stand against the power of the adversary, and vanquish it, saying, I can do all things through Christ which strengtheneth me 2438 .

5. Having been counted worthy of this Holy Chrism, ye are called Christians, verifying the name also by your new birth. For before you were deemed worthy of this grace, ye had properly no right to this title, but were advancing on your way towards being Christians.

6. Moreover, you should know that in the old Scripture there lies the symbol of this Chrism. For what time Moses imparted to his brother the command of God, and made him High-priest, after bathing in water, he anointed him; and Aaron was called Christ or Anointed, evidently from the typical Chrism. So also the High-priest, in advancing Solomon to the kingdom, anointed him after he had bathed in Gihon 2439 . To them however these things happened in a figure, but to you not in a figure, but in truth; because ye were truly anointed by the Holy Ghost. Christ is the beginning of your salvation; for He is truly the First-fruit, and ye the mass 2440 ; but if the First-fruit be holy, it is manifest that Its holiness will pass to the mass also.

7. Keep This unspotted: for it shall teach you all things, if it abide in you, as you have just heard declared by the blessed John, discoursing much concerning this Unction 2441 . For this holy thing is a spiritual safeguard of the body, and salvation of the soul. Of this the blessed Esaias prophesying of old time said, And on this mountain,—(now he calls the Church a mountain elsewhere also, as when he says, In the last days the mountain of the Lord’s house shall be manifest 2442 )—on this mountain shall the Lord make unto all nations a feast; they shall drink wine, they shall drink gladness, they shall anoint themselves with ointment 2443 . And that he may make thee sure, hear what he says of this ointment as being mystical; Deliver all these things to the nations, for the counsel of the Lord is unto all nations 2444 . Having been anointed, therefore, with this holy ointment, keep it unspotted and unblemished in you, pressing forward by good works, and being made well-pleasing to the Captain of your salvation, Christ Jesus, to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen.

So, we find several parallels to the LDS ritual within this description. I will point them out later. Lots of good stuff, here, btw. Enjoy.

-Finrock

[Theophan]

1. Having been baptized into Christ, and put on Christ 2415 , ye have been made conformable to the Son of God; for God having foreordained us unto adoption as sons 2416 , made us to be conformed to the body of Christ’s glory 2417 . Having therefore become partakers of Christ 2418 , ye are properly called Christs, and of you God said, Touch not My Christs 2419 , or anointed. Now ye have been made Christs, by receiving the antitype 2420 of the Holy Ghost; and all things have been wrought in you by imitation 2421 , because ye are images of Christ. He washed in the river Jordan, and having imparted of the fragrance 2422 of His Godhead to the waters, He came up from them; and the Holy Ghost in the fulness of His being 2423 lighted on Him, like resting upon like 2424 . And to you in like manner, after you had come up from the pool of the sacred streams, there was given an Unction 2425 , the anti-type of that wherewith Christ was anointed; and this is the Holy Ghost; of whom also the blessed Esaias, in his prophecy respecting Him, said in the person of the Lord, The Spirit of the Lord is upon Me, because He hath anointed Me: He hath sent Me to preach glad tidings to the poor 2426 .

2. For Christ was not anointed by men with oil or material ointment, but the Father having before appointed Him to be the Saviour of the whole world, anointed Him with the Holy Ghost, as Peter says, Jesus of Nazareth, whom God anointed with the Holy Ghost 2427 . David also the Prophet cried, saying, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever; a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of Thy kingdom; Thou hast loved righteousness and hated iniquity; therefore God even Thy God hath anointed Thee with the oil of gladness above Thy fellows 2428 . And as Christ was in reality crucified, and buried, and raised, and you are in Baptism accounted worthy of being crucified, buried, and raised together with Him in a likeness, so is it with the unction also. As He was anointed with an ideal 2429 oil of gladness, that is, with the Holy Ghost, called oil of gladness, because He is the author of spiritual gladness, so ye were anointed with ointment, having been made partakers and fellows of Christ.

p. 150 3. But beware of supposing this to be plain ointment. For as the Bread of the Eucharist, after the invocation of the Holy Ghost, is mere bread no longer 2430 , but the Body of Christ, so also this holy ointment is no more simple ointment, nor (so to say) common, after invocation, but it is Christ’s gift of grace, and, by the advent of the Holy Ghost, is made fit to impart His Divine Nature 2431 . Which ointment is symbolically applied to thy forehead and thy other senses 2432 ; and while thy body is anointed with the visible ointment, thy soul is sanctified by the Holy and life-giving Spirit.

4. And ye were first anointed on the forehead, that ye might be delivered from the shame, which the first man who transgressed bore about with him everywhere; and that with unveiled face ye might reflect as a mirror the glory of the Lord 2433 . Then on your ears; that ye might receive the ears which are quick to hear the Divine Mysteries, of which Esaias said, The Lord gave me also an ear to hear 2434 ; and the Lord Jesus in the Gospel, He that hath ears to hear let him hear 2435 . Then on the nostrils; that receiving the sacred ointment ye may say, We are to God a sweet savour of Christ, in them that are saved 2436 . Afterwards on your breast; that having put on the breast-plate of righteousness, ye may stand against the wiles of the devil 2437 . For as Christ after His Baptism, and the visitation of the Holy Ghost, went forth and vanquished the adversary, so likewise ye, after Holy Baptism and the Mystical Chrism, having put on the whole armour of the Holy Ghost, are to stand against the power of the adversary, and vanquish it, saying, I can do all things through Christ which strengtheneth me 2438 .

5. Having been counted worthy of this Holy Chrism, ye are called Christians, verifying the name also by your new birth. For before you were deemed worthy of this grace, ye had properly no right to this title, but were advancing on your way towards being Christians.

6. Moreover, you should know that in the old Scripture there lies the symbol of this Chrism. For what time Moses imparted to his brother the command of God, and made him High-priest, after bathing in water, he anointed him; and Aaron was called Christ or Anointed, evidently from the typical Chrism. So also the High-priest, in advancing Solomon to the kingdom, anointed him after he had bathed in Gihon 2439 . To them however these things happened in a figure, but to you not in a figure, but in truth; because ye were truly anointed by the Holy Ghost. Christ is the beginning of your salvation; for He is truly the First-fruit, and ye the mass 2440 ; but if the First-fruit be holy, it is manifest that Its holiness will pass to the mass also.

7. Keep This unspotted: for it shall teach you all things, if it abide in you, as you have just heard declared by the blessed John, discoursing much concerning this Unction 2441 . For this holy thing is a spiritual safeguard of the body, and salvation of the soul. Of this the blessed Esaias prophesying of old time said, And on this mountain,—(now he calls the Church a mountain elsewhere also, as when he says, In the last days the mountain of the Lord’s house shall be manifest 2442 )—on this mountain shall the Lord make unto all nations a feast; they shall drink wine, they shall drink gladness, they shall anoint themselves with ointment 2443 . And that he may make thee sure, hear what he says of this ointment as being mystical; Deliver all these things to the nations, for the counsel of the Lord is unto all nations 2444 . Having been anointed, therefore, with this holy ointment, keep it unspotted and unblemished in you, pressing forward by good works, and being made well-pleasing to the Captain of your salvation, Christ Jesus, to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen.

So, we find several parallels to the LDS ritual within this description. I will point them out later. Lots of good stuff, here, btw. Enjoy.

-Finrock

All of that also closely parallels Roman Catholicism and Orthodoxy. How about parallels with something uniquely LDS?

[Theophan]

If by ‘Christian’, you mean churches that approved and recite the Nicene Creed each Sunday; have a hierarchical priesthood of bishop, priest and deacon; observe Lent; have a priest at the altar using the order and structure of worship called the Mass in the Latin West and Divine Liturgy in the Greek and Syriac East, then ok, Cyril was a Christian. Any Christian who isn’t Catholic or Orthodox would call him a Catholic, unless he doesn’t know very much about the ancient Catholic Tradition.

The word "Catholic" wasn't used until the 2nd century. It just means, "universal". Christ didn't establish a "Coptic Church", and a "Eastern Catholic Church" and a "Roman Catholic" church and a "Greek Orthodox Church" and an "Eastern Orthodox Church" and so on. Jesus Christ established a "church". Jesus didn't say that a Christian is someone who recites the Nicene Creed each Sunday; have a hierarchical priesthood; observe Lent; have a priets at the alter using the order and structure of worship called the Mass/Divine Liturgy. Why would I mean something that Jesus didn't establish and define Himself?

That the Church that Christ established apostatized, changed, fractured, and turned in to various different things, with each group saying they are the authentic and their particular rituals and creeds are the truth is an unfortunate reality and has nothing to do with Jesus Christ.

So, no, I don't mean that.

The Roman Catholic Church today, can't really lay any claim to St. Cyril of Jerusalem. The Roman Catholic Church has diverged, greatly, from the Christianity that St. Cyril of Jerusalem practiced and observed (night and day; a practicing Christian from St. Cyril's day would not recognize their religion in the Roman Catholic Church of today). When it comes to this particular aspect (initiatory ritual), Christians from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints are more orthodox than the Roman Catholics.

Yes, at the time the Catholic (Universal) Church was one at the time, now fractured into Roman, Orthodox, and Coptic branches. The point is, this is the Catholic Tradition we’re talking about and using Cyril as you’ve done abuses the source. Cyril is describing Eastern Catholic/Orthodox rites of baptism and confirmation. Making him out to be a kind of Mormon is only possible by removing Cyril from his Nicene Creedal (Catholic) context.

Well, we need to make some things clear going forward. I'm not a Mormon. I'm a Christian who belongs to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. So, I'm not intending to make Cyril out to be any kind of Mormon.

St. Cyril of Jerusalem didn't make up the ritual that he was describing. So, the modern Catholic Church can't take ownership of it as you are attempting to do. This ritual of washing and anointing predates the Nicene Creed. It comes from the Jewish background of the early apostles and was practiced by Jesus Christ.

-Finrock

Alright, let’s try this. I’ve provided evidence from Cyril himself that Cyril’s church in Jerusalem, of which he was bishop, believed in and uses the Nicene Creed; initiates new Christians by (in order): 1. baptizing (washing), 2. confirming (anointing) and 3. granting them access to the bread and wine (Eucharist) taught by Cyril to really be Christ’s own body and blood, not just some symbol. Cyril then walks us through his church’s order of worship, which is just like the order of Mass in Catholic Churches today. Visit any Catholic or Orthodox Church today and you’ll find all of the above on full display.

The washing and anointing ritual pre-dates the Nicene Creed. St. Cyril of Jerusalem did not make up that ritual. The version St. Cyril uses is an apostate version of an earlier version of this ritual, yet, you see reminisce of the earlier ritual in the ritual St. Cyril describes. Furthermore, the Roman Catholic Church, at the very least, has greatly diverged from the Christianity that St. Cyril practiced, therefore, it makes no difference whether you he believed in the Nicene Creed or not. You're talking about too very different religions here.

My Russian Orthodox friend would disagree with your claim that Cyril's "order of worship" is "just like the order of Mass in Catholic Churches today". The Eastern Orthodox Church has more legitimacy to make such a claim as you are making than those who answer to the See of Rome.

The Roman Catholic Church of today does not look like, function like, or act like the Church that St. Cyril knew. Even the Orthodox sects have changed and varied over time.

You, on the other hand, have only cited Cyril’s use of two words: washing and anointing, to suggest Cyril is discussing the LDS version of washing and anointing in LDS temples.

I'm not making this argument. What is the "LDS" version? The physical ritual aspects have changed even within the LDS context. But, the washing and anointing has its roots in the Jewish tradition and this is where "Christianity" got this ritual from. What was the function and purpose of the ritual? What did it intend to do? Those are more relevant questions than if the ritual looks the same as St. Cyril's description. And, again, St. Cyril's description isn't the original. The washing and anointing pre-dates the Nicene Creed and has its roots in the Jewish tradition. We need to go back to that and then compare.

Does St. Cyrils version of this ritual match up with the Ante-Nicene practices?

The ideas presented in the LDS temple rituals, like the washing and anointing, trace their roots to antiquity and can be found in antiquity. We are looking for indicators. Many claim that there is nothing like the LDS temple ritual to be found in antiquity (which is what I understood your point to be). But, this is not so.

Can you find any other evidence in Cyril to support your claim? I’ve provided examples of close Catholic parallels in Cyril’s writings to support my claim that Cyril belongs to the ancient Catholic Tradition that established the Creed and his washing and anointed should be interpreted accordingly. What else do you have from Cyril to support your claim of similarity between Cyril and the LDS temple besides Cyril’s use of a mere two translated English words? Take a look at all 23 lectures and let me know what you find.

Let's get on the same page first. And, I'm not going to look at all 23 lectures right now. That isn't even rational for such a discussion as we are having and that isn't where we need to look, in my opinion.

BTW - I was endowed in 1985. I was washed and anointed in the Jordan River Temple. I’m also a baptized and anointed Catholic Christian. I know which washing and anointing (LDS or Catholic) is closer to Cyril’s actual description in his lectures.

Very good.

-Finrock

Sorry, I’m off to get some ashes on my forehead and don’t have much time to respond to this. Thanks for it; it clarifies your view.

For now, all I’ll say is I only recently returned to communion with Rome. I was Eastern Orthodox for a while. I consider both to be the same church, Latin vs Greek, although sadly not in communion. I know what your friend will say. I claim Cyril for both traditions.

[Theophan]

Finrock,

A couple of additional points. You said Roman Catholicism is nothing like the church of Cyril's day, that even the 'Orthodox sects' have developed and changed. You also said Jesus didn't create any of those churches, or the Copts, or the Syrian churches, etc, because of the Apostasy, etc. etc. I know you said a lot more, but have I fairly summarized the basic points you made?

I agree that the churches have developed and changed. Churches do that, including the LDS Church. I disagree that there was an Apostasy. We'll never come to agreement on that point, so let's set it aside. I also disagree that today's Roman Catholic church is nothing like the church of Cyril's day. I do agree with you that Orthodoxy is closer to Cyril's church than the modern Roman Church, but the similarities between the latter and Cyril are obvious to anyone who has read all of Cyril's lectures and has attended a Catholic Mass enough times that it's as comfortable as an old glove.

So what's my point in all of this? It's simply to say that Cyril's church has a lot more in common with modern Roman Catholicism and Orthodoxy and the Copts and the Syrian Orthodox and the Nestorian church, despite fragmentation and centuries of change, than the LDS church and it's temple liturgy. The reason is because all of the aforementioned fragmented churches are fragments of the original, one Universal church that dates back to the Council of Nicea. Drop the Apostasy business; that's irrelevant to the point. The point is that Cyril belonged to that same unified church of the Creed and that's how he should be interpreted, and that ancient church of the Creed fragmented, resulting in the various splinters of the ancient Catholic tradition described above. Cyril's description of washing and anointing is the washing and anointing of that ancient, unified Creedal church and the washing of that church was baptism. Cyril is not discussing a separate washing ritual from baptism, as I think you're trying to make out - which, I think, if Cyril really is discussing a washing rite different from baptism, would be the only legitimate reason to attempt to link Cyril with the washing of the LDS temple. Unfortunately for LDS apologetics, Cyril is NOT describing a separate washing from baptism. He's describing baptism, as it was practiced in his day, along with the subsequent anointing ritual which is nearly identical with the Orthodox anointing ritual - point by point, prayer by prayer, anointed body part by anointed body part - the way Orthodox Christians are anointed after their baptism. I should know - I received that anointing when I became Orthodox.

Thus, Cyril's catechism is best viewed as an ancient Catholic catechism (using the definition of ancient Catholic I've provided), which church is the common root of all the contemporary Nicene Creedal fragments identified above. Thus, Cyril belongs to all of those fragmented churches, he is their ancient bishop and saint, and does not belong in any way to the LDS tradition and his washing really is a description of the ancient Catholic practice of baptism, very similar to how it's practiced today. I've provided the evidence for this, namely Cyril's defense and explication of the Creed in the first 18 lectures, his belief in and defense of the bread and wine of the Eucharist as the literal body and blood of Christ (explicated and defended in Lectures 22-23 (aka his 4th and 5th Mystagogical Lectures), and his description of liturgical worship in Lecture 23, which is a run through of elements of the liturgy found in both the Roman Catholic Mass and the Orthodox Divine Liturgy. There are also unique elements. This is to be expected - Christian liturgies have developed and changed over time with much variation in wording, sequencing and prayers included, this is well known, but the basic structure and format of all of them are the same. Anyone who conducts a historical study of liturgical development of the 22+ liturgies in the Catholic Tradition and bothers to spend some time participating in some of those liturgies, can easily see this for himself. The Roman Catholic Church includes all of those liturgies, by the way, so when you say the Roman Catholic Church is nothing like Cyril's church, you're forgetting that the RCC is in communion with Greek and Slavic Catholics who use the Byzantine Liturgy, which also has close affinities with Cyril's description of worship in his lectures.

So...I disagree with you when you say that the modern Roman Catholic Church is nothing like Cyril's church. That simply isn't true. Read all of the lectures. Then read the 23rd lecture again and attend a Catholic Mass. Also attend an Orthodox Divine Liturgy. While you're at it, go to a Byzantine Catholic Liturgy. The similarities of all three to what Cyril describes in his lecture will be obvious to you. What Cyril describes is in Lecture 23 is nothing like LDS sacrament meeting or what happens in LDS temples. Cyril describes the ancient form of the Catholic liturgy of the Jerusalem of his time, which is a close cousin to and very like the other liturgies I've just mentioned - close cousin because, duh!, all three liturgies and the churches that use them come from the same place - the one, unified Church of the Nicene Creed - Cyril's church.

BTW - the liturgy of the Byzantine Catholics (in communion with Rome and part of the Roman Catholic Church) is identical to that of the Eastern Orthodox Church. Both use the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom (a Bishop who was generation younger than, but still a contemporary of, Cyril). The only practical difference between these churches is one is in communion with Rome and the other is not. The Roman Catholic Church's Latin Rite is structured similarly, but differs in certain important respects. I think you might already know this. Regardless, the Latin and Greek/Byzantine liturgies are all part of that ancient, currently fragmented, tradition of Nicene Christianity. These are all Cyril's people. He would likely recognize the Byzantine Liturgy as closer to what he knew, except for the Iconostasis, which came centuries later, and he would also recognize elements of the Roman Catholic Mass. Study the organization and prayers of the two liturgies, give Cyril's 23rd Lecture a close read and this will be obvious to you.

Alright, I appreciate your patience - everyone's patience - with my ramblings. Let me try to sum up what I think you're trying to say.

If the reason you cite Cyril is to say - 'Hey, look at this! Here's Cyril, who described an ancient Christian washing and anointing ritual. Our temples also have washing and anointing rites. Washing and anointing rituals are ancient, rooted in the ancient Hebrew temple. Ours is a restoration of the original form in the primitive church that is the source of Cyril's apostate version.’

If that's your view and the reason you cited Cyril, I'm ok with that. The LDS Church teaches it's a restoration of primitive Christianity, so from within that framework, citing Cyril as one example of ancient washing and anointing rituals is reasonable.

What I'm not ok with is saying - 'Hey, check out Cyril. He describes a washing and anointing ritual and the washing he describes is not a baptism, it's something separate - just like the rites in our LDS temple!'

If that's what you're saying, I think you couldn't be more wrong, for the reasons I've provided in my posts. I'm also sorry, if that's what I thought you were saying - and you weren't.

[Theophan]

Finrock,

I missed the following that you said:

The washing and anointing ritual pre-dates the Nicene Creed. St. Cyril of Jerusalem did not make up that ritual. The version St. Cyril uses is an apostate version of an earlier version of this ritual, yet, you see reminisce of the earlier ritual in the ritual St. Cyril describes. Furthermore, the Roman Catholic Church, at the very least, has greatly diverged from the Christianity that St. Cyril practiced, therefore, it makes no difference whether you he believed in the Nicene Creed or not. You're talking about too very different religions here.

So you do consider Cyril to be apostate. That clarifies things for me. That leads me to restate my original question:

Can you (or the author of the OP) locate a pre-Nicene Christian who described a washing ritual that isn’t a baptism? What you responded with was Cyril, a bishop and saint who belongs to the Catholic Tradition writ large, who describes an apostate washing ritual that’s a baptism, not a ritual separate from baptism, as in LDS temples. The LDS church claims to be a restoration of primitive Christianity. Please find me some post-NT evidence that some ancient
Christians actually practiced a washing and anointing rite distinct from baptism. Cyril isn’t that.

I’d love to see that kind of evidence. It would offer strong support that the washing in LDS temples is a restored ordinance.

Also, the Roman Catholic Church hasn’t diverged all that much from Cyril’s church. Sure there have been developments and additions, in particular the addition of the filioque clause to the Creed, a much more hierarchical ecclesiology, some variations in the Latin liturgical rite, and the doctrine of Purgatory, but in the essentials the churches are the same (Nicene Creedal theology, a Catholic liturgical order of worship; the same basic ecclesiological structure of bishop, priest and deacon; shared belief that the prayer of the epiklesis changes the bread and wine into something else (Jesus); and a common layout and design of churches).

[Finrock]

Finrock,

I missed the following that you said:

The washing and anointing ritual pre-dates the Nicene Creed. St. Cyril of Jerusalem did not make up that ritual. The version St. Cyril uses is an apostate version of an earlier version of this ritual, yet, you see reminisce of the earlier ritual in the ritual St. Cyril describes. Furthermore, the Roman Catholic Church, at the very least, has greatly diverged from the Christianity that St. Cyril practiced, therefore, it makes no difference whether you he believed in the Nicene Creed or not. You're talking about too very different religions here.

So you do consider Cyril to be apostate. That clarifies things for me. That leads me to restate my original question:

Can you (or the author of the OP) locate a pre-Nicene Christian who described a washing ritual that isn’t a baptism? What you responded with was Cyril, a bishop and saint who belongs to the Catholic Tradition writ large, who describes an apostate washing ritual that’s a baptism, not a ritual separate from baptism, as in LDS temples. The LDS church claims to be a restoration of primitive Christianity. Please find me some post-NT evidence that some ancient
Christians actually practiced a washing and anointing rite distinct from baptism. Cyril isn’t that.

I’d love to see that kind of evidence. It would offer strong support that the washing in LDS temples is a restored ordinance.

Also, the Roman Catholic Church hasn’t diverged all that much from Cyril’s church. Sure there have been developments and additions, in particular the addition of the filioque clause to the Creed, a much more hierarchical ecclesiology, some variations in the Latin liturgical rite, and the doctrine of Purgatory, but in the essentials the churches are the same (Nicene Creedal theology, a Catholic liturgical order of worship; the same basic ecclesiological structure of bishop, priest and deacon; shared belief that the prayer of the epiklesis changes the bread and wine into something else (Jesus); and a common layout and design of churches).

You'll have to give me time to respond. I can't give you a fair and reasonable response immediately. It may be a few days. To give you a fair and reasonable response will require a lot more energy and time than I have available immediately to give you. But, I will respond. Thanks!

-Finrock

[Theophan]

You'll have to give me time to respond. I can't give you a fair and reasonable response immediately. It may be a few days. To give you a fair and reasonable response will require a lot more energy and time than I have available immediately to give you. But, I will respond. Thanks!

-Finrock

Please take your time. It's Lent and I've decided I waste too much time in conversations such as these (too much social media, in general). I'm not completely giving it up, but I'm reducing my time on forums substantially going forward (the Christian way is the way of self--denial, following Jesus's command of serving God and neigbor over self, and Lent is for identifying those things that are self- rather than other-serving and strive to get rid of them permanently, an effort that’s wasted, if it’s not connected to increased prayer and fasting). I really need to follow through on the decision I've made.

If you don't get back to me until after Easter, that's fine with me! You’ll be helping me to avoid being sucked back in to this kind of massive time waster. Thanks again for the great conversation.