For the LDS - Please Define the Great Apostacy

[TOmNossor]

Tom, I did read BY’s quote and I still maintain that even his position on the sacrament falls far short of the Catholic belief in the Eucharist, and short of what I think you believe the Eucharist is. I think it’s great that you are making visits to Eucharistic adoration and mass from time to time. That says a lot about you, especially as a faithful LDS. When I hear you talk about the Eucharist I sense that there’s more to it than just an intellectual reasoning that it “makes sense” based on John 6.

I will admit that you probably have a greater appreciation of the Eucharist than most Catholics I know. The bottom line with all of this, though, is that it’s not a matter of what spiritual feelings one may receive by observing or participating. Mother Teresa, possibly one of the most holy and faithful persons of the 20th century, had long spells of not feeling anything spiritual, even though I’m sure she was a very frequent partaker of the Eucharist. Yet she remained faithful and continued to do God’s will. So what’s important is not what we feel from it, but whether or not we believe in it.
Chris,
It is not that I believe the Catholic Eucharist is transubstantiated. It is that I believe that the best read of history and the Bible is that the real presence is intended to be conferred in the sacrament. I think it is silly for folks who believe Christ was born of a virgin (farther more was the Son of God) to criticize Catholics for believing their sacrament is transubstantiated.

I view the decision as to which religion, Catholicism or Mormonism makes the most sense of the relevant data as a huge decision with volumes of smaller battles. To the extent that LDS do not believe or do not recognize the real presence in the sacrament, Catholicism wins this battle. I think there are other battles that Catholicism wins. I think there are many battles that Catholicism does not win. In the end, before I became a little more encouraged on the possibilities for the LDS view on the sacrament, I thought the CoJCoLDS won this decision on the evidence despite loosing some battles. I have become more encouraged by the possibilities for the LDS sacrament. I have found slightly bigger problems in the post Joseph Smith authority of the CoJCoLDS than I knew about before that while I consider to be less concerning than the post-Peterine authority in Catholicism; are not the wonderful tail we like to tell (which I knew already, but recently I have discovered that it is even more complex than I already knew).

I intend to be forever learning. And, I attempt to be honest about where I see the data pointing both on an individual battle case and on the full decision. Now separate from the data, I no longer feel it appropriate to pray to know which church is true (because I have received an answer and do not currently see the evidentiary case as pointing me to a need to re-open this question), I always ask for God to guide me in my life. I think this guidance will mostly come through the learning that God providentially guides me towards. If the data takes a radical shift, I will integrate data and prayer into my life as faithfully as I can. I do not anticipate being a Catholic or a non-LDS. I am quite comfortable with the statement, “I know the CoJCoLDS is true.” But, I would not say, “I have told God that He better leave me alone because I am going to die a LDS!”

I see no need to ridicule the Catholic Eucharist or claim that the real presence is not a superior read of the Bible and the ECF. I will continue to address issues that for me are a big deal.
Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

My understanding as a Catholic would be:

*God the Son (ABC) is homoousian with God the Father (AB) in His divinity.
*God the Son (ABC) is homoousian in His humanity with mankind (C).
*Mankind (C) may not become homoousian with God (AB) in his future deified state (B), but can become gods (B) via grace (B).

I also like Paul’s analogy about the poker (C) in the hot fire (A) receiving its(AB) heat(B).
I am not sure if Paul’s analogy pre-dates St. John of the Cross, but that is where I would have said it came from. It is good.
I think your above is a good use of homoousian in the non-neo-modalist way. I think it is also a good statement of the more prevalent view within modern Catholicism.

I would suggest that before Nicea there is little to no evidence that mankind’s deification would be partial such that God is divine (AB) and man will be divine (B) only, but I find this to be the most common believe today. Of course most scholars are willing to say that Jesus Christ was spoken of divine in way (X) before Nicea and God the Father was divine (X&Y) before Nicea. And even today in modern Catholicism there is only One God who is unbeggotten and non-proceeding.

It is the witness of the Bible and the pre-Nicea ECF that we will be divine as Christ is divine. When I talk about evidence, I think this is MORE universally affirmed in the pre-Nicea ECF than is the real presence.
Charity, TOm

 

[mfbukowski]

Dying to oneself, the oft repeated theme of being a disciple of Jesus, requires change.

This does not always feel good, quite often, it requires decisions that are painful. The love of God is a consuming flame.

But how do you know God is guiding? Because, you pray and ask Him, and He answers. And one day, you are like the song and asking yourself, “how did I get here?” And there is no denying that you did not do it on your own.

You are struggling, and not understanding the Eucharist, or even the basic question of How do you know God is there? The big question. Asked by anyone who has contemplated God, including atheists.

You pray, not that God will give you signs, or burning feelings, or bushes set on fire. You just want to be where God is. He leads you to Him, if you ask. He helps you understand, clearly, the questions, the fog, struggles, one by one they leave you and you are left agape. Awestruck. And you just know, that even if you doubt, or worry, or struggle, or get frustrated with blind Mormons, that God is there.

Mother Theresa had these experiences, of knowing, of finding herself in places where she knew that God led her. That she didn’t get there on her own. And so in the dark times, it is faith that gets us through. We don’t forget that God has done many wonderful things. The He heard us when we called. That the world changed because we changed and it was all God’s doing. You don’t forget, and so you have faith, that even when God seems to have gone silent, and the suffering all around you never ceases. The kind of suffering the Mother Theresa dealt with on a daily basis. That kind of suffering. Where is God? She knew, she had faith, that He had not left the innocent around her. Had not deserted them. And WE know that God had given them Mother Theresa.

That is the recognition. We see God working in people like Mother Theresa. Mother Theresa, she was just one of us. The knower of her weaknesses. The disbelief that God had given her for His purposes. But we see it. We know. And so do many who know nothing of Catholicism or even Christianity for that matter.

We also know that we aren’t called to sit and gaze and Mother Theresa and think on how wonderful she is. She was following a Person, and so are we. Our faith is not an idle faith, or should not be, but often it is. Perhaps Mother Theresa’s darkness was that the suffering was to great for her to handle on her own, and she needed the help of others. Like us. Who are sitting comfortably in our climate controlled homes with cupboards full of food and admiring wonderful Mother Theresa.

Spiritual growth is about following a Person. Jesus Christ. He has shown us the Way. You know your own weaknesses. You search your own self, and confess your sins, and ask God to help you improve. And He listens. And soon enough, He gives you the opportunity to improve, and you realize even more that grace He has given to you to follow Him. What was impossible yesterday, is possible today.

This is not a feeling. It is real life. The alcoholic who becomes sober and works tireless at charitable giving. The young man who gives his life to God, and serves His Church. The former atheist who tells another how to know God is there. The orphans in abject poverty who find care in the arms of a sisterhood.

This is where God is and how you know you are following His Way.

Thanks for this- I think it is wonderful. I especially like the first few lines.

*"Dying to oneself, the oft repeated theme of being a disciple of Jesus, requires change.

This does not always feel good, quite often, it requires decisions that are painful. The love of God is a consuming flame"*

This is just plain true true true, and wonderfully said.

I think there is a whole theology of pain to be written. I went through nearly 20 years of fairly constant pain, and the spiritual growth I experienced was phenomenal. One has no choice but to surrender to the Lord under such circumstances. Those are the times he is carrying us. The notion of “dying to oneself” is central.

I of course believe in the literal historical crucifixion and death of the person Jesus, but I think that even if it never happened I would be a Christian because his death is also a profound allegory about our personal spiritual growth.

Our “god” (ego) has to endure suffering and pain and death due to our sins to be resurrected as a new being, to be transformed into a Christ -like being. To me, this is what it means to be “born again”

Of course this is an apologetics forum so I cannot agree completely lest I be seen as a wuss.

You know where I would disagree, so let’s just leave it there!

Thanks!

 

[Jerusha]

Our “god” (ego) has to endure suffering and pain and death due to our sins to be resurrected as a new being, to be transformed into a Christ -like being. To me, this is what it means to be “born again”

Of course this is an apologetics forum so I cannot agree completely lest I be seen as a wuss.

Be comforted. A wuss is someone who lacks the courage to change.

 

[mfbukowski]

Be comforted. A wuss is someone who lacks the courage to change.

Hmmm Not sure if this is praise or an insult?

 

[ronald_g_w]

Not answered brought forward

Originally Posted by Robert in SD
Where in the historical record is there evidence of these “plain and precious” truths being attacked by an apostate Christianity? Where is there evidence of the proto-LDS bishops imploring the faithful to put on the temple garb and baptize their ancestors at a proto-LDS temple? I’m sorry, but unless I see real evidence of distinct LDS doctrine being attacked by a rising “apostate” Church, I’m not going to be eager to accept your belief on the matter.

Originally Posted by Robert in SD

OK. He does not say to baptize the dead. And he is not speaking about those who came before he instituted baptism as a sacrament for salvation.

Of course they are not excluded. However, it does not state that they are compelled to follow a sacrament that was not instituted after their earthly lives ended. Do you believe in a God that would impose a requirement on those who - through no fault of their own - are not capable of meeting that requirement? Do you believe that until you baptize every person born before the Restoration they are bound to some less-than-heavenly eternity? I do not think God is so capricious and arbitrary.

Baptism of desire is one way. Entrusting them to the hands of aloving God is another way. Proxy baptism is simply unworkable unless you have a perfect record of every person born before the institution of the sacrament of baptism - or else the concept is unfair and unjust for those who have no record?

The Catholic Church is in no such danger by the Scriptures you quote. What is in question is the evidence of proto-Mormons preaching about unique Mormon doctrines, one of which is baptism of deceased non-members by proxy. The scripture simply does not support the practice in any real measure.

Peace,
-Robert

As I quoted 1 Cor. 15: 29 from the KJV - BELOW - which Robert gave his comment on - ABOVE -

1 Cor. 15: 29
29 Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? why are they then baptized for the dead?

I therefore would like to know if the translation / interpretation where worded as - BELOW - would this not mean that baptisms were done on behalf of those that are dead by proxy ?

Otherwise, what do people mean by being baptized on behalf of the dead ? If the dead are not raised at all, why are people baptized on their behalf ?

 

[Stephen168]

I therefore would like to know if the translation / interpretation where worded as - BELOW - would this not mean that baptisms were done on behalf of those that are dead by proxy ?

Otherwise, what do people mean by being baptized on behalf of the dead ? If the dead are not raised at all, why are people baptized on their behalf ?

Which version of the New Testament is it from?

 

[ronald_g_w]

Which version of the New Testament is it from?

The Holy Bible
Catholic Edition

 

[Snow]

Hmmm. I don’t think that applies to the RCC and I’ll tell you why. The great apostasy is to happen in the* latter* days according to Paul. And if Mormonism (The Church of the Latter Days) claims it happened in the 4th century, well then that isn’t quite the latter days.

Modern scholarship tends to think of the decades soon after the death of Christ and the 2nd century, not so much of the 4th when the major “falling away” had already happened.

 

[Robert_in_SD]

Not answered brought forward

As I quoted 1 Cor. 15: 29 from the KJV - BELOW - which Robert gave his comment on - ABOVE -

I therefore would like to know if the translation / interpretation where worded as - BELOW - would this not mean that baptisms were done on behalf of those that are dead by proxy ?

It would seem to mean that persons were receiving baptism for themselves, because of their desire to be with those who are to be resurrected. Hence, they are baptized on account of the dead who have already fallen asleep and are still awaiting the resurrection.

The passage says nothing about baptism in place of those who are already dead - i.e. proxy baptism. It speaks of a person’s desire to be baptized so that they would be resurrected together with those who have predeceased.

Peace,
-Robert

P.S. Out of curiosity, which translation are you quoting from here?

 

[ronald_g_w]

It would seem to mean that persons were receiving baptism for themselves, because of their desire to be with those who are to be resurrected. Hence, they are baptized on account of the dead who have already fallen asleep and are still awaiting the resurrection.

The passage says nothing about baptism in place of those who are already dead - i.e. proxy baptism. It speaks of a person’s desire to be baptized so that they would be resurrected together with those who have predeceased.

Peace,
-Robert

P.S. Out of curiosity, which translation are you quoting from here?

The Holy Bible
Catholic Edition
Otherwise, what do people mean by being baptized on behalf of the dead ? If the dead are not raised at all, why are people baptized on their behalf ?

I read proxy in this no dought but then that is because I am LDS however there are other thoughts that are interesting posted under (How do Catholics read / understand)

 

[Robert_in_SD]

The Holy Bible
Catholic Edition

Looks like RSV:CE. Thanks.

“Otherwise, what do people mean by being baptized on behalf of the dead ? If the dead are not raised at all, why are people baptized on their behalf?” (1 Cor. 15:29)

I read proxy in this no dought but then that is because I am LDS

No doubt. I do not see proxy because I’m Catholic. I also do not see proxy baptism in the historical and Traditional practices of the Church - East and West. No doubt, this is also because I am Catholic.

I’ll check out the thread you cited to. Thanks again.

Peace,
-Robert

 

[mackbrislawn]

Only up to a point. Mormons would claim that the catholic church has a great deal of truth but not the whole truth. And as far as the bible is concerned, mormons would believe it to be the world of god but they would also claim that the bible has been bastardized through the corruption of men. In other words the bible is a perfect book up to a point.

Mormonism stands alone because it claims to be the restored church of christ. And as such, it has brought new understanding to christianity.

Yes, what you say makes sense. Although how much truth the Catholic church has is not the issue, but the validity of the existing Christian scriptures that descended through it to us.

Indeed, if the church from which we received scripture were apostate, then it would make sense that its scriptures would also be apostate, or at least corrupted and bastardized as you indicate. This then calls into question the the validity of these Christian scriptures, and therefore trying to build a new church upon faulty scriptures is obviously of no avail, even though it is what Protestants attempt to do. And witness the many different churches they have built.

Hence, to save the day, the church needs to be restored, and in this regard the LDS church is more logical than Protestant churches. The LDS church is also logical in another way–its founders realized that something was missing in the Protestant churches they came out of: a church authority. And that missing authority is provided in the LDS church.

Incidentally, the LDS church isn’t the only one to think of themselves as the restored church. The Jehovah’s Witnesses have also used that idea, and point to themselves as that restored church. (Even if they don’t use the word ‘church.’)

Seventh Day Adventists…do SDA’s think of themselves as a restored church?

 

[Robert_in_SD]

Indeed, if the church from which we received scripture were apostate, then it would make sense that its scriptures would also be apostate, or at least corrupted and bastardized as you indicate. This then calls into question the the validity of these Christian scriptures, and therefore trying to build a new church upon faulty scriptures is obviously of no avail, even though it is what Protestants attempt to do.

But it is also what the LDS do. They adopt as their own and recognize the same KJV bible as do the protestant churches. If they believed it was corrupted by apostacy, to any degree, they should abandon it entirely as being inaccurate and untrustworthy. Yet, they do not - they believe it is the inerrant word of God, just as do their more orthodox protestant brothers and sisters. I also believe this inconsistency terminates the argument in favor of total apostacy. If the Catholic Church kept the scriptures inerrent up to the present date, then it seems to me that it could not be totally apostate. If that is the case, a restoration is not required… If it is corrupt to a lesser degree, which the LDS adoption of the entire bible as part of their scripture suggests to most of us, then reformation is in order. And if reformation is in order, a restoration was simply not required. That reveals the LDS claim as wholly inconsistent with the history of its sacred texts.

I still do not seem to have a consensus among the LDS as to what exactly was the Great Apostacy. To some the Church is entirely corrupt. To others there is some truth, but not much. To another group, there are a great many things they see in Catholicism that are desired, like the Eucharist. So, it seems to me that this lack of consensus on a sine qua non like the Great Apostacy, along with the inconsistency of the LDS’s adopted KJV scriptural pedigree, speaks to the confused logic behind the necessity for a restoration. Can some LDS member step forward and offer a citation to the doctrinal and authoritative LDS teaching on the matter that clears some of this smoke away?

Peace,
-Robert

 

[mfbukowski]

But it is also what the LDS do. They adopt as their own and recognize the same KJV bible as do the protestant churches. If they believed it was corrupted by apostacy, to any degree, they should abandon it entirely as being inaccurate and untrustworthy. Yet, they do not - they believe it is the inerrant word of God, just as do their more orthodox protestant brothers and sisters. I also believe this inconsistency terminates the argument in favor of total apostacy. If the Catholic Church kept the scriptures inerrent up to the present date, then it seems to me that it could not be totally apostate.

I still do not seem to have a consensus among the LDS as to what exactly was the Great Apostacy. To some the Church is entirely corrupt. To others there is some truth, but not much. To another group, there are a great many things they see in Catholicism that are desired, like the Eucharist. So, it seems to me that this lack of consensus on a sine qua non like the Great Apostacy, along with the inconsistency of the LDS’s adopted KJV scriptural pedigree, speaks to the confused logic behind the necessity for a restoration. Can some LDS member step forward and offer a citation to the doctrinal and authoritative LDS teaching on the matter that clears some of this smoke away?

Peace,
-Robert

No Robert, that is not what we believe.

We do not believe that the bible is inerrant.

We believe the bible is true “insofar as it is translated correctly” which would include errors and omissions in all the manuscripts which led to the final translation. That is VERY different than inerrant. In fact, it is a giant loophole which would **theoretically **enable any debating LDS member to totally discount any biblical verse.

Of course such a position would totally lack crediblity and be probably in error.

I personally have found not a single instance where the bible contradicts any of our doctrine, given our interpretation of the biblical verse.

That is perhaps where you get the idea that we believe the bible is inerrant, because we give it that level of authority, and speak **as if **it is inerrant sometimes.

But the bottom line is that for our position to be defensible strategically speaking in a debate, we could say that the entire bible is totally corrupt. That would be consistent with our position.

It would be stupid AND UNTRUE to argue that, and I have never heard the argument made that way, but it would be consistent with our doctrine. And I know with your legal background, you understand that!

As far as the apostasy is concerned, I think we kind of don’t care how corrupt the church was. It’s like being a “little pregnant”

If there was ONE CORRUPT POPE, in 2000 years with all that Avignon stuff, with Pope Jane, with all those heresies and schisms where everyone was excommunicating eachother etc.-- if there was ONE time it didn’t work correctly, or even technically, suppose there was a corrupt bishop who ordained priest “A”. In our view, priest A does not have the priesthood.

Suppose priest A, 50 years later, becomes pope. He is not a valid pope because he never had the priesthood.

So for us, it is almost inconceivable that ANY priesthood could survive under those conditions for 2000 years.

So it almost seems prima facie obvious to us that the apostasy happened. We don’t worry about the details. There was enough crazy stuff going on for 2000 years that priesthood authority could not have survived in that kind of environment.

We are different. I can show you my priesthood line of authority. I know who ordained me, and we have records that record that line back to the restoration. It’s only been 180 years. And with modern record keeping, we can trace that authority person by person. Not just the presidents of the church, but each individual.

I have seen instances in our church where there have been discrepancies in records, where the record shows for example that person x did not have the priesthood for performing ordinance y. The record is probably in error because brother x knows that he had been properly ordained, but the record is wrong.

We will go back and re-ordain brother x, and re-do ordiance y if that is necessary.

Can you show that kind of authority for 2000 years of crazy popes etc? Every ordination of every priest and bishop and pope?

Theoretically, if some one was ordained by someone else who could be later proven to not have the priesthood for whatever reason, all those people “below” that individual in that persons priesthood line could be re-ordained. I have never seen that happen, but it could happen theoretically.

Those are our standards. So we look at 2000 years of your history, throw up our hands and say “There’s no way this could be valid”

It doesn’t matter if it’s just a little invalid or a lot invalid, invalid is invalid.

If we re-do an ordinance to make it valid, can you see how we are coming from a different mind set that you guys?

I don’t expect this to convince you, but I hope it will help you to understand why in our minds, there is no question of an apostasy, and why we don’t worry too much about where and when it happened.

To us, it was such a mess, that you just throw it all out and start over. Bulldoze the house, and rebuild it.

So with a bible that we could theoretically say is totally corrupt, we look at the apostate catholic church and say “well, ok, let’s say we believe that bible is true insofar as it is translated correctly”. And we totally throw out your priesthood authority.

So with that said, there were many truths that came through like the fact that Jesus suffered and died for you and me and was resurrected for both of us.

That’s the main thing I personally thank the Catholic church for.

 

[AshleyBelle]

No Robert, that is not what we believe.

We do not believe that the bible is inerrant.

We believe the bible is true “insofar as it is translated correctly” which would include errors and omissions in all the manuscripts which led to the final translation. That is VERY different than inerrant. In fact, it is a giant loophole which would **theoretically **enable any debating LDS member to totally discount any biblical verse.

Of course such a position would totally lack crediblity and be probably in error.

I personally have found not a single instance where the bible contradicts any of our doctrine, given our interpretation of the biblical verse.

That is perhaps where you get the idea that we believe the bible is inerrant, because we give it that level of authority, and speak **as if **it is inerrant sometimes.

But the bottom line is that for our position to be defensible strategically speaking in a debate, we could say that the entire bible is totally corrupt. That would be consistent with our position.

It would be stupid AND UNTRUE to argue that, and I have never heard the argument made that way, but it would be consistent with our doctrine. And I know with your legal background, you understand that!

As far as the apostasy is concerned, I think we kind of don’t care how corrupt the church was. It’s like being a “little pregnant”

If there was ONE CORRUPT POPE, in 2000 years with all that Avignon stuff, with Pope Jane, with all those heresies and schisms where everyone was excommunicating eachother etc.-- if there was ONE time it didn’t work correctly, or even technically, suppose there was a corrupt bishop who ordained priest “A”. In our view, priest A does not have the priesthood.

Suppose priest A, 50 years later, becomes pope. He is not a valid pope because he never had the priesthood.

So for us, it is almost inconceivable that ANY priesthood could survive under those conditions for 2000 years.

So it almost seems prima facie obvious to us that the apostasy happened. We don’t worry about the details. There was enough crazy stuff going on for 2000 years that priesthood authority could not have survived in that kind of environment.

We are different. I can show you my priesthood line of authority. I know who ordained me, and we have records that record that line back to the restoration. It’s only been 180 years. And with modern record keeping, we can trace that authority person by person. Not just the presidents of the church, but each individual.

I have seen instances in our church where there have been discrepancies in records, where the record shows for example that person x did not have the priesthood for performing ordinance y. The record is probably in error because brother x knows that he had been properly ordained, but the record is wrong.

We will go back and re-ordain brother x, and re-do ordiance y if that is necessary.

Can you show that kind of authority for 2000 years of crazy popes etc? Every ordination of every priest and bishop and pope?

Theoretically, if some one was ordained by someone else who could be later proven to not have the priesthood for whatever reason, all those people “below” that individual in that persons priesthood line could be re-ordained. I have never seen that happen, but it could happen theoretically.

Those are our standards. So we look at 2000 years of your history, throw up our hands and say “There’s no way this could be valid”

It doesn’t matter if it’s just a little invalid or a lot invalid, invalid is invalid.

If we re-do an ordinance to make it valid, can you see how we are coming from a different mind set that you guys?

I don’t expect this to convince you, but I hope it will help you to understand why in our minds, there is no question of an apostasy, and why we don’t worry too much about where and when it happened.

To us, it was such a mess, that you just throw it all out and start over. Bulldoze the house, and rebuild it.

So with a bible that we could theoretically say is totally corrupt, we look at the apostate catholic church and say “well, ok, let’s say we believe that bible is true insofar as it is translated correctly”. And we totally throw out your priesthood authority.

So with that said, there were many truths that came through like the fact that Jesus suffered and died for you and me and was resurrected for both of us.

That’s the main thing I personally thank the Catholic church for.

The bolded statement once again…as I said in the other thread…is precisely why it is DANGEROUS to view the Bible outside of tradition. Nothing in mormon theology is going to contradict the Bible when you put on mormom glasses to read it.

Sacred Tradition is what protects the Bible and the truth from the error of personal interpretation and the whims of culture. It preserves the intention of the original authors, by viewing the Bible (which is a PART of tradition…not something that stands alone) through the context of the tradition they wrote it to be understood in.

I mean seriously…

“I personally have found not a single instance where the bible contradicts any of our doctrine, given our interpretation of the biblical verse.” Do you HEAR yourself???

 

[RebeccaJ]

Suppose priest A, 50 years later, becomes pope. He is not a valid pope because he never had the priesthood.

You speak as though the mormon church has been comprised of perfect, infallible people. Joseph Smith certainly was not. So there you go, the LDS church is corrupt from the start. Why are you Mormon?

So for us, it is almost inconceivable that ANY priesthood could survive under those conditions for 2000 years.

For us it is inconceivable that you would believe that the Church that Jesus established, live and in person, and promised to be with always…failed. To us you are not saying the popes or any other bishop or priest failed. You are saying Jesus failed. This is what Mormonism has taught you and this is what you believe. It is incredulous.

The Catholic Church has one Person at its head, and that is Jesus Christ. 1000 popes, 5000 bishop, a million lay Catholics could screw up, it wouldn’t change the truth of the Church. Why? Because it is led by the Holy Spirit. Why in the world do you find that so hard to comprehend?

 

[PaulDupre]

RebeccaJ:

The Catholic Church has one Person at its head, and that is Jesus Christ. 1000 popes, 5000 bishop, a million lay Catholics could screw up, it wouldn’t change the truth of the Church. Why? Because it is led by the Holy Spirit. Why in the world do you find that so hard to comprehend?

Reasonable people would never judge the efficacy of a medicine by the health of the people who refuse to take it. Yet these same people will judge the truth of the Catholic Church by the behavior of the people who refuse to live its teachings.

Of course, they will not hold their own organization to the same standard. :tsktsk:

 

[eva6206213]

Thank you for the info~

 

[mfbukowski]

The bolded statement once again…as I said in the other thread…is precisely why it is DANGEROUS to view the Bible outside of tradition. Nothing in mormon theology is going to contradict the Bible when you put on mormom glasses to read it.

Sacred Tradition is what protects the Bible and the truth from the error of personal interpretation and the whims of culture. It preserves the intention of the original authors, by viewing the Bible (which is a PART of tradition…not something that stands alone) through the context of the tradition they wrote it to be understood in.

I mean seriously…

“I personally have found not a single instance where the bible contradicts any of our doctrine, given our interpretation of the biblical verse.” Do you HEAR yourself???

Sure do. I don’t believe in your sacred tradition.

God gave us brains for a reason.