For the LDS - Please Define the Great Apostacy

[mfbukowski]

But Tom, the problem is that the real presence of Christ is not part of LDS belief. It is only a symbol, something meant only to *remind *you of Christ’s sacrifice. The LDS Church does not teach that Christ is present in the sacrament. The LDS Church rejects this uniquely Catholic teaching. I know, because my LDS wife rejects it. But in your studies you have come to believe differently, haven’t you? You’ve read John Chapter 6 over and over, and St. Paul’s teaching that the Eucharist is a real participation, and the ECF’s various commentaries on the Eucharist. But no matter how much you may want it to be there in Mormonism, it’s not. As Pope John Paul II taught, the Eucharist is the “source and summit” of our lives. It is a critical doctrine that separates Catholic from Mormon. And you believe in it. No matter how much you try to intellectualize the rest of your arguments to remain LDS, God has been knocking at your door to see the Eucharist for what it really is—Christ. Body, blood, soul, and divinity. And there is only one place on earth where you can find it.

What is remarkable to me is that Catholics have such a profound understanding of the communion that humanity can experience with God in the eucharist, but that they seem to keep it so restricted to that experience only, and in most cases, refuse to acknowledge that any else could have a similar experience directly without participating in the catholic eucharist.

Another way of putting this, is that they deny the possibility of other’s private revelations while afirming so strongly their own.

 

[Chris-WA]

Why would he want to keep you as a servent angel who sat around and praised him all “day”?

Part of the answer lies in your misunderstanding of the Catholic teaching on angels. Mormonism teaches that angels are either humans who have not yet received a body or are resurrected humans who are now angels (like Moroni). In Catholic teaching, angels are entirely another species of being altogether. They were never humans nor will ever be humans. Humans will likewise never be angels. Furthermore, in Catholic teaching, in heaven we will actually be higher than the angels.

As far as sitting around praising God all day, what else are you planning on doing in heaven–playing tennis, reading books, painting? For Catholics, eternal life means sharing in the divine life of the Holy Trinity, together with all the saints, angels, and every other human being who made it there. Yes, we will be eternally praising and worshipping God. Since we humans are all children of our Heavenly Father, we are all ultimately brothers and sisters in heaven. Heaven is our true home, and that is our true family. The family we have here on earth is just one flawed mortal taste of our true heavenly family. Now what else we will be doing in heaven has not been revealed, for as the bible says, “Eye has not seen, nor has ear heard, what God has ready for those who love Him.”

Why would he NOT want you to be the best you could be, and the best he was capable of making you ?

Your question is loaded with the mistaken assumption that the Catholic concept of eternal salvation is somehow less because in your opinion, we’re not letting God make us “the best we can be.” I’m perfectly happy knowing that I will still be a creature in heaven, although perfected in the divine life of the Holy Trinity. Catholics reject the idea of us becoming gods because of one very simple, but very important, reason–there is only one God. If there is only one God, as God Himself made quite clear to the Israelites on many occasions, then we cannot also be gods. God is not just God of this world, or of this universe, as LDS may claim, but is God of all that is seen and unseen (that means everything that has, does, or will exist). God was never once a man who progressed to godhood, as Joseph and subsequent LDS prophets so plainly taught. And likewise, neither will we be gods.

Why is that not part of the “true plan of salvation”?

Because there is only one God. And if there is only one God, neither you or I will ever be a god.

 

[Chris-WA]

What is remarkable to me is that Catholics have such a profound understanding of the communion that humanity can experience with God in the eucharist, but that they seem to keep it so restricted to that experience only, and in most cases, refuse to acknowledge that any else could have a similar experience directly without participating in the catholic eucharist.

Well, we do not keep it restricted to this experience only. But the Eucharist is, after all, the New Covenant, given to the Church by Christ Himself in the flesh. So the Eucharist, as the sign of the New Covenant, perfects and surpasses all the previous covenants, and is therefore the most intimately perfect way Christ chose to remain with His Church forever. Now there are other deeply beautiful spiritual experiences Christ can give, but none of them are the New Covenant.

Another way of putting this, is that they deny the possibility of other’s private revelations while afirming so strongly their own.

We do not deny the possibility of private revelations for anyone. We just realize that one has to be careful when (1) knowing the difference between a genuine private revelation and a strong feeling, (2) knowing the source of said revelation, and (3) interpreting said revelation. You would surely agree with me that many people have had, or claimed to have had, revelations that turned out to be false. That’s why private revelation is not meant to be the sole basis for our faith in something.

 

[mackbrislawn]

Yeah, I saw that episode of “The Naked Archaeologist”, too. It holds about as much water as his other theories (not much). He is fun to watch, though.

Actually, I haven’t seen the Naked Archeaologist, nor ever heard of him.

Historically, however, there were those who did not accept Paul. For them, he would have been a great heretic.

 

[mfbukowski]

Actually, I haven’t seen the Naked Archeaologist, nor ever heard of him.

Historically, however, there were those who did not accept Paul. For them, he would have been a great heretic.

So there are some who thought your church was founded by a false prophet?

 

[ronald_g_w]

Question
Is Isaiah 60:2 not talking of a time when there will be a total apostasy and if so when did this take place ?

 

[Stephen168]

Question
Is Isaiah 60:2 not talking of a time when there will be a total apostasy and if so when did this take place ?

A total aposatsy from what?

 

[TOmNossor]

Hello Chris, glad you have not forgotten about me!

But Tom, the problem is that the real presence of Christ is not part of LDS belief. It is only a symbol, something meant only to *remind *you of Christ’s sacrifice. The LDS Church does not teach that Christ is present in the sacrament. The LDS Church rejects this uniquely Catholic teaching. I know, because my LDS wife rejects it. But in your studies you have come to believe differently, haven’t you? You’ve read John Chapter 6 over and over, and St. Paul’s teaching that the Eucharist is a real participation, and the ECF’s various commentaries on the Eucharist. But no matter how much you may want it to be there in Mormonism, it’s not. As Pope John Paul II taught, the Eucharist is the “source and summit” of our lives. It is a critical doctrine that separates Catholic from Mormon. And you believe in it. No matter how much you try to intellectualize the rest of your arguments to remain LDS, God has been knocking at your door to see the Eucharist for what it really is—Christ. Body, blood, soul, and divinity. And there is only one place on earth where you can find it.

You correctly recognize a number of things concerning my view of the Catholic Eucharist that have not changed.
First, it is a beautiful doctrine to believe that Christ is literally present in the Eucharist.
Second, it is the most clear read of John 6.
And
Third, I think while it is not perfectly maintained within the ECF, it is the best read of the ECF as a whole AND placing emphasis upon the earliest of the ECF.

That being said, I have gone to Eucharistic adoration (last time was >2 years ago) and attended mass (last time was about 6 months ago, but this was an SSPX mass). I do not seek a sign, but I seek to be available to God so that He might guide me intellectually or supra-intellectual/spiritually. I do not believe I should walk the path you claim I am called upon for either intellectual or spiritual reasons. I hope to go to Eucharistic adoration again (perhaps the first half of next year in Portland). The atmosphere, specifically the smell of the candles, brought back good childhood Catholic memories. However, as I sat praying, I believed it was wonderful to approach God, but similar to other great quiet places of prayer (like the mountains).

I respect your view of my call to become Catholic. I think committed Catholics should see in the above a call to be Catholic. The committed Catholic KNOWS God is present in the Eucharist. You know that I love the idea of the Eucharist. You know that I think it makes sense. Above I even claimed to have a positive response to my trip to the Eucharistic Adoration Chapel. To be honest, as a LDS, I have thought similar thoughts about a wonderful Catholic friend of mine.

For me, I have experienced much more in a LDS chapel and in a LDS Temple. I have felt the “pure intelligence” combined with the “positive response” that for me is the surest indication that communion with God has occurred rather than just emotionalism.
All that put to the side, I cannot explain the BOM as a Catholic sufficiently. There is too much there for it to be from Joseph Smith and if the “devil did it” then I must revert to non-reason based evaluation and the BOM continues to shine. I believe Newman Catholicism makes sense, but the Catholicism of modern Catholic apologists does not recognize the development that exists and I wonder why sometimes. I believe there are big philosophical problems with developed theology absent in LDS theology. The foundation of these is creation ex nihilo.

Now, the only thing that has changed since the last time we discussed my love for the real presence is being shown the below quote from Brigham Young. As some here might be quick to point out, I do not embrace everything BY said (or many other non-current GAs in the CoJCoLDS either) as binding. That being said, to the extent BY’s words mirror John 6, they are binding. I see much to be upbeat about in this statement and I will be cautioning those who say things like “only a symbol” utilizing this quote. It is much more than just as symbol.
I will quote BY in the next post.
Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

Brigham Young:

…we are here today, engaged in the administration of the ordinance of the Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper. How does it appear to you, and what are your sensations, when the servants of the Lord present to you the emblems of His body? Do you believe you receive life? Do you realize that you receive any benefit? Do you feel that you will receive fresh strength, or additional, knowledge, through this holy ordinance? Or, do you do it because others do it? Do you partake of these tokens of the love of the Redeemer because it is a mere custom?..

When we obey the commandments of our heavenly Father, if we have a correct understanding of the ordinances of the house of God, we receive all the promises attached to the obedience rendered to His commandments. Jesus said—Verily, verily I say unto you, except ye eat the flesh of the Son of God, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. Again, “He that eateth me,” “shall live by me.” Again, “Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh, my blood, hath eternal life.” “For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.” Can you understand these sayings of the Saviour?..

I will now tell you what the Saviour meant by those wonderful expressions touching his body and blood. It is simply this—“If you do not keep the commandments of God, you will have no life of the Son of God in you.” Jesus, as they were eating, took the bread, and blessed it, and broke it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, “Take, eat; this is my body. And he took the cup and gave thanks, and gave it to them; saying, Drink ye all of it; for this is my blood of the New Testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.” What were they required to drink it for? What are we partaking of these emblems for? In token of our fellowship with him, and in token that we desire to be one with each other, that we may all be one with the Father. His administering these symbols to his ancient disciples, and which he commanded should be done until he came, was for the express purpose that they should witness unto the Father that they did believe in him. But on the other hand, if they did not obey this commandment, they should not be blessed with his spirit.

It is the same in this, as it is in the ordinance of baptism for the remission of sins. Has water, in itself, any virtue to wash away sin? Certainly not; but the Lord says, "If the sinner will repent of his sins, and go down into the waters of baptism, and there be buried in the likeness of being put into the earth and buried, and again be delivered from the water, in the likeness of being born-if in the sincerity of his heart he will do this, his sins shall be washed away. Will the water of itself wash them away? No; but keeping the commandments of God will cleanse away the stain of sin.

In this light do I view all the ordinances of the house of God. I do not know of one commandment that may be preferred before another; or of one ordinance of the house of God, from the beginning to the end of all the Lord has revealed to the children of men, that is not of equal validity, power, and authority with the rest. So we partake of bread and wine, obeying the commandments of the Lord; and by so doing we receive the blessing.

Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

Paul,

I’d like to weigh in but I’m not real sure what ‘this’ is. From what I can tell ‘this’ is a Mormon claiming that eternal progression and Theosis are the same thing. Am I close?
Also can you shed some light on the term ‘neo-modalist?’ I see Tom likes to use the word in a sentence but has never taken the time to define it. Is it a common mormon term?

Stephen168,
I do not know where Paul has gone. I thought I had give a reasonable explanation of how I was using the term “neo-modalist.”
In truth, my comments are that homoousian was used in the Sabellian heresy. It was condemned. Sabellius (and Paul of Somata(sp?)) were modalist. They believed that God was one being manifested in three modes. I am not sure if they said the Greek or Latin equivalent of one person, but ultimately they were accused of denying that God existed in three persons.
Athanasius and Augustine used homoousian very similarly to the way that the modalist heretics did. They also asserted that God existed in three persons. It is difficult to understand how homoousian could be used in this why while simultaneously claiming that God exists as three persons.
Eusebius and the Council of Chalcedon used homoousian in a way that is not modalist. Calcedon said that God the Son was homoousian with mankind in His humanity (and homoousian with God the Father in his divinity). Eusebius after Nicea said that God the Son was homoousian with God the Father like a human father and a human son are homoousian.
I you are looking for more on modalism, go to the Catholic encyclopedia. Modern UU Christians are modalists. Karl Barth is accused of being a neo-modalist. Catholic theologian of some controversy Karl Rahner is accused of being a neo-modalist by some.
I hope that is enough. I am trying to tie up some loose ends.
Charity, TOm

 

[Stephen168]

Stephen168,
I do not know where Paul has gone. I thought I had give a reasonable explanation of how I was using the term “neo-modalist.”
In truth, my comments are that homoousian was used in the Sabellian heresy. It was condemned. Sabellius (and Paul of Somata(sp?)) were modalist. They believed that God was one being manifested in three modes. I am not sure if they said the Greek or Latin equivalent of one person, but ultimately they were accused of denying that God existed in three persons.
Athanasius and Augustine used homoousian very similarly to the way that the modalist heretics did. They also asserted that God existed in three persons. It is difficult to understand how homoousian could be used in this why while simultaneously claiming that God exists as three persons.
Eusebius and the Council of Chalcedon used homoousian in a way that is not modalist. Calcedon said that God the Son was homoousian with mankind in His humanity (and homoousian with God the Father in his divinity). Eusebius after Nicea said that God the Son was homoousian with God the Father like a human father and a human son are homoousian.
I you are looking for more on modalism, go to the Catholic encyclopedia. Modern UU Christians are modalists. Karl Barth is accused of being a neo-modalist. Catholic theologian of some controversy Karl Rahner is accused of being a neo-modalist by some.
I hope that is enough. I am trying to tie up some loose ends.
Charity, TOm

Tom,
I understand Modalism. What I don’t understand is what you mean by neo-modalism. new modalism? As much as you use it, I still don’t know what you mean by it. It would help if you said something like: neo-modalism is ___________. neo-modalism means _______________.
You can also add UU means ___________.

Thanks

 

[TOmNossor]

Tom,

I understand Modalism. What I don’t understand is what you mean by neo-modalism. new modalism? As much as you use it, I still don’t know what you mean by it. It would help if you said something like: neo-modalism is ___________. neo-modalism means _______________.
You can also add UU means ___________.
A neo-modalist is one who advocates for a modalistic understanding of the oneness of God while claiming that there are three persons in God. A neo-modalist uses the term homoousian identically to the way that the modalists did, but claims there are three persons present in this same (in a modalist way) substance.
Some folks use homoousian in a way that allows for two people (humans or God) to be homoousian.

UU is United Universalists. They are modern modalists, but I doubt they would say that God is three persons.
Charity, TOm

 

[mackbrislawn]

So there are some who thought your church was founded by a false prophet?

Yep. By a false prophet.

But no one should gloat. Because if by a false prophet, all of Christianity today is tarred with the same brush, because all of Christianity of today is somehow descended from whatever church it is that resulted from Paul’s preaching. (Catholics believe it was the Catholic Church.) But, that church, apsotate or not, determined what scripture would be, and what Christians would believe from then on.

All churches of today are dependent upon that church, including the LDS church.

Groups that undercut the Catholic Church must realize they are undercutting themselves as well.

 

[ronald_g_w]

A total aposatsy from what?

As in the topic of this thread the Great Apostacy ?

 

[why_me]

For me, I have experienced much more in a LDS chapel and in a LDS Temple. I have felt the “pure intelligence” combined with the “positive response” that for me is the surest indication that communion with God has occurred rather than just emotionalism.
All that put to the side, I cannot explain the BOM as a Catholic sufficiently. There is too much there for it to be from Joseph Smith and if the “devil did it” then I must revert to non-reason based evaluation and the BOM continues to shine.

You have discovered the problem that most catholics cannot comprehend on this forum with regard to the book of mormon. It is a complicated book filled with religious instruction. A book that Joseph Smith could not have possibly written by sticking his head in a hat. He may have stuck his head in a hat but he did not write the book of mormon by doing so.

To approach that book without bias and from the angle of a scholar, one would be impressed with the book. And that is why mormonism continues to exist as a world wide faith. The book is unexplainable in a worldly sense.

 

[why_me]

Yep. By a false prophet.

But no one should gloat. Because if by a false prophet, all of Christianity today is tarred with the same brush, because all of Christianity of today is somehow descended from whatever church it is that resulted from Paul’s preaching. (Catholics believe it was the Catholic Church.) But, that church, apsotate or not, determined what scripture would be, and what Christians would believe from then on.

All churches of today are dependent upon that church, including the LDS church.

Groups that undercut the Catholic Church must realize they are undercutting themselves as well.

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.

 

[Stephen168]

As in the topic of this thread the Great Apostacy ?

Are you asking when did the Jews have a great apostasy?

 

[Stephen168]

A neo-modalist is one who advocates for a modalistic understanding of the oneness of God while claiming that there are three persons in God. A neo-modalist uses the term homoousian identically to the way that the modalists did, but claims there are three persons present in this same (in a modalist way) substance.
Some folks use homoousian in a way that allows for two people (humans or God) to be homoousian.

UU is United Universalists. They are modern modalists, but I doubt they would say that God is three persons.
Charity, TOm

If I said Merlot was homoousian as Pinot Noir while claiming they were different, would I be a neo-modalist as it relates to alcoholic beverages?

 

[TOmNossor]

If I said Merlot was homoousian as Pinot Noir while claiming they were different, would I be a neo-modalist as it relates to alcoholic beverages?

Not in my mind.
Merlot (a type of wine I think) is homoousian with Pinot Noir (another type of wine I think). They are made of the same substance, wine. One could quibble I suspect because they are not precisely the same wines so…

Bottle #345 of Pinot Noir XYZ is homoousian with Bottle #346 of Pinot Noir XYZ is not neo-modalist in its use of homoousian.
Just like TOmNossor and Stephen168 are homoousian (because we are both human) is not neo-modalist in its use of homoousian.

I can offer a VERY modalistic use of homoousian, but I do not know of any example of the use of homoousian in a way that is neo-modalist other than when referring to God while demanding that God the Father and God the Son are two persons (together with qualifiers to demand that you are not using the non-neo-modalist homoousian).

If you observed Paul Dupre claim that Christ could not be homoousian in His humanity with mankind, it was because Paul basically demands (demanded) that homoousian be used in the neo-modalsit way. I do not know where Paul is, but perhaps he will acknowledge this if he returns.

Charity, TOm

 

[mfbukowski]

Brigham Young:

Charity, TOm

Great stuff - if you have a chance, can I get a reference?