I don't believe that there was ever an apostasy as the Mormons claim.

[LAMBOFGODGIRLY]

CONT:
135. Benedict VII (974-83)
136. John XIV (983-84)
137. John XV (985-96)
138. Gregory V (996-99)
139. Sylvester II (999-1003)
140. John XVII (1003)
141. John XVIII (1003-09)
142. Sergius IV (1009-12)
143. Benedict VIII (1012-24)
144. John XIX (1024-32)
145. Benedict IX (1032-45)
146. Sylvester III (1045)
147. Benedict IX (1045)
148. Gregory VI (1045-46)
149. Clement II (1046-47)
150. Benedict IX (1047-48)
151. Damasus II (1048)
152. St. Leo IX (1049-54)
153. Victor II (1055-57)
154. Stephen X (1057-58)
155. Nicholas II (1058-61)
156. Alexander II (1061-73)
157. St. Gregory VII (1073-85)
158. Blessed Victor III (1086-87)
159. Blessed Urban II (1088-99)
160. Paschal II (1099-1118)
161. Gelasius II (1118-19)
162. Saint Callistus II (1119-24)
163. Honorius II (1124-30)
164. Innocent II (1130-43)
165. Celestine II (1143-44)
166. Lucius II (1144-45)
167. Blessed Eugene III (1145-53)
168. Anastasius IV (1153-54)
169. Adrian IV (1154-59)
170. Alexander III (1159-81)
171. Lucius III (1181-85)
172. Urban III (1185-87)
173. Gregory VIII (1187)
174. Clement III (1187-91)
175. Celestine III (1191-98)
176. Innocent III (1198-1216)
177. Honorius III (1216-27)
178. Gregory IX (1227-41)
179. Celestine IV (1241)
180. Innocent IV (1243-54)
181. Alexander IV (1254-61)
182. Urban IV (1261-64)
183. Clement IV (1265-68)
184. Blessed Gregory X (1271-76)
185. Blessed Innocent V (1276)
186. Adrian V (1276)
187. John XXI (1276-77)
188. Nicholas III (1277-80)
189. Martin IV (1281-85)
190. Honorius IV (1285-87)
191. Nicholas IV (1288-92)
192. St. Celestine V (1294)
193. Boniface VIII (1294-1303)
194. Blessed Benedict XI (1303-04)
195. Clement V (1305-14)
196. John XXII (1316-34)
197. Benedict XII (1334-42)
198. Clement VI (1342-52)
199. Innocent VI (1352-62)
200. Blessed Urban V (1362-70)
201. Gregory XI (1370-78)
202. Urban VI (1378-89)
203. Boniface IX (1389-1404)
204. Innocent VII (1404-06)
205. Gregory XII (1406-15)
206. Martin V (1417-31)
207. Eugene IV (1431-47)
208. Nicholas V (1447-55)
209. Callistus III (1455-58)
210. Pius II (1458-64)
211. Paul II (1464-71)
212. Sixtus IV (1471-84)
213. Innocent VIII (1484-92)
214. Alexander VI (1492-1503)
215. Pius III (1503)
216. Julius II (1503-13)
217. Leo X (1513-21)
218. Adrian VI (1522-23)
219. Clement VII (1523-34)
220. Paul III (1534-49)
221. Julius III (1550-55)
222. Marcellus II (1555)
223. Paul IV (1555-59)
224. Pius IV (1559-65)
225. St. Pius V (1566-72)
226. Gregory XIII (1572-85)
227. Sixtus V (1585-90)
228. Urban VII (1590)
229. Gregory XIV (1590-91)
230. Innocent IX (1591)
231. Clement VIII (1592-1605)
232. Leo XI (1605)
233. Paul V (1605-21)
234. Gregory XV (1621-23)
235. Urban VIII (1623-44)
236. Innocent X (1644-55)
237. Alexander VII (1655-67)
238. Clement IX (1667-69)
239. Clement X (1670-76)
240. Blessed Innocent XI (1676-89)
241. Alexander VIII (1689-91)
242. Innocent XII (1691-1700)
243. Clement XI (1700-21)
244. Innocent XIII (1721-24)
245. Benedict XIII (1724-30)
246. Clement XII (1730-40)
247. Benedict XIV (1740-58)
248. Clement XIII (1758-69)
249. Clement XIV (1769-74)
250. Pius VI (1775-99)
251. Pius VII (1800-23)
252. Leo XII (1823-29)
253. Pius VIII (1829-30)
254. Gregory XVI (1831-46)
255. Blessed Pius IX (1846-78)
256. Leo XIII (1878-1903)
257. St. Pius X (1903-14)
258. Benedict XV (1914-22)
259. Pius XI (1922-39)
260. Pius XII (1939-58)
261. Blessed John XXIII (1958-63)
262. Paul VI (1963-78)
263. John Paul I (1978)
264. John Paul II (1978-2005)
265. Benedict XVI (2005-)

 

[rmcmullan]

RebeccaJ, those were pretty good quotes. I appreciate the RC point of view and this presents it very well.

LAMBOFGODGIRLY, I have seen this before but it doesn’t really address my concern. I know you see it as a unbroken chain of succession. I see it as 265 links in a chain which (as chains go) is as only as strong as its weakest link.

I do not think there is any sure fire way to judge the purity of a church or any of its claims. You have whatever revelation you are given (through prayer) and your own intellect. You have the Bible. I do not claim to know how to tell if a once pure church has been polluted or when a polluted church has purged itself and come clean. But I do believe either can happen and that the Lord will support sincere attempts to draw close to Him.

 

[Arandur]

So no other Christians but catholics are part of the body of christ with whom he is “one flesh”? That’s hard to believe. He’s missing the majority of his believers then, I think.

No, all who are baptized into Christ are catholic; many just are not in communion with Christ, having separated themselves from his table.

 

[Arandur]

And of course, Catholics have the same problem don’t they? I don’t want to be damned by your bad arguments either.

But we don’t say you will be damned for not believing. We can’t say that. We entrust you to God’s mercy. We also expect that many, many non-Catholics and even unbaptized people will enter heaven, that God will judge mercifully upon their efforts to live and love. Of course, since the Church is the home God created for everyone, it is better for everyone if they live in the Church. Living outside it deprives one of spiritual aids and the graces God gives in the Sacraments and is thus more dangerous.

So you see, our formula relies on God’s justice and mercy, not on some fanciful make-believe about some nice “catch-all” system designed for fairness by human standards in the afterlife.

 

[Arandur]

I’m trying to figure out what role you see for “the church” to play and how you identify it. It seems you lean towards the Body of Christ interpretation. That’s an important aspect but when I read the New Testament and see the labours of the Apostles in correcting the early saints and administering the Christian ordinances I believe that the church has a leadership role too.

I’m puzzled. I thought I was pretty explicit about these things. You did catch that I’m Catholic, didn’t you? Thus, yes, I believe very strongly in the Body of Christ–it’s not just an “interpretation.” It is reality. What do you think it means?

As I think I’ve said, it means that the Church IS CHRIST. It is Divine. It therefore is utterly impossible for it to die or fall to untruths, because if it did, it would mean that God died or became corrupted by untruths.

If all the church is is a group of people devoted to Christian teaching, I don’t think that’s enough. How to defend these teachings? We are commanded to celebrate the last supper and there are other ordinances that need to be carried out. There needs to be people assigned to duties.

As a Catholic, I of course believe in apostolic authority, those appointed by Christ with special gifts of the Spirit (through ordination) and who act in persona Christi to perform the holy Sacraments. This is an area where Smithians and Catholics agree, generally. It is just some Protestants and Evangelicals who have excised the concept of an authoritative priesthood.

But what do you believe that “authority” to be and how is it expressed?

How is there any authority at all if you believe it is so easily and completely lost without a word from God?

No I have to take you to where it gets uncomfortable. The possibility of failure. Churches fail all the time on some level.

Of course. Do you understand the Catholic concept of infallibility and how it is expressed (its limitations)? We all recognize the Church fails in many ways. However, since the Spirit teaches through the Church, it never teaches falsehood in matters of faith and morals.

What protection is there against it? Only the righteousness of its members and its leadership.

What man is righteous? You have just damned your own church.

You can read in the OT about the idols and the corruption of the priesthood. As a people, there were at times when they were very lost and only a faithful handful remained. Do you see God’s striving with his covenant people in Israel as something different than with the church of Christ?

Oh yes, I see it, and it is indeed similar now: despite all their infidelity, God kept His Covenant and preserved the Jewish people through such terrible events that they should otherwise have been destroyed as a people, a culture, and a faith. God made sure there was always, throughout history, an identifiable line of His faithful with leadership. This is why the Great Apostasy is an utter impossibility, for you are claiming that God abandoned His New Covenant and let die out His Church, the identifiable and authoritative line of His faithful.

 

[Arandur]

Sorry Arandur, I couldn’t resist this one: roomfordebate.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/02/13/sin-and-its-indulgences/ It’s a restoration alright, a restoration of the Indulgence.

I haven’t read more than the first line of that, but it’s wrong there. Indulgences were never abolished, so they were never “revived.” In fact, Luther didn’t have a problem with indulgences, at least initially, just with selling them rather than gaining them through action. It’s a very abstract and usually misunderstood concept, anyway, and requires first an understanding of salvation, the place of works, the communion of saints, the nature of purgatory, and the binding and loosing power Jesus gave the Church. Acts prescribed to gain indulgences are acts of faith and self-sacrifice, of prayer and righteous intention. To say that God blesses such good acts of love, that love covers a multitude of sins, should really hardly be anything new to any Christian who knows how to act on his faith and knows what the Bible says about love and the prayers of righteous men.

You’re just plain wrong there. I was raised Catholic for many years and attended RC schools. I don’t think you realise the consequences of your interpretation of the Peter/Rock scripture. You’re claiming your own infallability. The reason the Protestants split from you is because you just can’t be wrong and they believed you were. About a lot of stuff. You’re perfect or at least claim you are. Not the first time someone has made such a claim. If anything actually does go wrong in your church, you are unable to admit it because of the Peter/Rock thing. You’re unable to reform on your own. You’ve painted yourself into a corner with that one.

Sounds like you were unfortunately among the many who received poor catechism. Or you just didn’t pay attention. I’ll assume the former, because I paid attention and my own catechism wasn’t so great.

Show me how I’m claiming my own infallibility by choosing to believe something?
Infallibility does not mean in any way shape or form “perfection.” In the sense that the Church means it, it just means that the Spirit acts to preserve the Church from teaching error in matters of faith and morals, and the method by which it expresses this power is pretty limited. Infallibility is a negative gift lesser in magnitude than the Divine Inspiration expressed through the authors of Scripture.

It amazes me that Mormons have any problem whatsoever with infallibility, because it is far, far less arrogant a claim than your “prophets” and writing of new “scriptures.”

Okay, I got to stop you here at that Smithians thing. You and your ideological buddies do this all the time and I want to call you on it. If I am a Smithian then you are a Popian. You follow the Pope. Don’t howl and squeal that you follow the Savior–you look to Rome for your teachings on Jesus.

You missed out on other threads where I’ve explained this.
I use the term “Smithian” primarily to describe the several various groups that accept the Book of Mormon and that had their origin in Joseph Smith’s actions. These include at least the LDS, CoC, Remnant and Restoration branches. I have had quite a bit of experience with the first and last of that list, and some of the others. The beliefs of these groups have some common threads, but their theologies are wildly different.

So I use the term “Smithian” to include all those groups. Feel free to use “catholic” or “orthodox” with a small “c” or “o” if you wish, if you want to describe not just Catholic teachings but those of other mainline conservative Christians (depending on the belief in question, this could include Catholic and Orthodox to Coptic, Anglican, even Methodist and Lutheran and beyond, but less so with evangelical fundamentalists and many baptists).

It is hard to detach the barb you perceive from this appellation while still including the other groups. Heck, I thought “Mormon” was a term many LDS didn’t like.

Please understand, though, that “Smithian” is quite different from “papist” or “Popian.” “Lutheran” does not imply worship of Martin Luther, just of following in worship along the lines of the church structure he advised. Many believe it was the Spirit who led Luther to do this just as much as you believe God led Joseph Smith to a restoration. Members of both churches must rely on the truthfulness ultimately of their founders–Luther and Joseph Smith. So yes, as much as Lutherans are Lutherans, those who believe in the teachings of Joseph Smith are Smithians. Since there is no single person to point to as founder of the Catholic/Orthodox faiths (except for Jesus), it is not analogous in any fashion to attempt to apply a similar appellation. Even calling us “Nicene Christians” (which I think most Catholics would accept proudly) misses the ante-Nicene origins of our teachings and organization.

The distinction is pretty major. Your church comes from one man. The only single man my Church can be tied back to for its origin, on whose authority and testimony it rests, is Jesus Christ. If you want to branch out to more than one man, you could, I suppose, call us Apostolic, since next up from Christ our origin is in the original Apostles.

 

[Arandur]

What I see is how sickeneing your concept of free will is. Is God going to force us to keep his church together? If we choose not to follow him, will he force us? No.

MY concept of free will is sickening? You Mormons believe that God effectively made Adam sin and wanted him to do so! Where’s the free will in that sick concept?

Did God force the Jews to hold together as a people throughout history, or did He merely give them the grace and protections sufficient to do so? God acts on communal levels as well as individual levels. He gives the community grace enough to hold together.

Are we doomed to always sin? Will we sin in heaven? Must mankind sin? If no, then on that same basis there is no violation of free will for God to preserve His Church. Sin is slavery; lack of it is ultimate freedom. We are MORE free the LESS we sin!!! Thus we have the freest of wills if we follow God’s will. Do you really believe otherwise?

The fact is that Jesus made himself the Church, united us all in his Body. For the Church to die or be corrupted by falsehood would be for God to cease to be God.

God does not force individuals to follow Him. He does, however, have power over history, and provides such graces as are necessary to work His will. If God wants to hold His Church together, do you really think He can’t gift His people with enough grace to do so? If He saves any single one of us, He has gifted us with grace far beyond our merit–so what is it with your moral equation that makes people somehow meritorious enough to hold a church together without God’s grace? And if they do it only by God’s grace, then if God wishes it, why must it ever fail?

If you question God’s power and love so much that you don’t think He can hold a Church together, then you have a faith problem. If you have faith in God’s power, then your only question here should be whether or not He decided or intended to hold the Church together–for certainly He has the power to do so, without violating free will (just as He has power to save us despite our own faults without violating our free will).

 

[Arandur]

I do not think there is any sure fire way to judge the purity of a church or any of its claims. You have whatever revelation you are given (through prayer) and your own intellect. You have the Bible.

Do you really think God intended it as subjective as that? We Catholics (and Orthodox) recognize that God knew the challenges we would face and gave us objective means to determine truth, to verify the calling of our hearts by more than just reliance on our own foolish, prideful, mortal interpretations. The proof is borne out by history, with your method leading to countless fractionation, and the Catholic/Orthodox method preserving intact a Church straight from Christ, the largest body of Christians in the world (by far) and the most unified historically. [Yes, the Orthodox are divided from us, but primarily for cultural and political wounds, and a different understanding of how the “primacy” of the Petrine office manifests (we both maintain valid apostolic authority).]

 

[MelanieAnne]

What man is righteous? You have just damned your own church.

The members, even the leadership, of the LDS church is full of un-righteous people. It’s not like they have some of corner on the market of righteousness, there is corruption everywhere. I’ve seen it with my own eyes, corruption up to the highest levels ~ even the so-called “First Presidency” of the Church sanctioning abuse and violence. The hypocrisy is disgusting. In the end, everyone falls short, even them. It occurs wherever people are. Corruption is a human frailty.

We don’t like it when the leadership is corrupt, no matter where it occurs. It’s occurred in our Church too and we didn’t like it there either. Jesus didn’t promise us that we would be protected from all corruption, and we haven’t been. We’ve endured the sins of corrupt people, even members of the Clergy.

What we have been promised, and protected from, is errors in doctrine. Jesus promised that we would be safe from that, and we have been, notwithstanding all attempts by men to substitute their own judgment for God’s.

 

[ricko]

"…to him be glory in the church and in Christ Jesus through all generations, world without end. Amen. Eph 3:21

You cannot give glory to Christ for all generations with a gap of 1800 years.

 

[RebeccaJ]

The members, even the leadership, of the LDS church is full of un-righteous people. It’s not like they have some of corner on the market of righteousness, there is corruption everywhere. I’ve seen it with my own eyes, corruption up to the highest levels ~ even the so-called “First Presidency” of the Church sanctioning abuse and violence. The hypocrisy is disgusting. In the end, everyone falls short, even them. It occurs wherever people are. Corruption is a human frailty.

We don’t like it when the leadership is corrupt, no matter where it occurs. It’s occurred in our Church too and we didn’t like it there either. Jesus didn’t promise us that we would be protected from all corruption, and we haven’t been. We’ve endured the sins of corrupt people, even members of the Clergy.

What we have been promised, and protected from, is errors in doctrine. Jesus promised that we would be safe from that, and we have been, notwithstanding all attempts by men to substitute their own judgment for God’s.

I’m still waiting for Mormons to explain how their belief that their god promised them their church wouldn’t fail, is a better promise than the first one Jesus made nearly 2000 years ago, and why they would believe this not very trustworthy god.

 

[ricko]

“On this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it” (Matt 16:18); “Behold, I will be with you always, even until the end of the world” (Matt 28:20); “The Father…will give you another Advocate to be with you always” (John 14:16); “The Advocate, the Holy Spirit that the Father will send in my name, he will teach you everything and remind you of all I have told you” (John 14:26); “But when he comes, the Spirit of truth, he will guide you to all truth” (John 16:13).

Look also at the many New Testament verses which speak of the Church as Christ’s own body, such as Romans 12:1-5; 1 Corinthians 12:12-27; Ephesians 3:4-6; 5:21-32; and Colossians 1:18. Since Christ is the mind and head of his Church (Eph 4:15-16), animating the body, the members enjoy and organic spiritual union with him (John 15:1-8). It’s inconceivable that he would permit his body to disintegrate under the attacks of Satan. The apostle John reminds us that Jesus is greater than Satan. (1 John 4:4).[3]

The bible verses above reminds us that Jesus did establish a Church 2,000 years ago and promised that it would endure to the end of the world. 1800 years after Christ, A MAN, Joseph Smith tells us that in effect the bible is wrong, Christ was wrong, the Church did not endure and it would be restored by this ONE MAN. History, the Holy Spirit, common sense, faith, intelligence, written evidence all tell us to put our trust in Christ Jesus and not A MAN 1800 years later.

 

[MelanieAnne]

I’m still waiting for Mormons to explain how their belief that their god promised them their church wouldn’t fail, is a better promise than the first one Jesus made nearly 2000 years ago, and why they would believe this not very trustworthy god.

That’s right!

Is it just me? Any other takers? Because don’t Mormons believe that the same God who they say broke the promise very demonstrably made to us also made the same promise to them? We don’t believe that their view of the Godhead is correct but since they’re now grabbing the “Christian” mantle, aren’t they, and haven’t they always, claimed that OUR God is their God? Well OUR God promised protection from error, promised the Church would stand. So if it didn’t, what in the WORLD does their promise even MEAN?

This is the problem with claiming an earlier Church is false and now you’re restoring the “true Church” ~ the earlier Church has a habit of bringing up some (at times inconvenient) facts. This is a great example ~ so, is this this the Mormon version of “fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice shame on me?” OR WHAT?

Of course, I’m sure someone will come along and tell us it’s just us, we’ve got it all wrong. Human frailty is such a burden. Makes me want to be a Cylon, at least they only have ONE God and there’s total unity.

 

[rmcmullan]

Do you really think God intended it as subjective as that? We Catholics (and Orthodox) recognize that God knew the challenges we would face and gave us objective means to determine truth, to verify the calling of our hearts by more than just reliance on our own foolish, prideful, mortal interpretations. The proof is borne out by history, with your method leading to countless fractionation, and the Catholic/Orthodox method preserving intact a Church straight from Christ, the largest body of Christians in the world (by far) and the most unified historically. [Yes, the Orthodox are divided from us, but primarily for cultural and political wounds, and a different understanding of how the “primacy” of the Petrine office manifests (we both maintain valid apostolic authority).]

This is where my head spins. You refer to the body of Christ which is the church which is a body of all believers. I don’t believe it IS Christ. This is a body without any standard. And you therefore get all the divisions and differences you describe. But then you dismiss all the divisions as not of the true faith (i.e followers of the Pope). You switch back and forth as though it were the same thing.

It seems to me that you are simply equating following the Pope with following the True Church. Fine, we (LDS) do the same thing. But you’re not really dealing with the possibility of corruption, particularly corruption in the priesthood. Because you have remained intact, you congratulate yourself and it is an awesome thing but not a guarantee against error. And you haven’t really remained intact, it’s just that you’re such a big group, you can afford to have a lot of breakaway groups and still be gigantic.

At any rate, I think you are also giving short shrift to the concept of a Restoration. I think you call it a renewal and maybe so.

 

[rmcmullan]

Thus, yes, I believe very strongly in the Body of Christ–it’s not just an “interpretation.” It is reality. What do you think it means?

As I think I’ve said, it means that the Church IS CHRIST. It is Divine. It therefore is utterly impossible for it to die or fall to untruths, because if it did, it would mean that God died or became corrupted by untruths.

It’s here where the alarms sound and I heard a lound bonging in my ears. What do you mean by this? Are you talking metaphorically? Because if I take this at face value, it means we have nothing further to discuss–this isn’t something reasonable people believe.

 

[truthsilence]

It’s here where the alarms sound and I heard a lound bonging in my ears. What do you mean by this? Are you talking metaphorically? Because if I take this at face value, it means we have nothing further to discuss–this isn’t something reasonable people believe.

A careful and prayerful reading of 1st Corinthians 12 might help with the loud bonging problem.

I like this:

St. Paul speaks of all Christians as members of Christ, so that with Him, they form one Mystical Body (Cf. 1 Cor 12:12-31; Col 1:18; 2:18-20; Eph. 1:22-23; 3:19; 4:13). St. Paul did not use the word Mystical. It was developed more recently to bring out the fact that this union is unique, there is no parallel to it. It is not the same as the union of a physical body, nor that of a business corporation.

smcenter.org/teachings_churchmysticalbodyofchrist.htm

Peace,
Tami

 

[truthsilence]

From the catechism:

II. THE CHURCH - BODY OF CHRIST

The Church is communion with Jesus

787 From the beginning, Jesus associated his disciples with his own life, revealed the mystery of the Kingdom to them, and gave them a share in his mission, joy, and sufferings.215 Jesus spoke of a still more intimate communion between him and those who would follow him: "Abide in me, and I in you. . . . I am the vine, you are the branches."216 And he proclaimed a mysterious and real communion between his own body and ours: "He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him."217

788 When his visible presence was taken from them, Jesus did not leave his disciples orphans. He promised to remain with them until the end of time; he sent them his Spirit.218 As a result communion with Jesus has become, in a way, more intense: "By communicating his Spirit, Christ mystically constitutes as his body those brothers of his who are called together from every nation."219

789 The comparison of the Church with the body casts light on the intimate bond between Christ and his Church. Not only is she gathered around him; she is united in him, in his body. Three aspects of the Church as the Body of Christ are to be more specifically noted: the unity of all her members with each other as a result of their union with Christ; Christ as head of the Body; and the Church as bride of Christ.

 

[RebeccaJ]

It’s here where the alarms sound and I heard a lound bonging in my ears. What do you mean by this? Are you talking metaphorically? Because if I take this at face value, it means we have nothing further to discuss–this isn’t something reasonable people believe.

It is at the heart of the doctrine of communion of Saints. It is also very important to understand how catholics (little 'c", Orthodox and Roman) understand what the Orthodox call the doctrine of “theosis”.

So, you can begin to understand how the Mormon doctrine of exaltation is very different than that of theosis.

 

[Arandur]

This is where my head spins. You refer to the body of Christ which is the church which is a body of all believers. I don’t believe it IS Christ. This is a body without any standard. And you therefore get all the divisions and differences you describe. But then you dismiss all the divisions as not of the true faith (i.e followers of the Pope). You switch back and forth as though it were the same thing.

It seems to me that you are simply equating following the Pope with following the True Church.

Maybe I could bridge the gap in our perspectives if I understood yours better. So I’ll ask again, what do you think the Body of Christ is/what it means for the Church to be the Body of Christ?

How is the Body of Christ not actually Christ in at least some sense (how can you say that you don’t think the Body IS Christ)?

I haven’t said much about the Pope, so I don’t know where you’re getting all that from. The successor of Peter holds an office whose primary practical function is as the arbiter, the “tie-breaker” so to speak on issues before the bishops who hold the apostolic office (the Magisterium). In this position, he also ends up acting as a leader of the group, just as Peter did, and as a manifestation of that group’s unity.

The wider catholic Church does consist of all those validly baptized, because baptism re-generates us from the generation of Adam into the generation of Jesus. There is also baptism of desire, which further widens the family circle. However, many members of the Body are out of communion, like estranged family members.

Fine, we (LDS) do the same thing. But you’re not really dealing with the possibility of corruption, particularly corruption in the priesthood. Because you have remained intact, you congratulate yourself and it is an awesome thing but not a guarantee against error. And you haven’t really remained intact, it’s just that you’re such a big group, you can afford to have a lot of breakaway groups and still be gigantic.

Your church has suffered breakaway groups and corruptions, yet you maintain that you have remained true. How do you consider your situation different from ours?

At any rate, I think you are also giving short shrift to the concept of a Restoration. I think you call it a renewal and maybe so./

What’s right about “restoration” and wrong about “renewal?” If we speak of restoration, it is of some practice or perhaps a concept that may have fallen from prominence though not because it was false. Since Truth has not been corrupted and lost, no “restoration” in the sense you mean it is necessary.

It’s here where the alarms sound and I heard a lound bonging in my ears. What do you mean by this? Are you talking metaphorically? Because if I take this at face value, it means we have nothing further to discuss–this isn’t something reasonable people believe.

It’s reality, not merely a metaphor. What do you mean “this isn’t something reasonable people believe?” Are you setting yourself above billions of Christians who have believed this in every generation for almost 2000 years? Even some Protestants believe it. Just because you struggle with the concept (sounds like you may have never heard it before–which to me says you haven’t read and considered your Bible very carefully, much less ECFs or historical sources) doesn’t mean it’s “unreasonable.”

Is it unreasonable to take Jesus at his word?

Jesus made his Church his Body (the first time such union had been established between man and God). He took us as Bride–one flesh. He gave us his Body and Blood to eat and drink, admonishing us over and over again that unless we eat his flesh and drink his blood we have no life in us. The Eucharist is what completes this reality.

You realize, I hope, that every sacrifice for atonement, all those animal sacrifices, had to be eaten to complete the sacrifice, right? There is no altar, no sacrifice, without consumption. The Passover Lamb had to be eaten. Christ gave himself as that Passover Lamb sacrifice, fulfilled the Passover meal by substituted the imperfect lamb with the Lamb of God, the only and final sacrifice efficacious for our atonement, the sacrifice that granted us eternal life. We had to complete and eat the sacrifice to have eternal life. And the beauty of it all comes in the fact that it is a physically real Body and Blood, so that we very literally take Jesus into ourselves and incorporate his flesh into ours. Now not only are we spiritually made new, but we are physically as well. It is through this consumption that we truly become physical members of the Body of Christ, through eating the manna from heaven that we receive eternal sustenance and incorporate into our very physical being that which grants us eternal life. His Body is food indeed and his Blood is drink indeed. The Eucharist is the ultimate consummation of the reality of our in-corp-oration into the Body of Christ. Through it he lives in us (physically as well as spiritually) and we live in him. We are nourished, body and soul (for to be truly human we must be body and soul), and become “little Christs” (“Christians”) in the truest sense this way. Now you can see how Christ actually lives inside and is literally a part of his Church, and thus how he could not let it die.

 

[mfbukowski]

1. John Paul II (1978-2005)
2. Benedict XVI (2005-)

Wow. That’s 265 opportunities to get something wrong. Just one will do. So not a single one of those was disputed or doubted by anyone ever? I know otherwise.