Mormon "Apostasy & Restoration"

[dianaiad]

Jesus gave us His Holy Spirit to guide us to truth, how can you say, we say that Jesus is done taking, that would be impossible for this Catholic as Jesus speaks to me daily, through His Holy Spirit given to the Church at Pentecost, given to me at my Baptism into Christ. This will not be understood by the LDS because they refuse to believe in the Most Holy Trinity. In essence that would be God. They do not have the revelation regarding the One Body of Christ. When one part suffers we all suffer, when one feels joy we all feel joy. They do not understand the Sacrament of Confession which is in direct conflict with the type of Apostasy they maintain.

“they” don’t, do they?

Well, there is a big difference between the individual answers to prayer and personal guidance that we all have with Christ—and the very public revelation that God gives to certain men that results in the writing of scripture. What we, as individuals, have with Christ and the Holy Spirit is for us; for our personal guidance and help. However, do you think that you can get guidance from the Holy Spirit for ME? That is, do you think that God will appear to you (or to anyone else, for that matter) and say 'go tell Diana that she is all wet and needs to pay attention to someone else?" Do you believe that God appears, personally, to any of your Popes or Cardinals with specific instructions about what to do in certain situations, or where to guide the church?

God is a forgiving God, Catholics are a forgiving people. The Great Apostasy makes no sense whatsoever.

What does the forgiving nature of God, or the forgiving nature of Catholics, have to do with whether the Great Apostasy makes sense?

Again Jesus is our Savior through the forgiveness of our sins; He would not leave His own Body for centuries.

Would He not?

Actually, it is not our claim that HE left US. There is this entire concept of free will going on here, y’know—which means that no matter how forgiving He is, we can still leave Him.

The Mormon faith is a house built upon Pride; it carries with it a sense of worthiness. Yet we know that not one is worthy accept for worthiness itself “God” and yes that would be Christ to all of the Christians I know and have come to love. .

Built on pride? How so? How much more prideful is a claim that God came to restore His church to its original form because there was an apostasy, than the claim that God WOULD NOT 'leave His body," but that would forgive everybody everything, no matter how far off the rails they got?

Seems to me that the latter position is the more prideful.

Continued on next post.

 

[dianaiad]

continued from previous post;

If they ask for scriptures on Jesus being the 100% fulfillment and you give them they will argue it telling us He is not enough that we need more revelations.

Actually, no. What we do is tell you that since there WERE ‘more revelations,’ that indeed it is nothing but pride that insists that y’all get to decide when those had to stop. there isn’t, after all, anything at all in the bible that says revelation was supposed to stop. Indeed, even that scripture y’all love to quote regarding Jesus being the fulfillment of everything is part of a revelation given after His death, by one who recieved it. How can it then be proof that it was supposed to stop at Christ’s death, when Christ Himself continued GIVING such revelation to His chosen apostles and prophets?

Well we know what your revelations are and we reject them for the love of Jesus. We no the story in the dessert and the example set for us. We understand the prodigal son, sin, forgiveness, all of those things necessary to face this life with a humble heart. Although we are sinners we trust in Jesus, we rely on His goodness not ours. Progression for all Christians is simply returning to God just as the prodigal son returned to his father. Being with God, our very life is our goal. All progression stops in Him and life begins just as it was before Satan offered up this mess that we have chosen and yet fight against through the Sacraments that are of Christ. You have taken what was offered by satan and made it into a good thing and you are innocent to it I hope. We will never be a god, nor do we strive for perfection, what we do is surrender ourselves to Him, into a personal relationship with Him, with the Holy Trinity and we allow Him to help us up. To carry us home. The opposite of pride. Can you not see pride in just about everyone of your (LDS) postings here?

Your passionate defense of your own faith shines through here, and I do respect your strong faith. However, I have to tell you that “pride” is not a part of any of my posts–at least not the sort of pride you ascribe to them.

Indeed, from where I sit, the pride is shining from y’all—you claim that there could be no apostasy because 'God would not leave us…" but why would He not? What is so special about Catholicism that God would put up with any and everything and still not withdraw from you, if you withdraw from Him? If you forsake covenants you make with God, why do you expect Him to uphold His half of the covenant? It seems to me that only pride would allow anyone to think that.

Yes, God is forgiving, and He loves us…but the choices we make are OUR choices, and He isn’t going to force us to make better ones. If the natural consequences of those choices are that we no longer have the priesthood authority to act in His Name, it is only pride, I think, that would allow us to continue claiming that we have it—that God WOULD NOT take something away from us even if we are no longer worthy of it, or if our beliefs are so changed, and so altered, that Christ Himself would not recognize them.

I am not saying we don’t have it as well, we have confession. The Apostasy set forth to over a Billion Jesus loving Christians, whose life for sinners and saints depends. Spend a day at the Saints and angels page here, it will help. Study pride and what it does and what it means. Study the core of the Catholic Church keeping in mind the Sacrament of confession.

Again, I understand the depth and passion of your faith. Nor would I be disrespectful of that passion or that faith–even though I believe that you are mistaken in many of the things you believe, I think your relationship with Jesus is strong. I think, though, that you might want to consider that it is quite possible to disagree with you on things without being guilty of one of the seven deadlies.

 

[TheosisM]

This “Great Apostasy” that is posited by a number of groups does not make sense for a number of reasons. Firstly, there is no Biblical basis for it. Every verse cited as a proof-text for this Great Apostasy either refers to something completely unrelated to the Church, or partial apostasies, which practically ever church, including the Catholic Church, accepts as a reality.

Did the early Christians know that this loss of priesthood authority, the authority of Jesus Christ on earth, was gone? How are we to know when this happens? If worthiness is so important to the efficacy of sacraments/ordinances, then how can we be sure that we are actually receiving a “valid” sacrament? In Catholic/Orthodox theology, Jesus Christ is the High Priest, and therefore is ultimately the presider at all sacraments and blessings. We can therefore be assured of the validity of the sacraments that we participate in because of this. If Jesus Christ took this away, then it seems as if He left His people alone, without the power of the priesthood on earth, without telling them (again going back to no scriptural basis for a loss of priesthood authority).

Catholics believe that public revelation, which is revelation related to salvation for everyone, was complete when the last Apostle died. All that is necessary for salvation was had, and is found in the Church, through Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition (some may say that Scripture is simply the written Tradition). This does not mean that Heaven was closed off. Instead, God still talks to us individually through personal revelations, as well as through His Heavenly messengers (angels, Heavenly saints, Jesus Christ). Throughout the history of the Church, until today, there have been multiple Heavenly revelatory events. The Catholic Church distinguishes between these events and the public revelation anciently by saying that, while many of these recent revelations are messages directed at the entire Church, they are not required for salvation (though they may certainly help one on that path), since again, we have always had what is necessary for the salvation of all of the people of God, throughout the ages. People not only have revelations for themselves, but for their family, and our leaders are also led by the Spirit in Church governance.

The leaders of the Church are inspired by God in all matters regarding faith and morals. This inspiration occurs in a number of ways. Catholics believe that the Pope, by virtue of his office, has a special inspiration, known as Papal Infallibility, when defining matters regarding faith and morals. The Bishops, when gathered in Ecumenical Council, are also inspired by the Spirit. Things that emerge from Papal Infallibility and Ecumenical Councils are regarded as inspired and therefore binding, and can be regarded as “scriptural” in a sense.

I think that Catholic-RCIA’s question about Christ leaving His body for centuries is important. Yes, Mormons claim that it was the people that left Jesus Christ, and not the other way around. And yet, if we regard the Church as the Body of Christ, with the very authority of God on earth, the power to act in His name, the power of Jesus Christ, then all of that was removed from the earth because of this Great Apostasy, and Christ was no longer present to His people in a very real way. All of the Church leaders and people left Jesus? Was there any writing about this doctrinal corruption (did people fight these incorrect doctrines? Why did they write about other heresies but not these?) We cannot find many of the unique LDS beliefs in the writings of these early Christians, such as Heavenly Mother, eternal marriage, the Father was once a man, three tiers of Heaven (and the belief that the Father, Son, and Spirit do not dwell in the totality of this multi-level Heaven. traditional Christians believe that there are many mansions in Heaven, and that the Three Persons are present in all), etc.

Is the current LDS church protected from another Great Apostasy? How? ParkerD previously mentioned a “checks and balances” system. Why wasn’t this in place the first time?

Also, is the Church the Kingdom of God on earth (and in Heaven)?

 

[dianaiad]

Kathleen,

I am so sorry that posting quotes from Mormon Apostles brought such grief upon you.

My goodness, people. The issue is truth. Nothing else.

You are quite right.

Is there no other way for Mormon forum members to defend your church, other than attacking those who call attention to the words of your prophets and apostles?

Anna, I am not attacking Kathleen. In no way have I attacked her, insulted her, or even attempted to make her feel bad. I don’t think I can count the number of times I have told her…and those who are attacking ME over this, that I actually believed her; that I didn’t think she was lying.

But if you are going to talk about truth, here is some truth: she claimed that she read this anti-Catholic stuff in the Pearl of Great Price; that when she went back to the store later, she said 'none of them knew about the Pearl of Great Price…" Of course I’m not really certain how she could know that since recently she tells us that she never spoke to the clerks.She claimed that ‘the book had been pulled’ because it was 'no longer on the shelves." This is what she claimed.

From what people have posted, we know that Pratt and a few of his contemporaries used very strong language, characterizing the Catholic Church as the ‘whore of Babylon,’ and that the Protestant offshoots were 'daughters of whores." These are quotes written a hundred and fifty years ago, stating opinions that were never canonized; they are NOT found in the Pearl of Great Price, which doesn’t touch on Catholicism in any way whatsoever, complimentary or un. Therefore we know that Kathleen’s first claim is incorrect; wherever she read this language, it was NOT in the Pearl of Great Price (though she spent several days insisting that it was.).

She also claimed that “And then when I contacted the Mormon Church in Utah, all of a sudden nobody heard about it (The Pearl of Great Price)” (post #15)…which is rather odd, considering that it IS one of the four Standard Works, books that we accept as scripture equal with the OT and the NT. There is NO way that the leadership of the CoJCoLDS would say that they had never heard of it. Not a chance in the world.

These very prophets and apostles claim to have received their believes from God.

Do not the Popes claim to have recieved their beliefs from God? Yet they are allowed personal opinions, and are allowed to be incorrect. They often were.

…and Pratt was never the prophet and president of the church, y’know. He had his own opinions. They were incorrect. The church has been correcting such egregious misunderstanding of that verse in Revelation for over a century—even to slapping McConkie down when he published his book “Mormon Doctrine.” The church doesn’t often interfere with the rights of its members to publish books about LDS beliefs, but it certainly did in THIS issue; when McConkie made similar statements about Catholicism, he was told to knock it off.

Now, the only quotes anyone has been able to find here are FROM Pratt and a couple of others in that era, from the Journal of Discourses, the Times and Seasons, the Seer…other works from that specific era…none of which Kathleen would have been likely to have simply picked up and glanced through. and none of which would have looked at all like the Pearl of Great Price. For one thing, the Journal of Discourses is 27 volumes…rather large, and finding Pratt’s quote about Catholicism in it would have been a little hard. Certainly it wasn’t in the first few pages, as Kathleen claimed.

As to the Times and Seasons…well, that was a small magazine. As far as I could determine, since the entire text is online, Deseret Book Store has never offered a bound collection of the issues in the store. I know of no other books that would fit her description of opening the first pages and having these 'bigotted" and anti-Catholic statements right there in the beginning, either.

…and there are, as far as I know again, no modern LDS authored books in which this language is found.

So…Kathleen read this stuff somewhere, but not in the Pearl of Great Price.

continued on next post

 

[dianaiad]

Continued from last post:

So their beliefs cannot be justified by the time in which they lived, or the prevailing views of the day–unless, of course, they were false prophets.

Only if what they said was canonized, Anna–you know, placed in scripture that we accept as such. They weren’t y’know, and for the last century and a half, the church has been correcting, rather publically, all those who share such opinions.

Joseph Smith claimed from the very beginning that the “Personage” told him he was to join none of the churches, that “all their creeds were an abomination in his sight.” This is the beginning of Mormonism, and this idea of “abomination” it is carried through many years of hateful claims about Catholics and Protestants.

Yep, that’s what the claim is; the creeds are an abomination. They are. That’s not QUITE the same thing as saying that the Catholics are the "whore of Babylon’ referred to in Revelation, y’know.

Orson Pratt claimed that Catholics and Protestants are “nothing less than the whore of Babylon,” and called “Protestant daughters,” “harlot daughters.”

He sure did.

Mormon Apostle John Taylor also referred to Catholics as “Babylon the great,” “mother of harlots”; and Protestants as “lewd daughters.”

Yep, he did.

Can you really claim that “harlot daughters,” and “lewd daughters,” are not the same as “whore daughters”?

In their meaning? No. They mean precisely the same thing…as I have mentioned several times now. The precise word “whoredaughters” is important, not because of what it means, but because of the word itself. It’s a stylistic/linguistic thing…a fingerprint, if you will. It’s an archaic sounding term that sticks in your memory when you see it–that’s why some virulent anti-Catholics use it. It’s memorable. However,it’s not a term that modern English speakers would automatically use to substitute for grammatically correct and usual “whore’s daughters” and “harlot’s daughters.” It tells ANY linguist that this modern reader read it somewhere and that it was used precisely; that’s the word used. So, from Kathleen’s use of “whoredaughters,” rather than the words that Pratt, et.al used, it was obvious that she had read that specific term somewhere in a rather nasty piece of anti-Catholic rhetoric.

However, she didn’t read it in any MORMON authored publication. Pratt and Taylor (150 years ago) wrote stuff that meant the same thing, but they didn’t write that specific word.

Kathleen claimed that she read that specific word in the Pearl of Great Price, and that she called SLC, where nobody had heard of the Pearl of Great Price. She claimed that two weeks later, she went back to the bookstore, where the clerks (to whom she never spoke) claimed that they knew nothing about the book and had pulled it from the shelves in order to cover up the fact that it had such language in it.

And–ParkerD, really, I expected better from you, than trying to reduce this issue to the use of “whore” in the Bible.

That’s where the reference came from, Anna. The idea was that Revelation was referring to the Catholic church when it spoke of the whore of Babylon. (shrug) it wasn’t, and the LDS church is rather irritated when it finds one of its members trying to say so. We don’t hide our history and the fact that some of our early leaders shot their mouths off about it, though…which, by the way, is why you can find those quotes.Anybody can, y’know; they’re right out there, published by BYU, by the CoJCoLDS as part of our history; good, annoying or embarrasing.

Apostle Orson Pratt wrote of Roman Catholic, Greek, and Protestant churches, “. . . .thus hath the Lord spoken. Great, and fearful, and most terrible judgments are decreed upon these corrupt powers. . .for strong is the Lord God who shall execute His fierce wrath upon them, and He will not cease until He has made a full end, and until their names be blotted out from under heaven.”

So, not only are Christians, outside the Mormon church, called an abomination, whores, and harlot daughters; Mormon leaders predicted our destruction. We are to receive terrible judgments, be sent down to hell, be utterly burned by fire, and our names are to be blotted out from under heaven.

So, let’s keep it honest.

Oh, let’s do. You might start by filling in the elipses and putting these quotes in context.

<snip quotes…I ran out of space!>

 

[kikkichan]

Dianiad,

You pose a very interesting question–

…
If you forsake covenants you make with God, why do you expect Him to uphold His half of the covenant? It seems to me that only pride would allow anyone to think that.
…

Can’t you think of any other reason why one might expect God to uphold His half of the covenant? We all let pride get in our way, (maybe even all the time). But I don’t think anyone actually believes that God keeps promises because they’ve been earned. If we can’t expect God to keep His promises, can we expect anything?

just me talkin …
thanks,
-kc

 

[Stephen168]

The Mormon faith is a house built upon Pride;

and arrogance. The stuff Joseph Smith -]restored/-] made up was just amazing.

 

[Anna_Scott]

When anyone claims a revelation from God, they are presenting themselves as a prophet.

Apostle Orson Pratt proclaimed:

“The Roman Catholic, Greek, and Protestant church is the great corrupt ecclesiastic power, represented by great Babylon which has made all nations drunk with her wickedness, and she must fall, after she has been warned with the sound of the everlasting gospel. Her overthrow will be by a series of the most terrible judgments which will quickly succeed each other, and sweep over the nations where she has her dominion, and at last she will be utterly burned by fire, for thus hath the Lord spoken. Great, and fearful, and most terrible judgments are decreed upon these corrupt powers, the nations of modern Christendom; for strong is the Lord God who shall execute His fierce wrath upon them, and He will not cease until He has made a full end, and until their names be blotted out from under heaven.” (Authenticity of the Book of Mormon, p.84 - p.85)

Pratt spoke for God. If what Pratt claimed God spoke, was not true; that means Pratt bore false witness against God, Himself. Pratt was a false prophet, and yet still holds a prominent position in Mormon history–as is the case for many Mormon Apostles and Prophets.

All the arguments about the prevailing views of the time period, in which Pratt lived, or whether or not his words are part of Mormon scripture, are all irrelevant.

Pratt bore false witness against God, period, end of story.

I pray that all will find God’s truth,
Anna

 

[dianaiad]

Dianiad,

You pose a very interesting question–

Can’t you think of any other reason why one might expect God to uphold His half of the covenant? We all let pride get in our way, (maybe even all the time). But I don’t think anyone actually believes that God keeps promises because they’ve been earned. If we can’t expect God to keep His promises, can we expect anything?

just me talkin …
thanks,
-kc

You are quite correct; this is an interesting question. I think the answer is…a promise isn’t the same thing, quite, as a covenant. When God promises something, and doesn’t hinge it upon something WE do, then we can certainly count on His keeping it. However, a covenant is a little different; if one party to it does not keep his end, then the other is not bound…for if He were, He would not be God, but rather our slave, doing for us what we demand in spite of our actions.

 

[dianaiad]

When anyone claims a revelation from God, they are presenting themselves as a prophet.

Apostle Orson Pratt proclaimed:

“The Roman Catholic, Greek, and Protestant church is the great corrupt ecclesiastic power, represented by great Babylon which has made all nations drunk with her wickedness, and she must fall, after she has been warned with the sound of the everlasting gospel. Her overthrow will be by a series of the most terrible judgments which will quickly succeed each other, and sweep over the nations where she has her dominion, and at last she will be utterly burned by fire, for thus hath the Lord spoken. Great, and fearful, and most terrible judgments are decreed upon these corrupt powers, the nations of modern Christendom; for strong is the Lord God who shall execute His fierce wrath upon them, and He will not cease until He has made a full end, and until their names be blotted out from under heaven.” (Authenticity of the Book of Mormon, p.84 - p.85)

Well, that’s fine…but he didn’t claim that for himself. He was quoting Revelation, not claiming that God told HIM this personally. That his position never made it into scripture, and that the church has been actively (for over a bloody CENTURY, no less!) letting her members know that this isn’t the correct interpretation, should be some hint that WE do not consider him to have been acting as a prophet at the time.

Pratt spoke for God. If what Pratt claimed God spoke, was not true; that means Pratt bore false witness against God, Himself. Pratt was a false prophet, and yet still holds a prominent position in Mormon history–as is the case for many Mormon Apostles and Prophets.

Pratt preached a sermon in which he misinterpreted scripture. You might want to reconsider quoting stuff from the “Seer,” y’know, given that the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles wrote this ABOUT 'The Seer,"

“The Seer [and other writings by Pratt] contain doctrines which we cannot sanction, and which we have felt impressed to disown, so that the Saints who now live, and who may live hereafter, may not be misled by our silence, or be left to misinterpret it. Where these objectionable works, or parts of works, are bound in volumes, or otherwise, they should be cut out and destroyed.”

They were not, as it happens, 'cut out and destroyed," at least not completely–which is why you have the quotes you are using to discredit the church. Too bad for you that the church already told him where to put his words----*** one hundred and fifty five years ago.***

All the arguments about the prevailing views of the time period, in which Pratt lived, or whether or not his words are part of Mormon scripture, are all irrelevant.

They are also not indicative of Church beliefs and policies.

Pratt bore false witness against God, period, end of story.

Evidently the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints agreed with you. Over ----*** one hundred and fifty five years ago.***

I pray that all will find God’s truth,
Anna

As do I. I would hope that they would start searching amongst actual facts, not century and a half old strawmen.

 

[rinnie]

That scripture is taken out of context. The previous verse states this: In context, the verse you quote is this:
*
13 When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am?
14 And they said, Some say that thou art John the Baptist: some, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets.
15 He saith unto them, But whom say aye that I am?
16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.
17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.*
18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
19 And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

So, “how we explain it” is: “this rock” refers, not to Peter the man, but to the revelation by which Peter was able to know that Jesus is the Christ. It makes more sense linguistically for “this rock” to refer back to revelation than it does for it to refer to Peter…else the verse about revelation would mean nothing–something to be ignored.

…which, I notice, many people do.

But it was important enough for Matthew to include it, and to emphasize it…so that’s what we believe.

But here is the problem, Rock does not translate to revelation. It translates into Father. Jesus called Peter Rock, and Jesus called Abraham Rock. And Jesus himself is called rock. They all translate into Father not revelation. How do you explain that one away?

 

[rinnie]

[SIGN][/SIGN]

“they” don’t, do they?

Well, there is a big difference between the individual answers to prayer and personal guidance that we all have with Christ—and the very public revelation that God gives to certain men that results in the writing of scripture. What we, as individuals, have with Christ and the Holy Spirit is for us; for our personal guidance and help. However, do you think that you can get guidance from the Holy Spirit for ME? That is, do you think that God will appear to you (or to anyone else, for that matter) and say 'go tell Diana that she is all wet and needs to pay attention to someone else?" [SIGN]Do you believe that God appears, personally, to any of your Popes or Cardinals with specific instructions about what to do in certain situations, or where to guide the church? [/SIGN]

What does the forgiving nature of God, or the forgiving nature of Catholics, have to do with whether the Great Apostasy makes sense?

Would He not?

Actually, it is not our claim that HE left US. There is this entire concept of free will going on here, y’know—which means that no matter how forgiving He is, we can still leave Him.

Built on pride? How so? How much more prideful is a claim that God came to restore His church to its original form because there was an apostasy, than the claim that God WOULD NOT 'leave His body," but that would forgive everybody everything, no matter how far off the rails they got?

Seems to me that the latter position is the more prideful.

Continued on next post.

Yes I do. By the power of the Holy Spirit the way he promised. If not for the Power of the Holy Spirit guiding the RCC it would not be here. But it is here because of the promise he made.

 

[dianaiad]

[SIGN][/SIGN]

Yes I do. By the power of the Holy Spirit the way he promised. If not for the Power of the Holy Spirit guiding the RCC it would not be here. But it is here because of the promise he made.

Then why hasn’t there been any scripture written since you guys closed the canon?

…and why don’t any of the Cardinals and Popes CLAIM to have recieved personal revelation that is equal to that of the early apostles, worthy of including in the scriptural canon? From what I understand, even the claim of Papal infallibility is limited to interpreting scripture already written, not to further, and new, revelations. At least, that’s what I keep getting told.

 

[dianaiad]

But here is the problem, Rock does not translate to revelation. It translates into Father. Jesus called Peter Rock, and Jesus called Abraham Rock. And Jesus himself is called rock. They all translate into Father not revelation. How do you explain that one away?

I don’t have to, since you are incorrect as to the translation of the word used. “Peter” means “rock,” and is a pun–a new name to remind Peter of the foundation of the church. but "this rock,’ refers back to ‘revelation.’

However, feel free to explain how your theory actually works.

 

[TheosisM]

Then why hasn’t there been any scripture written since you guys closed the canon?

…and why don’t any of the Cardinals and Popes CLAIM to have recieved personal revelation that is equal to that of the early apostles, worthy of including in the scriptural canon? From what I understand, even the claim of Papal infallibility is limited to interpreting scripture already written, not to further, and new, revelations. At least, that’s what I keep getting told.

Because Catholics believe that the “Deposit of Faith”, which contains all things necessary for salvation, was given already. The deposit of faith is also known as the “public revelation”. Because all that is necessary for salvation has already been revealed, nothing else is added to that Deposit. Revelations that come about since then, whether they are directed at an individual or at the entire Church (such as the various Marian and angelic apparitions) do not add to what is required to be known for salvation, though they may certainly help one on their path towards salvation.

Papal Infallibility, as well as the Infallibility of the Bishops in Ecumenical Council, does not add new public revelation, but is an inspired clarification of something that has been believed, but may not have been clarified or fully espoused. Such inspired communications are considered as required beliefs for Catholics. Some of these were also confirmed by subsequent revelations, such as the Immaculate Conception (with Mary appearing and calling herself “the immaculate conception”).

 

[Stephen168]

Yes I do. By the power of the Holy Spirit the way he promised. If not for the Power of the Holy Spirit guiding the RCC it would not be here. But it is here because of the promise he made.
dianaiad;6126565:

Then why hasn’t there been any scripture written since you guys closed the canon?

Did you walk to school or carry your lunch?

 

[dianaiad]

Because Catholics believe that the “Deposit of Faith”, which contains all things necessary for salvation, was given already.

I know you do. The problem is, there is no reason to assume that this is so.

The deposit of faith is also known as the “public revelation”. Because all that is necessary for salvation has already been revealed, nothing else is added to that Deposit. Revelations that come about since then, whether they are directed at an individual or at the entire Church (such as the various Marian and angelic apparitions) do not add to what is required to be known for salvation, though they may certainly help one on their path towards salvation.

Papal Infallibility, as well as the Infallibility of the Bishops in Ecumenical Council, does not add new public revelation, but is an inspired clarification of something that has been believed, but may not have been clarified or fully espoused. Such inspired communications are considered as required beliefs for Catholics. Some of these were also confirmed by subsequent revelations, such as the Immaculate Conception (with Mary appearing and calling herself “the immaculate conception”).

…precisely as I mentioned: you do not believe that there was any revelation after the canon was closed.

It is that belief that, in part, confirms the apostasy to me. You see, there is NO scriptural reason to assume that revelation would cease. None. The very verses that are quoted to me claiming that there was to be no more such revelation after Christ are absolute proof, by their very existance, that revelation continued after Christ’s life, death, resurrection and asscension.

God does not change. He communicated to His people in the OT by speaking to prophets. He continued that in the life of Jesus–HE did not write anything, but rather taught His desciples and apostles, and THEY wrote His word; no change in policy there, either. He continued to communicate with His apostles after his mortal life and death (hello, Paul?).

So God didn’t change before, during or after Jesus came. If there was a change, it wasn’t God changing.

Or, as I have seen mentioned a few times here and there, if one feels separated from God, and God never changes, who moved?

 

[TheosisM]

I know you do. The problem is, there is no reason to assume that this is so.

…precisely as I mentioned: you do not believe that there was any revelation after the canon was closed.

It is that belief that, in part, confirms the apostasy to me. You see, there is NO scriptural reason to assume that revelation would cease. None. The very verses that are quoted to me claiming that there was to be no more such revelation after Christ are absolute proof, by their very existance, that revelation continued after Christ’s life, death, resurrection and asscension.

God does not change. He communicated to His people in the OT by speaking to prophets. He continued that in the life of Jesus–HE did not write anything, but rather taught His desciples and apostles, and THEY wrote His word; no change in policy there, either. He continued to communicate with His apostles after his mortal life and death (hello, Paul?).

So God didn’t change before, during or after Jesus came. If there was a change, it wasn’t God changing.

Or, as I have seen mentioned a few times here and there, if one feels separated from God, and God never changes, who moved?

I think we need to be precise here. The Catholic belief is that public revelation ended with the death of the last apostle. The very definition of the “Deposit of Faith” necessitates it ending with the death of the last apostle, and not with Jesus Christ, since it includes the Bible. Also, the belief is not that revelation as a whole ceased (or that “the Heavens were closed”), but that all that is needed for salvation (i.e. doctrine) has been revealed. Do Mormons believe that there are more salvational doctrines to be revealed? When was the last time the LDS prophet added to scripture or revealed a salvational doctrine? It seems as if in practice, Mormons believe no differently than Catholics. There is a fundamental difference in the revelations received by the Biblical apostles and prophets (OT and NT), and even in the other Mormon scriptures, and what is found in the current LDS church. They had fundamental, doctrinal revelations, that came together to make up the Faith, things to be known by all. Joseph Smith, if we accept his claims, functioned in a similar manner, receiving revelations on fundamental doctrinal matters (i.e. the nature of God, Heaven, man, etc.). It is this sort of distinction that Catholics make, recognizing that such foundational revelations were complete anciently, and since then, through the inspiration of the Spirit, the Church comes to understand that Deposit more fully.

Speaking of God changing, it does seem that God did “change” something about the way He revealed Himself:

Hebrews 1:1-2
1God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,
2Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds

Does God still speak in parts through prophets? Catholics have had a number of prophets and prophetesses in our post-Apostolic age period. What we don’t believe is that there is supposed to be a prophet as the head of the Church, or that someone is a prophet unless they function in such a capacity. Do the Bishops make inspired decisions? Yes. Does this make them prophets? Depends on what the definition of “prophet” is.

And of course, going back to the topic (and my last post), there is also no scriptural basis for a loss of priesthood authority, a Great Apostasy. Why should we believe that happened?

Side note: “God does not change”. It’s very interesting that you mention that, because there was a recent conversation over on MADB on this very subject, with the Mormons insisting on a “changing God” and the traditional Christians insisting on an “unchanging God”. Interesting. I think it is clear that God does change the way He interacts with us (or the way in which we are able to interact with Him), including sacrifices, knowledge of the Three Divine Persons, the sacraments, etc. We could even say that the later developments are fulfillments of the old.

 

[TheosisM]

Random thought: It is interesting that Christianity spread to many diverse locations quite early in its history, and was found in places such as Jerusalem, Antioch, Rome, Alexandria, and Constantinople, all of which, tradition holds, had Church communities that were founded by various Apostles, and all maintain very similar faiths (Orthodox vs. Catholic), specifically those doctrines seen as apostasized by LDS, namely: infant baptism, Real Presence in the Eucharist, intercession of Heavenly saints, honoring Mary, creation ex nihilo, the Father being unembodied, etc.

 

[dianaiad]

I think we need to be precise here. The Catholic belief is that public revelation ended with the death of the last apostle.

And we agree with you. The difference between us is what that means.It seems to me that this is THE big difference between us. You believe there was nothing left to be said, and we believe that people stopped listening.

The very definition of the “Deposit of Faith” necessitates it ending with the death of the last apostle, and not with Jesus Christ, since it includes the Bible. Also, the belief is not that revelation as a whole ceased (or that “the Heavens were closed”), but that all that is needed for salvation (i.e. doctrine) has been revealed. Do Mormons believe that there are more salvational doctrines to be revealed? When was the last time the LDS prophet added to scripture or revealed a salvational doctrine? It seems as if in practice, Mormons believe no differently than Catholics. There is a fundamental difference in the revelations received by the Biblical apostles and prophets (OT and NT), and even in the other Mormon scriptures, and what is found in the current LDS church. They had fundamental, doctrinal revelations, that came together to make up the Faith, things to be known by all. Joseph Smith, if we accept his claims, functioned in a similar manner, receiving revelations on fundamental doctrinal matters (i.e. the nature of God, Heaven, man, etc.). It is this sort of distinction that Catholics make, recognizing that such foundational revelations were complete anciently, and since then, through the inspiration of the Spirit, the Church comes to understand that Deposit more fully.

Speaking of God changing, it does seem that God did “change” something about the way He revealed Himself:

Hebrews 1:1-2
1God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,
2Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds

This is precisely the verse that drives me nutty. PAUL wrote this. Paul, who probably never met Jesus in life, was certainly not called to follow Him during Jesus’ life, and who recieved direct divine public revelation of exactly the sort that the OT prophets recieved. The only difference (and given who we believe Jehovah is, that really wasn’t a change either) is Who was doing the giving of the revelation. Christ never RECIEVED revelation. He was the Only Begotten Son of God; the second Member of the Godhead; God Himself. He doesn’t get revelation, He GIVES it. So what Paul is talking about here is that further revelation would be FROM Christ…and the fact that it is Paul who is talking is ample proof of that.

Paul, whose knowledge of Christ came about because Christ spoke personally to him; Paul had a very definite divine revelation from Christ. the ONLY way Paul can write as he did is BECAUSE he was the very sort of prophet you claim his words prove didn’t exist after Jesus’ death!.

In fact, these two verses could only be interpreted the way you interpret them if they didn’t exist. Since they do exist, they cannot be interpreted the way you are interpreting them; it raises an paradox impossible to resolve.

Does God still speak in parts through prophets? Catholics have had a number of prophets and prophetesses in our post-Apostolic age period. What we don’t believe is that there is supposed to be a prophet as the head of the Church, or that someone is a prophet unless they function in such a capacity. Do the Bishops make inspired decisions? Yes. Does this make them prophets? Depends on what the definition of “prophet” is.

A prophet is someone who recieves that public revelation you speak of, Theosis…who is authorized to speak for God. It’s not about fortelling the future. It’s about giving us God’s Word. The words he writes are, therefore and by definition, SCRIPTURE–since that’s what scripture is. A prophet will write scripture, because scripture is the Word of God. So, if Catholicism honestly believes that there have been prophets and prophetesses speaking the word of God throughout its history, why aren’t their words canonized?

And of course, going back to the topic (and my last post), there is also no scriptural basis for a loss of priesthood authority, a Great Apostasy. Why should we believe that happened?

Because we both agree that there was no more public revelation after the apostles died. You believe that since there was no more such public revelation, then there wasn’t supposed to be any. I believe that there was supposed to be some–but that people stopped paying attention. I guess the bottom line is: where is there evidence anywhere in the scripture that says such public revelation was supposed to stop? I see none.

Side note: “God does not change”. It’s very interesting that you mention that, because there was a recent conversation over on MADB on this very subject, with the Mormons insisting on a “changing God” and the traditional Christians insisting on an “unchanging God”. Interesting. I think it is clear that God does change the way He interacts with us (or the way in which we are able to interact with Him), including sacrifices, knowledge of the Three Divine Persons, the sacraments, etc. We could even say that the later developments are fulfillments of the old.