Mormons: When did the Great Apostasy occur?

[catholic-rcia]

“Only Jesus can forgive sins”

Has anyone here ever forgiven someone or been forgiven by someone? Do we say “No I cannot forgive you. sorry. You will have to go to Jesus then let me know. It is Jesus in us that forgive others…not us. Again as Created Children of God we get to share in this. It’s always about Jesus.

Do you not know Parker that when you forgive someone who has hurt you, you are allowing Jesus to do the forgiving? Unless you want to posses such power as if it was your own, the same power that caused the fall of mankind. “The Great Separation” Think about your faith, think about what was just said.

All forgiveness comes from Jesus whether we are aware of this or not. Just like all love comes from Jesus. To forgive is to love. To be forgiven is to be loved. Because the LDS do not accept the Holy Trinity and have not been baptized into it I do not think they will understand this. Yet I also believe they may as the Holy Spirit still prompts from the outside in to those who do have an open mind.

Parker if you could wrap your mind around this you would start to have a fresh understanding of the Love Jesus handed on to His Apostles in order for them to hand it on to those in need of Jesus’s love. You may also come to a fresh understanding of the Holy Spirit.

Confession is a Sacrament that stands in love for all who utilize it. It is what produces the Saints of our Church. Being loved because we choose to turn to Him in our sin. Giving us the power through Christ to in turn pass it on to others. We are saved in Community, we go to Confession to apologize to God first, then to all because all are effected with each little sin. We are the Body of Christ, together One in Him,

When I hear the LDS speak about the Apostacy I am called to forgive.

 

[KathleenGee]

The Catholic Catechism teaches only God can forgive sin, because in essence sin is directed at God.

I think there have been many, many posts on Mormon threads stating the Catholic priesthood is a sacrament…an outward, physical, concrete sign of Christ. The priest is the physical presence of Christ in the confessional. Christ gave His apostles, the living and mortal founders of the Church with Christ, the power to forgive sins, to bind and to loosen.

When a Catholic goes to confession, he/she is aware she is confessing to a priest, but know full well it is not he forgiving but Christ. Beyond the humanity of the priest, when he fulfills his duty in providing us absolution for our sins, the experience we have through the priest intercessor is the presence of Christ Himself and the sacred…separate from the priest, a mortal man.

We experience the presence of Christ in the confessional, the sense and power of the Sacred comes upon us, just as we receive the Eucharist.

Our teachings over and over and over again affirm that Jesus Christ is the Truth, the LIght, and the Way, both in Word and in the Sacraments. There is no hidden messages for the select that came out 1,800 years later.

It has been a mystery even to myself why I have spent time on the Mormon threads as I have done. It is not like I deliberately are targeting the Mormons to hash over differences…

I have been asking myself why lately, and the bottom line is why Mormons do not question the integrity of the message they are getting from Joseph Smith, 1800 years later…

I simply do not understand how people can believe such things without rejecting Christianity itself, then saying they are the true ones…in spite of all the contradictions of Smith.

I continue to believe, however, in the sincerity of faith that Mormons have in Christ that we share…but the chasm is so great in defining things, that yes…Mormonism is outside of Christianity.

Christ said Himself on the Cross, “It is finished.” He did not come again to give us a new message and provide such a radical different take on Scriptures, worship, and theology.

So the mystery I am dealing with and trying to understand is how people can reject Christ as we have known Him for 2,000 years on the one hand, but believe in Joseph Smith and all his non-documented conjecturing on the other hand. That is the mystery to be solved.

 

[RedDawgMCM]

The Catholic Catechism teaches only God can forgive sin, because in essence sin is directed at God.

I think there have been many, many posts on Mormon threads stating the Catholic priesthood is a sacrament…an outward, physical, concrete sign of Christ. The priest is the physical presence of Christ in the confessional. Christ gave His apostles, the living and mortal founders of the Church with Christ, the power to forgive sins, to bind and to loosen.

When a Catholic goes to confession, he/she is aware she is confessing to a priest, but know full well it is not he forgiving but Christ. Beyond the humanity of the priest, when he fulfills his duty in providing us absolution for our sins, the experience we have through the priest intercessor is the presence of Christ Himself and the sacred…separate from the priest, a mortal man.

We experience the presence of Christ in the confessional, the sense and power of the Sacred comes upon us, just as we receive the Eucharist.

Our teachings over and over and over again affirm that Jesus Christ is the Truth, the LIght, and the Way, both in Word and in the Sacraments. There is no hidden messages for the select that came out 1,800 years later.

It has been a mystery even to myself why I have spent time on the Mormon threads as I have done. It is not like I deliberately are targeting the Mormons to hash over differences…

I have been asking myself why lately, and the bottom line is why Mormons do not question the integrity of the message they are getting from Joseph Smith, 1800 years later…

I simply do not understand how people can believe such things without rejecting Christianity itself, then saying they are the true ones…in spite of all the contradictions of Smith.

I continue to believe, however, in the sincerity of faith that Mormons have in Christ that we share…but the chasm is so great in defining things, that yes…Mormonism is outside of Christianity.

Christ said Himself on the Cross, “It is finished.” He did not come again to give us a new message and provide such a radical different take on Scriptures, worship, and theology.

So the mystery I am dealing with and trying to understand is how people can reject Christ as we have known Him for 2,000 years on the one hand, but believe in Joseph Smith and all his non-documented conjecturing on the other hand. That is the mystery to be solved.

“Only Jesus can forgive sins”

Has anyone here ever forgiven someone or been forgiven by someone? Do we say “No I cannot forgive you. sorry. You will have to go to Jesus then let me know. It is Jesus in us that forgive others…not us. Again as Created Children of God we get to share in this. It’s always about Jesus.

Do you not know Parker that when you forgive someone who has hurt you, you are allowing Jesus to do the forgiving? Unless you want to posses such power as if it was your own, the same power that caused the fall of mankind. “The Great Separation” Think about your faith, think about what was just said.

All forgiveness comes from Jesus whether we are aware of this or not. Just like all love comes from Jesus. To forgive is to love. To be forgiven is to be loved. Because the LDS do not accept the Holy Trinity and have not been baptized into it I do not think they will understand this. Yet I also believe they may as the Holy Spirit still prompts from the outside in to those who do have an open mind.

Parker if you could wrap your mind around this you would start to have a fresh understanding of the Love Jesus handed on to His Apostles in order for them to hand it on to those in need of Jesus’s love. You may also come to a fresh understanding of the Holy Spirit.

Confession is a Sacrament that stands in love for all who utilize it. It is what produces the Saints of our Church. Being loved because we choose to turn to Him in our sin. Giving us the power through Christ to in turn pass it on to others. We are saved in Community, we go to Confession to apologize to God first, then to all because all are effected with each little sin. We are the Body of Christ, together One in Him,

When I hear the LDS speak about the Apostacy I am called to forgive.

Great personal responses to what I referenced in my last posts…

 

[flyonthewall]

He did not declare the parables in public. He declared them in the wide open, and it does not take any special knowledge to understand them. Many became clear in His resurrection. It also says that whenever the disciples asked for an explanation, he explained it to them clearly. That means the disciples in general, not just the Apostles.

But the hidden knowledge was not just for anyone, but only those that had it revealed to them. It was hidden in the parables, it was cryptic in nature.

The evidence that it was the former is because when they asked Him to declare what He meant by saying they would have to eat His flesh and drink His blood, he answered that it means they have to eat His flesh and drink His blood: He told them it was literal. That is when a lot of those he explained it to left, but since the Apostles were among those who stay – recognixing that they still did not understand it – we know that He explained the parable to all the disciples, not just a select few. This is where he declares the dogma of the Real Presence in the Eucharist – not just a symbol – and since He had yet to reveal the Eucharist, they could not understand.

Well, of course I disagree. Jesus tried to describe what He meant, but those that were there were dull of hearing, and only heard His words. He even said the that key to understanding was the spirit, to look beyond the words to the spirit of what He was saying.

There is knowledge better understood with experience, but the declaration is right out in the open. If there is “secret knowledge” it includes things like recognizing that the earliest Christians 1) Were still practicing Jews , 2) Believed that Christ’s return was imminent until most of the way through the First Century, when most of the New Testament was written. and 3) Accepted the Greek books of the Old Testament as Word of God. Understanding that one understands the Christian perspective on the New Testament better, as that founded the perspective for selecting the writings for it.

The secret knowledge is only revealed by the Holy Ghost to those who truly seek it.

The most important thing to understand is that they were Catholic. Jesus continued speaking in Parables through the Body of Christ. The Mass itself is the greatest Parable of all, and the Eucharist the most sacred of all ordinances (in LDS language). There is nothing secret about it, it is out there on every street corner in some cities, several times a day for anyone to experience, and they either get it or they don’t. When they do get it they become Catholic quicker than they can say “transubstantiation,”

We have the Sacrament as you know, which our meetings are centered around. There is nothing secret about it either.

 

[RedDawgMCM]

The secret knowledge is only revealed by the Holy Ghost to those who truly seek it.

It’s statements like this from fly and parker that really get my goat, like we aren’t smart enough to read between the lines and see these as the insults they are intended…

 

[Peter_John]

But the hidden knowledge was not just for anyone, but only those that had it revealed to them. It was hidden in the parables, it was cryptic in nature.

This will take multiple responses to make clear and avoid simply slapfighting over

Parable and Real Presence: Part 1-Parable

Addressing this properly Let me rephrase: I completely accept that Jesus affirms using parables for those who understood to self-select and follow him. If they got it, they followed.

However, using that as the only standard to evaluate his use of parables is incomplete scripture study. To understand to what degree that applies means considering it in light of the other descriptions of how he used them.

Matthew 13:10-13 KJV
10And the disciples came, and said unto him, Why speakest thou unto them in aparables?
11He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the amysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given.
12aFor whosoever hath, to him shall be bgiven, and he shall have more cabundance: but whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken away even that he hath.
13Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand.
Matthew 13

Note that it says the disciples, not the Apostles or the Twelve. This is an important distinction. On its own your interpretation might be accurate, but this story of not over yet. After expounding a bit more to his disciples, Jesus tells another parable to the crowd and::

Matthew 13:34-36
34All these things spake Jesus unto the multitude in parables; and without a parable spake he not unto them:
35That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, saying, I will open my mouth inaparables; I will utter things which have been kept bsecret from the foundation of the world.
36Then Jesus sent the multitude away, and went into the house: and his disciples came unto him, saying, Declare unto us the parable of the tares of the field.

 

[Peter_John]

Parable and Real Presence: Part 2-Jesus explained Parables to Disciples

Well, of course I disagree. Jesus tried to describe what He meant, but those that were there were dull of hearing, and only heard His words. He even said the that key to understanding was the spirit, to look beyond the words to the spirit of what He was saying.

But he explains it to his disciples in detail. In Mark he explains that he explains them to the disciples, and does not make that conditional…

Mark 4:9-11
9And he said unto them, He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.
10And when he was aalone, they that were about him with the twelve asked of him the parable.
11And he said unto them, Unto you it is given to know the amystery of the kingdom of God: but unto them that are without, all these things are done in bparables:
Mark 4

Below is an example of him leading them to understand without spelling it out. Note that it clarifies they understand in this case the metaphor of bread as teaching or doctrine. This is specifically metaphorical.

Matthew 16:6-11
6¶Then Jesus said unto them, Take heed and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees.
7And they reasoned among themselves, saying, It is because we have taken no bread.
8Which when Jesus perceived, he said unto them, O ye of little faith, why reason ye among yourselves, because ye have brought no bread?
9Do ye not yet understand, neither remember the five loaves of the five thousand, and how many baskets ye took up?
10Neither the seven loaves of the four thousand, and how many baskets ye took up?
11How is it that ye do not understand that I spake it not to you concerning bread, that ye should beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees?
12Then understood they how that he bade them not beware of the leaven of bread, but of the doctrine of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees.
Matthew 16

 

[Peter_John]

Parable and Real Presence: Part 3-John 6 not Parabolic

The secret knowledge is only revealed by the Holy Ghost to those who truly seek it…

The prior excerpts dispute that statement, having established that Jesus explained anything intended as parable to Disciples if they did not understand

John 6 provides an example when the disciples think something is a parable, but when Jesus continues addressing it literally, they understand it literally. Rather than correcting the literal interpretation, Jesus reinforces it as literal. This form is a little more complex because of its recursive and embedded structure, working with parallel themes. I will address crucial excerpts to show how they fit in.

After feeding thousands with a few loaves and fishes and walking on water, the multitude wants to know how to do God’s work. Jesus tells them that it starts with trusting him :

John6 28-31
28Then said they unto him, What shall we do, that we might work the works of God?
29Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.
30They said therefore unto him, What asign shewest thou then, that we may see, and believe thee? what dost thou work?
31Our fathers did eat manna in the desert; as it is written, He gave them bread from heaven to eat.

He then goes on to frame and express in some detail what sign he will give, and they have to trust in , for them to believ. He was bread from heaven for them, and they would have to eat His flesh:
:

John 6: 52-59
52The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat?
53Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the bSon of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.
54Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.
55For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.
56He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him.
57As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me.
58This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever.
59These things said he in the synagogue, as he taught in Capernaum.

He does not use any figurative qualifiers. He does not say “likened unto”. He says this in a limited public venue. In this account the disciples considered it literal, and a hard teaching to accept. Jesus compares the future Institution of the Lord’s Supper with another literal evidence yet to come, never suggesting either figurative. At this point he is with disciples, not the multitude.

 

[Peter_John]

Parable and Real Presence: Part 4-John 6 Literal

We have the Sacrament as you know, which our meetings are centered around. There is nothing secret about it either.

The real question is do you have the Sacrament Jesus established? Can you as you practice it and in what you believe about it?
Consider how strongly his disciples took Christ’s affirmation of the coming Eucharist as literal, not symbolic. He adds something even harder to conceive, another literal event, raising the terms a notch further.

John 6:60-62
60Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heard this, said, This is an hard saying; who can hear it?
61When Jesus aknew in himself that his disciples murmured at it, he said unto them, Doth this boffend you?
62What and if ye shall see the aSon of man bascend up where he was before?

He emphasizes believing these literal manifestations as more an evidence of the Father having called them, with no reference to understanding them as metaphor evidencing this, in the manner that method selects disciples from the multitude.:

John 6: 63-65
63It is the aspirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.
64But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should abetray him.
65And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, aexcept it were given unto him of my Father.

And the idea that they will someday have to eat his flesh and drink his blood is too much to bear, and the idea that he will visibly ascend into heaven is too much to believe.

John 6:66-69
66¶From that time many of his adisciples went back, and bwalked no more with him.
67Then said Jesus unto the twelve, Will ye also go away?
68Then Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the awords of eternal life.
69And awe believe and are sure that thou art that Christ, the bSon of the living God.
John 6

Peter still does not understand this strange doctrine, but he knows Jesus is the Christ.

Your sacrament is not the Mass. You neither consider Sacrament as your most sacred ordinance nor your greatest miracle, as Catholics consider the Eucharist. You do it first in meetings, and only offer it weekly, We prefer having it every day, and some of us do not know how to get by without it every day. You hide your most sacred ordinances away wher ethose who do not understand can’t mock them and perhaps unwittingly commit sacrilege. Our most sacred ordinance is out in the open because how can the Holy Spirit select those to perceive the miracle from among the nultitude if they are not exposed to it?

Substituting water for the wine(which even your Book of Mormon decrees) was among the earliest Christian heresies dispensed with, before the end of the First Century as I recall. Most heresies emerging then had to wait until the persecutions were over. The Apostolic Fathers and Early Church Fathers kind of had their hands full. I do find it interesting that your faith emphasizes symbolisn, and most anyone can tell you what bread and water symbolizes.

 

[Peter_John]

Peter John,

I agree that the word “remit” has more ambiguity and thus different potential connotations than the word “forgive”, but the words “merely forgive” when one is talking about the eternal consequences of sin which places one in a state of eternal bondage and being eternally shut out from the presence of God are not two words I would think go together. It is completely different than an earthly tribunal or jury or an earthly judge or court of law.

Christ knew that He had the authority and the divinely given responsibility to forgive sins because He knew that He had come to earth to suffer the pains and afflictions of the atonement. He did not and would not defer that authority to someone else, nor can anyone give one example from fifty-five years of the records we have been given of the actual doings of the apostles or the bishops serving under their leadership from AD 34 to AD 90, of one case where they told someone that they personally or that the church as an institution were forgiving someone’s sins, nor that they were acting in the place of Christ to forgive someone’s sins…

As apostles with authority they could, however, rule on matters of church membership just as Christ taught in Matthew 18:17. They could make records on earth that would be recorded in heaven, could seal on earth and it be sealed in heaven, could bind or loose on earth and it would be bound or loosed in heaven–but all this was because they were able to be trusted that they would use the gift of the Holy Ghost in an inspired way and knew that they were acting under that inspiration and under the direction of the living Christ, the head of the Church and the Holy One with the key of David, which was not to be delegated, on His shoulder always.

As far as the prophet Nephi in the Book of Mormon who had the sealing power and was trusted by God to be able to only ask what was God’s will and thus could be trusted with the power to say that there would be a famine so that the people would be humbled to become repentant, his teachings were not that he was going to forgive anyone’s sins–he was teaching that the people should come unto Christ and pray sincerely and seek forgiveness from God and seek the Spirit in their lives.

You brought up remit. I said it allows even broader authority than forgive. Now you say that broader authority is not there? In that case the word remit must be a mistranslation.

Where does keeping records come into Matthew 18:17? I see no such restriction. Sounds to me like Jesus trusted Peter implicitly, and knew that Peter would do just what He needed. Your affirmation on tis matter also seems somewhat disingenuous, as apparently an attempt to refute the sacrament of confession (which did not exist in tis current form yet. The Lord revealed the details through tradition). Your own leaders teach that they have the authority to forgive sins (thereby granting or restoring someone to Church membership) or to declare those sins retained, and that God will homor those decisions. If a person out of line with the Chruch dies without the Church leaders decreeing his forgiveness, he will not be forgiven according to your doctrine.

 

[KathleenGee]

Jesus was never cryptic…He gradually revealed Himself.

Cryptic sounds like a crypt for the dead.

Jesus is Light Who broke free of the crypt. Transparent. No special knowledge for the self-appointed select.

Peter John, again thanks for all your explanations as they assist us in seeing the differences between the two religions.

And yes, what kind of God would call those apostate who gave their life? They followed Jesus to the end of their lives.

Some times I get the impression of Joseph Smith’s writings that he himself had to make an act of faith to believe in them…that they really didn’t come from him…

Why people can believe or not believe in something…a mystery.

 

[KathleenGee]

Back to St. Peter.

In contrast to cryptic or hidden messages that abound in Mormonism, St. Peter the Rock declared in 2 Peter 1:1: “His divine power has bestowed on us everything that makes for life and devotion, through the knowledge of Him who called us by his own power and glory.”…

In contrast to hidden knowledge, and the invitation through the Word and Breaking of Bread, through the Lord’s glory and power, leaving the corruption of the world, we come here on earth to begin to share in the divine nature…

St. Peter exhorts us instead by living in Christ’s truth and light, to instead grow in’ virtue, knowledge, self-control, endurance, devotion, mutual affection, and love.’

St. Peter and the Apostles, refuting the claim of the apostasy following the deaths of the Apostles, (2 Peter 1:15) promised, ‘I shall also make every effort to enable you always to remember these things after my departure.’

 

[KathleenGee]

The other great concern i have about Mormonism is its insistence on a lost tribe of Israel in America and Joseph Smith using ancient Egypt scrolls as having some secret message Christ failed to reveal.

St. Peter says in 2 Peter 1: 16-21: 'We did not follow cleverly devised myths when we made known to you the power and coming of Our Lord Jesus Christ, but we had been eyewitnesses to His majesty. For He received honor and glory from God the Father when that unique declaration came to Him from majestic glory, “This is my Son, My Beloved, with Whom I am well pleased.” …

'We ourselves heard this voice come from heaven while we were with Him on the holy mountain. (The Transfiguration) Moreover, we possess the prophetic message that is altogether reliable. you will do well to be attentive to it, as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts…

20-21…‘Know this first of all, that there is no prophecy of scripture that is personal revelation, for no prophecy ever came through human will; but rather human beings moved by the Holy Spirit spoke under the influence of God.’

I like what you point out, Peter John, that the Holy Spirit can work through anyone faithful to Christ as Peter has pointed out in his second letter, first chapter…removing one’s self from the corruption of the world, and to grow in faith through interior act of will to be more virtuous and less willful, more compliant with the will of God, more open to the divine life that is offered to all.

Subsequently, in the Catholic Church, whether cleric, religious or lay, if we do God’s will and respond to the graces the Lord gives each one of us, then we are all equal before the Lord, the Lord making no distinction. The pope who met St. Francis of Assisi was greatly moved by him, as was John Paul II by Mother Theresa of Calcutta…

The Catholic hierarchy exists as servants to Christ, to the Church, and mankind.

 

[ParkerD]

“Remit” and “remitted” do NOT convey a “distinctly different meaning”.

I think you would also have to extend a different meaning to “retain” because the passage goes on to say “whose sins you retain, they are retained”. And, I think that is the same translation used in the KJV, but you can correct me if I’m wrong.

Jay53,

A student of the Bible and a student of the English language becomes aware that dictionary definitions change based on the usage of the people. The usage in the 1600’s was different than the usage today.

Noah Webster made an effort to capture the usage reflected in the King James Bible translation, and here is the definition he listed in 1828 for the word “forgive”, noting also the contrast with the word “remit”:

FORGIVE, v.t. forgiv’. pret. forgave; pp. forgiven. [L. remitto. See Give.]

1. To pardon; to remit, as an offense or debt; to overlook an offense, and treat the offender as not guilty. The original and proper phrase is to forgive the offense, to send it away, to reject it, that is, not to impute it, [put it to] the offender. But by an easy transition, we also use the phrase, to forgive the person offending.
   “Forgive us our debts.”
   If we forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly father will also forgive you. Matt. 6.
   “As savages never forget a favor, so they never forgive an injury.”

It is to be noted that pardon, like forgive, may be followed by the name or person, and by the offense; but remit can be followed by the offense only. We forgive or pardon the man, but we do not remit him.
2. To remit as a debt, fine or penalty.

(Source: Noah Webster’s 1828 Dictionary Online)

Christ forgives a person who has sincerely repented, and does so because He suffered the consequences of the sin of that person by suffering the full demands of the penalty inflicted because of the law of justice. If that person offended someone and asks the forgiveness of that person (which they should do), and if the offended person forgives the person who offended them (which they should do), then neither of those actions by those two people negates the penalty for the sin.

Therefore, the person who sinned needs to confess the sin to God and ask for forgiveness, sincerely, in prayer and supplication to God with faith in Christ that his sin can and will be remitted (pardoned through atoning grace).

Christ forgives the person, and we can forgive the person, but the forgiveness Christ offers is the eternal forgiveness which absolves the demands of the law of justice because He bore the penalty, and the sin is truly “absolved” by Him unless the person commits the same sin again, in which case the sin returns to them and is “retained”.

We cannot “absolve” a sin, nor can a bishop nor an apostle, based on how Christ explained repentance, forgiveness, His healing power, and His power and authority to forgive sins. The apostles were “remitting sins” as far as declaring a person’s worthiness within the church since they held the keys to declare membership in the church–the kingdom of God on the earth–but they were not “remitting sins” as far as taking away the eternal penalty for the sin, because they themselves had not the authority nor the responsibility to do that. (Christ has that authority and responsibility, singularly given to Him always as the holder upon His shoulder of the key of David and as the Eternal Judge.)

The apostles weren’t “forgiving” people for the sins of those people. They were “remitting sins” from the standpoint of church membership worthiness, but if the Holy Ghost inspired the apostle to know that the person had not sincerely repented and had not made the change of life that would be the ultimate outcome of sincere repentance, then they would be inspired to “retain” the sin, meaning not declare that the sin was “remitted” from the standpoint of full and worthy membership in the kingdom of God on earth. This was both to protect the person from not partaking communion unworthily, and to protect other members from falling prey to someone who could be deceptive or be a predator in some way.

 

[RedDawgMCM]

Parker,

You still haven’t touched my response in post 308 or Kathleen Gee and Catholic-RCIA’s posts dealing with same…

I am curious as to your thoughts, disregarding the last sentence.

Allow me to apologize for that it might have been a touch out of line…

 

[ParkerD]

Jesus tells us, in
[BIBLEDRB]Matt. 9:6[/BIBLEDRB]

(Cf. Mk 2:10, Lk. 5:24)

He then goes on to tell the collected Apostles in the upper room, at which time there were 10 present, Judas having died of course and we know Thomas wasn’t there, that he sends them as the Father sent him.

[BIBLEDRB]John 20:21-23[/BIBLEDRB]

The Father sent the Son to forgive sins. He is sending his first priests/bishops out with the same mission.

St. Paul, commissioned by Peter himself by the laying on of hands, tells his charges in Corinth that if he has forgiven them their sins he has done so in the presence of Christ.

[BIBLEDRB]2 Cor. 2:10[/BIBLEDRB]

In Persona Christi, a mighty big phrase concerning priestly authority as handed down by Christ’s one church.

RedDawg,

Well at least now I have finally understood where the words “in persona Christi” come from in you’all’s beliefs.

The question is not whether God has given Christ the power on earth and in heaven to forgive sins–the question is what the two passages mean, John 20:21-23 and 2 Corinthians 2:10.

In order to understand those two passages, one should read the entire context of not only those chapters, but of other chapters within the book of John and within 2 Corinthians. Context is essential, because the scriptures are written both to probe our hearts and to confirm truths of the gospel–to probe our hearts as to our faith in Christ and our love of God and love of our fellow men, and to confirm the truth that Christ died for us and lives as a true resurrected Person and that His gospel which He gave to the world is true.

I suggest you read John 16:7-15 to glean the importance of the gift of the Holy Ghost to the apostles as well as to us. I suggest also understanding that the word “forgive” may be better understood as the word “remit” in John 20:23, which is the King James translation for the word that was used by Christ when He was “sending out” the apostles to testify of Him to the world and to keep the church purified. I suggest also reading Matthew 28:19-20 and adding that to the context of what they were being sent out to do, in order to understand the full commission they were being given.

I suggest also reading the first and second epistles of John, wherein he makes a distinction between a “sin unto death” and other sins which need repenting of, and reminds that the Spirit gives the witness of God, and that “if any man see his brother sin a sin which is not unto death, he shall ask, and he shall give him life for them that sin not unto death”–meaning that Christ gives life (see v. 12) to “them that sin not unto death” (meaning those who do not deny that “Jesus Christ is come in the flesh” and do not deny the Holy Ghost which is the unpardonable sin.) See also 2 John 9-11 which is a warning against not having fellowship with those who “abideth not in the doctrine of Christ.” (see v. 7 for that doctrine).

As far as Paul’s words “in the person of Christ” I would say that means “for your sakes forgave I it through the person of Christ”, meaning that Paul was willing to quickly forgive because he knew that Christ had suffered for all the sins of the world, and “lest Satan should get any advantage of us” by fomenting divisions and contentions, Paul was quick to forgive. (See also verses 14, 15 and 16 for context.) By taking upon us the name of Christ, we are to take upon us the attributes of Christ, which means being quick to forgive.

 

[catholic-rcia]

For myself Parker I am good with God being the only one that can forgive sins and the only one that can truly love all. Again I am happy to share in this love that is between the Father the Son through their Holy Spirit. I receive it as a gift, as one Created by them from a divine thought, surrendering my pitiful self into them to be one with them forever.

A good look at the Rock

Mathew 5:15
Neither do men light a candle, and put it under a bushel, but on a candlestick; and it giveth light unto all that are in the house.

This may help everyone here pause for at least a few minutes. It pretty much shows that the Holy Spirit has kept Christ’s Church very much alive in Him and despite the failings of more than just a few (the reason we have the Church)
It is fact that goes against the Mormon Apostasy that is put forth regarding Christianity, Gods gift in each of us.

1. Go to
   
2. Fact Sheet
   http://pseudo01.hddn.com/vod/cchvideo.catholicscomehom2/pdf/Epic_proof.pdf

 

[catholic-rcia]

For myself Parker I am good with God being the only one that can forgive sins and the only one that can truly love all. Again I am happy to share in this love that is between the Father the Son through their Holy Spirit. I receive it as a gift, as one Created by them from a divine thought, surrendering my pitiful self into them to be one with them forever.

A good look at the Rock

Mathew 5:15
Neither do men light a candle, and put it under a bushel, but on a candlestick; and it giveth light unto all that are in the house.

This may help everyone here pause for at least a few minutes. It pretty much shows that the Holy Spirit has kept Christ’s Church very much alive in Him and despite the failings of more than just a few (the reason we have the Church)
It is fact that goes against the Mormon Apostasy that is put forth regarding Christianity, Gods gift in each of us.

1. Go to
   
2. Fact Sheet
   http://pseudo01.hddn.com/vod/cchvideo.catholicscomehom2/pdf/Epic_proof.pdf

 

[Jay53]

Jay53,

A student of the Bible and a student of the English language becomes aware that dictionary definitions change based on the usage of the people. The usage in the 1600’s was different than the usage today.

Noah Webster made an effort to capture the usage reflected in the King James Bible translation, and here is the definition he listed in 1828 for the word “forgive”, noting also the contrast with the word “remit”:

(Source: Noah Webster’s 1828 Dictionary Online)

Christ forgives a person who has sincerely repented, and does so because He suffered the consequences of the sin of that person by suffering the full demands of the penalty inflicted because of the law of justice. If that person offended someone and asks the forgiveness of that person (which they should do), and if the offended person forgives the person who offended them (which they should do), then neither of those actions by those two people negates the penalty for the sin.

Therefore, the person who sinned needs to confess the sin to God and ask for forgiveness, sincerely, in prayer and supplication to God with faith in Christ that his sin can and will be remitted (pardoned through atoning grace).

Christ forgives the person, and we can forgive the person, but the forgiveness Christ offers is the eternal forgiveness which absolves the demands of the law of justice because He bore the penalty, and the sin is truly “absolved” by Him unless the person commits the same sin again, in which case the sin returns to them and is “retained”.

We cannot “absolve” a sin, nor can a bishop nor an apostle, based on how Christ explained repentance, forgiveness, His healing power, and His power and authority to forgive sins. The apostles were “remitting sins” as far as declaring a person’s worthiness within the church since they held the keys to declare membership in the church–the kingdom of God on the earth–but they were not “remitting sins” as far as taking away the eternal penalty for the sin, because they themselves had not the authority nor the responsibility to do that. (Christ has that authority and responsibility, singularly given to Him always as the holder upon His shoulder of the key of David and as the Eternal Judge.)

The apostles weren’t “forgiving” people for the sins of those people. They were “remitting sins” from the standpoint of church membership worthiness, but if the Holy Ghost inspired the apostle to know that the person had not sincerely repented and had not made the change of life that would be the ultimate outcome of sincere repentance, then they would be inspired to “retain” the sin, meaning not declare that the sin was “remitted” from the standpoint of full and worthy membership in the kingdom of God on earth. This was both to protect the person from not partaking communion unworthily, and to protect other members from falling prey to someone who could be deceptive or be a predator in some way.

No offense, Parker, but I think you’re playing games with semantics to justify your rejection of the Sacrament of Confession. I choose to believe Jesus when He gives His Apostles the power to forgive sins and tells them that He is sending them just as the Father sent Him. There is nothing in any of those pertinent passages to indicate that Jesus was talking about Church membership or worthiness of membership. Although I do appreciate your clarification of the Mormon position on this. Obviously (and especially given my personal experiences with this awesome Sacrament) I cannot agree with your interpretation - and given the fact that Mormon “priests” and/or “apostles” do not have the Apostolic Authority to forgive sins I understand how they are not worthy to do so.

Have a great day!

 

[KathleenGee]

Reading these responses, Parker, what I am seeing in them is essentially Protestantism…the foundation is to protest the obvious.

There is no way to truly argue points of the Bible without the history of its people.

The Word of God just doesn’t sit out there in space as a grab bag. It is not meant to be used for personal interpretation…especially using today to understand how the Church was set up 2,000 years ago.

There are flaws just in the text of the King James Version…

So to understand Sacred Scripture without its people, is akin to saying 1+1=3, 4, etc.

Repeating Deacon Cummings again, ‘All texts have contexts so that to ignore or be unaware of the context is to fail to interpret adequately the text. Or, more punchily put in an oft-quoted 20th century Catholic philosopher and theologian, Jesuit Father Bernard Lonergan, “All ideas have dates.” Knowing the context of a text, knowing its date and its originating circumstances are required to grasp the intention of the text and the author.’…

So if your religion is indoctrinating you that 1800 years of Christianity is false, you will also likewise refuse to want to study its history,…don’t want any of the dust to fluff off on you…it is understandable…

But there is a date, and it is the evening of the Resurrection of the Lord, Sunday evening, when He appeared to the Apostles and gave them the power to forgive sin, to loosen and bind…The wording is very clear. Then you take the next step…to see how the church was developed and grew, what was the norm of worship and belief.

I shared with you St. Justin the Martyr’s description of the Mass how it was said in Rome around 155 AD, and you rejected it. But you will believe much of the conjecturing of Mormonism that doesn’t have dates, archeological remains, or recognize that Jesus is the Light, that revelation ended with Him, not Joseph Smith, whose stories are so far outside the realm of Judeo Christian history.

I do not mean to be critical, but there is no context to Mormonism within salvation history. It rejects it. Mormonism rejects the fruit of Jesus Christ, The Word of God, which is His Church.

That being your construct, making us all apostate, also denies Christ and His mission.

It is better to be progressive as Christ is calling us to become. We are to be a Light in the world…not secretive and not reactionary to other Christians…

The foundation of Protestantism is to protest…and to not forgive those in the Church who did wrong. Christ already has forgiven those in the Church who sincerely sought Christ’s forgiveness.

The Lord said to do penance lest we likewise perish. Alot of times saying, “I’m sorry” can be very superficial. To make up for a wrong doing, a person needs to do more than just say a few words…actions do make up wrongs to those injured. Many times the damage we do to ourselves or to another that is sinful also impacts many others we are connect to.

How much time do we spend conjecturing…?..we all do that…It is better to stay with the faith and practice the Lord gave us, to seek unity in one faith and one baptism.