St. Ignatius who sat of Jesus' lap Matt. 18:3-4 & Mark 9:36 - how can anyone believe that there was a Great Apostacy after the deaths of the Apostles?

[Gottle_of_Geer]

"In the life of St. Ignatius the God-bearer, Bishop of Antioch, who was crowned in Rome with a martyr’s death under the emperor Trajan, we read the following: “When they were taking him to be devoured by wild beasts, and he had the name of Jesus constantly on his lips, the pagans asked him why he unceasingly remembered that name. The saint replied that he had the name of Jesus Christ written in his heart and that he confessed with his mouth Him Whom he always carried in his heart. After the saint had been eaten by the wild beasts, by the will of God among his bones his heart was preserved intact. The infidels found it, and then remembered what St. Ignatius had said. So they cut that heart into halves, wishing to know whether what they had been told was true. Inside, on the two halves of the heart that had been cut open, they found an inscription in gold letters: Jesus Christ. Thus St. Ignatius was in name and in fact a God-bearer, always carrying Christ our God in his heart, written by the reflection (or meditation) of his mind as with a reed.”
St. Ignatius was a disciple of the Holy Apostle and Evangelist John the Divine, and was privileged in his childhood to see the Lord Jesus Christ personally. He was that blessed child of whom it is said in the Gospel that the Lord placed him among the apostles who had been arguing about priority, took him in His arms and said: "Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven. Whosoever therefore shall humble himself as this little child, the same is greatest in the kingdom of heaven.
Certainly St. Ignatius was taught the prayer of Jesus by the holy Evangelist and practiced it in that flourishing period of Christianity like all other Christians. At that time all Christians learned the prayer of Jesus, firstly on account of the great importance of the prayer itself, and then on account of the sarcity and costliness of the handwritten holy books, on account of the rarity of literacy (most of the apostles were illiterate), and on account of the convenience, satisfaction and very special action and power of the prayer of Jesus."
From the book: On the Prayer of Jesus by Bishop Ignatius Brianchaninov

The child is never identified, so there is no way of telling who it may have been. Catholicism needs to be based on something better than traditions of unknown worth and origin, if people are to find it persuasive. Otherwise it becomes nothing but a medley of superstitions & inventions. ​

 

[Harpazo]

The child is never identified, so there is no way of telling who it may have been. Catholicism needs to be based on something better than traditions of unknown worth and origin, if people are to find it persuasive. Otherwise it becomes nothing but a medley of superstitions & inventions. ​

This is actually more Orthodox pious tradition.

St. Ignatius of Antioch, pray to Christ for us!

In Christ,
Andrew

 

[1beleevr]

I truly hope that the majority of catholics, do not seriously believe that the child, whose gender or name were never revealed to any of us, was ignatius

 

[zaffiroborant]

SingleMomMonica,
(I need to make a correction that John’s vision was in 90 AD, not 90 BC–woops.)

If one of God’s major objectives in this life is for people to learn to have faith in Him, then it wouldn’t work so well for a prophet to be recognized as the leader of the church that everyone would know about, who was a translated being not subject to the powers of the earth. After John had been translated and his body changed to that condition, he would no longer be considered mortal and would have a different purpose and mission than being the leader of the church among mortal people. It would be too much of a “sign” if John were to be standing in front of the whole world saying, “I am the apostle John you’ve read about in the New Testament, and I’m tarrying until Jesus comes again just as you’ve read that Jesus said I would do.” God wants us to learn by faith, not by signs. When John visits people on earth, he will not be telling them who he is and will not draw attention to himself in any way. He will just look like a normal person (probably dressed like the people he visits).

Elsewhere you have said that John was the senior apostle and as such the rightful leader of the church, and that the fact that he was not acknowledged as such is proof of the apostasy. Here you are saying John couldn’t be the leader of the church because then we would not have to rely on faith. Which is it?

 

[mjf001]

SingleMomMonica,
It’s OK with me that you believe the dramatic story about the heart being cut open and the “name” written (by the way, in what language and how many people wrote about the event?) and about Ignatius having been the child placed in the midst of the apostles when they were thinking Jesus would not want to be bothered by little children. (He taught an important lesson about infants and their purity with what He did and said at that time.) But the changes in church teachings and practices happened gradually and that story is an example of a fine dramatic story that moves some people but does not match Biblical truths about how God teaches faith and how the name of Jesus is to be written not within the physical heart but within the spiritual heart, by a person’s actions, attitudes, and how they love and forgive others.

If this is true,you’ll be able to back it up with proof instead of conjecture. I’m sorry if this sounds harsh, but I’ve read so many threads on the Great Apostasy, this gets old. If there was a great apostasy, it should be easy to prove. My bet is, just like all the other times I’ve challenged someone to prove it, I’ll get the same empty assertions,circular logic, subjective reasoning, maybe even quotes from some heretic. Anything but what was asked, actual bonafide evidence.

Michael

 

[choy]

Jesus said he’s the groom and the church is His bride

is Jesus a bad husband then if the LDS and the INC and the other restorationists believe that the true Chuch of Christ was apostatized?

Ephesians 5
22 Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. 23 For the husband is head of the wife, as also Christ is head of the church; and He is the Savior of the body. 24 Therefore, just as the church is subject to Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in everything.
25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself for her, 26 that He might sanctify and cleanse her with the washing of water by the word, 27 that He might present her to Himself a glorious church, not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing, but that she should be holy and without blemish. 28 So husbands ought to love their own wives as their own bodies; he who loves his wife loves himself. 29 For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as the Lord does the church. 30 For we are members of His body, of His flesh and of His bones. 31 “For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.” 32 This is a great mystery, but I speak concerning Christ and the church. 33 Nevertheless let each one of you in particular so love his own wife as himself, and let the wife see that she respects her husband.

 

[ParkerD]

Jesus said he’s the groom and the church is His bride

is Jesus a bad husband then if the LDS and the INC and the other restorationists believe that the true Chuch of Christ was apostatized?

Ephesians 5
22 Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. 23 For the husband is head of the wife, as also Christ is head of the church; and He is the Savior of the body. 24 Therefore, just as the church is subject to Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in everything.
25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself for her, 26 that He might sanctify and cleanse her with the washing of water by the word, 27 that He might present her to Himself a glorious church, not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing, but that she should be holy and without blemish. 28 So husbands ought to love their own wives as their own bodies; he who loves his wife loves himself. 29 For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as the Lord does the church. 30 For we are members of His body, of His flesh and of His bones. 31 “For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.” 32 This is a great mystery, but I speak concerning Christ and the church. 33 Nevertheless let each one of you in particular so love his own wife as himself, and let the wife see that she respects her husband.

Hi, Choy,
You might as well go ahead and read Hosea and think about whether the “bride” was faithful to the “groom” or whether the “bride” was the people who were supposed to be faithful but instead found traditions that were more appealing from what they saw around them (or brought in from around them), and departed from being faithful to what the “groom” was offering to them.

 

[ParkerD]

If this is true,you’ll be able to back it up with proof instead of conjecture. I’m sorry if this sounds harsh, but I’ve read so many threads on the Great Apostasy, this gets old. If there was a great apostasy, it should be easy to prove. My bet is, just like all the other times I’ve challenged someone to prove it, I’ll get the same empty assertions,circular logic, subjective reasoning, maybe even quotes from some heretic. Anything but what was asked, actual bonafide evidence.

Michael

Michael,
You have the privilege and opportunity to believe what you want to believe, and to follow your own heart. It’s sometimes called agency, the gift of choice. The evidence is clear enough if one reads the Bible and looks for every specific detail of how the gospel was lived, taught, and what it brought into people’s lives.

 

[ParkerD]

Elsewhere you have said that John was the senior apostle and as such the rightful leader of the church, and that the fact that he was not acknowledged as such is proof of the apostasy. Here you are saying John couldn’t be the leader of the church because then we would not have to rely on faith. Which is it?

Hi, Zaffiroborant,
Thanks for asking for the clarification.
John had the great vision of both the church being taken into the wilderness and of its restoration through an angel from heaven and its ultimate triumph through the power of Christ in overcoming the beast and the dragon, in about 90 AD. At that time, he was still a mortal and had not been translated, but the evidence is apparent that he was not being regarded as the living leader of the church at that time, even though he was evidently the last living apostle at that time and had been for some time. After he had had that vision and had recorded it and also recorded his other wonderful gospel writings, he was of age to die but instead did not die and became a translated being. He was a young man in 34 AD–perhaps 22 years old. That would make him 78 years old in 90 AD.

 

[zaffiroborant]

Hi, Zaffiroborant,
Thanks for asking for the clarification.
John had the great vision of both the church being taken into the wilderness and of its restoration through an angel from heaven and its ultimate triumph through the power of Christ in overcoming the beast and the dragon, in about 90 AD. At that time, he was still a mortal and had not been translated, but the evidence is apparent that he was not being regarded as the living leader of the church at that time, even though he was evidently the last living apostle at that time and had been for some time. After he had had that vision and had recorded it and also recorded his other wonderful gospel writings, he was of age to die but instead did not die and became a translated being. He was a young man in 34 AD–perhaps 22 years old. That would make him 78 years old in 90 AD.

Still this doesn’t address the point.

 

[Anna_Scott]

Anna,
I agree that John the Baptist was an “Elias”, and that Christ said he performed that calling of being an “Elias” and preparing the way for the ministry of Christ on the earth. John the Baptist knew that he had that kind of assignment.

Malachi 4 seems quite clearly to be talking about the Second Coming of Christ, if one reads verses 1 and 2 and compares with Matthew 24 and with Isaiah 11. You may be aware that Joseph Smith declared that Elijah the Prophet returned to the earth on April 3, 1836 to the Kirtland Temple and restored keys related to turning the hearts of the children to their fathers. That day was precisely the day in Jewish cultural heritage of the celebration of the anticipated coming of Elijah the Prophet (not surprising that he would come at the time they had anticipated, even though they didn’t realize it).

I referred to the apostle John as a “preparer of the way” because of his assignment to visit people who would be searching, and prepare their hearts for more knowledge concerning Jesus Christ and His gospel. I think even though he knew he had been told he would “tarry” on earth until the Second Coming of Christ (see John 21:21-23),

John was never boastful at all and wrote in the third person and would not have provided more clues about his assignment unless specifically directed by the Spirit. I would not expect the book of Revelation to attest about that assignment since the declaration of the Savior was recorded in the book of John.

ParkerD:

For the past 2 years, I attended the Women’s Passover Seder with one of my Jewish friends. They always set a place for Elijah, in anticipation of his return. I do understand the continuation of the Jewish tradition.

However, what you are saying just does not make sense and contradicts the Bible. According to Scripture, Elijah had already come. Christ said this.

The following link is from an LDS website. The article says Savior, Moses, Elias, and Elijah appeared in succession in the Kirtland Temple and restored the priesthood keys, on April 3, 1836. It says that Elijah’s coming had been prophesied in Malachi.

johnpratt.com/items/docs/lds/easter/elijah.html

“On Easter Sunday, 3 April 1836, the Savior, Moses, Elias, and Elijah appeared in succession in the Kirtland Temple and restored priesthood keys required for the dispensation of the fulness of times. (See D&C 110.) Elijah’s coming had been prophesied more than twenty-two centuries earlier by Malachi. (See Mal. 4:5; D&C 110:14.)”

This just doesn’t make sense. It sounds like someone took the story of the transfiguration and turned it into something else.

Who was “Elias” in this event?

I do not believe the priesthood keys were in need of restoration, or that there was a great apostasy.

As for the passage you quoted, verse 23 says, yet Jesus did not say to him that he was not to die, but, “If it is my will that he remain until I come, what is that to you?”
**
John Chapter 21 (ESV):**
Jesus and the Beloved Apostle
20 Peter turned and saw the disciple whom Jesus loved following them, the one who had been reclining at table close to him and had said, “Lord, who is it that is going to betray you?” 21 When Peter saw him, he said to Jesus, “Lord, what about this man?” 22 Jesus said to him, “If it is my will that he remain until I come, what is that to you? You follow me!” 23 So the saying spread abroad among the brothers that this disciple was not to die; yet Jesus did not say to him that he was not to die, but, "If it is my will that he remain until I come, what is that to you?"

I think the story of St. Ignatius is more believable, than the idea of a great apostasy and the story of the restoration of the priesthood keys to Joseph Smith; and I not even Catholic.

Anna

 

[ParkerD]

Still this doesn’t address the point.

Zaffiroborant,
I guess perhaps you disagree as to whether a translated being would be the leader designated by God to be His mouthpiece on earth for the entire body of the church to learn from, but in my mind it makes sense that once the prophet or apostle was translated, that meant their ministry had changed to a special new purpose that God had for them. I think John was removed from among the people he had lived around and went to a different place such as among the ten tribes’ descendants. We may not have record of those kinds of visits, but that doesn’t mean such things didn’t happen. All the history of the world isn’t written in the history books of today.

 

[ParkerD]

ParkerD:

For the past 2 years, I attended the Women’s Passover Seder with one of my Jewish friends. They always set a place for Elijah, in anticipation of his return. I do understand the continuation of the Jewish tradition.

However, what you are saying just does not make sense and contradicts the Bible. According to Scripture, Elijah had already come. Christ said this.

The following link is from an LDS website. The article says Savior, Moses, Elias, and Elijah appeared in succession in the Kirtland Temple and restored the priesthood keys, on April 3, 1836. It says that Elijah’s coming had been prophesied in Malachi.

This just doesn’t make sense. It sounds like someone took the story of the transfiguration and turned it into something else.

Who was “Elias” in this event?

I do not believe the priesthood keys were in need of restoration, or that there was a great apostasy.

As for the passage you quoted, verse 23 says, yet Jesus did not say to him that he was not to die, but, “If it is my will that he remain until I come, what is that to you?”
**
John Chapter 21 (ESV):**
Jesus and the Beloved Apostle
20 Peter turned and saw the disciple whom Jesus loved following them, the one who had been reclining at table close to him and had said, “Lord, who is it that is going to betray you?” 21 When Peter saw him, he said to Jesus, “Lord, what about this man?” 22 Jesus said to him, “If it is my will that he remain until I come, what is that to you? You follow me!” 23 So the saying spread abroad among the brothers that this disciple was not to die; yet Jesus did not say to him that he was not to die, but, "If it is my will that he remain until I come, what is that to you?"

I think the story of St. Ignatius is more believable, than the idea of a great apostasy and the story of the restoration of the priesthood keys to Joseph Smith; and I not even Catholic.

Anna

Anna,
Thanks for citing the John Pratt article, which I have read a few times during the past and reviewed it again from the link you posted. My dad has met him and been excited by his mathematical mind and knowledge of astronomy as well.

I wouldn’t expect anyone but the LDS members to believe that the visits of Elijah the Prophet, “Elias” (whom I suspect was Melchizedek, but that’s just a guess), Moses, and the Savior really happened on April 3, 1836, but that night many people saw angels hovering over the temple, and geneological research did indeed begin to gain much greater emphasis on the earth from that time on.

There actually is a pre-cursor to that 1836 event with the Transfiguration, in that Peter wanted to build three “tabernacles” or in other words, temples, so impressed he was by the sacred experience they had received. If only we knew what Peter knew!

I don’t blame you for staying with what has been comfortable for your personal set of beliefs. There is a kind of knowledge like Peter, James and John received during the Transfiguration, that puts one in a different frame of mind than normal everyday expectations people have. It would be called “revealed knowledge”.

 

[Arandur]

Zaffiroborant,
I guess perhaps you disagree as to whether a translated being would be the leader designated by God to be His mouthpiece on earth for the entire body of the church to learn from, but in my mind it makes sense that once the prophet or apostle was translated, that meant their ministry had changed to a special new purpose that God had for them. I think John was removed from among the people he had lived around and went to a different place such as among the ten tribes’ descendants. We may not have record of those kinds of visits, but that doesn’t mean such things didn’t happen. All the history of the world isn’t written in the history books of today.

Zaff’s point was that you say (as you do here) that John’s role did NOT involve being leader of the Church. But you also seem to fault the Church that John was “overlooked” as the “rightful leader” and use this as an evidence of apostasy. Which is it? You can’t have it both ways. It’s a self-contradictory position.

 

[ParkerD]

Zaff’s point was that you say (as you do here) that John’s role did NOT involve being leader of the Church. But you also seem to fault the Church that John was “overlooked” as the “rightful leader” and use this as an evidence of apostasy. Which is it? You can’t have it both ways. It’s a self-contradictory position.

Arandur,
OK–now I understand the question.

John would have been the rightful “leader of the church” up until the time he was translated, but he wasn’t recognized by either the people because they were being told by others who their leader was (not him), or by the leaders who were saying they were the ones (or the one) in charge of the church and trying to convince the people to follow them, so they weren’t following him either.

But John had the apostolic keys, which would have made him the designated leader of the church after all the other apostles had died, until he was translated and that moved him into a different role.

One very sure evidence that John was recognized as the leader and mouthpiece on earth by God is given by the fact that the book of Revelation contains a vision that no one else had, and that his vision and the writing of what he had seen provided revealed knowedge to the world which was new, unique, and very important.

 

[Arandur]

Arandur,
OK–now I understand the question.

John would have been the rightful “leader of the church” up until the time he was translated, but he wasn’t recognized by either the people because they were being told by others who their leader was (not him), or by the leaders who were saying they were the ones (or the one) in charge of the church and trying to convince the people to follow them, so they weren’t following him either.

But John had the apostolic keys, which would have made him the designated leader of the church after all the other apostles had died, until he was translated and that moved him into a different role.

One very sure evidence that John was recognized as the leader and mouthpiece on earth by God is given by the fact that the book of Revelation contains a vision that no one else had, and that his vision and the writing of what he had seen provided revealed knowedge to the world which was new, unique, and very important.

What about the writers of the other NT books? Did each cycle through as leaders of the Church?

 

[ParkerD]

What about the writers of the other NT books? Did each cycle through as leaders of the Church?

Arandur,
By the time Peter was killed and Andrew was killed between (it appears from the early writings) 60 AD and 70 AD, James the brother of John had already been killed; so John would have been the leading apostle after 70 AD or slightly earlier. (They were named in a designated order in the places they are all listed, and the Transfiguration would present strong evidence that Peter, James the brother of John, and John had leadership roles among the Twelve.)

Paul wrote epistles as an apostle called after Matthias and the original twelve had been called, so he was never the leading apostle based on John still being alive, and he never alludes to having a vision that announces new prophecy.

 

[choy]

Hi, Choy,
You might as well go ahead and read Hosea and think about whether the “bride” was faithful to the “groom” or whether the “bride” was the people who were supposed to be faithful but instead found traditions that were more appealing from what they saw around them (or brought in from around them), and departed from being faithful to what the “groom” was offering to them.

even if the people that make up the church were to become an unfaithful bride, wouldn’t the all-loving groom rescue His bride and save her?

the point being, Jesus will not allow the church to sink even if 99.9% become the unfaithful bride.

did the disobedience of the Israelites cast them out as God’s chosen people?

Acts 5:39
39 but if it is of God, you cannot overthrow it—lest you even be found to fight against God.”

 

[mjf001]

Michael,
You have the privilege and opportunity to believe what you want to believe, and to follow your own heart. It’s sometimes called agency, the gift of choice. The evidence is clear enough if one reads the Bible and looks for every specific detail of how the gospel was lived, taught, and what it brought into people’s lives.

I’m not into the relativism which you continually respond to so many of my posts. Logically, if both of us claim to be following the truth, one of us is not. And the kind of agency you propose, I would call license. One can not have true freedom without following the conscience and informed intellect which God gave us. I would propose if you you read the bible, putting aside your preconceived notions and reading the Bible as a whole, you might see something different. One can make the Bible say alot of things when you take one sentence or one small piece out of the context of the whole. Just because one can do that, does not mean the Bible is actually saying it.

In Christ,
Michael

 

[ParkerD]

even if the people that make up the church were to become an unfaithful bride, wouldn’t the all-loving groom rescue His bride and save her?

the point being, Jesus will not allow the church to sink even if 99.9% become the unfaithful bride.

did the disobedience of the Israelites cast them out as God’s chosen people?

Acts 5:39
39 but if it is of God, you cannot overthrow it—lest you even be found to fight against God.”

Hi, Choy,

That is pretty good reasoning. Please note the following verses in Hosea 3:

4 For the children of Israel shall abide many days without a king, and without a prince, and without a sacrifice, and without an image, and without an ephod, and without teraphim:
5 Afterward shall the children of Israel return, and seek the Lord their God, and David their king; and shall fear the Lord and his goodness in the latter days.

That passage has a promise similar to the following passage in Daniel 7:

21 I beheld, and the same horn made war with the saints, and prevailed against them;
22 Until the Ancient of days came, and judgment was given to the saints of the most High; and the time came that the saints possessed the kingdom.
23 Thus he said, The fourth beast shall be the fourth kingdom upon earth, which shall be diverse from all kingdoms, and shall devour the whole earth, and shall tread it down, and break it in pieces.
24 And the ten horns out of this kingdom are ten kings that shall arise: and another shall rise after them; and he shall be diverse from the first, and he shall subdue three kings.
25 And he shall speak great words against the most High, and shall wear out the saints of the most High, and think to change times and laws: and they shall be given into his hand until a time and times and the dividing of time.
26 But the judgment shall sit, and they shall take away his dominion, to consume and to destroy it unto the end.
27 And the kingdom and dominion, and the greatness of the kingdom under the whole heaven, shall be given to the people of the saints of the most High, whose kingdom is an everlasting kingdom, and all dominions shall serve and obey him.

So I would agree with you that the Groom will rescue His bride, but only after a “time, and times, and the dividing of time” but during that period of time a beast is able to have dominion upon the earth and according to John’s vision in Revelation 12,

14 “And to the woman were given two wings of a great eagle, that she might fly into the wilderness, into her place, where she is nourished for a time, and times, and half a time, from the face of the serpent.”

There was thus not only no guarantee that the Bride (the church as a group of Christ’s purely led followers) would remain continuously on the earth, but a prophecy that the Bride would not remain on the earth for “time, and times, and half a time” or “time, and times, and the dividing of time.”

Then after the beast or serpent has had power and dominion against the Bride (the members of the church), in Revelation 14:6 is a clear signal of an angel who would “have the everlasting gospel to preach unto them that dwell on earth.” Why an angel if the church already has the fullness of the gospel at that point in time?

Here is Revelation 14:6-7 with the glorious news of this angel–

6 “And I saw another angel fly in the midst of heaven, having the everlasting gospel to preach unto them that dwell on the earth, and to every nation, and kindred, and tongue, and people,
7 Saying with a loud voice, Fear God, and give glory to him; for the hour of his judgment is come: and worship him that made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and the fountains of waters.”