The Great Apostasy Debate

[TOmNossor]

Chris-WA:

Read this first. Then give us your take:

http://www.star.ucl.ac.uk/~vgg/rc/aplgtc/hahn/m4/pp.html

The link used Matthew 16:18 to argue that Peter was prime. I agree with this statement.

There are three ways to interpret Matthew 16:18.

Peter is the rock and the head of the earthly church. I think this is the strongest interpretation. Its main strength comes from the powerful symbolic linkage between cephas and cephas. (Petras and Petros). Combine this with the fact that it was probably spoken in the presence of a huge rock, and I think you have some pretty solid support for this interpretation. This is the most common interpretation of the ECF and is the only interpretation you hear today from Catholics. Past LDS leaders have mentioned this interpretation.

Revelation/inspiration are the rock. I think this is weaker than the above. It makes good grammatical sense, as I understand the Greek. Grammatically, I think it is the strongest position. Some ECF have used this interpretation. It is the most common interpretation by LDS.

Jesus is the rock. I consider this the weakest interpretation. Its strength lies in the consistency of the theme throughout the Bible. Why would God most regularly refer to Jesus/God/Messiah as the rock and change for this passage? This is the Protestant interpretation.

None of he above has to deal with “and the gates of hell will not prevail.” The little section that does talk about this has a couple of aspects in it that very much support my ideas.

It suggests that Ciaphus sits in the Chair of Moses. Yet we know that Ciaphus never ordained Jesus or Peter. How did the authority of Ciaphus transfer to the new church? I suggest that as Christians we must acknowledge that at a certain point the authority passed to Ciaphus (which I already considered a lesser authority for other reasons, but that is not important now) ceased to exist in the genealogical/ordination chain of Ciaphus. This authority transitioned through divine directive to Peter. This is exactly what I say occurred with Joseph Smith.

Also, Hahn (I think) makes a big deal about the Chair of Moses = the Chair of Peter. In the link that I provided (not the Noel Reynolds link) I show that Clement of Rome had no idea he was in the New Testament equivalent position of the Chair of Moses. He looks to someone other than himself to behave like Moses of old did.

Anyway, Hahn says little about why he thinks Matthew 16:18 means the church will not have an apostasy of authority. I say that Matthew 16:18 talks about “prevailing,” and to prevail is to win in the end. Just as Jesus Christ prevailed over death, but really did die. The church will prevail / is prevailing in the end, but really did apostatize.

Charity, TOm

 

[Tmaque]

Tom, I’m curious. Do you, like almost every Mormon I know, subscribe to the notion that the LDS church will never go astray? If so, what do you base this on? If not, what changes in doctrine or practices would constitute evidence of an apostasy in your mind?

 

[TOmNossor]

catholic-rcia:

Dear Tom

“the absence of supernatural public revelation”

I myself am a testimony that it is not absent. It is very much alive in my life. It is the revelation of my Christ, the restoration of me.

Supernatural public revelation is denied by the Catholic Church. Can individual Catholics receive revelation for themselves from supernatural sources in Catholic theology? Yes they can. Can an EC or a Pope be guided by the Holy Spirit as the define doctrine in accordance with Tradition? Yes. Can God reveal new information to an EC, the Pope, or a faithful Catholic that is meant to become doctrine for the church? NO! The Catholic Church expressly denies this.

If you have received supernatural public revelation, you will need to start your own church so that you may share this with others. The Catholic Church will not recognize your revelation and will not recognize whatever it was that you received as from God and meant to define Catholic doctrine.

The Old Testament prophets received supernatural public revelation. The New Testament apostles (Peter) received supernatural public revelation. The CoJCoLDS believe that the prophet can receive supernatural public revelation. But the Catholic Church does not believe that anyone or any combination of folks receive supernatural public revelation. This is an inadequately explained inconsistency in the way God interacts with his children. Could God interact like this? Yes. Do I see a good reason for Him to have changed and now interact like this? No.

“Was there a time when authoritative Baptism was the rule and later this was abolished? Could this lead to the loss of even the lesser authority?”

I am the thief on the cross so I can answer this, I am Catholic. If a soldier lies dying on the battlefield and turns to Christ would he deny him a Baptism because a Priest is not near, nor water? Christ is Christ, he is who he is. He is my hope always.

I hear what you are saying, but St. Cyprian I think would take exception to your reasoning as do I. Augustine would likewise have no problem suggesting that the soldier was non-elect else God could have reached him with baptism (assuming he died without non-authoritative baptism).

And surely you know that the CoJCoLDS has the perfect solution. 1 Cor 15 speaks of Baptism for the Dead. We practice this today. We have proper words, spirit, and matter (in our opinion). Contrast this to Baptism of Desire and Bible’s and the early church’s emphasis upon WATER baptism. To me authoritative baptism and Baptism for the Dead are a much better read on the situation than non-authoritative baptism and Baptism of Desire.

cont…

 

[TOmNossor]

“Is there any good explanation for Joseph Smith’s ability to restore these doctrines?”

Yes, Christ already did. He restores us from our fallen nature. Joseph Smith is me, I cannot restore what Christ restored already.

Perhaps you didn’t understand my point. Joseph Smith either received from God or fabricated doctrines that today we can show existed in the early church. Since Joseph Smith did not have access to the books we have today, how did he so regularly choose ancient doctrines?

catholic-rcia:
“Would Justin Martyr, Clement of Rome, Ignatius, or Polycarp recognize today’s Catholic Church as the faithful development of the church they belonged too?”

Oh yes they would. Not only that, when I attend Mass they are there, they are me and I them. How do I know this? “Revelation.” We are a church of the living. The Mass extends to all without time or place. It is a daily Miracle. We are the body of Christ.

That is a wonderful belief, but it is merely something that you embrace as true. The things I speak of above are facts that point to the validity of the restoration. My question relates to the writings of those 4 men and how they align with the CoJCoLDS vs. the Catholic Church. This particular question I consider more of a toss up than an evidence for the CoJCoLDS. There were a number of things inconsistent with the modern Catholic Church written by these four men. Some of these find a solid home in the restoration. Other things they wrote about (Ignatius and the real presence) are more problematic for the CoJCoLDS. I (and I am BIASED) would generally think there are fewer LDS problems than Catholic problems during these very early writings, but I think either position is far from definitive.

catholic-rcia:

This is my Catholic Studies and it serves Christ well. He brings his lost sheep hope, he brings His lost sheep Home. I am more than happy to be upon His back. I am a sinner, he alone is my savior. I do not have to study anothers fall. No, what need would I have of that?

I think the Catholic is in a stronger position here than any other Christian or Moslem. The Jew could explain that Catholics must embrace uninspired New Testament fables to reject the solid Jewish faith.

In any case, I could testify to the reality of the restoration and my personal spiritual witness of the CoJCoLDS, then suggest I know that the Catholic Church does not have valid authority because I know the CoJCoLDS does. This would hardly be a position defendable from reason, but I respect those who embrace it. If you will regularly defend the validity and completeness of this truism of mine or beg (prevent) Catholics to stop asking me for evidence of the apostasy, I will be happy to quietly bear my testimony. There is strength in this that I do not completely realize. But I am not convinced that this is the path most conducive to learning and dialoguing on Catholic Answers.

In truth you often seem to be bearing your testimony to me rather than interacting with what I say. I respect this, but I do not know how to respond other than to show why I do not think you have addressed my points. I could bear my testimony back to you, but that would leave us at a standoff. What I see from history suggests to me that I should not rest at a standoff. Not only is it important IMO form my church that our faith not continue to be ridiculed and looked at as some second rate fabrication only a fool could embrace, but I think the LDS position is stronger than the Catholic position.

Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

Benadam:

everything you claim denies the eternal nature of Christ , Truth, and His relationship with us. Eternal realities are the immovable movers, and first causes, they are not subject to changes apart from their source making the change known. You talk about the shift from Moses to Jesus but note that Jesus never said Moses lost, or ever was to lose the ‘eternal’ authority of God, in fact Jesus said Moses will in that authority judge the jews who keep the law. There is no way to debate into obscurity the placement or the authority of God. It’s like his gifts, he won’t take it away once given.

What I said is that we need to agree that the authority Ciaphus (who sat in the Chair of Moses) passed to his successor did not result in Ciaphus’ successor having the authority of God. The authority of God was possessed by Peter when the successor of Ciaphus THOUGHT he possessed this authority. I do not think we can disagree here, but perhaps I am wrong.

I just suggest that if Matthew 16:18 does not promise the continuation of authority in the Catholic Church (which of course I do not think it does), then historical precedent clearly shows that authority can be lost and delivered from God to another.

Benadam:
There is an apostacy and like all prophecies they describe foundational events that have already been, that echo throughout history as they work out the end in time, and finally complete themselves in God’s time. The Apostacy begun while the Apostles were here, as Paul said it isa working in secret and will be revealed when the Man of Sin shows himself openly.

I am not sure I understand what you are saying here. It seems interesting. Are you suggesting that in a few Popes we will have Peter II and he will be killed by the “Man of Sin.” This will then be the completion of the Apostasy that started and has been underway from 2000 years (note I put in a little prophesy of St. Malachy that you didn’t mention).

Benadam:
I live a few miles from the Temple in Mesa Az, so, I am familiar with Mormons and the faith. If I seem a bit too familiar, it’s because I grew up Catholic with alot of Mormon friends and it was sometimes a very hot subject that would end with " wanna go to the baseball field and hit a few?"

That is terrific. I grew up Catholic, but learned most of the things I know about Catholicism when I considered returning to the Catholic Church. I have continued to learn. And I try to eat dinner with a Catholic family 2-3 times a month, but that would be may parents and my mom is quite a good cook so perhaps that is not too admirable.

cont…

 

[TOmNossor]

Benadam:

Wait, I didn’t say you did. I said that you believed the physical world lacks the ability to offer incorrupt Truth . That is gnostic thinking that denies Christ’s victory of corruption IMHO.

I am unaware that there is much said in LDS thought that aligns with, “the physical world lacks the ability to offer incorrupt Truth.”

I am not sure exactly where you are going with this. Here are a couple of thoughts.

I believe that without the authority of God to lead the worldwide church, errors were introduced into Catholic doctrine. I believe that mostly good men made these errors as they generally tried to do the best they could. I do not believe the errors where strictly damnable. Some mistaken thoughts about Christology will not prevent the Christian from following God. But in the absence of authority some mistakes were made.

Or

Catholic use the term “natural revelation” (I use the term to mean something different on occasion so I hope I will not confuse anyone). I think much of the concept of “natural revelation” derived from St. Thomas Aquinas. He argued that one could KNOW there was a God by observing the world around them. The God one would know would not necessarily be the fullness of the Christian God, but this could be the next step after becoming convinced there must be some God. The world witnesses this truth to us. I believe this generally, but LDS do not emphasize it. LDS emphasize that God will literally communicate with you (although not regularly as one man speaks to another, but still a literal communication) if you seek wisdom and ask of Him. We seldom speak of the ideas St. Thomas Aquinas used to show God must exist (at least one of them is incompatible with LDS beliefs anyway). LDS do however also believe that the Light of Christ will shine into the hearts of all men such that they may make an informed decision to follow or reject God. Like natural revelation the decision made based upon this light may not produce a believe that appears Christian (it is hard to have semi-orthodox beliefs in Christ if you have never heard of any such person as Christ). As I understand this universal opportunity it will provide all men an earthly opportunity to begin to walk with God such that post-mortally they may increase their knowledge, but in this life they made the commitment.

Charity, TOm

P.S. It is very frustrating to lose a long post.

 

[TOmNossor]

Tmaque:

Tom, I’m curious. Do you, like almost every Mormon I know, subscribe to the notion that the LDS church will never go astray? If so, what do you base this on? If not, what changes in doctrine or practices would constitute evidence of an apostasy in your mind?

I would say that it is solidly LDS thought that this is the last dispensation and that the authority of the CoJCoLDS will not apostatize. That being said, it is solidly Catholic doctrine that the authority of the Catholic Church will not apostatize.

It is my position that we must all walk with God. As a believer in Christ’s organization, I believe we should walk with God utilizing His church to aid us in our personal relationship with Him. However, I am a theist first, a Christian second, and a LDS third. I hope to find myself so close to Christ that I can hear Him call me regardless of the din of voices coming from the world or the church.

As a believer in past apostasies of authority, I think it unwise to boldly state it can never happen again. But as a believer in authority, I think it unwise to reject Christ’s authority without powerful reasons.

All will be as God desires it to be. I hope (and have faith that) I am with Him and in alignment with His desires.

Charity, TOm

 

[dennisknapp]

TOmNossor:

I would say that it is solidly LDS thought that this is the last dispensation and that the authority of the CoJCoLDS will not apostatize. That being said, it is solidly Catholic doctrine that the authority of the Catholic Church will not apostatize.

It is my position that we must all walk with God. As a believer in Christ’s organization, I believe we should walk with God utilizing His church to aid us in our personal relationship with Him. However, I am a theist first, a Christian second, and a LDS third. I hope to find myself so close to Christ that I can hear Him call me regardless of the din of voices coming from the world or the church.

As a believer in past apostasies of authority, I think it unwise to boldly state it can never happen again. But as a believer in authority, I think it unwise to reject Christ’s authority without powerful reasons.

All will be as God desires it to be. I hope (and have faith that) I am with Him and in alignment with His desires.

Charity, TOm

Why are you not Catholic?

On another thread you offered an insightful response regarding Catholicism. I am just curious as to why you are not part of the historical Church. You seem so smart.

Peace

 

[TOmNossor]

dennisknapp:

Why are you not Catholic?

On another thread you offered an insightful response regarding Catholicism. I am just curious as to why you are not part of the historical Church. You seem so smart.

Peace

DennisKnapp,

I think you got to this thread before you could follow my linking you to this thread. Hello.

I explain in this thread a number of things that cause me to embrace the restoration rather than the Catholic Church.

RC Sproul, Pelikan, and Cardinal Newman are certainly smarter than I am, but yet they embrace three different faith traditions and not one of them is/was a LDS. At one point in time I might have been able to think that they just never looked into the CoJCoLDS properly, but I know a Catholic (who occasionally posts here) who has most definitely looked into the CoJCoLDS. He is smarter and more knowledgeable (Catholic and CoJCoLDS) than I am, but he chose to become a Catholic. Why do he, Sproul, and Pelikan see differently than I do? I do not know. While this truth makes my worldview more complex it also makes it more wonderful.

I invite you who say, “you seem so smart” to embrace a more complex worldview too. I do not know why honest seekers do not always find the same path to God, but evidence suggests to me that this is exactly how things are. I, like you, do and must have room for the concept of one true church, but I also must place this beside what seems so obvious to me. Surely if there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church, I am invincibly ignorant because I just cannot see it.

Charity, TOm

 

[Benadam]

“the physical world lacks the ability to offer incorrupt Truth.”
I am not sure exactly where you are going with this.

I’m refering to the perception of an apostacy early in Church History coupled with the authority of an eyewitness account given to the apostles and claimed nby the mormon Church even though they lack the eyewitness of the Image of God external to themselves.

I believe that without the authority of God to lead the worldwide church, errors were introduced into Catholic doctrine.

If Jesus establisherd God’s authority directly and visibly on earth I don’t understand how it can disappear and even more astounding to me anyway is how it can reappear and be given authenticity.

P.S. It is very frustrating to lose a long post.

yes, thank you. Somehow I imagine you have experienced that frustration as well.

 

[catholic-rcia]

“Surely if there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church, I am invincibly ignorant because I just cannot see it”

It is because the Catholic Church is Christ to us. The Body of Christ is Christ to us. The Communion of Saints is Christ to us. The Sacraments are Christ to us. The Mass is Christ to us, the Eucharist is Christ given to us. The Cross is Christ for us. This Church has overflowed to all other Christian sects who proclaim the name of Christ. Without Christ no one could be saved whether they proclaim the Catholic faith or not. It is Christ, who saves, and Christ is the Catholic Church, the Catholic Church is Christ. This Church comes to me in the Sacraments. I come to the Sacraments. I always come to Christ in the Catholic Church and Christ always comes to me in the Catholic Church. We are the body of Christ, broken as we may be, healed as we are.

“Surely if there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church, I am invincibly ignorant because I just cannot see it”

As a Catholic I can see it. It is just another reason why I myself became Catholic. All will be saved who turn to him such as the theif on the Cross. But you need to hear the Shepards voice otherwise you can be lost to another voice. The Catholic Church is His voice calling me to communion with Him. To be healed by Him.

 

[Tmaque]

TOmNossor:

As a believer in past apostasies of authority, I think it unwise to boldly state it can never happen again. But as a believer in authority, I think it unwise to reject Christ’s authority without powerful reasons.

Charity, TOm

I agree that it is unwise to reject Christ’s authority without powerful reasons. So, it sounds like you do believe it is at least possible for the LDS church to drift into apostasy. If so, what changes in doctrine or practices would constitute evidence of an apostasy in your mind? I’m not trying to bait you I’m just very curious.

 

[Benadam]

TOmNossor:

“the physical world lacks the ability to offer incorrupt Truth.”

I am not sure exactly where you are going with this. Here are a couple of thoughts.

I believe that without the authority of God to lead the worldwide church, errors were introduced into Catholic doctrine.

Charity, TOm

Maybe I can clarify using the last comment in the quote window above. In order for error to adulterate the Church’s teaching it had to of lost God’s authority according to your comment. Why would this occur to an error free Church? On the one hand if it has God’s authority it can’t err, on the other if it err’s it’s because it’s lost God’s authority.

 

[TOmNossor]

Tmaque:

I agree that it is unwise to reject Christ’s authority without powerful reasons. So, it sounds like you do believe it is at least possible for the LDS church to drift into apostasy. If so, what changes in doctrine or practices would constitute evidence of an apostasy in your mind? I’m not trying to bait you I’m just very curious.

There was a period of time when I prayed to know if the CoJCoLDS was true. I sure seemed like it was true to me, but I did not believe that it is impossible that I could have been deceived. Having received answers to this prayer, I no longer pray it. Instead, I pray that I will be guided by God and follow Him as He directs. I have faith that if you are correct and I am in need of being called from the CoJCoLDS, God knows me perfectly and loves me enough to reach me. This is probably the corner stone of what is necessary to call me out of Mormonism.

There are perhaps some radical developments that could occur within the CoJCoLDS that would cause me to return to praying more direct prayers. Perhaps the church moves away from many of the doctrines that witness to me that we are a restoration. Perhaps the historicity of the BOM is challenged such that I no longer view it as the best or even the most likely explanation for the BOM. More radical than these are things like perhaps a basement of the old Vermont home of the Smiths is uncovered containing Lucy’s extensive library and first few drafts of the BOM (and of course I felt compelled to believe that it was authentic).

I am also unwilling to reject out of hand some of the claims by folks who suggest they have received new records or … I try to not be unduly skeptical, but I suspect that I am. I have yet to be convinced there was something God felt I must have coming from these groups. Perhaps one day I will be convinced there is in fact something I must have.

Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

Benadam:

Maybe I can clarify using the last comment in the quote window above. In order for error to adulterate the Church’s teaching it had to of lost God’s authority according to your comment. Why would this occur to an error free Church? On the one hand if it has God’s authority it can’t err, on the other if it err’s it’s because it’s lost God’s authority.

I know see what you are saying. I do not think I have suggested that it was errors in doctrine that lead to the withdrawal of authority. It is my position that errors in doctrine can show us that the authority was not present.

I believe there is good historical reason to suggest that Peter’s authority was not passed to Linus, Cletus, or Clement.

When asked why Peter’s authority was not passed, I provide a few ideas. The first is that Christ was born, died, and resurrected. His Bride was to also undergo the same birth, apostasy, and restoration.

In addition to this, I believe that there was a unique time in the history of mankind that men would kill their God. The sinless man, the benevolent Christ was killed by those who should have welcomed Him the most. Never before nor since has a people developed to this state. Other aspects of this time were critical to Christ’s ministry. Pax Romama was integral to the spreading of Christianity and the survival of the witness of Christ and the Bible. This Roman rule afforded a modicum of protection for Christ, but was crucial for Paul’s ministry. However, this time also did not allow for esoteric doctrines and even many non esoteric doctrines to be preserved in a worldwide church. That would need to occur in a different age. This different age and place would be such that men would not kill their God, but freedom of religion would be an ideal if not totally a reality.

I do not suggest that God can not cause to come to pass whatever God wishes to cause to come to pass, but I do suggest that certain divine intercessions may compromise our agency. God could boldly intervene in the lives of every bishop who ever had hands laid upon him. God could provide inspiration and visions such that demonstrable unity resulted in His human church even without the modern communications devices we enjoy today. But I suggest to do this would be to radically change the faith landscape of our world. It would be an amazing apologetic to show that every controversy east and west that ever arose was resolved locally with the same resolution. This was not to be the way God would witness himself to local or future Christians.

So I have mostly spent time pointing to what I consider to be evidences of the apostasy. Why the worldwide authority was not passed on, I have ideas about; but I have never seen some type if definitive revelation concerning the mind of God in this area. That the early bishops had no idea Peter’s authority rested with the Bishop of Rome seems obvious. That the Pastor of Hermas seemed to suggest the apostasy was at hand, seems likely. That doctrines developed in many cases from LDS beliefs to modern Catholic beliefs, seems obvious (IMO). I think the above idea (largely from Scott P from ZLMB) provides a more solid “why” than I see for the, “why does God interact differently with His children today than he did during the Old and New Testament?” But, I spend most of my time discussion what I see as evidences of the apostasy rather than trying to glean why God did what God did.

Charity, TOm

 

[Benadam]

TOmNossor:

I know see what you are saying. I do not think I have suggested that it was errors in doctrine that lead to the withdrawal of authority. It is my position that errors in doctrine can show us that the authority was not present.

The traditions that introduced error into the Jewish religion condemned by Christ didn’t prevent Christ from advising (pp) " Do as they tell you but don’t copy what they do" Also Scripture states that the Jews who remain under the Law will be judged by Moses.

So even today Moses’ authority exists and is real on earth. But so is a higher authority from Christ. They aren’t mutually exclusive. They relate to one another just as the testamnts do. One is hidden in the other.

There have been men who wield that authority who Jesus would call a brood of vipers but the authority they wield is not dependent on their sanctity as evidenced by Christ when He refered to the authority of God that He himself served from Moses. “If they would obey Moses they would have obeyed me.”

Christ refered to Jerusalem and it’s leaders as a generation who’s hands were red with the blood of all the prophets. His reference becomes the terminology in Revelation for the symbol of idolatry, the city of Babylon. This state of the seat of authority from Moses didn’t cause authority to be withdrawn. Those leaders in Jerusalem who wielded it were disobedient brutes who lacked the desire for what is true yet Christ said to obey them.

I have to disagree that percieved error is evidence of the absence of God’s authority, Especially in light of the fact that even though Moses allowed divorce (something those who sat on the chair of Moses considered Jesus’ taught as error) He didn’t say that it was a decision that lacked the Authority of God.

 

[TOmNossor]

Benadam:

The traditions that introduced error into the Jewish religion condemned by Christ didn’t prevent Christ from advising (pp) " Do as they tell you but don’t copy what they do" Also Scripture states that the Jews who remain under the Law will be judged by Moses.

So even today Moses’ authority exists and is real on earth. But so is a higher authority from Christ. They aren’t mutually exclusive. They relate to one another just as the testamnts do. One is hidden in the other.

This is not quite as far from what I believe occurred as you might think. I believe that Peter had the higher authority, but that Clement of Rome did not, but I believe Clement of Rome had a lesser authority. I have suggested the lesser authority possessed by Clement of Rome ceased to be passed on when the ordaining of future authorities was so perverted by error that valid ordination no long occurred.

The Catholic Church does not recognize Lutheran holy orders. The Catholic Church does not recognize LDS confirmations. When a Lutheran or a LDS convert they are always re-confirmed (and rebaptized in the case of LDS). The Lutheran minister if he is to continue his ministry would receive Holy Orders from valid Catholic authority. I believe the lesser authority LIKELY fell victim to the practice of accepting heretical baptism. Eventually everyone was baptized by a heretic (non-validly baptized individual) or ordained by one who was baptized by a heretic. This LIKELY resulted in an absence of the valid authority.

Concerning the question of error. Two things I think are important. If Jesus Christ were to appear to you, your priest, and your bishop in response to fervent prayer from the three of you and communicate that the decision of the 4th Lateran council regarding Creation ex Nihilo was neither true nor in accordance with apostolic tradition; what would that mean for the authority of the Catholic Church and the 4th Lateran council? If a foundational belief (that the EC are sealed by as God’s truth due to the authority of the Catholic Church) of the Catholic Church is shown to be in error this would be a “fatal flaw.”

If one day woman are ordained as priests despite the words of John Paul II (and Cardinal Ratzinger telling us that he was not speaking infallibly but only because there was no need to define this since it was already defined which I considered curious) I think the Catholic Church would have introduced a “fatal flaw” into their history. This would be a doctrinal error (or the previous forbidding of female priests would be the error), but it would be an error that demonstrated the absence of valid authority.

I agree that Popes have taught error and this is not a fatal flaw. But with the understanding of what the outcome of an EC means were we to decide this outcome was error, this would introduce a contradiction into Catholic history that I do not think is explainable.

This is how error indicates apostasy. Does that make sense?

I believe the 4th Lateran council did err. I believe God did not seal the decision of the 4th Lateran council. If I could prove this beyond a shadow of a doubt, I would consider it a “fatal flaw.” But, this remains my opinion. I can show that creation ex nihilo was not embraced before the later part of the second century, but I do not think I can convincingly show that it is opposed to apostolic tradition (just that it likely was).

Charity, TOm

 

[Chris-WA]

TOmNossor:

Perhaps you didn’t understand my point. Joseph Smith either received from God or fabricated doctrines that today we can show existed in the early church. Since Joseph Smith did not have access to the books we have today, how did he so regularly choose ancient doctrines?

I don’t think this is true. What doctrines did Joseph Smith receive that existed in the early church? I think you take leaps that simply aren’t there.

TOmNossor:

Some of these find a solid home in the restoration. Other things they wrote about (Ignatius and the real presence) are more problematic for the CoJCoLDS. I (and I am BIASED) would generally think there are fewer LDS problems than Catholic problems during these very early writings, but I think either position is far from definitive.

Charity, TOm
Tom, I don’t know where this is coming from. I don’t know if you’re reading these things out of context or what, but when I read them they sound much more Catholic than Mormon to me. The terminology, the idea of the continuing church, the real presence of the Eucharist, the complete lack of anything regarding a general apostacy–these all support the Catholic position. These men believed in a continuing church with authority, they believed in the Eucharist, their worship describes a mass (not a sacrament meeting), they don’t say anything about celestial marriage, etc., etc., etc. I think you’ve dived so deeply looking for anything supporting the Mormon position from these early Christians that you’ve lost the big picture.

 

[Chris-WA]

TOmNossor:

There was a period of time when I prayed to know if the CoJCoLDS was true. I sure seemed like it was true to me, but I did not believe that it is impossible that I could have been deceived. Having received answers to this prayer, I no longer pray it.
Charity, TOm

I believe there is one truth and not many. I believe that God would never deceive us. I believe that many people from different religions approach this in the same way you did, and that they all believe they received answers to their prayers confirming the truth of their particular religion. I therefore believe it is possible to pray this prayer and be deceived, even though we “know” it was God who answered us. I even believe it is possible for the adversary to give us internal confirmations that untrue things are true, which we interpret as answers from God. I cannot see into your heart, so I don’t know what happened in your case, but such possibilities exist.

 

[tkdnick]

Chris-WA:

I believe there is one truth and not many. I believe that God would never deceive us. I believe that many people from different religions approach this in the same way you did, and that they all believe they received answers to their prayers confirming the truth of their particular religion. I therefore believe it is possible to pray this prayer and be deceived, even though we “know” it was God who answered us. I even believe it is possible for the adversary to give us internal confirmations that untrue things are true, which we interpret as answers from God. I cannot see into your heart, so I don’t know what happened in your case, but such possibilities exist.

I think that explanation is the only way in which we find ourselves in the midst of so many who believe so fervently that their church is the right church.