WHY do you [if you do?] think the RCC is not the One true Church founded by Christ?

[PJM]

It’s pretty late here so I will and can respond to that in due time.

The main thing still not addressed/answered would be, do you consider the Bible needed in light of those questions. From a Catholic view it seems obvious but you seem to work around it. You responded quite well from a Catholic viewpoint but still did not answer that. I write this rather out of sadness as I respected your posts, if you do not believe the Bible is needed, our common ground becomes meaningless. I do not refer to Sola Scriptura or anything a Catholic would consider extreme. Purely, “IS the Bible needed”? You seem to say yes and no. It’s a simple question that needs to be answered.

Regards

Thanks Michael

In an absolute sense NO, as God can do ANY good thing; that said though from a practical perspective, it would seem that the Bible is a ESSENTIAL tool God uses to make Himself & His teachings known to us. Therefore it is priceless.

It certainly has proven its merit over the centuries.

Because the Bible is GOD’S choice, it then in an absolute sense IS needed, if one is to actually Know, love, serve and OBEY God. Amen!

God Bless you

Patrick

 

[PJM]

Part one we mostly agree

23 BRANCHES. One SET of Dogmatic & Doctrinal beliefs; with some difference in Traditions and practices

Part 2

We agree in part

Certainly from JUDAS onward their were other self-identified-“christian’s” BUT not in significant numbers until the early pre-schism; … GREAT Eastern Schism around 500 AD where a group of Orthodox churches abandoned BOTH Rome and the Orthodox Churches.

I have no intention of portraying myself as a historian, which I am not, and have no desire to become.

So your criticisms are welcomed and correct.

GBY

Patrick

 

[Moonboots]

It’s pretty late here so I will and can respond to that in due time.

The main thing still not addressed/answered would be, do you consider the Bible needed in light of those questions. From a Catholic view it seems obvious but you seem to work around it. You responded quite well from a Catholic viewpoint but still did not answer that. I write this rather out of sadness as I respected your posts, if you do not believe the Bible is needed, our common ground becomes meaningless. I do not refer to Sola Scriptura or anything a Catholic would consider extreme. Purely, “IS the Bible needed”? You seem to say yes and no. It’s a simple question that needs to be answered.

Regards

Hi Michael,

I haven’t kept up with the pace of this thread to know the entire backstory, but did get a chance to check the last few pages and wanted to respond to this specific question.

I have to echo the “yes and no” answer, if just for this reason. The entire deposit of faith, the whole New Covenant, the plan for our salvation was given in full from the Word made Flesh, Jesus Christ, to His Apostles. That’s why public revelation ceased with the death of the last Apostle, St. John, after his penning of the Apocalypse. I doubt you’d find any educated and believing Catholic or Protestant who would say differently.

Consider that the earliest New Testament books were penned in the decade of the 50s AD, through Paul’s letters, and most scholars agree that the first Gospel (Mark) wasn’t completed until around the time of the fall of the temple in 70 AD. St. John’s vision didn’t occur until closer to 100 AD. Regardless of the discrepancies in dating, we can say with reasonable certainty that the books were not being penned as the events were happening, as they are a recollection of the orally passed down tradition of the Church.

With that in mind, let’s assume that the text we see depicted in Matthew 18 - “You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church” - occurred in 32-33 AD real time, prior to the Passion and Resurrection. From that moment, Christ created His Church and She existed. Through the events of the Passion and Resurrection, and the descent of the Holy Spirit, those gifts to the Church were completed. Let’s date that, roughly, at later 33 or early 34 AD.

So now, we’re 10-15 years before St. Paul’s letters are written, and the spread of the Gospel being depicted in Acts is organically occurring in real time. The leaders of the Church - that is all Twelve Apostles and those they have appointed to ministry (Timothy, Titus in Scripture, Clement, Ignatius, and others by what we know from history) are spreading the Gospel, fully equipped with everything they need to lead all people to salvation through Jesus Christ.

The dates above are a scholarly estimate - not an approximate value. I don’t want the minutia here to dilute the point I’m trying to make. The real world timing of these events - which we believe as Christians are the Truth, the thing that tells us about the world, its origins, its culmination and how to unite ourselves with our loving Creator for all eternity - causes my answer to your question to be a contingent no, the Bible is not needed to debate or to live out these questions. The Grace of Jesus Christ needed to save souls existed before a Word of the New Testament was penned.

With that being said, thanks be to God, in His plan He included the passing on of this message through the Written as well as the Oral form, so inasmuch as the Sacred Scripture - the God-breathed Written Word - affirms Truth from this same deposit of faith, both implicitly and explicitly within its Sacred Texts. So in that sense, for our purposes today and here on this forum, yes, the Bible is necessary for this discussion, because we know it to be the Truth through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, confirmed by the testimony of the Church. It’s needed because God ensured that It was Written.

To many, the answer of “no” in any sense to that question would be scandalous, but we have a difficult time remembering - in this day and age of widespread literacy and dozens of Bible translations available to us online or at our nearest Barnes & Noble - that there existed a time (and a long time at that) where most of the population could not read, many of the letters were not yet composed, where the letters that were composed had no way of being reproduced and circulated on a mass scale, and the idea of a “chapter and verse” debate over a proper Christian teaching ceased to exist. And yet, souls were still being brought to salvation through the Church of Jesus Christ, passed on through His Apostles and their successors. So it was in 35, 40, 45, 50 AD. 150 AD. 600 AD. 1925 AD. And so it is today. It’s what keeps me Catholic.

Once I got going on this post and got carried away on my soap box, I wasn’t writing to debate or convince, I was writing more out of sheer awe and amazement at the plan God put forward to advance the Church, and that She still survives today. MichaelP3, I am honored to share with you the belief that God inspired the words of Sacred Scripture, to discuss them and learn about them to allow us both to unite our hearts with the Sacred Heart of Jesus, help each person that doesn’t know Him to know Him, and to help those who do to know Him better. So thank you for being on this forum and for giving me a reason to write this reflection - I’m grateful for you.

Cheers,

DK

 

[Rohzek]

Re: Bp Ware

I used a quote properly referenced.

These expressions “and the Son” or “through the Son” mean the same thing. ***Orthodox Bishop Kallistos ***Ware, who once adamantly opposed the filioque doctrine, states: “The filioque controversy which has separated us for so many centuries is more than a mere technicality, but it is not insoluble. Qualifying the firm position taken when I wrote [my book] The Orthodox Church twenty years ago, I now believe, after further study, that the problem is more in the area of semantics and different emphases than in any basic doctrinal differences” (Diakonia, quoted from Elias Zoghby’s A Voice from the Byzantine East, 43).

That said, you might have missed the following post, in which I added some added text from Florence

#209

I added from Florence (all emphasis mine)

"we define, with the approval of this holy universal council of Florence, that the following truth of faith shall be believed and accepted by all Christians and thus shall all profess it: that t**he holy Spirit is eternally from the Father and the Son, and has his essence and his subsistent being from the Father together with the Son, and proceeds from both eternally *as from one principle and a single spiration. "

What is underlined, is language used in defining an infallible doctrine when approved by the Pope.
*
To deny this, is to deny Jesus is God*
*

In Greek, the “through the Son” and “and from the Son” formulas are not equivalent because the Latin verb procedere has a more broad meaning than the Greek verb ekporeousis, which has a much more narrow meaning. The end result is that “Filioque” could be understood in an Orthodox way when rendered in Latin, but in the Greek it leads to serious error.

To deny this is to deny the dictionary.

 

[prodromos]

To deny this is to deny the dictionary.

Word!

 

[PJM]

I absolutely agree!

GBY & thanks

Patrick

 

[PJM]

Hi Michael,

I haven’t kept up with the pace of this thread to know the entire backstory, but did get a chance to check the last few pages and wanted to respond to this specific question.

I have to echo the “yes and no” answer, if just for this reason. The entire deposit of faith, the whole New Covenant, the plan for our salvation was given in full from the Word made Flesh, Jesus Christ, to His Apostles. That’s why public revelation ceased with the death of the last Apostle, St. John, after his penning of the Apocalypse. I doubt you’d find any educated and believing Catholic or Protestant who would say differently.

Consider that the earliest New Testament books were penned in the decade of the 50s AD, through Paul’s letters, and most scholars agree that the first Gospel (Mark) wasn’t completed until around the time of the fall of the temple in 70 AD. St. John’s vision didn’t occur until closer to 100 AD. Regardless of the discrepancies in dating, we can say with reasonable certainty that the books were not being penned as the events were happening, as they are a recollection of the orally passed down tradition of the Church.

With that in mind, let’s assume that the text we see depicted in Matthew 18 - “You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church” - occurred in 32-33 AD real time, prior to the Passion and Resurrection. From that moment, Christ created His Church and She existed. Through the events of the Passion and Resurrection, and the descent of the Holy Spirit, those gifts to the Church were completed. Let’s date that, roughly, at later 33 or early 34 AD.

So now, we’re 10-15 years before St. Paul’s letters are written, and the spread of the Gospel being depicted in Acts is organically occurring in real time. The leaders of the Church - that is all Twelve Apostles and those they have appointed to ministry (Timothy, Titus in Scripture, Clement, Ignatius, and others by what we know from history) are spreading the Gospel, fully equipped with everything they need to lead all people to salvation through Jesus Christ.

The dates above are a scholarly estimate - not an approximate value. I don’t want the minutia here to dilute the point I’m trying to make. The real world timing of these events - which we believe as Christians are the Truth, the thing that tells us about the world, its origins, its culmination and how to unite ourselves with our loving Creator for all eternity - causes my answer to your question to be a contingent no, the Bible is not needed to debate or to live out these questions. The Grace of Jesus Christ needed to save souls existed before a Word of the New Testament was penned.

With that being said, thanks be to God, in His plan He included the passing on of this message through the Written as well as the Oral form, so inasmuch as the Sacred Scripture - the God-breathed Written Word - affirms Truth from this same deposit of faith, both implicitly and explicitly within its Sacred Texts. So in that sense, for our purposes today and here on this forum, yes, the Bible is necessary for this discussion, because we know it to be the Truth through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, confirmed by the testimony of the Church. It’s needed because God ensured that It was Written.

To many, the answer of “no” in any sense to that question would be scandalous, but we have a difficult time remembering - in this day and age of widespread literacy and dozens of Bible translations available to us online or at our nearest Barnes & Noble - that there existed a time (and a long time at that) where most of the population could not read, many of the letters were not yet composed, where the letters that were composed had no way of being reproduced and circulated on a mass scale, and the idea of a “chapter and verse” debate over a proper Christian teaching ceased to exist. And yet, souls were still being brought to salvation through the Church of Jesus Christ, passed on through His Apostles and their successors. So it was in 35, 40, 45, 50 AD. 150 AD. 600 AD. 1925 AD. And so it is today. It’s what keeps me Catholic.

Once I got going on this post and got carried away on my soap box, I wasn’t writing to debate or convince, I was writing more out of sheer awe and amazement at the plan God put forward to advance the Church, and that She still survives today. MichaelP3, I am honored to share with you the belief that God inspired the words of Sacred Scripture, to discuss them and learn about them to allow us both to unite our hearts with the Sacred Heart of Jesus, help each person that doesn’t know Him to know Him, and to help those who do to know Him better. So thank you for being on this forum and for giving me a reason to write this reflection - I’m grateful for you.

Cheers,

DK

Very insightful post,

Thanks and GBY

Patrick

 

[Wannano]

That word “know” has a profound depth that goes to a personal relationship with Jesus Christ.
My neighbor’s wife has lived next door to me for 17 years and I know everything about her that can be seen or told.
But I do not really know her. I know my wife.
In regards to my neighbor, there is no depth of relationship to be killed. Not seeking her out for conversation for months is not the same thing as not talking to my wife for months.
If I don’t talk to my wife for months a deep relationship will die.

Knowing goes way deeper than intellectual grasp.

I was raised in the understanding that having that personal relationship with Jesus Christ is what makes a person a member of the Church that Jesus said He would build. Not one built or named by human hands or reasoning. Some will say that makes me my own Pope but no, Jesus Himself is my “Pope.”

I have no problem with someone choosing to be Catholic or Protestant because to me that does not matter or determine whether they are a true believer. And besides, that judgement is not mine to make anyway. If that makes me a heretic in someone else’s eyes then so be it.

 

[rinnie]

As explained here, we are in complete agreement

ALL SALVATION MYSTERIOUSNESS FLOWS THROUGH THE RCC as the One and only Church founded, desired, guided and guarded by God.

BUT one in an absolute sense does not HAVE TO be a member of the RCC [precisely-conditionally] in order to be saved.

Catholics however DO have a HUGE advantage through the 7 Sacraments all instituted by Christ for the precise purpose of making our salvation more likely to those who rightly avail themselves of them.

God Bless you

Patrick

Correct. But with all that is said here and throughout this thread. We also have a duty to defend the truth. And the question was is the RCC the One True Church started by Christ himself and the true answer is indeed yes.

Just because Christ can save people anyway he chooses he gave us the RCC for a reason. Because he knew we needed a place to go to here on earth.

And as the Pope has stated if you see that the RCC is the true Church and you choose to stay away you indeed have put your soul in grave danger.

For a Protestant to deny the RCC is not the One True Church, I ask them to show me a Protestant Church they can change bread and wine into the true body and blood of Christ.

Show me a Protestant Church that can give me complete forgiveness for my sins. I do not know of any that even claim this.

While I like the Pope has taught admire them for the truth they have, I welcome them to come to the fullness of the truth in the RCC.

 

[rinnie]

I was raised in the understanding that having that personal relationship with Jesus Christ is what makes a person a member of the Church that Jesus said He would build. Not one built or named by human hands or reasoning. Some will say that makes me my own Pope but no, Jesus Himself is my “Pope.”

I have no problem with someone choosing to be Catholic or Protestant because to me that does not matter or determine whether they are a true believer. And besides, that judgement is not mine to make anyway. If that makes me a heretic in someone else’s eyes then so be it.

And that is indeed your right. And I don’t believe it can get any more personal then to receive his actual Body and Blood as we do in the Eucharist. And I believe when you actually realize what the Eucharist is, and you pray for his continued grace that Eucharist is what continues your relationship and help you grow in Christ.

Also the bible says it is in Prayer that we establish that personal relationship with Christ. And the RCC has more prayers then any other Church I have ever seen. We not only pray, we have the angels and saints also pray for us and join in with us in our Prayers.

 

[rinnie]

I agree with what you are saying. But with that said one of the four Marks of the One True Church is Apostolic Succession. Although it may not change anything it is indeed a true fact.

 

[rinnie]

I was raised in the understanding that having that personal relationship with Jesus Christ is what makes a person a member of the Church that Jesus said He would build. Not one built or named by human hands or reasoning. Some will say that makes me my own Pope but no, Jesus Himself is my “Pope.”

I have no problem with someone choosing to be Catholic or Protestant because to me that does not matter or determine whether they are a true believer. And besides, that judgement is not mine to make anyway. If that makes me a heretic in someone else’s eyes then so be it.

the Pope is the Vicar of Christ, not Christ himself. Matt, States you are Peter and to you I give the keys to the Kingdom. What you…

Jesus is God.

 

[rinnie]

True but in order to be the OTC it must have the 4 marks.

 

[TOmNossor]

Hello Patrick,

TOmNossor;14397229:

The apostles creed does not say, “co-equal.” It is my point that the Bible and the church didn’t say co-equal until the 4th acentury. My rejection of “co-equal” does not make me at odds with the Bible or the early ECFs

TOM, find me the word BIBLE in the bible & I’ll share where “Co-Equal” is

Maybe you misunderstood. I am not concerned with the word “co-equal.” I am saying that the idea that God the Father and God the Son are “co-equal” is absent in a reasonable read of the Bible and absent in a reasonable read of the ECF before the 4th century.
My rejection of “co-equal” is the original view of Christianity.
Your acceptance of “co-equal” is the NEW view of Christianity.
You pointed me to the Apostles Creed and I said it does not “say” co-equal. Perhaps I should have said, “does not teach co-equal.” It does not.
Here again is some from the link I provided earlier:

It is generally conceded that the ante-Nicene Fathers were subordinationists. This is clearly evident in the writings of the second-century “Apologists.”…Irenaeus follows a similar path…The theological enterprise begun by the Apologists and Irenaeus was continued in the West by Hippolytus and Tertullian…The ante-Nicene Fathers did their best to explain how the one God could be a Trinity of three persons. It was the way they approached this dilemma that caused them insoluble problems and led them into subordinationism. They began with the premise that there was one God who was the Father, and then tried to explain how the Son and the Spirit could also be God. By the fourth century it was obvious that this approach could not produce an adequate theology of the Trinity. (Kevin Giles, The Trinity & Subordinationism, pp. 60-62.)

SUBORDINATIONISM. Thus we call the tendency, strong in the theology of the 2nd and 3rd cc., to consider Christ, as Son of God, inferior to the Father. Behind this tendancy were gospel statements in which Christ himself stressed this inferiority (Jn 14, 28; Mk 10, 18; 13, 32, etc.) and it was developed esp. by the Logos-christology. This theology, partly under the influence of middle Platonism, considered Christ, logos and divine wisdom, as the means of liaison and mediation between the Father’s position to him. When the conception of the Trinity was enlarged to include the Holy Spirit, as in Origen, this in turn was considered inferior to the Son. Subordinationist tendencies are evident esp. in theologians like Justin, Tertullian, Origen and Novatian; but even in Irenaeus, to whom trinitarian speculations are alien, commenting on Jn 14, 28, has no difficulty in considering Christ inferior to the Father. (M. Simmonetti, Oxford Encyclopedia of the Early Church, II.797.)

Have you considered the possibility that the head may be blocking true FAITH?

Absolutely. Have you considered the same for yourself? If so, what did you do about it?

TRUTH which I have repeatedly shared can only be singular per defined issue. And we have yet to get pass that evident
roadblock

Explain this roadblock to me. What I see is that I believe I possess truth you lack. You believe you possess truth I lack. We both believe we cannot both be right because there is only one truth. I offer surveys of Biblical and Patristic thought that back up what I think the truth is.
You respond by telling me 1. there can be only one truth OR 2. that I am approaching this with logic too much OR 3. that if I accepted God’s grace I would see rightly. While #2 and #3 could be true of me, #3 at least could be true of you, and #1 just evidences to me that you are not listening AT ALL.
Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

I would much rather prefer an argument that demonstrates there was such a disarray in the first place that shows defections from the Apostolic theology and praxis.

It is easy to show a “defection” from “Apostolic theology” and “praxis.”
Defection from “Apostolic theology.”

1. Subordinationism:
   I have been explaining to Patrick that “co-equal” was not a concept present in the Bible or in the ECF before the 4th century. “Apostolic theology” did not consist of the “co-equal” formulation present in the 4th century. While it is true that Christ is not partially God, the “co-equal” formulation is not Apostolic. It is also not true IMO.
   articulifidei.blogspot.com/2008/10/subordinationism-and-pre-nicene-church.html
2. Impassibility and Immutability:
   Father Weinandy says, “From the dawn of the Patristic period Christian theology has held as axiomatic that God is impassible—that is, He does not undergo emotional changes of state, and so cannot suffer.”

From Pelikan:
The Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine, Volume 1: The Emergence of the Catholic Tradition (100-600) pp. 22:

In Judaism it was possible simultaneously to ascribe change of purpose to God and to declare that God did not change, without resolving the paradox; for the immutability of God was seen as the trustworthiness of his covenanted relation to his people in the concrete history of his judgment and mercy, rather than as a primarily ontological category. But in the development of the Christian doctrine of God, immutability assumed the status of an axiomatic presupposition for the discussion of other doctrines.

God is not impassible or immutable. The Old Testament does not teach that God is impassible or immutable, just that he is “trustworthy in His covenantal relations.” The New Testament does not focus as much upon God the Father as it does on God the Son, but it CERTAINLY does not present Christ as impassible or immutable (and it offers no reason to believe all the change in Christ is His human nature not His divine nature that is hypostatically united to it). This was defection from Apostolic theology. It is also not true IMO.

1. God is embodied.
   If you are familiar with controversies from after the apostolic age, surely you can see Christians struggling with this concept throughout the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th centuries. But the Apostles did not. I believe the Apostles believed Christ was fully divine and yet they had no problem with Him being embodied. There is no evidence that the Apostles developed complex theories of “dual natures” to explain how Jesus Christ walked with them and yet was divine. It was no issue for them.
   Divine Embodiment: The Earliest Christian Understanding of God
   publications.mi.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1100&index=10

I could show more. I am aware that SOME scholars might disagree with the three I have offered (Divine embodiment is recognized by many non-LDS scholars, but might be a minority view. The other two are the majority views). And, I am only offering scholarly assessment to provided EVIDENCE that what I am saying is well reasoned and solid. It could be true or false, but I believe it is true and it is evidence of “defections” from “Apostolic theology.”

Defections from Apostolic Praxis.

1. The Apostles lead the church by revelation. They received visions and taught truth based on those visions to the entire church. They received Public Revelation. Now, I do not dispute that Catholics and EO’s might receive visions that truly come from God, but they can never be used to ADD to the deposit of faith. They can never be used to CORRECT missteps. This Praxis is absent in the EO and Catholic Churches today.
2. The Apostles and some of their contemporaries wrote inspired scripture. This Praxis is absent in the EO and Catholic Churches today.
3. Local verses general authority.
   The Didache says:

But concerning the apostles and prophets, act according to the decree of the Gospel. Let every apostle who comes to you be received as the Lord. But he shall not remain more than one day; or two days, if there’s a need. But if he remains three days, he is a false prophet.

This section of the Didache is showing that originally “apostles and prophets” were conceived of as traveling GENERAL authorities. I contrast this to Bishops who were local authorities and guided the churches in the local area. Over time local Bishops became Metropolitans, then Patriarchs, then the Pope. This is not the Apostolic praxis. It is also not the praxis God established in the New Testament or in His restoration.
cont …

 

[TOmNossor]

cont …

There are facts that both of us recognise, there were different multiple groups of Gnostics, Jewish Christians and what I would call the Orthodox (represented by the ante Nicene fathers). Based on the literature we can see, the influence of the Ante Nicene fathers extends all over the church, especially in the main centres of Rome, Antioch and Alexandria (not to mention the smaller church communities they wrote to or considered themselves brothers and sisters of). My belief is that these Orthodox constitute a clear theological link to the Apostles despite the challenges of Gnosticism and Judaising groups.

The gnostics are most clear witness of esoteric church practices, but Clement of Alexandria (one I presume you would call “Orthodox”) is quite clear that there were unwritten truths, truths preserved for a few only. In addition to points #1-#3 of “defection from Apostolic theology” I offer the esoteric teachings that Clement of Alexandria embraced and likely in part existed within Gnostics. The ancient Christian Church could not preserve esoteric truths from defilement by gnostic and other heretics thus this aspect of Christianity was purged. As a LDS, I participate in esoteric rights within the LDS Temple and I believe these are authentic parts of Christianity. Let me offer a little more here. I do not believe the LDS Temple ceremony was performed exactly as it is today, but there are many ancient parallels discussed in LDS literature. I do not believe the LDS Temple ceremony communicates DIFFERENT theology than the theology we are taught openly, I just believe it has the ability to communicate in ways that are different than things like books, talks, and message boards. I also will not talk about the specifics of the LDS Temple, and thus am at a disadvantage in this area if you choose to discuss specifics of our temple practice. I am merely saying that esoteric teaching was part of the apostolic praxis and it is possible that truth taught in the praxis was part of the apostolic doxis that we now lack (since the “orthodox” positions I have read are that this praxis is only gnostic and heretical).
I guess this is just another bit that I think is authentically apostolic theology and praxis that has been defected through non-inspired transmitters. But, the gnostics and Tertullian and Origin and other folks in ancient Christianity should not be waived away with, “not the orthdox.” There is a lot less “non-orthodox” surviving to today. Much of what we know is from the characterization (surely often mis-characterization) of these movements by the “orthodox” apologists. Still, what we know is that “the influence of the Ante Nicene fathers” does not produce modern Catholic or EO theology. Only with a large dose of DEVELOPMENT can you get from there to today’s Catholic and EO Christianity.

Now as far as a lack of leadership is concerned what is the argument here? That there was a lack of Apostles after the original twelve? We all grant that. That’s not the real question. The question is whether or not the Apostles intended what Mormons believe, that there should be a succession of Apostles continuing down forever.

“Apostles intended” or “God intended” or ???
I expect to get into more speculative regions in this response, but let me start with two things I think are clear.
First, if God initiated the restoration, and I believe evidence suggests He did, then there is something that was restored and something that was absent such that a restoration happened.
Second, we both except some texts that we view to be “inspired of God.” Those texts span thousands of years in the Old Testament and tens of years in the New Testament. Those texts present a God who inspires men who are called by God. These men receive revelation and write scripture. That is something that is ABSENT in EO Christianity and Catholic Christianity. Neither group even claims they receive revelation from God for the guiding of all mankind. Neither group even claims they can write inspired scripture.

Now, let me offer something else that is fairly clear to me. Catholics and EO Christians struggle with modern challenges to modern problems that are not clearly spelled out in scripture. The Filoque clause is a point of disagreement from ancient times till today. The use of Birth Control is a more modern question that is a point of disagreement. The fate of unbaptized infants is a modern and ancient question. Well meaning Christians in the EO Tradition do not agree with each other and do not agree with the Catholic position. I do not propose that God would or should or ??? pronounce on this or that matter, I merely suggest that humans who authored the New Testament and the Old Testament could ask and hope to receive God’s will for all mankind on these issues via revelation to be delivered to all mankind. This is missing today in the EO Church and Catholic Church (even if you are correct about EO Christianity or Patrick is correct about Catholic Christianity). But, if I am correct about the CoJCoLDS it has been restored.

To suggest that the “lights went out” is an assumption on behalf of the author of this book rather than an actual argument.

If the “light” is Public Revelation from God for all mankind delivered to leaders called of God to head His earthly church, then we all agree that “the lights went out.” You just claim God will not turn on the lights until Christ walks the earth again. This is not the view of the early Christians.
Charity, TOm
more later hopefullly …

 

[Peter_J]

Glad you said ‘some’.

Indeed, I don’t think there’s any question that it’s some, not all. Just like there are undoubtedly some Catholics who border of idolatry

 

[Peter_J]

I am not directly referring to your post alone, just using it to enter the thread.

All the talk about who gets to be a true church or not reminds me of the disciples arguing who gets to be greater right after they were given the Last Supper. (Which is really quite interesting if Peter was already the Pope.) Human reasoning never seems to change!

Fwiw, I would be extremely pleased if the EOs said “The RCC is a true church” … but I don’t see that happening, realistically.

Of course, it wouldn’t hurt if you were to call them and put in a good word for us.

 

[Wannano]

Fwiw, I would be extremely pleased if the EOs said “The RCC is a true church” … but I don’t see that happening, realistically.

Of course, it wouldn’t hurt if you were to call them and put in a good word for us.

I am not that impulsive!

 

[TOmNossor]

Continued from:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=14416982&postcount=344
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=14416982&postcount=345

When we read the New Testament we find out what leadership looked like in the New Testament, that the Apostles appointed Deacons and leaders of local churches (bishops). We find no hint of a Mormon ecclesiology which is at most inferred from certain assumptions about the New Testament. There are no instructions offered for appointing Apostles except in the case of the replacement of Judas but that replacement is defined as one who saw the Lord from the beginning.

I believe that the continuation of the Apostolic office though discussed in at least one place in the Bible ultimately was not continued because God did not continue it. The “praxis” of the church was not however local bishops who were actually metropolitians or patriarchs or Popes. This developed. Unless you depart markedly from the scholarly consensus and deny this developed, then the only question we disagree upon is whether this development was into God’s fullness or into an “organization more humble.” I claim that as the void left by no more apostles was filled, it was the “organization more humble.” God used the “organization more humble” to preserve the Bible and preserve the witness of Christ, but God always knew He would restore revelatory leadership to the earth when humanity was ready. God even knew the continuation of Christianity and His further inspiration would guide humanity toward this being “ready.”

Despite saying that lights went out, there were prophetic elements in the Church which continued. There have been many throughout church history who have received Spiritual insight from God, so in what sense did the lights go out?

We are all called to be prophets and healers and …. That being said when the early church didn’t know the response to clean or unclean food, Peter received a vision. He relayed this vision in inspired scripture. His public revelation is the truth all Christians embrace. This is “public revelation.”
When you say, “prophetic elements in the Church … continued,” I say yes they did. This is because the apostasy was not “God abandoning” Christianity. The apostasy was a loss that was restored. Saints from Christ’s day to 1830 to today have had visions and contact with God. But, from the days of Tertullian to today, Catholics and EO Christians have demanded that these are “private revelation” not “public revelation.” I understand the “public revelation is complete in Christ” argument, it is just clear to me that this was not the position of the early church until AFTER Tertullian. And concerning Catholicism you as an Orthodox would seem to agree that the CHANGE within Catholicism is not mere development, but something more. What is it about the CHANGE within the early church from 150AD to 500AD that you find consistent with development in ways that the change from 1054AD to today is not?
cont …