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

[TOmNossor]

TOm, my friend, I pray this addresses your concerns, and does so in charity.

I do not think you are addressing the dialogue we have been engaged in at least from the genesis of our discussion to now. I will show you why.

Here is a brief summary.
1.You said I (LDS) believe God waited 1800 years to teach His truth and questioned how that is even possible.

HOW TOm, is it possible that this One True God could have, would have or did wait some 1,800 years after the Incarnation and founding of HIS Roman Catholic Chuch for Joseph Smith to establish …

2.I said, I do not believe this. Instead I believe God teaches the truth and men drift away. This is true from Old Testament to New Testament and from New Testament to Restoration Testament. AND that it is you who believe God waited until 27AD to teach that He was Triune so your criticism cuts you, but leaves me largely unscathed.

God has been guiding mankind towards “all truth” throughout all of human history.
The evidence from history suggests that few Jews if ANY understood that God was Triune before Christ’s earthly ministry. If it is TRUE that God is Triune, why would God wait 1800+ years to teach it?
LDS actually believe that this was taught much more clearly than the Bible witnesses and that what we see is drift away from truth corrected by God raising up men who restore true teachings.

3.You responded by pointing to Old Testament scriptures that have allusions to plurality with God.

TOm, please check these out
EVIDENCE IN THE OT OF THE TRINITY

4.I told you those were weak, and consistent with my position (as echoes of more full truth lost), but that unless you are saying the ancient Jews were taught the Trinity then my criticism still stands (and while my knowledge of Catholicism suggests you couldn’t be saying this, it was nonetheless the only way I could believe you were responding to my criticism).

{You asked: Why do I believe that Trinity was taught to Moses?}Based on the echoes you claim are “Old Testament examples of the Trinity,” for one.
Do you believe Moses knew God was Triune and Christ was God’s son? I generally do.
Do you believe the WEAK evidence we have in the Bible is a product of the fact that the Bible is not inerrantly guarded by God to ensure everything written is perfect and never altered throughout time? I think this is part of it and is possible.
What is your position?
Do you agree with the ECF on this? I generally do not.

BTW, my evidence is that the concept of dispensationalism has been taught within God’s church, the CoJCoLDS. The echoes you point to only serve as corroboration of my church’s teaching.

If your point is that my criticism of you as believing God choose to wait till 27AD to reveal the Triune nature of God is incorrect because you believe the Triune nature of God was revealed to Moses, then I was wrong about your view (but your view is not Catholic).

If that is not your point I am BAFFLED as to what you are saying.

PLEASE CLARIFY what you are saying?

5.You responded by saying that the ancient Jews were not taught the Trinity because it was “too sublime, too profound for them.”

Perhaps I was not clear enough. I was NOT claiming that the OT Hebrews RECOGNIZED the Trinity; ONLY that God made is at least remotely possible that they could.

The concept was too sublime, too profound for them

So, we are back to God waiting until 27AD to teach the Trinity, but you are offering some reason for it. The ancient Jews lacked the sophistication to receive such truths from God? Are you suggesting that mankind evolved to be capable of appreciating the Trinity? God would have taught it to the ancient Jews, but they were too simple to understand so this important truth had to wait until mankind was more capable of understanding “sublime and profound” truths? I am glad I do not have to embrace something like that.

Again, I do not believe God waited for 1800 years to reveal “the fundamental principles of our religion … the testimony of the Apostles and Prophets, concerning Jesus Christ, that He died, was buried, and rose again to third day, and ascended into heaven; and all other things which pertain to our religion are only appendages to it.” (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith).

It is you who believe God waited until 27AD or later to reveal to the world these “fundamental principles.”
So, in response to your first initial question:
I believe it is “possible,” that God might wait till 1830 to teach the gospel to mankind, but not likely AND not reality.
You not only believe it is “possible” that God might wait till 27AD to teach mankind the gospel, you believe He did. Now we are exploring why.

I find your belief that God didn’t teach important truths till 27AD to indicate greater negative things about God than my belief that humans rebel and truth is suppressed and then God restores.

Your post does not address the course of our discussion so I have tried to clarify why it did not. There are other things in this post and previous ones I need to respond to if I have time.

I am also through 5 chapters and some brief other readings in the Catechism of Trent. More later hopefully.
Charity, TOm

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

Where your argument doesn’t quite work Tom is that while we believe the essence of the Trinity was taught in the revelation of Jesus, that is the New Testament at that period of time, we do not believe that before Jesus there was a total apostasy by the Jewish people. God revealing certain truths at certain times is what we both believe, much like you believe the fullness of revelation was given with Joseph Smith and not with Jesus, since Jesus did not teach us many of the doctrines that LDS believe.

The problem lies in the idea of a total apostasy away from the truth, that God for 1800 years allowed his Church to be over taken by the gates of Hades, utterly destroyed from the world and people began to follow creeds which were an abomination. There were apparently no true ministers of the word, to the point where God was forced to start again with the LDS.

We might believe the Saducees and the Pharisees departed from some aspects of the truth before and after the time of Jesus, yet we don’t believe they were in total apostasy from the Jewish nation God started with Abraham. I would be curious to know Tom, since God let us Christians fall into total apostasy, will he also allow the LDS to fall into total apostasy? Surely that option remains right?

 

[steve_b]

Bexause the Council of Florence has dogmatically stated otherwise. They no longer have that option unless they repudiate Florence.

Re:the Holy Spirit, proceeding

• Florence, and the phrase through the Son Sessions 5-8 (1439), look at session 6, (emphasis mine) on this excerpt. Please read all of session 6
• “For when Latins and Greeks came together in this holy synod, they all strove that, among other things, the article about the procession of the holy Spirit should be discussed with the utmost care and assiduous investigation. Texts were produced from divine scriptures and many authorities of eastern and western holy doctors, some saying the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, others saying the procession is from the Father through the Son. All were aiming at the same meaning in different words. The Greeks asserted that when they claim that the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, they do not intend to exclude the Son; but because it seemed to them that the Latins assert that the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son as from two principles and two spirations, they refrained from saying that the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. The Latins asserted that they say the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son not with the intention of excluding the Father from being the source and principle of all deity, that is of the Son and of the holy Spirit, nor to imply that the Son does not receive from the Father, because the holy Spirit proceeds from the Son, nor that they posit two principles or two spirations; but they assert that there is only one principle and a single spiration of the holy Spirit, as they have asserted hitherto. Since, then, one and the same meaning resulted from all this, they unanimously agreed and consented to the following holy and God-pleasing union, in the same sense and with one mind.
  In the name of the holy Trinity, Father, Son and holy Spirit, 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 the 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. We declare that when holy doctors and fathers say that the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son, this bears the sense that thereby also the Son should be signified, according to the Greeks indeed as cause, and according to the Latins as principle of the subsistence of the holy Spirit, just like the Father.
  And since the Father gave to his only-begotten Son in begetting him everything the Father has, except to be the Father, so the Son has eternally from the Father, by whom he was eternally begotten, this also, namely that the holy Spirit proceeds from the Son.”

Also
JPII explains Greek vs Latin expression of proceeds ewtn.com/library/CURIA/PCCUFILQ.HTM

 

[steve_b]

THANKS this is one f the best and most lucid explanations I have seen on thos critical issue

GBY

Patrick

Further explained in #162

 

[TOmNossor]

Where your argument doesn’t quite work Tom is that while we believe the essence of the Trinity was taught in the revelation of Jesus, that is the New Testament at that period of time, we do not believe that before Jesus there was a total apostasy by the Jewish people. God revealing certain truths at certain times is what we both believe, much like you believe the fullness of revelation was given with Joseph Smith and not with Jesus, since Jesus did not teach us many of the doctrines that LDS believe.

The problem lies in the idea of a total apostasy away from the truth, that God for 1800 years allowed his Church to be over taken by the gates of Hades, utterly destroyed from the world and people began to follow creeds which were an abomination. There were apparently no true ministers of the word, to the point where God was forced to start again with the LDS.

We might believe the Saducees and the Pharisees departed from some aspects of the truth before and after the time of Jesus, yet we don’t believe they were in total apostasy from the Jewish nation God started with Abraham. I would be curious to know Tom, since God let us Christians fall into total apostasy, will he also allow the LDS to fall into total apostasy? Surely that option remains right?

Hello IgnatiusPhilo,

As I hope my drawn out tracing of this issue shows, I was responding to the idea that, “God waited for 1800 years ….” The original post that I was responding to specifically discussed “One true set of Faith beliefs,” so I used the faith beliefs that seem very important to the salvation of 20th century humans today and not so important to the salvation of 100B.C. Jews long ago to make my point.

We also do not actually believe that all (“fullness”) revelation was delivered to Joseph Smith.

Catholic and Easter ORTHODOX place huge emphasis upon orthodoxy. LDS just do not.

LDS, Catholic, and Easter Orthodox place emphasis upon authority too. The Eucharist cannot be blessed without proper authority (Anglican’s cannot hold a valid mass). LDS bless our sacrament with proper authority in our opinion. It is my position that what is lacking within Catholicism (and EO) is the authority Peter, James and John possessed. This authority was passed to Joseph Smith from Peter, James, and John.

I have many times pointed to an “apostasy of authority” or the loss of authority from the early church that required a restoration. I do not believe Ciaphus had the FULLNESS of authority Moses did. I believe Peter was left with the FULLNESS of authority Moses had, but that it is unlikely Pope St. Clement had this Peterine authority and certain that Pope Pius VIII did not.

I also point to the ability to receive supernatural public revelation and write scripture as linked to the Peterine authority. Something that Peter could do, something that Moses could do, and something I claim Joseph Smith-Thomas Monson can do. But something Pope Francis or PIus VIII cannot do.

The book Early Christians in Disarray has 3-4 essays on historical LDS concepts of the apostasy. They highlight an early view common to LDS and their Protestant predecessors associated with medieval Christian sinfulness, but over time the “apostasy of authority” view has become quite prevalent. It is the view I find most compelling (partially because it is consistent with the restoration of authority mentioned above).

So there are “no true ministers of the word” because there is no one with the authority to receive supernatural public revelation from God until this was restored in 1830 or so (not because all truth was lost or nobody could KNOW God or … and not because LDS know all true propositions concerning God or even are error free). Joseph Smith also had some very specific things to say about Creeds which do not align with what you point to in your post, but that will need to wait till later. Also, I once thought it unwise to be certain that the CoJCoLDS would not fall into total apostasy because I have not seen clear evidence a group believed they would oversee the end of their faith’s God-favored-ness. I now find that less concerning, but that is again a very complex argument. If you are a GLUTTON for punishment you can glean it from here:

mormoninterpreter.com/a-mormon-theodicy-jacob-and-the-problem-of-evil/

All that being said, LDS look for the apostasy because we believe God the Father and God the Son appeared to Joseph Smith and through him there was a restoration. The particulars of the apostasy are not authoritatively defined and are still explored.

Charity, TOm

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

Response to Tom

I can’t speak for others, but I believe the difference between us Christians today and the Jews a thousand years before Christ are not critical issues dividing us or affecting our salvation. The Church then simply had not received the fullness of revelation which is in Jesus Christ. Mormons feel the need to say the fullness of revelation was not given with Christ but instead was given with Joseph Smith, doctrines such as who God exactly is, the absolute and vital necessity of marriage in this world and the next and etc (at one time blacks being excluded from the Mormon Priesthood or the acceptance of Polyamory and Polygamous marriage).

I suppose I can be corrected for believing Mormons believed the fullness of revelation was given with Joseph Smith, yet I do not think myself mistaken in thinking that Mormons seem to believe they themselves have more truth than the Apostles do, particularly on the nature of marriage, the fact they are able to transmit (Prophetic and Apostolic) authority whereas the Apostles were unable to do so. You might continue to receive revelations so I suppose a term like fullness of revelation is incorrect, rather you believe you have received more revelation than the (original) Apostles.

Here is the problem I see in the Mormon scheme of things and perhaps it is that which others have pointed out. Why did God allow his body to fall into such abominations? Our creeds are utterly abhorrent to Mormonism and Christian emphasis’ on celibacy actually contradicts what is actually best for us. Why did the Church of God fail and as I said, the gates of hades prevailed against it? Why should the world have been devoid of Apostolic or Priesthood authority for even a year, let alone one thousand eight hundred years?

We can see in the bible that despite the flaws of the people God cares for his people. They may fall away, yet a remnant is always there. We allow this in the case of the Old Covenant people who did not demonstrate the same zeal and tenacity as the New Covenant community yet that latter community which received a greater and more powerful revelation was so easily displaced? That the Christian community which you believe to adhere to an abomination managed to take over the empire and displace Paganism from the throne it had made for itself. To what end exactly? Why wasn’t Joseph Smith revealed much earlier when he could have put the Church on track? Was it beyond God’s power to stop the total apostasy from happening or even preserve a remnant for himself? Why is there 1800 years of silence?

Given that there was 1800 years of silence, how can the church be condemned for failure of God to send prophets and correct her. Since the RCC and the EO had no access to the Prophets, either due to the failure of the Apostles to appoint successors or the failure of subsequent Apostles to appoint successors, what more can be expected of a Church which God has seemingly abandoned? Abandoned in such a way that God was forced to start again with the LDS, a church that is not connected with the apostles in any way (except it’s mystical claims). It seems to me you would have to attribute evil motives on the behalf of leaders in the second century for deliberately corrupting the faith, a view which I think cannot be supported.

I suspect that there is no answer the Mormon can give to this question since it is a matter not known to them but only to God. Yet to me it stands out as one of the main reasons why I could never accept the Mormon viewpoint and why I find the God of Mormonism so repellent.

 

[PJM]

The attitude exemplified here is so characteristic of those motivated by bloated pride and Pharasacial blindness. Jesus Christ taught that we are to love one another and to love our neighbour as our self. To just shrug and say others are insignificant and didn’t really exist because they were few in number seems unchristlike since every single human being is significant to Him.

Apparently the Waldensians were significant enough to the Catholic Church of that time for the Church to participate in the raping, pillaging, killing of women and children in an effort to destroy them completely.

Thankfully we have a Pope in our current times who in 2015 felt the Waldensians were significant enough to warrant him going directly to them on their turf and ask them to forgive the Catholic Church for the atrocities committed by the Church. Pope Francis is portraying an example that his followers would do well to heed.

May God have mercy on us all.

THANKS for sharing,

Like you said, every voice and EVERY Soul matters

GBY

 

[PJM]

I do not think you are addressing the dialogue we have been engaged in at least from the genesis of our discussion to now. I will show you why.

Here is a brief summary.
1.You said I (LDS) believe God waited 1800 years to teach His truth and questioned how that is even possible

So TOm HOW could GOD have done such a thing? If He had [its morally impossible as there would not have been salvation possible for all those souls of that 1,800 year]

2.I said, I do not believe this. Instead I believe God teaches the truth and men drift away. This is true from Old Testament to New Testament and from New Testament to Restoration Testament. AND that it is you who believe God waited until 27AD to teach that He was Triune so your criticism cuts you, but leaves me largely unscathed

But TOm, the foundational TRUTH of

Only One True God
Only One True set of Faith beliefs
& Only One True Church desired, founded and protected by God

Have NOT changed [READ please Isa. 55:6-10]

No TOm, not “ME”, but the bible & Sacred Tradition.

3.You responded by pointing to Old Testament scriptures that have allusions to plurality with God

OK And?

4.I told you those were weak, and consistent with my position (as echoes of more full truth lost), but that unless you are saying the ancient Jews were taught the Trinity then my criticism still stands (and while my knowledge of Catholicism suggests you couldn’t be saying this, it was nonetheless the only way I could believe you were responding to my criticism).

TOm my friend, they appear weak to YOU, because you have not yet accepted the GRACE to rightly understand them, or for that matter the BIBLE in its entireity.

5.You responded by saying that the ancient Jews were not taught the Trinity because it was “too sublime, too profound for them.”

So, we are back to God waiting until 27AD to teach the Trinity, but you are offering some reason for it. The ancient Jews lacked the sophistication to receive such truths from God? Are you suggesting that mankind evolved to be capable of appreciating the Trinity? God would have taught it to the ancient Jews, but they were too simple to understand so this important truth had to wait until mankind was more capable of understanding “sublime and profound” truths? I am glad I do not have to embrace something like that.

TOm, here’s the reasons:

[1] **1.Romans 6:14
For sin shall not have dominion over you; for you are not under the law, but under grace.
**

[2] God meets us where WE are. The OT Hebrew nation began as pagan’s AND throughout the OT were surrounded by pagan’s whose influence had to be diminished; and GOD"S Faith taught. Not an easy task and certainly NOT one quickly accomplished.

While God COMMANDS; God does not force HIS Faith on anyone. It’s a Gift, an Offer that man alone is enabled [in emulation of our God [Gen 1:26-27] through our minds, intellects and FREEWILL’S is able to discern through the Universe, the Natural Laws and thr Moral Laws.

GOD commits Himself to OFFER “sufficient grace” to every soul that that they CAN know of Him, then actually come to know Him, and then choose to love, serve, OBEY and honor Him, HIS WAY. Amen

Again, I do not believe God waited for 1800 years to reveal “the fundamental principles of our religion … the testimony of the Apostles and Prophets, concerning Jesus Christ, that He died, was buried, and rose again to third day, and ascended into heaven; and all other things which pertain to our religion are only appendages to it.” (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith)

TOm HOW can this be as Catholicism and even Christianity predate Joseph Smith by centuries. I t seems to me that your position is VERY weak and indefensible. .

It is you who believe God waited until 27AD or later to reveal to the world these “fundamental principles.”

NO my friend, that is NOT what I shared. I provided evidence that the Trinity was taught in the OT, BUT NOT comprehended. That is NOT waiting until “27 AD”

So, in response to your first initial question:
I believe it is “possible,” that God might wait till 1830 to teach the gospel to mankind, but not likely AND not reality

You not only believe it is “possible” that God might wait till 27AD to teach mankind the gospel, you believe He did. Now we are exploring why

TOm your missing the time line:

1st paganism
2nd Judaism
3td Christianity through Catholicsm

The CHRIST [Savior] was foretold often in the OT

The OT leads to the NT which fulfills, completes and even perfects it. It’s one continual story account; which continues to this and the END times with OUR personal Life choices being a critically important part of it.

I find your belief that God didn’t teach important truths till 27AD to indicate greater negative things about God than my belief that humans rebel and truth is suppressed and then God restores.QUOTE]

NOT only are you my friend MISQUOTING me, your attempting to put words and thoughts that ARE NOT mine into the discussion. The 27AD if YOUR opinion, not mine and not fact.

Your post does not address the course of our discussion so I have tried to clarify why it did not. There are other things in this post and previous ones I need to respond to if I have time.

I am also through 5 chapters and some brief other readings in the Catechism of Trent. More later hopefully.
Charity, TOm

God Bless you TOM,

Patrick

 

[PJM]

Where your argument doesn’t quite work Tom is that while we believe the essence of the Trinity was taught in the revelation of Jesus, that is the New Testament at that period of time, we do not believe that before Jesus there was a total apostasy by the Jewish people. God revealing certain truths at certain times is what we both believe, much like you believe the fullness of revelation was given with Joseph Smith and not with Jesus, since Jesus did not teach us many of the doctrines that LDS believe.

The problem lies in the idea of a total apostasy away from the truth, that God for 1800 years allowed his Church to be over taken by the gates of Hades, utterly destroyed from the world and people began to follow creeds which were an abomination. There were apparently no true ministers of the word, to the point where God was forced to start again with the LDS.

We might believe the Saducees and the Pharisees departed from some aspects of the truth before and after the time of Jesus, yet we don’t believe they were in total apostasy from the Jewish nation God started with Abraham. I would be curious to know Tom, since God let us Christians fall into total apostasy, will he also allow the LDS to fall into total apostasy? Surely that option remains right?

GOOD POST:thumbsup:

Thanks and continued Blessings,

 

[PJM]

further explained in #162

thanks again!

 

[TOmNossor]

I suppose I can be corrected for believing Mormons believed the fullness of revelation was given with Joseph Smith, yet I do not think myself mistaken in thinking that Mormons seem to believe they themselves have more truth than the Apostles do, particularly on the nature of marriage, the fact they are able to transmit (Prophetic and Apostolic) authority whereas the Apostles were unable to do so. You might continue to receive revelations so I suppose a term like fullness of revelation is incorrect, rather you believe you have received more revelation than the (original) Apostles.

LDS do in fact believe that God’s interaction with His children continues to unfold via revelation. The same revelation that lead to visions for Peter and to the 10 commandments for Moses. That being said, LDS believe that the “fundamental principles of our religion” are/were present with Moses and Peter and Abraham and Adam. While the “dispensation of the fullness of times” has more than the “meridian dispensation,” LDS do not believe that the gospel today is fundamentally different than when Peter was at the head of God’s church. It is a drifting away from truth in the absence of divine correction via revelation that leads to the bulk of the differences between what LDS teach today and what Catholics/EOs teach today. LDS reject most of the philosophical language of the councils. I would suggest that metaphysical monotheism and the immutability of God had profound and negative effects upon the early church. God is one, but metaphysical monotheism is not true. And as EO scholar Pelikan tells us, the Jews and Early Christians saw the constancy of God as absolute covenantal faithfulness not as immutability.

Here is the problem I see in the Mormon scheme of things and perhaps it is that which others have pointed out. Why did God allow his body to fall into such abominations? Our creeds are utterly abhorrent to Mormonism and Christian emphasis’ on celibacy actually contradicts what is actually best for us. Why did the Church of God fail and as I said, the gates of hades prevailed against it? Why should the world have been devoid of Apostolic or Priesthood authority for even a year, let alone one thousand eight hundred years?

The “Gates of Hades” did not prevail as I have already pointed to in this thread.
The leadership of the early church so feared “revelation” when Tertullian claimed it was absent in the “orthodox,” that the orthodox declared that revelation was no longer needed to lead God’s church (I have been unable to find an earlier declaration that suggests that the revelation that Peter utilized would cease to function – other than the incorrectly understood Biblical passages which were not understood as Catholic do today by a mind as great as Tertullian’s). When Thomas Aquinas met God, he could not correct his “straw” because his “straw” was a non-flawed and logical progression from the errant views present at the beginning of the first councils of the church AND public revelation had ceased. AND the councils were declared inerrant.
So, God allows men freedom to reject His guidance. I know I have done it many times.
LDS do not believe that the apostasy resulted in generations of people condemned to hell because previous generation rebelled. God did not cease to strive with mankind, but the leaders of the Christian churches refused to believe that revelation would/could come from God to CORRECT and guide them. Part of this is the rejection of revelation and part is the demand of infallibility. LDS do not believe the Bible claims revelation will cease (and neither did Tertullian and presumably EVERY Christian before him). And LDS do not believe the Bible demands infallibility for councils or the church. Many Christians agree with this today AND history IMO provides a VERY compelling case for this.

Why should the world have been devoid of Apostolic or Priesthood authority for even a year, let alone one thousand eight hundred years?

First, I do not KNOW. It has not been revealed to me or to the church as far as I know.
Second, I have two answers. One is that Christ was born, Christ died, and Christ was resurrected. The Bride of Christ followed this pattern. It was formed, apostatized, and was restored.
The second answer has to do with the unique time when God’s people (the Jews) would kill God and the witness of Christ could be preserved and spread (because of Pax Romana), but two things could not happen during this unique time. One was the preservation unadulterated of esoteric doctrine and practices and two was the prevention of corruption by leaders who believed they were greater than the followers (see the essay I referred to you in my last post AND the history of different rules for the clergy as compared to the laity as evidence).
Cont…

 

[TOmNossor]

We can see in the bible that despite the flaws of the people God cares for his people. They may fall away, yet a remnant is always there. We allow this in the case of the Old Covenant people who did not demonstrate the same zeal and tenacity as the New Covenant community yet that latter community which received a greater and more powerful revelation was so easily displaced? That the Christian community which you believe to adhere to an abomination managed to take over the empire and displace Paganism from the throne it had made for itself. To what end exactly? Why wasn’t Joseph Smith revealed much earlier when he could have put the Church on track?

“That a remnant is always there” is a faith based statement. That there is always sufficient “light of Christ” for men to return to God is a faith based statement that I make. I do not think you can prove that there is a remnant just like I cannot prove mine.
What I can show is that until Catholicism CHANGED in the 20th century EVERY Catholic thinker other than the heretic Pelagius taught that unbaptized babies who died would be in hell. This is the message of the Catechism of the Council of Trent, the Council of Trent, Florence, and Lyons (I think). I do not see how this CHANGE is valid while simultaneously declaring infallibility and lack of revelation, but it is evidence that whatever this remnant may or may not have been it was not efficacious for thousands or millions of innocent babies. Your appeal to what makes sense for a loving God IMO rings hollow when applied to this UNIVERSAL teaching within Catholicism.
Also, your “remnant” as a faith based belief is totally satisfied by the “remnant theory” put forth by Baptists. I have no problem with that, I just suggest that does not mean that the Catholic authority is the remnant. I share your conviction that God did not leave generations of people (Christian and non-Christian in my estimation) without the chance of salvation. But, I do not see how this requires the Pope to be the successor of Peter.

Was it beyond God’s power to stop the total apostasy from happening or even preserve a remnant for himself? Why is there 1800 years of silence?

First, no it was not beyond God’s power, but God has ALWAYS allowed for mankind to rebel or return.
Second, we both believe in 500 years of silence before writings contained in the New Testament and similar lengths of silence during other periods of the Old Testament. AND we both believe (you believe and I think it possible) God has not provided public revelation for 1800 years. I just believe that ended when Joseph Smith and you believe it continues today.
I guess you believe Catholic Councils is God not being silent, but that is not what Catholics tell our Protestant brothers. God does not REVEAL doctrine to Catholic Councils. As Catholic Apologist Patrick Madrid teaches, “the only Pope who was inspired and who received revelation to be given to the whole church was Peter.” I call this silence!

Given that there was 1800 years of silence, how can the church be condemned for failure of God to send prophets and correct her.

I do not think God condemns the Catholic Church, but when the Bishops of the Catholic Church declared God would not reveal anything more and this became the settled view, God’s actions however grand did not lead to the Church declaring this view was an error. As I keep saying Thomas Aquinas just NEVER said anything again.

Abandoned in such a way that God was forced to start again with the LDS, a church that is not connected with the apostles in any way (except it’s mystical claims).

No! Not at all.
All Christians owe the church that preserved “the fundamental principles” AND the Bible a debt of gratitude. I have never been able to hold sustained doubt about the existence of God and this gift was given to me original through the Catholic Church. The Apostles received revelation and wrote scripture. The local leaders who received this teaching from the apostles preserved it as best they could and blessed the lives of many.

I suspect that there is no answer the Mormon can give to this question since it is a matter not known to them but only to God. Yet to me it stands out as one of the main reasons why I could never accept the Mormon viewpoint and why I find the God of Mormonism so repellent.

I would of course suggest that you are not only attributing to Mormonism things that are not IMO part of Mormonism, but you are attributing to God things that are CERTAINLY not accurate of Him.
I believe the bulk of the theological errors introduced in the Early Church were a product of a desire (without revelation) to lift God higher. I already mentioned Pelakan’s statement of God’s immutability. God must be absolutely without change least He be more or less perfect before He accepts my love or after I curse Him and reject Him. God must create unfettered by anything, creation ex nihilo. Gerard May (a protestant scholar) traces the development of this doctrine. God must be WHOLELY OTHER. This is part of how Christ must have two natures, the God nature and the Human nature because much that is divine is defined as being antithetical to that which is human. To the extent these incorrect doctrines cause monks like Serapion to weep they are problems, but they were not introduced for the purpose of perverting the gospel.
This is one of the reasons why “God is love” is the proper IMO starting place, but revelation is a necessary correcting force for God’s church in its fullness.
Charity, TOm

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

A few questions Tom based on what you said. Do you believe Montanus was the Spirit of Truth and that the two women with him Prophets? Do you believe Thomas became a Mormon? Do you believe the Mormon church can apostasize like the New Covenant Church of Jesus did? Are those in the 1800 years of silence, while not deprived of salvation, still deprived of ultimate happiness?

 

[JimmyDFG]

Of course I did not miss that, but it is irrelevant to the fact that #33 is condemned. How do you interpret the condemnation of #33 except that it allows burning a heretic at the stake?

Is it happening now?

 

[spedteacherita]

The one true church is the universal church of all believers. The alternative to this view is a sort of theological elitism whereby we all say our church is the “true” church and all others are not churches at all. Which is a divisive and unreasonable attitude. All Christians are part of the one true church of God.

Amen!!

 

[TOmNossor]

A few questions Tom based on what you said. Do you believe Montanus was the Spirit of Truth and that the two women with him Prophets

I lean STRONGLY away from the view that Montanus and the prophetesses were sharing God’s truth and were prophets. I have said this on this board before. I merely assert that from Christ till Tertullian I know of no evidence that the church believed “public revelation had ended with the apostles.” But in response to the respected and brilliant Tertullian’s assertion that revelation happened, the orthodox didn’t just declare “not in this case,” but “no not ever.” LDS responded to problems similar to Montanus, but never denied the possibility even necessity (even reality) of revelation.

Do you believe Thomas became a Mormon?

I do not believe Thomas Aquinas became a Mormon, certainly not in his lifetime. I have read Aquinas and believe his and most (perhaps all) encounters with God do not align well with what Aquinas wrote based upon dialectic reasoning and the positions espoused in Ecumenical Councils. The God Thomas discovered that day is not compatible with the description of God present within the Councils. Thus, Thomas could not write more and could not correct the errors. He called it all straw and never explained more. Serapion cried out in anguish when He was taught that the God he knew (thought he knew) was not the God of his church (it seems Serapion altered his view to align with the church, but Aquinas just went silent). I assert that God reaches Aquinas and Serapion and surely St. John of the Cross and … The restoration restored divine guidance to lead God’s church through revelation, not the ability for sincere seekers to know God (that never left).

Do you believe the Mormon church can apostasize like the New Covenant Church of Jesus did?

I already answered this:

Also, I once thought it unwise to be certain that the CoJCoLDS would not fall into total apostasy because I have not seen clear evidence a group believed they would oversee the end of their faith’s God-favored-ness. I now find that less concerning, but that is again a very complex argument. If you are a GLUTTON for punishment you can glean it from here:

mormoninterpreter.com/a-mormon-theodicy-jacob-and-the-problem-of-evil/

All that being said, LDS look for the apostasy because we believe God the Father and God the Son appeared to Joseph Smith and through him there was a restoration. The particulars of the apostasy are not authoritatively defined and are still explored.

Are those in the 1800 years of silence, while not deprived of salvation, still deprived of ultimate happiness?

God is no respecter of persons! Nothing is ultimately denied.
The unbaptized baby who dies in or out of the womb before the age of reason is not.
The person who lives and dies never hearing about Christ or God is not.
All will get a “fair and just opportunity” to accept the gospel in this life or after death.
I believe living the gospel increases happiness and moves one expeditiously towards God so the “great commission” is still great, but God does not give up.
Charity, TOm

 

[Stephen168]

I hold that the Catholic Church is not “the one true Church founded” by Christ.
There are numerous aspects in Catholic history that contribute to this view (including an argument used by a Catholic against the Eastern Orthodox on this thread), but that is not the foundation of why I do not hold that the Catholic Church is God’s one true Church.
I believe that God was involved in the “restoration” of His Church. So I embrace the Church of that restoration (as best I understand). So my position is not based upon things I perceive are lacking in Catholicism, but is based on the embracing of a Church I believe was founded/restored by God.

God was always triune. The incarnation is the revelation that made this fact clear. A triune God is consistent with the Old Testament, just as the Mormon Church claims the Mormon Church is consistent with the Old Testament. Joseph Smith rejected the Triune nature of God to replace him with polytheism.

When Joseph Smith translated the Book of Mormon in 1830 it referred to Mary as the Mother of God; Theotokos. An ancient term that says more about the nature of God than it does about Mary.

Joseph Smith then led his people to believe that God was once a man, and man can become God. The Book of Mormon was changed to reflect Joseph Smith’s new “revelation” about the nature of God; a total rejection of the teaching of Moses, Christ, and the Apostles.

The Gospel, the good news, is the beatific vision. The Gospel was never lost, but has been rejected by Joseph Smith.

Joseph Smith had another “revelation” where he claimed the Book of Mormon was a history of ALL the Indians of the Americas. The has been found by science to not be true.

Mormon scripture translated by Joseph Smith created many of the unique Mormon teachings: the nature of the priesthood (no blacks), God is near the star Kolob, the exaltation of humanity, a pre-mortal existence, rejection of creation ex nihilo, the first and second estates, and the plurality of gods. All of these teachings come from a translation by Joseph Smith declared scripture by the Mormon Church, which science established to be an Egyptian funeral text. Again, Joseph Smith’s “scriptures” are false.

Mormons also taught that the “great apostasy” took place in 570AD because of Joseph Smith’s “translation” of the New Testament. This teaching was found to be a problem because the unique teachings of Mormonism were clearly never part of the early Christian Church. So the date was moved back, so the Mormon Church could invent anything they wanted and claim it was “lost.”

The problem for Mormonism is it can not over come the fact that so much of Joseph Smith’s “translations” and prophecies have been proven false that it would be impossible for a reasonable person to believe the “revelation” and “scripture” which lay outside of the physical world. These would include his teachings about the nature of God., the loss of authority, or the “authority” he received from Peter, James, and John.

It is clear to me as a matter of historic and scientific reason that the Mormon Church was the invention of Joseph Smith, the Book of Mormon is false, because Joseph Smith could never be trusted. Therefore, the Mormon Church could never be the Church established by Jesus Christ.

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

I am not reading that entire article to find out an answer to the question I raised concerning the possibility of Mormon Apostasy though I would like a clear answer which only has three real possible answers. Yes the Mormon church like the Church Christ established can Apostatise. No the Mormon Church unlike the Church Christ established cannot apostatise. Maybe the Mormon Church can like the Church Christ established can apostatise.

There may be nuance to your answer and we can deal with that when it comes up, but I don’t think you’ve answered this specific question. I will however address a few points you bring up for the moment, that is you want to emphasis the lack of Prophecy and it’s primary role in leading the Church. I would simply ask, whose fault is that? Let’s assume the Mormon outlook for a second, the Apostles functioned much the same way modern LDS do today. They gave prophesy and authoritative proclamations for the Church.

Your answer to my question seems to imply it was churchmen who impiously sought to make the ecclesiastical elements of the Church more dominant over the prominent. Putting aside the fact that Tertullian didn’t suggest we need Apostles (nor did anyone I can think of at that time) why was there a lack of Apostles in the first place to not pronounce on these matters? Was there a conspiracy which the Church has obscured hiding and attempting to blot out the apostolic successors from history? This a lack of clarity from Mormons on what they believe historically concerning the Apostles and their succession. I would ask you to fill in the gaps. Did the Apostles appoint successors, if so why did those Apostles fail to be recognised in the Church? It simply doesn’t seem possible to me given the weight of apostolic testimony that any such men should be overthrown by ecclesiastics hungering for power in a Church with little to no power at the time. This of course relates to my previous question of whether or not it is possible for the Mormon church to apostatise.

Also where did Thomas Aquinas renounce the councils before him or the theologians before him? It seems to me you are reading into Thomas’ words which are known only to him what they mean. When Thomas says all that he is written before him is straw is he repudiating everything he has written with his pen or speaking in an eccentric manner to describe the great glory of God? Why are you so confident he saw the God of Mormonism? In the absence of Thomas separating himself from the abomination which is the Roman Catholic Church, how is it you even have a case?

 

[RebeccaJ]

This of course relates to my previous question of whether or not it is possible for the Mormon church to apostatise.

The Mormon church teaches, and it is in their scripture, that the Mormon church will not be overcome by a general apostasy. See D&C 138:44. Which is a recasting of Daniel 2:44. (An example of Joseph Smith claiming a prophecy of the OT is related to himself, rather than the Christian understanding of Jesus Christ and His Kingdom.)

 

[TOmNossor]

The problem for Mormonism is it can not over come the fact that so much of Joseph Smith’s “translations” and prophecies have been proven false that it would be impossible for a reasonable person to believe the “revelation” and “scripture” which lay outside of the physical world. These would include his teachings about the nature of God., the loss of authority, or the “authority” he received from Peter, James, and John.

It is clear to me as a matter of historic and scientific reason that the Mormon Church was the invention of Joseph Smith, the Book of Mormon is false, because Joseph Smith could never be trusted. Therefore, the Mormon Church could never be the Church established by Jesus Christ.

Stephen,
I suspect you know well my position on this, but I will offer a few words just the same.
I have looked through the genesis of all the criticisms you offer. Most of them are negatives for the truth claims of the CoJCoLDS, few if any (of the ones you mentioned) produce problems when looked at thoroughly from the position I hold. I do not expect prophetic leadership to produced inerrancy and certainly not inerrancy when it comes to scientific understandings. I do believe that evidence suggests that the BOM discusses a real group of Jews who traveled through the Old World and really landed somewhere (probably Mesoamerica) and really did things that combined with their insights on God lead to the BOM with its real historical background.
As I mentioned in the post you responded to, it is my inability to explain the positive evidences that lead to my conviction that God was involved in the restoration. I cannot be Catholic and recognize that God was involved in the restoration. So I carry with me the problems of Mormonism and do not pick up the problems of Catholicism.
I am sure you have a different view as I have observed in your posts.
Charity, TOm