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

[TOmNossor]

There is no “disarray” that has been demonstrated only the assumption that we need Apostles and since the Church has done so well I suggest that position is false.

Are you suggesting that there was no disarray or just inviting me to “demonstrate” it? I do not see how you can suggest that the melee that was early Christianity was not disarray. Have you read the conflicts? Socrates in the 4th century in his Church History has two quotes that illustrate just a small part of this disarray (bolding mine).

At Caesarea likewise, and in Cappadocia, and in Cyprus, the presbyters and bishops expound the Scripture in the evening, after the candles are lighted. The Novatains of the Hellespont do not perform their prayers altogether in the same manner as those of Constantinople; in most things however, their usage is similar to that of the prevailing church. In short, it is impossible to find anywhere, among all the sects, two church which agree exactly in their ritual respecting prayers. In Alexandria no presbyter is allowed to address the public: a regulation which was made after Arius had raised a disturbance in that church. At Rome they fast every Saturday, At Caesarea if Cappadocia they exclude from communion those who have sinned after baptism as the Novatains do. The ….

Earlier Socrates offers:

For a division was caused among them as some acquiesced in the reasonableness of the emperor’s proposition while other shrunk from it, conscious that it was by no means favorable to their interests: so that all being variously affected towards the writings of the ancients, they could no longer agree among themselves, dissenting not only from other sects, but those of the same sect different from one another.

Newman’s Arians of the 4th Century makes it clear that (in the words of St. Jerome) “The whole world groaned to find itself Arian.” (I would suggest Jerome speaks of a time before Socrates is speaking as Socrates is describing the beginning of the end of Semi-arianism).
Having inspired leaders who receive public revelation is both a stabilizing and a destabilizing force. From after the orthodox conflict with Tertullian Catholics and EOs claim to be only preserving the truth, and yet change (or development) is everywhere. If you have read the history, it is very messy.
Your concept of “doing so well” is different than mine. I think there is much in small town Utah that could be called “doing so well.” Most families attend church and almost all believe in God. Children are raised with faith commitments and continue those at higher percentage than in other faith communities. But even they are swimming in a sea that is not doing so well and thus they are not doing as well as I would like.
I find some things to be optimistic about. I do not think it likely the world will erupt on World War III any time soon. The percentage of lives that end in violence or war have been dropping especially over the last 2 centuries. I have seen a few overly optimistic LDS credit such things to the restoration, but I do not think such a position is defendable (I would suggest it is instead the acceptance of North’s “open access state” by humanity, something helped along by God and the “organization more humble” AND something occasionally helped along by men inspired of God – more on this below).
However, irreligion and less religion is clearly on the rise in most societies (and all loosely Judeo-Christian societies). Two hundred years ago if you didn’t believe in God you are likely to be viewed as one having mental problems or worse. Today, in the circles that I travel in, non-belief is celebrated as “enlightened.” And if you believe in God and that belief informs your worldview and actions, you are considered an oddity (if and when you display this belief). Part of this is because the witness of Christ has not CHANGED the lives of enough people to incline society strongly towards God despite the fact that most of our ancestors were “Christians.” I suspect part of this is because in an “open access state” people are far more free to believe AND disbelieve than they were in “limited access state” for example Augustine’s City of God, but I submit that such compulsory Christianity can only be had in the “organization more humble.”
cont…

 

[TOmNossor]

This is of course unless you reject the original Church established as containing legitimacy.

I do not believe the original church of the apostles was not legitimate. I merely suggest it was replaced by an “organization more humble.” That it is possible that folks like Ignatius and Polycarp desired death so that they would die within the fullness of God’s church rather than the prophesied “organization more humble.”
I believe that Christians from 33AD to 1750AD did a wonderful job of preserving the Bible and the witness of Jesus Christ. But, just as the meridian time was uniquely the time when God would be killed by His people and Pax Romana would ensure that this witness was preserved and spread; this time also involved a very different outlook on human relations. The link I keep point to you draws upon the work of Nobel Lariat Douglas North. Small groups live in a “primitive state” and are able to preserve truths explained in the Book of Mormon “the one being is as precious in [God’s] sight as the other” (Jacob 2:21) and that it is the obligation of the well-off not to expropriate but to increase the wealth of the poor (Jacob 2:17). But, when small groups move from the “primitive state” to the “limited access state” (or “natural state,”) something that inevitably happens when group size moves to 150 – 500, leaders emerge who do not embrace this concept of equality. The article actually mentions how “first among equals” become more than just first among EQUALS (an idea that might resonate with you). A natural state is scarcely conceivable if it is widely believed that “the one being is as precious in [God’s] sight as the other” (Jacob 2:21) and that it is the obligation of the well-off not to expropriate but to increase the wealth of the poor (Jacob 2:17).
I believe that God knows the trajectory of human interactions. I believe He understands the “primitive state” and the “natural state.” It is clear that much of Christian history occurred within “natural state” humanity. There were very different rules for the clergy than for the laity. Absolute saints can and did resist some of this, but not all church leaders were absolute saints. In the fourth century a document called the Apostolic Constitutions said:

The bishop, he is the minister of the word, the keeper of knowledge, the mediator between God and you in the several parts of your divine worship. He is the teacher of piety; and, next after God, he is your father, who has begotten you again to the adoption of sons by water and the Spirit. He is your ruler and governor; he is your king and potentate; he is, next after God, your earthly god, who has a right to be honoured by you…let the bishop preside over you as one honoured with the authority of God, which he is to exercise over the clergy, and by which he is to govern all the people.

This document does not descend to the point future clergy / laity relations would descend. There was still a great deal of importance placed upon the service of the laity by the clergy, but over time practice clearly validated North’s comments about the “natural state.” Clergy held great power and in some cases unchecked power. There were many abuses. I am not saying this means that clergy were bad and I will and have said that some were saints. But the “natural state” prevailed time and time again and this is antithetical to the fullness of God’s church. It was a condition of the human state that the “organization more humble” would carry the witness of Christ and the Bible forward until humanity SLOWLY guided by God could move from the “natural state” to the “open access state.” The “open access state” has already addressed some Catholic problems in the 1980’s that would not have been addressed in the 950’s or 960’s.
cont …

 

[TOmNossor]

The Book of Mormon presents a three-pronged demonstration of the ideas that Douglas North offered (in three distinct genres and at three different levels of abstraction: at a metaphysical level in a philosophical patriarchal blessing, at a concrete level in the history of the emerging Nephite political economy, and in the Allegory of the Olive Tree). According to North and the BOM, society could not support the “open access state” until enough history had passed for numerous folks to reject the “natural state.” Another book of scripture for LDS explains that one of the first forays into North’s “open access state” was initiated by God. The D&C teaches that God inspired the “Founding Father” to produce the “open access state” that still exists, the United States. This idea has spread to most of Europe, North and South America, and parts of the rest of the world. It is my contention (from the article I kept pointing you to by Val Larsen) that without the “open access state” God’s restored church could not last. A natural state is scarcely conceivable if it is widely believed that “the one being is as precious in [God’s] sight as the other” (Jacob 2:21) and that it is the obligation of the well-off not to expropriate but to increase the wealth of the poor (Jacob 2:17), but humanity rejected such to such a great degree until the “open access state.”
You asked me:

IgnatianPhilo;14382949:

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.

The LDS faith and my faith based answer is as Rebecca offered. Cannot happen.
My intellectual answer is “seems unlikely” and is largely built upon the LONG article to which I linked you.

The article goes into a great deal of detail and draws upon Douglas North and much more Book of Mormon than I have offered above (as I mentioned three different ways). The article does not go into the consolidation of power and inequalities present in Christian history that show it was “natural state” society. I have only offered a tiny bit of what I have encountered over the years and I have not made it a point to collect these things as I have never thought the apostasy was caused by bad clergy (still don’t). Instead, I believe that the BOM points us towards an understanding that small groups of Christians can live in the “primitive state” with a fullness and very large groups of Christian can live in an “open access state” with a fullness, but the “natural state” can only support the “organization more humble” that the Pastor of Hermas prophesied in the late first or second century.
Thus, God came and was killed by His people in the “meridian time,” when His Bible and His witness could be preserved due to Pax Romana. And God restored in the “fullness of times” when the fullness of the gospel, including public revelation, would never be removed again.
Charity, TOm

hopefully more later.

 

[TOmNossor]

Returning to the idea of God abandoning his people, we could present a hypothetical. Suppose all the first presidency, the Quorum of the twelve and the seventy and presiding Bishopric of the LDS Church all disappear and or are killed. Mormons have no leaders nor means of appointing successors. Has God abandoned the LDS Church if such an event were to happen? I would say yes.

I do not believe that a plot to kill all the first presidency, the Qo12, and the Seventy could succeed in an “open access state.” I also believe as it began, God would call men to replace those who were killed. As the article, I linked you too early posited, it is not that men plotted and killed off the leaders who could and would receive public revelation. It is that the “natural state” was not conducive to the fullness of the gospel. The “organization more humble” prophesied by the Pastor of Hermas replaced the original organization, but God knew this would happen. That the “organization more humble” existed in the “natural state” is quite obvious to virtually all historians familiar with Douglas North’s ideas.
I believe that if a totalitarian regime like ISIS take over the world, that the “limited access state,” or “primitive state” could return in all corners and such would over time result in the “organization more humble” as generally good men forgot what it was to truly believe/embrace/practice/know, “the one being is as precious in [God’s] sight as the other” (Jacob 2:21) and instead secured their power though the “limited access” paradigm. But, in truth, I think this is unlikely for human and divine reasons. I am not sure I will advocate “the end of history” like Fukuyama, but I doubt all “open access states” will revert to “limited access states” EVER.
I believe the world will continue to struggle with evil. Societies may choose to tax my church, but they will not eradicate it. Some leaders of my church may so love the “adulation of the masses” they begin to believe they are better than those who are lower, but such will not overwhelm the church in an “open access society.” The strength of the roots and the strength of the branches will stay balanced as God explained through Jacob’s allegory must happen for His church to thrive while humans are free to accept or reject Him and it.

Now evidently you believe this to be what happened in the Church of the Apostles, not only did the first president die, but the twelve died and the Seventy died and successors were unable to be chosen, perhaps because there were no faithful people left in the entire church (this contradicts a point you made about there being faithful people). You place the blame of men, that they failed to live up to what God expected of them, yet I would ask that since the LDS believe men don’t appoint themselves Apostles or first presidents but rather that God does, does the lack of such a person the fault of the people or the fault of God for failing to provide a successor? Is it man’s responsibility to appoint leadership in the Church or is it God’s? Likewise if there were faithful men, as I think history demonstrates in men like Ignatius of Antioch (who received revelation in a Church context mind you and used it as evidence for his position of the Bishop) what excuse is there for there being no Apostles? Either God abandoned the faithful to a Church which would develop into believing the abominations it did or God abandoned the heterodox and false Church in which there was no believing person. You want to have it both ways. You want to Justify God letting go of a corrupt body but you also want to maintain that the faithful were not abandoned. There is only one choice here.

I hope you can see that the link I had offered aligns well with what I have been saying (now that I have fleshed the link out a little, but you can still see much more if you read it). God did not abandon the “organization more humble.” He continued to inspire individuals (even individuals who were church leaders). He continued to intervene in the life of individuals and even in the life of the church. But, it was mankind who could not sustain an organization where equality was sufficiently preserved and yet leaders received public revelation for thousands/millions of Christians. The “organization more humble” offers numerous examples of inequality and disconnect, different rules for discipline of clergy and discipline of laity, extravagances and poverty, and …. This is the fault of man, but it is not the fault of a man AND it is foreseen by God and planned for (just like the crucifixion or the fall were foreseen and planed for).
You offer a false dichotomy.
And beyond this, it is REMARKABLE to me that the BOM and the D&C offers so much to align with the picture I am painting. Val Larsen and I long ago dialogued very briefly about the problem you are presenting. In the BOM he found the answer. This is remarkable to me.
cont …

 

[TOmNossor]

In the absence of Apostles not supplied by God, these faithful had no choice but to rely on the Bishops that the Apostles had appointed or those who had been appointed Bishops in those communities established by Apostles. So yes, my point still stands and it remains Valid, God abandoned faithful believers, men and women who were willing to die for him as Christian history shows. He deprived them (for no reason as of yet offered) of the fullest experience of a divine life (celestial marriage and living with twelve apostles and Prophets). This has nothing to do with hell, which I know Mormons so graciously let us out of (though I suspect even in your theology I am doomed to hell since I really do abhor everything about Mormonism).

The more salient question I think is, “if you believed that the God who died on a cross in Calvary wanted you to recognize that the CoJCoLDS is the “fullness” of His gospel, would you abandon Christ and worship something else?” It is my position that you “abhor” something you do not understand, but if you believed it to be true and from Christ who died for your sins, you would not abhor it.
And, I do not fault men who followed Bishops. I believe the “organization more humble” was God’s organization. I like Patrick believe that God transforms folks. I do not think my words or Val Larsen’s article will convince you to abandon all you know.
Joseph Smith (a prophet of God) said:

If I esteem mankind to be in error, shall I bear them down? No. I will lift them up, and in their own way too, if I cannot persuade them my way is better; and I will not seek to compel any man to believe as I do, only by the force of reasoning, for truth will cut its own way.

So, I refuse to say that there were no faithful men, there were many. I find few “black hats” in Christian history. You keep trying to force me to say this or that, but I think you offer a false dichotomy.
Oh, and LDS do not believe anyone is denied anything that they would have received had they been given a “fair and just” opportunity. LDS have long (close to the beginning of God’s restoration) had an answer to the question of what of those who never heard the name of Christ.
cont…

 

[TOmNossor]

I do not see how you can say there is an unbroken line of faith. Take in mind that under Mormon teaching what the Church began to teach in its creeds (Nicaea and Constantinople) are utter abominations.

I am not sure where I said, “unbroken line of faith,” instead, I said there have always been faithful people who sought and found God. And I have long suggested that “their creeds are an abomination” has little to do with the theology of the creeds. The theology IMO is wrong in some areas, but LDS do not place enough emphasis upon theology to use theological errors in the Athanasian Creed (or other creeds) as the reason for God calling them an abomination. Instead, I suggest two things. From Joseph Smith

I want to come up into the presence of God, and learn all things; but creeds set up stakes (limits) and forums.catholic-questions.org/images/smilies/shrug.gifsay, “Hitherto shalt thou come, and no further” (Job 38:11); which I cannot subscribe to.

And second, the making of creeds is often quite problematic. Athanasius speaks of how he (or someone) recognized that the Arians might be willing to accept a creedal formula, offered at Nicea, based only on scriptural language; and thus it had to be rejected. The creed was formulated to exclude those who thought like the Arians. This is not God’s way and it is seldom (if ever) an error LDS have fallen into.

You know I am Orthodox and not Roman Catholic so I assume you would compare my Orthodox Church to that of Caiaphas and the unbelieving Jews yet I do not think that parallel works. Joseph Smith only appeared in the 1800s, the Orthodox Church has been around since the first century when Christ established it. Now for 1700 years there has been an utter lack of a Prophetic presence to call the Church back to belief in things which is true. When Christ came he brought new revelation which clarified things in the Old. The Orthodox Church has simply had no one to call it out until Joseph Smith and in the meantime our faith was built upon abominations. So when you say that history (I suppose my Church history) isn’t an abomination I am left confused.

I lean in a Catholic direction were there to be no CoJCoLDS. I believe the Papacy developed quite fully during the first 7 ecumenical councils. Thus, if God is somehow guiding this development it would seem the papacy could be God’s vehicle too, but I am not sure how the rejection of the papacy could possess all that the acceptance of the papacy does. I find some of my theology to align better with EOs (original sin) and some with Catholics (beatific vision without denying God’s essence as being experienced by the saints). And ………… But, I really think you are just part of the “organization more humble” the Pastor of Hermes prophesied.

It’s a rotten fruit which they have introduced into the world which has kept many from embracing the true saving faith of Mormonism. Thanks to this ministry there will be many, like myself who freely and utterly repudiate Mormonism (thus I think I am damned according to Mormonism), preferring to believe the original ministry didn’t fail. You can’t have it both ways. You claim yours is a restoration, yet you cannot say that the original ministry, the oLd Israel as it were (being the church today which is not Mormonism) is in some way successful. It is an utter failure which needed a new Start up and a totally separate entity. We are either the Jewish people who rejected Jesus or we are gentiles who never knew the truth.

Again, Mormonism does not teach that there is no salvation for those who errantly “utterly repudiate Mormonism.” Salvation comes through God’s church, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, but it is available not only to those who embrace God’s church, but to those who would had they known it to be true. I suspect you would not be posting on a Catholic board about the merits of the Eastern Orthodox faith if you did not love God. If you tell me that if you discovered that Jesus Christ who died in Calvery recognized President Thomas Monson as His prophet on Earth that you would rather curse God and die, I would likely not even believe you. But, I do believe if you know it is true with a perfect knowledge and you “deny the Holy Ghost” you can be separated from God for all eternity. I discourage this.
I think I have said that the “original ministry … is in some way successful” even today. The Jews today who deny Christ is God the Son are “in some way successful” even today. There is one truth, but God works with those who believe error too. To “know God” is not to “know all true propositions regarding God.” It is to know in one’s heart God; to have a relationship with Him. I do not know precisely how my wife’s childhood influenced her or ever true proposition about her. I even believe things about her that are not true, but I know her in my heart. You can know God the Father and God the Son while errantly believing they are one being, co-equal in three persons only one of which has a tangible body.
You seem quite determined to get me to tell you that you are anti-God. All I can say, is you are wrong. I hope that you can be satisfied with that.

We are either the Jewish people who rejected Jesus or we are gentiles who never knew the truth.

If you believe God is your creator, you are not an atheist, and you possess truth an atheist lacks.
If you believe Christ was God the Son and He died for your sins, you are not religiously Jewish or Moslem; and you possess truth Jewish and Moslem folks lack.
I hope I have made my position more-clear.
Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

A rational person can not believe Joseph Smith received revelation or wrote scripture.

Stephen,
I think all that precedes your statement I quoted has been discussed by LDS thinkers and does not have the impact you seem to think it does.
That being said, let me state as I have repeatedly, “I believe Joseph Smith receive revelation and wrote scripture.” Unless you are employing some non-typical English construction, I will offer two possibilities.

1. Your statement is wrong.
2. I am not rational.
   #2 could be extended to #2x and say that thousands of folks who know as much or more than you do (or than you presented) about the topics you discussed are not rational.
   Maybe you mean to say that #2 could be extended to #2xx and mean millions of folks who have little knowledge of the topics you discussed (and merely believe anti-Mormon’s say stuff like, “A rational person cannot believe Joseph Smith received revelation or wrote scripture” and thus the rest of the stuff they say should be ignored thus they never look into the topics you discuss) are not rational.
   I submit that I read the stuff you posted and none of it was surprising to me. But, the easiest statement to demonstrate as radically flawed was the one I quoted. The flaws in the rest of your posts are covered in many places on the Internet.
   Of course, if I am not rational, perhaps my judgments are too flawed to even know that I am not rational (in fact that seems like it might rationally follow, but who am I to know).
   Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

I read the link. I know what you believe. Now I want to see you prove (properly referenced) that what you believe is true

Hello other Steve,
I do not offer PROOF. Of course I think you lack proof too and so do most non-Catholics. Do you believe you can PROVE Catholicism is God’s church on earth? I am currently reading the Catechism of the Council of Trent (though I have been a little distracted as of late). If you have something for me to read that you think PROVES Catholicism and I find interesting, I might read that next.
I do offer evidence however.
Earlier in this thread I linked to a post I made long ago:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost…&postcount=592

In that post I briefly mentioned Nahom, a specific place in the Old World, fitting into a narrative of a journey at the right place with multi-point support around it. More on it here (including critics of the idea whose articles I have also read):
mormoninterpreter.com/tag/nahom/

I mention:
“Cement used at Teotihuacan fits the time, place, deforestation, and presence of lots of water.”
This exists in a huge list made by Brant Gardner that I think is unlikely to result Joseph Smith INVENTING the BOM. Here is the first third of the list:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost…&postcount=100

I also mention the scholarship of non-Mormon Margaret Barker and how it places the BOM in the religious thought of 600BC rather than in the religious thought of 1830AD. Here is more on this: bycommonconsent.com/2008/09/…rgaret-barker/

Now, do I know that others disagree with my thoughts in these areas? Certainly, but I have yet to think that alternative explanations are better than the explanation that the BOM is real scripture and is based on some real history.
I have also spent a great deal of time offering things from my study of Catholic history in my most recent posts to IgnatianPhilo. These are not even the things I find most difficult to embrace were I to be Catholic, but they are evidence of what I claim to be true.
So, I do not claim proof, just evidence. And while I know of things that I would call evidence of Catholic truth claims, I know of no proof. And in the balance, I embrace the CoJCoLDS because I think it makes the stronger case (before I attempt to humbly ask God for His will, which I also do).

Then you know that by leaving the Catholic Church you left Jesus just like many of His disciples did in John 6:51-67 after Jesus taught them about the Eucharist

Tom,

I’m taking you at your word that you have done much study. Therefore you know already what I’m going to say on this subject.

I say this in all charity,

You aren’t seeing the supernatural realities and consequences of your choice. Look at the section on Heb 10, AND the consequences in place for deliberately missing mass on Sunday #20

I have thought enough about Catholicism to know that I would embrace Vatican II as a valid council that did not radically change, but rather continued to develop, Catholicism. I would recognize there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church in the way Vatican II clarified this. I would reject the modernist junk that exists within MANY parishes including the loving and otherwise wonderful “Catholic Community” in which I grew up. I would believe that a former Catholic such as myself is hell bound unless he is (I am) “invincible ignorant” of the truth claims of Catholicism. I would recognize that intentionally missing mass for one week is a mortal sin and without “perfect contrition” or confession/absolution results in hell. I would believe that my rejection of Catholic dogma at multiple points if not a product of “invincible ignorance” also results in hell. Which brings me back to the start, of course. I cannot believe Catholic dogma and still believe what I do concerning the CoJCoLDS and the Catholic Church, so avoiding hell (if Pope Francis is the Vicar of Christ) is not possible in or out of the Catholic Church unless I am “invincibly ignorant” or my intellectual/spiritual disposition towards Catholicism changes radically.
Catholic Answers radio about 3-4 years ago speculated that C.S. Lewis might have been “invincibly ignorant.” Perhaps I am too.
Charity, TOm

 

[steve_b]

To know, to have knowledge, doesn’t have to be "perfect knowledge. It means

• to perceive directly : have direct cognition of : to have understanding of something or someone
• acquaintance with facts, truths, or principles, as from study or investigation; general erudition:

J:

it involves faith and belief in this case.

Re: Faith

As Peter taught, these are the attributes we are to add to faith

2 Pet 1:5
“…make every effort to supplement your faith with virtue, and virtue with knowledge, 6 and knowledge with self-control, and self-control with steadfastness, and steadfastness with godliness, 7 and godliness with brotherly affection, and brotherly affection with love. 8 For if these things are yours and abound, they keep you from being ineffective or unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ. 9 For whoever lacks these things is blind and shortsighted and has forgotten that he was cleansed from his old sins. 10 Therefore, brethren, be the more zealous to confirm your call and election, for if you do this you will never fall; …”

Note that out of 7 attributes we are to make every effort to add to faith, and never stop adding these 7 attributes, knowledge is 2nd on the list. IOW it’s a high priority
J:

My wife is Orthodox, she is aware why I view the Pope in the wayi do and why I believe in Catholicism. She disagrees with me, she merely views my understanding as the wrong interpretation of some of these issues

give it more time and more prayer
I never made my wife a project. But after we had been married 20 years, she came into the Church
J:

To ‘know the truth’ means far more I would submit than simply been aware of a set of claims and counter-claims.

Aquinas had a great statement on faith

To one who has faith no explanation is necessary. To one without faith no explanation is sufficient.

That says a ton

 

[PJM]

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.

OK but

But have you considered that it may not be “OK” with Christ?

First I am NOT saying that their is no salvation outside ft the RCC, while at the same time acknowledging that ALL salvation does somehow FLOW mysteriously, through the RCC.

Here’s why:

1. All Christian agree that there is but one True God [Triune]
2. No church can be separated from the set of Faith beliefs of THAT church; such is an impossibility; because it is precisely the freely chosen set of faith beliefs of a church hat grants them individual identity.

Even Almighty GOD CAN have and hold only one set of faith beliefs as being HIS TRUTH… anything else is utterly impossible as TRUTH can only be singular per defined issue; this is evidenced by the fact that outside of the Catholic Churches; all loyal to Rome; not only is their a multiplicity of differing set of faith beliefs; but at times even contradictory ones; which our Perfect and Good GOD neither desires nor can abide.

NOT one time in the entire bible can it be shown that GOD ever desired, accepted, tolerated, permitted, or even overlooked ANY other set of faith beliefs than those he taught, commanded, desired and protected with jealously & justice.

Exodus 15:26
Saying: If thou wilt hear the voice of the Lord thy God, and do what is right before him, and OBEY [ALL] his commandments, and keep all his precepts, none of the evils that I laid upon Egypt, will I bring upon thee: for I am the Lord thy healer

1. GOD then attempted to make this self-evident by

a. Choosing ONLY One “chosen people” Exo 6:7 in the OT which Jesus modeled in the NT with “MY CHURCH” Mt 16:18 singular by desire and design; for GOD knew that by presenting only “ONE TRUTH”, One True & desired option; humanity would be a BIT less prone to deviate from Christ Divine & Perfect Will.

**So God’s Divine & Perfect Will; demonstrable, biblical and historical desire evolves around the number ONE:

One True God

Just One TRUE sets of Faith beliefs

Just One “MY Church”**

My friend, you may wish to pray about these realiteis,

GBY

Patrick

 

[PJM]

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.

WELL DONE good and faithful servant!

I’m in complete agreement with you here:thumbsup:

GBY

Patrick

 

[Peter_J]

Jesus Himself is my “Pope.”

Well that’s like if I were to say “Bishop _________ isn’t my bishop. The Pope is my bishop.”

 

[steve_b]

Hello other Steve,

Howdy TOm :tiphat:
T:

I do not offer PROOF. Of course I think you lack proof too and so do most non-Catholics. Do you believe you can PROVE Catholicism is God’s church on earth?

I did, and I showed proof properly referenced. A condensed 400 year history going back to the first century #34
T:

I am currently reading the Catechism of the Council of Trent (though I have been a little distracted as of late). If you have something for me to read that you think PROVES Catholicism and I find interesting, I might read that next.
I do offer evidence however.
Earlier in this thread I linked to a post I made long ago:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost…&postcount=592

In that post I briefly mentioned Nahom, a specific place in the Old World, fitting into a narrative of a journey at the right place with multi-point support around it. More on it here (including critics of the idea whose articles I have also read):
mormoninterpreter.com/tag/nahom/

I mention:
“Cement used at Teotihuacan fits the time, place, deforestation, and presence of lots of water.”
This exists in a huge list made by Brant Gardner that I think is unlikely to result Joseph Smith INVENTING the BOM. Here is the first third of the list:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost…&postcount=100

I also mention the scholarship of non-Mormon Margaret Barker and how it places the BOM in the religious thought of 600BC rather than in the religious thought of 1830AD. Here is more on this: bycommonconsent.com/2008/09/…rgaret-barker/

Now, do I know that others disagree with my thoughts in these areas? Certainly, but I have yet to think that alternative explanations are better than the explanation that the BOM is real scripture and is based on some real history.

I gave you Church Documents (properly referenced) going back to the 1st century.

The One who spoke in the beginning and all that is, came into existence, the ONE the OT looked forward to, Jesus Christ, is the One who established His Church in the first century. And it is specifically identifiable from the first century, and it is here today and forever, by Our Lord’s promise. #34
T:

I do not claim proof, just evidence. And while I know of things that I would call evidence of Catholic truth claims, I know of no proof. And in the balance, I embrace the CoJCoLDS because I think it makes the stronger case (before I attempt to humbly ask God for His will, which I also do).

One denying evidence “properly referenced” proving a point, without equally valid evidence properly referenced, doesn’t mean that denial has any legs.
T:

I have thought enough about Catholicism to know that I would embrace Vatican II as a valid council that did not radically change, but rather continued to develop, Catholicism. I would recognize there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church in the way Vatican II clarified this. I would reject the modernist junk that exists within MANY parishes including the loving and otherwise wonderful “Catholic Community” in which I grew up. I would believe that a former Catholic such as myself is hell bound unless he is (I am) .
“invincible ignorant” of the truth claims of Catholicism

Re: invincible ignorance

#14
T:

I would recognize that intentionally missing mass for one week is a mortal sin and without “perfect contrition” or confession/absolution results in hell. I would believe that my rejection of Catholic dogma at multiple points if not a product of “invincible ignorance” also results in hell. Which brings me back to the start, of course. I cannot believe Catholic dogma and still believe what I do concerning the CoJCoLDS and the Catholic Church,

And that is an act of your will. Free will which God gave all of us, is what makes us culpable for what we do and choose.
T:

so avoiding hell (if Pope Francis is the Vicar of Christ) is not possible in or out of the Catholic Church unless I am “invincibly ignorant” or my intellectual/spiritual disposition towards Catholicism changes radically.

Tom,

Just as there have been 55 presidents of the U.S. there have been 266 popes from Peter.

To use a phrase made popular by John Henry Newman when he was a Protestant

to be deep in history is to cease being a Protestant.

Taking that phrase and modifying it,

to be deep in history is to be Catholic in the Catholic Church

Catholic Answers radio about 3-4 years ago speculated that C.S. Lewis might have been “invincibly ignorant.” Perhaps I am too.
Charity, TOm

 

[PJM]

quote Originally Posted by Wannano View Post
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 end quote

**
rinnie;14416487[/COLOR:
]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.

Eph 2: 19-20
Now therefore you are no more strangers and foreigners; but YOU are fellow citizens with the saints, and the domestics of God, Built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone:

Among the most glaring errors of the the non-Catholic-Christians stems from a simple, AND SIMPLY PROFOUND oversight; namely not recognizing, not applying what the Inspired Authors [2 Tim 3:16-17] and Jesus Himself intended to relay and TEACH, was the use of singular tense words; which combine to provide a clear and precise BODY of evidence of what , and only what, Christ; our GOD, desired and DID institute abd DOES protect

Each of these singular tense WORDS is directed to the Apostles and by necessity their successors. Directly, precisely and exclusively.

Mt 10:1-2 & 5
And having called HIS twelve disciples together, he gave THEM power over unclean spirits, to cast them out, and to heal all manner of diseases, and all manner of infirmities. And the names of the twelve apostles are these:THE FIRST Simon who is called Peter

Mt 16:18-19
And I say to THEE: That thou art Peter; and upon [YOU PETER] this rock I will build MY CHURCH, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. [19] And I will give TO YOU [ALL IMPLIED HERE] the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever YOU shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever YOU shalt loose upon earth, **it shall be loosed also in heaven. **

John 17:17-20
[BSanctify THEN IN [MY] TRUTH. Thy word is truth. [As thou hast SENT ME into the world I [GOD] HAVE ALSO SENT THEM into the world. [AND FOR THEM DO I sanctify myself, thatTHEY also may be [HERE MEANS WILL BE; GOG CANNOT DENY HIS OWN PRAYER REQUEST] sanctified in truth. [20] And NOT FOR THEM ONLY **do I pray, but for them also who through their word shall believe in me

NOTE carefully: ONLY the RCC; the One TRUE Church founded, desired, guided and guarded by BOTH the HS and Christ can make this claim and prove it. THIS passage is the foundation of Catholic Papal INnallibility when teaching on [and ONLY ON] Faith and Morals.

Mt 28:19-20
Going therefore, teach YOU all nations; baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have **commanded **[HERE THIS TERM ALSO MEANS “TAUGHT”] YOU: and behold I am with YOU all days, even to the consummation of the world.

This is a critical lesson for anyone actually seeking Christ Truth, which can be nothing other than singular per defined issue. AMEN!

GBY
Patrick**

 

[PJM]

Agreed

But Jesus [GOD] desired and accomplished ONLY what HE desired:

One God Triune

One set of Faith beliefs it is this precise factor that separates the RCC from ALL other Christian faiths

One Church, as no church can be separated from THAT which identifies IT: Their ONE set of Faith beliefs

GBY

Patrick

 

[Wannano]

Well that’s like if I were to say “Bishop _________ isn’t my bishop. The Pope is my bishop.”

Well, not quite.

If I am to respond to PJM, I will be doing it with fear and trembling because I feel tremendously inadequate. Not because I am doubting my own convictions but because I feel like an ant on the pavement about to be run over by a truck.

In the meantime I have to get ready to go to church.

 

[PJM]

true but in order to be the otc it must have the 4 marks.

one

holy the church itself not so the people in it

catholic

& apostolic

 

[PJM]

Well, not quite.

If I am to respond to PJM, I will be doing it with fear and trembling because I feel tremendously inadequate. Not because I am doubting my own convictions but because I feel like an ant on the pavement about to be run over by a truck.

In the meantime I have to get ready to go to church.

THANKS BUT

I’m ONLY a conduit for the HS, so FEAR NOT:thumbsup:

I TRY to be as chairatible as I can be, with GODS help, so ASK AWAY, that is what this FORUM is for my friend!

God Bless you,

Patrick [PJM] the OP

 

[PJM]

Well that’s like if I were to say “Bishop _________ isn’t my bishop. The Pope is my bishop.”

WELL

The Pope too is a BISHOP; the 1st among Bishops

It is the Catholic MAGISTERIUM wherein lies the Authority of the RCC:thumbsup:

GBY

Patrick

 

[PJM]

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

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.”

REALLY, then TOm how do explain this:

Mt 10: 1-8

And having called his twelve disciples together, he gave tTHEM POWER OVER unclean spirits, to cast them out, and to heal all manner of diseases, and all manner of infirmities. And the names of the twelve apostles are these: The first, Simon who is called Peter, and Andrew his brother, James the son of Zebedee, and John his brother, Philip and Bartholomew, Thomas and Matthew the publican, and James the son of Alpheus, and Thaddeus, [4] Simon the Cananean, and Judas Iscariot, who also betrayed him. THESE TWELVE JESUS SENT: commanding THEM saying: Go ye not into the way of the Gentiles, and into the city of the Samaritans enter ye not. But go ye rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. And going, preach, saying: The kingdom of heaven is at hand. [8] Heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse the lepers, cast out devils: freely have you received, freely give.

NOW COMPARE VERSE 5 & 6 TO THE COMMAND

And Jesus coming, spoke TO THEM, saying: All power is given to me in heaven and in earth. [Going therefore, **TEACH YOU ALL NATIONS baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Teaching THEM [THE ENTIRE WORLD] to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded YOU: and behold I am with YOU all days, even to the consummation of the world.

TOm the ONLY way this could and would be feasible is THROUGH Succession

GBY

Patrick