Why the Great Apostasy was never possible: a scenario

[TOmNossor]

FCEGM:

This is quite an a-historical dream, Tom.

I don’t agree.

It seems to me that you have suggested that the Eastern Orthodox Church fully understands that the Bishop of Rome is prime and that they departed communion because of an unrighteous seeking of power on the part of the Patriarch of Constantinople. Since there is “no salvation outside the … church,” do you really expect me to believe that millions of EO Christians stand by a failed power grab? Or rather am I to believe that they are all ignorant of what history teaches us. Is Pelikan ignorant? Or rather is my position that if the Catholic Church has the Peterine authority it developed, and this development is not recognized by EOs, LDS, and Protestants more reality based?

FCEGM:

Read Ignatius’ Epistles, Tom. He had never been to

Ephesus or Smyrna either.

Ignatius has become acquainted with the Ephesians. He has received many Ephesian leaders. And he “does not issue orders to them as some great person” just as he does not issue orders to Rome. I do not think the Letter to Ephesus supports your assertion, but it does seem to be true that Ignatius had not actually been to Ephesus.

Ignatius “observed” that the Smyrnaeans “are perfected in an immovable faith.” You are incorrect when you suggest that Ignatius had not been to Smyrna, he had. The majority of his council to them was associated with the Docetic heresy and is likely a product of this heresy existing among them. He speaks as if the recipients of his letter will agree with him, but could address the heretics better than he fears they might.

FCEGM:

Yet, if “all bishops are equal” and there was no primacy in Rome, why doesn’t Ignatius teach the Romans too? Why, rather, does he write to them referring to how Rome “presides in the chief place” and how …

The words of Ignatius at this point (“which also presides in the chief place of the Roman territory”) are pointing to the fact that Rome is the apostolic see in its region not to the fact that Rome is the head of the church. I would not suggest your interpretation is ridiculous, but it is far from the only possible understanding.

It seems to me that you have suggested that St. Cyprian changed his beliefs with respect to authoritative Baptism. Then you suggest I argue from silence? Do you have any evidence that St. Cyprian changed his views?

Pope Honorius did teach heresy. There are other less publicized examples if you like.
…

 

[TOmNossor]

FCEGM:

So do we IN PRACTICE, not in substance or substantial recognition. That is what Newman meant.

I’m afraid this is because you are a sloppy historian and do not possess a proper appreciation of the material or its proper context.

I do not claim to be a historian. I merely claim to have read books by Catholics, LDS, and Protestants (and a number of ECFs). Here is a passage about “St. Peter’s prerogative.” At other places Newman develops the acorn to oak (or some similar analogy).

Newman:
St. Peter’s prerogative would remain a mere letter, till the complication of ecclesiastical matters became the cause of ascertaining it. While Christians were “of one heart and one soul,” it would be suspended; love dispenses with laws. Christians knew that they must live in unity, and they were in unity; in what that unity consisted, how far they could proceed, as it were, in bending it, and what at length was the point at which it broke, was an irrelevant as well as unwelcome inquiry.

It is my opinion that the earlier heresies that did not evoke authoritative decrees from Rome were no more or less difficult to deal with than the later heresies (Newman seems to disagree). In addition to this the authority structure is laid out by Clement and Ignatius, but the primacy of Rome is never mentioned. I have never seen Newman say, “Clement had no idea he was prime,” but that is what I see.

FCEGM:

Of course you do. Because if you accepted the obvious truth, you’d have to leave the Mormonism and come back to us; thus, it is no wonder that you provide every excuse you can think of to justify your leaving us.

That the truth is obvious I very much disagree. That the Catholic Church has a solid read on the history I very much acknowledge, but I do not think I am absent a solid read on history. I am well aware of the fact that I have the ability to be biased in my weighing and measuring of the data, but your assertion that it is so “obvious” is quite wanting in my observation.

You clearly have a great deal of knowledge about these issues and are quite Catholic. Was I not already convinced that this was possible I would be now. You have corrected a couple of errors I had and that is wonderful. It seems to me that you are quite convinced that I must become Catholic. This seemed unlikely a few weeks ago and it seems less likely than that just a week ago. I a glad that I am not convinced that you must become a LDS.

I guess this aspect of Catholicism vs. Mormonism is another hurtle that were I to clear all the others would still loom in the distance. I know that post Vatican II I can not be “outside the Catholic Church” despite the fact that it seems that I am, but I would be quite conservative as a Catholic and would not take much public solace in this truth. I have no trouble believing that the CoJCoLDS is the highest paradigm and acknowledging that others can fully unite with God despite not being LDS. True or not, this seems to be part of what God has communicated to me.

Charity, TOm

 

[Vidar]

I am saddened to read a former Catholic now mormon write that the LDS religion is a “higher paradigm”.

I have gone in the exact opposite direction. The same is the case with four former mormons in my parish.
One of them goes to mass every day when possible. Why?

When she was a teenager she dreamed about going to the temple. There she expected to find answers to many questions and a deep spirituality that was sadly lacking in the regular sacrament meetings.

She was deeply disappointed when she went to the temple for the first time. It was not at all what she expected. For some reason, masonic handshakes and oaths of secrecy didn’t do much for her.

She was told that her understanding would deepen over time. She became a temple worker, and her understanding did deepen over the course of the next decades. But not in the direction she had been told it would. The last time she visited the LDS temple she asked her self “What ARE you doing? This is lunacy! Jesus Christ is not the author of this silliness”. She never returned.

In the Catholic Mass, she found everything that she had been looking for her entire life in mormonism. A communal worship of the entire body of Christ. The real presense of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist. A participation in the heavenly liturgy.

Once you have experienced the truth, you can spot a fake a mile away. Nothing in mormonism can begin to compare with the glory of the Catholic Mass, the real presense of Jesus Christ in the eucharist (a FOUNDATIONAL doctrine in early Christianity and without a doubt apostolic) the beauty of the communion of Saints. The mystery of the infinite God.

Mormonism is a philosophically shallow counterfeit, created by Joseph Smith collaborating with a number of freemasons (who as enemies of the Catholic Church had their own agenda).

Vidar

 

[majick275]

Count me in on that Too. After many years of sincere effort and study, I’ll take the eucharist over the endowment.