Was There An Apostacy In The Early Christian Church?

[3DOP]

Howdy mfbuk.

Thanks for the query.

If I were LDS I too, could subscribe to the Apostles Creed. The expression, "communion of saints" is sufficiently vague of itself to allow for the meaning to which you give to it. I am pleased that you say you agree with the words of the Creed. But I doubt that LDS would agree with the meaning which Catholics attach to "the communion of saints".

There are multiple differences in our presuppositions that explain why Mormons and Evangelicals find infant baptism to be plainly wrong and even absurd. One of the chief reasons, if I am not mistaken, is that Catholics attach more importance to the principle that supports the communion of saints than do other Christians. If Mormons thought that babies needed a baptismal cleansing because of the Fall of Adam, if Evangelicals believed that baptism accomplished a cleansing from sin, there is a further objection, and a big one. Mormons and Evangelicals would object to infant baptism anyway on the grounds that the baby can't make any decision for Christ, the baby cannot make any act of faith, the baby cannot repent.

Because a baby is necessarily a passive participant in any ritual ceremony, many Christians reason that there cannot be any very significant importance to such a ceremony. They certainly are predisposed to deny that a child could be received by God covenantally and reborn by God's power without making any decision about it one way or the other. That is why I cited Genesis 17 where we understand that the male children who passed the age of eight days without circumcision found themselves outside God's covenant. Without seeing the need to analyze precise and profound details about why it was only males, or what actually took place in the soul of an eight day old, it seems to me like this ritual, which was maintained right up to the time of Christ establishes a very significant precedent. It shows that God sometimes, at least initially, helps us along in our faith journeys through the faithful intercessions and acts of others. In this case, it is a ritual act.

In light of Genesis 17, even though infant circumcision has become obsolete under newer covenants, it does not seem to me that we can prudently preclude the possibility that there is another ritual act wherein a baby benefits in God's sight, once again without making any personal decision whatsoever.

I then moved on to St. Matthew's Gospel and the story of the palsied man let through the roof of a house. As In the Gospels of Sts. Mark and Luke we see that the palsied man is healed and his sins are forgiven, not because of act or decision of his own decision, but because of the faith of those who bore his litter. If it was not specifically repeated twice by both Mark and Matthew, the Evangelical and LDS would assume that it was at the behest of the palsied man, that he was being carried, and for the palsied man's faith alone, that his sins could be forgiven. Instead we see that Christ forgives the palsied man at least partially because of the faith of his good companions:

And when Jesus had seen their faith, he saith to the sick of the palsy: Son, thy sins are forgiven thee.

---Mark 2:5

As I have implied before, if I were making it up, I would never have thought to have put it that way. I understand the reasoning that rejects infant baptism because of the necessarily passive participation of the recipient. However, I have to conform my reasonings to be compatible with what we know about the first covenant, and about what we learn from the lesson of the palsied man when he was forgiven by Jesus. If for the faith of some good companions a helpless man was forgiven of sins, how much more likely is it that because of the faith of loving parents, a helpless child may receive the gifts of eternal life?

I am not saying I have proven the need for Infant baptism, but I ask you to see why it cannot be as easily dismissed as so many Christians assume. Given as evidence of apostasy, it seems to me like the one who proposes infant baptism as such needs to explain what they believe about circumcision as prescribed to Abraham, as well as explaining why the faith of his companions was taken into consideration when forgiving the palsied man his sins.

------------------------------------------------

Broadly speaking, the communion of saints as Catholics understand it means that each of us may merit gifts and benefits for others of us. That is what it really means to be a Christian, or little Christ. We don't merit eternal life for each other in the sense that Christ did. But this principle which underlies our understanding of the communion of saints extends beyond the grave and becomes THE REASON why we have devotional practices that are distinct and usually cited by Protestants and Mormons alike as proof of apostasy or need for reform. If the practise of indulgences has been abused, that can never be a reason to lay aside the gifts the Church has been charged with using for the salvation of all souls. If devotion to the Mother of Christ has on some occasion become confused with the worship that can only belong to God, it is not as sad as it would be if we should deny that Jesus gave us His beautiful Mother as our most sure heavenly patroness and guide to help us on our pilgrimage here.

I guess I try to explain too much sometimes. But I want you to see how this question of the communion of saints, and what I have called "Hyper-individualism", is a foundational difference between Catholic and most other Christians. I'll hold off delving further into the Blessed Mother and other questions for later, but I will have to return repeatedly to the communion of saints to defend and explain unique practices which other Christians cannot understand. We believe that in a very real and literal sense that Christ's death on the Cross paid the eternal punishment for sins, and merits for all those who do not resist it, heavenly rewards. But we also believe that through His Body, the Church, Christ's work is not finished.

Yesterday I went to confession. For my penance, I must say a decade of the Rosary for the poor souls in purgatory. We on earth assist them. They get to heaven and assist us. Mary and the saints are eager intercessors with God as they watch salvation history unfold from "front row seats". Confidence in the communion of saints makes the Catholic happy to "offer up" our acts of faith, and our sufferings not for our own benefit alone, but for our needy brothers and sisters in and outside the Body of Christ. We trust that Jesus has asked us to carry our own little crosses not for the mere value of suffering pain, but so that like Him, we can help our fellows to make up for the temporal punishment for sin which was left unpaid upon the Cross, and so doing hurry others on their way to eternal rewards. As St. Paul taught us, his every suffering was valuable, and a cause of spiritual joy, because Jesus didn't leave us with nothing to do, but rather left us to finish His work by His grace and His power, through the same Holy Ghost:

Who now rejoice in my sufferings for you, and fill up those things that are wanting of the sufferings of Christ, in my flesh, for his body, which is the church:

---Col. 1:24

I never saw these things as a non-Catholic. That is why I found indulgences, intercessory prayers to saints, and infant baptism to be absurd practices. The same principle that permits St. Paul to joyfully suffer for the church at Colossae, allows me to happily say a decade of the Rosary for another poor fellow in the Body of Christ, seeing that there is something still "wanting in the sufferings of Christ". What greater privilege is imaginable?

Someone here on this board once asked me to have a Mass said for them. I have often reflected happily on being able to offer the little stipend to the priest so that a Mass would be said for this lovely soul. It would take away all my joy dear friend, if you are reading this, and wanted to find out how much it was to repay me. No, no, no. It isn't that the priest needs $20 that he asks for a stipend; it is that we need to offer something too and that way we also participate (through this beautiful communion of saints) in all the good that is being done in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass! So...that one was on me!!! Heheh.

God bless you and God love you bukowski. Thanks again for the question.

3DOP

[3DOP]

Alan

3DOP,

I'm sorry, I have no idea what "London Broil" is. Hope you enjoyed it though.

3DOP

That's okay, it just seemed funny to be addressing the guy who flies the Union Jack when I was about to cook it. It's not the tenderest cut...but anyway it was great! I'm sure its an American thing to give it that name.

Alan

Hope you were not offended by my description of the catholic church's activities at various times in history; I was just trying to give some background to my question. Your comparison of the maturity of the modern church (peodophile priests and cover-ups apart) with it's infant past and your own growth from infancy is ok on the surface, but doesn't really stand up to scutiny. If lethal blows or abuse had been applied to that baby, you would not have survived, or if you had, not very well.

3DOP

Not offended in the least about the historical stuff.

Great point about lethal blows. I am acknowledging the necessity of investigating the possibility. But I didn't receive any lethal blows. I survived the incubator. The point is that if it is possible for the infant church to be slain, it cannot be proven that it WAS slain merely because the mature church bares slight resemblance. If the early church survived, I would not expect the "Body of Christ Mature" to resemble the "Body of Christ Newborn". It won't do to argue that the "Church Grownup" must look like the "Church Infant".

Alan

One of the easiest things to do from the available historical records, is to illustrate beyond doubt the depravity of the catholic priesthood at various times in history, especially at it's highest levels. In fact, we would, I believe, be hard pressed to find an historian, sympathetic to the catholic cause, who would argue with that. To suggest it was all down to immaturity and growing pains does those martyrs who suffered at the hands of the catholic church a great disservice. So I wonder whether you have had a chance to consider my question a little more deeply?

3DOP

I do not dismiss crimes or depravity to immaturity in the church. I never suggested that. The Church, in my view, continues to be susceptible. In its government, in its practise, in its doctrine, there have been obvious changes since the birth of the Church. Whether those changes are corruptions or legitimate development are the question that must be answered. I disagree that it is easy to demonstrate a depraved priesthood that is beyond the possibility of reform and repair. I have already alluded to reasons in this long thread for why we must be wary of assuming that bad behavior of the worst kind may give us a reason to presume an end to a priestly office.

I am also not usually able to conclude that the Church herself is accountable for historical acts that are often attributed to her. I heard something recently about the infamous "Sack of Constantinople" in one of the Crusades. The city of Venice had enriched itself through enterprises of various sorts that placed it in a position where the government of the city at least, was not responsive to the moral pleas of the Holy See and were often a thorn in the side of the Church. It was suggested to me that it can be shown that it was the Venetians who helped, for their own financial gain, to provoke the unhappy events which led to the Crusaders of the West to be at enmity with the Christians residing at the Patriarchal See of the East. I have not had opportunity to verify the theory.

But the point is that histories that are often hostile to Catholicism for political reasons might eagerly point to how Catholics sacked Constantinople. The result is that this is understandably received as at least partial proof of the illegitimacy of the Catholic faith readers whose own religious claims are dependent upon Catholic illegitimacy. I have seen time and again where historical atrocities are directly said to be attributable to the teachings or practices of the Catholic Church, but can be found to be the results of complicated political situations where unfortunate events occur. These can often be traced to someone who is baptized Catholic, even priests and bishops, but behaving out of self-interest or political power struggles. But even as these events unfold chronologically, the Church is never lacking in holy men and women, priests and lay, popes and kings, who living the precepts of the Catholic Church live exemplary lives of faith and charity. When there are saints who are raising souls from the dead, accurately prophesying approaching events, living holy lives, and caring for the poor and hungry, I cannot be much moved if one or two out of 264 bishops of Rome had a mistress.

I believe first of all that there is always going to be wheat with the tares. I acknowledge that on extremely rare occasions Catholic moral principles have indeed been violated by those most visible to the world, a pope or other bishops. There is no way that someone who is familiar with more than just a view to look at what might be singularly heinous over the course of twenty centuries could characterize this kind of behavior as a "hallmark" as you have suggested. Non-Catholics aren't nearly as interested by the wheat as they are the tares. The tares have never been alone, and they have been far outnumbered by the good wheat and holy lives. That a bishop, even a pope, should also be a weed that is destined to be burned is sad indeed.

But you asked "how did God's approval, inspiration, acknowledgement, and authorisation of the catholic church survive this period?" I answer that by the grace of God and the power of the Holy Ghost the true Church discovers prominent tares in high office once in a great while. They never reproduce themselves, at least not in their offices. History demonstrates that Catholics are appalled at true misbehavior by her priests and bishops and have always found ways to identify the reasons and also the remedies.

I am honestly much less likely to see the Catholic Church as apostate because of events in past centuries than I would be about events happening before our eyes. But seeing how the true Church has always seen great saints and prophets raised up to initiate the necessary spiritual medicine for reform and return to health. I cannot doubt that the Catholic Church will survive the present crisis of faith and morals. In fact, saints of the last 200 years or so pretty much prophesied to us what would happen. Nobody seemed to have believed it until very recently, but the current apostasy has unfolded as we ought to have expected. We must also wait for the supernatural reforms wrought under the conditions God has requested that ought to be expected as well.

You also asked about the Eastern Orthodox. I mentioned them in a post for the sake of that question. Most of the replies that I give to defend the Catholic Church could as equally be applied to the Orthodox. I could get into the reasons I align with Rome instead of one of the Eastern churches, but it seems to me like in a discussion with Mormons, it would have no pertinence.

---------------------------------------

One more thing, for you and for all Alan. It is really beyond the scope of this thread to talk about problems of the Middle Ages or later anyway. I just though of that! I'm going to send the post anyway, but I have to remember to keep my focus modest. It won't mean much to show a plausible way to explain alleged historical atrocities of later eras to people who claim that the Great Apostasy (unreformable), occurred in the early centuries. Alan, if you are looking to later periods, I am on your side already for the sake of this discussion!

Truly I am not offended at your historical references Alan. Even if I don't acknowledge them to have unfolded exactly as you do, I am well aware that eventually such misgivings must be addressed. But probably not here.

Hey...If I got a bunch of concessions about an early apostasy, I'd be delighted to move straight ahead with later stuff. In some ways, that's a lot more enjoyable and I tend to have a lot more to learn. Really, none of you have to maintain this total early apostasy because of lack of apostles, much less infant baptism, or other trifling objections. You can still be LDS and in fact, figure out a way to try to claim great saints like Lawrence (who I profiled on Saturday) as being your own! Man, if that was an apostate church? It was just way too remarkable. If it were me, I would be really uncomfortable as an LDS saying that the early church was apostate. It would invite comparisons that beg the question of whether it even matters if there are Apostles when we see what great things can happen without them.

3DOP

Edited August 13, 2012 by 3DOP

[mfbukowski]

Howdy mfbuk.

Thanks for the query.

If I were LDS I too, could subscribe to the Apostles Creed. The expression, "communion of saints" is sufficiently vague of itself to allow for the meaning to which you give to it. I am pleased that you say you agree with the words of the Creed. But I doubt that LDS would agree with the meaning which Catholics attach to "the communion of saints".

There are multiple differences in our presuppositions that explain why Mormons and Evangelicals find infant baptism to be plainly wrong and even absurd. One of the chief reasons, if I am not mistaken, is that Catholics attach more importance to the principle that supports the communion of saints than do other Christians. If Mormons thought that babies needed a baptismal cleansing because of the Fall of Adam, if Evangelicals believed that baptism accomplished a cleansing from sin, there is a further objection, and a big one. Mormons and Evangelicals would object to infant baptism anyway on the grounds that the baby can't make any decision for Christ, the baby cannot make any act of faith, the baby cannot repent.

Because a baby is necessarily a passive participant in any ritual ceremony, many Christians reason that there cannot be any very significant importance to such a ceremony. They certainly are predisposed to deny that a child could be received by God covenantally and reborn by God's power without making any decision about it one way or the other. That is why I cited Genesis 17 where we understand that the male children who passed the age of eight days without circumcision found themselves outside God's covenant. Without seeing the need to analyze precise and profound details about why it was only males, or what actually took place in the soul of an eight day old, it seems to me like this ritual, which was maintained right up to the time of Christ establishes a very significant precedent. It shows that God sometimes, at least initially, helps us along in our faith journeys through the faithful intercessions and acts of others. In this case, it is a ritual act.

In light of Genesis 17, even though infant circumcision has become obsolete under newer covenants, it does not seem to me that we can prudently preclude the possibility that there is another ritual act wherein a baby benefits in God's sight, once again without making any personal decision whatsoever.

I then moved on to St. Matthew's Gospel and the story of the palsied man let through the roof of a house. As In the Gospels of Sts. Mark and Luke we see that the palsied man is healed and his sins are forgiven, not because of act or decision of his own decision, but because of the faith of those who bore his litter. If it was not specifically repeated twice by both Mark and Matthew, the Evangelical and LDS would assume that it was at the behest of the palsied man, that he was being carried, and for the palsied man's faith alone, that his sins could be forgiven. Instead we see that Christ forgives the palsied man at least partially because of the faith of his good companions:---Mark 2:5

As I have implied before, if I were making it up, I would never have thought to have put it that way. I understand the reasoning that rejects infant baptism because of the necessarily passive participation of the recipient. However, I have to conform my reasonings to be compatible with what we know about the first covenant, and about what we learn from the lesson of the palsied man when he was forgiven by Jesus. If for the faith of some good companions a helpless man was forgiven of sins, how much more likely is it that because of the faith of loving parents, a helpless child may receive the gifts of eternal life?

I am not saying I have proven the need for Infant baptism, but I ask you to see why it cannot be as easily dismissed as so many Christians assume. Given as evidence of apostasy, it seems to me like the one who proposes infant baptism as such needs to explain what they believe about circumcision as prescribed to Abraham, as well as explaining why the faith of his companions was taken into consideration when forgiving the palsied man his sins.

------------------------------------------------

Broadly speaking, the communion of saints as Catholics understand it means that each of us may merit gifts and benefits for others of us. That is what it really means to be a Christian, or little Christ. We don't merit eternal life for each other in the sense that Christ did. But this principle which underlies our understanding of the communion of saints extends beyond the grave and becomes THE REASON why we have devotional practices that are distinct and usually cited by Protestants and Mormons alike as proof of apostasy or need for reform. If the practise of indulgences has been abused, that can never be a reason to lay aside the gifts the Church has been charged with using for the salvation of all souls. If devotion to the Mother of Christ has on some occasion become confused with the worship that can only belong to God, it is not as sad as it would be if we should deny that Jesus gave us His beautiful Mother as our most sure heavenly patroness and guide to help us on our pilgrimage here.

I guess I try to explain too much sometimes. But I want you to see how this question of the communion of saints, and what I have called "Hyper-individualism", is a foundational difference between Catholic and most other Christians. I'll hold off delving further into the Blessed Mother and other questions for later, but I will have to return repeatedly to the communion of saints to defend and explain unique practices which other Christians cannot understand. We believe that in a very real and literal sense that Christ's death on the Cross paid the eternal punishment for sins, and merits for all those who do not resist it, heavenly rewards. But we also believe that through His Body, the Church, Christ's work is not finished.

Yesterday I went to confession. For my penance, I must say a decade of the Rosary for the poor souls in purgatory. We on earth assist them. They get to heaven and assist us. Mary and the saints are eager intercessors with God as they watch salvation history unfold from "front row seats". Confidence in the communion of saints makes the Catholic happy to "offer up" our acts of faith, and our sufferings not for our own benefit alone, but for our needy brothers and sisters in and outside the Body of Christ. We trust that Jesus has asked us to carry our own little crosses not for the mere value of suffering pain, but so that like Him, we can help our fellows to make up for the temporal punishment for sin which was left unpaid upon the Cross, and so doing hurry others on their way to eternal rewards. As St. Paul taught us, his every suffering was valuable, and a cause of spiritual joy, because Jesus didn't leave us with nothing to do, but rather left us to finish His work by His grace and His power, through the same Holy Ghost:

---Col. 1:24

I never saw these things as a non-Catholic. That is why I found indulgences, intercessory prayers to saints, and infant baptism to be absurd practices. The same principle that permits St. Paul to joyfully suffer for the church at Colossae, allows me to happily say a decade of the Rosary for another poor fellow in the Body of Christ, seeing that there is something still "wanting in the sufferings of Christ". What greater privilege is imaginable?

Someone here on this board once asked me to have a Mass said for them. I have often reflected happily on being able to offer the little stipend to the priest so that a Mass would be said for this lovely soul. It would take away all my joy dear friend, if you are reading this, and wanted to find out how much it was to repay me. No, no, no. It isn't that the priest needs $20 that he asks for a stipend; it is that we need to offer something too and that way we also participate (through this beautiful communion of saints) in all the good that is being done in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass! So...that one was on me!!! Heheh.

God bless you and God love you bukowski. Thanks again for the question.

3DOP

Thanks for the reply.

Perhaps you don't fully comprehend (understandably) the importance of what we do in the temple for the dead. We believe that we cannot reach exaltation without doing work for them, just as they cannot reach exaltation without our help.

The savior's sacrifice for us was a vicarious sacrifice- he did for us what we could not do for ourselves, and similarly we are privileged to do for others what they cannot do for themselves in the temple. Further, by doing so, we are fulfilling a commandment to honor our fathers and mothers, our ancestors.

This process is represented in the last 2 verses of the Old Testament in Malachi 4

⁵ Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the Lord:

⁶ And he shall turn the heart of the fathers to the children, and the heart of the children to their fathers, lest I come and smite the earth with a curse.

Our fates are inextricably intertwined with theirs and without them we cannot progress and neither can they progress without us.

If that is not "communion of the Saints" I don't know what is. We are one and only a very thin veil separates us.

Regarding infant baptism, our belief is that humanity is essentially good as children of God, and do not come into this world in a state of separation from out Father who loves us.

It would not be just to punish those who's only crime is to be human.

[volgadon]

Rory, Venice's role in the 4th Crusade has often been misunderstood. Venice did expect to profit from control of Alexandrian trade, but this was at the expense of the enemies of the cross, severely damaging Muslim power and wealth, spiritual aims and material gains going hand-in-hand in Crusader thought. Venice wasn't that impious by the standards of the day, nor were they, despite trade connections, impervious to the Christian plight in the East. When compared to Alexandria, the original target, Constantinople's importance as a trade center was secondary, so to consider it the primary goal isn't very tenable. Venice contracted to supply the Crusade with ships, food and troops, sinking quite a bit of money and resources into the venture. Not only was building ships expensive, Venice halted Levantine trade- her main source of revenue- in order to free up as much manpower and resources as possible, answering the call of the cross. When the Crusaders renegged on their deal, leaving the Venetians unpaid, Venice would have been ruined, unless they found some way to recoup part of their losses. The Doge resolved upon attacking Constantinople due not only to its nearness, but also to the fact that it was an enemy of the cross, albeit not as dangerous as the Muslims. Byzantium, after all, was not Latin, but Greek Orthodox, considered to have forsaken the true faith because of the Schism. However, I don't think this is a good example of Roman Catholic corruption, nor do I think that any actions undertaken by the Greek Orthodox in a similar scenario would have been much nobler.

[3DOP]

Thanks for the reply.

Perhaps you don't fully comprehend (understandably) the importance of what we do in the temple for the dead. We believe that we cannot reach exaltation without doing work for them, just as they cannot reach exaltation without our help.

The savior's sacrifice for us was a vicarious sacrifice- he did for us what we could not do for ourselves, and similarly we are privileged to do for others what they cannot do for themselves in the temple. Further, by doing so, we are fulfilling a commandment to honor our fathers and mothers, our ancestors.

This process is represented in the last 2 verses of the Old Testament in Malachi 4

Our fates are inextricably intertwined with theirs and without them we cannot progress and neither can they progress without us.

If that is not "communion of the Saints" I don't know what is. We are one and only a very thin veil separates us.

Regarding infant baptism, our belief is that humanity is essentially good as children of God, and do not come into this world in a state of separation from out Father who loves us.

It would not be just to punish those who's only crime is to be human.

Fair enough mfbukowski. I am not much familiar with your ordinances for the dead. I do not object to your applying the expression "communion of saints" to yourselves! I am glad to see that we possibly share some principles that might make some of our unique practices, even if they cannot be acceptable to Mormons, perhaps less unpalatable?

I think I have already discussed the question of whether Catholics believe that anyone is punished "whose only crime is to be human". We don't. I explained how if one would understand the Catholic position, that original sin must be understood as a parallel to "original righteousness". The "punishment" for original sin, if you want to call it that, is deprivation of the privileges of lacking "original righteousness".

Natural joys, equal perhaps at least to those which Mormons seem to think await residents of the lowest (telestial or terrestrial) kingdoms should certainly be expected to be enjoyed by those who die in original sin only according to Catholic eschatology. If I am not mistaken, a lot of LDS aren't very much motivated at the idea of contemplating God forever anyway. Do you look forward to a lot of that in the celestial kingdom? I don't see how from an LDS perspective deprivation of eternally contemplating God should be considered such an horrible "punishment" anyway. I don't think it qualifies as punishment at all in the strict sense.

In any case, there are two major reasons for objection to infant baptism. One comes from our inability to clear up the misunderstanding about the "punishment" of original sin. I have explained this several times over the years. But I continue to hear the same objections and it seems like there is reluctance to believe us. Catholics don't think dead babies burn in Hell! When you imply that we believe that God punishes for the crime of being human, it doesn't encourage me bukowski. C'mon, we can be wrong without being monsters.

Circumcision, healing of the palsied man, filling up what is lacking in the sufferings of Christ, and the Communion of saints doesn't have anything to do with whether a just God would deprive a baby of the beatific vision. I was speaking of those because of the second objection, that which points out that babies are passive, and cannot repent, make an act of faith, or indeed any kind of decision for good or bad.

Edited August 13, 2012 by 3DOP

[3DOP]

Rory, Venice's role in the 4th Crusade has often been misunderstood. Venice did expect to profit from control of Alexandrian trade, but this was at the expense of the enemies of the cross, severely damaging Muslim power and wealth, spiritual aims and material gains going hand-in-hand in Crusader thought. Venice wasn't that impious by the standards of the day, nor were they, despite trade connections, impervious to the Christian plight in the East. When compared to Alexandria, the original target, Constantinople's importance as a trade center was secondary, so to consider it the primary goal isn't very tenable. Venice contracted to supply the Crusade with ships, food and troops, sinking quite a bit of money and resources into the venture. Not only was building ships expensive, Venice halted Levantine trade- her main source of revenue- in order to free up as much manpower and resources as possible, answering the call of the cross. When the Crusaders renegged on their deal, leaving the Venetians unpaid, Venice would have been ruined, unless they found some way to recoup part of their losses. The Doge resolved upon attacking Constantinople due not only to its nearness, but also to the fact that it was an enemy of the cross, albeit not as dangerous as the Muslims. Byzantium, after all, was not Latin, but Greek Orthodox, considered to have forsaken the true faith because of the Schism. However, I don't think this is a good example of Roman Catholic corruption, nor do I think that any actions undertaken by the Greek Orthodox in a similar scenario would have been much nobler.

Volgadon. God bless you. Thanks for the good summary of how you understand it. I was thumbing through a big history of Byzantium (Ostrogorsky) that I have left unread for some time and came across a photograph of St. Mark's, the Cathedral of Venice, and remarked that it seemed odd. My son who is home for a few weeks, was in the room and offered his recollection that Venice was somehow tied up with that unhappy Crusade and that in his studies he had gained an unfavorable impression overall of Venetian politics.

But I defer to what is clearly the plausible scenario that you present and one that I find balanced. I certainly agree with your conclusion.

I only brought it up as a probable example of the difficulty of assigning blame to any one city, empire, or church, over historical events that have been sometimes attributed to the Catholic Church. I am pleased that you seem familiar with the complicated relations of the parties involved. That is a big help whether we are in Spain after Queen Isabella, France after the Reformation, or England after Henry VIII. Parties on all sides have pointed fingers for hundreds of years. I am convinced that the most accurate histories are difficult to be written by those who have political and/or religious reasons. But who writes history about things that make them feel...neutral, unbiased? I think it is important therefore to consult Catholics and Protestants, Monarchists and Revolutionaries, Seculars and Religious alike before we can probably reach just verdicts assigning blame for historical atrocities. I fear that historical judgments are often passed after hearing only one party give their side of a complicated episode of history.

Thanks a lot for your input volgadon. Much appreciated.

3DOP

Edited August 13, 2012 by 3DOP

[mfbukowski]

When I first started studying Mormonism, it was clear to me that there was virtually no conceptual difference between the concept of "preaching to the spirits in prison" including doing their temple work and "praying for the souls in purgatory", but in my opinion we add another dimension and that is that our concept is that we cannot be exalted without doing temple work for our dead, whereas if I am not mistaken, Catholics can go to heaven without, theoretically, praying for the souls in purgatory.

But yes we have been around the block about babies and hellfire- of course you are a convert to Catholicism and did not experience being a young Catholic in the 1950s and learning about Limbo. But of course this doctrine has been re-defined to the point where people allege it was never doctrine. I have documentation from Catholic sources that the doctrine was in fact changed, and I think we have discussed that.

But it is clear that Augustine in fact changed earlier Catholic doctrine about unbaptized babies not being damned and this belief persisted in the church for a long time.

Here is even a Catholic source which illustrates the change- which to me is prima facie evidence of an apostasy at least as early as the fifth century if one refuses to accept all the evidence for one before that:

Teaching of St. Augustine

In his earlier writings St. Augustine himself agrees with the common tradition. Thus in De libero arbitrio III, written several years before the Pelagian controversy, discussing the fate of unbaptized infants after death, he writes: "It is superfluous to inquire about the merits of one who has not any merits. For one need not hesitate to hold that life may be neutral as between good conduct and sin, and that as between reward and punishment there may be a neutral sentence of the judge." But even before the outbreak of the Pelagian controversy St. Augustine had already abandoned the lenient traditional view, and in the course of the controversy he himself condemned, and persuaded the Council of Carthage (418) to condemn, the substantially identical Pelagian teaching affirming the existence of "an intermediate place, or of any place anywhere at all (ullus alicubi locus), in which children who pass out of this life unbaptized live in happiness" (Denzinger 102). This means that St. Augustine and the African Fathers believed that unbaptized infants share in the common positive misery of the damned, and the very most that St. Augustine concedes is that their punishment is the mildest of all, so mild indeed that one may not say that for them non-existence would be preferable to existence in such a state (Of Sin and Merit I.21; Contra Jul. V, 44; etc.). But this Augustinian teaching was an innovation in its day, and the history of subsequent Catholic speculation on this subject is taken up chiefly with the reaction which has ended in a return to the pre-Augustinian tradition.

So no of course I do not think that Catholics are "monsters"- indeed ALL my ancestors, cousins, aunts and uncles are Catholic and I love them dearly and they are among the most wonderful people I have ever met in my life!

But we are talking about historical doctrine here, and I think that anyone who ignores that is just not seeing the truth of what happened.

I really don't know what the big deal is about the disagreement on the apostasy- we will never agree on that, quite obviously. We have had our moments historically as well where it might be (and indeed has been) argued that the "Utah Church" left the true path, and to us it's no big deal.

We disagree- and when anyone disagrees of course it is because they believe their own opinion to be correct and the other person's opinion to be incorrect. Disagreement is part of life, it should be no big deal in my opinion.

Edit: oops - I left off the link for the quote: http://www.newadvent...then/09256a.htm

Indeed there are groups who think Augustine was right: http://www.romancatholicism.org/jansenism/limbo-pelagianism.htm

Edited August 13, 2012 by mfbukowski

[3DOP]

Can you tell I am on vacation today bukowski?

Even so...some duties call...family stuff after that...Looking forward to an examination of your conclusions based on St. Augustine. Maybe tomorrow if not late tonight. Oh man I want to retire. Do you work bukowski? To be alive, sentient, clothed and fed, and not go to work...again? Wow...that sounds as good as the "punishment" of the unbaptized baby! Pretty good for the here and now, eh??? Heh.

Catch you later. I knew you didn't think we were monsters. That's because we don't believe things that are monstrous! Beliefs make the monster. But let's just agree to stay away from substance and accident, okay? Heh.

Rory

[volgadon]

I fear that historical judgments are often passed after hearing only one party give their side of a complicated episode of history.

Thanks a lot for your input volgadon. Much appreciated.

You are welcome. I really hate it when people bash others based on very imprecisely learned "history." The RCC don't deserve it, no one does. Besides, my mom actually attended a Catholic school in South America for several years, so she encouraged us to seek balanced assesments.

[mfbukowski]

Can you tell I am on vacation today bukowski?

Even so...some duties call...family stuff after that...Looking forward to an examination of your conclusions based on St. Augustine. Maybe tomorrow if not late tonight. Oh man I want to retire. Do you work bukowski? To be alive, sentient, clothed and fed, and not go to work...again? Wow...that sounds as good as the "punishment" of the unbaptized baby! Pretty good for the here and now, eh??? Heh.

Catch you later. I knew you didn't think we were monsters. That's because we don't believe things that are monstrous! Beliefs make the monster. But let's just agree to stay away from substance and accident, okay? Heh.

Rory

I can tell you it won't be an accident when I avoid a discussion about substance! No hurry!

In fact don't worry about it if you never get to it- knowing us, we are not going to resolve a couple of thousand years of discussions all by ourselves! You're a great guy and I consider you a good friend and I think we are not going to solve all this anyway!

Edited August 14, 2012 by mfbukowski

[3DOP]

I can tell you it won't be an accident when I avoid a discussion about substance! No hurry!

In fact don't worry about it if you never get to it- knowing us, we are not going to resolve a couple of thousand years of discussions all by ourselves! You're a great guy and I consider you a good friend and I think we are not going to solve all this anyway!

Thanks bukowski...may I call you "mf"? Heh.Be assured that without getting any mushier...that friend thing you mentioned?? It goes both ways.

3DOP

PS: But we'll still have to look at St. Augustine sometime soon to your disadvantage....okay? My lovely wife wants to go to the County Fair in the morning. (I had forgotten about that) Wednesday is the Assumption, and seminary boy leaves on Thursday. But it won't be forgotten.

Edited August 14, 2012 by 3DOP

[3DOP]

bukowski

When I first started studying Mormonism, it was clear to me that there was virtually no conceptual difference between the concept of "preaching to the spirits in prison" including doing their temple work and "praying for the souls in purgatory", but in my opinion we add another dimension and that is that our concept is that we cannot be exalted without doing temple work for our dead, whereas if I am not mistaken, Catholics can go to heaven without, theoretically, praying for the souls in purgatory.

3DOP

Yes! Thank you. I have argued repeatedly in favor of the interpretation of I Cor. 15:29: "Otherwise what shall they do that are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not again at all? why are they then baptized for them?", according to the teaching of St. Francis deSales, who would also have recognized that there is virtually no conceptual difference between the two activities.

bukowski

But yes we have been around the block about babies and hellfire- of course you are a convert to Catholicism and did not experience being a young Catholic in the 1950s and learning about Limbo. But of course this doctrine has been re-defined to the point where people allege it was never doctrine. I have documentation from Catholic sources that the doctrine was in fact changed, and I think we have discussed that.

But it is clear that Augustine in fact changed earlier Catholic doctrine about unbaptized babies not being damned and this belief persisted in the church for a long time.

Here is even a Catholic source which illustrates the change- which to me is prima facie evidence of an apostasy at least as early as the fifth century if one refuses to accept all the evidence for one before that:

3DOP

1) St. Augustine is one church father. Influential though he may be, he could not change Catholic teaching. There is no unanimity of the Fathers in favor of Augustine's innovation. In fact, it would appear that his predecessors disagreed with his conclusions and those who followed him never accepted his speculations either. It might seem peculiar to us, but we are certainly more familiar with the pre-Augustinian fathers than Augustine himself. Individually he is fallible, and clearly, the Church never accepted his teaching, even unofficially. He might have fared better if he had access to the New Advent website.

2) Mormon detractors could as easily go poking around in the Journal of Discourses to find "official" teachings about how Mormons believed that Adam was God. I would suggest that if Brigham Young's teaching was not Mormon doctrine, it seems difficult to see how the speculations of one bishop from North Africa, or a council of African bishops influenced by their leader, proposed official Catholic doctrine.

3) Damnation, if you can even call it that, according to the very single worst speculation of a Catholic apologist whose teaching has been rejected both before and after says this from your own quote: .

..the very most that St. Augustine concedes is that their punishment is the mildest of all, so mild indeed that one may not say that for them non-existence would be preferable to existence in such a state."

As for limbo, although you are correct that I wasn't around in the 50's, I am well aware of the teaching and I subscribe to it. Many seem to think it has been scrapped. A panel deciding that every dead baby immediately receives the beatific vision is no more authoritative than Augustine's speculation. I am as free to respectfully reject Pope Benedict's panel of experts, as I am St. Augustine. The Church has never ruled on this question (of limbo vs. heaven) and Catholics are free to speculate, while being tolerant of those Catholics with whom they disagree. If the Church ever ruled that dead babies go straight to heaven, I will submit. The Church cannot rule that dead babies suffer the pains of Hell. There is no official dogma about specifics. But about a damnation that means Hellfire for babies, there is unanimity of the early Fathers. Later Fathers, the Schoolmen, the Counter-Reformation, and the modern Church against such a notion. Even at St. Augustine's worst period, while he was concentrating heavily on distancing himself from Pelagius who believed in a limbo, allowed that such a life would be preferable to non-existence.

The reason you found this information at a Catholic website, is if I may say so, because it is neither embarrassing nor any kind of evidence at all against the Catholic faith. It is a straightforward account of the ways Catholic theologians have tended to speculate about whether dead babies get to contemplate God for all eternity. No one has really answered my previous comments yet about whether that is the primary occupation of dead babies (contemplation of God in the beatific vision) according to LDS teaching on their eternal abode. I doubt that even in the celestial kingdom, this activity would be considered primary. I jested yesterday about being sentient, fed, clothed, and not having to go to work as being something to look forward to in this life, but also the lot of dead unbaptised babies. If I may add to that sunshine, immortality, natural gifts, ability to know God in created things, and to express this knowledge through artistic creativity, I might do limbo justice. There is no reason whatever why this should not be the case. And except for those who think it would be great to contemplate God instead, it might even sound like heaven, but certainly no kind of damnation.

3DOP

Edited August 14, 2012 by 3DOP

[3DOP]

...continuing to think of this subject of pedobaptism as an LDS might perceive it, I am reminded that I think I have seen passages in the Book of Mormon that are highly charged against the doctrine of infant baptism, implying that this means unbaptised dead babies burn in hell. There is an important way to look at this.

Now I have only demonstrated the situation as it has existed in the Old World Church. One could still be LDS, recognize that with regards to infant baptism, the Old World Church has a different (and acceptable) view of the fate of unbaptised babies, and realize that these passages against infant baptism must be applied against the New World Church only. Yes, the Church in America would have to be apostate when those passages were written. But it would be mistaken to apply the condemnations of a unique form of infant baptism outside of its unique historical context. The passages against infant baptism in the Book of Mormon cannot be applied to the Old World Church because of significant differences between the Old World Church and the Church in America.

Edited August 14, 2012 by 3DOP

[3DOP]

Following is what Yep listed as being "items that we believe are indicative of the apostasy":

Baptism no longer by immersion

Infant baptism

Concept of Infants not being innocent at birth

Governmental Change in the Church (the calling of Apostles done away with and the introduction of Cardinals and Archbishops)

The use of the term "the Holy Father" when referencing the Pope (i.e. see Matthew 23:9-10)

Celibacy requirement of bishops and priests

The worship and elevation of Mary

The praying to saints as advocates instead of only praying to God with Christ as advocate.

Grace without works leading to complete salvation

Etc.

What evidences exist for or against these claims?

______________________________

We can return to any of the items discussed so far if that would be desirable. Proceeding in order would bring us to the subject of church government.

Catholics do not see the office of Apostle distinctly from the office of bishop. All Apostles were bishops, not all bishops were Apostles. The qualification for being an apostle wasn't some different form of ordination but rather to have seen Christ, and been designated to be sent out on a special mission. There was an obvious need for Apostles in this sense in the early church, so that the faith would be founded on eyewitness accounts of the Resurrection of Christ. But the best explanation for why there weren't apostles later, is that the apostles themselves never tried to perpetuate their office except inasmuch as the bishops were their successors:

Our apostles also knew, through our Lord Jesus Christ, that there would be strife on account of the office of the episcopate. For this reason, therefore, inasmuch as they had obtained a perfect fore-knowledge of this, they appointed those [ministers] already mentioned, and afterwards gave instructions, that when these should fall asleep, other approved men should succeed them in their ministry.

---I Clement 44

That Judas was replaced is significant in Acts 1. When St. Peter makes his appeal to Scripture for the reason why Judas should be replaced we read:

For it is written in the book of Psalms: Let their habitation become desolate, and let there be none to dwell therein. And his bishopric let another take.

---Ac. 1:20

But this passage from the Psalms doesn't require that every apostle be replaced by another apostle. This is distinctively prophetic in regards to Judas alone. Secondly, it indicates that all the candidate needs to inherit Judas' office, is to become a bishop. It doesn't say anything about being ordained as an apostle, but as a bishop! There are two qualifications 1) To have seen the Lord Jesus bodily, 2) To go out on a mission and establish new churches:

Am not I free? Am not I an apostle? Have not I seen Christ Jesus our Lord? Are not you my work in the Lord? And if unto others I be not an apostle, but yet to you I am. For you are the seal of my apostleship in the Lord.

---I Cor 9:1, 2

The new apostle, Mathias, who received Judas' bishopric was an Apostle in the same sense as St. Paul. He had seen Christ, he had taken a bishop's office, and the seal of apostleship is not found in a separate ceremony but rather in accomplishing a work of establishing the Gospel. Another reason that apostles could not ordain anything except bishops is that the generation who had seen Jesus after the Resurrection had died. If seeing Jesus was a prerequisite to the apostolic office, and no one worthy of the episcopate was left who could claim to have seen Him, they could not possibly perpetuate the office. In the two biblical cases (Paul and Mathias) where new apostles are made, it is in connection with having seen Jesus. What happened according to St. Clement of Rome is for that reason entirely predictable, the apostles ordained many successors. The bishoprics of all of the apostles were filled again. As time went on, the apostles themselves understood that the worthiest candidates were too young to have seen Jesus, and so, the Church which is founded and established upon the Apostles is perpetuated by the highest office that the apostles could bestow, the bishop, as St. Clement explains.

I do not understand the objection to later developments when as the church grew, certain bishops had charge over principle geographical areas that qualified them as archbishops. If I am not mistaken, the office of cardinal arose much later than the early centuries. These would be the special servants of the bishop of Rome, ordinarily bishops themselves, whose submission to the pope does not seem controversial. The popes desired to establish a body of electors to choose a successor. These are cardinal bishops of Rome, personally chosen, who would presumably replace the pope with the best possible candidate. We could go into this in more detail but it seems beyond the scope of the first centuries.

[3DOP]

The next evidence in favor of an apostasy of the early church is "the use of the term 'the Holy Father' when referencing the Pope, (i.e. see Matthew 23:9, 10)".

And they love the first places at feasts, and the first chairs in the synagogues, And salutations in the market place, and to be called by men, Rabbi. But be not you called Rabbi. For one is your master; and all you are brethren. And call none your father upon earth; for one is your father, who is in heaven. Neither be ye called masters; for one is your master, Christ.

---Mt. 13:7-10

It seems difficult to interpret this passage rigorously. If it is a sin to address everyone except God with the titles of "Doctor" or "Father", then I doubt there is any among us who is innocent. For who is scandalized if students in their studies refer to their teachers with the English equivalent of master or rabbi, as Dr. So and So. Who is troubled if they hear a child call out, "Father", to his, well, father? This is wrong? No. Neither are we troubled when St. Paul refers to himself as a father to the Corinthians:

I write not these things to confound you; but I admonish you as my dearest child. For if you have ten thousand instructors in Christ, yet not many fathers. For in Christ Jesus, by the gospel, I have begotten you.

---I Cor. 4:14-15

Jesus is teaching His disciples and us that Our Father in Heaven is preeminently the father of all fatherhood, while He who is the Way, the Truth, and the Life is the teacher of all knowledge. St. Paul expresses this idea very well in his letter to the Ephesians:

For this cause I bow my knees to the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, Of whom all paternity in heaven and earth is named,

---3:14, 15

Any time the title of father is used, it should be understood in subordination to that of God the Father. We have fathers of our country, church fathers, city fathers, and biological fathers. Jesus, in His mission to magnify His Father, wanted to emphasize that if anyone is a father of anybody or anything, it is because of God the Father. The Rabbis had obviously become proud and let these titles go to their heads.

It isn't like some legislation came out of the pope's office one day telling the flock to start calling him "Holy Father". These are popular acclamations which represent how children feel toward beloved ones to whom they feel childlike affection. We know that neither our priests nor our popes are God. Assuredly, it would be robbery to attribute to any man the prerogatives of God, but we cannot think of a more appropriate title for those who baptize us and intercede for us to God in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, than "Father", which expresses a subordinate relationship to Him for "whom all paternity in heaven and earth is named."

3DOP

[Alan]

I have just been studying the role and assistance the Vatican gave to Nazi war criminals in their escape to South America and elsewhere. It seems to me that when the RC church have to come down on one side or the other, they nearly always get it wrong. Is the pope inspired? Does he or any of the cardinals etc ever receive any revelation? I think most would agree that it is very difficult to identify circumstances where a case could be made.

[3DOP]

Alan

I have just been studying the role and assistance the Vatican gave to Nazi war criminals in their escape to South America and elsewhere.

3DOP

I'm not familiar. Have you studied what the Vatican says about why they did this? Does the Vatican admit doing this? Does this have anything to do with LDS claims that the early church was apostate?

Alan

It seems to me that when the RC church have to come down on one side or the other, they nearly always get it wrong.

3DOP

Maybe you should expand your studies.

Alan

Is the pope inspired?

3DOP

Sometimes.

Alan

Does he or any of the cardinals etc ever receive any revelation?

3DOP

Yes.

Alan

I think most would agree that it is very difficult to identify circumstances where a case could be made.

3DOP

I really couldn't say what most would think. If you are correct, it merely demonstrates that most are unfamiliar with Catholic history.

Do you think most would agree that it is easy to identify circumstances where a case could be made that anybody receives any revelation? Who do you believe receives revelation?

Edited August 16, 2012 by 3DOP

[3DOP]

Okay...so next on the list of evidences for apostasy in the early church is: "Celibacy requirement of bishops and priests."

First of all, I don't think it has been established that celibacy was a requirement for clerics in the early church of the east or the west. My position is that beginning with Christ and the Apostles, perpetual virginity is extolled and holy matrimony is praised. I deny that the practise of strict celibacy of all deacons, priests and bishops in every place has ever been church law. It wasn't until at least the early Middle Ages that a more rigorous rule promoting priestly celibacy was introduced into law by various churches in union with Rome. Therefore, I'll limit my arguments for the purpose of this thread to the reasons why celibacy was ever advocated, and under what circumstances. Even though celibacy was encouraged from the beginning of the Patristic era, there were always monogamous deacons and priests.

Virginity, the conduct of the angels, is the property of all incorporeal nature. We do not say this as speaking ill of marriage, perish the thought! For we know that the Lord blessed marriage by His presence, and we know the saying, "Marriage is honourable and its bed undefiled." But we say this by way of recognizing that however good marriage may be, virginity is better.

---St. John of Damascus, The Source of Knowledge (3:4:27), cited from the Faith of the Early Fathers, Vol. 3, William Jurgens, ed., The Liturgical Press, 1979, p.341

St. John is citing our Lord's presence at Cana as proof of the goodness of marriage. I will be defending the Catholic teaching that for those called to the marriage state, God has instituted Holy Matrimony as a Sacrament, a means of grace unto salvation for both husband and wife. In conjunction with its teaching on marriage, the Catholic Church also holds that it is God's will that there are some, far fewer in number, who God has chosen to give the gift of celibacy, which is itself an even more honorable state in which to glorify the good God, and enter into the fulness of the joys of everlasting life.

3DOP

[mfbukowski]

Virginity, the conduct of the angels, is the property of all incorporeal nature. We do not say this as speaking ill of marriage, perish the thought! For we know that the Lord blessed marriage by His presence, and we know the saying, "Marriage is honourable and its bed undefiled." But we say this by way of recognizing that however good marriage may be, virginity is better.

---St. John of Damascus, The Source of Knowledge (3:4:27), cited from the Faith of the Early Fathers, Vol. 3, William Jurgens, ed., The Liturgical Press, 1979, p.341

In conjunction with its teaching on marriage, the Catholic Church also holds that it is God's will that there are some, far fewer in number, who God has chosen to give the gift of celibacy, which is itself an even more honorable state in which to glorify the good God, and enter into the fulness of the joys of everlasting life.

3DOP

The problem with this however as an ethical statement is that if everyone did it, the human race would cease to exist.

I believe in a morality which applies to everyone everywhere. In my opinion, mores should be universal; your moms were right when they asked you as a child "What if everyone did that?". I think that such any other approach makes no sense.

Even as a Catholic, I could not defend such an ethic this way. I think it makes more sense to hold, for example, that priests dedicate themselves to celibacy as a special covenant between themselves and God as a voluntary gift perhaps, to help themselves overcome their bodily desires and dedicate themselves more fully to God.

That to me makes sense- it is like the LDS idea of fasting, but extended in one area for a lifetime.

But to see virginity as a "higher" calling, if made universal, would extinguish the human race. The implication is that we are not equal before the Lord. There are those who are called to be more Godly and the others of us to be less so. Yet those called to be "less" indeed are indispensable to those who are called to be "higher" or those who are virgins would not even have been born.

I see it ultimately as making the virgin class into a parasitic minority dependent on the others for their very existence.

I don't mean to be offensive- I am attacking the argument of celibacy being a higher calling, not the covenant of celibacy itself. If someone feels they want to be celibate, that is their decision and I have no problem with it.

[volgadon]

I have just been studying the role and assistance the Vatican gave to Nazi war criminals in their escape to South America and elsewhere. It seems to me that when the RC church have to come down on one side or the other, they nearly always get it wrong. Is the pope inspired? Does he or any of the cardinals etc ever receive any revelation? I think most would agree that it is very difficult to identify circumstances where a case could be made.

What must not be forgotten is that the Vatican gave a lot more assistance to combatting the Reich than aiding it. Monsignor O'Flaherty, a high-ranking official, sheltered both Jews and allied soldiers, at great risk to himself and even to the See itself. Many priests and nuns sheltered Jews, as did many of the rank-and-file. Metropolitan Andriy Sheptitsky, head of the Greek Catholic Church in Ukraine sheltered Jews in his own residence and publically opposed political murder. The Vatican was also involved as a go-between for Admiral Canaris and the Allies, in planning a putsch against Hitler. In 1943, Hitler very nearly issued an order to storm the vatican.

Whatever Catholic involvment in the ratlines, they were far from friends to Hitler and the Nazi Party.

[Alan]

While many individual catholics, including priests etc played heroic roles during the war, the role the church played, especially the Vatican, leaves a lot to be desired. And volgadon, the "Greek Catholic Church" is a different church.

But I am interested in 3DOP's assertion that the Pope receives revelation. I would be interested to hear of one example.

[volgadon]

While many individual catholics, including priests etc played heroic roles during the war, the role the church played, especially the Vatican, leaves a lot to be desired. And volgadon, the "Greek Catholic Church" is a different church.

But I am interested in 3DOP's assertion that the Pope receives revelation. I would be interested to hear of one example.

The Greek Catholic Church as Uniates fall under the Roman Catholic umbrella. The Vatican itself was considered enough of an enemy for Hitler to try to destroy it, which is often overlooked.

[3DOP]

The problem with this however as an ethical statement is that if everyone did it, the human race would cease to exist.

I believe in a morality which applies to everyone everywhere. In my opinion, mores should be universal; your moms were right when they asked you as a child "What if everyone did that?". I think that such any other approach makes no sense.

Even as a Catholic, I could not defend such an ethic this way. I think it makes more sense to hold, for example, that priests dedicate themselves to celibacy as a special covenant between themselves and God as a voluntary gift perhaps, to help themselves overcome their bodily desires and dedicate themselves more fully to God.

That to me makes sense- it is like the LDS idea of fasting, but extended in one area for a lifetime.

But to see virginity as a "higher" calling, if made universal, would extinguish the human race. The implication is that we are not equal before the Lord. There are those who are called to be more Godly and the others of us to be less so. Yet those called to be "less" indeed are indispensable to those who are called to be "higher" or those who are virgins would not even have been born.

I see it ultimately as making the virgin class into a parasitic minority dependent on the others for their very existence.

I don't mean to be offensive- I am attacking the argument of celibacy being a higher calling, not the covenant of celibacy itself. If someone feels they want to be celibate, that is their decision and I have no problem with it.

mfbukowski, a good day to you.

Thank you for your generous reply. Far from being offensive, I appreciate your sensitivity and willingness to try to place yourself in the position of a Catholic. Knowing, or at least thinking I know the aversion that Latter-day Saints have to the practise of celibacy for a rule of life with no view to marriage, your answer was refreshingly conciliatory. There is one positive statement you make with which I think I am in almost complete agreement:

I think it makes more sense to hold, for example, that priests dedicate themselves to celibacy as a special covenant between themselves and God as a voluntary gift perhaps, to help themselves overcome their bodily desires and dedicate themselves more fully to God.

Now I differ in that you are suggesting that there is an incompatibility between the view of unequal callings and celibacy as a free gift. I have never pursued religious life and am not sure if the vow (special covenant) is to "help themselves overcome bodily desires". It is ordinarily unwise to make a vow unless one has already demonstrated to one's superiors and oneself the ability to perform the promise. But your main point I think is that a vow of celibacy is a "voluntary gift". No one is ever to be compelled in such a matter.

The very essence of all priestly ways, both pagan and Christian, is to offer sacrifices. Even those Christians who aren't sacramentally ordained as priests, must retain a priestly character in our daily lives:

Be you also as living stones built up, a spiritual house, a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ.

---I. Pet. 2:5

St. Paul admonishes the faithful in the same vein:

I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercy of God, that you present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, pleasing unto God, your reasonable service.

---Rom. 12:1

To those unacquainted with the love of God, the idea of a priestly life of sacrifice is unthinkable. To take vows of poverty, or chastity, or obedience to a superior is virtually a voluntary death. But isn't that what Christ did for us, not only in His Passion and Cross, but also in His birth and life? From a first night in a manger, to His willing obedience to His truly inferior parents (see the Finding of the Child Jesus in the Temple), to His earthly ministry, Jesus' life was characterized by these three kinds of free sacrifice.

Unto those with no desire to emulate Jesus, the presentation of our bodies as a living sacrifice is totally unreasonable. But to Christians loving Him who first loved us, there is a commendable desire to reciprocate. The good God, while not needing these sacrifices for any want of His own, is well pleased to see us offer to Himself what is most precious to us, because we want to emulate and be conformed to the life of His Son. According to St. Paul, in this light, to offer up even our bodies as a living sacrifice is reasonable.

I know that some LDS speculate that Jesus might have married. I do not believe that, but for those who hold that He was, it must at least be granted that He did not claim the ordinary prerogatives of marriage. Rather than living with, and providing a home for His family, He had no place to lay His head, and it was for our sakes that it was so. If for no other reason than that His mission seemed incompatible with a happy family life, I suggest that He chose not to marry. Either way, Jesus sacrificed the mutual warmth and daily consolation of normal married life that would ordinarily be the hope for any young husband and wife. He did this for us. There have always been generous souls who have wanted to offer their bodies as a living sacrifice in a similar manner

Lord willing, I'll try later to share my thinking about your objections to unequal callings and to establish the biblical basis for celibacy as a gift that is only for a few.

Regards.

3DOP

[3DOP]

While many individual catholics, including priests etc played heroic roles during the war, the role the church played, especially the Vatican, leaves a lot to be desired. And volgadon, the "Greek Catholic Church" is a different church.

But I am interested in 3DOP's assertion that the Pope receives revelation. I would be interested to hear of one example.

Hi Alan,

I read your question carefully before giving it an unqualified answer, which I rarely do. I think you have to reinterpret your question too narrowly to be able to propose my affirmative answer as "3DOP's assertion that the Pope receives revelation."

I deny asserting that "the Pope receives revelation."

That said, I can recall at least two occasions when specific popes have received specific revelations that have become known to the whole Church. Was it because they were popes or was it because they were holy, or was it because of a combination of factors that they were chosen, I could not say. But I can confidently answer in the affirmative to the question as to whether "he or any of the cardinals, etc ever receive any revelation." Try googling Leo XIII/20th Century or Pius V/Lepanto.

The Catholic vocabulary in regards to revelation is unfortunately misleading to the ear of a Latter-day Saint. The New Testament canon may be bound, but the Word of God is not. Hundreds and thousands of words from God have been communicated to the faithful on earth since the times of the Apostles. The purposes have been as diverse as can be imagined. Sometimes they are given to meet a local difficulty of a particular time. Sometimes they are given to propagate a new kind of devotion. Sometimes they are prophetic in nature, foretelling events that are soon to transpire, with admonitions about how to respond and conditional promises of either reward or chastisement. Sometimes an angel or saint has appeared that others can see. Sometimes audible voices are heard. Sometimes the seer has a dream. Often, it is the still, small voice which is received in deep recollection and quiet.

I asked you a question too if you didn't notice. It was about who you think receives revelation and whether "most" could agree about the evidence thereof. Many reliable and convincing prophecies and other kinds of revelation just in the last century have been declared to be acceptable by the Catholic Church. There are hundreds of pages of the spoken words of Jesus to one canonized saint alone. I was thinking you were Mormon but not Salt Lake. I could be wrong. So who do you believe in that is providing your recent prophecy and revelation? Surely you don't limit the gift of prophecy and revelation to high officials of the Church hierarchy? Maybe that was why you asked specifically about popes and cardinals? We don't exclude revelations on those many occasions when "your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams," regardless of their rank in the Church.

My concern about the Catholic position as ordinarily worded is that it gives the impression that we believe all revelation is closed. Infallible revelation ended with the Apostles. But revelation carrying a weight of certainty for us that is comparable to Latter-day Scripture for Mormons, has certainly continued. If I am not mistaken, we disagree with Mormons about whether apostolic revelation is infallible. But we agree with Mormons that post-apostolic revelation (along with ALL of the apostolic gifts) continues. Leaving aside the further question of the witness of continuing signs, wonders, and miracles among the Mormons, I truly am not familiar with any LDS prophecies and revelations except for those of Joseph Smith. I doubt if the frequency or scope of them could significantly exceed the multiplied prophecies and revelations by Catholic seers and visionaries in the last 200 years. Maybe it would be good just to dig into it all and present the evidence sometime? A lot of Catholics are unfortunately ignorant of the rich heritage we have in very recent times showing that God's Spirit continues to be "poured out upon all flesh".

I hope you understand my desire to try to wrap up this thread which has now lasted already almost a month and a half with me being far and away the most active contributor. I don't want to start anything else yet, but I think the subject of Catholic continuing revelation and miracles for anyone who is interested, would definitely merit a thread of its own. I am sure that revelation and miracles would take even more time because of the sheer abundance of material. If I can finish up this thread in the next few weeks, maybe you would want me to introduce the topic again sometime after that? I'll tell you what. I probably shouldn't start a topic about that on the Mormon board. It would be a little self-serving I am afraid. But if you or somebody else that's LDS wants to get something started, I'll eventually be sure to make my way to it. But in the meantime, I have unfinished work here.

3DOP

Edited August 17, 2012 by 3DOP

[3DOP]

Throughout the Old Testament era, it seems to have been considered at least unfortunate, if not a curse, to be childless, to be sterile, to be incapable of bearing children. There is no record that anyone ever sought such a lifestyle deliberately. But Isaias prophecies of a time when those who bear no children are received with special honor in God's kingdom. Of course, Catholics and Orthodox would see the fulfillment of this prophecy in the vows of celibacy taken by priests and religious for all of the centuries since the time of Christ:

For thus saith the Lord to the eunuchs, They that shall keep my sabbaths, and shall choose the things that please me, and shall hold fast my covenant: I will give to them in my house, and within my walls, a place, and a name better than sons and daughters: I will give them an everlasting name which shall never perish.

---Is. 56:4, 5

It is easy to pass over inconvenient or difficult prophecies. I don't think the Jews of Christ's day had been giving it much thought. It didn't very easily conform to their beliefs. It is in St. Matthew's Gospel, ch. 19, that Jesus' disciples are surprised at the way Jesus is critical of how divorce was only tolerated by Moses "for the hardness of your heart". The Lord goes on to establish a rigorous rule against remarriage which prompts the disciples to proclaim, "If the case of a man with his wife be so, it is not expedient to marry." (Mt. 19:10) The significance here is that they all accept the idea that marriage is expedient and they are assuming that Jesus will agree.

But Jesus doesn't correct them because he is about to explain that for some, marriage most certainly IS NOT EXPEDIENT:

Who said to them: All men take not this word, but they to whom it is given. For there are eunuchs, who were born so from their mother's womb: and there are eunuchs, who were made so by men: and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven. He that can take, let him take it.

Mt. 19:11-12

It is the third category Jesus names to which I mainly draw your attention. For three groups, marriage is certainly not according to Jesus' teaching, expedient. Obviously those who were born with the incapacity and those who have been forcibly sterilized need not marry. There can be no argument about that. But additionally, there is third very interesting group, of which Jesus approves. These are they who for the sake of the kingdom have "made themselves eunuchs". Obviously, we do not understand our Lord to have been approving of self-mutilation. Rather however, that for some, they will become as eunuchs having chosen such a life for the sake of the Gospel. But rather than feeling desolate about it as they did in the Old Testament, God will give them "an everlasting name which shall never perish", as explained in the prophecy of Isaias.

---------------------------

Getting late. Bukowski, I need to go through a little bit of I Corinthians to tie up the topic of biblical celibacy. At that time, it should be convenient to discuss more thoroughly the inequality of gifts and callings of God as found I think in ch. 12. But even in this passage from the Gospel, I would have you note how, whatever it is you believe He was advocating if not voluntary celibacy, Jesus said, "All men take not this word, but they to whom it is given" and again, "He that can take, let him take it."

Good night all,

3DOP

Edited August 18, 2012 by 3DOP