The Possibility Of A 2Nd Apostasy

[mfbukowski]

(mfbukowski, don't you love how new-Platonism is in all aspects of Catholicism? ha! )

Man, you don't have to tell ME that!!

You can use that pagan Greek theology if you like but I'll stick to the good old Jewish traditions and Council of the Gods, thank you very much!

[Damien the Leper]

Man, you don't have to tell ME that!!

You can use that pagan Greek theology if you like but I'll stick to the good old Jewish traditions and Council of the Gods, thank you very much!

So...Hellenism then?

[Ahab]

That seems like an awfully strange reason to take away the Church for 1800 years. It also ignores the fact that the vast majority of Christian martyrdoms occurred *after* the majority of LDS believe the apostasy occurred, from 250-313.

What seems strange to you? Doesn't seem strange to me. If I were in Jesus shoes I wouldn't want people to either die as a martyr or become apostate if they chose to follow me. I'd rather try to arrange things so that people would be allowed to live their religion as they please without fear of being killed as most of the apostles were killed. The only one who didn't die a horrible death was John, who was translated into an angel.

Again, this is strange. If the circumstances weren't conducive, then why did Christ start the Church at the time?

It started then... again, as another restoration... because that's when he came here, and when he came here he couldn't help but be himself and do what he does. Christianity is all about following him as he follows our Father while he does good things and tries to share as much about our Father as other people will let him, before some people kill him. What's he supposed to do, instead, just stand around without talking or doing good things? It's not his fault that the people at that time killed him and the relatively few who followed him.

Why didn't God wait until things were conducive, instead of having a "failed start"?

Do you understand WHY there was a "failed start"? It's because that was a time when people would kill him and those who followed him and his teachings. The same thing almost happened again in our day when the Church was restored again through Joseph Smith, but because there was a place for the Church to move to, out in the wilderness, and because this country was founded upon the ideal of religious freedom, enough time eventually passed for most nonmembers to cool down enough so that they wouldn't try to kill the Church members. Things weren't like that in and around Rome. Even the Essenes couldn't move out of the reach of people who would kill lthem. But the Church was still composed of the people who followed Jesus even though it didn't take very long before all the members were eventually killed or became apostate.

I think this is at the heart of my question. Why did God allow it to happen then and won't allow it to happen now? Why the difference?

Once you understand the kind of conditions it would take for the Church to not only remain but grow, and once you understand the kind of conditions that were prevalent around the Roman empire in that time period, you'll then be able to see why the true Church didn't remain for very long back then. Until then you'll probably just think something like "but it could have if..." and you'll stay disconnected from the reality of the way things were back then.

This seems to presuppose that He didn't want them joining His Church when He founded it, despite the fact that He tells the Apostles to go forth and baptize all nations.

Of course he wants people to follow him, but that doesn't mean he wants the people who do to die a horrible death. Consider the idea that it would have taken many miracles for those with the keys of the kingdom to avoid the mobs chasing after them to kill them, and that even with all of those miracles some of them would still die or appoint people to replace them who would also eventually die or become apostates. That happened in our day too, you know. Even apostles can become apostates, as Judas Iscariot did. It's just a theory of mine, but I think it's possible that some people just misunderstood the true teachings of Jesus and, even though they had the best of intentions, some bad ideas crept into their thinking while they gradually accepted more and more false ideas. God knows how it happened but he hasn't given me all of the details, yet.

Not even the 3 Nephites?

Well, yeah, okay, those guys, but I wasn't exactly thinking of them as "hiding". They're just in a place where we don't see them, right now, just like we don't see the other apostles who have been translated into angels or died and now live in the "spirit world".

This doesn't answer the question.

How so? I thought it did.

Edited October 18, 2012 by Ahab

[Thunderfire]

Also, if you understood how things were supposed to be, you'd realize you still need people with priesthood after the order of Melchizedek, which is the same order of priesthood our Lord has, so that you would have people who are authorized to do what our Lord would do and wants done.

I realize that many are not aware of this: The Catholics do believe that they ordain their priests in the order of Melchesidec!

[Ahab]

You don't understand the Catholic priesthood -- perhaps you should study a bit before you make statements about it. All priests are after the order of Melchizedek, after the order of Christ, who is the High Priest. Of course we think we need it.

Then you just don't know enough about how the true priesthood after that order works. You have an apostate version of it, but you deny the power thereof. Otherwise you guys would be one with us and the priesthood we have and we would all be in the same Church.

[mfbukowski]

So...Hellenism then?

Ah yes, Helen. I remember her well from high school..... but I was never really a Helenist....

[MormonMason]

Do you think God also tried to use others in JS time to restore the church since a few others had visits and/or visions also?

I doubt it. Timing was everything. A fellow by the name of D. Charles Pyle has written a small paper on the subject. His paper is still in manuscript and unpublished. Nevertheless it is of interest.

He uses a prophecy of Daniel and a number of other verses to establish the time line. He establishes the two legs of iron as the Roman Empire, and postulates that the time of the ten kings would have to come after that just as each section of the image or statue is linear in time following one another. Based upon a time frame when there were ten kings that derived from lands that were once part of the Roman Empire as the toes are extensions of the feet, which in turn were extensions of the legs representing the Roman Empire, he states that the establishment of the end-times kingdom by God had to take place not in the time of the Roman Empire but in the time of the ten kings, represented by the toes.

He determines from historical documents and such that the time frame of the restoration and the beginning of the establishment of the Kingdom by God on Earth had to have taken place and been completed sometime between 1829 and 1848, when the final fall of the French Monarchy in 1848 occurred. Anytime before 1829 would be too early and after 1848 would be too late. Recall also that this kingdom is represented as being a stone cut out of the mountains and also itself became a great mountain.

Now, with that in mind, consider that the priesthood was restored in 1829, and that all necessary priesthood quorums were in place, including also a political 'Council of 50' (later reabsorbed into the Church), and the Saints established in the Rocky Mountains before 1848.

The paper closes with a question for readers as to their knowledge of any other churches set up within that time line and whether any of these others could fit the definition of a kingdom.

In my own thinking, I think people did not call the government of the Church the "Great Basin Kingdom" for nothing. In addition, several individuals actually had been anointed kings before the move into the Great Basin.

So, I don't know for sure but I think it fits this time line the best. I know of no other visionaries from the time of Joseph Smith who fit within such a time frame, or whose founded churches, if any, could be described as a kind of kingdom.

Edited October 18, 2012 by MormonMason

[Ahab]

I doubt it. Timing was everything. A fellow by the name of D. Charles Pyle has written a small paper on the subject. His paper is still in manuscript and unpublished. Nevertheless it is of interest.

He uses a prophecy of Daniel and a number of other verses to establish the time line. He establishes the two legs of iron as the Roman Empire, and postulates that the time of the ten kings would have to come after that just as each section of the image or statue is linear in time following one another. Based upon a time frame when there were ten kings that derived from lands that were once part of the Roman Empire as the toes are extensions of the feet, which in turn were extensions of the legs representing the Roman Empire, he states that the establishment of the end-times kingdom by God had to take place not in the time of the Roman Empire but in the time of the ten kings, represented by the toes.

He determines from historical documents and such that the time frame of the restoration and the beginning of the establishment of the Kingdom by God on Earth had to have taken place and been completed sometime between 1829 and 1848, when the final fall of the French Monarchy in 1848 occurred. Anytime before 1829 would be too early and after 1848 would be too late. Recall also that this kingdom is represented as being a stone cut out of the mountains and also itself became a great mountain.

Now, with that in mind, consider that the priesthood was restored in 1829, and that all necessary priesthood quorums were in place, including also a political 'Council of 50' (later reabsorbed into the Church), and the Saints established in the Rocky Mountains before 1848.

The paper closes with a question for readers as to their knowledge of any other churches set up within that time line and whether any of these others could fit the definition of a kingdom.

In my own thinking, I think people did not call the government of the Church the "Great Basin Kingdom" for nothing. In addition, several individuals actually had been anointed kings before the move into the Great Basin.

So, I don't know for sure but I think it fits this time line the best. I know of no other visionaries from the time of Joseph Smith who fit within such a time frame, or whose founded churches, if any, could be described as a kind of kingdom.

Thank you for providing some details that I haven't seen before. Question, though: Why would after 1848 have been too late? More than 10 kings is still 10 kings, plus more.

[MormonMason]

According to the paper it is because the final fall of the French Monarchy resulted in there at the time being 9 kings. One kingdom after another in the former Roman territories fell from that time forward, until there were only a couple left.

[MiserereNobis]

Then you just don't know enough about how the true priesthood after that order works. You have an apostate version of it, but you deny the power thereof. Otherwise you guys would be one with us and the priesthood we have and we would all be in the same Church.

I'll just use your same argument and logic against you: You have an apostate version of the priesthood, otherwise you would all be Catholics.

Pretty convincing, eh?

[Ahab]

According to the paper it is because the final fall of the French Monarchy resulted in there at the time being 9 kings. One kingdom after another in the former Roman territories fell from that time forward, until there were only a couple left.

Oh, I see. That's really interesting. I'd like to see a list of those kingdoms with some dates to get a better picture. I didn't notice if you linked to that paper, so I'll go back and look now.

[MiserereNobis]

According to the paper it is because the final fall of the French Monarchy resulted in there at the time being 9 kings. One kingdom after another in the former Roman territories fell from that time forward, until there were only a couple left.

I don't suppose this guy also mapped out the history of the world from Adam to the present day?

[Ahab]

I'll just use your same argument and logic against you: You have an apostate version of the priesthood, otherwise you would all be Catholics.

Pretty convincing, eh?

Whether or not you agree, my point was this:

I know how the priesthood is supposed to function, based on what God has told me, so from my perspective I can see how yours is an apostate version by seeing how it compares with the way it's supposed to be.

You may think your version is right based on what you think God has told you, but my perspective is still based on what God has told me regardless of what you say or think.

It is kinda weird how it seems to go in a circle like that, because I can imagine how you can continue to think you can say pretty much the same thing I'm saying, but what makes the difference is what God has actually said and what he actually meant, rather than just what someone thinks he said or meant. Once you know that, the truth, and you accept it, you will also be as free as I am.

Oh, and part of the reason you don't know you need the Melchizedek priesthood is due to the fact that you think you've already received it, like it's supposed to be. As it is you have an apostate version while thinking that's the correct version.

Anyway, no offense meant. I'm just trying to help you see what I see so you can see from my perspective, while I hope it will help you.

[MormonMason]

Oh, I see. That's really interesting. I'd like to see a list of those kingdoms with some dates to get a better picture. I didn't notice if you linked to that paper, so I'll go back and look now.

Unfortunately, I do not have my copy of the paper with me and I am away from my files for the foreseeable future. I do not recall all the names of the kingdoms listed in the paper. I just recall that Greece and France were among them. Unfortunately, the paper is unpublished and only in handwritten manuscript. I wish it were online.

[MormonMason]

I don't suppose this guy also mapped out the history of the world from Adam to the present day?

No, he didn't. Just the prophecy of Daniel, and also a rather lengthy, handwritten paper detailing the symbolism of the woman fleeing into the wilderness, as well as something regarding the seven seals and the time periods to which each seal can be matched, in Revelation/Apocalypse. Unfortunately, I have no access to either at the present. I can only go by memory at the moment.

[SamIam]

Greetings friends!

From the LDS perspective, is there a possibility of the LDS church falling into apostasy and thus requiring another restoration?

If there is such a possibility, how would one know that the apostasy had occurred? I ask this especially in light of the doctrine of continuing revelation, where modern prophets can abandon old doctrines and reveal new ones.

If there is no such possibility, what is the protection and/or guarantee? In other words, how would God keep it from happening? And why didn't He employ that same method with the primitive Church to keep her from falling away?

Thanks in advance for your insights!

What is fascinating is that one can observe certain phenomenon today that represents the apostasy of the Christian religion. To an LDS this would only be a continued apostasy, however, the current conditions also answer the question of why the LDS church will not fall in apostasy. However, it is evidence of the exact same conditions that prompted the first apostasy-changing doctrines.

For the purpose of keeping the quoted material as brief as possible I will only illustrate using the doctrine of baptism. I have noted in the past 30 + years an expanding pattern of homogenization of all Christian religions and the cause is disturbing and few Christians are aware that it has been taking place for decades.

Quite frequently the debate over baptism between LDS and Christian religion has in recent times devolved to the discussion of if it is a necessary ordinance for salvation to which most of Christianity has begun to chant no, no, no. Each side has developed compelling arguments from their perspective but LDS often are not aware of the change in conditions that prompted Christian religions to develop their “new theology.” Thus we attempt to defend from a scriptural precedent a doctrinal change that has been contrived in the halls of men and sold compellingly to its Christian members.

This effort began some few years prior to the 1950’s and had a goal which is now summed up in the following from the online National Council of Churches Faith and Order Commission Handbook. We find the stated objective of the Faith and Order Movement in these words:

Faith and Order is a movement with origins in the early twentieth century. The goal of this movement is to work towards the full visible unity of the church. Faith and Order works by bringing together Christians from different Christian communities to engage in theological reflection. This reflection focuses on the nature of the unity of the church and on the nature of the issues which divide thechurches. Faith and Order seeks to deepen ecclesial unity and obviate ecclesial division.

Faith and Order is a movement present in and beyond councils of churches on the local, regional, national and global levels. The National Council of the Churches of Christ in the USA is one among many entities which houses this worldwide movement. Its Faith and Order Commission, comprised of representatives of member-churches of the Council, non-member churches and other appropriate sending bodies “affirms the oneness of the church of Jesus Christ and keeps before the churches the gospel call to visible unity in one faith and one eucharistic fellowship, expressed in worship and in common life in Christ, in order that the world may believe.”(Retrieved from www.ncccusa.org/pdfs/FaithAndOrderHandbook.pdf)

This next statement identifies further detail concerning this process of correcting the points of conflict in the religions of Christianity.

7. Faith and Order has, first of all, concentrated its theological work on those issues which have played an important role in the divisions between the churches.

In accordance with its original mandate to identify the major church-dividing issues and to seek to overcome them, Faith and Order has concentrated its theological work during the 80 years of its history so far on the issues of baptism, eucharist, ministry and the Church. The agreements and convergences reached in view of the first three issues have been formulated in the 1982 "Baptism, Eucharist and Ministry" document, 9 the most widely distributed, discussed and responded to text in the history of the ecumenical movement. … A similar text should summarize the bilateral and multilateral agreements and convergences concerning the nature, mission and unity of the Church, which is now high on the Faith and Order agenda. 10 The remarkable results of the work on these issues constitute a historic reversal of centuries of controversy and mutual isolation and exclusion. (www.oikoumene.org/en/resources/documents/wcc-commissions/faith-and-order-commission/xii-essays/what-is-faith-and-order-ga14nther-gassmann.html)

In a key documents of the National Council of Churches Faith and Order “ONE BAPTISM: TOWARDS MUTUAL RECOGNITION” - A STUDY TEXT, Is found the following words from the introduction:

1. This is a study document rather than a convergence text. It explores the close relation between baptism and the believer’s life-long growth into Christ, as a basis for a greater mutual recognition of baptism. It also addresses issues in baptismal understanding and practice which cause difficulty within churches and hinder the mutual recognition of baptism among churches today. It is offered in the hope that fresh perspectives will help the churches (a) to clarify the meaning of the mutual recognition of baptism, (b) to put the consequences of mutual recognition fully into practice, and © to clarify issues which still prevent such recognition.

To be continued:

Edited October 19, 2012 by SamIam

[SamIam]

Thanks in advance for your insights!

Continued from part one:

We should note that this was presented as a study exploring the possibilities of the uniting the churches under a common banner. However, the possibility of adopting the principles, became the implementation of the adoption of these principles in a 1982 meeting in Lima Peru of the Faith and Order movement. This became the quiet, peaceful dawning of a new day when amongst so many other things baptism ceased to be identified as a required ordinance and unique to each religious group. It became in the words of the Three Musketeers “all for one and one for all. “ From the text:

Baptism, Eucharist and Ministry (Faith and Order Paper No. 111, the "Lima Text")

This famous text, adopted by Faith and Order at its plenary commission meeting in Lima, Peru in 1982, explores the growing agreement - and remaining differences - in fundamental areas of the churches' faith and life. The most widely-distributed and studied ecumenical document, BEM has been a basis for many "mutual recognition" agreements among churches and remains a reference today.

The World Council is here clearly defined. It is not a universal authority controlling what Christians should believe and do. (they aren’t going to tell you what to do-my note) After only three decades, however, it has already become a remarkable community of some three hundred members…. Yet they are all committed to close collaboration in Christian witness and service. At the same time, they are also striving together to realize the goal of visible Church unity.

So it is that the stated aim of the Commission is "to proclaim the oneness of the Church of Jesus Christ and to call the churches to the goal of visible unity in one faith and one eucharistic fellowship, expressed in worship and common life in Christ, in order that the world might believe" (By-Laws).

If the divided churches are to achieve the visible unity they seek, one of the essential prerequisites is that they should be in basic agreement on baptism, eucharist and ministry. (The tell you what to do – my note) Naturally, therefore, the Faith and Order Commission has devoted a good deal of attention to overcoming doctrinal division on these three. During the last fifty years, most of its conferences have had one or another of these subjects at the centre of discussion. (http://www.oikoumene.org/en/resources/documents/wcc-commissions/faith-and-order-commission/i-unity-the-church-and-its-mission/baptism-eucharist-and-ministry-faith-and-order-paper-no-111-the-lima-text/baptism-eucharist-and-ministry.html#c10470)

Finally this document which is the official documents of the agreed upon standards of the 1982 Lima Peru vote.

Baptism, Eucharist and Ministry - Faith and Order Paper No. 111

13. Baptism is an unrepeatable act. Any practice which might be interpreted as "re-baptism" must be avoided.

COMMENTARY (13)

Churches which have insisted on a particular form of baptism or which have had serious questions about the authenticity of other churches' sacraments and ministries have at times required persons coming from other church traditions to be baptized before being received into full communicant membership. As the churches come to fuller mutual understanding and acceptance of one another and enter into closer relationships in witness and service, they will want to refrain from any practice which might call into question the sacramental integrity of other churches or which might diminish the unrepeatability of the sacrament of baptism. (http://www.oikoumene.org/en/resources/documents/wcc-commissions/faith-and-order-commission/i-unity-the-church-and-its-mission/baptism-eucharist-and-ministry-faith-and-order-paper-no-111-the-lima-text/baptism-eucharist-and-ministry.html#c10470)

A quote from within the document is this one which explores further questions remaining at the time in the 1982 standards were accepted. This quote attempts to define the universal elements that are now proscribed for a religious organization to embrace and if present all other religions will recognize other members of the World Council of Churches baptism without requiring additional baptism.

20. Within any comprehensive order of baptism at least the following elements should find a place: the proclamation of the scriptures referring to baptism; an invocation of the Holy Spirit; a renunciation of evil; a profession of faith in Christ and the Holy Trinity; the use of water; a declaration that the persons baptized have acquired a new identity as sons and daughters of God, and as members of the Church, called to be witnesses of the Gospel. Some churches consider that Christian initiation is not complete without the sealing of the baptized with the gift of the Holy Spirit and participation in holy communion.

Here is introduced the fact that some of the members do not recognize water as an element of baptism which bears consideration.

©Some African churches practice baptism of the Holy Spirit without water, through the laying on of hands, while recognizing other churches' baptism. A study is required concerning this practice and its relation to baptism with water. (http://www.oikoumene.org/en/resources/documents/wcc-commissions/faith-and-order-commission/i-unity-the-church-and-its-mission/baptism-eucharist-and-ministry-faith-and-order-paper-no-111-the-lima-text/baptism-eucharist-and-ministry.html)

While this was a consideration on the 1982 accepted standards the acceptance of a non-water baptism has been furthered in the following language:

Document date: 22.02.2006 Report of the Policy Reference Committee (Revised) Mandate and Overview

…5. The PRC recommends that the Ninth Assembly set as its goal that we will have made substantial progress towards realizing these hopes and dreams by the Tenth Assembly. Witness to the world of the progress made toward visible unity can include agreement among all of the Christian churches for calculation of the annual date for celebration of the feast of the Resurrection of Our Lord, for mutual recognition by all churches of one Baptism, understanding that there are some who do not observe the rite of Baptism in water but share in the desire to be faithful to Christ, and for convening an ecumenical assembly that would assemble all churches to celebrate their fellowship in Jesus Christ and to address common challenges facing the church and humanity -- all on the way toward visible unity and a shared Eucharist. (http://www.oikoumene.org/en/resources/documents/assembly/porto-alegre-2006/1-statements-documents-adopted/institutional-issues/report-of-the-policy-reference-committee/report-of-the-policy-reference-committee-revised.html)

What organizations are supportive of this colossal organization that encouraged the changing of centuries old practices into a common doctrine? Below is a list of all of those who are considered members of the World Council of Churches.

African Instituted churches, Anglican churches, The Assyrian Church, Baptist churches, The Catholic church, Disciples of Christ / Churches of Christ , Evangelical churches, Friends (Quakers), Holiness churches, Lutheran churches, Mennonite churches, Methodist churches , Moravian churches, Old-Catholic churches, Orthodox churches (Eastern), Orthodox churches (Oriental), Pentecostal churches, Reformed churches, The Salvation Army, Seventh-day Adventist Church, United and Uniting churches NRSV: New Revised Standard Version (of the Bible), NWCU: National Workshop on Christian Unity, O: Orthodox,

The list is actually much larger when each group is split out into it components but you will notice that it is not only Churches but organizations the publish Bibles such as the New Revised Standard Bible, which has altered the text of the scriptures to sustain the objectives of the World Council of Churches.

There is only one major Church organization that is not found on this list: THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER DAY SAINTS.

Thus is a very brief overview of only one doctrine of baptism and how it has morphed from a requirement for membership into the religious order of choice to a one fits all requirements. We now find the Baptists adamantly defending the mandate of Baptism by immersion while at the same time sustaining that baptism is not required for salvation – makes for a duplicitous state that is manifest through all Christian religions in one way or another.

From this union of churches and their collective creativity has come specific statements that are designed to further the separation of Christians and members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latterday Saints. The idea that we believe in a different Jesus Christ is a new construct of this group. I never heard that statement 20 years or so ago. The effort behind the shock and awe of LDS history online is funded directly and indirectly by this group. In any way imaginable they have contrived against the largest religious group that refuses their offers of financial aid in trade for the concessions they demand. We just can't hence I contend that the LDS Church has already indicated it has opted out of an ongoing apostasy.

[SamIam]

Thanks in advance for your insights!

Also interestingly two of the most influential members of World Council of Churches' Faith and Order office passed away in recent years:

New York, March 12, 2008 – Professor Dr. Lukas Vischer, 81, a Presbyterian scholar and early leader in the worldwide Faith and Order movement, died March 11.

Dr. Vischer was director of the World Council of Churches' Faith and Order office from 1965 to 1979. His death comes 19 days after the passing of his successor at WCC Faith and Order, the Rev. Dr. William Lazareth.

"In a short span of time we have lost two giants in the international Faith and Order movement," said the Rev. Dr. Michael Kinnamon, general secretary of the National Council of Churches USA who knew both men when he served on the WCC Faith and Order staff in Geneva.

"The driving force in their lives was the vision of visible church unity," Kinnamon said. "There can be no greater honor to their memory than for the 35 member communions of the National Council of Churches to recommit themselves to this vision, and to the prayer of Jesus that all Christians may be one."

http://www.ncccusa.org/news/080312vischer.html

[mfbukowski]

I don't suppose this guy also mapped out the history of the world from Adam to the present day?

They only problem is they left out the reign of the Bukowski Empire- of course that is still in the future so that proves that they really did not have any true power of revelation because they could not see the future.

[mfbukowski]

I'll just use your same argument and logic against you: You have an apostate version of the priesthood, otherwise you would all be Catholics.

Pretty convincing, eh?

That is exactly the point I was trying to make earlier. "I'm right and you're wrong and only I know why" is not a very convincing argument. In fact it is a rather stunning approach to life.

Whether or not you agree, my point was this:

I know how the priesthood is supposed to function, based on what God has told me, so from my perspective I can see how yours is an apostate version by seeing how it compares with the way it's supposed to be.

You may think your version is right based on what you think God has told you, but my perspective is still based on what God has told me regardless of what you say or think.

It is kinda weird how it seems to go in a circle like that, because I can imagine how you can continue to think you can say pretty much the same thing I'm saying, but what makes the difference is what God has actually said and what he actually meant, rather than just what someone thinks he said or meant. Once you know that, the truth, and you accept it, you will also be as free as I am.

Oh, and part of the reason you don't know you need the Melchizedek priesthood is due to the fact that you think you've already received it, like it's supposed to be. As it is you have an apostate version while thinking that's the correct version.

Anyway, no offense meant. I'm just trying to help you see what I see so you can see from my perspective, while I hope it will help you.

Edited October 19, 2012 by mfbukowski

[MiserereNobis]

Samlam,

I'd like to point out that the Roman Catholic Church is not a member of the World Council of Churches and does not subscribe to the ideas you quoted. The Catholic Church does send observers to the WCC meetings but is not seeking a false unity, which is one reason why our communion remains closed to non-Catholics. The Catholic Church also directly repudiates non-water baptism. The Catholic Church does recognize non-Catholic baptism, but has done so far longer than the WCC or the Faith and Order movement has been in existence and does so for clear theological reasons, not for false unity.

While we pray for the unity of Christians, as Christ taught us to, we do not believe that doctrinal compromise is the way to unity. True unity lies in being in full communion with the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, not through the acceptance of heresy.

[MiserereNobis]

They only problem is they left out the reign of the Bukowski Empire- of course that is still in the future so that proves that they really did not have any true power of revelation because they could not see the future.

I shudder at the thought... would you erect temples to St. Rorty and St. Wittgenstein?

[volgadon]

They only problem is they left out the reign of the Bukowski Empire- of course that is still in the future so that proves that they really did not have any true power of revelation because they could not see the future.

We smuggled an artist in.

Here is his rendition of your weekly meetings in the basement.

In this one, we see you triumphantly breaking for lunch.

As you can tell, we are extremely concerned with this growing threat to our existence.

[mfbukowski]

I shudder at the thought... would you erect temples to St. Rorty and St. Wittgenstein?

They will get the smaller ones, of course! I am a generous man!

[mfbukowski]

We smuggled an artist in.

Here is his rendition of your weekly meetings in the basement.

In this one, we see you triumphantly breaking for lunch.

As you can tell, we are extremely concerned with this growing threat to our existence.

As well you should be!

We will find that traitorous artist, never fear- and he, like all of you, will be assimilated. It is inevitable after all!