The Possibility Of A 2Nd Apostasy

[SamIam]

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.

I consider that an advantages perspective on this conversation that I did not realize. So perhaps we can agree that there are 2 major religions that are not formal members of the WCC. Still as your post is concerning a 2^nd apostasy, does not this current history trend speak to you concerning conditions that favor an apostasy? If you engage with a Baptist nowadays about the requirement of Baptism by immersion for salvation, they have gone a completely different direction from 50 years ago. They will still defend to the death that immersion is the Biblical standard but now it is not required for salvation whereas this was originally one of the tenants of their identity. Currently there are somewhere around 16 million Baptists who now believe an entirely different doctrine that just 50-60 years ago. This then is an apostasy from the Baptist church. However, the pattern exists for each member of the WCC in one form or another if for nothing else the acceptance of any other baptism of one of the other WCC members. Would you not agree this is not an apostasy in progress? And millions not observing the specifics of the changes in their doctrine do not even see this taking place.

Now, just for your consideration, while you may not be actual members of the WCC, that is clearly not to the liking of many within the WCC. While I cannot say what will be the end result, certain people are already pandering a transitional dialogue concerning the willingness of the Roman Catholics to acknowledge WCC values. I’m sure their intent is to assimilate, if they can manage it, by building a false sense of unity that younger, less experienced, or less concerned Roman Catholics will not see as a problem. Consider:

c) Because our vision of unity is based on our ecclesiological self-understanding, we have a different understanding of visible unity. In this context, it is important to remind ourselves that, first, even within the WCC, churches differ considerably in their perceptions of unity; second, through the continuous efforts of Faith and Order, the churches, including the Roman Catholic Church, have reached a common agreement concerning the basic requirements and assumptions necessary to manifest the full and visible unity of the church. Although we may maintain different approaches to unity, our commitment to it is firm, because we believe that visible unity constitutes the raison d'être of the ecumenical movement. In fact, the Roman Catholic Church's growing participation in councils of churches and the Vatican's publication of a new Ecumenical Directory are tangible signs of the Roman Catholic Church's "irreversible and irrevocable commitment" to the ecumenical movement. The question is: can different models of unity developed over the years by Faith and Order help us to reach a consensus model? Can the concept of "conciliar fellowship", encompassing different concepts of unity, become a mutually accepted model? (http://www.oikoumene.org/en/resources/documents/wcc-commissions/joint-working-group-between-the-roman-catholic-church-and-the-wcc/challenges-facing-the-roman-catholic-church-wcc-collaboration.html)

So what has already been achieved in other major religions is potentially in progress in an effort to claim unity with the Roman Catholic organization. Does this not make the aspects of an apostasy and how one might progress a more tangible and real phenomenon when one can visibly observe it taking place around you even if it has yet to be successful in subsuming your people. It is very apparent there are many who will spend their life’s effort in changing that condition and in the exact same fashion in which trinity became the dominant doctrine, it is possible that others will fall to the pressures or lose the history if distinction and simply blend in time. I’m not saying they will but does it not make the potential of the conditions that define an apostasy more realistic?

[MiserereNobis]

The Roman Catholic Church has been going through some travails over the past 40-50 years, due to radical misinterpretation of the Second Vatican Council. Interestingly enough, it is the youth that seem to be returning to what was the traditional understanding of Catholicism. As the baby boomer generation dies off, the Church is becoming more and more traditional (thanks be to God!). The ecumenical movement within the RCC saw its hey-day during Pope John Paul II Assissi gatherings. Those are now being downplayed. The current trajectory of the Church no longer seems to be pointing towards the WCC.

[Tacenda]

I consider that an advantages perspective on this conversation that I did not realize. So perhaps we can agree that there are 2 major religions that are not formal members of the WCC. Still as your post is concerning a 2^nd apostasy, does not this current history trend speak to you concerning conditions that favor an apostasy? If you engage with a Baptist nowadays about the requirement of Baptism by immersion for salvation, they have gone a completely different direction from 50 years ago. They will still defend to the death that immersion is the Biblical standard but now it is not required for salvation whereas this was originally one of the tenants of their identity. Currently there are somewhere around 16 million Baptists who now believe an entirely different doctrine that just 50-60 years ago. This then is an apostasy from the Baptist church. However, the pattern exists for each member of the WCC in one form or another if for nothing else the acceptance of any other baptism of one of the other WCC members. Would you not agree this is not an apostasy in progress? And millions not observing the specifics of the changes in their doctrine do not even see this taking place.

Now, just for your consideration, while you may not be actual members of the WCC, that is clearly not to the liking of many within the WCC. While I cannot say what will be the end result, certain people are already pandering a transitional dialogue concerning the willingness of the Roman Catholics to acknowledge WCC values. I’m sure their intent is to assimilate, if they can manage it, by building a false sense of unity that younger, less experienced, or less concerned Roman Catholics will not see as a problem. Consider:

So what has already been achieved in other major religions is potentially in progress in an effort to claim unity with the Roman Catholic organization. Does this not make the aspects of an apostasy and how one might progress a more tangible and real phenomenon when one can visibly observe it taking place around you even if it has yet to be successful in subsuming your people. It is very apparent there are many who will spend their life’s effort in changing that condition and in the exact same fashion in which trinity became the dominant doctrine, it is possible that others will fall to the pressures or lose the history if distinction and simply blend in time. I’m not saying they will but does it not make the potential of the conditions that define an apostasy more realistic?

How do you bring up that there was an apostasy in the Baptist church because they changed from believing that baptism by complete immersion is not required for salvation, when the same is true with the LDS who once believed that polgamy was once required for salvation? Unless I read this post all wrong. IOW, why couldn't other faiths be inspired from on high to change doctrine that once was?

[SamIam]

The Roman Catholic Church has been going through some travails over the past 40-50 years, due to radical misinterpretation of the Second Vatican Council. Interestingly enough, it is the youth that seem to be returning to what was the traditional understanding of Catholicism. As the baby boomer generation dies off, the Church is becoming more and more traditional (thanks be to God!). The ecumenical movement within the RCC saw its hey-day during Pope John Paul II Assissi gatherings. Those are now being downplayed. The current trajectory of the Church no longer seems to be pointing towards the WCC.

I can see that your observations are right concerning where the WCC attempts to paint a conciliatory picture. It almost always seems to allude to the Second Vatican Council as a great step forward towards unity:

After decades of caution concerning the modern ecumenical movement, the Catholic Church, particularly through the Second Vatican Council, acknowledged that it is the Holy Spirit who has inspired contemporary efforts to arrive at greater Christian unity. The council set forth the ecclesiological basis for Catholic participation in the ecumenical movement by affirming that the many elements of sanctification and truth found in varying degrees in various Christian communities separated from one another constitute degrees of real, though imperfect, communion. (

http://www.oikoumene...lic-church.html

)

Nonetheless, the resistance you mention is not without mention in their documentation as is illustrated here:

d) On several occasions the Roman Catholic Church has made it clear that "the time is not yet ripe" to join the WCC. It looks as though the Roman Catholic Church retains that position. Therefore, we, in the WCC, must not have high expectations. We must be realistic and patient. "Inspired by the same vision" (CUV, 4:1 and title of a JWG study), we must reaffirm our common commitment to bear united witness to Christ's Gospel and its call to visible unity, remembering that a WCC with the full participation of the Roman Catholic Church will become more complete, global and efficient on the way to visible unity.

(

http://www.oikoumene...laboration.html

)

Still, they apparently are not giving up the fight as while they acknowledge your independence they want to paint a picture of developing unity.

As we, representatives of the World Council of Churches (WCC) and the Roman Catholic Church, embark on a process of reflecting together on the future of ecumenism, I believe that the Joint Working Group (JWG), which is currently celebrating its 40th Anniversary, has a vital role to play in exploring and shaping the emerging ecumenical perspectives and priorities. The aim of my speech is twofold: first, to make a critical assessment of the relations and collaboration between the Roman Catholic Church and the WCC, particularly within the framework of the JWG; and, second, to identity with a realistic and forward-looking approach those specific areas where deeper collaboration is possible and necessary.

The Catholic Church sees the ecumenical movement as a multidimensional effort - through common prayer, witness, theological dialogue, promotion of the kingdom of God and any other suitable activities - to journey from that partial communion which now exists to the full communion which can one day be celebrated in a common eucharist. The council claimed that the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church of Jesus Christ, professed in the creed, "subsists in" the Catholic Church (Lumen gentium

. By this phrase, the council wanted frankly to express the Catholic conviction that the fullness of the means of salvation with which Christ wished to endow his church can be found only in the Catholic Church. At the same time, by not simply equating Christ's church with the Catholic Church, the council intended to recognize the ecclesial nature and quality of other Christian communities, which the Holy Spirit employs as means for salvation. Catholics believe that the current divisions between Christians do not correspond to the will of Jesus Christ and hamper the more fruitful carrying out of the mission he has entrusted to the church: to make disciples of all nations. Therefore, greater unity must be sought. Not to do so is to contradict the will of Jesus Christ, the head of the church.

Specifically reviewing their materials with an eye on their involvement with the Catholic Church makes for an interesting observation. It would appear that as they (WCC) constantly discuss the unifying of your two groups that there is almost a pandering for legitimacy that drives their cause. It seems they consider it a major point of concern that they cannot claim a full allegiance with the Catholic organization and so create an image that portends to the eventual reconciliation. In terms of chronological patterns of the scriptures, Isaiah’s observation that we can know the future from the past has an interesting overlay. Where originally the Apostles formed a standard of a single entity that was recognized as a church organization which eventually broke into the hundreds of branch offs it is interesting that the current trend is backwards towards the same direction of a unified single world wide organization.

In fact, from some perspectives it may not be such a bad idea. If the Catholic Church did unite with them it could be that they could demand and only do so upon the WCC making conciliations to adopt Catholic worldwide standards. The WCC wanting the legitimacy might go along with it since preserving doctrinal standards is not their objective anyway. The Catholic Church could become the single focus of doctrinal instruction the world over.

Stop with the maniacal laughter and rubbing your hands together

Edited October 19, 2012 by SamIam

[SamIam]

How do you bring up that there was an apostasy in the Baptist church because they changed from believing that baptism by complete immersion is not required for salvation, when the same is true with the LDS who once believed that polgamy was once required for salvation? Unless I read this post all wrong. IOW, why couldn't other faiths be inspired from on high to change doctrine that once was?

Some people might see the two perspectives the same however I believe the nuance of distinction to be significant. Where the LDS have acknowledged the obligation for the greater good of submitting to the laws of the land as has always been a primary tenant of our theology we can note a couple of things. We quietly continue to sustain the doctrine and we have not run from it and denied it's Biblical tradition. Since it is no longer a priority it serves little purpose to discuss it in any other fashion than what it is - a practice no longer practiced by the church but still a viable option within the theology of church if God determined conditions warranted its reinstitution.

With the Christian religions of the WCC, including Baptists, these changes in acceptance of baptism, Eucharist, and ministry amount to a homogenization of doctrines and complete alteration of priority. The Baptists have given up on the requirement of Baptism AND have altered their doctrine to deny its requirement or its future potential as a need of requirement. This homogenization is not about requirement by the laws of the land but is instead to create a “public visible image of unity.” As well it does not even pretend to appeal to God as the inspiration behind their change but simply as a result of a more enlightlened expectation of scriptural interpretation. The same level of enlightenment that 50 years ago used scriptural interpretations to define the mandate of baptism by immersion.

Thus one of the key aspects of an apostasy is upheld which is the changing of doctrinal definition and interpretation.

The LDS have made no effort to obliterate our support of polygamy other than to tone down the rhetoric to bypass umbrage. I suspect not adequate distinctions for you but more than for me.

Edited October 19, 2012 by SamIam

[mfbukowski]

The Roman Catholic Church has been going through some travails over the past 40-50 years, due to radical misinterpretation of the Second Vatican Council. Interestingly enough, it is the youth that seem to be returning to what was the traditional understanding of Catholicism. As the baby boomer generation dies off, the Church is becoming more and more traditional (thanks be to God!). The ecumenical movement within the RCC saw its hey-day during Pope John Paul II Assissi gatherings. Those are now being downplayed. The current trajectory of the Church no longer seems to be pointing towards the WCC.

As we have seen with our discussions, I think you are right- tradition is the strength of Catholicism. If you are going to be traditional, BE traditional.

I think our strength is the other side of it- personal revelation and a changing canon. Heraclitus was not Plato, and never the twain shall meet- you guys are Plato and we are Heraclitus.

Philosophical strength comes from taking a coherent stand and sticking to your guns and making your stand a coherent world view. Keep your context clear and don't start mixing metaphors.

But of course that itself is a Wittgensteinian view, isn't it?

[SamIam]

The Roman Catholic Church has been going through some travails over the past 40-50 years, due to radical misinterpretation of the Second Vatican Council. Interestingly enough, it is the youth that seem to be returning to what was the traditional understanding of Catholicism. As the baby boomer generation dies off, the Church is becoming more and more traditional (thanks be to God!). The ecumenical movement within the RCC saw its hey-day during Pope John Paul II Assissi gatherings. Those are now being downplayed. The current trajectory of the Church no longer seems to be pointing towards the WCC.

I still note you are being just a touch reluctant of acknowledging the imagery of the WCC as reflective of an apostate condition. As a Catholic I can understand that you might see all breakoff churches as apostates from the true church just as we, a restored church might claim the same. So just as I see the LDS's resistance to membership in the WCC as a clear refusal to to be a part of the current or ongoing apostacy I would accord you the same perspective were that your observation. You just haven't declared one way or the other...

[Tacenda]

Some people might see the two perspectives the same however I believe the nuance of distinction to be significant. Where the LDS have acknowledged the obligation for the greater good of submitting to the laws of the land as has always been a primary tenant of our theology we can note a couple of things. We quietly continue to sustain the doctrine and we have not run from it and denied it's Biblical tradition. Since it is no longer a priority it serves little purpose to discuss it in any other fashion than what it is - a practice no longer practiced by the church but still a viable option within the theology of church if God determined conditions warranted its reinstitution.

With the Christian religions of the WCC, including Baptists, these changes in acceptance of baptism, Eucharist, and ministry amount to a homogenization of doctrines and complete alteration of priority. The Baptists have given up on the requirement of Baptism AND have altered their doctrine to deny its requirement or its future potential as a need of requirement. This homogenization is not about requirement by the laws of the land but is instead to create a “public visible image of unity.” As well it does not even pretend to appeal to God as the inspiration behind their change but simply as a result of a more enlightlened expectation of scriptural interpretation. The same level of enlightenment that 50 years ago used scriptural interpretations to define the mandate of baptism by immersion.

Thus one of the key aspects of an apostasy is upheld which is the changing of doctrinal definition and interpretation.

The LDS have made no effort to obliterate our support of polygamy other than to tone down the rhetoric to bypass umbrage. I suspect not adequate distinctions for you but more than for me.

I'm not trying to be disagreeable but I know that Pres. Hinckley stated that polygamy is not doctrine. I've struggled with my testimony precisely over this issue so please don't take my reaction wrong in case you have. Edited October 19, 2012 by Tacenda

[MiserereNobis]

I still note you are being just a touch reluctant of acknowledging the imagery of the WCC as reflective of an apostate condition. As a Catholic I can understand that you might see all breakoff churches as apostates from the true church just as we, a restored church might claim the same. So just as I see the LDS's resistance to membership in the WCC as a clear refusal to to be a part of the current or ongoing apostacy I would accord you the same perspective were that your observation. You just haven't declared one way or the other...

Yes, that is how I view things. There are two types of "apostates" in Catholicism (we rarely use the word apostate or apostasy). There are heretics, those who believe and teach false doctrine, and there are schismatics, those who deny the primacy and supremacy of the Pope.

The unity that the WCC is after would be both heretical and schismatic. From the Catholic perspective, true Christian unity occurs when we are united in belief, through true doctrine, and in visible organization, through the leadership of the visible head of the Church, the Pope. Now, this doesn't mean we can't work with other churches and religions to foster the common good, but we do it realizing that that is not true Christian unity, but simply unity of a common goal.

Protestantism is always going to be in a constant state of flux because of its lack of authoritative teaching and its propensity to breed further break-offs. Once you accept the precedent that you can leave and start your own church, churches will pop up all over the place.

We need to get the Jesuits back on track and out there ruining everyone else's fun...

[SamIam]

We need to get the Jesuits back on track and out there ruining everyone else's fun...

Jesuits - Danites - There's a merging with possiblities.

[SamIam]

I'm not trying to be disagreeable but I know that Pres. Hinckley stated that polygamy is not doctrine. I've struggled with my testimony precisely over this issue so please don't take my reaction wrong in case you have.

It's not that I am taking your reaction wrong, I just see it as symptomatic of your current state. At somepoint as President Hinckley affirms you must stand for something. You seem to want to find a firm place but never quite jump on board or jump ship. Polygamy for instance is not a concern at this time but it is also Biblical with examples of proper application and improper application. See it for no more and no less than it is inspite of the battle claiming it is otherwise. Take a stand that Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, Moses and the references in Deuturonomy refer to a state of being that is sanctioned by God. Take a Stand that David and Solomon were wrong. The current state of the LDS church is that we do not practice it. Take a Stand that it is what it is suppossed to be and that God will determine if a change is warranted. Until then, equivocation is an endless debate of little merit.

Edited October 19, 2012 by SamIam

[mfbukowski]

Once you accept the precedent that you can leave and start your own church, churches will pop up all over the place.

The problem is of course, that the alternative is forcing people to stay and making heresy subject to state punishment I suppose.

Historically, that didn't work too well. I know you were partially joking- but seriously- what IS the alternative?

[3DOP]

As the baby boomer generation dies off...

Heeeeey. Not so fast!

[Storm Rider]

Yes, that is how I view things. There are two types of "apostates" in Catholicism (we rarely use the word apostate or apostasy). There are heretics, those who believe and teach false doctrine, and there are schismatics, those who deny the primacy and supremacy of the Pope.

The unity that the WCC is after would be both heretical and schismatic. From the Catholic perspective, true Christian unity occurs when we are united in belief, through true doctrine, and in visible organization, through the leadership of the visible head of the Church, the Pope. Now, this doesn't mean we can't work with other churches and religions to foster the common good, but we do it realizing that that is not true Christian unity, but simply unity of a common goal.

Protestantism is always going to be in a constant state of flux because of its lack of authoritative teaching and its propensity to breed further break-offs. Once you accept the precedent that you can leave and start your own church, churches will pop up all over the place.

We need to get the Jesuits back on track and out there ruining everyone else's fun...

I cannot disagree with your definition or perception of Christianity unity. However, your belief that Jesus is the Christ, that he is the Savior of all mankind is so vastly important that it binds us together as brothers and sisters in Christ. Doctrines may differ, but none is so important that outweighs the shed blood of Jesus Christ. For a LDS to believe differently is anathema to me; just as it is anathema for anyone to deny Christian brotherhood of another that follows Christ.

Churches continue to pop up. Even in the history of the LDS Church's history other churches have popped up and continue to pop up. Some claim a new restoration; others claim they are just a return to the original teachings of Brigham Young or Joseph Smith (these type of reasons must sound familiar to Catholic ears and the reasons they have heard over the centuries). Catholics and LDS feel similarly regarding the importance of authority or priesthood.

[treeface]

Greetings friends!

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

I speak only for my leafy self, but in my opinion it is quite possible that the LDS church could fall into apostasy. I think that possibility is one of the messages of the Book of Mormon.

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.

There is no external warning system. It is unlikely that anyone within the heirarchy is going to sound the alarm and say "we're going off course here", because that person would be rejected by the ecclesiastical authority. Abinadi and Samuel the Lamanite came from completely outside the normal lines of authority.

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?

In my opinion, the only protection is this: For each of us, our own internal light must be bright enough to light our own path. If we are living by borrowed light, following some external authority instead of the Holy Spirit within, then we are susceptible to being led in the wrong direction by anyone with the mantle of authority who makes a mistake.