First, we know there couldn't be a complete apostacy because Jesus promises us that the gates of Hell would not prevail against the Church (Matt: 16:18+). If the apostacy were true, then Jesus would be the foolish man he describes in Matt: 7:24 who built on sand. Jesus built on a rock and is the wise man. So much more could be said on this topic.
I believe you are assuming (because it is taught by the LDS) that "written" divine revelation continues on. This is a distinctive LDS belief. Jesus didn't leave us a book club, but a Church. The Church has existed for 2,000 years and has guided us. The Church is led by the Holy Spirit, which was promised to us in John 14:26.
Lastly, some food for thought. The Bible that Joseph Smith relied upon, and the LDS church still uses today, was compiled, preserved and finally canonized by the Catholic Church in the 4th century. If the Church fell into apostacy after the death of the last apostle, then we wouldn't have the Bible. How can an apostate Church compile the 27 books of the New Testament? Is it believable that Joseph Smith succeeded where Jesus failed? It makes no sense.
A more likely explanation is that we can trust in Jesus' Word that the Church He established 2,000 years ago is guided by the Holy Spirit and that He would not leave us orphans (John 14:18).
You are sincere, which I appreciate. Claiming that Jesus' Church fell into Apostacy soon after the death of the last apostle, though 2,000 years ago, is still an attack on the the Church because it is the same church today. No different than claiming Joseph Smith, at the founding of the LDS church, was a false profit.
Though I don't know if any current LDS leader writes negative about the Catholic Church, but historically, it is common. The missionary discussions, though they've changed recently, made the apostacy and restoration a main point of their discussions.
Again, my original point is that I don't understand why someone would be upset at the daily wire or Matt Fradd if a Catholic talked about Catholic topics and refuted arguments against the Catholic Church. Joseph Smith made false claims against the Church that Jesus established and it deserves a response.
Fair. But you seem to be taking issue with the choice of select words in my response and ignoring the point. The point is that the LDS church believes and teaches the Catholic church is false and fell into apostacy after the death of the last apostle. Hence the need for the restoration.
I don't see how the missionaries and LDS books and magazine articles that make that claim against the Catholic Church are any different than Matt Fradd defending Catholicism and pushing back on the LDS claims. Why is he wrong (i.e. anti-LDS), but the LDS are not wrong and not anti-Catholic? We shouldn't be surprised if a conservative media outlet has a spectrum of religious beliefs and reporting. The LDS and Catholics are generally conservative and like minded in many things, we shouldn't be offended when some of our religious beliefs are contrasted, discussed, or debated. What are we worried about?
I am sorry, but that simply isn't true...and I am not even mad. I live in Salt Lake and half my family is LDS. I've seen plenty of Ensign articles and had missionaries over a ton of times and the theme is that the Catholic Church fell into apostacy (read: false)... hence the LDS church.
It's okay to admit that what Matt Fradd does it no different than what LDS missionaries and apologist do. They argue and advocate for their beliefs.
@ShodaRau46263@Catholicizm1 I guess it makes sense. If Jesus only started one Church (one Lord, one faith, one baptism) then whether someone is aware or not, then Grace flows through His One Church whether we recognize it or not.
No disrespect, but you're in the minority view on this interpretation too. Why are you correct and most everyone else wrong? That's a lot of verbal gymnastics to come to the conclusion that Peter isn't the Rock.
His name is Simon and was literally called Peter after this scene, and yet you claim he wasn't the Rock (Peter)? Jesus immediately goes on and declares that Peter (his new Rock name) would have the keys to the kingdom of heaven and whatever he (Peter) binds on Earth will be bound in heaven and whatever he (Peter) looses on Earth will be loosed in heaven.
Your interpretation makes no sense and is a minority view interpretation. Again, why are you correct? Where in Scripture does it say that you can interpret scripture in anyway you want and then use that interpretation to claim power over the Church Jesus started 2,000 years ago? Makes no sense.
I get it. There are scripture versus that make it seem like your prayers wouldn't help. And yet, there are verses that would say otherwise and the majority of Christians believe that our prayers for the dead do help (you're in the Christian minority on this one).
Who's to say your interpretation is correct? Are you infallible on this? You think scripture is clear and yet 1.5 billion Christians would have a different interpretation and they think it is clear the other way.
This is why I am Catholic, to be honest. I believe Jesus when he says he will build his Church and the gates of hell would not prevail against it. I believe Jesus left a Church and not a Bible (though the Bible is the Word of God, it wasn't compiled in its entirety for hundreds of years after Pentecost).
How does Joan of Arc, and Catholic Saint who lived 350 years before the revolution, have anything to do with the horrible French revolution? This revolution put Joan of Arc's Church under state control and was key in killing thousands of priest and religious. Churches were converted into "temples of reason" and religious symbols were destroyed and Sunday sabbaths (the Lord's day) were banned.
Joan of Arc would have been fighting against the revolution.
The problem is that not only are there obvious falsehoods in this list, raising questions of holy credibility, but it claims that Jesus, who rose from the dead, either lied or was wrong when he said the gates of hell would NOT prevail against the Church and that He would not leave us orphans.
This post claims that Jesus Christ, the Son of God, failed at starting His Church, making him the fool of Matthew 7:24-27, and Joseph Smith, 1800 years later, was somehow successful where Jesus failed.
@JS_StrngstSldr@BowWowBrah You obviously know nothing. Catholics read scripture at each Mass each day of the week. At any moment there is a Mass being said (and scripture being read) 24 hrs a day, all year long. You guys won't even go to Church on Christmas unless it is a Sunday. Spare me.