I notice here an institutional emphasis. In the LDS view, the Church still could exist in the midst of a complete or total apostacy. When we speak of apostacy, it is not so much just the Church in name that goes away, but rather two important elements: (1) the organization of the Church (2) the Priesthood of the individual members of the Church.
As I understand it there was no central or unified Church for at least 300 years after the death and resurrection of Christ. There were local Bishops and no single Bishop was in charge of the collective, until after the Nicene Council. Not only this, but the council was convened by Imperial decree. Regardless, the Church no longer had apostles, though we read in scripture the apparent need to replace deceased apostles with new replacements. Unfortunately, this biblical practice did not continue, and the Church was no longer organized in the way the Savior set it up, the way Peter tried to keep it going. This is not a minor detail.
Donatism strikes at the heart of #2 above. We as LDS understand that the priesthood authority departs from a priesthood holder if that man does not walk the path of righteousness. We either excommunicate the wicked priesthood holder, or release them from positions of authority, since we know by revelation that God has ALREADY removed their authority. We do agree with the Catholic Church that ordinances performed by men WITH exoteric authority but without the Godly (esoteric) authority are honored by the institution of the Church, but we also remove the offender post haste as soon as their ungodly deeds are known.
So we have here 2 cases for an apostate church that still exists (at least after Constantine pulled it together again) that has lost its divinely appointed organization and lost its leader's godly (esoteric) authority. And all this with no Pope in sight. I want to make it clear, though, that this apostacy applies to an existing Church, and not to individuals who are sincere and honest in their spiritual pursuits. For example, I am completely convinced that St. John of the Cross (Juan de la Cruz) did in fact see God. I love his books!
I do not think this is incompatible with St. John belonging to an apostate Church. God is who He is, and speaks to whomever He will.
Total does not mean the institution of the Catholic Church would have to disappear, in the LDS view.
I think we can agree to differ on this. Amicably, I'm sure!
Joseph taught that the 'rock' meant revelation from God. Peter had just told Jesus that he knew He was the Christ, then Jesus said it was because of revelation that Peter knew it. I know about the play on words in the Greek 'Cephas' and so forth. I think there are more levels of meaning here than some may acknowledge. Again, I'm sure you disagree and I don't claim that our view is the only justifiable one. Especially if you don't believe Joseph had a clue. So its OK.
Of course Jesus would not mislead anyone, unless someone through lack of the spirit could not understand what He was saying. I hope you agree that if we don't have the Spirit with us, we run the risk of not understanding the things of God?
The LDS view is that Christ set up the perfect Church and it was the failings of individual Church leaders after His departure that caused the failure (apostacy). We all know that Christ would not mislead anyone, but we also know that He allows us to misunderstand Him when our lives or situations prevent our correct understanding. That's what continuing revelation (the 'rock') is there for.
And you see our point that it was not the Church or the Pope that was promised to not fall, but revelation, right? I know you don't need to agree, but that is the LDS position.
Yes, tares and the wheat.
Not crazy at all. Thanks for your posts, and I really respect your ability to discuss without rancor. You rock!
HiJolly