A date for the "Great Apostasy"

[TexanKnight]

That’s an interesting question. I, too, believe Christ to be more present in more different church organizations than some tend to believe (yes, even the Mormon church, though I am no longer a member). I’m curious as to the extent you think Christ might be present in different faiths, though, because I had thought that the passage below from Joseph Smith’s first vision kind of ruled out much in the way of adherence to Christ among the churches available to Joseph Smith.

“I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all wrong; and the Personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those professors were all corrupt; that: ‘they draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me, they teach for doctrines the commandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof.’”

I believe that Christ can be present anywhere He chooses…but His presence and His authority are two different things.

He can be present at a Protestant Church without that Church having His authority.

 

[TOmNossor]

Roman Catholics hold no belief, and do not teach that the authority of the Church rests in the Pope. The authority of the Church rests in Jesus Christ, who is also the head of the Church. We, the baptized, are the Body of Christ, including the laity our bishops, priest and deacons.

Whether or not you believe Peter was the head, or that going forward any one Bishop held primacy above the others, really does not address the handing on of priesthood authority, as this authority is not, and never has been, held by a single person. There were Twelve ordained at the beginning, and they in turn ordained more, by the layng on of hands, and those did the same, all the way to today. Why deny historical fact?

In other words, there is no such thing as an ordained Pope. The Pope is an ordained bishop, just like all our bishops, the Papacy is his office. There being many offices in the Catholic churches, ordination to the priesthood being a requirement of installment.

At any rate, Jesus did not hand over a handbook of instructions on how His Church should be run. He appointed Apostles, who led by the Holy Spirit, led Christ’s Church. This same guidance is given to our bishops today.

You still have not said what you expect to see.
I remember when I first read Clement, Polycarp, and Ignatius. I almost screamed that they had no idea that they were the successors of the Apostles. I found it particularly shocking that Clement didn’t know he was the Pope.
I was directed to Newman by a very knowledgeable Catholic. I read this and found it possible that his ideas could explain the development.
I had a very conservative Catholic tell me that Newman was not Catholic. I read Orestes Bronson who said that Newman’s essay was his Protestantism. I experienced Catholic here claim that 1st Clement is so clearly an exercise of the Papacy that I was deluded.

I read Nibley’s Apostles and Bishops and I thought clearly these offices are VERY different.
I read Father Sullivan’s **From Apostles to Bishop **and again I found someone who acknowledged the history and was a faithful Catholic.
Robert Eno’s book Rise of the Papacy, was good.
Noel Reynolds essay on the covenantal nature of sacraments giving way to the “Avenue of Grace” nature of the sacraments was good.
Barker’s Apostasy of the Divine Church was good.

Have you read the Psuedo-Clementines. Clearly the early church expected the authority of the Pope to link to Peter through some succession NOT through the gradual understanding / recollection that the Pope is prime.
Of course the Visions of the Pastor of Hermas seem to suggest that the church authority was winding up (just as I think it did).
What about Bishop’s lists with Peter at the head as if he was “Bishop of Rome.” Clearly these are a product of a succession idea present very early, but not present during the century after Peter was martyred.
Then there is Bronson and most Catholic apologetics like Jesus, Peter, and the Keys. Outside of Sullivan and Eno there is some expectation that there is a handing on of the authority.

So, I see the apostasy in the attempt to read back into the 1st century some apostolic succession. And this attempt at reading back sits next to development theories, but both of these exist in a tradition that claims NO REVELATION. Only protecting the deposit of faith. It is quite a lot to accept.

What do I expect to see? A good reason to believe that Peter planned for his apostolic authority to be present in the Bishop of Rome and not evidence of gradual movement from local bishops to metropolitans to patriarchs to the Pope. A small minority of Catholics tell me that I should not expect to see this, but more frequently I am told that it is there and I am just blind.
Do I see a local leader ordained by the apostles, sure. Do I think there is no Jesus Christ in the early church or in the Catholic Church today? No.
But, if authority is important, and Catholics and LDS agree it is, I see a hole and the attempt to fill it.
Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

That’s an interesting question. I, too, believe Christ to be more present in more different church organizations than some tend to believe (yes, even the Mormon church, though I am no longer a member). I’m curious as to the extent you think Christ might be present in different faiths, though, because I had thought that the passage below from Joseph Smith’s first vision kind of ruled out much in the way of adherence to Christ among the churches available to Joseph Smith.

“I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all wrong; and the Personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those professors were all corrupt; that: ‘they draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me, they teach for doctrines the commandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof.’”
Two things.
First, I believe the “their creeds are an abomination” has to do with the practice within Creedal Christianity of separating and schism-ing. If you have read about the councils, there is a great deal of politics and maneuvering.
The Athanasian party proposed a definition and observed that the Arian party appeared likely they could accept it, SO the Athanasian party had to find a different definition to absolutely rule out Arius. The purpose of the Athanasian party was to decide against the “Ariomaniacs.” Joseph Smith ones laughed at doctrine he thought ridiculous, taught in the church; but he told the leaders who brought to him this case that the teacher was a good and faithful man and should be left alone. Two caveats, first we have perhaps failed to carry forward this principle and second, I do not believe that this principle should make ALL belief just fine. I just think the Arian vs. Athanasian conflict and/or others like it were what God had in mind when he said, “their creeds are an abomination.”
And Joseph Smith was called of God to restore an absent authority so that Covenantal ordinances could be performed with the proper authority (and understanding). I believe Mother Teresa is and was a better Christian than I am, but she did not understand that President Hinckley was the prophet of God on the earth during her life. LDS theology has an answer for this. I have more confidence in her post mortal joy than my own even though I think I have a more correct theology and follow the truth leader of Christ’s church on earth.

Here is a quote from the Aug 2012 Liahona. It quotes Joseph Smith:

Few things are more needed in this tense and confused world than Christian conviction, Christian compassion, and Christian understanding. Joseph Smith observed in 1843, less than a year before his death: “If I esteem mankind to be in error, shall I bear them down? No. I will lift them up, and in their own way too, if I cannot persuade them my way is better; and I will not seek to compel any man to believe as I do, only by the force of reasoning, for truth will cut its own way. Do you believe in Jesus Christ and the Gospel of salvation which He revealed? So do I. Christians should cease wrangling and contending with each other, and cultivate the principles of union and friendship in their midst; and they will do it before the millennium can be ushered in and Christ takes possession of His kingdom."

I have in mind a quote from Oaks and another from Holland that demonstrate that I along with them do not believe Christ is absent in the Churches that are not in communion with the CoJCoLDS (I think these two are associated with the apostasy). As a disclaimer, I think there are also older statements than the three I mention that do cast a much less positive light on other churches, but we learn.
Charity, TOm

 

[TexanKnight]

I remember when I first read Clement, Polycarp, and Ignatius. I almost screamed that they had no idea that they were the successors of the Apostles. I found it particularly shocking that Clement didn’t know he was the Pope.
I was directed to Newman by a very knowledgeable Catholic. I read this and found it possible that his ideas could explain the development.
I had a very conservative Catholic tell me that Newman was not Catholic. I read Orestes Bronson who said that Newman’s essay was his Protestantism. I experienced Catholic here claim that 1st Clement is so clearly an exercise of the Papacy that I was deluded.

I read Nibley’s Apostles and Bishops and I thought clearly these offices are VERY different.
I read Father Sullivan’s **From Apostles to Bishop **and again I found someone who acknowledged the history and was a faithful Catholic.
Robert Eno’s book Rise of the Papacy, was good.
Noel Reynolds essay on the covenantal nature of sacraments giving way to the “Avenue of Grace” nature of the sacraments was good.
Barker’s Apostasy of the Divine Church was good.

Have you read the Psuedo-Clementines. Clearly the early church expected the authority of the Pope to link to Peter through some succession NOT through the gradual understanding / recollection that the Pope is prime.
Of course the Visions of the Pastor of Hermas seem to suggest that the church authority was winding up (just as I think it did).
What about Bishop’s lists with Peter at the head as if he was “Bishop of Rome.” Clearly these are a product of a succession idea present very early, but not present during the century after Peter was martyred.
Then there is Bronson and most Catholic apologetics like Jesus, Peter, and the Keys. Outside of Sullivan and Eno there is some expectation that there is a handing on of the authority.

So, I see the apostasy in the attempt to read back into the 1st century some apostolic succession. And this attempt at reading back sits next to development theories, but both of these exist in a tradition that claims NO REVELATION. Only protecting the deposit of faith. It is quite a lot to accept.

What do I expect to see? A good reason to believe that Peter planned for his apostolic authority to be present in the Bishop of Rome and not evidence of gradual movement from local bishops to metropolitans to patriarchs to the Pope. A small minority of Catholics tell me that I should not expect to see this, but more frequently I am told that it is there and I am just blind.
Do I see a local leader ordained by the apostles, sure. Do I think there is no Jesus Christ in the early church or in the Catholic Church today? No.
But, if authority is important, and Catholics and LDS agree it is, I see a hole and the attempt to fill it.
Charity, TOm

Nibley? I hope you are not talking about the LDS Nibley. I try to take opinions from child abusers.

 

[TexanKnight]

Two things.
First, I believe the “their creeds are an abomination” has to do with the practice within Creedal Christianity of separating and schism-ing. If you have read about the councils, there is a great deal of politics and maneuvering.
The Athanasian party proposed a definition and observed that the Arian party appeared likely they could accept it, SO the Athanasian party had to find a different definition to absolutely rule out Arius. The purpose of the Athanasian party was to decide against the “Ariomaniacs.” Joseph Smith ones laughed at doctrine he thought ridiculous, taught in the church; but he told the leaders who brought to him this case that the teacher was a good and faithful man and should be left alone. Two caveats, first we have perhaps failed to carry forward this principle and second, I do not believe that this principle should make ALL belief just fine. I just think the Arian vs. Athanasian conflict and/or others like it were what God had in mind when he said, “their creeds are an abomination.”
And Joseph Smith was called of God to restore an absent authority so that Covenantal ordinances could be performed with the proper authority (and understanding). I believe Mother Teresa is and was a better Christian than I am, but she did not understand that President Hinckley was the prophet of God on the earth during her life. LDS theology has an answer for this. I have more confidence in her post mortal joy than my own even though I think I have a more correct theology and follow the truth leader of Christ’s church on earth.

Here is a quote from the Aug 2012 Liahona. It quotes Joseph Smith:

I have in mind a quote from Oaks and another from Holland that demonstrate that I along with them do not believe Christ is absent in the Churches that are not in communion with the CoJCoLDS (I think these two are associated with the apostasy). As a disclaimer, I think there are also older statements than the three I mention that do cast a much less positive light on other churches, but we learn.
Charity, TOm

Quoting LDS “apostles” is a bit self-serving. I was LDS…but I cannot follow a church whose who existence is premised on Jesus being weak and/or a liar.

 

[TexanKnight]

of course, that would explain why Joseph thought he was better than even Jesus.

 

[lax16]

I remember when I first read Clement, Polycarp, and Ignatius. I almost screamed that they had no idea that they were the successors of the Apostles.

TOm - .

Ignatius of Antioch

Follow your bishop, every one of you, as obediently as Jesus Christ followed the Father. Obey your clergy too as you would the apostles; give your deacons the same reverence that you would to a command of God. Make sure that no step affecting the Church is ever taken by anyone without the bishop’s sanction. The sole Eucharist you should consider valid is one that is celebrated by the bishop himself, or by some person authorized by him. Where the bishop is to be seen, there let all his people be; just as, wherever Jesus Christ is present, there is the Catholic Church (Letter to the Smyrneans 8:2 [A.D. 110]).

In like manner let everyone respect the deacons as they would respect Jesus Christ, and just as they respect the bishop as a type of the Father, and the presbyters as the council of God and college of the apostles. Without these, it cannot be called a Church. I am confident that you accept this, for I have received the exemplar of your love and have it with me in the person of your bishop. His very demeanor is a great lesson and his meekness is his strength. I believe that even the godless do respect him (Letter to the Trallians 3:1-2 [A. D. 110]).

Clement of Alexandria

Even here in the Church the gradations of bishops, presbyters, and deacons happen to be imitations, in my opinion, of the angelic glory and of that arrangement which, the Scriptures say, awaits those who have followed in the footsteps of **the apostles **and who have lived in complete righteousness according to the gospel (Stromateis 6:13:107:2 [post-A.D. 202]).

Eusebius

While Ignatius of Antioch] was making the journey through Asia under the strictest military guard, he strengthened the diocese in each city where he stayed by spoken sermons and exhortations, and he especially exhorted them above all to be on their guard against the heresies which then for the first time were prevalent and he urged them to hold fast to the tradition of t**he Apostles **to which he thought it necessary, for securities sake, to give form by written testimony (Ecclesiastical History, 3:36 [A.D. 325]).

Theodoret

I have ever kept the faith of the Apostles undefiled… **So have I learnt not only from the Apostles and the Prophets but also from the interpreters of their writings, Ignatius, ****Eustathius, Athanasius, Basil, Gregory, John, and the rest of the lights of the world; **and before these from the holy Fathers in council at Nicaea, whose confession of the faith I preserve in its integrity, like an ancestral inheritance [styling corrupt and enemies of the truth all who dare to transgress its decrees] (Letters no. 89 [circa A.D. 443]).

**Clement of Rome

Our Apostles knew through our Lord Jesus Christ that there would be strife for the office of bishop. For this reason, therefore, having received perfect foreknowledge, they appointed those who have already been mentioned, and afterwards added the further provision that, if they should die, other approved men should succeed to their ministry (Letter to the Corinthians 44:1 [A.D. 95]).
**
Ignatius of Antioch

You must all follow the bishop as Jesus Christ follows the Father, and the presbytery as you would **the Apostles. **Reverence the deacons as you would the command of God. Let no one do anything of concern to the Church without the bishop. Let that be considered a valid Eucharist which is celebrated by the bishop, or by one whom he appoints. Wherever the bishop appears, let the people be there; just as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church (Letter to the Smyrnaeans 8:1 [A.D. 110]).

Tertullian

Moreover, if there be any [heresies] bold enough to plant themselves in the midst of the apostolic age, so that they might seem to have been handed down by the Apostles because they were from the time of the Apostles, we can say to them: let them show the origin of their Churches, let them unroll the order of their bishops, running down in succession from the beginning, so that their first bishop shall have for author and predecessor some one of the Apostles or of the apostolic men who continued steadfast with the Apostles. For this is the way in which the apostolic Churches transmit their lists: like the Church of the Smyrnaeans, which records that Polycarp was placed there by John; like the Church of the Romans where Clement was ordained by Peter. In just this same way the other Churches display those whom they have as sprouts from the apostolic seed, having been established in the episcopate by the Apostles. Let the heretics invent something like it. After their blasphemies, what could be unlawful for them? But even if they should contrive it, they will accomplish nothing; for their doctrine itself, when compared with that of the Apostles, will show by its own diversity and contrariety that it has for its author neither an Apostle nor an apostolic man. The Apostles would not have differed among themselves in teaching, nor would an apostolic man have taught contrary to the Apostles, unless those who were taught by the Apostles then preached otherwise.
(The Demurrer Against the Heretics 32:1 [A.D. 200]).

Clement of Alexandria

After the death of the tyrant, the [Apostle John] came back again to Ephesus from the Island of Patmos; and, upon being invited, he went even to the neighboring cities of the pagans, here to appoint bishops, there to set in order whole Churches, and there to ordain to the clerical estate such as were designated by the Spirit (Who is the Rich Man that is Saved? 42:2 [inter 190-210 A.D.]).

 

[lax16]

I found it particularly shocking that Clement didn’t know he was the Pope.

TOm- If Clement didn’t know he was the Pope, why did he write a letter as one?

Pope St. Clement I

We know that Pope St. Clement was Roman, was our fourth pope and was martyred outside of Rome, but this information is about all we know with certainty. According to tradition he was probably a freed man in the imperial household and was baptized by St. Peter. He succeeded Cletus as pope in 91, and was exiled to the Crimea by Emperor Trajan. He preached with great zeal to the prisoners working in the mines there. Because of this he was condemned to death, bound and thrown into the sea with an anchor around his neck. **It is also agreed by scholars that he was the author of a letter to the Corinthians in which he rebuked them for a schism that had broken out in their church. The letter is of particular historical importance as one of the outstanding documents of the early Church and significant as an instance of the bishop of Rome intervening authoritatively as the pre-**eminent authority in the affairs of another apostolic church to settle a dispute as early as the first century.

 

[lax16]

Very Nice! I first shockingly heard that particular quote 1980’s when my LDS boss/Dr. threw that whizzer at me. For my 14 years there, he never came off his mission! Well meaning teenaged missionaries, who have studied nothing of substance at an academic level & have no college credit for it, no degrees, no expertise in history, ancient languages, archeology, Bible related fields repeat a well crafted speech in sincerity & it is sometimes successful. Most people are, as far as digging up theological facts goes, uneducated & tuned out & careless with such bogus claims. Missionaries spoon feed people this drivel & take their high friends to dances to pull them in an an emotional level basically.

That is why I looove talking to the missionaries. I talk to them in the parking lot or wherever I can find them. It is pretty easy to throw them off!

One day my boss said there are only 2 true churches: the RCC & LDS & the RCC went into “apostasy”. I looked at him like he grew a third eye :hypno:

I have heard this many times as well. They are right- the Catholic Church is the true Church!

My reply: Truth exists in only 1 form (knowing @ that point how many LDS claims are 180’s from RCC claims). He certainly never offered not a shred of proof in all the years I was there, just held on to the old wives tail or whatever you want to call it so from then on his argument fell flatter than a pancake! Was I supposed to take his word for it & take a daring & dangerous switch into this American, man-made new “theology” cleverly invented by a pied piper who died in a shootout with a gun in his hand? At that point, I had been studying informally with a Jesuit run group for young adults, so had the info to reply with. Dr’s responses were weak to none for a man with 20+ years of schooling. We had many lively debates in surgery!

Good for you having the info to stand your ground! So many Catholics do not feel comfortable debating the mormons.
Joseph Smith…wow…it is fun bringing up his true past with the young un’s - they are usually shocked to hear the truth.

Wonder if your 2 missionaries ever researched into your info?

Well, they brought a returned missionary with them to help answer my questions and he ended up leaving with an armful of my Catholic books (this was pre-internet) then I heard that the missionaries were down at the Catholic bookstore the next day looking around. (the name of the store was on the books I had given to the RM)

I got a lot of satisfaction out of that.

 

[kimg901]

Whats problematic about our words Tom? You and all the other mormons here just dont get it. All of you are saying Christ didnt fulfill His words (Liar, poor teacher, take your pick) and a restoration was needed. As for you guys posting what some lds writer said, thats as about useless as t**s on a boar. Christ never left His Church or will He ever. And until you come to realize this you and every mormon will be lost. You are so caught up in what J.S and the other “so-called prophets” say that you are blinded and deaf. You can get mad or upset all you want but the thruth hurts and it will continue to hurt until you get your head out of the sand.

 

[TOmNossor]

FabiusMaximus,
I do not have an answer for how early. As I mentioned the Psuedo-Clementine reconstructions evidence some fellow thought Peter should have passed authority to the Pope (well to Clement in this case).
When you say “how early?” are you asking "how early would the evidence need to be to demonstrate that Peter somehow intended and Linus/Cletus/Clement somehow understood the basics of the office of the Papacy.
OR
When you say “how early?” are you asking "if the Papacy didn’t exist in the mind of Linus, would it be valid if we had evidence it existed in Cletus. What if it didn’t exist in the mind of Linus/Cletus/Clement, but by the 4th or 10th Bishop of Rome it had developed.

Those are two very different questions. I expect for there to be lost evidence. When I first explored this many years ago, I didn’t expect there to be evidence that there was no concept of Roman Primacy even in the mind of the folks who held it. We have a letter from Clement, he does not sound like the Pope to me.
Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

TOmNossor;10147766:

I found it particularly shocking that Clement didn’t know he was the Pope.

TOm- If Clement didn’t know he was the Pope, why did he write a letter as one?

Pope St. Clement I

We know that Pope St. Clement was Roman, was our fourth pope and was martyred outside of Rome, but this information is about all we know with certainty. According to tradition he was probably a freed man in the imperial household and was baptized by St. Peter. He succeeded Cletus as pope in 91, and was exiled to the Crimea by Emperor Trajan. He preached with great zeal to the prisoners working in the mines there. Because of this he was condemned to death, bound and thrown into the sea with an anchor around his neck. It is also agreed by scholars that he was the author of a letter to the Corinthians in which he rebuked them for a schism that had broken out in their church. The letter is of particular historical importance as one of the outstanding documents of the early Church and significant as an instance of the bishop of Rome intervening authoritatively as the pre-eminent authority in the affairs of another apostolic church to settle a dispute as early as the first century.
Lax16,
Where did you get your list? Have you read 1st Clement? Or Ignatius?

I don’t believe they say what you think they say, but I will acknowledge there is at least some dispute on this.

Is it possible that the papacy if valid and Clement does not have any knowledge of it?
Charity, TOm

 

[Jerusha]

What doesn’t sound papal about this

Very strange desperate claims you are making, Tom. Just because it reads more like the letters of Paul than the D&C?

 

[TOmNossor]

Whats problematic about our words Tom? You and all the other mormons here just dont get it. All of you are saying Christ didnt fulfill His words (Liar, poor teacher, take your pick) and a restoration was needed. As for you guys posting what some lds writer said, thats as about useless as t**s on a boar. Christ never left His Church or will He ever. And until you come to realize this you and every mormon will be lost. You are so caught up in what J.S and the other “so-called prophets” say that you are blinded and deaf. You can get mad or upset all you want but the thruth hurts and it will continue to hurt until you get your head out of the sand.

I really think jrtrent has replied to these sufficiently, and as a former Mormon he is 1000x the intellect of any current Mormon.
Perhaps you can read what he said.
BTW, I have offered Catholic scholars in this thread have you read them (Eno & Sullivan).
You probably should reconsider rejecting scholars from a tradition you reject as that is myopic. If there is any truth to be gleaned outside of Catholicism you will NEVER find it.
Charity, TOm

 

[RebeccaJ]

What do I expect to see? A good reason to believe that Peter planned for his apostolic authority to be present in the Bishop of Rome and not evidence of gradual movement from local bishops to metropolitans to patriarchs to the Pope. A small minority of Catholics tell me that I should not expect to see this, but more frequently I am told that it is there and I am just blind.

Whether you’re blind or not. Why do you expect to see this?

Do I see a local leader ordained by the apostles, sure. Do I think there is no Jesus Christ in the early church or in the Catholic Church today? No. But, if authority is important, and Catholics and LDS agree it is, I see a hole and the attempt to fill it.

Our bishops act, and have always acted, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, with the authority that was handed onto them via their ordinations. Including the successor to Peter. You are asserting that Peter did not pass on his authority, which is an argument from silence. Not to mention an accusation against an Apostle of The Lord that he was derelict, maybe non-interested?

Not everyone touts their authority in writing, especially when it is already known by the recipients what authority the person possesses. We see the obvious, a person writing from authority. I don’t know about you, but I’m not writing letters to other parishes and diocese telling them how things work and what they should do. Why? Because I have no authority to do so and the recipients would think it was nice that I wrote, maybe, but who would think themselves obligated to follow my advice? No one.

And yes I have read the letters of Clement, several times. Clement was writing as someone who had the authority to write what he did, to who he did. If you take the view he held no authority outside of Rome, then you would need to explain how it came to be that he is writing with authority to a church outside of Rome.

“The Church of God which sojourns at Rome, to the Church of God sojourning at Corinth, to those who are called and sanctified by the will of God, through our Lord Jesus Christ: Grace to you, and peace, from Almighty God through Jesus Christ, be multiplied.”

Wouldn’t you think, someone who is writing as an authority knows they have the authority to do so?

 

[RebeccaJ]

Tom, from LDS.org:

Dear Brothers and Sisters:

We would like to reiterate the policies first stated in 1995 concerning the submission of names for proxy temple ordinances:

Our preeminent obligation is to seek out and identify our own ancestors. Those whose names are submitted for proxy temple ordinances should be related to the submitter.

Without exception, Church members must not submit for proxy temple ordinances any names from unauthorized groups, such as celebrities and Jewish Holocaust victims. If members do so, they may forfeit their New FamilySearch privileges. Other corrective action may also be taken.

Members are encouraged to participate in FamilySearch indexing which is vital to family history and temple work.

Bishops are asked to post this letter on their meetinghouse bulletin boards. Church members may seek the assistance of the family history consultants in their area for additional information, if needed. Name submission policies are also clearly stated on New.FamilySearch.org.

We appreciate the faithful adherence to these policies by all members of the Church.

Sincerely yours,
[signatures of the first presidency here]

Are you sure they have the authority you claim they do? I mean, they never say in this letter that they hold any authority. Maybe they don’t know they have it and you just like to believe they do.

 

[lax16]

lax16;10149006:
Lax16,
Where did you get your list? Have you read 1st Clement? Or Ignatius?

I don’t believe they say what you think they say, but I will acknowledge there is at least some dispute on this.

Is it possible that the papacy if valid and Clement does not have any knowledge of it?
Charity, TOm

Hi TOm -

The only writing attributed to Clement is the First Epistle to the Corinthians. Are you talking about something else?

I don’t understand the question about the papacy - Clement wrote the letter as Pope. Are you saying he didn’t understand that he was Pope at the time he wrote it?
Obviously, others thought of him as Pope, so it was not a secret…I am not sure why you think he was unaware of his authority?

The list of quotes I have provided are widely available - a google search will work.

lax

 

[lax16]

What do I expect to see? A good reason to believe that Peter planned for his apostolic authority to be present in the Bishop of Rome and not evidence of gradual movement from local bishops to metropolitans to patriarchs to the Pope. A small minority of Catholics tell me that I should not expect to see this, but more frequently I am told that it is there and I am just blind.
Do I see a local leader ordained by the apostles, sure. Do I think there is no Jesus Christ in the early church or in the Catholic Church today? No.
But, if authority is important, and Catholics and LDS agree it is, I see a hole and the attempt to fill it.
Charity, TOm

TOm- Peter did plan for his apostolic authority:

St. Irenaeus
“The blessed apostles [Peter and Paul], having founded and built up the church [of Rome] . . . handed over the office of the episcopate to Linus” (Against Heresies 3:3:3 [A.D. 189]).
Tertullian
“[T]his is the way in which the apostolic churches transmit their lists: like the church of the Smyrneans, which records that Polycarp was placed there by John, like the church of the Romans, where Clement was ordained by Peter” (Demurrer Against the Heretics 32:2 [A.D. 200]).
Eusebius of Caesarea
“Paul testifies that Crescens was sent to Gaul [2 Tim. 4:10], but Linus, whom he mentions in the Second Epistle to Timothy [2 Tim. 4:21] as his companion at Rome, was Peter’s successor in the episcopate of the church there, as has already been shown. Clement also, who was appointed third bishop of the church at Rome, was, as Paul testifies, his co-laborer and fellow-soldier [Phil. 4:3]” (Church History 3:4:9–10 [A.D. 312]).

 

[batman1973]

Wow. I need to reign this bad boy in. I started this thread to give an idea of when the alleged apostasy began. From the time line printed in the book (some highlights ):314 AD- Council of Arles. Rome adopts open baptism, endorses Caecilian. Rome breaks with Africa: Apostasy of the Roman Church, and the start of the Great Apostasy of the entire Christian world outside of Africa. 325- The Council of Nicea, Imperialist Church organized, Culmination of Great Apostasy: Nicene Creed adopted. Constantine exiles dissenting bishops. 411- Conference of Carthage. Condemnation of Donatists. 440- Leo the Great becomes pope, first Roman pope to adopt pagan title ( authors words, not mine) "Pontifex Maximus."I 570- Council of Sufetula in North Africa. Beginning of 1,260 year apostasy of the Church of Jesus Christ and her flight into the wilderness until 1830

 

[Jerusha]

That looks deep, batman. I’m going to have to dig deep into Moshiem to understand the details of that. And give Bokenkotter another read. Does he then link the sorting process, discarding Gnosticism, to the claimed apostasy, like Bickmore?