A Mormon- Catholic debate

[Porknpie]

Deep down, the fox knows that he wanted the grapes.

 

[StephenKent]

Who says that apostolic succession was to continue uninterrupted from Peter’s day to the end of time? What is the authority for such a notion?

(See posts nos. 85, 87, 89, and 91 above.)

 

[twopekinguys]

Who says that apostolic succession was to continue uninterrupted from Peter’s day to the end of time? What is the authority for such a notion?

(See posts nos. 85, 87, 89, and 91 above.)

Who, or what is the authority that says it wasn’t? Got any proof?

The simple answer is, God is unchanging, meaning he doesn’t change his mind (unlike mormons).

He gave the authority to Peter and the other apostles. Why or when did he take it from them? No mormon has ever been able to answer this, so maybe you are the first.

He also said he would never leave his Church. Which means he never left the Catholic Church.

Just some actual Biblical stuff to think about.

 

[Dubay]

It is true that the New Testament speaks of following the “traditions” (=teachings) of the apostles, whether oral or written. This is because they were living authorities set up by Christ (Matt. 18:18; Acts 2:42; Eph. 2:20). When they died, however, there was no longer a living apostolic authority since only those who were eyewitnesses of the resurrected Christ could have apostolic authority (Acts 1:22; 1 Cor. 9:1).

Because the New Testament is the only inspired (infallible) record of what the apostles taught, it follows that since the death of the apostles the only apostolic authority we have is the inspired record of their teaching in the New Testament. That is, all apostolic tradition (teaching) on faith and practice is in the New Testament. This does not necessarily mean that everything the apostles ever taught is in the New Testament, any more than everything Jesus said is there (cf. John 20:30; 21:25). What it does mean is that all apostolic teaching that God deemed necessary for the faith and practice (morals) of the church was preserved (2 Tim. 3:15-17). It is only reasonable to infer that God would preserve what He inspired.

 

[Stephen168]

Who says that apostolic succession was to continue uninterrupted from Peter’s day to the end of time? What is the authority for such a notion?

(See posts nos. 85, 87, 89, and 91 above.)

Are you claiming the Steve Clifford claims Jesus told him (Steve Clifford) personally that Christ would be with his (Jesus’) Church through apostolic succession?

It seems Mormon’s also believe in
apostolic succession. Are you claiming that Barry claims Jesus told him (Barry) personally that Christ would be with his (Jesus’) Church through apostolic succession?

 

[SteveVH]

It is true that the New Testament speaks of following the “traditions” (=teachings) of the apostles, whether oral or written. This is because they were living authorities set up by Christ (Matt. 18:18; Acts 2:42; Eph. 2:20). When they died, however, there was no longer a living apostolic authority since only those who were eyewitnesses of the resurrected Christ could have apostolic authority (Acts 1:22; 1 Cor. 9:1).

There may have no longer been witnesses but that does not mean that “apostolic authority” ceased. The authority had been passed down, through ordination, to the bishops. Only those who had witnessed Christ’s life and resurrection could be one the Twelve, the foundation of the Church, but this had nothing to do with the cessation of apostolic authority.

Because the New Testament is the only inspired (infallible) record of what the apostles taught, it follows that since the death of the apostles the only apostolic authority we have is the inspired record of their teaching in the New Testament.

Absolutely not true. All of the truth contained in the New Testament is and has always been contained in Sacred Tradition as well. The New Testament is only that part of Sacred Tradition that was committed to writing. Remember, the Bible came from the Church, not the Church from the Bible.

That is, all apostolic tradition (teaching) on faith and practice is in the New Testament.

Again, not true. Why do you think we have a Catechism?

What it does mean is that all apostolic teaching that God deemed necessary for the faith and practice (morals) of the church was preserved (2 Tim. 3:15-17). It is only reasonable to infer that God would preserve what He inspired.

Yes, but in both Scritpure and Tradition.

 

[StephenKent]

He gave the authority to Peter and the other apostles. Why or when did he take it from them?

God did not take the apostleship away either from Peter or from any of the apostles. They each died faithful in their callings as Apostles of the Lord Jesus Christ. Nonetheless, who says that apostolic succession was to continue uninterrupted from Peter’s day to the end of time? What is the authority for such a notion?

 

[StephenKent]

Are you claiming th[at] Steve Clifford claims Jesus told him (Steve Clifford) personally that Christ would be with his (Jesus’) Church through apostolic succession?

Are you claiming that Barry claims Jesus told him (Barry) personally that Christ would be with his (Jesus’) Church through apostolic succession?

**I am not claiming anything. I am simply quoting Steve Clifford who, in his rebuttal to Barry Bickmore’s opening statement, sets forth the following rhetorical question to serve as a premise to his entire argument:

“[D]id He [Jesus] keep His promise to be with His Church until the end of time through apostolic succession?”

(See transporter.com/Mormonism/smc_rebut.html, end of first paragraph.)

Mr. Clifford poses that question to hold it up as a premise to his argument, his premise being that Jesus did make a promise to be with His Church until the end of time through apostolic succession.

Posters in this forum were asked at the beginning of this thread to comment on the debate between Messrs. Clifford and Bickmore and in keeping with that invitation I am simply asking posters to respond to this inquiry, which goes to the heart of Mr. Clifford’s stated premise. I simply ask: “Who says that apostolic succession was to continue uninterrupted from Peter’s day to the end of time? What is the authority for such a notion?”**

 

[TexanKnight]

**I am not claiming anything. I am simply quoting Steve Clifford who, in his rebuttal to Barry Bickmore’s opening statement, sets forth the following rhetorical question to serve as a premise to his entire argument:

“[D]id He [Jesus] keep His promise to be with His Church until the end of time through apostolic succession?”

(See transporter.com/Mormonism/smc_rebut.html**, end of first paragraph.)

Mr. Clifford poses that question to hold it up as a premise to his argument, his premise being that Jesus did make a promise to be with His Church until the end of time through apostolic succession.

Posters in this forum were asked at the beginning of this thread to comment on the debate between Messrs. Clifford and Bickmore and in keeping with that invitation I am simply asking posters to respond to this inquiry, which goes to the heart of Mr. Clifford’s stated premise. I simply ask: “Who says that apostolic succession was to continue uninterrupted from Peter’s day to the end of time? What is the authority for such a notion?”

The authority fr0m Christ, coupled with the promise that Christ would have had to broken for the LDS Church to be true. In order for the LDS Church to be true, Jesus has to be a weak, dishonest, and cruel Christ.

 

[Stephen168]

**I am not claiming anything. I am simply quoting Steve Clifford who, in his rebuttal to Barry Bickmore’s opening statement, sets forth the following rhetorical question to serve as a premise to his entire argument:

“[D]id He [Jesus] keep His promise to be with His Church until the end of time through apostolic succession?”

(See transporter.com/Mormonism/smc_rebut.html**, end of first paragraph.)

Mr. Clifford poses that question to hold it up as a premise to his argument, his premise being that Jesus did make a promise to be with His Church until the end of time through apostolic succession.

Posters in this forum were asked at the beginning of this thread to comment on the debate between Messrs. Clifford and Bickmore and in keeping with that invitation I am simply asking posters to respond to this inquiry, which goes to the heart of Mr. Clifford’s stated premise. I simply ask: “Who says that apostolic succession was to continue uninterrupted from Peter’s day to the end of time? What is the authority for such a notion?”

Steve Clifford’s statements are a response to Barry Rickmore’s opening statement:
Barry Rickmore:

This conclusion presupposes a belief common to both the LDS and Catholic traditions, namely, Christ’s true Church must maintain a valid chain of priesthood ordinations stretching back to Jesus Christ Himself.

Barry Rickmore:

On this point we can stand together with our Roman Catholic brothers and sisters. There can be no true Church without a valid chain of priesthood authority going back to Christ, and thus either the Catholic (including Eastern Orthodox, Anglican, and Monophysite) position or the Latter-day Saint position must be correct.

Barry says that Mormonism claims continuous apostolic succession to be necessary for authority, so as a Mormon you should have to answer your own six points.
Barry continues with the fanciful tale of the apostasy then tells us God took “Apostles from the earth, and with them, the apostolic authority;” linking Apostles with apostolic authority. He then tells us authority was restored in 1829 to Smith and Cowdery. He doesn’t tell us that there were no Mormon Apostles until 1835, so they could not have been necessary for Mormon authority.
Barry also does not complete the other half of the story. He attempts to disconnect the Catholic Church from apostolic succession but cannot plug the Mormon Church into it. He can’t because it is contrary to the facts of history.

 

[twopekinguys]

God did not take the apostleship away either from Peter or from any of the apostles. They each died faithful in their callings as Apostles of the Lord Jesus Christ. Nonetheless, who says that apostolic succession was to continue uninterrupted from Peter’s day to the end of time? What is the authority for such a notion?

This has been discussed earlier in the thread. Please read it.

 

[StephenKent]

This has been discussed earlier in the thread. Please read it.

**You cannot cite one posting – not one – where any poster identifies or cites or quotes any authoritative source attesting to any promise (whether made by Christ in scripture or whether authoritatively made by anyone else, in or out of scripture) to the effect that apostolic succession would continue uninterrupted until the end of time.

You state “this has been discussed earlier in the thread.” That is not correct. No one – absolutely no one – has answered this one simple question.

Give me a citation, a quote, anything authoritative. Who says that apostolic succession was to continue uninterrupted from Peter’s day to the end of time? What is the authority for such a notion?**

 

[Stephen168]

Who says that apostolic succession was to continue uninterrupted from Peter’s day to the end of time?

Barry Rickmore

 

[twopekinguys]

**You cannot cite one posting – not one – where any poster identifies or cites or quotes any authoritative source attesting to any promise (whether made by Christ in scripture or whether authoritatively made by anyone else, in or out of scripture) to the effect that apostolic succession would continue uninterrupted until the end of time.

You state “this has been discussed earlier in the thread.” That is not correct**. No one – absolutely no one – has answered this one simple question.

Give me a citation, a quote, anything authoritative. Who says that apostolic succession was to continue uninterrupted from Peter’s day to the end of time? What is the authority for such a notion?

Try starting at about post #70. That shouldn’t be too hard for you. So yes, it has been discussed.

You are trying to mix what mormons refer to as the great apostacy with lack of apostolic succession. There is a big difference between the two. Which by the way, no mormon has ever been able to nail down when this supposed apostacy occurred. Maybe you have that date? None of your leaders have.

Also, you are the one trying to make a claim that apostolic succession wasn’t to continue. Please provide a valid reference for that. (I’ll give you a hint, there isn’t one)

If you are claiming that apostolic succession isn’t valid in the Catholic Church, then I suggest you look to your own line of “prophets”, and look at the gaps in leadership. There is no such gap with the Catholic Church.

Good try though.

I’ll help you out even more. When the apostles, selected Matthias, and laid hands on him to become an apostle, that was the beginning of apostolic succession. How is that for a Biblical reference?

 

[Porknpie]

**You cannot cite one posting – not one – where any poster identifies or cites or quotes any authoritative source attesting to any promise (whether made by Christ in scripture or whether authoritatively made by anyone else, in or out of scripture) to the effect that apostolic succession would continue uninterrupted until the end of time.

You state “this has been discussed earlier in the thread.” That is not correct**. No one – absolutely no one – has answered this one simple question.

Give me a citation, a quote, anything authoritative. Who says that apostolic succession was to continue uninterrupted from Peter’s day to the end of time? What is the authority for such a notion?

The issue is was there a “great apostasy” or not? Mormon doctrine teaches that there was a great apostasy and it occurred around ~100 AD. I thought my post #105 answered this nicely. The apostles layed hands on the future Bishops of the Church, guided by the Holy Spirt and the Church membership grew greatly…up to 1.2B today. The Catholic church is the “lamp” …the visible light … that Christ himself promised.

No great apostasy.

“Who Is the Authority for Such a Notion?”

Answer: Jesus

Jesus promised he would be with his church until the end of time. By definition, this included the laying of hands as my post #105 describes. (Matthew 28)

19 Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the holy Spirit,
20 teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, until the end of the age.

Jesus would not form a church, promise to be with it until the “end of the age” and then immediately let it fail. Believing this fails both faith AND reason.

 

[twopekinguys]

**You cannot cite one posting – not one – where any poster identifies or cites or quotes any authoritative source attesting to any promise (whether made by Christ in scripture or whether authoritatively made by anyone else, in or out of scripture) to the effect that apostolic succession would continue uninterrupted until the end of time.

You state “this has been discussed earlier in the thread.” That is not correct**. No one – absolutely no one – has answered this one simple question.

Give me a citation, a quote, anything authoritative. Who says that apostolic succession was to continue uninterrupted from Peter’s day to the end of time? What is the authority for such a notion?

Bump.

Did you find the references we gave you? You know, the ones that you said weren’t there?

 

[rcianon]

To the Catholics: 99% of the time you’ll not convince a Mormon they are wrong based solely on scripture, reason, history, etc. They have answers that satisfy themselves for all that. They think things like, “the Bible is okay only as long as its translated correctly, faith and spiritual confirmation is more important than reason, events of history can be covered up, etc”. This is why your average Mormon is not bothered by the lack of a historical record for a great apostasy, they don’t need proof, they only need a ‘confirmation of spirit’. IE they think, “the LDS church makes me feel good, Mormons act good, and the LDS church teaches these things so they must be true”. I mean, the missing archaeological evidence for the battle at Camorah Hill (in New York and the only certain Book of Mormon site according to the LDS Church’s official dogma) in which 250,000 to 1,000,000 people died does not convince them then what will. It’s pretty hard to justify 250,000 missing bodies, or zero war artefacts for such a massive battle but this doesn’t even bother the average Mormon.

So how to deal with them? 1 Corinthians 13:1-2 comes into play here, “If I speak with the tongues of men, and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal. And if I should have prophecy and should know all mysteries, and all knowledge, and if I should have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing”. Mormons mostly will not be convinced or converted by attacking their religion or defending yours. Love is the only thing that will convert them usually. Help them see the true nature of God, pray for them and let the Holy Spirit do the rest. Their God is not our God, their Jesus is not our Jesus, show them that and everything else falls into place in my opinion.

If you cannot do that and you want to debate religion with Mormons then I suggest focusing entirely on their religion. It cannot stand up to truth. Look into the impossible doctrine of salvation (Mormons have a different definition for salvation, you’ll need to say exaltation to be on the same page with them) in the Mormon teachings. There is simply no way to be forgiven for your sins if you’re a Mormon according to their scriptures. The following link might help you get started (note: site written from a Protestant perspective) 4witness.org/ldsquestions/qlds-gospel.php.

To Mormons: Good luck trying to convince Catholics with 2000 years of tradition, history, philosophy, debate, etc. backing them up, on the idea that the Church fell into apostasy and needed to be restored by Joseph Smith Jr. Mormons feel like the world unjustly persecutes and attacks them but you’re still in the minor leagues comparatively. The Catholic Church has been under the microscope for 2000 years with enemies from every side looking for weaknesses in their claims for authority. The whole of Protestantism is based partially on this heretical notion. Yet the Pope is still in Rome and Christ’s Church continues to do His work.

One question for Mormons though that I never understood. If (according to Mormon teachings and scriptures) John the beloved and apostle to Jesus never died, and three Nephite apostles never died and have been on earth teaching the true doctrine for the last 2000 years… remind me again why anything needed restored?