A Mormon- Catholic debate

[RebeccaJ]

That was the problem. Jesus, being God, was too short sighted to realize that his Church would fail after the death of the last Apostle (even though he has never died, according to Mormon lore) so no provision was made for it to continue. Big OOOPS there! The Apostles simply forgot to ordain more Apostles, and there ya go. What’s so hard to understand?

I find it hard to understand why anyone would believe this.

 

[Porknpie]

I find it hard to understand why anyone would believe this.

What’s really confusing is that the 12 apostles spread out across the world and they all forgot to ordain their successors?

And if they forgot to do so, where is the evidence? There is no evidence because no apostasy took place.

 

[Janderich]

What’s really confusing is that the 12 apostles spread out across the world and they all forgot to ordain their successors?

And if they forgot to do so, where is the evidence? There is no evidence because no apostasy took place.

Of course there is evidence. You have no apostles. The early church called and ordained new apostles when one of their group died. Bishops are not apostles.

Now you may reject the evidence but it is plain as day.

 

[TexanKnight]

Of course there is evidence. You have no apostles. The early church called and ordained new apostles when one of their group died. Bishops are not apostles.

Now you may reject the evidence but it is plain as day.

That is simply not true. The Apostles ordained the “Bishops”. Just because they called something different does not take away from their role.

By the same token, show me in the New Testament where there are Stakes and Stake Presidents and counselors to the presidents and 15 apostles and where the lead Apostle was called a President. Show me where there are Home Teachers and Visiting Teachers. Show me where there are Elder’s Quorums and Elder’s Quorum Presidents. Show me where there are Mission Presidents.

I will be right here waiting.

 

[twopekinguys]

Of course there is evidence. You have no apostles. The early church called and ordained new apostles when one of their group died. Bishops are not apostles.

Now you may reject the evidence but it is plain as day.

What evidence? You haven’t provided any.

However, it is clear from the line of Popes all the way back to St. Peter.

Your understanding of Apostle is seriously flawed. A true Apostle is one that was sent by Jesus himself. Anyone past that is a Disciple.

That means that mormons have less claim to be apostles than anyone else.

“In the case of the Christian apostles, the message they were sent away to convey was very broadly the message of the “good news of the Gospel of Jesus Christ”, and they were sent away by Jesus to the Jews.” (from wiki)

Or

"any of the original 12 disciples called by Jesus to preach the gospel: Simon Peter, the brothers James and John, Andrew, Philip, Bartholomew, Matthew, Thomas, James the son of Alpheus, Thaddaeus, Simon the Zealot, Judas Iscariot. " (from dictionary.com)

I have to agree with porknpie, and Texan. Do you really expect anyone to believe that the original 12 spread across the globe and forgot to ordain anyone? Really? You aren’t serious with this are you?

Let’s compare a couple of things shall we? The Catholic Church can show a direct unbroken line of leadership all the way back to St. Peter. You can read it here.

The line of mormon leadership isn’t quite as solid, as we can see here.

I notice there are a couple of gaps, usually lasting about 3 yrs in the line of mormon leadership. 3 years between Smith and Young. Then another 3 yr gap between Young and Taylor.

If you want to talk apostacy, or broken line of leadership, or failure to ordain, there is a greater case of it in the mormon church, than in the Catholic.

Notice also, I got that information straight from lds dot org.

 

[Porknpie]

Of course there is evidence. You have no apostles. The early church called and ordained new apostles when one of their group died. Bishops are not apostles.

Now you may reject the evidence but it is plain as day.

Evidence? You haven’t provided any… ;

 

[Stephen168]

Of course there is evidence. You have no apostles. The early church called and ordained new apostles when one of their group died. Bishops are not apostles.

Now you may reject the evidence but it is plain as day.

Just as sheep have four legs but not all animals with four legs are sheep; all the Apostles were not ‘The Twelve.’ The Twelve were the foundation of his Church (Eph 2:19-22), but not just any 12 but THE Twelve (Rev 21:14). The corner stone and the foundation are laid once. Just as Christ is eternally the head of the Church, The Twelve are the eternal foundation.

Because of Judas’ apostasy (Acts 1:25), the Twelve needed to be restored. The eleven chose Matthias.
According to Peter there are two requirements to be a member of the Twelve. The two requirements are:
a) Witness the resurrected Lord
b) Been in the company of the twelve while the Lord walked on earth.
These requirements limit the council membership to the first century. After all the men that walked with the twelve, while the Lord walked the earth, died; no one else qualified. The Twelve was never meant to be on going. This was the only time eleven selected a twelfth; one apostasy, one replacement. Revelation 21:14: Peter/Cephas/Rock, James son of Zebedee, John the Evangelist, Andrew, Philip, Bartholomew, Matthew, Thomas, James the son of Alphaeus, Jude, Simon the Zealot, and Matthias.
Just as there was no need to replace Christ as the head of Church after the crucifixion, or replace The Twelve as the foundation after their deaths; the Twelve were not replaced after their deaths. If Apostle was only an office to be filled, they could have easily been replaced; just like Bishops have been replaced for almost 2000 years.

The only consistent meaning to being called ‘Apostle’ seems to be an Evangelist who was taught by Christ or The Twelve. The Twelve would pass from the earth by design. The title of Apostle would pass from the earth because The Twelve were not here to commission them. When Eusebius (Eusebius’ Ecclesiastical History © 324) refers to an Apostle being replaced it is as the Apostle’s position of Bishop (Peter in Rome, James in Jerusalem) not as Apostles. As the Apostles died, IF they were also Bishops, they were replaced by Bishops.

“For by her activity the machinations of her foes were promptly shown up and extinguished, though one after another heresies were invented, the earlier ones constantly passing away and disappearing, in different ways at different times, into forms of every shape and character. But the splendor of the Catholic and one true Church, always remaining the same and unchanged, grew steadily in greatness and strength,” Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History Book IV, Chapter 7.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Of course there is evidence. You have no apostles. The early church called and ordained new apostles when one of their group died. Bishops are not apostles.

Now you may reject the evidence but it is plain as day.

We can look at what the Apostles actually did do, which is designate and ordain bishops as their successors, and call that evidence for what apostolic succession actually is.

Or, you can look at what they didn’t do, claim it doesn’t match to what you think should have been done, and call that evidence for a “great apostasy”.

Did you ever think that perhaps the error is what you believe, in what you are accepting as evidence, and not an error of the Apostles?

Would you stand before St. Peter and tell him he failed because he didn’t do what you think he should have done. When he can show you what he actually did?

I think Mormons love failure, as you sure find ways to ignore the obvious success.

 

[SteveVH]

I find it hard to understand why anyone would believe this.

And yet they do.

 

[Porknpie]

And yet they do.

Yes and the apostles knew what they were doing by the laying of hands:

Acts 65 The proposal was acceptable to the whole community, so they chose Stephen, a man filled with faith and the holy Spirit, also Philip, Prochorus, Nicanor, Timon, Parmenas, and Nicholas of Antioch, a convert to Judaism.
6 They presented these men to the apostles who prayed and laid hands on them.
7 The word of God continued to spread, and the number of the disciples in Jerusalem increased greatly*; even a large group of priests were becoming obedient to the faith.

Acts 13 (notice the Holy Spirit is guiding them!!)2 While they were worshiping the Lord and fasting, the holy Spirit said, “Set apart for me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them.”
3 Then, completing their fasting and prayer, they laid hands on them and sent them off.
4 So they, sent forth by the holy Spirit, went down to Seleucia and from there sailed to Cyprus.

1 Timothy 5 (St Paul cautions to be careful of who is ordained by the laying on of hands)
22 Do not lay hands too readily on anyone, and do not share in another’s sins. Keep yourself pure.

And Pope Clement wrote about the succession in 98 AD being Spirit led.
And thus preaching through countries and cities,** they appointed the first-fruits [of their labours], having first proved them by the Spirit, to be bishops and deacons **of those who should afterwards believe. Nor was this any new thing, since indeed many ages before it was written concerning bishops and deacons. For thus saith the Scripture a certain place, ‘I will appoint their bishops s in righteousness, and their deacons in faith.’

Plain as vanilla. The apostles knew of the importance of the laying on of hands and the church was being guided by the Holy Spirit.

No apostasy. No great apostasy. Just one Holy, Catholic and (Spirit Led) Apostolic church.

 

[twopekinguys]

Yes and the apostles knew what they were doing by the laying of hands:

Acts 65 The proposal was acceptable to the whole community, so they chose Stephen, a man filled with faith and the holy Spirit, also Philip, Prochorus, Nicanor, Timon, Parmenas, and Nicholas of Antioch, a convert to Judaism.
6 They presented these men to the apostles who prayed and laid hands on them.
7 The word of God continued to spread, and the number of the disciples in Jerusalem increased greatly*; even a large group of priests were becoming obedient to the faith.

Acts 13 (notice the Holy Spirit is guiding them!!)2 While they were worshiping the Lord and fasting, the holy Spirit said, “Set apart for me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them.”
3 Then, completing their fasting and prayer, they laid hands on them and sent them off.
4 So they, sent forth by the holy Spirit, went down to Seleucia and from there sailed to Cyprus.

1 Timothy 5 (St Paul cautions to be careful of who is ordained by the laying on of hands)
22 Do not lay hands too readily on anyone, and do not share in another’s sins. Keep yourself pure.

And Pope Clement wrote about the succession in 98 AD being Spirit led.
And thus preaching through countries and cities,** they appointed the first-fruits [of their labours], having first proved them by the Spirit**, to be bishops and deacons of those who should afterwards believe. Nor was this any new thing, since indeed many ages before it was written concerning bishops and deacons. For thus saith the Scripture a certain place, ‘I will appoint their bishops s in righteousness, and their deacons in faith.’

Plain as vanilla. The apostles knew of the importance of the laying on of hands and the church was being guided by the Holy Spirit.

No apostasy. No great apostasy. Just one Holy, Catholic and (Spirit Led) Apostolic church.

Let’s not forget, no mormon has ever been able to give a date for this apostasy either.

 

[twopekinguys]

Of course there is evidence. You have no apostles. The early church called and ordained new apostles when one of their group died. Bishops are not apostles.

Now you may reject the evidence but it is plain as day.

Come on back Janderich. As you can see, there have been several responses since you made this statement. We also know you’ve been online since then.

Anything to say?

 

[PaulDupre]

Bishops are not apostles.

The 12 (apostles) were bishops. That was their office in the priesthood.

Check your bible:

15 And in those days Peter stood up in the midst of the disciples, and said, (the number of names together were about an hundred and twenty,)

16 Men and brethren, this scripture must needs have been fulfilled, which the Holy Ghost by the mouth of David spake before concerning Judas, which was guide to them that took Jesus.

17 For he was numbered with us, and had obtained part of this ministry.

18 Now this man purchased a field with the reward of iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out.

19 And it was known unto all the dwellers at Jerusalem; insomuch as that field is called in their proper tongue, Aceldama, that is to say, The field of blood.

20 For it is written in the book of Psalms, Let his habitation be desolate, and let no man dwell therein: and his bishoprick let another take.

• Acts 1:15-20

The word “apostle” does not describe an office in the priesthood; it means “one who is sent”. That is why St. Paul could rightfully claim to be an apostle - one who was sent - because he was sent, both by Jesus and by Peter, to preach to the gentiles.

Paul was never one of the 12. He could not have been one of the twelve because he did not meet the requirements spelled out in Acts 1:

21 Wherefore of these men which have companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us,

22 Beginning from the baptism of John, unto that same day that he was taken up from us, must one be ordained to be a witness with us of his resurrection.

• Acts 1:21-22

Paul (formerly LDS, now happily Catholic)

 

[twopekinguys]

Bump…

Still looking for your response Janderich.

 

[Janderich]

Sometimes I get tired of arguing. I don’t agree with your position and I could comment on each post, but I don’t see the point. While I disagree, I can respect why you might believe as you do.

 

[thecone137]

Sometimes I get tired of arguing. I don’t agree with your position and I could comment on each post, but I don’t see the point. While I disagree, I can respect why you might believe as you do.

“No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day.” -John 6:44

 

[TexanKnight]

Sometimes I get tired of arguing. I don’t agree with your position and I could comment on each post, but I don’t see the point. While I disagree, I can respect why you might believe as you do.

But you made claims that were proven wrong.

But, I guess you know that.

 

[twopekinguys]

But you made claims that were proven wrong.

But, I guess you know that.

You took the words right out of my mouth.

 

[Sacredheart1208]

I was given the same lecture from my Mormon Cousin about how Peter never passed on the keys and that when Joseph Smith came along he was a worthy person to bear the keys and so Peter gave them to him. Well to me this is just preposterous, let us look at the nice background of Joseph Smith, Bank Fraud, Treason, having sexual relations with his serving girl, forging, proposing marriage to his two friends wife when they were gone, the list goes on. To think that Joseph Smith was the worthy bearer to receive the keys seems absurd. I personally believe that Peter passed on the priesthood authority before he died and that authority is with us today.

Also concerning the Golden Plates…if rock cut from a mountain was good enough for Gods own finger then why was it not worthy of Mormon? Why have the golden plates ever been seen by anyone Joseph Smith? Hmm…

 

[SteveVH]

I was given the same lecture from my Mormon Cousin about how Peter never passed on the keys and that when Joseph Smith came along he was a worthy person to bear the keys and so Peter gave them to him. Well to me this is just preposterous, let us look at the nice background of Joseph Smith, Bank Fraud, Treason, having sexual relations with his serving girl, forging, proposing marriage to his two friends wife when they were gone, the list goes on. To think that Joseph Smith was the worthy bearer to receive the keys seems absurd. I personally believe that Peter passed on the priesthood authority before he died and that authority is with us today.

Also concerning the Golden Plates…if rock cut from a mountain was good enough for Gods own finger then why was it not worthy of Mormon? Why have the golden plates ever been seen by anyone Joseph Smith? Hmm…

The authority rests in he that holds the office of Bishop of Rome. Peter did not have to go through a ceremonial “passing on of the keys” while he was alive any more than our current Pope would have to. Once established by Peter, the one appointed to the office of Bishop of Rome succeeded to the authority of Peter. But I agree with you entirely on the “worthiness” issue and Joseph Smith. This very tactic is used in Mormon arguments, however, as evidence of the “Great Apostasy”. They focus on the few bad characters that held the office of Pope and say “see, the truth had been lost at the very top of your Church”. Can’t have it both ways. The sexual escapades of Joseph Smith alone would not make him a shining example of “worthiness”.