A place to call "Home"

[Ovid]

And although bishops are considered to be successors to the twelve apostles in their authority to govern the Church there is always one characteristic of the original twelve that cannot be passed down from generation to generation. From Acts chapter 1

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

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. 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. 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.

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

Note Peter’s requirement to be considered one of the 12. The original 12 apostles were special. What they had as eye-witnesses to the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus is unique and something that no modern day ‘apostle’ can possibly possess. Which of the 12 in Salt Lake walked with Jesus in Galilee, or were in Jerusalem when Jesus was betrayed and entered into his passion, or were present on that first Easter Sunday? That’s why the quorum of the twelve (to use LDS language) was never intended to be a permanent element of the church on earth (although the twelve are still part of the church in heaven). No one after that first generation of Christians could be exactly what Peter or John were. That’s why we find no evidence in the earliest Christian writings that anyone expected there to always be twelve apostles leading the church and why by the second century in all the churches across the Empire bishops emerged as leaders.

 

[Ovid]

Some quotes from early Christians on bishops as successors to the apostles

Clement of Rome (late 1st century)

“Christ, therefore, was sent out from God, and the Apostles from Christ; and both these things were done in good order, according to the will of God. They, therefore, having received the promises, having been fully persuaded by the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ, and having been confirmed by the word of God, with the full persuasion of the Holy Spirit, went forth preaching the good tidings that the kingdom of God was at hand. Preaching, therefore, through the countries and cities, they appointed their firstfruits to be bishops and deacons over such as should believe, after they had proved them in the Spirit.”

“Our Apostles, too, by the instruction of our Lord Jesus Christ, knew that strife would arise concerning the dignity of a bishop; and on this account, having received perfect foreknowledge, they appointed the above-mentioned as bishops and deacons: and then gave a rule of succession, in order that, when they had fallen asleep, other men, who had been approved, might succeed to their ministry.”

Ignatius of Antioch (early 2nd century)

“For even Jesus Christ, our inseparable life, is the [manifested] will of the Father; as also bishops, settled everywhere to the utmost bounds [of the earth], are so by the will of Jesus Christ.”

“For we ought to receive every one whom the Master of the house sends to be over His household, as we would do Him that sent him. It is manifest, therefore, that we should look upon the bishop even as we would upon the Lord Himself”

“See that ye all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as ye would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.”

 

[Ovid]

Irenaeus (late 2nd century)

“It is within the power of all, therefore, in every Church, who may wish to see the truth, to contemplate clearly the tradition of the apostles manifested throughout the whole world; and we are in a position to reckon up those who were by the apostles instituted bishops in the Churches, and [to demonstrate] the succession of these men to our own times; those who neither taught nor knew of anything like what these [heretics] rave about. For if the apostles had known hidden mysteries, which they were in the habit of imparting to “the perfect” apart and privily from the rest, they would have delivered them especially to those to whom they were also committing the Churches themselves. For they were desirous that these men should be very perfect and blameless in all things, whom also they were leaving behind as their successors, delivering up their own place of government to these men; which men, if they discharged their functions honestly, would be a great boon [to the Church], but if they should fall away, the direst calamity.

Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say, ] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its pre- eminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere.

The blessed apostles, then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate. Of this Linus, Paul makes mention in the Epistles to Timothy. To him succeeded Anacletus; and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was allotted the bishopric. This man, as he had seen the blessed apostles, and had been conversant with them, might be said to have the preaching of the apostles still echoing [in his ears], and their traditions before his eyes. Nor was he alone [in this], for there were many still remaining who had received instructions from the apostles. In the time of this Clement, no small dissension having occurred among the brethren at Corinth, the Church in Rome despatched a most powerful letter to the Corinthians, exhorting them to peace, renewing their faith, and declaring the tradition which it had lately received from the apostles, proclaiming the one God, omnipotent, the Maker of heaven and earth, the Creator of man, who brought on the deluge, and called Abraham, who led the people from the land of Egypt, spake with Moses, set forth the law, sent the prophets, and who has prepared fire for the devil and his angels. From this document, whosoever chooses to do so, may learn that He, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, was preached by the Churches, and may also understand the apostolical tradition of the Church, since this Epistle is of older date than these men who are now propagating falsehood, and who conjure into existence another god beyond the Creator and the Maker of all existing things. To this Clement there succeeded Evaristus. Alexander followed Evaristus; then, sixth from the apostles, Sixtus was appointed; after him, Telephorus, who was gloriously martyred; then Hyginus; after him, Pius; then after him, Anicetus. Sorer having succeeded Anicetus, Eleutherius does now, in the twelfth place from the apostles, hold the inheritance of the episcopate. In this order, and by this succession, the ecclesiastical tradition from the apostles, and the preaching of the truth, have come down to us. And this is most abundant proof that there is one and the same vivifying faith, which has been preserved in the Church from the apostles until now, and handed down in truth.”

“Since therefore we have such proofs, it is not necessary to seek the truth among others which it is easy to obtain from the Church; since the apostles, like a rich man [depositing his money] in a bank, lodged in her hands most copiously all things pertaining to the truth: so that every man, whosoever will, can draw from her the water of life. For she is the entrance to life; all others are thieves and robbers. On this account are we bound to avoid them, but to make choice of the thing pertaining to the Church with the utmost diligence, and to lay hold of the tradition of the truth.”

 

[Ovid]

I won’t try and act like I know what my teacher was trying to say when he told us “no one agreed on doctrine for many centuries”. But he did believe that the early church fathers, i.e the apostles, believed in the godhead and not the trinity. that it wasn’t till the Nicene Creed that the Trinity was “born” i haven’t done much research on the subject but could you provide some early church documents that supports either side? from Ignatius or even Peter himself.

On the subject of the Trinity, orthodox Christianity teaches, and has always taught, that the Father and the Son are distinct persons. The Father is not the Son and the Son is not the Father (contrary to what is taught in the Book of Mormon – see Mosiah 15). Jesus is not his own dad. What separates catholic Christians from mormons is that catholics believe that even though the Father and the Son are distinct persons, they have the same divine nature/essence/substance. There is a distinction made between person and substance in the catholic tradition. So when the creed states that the Son is consubstantial with the Father, it means that Jesus is divine in the same way that the Father is divine – the Son is fully and completely God. It took a while for the Church to articulate precisely the dogma of the Trinity, but the beliefs that underlie the Trinity go back to earliest Christianity. Those beliefs would include that there is (and can be) only one God, that the Father is God, that God is infinite, immaterial (spirit), eternal, etc., that Jesus is the Son of the Father and distinct from the Father, that Jesus is divine i.e. Jesus is also God.

The real dividing point between catholics and mormons isn’t the council of Nicaea or the dogma of the Trinity. That’s a kind of red herring. The real issue is the very nature of God. Who is God? What is God? On this issue catholics and mormons part ways long before Nicaea, catholics would argue from the first century onward. The early Church did not teach that the Father was an exalted man or that God somehow evolved into his divinity or that matter was co-eternal with God. The Church taught that the Father is immaterial, infinite, eternal, the source of all else that exists. The council of Nicaea is just icing on the theological cake.

 

[Ovid]

The New Testament speaks about the invisible God, the God that no man has seen nor indeed can see. The decidedly non-human nature of God the Father was never an issue in the early Christian church. All sides in the Nicene debate agreed on that. That why it’s taken for granted in the early writings that the Son adopted a human nature, body and soul, that was distinct from his divine nature. Here are just a few quotes on the nature of God from early Christian writers:

Aristides (early 2nd century)

“I say, then, that God is not born, not made, an ever-abiding nature without beginning and without end, immortal, perfect, and incomprehensible. Now when I say that he is “perfect,” this means that there is not in him any defect, and he is not in need of anything but all things are in need of him. And when I say that he is “without beginning,” this means that everything which has beginning has also an end, and that which has an end may be brought to an end. He has no name, for everything which has a name is kindred to things created. Form he has none, nor yet any union of members; for whatsoever possesses these is kindred to things fashioned. He is neither male nor female. The heavens do not limit him, but the heavens and all things, visible and invisible, receive their bounds from him. Adversary he has none, for there exists not any stronger than he. Wrath and indignation he possesses not, for there is nothing which is able to stand against him. Ignorance and forgetfulness are not in his nature, for he is altogether wisdom and understanding; and in Him stands fast all that exists. He requires not sacrifice and libation, nor even one of things visible; He requires not aught from any, but all living creatures stand in need of him.”

Irenaeus (late second century)

“For it is necessary that things that are made should have the beginning of their making from some great cause; and the beginning of all things is God. For He Himself was not made by any, and by Him all things were made. And therefore it is right first of all to believe that there is One God, the Father, who made and fashioned all things, and made what was not that it should be, and who, containing all things, alone is uncontained”

“This then is the order of the rule of our faith, and the foundation of the building, and the stability of our conversation: God, the Father, not made, not material, invisible; one God, the creator of all things: this is the first point of our faith.”

 

[Ovid]

Clement of Alexandria (late second century)

“If, then, abstracting all that belongs to bodies and things called incorporeal, we cast ourselves into the greatness of Christ, and thence advance into immensity by holiness, we may reach somehow to the conception of the Almighty, knowing not what He is, but what He is not. And form and motion, or standing, or a throne, or place, or right hand or left, are not at all to be conceived as belonging to the Father of the universe, although it is so written. But what each of these means will be shown in its proper place. The First Cause is not then in space, but above both space, and time, and name, and conception”

“But were God possessed of a human form, He would need, equally with man, food, and shelter, and house, and the attendant incidents. Those who are like in form and affections will require similar sustenance … As, then, God is not circumscribed by place, neither is ever represented by the form of a living creature; so neither has He similar passions, nor has He wants like the creatures”

Origen (early 3rd century)

“The particular points clearly delivered in the teaching of the apostles are as follow: First, that there is one God, who created and arranged all things, and who, when nothing existed, called all things into being.”

“Having refuted, then, as well as we could, every notion which might suggest that we were to think of God as in any degree corporeal, we go on to say that, according to strict truth, God is incomprehensible and incapable of being measured.”

 

[Ovid]

One other thing that has been important in my journey is the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist (what the LDS call the Sacrament). Catholics (and the Orthodox) believe that the bread and the wine truly become the body and blood of Christ. Jesus taught it, the apostles preached, and the early church believed it. I could never become Mormon again just based on how they view the Lord’s Supper. Any authentic Christian church must teach that the Eucharist really becomes for us the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ.

 

[SteveVH]

One other thing that has been important in my journey is the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist (what the LDS call the Sacrament). Catholics (and the Orthodox) believe that the bread and the wine truly become the body and blood of Christ. Jesus taught it, the apostles preached, and the early church believed it. I could never become Mormon again just based on how they view the Lord’s Supper. Any authentic Christian church must teach that the Eucharist really becomes for us the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Ovid, I see you are new to CAF so welcome. You should make yourslef aware of the forum rules, one of which is “Messages should be short. Do not post lengthy replies”.

You have some great information but it tends to get lost when the posts become so long. Better to get it out in shorter bursts. You have some good things to say and it would be a shame for people to miss it.

 

[Nicea325]

Quote:
Originally Posted by SteveVH
All bishops have authority, but not the authority of the Bishop of Rome.

ConstantineTG:
Give me First Millennium examples of things the Bishop of Rome did that other Bishops did not do.

Easily! Grave matters regarding doctrines. Where did many Eastern bishops go to settle the matters? To the Bishop of Rome. If the Bishop of Rome is merely an equal why would ANY Eastern bishop travels hundreds of miles to get the matter resolved? Why not settle the issue in-house? Plenty historical cases supporting such incidents.