C
ConstantineTG
Guest
Read the writings of the Church Fathers, they should guide you in your journey.
- Status
S
SteveVH
Guest
As others have explained, Easter Vigil is the traditional time of reception into the Church for adult converts, but baptism and take place at any time, depending upon the circumstances. The point in waiting, however, is very important. We are not interested in bringing anyone into the Church who does not fully, as much as possible, understand exactly what it means to be part of this divine institution called the Catholic Church. It is a serious matter and so we would not wish to hurry up and baptize someone only to find out later that they would not have done it had they better understood. There are no secrets kept from one inquiring into the faith. They should understand very well what they are doing before making the decision and that takes some time, at least a year, maybe two, maybe more in some cases.
C
Chris_Etzel
Guest
If you’re looking for “Historical” writings I would recommend: Early Christian Writings by Pengiun Press. It contains a collection of late first and early second century writings that were by bishops and other leaders in the early Christian community. There’s also a very good website I like to visit for tons of good old documents, writings: earlychristianwritings.com/ (Pliny the Younger wrote an insightful letter to the Emperor detailing how he persecuted early Christians).
If you get far enough to where you’re into the crusades, check out “A New Concise History of the Crusades, Student Edition” by Thomas F. Madden. He is/was Director of Saint Louis University’s Center for Medieval and Renaissance Studies.
X
xCelticx
Guest
Thank you all so much for your insights and suggested readings. I never really realized how much early writings we still have and what the early church leaders believed.
I also thank you Steve and JRKH for your insights and explanations of my easter vigil and philosophy questions. But I came across a new “fact” that I just need some clearing up. In this book that i’m reading, The Story of Christianity the author says that James, the brother of Jesus, is one of the 3 pillars that paul refers to in Galatians 2:9. Then he says that James becomes the leader of the church in Jerusalem, or the bishop of Jerusalem.
Now for my questions:
I also thank you Steve and JRKH for your insights and explanations of my easter vigil and philosophy questions. But I came across a new “fact” that I just need some clearing up. In this book that i’m reading, The Story of Christianity the author says that James, the brother of Jesus, is one of the 3 pillars that paul refers to in Galatians 2:9. Then he says that James becomes the leader of the church in Jerusalem, or the bishop of Jerusalem.
Now for my questions:
- Was Jerusalem the center of the church at that time?
- When Peter is killed, why doesn’t James take over since he is the Bishop of the church?
- Any first century or early writings that testify of Peter passing down the keys to Linus ?
G
Gabriel_Serafin
Guest
Why not invite him into the Catholic Church?
S
SteveVH
Guest
Just for clarification, James was not the brother of Jesus by blood. He was the son of Mary Cleophas. And yes, he was the first Bishop of Jerusalem, an important position.
Very early on it was. But the head of the Christian Church was Peter and the authority went with him, or his successor, wherever he was. Since he went to Rome, where he was martyred, it is the Bishop of Rome that succeeds to Peter’s authority over the entire Church. So the petrine authority does not come from a location, but rather a person.
Well, he wasn’t the only bishop of the Church. He was the Bishop of Jerusalem and died as the Bishop of Jerusalem somewhere between 65 and 69 A.D. Peter died between 67 and 69 A.D. so I doubt he would have been around anyway to take Peter’s place. Linus succeeded Peter as the Bishop of Rome.
The following is a passage by Irenaeus (Against Heresies III.3.3):
“After the Holy Apostles (Peter and Paul) had founded and set the Church in order (in Rome) they gave over the exercise of the episcopal office to Linus. The same Linus is mentioned by St. Paul in his Epistle to Timothy. His successor was Anacletus.”
It is the office of the Bishop of Rome that carries the authority. Would it have made any sense for Christ to give the keys to the kingdom of God to Peter, only to have this authority die with Peter?
C
ConstantineTG
Guest
Jerusalem was the Proto-Church, the First Church. I wouldn’t say it was the center as there was no centralized leadership in the Church like we have today.
James is already the chief elder of Jerusalem. Each Church has its own leadership from its own people.
Here is where it is tricky. While there were writings on the the institution of the leadership fo the Church of Rome by Sts. Peter and Paul, there is nothing that says that any keys or any type of leadership passed from Peter to the episkopos of Rome.
C
ConstantineTG
Guest
Is the Kingdom of Heaven only about authority? Is it also only with Peter? What if such authority is passed onto all bishops?
S
SteveVH
Guest
Did I say that?
All bishops have authority, but not the authority of the Bishop of Rome.
The authority of the Bishop of Rome? Then you would have a good argument in favor of every Patriarch of every Eastern Orthodox Church being his own pope, if that’s where you’re trying to go here.
C
ConstantineTG
Guest
Yes.
Right there.
Give me First Millennium examples of things the Bishop of Rome did that other Bishops did not do.
That is not the Ecclessiology of the Eastern Churches. Patriarchs are not “their own Pope”. They are just the primary bishop in each synod of Churches. They do not have any more authority than any other bishop. A good example is the recent deposing of Met. Jonah of the Orthodox Church of America. He is their Primate (they are not a Patriarchal Church, yet) and the synod deposed him. So he is far from being any sort of Pope.
J
JRKH
Guest
Allow me to take a slightly different approach to your questions…
When people hear “authority” I think that too often they equate it with “power” and then they worry about “abuse of power” - a perfectly legitimate concern. But if one considers the amount of responsibility inherent in leading the Church at whatever level, one can begin to see this “authority” as something quite different.
Note that Jesus used the term Church (ekklesia) only twice in the Gospels both times in Matthew and both times in connection with the authority to bind and loose - “Whatever”.
In the first instance, the authority to bind and loose is given specifically to Peter, in Mt 16, along with the keys of the kingdom
The second time the authority is spoken of more generally in Mt 18:18 but the Keys are not mentioned.
Thus, while we have many stewards in the kingdom, we have only one office of Chief Steward.
Peace
James
No it is not only about “authority”. In fact it is mostly about responsibility.
When people hear “authority” I think that too often they equate it with “power” and then they worry about “abuse of power” - a perfectly legitimate concern. But if one considers the amount of responsibility inherent in leading the Church at whatever level, one can begin to see this “authority” as something quite different.
Authority is inherent within the entire Church as a community.
Note that Jesus used the term Church (ekklesia) only twice in the Gospels both times in Matthew and both times in connection with the authority to bind and loose - “Whatever”.
In the first instance, the authority to bind and loose is given specifically to Peter, in Mt 16, along with the keys of the kingdom
The second time the authority is spoken of more generally in Mt 18:18 but the Keys are not mentioned.
Thus, while we have many stewards in the kingdom, we have only one office of Chief Steward.
Peace
James
J
JRKH
Guest
Just to build on a point or two…
First is the fact that Jerusalem was destroyed in about 70 AD and the Christian as well as the Jewish communities were scattered from there. So the idea of James or his successor assuming the mantle of leadership was pretty much out of the question.
Second, at the time, “all roads led to Rome” was pretty much true…Rome was the hub of civilization. It had the best roads, the best lines of communication etc…So Rome, along with Alexandria and a couple of other early Sees became the centers of Christian authority.
But - as mentioned above, Rome was the See of Peter. So whoever was bishop of that See was (and is) the successor of Peter - the Chief Steward and keeper of the Keys of the Kingdom.
Peace
James
I’d just like to add that, there are two additional very good reasons for the Petrine office to be set in Rome…
First is the fact that Jerusalem was destroyed in about 70 AD and the Christian as well as the Jewish communities were scattered from there. So the idea of James or his successor assuming the mantle of leadership was pretty much out of the question.
Second, at the time, “all roads led to Rome” was pretty much true…Rome was the hub of civilization. It had the best roads, the best lines of communication etc…So Rome, along with Alexandria and a couple of other early Sees became the centers of Christian authority.
But - as mentioned above, Rome was the See of Peter. So whoever was bishop of that See was (and is) the successor of Peter - the Chief Steward and keeper of the Keys of the Kingdom.
Peace
James
S
SteveVH
Guest
There are plenty of threads which discuss these issues, Constantine. I’m not here to argue the issues of papal primacy and supremacy and the continuing arguments between the CC and EO. We’re going to get way off topic. The question asked of me specifically was did Peter hand on the keys to his successor? My comment was that it would not make sense that this authority (the holding of the keys) would die along with Peter. The question of the wider authority given to all bishops was not asked.
And yes, I am aware that Patriarchs are not their own Pope, but that seemed to be the direction you were headed in the context of authority. I believe, as a Catholic, that Peter did have authority that did not belong to the other bishops and that the keys were given specifically to Peter, not all the Apostles. I believe that Christ intended unity within his Church under one head, not various communities operating independently of each other separated by ethnicity.
X
xCelticx
Guest
Well, coming from a mormon background I can actually say that yes it does make sense. Because His authority didn’t die with Peter, it was preserved for when Joseph Smith would come and help restore the “church”. Peter, James, and John show up (as resurrected beings) and give the authority or “priesthood” as the lds church calls it, back to the world. That’s what i’ve been taught my whole life though.
I was never really a firm believer in it, to me, it makes more sense to establish a church and not have it be destroyed so soon after the death and resurrection of Christ, but thats just me. Also, here where it gets tricky for me. Peter is at the head of the church in the early years. However, doesn’t Paul ordain Linus and Peter ordain Clement? So why would Linus take over when Peter ordains Clement? Or is this just a myth? the author really didn’t give me a valid source so i would like to hear your thoughts.
To me, this is one of the most crucial doctrines in the Catholic Church to prove that they are really the true church of Christ. Was Christ’s authority passed down to the right person.
J
JRKH
Guest
THIS…
In conversations I have had with missionaries, I have tried to get them to pin down when the Apostasy occurred…when the Keys were withdrawn…and they really don’t seem to be able to say…
Too many holes…
They left a pamphlet with me once and as I was looking through it and comparing what they had said - well…it just did not add up…I still have the notes somewhere…hhmmmm.
Well - The Holy Spirit has preserved the Church…So - I’d say yup, the right person got the keys…
I’m sure someone else can give you a more precise answer.
Peace
James
S
SteveVH
Guest
In order to believe this one would have accept that Jesus, being God, could not forsee that the Church he founded would last only about 30 years or so and that mankind would be wandering around aimlessly in its theological errors for the next 1800 years waiting for Joseph Smith.
Yes. And this belief is based upon nothing more than the claim of one man; one man who had a reputation for fraud. “Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me.”
And about 1.25 billion other people.
It doesn’t matter who ordained who. Other Apostles and bishops had the power to validly ordain. Linus succeeded St. Peter because he was made Bishop of Rome. Clement also succeeded to the chair of Peter, but not because he was ordained by Peter.
Peter, the one chosen by the Father as head of the Apostles and the Church, denied Christ three times. Was he the right person for the job? It is the office that possesses the authority, regardless of personal worthiness. It would be very easy to look at certain popes and claim “they aren’t the right person”. Several of them have been downright despicable. These are pointed to as evidence of the “Great Apostasy”, as if personal righteousness was the measure. The truth is that about 97% of the popes have been incredibly holy men. About 3% (10 out of 266) have been less than holy or outright evil in their behavior. Authority lies in the Church, not in the measure of a man’s righteousness. If that were the case then not even the Apostles could have possessed it. It was given to sinful men who were promised that they would be led into all truth by the Holy Spirit. It is Christ that makes the Church holy by remaining in it, as he promised. The truth of history bears this out as not one of those who could be called “bad popes” added or subtracted anything from Catholic doctrine. The truth was preserved inspite of their personal failures as popes and as men.
If personal righteousness is the issue as to whether or not one is worthy of receiving “priesthood authority”, then the LDS need to take a closer look at the behavior of their own founding prophet. This is a man who comitted adultery by sleeping with the wives of his friends (11 of them), fourteen year old girls and various other women, was convicted of bank fraud, had a reputation for scamming the locals by promising that he could find treasure on their land, made incredibly racist remarks concerning blacks, etc., etc. Were the keys passed on to the right person?
C
Candescent
Guest
S
SteveVH
Guest
Wow. Glad I could help.
R
RebeccaJ
Guest
Celticx, read the Early Church Fathers, their writings are available online. Recently I picked up the book, “Church Fathers” by Pope Benedict XVI. It is a good introduction.
Christianity begins with Jesus, and it is Jesus who shows us that God is Triune.
I recommend you pray to Jesus, directly. You can also pray with many Catholics, online, at www.sacredspace.ie. There is an online Catholic Bible at www.usccb.org/bible/books-of-the-bible/ it includes the deuterocanonicals books that Mormons don’t use. It also has good introductions to each book and excellent footnotes.
Pray for guidance. As someone who wandered for many years without a home, I’m not exaggerating when I say I finally found it in the Catholic Church. The main reason for this is because, this is where I found God, Faith and Truth. Truth has a name, Jesus Christ.
“Our hearts are restless, until they rest in You” – St. Augustine
O
Ovid
Guest
xCelticx,
I was once in your shoes, trying to figure out whether early church history supported the catholic or the mormon story more. I was even working for the LDS church at the time, so you never know who may be a closet catholic at heart, even in Utah! As others have been saying the best thing to do is to read about the early church, preferably the primary sources themselves. Clement of Rome, Ignatius of Antioch, Polycarp, Justin, Irenaeus, Tertullian. Let the early Christians speak for themselves. If you do it becomes pretty obvious what kind of Christians they were. It also lays to rest the idea of a great apostasy. I hate to say it, but you need to be very skeptical about what you read in any LDS books on the early church. After I became better acquainted with the actual ancient texts themselves, I found that LDS apologetics on the subject were almost uniformly misleading and deceptive, whether it be Hugh Nibley or Tad Callister. Again, let those early Christians speak for themselves. I’ve read a lot catholic conversion stories and a common theme does seem to be an encounter with early Christian history. History tends to lead people into Catholicism, whereas the opposite is often the case with Mormonism.
On the subject of Peter it’s important to understand that each bishop is considered to be a successor of the apostles and as sharing in the apostolic authority to govern the Church and administer the sacraments. The pope, as bishop of Rome and successor of Peter in particular, has a primacy among his fellow bishops. What that primacy actually meant in practice developed over time. So the issue is more than just did Peter pass on his personal authority to the bishop of Rome. The broader question is whether the early church viewed bishops as successors to the apostles (which they clearly did) and whether the early church was justified in that understanding of the office of bishop. I think an honest mormon apologist would have to agree that the early church did view bishops as inheriting apostolic authority. I suppose, however, that a mormon would argue that those early Christians were wrong. But what is the alternative? Peter and the other apostles neglected their sacred responsibility to ordain successors? That out of the tens of millions of people living in the Roman Empire at the time none were worthy to lead the church? That Jesus, the good shepherd, did not protect his flock and allowed all the faithful Christians to be killed so that his church was wiped off the face of the earth? At the end of the day belief in the continuity of the church is really belief in the faithfulness of Jesus to his Bride. It’s all about what Jesus did (and does) for his Body, not what we weak and imperfect humans do to sustain His church. As Paul said, Christ is always faithful, even if we are sometimes unfaithful.
I was once in your shoes, trying to figure out whether early church history supported the catholic or the mormon story more. I was even working for the LDS church at the time, so you never know who may be a closet catholic at heart, even in Utah! As others have been saying the best thing to do is to read about the early church, preferably the primary sources themselves. Clement of Rome, Ignatius of Antioch, Polycarp, Justin, Irenaeus, Tertullian. Let the early Christians speak for themselves. If you do it becomes pretty obvious what kind of Christians they were. It also lays to rest the idea of a great apostasy. I hate to say it, but you need to be very skeptical about what you read in any LDS books on the early church. After I became better acquainted with the actual ancient texts themselves, I found that LDS apologetics on the subject were almost uniformly misleading and deceptive, whether it be Hugh Nibley or Tad Callister. Again, let those early Christians speak for themselves. I’ve read a lot catholic conversion stories and a common theme does seem to be an encounter with early Christian history. History tends to lead people into Catholicism, whereas the opposite is often the case with Mormonism.
On the subject of Peter it’s important to understand that each bishop is considered to be a successor of the apostles and as sharing in the apostolic authority to govern the Church and administer the sacraments. The pope, as bishop of Rome and successor of Peter in particular, has a primacy among his fellow bishops. What that primacy actually meant in practice developed over time. So the issue is more than just did Peter pass on his personal authority to the bishop of Rome. The broader question is whether the early church viewed bishops as successors to the apostles (which they clearly did) and whether the early church was justified in that understanding of the office of bishop. I think an honest mormon apologist would have to agree that the early church did view bishops as inheriting apostolic authority. I suppose, however, that a mormon would argue that those early Christians were wrong. But what is the alternative? Peter and the other apostles neglected their sacred responsibility to ordain successors? That out of the tens of millions of people living in the Roman Empire at the time none were worthy to lead the church? That Jesus, the good shepherd, did not protect his flock and allowed all the faithful Christians to be killed so that his church was wiped off the face of the earth? At the end of the day belief in the continuity of the church is really belief in the faithfulness of Jesus to his Bride. It’s all about what Jesus did (and does) for his Body, not what we weak and imperfect humans do to sustain His church. As Paul said, Christ is always faithful, even if we are sometimes unfaithful.
- Status