M
Marie5890
Guest
chuckle
- Status
T
TOmNossor
Guest
I have a little more reading in this thread to catch up and had thought I was done posting, but apparently many of you think this is some slam dunk victory that LDS ignore. To me the response is obvious; I didn’t think it needed to be offered.
First, it does not look like your point, but in case it is. An apostle possess the overseer responsibility of a Bishop. The terms were very fluid in the early church and Catholics simply must allow for this or their whole three fold ministry FALLS apart. As late as the writings of Irenaeus there is still mixing of terms for Bishop and Priest. The mixing of the terms for Apostles and Bishops does not change the fact that history evidences there are distinct divine responsibility Apostles possess that Bishops do not.
Second, was Paul an apostle? Was Paul a traveling authority vice a local Bishop? Could Paul receive revelation and write scripture? I answer “yes” to all these.
Does Paul meet the requirements that he walked with Jesus from the beginning? No.
Do any Catholic leaders possess the divinely given abilities Paul possessed? No.
Do LDS possess (claim to possess) these abilities? Yes. Who is the successor of the Apostles?
It would seem that the method for choosing Judas’s replacement was not applied to Paul’s apostolic calling. So either the method is specifically for Judas’s replacement OR Paul is not an apostle.
I hope that satisfies all concerns.
Charity, TOm
T
TexanKnight
Guest
It was. Too many things you ignore, understandably so.
But I do appreciate you trying.
T
TOmNossor
Guest
Glad you agree the response is obvious (and presumably agree the response totally decimates this Catholic apologetic).
Charity, TOm
And BTW, non-TOm responses to the issues posted here are all over the web. I know of NOTHING that is ignored.
I can link to two things that I think are SORELY in need of a better Catholic response (if you like).
T
TOmNossor
Guest
Denise,
Since I posted again a little…
It is simply true that if the CoJCoLDS is God’s restored church than the Catholic Church is not. As such the POOR apologetic tracts on CA that speak against the CoJCoLDS have a purpose within Catholic apologetics AND they also refute your idea that the Catholic Church is above such attacks. These tracks are warmed over Protestant attacks that have been responded too numerous times. My former Catholic friend (while he was still Catholic) and I told Patrick Madrid that these tracks left a lot to be desired, but they remain as they always have been.
Now, as a LDS there is a reason to address Catholic truth claims in addition to the above. The CoJCoLDS claims there is an apostasy of original Christianity. One of the evidences for the CoJCoLDS is the obvious (to me) disconnect between the Apostles and the Bishops.
In response to this, Catholics no longer claim Peter was Bishop of Rome for 25 years. Instead there is this heavy development theory.
The development theory as best I can tell invalidates the development evidenced in the Vatican document … hope for the unbaptized infant. Judging Catholicism on Catholic claims, I see a problem here EVEN clearer than the problem I see when Peter Bishop of Rome for 25 years is remade.
Anyway, the things I post I do not find convincingly responded too.
I am going through LivingWater’s links.
I read Brandon’s post at CTC when it came out, but had not seen CTC’s response.
Charity, TOm
L
LivingWaters7
Guest
The reading of the verse in question is simpler. It is the “bishoprick” that another must take, and that is the specific office that the Apostles held. Curious that the verse does not claim that it is the “apostolate” or some other variation on the word that one must take.
Catholics believe that all of the Apostles were also Bishops (by virtue of the priesthood office they held), but not all Bishops were/are Apostles.
There is a lot of conflating of ideas in the above, especially in relation to the Catholic understanding of things. Firstly, we must be clear on what the “requirements” are in reference to. They are not merely requirements to be an apostle (i.e. “one who is sent”), but requirements to be one of the Twelve. That is why Catholics would reject any notion that the LDS Quorum of the Twelve Apostles are successor Apostles or replacements of the original Twelve (further, the Twelve hold symbolic value as representatives of the Twelve Tribes of Israel, and therefore there is no need for multiple Twelves, at least in my view). The LDS Twelve simply do not meet the Biblical requirements to be one of the Twelve.
Now, Paul, and others outside of the Twelve, are indeed referred to as Apostles. But we must be clear: they are Apostles in the sense that they were sent on special missions by Christ (again, remember the actual definition of the word “apostle”). It is not necessary for them to have fulfilled the requirements of the Twelve, since they weren’t numbered amongst the Twelve. They are Apostles by virtue of their specific missions.
Catholics view the original Apostles as having a unique responsibility and mission of laying the foundation of the Church. After they laid that foundation, their apostolic authority passed on to other Bishops who are not “Apostles” (one of the Twelve).
As far as Divinely given abilities, again, as I already mentioned in another post, you seem not to understand how Catholics view our own leaders and the historic Church of Jesus Christ. The Bishops are believed to be guided by the Spirit in expounding and defining dogma. This happens in council, as well as individually by the Pope as Successor of Peter and Vicar of Christ. This Heavenly guidance is believed to be as active today as it was in the Church of the New Testament (since we are that Church). Further, Catholics accept various official writings of the Church as binding (indeed, as binding as the Biblical texts), whether from various Councils (again believed to be guided by the Holy Spirit in their decisions, just like in the NT Church), encyclicals, apostolic exhortations, etc.
L
LivingWaters7
Guest
There are plenty of Catholic apologetics in defense of the Church, including against the claims of Mormonism, besides those found on Catholic Answers. We are not reliant upon Catholic Answers. Further, Patrick Madrid has done some excellent work in defending the Catholic Church as an apologist, including against the LDS church. I particularly enjoyed his new book, Why Be Catholic?. I highly recommend it for those interested in learning why the Catholic Church really is what it claims to be, namely, the original Church established by Jesus Christ 2000 years ago, continuing to this day.
There really is no disconnect, unless you desire there to be one.
One obvious (to me) disconnect in the LDS church is the clear disconnect between modern LDS apostles and prophets, and the Biblical ones. They simply don’t function as either. The prophets, seers, and revelators of Mormonism are anything but. Further, whereas the ancient Apostles, including Paul, talked about their visions and Divine experiences, the modern LDS versions don’t at all, even saying that such things are not to be talked about. This is a clear disconnect. The LDS have “prophets”, but they don’t do anything like the Biblical prophets (let alone like the things claimed of Joseph Smith). In contrast, Catholicism has had many prophets throughout its history, those that have seen, and spoken of what they have seen. I also couple this with the LDS “Seventy”. Nowhere in the Bible or patristics do we see the “seventy” being a "priesthood office’ that one is ordained to. Instead, we see that Jesus Christ called seventy men for a purpose (and we see this type from the Old Testament as well). “Seventy”, as understood by the LDS faith, is simply a disconnect from the Biblical precedent on the matter.
I’m not sure what you mean, perhaps you can specifically point to where these claims are being made by Catholics.
Again, I’m not sure what you’re talking about here.
As well, there is no problem with the document on the Hope of Salvation of Infants. It is based on what has already been revealed by God on salvation, baptism, etc. Further, it does not invalidate teachings on the Limbo of Infants (indeed, Catholics are still welcome to believe in that if they desire), since for Catholics, there is no explicit revelation that states what happens to unbaptized infants, however based on the revelation we do have, there is sufficient cause to believe that God saves them.
L
LivingWaters7
Guest
As mentioned earlier, I find the article “The Bishops of History and the Catholic Faith” a great summation of the orthodox Catholic position on the matter of Bishops, establishment of the Church, and succession from the Apostles. It soundly refutes the position that Tom has advocated here for a long time, relying on the book of Father Sullivan, on the so-called evolution of the “monoepiscopate”.
T
TOmNossor
Guest
LivingWater7,
I am a long way from seeing things similarly to the way you see them. I am learning and expect to be able to learn from you. That should not mean that you have some responsibility to reply to me. It should not mean that I think it remotely likely that I could follow your path. But, it does lead me to want to interact with you for reasons that are not PURELY so folks reading here do not think the CoJCoLDS is a ridiculous proposition deserving the derision it receives.
- I acknowledge that the term Bishop/Apostle like the term Bishop/Elder(priest) were anciently used. I do not think that changes the fact that Paul’s apostolic calling is clearly Biblical. As such, I do not believe walking with Jesus in Palestine is the only way one can be an Apostle.
- I recognize the 12 tribes link and think that was surely part of selecting 12. I do not see how the Bible makes Paul less of an apostle.
Concerning my expectations.
I read Jesus, Peter, and the Keys by Dalgreen …
I then was challenged to read the ECF. I didn’t know where or when the apostasy occurred. Nibley’s book was not published. I had either read Bickmore’s book or his website or interacted with him on ZLMB before this reading of the ECF. I expected to see some pure Christian doctrines corrupted like this form of apologetics had suggested to me. (I think there is sufficient evidence for this, but there are detractors for this narrative too and I think the loss of link between Peter and the Catholic Church is much stronger).
So, I shared with my Catholic friends on ZLMB that Clement didn’t know he was Pope. They didn’t disagree, but they sent me to Newman’s development thesis. I read it. I remember sharing with them the “pre-Nicene orthodoxy was subordinationalism” and that I didn’t think the metaphysical Trinity had “early anticipation.” I shared with them Gerard May’s info on Creation ex Nihilo being a 2nd century doctrine. In the end, they considered these consistent with Newman’s development thesis and I was not sure. I also considered the CA apologetic that seldom if ever acknowledges development to be an unintended condemnation of Newman’s theories. One of these folks began searching for an alternative Newman’s development theory because it didn’t support the weight it need to support (my thoughts and ideas almost certainly had NOTHING to do with this as he is always way ahead of me).
3. What are your thoughts on the pre-Newman teachings about Tradition? The condemnation Newman received from at least one Catholic scholar at the behest of 1-3 Catholic bishops? And the weight development theories must hold in light of Vatican I’s clear statement that the Pope does not received revelation to guide the church?
4. You have read Sullivan. Have you read Robert Eno? Does Newman’s theory support the development of the PRIMACY of the Roman Papacy? Even when you recognize that multiple arguments were offered for the importance of the Roman See other than the one that is De Fide that Peter’s primacy is the Roman Primacy. And that the EO Christians never accepted it. Can the development theory support that Peter’s primacy created Roman primacy?
I will be reading the response to Brandon’s essay on CtC. Did you read Brandon’s essay? My former Catholic friend was not impressed with Brandon’s essay and considers before and after the “Lampe” theory discredited. I am not quite sure why, but I hope to ask him. (His issues are much less with the development of Catholic authority than with the way councils interacted with previous councils). What are your thoughts?
Anyway, a few folks who responded to me that the Bishop as successor of Apostles and Bishop of Rome as Peter’s successor is something that existed largely unknown within the early church, but that this is no problem (and it is my problem that I think I should see some evidence). I am just not sure I agree. Without supernatural public revelation, how do we get here? Without supernatural public revelation, how can the bickering that exists within early councils be called the will of God?
Beyond the bickering there are even bigger concerns from council to council, but again I have seen faithful Catholic untroubled. As of now, my “shelf” as a Catholic would be much more difficult to support than my “shelf” as a LDS. But I am always studying and trying to learn more.
Charity, TOm
T
TexanKnight
Guest
I see your problem now! You make things up in what you read! That explains how you can still be Mormon.
We both know I stated you were blown out of the water, and that I appreciated you trying. That you read it differently explains everything.
The fact is, you know, and I know, that the only way the LDS Church is true is that if Jesus is a weak, dishonest, cruel man.
But, you NEED that…
L
LivingWaters7
Guest
I never claimed otherwise. In a previous post I clearly stated that the claim is to be one of the Twelve. The requirements we see in the Bible are to be counted as one of the Twelve. Paul was not one of the Twelve, yet he is still an Apostle, meaning “one who is sent”, as he was specifically commissioned by Christ for a purpose, as were other apostles not of the Twelve.
LDS claim a restoration of the so-called Quorum of the Twelve Apostles. I would say that such is not necessary, firstly because the Twelve, among other things, laid the foundation of the Church of Christ, and represent the 12 Tribes of Israel (and therefore we do not need multiple Twelves, especially when we consider the eschatological importance of the Twelve, as judging the Tribes, according to the Bible If that is so, which Twelve will do so?), and also because they simply don’t meet the requirements we see in the Bible to be counted as one of the Twelve. Paul is not a wrench in this argument, because while he was indeed an apostle, he wasn’t one of the Twelve (unless you can demonstrate otherwise).
Who said anything about Paul being less of an apostle? I didn’t. He was an apostle. He wasn’t one of the Twelve.
More on the Catholic view on the word “Apostle”:
newadvent.org/cathen/01626c.htm
I have read Nibley, Bickmore, Paulsen, and all the others. If anything, they convinced me of the continuity of the Catholic Church more than the apostasy and loss of true/pure Christian doctrines, as supposedly restored in Mormonism. Quite simply, there is absolutely no evidence of an ancient Church of Jesus Christ of Former-day Saints, with all of those beliefs that the LDS apologists mentioned claim are restored. There simply is no singular church (“ancient/primitive church”-singular) that looked like Mormonism. Instead, we find frequent references to Gnostic works.
I see no evidence of a loss of link between Peter and the Catholic Church. What I do see is continuity. When we look at ancient Christianity, we see something that looks like Catholicism (since it is), not Mormonism. Further, I find sufficient cause in the patristic writings to believe that the Bishop of Rome is the successor of Peter (as is the Bishop of Antioch, however Rome has the primacy amongst the churches).
Funny, when I read Clement, I see nothing suggesting something opposing him being Pope. Further, the Eastern Orthodox readily accept the primacy of Rome and the Bishop of Rome, as we all clearly see it in the patristic writings. What they dispute is the supremacy and universal jurisdiction of the Pope. What this tells me is perhaps you are looking at these documents differently.
L
LivingWaters7
Guest
You throw out a lot of things in the above, all of which can be addressed in separate threads each. Suffice it to say: I see no conflict with what is observed in pre-Nicene orthodoxy and post-Nicene orthodoxy. I have no idea what you mean by “metaphysical Trinity”, though I do see this amongst LDS caricatures of the Trinity quite frequently. There has always been subordination in the Trinity, pre and post Nicaea. In this subordination, the Son and Holy Spirit are subordinate, as Persons, to the Father. They both receive their eternal origin from the Father (the Son is begotten of the Father, the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father). The Father is the “fount” of Deity, and is unbegotten and does not proceed. What is rejected is any notion of subordination of Deity between the Persons; that the Father is somehow “more God” than the Son and/or Holy Spirit. Further, any notion that the Son had to born at some point in the pre-mortal existence (and therefore did not exist as a member of the Trinity or as the Son at some point) is rejected. This is an idea that finds itself in Mormonism (which posits that all, including the Son and the Holy Spirit, are spirit offspring of the Father and Mother), and not in pre-Nicene orthodoxy, despite what various LDS apologists attempt to read into these Catholic writings.
I’m not sure what you’re going on about as far as Newman. Suffice it to say, development of doctrine is a readily accepted, and quite apparent, Catholic teaching. It is Catholic belief that the Spirit guides our understanding of the Deposit of Faith, as we come to fuller and deeper understandings of the Truth. This can be seen in the formal defining of the Trinity, as well as the Papacy.
It would be helpful for you to specifically cite the condemnation that Newman received that you are referring to. Also, where does Vatican I state that the Pope does not receive revelation to guide the Church? Please give the specific reference. The Catholic Church teaches the guidance of the Spirit in the Church, to lead it into all Truth, to protect it from error, etc.
No, I have not read Eno. Also, you are incorrect about the Eastern Orthodox. They have always accepted the primacy of Rome. What they reject is supremacy and universal jurisdiction.
Perhaps you might as well cite “Newman’s theory” that you keep talking about.
Yes, I read Brandon’s essay. I think that the response soundly address it, as well as arguments advanced by people like Father Sullivan.
I think I talked earlier about your use of “supernatural public revelation”. The problem here, as is quite common, is that you aren’t using “public revelation” the way Catholics do. I have already given my view on the matter earlier in the thread, perhaps you will find it helpful. Councils, as well as the Pope individually, are believed to be guided and protected by the Spirit in the formal decisions and dogmas they define. They are believed to have the assistance of the Holy Spirit in these endeavors. This is basic Catholic teaching. “Public revelation” is not talking about that, as I have stated before.
There are plenty of books available demonstrating what you don’t see in the early Church.
L
LivingWaters7
Guest
I’m the opposite. My LDS shelf included:
-that God the Father was once a man that progressed to/achieved Godhood
-no evidence for a total apostasy or complete loss of Christ’s Church, the Kingdom of God, in the Bible
-no evidence that the New Testament Christians believed that the Father was eternally married to a Heavenly Mother (at least one)
-the priesthood and temple restriction of blacks (big one)
-no evidence that the New Testament Christians believed that eternal marriage was necessary for eternal life
-no evidence of an ancient LDS church with the beliefs apologists point to as restored
-no evidence for the Book of Mormon actually occurring in real life
-plural marriage
-prophets not functioning as Biblical prophets, let alone like Joseph Smith and his claims.
-temples not like ancient temples, instead having Freemasonry adapted to make the Endowment
One thing I do find makes more sense in Mormonism is their view on sacraments. I find that it makes sense to me that only the true Church can confer valid sacraments, including baptism. It makes no sense to me that the Eastern Orthodox churches, not in full communion with the Catholic Church, still have apostolic succession and have valid sacraments. It doesn’t make sense to me that valid baptisms can be performed by anyone, including a non-baptized person (whether emergency or not isn’t the point in this view). The argument that Christ is the one that baptizes doesn’t really address it, since Christ is the one who really consecrates the Eucharist, and forgives our sins, yet valid priesthood and jurisdiction are needed. I think the LDS view makes more sense, that true sacraments are only found in the true church with the true priesthood. But then, just because something makes more sense doesn’t mean it’s true.
P
pablope
Guest
Just some thoughts on the Quorum of the Twelve:
How could there be a quorum of the apostles in after Pentecost? They all went to different areas to spread Christianity after Pentecost…
The last time we see them together is at the selection of Matthias.
Even at the Council of Jerusalem, only Peter and James (maybe John?) were present, there was not need for the other apostles. It was Peter, who makes the rule that is now universally followed regarding the laws of Moses.
L
LivingWaters7
Guest
Related to the topic of Rome and its importance in ancient Christianity, a book that looks interesting is “The Eternal City: Rome and the Origins of Catholic Christianity”, by Taylor Marshall. I’ve read one of Marshall’s other books, “The Crucified Rabbi: Judaism and the Origins of Catholic Christianity”, and found it excellent, really helping to solidify for me the connection of Catholicism to ancient Judaism (as opposed to the common canard found amongst LDS that Catholicism is filled with Greek philosophy and apostate teachings and practices). He has also written another book in this trilogy, “The Catholic Perspective on Paul: Paul and the Origins of Catholic Christianity”. Anyway, his The Eternal City looks interesting on the subject of the importance of Rome and its primacy, though I haven’t bought it yet (currently reading other things).
http://www.discerninghearts.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/The-Eternal-City-194x300.jpg
From Amazon:
"Read this book if you have ever wondered why the Catholic Church specifically claims to be Roman? It would seem that the Church of Jesus Christ would be centered in Jerusalem, the capital of the Jews, since Christ died and rose again in Jerusalem. Catholic theologian Taylor Marshall, Ph.D. provides a layman’s account of how Christ chose the Rome as an instrument of redemption for the nations. Beginning with the Old Testament prophets, Dr. Marshall explains how the Messiah would come and assume reign over the nations through the Roman Empire. This book provides an exciting and popular account establishing Rome as ‘the Eternal City’ of Christ the King."
http://www.discerninghearts.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/The-Eternal-City-194x300.jpg
From Amazon:
"Read this book if you have ever wondered why the Catholic Church specifically claims to be Roman? It would seem that the Church of Jesus Christ would be centered in Jerusalem, the capital of the Jews, since Christ died and rose again in Jerusalem. Catholic theologian Taylor Marshall, Ph.D. provides a layman’s account of how Christ chose the Rome as an instrument of redemption for the nations. Beginning with the Old Testament prophets, Dr. Marshall explains how the Messiah would come and assume reign over the nations through the Roman Empire. This book provides an exciting and popular account establishing Rome as ‘the Eternal City’ of Christ the King."
K
kimg901
Guest
I was going to put my 2 cents in but you beat me to it. But just not only the lds church Tex, many, many , many other churches too!!! Would Jesus lie to His Apostles and all those that came to see Him and hear Him speak? I think not. I just feel bad that people have such a low opinion of our Lord & Savior.
T
TexanKnight
Guest
Worse than needing to believe Jesus was weak and dishonest is the need to believe He was cruel. I know of no man or God who would send off his best friends to die cruel, horrible deaths for a church that would fade the minute the last of them died.
I can’t be LDS because I cannot accept their god.
D
Denise1957
Guest
Well, if you’re looking for absolute proof from the Catholics here regarding such things as, for example, proof that Linus was really the second pope of the Church, you’ll not find it. The early Church Fathers did not seem concerned about the discrepancy regarding the second or even third pope. I can’t see that you’ve provided good evidence of an apostasy by the Catholic church.
I appreciate all of the posts here from Catholics, and especially those who are former LDS. I’m learning a lot here.
L
LivingWaters7
Guest
A thought I recently had, while pondering the priesthood:
Mormons claim to have restored two ancient priesthoods: the Aaronic Priesthood and the Melchizedek Priesthood. The problem with this is that neither actually functions like anything we find anciently. Throughout Biblical history, the primary purpose of the priesthood has always been to offer sacrifice on behalf of the people. LDS priesthoods do not offer any sacrifice at all. In contrast, the primary purpose of the Catholic priesthood, as it was anciently, is to offer sacrifice on behalf of the people. This sacrifice is of course the Eucharistic sacrifice, with the priest acting in the person of Christ to offer Christ to the Father (meaning, Christ is offering Himself to the Father, since He is eternally our High Priest, mediating the New and Everlasting Covenant).
But one thing that I find particularly interesting is that in Mormonism, the Aaronic, or Levitical priesthood, offers the Sacrament, or the Communion of bread and water. The Sacrament is an Aaronic ordinance, blessed and passed by those holding the Aaronic priesthood (Melchizedek priesthood holders can do the same, however it is not by virtue of their Melchizedek priesthood that they are able to). The problem I see with this is that when we read the Bible, we see that the King-Priest Melchizedek brought bread and wine to Abraham (Genesis 14:18), and naturally, we see in this a type of the offering of the bread and wine by Jesus Christ (who is a priest after the order of Melchizedek) in the Eucharist. The JST version of Genesis 14:18 makes it explicit that this was Melchizedek offering “the Sacrament”-“he [Melchizedek] brake bread and blest it; and he blest the wine, he being the priest of the most high God” (see JST, Gen. 14:17–18) (as cited in this LDS talk).
So, it is interesting to me that an act that seems quite important, offering bread and wine, the Sacrament/Eucharist, finds Old Testament precedent in Melchizedek, yet Mormons, in their restoration of the Melchizedek priesthood, don’t have that as a function of that priesthood.
…if Tom or another LDS decides to return…
Mormons claim to have restored two ancient priesthoods: the Aaronic Priesthood and the Melchizedek Priesthood. The problem with this is that neither actually functions like anything we find anciently. Throughout Biblical history, the primary purpose of the priesthood has always been to offer sacrifice on behalf of the people. LDS priesthoods do not offer any sacrifice at all. In contrast, the primary purpose of the Catholic priesthood, as it was anciently, is to offer sacrifice on behalf of the people. This sacrifice is of course the Eucharistic sacrifice, with the priest acting in the person of Christ to offer Christ to the Father (meaning, Christ is offering Himself to the Father, since He is eternally our High Priest, mediating the New and Everlasting Covenant).
But one thing that I find particularly interesting is that in Mormonism, the Aaronic, or Levitical priesthood, offers the Sacrament, or the Communion of bread and water. The Sacrament is an Aaronic ordinance, blessed and passed by those holding the Aaronic priesthood (Melchizedek priesthood holders can do the same, however it is not by virtue of their Melchizedek priesthood that they are able to). The problem I see with this is that when we read the Bible, we see that the King-Priest Melchizedek brought bread and wine to Abraham (Genesis 14:18), and naturally, we see in this a type of the offering of the bread and wine by Jesus Christ (who is a priest after the order of Melchizedek) in the Eucharist. The JST version of Genesis 14:18 makes it explicit that this was Melchizedek offering “the Sacrament”-“he [Melchizedek] brake bread and blest it; and he blest the wine, he being the priest of the most high God” (see JST, Gen. 14:17–18) (as cited in this LDS talk).
So, it is interesting to me that an act that seems quite important, offering bread and wine, the Sacrament/Eucharist, finds Old Testament precedent in Melchizedek, yet Mormons, in their restoration of the Melchizedek priesthood, don’t have that as a function of that priesthood.
…if Tom or another LDS decides to return…
P
PaulDupre1
Guest
- Status