Catholics vs Mormons vs Protestants on the "Gates of Hell"

[Prodigal_Son1]

My presumption is that you (plural) are aquainted with Mormon Doctrine. Why would you attack something that you “have never heard of”?

It would be like me going on a Hindu website and saying – “ha ha you guys are all dummies because you’re polytheists” when I have no clue what the discussion is all about. Why would you attack something you don’t understand?

Aquainted does not make one an expert. I’m sorry you take questioning as an attack, it was not meant that way. As you say you’re here to “share” your beliefs, compared to Catholics beliefs, that’s the risk you run.

There are some fragments which remain which I have quoted. Yes the rest was “removed” or lost.

Ok, let me point out where some confusion comes from. I read, on another thread, where Mormons spoke about the inerrancy of the Bible, and I thought you were on that thread but I may be mistaken. Now, I have what you stated above, which seems to indicate inerrancies in the Bible. Simple question, do Mormons believe the Bible to be inerrant or not?

Were you aware that Mormons believe that the church was restored and that we have a prophet? That is how someone 1800 years later knew what had been removed. I had thought you would be aware of this principle.

We have questioned the prophesies of Joseph Smith on other threads. I remember one in particular, where 4 different Mormons gave 4 different explanations when that prophesy was questioned about being a failed prophesy or not.

I am aware that Mormons claim the Church was “restored”. So far no convincing evidence has been produced that shows restoration was necessary. Remember, it’s up to the accuser to prove. You cannot say, there was an apostasy now prove there wasn’t.

My interpretation is not “private”. It comes from the doctrine of the true church of Jesus Christ on the earth today. Christ did talk about the keys to hell when he said that the gates of hell would not prevail against the church’s work.

It says that the gates would not prevail against the church. That is because the church has the keys.

Ok, let’s make this simple. Please show where scriptures show Christ talked specifically about the keys to hell. You keep stating it, but have yet to offer up a source.

The Church has Keys to the Kingdom of Heaven, as clearly stated by scriptures. It appears to be a good versus evil analogy. The Church Christ started was Good therefore impenatrable by evil. The keys to Heaven, along with the authority to bind and loose on earth, confirms authority given to Peter to made decisions on Church doctrines/laws for “men” to enter Heaven.

Hopefully the following scripture will help you understand which gate to Heaven Catholics are referring too.

**Mat 7:13 Enter ye in at the narrow gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way that leadeth to destruction, and many there are who go in thereat. **

Again, my presumption is that you understand Mormon doctrine. Perhaps you should take the missionary discussions so that you do? I am sorry that you see my attitude as “condescending”.

Again, isn’t that why you’re on a Catholic forum? To share the Mormon beliefs? This is the only place I’m willing to discuss Mormon doctrines, so respectfully I decline your invitation to “take the missionary discussions”.

The subject of the thread is the “gates of hell” prophecy. You seem to keep bringing up other subjects which I ignore. If you are not up to speed on the topic, don’t post.

Help keep us on track and show us the scriptures stating the Church was given the keys to hell, or breakdown the scripture, with explanations, of how you read the keys of hell into it. I don’t think that is an unreasonable request. To simply infer something means what you say, does not allow for a intelligible discussion or refutation from another point of view.

Being up to speed on the subject has nothing to do with our discussion. You seem to infer that because someone does not agree with your interpretation, somehow makes them not up to speed. Are we to assume you are not up to speed because you disagree with the majority?

 

[mfbukowski]

Ok, let me point out where some confusion comes from. I read, on another thread, where Mormons spoke about the inerrancy of the Bible, and I thought you were on that thread but I may be mistaken. Now, I have what you stated above, which seems to indicate inerrancies in the Bible. Simple question, do Mormons believe the Bible to be inerrant or not?

As I have told you before, Mormons do not believe the bible is inerrant. I personally believe there is nothing in the bible which CONTRADICTS Mormon doctrine, which is very different from saying the bible is inerrant.

" 8 We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly; we also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God."

scriptures.lds.org/a_of_f/1/1-13#1

Ok, let’s make this simple. Please show where scriptures show Christ talked specifically about the keys to hell. You keep stating it, but have yet to offer up a source.

You yourself quoted my “source”, and now I will say it for the third time. I will say it no more.

There are some fragments which remain which I have quoted. Yes the rest was “removed” or lost.

It is difficult to quote lost scriptures. But I don’t know why you want to limit your own church’s authority by saying that it does not include the keys to hades. What else is NOT under authority of the Catholic church?

Again, isn’t that why you’re on a Catholic forum? To share the Mormon beliefs? This is the only place I’m willing to discuss Mormon doctrines, so respectfully I decline your invitation to “take the missionary discussions”.

No, as I have told you numerous times before, I am here to ask my own questions about Catholicsm. If you want to learn about Mormonism, I suggest you go to a Mormon website. I cannot learn about Catholicism anywhere else. My purpose in this thread was to question the Catholic interpretation of the “gates of hell” prophecy, and I am about done with that question, thank you very much.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

As I have told you before, Mormons do not believe the bible is inerrant. I personally believe there is nothing in the bible which CONTRADICTS Mormon doctrine, which is very different from saying the bible is inerrant.

" 8 We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly; we also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God."

So, there is no evidence of anything actually being removed or left out, that’s just something Mormons believe happened?

To add to your contradicts statement, it appears there is nothing NOT in the Bible that contradicts Mormon doctrine.

You yourself quoted my “source”, and now I will say it for the third time. I will say it no more.

While you consider yourself to have said “enough”, please understand I feel you have made no attempt to explain your interpretation other than simply stating it’s so.

Since you are unwilling to breakdown the passage with an explanation of how Mormons take it to somehow mean, the keys to hell, I will break it down on why we reject such speculation.

There are two different verses. The first one is plain and states, “thou are Peter”, the Aramaic name used was Kephas which translate into rock. It goes on to say, "…and upon this “rock” I will build my Church. Catholics believe that rock is Peter, Kephas, that Christ built Him Church upon. Finally, it states, “…and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it”. It doesn’t say, because the Church holds the keys to hell, it is assumed by Christians to mean, Christ promises nothing, even the most unimaginable evil such as the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

**Mat 16:18 And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. **

Now in verse two, it’s hard to see any confusion as the Lord’s words are specific, “AND”, this word “and” seems to indicate the Lord has moved on to another point, other than the gates of hell. The Lord said, “I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven”. May I suggest you read Isaiah 22:22, for an understanding of the Biblical meaning of “keys”. For a full understanding, I’d suggest reading the entire passage containing verse 22. You can also see more about Biblical keys by reading 1 Chronicles 9.

Christ confirms the authority given to Peter by stating, “whatsoever thou shall bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsover thou shall loose on earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven”. It appears to say, the doctrines of that Church is the keys to heaven and whatsoever Peter declares as doctrine in that Church will be the same in Heaven.

Mat 16:19 And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.

Isa 22:22 And I will lay the key of the house of David upon his shoulder: and he shall open, and none shall shut: and he shall shut, and none shall open.

It is difficult to quote lost scriptures. But I don’t know why you want to limit your own church’s authority by saying that it does not include the keys to hades. What else is NOT under authority of the Catholic church?

I can just imagine how difficult it would be to quote “lost” scriptures. Especially 1800 years later and the fact that the “lost” scriptures were never found.

I am not limiting the Church’s authority. I just have trouble adding something to scriptures that is not there.

No, as I have told you numerous times before, I am here to ask my own questions about Catholicsm. If you want to learn about Mormonism, I suggest you go to a Mormon website. I cannot learn about Catholicism anywhere else. My purpose in this thread was to question the Catholic interpretation of the “gates of hell” prophecy, and I am about done with that question, thank you very much.

Seems like I am learning more than enough about Mormonism here. I’d like to recommend you be careful with your invitations as it could certainly be misconstrued as a form of proseltizing.

Before you completely consider yourself done with your "question about the Catholic interpretation of the “gates of hell” prophesy, I would certainly like to see you breakdown the scriptures, as I’ve done above, to show how you arrive at your interpretation.

You’re welcome very much.

 

[RAR]

As I have told you before, Mormons do not believe the bible is inerrant. I personally believe there is nothing in the bible which CONTRADICTS Mormon doctrine, which is very different from saying the bible is inerrant.

" 8 We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly; we also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God."

scriptures.lds.org/a_of_f/1/1-13#1

You yourself quoted my “source”, and now I will say it for the third time. I will say it no more.

It is difficult to quote lost scriptures. But I don’t know why you want to limit your own church’s authority by saying that it does not include the keys to hades. What else is NOT under authority of the Catholic church?

No, as I have told you numerous times before, I am here to ask my own questions about Catholicsm. If you want to learn about Mormonism, I suggest you go to a Mormon website. I cannot learn about Catholicism anywhere else. My purpose in this thread was to question the Catholic interpretation of the “gates of hell” prophecy, and I am about done with that question, thank you very much.

Hi mfbukowski,

Thank you for this. I want to ask a question and put forth a couple of passages. I just discussed these with a friend of mine, who is Mormon, and he is going to look into it, but I’m wondering if he’ll reject them because the LDS believe the Bible is only divinely inspired “in as much as it is interpreted correctly.”

You say you don’t see anything contradictory to your Mormon beliefs… please help me understand your belief on the following passages:
Hebrews 1:1-4 - summary - days of the prophets are over and God has given us his definitive word, Jesus (i.e. no more public revelation)
Galations 1:8 - if anyone, even an angel should preach a contrary gospel, let them be anathema (or cursed)

If you’ve already tackled these, then don’t feel obligated to answer. I’m just trying to better understand my Mormon friends and their beliefs in the face of what I see to be difficult Bible verses.

Thanks,
RAR

 

[mfbukowski]

Hi mfbukowski,

Thank you for this. I want to ask a question and put forth a couple of passages. I just discussed these with a friend of mine, who is Mormon, and he is going to look into it, but I’m wondering if he’ll reject them because the LDS believe the Bible is only divinely inspired “in as much as it is interpreted correctly.”

You say you don’t see anything contradictory to your Mormon beliefs… please help me understand your belief on the following passages:
Hebrews 1:1-4 - summary - days of the prophets are over and God has given us his definitive word, Jesus (i.e. no more public revelation)
Galations 1:8 - if anyone, even an angel should preach a contrary gospel, let them be anathema (or cursed)

If you’ve already tackled these, then don’t feel obligated to answer. I’m just trying to better understand my Mormon friends and their beliefs in the face of what I see to be difficult Bible verses.

Thanks,
RAR

Hebrews 1:1-4 KJV
**1 God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,
2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed cheir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;
3 Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high;
4 Being made so much better than the angels, as he hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they. **

Seems pretty straightforward to me. God spoke to the prophets in the past. While Jesus was on the earth, prophets were unnecessarry because Jesus himself was here. He was more excellent than they were, or angels. So when Jesus leaves the earth, after his death, we need prophets again. It says nothing about no new revelation ever again.

Galatians 1-

1 Paul, an apostle, (not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from the dead)
2 And all the brethren which are with me, unto the churches of Galatia:
3 Grace be to you and peace from God the Father, and from our Lord Jesus Christ,
4 Who agave himself for our sins, that he might deliver us from this present evil world, according to the will of God and our Father:
5 To whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen.
6 I marvel that ye are so soon aremoved from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel:
7 Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ.
8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any bother gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.
9 As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed

This is interesting because verse 6 shows that the church was already going into apostasy. He is marveling that they are already moved to another gospel, and condemning it.

We of course do not preach “another gospel” but the “original gospel” which is the same one Paul preached.

Seems pretty straightforward to me-- it shouldn’t be a problem for any Mormon to figure those out!

Oh, and we believe the bible insofar as it is “TRANSLATED CORRECTLY” NOT “INTERPRETED” CORRECTLY.

But I really have never had any problems with any translations I have come across.

He must be new in the church to go ask someone how to read these scriptures.

 

[mfbukowski]

Seems like I am learning more than enough about Mormonism here. I’d like to recommend you be careful with your invitations as it could certainly be misconstrued as a form of proseltizing.

Before you completely consider yourself done with your "question about the Catholic interpretation of the “gates of hell” prophesy, I would certainly like to see you breakdown the scriptures, as I’ve done above, to show how you arrive at your interpretation.

You’re welcome very much.

On one hand you ask me about my interpretation and then you dig me for prosletizing. You crack me up.

I already broke it down. Read the thread. You keep harping on Peter and the stones – what is that like 4 times you have posted that with the aramaic and greek and the masculine and feminine-- no problem – I have no problem with Peter being whatever you say.

You say he didn’t have the keys to hell. I say he should have had them. So how many times do you want to repeat that ?

Read the thread about the gates of hell if you want to.

I thought you told me you weren’t going to argue with me anymore?

You told me that like a month ago-- any more of this and I will ignore you completely. You repeat and repeat the same stuff.

 

[RAR]

Hebrews 1:1-4 KJV
**1 God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, **
**2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed cheir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds; **
**3 Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high; **
**4 Being made so much better than the angels, as he hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they. **

Seems pretty straightforward to me. God spoke to the prophets in the past. While Jesus was on the earth, prophets were unnecessarry because Jesus himself was here. He was more excellent than they were, or angels. So when Jesus leaves the earth, after his death, we need prophets again. It says nothing about no new revelation ever again.

Galatians 1-

***1 Paul, an apostle, (not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from the dead) ***
***2 And all the brethren which are with me, unto the churches of Galatia: ***
***3 Grace be to you and peace from God the Father, and from our Lord Jesus Christ, ***
***4 Who agave himself for our sins, that he might deliver us from this present evil world, according to the will of God and our Father: ***
***5 To whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen. ***
***6 I marvel that ye are so soon aremoved from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel: ***
***7 Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. ***
***8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any bother gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. ***
9 As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed

This is interesting because verse 6 shows that the church was already going into apostasy. He is marveling that they are already moved to another gospel, and condemning it.

We of course do not preach “another gospel” but the “original gospel” which is the same one Paul preached.

Seems pretty straightforward to me-- it shouldn’t be a problem for any Mormon to figure those out!

Oh, and we believe the bible insofar as it is “TRANSLATED CORRECTLY” NOT “INTERPRETED” CORRECTLY.

But I really have never had any problems with any translations I have come across.

He must be new in the church to go ask someone how to read these scriptures.

No, great guy and I think he may have been humoring me.

The KJV is “translated” differently (little rib there) and that translation doesn’t emphasize Christ’s word being final. This translation does also say “in these last days” we are spoken to by Christ. But I hope you can agree that the passage as translated by the KJV doesn’t support either of our stances very well.

But the Galatians passage is dismissed a little too easily and I think your understanding of it is a little hopeful. Paul was exercising the very authority Christ left to the Church, which was the means to preserve it until the end of time.

It would be naive to insist this is a proof that a “great” apostasy occurred. To this day all churches, including the LDS, deal with members going astray and need to lovingly urge them home.

I’ve always thought this should cause great concern to a Mormon considering its mentioning of another gospel preached by an angel.

RAR

p.s. And thank you, “translated,” not “interpreted” it is.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

On one hand you ask me about my interpretation and then you dig me for prosletizing. You crack me up.

I already broke it down. Read the thread. You keep harping on Peter and the stones – what is that like 4 times you have posted that with the aramaic and greek and the masculine and feminine-- no problem – I have no problem with Peter being whatever you say.

You say he didn’t have the keys to hell. I say he should have had them. So how many times do you want to repeat that ?

Read the thread about the gates of hell if you want to.

I thought you told me you weren’t going to argue with me anymore?

You told me that like a month ago-- any more of this and I will ignore you completely. You repeat and repeat the same stuff.

Actually, I continued discussing the “gates of hell” and these keys you cannot support with any scriptural or other source.

As many of us here on these forums have tried to tell you, repeating things does not make them true. Repeat “keys to hell” all you want, until you provide support or an explanation, I don’t think anyone is going to listen.

What I told you was, I am not going to argue with you. I did say, however, I would question what appears to be unsupportable statements for the sake of others who might be reading and considering what you say. With this re-stated, I’m not arguing…I’m questioning. I cannot help it if the questions are too tough. That’s not true, when it comes to spiritual things, I am going to ask as tough a question as I can.

Maybe you should consider your statements (or thread topics that you start) and whether or not they are supportable before bringing them up?

 

[mfbukowski]

No, great guy and I think he may have been humoring me.

The KJV is “translated” differently (little rib there) and that translation doesn’t emphasize Christ’s word being final. This translation does also say “in these last days” we are spoken to by Christ. But I hope you can agree that the passage as translated by the KJV doesn’t support either of our stances very well.

But the Galatians passage is dismissed a little too easily and I think your understanding of it is a little hopeful. Paul was exercising the very authority Christ left to the Church, which was the means to preserve it until the end of time.

It would be naive to insist this is a proof that a “great” apostasy occurred. To this day all churches, including the LDS, deal with members going astray and need to lovingly urge them home.

I’ve always thought this should cause great concern to a Mormon considering its mentioning of another gospel preached by an angel.

RAR

p.s. And thank you, “translated,” not “interpreted” it is.

Yes but…

We have an answer for that one

Revelation 14:

"6 **And I saw another angel fly in the midst of heaven, having the everlasting gospel to preach unto them that dwell on the earth, and to every nation, and kindred, and tongue, and people, **
7 Saying with a loud voice, Fear God, and give glory to him; for the hour of his judgment is come: and worship dhim that made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and the fountains of waters.
8 And there followed another angel, saying, Babylon is fallen, is fallen, that great city, because she made all nations drink of the wine of the wrath of her fornication.
9 And the third angel followed them, saying with a loud voice, If any man worship the beast and his image, and receive his mark in his forehead, or in his hand,
10 The same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out without mixture into the cup of his indignation; and he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb: "

… and it goes on

But we believe the “other angel flying in the midst of heaven” was Moroni restoring the gospel to JS.

This obviously refers to the latter days in which an angel will appear and preach the gospel.

For Catholics, who is that? Bet YOU don’t have an answer for that one!

 

[mfbukowski]

Actually, I continued discussing the “gates of hell” and these keys you cannot support with any scriptural or other source.

As many of us here on these forums have tried to tell you, repeating things does not make them true. Repeat “keys to hell” all you want, until you provide support or an explanation, I don’t think anyone is going to listen.

What I told you was, I am not going to argue with you. I did say, however, I would question what appears to be unsupportable statements for the sake of others who might be reading and considering what you say. With this re-stated, I’m not arguing…I’m questioning. I cannot help it if the questions are too tough. That’s not true, when it comes to spiritual things, I am going to ask as tough a question as I can.

Maybe you should consider your statements (or thread topics that you start) and whether or not they are supportable before bringing them up?

As I said before, I don’t care if anyone listens or not.

As I have told you inumerable times, I am here to answer my own questions, not preach Mormonism or try to convert anyone.

I am sure all the people you think are so stupid who post here are glad you are here to protect them with your brilliance.

What I have convinced myself of in this thread is that the “gates of hell prophecy” has absolutely no possible interpretation the way that Catholics interpret it – of justifying apostolic succession.

I am sure that I am the only one here now convinced of that, and that’s fine with me.

And how come you didn’t repeat the Peter Cephas stuff?

 

[Robert_in_SD]

I have noticed that in arguments between Catholics and Mormons on apostolic succession, sooner or later the Catholic will bring up the “gates of hell…”

Hello mfb. Good to talk again. I’m joining this conversation late, but wanted to begin by responding to your initial post. I’ve skimmed the other responses. My apologies if I repeat some things.

I’m not sure if this clarification has been made, but you’re really discussing two separate fine points: (1) the primacy of Peter; and (2) succession of Peter’s authority. It may be easier to tackle these two topics separately. That being said…

First, it should be noted that Mt. 16:18 is not the only scripturall source for; (1) the primacy of Peter; and (2) apostolic succession. But it is a key text. That is why it is repeated frequently.

Second, it bears repeating that - like the LDS - Catholics do not see the bible alone as the sole source for doctrine. There is the whole Deposit of Faith that includes Sacred Tradition, Scriptures and the teaching authority of the Church. So, to say that Catholics *only *have Mt. 16:18 as their sole authority for papal succession as you did above is inaccurate
mfb:

This scripture seems to be the cornerstone to the Catholic belief that there would never be an apostasy…

Peter is chosen by Jesus as the Rock (Kepha) on which He will build His Church. Simon bar Jonah is specifically renamed such to illustrate this point. The strong statement of a rock foundation based on Peter seems incredible but you have to understand that Catholics see the name and title of Rock as arising from Peter’s faith. Protestants will try to separate the Petrine faith as merely “confessional faith alone” (stating that this passage means that faith in Christ will protect us from the gates of hell. But the clear text shows that Peter’s faith in Christ establishes Peter as the Rock -the foundation for the Church Jesus promises to build here; and against which the gates of hell will not prevail. Note that Jesus did not mention building his Church on the Rock of Joseph Smith. Yet, this is what LDS believe… because they believe Peter’s Church totally failed by apostacy.
mfb:

But Mormons typically have no problem “getting around” that view.

I would agree that you must - to justify the need for a restoration - reinterpret this passage to mean that the gates of hell will not prevail against something other than the church Christ will later build on Peter. But the attempts become quite attenuated.
mfb:

One answer a Mormon might give is “That prophecy is right. The gates of hell have not prevailed against the true church, the LDS church”.

First, I don’t see it as a Prophecy. It is a promise to Peter and the others that the gates of hell will not prevail against the Church founded on “this Rock” (Peter). Second, I don’t see any evidence that the LDS Church is the same Church promised by Christ in Mt. 16:18. If you disagree, then please describe the Petrine connection to the LDS ecclesial community?
mfb:

Another Mormon answer is that the “rock” being referred to is not Peter at all, but the “rock of revelation”.

I think this too is attenuated and little more than reading LDS doctrine into scripture where it is not supported by the text. Why is it that Simon is renamed “Rock” (Kepha) if the act of revealing Christ’s divinity to Peter is the “rock?” This interpretation makes the meaning and integrity of the passage inconsistent.
mfb:

Still another Mormon answer I have seen is the belief that this prophecy has nothing to do with apostasy or apostolic succession, but is in fact referring to ministry for the dead which Catholics see as prayers for those in purgatory, and Mormons see as vicarious ordinance work for the dead, including baptism for the dead as mentioned in 1Corinthians 15:29.

Setting aside your comment about Catholic “ministry for the dead” and just focusing on your LDS interpretation, I’d not you to tell me how such an interpretation is supported? How does this interpretation square with the context of the rest of the passage and the chapter, etc? It seems to me that this is simply wishful thinking or the result of personal LDS scriptural meditation, and not the outcome of any real theological study.
mfb:

Those who take this position hold that when Jesus “descended into hell” (as per the Apostles Creed, and other scriptural references) He in fact, smashed the “gates of hell” and so these gates did not prevail against His church.

In the sense that he conquered sin and death, that is true. But this understanding differs from the manner in which the term “gates of hell” are used in Mt. 16. The gates of hell never prevailing against the Church means the Church will never be defeated… it will remain. That promise, directly from the mouth of Jesus Christ, makes the LDS claim of a Great Apostacy a factual impossibility.
mfb:

Did the reformation show that the Church had apostasized and thus that the “gates of hell” DID prevail? Or was the prophecy about Christianity in general, and so the gates did NOT prevail?

The reformation means that many left the true Church founded by Jesus Christ on Peter who was chosen because of the example of his faith. They Church was in need of some reformation, but not doctrinal change. The problems that were in the Church at the time of the reformation were the result of personal sin and corruption, but that does not mean the Church was teaching falsity as truth. Indeed, the Church has remained true to the Deposit of Faith from the beginning. And even the very term - reformation - implies that the Church has continued and has not Apostatized.

Peace,
-Robert

 

[mfbukowski]

Hello mfb. Good to talk again. I’m joining this conversation late, but wanted to begin by responding to your initial post. I’ve skimmed the other responses. My apologies if I repeat some things.

I’m not sure if this clarification has been made, but you’re really discussing two separate fine points: (1) the primacy of Peter; and (2) succession of Peter’s authority. It may be easier to tackle these two topics separately. That being said…

First, it should be noted that Mt. 16:18 is not the only scripturall source for; (1) the primacy of Peter; and (2) apostolic succession. But it is a key text. That is why it is repeated frequently.

Second, it bears repeating that - like the LDS - Catholics do not see the bible alone as the sole source for doctrine. There is the whole Deposit of Faith that includes Sacred Tradition, Scriptures and the teaching authority of the Church.
Peace,
-Robert

Robert my buddy

Let me bring you up to speed. It is a long and winding thread, but unfortunately for you, I recommend that you read it.

I have no problem with the primacy of Peter. We acknowledge it. We believe that Peter James and John were the “first presidency” of the church. The Peter Kepha thing has been beaten to death, and it was never even in question.

I also know and acknowledge that YOU accept your tradition as valid as scripture. I of course do not.

Let me explain my sole purpose for starting this thread.

When Catholics argue for apostolic succession, they invariably end up with the “gates of hell” verse.

My sole purpose in this thread was to ask if there was ANY evidence that in fact the gates of hell verse referred to apostolic succession

That was my question. Only that. I am not talking about the apostasy or if your priesthood is valid – not here. I am not asking if Peter was the first pope rightfully.

I am only asking if that one scripture VALIDLY “proves” that the church could not lose authority.

One scripture, one simple question. DOES IT OR DOES IT NOT PROVE THAT THE CHURCH COULD NOT LOSE AUTHORITY.

My personal conclusion is that it’s clear to me that it is not even talking about church authority, except in the case of church authority to preach to the dead, which authority the catholic church does apparantly not even use or care if it has.

Your church interprets that scripture differently than both Protestants and Mormons.

I agree with our interpretation, not surprisingly.

That’s it! If you want to read on, go ahead. I always welcome your (name removed by moderator)ut-- you have a fine legal mind and we understand eachother. But frankly, I think my mind is made up, so don’t do it for me!

So if that is the sole biblical authority for apostolic succession, and if that doesn’t prove apostolic succession, my conclusion is that Catholics have no biblical authority for apostolic succession. So for me, the Protestant and Mormon interpretation of that one scripture stands.

 

[AshleyBelle]

This is the danger of viewing scripture outside of Sacred Tradtion. The Bible is not meant to “stand alone” or “apart” from tradition. It is meant to be understood and revealed THROUGH tradition. The passage you are referring to only supports the understanding the church has had from its infancy BEFORE the scriptures even existed. There is historical documentation of every pope from Peter to present day.

It’s ridiculous to pull this passage of scripture out and dismiss apostolic succession because it is not “defined” well enough for you to be personally convinced.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

As I said before, I don’t care if anyone listens or not.

As I have told you inumerable times, I am here to answer my own questions, not preach Mormonism or try to convert anyone.

What are your questions? It appears you automatically reject any answer provided on these forums and make assertions that only you, Mormons, have all the answers.

I am sure all the people you think are so stupid who post here are glad you are here to protect them with your brilliance.

I remember this tactic. Paint the one who asks tough questions as the bad guy!

Are you saying anyone who listens to Mormon theology is stupid?

Let me try and make this clear, I don’t think people are stupid. I think some people come here seeking answers or possibly looking to strengthen their faith and simply want to provide them both sides of the story between Catholicism and Mormonism. We call it defending the faith! I actually believe you make it personal or throw in the extras like above to “cloud” the issues being discussed.

What I have convinced myself of in this thread is that the “gates of hell prophecy” has absolutely no possible interpretation the way that Catholics interpret it – of justifying apostolic succession.

I am sure that I am the only one here now convinced of that, and that’s fine with me.

And how come you didn’t repeat the Peter Cephas stuff?

Peter, Kephas stuff comes up because it’s only a “part” of the scripture, or interpretation, you “question”. Apostolic sucession is more than possible, when one opens their mind to the authority being established through Peter, (Mat 16:19) And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.

I think the problem exists in trying to limit the discussion entirely on the one sentence that specifically speaks about the “gates of hell”.

You say you don’t question Peter’s authority/primacy, please tell us what the Mormon interpretation is of “And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven”, and how it limits Peter from establishing apostolic succession?

Acts 1 clearly shows Peter exercising his authority, specifically addressing apostolic succession by replacing Judas.

**Act 1:15 In those days Peter rising up in the midst of the brethren, said (now the number of persons together was about an hundred and twenty):
Act 1:16 Men, brethren, the scripture must needs be fulfilled, which the Holy Ghost spoke before by the mouth of David concerning Judas, who was the leader of them that apprehended Jesus:
Act 1:17 Who was numbered with us, and had obtained part of this ministry.
Act 1:18 And he indeed hath possessed a field of the reward of iniquity, and being hanged, burst asunder in the midst: and all his bowels gushed out.
Act 1:19 And it became known to all the inhabitants of Jerusalem: so that the same field was called in their tongue, Haceldama, that is to say, The field of blood.
Act 1:20 For it is written in the book of Psalms: Let their habitation become desolate, and let there be none to dwell therein. And his bishopric let another take.
Act 1:21 Wherefore of these men who have companied with us, all the time that the Lord Jesus came in and went out among us,
Act 1:22 Beginning from the baptism of John, until the day wherein he was taken up from us, one of these must be made a witness with us of his resurrection.
Act 1:23 And they appointed two, Joseph, called Barsabas, who was surnamed Justus, and Matthias.
Act 1:24 And praying, they said: Thou, Lord, who knowest the heart of all men, shew whether of these two thou hast chosen,
Act 1:25 To take the place of this ministry and apostleship, from which Judas hath by transgression fallen, that he might go to his own place.
Act 1:26 And they gave them lot, and the lot fell upon Matthias, and he was numbered with the eleven apostles. **

 

[mfbukowski]

You say you don’t question Peter’s authority/primacy,

I don’t.
So why waste another thousand word post proving it? You crack me up.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

I don’t.
So why waste another thousand word post proving it? You crack me up.

The usual “why waste time”, huh? I’ll tell you why you should, in my opinion. I provide an explanation and scriptures to support apostolic succession and you clearly avoid responding and making this a “real” discussion. I think your lack of response speaks volumes, as well as shows you’re not truly interested in really discussing the topic. It sure seems to be you have another agenda in mind.

 

[mfbukowski]

The usual “why waste time”, huh? I’ll tell you why you should, in my opinion. I provide an explanation and scriptures to support apostolic succession and you clearly avoid responding and making this a “real” discussion. I think your lack of response speaks volumes, as well as shows you’re not truly interested in really discussing the topic. It sure seems to be you have another agenda in mind.

I AGREE WITH YOU THAT IS WHY I DID NOT RESPOND. PETER WAS THE FIRST PROPHET POPE WHATEVER YOU WANT TO CALL HIM. HE WAS FOLLOWED BY ALL THOSE OTHER GUYS MENTIONED IN ACTS.
You are unbelievable. You won’t even LET me agree with you. You don’t get my point at all do you?

 

[mfbukowski]

There is no biblical authority for apostolic succession after the biblical account of apostolic succession.

Once those first guys died out, it was gone.

The gates of hell prophecy does not prove it went past those guys mentioned in acts

AFTER THE FIRST CENTURY, THERE WAS AN APOSTASY.

 

[notsmart]

Was there a need for a prophet in the USA so many years after the many martyrs who gladly gave their lives for Christ?

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

There is no biblical authority for apostolic succession after the biblical account of apostolic succession.

Once those first guys died out, it was gone.

The gates of hell prophecy does not prove it went past those guys mentioned in acts

AFTER THE FIRST CENTURY, THERE WAS AN APOSTASY.

So you believe Christ was limited on the authority he could pass to Peter? Or, you believe Peter did not have the authority to establish apostolic succession?

You know for a first century apostasy, here we go again, the Bible is “apostate”. The canon of the Bible was not established until the 4th century.

Now, you persist in asserting that there was an apostasy, that’s right I’m going to ask for your evidence…

I really get the feeling you are not here to answer questions, for yourself or us. You are not honestly entering into discussions. You see how Catholics produce explanations and sources to support our positions. We see how you continually repeat statements and nothing else.

And I crack you up?