Considering Leaving Mormonism For Traditional Christianity...

[xixxvmcm85]

This right here is a perfect example of the LDS tendency to toss anything to the wall in hopes that it will stick, even when what may stick doesn’t bode well for the LDS either! Gazelam’s argument here is what those familiar with rhetoric would call a Red Herring.

Here are a couple of suggestions along these lines. Google “Cardinal Rebiba”. When you do you’ll find out that the 90% of Catholic Bishops trace their priesthood lineage through him and that it is unknown who ordained Cardinal Rebiba.

The conclusion you’re trying to prove is that there was a total apostasy of the Catholic Church and that the LDS Church is the restored Church as it was pre-apostasy. You only have two explicit premises here:

1. It is unknown who ordained Cardinal Rebiba,
2. 90% of today’s Catholic Bishops trace their episcopal lineage back to Cardinal Rebiba.

Implicit in your quote above are the premises that:

1. When it is uncertain who ordained a particular Bishop, that Bishop should be presumed invalidly ordained.
2. One possible cause of apostasy is the invalid ordination of Bishops,
3. Cardinal Rebiba was invalidly ordained.

Even if I were to grant you every single one of your premises here, both explicit and implicit, all you’ve shown is that 10% of today’s Catholic Bishops are valid bishops. For there to be even a single valid bishop today means that there was no apostasy of the Church! Therefore the first part of your conclusion is a non sequitur as it does not logically follow from your premises.

Let’s now assume that 100% of today’s Catholic Bishops trace their episcopacy back to Cardinal Rebiba, let’s assume that the Orthodox do not exist at all, and let’s still assume that all of your premises are true. Cardinal Rebiba was consecrated a Bishop May 14, 1541. If Cardinal Rebiba is indeed the cause of the apostasy (an apostasy which you still have not demonstrated using this line of argumentation), AND the LDS Church is the restored Church then it would necessarily follow that the Catholic Church was not in apostasy just prior to Cardinal Rebiba, and we should expect there to be LDS doctrine taught by that Church.

You LDS have troubles showing that there was a cohesive Church of Jesus Christ of Former-day Saints within a couple hundred years of the Apostolic Age let alone in the 16th century! Indeed The Catholic Church prior to Cardinal Rebiba was still professing the Nicene Creed, eating the body and blood of her God at every Mass, teaching the Trinity and professing the imminent judgement of the Soul at mortal death. The Catholic Church of the 16th century was not teaching eternal marriage, not professing posthumous salvation, not partaking in a symbolic Lord’s Supper, not teaching that the Father and the Son were of different substance, and certainly did not have private temple rites. The second part of your conclusion is, thus, yet to be demonstrated.

You and I both know well that neither you nor any other Latter-day Saint genuinely believe that the alleged apostasy occurred so late, so I must ask, why did you even bring up Cardinal Rebiba? How is he at all relevant to this discussion?

 

[xixxvmcm85]

I don’t believe there was an apostasy, but citing the early church fathers as proof of one singular belief or doctrine is just blind dogma from anyone who does it. Their beliefs were so varied and changed so often that it is merely an exercise in selective quotations.

I disagree. While it is true that using a small sample of quotations from the Church Fathers is an exercise in futility (especially so the fewer of them you consult), the larger the sample becomes the more likely the doctrine in question was a genuine teaching of the historic Church. It’s the near ubiquity with which one finds pro-Real Presence quotations and the near absence thereof among the Church Fathers that we can conclude that the Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist is probably the most certain of Apostolic teachings we have today.

Really its much like an opinion poll. Taking a poll of a small fraction of a representative sample and/or using a single datum tells us nothing, and you will indeed get skewed results. The larger the data become, and the more representative the sample is, the more confidence we have in ascribing the results of the poll to the population at large.

 

[pablope]

This right here is a perfect example of the LDS tendency to toss anything to the wall in hopes that it will stick, even when what may stick doesn’t bode well for the LDS either! Gazelam’s argument here is what those familiar with rhetoric would call a Red Herring.

You and I both know well that neither you nor any other Latter-day Saint genuinely believe that the alleged apostasy occurred so late, so I must ask, why did you even bring up Cardinal Rebiba? How is he at all relevant to this discussion?

I think I had seen this in another thread…not exactly sure when…the point being made, I surmised…is that apostolic succession is not true since no records can be traced before Cardinal Rebiba…which fails to account there records has been lost…

 

[BA11]

I disagree. While it is true that using a small sample of quotations from the Church Fathers is an exercise in futility (especially so the fewer of them you consult), the larger the sample becomes the more likely the doctrine in question was a genuine teaching of the historic Church. It’s the near ubiquity with which one finds pro-Real Presence quotations and the near absence thereof among the Church Fathers that we can conclude that the Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist is probably the most certain of Apostolic teachings we have today.

To an extent perhaps, but it’s also very easy to use many of those quotes to show that there is a distinction between the real presence and transubstatiation. Many protestants believe in the “real presence” in as much as Jesus is with them in spirit at communion. Not every ECF citation indicates literal blood and body thinking. That’s more what I’m talking about. Augustine may have died believing in it being symbolic, the real presence OR a literal change depending on which of his writings he finally settled on.

Really its much like an opinion poll. Taking a poll of a small fraction of a representative sample and/or using a single datum tells us nothing, and you will indeed get skewed results. The larger the data become, and the more representative the sample is, the more confidence we have in ascribing the results of the poll to the population at large.

Even if this is the case, not every catholic teaching is supported by bulk ECF opinion. Purgatory, or the concept of such a place, is all over the map. There is little support for the veneration of Mary. Praying for the dead was almost unanimous among the ECF, but only because of the bred in jewish culture and tradition and later the incorporation of lifelong pagans into the church in the 4th century. Several dogmatic teachings are literally not mentioned by any of them and the very ideas didnt originate until centuries after Christ.

Likewise many protestants selecively site them as well, yet few subscribed to OSAS and sola-scriptura versus tradition is all over the place.

It’s just really hard to use such writings 1,600-2,000 years later to prove any real point IMO.

 

[xixxvmcm85]

I think I had seen this in another thread…not exactly sure when…the point being made, I surmised…is that apostolic succession is not true since no records can be traced before Cardinal Rebiba…which fails to account there records has been lost…

But that’s not what he’s actually alleging. What is being alleged is that Cardinal Rebiba’s episcopal ordination cannot be substantiated, not that there were no records of Apostolic Succession prior to Cardinal Rebiba.

 

[xixxvmcm85]

To an extent perhaps, but it’s also very easy to use many of those quotes to show that there is a distinction between the real presence and transubstatiation.

I should suppose so since transubstantiation was used as a sort of ad hoc explanation (a mechanism if you will) of a doctrine which was already believed. This is why I purposefully said “Real Presence” instead of “Transubstantiation”.

Many protestants believe in the “real presence” in as much as Jesus is with them in spirit at communion.

I have never heard of anyone using “real presence” to refer to a spiritual presence, and I find this redefinition of painfully obvious terminology to be a bit tenuous.

Not every ECF citation indicates literal blood and body thinking. That’s more what I’m talking about. Augustine may have died believing in it being symbolic, the real presence OR a literal change depending on which of his writings he finally settled on.

I’m sorry, I have never come across a quote by St. Augustine of Hippo which denied the Real Presence. Even so, you’ll notice in my post which you quoted I said “near ubiquity” versus the “near absence” of such quotes. My point still stands.

Even if this is the case, not every catholic teaching is supported by bulk ECF opinion.

I don’t believe I’ve ever claimed the contrary! Of course not every Catholic teaching can be supported using the preponderance of ECF teaching. That doesn’t mean there aren’t some teachings that can be.

 

[xixxvmcm85]

I think I had seen this in another thread…not exactly sure when…the point being made, I surmised…is that apostolic succession is not true since no records can be traced before Cardinal Rebiba…which fails to account there records has been lost…

I’m sorry, I think I misread this the first time I responded. It seems now that you’re assuming essentially the same thing as I: that the missing chain in the link knocks the whole fence down.

This is why I took the time to very systematically spell out the premises used (and the ones that seemed implicitly stated) to come to Gazelam’s conclusion, and show using deductive logic that his conclusion does not follow from those premises. I wanted to make it as clear as possible that Cardinal Rebiba is entirely irrelevant to the LDS claims concerning an apostasy because:

1. There are still 10% of Bishops who do not trace their lineage to Cardinal Rebiba, and
2. Even if 100% of the Bishops today did trace their lineage to him, Gazelam (nor any other LDS that I know of) doesn’t actually believe the apostasy occurred in the 16th century precisely because it is impossible for the LDS to show that there were proto-Mormons then.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Here are a couple of suggestions along these lines. Google “Cardinal Rebiba”. When you do you’ll find out that the 90% of Catholic Bishops trace their priesthood lineage through him and that it is unknown who ordained Cardinal Rebiba. Also, I recommend reading “Apostles and Bishops in Early Christianity” by Hugh Nibley. I wish you well in your search for the truth.

Oh g, what a surprising thing to see coming from a Mormon, who I assume has done a lot of genealogical research!

If you research a line of your ancestry back as far as you can, to say 16th century Europe, and then…nothing. You find that you can’t trace that line back any farther because records over 500 years past are gone. Do you then assume that because you can’t find a record of the next ancestor that the last one you could document had no father or no mother?

Seriously, think about it.

The evidence is in the Catholic Church itself, who always ordains its Bishops, and it is a Bishop who does the ordination. It isn’t possible to have an ordained Bishop that wasn’t ordained by a Bishop, because that Bishop was ordained by a Bishop, who was ordained by a Bishop, who was ordained by a Bishop, etc. That is how it is done, and how it has been done since the time of the Apostles.

You can search for a Catholic ordination of a Bishop online, and find a video of a real, live, ordination. You might be surprised.

But if you want to know how a bottleneck in the episcopal genealogy occurred, you can look to Pope Benedict XIII, who personally consecrated 139 Bishops, who then were assigned to various parts of Europe and the Americas. They then ordained Bishops, who ordained Bishops, who ordained Bishops, etc.

So the majority of Roman Catholic Bishops today have an episcopal genealogy that goes back to Pope Benedict XIII. HIs episcopal genealogy goes back to Cardinal Rebiba.

A bottleneck in a genealogy, while interesting, does not indicate anything about Apostolic Succession.

 

[xixxvmcm85]

If you research a line of your ancestry back as far as you can, to say 16th century Europe, and then…nothing. You find that you can’t trace that line back any farther because records over 500 years past are gone. Do you then assume that because you can’t find a record of the next ancestor that the last one you could document had no father or no mother?

I came really close to saying it myself, but thought it was a bit too cheeky.

 

[RebeccaJ]

I came really close to saying it myself, but thought it was a bit too cheeky.

 

[Z_Ninja]

Thanks. And yes, I will definitely be looking at both Catholicism and Orthodoxy.

I like how I was watching CNN earlier this morning, and Cardinal Dolan from NYC was speaking, and he said that Jesus guides His church, and ensures that a successor of Peter is always chosen, and that there is always an earthly leader of His church. That was interesting to hear.

What you said here reminded me once of a conversation I had with my brother. Basically, he said that Jesus was a smart man and knew if he did not leave someone in charge, then his Church surely would fail or go into apostasy.Why would he NOT leave someone to continue to lead the Church under the Holy Spirit’s guidance?

 

[Stephen168]

… it is unknown …

That is the foundation of Mormonism. Joseph Smith and Brigham Young thought things were unknowable, so they could just make up stuff. They never thought science could expose their stories.

“All the original inhabitants of this continent are Jews”
“There are Quakers on the moon.”
“Some of the original inhabitants of this continent are Jews”
“I was visited by beings who varied in number and kind depending on the audience.”
“A handful of the original inhabitants of this continent are Jews; we just can’t prove it because zzzzzzzzzzzzz”

 

[havasupai]

Here are a couple of suggestions along these lines. Google “Cardinal Rebiba”. When you do you’ll find out that the 90% of Catholic Bishops trace their priesthood lineage through him and that it is unknown who ordained Cardinal Rebiba. Also, I recommend reading “Apostles and Bishops in Early Christianity” by Hugh Nibley. I wish you well in your search for the truth.

So that means that no one ordained that Cardinal and he just showed up one day and said “Hey everyone, I’m a bishop!” and everyone took him at his word? Catholics don’t have much to worry about if that is the best you can come up with. The Holy Spirit is not that incompetent to let the whole Church fall apart over one supposedly false bishop. That’s the great thing about being Catholic. We don’t have to rely on whose in charge in Rome or the holiness of individual leaders. The continuity and integrity of the Church depends on the faithfulness of Jesus Christ, not on men. I have faith in the Church precisely because I have faith in Jesus. If you are LDS then you have to believe that Jesus is always ready to walk away from his church and let it be wiped out if we or our leaders are not living up to our covenants. Every morning you have to wake up and ask “is the church still true, is it still being led by Christ or has it apostazied like it did before?” Who knows, maybe the FLDS are right and Jesus abandoned the SLC church when they caved in on polygamy.

As far as Nibley goes, I’ve learned by experience not to trust LDS apologetics on early Christianity. They almost always distort the history, take quotes from the Church Fathers out of context, and ignore 99% of what those Fathers actually said about the Church and the Catholic Faith.

 

[twopekinguys]

OK, just got back.

So I decided not to go to the temple (I’ll just go another time), as I really felt a “pull” to just give in and go to the cathedral. The schedule was the same as normal (though apparently one of the Masses was a special one for Benedict XVI and the next Pope). They had news trucks everywhere, though the cathedral wasn’t packed or anything.

So I walked around, and sat in front of the exposed Eucharist for awhile. I said a prayer in that chapel area, then lit a candle after. By the time I was done exploring, praying, and meditating, it was time for daily Mass, so I stayed for that. I said some of the things along with everyone else (I knew about the “and with your spirit” instead of “and also with you”, but the other changes I didn’t really know), while other things I didn’t join in (like the creed, “Lord, I am not worthy…”, etc, and of course didn’t partake of the Eucharist). Then after that, they had the Evening Devotion. There was incense, which I’ve missed (including its Biblical symbolism)! I didn’t stay for the whole thing, as it was going on longer than I expected to stay, but it was great. I was glad to see a good amount of young Catholics that seemed to be stopping in on their way home from work, as it’s always better to be around people your own age instead of being one young guy surrounded by old people, haha. Oh and I did bless myself entering and leaving with holy water.

So all in all, I’m really glad I went, it was a great experience. I thought a lot about the cross and the symbolism of the cross (what with all the making the sign of the cross, the crucifix, etc). There was also a sign that said to pray for Pope Benedict XVI, and it quoted Matthew 16:18, which was interesting. The whole time I was thinking about the continuity of true Christianity, and whether it would really be possible for a total apostasy to have occurred immediately after the establishment of the ancient Church. I also thought about what it means to partake of the body and blood of Christ, spiritual food, etc. I also stopped at the Michael the Archangel chapel (he’s my patron from my Confirmation way back when), and said a spontaneous prayer essentially saying, if you can really hear me, please help me in this spiritual battle that I’m in right now. Oh and there was a Holy Face of Jesus (I think that’s what it’s called) shrine area, so I’m gonna have to look into what that’s about, it had this interesting image there.

Next time I go will be during Holy Week!

I am going to keep this brief…HaHa!!

I’m so glad you went, and experienced what you did. Something many people forget/overlook is that the Mass involves all of our senses. We hear, see, smell, touch, taste. We are/should be fully involved.

I love that you contemplated on the cross. Many people complain about Catholics having the Corpus (body) on the cross, making it a crucifix. My response to them is “The cross by itself did nothing. What Christ DID on the cross is EVERYTHING”.

As far as going during Holy Week, all of the Masses/Liturgies are beautiful, but for me personally, Holy Thursday speak to me the most.

God Bless, still praying.

 

[LivingWaters7]

Here are a couple of suggestions along these lines. Google “Cardinal Rebiba”. When you do you’ll find out that the 90% of Catholic Bishops trace their priesthood lineage through him and that it is unknown who ordained Cardinal Rebiba. Also, I recommend reading “Apostles and Bishops in Early Christianity” by Hugh Nibley. I wish you well in your search for the truth.

Thanks for your suggestions.

I’m curious, as it seems others are, as to what you mean to imply by referring to the priesthood lineage of Cardinal Rebiba. Could you expand on why you suggested I look into that (which I did, thanks), as to its relevance “along these lines” in what you quoted me as pondering-total apostasy and loss of priesthood authority? And whatever your argument is, do you believe that it has relevance to the Eastern Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Bishops, who most certainly were not part of Rebiba’s priesthood lineage?

I do have Apostles and Bishops in Early Christianity by Nibley, as well as the book that he apparently refers to/relies upon, From Apostles to Bishops by Francis Sullivan, SJ. Thanks.

 

[Marie5890]

OK, just got back.

So I decided not to go to the temple (I’ll just go another time), as I really felt a “pull” to just give in and go to the cathedral. The schedule was the same as normal (though apparently one of the Masses was a special one for Benedict XVI and the next Pope). They had news trucks everywhere, though the cathedral wasn’t packed or anything.

So I walked around, and sat in front of the exposed Eucharist for awhile. I said a prayer in that chapel area, then lit a candle after. By the time I was done exploring, praying, and meditating, it was time for daily Mass, so I stayed for that. I said some of the things along with everyone else (I knew about the “and with your spirit” instead of “and also with you”, but the other changes I didn’t really know), while other things I didn’t join in (like the creed, “Lord, I am not worthy…”, etc, and of course didn’t partake of the Eucharist). Then after that, they had the Evening Devotion. There was incense, which I’ve missed (including its Biblical symbolism)! I didn’t stay for the whole thing, as it was going on longer than I expected to stay, but it was great. I was glad to see a good amount of young Catholics that seemed to be stopping in on their way home from work, as it’s always better to be around people your own age instead of being one young guy surrounded by old people, haha. Oh and I did bless myself entering and leaving with holy water.

So all in all, I’m really glad I went, it was a great experience. I thought a lot about the cross and the symbolism of the cross (what with all the making the sign of the cross, the crucifix, etc). There was also a sign that said to pray for Pope Benedict XVI, and it quoted Matthew 16:18, which was interesting. The whole time I was thinking about the continuity of true Christianity, and whether it would really be possible for a total apostasy to have occurred immediately after the establishment of the ancient Church. I also thought about what it means to partake of the body and blood of Christ, spiritual food, etc. I also stopped at the Michael the Archangel chapel (he’s my patron from my Confirmation way back when), and said a spontaneous prayer essentially saying, if you can really hear me, please help me in this spiritual battle that I’m in right now. Oh and there was a Holy Face of Jesus (I think that’s what it’s called) shrine area, so I’m gonna have to look into what that’s about, it had this interesting image there.

Next time I go will be during Holy Week!

Sounds like you found yourself spiritually fed and nourished.

That is important while one discerns especially if you sense you are in a spiritual battle, as you have suggested.
I have a great devotion to the angles and praying the Chaplet of St Michael is part of that for me. I will keep your needs and intentions that you expressed to St Michael before me as I pray the chaplet today.

God Bless

 

[twopekinguys]

Thanks for your suggestions.

I’m curious, as it seems others are, as to what you mean to imply by referring to the priesthood lineage of Cardinal Rebiba. Could you expand on why you suggested I look into that (which I did, thanks), as to its relevance “along these lines” in what you quoted me as pondering-total apostasy and loss of priesthood authority? And whatever your argument is, do you believe that it has relevance to the Eastern Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Bishops, who most certainly were not part of Rebiba’s priesthood lineage?

I do have Apostles and Bishops in Early Christianity by Nibley, as well as the book that he apparently refers to/relies upon, From Apostles to Bishops by Francis Sullivan, SJ. Thanks.

I’m guessing here, but I think he/she is trying to imply a break in apostolic succession.

We have to remember back in Cardinal Rebiba’s time, record keeping wasn’t done quite as well as it is today.

If the implication is that there was a break in apostolic authority, the I suggest we look at the lineage of the first presidency of the mormon church. There were several periods (some lasting years) where there was no president of the mormon church.

Notice the gaps between Smith and Young, then Young and Taylor.

lds.org/churchhistory/presidents/leaders.jsp

But I’m just guessing here.

 

[LivingWaters7]

What you said here reminded me once of a conversation I had with my brother. Basically, he said that Jesus was a smart man and knew if he did not leave someone in charge, then his Church surely would fail or go into apostasy.Why would he NOT leave someone to continue to lead the Church under the Holy Spirit’s guidance?

Yeah, definitely a good point. Not only was He a smart man, but smart God indeed.

I am going to keep this brief…HaHa!!

I’m so glad you went, and experienced what you did. Something many people forget/overlook is that the Mass involves all of our senses. We hear, see, smell, touch, taste. We are/should be fully involved.

I love that you contemplated on the cross. Many people complain about Catholics having the Corpus (body) on the cross, making it a crucifix. My response to them is “The cross by itself did nothing. What Christ DID on the cross is EVERYTHING”.

As far as going during Holy Week, all of the Masses/Liturgies are beautiful, but for me personally, Holy Thursday speak to me the most.

God Bless, still praying.

Ok, hopefully I’m off on Holy Thursday. I know I have to work (until 11pm) on Holy Saturday, so I’ll miss that.

Yeah it was great contemplating on the cross while I was there. I still do where my crucifix.

Sounds like you found yourself spiritually fed and nourished.

That is important while one discerns especially if you sense you are in a spiritual battle, as you have suggested.
I have a great devotion to the angles and praying the Chaplet of St Michael is part of that for me. I will keep your needs and intentions that you expressed to St Michael before me as I pray the chaplet today.

God Bless

Thanks, I will definitely pay attention to that. And I appreciated your prayers.

 

[LivingWaters7]

So I’m reading Nibley’s “Apostles and Bishops in Early Christianity”. I’m debating whether I should start a separate thread on that (the differences b/w LDS and Catholic/Orthodox understandings of bishops and their relationship with apostles). Anyway, he says something interesting that I’m assuming Catholics would disagree with, so I’m interested in thoughts about it. This is also a common LDS understanding of how the Church of Jesus Christ should be led, so I’m sure the ex-LDS and others are familiar with it:

**unique apostolic gift. Though all officers of the church should be inspired, the great endowment of leadership is the prophetic gift. That was the great principle that set the Christians off from other religions. Justin Martyr, in defiance of modern Catholic teaching, says,

Neither by nature nor by human intelligence is it possible for men to know great and divine matters, but by the gift that descends from above upon holy men, who do not need the learned arts, neither skills in controversy and debate, but rather to resign themselves to the power of the Holy Spirit, which if they are in tune will come down like a divine plectrum from heaven and play upon them as upon instruments, making use of righteous men and revealing to them the divine and heavenly gnosis. (Address to the Greeks 8)

These men, unlike the philosophers, all tell the same story and all agree among themselves. Herein Christian leadership differed from that of other churches-it was led by prophets under direct, divine inspiration, whose wisdom was not the fruits of philosophy or training. In accusing the church of having lost the power while retaining the forms of godliness, Tertullian makes a sharp distinction between two clearly marked levels of religious operation: both are good and necessary, but the higher one has departed from the church. The higher type is apostolic and prophetic and its genius is power-potestas. Against this the present church, according to Tertullian, can only set up a succession of bishops with discipline, officium, in the place of potestas. The old church had imperium-the authority to initiate organization, doctrine, etc.-while the new one had instead ministerium-a prescribed routine. The temple was the center of the old church, the synagogue the model of the new; the Spirit was the highest guide in the former, the scripture in the latter. enthusiasmus was the guiding principle of interpretation then, allegory now. revelation was the source of doctrine then, reason now; the gnosis, tongues, and prophecy have ceased as predicted, and in their place are left only faith, love, and hope; the high priest has departed, the bishop is in his place; the Holy Ghost has become an intellectual exercise; inspiration has yielded to tradition, oracles to councils. “To James the Just and to John and Peter, the Lord gave the gnosis after his resurrection,” says Clement. “They gave it further to the other apostles, and the rest of the apostles in turn gave it to the seventy,” but there is no account of its ever being passed on any further. (Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 4.33.7)**

 

[LivingWaters7]

actually, I’ll just go ahead and start another thread with that quote as the OP. Please respond there (or both)!