For the LDS - Please Define the Great Apostacy

[ronald_g_w]

If you can’t find a break in the doctrinal issues in relation to St. John and the successors of Peter, why is the succession issue of vital importance with respect to this issue…

In a broader context, I agree that succession is vital, and it seems that the LDS Church cannot establish succession, nor has there been shown a need for a restoration, because none here have established the need for restoration vis a vis the alleged Great Apostacy. Rather, it seems that the GA is simply assumed, based on the actions of some popes, the heresies of some bishops, and the effects of Original Sin on members of the Church? So, please show me the basis for believing in the alleged GA.

Peace,
-Robert

I can trace the Priesthood Authority bestowed on me by those having the authority to do so back to Peter James and John who were ordained Apostles by the Lord Jesus Christ. Therefore the LDS church has absolutly no problem with succession. As far as a need for a restoration there is more than enough evidence and scriptures quoted / posted on this thread alone to make one sit up and take note but it is obvious to me that there are none so blind as those who do not want to see. I tell you what Robert -IF- you sincerely want to know if there was a falling away from the ture doctrines taught by Jesus and his Apostles and if it was necessary for them to be restored why dont you make it a personal thing between you and your Heavenly Father. Read the scriptures related to the subject, then study it out in your mind, then with sincerity ask God. If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him. But let him ask in faith, nothing wavering. For he that wavereth is like a wave of the sea driven with the wind and tossed.

 

[Snow]

Mormons do not believe Jesus is God.

Dishonesty is such an unsavory character flaw - don’t you think?

You just made that up, didn’t you.

 

[ronald_g_w]

How do you know the Roman bishops weren’t subject to him while he was alive? Just because there are no available correspondences between John and the Roman church doesn’t mean that Rome was in apostasy.

Do the maths
Jesus calls 12 = authority of which 1 = CEO
CEO appoints another to fill his shoes not from the 12
Who then is the presiding officer ?

 

[guanophore]

It is possible that I wont find it as I have never felt the need to look for it as it stands to reason to myself that the Apostles are the foundation that the Lords built his church upon and as such the authority remains with them. Having said that the succession of the keys of the kingdom are vital to the topic at hand.

Is this the basis of the Apostasy theory? that
Apostolic Authority died with the Apostles? If this is true, when did they “pass on”?

 

[Snow]

So, who were the first 10, or 9 after Peter?

Google it.

I mean, none of them were bishops, or do you deny that there was sucession at ll?

I don’t understand your point and question.

You are saying that none of the first 9 or 10 were bishops?

My point couldn’t be more clear. I have stated over and over and over again that there is no historical evidence (not Tradition) that Peter was the Bishop of Rome and that he appointed Linus and that Linus appointed Cletus.

 

[guanophore]

1. There is no “PROOF” that there was, or wasn’t an apostasy. In my view, the apostasy is really a function of having (and losing) God-given authority to act in his name. Since authority is a faith-based, not a fact-based reality, any continuity or interruption in authority is a matter of faith, not proof.

I am glad we are in agreement on this point. So, then it is your “faith -based” reality that God took authority from Catholics. Why did that happen and when.

I think, or I have heard that there is some mounting belief by historians that Peter was likely in Rome. However, to my knowledge there is no historical consensus or evidence that while in Rome, he was the Bishop of Rome.

This question has been posed here dozens of times and so far no one has provided any historical evidence of Peter supposed monoepiscopal role in Rome. I say that’s because there is no such evidence.

If you do not accept testimony of the NT as authoritative, and reject the fathers of the Church, then I don’t know what elee will suffice

I am curious what term you use to refer to all those quotes…

You say that history attests. Okay. Please post the historical (not Tradition) evidence that Peter appointed Linus as the monoepiscopal Bishop of Rome and that Linus appointed Cletus and Cletus Clement.

That would probably settle it.

I am confused why you seem to think there must be a “monoepiscopate” The apostles were all in union with one another. We can see this in the book of Acts.

 

[ronald_g_w]

Is this the basis of the Apostasy theory? that
Apostolic Authority died with the Apostles? If this is true, when did they “pass on”?

Dont know what you are asking

 

[mfbukowski]

This is a nuance of meaning which is subject to interpretation but my personal interpretation of

*“their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those professors were all corrupt; that: “they draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me, they teach for doctrines the commandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof.” *

is that it is the “professors”- to me meaning doctrine as interpreted by those who profess it- was corrupt. Maybe I am being too soft-- it DOES say “an abomination” though.

“having a form of godliness but denying the power thereof”

means that the priesthood had been lost, since the priesthood is defined by Mormons as “the power and authority of God to serve”

To me, the “form of godliness” was the survival at least of the idea that Jesus was the Christ. All that survived was the most basic idea or “form” of godliness.

 

[Stephen168]

1. There is no “PROOF” that there was, or wasn’t an apostasy. In my view, the apostasy is really a function of having (and losing) God-given authority to act in his name. Since authority is a faith-based, not a fact-based reality, any continuity or interruption in authority is a matter of faith, not proof.

My point couldn’t be more clear. I have stated over and over and over again that there is no historical evidence (not Tradition) that Peter was the Bishop of Rome…

What is the difference between ‘historical evidence’ and ‘tradition’?

 

[mfbukowski]

Mormons do not worship Jesus.

Mormons do not believe Jesus is God.

This is what is known as heresy.

Despite they claim they read the bible, they are not Christians.
If they did read it, they apparently forgot when St. Thomas affirmed the faith of the Church (some call him doubting Thomas, but that is a negative way of looking at it)

nothing Mr. Joseph Smith can write can change the words of Scripture. Thank God.

Mormons, next time you go outside on your “missions” and try to talk to Christians, carry a big sign or wear a tie that says “We do not believe Jesus is God”. This would be a more honest approach then how they typically preach “their gospel”.

This is totally incorrect and a lie

 

[Snow]

I am glad we are in agreement on this point. So, then it is your “faith -based” reality that God took authority from Catholics. Why did that happen and when.

Let me defer this question until later. I’ll make a post that gives an overview of current LDS scholarly thinking. The reason I say “current scholarly thinking” is that we believe by way of modern revelation that there was an apostasy. Early LDS authors and scholars then tried to frame how, when and why. There understanding was derived from 19th century Protestant scholarship. New understanding is now available.

If you do not accept testimony of the NT as authoritative, and reject the fathers of the Church, then I don’t know what elee will suffice

I do accept the testimony of the NT as authoritative. I think that early Church Fathers got somethings right and some wrong.

I am curious what term you use to refer to all those quotes…

second, third and forth hand accounts by non-eyewitness many years after the fact who do not rely on primary source or do not cite the source, at least primary, they rely upon. In other words, traditional belief.

I am confused why you seem to think there must be a “monoepiscopate” The apostles were all in union with one another. We can see this in the book of Acts.

I don’t don’t think there must be but that is the claim of the RCC - that there was A Bishop of Rome who had primacy.

 

[Snow]

What is the difference between ‘historical evidence’ and ‘tradition’?

In short, historical evidence would apply to first person accounts (that can be verified) by non-anonymous sources; primary sources, then-contemporary accounts, things written for historical or non-polemical purposes, physical evidence such as coinage, inscriptions etc. Tradition is something that is believed without such evidence and passed on. Tradition may have one time been based upon actual true events but since there is no substantial evidence, there is no way to really tell. Hence tradition doesn’t mean it isn’t true, it simply means that it is lacking in evidence.

 

[venite_adoremus]

Good morning, Snow. Please do not fall into a semantic trap. “Primacy” means first. In all of the scriptural lists of the Apostles, whose name is first?

Peter was at Rome. He died there. Paul was at Rome. He died there too. Check out the archaeological evidences for their tombs, Peter’s in the grounds of what is now the Vatican and Paul’s at the church of St Paul outside the walls.

Peter was a Bishop (episkopos=overseer) in every sense of the word. Scriptural evidence in Acts shows him baptizing, exorting, chrismating, ordaining, leading the Church at the First Council, challenging the Pharisees on issues of teaching, suffering for the Faith, and passing on to others what he received from the Lord. He was not a perfect person. During our Lord’s passion he denied Him three times. Yet out of Peter’s mouth came the first sermon of the Church on the morning of Pentecost.

Peter was, therefore, Bishop, and he was of Rome, and he held primacy.

All of the enumerations from the first four centuries of the Church, notably from Eusebius’ ecclesiastic history and from early ecclesiastic letters, affirm that Peter established his see, or chair, or headquarters for his teaching authority, first at Antioch, then at Rome. Deference was accorded to those who followed him in the succession. Other sees also had successions.

Arguments to the contrary are specious.

 

[venite_adoremus]

In short, historical evidence would apply to first person accounts (that can be verified) by non-anonymous sources; primary sources, then-contemporary accounts, things written for historical or non-polemical purposes, physical evidence such as coinage, inscriptions etc. Tradition is something that is believed without such evidence and passed on. Tradition may have one time been based upon actual true events but since there is no substantial evidence, there is no way to really tell. Hence tradition doesn’t mean it isn’t true, it simply means that it is lacking in evidence.

Look, please, at Paul’s initial use of Sacred Tradition as recorded in scripture. He received, first of all, that which he handed on to his listeners, the knowledge that Jesus Christ was raised from the dead. Paul used a rabbinical formula which denotes a process of faithful transmission. “Something that is believed without such evidence” is a human definition of small-t traditions. Sacred Tradition (traditio=delivery) is the faithful transmission of what Jesus Christ taught and entrusted to the Apostles, whether by letter or word of mouth. Sacred Tradition was inaugurated by Jesus Christ Himself for the post-Resurrection Church on the road to Emmaus, and is imbued by the power of the Holy Spirit for its fidelity.

Did the Resurrection happen? We only have the word of the Church to prove it so. Thomas doubted. He was able to place his finger in the nail holes. How does one prove an apparition of the risen Lord on the shores of the Sea of Tiberias, except by ancient text and faithful verbal transmission?

Ordinary oral history is valid historical evidence, by the way. You are confusing the definition of a primary source with the judgment of whether such a source is reliable.

 

[Snow]

Look, please, at Paul’s initial use of Sacred Tradition as recorded in scripture. He received, first of all, that which he handed on to his listeners, the knowledge that Jesus Christ was raised from the dead. Paul used a rabbinical formula which denotes a process of faithful transmission. “Something that is believed without such evidence” is a human definition of small-t traditions. Sacred Tradition (traditio=delivery) is the faithful transmission of what Jesus Christ taught and entrusted to the Apostles, whether by letter or word of mouth. Sacred Tradition was inaugurated by Jesus Christ Himself for the post-Resurrection Church on the road to Emmaus, and is imbued by the power of the Holy Spirit for its fidelity.

Okay - but the supposition is that NT authors were also inspired - that is, the truth was revealed to them, thus Paul didn’t have to rely on tradition (many believe) but rather the Holy Spirit.

Did the Resurrection happen? We only have the word of the Church to prove it so. Thomas doubted. He was able to place his finger in the nail holes. How does one prove an apparition of the risen Lord on the shores of the Sea of Tiberias, except by ancient text and faithful verbal transmission?

If we only had the word of the Church I wouldn’t believe in the resurrection. Fortunately we have the word of NT authors as well… and if you are a member of the Church of Jesus Christ, modern prophets.

Ordinary oral history is valid historical evidence, by the way. You are confusing the definition of a primary source with the judgment of whether such a source is reliable.

I almost don’t know what to say to that. Ordinary oral history may be valid enough for you, but it doesn’t cut it for me.

Papias is an excellent case in point. He wrote between 110 and 140 CE and collected, and believe apparently, oral traditions. He demonstrated the early Christian preference for oral over written history. He also shows us just how destructive oral tradition is. He recorded many outlandish claims as if they were true; for example he reported that Judas’ head became bloated to greater than the width of a wagon train and that his eyes became lost in his flesh and that the stench of the place where he died maintained a stench so bad that no one could approach it even in the days of Papias himself. (from book 4 of the Expositions, quoted by Apollinaris of Laodicea, cf. footnote 23 in M p. 53)

Can we assume that you find the oral traditions as reported by Papias to be historically acceptable?

 

[Chaldean_Rite]

Dishonesty is such an unsavory character flaw - don’t you think?

You just made that up, didn’t you.

No, Snow. This is their faith. Don’t believe me? Find out for yourself.

 

[Chaldean_Rite]

This is totally incorrect and a lie

Please, you can call it a “lie” but it is the doctrine of the Mormon religion.

 

[Snow]

No, Snow. This is their faith. Don’t believe me? Find out for yourself.

You claim that the drive-by antagonists faith is that The Church of Jesus Christ does not believe that Christ is God?

Could there be people, adults, so uneducated and so reckless and oblivious to readily available information that they really and honestly believe.

I seriously doubt it and if that is the case, it hardly excuses such abdominal behavior. It would take all of 30 seconds to ask and find out.

Blatantly dishonest or deliberately ignorant. Both are bad.

 

[mfbukowski]

Please, you can call it a “lie” but it is the doctrine of the Mormon religion.

This is absurd. I have been a Mormon for 30 years and this is not our doctrine. Jesus Christ is God.

 

[Snow]

Please, you can call it a “lie” but it is the doctrine of the Mormon religion.

Now you are the one who is likely deliberately lying or so deliberately reckless with truth that it equates to the same thing.

Where do you guys come from?