How can people believe Peter is the rock but still not be Catholic?

[mercygate]

joe370;3894083:

Hey Willie 8, how’s it going? Hopefully good.

Maybe these links will shed some light on the issue of the keys.

davidmacd.com/catholic/pope.htm

The Unbroken Line of Popes
Tracing All The Way Back To St. Peter…

It is by far the longest continuous line of succession of any religious institution on earth.
By the time that the last book of the Bible (Revelation) was written, the Catholic Church was already on its fifth Pope.
St. Irenaeus listed the first 14 Popes in “Against Heresies”, 3:3:3, 180 AD

Thanks again for another good link. Let me ask my main question another way so that I better understand Catholic Succession.

How are the keys of the kingdom or Authority passed from one Pope to another? Is it by an ordination, laying on of hands, ceremony, all of the above, or is it some other way?
The power of the Keys lies with the successor of Peter. All the Apostles shared in the power of “binding and loosing” – as Our Lord affirms in Mt. 18:18 but only to Peter did He promise the Keys (I am always touched by the fact that to Peter He promised the keys of the kingdom of Heaven, while in Revelation, He reserves for Himself the Keys of death and hades).

As for how they are passed on, the particular privilege of the papacy comes when a bishop is institiuted as the Bishop of Rome. Did you see any of the coverage 3 years ago when B-16 was instituted?

Because it was to Peter that the Lord promised the Keys, the one who sits in Peter’s place holds them today. Don’t go looking for a set of bronze keys. The “keys” in question are not physical keys.

For us, Peter and his successors represent the central figure of Christ’s earthly Church: they are the *without-which-you-do-not-have-Christ’s-Church. *IOW: Without the bishops and without the Bishop of Rome, you can have A church, you can even have an Apostolic church (as the Orthodox have) but you are missing the centerpiece placed by Christ Himself as the mark of unity. Remember his prayer, “that they all might be one.” We think that is very important.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Willi8 sez:

Hey Carson,

I didn’t mean to leave you hanging, there are just a lot of posts, and I honestly don’t have time to reply to them all. Your sources are helpful, but still don’t serve as a direct witness to Peter passing the Keys. All of the sources were from the “Early Fathers” which place them near or at the time of the Apostles. This still doesn’t confirm that those keys were passed on. Your one source states that Peter and Paul handed over the office to Linus. Do you know if there was a witness to testify of the event or to say how it was done? I’m not trying to be picky, but a source that just says that the event happened with out providing a first or second hand witness to the event is not reliable. I’m not saying that the source doesn’t have the witness, I just didn’t see anything about it in your post. Maybe you could provide more info on that source or just tell me where I could find it. Thanks for your (name removed by moderator)ut. Actually, Peter himself referred to this in one of his epistles.

2 Peter 1:12-15
So I will always remind you of these things, even though you know them and are firmly established in the truth you now have. I think it is right to refresh your memory as long as I live in the tent of this body, because I know that I will soon put it aside, as our Lord Jesus Christ has made clear to me. And I will make every effort to see that after my departure you will always be able to remember these things.

What effort could Peter make to ensure his message would be remembered after his departure? I believe that Peter, whose death had been described by Jesus in John 21, was referring to the naming of a successor.

The scriptures show us other examples of the Apostles naming men to lead the Church.

Acts 1:15-26
In those days Peter stood up among the believers (a group numbering about a hundred and twenty) and said, “Brothers, the Scripture had to be fulfilled which the Holy Spirit spoke long ago through the mouth of David concerning Judas, who served as guide for those who arrested Jesus—he was one of our number and shared in this ministry.” (With the reward he got for his wickedness, Judas bought a field; there he fell headlong, his body burst open and all his intestines spilled out. Everyone in Jerusalem heard about this, so they called that field in their language Akeldama, that is, Field of Blood.) “For,” said Peter, “it is written in the book of Psalms, " ‘May his place be deserted; let there be no one to dwell in it,’ and, " ‘May another take his place of leadership.’ Therefore it is necessary to choose one of the men who have been with us the whole time the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, beginning from John’s baptism to the time when Jesus was taken up from us. For one of these must become a witness with us of his resurrection.” So they proposed two men: Joseph called Barsabbas (also known as Justus) and Matthias. Then they prayed, “Lord, you know everyone’s heart. Show us which of these two you have chosen to take over this apostolic ministry, which Judas left to go where he belongs.” Then they cast lots, and the lot fell to Matthias; so he was added to the eleven apostles.

Acts 14:23
Paul and Barnabas appointed elders for them in each church and, with prayer and fasting, committed them to the Lord, in whom they had put their trust.

1 Timothy 4:13-14
Until I come, devote yourself to the public reading of Scripture, to preaching and to teaching. Do not neglect your gift, which was given you through a prophetic message when the body of elders laid their hands on you.

2 Timothy 2:1-2
You then, my son, be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus. And the things you have heard me say in the presence of many witnesses entrust to reliable men who will also be qualified to teach others.

There are five generations of believers contained in this one passage: 1. Those who came before Paul and instructed him, 2. Paul himself, 3. Timothy, who was Paul’s disciple, 4. Those whom Timothy would disciple, and 5. Those to whom Timothy’s disciples would preach.

 

[tqualey]

Dear Willie8,

Is this the ‘smoking gun’ search?

Your sources are helpful, but still don’t serve as a direct witness to Peter passing the Keys. All of the sources were from the “Early Fathers” which place them near or at the time of the Apostles. This still doesn’t confirm that those keys were passed on. Your one source states that Peter and Paul handed over the office to Linus. Do you know if there was a witness to testify of the event or to say how it was done? I’m not trying to be picky, but a source that just says that the event happened with out providing a first or second hand witness to the event is not reliable.

Maby there is another way:

The way I see it, there are two essential issues that must be addressed:

1- In a ‘civil case’ the jury is asked to examine the entire case presented and to decide based on the preponderence of evidence. Admittedly, this is not the higher burden of proof required in a ‘criminal case’ (beyond a reasonable doubt) - but, just look at what we are dealing with here: sacred writings, historic written records (ECF) and a dispassionate view of human nature.

Even though there are pictures to the contrary, I do not think Christ handed Peter a set of physical keys. Rather, this was a symbolic statement for something that was widely understood: the person with the keys has the authority and responsibility. (Today, the symbol of giving the keys is still used, e.g., parent giving the car keys to their legally licensed-to-drive, son or daughter.)

Viewed as a ‘business document’, the writings of the ECF were done as contemporary writings in the normal course of their business (which in their cases was usually being the bishop of an area and guiding their flock in the way toward Christ.) There is no documentation of a multi-century conspiracy of these various unrelated men to spend all this time in an effort to deceive future generations into believing that Christ did or did not do particular things. As such, these documents should be accepted as valid on their face.

Our knowledge of human nature tells us that most folks change their minds about various things (look how policitical parties have chaged in the US since John Adams (the second in succession in a line leading directly to George W. Bush). Staying with the same doctrine beginning with the 1st Coucil of Jerusalem (acts 15) to the Council of Niceae 325 years later and on to the teachings of the Catholic Chruch today is not a matter of mere human nature. Besides, Peter (1st Pope) Linus (2nd Pope) were both publically executed for their faith - and this fate was shared by innumerable soon-to-be-called Catholics under the various Roman Emperors. Anyone having doubts about the authenticity of what was being presented as the Church founded by Christ on Peter as the rock - would have surely opted to have their lives spared, by worshiping to the gods as required by the political powers. But, they chose to be with Christ. There is this not only unbroken line of succession of Popes - but, an unbroken line of belief leading from Christ to Catholics today.

I submit that this would surely qualify as a preponderence of evidence in favor of looking at the Catholic Chruch being the One founded by Christ.

2- The basic issue is: assess your own faith by the same criteria you have challenged Catholics to assess theirs.

For example, what historic records are there that produce a preponderence of evidence that there was an apostacy in the Catholic Church (leading one to conclude that Christ abandoned the Chruch He founded on Peter as was demonstrated in Item #1 above)?

Who was around to verify that Canon of Sacred Scripture was now free to be opened for editing and adding to by the likes of Luther, Calvin - and Joseph Smith? Who was there from the time of Christ to the time of Luther who proposed that Christ did not mean for us to actually take the consecrated Bread and Wine to be the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ - in other words, taking Christ at His Word?

Are the original beliefs of these multiple religions and their iterations matched by the doctrines of their earthly founder. Can not the ‘invisible hand’ of self-interest be seen in how change and free interpretation (strictly condemned in 2Peter) of Holy Writ has had an impact on these groups.

I submit the preponderence of evidence really does cut both ways - cutting lose those fictional criticisms of the Catholic Chruch and cutting away the reality of churches founded by men in their own image.

This is no disparagement of your faith, but it is a challenge. Critique your own faith in the same manner and require the same tools as you have done to ours.

There is an ignorance that can be forgiven (isolated tribes that have never been ‘discovered’ do not know of 21st century technology). But, there is a ‘culpable ignorance’ where one is given the opportunity to learn what is available but chooses to remain ignorant for their own personal reasons. We can recall the parable of the talents (Matt 25:15-30) where the 3rd servant was severely condemned for his wickedness in not increasing His Master’s gift. Maybe this servant had never heard of ‘the lenders’ or whatever other ‘investmant instruments’ were available at the time. But, that was not the issue to the Master. This 3rd servant failed to produce and this cost him dearly. We really do not want to use the 3rd servant as the guy we model our life after.

Best wishes,

 

[JRKH]

tqualey,

Your post above is right on the money.

Peace
James

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Interesting article by Paul Flanagan and Robert Schihl.
Catholic Biblical Apologetics…

Tough to refute…

Bishop of Rome

The Roman Catholic Church from Apostolic times has literally followed the Bible in the establishment of good order in the Church. According to Paul’s letters to Timothy and Titus there are three orders to the organization and leadership of the Church (sometimes known as ecclesiastical order or hierarchy): episcopos or bishops, presbyteros or elders, commonly translated priests, and diaconos or deacons.

The first in order and the greatest in authority is the episcopos, the bishop.

1 Tim 3:1-2
This saying is trustworthy: whoever aspires to the office of bishop (episcopes) desires a noble task. Therefore, a bishop (episcopon) must be irreproachable, married only once, temperate, self-controlled, decent, hospitable, able to teach …
Tit 1:7,9
For a bishop (episcopon) as God’s steward must be blameless, not arrogant, not irritable, not a drunkard, not aggressive, not greedy for sordid gain, holding fast to the true message as taught so that he will be able both to exhort with sound doctrine and to refute opponents.

Luke, in the Acts of the Apostles, distinguishes the shepherding role of the episcopos/bishop.

Acts 20:28
Keep watch over yourselves and over the whole flock of which the holy Spirit has appointed you overseers (episcopous), in which you tend the church of God that he acquired with his own blood.

The shepherding role of the apostle Peter as episcopos was related by John.

Jn 21:15-17
When they had finished breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, “Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these?” He said to him, “Yes, Lord, you know that I love you.” He said to him, “Feed my lambs.” He then said to him a second time, “Simon, son of John, do you love me?” He said to him, “Yes, Lord, you know that I love you.” He said to him, “Tend my sheep.” He said to him the third time, “Simon, son of John, do you love me?” Peter was distressed that he had said to him a third time, “Do you love me?” and he said to him, “Lord, you know everything; you know that I love you.” (Jesus) said to him, “Feed my sheep.”

The Roman Catholic Church believes that the twelve apostles were the first episcopes, receiving at the Last Supper their leadership order to serve when Jesus told them “Do this in remembrance of Me.”

Peter, as demonstrated in the biblical portrait of him, exercised a leadership role first among the other apostles and early Christians, and then later in Rome before his martyrdom there in 67/68 AD.

Peter’s presence in Rome in indicated in his first letter. The name “Babylon” is used here as a cryptic name for the city of Rome, a characteristic of writings done during times of persecution. During Peter’s time (witnessed by his own martyrdom) and most New Testament times (witness the Book of Revelation–classic persecution literature), Rome took on the characteristics of the most outstanding example of a world power hostile to God–ancient Babylon.

1 Peter 5:12-13
I write you this briefly through Silvanus … The chosen one at Babylon sends you greeting, as does Mark, my son.

Clement of Rome (I Clement) and Irenaeus (To the Romans) both attest to Peter’s presence and death in Rome.

Paul makes mention of Linus, a Christian at Rome. Irenaeus (Adversus Haereses, 3, 3, 3) tells us that the same Linus was Peter’s first successor as bishop of Rome.

2 Timothy 4:21
Eubulus, Pudens, Linus, Claudia, and all the brothers send greetings.

Two great historians of the Church, Eusebius of Caesarea, a bishop and historian of the Council of Nicaea, and Augustine, bishop and theologian, preserve for us the list of successors of the bishop of Rome to their own time. They attest to the sense and realization the Church had to the need for historic succession to the Bishop of Rome.

Eusebius (260-339), The History of the Church, Book 3, 324 AD
After the martyrdom of Paul and Peter, the first man to be appointed Bishop of Rome was Linus. … Linus, who is mentioned in the Second Epistle to Timothy as being with Paul in Rome, as stated above was the first after Peter to be appointed Bishop of Rome. Clement again, who became the third Bishop of Rome … to Miltiades.
Augustine (354-430), Letters, No. 53, 400 AD
For, to Peter succeeded Linus, to Linus, Clement, to Clement Anacletus, to Anacletus Evaristus, … to Siricius Anastasius.

Below is a list of the bishops of Rome from Peter to Benedict XVI. Historians both secular and ecclesiastical concur with a final list published by the Vatican Library.

The only biblical “claim to fame” of these men is that they are episcopoi, bishops. There is no greater “order” according to the Bible. The Catholic Church teaches this. Other titles are only honorary and organizational.

The Catholic Church has also taken Paul at his word.

1 Cor 4:14-16
I am writing you this not to shame you, but to admonish you as my beloved children. Even if you should have countless guides to Christ, yet you do not have many fathers, for I became your father in Christ Jesus through the gospel. Therefore, I urge you, be imitators of me.
1 Thess 2:11-12
As you know, we treated each one of you as a father treats his children, exhorting and encouraging you and insisting that you conduct yourselves as worthy of the God who calls you into his kingdom and glory.

The faithful of the Church has always called their ordered leadership “father.” In Greek, the language of the early Church, the word for father was pappas; in Latin, the language of the later Church, the word for father was papa.

By the 300’s, bishops were sometimes called “pope” a corruption of the word for father. By the 700’s the title for affection and respect for the Bishop of Rome exclusively was Pope.

It is not uncommon for enemies and non-believers of Roman Catholicism to create an argument against the succession and therefore validity of the Bishops of Rome as true successors to Peter by proffering the history of the “bad Popes.” That argument arises from a basic misunderstanding of Sacred Scripture.

The first response to be made to the so-called argument from the “bad Popes” is admission that many men who held the position of Bishop of Rome were not holy men. Perhaps Peter was the best model for human failure in such a leadership role. He denied Jesus three times after being told he would do so. Some (e.g., Peter, Judas) who are called stumble and fall.

Some (Peter) repent and are saved. Others (Judas) reject that grace. It behooves us to remember that Jesus does not call saints, but sinners.

Lk 5:31-32
Jesus said to them in reply, “Those who are healthy do not need a physician, but the sick do. I have not come to call the righteous to repentance but sinners.”
Mt 9:12
He heard this and said, “Those who are well do not need a physician, but the sick do.”

The moral miracle of the “bad Popes” is that they were worldly men, public sinners, and never functioned as spiritual leaders nor touched or changed the deposit of faith of Christianity.

We are reminded by the Lord even to the present day that the lifestyle of the messenger does not alter the validity of the message. Recall the American TeleEvangelists’ scandals in 1987 and 1988.

catholicapologetics.org/ap050500.htm

You seem not to notice that the three fold order of bishop, priest and deacon has no pope/supreme pontiff.

And the title “pope” was first given to the Pope of Alexandria, who still holds it. It was restricted in the West to the Pope of Rome by the Pope of Rome (how convenient).

Btw, Eusebius uses the word “throne” only when refering to the Cathedra of Jerusalem, and not Rome. He also records the tradtion that St. James the Brother of God was appointed the first patriarch there because “Peter and John” dared not give him the honor.

 

[willi8]

Well, I have recieved alot of replies to my posts, but there is no way that I have time to respond adequately to them all. Thanks for all the insight and opinions and also for the many links and sources which argue for Catholic succession from Peter. I found a couple of articles from LDS scholars which argue and give evidence for the apostasy theory. I will add them below if you want to get a better Idea of how LDS members view this subject. Please remember that I am in no way trying to “Prove” anything. Rather, I am only attempting to answer the main question of this thread…How can people believe Peter is the rock but still not be Catholic? These articles don’t speak for all people, but they should give you a view a the LDS perspective. Taking both sides of the argument into consideration, I still maintain that niether side can “Prove” its claim Historically. Thanks again for the respectful and intelligent conversation and remember that I’m always open to new information or perspectives…

Article links:

library.lds.org/library/lpext.dll/ArchMagazines/Ensign/1976.htm/ensign%20august%201976.htm/clement%20ignatius%20and%20polycarp%20three%20bishops%20between%20the%20apostles%20and%20apostasy%20.htm?fn=document-frame.htm&f=templates&2.0

geocities.com/Athens/Parthenon/2671/ECLsAp.html

fairlds.org/pubs/ApostasyRestoration.pdf

Other associated articles can be found at fairlds.org

 

[guanophore]

Peter being a the “Rock” is not really relevant as to why people should or should not be Catholic. The Catholic church as we know it today did not come on the scene till centuries later. Other religions believe that there was an Apostasy or “falling away” after the death of Peter and the other Apostles. That is another discussion in itself, but I believe that this is sufficient to answer the question of how people can believe that Peter is the rock but still not be Catholic.

Can you please explain how “the Catholic Church came on the scene”?

 

[guanophore]

Sorry if my post caused some confusion. I was just trying to answer the specific question of How people can believe Peter is the rock but still not be Catholic.
First, about me saying that the Catholic church did not come on to lthe scene till centuries later. My point, is that Jesus nor his apostles ever named the church the “Catholic Church”.

You are right, in the NT it is named “The Way”. However, the Apostles did refer to it with the descriptive term “catholic”. You can see the Apostle Paul using this word:

Col 1:5-6
Of this you have heard before in the word of the truth, the gospel 6 which has come to you, as indeed in the **whole **world it is bearing fruit and growing - so among yourselves…

The Gk “kathos” is translated “whole”. In other places, “universal” or “throughout all”. Ignatius of Antioch wrote around AD 110:

“The sole Eucharist you should consider valid is one that is celebrated by the bishop himself or by some person authorized by him [that is, a duly ordained priest]. Where the bishop is to be seen, there let all his people be, just as wherever Jesus Christ is present, there is the Catholic Church” ( Ignatius 8:1, 2).

Where are the “centuries”?

That name was applicated much later.

Where are you getting these ideas?

Not everyone, however, believes in that succession therefore the Catholic church would be a seperate entity from the Church the Lord established.

Why would anyone not believe it?

Next, as for references of religions that believe in an Apostasy or falling away, I don’t believe it is needed. The Mormons believe this and so do Protestants hence the division. Their interpretation of Apostasy may be different but the effect is the same.

You are categorizing “Mormons and Protestants” as religions. Do you think that the Mormon faith should be used as a standard about what Christians believe?

Which Protestants believe that the Catholic Church “fell away”, and why?

Once again, I’m not arguing about where the Authority can be found, I’m just answering how a person can believe that Peter is the rock and still not be Catholic…

I understand. I am just trying to make sense of what you are saying.

 

[tqualey]

Hi willi8,

I think the bottom line is that there are different degrees of proof and we all must be open to what is actually there.

The links provided were of interest, I have really never read anything from the LDS organization. From what I read, I see no evidence or ‘proof’’ of apostacy. I did see a lot of baseless conclusions and a general ignoring of the time frame from which the events were taken. There are a couple of items that should be pointed out.

1- In reading any historical document (like the ECFs) it is necessary to know what was going on during their time period. For example, active persecutions (Acts 9) of what would be later called the Catholic Church had already begun - and the intensity only increased with the entry of the Roman Empire under Nero and his successors. What this means is that persecuted people act differently from those who are free to go about their regular lives.

2- Christ and the Holy Writers of the New Testament warned of false teachers and false doctrines. The reality is that the Devil is highly focused on trying to confuse followers of Christ. The concern expressed by the ECFs about such false doctrines actually going on should not come as a surprise - this type of mischief was going on before they were even born! And, yes, those ECF writers were upset -and had every reason to be upset with false doctrine - but, this should not be viewed as a dispair over an apostacy by the Cathoic Chruch.

3- Let’s take one example: the Eucharist. Today, Catholics believe that the Eucharist is the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ under the appearance of bread and wine. In previous posts, by gifted members of this list, extensive quotes have been made available from the ECFs on this very topic. The ECF believed the Eurcharist is Christ. The Eucharist has been the very core of Catholic teaching from the time of Christ - any apostacy (if there were one) would surely have had to deal a blow to this core belief. Trace the thread yourslef: Christ, Paul, John, ECFs, all the way to the Catholic Church today.

There are different degrees of proof.

Please remember that I am in no way trying to “Prove” anything. Rather, I am only attempting to answer the main question of this thread…How can people believe Peter is the rock but still not be Catholic?

Given no ‘smoking gun’ for apostacy, let’s look at the preponderence of evidence to see if apostacy is present from roughly the years 33AD - 325AD:
1- Christ said He was God and Man. Catholics today believe that.
2- Christ gave us His Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity in the Eucharist to nurish our bodies and souls. Catholics today believe that.
3- Christ built His Chruch on Peter. Catholics today believe that.
4- Christ instituted the priesthood and gave His Apostles the power to forgive (or not forgive) sin. Catholics today believe that.
5- Christ told His Apostles that the Holy Spirit would guide the Church and the gates of hell would not prevail against it. Catholics today believe that.

From my assessment, there is a preponderence for the Christ having founded the Catholic Church and that same Church having remained faithful for almost 2,000 years to the directives of Christ.

Best wishes,

Tom

These articles don’t speak for all people, but they should give you a view a the LDS perspective. Taking both sides of the argument into consideration, I still maintain that niether side can “Prove” its claim Historically. Thanks again for the respectful and intelligent conversation and remember that I’m always open to new information or perspectives…

Article links:

library.lds.org/library/lpext.dll/ArchMagazines/Ensign/1976.htm/ensign%20august%201976.htm/clement%20ignatius%20and%20polycarp%20three%20bishops%20between%20the%20apostles%20and%20apostasy%20.htm?fn=document-frame.htm&f=templates&2.0

geocities.com/Athens/Parthenon/2671/ECLsAp.html

fairlds.org/pubs/ApostasyRestoration.pdf

Other associated articles can be found at fairlds.org

 

[Always_For_Him]

Well, I have recieved alot of replies to my posts, but there is no way that I have time to respond adequately to them all. Thanks for all the insight and opinions and also for the many links and sources which argue for Catholic succession from Peter. I found a couple of articles from LDS scholars which argue and give evidence for the apostasy theory. I will add them below if you want to get a better Idea of how LDS members view this subject. Please remember that I am in no way trying to “Prove” anything. Rather, I am only attempting to answer the main question of this thread…How can people believe Peter is the rock but still not be Catholic? These articles don’t speak for all people, but they should give you a view a the LDS perspective. Taking both sides of the argument into consideration, I still maintain that niether side can “Prove” its claim Historically. Thanks again for the respectful and intelligent conversation and remember that I’m always open to new information or perspectives…

An LDS Scholar is going to teach and write from an LDS point of view. How do you know that he is correct? His point of view doesn’t match any other Christian denominations or Christian belief. If you believe that neither side can prove it’s claim historically, then how can you trust in anything at all - especially in a church that was founded over 1800 years after Christ. Joseph Smith founded his beliefs then and then taught that we were really here before, but now we have come back??? I can’t possibly imagineThere were thousands of Christian scholars, at least for the first 1500 years, that proved differently from your LDS scholars. If no one can prove anything, how can you believe your scholars or that this story of Christ isn’t just some made up fiction by some very creative/imaginative people back in the day, and then people believed and followed, and now we just believe it because that is what we have been taught for 2,000 years? There is no proof other than the writings that we have. But even then, someone can say that those are pages of a story or something. It takes faith. It is a leap of faith. Too many people believe in too many different things, too many different teachings. Jesus, if you believe he was real, taught One Truth and founded One Church. He didn’t found that Church for all Christians, then take it away for almost 1900 years and then return it to earth. That is really a leap of faith to believe in something against all reason. God can perform miracles, but this isn’t one that Jesus ever discussed or taught, one that was taught by Peter and the Apostles, one that was taught by Early Church Fathers, one that was written about in the Bible, one that was ever recorded to be believed by any Christian/believer in Christ - EVER- until or one Joseph Smith had his revelation? You would think it would have been prophecised at some point by someone, most notably Jesus, early, early, on in the founding of Christianity by Jesus. He breathed on them and said, “Go forth and teach”. Not once did he speak of at some point he would be coming down to take the Church from the earth to return it someday.

Anyone can teach you anything, even the craziest stuff - David Koresh, ie, if you will believe it. By the way, in summary, what is the evidence that your scholars give for the apostasy theory that LDS believes? It seems to me that if it was really there, many, many of scholars and Christians would have seen it or have been able to prove that long before Joseph Smith came along. People can read anything/prove almost anything from the written words in the Bible - make them mean anything they want them to. That is why the Apostles spoke against individual interpretation in the Bible. Jesus taught One Truth and told them to go teach One Truth. Man changed that truth into many truths.

 

[joe370]

Hey willi, I read the 1st article and I must say it doesn’t give any evidence for the apostasy theory. This is certainly original if nothing else. This article claims that the C.C. completely apostatized soon after all the Apostles died. Where was the true Church established by Jesus Christ in the interim? Who continued to safeguard and “preach” and “teach” what Jesus taught to His disciples through the centuries? Somebody must have, otherwise you and I wouldn’t be Christians!

library.lds.org/library/lpext.dll/ArchMagazines/Ensign/1976.htm/ensign%20august%201976.htm/clement%20ignatius%20and%20polycarp%20three%20bishops%20between%20the%20apostles%20and%20apostasy%20.htm?fn=document-frame.htm&f=templates&2.0

Article number 1…

This article claims that the “New Testament books contain many warnings that such bishops should expect the church’s disintegration in their lifetime.” REALLY? The apostles, after teaching and preaching the good news of salvation also taught that Jesus’ church would fail in their life time? This totally contradicts Matthew 28:20, "Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptising them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.”

The article cites such passages as Acts 20:29–30 and 2 Tim. 4:3 as proof or prophecy that the 2nd century church fathers/leaders apostatized; fell away from what the 1st century apostolic fathers promulgated.

“Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the a flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock. Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking a perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.”

“For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.”

Paul was clearly referring to heretical movements that would soon attempt to supplant/obfuscate the truth of Jesus’ established church, from within and without. This is quite evident in the world today. There have been many wolves in sheep’s clothing in both the C.C. and the Protestant/Evangelical churches. However, the Deposit of Faith has never been tampered with, at least not in the C.C. Ever since the protestant reformation, churches have been turning “away their ears from the truth” following the truths of mere men.

Here are just a few of those heresies that the early church had to contend with:

Docetism:

Those who proposed this heresy maintained that Jesus really did not possess, or inhabit a physical body, but only “appeared” to have a body. The basis of docetism is that Jesus was truly a spiritual being, and as such, could not have had a true body.

There are aspects of the New Testament that suggest docetism was already a problem in the first century. Some scholars believe John’s gospel contains some anti-docetic texts, for example in chapter 21 where Jesus eats fish with disciples. It seems that 1 John may have been written to combat this heresy, “…every spirit that acknowledges Jesus Christ come in the flesh belongs to God.” 1 John 4:2

Ignatius of Antioch is clearly writing against docetics when he says, “He was then truly born, truly grew up, truly ate and drank, was truly crucified, and died, and rose again.” Philippians 3

Marcionism

Around the year 85 Marcion was born, the son of a bishop. He traveled around the world as a merchant and moved to Rome around 135 where he became known in the church and began to teach.

Marcion observed the vast differences between the God represented in the Old Testament and the God of Jesus in the NT. His answer was to reject the God of the OT, seeing him as the evil craftsman (gk. demiurge) creator of an evil world. Marcion constructed a list that represents the first recorded listing of NT texts, basically his personal canon - he excluded the entire OT, and included only Paul’s letters and Luke’s gospel. He also excluded a few parts of Paul’s letters - anything where Paul refers to the OT in a positive way (Marcion claimed these had been tampered with by Jews) and references to hell and/or judgement (for example 2 Thess 1:6-8). It is this unorthodox canon that leads the church fathers to begin naming the “accepted” documents.

Marcion’s influence was significant enough for his teaching to be argued against by several church fathers including Justin, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, and Tertullian. He worked hard as an evangelist and the Marcionite churches spread throughout the Roman world. Marcionite churches held strong until the beginning of the fourth century.

Gnosticism

In the early second century a strange movement began to emerge, more strongly concentrated in Egypt, but with pockets of activity throughout the Roman world. Gnosticism was a curious synthesis of Jewish apocalypticism, Platonism, strains of pagan religions, and early Christianity. There are some indications of an early form of gnostic thought in the NT, but nothing like what developed in the second century.

Gnosticism consisted of an extreme dualism, drawing a distinction between the body and the spirit realm. The “demiurge” was the evil creator of the physical universe, humans were bound in their “evil” physical body, and could only be released from the confines of that body through the gaining of gnosis, or divine knowledge. The seven visible heavenly bodies (Sun, Moon, Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn) gave rise to a belief in eight heavenly realms. Plato had written about the concept of pre-existent souls in a state of perfection prior to taking on a mortal body on the earth. When the soul is released from the prison of the body it ascends back to the heavenly realm where it is reunited with the realm of ideas. The soul in the Gnostic system must ascend through these heavenly realms in the quest to return to a state of perfection. Along the way the soul must pass guardians of each level; typically to pass into the next stage, or heavenly realm, the soul must recite some of the heavenly gnosis learned during the earthly trek. The eighth level is the place of perfection, the ultimate goal for every soul.

While there were differences of opinion among the members of the 2nd century church, “oneness” and “unity” were never compromised, and that is due to the guidance/protection of the Holy Spirit. Gnosticism in the second century was not a unified movement. Each group tended to gravitate around a single enlightened leader, and most groups were exclusive, seeing their particular set of dogma to be unique and essential, not unlike what we see today outside the bounds of the C.C.

To be continued…

 

[willi8]

An LDS Scholar is going to teach and write from an LDS point of view. How do you know that he is correct? His point of view doesn’t match any other Christian denominations or Christian belief.

 

[Always_For_Him]

willi8,

I completely agree. If you read my post, you will see that this was the reason I gave those links. To demonstrate an LDS point of view. If all of our beliefs matched every other Christian belief, then we wouldn’t be a seperate religion…

Separate regligion being the key phrase here. Jesus established One Truth, One Church, One “Religion”. He didn’t establish different religions or command for different religions.

That’s your opinion. Didn’t you say that belief requires a leap of faith? Where does all reason lie? The Jews had the majority of what they called reason with them as well, yet their reason fell flat at the feet of God!!!

That is not my opinion. I believe in what the Church has always taught since the Deposit of Faith was given to them by Jesus. The Jews had reason, but the ones that didn’t believe had the choice to look into it more deeply at the time, try to find the Truth in it or ignore it. They made their choice. They don’t believe that Jesus was the Messiah. They believe that the son of God has not come yet. So, are you saying that they are right? Are you saying that they know the Truth? Despite what you have been taught or think, the Catholic Church has NEVER changed teaching, interpretation of Scripture to mean anything else than what it was understood to mean when Jesus gave it to them. You have been taught against what exists in history. I did say the belief requires a leap of faith. Then I said to believe that Jesus would found his Church, then take it away for almost 1900 years (what about the Christians that were here and growing that whole time) to then return it to Earth is REALLY a leap of faith. I said that REALLY took a leap of faith to believe in something against all reason. That is really far out there. If evidence of that were in the Bible, at least someone (one of the many theologans, ECF’s, Church leaders, Christians) would have come to that understanding or questioned that Scripture could possibly mean that. No one EVER did, until Joseph Smith. If you were Catholic or even a member of one of the main Protestant denominations, you would absolutely question that far out belief. How could something like that possibly be true? One man, Joseph Smith, with no proof, came up with that. It was proven as error a long time ago. Just like the Jews, it is your choice to believe that or not.

You are saying that Jesus took the Church away from the bad people, kept it pristine under his direct guidance, and then returned it back to earth to give to Joseph Smith. Anyone can teach you anything they want to if you will believe it.

Did you even read the articles??? There you will find, what we consider, support for an apostasy. Propehcies, Early Church Fathers and all.

I began to read them, and couldn’t believe that anyone could buy into the “proof”. It is just simply not there. That is what you have been taught and that is why you see it in the “words”. That is why I went into the discussion about no one, not Jesus, not the apostles, not the ECF’s, no one prophecised, foreshadowed, taught, believed that way. None of them ever taught that Jesus would take the Church away and then return it to some rightful leader on earth. Besides, Jesus left the Church for all Christians to grow to his Truth. He wouldn’t perform a miracle to take it away from the people he established it for and left it with.

I’m not sure how the scripture is relevant. The Lord never directly indicate that the Church with it’s authority would stand undisturbed.

He most certainly did!! He founded the Church and said the gates of Hell would never prevail, and that he would be with and guide the Church until the end of time. You can’t pick and choose Scripture to believe and change the Scripture to mean something else because you don’t believe what the original interpretation is.

 

[Always_For_Him]

willi8,
Why is it that the ECF’s wrote the Bible for all Christians, if the True, Real Church was somewhere else? How could they have known anything at all and how could they have even written the Bible if the Real Church was taken from earth shortly after the last apostle died? Who spread the Truth until Joseph Smith was born and the Church was returned to him? Because the Truth was out there. Because the Church was never taken from earth and returned to Joseph Smith. It had been out there for over 1,800 years before Joseph Smith made his claims. The Bible was out there and in use for over 1,200 years before Joseph Smith made his claims. This is false teachings. The Bible even warns us against that. If you would look at what we are teaching you with out your mind made up that we are so wrong about things, or that Joseph Smith is right about everything, you might be able being to see the Truth in what we are teaching you and the meaning of Scripture that we are explaining and showing. You stated that it was revealed to you. That sounds eerily familiar to what happened to Joseph Smith and every other common day prophet that has been proven to be error/not true/self imposed divinity.

 

[Always_For_Him]

willi8,
Why is it that the ECF’s wrote the Bible for all Christians, if the True, Real Church was somewhere else? How could they have known anything at all and how could they have even written the Bible if the Real Church was taken from earth shortly after the last apostle died? Who spread the Truth until Joseph Smith was born and the Church was returned to him? Because the Truth was out there. Because the Church was never taken from earth and returned to Joseph Smith. It had been out there for over 1,800 years before Joseph Smith made his claims. The Bible was out there and in use for over 1,200 years before Joseph Smith made his claims. These are false teachings! The Bible even warns us against them. If you would look at what we are teaching you with out your mind made up that we are so wrong about things, or that Joseph Smith is right about everything, you might be able being to see the Truth in what we are teaching you and the meaning of Scripture that we are explaining and showing. You stated that it was revealed to you. That sounds eerily familiar to what happened to Joseph Smith and every other common day prophet that has been proven to be error/not true/self imposed divinity.

 

[guanophore]

You seem bothered because I haven’t given facts, but what facts do you have? Its all a matter of interpretation.

No, willi8, it is not. Such a statement smacks of relativism. There is Truth, and there is falsehood.

How is it that your interpretation is the factual one.

Because the Catholic interpretation is the one that comes down from the Apostles, and is consistent with history.

The scripture simply states that " the gates of hell shall not prevail against it".  The scripture doesn't give a when or where so can you give me facts that it was talking about only that specific time?

Jesus said that He would be with His church unto the end of the age. At that time, there will no longer be a need for a Church, since we will be taken up into the clouds.

What do you think it means, that the gates of hell will not prevail?

Can you give me facts that that scripture meant to indicate that the church would never suffer total apostasy?

The Apostles understood that teaching error was passing through the gates of hell. Once error is taught, we are on the road to perdition. When He promised to send “the Spirit, who will lead you into all Truth”, did you think he was 1) Lying 2) a weakling, who could not do what he promised, or 3) this promise has nothing to do with Truth, and faith is really “all a matter of interpretation?”

I wasn’t trying to split hairs, I was only pointing out another perspective. Analyze your own post. You claim that the Catholic church safegaurded the Lord’s church. Says who??? Is that not an opinion/belief?

Yes, it is an article of faith. We choose to believe what Jesus said.

Has the Lord ever said that His church would some day be called the Catholic Church and that HIs teachings would be preserved through it.

The Lord said He would build “my church”. The Apostles teach that there is only ONE CHURCH, which is His Body. He is not some sort of deformed megamonster. He only has ONE BODY, or which He is the Head. The Apostles called it Catholic.

No, that is a matter of your belief and faith.

Yes, but it is also a matter of history.

In like manner, I have given you a portion of my belief and faith which correlates with my interpretation of the scripture. What kind of facts do you want?

I would like to know why you don’t believe Jesus meant what He said.

I would like you to explain away the references to the Apostolic Church as Catholic.

Did the Catholic church safegaurd Christianity? Sure it did, it safegaurded the belief in Jesus Christ as the Son of God. For that I am grateful, but that in no way indicates that the Catholic church was the same church which Jesus set up. Did it shape Christianity? Of course, but was that shaping done by the authority of the Lord? Once again your personal beliefs would apply, but can you show me facts??? I will always respect your beliefs but don’t try to discredit mine on basis of your own opinions…

Have you read any early church history?

 

[guanophore]

Peter was not a Pope at all much less the first

Pope is the Latin term for papa. You are right, that Peter did not speak Latin, and that those who addressed him did so by the Aramaic name that Jesus gave him (Cephas).

In the books of men, the following titles are commonly used with reference to a man: “Pope,” “Holy Father,” “Vicar of Christ,” “Sovereign Pontiff.” All of these are titles that rightly belong only to the Lord Jesus Christ and to God the Father. There is not a single instance in the Scriptures where any of the above titles are applied to a man. The term, “Holy Father” is used only once in the entire Bible, and it is used by Jesus in addressing God the Father. (John 17:11)

There are many titles assigned to others, also, including Jesus written in the “books of men”. The fact that they are given by men does not make them invalid.

Among the above titles is the bold assertion that the Pope is the “Vicar of Christ.” A “vicar” is “One serving as a substitute or agent; one authorized to perform the functions of another in higher office.” (Webster). When one searches the Bible from cover to cover, he finds only one passage which gives an indication of a vicar of Christ or God. It is 2 Thess. 2:3-4; it is worded as follows:

“Let no one deceive you in any way, for the day of the Lord will not come unless the apostasy comes first, and the man of sin is revealed, the son of perdition, who opposes and is exalted above all that is called God, or that is worshiped, so that he sits in the temple of God and gives himself out as if he were God.”
… (Edited to conform with the Forum Rules)

No, n2thelight, this is not about the vicar of Christ. A vicar, first of all, is authorized. This passage is about someone who is unauthorized. An example from scripture of authorization would be

Matt 16:19
19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

The one who keeps the Keys has been given authority by the owner.

 

[guanophore]

Why a Catholic forum? Because I grew up Catholic and if my experience have served me well, the Catholic church has Great history on early Christianity and some of the best Biblical scholars in the world.

I was about to pass up your posts as a waste of my time, but now that I see this, I sit corrected.

And no, I don’t have blinders on. If you read some other of my posts on this forum, you will see that I readily aknowledge my lack of knowledge compared to others on this forum. I also commonly thank others when they have enhanced my knowledge on a subject. I’m sure there will always be some bias, but for the most part the Blinders are off.

I am afraid it is not possible to be LDS without wearing blinders.

Yes, my church came many years later, but I believe it to be the restored church of Jesus Christ which he established in His time.quote]

This is an example of blinders. In order to make such a statement, one has to ignore the words of Jesus that He would make sure this didnt’ happen.
willi8;3890512:

I don’t doubt that your church received teachings from Christ

This is encouraging.

but what makes you think that the Authority and Power the Lord established in His original church carried on to the Catholic Church???

History.

This would qualify as your own personal belief and interpretation.

Nope. Some of that history I am not too proud of, and if I could, I would rewrite it.

There are references which I believe suggest that the Church was headed towards apostasy. I think that even Catholics would agree that many church members of the time were falling away from the church.

No, I do not, but, by all means, post the references and I will look at them.

The debate is wheter or not the Church as a whole fell away or if it continued. 2 Thes 2:1-3 states,

" Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him, 2 That ye be not soon shaken in mind, nor be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by bletter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand. 3 Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;

Please explain what this has to do with the Apostasy of the Catholic Church? Are you aware tht Thessolonika was only one small city? If you think a falling away happened, then why has not the day of the Lord come? Or do you think the founder of your church was that?

These saints in Thessalonia were concerned that the coming of the Lord was at hand. Paul essentially tells them not to worry because before the Lord can come again there must be a falling away first (Apostasy).

In Acts it states: 19 ¶ aRepent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord; 20 And he shall send Jesus Christ, which before was preached unto you: 21 Whom the heaven must receive until the times of restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began.

Restitution simply means restoring to its original state. If the Church with its proper authority, power, and ordinances continued on the way the Lord established, why would their be a need of restitution of ALL THINGS???

This passage is not speaking of the Church, but of the world. The world is groaning with eager longing, awaiting the restitution.

Now, I’m sure these scriptures could be interpreted differently, but I am only trying to show that there is some evidence that and Apostasy was looming.

You are right. Some think this occurred about 500 years ago! If you know that the verses can be interpreted differently, would it not be important to interpret them in the manner in which they were written?

Other references include:

Amos 8: 11,
Acts 20: 29
1 Cor. 11: 18
Gal. 1: 6 .
Gal. 3: 1
1 Tim. 1: 6
1 Tim. 4: 1
2 Tim. 1: 15
2 Tim. 2: 18
2 Tim. 3: 5
2 Tim. 4: 4
Titus 1: 16

I don’t see how any of these references apply to the Catholic Church. On the contrary, they were all written by, for, and about CAtholics!

Jesus will not go back on his promise. The gates of hell will not ultimately prevail against His church.

But they did just for the time between the great apostasy and the coming of LDS?

Jesus did not specify on time or how exactly this prophecy would come about. God also said that Israel was a chosen people and that he would be their protector. This didn’t mean that they couldn’t fall away at times, only that they will be ultimately redeemed by Him.

God has always preserved a remnant for Himself.

I’m not sure how you can say that it is historical proof that the early church is the Catholic Church. By early Church I assume you mean the Church the Lord established. To do this you would have to prove that the Line of Authority from Christ was unbroken untill today. We know it went from Jesus to Peter, but then who. Do you really have proof???

the Church the Lord established is the catholic Church. History demonstrates this. You may not consider the testimony of history as “proof”.

The Catholic church did many great things to preserve the teachings of Jesus Christ. I am greatful for that. Don’t assume that there hasn’t been change however. The councils of the early church debated over many topic like the Trinity and what should or shouldn’t be added to the cannon of scripture to name just two. The decisions made came down to votes and what the learned that was right. Where was revelation???

How can you accept anything if there was not divine revelation? You can;t even accept the Bible!

Other changes include how to baptize, the Pope, and even Catholic as the official name of the Church.

How do any of these things invalidate what Jesus taught?

I can’t prove that the Catholic church fell away nor have I attempted to.

Yes, you have asserted this, and attempted to demonstrate with Scripture that your assertion is correct. However, I agree that you hae not proved anything except your ignorance of history.

 Also, the Catholic church did not pen the Bible. They were a major factor in compiling the seperate writing into a cannon of scripture. Lastly, they just didn't decide that it wasn't true. The Lord decides whether or not to keep His Church, Authority, and ordinances on earth.

News flash, willi8. The entire New Testament was written by Catholics, and perfectly reflects Catholic beliefs. The Catholic church sorted through the 400+ books at the time that claimed to be inspired, and decided which ones belonged in the canon. I agree, however, they did this in concert with the HS, whom Jesus had promised would lead them all truth.

My PERSONAL belief is that the took it, hence, the need for a restoration.

huh?

** I’m offering another perspective and trying to gain insight into the scriptures and the Gospel. You share your beliefs with the Catholic church and I respect you for that. I hope a shared respect will lead to greater knowledge and understanding…**

I can’t see how insight into scripture is of any use, if you can’t rely on the source of it.

 

[runandsew]

Well, I have recieved alot of replies to my posts, but there is no way that I have time to respond adequately to them all. Thanks for all the insight and opinions and also for the many links and sources which argue for Catholic succession from Peter. I found a couple of articles from LDS scholars which argue and give evidence for the apostasy theory. I will add them below if you want to get a better Idea of how LDS members view this subject. Please remember that I am in no way trying to “Prove” anything. Rather, I am only attempting to answer the main question of this thread…How can people believe Peter is the rock but still not be Catholic? These articles don’t speak for all people, but they should give you a view a the LDS perspective. Taking both sides of the argument into consideration, I still maintain that niether side can “Prove” its claim Historically. Thanks again for the respectful and intelligent conversation and remember that I’m always open to new information or perspectives…

Article links:

library.lds.org/library/lpext.dll/ArchMagazines/Ensign/1976.htm/ensign%20august%201976.htm/clement%20ignatius%20and%20polycarp%20three%20bishops%20between%20the%20apostles%20and%20apostasy%20.htm?fn=document-frame.htm&f=templates&2.0

geocities.com/Athens/Parthenon/2671/ECLsAp.html

fairlds.org/pubs/ApostasyRestoration.pdf

Other associated articles can be found at fairlds.org

I am just a little curious, I started reading these articles, which seem to show that the Apostolic fathers taught truth, before the apostasy, and I am guessing the the LDS believe what these apostolic fathers believed.

So do the LDS believe in the real presence in the Eucharist, do they also believe in the one Catholic church, do they believe in apostolic sucession, do they believe that Jesus is God, do they believe that Priests can forgive sins through confession, do they teach that abortion is a sin?

 

[guanophore]

I am just a little curious, I started reading these articles, which seem to show that the Apostolic fathers taught truth, before the apostasy, and I am guessing the the LDS believe what these apostolic fathers believed.

So do the LDS believe in the real presence in the Eucharist, do they also believe in the one Catholic church, do they believe in apostolic sucession, do they believe that Jesus is God, do they believe that Priests can forgive sins through confession, do they teach that abortion is a sin?

I don’t see how the LDS can believe in the Real Presence, since they don’t believe that Jesus is God. :ehh: