LDS: Please provide proof that the priesthood authority was taken from the earth

[Peter_John]

Well said Peter John. I personally know a Mormon Bishop (or prior bishop) through my business dealings. This guy is basically a crook and everyone in my industry knows it. I also know Catholics who I might place in the same category. To condemn a Church for the individual acts of its members, even its leaders, is simply unfair and unreasonable. I don’t know a priest or a bishop in my Church who does not have his personal faults, nor do I believe there is a Mormon on the face of the earth that is free from sin and personal weakness. My former priest (now deceased) explained the Catholic Church as a divine institution made up of sinners. It is Christ that makes our Church holy and His Spirit which sanctifies us. That is why there can be no total apostasy. It is Christ’s Church, a divine institution, not a human institution who’s success or failure is dependant upon the works and actions of men.

One of the things that drew me quickly into Catholicism was that my first mass was one of those where everyone stood and said, “I confess, to Almighty Go, and to you my Brother’s and Sisters, that I have sinned, in my thoughts and in my words, in what I have done, and in what I have failed to do, and I ask Blessed Mary, ever Virgin, all the angels and saints, and you my brothers and sisters to pray for me to the Lord our God.”

That summed up to me everything that I had come to believe Christianity should be, even as it made it clear that Mary and all the Angels and Saints were not objects of wordhip, but other members of the congregation of the faithful. The words of the Lord were taken so seriously that death is done away, they were just considered as being right there, and we ask for them to pray for us just as much as the person standing next to us in Church.

The ironic thing is that I had reached this perception on Christianity from reading the Book of Mormon without reference to outside sources. After I recognized Christ in the Mass I began noticing the deceptions buried beneath the Book of Mormon’s truth – things like believeing God could order cold blooded murder, and the idea that we existed before conception.

 

[benidict]

I’m so new to this forum, that I don’t even know how to post a picture yet…

There are 50+ pages of posts, so it will take time to go through them all. I just thought I’d say hi and that, as a former Catholic and now LDS, that I have no trouble believing that the priesthood is restored. This knowledge has brought me more blessings than I could’ve imagined. It makes “sense” to me somehow, like the answers I’ve been looking for my whole life that I could not find in Catholicism were there before my eyes in the Latter Day Saints Church.

Now, let me chunk away at the 50+ pages.

If you can p.m. me, I can try to help you out. It took me along time too. The pictures I mean, not the conversion aspect Welcome to the forums. Peace

 

[KathleenGee]

Peter, it has been said here before various times, but yes, Joseph Smith knew little or anything of Catholicism. And never researched to find out if perhaps he was deceived by a false angel.

And Steve, yes it is unfair to condemn an entire class of people…because of some…but it isn’t that…just all of us in Christianity…

Christ must have started his mission at the wrong time then.

Well, if He were to start in a later time period…the end result would still be His church being the one accused…because the True Church much follow in the footsteps of Christ–carry the cross and be willing to be called all sorts of things…

 

[KathleenGee]

Also, don’t mean to divert from train of thought, but to continue beyond the history of the Catholic/Orthodox martyrs…there is also the witness of celibacy.

Here is a great witness of the celibate life…who gave his life for the Lord and for all men…

www.ncregister.com/daily-news/why-rome-loves-john-paul-ii/

 

[Peter_John]

Also, don’t mean to divert from train of thought, but to continue beyond the history of the Catholic/Orthodox martyrs…there is also the witness of celibacy.

Here is a great witness of the celibate life…who gave his life for the Lord and for all men…

www.ncregister.com/daily-news/why-rome-loves-john-paul-ii/

Very interesting that you should pick that one. I had an editorial column when he died. I was trying to be a good Mormon, was not considering anything else, and even though I can think of no way that he had influenced me personally, I had to look at his life as a man, not as the leader of the Catholic Church, and conclude that few individuals in history had the kind of impact that he did – and the remarkable thing was that with his talents he could have gained fame in any of a number of careers, and in the end the fame he achieved was not even sought. I thought it important that he be remembered from a secular perspective as one who had changed the world for the better by dedicating his life to the service of others, and if some function of his talents did not serve that purpose it was not important to him.

The next thing I recall writing about Catholicism was a two-part editorial on the theme od a 2,000 year long chain of prayer, just following the mass that I consider the vehicle for my conversion. Since then I have often wondered if the act of writing this secular defense of someone I can think of now as nothing but a Saint brought on some unrequested intercession on my behalf – I can’t claim this, and if I could I would submit it as part of a cause for canonization, because I really consider my conversion a miracle. But for that I gave him no more special attention than anyone else deserving of ink. I had a broad based religious readership and I tried to grant space for anything of importance to the community whatever religious background it came from.

I cannot express how much I want to share with my LDS brothers and sisters how liberating the truths about Catholicism which get misrepresented to them can truly actualize their personal relationships with Christ.

 

[SteveVH]

Also, don’t mean to divert from train of thought, but to continue beyond the history of the Catholic/Orthodox martyrs…there is also the witness of celibacy.

Here is a great witness of the celibate life…who gave his life for the Lord and for all men…

www.ncregister.com/daily-news/why-rome-loves-john-paul-ii/

Kathleen,

Thank you so much for this article. JPII has been my hero for a long time. I attended World Youth Day in Denver and hearing and seeing him changed my life forever. I truly love this man and his true impact on our world will probably not be realized for another 100 years.

Thanks again.

 

[Denise1957]

Lax16,

I understand why it looks like I am talking about a “double standard”. What I had tried to explain a few days ago is that the so-called “Great Apostasy” was allowed by God for His purposes to be accomplished on the earth, to expand the role of free will choice and lessen the potential impact of “believing by virtue of traditional authority and what one’s parents believed”. A person can be a Catholic and believe in it simply because of those two elements within their rationale for believing. (Sure, they also like the teachings and all the traditions. So they are living by what they like.) As far as I’m concerned, the “Great Apostasy” was allowed to happen, despite there being good people alive when the loss of authority occurred through persuasive “leader-types”, to transition from that rationale to the true Biblical basis for believing, which is to have a personal, two-way conversational relationship with the living Christ, the Good Shepherd, so that He can lead and guide toward making personal changes just as He promised He would. That is what leads to sanctification.

I’m hoping that I am understanding you correctly here. You believe, I think, that the supposed great apostasy was allowed by God to happen so that people could be freed from the authority, such as parents and tradition (Jewish tradition?), because it isn’t really necessary to have any authority over oneself when they have the Bible basis for believing and a supposed two-way conversational relationship with the living Christ.

So am I to understand that you don’t believe that Christians have to adhere to what Jesus said to do? I’m asking this because whenever Jesus’ teachings are pointed out to you, you have no interest in them; none at all. I take this to mean that, for you, the Bible is not a set of commandments from Our Lord which we must believe (as He told us), but more of a set of possible guidelines that can be adhered to only if one is prompted to do so in their supposed one-to-one relationship with Jesus. Is this correct?

 

[Peter_John]

I was just going through some of the less recent posts and stumbled upon this comment.

I think I’m not going to go through a point by point conversation on the topics you brought up.

That seems to summarize how you respond to any substantive issue raised. When a question comes up for which you lack a pre-packaged response, you just stop answering questions until a reason arises for which you can give a pre-packaged response.

You will not find my aplogetics in any manuals, and your manuals on how to deal with Catholics assume two things : 1) That you will unquestionably accept the errors about Catholic teachings inherent in their assumptions, and assume the arguments you make are really argumetns against Catholicism, and 2) that Catholics in general will not be able to understand your perspective, so their responses will seem as unresponsive to you as yours do to them, in the process reinforcing in your own mind the strength of your position. Meanwhile you convince nobody but yourself.

Neither of these applies to me. When I first converted to Catholicism and thought back on the kinds of things I said witnessing to Catholics, I was absolutley appalled with myself when I realized first how offensive some of the remarks were, and second how they sat there and took it without comment. I verbally scourged them, and they suffered it. I phonetically spat upon them, and they suffered it. Well, blessed were they when I reviled them, and persecuted them, and said all maner of evil against them falsely for Christ’s sake.

At first I wished that even one of them had responded in defense. I could not believe how obtuse I had been. Then I realized that the kind of arguments I used left them no recourse unless they took the time to completely understand my perspective, and the differences in the deifinitions I used.

Well, I suffer from no such handicap, and I know when I offer my position on an issue of comparative doctrine, you know exactly what I mean. If you feel inadequate to addrress the issues I apologize, but Mormons verbally bullying Catholics in this way is now officially over.

If you cannot provide some clear evidence that the early Church fathers, and the Christian martyrs, were not acting in valid authority, then you have no reason to either assert that a restoration was needed, or to treat as heroes any heretics who have fractured Christianity.

I am born again. I am a Christian. I am the oldest kind of Christian, a flesh eating, blood sucking Papist. I kneel before the Cross, and don’t you wish you could?

 

[ADouglass]

I’m hoping that I am understanding you correctly here. You believe, I think, that the supposed great apostasy was allowed by God to happen so that people could be freed from the authority, such as parents and tradition (Jewish tradition?), because it isn’t really necessary to have any authority over oneself when they have the Bible basis for believing and a supposed two-way conversational relationship with the living Christ.

So am I to understand that you don’t believe that Christians have to adhere to what Jesus said to do? I’m asking this because whenever Jesus’ teachings are pointed out to you, you have no interest in them; none at all. I take this to mean that, for you, the Bible is not a set of commandments from Our Lord which we must believe (as He told us), but more of a set of possible guidelines that can be adhered to only if one is prompted to do so in their supposed one-to-one relationship with Jesus. Is this correct?

In relation to the last sentence: mormons believe that there are different levels of heaven(some preferable to others), and a mormon can choose which one he or she wants to be a part of by deciding whether or not to follow the commandments.

One thing I found shocking is that honorable men who are “blinded by the craftiness of men” are not allowed in the highest kingdom in the afterlife. So, just because one didn’t know any better, one can’t get into the highest kingdom? But the mormons contradict themselves by stating the following:

""All who have died without a knowledge of this gospel, who would have received it if they had been permitted to tarry, shall be heirs of the celestial kingdom of God; “Also all that shall die henceforth without a knowledge of it, who would have received it with all their hearts, shall be heirs of that kingdom;”

What is knowledge to a mormon? Is it simply reading and understanding their faith? Or is it believing the faith as well? If one is blinded by the craftiness of men, doesn’t that mean that one didn’t have real knowledge?

 

[ParkerD]

I’m hoping that I am understanding you correctly here. You believe, I think, that the supposed great apostasy was allowed by God to happen so that people could be freed from the authority, such as parents and tradition (Jewish tradition?), because it isn’t really necessary to have any authority over oneself when they have the Bible basis for believing and a supposed two-way conversational relationship with the living Christ.

Hi, Denise1957,

I need to clarify if this is what you thought I was saying.

Parents can and should have a good influence in their children’s lives, by example and by teaching, but I think that if they convey a sense of “you should follow our religious beliefs because that is what we do in our family”, or “that is what all of our ancestors have done”, then a child is not necessarily going to be introspective and seek a personal relationship with the living Christ. They are likely to attend church–perhaps only occasionally once they leave home–out of a sense of “pleasing their parents” or “fear of God’s punishment if they don’t” rather than “because they love God deeply and introspectively” and because they want to be there, hopefully every week (not every day). They are not as likely to have heart-felt, conversational prayers with Heavenly Father in which they really seek the Savior’s guidance in their life.

Tradition can become a “task-master” rather than a guide toward following the voice of the Good Shepherd, which is exactly what happened to the Pharisees. They followed a pattern that is a human pattern.

So whenever I see the term “sacred tradition” used, I personally look at that as a negative, not a positive, because it potentially supplants personal choice.

So am I to understand that you don’t believe that Christians have to adhere to what Jesus said to do?

Everything I have posted on this forum has referred to adhering to what Jesus said to do, so you haven’t understood.

I’m asking this because whenever Jesus’ teachings are pointed out to you, you have no interest in them; none at all.

There are only two “teachings” that I could guess you might be referring to: the “Eucharist”, which was not His teaching in the way it is presented, and the wrongly understood “teaching” about the meaning of Matthew 16:18.

I take this to mean that, for you, the Bible is not a set of commandments from Our Lord which we must believe (as He told us), but more of a set of possible guidelines that can be adhered to only if one is prompted to do so in their supposed one-to-one relationship with Jesus. Is this correct?

Quite the contrary–the Bible is definitely a set of commandments which we are invited to believe and should believe and follow for both happiness in this life and eternal life in the eternities. The “promptings” have to do with being guided in ongoing repentance toward keeping the commandments more fully, more lovingly, more selflessly but yet joyfully, with continuing forgiveness extended to loved ones, friends, neighbors, and others one associates with every day. This is what sanctification means to me–being sanctified through keeping the commandments, loving the Savior, hearing His loving guidance toward making changes in life, then successfully making those changes and thus being a better person.

The “promptings” also have to do with loving the truths of the gospel, which include allowing for personal free will choice by others, and not having the need or even the disposition to force them toward believing a certain way.

I hope this has clarified somewhat. Thanks for asking for clarification.

 

[Denise1957]

In relation to the last sentence: mormons believe that there are different levels of heaven(some preferable to others), and a mormon can choose which one he or she wants to be a part of by deciding whether or not to follow the commandments.

One thing I found shocking is that honorable men who are “blinded by the craftiness of men” are not allowed in the highest kingdom in the afterlife. So, just because one didn’t know any better, one can’t get into the highest kingdom? But the mormons contradict themselves by stating the following:

""All who have died without a knowledge of this gospel, who would have received it if they had been permitted to tarry, shall be heirs of the celestial kingdom of God; “Also all that shall die henceforth without a knowledge of it, who would have received it with all their hearts, shall be heirs of that kingdom;”

What is knowledge to a mormon? Is it simply reading and understanding their faith? Or is it believing the faith as well? If one is blinded by the craftiness of men, doesn’t that mean that one didn’t have real knowledge?

Regarding what you wrote about Mormons choosing what levels of Heaven they want to be a part of, by deciding whether or not to follow the commandments, well, I’m not quite sure about how to wrap my mind around that one. There doesn’t seem to be any correlation to that in Catholicism (or Sacred Scripture).

I’m not sure what ‘blinded craftiness of men’ means, exactly. Probably it means to be deluded by men. I think I see what you mean by saying that if one doesn’t know any better, they cannot get to the supposed highest heaven, but if one didn’t know about the Gospel, then they will go to Heaven. I think I see where the contradiction is: there really isn’t any difference between being deluded by the craftiness of men and not knowing about the Gospel at all. In Catholicism there’s the culpability aspect, but that doesn’t apply to non-Catholic sects such as Mormonism.

You asked about what knowledge is to a Mormon. I wonder, too, if it is about reading and understanding the faith, or believing in it as well. But then, what Catholics understand to be the faith seems to be vastly different from what a Mormon would understand it to be.

I do have sympathy, though, for ParkerD. When I was a Protestant, I, too, thought that all I really needed was my Bible and prayer, and a relationship with Jesus. I went to Church occasionally, too (Methodist, though I did attend an LDS church for a few years when I was a young child, with my mom). But something was missing. I realized what that was after attending a Catholic Mass for two years before converting: what was missing was the Eucharist. It is a good thing to feel that one has a personal relationship with Jesus. However, as we Catholics know, this relationship can really only be fulfilled in the Eucharist, from which grace is received. It is our cooperation with that grace that we grow in holiness. I would hope that a Mormon could grasp the implication of this profound truth. I hope and pray that ParkerD will understand this one day, too.

 

[Peter_John]

Everything I have posted on this forum has referred to adhering to what Jesus said to do, so you haven’t understood. … There are only two “teachings” that I could guess you might be referring to: the “Eucharist”, which was not His teaching in the way it is presented, and the wrongly understood “teaching” about the meaning of Matthew 16:18.

Jesus said we have to eat his flesh and drink his blood. He akways explained his parables to the disciples when they asked. When they asked about this, he said, it means you have to eat my flesh and drink my blood.

You say that He meant something else even as you affirm that everything you have posted is what Jesus said to do. What that really means is that everything you have posted is what you choose to understand Jesus said to do, regardless of what scripture really says.

 

[Peter_John]

… and the wrongly understood “teaching” about the meaning of Matthew 16:18.

Please explain from the Bible how Matthew 16:18 is wrongly understood to mean that Peter will lead the Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it.

 

[Peter_John]

… But something was missing. I realized what that was after attending a Catholic Mass for two years before converting: what was missing was the Eucharist. It is a good thing to feel that one has a personal relationship with Jesus. However, as we Catholics know, this relationship can really only be fulfilled in the Eucharist, from which grace is received. It is our cooperation with that grace that we grow in holiness. I would hope that a Mormon could grasp the implication of this profound truth. I hope and pray that ParkerD will understand this one day, too.

Gotta love it! I couldn’t believe it what I’d found, when I found myself believing it.

 

[ParkerD]

…
What is knowledge to a mormon? Is it simply reading and understanding their faith? Or is it believing the faith as well? If one is blinded by the craftiness of men, doesn’t that mean that one didn’t have real knowledge?

ADouglass,

I guess I should respond, I assume.

The words “would have received it with all their hearts” are very significant. It means God knows their heart, and knows they had a “softened heart” toward loving the truths of the gospel as they would be able to hear them, so that they would immediately change their life when they heard them and understood those truths.

This is allowed to happen for such people in the spirit world–they can hear gospel teachings for the first time, repent, be forgiven, and receive Christ’s atoning grace. They couldn’t desire that which they didn’t know about. Their situation changes once they know about the opportunities through Christ’s grace, to really become sanctified and become “like Him”. He can help them become so in the spirit world.

Those who are “blinded by the craftiness of men”, on the other hand, have chosen to be content with not looking for more meaning in the Bible than what they have been taught by others, and have not sought personal, ongoing two-way communication with the Good Shepherd who would want to lead them just as a shepherd leads the sheep to safe pasture and cares for their needs. A shepherd’s voice is known by the sheep who learned to know his voice when they were lambs. They “perk up” and follow their shepherd’s voice, and not any other voice.

There is enough in the Bible for people to figure out that this kind of communication is supposed to be a part of living the new covenant gospel, and that living in that way means growth, change, new vistas, and increased understanding along the way. So even though they were “blinded” by what they may have been taught by others, the opportunity was there for them right in the Bible through reading it and through personal, heartfelt prayer fueled by righteous desires. It turns out that they were following what they desired, even if not realizing what they would be missing out on because of not searching for it, like Abraham sought for a “city… whose builder and maker is God” (Hebrews 11:10) and thus sought personal revelation in his life.

I hope this has made a little bit of sense, anyway.

 

[ParkerD]

Hi, Denise1957,

I need to clarify if this is what you thought I was saying.

Parents can and should have a good influence in their children’s lives, by example and by teaching, but I think that if they convey a sense of “you should follow our religious beliefs because that is what we do in our family”, or “that is what all of our ancestors have done”, then a child is not necessarily going to be introspective and seek a personal relationship with the living Christ. They are likely to attend church–perhaps only occasionally once they leave home–out of a sense of “pleasing their parents” or “fear of God’s punishment if they don’t” rather than “because they love God deeply and introspectively” and because they want to be there, hopefully every week (not every day). They are not as likely to have heart-felt, conversational prayers with Heavenly Father in which they really seek the Savior’s guidance in their life.

Tradition can become a “task-master” rather than a guide toward following the voice of the Good Shepherd, which is exactly what happened to the Pharisees. They followed a pattern that is a human pattern.

So whenever I see the term “sacred tradition” used, I personally look at that as a negative, not a positive, because it potentially supplants personal choice.

Everything I have posted on this forum has referred to adhering to what Jesus said to do, so you haven’t understood.

There are only two “teachings” that I could guess you might be referring to: the “Eucharist”, which was not His teaching in the way it is presented, and the wrongly understood “teaching” about the meaning of Matthew 16:18.

Quite the contrary–the Bible is definitely a set of commandments which we are invited to believe and should believe and follow for both happiness in this life and eternal life in the eternities. The “promptings” have to do with being guided in ongoing repentance toward keeping the commandments more fully, more lovingly, more selflessly but yet joyfully, with continuing forgiveness extended to loved ones, friends, neighbors, and others one associates with every day. This is what sanctification means to me–being sanctified through keeping the commandments, loving the Savior, hearing His loving guidance toward making changes in life, then successfully making those changes and thus being a better person.

The “promptings” also have to do with loving the truths of the gospel, which include allowing for personal free will choice by others, and not having the need or even the disposition to force them toward believing a certain way.

I hope this has clarified somewhat. Thanks for asking for clarification.

Denise,

This is for you, in case you missed it due to having been writing your post at about the same time. (Sometimes I have seen that happen during my time participating on this forum.)

 

[Denise1957]

Hi, Denise1957,

I need to clarify if this is what you thought I was saying.

Parents can and should have a good influence in their children’s lives, by example and by teaching, but I think that if they convey a sense of “you should follow our religious beliefs because that is what we do in our family”, or “that is what all of our ancestors have done”, then a child is not necessarily going to be introspective and seek a personal relationship with the living Christ. They are likely to attend church–perhaps only occasionally once they leave home–out of a sense of “pleasing their parents” or “fear of God’s punishment if they don’t” rather than “because they love God deeply and introspectively” and because they want to be there, hopefully every week (not every day). They are not as likely to have heart-felt, conversational prayers with Heavenly Father in which they really seek the Savior’s guidance in their life.

Tradition can become a “task-master” rather than a guide toward following the voice of the Good Shepherd, which is exactly what happened to the Pharisees. They followed a pattern that is a human pattern.

So whenever I see the term “sacred tradition” used, I personally look at that as a negative, not a positive, because it potentially supplants personal choice.

Everything I have posted on this forum has referred to adhering to what Jesus said to do, so you haven’t understood.

There are only two “teachings” that I could guess you might be referring to: the “Eucharist”, which was not His teaching in the way it is presented, and the wrongly understood “teaching” about the meaning of Matthew 16:18.

Quite the contrary–the Bible is definitely a set of commandments which we are invited to believe and should believe and follow for both happiness in this life and eternal life in the eternities. The “promptings” have to do with being guided in ongoing repentance toward keeping the commandments more fully, more lovingly, more selflessly but yet joyfully, with continuing forgiveness extended to loved ones, friends, neighbors, and others one associates with every day. This is what sanctification means to me–being sanctified through keeping the commandments, loving the Savior, hearing His loving guidance toward making changes in life, then successfully making those changes and thus being a better person.

The “promptings” also have to do with loving the truths of the gospel, which include allowing for personal free will choice by others, and not having the need or even the disposition to force them toward believing a certain way.

I hope this has clarified somewhat. Thanks for asking for clarification.

Thank you for the clarification. Regarding the conveyance of a sense to children that,“you should follow our religious beliefs because that is what we do in our family,” or “that is what all of out ancestors have done,” does not give credit to Catholics who teach the truths of the faith to their children because it is the truth, not because it is just what they “do.” Our religious beliefs, as Catholics, are not really ‘our beliefs’ in the sense that we invented them. No, they were handed down by the Apostles themselves. Every Catholic priest today is a spiritual descendant of the Twelve.

For Catholics, it is not so much a fear of God’s punishment that we obey His laws, but it is because we love Him so very much. In Catholicism, it is considered imperfect to avoid sin only out of fear of Hell. It should rightly be our love for God that should prompt us to do the right thing. It is our great love for Him that we keep His commandments. It is also in acknowledging His great sacrifice on the Cross. We Catholics are not afraid of the Cross, and what it represents, because we see the crucifix every Sunday. We can unite ourselves on the Cross with Him by patiently bearing our sufferings in this life, and by lovingly and willingly offering them up for the good of others. It is not really all about ‘us.’ It is about Him who created us, and sustains us.

I do not personally find the ‘rules’ of Catholicism to be a burden at all. Yet, when I first considered converting, those rules seemed daunting - I didn’t know, at first, how I, or anyone, could possibly follow those rules. But they are not the burden that you may presume them to be. Our pride tells us that we do not need rules or a Church to tell us anything. God knows better, however.

Yes, there is a possibility of a pharisee outlook if one is not careful. I have been terribly guilty of this myself. We humans are sinners. But an honest look at the amazingly selfless saints and martyrs of the Church will prove that the Church has been guided by God. That, and the fact that what Jesus taught has not been changed. No simply human institution could claim that.

BTW, there is far, far more to the substantiation of the Primacy of Peter than just Matthew 16:18, which I think has already been provided for you by others here.

Thanks again for your clarification. God bless.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Hi, Denise1957,

I need to clarify if this is what you thought I was saying.

Parents can and should have a good influence in their children’s lives, by example and by teaching, but I think that if they convey a sense of “you should follow our religious beliefs because that is what we do in our family”, or “that is what all of our ancestors have done”, then a child is not necessarily going to be introspective and seek a personal relationship with the living Christ. They are likely to attend church–perhaps only occasionally once they leave home–out of a sense of “pleasing their parents” or “fear of God’s punishment if they don’t” rather than “because they love God deeply and introspectively” and because they want to be there, hopefully every week (not every day). They are not as likely to have heart-felt, conversational prayers with Heavenly Father in which they really seek the Savior’s guidance in their life.

ParkerD, is this out of a sense of concern for your own children and their “testimony”?

Tradition can become a “task-master” rather than a guide toward following the voice of the Good Shepherd, which is exactly what happened to the Pharisees. They followed a pattern that is a human pattern.

This is a false dilemma. Scripture and Sacred Tradition work together, hand in hand. What you fear here, can also be feared about scripture itself.

So whenever I see the term “sacred tradition” used, I personally look at that as a negative, not a positive, because it potentially supplants personal choice.

As could scripture have the same potential. So what is the difference? Perhaps your approach. If one is open to the positive in both Scripture and Tradition are beautifully linked, in a very real and tangible way, which brings better understanding to both.

The earliest Christians did not have a Bible. So how do you imagine the Faith was handed onto them? Prior to the invention of the Gutenberg press, the majority of the population of the entire word were illiterate. How do you imagine the Faith was handed on, before more people became literate? Do you believe Sacred Tradition should be thrown out the window because people can read? What do you believe Sacred Tradition to be, exactly?

Do you see how you have boxed yourself into a way of thinking that relies on things existing that did not exist before? Do you believe God relies on only what you can imagine to be possible? Do you see how you are creating your own, personal, Sacred Tradition, that you are trying to pass off here as “inspired revelation”?

 

[lax16]

[SIGN][/SIGN]

Diotrephes was one. (3 John 1:9) Whoever wrote letters not acknowledging John’s leadership on earth as the lead apostle after Peter had died, were others.

The keys of apostleship was only for the apostles to have, so when they were gone, those keys were gone.

What about Saint Polycarp?

On the day of his death (February 23) the Martyrology recounts with deep reverence:

“At Smyrna, the death of St. Polycarp. **He was a disciple of the holy apostle John, who **consecrated him bishop of that city; ****and there he acted as the primate of all ****Asia Minor. Later, under Marcus Antoninus and Lucius Aurelius Commodus, he was brought before the tribunal of the proconsul; and when all the people in the amphitheater cried out against him, he was handed over to be burned to death. But since the fire caused him no harm, he was put to death by the sword. Thus he gained the crown of martyrdom. With him, twelve other Christians, who came from Philadelphia, met death by martyrdom in the same city.”

[SIGN]Matt 5:37: "Let your ‘Yes’ mean ‘Yes’ and your ‘No’ mean ‘No.’ Anything more is from the evil one.[/SIGN]

 

[ParkerD]

ParkerD, is this out of a sense of concern for your own children and their “testimony”?

My children have their own “testimony”, which they have gained through the process of introspection and learning to understand the witness of the Holy Ghost.

This is a false dilemma. Scripture and Sacred Tradition work together, hand in hand. What you fear here, can also be feared about scripture itself.

Except that as Denise so kindly remarked, “sacred tradition” is what is viewed as having been handed down “from the apostles” and sort of locks it all in place. (I don’t have a fear about it, at all.) That means whatever the earliest writers said a scripture means, becomes what it means because they “took the first hand-off”, supposedly. Then they iced it all as “sacred tradition”.

The earliest Christians did not have a Bible. So how do you imagine the Faith was handed onto them? Prior to the invention of the Gutenberg press, the majority of the population of the entire word were illiterate. How do you imagine the Faith was handed on, before more people became literate? Do you believe Sacred Tradition should be thrown out the window because people can read? What do you believe Sacred Tradition to be, exactly?

Oral and written tradition including saying what a verse in the Bible means, and insisting that it has to be that meaning because of “sacred tradition”. I think 'sacred tradition" could indeed be “thrown out the window” and sincere readers of the Bible would be better off. The Bible contains its own testimony, including the whole aspect of getting the Holy Spirit and getting personal revelation, including Peter’s kind of witness that “thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God”.

Do you believe God relies on only what you can imagine to be possible?

I suppose you have no idea how many times I have tried to ask that question in so many words of Catholics who have disagreed with the idea that men and women are to seek and achieve becoming joint heirs with Christ, which means becoming like Him just as He is like the Father.

Do you see how you are creating your own, personal, Sacred Tradition, that you are trying to pass off here as “inspired revelation”?

OK–if you want to call following the voice of the Good Shepherd and the Holy Ghost as “following sacred tradition” that is really taught in the Bible and really is sacred and wonderful, then that is indeed the kind of “sacred tradition” that I am indeed following and receiving in my life, and observe it in those around me. It means we change, we grow, we look to the Master Teacher, and He teaches us.