LDS Question - How did the first church fail?

[ParkerD]

FINALLY

Hi, Kimmielittle,
I hope you are doing well.

Here was the exchange of comments:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Techno2000
Parker,

If the Catholic Church can “Go off the Tracks” why can’t the LDS Church “go off the Tracks” ?

*Techno2000,

The LDS church has a check and balance system in place, if I may put it in that kind of language.

The Twelve Apostles are a check and balance to the First Presidency, and the Quorums of Seventy are a check and balance to the Quorum of the Twelve, and when the general membership of the church are asked if they sustain these brethren, then they act as a check and balance if any one member happened to know for sure of some first-hand major transgression that one of those in authority had committed.

All the stakes (each comprised of about 3,000 members) in the church have a stake president who reports to an Area Seventy and to the Quorum of the Twelve, so the stake presidents also act as a check and balance by providing feedback to the Quorum of the Twelve about the needs of the members in their stake.

The Holy Spirit guides at each level in this feedback and check and balance process. Since not one of those people is perfect, the check and balance mechanism is in place to allow for counsel, discussion of different points of view and different needs, and a feeling of unity as decisions are made. I have observed this happen. I know it works. *

Think of what it would mean for you, one person in a big organization, to have a personal knowledge that a leader who was expected to lead in righteousness was not doing that or had something going on in their personal life that needed to be brought into question by other authorities within the “check and balance system” of leadership. You, one person with first-hand knowledge, would have been asked annually to raise your hand as to whether you sustain the leader, or not, and you would have the opportunity either privately at any point or by raising your hand as a “no” vote within the congregational meeting and later saying why in private, to present to someone your personal knowledge of a worthiness question or a major doctrinal error that was happening.

 

[jlhargus]

mark

 

[kimmielittle]

Techno2000,

The LDS church has a check and balance system in place, if I may put it in that kind of language.

The Twelve Apostles are a check and balance to the First Presidency, and the Quorums of Seventy are a check and balance to the Quorum of the Twelve, and when the general membership of the church are asked if they sustain these brethren, then they act as a check and balance if any one member happened to know for sure of some first-hand major transgression that one of those in authority had committed.

All the stakes (each comprised of about 3,000 members) in the church have a stake president who reports to an Area Seventy and to the Quorum of the Twelve, so the stake presidents also act as a check and balance by providing feedback to the Quorum of the Twelve about the needs of the members in their stake.

The Holy Spirit guides at each level in this feedback and check and balance process. Since not one of those people is perfect, the check and balance mechanism is in place to allow for counsel, discussion of different points of view and different needs, and a feeling of unity as decisions are made. I have observed this happen. I know it works.

Hiyas Parker

Certainly, you know what my questions have to be.
Did Mr. Smith “Go off the Tracks”? i.e, people on the moon etc…etc.
Did Mr. Young? i.e plural marriages etc…etc

I ask these because these are LDS Prophets / Leaders…AND I ask sincerely.

These leaders surrounded themselves with a cadre like mindset people ] to lead. As any good leader would naturally do.

Certainly, Catholics do, as well.
BUT the questions beg answers, simply because self examination of doctrine within LDS… presents many changes of doctrine from then to now.

If the First Leaders mistook Revelations and Teaching and has been since abandoned by the LDS Community …

AND the OP doesn’t call me as a Catholic ] to defend…Catholicism.

I still don’t want some boy marrying me when I’m dead ]

Hoping you and yours are well.

 

[Javl]

Hi, Kimmielittle,
I hope you are doing well.

Here was the exchange of comments:

Quote:

*Techno2000,

The LDS church has a check and balance system in place, if I may put it in that kind of language.

The Twelve Apostles are a check and balance to the First Presidency, and the Quorums of Seventy are a check and balance to the Quorum of the Twelve, and when the general membership of the church are asked if they sustain these brethren, then they act as a check and balance if any one member happened to know for sure of some first-hand major transgression that one of those in authority had committed.

All the stakes (each comprised of about 3,000 members) in the church have a stake president who reports to an Area Seventy and to the Quorum of the Twelve, so the stake presidents also act as a check and balance by providing feedback to the Quorum of the Twelve about the needs of the members in their stake.

The Holy Spirit guides at each level in this feedback and check and balance process. Since not one of those people is perfect, the check and balance mechanism is in place to allow for counsel, discussion of different points of view and different needs, and a feeling of unity as decisions are made. I have observed this happen. I know it works. *

Think of what it would mean for you, one person in a big organization, to have a personal knowledge that a leader who was expected to lead in righteousness was not doing that or had something going on in their personal life that needed to be brought into question by other authorities within the “check and balance system” of leadership. You, one person with first-hand knowledge, would have been asked annually to raise your hand as to whether you sustain the leader, or not, and you would have the opportunity either privately at any point or by raising your hand as a “no” vote within the congregational meeting and later saying why in private, to present to someone your personal knowledge of a worthiness question or a major doctrinal error that was happening.

The Catholic Church also has its Checks and balances. Besides the Pope, there is the Curia, the Magisterium, the Synods, Councils, Theologians, etc. Each has to be in accord with each other to make sure that no error or heresy enters into the teachings.
This is what has kept the Catholic true in its 2000 year history and mission. As I have
said many times previously, to try to prove otherwise is an exercize in futility.

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

 

[rinnie]

JAVL,

I don’t view it as a question of “taking over the church.” Maybe “watching over the church.”
You have a tradition that “Peter’s successor was named while some of the other Apostles may have been alive” but that is merely a tradition with neither proof from the Bible nor any evidence from real history recorded in 70-90AD. The idea that “no objection was ever made” is a nice assumption, but it is merely a convenient assumption.

Why would John object to something that was going to be made into a tradition after he was gone from among the members of the earthly church? He did give clues about what was going to happen, through his recording of the vision he had, but since he saw the end from the beginning, and the events along the way, and Christ’s ultimate triumph, he would be content in knowing he had personally done his able-bodied best to preserve the pure doctrines and ordinances of the fullness of the gospel.

parker my love, I am very confused about something. Are you saying that John went against the word of God. Are you saying when Jesus said the Church would never fall that John is disagreeing with him in scripture and saying it will? Because that would not only you saying Jesus lied, that would mean You are saying John said Jesus lied to. That a Big Fat problem now. I agree that John saw Jesus Triumph but we as Christians don’t need to see this. We got the words of Jesus to promise us and the power of the HS to guide us.

 

[Chris-WA]

The apostle John was the most senior of those on earth who had authority from Christ, when he was the last living apostle. It should be obvious that he would be the authorized leader. When he wrote the Book of Revelation, it should be obvious that he had authority from God to give the world a prophetic vision and prophetic writing and prophetic teachings–some of the most important teachings in the entire Bible.

All of what you seem to consider obvious are based on erroneous presuppositions of how church authority was passed on from the very beginning. You assume, incorrectly, that because the LDS church typically passes on leadership to the most senior apostle, that the early church must have been this way also. But recorded history refutes your assumptions. I don’t know why learned LDS seem to have such a lack of understanding in this area when so much information is available. My guess is that they either choose to ignore it or do a lot of mental gymnastics to twist it into the same form used within the LDS church today. There is a great deal of historical writing that proves the supreme leadership position within the early church was not passed on to the senior surviving apostle, but rather to the bishop of Rome, the successor of the supreme Apostle Peter. Even some Protestant scholars have come to accept this, but LDS simply will not see history for what it is.

There is nothing in the New Testament that indicates John would not be the designated leader of the church when he was the last living apostle. Nor does anything indicate that the church in Rome had any more of a higher position of authority or responsibility than any other place on earth where the gospel was being preached.

This is bad exegesis of scripture in which you project your modern assumptions (based on the current LDS heiarchy) back onto the historical church. You need to look at the historical church based on objective independent evidence rather than through a modern LDS lens. There is plenty to indicate that the bishop of Rome had authority over the rest of the church as recorded in historical documents. Why would this have to be in the bible for you to believe it?

Whether John was “upset” or not (remember that he was the apostle of love), does not bear on the question of who had the rightful and fully authorized position of authority as the leader of the church on the earth. It ought to be obvious who had that position of authority, and it was John.

Again, not obvious. You are basing this on nothing other than the current LDS church structure and projecting it back onto the early church.

Put all those elements into the mix of the early church, plus slow transportation methods and inefficient communication methods, and it is relatively easy to understand why there were departures from the pure original teachings, and the example of not listing John as the leader of the church on earth is an example of this very departure and its quite inevitable consequences for that time period.

This makes me chuckle because of the underlying unspoken (and rediculous) presupposition one must have to accept your statement…which is that Jesus Christ failed to establish a church that could last past one generation, that the Holy Spirit would not guide it into all truth, and that Jesus would leave the church orphans. I’m quite sure Jesus was aware of the problems associated with primitive communications and transportation, and also quite aware that controversies would arise. But I give Him much more credit than Mormons do when it comes to establishing a Church, under the protection of the Holy Spirit (which cannot be denied), that could outlast onslaught from both without and within. Why would Jesus go to all the trouble to commission the twelve to spread the church to all nations when He knew it would fail within one generation? It just doesn’t make any sense at all.

My friend, I know this is hard to accept because you have devoted your life to the Mormon Church, but the biblical and historical truth is that Jesus Christ established His Church, under the constant and faithful protection of the Holy Spirit, to last for all time. Naturally, His Church would face opposition and controversies from both within and without all along the way becuase it is made up of flawed human beings. But there is no denying that the Catholic Church is the only church that can directly trace its origin to Peter and the Apostles (and thereby Christ Himself). It has survived every challenge for over 2000 years and will continue to do so. Kingdoms rise and fall, nations come and go, yet the Catholic Church remains to proclaim the gospel to the world and will continue to do so.

 

[Jay53]

Jay53,
Jesus added to the doctrinal knowledge and foundation of the Old Testament, and actually refuted the beliefs of the Pharisees, so what the “Jewish people” believed is neither here nor there with respect to what is true doctrine.

It is important if you are completely changing scripture as to the nature of God and His relationship to us, i.e. God the Father is now an exalted man who has a wife and spirit children. That was never revealed by God at any time before Joseph Smith.

I already had a thorough discussion about Matthew 22:23-33 which discusses marriage. It was the recent thread on LDS celestial marriage. --snip for length–
I disagree with your belief and interpretation of that scripture. I also haven’t seen where anyone in the early church interpreted that passage in the same way. I guess if I did agree with you on that, I would be Mormon.

I have wanted to convey an understanding that the church drifted, not that it “failed.” Again, there is no evidence from 60-70-80-90 AD that anyone in the church thought Linus was the earthly head of the church following Peter’s death. It is later tradition that says that was the case. It was not contemporaneous history. John’s writings don’t convey any sense of there being some other leader besides the apostles who should be viewed by the members as the earthly leader of the church. I suggest you re-read his epistles and the Book of Revelation with that kind of question in mind.

The early chapters of the Book of Revelation, which would cover a later time period than all of the epistles in the New Testament, shows that John was concerned about influences within the church that were leading people astray. He gives repeated warnings.

John was gone from the scene sometime between 100AD-120AD. The drift had already begun in certain places, but of course continued after he was gone. The keys of the power that “Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven” were gone when John was gone.

So two kinds of loss happened–a drift in doctrinal purity, and a loss of that which God had given and man could not take upon himself: authority directly from God. What remained appeared operationally “the same” and organizationally “similar” (with no Twelve Apostles), but it lacked the key elements that needed to be preserved in purity, and the clearest evidence of that is when later tradition ignored John’s leadership role and said Linus had been given keys that in fact he had not been given.

I still don’t understand your premise. If you don’t believe that Linus was a successor to Peter, then who was? If you believe it was only John, then John would have passed it to his disciples. At what point in the chronology of Popes is there someone ordained a priest who shouldn’t have been? I just don’t understand who Mormons believe should have been given primacy after John. It seems as if you are saying that whoever did have primacy after John started teaching heresies and leading the Church off track, which we know from the writings of the disciples of John was not the case. I don’t believe that anywhere in the writings of the Early Church Fathers is there any mention of any of the Mormon doctrines in question.
**Polycarp **- (Polycarp - A Father of the Christian Church
Polycarp is a celebrated figure in the history of Christianity. A direct pupil of the apostle John, Polycarp lived between 70 and 155 A.D., connecting him to both the biblical apostles and the age of the early church fathers. polycarp.net/ )
St. Irenaeus
He was probably born about the year 125, in one of those maritime provinces of Asia Minor where the memory of the apostles was still cherished and where Christians were numerous. He was most influenced by St. Polycarp who had known the apostles or their immediate disciples catholic.org/saints/saint.php?saint_id=291
St. Clement of Rome
One of the Seventy Apostles. Consecrated by Saint Peter the Apostle. Mentioned in Philippians 4:3. Fourth Pope. Apostolic Father. Author of the Epistle to the Corinthians. His name occurs in the Canon of the Mass. Origen and Saint Jerome identify him as working with Saint Paul the Apostle. Martyred in the persecutions of Trajan. saints.sqpn.com/pope-saint-clement-i/
St. Ignatius of Antioch
Convert from paganism to Christianity. Succeeded Saint Peter the Apostle as bishop of Antioch, Syria. Served during persecution of Domitian. During the persecution of Trajan, he was ordered taken to Rome to be killed by wild animals. On the way, a journey which took months, he wrote a series of encouraging letters to the churches under his care. Martyr. Apostolic Father. His name occurs in the “Nobis quoque peccatoribus” in the Canon of the Mass. saints.sqpn.com/saint-ignatius-of-antioch/

So, my question then becomes who changed these doctrines and led the Church astray? You say there was a drift in doctrinal purity, but I still don’t see it. St. Peter, St. Paul and St. John all taught their successors and nowhere in their writings are there any of the contentious teachings of the Mormons.

In fact, according to an article on St. John, he did still have authority and a leadership role in the early Church and had a hand in ordaining and appointing bishops throughout the land. So it wasn’t these men that lost their doctrinal purity. If your claim that whoever was given primacy after St. John was a usurper and shouldn’t have had “the keys”, then certainly the direct disciples of St. John would have known this and protested and we would have heard of these Mormon doctrines before Joseph Smith.
ewtn.com/library/MARY/JOHNEVAN.HTM

 

[ParkerD]

parker my love, I am very confused about something. Are you saying that John went against the word of God. Are you saying when Jesus said the Church would never fall that John is disagreeing with him in scripture and saying it will? Because that would not only you saying Jesus lied, that would mean You are saying John said Jesus lied to. That a Big Fat problem now. I agree that John saw Jesus Triumph but we as Christians don’t need to see this. We got the words of Jesus to promise us and the power of the HS to guide us.

Hi, Rinnie,
Jesus said the gates of hell would not prevail against “it”, but this is not the same thing as saying “the church would never fall” nor that “the Holy Spirit will be with people who choose by their own free will to ignore the promptings of the Holy Spirit.” God grants the guidance to people who sincerely seek the guidance, but if they seek their own way of doing things, then they lose that guidance from God.

 

[catholic-rcia]

In the LDS faith Jesus does not carry as much weight as In the Catholic Church, His Church. As he is God, not just a good man who tried to keep a Church together and failed. Its a whole different way of thinking. Jesus is our very being, he being our Creator. When you think of Him as part of Creation it all gets muddied up. I am really hitting the mark with the Cross, the Crucifix here in Utah. I give tours of our Church each month and it is at the foot of the Crucifix that seems to clear the air. Go here:
chooseyourcross.com/UtahMission_Cross.html
You might have to cut and paste it. How can you read these scriptures and deny that Jesus came to die on the Cross for us? That it was there that we are saved? I know that the LDS will say that the Scriptures were changed. But there is to many about the power of Christ’s Cross. Our atonement did not take place in the Garden. It took place on the Cross. Pride and ego have to be destryed and this is what Christ did on the Cross for each of us. To say His church failed and was restored by a man is all about pride and ego. Catholic who understand this go to Confession on a regular basis.
God Bless
www.utahmission.com

 

[ParkerD]

Chris-WA,
Hello, and thanks for your concern. You talked about ample evidence that shows the papacy in Rome was well known within the historical documents. You may cite the sources or post them, and I’ll read it. I assume you are talking about contemporaneous documents to 70 AD, correct, that cite Rome as the headquarters of the church and Linus as the head bishop? Polycarp certainly didn’t mention that at all in his writings to the Philippians. Neither did Ignatius, that I could find. They both talk about divisions within the church, though, including about the subject of the manner of presenting the eucharist (but I don’t really want to go there in this thread).

 

[ParkerD]

Jay53,
I’ve been reading the writings classified as the “early Christian writings.” Here are passages from Clement:

1Clem 33:4
Above all, as the most excellent and exceeding great work of His
intelligence, with His sacred and faultless hands He formed man in
the impress of His own image.

1Clem 33:5
For thus saith God Let us make man after our image and after our
likeness. And God made man; male and female made He them.

1Clem 41:2
Not in every place, brethren, are the continual daily sacrifices
offered, or the freewill offerings, or the sin offerings and the
trespass offerings, but in Jerusalem alone. And even there the
offering is not made in every place, but before the sanctuary in the
court of the altar; and this too through the high priest and the afore
said ministers, after that the victim to be offered hath been
inspected for blemishes.

1Clem 44:5
For we see that ye have displaced certain persons, though they were
living honorably, from the ministration which had been respected by
them blamelessly.

1Clem 46:9
Your division hath perverted many; it hath brought many to despair,
many to doubting, and all of us to sorrow. And your sedition still
continueth.

1Clem 47:5
But now mark ye, who they are that have perverted you and diminished
the glory of your renowned love for the brotherhood.

1Clem 47:6
It is shameful, dearly beloved, yes, utterly shameful and unworthy of
your conduct in Christ, that it should be reported that the very
steadfast and ancient Church of the Corinthians, for the sake of one
or two persons, maketh sedition against its presbyters.

1Clem 64:1
Finally may the All seeing God and Master of spirits and Lord of all
flesh, who chose the Lord Jesus Christ, and us through Him for a
peculiar people, grant unto every soul that is called after His
excellent and holy Name faith, fear, peace, patience, long-suffering,
temperance, chastity and soberness, that they may be well pleasing…

All the early Christian writings in translation speak of repentance, not penance. It appears from Clement’s writing that Jerusalem would be considered the headquarters city of the early church. I still found no mention of Linus.

 

[Techno2000]

All the early Christian writings in translation speak of repentance, not penance. It appears from Clement’s writing that Jerusalem would be considered the headquarters city of the early church. I still found no mention of Linus.

Parker, do you really think people were so dumb back then that couldn’t keep track of who was the Pope?

 

[Chris-WA]

Chris-WA,
Hello, and thanks for your concern. You talked about ample evidence that shows the papacy in Rome was well known within the historical documents. You may cite the sources or post them, and I’ll read it. I assume you are talking about contemporaneous documents to 70 AD, correct, that cite Rome as the headquarters of the church and Linus as the head bishop? Polycarp certainly didn’t mention that at all in his writings to the Philippians. Neither did Ignatius, that I could find. They both talk about divisions within the church, though, including about the subject of the manner of presenting the eucharist (but I don’t really want to go there in this thread).

From one of the Catholic Answers tracts…here is Clement (bishop of Rome) exercising his authority over the church in Corinth (hundreds of miles from Rome):
Pope Clement I

“Owing to the sudden and repeated calamities and misfortunes which have befallen us, we must acknowledge that we have been somewhat tardy in turning our attention to the matters in dispute among you, beloved; and especially that abominable and unholy sedition, alien and foreign to the elect of God, which a few rash and self-willed persons have inflamed to such madness that your venerable and illustrious name, worthy to be loved by all men, has been greatly defamed. . . . Accept our counsel and you will have nothing to regret. . . . If anyone disobey the things which have been said by him [God] through us *, let them know that they will involve themselves in transgression and in no small danger. . . . You will afford us joy and gladness if being obedient to the things which we have written through the Holy Spirit, you will root out the wicked passion of jealousy” (*Letter to the Corinthians *1, 58–59, 63 [A.D. 80]).
From The Shepherd of Hermas, once again alluding to Clement’s position in the church:
“Therefore shall you [Hermas] write two little books and send one to Clement [Bishop of Rome] and one to Grapte. Clement shall then send it to the cities abroad, because that is his duty” (*The Shepherd *2:4:3 [A.D. 80]).
I’m glad you like Ignatius. He could not be more clear on this matter (emphasis added):
Ignatius of Antioch

“Ignatius . . . to the church also which holds the presidency, in the location of the country of the Romans, worthy of God, worthy of honor, worthy of blessing, worthy of praise, worthy of success, worthy of sanctification, and, because you hold the presidency in love, named after Christ and named after the Father” (*Letter to the Romans *1:1 [A.D. 110]).

“You [the church at Rome] have envied no one, but others you have taught. I desire only that what you have enjoined in your instructions may remain in force” (ibid., 3:1).
Here is a link to the complete tract:

catholic.com/library/Authority_of_the_Pope_Part_1.asp

For a more complete compilation of writings from the Early Church Fathers, check out a copy of Jurgens The Faith of the Early Fathers, Vol I. I should warn you, however, that reading a lot of writings from the ECF’s tends to turn people (especially Protestant ministers) into Catholics, because those writings again and again show that the Church from the very beginning was uniquely Catholic in doctrine, teaching, and practice.*

 

[ParkerD]

From one of the Catholic Answers tracts…here is Clement (bishop of Rome) exercising his authority over the church in Corinth (hundreds of miles from Rome):
Pope Clement I

“Owing to the sudden and repeated calamities and misfortunes which have befallen us, we must acknowledge that we have been somewhat tardy in turning our attention to the matters in dispute among you, beloved; and especially that abominable and unholy sedition, alien and foreign to the elect of God, which a few rash and self-willed persons have inflamed to such madness that your venerable and illustrious name, worthy to be loved by all men, has been greatly defamed. . . . Accept our counsel and you will have nothing to regret. . . . If anyone disobey the things which have been said by him [God] through us *, let them know that they will involve themselves in transgression and in no small danger. . . . You will afford us joy and gladness if being obedient to the things which we have written through the Holy Spirit, you will root out the wicked passion of jealousy” (*Letter to the Corinthians **1, 58–59, 63 [A.D. 80]).
From The Shepherd of Hermas, once again alluding to Clement’s position in the church:
“Therefore shall you [Hermas] write two little books and send one to Clement [Bishop of Rome] and one to Grapte. Clement shall then send it to the cities abroad, because that is his duty” (*The Shepherd *2:4:3 [A.D. 80]).
I’m glad you like Ignatius. He could not be more clear on this matter (emphasis added):
Ignatius of Antioch

“Ignatius . . . to the church also which holds the presidency, in the location of the country of the Romans, worthy of God, worthy of honor, worthy of blessing, worthy of praise, worthy of success, worthy of sanctification, and, because you hold the presidency in love, named after Christ and named after the Father” (*Letter to the Romans *1:1 [A.D. 110]).

“You [the church at Rome] have envied no one, but others you have taught. I desire only that what you have enjoined in your instructions may remain in force” (ibid., 3:1).
Here is a link to the complete tract:

catholic.com/library/Authority_of_the_Pope_Part_1.asp

For a more complete compilation of writings from the Early Church Fathers, check out a copy of Jurgens The Faith of the Early Fathers, Vol I. I should warn you, however, that reading a lot of writings from the ECF’s tends to turn people (especially Protestant ministers) into Catholics, because those writings again and again show that the Church from the very beginning was uniquely Catholic in doctrine, teaching, and practice.

Chris-WA,

Here is a translation of the text of the first paragraph of the letter of Ignatius of Antioch to the Romans:

(from: Apostolic Fathers, Lightfoot & Harmer, 1891 translation)

                       IGNATIUS to the Romans

CHAPTER 0
0:0 Ignatius, who is also Theophorus, unto her that
hath found mercy in the bountifulness of the Father
Most High and of Jesus Christ His only Son; to the
church that is beloved and enlightened through the
will of Him who willed all things that are, by faith
and love towards Jesus Christ our God; even unto her
that hath the presidency in the country of the region
of the Romans, being worthy of God, worthy of honour,
worthy of felicitation, worthy of praise, worthy of
success, worthy in purity, and having the presidency
of love, walking in the law of Christ and bearing the
Father’s name; which church also I salute in the name
of Jesus Christ the Son of the Father; unto them that
in flesh and spirit are united unto His every
commandment, being filled with the grace of God
without wavering, and filtered clear from every
foreign stain; abundant greeting in Jesus Christ our
God in blamelessness.

Here is a link to that translation:

earlychristianwritings.com/text/ignatius-romans-lightfoot.html

I note very important differences in the meaning between the version you cited and this translation. It does not convey that the Roman church has authority over the other churches. It uses the expression “having the presidency of love” which to me means that love is enjoined as the chief motivation for the members of the church.

I take a much different meaning from those words than have been presented in the version you cited. A translator wields a great deal of power as they decide what preposition to use and where to place commas or other punctuation. I personally don’t automatically trust every translation by every translator. I think it is wise to compare translated texts, or to learn the original language and read the original (which I can’t say that I’ve done).

Ignatius’ desire to be a martyr seems self-centered to me, so I have not been impressed the more I have read from his writing. I am so much more impressed with John, who desired to stay on earth and keep helping to bring people to Christ.

 

[Chris-WA]

Chris-WA,

Here is a translation of the text of the first paragraph of the letter of Ignatius of Antioch to the Romans:

(from: Apostolic Fathers, Lightfoot & Harmer, 1891 translation)

IGNATIUS to the Romans

CHAPTER 0
0:0 Ignatius, who is also Theophorus, unto her that
hath found mercy in the bountifulness of the Father
Most High and of Jesus Christ His only Son; to the
church that is beloved and enlightened through the
will of Him who willed all things that are, by faith
and love towards Jesus Christ our God; even unto her
that hath the presidency in the country of the region
of the Romans, being worthy of God, worthy of honour,
worthy of felicitation, worthy of praise, worthy of
success, worthy in purity, and having the presidency
of love, walking in the law of Christ and bearing the
Father’s name; which church also I salute in the name
of Jesus Christ the Son of the Father; unto them that
in flesh and spirit are united unto His every
commandment, being filled with the grace of God
without wavering, and filtered clear from every
foreign stain; abundant greeting in Jesus Christ our
God in blamelessness.

Here is a link to that translation:

earlychristianwritings.com/text/ignatius-romans-lightfoot.html

I note very important differences in the meaning between the version you cited and this translation. It does not convey that the Roman church has authority over the other churches. It uses the expression “having the presidency of love” which to me means that love is enjoined as the chief motivation for the members of the church.

I wholeheartedly disagree that these minor differences in translation change the meaning at all. Even your own quote elevates Rome above the other churches:
“…even unto her that hath the presidency in the country of the region of the Romans.”
Ignatius is writing to the whole church in Rome, so your interpretation doesn’t make sense. Ignatius is not saying that the church in Rome has presidency over itself. The only interpretation that makes sense is the one that fits with the rest of the Early Church Fathers–that Rome has presidency over all the churches because it has the seat of Peter and his successors. This is also consistent with Clement who exercises his authority as Bishop of Rome to settle disputes elsewhere in the church.

If you’re going to use the Early Church Fathers in support of your arguments, you must take them in context and in their entirety. Your argument is that Ignatius didn’t really believe that the church in Rome had supremacy. Well, how about other uniquely Catholic doctrines? How did Ignatius feel about the eucharist? Was it merely a symbol or did he believe in the real presence?
"Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God…

"They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes" (Epistle to the Smyrnaeans 6:2; 7:1 [A.D. 110])
My friend, Ignatius is Catholic through and through. By the way, Ignatius’ writing contains the earliest known recorded use of the title “Catholic Church” (at least as early as AD 107), when he used that title to describe the one church founded by Jesus Christ:
“You must all follow the bishop as Jesus Christ follows the Father, and the presbytery as you would the apostles. Wherever the bishop appears, let the people be there; just as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church” (Epistle to the Smyrnaeans 8).

I take a much different meaning from those words than have been presented in the version you cited. A translator wields a great deal of power as they decide what preposition to use and where to place commas or other punctuation. I personally don’t automatically trust every translation by every translator. I think it is wise to compare translated texts, or to learn the original language and read the original (which I can’t say that I’ve done).

I’m sorry but I don’t buy the LDS ‘bad translation’ argument. It’s the same old tired argument they use to elevate the Book of Mormon over the Bible in terms of accuracy, and the same rediculous argument they use to justify Joseph Smith’s re-translation of certain parts of the bible in order to better fit with his theology. If you’re going to claim bad translation, then it’s on you to show where and why the translation is bad. Instead of doing that, LDS simply throw ‘bad translation’ out there with no support.

Ignatius’ desire to be a martyr seems self-centered to me, so I have not been impressed the more I have read from his writing. I am so much more impressed with John, who desired to stay on earth and keep helping to bring people to Christ.

Self-centered? Ignatius? Oh, c’mon, you’re being rediculous. How someone cannot be impressed with Ignatius is beyond me, given his undying faithfulness to the gospel of Jesus Christ and the sacrifice he endured. By the way, do you know who Ignatius was? He was a disciple of St. John himself, and probably knew St. Peter and St. Paul as well, so if I were you I wouldn’t be so quick to dismiss him. He is a first generation Christian, taught and ordained by the Apostles themselves. You are making a huge mistake to dismiss him the way you did.

 

[TheosisM]

Jay53,

All the early Christian writings in translation speak of repentance, not penance.

And of course Catholicism speaks of repentance as well (when was that ever an issue). Penance is part of the repentance process, and practically every church has some form of penance involved in repentance, even if they don’t call it “penance”.

 

[ParkerD]

I wholeheartedly disagree that these minor differences in translation change the meaning at all. Even your own quote elevates Rome above the other churches:
“…even unto her that hath the presidency in the country of the region of the Romans.”
Ignatius is writing to the whole church in Rome, so your interpretation doesn’t make sense. Ignatius is not saying that the church in Rome has presidency over itself. The only interpretation that makes sense is the one that fits with the rest of the Early Church Fathers–that Rome has presidency over all the churches because it has the seat of Peter and his successors. This is also consistent with Clement who exercises his authority as Bishop of Rome to settle disputes elsewhere in the church.

If you’re going to use the Early Church Fathers in support of your arguments, you must take them in context and in their entirety. Your argument is that Ignatius didn’t really believe that the church in Rome had supremacy. Well, how about other uniquely Catholic doctrines? How did Ignatius feel about the eucharist? Was it merely a symbol or did he believe in the real presence?
"Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God…

"They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes" (Epistle to the Smyrnaeans 6:2; 7:1 [A.D. 110])
My friend, Ignatius is Catholic through and through. By the way, Ignatius’ writing contains the earliest known recorded use of the title “Catholic Church” (at least as early as AD 107), when he used that title to describe the one church founded by Jesus Christ:
“You must all follow the bishop as Jesus Christ follows the Father, and the presbytery as you would the apostles. Wherever the bishop appears, let the people be there; just as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church” (Epistle to the Smyrnaeans 8).

I’m sorry but I don’t buy the LDS ‘bad translation’ argument. It’s the same old tired argument they use to elevate the Book of Mormon over the Bible in terms of accuracy, and the same rediculous argument they use to justify Joseph Smith’s re-translation of certain parts of the bible in order to better fit with his theology. If you’re going to claim bad translation, then it’s on you to show where and why the translation is bad. Instead of doing that, LDS simply throw ‘bad translation’ out there with no support.

Self-centered? Ignatius? Oh, c’mon, you’re being rediculous. How someone cannot be impressed with Ignatius is beyond me, given his undying faithfulness to the gospel of Jesus Christ and the sacrifice he endured. By the way, do you know who Ignatius was? He was a disciple of St. John himself, and probably knew St. Peter and St. Paul as well, so if I were you I wouldn’t be so quick to dismiss him. He is a first generation Christian, taught and ordained by the Apostles themselves. You are making a huge mistake to dismiss him the way you did.

Hi, Chris-WA,

I’ll answer, but I doubt if it will change your perspective even the slightest. Maybe someone else will get something from my response. Who knows?

Ignatius uses the term “her (this word means the members of the church) that hath the presidency in the country of the region of the Romans.”

To me that means Ignatius is saying the members of the church have a duty within the “country of the region of the Romans” to be the leaders collectively by the example they set to others, through their belief in Christ and through “the presidency of love, walking in the law of Christ and bearing the Father’s name.”

The church in the region around Rome can indeed have “presidency over itself.”

There is not a single word or phrase that can be deemed to mean that “Rome has the seat of Peter and his successors” within any writing of Ignatius that I came across. Do you have another example of that being the case, explicitly?

You know of course that the word “Catholic” was a derivation from another word that Ignatius had used. The phrase does not prove anything as to the “Catholic church”. It is like saying “there is the whole church” which really is just re-stating what Christ and the apostles taught, that the members of the church become one body who should unitedly follow Christ as their living Head.

Despite your opinion to the contrary, a believer in Christ becomes one who is filled with love for others, and one who is filled with love for others wants to live, not be a martyr to go where Christ is. They want to serve Christ by serving others, and do that best by staying alive, looking around, and being an unselfish follower of Christ by example. They want to live for Christ.

 

[Xavierlives]

1Clem 33:4
Above all, as the most excellent and exceeding great work of His
intelligence, with His sacred and faultless hands He formed man in
the impress of His own image.
…

I’ve taken the day off of the CF and I am trying to get caught up, but just as side question: (This is primarily a combo issue from Diana) To what extent can we use speeches, histories, sermons, etc from someone as proof? Diana wants me to believe that sermons are outside the scope, but he we are using Catholic History as support.

 

[ParkerD]

And of course Catholicism speaks of repentance as well (when was that ever an issue). Penance is part of the repentance process, and practically every church has some form of penance involved in repentance, even if they don’t call it “penance”.

Hi, TheosisM,
I think it really is an issue, in that “doing penance” implies that Christ didn’t do enough with His suffering to enable a sincerely repentant person to “repent” of their sin and be forgiven because of that repentance. If they have to “do penance,” then unless that strictly means “make restitution” which would involve resolving any issues related to the sin such as apologizing to those offended or returning something that was stolen, it seems to place an incorrect connotation on the act of repentance itself, in my view.

Repentance should be a continuous, daily action of improvement. It need not be cumbersome or be laden with guilt feelings. We err and make mistakes. We see our mistake, regret it, ask forgiveness from God through the mercy of Christ and probably ask forgiveness of those offended since it usually involves others, and change our behavior for the better.

We do better today than yesterday. We love better, we are kinder, we are more sensitive to others’ needs. We look for ways to be helpful, and do those things. We become a new creature, without involving a priest at all. Our involvement is directly with God, His Son, and the Holy Spirit who sanctifies our heart through the ongoing process of repentance.

 

[ParkerD]

I’ve taken the day off of the CF and I am trying to get caught up, but just as side question: (This is primarily a combo issue from Diana) To what extent can we use speeches, histories, sermons, etc from someone as proof? Diana wants me to believe that sermons are outside the scope, but here we are using Catholic History as support.

Xavierlives,
I think I have been asked how LDS beliefs are reflected in early writings of people who were members of the church Christ established and the apostles continued. That particular quote showed a consistency with the LDS belief, so I thought it was important to bring forward to answer the objection about LDS beliefs being “different”.