Mormonism: Restoration of Ancient Christian Church?

  • Thread starter Thread starter LivingWaters7
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
L

LivingWaters7

Guest
So I had the idea to start this thread based on two threads over at Mormon Dialogue and Discussion Board:

mormondialogue.org/topic/60306-restoring-the-ancient-church-ancient-lds-church/
mormondialogue.org/topic/60393-restoration-of-the-primitive-church/

Latter-day Saints believe that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is a restoration of the primitive or original Church started by Jesus Christ, as recorded in the New Testament. LDS believe that this Restoration was accomplished in a few areas:

Restoration of Priesthood Keys, Authority, and Structure

LDS believe that various angelic messengers, such as John the Baptist and Peter, James, and John, visited Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery in the 1800s, and restored the power and authority of God’s priesthood, which is divided into two orders, the Aaronic Priesthood and the Melchizedek Priesthood. The “keys” of the priesthood were given, which allows for the direction of the priesthood of God on earth, binding and loosing, etc. The keys of sealing are believed to have been restored by Elijah as well.

LDS also believe that the general structure of the Church of Jesus Christ was also restored, with prophets, apostles, bishops, deacons, teachers, etc. There are also various non-biblical officers, such as stake presidents, mission presidents, temple presidents, Seventy (understood somewhat differently from the NT seventy disciples), etc., believed to be given by continuing revelation as the church expands.

Restoration of True Doctrine

LDS believe that certain true doctrines of the Gospel were lost due to a total apostasy. Some of these include:

-pre-mortal existence of man
-God the Father is embodied
-continuing revelation
-exaltation
-creation from pre-existing matter

They also believe that various things were also revealed in the latter days, so certain beliefs and practices may not be found anciently (I’m sure one could say “conveniently”).

Restoration of Ordinances

LDS believe that various ordinances are necessary for salvation and exaltation. These include baptism, confirmation, priesthood ordination (for men), sealing (eternal marriage), and the temple washing and anointing and endowment. LDS believe that various ordinances were corrupted throughout time. For example, LDS believe that baptism is only supposed to be performed by immersion, and that infant baptism is not necessary.

Anyway, the point of this thread is that, as mentioned in both threads on the other forum, it seems, in my view, that LDS apologists and scholars, despite all their works, are unable to show that there was a “primitive Church” or “Church of Jesus Christ of Former-day Saints” that believed in these doctrines that they go to great lengths showing the ancient origin of. Instead, these “ancient parallels” are drawn from various divergent sources, whether orthodox Early Church Fathers, Gnostic theologians and texts, apocryphal works, etc.

It seems like Barry Bickmore, author of “Restoring the Ancient Church: Joseph Smith and Early Christianity”, excuses this problem in the following way in the Forward to the book, written by Darryl Barksdale and Kerry Shirts of the LDS apologetic group FAIR:
**
"As members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, we are unique among the Christian sects of our day in that we claim to have the Restored Gospel of Jesus Christ. Because of this claim, it follows that we would look back tenderly on the ancient Church nurtured by the early apostles, and expect to see almost a mirror image of what we have today. After all, this is the restored Church, right?

Unfortunately, such is not the case. There was no unified “Church” that existed during the period following the Ascension of Christ. The organization that Christ established through His apostles was scattered geographically and culturally. Independent communities struggled to hold the line on maintaining purity in their doctrine amidst social, religious and cultural pressure from within to compromise.

As the apostasy progressed, these scattered communities and “branches” of the Church were left for ever-increasing periods of time without authoritative leadership. As a result, certain opportunistic individuals purposefully waited in the proverbial “shadows” until they could step forward to craft Church doctrine after their own agendas, unfettered and unchallenged by any central apostolic authority.

In short, during the decades after the Ascension of Christ, the fledgling Christian Church was deeply troubled. Given the almost impossible nature of the task nature of the task of maintaining these Churches considering the sheer geographical distance between them as well as the lack of a unified and central leadership, it is no small wonder that Paul struggled so intensely to keep the various branches on track, and to nurture them along the straight and narrow way. Eventually, as Christ prophesied, the flock was not spared. The wolves entered, and little of the original was left unchanged.

Among the many doctrines that made their way into and out of the early Church, many remnants remind us of the truths that we now hold sacred as part of the Restored Gospel. Many do not, as can be expected. It is the former to which we direct our attention in this work."**

There are books and articles with references to things like “the Ancient Church”, the “Early Christian Church”, etc., yet I don’t see such an organization existing. How do believing LDS here view this? How do Catholics/Orthodox see this presentation of early Christianity from the Forward of the book, which seems to be a common LDS understanding of ancient Christianity?
 
What exactly is your question in here?

I will say this, the mormon church couldn’t “restore” anything, because nothing was lost.

mormons have gone from a “total” apostasy to a “partial” apostasy. In order for mormonism to be remotely valid, and a restoration church, there would have to had been a “total” apostasy.

Nobody has ever been able to give a date, let alone a credible time frame for when this might have occurred. mormons make the claim of an apostasy quite regularly, but have never been able to prove it. Right along with the location of events in the book of mormon.

Also, with a “total” apostasy, that means Christ would have lied to his people, and left his church, and the gates of hell would have prevailed. That did not happen.
 
twopekinguys said:
What exactly is your question in here?
Click to expand...
Last part of my OP:
*
"There are books and articles with references to things like “the Ancient Church”, the “Early Christian Church”, etc., yet I don’t see such an organization existing. How do believing LDS here view this? How do Catholics/Orthodox see this presentation of early Christianity from the Forward of the book, which seems to be a common LDS understanding of ancient Christianity?* "
 
We have to remember that before any schism, there was only one Christian Church. The Catholic (universal) Church.

When the schism occurred, there had to be a way to distinguish the various churches from one another. That would be when the terms Catholic (Roman), Orthodox, etc. names would have come into play.

So, as you can see, the ancient church was the Catholic Church.

As far as books that “say” this or that, I can write a book that says I have a full head of hair, but that doesn’t make it true. Unless of course I wrote it while wearing a toupe (not going to happen), then it becomes a matter of semantics, and twisting facts to agree with your own personal viewpoint.
 
I remember TK posting something about when the last apostle died, the apostacy started. But with that he also stated that Paul or Peter and 3 laminites or nephites walked the earth and still do. So if one of the apostles is still walking the earth, how could there be an apostacy? None of it makes sense to me but hey, to each their own.
 
twopekinguys said:
We have to remember that before any schism, there was only one Christian Church. The Catholic (universal) Church.

When the schism occurred, there had to be a way to distinguish the various churches from one another. That would be when the terms Catholic (Roman), Orthodox, etc. names would have come into play.

So, as you can see, the ancient church was the Catholic Church.

As far as books that “say” this or that, I can write a book that says I have a full head of hair, but that doesn’t make it true. Unless of course I wrote it while wearing a toupe (not going to happen), then it becomes a matter of semantics, and twisting facts to agree with your own personal viewpoint.
Click to expand...
Well stated (nodding in agreement) Great sense of humor!
Mary.
 
LivingWaters7 said:
Last part of my OP:
*
"There are books and articles with references to things like “the Ancient Church”, the “Early Christian Church”, etc., yet I don’t see such an organization existing. How do believing LDS here view this? How do Catholics/Orthodox see this presentation of early Christianity from the Forward of the book, which seems to be a common LDS understanding of ancient Christianity?* "
Click to expand...
The claimed restoration is not in consonance with God’s usual pattern…it is a deviation.

When God wants or commands something monumental, there is a name change, followed by a command. These are the significant events in the Bible:

Gen.17:5… No longer will you be called Abram[a]; your name will be Abraham,** for I have made you a father of many nations.

Gen. 32:28…Jacob to Israel…10 God said to him, “Your name is Jacob,[d] but you will no longer be called Jacob; your name will be Israel.[e]” So he named him Israel.

11 And God said to him, “I am God Almighty[f]; be fruitful and increase in number. A nation and a community of nations will come from you, and kings will be among your descendants.

And of course…Simon to Peter…Matt 16…18 And I tell you that you are Peter,** and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades[c] will not overcome it.

John 1: 42…42 And he brought him to Jesus.

Jesus looked at him and said, “You are Simon son of John. You will be called Cephas” (which, when translated, is Peter[a]).

There is going to be a restoration of a lost church…following God’s pattern, why is Joseph Smith’s name not changed?

No name change…no command from God for anything monumental…no restoration.****
 
I am not going to debate livingwaters7 or anyone else about Mormanism. I will only state that this religion, like Islam is based on the pseudo-revelations of an individual, with no other proof of authenticity than their word.
Likewise, their adherants tend to provide revisionist history that has no basis in fact to support their positions.
Since one of the main tenets of both “religions” is proselytization by any and all means, I strongly suggest that you avoid these people at all costs.
If livingwaters7 is sincere, let him/her proove it.
 
LivingWaters7 said:
Restoration of True Doctrine

LDS believe that certain true doctrines of the Gospel were lost due to a total apostasy. Some of these include:

-pre-mortal existence of man
-God the Father is embodied
-continuing revelation
-exaltation
-creation from pre-existing matter

They also believe that various things were also revealed in the latter days, so certain beliefs and practices may not be found anciently (I’m sure one could say “conveniently”).
Click to expand...
Hi LivingWaters - This is the one that truly stumps me. They teach, based on the revelations of Joseph Smith, that God was once a man with a body. This has never been taught before, not by the Jews and not in Scripture.

How could thousands of years of Jewish belief be wrong?
There would be no Judaism if God did not make himself known to Moses and the prophets.

Jesus was Jewish. We know what Jewish teaching is now and what is has been for thousands of years. How can they re-define God?
 
For me, to believe in Jesus Christ, one must hold fast to each and every thing that He said. He founded a Church and prophesied that the gates of hell would not prevail against it. He also prophesied Peter’s threefold denial. Yet, even this was not the gates of hell prevailing, as Peter was restored to grace by Christ after Peter re-affirmed his love of Him. Just as Peter’s denials and reaffirmations were the fulfillment of prophecy, so also is the continuation of the Church against which the gates of hell will not prevail.

I note that each and every restoration/rebellion/reformation has somehow changed revealed truth about Christ. These attacks do not have their inspiration in heaven.

To maintain that the Church has failed, and that a “restoration” is needed is to me a denial of Christ.
 
lax16 said:
Hi LivingWaters - This is the one that truly stumps me. They teach, based on the revelations of Joseph Smith, that God was once a man with a body. This has never been taught before, not by the Jews and not in Scripture.

How could thousands of years of Jewish belief be wrong?
There would be no Judaism if God did not make himself known to Moses and the prophets.

Jesus was Jewish. We know what Jewish teaching is now and what is has been for thousands of years. How can they re-define God?
Click to expand...
Yes I agree with you. For me, I don’t necessarily have a problem with the belief that God the Father is embodied. That never was problematic for me, and I think it’s one of those things that just “makes sense” to most people when they think about or imagine God.

The problem for me is the belief that God the Father was once a man that progressed to Godhood. Now, some LDS apologists will claim that the King Follett Discourse, which talks about God once being a man, says that the Father did this “the same as Jesus Christ”, which means that, just like how Christ was God that descended to earth and became a man, lived a sinless life, etc, the same could apply to the Father in the understanding of Him once being a man. I don’t agree with that understanding because the KFD also talks about how Joseph Smith would “refute the idea” that God was always God, and many LDS prophets and apostles have talked about how the Father progressed, that we have to do the same as He did, etc. As I’ve told a few non-LDS friends lately, “I like my God to have always been God, and didn’t have to progress to being God”.

As for Judaism, well, you have to remember that LDS believe in dispensations. LDS believe that the Gospel of Jesus Christ was taught to Adam, and that prophets from that day have taught the Gospel (I think there are ECFs that talk about how the Gospel was known to OT prophets). After they taught the Gospel, there would be periods of apostasy, followed by restoration with the calling of a new prophet. So, LDS apologists would say that Judaism is not in its pure form, and has gone through various changes. I think that such a view is true in a sense (and various non-LDS scholars say as much), however I think that LDS misappropriate certain facts. For example, yes, ancient Israelites did believe in multiple gods, or a Council of Gods if you will. However, the Old Testament is all about the One True God calling the people back to the worship of Him, through the prophets. Also, the Divine Council is understood in traditional Christianity as involving God and the angels, not other deities. For more on this, see “You’ve Seen One Elohim, You’ve Seen Them All? A Critique of Mormonism’s Use of Psalm 82” by Michael Heiser (PhD in Hebrew Bible and Semitic Languages).

Also, I think LDS apologists would also claim that, apparently like traditional Christianity, Judaism has been Hellenized, and has accepted various philosophical propositions in the place of direct revelation from God on those topics. They view Greek philosophy and its usage in Judeo-Christianity very negatively. Many LDS apologetic works on the apostasy focus on the alleged replacement of Divine revelation with philosophy, philosophers replacing prophets, at least in that view of history.
 
pablope said:
The claimed restoration is not in consonance with God’s usual pattern…it is a deviation.

When God wants or commands something monumental, there is a name change, followed by a command. These are the significant events in the Bible:

Gen.17:5… No longer will you be called Abram[a]; your name will be Abraham,** for I have made you a father of many nations.

Gen. 32:28…Jacob to Israel…10 God said to him, “Your name is Jacob,[d] but you will no longer be called Jacob; your name will be Israel.[e]” So he named him Israel.

11 And God said to him, “I am God Almighty[f]; be fruitful and increase in number. A nation and a community of nations will come from you, and kings will be among your descendants.

And of course…Simon to Peter…Matt 16…18 And I tell you that you are Peter,** and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades[c] will not overcome it.

John 1: 42…42 And he brought him to Jesus.

Jesus looked at him and said, “You are Simon son of John. You will be called Cephas” (which, when translated, is Peter[a]).

There is going to be a restoration of a lost church…following God’s pattern, why is Joseph Smith’s name not changed?

No name change…no command from God for anything monumental…no restoration.****

While I do think that the Restoration is debatable (and of course I’m leaning to the side of it didn’t happen, nor was it necessary), I don’t think this is a valid argument. What about Moses, Noah?
Click to expand...
 
LivingWaters7 said:
While I do think that the Restoration is debatable (and of course I’m leaning to the side of it didn’t happen, nor was it necessary), I don’t think this is a valid argument. What about Moses, Noah?
Click to expand...
I must agree with L.W about the name change. Well Noah. Moses name was not Moses. The pharoahs daughter named him that but we have no real evidence to what his name really was.
 
LivingWaters7 said:
While I do think that the Restoration is debatable (and of course I’m leaning to the side of it didn’t happen, nor was it necessary), I don’t think this is a valid argument. What about Moses, Noah?
Click to expand...
Why the name change is significant?

When God changes a name, there is a change in one’s authority, in one’ essence…hence the name change for Abraham, Israel and Peter.

Look at what these were charged with building and delivering, and compare them with that of Noah and Moses.
 
Same with families with children who have nicknames…but occasionally they are reused.
 
LivingWaters7
I think there are some books that can create a foundation for exploring these issues.
I think there are a few categories of issues.
Authority:
When I first came to Catholic boards on the Internet, this book was recommended:
Jesus, Peter, and the Keys by Butler, Dalgren and Hess.
I think this is primarily a Catholic Apologetic book, but it does have good info (and I would say the same about Bickmore’s book and I have nothing but praise for Barry – especially if he reads this as he posted here for a while).
At a similar time to this, I read all of Clement, Ignatius, and Polycarp (it is really not that much).
I presented my thoughts on these and was surprised to find that some Catholics I knew were neither scandalized nor necessarily in disagreement with what I said. One recommended:
From Apostles to Bishops: The Development of the Episcopacy in the Early Church
by Father Francis A. SULLIVAN, S.J.
I read this book either just before or just after I read Apostles and Bishops in Early Christianity by Hugh Nibley.
The first half of Nibley’s book and Father Sullivan’s book build on many of the same pieces of evidence. Nibley’s conclusion is that the Apostolic authority is different than the authority of a Bishop these folks existed side by side in the first few decades of the church and then when the Apostolic authority was absent there was really something missing.
Father Sullivan acknowledges much of the same evidence as Nibley and Protestant detractors, but suggests that the Apostolic authority selected/ordained co-workers. These Apostles and co-workers selected/ordained Bishops and the Bishops DEVELOPED into the authority that Catholic claim they possess.
Some Catholics (Butler, Dalgren, and Hess probably) claim that the evidence Sullivan and Nibley utilize exist in a small sample of what must have been a more comprehensive volume of activity. In addition to this as a small underground religion there were different activities for the leaders than one might see in an established diocese. As Cardinal Newman would say (I do not lump his works with the works of Butler, but this is instructive) in the presence of love authority is not required, but when disputations arise the authority then becomes apparent.

The next book I read directly related to this actually came from the suggestion of Father Sullivan. He said he was not likely to write a book about the development of the Papacy, but he recommended Robert Eno’s book The Rise of the Papacy. I found this book to be similar to Nibley’s second part, but again coming to a different conclusion.

Concerning Doctrines:
I think Cardinal Newman’s An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine is an essential from an informed Catholic perspective. I still wonder if Orestas Bronson (and a group of Catholic Bishops contemporary with Newman) and the Newman detractors (many of whom are modern Catholics who deny the validity of Vatican II) are correct that Newman’s theory is a repudiation of Catholic Tradition, but I have not made a solid decision on this. Newman is absolutely necessary to the understanding of modern Catholic dogmas in light of ancient teachings.
Barry Bickmore’s book Restoring the Ancient Church: Joseph Smith and Early Christianity
The whole book here:
fairlds.org/authors/bickmore-barry/restoring-the-ancient-church-joseph-smith-and-early-christianity
A review written by a non-LDS (David recommended Sullivan and Newman to me).
maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/review/?reviewed_author&vol=12&num=2&id=361

Concerning History of counsels:
James Barker: Apostasy from the Divine Church
And
Father Leo Don Davis: The First Seven Ecumenical Councils (325-787): Their History and Theology

I really do not think this issue is as simple as most Catholics or most LDS claim it to be.
Charity, TOm
 
It is true the apostles had a different authority than the bishops simply because they were chosen. They witnessed Christ and came to understand Him and His revealed truth.

Apostle means one who is sent. They were sent out to found churches and they did not fail.

The Apostles were given the power and grace to begin Christ’s church at Pentecost through the Holy Spirit. As I have said numerous times here, the books of the Bible…based on the LXX translation, the use of the Septuagint which the apostles themselves used, the Catholic Church uses. The office of the bishop was most workable over a conciliar model with several as you would find on the Mormon Quorum. Rome was always considered the last resort to settle disputes, although the patriarchs pretty much headed their own jurisidictions.

The office of bishop is fully authorized and graced to receive the fullness of teachings and witness by the Apostles, and likewise to pass that authority down through the Magesterium of the Church. The bishops today have the same power as the ancient apostles.

The role of the bishop is to oversee his diocese. The dioceses are defined by actual geographical boundaries. Not only is the bishop, successor to the apostles, the pastor of all the faithful, he is likewise shepherd to all people and prays for all people within his diocese. He protects the dignity and welfare of all within his diocese.

What is missing here is the lack of documentation of the universal church in ancient times. Those having alot of difficulty accepting the Catholic Church will look for articles that do not give the full picture. Likewise as I said many times, individual theologians in the spirit of the Church would always submit their reflections to the Church for review and critique, in the spirit of communion.

The succession to Peter has never been broken. The Latin rite has the papacy. We are hoping in this pontificate that the schism between East and West will be healed. This healing of schism will be a great sign to the world, as Christ’s constant prayer was that we would be one so the world may believe.

Divisions, disputes, dissensions disfigure Christ and His Church before the world and it causes alot of confusion to observers.

Likewise, Tom, have you heard of the prayer of St. Michael? It was composed by Pope Leo XIII. After hearing Mass, he had an interior locution where he heard a dialogue between Christ and Satan. The devil was saying he could destroy His church. Christ sai to go ahead and asked how much time the devil wanted. Satan said he wanted 100 years, so Christ gave it to him. At the end of that year, 1899, Pope Leo XIII consecrated the world to the Sacred Heart of Jesus. After the locution, he composed the prayer to St. Micheal the Archangel to cast Satan and his legions back into hell. It was to be recited after every Catholic Mass, which is recited every hour around the world. This practice was let go or was not followed faithfully.

Revelations 12 speaks of the dragon whose tail draws down a third of the stars from the sky. Note, the ferocious head of the devil, so obviously evil to a believer, is not pointed out. What is shown is the tail…the allurements of the world and its dissipating effect on the soul to make it tepid and eventually lose faith. The third of the stars are those especially consecrated to God, the stars being consecrated souls of the bishops. I read recently that Pope Benedict was removing on average 2 to 3 bishops a month and replacing them with those of traditional, lasting faith and practice.

What I am saying is that there were a number of reflections on the Church, even by some priests, that were more coming from a loss of faith. It became standard practice 20 years to verify that what text you were reading about Church was based on documented truth, and not a subtle form of rejection of authority or dissension.

You have to reflect on what it is that made you draw away from the Church. Tom, you are a very fine man and are most forthright in your search. What infected the Church of this last century was the spirit of the world. But now the Church is recovering and many are entering the priesthood. In Baltimore, Maryland, the site of abuse and much anti-Catholic media during Holy Week, it was that very week that 1,000 converts were received into the Church inspite of the scandals.

That year we had a large number of converts for our RCIA. So part of the opposition was from the devil himself, trying to make people leave and they did not.

The Catholic Church is in constant renewal and reform. Christ cuts down the bad fruit and replaces it with new. There are a number of seminarians who had the call but would not respond. But when they saw the scandals, this darkness and hurt, was the very tool to bring them into the seminary.

So it goes back to your focus and what is it that you are searching for, and if you found what you are looking for, would it satisfy you???

I would recommend to you, ‘Faith and Certitude’, by Fr Thomas DuBay, SM.
 
TOmNossor said:
LivingWaters7
I think there are some books that can create a foundation for exploring these issues.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the suggestions. However, I would like to discuss the issues brought up in the thread as well, instead of just being told to read a book. I already have From Apostles to Bishops, Apostles and Bishops in Early Christianity (and The World and the Prophets), Restoring the Ancient Church, Apostasy From the Divine Church, and The First Seven Ecumenical Councils.
From Apostles to Bishops: The Development of the Episcopacy in the Early Church
by Father Francis A. SULLIVAN, S.J.
I read this book either just before or just after I read Apostles and Bishops in Early Christianity by Hugh Nibley.
The first half of Nibley’s book and Father Sullivan’s book build on many of the same pieces of evidence. Nibley’s conclusion is that the Apostolic authority is different than the authority of a Bishop these folks existed side by side in the first few decades of the church and then when the Apostolic authority was absent there was really something missing.
Father Sullivan acknowledges much of the same evidence as Nibley and Protestant detractors, but suggests that the Apostolic authority selected/ordained co-workers. These Apostles and co-workers selected/ordained Bishops and the Bishops DEVELOPED into the authority that Catholic claim they possess.
Some Catholics (Butler, Dalgren, and Hess probably) claim that the evidence Sullivan and Nibley utilize exist in a small sample of what must have been a more comprehensive volume of activity. In addition to this as a small underground religion there were different activities for the leaders than one might see in an established diocese. As Cardinal Newman would say (I do not lump his works with the works of Butler, but this is instructive) in the presence of love authority is not required, but when disputations arise the authority then becomes apparent.
Click to expand...
I don’t think there is any informed Catholic that would claim that the role of the episcopate, including that of the Bishop of Rome specifically, has developed over time (perhaps similarly to how the Church structure of the LDS Church has evolved as well).

The specific issue that I am interested in is whether the bishops were given the authority of the apostles, and therefore replaced them as their successors. NIbley obviously doesn’t think so, regarding apostles and bishops as separate offices in the priesthood, with apostles having higher, general authority over the Church (with the keys), and bishops only being local authorities.

I don’t think Sullivan supports the LDS position on that issue, as we see in these quotes from his book:

**"The Catholic belief that bishops are the successors of the apostles by divine institution is based on a combination of historical evidence and theological reflection. Since theology, by definition, is ‘faith seeking understanding,’ theological reflection will necessarily presuppose faith. The reflection I propose is based on belief that Christ founded the Church, that he continues to guide it through the abiding gift of the Holy Spirit and that the Holy Spirit maintains the Church in the true faith. I propose a theological reflection in three steps:
  1. The post-New Testament development is consistent with the development that took place during the New Testament period.
  2. The episcopate provided the instrument that the post-New Testament Church needed to maintain its unity and orthodoxy in the face of the dangers of schism and heresy threatening it.
  3. The Christian faithful recognized the bishops as the successors to the apostles in teaching authority. The reception of the bishops’ teaching as normative for faith is analogous to the reception of certain writings as normative for faith. The Holy Spirit guided the Church in determining both norms, for error about the norms would have led to untold errors in faith.
…

Raymond Brown has well expressed the belief that the Spirit has guided development of the episcopate when he said:

I am not so naive to think that every development within the Church is the work of the Spirit, but I would not know what guidance of the Church by the Spirit could mean if it did not include the fundamental shaping of the special ministry which is so intimately concerned with Christian communal and sacramental life.

…

From this it follows that we also have good reason to believe that the Spirit guided the development of the episcopate itself, for it was to play such a primary role in maintaining the Church in the true faith. Without the leadership of its bishops, the early Church could hardly have achieved a consensus on the canon of Scripture, recognizing the Old Testament as also Word of God for Christians and settling on the writings of the New Testament. Neither could it have overcome the very real threat Gnosticism posed to its unity and orthodoxy.

…

I conclude by quoting Raymond Brown again: “Although development of church structure reflects sociological necessity, in the Christian self-understanding the Holy Spirit given by the risen Christ guides the church in such a way that allows basic structural development to be seen as embodying Jesus Christ’s will for his church.”
**

Interestingly, I think LDS would see themselves in much of this, believing that the development of the Church structure, with things like stake presidents, quorums of Seventy, mission presidents, First Presidency outside of the Twelve Apostles (not found in the Bible), etc. was guided by the Spirit as the Church grew, or, “reflects sociological necessity”. The difference I now see is that Catholics believe such development was Spirit-guided from the beginning.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top