R
Religio71
Guest
Catholics, ignore why me. His tactic, as a “Catholic”, in every single post is to bring up something about the Catholic Church to show it is “just as bad”. Ignore the troll.
Mormons, how do you feel about the burial places of the original apostles?
- Status
T
twopekinguys
Guest
Ah, but using a mormon argument here…there is no scriptural evidence in the New Testament that the bishops weren’t assigned by the apostles to succeed the apostles.
Funny how that works isn’t it?
Or could it be that it wasn’t transcribed correctly? Isn’t that another argument that is often used by mormons.? Then again, you do have the Smith translation of the Bible right?
Following your logic in your statement, there is nothing in scripture to support the line of succession in the mormon church either.
Just a couple of thoughts.
P
ParkerD
Guest
Hi, Twopekinguys,
What there is scriptural evidence of is that the church was supported by a process of revelation, and that it was a known approach to matters of doctrine or to matters of authority, and the Holy Spirit was relied upon for this process of revelation.
What is also known by reading the New Testament is that Peter was the first disciple that Jesus singled out to “follow Him” and that He would make Peter a “fisher of men” if Peter would follow Him. You would be familiar with that, and that Matthew 10:12 places Peter first in seniority.
So the practice of the LDS church that the most “senior” called apostle (not the oldest, but the one called before any of the others to the calling of apostle in the twelve) is considered the leader of the twelve apostles, is in line with the New Testament pattern. When the President (i.e. most senior apostle) of the Mormon church dies, the succession pattern is always that the next most senior apostle (by calling date) is the successor with authority and keys he has already received by being called as an apostle, but now with the additional responsiblity of being the senior-most apostle on earth.
T
twopekinguys
Guest
A case could be made for Matthew 16:19 “I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven.”
Which is telling Peter he is in charge of the Earthly Church, which would mean he would have the authority to pass his authority on to whomever he felt was appropriate.
Another possibility is when the remaining Apostles elected a successor for Judas. Personally, I believe that is where the precedence for the successor of Peter lies.
R
RebeccaJ
Guest
The evidence is the Church itself, all catholics, East and West, hold Apostolic succession as one of the four marks of the True Church of Christ. It is a doctrine which has is defended in the NT, defended again by St. Clement, and continues to be defended today.
The Church is the deposit of faith, in its entirety, including the source of the Sacred Scripture which you site as giving no evidence. As Sacred Scripture comes out of the Christ’s Church, so does the teaching that Apostolic succession not only happened, it is required. So essential that it is doctrinal.
This argument, that it did not happen, is obstinate denial to all evidence to the contrary.
Also, the doctrine of Apostolic succession includes the teaching that the successors to the Apostles, the bishops, are given special gifts of the Holy Spirit which are used to guide Christ’s Church.
The Church is the Bride of Christ, and He is ever faithful to His Bride.
The Church is the deposit of faith, in its entirety, including the source of the Sacred Scripture which you site as giving no evidence. As Sacred Scripture comes out of the Christ’s Church, so does the teaching that Apostolic succession not only happened, it is required. So essential that it is doctrinal.
This argument, that it did not happen, is obstinate denial to all evidence to the contrary.
Also, the doctrine of Apostolic succession includes the teaching that the successors to the Apostles, the bishops, are given special gifts of the Holy Spirit which are used to guide Christ’s Church.
The Church is the Bride of Christ, and He is ever faithful to His Bride.
P
ParkerD
Guest
Twopekinguys,
So then, whom does the New Testament say that Peter “felt was appropriate” to pass on his authority to–of being the most senior apostle and having the “keys of the kingdom of heaven”? How did Peter express that precisely so that it could not be misunderstood and that someone other than the person he “felt was appropriate” could not assert that they had received the designation and the authority?
R
Religio71
Guest
where does the Bible say that there is supposed to be a First Presidency at the head of the church, and that the three are prophets, seers, and revelators, in addition to the 12 apostles? But on that note, where is there a first presidency in addition to the 12 apostles? Peter was part of the twelve, not separate from it.
Why do these conversations descend into sola scriptura, when neither Catholics nor Mormons believe in it?
Why do these conversations descend into sola scriptura, when neither Catholics nor Mormons believe in it?
T
twopekinguys
Guest
Exactly where I was going.
We have to remember that this happened 2000 years ago, and everyone wasn’t being followed around by someone taking dictation. Even if they were, it probably wasn’t transcribed correctly…lol–couldn’t resist.
I also believe that oral tradition comes into play here.
R
Religio71
Guest
yes, it was a clerical error, and that other thing was just opinion.
R
RebeccaJ
Guest
The irony is killing me.
Arguing that Apostolic succession is not found in the Bible, while simultaneously arguing that it is required. :hypno:
And here are the catholic churches, defending the doctrine as required. Where did this doctrine come from, I think, would be an important question to be asked.
Arguing that Apostolic succession is not found in the Bible, while simultaneously arguing that it is required. :hypno:
And here are the catholic churches, defending the doctrine as required. Where did this doctrine come from, I think, would be an important question to be asked.
P
ParkerD
Guest
Religio71,
In answer to your last question, I think both churches believe that the scriptures they use provide a doctrinal foundation for beliefs and practices. How many times do I see the “thou art Peter…” scripture used to “prove” that Peter was the “rock” upon which Christ would “build my church”?
You have probably read a previous response that Peter, James and John did things apart from the rest of the twelve because Christ took them with Him. This happened on the mount of Transfiguration, and also in the garden of Gethsemane. They had a unique experience on the mount of Transfiguration, that it is not written that the other apostles had.
If the Mormon church had only twelve apostles including their First Presidency, (therefore only a total of twelve instead of fifteen as is now the case), it could just as easily be said that the Mormon church had just copied the organization of the original twelve apostles, so you would be using that instead of this other approach. The point is that the quorum of the twelve receive revelation from the Holy Spirit, they know that they do, they know that the church is guided by revelation, including the need for a First Presidency as well as a quorum of twelve apostles. The question then becomes, can this be so that the Holy Spirit would do that–would guide people through providing revelation in the modern world?
R
RebeccaJ
Guest
The modern world and every age, God has guided His people.
The people of God are all those baptized. United to Christ, we share in His prophetic office.
The people of God are all those baptized. United to Christ, we share in His prophetic office.
T
twopekinguys
Guest
But where is the precedence or revelation saying the head of Christ’s church on Earth is 3 people, and not 1?
Christ left 1 in charge, with the support of the remaining 11.
P
ParkerD
Guest
Rebecca J,
This is OK to discuss. Twopekinguys had written that Peter could name whomever he wanted to name as his successor. I asked a simple, quite obvious question as a follow up to that. As far as I’m concerned, Clement didn’t have the authority to say that he was the “heir apparent” of the leadership role of the church (not that he did). Certainly, people later said he was and so forth. Thus, “sacred tradition” became the answer. Use of the word “sacred” is of course deliberate, and would be expected for an assertion of authority.
R
RebeccaJ
Guest
So basically your argument is “it didn’t happen”.
I have faith that Jesus keeps His promises.
R
Religio71
Guest
maybe he used “sacred” because…we call it “Sacred Tradition”? 
R
Religio71
Guest
this is like when non-LDS ask for evidence of God the Father being married to the Heavenly Mother in Scripture. They then refer to gnostic books. I mean, let’s at least be consistent in whether it’s right and acceptable to refer to extra-Biblical sources.
T
twopekinguys
Guest
So, again, following your logic. Maybe the Holy Spirit revealed the Clement was to be the next pope, and so on, and so on.
By the way, did you mean to use the word “was” instead of “is”? Because the RCC today “is” guided by the Holy Spirit.
Where is the logic in the Holy Spirit guiding the Church to have 1 visible leader on Earth, then changing to have 3?
Where did that revelation come from?
P
ParkerD
Guest
I have been told by Catholics that Clement didn’t call himself “pope”. It’s not clear from the reading I’ve done (not much about him, but some) that he said he was the “one visible leader on Earth” of the church, either. Did he write that?
You would be familiar with the mount of Transfiguration experience that Peter, James, and John had in company with the Savior, invited by Him. That was not an insignificant experience, and it was not happenstance that He asked Peter, James, and John to go with Him for that experience.
Christ taught as follows about two or three as witnesses (Matthew 18):
16 But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.
17 And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.
18 Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
19 Again I say unto you, That if two of you shall agree on earth as touching any thing that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my Father which is in heaven.
20 For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.
It would seem to me that three bearing witness and “establishing every word” is a stronger and more substantial and stable witness pattern than only one witness, and I think these verses bear this out. These verses also establish that the twelve all had authority to “bind and loose” on earth and in heaven.
D
dianaiad
Guest
I don’t have any problems at all with agreeing that there is a continuous timeline between the early church and modern Catholicism. The thing I question is that such connections mean anything in terms of religious truth.
After all, the Dome of the Rock, though it is on the holiest site of Judaism, and though Constantine’s mother built a Christian church there, has been one of the holiest sites in Islam for nearly fifteen hundred years. Does that mean that Islam is “True?”
That’s why I referred to King Tut and the religious beliefs of Egypt…there is continuity there, too.
The fallacy lies in claiming that the longer a belief is held, the more ‘true’ it is; appeal to tradition. The problem is, of course, that if the earth is round in 3000 BC, it’s still round in 2009, in spite of the fact that people have believed in a flat earth all that time.
- Status