Mormons, how do you feel about the burial places of the original apostles?

[twopekinguys]

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.

Yes, all 12 had that authority, but again, Peter was the greatest among them. Also, since they all had that authority, how do we know they didn’t agree on, or elect the next leader of the church? It really boils down to either Peter bound Clement to be the next visible head of the Church, or Peter had a revelation that Clement was to be the next visible head of the Church, and the remaining Apostles sustained the revelation. (to use lds terms), or they all voted equally. Again, this is where I believe that oral tradition comes into play.

However, I don’t see where that indicates because 3 people saw the event it meant there had to be 3 heads to Christ’s church on Earth.

I don’t think many, if any of the early Bishops of Rome used the word Pope to describe themselves. If anything, I believe that the word “Pope” developed as a term of endearment, since it essentially means “papa” I believe that it has been retroactively applied to previous Bishops of Rome as a matter of endearment, love and respect.

 

[RebeccaJ]

I don’t think many, if any of the early Bishops of Rome used the word Pope to describe themselves. If anything, I believe that the word “Pope” developed as a term of endearment, since it essentially means “papa” I believe that it has been retroactively applied to previous Bishops of Rome as a matter of endearment, love and respect.

This has been explained to ParkerD at least 4 times. Leads me to conclude that he is either thick, or a troll.

 

[ParkerD]

Yes, all 12 had that authority, but again, Peter was the greatest among them. Also, since they all had that authority, how do we know they didn’t agree on, or elect the next leader of the church? It really boils down to either Peter bound Clement to be the next visible head of the Church, or Peter had a revelation that Clement was to be the next visible head of the Church, and the remaining Apostles sustained the revelation. (to use lds terms), or they all voted equally. Again, this is where I believe that oral tradition comes into play.

However, I don’t see where that indicates because 3 people saw the event it meant there had to be 3 heads to Christ’s church on Earth.

I don’t think many, if any of the early Bishops of Rome used the word Pope to describe themselves. If anything, I believe that the word “Pope” developed as a term of endearment, since it essentially means “papa” I believe that it has been retroactively applied to previous Bishops of Rome as a matter of endearment, love and respect.

Twopekinguys,
I’m not sure if you’re saying that Peter stated either in writing or in person that Clement was to be the “next visible head of the church.” Are you saying this? If so, how is that documented specifically within the time of Peter?

 

[ParkerD]

This has been explained to ParkerD at least 4 times. Leads me to conclude that he is either thick, or a troll.

Rebecca J,
I respond when people say that Clement called himself “pope” or imply that he did. (Maybe they have some different understanding than you have. I have already had your (name removed by moderator)ut on the question.)

What exactly did Clement call himself, such that he is assumed to have been the “visible head of the church” meaning the larger body of members including those all over the world who had joined by that time?

 

[twopekinguys]

Twopekinguys,
I’m not sure if you’re saying that Peter stated either in writing or in person that Clement was to be the “next visible head of the church.” Are you saying this? If so, how is that documented specifically within the time of Peter?

Parker,

I think you need to reread what I posted. All of which are possibilities.

The fact remains, that not everyword spoken during these times was written down. Not every conversation between the Apostles was recorded. Not every conversation with Jesus was recorded. Not every conversation in history has been recorded.

Do you see where I am going with this? Oral tradition…come on, say it with me, I know you can…oral…tradition. Sorry, couldn’t resist.

Back to something that was posed to you earlier that remains unanswered. Where is the revelation that says the church should have 3 visible heads on Earth? If you are referring to the transfiguration, that really doesn’t hold much water. It was truly a miracle, there is no doubt about that. Jesus performed many miracles in front of many people, including his Apostles that traveled with him. Should everyone that witnessed a miracle performed by Jesus be “head” of the church?

I posed the following to you in an earlier post that you have either overlooked, or chosen not to address:

So, again, following your logic. Maybe the Holy Spirit revealed the Clement was to be the next pope, and so on, and so on. Isn’t it possible?

By the way, did you mean to use the word “was” instead of “is”? Because the RCC today “is” guided by the Holy Spirit. Care to address?

Where is the logic in the Holy Spirit guiding the Church to have 1 visible leader on Earth, then changing to have 3? Care to address?

I would really appreciate you not trying to divert the topic any further until we address questions that are still outstanding.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Rebecca J,
What exactly did Clement call himself, such that he is assumed to have been the “visible head of the church” meaning the larger body of members including those all over the world who had joined by that time?

Bishop of Rome.

 

[twopekinguys]

Bishop of Rome.

This is a recording

 

[ParkerD]

Parker,

I think you need to reread what I posted. All of which are possibilities.

The fact remains, that not everyword spoken during these times was written down. Not every conversation between the Apostles was recorded. Not every conversation with Jesus was recorded. Not every conversation in history has been recorded.

Do you see where I am going with this? Oral tradition…come on, say it with me, I know you can…oral…tradition. Sorry, couldn’t resist.

Back to something that was posed to you earlier that remains unanswered. Where is the revelation that says the church should have 3 visible heads on Earth?

I noted that the Savior taught about two or three witnesses for every word to be established. I noted that all of the apostles had the authority of binding on earth and in heaven, so Peter was not unique in that. I have several times on other threads noted that the verse that assumes that Peter was being designated as the “rock” upon which the church was being built, is misinterpreted in that Christ, not Peter, is the “rock” upon which His church is built. Prophets witness of Christ. Three witnesses are better than one witness, to establish the word. There is no revelation that says the church should have either three visible heads on Earth or one visible head on earth.

“Oral tradition” can do anything with any teaching. It means nothing to me.

If you are referring to the transfiguration, that really doesn’t hold much water. It was truly a miracle, there is no doubt about that. Jesus performed many miracles in front of many people, including his Apostles that traveled with him. Should everyone that witnessed a miracle performed by Jesus be “head” of the church?

I guess you think less of the transfiguration than I do of it. I don’t think of it as a miracle. I think of it as a transfer of authority, and a revelation that occurred for those present (Peter, James, and John) where more occurred than was recorded in the New Testament.

So, again, following your logic. Maybe the Holy Spirit revealed the Clement was to be the next pope, and so on, and so on. Isn’t it possible?

If so, then the Holy Spirit would use the established method and reveal it to the leaders then in place, and those leaders would teach about it and write about it and it would be clearly established in the Biblical writings that were gathered from the time of Peter and John. I still see the use of the word “pope,” which I keep getting mixed signals about since all that means is “endeared”, apparently. It doesn’t mean “visible head of the church,” I’m being told by you folks. And Clement didn’t call himself Pope. He called himself Bishop of Rome. Why is the bishop of Rome the “visible head of the church”?

By the way, did you mean to use the word “was” instead of “is”? Because the RCC today “is” guided by the Holy Spirit. Care to address?

I did choose to use the word “was”. I have asked before, and will ask again, if the Holy Spirit guides the choosing of a “pope” (which means “bishop of Rome” if I am understanding correctly and is just a term of endearment), then why does the choosing take more than one vote, and why is the vote not unanimous?

Where is the logic in the Holy Spirit guiding the Church to have 1 visible leader on Earth, then changing to have 3? Care to address?

I disagree that the Holy Spirit guided the church to have one visible leader on Earth. That is not apparent in the New Testament, after Christ’s ascension. Peter was the senior apostle and the head of the quorum of twelve, but they all had power to bind and loose and nowhere is it stated that Peter was the “one visible leader on Earth”.

 

[twopekinguys]

I noted that the Savior taught about two or three witnesses for every word to be established. I noted that all of the apostles had the authority of binding on earth and in heaven, so Peter was not unique in that. I have several times on other threads noted that the verse that assumes that Peter was being designated as the “rock” upon which the church was being built, is misinterpreted in that Christ, not Peter, is the “rock” upon which His church is built. Prophets witness of Christ. Three witnesses are better than one witness, to establish the word. There is no revelation that says the church should have either three visible heads on Earth or one visible head on earth.

Your whole premise lies on your individual interpretation, which has been repeatedly refuted by many on here.

18 And I say to you: That you are Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
19 And I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever you shall bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever you shall loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.

How out of that verse that you think Jesus is saying he will build the earthly church on himself is beyond me. It is very clear that Jesus is calling Peter, to be the first rock of the foundation of his church on Earth.

Further, Jesus is clearly giving control of the earthly church to Peter.

Three witnesses are better than one? Do you know how many people have been convicted of crimes they didn’t commit because of eye witnesses? Your argument there is in no way valid. There is an old saying. There are 3 sides to every story. Yours, mine, and the truth.

I guess you think less of the transfiguration than I do of it. I don’t think of it as a miracle. I think of it as a transfer of authority, and a revelation that occurred for those present (Peter, James, and John) where more occurred than was recorded in the New Testament.

First of all, I found this statement to border on being offensive. Don’t ever call into question that I may hold any piece of scripture in less regard than another. Second, your condecending little comments don’t help you at all.

If so, then the Holy Spirit would use the established method and reveal it to the leaders then in place, and those leaders would teach about it and write about it and it would be clearly established in the Biblical writings that were gathered from the time of Peter and John. I still see the use of the word “pope,” which I keep getting mixed signals about since all that means is “endeared”, apparently. It doesn’t mean “visible head of the church,” I’m being told by you folks. And Clement didn’t call himself Pope. He called himself Bishop of Rome. Why is the bishop of Rome the “visible head of the church”?.

You are just not getting it. The Pope’s official title is Bishop of Rome. The use of ther word Pope didn’t arrive until sometime between the 3rd and 5th centuries, and was used as a form of endearment. The Bishop of Rome is the successor of Peter, who was crucified in Rome, and is where the head of the visible church was. If he had been in Alabama, I’m sure it would have ultimately ended up the Bishop of Alabama.

Why is SLC the home base of the mormons?

I did choose to use the word “was”. I have asked before, and will ask again, if the Holy Spirit guides the choosing of a “pope” (which means “bishop of Rome” if I am understanding correctly and is just a term of endearment), then why does the choosing take more than one vote, and why is the vote not unanimous?

Who said it takes multiple votes? Yes, many elections take more than one vote, but that doesn’t mean that the Holy Spirit isn’t working through the College of Cardinals to make the right choice. I don’t know that there is a definitive source that can tell how many popes were elected on the first ballot.

How do you know that the votes are not unanimous. When the white smoke bellows from the chimney above the Sistine chapel, we know a new pope has been elected. However, the votes have been burned, in order to provide that smoke. That is how we know there is a new pope. The only ones that know if it was unanimous are those inside the conclave. We don’t go by seniority, like the lds, we go by whomever the Holy Spirit tells the Cardinals to vote for.

Just a little bit of education here, the first several votes require a 2/3 majority of the voting cardinals. After that phase, if one is not elected, the next series of votes require a simple majority. 50% +1

I disagree that the Holy Spirit guided the church to have one visible leader on Earth. That is not apparent in the New Testament, after Christ’s ascension. Peter was the senior apostle and the head of the quorum of twelve, but they all had power to bind and loose and nowhere is it stated that Peter was the “one visible leader on Earth”.

Jesus gave the keys to Peter, none of the other Apostles, just Peter. They all held the same power to bind and lose, but Peter had the Keys to the kingdom. He didn’t give the keys to 3, only 1. He was set apart from the rest.

 

[ParkerD]

Twopekinguys,

Here is the passage about Peter and the rock, King James translation:

13 When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am?
14 And they said, Some say that thou art John the Baptist: some, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets.
15 He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am?
16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.
17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.
18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

Peter taught (1 Peter 2):
6 Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, elect, precious: and he that believeth on him shall not be confounded.

Are you saying that Peter was saying that he (Peter) was the chief corner stone and the head of the church?

 

[twopekinguys]

Twopekinguys,

Here is the passage about Peter and the rock, King James translation:

13 When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am?
14 And they said, Some say that thou art John the Baptist: some, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets.
15 He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am?
16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.
17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.
18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

Peter taught (1 Peter 2):
6 Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, elect, precious: and he that believeth on him shall not be confounded.

Are you saying that Peter was saying that he (Peter) was the chief corner stone and the head of the church?

Peter didn’t have to say that. Jesus said it.

Peter=Rock (that argument has been hashed over and over)

PS Please stop trying to put words in my mouth.

 

[mjf001]

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.

Here’s an article from New Advent on the second Pope, St. Linus. I’ve included part of the article and a link to the whole article. I hope you enjoy it and it answers some of your questions.

In Christ,
Michael

From newadvent.org:
[SIGN]Pope St. Linus
tt=21

(Reigned about A.D. 64 or 67 to 76 or 79).

All the ancient records of the Roman bishops which have been handed down to us by St. Irenaeus, Julius Africanus, St. Hippolytus, Eusebius, also the Liberian catalogue of 354, place the name of Linus directly after that of the Prince of the Apostles, St. Peter. These records are traced back to a list of the Roman bishops which existed in the time of Pope Eleutherus (about 174-189), when Irenaeus wrote his book “Adversus haereses”. As opposed to this testimony, we cannot accept as more reliable Tertullian’s assertion, which unquestionably places St. Clement (De praescriptione, xxii) after the Apostle Peter, as was also done later by other Latin scholars (Jerome, Illustrious Men 15). The Roman list in Irenaeus has undoubtedly greater claims to historical authority. This author claims that Pope Linus is the Linus mentioned by St. Paul in his 2 Timothy 4:21. The passage by Irenaeus (Against Heresies III.3.3) reads:

After the Holy Apostles (Peter and Paul) had founded and set the Church in order (in Rome) they gave over the exercise of the episcopal office to Linus. The same Linus is mentioned by St. Paul in his Epistle to Timothy. His successor was Anacletus.

We cannot be positive whether this identification of the pope as being the Linus mentioned in 2 Timothy 4:21 goes back to an ancient and reliable source, or originated later on account of the similarity of the name.

Linus’s term of office, according to the papal lists handed down to us, lasted only twelve years. The Liberian Catalogue shows that it lasted twelve years, four months, and twelve days. The dates given in this catalogue, A.D. 56 until A.D. 67, are incorrect. Perhaps it was on account of these dates that the writers of the fourth century gave their opinion that Linus had held the position of head of the Roman community during the life of the Apostle; e.g., Rufinus in the preface to his translation of the pseudo-Clementine “Recognitiones”. But this hypothesis has no historical foundation. It cannot be doubted that according to the accounts of Irenaeus concerning the Roman Church in the second century, Linus was chosen to be head of the community of Christians in Rome, after the death of the Apostle. For this reason his pontificate dates from the year of the death of the Apostles Peter and Paul, which, however, is not known for certain
newadvent.org/cathen/09272b.htm
.[/SIGN]

 

[PaulDupre]

Rebecca J,
I respond when people say that Clement called himself “pope” or imply that he did. (Maybe they have some different understanding than you have. I have already had your (name removed by moderator)ut on the question.)

What exactly did Clement call himself, such that he is assumed to have been the “visible head of the church” meaning the larger body of members including those all over the world who had joined by that time?

He called himself the Bishop of Rome, the same as Benedict XVI does,

 

[Religio71]

why did Jesus change Simon’s name to Peter? What is the significance of “Petros/Kephas”?

To keep this on topic, why do LDS see Peter as having primacy, and the LDS president as continuing in his office? Was Peter a prophet, seer, and revelator?

 

[ParkerD]

why did Jesus change Simon’s name to Peter? What is the significance of “Petros/Kephas”?

To keep this on topic, why do LDS see Peter as having primacy, and the LDS president as continuing in his office? Was Peter a prophet, seer, and revelator?

Religio71,
It appears from reading Matthew and also John, that Jesus added the name Peter as a descriptive name rather than a name change, which is different than the cases of Paul (formerly Saul) and Israel (formerly Jacob). The Savior called him “Simon” even in addressing him after the Savior was resurrected. Other times He called him “Simon Peter”, and he is sometimes listed as “Simon called Peter”. It could be likened to “Simon the Rock”, describing his character and integrity/strength.

Peter was the senior apostle, and had authority to preside over the other apostles within that office of senior apostle. He was certainly a prophet and a revelator, but he may not have needed the revelatory power of being a seer. It certainly appears from the book of Revelation that John was a seer and was of course a “Revelator” and a prophet.

The LDS president is the senior living apostle on earth, like Peter was when he was alive.

 

[RebeccaJ]

It would be a benefit to study where Jesus was standing when He named Simon, Peter. At Caesarea Philiippi:

http://images.acswebnetworks.com/1/441/CaesareaPhillipi50.jpg

There is an entrance to a deep cave, where the Greek pagans of the time believed was the entrance to hell (hades). Built on the top of this great expanse of ROCK, was a pagan church.

Jesus named Peter the ROCK of HIS CHURCH, while standing here, and said the gates of HELL would not prevail against it.

I don’t know how you can misinterpret that as anything but what it is.

 

[LAMBOFGODGIRLY]

Religio71,
It appears from reading Matthew and also John, that Jesus added the name Peter as a descriptive name rather than a name change, which is different than the cases of Paul (formerly Saul) and Israel (formerly Jacob). The Savior called him “Simon” even in addressing him after the Savior was resurrected. Other times He called him “Simon Peter”, and he is sometimes listed as “Simon called Peter”. It could be likened to “Simon the Rock”, describing his character and integrity/strength.

Peter was the senior apostle, and had authority to preside over the other apostles within that office of senior apostle. He was certainly a prophet and a revelator, but he may not have needed the revelatory power of being a seer. It certainly appears from the book of Revelation that John was a seer and was of course a “Revelator” and a prophet.

The LDS president is the senior living apostle on earth, like Peter was when he was alive.

Parker, do you think Jesus would have left us orphans for 1800 years?

 

[Religio71]

why didn’t the senior living apostle after Peter become the new President?

 

[ParkerD]

why didn’t the senior living apostle after Peter become the new President?

Religio71,
James (the Greater), the brother of John, was killed by Herod (see Acts 12:2). (You may note that after James’ death, in Acts 13:2-3 Barnabas and Saul (Paul) were “separated” for the “work whereunto I have called them”, and had hands laid on them, and thereafter is when they are stated to be apostles when they are talked about in Acts. The Holy Ghost had manifest that they were the ones to be called. One was replacing James as an apostle among the twelve.)

So after Peter was later also killed, then John was the senior apostle. At the end of his mortal ministry, he was exiled and imprisoned on the isle of Patmos, from which he wrote the book of Revelation as he had visions and revelations about the end times. He was the senior apostle when he had those visions and revelations on the isle of Patmos.

John was the one who had been designated by Jesus as “that disciple” who “should not die” but would “tarry till I come.” (John 21:23) John continued to tarry on the earth, but was no longer “mortal” in the sense that his body was changed at the end of his mortal life span so that it was no longer subject to death, and that is what “tarry till I come” means, that John would be on the earth until the Second Coming of Christ. But he was no longer mortal, and a mortal person would need to have the keys of the apostleship in order to carry on the work of the apostles that Christ had ordained them to do, to carry the gospel to the ends of the earth. John was evidently the last living apostle.

Peter, James, and John were the ones who restored the keys of apostleship to Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery in 1829.

 

[ParkerD]

Parker, do you think Jesus would have left us orphans for 1800 years?

Alisha,
Jesus loves all of God’s children, and has had them in mind when He suffered and died on the cross, when He was resurrected and ascended, and ever since. His work is a work of triumph, but when John saw in vision that the “woman” (the church) was “given two wings of a great eagle, that she might fly into the wilderness…for a time, and times, and half a time, from the face of the serpent” then he was seeing that the church was going to go away from the earth for a long time. John saw as recorded in Revelation 13:7 that a “beast” was allowed to “make war with the saints, and to overcome them: and power was given him over all kindreds, and tongues, and nations.”

So it can be seen that the beast was allowed to have power over “all kindreds, and tongues, and nations,” but yet the end of the world would see the triumph of Christ’s work, so the “children” who may have felt like “orphans” (as you described it) were not orphans at all, and that is a major message of the entire Bible–Christ never has forgotten the children of Israel and all the children of God, and His work will be a work of triumph over the “beast” and over the “serpent” and over “Babylon the Great.”

Every righteous and believing person on the earth is participating in being a part of that eventual triumph, in that the earth is being prepared for the Second Coming of Christ, and every good work that any person does on earth, anywhere, is helping in that preparation.