Mormons, when did the Apostacy occur?

[majick275]

despite an even greater state of unbelief in the world (from an LDS perspective) Joseph Smith told everyone that he saw Christ in person.

I have no interest in the red herring that LDS apostles could see Christ if they needed too. The criteria for an apostle in the bible is clear. That bishops are the successors to the apostles is also clear. ECF writings show us how that was viewed and done in the early church. We connect that tot he accounts given in the bible and follow it up through every ecumenical council and then tot he current catechism and we have a consistent approach and doctrine.

what is missing is any clear evidence of a global apostasy. even the LDS tell us that faithful christians still existed throughout. Well if the mormon church was the original then they would have had valid priesthood at the family unit level and could have preserved the necessary authority. but we don’t see any writings even in the BoM that show a distinctly mormon primitive church. the whole restoration in the LDs church was new doctrine and practices revealed by joseph smith and not from God. Mormonism is just another piece of the real apostasy which can never be universal because god will not let his church fail.

 

[zerinus]

Of COURSE there were people in it who had genuine faith in Christ. There are thousands, probably even millions, of people in the Protestant sects and even in Mormonism and the Jehovah’s Witnesses, as well among the Jim Jones’s and the Warren Jeffs, who have genuine faith in Christ.

Actually, I am not sure that they always do.

I am NOT arguing this; far from it. What I am arguing, is that the hierarchical structure of the Catholic Church could NOT have survived, intact, for 2k years and still going strong, if the divine authority that Jesus vested in the Apostles, and which they then handed down to the bishops, were not there for any reason.

Two problems with that statement. Firstly, it did NOT survive. Half way down the line it split down the middle between the East and the West, and later on with the Protestants.

Secondly, what is the basis for your making that statement? When you make such a statement, you must have some sensible, logical or other justification to back it up that is reasonable enough to be believable or acceptable. I could make all kinds of unlikely assertions; but unless I can produce some valid argument to back it up, no one would have any reason to want to believe it. When you say that if the Catholic Church did not have divine authority, it could not have survived intact as an earthly institution, you have to provide a viable justification for that statement. The mere fact that the Protestants have split up over the years is not a sufficient justification. There could be all kinds of other factors at play there that caused it to happen. Protestantism has within its own philosophy an inbuilt mechanism for its own fragmentation. Protestantism did not just reject Catholic ecclesiastical authority, but all ecclesiastical hierarchy. Its theology is a free-for-all theology. Everyone is his own authoritative interpreter of scripture. Well, you don’t have to be a genius to figure out where that is going to lead to in the end. But to argue from that the Catholic Church must therefore have divine authority is simply not a logical deduction to make.

When you look at these Protestant sects, you find disunity of authority. In Mormonism, you find disunity of authority. Sure, there are people with genuine faith, but they are disunified, and that is something that Jesus surely finds objectionable, based on what we know of things he said as recorded in Scripture. As the sects split apart from the authority of the Apostles (the Popes) they went on a fracturing rampage that has lasted for 500 years and is still going strong.

Mormonism is not disunited. For the rest see above.

Meanwhile, the Catholic Church reformed itself after the Reformation, and got stronger.

It only reformed itself after it received a rude awakening from Protestantism. If it hadn’t been for that, it is unlikely that it would have reformed itself. Also, by making that statement you are admitting that the Protestant Reformation was in part at least the fault of the Catholic Church (which it was). That means that the splintering of Protestantism is actually a fragmentation of the Catholic Church. Therefore it is not true that the Catholic Church had remained intact. It has fragmented through its own corruption.

zerinus

 

[catsrus]

originally posted by zerinus

It only reformed itself after it received a rude awakening from Protestantism. If it hadn’t been for that, it is unlikely that it would have reformed itself. Also, by making that statement you are admitting that the Protestant Reformation was in part at least the fault of the Catholic Church (which it was). That means that the splintering of Protestantism is actually a fragmentation of the Catholic Church. Therefore it is not true that the Catholic Church had remained intact. It has fragmented through its own corruption.

1st black statement:
On what do you base this assertion?
2nd black statement:
Not true because no protestant “religion” (including your own) has The Most Holy Eucharist. NONE.
3rd black statement:
The One Holy Catholic Church has never fragmented. The Orthodox churches split away from Holy Mother Church, not vice versa and because they do not recognize The Chair of Peter, they are not of us. Further, if you read history, which I know mormons do not believe, the split between the East and West happened over disrespect and an arguement between Constantinople and Rome.
As to protestants, they are only fragments of each other.

So you want to talk fragmented religion?
Let’s talk about all the broken of segments of mormonism.
From the the history of Joesph Smith and the early mormons, it certainly seems that the RLDS are the TRUE mormons since only they retained the original teachings. SLC just wanted to be part of the US so threw out the pologamy part (huge part, I might add) of your “religion”.

Before you start tearing into what you perceive as our splinters, you may want to check out the mormons own log.

 

[Allweather]

Two problems with that statement. Firstly, it did NOT survive. Half way down the line it split down the middle between the East and the West, and later on with the Protestants.

That is a misrepresentation of what happened 'round about 1054, and also with respect to the so-called Reformation. Much of the eastern Church (but not all) did go into schism, but they retain almost identical theology to the Latin Rite. That schism is in process of being healed, less than a thousand years later. The arguments between east and west had a lot to do with cultural issues revolving around the break-up of the Roman Empire, rather than arguments about theology or authority, though those two things were also in there. As for the Protestant Reformation, that wasn’t just schism, but also heresy. The heretical sects DID break away, and of course continued to break up amongst themselves, and continue to do so today. That split is only 500 years old. We may yet see a lot of reunification, and in fact we are seeing signs of that now.

Secondly, what is the basis for your making that statement? When you say that if the Catholic Church did not have divine authority, it could not have survived intact as an earthly institution, you have to provide a viable justification for that statement… But to argue from that the Catholic Church must therefore have divine authority is simply not a logical deduction to make.

Actually, it is logical, because no other hierarchical institution compares to it. While it is certainly possible that factors other than divine authority and protection account for its survival, it is a FACT that, from the beginning, the Church has claimed for itself divine authority and protection. Whaddya know? It has survived, just like Jesus said it would. It survived the diaspora of the Jews after 70 a.d. It survived some 3 centuries of intense persecution, and the martyrdom of most of its leaders. The Church survived the collapse of the Roman Empire, and converted the invading peoples to Christianity, and taught them to live in cities. It rebuilt Rome. It survived the early heresies, any one of which should have torn it to shreds, given the nature of travel and communications in those days. It survived the schism between east and west, and the onslaught of the moslems. It survived the corruptions of the renaissance, and the Protestant Reformation. It survived the rise of nation-states and nationalism. It survived the Enlightenment, and Modernism, and the dismantling of the Holy Roman Empire, and the Papal States, the dissolution of the temporal power that it had held for centuries in Europe. It survived and thrived within every culture, every language, every continent, and continues to thrive and spread among the world’s peoples today.

It (the Catholic Church) only reformed itself after it received a rude awakening from Protestantism. If it hadn’t been for that, it is unlikely that it would have reformed itself.

I agree, that the Catholic Church of the 16th century waited too long to respond to Protestant heresies. OTOH, it did respond, and did so very nicely, and recouped a lot of the losses in terms of people of Europe who returned to the faith. However, by that time, the rising tide of European nationalism and the power of kings had incorporated the new heresies as a method of weakening the Pope’s authority over them.

Also, by making that statement you are admitting that the Protestant Reformation was in part at least the fault of the Catholic Church (which it was). That means that the splintering of Protestantism is actually a fragmentation of the Catholic Church. Therefore it is not true that the Catholic Church had remained intact. It has fragmented through its own corruption.

zerinus

I absolutely agree that the Catholic Church of the 16th century was the major contributor to the situations that gave birth to the Protestant heresies. The corruption within the Papacy, the worldliness of much of the priesthood, and many other things, contributed to this. The Church had opportunities to reform itself on the eve of the Reformation, but it failed to do so. And I agree that from a certain point of view, it seems true that the Catholic Church fragmented, but that isn’t my point of view. The breakaway sects renounced much of Catholic teaching, but the Church itself never did, and in fact refined and affirmed these teachings during Trent. It identified each of the many Protestant heresies, condemned them, reformed itself where reform was needed, and heralded a rebirth of Catholic piety that sent Jesuits around the world, converting people, preaching the faith, building up the Church and the Body of Christ. Now, 500-some years later, the Catholic Church is stronger than ever, while the Protestants are folding up, rent by fundamentalism, unable to cope with the modern, secular-scientific world coming into being because they don’t have a cohesive, authoritative mechanism to analyze it and respond to it.

 

[artist3189]

wssup and zerinus, just answer this this ONE simple questions please, either of you, I want a direct answer.

WHAT IS THE EVIDENCE FOR ANY OF JOSEPH SMITHS CLAIMS FOR WHAT HE SAW, WHAT HE WROTE, WHAT HE CLAIMED TO FIND SUCH AS THE TABLETS, AND *WHERE *IS THE EVIDENCE FOR A WHOLE HISTORY OF A CIVILIZATION THAT HE PROCLAIMED TO HAVE TAKEN PLACE? IS THERE ANY, INSCRIPTIONS, TOMBS, EXTANT STORIES OUTSIDE OF HIS OWN, ANY EXCAVATIONS?.. The tablets where found in the 1800’s, where are they? Please tell me where the LDS Church is digging and looking for this evidence and what they’ve found, I want an answer. It must exist because he said so, so where are they excavating, in South America, Central America, American west, what states. Where are the tablets? Is there any testimony, any extant history from another culture that testifies to this history outside of Smiths? Please tell me where so I can read about it…Answer this please, this is a direct question to either wssup or zerinus. Where are they digging, the LDS Church, with all their resources. Where? Zerinus, answer please in your words with this information.

 

[rmcmullan]

The criteria for an apostle in the bible is clear. That bishops are the successors to the apostles is also clear. ECF writings show us how that was viewed and done in the early church. We connect that tot he accounts given in the bible and follow it up through every ecumenical council and then tot he current catechism and we have a consistent approach and doctrine.

That’s just a bold wresting of the scripture to interpret the passage in Acts 1 as the qualification for an Apostle. The only recorded structure Jesus ever gave to his church was the Apostles and the work they carried on, to oversee the church, is what the whole of the New Testament is all about. To suggest they were only to last for a generation leaves you with the “kick-start theory” that the only use of the Lord’s called Apostles was to kick start the church. The record of their ministry does not support that. Infact it contradicts it.

I have often seen people haul out the old chestnut about

And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life

Well, somebody took out the Apostles. They clearly were there during Jesus ministry and after his Resurrection and Ascension. And all that time until the end of the New Testament, they were vigorously maintaining the Early Christian Church. Now there are no Apostles, at least not in Christianity in general. And of the other priestly offices mentioned in the Old & New Testament (70’s, elders, high priests, bishops, deacons) only a few remain. So something changed but nothing was supposed to because there’s no more revelation.

 

[majick275]

I have to disagree. The apostles called the bishops and put them in charge of the church. they did guide them but only by teaching them what they had personally learned from Christ.

Christ only came once in mortal flesh. he called and taught apostles. he never stated that apostles would always be needed. The Apostles carried out their assigned ministry and explained to us what that was in scripture. we know approximately when those scriptures were written and can thus look at the contemporary ECF writings and documented history to gain context. (the greatness of sacred tradition)

we can also look at how the early church is portrayed after the events in acts and see that bishops, priests and deacons are all handling things and the apostles are there only as the original group to pass on Christs teachings in their pastoral and catholic letters. no where do we see that apostles will continue after this very specifically defined group.

70’s is wrested from a mistranslated scripture. the number being incorrect. High priest was a specific calling of the old jewish order that in the letter to the hebrews we are told is obsolete due to Jesus.(the office of prophet as well) elders was usually the presbyters and thus we would see that as priests. I think you have a difficult time seeing evangelist as a priesthood “office” and especially mapping that to patriarch. The deacons weren’t young boys nor was there a priesthood office of teacher. Priests weren’t boys either. I don’t see stake presidents or presiding bishoprics nor do i see counselors being called in triumvirates of leadership at every level. I don’t see the priesthood being given to everyone either. The Apostles gave us the final public revelation that they received from Christ on earth.

I don’t see the problem with bishops as the line of apostolic succession. the bible gives us that clearly.

I offer this article as good food for thought (not the last word but should START interesting conversation)on the subject: ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ262.HTM

 

[JonathanKinsman]

When did the Apostacy occur?

Date, Place and People.

Just the facts, man, forget the hooey.

Pax Christi

Yoo Hoo !

Any Mormons out there ??!!

Yoo Hoo !

Answer the OP’s question.

A “No answer” will give further proof that your presence here is not to EXPLAIN your ‘belief system,’ but rather to proselytize for stragglers.

Stragglers can be found at James White’s website or any Mormon ward or stake building.

:banghead: Convert the true believers:banghead:

Evidently, from the contradictory and oxymoronic descriptions given for what Mormons believe by Zerinus and wussup and friends,

they would be in desperate need of assurance of ‘godhood’ on a planet of their choosing.
:bounce:

 

[zerinus]

That is a misrepresentation of what happened 'round about 1054, and also with respect to the so-called Reformation. Much of the eastern Church (but not all) did go into schism, but they retain almost identical theology to the Latin Rite. That schism is in process of being healed, less than a thousand years later.

I will believe that when I see it! That “healing” attempt has been going on since 1054, and has never come to anything.

The arguments between east and west had a lot to do with cultural issues revolving around the break-up of the Roman Empire, rather than arguments about theology or authority, though those two things were also in there.

Hardly! The arguments were over both doctrine as well as authority. Theologically, the schism occurred over the “filioque” controversy (the double procession of the Holy Spirit). The “authority” disappeared when the two bishops excommunicated each other, each claiming authority over the other. And by the way, your argument that the RCC has divine authority because it has remained intact breaks down at this point, because the Orthodox Church has also remained intact, therefore it must also have divine authority. There can only be one church with divine authority. If they have it, then you don’t.

Actually, it is logical, because no other hierarchical institution compares to it. While it is certainly possible that factors other than divine authority and protection account for its survival, it is a FACT that, from the beginning, the Church has claimed for itself divine authority and protection. Whaddya know? It has survived, just like Jesus said it would. It survived the diaspora of the Jews after 70 a.d. It survived some 3 centuries of intense persecution, and the martyrdom of most of its leaders. The Church survived the collapse of the Roman Empire, and converted the invading peoples to Christianity, and taught them to live in cities. It rebuilt Rome. It survived the early heresies, any one of which should have torn it to shreds, given the nature of travel and communications in those days. It survived the schism between east and west, and the onslaught of the moslems. It survived the corruptions of the renaissance, and the Protestant Reformation. It survived the rise of nation-states and nationalism. It survived the Enlightenment, and Modernism, and the dismantling of the Holy Roman Empire, and the Papal States, the dissolution of the temporal power that it had held for centuries in Europe. It survived and thrived within every culture, every language, every continent, and continues to thrive and spread among the world’s peoples today.

Sorry, all I can say is that you have not made the case to me that Catholic Church has survived intact, therefore it must have divine authority. The logic is lacking. I do not see it as a persuasive, logical argument.

I agree, that the Catholic Church of the 16th century waited too long to respond to Protestant heresies. OTOH, it did respond, and did so very nicely, and recouped a lot of the losses in terms of people of Europe who returned to the faith. However, by that time, the rising tide of European nationalism and the power of kings had incorporated the new heresies as a method of weakening the Pope’s authority over them.

If the Catholic Church had divine authority, it would have never become corrupt to begin with. The necessary safeguards would have been in place to prevent it from doing so.

zerinus

 

[Chris-WA]

I would do no such thing. It would be highly presumptions of me to ask them such a thing. If they wanted to tell me that of their own volition, that would be their privilege; but it would be highly improper for me to ask them.

Why in the world would that be an improper question? There’s absolutely nothing wrong with wanting to know if one of them actually saw the resurrected Jesus, and certainly nothing wrong with asking them. Are you not allowed or something?

The nonsense and the wickedness and the blasphemies always seem to originate form you; and the shame of it will always rest on you, evil man.

Zerinus, you just crossed a line here that you shouldn’t cross. What you have said is rude, and indicates an adolescent level of maturity.

If they wanted to lie about seeing Him, that would be an easy thing to do. Jesus only performed miracles according to the faith of the people. When they had little faith or no faith, He performed little or no miracles among them.

What does that have to do with whether or not your apostles have seen Jesus? Nothing.

Having seen God is a sacred experience that cannot be shared with just anyone irrespective of their state of belief

Nonsense. That’s certainly not how it happened with the original twelve and Paul. They told everybody, even the pagans!

 

[Allweather]

I will believe that when I see it! That “healing” attempt has been going on since 1054, and has never come to anything.

The pace is quickening. Benedict’s recent trip to Turkey is part and parcel of the dialog that has been going on for quite a few years. It isn’t likely there will be reunion in our lifetimes, but steps are being taken in that direction on both sides.

Hardly! The arguments were over both doctrine as well as authority. Theologically, the schism occurred over the “filioque” controversy (the double procession of the Holy Spirit).

A very minor point of contention, and one which John Paul said could be a point of compromise, in the interest of unity. If this is the only theological area of disagreement, then there is no reason whatever to continue the disagreement. I believe that was John Paul’s attitude, and most likely is Benedict’s as well.

The “authority” disappeared when the two bishops excommunicated each other, each claiming authority over the other.

The excommunications were long ago withdrawn. When the schism hardened, the Roman Empire was dead only in the West (476 a.d.) but lived on in the east for another thousand years. There were political and cultural differences and competitions that existed then but no longer exist.

And by the way, your argument that the RCC has divine authority because it has remained intact breaks down at this point, because the Orthodox Church has also remained intact, therefore it must also have divine authority. There can only be one church with divine authority. If they have it, then you don’t.

Not really. The Orthodox have been burdened by a lack of unified authority. They have been subject to temporal governments to the extent that bishops could not be appointed without the approval of the state, such as during the communist era. This is another strong argument for the central authority of the papacy, which is what Jesus had in mind when he established it. Divide and conquer. The Orthodox Church is tiny compared to the western branch in union with the Holy Father. But as for the idea of divine authority, the Orthodox have it. They never lost the Apostolic succession, so their orders are valid. They merely went into schism, which doesn’t affect the validity of their orders. A more modern example of this would be the traditionalist schism involving the Marcel Lefevre group. Their orders are valid, even though the group is in schism.

Sorry, all I can say is that you have not made the case to me that Catholic Church has survived intact, therefore it must have divine authority. The logic is lacking. I do not see it as a persuasive, logical argument.

I don’t expect it to persuade you. After all, if you were so persuaded then you’d have to stop being a Mormon and get with the program. That day is not here yet.

If the Catholic Church had divine authority, it would have never become corrupt to begin with. The necessary safeguards would have been in place to prevent it from doing so.

zerinus

The Church never became universally, globally corrupt. At the same time, there are always parts of it in some state of corruption. Many would suggest, and I would agree, that since Vatican II the American Catholic Church has been in a state of serious corruption. But, that pendulum is now swinging back towards orthodoxy and obedience. Even so, the ENTIRE American Church has never been corrupt. Corruption, apostasy even, are always present, but they are never universal or global. The Church is always in need of reform and renewal. The Church is composed of sinners, and therefore always subject to the corruptions of sin. It is the overall Church that is infallible, and invulnerable to a complete, total, univeral apostasy or even a universal state of corruption.

 

[zerinus]

The pace is quickening. Benedict’s recent trip to Turkey is part and parcel of the dialog that has been going on for quite a few years. It isn’t likely there will be reunion in our lifetimes, but steps are being taken in that direction on both sides.

You can live in hope, but my personal opinion is that that will never happen. There are too many vested interests involved. The Russians are fiercely nationalistic and anti-Pope, and will never agree for their national church to come under the authority of Rome.

A very minor point of contention, and one which John Paul said could be a point of compromise, in the interest of unity. If this is the only theological area of disagreement, then there is no reason whatever to continue the disagreement. I believe that was John Paul’s attitude, and most likely is Benedict’s as well.

They obviously thought it was important enough to split the church over. If it was important then, why should it be unimportant now?

The excommunications were long ago withdrawn. When the schism hardened, the Roman Empire was dead only in the West (476 a.d.) but lived on in the east for another thousand years. There were political and cultural differences and competitions that existed then but no longer exist.

That is beside the point—and even makes matters worse. The very fact that it happened proves that there was something wrong with the “authority”. Could you imagine Peter excommunicating Paul and Paul excommunicating Peter?

But as for the idea of divine authority, the Orthodox have it. They never lost the Apostolic succession, so their orders are valid. They merely went into schism, which doesn’t affect the validity of their orders. A more modern example of this would be the traditionalist schism involving the Marcel Lefevre group. Their orders are valid, even though the group is in schism.

That is absurd suggestion. You have no idea what divine authority is or how it works. When the two churches excommunicated each other, if either of them had the divine authority to do so, that means that the other lost it. The truth is that neither of them did, which means that in a way you are right—it didn’t make any difference either way!

I don’t expect it to persuade you. After all, if you were so persuaded then you’d have to stop being a Mormon and get with the program. That day is not here yet.

I don’t think anyone is persuaded. The idea that because the church has remained intact as an earthly institution, therefore it must have divine authority, simply doesn’t hold water. There is no rhyme or reason or logic behind it.

The Church never became universally, globally corrupt. At the same time, there are always parts of it in some state of corruption. Many would suggest, and I would agree, that since Vatican II the American Catholic Church has been in a state of serious corruption. But, that pendulum is now swinging back towards orthodoxy and obedience. Even so, the ENTIRE American Church has never been corrupt. Corruption, apostasy even, are always present, but they are never universal or global. The Church is always in need of reform and renewal. The Church is composed of sinners, and therefore always subject to the corruptions of sin. It is the overall Church that is infallible, and invulnerable to a complete, total, univeral apostasy or even a universal state of corruption.

Jesus said that we shall know them by their fruit. If the church became corrupt at the highest levels, and bore evil fruit, then it could not have had divine authority.

zerinus

 

[kellie]

Actually, you don’t.

I am not making the claim that they have seen Him at all. What I do claim is that from what I know of them, they are capable of seeing Him needed to.

I am making no such assumption.

I would do no such thing. It would be highly presumptions of me to ask them such a thing. If they wanted to tell me that of their own volition, that would be their privilege; but it would be highly improper for me to ask them. And for your information, I know of at least one that has said in a private gathering of church members that he has seen Him. I was not myself present at that gathering, but it was reported to me by those who were. The person I am referring to me is no longer alive today. But he has lived in my lifetime, and I had personally met him.

The nonsense and the wickedness and the blasphemies always seem to originate form you; and the shame of it will always rest on you, evil man. You don’t know how to do yourself any favors, do you. The modern prophets and Apostles of the Lord Jesus Christ constantly and boldly testify to all the world that they know Him, and they know that He lives; and that they are His chosen messengers, representatives, prophets, and Apostles today. If they wanted to lie about seeing Him, that would be an easy thing to do. Jesus only performed miracles according to the faith of the people. When they had little faith or no faith, He performed little or no miracles among them. Having seen God is a sacred experience that cannot be shared with just anyone irrespective of their state of belief.

zerinus

Are you serious?

Jesus performed miracles to people of little faith all the time.

Then they believed.

And yes, seeing God would be a sacred experience.

But do you truly think God wants His presence to be hidden when He shows Himself to your fellow Mormons??

Come on! This is just plain ridiculous now.

God does not think of every human on this planet as “just anyone”. We are all equal in His eyes.

For you to say your “apostles” cannot share their experience with “just anyone” is an insult to God.

 

[rmcmullan]

I don’t see the problem with bishops as the line of apostolic succession. the bible gives us that clearly.

The problem is that it limits the role of the Apostle to that of a temporary figure to kick-start the church. To me, that’s just not credible because it does not square with the New Testament tradition or even logic.

For an example, in Revelations, which was estimated to be written some 40 years after Christ’s ministry, John writes to the seven chruches and to all but one, he expresses some serious concerns. It certainly doesn’t give me the impression of someone whose work is done and is no longer needed. And that’s not an isolated incident, the NT is peppered with warnings and concerns and corrections everywhere. The church leadership was putting a good deal of labor into teaching and correcting and almost every church today still does. So it’s pretty difficult for me to accept that that the Apostles were no longer needed.

The other problem I have with that is it doesn’t follow logically. If the purpose of the Apostles were just to kick start the church, why not limit the role of the bishop to kick start the local churches? If you follow that line of logic to its conclusion, pretty soon you’re all Protestants and are guided by the Bible.

 

[christianley]

The problem is that it limits the role of the Apostle to that of a temporary figure to kick-start the church. To me, that’s just not credible because it does not square with the New Testament tradition or even logic.

For an example, in Revelations, which was estimated to be written some 40 years after Christ’s ministry, John writes to the seven chruches and to all but one, he expresses some serious concerns. It certainly doesn’t give me the impression of someone whose work is done and is no longer needed. And that’s not an isolated incident, the NT is peppered with warnings and concerns and corrections everywhere. The church leadership was putting a good deal of labor into teaching and correcting and almost every church today still does. So it’s pretty difficult for me to accept that that the Apostles were no longer needed.

The other problem I have with that is it doesn’t follow logically. If the purpose of the Apostles were just to kick start the church, why not limit the role of the bishop to kick start the local churches? If you follow that line of logic to its conclusion, pretty soon you’re all Protestants and are guided by the Bible.

People always need to be corrected. The Pope is still correcting people today. That is not reason to assume the whole church apostatized. The Chair of Peter still exists today to help correct the church when it wanders just as it existed during the time of the apostles. There simply is no real evidence for this complete apostasy the Mormons proclaim.

 

[MrS]

The problem is that it limits the role of the Apostle to that of a temporary figure to kick-start the church. To me, that’s just not credible because it does not square with the New Testament tradition or even logic.

.

kinda like pro-creation… God “limits” the role of the parents to that of “temporary” figures to kick-start the family…

.

 

[majick275]

The problem is that it limits the role of the Apostle to that of a temporary figure to kick-start the church. To me, that’s just not credible because it does not square with the New Testament tradition or even logic.

how so? was christ a temporary figure to “kickstart” the church? what traditions and logic are you referring to? Acts makes it clear to me at least just what an apostle is and that must by definition be limited to a small group. Acts 1 is crystal clear on this.

For an example, in Revelations, which was estimated to be written some 40 years after Christ’s ministry, John writes to the seven chruches and to all but one, he expresses some serious concerns. It certainly doesn’t give me the impression of someone whose work is done and is no longer needed. And that’s not an isolated incident, the NT is peppered with warnings and concerns and corrections everywhere. The church leadership was putting a good deal of labor into teaching and correcting and almost every church today still does. So it’s pretty difficult for me to accept that that the Apostles were no longer needed.

of course they were needed while they were still alive. The whole purpose of calling them was so that they could pass on the teachings of Jesus without error. AFTER they all died their ministry was complete. God kept them until they were through. if that office was meant to continue then why didn’t they ordain more apostles as individual apostles died? Replacing Judas was to fulfill scripture and was limited to very specific criteria. Paul was a special case and strangely enough made 13 apostles. (not sure how that fits into the LDS quorum of 12 but you have 15 today so maybe it does) where in any bible scripture does it require apostles to be a continuing office?

The other problem I have with that is it doesn’t follow logically. If the purpose of the Apostles were just to kick start the church, why not limit the role of the bishop to kick start the local churches? If you follow that line of logic to its conclusion, pretty soon you’re all Protestants and are guided by the Bible.

we are guided by the bible. we see bishops being named in scripture as a continuing office necessary fro the ongoing church. we have the criteria for bishops and it isn’t restricted to one small group like apostles.

 

[rmcmullan]

People always need to be corrected. The Pope is still correcting people today. That is not reason to assume the whole church apostatized. The Chair of Peter still exists today to help correct the church when it wanders just as it existed during the time of the apostles. There simply is no real evidence for this complete apostasy the Mormons proclaim.

I guess we can close this thread now, the answer has been given. The first time the Pope was equated with an Apostle is when the Great Apostacy succeeded.

 

[majick275]

only as a succesor to the apostles. you are really taking that way out of context. all bishops are “heirs” to the apostles having been called and ordained by them through an unbroken line. the pope as bishop of rome is “heir” to Peter’s see and thus first among equals with the bishops. bishops today are not apostles and the pope is not peter BUT they fulfill roles in the church that peter and the other apostles established for them.

on the other hand LDS believe that none will enter heaven without the approval of Joseph Smith. There’s your apostasy.

 

[Allweather]

The Russians are fiercely nationalistic and anti-Pope, and will never agree for their national church to come under the authority of Rome.

Hard to say. Very few people in 1965 would have believed that the Soviet Union would collapse within 25 years. Yet, Our Lady said it would, to the children at Fatima, in 1917, the year of the Communist Revolution. Communism in Russia lived only a man’s lifetime after all. Yet, you raise the point I’ve already made, which is that the Orthodox Churches have fallen under state domination, which is a primary argument in favor of the Papacy.

They obviously thought it was important enough to split the church over. If it was important then, why should it be unimportant now?

Because, first, that wasn’t the main reason for the schism. Second, what seems important in one age isn’t important in another. It certainly doesn’t seem very important to me, but I am not a theologian. I’m content let the theologians work this out. The filioque has no bearing on my understanding of the nature of God, Jesus, or the Holy Ghost.

That is beside the point—and even makes matters worse. The very fact that it happened proves that there was something wrong with the “authority”. Could you imagine Peter excommunicating Paul and Paul excommunicating Peter?

No, but my imaginings don’t matter. What matters is reality. Let’s look at it in terms of a military authority. I was in the Army for 21 years, so I know how military authority works, and there are similarities between it and Church authority. Both demand obedience even in the absence of understanding. If my colonel ordered me to shoot a group of civilians, I would know that that was an illegal order and have an obligation NOT to obey. His authority is not affected. Though he is corrupt, his authority remains valid and true, and I will have to prove in court martial why I disobeyed was reasonable. So it is with the eccesiastical authority. Ministers may become corrupt, and they sometimes do, as we’ve seen in modern times even. Their authority, though, remains valid and incorrupt.

I’ll do the rest later. Gotta go to Mass.