Petrine Papacy and Apostolic Succession

[Matariel]

Yes, we consider ourselves Christians. At various times, Catholics have considered Orthodox and Protestants as “apostates,” and vice versa. Well, we consider other branches of Christianity to be “apostates.” From your point of view, maybe you could call us a “heretical Christian sect,” and it probably wouldn’t offend us.

No, Catholics consider Orthodox and some Continuing Anglicans as schismatic, and Protestants and Anglicans as *heretical *but now, in order to not cause hard-feelings, we generally call them separated. There has been nasty comments and actions on all sides though, and even from the people from Mormon Church, such as when Mormon missionaries attacked and destroyed a statue of St. Anthony on Catholic property.

The Catholic Church only considers those who actively left the Church (the original rebels of the so-called “Reformation”) as apostates. Those who grow up Protestant are not apostates.

 

[mercygate]

No, that’s incorrect. Members of The Church of Jesus Christ, LDS, believe in Christ, accept Him as their Savior and are Christian.

The Church of Jesus Christ does not believe that other Christians are “apostates.” They are Christians trying to follow Christ. They do believe, however, that the church that Christ founded, suffered an apostasy and God’s authority on earth was lost, at least institutionally and then restored in more modern times. That doesn’t make followers of Christ today and yesterday apostates.

Mormons do not have an orthodox doctrine of God and really do lie outside the pale of Christianity. They claim a Christ that in no way resembles the Christ of historical Christianity – and as you note, they believe the church apostatized before the NT was written, thus the Christian world is apostate and that make us apostates. But they soft pedal this view and are more mainstream in their PR efforts lately than in the past.

 

[mercygate]

No, Catholics consider Orthodox and some Continuing Anglicans as schismatic, and Protestants and Anglicans as *heretical *but now, in order to not cause hard-feelings, we generally call them separated. There has been nasty comments and actions on all sides though, and even from the people from Mormon Church, such as when Mormon missionaries attacked and destroyed a statue of St. Anthony on Catholic property.

The Catholic Church only considers those who actively left the Church (the original rebels of the so-called “Reformation”) as apostates. Those who grow up Protestant are not apostates.

Let’s not get into judgment calls based on the worst behavior of the few. Look at how we are so often tarbrushed for the sins of the past. Little good can come of exaggerating evil reports when there is plenty of good will to go around.

 

[Matariel]

Let’s not get into judgment calls based on the worst behavior of the few. Look at how we are so often tarbrushed for the sins of the past. Little good can come of exaggerating evil reports when there is plenty of good will to go around.

I know. I did not intend to do that. Catholics have done bad things, Mormons have, Jews have, Protestants, Orthodox, Hindus-- you name it. If there are humans involved, you can bet there are going to mess-ups. And the Church is both human and Divine-- and the human part has done more than its share of bad things.

However, the Catholic Church is the largest, oldest, and most far-reaching charitable organization on the face of the earth.

 

[Matariel]

Mormons do not have an orthodox doctrine of God and really do lie outside the pale of Christianity. They claim a Christ that in no way resembles the Christ of historical Christianity – and as you note, they believe the church apostatized before the NT was written, thus the Christian world is apostate and that make us apostates. But they soft pedal this view and are more mainstream in their PR efforts lately than in the past.

Yeah-- I think I remember Joseph Smith’s words were rather harsh, and condemning. I’ll look for some quotes.

 

[Snow]

Mormons do not have an orthodox doctrine of God and really do lie outside the pale of Christianity. They claim a Christ that in no way resembles the Christ of historical Christianity – and as you note, they believe the church apostatized before the NT was written, thus the Christian world is apostate and that make us apostates. But they soft pedal this view and are more mainstream in their PR efforts lately than in the past.

As I recall, earlier you weren’t so offensive.

1. The Church of Jesus Christ is fully Christian and there’s nothing you can do to change it. Fortunately, it is up to God to decide, not bigots on the internet.
2. I could care less about what Christians have historically believed. We believe in the Christ of the Bible.
3. I don’t believe you are an apostate so drop the victim act.

 

[BDawg]

No, that’s incorrect. Members of The Church of Jesus Christ, LDS, believe in Christ, accept Him as their Savior and are Christian.

The Church of Jesus Christ does not believe that other Christians are “apostates.” They are Christians trying to follow Christ. They do believe, however, that the church that Christ founded, suffered an apostasy and God’s authority on earth was lost, at least institutionally and then restored in more modern times. That doesn’t make followers of Christ today and yesterday apostates.

This is more correct than the way I said it.

 

[Matariel]

1. I don’t believe you are an apostate so drop the victim act.

Apparently, your prophet, Joseph Smith did:

Joseph Smith History 1:18-20:

“My object in going to inquire of the Lord was to know which of all the sects was right, that I might know which to join. No sooner, therefore, did I get possession of myself, so as to be able to speak, than I asked the Personages who stood above me in the light, which of all the sects was right (for at this time it had never entered into my heart that all were wrong)—and which I should join.”

“I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all wrong; and the Personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those professors were all corrupt; that: “they draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me, they teach for doctrines the commandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof.” He again forbade me to join with any of them;…”

D&C 29:21:
“And the great and abominable church, which is the whore of all the earth, shall be cast down by devouring fire, according as it is spoken by the mouth of Ezekiel the prophet, who spoke of these things, which have not come to pass but surely must, as I live, for abominations shall not reign.”

D&C 88:94:
“And another angel shall sound his trump, saying: That great church, the mother of abominations, that made all nations drink of the wine of the wrath of her fornication, that persecuteth the saints of God, that shed their blood—she who sitteth upon many waters, and upon the islands of the sea—behold, she is the tares of the earth; she is bound in bundles; her bands are made strong, no man can loose them; therefore, she is ready to be burned. And he shall sound his trump both long and loud, and all nations shall hear it.”

And then they identify the whore-church with the Catholic Church:

The present Christian world exists and continues by division. The MYSTERY of Babylon the great, is mother of harlots and abominations of the earth, and it needs no prophetic vision, to unravel such mysteries. The old church is the mother, and the protestants are the lewd daughters. Alas! alas! what doctrine, what principle, or what scheme, in all, what prayers, what devotion, or what faith, since the fathers have fallen asleep,' has opened the heavens; has brought men into the presence of God; and to the spirits of just men made perfect, and to an innumerable company of angels? The answer is, not any: There is none in all christendom that doeth good; no, not one.’

• Apostle John Taylor, Times and Seasons, Vol.6, No.1, p.811

“Babylon, literally understood, is the gay world; spiritual wickedness, the golden city, and the glory of the world, The priests of Egypt, who received a portion gratis from Pharaoh; the priests of Baal, and the Pharisees, and Sadducees, with their “long robes,” among the Jews, are equally included in their mother’s family, with the Roman Catholics, Protestants, and all that have not had the keys of the kingdom and power thereof, according to the ordinances of God.”

• Prophet John Taylor, Times and Seasons, Vol.6, No.1, p.939

Both Catholics and Protestants are nothing less than the “whore of Babylon” whom the Lord denounces… as having corrupted all the earth by their fornications and wickedness. And any person who shall be so wicked as to receive a holy ordinance of the gospel from the ministers of any of these apostate churches will be sent down to hell with them…
-Apostle Orson Pratt The Seer, Vol.2, No.4, p.255

Wow. Sounds awefully different than the picture you’re painting, I have to say.

 

[Snow]

Apparently, your prophet, Joseph Smith did:

Joseph Smith History 1:18-20:

And then they identify the whore-church with the Catholic Church:

Wow. Sounds awefully different than the picture you’re painting, I have to say.

So would it be fair and accurate for me to pick historical quotes from Catholic luminaries and hold the Catholic faith responsible for those opinions today? Franky I don’t think it much of a complaint to say… look what Orson Pratt said 100 years ago, or BR McConkie said 50 years ago. So what. We don’t think they were perfect or infallible. On the other hand, look at all the supposed 'Christian" ministries that today denigrate, and marginalize The Church of Jesus Christ.

Personally, I think it is a function of religious maturity. We’ve matured, for the most part, well beyond that. Others have a lot of growing up to do still.

There has been much fiery rhetoric on both sides of the LDS / non-LDS playground. If you want to know what we believe, ask us, or read our current official publications.

 

[Matariel]

So would it be fair and accurate for me to pick historical quotes from Catholic luminaries and hold the Catholic faith responsible for those opinions today?

Not Catholic luminaries, but official documents of the Church. Weren’t the quotes I used definitive teaching from your apostles and prophets?

Franky I don’t think it much of a complaint to say… look what Orson Pratt said 100 years ago, or BR McConkie said 50 years ago. So what. We don’t think they were perfect or infallible. On the other hand, look at all the supposed 'Christian" ministries that today denigrate, and marginalize The Church of Jesus Christ.

Well, I was not trying to do that. I’m all for civilized dialogue, and wanted to know what you think about these quotations.
If they did not interpret them right, then what is the church which the D&C refers to?

Personally, I think it is a function of religious maturity. We’ve matured, for the most part, well beyond that. Others have a lot of growing up to do still.

That answer is kind of ok, but does Truth change? Just want your opinion.

There has been much fiery rhetoric on both sides of the LDS / non-LDS playground.

You’re very right. Dialogue is all the better.

If you want to know what we believe, ask us, or read our current official publications.

I’m not trying to insult, but does Truth have to be current?

 

[Snow]

Not Catholic luminaries, but official documents of the Church. Weren’t the quotes I used definitive teaching from your apostles and prophets?

The Seer was an early periodical and the Times and Seasons was an early newspaper.

The Doctrine and Covenants is official LDS doctrine but you shouldn’t intepret it to mean “Roman Catholic Church” That is not what it says and that is not how we understand it.

Well, I was not trying to do that. I’m all for civilized dialogue, and wanted to know what you think about these quotations.
If they did not interpret them right, then what is the church which the D&C refers to?

I just posted this in another thread:

Here’s a better understanding:

“Well,” said I, in answer, “I would not like to take that position, because it would leave me with a lot of churches on my hands that I might not then be able to classify.” So far as the Catholic church is concerned, I believe that there is just as much truth, nay, personally I believe it has retained even more truth than other divisions of so-called Christendom; and there is just as much virtue, and I am sure there is more strength in the Roman Catholic church than there is in Protestant Christendom.

I would not like, therefore, to designate the Catholic church as the church of the devil. Neither would I like to designate any one or all of the various divisions and subdivisions of Protestant Christendom combined as such church; nor the Greek Catholic church; nor the Buddhist sects; nor the followers of Confucius; nor the followers of Mohammed; nor would I like to designate even the societies formed by deists and atheists as constituting the church of the devil. The Book of Mormon text ought to be read in connection with its context – with the chapter that precedes it and the remaining portions of the chapter in which it is found – then, I think, those who study it in that manner will be forced to the conclusion that the Prophet here has in mind no particular church, no particular division of Christendom, but he has in mind, as just stated, the whole empire of Satan; and perhaps the thought of the passage would be more nearly expressed if we use the term “the kingdom of evil” as constituting the church of the devil. (B. H. Roberts, Conference Report, April 1906, p.14, 15)

More recently other LDS scholars have taken the same perspective on this issue. Among these we include Daniel Ludow (Ludlow, 123), Kent P. Jackson (Jackson, 21), Robert J. Matthews (Matthews, 29), Hugh Nibley, and others. The “great and abominable church,” Nibley once wrote, are “any who fight against Israel. It doesn’t p(name removed by moderator)oint any particular church here.” (Nibley [1986b], 4.)

That answer is kind of ok, but does Truth change? Just want your opinion.

Probably like you, I define truth as eternal and unchanging. In my faith and in your faith (assuming you are Catholic) there is ample evidence that understanding of truth is not always constant.

I’m not trying to insult, but does Truth have to be current?

We, in my faith, have doctrine which we understand to be true and enduring, as mentioned above. If it is not in our Standard Works, however, it is probably commentary.

I also frequently refer to scholarly understanding which obviously changes as new facts and evidence is brought to light.

 

[Matariel]

The Doctrine and Covenants is official LDS doctrine but you shouldn’t intepret it to mean “Roman Catholic Church” That is not what it says and that is not how we understand it.

That one quote, though, was a message from God, as told by the prophet Joseph Smith. How is that reconcilable?

“Well,” said I, in answer, “I would not like to take that position, because it would leave me with a lot of churches on my hands that I might not then be able to classify.” So far as the Catholic church is concerned, I believe that there is just as much truth, nay, personally I believe it has retained even more truth than other divisions of so-called Christendom; and there is just as much virtue, and I am sure there is more strength in the Roman Catholic church than there is in Protestant Christendom.

Ok. That’s reasonable. But you really should capitalize C when referring to “the Catholic Church”, because it’s a name. I capitalize it when I refer to the Mormon (L-DS) Church.

More recently other LDS scholars have taken the same perspective on this issue. Among these we include Daniel Ludow (Ludlow, 123), Kent P. Jackson (Jackson, 21), Robert J. Matthews (Matthews, 29), Hugh Nibley, and others. The “great and abominable church,” Nibley once wrote, are “any who fight against Israel. It doesn’t p(name removed by moderator)oint any particular church here.” (Nibley [1986b], 4.)

Interesting. Was he referring to the Jewish people of Israel, or the modern-day secular state called by that name?

Probably like you, I define truth as eternal and unchanging. In my faith and in your faith (assuming you are Catholic) there is ample evidence that understanding of truth is not always constant.

Yes, I am Catholic (not fully yet-- going through RCIA). I agree that doctrines do become more understood as time passes and reflection is given. What’s interesting is that both the Catholic Church and the Mormon Church believe in Apostolic Succession-- although they interpret it in radically different ways. But wasn’t J. Smith “ordained” by John the Baptist in Mormon belief?

We, in my faith, have doctrine which we understand to be true and enduring, as mentioned above. If it is not in our Standard Works, however, it is probably commentary.

I see.

I also frequently refer to scholarly understanding which obviously changes as new facts and evidence is brought to light.

I agree.

 

[MDK]

As I recall, earlier you weren’t so offensive.

1. The Church of Jesus Christ is fully Christian and there’s nothing you can do to change it. Fortunately, it is up to God to decide, not bigots on the internet.
2. I could care less about what Christians have historically believed. We believe in the Christ of the Bible.
3. I don’t believe you are an apostate so drop the victim act.

Mercygate was not offensive in the least. If the truth doesn’t line up for you the way you prefer, perhaps a good look at what you’re doing may be fruitful. To help in that look at the truth… The Church that Jesus built is fully Christian, and from about the year 100 adopted the name Catholic, fitting for the universal nature of the Church.

Quick question: Did Christ start a Church while here on earth, or write a book for us?

2nd Quick question: When did Christ establish His Church?

Okay, a 3rd Quick question: When was your church established?

 

[Snow]

That one quote, though, was a message from God, as told by the prophet Joseph Smith. How is that reconcilable?

Which quote? This one?

D&C 29:21:
“And the great and abominable church, which is the whore of all the earth, shall be cast down by devouring fire, according as it is spoken by the mouth of Ezekiel the prophet, who spoke of these things, which have not come to pass but surely must, as I live, for abominations shall not reign.”

What’s to reconcile? It isn’t talking about the RCC.

Ok. That’s reasonable. But you really should capitalize C when referring to “the Catholic Church”, because it’s a name. I capitalize it when I refer to the Mormon (L-DS) Church.

Sorry - it wasn’t deliberate. I usually do capitalize whenever referring to proper name churches.

Interesting. Was he referring to the Jewish people of Israel, or the modern-day secular state called by that name?

I assume that he was referring to God’s chosen and covenant people.

Yes, I am Catholic (not fully yet-- going through RCIA). I agree that doctrines do become more understood as time passes and reflection is given. What’s interesting is that both the Catholic Church and the Mormon Church believe in Apostolic Succession-- although they interpret it in radically different ways. But wasn’t J. Smith “ordained” by John the Baptist in Mormon belief?

That’s the belief. Obviously it is a matter of faith, not demonstrable fact. At a high level view, such succession is similar between the two. One how has authority passes it along to another who has authority. The specific practice of passing along said authority differ however.

 

[Snow]

Mercygate was not offensive in the least.

What you really mean to say is that YOU personally were not offended. That is not particularly relevant. What he said was highly offensive to me however. He said that The Church of Jesus Christ lies outside Christianity… as if he would know.

Fortunately it isn’t up to anonymous posters on the internet. It’s up to God.

If the truth doesn’t line up for you the way you prefer, perhaps a good look at what you’re doing may be fruitful.

News flash - it ain’t a matter of “truth.” It’s a matter of opinion. God has the only opinion that matters and He isn’t saying anything about it.

To help in that look at the truth… The Church that Jesus built is fully Christian, and from about the year 100 adopted the name Catholic, fitting for the universal nature of the Church.

Off hand I am going to guess that is untrue. I’d guess that that the movement was referred to as catholic - small c, meaning universal, not The Catholic Church. Feel free to contradict my guess with evidence.

Quick question: Did Christ start a Church while here on earth, or write a book for us?

Normally I don’t answer questions that are merely meant to set up another poster that wants to make a point. Make your own point without me. However in this case, I’ll make and exception.

1. There is no explicit evidence one way or the other. There are those that believe he did and those that believe he did not. The LDS Church believes that he did and found a church. Though I have no personal knowledge on the matter, I accept it.
2. There is no evidence that Christ ever wrote anything Himself.

2nd Quick question: When did Christ establish His Church?

I don’t know. It is not found explicitly anywhere in the scriptures.

Okay, a 3rd Quick question: When was your church established?

April of 1830.

I guess your point is that Christ started a Church 2k years ago and The Church of Jesus Christ started 178 years ago so they can’t be the same. I guess you also know that is a specious argument full of logical flaws. That’s not to say that logic can prove your implied claim one way or another but it is obvious that you are misusing logic.

 

[guanophore]

That’s a very fair position. There is Tradition and you accept it as a matter of faith - if I understood correctly,

What I argue against is when people claim it as demonstrable historical fact, but then can’t demonstrate it.

Not to make thing too difficult here, but there is some historical evidence pointing against the idea of Peter holding monoepiscopal office in Rome, as Christian communities during the time Peter would have been in Rome did not have a monoepiscopal structure but rather a committee of elders (presbyterol). It is not until the 2nd century that we hear from Ignatius that there were churches led by a single bishop.

Since this was the structure of the early church all over the world, it is confusing why you are using the notion of “monoepiscopal” to invalidate the role of Peter. Those in communion with the Apostles did things in communion with the Apostles, and their successors, the bishops. Separation from the Apostolic succession was the hallmark of schism and apostasy.

 

[guanophore]

Yes, we consider ourselves Christians. At various times, Catholics have considered Orthodox and Protestants as “apostates,” and vice versa. Well, we consider other branches of Christianity to be “apostates.” ** From your point of view, maybe you could call us a “heretical Christian sect,”** and it probably wouldn’t offend us.

No, I don’t think so. Christianity is distinctly Trinitarian.

 

[avenger]

Oh, I checked out your profile, and it’s not annotated. Um, do you mind me asking what kind of Protestant you are? I figured if you’re a member of the Catholic Church or Orthodox churches, you must be a Protestant?

If I’m a member of the Catholic or Orthodox Church, I am a Protestant??? I am assuming a typo here…lol. I am a Christian, period. I am curious of the relevance of the question.

 

[avenger]

A Prostestant? What?

If they let Protestants on this board - what’s next? Mormons?

There ought to be some screening requirements.

I am hoping you are joking.

 

[MDK]

What you really mean to say is that YOU personally were not offended. That is not particularly relevant. What he said was highly offensive to me however. He said that The Church of Jesus Christ lies outside Christianity… as if he would know.

No, what I meant was that nothing Mercygate wrote is offensive to anyone seeking truth. Like I also said to you, if the truth doesn’t line up with what you’re doing, probably want to investigate and discern what to do.

Fortunately it isn’t up to anonymous posters on the internet. It’s up to God.

Yes, we agree on this. However, God has established His Church, with Christ as Head of the Church.

BTW, my profile provides a decent amount of information on who I am and where I’m coming from. I notice you desire to remain more anonymous poster, as your profile is empty.

News flash - it ain’t a matter of “truth.” It’s a matter of opinion. God has the only opinion that matters and He isn’t saying anything about it.

Jesus said He is the Way, the Truth, and the Life. God is not unknowable, but has revealed Himself to us. He also has revealed what He established… almost 2000 years ago.

Off hand I am going to guess that is untrue. I’d guess that that the movement was referred to as catholic - small c, meaning universal, not The Catholic Church. Feel free to contradict my guess with evidence.

Sorry, it is true. The Church that Jesus built is fully Christian, and from about the year 100 adopted the name Catholic, fitting for the universal nature of the Church.

Normally I don’t answer questions that are merely meant to set up another poster that wants to make a point. Make your own point without me. However in this case, I’ll make and exception.

1. There is no explicit evidence one way or the other. There are those that believe he did and those that believe he did not. The LDS Church believes that he did and found a church. Though I have no personal knowledge on the matter, I accept it.
2. There is no evidence that Christ ever wrote anything Himself.

I asked so that you could examine and learn for yourself. The truth will never mislead you… if you know and go with the truth. Christ established His Church on the rock of Peter as visible head of the Church when the King was going to ascend to Heaven. He didn’t write a book and hand it to us.

I don’t know. It is not found explicitly anywhere in the scriptures.

It is in Scriptures. The Church existed before Scriptures were written, because they discuss the early Church. Also, since Christ said he would build His Church on the Kepha (rock), and he at the same time changed Simon’s name to Kepha, He made it clear to the Apostles that Kepha was the head of the Apostles and head of the Church. The church existed while Kepha was alive, and this dynastic office as visible head of the Church and the Church still exist today.

April of 1830.

I guess your point is that Christ started a Church 2k years ago and The Church of Jesus Christ started 178 years ago so they can’t be the same. I guess you also know that is a specious argument full of logical flaws. That’s not to say that logic can prove your implied claim one way or another but it is obvious that you are misusing logic.

Yes. All churches established after the Bible was written are man-made churches.

The Jews never went into full apostasy. Next, the NT Church has never and will never go into full apostasy. Christ told us that the gates of Hell will never prevail against His Church… We believe Christ, and find no reason not to take Him at His word, for it is Reliable and True.

If you go with the truth, it will lead you truly to Christ.