Petrine Papacy and Apostolic Succession

[Stephen168]

Not really. The modern definition of the Holy Trinity is found Creeds of the 4th and 5th centuries. You can’t very well leave out everything in the creeds and say that the very definition is unity of being. There’s a whole lot more to it than that.

The councils of the 4th and 5th century defined Holy Trinity. One being.

Subordination does not presuppose The Holy Trinity if by Holy Trinity you mean the modern concept defined by the 4th and 5th century councils. Those councils defined the members of the Holy Trinity as co-equal, not subordinate. Trinitarianism and Subordinationism would therefore contradict each other.

Ok, the light went on, I understand what you are saying and I’d have to agree.

So, we certainly don’t accept “The Holy Trinity” as defined by the councils 1600 years ago.

Which is the definition of Holy Trinity that your are changing.
35 years ago mormons were proud to claim they did not believe in the Trinity, there seems to have been a change along the way.
I wonder why?

 

[Snow]

Which is the definition of Holy Trinity that your are changing.
35 years ago mormons were proud to claim they did not believe in the Trinity, there seems to have been a change along the way.
I wonder why?

I am not changing anything. When you capitalize “Holy Trinity” it seems that your are referencing the doctrine of Nicea and Chalcedon councils. We do not believe in that.

If one says “trinity” or even “Trinity” then a standard definition (as I posted above) could apply. However, in your church we usually say Godhead instead of trinity. Our “Godhead” is a trinity - just not the “Holy Trinity” of the creeds.

 

[cazayoux]

I don’t really respond well to that sort of thing. If you have a point to make, don’t wait for me to set you up. Go ahead and make your point.

I’m not trying to push buttons, here.
Rather than me posting the majority of John 10, I asked that it be read.
This isn’t a ‘one line’ scripture wrestling match, it’s a scriptural discussion.
We actually need to read more than one or two lines sometimes to get the context and meaning.

John 10:1-39

What you say that the Mormon church teaches is new to me.
It seems like an attempt to ‘seem’ more mainstream.
It’s like you are trying to say that you believe in something like the trinity.
This is very different from what I’ve read about the Mormon church teachings.
So did I learn incorrectly? Very possible.
Has Mormon teaching changed? Also possible.

Trying to wrap my brain around what I previously learned, what you are saying now, what the Catholic Church taught then and teaches now.
It’s a big subject.
I’m not working to push your buttons, only to understand how to square all of this with scripture and my current understanding of the trinity.

michel

 

[ryanoneil]

Hi Ryan,

So, do you believe Jesus actually IS the Father, or do you believe that Jesus was simply referring to the mystical Divine Unity?

They are not the same person, yet they share the same nature in the family of the eternal Godhead.

Father, they are your gift to me. I wish that where I am they also may be with me, that they may see my glory that you gave me, because you loved me before the foundation of the world. Righteous Father, the world also does not know you, but I know you, and they know that you sent me. I made known to them your name and I will make it known, that the love with which you loved me may be in them and I in them." (John 17:24-26)

If you are not a modalist heretic, then I assume you meant the latter. And if you meant the latter, then what does that say about HOW the Father and Son are one? It just says that the Father is “in” Jesus.

The Father and the Son are united in the loving embrace of the Holy Spirit.

What does that mean?

God the Son was present with God the Father before time began.

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. (John 1:1-2)

Now glorify me, Father, with you, with the glory that I had with you before the world began. (John 17:5)

**"The LORD begot me, the first-born of his ways, the forerunner of his prodigies of long ago; (Prov 8:23)

Before all ages, in the beginning, he created me, and through all ages I shall not cease to be. (Sir 24:9)

He wore a cloak that had been dipped in blood, and his name was called the Word of God. (Rev 19:13)**

The spoken Word (Jesus) brought all things into existence.

All things came to be through him, and without him nothing came to be. What came to be through him was life, and this life was the light of the human race; the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it. (John 1:3-5)

**By the LORD’S word the heavens were made; by the breath of his mouth all their host. (Ps 33:6)

God of my fathers, LORD of mercy. you who have made all things by your word And in your wisdom have established man to rule the creatures produced by you (Wis 9:1)**

And the universe that was created by the Word of God, was being renewed through the same Word come in the flesh as Jesus Christ.

And the Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us, and we saw his glory, the glory as of the Father’s only Son, full of grace and truth. (John 1:14)

So when John says the Word was God in 1:1 he is saying that Jesus was divine.

For this reason the Jews tried all the more to kill him, because he not only broke the sabbath but he also called God his own father, making himself equal to God. (John 5:18) also read (10:30-33; 20:28)

Well, Jesus never says, but he does ask that the disciples would be one with each other and one IN the Father and Son, JUST AS the Father and Son are one IN each other.

So in John 5:18, the Son is less than the Father in his humanity, but equal to the Father in his divinity.

You heard me tell you, ‘I am going away and I will come back to you.’ If you loved me, you would rejoice that I am going to the Father; for the Father is greater than I. (John 14:28)

Jesus answered and said to them, "Amen, amen, I say to you, a son cannot do anything on his own, but only what he sees his father doing; for what he does, his son will do also. For the Father loves his Son and shows him everything that he himself does, and he will show him greater works than these, so that you may be amazed. For just as the Father raises the dead and gives life, so also does the Son give life to whomever he wishes. Nor does the Father judge anyone, but he has given all judgment to his Son, so that all may honor the Son just as they honor the Father. Whoever does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent him. (John 5:19-23)

So, we never participate in the Godhead the way the Holy Trinity does. God is the Creator and we are His creatures, but Jesus shares our human nature and through his Sonship we become children of God. (adoptive sons) and we partake of the divine nature and eternal life through Jesus. I’ll try and say more about this in a different post.

Do you have any major disagreement with what I posted so far?

 

[ryanoneil]

CCC 1996 Our justification comes from the grace of God. Grace is favor, the free and undeserved help that God gives us to respond to his call to become children of God, adoptive sons, partakers of the divine nature and of eternal life.

So believers in Jesus become children of God through God’s grace which causes new spiritual life. As Yahweh is in covenant relationship with Israel so we are through the New Covenant of the Word.

But to those who did accept him he gave power to become children of God, to those who believe in his name, who were born not by natural generation nor by human choice nor by a man’s decision but of God. And the Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us, and we saw his glory, the glory as of the Father’s only Son, full of grace and truth. John testified to him and cried out, saying, “This was he of whom I said, ‘The one who is coming after me ranks ahead of me because he existed before me.’” From his fullness we have all received, grace in place of grace, because while the law was given through Moses, grace and truth came through Jesus Christ. No one has ever seen God. The only Son, God, who is at the Father’s side, has revealed him. (John 1:12-18)

Christ is the eternal Son of God by nature, but we share in his life and become adopted sons of God by grace. This takes effect through the Holy Spirit. Our kinship with God by covenant adoption entitles us to an inheritance kept in heaven.

For those who are led by the Spirit of God are children of God. For you did not receive a spirit of slavery to fall back into fear, but you received a spirit of adoption, through which we cry, “Abba, Father!” The Spirit itself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God, and if children, then heirs, heirs of God and joint heirs with Christ, if only we suffer with him so that we may also be glorified with him. (Rom 8:14-17)

His divine power has bestowed on us everything that makes for life and devotion, through the knowledge of him who called us by his own glory and power. Through these, he has bestowed on us the precious and very great promises, so that through them you may come to share in the divine nature, after escaping from the corruption that is in the world because of evil desire. (2 Pet 1:3-4)

CCC 257 “O blessed light, O Trinity and first Unity!” God is eternal blessedness, undying life, unfading light. God is love: Father, Son and Holy Spirit. God freely wills to communicate the glory of his blessed life. Such is the “plan of his loving kindness”, conceived by the Father before the foundation of the world, in his beloved Son: “He destined us in love to be his sons” and “to be conformed to the image of his Son”, through “the spirit of sonship”. This plan is a “grace [which] was given to us in Christ Jesus before the ages began”, stemming immediately from Trinitarian love. It unfolds in the work of creation, the whole history of salvation after the fall, and the missions of the Son and the Spirit, which are continued in the mission of the Church.

**as he chose us in him, before the foundation of the world, to be holy and without blemish before him. In love he destined us for adoption to himself through Jesus Christ, in accord with the favor of his will (Eph 1:4-5)

For those he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, so that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. (Rom 8:29)

He saved us and called us to a holy life, not according to our works but according to his own design and the grace bestowed on us in Christ Jesus before time began, but now made manifest through the appearance of our savior Christ Jesus, who destroyed death and brought life and immortality to light through the gospel (2 Tim 1:9-10)**

CCC 259 Being a work at once common and personal, the whole divine economy makes known both what is proper to the divine persons, and their one divine nature. Hence the whole Christian life is a communion with each of the divine persons, without in any way separating them. Everyone who glorifies the Father does so through the Son in the Holy Spirit; everyone who follows Christ does so because the Father draws him and the Spirit moves him.

CCC 260 The ultimate end of the whole divine economy is the entry of God’s creatures into the perfect unity of the Blessed Trinity. But even now we are called to be a dwelling for the Most Holy Trinity: **“If a man loves me”, says the Lord, “he will keep my word, and my Father will love him, and we will come to him, and make our home with him”: **

above (John 14:23)

so that they may all be one, as you, Father, are in me and I in you, that they also may be in us, that the world may believe that you sent me. And I have given them the glory you gave me, so that they may be one, as we are one, I in them and you in me, that they may be brought to perfection as one, that the world may know that you sent me, and that you loved them even as you loved me. (John 17:21-23)

CCC 1720 The New Testament uses several expressions to characterize the beatitude to which God calls man:

• the coming of the Kingdom of God; - the vision of God: “Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God”

• entering into the joy of the Lord;

• entering into God’s rest:

There we shall rest and see, we shall see and love, we shall love and praise. Behold what will be at the end without end. For what other end do we have, if not to reach the kingdom which has no end?

1721 God put us in the world to know, to love, and to serve him, and so to come to paradise. Beatitude makes us “partakers of the divine nature” and of eternal life. With beatitude, man enters into the glory of Christ and into the joy of the Trinitarian life.

I hope that is not to cryptic.

 

[Stephen168]

But for now, I’d like to post what I have run across in my studies about whether or not Peter was actually a monoepiscopal leader over the Church and Bishop of Rome.
He wasn’t - Catholic scholars agree:

1. “Let’s see what St. Ireneaus has to say on the subject back in the second century between the period of 175-190 A.D.
   Adversus Haereses (1:27:1):
   “Credo was the one who took his system from the followers of Simon, and came to live in Rome at the time of Hyginus, who held the ninth place in the espiscopal succession from the Apostles downward.” note: 100 plus years after the fact

What did Ireneaus mean by this?

 

[guanophore]

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.

We do know, Snow. Those of us who have kept the Apostolic command to keep the sacred traditions know this. The Mormon Church lies outside of the Church started by Jesus.

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

You are absolutely right. And God has revealed to us what constitutes unity with His teaching, and it is not Mormonism.

News flash - it ain’t a matter of “truth.” It’s a matter of opinion.

For you. this may be true. Of course, everyone is entitled to their opinion.

For Catholics, though, it is a matter of Truth.

God has the only opinion that matters and He isn’t saying anything about it.

Well…we hear Him differently.

Catholics believe in the promises of Christ. When He said “I will not leave you orphaned, I will come to you” we don’t think He was just blowing smoke.

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.

You are the one that is asserting there is some discontinuation from the Church Jesus founded upon Cephas. Therefore, I think it is incumbent upon you to show where and when this break happened.

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.

I think you “have no personal knowledge on the matter” because you have not had the intellectual fortitude to examine history.

1. There is no evidence that Christ ever wrote anything Himself.

I thought you believed that the New Testament was the inspired-inerrant Word of God! Was I mistaken?

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

I am curious now how you define “church”, since you say you cannot see this in scripture.

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.

I agree that there is a specious arguement full of flaws here.

In order to claim any validity, one would have to be able to demonstrate that the Church founded by Christ 2000 years ago had somehow become “invisible” so as to require “re-establishment” in 1830. So far, you have not been able to demonstrate that this is the case.

 

[Cinette]

Hi folks.

In a number of the threads I’ve been posting in we have touched on Peter and his role in the foundation or governance of the Church. Whether you believe that Peter was the “rock” upon which the Church was found and the first Pope - Bishop of Rome, I think, is ultimately a matter of faith.

Faith aside, it might be worthwhile to explore the evidence. Some in this forum have claimed that there historical proof that the line of popes - apostolic succession extends right back to Peter. Personally, I don’t think so.

Would anyone care to review the facts or post the evidence?

I’d also be interested in exploring the case for Peter’s primacy in the New Testament.

Note: This is my first thread. Please don’t misunderstand me. Regardless of any doctrinal or historical disagreements I may have with you, I respect and appreciate the Roman Catholic Church. The whole world owes it a debt of gratitude.

I think you are some kind of “agent provocateur” who comes on these forums to stir. And spar!

You probably do believe in the Bible and consequently apostolic succession and Petrine Pacacy because it is all there.

So - I accept that. If you are looking for a little fun.

You sound like a sweetie and as long as you never become obnoxious and instead examine things logically, respectfully and intelligently, we are going to get along fine and I will support your thread. This is YOUR thread and I say this with respect.

Just one thing. In my opinion faith is never a matter of opinion - ever!:kiss4you:

 

[guanophore]

This verse instructs in whose name to baptize. It says nothing of the relationship between the three.

Why would you baptize in the “name” of something not a person? Why would you baptize in the “name” of someone other than God?

Agreed - Christ is God. This verse, however, says nothing of consubstantiality.

In what way, then, is Christ “God”? In that He is the Michael the Archangel?

Does not address consubstantiality.

So, whatever level of “god” Jesus is, we are in agreement that He can forgive sins?

Does not address consubstantiality.

I am beginning to wonder what you mean by this term. If you are using a non-Christian definitition for “church” and “God”, it is likely that you are using an non-Christian interpretation for this term as well.

Does not address consubstantiality.

Perhaps this sheds some light? Perhaps your notion of "consubstantial’ means that the son of God is not really “God” in the way the Father is God is part of why you can deny the Trinity?

The verse does not om(name removed by moderator)resence or consubstantiality.

In what way to you think Jesus is with us until the end of the age?

Does not address consubstantiality.

In what manner, since you think consubstantial is not it, is the Son related to the Father who is HIs “Abba”?

Nothing here either.

Do you think the one wh was healed was just being disobedient?

Equal does not mean consubstantial - of the same substance

So, what does it mean?

**The doctrine of the Trinity itself, however, is not a Biblical Doctrine…” ** Emil Brunner, The Christian Doctrine of God (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1949), 205, 236. [bold mine]

This is not a problem for Catholics. None of our doctrine is derived from the bible. All Catholic doctrine comes from Jesus, and was whole and entire before a word of the NT was ever written. The NT reflects what the church believes, but is not the source of it.

The emergence of the full trinitarian doctrine was not possible without significant modification of previously accepted ideas.” Maurice Wiles, The Making of Christian Doctrine (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1967), 4, 144.

This stands to reason, since the previous notion of God was distinctly monotheistic.

None of them addresses the issue of homoousious.

Do you expect that scripture would do this? What, in your opinion, would address homoousious?

 

[peary]

Let’s be serious - shall we?

Yes, we shall.

Names written down on a list are hardly evidence of anything more than someone having written down names on a list. I have a A History of the Popes - Vicars of Christ (Coulombe) with a biography of each “Pope” on the list but even a biography is proof of nothing.

**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 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”. He 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.**

What I am asking for is actually historical information, not tradition, that, for example: Linus, Cletus and Evaristus were actually Popes - monoepiscopal bishops of Rome with primacy over all other bishops.

Here’s how I understand it:

It would be inaccurate to factually state that Peter was the 1st Bishop of Rome or even that the first Bishops of Rome had primacy. The Catholic Church, by tradition accords such but the direct evidence for it is lacking. There is a lack of evidence that Peter, once in Rome served as a theological of administrative leader, certainly not was we understand Bishops today.

… however, I am willing to be educated if someone can demonstrated from the evidence, not tradition, that I am mistaken.

The evidence is in the historical writings.

 

[avenger]

It was a typo. I was just trying to understand where you were coming from, and I think it’s only fair that everyone knows what “side” everyone is on.

I also want to correct what someone said on the last page. They said, “ekklesia” means “a local body”. This is simply incorrect. It means “assembly” or “congregation” or “group of people”, but most literally, it means “the (group of) called-out ones”.

But why is it necessary to know what “side” someone is on. The debate is the debate, an what is offered is all that should be relevant.

 

[Snow]

Why would you baptize in the “name” of something not a person? Why would you baptize in the “name” of someone other than God?

Read the verse. I wasn’t saying anything about the verse other than it did not address what the OP claimed.

In what way, then, is Christ “God”?

Non-consubstantiality.

In that He is the Michael the Archangel?

?

So, whatever level of “god” Jesus is, we are in agreement that He can forgive sins?[/quotes]

Read the posts in question. The OP claimed that verses showed consubstantiality.

I am beginning to wonder what you mean by this term. If you are using a non-Christian definitition for “church” and “God”, it is likely that you are using an non-Christian interpretation for this term as well.

I am using it in the sense of Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed; homoousious,

consubstantial |ˌkänsəbˈstan ch əl|
adjective
of the same substance or essence (used esp. of the three persons of the Trinity in Christian theology) : Christ is consubstantial with the Father.

Perhaps this sheds some light? Perhaps your notion of "consubstantial’ means that the son of God is not really “God” in the way the Father is God is part of why you can deny the Trinity?

No, my notion of consubstantial does not mean that the Son of God is not really God.

In what way to you think Jesus is with us until the end of the age?

The light of Christ is available to all men.

In what manner, since you think consubstantial is not it, is the Son related to the Father who is HIs “Abba”?

Unity of will and purpose.

Do you think the one wh was healed was just being disobedient?

Not relevant. The poster claimed the verse addressed homoousious. It did not.

So, what does it mean?

What does equal mean? Have you tried a dictionary?

This is not a problem for Catholics. None of our doctrine is derived from the bible. All Catholic doctrine comes from Jesus, and was whole and entire before a word of the NT was ever written. The NT reflects what the church believes, but is not the source of it.

Your doctrine doesn’t come from the Bible. So noted.

Please cite the specific sources of your doctrine. Not just a name - cite the actual sources. I’d like to review them.

Do you expect that scripture would do this? What, in your opinion, would address homoousious?

No. I know that the scriptures to not address it. It is a later innovation after the scriptures. The issue is that Catholic poster after poster claimed that it came from the Bible. When challenged to cite the specific verses - no one could.

 

[RebeccaJ]

I think it is worth pointing out, once again, that Mormons believe Jesus is A God, for this earth. The same for the Father, He is A God. Neither is believed to be THE God. Except in henotheistic terms of the Father is one God of many but we on this planet are to worship only the Father. This is how they view “thou shalt have no other Gods before me”.

Mormons will say all day that Jesus is God, but they have it framed in these definitions that they don’t often offer to clarify to Christians, who believe in One God, who is THE God.

 

[Stephen168]

I think it is worth pointing out, once again, that Mormons believe Jesus is A God, for this earth. The same for the Father, He is A God. Neither is believed to be THE God. Except in henotheistic terms of the Father is one God of many but we on this planet are to worship only the Father. This is how they view “thou shalt have no other Gods before me”.

Mormons will say all day that Jesus is God, but they have it framed in these definitions that they don’t often offer to clarify to Christians, who believe in One God, who is THE God.

35 years ago the mormons I knew were proud to tell me that I believed in the trinty and they did not. Has there been a change in the mormon church or is it just the mormons that post on CAF that have a desire to call their gods a ‘trinity?’

 

[Snow]

Let’s be serious - shall we?

You’d hardly accept a one sentence mention in 2008 as proof that someone had been an actual living person in Kentucky and been a lawyer in 1895.

 

[Snow]

35 years ago the mormons I knew were proud to tell me that I believed in the trinty and they did not. Has there been a change in the mormon church or is it just the mormons that post on CAF that have a desire to call their gods a ‘trinity?’

1. Don’t trust angry anti-Mormons to give you accurate answer to anything about The Church of Jesus Christ. They usually don’t know very much and and agenda driven.
2. Mormons DO NOT accept “The Trinity” as voted upon by the Councils of the 4th and 5th centuries. I have never ever heard of a Mormon who thought so.

However, you don’t own the word “trinity.” The word “trinity” simply means “A group consisting of three closely related members. Also called triunity.” So from and English definition stand point, The LDS understanding of the Godhead is a trinity. That’s all.

 

[guanophore]

Specifically what do you think that I can’t refute. Please be specific.

Post 233

 

[Snow]

Post 233

You want me to refute that Eusebius wrote that Papias said that there was an Aramaic copy of Matthew?

Why would I do that? I was the one that said so originally in post 216. If I intended to refute myself, I probably just wouldn’t have posted it in the first place.

 

[guanophore]

Development means that the doctrine was there to begin with and then expanded.

It is not so much the doctrine itself that “expands” as it was complete when it was delivered. What expands is our understanding of it, and how it applies to our day and time.

Demonstrate where the doctrine of consubstantiality is found in the NT.

This is a fundamental error about doctrine that will inevitably result in fundamental conclusions. Doctrine does not emanate from NT. It emanates from Christ. IT is reflected in the NT and can be demonstrated there because one has already accepted the Teachings of Jesus Christ that were entrusted to the Church. One who refuses to accept these teachings will usually not be able to see them reflected in the Scriptures.

Well that’s an interesting take - The RCC, not the Bible is the source or pillar, of truth, not the Bible.

Scripture itself attests that the Church is the pillar and foundation of the Truth. This Truth is found in the NT because the Church wrote it there. It is not “Roman” though.

If that’s what you believe then you don’t have to find support for your beliefs (consubstantiality) in the Bible.

We find support for our beliefs in the Scripture because we have accepted the Apostolic teachings.

The RCC can simply “create” new beliefs as it see fit.

No, the deposit of faith was whole and entire by the death of the last Apostle. This has been the consistent teaching of the Church. The Church cannot simply “create” new beliefs as it sees fit.

That’s a consistent positioni and logical so if that’s what you are asserting - I have no complaint. If you will read my claims, I asserted that it wasn’t in the Bible but added later.

Yes, you have made your vast ignorance of Scripture and history quite evident here.

 

[Snow]

Yes, you have made your vast ignorance of Scripture and history quite evident here.

Tsk, tsk, tsk.

Petty insults are the first refuge of those who can’t argue the facts.

Grow up.