Please give me the name of the man, or men, that founded the Catholic Church, and when...

[Radical]

So would you consider the source that you have been referring to any better of an authority then this Ann Landers?

yep…he is very well qualified

Is Francis A. Sullivan SJ a reputable source for catholic theology?

probably knows what he is talking about in that area, but he is definitely a reputable source for the history of early church leadership

Is he not a critical scholar of the Catholic faith and theology?

he believes that apostolic succession is divinely instituted…he just suffers from a case of integrity and is therefore forced to admit that, based on historical evidence, Peter likely was never the bishop of Rome and that the Roman church was not led by a monarchical bishop until well into the 2nd century.

I seem to remember him being rather bent on ecclesiastical unity, and considerably heterodox in his own scholarly work… yet you have been using his “scholarly work” to refute the teachings of the Catholic Church.

Yeah, using a reputable scholar’s work to refute Catholic claims is getting easier and easier these days…

Ann Landers should be a non-issue for you Radical - heck, even “Oprah” should be in the same realm of the scholars that you have been citing within this thread.

it is getting harder and harder to take you seriously

 

[guanophore]

 as indicated, the book is available for preview at google books...If you search in the book for "Jones" one result should be page 219.  You could start reading there where Sullivan deals with "episkopos".

I could. I do agree that there is some benefit to reading works that contradict the testimony of Scripture. It is helpful, when learning apologetics, to understand anti-Catholic viewpoints.

I believe that they would yield…maybe Paul would have to remind them of his position, before they would do so. I don’t see how this establishes anything for your position. I don’t think any congregation would have thought that they had the authority to remove an apostle, but the congregation at Corinth most certainly thought it had the authority to remove its leaders (see 1st Clement). Clement never argues that a congregation can’t toss out its leaders, but argues that the leaders at Corinth were wrongly tossed out (b/c they had preformed well).

It is clear from the writings of Clement and the Teaching of the Apostles that the congregation does not have the authority to “fire” those appointed through the Apostolic Succession.

You seem to be equating the position of “apostle” with that of “bishop”. Why?

The aposotolic authority was given to the bishops.

Not as presented by the Vatican…not in the NT, nor in the Apostolic fathers

In that case, let us start by examining the Aposotlic succession as it is in Scripture, and with the early fathers.

I am at work now, don’t have my book here, but IIRC it would be justifying the authority claimed by the CC for its bishops.

Ok, what authority do you see that is being claimed?

b/c the idea that Peter presided as a bishop in Rome and that he then appointed Linus to succeed him etc. is not the way the majority of scholars think it actually happened (after having examined the evidence)....it is simplistic and inaccurate.

Ok. What do you think he meant when he wrote “Peter and Paul laid a foundation for the Church in Rome”. Or do you think this never really happened?

What do you think got passed on to Linus?

Flummoxed? Are you flabbergasted as well?

Often on these threads, yes.

Perhaps you need to listen more to those who don’t share your point of view…

.

No doubt. I have a tendency to stop reading as soon as I encounter a heresy, or pure drivel.

b/c that is exactly what Sullivan is saying; namely that the NT and Apostolic fathers (the evidence) do not establish the “installation of bishops as successors to the Apostles”…let alone that it was a divine institution…and please keep in mind Sullivan is describing the general consensus of the scholars.

Only scholars opposed to the Apostolic succession.

Is it right for me to assume that you agree with him? Do you not see any evidence in the NT for the installation of bishops as successors to the Apostles?

I believe so, but if it isn’t what you would claim, please note that Sullivan would not endorse this claim: the NT demonstrates that the Apostles installed bishops as their successors …which seems to be your claim

It seems to me that one must ignore the evidence to embrace Sullivan’s view.

And? The apostles were subordinate to Jesus. The first leaders appointed by the apostles were subordinate to them.  If you want to use the first two links in the chain as a precedent you are stuck with ever diminishing authority....

How is that? By what process does a successor have “diminishing authority”? Does each President fo the United States have less authroity than the previous? we are talking about an office, here.

or, said another way, the apostles were of a different class from Jesus and the first leaders were of a still different class from the apostles.

Yes, I agree. But being in a different class does not diminish the authority from God. It just means that he gave it to people who were in a different class.

How, in your opinion, does Jesus choosing Peter establish apostloic succession?

No. The authority that He gave to Peter established it. The first succession is seen in the replacement of Judas. Other successions are evident in Paul passing the bishopric to Timothy and Titus.

is there any good proof of this claim?  By "good proof" I mean proof that would satisfy scholars and not proof that would satisfy those who want to justify the Catholic claims.

The lines of bishops from Antioch and the Eastern church are primarily found in the Orthodox communion, which persons have absolutely no motivation to justify Catholic claims whatsoever. On the contrary, they believe the Catholic Church separated itself from the One Body in 1054, and has been drifiting further into heresy ever since.

But, no, for people who are unwilling to accept the record of the NT as authoritative on this matter, I don’t think any extrabiblical proof I could provide would be of any use.

 

[guanophore]

I agree with them

I am curious how you set aside the NT scriptures on this point.

that is Sullivan’s point…it has to be both, b/c the historical evidence simply isn’t good enough to make the case by itself…you have to buy into Catholic theological arguments in order to arrive at the Vatican’s position WRT apostolic succession.

No, because the same faith is held by those who are not in communion with Catholic faith. All the Churches founded by Aposltes have inherited this same Teaching on the Apostolic Succession, including those who refuse communion with Rome. Why do you suppose that might be, if it is “Catholic”?

The Truth is that it was passed on to them by their Apostles, and they followed the Apostolic command to preserve it.

 

[guanophore]

This is exactly the sort of argument that won’t be accepted by historians…yes, you quote an ancient historical text, but to it, you apply a self-serving interpretation that simply wouldn’t fly in “open court”. Your interpretation must be above debate in order to establish anything remotely approaching a proof.

No, Radical. There does not exist an interpretation that is “above debate”. Clearly people have been in “debate” with Apostolic Teaching since the beginning. We see this “debate” clearly recorded in the book of Acts. People teaching heresy, or heterodox views does not negate the Truth.

I do agree, though, that it must be able to withstand the rigor of debate. Clearly the Truth emerged at the council of Jerusalem, but only after debate, or at the least, presentation of all the evidence that had to be considered. Both Peter and Paul had to give a detailed account of how God showed them that the Gospel was to go to the Gentiles, and that they were not to become Jews.

 

[guanophore]

You are right, I described it poorly...I should have said:  why don’t you start by listing a scholar who has put forward the claim that Peter was the first bishop of Rome and that Linus was appointed as his monarchical successor (in the last 25 years in a work intended for peer review).

This is a strawman, Radical. Jesus was quite clear that He expected the Apostles NOT to be “monarchial” in their leadership, but to serve one another. They were to act in unity with one another, not “lord it over as the Gentiles do”. this is a secular framework being projected to supplant what Jesus taught.

does Carroll actually go as far as saying that Peter was the first bishop of Rome and that Linus was appointed as his monarchical successor?

I think the whole “monoarchial” thing is absurd. Peter clearly has a servant leader heart and attitude as evicenced in his let tters. The fact that Jesus gave him specific gifts and responsibilities does not mean that he became imperious about it.

Those on the outside (of the consensus) would be diehard Catholics (or the like) and would likely be seen as “Catholics first and historians second”.

If this is true, then it would have to be equally applied to Orthodox, Copts, Assyrian and Oriental Apostolic faiths who believe in the same principle of episcopal succession.

How about naming a secular scholar who has put forward the claim that Peter was the first bishop of Rome and that Linus was appointed as his monarchical successor?

This might not be difficult, since the projection of a secular person of the “monarchial” attitude should be expected.

What one does not expect is the repudiation among CHRISTIANS of Jesus’ teaching on leadership.

Protestant scholars would be reluctant to grant such, but a secular scholar shouldn’t have any such reservations (if that is indeed where the evidence led)…who knows, maybe you can find one.

If any scholar can deny the NT evidence, I am not sure they are really worth reading. :coffeeread:

 

[Curious_Hobbit]

As Guanophore mentioned, the first example of succession is whenever Mathias is ordained to replace Judas. Here are some Early Fathers on apostolic succession and authority

“And thus preaching through countries and cities, they appointed the first-fruits [of their labours], having first proved them by the Spirit, to be bishops and deacons of those who should afterwards believe. Nor was this any new thing, since indeed many ages before it was written concerning bishops and deacons. For thus saith the Scripture a certain place, ‘I will appoint their bishops s in righteousness, and their deacons in faith.’… Our apostles also knew, through our Lord Jesus Christ, and there would be strife on account of the office of the episcopate**. For this reason, therefore, inasmuch as they had obtained a perfect fore-knowledge of this, they appointed those [ministers] already mentioned, and afterwards gave instructions, that when these should fall asleep, other approved men should succeed them in their ministry.**…For our sin will not be small, if we eject from the episcopate those who have blamelessly and holily fulfilled its duties.” Pope Clement, Epistle to Corinthians, 42, 44 (A.D. 98).

"For what is the bishop but one who beyond all others possesses all power and authority, so far as it is possible for a man to possess it, who according to his ability has been made an imitator of the Christ off God? And what is the presbytery but a sacred assembly, the counselors and assessors of the bishop? And what are the deacons but imitators of the angelic powers, fulfilling a pure and blameless ministry unto him, as…Anencletus and Clement to Peter?" Ignatius, To the Trallians, 7 (A.D. 110).

"True knowledge is [that which consists in] the doctrine of the apostles, and the ancient constitution of the Church throughout all the world, and the distinctive manifestation of the body of Christ according to the successions of the bishops, by which they have handed down that Church which exists in every place, and has come even unto us, being guarded and preserved without any forging of Scriptures, by a very complete system of doctrine…”- Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 4:33:8 (A.D. 180)

 

[Brian_Culliton]

We know from Acts 20:28 that the bishops in Ephesus were made overseers, not by apostolic authority, but by the Holy Spirit. If a bishop is granted his office by the Holy Spirit it doesn’t mater which apostle he received the Gospel from. From this it should be evident to all that successions of bishops mean nothing, unless one wants to argue that the Holy Spirit has ceased from doing His work. And if one wants to argue that these bishops received the Holy Spirit by the laying on of hands, let me remind you that the Holy Spirit was received by the first gentile converts without the laying on of hands. It is the same Spirit that works in both.

 

[Cat_Herder]

We know from Acts 20:28 that the bishops in Ephesus were made overseers, not by apostolic authority, but by the Holy Spirit.

[BIBLEDRB]Acts 8:14-24[/BIBLEDRB]
[BIBLEDRB]2 Timothy 2:2[/BIBLEDRB]

 

[mackbrislawn]

We know from Acts 20:28 that the bishops in Ephesus were made overseers, not by apostolic authority, but by the Holy Spirit. If a bishop is granted his office by the Holy Spirit it doesn’t mater which apostle he received the Gospel from. From this it should be evident to all that successions of bishops mean nothing, unless one wants to argue that the Holy Spirit has ceased from doing His work. And if one wants to argue that these bishops received the Holy Spirit by the laying on of hands, let me remind you that the Holy Spirit was received by the first gentile converts without the laying on of hands. It is the same Spirit that works in both.

Indeed, it is true that all bishops are made overseers by the Holy Spirit.

But we are still left with the question of how do we know the Holy Spirit actually made someone an overseer? By the person’s own testimony? Anybody can make that claim, and many have. How does an ordinary person resolve the confilicting claims among various religious leaders who each announce he has been guided by the Holy Spirit?

Does the Holy Spirit play hopscotch when creating overseers?

The Catholic viewpoint is that it is via the visible means of laying on of hands that the Holy Spirit acts for passing on the office of overseer. This avoids the confusion of who actually has been made a bishop by the Holy Spirit, and also implies a succession.

Yes, one can receive the Holy Spirit without being made a bishop, or the laying on of hands. But that is another thing.

 

[adrift]

You are right, I described it poorly…I should have said: why don’t you start by listing a scholar who has put forward the claim that Peter was the first bishop of Rome and that Linus was appointed as his monarchical successor (in the last 25 years in a work intended for peer review).

Was that for peer review and does Carroll actually go as far as saying that Peter was the first bishop of Rome and that Linus was appointed as his monarchical successor? In any event, it isn’t as if the “general consensus among historians” means total unanimity…the Jones fellow that Sullivan mentions in his book would be another. Those on the outside (of the consensus) would be diehard Catholics (or the like) and would likely be seen as “Catholics first and historians second”. I believe that Carroll is quite candid about admitting his bias…and it likely shows. How about naming a secular scholar who has put forward the claim that Peter was the first bishop of Rome and that Linus was appointed as his monarchical successor? Protestant scholars would be reluctant to grant such, but a secular scholar shouldn’t have any such reservations (if that is indeed where the evidence led)…who knows, maybe you can find one.

What you are saying is provide an unbiased historian and there is no such creature. Yes Carroll states that Peter was the first 'Pope" and that Linus succeeded him. Carroll was an atheist. It was his study of history that converted him to Catholicism.

 

[josephdaniel29]

Oh so now it’s the Roman See that separated from the rest of the Church? Must be why the Roman See stopped presiding over those ecumenical councils…oh wait that’s the EOC that no longer participated in those because they separated from the rest of the Church and are no longer in communion with the bishop of Rome. Well can’t wait until you come back:thumbsup:

I know you are but what am I…:juggle:

 

[guanophore]

We know from Acts 20:28 that the bishops in Ephesus were made overseers, not by apostolic authority, but by the Holy Spirit.

You are not making any sense, Brian. A bishop IS an overseer, and they were appointed with the laying on of hands from the Apostles. This is the manner in which the HS calls and annoints them for the work. It is not either/ or, but both.

If a bishop is granted his office by the Holy Spirit it doesn’t mater which apostle he received the Gospel from.

I agree. Apostolic authority, through which the HS confirms a bishop in his office, can come from any Apostle.

From this it should be evident to all that successions of bishops mean nothing, unless one wants to argue that the Holy Spirit has ceased from doing His work.

It is clear if one begins with a faulty foundation, one will arrive with a faulty conclusion.

And if one wants to argue that these bishops received the Holy Spirit by the laying on of hands, let me remind you that the Holy Spirit was received by the first gentile converts without the laying on of hands.

God did this to convince Peter of what he must do. And, do you remember what Peter did (immediately)?

It is the same Spirit that works in both.

And they are not separated. Holy Orders are conveyed by the laying on of hands. This is the Teaching of the Apostles.

 

[Irish_Polock]

yep…he is very well qualified

I would agree that he is well “educated“, although his liberal theology would definitely disqualify him as an “Authority” on matters concerning the Church history.

probably knows what he is talking about in that area, but he is definitely a reputable source for the history of early church leadership

I would disagree here, Sullivan’s form of theology has plagued the Church for the past 80 plus years. And it is Clergy like this that I blame for watering down our Catholic faith that has lead to the acceptance of opinions’ such as Francis A. Sullivan’s

For and example Radical, lets look at his stance on ‘Ordinatio Sacerdotalis”

THE CHANGES IN CHURCH DOCTRINE that have actually taken place in the course of history show that a tradition could hold firm until advances in human knowledge or culture obliged the church to look at the question in a new light. Through honest reexamination of its tradition in this new light, the church has sometimes come to see that the reasons for holding to its previous position were not decisive after all. There is no denying the fact that many of the reasons given in the past to justify the exclusion of women from the priesthood are such as one would be embarrassed to offer today. No doubt, better reasons than those have been presented in the recent documents of the Holy See.

The question that remains in my mind is whether it is a clearly established fact that the bishops of the Catholic Church are as convinced by those reasons as Pope John Paul evidently is, and that, in exercising their proper role as judges and teachers of the faith, they have been unanimous in teaching that the exclusion of women from ordination to the priesthood is a divinely revealed truth to which all Catholics are obliged to give a definitive assent of faith. Unless this is manifestly the case, I do not see how it can be certain that this doctrine is taught infallibly by the ordinary and universal magisterium. .

Hardly in line with the teaching authority of the Catholic Church. This would be the issue with using a heterodox scholar to validate your position.

he believes that apostolic succession is divinely instituted…he just suffers from a case of integrity and is therefore forced to admit that, based on historical evidence, Peter likely was never the bishop of Rome and that the Roman church was not led by a monarchical bishop until well into the 2nd century.

Subjective scholastic work has no real place outside of apologetics as guanophore stated earlier. Additionally, although I have not read the complete book - as I do not yet own it- and I am not certain of the exact context of what you are referring, I can say that if what you imply is true, the church has had this to say of it:

1824 [Canon]. Moreover, what the Chief of pastors and the Great Pastor of sheep, the Lord Jesus, established in the blessed Apostle Peter for the perpetual salvation and perennial good of the Church, this by the same Author must endure always in the Church which was founded upon a rock and will endure firm until the end of the ages. Surely "no one has doubt, rather all ages have known that the holy and most blessed Peter, chief and head of the apostles and pillar of faith and foundation of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from our Lord Jesus Christ, the Savior and Redeemer of the human race; and he up to this time and always lives and presides and exercises judgment in his successors, the bishops of the holy See of Rome, which was founded by him and consecrated by his blood, [cf. Council of Ephesus, see n. 112]. Therefore, whoever succeeds Peter in this chair, he according to the institution of Christ himself, holds the primacy of Peter over the whole Church. "Therefore the disposition of truth remains, and blessed Peter persevering in the accepted fortitude of the rock does not abandon the guidance of the Church which he has received.’’ * For this reason “it has always been necessary because of mightier pre-eminence for every church to come to the Church of Rome, that is those who are the faithful everywhere,” * so that in this See, from which the laws of “venerable communion” * emanate over all, they as members associated in one head, coalesce into one bodily structure.

1825 [Canon]. If anyone then says that it is not from the institution of Christ the Lord Himself, or by divine right that the blessed Peter has perpetual successors in the primacy over the universal Church, or that the Roman Pontiff is not the successor of blessed Peter in the same primacy, let him be anathema. (Denzinger EN 1824)

Yeah, using a reputable scholar’s work to refute Catholic claims is getting easier and easier these days…

Unfortunately this might seem true. The focus of my prayers are often for the conversion of these souls whom attack the Holy Mother Church unceasingly.

it is getting harder and harder to take you seriously

Indeed Radical, but forget about me for a moment and take Jesus Christ seriously.

 

[guanophore]

…Hardly in line with the teaching authority of the Catholic Church. This would be the issue with using a heterodox scholar to validate your position.
…

Excellent post, Irish. Thanks.

 

[Brian_Culliton]

You are not making any sense, Brian. A bishop IS an overseer, and they were appointed with the laying on of hands from the Apostles. This is the manner in which the HS calls and annoints them for the work. It is not either/ or, but both.

Yes, I know bishops are overseers. I said they were made so by the Holy Spirit. You didn’t read it as I intended it. I will agree that they received both the gift of the Holy Spirit and the appointment by the laying on of hands, but it is not possible that it was just from apostles directly.

I agree. Apostolic authority, through which the HS confirms a bishop in his office, can come from any Apostle.

What are you agreeing with? I never said bishops receive apostolic authority, and neither do the Scriptures. That is a Roman Catholic invention. Apostolic authority is in the teachings of the apostles, not in people they entrusted with oversight.

It is clear if one begins with a faulty foundation, one will arrive with a faulty conclusion.

That is what happens when one builds upon the sandy foundation of tradition rather than the solid foundation of Christ, which is the witness and testimony of the prophets and apostles, i.e., believing through their word by faith. If this is not the foundation upon which one is built, how can one say they are of Christ’s church?

God did this to convince Peter of what he must do. And, do you remember what Peter did (immediately)?

Yeah, he commanded them to be baptized. So?

Holy Orders are conveyed by the laying on of hands. This is the Teaching of the Apostles.

Are holy orders the same thing as apostolic authority? Where did the apostles teach that their authority was to be passed down?

 

[elvisman]

Yeah, let’s get that one out of the way. I know of no one in the protestant sphere who is willing to suggest that Constantine was the founder of the Catholic Church, so we can move on…

Ummm, unfortunately, there are many here on this forum who believe just that - no matter how may times it is debunked. **

 

[guanophore]

Yes, I know bishops are overseers.  I said they were made so by the Holy Spirit.  You didn’t read it as I intended it.

OK. Thanks for clarifying. Do you not believe that the HS works through people?

Do you think that the overseers appointed by the Apostles (personally with the laying on of hands) were not really valid bishops?

I will agree that they received both the gift of the Holy Spirit and the appointment by the laying on of hands, but it is not possible that it was just from apostles directly.

Do you believe that the HS works through the laying on of hands to commission the bishop to service?

What are you agreeing with? I never said bishops receive apostolic authority, and neither do the Scriptures.

Oh.

What authority is that, under which they are charged to function by the Apostles?

That is a Roman Catholic invention.  Apostolic authority is in the teachings of the apostles, not in people they entrusted with oversight.

No, Brian. If it were a “Roman Catholic invention” then it would not exist in all the communities founded by Apostles throughout the world. See, in order for you to make such an assertion have any weight, you have to find a way to explain out of existence all these Apostolic Sees that are NOT in communion with Rome. Why would those in separation from Rome acquire a “Roman invention”? Why would they have Apostolic Succession prior to the development of the Roman Rite?

The Teachings of the Apostles are preserved through the succession, in the people who were given custody of the message. You are right, though, the authority comes from Christ, and is passed from the Apostles to the Bishops through the laying on of hands.

That is what happens when one builds upon the sandy foundation of tradition rather than the solid foundation of Christ, which is the witness and testimony of the prophets and apostles, i.e., believing through their word by faith. If this is not the foundation upon which one is built, how can one say they are of Christ’s church?

I think people believe they are in Christ’s Church because they have a deficient understanding of the nature of the Church. They are doing the best they can with what they have. They have a truncated gospel, but they follow it as best they can. Had you considered getting off the sandy bottom?

Yeah, he commanded them to be baptized. So?

The Aposltes never separated the water from the Holy Spirit.

This is how they understood Him when He said “born again from water and Spirit”.

Are holy orders the same thing as apostolic authority? Where did the apostles teach that their authority was to be passed down?

Holy orders contain the passing on of the Apostolic authority.

The Apostles taught in person and in writing that their authority was to be followed, respected, and invested the Bishops with that same authority.

I am curious, Brian. What would happen if you were to accept that the Bishops really do have apostolic authority? I mean,would that mean something would have to change for you?

You dont’ have to answer that, of course, it is a personal question, but you seem to be working so hard to deny the evidence, one has to wonder what is at stake.

 

[elvisman]

That is what happens when one builds upon the sandy foundation of tradition rather than the solid foundation of Christ, which is the witness and testimony of the prophets and apostles, i.e., believing through their word by faith. If this is not the foundation upon which one is built, how can one say they are of Christ’s church?

Precisely**.**
**Tell me, Brian – which one of the 35,000 Protestant denominations is the Church *Christ *established? **

Are holy orders the same thing as apostolic authority? Where did the apostles teach that their authority was to be passed down?

2 Tim. 2:2
"What you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also".

Acts 1:20-26
**For it is written in the Book of Psalms: ‘Let his encampment become desolate, and may no one dwell in it.’ And: 'May another take his office.’ **
***Therefore, it is necessary that one of the men who accompanied us the whole time the Lord Jesus came and went among us, beginning from the baptism of John until the day on which he was taken up from us, become with us a witness to his resurrection." ***
***So they proposed two, Joseph called Barsabbas, who was also known as Justus, and Matthias. ***
**Then they prayed, "You, Lord, who know the hearts of all, show which one of these two you have chosen to take the place in this apostolic ministry from which Judas turned away to go to his own place." **
***Then they gave lots to them, and the lot fell upon Matthias, and he was counted with the eleven apostles. ***

**Acts 15:24-26 **
Since we have heard that some of our number (who went out) without any mandate from us have upset you with their teachings and disturbed your peace of mind, we have with one accord decided to choose representatives and to send them to you along with our beloved Barnabas and Paul, who have dedicated their lives to the name of our Lord Jesus Christ.

 

[RedDawgMCM]

Are holy orders the same thing as apostolic authority? Where did the apostles teach that their authority was to be passed down?

When Peter got the 11 together to appoint a successor to Judas…"His office (bishopric in some translations) let another take…

 

[Radical]

I would agree that he is well “educated“, although his liberal theology would definitely disqualify him as an “Authority” on matters concerning the Church history.

Let’s see how your approach looks from another angle. Suppose we are considering the Mormon Church and not the CC. Suppose further that I had cited a rather liberal (from the LDS point of view) Mormon scholar who is a recognized historian and who had extensively researched the matter in question. Now suppose that scholar had claimed that there was a consensus among scholars that the text which J Smith looked at to produce the Book Of Abraham was nothing but Egyptian funerary material. Now as a Mormon (in this imaginary scenario) you respond with:
Mormon-irish-polock:

I would agree that he is well “educated“, although his liberal theology would definitely disqualify him as an “Authority” on matters concerning the history of the Mormon Church.

Such an answer seems ridiculous, Why in the world would one have to be a conservative Mormon believer in order to become an authority on the history of the Mormon religion? The historical documents are there for any one to see. Surely you can see that conservative Mormons would tend to be rather biased b/c they are determined to find a “history” that would support their conservative Mormon theology.

Hardly in line with the teaching authority of the Catholic Church. This would be the issue with using a heterodox scholar to validate your position.

And what issue would that be? It seems that your position is that, if the historian does not support (in every way) what the Vatican has declared, then his opinion on the matter is to be dismissed notwithstanding his credentials and the thoroughness of his work. How am I to distinguish that approach from the defensiveness seen in a typical cult? When a cult leader’s teaching is attacked by a scholar, don’t the cult members typically respond by attacking that scholar, declaring that he is evil and denying that there could be any validity in what the scholar has said (for no other reason than b/c he disagrees with their beloved leader)? Alarm bells should be going off for any one considering this matter…Any approach that requires a person to adopt the methodology of a cult should be rejected.

Indeed Radical, but forget about me for a moment and take Jesus Christ seriously.

I do…he declared that he was the way, the truth and the life. I value pursuing truth above preserving bad tradition.