R
- Status
C
Chris-WA
Guest
I have one overall opinion. Your position seems to imply that the Apostles had no plan for ensuring the Church would continue after their deaths. I’m sure we can agree that they knew their mission was to spread the good news and to grow the Church. The biblical record details them doing just this. So why grow the Church if they didn’t bother to somehow pass on authority? That’s ultimately the LDS position—that the Apostles failed to pass on authority. In another thread a long time back Zerinus suggested this was because the Apostles couldn’t get back together in the same place at the same time to form a quorum, and thus were prevented from appointing successors. I find this theory totally rediculous because the Apostles surely knew they would be traveling far away in different directions and would be facing persecutions that could lead to their deaths. So the chances of a quorum getting back together every time they needed to appoint a successor would be nil. I think they most assuredly knew this. So there goes that theory.
Do you really think, Tom, that the Apostles couldn’t find a way to ensure the Church would go on? After everything they went through with Christ, after receiving the power of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost, after traveling the known world establishing local churches, do you really think they just left it all with no way to continue on? No way, Tom. I have faith that Christ’s chosen Apostles knew exactly what they were doing, and that they made sure the Church would continue. To think that the Apostles would spread the Church without ensuring its authority would continue makes no sense to me.
Remember, Tom, as St. Paul says, the Church is Christ’s own bride. He died that She would have life in the fullest sense. How tragic if Christ died only to have His Bride wither away within one generation.
Z
zerinus
Guest
I don’t recall having made such a comment. I have always maintained that the reason why the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles could not be perpetuated in the Christian church at that time was because of the apostasy and wickedness of the people—or of a large number of them—which prevented that institution from continuing to function among them.
zerinus
I
ibkc
Guest
So basically, to you, Christ was a failure, and he needed Joseph Smith to put things right.
T
truthsilence
Guest
Zerinus
This might be the comment Chris-WA is referring to. It seems to me his recollection of what you said is accurate::
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=1546117&highlight=killed+lost+authority#post1546117
Chris. if this isn’t the conversation you were thinking of, I think it would be a good idea for you to try and find the right one by doing a search on the forum. I don’t want to misrepresent what you were talking about and Zerinus doesn’t like to be misrepresented either.
God bless.
Z
zerinus
Guest
This is not the same thing as what he had reported that I had said. If this is what he was referring to, then his memory has failed him badly.Zerinus
This might be the comment Chris-WA is referring to. It seems to me his recollection of what you said is accurate::
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=1546117&highlight=killed+lost+authority#post1546117
Chris. if this isn’t the conversation you were thinking of, I think it would be a good idea for you to try and find the right one by doing a search on the forum. I don’t want to misrepresent what you were talking about and Zerinus doesn’t like to be misrepresented either.
God bless.
zerinus
J
Jerusha
Guest
T
truthsilence
Guest
It does sound as though you were saying the Apostles were prevented from appointing successors - meeting back at the same place to appoint them - because they were killed. Our position as Catholics is that they (and in fact our Lord) made sure the Church would continue and the Authority preserved, because they knew before separating that they were going to be persecuted and possibly killed.
T
TOmNossor
Guest
to pass on authority. In another thread a long time back Zerinus suggested this was because the Apostles couldn’t get back together in the same place at the same time to form a quorum, and thus were prevented from appointing successors. I find this theory totally rediculous because the Apostles surely knew they would be traveling far away in different directions and would be facing persecutions that could lead to their deaths. So the chances of a quorum getting back together every time they needed to appoint a successor would be nil. I think they most assuredly knew this. So there goes that theory.
Chris,
You offer a good position. Let me first say that in response to what I consider to be huge holes in the succession theories for the Catholic Church you reply, “I know how God would do things, so the holes you point to are not really problems.” This is not quite a response to the succession issues I claim exist.
To me the succession issues are so glaring that trying to assess the mind of God and then claiming that because He would not do such and such it must not be this way, is the less preferred read of the data.
Instead, by my read the data points to an authority that developed as humans are want to develop authority. I understand how humans work better than I understand how God works.
To be a Catholic IMO is to believe that Peter didn’t fully understand his role and how succession would happen. God of course did and enough was in place that ordained men guided by some form of “natural public revelation” would fill the gaps left by the departure of the apostles. Over time local groups of leaders would become monoepiscopate bishops. Over greater time the Bishop or Rome would become the head of the church. Seeds were planted, but only God could know in what way they would grow. As a LDS I look at the “seeds” and see natural human maneuvers aided by many things external to the church that resulted in what we see.
So, why do I call yours “a good position.” The “what” of history IMO is better answered by the LDS position. The “why” of history is still something LDS apologists struggle to answer.
I have a high view of the inspiration of the apostles. I do not believe that they died unaware of the fact that they possessed authority that was not passed on to the leaders they left behind (again as a Catholic, I would have a lower view of this inspiration; but as a LDS, I do not have the meeting with God for a face to face planning session view either BTW). Nibley points to a letter he claims was written to guide a church that no longer had inspired leaders. Later, Christians would lament the absence of leaders that could lead via inspiration. But, I claim the apostles knew this.
I also do not have a “Christ failed” or even a “church failed/church died/…” view of the apostasy. God’s purposes were fulfilled by well meaning men who originally did have lesser authority from the apostles. The Bible was formed (not perfectly formed by sufficiently formed). The witness of Christ was preserved and shared with every generation in some form or another. People came to know Christ through the action of the Catholic/EO/Protestant Churches. However, this does not mean that the authority of Peter was passed to this church, merely that this church fulfilled what was necessary.
I like to say the following:
**Christ came into the world, he died, and was resurrected. His bride came into the world, she apostatized, and was restored. **
cont…
Charity, TOm
T
TOmNossor
Guest
Now, what of the “why.” I believe a combination of two things with some of a third that is worth mentioning, but not foundational.
I believe that part of this was the will of God. This was His will for a number of reasons. The Gnostics and the orthodox Christians of the early church agreed upon the esoteric (secret) components of the Christian message. We all agree about the Gnostic components, but I suggest within Clement of Alexandria and other ECF you can see that there was something esoteric within the worship of the Early Church. This and other aspects of Christ’s church were not something that could survive and flourish without regular and obvious divine control. There was a singular time in the history of the world when the people of God would kill their God such that the atonement could occur. A side-effect (or a feature) of this singular time was the God’s church would not perpetuate undefiled, so the highest authority would not continue on.
Secondly, conflict within the highest quorums (among the 12) contributed to the human cause of a lack of succession. Paul calls the Jerusalem leaders “so-called authorities.” Many disagreements arise and they are only partially solved by the Council of Jerusalem. God revealed to His apostles that their authority would not continue in part due to the lack of unity among the 12. While conflicts at lower levels also contributed, only at this level could the succession be broken.
Finally, partially as a result of the above, but still important (especially for the ultimate failure of the lower authority to perpetuate) is the fact that there was a struggle between God’s omnipotent direction of everything and human free will. As God’s omnipotence gained ground a the expense of human freedom, the covenantal nature or Christianity and the 7 sacraments (especially baptism, confirmation, the Eucharist) gave way to the sacramental nature where God pours out grace through His sacraments. This is a huge deal for the perpetuation of a graced, but earthly, church IMO.
Let me again mention that for me this is a choice between following the historical evidence to the more reasoned conclusion OR choosing to believe that I know what God would / would not do leading His church. I can admit that the argument that God would not initiate His church and then prohibit the promulgation of its highest authority holds sway in my consideration of these issues. And, I do not believe God’s will is something not worthy of discussing and using human reasoning to try to assess. But, the historical record is what it is and I think the LDS read is better. The RADICAL development view held by folks like Father Sullivan and Robert Eno, are not impossible; just IMO less likely. Add in our attempts to define what God would and would not do and the “less likely” becomes less “less likely,” but I do not think it gets to the place where we should see the Catholic case made within history.
BTW, would you agree that Butler, Dahlgren, and Hess AND Madrid, Akin, Keating, and Hahn do not deal with these things?
Charity, TOm
I believe that part of this was the will of God. This was His will for a number of reasons. The Gnostics and the orthodox Christians of the early church agreed upon the esoteric (secret) components of the Christian message. We all agree about the Gnostic components, but I suggest within Clement of Alexandria and other ECF you can see that there was something esoteric within the worship of the Early Church. This and other aspects of Christ’s church were not something that could survive and flourish without regular and obvious divine control. There was a singular time in the history of the world when the people of God would kill their God such that the atonement could occur. A side-effect (or a feature) of this singular time was the God’s church would not perpetuate undefiled, so the highest authority would not continue on.
Secondly, conflict within the highest quorums (among the 12) contributed to the human cause of a lack of succession. Paul calls the Jerusalem leaders “so-called authorities.” Many disagreements arise and they are only partially solved by the Council of Jerusalem. God revealed to His apostles that their authority would not continue in part due to the lack of unity among the 12. While conflicts at lower levels also contributed, only at this level could the succession be broken.
Finally, partially as a result of the above, but still important (especially for the ultimate failure of the lower authority to perpetuate) is the fact that there was a struggle between God’s omnipotent direction of everything and human free will. As God’s omnipotence gained ground a the expense of human freedom, the covenantal nature or Christianity and the 7 sacraments (especially baptism, confirmation, the Eucharist) gave way to the sacramental nature where God pours out grace through His sacraments. This is a huge deal for the perpetuation of a graced, but earthly, church IMO.
Let me again mention that for me this is a choice between following the historical evidence to the more reasoned conclusion OR choosing to believe that I know what God would / would not do leading His church. I can admit that the argument that God would not initiate His church and then prohibit the promulgation of its highest authority holds sway in my consideration of these issues. And, I do not believe God’s will is something not worthy of discussing and using human reasoning to try to assess. But, the historical record is what it is and I think the LDS read is better. The RADICAL development view held by folks like Father Sullivan and Robert Eno, are not impossible; just IMO less likely. Add in our attempts to define what God would and would not do and the “less likely” becomes less “less likely,” but I do not think it gets to the place where we should see the Catholic case made within history.
BTW, would you agree that Butler, Dahlgren, and Hess AND Madrid, Akin, Keating, and Hahn do not deal with these things?
Charity, TOm
T
truthsilence
Guest
If this is true, why wasn’t the Eucharist - the Source and Summit of our Faith “restored”? Why were the Apostles and followers of Jesus astounded and later persecuted over what is believed by this “restored church” to be nothing more than a symbol? Did the Early Church Fathers exaggerate about the Real Presense of Christ in the Eucharist?
M
majick275
Guest
I find it hard to believe that Christ would allow his bride to apostatize. I find it even harder to believe that he would do nothing about it for 1800 years.
the Apostles were good about appointing leaders for the churches they founded. they were good about continuing to instruct them as well. I do not see a difference in teachings at anytime in the early church that would indicate apostasy nor do i see evidence at any time of uniquely mormon teachings or practices.
Peter seems to have done just fine with God’s help and I see a papal succession that appears to indicate the he passed on his authority just fine.
the Apostles were good about appointing leaders for the churches they founded. they were good about continuing to instruct them as well. I do not see a difference in teachings at anytime in the early church that would indicate apostasy nor do i see evidence at any time of uniquely mormon teachings or practices.
Peter seems to have done just fine with God’s help and I see a papal succession that appears to indicate the he passed on his authority just fine.
T
TOmNossor
Guest
I think the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist is an area where the Catholics win. While I see no ECF who emphasizes Christ’s presence stronger than John 6 AND there are clearly ECF who are not orthodox concerning Christ’s presence; John 6 and many ECF are plenty strong and few are overtly unorthodox.
Now, I would echo Justin Martyr (who according to Newman and others was hetrodox on the Eucharist) and say that the bread of the sacrament is not “mere bread” in the CoJCoLDS, but I do not find warrant within the teaching of my church to suggest that the bread ceases to be bread and becomes the body and blood of Christ.
I have “holy envy” for the real presence of God in the Eucharist. I cannot image anyone who powerfully experiences God’s presence (like was obvious within the lady at the SSPX mass I went to 3 months ago) in the Eucharist could cease to be Catholic.
Charity, TOm
T
TOmNossor
Guest
Can you show me what exactly leads you to say that you “see a papal succession that appears to indicate the he passed on his authority just fine.”
This is precisely what I see as so evidently absent. And precisely what would require me to embrace a RADICAL development of authority (at least in the realization, justification, and practice of authority).
Charity, TOm
M
majick275
Guest
just for clarification… are you questioning the succession of bishops in rome or the transmittal of the primacy through the bishop of Rome?
Z
zerinus
Guest
No. That merely states what did actually happen to them. It does not say that was the primary cause of their not being able to perpetuate the Quorum in the church. My experience with Chris is that he likes distorting what other people say so much that he ends up believing his own distortions.
We don’t agree. We believe that the institution of the Twelve Apostles were intended to be perpetuated in the church forever, and form the governing council of the church. They were to lead it by revelation, not by guesswork and man’s opinion.
zerinus
M
majick275
Guest
yet mormons today have 15 apostles and the previous “prophet” Gordon Hinkley downplayed revelation and said we needed to focus on what has already been revealed.
T
TOmNossor
Guest
When the apostles lived, there were apostles and co-workers of the apostles who generally traveled. There is at least one record that suggests that you can detect a false apostle by the fact that they stay in the same place for over 2-3 days. The apostles and co-workers in virtually all non-Jerusalem churches left local leaders who were not to travel AND the best read of the evidence for a Catholic IMO is that these local leaders were actually GROUPS of folks who carried out the leadership duties of the local church. The best read IMO for the LDS is that there were certainly groups who lead, but there were successive local leaders giving the impression that multiple people were perfectly equal (in authority) when in fact there was a local leader for a period of time who then supported another local leader.
The apostles died and ceased to lead the church. Their co-workers who traveled also ceased to lead the church as traveling folks. Local churches lead by groups or successive leaders continued to minister in their locales. Over time these groups of presbyters gave way to monoepiscopate bishops who served generally for life. This happened earlier in Asian churches and very late in Corinth and Rome. Evidence suggests that Rome was still lead by GROUPS as late as the middle of the 2nd century.
During the second half of the 2nd century generally all local churches were lead by monoepiscopate bishops. Bishop lists like those in Irenaeus are backward looking and point to leading presbyters (Irenaeus even uses the term Presbyter to describe folks that the modern Catholic apologist would demand were fully bishops). To be honest the confusion between the term apostle and bishop and presbyter contributes to what we see (and I even recall some of this dealt with in a semi-apologetic way), but the plurality of leaders that gave way to the singularity of leaders is still evident (as is the differences in the apostolic and non-apostolic ministries according to the records).
The above is what I claim is evident in the work of Father Francis Sullivan**From Apostles to Bishops: The Development of the Episcopacy in the Early Church ** and Nibley.
I suggest that the above makes the transition from Peter to Linus questionable since neither Linus, Cletus, or Clement were likely singularly in charge of the Church at Rome, farther more the entire church. By the middle of the 2nd century there was a single person in charge of the Church of Rome and there is no doubt that the Church of Rome was a very important church, but in conjunction with Eno’s The Rise of the Papacy (and Nibley again); I would claim that the Bishop of Rome was not in charge of the entire church for a very long time. I can offer much of this evidence, but I cannot do as well as the two Catholic authors I mention.
So in response to your question, I would suggest that the list of Bishops are backwards looking and point to prominent presbyters (like the author of Clement’s letter to the Corinthians who does not claim to be the head of the Roman Church or the head of the entire church, but writes in the name of the Roman Church – to a church with strong political ties to Rome explaining this connection according to another Catholic author whose name I do not recall at the moment). Thus, yes, I question the early list of bishops even. And, yes, I certainly question the passing of authority from Peter to the Bishop of Rome.
Charity, TOm
M
majick275
Guest
well then we disagree. I don’t believe there is anything to require travel as a sign of a true apostle. (which would have DQ’d many LDS over the appears to be a position yo have chosen that Mormon apologist accept and you have found a few non-LDS who don’t discount it.
I am content with Clement and Ireneaus as I see most ECF’s in harmony with their position. I attach importance to the fact that the teachings and practices seem to have been consistent over this period as well and show in my opinion a centrally governed church with no apostasy. I agree that the Pope as a monarch is something that appears to have developed over time (and “undeveloped” since the counterreformation) but that isn’t dogma so I see it as not carrying weight here. I think the early church had to hide a lot due to the romans and the leaders had to speak quietly. I am sure that the presbyters ran things until the apostles and the seven had them sufficiently trained to elevate some to bishops. I believe the new testament is good for apostles being bishops as well. I think the historical record of continuing churches with leaders speaks to a uniformity of leadership throughout the church. if there were no bishops right after the apostles I think the times would have produced much more chaos and doctrinal confusion. Backward speaking though some ECF’s may be they seem to speak from a knowledge that had been transmitted with high surety that such was actually the case.
I don’t buy Nibley since this wasn’t his area of focus or expertise. (and he distanced from many of his previous works in his later years) just because someone claims to be a catholic apologist doesn’t bestow credibility in my mind either. this is a case where I see sufficient evidence myself to be comfortable deciding on my own. I consider scripture and tradition here and apply my intellect and offer the package to God i faith that the Holy Spirit has been present all along and my result is Catholic.
I am content with Clement and Ireneaus as I see most ECF’s in harmony with their position. I attach importance to the fact that the teachings and practices seem to have been consistent over this period as well and show in my opinion a centrally governed church with no apostasy. I agree that the Pope as a monarch is something that appears to have developed over time (and “undeveloped” since the counterreformation) but that isn’t dogma so I see it as not carrying weight here. I think the early church had to hide a lot due to the romans and the leaders had to speak quietly. I am sure that the presbyters ran things until the apostles and the seven had them sufficiently trained to elevate some to bishops. I believe the new testament is good for apostles being bishops as well. I think the historical record of continuing churches with leaders speaks to a uniformity of leadership throughout the church. if there were no bishops right after the apostles I think the times would have produced much more chaos and doctrinal confusion. Backward speaking though some ECF’s may be they seem to speak from a knowledge that had been transmitted with high surety that such was actually the case.
I don’t buy Nibley since this wasn’t his area of focus or expertise. (and he distanced from many of his previous works in his later years) just because someone claims to be a catholic apologist doesn’t bestow credibility in my mind either. this is a case where I see sufficient evidence myself to be comfortable deciding on my own. I consider scripture and tradition here and apply my intellect and offer the package to God i faith that the Holy Spirit has been present all along and my result is Catholic.
T
truthsilence
Guest
We do agree. Sort of. The Church did lead by Revelation (Jesus Christ) under the protection and guidance of the Holy Spirit. Where we disagree is that you believe the Holy Spirit didn’t stick around to keep His Church going forever, as was promised. Read some of the testimonies of the Early Church if you haven’t already. If you can do that without prejudice, it should put aside any doubt in your mind that they were lead by the Holy Spirit and were commited to keeping His Gospel intact to be spread across the world.
Here we are 2000 years later and we have the same Gospel. Pretty amazing.
- Status