Re Jehovah's Witnesses: Peter in Babylon?

[amgid]

Fr Ambrose:

Would you please look at it and give an opinion? It is in the thread entitled “Pope John Paul II and Pope Shenouda III” and it spreads across messages #97 to #100

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=52488

Thank you. I had a quick look. But the area of discussion is not one of my special interest to me. I am LDS, and as LDS I dispute the Papal claim to Apostolic succession from Peter, but on an entirely different grounds than those you would want to adduce. My arguments if accepted would invalidate Greek Orthodox claims as well as Catholic claims.

At the time of Christ and the preaching of the Apostles there were large numbers of Jews living in Babylon. Philo mentions this and that they were flourishing and that it was partly thanks to them that Babylonia had not fallen to Roman conquest. It actually makes perfect sense for Peter, himself a Jew, to go and preach to them.

That is possible. I wrote according to my limited knowledge of the subject. I may have been mistaken. But I have doubts my about many of those historical claims.

Ahem, you’re talkng to someone who has lived in the Balkans. To say that there were no forced conversion mocks the hundreds and even thousands of Christians who were martyred rather than renounce Christ. Their relics are still venerated in churches today.

You are talking about the Ottoman invasions; I was talking more in general terms, and especially referring to the earlier centuries of Islam. The Moslems quickly established a vast empire stretching all the way from Spain, all across North Africa, the Middle East, Persia, and all the way to the borders of India; and that empire lasted for around a thousand years. Abuses undoubtedly occurred in individual nations, and across such a vast area, and over such a long period of time; but in general the Moslems were tolerant towards the Jews and Christians, and there were no forced conversions. During the Middle Ages, the Moslems were far more civilized than the Christians used to be, and there were far more persecution of the Jews among the Christians than there ever were among the Moslems.

I’d be very interested to see what you have posted previously about Assyria if you would direct me to the messages.

I haven’t posted anything about the Assyrians before, as it is not a subject of my special interest—I just happen to know a little bit about them.

Have you addressed the Assyrian claim and in particular their book The Marganitha?

No, and I am not about to! I am LDS; and my “vested interest” )) is in defending Mormonism. My original comment related to the JWs, which is real subject of the thread. I happen to know something about them too, so I decided to comment. I don’t intend to get too deeply involved in the tussle between Catholics and Eastern Orthodox. I would rather enjoy the show from the sidelines!

amgid

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

amgid:

I dispute the Papal claim to Apostolic succession from Peter, but on an entirely different grounds than those you would want to adduce. My arguments if accepted would invalidate Greek Orthodox claims as well as Catholic claims.

If you are talking about a simple hands-on-head lineal apostolic succession then we have many apostolic foundations in Greece, Cyprus, Jerusalem, Antioch, Alexandria and all over the Near East. People forget that in the East there are a number of churches which have a foundation from one or other of the Apostles. In the West you have only one - Rome. And, if we admit a foundation at Compostela by Saint James - then we have two apostolic sees in the West.

But maybe your claim to demolish the claims of the Orthodox involves more than this?

No, and I am not about to! I am LDS; and my “vested interest” )) is in defending Mormonism.

How can I not admire a person who has the bright courage to defend the indefensible!!

 

[amgid]

Fr Ambrose:

But maybe your claim to demolish the claims of the Orthodox involves more than this?

My claim involves the apostasy of the early Christian church, and the restoration of the gospel in the latter days by divine revelation and angelic ministration through a great prophet in our time. That is what our Catholic friends are getting so worked up about at the moment; and my guess is that you would be getting worked up about it too!

How can I not admire a person who has the bright courage to defend the indefensible!!

Ah! Easier said than defended! I am sure our admiration for each other is mutual.

amgid

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

amgid:

My claim involves the apostasy of the early Christian church, and the restoration of the gospel in the latter days by divine revelation and angelic ministration through a great prophet in our time.

Amgid, truly you are a man or woman of great faith if you can convince yourself that the teaching of the Christian Gospel can be identified with the teaching of the Mormonic revelation!

“Even if we or an angel (named Moroni?) bring you another different message, reject it.” Isn’t that a part of the Gospel?

 

[amgid]

Fr Ambrose:

Amgid, truly you are a man or woman of great faith …

I am indeed a man (not woman) of great faith!

… if you can convince yourself that the teaching of the Christian Gospel can be identified with the teaching of the Mormonic revelation!

The “Mormonic revelation” IS the “Christian Gospel”. It does not need to be “identified with it”. Have you not seen how the Book of Mormon is subtitled “Another testament of Jesus Christ”?

“Even if we or an angel (named Moroni?) bring you another different message, reject it.” Isn’t that a part of the Gospel?

Been there, done that. If you have anything new to bring to the table, bring; otherwise, don’t trouble us with old wives’ tales.

amgid

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

amgid:

Been there, done that. If you have anything new to bring to the table, bring; otherwise, don’t trouble us with old wives’ tales.

Speaking of old wives’ tales, is it true that God has a wife?

 

[amgid]

Fr Ambrose:

Originally Posted by amgid
Been there, done that. If you have anything new to bring to the table, bring; otherwise, don’t trouble us with old wives’ tales.

Speaking of old wives’ tales, is it true that God has a wife?

There are no definitive or categorical assertions made in LDS scripture to that effect; but if you want my personal opinion, I believe yes. There are some indications in scripture that He does.

amgid

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

amgid:

There are no definitive or categorical assertions made in LDS scripture to that effect; but if you want my personal opinion, I believe yes. There are some indications in scripture that He does.

amgid

I learnt that God has a wife from a Maori Mormon who is in some rank of the priesthood (I forget which exactly.) This was after Mormons started allowing blacks to rise to such ranks. He took me by surprise one day by walking into our altar and when I asked him to please not do that he was a bit taken aback.

 

[amgid]

Fr Ambrose:

He took me by surprise one day by walking into our altar and when I asked him to please not do that he was a bit taken aback.

Yes, I can understand that. Other LDS I know have had a similar experience. That is because in the LDS Church altars don’t play such a role in worship as your churches do. We don’t have altars in our churches at all. There is a table where the Sacrament (Eucharist) is blessed and passed to the congregation; but it is just a table, and treated as such. It is not an altar. That is because the theology of the Sacrament in the LDS Church is different from that in traditional Churches.

We do have altars in our temples; but that is not treated with any kind of special reverence either. It serves a function; but that is all. It is not an object that should be revered in and of itself. In other words, we don’t worship the altar! So it is perfectly understandable for an LDS who visits one of your churches, to walk straight up to the altar and try to touch it and observe it, not realizing that is something that you disapprove of.

I had a stake president once who visited an Anglican High Church (similar to Catholic in liturgy and worship). Not being aware of this, he happily strolled along behind the altar, pushing his baby’s buggy in front of him! He was met with howls of indignation from the priest! He recalls that he said to himself: “Quite right, if you worship that piece of stone, then I don’t have any right to be here!” and he leaves the building.

amgid

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

amgid:

Yes, I can understand that. Other LDS I know have had a similar experience. That is because in the LDS Church altars don’t play such a role in worship as your churches do. We don’t have altars in our churches at all. There is a table where the Sacrament (Eucharist) is blessed and passed to the congregation; but it is just a table, and treated as such. It is not an altar. That is because the theology of the Sacrament in the LDS Church is different from that in traditional Churches.

We do have altars in our temples; but that is not treated with any kind of special reverence either. It serves a function; but that is all. It is not an object that should be revered in and of itself. In other words, we don’t worship the altar! So it is perfectly understandable for an LDS who visits one of your churches, to walk straight up to the altar and try to touch it and observe it, not realizing that is something that you disapprove of.

I had a stake president once who visited an Anglican High Church (similar to Catholic in liturgy and worship). Not being aware of this, he happily strolled along behind the altar, pushing his baby’s buggy in front of him! He was met with howls of indignation from the priest! He recalls that he said to himself: “Quite right, if you worship that piece of stone, then I don’t have any right to be here!” and he leaves the building.

amgid

You’re kidding me, right? You don’t even allow non-Mormons into your temples; it is very secretive. I remember when a new one was opened in my country. The general public were allowed to inspect the interior for a couple of months before any services took place and then it was sealed so that nobody except Mormons could ever set foot in there again.

Mormons themselves cannot access their own temples without written approval to show the temple custodians. Mormons are bound not to reveal to the public the secret things which go on in temples.

And if any of us managed to trick our way into a Mormon temple you know that we would be physically manhandled and ejected by the temple custodians!

Now, should we be saying: “If you worship that pile of stone and perform secret rites, …blah, blah…”

 

[amgid]

Fr Ambrose:

You’re kidding me, right? You don’t even allow non-Mormons into your temples; it is very secretive. I remember when a new one was opened in my country. The general public were allowed to inspect the interior for a couple of months before any services took place and then it was sealed so that nobody except Mormons could ever set foot in there again.

Mormons themselves cannot access their own temples without written approval to show the temple custodians. Mormons are bound not to reveal to the public the secret things which go on in temples.

And if any of us managed to trick our way into a Mormon temple you know that we would be physically manhandled and ejected by the temple custodians!

Now, should we be saying: “If you worship that pile of stone and perform secret rites, …blah, blah…”

Every house of worship is a “pile of stone”. We don’t worship the pile of stone. We worship in the pile of stone–the same as you do. The restricted access to our temples to worthy Church members serves a different purpose. The two situations are not comparable.

amgid

 

[Jaypeeto3]

Earlier Amgid spoke of the apostasy of the early Christian church.
I, as an ex-JW, believed the same nonsense, and decided to look into it. What I found shocked me. There WAS no “apostasy” of the early Christian church (except for the sects of gnostics, and the near-apostasy that took place in the Arian heresy crisis).
There were no people in the early Church who ever, even for a minute, held to the doctrinal system of the LDS, nor were there any people, at all, in the early Church who ever, ever, ever held to the doctrinal system of the JWs either.
Love, Jaypeeto3

 

[Rachel_Malloy]

Let’s get back on track please

Thank you!

Rachel

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Fr Ambrose:

Now who inherits the throne in any monarchical system - the son who is born first or the son who is born last? Obviously anyone would answer - the elder son.

Who is the head of the Church? Its founder Jesus Christ? And where did He die? In Jerusalem. So that means that His brother Saint James the Just who became bishop of Jerusalem inherits the role of Head of the Church?

Just pointing out that the a priori assumption that Peter’s death at Rome makes Rome the Head of the Church is not entirely convincing. Not unless, as amgid says, you have a vested interest of some sort.

Monarchs can gain their thrones by Divine election as well as by primogeniture, however. Which brings us right back to Babylonia and Assyria. FWIW, no bishop is a king - except in the sense that all Christians are.​

(I’m assuming your post was written as an argumentum ad absurdum, since legitimacy in a see is not based on primogeniture, but on election by God (in some sense: however etiolated). ##