The Church in the Americas and the Great Apostasy

[KathleenGee]

Grey Pilgrim,

References to anthroopological disciplines—no artifacts, let alone abandoning the Covenant of the Land…the other great covenant besides that of the Decalogue…means little to Mormons.

Likewise does the documents by St Justin the Martyr relaying the Mass how it was said in Rome and the general Christian world at that time for the Roman emperor…the parts, spirit and tone as today.

The telephone tree game does not work in Catholicism…history proves we do not change and are truly Christ’s Church.

Like wise the martyrs who died for Christ.

Today the persons to honor are St. Peter Nolasco and St. Raymond of Penafort who responded to an apparition by Our Blessed Mother to ransom Christians held captive by Muslim pirates.

The saints went to Algiers and ransomed many Christians from the slavery of Islam. St. Raymond Penafort’s preaching was so effective, that Muslims began converting. When the Muslim authorities found out, St. Raymond was arrested. He had a hole bored through his lips…and they made sure it was burning hot. From then on he was unable to preach. But actions speak louder than words…

He endured all for Christ. Martyrdom is the highest level of sanctity outside of forgiveness.

The Mormon religion needs to forgive the Catholic Church for our sins. Then stop declaring we are an abomination, an apostate, or even that an apostasy happened…implying the Apostles were total slack in making sure the true faith was passed on to their successors.

Jesus Christ did not make a mistake. He founded His church and the priesthood at the Last Supper. The Church began at Pentecost…not on its own but through the Holy Spirit.

The message of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost totally contradicts the spiritual movements and messages of Joseph Smith.

 

[soren1]

Hi, KathleenGee,

Here is a logical explanation about the willingness of Ignatius to suffer martyrdom rather than deny his faith that Christ had come “in the flesh”, written by Richard Lloyd Anderson in an article I had cited earlier in this thread, which is found here:

lds.org/ensign/1976/08/clement-ignatius-and-polycarp-three-bishops-between-the-apostles-and-apostasy?lang=eng&query=great+apostasy+New+World

This article contains so many errors, it is hard to know where to begin. I will go down the line in order and hit the most important points. The first sign that should tip off any reader to the biases that characterize the whole of the article pops up in only a second paragraph, where Dr. Anderson writes:

*Doctrine during this time was chaotic, and would not stabilize until the Council of Nicea in A.D. 325 crystallized Christian orthodoxy with the arm of secular tyranny.
*

I understand that the iron political hand of Nicaea imposing a new orthodoxy from on high is a very common idea, certainly the most frequently repeated account of it that people hear, and so it carries a kind of credibility in our culture at large that it does not deserve. For that reason, I don’t doubt the honesty of individual Mormons and others who buy into it. But when it comes from an actual professor of history, who has a PhD, reads the ancient languages, and knows how historical research is done, this is a morally reprehensible error. He is just repeating an opportune myth that his Mormon readership will easily accept, without holding him responsible for the truth of it. Yet every Catholic reading this thread, who is familiar with the standard repertoire if nineteenth-century anti-Catholic Protestant claims, from which this novel interpretation of Nicaea arises, knows that it is bogus. No one familiar with the history can take it seriously, and it is a sin for an informed individual to teach it.

The Council of Nicaea had no secular power, and was not supported by secular authorities. While the Council was indeed called at the behest of Constantine, a catechumen, it never received significant Imperial endorsement, and indeed, the defenders of the Council were persecuted by the Roman government for half a century. It was the Arians, not the Nicene Catholics, who held political sway in the Roman Empire Their subordinationist theology, which denied the equality of persons in Trinitarian orthodoxy, taught a firmly monarchical concept of the Father that fit very well into Imperial ideology, and hence brought with it all kinds of political advantages.

The elder Fathers at the Council were not secular persecutors but Christian survivors of secular persecution, which had only ceased a decade earlier. Many bore the stripes of their resistance to political tyranny on their bodies, attending the Council with missing limbs and eyes. The younger Council Fathers lived to suffer further persecution on account of their defense of Nicaea’s teachings. Again, it was the secular Roman government that did this, with occasional intermission, for about fifty years.

Now at this point, it is already possible to more or less impeach the entire article. This is an error so severe that the author has sacrificed his personal credibility upfront. However, to give him more rope than he deserves, I will forget this shameless untruth for the remainder of the paper and refute his ensuing claims on their own merits.

Dr. Anderson calls in support of his theory three witnesses: Clement of Rome, Ignatius, and Polycarp. I will look at his treatment of each in order.

(continued)

 

[soren1]

Anderson starts by ascribing to Clement a pessimism regarding Apostolic succession:

Clement says that the apostles appointed converts, after “testing them by the spirit, to be bishops and deacons.” (1 Clement 42:4.) The apostles provided that “other approved men should succeed to their ministry” after their deaths. (1 Clement 44:2.) But Clement seems pessimistic about how long this succession would last: “Our apostles also knew through our Lord Jesus Christ that there would be strife for the title of bishop.” (1 Clement 44:1.)

Ignore the body text for a moment and look at the citation numbers: he quotes 44:2 before 44:1. He is giving distinct sentences in their opposite order. In most cases, that means nothing, but here it matter, for Anderson’s argument depends on this reversal. Here is the whole passage with the sentences in order:

Our apostles knew through our Lord Jesus Christ that there would be strife for the office of bishop. For this reason, therefore, having received perfect foreknowledge, they appointed those who have already been mentioned and afterwards added the further provision that, if they should die, other approved men should succeed to their ministry.

This is not pessimistic. Clement is confident in the succession because of the “perfect foreknowledge” of the Apostles. While he knows there will strife for the bishop’s office, he notes that the Apostles provided a divinely revealed policy to correct it. You wouldn’t get that from Anderson’s treatment, since he omits “perfect foreknowledge,” and then places the point about strife at the end. He makes Clement say something like: “We know the apostles gave instructions for passing on authority, but we can’t be confident since there will be strife for the office of bishop.” This is an inversion of the actual argument in the text.

From this premise, he moves on to conclude:

*Thus Clement sees the Corinthian rebellion as a fulfillment of prophecy. Certainly local leaders could be removed, but only by those holding authority—and the Corinthian Christians had just removed those who held that power. They had broken the proper priesthood chain. *

Clement makes no reference to anyone breaking the priesthood chain. There has clearly been in Corinth an attempt to depose those in authority, but we cannot assume that this breaks the line of authority, because the disobedience of a people does not mean right authority has been lost. (If my children disobey me, I am still their father.) In fact, it is precisely because true authority endures that it is an act of disobedience. Clement’s admonitions to the Church are assume that there is a real authority for them to follow, courtesy of the Apostles.

Also, Clement thinks that the authorities rejected by their followers are under the protection of the Holy Spirit. Sentences later, he warns the Corinthians of the judgment that awaits them if they reject God’s officers:
Was Daniel cast into the den of lions by such as feared God? Were Ananias, and Azarias, and Mishaël shut up in a furnace of fire by those who worshipped the great and glorious worship of the Most High? Far from us be such a thought! Who, then, were they that did such things? The hateful, and those full of all wickedness, were roused to such a pitch of fury, that they inflicted torture on those who served God with a holy and blameless purpose [of heart], not knowing that the Most High is the Defender and Protector of all such as with a pure conscience venerate his all-excellent name.
If a total loss of priesthood authority were Ignatius’s fear, then he has little reason to invoke the example of Daniel. His argument is not that true authority can be vanquished, but that that those who reject authority are under the judgment of the same God who preserves his authentic witnesses on earth.

Dr. Anderson goes on to assert that Clement does not claim authority in his epistle:

Since Clement was third bishop, according to most Roman succession lists, Catholic scholars have suggested that he as Roman bishop was exercising superior jurisdiction. It is true that Clement’s letter was carried by two “witnesses” to the Corinthian church, but his letter is a complaint about their procedure, not a command to correct it. In fact, Clement does not write as their Christian leader. He reminds them that the apostles “appointed” bishops, but gives no hint that he could do the same. Even a scholar who views 1 Clement as establishing Roman authority admits “that it contains no categorical assertion of the primacy of the Roman See” and that Clement “nowhere states expressly that his intervention binds … the Christian community of Corinth.”
In fact, Clement does not even use his title of bishop of Rome. He begins in the name of “the church of God which sojourns in Rome to the Church of God which sojourns in Corinth”—an equal writing to an equal, concerned, but with no authoritative direction.

To say that Clement claims no authority is positively weird given the following text from the letter:

*If anyone disobey the things which have been said by Him through us, let them know that they will involve themselves in transgressions and in no small danger. *

Now it is true that Clement does not give his name, and writes in the person of the Church rather than himself, but that is no problem, given that the reason for the Pope’s primacy is because of the primacy of the Roman Church. The Pope after all is not bishop of Rome because he is the Pope. He is Pope because he is the bishop of Rome. That Clement does not claim the ability to pass on authority is irrelevant, since that is not the topic of the letter. The lack of a categorical assertion to his primacy is also irrelevant; the point is that Clement is exercising authority. That in itself is evidence.

(continued)

 

[soren1]

Moving on to Ignatius…

Anderson’s thesis is that Ignatius’s eagerness for martyrdom comes from despair in the Church itself. Ignatius thinks martyrdom will make up for apostasy, so he embraces death, whereas real faith in the Church would give him a zest for life. To support this claim, he gives no evidence, but argues from a prior judgment against the early Christian martyr ethic. Of course, Catholics never need to answer arguments that we place more emphasis on death than life other than to point out that this argument by simply misunderstands what death means in the Catholic worldview. We do not see a dichotomy between the death of Christ and his resurrection. They are sides of one coin. That is why we say in the mass: “Dying you destroyed our death, rising you restored our life.” Destroying death and restoring life are one and the same act, and likewise Jesus’ death and resurrection are one unified act. Accordingly, he Christian longing for death is also a longing for resurrection. All the mystical literature testifies to this, and Ignatius himself addresses the prospect of death in the same spirit. The following text is wholly of a piece with Christianity’s optimistic view of death as a passage into life, through the resurrection:

*It is better for me to die for Jesus Christ than to rule over the ends of the earth. Him I seek, who died on our behalf, him I long for who rose for our sake. The pains of birth are upon me. *(6:1)

Anderson is really criticizing a morbid interpretation of Catholicism and then projecting it onto Ignatius. I suspect he is influenced by the Mormon misunderstanding of the cross as a symbol of death. If that is what the cross means to him, then it is unsurprising if love of martyrdom appears the same way. Yet if Dr. Anderson set aside his prejudice and looked at the evidence, he would find himself confronted by texts where the saint explains his real reason for desiring martyrdom: to glorify God through the imitation of Christ. (This is a totally biblical reason, in light of John 21:19.) Hence Ignatius writes, “Allow me to be an imitator of the suffering of my God” (6:2) and likens himself to sacrificial wheat (4:1) so that “I may prove to be a sacrifice to God.” (4:2) The context here is an argument that a true Christian is tested by martyrdom, since Christ himself was a martyr. Ignatius even anticipates growing in his own presence in the world as Christ did through his death and resurrection. Where does despair in the continuance of the Church fit into this? How could one claim that that is the only logical explanation, when the text spells out a different justification?

Dr. Anderson’s argument works like this: he ignores Ignatius’s own explanation of his motives; he then speculates on Ignatius’s real motives; he then invokes Ignatius as a witness to the Great Apostasy on the basis of that speculation.

Then Anderson quotes a few texts where Ignatius admits that he does not have the same authority as apostles. In both contexts, Ignatius is speaking of his personal, moral inferiority to the apostles, rather than an essential difference in his mode of authority. That is why he says he is a “convict” rather than “free.” In the passage from Romans he goes on to say he will be truly “free” when he dies for the Lord. If Anderson’s reading were right, then Ignatius would be absurdly claiming that he would become an apostle at death. In reality, he thinking of the moral and spiritual purification that martyrdom will give him, a purification that the apostles had received in life.

(continued)

 

[KathleenGee]

The Council of Nicea happened during the reign of Constantine who gave Christianity its place in secular society.

Again…another falsehood the Mormon ‘scholars’ are teaching their followers along with the total contradiction of St. Athanasius who was the scholar behind the Council of Nicea.

Lying is the work of the devil. Lying is a form of apostasy…seeing the truth, and then rejecting it.

 

[soren1]

All that is left of Anderson’s argument is a set of texts where Ignatius urges believers to follow their leaders, from which Dr. Anderson infers that Ignatius sees a real possibility that those leaders will pass out of existence. He claims, “It is obvious from his warnings that he fears the worst.” Really? The worst? If by “the worst” Dr. Anderson means that Ignatius fears the loss of many Christian souls, then indeed, Ignatius has reason be urgent. But if “the worst” means the disintegration of the Church, then here we must ask for more evidence. Anderson only quotes a text that speaks of “the division of some persons.” That means individuals, not the Church as a whole, and says nothing about the integrity of the episcopacy. To make a case Dr. Anderson would need to produce texts about the defectibility of the bishop’s office itself, not the rebellion of subordinates. Yet he never does that; he just skips to an extra inference and calls it “obvious.”

In every letter where Ignatius discusses apostasy, he urges people to return to their bishop, because the true bishop is still there. The Letter to the Philadelphians provides a veritable litany of texts to establish Ignatius’s confidence in the Church. I will quote one at length, which illustrates the general tenor:

*I know that the bishop obtained the ministry (which is for the whole community) not by his own efforts or through people or out of vanity but in the love of God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ. … For he is attuned to the commandments as a harp to its strings. Therefore my soul blesses his godly mind (well aware that it is virtuous and perfect), his steadfast character, and his lack of anger, as one living with all godly gentleness.

Therefore, as children of the light of truth, flee from division and false teaching. Where the shepherd is, there follow the sheep. For many seemingly trustworthy wolves attempt, by means of wicked pleasure, to take captives the runners of God’s race; but in your unity they will find no opportunity.

Stay away from the evil plants, which are not cultivated by Jesus Christ, because they are not the Father’s planting. Not that I found any division among you: instead, I found that there has been purification. For all those who belong to God and Jesus Christ are with the bishop, and all those who repent and enter into the unity of the Church will belong to God, so that they may be living in accordance with Jesus Christ.* (Phil 1:1-3:2)

This does not sound like fearing the worst. The driving principle in Ignatius’s whole treatment of false teachers, is that while some stand apart from the bishop, the bishop is still there, and the Church is there, as a faithful refuge for the penitent.

I said I’d cover his treatment of Polycarp too, but I have gone on too long already. I have covered enough, I think, to show that Anderson’s article is not only wrong, but unfit to print.

 

[Telstar]

Telstar,

Good question, and probably you won’t agree with what I see as the answer.

First, looking in Matthew 25 and Matthew 24 one finds that being “ready” and being “wise” include the idea of being prepared in advance, and looking for “signs of the times” and being what one could call “wise stewards”. Matthew 24 also talks about fleeing into the mountains, which would mean that particular group of people weren’t expected to let themselves be killed.

Second, the Savior didn’t override the Old Testament in entirety, and when He taught to love your enemies that didn’t necessarily mean to let them do whatever they want to do to your family or to your freedom while you don’t resist. It means “love them” but doesn’t mean “don’t defend yourself”.

Third, the Savior was pointing toward the Millenium in His teachings, and toward a Millenial society where there will be peace and where freedom will indeed be established, and that will come as both a condition of the hearts and as a condition of physical well-being and security. Isaiah prophesied about this, and also about a time before the Millenium when there would be a “refuge from the storm” through places of safety.

Fourth, the Savior was also pointing to the coming time when His followers would be able to receive guidance through the Holy Spirit for particular circumstances, so it would seem to me that rather than give teachings related to what to do when an enemy is striking one’s children and family and freedom, that the answer would be to seek the guidance of the Holy Spirit specifically for that situation, to preserve the feeling in one’s heart of not seeking revenge and of “loving one’s enemies” but yet protecting one’s freedom.

Thank you, ParkerD, for your response.

But, you’re right. I do not agree with your interpretation of either of those chapters of Matthew. You’re looking at them as if Jesus was instructing His followers in how to ‘prepare’ in a strictly physical sense, as if they referred to preparing ourselves for ‘worldly’ struggles on this earth, just for the sake of surviving hardships in some future time, by storing up earthly goods. But, as I see it, they’re not describing anything concerning our actual physical struggles on this earth, at all. They’re instructions for us to be prepared for His coming in a spiritual sense.

Matthew 25:[34] Then shall the king say to them that shall be on his right hand: Come, ye blessed of my Father, possess you the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. [35] For I was hungry, and you gave me to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave me to drink; I was a stranger, and you took me in: [36] Naked, and you covered me: sick, and you visited me: I was in prison, and you came to me. [37] Then shall the just answer him, saying: Lord, when did we see thee hungry, and fed thee; thirsty, and gave thee drink? [38] And when did we see thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and covered thee? [39] Or when did we see thee sick or in prison, and came to thee? [40] And the king answering, shall say to them: Amen I say to you, as long as you did it to one of these my least brethren, you did it to me.

All of those things that He spoke about were lessons for how we should live our lives, every day. Those are all signs of living a good Christian life, by showing our love for all of mankind as a reflection of Jesus. By being good and decent people, and by sharing all that we have with those who are less fortunate than we are, we grow in sanctity and the love of God. They are the important works of charity (love) that we are all called to do, on a daily basis. The best way to prepare ourselves for His ‘coming’ is to grow closer to God in our ever deepening spiritual life, and have faith that He will provide for all our needs, both physical and spiritual, whenever the time comes.

Mathew 6: [19] Lay not up to yourselves treasures on earth: where the rust, and moth consume, and where thieves break through and steal. [20] But lay up to yourselves treasures in heaven: where neither the rust nor moth doth consume, and where thieves do not break through, nor steal. [21] For where thy treasure is, there is thy heart also.

Jesus taught us to store our ‘treasures’ in Heaven, not in this world. Heavenly treasures are those that bring us closer to God in a spiritual sense, through prayer and practicing our faith through works of faith, hope and charity. Those are the most important things for us to be doing, not storing food, water, gold, or whatever else, that have absolutely no value to God, or to our spiritual lives and sanctity. Storing up all of those worldly goods will be useless when it comes time for us to have ‘flee to the mountains’, because we’d have to leave them all behind.

[16] Then they that are in Judea, let them flee to the mountains: [17] And he that is on the housetop, let him not come down to take any thing out of his house: [18] And he that is in the field, let him not go back to take his coat.

What good would any of that ‘stuff’ ever be to us, then? Absolutely, no good whatsoever.

 

[KathleenGee]

Yes, storing up treasures revolves around detachment of self and our passions and even God’s pleasure within His will for us.

Christ has special promises for those who renounce all for the Gospel.

 

[SteveVH]

Originally Posted by ParkerD
Hi, KathleenGee,

Here is a logical explanation about the willingness of Ignatius to suffer martyrdom rather than deny his faith that Christ had come “in the flesh”, written by Richard Lloyd Anderson in an article I had cited earlier in this thread, which is found here:

lds.org/ensign/1976/08/clemen…tasy+New+World

This article contains so many errors, it is hard to know where to begin…

Soren1,

You are the best thing to happen on this forum since I’ve been here. Thank you for sharing your knowedge with all of us. After reading your post I would not even attempt to add anything. Simply amazing! I look forward to a response from our Mormon friends, but do not envy them in having to respond.

Thank you and God bless.

Steve

 

[Palaiologos]

Ignatius’ greeting to the Church at Rome doesn’t sound like he believes that the Church is on the verge of apostasy:

“Ignatius, who is also Theophorus, unto her that
hath found mercy in the bountifulness of the Father
Most High and of Jesus Christ His only Son; to the
church that is beloved and enlightened through the
will of Him who willed all things that are, by faith
and love towards Jesus Christ our God; even unto her
that hath the presidency in the country of the region
of the Romans, being worthy of God, worthy of honour,
worthy of felicitation, worthy of praise, worthy of
success, worthy in purity, and having the presidency
of love, walking in the law of Christ and bearing the
Father’s name; which church also I salute in the name
of Jesus Christ the Son of the Father; unto them that
in flesh and spirit are united unto His every
commandment, being filled with the grace of God
without wavering, and filtered clear from every
foreign stain; abundant greeting in Jesus Christ our
God in blamelessness.”

 

[Palaiologos]

And from Ignatius’ epistle to the Ephesians:

“For this cause the Lord received ointment on His head, that He might breathe incorruption upon the Church.”

or as its put in a different translation:

“For this end did the Lord suffer the ointment to be poured upon His head, that He might breathe immortality into His Church.”

Doesn’t sound like Ignatius believes that the Church on earth is about to die.

 

[PJM]

Originally Posted by Cowboy Pete
Surely you recognize that there was no global communication circa 100 AD.

As we mormons see it, the church Jesus founded in the Americas was a different dispensation than the one founded in Jerusalem. A separate leader of the church, etc. They might as well have been living in different time periods, because there was no practical way that the brethren in Zarahemla could have communicated with those in Jerusalem and Rome.

Hope that clears up your question about LDS teachings.

Another point I’d like to make is that the LDS attitude towards the Catholic church has changed tremendously since the 1993 clarification in your catechism that unbaptized children aren’t necessarily hellbound. In fact, that very year, the LDS church began to announce in our General conference that a portion of our tithing proceeds were being donated to Catholic Charities. Our churches have worked together in other respects since 1993 as well, most notably, in our common defense of the marriage institution.

THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR YOUR POST. I AM VERY INTERESTERD IN WHAT LEADS, PERMITS OR DIRECTS SUCH AN UNDERSTANDING?

i ALSO ISSUE SINCERE THANKS FOR YOUR SUPPORT OF CHATHOLIC ChARITIES!

God Bless you,
Pat

 

[ParkerD]

…
The Council of Nicaea had no secular power, and was not supported by secular authorities. While the Council was indeed called at the behest of Constantine, a catechumen, it never received significant Imperial endorsement

Soren1,

If the Council was “called at the behest of Constantine”, then in what way was it "not supported by secular authorities? Are you saying Constantine was not a secular authority, or that he did not support the idea of there being a Council?

What would “significant Imperial endorsement” have been as compared with insignificant Imperial endorsement or “going along with the resulting decision”?

, and indeed, the defenders of the Council were persecuted by the Roman government for half a century. It was the Arians, not the Nicene Catholics, who held political sway in the Roman Empire

Specific historical unbiased source for this statement as of 325 AD?

Are you saying Constantine immediately began persecuting the Council members after he had asked them to meet and make a unified decision? Or that others under his direction did that? Or that the Roman Empire was collapsing and he couldn’t control the outcome that people who “held political sway” were persecuting the Council members immediately after they had met?

 

[ParkerD]

Thank you, ParkerD, for your response.

But, you’re right. I do not agree with your interpretation of either of those chapters of Matthew. You’re looking at them as if Jesus was instructing His followers in how to ‘prepare’ in a strictly physical sense, as if they referred to preparing ourselves for ‘worldly’ struggles on this earth, just for the sake of surviving hardships in some future time, by storing up earthly goods. But, as I see it, they’re not describing anything concerning our actual physical struggles on this earth, at all. They’re instructions for us to be prepared for His coming in a spiritual sense.
All of those things that He spoke about were lessons for how we should live our lives, every day. Those are all signs of living a good Christian life, by showing our love for all of mankind as a reflection of Jesus. By being good and decent people, and by sharing all that we have with those who are less fortunate than we are, we grow in sanctity and the love of God. They are the important works of charity (love) that we are all called to do, on a daily basis. The best way to prepare ourselves for His ‘coming’ is to grow closer to God in our ever deepening spiritual life, and have faith that He will provide for all our needs, both physical and spiritual, whenever the time comes.
Jesus taught us to store our ‘treasures’ in Heaven, not in this world. Heavenly treasures are those that bring us closer to God in a spiritual sense, through prayer and practicing our faith through works of faith, hope and charity. Those are the most important things for us to be doing, not storing food, water, gold, or whatever else, that have absolutely no value to God, or to our spiritual lives and sanctity. Storing up all of those worldly goods will be useless when it comes time for us to have ‘flee to the mountains’, because we’d have to leave them all behind. What good would any of that ‘stuff’ ever be to us, then? Absolutely, no good whatsoever.

Telstar,

Your question about the New Testament resulted from my comment about “living for Christ” (which does indeed mean one lays up in store “treasures in heaven” by virtue of how they live their life, here and now, without thinking they have to be a martyr to “live for Christ”), and my other comment as follows:

They [those who lived at the time of Captain Moroni] believed in Christ and showed great love for Him, but also knew of the need to be defensively prepared and that this was part of “living for Christ” and “living with the resolve to protect themselves and their families” against the encroachment of any enemies who would seek to destroy their freedom, whether by physical means or spiritual means for that destruction of freedom to have peace and to follow Christ within their families.

So while it seems we probably agree about the importance of laying up “treasures in heaven”, it seems we don’t agree about being defensively prepared in view of the temporal world we live in where everyone isn’t loving and kind and some are in fact the opposite of that. The issue was whether a group or an individual becomes defensively prepared, or whether they just “let it happen” and perhaps become “a martyr” and thus, evidently, join Christ all the sooner. I don’t think the teachings of Christ lead one to believe they ought to just “let it happen” and become a martyr at the first opportunity an enemy has to inflict damage, particularly to one’s family.

It also seems we don’t agree about having sufficient of this world’s goods to take care of one’s family, since if one takes every teaching of Christ literally, verbatim, they would sell all that they have, give to the poor, and thus have no goods at all and no home in which their family can live. I don’t think Christ was teaching that concept for our temporal world.

 

[KathleenGee]

A ha…

Guess what Stephen…from here, the link you gave me on St Ignatius via the Mormons is now unavailable…

 

[KathleenGee]

It is high time the Catholic Church now confront the Mormon religionists for their deliberate misrepresentation of our faith to the Mormon people.

I also think of them saying we never taught free will and intellect…the marks that make us in the image of God…

 

[ParkerD]

Hi, KathleenGee,

Here is the link to the article again, which you will note was published in 1976. I don’t know how the other link didn’t work.

lds.org/ensign/1976/08/clement-ignatius-and-polycarp-three-bishops-between-the-apostles-and-apostasy?lang=eng&query=great+apostasy+New+World

 

[zaffiroborant]

Anderson starts by ascribing to Clement a pessimism regarding Apostolic succession:

Clement says that the apostles appointed converts, after “testing them by the spirit, to be bishops and deacons.” (1 Clement 42:4.) The apostles provided that “other approved men should succeed to their ministry” after their deaths. (1 Clement 44:2.) But Clement seems pessimistic about how long this succession would last: “Our apostles also knew through our Lord Jesus Christ that there would be strife for the title of bishop.” (1 Clement 44:1.)

Ignore the body text for a moment and look at the citation numbers: he quotes 44:2 before 44:1. He is giving distinct sentences in their opposite order. In most cases, that means nothing, but here it matter, for Anderson’s argument depends on this reversal. Here is the whole passage with the sentences in order:

Our apostles knew through our Lord Jesus Christ that there would be strife for the office of bishop. For this reason, therefore, having received perfect foreknowledge, they appointed those who have already been mentioned and afterwards added the further provision that, if they should die, other approved men should succeed to their ministry.

This is not pessimistic. Clement is confident in the succession because of the “perfect foreknowledge” of the Apostles. While he knows there will strife for the bishop’s office, he notes that the Apostles provided a divinely revealed policy to correct it. You wouldn’t get that from Anderson’s treatment, since he omits “perfect foreknowledge,” and then places the point about strife at the end. He makes Clement say something like: “We know the apostles gave instructions for passing on authority, but we can’t be confident since there will be strife for the office of bishop.” This is an inversion of the actual argument in the text.

To re-arrange someones words to distort the original meaning can only be described as deceit or simply lying. While I expect this type behavior from those at FAIR, to see it from a “so called” (to borrow a phrase from Anderson) professor is startling. Re-arranging writings, quote mining, restating inaccurate “memes” this is what you see from BYU’s “so called” professors all in the name of faith promotion? Looks like something else to me… prostate…no, hocking… no. What is it?

 

[Telstar]

Again, I am remaining with the understanding the Mormons do not follow the same Christ…someone as of yet they have not considered to die for.

Kathleen,

If you’re saying that Christ taught “die for me” and therefore “Mormons don’t follow the same Christ”, then I agree because Latter-day Saints have far more emphasis on “living for Christ”, on “repenting through the atonement of Christ” which means changing and becoming more loving disciples of Him every day of their lives, and on being strong on self-defense and on a unified group defense such as is shown by the group led by Captain Moroni in the Book of Mormon.

They believed in Christ and showed great love for Him, but also knew of the need to be defensively prepared and that this was part of “living for Christ” and “living with the resolve to protect themselves and their families” against the encroachment of any enemies who would seek to destroy their freedom, whether by physical means or spiritual means for that destruction of freedom to have peace and to follow Christ within their families.

First of all, Kathleen never said that the only reason Mormons don’t ‘follow the same Christ’ is just because of their stance on martyrdom. As I’m sure you know from her posts in the past, there are many other reasons for her saying that. You apparently do have a completely different definition of martyrdom than any Christian does (not a big surprise to anyone here), which is just another reason that her statement is proved true. Apparently, we do not follow the same Jesus that Mormons do at all. The ‘concept’ of Jesus that you follow is completely foreign to almost all Christians, not just Catholics. Her comment was just an affirmation of that belief based on your misunderstanding of martyrdom. It has nothing to do with defending ourselves, or our families, from ‘enemies’, in any way.

According to the classic definition of martyrdom, Joseph Smith’s death would never even qualify as martyrdom. That’s something that the LDS have labeled incorrectly as a martyrdom, but that doesn’t change the fact that it isn’t true. True martyrs die willingly at the hands of someone who wants them to deny their God in order to follow a different one. I’ve read many accounts of the true martyrs of the Church. They were heroes of the faith that refused to renounce their belief in Jesus, in order to save their own lives. The real martyrs certainly didn’t die the way Joseph Smith did. That’s not even close to what we believe to be a true martyrdom.

Maybe you need to read some detailed accounts of the Christian Martyrs of the early Church from a Catholic source to understand what it really means to be a martyr for the faith. Those people were told to either deny Christ, or die. They didn’t have any other choices. There was no chance of escape for them. They wouldn’t have even thought to try to escape. If someone gave you those same two choices, which one would you pick? I’d like to think that I could make the right choice, but God would certainly have to give me the courage to face it, because I’m a real coward at heart.

Merriam-Webster:
Definition of MARTYR
1: a person who voluntarily suffers death as the penalty of witnessing to and refusing to renounce a religion
2: a person who sacrifices something of great value and especially life itself for the sake of principle
Definition of MARTYRDOM
1: the suffering of death on account of adherence to a cause and especially to one’s religious faith
2: affliction, torture

 

[ParkerD]

Anderson starts by ascribing to Clement a pessimism regarding Apostolic succession:

Clement says that the apostles appointed converts, after “testing them by the spirit, to be bishops and deacons.” (1 Clement 42:4.) The apostles provided that “other approved men should succeed to their ministry” after their deaths. (1 Clement 44:2.) But Clement seems pessimistic about how long this succession would last: “Our apostles also knew through our Lord Jesus Christ that there would be strife for the title of bishop.” (1 Clement 44:1.)

…

Our apostles knew through our Lord Jesus Christ that there would be strife for the office of bishop. For this reason, therefore, having received perfect foreknowledge, they appointed those who have already been mentioned and afterwards added the further provision that, if they should die, other approved men should succeed to their ministry.

This is not pessimistic. Clement is confident in the succession because of the “perfect foreknowledge” of the Apostles. While he knows there will strife for the bishop’s office, he notes that the Apostles provided a divinely revealed policy to correct it. You wouldn’t get that from Anderson’s treatment, since he omits “perfect foreknowledge,” and then places the point about strife at the end. He makes Clement say something like: “We know the apostles gave instructions for passing on authority, but we can’t be confident since there will be strife for the office of bishop.” This is an inversion of the actual argument in the text.

From this premise, he moves on to conclude:

*Thus Clement sees the Corinthian rebellion as a fulfillment of prophecy. Certainly local leaders could be removed, but only by those holding authority—and the Corinthian Christians had just removed those who held that power. They had broken the proper priesthood chain. *

Clement makes no reference to anyone breaking the priesthood chain. There has clearly been in Corinth an attempt to depose those in authority, but we cannot assume that this breaks the line of authority, because the disobedience of a people does not mean right authority has been lost. (If my children disobey me, I am still their father.) In fact, it is precisely because true authority endures that it is an act of disobedience. Clement’s admonitions to the Church are assume that there is a real authority for them to follow, courtesy of the Apostles.

Also, Clement thinks that the authorities rejected by their followers are under the protection of the Holy Spirit. Sentences later, he warns the Corinthians of the judgment that awaits them if they reject God’s officers:
Was Daniel cast into the den of lions by such as feared God? Were Ananias, and Azarias, and Mishaël shut up in a furnace of fire by those who worshipped the great and glorious worship of the Most High? Far from us be such a thought! Who, then, were they that did such things? The hateful, and those full of all wickedness, were roused to such a pitch of fury, that they inflicted torture on those who served God with a holy and blameless purpose [of heart], not knowing that the Most High is the Defender and Protector of all such as with a pure conscience venerate his all-excellent name.
If a total loss of priesthood authority were Ignatius’s fear, then he has little reason to invoke the example of Daniel. His argument is not that true authority can be vanquished, but that that those who reject authority are under the judgment of the same God who preserves his authentic witnesses on earth.

…
(continued)

Soren1,

I think perhaps if it were possible that you and Richard Anderson could have a conversation, you might find that the issue of “strife for the title [or “dignity”] of bishop” is alluded to throughout Clement’s letter–since that is the main reason he was writing the letter, to encourage the Corinthian members and leaders to re-accept those who had either been called by the apostles or called “afterwards by other men of good repute, with the consent of the whole Church, who have blamelessly ministered to the flock of Christ with humility, quietly, and without illiberality, and who for a long time have obtained a good report from all, these, we think, have been unjustly deposed from the ministry.”

I guess you have agreed that the apostles had “perfect foreknowledge” that this kind of thing (strife over an office) would be an issue. (I don’t think Richard Anderson would disagree, and just because he left out that phrase doesn’t mean he didn’t agree with the phrase.)

I also don’t think Richard Anderson was saying whether the outcome of the letter and the visits sent by Clement succeeded in helping the Corinthian members place the rightful bishops and deacons back into place. His point was that if they didn’t, then there was a loss of authority.

I don’t see why one wouldn’t view the rejection that the Corinthian members had evidently done of some leaders, deposing them and replacing them, does not “fulfill prophecy” if the statement about “perfect foreknowledge” of the apostles is considered true. That was Richard Anderson’s point–that Clement was showing that this “unjustly deposing” of called leaders was fulfilling what the apostles had warned against.

Richard Anderson’s having made the assumption that “Clement seems pessimistic about how long the succession would last” is what would need to be clarified if you and he were to have a conversation, and I think his assumption is not necessarily correct, so I agree that there would need to be clarification on his part as to why he jumped to that assumption.

Is there historical evidence that the Corinthian members reversed what they had done and placed the bishops and deacons back into office who had been “deposed”? (I’m asking, since I don’t know at all one way or the other. Do you?)