The Great Apostasy Debate

[catholic-rcia]

Here is an excerpt from a pretty good writing I found here:
neirr.org/Deification.htm
How the Fathers of the Church can be mis-quoted. It is a good read.

…Returning to the subject at hand, Robinson, then goes on to make additional claims about Irenaeus and deification. He continues in “Are Mormons Christian” to say:
“Indeed, Saint Irenaeus had more than this to say on the subject of deification: Do we cast blame on him [God] because we were not made gods from the beginning, but were at first created merely as men, and then later as gods? Although God has adopted this course out of his pure benevolence, that no one may charge him with discrimination or stinginess, he declares, “I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are sons of the Most High.”… . For it was necessary at first that nature be exhibited, then after that what was mortal would be conquered and swallowed up in immortality. “ (Citation 3 Against Heresies 4, 38)

Here Robinson does actually cite Irenaeus. The only problem is that the context happens to be making the exact opposite point that Robinson would like to make. In context, Irenaeus is presenting the case for the ontological distinction between man and God. Irenaeus is actually refuting the idea of some Gnostics that humans are evolving into gods in the proper sense. Just two sentences before the quote by Robinson, Irenaeus says this:

“they who are more destitute of reason than dumb animals (insist) that there is no distinction between the Uncreated God and man, a creature of today.”

In reality, the section that Robinson is quoting is one of the most precise rejections of “Mormon” theology by Irenaeus. Man is a creation of God’s and there is a distinct and unbridgeable difference between the two. Irenaeus actually has a significant amount of writing that touches upon themes and concepts that are related to the LDS ideas of deification. In each case, however, Irenaeus is REFUTING them, not supporting them. For example, In Book II, Chapter I, he describes a hypothetical scenario that almost perfectly matches the infinite succession of gods in Mormonism. He says regarding the idea of a “god” above the “God” we know, and a god above that one that:…

 

[Chris-WA]

TOmNossor:

I believe there is good historical reason to suggest that Peter’s authority was not passed to Linus, Cletus, or Clement.

Why, just because you can’t find direct quotations saying so?

TOmNossor:

When asked why Peter’s authority was not passed, I provide a few ideas. The first is that Christ was born, died, and resurrected. His Bride was to also undergo the same birth, apostasy, and restoration.

No, Tom. Chris died for his bride. He sacrificed himself for the sake of his bride. There is no connection between Christ’s death and an apostacy. There is no connection between Christ’s resurrection and a restoration. Christ’s death and resurrection enabled the church to start and flourish, it didn’t forshadow its apostacy.

TOmNossor:

In addition to this, I believe that there was a unique time in the history of mankind that men would kill their God. The sinless man, the benevolent Christ was killed by those who should have welcomed Him the most. Never before nor since has a people developed to this state. Other aspects of this time were critical to Christ’s ministry. Pax Romama was integral to the spreading of Christianity and the survival of the witness of Christ and the Bible. This Roman rule afforded a modicum of protection for Christ, but was crucial for Paul’s ministry. However, this time also did not allow for esoteric doctrines and even many non esoteric doctrines to be preserved in a worldwide church. That would need to occur in a different age. This different age and place would be such that men would not kill their God, but freedom of religion would be an ideal if not totally a reality.

Again, I disagree here. The early church survived 300 years of Roman persecution. Not only survived, but somehow flourished. Mormons make a big deal about how the early Mormons were persecuted. Yes, they had it rough for a few years, but the early Christians had it much worse for much longer. This supposedly with no legitimate overall authority in charge?

 

[TOmNossor]

Chris-WA:
I don’t think this is true. What doctrines did Joseph Smith receive that existed in the early church? I think you take leaps that simply aren’t there.

• Creation ex Nihilo is a 2nd century invention. This is one of the foundational errors that lead to many early church controversies. This also is the seed from which everyone who bothers to admit that “men may become gods” demonstrates that LDS mean something different. Without this error, LDS would not even need to acknowledge that the Early Church meant something different when they said, “men may become gods.”
• Baptism by those without proper authority was a 3rd century change. St Cyprian defended (and two African local councils affirmed) the necessity of proper authority and beliefs for baptism, but St. Stephen won this and no longer must one have a priesthood to baptize. In fact some heretical beliefs are fine (but others are not). Martin Luther suggested that if St. Cyprian was correct then there was no valid Christian priesthood/baptized on the earth. How close he was to the truth.
• The lack of subordination within the Godhead is a 4th century invention (as indeed is the formulation of the Trinity, but the lack of subordination is something that was never put forth before Athanasius). Terms such as “duetros theos” (second god) were used to describe who Jesus Christ was. This is heretical within the Catholic Church today.
• The presently understood idea of original sin was a 5th century invention from Augustine (the Eastern Orthodox have a belief much more similar to what I would suggest is an original belief).
• The heretical-ness of the statement, “men can become gods” is a development that did not really start until after the 5th century and seemed pretty complete 50 years ago, but non-LDS Christianity is back tracking today. I will reply to Catholic-RCIA’s message from Francke in a while. The fact of the matter is that until a few years ago the statement, “men can become gods” was always considered heretical in the west. In this environment Joseph Smith said that the early church believed just this. He was correct. Who is closer to the apostles understanding is not entirely pertinent to this particular apologetic, but I believe the CoJCoLDS is closer.
• If I were to include pre-exilic Judaism in this mix, I could discuss things such as more than one begotten son of God (part of LDS theology), feminine divinity (not necessarily part of LDS theology, but not forbidden), temple parallels that exist for LDS but have disappeared for non-LDS Christians, “fall upward” like ideas, and many others. Especially interesting is the Christian overtones that seem to be out of place in Lehi’s decedents are much more at home in a pre-exilic Judiasm and 600B.C. puts Lehi in the thick of things as he should be were he to preserve some of the 1st Temple Cult as he departed the apostatizing Jews.

I can point to a number of other things too if you like.

cont…

 

[TOmNossor]

Chris-WA:

Tom, I don’t know where this is coming from. I don’t know if you’re reading these things out of context or what, but when I read them they sound much more Catholic than Mormon to me. The terminology, the idea of the continuing church, the real presence of the Eucharist, the complete lack of anything regarding a general apostacy–these all support the Catholic position. These men believed in a continuing church with authority, they believed in the Eucharist, their worship describes a mass (not a sacrament meeting), they don’t say anything about celestial marriage, etc., etc., etc. I think you’ve dived so deeply looking for anything supporting the Mormon position from these early Christians that you’ve lost the big picture.

I think I have mentioned some of these things.

Justin Martyr and Clement of Rome believed in creation ex materia like LDS.

Ignatius and Clement or Rome write in a way that shows they do not recognize the primacy of Rome.

Justin Martyr uses the term “duetros theos.” I do not regularly use such terms, but this is compatible with LDS social Trinity but not with Catholic orthodoxy.

Ignatius talks about relying on the Spirit not the scriptures to know Christ.

Justin Martyr uses the term “begotten” to describe our souls.

I suspect I could find a number more.

I am well aware of the positions with respect to the real presence. Justin Martyr is heretical in his view. Clement of Rome and Polycarp say very little. Ignatius is best understood in my opinion to support the Catholic position, but if one can take John 6 as figurative language, one could do the same with Ignatius. I generally say that the real presence is a point in favor of the Catholic Church.

I invited someone to show Justin’s position on the celebration of the mass, and I would still like to see this.

I am also interested in the idea of the continuing church in the writers. I know that Ignatius laments about the state of many of the churches he writes too. I would guess that many of his comments would be called local falling away by Catholics and symptoms of impending apostasy by LDS.

Do you have any other things where Catholics win and Mormons loose in the writings of these 4 folks?

If I were you I would focus on Justin Martyr if you do not already have specific ideas. I have read all of the other three, but only some of the mid-second century saint.

Charity, TOm

 

[Benadam]

Quote, Tom:

I do not think I have suggested that it was errors in doctrine that lead to the withdrawal of authority. It is my position that errors in doctrine can show us that the authority was not present.

Tom,
does it really matter at what point we observe error? I mean the catch 22 I presented still applies irregardless. In order for error to adulterate the Church’s teaching it had to of lost God’s authority according to your comment. Why would this occur to an error free Church? On the one hand if it has God’s authority it can’t err, on the other if it err’s it’s because it’s lost God’s authority.

 

[Chris-WA]

TOmNossor:

Creation ex Nihilo is a 2nd century invention. This is one of the foundational errors that lead to many early church controversies. This also is the seed from which everyone who bothers to admit that “men may become gods” demonstrates that LDS mean something different. Without this error, LDS would not even need to acknowledge that the Early Church meant something different when they said, “men may become gods.”

You don’t know this. Just because you cannot find documentation prior to the 2nd century, doesn’t mean that this idea did not exist prior to that. The church has the authority to fully define and clarify beliefs over time. The deposit of faith was handed to the church as a seed, but the church has authority to explore and probe its depths for fuller meaning.

TOmNossor:

Baptism by those without proper authority was a 3rd century change. St Cyprian defended (and two African local councils affirmed) the necessity of proper authority and beliefs for baptism, but St. Stephen won this and no longer must one have a priesthood to baptize. In fact some heretical beliefs are fine (but others are not). Martin Luther suggested that if St. Cyprian was correct then there was no valid Christian priesthood/baptized on the earth. How close he was to the truth.

The church has the authority to decide who can baptize, just like she had the authority to decide whether or not Gentiles would have to be circumcised to enter the church, or the authority to bind and loose sins.

TOmNossor:

The lack of subordination within the Godhead is a 4th century invention (as indeed is the formulation of the Trinity, but the lack of subordination is something that was never put forth before Athanasius). Terms such as “duetros theos” (second god) were used to describe who Jesus Christ was. This is heretical within the Catholic Church today.

Again, this is a doctrine that had to be clarified over time due to controversy, which is within the church’s authority to do. It was not handed on a platter to Peter and then changed by his successors.

TOmNossor:

The presently understood idea of original sin was a 5th century invention from Augustine (the Eastern Orthodox have a belief much more similar to what I would suggest is an original belief).

Again, clarification of doctrine over time. Not handed on a platter to Peter and his successors. The church has the authority to do this.

TOmNossor:

The heretical-ness of the statement, “men can become gods” is a development that did not really start until after the 5th century and seemed pretty complete 50 years ago, but non-LDS Christianity is back tracking today. I will reply to Catholic-RCIA’s message from Francke in a while. The fact of the matter is that until a few years ago the statement, “men can become gods” was always considered heretical in the west. In this environment Joseph Smith said that the early church believed just this. He was correct. Who is closer to the apostles understanding is not entirely pertinent to this particular apologetic, but I believe the CoJCoLDS is closer.

You are misrepresenting the ECF’s here, as well as the Apostles. This is not what the church taught.

 

[TOmNossor]

Chris-WA:

I believe there is one truth and not many. I believe that God would never deceive us. I believe that many people from different religions approach this in the same way you did, and that they all believe they received answers to their prayers confirming the truth of their particular religion. I therefore believe it is possible to pray this prayer and be deceived, even though we “know” it was God who answered us. I even believe it is possible for the adversary to give us internal confirmations that untrue things are true, which we interpret as answers from God. I cannot see into your heart, so I don’t know what happened in your case, but such possibilities exist.

TOm:

I believe there is one truth too. I believe there is an underlying reality. God created ex nihilo or he did not. I totally recognize it is possible to be deceived. I do not believe that God has communicated to radical Moslems that they are to kill infidels. Being deceived is possible.

This is one of the reasons that I believe we must allow reason to direct our paths. I have never received an answer to pray that is like what Abraham heard when he KNEW he was to kill his son.

And yes, we cannot see into each others hearts. It is for this reason that I focus on history and doctrine discussions rather than trying to convince you that my spiritual witness was so powerful that you must accept it.

The truth is that Pelikan, R.C. Sproul, Jordan Vajda, and John H. Newman are all smart guys. I do not see how they have not all decided that the CoJCoLDS is the best read of the data, but they have not. I have never seen any one of the four of them suggest that they recognize the data points solidly at some tradition that they do not embrace, but that God directed them to their current faith. It seems to me that the things these men speak about suggest just the opposite.

I think there is good reason to pray to God for answers to important questions. I have faith that He answers.

Charity, TOm

 

[Chris-WA]

TOmNossor:

Do you have any other things where Catholics win and Mormons loose in the writings of these 4 folks?

Charity, TOm

Here are some links on Clement of Rome. Maybe you haven’t read all these yet.

newadvent.org/cathen/04012c.htm

Also, from Catholic Answers, which I’m sure you have read:Clement of Rome

“The Church of God which sojourns in Rome to the Church of God which sojourns in Corinth, to those who are called and sanctified by the will of God through our Lord Jesus Christ. Grace and peace from almighty God be multiplied unto you through Jesus Christ. Owing to the sudden and repeated calamities and misfortunes which have befallen us, we must acknowledge that we have been somewhat tardy in turning our attention to the matters in dispute among you, beloved” (Epistle to the Corinthians, circa A.D. 80]).

“Accept our counsel and you will have nothing to regret. . . . If anyone disobeys the things which have been said by him [Jesus] through us, let them know that they will involve themselves in no small danger. We, however, shall be innocent of this sin and will pray with entreaty and supplication that the Creator of all may keep unharmed the number of his elect.” (ibid. 58:2, 59:1).

“You will afford us joy and gladness if, being obedient to the things which we have written through the Holy Spirit, you will root out the wicked passion of jealousy, in accord with the plea for peace and concord which we have made in this letter” (ibid. 63:2).

Sounds fairly authoritative to me–and definitely not local. Another tract from Catholic Answers:

catholic.com/library/authority_of_the_pope_part_1.asp

 

[catholic-rcia]

“You are misrepresenting the ECF’s here, as well as the Apostles. This is not what the church taught”

Yes Tom is misreprsenting the Church Fathers here, he has to in order to keep his beleifs all tightly wrapped. What we beleive as Christins about God is our bond as "Christ"ians. This does not change with time. Not at our Lords table, not under the shadow of the cross.

I myself would never want to aim for Godhood because I know who I am when compared to my God. I like it this way just fine. The relationship between Creation and Creator keeps us humble as it keeps us safe in Him. And what force was misrepresenting what God had told Eve in the garden? This goes on. All Glory, every ounce of Glory to God.

 

[TOmNossor]

tkdnick:

I think that explanation is the only way in which we find ourselves in the midst of so many who believe so fervently that their church is the right church.

You are definitely not correct that this “is the only way.” Not only that, but I think it is not even the likely way.

It has been my experience that most people do not look at their religion with the same level of criticality with which they look at other religions.

There are those who strive not to do this, but there has never been someone who has seen the evidence as the evidence is. We all see the world through our eyes. I have faith God knows this. I do not believe anyone lacks bias.

The other thing is that few folks embrace a particular religion after some sorting process. The majority of people embrace a religion because of their environment. Few people do the type of weighing of evidence we are talking about here. Some follow the religion of their parents. Some embrace the religion of their super nice friends. Some embrace the religion that reached out to them in their time of need.

The LDS concept of praying to find the correct religion is actually a minority view among Christians. As a result, I would guess there are more LDS who have become LDS largely as a result of the spiritual confirmation. But still there are many LDS with solid intellectual reasons to be LDS.

Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

Benadam:

Quote, Tom:

Tom,
does it really matter at what point we observe error? I mean the catch 22 I presented still applies irregardless. In order for error to adulterate the Church’s teaching it had to of lost God’s authority according to your comment. Why would this occur to an error free Church? On the one hand if it has God’s authority it can’t err, on the other if it err’s it’s because it’s lost God’s authority.

If the infallible authority erred, it was not an infallible authority. I am not suggesting that error causes the infallible authority to cease to be an authority, but that evidence solidly shows the authority was never as it developed into.

Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

“You are misrepresenting the ECF’s here, as well as the Apostles. …”

Yes Tom is misreprsenting …

In this post I hope to show, I am not MISREPRSENTING the ECF. Chris and Catholic-RCIA are not reading what I say when they accuse me of this. And post #155 does not adequately deal with Irenaeus.

I have maintained that the early church did not view the statement, “men may become gods” as heretical. That is just a fact. This sentiment is riddled through the writings of the early church.

I regularly state that after Justin every ECF embraced creation ex nihilo and the radical creator/creature dichotomy. This makes your Irenaeus quote part of what I said always has existed.

I would like for you to review this thread and tell me if you really think I was MISREPRESENTING anyone. I never said that LDS deification was demonstratably equivalent to ECF deification.

Irenaeus does talk about man developing towards God. Here is a passage.

**Irenaeus - Adv. Her. 4.38.3 ** … man, a created and organized being, is rendered after the image and likeness of the uncreated God, -the Father planning everything well and giving His commands, the Son carrying these into execution and performing the work of creating, and the Spirit nourishing and increasing [what is made], but man making progress day by day, and ascending towards the perfect, that is, approximating to the uncreated One. For the Uncreated is perfect, that is, God. Now it was necessary that man should in the first instance be created; and having been created, should receive growth; and having received growth, should be strengthened; and having been strengthened, should abound; and having abounded, should recover [from the disease of sin]; and having recovered, should be glorified; and being glorified, should see his Lord. For God is He who is yet to be seen, and the beholding of God is productive of immortality, but immortality renders one nigh unto God.

In the same work Irenaeus continues. Post 155’s quote of Irenaeus actually only says that the creator/creature dichotomy does exist. It does not say that it will always exist. It is certainly true that the modern Catholic Church with almost no exceptions demands that this dichotomy will eternally exist. In the below passage it is possible that Irenaeus suggests that man becomes uncreated. I actually know a Catholic who seemed to have suggested this (and a few who suggested otherwise). But in any case, I acknowledge that this creator/creature dichotomy is part of Catholic deification and ECF deification (post Justin Martyr) but not LDS deification.

**Irenaeus - Adv. Her. 4.38.3-4 **His wisdom [is shown] in His having made created things parts of one harmonious and consistent whole; and those things which, through His super-eminent kindness, receive growth and a long period of existence, do reflect the glory of the uncreated One, of that God who bestows what is good ungrudgingly. For from the very fact of these things having been created, [it follows] that they are not uncreated; but by their continuing in being throughout a long course of ages, they shall receive a faculty of the Uncreated, through the gratuitous bestowal of eternal existence upon them by God. …man, a created and organized being, is rendered after the image and likeness of the uncreated God… we have not been made gods from the beginning, but at first merely men, then at length gods…He shall overcome the substance of created nature. For it was necessary, at first, that nature should be exhibited; then, after that, that what was mortal should be conquered and swallowed up by immortality, and the corruptible by incorruptibility, and that man should be made after the image and likeness of God, having received the knowledge of good and evil.(ANF 1.521-522).

Again, I have always maintained that the creator/creature dichotomy is a difference between Catholic/ECF deification and LDS deification. Where did I MISREPRESENT the ECF??? The fact that Joseph Smith boldly declared that men may become gods is amazing considering the environment he existed in. Until a few years ago this doctrine was universally damned by non-LDS. Now an increasing number of folks are merely saying that LDS deification is different than ECF/Christian deification. So while I recognize this, I say that this is caused by the change to creation ex nihilo.

Charity, TOm

 

[Benadam]

TOmNossor:

If the infallible authority erred, it was not an infallible authority. I am not suggesting that error causes the infallible authority to cease to be an authority, but that evidence solidly shows the authority was never as it developed into.

Charity, TOm

Tom,
please look carefully at your comment here, especially the last part. You are trying to express a black and white concept in a shade of grey. I don’t understand why error would be a sign that Authority has been lost if error isn’t the cause of it’s loss.

I think what you are trying to conclude and maybe don’t want to offend, is that the Early Church was never able to hop on that surfboard of authority and ride the wave. Either that or the Early Church never had authority in the first place. I think you should admit that if it did have authority developed or not it would be unnatural for God to change His mind. He seems to be a make it work kinda person. God’s authority visibly established on earth by God Himself is as permanent as He is.

Are you suggesting that the church at one time possessed authority and it was removed or that it just couldn’t ride the two wheeler Dad gave it for it’s birthday?

 

[TOmNossor]

Chris-WA:

You don’t know this. Just because you cannot find documentation prior to the 2nd century, doesn’t mean that this idea did not exist prior to that. The church has the authority to fully define and clarify beliefs over time. The deposit of faith was handed to the church as a seed, but the church has authority to explore and probe its depths for fuller meaning.

My position is much stronger than this.

Justin Martyr boldly states that God created from eternal matter just as Moses said He did.

Clement of Rome also points to the non-ex nihilo way in which God created.

Taitian and Theophilis move towards ex nihilo. Irenaeus states ex nihilo.

Gerard May (not a LDS) very convincingly lays out the development of creation ex nihilo.

After this development we have conflict after conflict concerning Christ’s relationship to God, Christ’s nature, and other things. LDS theology presents a much simpler explanation.

There are many problems associated with ex nihilo creation concerning theodicy too.

The rest of your post with the exception of you saying I misrepresent the ECF which I already addressed is merely you saying that the developments are valid because the Catholic Church has the authority. This is actually the question we ask so your assertions are not arguments.

However, my apologetic is that Joseph Smith restored beliefs that existed in the Early Church. This is still valid. Had he said that “sola fide” was embraced in the early church (like the protestant environment around him generally taught), we could not show this in the words of the ECF. He was very lucky or guided in what he called “restored” doctrines.

Charity, TOm

 

[cestusdei]

Tom,
You don’t happen to belong to FARMS or work with them do you? Also since Mormons reject what St. Justin says about the Eucharist and most other things it is a bit nit picky to mine him, or the Fathers, for partial quotes.

 

[catholic-rcia]

We should not forget Jesus’ attitude when he was being questioned by the authorities’ right before his punishment for us was rendered he went silent. Why? There was no reason to say anything. He had nothing to prove, was not looking for a position or gain of any kind except for bringing those who could turn to him in all things home to the Father. . Gaining position is the key element in their trying to get Jesus to talk. Think about what the authorities had to gain if they could get Jesus to speak? It would be apologetics in their favor on why they had him crucified. It would elevate them even further in the eyes of their followers. If there was a good reason to jave Jesus crucified, why the need to follow Jesus? We as Christians understand this Passion of Christ so we follow. Our leader is the leader, the Creator of our very soul.

If they could get Jesus to speak at this moment they would be elevated to the Worlds desires. No matter what he would have said they would have taken it as just cause to have him crucified because they lived in the world. Jesus gave them nothing to gain from, accept His death that was all including them.
There is a system that answers questions on business websites. At first it cannot answer anything, but then as the questions come in and get answered it learns and it adapts. The ones who created it have a desire to make money. They are the ones behind this system, this system that appears to be a person. This is the motive. There is Glory in this is there not? After a few months it can seem as though you are speaking to a real person. It takes on the light of a real person. It is amazing. The best way for Satan to get to the Flock is to adapt, to get to the point when he appears as the light. We need not be cautious because we have Christ in our lives. But sometimes we need to know when to be silent. Sometimes silence can say it all. It can even pierce a heart.

 

[catholic-rcia]

“Are you suggesting that the church at one time possessed authority and it was removed or that it just couldn’t ride the two wheeler Dad gave it for it’s birthday?”

Good point. This is what this Church does. Its wrong. But we are all on different paths at different times in our life, always in Gods hands.

The whole game here is a bait and switch kinda game, this Christ for that Christ, this God for that God. These Doctrines for those Doctrines. Why? What took place in the garden moves on today until it is all over. Satan wants to make us think we can be a God as God is, Jesus saves us because we can’t. It’s that simple. But he can’t save us if we think we can become a God as God is. In this we die eternally, into ourselves. We become separated from the most Holy Trinity. The Christian God that we profess, that lives in us and illuminates us. If I were to jump into a lake and think that I could breathe would I not eventfully run out of air and die? We cannot live without Gods breath, and we should never forget whose breath breaths us.

We could never ride this two wheeler, the gift that God, through Jesus gives us. It is only because of the Holy Spirit that Jesus breathed upon us at Pentecost that we are able to accept this gift and ride. It is the awesome gift of forgiveness and reconciliation that the Church received in the beginning stages of Christ Church on earth. To get us through those dark areas of our soul. As long as we keep forgiving ourselves and others through Christ, His Church will remain. As long as we continue to receive the Most Holy Eucharist we will forever be led into our confessions. In this removing the powers of the world, Satan, the Anti-Christ over us into thinking we can be special apart from Christ in the end. Will never happen for this poor soul who has given up his own life to Christ Jesus. Savior of our world. My eternal God over me and my family forever.

 

[catholic-rcia]

Tom, tell me about all those things that I can gain in heaven if I were to follow your teachings, those things that you yourself accept? Take me to the top of that hill and show me all of those rewards that I will be receiving. But if it’s Not God and Him alone do not waste your time. Because in the end He is all I desire.

But do let me know what your Church could offer me in heaven.

 

[TOmNossor]

Chris-WA:

Here are some links on Clement of Rome. Maybe you haven’t read all these yet.

newadvent.org/cathen/04012c.htm

Also, from Catholic Answers, which I’m sure you have read:

Sounds fairly authoritative to me–and definitely not local. Another tract from Catholic Answers:

catholic.com/library/authority_of_the_pope_part_1.asp

I present a number of reasons that Clement’s letter is inconsistent with him being the Pope in the link to a previous discussion that I posted earlier in this thread. I am not sure if anyone has looked at that. I do not agree that Clement’s letter sounds authoritative. The introduction is quite neutral. The other passages you quote do not appear in the letter most often called Clement First Epistle to the Corinthians. I deal with this and what these passages say on post #347-351 of the Smithsonian thread.

I looked through the Catholic Encyclopedia link. I am sure I have been there before. This time I noticed (in the Linus link) that surviving to this day are records that state that Linus was Bishop of Rome while Peter and Paul still lived. This of course is completely compatible with my position that Peter may have ordained Linus, but that Peter did not pass on this authority as the head of the church. Peter ordained many folks who nobody claims are at the head of the Catholic Church. Perhaps most notably is the Bishop of Antioch. I was also reminded of the great difficulty in explaining Clements supposed ordination by Peter when Clement by most accounts is the 4th Pope. Did Clement reject his position as Bishop?

There is no doubt in my mind that the succession of the Bishop of Rome and or the head of the Church is no where near as simple as most Catholic believe. I think many Catholic Apologist would like to present it as such, but it is not this way. I do not consider the development of the Papacy from Clement who had no idea he was Pope as a “fatal flaw,” but the necessity of postulating this (and some Catholics recognize this) is a strong point for my view of history. Where I Catholic I would lean on Newman’s ideas on development and “love dispenses with laws.”

Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

Benadam:

Tom,

please look carefully at your comment here, especially the last part. You are trying to express a black and white concept in a shade of grey. I don’t understand why error would be a sign that Authority has been lost if error isn’t the cause of it’s loss.

I think what you are trying to conclude and maybe don’t want to offend, is that the Early Church was never able to hop on that surfboard of authority and ride the wave. Either that or the Early Church never had authority in the first place. I think you should admit that if it did have authority developed or not it would be unnatural for God to change His mind. He seems to be a make it work kinda person. God’s authority visibly established on earth by God Himself is as permanent as He is.

Are you suggesting that the church at one time possessed authority and it was removed or that it just couldn’t ride the two wheeler Dad gave it for it’s birthday?

“That the Early Church was never able to hop on the surfboard of authority and ride the wave,” is in fact part of what I am saying. Not only this, but I think it was always God’s purpose that the greater authority would not be passed down the line of Bishops.

The reason that doctrinal restorations are evidence of the restoration is that there is no evidence that Joseph Smith could have known what to restore. He was either very lucky or divinely guided.

The reason that doctrinal development sealed by supposedly infallible authority that is contrary to tradition and God’s truth is evidence of the apostasy of authority seems to be clear. If it was an infallible authority it would not have erred. If it erred it was not an infallible authority.

Peter possessed the authority. Jesus Christ possessed the authority. I do not think Linus, Cletus, or Clement possessed the authority to lead the world church. The position of Bishop over a local flock is solidly linked to the Bible and the earliest words of the ECF. History evidences that these bishops began to have a small regional authority. Then there were patriarchs. And ultimately there was a Bishop of Rome = Pope (who was rejected as not prime by the Eastern Orthodox Church).

There is no doubt in my mind that you disagree. But do you understand what I am suggesting? It is not that errors caused the removal of authority. The lesser authority I think ultimately vanished when contrary to Apostolic tradition baptisms were preformed by those with no authority (and with heretical beliefs), but the authority to seal infallibly and to lead the worldwide church was not passed to the Bishop of Rome.

Charity, TOm