The Next Prophet or Spokeman of God

[TOmNossor]

TOmNossor:

I have long disagreed with your simplistic statement here because the historical record does not IMO support it (as I have explained in this thread and previously).

The Mormon Church was started 1900 years after Christ. Therefore it is very clear the authority handed down from Christ to the Apostles was not given to Joseph Smith as an empirical historical fact.

It is true that the set of facts that are “empirical historical facts” does not include the TRUTH that Christ’s authority was passed from Peter to Joseph Smith.
It is also true that the set of facts that are “empirical historical facts” does not include that the authority from Christ that Pope Paul VI MAY have possessed was passed to John Paul II. That passing of God’s authority is NEVER an “empirical historical fact.”

What are “empirical historical facts” is that Jospeh Smith and Oliver Cowdery claimed that Christ’s authority was passed from Peter to Joseph Smith. Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery acted in history in ways consistent with their belief/claim that Christ’s authority passed through Peter to Joseph Smith. Those around Joseph Smith recognized the claim and the actions as valid and as evidence that Peter’s authority was now possessed by Joseph Smith.

What is an “empirical historical fact” is that Clement of Rome did not leave ANY (absolutely zero) evidence that Peter’s authority was passed to him. Also that nobody around the time of Clement of Rome mentioned that Peter’s authority passed to Clement. Also that Clement commented on Moses and his authority, but didn’t mention that Clement had Moses’s authority. Also that Clement listed the “Order of Ministers” but did not include the Peterine headship as among this order.

The earliest “empirical historical fact” that we have that the Bishop or Rome CLAIMED he possessed special Peterine authority comes almost 200 years after Peter’s death. It is also a “empirical historical fact” that this claim was viewed as novel by Firmilian, “usurpation” by Tertullian, and similarly by St. Cyprian. None of them thought it was valid and compelled them to acquiesce to the Bishops of Rome’s position.

The Mormon Church’s claim is completely without defense which is why you made absolutely no attempt to defend it.

I have been defending it (in addition to explaining that you do not have the PROOF you claim to have). The “empirical historical evidence” points to the truth of the LDS claim as I have mentioned. The “empirical historical evidence” contains zero reliable “documentation of the succession from St. Peter” to Clement or Rome (Linus or Cletus or the Sixtus -the sixth pope who was so important no contemporary “empirical historical evidence” tells us his name so he is call Sixtus).
It is my position and it is CONSISTENT with the “empirical historical evidence” that the Bishop or Rome INVENTED the idea that the Bishop of Rome was prime.
cont…

 

[TOmNossor]

This invention came with VARING claims, like because of both Peter and Paul (even once because of both Paul and Peter), like because of the martyrdom of Peter and Paul, like because Peter ordained Clement of Rome as his successor (a claim fictitiously created in the 4th century purporting to be written by Clement of Rome).
Today there is a narrative that does not conflict with the “empirical historical evidence” that the authority of the Pope DEVELOPED and is Peter’s authority. This is 100% a faith based, testimony based position. It is not a historical fact. It is true that the authority of the Pope developed, but there is no historical facts that tell us this was more than HUMAN grabbing of POWER instead of divine development. It is similarly true the Joseph Smith exercised authority he claimed came from Christ through Peter, unlike the Pope’s DEVELOPED authority there is empirical historical evidence that Joseph’s authority was recognized by SOME around him immediately.

Father Sullivan’s book is about how Apostolic Authority was passed down from Christ in the early Church. It is not about the papacy; the title would tell you that. He agrees with me; the Catholic Church has the authority given to the Apostles by Christ.

Yes, I have read Father Sullivan’s book and I understand you have not. It is relevant because it argues for the development of the monoepiscapcy and suggests that this didn’t happen until the middle of the 2nd century in Rome. Father Sullivan believes the persons who wrote 1st Clement (a letter coming from the Roman Church not from an individual) was a prominent “Presbuyter/Bishop” but not “the Bishop or Rome.”
He does not agree that you have “empirical historical evidence.” He writes primarily to invite non-Catholics to have faith in the narrative he offers that is consistent with “empirical historical evidence.”
Concerning the Papacy specifics. I actually asked Father Sullivan if he would be writing a book about that. He responded that he was in his 80’s and would not get to that, but he recommended to me Rise of the Papacy by Robert Eno’s. You should read that too.

Stephen, you do not understand what “empirical historical evidence” is.
Father Sullivan has FAITH that his development of the monoepiscopate and Eno’s development of Papacy were DIVINE and result in a truth that Pope St. Stephen and the modern Pope are the Vicar or Christ.
I have FAITH that Peter visited Joseph Smith to restore God’s authority on earth.

Father Sullivan’s arguments are offered precisely because the evidence strongly refutes what the Clementine Homily claim happened. His arguments are about the DIVINE guidance of development, but he did not say (and would not say if he was alive today) that history PROVES his arguments. He understands empirical evidence and has RESPECTFULLY dialogued with rejectors of the Catholic Priesthood / rejectors of Catholic views on Justification / and rejectors of Catholic views on the Priesthood. But he would not say PROVE.
Charity, TOm

 

[Stephen168]

It is true that the set of facts that are “empirical historical facts” does not include the TRUTH that Christ’s authority was passed from Peter to Joseph Smith.

It is also true that the set of facts that are “empirical historical facts” does not include that the authority from Christ that Pope Paul VI MAY have possessed was passed to John Paul II. That passing of God’s authority is NEVER an “empirical historical fact.”

Yes, a Mormon’s evidence is in their testimony regardless of the empirical facts.

 

[Stephen168]

Yes, I have read Father Sullivan’s book and I understand you have not.

Oh, but I have read it.

It is relevant because it argues for the development of the monoepiscapcy and suggests that this didn’t happen until the middle of the 2nd century in Rome. Father Sullivan believes the persons who wrote 1st Clement (a letter coming from the Roman Church not from an individual) was a prominent “Presbuyter/Bishop” but not “the Bishop or Rome.”

As I said, the book is not about the papacy. It is about apostolic authority.

 

[TOmNossor]

TOmNossor:

Yes, I have read Father Sullivan’s book and I understand you have not.

Oh, but I have read it.

It is relevant because it argues for the development of the monoepiscapcy and suggests that this didn’t happen until the middle of the 2nd century in Rome. Father Sullivan believes the persons who wrote 1st Clement (a letter coming from the Roman Church not from an individual) was a prominent “Presbuyter/Bishop” but not “the Bishop or Rome.”

As I said, the book is not about the papacy. It is about apostolic authority.

My understanding was incorrect. I am glad you have read Father Sullivan’s book.

I agree it is about apostolic authority!

Mark this day on the calendar! This is an entire post where we agree AND I also said I was wrong!
Awesome.
Charity, TOm

 

[Stephen168]

So the only “empirical historical fact” that Mormonism has is the fact the Joseph Smith claimed he received his authority from Peter.

Joseph Smith also claimed the Book of Mormon was a history documenting the source of all the American Indians.

Joseph Smith also claimed to translate the Book of Moses documenting the unique beliefs of Mormonism.

Both of these claims have been proven to be scientifically false. And Peter was not available to lay his hands on Joseph Smith.

At the same time Bishop John Dubois, with authority received from Bishop Ambrose Marechal, was the true authority in New York.

Ambrose Marechal received his authority from Bishop Cheverus. And Cardinal Cheverus received his authority from Bishop Carroll, who received his authority from Bishop Walmesley.

 

[TOmNossor]

So the only “empirical historical fact” that Mormonism has is the fact the Joseph Smith claimed he received his authority from Peter.

Stephen,
You know that is an untrue statement.
In addition to the “empirical historical fact” you mention, we have Oliver Cowdery claiming that he witnessed Peter passing Christ’s authority.
We have empirical historical facts about the use of purported supernatural authority.
We have empirical historical facts about the acceptance of purported supernatural authority.

Joseph Smith also claimed the Book of Mormon was a history documenting the source of all the American Indians.
…
Both of these claims have been proven to be scientifically false. And Peter was not available to lay his hands on Joseph Smith.

This thread has been about the passing of authority from Monson to Nelson. A natural extension was to the authority present for Joseph Smith or Linus/Cletus/Clement. You are FAILING to make a case that there is some “empirical historical evidence” for the Catholic claim made on this thread, “The Catholic Church has documentation of the succession from St. Peter.” And you can easily see that where “empirical historical evidence” should exist on the Catholic side it is absent and where it should exist on the LDS it is present. So now you want to bring up the Book of Mormon. And of course you will NEVER acknowledge what is clear for those who read (read through many words so you are probably safe since few will do this).
Had Joseph Smith been the author of the Book of Mormon than NUMEROUS things would have been different, but Joseph Smith was not the author of the BOM. After he produced the BOM with divine assistance, he interacted with it by reading and thinking about it. He was wrong to THINK that all the American Indians descended from Lehi’s band.

That being said, there are a great deal of empirical historical facts that support the BOM as an ancient record. I have mentioned many to you.
It is an empirical historical fact that a tribe and an alter NHM existed in the time and place that Lehi’s band claimed they passed by and buried Ismael at Nahom. There are many WEAKER things celebrated by Biblical scholars as confirming of the Bible.
There are many other empirical historical facts that I think offer EVIDENCE that the BOM is an ancient document and is TOTALLY beyond the ability of Joseph Smith or any other person alive in Joseph’s day.
But, these empirical historical facts support my belief, they support my faith. Because empirical historical facts cannot pass judgements on spiritual realities. That the BOM was produced by the gift and the power of God is a spiritual reality. That it is supported by empirical historical facts lends support to my faith.

cont…

 

[TOmNossor]

Joseph Smith also claimed to translate the Book of Moses documenting the unique beliefs of Mormonism.

Both of these claims have been proven to be scientifically false.

You are mistaken. Much of the Book of Moses has been shown to align well with the ancient thought world from which LDS believe it came. And there is no empirical historical evidence that the Book of Moses is not exactly what Joseph Smith claimed it to be.

And Peter was not available to lay his hands on Joseph Smith.

You are again wrong from both a Catholic and a LDS perspective. Peter is a Catholic Saint. He like the Virgin Mary are not in Purgatory and could appear to Joseph Smith. He like St. Joseph at Fatima could appear. The laying on of hands is also not beyond Peter’s power if God wills it.

At the same time Bishop John Dubois, with authority received from Bishop Ambrose Marechal, was the true authority in New York.

Ambrose Marechal received his authority from Bishop Cheverus. And Cardinal Cheverus received his authority from Bishop Carroll, who received his authority from Bishop Walmesley.

First, I will assume you choose somewhat modern Bishop transmissions because you can admit that the claim that Catholics can “trace their authority back to Peter” is contradicted by the empirical historical facts we possess.
That being said, you do not understand “empirical historical facts” even though you attempt to use them to beat the CoJCoLDS. The “receiving of authority” is not an “empirical historical fact” because authority is not tangible.
Also, one of the greatest Catholic miracles of all time is in Fatima (I was asked about this earlier in the thread). It is not an empirical historical fact that the mother of Jesus Christ had anything to do with anything that happened in Fatima. Not only that, but Catholic scholars have explained weather phenomena could have caused what was witnessed. Your insistence on “empirical historical fact” will leave you without faith if you carry it to its logical conclusion.

Again, what I believe because of faith concerning St. Perer and Joseph Smith is better supported by “empirical historical facts” than is the idea that “the Catholic Church has documentation of the succession from St. Peter.” If Joseph Smith received authority from Peter, the “empirical historical facts” surrounding this event align with it well. If Linus/Cletus/Clement received authority from Peter (either as a Bishop of as a successor of Peter), the “empirical historical facts” witness against it (hence the need for the DEVELOPMENT paradigm of Sullivan and Eno which of course is also not an “empirical historical fact.”).

Charity, TOm

 

[Horton]

And you can easily see that where “empirical historical evidence” should exist on the Catholic side it is absent and where it should exist on the LDS it is present

You keep making this claim. This is your opinion, not fact. You have read some stuff which you interpreted as “no documentation of Apostolic succession” and then you cite two men’s testimony as proof?

In addition to the “empirical historical fact” you mention, we have Oliver Cowdery claiming that he witnessed Peter passing Christ’s authority.

Two men making a statement does not make it a truth without further evidence.

 

[Stephen168]

Two men making a statement does not make it a truth without further evidence.

Especially when they claimed to “restore” a priesthood which the bible says only belongs to Christ, and the report is 4 years after the “event.” Add that to the Book of Mormon and Book of Moses claims and it is clear Joseph Smith is not who he claims to be.

 

[Stephen168]

First, I will assume you choose somewhat modern Bishop transmissions because you can admit that the claim that Catholics can “trace their authority back to Peter” is contradicted by the empirical historical facts we possess.

Never assume, you are very bad at it.

 

[lilypadrees]

TOmNosser
That is all good and well, but you have not acknowledged what I told you and what another Catholic poster told you.
You do not understand the Catholic position on the Bible. You offer the Protestant position on the Bible. You should read the link I offered you and I doubt you could persist in this error long.
Charity, TOm

Actually, I did address what you and another poster stated. But I will state it again since I’m not up to going and hunting that post. I do not interpret the Bible and what it says.The Holy Spirit is the Interpreter, Without the Holy Spirit guiding the Catholic Church and teaching us, none of us including our priests would be able to understand the Holy Bible.

I am still recovering from the flu which decided to hit me again with a vengeance yesterday. So I am not up to looking up and comparing Scriptures at this time. But anyone who reads Matthew, Mark, Luke and John can read and compare verses and will find they support one another. How can four different men, one of whom was not an Apostle, share the same things if not inspired by the Holy Spirit?

I am really getting tired of you assuming that I do not understand the Catholic position on the Bible. I know and understand it very well, thank you. I am, after all, a cradle Catholic who continues to study, learn and grow in her faith. I have been told by a number of Catholic priests that I know our Catholic faith so well that I should teach classes in it which is very touching and humbling.

If Protestants share my view of the Holy Bible, as you claim they do, good for them. They are more Catholic than they realize. I do not support Sola Scriptura, however. And therein, lies your mistake.

I’m sorry you choose not to turn to the Holy Spirit in learning what the verses in the Bible really mean, TOm. The Holy Spirit guides the Catholic Church in her teachings and understanding of Scripture and the Holy Spirit guides me in my reading and understanding of His Holy Word.

Many a Catholic priest, I don’t speak for those here since I don’t know if they feel this way also, has stated that we must pray to the Holy Spirit for guidance in reading and understanding Scripture. This always warms my heart because they know and understand that the Holy Spirit is the Third Person of the Blessed Trinity. When God speaks, I listen.

 

[lilypadrees]

At least you admit that the Church ONCE AGAIN lied about it. They said, as I showed you, that the priesthood was taken from the earth, when, in fact, it was not. Lies, lies and more lies. That is the fruit of Joseph Smith, the liar, the convicted glass looker, the unfaithful husband, the womanizer, the serial adulterer, the con man, the counterfeiter, the mentor of Warren Jeffs, the one who claims to have done a greater work for mankind than anyone including the Savior, and heaven knows what else. And you all sing his praises. Your faith is based on lies. Your leaders lie and counsel the members to lie. The Church of Joseph Smith of Latter-day Saints is a fraud. Your God is not my God.

I come here to hang with Catholics and what do I get? More Mormons. I suppose you have as much right to be here as anyone, but this is not what I came for. I would love a life without the evil cult that you embrace. But you Mormons will find me anywhere and annoy the hell out of me like you always do. It must be your sick sort of fun.

Charity? You spew your filth all over and then sign off with your “Charity” nonsense as if you mean well. You aren’t charity. You’re the kind of Mormon that I warn my kids about.

I’m done here. I’m done with this place.

Lemuel, please stay. There are other forums here to post in, You don’t have to stay in the Non-Catholic forum.

 

[lilypadrees]

You need to learn about the history of your chosen religion, TOm. Only then, will you come to know the truth.

Research Joseph Smith, Oliver Cowdery and all the “witnesses” to the validity of the plates Joseph Smith allegedly translated into the Book of Mormon. Most of those “witnesses” were family members. They weren’t strangers to Smith and Cowdery.

Where is your proof that the unnamed angel in Revelation is “Moroni”? Catholics know not to give names to the unnamed angels in the Bible. God has already named them. The ones He wanted us to know the names of are revealed in the Bible.

None of your Mormon “prophets” are God’s prophets. They are only the Mormon church’s alleged prophets.

 

[Stephen168]

You know that is an untrue statement.

In addition to the “empirical historical fact” you mention, we have Oliver Cowdery claiming that he witnessed Peter passing Christ’s authority.

Yes, they claimed to receive the Melchizedek Priesthood from Peter, except there is no actual Melchizedek Priesthood. Melchizedek is a High Priest and King who is the example of the Messiah. What Melchizedek is in portrayal, Christ is in fact: the unique priest of all mankind.

Genesis 14:18-20 A King-Priest Melchizedek appears and gives Abram bread and wine; then blesses Abram. A King-Priest who suddenly appears with no genealogy; no parents or children.

Psalm 110:4 King David speaks of a priest that will come in the same way that Melchizedek was a priest. A King-Priest bringing bread and wine. A priest directly from God and not from Aaron; the tribe of Levi.

Jeremiah 31:31-34 God will make a new covenant. It will be different from the old one: It will last forever, it will be written on the hearts of men not just stone tablets, and all people will know him.

Hebrews 7:1-3 Melchizedek appears without father, mother, or children, and was a priest always. Compared to the divine Christ, the Son of Man; who was born without father, mother, or children, and was a priest always.

Hebrews 7:4-10 Abraham paid tithes to Melchizedek. The priests of Aaron were also sons of Abraham, so Melchizedek was superior to the Levitical priests.

Hebrews 7:11-14 A new priest means a change in the law.

Hebrews 7:15-19 Christ is the new High Priest according to the order of Melchizedek. He abolishes the Levitical priesthood and the law.

John 6:31-69 Jesus tells his disciples, he is the bread of life. The Jews doubt him and he repeats his claim. They doubt him again and he tells them that he is the bread of life and you must eat his flesh and drink his blood. Many of his disciples leave him. The Jews gave Jesus three chances to tell them he was talking in a figurative manor but did not.

Matthew 26:26-28; Mark 14:22-24; Luke 22:19-20; 1 Corinth 11:23-25 Jesus tells his Apostles to eat his body and drink his blood in remembrance and for the forgiveness of sin. The blood of the new and everlasting covenant that he will shed for us.

Hebrews 8:1-5 We have Jesus our high priest sitting in heaven. If he was on earth he would not be a priest of the order of Melchizedek; just Aaron. In heaven, he is still offering gifts and sacrifices according to the order of Melchizedek. The gifts of Levi are just a shadow of the heavenly gifts offered by Christ.

Hebrews 9:11-15 Christ is in heaven by the perfect sacrifice of his blood. And he is the mediator of the new covenant.

John 1:26 Jesus Christ is the Lamb of God. His sacrifice will take away the sin of the world.

Revelations 7:17 Christ is the High Priest according to the order of Melchizedek. He had no beginning and no end. Just as Melchizedek brought bread and wine, Christ is feeding his flock through his flesh and blood in the new covenant. This food we call Eucharist.

 

[gazelam]

Yes, they claimed to receive the Melchizedek Priesthood from Peter, except there is no actual Melchizedek Priesthood. Melchizedek is a High Priest and King who is the example of the Messiah. What Melchizedek is in portrayal, Christ is in fact: the unique priest of all mankind.

Revelations 7:17 Christ is the High Priest according to the order of Melchizedek. He had no beginning and no end. Just as Melchizedek brought bread and wine, Christ is feeding his flock through his flesh and blood in the new covenant. This food we call Eucharist.

Is there any such thing as an order with only a single person? An order, by definition, is a group of people.

See http://www.dictionary.com/browse/religious-order

In Christianity, a group of men or women who live under religious vows. The three vows commonly taken are to relinquish all possessions and personal authority (vows of poverty and obedience) and not to engage in sexual relations (a vow of chastity). Religious orders are found in the Eastern Orthodox Church and the Roman Catholic Church, and, although rarely, in Protestant churches. The Franciscans, Jesuits, and Trappists are religious orders.

A secular definition of order: The arrangement or disposition of people or things in relation to each other according to a particular sequence, pattern, or method.

See ORDER | Definition of ORDER by Oxford Dictionary on Lexico.com also meaning of ORDER

I hope this helps…

 

[gazelam]

Joseph Smith also claimed the Book of Mormon was a history documenting the source of all the American Indians.

This is a mistake. Joseph Smith never claimed that the Book of Mormon documented the source of all American Indians. Also, the Book of Mormon itself does not make that claim either.

 

[Horton]

So you believe a fairly recent dictionary trumps several biblical text? The divinely inspired Word of God is null & void because you claim the definition of ONE word is wrong?

This claim tells me why you believe the LDS.

 

[gazelam]

The divinely inspired Word of God is null & void because you claim the definition of ONE word is wrong?

The ancient greek used by Paul also had the same meaning as I described.

http://biblehub.com/greek/5010.htm

Definition: order, (a) regular arrangement, (b) appointed succession, (c) position, rank.

There’s not an “order” without two or more. Otherwise there is no succession, position, etc.

 

[TOmNossor]

Actually, I did address what you and another poster stated. But I will state it again since I’m not up to going and hunting that post. I do not interpret the Bible and what it says.The Holy Spirit is the Interpreter, Without the Holy Spirit guiding the Catholic Church and teaching us, none of us including our priests would be able to understand the Holy Bible.
…
I am really getting tired of you assuming that I do not understand the Catholic position on the Bible. I know and understand it very well, thank you. I am, after all, a cradle Catholic who continues to study, learn and grow in her faith. I have been told by a number of Catholic priests that I know our Catholic faith so well that I should teach classes in it which is very touching and humbling.

I am not trying to offend you. I am trying to get you to respond and correct what you originally said. I did go back and look and you repeated your original statement in response to a Catholic poster who said:

lilypadrees:

If Mormons used the same KJV Bible Protestants use, they wouldn’t need the BOM to explain it to them since the BIble explains and supports itself

the Bible does not explain and support itself. If it did there wouldn’t be any disagreements on interpretation. The bible needs and always has had an authoritative interpreter, which is the Church founded by Jesus Christ also known as the Catholic Church.

Your response to that post was:

Actually, the Bible does explain and support itself. Compare various Scriptures and you will see. Ask the Holy Spirit to show you. He will. Yes, the Catholic Church is the authoritative interpreter. But without the Holy Spirit guiding and giving the meaning of Sacred Scripture to the Church, it would be for nought.

The Catholic Church REJECTS the idea that “the Bible does explain and support itself.” You might mean that it is self-referential which in SOME cases it is and in others it is not, but that is not what is at issue here. Again the BEST IMO Catholic position is that the Bible is “materially sufficient” but not “formally sufficient.” Another Catholic position is that the Bible is not “formally sufficient” and doctrine comes from …. But when one says “the Bible explains itself” even if one says “the Bible explains itself with the help of the Holy Spirit” one is espousing the position that the Catholic Church rejects which is “formal sufficiency.”

The reason this is important is that Catholics and LDS agree that we need the authority of the church (guided by the Holy Spirit) to interpret sacred scripture. It is not appropriate to say that Catholics let the Bible “interpret itself” and LDS are “wresting the scriptures” when Catholics have consistently (as far as I can see) taught that the Bible does not “interpret itself.”

So in this case, I a looking at your words.
cont…