Why the Great Apostasy was never possible: a scenario

[FCEGM]

There are some interesting wranglings provided by some Protestants concerning this quote from Irenaeus, but I have not followed them to closely.

Good for you, Tom. They are rooted in desperate anti-Papal bigotry and are a waste of time.

Only a decade removed from this FIRST message of the primacy of Rome, Tertullian (while still fully in communion with the church before becoming a Montanist) calls linking Rome’s authority to Peter’s “usurpation.” I agree with Tertullian and suggest that he was there to see the beginning of this.

You are referring to Tertullian’s “On Modesty” (c. 220 A.D.) I’m sorry to disappoint you, Tom, but he wrote that while he was a Montanist, and with the expressed purpose of advancing his Montanist doctrines, which denied all human Church authority. What happened was that Pope Callistus, citing his Petrine authority to “bind and loosen,” had relaxed the original Apostolic discipline for the Sacrament of Confession (in which, for certain mortal sins, one had to remain excommunicated from the Church until one’s death bed - see 1 John 3:6-9, 1 John 5:16-17, James 5:14-16, etc.). Callistus permitted certain mortal sins to be formally forgiven and for these penitents to return to full membership in the Church, thereby establishing the current discipline of both Catholics and Eastern Orthodox (and of course of all Protestants that recognize some formal and public sense of forgiveness). And while most of the Church accepted and embraced Callistus’ ruling, he was opposed both on the extreme-right by antipope St. Hippolytus (who was eventually reconciled with the Church) and on the extreme-left by the heretic Tertullian, who writes, mocking Callistus’ Roman authorty and saying:

“In opposition to this [modesty], could I not have acted the dissembler? I hear that there has even been an edict sent forth, and a peremptory one too. The ‘Pontifex Maximus,’ that is the ‘bishop of bishops,’ issues an edict: ‘I remit, to such as have discharged [the requirements of] repentance, the sins both of adultery and of fornication.’ O edict, on which cannot be inscribed,
‘Good deed!’ …Far, far from Christ’s betrothed be such a proclamation! (On Modesty 1.1, ANF IV:74).

He then goes on to deny Callistus’ authority - that is, a Montanist denial of all human authority in the Church (for the Montanist, like modern Pentecostals, believed only in personal spiritual “charism”) by making the statement that you refer to above. He writes:

“I now inquire into your opinions, to see whence you usurp the right for the Church. Do you presume, because the Lord said to Peter, ‘On this rock I will build my Church …[Matt 16 19]’ that the power of binding and loosing has thereby been handed over to you, that is, to every church akin to that to Peter’s? (ad omnem ecclesiam Petri propinquam, i.e. Petri ecclesiae propinquam). What kind of man are you, subverting and changing what was the manifest intent of the Lord when He conferred this personally on Peter? ‘On you,’ He says, ‘I will build my Church; and I give to you the keys’…” (Tertullian, On Modesty 21:9-10)

See the Montanism? For Tertullian (at this time), Peter merely possessed a personal spiritual gift (like a Pentecostal’s supposed ability to speak in tongues), and this “gift” could not be succeeded to by anyone else. Ergo, the ability to “bind and loosen” is not an authority that the Church hierarchy possesses (contra Matt 18:17-18), but a personal gift given to “the truly spiritual” (as the Montanists saw themselves). However, both Tertullian’s (a heretic’s) mocking tone and the fact that he was ignored by the rest of the universal Church on this issue SCREAMS the fact that Pope Callistus held the very authority that Tertullian denies. By calling him “Pontifex Maximus” (which, at the time, was the pagan chief priest of Rome - the head of the pagan imperial religion) and “bishop of bishops,” Tertullian illustrates the scope of Callistus’ universal authority. He also preserves for us Callistus’ own claim - that he invoked Peter’s own authority to “bind and loosen” when he relaxed the penitential discipline. And so, what cannot be denied is that the rest of the universal Church - that is, all of the orthodox bishops, ACCEPTED this authority and obeyed Callistus’ decree. This is why Catholics and Eastern Orthodox can receive Confession again and again today - something which was not possible before 220 A.D.

continued. . .

 

[FCEGM]

That being said, Newman would suggest Tertullian was just wrong and he did not recognize the validity of the developing authority.

Newman knew that Tertullian was a Montanist at the time.

The conflicts within the Catholic Church have frequently had intelligent well informed folks on the wrong side of the battle. If the Holy Spirit guards the deposit of faith, this is not outside of what is expected.

I see. So how are you so sure that your Mormon position is correct then??

I explained why Corinth would appeal to Rome earlier in this message (assuming they ONLY appealed to Rome).

An argument from silence is no argument. Also, the facts are obvious: Clement mentions in his introduction how Rome has taken a long time to respond to the Corinthian appeal because of the persecutions it has suffered. If Corinth (in Greece) had appealed to other, CLOSER churches, they would have already received a response and a solution to their schism before Clement’s letter arrived. But, it was Clement’s letter that solved the controversy, and all fathers (esp. the Corinthians) give Clement the credit for this. Indeed, St. Dionysius of Cornith (writing in c. A.D. 170), as I presented to you before, speaks of how the Corinthians had preserved Clement’s letter as a souce of "scriptural authority for them, saying:

“Today we kept the Holy Day, the Lord’s Day (Sunday), and on it we read your letter (Pope Soter’s epistle). And we shall ever have it with us to give us instruction, even as the former one written through Clement.”

So, if the Corinthians wrote to other bishops, where is there any mention of it? Why were these other episcopal responses not recorded and preserved by the Corinthian church? If they had appealed to near-by Ephesus (as they did in the days of Paul - see: 1 Cor. 16:8, 16:19, etc.), or Philippi, or Thessalonica, or even Antioch, all of which are much closer to Corinth than Rome is, why didn’t they have letters from any of these places; and if they did, why did only Clement’s letter resolve the issue??? Methinks thou doth protest too much. Face it, both history and geography are against you.

One thing I may not have mentioned previously is that Rome was regularly seen as an upright church. It was many years before it was seen as prime though, and never by Eastern Christians.

Never? See above, Tom. I would be happy to cite countless other quotes from the ancient Eastern witness to Rome’s authority. You are apparently quite ignorant of this and have listened to too many liberal-modernists for your “historical” information.

What’s more, Ignatius speaks of Rome “presiding in the chief place” by 107 A.D., less than 7 years after the death of the Apostle John. How much earlier a reference to Rome’s primacy do you need??

There are a number of political reasons why Rome would emerge as prime.

Sorry, but that’s balderdash. All orthodox Christians always (and rightly) maintained that Rome’s primacy is based on its Petrine succession alone.

There was even a political time when appeals seemed to go to Milan more than Rome.

Really? Would you care to present one shred of evidence for that? As I’ve illustrated above, you are VERY sloppy with your history, Tom. So, let’s see your back up for these claims.

continued. . .

 

[FCEGM]

It is not impossible that Roman importance (first among equals) was accepted largely due to political maneuvering.

Rome was never called “first among equals.” That is a medieval Byzantine term which was never used by the ancient Church, nor by the rest of the East. All throughout the universal Church, Rome was always known as the “Apostolic See” or the “See of Peter” and the Bishop of Rome was known as the “Vicar of Christ” or the “Servant of the Servants of God,” or “the Head of the Church.” For example, the Eastern bishops at the Council of Chalcedon address the Pope of Rome as follows:

For if ‘where two or three are gathered together in His name’ He has said that 'there He is in the midst of them," must He not have been much more particularly present with 520 priests, who preferred the spread of knowledge concerning Him …Of whom you were Chief, as Head to the members, showing your good will." - Chalcedon to Pope Leo (Repletum est Gaudio), November
451.

They also write:

“Knowing that every success of the children rebounds to the parents, we therefore beg you to honor our decision by your assent, and as we have yielded agreement to the Head in noble things, so may the Head also fulfill what is fitting for the children.” - Chalcedon to Pope Leo, Ep. 98.

…and also …

“You are set as an interpreter to all of the voice of blessed Peter, and to all you impart the blessings of that Faith.” - Chalcedon to Pope Leo, Ep. 98

…and …

“Besides all this, he (the heretic Dioscorus) extended his fury even against him who had been charged with the custody of the Vine by the Savior. We refer to Your Holiness.” - Chalcedon to Pope Leo, Ep. 98.

…and …

“You have often extended your Apostolic radiance even to the Church of Constantinople.” --Chalcedon to Pope Leo, Ep. 98.

Primacy was then guaranteed when the Eastern church schismed.

You are following a pseudo-historical fairy-tale, Tom. Go read the primary sources and see for yourself. Long before the Schism, the East fully recognizes the Traditional Apostolic authority of Rome. Just to cite one example, consider the Libellus Hormisdae of 519, which was signed by over 2,500 Eastern bishops returning to communion with Rome after the Acacian schism, in which all four Eastern patriarchs (and the bishops under them) had rejected the dogmas of Chalcedon and embraced a (heretical) compromise formula with the Monophysites, something for which Rome had excommunicated most of the Eastern Church (with the exception of the monasteries, all of which remained faithful to orthodoxy). Here is what the Libellus Hormisdae of 519 said:

“Because the statement of our Lord Jesus Christ, when He said, ‘Thou art Peter, and upon this Rock I will found my Church and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it, etc,’ cannot be set aside; this, which is said, is proved by the results; for in the Apostolic See religion has always been preserved without spot …In which (See) is set the perfect and true solidity of the Christian religion.” (Hormisdas, Formula Hormisdae Ep.
Orient. Praescript. Denzinger’s Enchirid, p. 42) in Charles F. B. Allnatt, ed. Cathedra Petri --Titles and Perrogatives of St. Peter, London: Burns & Oats, 1879, p. 68.

continued. . .

 

[FCEGM]

It continues. . .

“In the Apostolic See the Catholic religion has always been kept undefiled and her holy doctrine proclaimed. Desiring, therefore, not to be in the least degree separated from the faith and doctrine of that See, we hope that we may deserve to be in the one communion with you which the Apostolic See preaches, in which is the entire and true solidity of the Christian religion:
promising also that the names of those who are cut off from the communion of the Catholic Church, that is, not consentient with the Apostolic See, shall not be recited during the Sacred Mysteries (i.e., the Mass). This is my profession, I have subscribed with my own hand, and delivered to you, Hormisdas, the holy and venerable Pope of the city of Rome.” (Formula
Hormisdae Episc. Orient. Praescript Denzinger’s Enchird. p. 42, ed. 1874) in Charles F.B. Allnatt, ed., Cathedra Petri --Titles and Prerogatives of St. Peter, London: Burns & Oates, 1879, 92

This, again, was signed by 2,500 Eastern bishops (including all the patriarchs and metropolitans), that is, nearly every bishop of the Eastern Church, and in A.D. 519 - over 500 years before the Schism.

Why does some of what you suggest seem to be true? Rome was a very important See founded by Paul and Peter.

So was Antioch. So, why doesn’t Ignatius - the Bishop of Antioch - teach the Romans? Why doesn’t Antioch ever teach the Romans? Also, why doesn’t Ephesus or Corinth, or Thessalonica, or Philippi, or any other Apostolic church ever teach the Romans? Why is the teaching always in the other direction???

Ignatius came to Rome as the political center to die and the political center was part of Rome’s importance

Really?? Where are you getting this from? Indeed, the early Church was persecuted by the Roman imperial government, which was the Church’s enemy - the “beast” of Revelation. So, why should a citizen of the Kingdom of God (as Ignatius and all other early Christians saw themselves) care a fig about the city of Rome’s political importance, let alone connect this to the authority of the Christians who happened to be living in the imperial capital at the time??? That makes no sense. If Ignatius (an associate of the Apostles) offered teaching and instruction to the Christians in Ephesus, and Smyrna, and Philadelphia, why did he fail to do the same for the Christians living in Rome? Because of their “political importance”? Come on!

also, at least one ECF mentioned the martyrdom of Ignatius when they explained why Rome was important right beside either Peter or Paul’s martyrdom in Rome).

Did they? Which one? Quotes please.

continued. . .

 

[FCEGM]

Politically Rome emerged as a leader in the West, but at least 3 places in the East competed for the leadership of the church.

No, they didn’t. Alexandria and Antioch were the two Eastern patriarchates, and held authority in East Africa and Asia (respectively) because of their ties of discipleship to Petrine Rome - Alexandria drawing its authority from Peter’s chief disciple, St. Mark, and Antioch drawing its authority from Peter’s episcopal successor there, St. Evodius, and after him, St. Ignatius himself. This is the Tradition, and it was believed by both the ancient East and the ancient West. For example, Pope Damasus (in 382) writes:

“Although all the Catholic Churches spread abroad throughout the world comprise but one bridal chamber of Christ, nevertheless, the holy Roman church has been placed at the forefront not by the conciliar decisions of the churches, but has received the primacy by the evangelic voice of our Lord and Savior, Who says: “You are Peter …(Matt. 16:18-19).” In addition to this, there is also the companionship of the vessel of election, the most blessed Apostle Paul who, along with Peter in the city of Rome in the time of Caesar Nero, equally consecrated the above-mentioned holy Roman Church to Christ the Lord; and by their own presence and by their venerable triumph, they set it at the forefront over the others of all the cities of the world. The first see, therefore, is that of Peter the Apostle, that of the Roman church, which has neither stain nor blemish, nor anything like that. The second see is that of Alexandria, consecrated on behalf of the blessed Peter by Mark, his disciple and an Evangelist, who was sent to Egypt by the Apostle Peter, where he preached the word of truth and finished his glorious martyrdom. The third see is that of Antioch, which belonged to the most blessed Peter, where first he dwelled before he came to Rome, and where the name “Christians” was first applied, as to a new people.” (Decree of Damasus # 3, 382 A.D.)

This was the order of primacy and all of the East believed this, as well as the West. For example, Theodoret of Cyrus (a native of Anioch) refers to the same Tradition in 449, when he writes to Rome to complain about Dioscorus, the heretical Patriarch of Alexandria who, as primate in the East, had stripped Theodoret of his see at the so-called Robber Council of Ephesus. He writes:

“But this man (Patriarch Dioscorus of Alexandria) will not abide by the decrees (of Nicaea), but brings forward at every turn that his is the Throne of Mark; and yet he knows well that the great city of Antioch has the Throne of Peter, who was both teacher of Mark, and the first and the leader (coryphaeus) of the choir of the Apostles.” (Theodoret, T. iv. Ep. lxxxvi.).

Yet, even while Theodoret speaks of Antioch as possessing its doctrinal heritage from Peter (the “Throne of Peter”), he also clearly recognizes the ultimate Petrine primacy of Rome, saying:

“If Paul, the herald of truth, the trumpet of the Holy Spirit, hastened to the great Peter to convey from him the solution to those at Antioch, who were at issue about living under the law, how much more so do we, poor and humble, run to your Apostolic Throne (Rome) to receive from you (Pope Leo)
healing for the wounds of the Churches. For it pertains to you to have primacy in all things, for your throne is adorned with many prerogatives.” (Theodoret, Ep. cxiii.)

And …

“For that all holy throne (Rome) has the office of heading the Churches of the whole world.” (Theodoret, EP. cxvi.)

continued. . .

 

[FCEGM]

Sometimes this meant that the Metropolitan/Patriarch who could get Rome on his side would prevail. Eventually this meant that the Eastern Church schismed and Rome was left as the clear authority.

This is quite an a-historical dream, Tom.

Where do I see flaws in what you suggest? Ignatius did not delineate the flaws in the Roman Church when he wrote them because unlike the other cities / city churches to which he wrote, Ignatius had never been to Rome.

Read Ignatius’ Epistles, Tom. He had never been to Ephesus or Smyrna either. This was his first time. He also does not actually set foot in Magnesia, or Tralles, or Philadelphia, but writes to them because they are “in the neighborhood”, part of the Ephesian metropolitanate, over which Ignatius, as Patriarch of Antioch (and so of all of Asia) held authority. Also, just as a side note: If you read his Epistles, you will soon notice that the soldiers are transporting Ignatius to Rome by overland route in the middle of summer! That is, when there would have been no problem traveling by ship, which would of course also have been must faster (e.g. Paul was forced to make the voyage to Rome by ship during the dangerous winter months, which is why he was ship-wrecked along the way). The only reason that the Romans would transport Ignatius through the Asian cities by land at this time of year was to exhibit his captivity to all of the Christian communities along the way as a sobering reminder of what might happen to them.

In other words, the mode of transport at this time of year, proves that Ignatius held the regional primacy (i.e., “We got your leader”), which of course he did, since he was the Patriarch of Antioch. This is also why he teaches the Asian churches. Yet, if “all bishops are equal” and there was no primacy in Rome, why doesn’t Ignatius teach the Romans too? Why, rather, does he write to them referring to how Rome “presides in the chief place” and how …

“You have never envied anyone, you have taught others. Now I desire that those things be confirmed [by your conduct] which in your instructions you enjoin on others. Only request in my behalf both inward and outward strength, that I may not only speak (i.e., teach) , but truly will (i.e., act on our teachings) and that I may not merely be called a Christian but truly be found to be one.” (Ignatius to the Romans, Chap III)

Still Ignatius tells the Roman church that he does not “issue commandments” to them as Peter and Paul do.

Right. Because the bishop of Rome held more authority than he did.

Not because the Roman church is an authority, but because Ignatius is “not an Apostle” like Peter and Paul.

I see. But, Ignatius gives teaching and authoritative instruction to Ephesus, where both the Apostle Paul and the Apostle John (and also Timothy) once presided. He does the same for Smyrna, where the bishop there (St. Polycarp) was a disciple of St. John, having been ordained and made bishop there by John himself. So, what made Rome any different? Face it, Tom, your argument above cannot stand.

continued. . .

 

[FCEGM]

Ignatius still does instruct the Roman church not to interfere with his martyrdom.

That’s a personal request, not an example of teaching. There is nothing in his address to the Romans which is anything remotely like the kind of teaching that he delivers to the Ephesians, and Smyrneans, and Philadelphians, and others. So, why exactly is this??? Indeed, why does NO FATHER ever instuct the Romans in this way? Why is it always exactly the opposite??? Why does the authoritative teaching always come FROM Rome???

Even in the examples you list there are times when others council Rome.

Really?

Cyprian told Rome that authority was required to baptize and that those “dipped” by heretics must be rebaptized.

No, he didn’t. Go read what St. Cyprian actually wrote. At the very most, Cyprian argued that bishops were free to disagree on this matter. He never once directly challenged Rome’s authority on this matter or tried to correct the Roman episcopate. Now, he did complain about the Roman position to others (“behind Rome’s back”). But, he never directly took on the Apostolic See or tried to “save” the Romans from what he personally considered to be an error. Why not?

He maintained in alignment with dozens of bishops at two local councils that this was the tradition. Rome (St. Stephen) appealed to the practice of heretics, claiming that they established tradition and tradition was not what St. Cyprian claimed.

??? I’m sorry, but your sentence above doesn’t make much sense. However, as I said, at those councils, all Cyprian argued for was the local sovereinty of bishop over something which he saw as a matter of local church discipline. Again, go read the primary document more closely. At these Councils of Carthage, the Maurtanian bishops all followed the same custom as Rome and did not re-baptize converts from heretical sects. It was only the Africans and most of the Numidians who disagreed with this custom.

So, all that Cyprian declared (as metropolitan of these regions and so president of the councils) was that “none of us makes himself a bishop of bishops” and that each African, Numidian, and Mauretanian bishop had the right to decide for himself. These decrees of the councils were thereafter sent to Rome for ratification!! But Pope Stephen of course rejected the latter, and this is when Cyprian got really upset and turned to the East for support. He was not, of course, able to enlist the help of the Patriarchs of Alexandria or Antioch, since they agreed with Rome and obeyed Stephen’s ruling; so Cyprian could only get one Eastern bishop, Firmilian of Caesara in Cappadocia (the see which Basil the Great would later preside over) to agree with him.

St. Cyprian never yielded to what he considered to be faulty reasoning.

That we know of. However, what we do know is that the controversy was settled before Cyprian’s martyrdom (probably by Pope Sixtus II), that Cyprian never received the anathema proclaimed by Pope Stephen on anyone who denied the Roman position on re-baptism of heretics. We also know that the African church followed Rome’s position after this time. Indeed, St. Augustine himself (an African) speaks of how Cyprian was in error, which was the long-established belief in Africa, and throughout the rest of the Church, in his day. And this is of course evidence by the fact that neither Catholics nor Eastern Orthodox re-Baptize properly Baptized Christians today when they convert to Catholicism or Eastern Orthoodxy. Rather, we merely Confirm them. This proves that Pope’s Stephen’s ruling was accepted by all; Cyprian was merely a temporary anomaly.

The Saint died with a belief that would be declared anathema during Trent.

Really? Please prove it. What’s your evidence for this? Again, you constantly appeal to silence in support of your claims. That is not very sensible.

continued… .

 

[FCEGM]

As you mentioned Polycarp and others counseled the Roman church on the celebration of Easter. There views prevailed.

“Consulted the Roman church”? No. As I already presented, Polycarp (AT THE AGE OF EIGHTY-FIVE!) made the thousand-mile journey from Smyrna to Rome in order to represent the Asians on the Easter controversy, and to explain to Rome how their Asian tradition was sound and Apostolic - coming from the Apostle John. This is why the Asians, Polycarp argued, could not adopt the Roman practice - the practice of the rest of the Church. In other words, Polycarp was there to present an apologia - a valid excuse which would release him (and all those of Asia Minor) from Roman authority in this Liturgical area. Now, it is true that, in the course of his exchange with Pope Anicetus, Polycarp proposed that Rome should adopt his own Liturgical practice, because it was clearly from John. But, this is a FAR CRY from issuing formal teaching to Rome or presenting oneself as an authority to the Romans, something clearly Polycarp, IF ANYONE, could do, since he was the personal disciple of an Apostle, and no one in Rome at the time could claim to be the same. But, of course, Polycarp does not do this, but makes the journey to Rome and tries (and succeeds) to win Rome over on behalf of his fellow Asians BECAUSE Rome was the primal authority for the universal Church.

Popes taught heretical views that were not accepted,

Did they?? And which “heresies” were these?? And who “did not accept them”?

bringing into question why did folks refuse to receive the counsel of Rome and why was this counsel not always orthodox.

Are you going to cite any specific example??

One of the weaker positions on the council of Nicea is that it was somehow led by the Roman representative (who was not the Bishop of Rome) may Catholic scholars recognize this as merely wishful thinking on the part of Roman primacy advocates. Rome likely had little to do with the first post apostolic Ecumenical Council other than being probably the most important non-attendee.

Non-important? Well, first of all, as with other things, you clearly have not read your Catholic scholars very closely. What they are disputing is not the idea that Roman authority was manifested at Nicaea, but that the Pope was not the initiator of Nicaea (as later ages assumed). Rather, properly and historically understood, Nicaea (and all the first ecumenical councils) were actually political and legal exercises of the imperial Roman state, called for by the Emperors (not by the Popes) in order to “polls the bishops of the Empire” and to see what could be agreed upon in regard to the official position of the Empire’s “state cult” which, as I said, was used as a “glue” to hold the Empire together. This is why the Councils were important to the Empire. However, the Church itself was happy to work within this politcal-legal context in order to clarify its official dogmas; and that is what it did.

Now, as for Roman authority at Nicea, go read Canon 6 of Nicaea and tell me what it means. What it means is that the authority of the Bishop of Alexandria is recognized in the regions of Egypt, Libya, and Pentapolis BECAUSE that is the custom and Tradition of the Bishop of Rome - because the Bishop of Rome, whose universal authority is presumed, recognizes that Alexandria has authority in the Roman imperial provinces of Egypt, Libya, and the Pentapolis (Gaza strip). Alexandria (per Rome’s own Tradition and that of the rest of the Church) also held regional authority in Nubia, Ethiopia, and Arabia, but that is not mentioned by Nicaea because these regions were not part of the Roman Empire, and so not an imperial concern.

What’s more, if you read the signatures of the Acts of the Council of Nicaea, the first two attendees to sign were the Roman PRIESTS Vito and Vicensius, who were the legates / representatives of Pope Sylvester of Rome, who was too old to attend. And their signatures appear BEFORE those of the Patriarchs of Alexandria and Antioch - the two primates in the East --which come immediately after them. What’s more, the president of the Council of Nicaea was the Spanish bishop Osius of Corduba, who was also a legate of the Bishop of Rome, but could not sign the decrees because he acted as president. So, please go back and get your history straight.

continued. . .

 

[FCEGM]

The first thing I wish to state thought is that Newman certainly acknowledges that the authority of the Pope developed.

So do we IN PRACTICE, not in substance or substantial recognition. That is what Newman meant.

Despite the fact that Newman sees evidence for the seeds of this authority more clearly than I do

I’m afraid this is because you are a sloppy historian and do not possess a proper appreciation of the material or its proper context.

it is obvious to both him and me that the authority was not present in any real sense during the first few centuries.

No, this is not what Newman says. You are distorting him and wrenching him out of context.

One thing I believe I neglected to mention last time (perhaps because I became aware of it since then) is that Corinth and Rome were very much sister cities.

Were they? Why weren’t “Antioch and Rome” sister churches then? Or “Philippi and Rome”? Or “Ephesus and Rome”? All these had common associations with Peter and Paul.

In many political ways Corinth leaned upon Rome to a greater extent than most other cities in the world.

This is nonsense. You keep speaking of the “political,” but without basis, since the earliest Christians had no sense of this, but considered themselves to be of a “Kingdom not of this world.” What’s more, Ignatius, who was from Antioch (in Syria), is clearly familiar with Rome’s presidency and its “teaching” and “instructions.” The same is true of Polycarp and Ireneaus, who were from Smyrna in Asia Minor. Indeed, Ireneaus speaks of how all the other churches of the world “must” (and do) “agree” with Rome “because of its preeminent authority.” So, again, your argument above is baseless and footed in your personal fancy, not in the historical evidence.

While there is nothing to demand that Corinth solely appealed to Rome and not to other places, it would certainly be consistent with Corinth’s secular dealings for Corinth to ask Rome for help and advice.

This is pure fantasy, Tom.

In these links I present a number of places were Clement does not express his authority when speaking specifically about authority.

So what? I could do the same with the writings of Pope John Paul or another modern Pope. Your premise is a foolish one.

I mention that two of the places you link to in Clement are questionable concerning authenticity (although I generally accept them).

Tom, in case you do not know, the one and only original copy of 1st Clement that we possess (from which all modern translations are taken) comes from the Eastern Orthodox Patriarch of Constantinople, who presented it as a gift to the Protestant King Charles I of England in the 1600’s. So, why would either of these parties introduce forged “pro-Papal” additions into the text?

I discuss the fact that Clement is appealing to the church to reinstate and recognize its Bishop/leaders not to recognize him as their leader.

Yes, he speaks gently and pastorally, as does St. Paul himself to the Corinthians in several places. Yet, like Paul, he also issues direct commands, as I have already presented. You are ignoring this, however, does not say much for your scholarship. I would also direct you to the exchange between Dionysius of Corinth and Pope Soter, which reveals how the ancient Corinthians received Clement’s teaching and how they unquestionably viewed Clement (and Rome itself) as a “fatherly” authority, not as the “sister church” of your imagination.

Concerning Ignatius I also address him in these links. First, I admit that Ignatius clearly had greater respect for Rome than for other churches.

Why? Again, he too succeeded to Peter’s own place at Antioch, following St. Evodius.

continued. . .

 

[FCEGM]

I might mention that Rome was probably the only place he had not visited and those who could not specifically critique them as he did the other churches.

As I already pointed out, the content of Ignatius’ Epistle to the Romans reveals that he is familiar with them (and especially with their history as a “teacher” to the other churches). He also has people around him who know the Romans and who are known to them, such as Crocus the Ephesian (who he names), as well as representatives from his own Antiochian (Syrian) community, whom he has sent ahead of him to Rome (clearly, with the knowledge of whom they should contact when they get there!). He writes:

“I am sending you this letter from Smyrna through the kindness of the Ephesians, who deserve so much praise. Among many others Crocus is here with me–a dearly beloved name to me! As to the men from Syria who for the glory of God have gone to Rome to meet you there, you have, I trust, made their acquaintance.” (To the Romans, X).

So, Ignatius had much personal knowledge of the Roman church. What’s more, as I said, Ignatius never personally visited Magnesia, or Tralles, or Philadelphia either, yet offers them teaching and instruction - so, why not Rome???

I mention that the translation of Ignatius employed in your quote is far outside the translation used in any other work (that I can find).

The translation that I used is a faithful, descriptive translation of the original Greek.

And again, I show reason to question Ignatius as teaching some type of Bishop or Rome has Peterine authority.

Of course you do. Because if you accepted the obvious truth, you’d have to leave the Mormonism and come back to us; thus, it is no wonder that you provide every excuse you can think of to justify your leaving us.

 

[TOmNossor]

Hello all. I will try to respond to at least a few things and see were I get.

Vidar:

Tertullian as a montanist rejected apostolic succession. As a consequence he denied the authority of ALL Catholic bishops, including the primacy of the bishop of Rome. But succession was not a novel idea that was invented at the time of Tertullian. So novelties introduced into Catholicism does not seem to be a likely explanation for his rejection.

I see nothing in “Catholic Tertullian” that leads me to believe he had problems with apostolic succession. I see him rejecting it after having rejected the Church. He had to, just like logically, you have to believe in the great apostacy in order for your church to be true.

In post #39 I said that Tertullian called the emerging authority of the Bishop of Rome “usurpation,” and I said he did this “(while still fully in communion with the church before becoming a Montanist).” You have refuted a position I did not espouse and an argument I did not make. Tertullian did in fact use the succession of Bishops to suggest that in certain places orthodoxy existed because it could be linked back to the Apostles. Tertullian did in fact become disillusioned with the Catholic “authority” later in his life.
Tertulian:

I now inquire into your opinion, to see whence you usurp this right for the Church. Do you presume, because the Lord said to Peter, ‘On this rock I will build my Church, I have given you the keys of the kingdom of heaven,’ or ‘whatever you shall have bound or loosed on earth will be bound of loosed in heaven,’ that the power of binding and loosing has thereby been handed on to you, that is, to every Church akin to Peter? What kind of man are you, subverting and changing what was the manifest intent of the Lord when He conferred this personally upon Peter? On you, He says, I will build my Church; and I will give you the keys, not to the Church; and whatever you shall have bound or you shall have loosed, not what they shall have bound or they shall have loosed.

Many Catholic apologetic works use this quote from Tertullian in “On Modesty” to show that Peter was prime. To be honest, I think they should show that Peter was prime from the Bible then show apostolic (and or Bishop) succession with Tertullian and others. Then they can use St. Irenaeus to show the emerging primacy of Rome, followed by a number of later statements. I discover Tertullian’s statement while reading Catholic Apologetics: Jesus, Peter, and the Keys. I thought, “Why on earth are they mentioning this. Tertullian is calling the primacy of Rome a usurpation.” The reason they did this was to establish the primacy of Peter, but as a LDS I never disputed this.

Though you did not make this claim, you implied it. At this link the Catholic encyclopedia will split Tertullian’s writings into three periods. It will explain that “On Modesty” was written while Tertullian was Catholic before even “distinct evidence of Montanist opinions” entered his writing. Next was his Catholic time with Montantist leanings, then finally his Montanist writings.

Vidar:

This does’nt mean that a prior belief in apostacy moved you to research the LDS church. Most mormon converts I know accept the truth of the great apostacy as a result of first accepting mormonism.

This is true for me and I suspect most LDS. I could not explain the restoration away. The BOM and some of ideas of the CoJCoLDS stood up as something that I felt and still feel defies natural explanation. I once said I can only see the apostasy from the restoration, but as I studied I saw the apostasy from history too.

One should note as I read Newman I saw the EXACT same thing. He KNEW that there was no apostasy and had to find which church contained God’s teaching and authority. He never once to my knowledge addressed the possibility that both the Catholic Church and all of her Protestant children were wrong (interestingly enough he was aware of the CoJCoLDS and on one occasion spoke favorably of us, but I see no evidence that he actually considered our message).

cont…

 

[TOmNossor]

In my posts on this thread, I am telling you that your position is not as you advocate for it. The best the Catholic can do in my mind is advocate that the primacy of Rome developed. This will place us in a position where we can discuss the merits of my interpretation of history “this development was usurpation” and Newman’s interpretation of history “this development was necessary and a product of the deposit of the faith.” I do not think either of us can prove “beyond a shadow of a doubt” that either of our concepts of this development are right.

On development within the CoJCoLDS:

The prophet who can receive continuing revelation must be more free to develop ideas than the Pope or Councils who cannot. The majority of Joseph Smith’s revelation were not written down by him. It was a regular practice to review what was written. David Whitmer is an interesting WITNESS for you to hang your hat upon. David Whitmer (like Newman was accused to be) seemed to retain his Protestant leanings as a LDS. He would have me embrace the BOM, but no authority structure within Christ’s church. I cannot do this.

I grant you your interpretation of the First Vision presentations that occurred during Joseph’s life. I disagree with it. The first vision was originally about placing Joseph right with God (forgiving sins) in Joseph’s mind. Only later as so many amazing things occurred in his life did it become about his initial call to prophethood. My position is that different aspects of the vision were emphasized as time went on, the canonized version being the version sealed with authority. But I would not suggest your interpretation is ridiculous (just as I do not suggest Newman’s interpretation is ridiculous).

Vidar:

I don’t see it in terms of an answer to a problem, but as an observation of a fact. Our understanding of the meaning of revelation develops as time passes. The only real question is: Was the development guided by the Holy Spirit or not? Jesus said he would be with his apostles 'till the end of time.

How you can believe that is more reasonable to cut and paste ideas in and out of old revelations who were supposedly dictated by God, than for doctrine to develop organically in the mind of the Church under the influence of the Holy Spirit, is beyond me.

To me it is quite simple. In the Old Testament the church leaders received supernatural public revelation. In the New Testament the church leaders received supernatural public revelation. In the Newman Testament the church leaders can only mold the deposit of faith through guidance from the Holy Spirit. There will be no supernatural public revelation. There will only be a preserving of the deposit of faith. This CHANGE despite the fact that the Pope’s authority is currently (though not always) linked to Peter who received supernatural public revelation. (While I acknowledge the usurpation of the Bishop of Rome is never linked to Tertullian’s departure to the Montanists, the absence of revelation is in fact the reason Tertullian gives).

In the Restoration Testament the church leaders once again receive supernatural public revelation. To me the successor of Peter should be the man who exercises the Peterine authority (really Christ’s authority), the same authority in the Old Testament.

Were the above argument all that we judged our churches upon, it would be you who was “beyond me” in this discussion, but things are much more complex than weighing the anti-Mormon presentation of Joseph Smith against the Catholic presentation of Papal authority or the apostate-advocates presentation of Papal authority against the CoJCoLDS presentation of restoration authority. When we measure best to best, I do not think either of us come out as “beyond me.” (more on this with Honeybear)

Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

Honeybear,

You have posted a great volume in response to me and Tmaque. I think Tmaque does a service to the Catholic Church (and is being nice to me) when he asks that you tone down the components of your post that do not add to the discussion. The truth is that you will not offend me (well hopefully not, not yet, and you will never know if you succeed ), but I think people make religious decisions much less frequently on reason than on emotion. As I see your tactics you are relying on emotion primarily, but in a subtle way. I see you thinking, “Be bold; fire horrible sounding semi-truths at Mormons; tell them they are damned; get them to start using their brain.” This is primarily an emotional appeal.

There are two problems with this. First, appealing to emotions is a tricky business. I think you are more likely to offend LDS with the way you approach this. “Honeybear says Joseph Smith was involved in money digging, but what a caustic and unkind individual Honeybear presents her/himself to be. I don’t know much about money digging, but anti-Mormons are ugly folks who lie about the church. I better stay away from Honeybear.” In addition to this, a non-Mormon and a non-Catholic could observe the frequent kindness and innocence (not the mechanical-ness of me) and compare this to what they see from you. They do not feel attacked because they are not LDS, but they do see difference in the way you interact.

Second, Catholics doctrinally as I understand it are moral absolutists. No evil act is permissible even when it is done to prevent a greater evil. This means that if your words are unkind or inappropriate you are not excused from this sin just because you might save some wayward LDS. You seem to be suggesting that your words are not unkind or inappropriate because the spirit and message behind them (and of course words are merely messengers for this spirit and message) is whole good. This is a narrow line you walk and it still does not deal with the perceptions of those you address and those who are bystanders.

I guess I am suggesting that there is a better way than the one you have chosen. Were I here trying to create LDS from Catholics, I would gladly egg on your comments, but I have said that primarily I want a fair presentation of the CoJCoLDS. You do not provide this and I want to influence you to change.

You have shot-gunned a number of accusations at the CoJCoLDS. Nothing you have mentioned is something that I have not seen before. All arguments criticizing the CoJCoLDS that I have discovered have been addressed. At worst the damage is mitigated, at best the arguments become evidence of the truth of the CoJCoLDS.

honeybear:
And yet, bless your heart, you still believe you are more educated and intelligent than every Catholic on the board.

Actually, this is quite untrue. Based on your shotgun list of LDS beliefs and characteristics, I believe I am more educated than you on things LDS. In fact, I think I am more educated on things LDS than most Catholics. I am after all LDS.

But as I have regularly said, there is a Catholic on this board who is both more intelligent and educated than I am. He knows more about the CoJCoLDS than I do. He knows more about the Catholic Church than I do. And he is quite brilliant. He is also Catholic.

So you are mistaken I do not think this.

cont…

 

[TOmNossor]

I feel I should share couple of things here.

First concerning this Catholic who knows more about my church and his than I know. What would happen if he became a LDS? Believing as I do that the CoJCoLDS is the highest paradigm through which we can progress towards God the fastest, I must believe that in a certain sense this would be good for him. (For an explanation of what I mean by this see my post(s) here: http://www.fairboards.org/index.php?showtopic=8450&st=0 ). But on that day Satan would see greater opportunity to attack me. I try very hard to both be and appear humble (and I surely fail in reality and in presentation – but how humble of me to admit it ), but I know I struggle with thinking that surely I have truly tried to find God both intellectually and spiritually. Sometimes I wonder why everyone cannot see as clearly as I do the apostasy and the miracles of the restoration. But thankfully there are those who have truly sought answers and come to different conclusions than I have. The world is far more complex because of this, but faith would be much less important if this were not so.

From this past Thurs to Sunday if the Catholic Church is God’s church, my ignorance or willful rebellion has become significantly more invincible or convinced than it has been previously. On Sunday I soared with God during the third hour of church. I attended Catholic Mass and was with my Christian brothers and sisters who I know as Catholics can soar with God too. I then went to a Christian music concert at the local Baptist Church and I saw some of my Christian brothers and sisters lifted out of their chairs by the Spirit of God. That being said, on Thurs and Saturday (Fri was a good day too) my mind moved closer to the CoJCoLDS and on Sun my heart caught up.

My message to all of my Christian brothers and sister, LDS, Catholic, and Protestant is, “Be not unbelieving, but believe.” I am very happy to be a LDS and feel that this message is something that I can share without reservation. If you feel you are seeking I KNOW my way has much to offer, but if you soar with God as a Catholic and are not called to look for something else I still say, “Be not unbelieving, but believe.”

Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

catholic-rcia:
“Baptism of Desire evolved”

From the Thief on the Cross

Very Christ, Very Catholic

When did the Church start this doctrine of baptism of desire?

Did not the thief desire to be with Christ? Did not Christ bring him into the fold?

The Bible is certainly one of the sources of Catholic doctrine, but the message from the Bible you share must be aligned with other things in the Bible. The Bible seems to demand Baptism. The early church emphasized this requirement in many instances at the exclusion of explaining what Christ meant as he spoke to the thief on the cross. Your religion did develop and the authoritative interpretation of the Bible is not exception.

I think these three quotes from Augustine should demonstrate what I mean. Augustine’s personal beliefs developed over his life and it is hard to determine when he is contradicting himself and when we do not understand perfectly what he is saying, but despite these quotes contradicting each other, they do witness (both for and against) the earliest form of Baptism of Desire. That is the form that could easily be said to be “for want of time.”

Originally in the mind of Catholics Baptism of Desire only applied to those who had expressed a desire to become baptized Catholics. These catechumens might die before a priest (because they usually waited for an actual priest) could baptize them (or the might die during their instruction in the faith.

Here is Augustine:

"On considering which, again and again, I find that not only martyrdom for the sake of Christ may supply what was wanting of baptism, but also faith and conversion of heart, if recourse may not be had to the celebration of the mystery of baptism for want of time. (BOOK IV, Chapter 22, De baptismo contra Donatistas)

“How many rascals are saved by being baptized on their deathbeds? And how many sincere catechumens die unbaptized and are lost forever!” (Augustine the Bishop, Van Der Meer, p.150)

“No matter what progress a catechumen may make, he still carries the burden of iniquity, and it is not taken away until he has been baptized.” (*On the Gospel of *St. John, Chapter 13, Tract 7)

The above comes from my SSPX Catholic friends. Many of whom believe in Baptism of Desire, but some of whom reject it outright because it is definitely a developed understanding.

Charity, TOm

%between%

 

[majick275]

"Why would I ever leave the Catholic Church which was founded by Jesus Christ and received apostolic authority directly from Him and the Apostles?”

My answer to this is that if you have faith that the above is true then you would not leave. Better yet, if you KNOW the presence of Christ exists in the Eucharist how could you leave? Of course you asked the question and I will try to provide an answer.

So many Catholic treatments of the early church seem to be entirely too confident that the evidence points to just one conclusion. This is just not the case. Whose position is stronger we can certainly debate, but the premise of Mr. Staples article seems to deny faith. The evidence suggests to me, “to be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant.” But I have too much respect for some of our Protestant brother and sisters to not recognize that somehow some of them are both intelligent, informed, and Protestant. Perhaps you and Mr. Staples do not have such respect for Protestants or LDS.

When I read St. Clement of Rome, St, Ignatius, and St. Polycarp; it was quite clear to me that none of them had a clue that St. Clement (or the Bishop of Rome) was Pope. Cardinal Newman’s essay On the Development of Christian Doctrine salvaged for me the possibility that the Catholic Church was God’s church such that I could not say, “To be deep in history is to be a LDS.” But I submit to you that Newman knows much more about history than is evidence in the majority of Catholic who seem to say, “To be deep in history is to be a Catholic.”

To me history clearly teaches that the Bishops were ordained by the Apostles. The Bishops existed side by side with the Apostles in the early church. Then there were no Apostles and no evidence of some central authority. Either divine development (Newman) filled the void by elevating those who occupied an office that they had no idea was prime to the knowledge that they were prime. Or good humans usurped the Peterine authority to become the singular leader of Christ’s Church. Both of these positions can be supported.

Anyway, yes I can refute that and I would enjoy it if Tim Staples knocked on my door. I suspect he, like all of us myself included, sees history, doctrine, and everything through his own lens. Before we get too bold and question the intelligence or reason or worse integrity of those who disagree with us, perhaps we should take inventory of our own prejudices.

His ideas are refutable and have been addressed many times. That a 19 year old missionary did not undercut Mr. Staples at step one does not mean that Mr. Staples made his case.

Charity, TOm

This thread seems to be wandering off into a discussion of the papacy so I hope to bring it back to its origin.

Tom, I don’t see where you get the “great apostacy” out of this. From your post I see the Apostles all dying off leaving Bishops who had been properly ordained by valid authority. (surely you don’t dispute that?) For LDS style apostacy to occur wouldn’t this require all of these bishops (or all of their properly ordained successors) to defy God and turn from the truth? Where do you find evidence of this global apostasy?

I realize that you can point to certain individuals as having fallen away but then the same can be said for the early leaders of the LDS “restoration”. Where do you find any type of credible evidence for ALL of the properly ordained priesthood holders on the earth to have become apostate?

All I see is the word of Joseph Smith…in which case we first have to ask if he was acting as a prophet when he said that. (and if so how would we know?) and that is only if we believe that he was called of God to begin with. (His own words and deeds present some degree of difficulty in this.)

 

[Vidar]

The prophet who can receive continuing revelation must be more free to develop ideas than the Pope or Councils who cannot. (…) David Whitmer is an interesting WITNESS for you to hang your hat upon. David Whitmer (like Newman was accused to be) seemed to retain his Protestant leanings as a LDS. He would have me embrace the BOM, but no authority structure within Christ’s church. I cannot do this.

You brush over these issues, like most mormon apologists do. This is why I am unimpressed with FARMS reviews of anti mormon litterature and with your answers to these serious issues. I have not disputed, and do not dispute that doctrine can develop in mormonism, and that new doctrines could be revealed that were not in the past.

My problem is that the revelations of the Book of Commandments were rewritten in such a way that they contradicted the previous versions of the same revelation. And they were made to include historical events (such as the ordination of Joseph Smith to the high priesthood) that were unheard of previously. But the date of the revelation is not changed (It should read "original 1830. updated 1835).

I do not need David Whitmer to tell me this, I have my own copy of the BOC, but I think he’s a nice counterexample to Tertullian. I am not telling you to embrace his view, just like you are not telling me to become a montanist.

What I would like from LDS apologists is to deal seriously with cristiscism. A classic example would be Jerald and Sandra Tanner’s “Mormonism - Shadow or Reality”, which you have compared to Loraine Boettner’s work, “Roman Catholicism”.

There are faults in the Mormonism (like in every other book), and the authors are biased (just like Roper, Tvedtnes and the rest of the FARMS scholars are). What mormon apologists do is attack the authors, looking for any minor fault they can find while not dealing with the really faith damaging facts that are brought up. Mormonism has absolutely devastated the faith of all (now former) mormons I know who have read it, and FARMS apologetics has not been able to salvage their faith, because their reviews are FAR to shallow, and to the extent that they deal with evidence they rationalize it.

“What if… then perhaps… which COULD mean… and then there MAY not be a problem, and we know there is no problem because we feel a burning in the bosom”

The faith building story they have been told by the missionaries is a fairy tale.

I have a hard time with family members who are LDS who simply refuse to believe that Smith rewrote his revelations. They believe the evidence is forged. Why? They would agree with David Whitmer’s statement:

Is it possible that the minds of men can be so blinded as to believe that God would give these revelations–command them to print them in His Book of Commandments–and then afterwards command them to change and add to them some words which change the meaning entirely? As if God had changed his mind entirely after giving his word? Is it possible that a man who pretends to any spirituality would believe that God would work in any such manner?

To my relatives, the answer is no. Therefore, my photoreprint of BOC, is forged. That is what they believe. And of course, they will not read what David Whitmer wrote. And if they did, they would say he is lying.

They also refuse to believe that Smith’s egyptian alphabet and grammar is for real. Why? If it is real, it proves to them that the Book of Abraham is a forgery.

They refuse to believe that the manuscripts where Smith has crossed out names of apostates from heavenly visions and replaced them with new faithful names are genuine.

Why? Well why would he see the apostates in heaven in the first place?? If a catholic who claimed to have apparitions from Mary did this, the Church would reject it as spurious.

They believe the “nasty anti mormons” have made all of this up. They know that if Smith did this, he is a fraud.

Therefore I would welcome any serious effort from FARMS or FAIR to refute *Mormonism. *Because in attempting to do so, they would have to admit a host of facts that most mormons know nothing about, and which would utterly shatter their faith.

But I doubt FARMS will do so. So the safer road is giving mormons a vague idea of how “unreliable” the work is, how the authors take quotes out of context, how poor the typesetting is “Don’t trust anything you read in the work”. That is the approach you are taking.

Ignorance is what is keeping mormonism alive. How I would love for the LDS Church to officially state that the book of mormon took place in a limited setting in mesoamerica. How I would love for them to say that Smith did not find the gold plates in the hill Cumorah, because it is somewhere in latin america. They dare not, even though mormon apologists know it is the only straw they can grasp at to save the book of mormon.

Vidar

 

[Vidar]

TOmNossor:

In my posts on this thread, I am telling you that your position is not as you advocate for it. The best the Catholic can do in my mind is advocate that the primacy of Rome developed. This will place us in a position where we can discuss the merits of my interpretation of history “this development was usurpation” and Newman’s interpretation of history “this development was necessary and a product of the deposit of the faith.” I do not think either of us can prove “beyond a shadow of a doubt” that either of our concepts of this development are right.

On development within the CoJCoLDS:

The prophet who can receive continuing revelation must be more free to develop ideas than the Pope or Councils who cannot. The majority of Joseph Smith’s revelation were not written down by him. It was a regular practice to review what was written. David Whitmer is an interesting WITNESS for you to hang your hat upon. David Whitmer (like Newman was accused to be) seemed to retain his Protestant leanings as a LDS. He would have me embrace the BOM, but no authority structure within Christ’s church. I cannot do this.

I grant you your interpretation of the First Vision presentations that occurred during Joseph’s life. I disagree with it. The first vision was originally about placing Joseph right with God (forgiving sins) in Joseph’s mind. Only later as so many amazing things occurred in his life did it become about his initial call to prophethood. My position is that different aspects of the vision were emphasized as time went on, the canonized version being the version sealed with authority. But I would not suggest your interpretation is ridiculous (just as I do not suggest Newman’s interpretation is ridiculous).

To me it is quite simple. In the Old Testament the church leaders received supernatural public revelation. In the New Testament the church leaders received supernatural public revelation. In the Newman Testament the church leaders can only mold the deposit of faith through guidance from the Holy Spirit. There will be no supernatural public revelation. There will only be a preserving of the deposit of faith. This CHANGE despite the fact that the Pope’s authority is currently (though not always) linked to Peter who received supernatural public revelation. (While I acknowledge the usurpation of the Bishop of Rome is never linked to Tertullian’s departure to the Montanists, the absence of revelation is in fact the reason Tertullian gives).

In the Restoration Testament the church leaders once again receive supernatural public revelation. To me the successor of Peter should be the man who exercises the Peterine authority (really Christ’s authority), the same authority in the Old Testament.

Were the above argument all that we judged our churches upon, it would be you who was “beyond me” in this discussion, but things are much more complex than weighing the anti-Mormon presentation of Joseph Smith against the Catholic presentation of Papal authority or the apostate-advocates presentation of Papal authority against the CoJCoLDS presentation of restoration authority. When we measure best to best, I do not think either of us come out as “beyond me.” (more on this with Honeybear)

Charity, TOm

Picture this: Jesus Christ writes down a vision he had. He sees heaven, and in it he sees all his twelve apostles in heaven with him. Later Judas betrays Jesus. He has not yet published the revelation, so he crosses over the name Judas and replaces with the name of someone who is still faithful to him. When it is published, everything looks fine. Then you find the original manuscript and see what he has done. Would you believe he actually saw who would be in heaven?

Can you give me ANY example of ANY prophet in the Old Testament who rewrote revelations dictated by God by interpolating new words, deleting others in such a way that God in the original revelation and God in the edited revelation is contradicting himself? Is there ANY reason to believe that such a revelation is supernatural?

Vidar

 

[mormon_fool]

Vidar:

What I would like from LDS apologists is to deal seriously with cristiscism. A classic example would be Jerald and Sandra Tanner’s “Mormonism - Shadow or Reality”, which you have compared to Loraine Boettner’s work, “Roman Catholicism”.

There are faults in the Mormonism (like in every other book), and the authors are biased (just like Roper, Tvedtnes and the rest of the FARMS scholars are). What mormon apologists do is attack the authors, looking for any minor fault they can find while not dealing with the really faith damaging facts that are brought up. Mormonism has absolutely devastated the faith of all (now former) mormons I know who have read it, and FARMS apologetics has not been able to salvage their faith, because their reviews are FAR to shallow, and to the extent that they deal with evidence they rationalize it.

I can understand your frustration that FARMS doesn’t offer a line by line refution of the Tanner’s work. I can see where some one who reads the whole book and is introduced to many new ideas at once might feel the FARMS responses are underwhelming.

I think that there are better treatments on just about any given subject on both sides of the Mormon question, than what the Tanners offer. We can credit the Tanner’s with some ground breaking examinations, but now they are getting a little dated. I would hope that some of these better treatments get sought after, before one gives up the faith or pronounces victory.

I look at mormonism through rose colored glasses, so I tend to agree with evangelist scholars Mosser & Owen that mormon critics are “losing the battle and not knowing it”. This might not be readily aparent to the neophyte Tanner reader though.

later,
fool

 

[mormon_fool]

Vidar:

Can you give me ANY example of ANY prophet in the Old Testament who rewrote revelations dictated by God by interpolating new words, deleting others in such a way that God in the original revelation and God in the edited revelation is contradicting himself? Is there ANY reason to believe that such a revelation is supernatural?
Vidar

I will give you not so much an example as I will a case of how a catholic apologist might handle such an objection.