Why the Great Apostasy was never possible: a scenario

[mormon_fool]

Vidar:

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?

I personally wouldn’t be bothered by this. We know from the scriptures that Judas’s place was given to another.

“May another take his place of leadership.” Acts 1:20

All future blessings are predicated by the righteousness of the person. Revelations can’t take away someones agency. In your example, I would be more bothered by an inflexible revelation. A footnote isn’t needed to indicate some kind of change. Those interested in how revelation goes from initial reception to canonization can always review the transition documents, if they exist. In my studies revelation happens line upon line, precept upon precept (I think that is in Isaiah somewhere), The end product as developed by the prophet and consented to by church members is what is binding and important to me.

 

[mormon_fool]

Vidar:

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?

I personally wouldn’t be bothered by this. We know from the scriptures that Judas’s place was given to another.

“May another take his place of leadership.” Acts 1:20

All future blessings are predicated by the righteousness of the person. Revelations can’t take away someones agency. In your example, I would be more bothered by an inflexible revelation. A footnote isn’t needed to indicate some kind of change. Those interested in how revelation goes from initial reception to canonization can always review the transition documents, if they exist. In my studies revelation happens line upon line, precept upon precept (I think that is in Isaiah somewhere), The end product as developed by the prophet and consented to by church members is what is binding and important to me.

 

[majick275]

I would hardly classify the Judas as example as being simialr to JS changes.

Your scripture reference leads to a more sure belief in apostolic succession. (catholic style)

I challenge the “consented to by church members” part. Ever seen anyone oppose anything brought before the members for “common consent” ? They’ll be taken immediately to an office so that they repent of their apostasy. …as to the “end product developed by the prophet” … if these were truly revelations from God to his prophet…how much “development” would be needed? and we have numerous cases of an “end product” that had been affirmed by the members being changed at a later time. There is much confusion over what is “practiced”, doctrine but not practiced, not doctrine but good teaching, not doctrine bad teaching, false doctrine, prophecy and opinion within LDS history and even today. Spencer Kimball admits a lack of understanding on the Temple ceremony, Gordon Hinkley admits to a lack of understanding on the nature of God even though JS, BY and even as recently as Joseph Fielding Smith preach, teach, expound and exhort on these same subjects.

With so many “mormons” (including prominent leaders) from the earliest days of the “restoration” claiming that they had been told by God that various mormon leaders were wrong and to come join their reformation groups…it would appear that this “great apostasy” was most prominent in the LDS faith.

I invite you to return to the church that Jesus founded, that the gates of hell did not prevail against. (sorry about the soapbox…I respectfully apologize if this sounds offensive)

 

[mormon_fool]

majick275:

I would hardly classify the Judas as example as being simialr to JS changes.

But Vidar did. He has a specific change made to the Doctrine and Covenants in mind and constructed a hypothetical example that matched it for the NT.

Your scripture reference leads to a more sure belief in apostolic succession. (catholic style)

I sure you are aware that LDS also use it as a proof text that the twelve apostles were supposed to continue as a living body rather than having their authority usurped by those in lesser “leadership” “places”. With that said I can see your use of the scripture as a reasonable alternative for one who doesn’t see the transfer of apostolic perogatives to bishops as an usurption (just a development!).

I challenge the “consented to by church members” part. Ever seen anyone oppose anything brought before the members for “common consent” ?

I can’t really comprehend why you want to challenge me on this. Even if common consent is just a rubber stamp, it is still important as a defining moment in the canonization process. It is where members of the LDS church make a particular end product of revelation binding. That is why I brought it up. And I have had some good discussion on the history and role of common consent already on this board: here in posts 118 and 125. here in posts 271, 281 and 282 (TomN).

as to the “end product developed by the prophet” … if these were truly revelations from God to his prophet…how much “development” would be needed?

I can understand your concern about God not getting it right the first time. However revelation is a two-way communication and the human element has a learning curve.

and we have numerous cases of an “end product” that had been affirmed by the members being changed at a later time.

Hence the beauty of an open cannon and a consent process where members know just what scripture they are accountable for at any given time.

There is much confusion over what is “practiced”, doctrine but not practiced, not doctrine but good teaching, not doctrine bad teaching, false doctrine, prophecy and opinion within LDS history and even today.

If you are saying there is a spectrum of doctrinal authority behind any given teaching past or present then I quite agree. I doubt highly that members of the LDS church are really confused about the primary truths of the gospel, while at the same time appreciate the open-ness and freedom to form their own conclusions about secondary matters.

…it would appear that this “great apostasy” was most prominent in the LDS faith.

Good point. The history of the LDS church gives a great model for trying to understand ancient apostasies. Noel B. Reynolds makes exactly this point in one of his essays in “Early Christians in Disarray”.

I invite you to return to the church that Jesus founded, that the gates of hell did not prevail against. (sorry about the soapbox…I respectfully apologize if this sounds offensive)

I appreciate the invitation. If I agreed with you on the identity of said church I would humbly and graciously accept it.

later,
fool

 

[majick275]

Good post. I understand that you were repsonding to Vidar on Judas. I just don’t think it applies and so perhaps he should have used another.

I don’t see scriptural evidence that the 12 Apostles needed to exist as a specific unit for all time. I don’t see Bishops usurping their authority either. I see it as a situation where Jesus called the Apostles to establish his Church and once that was done it could be properly governed by the Bishops who had been called by said Apostles. If you want to call this a development okay but I don’t see a doctrinal shift on the order that we discussed earlier.

Let me explain my problem with the common consent issue: I see it as an irrelevant point in the process since once the “prophet” declares it as revelation the members must accept it or (by definition) be apostate.(LDS history shows this to result in swift action)

I fail to see/understand how the learning curve applies to the writing down of the Lord’s will. I agree that it absolutely appplies to our ability to understand and apply it. I just have a higher standard for a prophet writing down what the Lord allegedly told him to write. (especially when, in the case of the BoM, we are told that he saw the words, dictated them to the scribe, asked for a readback and corrected where needed)

I will still contend that is confusion versus a “spectrum of authority”. I also believe that is actually on the more important issues rather than the secondary. Consider if you will the variety of beliefs within your church on just what the new and everlasting covenant of marriage means. This is said within the canon to be essential to exaltation, hardly secondary. you can go on down that path in another thread but I would also remind you of the Temple ceremony. Once again, essential to exaltation. There is little established doctrine on this even within the saqnctity of the temple itself. Members are left to their own intepretation of what most of the ceremony means. Try asking if diet coke is against the word of wisdom…that will always get you a plethora of opinions. Is Adam God? then what was BY thinking when he said that ? Something as fundamental as “what is exaltation?” causes confusion. Who is the Holy Ghost? why doesn’t need a body? Will everyone in the Celestial kingdom be in a polygamous marriage? These aren’t irrelevant issues but speak to the very nature of religion. Who is God? What would he have me do? Why? What am I preparing for? An open canon means you have no dependable answers…previous prophetic answers can be denounced, so why would present ones be binding? Do what the “brethren” say right now is a little shaky to me. It wasn’t that long ago that Bruce Mconkie (one of “the brethren”) wrote Mormon Doctrine and then had to print different versions and even got reprimanded on some items because doctrine changed. Orson Pratt went throught the same thing even though he had been commissioned by the “prophet” to write the doctrine. I concede that many LDS enjoy this as it leaves them significant leeway to develop their own doctrine on many issues. (My Mother is an absolute feminazi, yet is also a templeworker and sees absolutely no dichotomy in that)

I respect your faith even though I think it misplaced. Hopefully we can both increase in wisdom from our discussions.(not that we are “fools” now, just that I find this a learning experience)

 

[mormon_fool]

Thanks for your continued insight. You write:

majick275:

Let me explain my problem with the common consent issue: I see it as an irrelevant point in the process since once the “prophet” declares it as revelation the members must accept it or (by definition) be apostate.(LDS history shows this to result in swift action)

With your complaints about “confusion” I think common consent is very relevant. It means that Latter-day Saints have a well defined top of the doctrinal spectrum. They know what beliefs are binding on them.

I disagree that members who refuse to recognize the church canon (which includes a sub-set of what can be termed revelations from a prophet) are swiftly dealt with. There are ways of dealing (or not dealign) with such dissent that doesn’t involve excommunication which usually only happens in extreme situations. Common consent means more than just the official sustaining vote. It also plays out in the day-to-day choices of individual discipleship. The prophets (and God!) are not blind to how well the membership are accepting or will accept a revelation. There is an informal feedback dynamic that definitely influences the revelations God sees fit to dispense. I outlined some historical implications in my earlier link.

I fail to see/understand how the learning curve applies to the writing down of the Lord’s will.

You mean the “line upon line, precept upon precept” doesn’t help? Or Paul’s we “see through a glass darkly” characterization can’t be applied to our limitations to receiving revelation? Perhaps where we differ is that you grant God less flexibility for dumbing down his revelations to where his listeners can understand it.

I agree that it absolutely appplies to our ability to understand and apply it. I just have a higher standard for a prophet writing down what the Lord allegedly told him to write. (especially when, in the case of the BoM, we are told that he saw the words, dictated them to the scribe, asked for a readback and corrected where needed)

From the scriptures especially D&C 9:8-9 we know part of the translation process was Joseph studying it out in his mind and then praying for confirmation. The words he saw weren’t just given to him, they represent Joseph’s best effort to phrase the concepts he was discovering. His translation aids merely helped lock in place an approved text once it was arrived at. The text isn’t perfect, but it good enough. The manuscripts show that corrections through readbacks were not consistently done.

I think you are right that a higher standard needs to applied to the BoM translation. That higher standard is exercising charity to overlook the inadvertent faults of men who are putting on their best efforts to witness for Christ.

Consider if you will the variety of beliefs within your church on just what the new and everlasting covenant of marriage means.

This has been well defined by the First Presidency, although admittedy in the past this might have confused some (and perhaps some now that missed the memo). The rest of your list appears to me to be “secondary”. Although to be fair to you, I have seen where people have gotten worked up about these issues.

I concede that many LDS enjoy this as it leaves them significant leeway to develop their own doctrine on many issues.

Indeed, but I have a problem with elevating some non-binding idea that I am free to explore to the status of “doctrine.” I can see where church members might want more resolution on some of these open ended questions. They can prayerfully seek out answers for themselves. And if they are into research a great deal has been written about these things.

later,
fool

 

[majick275]

mormon fool:

Thanks for your continued insight. You write:

With your complaints about “confusion” I think common consent is very relevant. It means that Latter-day Saints have a well defined top of the doctrinal spectrum. They know what beliefs are binding on them.

Hmmm… I just don’t see it as well defined. Gospel Doctrine classes (at least ones where folks participate) seem to indicate a lack of uniform understanding on many principles. I think that the only areas of understood “binding” doctrine are relatively mundane. (tithing, no alcohol/drugs, no pre/extra- marital sex, study scripture, pray, family home evening, fast sunday) chastity is admittedly major but the rest is kind of secondary.

I disagree that members who refuse to recognize the church canon (which includes a sub-set of what can be termed revelations from a prophet) are swiftly dealt with. There are ways of dealing (or not dealign) with such dissent that doesn’t involve excommunication which usually only happens in extreme situations. Common consent means more than just the official sustaining vote. It also plays out in the day-to-day choices of individual discipleship. The prophets (and God!) are not blind to how well the membership are accepting or will accept a revelation. There is an informal feedback dynamic that definitely influences the revelations God sees fit to dispense. I outlined some historical implications in my earlier link.

I didn’t claim instant ex , I just said quick action. oppose something when called for in sacrament and you will be in front of a church leader in minutes. “when the prophet has spoken, the thinking has been done.” the members potential acceptance of revelation is irrelevant. God speaks, we listen. God is no respecter of persons, etc.

You mean the “line upon line, precept upon precept” doesn’t help? Or Paul’s we “see through a glass darkly” characterization can’t be applied to our limitations to receiving revelation? Perhaps where we differ is that you grant God less flexibility for dumbing down his revelations to where his listeners can understand it.

No I am refering to revelations that are later contradicted by other revelations or the meaning is completely changed by later revision.

From the scriptures especially D&C 9:8-9 we know part of the translation process was Joseph studying it out in his mind and then praying for confirmation. The words he saw weren’t just given to him, they represent Joseph’s best effort to phrase the concepts he was discovering. His translation aids merely helped lock in place an approved text once it was arrived at. The text isn’t perfect, but it good enough. The manuscripts show that corrections through readbacks were not consistently done.

I think there is room for multiple versions of the “process” (urin\m/thummin, seer stone, words as if on a parchment, concepts) but I will admit to being skeptical about all of them as JS was usually hidden by a sheet from the scribe (who wasn’t exactly impartial either) thus making it difficult to know just what really happened.

I think you are right that a higher standard needs to applied to the BoM translation. That higher standard is exercising charity to overlook the inadvertent faults of men who are putting on their best efforts to witness for Christ.

I will refrain from expressing my thoughts about JS and this in the interest of civility.

This has been well defined by the First Presidency, although admittedy in the past this might have confused some (and perhaps some now that missed the memo). The rest of your list appears to me to be “secondary”. Although to be fair to you, I have seen where people have gotten worked up about these issues.

I disagree. Temple matrons/presidents, sealers, bishops have in my experience all indicated a number of ideas here with the only constant that these marriages are potentially eternal. This ties into eternal progression and thus etrnal increase and we then end up with a plethora of ideas that few (if any) seem willing to expound as “binding doctrine”

Indeed, but I have a problem with elevating some non-binding idea that I am free to explore to the status of “doctrine.” I can see where church members might want more resolution on some of these open ended questions. They can prayerfully seek out answers for themselves. And if they are into research a great deal has been written about these things.

Yeah and therein lies the problem. Which writings are helpful/faith promoting/doctrinally sound? how do you know? A review of Pauls letters in the new testament will show the potential problems of this. With a lay ministry, volunteer teachers for SS, seminary, etc. (all of whom are free to explore) it sure looks like a recipe for chaos.

later,
fool

Peace be with you

 

[mormon_fool]

fool: (old)With your complaints about “confusion” I think common consent is very relevant. It means that Latter-day Saints have a well defined top of the doctrinal spectrum. They know what beliefs are binding on them.

Hmmm… I just don’t see it as well defined.

I am referring to the standard works of the church. Every member of church knows what texts these are. I don’t know how more well defined things get.

Gospel Doctrine classes (at least ones where folks participate) seem to indicate a lack of uniform understanding on many principles. I think that the only areas of understood “binding” doctrine are relatively mundane. (tithing, no alcohol/drugs, no pre/extra- marital sex, study scripture, pray, family home evening, fast sunday) chastity is admittedly major but the rest is kind of secondary.

This list is woefully in-adequate in regards to primary doctrines that are uniformally agreed upon in the LDS church.

I didn’t claim instant ex , I just said quick action. oppose something when called for in sacrament and you will be in front of a church leader in minutes. “when the prophet has spoken, the thinking has been done.” the members potential acceptance of revelation is irrelevant. God speaks, we listen. God is no respecter of persons, etc.

Thanks for the clarification. I was reacting to you throwing out the word “apostate” (I don’t recall the exact variant). A person declining consent is welcome to consult with the authorities and have their objections duly and compassionately noted. Your quote doesn’t reflect the thinking of Heber J. Grant, the prophet at the time an over-enthusiastic magazine editor that wrote it. The only time I encounter it is from critics.

I think there is room for multiple versions of the “process” (urin\m/thummin, seer stone, words as if on a parchment, concepts) but I will admit to being skeptical about all of them as JS was usually hidden by a sheet from the scribe (who wasn’t exactly impartial either) thus making it difficult to know just what really happened.

Despite popular artwork to the contrary, there was never any sheet or curtain between Joseph and his scribes. From witness accounts I think we have a pretty good idea no notes were used. You are right that various processes for the translation has been proposed. I was just summarizing commonalities in the latest models formed from textual evidence and witness statements by the likes of Royal Skousen, Blake Ostler, and others.

I will refrain from expressing my thoughts about JS and this in the interest of civility.

I apologize for preaching. I had Moroni (who I was paraphrasing), and not so much JS, in mind.

it sure looks like a recipe for chaos.

I am sure the leaders are on top of keeping our curriculum and our members on the same page on all the central doctrines. If anything LDS are accused of being too much of one mind. Your “the thinking has been done” quote gets used a lot to this effect.

later,
fool

 

[mormon_fool]

mormon fool:

f
Your quote doesn’t reflect the thinking of Heber J. Grant, the prophet at the time an over-enthusiastic magazine editor that wrote it. The only time I encounter it is from critics.

Oops talk about fallible humans making mistakes in communications. It was actually George Albert Smith who said:

The leaflet to which you refer, and from which you quote in your letter, was not “prepared” by “one of our leaders.” However, one or more of them inadvertently permitted the paragraph to pass uncensored. By their so doing, not a few members of the Church have been upset in their feelings, and General Authorities have been embarrassed.

	 I am pleased to assure you that you are right in your attitude that the passage 	quoted does not express the true position of the Church.

Sorry about my foolish mistake.

 

[majick275]

here is the very problem as i see it : you seem by your post to accept that he leadership is on top things and whatever they put in th e lessons must be right. and yet…

The lessons have changed in an Orwellian manner. Primary lessons used to use pictures of Joseph reading the golden plates while Oliver sat on the other side of a sheet writing. Older LDS writings mentioned him placing the seer stone in a hat, covering his face and dictating to his scribe. (oliver, emma, etc,)

The “standard works” require quite a lot of “interpretation” to be used as doctrine. once again **because the doctrine has changed. **

The actual “standard works” have changed. not just the edits and revisions of the sections in the BoM and book of commandments, but where are the lectures on faith? at one time the standard works said absolutley no polygamy! jsut like the BoM, then came section 132 D&C. (BY says this REQUIRES polygamy for maximum exaltation) then comes the manifesto…Polygamy? nothing to see here …move along… BoM temple like solomons (same use perhaps?) thus you’d think like new testament no need for that after Jesus…but wait here’s a new and everlasting covenant that involves various ceremomies that are not be found anywhere in the canon. Hmmm not enough temple worship…ceremony changes to “kinder, gentler temple”. Hmm some people still get freaked out and don’t come back…ceremony changes again. JS - a prophet is only a prophet when acting as such… BY “I have never yet preached a sermon…that they may not call scripture”. JS ordain Elijah Abel (former slave)an elder, seventy, send him on a mission…BY no temple blessings for brother Abel cuz he’s black, and BTW he’s a special exception, no other black people get the preisthood cuz God said not until everyone else gets it first…Spencer Kimball - I prayed and it’s okay now for every worthy male…BY - Adam is our heavenly Father, Wilford Woodruff - quit worrying about that stuff…Legrand Richards - that’s false doctrine;

i could go on ad infinitum but i think I make my point…what IS the doctrine of the LDS church and how do you know? I see confusion. (admittedly I don’t see perfectly but that’s what I see)

 

[mormon_fool]

majick275:

The lessons have changed in an Orwellian manner. Primary lessons used to use pictures of Joseph reading the golden plates while Oliver sat on the other side of a sheet writing. Older LDS writings mentioned him placing the seer stone in a hat, covering his face and dictating to his scribe. (oliver, emma, etc,)

Actually the pictures are still very much in circulation. What can I say? Maybe Paul was on the right track when he wrote 1 cor 13:11 When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.

later,
fool

 

[mormon_fool]

majick275:

Hmmm not enough temple worship…ceremony changes to “kinder, gentler temple”. Hmm some people still get freaked out and don’t come back…ceremony changes again.

Hmmmm I think I will file this away under evidence for what I’ve termed the “informal common consent dynamic” that provides the prophet feedback on how to adapt teaching methods to modern sensitivies.

Good observation.

 

[majick275]

and perhaps Orwell was right when he said Ingorance is strength? freedom is slavery?

Paul never changed material facts about anything that he preached.

I believe it was Jesus who said unless you become like little children you can not enter the kingdom of heaven. (paraphrase Matt 18:3)

 

[majick275]

mormon fool:

Hmmmm I think I will file this away under evidence for what I’ve termed the “informal common consent dynamic” that provides the prophet feedback on how to adapt teaching methods to modern sensitivies.

Good observation.

and thus my thoughts that the LDS prophet is led more by the “polls” than the Lord. “informal common consent” of tithes and offerings, market research from PR firm, etc.

Compare this with Moses or even Brigham Young who very firmly told the people what they must do regardless of what they liked. This gets dangerously close the “ChurchMart” tactics you see in some of the protestant mega churches (irreverently referred to as “Jesus Christ supersize”) who use focus groups, spin doctors and whatever else is available to maximize membership and contributions. It becomes then a business. (off topic but I remember the first time I went to LDS temple for my own endowments being shocked when we first walked to …the cash register)

 

[mormon_fool]

majick275:

The “standard works” require quite a lot of “interpretation” to be used as doctrine. once again **because the doctrine has changed. **

No doubt interpretation plays a role in how the binding doctrines that are contained in the scriptures are understood by individuals. However an individual’s interpretion is not authoratative nor is it the source of doctrine. And really only the current First Presidency can provide official interpretations and expositions of the doctrines found in the scriptures for the whole church.

I would not say that doctrinal truths change in the LDS church. Yes the understanding of what these doctrinal truths are changes when we receive revelation that either furthers our knowledge or adapts the application of a doctrinal principle to meet our unique, contemporary needs.

Above I tried to be precise with the term doctrine, usually pairing it with another word to contextualize it.

from wikipedia:

Doctrine, from Latin doctrina, (compare doctor), means “a body of teachings” or “instructions”, taught principles or positions, as the body of teachings in a branch of knowledge or belief system.

A nice resource for those who are confused about what constitutes official LDS doctrine is here. A good, systematic, outline of the primary doctrines of the LDS faith can be found here.

Hope that helps,
fool

 

[mormon_fool]

majick275:

and thus my thoughts that the LDS prophet is led more by the “polls” than the Lord. “informal common consent” of tithes and offerings, market research from PR firm, etc.

A marked contrast to your earlier claims of irrelevance of common consent! Granted that what I see as extension of common consent you see as a naturalist explanation for the direction the prophet takes.

I am glad you are comparing and contrasting the role of the LDS prophet with those found in the scriptures. Moses is a good example of someone who got feedback from his followers and things got adjusted accordingly. He used his role as a mediator between God and His people to keep both parties happy. For example when the Israelites got tired of eating manna, Moses pulled some strings and got the diet changed to quail.

 

[TOmNossor]

FCEGM:

Sorry for the delay in responding, Tom.

No worries. But when you respond oh how you respond! I will surely take some time too.

FCEGM:

When did Rome ever fail to do so? Once again, I think that you fail to appreciate the historical context. Rome exhibited its authority very well, given that the Church was still an illegal, underground society, persecuted by the Roman government at the time. It was not as if recourse to Papal Rome was a constant or uninterrupted thing for Christians existing as underground communities in far-off Antioch or Ephesus. This is why the authority of the local bishop took precedence; it was the only practical way to deal with regional heresies. It was only when there was serious disagreement among bishops that the Bishop of Rome stepped in.

I agree that the “authority of the local bishop took precedence.” I suggest the reason is because this is the authority that was consciously existing within the church. There is almost no indication that any deference was given to Roman authority during Nicea. Other earlier councils also seemed to be absent this “primacy” effect.

FCEGM:

Why not? Your problem is obvious: You view the Church as a universal institutional organization rather than as what it actually is - a Covenant people, the New Israel.

Actually, I would suggest that “a Covenant people” is exactly what the Apostles left and was exactly what the Jews were before. The concentration on orthodoxy instead of orthopraxy was a development that in my mind was inappropriate. I think I can show some “covenant” ideas from the early church that align more with LDS views of “covenant people” than with Catholic view of right belief.

FCEGM:

This is something that Clement and his successors were VERY MUCH aware of. The historical record proves it.

It may have not been exercised on a regular basis (because of the persecutions and because of the Apostolic reliability of the earliest bishops in other parts of the world), but it most certainly was realized.

I have addressed the things you mention. To me the historical record shows that Clement and Ignatius when laying out the authoritative structure of the church never mention that at the head of the church (below Christ) is the Bishop of Rome.

Do you believe that Cardinal Newman disagrees with me that, “if the Bishop of Rome is prime, then this truth developed from a seed planted by the apostles, but not realized for many years?” He is dead of course and cannot defend himself, but that is what I see in his writings and it aligns with what I see from the early church.
cont…

 

[TOmNossor]

FCEGM:

You are also a non-Christian, since you deny the Trinity and the Deity of Christ as true Christians believe in it. I don’t say this gratuitously, but to emphasize how this major divide from Christendom inhibits your understanding of this and other things pertaining to Christ’s Church.

And this is an example of the developed way that the once “covenant people” became. “Subordinationism was pre-Nicea orthodoxy!” Athanasius was the first to advocate a strictly “co-equal” formulation (other than the modalists). Among a number of Greek saints, my “Social Trinitarian” structure was common.

Orthodoxy was not something that emerged from the Apostles. A “Covenant people” did, the concept of strict orthodoxy developed. “Their creeds are an abomination” in my opinion refers to the practice of schism-ing based on non-God-breathed interpretation of doctrine. I am aware that the CoJCoLDS has had some problems with this too, but our emphasis upon orthopraxy vice orthodoxy has protected us from major problems with respect to this.

And if my understanding is “inhibited” what path can I walk to uninhibite my understanding?

FCEGM:

It was the 11th Century Byzantines who introduced novelties in regard to Church authority, not Rome; and in doing this they contradicted the consistent Tradition and beliefs of their OWN Byzantine forefathers in regard to Rome.

I don’t so much as not believe you as see it differently. I believe the concept of Patriarch developed as well. Once there were Bishops and Apostles. Then there were only Bishops. Then Bishops and Metropolitan. Then there were Patriarchs. Eventually the Bishop of Rome was the “first among equals” (interestingly enough this was not always argued for on the basis of Peterine roots, but occasionally through things like the “double apostolate” or even pointing to the fact that Rome agreed with Ignatius).

Constantinople desired increased authority, but they didn’t merit it. It seems that some of the folks that Rome was protecting from being subjected to Constantinople chose to continue to be subjected to Constantinople.

In addition to this, I suggest that Irenaeus was the first who really began to point toward the primacy of Rome (end of 2nd century). This was objected to by few (as far as we know), but still took a long time to develop. The final development occurred at Vatican I and some of the most knowledgeable historians opposed it (one even ceased to be Catholic). So yes the East departed first in the filoque clause and ultimately concerning problems with Rome and/or the power seeking of Constantinople, but the East then and now considered Rome to be the first among equals. This was one of the earlier developments (still post Irenaeus).

…

 

[TOmNossor]

FCEGM:

It is the Eastern Orthodox who have departed from Apostolic Tradition in regard to the primacy of

Rome, not the Catholics.
That if anyone other than the CoJCoLDS is correct it is Rome. In the words of a Catholic friend, “Either divine development or divine restoration.” To be an Easter Orthodox I would have to believe that divine guidance through the Holy Spirit was present until the 7th council, but then inexplicably it departed. As a Protestant (other than some of the most liberal Protestants) I would have to believe that the departure occurred after the 4th council. I see nothing in history to support this. I believe Newman shows development at the earliest stages of the church. Why does this development just take a wrong turn?
I see in the EO church a concept of Original Sin that is more in alignment with the CoJCoLDS.
I see in the EO church folks who occasionally speak like Social Trinitarians.
I see in the EO church a preserving and emphasis of deification (although in a compromised form after Gregory of Patmos). And were I Catholic I would believe in deification in a more full manner than do the EO Christians because I believe I still can.
I see in the EO church a refusal to see that the Peterine authority to lead the world wide church infallibly.
I on rare occasions see in the EO church an emphasis upon orthopraxy rather than orthodoxy.
I have not been shown to be in error when I say that the Coptic Church continued to advocate authoritative baptism as did St. Cyprian, but try as I might I cannot confirm this.
I believe the EO church refused to develop on some of the above things and thus preserves a more ancient belief. But, they did develop in many things and have not shown why they felt God no longer allowed development. This is why Catholicism is my second choice rather than Easter Orthodoxy (even though I think EO Christianity is perhaps closer to Mormonism than is Catholicism).

FCEGM:

Paul was not “there first and longer,” and Peter did not establish Antioch as his see before Rome.

You have sent me to the books. I did say, “perhaps,” but I most definitely did think there was good reasons to think, “Paul was there Rome] first and longer, perhaps because Antioch was established by Peter before Rome.”

I find no good evidence to suggest that Paul was in Rome first or longer. Paul certainly did not found the church at Rome and Peter may in fact have done so, but this seems very tenuous. In any case, it makes some sense that Peter was in Rome some time no earlier than 42AD and no later than 57AD. I would suggest that Paul got to Rome first in about 59AD. Who would have brought Christianity to Rome before 42AD is undetermined in my mind, but Peter is a good choice (Mark is possible too). What is certain and what some Catholic apologists have SOLELY relied upon is that Peter came to Rome and died. This arrival would be after the possible BTW 42 - ?? arrival because Peter would likely have fled Rome during the middle of the 42-57 span even if he was present before this. It is not impossible that he came to Rome late in the ??-57 span and stayed to die, but it seems that Peter regularly traveled most of his ministry.
That Peter was in Antioch before Rome is not unreasonable. This is certainly a position held by scholars. In fact, I am not sure who would support your position that this is not the case. In a 1997 “This Rock” article this position was put forth as if it was just so.

 

[TOmNossor]

FCEGM:

Yes, Paul was also mentioned because of his close association and his glorious martyrdom in Rome, but never at the expense of Peter. In fact, Peter is almost always cited first in regard to the founding of Rome, and is always cited first in any formal designation for the two Apostles of the church of Rome. In fact, I defy you to provide more than two quotes from the fathers in which Paul is mentioned before Peter in regard to the authority and primacy of Rome or its origins. You say that this is done “often,” so let’s see what evidence you can supply.

I think you should have stopped with refuting my assertion that Paul was in Rome first and longer than Peter. I stand by “often,” but I grant you that more frequently Peter is mentioned first before Paul. I have not done an in depth survey of Ignatius but here are two instances were he mentions Paul first.

Ignatius, The Epistle of Ignatius to the Magnesians, Chapt X

This was first fulfilled in Syria; for the disciples were called Christians at Antioch, when Paul and Peter were laying the foundations of the Church.

Ignatius, The Epistle of Ignatius to the Antiochians, Chapt VII

Ye have been the disciples of Paul and Peter; do not lose what was committed to your trust.

Ignatius certainly also says Peter’s name before Paul’s too.

My #3 will be an interesting one.

Irenaeus, Against Heresies Book III, Chapt III

Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Paul and Peter.

There are most definitely manuscripts that read “Peter and Paul.” I have never found an in depth study to show which rendering is most likely earlier. I would be interested in being educated on this, but manuscripts exist with both renderings.

Here is #4

Eusebius (260-339), The History of the Church, Book 3, 324 AD

After the martyrdom of Paul and Peter, the first man to be appointed Bishop of Rome was Linus. … Linus, who is mentioned in the Second Epistle to Timothy as being with Paul in Rome, as stated above was the first after Peter to be appointed Bishop of Rome.

St. John Chrysostom (347-407) mentions Paul before Peter in at least two sentences.

Our Protestant brothers and sisters also provide a number of other places were Paul seems to be more important than Peter.

I think the arguments that Peter was never in Rome are ridiculous (or just thoroughly refuted). I would also never suggest that Peter was not given a “headship” among the apostles. I also believe that Peter died in Rome. I just do not see the idea that the Bishop of Rome was consciously granted the Peterine authority as well supported. It is not “ridiculous” like the argument that Peter was never in Rome, but it is far from clearly established by history IMO.

On the mention of the martyrdom of Ignatius along side the mention of Peter and Paul, here is a little bit from St. John Chrysostom. I am pretty sure this is not the passage I was thinking of, but it is close. Perhaps I derived my ideas from a slight perversion of what is said here. I remember only Peter and Ignatius or Paul and Ignatius, so this seems to not be quite correct, but I cannot find something better.

Chrysostom says, “You [inhabitants of Antioch] have through God’s blessing, no further need of instruction, for you have struck root in religion; but the people of Rome, because of the great wickedness that prevailed there, needed more powerful aid; therefore were Peter and Paul, and Ignatius with them, put to death there.”

cont…