Why the Great Apostasy was never possible: a scenario

[Vidar]

TOmNossor:

I have been reading many of your posts on this forum. I am not going to argue early Catholic Church history at length with you.

However, I think you are operating on a double standard. Apply the same standard to your own religion, and you will face a few problems.

• There is little evidence that Joseph Smith intended to restore the true Church when the “Church of Christ” (which was it’s original name) was first founded. Rather it seems, he intended to restore a true (local) church which he hoped would influence the other denomenations around him to accept the BOM. His understanding seems to have developed after none of the mainstream churches would accept his claims.
• There is not a trace of evidence for the notion of the Melchisedek priesthood in the first years of the church Smith founded. It was invented later, and the book of commandments was doctored to include a historical event which wasn’t there in the first edition. There is no evidence that anybody had heard of this event before the altered book of commandments (Doctrine and Covenants) was published. This among other things caused David Whitmer to leave the early LDS church.

You cannot prove that Tertullian left the Church on acount of the papacy being “invented” at the time (In fact, I think it is a huge strech to interpret him that way).

However, nobody disputes (as far as I know) that David Whitmer left the LDS church on account of novelties being introduced into mormonism.

The understanding of the godhead developed signigicantly during the first 15 years of your religion. What started out as modalism in BOM developed into your present plurality of gods. The Holy Spirit was not even presented as a person in D&C, but as the “common mind” of the Father and the Son.

“Behold, I am he who was prepared from the foundation of the world to redeem my people. Behold I am Jesus Christ. ***I am the Father and the Son. ***In me shall all mankind have light… they shall become my sons and my daughters.” (Ether 3:14)

The oldest first vision account (from 1832) also lends support to this idea. Marvin S. Hill, professor of american history at BYU says about the first vision account:

"It seems to me that everybody has approached the issue from the wrong end, by starting with the 1838 official version when the account they should be considering is that of 1832. Merely on the face of it, the 1832 version stands a better chance of being more accurate and unembellished than the 1838 account… I am inclined to agree that the religious turmoil that Joseph described which led to some family members joining the Presbyterians and to much sectarian bitterness does not fit well into the 1820 context detailed by Backman. For one thing, it does not seem likely that there could have been heavy sectarian strife in 1820 and then a joint revival where all was harmony in 1824. In addition, as Walters notes, Lucy Mack Smith said the revival where she became interested in a particular sect came after Alvin’s death, thus almost certainly in early 1824… An 1824 revival creates problems for the 1838 account, not that of 1832…

"At any rate, if Joseph Smith in 1838 read back into 1820 some details of a revival that occurred in 1824,there is no reason to conclude that he invented his religious experiences… "*Giving priority to the 1832 account**also makes it more understandable why Oliver Cowdery got his story tangled… If initially Joseph said one personage came to him in 1820,*it became easier for Oliver Cowdery to confuse this visit with the coming of Moroni than it would have been a few years later when Joseph taught emphatically that there were three separate personages in the Godhead.

     "*The Tanners make much of the argument that Joseph Smith changed his view of the Godhead. There is a good deal of evidence that his understanding grew on many points of theology... If, as the Tanners argue, Joseph grew in his understanding of the nature of the Godhead,**this does not provide evidence of his   disingenuousness*...

     "*It seems to me that if the Latter-day Saints can accept the idea that Joseph gained his full understanding of the nature of God only after a period of time, instead of its emerging fullblown in 1820, then most of the difficulties with chronology can be resolved... As James Allen shows, Joseph never cited his vision with respect to the nature of the Godhead. This use of the vision came long afterward*." (Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought*, *Summer 1982, pp.   39-41)

There is far more I could mention. But the point is this: There has been signigicant development in your own religion. Attributing it to ongoning revelation is not good enough. Clearly Joseph Smiths understanding of a lot things developed during his life, and this colored his revelations, even to the point where he had to rewrite and republish them.

If your arguments from history against the Catholic Church invalidates its claim to be founded by Jesus Christ, then the same kind of arguments will invalidate your own church. IMHO, such arguments against the LDS church are far stronger than yours due to the nature and quantity of the evidence.

Vidar

 

[TOmNossor]

Vidar:

I am not going to argue early Catholic Church history at length with you.

This is fine. I have studied early Christian AND early Mormon history a fair amount, but there is at least one person who posts occasionally on this forum who knows more about both than I do and has reached very different conclusions.

Vidar:

However, I think you are operating on a double standard. Apply the same standard to your own religion, and you will face a few problems.

There is no doubt in my mind that who I am and various components associated with me and not the evidence enter into the formation of my conclusions. Are these BIASES? Are they part of that which God has given me to find the truth? Are they something else? I do not know.

Does God approve of how I juggle evidence and these things? I believe He does. He loves me. He knows my heart and how to touch even me. Surely He loves me no less than Paul. I rest at night comfortable that God’s love is enough for the person whose faults are more real and more horrorful to me than any person I know. That person is of course me.

Do I have a double standard? Not intentionally. I learned of the many problems in the early CoJCoLDS long ago. When I found an explanation for the church that didn’t involve it being God’s path for me, these problems weighed heavily upon me. Still, I could not see the preponderance of the evidence pointing away from the validity of the CoJCoLDS. Today, the evidence points more strongly to the CoJCoLDS than it did during my darkest days of doubt.

So yes, I have faced more than a few problems (some of which I have mentioned on this board).

Is there any evidence that Tertullian left the church on account of the “usurpation” that he saw as the Roman Bishop was linked to Peterine authority? No! Instead Tertullian seems to have left (a number of years after making this observation) for two reasons. Tertullian observed that the evidences of the Spirit were departing/had departed from the Catholic Church AND Tertullian favored a stricter view on repentance than was becoming part of the Catholic Church.

Did David Whitmer leave claiming that Joseph Smith was going beyond what David Whitmer felt Joseph should, introducing new doctrines and practices some of which David Whitmer found abominable? Absolutely! But what do I do with this?

How do I accept David Whitmer’s powerful testimony of the BOM and walk with him away from the authority that was supposedly restored in Joseph Smith. What group of believers do I unite with KNOWING as I do the authority is important? Quite simply David Whitmer would leave me with no place to go.

There are clearly developments in Joseph’s understanding of God. There are clearly problems with what the first vision originally meant to Joseph and what it came to mean to the church. There are clearly problems with the when, where, and how of the Melchezdek restoration (although the Aaronic restoration is a strong point for the CoJCoLDS). But what do I do with these?

As I said, I could be a Newman Catholic. He provides an answer to many of the problems that most Catholics have no idea exist. I just think when his answer is weighed for plausibility and Catholicity it is weaker than is the Mormon apologetic answers weighed for plausibility and Mormonicity. Reason points me to Mormonism.

Charity, TOm

 

[honeybear]

TOmNossor:

This is fine. I have studied early Christian AND early Mormon history a fair amount, but there is at least one person who posts occasionally on this forum who knows more about both than I do and has reached very different conclusions.

There is no doubt in my mind that who I am and various components associated with me and not the evidence enter into the formation of my conclusions. Are these BIASES? Are they part of that which God has given me to find the truth? Are they something else? I do not know.

Does God approve of how I juggle evidence and these things? I believe He does. He loves me. He knows my heart and how to touch even me. Surely He loves me no less than Paul. I rest at night comfortable that God’s love is enough for the person whose faults are more real and more horrorful to me than any person I know. That person is of course me.

Do I have a double standard? Not intentionally. I learned of the many problems in the early CoJCoLDS long ago. When I found an explanation for the church that didn’t involve it being God’s path for me, these problems weighed heavily upon me. Still, I could not see the preponderance of the evidence pointing away from the validity of the CoJCoLDS. Today, the evidence points more strongly to the CoJCoLDS than it did during my darkest days of doubt.

So yes, I have faced more than a few problems (some of which I have mentioned on this board).

Is there any evidence that Tertullian left the church on account of the “usurpation” that he saw as the Roman Bishop was linked to Peterine authority? No! Instead Tertullian seems to have left (a number of years after making this observation) for two reasons. Tertullian observed that the evidences of the Spirit were departing/had departed from the Catholic Church AND Tertullian favored a stricter view on repentance than was becoming part of the Catholic Church.

Did David Whitmer leave claiming that Joseph Smith was going beyond what David Whitmer felt Joseph should, introducing new doctrines and practices some of which David Whitmer found abominable? Absolutely! But what do I do with this?

How do I accept David Whitmer’s powerful testimony of the BOM and walk with him away from the authority that was supposedly restored in Joseph Smith. What group of believers do I unite with KNOWING as I do the authority is important? Quite simply David Whitmer would leave me with no place to go.

There are clearly developments in Joseph’s understanding of God. There are clearly problems with what the first vision originally meant to Joseph and what it came to mean to the church. There are clearly problems with the when, where, and how of the Melchezdek restoration (although the Aaronic restoration is a strong point for the CoJCoLDS). But what do I do with these?

As I said, I could be a Newman Catholic. He provides an answer to many of the problems that most Catholics have no idea exist. I just think when his answer is weighed for plausibility and Catholicity it is weaker than is the Mormon apologetic answers weighed for plausibility and Mormonicity. Reason points me to Mormonism.

Charity, TOm

My suggestion Tom is that you honestly face the illogic of Mormonism. I mean honestly. Most people who open their hearts to the world realize the irrationality of what you are saying here. I do believe you have studied it thoroughly and Catholicism as well. You are not alone. I think what is tell tell here for me is that you are unaware that the extreme arrogance exercised by Joseph Smith is in itself a serious sin against God. The fact that you cannot behold the arrogance and recognise it for what it is is alarming. One cannot be convinced of faith by books Tom. Only through grace, can true faith be found. And the only way to acheive that is by asking God humbly for it and be willing to go the direction He leads. Read, read, read, and more read. It’s fine to a point. After awhile though, purely from my point of view, it leads to simply an obtuse nature. For God has been drowned out by superficial knowledge.

 

[TOmNossor]

Honeybear,
Frequently the position you advocate has been criticized by LDS critics. LDS are regularly accused of not intellectually engaging religion. It is my opinion that if you do not have spiritual communication with God, you are better off seeking this than being here. But I have no desire to suggest that other’s spiritual witness for them is untrue. For this reason I deal largely with facts and evidence. It is my position that the preponderance of the evidence points to the CoJCoLDS as being the most likely church to have the fullness of the gospel, but I do not wish to suggest that this is sufficient. I also do not wish to suggest that you must weight the evidence as I have or even collect it. I merely suggest that LDS are not insane.
You have suggested that I am “insane.” It seems that you are now suggesting that I have not “honestly” faced “the illogic of Mormonism.” The truth is that many more than half of the people who truly and seriously engage their religion think that you cannot see the “irrationality” of what you believe. The world is a very complex place and the fact is that you do not see it as it is. You, just like me, see the world through your own filters. Your words demonstrate that you are either unaware of this truth or you believe you have transcended it. What you feel is so obvious to you may just be a product of your lens, your filter, on the facts.

honeybear:

Only through grace, can true faith be found.

If I am outside of God grace, if God is a Calvinist and I am non-elect, then I thank God for all He has given me. In truth if God is a Calvinist, I am at peace be I non-elect or elect or ? The mouse does not seem to condemn God because it was created to be a mouse. I will not condemn God if I am just non-elect. I don’t believe God works this way, but I am content if He does.

honeybear:

the only way to acheive that is by asking God humbly for it and be willing to go the direction He leads.

“To achieve Grace” is an interesting juxtaposition of words, but are you suggesting that you have asked “God HUMBLY?” Are you suggesting that I have not asked “God HUMBLY?” I will not boldly state that I have ever been truly HUMBLE. To do so would be silly. But I know that I have called upon God and told Him I would walk His way. I know I have asked to become smaller in my life so God can be larger.
The truth is that I long ago realized that while God does indeed speak to me. In fact He knows me by name. He has never decided to communicate to me what path you must walk. For some reason, not due to lack of love, God does not seem to think it is critical that He tell me what path you must walk. I know what God gives me is of great value and anyone seeking should consider the things I have considered, but I cannot believe that God loves me more than someone who He convinces to be a Catholic.
I do not understand folks who claim to KNOW that I walk a wrong path. Has God deemed to communicate to them His plan for me? Has God spoken in some way to them that demands all who do not walk in their way, walk in darkness at noon day? I readily admit that I do not KNOW the answers for them, but I do not understand how they can or why they think they can know these answers for me.
Arrogance? Joseph Smith?

If I esteem mankind to be in error, shall I bear them down? No. I will lift them up, and in their own way too, … Do you believe in Jesus Christ and the Gospel of salvation which he revealed? So do I. Christians should cease wrangling and contending with each other, and cultivate the principles of union and friendship in their midst; and they will do it before the millennium can be ushered in and Christ takes possession of His kingdom.

Do I think you are insane? No, but as best I can determine neither am I.
This is generally a good article, but you might look specifically at what the Moslem man said. http://www.fairlds.org/pubs/conf/2000PetD.html
Charity, TOm

 

[Vidar]

TOmNossor:

Instead Tertullian seems to have left (a number of years after making this observation)

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.

Compare Catholic Tertullian to heretic Tertullian:

Catholic Tertullian

Was anything hidden from Peter who was called the rock on which the Church would be built, who received the keys of the kingdom of heaven (De Praescriptione)

A challenge:

*let them unroll the list of their bishops, through a succession coming down from the very beginning that their first bishop had his authority and predecessor someone from among the number of Apostles or apostolic men (…) The church of Smyrna, for example, records that Polycarp was named by John; the Romans, that Clement was ordained by Peter(…)Let the heretics invent something like that *( Prescr Ag Heretics 32)

**Montanist Tertullian
**

• 'For the very Church itself, properly and principally, the Spirit Himself, in whom the Trinity of the One Divinity-Father, Son and Holy Spirit. [The Spirit] combines that Church which the Lord has made to consist in ‘three’.And thus, from that time forward, every number[of persons] who may have combined together into this faith is accounted ‘a Church,’ it is true, will forgive sins: but [it will be]the Church of the Spirit, by means of a Spiritual man; not the Church which consists of a number of bishops *(De Pud 21:17)

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.

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.

TOmNossor:

Tertullian observed that the evidences of the Spirit were departing/had departed from the Catholic Church AND Tertullian favored a stricter view on repentance than was becoming part of the Catholic Church.

Or perhaps he was simply deceived? Like you contend David Whitmer was? The CC is constantly critisized for being too lenient/strict, too wordly/spiritual, too dogmatic/mystical (depending on who you ask).

TOmNossor:

Did David Whitmer leave claiming that Joseph Smith was going beyond what David Whitmer felt Joseph should, introducing new doctrines and practices (…)?

I don’t care if David Whitmer didn’t like some things Smith invented. My argument was that it is a fact that Joseph Smith (as Whitmer pointed out) rewrote his original revelations to include ideas that were previously unheard of, sometimes contradicting a natural reading of the original, in order to give people the impression that these ideas were part of the revelations from the beginning.

TOmNossor:

There are clearly developments in Joseph’s understanding of God. There are clearly problems with what the first vision originally meant to Joseph and what it came to mean to the church.

It is clear that the first vision story changed along with the development in Smith’s understanding of God. The official account does not fit well with the facts of history or the other accounts, but it matches Smith’s evolved concept of God.

TOmNossor:

As I said, I could be a Newman Catholic. He provides an answer to many of the problems that most Catholics have no idea exist.

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.

Vidar

 

[honeybear]

TOmNossor:

Honeybear,
Frequently the position you advocate has been criticized by LDS critics. LDS are regularly accused of not intellectually engaging religion. It is my opinion that if you do not have spiritual communication with God, you are better off seeking this than being here. But I have no desire to suggest that other’s spiritual witness for them is untrue. For this reason I deal largely with facts and evidence. It is my position that the preponderance of the evidence points to the CoJCoLDS as being the most likely church to have the fullness of the gospel, but I do not wish to suggest that this is sufficient. I also do not wish to suggest that you must weight the evidence as I have or even collect it. I merely suggest that LDS are not insane.
You have suggested that I am “insane.” It seems that you are now suggesting that I have not “honestly” faced “the illogic of Mormonism.” size]

size]

“To achieve Grace” is an interesting juxtaposition of words, but are you suggesting that you have asked “God HUMBLY?” Are you suggesting that I have not asked “God HUMBLY?” I will not boldly state that I have ever been truly HUMBLE. To do so would be silly. But I know that I have called upon God and told Him I would walk His way. I know I have asked to become smaller in my life so God can be larger.
The truth is that I long ago realized that while God does indeed speak to me. In fact He knows me by name. He has never decided to communicate to me what path you must walk. For some reason, not due to lack of love, God does not seem to think it is critical that He tell me what path you must walk. I know what God gives me is of great value and anyone seeking should consider the things I have considered, but I cannot believe that God loves me more than someone who He convinces to be a Catholic.
I do not understand folks who claim to KNOW that I walk a wrong path. Has God deemed to communicate to them His plan for me? Has God spoken in some way to them that demands all who do not walk in their way, walk in darkness at noon day? I readily admit that I do not KNOW the answers for them, but I do not understand how they can or why they think they can know these answers for me.
Arrogance? Joseph Smith?

Do I think you are insane? No, but as best I can determine neither am I.
This is generally a good article, but you might look specifically at what the Moslem man said. http://www.fairlds.org/pubs/conf/2000PetD.html
Charity, TOm

The fact is Tom, in the face of the many centuries of Christian martyrs who have died torturous deaths, burnings beatings and other ludicrously painful testimony to Christ, you give us a gold seeking divining rod Mason with multitudinous concubines and a gun in his hand and tell us he is the answer to an apostate church. In the face of some of the most intelligent, educated people who have spent their whole lives on the questions of theology, you give us your armchair musings in large font. In the face of Christ’s own words, take this cup and drink of it, you give us prohibitions against alcohol. In the face of Christ’s own words about multitudinous marriages, you give us polygamy. In the face of every important theologian beginning with Plato, you give us a god who began as a finite creature. In the face of the millions and billions of people who have died in Christ, you give us 12 million presently hoping no one notices the LDS prophet said kill thine enemy as an act of love. I could go on. But the bottom line is arrogance. Nothing but. Self destructive, soul killing arrogance runs through LDS. And only the arrogant believe they are truly humble you know. There is nothing yet stated in LDS that is historically accurate. Disturbing questions are simply left unanswered. “Evidence” disappears. witnesses change their minds. And the Supreme Court decides LDS doctrines. When confronted with how LDS behavior appears to others, the LDS answer with a swift personal attack on the spirituality of those astonished on lookers. And yet, bless your heart, you still believe you are more educated and intelligent than every Catholic on the board.

 

[Tmaque]

honeybear:

The fact is Tom, in the face of the many centuries of Christian martyrs who have died torturous deaths, burnings beatings and other ludicrously painful testimony to Christ, you give us a gold seeking divining rod Mason with multitudinous concubines and a gun in his hand and tell us he is the answer to an apostate church. In the face of some of the most intelligent, educated people who have spent their whole lives on the questions of theology, you give us your armchair musings in large font. In the face of Christ’s own words, take this cup and drink of it, you give us prohibitions against alcohol. In the face of Christ’s own words about multitudinous marriages, you give us polygamy. In the face of every important theologian beginning with Plato, you give us a god who began as a finite creature. In the face of the millions and billions of people who have died in Christ, you give us 12 million presently hoping no one notices the LDS prophet said kill thine enemy as an act of love. I could go on. But the bottom line is arrogance. Nothing but. Self destructive, soul killing arrogance runs through LDS. And only the arrogant believe they are truly humble you know. There is nothing yet stated in LDS that is historically accurate. Disturbing questions are simply left unanswered. “Evidence” disappears. witnesses change their minds. And the Supreme Court decides LDS doctrines. When confronted with how LDS behavior appears to others, the LDS answer with a swift personal attack on the spirituality of those astonished on lookers. And yet, bless your heart, you still believe you are more educated and intelligent than every Catholic on the board.

Tom certainly doesn’t need me to defend him, but I’m just curious why you are attacking someone of a different faith with such a venomous tone. What purpose do statements such as “Self destructive, soul killing arrogance runs through LDS”, and “you still believe you are more educated and intelligent than every Catholic on the board” serve? What is your intent? It appears that your intent is to humiliate and degrade which is an entirely un-Christian thing to do.

I can’t help but think by your statements that you are more inclined toward “soul killing arrogance” than Tom and most other LDS I know. Frankly, I’m disappointed that a fellow Catholic feels the need to resort to personal attacks to get their points across.

I’ve debated with Tom many times on many issues and I’ve never once felt attacked by him and I hope he has never felt attacked by me. I would also like to say that Tom has taught me a thing or two about my own faith, and I’m a better Catholic and hopefully a better Christian for it. That’s just one example of what makes inter-faith dialogue so wonderful. As Pope John Paul II said so eloquently, “far more unites us than divides us”.

 

[honeybear]

Tmaque:

Tom certainly doesn’t need me to defend him, but I’m just curious why you are attacking someone of a different faith with such a venomous tone. What purpose do statements such as “Self destructive, soul killing arrogance runs through LDS”, and “you still believe you are more educated and intelligent than every Catholic on the board” serve? What is your intent? It appears that your intent is to humiliate and degrade which is an entirely un-Christian thing to do.

I can’t help but think by your statements that you are more inclined toward “soul killing arrogance” than Tom and most other LDS I know. Frankly, I’m disappointed that a fellow Catholic feels the need to resort to personal attacks to get their points across.

I’ve debated with Tom many times on many issues and I’ve never once felt attacked by him and I hope he has never felt attacked by me. I would also like to say that Tom has taught me a thing or two about my own faith, and I’m a better Catholic and hopefully a better Christian for it. That’s just one example of what makes inter-faith dialogue so wonderful. As Pope John Paul II said so eloquently, “far more unites us than divides us”.

It’s very simple. I argue with him out of charity. If you were on the street corner watching someone get hit by a car, would you politely saunter over and suggest they move, or would you rush out, push them out of harm’s way and then apologize for brutality? One of the interesting things about the Catholic Forum is that Cahtolics somehow think it is better to be evasive, agreeable, and polite when confronted by people who believe heretically in the face of evidence to the contrary. If the Church believes that LDS is an extremely heretical religion, and anti-Christian/ Catholic, that basically means no heaven, no salvation for that person’s soul. This seems urgent to me. When people are truly concerned about the state of another’s ultimate destiny, they WORK toward a change. They don’t stand around mealy mouthed with many niceties and doilies. The LDS do not need Catholics to obfuscate the truth in order to receive brownied buttons from God for politeness. He is not so concerned with how sweet and gullible we are as He is concerned whether we really truly care about other’s well being. For the most part, with the possible exception of Jerusha, the catholics on this forum behave as if evangelizing or conversions to the faith are purely a hobby. They are more concerned with being seen as “nice” people. That is not charity, it is lukewarmedness, a sin that Jesus detests.
And by the way, interfaith means people who have something in common in faith, such as Orthodox, Anglicans, Lutherans and so on. I have never heard LDS described in those terms exactly. Where is your reference as to John Paul II and LDS, please? Try to remember, we pray for our enemies, not our friends. Our friends can pray for themselves. Our enemies cannot.
The fact is these people are trying to acheive their own salvation, Godhood, through their own merits and efforts. They are trying to obtain something that was given them free of charge on a silver platter. They will spend their whole lives eternally progressing, avoiding hot drinks, and spiritually if not actually committing as many sins as possible with as many temple sealings as they can in the marriage covenant. They will tithe huge amounts of their hard earned dollars trying to buy that which was free. And they work very hard to get others to join them. Is this what God really wants? And you want us all to be polite. Look, if some con artist came to the door and tried to sell an investment sceme to your dear granny along the lines of this incredible con of Smith’s and Young’s, how polite would you be? How mild mannered? And if your Grandmother invested every cent of her retirement funds in it, can you honestly say you would be screaming for people to be charitable about the con man? Don’t ask me to be nicey nice about Joseph Smith. These people are getting seriously ripped off and every once in a while it does require someone to be brave enough to say, go ahead and drink coffee, Jesus already ransomed your soul, or you only need to marry once and stop displeasing God by marrying multiple times. Charity requires the Holy Spirit, and the Holy Spirit tells the truth. If you would like to outline the unifying aspects between LDS and Catholics for me, please go right ahead.

 

[honeybear]

Tmaque:

Tom certainly doesn’t need me to defend him, but I’m just curious why you are attacking someone of a different faith with such a venomous tone. What purpose do statements such as “Self destructive, soul killing arrogance runs through LDS”, and “you still believe you are more educated and intelligent than every Catholic on the board” serve? What is your intent? It appears that your intent is to humiliate and degrade which is an entirely un-Christian thing to do.

I can’t help but think by your statements that you are more inclined toward “soul killing arrogance” than Tom and most other LDS I know. Frankly, I’m disappointed that a fellow Catholic feels the need to resort to personal attacks to get their points across.

I’ve debated with Tom many times on many issues and I’ve never once felt attacked by him and I hope he has never felt attacked by me. I would also like to say that Tom has taught me a thing or two about my own faith, and I’m a better Catholic and hopefully a better Christian for it. That’s just one example of what makes inter-faith dialogue so wonderful. As Pope John Paul II said so eloquently, “far more unites us than divides us”.

Not only that, but I have not “attacked” Tom. I have attacked prophets of LDS, the LDS Doctrines, and tried to show Tom the impression he gives. He is most certainly not alone in giving that impression either. I have every right to not buy into Mormonism.

 

[Tmaque]

honeybear:

Not only that, but I have not “attacked” Tom. I have attacked prophets of LDS, the LDS Doctrines, and tried to show Tom the impression he gives. He is most certainly not alone in giving that impression either. I have every right to not buy into Mormonism.

Again, what is your intent? If it is to show people that Catholicism is correct then your approach is counterproductive. Let me ask you, after your recent posts, is Tom more inclined to listen to you with an open mind or less inclined? The answer is obvious. So, what is your intent?

If your intent is simply to tell everyone how right you are, and how wrong they are, with no thought about what they feel, then you’re doing a great job. You can tell LDS all day long that their church is wrong, but what good will it do if their ears are closed because you’ve offended them?

The simple fact is you have to approach people with humility and caring if you want to get through to them. You come across as neither humble nor caring. I’m not saying you lack humility and caring, I’m saying that is the impression you leave, and it totally obscures the message you are trying to convey.

 

[honeybear]

Tmaque:

Again, what is your intent? If it is to show people that Catholicism is correct then your approach is counterproductive. Let me ask you, after your recent posts, is Tom more inclined to listen to you with an open mind or less inclined? The answer is obvious. So, what is your intent?

If your intent is simply to tell everyone how right you are, and how wrong they are, with no thought about what they feel, then you’re doing a great job. You can tell LDS all day long that their church is wrong, but what good will it do if their ears are closed because you’ve offended them?

The simple fact is you have to approach people with humility and caring if you want to get through to them. You come across as neither humble nor caring. I’m not saying you lack humility and caring, I’m saying that is the impression you leave, and it totally obscures the message you are trying to convey.

My experience has shown that my approach brings the Mormons AND the JW’s back to my door with increasing frequency. In fact, one Mormon is in RCIA with me as sponsor and one JW will be receiving his Holy Orders on September 19. Does it work? yes. But only with those who TRULY are seeking God. For anyone else, it really does not matter much what a person says or does, or how “nice” they are about it. Those seeking God need those little seeds of direct truth planted, and they need it unequivocably. they are seeds, you understand. Seeds that may take months to grow. But you can’t acheive conversions and vocations by attempting to act as if we are all one happy family on the same wave length, with much in common. Once a Jehovah Witness discovers a seed that he cannot reconcile, it is amazing how fast they convert and they convert to the enemy-Catholicism. If you go back on this particular LDS forum, you will discover the posters who were LDS and then Catholic stating quite clearly that they converted not because Catholics were nice people with good manners but because they were confronted by a glaringly obvious untruth in LDS along with it’s Catholic truthful counterpart. Perhaps we should run a poll? Did more converts from LDS convert to Catholicism because they really liked the good manners of Catholics or because they were suddenly confronted by hard truths? I remember one just in the last two or three weeks stating that it hit him in the shower- Catholics believe in an infinite God, who created matter, it made sense to him, he could not reconcile it with Mormon theology and in a matter of months his whole LDS facade fell down. Of course, when he said this on the forum, he was roundly criticised by Catholics and Mormons alike and has not posted here since. He was accused by both parties of lacking charity and Tom simply told him he was not interested in esoteric meanderings or some such thing he said.Two things can occur here: defense of the faith in which by all means please be polite, or conversions, which is infinitely more important and absolutely requires stating what is real from fantasy at all times. For you are dealing with fantasy discussing God outside the context of the Real Presence and a person has to be very sure of that. If you want to know how to convert LDS or JW, don’t take it from me. Ask the converts on this forum. What did it for them? I will stack up the people I have pushed over the edge into RCIA against your tactics any day. Shall we discuss the Christian Science perhaps, or perhaps the worst case I ever saw- a Scientologist? My approach works because it IS charity. Charity enough to care more about what happens to these people then whether you think I’m humble or not. I’m not interested in being PC.

 

[Tmaque]

honeybear:

My experience has shown that my approach brings the Mormons AND the JW’s back to my door with increasing frequency. In fact, one Mormon is in RCIA with me as sponsor and one JW will be receiving his Holy Orders on September 19. Does it work? yes. But only with those who TRULY are seeking God. For anyone else, it really does not matter much what a person says or does, or how “nice” they are about it. Those seeking God need those little seeds of direct truth planted, and they need it unequivocably. they are seeds, you understand. Seeds that may take months to grow. But you can’t acheive conversions and vocations by attempting to act as if we are all one happy family on the same wave length, with much in common. Once a Jehovah Witness discovers a seed that he cannot reconcile, it is amazing how fast they convert and they convert to the enemy-Catholicism. If you go back on this particular LDS forum, you will discover the posters who were LDS and then Catholic stating quite clearly that they converted not because Catholics were nice people with good manners but because they were confronted by a glaringly obvious untruth in LDS along with it’s Catholic truthful counterpart. Perhaps we should run a poll? Did more converts from LDS convert to Catholicism because they really liked the good manners of Catholics or because they were suddenly confronted by hard truths? I remember one just in the last two or three weeks stating that it hit him in the shower- Catholics believe in an infinite God, who created matter, it made sense to him, he could not reconcile it with Mormon theology and in a matter of months his whole LDS facade fell down. Of course, when he said this on the forum, he was roundly criticised by Catholics and Mormons alike and has not posted here since. He was accused by both parties of lacking charity and Tom simply told him he was not interested in esoteric meanderings or some such thing he said.Two things can occur here: defense of the faith in which by all means please be polite, or conversions, which is infinitely more important and absolutely requires stating what is real from fantasy at all times. For you are dealing with fantasy discussing God outside the context of the Real Presence and a person has to be very sure of that. If you want to know how to convert LDS or JW, don’t take it from me. Ask the converts on this forum. What did it for them? I will stack up the people I have pushed over the edge into RCIA against your tactics any day. Shall we discuss the Christian Science perhaps, or perhaps the worst case I ever saw- a Scientologist? My approach works because it IS charity. Charity enough to care more about what happens to these people then whether you think I’m humble or not. I’m not interested in being PC.

I AM a convert from the LDS faith. I thank God I knew some good, humble Catholics who planted quiet seeds that were allowed to germinate and slowly sprout in my mind and heart. They were followers of the advice of St Francis, “preach the Gospel always, when necessary use words”. God bless those people. They taught me about Catholicism without ever telling me how wrong I was for being LDS.

 

[honeybear]

Tmaque:

I AM a convert from the LDS faith. I thank God I knew some good, humble Catholics who planted quiet seeds that were allowed to germinate and slowly sprout in my mind and heart. They were followers of the advice of St Francis, “preach the Gospel always, when necessary use words”. God bless those people. They taught me about Catholicism without ever telling me how wrong I was for being LDS.

Sigh. This is your story. You are a unique individual created by God as I am. This worked for you. It does not necessarily work for someone else. Now- a lesson in humility- a sign of it is NOT running around telling other people that they are not charitable and humble. Your constant complaint that I lack humility and charity only points out your own failings in that department. I suggest we stop this line of discussion now and move on. It is unproductive. We BOTH lack humilty. The difference is I am not jumping in to tell you about your lack thereof.

 

[Tmaque]

honeybear:

Sigh. This is your story. You are a unique individual created by God as I am. This worked for you. It does not necessarily work for someone else. Now- a lesson in humility- a sign of it is NOT running around telling other people that they are not charitable and humble. Your constant complaint that I lack humility and charity only points out your own failings in that department. I suggest we stop this line of discussion now and move on. It is unproductive. We BOTH lack humilty. The difference is I am not jumping in to tell you about your lack thereof.

I’ll let you have the last word…

 

[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?

 

[FCEGM]

Sorry for the delay in responding, Tom.

I believe that the authority of Rome would have and should have stepped in during some of the earlier controversies.

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.

Even as a Catholic I do not think I could believe that Clement and some of his successors KNEW they were at the head of the church.

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. Clearly, the High Priest in Jerusalem was the authoritative head of the Jewish people in the 1st Century (see Acts 23:3-5, Acts 9:1-2, Acts 28:21-22, John 11:49-51, etc.). Yet, no one would seriously argue that Judaism was an organized, worldwide “institution” at this time, especially in regard to the Jewish communities scattered all throughout the Roman Empire and beyond (i.e., the Jewish Diaspora). No, Judaism was not an organized “institution,” but a unified people - a Covenant people (the Jews); and all of these Jews looked to Jerusalem (and ultimately to the High Priest) as their ruling religious authority.

It was no different for the early Church, which also was not yet an organized institution (as it would become once the Roman Empire itself adopted Christianity), but it was a united “catholic” (universal) people which, after the destruction of Jerusalem and the close of the Apostolic age, looked to Peter’s own church of Rome for its universal leadership and its ultimate earthly authority. This is something that Clement and his successors were VERY MUCH aware of. The historical record proves it.

As a Catholic, I would see that the Peterine authority was placed with them, but until it was absolutely necessary to prevent the church from being torn apart it was neither exercised nor realized.

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. Clement is aware of his authority, as were the Corinthians who wrote to him (that is, to Rome). Ignatius speaks of Rome “presiding in love” and of how it “presides in the chief place” and how it “teaches others”, that is, other bishops/other churches. Polycarp clearly shared one faith with Ignatius, and acknowledges the church of Rome’s importance and authority by making a thousand-mile journey there to represent his fellow Asians on the Easter controversy; something he did at the age of 85. And Polycarp’s faithful disciple Ireneaus likewise speaks of Rome’s “preeminent authority” and says how all other churches “must agree” with the Traditional authority of Rome. These are 1st Century men and associates of the Apostles witnesssing to the fact that Rome’s primal authority. What more do you need???

As a non-Catholic. . .

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.

continued. . .

 

[FCEGM]

it seems to me the stressors on the church that did not evoke the Peterine authority were not less important than the stressors that resulted in the development of the Peterine authority. In fact, the great schism reflects directly upon the Papal authority and whether it is prime?

No, the Great Schism (which did not take place until 1054 - the Middle Ages), reflects the problem of Byzantine Caesaro-Papism - that is, the failure of the Byzantines to distinguish between the authority of the Empire and the authority of the Church itself. The reason that the Schism occurred was because the Byzantine Emperor sought the title “Ecumenical Patriarch” for his own bishop of Constantinople, so that Constantinople could have the sole authority to ratify ecumenical councils and so maintain the “One Church, One Empire” policy of Byzantium - the Church as the Empire’s “state cult” (the glue that held the Empire together). Rome had blocked and denied this pretension several times, both because it was un-Traditional (Constantinople had no Apostolic authority) and because it violated canon 6 of the Council of Nicaea, which secured the prerogatives of the Eastern Patriarchs of Alexandria and Antioch, which held primacy (in that order) in the East due to their Petrine ties of discipleship to Rome.

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. Don’t believe me? Here are a few samples of was pre-Schism Byzantine’s believed, starting with Bishop Flavian of Constantinople in A.D. 449.

"When I began to appeal to the throne of the Apostolic See of Peter, the Prince of the Apostles, and to the whole sacred synod, which is obedient to Your Holiness, at once a crowd of soldiers surrounded me and barred my way when I wished to take refuge at the holy altar. …Therefore, I beseech Your Holiness not to permit these things to be treated with indifference …but to
rise up first on behalf of the cause of our orthodox Faith, now destroyed by unlawful acts. …Further to issue an authoritative instruction …so that a like faith may everywhere be preached by the assembly of an united synod of fathers, both Eastern and Western. Thus the laws of the fathers may prevail
and all that has been done amiss be rendered null and void. Bring healing to this ghastly wound. (Bishop Flavian of Constantinople to Pope Leo, 449).

Likewise, Flavian’s successor, Bishop Anatolius of Constantinople, writes to apologize for Canon 28 of the Council of Chalcedon --a canon that Rome (in the person of Pope Leo) “vetoed” because it tried to unseat Alexandria as the primate in the East and make Constantinople the “Ecumenical Patriarch” mentioned above. He writes:

“As for those things which the universal Council of Chalcedon recently ordained in favor of the Church of Constantinople, let Your Holiness be sure that there was no fault in me, who from my youth have always loved peace and quiet, keeping myself in humility. It was the most reverend clergy of the Church of Constantinople who were eager about it, and they were equally
supported by the most reverend priests of those parts, who agreed about it. Even so, the whole force of confirmation of the acts was reserved for the authority of Your Blessedness. Therefore, let Your Holiness know for certain that I did nothing to further the matter, knowing always that I held myself bound to avoid the lusts of pride and covetousness.” - Patriarch Anatolius
of Constantinople to Pope Leo, Ep 132 (on the subject of canon 28 of Chalcedon).

Likewise, Macedonius, Bishop of Constantinople (466-516) declared, when desired by the Emperor Anastasius to condemn the Council of Chalcedon, that …

“…such a step without an Ecumenical Synod presided over by the Pope of Rome is impossible.’” (Macedonius, Patr. Graec. 108: 360a (Theophan. Chronogr. pp. 234-346 seq.)

Also,

The Emperor Justinian the Great (520-533) says. . .

Writing to the Pope:

“Yielding honor to the Apostolic See and to Your Holiness, and honoring your Holiness, as one ought to honor a father, we have hastened to subject all the priests of the whole Eastern district, and to unite them to the See of your Holiness, for we do not allow of any point, however manifest and indisputable it be, which relates to the state of the Churches, not being brought to the
cognizance of your Holiness, since you are the Head of all the holy Churches.” (Justinian Epist. ad. Pap. Joan. ii. Cod. Justin. lib. I. tit.
1).

…and …

“Let your Apostleship show that you have worthily succeeded to the Apostle Peter, since the Lord will work through you, as Supreme Pastor, the salvation of all.” (Coll. Avell. Ep. 196, July 9th, 520, Justinian to Pope Hormisdas).

continued. . .

 

[FCEGM]

Also …

St. Maximus the Confessor (c. 650) - a celebrated theologian and a native of Constantinople, says:

“The extremities of the earth, and everyone in every part of it who purely and rightly confess the Lord, look directly towards the Most Holy Roman Church and her confession and faith, as to a sun of unfailing light awaiting from her the brilliant radiance of the sacred dogmas of our Fathers, according to that which the inspired and holy Councils have stainlessly and piously decreed. For, from the descent of the Incarnate Word amongst us, all
the churches in every part of the world have held the greatest Church alone to be their base and foundation, seeing that, according to the promise of Christ Our Savior, the gates of hell will never prevail against her, that she has the keys of the orthodox confession and right faith in Him, that she opens the true and exclusive religion to such men as approach with piety, and she shuts up and locks every heretical mouth which speaks against the Most High.” (Maximus, Opuscula theologica et polemica, Migne, Patr. Graec. vol.
90)

…and …

“How much more in the case of the clergy and Church of the Romans, which from old until now presides over all the churches which are under the sun? Having surely received this canonically, as well as from councils and the apostles, as from the princes of the latter (Peter & Paul), and being numbered in their company, she is subject to no writings or issues in synodal documents, on
account of the eminence of her pontificate …even as in all these things all are equally subject to her (the Church of Rome) according to sacerodotal law. And so when, without fear, but with all holy and becoming confidence,those ministers (the popes) are of the truly firm and immovable rock, that is of the most great and Apostolic Church of Rome.” (Maximus, in J.B. Mansi, ed. Amplissima Collectio Conciliorum, vol. 10)

…and …

“If the Roman See recognizes Pyrrhus to be not only a reprobate but a heretic, it is certainly plain that everyone who anathematizes those who have rejected Pyrrhus also anathematizes the See of Rome, that is, he anathematizes the Catholic Church. I need hardly add that he excommunicates
himself also, if indeed he is in communion with the Roman See and the Catholic Church of God …Let him hasten before all things to satisfy the Roman See, for if it is satisfied, all will agree in calling him pious and orthodox. For he only speaks in vain who thinks he ought to persuade or entrap persons like myself, and does not satisfy and implore the blessed Pope of the most holy Catholic Church of the Romans, that is, the Apostolic See,
which is from the incarnate of the Son of God Himself, and also all the holy synods, according to the holy canons and definitions has received universal and supreme dominion, authority, and power of binding and loosing over all the holy churches of God throughout the whole world.” (Maximus, Letter to Peter, in Mansi x, 692).

Also, John VI, Bishop of Constantinople (715), says …

“The Pope of Rome, the head of the Christian priesthood, whom in Peter, the Lord commanded to confirm his brethren.” (John VI, Epist. ad Constantin. Pap. ad. Combefis, Auctuar. Bibl. P.P. Graec.tom. ii. p. 211, seq.)

Also, St. Nicephorus, Bishop of Constantinople (758-828) says:

“Without whom (the Romans presiding in the seventh Council) a doctrine brought forward in the Church could not, even though confirmed by canonical decrees and by ecclesiastical usage, ever obtain full approval or currency. For it is they (the Popes of Rome) who have had assigned to them the rule in sacred things, and who have received into their hands the dignity of headship
among the Apostles.” (Nicephorus, Niceph. Cpl. pro. s. imag. c 25 [Mai N. Bibl. pp. ii. 30]).

Also, St. Theodore the Studite of Constantinople (759-826):

Writing to Pope Leo III:

“Since to great Peter Christ our Lord gave the office of Chief Shepherd after entrusting him with the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, to Peter or his successor must of necessity every novelty in the Catholic Church be referred. [Therefore], save us, oh most divine Head of Heads, Chief Shepherd of the
Church of Heaven.” (Theodore, Bk. I. Ep. 23)

continued. . .

 

[FCEGM]

And writing to Pope Paschal:

"Hear, O Apostolic Head, divinely-appointed Shepherd of Christ’s sheep, keybearer of the Kingdom of Heaven, Rock of the Faith upon whom the Catholic Church is built. For Peter art thou, who adornest and governest the Chair of Peter. Hither, then, from the West, imitator of Christ, arise and repel not for ever (Ps. xliii. 23). To thee spake Christ our Lord: ‘And thou being one day converted, shalt strengthen thy brethren.’ Behold the hour and the
place. Help us, thou that art set by God for this. Stretch forth thy hand so far as thou canst. Thou hast strength with God, through being the first of all. (Letter of St. Theodore and four other Abbots to Pope Paschal, Bk. ii Ep. 12, Patr. Graec. 99, 1152-3)

And writing to Emperor Michael:

"Order that the declaration from old Rome be received, as was the custom by Tradition of our Fathers from of old and from the beginning. For this, O Emperor, is the highest of the Churches of God, in which first Peter held the Chair, to whom the Lord said: “Thou art Peter …and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” (Theodore, Bk. II. Ep. 86)

…and …

“I witness now before God and men, they have torn themselves away from the Body of Christ, from the Supreme See (Rome), in which Christ placed the keys of the Faith, against which the gates of hell (I mean the mouth of heretics) have not prevailed, and never will until the Consummation, according to the
promise of Him Who cannot lie. Let the blessed and Apostolic Paschal (Pope St. Paschal I) rejoice therefore, for he has fulfilled the work of Peter.” (Theodore Bk. II. Ep. 63).

…and to the Pope …

“In truth we have seen that a manifest successor of the prince of the Apostles presides over the Roman Church. We truly believe that Christ has not deserted the Church here (Constantinople), for assistance from you has been our one and only aid from of old and from the beginning by the providence of God in the critical times. You are, indeed the untroubled and pure fount of orthodoxy from the beginning, you the calm harbor of the whole
Church, far removed from the waves of heresy, you the God-chosen city of refuge.” (Letter of St. Theodore & Four Abbots to Pope Paschal).

…and …

“Let him (Patriarch Nicephorus of Constantinople) assemble a synod of those with whom he has been at variance, if it is impossible that representatives of the other Patriarchs should be present, a thing which might certainly be if the Emperor should wish the Western Patriarch (the Roman Pope) to be
present, to whom is given authority over an ecumenical synod; but let him make peace and union by sending his synodical letters to the prelate of the First See.” (Theodore the Studite, Patr. Graec. 99, 1420)

Likewise, Sts. Cyril & Methodius (c. 865), natives of Constantinople and the Great Apostles to the Slavs, say …

“Because of his primacy, the Pontiff of Rome is not required to attend an Ecumenical Council; but without his participation, manifested by sending some subordinates, every Ecumenical Council is as non-existent, for it is he who presides over the Council.” (Sts. Cyril & Methodius, c. 865 A.D.)

…and …

“It is not true, as this Canon states, that the holy Fathers gave the primacy to old Rome because it was the capital of the Empire; it is from on high, from divine grace, that this primacy drew its origin. Because of the intensity of his faith Peter, the first of the Apostles, was addressed in these words by our Lord Jesus Christ himself ‘Peter, lovest thou me? Feed my sheep’. That is why in hierarchical order Rome holds the pre-eminent place and is the first See. That is why the leges of old Rome are eternally immovable, and that is the view of all the Churches” (–Methodius —N. Brian-Chaninov, The Russian Church (1931), 46; cited by Butler, Church and Infallibility, 210) (Upon This Rock (San Francisco: Ignatius, 1999), p. 177).

continued. . .

 

[FCEGM]

Also, on the very eve of the Schism, St. Symeon the New Theologian (949-1022), even though he had some problems with Rome introducing the Filioque clause into the Nicene Creed, gives witness to the true Byzantine Tradition by saying:

“One should not contradict the Latins when they say that the Bishop of Rome is the first. This primacy is not harmful to the Church. Let them only prove his faithfulness to the faith of Peter and to that of the successors of Peter. If it is so, let him enjoy all the privileges of Pontiff. Let the Bishop of Rome be successor of the orthodoxy of Sylvester and Agatho, of Leo, Liberius, Martin and Gregory, then we also will call him Apostolic and the first among the other bishops; then we also will obey him, not only as Peter, but as the Savior Himself.” (Symeon the New Theologian, Dialogue Against Heresies 23, PG 155:120 AC; cited in Meyendorff, The Primacy of Peter).

There’s plenty more where those come from. It is the Eastern Orthodox who have departed from Apostolic Tradition in regard to the primacy of Rome, not the Catholics. This is also why we have millions of Eastern Rite Catholics - that is, Eastern Orthodox who are in communion with Rome. Notice that the Eastern Orthodox do not have any Western Catholics in communion with them. What does that tell you??

I have responded to your Clement and Ignatius quotes in post #6 of this thread. In addition to this I provide a number of things said by Clement and Ignatius that show they did not recognize the Roman authority. >>>>>

Oh? I don’t see it.

Irenaeus is the earliest statement that I believe really begins to point at Roman primacy.

OK; but, as I said, Ireneaus was a disciple of Polycarp, who was an associate of Ignatius, who was a contemporary of Clement. He does not appear in a vacuum.

Irenaeus’ writings still witness that he is mostly concern with Apostolic routes not specifically Peterine Apostolic roots.

Agreed. Proving the Petrine authority of Rome is not the point that Ireneaus is trying to make in the passage in question. This is because Ireneaus is writing for the benefit of heretics (or those favorably disposed to the heretics) who were already renegades from Church authority. Ergo, Ireneaus takes a very practical approach and illustrates why the authority of bishops (esp. the bishop of Rome) makes sense; that is, how their teachings connect directly to the Apostles via direct succession, and how this exists universally. But, in making this intended point, Ireneaus mentions the “preeminent authority” of Rome, and cites Rome as his example because everyone would agree that Rome represented the united faith of all the other churches. So, he was aware of it, and so were his readers. This you cannot deny.

In fact early apologists often pointed to the primacy of Rome due to its double Apostolic foundations, frequently listing said foundation as Paul and Peter (perhaps because Paul was there first and longer, perhaps because Antioch was established by Peter before Rome).

Paul was not “there first and longer,” and Peter did not establish Antioch as his see before Rome. Peter was in Rome by A.D. 42 (when he had to flee Palestine under Herod Agrippa - see Acts 12; esp. v. 17). He does not return to Palestine until Acts 15:7-11, when he mysteriously reappears in the Acts narrative at (and for) the Jerusalem council. This was precisely 7 years later, that is, A.D. 49; which, not coincidentally, was the same year in which the Emperor Claudius (according to the historian Suetonius and Acts 18:2) had expelled all the Jews from Rome over a riot over someone named “Chrestus”, a mishearing of “Christus” (“Christ”). This is why Peter returned to Palestine, after which he settled in Antioch and established that as a bishopric, before later returning to Rome under Nero.

So, he was there long before Paul wrote to the Romans in A.D. 56. Peter was the “other man” (Romans 15:20) who laid the “foundation” of the church of Rome. Whenever Paul speaks of “foundations,” it is always in regard to an Apostle (1 Cor. 3:10, Eph. 2:19-20, etc.). This is why Rome was always called “the See of Peter” and the “Chair of Peter.” 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.

continued. . .