The great apostasy

[Bobbieaware]

1 hour ago, snowflake said:

Why do you think that the term Aaronic and Melcheisedek priesthood are not used in the NT other than Hebrews (referring to Christ as our high priest forever)?  The terms "authority" and "ordination" are used but Priesthood not so.

Only in Peter believers are called a Royal or Holy Priesthood, because they have Jesus as the only and final High Priest.

Your are incorrect, as the following will amply demonstrate:

FIRST REFERENCE: 

4 John to the seven churches which are in Asia: Grace beunto you, and peace, from him which is, and which was, and which is to come; and from the seven Spirits which are before his throne;

5 And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood,

6 And hath made us kings and priests unto God and his Father; to him be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen. (Revelation 1)

So here we find the apostle John testifying that he and those memebers of the seven churches in Asia — obviously a large number of people — were made kings and priests by your supposed one an only post-resurrection Priest, Jesus Christ. Note that John says they were made both kings and priests, which is interesting in light of the fact that Melchizedek was both a high priest and a king.

SECOND REFERENCE:

9 And they sung a new song, saying, Thou art worthy to take the book, and to open the seals thereof: for thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation;

10 And hast made us unto our God kings and priests: and we shall reign on the earth. (Revelation 5)

Among those who sang the new song were those who were once members of the Church on earth but were now before God’s throne in heaven. So this means these members of the earthly Church continued to be kings and priests after entering heaven.

THIRD REFERENCE:

5 But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection.

6 Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years. (Revelation 20)

Here we learn that after the Second Coming of Christ, during Christ’s millennial reign on earth, there will be members of the Church who will also be priests of God and Christ, and they will rule and reign with the Savior by virtue of that priesthood authority.

It may be of interest to you to learn that within the Latter-Day Saint temples worthy men are ordained to be priests and kings unto God. Have you ever been ordained to be a king and priest unto God? If not, why not? After all you do believe in the Bible, don’t you?

Edited December 11, 2017 by Bobbieaware

[Gray]

1 hour ago, snowflake said:

Why do you think that the term Aaronic and Melcheisedek priesthood are not used in the NT other than Hebrews (referring to Christ as our high priest forever)?  The terms "authority" and "ordination" are used but Priesthood not so.

Only in Peter believers are called a Royal or Holy Priesthood, because they have Jesus as the only and final High Priest.

Mormonism is rather unique I think in that that priesthood is used as a synonym for authority. Not sure how that started.

[snowflake]

19 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

I don't see anything in there about being the last High Priest nor even the last covenant.

Hebrews 7:

²⁴ But this man, because he continueth ever, hath an unchangeable priesthood.

²⁵ Wherefore he is able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them.

²⁶ For such an high priest became us, who is holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and made higher than the heavens;

²⁷ Who needeth not daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifice, first for his own sins, and then for the people's: for this he did once, when he offered up himself.

²⁸ For the law maketh men high priests which have infirmity; but the word of the oath, which was since the law, maketh the Son, who is consecrated for evermore.

22 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

Who did Jesus make that covenant with? Did God send Him to the Gentile nations?

The book of Hebrews is the most Jewish of all the NT books so unless you are very familiar with the OT a lot of the symbolism is difficult to understand, but Jesus came for everyone.

[snowflake]

14 minutes ago, Gray said:

Mormonism is rather unique I think in that that priesthood is used as a synonym for authority. Not sure how that started.

I agree, only to the LDS does "authority" mean "Priesthood"....Joseph started it. I don't know Greek but I would bet that none of the various bible translations would support this LDS claim.  

[Anijen]

On 12/8/2017 at 12:31 PM, snowflake said:

The LDS claim of the great apostasy. I have been looking into this LDS claim and am not finding evidence to support it.

Churches that claim some form of episcopal apostolic succession, dating back to the apostles or to leaders from the apostolic era, include the Roman Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox Church, the Oriental Orthodox Churches, the Church of the East, the Anglican Communion, and some Lutheran churches .

These churches have documented histories that can trace back their Bishops and church lineages to the original Apostles.

My question is when and where did the so called great apostasy happen?

They can NOT trace their Bishops back to the original Apostles and if they claim they can I say ask them for the proof. A very good book on the subject is Tad R. Callister's book The Inevitable Apostasy, see link here. 

I have not read previous posts prior to this posting, I apologize if this post is redundant.

[RevTestament]

Quote

The book of Hebrews is the most Jewish of all the NT books so unless you are very familiar with the OT a lot of the symbolism is difficult to understand, but Jesus came for everyone.

I agree He did. I'm just pointing out what Isaiah says. Jesus came to the Hebrews and the other houses of Israel only. Gentiles did not see Him. He made His covenant with Jews - not Gentiles. Yet Isaiah says the Lord would make a covenant with the Gentiles in their land. That kind of puts a damper on claims that the covenant Jesus brought was the last one...

Just now, snowflake said:

Hebrews 7:

²⁴ But this man, because he continueth ever, hath an unchangeable priesthood.

²⁵ Wherefore he is able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them.

²⁶ For such an high priest became us, who is holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and made higher than the heavens;

²⁷ Who needeth not daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifice, first for his own sins, and then for the people's: for this he did once, when he offered up himself.

²⁸ For the law maketh men high priests which have infirmity; but the word of the oath, which was since the law, maketh the Son, who is consecrated for evermore.

I am so glad you posted that scripture Snowflake. Notice the part I have highlighted in red. What made the Son? The word of the oath. What oath? "thou art my Son, this day I have begotten thee." Hmm. Do you believe that? I do. Yeshua is the Son because of the covenant between He and the Father. That was the beginning of the Sonship of Yeshua. Hmmm and double hmmm for you... Very few Christians see even this far. I have met a grand total of one, besides myself, who admits that the sonship is a covenantal relationship - but even he would not accept that there was a time when Jesus was not the Son.  The scriptures show that Jesus went from being a son of God like Satan once was, to becoming the only begotten Son, and now goes to becoming the Eternal Father as His inheritance. Hmmm. Oops for the doctrine of the trinity in my book.

P.S. And by the way those scriptures do not advance your position that the Son is the end of the office of High Priest. Like Melchizedek, He held an "unchangeable priesthood" by which Melchizedek became without father or mother. Melchizedek became without beginning or end LIKE Christ. Yet, Christians will not accept that so try to make Yeshua Melchizedek. So sad.  

I pose to you that Peter held this office and was called to die upon the cross for the sins of man too. Although not an atonement for the forgiveness of our sins like that of our Savior, it was nevertheless scriptural.

 

 

[Anijen]

On 12/8/2017 at 10:33 PM, mrmarklin said:

The Apostasy is problematic for LDS, because one can go into any Catholic Church and see a chart showing a line of authority from Peter, complete with portraits!

This is only a claim and not proof. For example there are many (many, many) books written on the the investiture controversy which is basically when the church gained authority of appointing their own Abbots, Bishops, etc., and when the State (generally under the sovereign of the Kings) changed hands. Most scholars believe that it started around 1050 AD under Henry's the 4th and 5th and the Catholic Church finally gained full authority back under Pope Innocent III.

[snowflake]

32 minutes ago, Bobbieaware said:

FIRST REFERENCE: 

4 John to the seven churches which are in Asia: Grace beunto you, and peace, from him which is, and which was, and which is to come; and from the seven Spirits which are before his throne;

5 And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood,

6 And hath made us kings and priests unto God and his Father; to him be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen. (Revelation 1)

So here we find the apostle John testifying that he and those memebers of the seven churches in Asia — obviously a large number of people — were made kings and priests by your supposed one an only post-resurrection Priest, Jesus Christ. Note that John says they were made both kings and priests, which is interesting in light of the fact that Melchizedek was both a high priest and a king.

Point 1: I guess you make an interesting point here, with all of these priests (obviously to be a priest you have to be a priesthood holder right?) throughout 7 of the many different NT churches,  surely not only the Apostles were conferring priesthood rights on their church members correct? It would take a long time for the great apostasy to set in with all of these priesthood holders having to die off and start moving away from God. The problem with this route is that the LDS church teaches against it in the great apostasy story.

Point 2: Who do you think Melchizedek is?

Heb 7:³ Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; but made like unto the Son of God; abideth a priest continually.  

[snowflake]

12 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

I am so glad you posted that scripture Snowflake. Notice the part I have highlighted in red. What made the Son? The word of the oath. What oath? "thou art my Son, this day I have begotten thee." Hmm. Do you believe that? I do. Yeshua is the Son because of the covenant between He and the Father. That was the beginning of the Sonship of Yeshua. Hmmm and double hmmm for you... Very few Christians see even this far. I have met a grand total of one, besides myself, who admits that the sonship is a covenantal relationship - but even he would not accept that there was a time when Jesus was not the Son.  The scriptures show that Jesus went from being a son of God like Satan once was, to becoming the only begotten Son, and now goes to becoming the Eternal Father as His inheritance. Hmmm. Oops for the doctrine of the trinity in my book.

I simply disagree with your take that there was a time when Jesus was not the Son, what do you mean by "begotten"? What biblical support do you have for this?

 

 

[TOmNossor]

3 hours ago, snowflake said:

When I read through the NT I don't find any of the rituals recorded or anyone specifically being blessed to pass on the priesthoods, it is all very vague.

Luke 9:1-2

1 Then he called his twelve disciples together, and gave them power and authority over all devils, and to cure diseases.

2 And he sent them to preach the kingdom of God, and to heal the sick.

Nothing here about priesthood.

And here in Hebrews 5

4 And no man taketh this honour unto himself, but he that is called of God, as was Aaron.

5 So also Christ glorified not himself to be made an high priest; but he that said unto him, Thou art my Son, to day have I begotten thee.

6 As he saith also in another place, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec.

Again here Christ is our high priest forever, nobody else just Jesus.

Again Mark 3

14 And he ordained twelve, that they should be with him, and that he might send them forth to preach,

He ordained them at the beginning of his ministry so they could be with him and preach. Nothing about passing on priesthood.

Where in the NT are the specific priesthood blessings found?

If some day I become convinced that the Devil inspired ALL that is the CoJCoLDS, the BOM with SOME of its content only explainable via ancient roots or ancient knowledge unknown to Joseph Smith or anyone in his day, the success of the church founded through Joseph Smith, the witnesses and their testimony, the reliance upon revelation evident in LDS leaders from Joseph Smith to David O. McKay to President Hinckley, and many other things; I would be at the sacrament of reconciliation in hopefully less than 1 day.  I might spend some time determining if I should be an Eastern Orthodox Christian, but your “no ordained priesthood” is so obviously ahistorical I struggle to understand how folks embrace it after reading the history.

The Bible is TOUGH to align with your version of sola scriptura.  We have James 5:13-15 where the PRESBYTERS bless the sick.  We have ordination via the laying on of hands in 1 Timothy 4:14 (and really 5:22 also).

That being said, the idea of ordained leaders was present in extra Biblical words written in the 1st century and in the practice of the church witnessed some in the first century and witnessed extensively in the second century.

Add to this, the very folks who defined the theological positions that Protestants attack LDS with were claiming that they could/should define these positions because they were ordained leaders.  They made arguments in the late 2nd/early 3rd century that you could determine the authenticity of views by tracing the valid “bishops lists.”  If Protestant positions are orthodox Christianity (and are important enough that Protestants deny the term Christian to LDS), then they are the product of ordained folks who used their ordination to win the debates.  How could these folks be 100% correct in all the non-priesthood theological debates and be 100% wrong when they explained what the priesthood was (and when they claimed you can look to them for correct theology because of their priesthood)?

I am not Catholic.  I think the LDS way of looking at the history of the early church aligns well with the historical record we have.  But, I think the Catholic way of looking at the history of the early church with all of its holes (bigger problems than I see for the LDS view) still makes a lot more sense of the data than the Protestant way.  

Some very liberal Protestants do not believe all the Bible was inspired (so the dismiss Timothy and Titus).  They do not necessarily embrace (and certainly do not dogmatically embrace) the theological productions from the Early Church.  They see human messiness contaminating everything to the point that they take great license in defining their beliefs.  Some think Christ was divine some maybe not.  Their rejection of all certainty is IMO a path out of Christianity to agnosticism, but I think the intellectual merits of this path fall somewhere between Catholicism and traditional Protestantism.  One could even argue since they make so few dogmatic assertions there is little to falsify their belief and thus they bend freely at every attack.  The one person I dialogued extensively with stopped briefly at this position on his way to agnosticism.  The main intellectual fault I have with this view is that I think it does violence to the conviction of the folks who lived in the early church.   There was something so powerful that they experienced (both the eyewitnesses of Christ’s ministry and there numerous generations of followers) they reoriented their lives and often died for the faith.  I think there is too much there there to embrace the liberal Protestant position.  

Charity, TOm

Edited December 11, 2017 by TOmNossor

[Bobbieaware]

36 minutes ago, snowflake said:

Point 1: I guess you make an interesting point here, with all of these priests (obviously to be a priest you have to be a priesthood holder right?) throughout 7 of the many different NT churches,  surely not only the Apostles were conferring priesthood rights on their church members correct? It would take a long time for the great apostasy to set in with all of these priesthood holders having to die off and start moving away from God. The problem with this route is that the LDS church teaches against it in the great apostasy story.

Point 2: Who do you think Melchizedek is?

Heb 7:³ Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; but made like unto the Son of God; abideth a priest continually.  

It doesn’t matter how many rank and file priesthood holders there might have been it the New Testament Church, for without duly-ordained living apostles and prophets standing at the helm of the Church it was just a matter of time before the true Church of Christ would cease to exist. The fact that there were no living apostles and prophets in any of the Churches prior to the advent of the Restored Church (LDS Church) is all the proof needed to demonstrate that there indeed was an apostasy, for no member of the body of Christ can say they have no need of the other members of the body, most especially the apostles and prophets whom God ordained to stand at the head of the body of Christ. Without living apostles and prophets there is no true Church.

It is not the man Melchizedek who had no father or mother, it is the Holy priesthood after the order of the Son of God (the original name of the Melchizedek Priesthood) he holds that has no parentage, beginning or end.

Edited December 11, 2017 by Bobbieaware

[TOmNossor]

3 hours ago, snowflake said:

Where in the NT are the specific priesthood blessings found?

In case my previous answer was too long: 

We have James 5:14 where the PRESBYTERS bless the sick.

James 5:14
Is any sick among you? let him call for the elders of the church; and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord:

Charity, TOm

[RevTestament]

22 minutes ago, Anijen said:

This is only a claim and not proof. For example there are many (many, many) books written on the the investiture controversy which is basically when the church gained authority of appointing their own Abbots, Bishops, etc., and when the State (generally under the sovereign of the Kings) changed hands. Most scholars believe that it started around 1050 AD under Henry's the 4th and 5th and the Catholic Church finally gained full authority back under Pope Innocent III.

I think there is good evidence that many of the early churches/bishoprics claimed a founding apostle. I believe the tendency to refer to who baptized you was a reason Paul refused to baptize converts - he didn't want them asserting authority over others by saying "well, Paul baptized me..." as is wont for men to do. I can't point them all out now, but even the Roman Catholic Church did it.... forgetting that Christ himself set up the Church in Jerusalem, and surely, Peter ordained many other bishops than just the one in Rome where he died. Many early churches made apostolic claims of authority according to the early literature - a fact which the Roman Catholic church got around by emphasizing that Peter died in Rome - although how that meant the keys passed only to the Roman bishop is still a mystery.....

[Anijen]

21 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

I think there is good evidence that many of the early churches/bishoprics claimed a founding apostle. I believe the tendency to refer to who baptized you was a reason Paul refused to baptize converts - he didn't want them asserting authority over others by saying "well, Paul baptized me..." as is wont for men to do. I can't point them all out now, but even the Roman Catholic Church did it.... forgetting that Christ himself set up the Church in Jerusalem, and surely, Peter ordained many other bishops than just the one in Rome where he died. Many early churches made apostolic claims of authority according to the early literature - a fact which the Roman Catholic church got around by emphasizing that Peter died in Rome - although how that meant the keys passed only to the Roman bishop is still a mystery.....

I understand where you are coming from and that those are "claims." A claim of a founding apostle does not prove that the church has a non-broken chain of authority.  I use here the well documented investiture controversy as proof that Kings and not the church once had authority. My emphasis is; if Kings had the authority (which has been well proven) to appoint Bishops, Abbots, etc. then at some time the Church must have lost that authority. Hence there was an apostasy.

[snowflake]

1 hour ago, RevTestament said:

Melchizedek became without father or mother. Melchizedek became without beginning or end LIKE Christ. Yet, Christians will not accept that so try to make Yeshua Melchizedek.

How does one become without father and mother? In the BOM Melchizedek has a dad, and reigned under his father.

18 But Melchizedek having exercised mighty faith, and received the office of the high priesthood according to the holy order of God, did preach repentance unto his people. And behold, they did repent; and Melchizedek did establish peace in the land in his days; therefore he was called the prince of peace, for he was the king of Salem; and he did reign under his father.

Who else is called the prince of peace? King of Salem (Jerusalem), kind of obvious Melchizedek is a "type" of Jesus.

[RevTestament]

21 minutes ago, snowflake said:

I simply disagree with your take that there was a time when Jesus was not the Son, what do you mean by "begotten"? What biblical support do you have for this?

Well, snowflake I admit to probably being an army of 1 on this particular topic, although Tertullian said it. Despite him saying that, he gets called the father of Latin orthodoxy, whereas I would surely be burnt at the stake not too long ago. I think this was an ongoing debate in early Christianity which is the reason why the Nicene Council was called by Constantine, and not the oft quoted reason that they needed to settle whether Jesus was the first creation of God or not.

As for what I mean by begotten - may I refer you to that statement I made in my last post. I don't know how to explain it much better. There was a time on a different world where Jesus was a son of God:

Hebrews 5:7 Who in the days of his flesh, when he had offered up prayers and supplications with strong crying and tears unto him that was able to save him from death, and was heard in that he feared;

8 Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered;

9 And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him;

At this point the Lord literally told him:

"Thou art my Son, this day I have begotten thee."

Heb 5:5 So also Christ glorified not himself to be made an high priest; but he that said unto him, Thou art my Son, to day have I begotten thee.

6 As he saith also in another place, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec.

Acts 13:33 God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that he hath raised up Jesus again; as it is also written in the second psalm, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee.

34 And as concerning that he raised him up from the dead, now no more to return to corruption, he said on this wise, I will give you the sure mercies of David.

35 Wherefore he saith also in another psalm, Thou shalt not suffer thine Holy One to see corruption.

This conclusion is supported by many other scriptures, but I simply cannot address them all here. One must understand the scriptures in their totality. On this world Jesus was YHWH Elohim with the Father from the beginning. He was also the El Shaddai of the OT. The Father was always El Elyon, the Most High El, and Jesus made this clear by always deferring to the Father as one greater than He, but whom He followed saying He could do nothing of Himself, but that He seeth the Father do. It is just interspersed throughout the scriptures. One does not see it until one chooses to be open to it. Trinitarian doctrine is designed to shut out that possibility so Trinitarians don't see those truths when they read the scriptures - they read with a preset mindset that gives them blinders. They do things like try to force the angel of the YHWH to be Jesus incarnate, when Jesus was YHWH - one/echad YHWH with the Father from the beginning.

 

[RevTestament]

56 minutes ago, snowflake said:

How does one become without father and mother? In the BOM Melchizedek has a dad, and reigned under his father.

18 But Melchizedek having exercised mighty faith, and received the office of the high priesthood according to the holy order of God, did preach repentance unto his people. And behold, they did repent; and Melchizedek did establish peace in the land in his days; therefore he was called the prince of peace, for he was the king of Salem; and he did reign under his father.

Who else is called the prince of peace? King of Salem (Jerusalem), kind of obvious Melchizedek is a "type" of Jesus.

Spirits don't have fathers and mothers despite what you may have perceived the LDS Church as teaching. Hebrews makes it plain that Jesus was "adopted" as the Son of God in Spirit. 

Hebrews 1:4 Being made so much better than the angels, as he hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name(what name was that? could it have been YHWH or the Son?) than they.

5 For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?

So the Father chose Yeshua to be His only Begotten Son - He was not so before the Father said these things. A spiritual Son-Father relationship is being taught here - one of adoption or words/covenant. So despite Mary giving birth to Jesus, is she His spiritual mother? I pose the Christian must say no - gasp.... In the same way once Melchizedek received the everlasting priesthood of God, he no longer was linked to his earthly father or mother, but to his heavenly Father, the Father of spirits who is without beginning of days in priesthood - something his earthly parents could not give him, but became LIKE the Son of man having inherited an everlasting priesthood - a much greater sealing than any earthly one. Many of the prophets including Moses were a "type" of Jesus to come. Yes, this includes Melchizedek. But Melchizedek was a real man - he was not Yeshua, so the priesthood was not really his anymore than the levitical priesthood was Aaron's. 

Edited December 11, 2017 by RevTestament

[Anijen]

For example, a previous poster brought up the Nicene Creed (325 AD). It was the Emperor Constantine who called for the Council in Nicaea (325) not the Pope. In fact the Pope neither did he show up to the 1st Council of Nicaea nor did he send a representative.  One would think of such an important meeting where the attainment of a consensus regarding doctrine would be discussed and fixed would go out of his way to be there. This shows two points. (1) that it was administered under a king (Emperor) and not the Church, and (2) if doctrines needed to be fixed then there was somewhat of an apostasy (i.e. doctrines needed to be fixed). 

This is the reason before the investiture conflict that kings were anointed as the voice of the church (and God) by religious Bishops (that were appointed by the king) , kings received royal staffs (scepters) and other symbolic items that show the kings authority (not the Bishops or popes). If around 1250-1300 the rolls reversed from Kings having authority to the Popes show a change in authority a change, lack, loss of authority all define what we as LDS believe an apostasy is.

Some of my sources are The Crises of Church and State 1050-1300 by Tierney, The Papal Reform of the Eleventh Century by Robinson, Power and the Holy in the Age of the Investiture Conflict by Miller, The Investiture Controversy by Blumenthal, and The Rule of Benedict. The Rise of Christianity by Stark. I have on hand each of these books and can look up quotes and pages if needed.

[The Nehor]

2 hours ago, Gray said:

The gospels are full of theology - and the theology is slightly different in each of them. What makes you think they're not intended to convert?

The approach is all wrong. If I had only Mark to read about Christianity I have a neat story but not much else. Okay, I might want to follow Christ but that gospel does not have enough information for me to know how. So much is unexplained. I am convinced by their approach that they were helps to believers and were not written to teach the gospel as a whole.

[3DOP]

4 hours ago, Anijen said:

They can NOT trace their Bishops back to the original Apostles and if they claim they can I say ask them for the proof. A very good book on the subject is Tad R. Callister's book The Inevitable Apostasy, see link here. 

I have not read previous posts prior to this posting, I apologize if this post is redundant.

The churches of both East and West have always believed that a bishop is required to ordain another bishop. How and why do you propose that some unordained persons were somehow permitted to "ordain" someone who in turn did the same thing until there were no bishops left? What purpose for good or ill would that serve, and why would it be permitted by institutions that clearly value the idea that there is an unbroken chain of bishops reaching to the Apostles? I trust that your beliefs about our apostasy do not depend on that. Because with all respect, you are the one who lacks proof that for some inexplicable reason, the churches which had always been jealous to preserve episcopal succession at some point began to disregard what was always the practice of their churches, and then at a later time began to value episcopal succession again.  

However apostate you think the Catholic or Orthodox churches are, it seems most difficult to oppose us on the grounds that we have been lax with regards to who gets to ordain bishops. As early as the late 2nd century, St. Irenaeus noted how carefully preserved were the records of the different churches in recognition of the need to maintain an episcopal pedigree reaching back to an apostle. The only reason he didn't write it all down was because it would have been boring. Instead he only gives the records for the Church at Rome:

"It is within the power of all, therefore, in every Church, who may wish to see the truth, to contemplate clearly the tradition of the apostles manifested throughout the whole world; and we are in a position to reckon up those who were by the apostles instituted bishops in the Churches and [to demonstrate] the succession of these men to our own times... Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its preeminent authority..."  (Against the Heresies, Book Three, ch. 3) (Protestant translation)

Edited December 12, 2017 by 3DOP

[RevTestament]

2 hours ago, 3DOP said:

The churches of both East and West have always believed that a bishop is required to ordain another bishop.

Just a little friendly dig here 3DOP - then isn't an apostle needed to ordain another apostle? How can a bishop be an apostle or receive apostolic keys? Why should I believe someone who says he has apostolic keys if he was not ordained by an apostle to be an apostle, nor hold the office of apostle?

[mrmarklin]

6 hours ago, Anijen said:

This is only a claim and not proof. For example there are many (many, many) books written on the the investiture controversy which is basically when the church gained authority of appointing their own Abbots, Bishops, etc., and when the State (generally under the sovereign of the Kings) changed hands. Most scholars believe that it started around 1050 AD under Henry's the 4th and 5th and the Catholic Church finally gained full authority back under Pope Innocent III.

A claim, not proof for sure. 

 

However, it’s a strong claim because what other church can even make this claim among Christians?

 

All other churches must rely on something else to assure their members that they are genuine.   And, AFAIK, only LDS claim a restoration.

So there are really only two contenders for TRUE CHURCH. At least in Christianity. 

[TOmNossor]

5 hours ago, 3DOP said:

Because with all respect, you are the one who lacks proof that for some inexplicable reason, the churches which had always been jealous to preserve episcopal succession at some point began to disregard what was always the practice of their churches, and then at a later time began to value episcopal succession again.  

Hello,

I think the below is of value to this discussion, but as I think about your point I think your point might be enough different that the below is not really a response to it.

It is true that bishops ordaining bishops was important pretty early.  The interchangeability of the terms for bishop and priest in the early church make this a less than absolutely clear truth, but it was very early were bishops began to be above mere priests.  This probably happened in the 1st century in some churches and in the early 2nd century in most places.  Which doesn't change the fact that Irenaeus in the late 2nd century can still use the terms somewhat interchangeably.

But, bishop ordaining bishop I think has been important from very early and perhaps the beginning.

....

And because I wrote it, here is what I thought I was responding too (which has relevance for the thread, but may not be a direct response to what you were asserting).  

....

I cannot remember if you have read Father Sullivan's book.  Also, there is a book Bishop's Lists by a Protestant author that David of course has read (but I have not).

I do not think the Bishop's Lists were as important to the VERY early church as you think they were.  One of the remarkable things in the history is that the  local Roman Church considered Clement of Rome the first Bishop of Rome after Peter the apostle.  I think it was Irenaeus who came up with Linus, Cletus, and Clement as 1,2, and 3 (or anachronistically 2, 3, and 4).  But Tertullian had Clement as first and Jerome preserved the truth that the Latins (local Roman Church) think he is second after Peter (though Jerome writing centuries later relates the current view).  I am pretty sure some early accounts have him as 3rd.  So, I do not dispute that Bishop lists became important, but the MOST important one of all, the Bishop of Rome list was in flux for a long time.  Why?
My answer is that Rome was a little late to the single bishop for extended periods of time at the head of the church.  Other places like Antioch were probably earlier.  And that while ordination is important and early, the idea that the Bishops form an essential line as the successors of the Apostles was a later understanding.  The "Bishops Lists" were pressed into service against heresies, but when there were gaps, the gaps were filled with conjecture because originally the "Bishops Lists" were not as important as the became.  From this we have Roman church confusion, we have Sixtus (the sixth bishop of Rome that we know very little about, probably so little we don't know his name).
The primacy of Rome also went through flux.  The Pseudo Clementine Recognitions detail Peter selection Clement as the new head of the church, but they are a 4th century creations that purports to be Clements account, but is not.  Some early authors told us that the Bishop or Rome is at the head of the church because the Roman Church was started by Peter AND Paul.  Some emphasized the MARTYRDOM of Peter as the defining aspect of Roman primacy.  I think some claim Peter founded the church in Rome, but any who claim this don’t know the history as it is accepted today.  And the more modern version that Peter was the 1st Bishop or Rome (and ignore the fact that Peter was the First Bishop of Antioch before Rome).
So, I think you are correct that the ordination of bishops by bishops is important, but I do not think it creates the lines of succession with great clarity at least not early on.
Do you see different things in the history?
Charity, TOm

Edited December 12, 2017 by TOmNossor

[Anijen]

4 hours ago, 3DOP said:

you are the one who lacks proof 

I can show secular documents of abby's being willed to their children and there are endless documents on the investiture conflict. I say it is you who lacks the proof that any church can trace their linage back to Peter.

I mean we in the LDS church have our Priesthood "Line of Authority" and I believe they are true, but they are not secular proof. With all do respect the Catholic Church can not prove its linage to Peter either.

[Gray]

17 hours ago, snowflake said:

I agree, only to the LDS does "authority" mean "Priesthood"....Joseph started it. I don't know Greek but I would bet that none of the various bible translations would support this LDS claim.  

It's not really important - "authority" is what is meant.