Apostasy and the Removal of the President

[Vance]

23 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

Actually, no. Both the Catholic Church and the Eastern Churches say the other is NOT in apostasy. If you claim otherwise, then you are telling us what we believe. Please kindly refrain from that.

I didn't claim that either Church claimed otherwise, so I was not telling you what you believe.

 

But, I did provide (above) evidence against your claim.

I suspect that a little research could uncover more evidence. 

23 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

Now, perhaps you are using a different definition of apostasy. My understanding (correct me if I'm wrong) is that the LDS definition of the great apostasy is that priesthood authority was taken from the earth. Now, both the Catholic Church and the Eastern Churches claim that the priesthood authority of the other is valid.

I would agree with you that their priesthood authority is equally valid.

23 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

Finally, based on my previous interactions with you, I'm not sure this discussion will be fruitful, so I'll bow out now.

Ok.

23 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

But I will highlight again that you shouldn't tell us what we believe.

I am glad that I didn't do that.

 

[Vance]

4 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

There is a somewhat parallel with this in Catholicism. Bishops have the ability to consecrate (ordain) other bishops. However, that consecration has to be approved by the Pope, or all involved are automatically excommunicated. If the Pope does not give permission, priesthood authority is still given in the consecration, but the bishop does not have jurisdiction. In other words, he does have the priesthood but he doesn't have the right to use it. To use your analogy, he has the driver's license but not the car. If he tries to use his priesthood, he is hot-wiring a car since he has no right to it.

So, when an Orthodox Bishop consecrates (ordains) other bishops does he get the approval of the Pope? Does the Pope give permission to Orthodox Bishops? 

 

Does this mean that If Martin Luther would have been a bishop, then the Lutherans wouldn't be considered Protestant?

[RevTestament]

7 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

Yes, it is from the Greek and means father. Do you abstain from its use because you feel it is not value neutral? Or is there some other reason?

Here is his official title:

Bishop of Rome, Vicar of Jesus Christ, Successor of the Prince of the Apostles, Supreme Pontiff of the Universal Church, Primate of Italy, Archbishop and Metropolitan of the Roman Province, Sovereign of the Vatican City State, Servant of the servants of God.

Patriarch of the West used to be in there, too, for a few decades.

 

6 hours ago, Anijen said:

Thank you for this information, I already knew it, but perhaps your need to educate me will be beneficial. Thank you.

I'm not sure what you want. I reserve the title of Holy Father for the Most High God/Power, our Father in heaven. Holy essentially is the English equivalent for set apart. I take Yeshua's command seriously here. Obviously, He was not speaking of our earthly fathers who we can call father. God the Father is set apart or holy. 

As for the origin of the the use of "pope" one must just be familiar with the many ancient texts. For example in a letter to Bishop Athanasius (bishop of Alexandria), which was apparently sent to emperor Constantine, Arius declares

...this God has begotten an only Son before eternal times, and through him has made the ages and the rest. He has begotten him not in appearance but in truth and brought him into being by his own will, immutable and unalterable; God's perfect creature but not like any other creature; an offspring, but not like any other offspring; and not an emanation, as Valentinus believed the Father's offspring to be; nor as Mani represented the offspring as a co-essential part of the Father; nor like Sabellius, who said "Son-Father" to divide the unity; nor as Hieracas called him a light kindled from a light, or a lamp become two; nor existent before his begetting and later generated or created anew as a Son. You yourself, blessed Pope [the custom of calling a bishop papa or pope started in Alexandria - not Rome], have very often publicly dissuaded those who give these explanations in the church and assembly. But as we say, He is a Son created by the will of God before the times and ages, who has received his life, being and glory from the Father, the Father subsisting together with him. 

The Alexandrians addressed their bishops as pappas, and this practice later carried over to the west. 

As for the history of the college of pontiffs, it was headed by the Pontifex Maximus, or supreme pontiff, who chose the vestal virgins in pagan Rome. Starting with Julius Caesar, the emperors, including Constantine, were chosen as the Pontifex maximus. I think it was Gratian who refused the title or office in the 5th century, thus leaving it available for the Bishop of Rome, who used it for well over a millennia. Wikipedia provides a sufficient summary . https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/College_of_Pontiffs

If you want further details i suggest a PM so as to not derail the thread.

Quote

Actually it is very adequate for me to say the kings chose the popes (prior to 13th and parts of 12th century). With an incredible amount of historical evidence to back this up.

Ask about any college History professor and they will concur that up until mid 13th century it were the kings who decided who were the Popes, Abbots, Bishops etc.

See:

• The Crises of Church and State 1050-1300 ~ Brian Tierney
• Church and State Through the Centuries ~ S.Z. Ehler and J.B. Morrall
• The Correspondence of Pope Gregory VII ~ trans. by E. Emerton
• Monumenta Germaniae Historica
• Patrologia Latina ~ J.P. Migne
• The Carolingian Empire ~ Heinrich Fichtenau/translated by Peter Munz
• Constantine and the Conversion of Europe ~A.H.M. Jones

And many, many more.

Throughout history as Christianity grew it was the natural belief that the ruler (be it emperor or king) was divinely endowed  to control the state, with that power, that ruler also held a sacral role as head and symbol of the peoples religion. Kings were coronated by priests to be the head of state and church. They were given sacred staffs, anointed with oil, and crowns symbolic of that duel role.

As time went on (circa 1050) these kingdoms fractured into many creating multiple kingdoms (e.g. France, England, etc..).  At this time instead of one Emperor (e.g. Constantine) there were many Kings and their powers diminished. At the same time Christianity was growing with the church having only one leader (the Pope), the church's power and influence grew. The reasoning is because there were now Christians all over the western world. It was between 1050 and 1250 when the great battles between church and state began with the church winning out (around 1250). In my opinion, it is when Innocent III (1198-1216 as Pope) or perhaps Boniface VIII (1294-1303 as Pope) is when the church had total control and authority on choosing their Pope.

Again, I don't really feel that is true for the most part. For much of history before the Holy Roman Empire the Roman pontiff was elected by the people. The king or emperor then confirmed him - it was really almost always just a formality, but nevertheless he really didn't do the actual choosing. Then for a time the pontiff was confirmed by the exarch at Ravenna rather than a king. Under both the Frankish and the German versions of the Holy Roman Empire a good number of Roman pontiffs were not confirmed by the king.

Wikipedia gives a decent summary of the confusing history: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_appointment

Edited April 30, 2019 by RevTestament

[Anijen]

I do not know why you keep lecturing me about how the title of "Pope" came about.  I have never asked about it, and I never needed you to clarify to me its origin, but you keep doing so. 

 

My point was that throughout history prior to 1250 AD it was the nobles who controlled much of who was in church leadership positions all the way up to Pope. However, you continue to deny that. Here, is what I am going to reply to.

Quote

 

Again, I don't really feel that is true for the most part. For much of history before the Holy Roman Empire the Roman pontiff was elected by the people. The king or emperor then confirmed him - it was really almost always just a formality, but nevertheless he really didn't do the actual choosing. Then for a time the pontiff was confirmed by the exarch at Ravenna rather than a king. Under both the Frankish and the German versions of the Holy Roman Empire a good number of Roman pontiffs were not confirmed by the king.

 

 

After the death of the Savior, the Church fell into apostasy. Even with apostasy, Christianity still grew despite much persecution and even some being fed to lions in Roman coliseums. Bishops were only in charge of their local congregations, for example the Bishop of Rome was over the church in Rome but not elsewhere. The church really did not come into any power until after Constantine. In 1046 Henry III became king. As custom the pope was suppose to officiate the coronation of the king. At this time, three popes showed up to do the coronation.

       --King Henry III was disgusted to find these three rival candidates, each claimed to be the rightful Pope. Henry III settled the issue in high handed fashion, he dismissed all three would be Popes and installed another of his own choosing. His first appointee died after a few months in office, and the second lived only a few weeks. Both of them were apparently poisoned   factions at Rome that resented imperial intervention. Henry's third appointment of pope reigned for five years and in that time succeeded in transforming the papacy. ~Brian Tierney The         Crises of Church and State 1050-1300 page 28

Still, during these times it was common for noblemen to buy bishoprics, appoint abbots, inherit abby's etc.. Henry also selected Pope bruno of Toul (His papal name Leo IX)  which was when the church was divided between East and West. It would be Leo IX to start the Investiture Conflict when the church really started gaining power and later around 1250 the Catholic Church started selecting their own Popes. After Henry's selection of Leo IX, Henry III selected Gerard of Chatenov (who was Henry III relative).

Now if you continue to posit that no kings selected Popes then you will be going up against history itself, historians from secular and religious documents. I am not just spouting my own theories here, I am quoting historical fact.

[3DOP]

20 hours ago, Vance said:

I have gotten bored with so much of the stuff being posted of late.  To much of the Homosexual stuff, which I can't comment on without getting in trouble.

. . . .

I understand that the difference.  But I could argue that absence of evidence IS also evidence of absence, it is just NOT PROOF of absence.  If absence, then no evidence.

 

Here is the deal.

1. The replacement of Judas by Matthias was a big deal, it was done openly in the church and documented in scripture.

2. The opening of teaching of the Gospel to the gentiles was a big deal,  it was done openly in the church and documented in scripture.

3. The calling of Saul (Paul) and Barnabus to the ministry was a big deal, it was done openly in the church and documented in scripture.

I suspect I could come up with more, given time.

The transfer of authority from Peter and/or Paul to some entity/person in Rome would have been A VERY BIG DEAL, but . . . it wasn't done openly in the church nor documented in scripture.

Based on this pattern, absence of scriptural (or other documented) evidence, it can indeed be construed as evidence of absence, just not proof of absence.

Just saying.

Hi Vance. Homosex is along with being a crime against nature...Boring. But I have dated myself, as you have. In the year 2000, nobody was advocating that homo was okay. If you are me, you live 54 years of life before it enters your consciousness that there are people who think marriage can take place between people of the same sex. And we are supposed to think it is possible? Whose grandparents could ever have conceived such a development?

As for what is right, I'll go with B. Obama, who in 2008, affirmed what Grandpa and Grandma took for granted. The 20teens are so over the top crazy and disconnected from the previous 200 decades, that I am chicken. 199 decades to 1. I go with the majority. Same sex marriage can't make it over the long haul. Plus...it is boring. 

Next question. The arguments for succession from Peter only work if you are more than favorably impressed with the fruit which comes from those who are so persuaded, as I am. By their fruits, shall we know the good shepherds from the wolves. Of course, I think most non- Catholics have been denied knowledge of the good fruit, and have been presented with exaggerated and misplaced blame for where there is apparently corrupt fruit, stemming from those who are attached to the idea that the bishop of Rome has succeeded St. Peter.

This gives me hope for good guys and gals who oppose a Rome that they really don't know. It is hard for Satan. If you err, that is not enough. He has to make you err in such a way that you actually hate God. Like you should know that the Catholic faith is true, but you don't care. If we go to hell, we can't blame God. Duh. He doesn't want or need to be unjust. He obviously prefers mercy. Anyway, may the good God of love save us both, and all souls, especially those in most need of His mercy. May the 20teeners take the first places. I know I don't deserve that. But still. I am a child of my age. I can't be impressed with a novelty that has lasted for less than ten years. I am more impressed with longevity than what is current.

Y'all don't hold what I am about to say against your own crusty Vance. It isn't his fault. It isn't my fault if we are wrong for having doubts about 2019. It's too much to ask for us to reject the axioms of most of our lives and all of the lives of anyone we can remember before us. Vance is my kind of Mormon, and my kind of Catholic too.

Hey V. Take care.

Your friend in Jesus.

3DOP

 

 

[3DOP]

20 hours ago, Vance said:

I have gotten bored with so much of the stuff being posted of late.  To much of the Homosexual stuff, which I can't comment on without getting in trouble.

. . . .

I understand that the difference.  But I could argue that absence of evidence IS also evidence of absence, it is just NOT PROOF of absence.  If absence, then no evidence.

 

Here is the deal.

1. The replacement of Judas by Matthias was a big deal, it was done openly in the church and documented in scripture.

2. The opening of teaching of the Gospel to the gentiles was a big deal,  it was done openly in the church and documented in scripture.

3. The calling of Saul (Paul) and Barnabus to the ministry was a big deal, it was done openly in the church and documented in scripture.

I suspect I could come up with more, given time.

The transfer of authority from Peter and/or Paul to some entity/person in Rome would have been A VERY BIG DEAL, but . . . it wasn't done openly in the church nor documented in scripture.

Based on this pattern, absence of scriptural (or other documented) evidence, it can indeed be construed as evidence of absence, just not proof of absence.

Just saying.

Hi Vance. Homosex is along with being a crime against nature...Boring. But I have dated myself, as you have. In the year 2000, nobody was advocating that homo was okay. If you are me, you live 54 years of life before it enters your consciousness that there are people who think marriage can take place between people of the same sex. And we are supposed to think it is possible? Whose grandparents could ever have conceived such a development?

As for what is right, I'll go with B. Obama, who in 2008, affirmed what Grandpa and Grandma took for granted. The 20teens are so over the top crazy and disconnected from the previous 200 decades, that I am chicken. 199 decades to 1. I go with the majority. Same sex marriage can't make it over the long haul. Plus...it is boring. 

Next question. The arguments for succession from Peter only work if you are more than favorably impressed with the fruit which comes from those who are so persuaded, as I am. By their fruits, shall we know the good shepherds from the wolves. Of course, I think most non- Catholics have been denied knowledge of the good fruit, and have been presented with exaggerated and misplaced blame for where there is apparently corrupt fruit, stemming from those who are attached to the idea that the bishop of Rome has succeeded St. Peter.

This gives me hope for good guys and gals who oppose a Rome that they really don't know. It is hard for Satan. If you err, that is not enough. He has to make you err in such a way that you actually hate God. Like you should know that the Catholic faith is true, but you don't care. If we go to hell, we can't blame God. Duh. He doesn't want or need to be unjust. He obviously prefers mercy. Anyway, may the good God of love save us both, and all souls, especially those in most need of His mercy. May the 20teeners take the first places. I know I don't deserve that. But still. I am a child of my age. I can't be impressed with a novelty that has lasted for less than ten years. I am more impressed with longevity than what is current.

Y'all don't hold what I am about to say against your own crusty Vance. It isn't his fault. It isn't my fault if we are wrong for having doubts about 2019. It's too much to ask for us to reject the axioms of most of our lives and all of the lives of anyone we can remember before us. Vance is my kind of Mormon, and my kind of Catholic too.

Hey V. Take care.

Your friend in Jesus.

3DOP

PS: Rev Test...You might. But I won't forget. Donation of Constantine. That takes some preparation. Give me A few days to look in to the untidy facts...You could give me a preview if you want to explain how Ludwig Pastor still stayed Catholic nevertheless. I'll find out eventually anyway!

Thanks for the sources...Rory.

 

[Joshua Valentine]

@Vance Please forgive the bold all over - device/software incompatibility glitch. Also, I could have added some emoji´s to make clear some levity, but you seem comfortable without such obvious signals.

Quote

 

 On 4/28/2019 at 7:50 PM, Joshua Valentine said:

I believe you are arguing that ¨The greek orthodox and catholic churches have clear lineages to the time of Christ" does not support the conclusion that ¨There never was an apostasy¨.

 

 

Quote

That is one point I am making.

 

Quote

23 hours ago, Joshua Valentine said:

1) that´s more of a non-sequitur than something to apply Hitchen´s Razor to.

 

Quote

The Hitchen's razor comment was mostly tongue in cheek.

That´s good to know. But it´s still a non-sequitur.

 

Quote

23 hours ago, Joshua Valentine said:

2) That the premise does not support the conclusion does not mean there is no evidence for the conclusion,..

 

Quote

He provided no other.

OK.

 

Quote

23 hours ago, Joshua Valentine said:

3) let alone that the conclusion is actually false. This looks more like the Fallacy Fallacy. https://effectiviology.com/fallacy-fallacy/

 

Quote

Well, that and the fact no evidence is provided.  We also have the legal phrase "expressio unius est exclusio alterius" to consider.  Sorry but only one can be the true church, so either one or both are not.

Again this is based on your (LDS friendly) constructs which you use to simply dismiss other constructs without even considering them (ethnocentric-like).

 

Quote

23 hours ago, Joshua Valentine said:

This is one of the main ways that the LDS Church justifies its ¨Restoration¨. Are you critical of this reasoning in the LDS case as well?

 

Quote

You need to expand on what you are trying to say.

See below - you know that sentences in a paragraph are related and often elaborate on each other, right?

 

Quote

23 hours ago, Joshua Valentine said:

If it is a legitimate justification for restoration, then it would seem to be a legitimate justification for the lack of need of a restoration (e.g.- no apostasy).

 

Quote

You need to explain why.

Ah! This is the appropriate place to ask for explanation of the previous statement.

I suspect that if the LDS Church says that the Restoration of God´s True Church from the Great Apostasy occurred by (perhaps among other things) the restoration of the line of authority, then the existence of an unbroken line of authority would be evidence that the Great Apostasy never occurred.

Again, this is a particular point of reasoning, outside of whether there is evidence for said unbroken line of authority or not.

 

Quote

23 hours ago, Joshua Valentine said:

You claim prima facie obviousness, but I think you are loading the deck with your own (yet without evidence) ideas of apostasy.

 

Quote

Well, contrary to the statement he made, I did find this,

OK. Attempts at evidence either way is helpful, of course.

 

 

Quote

23 hours ago, Joshua Valentine said:

Please note that these are evidences that your ¨fact¨ of ¨two distinct and separate entities¨ even ¨often at conflict with each other¨ is not factual at all. This is evidence that they are not separate and distinct in the way you claim and which you seem to believe makes your conclusion so evident.

 

Quote

Actually you haven't provided any evidence to support this claim.

Actually, I neither claimed I provided nor even attempted to provide any evidence. Again, sentences in the same paragraph go together. The reference to ¨these… evidences¨ comes right after quoting MiserereNobis´ statements about the relationship between the two churches - a relationship of less than complete separation, and thus perhaps evidence of no apostasy.

 

 

Quote

23 hours ago, Joshua Valentine said:

Also, please note that this response to your previous comment shows that your previous comment may be an equivalent to ethnocentrism - that your ideas and ways are better than the ideas and ways of others.

 

Quote

Well, DUH.  Obviously, some ideas and ways ARE better than others.  The fact that you haven't figured that out yet speaks to your lack of experience.

I´ll believe this is also tongue in cheek even as I remind you, again, that sentences in a paragraph are related - elaborating, qualifying, or continuing from each other. I could have added the word ¨assuming” - as in ¨assuming your ideas and ways are better...¨ But let´s look at that sentence that followed...

 

 

Quote

23 hours ago, Joshua Valentine said:

Or, in other words, you appear to be making claims about and judgments of another culture and religious group based on your own ideas and standards rather than taking into account their particulars, perspectives, concepts, and beliefs.

 

 

Quote

See above.

Perhaps you should have seen below when you were looking above. This sentence quoted here implies the ¨assuming¨ I mentioned I might have put in the preceding sentence quoted. That is, making claims and judgments of another culture and religious system based on your own ideas and standards (particularly if they happen to support your culture and religious system) without understanding the particulars, perspectives, concepts, and beliefs of said culture/religious system implicitly assumes that there is no need to understand that which you are judging and that your own ideas are absolute, such that there would be no need to consider any other view - theological equivalent of ethnocentrism.

In this case you seem to be not only ignorant of the relationship between these two churches as described by MiserereNobis, but you seem not at all interested in understanding their perspective that allows them to relate so and thus how such relationship could be evidence of non-apostasy.

 

Quote

23 hours ago, Joshua Valentine said:

It´s not clear whether you are underscoring the import of ¨absence of evidence¨ or if you are indicating that you misread or do not understand what MiserereNobis´ phrase means.

 

Quote

He was trying to apply a position to me that I neither expressed nor implied.

Would you explain what you mean here?

See, you can request explanation without telling people ¨You need to...¨ - sounds less like a professor who can´t not sound like a professor to people who are not his or her students.

 

 

Quote

23 hours ago, Joshua Valentine said:

1) Does he have no evidence or are you claiming he has no evidence? If the latter, are you claiming so without evidence yourself?

 

 

Quote

He provided no evidence, and I stated that there was no first hand documentation available to support his claim.  Since a negative can't be proven, all he has to do is provide a single first hand document to prove me wrong. If one existed, the Christian world would know about it.

Looking back over the conversation:
1) You claim (dubitably, as I showed earlier) that snowflake does not support the conclusion of no apostasy by asserting unbroken line of authority.
2) You immediately claim that two organizations often in conflict claiming unbroken lines is not a great defense against apostasy.
3) MiserereNobis states that he is not arguing whether or not the claim to unbroken line is true but that he is telling you the official position of the Catholic Church and you reply to what he says he is not arguing - whether the line is actually not broken.

4) Consistent to his previous claim (#3) MiserereNobis challenges your claim in #2 with indications that the two organizations are neither as ¨Distinct¨ and ¨separate¨ or ¨at conflict¨ as you seem to think from #2.

5) MiserereNobis addresses your broken line ¨argument¨ - which at this point has only included your own singular specific instance of what would prove unbroken lineage (Peter´s document stating lineage) and a probable ¨tongue in cheek¨ reference to a ludicrous movie line that would be fatal, if true, to any religion, including those of Mormonism - with his own, more valid, pithy phrase.
6) You reply to MiserereNobis´ evidence of interconnectedness and mutual respect and non-identification with apostasy as if he never never presented it and simply restate an extended variation of #2. Clear example of self-centric behavior, btw.

7) Then you claim that, because MiserereNobis does not have evidence to support an unbroken line, the claim made by snowflake (and explicitly not picked up by MiserereNobis) is dismissed!

Perhaps you were using an inclusive ¨you¨ - including snowflake despite only quoting MiserereNobis. Either way this convoluted, unsupported, and convenient line of ¨reasoning¨ smacks of trolling.

 

Quote

23 hours ago, Joshua Valentine said:

2) Hitchen´s razor should never be applied because it is self-defeating. The claim ¨What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence" is itself without evidence. At best, it is giving a bit of practical wisdom, but under logical rigor (as you have been dealing with this issue as shown by your comments above) it contradicts itself and is useless.

 

 

Quote

That is why it is so funny.

Perhaps it was tongue in cheek the first time you mentioned it, but you used it during your dismissal, either undercutting a conclusion you meant seriously or continuing with cheek in your dismissal. The latter scenario certainly helps with the apparent hubris of the dismissal talk, but does not assist the discussion.

 

 

Quote

23 hours ago, Joshua Valentine said:

3) The claims made by snowflake and MiserereNobis have, thus, not been dismissed at all, yet.

 

 

Quote

Go back and read my post.  I did dismiss them. Apparently you missed it.

Cheek, surely. But, nonetheless, you ¨dismissing them¨ by saying the word and their actually being dismissed are two different things. Or have you too little experience to figure that out yet?

 

 

Quote

23 hours ago, Joshua Valentine said:

4) Claiming ¨The claim is hereby dismissed,¨ reeks of hubris. (Since the most basic of logical standards [the law of non-contradiction] is violated by Hitchen´s Razor, it earned its dismissal).

 

 

Quote

You should have seen my signature line before my recent changes.

Come on! Copy and Paste it. Don´t leave me hanging!

[3DOP]

On 4/29/2019 at 5:53 PM, RevTestament said:

Peter was not a pope. He was a married apostle. The word pope seems to have its derivation from early Church usage in Egypt, where they called their bishops pope or pappas in the Greek. It does not mean apostle. It basically means father. It is the equivalent of the English, holy father. Hence, I abstain from its use. I refer to him as the Roman pontiff or Bishop of Rome. The word pontiff is derived from the Latin for priest, and once referred to a college of pontiffs which was the head college of priests back in the pagan days of Rome, which governed the vestal virgins, etc.

I don't think it is accurate to say the kings chose the Roman pontiff. After the western empire fell to the ten tribes or ten toes and became the modern nations of Europe such as Spain(Visigoths), Portugal(Suevi), France(Franks), England(Saxons), Germany, etc Rome was able to maintain some independence by garnering some help from the eastern emperor, but it seems the eastern emperor largely did not choose the Roman pontiffs. The Byzantine Empire had their hands full with the Persian Empire, and soon after that, Islam, and didn't seem to bother much with western politics.  

Rev...hehe...Do you think we never noticed that Peter was married? Marriage is not an impediment. And after all, we are the ones who purged the Scripture after our liking. Apparently, we thought it was permitted to come out that Peter was married...and we still think he was the bishop of Rome, the Rock on which Christ built His Church. No Catholic could think the first pope was unmarried.

Edited May 1, 2019 by 3DOP

[RevTestament]

2 minutes ago, 3DOP said:

Rev...hehe...Do you think we never noticed that Peter was married? After all, we are the ones who purged the Scripture after our liking. Apparently, we thought it was permitted to come out that Peter was married...and we still think he was the bishop of Rome, the Rock on which Christ built His Church. No Catholic could think the first pope was unmarried.

I guess I was rubbing a little salt in the wound. Forgive me. I don't believe your church or my church really understands yet why he was the rock. My church is still thinking that animal sacrifice is going to get reinstituted... 🙄 But I am glad you still believe in marriage for apostles... even if not for bishops... (sorry, I couldn't help myself).

P.S. And I don't believe you really purged the scriptures 3DOP.... someone would have noticed you and Miserere doing that by now LOL. I do believe the Catholic scriptures read somewhat differently (or at least did for awhile), but it does seem the newer English versions have been reformed up to snuff....  The newest Douay Rheims reads like a veritable KJV Bible.

[MiserereNobis]

14 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

P.S. And I don't believe you really purged the scriptures 3DOP.... someone would have noticed you and Miserere doing that by now LOL.

Hey, you guys have the secret translation room in the SLC temple. Rory and I have our equivalent scriptural star chamber. I think Amos is up next for review...  

[RevTestament]

8 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

Hey, you guys have the secret translation room in the SLC temple. Rory and I have our equivalent scriptural star chamber. I think Amos is up next for review...  

I've stood on the spot in the SLC Temple where the Lord appeared to Pres Snow.... and nope, nope, He didn't tell him to make any changes to Amos, so I guess you guys get that task...  

[Vance]

12 hours ago, 3DOP said:

Hi Vance. Homosex is along with being a crime against nature...Boring. But I have dated myself, as you have. In the year 2000, nobody was advocating that homo was okay. If you are me, you live 54 years of life before it enters your consciousness that there are people who think marriage can take place between people of the same sex. And we are supposed to think it is possible? Whose grandparents could ever have conceived such a development?

As for what is right, I'll go with B. Obama, who in 2008, affirmed what Grandpa and Grandma took for granted. The 20teens are so over the top crazy and disconnected from the previous 200 decades, that I am chicken. 199 decades to 1. I go with the majority. Same sex marriage can't make it over the long haul. Plus...it is boring. 

I agree, and would go further (as a Latter-Day Saint who accepts Joseph Smith as a Prophet from whom we get Moses \

Never mind, we don't need to divert this thread.

12 hours ago, 3DOP said:

Next question. The arguments for succession from Peter only work if you are more than favorably impressed with the fruit which comes from those who are so persuaded, as I am. By their fruits, shall we know the good shepherds from the wolves. Of course, I think most non- Catholics have been denied knowledge of the good fruit, and have been presented with exaggerated and misplaced blame for where there is apparently corrupt fruit, stemming from those who are attached to the idea that the bishop of Rome has succeeded St. Peter.

I agree, although I am not impressed with some of the later doctrinal "fruits", I think the Catholics do a lot of good in the world.

But you have taken it back to where it always goes===> FAITH.

12 hours ago, 3DOP said:

This gives me hope for good guys and gals who oppose a Rome that they really don't know. It is hard for Satan. If you err, that is not enough. He has to make you err in such a way that you actually hate God. Like you should know that the Catholic faith is true, but you don't care. If we go to hell, we can't blame God. Duh. He doesn't want or need to be unjust. He obviously prefers mercy. Anyway, may the good God of love save us both, and all souls, especially those in most need of His mercy. May the 20teeners take the first places. I know I don't deserve that. But still. I am a child of my age. I can't be impressed with a novelty that has lasted for less than ten years. I am more impressed with longevity than what is current.

Well, eventually the good guy does show up, but until then, we are all in for a he## of a ride.

12 hours ago, 3DOP said:

Y'all don't hold what I am about to say against your own crusty Vance. It isn't his fault. It isn't my fault if we are wrong for having doubts about 2019. It's too much to ask for us to reject the axioms of most of our lives and all of the lives of anyone we can remember before us. Vance is my kind of Mormon, and my kind of Catholic too.

Hey V. Take care.

Your friend in Jesus.

3DOP

 

 

I am your friend as well.

[Vance]

On 4/28/2019 at 11:20 PM, Wade Englund said:

Since Hitchin's razor is applied here without evidence, doesn't that make  it self-refuting?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Interesting that you should bring that up.

Edited to add.

Now if you think about it, the "razor" can be modified to eliminate this.

"What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence"; this statement, if not supported by evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

The second part is now evidence for the first part, so now the it can't be dismissed without evidence.

Thanks for helping out here.

Edited May 5, 2019 by Vance

[Vance]

On 4/30/2019 at 6:38 PM, Joshua Valentine said:

Again this is based on your (LDS friendly) constructs which you use to simply dismiss other constructs without even considering them (ethnocentric-like).

Interesting that you should say that.

On 4/30/2019 at 6:38 PM, Joshua Valentine said:

I suspect that if the LDS Church says that the Restoration of God´s True Church from the Great Apostasy occurred by (perhaps among other things) the restoration of the line of authority, then the existence of an unbroken line of authority would be evidence that the Great Apostasy never occurred.

Claiming the existence of an unbroken line of authority isn't the same as having evidence for one.  Just so you know.

On 4/30/2019 at 6:38 PM, Joshua Valentine said:

Actually, I neither claimed I provided nor even attempted to provide any evidence. Again, sentences in the same paragraph go together. The reference to ¨these… evidences¨ comes right after quoting MiserereNobis´ statements about the relationship between the two churches - a relationship of less than complete separation, and thus perhaps evidence of no apostasy.

Matt. 12:25 And Jesus knew their thoughts, and said unto them, Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and every city or house divided against itself shall not stand:

Mark 3:25 And if a house be divided against itself, that house cannot stand.

Luke 11:17 But he, knowing their thoughts, said unto them, Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and a house divided against a house falleth.

On 4/30/2019 at 6:38 PM, Joshua Valentine said:

Perhaps you should have seen below when you were looking above. This sentence quoted here implies the ¨assuming¨ I mentioned I might have put in the preceding sentence quoted. That is, making claims and judgments of another culture and religious system based on your own ideas and standards (particularly if they happen to support your culture and religious system) without understanding the particulars, perspectives, concepts, and beliefs of said culture/religious system implicitly assumes that there is no need to understand that which you are judging and that your own ideas are absolute, such that there would be no need to consider any other view - theological equivalent of ethnocentrism.

There you go again.

On 4/30/2019 at 6:38 PM, Joshua Valentine said:

In this case you seem to be not only ignorant of the relationship between these two churches as described by MiserereNobis, but you seem not at all interested in understanding their perspective that allows them to relate so and thus how such relationship could be evidence of non-apostasy.

Sorry, but that still doesn't change the fact that they are divided and have been for nearly a millennium.  The explanation for neither being in a state of apostasy is rather dubious.

 

So, what we have here is you, with whatever constructs you came with, attempting to dismiss my constructs without considering them (ethnocentric-like).  Bravo!!!

[Joshua Valentine]

7 hours ago, Vance said:

Interesting that you should say that.

Claiming the existence of an unbroken line of authority isn't the same as having evidence for one.  Just so you know.

Matt. 12:25 And Jesus knew their thoughts, and said unto them, Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and every city or house divided against itself shall not stand:

Mark 3:25 And if a house be divided against itself, that house cannot stand.

Luke 11:17 But he, knowing their thoughts, said unto them, Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and a house divided against a house falleth.

There you go again.

Sorry, but that still doesn't change the fact that they are divided and have been for nearly a millennium.  The explanation for neither being in a state of apostasy is rather dubious.

 

So, what we have here is you, with whatever constructs you came with, attempting to dismiss my constructs without considering them (ethnocentric-like).  Bravo!!!

I figured you were going something like this route. You were the one making the judgments. I was pointing out your lack of basis for those judgments as evidenced by your own statements. I also put in qualifiers to indicate that I don´t know for sure that what you seemed to be doing was what you meant to be/actually doing.

If I were to ¨dismiss [your] constructs without considering them (ethnocentric-like)¨ then:

1) I would have just said you´re wrong and obviously wrong because of something quaint about my culture´s way of thinking about things - like you did with your ¨division is division is apostasy¨ comments.

2) I did not do any such thing. I simply pointed out that your comments appear to be a parallel of ethnocentrism and I gave evidence from your comments of the lack of concern for understanding the other side. In my comments questioning your reasoning, NOT condemning your answers, I am engaging your point of view - so no self-centric dismissals.

Might want to hold back on those ¨dismissed¨ and ¨Bravo!!¨ flares at the end of your comments. Your batting .000.

 

Note: I am well aware that others here, like Vance trying to interpret my treatment of his points and dismissals as a form of self-centrism/ethnocentrism, may think that I blindly enact ethnocentrism in my interactions with Mormonism. Hopefully the above description of what I would have to do (what I pointed out Vance seemed to be doing) and what I didn´t do will clarify what I mean by ethnocentrism (Google = evaluation of other cultures according to preconceptions originating in the standards and customs of one's own culture.) To some extent, we all have to deal with a tendency toward ethnocentrism - for one of the sources of ethnocentrism is just how we think since that is largely determined by our culture. But, as with biases, we can attempt to avoid flagrant abuses of our friends from other backgrounds by actively attempting to understand their position fully and not only critiquing it from our background but from their own culture or religion´s assumptions and ways of viewing things (e.g.- internal consistency). This is generally what I attempt to do in my interactions with Mormonism, although it is made more complicated by shared areas of background - the Bible, American and Western philosophy and culture, etc.

Edited May 5, 2019 by Joshua Valentine
Note added instead of as a separate comment

[PacMan]

On 4/28/2019 at 7:51 AM, MiserereNobis said:

I posted this earlier. The bishop of Rome isn’t given primacy because of Peter dying there. He is given primacy because Peter founded the Roman episcopate and Peter had primacy. Of course you disagree, but I wanted to clarify the Catholic position. It’s not about the location of death. 

Well, I’m glad for your explanation. I’ve had the discussion with a number of Catholics and Peter’s place of death giving Rome meaning was their conclusion because Peter didn’t found the episcopate of Rome. Paul ordained Linus - not Peter. And there was no historical reason to believe the Roman bishopric was superior than any others - particularly Jerusalem. 

[MiserereNobis]

15 hours ago, PacMan said:

Well, I’m glad for your explanation. I’ve had the discussion with a number of Catholics and Peter’s place of death giving Rome meaning was their conclusion because Peter didn’t found the episcopate of Rome. Paul ordained Linus - not Peter. And there was no historical reason to believe the Roman bishopric was superior than any others - particularly Jerusalem. 

I'm having trouble posting (getting the lovely 403 error). Maybe if I break it into parts. Let's see if this works.

You're welcome  The Catholics you discussed this with didn't get it right. The Catholic position is that Peter founded the episcopate, that he was in essence the first Bishop of Rome. This is what gives the Roman See primacy.

[MiserereNobis]

15 hours ago, PacMan said:

Well, I’m glad for your explanation. I’ve had the discussion with a number of Catholics and Peter’s place of death giving Rome meaning was their conclusion because Peter didn’t found the episcopate of Rome. Paul ordained Linus - not Peter. And there was no historical reason to believe the Roman bishopric was superior than any others - particularly Jerusalem. 

Ok, let's hope it lets me post the evidence for this.

From the Catholic Encyclopedia's article on the Pope:

Quote

Primacy of the Roman See

We have shown in the last section that Christ conferred upon St. Peter the office of chief pastor, and that the permanence of that office is essential to the very being of the Church. It must now be established that it belongs of right to the Roman See. The proof will fall into two parts:

that St. Peter was Bishop of Rome, and

that those who succeed him in that see succeed him also in the supreme headship.

St. Peter was Bishop of Rome

It is no longer denied by any writer of weight that St. Peter visited Rome and suffered martyrdom there (Harnack, "Chronol.", I, 244, n. 2). Some, however, of those who admit that he taught and suffered in Rome, deny that he was ever bishop of the city (e.g. Lightfoot, "Clement of Rome", II, 501; Harnack, op. cit., I, 703). It is not, however, difficult to show that the fact of his bishopric is so well attested as to be historically certain. In considering this point, it will be well to begin with the third century, when references to it become frequent, and work backwards from this point.

Now, the article is polemic in nature of course ("any writer of weight" "historically certain" etc.) because it is obviously biased toward the Catholic position. My point is not to argue for the Catholic position, but to show the Catholic position. And here it is clearly from an authoritative Catholic source.

Edited May 6, 2019 by MiserereNobis

[MiserereNobis]

15 hours ago, PacMan said:

Well, I’m glad for your explanation. I’ve had the discussion with a number of Catholics and Peter’s place of death giving Rome meaning was their conclusion because Peter didn’t found the episcopate of Rome. Paul ordained Linus - not Peter. And there was no historical reason to believe the Roman bishopric was superior than any others - particularly Jerusalem. 

Well, it looks like breaking into parts works. Here's the last part of my response.

From the wikipedia article on Papal primacy (bold mine):

Quote

The presence of Peter in Rome, not explicitly affirmed in, but consistent with, the New Testament, is explicitly affirmed by Clement of Rome, Ignatius of Antioch, Irenaeus of Lyon and other early Christian writers – and no other place has ever claimed to be the location of his death.[36][37]The same witnesses imply that Peter was the virtual founder of the Church of Rome,[36] though not its founder in the sense of initiating a Christian community there.[38] They also speak of Peter as the one who initiated its episcopal succession,[36] but speak of Linus as the first bishop of Rome after Peter, although some hold today that the Christians in Rome did not act a single united community under a single leader until the 2nd century.[38]

Again, this can and obviously is disputed (hence the qualifiers in the article), and there might be historical issues, etc., but my purpose is simply to show the Catholic position. Now, the fact that Peter and Paul were martyred in Rome is of significance, but is not the reason why the Bishop of Rome has primacy. Let's put that straw man to rest. And next time a Catholic tells you that, tell them to do some research  

[PacMan]

11 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

Well, it looks like breaking into parts works. Here's the last part of my response.

From the wikipedia article on Papal primacy (bold mine):

Again, this can and obviously is disputed (hence the qualifiers in the article), and there might be historical issues, etc., but my purpose is simply to show the Catholic position. Now, the fact that Peter and Paul were martyred in Rome is of significance, but is not the reason why the Bishop of Rome has primacy. Let's put that straw man to rest. And next time a Catholic tells you that, tell them to do some research  

Well, I understand the RCC position. I don’t believe the death of Peter was ever dispositive. That wasn’t my point. Rather, it was mentioned because the other evidences don’t support the claim.  

The problem is that Peter did not create the bishopric of Rome. There’s no evidence that he did. Clement (who we should think is reliable) states in the Constitution of the Apostles that Paul ordained Linus — not Peter. And that was long before the sources in the 300s.