Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
MiserereNobis

Apostasy and the Removal of the President

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

I like this example of antimetabole:

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Absence of evidence IS absence of evidence.  You have no evidence ergo, Hitchens's razor can be applied here, "What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence".

The claim is hereby dismissed.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
On 4/25/2019 at 4:43 PM, SouthernMo said:

There is also no proof that Peter, James, & John gave priesthood to Joseph Smith & Oliver Cowdery.

 

6 hours ago, jpv said:

There are accounts of just that, but they don't fit before April 6, 1830.

Claims or Accounts? CFR, please! Thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
On 4/25/2019 at 1:31 PM, snowflake said:

There never was an apostasy, the greek orthodox and catholic churches have clear lineages to the time of Christ. 

 

4 hours ago, Vance said:

Interesting statement.  But your assertion the "There never was an apostasy", is not supported by "the greek orthodox and catholic churches have clear lineages to the time of Christ", even if that were true.

Hitchens's razor can be applied here.  "What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence".

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¨.

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

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

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

 

4 hours ago, Vance said:

AND, quite frankly, the fact that two distinct and separate entities (often at conflict with each other),  BOTH (claiming to) "have clear lineages to the time of Christ", is prima facie evidence that having a clear lineage to the time of Christ is not a bulwark against apostasy.

Just saying.

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?

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).

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

 

3 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

The problem with your reasoning here is that the Catholic Church does not call the Orthodox Churches apostate, and the Orthodox Churches do not call the Catholic Church apostate. Both the Western Church and the Eastern Church (the two lungs of Christianity, as Pope John Paul II called them) recognize the valid priesthood of the other. The sacraments (ordinances) of each is accepted by the other. So it's not prima facie evidence, because neither the Western or Eastern Churches are in apostasy.

Just saying :) 

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.

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. 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.

 

3 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

I like this example of antimetabole:

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

 

24 minutes ago, Vance said:

Absence of evidence IS absence of evidence.

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.

24 minutes ago, Vance said:

You have no evidence ergo, Hitchens's razor can be applied here, "What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence".

The claim is hereby dismissed.

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

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.

3) The claims made by snowflake and MiserereNobis have, thus, not been dismissed at all, yet. And, actually, the claim of Hitchen´s Razor, itself, has been dismissed.

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).

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
55 minutes ago, Vance said:

Absence of evidence IS absence of evidence.  You have no evidence ergo, Hitchens's razor can be applied here, "What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence".

The claim is hereby dismissed.

Hey Vance. You are too scarce around here. Truly.

But...mn didn't say that absence of evidence was NOT absence of evidence. He distinguished absence of evidence from evidence of absence. Two different birds. Not a big thing to concede. 

O no. Another razor! Not Occam's. (Who I don't know or understand). Hitchens Kitchens. What razor does that prove?

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, Vance said:

The fact that they ARE separate entities IS prima facie evidence that one (or both) are in apostasy, whether either one of them acknowledge it or not.

Just saying.

 

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.

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. Hence, from our point of view, each is not in apostasy.

Also, I don't think you quite understand the ecclesiology of traditional Christianity. You seem to be overlaying the LDS idea of central authority on traditional Christianity.

Finally, based on my previous interactions with you, I'm not sure this discussion will be fruitful, so I'll bow out now. But I will highlight again that you shouldn't tell us what we believe. Thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, 3DOP said:

O no. Another razor! Not Occam's. (Who I don't know or understand). Hitchens Kitchens. What razor does that prove?

This is why I grow a beard ;) 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
16 minutes 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. Hence, from our point of view, each is not in apostasy.

Authority is part of the issue but losing significant teachings is an other part. Typically most people aren't terribly careful on distinguishing the two. I think the issue he was trying to get at was papal authority but doesn't quite understand that papal authority claims aren't quite the same as the claims we make for our apostles and prophet. That said, of course Protestants tended to frequently see Catholics as apostate as well as the Jews. That rhetoric from the 18th and early 19th centuries formed the context for early LDS conceptions of apostasy. Some of Alexander Keith's writings in particular on apostasy are pertinent to the evolution of early Mormon understanding (where the social context is at least as important as revelations given since they tend to shape the interpretations of such revelations).

3 hours ago, Vance said:

Absence of evidence IS absence of evidence.  You have no evidence ergo, Hitchens's razor can be applied here, "What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence".

The claim is hereby dismissed.

Really depends upon the nature of the evidence and the theoretical scaffolding one brings to interpreting evidence. If a claim entails lots of evidence and we don't find such evidence then that's problematic. If there are good reasons we'd not expect to find such evidence then absence really isn't that significant.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, Vance said:

Hitchens's razor can be applied here, "What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence".

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

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
8 hours ago, 3DOP said:

Thank you Rev! I am somewhat familiar with the Encyclicals of Leo XIII, (1878-1903). Do you remember anything from those? I know I don't object to any decrees of the Ecumenical Councils (except one...which would require too much explanation). Anyway, I am more than ever curious as to what these authors admit that would be damaging to Catholic claims...But only if you have time. Thanks again. I sure can't think of anything Leo might have said that would be disturbing.

Regards,

Rory

I found Catholic works interesting with regards to various details of Catholic history. I think it more potent if the facts come out of the horse's mouth rather than always relying on third party sources. So I let the Catholic sources show how it fulfills prophecy.

For instance, although the Church now dismisses the Donation of Constantine as a forgery, its own history reveals it was used to gain influence, and was for a time accepted in its canon law. 

The bishop of Rome used the Donation of Constantine to gain the support of Charlemagne because in it Constantine purportedly gave the bishop of Rome primacy over the bishops of Antioch, Alexandria, Constantinople and Jerusalem, which was of course contrary to the Council of Nicaea. Walsh states that John VIII gave King Otto I of the Saxons an ornamental copy of the Donation of Constantine on February 2, 962, upon crowning him as the Holy Roman Emperor. Walsh, p.93.

Pastor gives details that eerily fit Revelation 18:11-13: "And the merchants of the earth shall weep and mourn over her; for no man buyeth their merchandise anymore: the merchandise of gold, and silver, and precious stones, and of pearls, and fine linen, and purple, and silk, and scarlet, and all thyine wood, and all manner vessels of ivory, and all manner vessels of most precious wood, and of brass, and iron, and marble, ... and chariots, and slaves, and souls of men." Pastor talks about Church officers assuming the purple. "On June 2nd, 1572, Gregory XIII., in accordance with the urgent request of many Cardinals, conferred the purple on his brother's son, Filippo Boncompagni, who was thirty-three years of age, and then entrusted to him the administration of the States of the Church, with the exception of military and financial matters."

So, when I can I would rather used the acknowledged authoritative works of the RCC to make conclusions.

Share this post


Link to post
On 4/25/2019 at 12:31 PM, snowflake said:

There never was an apostasy, the greek orthodox and catholic churches have clear lineages to the time of Christ. 

If clear lineages were indicative of no apostasy,  then wouldn't that mean that the Jews were not in a state of apostasy at the time of Jesus' mortal ministry, since they had  "Abraham to our fathers?" (Mt. 3:9)

To me, apostasy doesn't hinge on a break or uninterrupted lines of priesthood authority, but rather the absence or existence of keys of revelation and sealing powers (to bind in heaven that which is bound on earth).  

In other words, apostasy occurs when men become the head of the Church rather than Christ.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
13 hours ago, Wade Englund said:

If clear lineages were indicative of no apostasy,  then wouldn't that mean that the Jews were not in a state of apostasy at the time of Jesus' mortal ministry, since they had  "Abraham to our fathers?" (Mt. 3:9)

To me, apostasy doesn't hinge on a break or uninterrupted lines of priesthood authority, but rather the absence or existence of keys of revelation and sealing powers (to bind in heaven that which is bound on earth).  

In other words, apostasy occurs when men become the head of the Church rather than Christ.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

This is interesting. My understanding of LDS claims of the great apostasy is that there was no priesthood authority. You seem to be dividing that up into priesthood authority AND keys of revelation and sealing. Can you have one without the other? Do you think there was priesthood authority during the great apostasy but no keys? What would the difference between the two be?

Do you also think the Jews were in apostasy at the time of Christ? That they no longer had the priesthood authority?

Thanks.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
16 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.

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. Hence, from our point of view, each is not in apostasy.

Also, I don't think you quite understand the ecclesiology of traditional Christianity. You seem to be overlaying the LDS idea of central authority on traditional Christianity.

Finally, based on my previous interactions with you, I'm not sure this discussion will be fruitful, so I'll bow out now. But I will highlight again that you shouldn't tell us what we believe. Thanks.

We do believe in a centrality of authority or the keys to the priesthood. In that Peter was given the keys and not all of the apostles. This gets confusing for some - in the restored Church the keys are actually held by all members of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve. However, only the prophet exercises those keys. No other member or individuals can exercise the keys without direction of the prophet. 

So how does it work within Roman Catholicism? Can several individuals hold the keys of the priesthood and exercise them independently? If so, then what is the value of the seat of Peter? This is a confusing area for me too. 

Share this post


Link to post
13 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

This is interesting. My understanding of LDS claims of the great apostasy is that there was no priesthood authority. You seem to be dividing that up into priesthood authority AND keys of revelation and sealing. Can you have one without the other? Do you think there was priesthood authority during the great apostasy but no keys? What would the difference between the two be?

Do you also think the Jews were in apostasy at the time of Christ? That they no longer had the priesthood authority?

Thanks.

I can't answer for Wade, but I basically view apostasy as being on a continuum. For instance to take up the issue of whether the Jews were in a state of apostasy at the time of Christ, I would say partially. I believe the Levitical priesthood was still operating, and had authority to perform the temple sacrifices. However, as a general rule the Jews were in a state of apostasy. They were buying their sacrifices at the temple rather than picking the best of their flocks, although the Levites were concerned with raising perfect sheep without blemish. The High Priesthood or Melchizedek priesthood had been lost - the High Priest was no longer chosen by God but was a political appointee of Rome, and there was no more council of 70 elders or the like. The High Priesthood was restored by Yeshua. I believe at that point the Jews had entered a stage of a prophesied drought of the Word - there was no more word from the Lord. This actually began when they returned to Jerusalem and finished rebuilding the city. Yeshua Himself told the pharisees their traditions were false. They had built up an oral tradition of law which recognized their own authority over that of the written TANAKH. Yeshua referred to these myriad rules as their traditions. 

Yet, we see that some still found favor with God. Zechariah, the levitical priest, was the father of John the Baptist, although we find he goes dumb for a time due to lack of faith. So, it appears the apostasy was not complete. God still judged people on an individual basis, and worked with them. But as a whole they did not have the keys of revelation, and were kind of floundering. The temple procedures and practices had become corrupted, which angered Yeshua, and the people were being taught a bunch of irrelevant and false tradition. To the extent that most refused to recognize the new covenant, they fell into complete apostasy. Interestingly, this was not true in the East where Christianity began to grow freely, and like wildfire. 

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, MiserereNobis said:

This is interesting. My understanding of LDS claims of the great apostasy is that there was no priesthood authority. You seem to be dividing that up into priesthood authority AND keys of revelation and sealing. Can you have one without the other? Do you think there was priesthood authority during the great apostasy but no keys? What would the difference between the two be?

Do you also think the Jews were in apostasy at the time of Christ? That they no longer had the priesthood authority?

Thanks.

Great Questions.   Here is a rough 3-part analogy that I like for explaining the difference is:

  1. In my mid teens I obtain my drivers license, which gave me the right to drive anywhere in the United states. Consider this to be like priesthood power and authority.
  2. However, the family car wasn't mine, but my parents, I had to get permission from them to drive their car. They held the keys.
  3. Now, if I was of a mind back then, I could have hot-wired the car and taken it without their permission. However, doing so would have been illegitimate even though in the eyes of earthy governments I had the authority to drive wherever I wished.

So, yes, one can have priesthood authority (drivers license) without priesthood keys (keys to the car),

Granted, this analogy breaks down after a point. but hopeful it was useful in gaining a general sense for the differences.

To directly answer your other questions, then, from the perspective of the restored gospel of Christ, I believe that the Jews at the time of Christ held the priesthood, though not legitimately. The keys had been taken from them long before then. The ordinances and rituals performed on earth, were thus not being sealed or recorded in heaven. Revelation had virtually ceased, and the Lord was no longer the head of the Church.  The Jews/Israel were in a state of apostasy.

This is why they didn't accept the Messiah when he walked among them, performed miracles, and preached the true gospel

This is why Jesus needed to establish the new covenant/testament and organize a legitimate priesthood, which he did by laying the foundation of apostles and prophets,  with him as the chief corner stone  (Eph. 2:20)

Likewise,  following the death of Peter, as well as James and John and other apostles (who held the keys),  the keys were taken from that part of the Lord's vineyard. However, the priesthood authority that was conferred while the keys were still on earth, did continued for a time afterwards, but eventually were lost because there were no keys to continue legitimate conferring. The priesthood that was conferred thereafter, then, was illegitimate. Ordinances performed on earth were no longer sealed in heaven. Revelation diminished such that the Lord ceased to head the church--he was no longer the chief corner stone. The church, then, was lead instead by men.

This is why it was needful that the foundation of apostles and prophets be restored and Christ reestablished as the chief corner stone. This is why, when the Lord reappeared on earth and  and restored his gospel and kingdom in the latter days, it was not, and continues not to be accepted by many.

Again, this is how members of the CoJCoLDS view things. I would be quite understandable if you view things differently To each their own--though the invitation is always there to ask God. ;)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 

Edited by Wade Englund

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Storm Rider said:

So how does it work within Roman Catholicism? Can several individuals hold the keys of the priesthood and exercise them independently? If so, then what is the value of the seat of Peter? This is a confusing area for me too. 

This is from the Catechism of the Catholic Church. I'll follow with my thoughts.

Quote

The episcopal college and its head, the Pope

880 When Christ instituted the Twelve, "he constituted [them] in the form of a college or permanent assembly, at the head of which he placed Peter, chosen from among them."398 Just as "by the Lord's institution, St. Peter and the rest of the apostles constitute a single apostolic college, so in like fashion the Roman Pontiff, Peter's successor, and the bishops, the successors of the apostles, are related with and united to one another."399

881 The Lord made Simon alone, whom he named Peter, the "rock" of his Church. He gave him the keys of his Church and instituted him shepherd of the whole flock.400"The office of binding and loosing which was given to Peter was also assigned to the college of apostles united to its head."401 This pastoral office of Peter and the other apostles belongs to the Church's very foundation and is continued by the bishops under the primacy of the Pope.

882 The Pope, Bishop of Rome and Peter's successor, "is the perpetual and visible source and foundation of the unity both of the bishops and of the whole company of the faithful."402 "For the Roman Pontiff, by reason of his office as Vicar of Christ, and as pastor of the entire Church has full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered."403

883 "The college or body of bishops has no authority unless united with the Roman Pontiff, Peter's successor, as its head." As such, this college has "supreme and full authority over the universal Church; but this power cannot be exercised without the agreement of the Roman Pontiff."404

884 "The college of bishops exercises power over the universal Church in a solemn manner in an ecumenical council."405 But "there never is an ecumenical council which is not confirmed or at least recognized as such by Peter's successor."406

885 "This college, in so far as it is composed of many members, is the expression of the variety and universality of the People of God; and of the unity of the flock of Christ, in so far as it is assembled under one head."407

886 "The individual bishops are the visible source and foundation of unity in their own particular Churches."408 As such, they "exercise their pastoral office over the portion of the People of God assigned to them,"409 assisted by priests and deacons. But, as a member of the episcopal college, each bishop shares in the concern for all the Churches.410 The bishops exercise this care first "by ruling well their own Churches as portions of the universal Church," and so contributing "to the welfare of the whole Mystical Body, which, from another point of view, is a corporate body of Churches."411 They extend it especially to the poor,412 to those persecuted for the faith, as well as to missionaries who are working throughout the world.

887 Neighboring particular Churches who share the same culture form ecclesiastical provinces or larger groupings called patriarchates or regions.413 The bishops of these groupings can meet in synods or provincial councils. "In a like fashion, the episcopal conferences at the present time are in a position to contribute in many and fruitful ways to the concrete realization of the collegiate spirit."414

It's best to think of each diocese as a particular church (that's the usage in the quoted passage above). The bishop of each particular church (diocese) has full jurisdiction over his church. No other bishop, except the bishop of Rome the Pope, can interfere with that jurisdiction. I imagine it is similar in the LDS church, in the sense that one bishop cannot tell another bishop what to do. However, the LDS church has a bigger hierarchy. A stake president can tell a bishop what to do, right? And one of the general authority's can tell that bishop what to do, and an apostle, and the president (sorry if I don't have that exactly right). In Catholicism, only the Pope OR the entire college of bishops can tell individual bishops what to do. When the entire college (group) of bishops gather together, under the auspices of the Pope, then that is an ecumenical council. It is ecumenical because it is off all the Christian churches (dioceses). These declarations are binding upon all Catholic bishops.

So, to answer your question, each bishop does hold apostolic keys that can be used within that bishop's church, independently of each other. But it is the Pope who has universal jurisdiction. The bishops gathered as a group under the auspices of the Pope also have universal jurisdiction. 882 above explains the value of the Pope.

Share this post


Link to post
12 minutes ago, Wade Englund said:

Great Questions.   Here is a rough 3-part analogy that I like for explaining the difference is:

  1. In my mid teens I obtain my drivers license, which gave me the right to drive anywhere in the United states. Consider this to be like priesthood power and authority.
  2. However, the family car wasn't mine, but my parents, I had to get permission from them to drive their car. They held the keys.
  3. Now, if I was of a mind back then, I could have hot-wired the car and taken it without their permission. However, doing so would have been illegitimate even though in the eyes of earthy governments I had the authority to drive wherever I wished.

 

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.

The difference would be that the Catholic Church still recognizes the validity of the acts of the rogue bishop, except in some cases which aren't worth going into here. The acts are called "valid but illicit." Even though they are illicit, illegitimate, they are still recorded in heaven. Any baptism performed, any ordination made, any mass celebrated, still counts.

This is the situation, more or less, of the Society of St. Pius X. They are a traditional society of priests that oppose the changes of Vatican II. Their leader, a bishop, consecrated 4 bishops expressly against the direction of Pope John Paul II and all were automatically excommunicated. However, they continued celebrating the sacraments and the Catholic Church recognizes these sacraments as valid. All baptisms and ordinations, etc, performed by this group count. I'm pretty sure that Rory attends SSPX masses, based on his posts, but I don't remember if we ever talked about it directly. I have attended masses given by this group here and there, because they exclusively celebrate the traditional Latin mass. I've also gone on retreat at one of their monasteries, because it is close to my house. However, for awhile now there has been another group in my area (the Fraternal Society of St. Peter) that also exclusively celebrates the traditional sacraments but does so under the clear permission of the Pope. This is a complex and thorny situation in traditional Catholicism today, to say the least, ha. It would take pages to explain all the details. My point was that I can see a parallel to your example.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
On 4/28/2019 at 3:47 PM, MiserereNobis said:

I like this example of antimetabole:

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

I can't see any evidence of Peter as Pope, other than many years later the Catholic church saying he was. However there is much evidence that kings chose the Popes (even the Abbots) up until about mid 11th century then the church eventually took authority away from the kings and started choosing their own popes.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, MiserereNobis said:

This is from the Catechism of the Catholic Church. I'll follow with my thoughts.

It's best to think of each diocese as a particular church (that's the usage in the quoted passage above). The bishop of each particular church (diocese) has full jurisdiction over his church. No other bishop, except the bishop of Rome the Pope, can interfere with that jurisdiction. I imagine it is similar in the LDS church, in the sense that one bishop cannot tell another bishop what to do. However, the LDS church has a bigger hierarchy. A stake president can tell a bishop what to do, right? And one of the general authority's can tell that bishop what to do, and an apostle, and the president (sorry if I don't have that exactly right). In Catholicism, only the Pope OR the entire college of bishops can tell individual bishops what to do. When the entire college (group) of bishops gather together, under the auspices of the Pope, then that is an ecumenical council. It is ecumenical because it is off all the Christian churches (dioceses). These declarations are binding upon all Catholic bishops.

So, to answer your question, each bishop does hold apostolic keys that can be used within that bishop's church, independently of each other. But it is the Pope who has universal jurisdiction. The bishops gathered as a group under the auspices of the Pope also have universal jurisdiction. 882 above explains the value of the Pope.

The way I understood the quote from the Catechism the bishops cannot function except in agreement with the pope. Though the verbiage was different, the process seemed very similar to how it functions in the LDS Church.

The only thing I would clarify in your understanding - there is a definite line of authority from prophet to bishop. Only those in that line of authority may direct a local bishop - bishop to stake president to (this gets fuzzy for me because there are specific layers that I will roll into the term) - regional authority, then apostle, then prophet. The Quorum of the 12 - the college of bishops - rule the church under the direction of the prophet or pope in terms relative to each organization. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Anijen said:

I can't see any evidence of Peter as Pope, other than many years later the Catholic church saying he was. However there is much evidence that kings chose the Popes (even the Abbots) up until about mid 11th century then the church eventually took authority away from the kings and started choosing their own popes.

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.  

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

It basically means father. It is the equivalent of the English, holy father. Hence, I abstain from its use.

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
5 hours ago, 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.

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

 

Quote

I don't think it is accurate to say the kings chose the Roman pontiff.

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.

Edited by Anijen
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
23 hours ago, 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¨.

That is one point I am making.

23 hours ago, Joshua Valentine said:



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

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

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,..

He provided no other.

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/

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.

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?

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

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).

You need to explain why. 

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.

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

23 hours ago, Joshua Valentine said:

The first minute can be skipped without missing anything.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

See above.

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.

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

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?

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.

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.

That is why it is so funny.

23 hours ago, Joshua Valentine said:

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

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

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).

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

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
23 minutes ago, Vance said:

Sorry but only one can be the true church, so either one or both are not.

Unless one is a subset of the other or both subsets of the true church.

Edited by Calm
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
23 hours ago, 3DOP said:

Hey Vance. You are too scarce around here. Truly.

But...mn didn't say that absence of evidence was NOT absence of evidence. He distinguished absence of evidence from evidence of absence. Two different birds. Not a big thing to concede. 

O no. Another razor! Not Occam's. (Who I don't know or understand). Hitchens Kitchens. What razor does that prove?

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.

Share this post


Link to post
30 minutes ago, Calm said:

Unless one is a subset of the other or both subsets of the true church.

Your logic is flawed, but for the sake of discussion let's stipulate that "the true church" includes a subset of "the Catholic Church" and another subset of "the Orthodox Church".  Then how do you exclude the existence other subsets?

Share this post


Link to post

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...