The true reason why you left the church?

[randyc]

I really don't see apostolic succesion in the Bible. I started noticing that it wasn't really there when I noticed the huge part that James seemed to play in a lot of things.

[ave maria]

I really don't see apostolic succesion in the Bible. I started noticing that it wasn't really there when I noticed the huge part that James seemed to play in a lot of things.

Huh?

What do you perceive the term "apostolic succession" to mean, and how do you see it applicable to James?

[charity]

Ave, the Orthodoxy/Eastern Christianity is between you and them. But Judaism could hardly qualify unless they change their belief and accept Jesus as the Messiah.

[ave maria]

Ave, the Orthodoxy/Eastern Christianity is between you and them. But Judaism could hardly qualify unless they change their belief and accept Jesus as the Messiah.

Hardly qualify as what, exactly?

[charity]

As Christian.

[ave maria]

As Christian.

Were we talking about being Christian?

I missed that.

[randyc]

What???!!! How dare you you say they aren't Christian! What slander! What Bigotry! You who devour widows houses and...

[Bertram]

Easy Guys,

Don't you recognise the periodic moves that ave maria delights in?

1. Goes for the jugular with nasty ANTI snide snipes!

2. Is reigned in!

3. Goes low, finds and builds up "ammunition', then suddenly appears and fires another broadside.

4. Engages in "word-play" with you for a period to rile you up!

5. Cycle starts all over again?

Have you not spotted the motives yet?

[charity]

Ave, I thought we were talking about the true followers of Christ. I said that they were those who belonged to the true Church, restored by Jesus Christ and the Father, through Joseph Smith, with the authority to perform the saving ordinances. You said that church was actually the RCC, with Peter as the apostalic head.

Then I said that meant that since we both believe that authority is necessary, it was between you and us. You wanted to allow Orthodoxy/Eastern Christian to make a claim to that authority.

And Judaism. But Judaism can't claim to be true followers of Christ since they rejected Him. I don't follow your logic there.

[Boniface]

Easy Guys,

Don't you recognise the periodic moves that ave maria delights in?

1. Goes for the jugular with nasty ANTI snide snipes!

2. Is reigned in!

3. Goes low, finds and builds up "ammunition', then suddenly appears and fires another broadside.

4. Engages in "word-play" with you for a period to rile you up!

5. Cycle starts all over again?

Have you not spotted the motives yet?

In all respect, I have seen both sides guilty of what you mentioned. Just browsing random threads, you can find just as many LDS doing these things too. It is a double sided fence, but I see what you are saying.

Please don't confusse ave maria's disagreement with come LDS teachings as "anti." I could be mistaken, but I don't think I have ever seen her post "anti" once during my time here.

[ave maria]

Ave, I thought we were talking about the true followers of Christ.

Or are we talking about the people of God? Or are they the same thing?

Something to ponder. . .

Does the "Church" as it exists both visible and invisble extend to include those who are God's chosen people, but not currently believers in or followers of Jesus Christ?

Are they under a different covenant?

Cannot Jews also be Christians, should they choose to be? Do they cease to be Jews once they become Christian? (I've heard it said by more than one Jewish friend that Judaism is "more than a religion.")

I said that they were those who belonged to the true Church, restored by Jesus Christ and the Father, through Joseph Smith, with the authority to perform the saving ordinances.  You said that church was actually the RCC, with Peter as the apostalic head.

You'd have to point out to me where I said that precisely. I might claim that the Catholic Church is the true and authentic Church of Jesus Christ, but in doing so, I am using the term "catholic" in a more inclusive fashion than to limit it simply to Roman Catholicism. That is, I believe, as the late beloved Pope John Paul II so well expressed, that the Eastern and Western Church are two lungs of the same body, and the body needs both to breathe properly. While I do believe that the Bishop of Rome is the successor of Peter and the Vicar of Christ, I do not dismiss the Eastern Church, or Orthodoxy, as invalidly also the Body of Christ.

I would not claim that Peter is currently the "apostolic head" of Christ's church, while he might have been originally, given that commission by Jesus Christ. I would, however, claim that the successor of Peter as Bishop of Rome is currently "apostolic head" of the Church of Jesus Christ on earth, and Vicar of Christ.

Then I said that meant that since we both believe that authority is necessary, it was between you and us.  You wanted to allow Orthodoxy/Eastern Christian to make a claim to that authority.

See above. Parts of the Eastern Church are already in full communion with Rome, something of which you might be unaware.

And Judaism.  But Judaism can't claim to be true followers of Christ since they rejected Him.  I don't follow your logic there.

The Jewish people were the first to hear the word of God, and His chosen people. Another fact of which you might be unaware is that the Vatican took a stand in recent years to not attempt to convert those of the Jewish faith, recognizing that they are already God's covenant people.

See? You hang around discussion boards long enough, you learn things that help you understand other faiths better.

[ave maria]

And Judaism.  But Judaism can't claim to be true followers of Christ since they rejected Him.  I don't follow your logic there.

The Jewish people were the first to hear the word of God, and His chosen people. Another fact of which you might be unaware is that the Vatican took a stand in recent years to not attempt to convert those of the Jewish faith, recognizing that they are already God's covenant people.

An overview of this can be found here:

http://www.americancatholic.org/Messenger/...Wiseman.asp#top

[ave maria]

I believe, as the late beloved Pope John Paul II so well expressed, that the Eastern and Western Church are two lungs of the same body, and the body needs both to breathe properly.

And a good discussion of this can be found here:

http://www.catholic.net/RCC/Periodicals/Cr...995/encylc.html

[charity]

Ave, what a distraction to the topic this has become. If there has to be authority, which we believe, and which I thought the RCC believed, or at least used to believe, then most of the other religions who claim Christ has to be off the true past. Since none can come to the Father, but by Jesus Christ, then anyone who does not believe in Jesus is off the path, even if they were the covenant people. And anyone can convert, as you obviously know and believe.

I think we should abandon this distraction out of respect to the person who started the thread. You can have the last word. I won't post back.

[juliann]

See? You hang around discussion boards long enough, you learn things that help you understand other faiths better.

Then perhaps there is hope that you will learn enough to stop misrepresenting Mormonism!

[juliann]

You'd have to point out to me where I said that precisely. I might claim that the Catholic Church is the true and authentic Church of Jesus Christ, but in doing so, I am using the term "catholic" in a more inclusive fashion than to limit it simply to Roman Catholicism.

[juliann]

I really don't see apostolic succesion in the Bible.  I started noticing that it wasn't really there when I noticed the huge part that James seemed to play in a lot of things.

It isnt' in the Bible. It began as a contest in the early centuries to compete with a Valentinian who first claimed it as proof of the validity of their beliefs. It was then picked up by the "catholic" church that Ave is pretending exists. They have been at it ever since. Not one of these succession lines has ever been validated...it is impossible. The records do not exist and any that were created were made long after the fact.

The reason that Catholocism has to maintain this as "historical" despite the in-your-face lack of evidence is that this is what their credibility rides on. This is where I would give restorationist movements a leg up.

[ave maria]

I really don't see apostolic succesion in the Bible.  I started noticing that it wasn't really there when I noticed the huge part that James seemed to play in a lot of things.

It isnt' in the Bible. It began as a contest in the early centuries to compete with a Valentinian who first claimed it as proof of the validity of their beliefs. It was then picked up by the "catholic" church that Ave is pretending exists. They have been at it ever since. Not one of these succession lines has ever been validated...it is impossible. The records do not exist and any that were created were made long after the fact.

The reason that Catholocism has to maintain this as "historical" despite the in-your-face lack of evidence is that this is what their credibility rides on. This is where I would give restorationist movements a leg up.

Why would it be in the Bible?

It would be non-sensical to assume that it would be. The New Testament describes the apostolic age, not the post-apostolic.

[ave maria]

I really don't see apostolic succesion in the Bible.  I started noticing that it wasn't really there when I noticed the huge part that James seemed to play in a lot of things.

It isnt' in the Bible. It began as a contest in the early centuries to compete with a Valentinian who first claimed it as proof of the validity of their beliefs. It was then picked up by the "catholic" church that Ave is pretending exists. They have been at it ever since. Not one of these succession lines has ever been validated...it is impossible. The records do not exist and any that were created were made long after the fact.

The reason that Catholocism has to maintain this as "historical" despite the in-your-face lack of evidence is that this is what their credibility rides on. This is where I would give restorationist movements a leg up.

Just out of curiosity, assume, for a moment, that Jesus Christ organized a church and intended for it to continue (whether in His own lifetime, or in the nineteenth century).

How would you logically assume it was to continue?

Doesn't the LDS Church currently believe in it's own form of "apostolic succession?"

Why is apostolic succession either unreasonable or illogical to your mind? What would you suggest would be a more reasonable means of continuing the true Church of Jesus Christ?

[ave maria]

This is where I would give restorationist movements a leg up.

And a leg up on what, exactly?

If the true Church of Jesus Christ never existed, there is simply nothing to "restore."

[juliann]

How would you logically assume it was to continue?

If Jesus set up a church in the 19th century and left no instructions I would assume it was not to continue. Just as happened in the first century.

Doesn't the LDS Church currently believe in it's own form of "apostolic succession?"

Based on a made up set of 2000 year old names? No. We are much more straight forward when we make up things. We just bring the original players back and skip the paperwork.

Why is apostolic succession either unreasonable or illogical to your mind?

It's not. Those who make it up hundreds of years after the fact are.

What would you suggest would be a more reasonable means of continuing the true Church of Jesus Christ?

See Mormon history.

[juliann]

If the true Church of Jesus Christ never existed, there is simply nothing to "restore."

Try again.

[ave maria]

If the true Church of Jesus Christ never existed, there is simply nothing to "restore."

Try again.

Your logic informs you otherwise?

Are you stating that you believe Jesus Christ never at any time established or organized His Church prior to the life of Joseph Smith?

[ave maria]

Doesn't the LDS Church currently believe in it's own form of "apostolic succession?"

Based on a made up set of 2000 year old names? No. We are much more straight forward when we make up things. We just bring the original players back and skip the paperwork.

You're entirely missing the point here.

The point is that the LDS Church believes in it's own form of "apostolic succession" in the sense that it believes all current leadership "succeeds" from the original twelve apostles at the time of Joseph Smith.

Do you believe that to be incorrect?

[ave maria]

We are much more straight forward when we make up things.  We just bring the original players back and skip the paperwork.