Webb Vs. Gaskill On Apostolic Succession

[Hamilton Porter]

This is how the chapter "Authority" in Catholic and Mormon (New York: Oxford, 2015) went:

 

Webb made the standard argument that St. Peter passed on apostolic authority to the bishops.

 

Gaskill replied saying that the bishop office was already around concurrently with the apostle office during NT times, and it was a local office. The churchwide office of apostle went missing after St. Peter died, and the churchwide office of Pope wasn't there until the mid 4th century with Leo.

 

Webb said if you're gonna be picky about the difference between apostle and bishop, then why do you have a "prophet" that is above the apostles? In the NT, "prophets" are subordinate to apostles and does not have the authority of an OT prophet. Also, it's pretty clear that St. Peter intended to pass his authority down. In the NT, authority was spread by the laying of hands, and that's what Peter did.

 

Gaskill did not respond after that. But Stephen E. Robinson in How Wide the Divide mentioned that "prophet" is an apostolic office.

[carbon dioxide]

A prophet simply is someone who has the testimony of Christ and has the spirit of prophecy or the Holy Ghost. 

 

“true and honest witnesses of Jesus Christ, they would acknowledge they have the testimony of Him, and that is the spirit of prophecy; and every man who possess that spirit is a prophet” (Joseph Smith, History of the Church 5:408).

 

“No man is a minister of Jesus Christ without being a prophet. No man can be the minister of Jesus Christ, except he has the testimony of Jesus, and this is the spirit of prophecy” (Joseph Smith, Journal of Discourses 6:239).

 

There should be many prophets on the earth but only one that speaks for the Church as a whole and whom all the other prophets are subordinate to.

 

A prophet is not above an apostle as there is no office for prophet but there is an office for an apostle. 

 

"Many persons think, if they see a Prophet they see one possessing all the keys of the Kingdom of God on the earth. This is not so; many persons have prophesied without having any Priesthood on them at all…To be a prophet is simply to be a foreteller of future events; but an Apostle of the Lord Jesus Christ has the keys of the Holy Priesthood, and the power thereof is sealed upon his head, and by this he is authorized to proclaim the truth to the people, and if they receive it, well; if not, the sin be upon their own heads." (Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses 13:144)

 

"Joseph Smith was a Prophet, seer, and revelator (not by the voice of the people, mind you) before he had power to build up the kingdom of God, or take the first steps toward it. When did he obtain that power? Not until the angel had ordained him to be an Apostle. Joseph Smith, Oliver Cowdery, and David Whitmer were the first Apostles of this dispensation…When a man is an Apostle and stands at the head of the kingdom of God on earth, and magnifies his calling, he has the keys of all the power that ever was bestowed upon mortal man for the building up of the kingdom of God on the earth." (Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses 6:320)

 

“anybody is a prophet who has the testimony of Jesus Christ, for that is the spirit of prophecy. The Elders of Israel are prophets. A prophet is not so great as an Apostle." (Wilford Woodruff, Journal of Discourses 13:165)

 

“The highest office that any man has ever held on the face of the earth in this or any generation is that of apostle.” (Wilford Woodruff, Journal of Discourses 13:319)

 

All apostles can be called prophets but not all prophets are apostles.

Edited September 23, 2015 by carbon dioxide

[Damien the Leper]

A good read would be by Jesuit, Francis A. Sullivan:

From Apostles to Bishops: The Development of the Episcopacy in the Early Church

[halconero]

Here's the thing, there is no official office in the Church as "prophet." Thomas S. Monsoon is head of the Church by virtue of being the chief apostle. We organize the apostles in two groups, one a Quorum, and the other a Presidency. In sustaining them as prophets, seers and revelators we are describing apostolic functions, not offices. The church has never claimed apostles to be subordinate to prophets, we just colloquially taken to calling the chief apostle "the Prophet."

Now, with regards to Cathodoxy, this a position where I feel like the Orthodox churches have a stronger position than the Catholics. Bishops did function as local overseers of the church, with no indication that any one local bishop held primacy over the others (which is the Catholic position via the Bishop of Rome).

Edited September 24, 2015 by halconero

[Damien the Leper]

I agree, Robby. Orthodoxy, back in the day, named Rome as primus inter pares. While I acknowledge valid apostolic succession in Rome, I contest many of their actions.

Two grievances come to mind:

1. Asserting that Rome is above the canons of the Seven Ecumenical Councils.

2. Slamming the bill of excommunication onto the altar in the Hagia Sophia in Constantinople in 1034.

OTOH, I'm a super huge fan of the Council of Trent.

Edited September 24, 2015 by Valentinus

[halconero]

True, I should have said that no bishop held authority over another, not primacy. The Bishop of Rome did have an honoured position among the various bishops and patriarchs. I believe that both Catholicisim and Orthodoxy generally acknowledge each other's succession, no?

Now, obviously Latter-day Saint doctrine contests the nature of authority rendered unto the Bishops.

[Ahab]

If the Catholic church was truly the true church of Jesus Christ the pope would still basically be their equivalent to our presiding bishop of the Church. Not an apostle but still the presiding bishop over all of the Church regarding the responsibilities of bishops.

[Ahab]

If the Catholic church was truly the true church of Jesus Christ the pope would still basically be their equivalent to our presiding bishop of the Church. Not an apostle but still the presiding bishop over all of the Church regarding the responsibilities of bishops.

[Robert F. Smith]

A good read would be by Jesuit, Francis A. Sullivan:

From Apostles to Bishops: The Development of the Episcopacy in the Early Church

Yes, and also Hugh W. Nibley, Apostles and Bishops in Early Christianity, Collected Works of Hugh Nibley 15 (Provo: FARMS/ SLC: Deseret Book, 2005).

[Damien the Leper]

True, I should have said that no bishop held authority over another, not primacy. The Bishop of Rome did have an honoured position among the various bishops and patriarchs. I believe that both Catholicisim and Orthodoxy generally acknowledge each other's succession, no?

Now, obviously Latter-day Saint doctrine contests the nature of authority rendered unto the Bishops.

Correct. However, they are not in communion with each other.

[Alan]

The president of the church, who some mistakenly label "The Prophet" is actually the presiding apostle. In my view he is "a" prophet, but not "the" prophet.

[Robert F. Smith]

The president of the church, who some mistakenly label "The Prophet" is actually the presiding apostle. In my view he is "a" prophet, but not "the" prophet.

"The Prophet" is whomever God chooses to designate in that function as his primary representative on Earth.  In the time of Samuel the Prophet, there was no question of his primary authority over all religious and secular functions within the Twelve Tribes of Israel.   Despite being an Ephraimite, he was the priestly successor to Eli, the High Priest.  He chose and anointed kings, he was a charismatic judge, he performed executions, and even in death he was sought after for his prophetic insight (at En Dor).  Yet there were plenty of other prophets, priests, and judges in his day.  God chose to speak and act primarily through him.  Some other prophets have been anti-establishment (Jeremiah and Lehi), but Samuel was the Establishment.

 

Thomas Monson is the Establishment in our day, even though he lacks secular civil authority.  We regularly sustain him as Prophet, Seer, and Revelator, as we will this October.  It is true that there are other prophets, seers, and revelators associated with him, but he is primus inter pares, and holds all the keys of the Kingdom of God on Earth.  He is first in authority, the Presiding High Priest of God on Earth.  He is also an Apostle (the senior apostle among 15).  He is also President of the LDS Church.  His is a multifaceted role.

 

The Pope (the papa bishop) is regarded as fulfilling the same roles, and his tiara includes symbolic keys of the Kingdom.  He is the Pontifex Maximus, the High Priest of God, God's spokesman and representative on Earth -- the infallible Prophet par excellence, under the proper circumstances.

[Robert F. Smith]

...........................................

 

Webb said if you're gonna be picky about the difference between apostle and bishop, then why do you have a "prophet" that is above the apostles? In the NT, "prophets" are subordinate to apostles and does not have the authority of an OT prophet. Also, it's pretty clear that St. Peter intended to pass his authority down. In the NT, authority was spread by the laying of hands, and that's what Peter did.

 

Gaskill did not respond after that. But Stephen E. Robinson in How Wide the Divide mentioned that "prophet" is an apostolic office.

Webb's comparison of "prophet" and "apostle," was a category mistake akin to comparing apples & oranges to the price of tea in China.  Like comparing "priest" and "rabbi."

 

The role of a Mormon "prophet" is neither superior to, nor subordinate to that of an "apostle."  Indeed, in the LDS Church The Prophet is an Apostle also.  They are separate functions.  The terminology must be understood aright in order to avoid confusion:

 

Hebrew nabiʼ !*"1 Aprophet, one called by God@  = Greek πρoφήτης Aprophet@

Hebrew šaliaḥ (*-: Amessenger, one sent@  = Greek απoστoλoς Amessenger, one sent@

Hebrew šnaym-aÑar 9:3-.*1: Atwelve@  = Greek δωδεκα Atwelve@

 

The LDS Presidency of 3 over the other Brethren is reminiscent of the presidency of three over a larger group of satraps in Achaemin­id Persian administration (provincial governors), and might be best understood from the Aramaic terminology used in Daniel 6:2-4,6 (Herodotus, History, III:89, gives 20 satraps, while Dan 6:1 has 120, which is the number of the Jewish Great Assembly and of the modern Israeli Knesset).

 

Twelve elders/presbyters (or Fifteen, with the three presiding priests) were the foundation wall of the New Testament and Qumran community (1QS 8:1-8, 1QM 2:1-2, CD 7:5, 20:25,7; 4QpIsa [4Q164] 54:12; Num 3:4, Mat 10:1-4, 19:28, Mk 3:13-19, Lk 6:13-16, Jn 6:70, Acts 1:13, 19:1-7 [Twelve Disciples of John rebaptized by Paul], Rev 21:14), while the three styloi "pillars" (Gal 2:9, Peter, James, and John) are the leaders of the new Christian Church.

[Hamilton Porter]

Yes, and also Hugh W. Nibley, Apostles and Bishops in Early Christianity, Collected Works of Hugh Nibley 15 (Provo: FARMS/ SLC: Deseret Book, 2005).

 

I need to read both.

[Lachoneus]

A good read would be by Jesuit, Francis A. Sullivan:

From Apostles to Bishops: The Development of the Episcopacy in the Early Church

 

An even better read by Hugh Nibley:

 

Apostles and Bishops in Early Christianity. http://www.amazon.com/Apostles-Bishops-Early-Christianity-Nibley/dp/1590383893

[PeterPear]

You're all wrong.

 

Read D&C 107. Each office: deacon, teacher, priest, High Priest, Seventy, Apostles, have Presiding Officers.

 

The Council of the First Presidency is the Presidency over the Council of the Twelve Apostles - similar to a Presidency presiding over a quorum of Deacons; Teachers, Elders, High Priests, Seventies, etc.

 

The First Presidency, under the direction of Jesus Christ, presides over the entire Priesthood with Pres. Monson as the Chief Apostle who holds, as revealed in the D&C, all priesthood keys and has all Gifts of God pertaining to the Church. This is what sets him apart from all holders of the Priesthood. D&C 107:92 

 

Thus there is order, not chaos.

[halconero]

That's is what I said...

Chief apostle...part of a presidency...you can read it up there...

[saemo]

I agree, Robby. Orthodoxy, back in the day, named Rome as primus inter pares. While I acknowledge valid apostolic succession in Rome, I contest many of their actions.

Two grievances come to mind:

1. Asserting that Rome is above the canons of the Seven Ecumenical Councils.

2. Slamming the bill of excommunication onto the altar in the Hagia Sophia in Constantinople in 1034.

OTOH, I'm a super huge fan of the Council of Trent.

I read intense and heated arguments from both Orthodx and Catholics, but really, coming from a background that is 1000 miles from either, I'm in agreement with Pope John Paul II, who called the East and West Churches, the two lungs of the Church. Edited September 26, 2015 by saemo

[saemo]

Now, with regards to Cathodoxy, this a position where I feel like the Orthodox churches have a stronger position than the Catholics. Bishops did function as local overseers of the church, with no indication that any one local bishop held primacy over the others (which is the Catholic position via the Bishop of Rome).

If we look to the Patriarchies of the Eastern Catholic Churches, who are in communion with Rome, we see how the primacy of the Bishop of Rome functions. The Eastern Catholic Churches are autonomous, with their own canon (judicial jurisdiction is ultimately Papal, while simultaneously autonomy is enforced) , their continued liturgies that belong to their Tradition (not the Latin Rite or Novus Ordo) and they elect their own Patriarchs. Their Patriarchs are not appointed by the Pope, as the RC Bishops are, and are not required to receive confirmation of their election from the Pope. The Bishop of Rome includes the Eastern Catholic Patriarchs in curias and councils, and high positions within Church heirarchy include permanent positions defined as Patriarchs of the Church. So they lead the universal Church, in communion with the Bishop of Rome.

Edited September 26, 2015 by saemo

[Saint Sinner]

You're all wrong.

 

Read D&C 107. Each office: deacon, teacher, priest, High Priest, Seventy, Apostles, have Presiding Officers.

 

The Council of the First Presidency is the Presidency over the Council of the Twelve Apostles - similar to a Presidency presiding over a quorum of Deacons; Teachers, Elders, High Priests, Seventies, etc.

 

The First Presidency, under the direction of Jesus Christ, presides over the entire Priesthood with Pres. Monson as the Chief Apostle who holds, as revealed in the D&C, all priesthood keys and has all Gifts of God pertaining to the Church. This is what sets him apart from all holders of the Priesthood. D&C 107:92 

 

Thus there is order, not chaos.

But from the perspectives of Rome and Constantinople, I agree with Halconero and Valentinus. Citing LDS scripture has little influence and authority on the subject.

[Saint Sinner]

An even better read by Hugh Nibley:

 

Apostles and Bishops in Early Christianity. http://www.amazon.com/Apostles-Bishops-Early-Christianity-Nibley/dp/1590383893

While Nibley is insightful, he is not authoritative on the Eastern and Western churches. A Jesuit is a much better resource from the west and Bishop Timothy Ware is a great resource from the east.

[Lachoneus]

While Nibley is insightful, he is not authoritative on the Eastern and Western churches. A Jesuit is a much better resource from the west and Bishop Timothy Ware is a great resource from the east.

 

Who decides what is "authoritative"?

[carbon dioxide]

The president of the church, who some mistakenly label "The Prophet" is actually the presiding apostle. In my view he is "a" prophet, but not "the" prophet.

I could call the president the head prophet living today. 

[Kaleb Webb]

I was really confused about that thread title for a minute. 

[Saint Sinner]

Who decides what is "authoritative"?

You wouldn't go to Patriarch Bartholomew to learn about Mormonism anymore than you would go to Nibley or Monson about what constitutes valid and authoritative Eastern Orthodox doctrine and theology.

Edited September 28, 2015 by Saint Sinner