The great apostasy

[Gray]

15 hours ago, The Nehor said:

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

They seem to include the information that fits what the authors thought was important in following Jesus, not necessarily what you or I or later Christians might think is important.

[Atheist Mormon]

23 hours ago, Spammer said:

I think you're referring to the 4th Crusade, called by Pope Innocent III to retake Jerusalem from the Muslims? If so, the crusaders and their Venetian partners decided unilaterally to divert from Jerusalem and sack Constantinople (Byzantium). The Pope did not authorize the sack and issued a blistering critique of the crusaders' action, although he eventually accepted the new reality. 

Regardless, the examples you cite of the dark side of Catholicism (the sack of Byzantium, theft of native gold by Spaniard conquistadores and churchmen, etc) apply only to Roman Catholicism, the church of the popes of Rome, not to the the Catholic Tradition writ large, which includes churches in that tradition who were formerly in communion with Rome (and who broke communion with the popes long before any pope's 'willing complicity' in the sins you mentioned), namely the Greek Christians of Byzantium (the Orthodox Church), Egypt's Copts, and the Church of the East. Catholicism is global and diverse, of which the church of the popes of Rome is only a part (albeit the largest part). When discussing the sins of Catholicism and 'Humanity's Christian history' as you're doing, it's better and more accurate to clarify that what you're really doing is discussing only the sins of 'Roman' Catholicism and 'Western Christian history', the more narrow history of the Latin wing of the historical Catholic Church. 

[Edit to add: I think it's also important to distinguish between a pope's mandate or call to action and the actions of those responding to the pope's call. Typically, the popes are blamed for the bad actions of Roman Catholics who go their own way after responding to the call. The 4th Crusade is one example. The actions of Peter the Hermit and the 'People's Crusade' during the First Crusade is another.  Even so, the actions of a minority of popes (the rotten apples) in no way impugns the good popes, who are the majority. Papal actions also have no bearing on whether the Church's holy orders are valid, whether the Church preserves the Apostolic teaching, or whether Jesus is truly present in the Holy Eucharist.  The Apostolic Tradition, Holy Scripture and what happens at Mass/Divine Liturgy comprises Catholicism, not the actions of sinful popes, bishops, priests and laymen. It's no different for Mormonism and the sins of LDS prophets, apostles, bishops and laymen. If an LDS prophet falls, no matter how egregious the sin or apostasy (hypothetically, let's suppose BY really did order the MMM and then lied to cover it up), that has no bearing on the authority of the other FP members or the 12, or whether Joseph Smith was a prophet or whether the priesthood and saving ordinances were restored. It's no different in Roman Catholicism as regards the bad popes].

Nice try Spammer....Your sanitized version of the history might well work with you....But me...I am way too degenerated to swallow this.....The Medieval history associated with Catholic Church is far worse than I can take....the inquisitions, Borgias...too much to handle.....

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, Gray said:

They seem to include the information that fits what the authors thought was important in following Jesus, not necessarily what you or I or later Christians might think is important.

I don’t get that feel. The gospels are just not preachy enough (for lack of a better word) compared to stuff like the epistles or most of the Old Testament.

[Spammer]

1 hour ago, Atheist Mormon said:

Nice try Spammer....Your sanitized version of the history might well work with you....But me...I am way too degenerated to swallow this.....The Medieval history associated with Catholic Church is far worse than I can take....the inquisitions, Borgias...too much to handle.....

You're not interested in historical accuracy and nuance?  You presented domething demonsrably false about the 4th Crusade. You blamed the pope for the sack of Constantinople. I offered a correction. Do you still blame the pope?

You're not interested in fairness? You equate the sins of some medieval popes and Roman Catholic Christians with 'humanity's Christian history'.  You make Christian Churches and Christians who aren't and never were Roman Catholic, and took no part in those crimes, complicit in those crimes. Lenin and Pol Pot were atheists who ordered genocide. Shall we equate their crimes with 'humanity's atheist history'?  You're an atheist, correct? If so, then by your reasoning, you're complicit in their crimes.  Are you?

Edited December 12, 2017 by Spammer

[clarkgoble]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

I don’t get that feel. The gospels are just not preachy enough (for lack of a better word) compared to stuff like the epistles or most of the Old Testament.

They're preachy in different ways. But they're definitely tailoring a message for the concerns of the author. There's also things like the hard sayings of Jesus I don't think you can dismiss so easily.

2 hours ago, Gray said:

They seem to include the information that fits what the authors thought was important in following Jesus, not necessarily what you or I or later Christians might think is important.

Exactly. It's a very different era.

 

[Atheist Mormon]

2 hours ago, Spammer said:

You're not interested in historical accuracy and nuance?  You presented domething demonsrably false about the 4th Crusade. You blamed the pope for the sack of Constantinople. I offered a correction. Do you still blame the pope?

You're not interested in fairness? You equate the sins of some medieval popes and Roman Catholic Christians with 'humanity's Christian history'.  You make Christian Churches and Christians who aren't and never were Roman Catholic, and took no part in those crimes, complicit in those crimes. Lenin and Pol Pot were atheists who ordered genocide. Shall we equate their crimes with 'humanity's atheist history'?  You're an atheist, correct? If so, then by your reasoning, you're complicit in their crimes.  Are you?

Actually I never mentioned 4'th Crusade, it was your own imagination from the getgo. I only mentioned Ottoman conquest of Byzantium. Of course I blame Pope for the sack of Byzantium, he did not move his pinky to help them, which cost Catholic Pope 5-6 centuries of total misery & pain and millions of lives. Blunders did not end there, when Ottomans attempted to invade Vienna it was Polish Prince who helped, when they sieged the Island of Malta you'd think they'd mobilize to secure Mediterranean see's safety but no, they just sat in their comfortable enclave with false sense of security....The whole history  of Catholic Church is laced with with this type of stories, Joseph Smith did not know one tenth of it, He only scratched surface what kinda filthy (no offense intended to you personally) empire He was facing. I'm not believing in Lenin or pol Pot to me they belong  the same club with medieval popes. Yes I'm atheist and have my own moral standards and it is much higher than theirs. 

The thing that annoyed me that someone comes  here ( like most diligent uninformed uninformed Christians) and throws an innocent looking question......I suggest they should learn & investigate their beliefs first......

[Spammer]

1 hour ago, Atheist Mormon said:

Actually I never mentioned 4'th Crusade, it was your own imagination from the getgo. I only mentioned Ottoman conquest of Byzantium. Of course I blame Pope for the sack of Byzantium, he did not move his pinky to help them, which cost Catholic Pope 5-6 centuries of total misery & pain and millions of lives. Blunders did not end there, when Ottomans attempted to invade Vienna it was Polish Prince who helped, when they sieged the Island of Malta you'd think they'd mobilize to secure Mediterranean see's safety but no, they just sat in their comfortable enclave with false sense of security....The whole history  of Catholic Church is laced with with this type of stories, Joseph Smith did not know one tenth of it, He only scratched surface what kinda filthy (no offense intended to you personally) empire He was facing. I'm not believing in Lenin or pol Pot to me they belong  the same club with medieval popes. Yes I'm atheist and have my own moral standards and it is much higher than theirs. 

The thing that annoyed me that someone comes  here ( like most diligent uninformed uninformed Christians) and throws an innocent looking question......I suggest they should learn & investigate their beliefs first......

Ah, ok. I was unclear which sack you referred to in your post yesterday. Thanks for the correction. 

Also, for the record, I'm Eastern Orthodox and share the faith of the Byzantine Christians who built Constantinople. I'm also formerly LDS, raised in Utah, seminary grad, mission, temple marriage, the works. My interest in this thread and motivation in responding to you is solely to offer my views on historical events, if I think it could help for the sake of historical accuracy. Again, thanks for clarifying which actions (or inaction) of the popes you were referring to.

Hava a great day.  

[snowflake]

16 hours ago, RevTestament said:

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

Rev, in the NT Jesus never puts any emphasis on Priesthood or on the Apostles appointing other Apostles, why? That was not their mission. Matthew 10 sums up what the mission of the Apostles was to do. They were not to all stay together in the same city as the current LDS apostles do. Also if the LDS apostles have the same "authority" as the original apostles do why don't they "heal all manner of sickness and disease", and "raise the dead", etc?

10 And when he had called unto him his twelve disciples, he gave them power against unclean spirits, to cast them out, and to heal all manner of sickness and all manner of disease.

² Now the names of the twelve apostles are these; The first, Simon, who is called Peter, and Andrew his brother; James the son of Zebedee, and John his brother;

³ Philip, and Bartholomew; Thomas, and Matthew the publican; James the son of Alphaeus, and Lebbaeus, whose surname was Thaddaeus;

⁴ Simon the Canaanite, and Judas Iscariot, who also betrayed him.

⁵ These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not:

⁶ But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.

⁷ And as ye go, preach, saying, The kingdom of heaven is at hand.

⁸ Heal the sick, cleanse the lepers, raise the dead, cast out devils: freely ye have received, freely give.

⁹ Provide neither gold, nor silver, nor brass in your purses,

¹⁰ Nor scrip for your journey, neither two coats, neither shoes, nor yet staves: for the workman is worthy of his meat.

¹¹ And into whatsoever city or town ye shall enter, enquire who in it is worthy; and there abide till ye go thence.

¹² And when ye come into an house, salute it.

¹³ And if the house be worthy, let your peace come upon it: but if it be not worthy, let your peace return to you.

¹⁴ And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words, when ye depart out of that house or city, shake off the dust of your feet.

¹⁵ Verily I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment, than for that city.

¹⁶ Behold, I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves: be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves.

¹⁷ But beware of men: for they will deliver you up to the councils, and they will scourge you in their synagogues;

¹⁸ And ye shall be brought before governors and kings for my sake, for a testimony against them and the Gentiles.

¹⁹ But when they deliver you up, take no thought how or what ye shall speak: for it shall be given you in that same hour what ye shall speak.

[3DOP]

18 hours ago, RevTestament said:

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

Good question Rev. Believe it or not, I have seen this one before. But for your sake and any others who may not have been around so long, I am happy to repeat the Catholic position

The Catholic Church does not teach that Apostles were ceremonially ordained as Apostles. The Apostles were commissioned directly by Christ and ordained bishops. We hold that it is the will of God that the authority of the bishops who were apostles should be passed to those who were not apostles. The authority which is represented by keys comes originally from bishops who were apostles, and that is why we use the term "apostolic keys". 

When St. Paul speaks of the proof of his apostleship he does not reference any ceremony: "Am not I free? Have not I seen Jesus Christ our Lord? Are not you my work in the Lord? And if unto others I be not an apostle, but yet to you I am. For you are the seal of my apostleship in the Lord." (I Cor.  9:1-3) How could anyone question his apostleship if it was matter of ceremony? How could Paul be an apostle to some but not others if it was a mere matter of ceremony?

It was prophesied that there would need to be a replacement for Judas among the twelve. According to Acts 1:20, it is Judas "bishoprick" that is inherited by Matthias. When the lot fell upon Matthias, there is no mention of an apostolic ceremony. He was merely numbered with the eleven. 

Thanks for your consideration, Rev.

Rory

[RevTestament]

2 hours ago, snowflake said:

Rev, in the NT Jesus never puts any emphasis on Priesthood or on the Apostles appointing other Apostles, why? That was not their mission. Matthew 10 sums up what the mission of the Apostles was to do. They were not to all stay together in the same city as the current LDS apostles do. Also if the LDS apostles have the same "authority" as the original apostles do why don't they "heal all manner of sickness and disease", and "raise the dead", etc?

Jesus didn't leave word about the replacement of apostles, but the apostles clearly felt they were to replace themselves, and did so. If not, there would have been no Paul the apostle, and we can chuck out that part of the NT. Are you in with that? Acts talks about the replacement of several apostles. What happened? Why does your church have no apostles? The destroyer came and destroyed Jerusalem, and killed Peter and Paul. John was translated. Bishops were not apostles, but were ordained by them. Where does Christ say to do that in the NT? Many, many things about the priesthood simply aren't taught in the scriptures, but the few clear things don't support your view. Yeshua didn't tell the apostles they could not be together - he gave them a mandate to go declare His word. In the restored Church, the apostles were routinely sent on missions. As the church grew, their need as missionaries was not as great, and they gained more responsibilities in Church governance, however, the apostles continue to travel all over the world, and now their words can be projected around the world. It is not like they just sit in SLC unheard. Lastly, having authority is not the same as having gifts. Despite this, many apostles have healed the sick. Priesthood gifts are given to all members of the priesthood. Someone does not need an apostle to receive a healing blessing. A high council member related a story to my ward about an incident on his mission. I don't recall all the particulars, but I think they had had an unsuccessful day, but felt compelled to go down this one street. Whatever the case, a lady answered her door with "where have you been?" "Come, in and heal my son" or something like that. The boy was dead. Neither missionary really wanted to give this blessing, but this high councilman did, and blessed the boy to regain health, and be able to play ball. Nothing happened. They kind of sheepishly left. But they went back a few weeks later just to check on her, and she said her boy was out playing ball, and they began to give her and the boy lessons. You can also watch a similar type of story in the movie "The Other Side of Heaven" - one of my faves. I recommend it highly. Another good true story is in the movie "Ephraim's Rescue." I am still moved by that movie. Ephraim Hanks was not an apostle nor any kind of authoritative figure in the Church, but healed many through the Lord - some from gangrene on an ill-fated hand cart trek. Again rank of authority does not equal spiritual gifts nor revelatory gifts - despite what some may think.

[3DOP]

18 hours ago, TOmNossor said:

Hello,

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

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

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

....

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

....

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

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

Tom, hi.

Always good to see you.

I do not see things differently. I just don't attachment much importance to the facts you raise. I do not have an opinion on who came first, Linus or Clement. The point that I take from the reading is about the early pre-eminence of the Roman church, the assumption on Irenaeus' part that his argument was irrefutable, and the preservation of his very big book. The Christians did it because they believed what he said. This was the faith. This was the tradition of saints and martyrs who converted a pagan empire, even though they might have put St. Clement in 3rd place when he should have been second. I wanted twenty years ago what I want today. I want the faith of the early church. I do not see Protestantism, and I do not see theCoJCoLDS. I do not see a well defined papacy as yet, but I see the seed, even in Paul's letter to the Romans, again in St. Ignatius, and much more in Irenaeus, that the early Christians looked to Rome for guidance, and continued after the death of the chief Apostle. What church would you choose if you wanted to imitate the faith of the first three centuries? I don't understand how I can ignore the colossal work of converting the Empire though persecuted and driven underground.

I see a need, and I have the desire to be Roman, and that is why in 2017, I am a papist. But I don't know about Linus or Clement. Of course Peter was in Antioch. I don't really care if it was because Peter died in Rome that we say that Rome is the see of Peter. Irenaeus says he founded it with St. Paul. Assuredly there was a vibrant community before either of them arrived. I am not ready to say Irenaeus was wrong. He may have been referring not to the foundation of a church, but rather the establishment of the Roman Catholic Church on the twin foundations of the Apostle to the Gentiles, and the Rock, Peter. The two most prolific and important apostles deliberately journeyed to this city and stayed until they were martyred. Common sense itself would tell the early Christians without revelation, that in Rome, where both Peter and Paul dwelt, the disciples received the surest instruction in the faith. After these apostles seal their ministries in blood, so does every bishop of Rome for more than two centuries. They are followed by priests and deacons, virgins and married, and even boys and girls. I can not ignore Rome. I truly don't care what they believed. I just want the faith that made them do what they did. 

Thanks for stirring me a little Tom.

It is the Feast of our Lady of Guadalupe today! Dec. 12th. Goodnight. It isn't just martyrs of the first centuries and Peter or Paul. Its miracles. Apart from being Catholic, I do not know how to explain Our Lady of Guadalupe, or Lourdes, or Fatima. I should get going. God you bless you Tom and all you guys and gals. Thanks for putting up with me.  

Rory 

[RevTestament]

42 minutes ago, 3DOP said:

Good question Rev. Believe it or not, I have seen this one before. But for your sake and any others who may not have been around so long, I am happy to repeat the Catholic position

The Catholic Church does not teach that Apostles were ceremonially ordained as Apostles. The Apostles were commissioned directly by Christ and ordained bishops. We hold that it is the will of God that the authority of the bishops who were apostles should be passed to those who were not apostles. The authority which is represented by keys comes originally from bishops who were apostles, and that is why we use the term "apostolic keys". 

It was prophesied that there would need to be a replacement for Judas among the twelve. According to Acts 1:20, it is Judas "bishoprick" that is inherited by Matthias. When the lot fell upon Matthias, there is no mention of an apostolic ceremony. He was merely numbered with the eleven. 

Ok, Thanks for indulging my ignorance on the Catholic position, 3DOP.

Acts 1:20 seems to be referring to Psalms 69:25, but I don't see anything there about bishopric. It does say let not another take his place or tent. Is there another Psalms or scripture that the Catholic Church is basing that on? Or am I misreading something?

[Atheist Mormon]

5 hours ago, Spammer said:

Ah, ok. I was unclear which sack you referred to in your post yesterday. Thanks for the correction. 

Also, for the record, I'm Eastern Orthodox and share the faith of the Byzantine Christians who built Constantinople. I'm also formerly LDS, raised in Utah, seminary grad, mission, temple marriage, the works. My interest in this thread and motivation in responding to you is solely to offer my views on historical events, if I think it could help for the sake of historical accuracy. Again, thanks for clarifying which actions (or inaction) of the popes you were referring to.

Hava a great day.  

I apologise as well, if I was offensive in any way.

[3DOP]

2 hours ago, RevTestament said:

Ok, Thanks for indulging my ignorance on the Catholic position, 3DOP.

Acts 1:20 seems to be referring to Psalms 69:25, but I don't see anything there about bishopric. It does say let not another take his place or tent. Is there another Psalms or scripture that the Catholic Church is basing that on? Or am I misreading something?

Hey. I am glad that caught your attention. FYI, we designate it is Ps. 68. But the same text to which you refer. It is only the New Testament that refers to bishoprick. "Bishoprick" is in the Douay-Rheims Catholic and King James New Testament. I just checked the Greek and it is episkopen, bishoprick. That is the Greek in Ac. 1:20. The Douay-Rheims Old Testament is translated "office". I would suggest that St. Peter is clarifying the revelation of "which office" it is to which the Psalm is referring. Of course it is not a strict translation of the Psalm, but it need not be. Peter is more interested in interpretation of the Psalm than rigorous translation, and that is why he lets us know that the office which is being conferred on Matthias, is the bishoprick, which had been held by Judas, until his demise.   

Edited December 13, 2017 by 3DOP

[3DOP]

20 hours ago, Anijen said:

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

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

It appears that you are equating an abbot with a bishop. You can correct if am wrong. But I can't think of why you would mention "abby's" unless you saw some close connection. 

Even if abbots were bishops, and they were chosen by kings, and popes disapproved, they would still be bishops and abbots. Today, the Catholic Church acknowledges that all Orthodox bishops are valid and truly ordained even though from our perspective, they split away from the true church. They are ordained by other true bishops, even if we held that they were excommunicated and went to hell. Its impossible to expect a Catholic to be concerned about the validity of an ordination performed by a minister qualified to ordain. It doesn't matter if a king made the nomination. The pope can excommunicate offenders. But he cannot undo a Sacrament. That is not within the pope's powers. Do you think that the Catholic Church teaches that only ordinations approved by the pope are valid? The Church has never ever taught that.

There is a very great difference between that which is illicit and that which is invalid. I do not acknowledge that many episcopal ordinations have been illicit. Monarchs and other persons of questionable merit have at various times chosen episcopal candidates. Popes mostly tolerated, making them licit. But even if you know of an example when a pope didn't tolerate, the ordination would still be valid according to the perennial and constant teaching of the Catholic Church. If you will attempt to find the Catholic faith or practice to have contradicted itself, you will need to use Catholic teaching and practice to do so. For sacramental theology in general, and Holy Orders in particular, this would mean that you need to acknowledge the difference between illicit and invalid.

Rory

Edited December 13, 2017 by 3DOP

[Bobbieaware]

On 12/12/2017 at 12:32 AM, Anijen said:

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

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

It doesn’t matter if in some way the Catholic Church can establish a putative line of succession going back to Peter. Why? Because if Peter’s Catholic Church successors were not Apostles, invested with power and authority to be prophets, seers and revelators, any claim to a legitimacy of continuous ecclesiastical authority is mute. Without a living prophet standing at the head of the Church, even with a claimed line of succession of bishops, the Church of Jesus Christ cannot exist. Paul said no member of the body of Christ can say there is no need for any of any of the other members of the body. And this principle is of most especial significant when speaking of the Apostles and Prophets whom Christ placed at the leadership helm of his Church. A local bishop, even a bishop of Rome, is not an Apostle.

25 That there should be no schism in the body; but that the members should have the same care one for another.

26 And whether one member suffer, all the members sufferwith it; or one member be honoured, all the members rejoice with it.

27 Now ye are the body of Christ, and members in particular.

28 And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues. (1 Corinthians 12)

Edited December 13, 2017 by Bobbieaware

[Spammer]

11 hours ago, Atheist Mormon said:

I apologise as well, if I was offensive in any way.

No need to apologize.  You weren't. I appreciate your willingness to indulge my ramblings.  

[cdowis]

18 hours ago, snowflake said:

Rev, in the NT Jesus never puts any emphasis on Priesthood or on the Apostles appointing other Apostles,

Are you so certain on what Christ did or did not teach?

Please look at Acts 1:2-3 and tell us what He taught about the administration of the priesthood -- being seen of them forty days, and speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God.

You have fallen into the common  fallacy that the Bible is a complete handbook of doctrines and administrative details. 

Clearly not when Christ taught the disciples for 40 days and the Bible tells us nothing of those things "pertaining to the kingdom o God".

[RevTestament]

18 hours ago, 3DOP said:

Hey. I am glad that caught your attention. FYI, we designate it is Ps. 68. But the same text to which you refer. It is only the New Testament that refers to bishoprick. "Bishoprick" is in the Douay-Rheims Catholic and King James New Testament. I just checked the Greek and it is episkopen, bishoprick. That is the Greek in Ac. 1:20. The Douay-Rheims Old Testament is translated "office". I would suggest that St. Peter is clarifying the revelation of "which office" it is to which the Psalm is referring. Of course it is not a strict translation of the Psalm, but it need not be. Peter is more interested in interpretation of the Psalm than rigorous translation, and that is why he lets us know that the office which is being conferred on Matthias, is the bishoprick, which had been held by Judas, until his demise.   

Thanks Rory,

I would say that the Douay-Rheims is actually a better translation of this as "office." After doing a little more digging I found there is indeed another verse often referred to from Psalms. So we have:

Psalm 69:25 Let their habitation be desolate, and let none dwell in their tents.

And Psalm 109:8 Let his days be few, and let another take his office, פקדתו pekudato, his overseership, his charge of visitation or superintendence, translated by the Septuagint, την επισκοπην, Vulgate, episcopatum. From Biblehub

However, it seems the office or charge of Judas was widely different from what became the office of bishop. The Bible doesn't tell us much about the office of Bishop, but from the early church it seemed the bishops were in charge of their local congregations - acting as a judge of temporal matters, sins, and so forth. The Bible simply doesn't give any indication that an apostles duties were much like that - just an observation. It seems apostles ordained bishops for this purpose. Some estimate there were 1800 bishops by the the time of Nicea in the Roman Empire. Apparently, a different name was used in the East. 

[3DOP]

3 hours ago, RevTestament said:

Thanks Rory,

I would say that the Douay-Rheims is actually a better translation of this as "office." After doing a little more digging I found there is indeed another verse often referred to from Psalms. So we have:

Psalm 69:25 Let their habitation be desolate, and let none dwell in their tents.

And Psalm 109:8 Let his days be few, and let another take his office, פקדתו pekudato, his overseership, his charge of visitation or superintendence, translated by the Septuagint, την επισκοπην, Vulgate, episcopatum. From Biblehub

However, it seems the office or charge of Judas was widely different from what became the office of bishop. The Bible doesn't tell us much about the office of Bishop, but from the early church it seemed the bishops were in charge of their local congregations - acting as a judge of temporal matters, sins, and so forth. The Bible simply doesn't give any indication that an apostles duties were much like that - just an observation. It seems apostles ordained bishops for this purpose. Some estimate there were 1800 bishops by the the time of Nicea in the Roman Empire. Apparently, a different name was used in the East. 

Hi Rev.

There is no question that the Old Testament verses are more literally translated. I am suggesting that St. Peter is not trying to offer a translation of the Psalm, but an interpretation, a revelation of what "office" it was that was being inherited. I affirm with you that the Apostles were significantly different from the bishops that they ordained.

We agree that there weren't any Apostles in the 2nd Century. I say it is because God never intended for the apostolic office to continue. But if it is the LDS interpretation, that only Apostles may succeed Apostles, it raises a grave difficulty. It makes the Apostles themselves the principle cause of the Apostasy! If Apostles are so necessary as you say, why did the Apostles not give the Church what was so absolutely required?

Thanks,

Rory

[RevTestament]

1 hour ago, 3DOP said:

We agree that there weren't any Apostles in the 2nd Century. I say it is because God never intended for the apostolic office to continue. But if it is the LDS interpretation, that only Apostles may succeed Apostles, it raises a grave difficulty. It makes the Apostles themselves the principle cause of the Apostasy! If Apostles are so necessary as you say, why did the Apostles not give the Church what was so absolutely required?

Thanks,

Rory

Ya'know, I have questions about that myself. I believe the vast majority were killed by the time if not in the 7 year war with Rome, when Jerusalem was destroyed. Perhaps you are aware of the LDS belief that John was translated. It seems to me the Lord could have left John to repopulate the 12 apostles. Why didn't He? I believe it is because He had something else in mind. It was planned. An apostasy was planned. It is scriptural. Why did the Lord do things this way? It is apparently His economy - I'm just along for the ride so to speak. 

I will say that I do not believe apostles are absolutely required. They are authorized to receive revelation for the Church. So, if the Church needs revelation, it seems it would come through them. Apparently, the Lord felt the Church did not need any additional revelation at the time. I have not shared the view of some in my Church that the apostasy happened with the death of the Apostles, and the seventy. I believe it started with the Council of Nicea, which left some 200 years for the Church to grow. I don't believe the Church was "apostate" during this time although there were debates within the Church about the nature of the Godhead, and the like. As you have noted, bishops can ordain other bishops, so their keys would not be lost, although they don't do that in the LDS Church atm. So the Church would have been able to legally function even without apostles. 

Thanks for your patient reply.

[snowflake]

23 hours ago, cdowis said:

Are you so certain on what Christ did or did not teach?

Please look at Acts 1:2-3 and tell us what He taught about the administration of the priesthood -- being seen of them forty days, and speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God.

You have fallen into the common  fallacy that the Bible is a complete handbook of doctrines and administrative details. 

Clearly not when Christ taught the disciples for 40 days and the Bible tells us nothing of those things "pertaining to the kingdom o God".

If something isn't there in the bible then that's how I tend to look at the issue, it just clearly doesn't identify what happened in those 40 days. With that said it doesn't mean what he taught them wasn't addressed else where in the Bible.  

I'm not sure the LDS believe the BOM is a complete handbook of doctrines and administrative details either. Administrative details is not the point of the Bible. 

[RevTestament]

5 hours ago, snowflake said:

If something isn't there in the bible then that's how I tend to look at the issue, it just clearly doesn't identify what happened in those 40 days. With that said it doesn't mean what he taught them wasn't addressed else where in the Bible.  

I'm not sure the LDS believe the BOM is a complete handbook of doctrines and administrative details either. Administrative details is not the point of the Bible. 

Bingo. The modern Church gets most of its administrative details from the D&C, and whatever has come into being since then. However, I believe all the NT particulars are reflected in the restored Church. You won't find that elsewhere.

[JLHPROF]

7 hours ago, snowflake said:

If something isn't there in the bible then that's how I tend to look at the issue, it just clearly doesn't identify what happened in those 40 days. With that said it doesn't mean what he taught them wasn't addressed else where in the Bible.  

I'm not sure the LDS believe the BOM is a complete handbook of doctrines and administrative details either. Administrative details is not the point of the Bible. 

True.  It is also interesting to see what teachings are not recorded in the gospels as coming from Christ yet are recorded in the epistles etc as being taught by the Apostles after Christ ascended.

Those teachings didn't appear from thin air.  Those 40 days featured a lot of things Christ may not have established before his death.  Who knows what knowledge never made it into the Bible. (John 21:5)

[theplains]

21 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Those teachings didn't appear from thin air.  Those 40 days featured a lot of things Christ may not have established before his death.  Who knows what knowledge never made it into the Bible. (John 21:5)

And yet the author of the Book of Mormon believes in the loss of many plain and precious parts of the Bible (heading
of 1 Nephi 13)

Jim