LDS.....the "only church" ? I beg to differ

[MiserereNobis]

On 6/27/2022 at 6:02 PM, Hamba Tuhan said:

How many months do you have???

Despite being a long list, it's all pretty standard stuff that comes when one fully embraces the Restoration: tongues, prophecy, revelations, visions, healings, the interpretation of tongues, angelic ministrations, answers to prayers, temple experiences, etc.

Do you mind elaborating on tongues and the interpretation of tongues? Do you mean speaking and/or understanding a language you don't know? Or do you mean the Pentecostal idea of speaking in tongues?

Also, for other LDS. Have you experienced everything on this list? Hamba states that it is standard stuff for those who embrace the LDS church to experience the whole list. How many of you have seen angels? Or prophesied the future?

The items in this list are found abundantly in the Catholic Church. However, it would be extremely rare for them to all be found in one person. To some it is given this, to others that, etc.

[manol]

On 6/27/2022 at 7:02 PM, Hamba Tuhan said:

Despite being a long list, it's all pretty standard stuff that comes when one fully embraces the Restoration: tongues, prophecy, revelations, visions, healings, the interpretation of tongues, angelic ministrations, answers to prayers, temple experiences, etc.

 

1 hour ago, MiserereNobis said:

Also, for other LDS. Have you experienced everything on this list? Hamba states that it is standard stuff for those who embrace the LDS church to experience the whole list. How many of you have seen angels? Or prophesied the future?

The items in this list are found abundantly in the Catholic Church. However, it would be extremely rare for them to all be found in one person. To some it is given this, to others that, etc.

I have experienced some of the things on Hamba Tuhan's list, but not all of them. Some were in an LDS context, and some were in a non-LDS (or post-LDS) context. 

It seems to me that, among other things, one's paradigm plays a role, and that one's “spiritual energy” (an imprecise term but I don't have a better one offhand) plays a role.

Edited June 29, 2022 by manol

[Calm]

17 minutes ago, manol said:

have experienced some of the things on Hamba Tuhan's list, but not all of them. Some were in an LDS context, and some were in a non-LDS (or post-LDS) context. 

Same here.

I haven’t had the need for the gift of tongues nor an angelic visitation.  I have known some people who seem to believe they should have an angelic visitation just to satisfy their curiosity if they pray hard enough, not because they want to learn more of God or the Gospel.  I don’t think angels get dispatched for those errands.

I have known those who believe they were visited by angels.  Some I don’t doubt, others I wonder.

Quote

The items in this list are found abundantly in the Catholic Church. However, it would be extremely rare for them to all be found in one person. To  some it is given this, to others that, etc.

I believe this is the order of things…

Edited June 29, 2022 by Calm

[manol]

 

5 minutes ago, Calm said:

I have known those who believe they were visited by angels.  Some I don’t doubt, others I wonder.

I can think of a couple of times in an LDS context when I faced something well beyond my normal scope, and I asked for angels to help.  I didn't see anything, but the outcomes were favorable.  Since then my paradigm has shifted and I no longer believe that beings we might call "angels" only get involved on rare and special occasions. 

[Hamba Tuhan]

5 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

Do you mean speaking and/or understanding a language you don't know?

Correct, exactly like what was experienced by the apostles and their listeners on the Day of Pentecost.

Quote

To some it is given this, to others that, etc.

I think one could argue that receipt of revelation is foundational to being a Latter-day Saint.

One of my housemates had repeatedly told the missionaries that there was no point in praying about the Book of Mormon because it was obviously not true, but finally, tired of their urging, he agreed to do so. In answer to his prayer that evening, a light appeared in his room. He opened his eyes and saw three men dressed in white. They then laid their hands on his head and gave him a priesthood blessing to be able to accept the Book of Mormon as the word of God.

I was with my other housemate the first time he ever offered a personal prayer, at the end of a missionary lesson. His answer to that prayer came in the form of a private vision. Whilst the Elders and I didn't see what he was seeing, we witnessed his experience of it and felt the accompanying joy and power, too.

From those respective points forward, both of these men have learnt to live by frequent (often daily) revelation, which has been the clear expectation for the Saints since the days of Joseph Smith and which has been heavily re-emphasised by Russell M. Nelson:

Quote

Does God really want to speak to you? Yes! “As well might man stretch forth his puny arm to stop the Missouri river in its decreed course … as to hinder the Almighty from pouring down knowledge from heaven upon the heads of the Latter-day Saints.”

You don’t have to wonder about what is true. You do not have to wonder whom you can safely trust. Through personal revelation, you can receive your own witness that the Book of Mormon is the word of God, that Joseph Smith is a prophet, and that this is the Lord’s Church. Regardless of what others may say or do, no one can ever take away a witness borne to your heart and mind about what is true.

I urge you to stretch beyond your current spiritual ability to receive personal revelation, for the Lord has promised that “if thou shalt [seek], thou shalt receive revelation upon revelation, knowledge upon knowledge, that thou mayest know the mysteries and peaceable things—that which bringeth joy, that which bringeth life eternal.”

[MiserereNobis]

3 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Quote

To some it is given this, to others that, etc.

I think one could argue that receipt of revelation is foundational to being a Latter-day Saint.

One of my housemates had repeatedly told the missionaries that there was no point in praying about the Book of Mormon because it was obviously not true, but finally, tired of their urging, he agreed to do so. In answer to his prayer that evening, a light appeared in his room. He opened his eyes and saw three men dressed in white. They then laid their hands on his head and gave him a priesthood blessing to be able to accept the Book of Mormon as the word of God.

I was with my other housemate the first time he ever offered a personal prayer, at the end of a missionary lesson. His answer to that prayer came in the form of a private vision. Whilst the Elders and I didn't see what he was seeing, we witnessed his experience of it and felt the accompanying joy and power, too.

 

I'm assuming there are LDS who have not had such visions. What do you think: are there LDS who have not had such visions?

Since you say such revelations are foundational to being LDS, what about the LDS who have not had men in white give priesthood blessings, or similar private visions? Why haven't they had them?

You mention other LDS, but what about you? Have you had such visions?

Faithful LDS members of the board, have you all had such visions?

[Peacefully]

1 hour ago, MiserereNobis said:

I'm assuming there are LDS who have not had such visions. What do you think: are there LDS who have not had such visions?

Since you say such revelations are foundational to being LDS, what about the LDS who have not had men in white give priesthood blessings, or similar private visions? Why haven't they had them?

You mention other LDS, but what about you? Have you had such visions?

Faithful LDS members of the board, have you all had such visions?

Spiritual experiences but no visions for me.  

[Hamba Tuhan]

7 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

What do you think: are there LDS who have not had such visions?

Absolutely. Which is almost certainly one of the reasons why Pres Nelson gave the above-cited address in the first place. Some additional quotes:

Quote

Brothers and sisters, how can we become the men and women—the Christlike servants—the Lord needs us to be? How can we find answers to questions that perplex us? If Joseph Smith’s transcendent experience in the Sacred Grove teaches us anything, it is that the heavens are open and that God speaks to His children.

The Prophet Joseph Smith set a pattern for us to follow in resolving our questions. Drawn to the promise of James that if we lack wisdom we may ask of God, the boy Joseph took his question directly to Heavenly Father. He sought personal revelation, and his seeking opened this last dispensation.

In like manner, what will your seeking open for you? What wisdom do you lack? What do you feel an urgent need to know or understand? Follow the example of the Prophet Joseph ...

 

Quote

Since you say such revelations are foundational to being LDS, what about the LDS who have not had men in white give priesthood blessings, or similar private visions? Why haven't they had them?

I think it would be arrogant of me to presume that I know what's going on in the lives of other people. Pres Nelson, in his role as prophet, offers some general advice in the same sermon:

Quote

Nothing opens the heavens quite like the combination of increased purity, exact obedience, earnest seeking, daily feasting on the words of Christ in the Book of Mormon, and regular time committed to temple and family history work.

To be sure, there may be times when you feel as though the heavens are closed. But I promise that as you continue to be obedient, expressing gratitude for every blessing the Lord gives you, and as you patiently honor the Lord’s timetable, you will be given the knowledge and understanding you seek.

In a personal way, I have come to understand with some clarity what kinds of things help either open or close the tap of revelation in my own life. And of course, God in His wisdom sometimes allows us to flail about for a time in order to test and thereby increase our faith in Him.

I have shared on this forum before my experience with facing the impending end of my final work visa (no more extensions possible) and therefore deportation. In the November prior, I had been in the temple praying when I heard a voice: 'Hamba, prepare yourself for what I have planned', accompanied by a peace that penetrated every facet of my physical and spiritual existence.

That peace lasted through December and January but had evaporated by February, which was only two months before my visa end date. Back in the temple on a Friday evening, I got nothing, not even hope. The heavens were closed to me. I spent Saturday frantically following up some desperate leads ... and failing completely. About halfway through my four-hour journey home that night, I exploded in fear and anger: 'Where the hell is this plan Thou promised?'

The answer this time was spoken gently in my ears: 'Hamba, do you really have faith in Me?'

I responded with white-hot resentment: 'Thou knowest that I do!' And then the vision opened, and I saw a sequence of fear and doubts stretching back several years, so I quickly amended my response: 'Help Thou my unbelief'. The peace immediately returned.

The next day, I was sitting in the back of the chapel after services when my bishop's well-meaning wife asked me what I was going to do.

'Nothing', I said

'So you're just going to leave then?'

'No, I'm going to stay' -- a statement of unfeigned faith.

 

Two weeks ago, I attended the meeting of the elders quorum that I serve as adviser to. The topic of the discussion was personal revelation, and nearly every man in attendance had an experience he wanted to share. I'm unsure how many other contexts that happens in, but I have never not experienced this amongst the Saints. To me, it is a miracle.

Quote

Have you had such visions?

As I wrote above, 'I cannot long believe in things that I haven't experienced for myself'. On this point, I love something that was said by Kathleen Flake, then an assistant professor of American religious history at Vanderbilt Divinity School: 'Henry Ford wanted a car in every home. Joseph Smith was the Henry Ford of revelation. He wanted every home to have one, and the revelation he had in mind was the revelation he'd had, which was seeing God'.

My personal observation from my own stake is that the Saints are in a type of sifting. Those in receipt of revelation are growing from strength to strength. Those who are just 'cultural' hangers-on are weakening in their commitment. Again quoting Pres Nelson:

Quote

We live in a world that is complex and increasingly contentious. The constant availability of social media and a 24-hour news cycle bombard us with relentless messages. If we are to have any hope of sifting through the myriad of voices and the philosophies of men that attack truth, we must learn to receive revelation.

Our Savior and Redeemer, Jesus Christ, will perform some of His mightiest works between now and when He comes again. We will see miraculous indications that God the Father and His Son, Jesus Christ, preside over this Church in majesty and glory. But in coming days, it will not be possible to survive spiritually without the guiding, directing, comforting, and constant influence of the Holy Ghost.

This period reminds of an earlier one, when the introduction of plural marriage rocked the comfort of the Saints in Nauvoo who learnt of it. Those who sought revelation found peace and prospered. Those who did not seek did not receive and, left to their own opinions, left or even became enemies to the Church. I personally like to contrast the reaction of William Law and his wife Jane with that of Newel K. Whitney and his wife Elizabeth Ann.

First, William Law in his own words:

Quote

I took [the revelation on plural marriage] home, and read it and showed it to my wife. She and I were just turned upside down by it; we did not know what to do. I said to my wife, that I would take it over to Joseph and ask him about it. I did not believe that he would acknowledge it, and I said so to my wife. But she was not of my opinion. She felt perfectly sure that he would father it. When I came to Joseph and showed him the paper, he said: ”Yes, that is a genuine revelation.” ... From that time on the breach between us became more open and more decided every day, after having been prepared for a long time. But the revelation gave the finishing touch to my doubts and showed me clearly that he was a rascal. I took the revelation back to my wife and told her that Joseph had acknowledged it. ”That is what I fully expected.” said she. ”What shall we do?” said I. She advised me to keep still try to sell my property quietly for what I could get. But I did not follow her advice. My heart was burning. I wanted to tread upon the viper.

Now, Elizabeth Ann Whitney in her own words:

Quote

My husband revealed these things* to me; we had always been united, and had the utmost faith and confidence in each other. We pondered upon them continually, and our prayers were unceasing that the Lord would grant us some special manifestation concerning this new and strange doctrine. The Lord was very merciful to us; He revealed unto us His power and glory. We were seemingly wrapt in a heavenly vision, a halo of light encircled us, and we were convinced in our own minds that God had heard and answered our prayers and intercedings before Him.

*Note that 'these things' were not just plural marriage in general but a specific revelation to the Whitneys regarding a marriage between Sarah Ann (the daughter) and the Prophet Joseph Smith!

Edited June 30, 2022 by Hamba Tuhan

[Raingirl]

12 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

I'm assuming there are LDS who have not had such visions. What do you think: are there LDS who have not had such visions?

Since you say such revelations are foundational to being LDS, what about the LDS who have not had men in white give priesthood blessings, or similar private visions? Why haven't they had them?

You mention other LDS, but what about you? Have you had such visions?

Faithful LDS members of the board, have you all had such visions?

Never had a vision. Never had revelation. The very times I thought God was specifically telling me something, I realized later that I was wrong. I’m baffled by how all this works. Maybe the fact that I didn’t grow up in the church is a factor. 

[pogi]

12 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

I'm assuming there are LDS who have not had such visions. What do you think: are there LDS who have not had such visions?

Since you say such revelations are foundational to being LDS, what about the LDS who have not had men in white give priesthood blessings, or similar private visions? Why haven't they had them?

You mention other LDS, but what about you? Have you had such visions?

Faithful LDS members of the board, have you all had such visions?

While we are all entitled to personal revelation, the manifestation of the gifts of the spirit and how that revelation is received are not the same for everybody.  

There is a passage in the D&C which talks about this:

Quote

 

11 For all have not every gift given unto them; for there are many gifts, and to every man is given a gift by the Spirit of God.

12 To some is given one, and to some is given another, that all may be profited thereby.

 

It continues to list several different manifestations and gifts that one may have.  Being visionary is a gift that not all have, but we all have some gift that we can develop and seek other gifts as well. 

Quote

Faithful LDS members of the board, have you all had such visions?

It is not customary in our culture to be really open about personal revelation and visions etc., partly because it is "personal", and partly because it can be viewed as bragging or self-righteousness.  It is usually those who actively and publicly share their visions that end up being the fringy religious quacks, so you usually see people shying away from it.  

[SteelMagnoliainTexas]

On 6/18/2022 at 10:44 AM, pogi said:

Clearly, the church continued to exist.  We believe that it continued without divine sanction and authority. The keys bestowed to Peter being lost.  Hence the need for a restoration.  
 

Regarding the death of Joseph Smith, the apostles were not killed with Joseph and the keys were not lost. The keys and authority continue today via apostolic lineage.

Ok where in the whole Bible does Peter "loose" the keys?  I've never read such nonsense.  Jesus himself gave "athority" to all his disciples to go teach all nations what he has commanded them, thus giving "all" of them, not just  Peter athority to carry on the necessary ordinances.  In fact, Jesus' disciples were already baptising.....where has it ever been written that only Peter  had this athority and since he "lost" the keys we were all just left out there kind of drifting in the sea of souls that needed baptising  but we couldn't baptise them cuz Peter lost those dumb keys?  And now we were just stuck for 2,000 years?

[Pyreaux]

23 hours ago, SteelMagnoliainTexas said:

Ok where in the whole Bible does Peter "loose" the keys?  I've never read such nonsense.  Jesus himself gave "athority" to all his disciples to go teach all nations what he has commanded them, thus giving "all" of them, not just  Peter athority to carry on the necessary ordinances.  In fact, Jesus' disciples were already baptising.....where has it ever been written that only Peter  had this athority and since he "lost" the keys we were all just left out there kind of drifting in the sea of souls that needed baptising  but we couldn't baptise them cuz Peter lost those dumb keys?  And now we were just stuck for 2,000 years?

Peter still has the keys and so does Christ. Their keys were lost in the sense that those chief holders were not found on earth any more. Indeed, there was no Biblical decree that the priesthood was somehow disbanded. However, where in the Bible, after the death of Peter, did the young Apostle John the Revelator, while writing his book in prison, was supposedly usurped by Bishop Linus of Rome as the Pope? There is no Biblical evidence that a Bishop held any authority over another Bishop. Never thereafter for centuries until the councils of Emperor Constantine were assembled and were given an equal vote. Only long after did the vote of certain bishops whose cities were larger thought to carry more weight, but there still wasn't a Pope, but several bishops called "Metropolitans". The Bishop of Rome merely had the largest church... that is until Constantine moved his nation's capital to Constantinople in Greece. Then the Greek Church was the largest and by old logic their Bishop was preeminent. That is when Rome finally invented the concept of a Pope, and the Churches broke into two. The Roman Church and the Greek Church. And also several centuries of wicked popes (not called wicked by me, but by their Pope successors) whom bought, sold, stole and murdered over the Papal Crown, how are we suppose to believe the keys the Pope was supposed to survive all that? For those first centuries, the Peter and the Popes, and only the Popes had those keys and no one else. Perhaps at that time we believers had little choice but to accept that, but we now have the restored gospel.

Its a simple thing for us to preform baptisms for the dead for any lost souls that died during that time. As such baptisms were practiced in the Early Church... that is until the pratice was banned four hundred years after Christ by those same bishop councils. Latter-day Saints would see this as an excellent example of the apostasy and a restoration through us - church councils altered doctrine and practice that was accepted at an earlier date. Those who might have waited 2000 years isn't nearly as long as the eternity that they claimed befell the unbaptized infants they condemned during that same time frame.

Edited July 2, 2022 by Pyreaux

[pogi]

On 7/1/2022 at 5:49 PM, SteelMagnoliainTexas said:

Ok where in the whole Bible does Peter "loose" the keys?  I've never read such nonsense.  Jesus himself gave "athority" to all his disciples to go teach all nations what he has commanded them, thus giving "all" of them, not just  Peter athority to carry on the necessary ordinances.  In fact, Jesus' disciples were already baptising.....where has it ever been written that only Peter  had this athority and since he "lost" the keys we were all just left out there kind of drifting in the sea of souls that needed baptising  but we couldn't baptise them cuz Peter lost those dumb keys?  And now we were just stuck for 2,000 years?

I never said that Peter lost the keys.  The apostasy happened some time after the Bible.  

You are sounding very sola scriptura to me.  Must everything be spelled out in the Bible before you will believe it?  

Can you show me where it mentions a Pope? 

 

Edited July 3, 2022 by pogi

[mfbukowski]

On 6/29/2022 at 7:55 PM, MiserereNobis said:

I'm assuming there are LDS who have not had such visions. What do you think: are there LDS who have not had such visions?

Since you say such revelations are foundational to being LDS, what about the LDS who have not had men in white give priesthood blessings, or similar private visions? Why haven't they had them?

You mention other LDS, but what about you? Have you had such visions?

Faithful LDS members of the board, have you all had such visions?

Visions no, an overwhelming sense of love feeling like a physical warm shower within and throughout my body with a certainty that it was a super intelligence hugging my spirit so powerful that it was undeniable that it was from "outside " me, yes.

More than once.  There WAS/ is an all knowing being there an d I can't deny it. Denying it would be like denying the sun at noon on a 100 degree day.

Others may not need that, I don't know.

Edited July 3, 2022 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

On 7/1/2022 at 4:49 PM, SteelMagnoliainTexas said:

Ok where in the whole Bible does Peter "loose" the keys?  I've never read such nonsense.  Jesus himself gave "athority" to all his disciples to go teach all nations what he has commanded them, thus giving "all" of them, not just  Peter athority to carry on the necessary ordinances.  In fact, Jesus' disciples were already baptising.....where has it ever been written that only Peter  had this athority and since he "lost" the keys we were all just left out there kind of drifting in the sea of souls that needed baptising  but we couldn't baptise them cuz Peter lost those dumb keys?  And now we were just stuck for 2,000 years?

Why do you believe the Bible?

There are many quotes in the epistles indicating it was happening 

[3DOP]

On 7/2/2022 at 8:50 AM, Pyreaux said:

Peter still has the keys and so does Christ. Their keys were lost in the sense that those chief holders were not found on earth any more. Indeed, there was no Biblical decree that the priesthood was somehow disbanded. However, where in the Bible, after the death of Peter, did the young Apostle John the Revelator, while writing his book in prison, was supposedly usurped by Bishop Linus of Rome as the Pope? There is no Biblical evidence that a Bishop held any authority over another Bishop. Never thereafter for centuries until the councils of Emperor Constantine were assembled and were given an equal vote. Only long after did the vote of certain bishops whose cities were larger thought to carry more weight, but there still wasn't a Pope, but several bishops called "Metropolitans". The Bishop of Rome merely had the largest church... that is until Constantine moved his nation's capital to Constantinople in Greece. Then the Greek Church was the largest and by old logic their Bishop was preeminent. That is when Rome finally invented the concept of a Pope, and the Churches broke into two. The Roman Church and the Greek Church. And also several centuries of wicked popes (not called wicked by me, but by their Pope successors) whom bought, sold, stole and murdered over the Papal Crown, how are we suppose to believe the keys the Pope was supposed to survive all that? For those first centuries, the Peter and the Popes, and only the Popes had those keys and no one else. Perhaps at that time we believers had little choice but to accept that, but we now have the restored gospel.

Its a simple thing for us to preform baptisms for the dead for any lost souls that died during that time. As such baptisms were practiced in the Early Church... that is until the pratice was banned four hundred years after Christ by those same bishop councils. Latter-day Saints would see this as an excellent example of the apostasy and a restoration through us - church councils altered doctrine and practice that was accepted at an earlier date. Those who might have waited 2000 years isn't nearly as long as the eternity that they claimed befell the unbaptized infants they condemned during that same time frame.

Hello Pyreaux,

With respect, I am afraid that you make a number of assertions in this post, which seem dubious or not to the point. I hope I can elaborate a few difficulties a Catholic might have with your claims. Also, I was hoping you could clear up something you wrote which I cannot quite understand. Thanks.

Pyreaux

"However, where in the Bible, after the death of Peter, did the young Apostle John the Revelator, while writing his book in prison, was supposedly usurped by Bishop Linus of Rome as the Pope?"

3DOP

Why is St. John the Apostle significant? What do you believe anyone thinks Bishop Linus "supposedly usurped"? It just isn't clear to me what you are trying to ask.    

Pyreaux

"There is no Biblical evidence that a Bishop held any authority over another Bishop."

3DOP

That statement is too strong. I am willing to concede that St. Peter's primacy over other bishops is not clearly evident in Scripture. But that there is no evidence that supports such a claim seems difficult to maintain. Sacred Scripture alone is never adequate to resolve doctrinal controversy anyway. This is an example. That is why the Catholic Church holds to another authority of equal worth, Sacred Tradition. By observing beliefs and practices that were handed down from the Apostles, even before the Scriptures were written, the early Christians preserved that which was Apostolic. Apostolic Tradition came before the Scriptures were written and many centuries before anything like a canon existed. Would the early Christians have accepted "Scriptures" which clearly contradicted the Traditions they held? Of course not. The Scriptures are therefore always compatible with Tradition, which often serves as authoritative interpreter whenever there is a controversy.

The entire context of 2 Thessalonians Ch. 2 is about the danger of falling into error through the deceit of those who might even come to us with "all power, and signs, and lying wonders" (v. 10). The sure way to avoid being deceived is given by St. Paul in v. 15:

 "Therefore, brethren, stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word, or by our epistle." 

I can see how someone might argue that Catholics have corrupted the traditions to which the Apostle is referring. That is absolutely fair. We can do that later if we wish. But it is difficult see how anyone may argue that every necessary Apostolic tradition is clearly laid out in Scripture. Perhaps the chief reason I was so relieved to join the Catholic Church was that I was given another authority to help judge different biblical controversies which seemed irresolvable even among Christians of good will. The Scriptures taken alone seem to have been historically, a source of disunity among those who have held them to be the sole authority. Thankfully, the Scriptures as beautiful and necessary to our faith as they are, were never intended to stand alone, as the letter of St. Paul above suggests to us. Because of the Catholic belief in Sacred Scripture, it is not to the point to merely show that a belief or practice is doubtfully taught in Scripture alone. Therefore I ask for biblical evidence that the Scriptures say that every important truth or practice which a Christian must retain in order to be in unity with the Apostles must be clearly evident in the Sacred Scriptures.

I appreciate your concerns about the Apostasy, and I thank you for any consideration of my misgivings with your position so far.   

Regards,

Rory      

     

Edited July 3, 2022 by 3DOP

[Pyreaux]

On 7/3/2022 at 10:25 AM, 3DOP said:

Hello Pyreaux,

With respect, I am afraid that you make a number of assertions in this post, which seem dubious or not to the point. I hope I can elaborate a few difficulties a Catholic might have with your claims. Also, I was hoping you could clear up something you wrote which I cannot quite understand. Thanks.

Pyreaux

"However, where in the Bible, after the death of Peter, did the young Apostle John the Revelator, while writing his book in prison, was supposedly usurped by Bishop Linus of Rome as the Pope?"

3DOP

Why is St. John the Apostle significant? What do you believe anyone thinks Bishop Linus "supposedly usurped"? It just isn't clear to me what you are trying to ask.    

Pyreaux

"There is no Biblical evidence that a Bishop held any authority over another Bishop."

3DOP

That statement is too strong. I am willing to concede that St. Peter's primacy over other bishops is not clearly evident in Scripture. But that there is no evidence that supports such a claim seems difficult to maintain. Sacred Scripture alone is never adequate to resolve doctrinal controversy anyway. This is an example. That is why the Catholic Church holds to another authority of equal worth, Sacred Tradition. By observing beliefs and practices that were handed down from the Apostles, even before the Scriptures were written, the early Christians preserved that which was Apostolic. Apostolic Tradition came before the Scriptures were written and many centuries before anything like a canon existed. Would the early Christians have accepted "Scriptures" which clearly contradicted the Traditions they held? Of course not. The Scriptures are therefore always compatible with Tradition, which often serves as authoritative interpreter whenever there is a controversy.

The entire context of 2 Thessalonians Ch. 2 is about the danger of falling into error through the deceit of those who might even come to us with "all power, and signs, and lying wonders" (v. 10). The sure way to avoid being deceived is given by St. Paul in v. 15:

 "Therefore, brethren, stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word, or by our epistle." 

I can see how someone might argue that Catholics have corrupted the traditions to which the Apostle is referring. That is absolutely fair. We can do that later if we wish. But it is difficult see how anyone may argue that every necessary Apostolic tradition is clearly laid out in Scripture. Perhaps the chief reason I was so relieved to join the Catholic Church was that I was given another authority to help judge different biblical controversies which seemed irresolvable even among Christians of good will. The Scriptures taken alone seem to have been historically, a source of disunity among those who have held them to be the sole authority. Thankfully, the Scriptures as beautiful and necessary to our faith as they are, were never intended to stand alone, as the letter of St. Paul above suggests to us. Because of the Catholic belief in Sacred Scripture, it is not to the point to merely show that a belief or practice is doubtfully taught in Scripture alone. Therefore I ask for biblical evidence that the Scriptures say that every important truth or practice which a Christian must retain in order to be in unity with the Apostles must be clearly evident in the Sacred Scriptures.

I appreciate your concerns about the Apostasy, and I thank you for any consideration of my misgivings with your position so far.   

Regards,

Rory      

     

That has to be one of the most earnest retorts to something I was critiquing I've ever seen.

Apostles=/=Bishops: I assume it is undisputed that there was a hierarchy in the Apostolic era. For instance, and Apostle outranked a Bishop. A Bishop's authority extended merely over the church which he was put in charge. An Apostle had authority over any and all churches, and could excommunicate an entire church and its Bishop. Even after there were no Apostles left, no Bishop claimed that same far reaching authority over all churches for a very long time. No one claimed to be something more than a Bishop for the next 2 centuries. The churches and their Bishops existed independently, presiding only over their own jurisdictions. No central figure, all were considered equals. There was no one person they recognized as being able to give direction or resolve disagreements, like how to baptism and the nature of God.

Bishop=Bishop: It is my understanding that it was only Roman Emperor Constantine when he legalized Christianity, assembled the surviving Bishops into a council in 325 A.D. at Nicaea, and witnessed their fallen state of turmoil and forced them to reach a consensus of views on the issues of their day. No attempt at identifying or designating a single leader anyone would recognize as able to invoke their authority. I suspect it is because they knew they shouldn't, they didn't have that authority, they made no attempts at receiving a revelation. Rather it was though debate and compromise, and rather brash and not in any organized, or even peaceful, manner. It involved shouting and fist fighting (I believe St. Nicholas punched Arius in the face). Which is why they resorted to making constant appeals to their a tradition or to contemporary Greek logic.

Peter's Importance: We have no reason to doubt the tradition is true about the Apostles Peter's role in organizing the church in Rome, as well as the tradition that Peter was the first Roman Bishop It only seems too convenient that time for there to be a tradition that a Roman Bishop was to be head of the newly legitimized Roman Church. That all successive Roman Bishops are lineal successors to Peter's "Apostolic Succession". Beginning with Roman Bishop Linus following the death of Apostle Peter.

John's Importance over Linus: As I understand it, even with this succession, Linus was still only considered a mere Bishop. So, how did a Bishop receive Apostolic Succession and outrank the living Apostles after the death of Peter? Linus or Clement have writings, and none of them wrote that they ever considered themselves to be anything more than an average Bishop. While, the Apostle John was one of the Triumvirate, the three Chief Apostles; Peter, James and John (in the words of Apostle Paul, stood with Peter as one of the 3 "pillars" of the church [Gal 2:9]). Who after the death of Peter, even while John was in prison, it was John who was directing and divinely leading the church, and creating canonical writings that never make any mention of Linus. It wouldn't be until the 11th century that the Roman Bishop would come to call themselves by the title of "Pope" (papa, father).

I will admit: Were I to stop being a Latter-day Saint, though curious to me, I would probably go to the Roman Church whom at least have a consistent claim to the priesthood's succession. As very few churches today claim to possess any priesthood, let alone one given by an unbroken line from the ancient Apostles. Where as the Church of England, and virtually all Protestant churches, are by admission and circumstance of their origin, all man-made institutions, without such claims of any semblance of an exclusive authority, that is the priesthood. They can only justify their existence by a belief that no true expression of Christ's original church was on the earth until their church came to be. As long as it is their position that the Roman and/or Greek Church didn't perpetuate the church, to not be one of them, then an apostasy must have occurred, or there would be no reason to separate themselves by creating denominations (or into so-called "non-denominations" that are still separating themselves).

However harsh I may get with any church, know that I'm no expert by any means. Unlike the critics I know, I certainly would never want to someone's loss of faith on my conscience. Know your own stuff. Ask of God, for He more wise, just and merciful than any of us.

Edited July 4, 2022 by Pyreaux

[3DOP]

1 hour ago, Pyreaux said:

That has to be one of the most earnest retorts to something I was critiquing I've ever seen.

Apostles=/=Bishops: I assume it is undisputed that there was a hierarchy in the Apostolic era. For instance, and Apostle outranked a Bishop. A Bishop's authority extended merely over the church which he was put in charge. An Apostle had authority over any and all churches, and could excommunicate an entire church and its Bishop. Even after there were no Apostles left, no Bishop claimed that same far reaching authority over all churches for a very long time. No one claimed to be something more than a Bishop for the next 2 centuries. The churches and their Bishops existed independently, presiding only over their own jurisdictions. No central figure, all were considered equals. There was no one person they recognized as being able to give direction or resolve disagreements, like how to baptism and the nature of God.

Bishop=Bishop: It is my understanding that it was only Roman Emperor Constantine when he legalized Christianity, assembled the surviving Bishops into a council in 325 A.D. at Nicaea, and witnessed their fallen state of turmoil and forced them to reach a consensus of views on the issues of their day. No attempt at identifying or designating a single leader anyone would recognize as able to invoke their authority. I suspect it is because they knew they shouldn't, they didn't have that authority, they made no attempts at receiving a revelation. Rather it was though debate and compromise, and rather brash and not in any organized, or even peaceful, manner. It involved shouting and fist fighting (I believe St. Nicholas punched Arius in the face). Which is why they resorted to making constant appeals to their a tradition or to contemporary Greek logic.

Peter's Importance: We have no reason to doubt the tradition is true about the Apostles Peter's role in organizing the church in Rome, as well as the tradition that Peter was the first Roman Bishop It only seems too convenient that time for there to be a tradition that a Roman Bishop was to be head of the newly legitimized Roman Church. That all successive Roman Bishops are lineal successors to Peter's "Apostolic Succession". Beginning with Roman Bishop Linus following the death of Apostle Peter.

John's Importance over Linus: As I understand it, even with this succession, Linus was still only considered a mere Bishop. So, how did a Bishop receive Apostolic Succession and outrank the living Apostles after the death of Peter? Linus or Clement have writings, and none of them wrote that they ever considered themselves to be anything more than an average Bishop. While, the Apostle John was one of the Triumvirate, the three Chief Apostles; Peter, James and John (in the words of Apostle Paul, stood with Peter as one of the 3 "pillars" of the church [Gal 2:9]). Who after the death of Peter, even while John was in prison, it was John who was directing and divinely leading the church, and creating canonical writings that never make any mention of Linus. It wouldn't be until the 11th century that the Roman Bishop would come to call themselves by the title of "Pope" (papa, father).

I will admit: Were I to stop being a Latter-day Saint, though curious to me, I would probably go to the Roman Church whom at least have a consistent claim to the priesthood's succession. As very few churches today claim to possess any priesthood, let alone one given by an unbroken line from the ancient Apostles. Where as the Church of England, and virtually all Protestant churches, are by admission and circumstance of their origin, all man-made institutions, without such claims of any semblance of an exclusive authority, that is the priesthood. They can only justify their existence by a belief that no true expression of Christ's original church was on the earth until their church came to be. As long as it is their position that the Roman and/or Greek Church didn't perpetuate the church, to not be one of them, then an apostasy must have occurred, or there would be no reason to separate themselves by creating denominations (or into so-called "non-denominations" that are still separating themselves).

However harsh I may get with any church, know that I'm no expert by any means. Unlike the critics I know, I certainly would never want to someone's loss of faith on my conscience. Know your own stuff. Ask of God, for He more wise, just and merciful than any of us.

Hey Pyreaux,

I am so glad you had an opportunity to make an earnest reply to what you called my "retort". That world usually signals an element of abrasiveness which I am sure was unintended. I can't develop a good reply to this post before tomorrow or maybe the weekend. Thank you again. I hope you will remain interested as I hope to explain the Catholic position on the concerns that you have about the early history of the Church.

Allow me to admit that it was through challenging studies of LDS claims of Apostasy in the 90's that I could no longer justify being a Christian without plausible claims of continuous Apostolic ecclesiastical authority. I always defend your faith on those grounds to anyone, who would say how "crazy" LDS claims are. No. It doesn't make sense, if the Apostasy happened, and the Christian can safely sever all ties with Rome or the Greek Church, that the subsequent Councils, and notably Nicea, nevertheless got everything correct. Rome or Salt Lake for me too in that sense. Later.

Rory   

Edited July 4, 2022 by 3DOP

[mfbukowski]

10 hours ago, Pyreaux said:

That has to be one of the most earnest retorts to something I was critiquing I've ever seen.

Apostles=/=Bishops: I assume it is undisputed that there was a hierarchy in the Apostolic era. For instance, and Apostle outranked a Bishop. A Bishop's authority extended merely over the church which he was put in charge. An Apostle had authority over any and all churches, and could excommunicate an entire church and its Bishop. Even after there were no Apostles left, no Bishop claimed that same far reaching authority over all churches for a very long time. No one claimed to be something more than a Bishop for the next 2 centuries. The churches and their Bishops existed independently, presiding only over their own jurisdictions. No central figure, all were considered equals. There was no one person they recognized as being able to give direction or resolve disagreements, like how to baptism and the nature of God.

Bishop=Bishop: It is my understanding that it was only Roman Emperor Constantine when he legalized Christianity, assembled the surviving Bishops into a council in 325 A.D. at Nicaea, and witnessed their fallen state of turmoil and forced them to reach a consensus of views on the issues of their day. No attempt at identifying or designating a single leader anyone would recognize as able to invoke their authority. I suspect it is because they knew they shouldn't, they didn't have that authority, they made no attempts at receiving a revelation. Rather it was though debate and compromise, and rather brash and not in any organized, or even peaceful, manner. It involved shouting and fist fighting (I believe St. Nicholas punched Arius in the face). Which is why they resorted to making constant appeals to their a tradition or to contemporary Greek logic.

Peter's Importance: We have no reason to doubt the tradition is true about the Apostles Peter's role in organizing the church in Rome, as well as the tradition that Peter was the first Roman Bishop It only seems too convenient that time for there to be a tradition that a Roman Bishop was to be head of the newly legitimized Roman Church. That all successive Roman Bishops are lineal successors to Peter's "Apostolic Succession". Beginning with Roman Bishop Linus following the death of Apostle Peter.

John's Importance over Linus: As I understand it, even with this succession, Linus was still only considered a mere Bishop. So, how did a Bishop receive Apostolic Succession and outrank the living Apostles after the death of Peter? Linus or Clement have writings, and none of them wrote that they ever considered themselves to be anything more than an average Bishop. While, the Apostle John was one of the Triumvirate, the three Chief Apostles; Peter, James and John (in the words of Apostle Paul, stood with Peter as one of the 3 "pillars" of the church [Gal 2:9]). Who after the death of Peter, even while John was in prison, it was John who was directing and divinely leading the church, and creating canonical writings that never make any mention of Linus. It wouldn't be until the 11th century that the Roman Bishop would come to call themselves by the title of "Pope" (papa, father).

I will admit: Were I to stop being a Latter-day Saint, though curious to me, I would probably go to the Roman Church whom at least have a consistent claim to the priesthood's succession. As very few churches today claim to possess any priesthood, let alone one given by an unbroken line from the ancient Apostles. Where as the Church of England, and virtually all Protestant churches, are by admission and circumstance of their origin, all man-made institutions, without such claims of any semblance of an exclusive authority, that is the priesthood. They can only justify their existence by a belief that no true expression of Christ's original church was on the earth until their church came to be. As long as it is their position that the Roman and/or Greek Church didn't perpetuate the church, to not be one of them, then an apostasy must have occurred, or there would be no reason to separate themselves by creating denominations (or into so-called "non-denominations" that are still separating themselves).

However harsh I may get with any church, know that I'm no expert by any means. Unlike the critics I know, I certainly would never want to someone's loss of faith on my conscience. Know your own stuff. Ask of God, for He more wise, just and merciful than any of us.

I am have learned a lot from these posts between you and @3DOP

but I have noticed that all each of you seem to be doing is asserting your respective church Doctrine without actually defending WHY each has different doctrines.

It's  a "yes it is" vs "no it's not" kind of discussions from which I think no progress can be made

Each church has it's own views on succession 

That's not a surprise

How is it clear that Linus was the rightful successor ?

How is it clear that John was?

What evidence do we have that one is right and the other wrong besides the stated beliefs of each church?

Edited July 5, 2022 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

Error

Edited July 5, 2022 by mfbukowski

[3DOP]

4 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Error

 Heh...with my upvote. Yours truly.

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, 3DOP said:

 Heh...with my upvote. Yours truly.

Ok but where did Linus get his authority?

"Thou art... (a new name, indicating his being annointed)... "Peter" (the rock)  and upon this ROCK (renamed by a revealed  name and office) I shall build my CHURCH". (Not a local congregation)

So Peter does not take up the office on his own, but is selected by revelation by the Savior himself.

So it seems likely to me that Peter would have selected his friend with whom it is biblically clear he served in the leadership of the Apostles.

Peter James and John, John "the beloved ") are mentioned often as, with the savior, the leadership of the Apostles during the transfiguration and Gethsemane for example.

So what was Linus' connection that he should be leader?

[3DOP]

12 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

I am have learned a lot from these posts between you and @3DOP

but I have noticed that all each of you seem to be doing is asserting your respective church Doctrine without actually defending WHY each has different doctrines.

It's  a "yes it is" vs "no it's not" kind of discussions from which I think no progress can be made

Each church has it's own views on succession 

That's not a surprise

How is it clear that Linus was the rightful successor ?

How is it clear that John was?

What evidence do we have that one is right and the other wrong besides the stated beliefs of each church?

I agree that it is unclear. I think it is a mistake to propose apologetical reasons for why one position, as for instance, why the Roman bishop receives the keys of St. Peter is clearly true based on what we have been discussing. I think I have avoided doing that. I think my task is to show plausibility based on those arguments that could be made. A misunderstanding can occur if parties fail to make the proper distinction between clear proof and plausibility.

Plausibility would be something like this:

"...we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church. on account of its preeminent authority..."

---Ireanaeus Against the Heresies, (Book 3, Ch. 3, para. 2) Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 1, Hendriksen Publishers (1994), p. 417

I think this is compelling as nearly certain that a significant number of Christians in the first two centuries had a reverence, if you will, for the church at Rome. Why would Irenaeus, a bishop in Gaul, point to Rome that way unless there was already a strong undercurrent that he knew would be receptive to the idea? But it is not clear evidence that this receptivity was a necessarily correct notion.

Maybe Irenaeus was a false shepherd? False shepherds can be murdered for their beliefs as well as the true. Catholics count the death of St. Irenaeus as martyrdom, a testimony to his belief in and preaching of the true Gospel. But Irenaeus was not alone. Far from it. It seems to me like the Christian who does not take the trouble to become familiar with the heroic steadfastness of the early Christian martyrs should question whether they are qualified to pass judgment on whether there was a Great Apostasy in the first three centuries. It can also be a help to review how the Levitical priesthood endured through centuries of every manner of corruption until finally, they who still sat on the "chair of Moses", as Christ described the continuing authority of the priests and Pharisees (Mt. 23:2), helped condemn the Son of God and King of Israel to death. 

When our Lord gave instructions on how to discern the false shepherd from the true, He did not issue a little catechism of things the true shepherd would always believe. I do not think that at first we need to judge what these early believers believed, so much as we do, how they behaved, and what happened because of their behavior. By their fruits, whether good or bad, is for the student of their history to judge. I came to the place where I felt an ardent admiration for what seemed to me like holy witnesses to Christ in the first three centuries. It remains always. It extends into the 4th Century when one considers that a number of the bishops at the Council of Nicea bore the marks on their bodies of their sufferings during the recent and ferocious persecution under Diocletian.

It isn't that I am convinced that I can offer persuasive, and clear evidence of every distinctive Catholic teaching. I think I can offer evidence that is at least as plausible as anyone from another Christian community. That is a high enough level of certainty for the Catholic to look at these heroes of the faith, with virtually every bishop of Rome until the 4th Century included among that number, and the miraculous conversion of pagan Rome which followed, to decide that whatever these souls believed, we want to believe it too.     

I took three highlighters of different color and used them in the first and second volumes of the Ante-Nicene Fathers, which incidentally is translated by Protestants of the mid 19th Century, and includes many anti-Catholic footnotes. Rome was yellow, Salt Lake was orange, and Protestantism was red. I used all three. But ultimately, I became convinced that I could be neither Protestant, nor LDS, if I sought continuity with this line of admirable believers mentioned above. I did not choose Rome because I believed the plausible doctrines and practices of that Church. I chose to believe the plausible doctrines and practices of that Church because I wanted to be associated with Christians who did not seem very much like LDS believers or Protestant believers. The early church seems in my judgment to be much more like the Catholic Church. That is why I now simply believe whatever the Holy Catholic Church believes and teaches. I joined the Church which has her children pray at every Mass (you might remember this Mark) this beautiful invocation which illustrates my own desires:

"To us sinners also, Thy servants, hoping in the multitude of Thy mercies, vouchsafe to grant some part and fellowship with Thy holy Apostles and Martyrs: with John, Stephen, Matthias, Barnabas, Ignatius, Alexander, Marcellinus, Peter, Felicitas, Perpetua, Agatha, Lucy, Agnes, Cecilia, Anastasia, and with all Thy Saints, into whose company we pray Thee to admit us, not considering our merits, but of Thine own free pardon."

 

 

   

   

   

Edited July 5, 2022 by 3DOP

[3DOP]

On 7/2/2022 at 8:50 AM, Pyreaux said:

Only long after did the vote of certain bishops whose cities were larger thought to carry more weight, but there still wasn't a Pope, but several bishops called "Metropolitans". The Bishop of Rome merely had the largest church... that is until Constantine moved his nation's capital to Constantinople in Greece. Then the Greek Church was the largest and by old logic their Bishop was preeminent. That is when Rome finally invented the concept of a Pope, and the Churches broke into two. The Roman Church and the Greek Church. And also several centuries of wicked popes (not called wicked by me, but by their Pope successors) whom bought, sold, stole and murdered over the Papal Crown, how are we suppose to believe the keys the Pope was supposed to survive all that? For those first centuries, the Peter and the Popes, and only the Popes had those keys and no one else. Perhaps at that time we believers had little choice but to accept that, but we now have the restored gospel.

You mistake "the concept of a pope" for the word, pope, which only means papa. The word pope meant nothing sinister until anti-Catholics started noticing that Catholics identified the bishop of Rome, as Pope. The word carries no hint of grand authority, but rather that of a warmly beloved father. But the concept of the bishop of Rome having the authority of St. Peter is illustrated when Pope St. Victor, as we now call him, threatened the Eastern churches of Antioch for refusing to submit to the Roman practice as regards the date for the celebration of Easter and issued a decree of excommunication. This was in the 2nd Century. St. Irenaeus was among others who persuaded Pope Victor to relent. If you read my previous post you will note that St. Irenaeus insisted that the Churches believe and follow the traditions of the Roman church. Neither he nor his fellow bishops argued against his lack of authority, but appealed to the fact that his predecessors had tolerated this different practice, recognizing their authority to have done the same thing he was doing, but thought it more prudent not to interfere. Victor allowed those Eastern churches to continue with their practice, which eventually came into union on the matter without disturbance. It doesn't matter that he wasn't called "Pope" Victor. The concept of a Roman bishop exercising authority over the universal church is evident. Even earlier, in the first century, while St. John still lived, the Corinthian Church received correction from the bishop of Rome, St. Clement, rather than a still living Apostle to resolve some issues that threatened to divide the Church at Corinth:

"In the time of Clement, the Church in Rome despatched a most powerful letter to the Corinthians, exhorting them to peace, renewing their faith, and declaring the tradition which it had lately received from the apostles..."

---Irenaeus, Against the Heresies, 3:3:3.

I am not saying that there has never been development in the Church's understanding of the prerogatives of the Successor of Peter. We don't have the definition of papal infallibility until 1870. But the concept of Peter's authority being passed to the bishop of Rome is already begun before the last Apostle has died. With respect, this is why I have to think you are misinformed when you say that "Rome finally invented the concept of a Pope", just prior to the break between East and West in the 11th Century. 

If Interested, one can learn about what is called the Quartodeciman controversy of Pope Victor's time. Here is a partial quote from an article:

"Victor, who acted throughout the entire matter as the head of Catholic Christendom, now called upon the bishops of the province of Asia to abandon their custom and to accept the universally prevailing practice of always celebrating Easter on Sunday. In case they would not do this he declared they would be excluded from the fellowship of the Church."

Here is the article:   https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15408a.htm  

 

[mfbukowski]

35 minutes ago, 3DOP said:

I agree that it is unclear. I think it is a mistake to propose apologetical reasons for why one position, as for instance, why the Roman bishop receives the keys of St. Peter is clearly true based on what we have been discussing. I think I have avoided doing that. I think my task is to show plausibility based on those arguments that could be made. A misunderstanding can occur if parties fail to make the proper distinction between clear proof and plausibility.

Plausibility would be something like this:

"...we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church. on account of its preeminent authority..."

---Ireanaeus Against the Heresies, (Book 3, Ch. 3, para. 2) Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 1, Hendriksen Publishers (1994), p. 417

I think this is compelling as nearly certain that a significant number of Christians in the first two centuries had a reverence, if you will, for the church at Rome. Why would Irenaeus, a bishop in Gaul, point to Rome that way unless there was already a strong undercurrent that he knew would be receptive to the idea? But it is not clear evidence that this receptivity was a necessarily correct notion.

Maybe Irenaeus was a false shepherd? False shepherds can be murdered for their beliefs as well as the true. Catholics count the death of St. Irenaeus as martyrdom, a testimony to his belief in and preaching of the true Gospel. But Irenaeus was not alone. Far from it. It seems to me like the Christian who does not take the trouble to become familiar with the heroic steadfastness of the early Christian martyrs should question whether they are qualified to pass judgment on whether there was a Great Apostasy in the first three centuries. It can also be a help to review how the Levitical priesthood endured through centuries of every manner of corruption until finally, they who still sat on the "chair of Moses", as Christ described the continuing authority of the priests and Pharisees (Mt. 23:2), helped condemn the Son of God and King of Israel to death. 

When our Lord gave instructions on how to discern the false shepherd from the true, He did not issue a little catechism of things the true shepherd would always believe. I do not think that at first we need to judge what these early believers believed, so much as we do, how they behaved, and what happened because of their behavior. By their fruits, whether good or bad, is for the student of their history to judge. I came to the place where I felt an ardent admiration for what seemed to me like holy witnesses to Christ in the first three centuries. It remains always. It extends into the 4th Century when one considers that a number of the bishops at the Council of Nicea bore the marks on their bodies of their sufferings during the recent and ferocious persecution under Diocletian.

It isn't that I am convinced that I can offer persuasive, and clear evidence of every distinctive Catholic teaching. I think I can offer evidence that is at least as plausible as anyone from another Christian community. That is a high enough level of certainty for the Catholic to look at these heroes of the faith, with virtually every bishop of Rome until the 4th Century included among that number, and the miraculous conversion of pagan Rome which followed, to decide that whatever these souls believed, we want to believe it too.     

I took three highlighters of different color and used them in the first and second volumes of the Ante-Nicene Fathers, which incidentally is translated by Protestants of the mid 19th Century, and includes many anti-Catholic footnotes. Rome was yellow, Salt Lake was orange, and Protestantism was red. I used all three. But ultimately, I became convinced that I could be neither Protestant, nor LDS, if I sought continuity with this line of admirable believers mentioned above. I did not choose Rome because I believed the plausible doctrines and practices of that Church. I chose to believe the plausible doctrines and practices of that Church because I wanted to be associated with Christians who did not seem very much like LDS believers or Protestant believers. The early church seems in my judgment to be much more like the Catholic Church. That is why I now simply believe whatever the Holy Catholic Church believes and teaches. I joined the Church which has her children pray at every Mass (you might remember this Mark) this beautiful invocation which illustrates my own desires:

"To us sinners also, Thy servants, hoping in the multitude of Thy mercies, vouchsafe to grant some part and fellowship with Thy holy Apostles and Martyrs: with John, Stephen, Matthias, Barnabas, Ignatius, Alexander, Marcellinus, Peter, Felicitas, Perpetua, Agatha, Lucy, Agnes, Cecilia, Anastasia, and with all Thy Saints, into whose company we pray Thee to admit us, not considering our merits, but of Thine own free pardon."

 

 

   

   

   

Wonderful post, thanks, and I get it!

You have made an analysis- we call that "studying it out in your own mind" and then following your heart.  We certainly agree on that formula for finding God's truth!

I of course have reasons why your conclusions would not be my conclusions- primarily the idea that a "philosopher" (my characterization- I know Irenaeus was much more to Catholics) would be one to have influence on who should be the leader of God's church, basing it on his logic rather than revelation, but THAT is my bias!

We believe that one should be "called of God as was Aaron" - and how was Aaron called?  He was called by revelation to Moses.   So one with higher authority than the person called prays and is inspired on who should be his successor.  This is the process of receiving callings for everyone in the church- if one is called to be the "greeter"- one who stands near the entrance of the chapel and makes sure all receive a personal smile and handshake upon arrival, that person is STILL chosen by the Bishop- one with "more authority" than the one who receives the call.  That is the way Aaron was called, and we continue that process.

But of course all that "proves" is nothing but that we have different ways of choosing leaders.   We know even today that Catholic popes are called by the unified vote of Cardinals- priesthood holders with an extreme amount of leadership experience in the church- and then it is believed, that inspiration governs the group.

In our proceedure we also start with a pool of known experienced leaders called by our prophet, who then serve for their lifetimes as "apostles".  We then believe that God causes some to be called to their reward to continue their efforts on the other side of the veil- and the one who serves the longest becomes the "prophet".

So we include God directly in the process- He blesses the chosen one to be the most senior of the 12 to become the prophet, and the inspiration happens during the process of his being called in the first place.

Different processes with some similarities.

What matters is how one is guided by the spirit- we all call follow God's personalized process to get what we personally need to find our way to Him.

If I hadn't had Catholic training as a child I would not be LDS today- OR been an atheist- OR been a communist-Or being a Buddhist- Or studied my way back into theism through philosophy- I would not have the joy in God that I have now, the warmth, the constant feeling of communication (if I have been good ) etc!

He leads us on the path we need IF we are earnest seekers- and that is a certainty for me.   And then we can even change on the other side if we are called to do that!

My best to you and yours!