• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Are too many churches caught up in being a donimination and not about following God's message?

You sure do LOL a lot, Smitten. :D You must be one easily-amused kind of guy.

Just to let you know, I'm not looking for a list of when the varous Popes led the Church, but for documentation of who ordained them and the dates.

I DO lol alot because I usually veiw this forum from a smartphone and dont get the fun of using emocons.:sorry1: But i try to find humor in everything and LOVE to laugh out loud, it helps keep me sane in this world we live in.

We know that Linus was ordained by the successors of the original apostles. I'm not sure on the date per se, but given that it was before the Church was firmly established I'll have to do some research on the subject of dates. I don't believe it was done in a council the way it is done now considering that the Church was fairly small then compared to now. But I will definitely do some more homework and get back to you on it! Do you mind if I PM you the results, since it doesnt have much to do with this particular thread?
 
I'm not looking for a list of when the varous Popes led the Church, but for documentation of who ordained them and the dates.[/quote]
Here you go Miss Katz, this is all the info the Church has concerning pope Linus. I hope it helps.
(Reigned about A.D. 64 or 67 to 76 or 79) The ancient records of the Roman bishops which have by St. Irenaeus, Julius Africanus, St. Hippolytus, Eusebius, also the Liberian catalogue of 354, place the name of Linus directly after the Apostle, St. Peter. These records are traced back to a list of the Roman bishops which existed in the time of Pope Eleutherus (about 174-189), when Irenaeus wrote his book "Adversus haereses". The Roman list in Irenaeus has great claims to historical authority. The author claims that Pope Linus is mentioned by St. Paul in his 2 Timothy 4:21. The passage by Irenaeus (Against Heresies III.3.3) reads:After the Holy Apostle (Peter) had founded and set the Church in order (in Rome) they gave over the episcopal office to Linus. The same Linus is mentioned by St. Paul in his Epistle to Timothy.
Linus's term of office, according to the papal lists handed down to us, lasted only twelve years. It cannot be doubted that according to the accounts of Irenaeus concerning the Roman Church in the second century, Linus was chosen to be head of the community of Christians in Rome, after the death of the Apostle. For this reason his pontificate dates from the year of the death of the Apostles Peter and Paul, which, however, is not known for certain.
The "Liber Pontificalis" asserts Linus is supposed to have issued a decree "in conformity with the ordinance of St. Peter", that women should have their heads covered in church. The statement made in the same source, that Linus suffered martyrdom, is improbable. For between Nero and Domitian there is no mention of any persecution of the Roman Church; and Irenaeus (1. c., III, iv, 3) from among the early Roman bishops designates only Telesphorus as a martyr.
Finally Linus, after his death, was buried in the Vatican beside St. Peter. We do not know whether the author had any decisive reason for this assertion. As St. Peter was certainly buried at the foot of the Vatican Hill, it is quite possible that the earliest bishops of the Roman Church also were interred there. There was nothing in the liturgical tradition of the fourth-century Roman Church to prove this, because it was only at the end of the second century that any special feast of martyrs was instituted and consequently Linus does not appear in the fourth-century lists of the feasts of the Roman saints.
The feast of St. Linus is now celebrated on 23 September. This is also the date given in the "Liber Pontificalis". An epistle on the martyrdom of the Apostles St. Peter and Paul was at a later period attributed to St. Linus, and supposedly was sent by him to the Eastern Churches. It is apocryphal and of later date than the history of the martyrdom of the two Apostles, by some attributed to Marcellus, which is also apocryphal Sources

LIGHTFOOT, The Apostolic Fathers; St. Clement of Rome, I (London, 1890), 201 sqq.; HARNACK, Geschichte der Altchristlichen Literatur, II: Die Chronologie I (Leipzig, 1897), 70; Acta SS. September, VI, 539 sqq., Liber Pontificalis, ed. DUCHESNE, I, 121: cf. Introduction, lxix; DE SMEDT, Dissertationes selectae in primam aetatem hist. eccl., I, 300 sqq.
 

Katzpur

Not your average Mormon
We know that Linus was ordained by the successors of the original apostles.
Okay, in that case, we need to know who ordained the successors to the original Apostles and we need to know what office they were ordained to. If they were nothing more than bishops, they would not have had the authority to ordain Linus as an Apostle. And in order to have been the head of Christ's earthly Church, Linus would have had to be an Apostle.


I'm not sure on the date per se, but given that it was before the Church was firmly established I'll have to do some research on the subject of dates. I don't believe it was done in a council the way it is done now considering that the Church was fairly small then compared to now. But I will definitely do some more homework and get back to you on it! Do you mind if I PM you the results, since it doesnt have much to do with this particular thread?
The dates are actually of less importance to me than the line of authority. The second you said that Linus was ordained by the successors to the original Apostles, that was a clear indication to me of a possible missing link. An Apostle was the highest calling (in terms of authority) in the organized Church at the time of Christ, and only one Apostle at a time (Peter, for example) would have held all the keys of authority. "Person A" could not ordain "Person B" to a position of greater authority than he (i.e Person A) had. I don't care if you PM me, if that's what you'd prefer doing, but I actually think it had quite a bit to do with this thread. If I believed that Roman Catholicism really did hold the authority held by Christ's original twelve Apostles, I would be a Catholic. This thread is about whether or not it is important to affiliate with the "correct" denomination. You and I agree that it is.
 

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
only one Apostle at a time (Peter, for example) would have held all the keys of authority.
That's incorrect. Jesus didn't give the keys to one person, according to Matthew. For Matthew, Peter is a type of the community, and not a person. Matthew was saying that the community received the keys. This is part of the middle of Matthew's five great sermons, in which the secret to the kingdom was revealed, and the keys given. The secret is that there is good and bad in the community (parable of wheat and tares), that you can't tell the difference, and in that mixed bag of living together, the difference between "us" and "them" is minimized. Clearly, in the charge to "go and make laos of the ethne, Matthew hopes that the community can level the playing field and break down false barriers.

Jesus had no "line of authority" set up. That was a construct of the early Church.
 

Katzpur

Not your average Mormon
That's incorrect. Jesus didn't give the keys to one person, according to Matthew. For Matthew, Peter is a type of the community, and not a person. Matthew was saying that the community received the keys. This is part of the middle of Matthew's five great sermons, in which the secret to the kingdom was revealed, and the keys given. The secret is that there is good and bad in the community (parable of wheat and tares), that you can't tell the difference, and in that mixed bag of living together, the difference between "us" and "them" is minimized. Clearly, in the charge to "go and make laos of the ethne, Matthew hopes that the community can level the playing field and break down false barriers.

Jesus had no "line of authority" set up. That was a construct of the early Church.
I've got to disagree with you on this, sojourner. I believe that Jesus gave the keys to one person and that that person was Peter. Others held certain of the keys, too, but there is no evidence that the community as a whole had access to the authority given to Peter. They all reaped the benefits of that authority, but they did not all hold it. The LDS are with the Catholics on this point, and you're not going to convince me otherwise. :)
 

Jordan St. Francis

Well-Known Member
Katzpur, this bears on my response also to your question in the other thread about Apostolic Succession- but are you not imposing an anachronistic criteria by which you can then exclude the hierarchy of the early church as authentic?

What I mean is, can any of the criteria you are using for Apostolic Succession be established by documents and traditions completely outside of the LDS church (that is, by what the early church itself said it was doing?)

By using the New Testament alone we can not establish what the procedure was for Apostolic Succession because the text is not very aware of the concept- this is why sola scriptura communities tend away from this notion of succession. It is, in fact, a concept born to us by and large from tradition. The problem here is the LDS has its own set of tradition, by which it then interprets both this idea and scripture, that does not emerge from a commonly acknowledged Christian history.
 
From my last post I believe I indicated that the apostle peter himself ordains lucis as bishop of Rome, that is papal office. If you believe the ancient historian, then lucis is mentioned in scripture. And beyond that, by being ordained and receiving the Holy Spirit by the laying on of hands, it would also be indicative that true apostolic succession has been confirmed... The info listed should give a few different historians that place his ordination at the hand of Peter the rock. Does this better clarify the line of succession?
 

Brother Troth

New Member
I feel that this has weakend. Or at lest where i live in windsor. There was a church here that became so degraded and uncareing that it was sold and is now a healthcare place. Something i have not heard of before. Perhaps if they ever worked together like they preach, they could save themselves from such a fall.
 

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
I've got to disagree with you on this, sojourner. I believe that Jesus gave the keys to one person and that that person was Peter. Others held certain of the keys, too, but there is no evidence that the community as a whole had access to the authority given to Peter. They all reaped the benefits of that authority, but they did not all hold it. The LDS are with the Catholics on this point, and you're not going to convince me otherwise. :)
This is important, because upon it, the whole polity of church authority rests. While I believe that Jesus intended for the community to leaders set apart for authoritative duties, the Matthean account does not show that. In Matthew, indeed as in Luke, Jesus battles against the religious authorities. It's clear from both gospels -- and especially Matthew -- that Jesus wanted a different way for his community. One has to be familiar with literary criticism, I suppose, to see it
For Matthew, the authority issue rests within community -- not in a subdivision of the community.

Embracing this idea could solve the whole problem of authoritative division in the Church. Anyway, that's the way we really practice: One group has a certain authority, and another group has another. If we'd stop arguing about whose authority was "real," maybe we could come together and celebrate our diversity in unity.
 

Jordan St. Francis

Well-Known Member
By using the New Testament alone we can not establish what the procedure was for Apostolic Succession because the text is not very aware of the concept- this is why sola scriptura communities tend away from this notion of succession. It is, in fact, a concept born to us by and large from tradition. The problem here is the LDS has its own set of tradition, by which it then interprets both this idea and scripture, that does not emerge from a commonly acknowledged Christian history.
Kaztpur,

To ensure no misunderstanding, I do agree with you that the hierarchical structures of the Church enjoy divine sanction in their essential forms. I disagree with Sojourner's interpretation of the Petrine passage (as would any Catholic) and believe that the New Testament gives us hints of what organizational forms the Church would later- and rightfully- develop into. But I do not believe that we can determine simply from reading the New Testament how the Church ought to work, simply because it was not a church manual, even as it lays out some of the theology which any hierarchical arrangement must take into account.

My question is whether the LDS church renders the Apostolic Succession of the ancient churches as void based on its own received (divinely revealed criteria) of what Succession ought to entail, or whether it finds a reason to exclude it based on the internal logic of the early church's own practice.

It seems to me, if the argument is to bear weight beyond those who have already accepted LDS revelation, that saying something like " there can be no Apostolic Succession without Apostles" or that "a bishop can only be ordained by someone of higher authority" would have to be a demonstrated inconsistency within the Church's own praxis and theology.
 
Last edited:

blackout

Violet.
That's incorrect. Jesus didn't give the keys to one person, according to Matthew. For Matthew, Peter is a type of the community, and not a person. Matthew was saying that the community received the keys. .....

Jesus had no "line of authority" set up. That was a construct of the early Church.

.... and yet I say Peter was a type of 'the individual'...
and as "individual" I have the authority to say so.:p

That last part I agree with. Obviously. :cover: :D
 
Top