Infant LDS vs. Infant Catholicism

[Katzpur]

To answer your question regarding St. Paul (same goes with Matthias) and the office of apostle...first....it is important to keep note that in the apostolic age, all of the terms now attached to Catholic clergy...episkopos (overseer, bishop), presbuteros (elder, priest), diakonos (servant, minister, deacon)...were fluid in meaning and could apply to different offices. Anyone who had an oversight role could be called a bishop, anyone who was an elder in the community could be called a presbyter, and anyone in the community who served or ministered could be called a deacon. It was more a descriptor then an actual defined office. Not that the offices didn’t exist, it’s just that Christianity was just getting rolling and people didn’t exactly have a detailed job description.

I believe the "job descriptions" were detailed, precise and well-understood by those who held them. When the Apostles were around, no Bishop mistook himself for an Apostle. No Deacon assumed he had the same authority as an Elder. These were not merely descriptions; they were specific offices with specific roles and specific authority to fill those roles.

 

[Quiddity]

Victor, my exact words were: "I think the issue concerns authority more than it does doctrine." "More than" does not mean the the same thing as "nothing to do with."

If you remember...I asked:
So, you saying that we could of technically been teaching correctly and still be in a state of Apostasy?
You responded:
"Technically speaking, it could pretty much be true,..."
So really, it doesn't matter if we were spot on with regard to doctrine in the first century.

So how am I misunderstanding you?

The point I was trying to make was that the existance of Apostles is absolutely essential for the doctrine of the Church to remain pure.

And we don't completely disagree with you here. However, there was intended to be clear differences between the first twelve and those who would follow (Bishops).

For example:
Do your current Apostles have universal jurisdiction (Matt. 28:19-20, Mark 16:14-15)?
Do they all perform miracles and wonders (2 Cor. 12:12)?
Can each individual Apostle bring about new revelation from God?

About the only thing our current Bishops might be given the gift to do is perform miracles. However, unlike the first twelve, not every bishop is given this gift.

Doctrine could, and probably did, remain pure for a period of time after the Apostles' deaths, but ultimately no one held the authority Christ had given them.

I'd be so open to grasping (and even believe this) if I saw no signs of the Apostles attempting to pass on authority. But it's so patently obvious that this was going on (even in the Bible you can see it) that I just don't understand you guys on this.

Consequently, no one was in a position to receive divine guidance and direction for the Church as a whole from its true Head.

I'm tempted to ask "what is the right position?"...but I'm guessing it's one of those..."not the right time and enviroment" or something along those lines. Not to mention, who is ever "ready" to receive such a thing?

People were forced to rely on their own interpretations of what the scriptures said, and the more powerful individuals eventually called the shots. In a nutshell, that's how "orthodoxy" was established.

It would be crazy for me to say such a thing didn't occur. People are going to "rely on their own interpretations" whether there is a system in place or not. Even the current LDS system is unable to stop such a thing. So the question should never be whether this will [or can] happen, but rather, were people aware there was a system in place to begin with.

 

[Quiddity]

That's not entirely true, Victor. I'd say that if you were to quote anything from 300 A.D. it would probably be dismissed, but I would at least hear you out on quotes from individuals who were personally associated with any of the Apostles. After all, look at Bickmore's work. He quotes all the time from non-biblical sources dating from the 1st century to show how certain LDS doctrines were commonly accepted by the early Church.

Yeah, it's extremely frustrating to watch him do that. Especially if I'm familiar with the work he is quoting. I have no doubt he is a sincere and kind man, but he really does misinterpret the very things he quotes. Don't take my word for though...it's ALOT of reading to get the context and I'm certain too many LDS are comfortable enough in there faith to really do such an intense investigation of there own.

Could you give me any evidence whatsoever to support this theory?

I alluded to it on my previous post. I can link you to a good article if you are really interested.

Paul specifically says otherwise.

Where?

Furthermore, there were three or four Apostles called after the first twelve. That, in and of itself, is proof that the office of Apostle was to continue until Christ's return.

And it can also prove that the Church was to continue on and not go through so kind of relapse...

As I said before, those appointed by Apostles (except for Matthias) weren't necessarily Apostles themselves.

Well, I'd agree that no Roman Catholic bishop does.

To comfort you even more...you can even include the Pope in this sense. As we don't believe in progressive revelation.

 

[Quiddity]

Come on, Victor. You're a smart guy. How could I have responded more clearly?[/color]


The early Church did have valid authority. It had exactly the same authority today's Church (mine ) has. False doctrine came to exist because the Apostles -- who held the authority to receive revelation from Christ -- were martyred. Once they were no longer alive, there was no one around who held that authority. The result was, as Paul had said would be the case, men because "like children, tossed about by every wind of doctrine."

I think that part of the problem in your inability to get what we're saying is that, to you, 500 A.D. was "the early Church." To us, 100 A.D. was "the early Church."

That's ridiculous Kat, you should know better then that. Anytime I talk to you guys I make it a point to stick to data I think you guys would atleast accept as valid. I don't even waste my time with the the mountain of evidence beyond 100 AD.

 

[Quiddity]

Victor, suppose Obama were to call a meeting of all the Roman Catholic bishops in the United States. Some attended; others did not. Once they were convened, he told them that they had to come to some sort of agreement regarding some issue such as the ordination of female bishops, opening up the way to perhaps a female Pope at some point in the future. They argued bitterly back and forth on the matter for several weeks and then finally had a vote. The ones who disagreed got exiled to some foreign country, were stripped of their priesthood and the rest went home happy. The decision, determined by majority rule, became Catholic doctrine and was forever afterwards considered binding on Catholics. Are you telling me you'd be okay with that kind of policy making? If you find my example flawed, could you please explain why?

Yes I would...

One man's intention (Constantine) can be another man's fruit. You think Constantine really cared what we thought about the Godhead? Or all the nuances of the Christian faith? He was an emperor that wanted to stop division and controversy. The last thing an emperor needs is division in his empire. His motives and reasons make perfect sense in light of what he was trying to do in his empire.

BTW, it's not a "majority" rules for us.

 

[Katzpur]

And we don't completely disagree with you here. However, there was intended to be clear differences between the first twelve and those who would follow (Bishops).

Unless I am misunderstanding you, you're saying that the Apostles appointed Bishops and the Bishops would carry on for the Apostles in their absence. You are also saying, I believe, that Bishops would not have exactly the same authority that the Apostles who ordained them had (presumably because that authority was no longer needed). Did I understand you correctly?0

For example:

Do your current Apostles have universal jurisdiction (Matt. 28:19-20, Mark 16:14-15)?

Yes, absolutely. That is essentially their purpose.

Do they all perform miracles and wonders (2 Cor. 12:12)?

I believe they do, yes. It is definitely not something that is highly publicized, though. I am personally familiar with one example. It's something I would hesitate to advertise, though.

Can each individual Apostle bring about new revelation from God?

Not individually, no. As a collective Quorum, yes. The only individual Apostle authorized to do so is the Prophet. He, like Peter, is the only one who holds all of the keys of authority.

I'd be so open to grasping (and even believe this) if I saw no signs of the Apostles attempting to pass on authority. But it's so patently obvious that this was going on (even in the Bible you can see it) that I just don't understand you guys on this.

And I'm not sure what the confusion is. I believe they definitely did attempt to pass on their authority. They ordained Matthias, Paul, Barnabas and James (Jesus' brother). They also ordained Bishops and gave them authority over local congregations. So far, you have shown me nothing that would indicate that the authority held by the Bishops was sufficient to govern the Church as a whole.

I'm tempted to ask "what is the right position?"...but I'm guessing it's one of those..."not the right time and enviroment" or something along those lines. Not to mention, who is ever "ready" to receive such a thing?

You're starting to resort to sarcasm, Victor. What I was saying is that there came a time when there were no more Apostles on the earth. Apostles were the only individuals who were "in a position" to receive revelation from God. They were in that position because they had been called and ordained to be.

It would be crazy for me to say such a thing didn't occur. People are going to "rely on their own interpretations" whether there is a system in place or not. Even the current LDS system is unable to stop such a thing. So the question should never be whether this will [or can] happen, but rather, were people aware there was a system in place to begin with.

Of course people will interpret the scriptures as they wish, but without a governing body of Apostles to speak for and in behalf of God (having received His word through revelation), the interpretations of the more influencial individuals would almost inevitably come to be accepted by the majority of the members of the Church as correct, even when they may have been misinterpreted or even intentionally "tweeked."

 

[Katzpur]

Yeah, it's extremely frustrating to watch him do that. Especially if I'm familiar with the work he is quoting. I have no doubt he is a sincere and kind man, but he really does misinterpret the very things he quotes.

You know, I find that to be quite a condescending comment, Victor. Sort of like, "He's sincere but he's stupid," or "He's nice but he's uninformed." Obviously, we disagree on his findings, but if he really is sincere, he would have no ulterior motive in interpreting what he has read and studied.

Don't take my word for though...it's ALOT of reading to get the context and I'm certain too many LDS are comfortable enough in there faith to really do such an intense investigation of there own.

Once again, that is a sweeping generalization to level against an entire Church. I can't believe how many Catholic I know who can't answer some very basic questions about their Church's doctrines. The average Mormon is no more blindly following his faith than the average Catholic is.

I alluded to it on my previous post. I can link you to a good article if you are really interested.

Yes, please. I'm sorry I missed it.

Where?

Ephesians 4:11-15

And it can also prove that the Church was to continue on and not go through so kind of relapse...

I can't see how you can possibly come to that conclusion. The Church might continue on (it did, in fact, continue on), but it would not be led by Apostles, who are the only ones authorized to lead it.

As I said before, those appointed by Apostles (except for Matthias) weren't necessarily Apostles themselves.

How do you figure? If the Bible calls them Apostles, why would you think they were something else?

To comfort you even more...you can even include the Pope in this sense. As we don't believe in progressive revelation.

I know you don't. If I were a Catholic, I wouldn't believe in it either. It's kind of hard to believe in reveltion when nobody has claimed to receive any in two thousand years.

You know, Victor, this whole thread and all of your posts here are very unlike you. You know how much I think of you. I'm almost tempted to bail out of the thread because I am sensing so much uncharacteristic hostility and sarcasm. What's up? You have hardly posted in months and now this.

 

[Katzpur]

That's ridiculous Kat, you should know better then that. Anytime I talk to you guys I make it a point to stick to data I think you guys would atleast accept as valid. I don't even waste my time with the the mountain of evidence beyond 100 AD.

Victor, the fact that you refer to "the mountain of evidence beyond 100 A.D." indicates that you believe the "early Church" to extend for several centuries past the deaths of the Apostles. Since we believe the Aposasy to be well under way by the end of the first century, your mountain of evidence is immaterial to us.

 

[Quiddity]

I’m tapping out of this thread.

My relationship with LDS is more precious then being right. If I’m coming across as uncharitable, then I apologize. I just hope charity is not being confused for “challenging”.

Sometimes, we all tend to forget that words we use can be taken differently by others. In my early years of Catholicism, the mere mention of a “Great Apostasy” was highly offensive. Saying things like “everything was so corrupt”, “primitive church”, or pretty much painting the early church and what came after as horrible didn’t sit well with me. This is the type of language often used by LDS. How would you feel if they talked about your Church that way? It’s still used to this day and I understand this is just what you guys believe, but it’s important to keep in mind that in dialogues we will say things to each other that will be seen differently by both of us.

I, by no means think LDS use such words to be offensive, but let’s just be mindful of how many words in this very thread were used in reference to Catholicism. It doesn’t bother me anymore; I’ve come to learn how to be immune to the opinions and actions of others (not an expert, but certainly improved). I don’t want to be a victim of needless suffering.

Peace be with you,

~Victor

 

[Katzpur]

I’m tapping out of this thread.

My relationship with LDS is more precious then being right. If I’m coming across as uncharitable, then I apologize. I just hope charity is not being confused for “challenging”.

Sometimes, we all tend to forget that words we use can be taken differently by others. In my early years of Catholicism, the mere mention of a “Great Apostasy” was highly offensive. Saying things like “everything was so corrupt”, “primitive church”, or pretty much painting the early church and what came after as horrible didn’t sit well with me. This is the type of language often used by LDS. How would you feel if they talked about your Church that way? It’s still used to this day and I understand this is just what you guys believe, but it’s important to keep in mind that in dialogues we will say things to each other that will be seen differently by both of us.

I, by no means think LDS use such words to be offensive, but let’s just be mindful of how many words in this very thread were used in reference to Catholicism. It doesn’t bother me anymore; I’ve come to learn how to be immune to the opinions and actions of others (not an expert, but certainly improved). I don’t want to be a victim of needless suffering.

Peace be with you,

~Victor

Victor, just to be clear, we use the phrase "primitive Church" to mean the Church in its pure state. You are seeing it as a derogatory phrase while it is exactly the opposite to us. One of our Articles of Faith says that we believe in the same organization that existed in the primitive Church.

Anyway, I'm out of here, too -- and for the same reasons. I like you and I don't want to argue with you about this or anything else.

 

[zomg]

Class act, you two. :yes:

You guys rock!