Why is it always the Mormons?

[doppelganger]

Catholic Encyclopedia is not "official".

True, but it's a pretty good guide to the official dogmas of the RC Church. And in this case, it agrees with what I was taught as a child and as an undergrad at a Jesuit university.

 

[doppelganger]

Here it is again on Catholic.com:

PETER IS THE ROCK (This Rock: January 1998)

For the Protestant Reformers to rationalize breaking away from what was universally acknowledged in their culture as the Christian Church, it was necessary for them to deny the Catholic Church’s authority. To maintain their positions, they were forced to portray it as a kind of "anti-Church" that was unjustly claiming the prerogatives of Christ’s true (but invisible) Church.

Their chief target was, of course, the pope. To justify breaking away from the successor of Peter, they had to undercut the Petrine office itself. They were forced to deny the plain reading of Matthew 16:18—that Jesus made Peter the rock on which he would build his Church.

More recent Protestants have been able to back away from the position that early Protestants felt forced to make and have been able to admit that Peter is, indeed, the rock. It remains to be seen whether they will start drawing the necessary inferences from this fact.

 

[Fluffy]

If Mormons are targeted more then I reckon its because they are centralised and relatively large in America compared with other minority groups. This creates a larger threat in the minds of people to whom such things matter. Other minorities have already been smashed under foot so other than a bit of happy slapping, they are generally left alone because they aren't perceived to be as dangerous.

However, I think that if you look on forums that aren't as pluralistic as RF, you will see Unitarians, Universalists and Liberal Christians getting bashed just as much. Also atheists, pagans and Muslims get slashed a lot, especially when the media picks up a related story.

I just hope that the Mormons on RF aren't made to feel too uncomfortable by it. I've seen them get chucked out of other forums (along with other Christian groups) so it must be a difficult thing to have to deal with.

 

[Katzpur]

Other minorities have already been smashed under foot so other than a bit of happy slapping, they are generally left alone because they aren't perceived to be as dangerous.

In what way to you believe they see us as dangerous, Fluffy?

I just hope that the Mormons on RF aren't made to feel too uncomfortable by it. I've seen them get chucked out of other forums (along with other Christian groups) so it must be a difficult thing to have to deal with.

RF is a considerably better place than most for Latter-day Saints to hang out. First off, there aren't anywhere near as many fundies here as on a lot of sites. Second, many of us have been here for so long that we've made friends. Most of the non-LDS posters here (Christian and otherwise) have demonstrated that even though they don't agree with LDS doctrine, they can be respectful and tolerant. RF's policy against proselytizing is also helpful. People who come here for the sole purpose of attacking Mormonism are annoying, but they generally end up leaving before too awfully long because they end up making enemies of almost everyone else on the forum. Personally, I think of many, many RFers as friends, and look forward to "seeing" them on a daily basis. The occasional jerk doesn't get me down too much.

 

[Magic Man]

The occasional jerk doesn't get me down too much.

Phew! I'm glad I haven't gotten to you too much!

 

[SoyLeche]

Phew! I'm glad I haven't gotten to you too much!

Oh, but see - you are hardly "occasional"

 

[Fluffy]

In what way to you believe they see us as dangerous, Fluffy?

I think that it is purely a combination of being centralised and close (to America). Sure you get pagans, atheists e.t.c. in America but because they are totally decentralised, attacking them is a bit like hitting smoke and so doesn't make satisfying squishing noises. Also it means that the extent of paganism, atheism e.t.c. is perceived as being low because you can't point at a recognizable institution and go "look, this is paganism". By being more concentrated, Mormons are an easier target and a more easily visualised threat.

Muslims are more centralised but distant. To a fundamentalist, they are probably still a high risk factor but not necessarily to a person's soul, just their life. When people think of Mormons, I think they tend to think of smiling young people, smartly dressed knocking on the door spreading the evil daemon message. Better to get blown up than converted. And it could even be your door next.

Jews? Well they don't like the Muslims so we'll just be friends with them. Plus they stick to Israel which is nice and far away and, if we are really lucky, they might end up getting wiped out along with the Muslims killing two birds with one stone. I really wish I was just kidding at this point but it seems that in the minds of some fundamentalists, this wouldn't be a bad thing at all.

So Mormons get stick because they are reachable and identifiable whereas nobody else qualifies to quite the same extent except for, perhaps, the Democrats.

RF is a considerably better place than most for Latter-day Saints to hang out. First off, there aren't anywhere near as many fundies here as on a lot of sites.

Well I am glad about that. It is a shame that there can't be a place that is welcoming to everyone (including to fundamentalists) without ending up not being welcoming.

It is a bit sad though because it is the classic "destruction vs growth" dynamic. It might be easier to attack those different from you but in the end, you will end up stagnated. On the other hand, those you attacked will have learned to adapt and accommodate one another resulting in strength.

RF's policy against proselytizing is also helpful.

I'm glad that it is indeed helpful. I've offered wondered whether it is too heavy handed or not (like the rest of the mod team, I'm very much for light moderation) but if helps create the right atmosphere then that is great. I have been on specific religion forums before (Christian, Muslim, e.t.c.) where they have had proselytism sub-forums wherein the forum religion is invited to try and convert those in that forum. For example, a pagan forum would be specifically for proselytising to pagans. It is a system that boggles my mind somewhat.

 

[Smoke]

I'm sorry, what was the question again? I will stay on for 5 more mintues and sign out for the rest of the day. Have a great rest of the day!

The posts don't disappear after you read them. If you forget what we were talking about, you can always look back in the thread and refresh your memory.

Don't exert yourself on my account, though; I've lost interest in hearing the answer.

 

[Rolling_Stone]

In what way to you believe they see us as dangerous, Fluffy?

You addressed this to Fluffy, but I hope you don't mind me giving an answer. Like I said, they believe in their beliefs rather than the God their beliefs point to. The beliefs of other religions mentioned in the OP are too alien to pose a threat, similar aesthetic values withstanding. Mormon beliefs, too, share similar aesthetic values, but their beliefs are similar enough and organized enough to undermine theirs.

 

[McBell]

I've lost interest in hearing the answer.

Thats likely A good thing, cause given his track record thus far, you won't ever get him to answer.

 

[Somkid]

I didn't realize how many Mormons there actually were until I moved to Thailand and I didn't know what "LDS" was either.

 

[Scott1]

True, but it's a pretty good guide to the official dogmas of the RC Church. And in this case, it agrees with what I was taught as a child and as an undergrad at a Jesuit university.

This is not an official dogma.... it's ONE way to interpret the verse.... if you'd like, start a new thread and I'd be happy to show you.

Peace,
S

 

[doppelganger]

This is not an official dogma.... it's ONE way to interpret the verse.... if you'd like, start a new thread and I'd be happy to show you.

Peace,
S

Sorry, Scott, but you're the only Catholic I've ever met (and I've met a lot of them, I was born and raised in a community overwhelmingly Irish-American Catholic), who interprets that verse to be a reference to anything other than Peter. Every major source on Catholicism I can find agrees with me. You're welcome to interpret the verse however you want, of course :yes::rainbow1:

But the verse most definitely IS the official justification for the Papacy tracing back to Peter himself as the "rock" upon which the Church would be built.

Here's are several essays from the Vatican's official website in English that also agree:

Fourth Station, Jesus is denied by Peter, Way of the Cross 2008

Eucharistic concelebration on the Solemnity of Sts Peter and Paul

Inauguration of the Exhibition:*'Habemus Papam': Pontifical elections from St Peter to Benedict XVI

In fact, by the Redeemer's expressly declared desire, the Pope is the "rock" on which the spiritual edifice of ecclesial communion is founded. "You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church" (Mt 16: 18) . . .

At every conclave, the truth of Christ's promise to Peter is reasserted: "On this rock I will build my Church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it" (Mt 16: 18).​

And the Pope himself:

Solemnity of Sts Peter and Paul - Homily, 29 June 2006

"You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church" (Mt 16: 18). What exactly was the Lord saying to Peter with these words? With them, what promise did he make to Peter and what task did he entrust to him? And what is he saying to us - to the Bishop of Rome, who is seated on the chair of Peter, and to the Church today? .

And the prior Pope, John Paul II:

Solemnity of the Holy Apostles Peter and Paul - Angelus

Today, the Diocese of Rome, rooted in the witness of the two great Apostles, is celebrating in a special way. Peter, chosen by Christ as the "rock" on which to build his Church, was crucified not far from the Vatican Hill and his tomb is the symbolic centre of the Catholic faith.

And the Catechism:

Simon Peter holds the first place in the college of the Twelve;283 Jesus entrusted a unique mission to him. Through a revelation from the Father, Peter had confessed: "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God." Our Lord then declared to him: "You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it."284 Christ, the "living Stone",285 thus assures his Church, built on Peter, of victory over the powers of death. Because of the faith he confessed Peter will remain the unshakeable rock of the Church. His mission will be to keep this faith from every lapse and to strengthen his brothers in it.

 

[Magic Man]

Sorry, Scott, but you're the only Catholic I've ever met (and I've met a lot of them, I was born and raised in a community overwhelmingly Irish-American Catholic), who interprets that verse to be a reference to anything other than Peter. Every major source on Catholicism I can find agrees with me. You're welcome to interpret the verse however you want, of course :yes::rainbow1:

But the verse most definitely IS the official justification for the Papacy tracing back to Peter himself as the "rock" upon which the Church would be built.

Here's are several essays from the Vatican's official website in English that also agree:

Fourth Station, Jesus is denied by Peter, Way of the Cross 2008

Eucharistic concelebration on the Solemnity of Sts Peter and Paul

Inauguration of the Exhibition:*'Habemus Papam': Pontifical elections from St Peter to Benedict XVI

And the Pope himself:

Solemnity of Sts Peter and Paul - Homily, 29 June 2006
And the prior Pope, John Paul II:

Solemnity of the Holy Apostles Peter and Paul - Angelus
And from the Catechism:

Sorry, but you're still wrong.

 

[Scott1]

Dopp,

If you'd like, start a new thread and I'd be happy to show you.

Peace,
S

 

[doppelganger]

Sorry, but you're still wrong.

Obviously.

Dopp,

If you'd like, start a new thread and I'd be happy to show you.

Peace,
S

 

[doppelganger]

I forgot, it was also officially established at Vatican I. But the Council was apparently wrong, too. :yes:


Pius IX**** Vatican I

1. We teach and declare that, according to the gospel evidence, a primacy of jurisdiction over the whole Church of God was immediately and directly promised to the blessed apostle Peter and conferred on him by Christ the lord.
2. It was to Simon alone, to whom he had already said You shall be called Cephas [42], that the Lord, after his confession, You are the Christ, the son of the living God, spoke these words:
Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona. For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of the underworld shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven [43] .
3. And it was to Peter alone that Jesus, after his resurrection, confided the jurisdiction of Supreme Pastor and ruler of his whole fold, saying:
Feed my lambs, feed my sheep [44].
4. To this absolutely manifest teaching of the Sacred Scriptures, as it has always been understood by the Catholic Church, are clearly opposed the distorted opinions of those who misrepresent the form of government which Christ the lord established in his Church and deny that Peter, in preference to the rest of the apostles, taken singly or collectively, was endowed by Christ with a true and proper primacy of jurisdiction.

1. That which our lord Jesus Christ, the prince of shepherds and great shepherd of the sheep, established in the blessed apostle Peter, for the continual salvation and permanent benefit of the Church, must of necessity remain for ever, by Christ's authority, in the Church which, founded as it is upon a rock, will stand firm until the end of time [45].
2. For no one can be in doubt, indeed it was known in every age that the holy and most blessed Peter, prince and head of the apostles, the pillar of faith and the foundation of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from our lord Jesus Christ, the savior and redeemer of the human race, and that to this day and for ever he lives and presides and exercises judgment in his successors the bishops of the Holy Roman See, which he founded and consecrated with his blood [46].
3. Therefore whoever succeeds to the chair of Peter obtains by the institution of Christ himself, the primacy of Peter over the whole Church. So what the truth has ordained stands firm, and blessed Peter perseveres in the rock-like strength he was granted, and does not abandon that guidance of the Church which he once received [47].
4. For this reason it has always been necessary for every Church--that is to say the faithful throughout the world--to be in agreement with the Roman Church because of its more effective leadership. In consequence of being joined, as members to head, with that see, from which the rights of sacred communion flow to all, they will grow together into the structure of a single body [48].

4. This is the teaching of the Catholic truth, and no one can depart from it without endangering his faith and salvation.

 

[Scott1]

But the verse most definitely IS the official justification for the Papacy tracing back to Peter himself as the "rock" upon which the Church would be built.

Since it seems you don't want to start another thread...

Yes, it is ONE of the justifications... but not a specific "proof text" or "official justification. Vatican I's Dogmatic Constitution "Pastor Aeternus" cites Matt 16:18... but it also uses as "justification":

Chapter 1
3. And it was to Peter alone that Jesus, after his resurrection, confided the jurisdiction of Supreme Pastor and ruler of his whole fold, saying: Feed my lambs, feed my sheep.


.... Papal Supremacy is "justified" by the entirety of Scriptural evidence, and not just from one verse.

And remember, I was responding to the claim from uss_bigd:

The catholic church claims apostolic succession by claiming peter was the first pope, isn't that correcT?

... and I AGAIN would like to point out that Matt 16:18 does not have ANYTHING to do with Apostolic Succession.

Peace be with you,
S

 

[doppelganger]

Peter was not the rock.... what's your point?

Nope... Jesus was the Rock... the Papacy came about 200 years later.... thanks for asking.

Whatever you say.

 

[Scott1]

Whatever you say.

I appreciate you letting me have an opinon. :sorry1: