• 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!

Apostolic Succession

Quiddity

UndertheInfluenceofGiants
Polaris and FerventGodSeeker, I applaud you both for sticking it out. The fact that there was some civility and charity is great. Just be wary of quarreling about words; it is of no value, and only ruins those who listen. (2 Tim. 2:14) Seek clarity and understanding. Let the Love of truth toward God guide us.......

Peace be with you,
~Victor
 

Polaris

Active Member
FerventGodSeeker said:
The issue here is that you seem to believe that there needs to be constant new revelation from God. I'm not sure why you need constant new revelation for the Church in every generation. The Church is and always was guided by revelation, but that revelation ended with the death of the Apostles and subsequently the canonization of Scripture. Now, we are to hold fast to the traditions that we have been taught, not seek new revelation:
Of course the Apostles taught them to hold to tradition -- they knew Apostolic authority and revelation would be taken. That doesn't mean that we have no more need of revelation. In fact I believe that we live in an age where we need it more than ever.

No scripture teaches that revelation should end indefinitely with the death of the Apostles. To the contrary Amos taught that "God will do nothing but He revealeth His secret unto His servants the prophets" (Amos 3:7). That would indicate that God has no role in churches that don't believe in or seek revelation. Without revelation we're left with man running the church and man is prone to err.

FerventGodSeeker said:
First of all, you should understand that clergy celibacy is not 100% required. If, for example, someone was married, but then converted to Catholicism and became clergy, he would certainly not be forbidden to remain married or have sex with his wife. Clergical celibacy is recommended because that is the state which the Apostles recommended that clergymen be in:
So how do you read 1 Timothy 3:3:4 "A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife... having his children in subjection with all gravity." This is council to the Bishops -- the very head of your church, who, I far as I understand, are forbidden be married or have families.

FerventGodSeeker said:
As far as I know, paying clergy has become a necesity in some parts of the world due to the fact that some clergy in today's world would not be able to live without financial support. This was not the case in earlier time periods, thus the change. This is not a doctrinal change but simply a change in particular practice in today's world.
I have no problem with the church helping to support its clergy financially when absolutely necessary through voluntary donations to such a cause, but when it is done so in excess or by compulsion is completely against Peter's admonition: "Feed the flock ... not by constraint, but willingly; not for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind" (1 Peter 5:2). Similarly Paul had this same perspective: "when I preach the gospel, I may make the gospel of Christ without charge, that I abuse not my power in the gospel" (1 Corinth 9:18).

I'm sure you're well aware of the many historical references that highlight the low points of Catholic history (those concerning financial exploitation, corrupt indulgences, sexual promiscuity, and violent persecution, all proportedly endorsed by the church leadership). I'm not one to attack another's beliefs (though I will readily question in search of answers), but how do you respond to this historical evidence? It's hard to determine how accurate such historical accounts are (like those of the early fathers, I take these with caution), but if some of them are accurate at all, then I have much reason to be concerned with the validity of the church's claim to apostolic succession and doctrinal purity through tradition. Do I not have good reason to be concerned?
 

Polaris

Active Member
FerventGodSeeker said:
They seemed to have no problem ordaining Bishops with all these obstacles...again, why not Apostles?
A single Apostle can call and ordain a Bishop. As illustrated in Acts 1, the same is not true for an Apostle. Calling and ordaining of Apostles would have required that the Apostles meet together for the proper selection and ordination to fill the vacancies. Hence they themselves realized that "distance, persecution, and martyrdome, was inevitably going to keep that from happening."

FerventGodSeeker said:
"The wickedness of the general population"...do you mean the world in general, including non-Christians? How would the wickedness of non-believers affect the authority of the Christian Church? There's plenty of wickedness in today's world, but you seem pretty confident that the Mormon church remains authoritative.
I mean those rejecting, persecuting, and killing the Apostles. The Apostles today aren't being persecuted and killed -- conditions here are obviously much more tolerant and receptive.

FerventGodSeeker said:
Just the context of the "Falling away" verse you quoted, that's all : "Let no one deceive you by any means; for that Day will not come unless the falling away comes first, and the man of sin is revealed, the son of perdition, who opposes and exalts himself above all that is called God or that is worshipped, so that he sits as God in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God." 2 Thess. 2:3-4
You didn't really address the issue I raised. How does "falling away" describe the emergence of an anti-Christ, unless he was originally part of the Catholic church? I can still quite easily see this describing the falling away of the church, and how Satan's influence (i.e. erroneous teachings) infiltrate it and present itself as God's true church.

FerventGodSeeker said:
When Peter preached in Acts 2, he said,
"Peter (said) to them, "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the holy Spirit. For the promise is made to you and to your children and to all those far off, whomever the Lord our God will call." (verses 38-39)
We can both agree (I hope) that this verse refers to the Biblical command to be baptized for the remission of sins. But what you may not realize is what Peter said in verse 39, "the promise is made to you and to your children". Salvation through Baptism is a promise made to both adults and children.
I agree. Children can repent and be baptised as long as they meet the qualifications for baptism. The main purpose of baptism is for "repentance for the remission of sins" (Mark 1:4). Repentance requires two things: sins in need of remission, and a personal decision to forsake and make restitution for your sins. A child who fits both of these requirements can be and needs baptism. Infants do not fulfill either requirement for repentance: they have no sins (sins require an ability to make conscious decisions) and they are not capable of choosing to repent. Since infants do not need repentance and aren't even capable of repenting, baptism of infants makes absolutely no sense. So ... "Repent and be baptised" was not a commandment for infants because they clearly aren't capable of repenting for their sins.

Just because a passage says a family was baptised doesn't mean that infants were baptised.

FerventGodSeeker said:
As for the Early Church Fathers, they clearly considered infant baptism acceptable:
Irenaeus: "He [Jesus] came to save all through himself; all, I say, who through him are reborn in God: infants, and children, and youths, and old men. Therefore he passed through every age, becoming an infant for infants, sanctifying infants; a child for children, sanctifying those who are of that age . . . [so that] he might be the perfect teacher in all things, perfect not only in respect to the setting forth of truth, perfect also in respect to relative age" (Against Heresies 2:22:4

Hippolytus: "Baptize first the children, and if they can speak for themselves let them do so. Otherwise, let their parents or other relatives speak for them" (The Apostolic Tradition 21:16 [A.D. 215]).
Oh, I know, these guys were just "steeped in Catholic tradition", having been separated from Christ by only 2 generations.

If these guys believed in it, but the Apostles didn't, then when did it come about as a teaching, exactly?
If both of these men believed in the baptism of infants (Irenaeus doesn't specifically refer to baptism of infants), then I flat out believe they are wrong. Baptism of infants contradicts the very fact that baptism is for repentance. How can an infant possibly need or choose to repent? There is no scriptural support for infant baptism.

These men were not Apostles and the fact that they lived around the time of the Apostles doesn't necessarily make them authorative. There were obviously church members and even leaders that were in error during the lifetime of the Apostles, as is clearly evidenced by Paul's corrective epistles.
 
Polaris said:
Of course the Apostles taught them to hold to tradition -- they knew Apostolic authority and revelation would be taken. That doesn't mean that we have no more need of revelation. In fact I believe that we live in an age where we need it more than ever.
So the Apostles taught them to hold to Tradition because Revelation would end....but then you turn around and claim Tradition was corrupted. If keeping of Tradition was taught to counteract the effects of having no more revelation, then how could it be corrupted? Were the Apostles then wrong in asking them to keep Tradition in place of Revelation, when they knew that Tradition would be corrupted along with the rest? Doesn't sound like the greatest plan to me.

No scripture teaches that revelation should end indefinitely with the death of the Apostles. To the contrary Amos taught that "God will do nothing but He revealeth His secret unto His servants the prophets" (Amos 3:7). That would indicate that God has no role in churches that don't believe in or seek revelation. Without revelation we're left with man running the church and man is prone to err.
Not if they keep the Tradition that they have been taught. As you noted, the whole point of Tradition is to keep the Church running in lieu of constant new Revelation. To say that keeping Tradition is "man running the church", then you deny the Apostles' admonitions to keep the Traditions, which were from God.
In regards to Amos 3:7, it's obviously a hyperbolic statement. God can and does do LOTS of things apart from prophets. Also, an Old Testament prophecy about God revealing secrets to prophets does not mean that those secrets won't come to a close, at least for a time. With the death of the Apostles and the canonization of complete Scripture, the Church's Deposit of Faith was established. Thus, no new public revelation is necesary, we are simply to keep the Tradition we have.

So how do you read 1 Timothy 3:3:4 "A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife... having his children in subjection with all gravity." This is council to the Bishops -- the very head of your church, who, I far as I understand, are forbidden be married or have families.
IF a Bishop did have a wife or a family, those regulations would apply. But to claim that a Church leader MUST be married to obtain such a position is simply untrue. Paul clearly said, "But I say to the unmarried and to the widows: It is good for them if they remain even as I am; but if they cannot exercise self-control, let them marry." 1 Cor. 7:8-9

I have no problem with the church helping to support its clergy financially when absolutely necessary through voluntary donations to such a cause, but when it is done so in excess or by compulsion is completely against Peter's admonition: "Feed the flock ... not by constraint, but willingly; not for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind" (1 Peter 5:2). Similarly Paul had this same perspective: "when I preach the gospel, I may make the gospel of Christ without charge, that I abuse not my power in the gospel" (1 Corinth 9:18).
Voluntarily paying a clergyman is not "by compulsion", so I'm not seeing a problem.

I'm sure you're well aware of the many historical references that highlight the low points of Catholic history (those concerning financial exploitation, corrupt indulgences, sexual promiscuity, and violent persecution, all proportedly endorsed by the church leadership). I'm not one to attack another's beliefs (though I will readily question in search of answers), but how do you respond to this historical evidence? It's hard to determine how accurate such historical accounts are (like those of the early fathers, I take these with caution), but if some of them are accurate at all, then I have much reason to be concerned with the validity of the church's claim to apostolic succession and doctrinal purity through tradition. Do I not have good reason to be concerned?
While you're right that the Church has had low points, you're forgetting the obvious flip-side of that, which is that the Church has had many high points, too. I respond to such "evidence" of low points quite simply because man is sinful and individuals are bound to make mistakes. Mistakes by individuals, however, do not mean that the Church is to blame or that Church authority is called into question. As for such actions being "purportedly endorsed by the church leadership", I'd say you're mistaken. Many such accusations made against the Church are honestly overblown and the Church itself never taught or endorsed such actions. Thus the reason that when such incidents occured (for example, the abuse of indulgences in the 1500s), the Church as an institution corrected the individual or local errors.

FerventGodSeeker
 
Polaris said:
A single Apostle can call and ordain a Bishop. As illustrated in Acts 1, the same is not true for an Apostle. Calling and ordaining of Apostles would have required that the Apostles meet together for the proper selection and ordination to fill the vacancies. Hence they themselves realized that "distance, persecution, and martyrdome, was inevitably going to keep that from happening."
Except that the Church did meet together when it was necesary, even in spite of such trials. The Apostles managed to elect Matthias (and also apparently Barnabus at some point). They also met together in the first Church Council in Acts 15 to address a major problem facing the Church. Clearly, when the overall health of the Church was in jeopardy, the Apostles did what it took to keep it together and correct error. The sudden take-over of the Church by some renegade Bishop taking too much power and authority surely would pose a major threat to Christianity as a whole, and the Apostles would have done everything they could to correct such egregious error. But they didn't. They had 20+ years to address the issue as heresy, but they never did. They accepted Apostolic authority passed on from Peter, and thus so did the rest of Christianity.

You didn't really address the issue I raised. How does "falling away" describe the emergence of an anti-Christ, unless he was originally part of the Catholic church?
The verse simply says he will emerge, it doesn't say he will be a former Church member.
I can still quite easily see this describing the falling away of the church, and how Satan's influence (i.e. erroneous teachings) infiltrate it and present itself as God's true church.
Except that it refers to a singular man...not the Church entity as a whole. While I agree that there may be "antichrists" or an antichrist mentality at certain times in certain places, Scripture seem quite clear that an individual Antichrist will appear.
"Little children, it is the last hour; and as you have heard the Antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have come, by which we know it is the last hour." 1 John 2:18

I agree. Children can repent and be baptised as long as they meet the qualifications for baptism. The main purpose of baptism is for "repentance for the remission of sins" (Mark 1:4). Repentance requires two things: sins in need of remission, and a personal decision to forsake and make restitution for your sins. A child who fits both of these requirements can be and needs baptism. Infants do not fulfill either requirement for repentance: they have no sins (sins require an ability to make conscious decisions) and they are not capable of choosing to repent. Since infants do not need repentance and aren't even capable of repenting, baptism of infants makes absolutely no sense. So ... "Repent and be baptised" was not a commandment for infants because they clearly aren't capable of repenting for their sins.
The Greek word for children in that verse is teknon. The same word is used in these verses:
"but they have been informed about you that you teach all the Jews who are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, saying that they ought not to circumcise their children nor to walk according to the customs." Acts 21:21
"But we were gentle among you, just as a nursing mother cherishes her own children." 1 Thess. 2:7
Clearly in both of these cases (children who are circumcised, which occurred at 8 days old; and children who are still nursing), we see that the word teknon is not a word that is exclusive to children old enough to make their own decisions. Thus, to say that the verse could only apply to such children ignores the meaning of the word, which clearly includes infants. In regards to the necesity of the remission of sins, even infants need salvation, no? If Baptism is a channel of grace which is necesary for salvation, why restrict it from children? Jesus said, "Let the little children (Greek paidion)come to me," Baptism allows them to do that through a divine channel of grace. There's simply no need to forbid it or condemn it.

Just because a passage says a family was baptised doesn't mean that infants were baptised.
It says the WHOLE family was baptized, as was clearly the custom that the Apostles followed in the early Church. I would assume you believe that infants are a part of the family, no? Therefore, if a man's whole family was baptized, and they had a baby, the baby clearly must have been baptized.

If both of these men believed in the baptism of infants (Irenaeus doesn't specifically refer to baptism of infants), then I flat out believe they are wrong. Baptism of infants contradicts the very fact that baptism is for repentance. How can an infant possibly need or choose to repent? There is no scriptural support for infant baptism.
In terms of adults, you're absolutely right. A cognizant convert to Christianity would need to repent and be baptized. But again, the promise is not just to adults, it is to the children, even the small children still nursing. For these babies, through the decision of the parents since the child cannot decide, a divine channel of grace is opened for them. There's just nothing wrong with that, it is at least implied various times in Scripture, and it is and has been Church practice since the beginning. Again, if these teachings were around so early on in Church history, when exactly was the practice fabricated?

These men were not Apostles and the fact that they lived around the time of the Apostles doesn't necessarily make them authorative.
They were clearly authoritative, they were the leaders of the early Church, who the Apostles said to obey.
There were obviously church members and even leaders that were in error during the lifetime of the Apostles, as is clearly evidenced by Paul's corrective epistles
Yes, and the evidence of corrective epistles clearly indicates that the Church was (and still is) pretty quick to correct error, especially within its own ranks. Yet infant baptism was never condemned.

FerventGodSeeker
 

Polaris

Active Member
FerventGodSeeker said:
So the Apostles taught them to hold to Tradition because Revelation would end....but then you turn around and claim Tradition was corrupted. If keeping of Tradition was taught to counteract the effects of having no more revelation, then how could it be corrupted?
The Apostles knew an apostasy was coming. They knew that revelation would no longer guide the church. In the absence of revelation, sure, tradition is the next best thing, that's why they taught the members to hold to tradition. However, tradition carried on by man is prone to error -- hence the prophecied apostasy. Tradition started out pure, but the apostles knew that tradition would become corrupted (i.e. they knew an apostasy was coming). Without revelation it was the only alternative with any hope at preserving even a portion of truth.

FerventGodSeeker said:
Not if they keep the Tradition that they have been taught. As you noted, the whole point of Tradition is to keep the Church running in lieu of constant new Revelation. To say that keeping Tradition is "man running the church", then you deny the Apostles' admonitions to keep the Traditions, which were from God.
In regards to Amos 3:7, it's obviously a hyperbolic statement. God can and does do LOTS of things apart from prophets. Also, an Old Testament prophecy about God revealing secrets to prophets does not mean that those secrets won't come to a close, at least for a time. With the death of the Apostles and the canonization of complete Scripture, the Church's Deposit of Faith was established. Thus, no new public revelation is necesary, we are simply to keep the Tradition we have.
"Not if they keep the Tradition" ... that's a big IF. Without revelation it is man's reponsability to accurately preserve and pass on tradition. Man is prone to err so tradition is prone to error. Sure God does a lot of things without a prophet, but he will not guide His church without one. Sure in some sense Amos' statement is hyperbolic... "surely God will do nothing" (concerning the establishment of truth and governing of his church) "but he revealeth his secret unto his servant the prophet". Any time God guides his covenant people or declares or clarifies truth, it is done so through a prophet. A church that denies continuing revelation is simply not actively guided by God. Revelation is always needed to clarify truth, guide the church, and help all come closer to God.

FerventGodSeeker said:
IF a Bishop did have a wife or a family, those regulations would apply. But to claim that a Church leader MUST be married to obtain such a position is simply untrue. Paul clearly said, "But I say to the unmarried and to the widows: It is good for them if they remain even as I am; but if they cannot exercise self-control, let them marry." 1 Cor. 7:8-9
So are you saying that a Bishop, Cardinal, or even Pope could be married? I'm not suggesting that Paul said a Bishop must be married. It's clear though that a Bishop can be married and have a family. Scripture also makes it clear that Peter - the head of the church - was also married.

FerventGodSeeker said:
While you're right that the Church has had low points, you're forgetting the obvious flip-side of that, which is that the Church has had many high points, too. I respond to such "evidence" of low points quite simply because man is sinful and individuals are bound to make mistakes. Mistakes by individuals, however, do not mean that the Church is to blame or that Church authority is called into question. As for such actions being "purportedly endorsed by the church leadership", I'd say you're mistaken. Many such accusations made against the Church are honestly overblown and the Church itself never taught or endorsed such actions. Thus the reason that when such incidents occured (for example, the abuse of indulgences in the 1500s), the Church as an institution corrected the individual or local errors.
I agree that the church has had many high points. The Catholic church and its members have done and continue to do many great things. If you're correct that the corruption was restricted to local leaders and individuals, then I'll agree that the church's claim to proper authority and doctrine is potentially valid. However, many of the historical accounts declare corruption and exploitation at much higher levels of authority that in some cases involve even the Pope himself. If these claims carry any truth then, in my opinion the church's claims to proper authority and doctrine lose all validity.

FerventGodSeeker said:
Except that the Church did meet together when it was necesary, even in spite of such trials. The Apostles managed to elect Matthias (and also apparently Barnabus at some point). They also met together in the first Church Council in Acts 15 to address a major problem facing the Church. Clearly, when the overall health of the Church was in jeopardy, the Apostles did what it took to keep it together and correct error. The sudden take-over of the Church by some renegade Bishop taking too much power and authority surely would pose a major threat to Christianity as a whole, and the Apostles would have done everything they could to correct such egregious error. But they didn't. They had 20+ years to address the issue as heresy, but they never did. They accepted Apostolic authority passed on from Peter, and thus so did the rest of Christianity.
You're right, early on they did meet together. The last meeting we know of was the one you referred to in Acts 15 which occurred about 50 AD. After that the Apostles went out to establish the church in many different regions and according to some sources, certain Apostles traveled to quite distant places. Persecution was also on the rise and it wasn't long before several of the Apostles began to be martyred. All of this likely made it very difficult for them to all meet together again to fill Apostolic vacancies.

I also agree that if Linus indeed attempted to assume complete church leadership, any Apostles that would have been available would have interceded. The fact that no Apostolic intercession occurred implies one of three senarios:
1. There were few apostles left and those left were inaccessible due to distance or persecution.
2. Linus didn't claim complete church leadership and wasn't out of line in assuming his proper role as Bishop of Rome.
3. Linus did claim complete church leadership and was authorized to do so.

We simply don't know for sure what occurred. I don't believe that Linus claimed complete church leadership with Apostles still available. He may have simply assumed his position as Bishop and became leader of the church in Rome. It also seems reasonable to believe that the Apostles may have left instructions upon their death, concerning the preeminence of the Bishop of Rome so as to establish some reasonable heirarchy after the passing of the Apostles. But the key point is that the Bishops were not given Apostolic authority. The fact that they were instructed to hold to tradition is evidence that they were not given the same revelatory authority as the Apostles.

You may be right -- Linus, Clement, or the "Bishop of Rome" at some point, may have been given charge over the whole church. But the heart of the issue is that they did not receive the same authorative revelation that the Apostles did -- they were instructed to hold to tradition. Unlike revelation, tradition is prone to error, and served as the breeding grounds for the apostasy.
 

Polaris

Active Member
FerventGodSeeker said:
The verse simply says he will emerge, it doesn't say he will be a former Church member.

Except that it refers to a singular man...not the Church entity as a whole. While I agree that there may be "antichrists" or an antichrist mentality at certain times in certain places, Scripture seem quite clear that an individual Antichrist will appear.
"Little children, it is the last hour; and as you have heard the Antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have come, by which we know it is the last hour." 1 John 2:18
So "falling away" means emerge?

I believe 2 Thess. 2:3 clearly refers to an apostasy/falling-away (man of sin is a reference to Satan and his influence on the church).

John's statements concerning Antichrist refer to those who "denieth the Father and the Son" and he states in 1 John 4:3 that "every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world." Its not clear whether this antichrist refers to a single specific person (the KJV doesn't have the article "the" preceding Antichrist) or just antichrists in general. Either way it doesn't seem to necessarily be tied to Paul's statement in 2 Thess.

FerventGodSeeker said:
Clearly in both of these cases (children who are circumcised, which occurred at 8 days old; and children who are still nursing), we see that the word teknon is not a word that is exclusive to children old enough to make their own decisions. Thus, to say that the verse could only apply to such children ignores the meaning of the word, which clearly includes infants. In regards to the necesity of the remission of sins, even infants need salvation, no? If Baptism is a channel of grace which is necesary for salvation, why restrict it from children? Jesus said, "Let the little children (Greek paidion)come to me," Baptism allows them to do that through a divine channel of grace. There's simply no need to forbid it or condemn it.
The words children and teknon are ambiguous terms that may or may not make reference to infants. It depends on the context in which it is used. The references you sited concerning nursing and circumcision seem to imply that in those passages "children" means infants, not older children. When Peter commands that children should "repent and be baptised", I believe the context calls for older children and not infants. Please explain to me how an infant can repent. Is an infant capable of committing sin? Can an infant choose to repent? Can an infant choose to obey the commandment to be baptised?

Just because an infant is not baptised doesn't mean it cannot partake of salvation. It is absurd to assume so, how many infants have died without baptism? Are they all then denied salvation? Infants should not be baptised becase they can't sin nor can they choose to be baptised. Obedience and acceptance of Christ through baptism should be a choice made by each person individually. We, individually, have to accept Christ, it's not something that can be done for us by someone else.

This discussion made me think of another question that's a little off topic. I'm curious, according to your belief, what will happen to me when I die? Assume I live a good honorable life, maintaining my LDS beliefs to the very end, what will my post-mortal life entail? I'm genuinely curious, I'm not very familiar with Catholic beliefs on this topic.
 
Polaris said:
The Apostles knew an apostasy was coming. They knew that revelation would no longer guide the church. In the absence of revelation, sure, tradition is the next best thing, that's why they taught the members to hold to tradition. However, tradition carried on by man is prone to error -- hence the prophecied apostasy. Tradition started out pure, but the apostles knew that tradition would become corrupted (i.e. they knew an apostasy was coming). Without revelation it was the only alternative with any hope at preserving even a portion of truth.
"Tradition carried on by man" is not what is in issue here. God guides His Church, and thus when He says to keep the Tradition that He has given through the Apostles, there's not a question of something happening to them. They are His Traditions, carried on by His Church that He gave authority to bind and loose and declared that the Gates of Hades would never prevail against it. They are not carried on by man, they are carried on by Christ through His Church.
You claim that Tradition started out pure...so once again, when did it change? You'll have to provide evidence that Catholic Tradition teaches one thing, and that at some time in the past, the Church taught against that teaching or taught the opposite of it. I would recommend extra-biblical citations, since we could most likely go around and around discussing what this or that verse means.

"Not if they keep the Tradition" ... that's a big IF. Without revelation it is man's reponsability to accurately preserve and pass on tradition.
Wrong. You're speaking as though God's Church is just a bunch of men who are just going it on their own. That's simply an inaccurate view of what the Church is. The Church has divine guidance from the Holy Spirit. Christ promised that He would never leave His followers, and that the Holy Spirit, who came at Pentecost in Acts 2, would guide them into all truth. Tradition is preserved through the divine and constantly present guidance of the Holy Spirit in the Church. If God is for us, who can be against us? It is impossible for God's Tradition to be lost or altered when God is guiding its preservation.
Sure God does a lot of things without a prophet, but he will not guide His church without one. Sure in some sense Amos' statement is hyperbolic... "surely God will do nothing" (concerning the establishment of truth and governing of his church) "but he revealeth his secret unto his servant the prophet". Any time God guides his covenant people or declares or clarifies truth, it is done so through a prophet. A church that denies continuing revelation is simply not actively guided by God. Revelation is always needed to clarify truth, guide the church, and help all come closer to God.
Public revelation is not needed to clarify existing truth. The point of revelation is to reveal NEW truths, not just to clarify or maintain old ones. Thus the Church is actively guided by God through the clarification of the Deposit of Faith, not by constantly giving new revelation, which in this age is unnecesary with a complete canon of Scripture and Deposit of Faith.

So are you saying that a Bishop, Cardinal, or even Pope could be married?
Yes, I believe it's possible. It would be highly abnormal, but if one was a convert from another religion and had a prior marriage, one cannot break that bond.

I'm not suggesting that Paul said a Bishop must be married. It's clear though that a Bishop can be married and have a family. Scripture also makes it clear that Peter - the head of the church - was also married.
Sure. All of that aligns with Catholic teaching, no problem there.

I agree that the church has had many high points. The Catholic church and its members have done and continue to do many great things. If you're correct that the corruption was restricted to local leaders and individuals, then I'll agree that the church's claim to proper authority and doctrine is potentially valid. However, many of the historical accounts declare corruption and exploitation at much higher levels of authority that in some cases involve even the Pope himself. If these claims carry any truth then, in my opinion the church's claims to proper authority and doctrine lose all validity.
You'll have to identify specific cases that you have in mind for me to clarify the Catholic position any further.

You're right, early on they did meet together. The last meeting we know of was the one you referred to in Acts 15 which occurred about 50 AD. After that the Apostles went out to establish the church in many different regions and according to some sources, certain Apostles traveled to quite distant places. Persecution was also on the rise and it wasn't long before several of the Apostles began to be martyred. All of this likely made it very difficult for them to all meet together again to fill Apostolic vacancies.
And instead of filling Apostolic vacancies, they appointed a Bishop in every town, and told the Church to obey them and to constantly appoint new Bishops to bring about a line of succession so that the Church would have constant guidance. Should the Church have stopped obeying them?

I also agree that if Linus indeed attempted to assume complete church leadership, any Apostles that would have been available would have interceded. The fact that no Apostolic intercession occurred implies one of three senarios:
1. There were few apostles left and those left were inaccessible due to distance or persecution.
Neither distance nor persecution prevented them from writing letters of admonition and correction, or from preaching wherever they were at. Yet no where do we find any corrective letters against Linus, nor did any of the Church anywhere oppose his claim to authority. Seems to rule that one out.
2. Linus didn't claim complete church leadership and wasn't out of line in assuming his proper role as Bishop of Rome.
This seems totally absurd since every record we have from the time of Linus' bishopric indicates that he was successor to Peter, the Cheif Apostle, as head of the whole Church. I've already offered a multitude of evidence for the fact that the Bishop of Rome, which Linus was, was the head of the whole Church.

3. Linus did claim complete church leadership and was authorized to do so.
Well finally we arrive at the truth! :D


We simply don't know for sure what occurred. I don't believe that Linus claimed complete church leadership with Apostles still available. He may have simply assumed his position as Bishop and became leader of the church in Rome.
as I already addressed, the Bishop of Rome was the head of the cental, authoritative city of Christianity...and thus the head over the whole Church.
It also seems reasonable to believe that the Apostles may have left instructions upon their death, concerning the preeminence of the Bishop of Rome so as to establish some reasonable heirarchy after the passing of the Apostles.
Now you're getting the hang of it! ;) But what would be "reasonable" if it was not Apostolic? If everything was going to heck in a matter of decades, no hierarchy other than one of Apostolic authortiy would be reasonable.

But the key point is that the Bishops were not given Apostolic authority. The fact that they were instructed to hold to tradition is evidence that they were not given the same revelatory authority as the Apostles.
No, it is evidence that they didn't need any more revelation and were to be guided by the revelation they already had.
You may be right -- Linus, Clement, or the "Bishop of Rome" at some point, may have been given charge over the whole church.
Wow, you are almost starting to sound Catholic, lol.
But the heart of the issue is that they did not receive the same authorative revelation that the Apostles did -- they were instructed to hold to tradition. Unlike revelation, tradition is prone to error, and served as the breeding grounds for the apostasy.
Tradition is and was guided by God...not man.

FerventGodSeeker
 
Polaris said:
So "falling away" means emerge?
What? When did I say that? I said the "emergence" of the Antichrist would precede the "falling away", not that the two were the same thing. Clearly, in the verse you yourself posted, the falling away cannot occur until the restrainer has been taken away and the man of sin is revealed, who will make himself God.

I believe 2 Thess. 2:3 clearly refers to an apostasy/falling-away (man of sin is a reference to Satan and his influence on the church).
Oh, you see "man of sin" as Satan...except that Satan was already revealed when Paul was writing this, he was well aware of Satan's presence and activities. The man of sin, later referred to as the "lawless one" (see verse 8 of the passage), is distinguished from Satan in verse 9, when it says, "The coming of the lawless one is according to the working of Satan...". Thus, the Antichrist works in accordance with Satan's will, but is not Satan himself.
John's statements concerning Antichrist refer to those who "denieth the Father and the Son" and he states in 1 John 4:3 that "every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world." Its not clear whether this antichrist refers to a single specific person (the KJV doesn't have the article "the" preceding Antichrist) or just antichrists in general. Either way it doesn't seem to necessarily be tied to Paul's statement in 2 Thess.
It seems pretty clear that a specific "Antichrist" is being distinguished from lesser "antichrists" in the passage. The "antichrist" spirit is also discussed, as I originally said, but this culminates into an ultimate Antichrist before the Second Coming.
However, even if you refer to this as simply a general "antichrist" spirit which was to preceed the falling away, how was the second generation of Christianity "antichrist"? They had been taught by the Apostles themselves; they were totally PRO-Christ. When in early Christianity did this "antichrist" mentality, which denied that He was the Christ, enter into the Church? The Church has ALWAYS proclaimed Jesus is the Christ.

The words children and teknon are ambiguous terms that may or may not make reference to infants. It depends on the context in which it is used. The references you sited concerning nursing and circumcision seem to imply that in those passages "children" means infants, not older children. When Peter commands that children should "repent and be baptised",
He doesn't command small children to do this. He simply says that the "promise" of salvation through baptism is to them as well. He doesn't say they have to repent to be baptized, because obviously they can't; he merely says that the promise is for them as well, and thus baptism is open to them as a channel of grace.

Just because an infant is not baptised doesn't mean it cannot partake of salvation. It is absurd to assume so, how many infants have died without baptism? Are they all then denied salvation?
No, they aren't, just as adults who never had the opportunity to be baptized aren't immediately denied salvation either. God is an infinitely loving and understanding God; if an infant dies and the parents never baptized the child, obviously that's no fault of the child. However, that doesn't change the fact that all are commanded to be baptized when they are able, and there's no reason to deny infants the channel of grace offered through baptism.
Infants should not be baptised becase they can't sin nor can they choose to be baptised.
Except they are born with a sin nature, or "original sin", which needs to be cleansed regardless.
Obedience and acceptance of Christ through baptism should be a choice made by each person individually.
Absolutely, in the case of adults you're totally right.
We, individually, have to accept Christ, it's not something that can be done for us by someone else.
Again, as adults, you're totally correct. However, we cannot and should not deny chldren the grace of God through one of His sacraments which is promised to the small children.
This discussion made me think of another question that's a little off topic. I'm curious, according to your belief, what will happen to me when I die?
How the heck should I know? I've never died, lol.
Assume I live a good honorable life, maintaining my LDS beliefs to the very end, what will my post-mortal life entail? I'm genuinely curious, I'm not very familiar with Catholic beliefs on this topic.
Since you have been presented with the Catholic faith, seen the evidence for it, but still choose to reject it, you are certainly in danger of damnation from a Catholic perspective, as far as I know. However, the Catholic Church also recognizes that God is infinitely loving and merciful, and no human can claim to know where you will end up when you die, as none of us deserve anything from God anyways. I cannot say for certain whether you will be saved or condemned. This probably isn't a very satisfactory answer for you, but it's the best I can give at this time.

FerventGodSeeker
 
Top