The Next Prophet or Spokeman of God


#128

No doubt you will, because you have no respect for the dead. My family knows my wishes, but I’m confident that they will treat my wishes like trash. Mormons tend to do that.


#129

There was no great apostasy.


#130

I’m confused then. If the Bible is sufficient, then why does the CoJCoLDS use the Book of Mormon?

Blessings


#131

There are points of GREAT weakness in Catholic claims concerning Peter’s authority being present in the person of the Bishop of Rome. I offered three books in the post you quoted two of which were by Catholic authors. It is a matter of faith that Linus, Cletus, and Clement succeeded Peter as the head on earth of God’s church. It is a matter of faith that Joseph Smith was ordained by St. Peter. That being said, Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery claimed that this happened and even when Oliver left the CoJCoLDS he maintained that his claim was true.
You said you have documentation, but few folks who make that claim are aware of the things in the books I pointed you to. Here are a few reasons I do not believe you have “documentation of the succession from St. Peter.”
We do not know precisely when Clement of Rome was called the Bishop of Rome, but historians believe that it was well into the 2nd century. And the Roman church for 200 - 300 years after Peter’s death claimed the Clement was the first bishop after Peter. No Linus, no Cletus.
The first recorded allusion to the authority of the Pope comes from Firmilian rejecting the idea the Pope St. Stephen has this authority midway through the 3rd century. Before this there is no Peterine authority being exercised by the Bishop or Rome (most Catholics point to 1st Clement, but his letter doesn’t even claim it comes from Clement and certainly doesn’t claim Papal authority, most Catholic and non-Catholic historians do not view this as an example of Papal power).
In the 4th century an author wrote a work purporting to be written by Clement and to document the selection of Clement of Rome as the successor of Peter (by Peter). Scholars date this to the 4th century and nobody believes it was written by Clement. This gives evidence of what some educated author thought did or thought should have happened. But no scholar believes there is any historical reason to believe it did happen. Again, the Roman church thought Clement came after Peter (no Linus or Cletus).
There are other things concerning non-Peterine reasons the Bishop of Rome is important and …, but it is my position that the historical record is silent mostly and witnesses against Peterine succession occasionally (Firmilian, Cyprian, Tertullian, … rejecting Roman Primacy in various ways).
Cont…


#132

LDS have difficulties with some of these issues too AND LDS have the added problem that it is naturalistically impossible for Peter to ordain Joseph Smith. Still it is about faith. I will get into the Book of Mormon shortly.
For the Catholic Church to make any sense historically you need a SUPERNATURAL development / unfolding of some unknown authority. For the CoJCoLDS to make any sense of history you only need SUPERNATURAL visitations claimed by those who claim to have witnessed it (Cowdery leaving the church, but continuing to claim his witness was true).
There is zero evidence Linus, Cletus or Clement made claims like this and the witness of the Roman church well into the 4th century (according to Jerome) does not support a knowledge of this passing of authority present in the Roman church. Your “tracing of authority” is nowhere evidence in history and most (maybe ALL) Catholic historians claim that the authority developed not that it is evident in bishops lists and/or Peterine ordination narratives.
Charity, TOm


#133

Again, I am sorry for whatever you experienced in my church.
I did write “grin” after I said that because I was trying to offer a little levity. Sorry.
LDS do not believe proxy baptism binds people in any way.
Add to this, that if you are correct and the CoJCoLDS is not God’s church I am CERTAIN (and you should be CERTAIN) that God will not bind you to proxy baptisms performed by a false church.

When you begin saying the Rosary and if you begin to offer petitionary prayers to Catholic Saints, I welcome all prayers on my behalf. I am CERTAIN God will not force me into Catholicism because well meaning Catholics pray for me. But God does make great things when faithful prayers are offered. In that I have faith!!!
Charity, TOm


#134

At least three answers immediately came to me (probably from my past reading, but I really cannot remember).
Less importantly, according to the CoJCoLDS the Book of Mormon is inspired of God and thus LDS include it in our canon. Catholics do not jettison 1st Chronicles or Obadiah despite the fact that these books have been read by few Catholics and are never used in the Catholic mass. But Catholics believe they are inspired so they are part of the canon.
Importantly, the Book of Mormon does provide some clarification concerning areas of the Bible that are not clear. Many sola scriptura Christians do not perform infant baptism. Perhaps “whole households” included the infants, perhaps “whole households” excluded infants, or perhaps specific “whole households” had no infants. Perhaps the Circumcision parallel should be informative, perhaps not. Perhaps the faith and then Baptism formula should be informative. The BOM is clear where the Bible is not in some places.
Most importantly IMO, the BOM is tangible evidence of God’s involvement in the restoration of the CoJCoLDS. I have spent years thinking about Nahom, Cement, ancient volcanos, population dynamics, and …. I have spent years thinking about horses, DNA, “adieu,” and … In the end, I think the BOM is an ancient document totally beyond the abilities of Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery and/or Walt Whitman and Washington Irving. In addition to these academic arguments the BOM became a touchstone for the early CoJCoLDS. Those who read it frequently received a spiritual witness without knowing about Nahom or Cement or any of the rest.
I hope that answers why I think the Book of Mormon is necessary and important.
Charity, TOm


#135

Please note that the reason I said “KJV Bible” is because that is what Mormons claim to use.

If you want a complete Bible, you need to get yourself a Catholic Bible. My favorite is the Jerusalem Bible. But if you like the language of the KJV, go for the Douay-Rheims.


#136

Don’t worry, Lemuel. The Mormon baptism of long dead Anne Frank, who was Jewish, wasn’t valid either. As several of our non-Catholic posters on Amazon were so fond of saying, “All the water does is get you wet.”


#137

Exactly. They shouldn’t need their BOM to explain the Bible to them. Nor should they need it as “another testament of Jesus Christ” (it isn’t) if the Bible is sufficient.


#138

It might surprise you to learn that not all Catholics pray the Rosary, TOm. Not all Catholics offer prayers to the various Saints. Many Catholics pray to God alone. God doesn’t force anyone to join or leave a church. He has given each of us free will.


#139

My question for you was:

The Catholic Church has documentation of the succession from St. Peter. What evidence can you, TOm, provide. No obscure writings referencing opinion, but evidence you have.

So once again it is summations of writings you have interpreted through the LDS lens. That interpretation is not, in my mind, trustworthy as you are looking at things to prove the Catholic Church is false.

Also, once again, you clearly avoided my question. Rather than look at this huge problem with the LDS, the apostasy, you return with how the Catholic Church is false. So, if you truly want to have civil discussion, try answering questions asked rather than dodging them.


#140

First, I am offering positions elucidated by two Catholic scholars who would take issue with your statement “documentation of the succession from St. Peter.” These are your words and they evidence you have not dealt with the primary sources or the secondary sources associated with the possible “documentation of the succession from St. Peter.”

Second, your 18Jan post says, “What evidence can you, TOm, provide?”
Your previous post said,

I responded with comments about the “great apostasy” and a challenge to your non-understanding of what “documentation of the succession from St. Peter” Catholics have and do not have.
It seems you want documentation that Joseph Smith was given the mantle of St. Peter by St. Peter. Receiving the mantle of St. Peter is 100% a spiritual thing even if it is transferred when the college of Cardinals selects a new pope. There is no history that can demonstrate that this happened. History can record that people involved claimed it happened or claimed it didn’t happen, because making a claim is a historical event accessible by historical records. History can record that people acted as if some spiritual event happened or acted as if some spiritual event did not happen.
Cont…


#141

Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery claimed that Peter passed his authority to them. There are historical records that they of being the only church with divine authority from both of them early. Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery ACTED as if they had a commission from Peter and claimed that they receive apostolic authority from angels. Details of Peter’s visit came within 5 years. Throughout both their lives they maintained that this visit from Peter happened. Cowdery left the CoJCoLDS and became a Methodist for 10 years. During this time he didn’t deny what he had witnessed and he returned to the CoJCoLDS before his death. So, Joseph and Oliver made claims concerning the authority they believed they possessed, they described Peter’s visit and the passing of the authority, and they held this view until they died. History cannot record that God sent Peter to Joseph and Oliver. But history is consistent that Joseph and Oliver thought (or claimed to think) that God sent Peter to Joseph and Oliver.
History also makes it clear that Clement didn’t think Peter gave him authority (Clement should have known he sat in the Chair of Moses, but he did not. Clement should have known the “Order of Ministers” included the position of the “Bishop of Rome” but he did not). History makes it clear that the Roman Church didn’t think Linus and Cletus succeeded Peter before Clement until the 4th century or so. History speaks on these things. History tells us that when Pope Stephen was Pope, Stephen must have thought he had Peterine prerogative, but those who responded acted like they knew nothing of it and reject it. Folks like Cyprian, Tertullian, and Firmillian those who believe in Christ’s church.
It is a spiritual truth or falsity that Peter’s authority was possessed by Linus, Cletus, Clement, Stephen, and Pope Francis. It is historical that Linus, Cletus, and Clement acted and wrote as if they did not have Peter’s authority. It is historical that Stephen in the third century claimed and acted like he believed he had the authority, but it was rejected.
It is a spiritual truth or falsity that Peter’s authority was possessed by Joseph Smith. It is historical that Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery acted and wrote and spoke as if they DID received authority from Peter (Oliver’s temporary disaffection not withstanding).

It is a spiritual truth or falsity that Peter’s authority distilled upon / came to be recognized / was realized (the Development Hypothesis) upon the Bishop of Rome. History cannot say.

The “documentation of the succession from St. Peter” for Catholics doesn’t exist and/or was created after the fact. The “documentation of the succession from St. Peter” for LDS is evident immediately and robust within 5 years of the claimed event.
The choice for those who know history is “The Development Hypothesis” or LDS miraculous event. Both are faith based, but neither conflict with the historical record.
Charity, TOm


#142

Smith and Cowdery lied. No authority was given to them by God or any of the Apostles.


#143

So once again the LDS run around. History proves a story, except when it doesn’t. Documentation fails to prove the history of Catholic Church based on a handful of writers who opined it doesn’t exist, but two men, Smith & Cowdery state St Peter “visited” them and gave them authority of the one true church?

That is not proof, it is a typical LDS response. Using attacks on other’s faith as a way to divert or evade the question.


#144

According to Mormonism the priesthood was never taken away from the earth so I don’t know why it even needed to be restored. Another thing that makes no sense to me.


#145

Yes. Contradictions upon contradictions by Mormons about Mormonism…


#146

I didn’t claim proof. And I agree there is no objective proof.
You did claim “documentation of the succession from St. Peter.” This is absent from the historical record for centuries and not believed by the Roman church for many decades if not for 1.5+ centuries.
LDS have historical documentation that supports our supernatural event. Catholics lack the historical documentation for your “succession for St. Peter” and are left with a heavy development theory.
I have refuted what you claimed. I have pointed to documentation for what I claim (and I can produce it if you like from newspapers and journals and timely recollections).
But if you want to ignore that there is no proof NOR HISTORICAL EVIDENCE for the “succession from St. Peter” you claim and merely crow about the lack of proof for the LDS “succession from St. Peter” (even though LDS HAVE HISTORICAL EVIDENCE), you are welcome to it.
Charity, TOm


#147

The Jerusalem Bible is among the BEST study Bibles around.
The KJV is good for its poetic language, but is not as good for its translation (it has the Johannine Comma for heavens sake).
I usually use the NAB (Catholic) because I am an American. The KJV, because I am a LDS and because it has a good Greek index. Or the YLT (Youngs Literal Translation) because it helps me know if I need to study the Greek (via a concordance as I can read almost no Greek).

That is all good and well, but you have not acknowledged what I told you and what another Catholic poster told you.
You do not understand the Catholic position on the Bible. You offer the Protestant position on the Bible. You should read the link I offered you and I doubt you could persist in this error long.
Charity, TOm


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.