LDS Priesthoods Not Found In The Writings Of The Early Church Fathers

chevyontheriver

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Sep 29, 2015
19,270
16,116
Flyoverland
✟1,234,180.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-American-Solidarity
Matthew 16:18
And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
The gates of hell prevailed if the LDS is correct - for 1700 years those gates prevailed. How could Jesus get it so wrong?
 
Upvote 0

He is the way

Well-Known Member
Apr 17, 2018
8,103
359
Murray
✟113,072.00
Country
United States
Faith
Mormon
Marital Status
Married
  1. St. Peter (32-67)
  2. St. Linus (67-76)
  3. St. Anacletus (Cletus) (76-88)
  4. St. Clement I (88-97)
  5. St. Evaristus (97-105)
  6. St. Alexander I (105-115)
  7. St. Sixtus I (115-125) Also called Xystus I
  8. St. Telesphorus (125-136)
  9. St. Hyginus (136-140)
  10. St. Pius I (140-155)
  11. St. Anicetus (155-166)
  12. St. Soter (166-175)
  13. St. Eleutherius (175-189)
  14. St. Victor I (189-199)
  15. St. Zephyrinus (199-217)
  16. The rest here: CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: List of Popes
Did these prophets all have apostles? Were the apostles replaced as the need arose?:

(New Testament | Luke 11:49)

49 Therefore also said the wisdom of God, I will send them prophets and apostles, and some of them they shall slay and persecute:

(New Testament | 1 Corinthians 12:28)

28 And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues.

(New Testament | Ephesians 2:19 - 20)

19 Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God;
20 And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;

(New Testament | Ephesians 4:11 - 13)

11 And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;
12 For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:
13 Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:
 
Upvote 0

He is the way

Well-Known Member
Apr 17, 2018
8,103
359
Murray
✟113,072.00
Country
United States
Faith
Mormon
Marital Status
Married
Yup. Even Mormons. David was a murderer, and so was Paul.

Of course not. Unless the leaders encouraged that behavior. But for the most part no, the leaders are not responsible for the bad things done by the members.

Generally yes. Apostolicity is a pedigreed thing though, and if the past spiritual leader did something awful it may just be on them and them alone, but it may also be that they corrupted their successors, so those need to be examined carefully. That IS the Mormon point, but it is also a Catholic thing. And we see this care of the pedigree, care of who is chosen a bishop, and the continued but rare use of excommunication.

And, as you know, I believe the priesthood has endured even past leaders who have done their best to destroy the Catholic Church
Who did Paul kill?
 
Upvote 0

dzheremi

Coptic Orthodox non-Egyptian
Aug 27, 2014
13,548
13,704
✟428,862.00
Country
United States
Faith
Oriental Orthodox
Marital Status
Private
It would be really helpful if Mormons would stop trying to force Christianity into their restorationist 'prophet/apostle matrix' or whatever, as though any actually-existing church should have to fit into the made-up requirements for being the true Church that Mormonism has made up to place itself in a higher position than the lowly Catholic, Orthodox, or Protestant churches.

For Orthodox Christians, we have the same prophets and apostles as you'll find in the scriptures, since we are Christians. There is no indication anywhere in early Christianity itself that there needed to be a continuing line of apostles and prophets in order to testify to the validity of the Church or whatever; in fact, the more common opinion was and is that the age of public revelation ended with the death of the last apostle, and what we have received since is to strengthen us in the faith that was once delivered to the saints. ('Saints' in this context meaning Christians, not Mormons.) This is through the guidance of the Holy Spirit -- the One God Who also guided our fathers and masters the apostles and the disciples into all truth, including in the writing of the Holy Scriptures -- but it is not anything new, so it's not 'revelation' in the sense that Mormons would use that word when talking about, say, the D&C. This is why you don't see any additions to the scriptures since a long time ago in Eastern Christianity, even though the Christian East (unlike the Western churches) never officially closed its canon. There's not a sense of needing to add anything to what we have received.

The people who came with something new (e.g., Marcion, Montanus and his prophetesses Priscilla and Maximilla, Sabellius, Mohammed, Joseph Smith, etc.) are condemned for having done so, as they did not hold to the faith that was once delivered to the saints, nor sought to strengthen themselves and others in it, but instead came with their own foreign messages which they said they received from God, but which did not comport with the Old and New Testaments, which is the test according to the ancient witness of actual Christian saints such as St. Jerome (writing below to his friend Marcella in 385, after the Montanists had begun pestering the Christians in Rome):

If, then, the apostle Peter, upon whom the Lord has founded the Church, has expressly said that the prophecy and promise of the Lord were then and there fulfilled, how can we claim another fulfilment for ourselves? If the Montanists reply that Philip's four daughters prophesied at a later date, and that a prophet is mentioned named Agabus, and that in the partition of the spirit, prophets are spoken of as well as apostles, teachers and others, and that Paul himself prophesied many things concerning heresies still future, and the end of the world; we tell them that we do not so much reject prophecy— for this is attested by the passion of the Lord — as refuse to receive prophets whose utterances fail to accord with the Scriptures old and new.​
 
Upvote 0

chevyontheriver

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Sep 29, 2015
19,270
16,116
Flyoverland
✟1,234,180.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-American-Solidarity
Your history tells the whole story, just like our history tells of our 1 massacre.
I've read a lot of history and I think you are being inventive. Sure, there were about ten bad popes, and of them pope John XII actually murdered several people. Over an almost 2000 year history. The Mormons have been around about 200 years. You can go on and on about how bad the Catholic Church is. Others can go on and on about how bad the Mormons are. Whatever. As I've said, I read a lot of history. It's not always what the popularizers think.
 
Upvote 0

chevyontheriver

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Sep 29, 2015
19,270
16,116
Flyoverland
✟1,234,180.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-American-Solidarity
Who did Paul kill?
Acts 22:4 Paul says he persecuted the Way to the death
Acts 9:1 Paul with murderous intent on the way to Damascus
Acts 8:1 Paul complicit in the death of Stephen
 
Upvote 0

Ignatius the Kiwi

Dissident
Mar 2, 2013
7,056
3,767
✟290,134.00
Country
New Zealand
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Single
It was prophesied that that time would come when there would be a famine of God's word:

(Old Testament | Amos 8:11)

11 ¶ Behold, the days come, saith the Lord GOD, that I will send a famine in the land, not a famine of bread, nor a thirst for water, but of hearing the words of the LORD:

I believe that the Catholic Church wanted power and they found power in the word of God. It seems to me that they believed that the word of God belonged to them and no one else. They used it for their own benefit:

"The Church Council of Constance assembled in 1414 under pressure from the Holy Roman Emperor to resolve the confusing and embarrassing situation in which the Church found itself with three popes all at once. There had been two rival popes since 1378 and three since 1409. The Council claimed direct authority from Christ and consequently superior power over any pope and succeeded in resolving the papal situation by the time it finished its labours in 1418. Meanwhile, in 1415, the Council had considered, and condemned as heretical, the teachings of the Prague priest Jan Hus and he was burned at the stake in Constance. It also condemned an Englishman whose writings had influenced Hus.

Fortunately for the Englishman, he was dead. Thought to have been born in the mid-1320s, John Wycliffe or Wyclif (there are several other spellings) was a Yorkshireman, who studied at Oxford University, became a fellow of Merton College and went on to win a brilliant reputation as an expert on theology. Ordained priest in 1351, he was vicar of Fylingham, a Lincolnshire village, from the 1360s, but spent most of his time at Oxford. In 1374 he was made rector of Lutterworth in Leicestershire.

By that time Wycliffe had developed startlingly unorthodox opinions, which were condemned by Pope Gregory VII in 1377. He had come to regard the scriptures as the only reliable guide to the truth about God and maintained that all Christians should rely on the Bible rather than the unreliable and frequently self-serving teachings of popes and clerics. He said that there was no scriptural justification for the papacy’s existence and attacked the riches and power that popes and the Church as a whole had acquired. He disapproved of clerical celibacy, pilgrimages, the selling of
indulgences and praying to saints. He thought the monasteries were corrupt and the immorality with which many clerics often behaved invalidated the sacraments they conducted. If clerics were accused of crime, they should be tried in the ordinary lay courts, not in their special ecclesiastical tribunals.

Wycliffe advanced his revolutionary opinions in numerous tracts. He thought that England should be ruled by its monarchs and the lay administration with no interference from the papacy and the Church. In his On Civil Dominion of 1376 he said:

England belongs to no pope. The pope is but a man, subject to sin, but Christ is the Lord of Lords and this kingdom is to be held directly and solely of Christ alone.

His opinions gained him powerful supporters, including John of Gaunt, who intervened to protect him from infuriated archbishops and bishops. He lost some support in 1381 when he denied the doctrine of transubstantiation, that in the Eucharist the bread and wine are transformed into the body and blood of Christ. Parliament condemned his teachings the following year, but he was allowed to retire to his parsonage at Lutterworth."

More of this at: John Wycliffe condemned as a heretic | History Today

This leads to some questions, were the popes really prophets of God? Did they have all of the priesthood keys given to Peter? If not what happened to the priesthood of God? I believe that the priesthood was lost as was the true order of Christ's church that was built on prophets and apostles. Therefore the proper order needed to be restored to the earth. It should be noted that John Wycliff's body was exhumed and burned, he being declared to be a heretic. It seems such a shame because he did the right thing.

I suppose I’m still left asking my original question. Is there anything the Church could have done without the Apostles to maintain its status? You suggested that getting involved in politics irredeemably corrupted the Church to the point where God had to abandon it. You then bring up specific instances of history as if they serve to prove your point. They don’t do that, they show that the institution and people are flawed but given your view on the necessity of an Apostle/Prophet and God’s grace to guide us how can they be indicted for anything else?

The Mormon attitude towards the Church reminds me of the Calvinist attitude towards the un-elect. You might rightly point out our many sins and that we deserve judgement, but aren’t Mormons also under the same judgement, except that you received God’s grace and his priesthood and now preserved from an appropriate judgement for your sin. Interesting comparison right there and I’m curious as to if you would deny being compared to Calvinists on the matter of the great apostasy.

Mainly because I’m left with finding no reasonable rationale for why God would abandon us. Given that there could have been people appointed Prophets. That Mormons are not superior humans when compared to their ancestors. That God has managed to keep his people together and alive countless times in the Old Testament.

Ultimately whenever you bring up historical examples of ‘bad’ things happening in Church history all you prove is that mankind is flawed and prone to sin. You don’t demonstrate why God couldn’t work with other people in the period. Why couldn’t God have used Martin Luther to spread authentic Mormonism? Why couldn’t have God chosen at least one Pope to reveal himself to? Not only Popes but any Bishop, Priest or Deacon. Were they all unqualified, every single one? That’s a hard pill to swallow, even for you I suspect. You put the worst interpretation on things not because the evidence demands it, but because Mormonism demands that interpretation to justify itself.
 
Upvote 0

He is the way

Well-Known Member
Apr 17, 2018
8,103
359
Murray
✟113,072.00
Country
United States
Faith
Mormon
Marital Status
Married
Seems like it was the opposite, particularly in the beginning of the LDS.

Which years were those? Which government?

I think you have your history of the Spanish Inquisition a bit muddled. Here is a true story for you. A common crook in Spain at the time of the Spanish Inquisition who got caught by the government, would if he were smart unleash a stream of blasphemies so the government would be forced to hand the criminal over to the Inquisition. Why? Because the Inquisition was far more lenient and merciful than the government and would generally release the guy. The government would inflict a far nastier sentence. And we know this because the Spanish Inquisition kept excellent records.

And I agree. Catholics have an anti-war streak and the more common just war position. I'm somewhere in the middle of those. Oh, I might add that the Church controlling the State is not a great idea either.

Yup. We're all priests and prophets and kings but the bishops and their priests have the priesthood of Melchizedek, the role of prophet, and the authority to teach and lead.
[/QUOTE]
You said: "I think you have your history of the Spanish Inquisition a bit muddled. Here is a true story for you. A common crook in Spain at the time of the Spanish Inquisition who got caught by the government, would if he were smart unleash a stream of blasphemies so the government would be forced to hand the criminal over to the Inquisition. Why? Because the Inquisition was far more lenient and merciful than the government and would generally release the guy. The government would inflict a far nastier sentence. And we know this because the Spanish Inquisition kept excellent records."

The Catholic monarchs were the government:

"Spanish Inquisition (Inquisición española), was established in 1478 by Catholic Monarchs Ferdinand II of Aragon and Isabella I of Castile. It was intended to maintain Catholic orthodoxy in their kingdoms and to replace the Medieval Inquisition, which was under Papal control. It became the most substantive of the three different manifestations of the wider Catholic Inquisition along with the Roman Inquisition and Portuguese Inquisition. The "Spanish Inquisition" may be defined broadly, operating in Spain and in all Spanish colonies and territories, which included the Canary Islands, the Kingdom of Naples,[citation needed] and all Spanish possessions in North, Central, and South America. According to modern estimates, around 150,000 were prosecuted for various offenses during the three-century duration of the Spanish Inquisition, out of which between 3,000 and 5,000 were executed (~2.7% of all cases).

The Inquisition was originally intended primarily to identify heretics among those who converted from Judaism and Islam to Catholicism. The regulation of the faith of newly converted Catholics was intensified after the royal decrees issued in 1492 and 1502 ordering Muslims and Jews to convert to Catholicism or leave Castile.[1] The Inquisition was not definitively abolished until 1834, during the reign of Isabella II, after a period of declining influence in the preceding century.......

Ferdinand II of Aragon pressured Pope Sixtus IV to agree to an Inquisition controlled by the monarchy by threatening to withdraw military support at a time when the Turks were a threat to Rome. The pope issued a bull to stop the Inquisition but was pressured into withdrawing it. On 1 November 1478, Sixtus published the Papal bull, Exigit Sinceras Devotionis Affectus, through which he gave the monarchs exclusive authority to name the inquisitors in their kingdoms. The first two inquisitors, Miguel de Morillo and Juan de San Martín, were not named, however, until two years later, on 27 September 1480 in Medina del Campo.

The first auto-da-fé was held in Seville on 6 February 1481: six people were burned alive. From there, the Inquisition grew rapidly in the Kingdom of Castile. By 1492, tribunals existed in eight Castilian cities: Ávila, Córdoba, Jaén, Medina del Campo, Segovia, Sigüenza, Toledo, and Valladolid. Sixtus IV promulgated a new bull categorically prohibiting the Inquisition's extension to Aragón, affirming that:[41]

... many true and faithful Christians, because of the testimony of enemies, rivals, slaves and other low people—and still less appropriate—without tests of any kind, have been locked up in secular prisons, tortured and condemned like relapsed heretics, deprived of their goods and properties, and given over to the secular arm to be executed, at great danger to their souls, giving a pernicious example and causing scandal to many.

— Henry Kamen, The Spanish Inquisition: A Historical Revision"

More at: Spanish Inquisition - Wikipedia
 
Upvote 0

He is the way

Well-Known Member
Apr 17, 2018
8,103
359
Murray
✟113,072.00
Country
United States
Faith
Mormon
Marital Status
Married
I suppose I’m still left asking my original question. Is there anything the Church could have done without the Apostles to maintain its status? You suggested that getting involved in politics irredeemably corrupted the Church to the point where God had to abandon it. You then bring up specific instances of history as if they serve to prove your point. They don’t do that, they show that the institution and people are flawed but given your view on the necessity of an Apostle/Prophet and God’s grace to guide us how can they be indicted for anything else?

The Mormon attitude towards the Church reminds me of the Calvinist attitude towards the un-elect. You might rightly point out our many sins and that we deserve judgement, but aren’t Mormons also under the same judgement, except that you received God’s grace and his priesthood and now preserved from an appropriate judgement for your sin. Interesting comparison right there and I’m curious as to if you would deny being compared to Calvinists on the matter of the great apostasy.

Mainly because I’m left with finding no reasonable rationale for why God would abandon us. Given that there could have been people appointed Prophets. That Mormons are not superior humans when compared to their ancestors. That God has managed to keep his people together and alive countless times in the Old Testament.

Ultimately whenever you bring up historical examples of ‘bad’ things happening in Church history all you prove is that mankind is flawed and prone to sin. You don’t demonstrate why God couldn’t work with other people in the period. Why couldn’t God have used Martin Luther to spread authentic Mormonism? Why couldn’t have God chosen at least one Pope to reveal himself to? Not only Popes but any Bishop, Priest or Deacon. Were they all unqualified, every single one? That’s a hard pill to swallow, even for you I suspect. You put the worst interpretation on things not because the evidence demands it, but because Mormonism demands that interpretation to justify itself.
It seems to me that the proper name for prophet is prophet and the proper name for apostle is apostle NOT bishop or priest. There were no Popes mentioned in the Bible.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

He is the way

Well-Known Member
Apr 17, 2018
8,103
359
Murray
✟113,072.00
Country
United States
Faith
Mormon
Marital Status
Married
There are no Mormons mentioned in it either. What's your point?
I was talking about different priesthood positions such as bishops, and priests. Nothing there about Popes. Mormon was the name of a prophet not a priesthood position.
 
Upvote 0

Ignatius the Kiwi

Dissident
Mar 2, 2013
7,056
3,767
✟290,134.00
Country
New Zealand
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Single
It seems to me that the proper name for prophet is prophet and the proper name for apostle is apostle NOT bishop or priest. There were no Popes mentioned in the Bible.

I'm sure you realize how weak this argument sounds. Do I really need to respond?
 
Upvote 0

dzheremi

Coptic Orthodox non-Egyptian
Aug 27, 2014
13,548
13,704
✟428,862.00
Country
United States
Faith
Oriental Orthodox
Marital Status
Private
I was talking about different priesthood positions such as bishops, and priests. Nothing there about Popes. Mormon was the name of a prophet not a priesthood position.

I agree with our friend Ignatius the Kiwi that an argument this weak doesn't really merit a reply, but just to help you make a less stupid argument in the future: "Pope" is merely an honorific given to the most senior bishop of several churches (namely, the Coptic Orthodox and Chalcedonian/EO churches of Alexandria -- since that honorific was first given to the bishop of Alexandria in the mid-3rd century -- and later, in the 6th century, that of Rome), so when you're talking about popes, you're talking about bishops.

To imply that popes are something other than bishops is to subscribe (unknowingly, in your case) to Roman Catholic ecclesiology, and if you're going to do that you might as well just be a Roman Catholic, since you're already accepting of their take on history anyway (and that same take is greatly at variance with Mormonism).
 
Upvote 0

Peter1000

Well-Known Member
Nov 12, 2015
7,876
488
71
✟124,865.00
Faith
Mormon
Marital Status
Married
The gates of hell prevailed if the LDS is correct - for 1700 years those gates prevailed. How could Jesus get it so wrong?
The gates of hell did not prevail. There were always righteous people on the earth that held back the full onslaught of the gates of hell.

We also believe that Jesus allowed John the Beloved apostle to not die and he stayed on the earth, with his priesthood to hold back the gates of hell from completely prevailing.

But as for the leaders of the church by 200ad, it became only a form of godliness, but as Jesus said, it denied the power thereof. It still to this day denies the power of the keys of priesthood. Again, the only church that comes close to recognizing the keys of the priesthood is the Catholic church, who long ago traded in the glories of Jesus for the glories of the world.

And remember that the Lord has an alternative method for all the people living in that 1700 years to be saved in his kingdom. So another testament that gates of hell did not prevail.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: He is the way
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

He is the way

Well-Known Member
Apr 17, 2018
8,103
359
Murray
✟113,072.00
Country
United States
Faith
Mormon
Marital Status
Married
I agree with our friend Ignatius the Kiwi that an argument this weak doesn't really merit a reply, but just to help you make a less stupid argument in the future: "Pope" is merely an honorific given to the most senior bishop of several churches (namely, the Coptic Orthodox and Chalcedonian/EO churches of Alexandria -- since that honorific was first given to the bishop of Alexandria in the mid-3rd century -- and later, in the 6th century, that of Rome), so when you're talking about popes, you're talking about bishops.

To imply that popes are something other than bishops is to subscribe (unknowingly, in your case) to Roman Catholic ecclesiology, and if you're going to do that you might as well just be a Roman Catholic, since you're already accepting of their take on history anyway (and that same take is greatly at variance with Mormonism).
So are Popes bishops or prophets?
 
Upvote 0

Ironhold

Member
Feb 14, 2014
7,625
1,463
✟201,967.00
Faith
Mormon
Marital Status
Single
The gates of hell prevailed if the LDS is correct - for 1700 years those gates prevailed. How could Jesus get it so wrong?

gates of hell = sin's power over the world

Once Jesus paid the price for all mankind, the gates were torn off their hinges. They have no more power over humanity.
 
Upvote 0

dzheremi

Coptic Orthodox non-Egyptian
Aug 27, 2014
13,548
13,704
✟428,862.00
Country
United States
Faith
Oriental Orthodox
Marital Status
Private
But as for the leaders of the church by 200ad, it became only a form of godliness, but as Jesus said, it denied the power thereof. It still to this day denies the power of the keys of priesthood. Again, the only church that comes close to recognizing the keys of the priesthood is the Catholic church, who long ago traded in the glories of Jesus for the glories of the world.

Disregarding for now whatever is Mormon-specific about the understanding of 'the keys' that you are pushing here (since I doubt the RCC would agree with you about that, even if you say that they're the only church that recognizes them), you are demonstrably incorrect about this. As usual, you don't know enough about what you're even talking about to make a claim that isn't blatantly untrue.

Syriac_Orthodox_Church_Coat_Of_Arms.png

Coat of arms/emblem of the Syriac Orthodox Church of Antioch and all the East. Note the keys.

symbol-holiday-ornament-eastern-orthodox-church-christianity-text.jpg

The same, but for the Greek Orthodox Antiochians. Again, note the keys.

Usually when you see keys incorporated into this sort of logo, it is visual shorthand for a claim being made to the Antiochian origins of the church you're looking at, as St. Peter and St. Paul founded the Church in Antioch together, so Antioch is also considered a 'Petrine' see, which even Rome recognized until relatively recently with its "Feast of the Chair of St. Peter in Antioch", which as far as I understand it is not publicly celebrated anymore but used to be on February 22nd (and still is by those who follow the pre-1962 calendar of the RCC). Since there are at least five claimants that I am aware of to the See of Antioch (the Syriac Orthodox, Malankara Orthodox Syrian, the Greek Orthodox, the Maronite Catholic, and the Syriac Catholic churches), that is a lot more particular churches than just that of Rome. Besides, Rome doesn't even claim 'the keys' via the founding of the Church of Antioch as these other churches do, but through St. Peter's later martyrdom in Rome (obviously; it's right there in the name: Church of Rome/Roman Catholic Church).
 
Upvote 0

Peter1000

Well-Known Member
Nov 12, 2015
7,876
488
71
✟124,865.00
Faith
Mormon
Marital Status
Married
I'm sure you realize how weak this argument sounds. Do I really need to respond?
The idea that there were no popes in the bible is weak, but the idea that a bishop can take upon himself the title of apostle, or that the bishops succeeded the apostles and had their world-wide authority to administer the church is the first sign of the apostasy.

Why was Constantine consistently being bothered by the bishops to make decisions concerning the church and their problems. And after Constantine, for hundreds of years, the emperor was the final jurisdiction for major problems between bishops. It is because bishops did not take the place of the apostles. The emperors tried to step into the breach, but without the Holy Spirit, they just made a bigger mess of the whole thing.

So again, one of the first signs of apostasy was the apostles were killed and Jesus finally stopped replacing them.

IOW if you do not have apostles in your church with authority to administer the church with an unbreakable line to the original apostles you are in apostasy.
And a bishop is not an apostle.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Peter1000

Well-Known Member
Nov 12, 2015
7,876
488
71
✟124,865.00
Faith
Mormon
Marital Status
Married
Disregarding for now whatever is Mormon-specific about the understanding of 'the keys' that you are pushing here (since I doubt the RCC would agree with you about that, even if you say that they're the only church that recognizes them), you are demonstrably incorrect about this. As usual, you don't know enough about what you're even talking about to make a claim that isn't blatantly untrue.

Syriac_Orthodox_Church_Coat_Of_Arms.png

Coat of arms/emblem of the Syriac Orthodox Church of Antioch and all the East. Note the keys.

symbol-holiday-ornament-eastern-orthodox-church-christianity-text.jpg

The same, but for the Greek Orthodox Antiochians. Again, note the keys.

Usually when you see keys incorporated into this sort of logo, it is visual shorthand for a claim being made to the Antiochian origins of the church you're looking at, as St. Peter and St. Paul founded the Church in Antioch together, so Antioch is also considered a 'Petrine' see, which even Rome recognized until relatively recently with its "Feast of the Chair of St. Peter in Antioch", which as far as I understand it is not publicly celebrated anymore but used to be on February 22nd (and still is by those who follow the pre-1962 calendar of the RCC). Since there are at least five claimants that I am aware of to the See of Antioch (the Syriac Orthodox, Malankara Orthodox Syrian, the Greek Orthodox, the Maronite Catholic, and the Syriac Catholic churches), that is a lot more particular churches than just that of Rome. Besides, Rome doesn't even claim 'the keys' via the founding of the Church of Antioch as these other churches do, but through St. Peter's later martyrdom in Rome (obviously; it's right there in the name: Church of Rome/Roman Catholic Church).
If Peter had passed his keys to the Antiochian bishop, that man would have not continued to be a bishop, but would have taken on the title of apostle, unless Peter only ordained him as a bishop, and kept the keys of the apostleship with him as he went to Rome.

We believe the same thing happened in Rome and that Peter ordained Linus to the office of bishop, but not to the office of apostle.
 
Upvote 0