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

BigDaddy4 · Dec 7, 2020

Peter1000 said:
The apostles held all the keys of the kingdom of God, world-wide authority to do the work of the ministry.

Remember that when the apostle came into an area, they first ordained elders, and when there were enough elders, they ordained one of them to be a bishop. There eventually was deacons and priests, and teachers etc., etc., etc.
These people were given certain of the keys to do the work of the ministry, but only in a local area, not world-wide. Their keys of authority was only for that local area. Bishops could use the keys they received from the Apostles to ordain other elders and priests and deacons etc. These keys included the authority to baptize. So the apostles were not the only ones that could baptize, bishops, elders, and priests could also baptize, and bishops and elders could also give the gift of the Holy Ghost.

As soon as the bishop died, and apostle had to come and ordain another bishop, the congregation, or other bishops did not have the authority to ordain new bishops. That process happened until about 120 when the apostles were all killed and gone.

Gonna need some reference citations for your claims here. As has been widely demonstrated, your grasp of early Christian church history is tremendously lacking. You, Peter, do not get to rewrite history and claim it as fact.

Peter1000 · Dec 7, 2020

chevyontheriver said:
You would think, if Mormonism were true, that it would appear in the very first of the Fathers. That there would be at least echos of it later on.

Remember when Jimmy Swaggart got on his Church Fathers kick? He said the Church Fathers believed exactly as he did. He encouraged people to read the Fathers to confirm this. And some did. Lots of Catholics and Orthodox came out of that Swaggart blunder. If you read the Church Fathers it's hard not to become either Catholic or Orthodox.

So which is the true church, the Catholic or the Orthodox? You cannot tell me that they are both true. Jesus would not have 2 true churches, but with different competing doctrines, with 2 competing organizations, and the 2 not even willing to have communion one with another, would he???

So which one is the true church?

dzheremi · Dec 7, 2020

Peter1000 said:
As soon as the bishop died, and apostle had to come and ordain another bishop, the congregation, or other bishops did not have the authority to ordain new bishops. That process happened until about 120 when the apostles were all killed and gone.

This is just flatly incorrect. If it were so, then the Didache, the earliest known Church orders manual, written c. 95 AD (well within your 120 AD cut-off line), wouldn't contain passages like the following: "Therefore appoint for yourselves bishops and deacons worthy of the Lord, men who are meek and not lovers of money, who are true and approved, because they also perform the service of prophets and teachers to you. Do not despise them, for they are worthy of honor alongside prophets and teachers."

Since it was written c. 95 AD, the only one of the original apostles who was still alive at the time was St. John, so who is the "yourselves" written to there? There's only one apostle left, so it can't be to him (not to mention that the longer name by which the Didache is known is "The Teaching Of The Lord To The Nations Through The Twelve Apostles", indicating that it is teaching that came through them, not to them), so it must be to some other group of Christians who would be involved in appointing bishops.

By this time, Alexandria was on its second or third bishop (depending on whether you follow Eusebius and others in counting as the first bishop of a see the first man ordained to serve there, or the later tradition of marking the founding apostle of an apostolic see to be its first bishop; HH St. Anianos had succeeded St. Mark in 62 AD, and HH St. Milieus/Avilius succeeded him in 82 AD, and would remain in the chair until September of 95), Antioch on its second/third (HH St. Ignatius, r. 70-108), Rome on its third/fourth (HH St. Clement, r. 88-99), Armenia on its fifth/sixth (HH St. Mushe, r. 93-123), Mesopotamia/Persia/India on its second/third (HH Mar Mari, r. 87-121), etc.

So how can it be that things work as you claim they do when all of this was in place before rules were even set down for the selection of bishops, and when they were they look nothing like what you're claiming? The Didache presupposes that bishops will continue to be ordained after the death of the original apostles, precisely because that's what had already been happening since before it was written.

Your idea of how the early Church function is contradicted by the early Church itself (as usual), even well within the period you are claiming worked as you say it was supposed to (so presumably before the 'Great Apostasy' took hold and changed the way bishops were chosen).

Explain this, please. Again, this is the earliest documentary evidence we have concerning how the Church was organized, from well before the hypothesized 'Great Apostasy', according to your reckoning of it.

dzheremi · Dec 7, 2020

Peter1000 said:
So which is the true church, the Catholic or the Orthodox? You cannot tell me that they are both true. Jesus would not have 2 true churches, but with different competing doctrines, with 2 competing organizations, and the 2 not even willing to have communion one with another, would he???

So which one is the true church?

No one from either Church would be saying that both are true in this venue, since the point is rather that both exist since ancient times, and both refute the claims of Mormonism simply by existing as they already did before JS was so much as a glimmer in his father's eye.

Stop trying to pit Christian communions against each other for the benefit of Mormonism. It's not going to work, since the fact that Mormonism is a false religion is not something that they disagree on. No Christian does.

chevyontheriver · Dec 7, 2020

Peter1000 said:
So which is the true church, the Catholic or the Orthodox? You cannot tell me that they are both true. Jesus would not have 2 true churches, but with different competing doctrines, with 2 competing organizations, and the 2 not even willing to have communion one with another, would he???

So which one is the true church?

That's easy. We are one Church with the same sacraments. We are undergoing a squabble that's gone on for a long time but we do not have an excommunication in effect against the Orthodox.

And how many versions of Mormon are there out there? Which is correct? You obviously don't accept any of the others, but do they accept you?

Peter1000 · Dec 7, 2020

BigDaddy4 said:
According to 1 Cor 1:13-17, Paul, an Apostle, showed little importance to personally baptizing the Corinthian believers. That, apparently, was left up to others. Who could those people have been? Did they have the "proper authority"? What other Apostles/prophets with the "proper authority" travelled to
Corinth? Your focus on "proper authority" is misguided.

13 Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Were you baptized in the name of Paul? 14 I thank God that I did not baptize any of you except Crispus and Gaius, 15 so no one can say that you were baptized in my name. 16 (Yes, I also baptized the household of Stephanas; beyond that, I don’t remember if I baptized anyone else.) 17 For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel—not with wisdom and eloquence, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power.

Jesus gave the apostles the keys of the kingdom of God. Why did he do that? Because he was not going to be here very long and would not be able to do the work of the ministry.

The apostles gave the local only keys to the bishop of a local area, why? Because the apostle could not be there all the time to do the baptizing, so the keys of the local area gave the bishop and elders the right to baptize and do the work of the ministry.

References are Matthew 16:18-19 and Acts 14:22-25 and Phillipians 1:1. And common sense.

Ignatius the Kiwi · Dec 7, 2020

Peter1000 said:
Jesus gave the apostles the keys of the kingdom of God. Why did he do that? Because he was not going to be here very long and would not be able to do the work of the ministry.

The apostles gave the local only keys to the bishop of a local area, why? Because the apostle could not be there all the time to do the baptizing, so the keys of the local area gave the bishop and elders the right to baptize and do the work of the ministry.

References are Matthew 16:18-19 and Acts 14:22-25 and Phillipians 1:1. And common sense.

I don't disagree with the Idea that the Apostles gave leaders of local communities the authority to decide on important matters within the Christian community. Saint Clement of Rome mentions as much in his Epistle to the Corinthians, that an Apostolic order was set by them for the good of the Church and that the Corinthians were undermining the Apostolic appointments by getting rid of their presbyters.

Where I run into trouble with the Mormon Idea is that these communities then after the deaths of the first generation of Bishops had no right to appoint further Bishops. What do Mormons expect these communities to do? Appoint no one as a new Bishop? That's apparently it because you need Apostolic approval. Oh but wait, God stopped sending Apostles to earth, therefore there could be no legitimate Bishop. Therefore what? Assuming they knew God's rules what should they have done since God had stopped sending them Prophets and Apostles? Just fade into nothingness? Let the teaching they had received die with them? It's utterly baffling that they should have to face such a thing to begin with.

This of course implies that these early communities knew the Mormon standards for appointing Bishops and given that we see no knowledge of this by the second century Church I'm inclined to not take the Mormon reasoning here very seriously. Why would the Apostles even bother setting up communities that they knew would fail within a single generation? All their labour, wasted. Would have been better had the Apostles done nothing, at least then they wouldn't have laid the foundation for the world's largest false religion.

Peter1000 · Dec 7, 2020

chevyontheriver said:
That's easy. We are one Church with the same sacraments. We are undergoing a squabble that's gone on for a long time but we do not have an excommunication in effect against the Orthodox.

And how many versions of Mormon are there out there? Which is correct? You obviously don't accept any of the others, but do they accept you?

You are obviously not one church. Google any sight about the differences between Catholic and Orthodox and you will find many, many differences.

One interesting thing is the Catholics believe in developing doctrines, where the orthodox believe only what the bible says. I thought that was interesting in that you said the Catholic do not believe in developing doctrines, but believe that public revelation has ceased. Interesting. Don't know who to believe now.

Believe me if they were one church, it would be a lot different than it is today.
If they were one church they would both believe in the exact same things. They certainly do not. So don't kid yourself, even for argument sakes.

So it brings us to the question again, which church does Jesus recognize as his true church?

chevyontheriver · Dec 7, 2020

Peter1000 said:
You are obviously not one church. Google any sight about the differences between Catholic and Orthodox and you will find many, many differences.

Many slight differences. Also major compatibility.

One interesting thing is the Catholics believe in developing doctrines, where the orthodox believe only what the bible says. I thought that was interesting in that you said the Catholic do not believe in developing doctrines, but believe that public revelation has ceased. Interesting. Don't know who to believe now.

Catholics DO believe in the development of doctrine. But not the development from nothing at all or the development into something contrary. Nor any new public revelation. Oh, and the Orthodox believe in Tradition and not just what the Bible has to say by it's lonesome. I thought you would have known that the Orthodox and Catholics both reject Sola Scriptura.

Believe me if they were one church, it would be a lot different than it is today.
If they were one church they would both believe in the exact same things. They certainly do not. So don't kid yourself, even for argument sakes.

Same Sacraments. No kidding.

dzheremi · Dec 7, 2020

Peter1000 said:
So it brings us to the question again, which church does Jesus recognize as his true church?

The answer, whether you ask Orthodox, Catholic, Protestant, or Nestorian, is NOT Mormonism.

And when people who have not agreed with one another in at least 1,589 years (the Nestorians were out of communion following the Council of Ephesus in 431 AD) all agree that your religion is false, maybe you should stop trying to appeal to the differences between them as though they in any way make your religion look any better or less untrue.

Peter1000 · Dec 7, 2020

Ignatius the Kiwi said:
I don't disagree with the Idea that the Apostles gave leaders of local communities the authority to decide on important matters within the Christian community. Saint Clement of Rome mentions as much in his Epistle to the Corinthians, that an Apostolic order was set by them for the good of the Church and that the Corinthians were undermining the Apostolic appointments by getting rid of their presbyters.

This is a good example of what happened in the apostasy. The Corinthian saints threw out their apostle ordained bishops and replaced them with their popular choice bishops.

This group of popular choice bishops had no keys of the kingdom and so their work was not recognized by heaven. No true work of the ministry.

So a false form of religion took over the true religion. Eventually that spread over the entire church. The false front being a little more glitzy, and ceremonious, with some major whistles and bells and thrones, and empires and such, was attractive to the people. They even had Jesus as the example and taught the sermon on the mount, but the keys were missing.

Like Jesus told JS, there was a form of godliness, but they denied the power thereof. Exactly. They had a form of religion and it has stood since 120, but they did not have the power of Jesus. (the keys of the kingdom of God) So fairly early on, Jesus allowed the churches their own form as they wished, but moved into his alternative plan, and all will be fine. All will still be saved who do as Jesus commands.

And I will add that, God has had to move to his alternative plan many times throughout history. Let me give you a coupe of examples.
Enoch walked and talked with God and he built the city of Enoch. A beautiful city of love and the word of God. But not many years after Enoch, God had to change plans, and go to an alternative plan. He had to destroyed all life on the earth, move them all to the spirit world and teach the innocent there, where they would not be under the influence of the dire environment that they were on earth. They could then be baptized and receive other saving ordinances by proxy.

Another example is the children of Israel. They almost totally rejected Jesus as their God and so he rejected them. He move them to his alternative plan and allowed the false religion to move forward on earth, but when they died, they were taught the truth, and would receive all the saving ordinances by proxy.

So Gods alternative plan is a good plan that has save billions of people into his kingdom. The work of the dead is such an essential work that Jesus even said if it was not done, he would have to smite the earth with a curse:
Malachi 4:5-6 King James Version (KJV)
5 Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the Lord.
6 And he shall turn the heart of the fathers to the children, and the heart of the children to their fathers, lest I come and smite the earth with a curse.

The turning of the fathers to the children, and the hearts of the children to the father is "the work for the dead". Our hearts are turned to our forefathers who have passed away, we find their names and all we can about them, and then we do the saving ordinances for them by proxy. They turn their hearts to us and help us find them and take care of them. That is why I say it is the most spiritual work you will do because our fathers are reaching through the vail to provide us with information about them, and there are many spiritual moments when we find information that has been lost for centuries about a particular person, but then is found.

So come to understand the alternative method of salvation, you will find a rich spiritual experience.

Peter1000 · Dec 7, 2020

dzheremi said:
The answer, whether you ask Orthodox, Catholic, Protestant, or Nestorian, is NOT Mormonism.

And when people who have not agreed with one another in at least 1,589 years (the Nestorians were out of communion following the Council of Ephesus in 431 AD) all agree that your religion is false, maybe you should stop trying to appeal to the differences between them as though they in any way make your religion look any better or less untrue.

I will agree with you that you do not thing the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the true church, but that is not what I was asking.

Which church between the Catholic and the Orthodox is the true church?

Ignatius the Kiwi · Dec 7, 2020

Peter1000 said:
This is a good example of what happened in the apostasy. The Corinthian saints threw out their apostle ordained bishops and replaced them with their popular choice bishops.

This group of popular choice bishops had no keys of the kingdom and so their work was not recognized by heaven. No true work of the ministry.

So a false form of religion took over the true religion. Eventually that spread over the entire church. The false front being a little more glitzy, and ceremonious, with some major whistles and bells and thrones, and empires and such, was attractive to the people. They even had Jesus as the example and taught the sermon on the mount, but the keys were missing.

Like Jesus told JS, there was a form of godliness, but they denied the power thereof. Exactly. They had a form of religion and it has stood since 120, but they did not have the power of Jesus. (the keys of the kingdom of God) So fairly early on, Jesus allowed the churches their own form as they wished, but moved into his alternative plan, and all will be fine. All will still be saved who do as Jesus commands.

And I will add that, God has had to move to his alternative plan many times throughout history. Let me give you a coupe of examples.
Enoch walked and talked with God and he built the city of Enoch. A beautiful city of love and the word of God. But not many years after Enoch, God had to change plans, and go to an alternative plan. He had to destroyed all life on the earth, move them all to the spirit world and teach the innocent there, where they would not be under the influence of the dire environment that they were on earth. They could then be baptized and receive other saving ordinances by proxy.

Another example is the children of Israel. They almost totally rejected Jesus as their God and so he rejected them. He move them to his alternative plan and allowed the false religion to move forward on earth, but when they died, they were taught the truth, and would receive all the saving ordinances by proxy.

So Gods alternative plan is a good plan that has save billions of people into his kingdom. The work of the dead is such an essential work that Jesus even said if it was not done, he would have to smite the earth with a curse:
Malachi 4:5-6 King James Version (KJV)
5 Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the Lord.
6 And he shall turn the heart of the fathers to the children, and the heart of the children to their fathers, lest I come and smite the earth with a curse.

The turning of the fathers to the children, and the hearts of the children to the father is "the work for the dead". Our hearts are turned to our forefathers who have passed away, we find their names and all we can about them, and then we do the saving ordinances for them by proxy. They turn their hearts to us and help us find them and take care of them. That is why I say it is the most spiritual work you will do because our fathers are reaching through the vail to provide us with information about them, and there are many spiritual moments when we find information that has been lost for centuries about a particular person, but then is found.

So come to understand the alternative method of salvation, you will find a rich spiritual experience.

Did it spread over time to the whole Church? We don't even know what happened in the Corinthian Church, whether or not they accepted the church of Rome's advice to reinstate their elders. A Mormon system doesn't solve the ultimate problem of what these communities should have done without the presence of an Apostle to legally appoint more Bishops.

Let's suppose the Corinthians appointed those presbyters back on the advice of Clement. Those Presbyters died. Now the Corinthian community has to do what exactly? There are no more Apostles. Therefore, they cannot appoint leaders over their communities. What should they have done? This goes for all Churches everywhere. At a certain point Apostolically appointed leaders will die out. It wasn't a case that each and every Church threw out their Apostolic leaders. Even Clement was ordained locally by the Church of Rome. Was his Episcopate totally illegitimate because he was not ordained by the Apostles directly? But rather was in continuation of the line of Bishops of Rome?

Just look at what he says about the appointment of Bishops:

"1 Our Apostles also knew, through our Lord Jesus Christ, that there would be contention over the bishop’s office. 2 So, for this cause, having received complete foreknowledge, they appointed the above-mentioned men, and afterwards gave them a permanent character, so that, as they died, other approved men should succeed to their ministry. 3 Those, therefore, who were appointed by the Apostles or afterwards by other eminent men, with the consent of the whole Church, and who ministered blamelessly to the flock of Christ in humility, peaceably and nobly, being commended for many years by all—these men we consider are not justly deposed from their ministry.

Francis X. Glimm, “The Letter of St. Clement of Rome to the Corinthians,” in The Apostolic Fathers, trans. Francis X. Glimm, Joseph M.-F. Marique, and Gerald G. Walsh, vol. 1, The Fathers of the Church (Washington, DC: The Catholic University of America Press, 1947), 43–44."

Either Clement was handed down a false tradition or this is the legitimate tradition of the Apostles. As a Mormon I think you have to say the former but it still begs the question. What was the Church to do given God's complete abandonment of the people in appointing necessary leaders to continually guide them? You keep saying this isn't abandonment. But what else is when God not only leaves the 99 sheep behind also completely leaves the 1 sheep out in the wild?

Peter1000 · Dec 7, 2020

chevyontheriver said:
Many slight differences. Also major compatibility.

Catholics DO believe in the development of doctrine. But not the development from nothing at all or the development into something contrary. Nor any new public revelation. Oh, and the Orthodox believe in Tradition and not just what the Bible has to say by it's lonesome. I thought you would have known that the Orthodox and Catholics both reject Sola Scriptura.

Same Sacraments. No kidding.

The most important sacrament, is the Lords supper or the Eucharist.
Both the Catholic and the Orthodox do this sacrament, but the Catholic give the recipient the bread only and then the priest drinks the wine for the recipients once. I think that is to save on the cost of wine.
The Orthodox has a mixture of bread and wine and the recipient goes to the priest and receives a spoonful of the mixture.

The literature of the Eucharist is different too. So yes, same sacrament, but different words and different method of preforming it. So in truth, not the same sacrament. I suspect the other same sacraments can be analyzed with the same conclusion.

Again, that is why I would expect them not to be one church. So when one is the true church of Jesus Christ? I know you don't want to answer that question, but if you were truthful with yourself you would have to say the Catholici church is the true church of God. So just say it.

Peter1000 · Dec 7, 2020

Ignatius the Kiwi said:
Did it spread over time to the whole Church? We don't even know what happened in the Corinthian Church, whether or not they accepted the church of Rome's advice to reinstate their elders. A Mormon system doesn't solve the ultimate problem of what these communities should have done without the presence of an Apostle to legally appoint more Bishops.

Let's suppose the Corinthians appointed those presbyters back on the advice of Clement. Those Presbyters died. Now the Corinthian community has to do what exactly? There are no more Apostles. Therefore, they cannot appoint leaders over their communities. What should they have done? This goes for all Churches everywhere. At a certain point Apostolically appointed leaders will die out. It wasn't a case that each and every Church threw out their Apostolic leaders. Even Clement was ordained locally by the Church of Rome. Was his Episcopate totally illegitimate because he was not ordained by the Apostles directly? But rather was in continuation of the line of Bishops of Rome?

Just look at what he says about the appointment of Bishops:

"1 Our Apostles also knew, through our Lord Jesus Christ, that there would be contention over the bishop’s office. 2 So, for this cause, having received complete foreknowledge, they appointed the above-mentioned men, and afterwards gave them a permanent character, so that, as they died, other approved men should succeed to their ministry. 3 Those, therefore, who were appointed by the Apostles or afterwards by other eminent men, with the consent of the whole Church, and who ministered blamelessly to the flock of Christ in humility, peaceably and nobly, being commended for many years by all—these men we consider are not justly deposed from their ministry.

Francis X. Glimm, “The Letter of St. Clement of Rome to the Corinthians,” in The Apostolic Fathers, trans. Francis X. Glimm, Joseph M.-F. Marique, and Gerald G. Walsh, vol. 1, The Fathers of the Church (Washington, DC: The Catholic University of America Press, 1947), 43–44."

Either Clement was handed down a false tradition or this is the legitimate tradition of the Apostles. As a Mormon I think you have to say the former but it still begs the question. What was the Church to do given God's complete abandonment of the people in appointing necessary leaders to continually guide them? You keep saying this isn't abandonment. But what else is when God not only leaves the 99 sheep behind also completely leaves the 1 sheep out in the wild?

I answered this question in post 371. A form of godliness was established, but it was only the form. It had not the power to do the work of the ministry. And so the Lord allowed the form to move forward, but moved to his alternative plan, once again. And it worked once again.

chevyontheriver · Dec 7, 2020

Peter1000 said:
The most important sacrament, is the Lords supper or the Eucharist.
Both the Catholic and the Orthodox do this sacrament, but the Catholic give the recipient the bread only and then the priest drinks the wine for the recipients once. I think that is to save on the cost of wine.
The Orthodox has a mixture of bread and wine and the recipient goes to the priest and receives a spoonful of the mixture.

I wish you knew more about what you were trying to say. It is painful to see your misconceptions.

Catholic liturgies can and often do include both elements of the Eucharist. Before Covid I regularly received both species of the Eucharist in a Catholic church in communion with the bishop of the place. And I have received the Eucharist by intinction a few times. And the Eastern Catholic churches in communion with Rome would have their own ways, likely being exactly like the EO or OO do it. Now with Covid we do not have access to the cup for a while. And restricting the cup was not because wine was expensive but to control disease.

The literature of the Eucharist is different too. So yes, same sacrament, but different words and different method of preforming it. So in truth, not the same sacrament. I suspect the other same sacraments can be analyzed with the same conclusion.

Different languages. Tiny variations. Being the central sacrament of Christianity we are extremely conservative in these things. If you want a comprehensive history of Catholic liturgy see Josef Jungmann's 'Mass of the Roman Rite' to see how the Roman canon evolved. Only a tiny variation, and by no means a vital variation going all the way back to Hippolytus when the liturgy in Rome was Greek. Learn before pontificating.

Are Mormons still using bread and water? Not wine but water? That would be a good indicator that there is a major difference between us traditional Christians and the Mormons. We insist on wine, real wine, not grape juice or coffee or water or whatever. No self respecting traditional Christian would be caught dead with just water for the Eucharist. In fact to use just water would make it a fake Eucharist.

Again, that is why I would expect them not to be one church. So when one is the true church of Jesus Christ? I know you don't want to answer that question, but if you were truthful with yourself you would have to say the Catholici church is the true church of God. So just say it.

I don't have the tendency to compile a list of enemies and put the Orthodox on it. Their Church Fathers are my Church Fathers. Their Scripture is my Scripture. Their sacraments are my sacraments. Their spiritualities are valid spiritualities. In the middle ages we drifted apart mostly because travel was hard in the middle ages and some of the wonderful Roman roads had fallen into disrepair. Latins forgot Greek and Greeks forgot Latin. Considering that the remarkable thing is how we still believe the same thing almost universally.

I know you want to drive a wedge between the Catholics and the EO and the OO. Somehow that makes you feel better I guess. But the practical matter is there isn't much of a place to drive a wedge in. We recognize their bishops, we recognize their sacraments, their old saints are our saints, their old martyrs are our martyrs, their Bible is our Bible. If we would go into one of their churches we would genuflect and look for the holy water font with which to cross ourselves. We are brothers who fight. Your positions are not even recognizable as Christian positions.

chevyontheriver · Dec 7, 2020

Peter1000 said:
I answered this question in post 371. A form of godliness was established, but it was only the form. It had not the power to do the work of the ministry. And so the Lord allowed the form to move forward, but moved to his alternative plan, once again. And it worked once again.

You didn't provide any actual history in that reply.

BigDaddy4 · Dec 7, 2020

Peter1000 said:
So which is the true church, the Catholic or the Orthodox? You cannot tell me that they are both true. Jesus would not have 2 true churches, but with different competing doctrines, with 2 competing organizations, and the 2 not even willing to have communion one with another, would he???

So which one is the true church?

Which one of the churches in Revelation 2 & 3 was the "true" church? What about the church at Antioch? Or Corinth? Or...?

The concept of a "true" church is a man made construct. Jesus knows who is his and who isn't, regardless of church affiliation or place of worship.

dzheremi · Dec 7, 2020

Peter1000 said:
I will agree with you that you do not thing the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the true church, but that is not what I was asking.

Which church between the Catholic and the Orthodox is the true church?

I'm not playing your game, Peter. I've told you what the answer is, in this very thread, as recently as Thursday.

Please pay attention to what has already been offered in answer to your question(s).

He is the way · Dec 7, 2020

chevyontheriver said:
I wish you knew more about what you were trying to say. It is painful to see your misconceptions.

Catholic liturgies can and often do include both elements of the Eucharist. Before Covid I regularly received both species of the Eucharist in a Catholic church in communion with the bishop of the place. And I have received the Eucharist by intinction a few times. And the Eastern Catholic churches in communion with Rome would have their own ways, likely being exactly like the EO or OO do it. Now with Covid we do not have access to the cup for a while. And restricting the cup was not because wine was expensive but to control disease.

Different languages. Tiny variations. Being the central sacrament of Christianity we are extremely conservative in these things. If you want a comprehensive history of Catholic liturgy see Josef Jungmann's 'Mass of the Roman Rite' to see how the Roman canon evolved. Only a tiny variation, and by no means a vital variation going all the way back to Hippolytus when the liturgy in Rome was Greek. Learn before pontificating.

Are Mormons still using bread and water? Not wine but water? That would be a good indicator that there is a major difference between us traditional Christians and the Mormons. We insist on wine, real wine, not grape juice or coffee or water or whatever. No self respecting traditional Christian would be caught dead with just water for the Eucharist. In fact to use just water would make it a fake Eucharist.

I don't have the tendency to compile a list of enemies and put the Orthodox on it. Their Church Fathers are my Church Fathers. Their Scripture is my Scripture. Their sacraments are my sacraments. Their spiritualities are valid spiritualities. In the middle ages we drifted apart mostly because travel was hard in the middle ages and some of the wonderful Roman roads had fallen into disrepair. Latins forgot Greek and Greeks forgot Latin. Considering that the remarkable thing is how we still believe the same thing almost universally.

I know you want to drive a wedge between the Catholics and the EO and the OO. Somehow that makes you feel better I guess. But the practical matter is there isn't much of a place to drive a wedge in. We recognize their bishops, we recognize their sacraments, their old saints are our saints, their old martyrs are our martyrs, their Bible is our Bible. If we would go into one of their churches we would genuflect and look for the holy water font with which to cross ourselves. We are brothers who fight. Your positions are not even recognizable as Christian positions.

(Book of Mormon | Moroni 4:1 - 3)

1 THE manner of their elders and priests administering the flesh and blood of Christ unto the church; and they administered it according to the commandments of Christ; wherefore we know the manner to be true; and the elder or priest did minister it—
2 And they did kneel down with the church, and pray to the Father in the name of Christ, saying:
3 O God, the Eternal Father, we ask thee in the name of thy Son, Jesus Christ, to bless and sanctify this bread to the souls of all those who partake of it; that they may eat in remembrance of the body of thy Son, and witness unto thee, O God, the Eternal Father, that they are willing to take upon them the name of thy Son, and always remember him, and keep his commandments which he hath given them, that they may always have his Spirit to be with them. Amen.

(Book of Mormon | Moroni 5:1 - 2)

1 THE manner of administering the wine—Behold, they took the cup, and said:
2 O God, the Eternal Father, we ask thee, in the name of thy Son, Jesus Christ, to bless and sanctify this wine to the souls of all those who drink of it, that they may do it in remembrance of the blood of thy Son, which was shed for them; that they may witness unto thee, O God, the Eternal Father, that they do always remember him, that they may have his Spirit to be with them. Amen.

We can use water or wine.

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

It's a new season...

Well-Known Member

Coptic Orthodox non-Egyptian

Coptic Orthodox non-Egyptian

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Dissident

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Coptic Orthodox non-Egyptian

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Dissident

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

It's a new season...

Coptic Orthodox non-Egyptian

Well-Known Member

Similar threads