Points of division: Part I- Introduction

As I have thought about where I want to take this blog I have considered what sort of questions I should be asking, and of these questions which are the most important. In ruminating on this point it becomes obvious that the first thing to be done before continuing in my critique of specific Mormon and Catholic beliefs is to identify the most important differences between the faiths, since it is these differences that separate the two bodies. The following is a list of what I perceive to be the main differences between the LDS faith and traditional Christianity that also serves as an outline of posts to come. In these posts I will consider the different approaches each faith offers to these subjects and reveal what I believe to be the strengths and weaknesses of each respective approach.

Part II- the universe and its origin: This post will consider the ex nihilo (created from nothing) view of the universe held by Catholics (and most other contemporary Christians) and the LDS view that space, time, spiritual entities, and matter have always existed. The philosophical arguments pertaining to these views will be considered along with the historical understanding of the universe and its origins within Judaism and Christianity. Whether God created the universe has many further implications for issues such as the problem of evil.

Part III- God: Catholics view God as an unmoved mover that exists independent of space and time, whereas the LDS faith typically views God as a human being that has advanced to godhood. These views will be compared and critiqued.

Part IV- Heaven and Hell: Unlike the Catholic faith, which holds that human beings end up in either Heaven or Hell, members of the LDS faith tend to believe in an afterlife divided into three kingdoms, each better than our current existence, where humans will be assigned based on factors such as their acceptance of God and the choices they made as mortals; however, there has been wide speculation regarding the afterlife in Mormon thought.

The Catholic Claim to Apostolic Succession, and Catholic vs. LDS (Mormon) view of Apostolic Succession

I recently encountered an argument from an LDS blogger that, other than Matthias and possibly Paul, the original twelve apostles didn't ordain a next generation of twelve apostles at all since, according to his view, the bishops and priests ordained in the early church should not be seen as successors of the apostles. In this post I will assess the Catholic claim to unbroken apostolic authority by consider the argument from LDS sources noted above as well as the argument that valid apostolic succession did take place but at some point was severed.

What is apostolic authority?

The Catholic Church claims that, through St. Peter and the other apostles, Christ established a special apostolic authority for acting in his name for the preservation and growth of the Church. This authority includes binding and loosing, forgiving sins, and having power over demons (Matthew 16:19, 18:18; Luke 9:1). The attribute of apostolic succession most relevant to this post is the ability to ordain others for the mission of the Church. This is seen in Paul's Message to Titus:

⁵ For this cause I left thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and shouldest ordain priests in every city, as I also appointed thee:

⁶ If any be without crime, the husband of one wife, having faithful children, not accused of riot, or unruly.

⁷ For a bishop must be without crime, as the steward of God: not proud, not subject to anger, not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre.

This ordination process involved the laying on of hands as it is still done today in multiple apostolic denominations (1 Tim. 4:14).

Evidence of continuity?

Note: The exact dates and chronological order of the books in the New Testament have been disputed. For my dates I am using this source.

One may concede that apostolic authority and succession was implemented by Christ, and further that there was a structure and hierarchy preserved by this authority, but they may question the Catholic Church's claim of unbroken continuity. There may have been a line of apostolic authority and succession that was established and continued for a generation or two, but how do we know it continued beyond that? To answer this question, let us consider the records we have and their respective dates:

2 Cor 1: 21-22 (57 AD): Paul speaks of being confirmed, anointed, and sealed.
Acts 1:20-26 (64 AD): Matthias is ordained to fill Judas' bishopric.
Acts 14:23 (64 AD): Speaks of presbyters (priests) being appointed to each church.
Titus 1:5 (65 AD): Paul instructs Titus to ordain priests and bishops in the cities of Crete.
1 Tim. 4:14 (65 AD): Ordination given "with imposition of hands of the priesthood."

Heb 7:23 (67 AD): Verse speaks of other priests being called to replace those who have died.

Clement (98 AD):

"And thus preaching through countries and cities, they appointed the first-fruits [of their labours], having first proved them by the Spirit, to be bishops and deacons of those who should afterwards believe. Nor was this any new thing, since indeed many ages before it was written concerning bishops and deacons. For thus saith the Scripture a certain place, 'I will appoint their bishops s in righteousness, and their deacons in faith.'... Our apostles also knew, through our Lord Jesus Christ, and there would be strife on account of the office of the episcopate. For this reason, therefore, inasmuch as they had obtained a perfect fore-knowledge of this, they appointed those [ministers] already mentioned, and afterwards gave instructions, that when these should fall asleep, other approved men should succeed them in their ministry...For our sin will not be small, if we eject from the episcopate those who have blamelessly and holily fulfilled its duties." Pope Clement, Epistle to Corinthians, 42, 44 (A.D. 98).

Ignatius (110 AD):

"For what is the bishop but one who beyond all others possesses all power and authority, so far as it is possible for a man to possess it, who according to his ability has been made an imitator of the Christ off God? And what is the presbytery but a sacred assembly, the counselors and assessors of the bishop? And what are the deacons but imitators of the angelic powers, fulfilling a pure and blameless ministry unto him, as…Anencletus and Clement to Peter?" Ignatius, To the Trallians, 7 (A.D. 110).

... and the list continues here if you are interested.

There is abundant evidence that an apostolic structure that began during the ministry of Christ continued long after his death and resurrection; however we must acknowledge that it is technically possible that somewhere along the line one of these bishops or priests wasn't validly ordained, but for apostolic continuity to be completely severed there would have to have been a complete disappearance of validly ordained clergy. Given the spread of Christianity into various regions, a complete disappearance of apostolic authority seems unlikely. Further, such an event would contradict Christ's promise that "... I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it," (Matt. 16:18) and "...behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world." Even if we disregard these verses, it is hard to believe God would establish an apostolic Church only to let it die.

Apostles aren't Bishops?

This is an argument I recently heard which is essentially that because the original apostles are only recorded as having ordained bishops, but not successors to fill the role of apostle, apostolic succession ceased. Underlying this argument is the idea that the early church had a priesthood office of "apostle" that was higher and distinct from that of bishop or priest. Put simply, apostolic succession stopped because the apostles ordained bishops, not apostles. However, there are two factors that I believe defeat this argument.

1. The idea that "bishop" and "apostle" are completely distinct from one another is refuted by Acts 1: 20, which states, referring to Judas ".. let his bishopric another take." Judas, who was an apostle, is also referred to as a bishop.

James, another of the original twelve apostles, is widely held to have been the first bishop of the Christian community in Jerusalem.

"...one cannot help but immediately focus on the figure of St. James the Just who, without question, functioned as the one-man monarchical leader of the Jerusalem city-church after the Apostles ceased to permanently reside there. Indeed, both Scripture and the universal witness of the Fathers illustrate this fact most clearly. For example, Eusebius of Caesarea, drawing from much earlier sources, directly states that the Apostles Peter, James [bar-Zebedee], and John appointed James the Just as the monarchical head ("bishop") of the Jerusalem city-church.

Similarly, in Galatians 2:12, as St. Paul complains about some Judaizing Christians from the church of Jerusalem, he does not say that these Jewish brethren came "from Jerusalem" or from "the presbyters of Jerusalem," but rather "from James" -- thus equating James with the church of Jerusalem itself. Also, in Acts 12:17, as Peter flees Jerusalem after his miraculous escape from prison, he does not command the local flock to "report this to the presbyters"; but instead directly says, "Report this to James," thereby revealing that James was the leading authority." (source)

2. This argument presupposes that, like bishop, apostle is a priesthood office. What is important to remember, however, is that the apostles were referred to as such prior to receiving priesthood authority; thus the word apostle cannot be necessarily tied to a priesthood office. The word apostle ("apostolos" in greek) means only "one who is sent." This definition is easily applied to both the original twelve apostles and the bishops and priests who were called and sent for the good of the Church.

Conclusion

There are a few instances where there are minor absences of evidence for apostolic succession when the record is silent for a few decades, but there exists no evidence of the absence of a continuing apostolic structure. Further, there is nothing to suggest that the office of bishop is wholly distinct from the roles held by the original twelve apostles. In fact, there is evidence that some of the original twelve apostles were bishops. The term "apostle," meaning "one who is sent," is applied equally to apostles, bishops, and priests alike. There is no evidence that apostolic succession was severed, or that apostolic succession necessarily required the apostles to ordain other men who carried the title "apostle." Having established that there did indeed exist a structure of apostolic succession and ordination in the early Christian Church, the onus of proof is on those who doubt the Church's claim to unbroken apostolic succession.

Update (8 March 2013): Last night I ran into a Lutheran friend of mine, and we got to talking about this subject. As a Lutheran (ELCA), he believes in baptism, the celebration of the eucharist, and a church hierarchy; however, he does not believe in apostolic succession. Instead, he informed me that Lutherans (ELCA) believe the pastor assigned to each church merely fills an employment position of sorts in the church structure. Thus a priest does not have to celebrate communion or be ordained by other priests, strictly speaking. I thought I would consider this claim by examining the New Testament and Early Church Fathers along with the other claims already considered.

(My Friend's) Lutheran View of Apostolic Succession 

First off, it is important to note that there is no uniform view of apostolic succession among Lutherans. Many churches in Scandinavia still hold apostolic succession as important and trace their authority back through pre-Reformation bishops. Therefore I will only be considering my friend's view of apostolic succession, being that it is unnecessary.

Power to Bind and Loose

In Matt. 16:19, Christ gives unto St. Peter the power to bind and loose, meaning that if he establishes something or discontinues something on earth it will also be so in heaven. Further, John 20:21-23 speaks of Christ sending his apostles and giving them authority to forgive or not forgive sins. If we do not understand this authority in the sense that apostolic churches understand it, as a priesthood authority, how else might we understand it?

Perhaps we could hold that the powers to bind, loose, and forgive sins belongs to the priesthood of all believers. This would mean than anyone who is a Christian possesses these powers. This poses a problem: what if some Christians want to bind, for instance, the admittance of women to the priesthood and other Christians are opposed to this binding? Who would have the final say? Perhaps we can conclude that when Christ told St. Peter that he would give him the power to bind, loose, and forgive he intended it to be a power of consensus by which Christians can vote on issues and make them official doctrines. It is important to acknowledge, however, that any time Christ speaks of giving authority to someone it is restricted to one or all of the apostles, not all believers.

While I believe the evidence up to this point remains in favor of the importance of apostolic succession it is not conclusive. Moving on, then, the next question to consider is whether the New Testament ever states that priests must receive authority from one already imbued with apostolic authority. In Ephesians 2:19-20, Paul speaks to the local community, saying "...you are fellow citizens with the saints, and the domestics of God, built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone." This verse, along with Matt. 16:18-19, does imply that the church is founded upon the apostles to whom Christ gave special authority, but it may simply be interpreted to mean that Christianity is built upon the tradition preserved and declared by apostles and prophets. A reality that is difficult to overlook is that in every instant where someone is baptized, given the holy spirit, or given the authority to do these things it is done by Christ, the apostles, or one given authority from the apostles, such as Titus and Timothy (Acts 8:14-24; 1 Tim. 4:14, Titus 1:5).

The Old Testament further reveals a priesthood, established by God through Moses, that was exclusive and hierarchical as is the apostolic priesthood today (Exodus 18:25-26, 40:15; Numbers 3:3, 16:40, 27:18-20; Deut. 34:9).

Aside from the Bible, the Early writings of the Church Fathers reveal that apostolic succession and the episcopal structure of the Church was uncontroversial, and the very method by which one's authority was judged, as is demonstrated by this passage from Tertullian:

But if there be any (heresies) which are bold enough to plant themselves in the midst Of the apostolic age, that they may thereby seem to have been handed down by the apostles, because they existed in the time of the apostles, we can say: Let them produce the original records of their churches; let them unfold the roll of their bishops, running down in due succession from the beginning in such a manner that [that first bishop of theirs] bishop shall be able to show for his ordainer and predecessor some one of the apostles or of apostolic men,--a man, moreover, who continued steadfast with the apostles. …To this test, therefore will they be submitted for proof by those churches, who, although they derive not their founder from apostles or apostolic men (as being of much later date, for they are in fact being founded daily), yet, since they agree in the same faith, they are accounted as not less apostolic because they are akin in doctrine…Then let all the heresies, when challenged to these two tests by our apostolic church, offer their proof of how they deem themselves to be apostolic. But in truth they neither are so, nor are they able to prove themselves to be what they are not. Nor are they admitted to peaceful relations and communion by such churches as are in any way connected with apostles, inasmuch as they are in no sense themselves apostolic because of their diversity as to the mysteries of the faith." Tertullian, Prescription against the Heretics, 33 (A.D. 200).

and further in this passage:

"Therefore the power of remitting sins was given to the apostles, and to the churches which they, sent by Christ, established, and to the bishops who succeeded to them by vicarious ordination." Firmilian, To Cyprian, Epistle 75[74]:16 (A.D. 256). 

There are many more passages such as these that can be accessed here and here.

Conclusion

There are many implicit evidences of apostolic succession found in the New Testament, such as priesthood authority being exercised only by the apostles and their successors. Further, the apostolic model of priesthood authority is akin to the Levitical priesthood structure found in the Pentateuch (first 5 books of Old Testament). Finally, the writings of the Early Church Fathers, as early as the first century, clearly show a Christian church that fully accepted the episcopal structure and the importance of apostolic continuity. Any Christian, or Christian body, that denies the importance of apostolic authority and continuity stands against the evidence presented by the early Church. 

Why only Catholicism and Mormonism: Pt. IV- Why Catholicism?

Note: Because I will compare Catholicism and Mormonism in much more detail, this post is concerned only with the validity and truth claims those Christian faiths that claim to have unbroken apostolic succession back to the original twelve disciples.

Even having determined that Christianity is true, and that apostolic Christianity is the most reliable and reasonable of Christian models, it remains to be seen which of the bodies claiming to have valid apostolic succession is the most true, all parts considered.

I have found that when approaching such an important and complex question it is very important to employ the various methods by which truth claims may be assessed (for example, history and philosophy), and to consider only the best arguments each side has to offer, since to do otherwise would be intellectually dishonest. As an example of why it is important to employ more than one method for determining truth, let us consider a crime scene:

In a third story Cleveland penthouse a man has been found dead with a large bruise on his head and a heavy metal pipe a few meters away from his corpse. Aside from this head wound, he appears to have been in good health. The detectives assigned to the scene, having only external data to speculate about how this man died, think it obvious that it was the impact from the metal pipe to the head that killed him. Following standard procedure, the corpse is eventually taken to the forensics experts where the body is not just examined externally, but through medical tests as well. These medical tests reveal that the bruise on the man's head was a week old at the time of his death, and that the actual cause of death was poisoning. 

As in this story, if one utilizes only one method of investigation they may not see the whole picture, and what they believe to be true, even with reason, may be erroneous.

The four major branches of self-identifying as apostolic today are the Catholic Communion, Eastern Orthodox Communion, Oriental Orthodox Communion, and the Anglican Communion. I have spent time worshiping with, and have seriously considered all but the Oriental Orthodox tradition, which I have studied briefly, and while I believe it is important to learn about these traditions I do not think it is necessary to do an exhaustive study of each body to discern which has the best claim to truth. Instead I propose that this determination can be made by addressing two questions: 1) Which of these traditions best fits the Biblical narrative, evidence, and other early Christian records (history)? 2) Which of these traditions offers the best explanatory power of the human condition, and the best philosophical and moral tradition (philosophy and theology)?

1. The question of whether evidence for the apostolic structure could be found in the Bible was addressed in my previous post (see here). Evidence from the Bible alone doesn't seem to support any of these traditions above the other. All believe in the church structure, method of priestly ordination, and method by which this ordination takes place in the New Testament. There is one exception to this apparent equality of support. In Matthew 16:18-19, a verse that has been heavily debated among Christians and biblical scholars, Christ singles out Simon Peter:

¹⁸ And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.¹⁹ And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.

Members of the Roman Catholic Church typically points to these verses above all others as evidence of their claim that the Bishop of Rome, who is the successor of St. Peter, holds primacy above all other bishops, and additionally an infallibility for the purpose of clarifying and preserving doctrine. The objections to this argument have been various. Some Orthodox Christians acknowledge, for instance, that Peter is indeed the rock upon which Christ establishes his church, and he does indeed hold a primacy among bishops, but he is not infallible. Others deny that Peter is the rock at all. However, considering the linguistic background of this passage, and further, what it clearly seems to be saying, it seems that Peter is indeed the rock to which Christ is referring. Martin Luther himself states:

Why are you searching heavenward in search of my keys? Do you not understand, Jesus said, 'I gave them to Peter. They are indeed the keys of heaven, but they are not found in heaven for I left them on earth. Peter's mouth is my mouth, his tongue is my key case, his keys are my keys. They are an office. They are a power, a command given by God through Christ to all of Christendom for the retaining and remitting of the sins of men. (Martin Luther 1530 - after he left the Church)

And further, the Protestant biblical scholar W.F. Albright states the following: "Peter as the Rock will be the foundation of the future community, the church....To deny the pre-eminent position of Peter among the disciples or in the early Christian community is a denial of the evidence."  

While the Greek translation of Matthew 16:18-19 does indeed use two different forms of the word rock (the masculine Petros for Simon Peter and the feminine petra for "rock"), it is important to remember that Jesus spoke Aramaic, and there is no such masculine-feminine distinction for the word "rock", which in Aramaic is "Keepa." (see Aramaic translation here)

There are also various instances in which the Early Church Fathers identify Peter as the rock and foundation of the Church. Here are just three early examples:

"Was anything hid from Peter, who was called the Rock, whereon the Church was built; who obtained the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, and the power of loosing and of binding in heaven and on earth?" (Tertullian, De Praescript Haeret. 220 AD).

"There is one God and one Christ and but one episcopal chair, originally founded on Peter, by the Lord's authority. There cannot, therefore, be set up another altar or another priesthood. Whatever any man in his rage or rashness shall appoint, in defiance of the divine institution, must be a spurious, profane and sacrilegious ordinance" (St. Cyprian, The Unity of the Catholic Church. 246 AD) 

"Peter, also to whom the Lord commends His sheep to be fed and guarded, on whom He laid the foundation of the Church ...." (Cyprian, De Habitu Virg. 246 AD). 

The evidence demonstrates that Peter held at least a primacy among the original twelve apostles. For further reading on this topic, see the following links:

Was Peter the Rock? The "little rock, big rock" theory.
"Is St. Peter the Rock on which Jesus built his Church?" by Jimmy Akin

While the above evidence does seem to give support to the claims of the church of Rome, it must be acknowledged, as many non-Catholic Christians claim, that this primacy may have been different than what the Roman Catholic Church claims it to be. Thus more historical evidence is needed to assess the claims of Rome. Here is an interesting article called "How the Robber Council Establishes the Papacy" written by Joe Heschmeyer that provides such evidence.

2. Lets suppose that the biblical and historical evidence is inconclusive and we are left still unsure of which apostolic tradition is true. What signposts could we then look for? This is where I believe we should consider how each tradition has preserved its doctrines and the philosophical and moral foundations the church is founded upon.

Of all the faiths here being considered, I believe the Roman Catholic faith has been more unwavering and constant in its doctrines. It is important to keep in mind that there may be times when such a change is necessary.Going forward, then, I will briefly consider a few changes and preservation that have taken place in Christendom to determine whether such changes to or preservation of doctrine give credibility to one of the bodies we are considering over the others.

Until the Lambeth Conference of 1930 there existed agreement among the apostolic churches on three major issues: 1) the use of contraception is immoral 2) Priests are to be men, and 3) The Eucharist is the actual body and blood of Christ. However, the Anglican communion at this conference reversed 1900 years of Christian tradition by declaring that birth control could be used in limited circumstances. Since this time the Eastern Orthodox Church has taken a somewhat ambiguous stance. Rather than explicitly condoning or forbidding the faithful to use contraception, they instead hold that it is between a married couple and their priest as to whether the use of artificial contraception is permissible. Thus in one parish contraception may be forbidden, while in the parish in the next town over it is permitted. The Roman Catholic Church and Oriental Orthodox Communion maintain their opposition to contraception. Let us look at what earlier Christian figures have had to say about contraception:

Clement of Alexandria

"Because of its divine institution for the propagation of man, the seed is not to be vainly ejaculated, nor is it to be damaged, nor is it to be wasted" (The Instructor of Children 2:10:91:2 [A.D. 191]). 

Epiphanius of Salamis

"They [certain Egyptian heretics] exercise genital acts, yet prevent the conceiving of children. Not in order to produce offspring, but to satisfy lust, are they eager for corruption" (Medicine Chest Against Heresies 26:5:2 [A.D. 375]).  

Augustine

"This proves that you [Manicheans] approve of having a wife, not for the procreation of children, but for the gratification of passion. In marriage, as the marriage law declares, the man and woman come together for the procreation of children. Therefore, whoever makes the procreation of children a greater sin than copulation, forbids marriage and makes the woman not a wife but a mistress, who for some gifts presented to her is joined to the man to gratify his passion" (The Morals of the Manichees 18:65 [A.D. 388]). 

John Calvin

It is a horrible thing to pour out seed besides the intercourse of man and woman. Deliberately avoiding the intercourse, so that the seed drops on the ground, is double horrible. For this means that one quenches the hope of his family and kills the son, which could be expected, before he is born. This wickedness is now as severely as is possible condemned by the Spirit, through Moses, that Onan, as it were, through a violent and untimely birth, tore away the seed of his brother out the womb, and as cruel as shamefully has thrown on the earth. Moreover he thus has, as much as was in his power, tried to destroy a part of the human race. When a woman in some way drives away the seed out the womb, through aids, then this is rightly seen as an unforgivable crime. Onan was guilty of a similar crime. (Calvin’s Commentary on Genesis, vol. 2, part 16)

Martin Luther

“[T]he exceedingly foul deed of Onan, the basest of wretches . . . is a most disgraceful sin. It is far more atrocious than incest and adultery. We call it unchastity, yes, a sodomitic sin. For Onan goes in to her—that is, he lies with her and copulates—and, when it comes to the point of insemination, spills the semen, lest the woman conceive. Surely at such a time the order of nature established by God in procreation should be followed. Accordingly, it was a most disgraceful crime. . . . Consequently, he deserved to be killed by God. He committed an evil deed. Therefore, God punished him” (Luther’s Commentary on Genesis)

 While there is clear evidence that, for the large part of Christian history, contraceptive sex has been seen as immoral, one may argue (and many do) that such perspectives are archaic and do not apply to the modern world in which we live. To assess the strength of this modern objection we should consider the foundations upon which such arguments are built. Because the contraception debate is an entire series of posts in and of itself I will, for the time being, let minds better than mine make the case against contraception:

Why Contraception Is a Bad Idea #1 — Natural Law
"Contraception and Chastity" by Elizabeth Anscombe

For the purpose of this post here it is only necessary to note that for most of the Christian tradition, contraception was seen as immoral, and there are still persuasive arguments to be made against it.

An issue just as controversial (perhaps more so)  in modern Christendom is that of female ordination. Like contraception, it true that only until the last century, priests in the apostolic traditions had only been men, and this tradition continues in the Catholic and Orthodox traditions. Thus the Anglican communion has tradition working against it. However, as has been previously stated, it is theoretically possible that tradition can be wrong on such matters, and to determine whether a male only priesthood is justified it is important to consider the underlying arguments.

Proponents of female ordination seem to believe the only relevant question is whether or not women can perform equally as well the duties of the priesthood. Even Catholics and Orthodox Christians will acknowledge that from a certain perspective the answer is clearly yes. For instance, women can love Christ, parishioners, recite prayers and verses just as well as men. If factors such as these were the only requirements for the priesthood, then Catholic, Orthodox, and any other religious body restricting the priesthood to males alone would be in the wrong. However, there is a way and which women are not qualified to be priests. Simply put, they are not men. Just as only men have the necessary properties to be fathers, so to do only men have the necessary properties to be priestly fathers. This claim acknowledges the important metaphysical distinction between the masculine and feminine, which holds that there are more differences between men and women than just their physical characteristics. Peter Kreeft touches on this point in this article, stating:

Advocates of women's ordination usually misunderstand sexual symbolism because they misunderstand symbolism itself as radically as they misunderstand authority. They think of symbols as man-made and artificial. They do not see that there are profound and unchangeable natural symbols, that things can be signs. Saint Thomas Aquinas based his multiple method of scriptural exegesis on this eminently sound but tragically forgotten principle. He writes: "The author of Holy Writ is God, in whose power it is to signify His meaning, not by words only (as man also can do) but also by things themselves. So whereas in every other science things are signified by words, this science [sacred science] has the property that the things signified by the words [of Scripture] have themselves a signification. Therefore that first signification, whereby words signify things, belongs to the first sense, the historical or literal. That signification whereby things signified by words have themselves a signification is called the spiritual sense, which is based on the literal and presupposes it."

The notable C.S. Lewis continues on a similar note, stating:

Why should a woman not in this [priestly] sense represent God?... Suppose the reformer stops saying that a good woman may be like God and begins saying that God is like a good woman. Suppose he says that we might just as well pray to 'Our Mother which art in Heaven' as to 'Our Father'. Suppose he suggests that the Incarnation might just as well have taken a female as a male form, and the Second Person of the Trinity be as well called the Daughter as the Son. Suppose, finally, that the mystical marriage were reversed, that the Church were the Bridegroom and Christ the Bride. All this, as it seems to me, is involved in the claim that a woman can represent God as a priest does.... ...Christians think that God Himself has taught us how to speak of Him. To say that it does not matter is to say... that all the masculine imagery is not inspired, is merely human in origin... And this is surely intolerable: or, if tolerable, it is an argument not in favour of Christian priestesses but against Christianity.... It is also surely based on a shallow view of imagery.... ...One of the ends for which sex was created was to symbolize to us the hidden things of God. One of the functions of human marriage is to express the nature of the union between Christ and the Church.

It seems that what C.S. Lewis is touching on is exactly what is occurring in protestant Christendom. A movement that began with an idea that a male priesthood, ban on contraceptives, and sacraments are necessary disregarded a male only priesthood and contraceptive ban because these things didn't make sense to the post-enlightenment mind. This has paved the way for Christians to discard any tradition that can't be understood through the lens of modernity, even to the point where clergy are able to remain in good standing while denying the divinity of Christ or the existence of God altogether. What has replaced a Christianity that calls followers to take up their cross and suffer has been replaced with a religion of hedonism.



For more on why only men ought to be priests, see the following:
Why The Catholic Priesthood Is Composed of Dudes
"WHY WOMEN CAN'T BE PRIESTS" by Mary DeTurris

I believe that the Roman Catholic Church has the best claim to truth because I believe it has best maintained the Christian tradition. I believe that the office held by the Bishop of Rome provides the best answer to the question of how true doctrine is to be known and preserved. Further, I believe along with the Roman Catholic Church that the Church should not get with the times, but that the times should conform to the Church. It is an unwavering pillar of truth in a world of relativism.

Orthodoxy has thus far maintained much good in it. It retains valid ordination, valid sacraments, and promotes virtuous behavior. However, beyond separating itself from Rome, Eastern Orthodoxy has partially succumbed to modernity by holding that, in some instances, contraception is permissible. Further, I enjoy that as a Roman Catholic Christian one has available the theological traditions of both East and West available, whereas Eastern Orthodox Christians are restricted only to the Eastern tradition.

For further reading on this subject, I recommend the following:

"Russia and the Universal Church" by Vladimir Solovyev
"An Eastern Orthodox Christian Looks West" by Timothy Flanders
"Why I left the Eastern Orthodox Church"

 I have kept this series of posts brief and have obviously left some things unsaid and unexplored. The reason for this brevity is that 1) I will explore in detail many of the points I have made in more detail as I turn to the main purpose of this blog, which is comparing the truth claims of Mormonism and Catholicism, and 2) Much of what I have said has been said before by men with much more wisdom than I. This is why I included links along with my posts, and I recommend that anyone with further questions consult these links. Further, if you have questions or objections to things I have said, please raise these concerns in the comments section.

Why only Mormonism and Catholicism? Pt. I: Introduction.

Given that there are several major religious movements in the world and many more sub-movements within these movements, it may be asked why I have decided to consider only these two faith traditions. A similar question is often posited by skeptics who rightly observe that one's religion is often no more than the result of where one happens to be born. This applies not only to those born into a specific faith, but converts as well. An American, for instance, may be more likely to become a Christian than Muslim due to prevalence, and additionally because of the less favorable view of Islam  present in the West. My reason for considering both faiths seems to fit the skeptic's observation. I was born into a Mormon family and Culture, and the Catholic faith is the largest single Christian denomination in the world. Unlike some seek only reasons to further reinforce what they already believe, I have attempted to maintain as much impartiality as possible so that I may answer the question "Which faith tradition, if any, is true?"

The faith of my upbringing (Mormonism) remains part of my consideration because I was born into it, and I believe one should not part with the faith of their family, which is often of utmost importance, without very good reason for doing so. I believe such reasons can only be of two sorts: 1) A conviction that another faith tradition is true, or 2) A conviction that one's own faith tradition is false. Even in the case of the second, there are many individuals who, after losing faith, continue to participate in the practices and rituals of their respective tradition for  social and familial reasons. In both cases, I believe leaving one's former faith should be a long and thoughtful process. There have been many who have reverted to the faith of their upbringing upon discovering that they never really gave it a thorough consideration. Thus I consider the Mormon faith to determine whether I have good reason for staying or parting.

The answer to "Why Catholicism?" requires a much longer answer which I am not sure how to begin. Partially underlying this question is the foundational query of this blog, being "How can one determine which faith is true?" I believe the best an individual can do is seek the faith that offers the best explanatory power to the universe and the human condition and all these things entail. To begin I will offer an outline of how I will go about answering the question, which is subject to change:

• Pt. II is inspired by C.S. Lewis, who after becoming a Theist considered Judaism and Hinduism from which stem the other major world religions, ultimately concluding that Christianity is true. I too will provide my reasons for why I believe Christianity is true.

• Pt. III will be an account of why if Christianity is true I believe Apostolic Christianity must be true. Apostolic Christianity will include all faith traditions who see apostolic authority tracing back to the original apostles as necessary. These include the Anglican communion, the Assyrian Church of the East, Eastern Orthodox churches, the Mormon movement (including the RLDS), Oriental Orthodox churches, and the Catholic Church (East and West). 

• Pt. IV will begin a consideration of why I believe the Catholic Church has a superior claim to truth over the other apostolic Christian churches (excluding the LDS faith) and will introduce my consideration of whether it has a superior claim to being the fullness of truth over the LDS faith.

The purpose of this blog

It is said that C.S. Lewis' "Space Trilogy" resulted from the dissatisfaction he and J.R.R. Tolkein had with the contemporary fiction. Unable to find any works they desired to read, they took it upon themselves to write such stories. My reason for writing does not stem from a desire for quality science fiction, but it does arise from an absence of the sort of resource I have sought in my religious journey. I aim to provide a thoughtful and impartial comparison of the truth claims of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormons) and the Roman Catholic Church (including Eastern churches in communion with the bishop of Rome) from the perspective of someone in the process of discerning between the two faiths.

Given that there are relatively few Mormons, or individuals of any faith for that matter, who ever seriously consider the truth claims of other religious groups, it is no surprise that such a project is rare, if not absent altogether. The internet has available many blogs and documents where individuals explain and/ or defend their own faith, and where individuals critique the truth claims of other faiths, but I have found that where these sources claim to take seriously the claims of other faiths, their arguments are often founded upon a priori assumptions that immediately set up the opponent for failure, or even worse still, many of the arguments I have encountered, whether they have been against Catholics or Mormons, have failed to confront the best apologists and arguments each respective faith has at its disposal.    

In this blog I will compare the answers each faith offers to theological and ethical questions such as "On what basis should religious faith be founded?," "Does God exist within or apart from time?" and especially "Which Church has the best case for being the fullness of truth?"

I welcome input from anyone willing to contribute in a thoughtful and respectful fashion.