A date for the "Great Apostasy"

[RebeccaJ]

So your position is not that BY was not the valid successor of Joseph Smith but rather that his teachings were not such that he can in any way be considered a LDS leader. If Pope Honorius is at least somewhat challenging to align with the Catholic concept of the Papacy then Brigham Young for the same reasons it impossible to align with …

Again, I think a comparison is being made that can’t be made.

Catholic belief/teaching is that the church is protected by the Holy Spirit, and as such, the church is protected from doctrinal changes.

Mormonism views doctrinal changes as necessary.

Well, I submit that the “…” would be your Catholic concept of the leadership of the CoJCoLDS.

 

[pablope]

FabiusMaximus, TexanKnight, Kimg901, Lax16, Jerusha, RebeccaJ, and Pablope;

I have read this thread and even the links offered.

I have a question that I was hoping you would answer. It seems clear to me that the majority of you believe that Clement of Rome was cognizant of his authority as the successor or Peter and the head of the earthly church. Is that true of any of you?

Yes…for Tradition learned from the early Church validates this.

As I asked you in a prior post: Would he have written this if he did not exercise authority:

57:1 Do ye, therefore, that have laid the foundation of the sedition submit yourselves to the presbyters, and be chastised to repentance, bending the knees of your hearts.

57:2 Learn to submit yourselves, laying aside the vain and haughty self-will of your tongues; for it is better that you should be small and approved in the flock of Christ, rather than that, seeming to be superior to others, ye should be cast out of his hope

59:1 But if some should be disobedient to the things spoken by him through us, let them know that they will entangle themselves in no small transgression and danger,

I fully acknowledge that a man in Rome in the first century will not be able to lead in the way a modern man can. I will also submit that there were surely heretics who rejected the authority of the Pope and ultimately the EOs do as well. But, did Clement know he was the Pope?

 

[TOmNossor]

No doubt. But it is not the consensus among all Mormons. BY didn’t just have a “theology” (whatever that means in a Mormon context), but he changed doctrines, and his predecessors have changed them again.

Rebecca,
I am not sure what you are saying here, but as has been clarified by statements beginning with Joseph Smith and Brigham Young. Then Harold B. Lee. And finally clarified recently LDS distinguish between doctrine and teaching. Surely the most basic definition of doctrine is teaching, in which case Catholics could be held accountable for the teachings of Honorius or the geocentricism of earlier Popes. But, Catholics define what is dogma and even what is guarded by infallibility. LDS should be allowed the same:
From Harold B. Lee:
Harold B. Lee:
If anyone, regardless of his position in the Church, were to advance a doctrine that is not substantiated by the standard Church works, meaning the Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price, you may know that his statement is merely his private opinion. The only one authorized to bring forth any new doctrine is the President of the Church, who, when he does, will declare it as revelation from God, and it will be so accepted by the Council of the Twelve and sustained by the body of the Church. And if any man speak a doctrine which contradicts what is in the standard Church works, you may know by that same token that it is false and you are not bound to accept it as truth.

Now to your next part.
Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

Rebecca,
Earlier you pointed me to this post as an answer to the question of whether Clement knew he was Pope. In that post you both suggest I should not see what I claim to not see AND then say that he is writing as Pope because he is exhorting another church distant from him (unlike you).
So I do not know your answer to the question I asked here:

FabiusMaximus, TexanKnight, Kimg901, Lax16, Jerusha, RebeccaJ, and Pablope;

I have read this thread and even the links offered. I have a question that I was hoping you would answer. It seems clear to me that the majority of you believe that Clement of Rome was cognizant of his authority as the successor or Peter and the head of the earthly church. Is that true of any of you?

I fully acknowledge that a man in Rome in the first century will not be able to lead in the way a modern man can. I will also submit that there were surely heretics who rejected the authority of the Pope and ultimately the EOs do as well. But, did Clement know he was the Pope?

Anyone else Catholic or non-Catholic can answer this question if they would like of course.

Charity, TOm
I will however say that ALL the other Catholics who have answered have answered that yes Clement knew he was Pope. (and I am now trying to get to your “extra dose of priesthood” post).
Charity, TOm

 

[Stephen168]

How about his definitive teaching, as a prophet, that Adam is our God?

How about his definitive teaching as a prophet that blacks are inherently bad?

I think reason would tell us that these teachings are dogma. And dogma does not change, but in Mormonism it does.

I think of these two dogmas whenever a Mormon glorifies continuing revelation.

 

[TOmNossor]

Not to throw in yet another aspect just for fun, but I can’t stop thinking that the comparison of Pope to Mormon President can’t exactly be done.

Tom, you can correct me if I’m wrong, but you are tying your idea of priesthood authority to the office of the Pope. Which, is not something Catholics do.
If for some catastrophic reason, there were only one bishop in the world left, and if he were not the pope, priesthood authority will still continue when he ordained another as bishop.
The Papacy is an office, but it is not viewed by Catholics as the same type as office as the Mormon view of the Mormon Presidency.
So to the point of this thread, “great apostasy”, and the Mormon belief that a “great apostasy” is state of lacking priesthood authority… I’m having a hard time seeing what the papacy has to do with priesthood authority. Maybe you can clear that up?

AND

The Primacy of Peter isn’t a measured level of extra authority, a scoop of “more priesthood”, it is a charism.

As a charism, we don’t expect to see hard and fast rules, more like, hard and fast rules applied to the workings of the Holy Spirit tend to backfire. Such occasions remind us (humans) that we submit to the will of God, not the other way around.
St. Clement had the same charism, which guided and led him, and therefore the Church, as it does the Pope today. You can see the working of the HolySpirit in his letter to Corinth. Whether or not he functioned by the same rules as the Pope does today, has nothing to do with what “primacy” means.
So you should understand, the word “development”, as used by Newman has an underlying assumption that there is at work, the Holy Spirit, who guides all to truth.

Rebecca,
Thank you for engaging my questions.
I am not sure you are aware, but LDS do not believe that the Prophet has “a scoop of ‘more priesthood.’”
Like the authors of the VERY Catholic and VERY Apologetic book **Jesus, Peter, and the Keys **Butler, Dalgreen, and Hess, LDS have long spoken about the KEYS. LDS have two levels of priesthood. There are offices in the priesthood and there are also keys.
Neither LDS nor Catholics are talking about “a scoop of ‘more priesthood.’”

The “Primacy of Peter” is not a charism unless I am missing something. A charism is a gift of the spirit. Catholics believe that the Pope possesses the charism of infallibility. We are not talking about charisms. Do you agree?

Now, with the above correction perhaps you might be saying the following.
Catholic theology and self understanding states that if all Peterine sees and bishops in the line of Peter were to have vanished in the year 90AD, Bishops selected to be local leaders in outer Mongolia by Mark the apostle and then ordained by Mark the apostle would still hold valid priesthood. They would not have the “Primacy of Peter,” but they would hold valid priesthood.
I agree with this statement and have acknowledged it in the past (though I do not think on this thread, but it is part of my thoughts on what happened).

That being said, I am still of the opinion that most Catholics would view it quite problematic if I proved Peter was never in Rome, never met Linus, Cletus, or Clement; and Clement had no idea he had some authority beyond that of a local leader ordained by Paul. By the way, I am quite confident Peter was in Rome. I am just trying to say that the Primacy of Rome is TODAY based upon the Peterine Authority and not based MERELY on valid priesthood ordination. Without Peterine Authority the consecration at the mass can occur, but there is no infallibility and no Vicar of Christ and …

Rebecca, what are your thoughts on this?
Charity, TOm

 

[kimg901]

@Tom; I have to ask you. Do you believe in what your prophets (past and present) say is true?

 

[TOmNossor]

@Tom; I have to ask you. Do you believe in what your prophets (past and present) say is true?

Yes. Well, not everything of course. There is a tradition within the CoJCoLDS from the beginning that the prophet is not infallible or anything. We do not even believe in inerrant scriptures.
I also should say that I give a priority to the current teachings of the church leaders as I believe the last few messages delivered to the world during general conference are intended to guide us in our lives. Sometimes this is solid moral teaching, sometimes it is a message that somehow links to present or future challenges, sometimes … I also try to pray for God to enlighten me with messages I specifically need when I attend general conference. Sometimes this might be tangentially related to what the speaker is saying, but it is the message God has for me as an individual. It is a remarkable blessing to sit at the feet of a prophet of God!

Let me ask you. Do you believe in what your Pope (past and present) say is true?
Charity, TOm

 

[RebeccaJ]

AND

Rebecca,
Thank you for engaging my questions.
I am not sure you are aware, but LDS do not believe that the Prophet has “a scoop of ‘more priesthood.’”
Like the authors of the VERY Catholic and VERY Apologetic book **Jesus, Peter, and the Keys **Butler, Dalgreen, and Hess, LDS have long spoken about the KEYS. LDS have two levels of priesthood. There are offices in the priesthood and there are also keys.
Neither LDS nor Catholics are talking about “a scoop of ‘more priesthood.’”

The “Primacy of Peter” is not a charism unless I am missing something. A charism is a gift of the spirit. Catholics believe that the Pope possesses the charism of infallibility. We are not talking about charisms. Do you agree?

Now, with the above correction perhaps you might be saying the following.
Catholic theology and self understanding states that if all Peterine sees and bishops in the line of Peter were to have vanished in the year 90AD, Bishops selected to be local leaders in outer Mongolia by Mark the apostle and then ordained by Mark the apostle would still hold valid priesthood. They would not have the “Primacy of Peter,” but they would hold valid priesthood.
I agree with this statement and have acknowledged it in the past (though I do not think on this thread, but it is part of my thoughts on what happened).

That being said, I am still of the opinion that most Catholics would view it quite problematic if I proved Peter was never in Rome, never met Linus, Cletus, or Clement; and Clement had no idea he had some authority beyond that of a local leader ordained by Paul. By the way, I am quite confident Peter was in Rome. I am just trying to say that the Primacy of Rome is TODAY based upon the Peterine Authority and not based MERELY on valid priesthood ordination. Without Peterine Authority the consecration at the mass can occur, but there is no infallibility and no Vicar of Christ and …

Rebecca, what are your thoughts on this?
Charity, TOm

In Catholicism, ordination belongs to the sacrament of Holy Orders. No Pope is ordained as Pope, because there is no such thing as being ordained to a Pope. It would be like saying you need to be ordained to the office of pastor in order to lead a parish.

Mormons ordain their prophets. This indicates there is something more than being installed into an office, no?

The difference is, Mormons have an idea of priesthood “power” that doesn’t exist in Catholicism. Like it is a power that is wielded, something akin to the magic of Merlin. That can be lost and found, waxes and wanes based on the “worthiness” of male Mormons.

This is not the Catholic view of priesthood. We have one High Priest, Jesus Christ. Ordination does not bestow a Godly power on our priests that they then wield according to their position and worthiness. Ordination consecrates a man to God, and sets him apart as a servant of God and of the Church. He holds no extraordinary power, in and of himself. Being consecrated to God, he acts in the Person of Christ. He is not Christ.

Bishops are ordained and we believe a grace comes with this ordination. Gifts of the Holy Spirit are given to our bishops that are not given to our priests, which are for the purpose of leading and guiding Christ’s Church. We believe the Pope is gifted with the gift of infallibility, but that is not the only gift of the Holy Spirit that he has. He is given the gifts needed to lead our bishops, and the whole Church, as the successor to Peter.

So you see, primacy is a gift of the Holy Spirit. If you want to name what authority is present, it is jurisdiction. Primacy is jurisdiction over the whole Church, which is of course based on the keys given to Peter, by Jesus Christ.

But you are wrong to say the keys of Peter would, or could be lost. They are not held by a any man, as some sort of treasure that is handed down the generations, safely locked away deep below the Vatican.

The keys represent an office, and when the office is filled, the new pope ipso facto takes possession of them. In other words, they are held by the Church.

I’ve never read that the East disagrees that the authority given by Christ rests in His Church. Their disagreement is, as I understand it, that every bishop is given the same authority as Peter.

 

[TexanKnight]

Rebecca,
I am not sure what you are saying here, but as has been clarified by statements beginning with Joseph Smith and Brigham Young. Then Harold B. Lee. And finally clarified recently LDS distinguish between doctrine and teaching. Surely the most basic definition of doctrine is teaching, in which case Catholics could be held accountable for the teachings of Honorius or the geocentricism of earlier Popes. But, Catholics define what is dogma and even what is guarded by infallibility. LDS should be allowed the same:
From Harold B. Lee:

Now to your next part.
Charity, TOm

Then he has called Brigham a liar. So, who is the liar, Brigham or Lee? Or may be iut was just another LDS attempt to sweep the past under the rug?

 

[TexanKnight]

Yes. Well, not everything of course. There is a tradition within the CoJCoLDS from the beginning that the prophet is not infallible or anything. We do not even believe in inerrant scriptures.
I also should say that I give a priority to the current teachings of the church leaders as I believe the last few messages delivered to the world during general conference are intended to guide us in our lives. Sometimes this is solid moral teaching, sometimes it is a message that somehow links to present or future challenges, sometimes … I also try to pray for God to enlighten me with messages I specifically need when I attend general conference. Sometimes this might be tangentially related to what the speaker is saying, but it is the message God has for me as an individual. It is a remarkable blessing to sit at the feet of a prophet of God!

Let me ask you. Do you believe in what your Pope (past and present) say is true?
Charity, TOm

I have always loved when Mormons, in attempts to deflect, compare Popes and “prophets”.

Popes do not claim to have face to face conversations with God, as prophets have. So, when you compare, you either admit prophets are not really prophets, or you claim Popes are…which is it?

 

[lax16]

If Catholics would just embrace what Cardinal Newman demanded, some of these beatings could be avoided.

Okay, TOm, I have retrieved John Henry Newman’s “An Essay On The Development of Christian Doctrine” off the shelf.

What did he demand?

 

[jrtrent]

I have in mind a quote from Oaks and another from Holland that demonstrate that I along with them do not believe Christ is absent in the Churches that are not in communion with the CoJCoLDS (I think these two are associated with the apostasy).

I’m not sure I’ve found the particular quotes you had in mind, and nothing yet from Jeffrey Holland, but it’s been a blessing to read a few things that Dallin H. Oaks wrote. A couple of relevant quotes:

“Many Christians have voluntarily given sacrifices motivated by faith in Christ and the desire to serve Him. Some have chosen to devote their entire adult lives to the service of the Master. This noble group includes those in the religious orders of the Catholic Church and those who have given lifelong service as Christian missionaries in various Protestant faiths. Their examples are challenging and inspiring . . .”

“We believe that most religious leaders and followers are sincere believers who love God and understand and serve him to the best of their abilities. We are indebted to the men and women who kept the light of faith and learning alive through the centuries to the present day. We have only to contrast the lesser light that exists among peoples unfamiliar with the names of God and Jesus Christ to realize the great contribution made by Christian teachers through the ages. We honor them as servants of God.”

 

[Stephen168]

Comparable to an antipope?

I’m not sure what you are asking.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Rebecca,
I am not sure what you are saying here, but as has been clarified by statements beginning with Joseph Smith and Brigham Young. Then Harold B. Lee. And finally clarified recently LDS distinguish between doctrine and teaching. Surely the most basic definition of doctrine is teaching, in which case Catholics could be held accountable for the teachings of Honorius or the geocentricism of earlier Popes. But, Catholics define what is dogma and even what is guarded by infallibility. LDS should be allowed the same:
From Harold B. Lee:

Now to your next part.
Charity, TOm

I think you have serious problems then, if you have someone you claim is a prophet, and that person is putting forth false teachings.

prophecyhelps101.com/rich_text_3.html

 

[RebeccaJ]

Rebecca,
Earlier you pointed me to this post as an answer to the question of whether Clement knew he was Pope. In that post you both suggest I should not see what I claim to not see AND then say that he is writing as Pope because he is exhorting another church distant from him (unlike you).
So I do not know your answer to the question I asked here:

I will however say that ALL the other Catholics who have answered have answered that yes Clement knew he was Pope. (and I am now trying to get to your “extra dose of priesthood” post).
Charity, TOm

You asked in a context of a developing papacy. If you compare the papacy today, to the time of St. Clement, they are the same in the sense of the office that the Pope holds, of the primacy that is present to that office by virtue of Jesus Christ bestowing the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven on Peter.

Thus, you see St. Clement writing with authority, that authority being jurisdiction, to another church. I think it is obvious St. Clement knew he had this jurisdiction, otherwise, we would not be reading the first letter of Clement. It wouldn’t exist, as he would have had no authority to send such a letter.

The office of the papacy developed as the Church developed. Guided by the Holy Spirit, the Church grew from a few tens of thousands under servere persecution, to the billions it is today. In this sense, it HAS to develop, as leading tens of thousands in a persecuted, underground, Church has a different context than leading millions and then billions.

“Moreover, all this must be viewed in the light of the general probability …] that doctrine cannot but develop as time proceeds and need arises, and that its developments are parts of the Divine system, and that therefore it is lawful, or rather necessary, to interpret the words and deeds of the earlier Church by the determinate teaching of the later.” - Newman

You read Newman’s work and think development of papacy indicates something gone amiss. Do you really believe that someone like Newman is pointing out a flaw in Catholicism? Of course not. Development of an office over time is seen by us as the Holy Spirit guiding the Church. In the context of the whole, that of Jesus protecting His Church.

The Church is not a static thing, but is living, its life sourced from the Holy Spirit, given to us by Jesus Christ.

 

[RebeccaJ]

I’m not sure what you are asking.

Rhetorical question.

 

[TOmNossor]

In Catholicism, ordination belongs to the sacrament of Holy Orders. No Pope is ordained as Pope, because there is no such thing as being ordained to a Pope. It would be like saying you need to be ordained to the office of pastor in order to lead a parish.

Mormons ordain their prophets. This indicates there is something more than being installed into an office, no?
The answer to this question is actually NO. I will try to outline the priesthood similarities and differences within the CoJCoLDS and the within the Catholic Church as I understand. Did you see me say that I think you misused the term “charism” am I wrong?

And finally, either “Keys” are a Catholic and a LDS term that is used fairly similarly as I suggest OR it is not. I think that is a point we finally get to in your post. Of course I might have misunderstood you AND Butler, Dalgreen, and Hess in Jesus, Peter, and the Keys.
The Catholic Bishop has “the fullness of holy orders.” There are three orders of the priesthood in Catholicism, Deacon, Priest, and Bishop.
I would say there are two orders of priesthood within the CoJCoLDS, the Aaronic and the “Melchizedek Priesthood” which is actually, “The Holy Priesthood after the Order of the Son of God.” And of course Christ is “the Great High Priest.”

There are three orders within the Catholic Church: Deacons, Priests, and Bishops.
There are two orders within the CoJCoLDS: “Melchizedek Priesthood” which is actually, “The Holy Priesthood after the Order of the Son of God.” and the “Aaronic Preisthood.”
Like Catholicism it is appropriate for LDS to speak of the fullness within the higher order. It is true that there really is only one priesthood in the CoJCoLDS the Aaronic being a subset of the Melchizedek.

I would say that Catholics receive the sacrament of “holy orders” and are ordained a deacon, then ordained a priest, then ordained a bishop. This is similar to LDS who are ordained into the “Aaronic Priesthood” and into the “Melchizedek Priesthood.”

I would say one of the biggest differences is that within the two “levels” of priesthood in the CoJCoLDS we “ordain” to offices. Deacon, Teacher, Priest & Elder, High Priest, Seventy, Apostle. I am at the moment not aware of a solid parallel.

Now, in Catholicism folks are “installed” into a specific position. The Bishop of Gallup or the Archbishop of Sante Fe are “installed” into their office. The Pope is also “installed” into his office as the Bishop of Rome. LDS speak of being “set apart” for various callings, like the Bishop of xyz ward or the President of the Church.

Catholicism has the cardinalate and it is the cardinalate that chooses the next Bishop or Rome/Pope. This is DIFFERENT than any other Bishopric.
LDS have general authorities which have authority worldwide instead of locally like a Bishop.
I think there are enough differences that there is not a great way to draw a parallel here.

Ordination does not bestow a Godly power on our priests that they then wield according to their position and worthiness. Ordination consecrates a man to God, and sets him apart as a servant of God and of the Church. He holds no extraordinary power, in and of himself. Being consecrated to God, he acts in the Person of Christ. He is not Christ.

The ordination does consecrate the man to God, but the ordained priest within Catholicism can consecrate at the mass. His ability (or power or …) to do this is because “he acts in the Person of Christ,” but as much as some individual might WANT to consecrate at the mass they cannot in a Catholic framework do this unless they have the level of holy orders possessed by the priest.
For the “the fullness of holy orders” the Catholic bishop has additionally powers/abilities/… not possessed by the Catholic priest.
So, have I misunderstood your point or have I misunderstood Catholic teachings?

Bishops are ordained and we believe a grace comes with this ordination. Gifts of the Holy Spirit are given to our bishops that are not given to our priests, which are for the purpose of leading and guiding Christ’s Church. We believe the Pope is gifted with the gift of infallibility, but that is not the only gift of the Holy Spirit that he has. He is given the gifts needed to lead our bishops, and the whole Church, as the successor to Peter.

I would not call the power/ability of the Bishop in his office as Bishop a “gift of the Holy Spirit” and neither would the CCC:
The Bishop is ordained to the fullness and has additional authority than he previously lacked. He may be either moral or immoral, but his ordination gives him additional “abilities” beyond that of the priest. The priest may be moral or immoral, but he has additional abilities beyond that of a deacon. These “abilities” are all Christ’s work of course, but they are not predicated upon being in a state of sanctifying grace.
Cont …

 

[TOmNossor]

The gift of infallibility is not among the “gifts of the Spirit.” The best explanation of it I have heard is that it comes via a logical progression as to why God would necessarily provide it. I will say that unlike the “gifts of the Spirit” in Catholic and LDS speak, the “gift of infallibility” is not predicated upon being in a state of sanctifying grace. I hadn’t put this together before, but it is interesting!

For the LDS, all ordinances performed by proper authority are valid ordinances. A confirmed member of the CoJCoLDS is still confirmed if the Elder who confirmed him is an unrepentant sinner in open rebellion against God (for example he is in a sexual relationship with his mistress and has no remorse or desire/intent to terminate this relationship).
The ability to “hear” God call one to help a family in ones ward however is linked to being in a right relationship with God.

So you see, primacy is a gift of the Holy Spirit. If you want to name what authority is present, it is jurisdiction. Primacy is jurisdiction over the whole Church, which is of course based on the keys given to Peter, by Jesus Christ.

I would not expect that many Catholic thinkers have called “primacy … a gift of the Holy Spirit.”
With that source of my confusion at your terms out of the way, I concur with the term “jurisdiction.” This is a very solid parallel (even equivalency) between the CLAIMS of the Catholic Church and the CLAIMS of the CoJCoLDS. Also equivalent is the keys source at Christ though Peter.

But you are wrong to say the keys of Peter would, or could be lost. They are not held by a any man, as some sort of treasure that is handed down the generations, safely locked away deep below the Vatican.

The keys represent an office, and when the office is filled, the new pope ipso facto takes possession of them. In other words, they are held by the Church.

I’ve never read that the East disagrees that the authority given by Christ rests in His Church. Their disagreement is, as I understand it, that every bishop is given the same authority as Peter.

Clearly it is the Catholic position that the “keys” could not be lost. It is the LDS position that they were lost.
LDS and Catholics both agree that the “keys” are not a set of notched metal, a papal throne (called the chair of Peter), or some other artifact.

My question to you is, “Did Clement know that he possessed the ‘keys’”
I think you just answered in the previous post.
My follow up question will be, “Could the ‘keys’ be passed through Clement if he had no concept of possessing the keys?”

The methods of selecting the Pope has CHANGED over time. Other things change.
But:
Could the ‘keys’ be passed through Clement if he had no concept of possessing the keys?"
Charity, TOm

 

[RebeccaJ]

The answer to this question is actually NO. I will try to outline the priesthood similarities and differences within the CoJCoLDS and the within the Catholic Church as I understand. Did you see me say that I think you misused the term “charism” am I wrong?

And finally, either “Keys” are a Catholic and a LDS term that is used fairly similarly as I suggest OR it is not. I think that is a point we finally get to in your post. Of course I might have misunderstood you AND Butler, Dalgreen, and Hess in Jesus, Peter, and the Keys.
The Catholic Bishop has “the fullness of holy orders.” There are three orders of the priesthood in Catholicism, Deacon, Priest, and Bishop.
I would say there are two orders of priesthood within the CoJCoLDS, the Aaronic and the “Melchizedek Priesthood” which is actually, “The Holy Priesthood after the Order of the Son of God.” And of course Christ is “the Great High Priest.”

There are three orders within the Catholic Church: Deacons, Priests, and Bishops.
There are two orders within the CoJCoLDS: “Melchizedek Priesthood” which is actually, “The Holy Priesthood after the Order of the Son of God.” and the “Aaronic Preisthood.”
Like Catholicism it is appropriate for LDS to speak of the fullness within the higher order. It is true that there really is only one priesthood in the CoJCoLDS the Aaronic being a subset of the Melchizedek.

I would say that Catholics receive the sacrament of “holy orders” and are ordained a deacon, then ordained a priest, then ordained a bishop. This is similar to LDS who are ordained into the “Aaronic Priesthood” and into the “Melchizedek Priesthood.”

I would say one of the biggest differences is that within the two “levels” of priesthood in the CoJCoLDS we “ordain” to offices. Deacon, Teacher, Priest & Elder, High Priest, Seventy, Apostle. I am at the moment not aware of a solid parallel.

Now, in Catholicism folks are “installed” into a specific position. The Bishop of Gallup or the Archbishop of Sante Fe are “installed” into their office. The Pope is also “installed” into his office as the Bishop of Rome. LDS speak of being “set apart” for various callings, like the Bishop of xyz ward or the President of the Church.

Catholicism has the cardinalate and it is the cardinalate that chooses the next Bishop or Rome/Pope. This is DIFFERENT than any other Bishopric.
LDS have general authorities which have authority worldwide instead of locally like a Bishop.
I think there are enough differences that there is not a great way to draw a parallel here.

The ordination does consecrate the man to God, but the ordained priest within Catholicism can consecrate at the mass. His ability (or power or …) to do this is because “he acts in the Person of Christ,” but as much as some individual might WANT to consecrate at the mass they cannot in a Catholic framework do this unless they have the level of holy orders possessed by the priest.
For the “the fullness of holy orders” the Catholic bishop has additionally powers/abilities/… not possessed by the Catholic priest.
So, have I misunderstood your point or have I misunderstood Catholic teachings?

I would not call the power/ability of the Bishop in his office as Bishop a “gift of the Holy Spirit” and neither would the CCC:
The Bishop is ordained to the fullness and has additional authority than he previously lacked. He may be either moral or immoral, but his ordination gives him additional “abilities” beyond that of the priest. The priest may be moral or immoral, but he has additional abilities beyond that of a deacon. These “abilities” are all Christ’s work of course, but they are not predicated upon being in a state of sanctifying grace.
Cont …

Tom, all Sacraments bestow grace. Until you understand that, I don’t think you can understand that primacy is indeed a charism, which is exercised in an office. I suggest you read Lumen Gentium, particularly chapter 3.

I think it is also important you come to an understanding of communion and unity.

What gifts has God given you that you don’t recognize. I reject the idea that Clement, of all people, would not understand. As I’ve said I think three times now, Clement exercised the authority of primacy, if he didn’t know he held primacy, what do you think he was thinking?