Jesus did tell some of those He healed to “go to the priest” as per the law of Moses, since the people were still living under the law of Moses until the exact moment of His resurrection. I also agree that some of those Levite priests were “unworthy as individuals”. They had a different “kind” of priesthood, in that the Levitical priesthood was a priesthood by lineage as revealed to Moses.
He also told his disciples that the Pharisees “sit in the seats of the prophets” and LDS leaders use this to affirm that the Savior taught the importance of respecting authority even if those holding it abuse their authority.
Catholics understand the difference between the Levitical (or Aaronic) priesthood, and that exercised by the Apostles. The difference is we understand that we have only one High Priest – Jesus himself a priest forever “after the Order of Melchizedek.” All authority is vested in Christ, and all Christians have a share of it it through communion with him “the common Priesthood of the Faithful”.
The apostles transferred authority, but did not transfer the keys of the authority which they held and continued to hold until each of their deaths (or in John’s case, became no longer keys for exercise on earth after he was directed by the Spirit to depart from among the people). The privilege to use the priesthood was delegable by ordination as directed by the Holy Spirit, but the keys were retained by the apostles even as they delegated authority to others.
That is what this discussion asks you to prove. I see numerous assumptions in the statement as it is.
These are the Catholic perceptions you need to refute to make a case:
First-- the role of the apostles (and you don’t have 12 Apostles yourself, you have 15, and sometimes more – look at the video"Special Witnesses of Christ".) The Bible never specifies the Apostles as a permanent central body of leadership. Apostle means one who is sent forth. The requirement it gives is that it has to be someone who was with them and Jesus from the start – they would not last forever, and the early Church did not believe that they would have to. They expected Jesus to return soon. Only later did they begin writing about it taking longer.
Paul was accepted as an Apostle because he was personally called by Jesus Himself, not just by a strong testimony of the Holy Spirit. Being an Apostle required a literal personal encounter with Jesus. Judas was not replaced to fill a vacancy, but to fufill a prophecy. Note that in Acts the reason Peter gives for replacing Judas is not based in any personal or general revelation. It is not based in any instructions Jesus gave for how to organize the Church – he left that up to Peter. It is based in interpretation of existing scripture.
As a Mormon the early church history is presented as something confusing and jumbled. The fact is there is quite a body of early Crhistian writing establishing early Church leaders as in communion with the Apostles in all their actions. take a close look at St. Ignatius Bishop of Antioch. There is a continual body of records from the 1st Century on. The historical evidence of continutiy and consistency in doctrine and ordination is irrefutable, beginning with people in communication with the remaining apostles late in the First Century.
Consider why Apostolic succession through Bishops makes sense for the organization of the day. The Apostles were sent forth. They set up churches in areas, and then might never be able to come back again. It could take months for messages to get from one place to another – but of course they could anyplace more quickly from Rome. A worldwide centralized hierarchy was unrealistic, especially with so much emerging persecution.
The early Church was impossible for Rome to squelch for the same reason we have such a hard time defeating terrorism. It was organized into independent separately authorized and operating cells. This was easy as there were very few dogmas established and the Lord’s Supper was an addendum to Jewish worship styles. Those dogmas that came after the Church took over the Empire, and therefore the World were based on interpretation of the body of scripture over centuries, and only emerged to deal with heresy.
What mattered was the administration of the Eucharist (the Sacrament). This was the single most sacred thing Jesus left to pass on. The selection of Gospels emphasizes this. Every story of a miraculous meal in the Bible has some bearing on the validity of the Eucharist, as do many stories of other miracles. Jesus can change the nature of substance. he can multiply the quantity of substance. He is revealed in the breaking of the Bread.
You have to prove that Apostolic succession of authority through the Bishops was not valid. You have to prove that Apsotles could be people who had not been with the disciples from the beginning of Jesus ministry, or been called by him absolutley literally in person, as with Paul. (and note that your first Council of the Twelve was called by Martin Harris, David Whitmer, and Oliver Cowdery, four people each). You have to prove that the Apostles was intended as a permanent governing body for the Church.
Before trying to, you probably need to understand what being in communion means to a Catholic.
You have to prove that the Eucharist was intended to be symbolic. You have to prove that Jesus WOULD take the authority away – and that will be the tough one. He said “the gaates of Hell shall not prevail against it” and affrimed the authority even of those who intended to kill Him before the New Covenant was complete. That’s a pretty hard standard of unworthiness to meet.
So the first thing you may want to look at is finding a date when you can affirm the apostasy was complete. What date would you suggest? When did it happen?
