LDS: Please provide proof that the priesthood authority was taken from the earth

[RebeccaJ]

Except that as Denise so kindly remarked, “sacred tradition” is what is viewed as having been handed down “from the apostles” and sort of locks it all in place. (I don’t have a fear about it, at all.) That means whatever the earliest writers said a scripture means, becomes what it means because they “took the first hand-off”, supposedly. Then they iced it all as “sacred tradition”.

I don’t know what you mean here.

Oral and written tradition including saying what a verse in the Bible means, and insisting that it has to be that meaning because of “sacred tradition”. I think 'sacred tradition" could indeed be “thrown out the window” and sincere readers of the Bible would be better off.

You do realize this is not what is taught in the Bible. I can only assume you think people would be “better off” because Catholics aren’t agreeing with your personal interpretation.

The Bible contains its own testimony, including the whole aspect of getting the Holy Spirit and getting personal revelation, including Peter’s kind of witness that “thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God”.

This is true. Sacred Tradition does not contradict this, it supports it, as Scripture supports Tradition.

I suppose you have no idea how many times I have tried to ask that question in so many words of Catholics who have disagreed with the idea that men and women are to seek and achieve becoming joint heirs with Christ, which means becoming like Him just as He is like the Father.

This is a diversion from what I asked.

OK–if you want to call following the voice of the Good Shepherd and the Holy Ghost as “following sacred tradition” that is really taught in the Bible and really is sacred and wonderful, then that is indeed the kind of “sacred tradition” that I am indeed following and receiving in my life, and observe it in those around me. It means we change, we grow, we look to the Master Teacher, and He teaches us.

Redefining Sacred Tradition to suit your own purposes does not address the living Tradition that existed long before your life began.

 

[ParkerD]

[SIGN][/SIGN]

What about Saint Polycarp?

On the day of his death (February 23) the Martyrology recounts with deep reverence:

“At Smyrna, the death of St. Polycarp. **He was a disciple of the holy apostle John, who **consecrated him bishop of that city; ****and there he acted as the primate of all ****Asia Minor. Later, under Marcus Antoninus and Lucius Aurelius Commodus, he was brought before the tribunal of the proconsul; and when all the people in the amphitheater cried out against him, he was handed over to be burned to death. But since the fire caused him no harm, he was put to death by the sword. Thus he gained the crown of martyrdom. With him, twelve other Christians, who came from Philadelphia, met death by martyrdom in the same city.”

[SIGN]Matt 5:37: "Let your ‘Yes’ mean ‘Yes’ and your ‘No’ mean ‘No.’ Anything more is from the evil one.[/SIGN]

Hi, Lax16,

Based on Polycarp being ordained a bishop, he would have the keys and responsibilities and authority of being a bishop. He wouldn’t have the keys of being an apostle. The keys of apostleship needed to be on the earth in order for what was “bound on earth” to be “bound in heaven”. That is how the keys of apostleship work. They were retained by the apostles even though the apostles ordained bishops. The bishops were nowhere said to be being ordained in the stead of the apostles. They were ordained under the direction, leadership, and guidance of the apostles. That is the clear New Testament pattern, and even the pattern shown in the words you posted about Polycarp.

Have a wonderful, sweet and sacred day.

 

[Peter_John]

Hi, Lax16,

Based on Polycarp being ordained a bishop, he would have the keys and responsibilities and authority of being a bishop. He wouldn’t have the keys of being an apostle. The keys of apostleship needed to be on the earth in order for what was “bound on earth” to be “bound in heaven”. That is how the keys of apostleship work. They were retained by the apostles even though the apostles ordained bishops. The bishops were nowhere said to be being ordained in the stead of the apostles. They were ordained under the direction, leadership, and guidance of the apostles. That is the clear New Testament pattern, and even the pattern shown in the words you posted about Polycarp.

Have a wonderful, sweet and sacred day.

This asumes the LDS definition of the roles of Bishops and Apostles, which assume things not expressed in the Bible. In order for the LDS definition ot be valid, the authority would have to have been removed in the first place. Therefore using the LDS definition is circular reasoning, and not a valid argument.

You need to shaw that there were early Christian practices and teachings consistent with LDS practices and teachings which got suppressed, and that these were practiced by Church leaders in communion with the Apostles. We can show that Church leaders in communion with the Apostles exercised practices consistent with Catholic teachings and practices today.

 

[KathleenGee]

Parker,

When it comes to defining the craftiness of men, are those men those who continued to teach us that we do indeed receive the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ in the Mass…meaning the ‘originators’ of the Catholic Church?

That St. Polycarp, St. Justin the Martyr, et al, were crafty men who set up the Church and brought in the Great Apostasy???..

Is the Catholic priesthood based on the craftiness of men???

 

[Peter_John]

My children have their own “testimony”, which they have gained through the process of introspection and learning to understand the witness of the Holy Ghost.

and if one of them believed the Holy spirit was telling them the Catholic Church is true, or that the Book of Mormon is some form of fabrication, you would maintain that they are not really listening to the Holy Ghost.

Except that as Denise so kindly remarked, “sacred tradition” is what is viewed as having been handed down “from the apostles” and sort of locks it all in place. (I don’t have a fear about it, at all.) That means whatever the earliest writers said a scripture means, becomes what it means because they “took the first hand-off”, supposedly. Then they iced it all as "sacred tradition.

Sacred tradition would be things like the practices established before the New Testament was comiled and the Canon of scripture was set, which informed the selection of those. Whenever anyone affirms the status of the Bible as the Word of God, they confirm the Sacred Traditions of the Catholic Church. It is the Word of God because the Catholics says so.

Oral and written tradition including saying what a verse in the Bible means, and insisting that it has to be that meaning because of “sacred tradition”. .

It sounds like maybe you are getting the point. Consider the Lord’s prayer. The earliest manuscripts end with “deliver us from evil.” In between those manuscripts and later manuscripts the practice of Mass included reciting the Lord’s prayer , something like this:
People: … but deliver us from evil

Priest: Deliver us from every evil, Lord, and grant us peace in our day. In your mercy keep us free from sin, as we wait in joyful hope for the coming of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ …

People: For the kingdom, and the power, and the glory are yours, now and forever, Amen.

Later manuscripts include the phrase "For thine is the kngdom, and the power, and the glory forever. Amen.

This was the version that got incorporated into the Bible, informed by Catholic tradition.

I suppose you have no idea how many times I have tried to ask that question in so many words of Catholics who have disagreed with the idea that men and women are to seek and achieve becoming joint heirs with Christ, which means becoming like Him just as He is like the Father…

It actually means sharing in the nature of His relationship with the father, in the Communion. We are the Body of Christ in the world today. That is why Mary is our Heavenly Mother, and that entire question rides on the interpretation of “seek and achieve becoming joint heirs with Christ”. If you are trying to get them to accept the LDS version of degrees of glory and the Celestial kingdom, which has no Biblical basis, only references that can be interpreted out of context, than they will not agree with you. we becime joint heirs with Christ through the sacraments and fulfilling our Christian vocations.

OK–if you want to call following the voice of the Good Shepherd and the Holy Ghost as “following sacred tradition” that is really taught in the Bible and really is sacred and wonderful, then that is indeed the kind of “sacred tradition” that I am indeed following and receiving in my life, and observe it in those around me. It means we change, we grow, we look to the Master Teacher, and He teaches us.

But you have double meaning to all that. Joseph Smith’s corruption of the Biblical text informs your understnding of it, as one point. You believe there is secret knowledge such as when you receive your endowment at the temple – this concept is Gnosticism, and early Christian heresy, but also one that still did not teach what Mormonism teaches. You believe that the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper is purely symbolic, so water can be substituted for wine – a Christian heresy that began while John was still around, and those who ultimately defeated it had been in communion with him. In addition, it taught other things that are not consistent with LDS Doctrine, so it could not have been what your articles of faith call “the primitive church.”

 

[ParkerD]

Parker,

When it comes to defining the craftiness of men, are those men those who continued to teach us that we do indeed receive the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ in the Mass…meaning the ‘originators’ of the Catholic Church?

That St. Polycarp, St. Justin the Martyr, et al, were crafty men who set up the Church and brought in the Great Apostasy???..

Is the Catholic priesthood based on the craftiness of men???

Kathleen Gee,

Whoever obstructs free will choice and teaches others such as parents to obstruct free will choice, would be applying the “craftiness of men” in their approach. The gospel can’t be rightly lived if it’s lived under the wrong motives.

As far as the Eucharist, I guess I’ll just give two brief comments.

As far as John 6, that was a teaching that continued straight from the Old Testament and was Jesus announcing that He is the Bread (Manna) of life and that His blood was the necessary great and last sacrifice, and the Jews should both hear him and take His message into their hearts (eat the Bread of life), and repent so that they could receive His grace through His great and last sacrifice, the shedding of His blood. Those doctrines were not announcing the Eucharist–they were announcing His divine Sonship and His atoning grace and that He is indeed the Good Shepherd.

If a teaching distracts from looking for, believing in, and following the voice of the living Christ, the Good Shepherd, including going forward toward repenting day by day and thus changing one’s life, then that teaching is divergent from the gospel taught by Christ and the apostles. If it’s divergent, then it has not been brought about through following the Holy Spirit’s guidance and is instead a “precept of men” who are inserting doctrine that decreases belief in ongoing, life-changing personal revelation.

 

[KathleenGee]

Parker,

Thanks for your response.

Recall Abel giving of his first fruits as offering to the Lord…makes me focused to strive more in giving the best to the Lord in my daily life…

Jesus is the First Fruit of the Heavenly Father…

And the First Fruit of the Lord Jesus to us is His Eucharist…‘This is…Eat…Drink…in memory of Me…’

 

[Peter_John]

Kathleen Gee,

Whoever obstructs free will choice and teaches others such as parents to obstruct free will choice, would be applying the “craftiness of men” in their approach. The gospel can’t be rightly lived if it’s lived under the wrong motives.

As far as the Eucharist, I guess I’ll just give two brief comments.

As far as John 6, that was a teaching that continued straight from the Old Testament and was Jesus announcing that He is the Bread (Manna) of life and that His blood was the necessary great and last sacrifice, and the Jews should both hear him and take His message into their hearts (eat the Bread of life).

So you affirm that when the Bible says Jesus explains all of his parables to the disciples, and when they asked what he meant by eating his flesh and drinking his blood, he did not in fact explain the parable as the Bible says he does? Because when asked he did not say, “Eating my flesh means taking my my mesage into your hearts,” he said, “You have to eat my flesh and drink my blood,” whixh drove a lot of disciples away. It sounds me like you are taking the Bible out of context. where in the Bible does it say he meant that?

, and repent so that they could receive His grace through His great and last sacrifice, the shedding of His blood. Those doctrines were not announcing the Eucharist–they were announcing His divine Sonship and His atoning grace and that He is indeed the Good Shepherd.

you say all this, and you do not even believe that he suffered for our sins on the cross.

If a teaching distracts from looking for, believing in, and following the voice of the living Christ, the Good Shepherd, including going forward toward repenting day by day and thus changing one’s life, then that teaching is divergent from the gospel taught by Christ and the apostles. If it’s divergent, then it has not been brought about through following the Holy Spirit’s guidance and is instead a “precept of men” who are inserting doctrine that decreases belief in ongoing, life-changing personal revelation.

You imply that going forward and repenting day by day is somehow inconsistent with Catholicism, and it is the essence of Catholicism, so any arguments based on that are irrelevant. You are preaching to the choir, and if you do not believe so it is because you have been lied to about what Catholics believe.

 

[Peter_John]

Is the Catholic priesthood based on the craftiness of men???

Mormonism actually teaches that piresthood in Catholicism is something the Book of Mormon calls Priestcraft. The lessons for adolescent males had specific lessons on the topic of the difference between Priesthood and Priestcraft, and i think the sSeminary (high school level) and Institute (college level) religious instruction also includede that topic, though I remember those less well.

 

[lax16]

Hi, Lax16,

Based on Polycarp being ordained a bishop, he would have the keys and responsibilities and authority of being a bishop. He wouldn’t have the keys of being an apostle.

Please cite the scripture that show Jesus saying this is necessary.

The keys of apostleship needed to be on the earth in order for what was “bound on earth” to be “bound in heaven”. That is how the keys of apostleship work. They were retained by the apostles even though the apostles ordained bishops. The bishops were nowhere said to be being ordained in the stead of the apostles. They were ordained under the direction, leadership, and guidance of the apostles. That is the clear New Testament pattern, and even the pattern shown in the words you posted about Polycarp.

Where do you get your information from? Please cite your sources.

from Catholic encyclopedia:
Since the authority with which the Lord endowed the Apostles was given them for the entire Church it is natural that this authority should endure after their death, in other words, pass to successors established by the Apostles. **In the oldest Christian documents concerning the primitive Churches we find ministers established, some of ****them, at least, by the usual rite of the imposition of hands. **They bear various names: priests (presbyteroi, Acts 11:30; 14:22; 15:2, 4, 6, 22, 23; 16:4; 20:17; 21:18; 1 Timothy 5:17, 19; Titus 1:5); bishops (episkopoi, Acts 20:28; Philippians 1:1; 1 Timothy 3:2; Titus 1:7); presidents (proistamenoi, 1 Thessalonians 5:12, Romans 12, etc.); heads (hegoumenoi, Hebrews 13:7, 17, 24, etc.); shepherds (poimenes, Ephesians 4:11); teachers (didaskaloi, Acts 13:1; 1 Corinthians 12:28 sq. etc.); prophets (prophetai, Acts 13:1; 15:32; 1 Corinthians 12:28-29, etc.), and some others. Besides them, there are Apostolic delegates, such as Timothy and Titus. The most frequent terms are priests and bishops; they were destined to become the technical names for the “authorities” of the Christian community.

Have a wonderful, sweet and sacred day.

You too!

 

[KathleenGee]

Christ already foresaw future followers abrogating His Body and Blood, soul, and divinity into mere symbolism. Mere symbolism and its subsequent division is the fruit of Sola Scriptura.

Sola Scriptura’s fruit is most evident here in America where Christians are the greatest block against evil, but practically ineffective because Christianity is completely fragmented by the fracturing of the Word of God that is supposed to heal and restore us, and bring us into new life with God and with each other.

Christ lost many followers when He began to lead them to reveal His saving Manna from heaven which He stressed gives us eternal life…not just the Word alone…but the Incarnate Word.

Saying that, I do not mean to say either that those who do not receive the Eucharist or believe in the Eucharist are denied eternal life either. The Lord alone judges.

Even the Apostles were incredulous…but Peter proclaimed and affirmed the reality of truth of Jesus Christ, and ended in a sense of mourning that without Christ, where would they go. Their perseverance to the end saved them. Jesus said those who persevere to the end will be saved.

 

[Peter_John]

OK–if you want to call following the voice of the Good Shepherd and the Holy Ghost as “following sacred tradition” … .

I find you reliance on the Lord’s title as Good Shepherd so ironic, since your Faith teaches a Jesus who gives up on the hard cases, instead of looking for them. You do not even believe tha murder can be forgiven in this life, and will not baptize someone who has committed it. Jesus does not give up on the hard cases.

 

[KathleenGee]

Parker,

My impression of Mormonism is that it condemns Catholicism because of its priesthood, like they are some kind of sorcerers or magicians…as some militant, radical apostate ‘catholic’ women religious denigrated them so many years back.

So the corruptive influence of the priesthood is what makes the Catholic faith apostate.

Again, I think of Pope John Paul II, and a witness of his craftiness…

www.ncregister.com/daily-news/why-rome-loves-john-paul-ii/

What fidelity to the gospel JP had…

What the priest ‘does’ is provide us the sacraments…and his role in extending the presence of Christ Himself through the sacraments…requires that Holy Orders is a sacrament in itself.

Baptism, confession, Eucharist, confirmation, matrimony, healing, holy orders…where is the corruption in that?..none…because the Sacraments are the concrete forms of Christ Himself Who is all perfection.

 

[ParkerD]

Please cite the scripture that show Jesus saying this is necessary.

Where do you get your information from? Please cite your sources.

from Catholic encyclopedia:
Since the authority with which the Lord endowed the Apostles was given them for the entire Church it is natural that this authority should endure after their death, in other words, pass to successors established by the Apostles. **In the oldest Christian documents concerning the primitive Churches we find ministers established, some of ****them, at least, by the usual rite of the imposition of hands. **They bear various names: priests (presbyteroi, Acts 11:30; 14:22; 15:2, 4, 6, 22, 23; 16:4; 20:17; 21:18; 1 Timothy 5:17, 19; Titus 1:5); bishops (episkopoi, Acts 20:28; Philippians 1:1; 1 Timothy 3:2; Titus 1:7); presidents (proistamenoi, 1 Thessalonians 5:12, Romans 12, etc.); heads (hegoumenoi, Hebrews 13:7, 17, 24, etc.); shepherds (poimenes, Ephesians 4:11); teachers (didaskaloi, Acts 13:1; 1 Corinthians 12:28 sq. etc.); prophets (prophetai, Acts 13:1; 15:32; 1 Corinthians 12:28-29, etc.), and some others. Besides them, there are Apostolic delegates, such as Timothy and Titus. The most frequent terms are priests and bishops; they were destined to become the technical names for the “authorities” of the Christian community.

You too!

Lax16,

Thanks–I have been, with a wonderful church service to which many of my family came since my daughter was involved in speaking after having been away.

Even with the source you cited in your last paragraph, you will note the words “it is natural that this authority should endure after their death,” with no scripture, no “proof”, that this was the case–it was “natural”.

Yet the bishops looked to the apostles in the New Testament as their “overseers in authority”, and were clearly acting under the direction of the apostles and not acting as though the authority they had meant it was either equal to the apostles or that they had the same keys to “bind and loose” that had been given to the apostles. The Matthew 16 and Matthew 18 verses I had cited show specifically that keys were given to the apostles for that specific purpose. No such designation was shown in the authority given to the bishops.

I also don’t agree that Christ would or should have said that the keys held by the apostles were retained solely by the apostles if that were to be the case. Priesthood responsibilities were understood to be specific to a calling and to the authority that applied to the calling. This was not a new principle. Even back in the time of King Saul, he was replaced by David as king because he had taken authority upon himself that was not his.

I also had noted that Paul and Peter were observing that challenges were being made to their authority during their ministries. Paul also told the Corinthian members that there was some sense of distress because some members were saying they were “of Paul” or “of Cephas” or “of Christ”. (1 Corinthians 1:12) So there certainly needed to be both an authority structure and the definite understanding that all authority was centered in Christ.

Again, a wish of peace to you and your family.

 

[Peter_John]

Lax16,

Thanks–I have been, with a wonderful church service to which many of my family came since my daughter was involved in speaking after having been away.

Even with the source you cited in your last paragraph, you will note the words “it is natural that this authority should endure after their death,” with no scripture, no “proof”, that this was the case–it was “natural”.

Yet the bishops looked to the apostles in the New Testament as their “overseers in authority”, and were clearly acting under the direction of the apostles and not acting as though the authority they had meant it was either equal to the apostles or that they had the same keys to “bind and loose” that had been given to the apostles. The Matthew 16 and Matthew 18 verses I had cited show specifically that keys were given to the apostles for that specific purpose. No such designation was shown in the authority given to the bishops.

I also don’t agree that Christ would or should have said that the keys held by the apostles were retained solely by the apostles if that were to be the case. Priesthood responsibilities were understood to be specific to a calling and to the authority that applied to the calling. This was not a new principle. Even back in the time of King Saul, he was replaced by David as king because he had taken authority upon himself that was not his.

I also had noted that Paul and Peter were observing that challenges were being made to their authority during their ministries. Paul also told the Corinthian members that there was some sense of distress because some members were saying they were “of Paul” or “of Cephas” or “of Christ”. (1 Corinthians 1:12) So there certainly needed to be both an authority structure and the definite understanding that all authority was centered in Christ.

Again, a wish of peace to you and your family.

I apologize for belaboring the point, but your post continues with the same facts no in evidence in the prior posts, whcih you continue ignoring when confronted with. He gives the keys to Peter, not to the 12, and nothing you justifies that anyone but Peter has these.

When it becomes a matter of interpretation, the continual record of actually doing the business of running the Church carries sufficient weight that something other than opinion that the Bible does not mean exactly what it says is in order –
though I suppose there is no point inmy pointing this out, since you seem to have chosen not to engage with someone who actually recognizes the internal inconsistencies in your arguments from your own perspective.

I have yet to hear any proof that authority was removed from the Earth, or any reason to doubt the Savior’s promise that it would not be.

 

[ParkerD]

I apologize for belaboring the point, but your post continues with the same facts no in evidence in the prior posts, whcih you continue ignoring when confronted with. He gives the keys to Peter, not to the 12, and nothing you justifies that anyone but Peter has these.

When it becomes a matter of interpretation, the continual record of actually doing the business of running the Church carries sufficient weight that something other than opinion that the Bible does not mean exactly what it says is in order –
though I suppose there is no point inmy pointing this out, since you seem to have chosen not to engage with someone who actually recognizes the internal inconsistencies in your arguments from your own perspective.

I have yet to hear any proof that authority was removed from the Earth, or any reason to doubt the Savior’s promise that it would not be.

Peter John,

Fine–so Peter has the keys to “bind and loose” and they are in heaven where he is, according to your reading of the New Testament.

You are correct that the proof you seek was not provided by God in the way you want proof, and evidently you have no reason to doubt the kind of promise you think was made. My point has been that you have precisely the justification for your beliefs that you desire, and ought to live by what you have chosen and desired for yourself. It is the perfect setup for you to be able to choose your religious beliefs by your personal, heartfelt choice.

So should I choose my beliefs by my personal, heartfelt choice and by seeing the fruits of the gospel in my life just as the apostles and the Savior taught, and I have done this, with gratitude for divine guidance and those fruits in my life. Peace.

 

[Stephen168]

The proof that priesthood authority has been taken from the earth is a Mormon with fruit.

What about Catholics, Protestants, Orthodox, Hindus, Buddhist, and Zoroastrians with fruit?

 

[ParkerD]

The proof that priesthood authority has been taken from the earth is a Mormon with fruit.

What about Catholics, Protestants, Orthodox, Hindus, Buddhist, and Zoroastrians with fruit?

“Ye shall know them by their fruits”, also. Peace.

 

[Stephen168]

“Ye shall know them by their fruits”, also. Peace.

Time flies like an arrow; fruit flies like a banana.

 

[SteveVH]

Kathleen Gee,

Whoever obstructs free will choice and teaches others such as parents to obstruct free will choice, would be applying the “craftiness of men” in their approach. The gospel can’t be rightly lived if it’s lived under the wrong motives.

As far as the Eucharist, I guess I’ll just give two brief comments.

As far as John 6, that was a teaching that continued straight from the Old Testament and was Jesus announcing that He is the Bread (Manna) of life and that His blood was the necessary great and last sacrifice, and the Jews should both hear him and take His message into their hearts (eat the Bread of life), and repent so that they could receive His grace through His great and last sacrifice, the shedding of His blood. Those doctrines were not announcing the Eucharist–they were announcing His divine Sonship and His atoning grace and that He is indeed the Good Shepherd.

Parker, everything you have stated above is according to your own interpretation. But you have missed some “plain and precious” things.

The “Bread of Life is discourse”, found in the 6th chapter of John, is written in two connected, but different parts.

In the first part, Jesus states that “I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me will never hunger, and whoever believes in me will never thirst.” He is preparing them for the Eucharist by stating that they must first believe; they must first have faith. Notice the Jews’ response: “How can he say ‘I have come down from heaven’?” At this point they are not reacting to his statement that he is the bread of life. They did not turn around and leave him.

Now, the second part. Jesus supplements his first statement with shocking language: "I am the living bread that came down to heaven; whoever eats this bread will live forever; and the bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of the world."
The Jews’ response this time is different: “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” Jesus’ response is even stronger this time. “Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you.” Jesus continues: “Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.” It was at this point that his disciples walked away. He did not call them back to explain. A couple of things are important here. He is speaking in the future tense: “…and the bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of the world.” He is speaking of his glorified body which will only occur after the resurrection. He was not asking them to eat is mortal flesh, but rather his glorified, sacramental flesh. The Greek word used here for “eat” means to literally “chew” or “gnaw” and is found only a few times (5 or 6) in all of scripture.

So Jesus begins by telling them that they first must believe, only then will they be able to partake in the true bread of life, not a symbol, that will allow them to live forever. I truly hope that you will also someday come to believe, Parker. Then you can partake in the true Bread of Life and live forever.