LDS priesthood Part 2

[LivingWaters7]

Perhaps it would be helpful to point out the Catechism of the Catholic Church, specifically Chapter 3-The Sacraments at the Service of Communion. There are some interesting quotes in there:

**1536 Holy Orders is the sacrament through which the mission entrusted by Christ to his apostles continues to be exercised in the Church until the end of time: thus it is the sacrament of apostolic ministry. It includes three degrees: episcopate, presbyterate, and diaconate.

1539 The chosen people was constituted by God as “a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.”6 But within the people of Israel, God chose one of the twelve tribes, that of Levi, and set it apart for liturgical service; God himself is its inheritance.7 A special rite consecrated the beginnings of the priesthood of the Old Covenant. The priests are “appointed to act on behalf of men in relation to God, to offer gifts and sacrifices for sins.”8

1540 Instituted to proclaim the Word of God and to restore communion with God by sacrifices and prayer,9 this priesthood nevertheless remains powerless to bring about salvation, needing to repeat its sacrifices ceaselessly and being unable to achieve a definitive sanctification, which only the sacrifice of Christ would accomplish.10 (2099)

1541 The liturgy of the Church, however, sees in the priesthood of Aaron and the service of the Levites, as in the institution of the seventy elders,11 a prefiguring of the ordained ministry of the New Covenant. Thus in the Latin Rite the Church prays in the consecratory preface of the ordination of bishops:

God the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ,…

by your gracious word

you have established the plan of your Church.

From the beginning,

you chose the descendants of Abraham to be your holy nation.

You established rulers and priests,

and did not leave your sanctuary without ministers to serve you… 12

1542 At the ordination of priests, the Church prays:

Lord, holy Father,…

when you had appointed high priests to rule your people,

you chose other men next to them in rank and dignity

to be with them and to help them in their task…

you extended the spirit of Moses to seventy wise men…

You shared among the sons of Aaron

the fullness of their father’s power.13

1544 Everything that the priesthood of the Old Covenant prefigured finds its fulfillment in Christ Jesus, the “one mediator between God and men.”15 The Christian tradition considers Melchizedek, “priest of God Most High,” as a prefiguration of the priesthood of Christ, the unique “high priest after the order of Melchizedek”;16 “holy, blameless, unstained,”17 “by a single offering he has perfected for all time those who are sanctified,”18 that is, by the unique sacrifice of the cross. (874)

1545 The redemptive sacrifice of Christ is unique, accomplished once for all; yet it is made present in the Eucharistic sacrifice of the Church. The same is true of the one priesthood of Christ; it is made present through the ministerial priesthood without diminishing the uniqueness of Christ’s priesthood: “Only Christ is the true priest, the others being only his ministers.”19 (1367, 662)

Two participations in the one priesthood of Christ

1546 Christ, high priest and unique mediator, has made of the Church “a kingdom, priests for his God and Father.”20 The whole community of believers is, as such, priestly. The faithful exercise their baptismal priesthood through their participation, each according to his own vocation, in Christ’s mission as priest, prophet, and king. Through the sacraments of Baptism and Confirmation the faithful are “consecrated to be… a holy priesthood.”21 (1268)

1547 The ministerial or hierarchical priesthood of bishops and priests, and the common priesthood of all the faithful participate, “each in its own proper way, in the one priesthood of Christ.” While being “ordered one to another,” they differ essentially.22 In what sense? While the common priesthood of the faithful is exercised by the unfolding of baptismal grace–—a life of faith, hope, and charity, a life according to the Spirit—, the ministerial priesthood is at the service of the common priesthood. It is directed at the unfolding of the baptismal grace of all Christians. The ministerial priesthood is a means by which Christ unceasingly builds up and leads his Church. For this reason it is transmitted by its own sacrament, the sacrament of Holy Orders. **

 

[LivingWaters7]

A few more interesting quotes:

**In the person of Christ the Head…

1548 In the ecclesial service of the ordained minister, it is Christ himself who is present to his Church as Head of his Body, Shepherd of his flock, high priest of the redemptive sacrifice, Teacher of Truth. This is what the Church means by saying that the priest, by virtue of the sacrament of Holy Orders, acts in persona Christi Capitis:23 (875, 792)

It is the same priest, Christ Jesus, whose sacred person his minister truly represents. Now the minister, by reason of the sacerdotal consecration which he has received, is truly made like to the high priest and possesses the authority to act in the power and place of the person of Christ himself (virtute ac persona ipsius Christi).24

Christ is the source of all priesthood: the priest of the old law was a figure of Christ, and the priest of the new law acts in the person of Christ.25

1549 Through the ordained ministry, especially that of bishops and priests, the presence of Christ as head of the Church is made visible in the midst of the community of believers.26 In the beautiful expression of St. Ignatius of Antioch, the bishop is typos tou Patros: he is like the living image of God the Father.27 (1142)

1550 This presence of Christ in the minister is not to be understood as if the latter were preserved from all human weaknesses, the spirit of domination, error, even sin. The power of the Holy Spirit does not guarantee all acts of ministers in the same way. While this guarantee extends to the sacraments, so that even the minister’s sin cannot impede the fruit of grace, in many other acts the minister leaves human traces that are not always signs of fidelity to the Gospel and consequently can harm the apostolic fruitfulness of the Church.

1551 This priesthood is ministerial. “That office… which the Lord committed to the pastors of his people, is in the strict sense of the term a service.”28 It is entirely related to Christ and to men. It depends entirely on Christ and on his unique priesthood; it has been instituted for the good of men and the communion of the Church. The sacrament of Holy Orders communicates a “sacred power” which is none other than that of Christ. The exercise of this authority must therefore be measured against the model of Christ, who by love made himself the least and the servant of all.29 “The Lord said clearly that concern for his flock was proof of love for him**

 

[Stephen168]

Is there power associated with this authority? If so, what?

not sure what you mean by power but in general authority has power.

 

[Stephen168]

My understanding is that catholic bishops and priests are in the “Order of Melchizedek”, right?

i don’t believe that, is there a quote from the link that makes you believe that?

 

[gazelam]

i don’t believe that, is there a quote from the link that makes you believe that?

by Fr. Kyle Schnippel on June 24, 2009

Contrary to what might be expected, the first priest mentioned in the Bible is not from the Tribe of Levi. In fact, the first priest is described before Levi is even born. In Genesis 14, we are introduced to Melchizedek, who is described as “Priest of God Most High.” Identified in Psalm 110 and extensively reflected upon in the Letter to the Hebrews, Melchizedek remains an elusive figure in the Scripture.

Even so, he appears in the Roman Canon at Mass; today’s priests are ordained to “the Order of Melchizedek,” and his appearance in Genesis forms the basis of some of our theology of the priesthood. As we begin the Year for Priests, it behooves us to reflect more deeply upon this King of Righteousness.

 

[kimg901]

Yes, order means to group like things. So the order of Melchizedek is someone like him. We see in Hebrews that the person like him is Jesus Christ.

Your correct. Only Jesus can be like God (although we believe they are one in the same. I type this because I dont want anyone thinking we dont) As for your response about catholic priests being of the Melchizedek Order, I dont believe its ever been taught or brought into question, do you? I tried researching it but maybe im not looking in the right place.

 

[kimg901]

From Genesis Chp 14 Footnote 14,18:

Salem: traditionally identified with Jerusalem (Ps 76, 3), but the Hebrew text is not certain; instead of the present melek shalem (“king of Salem”) the original may have been melek shelomo (“a king allied to him”). In Heb 7, 2, "king of Salem is interpreted as “king of peace” (shalom).

 

[kimg901]

Perhaps it would be helpful to point out the Catechism of the Catholic Church, specifically Chapter 3-The Sacraments at the Service of Communion. There are some interesting quotes in there:

**1536 Holy Orders is the sacrament through which the mission entrusted by Christ to his apostles continues to be exercised in the Church until the end of time: thus it is the sacrament of apostolic ministry. It includes three degrees: episcopate, presbyterate, and diaconate.

1539 The chosen people was constituted by God as “a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.”6 But within the people of Israel, God chose one of the twelve tribes, that of Levi, and set it apart for liturgical service; God himself is its inheritance.7 A special rite consecrated the beginnings of the priesthood of the Old Covenant. The priests are “appointed to act on behalf of men in relation to God, to offer gifts and sacrifices for sins.”8

1540 Instituted to proclaim the Word of God and to restore communion with God by sacrifices and prayer,9 this priesthood nevertheless remains powerless to bring about salvation, needing to repeat its sacrifices ceaselessly and being unable to achieve a definitive sanctification, which only the sacrifice of Christ would accomplish.10 (2099)

1541 The liturgy of the Church, however, sees in the priesthood of Aaron and the service of the Levites, as in the institution of the seventy elders,11 a prefiguring of the ordained ministry of the New Covenant. Thus in the Latin Rite the Church prays in the consecratory preface of the ordination of bishops:

God the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ,…

by your gracious word

you have established the plan of your Church.

From the beginning,

you chose the descendants of Abraham to be your holy nation.

You established rulers and priests,

and did not leave your sanctuary without ministers to serve you… 12

1542 At the ordination of priests, the Church prays:

Lord, holy Father,…

when you had appointed high priests to rule your people,

you chose other men next to them in rank and dignity

to be with them and to help them in their task…

you extended the spirit of Moses to seventy wise men…

You shared among the sons of Aaron

the fullness of their father’s power.13

1544 Everything that the priesthood of the Old Covenant prefigured finds its fulfillment in Christ Jesus, the “one mediator between God and men.”15 The Christian tradition considers Melchizedek, “priest of God Most High,” as a prefiguration of the priesthood of Christ, the unique “high priest after the order of Melchizedek”;16 “holy, blameless, unstained,”17 “by a single offering he has perfected for all time those who are sanctified,”18 that is, by the unique sacrifice of the cross. (874)

1545 The redemptive sacrifice of Christ is unique, accomplished once for all; yet it is made present in the Eucharistic sacrifice of the Church. The same is true of the one priesthood of Christ; it is made present through the ministerial priesthood without diminishing the uniqueness of Christ’s priesthood: “Only Christ is the true priest, the others being only his ministers.”19 (1367, 662)

Two participations in the one priesthood of Christ**

1546 Christ, high priest and unique mediator, has made of the Church “a kingdom, priests for his God and Father.”20 The whole community of believers is, as such, priestly. The faithful exercise their baptismal priesthood through their participation, each according to his own vocation, in Christ’s mission as priest, prophet, and king. Through the sacraments of Baptism and Confirmation the faithful are “consecrated to be… a holy priesthood.”21 (1268)

1547 The ministerial or hierarchical priesthood of bishops and priests, and the common priesthood of all the faithful participate, “each in its own proper way, in the one priesthood of Christ.” While being “ordered one to another,” they differ essentially.22 In what sense? While the common priesthood of the faithful is exercised by the unfolding of baptismal grace–—a life of faith, hope, and charity, a life according to the Spirit—, the ministerial priesthood is at the service of the common priesthood. It is directed at the unfolding of the baptismal grace of all Christians. The ministerial priesthood is a means by which Christ unceasingly builds up and leads his Church. For this reason it is transmitted by its own sacrament, the sacrament of Holy Orders.

So Living Waters, how do take what is written in the CCC? I read what you posted earlier today when I got out my CCC and I see it that maybe it wasnt passed on to anyone. That God gave it to Jesus for himself and no one else.

 

[Stephen168]

by Fr. Kyle Schnippel on June 24, 2009

Contrary to what might be expected, the first priest mentioned in the Bible is not from the Tribe of Levi. In fact, the first priest is described before Levi is even born. In Genesis 14, we are introduced to Melchizedek, who is described as “Priest of God Most High.” Identified in Psalm 110 and extensively reflected upon in the Letter to the Hebrews, Melchizedek remains an elusive figure in the Scripture.

Even so, he appears in the Roman Canon at Mass; today’s priests are ordained to “the Order of Melchizedek,” and his appearance in Genesis forms the basis of some of our theology of the priesthood. As we begin the Year for Priests, it behooves us to reflect more deeply upon this King of Righteousness.

I guess you missed part of it

What becomes important for today is that the priesthood in which Catholic Priests share, and by extension that all the baptized share in as well, goes back not just to the Sacrifice in the Jerusalem Temple, but back to the very foundations of creation by God.

 

[Stephen168]

.
And even if there was such a thing; no human would qualify for the Melchizedek priesthood.

Genesis 14:18-20 A King-Priest Melchizedek appears and gives Abram bread and wine; then blesses Abram. A King-Priest who suddenly appears with no genealogy; no parents or children.

Psalm 110:4 King David speaks of a priest that will come in the same way that Melchizedek was a priest. A King-Priest bringing bread and wine. A priest directly from God and not from Aaron; the tribe of Levi.

Jeremiah 31:31-34 God will make a new covenant. It will be different from the old one: It will last forever, it will be written on the hearts of men not just stone tablets, and all people will know him.

Hebrews 7:1-3 Melchizedek appears without father, mother, or children, and was a priest always. Compared to the divine Christ, the Son of Man; who was born without father, mother, or children, and was a priest always. There is no actual Melchizedek priesthood. Melchizedek is a High Priest and King who is the example of the Messiah. What Melchizedek is in portrayal, Christ is in fact: the unique priest of all mankind.

Hebrews 7:4-10 Abraham paid tithes to Melchizedek. The priests of Aaron were also sons of Abraham, so Melchizedek was a superior priesthood than the Levitical priesthood.

Hebrews 7:11-14 If the Levitical priesthood was good enough, there would be no need for another priest as prophesied by King David. A new priest means a change in the law.

Hebrews 7:15-19 Christ is the new High Priest according to the order of Melchizedek. He abolishes the Levitical priesthood and the law. They were abolished because the law did not bring man into close communication with God.

Hebrews 7:20-25 Through Christ there is a better covenant because he is the eternal high priest like Melchizedek.

Hebrews 7:26-28 There is no need to offer sacrifices daily like the Levitical priesthood. Christ offered himself one time for all people sins forever.

John 6:31-69 Jesus tells his disciples, he is the bread of life. The Jews doubt him and he repeats his claim. They doubt him again and he tells them that he is the bread of life and you must eat his flesh and drink his blood. Many of his disciples leave him. The Jews gave Jesus three chances to tell them he was talking in a figurative manor but did not.

Matthew 26:26-28; Mark 14:22-24; Luke 22:19-20; 1 Corinth 11:23-25 Jesus tells his Apostles to eat his body and drink his blood in remembrance and for the forgiveness of sin. The blood of the new and everlasting covenant that he will shed for us.

Hebrews 8:1-5 We have Jesus our high priest sitting in heaven. If he was on earth he would not be a priest of the order of Melchizedek; just Aaron. In heaven, he is still offering gifts and sacrifices according to the order of Melchizedek. The gifts of Levi are just a shadow of the heavenly gifts offered by Christ.

Hebrews 9:11-15 Christ is in heaven by the perfect sacrifice of his blood. And he is the mediator of the new covenant.

John 1:26 Jesus Christ is the Lamb of God. His sacrifice will take away the sin of the world.

Revelations 7:17 Christ is the High Priest according to the order of Melchizedek. He had no beginning and no end. Just as Melchizedek brought bread and wine, Christ is feeding his flock through his flesh and blood in the new covenant. This food we call Eucharist.

 

[TexanKnight]

I guess a good place to start is, if the Mel. Priesthood is so important…why did we not see Jesus confer it on the Apostles in NONE of the Gospels?

 

[kimg901]

I guess a good place to start is, if the Mel. Priesthood is so important…why did we not see Jesus confer it on the Apostles in NONE of the Gospels?

The more I think and read about it, Im starting to lean to the thoughts that it was only for Christ, no one else. Just like Christ is the only one that can and did die for our sins. Its not something He passed on.

 

[Stephen168]

In LDS theology, “Apostle” is an office within the Melchizedek priesthood. I hope this helps.

Jesus had an earthly ministry. During his ministry, he taught his disciple all they needed to know for salvation. Many of his disciples were called Apostles. The term ‘Apostle’ means one who is sent. Jesus selected The Twelve: Simon (Peter/Cephas/Rock), James (the Greater/son of Zebedee/brother of John), John (the Evangelist/the brother of James), Andrew, Philip, Bartholomew, Matthew, Thomas, James (the Lesser/the son of Alphaeus), Jude (Thaddaeus), Simon (the Zealot/Canaanite), and Judas Iscariot. Christ sent the Twelve (Matthew 10:5). Christ selected 70 more and they were sent (Luke 10:1). Mark and Luke the Evangelists are referred to as Apostles. By tradition, James, Luke, and Mark were members of the seventy. Paul and Barnabas were called Apostles (Acts 14:14, Gal 2:9, Acts 13:1-3). Barnabas was taught by the Twelve and was with Paul on his first journey. These Apostles are the witnesses and recorders of Christ’s earthly ministry. Most were witnesses to his resurrection.

Just as sheep have four legs but not all animals with four legs are sheep; all the Apostles were not ‘The Twelve.’ The Twelve were the foundation of his Church (Eph 2:19-22), but not just any 12 but THE Twelve (Rev 21:14). The corner stone and the foundation are laid once. Just as Christ is eternally the head of the Church, The Twelve are the eternal foundation.

Because of Judas’ apostasy (Acts 1:25), the Twelve needed to be restored. The eleven chose Matthias.
According to Peter there are two requirements to be a member of the Twelve. The two requirements are:
a) Witness the resurrected Lord
b) Been in the company of the twelve while the Lord walked on earth.
These requirements limit the council membership to the first century. After all the men that walked with the twelve, while the Lord walked the earth, died; no one else qualified. The Twelve was never meant to be on going. This was the only time eleven selected a twelfth; one apostasy, one replacement. Revelation 21:14: Peter/Cephas/Rock, James son of Zebedee, John the Evangelist, Andrew, Philip, Bartholomew, Matthew, Thomas, James the son of Alphaeus, Jude, Simon the Zealot, and Matthias.
Just as there was no need to replace Christ as the head of Church after the crucifixion, or replace The Twelve as the foundation after their deaths; the Twelve were not replaced after their deaths. If Apostle was only an office to be filled, they could have easily been replaced; just like Bishops have been replaced for almost 2000 years.

The only consistent meaning to being called ‘Apostle’ seems to be an Evangelist who was taught by Christ or The Twelve. The Twelve would pass from the earth by design. The title of Apostle would pass from the earth because The Twelve were not here to commission them. When Eusebius (Eusebius’ Ecclesiastical History © 324) refers to an Apostle being replaced it is as the Apostle’s position of Bishop (Peter in Rome, James in Jerusalem) not as Apostles. As the Apostles died, IF they were also Bishops, they were replaced by Bishops.

“For by her activity the machinations of her foes were promptly shown up and extinguished, though one after another heresies were invented, the earlier ones constantly passing away and disappearing, in different ways at different times, into forms of every shape and character. But the splendor of the Catholic and one true Church, always remaining the same and unchanged, grew steadily in greatness and strength,” Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History Book IV, Chapter 7.

 

[LDSYep]

On reading through this thread I think that the LDS position is similar to that of the Catholic in this regard. It is semantics mainly separating the two views.

Responses given lead me to an understanding that, in Catholicism, the Priesthood is held by Christ and “Shared” by the Catholic priests. Is this correct?

The following is my attempt to word LDS belief in a manner that will make sense to a Catholic (if the other LDS posters would correct any errors, or provide further clarification, in what I posit here I would appreciate it):

From an LDS position, the Prophet holds the Priesthood which holding can be understood as the sharing of the power/authority by Christ. LDS believe that all holders of the priesthood hold it by virtue of the sharing from the prophet. The “priesthood” that we as LDS hold is only by virtue of Christ, it is an extended delegation of responsibility and authority. The only “true Priest” is Christ in that He is the only being next to God the Father to hold priesthood in, and of, Himself.

 

[TexanKnight]

On reading through this thread I think that the LDS position is similar to that of the Catholic in this regard. It is semantics mainly separating the two views.

Responses given lead me to an understanding that, in Catholicism, the Priesthood is held by Christ and “Shared” by the Catholic priests. Is this correct?

The following is my attempt to word LDS belief in a manner that will make sense to a Catholic (if the other LDS posters would correct any errors, or provide further clarification, in what I posit here I would appreciate it):

From an LDS position, the Prophet holds the Priesthood which holding can be understood as the sharing of the power/authority by Christ. LDS believe that all holders of the priesthood hold it by virtue of the sharing from the prophet. The “priesthood” that we as LDS hold is only by virtue of Christ, it is an extended delegation of responsibility and authority. The only “true Priest” is Christ in that He is the only being next to God the Father to hold priesthood in, and of, Himself.

I guess a good place to start is, if the Mel. Priesthood is so important…why did we not see Jesus confer it on the Apostles in NONE of the Gospels?

 

[LDSYep]

I guess a good place to start is, if the Mel. Priesthood is so important…why did we not see Jesus confer it on the Apostles in NONE of the Gospels?

My personal view is that the writers of the Gospels felt that it was redundant to include the statement as it was common knowledge that the Apostles held such.

A similar question to yours: If a transition from Apostle to Bishop truly occurred, why was such not included in the NT? Especially as this would have been one of the major ecclesiastical acts of Peter? Is there any evidence of support from the rest of the Apostles?

 

[Stephen168]

On reading through this thread I think that the LDS position is similar to that of the Catholic in this regard. It is semantics mainly separating the two views.

The Catholic priesthood is like Melchizedek and the Mormon priesthood is not, so it is much more than semantics.

 

[LivingWaters7]

On reading through this thread I think that the LDS position is similar to that of the Catholic in this regard. It is semantics mainly separating the two views.

Well I think that there are clear differences between Catholic/Orthodox and LDS understandings of the priesthood. One important one is that Catholics/Orthodox believe that the primary purpose of the priesthood of God is to offer sacrifice on behalf of the people. In Old Testament times, we know that the priests offered sacrifices in the temple in similitude of the sacrifice of Christ. Catholics/Orthodox believe that now, priests offer (or “re-present”) the once and for all sacrifice of Christ at Mass/Divine Liturgy. Yes, priests are believed to also be able to perform other sacraments/mysteries, perform blessings, etc, however their principle function is to offer the sacrifice of the Mass. LDS do not share that sacrificial understanding of the main purpose of the priesthood.

Then of course there’s the LDS understanding of the priesthood being divided into two priesthoods: the lesser, or Aaronic Priesthood, and the greater, or Melchizedek Priesthood, an understanding not shared with Catholicism. Catholics believe that there is only one priesthood, with different offices.

 

[Stephen168]

My personal view is that the writers of the Gospels felt that it was redundant to include the statement as it was common knowledge that the Apostles held such.

The writer of Hebrews made it clear there is no such thing as a Melchizedek Priesthood

 

[Stephen168]

A similar question to yours: If a transition from Apostle to Bishop truly occurred, why was such not included in the NT? Especially as this would have been one of the major ecclesiastical acts of Peter? Is there any evidence of support from the rest of the Apostles?

See post #33