Mormon "Apostasy & Restoration"

[dianaiad]

The mormon view of this is much different. They think studying for serving as a clergy is a idea that comes from apostasy. ParkerD, if he is coming back, will most likely point out they have a lay clergy that are not paid. This too is an idea of their “restoration”.

Pretty much, every discussion in this area has two responses from a mormon. “The Catholic Church messed it up so bad it had to be restored”. Or, in the cases where we have similarities, “some things the Catholic Church didn’t mess up so bad”.

In short, the Mormon religions (and all other restoration religions) are based on one thing first…Christ’s Church failed. It is just yet one of the many unbelievable, and falsifiable, things that mormonism proposes as “truth”.

“Christ’s church” did not fail. Christians failed Christ’s church. The priesthood was lost. Revelation was either denied, or discounted; certainly no more scripture was written.

 

[KathleenGee]

I called SLC. Later I returned to the store to find that book again, and it was pulled and none of them knew about the Pearl of Great Price…I saw that as a cover-up and same with their Masonic rituals where the men go through some type of grasping of the throat and gasping in regards to their vowed and sealed opposition to our faith. I heard this ritual ended in 1997.

And the Masonic symbols…Joseph Smith was associated with the Masons…

 

[TheosisM]

Whoooaaaa!

I opened ‘Pearl of Great Price’ and it did not say Catholic, it said the great Roman church and its whoredaughters, the Protestants!!!

We are Roman Catholics.

um lol, what? It doesn’t say that.

 

[dianaiad]

Yet that is exactly what some Mormons have told us. The one I talked to said the Atonement happened in the garden. So how did THEY get that idea?

You weren’t paying attention, Ricko.

It is true that we do believe that the Atonement included the Garden. Very much so. But nobody is going to tell you that it was ONLY the Garden. How anybody could figure that the Atonement did not include His time in the Garden of Gethsemane is a mystery to me; what in the world do you think His prayer there was all about, if not an acceptance of the charge, and His expressed willingness to do what needed doing?

 

[dianaiad]

Your comments don’t actually address my question of who says that bishops cannot ordain other bishops.

Yes, it does—rather directly. Since LDS Bishops can, and do, ordain other Bishops (as High Priests they most certainly may participate in that, and a Bishop remains a Bishop even after he leaves office; he is entitled to be called 'Bishop so and so" for the remainder of his life). The question is specifically to do with that line of authority. LDS Bishops cannot ordain other LDS Bishops without permission from an apostle, and Catholic Bishops cannot ordain other Bishops without permission from the Pope.

: Needing the permission of the Pope (who holds the keys as successor of Peter, that’s where this permission aspect comes from) does not take away from the fact that Catholic bishops ordain other bishops.

You are equivocating. That idea of the ‘keys’ or line of authority, IS the question, not some mechanical statement of who can ordain whom. It is that permission that is the problem. Where does the Pope get it?

: My question again is, who says that bishops cannot ordain other bishops? ParkerD already responded that the absence of explaining that bishops would ordain other bishops answers my question.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=6047947&postcount=22

 

[kimmielittle]

Well, actually—you guys do. I was most intrigued when I saw, on that list of sins that cause automatic excommunication (like abortion does) is that any Bishop who ordains another Bishop without Papal permission is committing a mortal sin akin to desecrating the Host, ordaining a woman or getting an abortion.

Wow.

So YOU guys say that a Bishop cannot ordain another Bishop–not without Papal approval and permission.

Well, who gave the Pope permission to give that permission? You claim apostolic succession, but isn’t the Pope simply another Bishop?

Now WE believe that such permission must come from the Qourum of the Twelve apostles. Once that is given…then a Bishop may indeed ordain another Bishop. In fact, in many cases, one does. But he has to have permission first…from an apostle.

Your Bishops need permission from the Pope. So the question is, where does HE get the authority to allow this?

Hiyas
The Popes authority comes from here:
The Holy Father is elected by the College of Cardinals. The maximum number of Cardinal Electors allowed at any one time is 120.

catholic-pages.com/pope/election.asp

I hope this helps

catholic-pages.com/pope/election.asp

 

[dianaiad]

So Titus’ ordination was valid because he was ordained by Paul, but he (Titus) then had no authority to ordain anyone after him?

Not without permission from Paul, no. Just as your present Bishops do not have the authority to ordain other Bishops without authority from the Pope. As long as Titus had that permission, as long as Paul (or any other apostle, with the keys) was around to provide that line of authority, Titus could ordain others.

This scenario would also make St. Peter, St. John, St. Paul and the rest of the Apostles culpable for not ordaining more apostles such as is done in the LDS Church. Why didn’t they ordain more apostles if they had any belief that the priesthood authority would end with their deaths? This makes no sense!!!

Well, they did, actually. Remember, Paul wasn’t one of the original twelve. So they did not because…they could not, or they chose not to…the world was an incredibly different place. Being a Christian was a rather dangerous life choice. It was then, I gather, that the gates of hell almost prevailed.

Does this also mean that if there was some sort of natural disaster or calamity where the Quorum of Twelve all died (at once), that the LDS Church would lose all of its priesthood authority?

Absent a prophet being called? It could happen. I have faith that it won’t…that Yellowstone National Park will not erupt during General Conference.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Obviously there is one, by your own rules. If a modern Catholic Bishop is the equal of an ancient apostle, then none would need Papal permission to ordain another Bishop. Since he does…Hmnn…

Not to muddy your argument or anything. This permission is in the context of a Council of Bishops. The Conference of Bishops that have jurisdiction over an area recommend who should be ordained. The Pope approves the recommendation and ordains a Priest to Bishop (in the Latin Rite). In the US this conference is the USCCB.

This is the law for the Latin Rite. There are Catholic Churches, in communion with Rome, who choose their own Bishops/Patriarchs, and no approval from Rome is required.

 

[Catholic20064]

I called SLC. Later I returned to the store to find that book again, and it was pulled and none of them knew about the Pearl of Great Price…I saw that as a cover-up and same with their Masonic rituals where the men go through some type of grasping of the throat and gasping in regards to their vowed and sealed opposition to our faith. I heard this ritual ended in 1997.

And the Masonic symbols…Joseph Smith was associated with the Masons…

It’s possible you had purchased a commentary on the Pearl of Great Price instead of the actual scripture. It also could have just been a book with that title since there are some with that title that aren’t the actual scriptures. We’d have to know exactly what you purchased before we could really judge what you read. It is certain there are some Mormons in the past who have claimed the Catholic Church to be the Whore of Babylon – in his first edition of “Mormon Doctrine” Bruce R. McConkie made that claim and was ordered to remove it from subsequent editions.

 

[TheosisM]

Yes, it does—rather directly. Since LDS Bishops can, and do, ordain other Bishops (as High Priests they most certainly may participate in that, and a Bishop remains a Bishop even after he leaves office; he is entitled to be called 'Bishop so and so" for the remainder of his life). The question is specifically to do with that line of authority. LDS Bishops cannot ordain other LDS Bishops without permission from an apostle, and Catholic Bishops cannot ordain other Bishops without permission from the Pope.

You are equivocating. That idea of the ‘keys’ or line of authority, IS the question, not some mechanical statement of who can ordain whom. It is that permission that is the problem. Where does the Pope get it?

You’re missing the context of my original question. ParkerD said that the loss of authority happened (or at least partly happened) when bishops thought that they could ordain other bishops. From that comment I asked my question, since I got from that the view that bishops did not have the power to ordain other bishops. ParkerD’s subsequent explanation, of Paul (an apostle) ordaining Titus, who then ordained others (bishops), and that there is an absence of explaining that bishops would ordain other bishops, is in line with my understanding of what he is referring to (whether bishops can ordain other bishops).

So, are you saying that Mormon bishops can ordain other bishops? Yes, yes, permission is important, but my entire beginning premise (with ParkerD) was that permission to do whatever is already had. Is it possible for a Mormon bishop to ordain another bishop? I thought it was one of the General Authorities, Area Seventies, or Stake President.

I’ve already answered where the Pope gets “it”. In Catholicism, all bishops are successors of the apostles. The Pope is specifically the successor of the apostle Peter, and holds the keys. All bishops can ordain other bishops. It is because of Papal primacy, stemming from Petrine primacy (and his keys), with the Pope being the physical symbol of unity in the Church that the Pope authorizes the ordination of other bishops.

 

[dianaiad]

Whoooaaaa!

I opened ‘Pearl of Great Price’ and it did not say Catholic, it said the great Roman church and its whoredaughters, the Protestants!!!

I’m sorry, but the Pearl of Great Price does not contain the word “Roman,” or the term “whore daughters,” or “protestant” plural or singular. The only instance of the word “church” is found in “Joseph Smith-History” and refer only to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. It does have the word “Methodist” in it–something about Joseph’s family joining the Methodists when he was young, but that’s all there is that can come close to “Protestant.”

Are you SURE you have the 'Pearl of Great Price?" Because the book you seem to be referencing doesn’t seem to bear much resemblance to the copies I have.

We are Roman Catholics.

Most of you here are, yes. So? That still doesn’t mean that the Pearl of Great Price says what you claim it does.

The Mormons as well as the fundamentalists need to study the first 300 years of Christianity, the liturgy and the development of the Bible as well as defining our Creed. Otherwise, we are flip flopping…

I know about the concept of the Atonement at the Garden of Gethsemane…there were a number of events after Gethsemane that fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah…each event a significance in itself. Jesus’ ministry was not completed until He ascended into heaven.

We agree on the process of the Atonement, at least…

But you have my curiousity very well aroused. What book ARE you reading, because it sure ain’t “The Pearl of Great Price!”

 

[RebeccaJ]

It’s possible you had purchased a commentary on the Pearl of Great Price instead of the actual scripture. It also could have just been a book with that title since there are some with that title that aren’t the actual scriptures. We’d have to know exactly what you purchased before we could really judge what you read. It is certain there are some Mormons in the past who have claimed the Catholic Church to be the Whore of Babylon – in his first edition of “Mormon Doctrine” Bruce R. McConkie made that claim and was ordered to remove it from subsequent editions.

As a Mormon growing up in the 60’s/70’s, I was taught in Sunday School that the Catholic Church is the whore of Babylon. Their temple ritual also included a Satan character that was a priest/pastor.

Today, that part of their ritual has been removed and Mormons can have a wide range of beliefs re: this and still be Mormon.

 

[TheosisM]

Obviously there is one, by your own rules. If a modern Catholic Bishop is the equal of an ancient apostle, then none would need Papal permission to ordain another Bishop. Since he does…Hmnn…

I’m not sure what Catholic20064 was getting at, but bishops are not apostles in Catholicism. They are similar in many ways, but they are not equal to each other. The Pope is a bishop also, and has primacy over the other bishops, yet he is still a bishop (since one is not ordained a Pope).

 

[TheosisM]

Not to muddy your argument or anything. This permission is in the context of a Council of Bishops. The Conference of Bishops that have jurisdiction over an area recommend who should be ordained. The Pope approves the recommendation and ordains a Priest to Bishop (in the Latin Rite). In the US this conference is the USCCB.

This is the law for the Latin Rite. There are Catholic Churches, in communion with Rome, who choose their own Bishops/Patriarchs, and no approval from Rome is required.

Are you referring to the Eastern Catholic churches? I believe the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches says that they still have to be approved by Rome, though I could be wrong. Since they are “autonomous” churches, and not “autocephalous”, I believe they still need approval from Rome, though their own synods do choose the bishop.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Are you referring to the Eastern Catholic churches? I believe the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches says that they still have to be approved by Rome, though I could be wrong. Since they are “autonomous” churches, and not “autocephalous”, I believe they still need approval from Rome, though their own synods do choose the bishop.

Yes, Eastern Catholic. Interesting, I thought it was the bishops of the particular church that voted and approved ordinations and the Patriarch himself is given ecclesiastical recognition by Rome.

 

[Catholic20064]

“Christ’s church” did not fail. Christians failed Christ’s church. The priesthood was lost. Revelation was either denied, or discounted; certainly no more scripture was written.

Let’s look at Matthew 28:

18: And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.
19: Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
20: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

He said he would be with them always, even unto the end of the world. He didn’t say anything about the need for Christians to be perfect in order for Him to remain with them. He told them to go teach all nations, baptizing in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. The Catholic Church has carried out Christ’s command to do exactly that. The idea that priesthood authority was completely lost flies in the face of the above scripture. Christ’s being with them did not depend upon them writing more scripture or even receiving more public revelation. The Holy Spirit has continued to unfold understanding of the complete final revelation given by Christ to His Church at the time of His ministry. Nothing new needed to be revealed, but it was still necessary for the Holy Spirit to teach the Church exactly what the revelation Christ gave us meant in its totality. That has happened.

The Church’s authority does not depend upon the worthiness of its ministers, but upon the faithfulness of Christ – the Church is completely dependent upon God’s grace. If any church depends upon the worthiness of its ministers it is doomed to fail because all men are imperfect sinners including those who lead the LDS Church.

 

[TheosisM]

Yes, Eastern Catholic. Interesting, I thought it was the bishops of the particular church that approved ordinations and the Patriarch himself is given ecclesiastical recognition by Rome.

The last time I thought about this was in the context of Eastern Orthodoxy vs. Eastern Catholicism, and I vaguely remember seeing an Eastern Catholic canon referenced that said something about how they had to be approved by Rome. I’ll have to search though to be sure. Since the Eastern Catholic churches are autonomous, by definition, I’d assume that the overseeing church (i.e. the Roman Catholic church) would have to give some sort of approval of selected candidates for the episcopate.

I could be wrong though, I’ll get back to you.

 

[TheosisM]

The Church’s authority does not depend upon the worthiness of its ministers, but upon the faithfulness of Christ – the Church is completely dependent upon God’s grace. If any church depends upon the worthiness of its ministers it is doomed to fail because all men are imperfect sinners including those who lead the LDS Church.

I’m glad you brought this up. This is very important, especially in relation to the sacraments.

 

[kimmielittle]

Was Mr. Smith Baptized? I mean before he found his new church.

If so who Baptized him?

 

[RebeccaJ]

The last time I thought about this was in the context of Eastern Orthodoxy vs. Eastern Catholicism, and I vaguely remember seeing an Eastern Catholic canon referenced that said something about how they had to be approved by Rome. I’ll have to search though to be sure. Since the Eastern Catholic churches are autonomous, by definition, I’d assume that the overseeing church (i.e. the Roman Catholic church) would have to give some sort of approval of selected candidates for the episcopate.

I could be wrong though, I’ll get back to you.

OK.