Mormon "Apostasy & Restoration"

[TheosisM]

OK.

I think this is what I was thinking of:

CCEO Canon 182
*

1. Candidates suitable for the episcopate can be proposed only by members of the synod of bishops of the patriarchal Church who can, according to the norm of particular law, collect information and documents which are necessary to establish the suitability of
   the candidates, hearing, if they think it appropriate, secretly and individually, certain presbyters or also other Christian faithful outstanding in prudence and Christian life. 2. The bishops are to report their findings to the patriarch at a suitable time prior to the convocation of the synod of bishops of the patriarchal Church. The patriarch, if the case warrants it, adding his own additional information, transmits the matter to all the members of the synod. 3. Unless particular law approved by the Roman Pontiff states otherwise, the synod of bishops of the patriarchal Church is to examine the names of the candidates and compile a list of the candidates by secret ballot, which is to be transmitted through the patriarch to the Apostolic See to obtain the assent of the Roman Pontiff. 4. The assent of the Roman Pontiff once given for an individual candidate is valid until it has been explicitly revoked, in which case the name of the candidate is to be removed from the list.*

Then there’s this article:

cnewa.org/ecc-bodypg-us.aspx?eccpageID=54

“Each Eastern Catholic patriarchal church has the right to choose its own Patriarch. He is elected by the Synod of Bishops and is immediately proclaimed and enthroned. He subsequently requests ecclesiastical communion from the Pope. The synods of patriarchal churches also elect bishops for dioceses within the patriarchal territory from a list of candidates that have been approved by the Holy See. If the one elected has not been previously approved, he must obtain the consent of the Pope before ordination as bishop. A Major Archbishop is elected in the same manner as a Patriarch, but his election must be confirmed by the Roman Pontiff before he can be enthroned. Metropolitans are named by the Pope on the basis of a list of at least three candidates submitted by the church’ council of bishops.”

So, they choose their own bishops and patriarchs, but there’s still some sort of approval needed from Rome.

 

[RebeccaJ]

I think this is what I was thinking of:

CCEO Canon 182
*

1. Candidates suitable for the episcopate can be proposed only by members of the synod of bishops of the patriarchal Church who can, according to the norm of particular law, collect information and documents which are necessary to establish the suitability of
   the candidates, hearing, if they think it appropriate, secretly and individually, certain presbyters or also other Christian faithful outstanding in prudence and Christian life. 2. The bishops are to report their findings to the patriarch at a suitable time prior to the convocation of the synod of bishops of the patriarchal Church. The patriarch, if the case warrants it, adding his own additional information, transmits the matter to all the members of the synod. 3. Unless particular law approved by the Roman Pontiff states otherwise, the synod of bishops of the patriarchal Church is to examine the names of the candidates and compile a list of the candidates by secret ballot, which is to be transmitted through the patriarch to the Apostolic See to obtain the assent of the Roman Pontiff. 4. The assent of the Roman Pontiff once given for an individual candidate is valid until it has been explicitly revoked, in which case the name of the candidate is to be removed from the list.*

Then there’s this article:

cnewa.org/ecc-bodypg-us.aspx?eccpageID=54

“Each Eastern Catholic patriarchal church has the right to choose its own Patriarch. He is elected by the Synod of Bishops and is immediately proclaimed and enthroned. He subsequently requests ecclesiastical communion from the Pope. The synods of patriarchal churches also elect bishops for dioceses within the patriarchal territory from a list of candidates that have been approved by the Holy See. If the one elected has not been previously approved, he must obtain the consent of the Pope before ordination as bishop. A Major Archbishop is elected in the same manner as a Patriarch, but his election must be confirmed by the Roman Pontiff before he can be enthroned. Metropolitans are named by the Pope on the basis of a list of at least three candidates submitted by the church’ council of bishops.”

So, they choose their own bishops and patriarchs, but there’s still some sort of approval needed from Rome.

Thanks.

 

[Catholic20064]

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.

I would like to ask our LDS friends a question about this verse. What part of “always” don’t you understand? Does “always” mean Christ would abandon His church in 110 A.D.? 421 A.D.? 1060 A.D.? 1516 A.D.? I don’t see how an apostasy of the church with loss of priesthood authority can possibly be reconciled with this verse.

 

[dianaiad]

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…

Well, that tells me that whatever store you were in, it wasn’t a Deseret bookstore or anything else affiliated with the CoJCoLDS. Since we believe that the Pearl of Great Price is a book of scripture, and is one of the four 'Standard Works" along with the Bible, the Book of Mormon and the Doctrine and Covenants, it tells me that the original store was NOT an LDS affiliated store, and you got your hands on some rather nasty anti-Mormon bit of literature. That makes a whole lot more sense to me than what you’ve been saying so far. For crying out loud, sweetie, NO LDS/Mormon bookstore would NOT know what the Pearl of Great Price is! That’s like claiming that a Catholic bookstore wouldn’t have a copy of the Douay-Rheims–or a rosary!

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…

(shaking head in utter wonder…)

Your version of the Temple rituals is right up there with your claims regarding the Pearl of Great Price. As for Joseph Smith being a Mason…yeah, he was. So? The Masons are pretty neat people.

My grandfather was a Mason, too. and Grandma was President of the local Eastern Star. Of course, G’pa was an agnostic at the time. It’s only been recently that the Masonic Lodge in Utah would allow Mormons in.

 

[dianaiad]

um lol, what? It doesn’t say that.

I know…I think that she is confused, and got some anti-Mormon ‘expose’ of the PoGP…and as to the store that claimed never to have heard of it?

Great googly moogly.

 

[dianaiad]

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

And the Cardinals get their authority from…???

Aren’t they ‘bishops,’ not apostles?

 

[dianaiad]

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.

But for those of the Latin rite, if that permission is not sought, it is an automatic excommunication.

 

[dianaiad]

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.

Indeed he was. Which should tell you something about what we believe in this area.

You are correct; I think she did purchase a commentary, rather than the book itself, and what’s more, it is a commentary written by a particularly inventive critic of the church.

 

[dianaiad]

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.

Yes, Theosis…but you need to see it in the context of our beliefs. He meant…when bishops thought that they could ordain other bishops with out the line of authority from apostles. You know, on their own steam, so to speak. Now that this is clear, for you to continue to pound on this issue is a huge strawman/red herring…equivocation…as in, c’mon, you know what he meant!

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.

Well, they don’t, on their own authority. They DO, when given that authority properly. Catholics have the same rule.

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.

Begging the question, there. If the ‘permission is already had,’ then of course, yes. However, that permission isn’t blanket permission to go out and ordain as one wills. As your Bishops must gain permission from the Pope for each and every person recomended for that ordination, so today is individual permission required to ordain a Bishop of a Ward.

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.

A Bishop remains a Bishop even after he is released from the job. Or rather, he is a High Priest, and remains one. A Stake President has almost always been a Bishop before he was Stake President.

I’ve already answered where the Pope gets “it”. In Catholicism, all bishops are successors of the apostles.

If that’s so, then why do they, Bishops who are successors of the apostles, have to ask the Pope for permission? Why is the penalty for not getting that permission so, well…huge?

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.

But the Pope is not an apostle. He doesn’t recieve revelation. He doesn’t claim to be an apostle, or be on the same plane…he is a Bishop among other bishops.

And here is where the problem is for us. We believe that line of authority was lost when the last real apostle died; no further bishops (or indeed any level of priesthood) could be conferred because the line of authority was GONE. Missing a huge link. As in…t’aint there any more.

 

[RebeccaJ]

But for those of the Latin rite, if that permission is not sought, it is an automatic excommunication.

For good reason.

 

[dianaiad]

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

If so who Baptized him?

Yes.

In May, 1829, Joseph and Oliver Cowdery were translating the plates, and read about the importance of baptism. It concerned them, so they went into the woods to pray. They recieved a vision there. A ‘messenger from heaven’ came down and ordained Joseph to what we call the “Aaronic Priesthood.” With that authority, Joseph baptized Oliver, ordained HIM, and Oliver returned the favor and baptized Joseph. That messenger, we believe, was John the Baptist, who acted directly under the authority of Peter, James and John.

If you are asking about any earlier baptism, it doesn’t matter, since we don’t believe any earlier baptism actually counted.

 

[dianaiad]

For good reason.

I’m not arguing against it, Rebecca. I’m simply stating that it puts a crimp in your argument.

 

[RebeccaJ]

I’m not arguing against it, Rebecca. I’m simply stating that it puts a crimp in your argument.

I fail to see how. Your “argument” making no sense to me whatsoever, probably has something to do with that.

 

[kimmielittle]

And the Cardinals get their authority from…???

Aren’t they ‘bishops,’ not apostles?

The Pope chooses a Cardinal-designate from Bishops.

 

[kimmielittle]

Yes.

In May, 1829, Joseph and Oliver Cowdery were translating the plates, and read about the importance of baptism. It concerned them, so they went into the woods to pray. They recieved a vision there. A ‘messenger from heaven’ came down and ordained Joseph to what we call the “Aaronic Priesthood.” With that authority, Joseph baptized Oliver, ordained HIM, and Oliver returned the favor and baptized Joseph. That messenger, we believe, was John the Baptist, who acted directly under the authority of Peter, James and John.

If you are asking about any earlier baptism, it doesn’t matter, since we don’t believe any earlier baptism actually counted.

Thank you

 

[TheosisM]

Yes, Theosis…but you need to see it in the context of our beliefs. He meant…when bishops thought that they could ordain other bishops with out the line of authority from apostles. You know, on their own steam, so to speak. Now that this is clear, for you to continue to pound on this issue is a huge strawman/red herring…equivocation…as in, c’mon, you know what he meant!

Obviously I did not know that he meant it in the way you are interpreting it (otherwise I wouldn’t have asked him the question in the first place, before you commented!), especially when he said “the absence of explaining that bishops will then be ordaining bishops answers your question” adds to how I interpreted it. Catholics and Mormons agree that people can’t just go around ordaining people just because they can.

Well, they don’t, on their own authority. They DO, when given that authority properly. Catholics have the same rule.

Begging the question, there. If the ‘permission is already had,’ then of course, yes. However, that permission isn’t blanket permission to go out and ordain as one wills. As your Bishops must gain permission from the Pope for each and every person recomended for that ordination, so today is individual permission required to ordain a Bishop of a Ward.

A Bishop remains a Bishop even after he is released from the job. Or rather, he is a High Priest, and remains one. A Stake President has almost always been a Bishop before he was Stake President.

This is what I was getting at originally. What does that mean “a bishop remains a bishop even after he is released from the job”? If being a bishop is a calling, and one is released from their calling as a bishop, what does it mean that he remains a bishop after being released?

And ultimately, what I am getting at is this: okay, so a Stake President has “almost always” been a bishop before he was stake president. When he ordains a bishop, is it through his office of bishop, or office of stake president? Can a regular bishop (with no higher calling of stake president, general authority, etc) be given the authority or permission to ordain another bishop? The Handbook of Instructions says that for the office of Bishop, the person is called and set apart by “A General Authority or Area Seventy, or the stake president with written approval from the First Presidency”. It seems as if bishops are not included in this.

And that is the question I was asking ParkerD: in Catholicism, bishops ordain other bishops. In Mormonism, from what I have read, a bishop cannot ordain another bishop by virtue of his office of bishop. I still haven’t seen otherwise from official documents, but would welcome any that correct me.

If that’s so, then why do they, Bishops who are successors of the apostles, have to ask the Pope for permission? Why is the penalty for not getting that permission so, well…huge?

Because the Pope is seen as holding primacy among the bishops, the physical symbol of the unity of the Church, etc. The Pope’s role includes assuring unity among the bishops, and that includes approving their successors. Catholic history has many examples of bishops going off and ordaining people without permission, which causes schism. Google “SSPX”.

But the Pope is not an apostle. He doesn’t recieve revelation. He doesn’t claim to be an apostle, or be on the same plane…he is a Bishop among other bishops.

Correct, the Pope is not an apostle, nor do we claim that he is. Nor do we claim that bishops are equal to apostles. The Pope can indeed receive revelations, as we all can. We don’t operate like the LDS church however, nor do we claim to.

He is a “bishop among other bishops”, yet he is the first among them, and has primacy. Again: Catholics believe that all bishops are successors of the apostles. We believe that Peter had primacy among the apostles, and that this primacy resided in the Church of Rome, where we believe that he died. The Bishop of Rome, the Pope, is seen as the successor of Peter, and therefore holds that primacy among the other bishops.

And here is where the problem is for us. We believe that line of authority was lost when the last real apostle died; no further bishops (or indeed any level of priesthood) could be conferred because the line of authority was GONE. Missing a huge link. As in…t’aint there any more.

Yes, and we simply view this differently. We believe that there were Twelve Apostles, and that the criteria for an Apostle was made explicit with the selection of Judas’ replacement. We believe that Paul was not a member of the Twelve (i.e. replacing someone), but that he was an apostle in the sense of the definition of the word (messenger sent forth). So, we see a distinction between apostles of the Twelve, and apostles outside of them. The bishops were the appointed successors of the Twelve, since no one else could fulfill that criteria of being one of the Twelve. Bishops were/are similar to the Apostles of the Twelve in a number of ways, yet they are not apostles, and we don’t claim that they are or have the same authority and power(s).

 

[Stephen168]

As for valid ordinations, why would you think that one Bishop who had been validly ordained would not be able to validly ordain another? You make the statement: “that doesn’t mean that the ordinations those Bishops performed were themselves valid in turn” without anything to substantiate it. Let me ask it another way. What would “invalidate” the ordination of a new Bishop by one who himself had been validly ordained?

The loss of authority happened when any bishop thought to themselves,** “I can ordain other bishops”.** That would demonstrate that they had lost divine sanction, because the Holy Spirit would not inspire them to think they could do that.

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.

A distinction without a difference?

 

[Catholic20064]

A distinction without a difference?

Mormons have to assume a lot to make their doctrine work. Where in the Bible does it say an apostle must ordain a Bishop? It doesn’t. They are just making it up.

 

[ricko]

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?

Of course that would be the case. I wasn’t paying attention.

Finrock
We believe that in the Garden of Gethsemane is where Jesus actually suffered the pains of all the sins of all of mankind,

 

[Stephen168]

Mormons have to assume a lot to make their doctrine work. Where in the Bible does it say an apostle must ordain a Bishop? It doesn’t. They are just making it up.

True and Dianaid said that Mormon Bishops ordain other Mormon Bishops, but Parker says it is a sign of the “Great Apostasy.” From the Bible it seems to me only Christ and The Twelve ordained Apostles; and The Twelve were never intended to last past the life time of those who walked with Christ on earth, so the position of Apostle was temporary by design. Which means, who else would ordain a Bishop if not another Bishop.