Mormon "Apostasy & Restoration"

[dianaiad]

Teach them to carry out everything I have commanded you. And know that I am with you always until the end of the world. Mat 28:20

Thank you. Can you see how this can be interpreted quite differently from the way you have, and quite logically? Christ said that HE would be with us…He certainly didn’t say that we would stick with HIM. In fact, He got a bit testy with people who, even as He was teaching in his mortal life, went wonky on Him. WE have certainly never claimed that Christians lost all connection with Christ, or that He wasn’t there to guide them individually, or that many Christians had deep and abiding faith in, and relationships with, Him. Quite the contrary.

“Upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it” (Matt. 16:19)

Again, this has been addressed elsewhere, but can you see how this verse, as well, can very logically be interpreted differently than you have? You seem to believe that the ‘rock’ referred to is Peter himself…but any language teacher can tell you that "this rock’ refers back to the previous verse; not His naming of Peter, but rather the revelation by which Peter knew that Jesus is the Christ. It is REVELATION upon which the church is founded, not a man. Giving Simon another name, “Peter” was a reminder of that solid foundation upon which the church was founded. That’s a good thing–for didn’t Paul recieve direct revelation upon the road to Damascus? Didn’t that make Paul a prophet–and eventually, an apostle?

About the ‘gates of hell’ prevailing. We have spoken about that, as well. “prevail” has a very specific meaning. It does NOT mean ‘never assailed,’ or “succeeding at every effort” or, in the case of THIS metaphor “being thrown wide open and offering no obstacle of any nature.” It means that, at the end, the gates of hell will be defeated. They will NOT prevail in staying shut. They WILL be opened…even if they are shut for a year, or a thousand–or two thousand, they can only prevail, if they stay shut for eternity…if they remain closed against God and the church until the end of everything. Anything less than that is NOT prevailing, is it?

In this case, it was Christ offering comfort…If He meant that the ‘gates of hell’ wouldn’t ever seem to win, or would never offer barriers, then why would He even mention them as a problem? No…they are an obstacle to overcome, which means that for awhile, at least, they were closed. They may well remain closed until judgement day, when everyone is resurrected, come to think of it.

In other words, that verse doesn’t mean what you claim it does.

I will ask the Father and he will give you another Paraciete—to be with you always: the Spirit of truth whom the world cannot accept since it neither sees him nor recognizes him: but you can recognize him because he remains with you and will be within you. I will not leave you orphaned. John 15:16-18

Nor do we claim that He did. The spirit of Christ (and the Holy Ghost) has been around. THEY are here…it’s the people who left, and didn’t listen well.

Notice how clear Jesus is about how he will guide and protect the Church from teaching error until the end of the world.

Uhmn…He wasn’t actually addressing the Catholic church in any of those verses, Ricko.
ricko;6057350:

Notice also that the Spirit will remain with the Apostles and be within them. Always means always. He established one Church, promised that it would last until the end of the world, promised that the Holy Spirit would prevent it from teaching error and this Spirit REMAINED with the Church and was passed on to others. The Spirit prevented the teachers and their successors from falling away from the Church. That’s what “always” means

I didn’t see where He promised that the Holy Spirit would prevent people from teaching error. If that’s what it was supposed to do, it was failing even before the scriptures were finished. After all, that’s mostly what all the epistles were about; the apostles correcting error.

People have been teaching error for a couple thousand years, Ricko. Now the group that WON all those debates, by whatever method, decreed that the losers were the heretics…but…were they?

Always?

 

[TheosisM]

I didn’t see where He promised that the Holy Spirit would prevent people from teaching error. If that’s what it was supposed to do, it was failing even before the scriptures were finished. After all, that’s mostly what all the epistles were about; the apostles correcting error.

People have been teaching error for a couple thousand years, Ricko. Now the group that WON all those debates, by whatever method, decreed that the losers were the heretics…but…were they?

Always?

The key here is who was teaching error? Who were the apostles correcting? What we believe is that those with authority from God, in various capacities, cannot proclaim erroneous doctrine.

 

[soren1]

Thank you. Can you see how this can be interpreted quite differently from the way you have, and quite logically? Christ said that HE would be with us…He certainly didn’t say that we would stick with HIM.

I’m not sure if some of the Catholic posters on this thread understand Mormon doctrine well enough to explain just how powerfully Matt 28:18-20 disproves the Great Apostasy. The most important thing to understand is that the priesthood, which was supposedly taken from the earth, is defined in Mormon doctrine as the authority of God to act in his name for the salvation of his children. While this is not quite the same as the Catholic understanding of priesthood (which entails the offering of sacrifice as its essential component), it does describe the commission of the Church in the last verses of Matthew.

When Christ says “all power is given to me,” it should be noted that “power” translates exousia, which means “authority.” It is the same word used in Matt 7:28: “For he taught them as one having authority exousia], and not as the scribes.” After claiming his authority, Jesus tells the Apostles, “Go you therefore,” that is, “on the basis of my authority” to “baptize in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.” Because baptism is done in Christ’s name and is for the salvation of God’s children, the commission that Jesus gives here corresponds to the Mormon definition of priesthood. It is in the context of giving of that priesthood authority that he says , “I am with you all the days.” It must be noted in addition that this last sentence is an address to the whole Church. When Jesus speaks like this in the second person plural in Matthew, it is always an address to the Church; moreover “all the days even unto the end of the world” is a longer period of time than the Apostles will personally be present on earth, and “the world/age” here and elsewhere in Matthew refers to time on earth up to the last day. Christ is therefore present to his Church on earth as giver of priesthood authority continually until the end of the world.

In fact, He got a bit testy with people who, even as He was teaching in his mortal life, went wonky on Him. WE have certainly never claimed that Christians lost all connection with Christ, or that He wasn’t there to guide them individually, or that many Christians had deep and abiding faith in, and relationships with, Him. Quite the contrary.

The reason the Great Apostasy is wrong is not that it says Christians lost all contact with Christ, but because it says the priesthood was lost. That is enough to make it anti-Biblical, because the removal of the priesthood would place God in violation of his covenants with Abraham, David, all creation, and Christ himself. Before I explain why, let me explain a couple of categories that function in the interpretation of Biblical covenants. Covenant scholars tell us (and it’s not hard for a reader to see this for him or herself) that some Biblical covenants are conditional and some are not. That is to say God can present a covenant saying “I will bless you if you do such and such,” or he can make a covenant saying “I will bless you.” A convenient terminology that has been devised to describe this distinction is that the former are “treaty-type covenants” and the latter are “grant-type covenants.”

The relevance of this distinction can be seen from the fact that the entire argument of Romans depends on the premise that God’s covenant to bless all nations through Abraham’s seed is a grant-type covenant; God must therefore make good on his promise no matter what humanity does. God will do what he has sworn. The universal sinfulness of man, therefore, does not prevent salvation through grace. That is what Paul means when he writes “Let God be true though every man a liar.” This frequently misunderstood verse does not mean that God is more honest that man, but more specifically, that he fulfills his end of his covenant oaths regardless of human failings. Hence grace is essentially non-contingent, even when it is given to good people.

The Mormon claim that the priesthood was taken away from the earth because of human obstinacy treats the priesthood covenant as if it were a treaty-type covenant when in fact it is a grant-type covenant. This can be established from one of the strongest covenantal passages in the Bible. In Jer 33:14-26 when, right after prophesying the coming of Christ, Jeremiah writes that the perpetuity of the Levitical priesthood is as certain as his covenant with the sun and stars. Read it and see.

The density of covenantal typologies in that passage is too much for me to unpack in a short post. In brief, the passage alludes to three previous covenants: the covenant with creation (implied in Gen. 1 by the covenantal number of seven); the covenant with David to perpetuate his royal line (2 Kings 7); and the covenant with Abraham to multiply his seed. Read carefully, and you will see that all of these are grant-type covenants; there fulfillment is certain, and God promises equal certainty to the Levites in the perpetuation of their priestly line. The principle expressed in “Let God be true though every man a liar” applies to this text; it is, therefore, absolutely impossible for the priesthood to be taken away, fir it would involve God in covenant-breaking. More drastically, because Jesus is the heir of David who receives by rights the benefits of the Davidic covenant, it would convict God of breaking a covenant with his own Son.

 

[kimmielittle]

Kimmielittle,
Good morning and Merry Christmas!

John the Baptist had the authority to baptize through his line of authority coming by way of his father and the Levitical priesthood through their ancestral lines, as Moses had received the instruction to have the tribe of Levi act in the office of that priesthood within the Mosaic laws and ordinances.

Christ’s authority was greater than the authority of John the Baptist, and His authority is typified in Paul’s writings by reference to an Old Testament prophet, Melchizedek. When Christ ordained the apostles, and gave leadership keys to Peter, James, and John and they eventually received the special instructions on the Mount of Transfiguration, they then held the fulness of the greater priesthood authority on earth. That greater authority would direct the lesser authority of the Levitical priesthood in any functions retained by the Levitical priesthood.

Mormons believe that communion and baptism (“outward ordinances” in the new covenant gospel) are authorized to be performed by holders of the restored priesthood that John the Baptist held and conferred on Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery. But when John the Baptist came to earth and restored that authority, he was acting under the direction of Peter since Peter held the greater priesthood authority which would give direction to the lesser priesthood authority for any of its functions.

Have a terrific day.

Hiyas Parker

Merry Christmas to you, too.

The bolded part above was what I was asking about. I knew Saint John already had authority. So the Saint Peter Authority I didn’t understand.

Thank you have a fun day

 

[Catholic20064]

Thank you. Can you see how this can be interpreted quite differently from the way you have, and quite logically? Christ said that HE would be with us…He certainly didn’t say that we would stick with HIM. In fact, He got a bit testy with people who, even as He was teaching in his mortal life, went wonky on Him. WE have certainly never claimed that Christians lost all connection with Christ, or that He wasn’t there to guide them individually, or that many Christians had deep and abiding faith in, and relationships with, Him. Quite the contrary.

Again, this has been addressed elsewhere, but can you see how this verse, as well, can very logically be interpreted differently than you have? You seem to believe that the ‘rock’ referred to is Peter himself…but any language teacher can tell you that "this rock’ refers back to the previous verse; not His naming of Peter, but rather the revelation by which Peter knew that Jesus is the Christ. It is REVELATION upon which the church is founded, not a man. Giving Simon another name, “Peter” was a reminder of that solid foundation upon which the church was founded. That’s a good thing–for didn’t Paul recieve direct revelation upon the road to Damascus? Didn’t that make Paul a prophet–and eventually, an apostle?

About the ‘gates of hell’ prevailing. We have spoken about that, as well. “prevail” has a very specific meaning. It does NOT mean ‘never assailed,’ or “succeeding at every effort” or, in the case of THIS metaphor “being thrown wide open and offering no obstacle of any nature.” It means that, at the end, the gates of hell will be defeated. They will NOT prevail in staying shut. They WILL be opened…even if they are shut for a year, or a thousand–or two thousand, they can only prevail, if they stay shut for eternity…if they remain closed against God and the church until the end of everything. Anything less than that is NOT prevailing, is it?

In this case, it was Christ offering comfort…If He meant that the ‘gates of hell’ wouldn’t ever seem to win, or would never offer barriers, then why would He even mention them as a problem? No…they are an obstacle to overcome, which means that for awhile, at least, they were closed. They may well remain closed until judgement day, when everyone is resurrected, come to think of it.

In other words, that verse doesn’t mean what you claim it does.

Nor do we claim that He did. The spirit of Christ (and the Holy Ghost) has been around. THEY are here…it’s the people who left, and didn’t listen well.

Uhmn…He wasn’t actually addressing the Catholic church in any of those verses, Ricko.

I didn’t see where He promised that the Holy Spirit would prevent people from teaching error. If that’s what it was supposed to do, it was failing even before the scriptures were finished. After all, that’s mostly what all the epistles were about; the apostles correcting error.

People have been teaching error for a couple thousand years, Ricko. Now the group that WON all those debates, by whatever method, decreed that the losers were the heretics…but…were they?

Always?

The Catholic Church, the one Christ established, is still here for everyone to see. Everyone else is heretical to some degree. There was never a complete apostasy as you proclaim. You really have to stretch to try to establish that.

 

[kimmielittle]

I’m not sure if some of the Catholic posters on this thread understand Mormon doctrine well enough to explain just how powerfully Matt 28:18-20 disproves the Great Apostasy. The most important thing to understand is that the priesthood, which was supposedly taken from the earth, is defined in Mormon doctrine as the authority of God to act in his name for the salvation of his children. While this is not quite the same as the Catholic understanding of priesthood (which entails the offering of sacrifice as its essential component), it does describe the commission of the Church in the last verses of Matthew.

When Christ says “all power is given to me,” it should be noted that “power” translates exousia, which means “authority.” It is the same word used in Matt 7:28: “For he taught them as one having authority exousia], and not as the scribes.” After claiming his authority, Jesus tells the Apostles, “Go you therefore,” that is, “on the basis of my authority” to “baptize in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.” Because baptism is done in Christ’s name and is for the salvation of God’s children, the commission that Jesus gives here corresponds to the Mormon definition of priesthood. It is in the context of giving of that priesthood authority that he says , “I am with you all the days.” It must be noted in addition that this last sentence is an address to the whole Church. When Jesus speaks like this in the second person plural in Matthew, it is always an address to the Church; moreover “all the days even unto the end of the world” is a longer period of time than the Apostles will personally be present on earth, and “the world/age” here and elsewhere in Matthew refers to time on earth up to the last day. Christ is therefore present to his Church on earth as giver of priesthood authority continually until the end of the world.

The reason the Great Apostasy is wrong is not that it says Christians lost all contact with Christ, but because it says the priesthood was lost. That is enough to make it anti-Biblical, because the removal of the priesthood would place God in violation of his covenants with Abraham, David, all creation, and Christ himself. Before I explain why, let me explain a couple of categories that function in the interpretation of Biblical covenants. Covenant scholars tell us (and it’s not hard for a reader to see this for him or herself) that some Biblical covenants are conditional and some are not. That is to say God can present a covenant saying “I will bless you if you do such and such,” or he can make a covenant saying “I will bless you.” A convenient terminology that has been devised to describe this distinction is that the former are “treaty-type covenants” and the latter are “grant-type covenants.”

The relevance of this distinction can be seen from the fact that the entire argument of Romans depends on the premise that God’s covenant to bless all nations through Abraham’s seed is a grant-type covenant; God must therefore make good on his promise no matter what humanity does. God will do what he has sworn. The universal sinfulness of man, therefore, does not prevent salvation through grace. That is what Paul means when he writes “Let God be true though every man a liar.” This frequently misunderstood verse does not mean that God is more honest that man, but more specifically, that he fulfills his end of his covenant oaths regardless of human failings. Hence grace is essentially non-contingent, even when it is given to good people.

The Mormon claim that the priesthood was taken away from the earth because of human obstinacy treats the priesthood covenant as if it were a treaty-type covenant when in fact it is a grant-type covenant. This can be established from one of the strongest covenantal passages in the Bible. In Jer 33:14-26 when, right after prophesying the coming of Christ, Jeremiah writes that the perpetuity of the Levitical priesthood is as certain as his covenant with the sun and stars. Read it and see.

The density of covenantal typologies in that passage is too much for me to unpack in a short post. In brief, the passage alludes to three previous covenants: the covenant with creation (implied in Gen. 1 by the covenantal number of seven); the covenant with David to perpetuate his royal line (2 Kings 7); and the covenant with Abraham to multiply his seed. Read carefully, and you will see that all of these are grant-type covenants; there fulfillment is certain, and God promises equal certainty to the Levites in the perpetuation of their priestly line. The principle expressed in “Let God be true though every man a liar” applies to this text; it is, therefore, absolutely impossible for the priesthood to be taken away, fir it would involve God in covenant-breaking. More drastically, because Jesus is the heir of David who receives by rights the benefits of the Davidic covenant, it would convict God of breaking a covenant with his own Son.

:clapping:

 

[catholic-rcia]

Which Church’s are built on sand? As Catholics we do not have to look at another Church and say…“We are here because they have fallen” We trust that we are all fallen…we trust In Christ, in His Holy Spirit, In His Words to each of us.

Here is our answer to all of the questions posted here in Jesus’s own words:

*"If any one comes to me without hating his father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters, and even his own life, he cannot be my disciple. Note# meditate on this *

Whoever does not carry his own cross and come after me cannot be my disciple.

*(Which Cross?) next post *

Which of you wishing to construct a tower does not first sit down and calculate the cost to see if there is enough for its completion?

Otherwise, after laying the foundation and finding himself unable to finish the work the onlookers (LDS / both knowing and the innocent) should laugh at him …

…and say, ‘This one began to build but did not have the resources to finish.’

and who are the innocent? Next post
www.utahmission.com

 

[catholic-rcia]

If you were LDS as a child, Sunday school, Sacrament as far back as you can remember. Uncle Frank and Aunt Harriet, uncle Bob coming over for a Sunday meal that included the best dessert you could imagine made by your mother. Helping your Father and his father in the garden…being chased by your grandfather because you did not want to pick the weeds. You remember Primary and the lesson about building your home on sand or on the rock. How you made two houses with cards, placed one in a sand box and one on the concrete floor. You remember the teacher asking you to shake the box to see what happens. Then she asks you to shake the floor of concrete which you could not do. One falls, the other does not. Then she asks which one is the true church? The one on sand? Or the one on the rock?

You just turned 15. You knew you were adopted when you were 3 years old but cannot remember your parents at all, not one memory of them. When ever you asked about them your adopted parents would sit you down and tell you why they had to let you go. A mother who did drugs to the point of complete recklessness, even leaving you in a car where you were found by a passer by one day later, A father who left, even before you were born. You were born into a house of sand they said, but now you are in a family upon solid rock. “You know how much we love you right? Of course I say, ‘I love you so much” then they ask: “and you know the Church is true”, …I tell them “yes I do” like so many times before.

3 years later a knock on the door, two investigators, one counselor and three sheriffs. As your parents are both being led away in shock you ask “what is going on” later you find that your mother was once a nurse 3 thousand miles away, 18 years ago a child was lost, taken from the hospital…… this child was you.

As your sitting in a cold room two complete strangers walk in, the women in tears wraps here arms around you and calls you by another name, you know instantly what is taking place, this is your real mom and dad, and they have been searching for you for 18 long, hard, enduring years. Everything is turned up side down. You feel nothing and only want to be with those that raised you. For awhile you become lost and confused. As the confusion dissipates you find a joy that is inexpressible, yet there is also a deep sadness and an enduring love, even for those who took you as a child. You find that you can love them all because you found the one who love them all . You forgive, even those who cannot understand this kind of forgiveness, You pick up the pieces, shape them into a cross and you follow your Savior, their Savior home.

“Therefore everyone who hears these words of mine and puts them into practice is like a wise man who built his house on the rock. The rain came down, the streams rose, and the winds blew and beat against that house; yet it did not fall, because it had its foundation on the rock. But everyone who hears these words of mine and does not put them into practice is like a foolish man who built his house on sand. The rain came down, the streams rose, and the winds blew and beat against that house, and it fell with a great crash.” Matthew

 

[dianaiad]

The Catholic Church, the one Christ established, is still here for everyone to see. Everyone else is heretical to some degree. There was never a complete apostasy as you proclaim. You really have to stretch to try to establish that.

True. The Catholic church is still here.

It is also true that the Catholics view everybody else as ‘heretical to some degree.’

I believe, however, that it’s more a case of 'the winners write the history" than that there was no general heresy/apostasy in the church.

You know the old saying about treason? You know…“treason never prospers, for if it prospers, none dare call it treason?” Pretty much the same thing goes for a great and general apostasy.

 

[dianaiad]

I’m not sure if some of the Catholic posters on this thread understand Mormon doctrine well enough to explain just how powerfully Matt 28:18-20 disproves the Great Apostasy. .

Well…you just posted some interesting thoughts, Soren. I disagree with them, of course, on a visceral and faith based level, but you have just passed my ‘snappy comeback’ range and put me solidly into 'dang, I gotta go look that stuff up" level.

I love when that happens!

Diana

 

[ParkerD]

Hiyas Parker

Merry Christmas to you, too.

The bolded part above was what I was asking about. I knew Saint John already had authority. So the Saint Peter Authority I didn’t understand.

Thank you have a fun day

Kimmielittle,
The important concept is that there were priesthood keys granted by God to men on earth in order for them to act in His name and with authorization from Him. John the Baptist held the keys of the Levitical priesthood, although Levitical priesthood functions continued on the earth after his death. Peter held the keys of the Melchizedek priesthood or the greater priesthood, although again Melchizedek priesthood functions continued on the earth after Peter’s death.

Peter and John the Baptist are both resurrected beings, and returned to the earth holding their keys from when they lived as mortals on the earth, when they appeared to Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery on May 15, 1829 and bestowed those keys by the laying on of hands on the heads of Joseph and Oliver. Because Peter held the greater priesthood keys, when John the Baptist restored the keys he held (Levitical), he acted under the specific direction of Peter. Then, soon thereafter during the following month, Peter, James and John appeared to Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery and restored the keys they held, of the Melchizedek priesthood–the fulness of which they received on the mount of Transfiguration during the vision they had while with Christ.

 

[Catholic20064]

I’m not sure if some of the Catholic posters on this thread understand Mormon doctrine well enough to explain just how powerfully Matt 28:18-20 disproves the Great Apostasy. The most important thing to understand is that the priesthood, which was supposedly taken from the earth, is defined in Mormon doctrine as the authority of God to act in his name for the salvation of his children. While this is not quite the same as the Catholic understanding of priesthood (which entails the offering of sacrifice as its essential component), it does describe the commission of the Church in the last verses of Matthew.

When Christ says “all power is given to me,” it should be noted that “power” translates exousia, which means “authority.” It is the same word used in Matt 7:28: “For he taught them as one having authority exousia], and not as the scribes.” After claiming his authority, Jesus tells the Apostles, “Go you therefore,” that is, “on the basis of my authority” to “baptize in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.” Because baptism is done in Christ’s name and is for the salvation of God’s children, the commission that Jesus gives here corresponds to the Mormon definition of priesthood. It is in the context of giving of that priesthood authority that he says , “I am with you all the days.” It must be noted in addition that this last sentence is an address to the whole Church. When Jesus speaks like this in the second person plural in Matthew, it is always an address to the Church; moreover “all the days even unto the end of the world” is a longer period of time than the Apostles will personally be present on earth, and “the world/age” here and elsewhere in Matthew refers to time on earth up to the last day. Christ is therefore present to his Church on earth as giver of priesthood authority continually until the end of the world.

The reason the Great Apostasy is wrong is not that it says Christians lost all contact with Christ, but because it says the priesthood was lost. That is enough to make it anti-Biblical, because the removal of the priesthood would place God in violation of his covenants with Abraham, David, all creation, and Christ himself. Before I explain why, let me explain a couple of categories that function in the interpretation of Biblical covenants. Covenant scholars tell us (and it’s not hard for a reader to see this for him or herself) that some Biblical covenants are conditional and some are not. That is to say God can present a covenant saying “I will bless you if you do such and such,” or he can make a covenant saying “I will bless you.” A convenient terminology that has been devised to describe this distinction is that the former are “treaty-type covenants” and the latter are “grant-type covenants.”

The relevance of this distinction can be seen from the fact that the entire argument of Romans depends on the premise that God’s covenant to bless all nations through Abraham’s seed is a grant-type covenant; God must therefore make good on his promise no matter what humanity does. God will do what he has sworn. The universal sinfulness of man, therefore, does not prevent salvation through grace. That is what Paul means when he writes “Let God be true though every man a liar.” This frequently misunderstood verse does not mean that God is more honest that man, but more specifically, that he fulfills his end of his covenant oaths regardless of human failings. Hence grace is essentially non-contingent, even when it is given to good people.

The Mormon claim that the priesthood was taken away from the earth because of human obstinacy treats the priesthood covenant as if it were a treaty-type covenant when in fact it is a grant-type covenant. This can be established from one of the strongest covenantal passages in the Bible. In Jer 33:14-26 when, right after prophesying the coming of Christ, Jeremiah writes that the perpetuity of the Levitical priesthood is as certain as his covenant with the sun and stars. Read it and see.

The density of covenantal typologies in that passage is too much for me to unpack in a short post. In brief, the passage alludes to three previous covenants: the covenant with creation (implied in Gen. 1 by the covenantal number of seven); the covenant with David to perpetuate his royal line (2 Kings 7); and the covenant with Abraham to multiply his seed. Read carefully, and you will see that all of these are grant-type covenants; there fulfillment is certain, and God promises equal certainty to the Levites in the perpetuation of their priestly line. The principle expressed in “Let God be true though every man a liar” applies to this text; it is, therefore, absolutely impossible for the priesthood to be taken away, fir it would involve God in covenant-breaking. More drastically, because Jesus is the heir of David who receives by rights the benefits of the Davidic covenant, it would convict God of breaking a covenant with his own Son.

I guess one of the arguments might be that in the New Covenant all believers in Christ are priesthood holders as it says in 1 Peter 2:9:

But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light

That would be the Protestant line of attack and one which would invalidate the claims of both Catholicism and Mormonism with regards to priesthood. I suspect Protestants would make the claim that in Christ no believer needs to depend upon another believer to offer a holy sacrifice to God and that each individual could do it for him/herself.

 

[Lion_of_Narnia]

I apologize if someone already responded and I missed it (the thread is long)–but “the dog still didn’t bark”

No evidence from the Pagan and Jewish opponents of Christianity that the Church apostasized.

No evidence from the ECF’s that total apostasy was ever an issue they had to deal with.

 

[Lion_of_Narnia]

*"20 Now to him who is able to do all things more abundantly than we desire or understand, according to the power that worketh in us; *
21 To him be glory in the church, and in Christ Jesus unto all generations, world without end. Amen". (Ephesians 3: 20-21, Duoay-Rheims translation)

“unto all generations” in koine greek is “*pasas tas hermarus” *or literally “all the days”–meaning the Church would have the power of the Holy Spirit, without exception or break in continuity. The idea of total apostasy of the Church is once again contradicted from Scripture.

 

[RebeccaJ]

I guess one of the arguments might be that in the New Covenant all believers in Christ are priesthood holders as it says in 1 Peter 2:9:

The priesthood of all believers is Catholic belief. I thought of it in regards to ParkerD’s last post, where he says St. Peter is a High Priest. We understand that Mechezidek was a pre-figuration of Christ. As head of the Church, He is our High Priest. All baptized share in the Priesthood of Jesus Christ.

Clergy themselves are given authority to act as Priests and Bishops. This is not a separate authority from Christ, it comes from Him and through Him. A Priest at Mass offers the Sacrifice en persona Christi. As Soren pointed out, to believe this Priesthood was “lost” is to believe Christ has ceased to be the High Priest of His Own Church.

From the Catechism:

The one priesthood of Christ
[1544](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/1544.htm’) 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.
[1545](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/1545.htm’) 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
Two participations in the one priesthood of Christ
[1546](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/1546.htm’) 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
[1547](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/1547.htm’) 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.

The footnotes are as follows:

15 2 Tim 2:5.
16 Heb 5:10; cf. 6:20; Gen 14:18.
17 Heb 7:26.
18 Heb 10:14.
19 St. Thomas Aquinas,* Hebr.* 8,4.
20 Rev 1:6; cf. Rev 5:9-10; 1 Pet 2:5,9.
21 LG 10 § 1.
22 LG 10 § 2.

 

[KathleenGee]

I am going to have to review all the posts here…

Well about the Mormon bookstore that I went to…it was about 4 blocks from the main tabernacle of my state!! I mean, the bookstore was right down the street from the Big Kahuna…and a beautiful one at that!. And the store is called Deseret…My bank is right next door. I am going there tomorrow and will look at the store name.

What I saw on the cover was the title, ‘Pearl of Great Price’…I was very curious…and the first pages talked about the Roman Church…well who is that??? and then it went on to talk about the Roman Church’s whoredaughters, the protestants.

First of all, that is very bad language and I would bop my kids for talking like that about anybody.

I came back to the store to get a hold of the book to find the author. I also heard of Bruce McConkie, who was like the other 1830…what are these American fellows called…part of the Campbell movement of those times…of which came out two Americans who had some historical background on the Spanish Inquisition and spread alot of bias on some facts… It was a kooky era and only out of America.

About the Masons and what is wrong with that??? Whoopee…Alot!

But that is a totally different subject…I think they did have something on the Masons…and their symbols…how the Mormon Church would find itself needing more symbols and wanting to draw on something that is not church oriented…I think they also use Muslim symbols…the star, the sword…the moon…

I have read some pretty tragic stories of parents whose kids became Mormon and could not attend their wedding…very exclusive and secretive…

Where I come from, we are called to be transparent…anybody can walk into a Mass on any given day…and if you cause a ruckus from some reason, some one will escort you to a place where you won’t disturb anyone…So if you live in the inner city, every once ina while someone will come in, and like go up and stand next to the priest while he is saying Mass…and the priest will look at the fellow and somebody will come up and escort him out…

One lady wanted some free money to go to Richland and the pastor said no and referred her to go to the mission down the street…she refused and banged her head so many times against the wall next to the door, it cost him $1500 to repair it…everybody has something to teach us, I guess about living the gospel better…

But yes, back to the ‘Pearl’, that it was not. It is a bad mystery never to be resolved as to who the author was…and after I made the irate call, like I said, I went back and it was buried in the field.

 

[KathleenGee]

I had to go to the store…and the name is the same…Deseret…

 

[Stephen168]

Peter held the keys of the Melchizedek priesthood or the greater priesthood, although again Melchizedek priesthood functions continued on the earth after Peter’s death.

There was no Melchizedek Priesthood; only Jesus Christ.

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

Psalm 110:4 - King David speaks of a priest that will come in the same way that Melchizedek was a priest: 1) A King-Priest bringing bread and wine and 2) 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 4:14-16 thru Hebrews 5:1-10 - Christ is the High Priest according to the order of Melchizedek.

Hebrews 7:1-3 – Reminds us Melchizedek appears without father, mother, or children, and was a priest always. Melchizedek is compared to the divine Christ, the Son of Man; who was born without earthly parents, or children, and was a priest always.

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 in the order of 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’s 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.

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.

 

[catholic-rcia]

*Continued because of thoughts that Stephen 168 has stirred. *

---

**When you speak of an apostasy , that things have changed so drastically that you cannot recognize the Church Jesus established. Yet is could not be clearer when you get to the center of the Mass. I want you to think about what is written here. **

“Then as always, bread and wine and water were offered and the words of Jesus at the Last Supper were prayed by the one presiding.” (See Below)

LITURGY OF THE EUCHARIST
WE TAKE A SEAT
**PRESENTATION OF GIFTS ***
COLLECTION
Blessed are you, Lord, God of all creation. Through your goodness we have this bread to offer, which earth has given and human hands have made. It will become for us the bread of life.
Blessed be God for ever. *

Blessed are you, Lord, God of all creation. Through your goodness we have this wine to offer, fruit of the vine and work of human hands. It will become our spiritual drink.
Blessed be God for ever.

Pray, brethren, that our sacrifice may be acceptable to God, the almighty Father.

***May the Lord accept the sacrifice at your hands for the praise and glory of his name, for our good, and the good of all his Church. ***
*WE STAND UP *

PRAYER OVER THE GIFTS
This prayer, said by the priest, is different in each single mass. Whe he finish we answer: ***Amen. ***

PREFACE AND EUCHARISTIC*** PRAYER***
The Lord be with you.
And also with you*. *

Lift up your hearts.
We lift them up to the Lord*. *

Let us give thanks to the Lord our God.
It’s right to give him thanks and praise*. *

Father, it is our duty and our salvation …
… And so we join the angels and the saints in proclaiming your glory as we sing (say):

***Holy, holy, holy Lord. God of power and might. ***
***Heaven and earth are full of your glory. ***
Hosanna in the highest. Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord. Hosanna in the highest.

WE KNEEL DOWN
Lord, you are holy indeed, the fountain of all holiness.
Let your Spirit come upon these gifts to make them holy,
so that they may become for us the body + and blood of our Lord, Jesus Christ.
Before he was given up to death, a death he freely accepted, he took bread and gave you thanks. He broke the bread, gave it to his disciples, and said:
Take this, all of you, and eat it: this is my Body which will be given up for you.
When supper was ended, he took the cup. Again he gave you thanks and praise, gave the cup to his disciples, and said:
Take this, all of you, and drink from it; this is the cup of my Blood, the Blood of the New and Everlasting Covenant. It will be shed for you and for all men so that sins may be forgiven. Do this in memory of me.
Let us proclaim the mystery of faith.
Christ has died, Christ has risen, Christ will come again* . *
WE STAND Up

In memory of his death and resurrection,
we offer you, Father, this life-giving bread, this saving cup. …

…Through him, with him, in him, in the unity of the Holy Spirit, all glory and honour is yours, almighty Father,
for ever and ever.
Amen.

***St. Justin describes the Mass. (The year is 150 A.D.; he is a martyr who was beheaded in ***
***165 at Rome Italy ***

“The people gathered together on Sunday, the ‘Lord’s Day’ participated in prayers and hymns, and listened to readings from the Old Testament and from the writings of the apostles. Then as always, bread and wine and water were offered and the words of Jesus at the Last Supper were prayed by the one presiding. The people received the body and blood of Christ, and the Holy Communion was brought to the sick. A collection was taken for the poor and the needy.”

The Ninth Commandment reads:: Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour. (Exodus 20:16)

 

[KathleenGee]

I won’t be able to post for a few days…but after my contacts with the Mormons a few years ago, and they were very positive, I was reading up on Mormonism, having survived the particular ‘Pearl’ book.

There are things some Catholics have done out of context and so if this Pearl of Great Price was a deviancy, then so be it…but what is the Pearl of Great Price to the Mormons???

And there were initiation rituals performed by Mormon men that put the Catholic Church in an inimical position…I attended Mass at the Cathedral in Salt Lake City and noted the phrase taken from Scriptures to not listen to any angel…let them be anathema.

I was reading pronouncements and spirit of the Mormon church, and how it evolved over the years…and its leadership talks more like Catholics…but also giving me the impression they are in great competition with us…also the Catholics there go through alot with Mormons coming over to try to get them to leave our church and when they finally communicate they are not interested, the cozy neighbor sentiment is gone.