The Next Prophet or Spokeman of God

[gazelam]

Can you show the Mormon Melchizedek Priesthood in the Bible like I did earlier for Catholics?

Stephen168:

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.

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.

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.

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

Hebrews 7:11-14 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.

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.

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.

First, I’ll just refer you to some quick LDS references to the Melchizedek Priesthood:

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bd/melchizedek-priesthood
https://www.lds.org/scriptures/tg/high-priest-melchizedek-priesthood?lang=eng
http://eom.byu.edu/index.php/Melchizedek_Priesthood

As with many LDS and Catholic doctrines, the LDS knowledge of the Melchizedek Priesthood does not come exclusively from the Bible.

I know very little about the Catholic Priesthood to know whether the verses you posted support Catholic belief in the area.

I take a Christian brotherly exception to your assertion that Heb. 7: 15-19 means that the Levitical Priesthood was abolished. No where do these verses state that this is the case. Other verses in Hebrews 7 talk of the Priesthood as being changed. If the Levitical Priesthood were abolished it would mean that God broke a promise to Aaron that the Levitical Priesthood would be his in perpetuity.

Exodus 29:9 gird them with the sashes, and tie the skullcaps on them. Thus shall the priesthood be theirs by a perpetual statute, and thus shall you install Aaron and his sons

I hope this helps…

 

[TOmNossor]

TOmNossor:

Catholic: Claims of unique Peterine authority for the Bishop or Rome don’t happen for >150 years after the death of Peter. Peter’s presence in Rome is of so little importance that some scholars actually question if he was there because it was scarcely recorded (I lean towards the view he was). 4th century invented documents purporting to describe the passing of authority from Peter to Clement (because the Roman church didn’t believe Linus and Cletus were “Bishops of Rome” for many centuries), but nobody today believes these are real or describe a real event. When the claims of Peterine authority does APPEAR, the historical record evidences that those outside of Rome (Firmilian, Cyprian, Tertullian) rejected this Roman authority when they first heard about it. Catholic’s now believe that the Peterine authority DEVELOPED somehow within the Bishop or Rom, but there is no empirical evidence of this authority.

The Catholic Church has claimed Apostolic Authority from its beginning in 33AD at Pentecost. Apostolic Succession (authority) protects the faith (responsibility). The Twelve were apostles who were to teach, baptize, make disciples, forgive sins, preside at the Eucharist, proclaim the gospel, and be witnesses to Christ’s life, death, and resurrection. Christ said he would be with them until the end of the age. Only Christ could be the lamb of God, so Apostles were not Christ, but Christ could share the rest of his ministry with the Twelve. Only The Twelve could be a witnesses to Christ’s resurrection, but they could share the rest of their ministry. The Bible tells use the story of them laying hands on the seven, but there were many others. This manifested itself as Bishops in some cities (mostly in the east), and presbyters in others (mostly in the west). The cities with presbyters were not void of principle leaders even though they may not have the title of Bishop. About 120 years after Christ’s resurrection, Apostolic Authority was universally held by the Bishops. This system was created by the Holy Spirit as the best way to maintain the deposit of Christian faith; and celibacy was the preferred life style.

1.I was talking about the PRIMACY of Rome. You have above ADMITTED that what you claim as “apostolic authority” is not the SAME as the authority of the apostles but is merely authority RECEIVED from the apostles. I believe the early church received authority from the apostles. I even believe it possible this lesser authority survived till 1830 and in some form may survive today outside the restoration.
2.There is no historical records for many years after 33AD that show the claim you say was there. The gap is longer for Catholic claims of “apostolic authority” than it is for LDS claims of restoration of the Melchizedek Priesthood. I will grant that literacy and record survival work against the more ancient Catholic claim here.
3.You will of course agree there is no “empirical evidence” for the authority claimed.
cont…

 

[TOmNossor]

4.So it can be explicitly stated in case those reading miss what you say, the appearance of monoepiscopal bishops and the believe that the “apostolic authority” rested with them took many decades in all places and likely more than a century in Rome. This is a DEVELOPMENT. The modern Catholic view is that it is a DEVELOPMENT guided by the Holy Spirit as opposed to a very common older Catholic view which was that it just ALWAYS was this way.
5. Finally, your narrative does not explain “the apostle Paul.” Paul fits fine into how I think the early church functioned, but not into the narrative you have written above.
Charity, TOm

 

[gazelam]

Wait hold up, I’m new to this thread and to mormonism. There is only one God and you can’t become Him. He is infinite and we are creatures.

Define god as you were using it.

What do you make of CCC 460? The Word became flesh to make us “partakers of the divine nature”: “For this is why the Word became man, and the Son of God became the Son of man: so that man, by entering into communion with the Word and thus receiving divine sonship, might become a son of God.” "For the Son of God became man so that we might become God. "The only-begotten Son of God, wanting to make us harers in his divinity, assumed our nature, so that he, made man, might make men gods."

 

[TOmNossor]

TOmNossor:

Doesn’t your line of attack on the LDS authority we claim DECIMATE Catholic claims?

Catholicism/Orthodoxy has Apostolic Authority as a historical fact in the same way that Mormons believe Nelson has the authority that Brigham Young had. But we know that Brigham Young never had Christian Apostolic Authority, because he never received it from someone who had Christian Apostolic Authority to give.
What most Mormons believe today is not true at all when compared to what really happened in Mormon history. What most Catholics believe today is a simplistic version of what really happened. As I said, Catholicism is not simple. You have to be kinda smart to be a Catholic.

First, supernatural authority is NEVER a historical fact.
Second, there are solid historical documents that detail ordinations and claims of passing of authority from Brigham Young to Nelson. Such cannot be said of Catholic bishops. Most importantly the Bishop of Rome. For centuries the Roman church believed Clement directly followed Peter, no Linus and no Cletus The sixth Bishop or Rome is named sixtus and no historian believes that this is a real name. What you claim is a historical fact was invented so long after those who exist in the lines of succession were dead and gone nobody knows their name. This is not the case for LDS lines of authority.
Third, what most Catholic scholars (virtually all, if not all) defended as historical fact before Cardinal Newman’s theory (which was criticized by Catholics -scholars and Bishops- as being part of his previous Protestantism because they said it was absolutely not Catholic) became accepted is a simplistic version that has many out right false beliefs. Just like simple LDS beliefs. You don’t have to be kinda smart to be a LDS we accept everyone. What most Mormon’s believe today is a simplistic version of what really happened (if LDS truth claims are true) in every way that the Catholic simplistic version is what really happened (if Catholic truth claims are true).
Your line of attack does DECIMATE Catholic truth claims. It is an invitation to atheism.
Charity, TOm

 

[RebeccaJ]

You’ve really twisted something up here.

Stephen said the Apostles were witnesses to the ministry, death and resurrection of Jesus. This not an example of Apostolic authority, it is alluding to Acts, where the replacement for Judas had this requirement.

Stephen then said that Apostolic authority as priest, teacher and minister were handed on by the laying on of hands. The titles that ordained successors to the Apostles varied for, the first 120 years or so, and still do, for example, successors to the Apostles are called Bishops in the RCC and Patiarchs in the EO.

 

[TOmNossor]

TOmNossor:

Doesn’t your line of attack on Joseph Smith’s character DECIMATE Catholic truth claims?

Joseph Smith claimed to receive divine authority from a non-Christian process. Then he used the same process to cover up his sins. Catholic Bishops have done neither. The New Testament and early church writings warn us about “prophets” making up stuff contrary to the teachings of Christ and the Apostles. It says they are false prophets.

You are mistaken if you do not think Catholic authority was not used to hide sins. There are ancient predecessors to Canon law that explain how laws and penalties are more lax for clergy than laity.
The Latern Palace being a brothel was facilitated by authority and power unaccountable.
Even the more modern Catholic problems are evidence of authority shielded from accountability by authority. This is being fixed and such is very good, but part of the reason it is being fixed is because our society no longer tolerates the idea that some folks are more than other folks. Our equality is part of how God can make His church work in more modern times.

Most importantly, I suspect you are referring to Polygamy. If God did not command polygamy, then it seems likely it was for sex. But, the historical record indicates that very little sex happened. The invention of polygamy as it was practiced by Joseph Smith would be the DUMBEST thing he ever did if his purpose was to increase the amount of sex he was able to have. This is why I believe the practice came from something God commanded even though I am extremely thankful it is in the past.
The belief in equality present in our society and how it provides checks upon unrestrained abuse of authority is IMO a valuable part of God’s restoration that was absent anciently what Kings ruled.
I will add this link here as I think it is long but very good:
https://www.mormoninterpreter.com/a-mormon-theodicy-jacob-and-the-problem-of-evil/
Charity, TOm

 

[RebeccaJ]

The primacy of the seat of Peter has empirical evidence, as you know. I am so totally ok with the EO view as “first among equals”, and it is a stance that is taken in all practicality in regards to sui juris churches.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Oh no! Applying modern senses of politics and societal structures to history.

No one has ever claimed that there aren’t bad Popes in history. I’d think I’d pass out if I ever heard a Mormon say there were ever even one bad prophet. I can’t even get a Mormon to admit that what is taught in General Congerence this April may not in fact be entirely inspired by God…from a Mormon view of course.

 

[TOmNossor]

Now before you go off on a tangent, take the time to truly understand what I am saying. Jesus Christ handed Peter a perfect Church, he left behind the 12 Apostles to spread the word. Some of them, along with other followers of Jesus Christ wrote down much of what they knew of the time of Christ and the very early years of the Church.
Jesus left a perfect Church that could not fail. To believe the Church failed (the great apostasy) is to say Jesus did NOT leave a perfect Church is to say Jesus Christ is not who we Christians believe him to be. This is how the LDS overcome that little detail left in the bible.

As you wish …
So, you are saying that the church Jesus left is perfect. He put it in the hands of Peter. That because the church is PERFECT it could not fail. We have records including the Bible because folks wrote down what they knew. Your saying that because the church was begun by Jesus it was perfect and could not fail. Then you say that LDS do not believe Jesus is really perfect and that is why they do not accept your narrative as obvious. Did I get that right? You dang sure know I read it at least.
1.LDS absolutely believe Jesus Christ is the perfect son of God. There is no perfection that exist that He lacks so you are mistaken there.
2.The ancient church didn’t fail. It did what it was supposed to do. The DEVELOPMENT of authority and the abuses unchecked by society was surely foreseen by God (and IMO was not divine or approved), but God’s Church preserved the witness of Christ and produced the Bible and did volumes of other great things God desired. That being said, the authority/charism/ability to receive public revelation and write scripture was not preserved. It was restored in the 19th century. Most Catholics haven’t recognized this and that is fine, but it would be foolish for me to deny this.
3.The CoJCoLDS now has God’s authority received from heaven through a handful of events in the early/mid – 19th century. Because Christ is at its head and is perfect the CoJCoLDS is perfect. But because the men who lead and participate in the church are imperfect, there are problems. I can admit this because I am secure in my faith.
Tangent time….

TOmNossor:

Well, I will start by pointing out that so far no Catholic on this thread has been willing to discuss the biggest problem for the Catholic Church in their opinion.

Maybe because we aren’t focused on any problems. Any problem there may be has to do with the flaw of man, not the Church.

No, you are quite focused on problems. A large volume of your posts and most Catholic posts on LDS threads are focused on problems. Just not on Catholic problems. I too would say that any LDS problems are the problems of man, not the problems of God.
How can you not see that your post to me is a mirror image of what some LDS with little or no respect for Catholicism would say to you? It seems obvious to me.
Charity, TOm

 

[RebeccaJ]

Mormons and Catholics have different definitions of “Church”. The Church is perfect as Christ is perfect. It is also human, and has its human failures (at times very serious and grievous failures). This does not impact the perfection of Christ, nor the perfection of His Church.

We’re not talking about the structure of the hierarchy or how many Popes were sinless (none). We’re talking about the Church that belongs to Christ, that is guided by the Holy Spirit, and has its perfection revealed in Christ. We humans are called to imitate Christ, but we are by no means, perfect.

The invisible and supernatural aspects of the Church, that are made visible in the ordinary. I have never seen this as a concept in Mormonism. IMO it is because Mormonism is materialist.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Oy, what a corner you’ve painted yourself into.

The hierarchal structure of the Church developed over time, on which you seem to agree. Then there is no Mormon-type hierarchy present at Pentecost…so what was “restored”,exactly?

If you revert to arguments of authority then by your own argument you have no empirical evidence for the authority that existed in the early Church, therefore, no empirical evidence for a “restored” authority. In other words the shade of paint you’ve chosen is called “hearsay”.

 

[TOmNossor]

Oy, what a corner you’ve painted yourself into.

The hierarchal structure of the Church developed over time, on which you seem to agree. Then there is no Mormon-type hierarchy present at Pentecost…so what was “restored”,exactly?

If you revert to arguments of authority then by your own argument you have no empirical evidence for the authority that existed in the early Church, therefore, no empirical evidence for a “restored” authority. In other words the shade of paint you’ve chosen is called “hearsay”.

I do not think the corner is near so difficult.

I believe apostolic authority existed in 33AD (I also claim the Apostle Paul had apostolic authority).

I believe an authority below and selected by this apostolic authority existed shortly after this.

The historical record that leads virtually all historians, Catholic or Protestant to conclude that there were no monoepiscopal Bishops at the heads of local congregation for many years (and well into the 2nd century for Rome) but instead groups of presbyters lead the local church’s is way more compatible with selected Bishops with councilors who lead local congregations for a period of time and then return to different service. The historical record neither supports nor condemns the LDS structure, but it is militates against the modern Catholic structure.

Finally, my claims of restoration are much more modest than you seem to think. The most important thing that was restored was the ability to receive supernatural public revelation and write scripture. It is possible that the early church had structures much more like modern LDS structures than modern Catholic structures, but LDS authority structure has CHANGED through our history as we have grown and organized. I do not need every jot and tittle to have been restored because I believe God leads by supernatural public revelation.

One of the reasons for books like Father Sullivan’s is that in the absence of supernatural public revelation, Protestants have claimed the Catholic structure was absent and until Cardinal Newman’s work most Catholics have counter-claimed that yes those structures were present. Now, Catholics believe those structure DEVELOPED. God’s hand in this development is the Catholic theory, but it can neither be proved nor disproved with empirical evidence (whereas the former idea is difficult to align with the empirical evidence).

Charity, TOm

P.S. As I think Stephen is using the term, there is no empirical evidence for authority. Authority is intangible and cannot be measured. There is evidence for and against claims of authority or structures of authority.

 

[TOmNossor]

That’s just one opinion. Who Mechizedek was and the nature of his priesthood is based on what has been revealed, via scripture. You’ve fixated on one opinion, which is not a Catholic doctrine. Other Catholic opinions can be found. And then you have your Mormon opinion, which is not a Catholic opinion.

What is doctrine, is that Jesus’ priesthood, and himself, is preconfigured in the mysterious person of Melchizedek. That he was a priest by nature, not by ordination. His priesthood was without beginning or end, and so did not “expire”, so to speak, at age 50 or at death. He offered a bloodless sacrifice. He was the King of Peace (as his title translates). Jesus fulfills the priesthood preconfigured in Melchizedek, forever…He is OUR High Priest forever.

Melchizedek is a title, which is why it is poetically viewed. Jesus, the Prince of Peace, crowned in the Father’s glory, is our King, High Priest and Prophet. A Catholic priest is configured to Christ, he is not Christ, nor does he take a priesthood “power” that is wielded like magic, from Christ. He shares in the High Priesthood of Christ.

David also took on the title of Melchizedek: King of Peace, but it is not a priesthood that he was ordained to.

Neither are Catholic men ordained to a Melchizedek priesthood, the are configured to the Priesthood of Jesus Christ, which is after the order of Melchizedek…which is a priest by nature not by ordination. In other words one cannot be ordained as a Melchizedek priest.

So we see again, the Catholic doctrine of sharing in the nature of Jesus, always with the understanding we don’t become that nature ourselves. And always understood in light of the Eucharist, which is also made clear in the Letter to the Hebrews.

Mormonism has an interpretation of the Bible, that makes sense only when using Mormon extra-Biblical sources. Which is fine if that is what you believe, but like Stephen has been saying, it isn’t strictly speaking, Biblical. It is Mormon.

Hello Rebecca!
I accepted that FrDavid’s view of Catholic priesthood and the lack of literalness that he applied to the Book of Hebrews was a more historic CATHOLIC view of the Bible than the view espoused by Mark Shea.

My argument is that the LDS view is solidly Biblical, not that it is impossible to read the Bible in the Catholic way. Do you deny that the Bible can be read (isolated from Catholic or Mormon thought) as containing a Melchizedek Priesthood?

Your post seems to vacillate between the position that Melchizedek was a real person with priesthood recognized by God and he is just a title.

FrDavid’s position is that Melchizedek may or may not have been a person, but he didn’t hold the “priesthood of the son of God” in the same way Catholic priests hold it today.

BTW, I have thought about this a little, I think D&C 84 makes it very clear that there are no LDS priests that hold Christ’s priesthood as Christ held it. I think D&C 84 voiced in Catholic terms means that LDS are ministers of Christ’s priesthood.

Charity, TOm

 

[RebeccaJ]

When you can quote Fr. Sullivan in context and accurately, you might be able to make a point.

You haven’t unpainted yourself from your corner. What evidence do you have that what you believe was restored, ever existed as you believe it did, in the first place?

Paul was ordained with the authority to minister, teach and lead (pastor) to the Gentiles, while he was in Jerusalem a second time, by the Apostles whom he calls the pillars of the community, Peter, James and John. See Acts 13 and Galatians 1 and 2.

As we’ve discussed more than once, Paul was not one of the Twelve, and was not ordained as one of the Twelve. His title apostle, is a title, meaning one who is sent. The Church has given this title to more than Paul, such as Mary Magdalene who has the title apostle to the Apostles.

I don’t see what issue you would have with these facts.

 

[Horton]

Welcome back @RebeccaJ.

 

[Stephen168]

After Richard Bushman says that, it is almost certain that the story of Joseph Smith seeing God and Jesus was not a factor in the conversion of the early Mormons he was asked:

“What was the call for people to convert to mormonism?”

Richard Bushman said, “It was fundamentally the restoration of the spiritual gifts, and the building of the city of Zion, and a gathering in preparation for the second coming in a place of refuge.“
He went on to say that it was primarily the restoration of the spiritual gifts of the primitive church; healings, revelations.

I’ve read a few newspaper articles which talked about the claim of healing which there was never any proof of.

Joseph Smith claimed no authority of his own. He was listened to because people thought they were hearing God. Which makes since when you see how mundane the early “revelations” were: God likes this, God doesn’t like him, stop losing parts of the Book of Mormon, answers to questions…… If Joseph Smith had authority, why didn’t he just answer the questions instead of having God do it.

His personal authority which Brigham Young would call Apostolic would come later; after the credibility crisis.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Melchizedek is an unknown, as a person. Some ECF opined that he was a pagan priest. Pope Benedecit XVI sites this as evidence that God can work through whom he pleases.

The Church, as far as I know, rejects the idea that Melchizedek was an apparition, so yes, he was a real person. He is an unknown and cannot be known because he doesn’t fit into the Abrahamic paradigm and societal structure of Tribe, ie, parentage. So we can’t know who he was because the OT says clearly, Abraham didn’t know who he was!

Abraham recognized a priest, who was a King of Peace. They did some stuff together that is liturgical in nature. That is what we know about Melchizedek.

The author of the Letter to the Hebrews recognized Jesus as the same order of priest. He did not have the parentage (Levite) to be a recognized as a priest by the Jews. The author is making an argument that his priesthood is like that of the mysterious figure, Melchizedek, whose priesthood was recognized by Abraham, in spite of not having the proper creds (parentage). The Letter to the Hebrews stating clearly, that Jesus is the High Priest that the Levite priest was modeled after, no longer do we need what has been modeled, as we have The Source, God the Son, Himself, who lives and reigns, forever.

The same argument can be made for the Prophethood of Jesus, and how God once spoke through the prophets but now speaks through His Son, as Hebrews begins. Our Prophet lives, and reigns forever, we don’t look for a model of the Son or a replacement. We have The Source of all Prophecy, mediating on our behalf, and guiding us via the Holy Spirit.

 

[RebeccaJ]

RebeccaJ:

That’s just one opinion. Who Mechizedek was and the nature of his priesthood is based on what has been revealed, via scripture. You’ve fixated on one opinion, which is not a Catholic doctrine. Other Catholic opinions can be found. And then you have your Mormon opinion, which is not a Catholic opinion.

What is doctrine, is that Jesus’ priesthood, and himself, is preconfigured in the mysterious person of Melchizedek. That he was a priest by nature, not by ordination. His priesthood was without beginning or end, and so did not “expire”, so to speak, at age 50 or at death. He offered a bloodless sacrifice. He was the King of Peace (as his title translates). Jesus fulfills the priesthood preconfigured in Melchizedek, forever…He is OUR High Priest forever.

Melchizedek is a title, which is why it is poetically viewed. Jesus, the Prince of Peace, crowned in the Father’s glory, is our King, High Priest and Prophet. A Catholic priest is configured to Christ, he is not Christ, nor does he take a priesthood “power” that is wielded like magic, from Christ. He shares in the High Priesthood of Christ.

David also took on the title of Melchizedek: King of Peace, but it is not a priesthood that he was ordained to.

Neither are Catholic men ordained to a Melchizedek priesthood, the are configured to the Priesthood of Jesus Christ, which is after the order of Melchizedek…which is a priest by nature not by ordination. In other words one cannot be ordained as a Melchizedek priest.

So we see again, the Catholic doctrine of sharing in the nature of Jesus, always with the understanding we don’t become that nature ourselves. And always understood in light of the Eucharist, which is also made clear in the Letter to the Hebrews.

Mormonism has an interpretation of the Bible, that makes sense only when using Mormon extra-Biblical sources. Which is fine if that is what you believe, but like Stephen has been saying, it isn’t strictly speaking, Biblical. It is Mormon.

BTW, I have thought about this a little, I think D&C 84 makes it very clear that there are no LDS priests that hold Christ’s priesthood as Christ held it. I think D&C 84 voiced in Catholic terms means that LDS are ministers of Christ’s priesthood.

Charity, TOm

Then you make points about “holding” authority vs “having” authority? I have no idea what your stance is, really. I suspect you are being pragmatic!

 

[Stephen168]

The latest entries in the list of Tom claiming but not proving the Mormon Melchizedek Priesthood.

Asking LDS to prove it is evidence of bald polemics or profound misunderstanding (probably both).

I said I couldn;t “prove” that there was a Melchizedek Priesthood. It is impossible.

I can show that “Melchizedek Priesthood” is clear in the BOM in 1829 and VERY DESCERNABLE in the Bible so much so that Catholic priests and apologists claim it is there.

But notice he doesn’t show the Mormon Melchizedek Priesthood is in the bible.

……

My argument is that the LDS view is solidly Biblical, not that it is impossible to read the Bible in the Catholic way.

One can feel Jeremy Runnells frustration with the dishonesty of Mormonism.