You are mistaken here.
Pope Francis is in fact urging the pastors to not automatically believe those who are in an invalid marriage and are having adulterous sex cease to be in a “state of grace.” If the pastor and the adulterous Catholic believe those in an invalid marriage are still in a state of grace then the adulterous Catholic can (and should) partake of the Eucharist.
This is the NEW teaching.
The old teaching was that the pastor was to teach the couple that if they continued to have sexual relations in their invalid marriage, they should not partake of the Eucharist because that is adultery and that is a grave sin.
Pope Francis changed this presumption.
You need to pay more attention to what you are reading.
Alternatively, you can participate in the wonderful faith life of the Catholic Church, but you should not ask me to be concerned about LDSs teaching concerning “ALL or Some of the origins of the American Indian” while IGNORING your Catholic problems.
You are mistaken here.
Bye TOm. I’ve had enough of your insults.
Me saying you are mistaken is not an insult. If it is true it is just true.
I didn’t mean to offend you, but I do want you and those who criticize my church to recognize that I can leave behind LDS PROBLEMS, but only if I am willing to reject Christ or pick up Catholic PROBLEMS.
I do hope and expect you are well feed by your Catholic faith.
Let’s see if we can find some common language here. In LDS vernacular, the term “priesthood” has a couple of meanings. This from the Encyclopedia of Mormonism found at http://eom.byu.edu/index.php/Priesthood
The word “priesthood” has several meanings for Latter-day Saints:
1. Priesthood is power, the power of God, a vital source of eternal strength and energy delegated to men to act in all things for the well-being of mankind, both in the world and out of it (DS 3:80; Romney, p. 43).
2. Priesthood is authority, the exclusive right to act in the name of God as his authorized agents and to perform ordinances for the purpose of opening certain spiritual blessings to all individuals.
3. Priesthood is the right and responsibility to preside within the organizational structure of the Church, but only in a manner consistent with the agency of others.
4. Sometimes the word priesthood is used to refer to the men of the Church in general (as in “the priesthood will meet in the chapel”).
So, when LDS refer to “holding the priesthood”, or “bearing the priesthood”, they are referring to holding or bearing divine authority that was conferred at the time of ordination to the priesthood. (In Spanish, the verb used is “poseer” - to possess.)
What do Catholics call the authority conferred to a Deacon, Presbyter, or Bishop? The book Catholicism for Dummies (2012) pg 86 states “Only bishops have the authority to administer the sacrament of Holy Orders whereby men are ordained deacons, priests, or bishops.”
How does a bishop carry that authority to administer the sacrament of Holy Orders? What word is used? Hold the authority? Bear the authority? Carry the authority? Possess the authority? Has the authority? Thanks!
That is your thesis statement for your purpose for posting at Catholic Answers Forum. You need to believe the Catholic Church has problems. Only you would believe that Catholic charity, assuming the best in people, is a problem. A Mormon who lives in constant dogmatic change sees the slightest change of any kind in the Catholic Church as a problem. Because apostolic succession does not pass from Christ through the Catholic Church the way you think it should, you think it is a problem. In the mean time, there is no Mormon Church anywhere until 1830, but you don’t see that as a problem to having apostolic succession.
You have a problem with where Christ’s authority was in 130 AD in the Catholic Church, but not the fact that there was no Mormon Church in 130 AD. Instead you rely on the claims of Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery 1700 years later. Claims which can not be supported by science or history. The key claim that is the subject of this thread is his claim to have received a priesthood which is not biblical based. It is a priesthood he invented.
It is a priesthood he invented four years after he started the Mormon Church. He invented it when it became “pragmatic” to do so.
I have challenged Mormons for years to prove there ever was such a thing as believed by Mormonism. Besides pointing out that the word Melchizedek is in the Bible, they never even try. I believe because it is hopeless.
The letter to the Hebrews refutes the Mormon claim especially Hebrews 7:3 and Hebrews 7:15, as I said earlier.
Joseph Smith claiming the Book of Mormon is a story about ALL the American Indians, is a problem because he claimed he received the claim from a heavenly visitor; just like his claim that he received the “Melchizedek Priesthood.” But in the last 40 years, due to scientific evidence, the “pragmatic” Mormon Church has began to teach that it was just SOME of the American Indians.
But to Mormons, their testimony is the empirical evidence. Like Richard L. Bush who agrees with all the historical facts I’ve presented in this thread, but doesn’t let it shake his testimony.
One thing I have been trying to explain here is that the vocabulary does not translate from Mormon to Christian. We might use the same words, but we have very very different understandings of what those words mean.
If you want to understand Christian Holy Orders the first thing you need to do is to forget (for the moment, and for academic’s sake) the Mormon vocabulary. I’ve been saying that since I first participated in this thread. I don’t know how much more I can try to explain things if that a-priori point is not understood.
There is no way to compare a Mormon understanding of priesthood with the Christian one. The similarity is in the name. The similarity ends there.
Yes, we say that only the bishops have the office of passing-on Holy Orders by ordaining other bishops, or presbyters, or deacons. We say that they have the “power” or the “office” or the “ability” and we really mean all of these concepts combined.
Use of the word “authority” has more to do with the concept of governance.
To answer your last question:
What word is used? Hold the authority? Bear the authority? Carry the authority? Possess the authority? Has the authority? Thanks!
The answer is that we might use any or all of those words. It’s mostly a matter of word-choice for the speaker.
To us, it doesn’t matter (unless we are talking some finer points of canon law, which would take us far off course here, so please believe me when I say “don’t go there” it will only distract). The point is that only a bishop “can” ordain.
To a Christian, ordination is not about “holding” any particular power. It is about “being” a successor to the Apostles. That is the starting point. It’s not about possessing anything, any power. It is about a state of being. And yes, that state of being then carries with it certain power or ability to perform certain acts.
Only after that, can we move on to discuss the different roles within the Sacrament of Ordination (aka Holy Orders). The bishop receives the fullness of this Apostolic Succession. The presbyter receives it as well, but to a lesser degree than the bishop. The deacon also receives it, in an Order of Deacons ordered toward service, especially to ministry of the Word.
If a prophet or spokesman of God is truly what you believe these men are, then please answer me these questions. 1) Regarding the Salamander Letter(s), if God talks to these men why wouldn’t God have let them know they were false before buying them? 2) Regarding Blacks & the priesthood. Why would God tell your prophet after the whole Civil Rights issue about allowing blacks to receive it and not before? Seems to me that your god is behind the times. 3) Regarding Joseph Smiths vision (or what version). Supposedly God told him that all the churches had it wrong (I think Jesus was there too). So God/Jesus let mere men destroy His Church? They failed in keeping it together? Sounds to me like they did the same thing to your church (different sects). There is more but we will start with these.
No, when people claim they are not listening, not hearing, not understanding, only getting
I take the opportunity to explain that millions of rational intelligent people are LDS. Thousands of them are more informed about LDS history than you or other Catholic posters here. The only reason you have such a flawed and jaded view of Mormonism is because you only hear “wa wa wa wa …”
You can like that or not like it, but it is true. It is why your “Mormonism is ridiculous” narrative is so incorrect.
First, this is not true.
The BOM was published in 1830 and referred to the priesthood which Melchizedek held, “Melchizedek having exercised mighty faith, and received the office of the High Priesthood, according to the holy order of God.”
Of course the BOM was from God, but you are incorrect that there was no Melchizedek priesthood for 4 years.
Before the end of 1830 newspapers are recording that Oliver Cowdery and Joseph Smith claim to have God’s authority and nobody else does.
There is more. But it was 150 plus years before anyone claimed Peter’s authority was present in the Bishop of Rome. LDS are on much more solid footing here.
I disagree. And while I think Father David is a stronger witness than the Catholic priest I quoted or than Apologist Mark Shea, they don’t agree with you either.
Joseph Smith never said ALL the American Indians were descendants of BOM people. You have been proven wrong on this thread, but you keep repeating this.
You have also been shown on this thread that this claim has been disbelieved by many LDS for many years, long before any DNA evidence.
And, I have met Richard Bushman (taught a class with him in it). He does not believe what you claim he believes.
The word Prophet at its most basic level is one who speaks for God. There are occasions in the Bible where prophets tell the future, argue with God (and God relents sometimes or God doesn’t relent sometimes), resist God’s commands, and …. But, for the LDS and for the Biblical prophets, the main function is to speak God’s truths to God’s people.
So, I do not think God told President Hinckley that the Salamander Letter was a fraud and I do not expect such divine communication to happen making the prophet some super human who is never fooled by lying or fraud. When I say he is prophet, I do not mean that he is incapable of being deceived by humans because God is omniscient. I claim that he gives God’s words to God’s people. I have seen times when this involved miraculous knowledge that cannot be explained by human ways of knowing, but mostly it is just my faith that God’s message is being delivered by God’s prophet.
What I do know about the priesthood ban is that church leaders were clear that it was not started by revelation, but that because it existed and was ingrained in the practice and thinking of the church it must be ended by revelation from God.
David O. McKay prayed to receive that revelation. He thought that the ban should end and he expect God to communicate with him to end it. While David O. McKay was accustomed to receiving revelation from God, he didn’t receive this revelation he wanted. It was clear to leaders of the church that the ban should end long before it ended, but the leaders of God’s church EXPECTED to receive revelation to change this. When they did, they described how God delivered the revelation to the prophet and how ALL members of the Q of 12 received confirming revelation from God. I believe the priesthood ban started because Brigham Young reflected as a racist upon the negative actions of a black priesthood holder. No revelation, just a human falling back into a pattern he had before he met Joseph Smith (who ordained black men to the priesthood and advocated for the end of slavery before Lincoln did).
So, as a child of late 20th century, I (through no extraordinary virtue of my own) think the priesthood ban is a blight upon the CoJCoLDS and slavery is a blight upon my country. But, I believe the CoJCoLDS did not change the priesthood ban in response to the good senses of 20th century men. Instead these men who received revelation expected to receive revelation to end the priesthood ban just like they receive revelation for other church policy or church teachings. Eventually they did. I do not think the “wait” had to do with God’s lack of conviction that the priesthood ban was wrong. I think the “wait” had to do with imperfect men (leaders and others) who stood in the way of God’s will. But, the arc of history is long. It bends towards justice especially when followers of God try to change and follow Him.
God’s church was not destroyed, just like Christ’s life was not destroyed. God’s church was not destroyed when Ciaphus rejected Christ and it was not destroyed when Pope Gregory XVI and/or Pope Pius IX failed to recognize that God decided to once again lead His church by REVELATION. God’s plan includes good men who fail and bad men who fight against Him. Most leaders of the Catholic Church have been good men, but in the 3rd century they declared that God would not give His church leaders revelation to be delivered to the entire church. God gave revelation to men (even Catholic leaders like Aquinas), but the Catholic Church held to its view that revelation from God was not how questions concerning doctrine or current church challenges would be solved. God restored His order in 1830. If you are interested here is a 20 page article that IMO explains why God lead his church for many years through the actions of men who denied they could receive revelation for the entire church and then restored His original order (the order of supernatural public revelation used in the Old Testament and in the New Testament).
Let me see if I understand this. Russell Nelson, to Mormons, is a prophet who speaks for God and speaks God’s truths to God’s people. But the Pope, who, to Catholics, at least, is the Vicar of Christ, is not a prophet (by Mormon definition) and does not speak God’s truth to His people.
Is that what you are saying, TOm?
Doctrine and Covenants was first published in 1835 from the Book of Commandments. Here is most of D&C 27 originally written in 1830. The bolded parts were added in 1835 after Joseph Smith claimed to have received the Melchizedek Priesthood which he invented that year.
1 Listen to the voice of Jesus Christ, your Lord, your God, and your Redeemer, whose word is quick and powerful.
2 For, behold, I say unto you, that it mattereth not what ye shall eat or what ye shall drink when ye partake of the sacrament, if it so be that ye do it with an eye single to my glory—remembering unto the Father my body which was laid down for you, and my blood which was shed for the remission of your sins.
3 Wherefore, a commandment I give unto you, that you shall not purchase wine neither strong drink of your enemies;
4 Wherefore, you shall partake of none except it is made new among you; yea, in this my Father’s kingdom which shall be built up on the earth.
5 Behold, this is wisdom in me; wherefore, marvel not, for the hour cometh that I will drink of the fruit of the vine with you on the earth, and with Moroni, whom I have sent unto you to reveal the Book of Mormon, containing the fulness of my everlasting gospel, to whom I have committed the keys of the record of the stick of Ephraim;
6 And also with Elias, to whom I have committed the keys of bringing to pass the restoration of all things spoken by the mouth of all the holy prophets since the world began, concerning the last days;
7 And also John the son of Zacharias, which Zacharias he (Elias) visited and gave promise that he should have a son, and his name should be John, and he should be filled with the spirit of Elias;
8 Which John I have sent unto you, my servants, Joseph Smith, Jun., and Oliver Cowdery, to ordain you unto the first priesthood which you have received, that you might be called and ordained even as Aaron;
9 And also Elijah, unto whom I have committed the keys of the power of turning the hearts of the fathers to the children, and the hearts of the children to the fathers, that the whole earth may not be smitten with a curse;
10 And also with Joseph and Jacob, and Isaac, and Abraham, your fathers, by whom the promises remain;
11 And also with Michael, or Adam, the father of all, the prince of all, the ancient of days;
12 And also with Peter, and James, and John, whom I have sent unto you, by whom I have ordained you and confirmed you to be apostles, and especial witnesses of my name, and bear the keys of your ministry and of the same things which I revealed unto them;
13 Unto whom I have committed the keys of my kingdom, and a dispensation of the gospel for the last times; and for the fulness of times, in the which I will gather together in one all things, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth;
14 And also with all those whom my Father hath given me out of the world.
So why was there a ban in the first place? Does it have to do with the Mark of Cain and the belief that those of dark skin are cursed and could not hold the priesthood?
Truly it is up to the person being spoken to who decides if there is an insult. You saying something is true does not make it so.
I don’t agree with you, so therefore I must be ignorant of the teachings of my Church, I am “not paying attention”. Your premise is false. You cherry pick writings that may sound as though they support your claim and disregard all the many writings do not support your claim. I know the LDS mindset is to confuse to the point where no is willing to ask questions. For with the LDS questions are bad, questions get one excommunicated. The LDS really don’t want folks to know the truth, they only want folks to obey, pay their tithes, and not cause a fuss.
I’m sure you can leave LDS problems behind, it is what the LDS teach members. However Catholics are taught to question, to search, to study, to promote faith building. You answered a couple of questions up thread about when the LDS will allow SSM and allowing women to the priesthood. Your answer is indicative of the LDS “PROBLEMS”. Your answer was “I don’t know”. Your organization changes so often you fully expect change, even reversal of doctrine. That is sad.
And I am secure in the truth I belong to the one true Church, the Church founded by Christ in 33AD.
He did say it and the Mormon Church taught it until at least the 1970’s. I will say AGAIN, I lived it and have quoted Mormon Church leaders to prove it. Your denying it without proof doesn’t change that fact. You have shown nothing. You have proven nothing. This is a big problem along with the Book of Abraham when choosing to believe Joseph Smith.
The following appeared in the Painesville telegraph on December 7, 1830
Mr. Oliver Cowdry has his commission directly from the God of Heaven, and that he has credentials, written and signed by the hand of Jesus Christ, with whom he has personally conversed, and as such, said Cowdry claims that he and his associates are the only persons on earth who are qualified to administer in his name. By this authority, they proclaim to the world, that all who do not believe their testimony, and be baptized by them for the remission of sins . . . must be forever miserable.
So, LDS Priesthood restoration wasn’t some sort of deceptive afterthought in 1834. William McLellin perhaps wasn’t subscribing to the right periodicals. I hope this helps…
Yes it is. The main reason you are here is to find problems. You can’t defend Mormonism so you try to change the subject to your Catholic problem du jour.
Yes, I listened to a three hour podcast of Richard Bushman in which he confirmed it is true. He is very informed about Mormon history and does not let these problems shake his testimony.
The Melchizedek Priesthood was a later invention and was the reason for some of the changes made in the Book of Commandments as published in Doctrine and Convents in 1835.
You denying it without proof doesn’t change that fact. A story about Melchizedek in the Bible or the Book of Mormon is not proof of the Melchizedek Priesthood believed by Mormons, and claimed by Joseph Smith in 1835.
You claim to understand the latest Catholic problems and the conclusions of Catholic authors, but you have not been able to understand a very simple claim, even after I have made it six different ways.
I have NEVER claimed that the Mormon Melchizedek Priesthood should agree with the Christian understanding of the priesthood. I’ve said over and over and over again it should agree with the Bible. No Mormon ever has been able to show that. The reason is the Bible shows it not to exist as Mormons believe it to be. Joseph Smith made it up. You have not proven otherwise. Saying you “disagree” proves nothing.
I’m reminded of Joseph Smith’s King Follett Discourse when he said he was going to “prove it to you by the Bible,” and never did. Maybe just claiming things without proof is a Mormon thing, and as a Catholic, I’m expecting to much.
I am saying that a prophet of God received revelation from God so that he may relay God’s message to God’s people. I believe that Russell M. Nelson is a prophet. This does not mean that he knows about “spooky action at a distance” unless God chooses to communicate it to him. This does not mean that he knows the lottery numbers one day in advance, unless God chooses to communicate that to him. It does mean that at a conference where a man was scheduled to be absent, but God wanted the man to speak that God could inspire the prophet to call on the man to speak and simultaneously God could arrange for the man’s business to conclude early and inspire the man to rush (really rush for some unknown reason) across town to be at the conference when called by the prophet. That happened. God inspired LDS leaders in certain policies. That happened. God does not inspire ALL things that one might hope.
The Catholic Pope does not receive revelation for the body of the church. Catholics have reassured Protestants of this truth for centuries.
Peter did receive revelation for the body of the church and wrote scripture. Catholics and LDS believe this too.
That is the difference. I was answering a specific question concerning why President Hinckley was not informed by God that the Salamander Letter was a fraud. My response was that it is perfectly in alignment with LDS thought that such would not happen. There are even Biblical presidents for such things.
I am responding least you claim I didn’t. Read Gazelam’s response (which I alluded to already in my post to you).
Also, read Gazelem’s response to your error concerning Joseph Smith and ALL Indians.
You have have your answers here.
I do not believe the ban had anything to do with the “Mark of Cain.” History does not support that.
My OPINION is as I stated earlier. In response to an ordained man who did something that Brigham Young thought (and I agree) was not in accordance with the gospel of Jesus Christ, Brigham Young returned to his racist ways rather than following in the footsteps of Joseph Smith (and I disagree/reject Brigham Young’s response).
LDS were run out of areas because they were believed to be abolitionists during Joseph’s lifetime. And Joseph Smith was an abolitionist before Abraham Lincoln was.
The priesthood ban IMO was wrong and it is a blight upon my church. I wish it never happened.