Apostasy Of Authority - How Do We Demonstrate?

[Calm]

I don't believe that has necessarily ever happened, but it could not happen according to our beliefs, because such an attempted act would instantly negate the priesthood of the person who tried it, according to our beliefs.

But what about those ordinances done by who hold the priesthood unworthily? Aren't we taught that the Sacrament is not affected for those who partake of it even if the priesthood holder has violated his covenants? Same thing for healing blessings?

If someone has been exposed as an adulterer or something else do they go back and redo any ordinations that he took part in while unworthy but also undiscovered? (I really don't know so this is an actual question)

[Calm]

sham's answered my above question, so my next one is if the Popes were given valid keys to the Priesthood (or whatever is analogous Catholic understanding) wouldn't their position be the same as ours in that an unworthy person may hold the priesthood but the ordinances he performs are still binding for others so passing the priesthood on to someone else would still be seen as valid, correct?

[mfbukowski]

If the unrighteousness of a priest disqualifies from office, how does one explain that the priest who sought to put Jesus Christ to death retained the gift of prophecy? Why. Because the priestly office is NOT interrupted by the worst kinds of villainy and real or spiritual adultery:

What do we, for this man doth many miracles? If we let him alone so, all will believe in him; and the Romans will come, and take away our place and nation. But one of them, named Caiphas, being the high priest that year, said to them: You know nothing. Neither do you consider that it is expedient for you that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation perish not. And this he spoke not of himself: but being the high priest of that year, he prophesied that Jesus should die for the nation.

---John 11:47-51

Under the Old Covenant, based on worse promises (if we believe the letter to the Hebrews), we see what priests can do and retain the priesthood. King Achaz, who believed in human sacrifice, having let his own child be a victim in the heathen fires, had observed a pagan altar in Damascus and encouraged the high priest to make a model of it to adapt for the Temple worship at Jerusalem:---4 Kings 16:10, 11 (I think you call this Second Kings)

And king Achaz went to Damascus to meet Theglathphalasar king of the Assyrians, and when he had seen the altar of Damascus, king Achaz sent to Urias the priest a pattern of it, and its likeness according to all the work thereof. And Urias the priest built an altar according to all that king Achaz had commanded from Damascus, so did Urias the priest, until king Achaz came from Damascus.

So the priesthood is not lost when the high priest perverts the true worship into a model taken from pagans, because the king, who was an idolater wanted it.

We would differ on the interpretation of those scriptures.

Certainly Caiphas was not a "prophet" in any sense- I think it is clear that were that passage to be rendered in modern English, it would have quotes around the word "prophet"- the entire intent of the passage indicates that it was ironic that Caiphas said such a thing without even understanding the true meaning of the words he accidentally offered.

And King Solomon used craftsmen from the "pagan" Hiram of Tyre for design work and craftsmanship, materials and everything else.

The adoption of architecture and designs common in the area certainly does not amount to apostasy. We all know what a church "looks like" because they all have similar architectural elements even though the practices within have major divergences.

[mfbukowski]

But what about those ordinances done by who hold the priesthood unworthily? Aren't we taught that the Sacrament is not affected for those who partake of it even if the priesthood holder has violated his covenants? Same thing for healing blessings?

If someone has been exposed as an adulterer or something else do they go back and redo any ordinations that he took part in while unworthy but also undiscovered? (I really don't know so this is an actual question)

Technically the belief is that the "keys" for that ordinance have not been compromised because the people are receiving it in good faith- the keys still survive in the leadership unless all stake presidents in that line of authority, and then 70's, and then Q of 12, and then First Presidency have all been compromised.

So the ordinance would rely on the authority of the one above the unrighteous member, and up the chain if necessary. It is the keys which are important.

But a general apostasy, and loss of form for correct ordinances could wipe it all out independently of anyones personal righteousness.

Edited April 26, 2012 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

sham's answered my above question, so my next one is if the Popes were given valid keys to the Priesthood (or whatever is analogous Catholic understanding) wouldn't their position be the same as ours in that an unworthy person may hold the priesthood but the ordinances he performs are still binding for others so passing the priesthood on to someone else would still be seen as valid, correct?

Catholics do not believe that lack of righteousness invalidates keys.

You also have the issue of the form of ordinances- not using the terminology. If you are not ordained to the "Melchizadek Priesthood" or what is intended by those terms, you don't have it.

It would be like being ordained to the priesthood of Zeus- say. The intent to say the right thing doesn't do it. It's like getting married- if the intent is that one get blessed because they are living together that's not the same as being "married".

"I now pronounce you man and wife" is simply how one designates the intent to do that- so that socially it is accepted for what it is- not a blessing, not a license to have babies, but the intent is a "marriage" in which one is "man and wife".

The social convention is created and defined by the WORDS. It's not that they are "magic"- its that it is DEFINING what is being done, and putting it in a social context.

[mfbukowski]

That's like saying the Easter Bunny is the best evidence for the resurrection.

H.

Not even close

[LDSToronto]

Not even close

Saying the restoration is the best evidence for the apostasy begs the question; saying the Easter bunny is evidence of the resurrection does the same, in precisely the same way.

H.

[cdowis]

Somebody is always bringing up how Pope Sylvester sent representatives to Nicea, and that he exerted no influence on the Council documents. So what? Apostasy? The argument for apostasy because of the pope's lack of participation shows no understanding of the way papal and episcopal authority interrelate.

Who are you talking about? Can you give a citation, or is this a straw argument.

Having representatives at the council is the same as if he were there himself. I made it clear that the issue was that he (his representative) was treated as a peer, not as the leader of the Christian church. The other bishops did not give him deference as their leader but just another bishop.

THAT is the way Councils worked then and now. If it is warranted, the pope can and has expressed himself definitively without a Council. At the last Council, the two popes who were alive during the council were footsteps from the meeting place but didn't go. Why? Because an ecumenical council is an exercise of the bishops of the world. The bishops make proposals, and the pope approves or disapproves. Pope Paul made one little, but important clarification in regards to the documents of Vatican II. Even then, it was inserted like an appendix at the end of Lumen Gentium. The pope's contributions to conciliar documents will always be minimal. It doesn't matter where the pope is during Council because it is a time when the popes want the bishops to speak.

His physical presence is not the issue, but that he made the final decision. Constantine was in charge, not the Bishop of Rome. He gave his vote, his voice, but did not make the final decision, no authoritative clarification.

Let me repeat, his physical presence is not the issue, but who is making the decisions and the "clarifications" and these decisions are recognized by the other church leaders. This did not happen at this time, but was a later development.

I really do understand why you want to ignore what I posted and you then created a strawman argument.

[cdowis]

Saying the restoration is the best evidence for the apostasy begs the question; saying the Easter bunny is evidence of the resurrection does the same, in precisely the same way.

H.

OK, it comes down to finding out whether Joseph Smith was a prophet. If he were a true modern prophet, the statement of Jesus Christ to Joseph Smith, the restoration of the church is the best evidence of the apostasy.

No begging the question here, but the responsibility of each one of us to determine the truth.

[LDSToronto]

OK, it comes down to finding out whether Joseph Smith was a prophet. If he were a true modern prophet, the statement of Jesus Christ to Joseph Smith, the restoration of the church is the best evidence of the apostasy.

No begging the question here, but the responsibility of each one of us to determine the truth.

Confirmation of the veracity of Joseph's claim is inconsistent. This is why one can say that the Catholic church has, at the very least, equal claim to authority through a traceable lineage back to Christ.

H.

[Log]

And, here's another thought.

Winners write the histories - and we all know who won the confrontation between the world and the primitive Church of Jesus Christ. Why would you expect prima facie documentary evidence of the apostasy?

[Yirgacheffe]

Somebody is always bringing up how Pope Sylvester sent representatives to Nicea, and that he exerted no influence on the Council documents. So what? Apostasy? The argument for apostasy because of the pope's lack of participation shows no understanding of the way papal and episcopal authority interrelate.

Who are you talking about? Can you give a citation, or is this a straw argument.

Having representatives at the council is the same as if he were there himself. I made it clear that the issue was that he (his representative) was treated as a peer, not as the leader of the Christian church. The other bishops did not give him deference as their leader but just another bishop.

THAT is the way Councils worked then and now. If it is warranted, the pope can and has expressed himself definitively without a Council. At the last Council, the two popes who were alive during the council were footsteps from the meeting place but didn't go. Why? Because an ecumenical council is an exercise of the bishops of the world. The bishops make proposals, and the pope approves or disapproves. Pope Paul made one little, but important clarification in regards to the documents of Vatican II. Even then, it was inserted like an appendix at the end of Lumen Gentium. The pope's contributions to conciliar documents will always be minimal. It doesn't matter where the pope is during Council because it is a time when the popes want the bishops to speak.

His physical presence is not the issue, but that he made the final decision. Constantine was in charge, not the Bishop of Rome. He gave his vote, his voice, but did not make the final decision, no authoritative clarification.

Let me repeat, his physical presence is not the issue, but who is making the decisions and the "clarifications" and these decisions are recognized by the other church leaders. This did not happen at this time, but was a later development.

I really do understand why you want to ignore what I posted and you then created a strawman argument.

If the Bishop of Rome agreed with the decision and found no need for clarification why would his vote and voice not be enough?

Not really sure why someone who is not Catholic should correct 3DOP's explanation of how his church's councils should be run.

[3DOP]

cdowis,

You say I ignored what you posted. True. I didn't quote you nor did I read your post. I was prompted by my recollections of past conversations, not necessarily with you.

How was the pope supposed to make decisions and clarifications when he wasn't present? Other than his absence, how do you know he did not? Since the winners write the history, as Log maintains, how do you have this information that you think is so condeming of the papacy? You know what you do about the Council because it poses no threat to Catholic claims, according to your principles of history.

I have demonstrated elsewhere that reasonable people cannot conclude that the bishops were apostate merely because of Constantine's presence and part at the Council. The Scriptures inform us that the kings repeatedly took initiatives, contributed to, and occasionally interfered in the spiritual realm without anyone declaring the priesthood apostate. The bishops understood that principle correctly and responded, especially the bishops of the East where Arianism had taken a stronger root. It is great when the temporal realm cooperates with and takes an interest in the welfare of the Church, knowing that what is good in the spritual realm is good for the temporal realm.

Among the bishops of the West there was less participation. The pope only sent legates who were present. Their report was compatible with the concerns of the bishop of Rome who approved the proceedings. That isn't good enough? It seems that your expectations of papal authority exceed what the Catholic Church teaches. That isn't any apostasy I could believe in.

But if you were correct about the bishops of the East failing to recognize papal prerogatives, what would we have? How would you go about suggesting that THEY were apostate? For agreeing with what you say is true, that the pope's authority is unnecessary, you would declare them apostate? You still wouldn't have demonstrated apostasy. You would only show that the bishops were in your opinion, correct about the pope! That isn't any apostasy I could believe in either.

Edited April 26, 2012 by 3DOP

[mfbukowski]

And, here's another thought.

Winners write the histories - and we all know who won the confrontation between the world and the primitive Church of Jesus Christ. Why would you expect prima facie documentary evidence of the apostasy?

Agreed.

Journal entry you will never see: "Well this morning I decided I didn't like the doctrine of the Godhead- all this three Gods stuff, so I decided I would take a page from Plato and make God one in "being", which I do not quite understand, but I guess Plato did, and then we have three Gods in one! Besides all this anthropomorphic stuff is just a little primitive for Greek philosophy, which we all know is cutting edge stuff. Great idea huh?"

Incidentally this is why history is not always reliable

[Log]

Agreed.

Journal entry you will never see: "Well this morning I decided I didn't like the doctrine of the Godhead- all this three Gods stuff, so I decided I would take a page from Plato and make God one in "being", which I do not quite understand, but I guess Plato did, and then we have three Gods in one! Besides all this anthropomorphic stuff is just a little primitive for Greek philosophy, which we all know is cutting edge stuff. Great idea huh?"

Incidentally this is why history is not always reliable

Actually... heh, we do have something like that with respect to those two topics. See here with respect to the primitive Christian belief in an embodied God.

See also here with respect to Augustine as the inventor of the dogma of the Trinity.

Edited April 26, 2012 by Log

[cdowis]

How was the pope supposed to make decisions and clarifications when he wasn't present?

He appointed a surrogate who would have the authority to represent the bishop.

Other than his absence, how do you know he did not? Since the winners write the history, as Log maintains, how do you have this information that you think is so condeming of the papacy? You know what you do about the Council because it poses no threat to Catholic claims, according to your principles of history.

I am not condemning anyone, only pointing out that the Bishop of Rome was treated as a peer, not the leader of the Christian world. If you read the record, Constantine was clearly running the show.

I have demonstrated elsewhere that reasonable people cannot conclude that the bishops were apostate merely because of Constantine's presence and part at the Council.

I am pointing out there is no evidence that the doctrine of the primacy of the Bishop of Rome was recognized by the Christian leaders. He was merely a participant, and peer among peers. This doctrine postdates this council.

The Scriptures inform us that the kings repeatedly took initiatives, contributed to, and occasionally interfered in the spiritual realm without anyone declaring the priesthood apostate.

Yep, I seem to remember how King Saul took over the sacrifices. And reasonable people will read the Bible, and see what Samuel said to him. Finally, Constantine was not a king in Israel, anointed by a prophet of the Lord.

I am frankly puzzled how you could compare Emperor Constantine to such kings as David, Solomon, and the descendants,of David, including Christ Himself. You are comparing a sports car to a horse because they are both called a Mustang.

Your argument does not sell very well in the context of the scriptures.

The [apostate] bishops understood that principle correctly [they understood the principle that their very lives and the existence of the church depended on their bending their knee to the emperor] and responded, especially the bishops of the East where Arianism had taken a stronger root. It is great when the temporal realm cooperates with and takes an interest in the welfare of the Church, knowing that what is good in the spritual realm is good for the temporal realm [too bad that Peter, Paul, and the other apostles did not understand this principle -- it would have prevented the deaths of many Christian martyrs].

Finally, those who voted against the creed were banished by the emperor, which clearly demonstrated that the Nicene Creed was a political document.

The church paid a heavy price for protection from the emperor, and is still paying the price today. For example, the Mormons are "not Christians" because they reject this man-made creed. Christ Himself had to restore the church.

I understand that we can agree to disagree.

Edited April 26, 2012 by cdowis

[Log]

Incidentally, with respect to the primitive Christian belief in the corporeality of God, this caught my eye:

My study of the relevant evidence convinces me that Joseph is correct: biblical writings and the documents of formative Judaism and primitive Christianity consistently portray God as an embodied person, humanlike in form. In this paper, I detail this evidence, showing that the later Christian loss of the knowledge that God is embodied resulted from the attempt of early Christian apologists to reconcile their beliefs with their dominantly Greek culture. (Emphasis added)