Restoring The Ancient Church?-Ancient Lds Church?

[3DOP]

Thanks for the clarifications.

Are you suggesting that the number of saints in the calendar has not been reduced by about 41? http://www.stnichola....org/pages/upi/ (Pope Pdaul VI eliminating St. Christopher?!

Is it false that some Roman Catholics objected to the loss of the Latin Mass and thus welcomed the return of it under Pope Benedict? http://catholicism.a...-affect-you.htm. Was that all nonsense?

Hi again Robert.

St. Christopher has never had a high ranking among the saints in the calendar. I can fully understand why his place in the liturgy has been suppressed. St. Christopher only gets what is called a commemoration on July 25 according to the calendar currently in use for the Traditional Mass. He shares that date with St. James the Apostle which is a second class feast, a much higher rank. Commemorations are ordinarily optional. That means they might often be skipped anyway. Unless the Mass was celebrated in a church dedicated to St. Christopher, he wouldn't have much attention next to an apostle. There aren't even any proper prayers for St. Christopher. So all he was getting once a year, would be three prayers all from the ordinary for a martyr not a bishop. The propers are prayers that are composed exclusively for a particular saint. The ordinary contains prayers that are said for categories of saint, where the same composition is used except for the inclusion of an invocation to the saint of the day. At most, the church has suppressed three short prayers once a year, but never on Sunday. That is only for the New Mass in the Roman Rite. It doesn't mean any disrespect. It may well be that the Maronites or other Eastern liturgies have a Mass for him. But I don't know. There are thousands of canonized saints who have never had a Mass said in their honor. I have this calendar put together for 2013 by some Traditional Benedectines. Every day there is a feast for a Bendectine saint. Today is St. Anselm of Lucca. But it doesn't mean that he is not a saint just because there is no Mass said in his honor. The calendar has been growing for 2,000 years, but there are only 365 days. If the Church lasts another 2,000 years, the calendar will change some more. The calendar always grows and one saint gets moved for another.

The Traditional Mass has never been suppressed and that calendar has not been changed. Many Traditionalists like me who were assisting at the Traditional Mass already, welcomed Pope Benedict's declaration of what we already knew. There is so much important history that most Catholics don't know. It seems impossible that non-Catholics would take the effort to become familiar with the history behind Pope Benedict's Motu Proprio. Anyway, I fear I am sounding antagonistic. In any case, I should only be speaking to the question raised by ChristKnight as to what Catholics think about Vatican II and I am afraid this is tangential to his main concerns. I am kind of thinking I shouldn't have spent so much time on attempting to explain why I disagree with you. Its no big deal. You can have the last word if you like.

Edited March 18, 2013 by 3DOP

[ChristKnight]

As I have already suggested, you should be less interested in the apologetic-polemic dance than in standard scholarship on such matters. Read widely in academic books and articles which deal with early Jewish Christianity and its precursors, always keeping in mind that a basic knowledge of Judaism is required for an understanding of the New Testament. Jesus and his Aramaic-speaking followers were all Jews. The NT was written by Jews. Jewish history and traditions are assumed to be familiar to those with whom Jesus interacted.

So far, you seem not to have taken such advice to heart.

No, I certainly have taken your advice to heart, and have purchased two of the sources you mentioned. However, my referencing "apologetic-polemic" sources get to the the issue that has been particularly troubling for me (i.e. the referencing of restoring the "Early Christian Church" (presumably a unified entity like the restored Church), not only in authority but in various doctrines and practices), and for which I am looking at understanding both the LDS and traditional Catholic/Orthodox viewpoints on, in addition to the non-apologetic viewpoints, and I appreciate your guidance on that.

Here are some volumes which you might find useful (let me know when you need more), and I would also suggest that you regularly read current issues of Biblical Archaeology Review. After some effort, you may begin to understand the nature of the early Jewish-Christian world.

W. D. Davies, Paul and Rabbinic Judaism, 2nd ed. (London, 1955).

J. H. Charlesworth and W. P. Weaver, eds., The Old and the New Testaments: Their Relationship and the "Intertestamental" Literature, Faith and Scholarship Colloquies (Valley Forge, Penn.: Trinity Press International, 1993).

J. H. Charlesworth and L. L. Johns, eds., Hillel and Jesus: Comparisons of Two Major Religious Leaders (Minneapolis: Augsburg-Fortress, 1997)

Anthony J. Saldarini, "Rabbinic Literature and the NT," in D. N. Freedman, ed., Anchor Bible Dictionary, 6 vols. (N.Y.: Doubleday, 1992), V:602-604.

Paula Fredriksen, Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews: A Jewish Life and the Emergence of Christianity (N.Y.: Knopf, 1999).

Israel Knohl, The Messiah Before Jesus: The Suffering Servant of the Dead Sea Scrolls (Berkeley: U.C. Press, 2000).

Michael O. Wise, The First Messiah: Investigating the Savior Before Christ (S.F.: HarperSanFrancisco, 1999).

Jack Finegan, The Archeology of the New Testament: The Life of Jesus and the Beginning of the Early Church, rev. ed. (Preinceton Univ. Press, 1992).

Thanks, I've purchased (I like to own books, what can I say) Paul and Rabbinic Judaism and The Archaeology of the New Testament.

[ChristKnight]

Hi again Robert.

St. Christopher has never had a high ranking among the saints in the calendar. I can fully understand why his place in the liturgy has been suppressed. St. Christopher only gets what is called a commemoration on July 25 according to the calendar currently in use for the Traditional Mass. He shares that date with St. James the Apostle which is a second class feast, a much higher rank. Commemorations are ordinarily optional. That means they might often be skipped anyway. Unless the Mass was celebrated in a church dedicated to St. Christopher, he wouldn't have much attention next to an apostle. There aren't even any proper prayers for St. Christopher. So all he was getting once a year, would be three prayers all from the ordinary for a martyr not a bishop. The propers are prayers that are composed exclusively for a particular saint. The ordinary contains prayers that are said for categories of saint, where the same composition is used except for the inclusion of an invocation to the saint of the day. At most, the church has suppressed three short prayers once a year, but never on Sunday. That is only for the New Mass in the Roman Rite. It doesn't mean any disrespect. It may well be that the Maronites or other Eastern liturgies have a Mass for him. But I don't know. There are thousands of canonized saints who have never had a Mass said in their honor. I have this calendar put together for 2013 by some Traditional Benedectines. Every day there is a feast for a Bendectine saint. Today is St. Anselm of Lucca. But it doesn't mean that he is not a saint just because there is no Mass said in his honor. The calendar has been growing for 2,000 years, but there are only 365 days. If the Church lasts another 2,000 years, the calendar will change some more. The calendar always grows and one saint gets moved for another.

So essentially what you're saying, and what I've understood from my Catholic days, it wasn't that canonized Saints such as St. Christopher were decanonized. It was just a removal from the official calendar of commemoration, which isn't that serious since there are more canonized saints than days in the year to receive commemoration, right?

The Traditional Mass has never been suppressed and that calendar has not been changed. Many Traditionalists like me who were assisting at the Traditional Mass already, welcomed Pope Benedict's declaration of what we already knew. There is so much important history that most Catholics don't know. It seems impossible that non-Catholics would take the effort to become familiar with the history behind Pope Benedict's Motu Proprio. Anyway, I fear I am sounding antagonistic. In any case, I should only be speaking to the question raised by ChristKnight as to what Catholics think about Vatican II and I am afraid this is tangential to his main concerns. I am kind of thinking I shouldn't have spent so much time on attempting to explain why I disagree with you. Its no big deal. You can have the last word if you like.

That is fine, I appreciate the perspectives offered by both of you on the matter.

While I do understand and appreciate your perspective as a Traditionalist Catholic (I've attended a few Tridentine Masses back in the day, very beautiful. I forgot how I found out about St. John Cantius Parish in Chicago, but used to wish that more Catholic parishes had such full liturgical schedules), I also understand what Robert is saying about the "restorationist" perspective on the liturgical changes resulting from Vatican II (or I guess you would see it as the "spirit of Vatican II"?). Having the Mass in the vernacular, simpler, etc does seem to be going back to a more ancient form of liturgical worship (though I do wonder how scholars such as Margaret Barker, that find Temple parallels and roots in the Catholic/Orthodox liturgical rites and sacraments, would view these changes).

Anyway, I did appreciate your Catholic perspective on Vatican II being, or not being, restorationist, as well as Robert's.

[CASteinman]

If the teachings of the ancient Catholic Church can bring me peace with God, why do I need a new church?

Of course I do not speak for the Church, but in my time of learning our doctrines and beliefs, it is my opinion that belief in the restored Gospel and Membership in the Church of Jesus Christ is, to a degree, optional. The key determination in this matter rests on one issue: To what degree are you (the individual) interested in achieving the highest blessings of the Kingdom of God?

The more this is your goal, the more you need to be part of the restored Gospel. The less that this is your goal, the less you need to be a part of the restored gospel. If your desire is to be a servant of God, you do not need to be a part of the restored Gospel. If you want to feel the peace that doctrines found in the Bible bring, you do not need to be part of the restored Gospel for that.

But there is more to aspire to. If you desire to have the fullest fellowship with God the Father in Eternity you do need the Restored Gospel and the Full set of Ordinances it brings. If you want to be Heirs of God and Joint Heirs with Christ you do need all of that.

And at the same time, even if that is not your desire, the restored Gospel also makes bad men good and good men better. You will not be injured by moving from an apostate Church to the True Church, even if you do not need the full measure of the blessings of the gospel.

Some of the finest people I have known are Catholics. I would never say to someone "Do not be a Catholic". But I would say "Do be a Mormon".

[3DOP]

Hi again ChristKnight,

My appraisal of Acts and the succession of Mathias to Judas' episcopate was a repetition of something I posted last summer, that likewise was given no reply. I doubt it is so good that there is no LDS reply. Sincerely. I certainly don't think I have proven Mormons wrong. Maybe I have given that impression. I really don't find your position on the apostles implausible given the data we have to work with. I just think I have shown that there is a different way to look at the whole episode that is more compatible with a Catholic version of Apostolic Succession that is also plausible. It needs to be appreciated that we don't think the apostles could have ordained any higher office than bishop. That is why bishops who are not apostles succeeded bishops who were apostles. The psalm to which St. Peter refers in Acts 1 lends significant support to that view in my opinion.

It is alright if you didn't find it very compelling. Nobody else here does either. Heh. Its totally okay if you don't comment. But if you wanted to say why my analysis doesn't work I would be listening. Post #76 in case you missed it.

3DOP

[3DOP]

So essentially what you're saying, and what I've understood from my Catholic days, it wasn't that canonized Saints such as St. Christopher were decanonized. It was just a removal from the official calendar of commemoration, which isn't that serious since there are more canonized saints than days in the year to receive commemoration, right?

That is fine, I appreciate the perspectives offered by both of you on the matter.

While I do understand and appreciate your perspective as a Traditionalist Catholic (I've attended a few Tridentine Masses back in the day, very beautiful. I forgot how I found out about St. John Cantius Parish in Chicago, but used to wish that more Catholic parishes had such full liturgical schedules), I also understand what Robert is saying about the "restorationist" perspective on the liturgical changes resulting from Vatican II (or I guess you would see it as the "spirit of Vatican II"?). Having the Mass in the vernacular, simpler, etc does seem to be going back to a more ancient form of liturgical worship (though I do wonder how scholars such as Margaret Barker, that find Temple parallels and roots in the Catholic/Orthodox liturgical rites and sacraments, would view these changes).

Anyway, I did appreciate your Catholic perspective on Vatican II being, or not being, restorationist, as well as Robert's.

I must have been sufficiently clear. You summarized my position on both matters well.

I do want to concede that I recognize that the liturgical changes often were attended with the argument for returning to older roots. That is why I posted the reply of Pius XII to that argument. I can certainly see how someone superficially following the Council might think this was the primary motive. I personally believe that there was a better motive for the liturgical changes. By muting Catholic teachings about purgatory, Mary, and the saints, the emphasis on the Mass as a sacrifice, it seemed like Protestants might be less inclined to object to the Mass. A worthy motive. I don't want the Traditional Mass just because I know Protestants think it is worse than the New Mass. But I am afraid I think it is a strategy that doesn't come from true wisdom. We can't trick people into becoming Catholics. We can't even trick people into liking us.

We need potential converts to know what we think about Mary, purgatory, the saints, and the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. And we might as well keep it plain and out in the open, in the Mass. It is easy, fifty years after the Council to be an armchair father of the Council. The monasteries and convents have emptied. The state of the Church in Europe is a disaster. The average age of French priests is almost 70 years old. Parishes that have faithfully tried to implement the changes that came with such high hopes are closing and there is truly a crisis of vocations. There was one diocesan priest ordained last year in Ireland. Young people aren't responding to the call of Vatican II. They just aren't. I love Holy Mother Church...the Roman Catholic Church and our new sovereign pontiff, His Holiness Pope Francis. God help us. St. John Cantius wasn't available to us, but in its way something better was.

I will grant that the New Mass is more intelligible. But intelligibility isn't everything. Ambience matters. Still, I go to Mass in a converted trailer. Not ideal. The Old Mass isn't just words. It fully engages the senses. It is a pageant. And it isn't that hard to understand anyway. I could never possibly love the New Mass. When we were attending a very reverent New Mass, much of it even in Latin, one of the priests told the young man who you see in my avatar, my son, as altar server, to smile more during Mass and to stop genuflecting so much in front of the Tabernacle. He tried to teach him what he called a bow, what I call a "head bob". I am afraid we would have lost my boy to the world if we had stayed. Maybe ChristKnight, you have some leftover sensibility to see why smiling would be out of order in the sanctuary? I understand most LDS wouldn't. The New Mass is almost sterile. The boy, who is really a young man, seems more and more to have a vocation. He seems so happy with seminary life. Surely this is a dream, that I could be the father of a priest? Yeah, he'll probably come home. God's will be done. No reproach from me. Good boy for taking the test. My daughter is married to a wonderful former seminarian who we love dearly for how well he loves our daughter. Heh. We went where we had to go to save our own souls and those of our children. This is a concession. I know well how to defend myself, but many Catholics will say I am Protestant. I would remind them that Pope Francis' Jesuits had been "suppressed" for forty-one years and outlived a "politically incorrect" persecution for him to be ordained Jesuit in 1969.

Anyway, this is where I am proud to say my boy is studying for the priesthood. Whatever happens, this kind of Catholicism cannot be suppressed until the Holy Catholic Church learns to suppress herself! Heh: http://newseminaryproject.org/

Fr. Asher, who you will see in the video, told us that they actually found a beautiful seminary that used to belong to the Redemptorists in the Hudson Valley that was for sale. Instead of starting from scratch in Virginia, the seminary my boy goes to wanted to buy the empty Catholic seminary, but it wasn't for sale to the Society of St. Pius X. Now it belongs to Lutherans.

Edited March 19, 2013 by 3DOP

[Robert F. Smith]

Hi again Robert.

St. Christopher has never had a high ranking among the saints in the calendar. I can fully understand why his place in the liturgy has been suppressed. St. Christopher only gets what is called a commemoration on July 25 according to the calendar currently in use for the Traditional Mass. He shares that date with St. James the Apostle which is a second class feast, a much higher rank. Commemorations are ordinarily optional. That means they might often be skipped anyway. Unless the Mass was celebrated in a church dedicated to St. Christopher, he wouldn't have much attention next to an apostle. There aren't even any proper prayers for St. Christopher. So all he was getting once a year, would be three prayers all from the ordinary for a martyr not a bishop. The propers are prayers that are composed exclusively for a particular saint. The ordinary contains prayers that are said for categories of saint, where the same composition is used except for the inclusion of an invocation to the saint of the day. At most, the church has suppressed three short prayers once a year, but never on Sunday. That is only for the New Mass in the Roman Rite. It doesn't mean any disrespect. It may well be that the Maronites or other Eastern liturgies have a Mass for him. But I don't know. There are thousands of canonized saints who have never had a Mass said in their honor. I have this calendar put together for 2013 by some Traditional Benedectines. Every day there is a feast for a Bendectine saint. Today is St. Anselm of Lucca. But it doesn't mean that he is not a saint just because there is no Mass said in his honor. The calendar has been growing for 2,000 years, but there are only 365 days. If the Church lasts another 2,000 years, the calendar will change some more. The calendar always grows and one saint gets moved for another.

The Traditional Mass has never been suppressed and that calendar has not been changed. Many Traditionalists like me who were assisting at the Traditional Mass already, welcomed Pope Benedict's declaration of what we already knew. There is so much important history that most Catholics don't know. It seems impossible that non-Catholics would take the effort to become familiar with the history behind Pope Benedict's Motu Proprio. Anyway, I fear I am sounding antagonistic. In any case, I should only be speaking to the question raised by ChristKnight as to what Catholics think about Vatican II and I am afraid this is tangential to his main concerns. I am kind of thinking I shouldn't have spent so much time on attempting to explain why I disagree with you. Its no big deal. You can have the last word if you like.

Thank you for the learned comments. I'm sure that many of my impressions of Catholicism are erroneous in some way.

Some of my friends have been Catholics, and I have even been invited on a monastic retreat by one such, while another (a priest) thought I ought to become a Roman Catholic priest. I didn't accept either invitation, but have attended many a mass and have considered them beautiful experiences. I have particularly enjoyed the homilies and music.

[saemo]

I must have been sufficiently clear. You summarized my position on both matters well.

I do want to concede that I recognize that the liturgical changes often were attended with the argument for returning to older roots. That is why I posted the reply of Pius XII to that argument. I can certainly see how someone superficially following the Council might think this was the primary motive. I personally believe that there was a better motive for the liturgical changes. By muting Catholic teachings about purgatory, Mary, and the saints, the emphasis on the Mass as a sacrifice, it seemed like Protestants might be less inclined to object to the Mass. A worthy motive. I don't want the Traditional Mass just because I know Protestants think it is worse than the New Mass. But I am afraid I think it is a strategy that doesn't come from true wisdom. We can't trick people into becoming Catholics. We can't even trick people into liking us.

We need potential converts to know what we think about Mary, purgatory, the saints, and the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. And we might as well keep it plain and out in the open, in the Mass. It is easy, fifty years after the Council to be an armchair father of the Council. The monasteries and convents have emptied. The state of the Church in Europe is a disaster. The average age of French priests is almost 70 years old. Parishes that have faithfully tried to implement the changes that came with such high hopes are closing and there is truly a crisis of vocations. There was one diocesan priest ordained last year in Ireland. Young people aren't responding to the call of Vatican II. They just aren't. I love Holy Mother Church...the Roman Catholic Church and our new sovereign pontiff, His Holiness Pope Francis. God help us. St. John Cantius wasn't available to us, but in its way something better was.

I will grant that the New Mass is more intelligible. But intelligibility isn't everything. Ambience matters. Still, I go to Mass in a converted trailer. Not ideal. The Old Mass isn't just words. It fully engages the senses. It is a pageant. And it isn't that hard to understand anyway. I could never possibly love the New Mass. When we were attending a very reverent New Mass, much of it even in Latin, one of the priests told the young man who you see in my avatar, my son, as altar server, to smile more during Mass and to stop genuflecting so much in front of the Tabernacle. He tried to teach him what he called a bow, what I call a "head bob". I am afraid we would have lost my boy to the world if we had stayed. Maybe ChristKnight, you have some leftover sensibility to see why smiling would be out of order in the sanctuary? I understand most LDS wouldn't. The New Mass is almost sterile. The boy, who is really a young man, seems more and more to have a vocation. He seems so happy with seminary life. Surely this is a dream, that I could be the father of a priest? Yeah, he'll probably come home. God's will be done. No reproach from me. Good boy for taking the test. My daughter is married to a wonderful former seminarian who we love dearly for how well he loves our daughter. Heh. We went where we had to go to save our own souls and those of our children. This is a concession. I know well how to defend myself, but many Catholics will say I am Protestant. I would remind them that Pope Francis' Jesuits had been "suppressed" for forty-one years and outlived a "politically incorrect" persecution for him to be ordained Jesuit in 1969.

Anyway, this is where I am proud to say my boy is studying for the priesthood. Whatever happens, this kind of Catholicism cannot be suppressed until the Holy Catholic Church learns to suppress herself! Heh: http://newseminaryproject.org/

Fr. Asher, who you will see in the video, told us that they actually found a beautiful seminary that used to belong to the Redemptorists in the Hudson Valley that was for sale. Instead of starting from scratch in Virginia, the seminary my boy goes to wanted to buy the empty Catholic seminary, but it wasn't for sale to the Society of St. Pius X. Now it belongs to Lutherans.

From the perspective of a convert (me), baptized long after Vatican II, I don't find these spiritual troubles with Mass. But, I am in a very orthodox parish, that admittedly I drive 30 minutes to. The closer parish is more "modern", but where I went to Mass for a year, as an atheist. It was that Mass, and that parish, that led me to Christ. I have not been to a Tridentine Mass.

No worries about converts being taught about Mary, purgatory, the Saints and Mass. I was taught them all, and today as I participate in RCIA, we teach former Protestants, Mormons, atheists, agnostics, non-confirmed Catholics and "other". We have a year long catechumenate, and so we have the time, and do teach our catechumens everything. Nothing is hidden from them.

Congratulations on your son. I will pray for him.

BTW, we currently have 7 seminarians training as diocesan priests. Here, in the backwaters of Catholicism.

Edited March 19, 2013 by saemo

[saemo]

I do think it's important to think of the Church as Christ, as it is His Body. And on the other hand, I do find the analogy of the Church with Christ's Body in relationship to the apostasy (that the Church "died" just like Christ did, and was resurrected, therefore the gates of Hades didn't prevail. this is something I've said multiple times as well).

Thanks!

I suppose the analogy could work:

1) If you believe Christ's Church was established by Jesus during His ministry, and not before. My understanding is that LDS believe Christ's Church was established with Adam.

2) If you believed in a singular apostate event, which as I understand it, LDS believe in several.

In that light, the Church as an analogy for resurrection looks more like reincarnation. ie, how many times do you believe the Church has been resurrected?

[Stone holm]

And then the metaphor took on a life of its own and jumped up and took over.

[3DOP]

From the perspective of a convert (me), baptized long after Vatican II, I don't find these spiritual troubles with Mass. But, I am in a very orthodox parish, that admittedly I drive 30 minutes to. The closer parish is more "modern", but where I went to Mass for a year, as an atheist. It was that Mass, and that parish, that led me to Christ. I have not been to a Tridentine Mass.

No worries about converts being taught about Mary, purgatory, the Saints and Mass. I was taught them all, and today as I participate in RCIA, we teach former Protestants, Mormons, atheists, agnostics, non-confirmed Catholics and "other". We have a year long catechumenate, and so we have the time, and do teach our catechumens everything. Nothing is hidden from them.

Congratulations on your son. I will pray for him.

BTW, we currently have 7 seminarians training as diocesan priests. Here, in the backwaters of Catholicism.

Hi saemo,

Thanks for the good report, and even more thanks for the prayers. God bless your seminarians. Good signs. Maybe someday soon, we won't have to go farther than our local parish to be "very orthodox".

3DOP

[saemo]

Hi saemo,

Thanks for the good report, and even more thanks for the prayers. God bless your seminarians. Good signs. Maybe someday soon, we won't have to go farther than our local parish to be "very orthodox".

3DOP

Pope Benedict XVI focused on evangelization in many ways. Pope Francis is reminding us how that looks, and is done. Poverty, which includes renouncing materialistic things, but also indicates emptying of oneself, turning to Christ and being His hands, feet and face. As Catholics, we view "restoration" differently than reformers and restorationists. We are restored by Christ, which is one of the very reasons we need Christ's Church, as that is the visible sign of Christ in the world. So, our beloved St. Francis of Assisi rebuilt the Church, which is as always, a call to repentance and good works. People still hunger for the Other, that exists outside of themselves. God never ceases in calling us to Him. So don't lose hope, as hope has a name, Jesus Christ.

Vatican II, if it must be viewed as a "restoration", must be done so in a Catholic context, and not the Protestant context that permeates American thought.

Edited March 19, 2013 by saemo

[Calm]

Not sure if this has been posted yet: http://www.lds.org/ensign/2013/04/the-restoration-and-early-christian-teachings?lang=eng

[Spammer]

I wonder why Ash quotes Catholic/Orthodox church fathers to show that Joseph Smith restored certain early Christian teachings, e.g. theosis, that were supposedly lost? It seems to me that quoting those fathers only shows that the doctrine of human deification never was lost in the first place. As well, other writings of those same church fathers show that they were all committed trinitarians. If anything, this suggests that Ash is overstating his case for the restoration of teachings about deification. The same applies to Dan Peterson's recent article on theosis in Mormon Times.

Regarding pre-earth life and baptism for the dead, the same evidence can be used to support the idea that certain speculative teachings and practices (cf. speculative teachings by LDS prophets about the origins of the priesthood ban or Adam-God) were 'lost' because they were deemed by church councils to not be part of they body of authentic Christian teaching, i.e., they were eventually deemed to be non-canonical.

Edited March 20, 2013 by Spammer

[volgadon]

For a better idea of what Joseph was restoring, check out Terryl Givens' lecture on the prophecy of Enoch. http://terrylgivens.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/Prophecy-of-Enoch.pdf

[Stone holm]

For a better idea of what Joseph was restoring, check out Terryl Givens' lecture on the prophecy of Enoch. http://terrylgivens.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/Prophecy-of-Enoch.pdf

Great article, thanks!

[Robert F. Smith]

I suppose the analogy could work:

1) If you believe Christ's Church was established by Jesus during His ministry, and not before. My understanding is that LDS believe Christ's Church was established with Adam.

2) If you believed in a singular apostate event, which as I understand it, LDS believe in several.

In that light, the Church as an analogy for resurrection looks more like reincarnation. ie, how many times do you believe the Church has been resurrected?

As many times as the people of God get sidetracked by their own arrogance and pride, which entails a number of official dispensations, and many more small ones (which Hugh Nibley claimed were a result of the "Nephite Disease").

The Jews are just now ending a second major exile, which the rabbis attribute to disobedience.

Among the matters restored by God in reestablishing his Church with the Latter-day Saints are the following important principles and practices:

no infant baptism / baptism by immersion / baptism for the dead

continuing revelation / open canon

priesthood ordination by one having authority (lay priesthood)

Plan of Salvation / Great Plan of Happiness

Theosis / apotheosis / Deification

Premortal existence of spirits / coeternal with God

Grand Council in Heaven

free agency

creation from pre-existent matter

corporeality of God the Father / anthropomorphic deities / naturalistic deities / solution to problem of evil-theodicy

Heavenly Mother / consort of YHWH

temple endowment / esoteric rites

[Bart Burk]

I must have been sufficiently clear. You summarized my position on both matters well.

I do want to concede that I recognize that the liturgical changes often were attended with the argument for returning to older roots. That is why I posted the reply of Pius XII to that argument. I can certainly see how someone superficially following the Council might think this was the primary motive. I personally believe that there was a better motive for the liturgical changes. By muting Catholic teachings about purgatory, Mary, and the saints, the emphasis on the Mass as a sacrifice, it seemed like Protestants might be less inclined to object to the Mass. A worthy motive. I don't want the Traditional Mass just because I know Protestants think it is worse than the New Mass. But I am afraid I think it is a strategy that doesn't come from true wisdom. We can't trick people into becoming Catholics. We can't even trick people into liking us.

We need potential converts to know what we think about Mary, purgatory, the saints, and the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. And we might as well keep it plain and out in the open, in the Mass. It is easy, fifty years after the Council to be an armchair father of the Council. The monasteries and convents have emptied. The state of the Church in Europe is a disaster. The average age of French priests is almost 70 years old. Parishes that have faithfully tried to implement the changes that came with such high hopes are closing and there is truly a crisis of vocations. There was one diocesan priest ordained last year in Ireland. Young people aren't responding to the call of Vatican II. They just aren't. I love Holy Mother Church...the Roman Catholic Church and our new sovereign pontiff, His Holiness Pope Francis. God help us. St. John Cantius wasn't available to us, but in its way something better was.

I will grant that the New Mass is more intelligible. But intelligibility isn't everything. Ambience matters. Still, I go to Mass in a converted trailer. Not ideal. The Old Mass isn't just words. It fully engages the senses. It is a pageant. And it isn't that hard to understand anyway. I could never possibly love the New Mass. When we were attending a very reverent New Mass, much of it even in Latin, one of the priests told the young man who you see in my avatar, my son, as altar server, to smile more during Mass and to stop genuflecting so much in front of the Tabernacle. He tried to teach him what he called a bow, what I call a "head bob". I am afraid we would have lost my boy to the world if we had stayed. Maybe ChristKnight, you have some leftover sensibility to see why smiling would be out of order in the sanctuary? I understand most LDS wouldn't. The New Mass is almost sterile. The boy, who is really a young man, seems more and more to have a vocation. He seems so happy with seminary life. Surely this is a dream, that I could be the father of a priest? Yeah, he'll probably come home. God's will be done. No reproach from me. Good boy for taking the test. My daughter is married to a wonderful former seminarian who we love dearly for how well he loves our daughter. Heh. We went where we had to go to save our own souls and those of our children. This is a concession. I know well how to defend myself, but many Catholics will say I am Protestant. I would remind them that Pope Francis' Jesuits had been "suppressed" for forty-one years and outlived a "politically incorrect" persecution for him to be ordained Jesuit in 1969.

Anyway, this is where I am proud to say my boy is studying for the priesthood. Whatever happens, this kind of Catholicism cannot be suppressed until the Holy Catholic Church learns to suppress herself! Heh: http://newseminaryproject.org/

Fr. Asher, who you will see in the video, told us that they actually found a beautiful seminary that used to belong to the Redemptorists in the Hudson Valley that was for sale. Instead of starting from scratch in Virginia, the seminary my boy goes to wanted to buy the empty Catholic seminary, but it wasn't for sale to the Society of St. Pius X. Now it belongs to Lutherans.

As a convert who found beauty in the English mass and who has never been to a Latin mass, I guess you don't need to worry about converts to Catholicism not being drawn to the Catholic Church by the English mass. I like to know what is going on and a mass in the vernacular is much more enjoyable to me. I attend a parish that is large and has liturgies that seem to inspire enough people that six out of seven masses are full in a large church every weekend. The youth group is thriving and we don't seem to be losing them to the world.

[ChristKnight]

For a better idea of what Joseph was restoring, check out Terryl Givens' lecture on the prophecy of Enoch. http://terrylgivens....cy-of-Enoch.pdf

Thanks, I'll read it while I'm at work. Seems like it expands on similar points given in the Ensign article Calmoriah linked to (I found that article very basic (which is understandable given the target audience), and agree with Spammer's assessment of it).

[ChristKnight]

Hi again ChristKnight,

My appraisal of Acts and the succession of Mathias to Judas' episcopate was a repetition of something I posted last summer, that likewise was given no reply. I doubt it is so good that there is no LDS reply. Sincerely. I certainly don't think I have proven Mormons wrong. Maybe I have given that impression. I really don't find your position on the apostles implausible given the data we have to work with. I just think I have shown that there is a different way to look at the whole episode that is more compatible with a Catholic version of Apostolic Succession that is also plausible. It needs to be appreciated that we don't think the apostles could have ordained any higher office than bishop. That is why bishops who are not apostles succeeded bishops who were apostles. The psalm to which St. Peter refers in Acts 1 lends significant support to that view in my opinion.

It is alright if you didn't find it very compelling. Nobody else here does either. Heh. Its totally okay if you don't comment. But if you wanted to say why my analysis doesn't work I would be listening. Post #76 in case you missed it.

3DOP

Thanks for pointing me to that post. I do find your argument of the replacement of Judas' "bishopric" compelling. Do you believe that 1 Clement 44 is talking about the bishops as successors to the apostles. Perhaps I'm getting a little confused with all of the "these", "them", and "they"s, but who is "fall[ing] asleep" and who is the "them" that are being succeeded in ministry?

So your argument is the apostles are bishops that have met certain characteristics as we see with the selection of Matthias, and that "apostle" is not a priesthood office, as bishop is. Does the Catholic Church teach that the apostles had certain charisms or apostolic gifts that were/are or were/are not given to bishops in general (the "signs that characterize the apostle", as you mention)?

Somewhat related to this is the issue of revelation. In "restoring the ancient Church", LDS believe that an important principle is that of revelation, and that the apostles, as general authorities of the Church, were entitled to receive Divine guidance to lead the Church of Jesus Christ, and revelation is absolutely needed in the true Church to guide it, as we see in the NT. How is the Catholic view similar or dissimilar to that? What is meant by "public revelation", and it ending?

[Bart Burk]

For the LDS, Ephesians 4:11-13 is scripture used to justify the need for current apostles:

And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ: Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ::

The takeaway for the LDS is that apostles are necessary until we come into a complete unity of the faith. Since the unity of the faith has not been attained, apostles are still necessary according to the LDS. Bishops, priests and deacons aren't mentioned in that passage. I guess you could make a good argument that pastors are Bishops, but it is hard to see the ministry of the Catholic Church in the above verses. I think basing your entire argument on a couple of verses is questionable, but this is the argument I have heard most often from the LDS.

Edited March 20, 2013 by Bart Burk

[Ahab]

My appraisal of Acts and the succession of Mathias to Judas' episcopate was a repetition of something I posted last summer, that likewise was given no reply. I doubt it is so good that there is no LDS reply. Sincerely. I certainly don't think I have proven Mormons wrong. Maybe I have given that impression. I really don't find your position on the apostles implausible given the data we have to work with. I just think I have shown that there is a different way to look at the whole episode that is more compatible with a Catholic version of Apostolic Succession that is also plausible. It needs to be appreciated that we don't think the apostles could have ordained any higher office than bishop. That is why bishops who are not apostles succeeded bishops who were apostles. The psalm to which St. Peter refers in Acts 1 lends significant support to that view in my opinion.

So because you see it as plausible you choose to believe it. That makes some sense, but I don't see it as the best course of action. Lots of things make sense, rationally, but are still not true. That's why we need something more than our reasoning to get at what the truth is.

Now let's jump ahead a little and presume that both of us have God's inspiration to believe what we believe on this issue, even though we don't agree on this issue. How do you explain that? How do you know who is right? Who do you trust to know that you are right on this issue?

You probably already know what I say in response to that question, and I think I know how you would answer that too.

So now what? This is where I see both of us parting company with you on one side of the issue and me on the other side, which according to God as he has told me personally is the right side on the issue.

[saemo]

As many times as the people of God get sidetracked by their own arrogance and pride, which entails a number of official dispensations, and many more small ones (which Hugh Nibley claimed were a result of the "Nephite Disease").

The Jews are just now ending a second major exile, which the rabbis attribute to disobedience.

Among the matters restored by God in reestablishing his Church with the Latter-day Saints are the following important principles and practices:

no infant baptism / baptism by immersion / baptism for the dead

continuing revelation / open canon

priesthood ordination by one having authority (lay priesthood)

Plan of Salvation / Great Plan of Happiness

Theosis / apotheosis / Deification

Premortal existence of spirits / coeternal with God

Grand Council in Heaven

free agency

creation from pre-existent matter

corporeality of God the Father / anthropomorphic deities / naturalistic deities / solution to problem of evil-theodicy

Heavenly Mother / consort of YHWH

temple endowment / esoteric rites

All topics that can be, and have been covered, over and over.

In many of the points, LDS confuse innovation with restoration, ie, no evidence for things lost or found, in an LDS understanding. Just assertions.

[Ahab]

All topics that can be, and have been covered, over and over.

In many of the points, LDS confuse innovation with restoration, ie, no evidence for things lost or found, in an LDS understanding. Just assertions.

One of the nice things about freedom of religion is that I can allow you to go on believing things like that without worrying about having to try to correct you or to change what I know is true. You can go on believing whatever you want to believe, forever.

[Engineer97]

I was referring to authority diminishing in the Church, collectively. Apostles have more authority than bishops, or over more things.

This is an example of justifying what you did in contrast to what they did. In the church depicted in the Bible, bishops didn't ordain other bishops to succeed them. The apostles ordained bishops. The fact that your bishops did that doesn't mean it was right.

Those aren't your writings. Your people didn't write anything now contained in the Bible. You can keep all of your writings.

Actually..this is not true...........

Acts 13:

1 Now in the church at Antioch there were prophets and teachers: Barnabas, Simeon called Niger, Lucius of Cyrene, Manaen (who had been brought up with Herod the tetrarch) and Saul. 2 While they were worshiping the Lord and fasting, the Holy Spirit said, “Set apart for me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them.” 3 So after they had fasted and prayed, they placed their hands on them and sent them off.

None of the original apostles ordains Paul..... but the elders at Antioch...who were appointed by Cephas.

And prior to this....

Galatians 2:2 I went in response to a revelation and, meeting privately with those esteemed as leaders, I presented to them the gospel that I preach among the Gentiles. I wanted to be sure I was not running and had not been running my race in vain.