What Can Faithful Non-Members Do in the Spiritual Life and Ministry of a Ward or Stake?

[Bernard Gui]

19 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

I do not accept the "Spirit of Vatican II." Catholics should follow the teachings of Holy Mother Church for both doctrine and liturgy.

Thank you. It’s interesting that many here do not allow this privilege to the LDS Church.

[mfbukowski]

On 12/29/2022 at 6:42 PM, 3DOP said:

Mustard Seed...not your fault...but you even call it a "wafer". Thank you for asking if it was okay. It was not wrong for you to accept their invitation. If it is only a wafer, then fine, and presumably the priest agrees with you that it was a wafer. But if it was the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Jesus Christ, it is an act of charity to tell those who doubt that it is really Jesus' flesh and blood to refrain. I am not at all calling your experience into question. In 1741, the priest and your extraordinary minister of the Holy Eucharist might likely have answered differently...and in my opinion...better, if they had any care that you might someday want to be Catholic. 

Perhaps the Lord removes himself from those not worthy, accounting for their ignorance?

"Mea maxima culpa"?

Edited December 31, 2022 by mfbukowski

[Amulek]

15 hours ago, Navidad said:

Ok, I am not going to respond to any more 10 year old ministerial priesthood holder questions.

As you like.  

 

15 hours ago, Navidad said:

Those are all either strawman or red herring questions (I never know which is which).

It was neither. The point of the question was to get you to admit that the so-called absurd proposition you were bristling about isn't, in fact, so absurd after all. 

Under the paradigm of the reformists, there is no institutional / organizational limiting principle which would preclude a ten year old from starting his own church and then baptizing, laying hands, etc. on whomever he wants. 

 

15 hours ago, Navidad said:

Why doesn't the LDS Church grant Melchizedek priesthood to 10 year olds, or make them apostles or even president of the church?

As Calm pointed out: because God hasn't revealed that we should do so. 

But there's no reason why God would be incapable of doing so should it serve His purposes. Joseph Smith was visited by the Father and the Son at age 14, and Jesus himself was preaching in the temple at 12. 

 

15 hours ago, Navidad said:

This is a serious discussion and those aren't serious questions.

I disagree. A proper understanding of priesthood authority is one of the central points of contention between those on the Catholic / Orthodox / LDS side of the debate and those on the Protestant / Reformist side. 

And in my opinion, the reformists curative for the issues relating to Priests in the Catholic Church at the time has actually ended up being worse than the disease. 

As John Wesley's brother famously wrote:

        So easily are bishops made by man’s or woman’s whim?
        Wesley his hand on Coke hath laid, but who laid hands on him?
        Hands upon himself he laid, and took an apostolic chair:
        He then ordained his creature Coke, his heir and successor.

        Episcopalians now no more with Presbyterians fight,
        But give your needless contest o’er, ‘whose ordination’s right?’
        It matters not, if both are one, or different in degree,
        For lo! Ye see contained in John the whole Presbytery.

If anybody can claim ministerial authority at any time, then there are no real limits on who can and cannot assume the role - even a precocious ten year old, should he so desire. 

 

15 hours ago, Navidad said:

The ministerial priesthood (holy orders, the role of pastor, bishop, whatever) is a tremendous responsibility. I know. I have been there.

And I have no doubt that you helped people come closer to Christ during that time in your life. 

 

15 hours ago, Navidad said:

If, as I believe the Holy Spirit superintends the process, don't you think that person of the Godhead understands the limitation of a 10 year old in doing the work of the ministry?

And how does one go about verifying whose call to the ministry was really superintended by the Holy Spirit and whose wasn't?

After all, who are you to decide who God can and cannot call?

If the Lord, unlike man, doesn't look on the outward appearance, but on the heart. And if, with God, all things truly are possible, then why can't a ten year old start up his own church and start baptizing whoever is willing to listen? 

If there really is no institutional Church as the Catholics and Latter-day Saints claim, then we are back to @mfbukowski's circle with no edges. And, for all practical purposes, I don't see how that's avoidable. 

 

[Bernard Gui]

51 minutes ago, Navidad said:

I can't think of any group other than the LDS who insist that their baptism is the only valid baptism because it is the only baptism performed by a male with the right kind of authority from God. In that sense truly the LDS church is unique.

Conversely, I am unaware of any other Christian entity that recognizes LDS baptisms or LDS authority. Perhaps it is the only invalid baptism and priesthood?

[Navidad]

4 hours ago, Calm said:

Since it is the Spirit who confers the priesthood on a person, there is no technical reason a mortal should say ‘this person can’t have the priesthood’, even ten year olds since it is not their choice to decide.  But the Spirit only confers the priesthood on those who are ready for it and therefore would never give it to a ten year old because any ten year old would not be ready.

No that is not exactly what I believe. I do believe that Christ is the source of authority in the New Testament and today. The Holy Spirit indwells the believer, communicates, ministers to, advises and counsels the same. When there is need for leadership in a church or someone comes forward to be ordained to the ministry (the ministerial priesthood - whether pastor, deacon, missionary, church school director, etc) that person goes through a process of examination that includes gifts, knowledge, spiritual maturity, lifestyle, and perhaps even temperament for such ministry. The examination is by those with ministerial priesthood within that group and then is validated (sustained?) by the group itself. So there is an examination team and a congregation or group who must approve. Most prefer unanimity in the decision of the council (examining group made up of ministerial priesthood holders) and the congregation. That doesn't always happen

Now the most important part is that we believe that it is critically important that the entire process be conducted under the guidance and supervision of the Holy Spirit since He is the communicant of Christ's authority. Much time is spent in prayer and the seeking of God's will via the Holy Spirit in the matter. I have been part of several such councils where the candidate or supplicant was turned down because the council did not feel that he or she was ready in some form or another. So perhaps there is not a "technical" reason, but there may be a Spirit-led reason why the person would be rejected based on a consensus on how the Holy Spirit is leading.

I agree with the second part of your statement. The council via the Spirit would only confer ministerial priesthood on someone who they believe through the Spirit is ready for it and I have never heard of anyone under 21 successfully going through that process. There is a process for licensure, a lower level of ministry for those between 18 and 21, but not very often. Ordination opens up all the opportunities for ministry while licensure is somewhat limited in differing groups.

4 hours ago, Calm said:

Out of curiosity, how do you view John the Baptist’s priesthood?  Was it something special or just received from his father?  I ask because some Saints see John the Baptist as receiving the priesthood as an infant.  I can’t remember if it is just interpretation of our scriptures or something more though.

I believe that John's baptism was one that fulfilled prophecy in Isaiah and was a call to Jews to repent and believe in the coming Messiah. Judaism in the first century was in a very awkward place. It was between and betwixt. The temple was devoid of the physical presence of God, including the Holy of Holies. Judaism was gaining strength, but there was most likely a strong need for personal repentance. John preached the coming of the Messiah and the need to repent. Christ submitted to John's baptism as a sign of the connection between the two men and validation of John's ministry. I think John's baptism was to testify to an already accomplished repentance and a looking forward to the coming Messiah. I know nothing about John "receiving the priesthood." I don't think we have still had an answer on this thread from someone in the LDS as to the similarities and differences of what our Catholic brethren have said and what I have said, and what the LDS teach about the nature of the threefold priesthood: Christ's, the Royal and the ministerial. Someone said something about a person to person transmission of the priesthood in the LDS polity, hence the testimonies and visions related to the original apostles. It seems to me that when the LDS refer to the priesthood they are referring to the ministerial, but I am not sure how it works in the LDS mindset and polity. For example I am not sure who can seal a couple together for life in the temple, versus a bishop who marries someone in the chapel. I don't believe a bishop has any ministerial authority in the temple, but I may be totally wrong. On the other hand, I don't believe the temple president has any authority in the ward either. Take care and best wishes.

[Calm]

8 minutes ago, Navidad said:

When there is need for leadership in a church or someone comes forward to be ordained to the ministry (the ministerial priesthood - whether pastor, deacon, missionary, church school director, etc) that person goes through a process of examination that includes gifts, knowledge, spiritual maturity, lifestyle, and perhaps even temperament for such ministry.

Why is the council necessary though except essentially to determine whether anyone wants them as their minister (gives them the training so others accept them as an authority even if the authority comes from God)?  What does it have to do with the priesthood authority if Christ is the only source of it? (Serious question, trying to understand how your ideas fit together).  What is the origin of the council?  Does it have authority of some sort and if so, what kind?

Edited December 31, 2022 by Calm

[3DOP]

25 minutes ago, Navidad said:

I can't think of any group other than the LDS who insist that their baptism is the only valid baptism because it is the only baptism performed by a male with the right kind of authority from God. In that sense truly the LDS church is unique. Perhaps the Oneness Pentecostals believe theirs is the only - I am simply not sure. It is a powerful boundary. I don't reject being baptized again as a membership requirement in a different group, even if the form is different from what I had as a child. I object to being baptized again if the reason is because the group insists my baptism is not satisfactory to God because it was performed by my father, a non-LDS priesthood holding Christian. That is a bridge too far for me. Oh, and my own son was baptized by pouring, because immersion was an impossibility for him because of his autism. Our Mennonite bishop graciously accommodated his disability. Do I think God will reject my son's baptism? Absolutely not. Do you? Is form more important than faith to God? Does baptism matter to God Yes!

Catholics believe that anyone, even a ten year old (wow, my ten year old comment triggered a firestorm of misunderstanding.) Jewish girl can baptize, if the motive is to "do what the Church does." Anyone who can formulate that motive is qualified as a minister of baptism in the Catholic Church. There is no discrimination on the basis of race, religion, sex, or age. 

Speaking of the minister of Holy Baptism, the Catholic Church teaches the following:

"The minister of this is a priest, who is competent by office to baptize. In case of necessity, however not only a priest or a deacon, but even a layman or a woman, yes even a pagan and a heretic can baptize, so long as he preserves the form of the Church (the words) and has the intention of doing what the Church does."

---Council of Florence, From the Bull "Exultate Deo", Nov. 22, 1439

"Doing what the Church does" is easily met, in God's love for souls who do not have access to a priest. It means that if upon being asked to administer baptism, even without an understanding of what it means, but merely by wanting to be of assistance to a person who wishes to receive Christian baptism, any human being is qualified to baptize, so long as that person is willing and capable of adhering to what is in the bold above.

I learned this week that when our grown daughter was a teenager, she baptized her now grown cousin. The propriety could be called into question. There was no danger of death and the candidate's parents would certainly have objected. It was what we would call illicit, but probably valid. If my niece ever seeks to be received into the Catholic Church, she would probably receive a conditional baptism, because it might be difficult to establish whether she freely accepted this baptism, and it was properly administered. Conditional baptisms are performed when there is uncertainty that a candidate needs baptism. I could not have recommended that my daughter do this at the time, but I am happy now to think that our niece has probably received baptism.

 

[Navidad]

2 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Conversely, I am unaware of any other Christian entity that recognizes LDS baptisms or LDS authority. Perhaps it is the only invalid baptism and priesthood?

I am not sure what you mean by "recognizes." Can you tell me more so I can better reply? I don't know of any group who would not "recognize" (given my previous lack of certainty about the term) LDS authority in an LDS environment. I am pretty sure they would not accept LDS authority in their environment any more than you would accept theirs in yours.  Ditto - I don't know any group who would deny the LDS baptism as valid in the LDS environment. That would make no sense to me. Catholics would not recognize the LDS baptism as valid for membership in a Catholic church, but that is an entirely different question. They would recognize mine and many others. I don't know if you recognize the Community of Christ's baptisms for membership, but I doubt it. How would another group recognize LDS authority? How would another group recognize the authority of any other Christian entity in their own environment. I most likely could not baptize anyone in a Methodist church. Does that mean they don't recognize my authority to baptize in my own church? No.

Next you are using the word invalid - again not sure what you mean by that? Do I believe an LDS baptism is a valid baptism? Yes. Do I believe the LDS priesthood is a valid ministerial priesthood within an LDS environment? Of course. I sit under it every Sunday!

Do I believe the LDS priesthood is the only valid priesthood on earth, or that the LDS baptism is the only valid baptism on earth? Or that the LDS authority is the only authority on earth? No, but that is very different than claiming it is invalid for you. I am not sure if I am simply not understanding what you are asserting, or that I simply disagree with it? Do you want to baptize, exercise your authority, and you priesthood in other Christian entity's environments? I would never expect the LDS to allow me to baptize, exercise my authority, or ministerial priesthood from another church while I am in the ward.  Help me out here with your comment. Take care.

[Bernard Gui]

26 minutes ago, Navidad said:

I am not sure what you mean by "recognizes." Can you tell me more so I can better reply? I don't know of any group who would not "recognize" (given my previous lack of certainty about the term) LDS authority in an LDS environment. I am pretty sure they would not accept LDS authority in their environment any more than you would accept theirs in yours.  Ditto - I don't know any group who would deny the LDS baptism as valid in the LDS environment. That would make no sense to me. Catholics would not recognize the LDS baptism as valid for membership in a Catholic church, but that is an entirely different question. They would recognize mine and many others. I don't know if you recognize the Community of Christ's baptisms for membership, but I doubt it. How would another group recognize LDS authority? How would another group recognize the authority of any other Christian entity in their own environment. I most likely could not baptize anyone in a Methodist church. Does that mean they don't recognize my authority to baptize in my own church? No.

Next you are using the word invalid - again not sure what you mean by that? Do I believe an LDS baptism is a valid baptism? Yes. Do I believe the LDS priesthood is a valid ministerial priesthood within an LDS environment? Of course. I sit under it every Sunday!

Do I believe the LDS priesthood is the only valid priesthood on earth, or that the LDS baptism is the only valid baptism on earth? Or that the LDS authority is the only authority on earth? No, but that is very different than claiming it is invalid for you. I am not sure if I am simply not understanding what you are asserting, or that I simply disagree with it? Do you want to baptize, exercise your authority, and you priesthood in other Christian entity's environments? I would never expect the LDS to allow me to baptize, exercise my authority, or ministerial priesthood from another church while I am in the ward.  Help me out here with your comment. Take care.

If I understand you correctly, in brief, God accepts all baptisms and priesthood authority, but among churches acceptance is dependent on the “environment” in which it is practiced. So, my baptism and authority are valid in the LDS environment, but not necessarily in other Christian entities, and that’s the way God sees it. Is this correct?

We have a fundamentally different understanding of priesthood authority. We have discussed this at length before. Not much has changed. 🙂

Edited December 31, 2022 by Bernard Gui

[Navidad]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

Why is the council necessary though except to determine whether anyone wants them as their minister?  What does it have to do with the priesthood authority if Christ is the only source of it? (Serious question, trying to understand how your ideas fit together)

The council is necessary because humans are the instruments of God in this dispensation. God has always worked through his people as the instruments of his purpose here on earth. Theophanies, hierophanies, and other types of visions are indeed rather rare, would you not agree?

It has to do specifically with ministerial priesthood authority - the authority within a group to perform the ordinances of which ordination is one. Marriage is another. Baptisms and so on. Humans are instruments to do God's will under the indwelling and direction of the Holy Spirit. It is Christ's and the Holy Spirit's authority, not the person's.  It always has been.

It was never Peter's authority to give, or John's, or Polycarp's, or Irenaeus'. Peter's ministerial authority came from Christ when Christ was present here on earth. Ditto with John. For both of them Christ was the physical, visible presence of God on earth. Christ then ascended. He left - no more physical visible presence of God on earth. Then days later the Holy Spirit came - sent by Christ or the Father. From that point on the Holy Spirit has been the vehicle by which the physical visible presence of God has been on earth, in the lives and hearts of Christians.

Christians are therefore the physical visible instruments of God's will and authority via the Holy Spirit on earth. Authority is not like a cake. If I give you half, I only retain half. (sorry for the food metaphor - I am hungry). Christ gave Peter authority and didn't loose a scintilla of His own. He (Christ) never gave up his authority to humans. Later on, Polycarp's authority came from Christ via the Holy Spirit after Christ had ascended. It didn't come from John, who may have been the human instrument. Irenaeus' authority came from Christ via the Holy Spirit, not from Polycarp, who may have been the human instrument, some years later and so on and so on. Same thing in 2023 (tomorrow!). It has never been a human-owned to human-owned transmission. But God uses humans to do His work via the indwelling Holy Spirit today.

Hence the need for a spiritually mature and sensitive council (that may be a bad word for LDS) to superintend the transmission of God's authority to an individual within the group that council represents. I am simply using some of the early apostles and church fathers as examples. My authority in the Baptist church did not come from Bill Smith who signed my ordination document. It came from Christ via the Holy Spirit. Bill Smith and the ordination council was the instrument. Unfortunately the Holy Spirit doesn't sign documents. Humans do. I hope that helps.

[Bernard Gui]

On 12/29/2022 at 12:03 PM, MustardSeed said:

I attended Mass at a very old church in PA in October.  I asked attendants if it would be appropriate and they enthusiastically said yes.  FWIW

Given Catholic doctrine and practice, other than having the experience, what was the purpose of doing this? 

[Navidad]

2 hours ago, 3DOP said:

"Doing what the Church does" is easily met, in God's love for souls who do not have access to a priest. It means that if upon being asked to administer baptism, even without an understanding of what it means, but merely by wanting to be of assistance to a person who wishes to receive Christian baptism, any human being is qualified to baptize, so long as that person is willing and capable of adhering to what is in the bold above.

I really like this. Thanks for sharing your perspective.

 

2 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

We have a fundamentally different understanding of priesthood authority. We have discussed this at length before. Not much has changed. 🙂

I don't remember specific discussions of this type about priesthood authority, but I will take your word for it! 😀 I have been trying to respond sincerely to a series of questions I have been asked. I am not trying to change anything or anyone so I guess I have been successful!  ☺️ I still would like to better understand your most recent comment about validity and recognition by other Christian entities. It is always important and helpful for me to understood how my LDS friends see themselves perceived of by non-LDS Christians.

Edited December 31, 2022 by Navidad

[3DOP]

On 12/30/2022 at 6:02 AM, Navidad said:

Good early morning my friend. I have to head out for the day, but I look forward to responding more completely to your "reductio ad absurdum" portrayal of my beliefs. "Let a ten year old lay hands on you?" You must have been a bit out of sorts when you wrote that. By calling on "our Catholics" to explain the Catholic concept of priesthood I was hoping for something more than what you have offered so far.

Having said that and needing to go, I would ask if you would give us an explanation of today's Catholic church's position on and distinctions between Christ as the one eternal priest, the priesthood as held by an ordained Catholic priest who holds holy orders in a ministerial or administrative (ordinances) sense, and the priesthood of believers which is available in a wider sense to believers (whoever the "you" are in I Peter 2)? If Catholics don't believe in all three forms of priesthood, then please tell us that too. Perhaps Mark or someone else would do the same on the LDS side? When we dialogue and discuss it is important to understand the meaning behind each others use of words, especially something as important to many as "the priesthood" and the source of its authority. Thanks. 

Feliz Navidad, Navidad!

I was not even a bit "out of sorts", when I was looking at my own experience of 37 years ago. I was questioning the necessity of this ceremony of ordination before starting a church. The regional pastors dismissed it. The ten year old minister of holy orders was meant to convey an absurd picture. I am a little amused I must admit, at the dust up that is caused around here.

_______________

1) The eternal priest is the sacrificial Lamb of God who was slain from the foundation of the world.

2) The sacerdotal priest in as an alter Christus, a mediator offering Christ's sacrifice on the Cross daily, can speak the very words of Christ, to the same effect, particularly in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.

3) The royal priesthood is held by all Christians who take up their own crosses in a spirit of sacrifice, for the good of souls. They offer sacrifice of the greatest created goods. For the sake of God's kingdom they sacrifice their wealth when they embrace a spirit of poverty. For the sake of God's kingdom they sacrifice their wills in a spirit of obedience to all legitimate authority. Some select few are privileged to sacrifice the very Sacrament of marriage in complete chastity. But even the married, must sacrifice natural desires sometimes, in a spirit of chastity.

Every day holds countless opportunities for sacrifice, to die to self as Christ did, for the sake of another.

"Be you also as living stones built up, a spiritual house, a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ."

---I Peter 2:5

 

[Amulek]

1 hour ago, Navidad said:

When there is need for leadership in a church or someone comes forward to be ordained to the ministry (the ministerial priesthood - whether pastor, deacon, missionary, church school director, etc) that person goes through a process of examination that includes gifts, knowledge, spiritual maturity, lifestyle, and perhaps even temperament for such ministry. The examination is by those with ministerial priesthood within that group and then is validated (sustained?) by the group itself. So there is an examination team and a congregation or group who must approve. Most prefer unanimity in the decision of the council (examining group made up of ministerial priesthood holders) and the congregation. That doesn't always happen

And how did those with ministerial priesthood within that group get their priesthood? 

I mean, there used to be a time when there were no Southern Baptists at all, right? So it isn't like someone could just go and present themselves to the SBC for ordination. 

Go back far enough in any protestant / reformation church and you eventually get to some guy who just claimed authority for himself. And if such could be done historically, why can't the same be done today? 

 

[Bernard Gui]

On 12/29/2022 at 9:42 PM, 3DOP said:

Mustard Seed...not your fault...but you even call it a "wafer".

Please explain…

 

[MustardSeed]

38 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Given Catholic doctrine and practice, other than having the experience, what was the purpose of doing this? 

1.  Im not educated on any doctrine of The Catholic Church.  Had I known it was not ok, I would not have asked if it was. 
 

2.  I travel constantly.  One thing we do as a traveling group is step inside open churches to appreciate the beauty. I saw this church as I walked by and saw people pouring in.  A priest was outside and I asked if I would be welcome a. As a non catholic and b. in my pants .  He was very encouraging of me to join. 
 

3.  The age of the church was compelling to me.  I am no history buff but I appreciate things that last. 
 

4.  I respect most all religions. I hope people will visit mine.  I offer the same. 
 

(5. One of my favorite experiences in church visits has been to listen to the monks sing at the St Marks Cathedral in Seattle on Sunday nights 9:30-10. All are welcome.  10/10 recommend)

 

6. While I was there I felt I should sing, when everyone sang, and I felt compelled to stand and sit while others stood and sat.  It’s a very active service. When everyone stood to get in line for the administration of the emblem, I had a choice- either sit still and not continue to participate as o had thus far because I didn’t know the rules…. Or ask someone what I should do.  I asked.  I followed the invitation,  and I was happy to do so. 
 

7.  I felt connected to God when I have been traveling extensively on Sundays and not attending church at all.  It felt good.  ❤️

Edited December 31, 2022 by MustardSeed

[Amulek]

29 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

On 12/29/2022 at 8:42 PM, 3DOP said:

Mustard Seed...not your fault...but you even call it a "wafer".

Please explain…

I believe that once it is consecrated, which is what would have been the case when the priest was administering the sacrament, the communion wafer is technically referred to as the host - not a wafer.

 

[Bernard Gui]

4 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

1.  Im not educated on any doctrine of The Catholic Church.  Had I known it was not ok, I would not have asked if it was. 
 

2.  I travel constantly.  One thing we do as a traveling group is step inside open churches to appreciate the beauty. I saw this church as I walked by and saw people pouring in.  A priest was outside and I asked if I would be welcome a. As a non catholic and b. in my pants .  He was very encouraging of me to join. 
 

3.  The age of the church was compelling to me.  I am no history buff but I appreciate things that last. 
 

4.  I respect most all religions. I hope people will visit mine.  I offer the same. 
 

(5. One of my favorite experiences in church visits has been to listen to the monks sing at the St Marks Cathedral in Seattle on Sunday nights 9:30-10. All are welcome.  10/10 recommend)

 

6. While I was there I felt I should sing, when everyone sang, and I felt compelled to stand and sit while others stood and sat.  It’s a very active service. When everyone stood to get in line for the administration of the emblem, I had a choice- either sit still and not continue to participate as o had thus far because I didn’t know the rules…. Or ask someone what I should do.  I asked.  I followed the invitation,  and I was happy to do so. 
 

7.  I felt connected to God when I have been traveling extensively on Sundays and not attending church at all.  It felt good.  ❤️

Just curious. I’ve attend Mass many times in a Polish Catholic Church, other Catholic Churches, and Protestant services (including Mennonite), and weddings, but it never occurred to me take Communion. I was asked to leave a Buddhist temple in Seoul when I stood at the door to observe the procedures and listen to the monks’ chants. Visiting and observing is one thing, but participating in their sacred rites is another, IMO. 🙂

[MustardSeed]

4 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Just curious. I’ve attend Mass many times in a Polish Catholic Church, other Catholic Churches, and Protestant services (including Mennonite), and weddings, but it never occurred to me take Communion. I was asked to leave a Buddhist temple in Seoul when I stood at the door to observe the procedures and listen to the monks’ chants. Visiting and observing is one thing, but participating in their sacred rites is another, IMO. 🙂

Which is why I asked  

[Navidad]

3 hours ago, Amulek said:

And how did those with ministerial priesthood within that group get their priesthood? 

I mean, there used to be a time when there were no Southern Baptists at all, right? So it isn't like someone could just go and present themselves to the SBC for ordination. 

Go back far enough in any protestant / reformation church and you eventually get to some guy who just claimed authority for himself. And if such could be done historically, why can't the same be done today? 

 

There was a time when the earth was without form and void too. Then it was all organized (see I listen in church) by God. Who existed then? God! Ever since then any human authority to minister in God's name has come from, well - God! Christ claimed all authority when He was here on earth. No one here has debated that. Ever since He was here any valid Christian ministerial authority has come directly from Christ via the Holy Spirit. Anyone who claimed that authority as their own was or is a fraud. It has never been a scarlet or crimson thread as the Landmark Baptists taught (teach). It has never been a linear straight line thing. It is more like a scattergram.

The Holy Spirit works to authorize Christ's authority for human ministry as He wills. Southern Baptists didn't create authority to minister in Christ's name. Christ did, then He left us. The Holy Spirit came. He has and will continue to work in our lives and to ensure the continuity of the ekklesia, the great church of all those redeemed by the Lamb.

Can someone claim authority on their own today? Of course. Is that authority valid? Absolutely not! Do churches today often see that authority in a partisan manner? Of course. That is the result of human agency.

Bottom line, authority to minister for God comes from God. Methinks He does not smile when we shout I am of Peter! I am of Paul! I am of Apollos! The Corinthians were scolded in I Corinthians 3 for just such comments. Humans plant, humans water, but God gives the growth. As humans Paul tells us we are God's coworkers. What a wonderful thought - coworkers with God, authorized by God, not of Paul, Apollos (who by the way I think wrote Hebrews), or Peter, but of God! Directly of God via the Holy Spirit - it is that process that makes us coworkers with God - that is the very definition of ministerial priesthood!

Edited December 31, 2022 by Navidad

[Navidad]

2 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Just curious. I’ve attend Mass many times in a Polish Catholic Church, other Catholic Churches, and Protestant services (including Mennonite), and weddings, but it never occurred to me take Communion. I was asked to leave a Buddhist temple in Seoul when I stood at the door to observe the procedures and listen to the monks’ chants. Visiting and observing is one thing, but participating in their sacred rites is another, IMO. 🙂

Just curious. Communion is the remembrance of Christ's death and suffering for us. It is a time to renew covenants (if-then promises which we have all made), and perhaps most importantly a time to self-examine. Why would you not want to experience that since it is a wonderful experience between yourself and the Holy Spirit who is within you? Sincere question. Is it your view that one can only have that experience in an LDS sacrament service? Would you be being disloyal or unfaithful to your church if you did that? I am sincerely trying to understand your hesitancy to participate in what is a wonderful experience across all Christianity. Thanks.

[Calm]

13 minutes ago, Navidad said:

course. Is that authority valid? Absolutely not?

I assume the question mark is intentional, but don’t understand what you are trying to convey by it.

It comes across as if you are unsure, meaning maybe it is valid and maybe not.

[Calm]

7 minutes ago, Navidad said:

Just curious. Communion is the remembrance of Christ's death and suffering for us. It is a time to renew covenants (if-then promises which we have all made), and perhaps most importantly a time to self-examine. Why would you not want to experience that since it is a wonderful experience between yourself and the Holy Spirit who is within you? Sincere question. Is it your view that one can only have that experience in an LDS sacrament service? Would you be being disloyal or unfaithful to your church if you did that? I am sincerely trying to understand your hesitancy to participate in what is a wonderful experience across all Christianity. Thanks.

For me it is a respect for others’ rites.  I do not have the right to reinterpret their rituals to mean what they mean to me just by my presence there.  If they believe only those consecrated or those who are seen as in communion participating in the communion, I see no reason to partake just because it would make me feel good.  If I felt moved to partake, I would first ask if it was allowed and not feel the least bit excluded if they said “no” since it is my choice not to be a member in that sense in that specific faith even if I might see myself as a sister of faith with them.

[Navidad]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

I assume the question mark is intentional, but don’t understand what you are trying to convey by it.

It comes across as if you are unsure, meaning maybe it is valid and maybe not.

Sorry, the question mark was a typo. It should have been an exclamation mark. Mea culpa. Sorry

[Navidad]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

For me it is a respect for others’ rites.  I do not have the right to reinterpret their rituals to mean what they mean to me just by my presence there.  If they believe only those consecrated or those who are seen as in communion participating in the communion, I see no reason to partake just because it would make me feel good.  If I felt moved to partake, I would first ask if it was allowed and not feel the least bit excluded if they said “no” since it is my choice not to be a member in that sense in that specific faith even if I might see myself as a sister of faith with them.

My question was based on an assumption that you were visiting a church with open communion. As far as I know there are churches with three types of access to their communion. There is open, closed, and close communions, sacraments, or Lord's Supper or Table. Close communion is where the local leader will decide if a particular visitor may take communion based on some personal or institutional communion. As a general rule in a close communion church visitors don't take communion, but some are invited to do so. Closed and open speak for themselves. One should never partake because it would make them feel good. I don't believe I have ever suggested that. I admire you for your position.