Legitimate Priesthood Authority

[Navidad]

2 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

I brought this up because it appeared you were linking priesthood with godliness. While that is the expectation and the norm, it is not the requirement for the authority to still be valid.

Gotcha. No disagreement with me there. I was trying to present what you described better than it did what is the "expectation and the norm." I would simply add that I also think such is palpably observable in ministerial priesthood holder who meets the expectation and norm.

[pogi]

2 hours ago, Navidad said:

Then it is the same as my ministerial priesthood. LDS priesthood authority = Ministerial priesthood in any other church - the authority to perform ordinances, etc. recognized by it only. Now I understand!

One has authority on earth, the other has authority in both earth and heaven and is binding in both.  That is the claim.  Again, it is a matter of faith. 

Edited January 9, 2023 by pogi

[Amulek]

On 1/7/2023 at 1:11 PM, Navidad said:

What does the concept of "priesthood authority" mean in the LDS lexicon?

I would say that the priesthood, as understood by Latter-day Saints, is best described as the power by which God creates, governs, and redeems His children and the universe. However, seeing as how we have no systematic theology (which I consider to be a feature, not a bug), you are unlikely to find the kind of authoritative, in-depth treatise that you seem to keep asking for.

In terms of an "operational definition" - something you also seem to keep asking for - I would say that what sets LDS priesthood holders apart from everyone else is that they have a valid, unbroken line of authority which can be traced directly back to Jesus Christ. While I know our RCC and Orthodox brothers and sisters disagree about which institutional church possesses that valid unbroken line, I believe we both agree that it isn't something one can have invested directly via the Holy Spirit independent of the organization that Christ, himself, instituted.

 

[Navidad]

2 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

Priesthood authority is NOT a ministerial authority specific to the various churches. There is only one priesthood authority from Christ and either you have it or you don't. There is not a Baptist priesthood, Catholic priesthood, LDS priesthood, etc. There is only Christ's priesthood. LDS believe that their church is the only church that has Christ's priesthood -- the authority to perform valid ordinances. The Catholic Church believes that our church is the only church that has Christ's priesthood. We both agree that no other visible institutional church* has Christ's priesthood. Baptists' ordinances/sacraments are not valid because the person performing does not have the authority to perform them, period.

This is why LDS do not accept your baptism and require a re-baptism. Your baptism was not performed by someone who had the proper priesthood, so it is not valid. (It is different with baptism in Catholicism, because priesthood is not required for the minister of baptism).

Being a duly authorized minister in a church does not mean that person has the authority from Christ to perform ordinances/sacraments.

This is at the heart of LDS and Catholic priesthood claims. It is why both churches are exclusive.

The example you give of the rally for life does not apply to priesthood. Anyone can pray -- that is not an ordinance/sacrament.

*Catholics believe that the Orthodox have valid orders, which means their priesthood is valid.

Just one clarification . . . are you speaking about the traditional Catholic church, or also for the post-Vatican II ecumenical modern Catholic church? Sometimes I get the idea (I may admittedly be wrong) that you prefer the traditional ways to the changed practices of the post-Vatican II Catholic church. Sometime I think you present to us the views of the pre-Vatican II church? So that is a question, not a statement!

I think (he says with little certainty) that I observe a bit of a different Catholic church here in Mexico than you represent? That is also a question. I am often introduced by our local priest (now retired) as a Mennonite minister to his peers and his bishop(s). Is he just being polite? Or does he see me as a minister of the Mennonite church, even though he wouldn't accept my authority in his own? He seems to me to be a pretty progressive guy! (That is not a question!). It seems to me that the acceptance of the Eastern church and that Jews have a valid covenantal relationship with God so that they are not in need of converting are both a post Vatican II thing. I forget the Latin name of the declaration. Is that correct? If correct, is that an indication of a movement in a more ecumenical direction? It certainly brings the Catholic church closer to a Protestant mindset in that regard. I am always grateful for your contributions.

 

[Amulek]

54 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

Priesthood authority is NOT a ministerial authority specific to the various churches. There is only one priesthood authority from Christ and either you have it or you don't. There is not a Baptist priesthood, Catholic priesthood, LDS priesthood, etc. There is only Christ's priesthood. LDS believe that their church is the only church that has Christ's priesthood -- the authority to perform valid ordinances. The Catholic Church believes that our church is the only church that has Christ's priesthood. We both agree that no other visible institutional church* has Christ's priesthood. Baptists' ordinances/sacraments are not valid because the person performing does not have the authority to perform them, period.

This is why LDS do not accept your baptism and require a re-baptism. Your baptism was not performed by someone who had the proper priesthood, so it is not valid. (It is different with baptism in Catholicism, because priesthood is not required for the minister of baptism).

Being a duly authorized minister in a church does not mean that person has the authority from Christ to perform ordinances/sacraments.

This is at the heart of LDS and Catholic priesthood claims. It is why both churches are exclusive.

This.

 

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, Navidad said:

No no. It is the specific authority to conduct specific ordinances recognized and approved in that specific church that is the same. So I would never, as an ordained Baptist minister seek or agree to forgive sin in Jesus' name. It is not something we do or believe in. That doesn't mean that we don't both (Catholic and Baptist) have the same ministerial role as a result of ordination, it means we probably do different things to fulfill that role. I have never seen a Catholic priest preside over a baby dedication. Different role and ordinance. We are the same in that a higher standard of observable lived spirituality is expected of us. That is true across every church I know. You seem to reject that as a former bishop in the LDS church. OK. That is new to me too. By the way, does the LDS priesthood you hold give you the authority to forgive sin in Jesus' name? That is new to me too.

To clarify, one can do that in the sense that if one feels that enough repentance has been done that the sin has already been forgiven, one can assure the person that their sin is forgiven by the savior, and they can get, say, a temple recommend, and feel relieved that they should be free from guilt from this point on.

One of the standard questions is along the lines of "Are there any sins which you have not confessed to your bishop, which should have been confessed?"

Bishops are regarded as being "a common judge in Israel" to either pursue or not pursue any sins confessed to them, so that is the sense in which one can "forgive sin" as a "judge".

"Why and What Do I Need to Confess to My Bishop?

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/new-era/2013/10/why-and-what-do-i-need-to-confess-to-my-bishop?lang=eng"

Edited January 9, 2023 by mfbukowski

[MiserereNobis]

33 minutes ago, Balaam said:

For Catholics to have any proper priesthood authority originally bestowed on the apostles they (the Catholics) would still need to have apostles who still have that proper priesthood authority. Do they have that?  No, and they do not even claim to have any apostles today.

Why? What is illogical about the claim that the apostles gave their authority to the bishops?

We claim "apostolic" succession, so we are claiming the priesthood that was bestowed upon the apostles is the same priesthood that our bishops have.

Now, obviously we disagree, but you said that our claim is illogical.

Edited January 9, 2023 by MiserereNobis

[Navidad]

2 hours ago, Pyreaux said:

A Priest's power is authority from a covenant, made by the Lord, responsible for keeping the peace of creation and the welfare of the people. All priests have a unique role to repair the covenant. Damage to the covenant sets spirits bound into nature wild, causing floods, plagues, possession, and rebellion. Unique tasks of Melchizedek priests include miracle work that tames nature, cures the sick, casts out devils and sometimes wage war. They bind spirits, they bind spirits of infirmity, and they seal the Holy Spirit with unique authority. The uniqueness might be summarized as being an exorcist (to "bind with an oath").

Aaronic Priests, like John the Baptist son of the Priest Zacharias, could "do no miracle", and the seven sons of Sceva, the Jewish chief of the priests, while invoking the name of Christ didn't have any authority that the demon's recognized that would force them to obey. Faith and prayer for similar ends. But the authority Christ have his priests seems more appropriate for officiating, and it fruits seem more potent and enduring.

Clarification please. Are you talking about LDS priests, Catholic priests, or all priests regardless of groups. I love the poetic language you use.

[Navidad]

2 hours ago, pogi said:

One has authority on earth, the other has authority in both earth and heaven and is binding in both.  That is the claim.  Again, it is a matter of faith. 

Thanks well said. Could you provide a concrete or real life example of how an LDS priesthood holder binds heaven? Thanks my friend. I don't think I understand that concept.

[mfbukowski]

1 minute ago, MiserereNobis said:

Why? What is illogical about the claim that the apostles gave their authority to the bishops?

We claim "apostolic" succession, so we are claiming the priesthood that was bestowed upon the apostles.

Now, obviously we disagree, but you said that our claim is illogical.

But I think Catholic bishops are taken to function as apostles, right?

[mfbukowski]

8 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

Why? What is illogical about the claim that the apostles gave their authority to the bishops?

We claim "apostolic" succession, so we are claiming the priesthood that was bestowed upon the apostles.

Now, obviously we disagree, but you said that our claim is illogical.

Here ya go

https://www.britannica.com/topic/apostolic-succession

[Calm]

4 minutes ago, Navidad said:

Thanks well said. Could you provide a concrete or real life example of how an LDS priesthood holder binds heaven? Thanks my friend. I don't think I understand that concept.

Baptism, confirmation, sealings…all the ordinances are valid in heaven as in earth.  Sealings are called such because bind and sealed are synonymous.

Others may see their own ordinances in the same way, of course.

[Navidad]

2 hours ago, Amulek said:

I would say that the priesthood, as understood by Latter-day Saints, is best described as the power by which God creates, governs, and redeems His children and the universe.

This is a beautiful statement and thought. Thank you for it. Of course, it leads to a question. How does the LDS priesthood holder manifest or use "the power by which God creates, governs, and redeems His children and the universe?" That is an awesome calling. How is it accomplished in real life? I've only been around LDS priesthood holders for five years, but I have never seen them manifest of use "the power by which God creates, governs, and redeems His children and the universe?" I am especially unsure of the universe part. I very much appreciate everyone's help. I am still struggling with the operationalizing of that kind of authority and power. That might not be the right word . . . I guess I am wondering how that awesome power and authority plays out in the real world?

[Navidad]

2 hours ago, Balaam said:

Yes, and he delegates his authority to others as he sees fit.

And He only sees fit to delegate it to the LDS male? None other of the 400 other "Mormon identified" groups?  To Jews?

[pogi]

21 minutes ago, Navidad said:

Thanks well said. Could you provide a concrete or real life example of how an LDS priesthood holder binds heaven? Thanks my friend. I don't think I understand that concept.

One example is the eternally (earth and heaven) binding adoption into the family of Abraham and House of Israel through the ordinance of baptism.   Binding generally has to do with sealing of families, linked eternally in the lineage and family of Abraham.  This is done through baptism and temple ordinances.  The other binding that happens is in covenant.   The covenants we make in ordinances are of eternal promise and are eternally binding via the authority of the priesthood.  What is binding are the promises of God made through authorized covenant with Him. They are of eternal effect. 

Edited January 9, 2023 by pogi

[MiserereNobis]

24 minutes ago, Navidad said:

Just one clarification . . . are you speaking about the traditional Catholic church, or also for the post-Vatican II ecumenical modern Catholic church?

There is only one Catholic Church. I addressed the idea that there is a pre- and post- Vatican II church somewhere here recently, but I can't remember where. Vatican II did not change doctrine or dogma. It has been sloppily implemented over the years, a problem that the Church continues to correct.

24 minutes ago, Navidad said:

I am often introduced by our local priest (now retired) as a Mennonite minister to his peers and his bishop(s). Is he just being polite? Or does he see me as a minister of the Mennonite church, even though he wouldn't accept my authority in his own?

Obviously I can't speak for him. I can fully and easily accept you as a Mennonite minister. That doesn't mean you have valid priesthood authority, though. It just designates who you are within the Mennonite organization. I can identify President Nelson as the President of the CJCoLDS. That doesn't mean he's a prophet, though.

24 minutes ago, Navidad said:

It seems to me that the acceptance of the Eastern church and that Jews have a valid covenantal relationship with God so that they are not in need of converting are both a post Vatican II thing. I forget the Latin name of the declaration. Is that correct? If correct, is that an indication of a movement in a more ecumenical direction?

These are issues that I don't have a clear position on. The Eastern Orthodox Church has always been viewed as having valid orders -- the main issue is the fact that they don't accept the primacy of the Pope (and some other more minor issues). The conversion of the Jews is a much murkier issue. There are definitely theologians at the Vatican who wish to move the Church in certain directions. It'll be interesting to see how the magisterium works everything out.

ETA: the document concerning the Jews clearly states that it is not a doctrinal teaching of the Church

Edited January 9, 2023 by MiserereNobis

[MiserereNobis]

19 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

But I think Catholic bishops are taken to function as apostles, right?

Oops! I meant bishops, not apostles. I've fixed my statement.

[Navidad]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

Baptism, confirmation, sealings…all the ordinances are valid in heaven as in earth.  Sealings are called such because bind and sealed are synonymous.

Others may see their own ordinances in the same way, of course.

Thanks Calm. I just don't see ordinances as having validity in heaven. I am not disputing the concept. I just have never thought about it. Ordinances in my mind are predominantly church - proscribed from their various interpretations of Scripture. I don't know much about sealings since they are done in the temple. No other group I know of have sealings. Foot washing is a very special ordinance in our church. I don't think it has any validity or invalidity in heaven. Baptism and confirmation - ditto. Marriage? Possibly . . . I don't have a doctrine about earthly marriages in heaven. The sacrament (communion) is a time for the remembrance, confession and recommitment to our covenants - not sure how that would be or not be valid in heaven. If we follow the Biblical pattern for those that are Biblical, I believe God is pleased with them, but validity is a whole different construct. Well, you have given me something to think about. Thanks.

[Calm]

9 minutes ago, Navidad said:

Thanks Calm. I just don't see ordinances as having validity in heaven.

Of course not.  But we are talking about the Latter-day Saint POV of sealing/binding in heaven and what we believe is the reality, not yours.  Temple sealings and temple work is done, especially proxy work, specifically because we believe the ordinances have validity in heaven.  Why else would we baptize the dead and seal them to their families?  They have no need for purely earthly ordinances any more.

Edited January 9, 2023 by Calm

[Navidad]

2 hours ago, pogi said:

One example is the eternally (earth and heaven) binding adoption into the family of Abraham and House of Israel through the ordinance of baptism.   Binding generally has to do with sealing of families, linked eternally in the lineage and family of Abraham.  This is done through baptism and temple ordinances.  The other binding that happens is in covenant.   The covenants we make in ordinances are of eternal promise and are eternally binding via the authority of the priesthood.  What is binding are the promises of God made through authorized covenant with Him. They are of eternal effect. 

I think I understand that, but it is God that does the binding, or am I misunderstanding that? If you follow an "IF my people who are called my name will humble themselves, and turn . . . and so  then I will heal you land" is really God's covenant, not ours. We bind him by our obedience to a covenant He has already made - if-then. It is not a male LDS priesthood holder binding God by some form of new covenant of his own making, right? Or wrong? Can a male priesthood holder who really just doesn't like me, or let's say hates me, bind God (heaven) to not accept me into His eternity? That sort of thing is what I think of when someone says they have the power or authority to bind heaven. I can't get my head around that at all that any human can "bind" God. 

[Navidad]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

Of course not.  But we are talking about the Latter-day Saint POV of sealing/binding in heaven and what we believe is the reality, not yours.  Temple sealings and temple work is done, especially proxy work, specifically because we believe the ordinances have validity in heaven.  Why else would we baptize the dead and seal them to their families?  They have no need for purely earthly ordinances any more.

Ok. Sorry. I am simply trying to reconcile, relate, or develop my understanding of things like ordinances with your concept. I have to have a starting concept to work from. You may not be the least bit interested in a viewpoint that is not your own, but I need to relate what I am thinking to what you are saying. I am certainly not trying to change your mind or correct you in any way. Sorry if I offended. I will keep my fingers off the keyboard next time I am trying to think this through.

[Calm]

12 minutes ago, Navidad said:

Ok. Sorry. I am simply trying to reconcile, relate, or develop my understanding of things like ordinances with your concept. I have to have a starting concept to work from. You may not be the least bit interested in a viewpoint that is not your own, but I need to relate what I am thinking to what you are saying. I am certainly not trying to change your mind or correct you in any way. Sorry if I offended. I will keep my fingers off the keyboard next time I am trying to think this through.

You did not offend, it just wasn’t quite clear to me if you understood the concept as I meant it.

Here is something written by Scott awhile back…relatively brief:

https://www.thechurchnews.com/1992/8/8/23259302/sealing-power-given-in-all-dispensations

More on the implications from our POV of binding/sealing:

Quote

We are the only Living Church because we have a living Savior, a living prophet, living priesthood power and authority, and living ordinances, covenants, and revelation. We have temples where the living performs the work of vicarious baptisms and all other ordinances for their living ancestors who are on the other side of the veil.9 The Church is living because of its missionary work to take the gospel to all of God’s children on both sides of the veil. The Church is living because the restored Priesthood keys and power to bind on earth is also valid for binding in heaven.10

 

https://in.churchofjesuschrist.org/the-true-and-living-resurrected-savior

Edited January 9, 2023 by Calm

[MiserereNobis]

41 minutes ago, Balaam said:

Illogical based on my understanding of the distinctions between the offices of apostles and bishops.  Apostles commonly ordain men to the office of bishop and by so doing are not ordaining those men to the office of apostle.  The 2 offices are distinct and one office is subservient to the other office.

This is circular reasoning based on the beliefs of your church.

[pogi]

25 minutes ago, Navidad said:

I think I understand that, but it is God that does the binding, or am I misunderstanding that? If you follow an "IF my people who are called my name will humble themselves, and turn . . . and so  then I will heal you land" is really God's covenant, not ours. We bind him by our obedience to a covenant He has already made - if-then. It is not a male LDS priesthood holder binding God by some form of new covenant of his own making, right? Or wrong? Can a male priesthood holder who really just doesn't like me, or let's say hates me, bind God (heaven) to not accept me into His eternity? That sort of thing is what I think of when someone says they have the power or authority to bind heaven. I can't get my head around that at all that any human can "bind" God. 

It is God's authority/power that does the binding, but His power to bind is delegated to man to perform the work of binding as directed by God.    God authors the terms and conditions of the covenants.  To even enter a covenant with God, it has to be through the conditions of His binding priesthood power which is held by priesthood officers, or it is of no eternal effect.  If not done through the binding power of the priesthood, no covenant is of eternal effect or consequence. 

It is not that humans bind God, it is that God binds through divinely delegated authority/power to humans who act in His behalf.  What we do in the priesthood has equal eternal (heaven and earth) significance and binding power as if God himself was performing the ordinance.  

Edited January 9, 2023 by pogi

[Saint Bonaventure]

59 minutes ago, Balaam said:

Illogical based on my understanding of the distinctions between the offices of apostles and bishops.  Apostles commonly ordain men to the office of bishop and by so doing are not ordaining those men to the office of apostle.  The 2 offices are distinct and one office is subservient to the other office.  I say office because both men are considered to be of equal value in the body of Christ, aka the Church.

So, logic dictates that for Catholics to have the authority of apostles today they must have apostles today, rather than only bishops who claim to be acting as some apostles told them to act as bishops.

Hi Balaam--

I don't think we've interacted before. I appreciate your articulation of what I believe to be an orthodox LDS understanding of priesthood offices. What you're describing demonstrates, to me, one of those interesting differences between Latter-day Saints and Catholics. I've been learning about those differences as I've posted on this site.

While Catholics do have a special regard for Christ's apostles--their passing is viewed as the close of public revelation--Catholics believe that the apostles were also the first bishops. One Bible passage that is important to Catholics in this belief is Acts 1:20, where Judas is being replaced. It says, with reference to Judas:

Quote

Let his habitation be desolate, and let no man dwell therein: and his bishoprick let another take.

I'm not trying to argue with you so much as I'm hoping to clarify where I and my fellow Catholics are coming from on this. I am a catechist (teacher) at my parish; I teach the Adult Bible Study. I also have LDS family members who are very dear to me, and I am trying to increase my understanding of their worldview. 

Anyway, I am glad to interact with you and am certainly willing to continue a conversation.