Legitimate Priesthood Authority

[Hamba Tuhan]

7 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

I am astounded, astounded I say, that after six pages of discussion no one has pointed out the foundation of priesthood authority…the keys.

I did!

Edited January 11, 2023 by Hamba Tuhan

[Saint Bonaventure]

6 hours ago, Balaam said:

I welcome any benefit we may derive from discussions like this, but I think we already understand each other.  

Maybe so. I think there are a few points that I can clarify, just the same.

6 hours ago, Balaam said:

I agree that lower offices are not less important than higher offices of the priesthood. All offices are equally important in the body of Christ.  Suppose only one bishop was living on the earth now.  What would he then be authorized to do, supposing he was not given any additional authority from God?  He would have authority from God to do every duty that everyone in every lower office could do, but he would not be authorized to ordain anyone to a higher office.  Not because "bishop" is the highest priesthood office, but because he is not authorized to ordain anyone to a higher office than the office he holds.  So the more who are ordained to lower priesthood offices, the more help those in the higher offices have.

We may not be holding different ends of the same rope, as, for me, the core issue at hand is not the comparative importance of offices within the body of Christ. The core issue seems to me to be that either the titles of 'apostle' and 'bishop' refer to the same office or 'apostle' and 'bishop' are distinct offices.  

If I'm misunderstanding, I'm certainly open to reconsidering, but what I've written in italics seems to me to be the core issue. The notion of 'office' might also be of significant importance.

 

6 hours ago, Balaam said:

These are bold statements without any biblical support.  That's fine if you approve of statements like that, but I can make statements like that too.  There is more than one priesthood office that includes the duty of "overseeing" other people, usually in regard to who is being "overseen".  A bishop oversees people in a local geographic area while an apostle oversees people in a much larger geographic area.  The Quorum of Twelve Apostles today govern the whole world, with each one responsible for a particular geographic area of the world.  And then there is the President of the Church who oversees all of the apostles, with the help of his 2 counselors.  And that is not all.  Every quorum of priesthood officers has a leader appointed to oversee each of them in both the local and larger general geographic areas of the world.  Each local area is referred to as either a ward or a branch, with several wards comprising a stake,  with many stakes comprising even larger areas which we refer to as areas.  We have many who are appointed as Area Authorities, with many areas they each oversee.  Do you see now how it DOES make a difference what the officials are called?  I suppose technically we could refer to everyone who oversees anything as an overseer, but that wouldn't say anything about what part of the church or world they are overseeing.

Thanks for unpacking the LDS authority structure, even if only briefly. I've done a little reading on this topic, but probably not enough.

If I'm understanding your point, I believe that you are misunderstanding Bishop Hunt's point. Bishop Hunt cites Acts 1:20 to assert that apostles have bishoprics, and specifically that apostles and bishops are the same office. I'm not an expert in the Greek or anything, but my sources indicate that Bishop Hunt's point is not controversial. An interesting aspect of your response, though, is the way you've jumped to "overseeing," to a gerund that is not in the passage, and that moves from a discussion of apostle and bishop as the same office or not (what I believe is our issue) to a discussion of how oversight works as an organizing force for LDS offices and structures more generally (which seems to me to be a new issue, but then again, I might be misunderstanding).  

Also, I believe that there is significant biblical support for the teaching that 'apostle' and 'bishop' are the same office. Bishop Hunt musters significant biblical support in the document I linked, but there is an immense amount of scholarship in this area, and much, much more than would probably ever be explored in a casual conversation such as this one. 

However, a more significant issue to be addressed is the importance of biblical support in an overall sense. You mention "biblical support" several times in your post, and so it seems to be pretty vital to you. If you can elaborate on the importance of biblical support for you, I'll have a better sense of both how you value the bible and how our current discussion can proceed.

6 hours ago, Balaam said:

Yes, to the apostles.  They were given authority to oversee the whole world.  And they had the authority to delegate their authority to people in lower priesthood offices, such as bishops and deacons and teachers and priests as they were told their duties.

I don't doubt that LDS sources affirm what you're saying. I'll repeat, though, that I don't think we'll make much progress until we sort out the apostle-and-bishop office issue. 

6 hours ago, Balaam said:

More bold statements without any biblical support.  And yes I understand that there were no bishops during our Lord's mortal ministry.  It was only him and his apostles during that time, not counting the Jewish hierarchy who had formerly received God's authority to do what God authorized them to do.  It wasn't until later that the apostles ordained bishops to help them govern the Church at local levels, with the apostles still governing the whole world as they got around to it.  And yes I also understand that since bishops were not the successors of apostles that means there were no successors, way back then.  Not until some of those apostles ordained other apostles in this new dispensation of the gospel that began with Joseph Smith's ministry.

I'll add a little to my comments above about biblical support by saying that Catholics aren't sola scriptura, and that Sacred Tradition offers plenty to this discussion. We can go down this road if you want to do so.

Also, you probably aren't surprised that I politely disagree with what you're saying here, as the relation between apostle and bishop is, I think, the core issue. What you've written here is interesting, though, in that you seem to be saying that the bishops were not the successors of the apostles, and that there were no successors to the apostles. For you, then, is there a Great Apostasy ushered in at the death of the last apostle? I ask because I'm unsure of how important this relation between apostle and bishop is to you.

6 hours ago, Balaam said:

Yes, and we see from the biblical record that other apostles were ordained, including Paul and Barnabas and James the Lord's brother.  But at some point there were no more apostles living as usual among mortals.

I'm not sure what you mean by "living as usual" among mortals.

6 hours ago, Balaam said:

If your idea is that any overseer is equal to an apostle or bishop, whatever that overseer oversees, then I can see why you would think the Catholic church officials are telling it like it is.  But that is not how I see it is.  Overseers oversee different things.  

You believe there was never a break in succession and I understand why you say you believe it.  I understand you when you say you think the offices of bishops and apostles are equal.  I know the differences between the offices of bishop and apostle.

I think we already understood each other's position before I made any comments.  I hope you will see some benefit in what I have said.  I don't think you will, because I think you already understood my position, but just in case you didn't, enjoy.

I don't doubt the sincerity of your belief; not for a moment. I'm concerned for our discussion in that I think there is some rhetorical slippage in moving from 'bishop' ("overseer" in English, and of the same office, arguably, as apostle in Acts 1:20), to "whatever that overseer oversees" as a more general organizational principle, but then, I started my response wondering if we are holding onto the same rope.

Thank you for the enjoyable conversation. I'm glad to continue it, and at the same time understand if you want to move on.

[Bernard Gui]

6 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

I agree! Check out Pope Francis's coat of arms:

The Papal Coat of Arms always include the keys  

Yes. I believe it represents the keys given to Peter in Matthew 16:19, no?

Quote

And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

Our understanding of the keys of the priesthood is set out quite well in the article I quoted above. Possession of the keys is indispensable to the administration of the Church. 

We believe that the loss of these keys when the early apostles were eliminated is what precipitated the Great Apostasy. Under the direction of the Lord Jesus, they were restored to Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery through the laying on of hands by Peter, James, and John and other prophets. Every action in the Church must be performed under the direction of the one who holds the keys for its performance.

AFAIK, our two churches are the only ones who understand this and think it is important. 

 

Edited January 11, 2023 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

1 hour ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

I did!

I wonder why no one picked up on it. There’s no other way to explain it.

[Hamba Tuhan]

2 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

I wonder why no one picked up on it. There’s no other way to explain it.

As Latter-day Saints, we are primed to think in terms of priesthood keys. The concept governs almost everything we do. Christians who think of the priesthood as a free-for-all simply cannot see what we see in this passage.

The Jewish Encyclopedia has an interesting entry on binding and loosing:

Quote

The power of binding and loosing was always claimed by the Pharisees. Under Queen Alexandra, the Pharisees, says Josephus ("B J." i, 5, § 2), "became the administrators of all public affairs so as to be empowered to banish and readmit whom they pleased, as well as to loose and to bind." This does not mean that, as the learned men, they merely decided what, according to the Law, was forbidden or allowed, but that they possessed and exercised the power of tying or untying a thing by the spell of their divine authority, just as they could, by the power vested in them, pronounce and revoke an anathema upon a person ...

In this sense Jesus, when appointing his disciples to be his successors, used the familiar formula (Matt. xvi. 19, xviii. 18). By these words he virtually invested them with the same authority as that which he found belonging to the scribes and Pharisees ...

The Lord, if he had found the notion of divine authority and priesthood keys inherently false and/or dangerous, had every opportunity to preach instead a 'priesthood of all believers'. Instead, he specifically conferred divine authority on Peter using the same language that the Pharisees used for themselves but confirmed for him that, unlike that of the Pharisees, his binding and loosing on earth would actually be recognised/valid in heaven.

The Resurrected Lord used very similar language when he met with the ten apostles in the upper room on the first 'Easter': 'Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained'. That's pretty heavy stuff.

Edited January 11, 2023 by Hamba Tuhan

[smac97]

3 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Quote

I am astounded, astounded I say, that after six pages of discussion no one has pointed out the foundation of priesthood authority…the keys.

I did!

Same here.  At some length, even:

Quote

1. The Priesthood originated with Jesus Christ.

2. Jesus Christ, Moses and Elias conferred "the Keys" to Peter, James & John on the Mount of Transfiguration.  Peter was, notably, the senior apostle.

3. After the Ascension, Peter succeeded Jesus Christ as the Presiding High Priest on the earth.

4. We have a pretty poor history (in the Bible, anyway) of what happened after Peter became president of the Primitive Church.  Peter apparently died somewhere around 64-68 A.D., and I suspect that at point the Quorum of the Twelve never reconvened and never set apart the senior surviving member of that Quorum as the Presiding High Priest.  Instead, they were scattered, martyred or died (except, it seems, for John, who was translated), and the priesthood keys were lost.

5. Peter James & John, the equivalent "First Presidency" of the Primitive Church, conferred "the Keys" to Joseph Smith in 1829.

6. Joseph Smith was killed in 1844.  At that time Brigham Young was the President of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles.  In terms of apostleship, he was preceded in seniority only by Thomas B. Marsh, who has been excommunicated in 1839 and did not rejoin the Church until 1857, and David W. Patten, who had been killed in 1838.

7. When Joseph was killed, the First Presidency was automatically dissolved and the Quorum of the Twelve becomes the governing body of the Church.  Then, during the October General Conference of the Church in 1844, "the Quorum of the Twelve presided as the church's highest authority for the first time; Young was sustained as 'the president of the quorum of the Twelve, as one of the Twelve and first presidency of the church.'"

8. The succession of the next Presiding High Priest has been addressed in this same way ever since.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited January 11, 2023 by smac97

[mfbukowski]

14 hours ago, Navidad said:

Because I will ultimately be in the presence of the savior and there will be no earthly denominations, churches, groups, or subgroups represented there - just Zion - the New Jerusalem - heaven (with however many levels). I will be reminded of his suffering every time I look at Him. I won't need renewal since there is no sin in eternity (in my view). I won't need to renew a covenant; I will be with forever with the great covenant-maker. I might, as an exercise of humility continue to wash feet. I guess I hadn't thought about that one. Marriage? no. Baptism? No, Sacrament? No. Confirmation? No. Walk and talk with the Savior? Yep! Ask Him some of my hundreds of questions? Yep!

 

13 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

I agree! Check out Pope Francis's coat of arms:

The Papal Coat of Arms always include the keys  

I have forgotten the words that IHS represent 

[mfbukowski]

31 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

 

I have forgotten the words that IHS represent 

"IHS (also IHC), a monogram or symbol for the name Jesus, is a contraction of the Greek word for Jesus, which in Greek is spelled IHΣΟΥΣ in uncial (majuscule) letters and Iησους in minuscule letters and is transliterated into the Latin alphabet as Iēsus, Jēsus, or Jesus."

Oh, yes, of course!

[CV75]

6 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

"IHS (also IHC), a monogram or symbol for the name Jesus, is a contraction of the Greek word for Jesus, which in Greek is spelled IHΣΟΥΣ in uncial (majuscule) letters and Iησους in minuscule letters and is transliterated into the Latin alphabet as Iēsus, Jēsus, or Jesus."

Oh, yes, of course!

"Inouye" is also a Japanese locational surname (maybe I need glasses)?

[gav]

22 hours ago, Navidad said:

First, thanks for asking. I very much appreciate that. Others would simply tell me I can't understand, so why bother? Why would I ever try to learn a new language then? I would like to learn Hausa. I certainly wouldn't understand it when I start out. I guess the LDS priesthood seems more like a very elaborated way to describe the ministerial priesthood. That is all I can figure out from what has been said. In my world, probably 2% of the men and women active in a church hold it. In your world perhaps 98% of the men hold it, kind of automatically unless they do something really bad. It seems that the authority is the same as a ministerial priest holds in my world. It is for a particular place, role, and time. I remember a visiting teacher (obviously a priesthood holder) sitting on my sofa and telling me that I outranked him in my home. I preside in my home (glad my wife wasn't sitting there 😀). So as a non-member my "presiding or I guess priesthood in my own home was not subject to his priesthood. 

I talked recently with my SP about our needing to make a decision whether to continue going to the ward if we would now not be allowed to minister. He told me he couldn't tell me what to do, but he hoped we would continue to attend. He didn't tell me what I should do as one who has authority over me. I appreciated that. I pastored and exercised my ministerial role for some years in different ways. I can't say that I ever thought of it as authority and power. I still can't get my head around that. I thought of it as hard work, privilege, and an honor. Authority and power? Nope-that is reserved for God. It seems that my LDS friends talk about the authority and power of the priesthood a whole lot more than the privilege of it. So that confuses me. Of course I taught young pastors-to-be in a Bible College. So I remember what I taught them and the ideas of power and authority weren't in my syllabus.

I appreciate everyone who has answered me without demeaning me for asking and asking and asking. Thanks for thinking to ask me whether I had an answer yet.

Perhaps it would be helpful to understand the Book of Mormon perspective about where God's power comes from.

Once it is established what that power comprises, then it can be discussed how that power is encapsulated into keys that are then delegated to His servants on earth in such a way that they are authorised to perform specifically delegated tasks and responsibilities.

Alma is teaching his son about the consequences of the fall...

Quote

10 Therefore, as they had become ^acarnal, sensual, and devilish, by ^bnature, this ^cprobationary state became a state for them to prepare; it became a preparatory state.

11 And now remember, my son, if it were not for the plan of redemption, (laying it aside) as soon as they were dead their souls were ^amiserable, being cut off from the presence of the Lord.

12 And now, there was no means to reclaim men from this fallen state, which ^aman had brought upon himself because of his own ^bdisobedience;

13 Therefore, according to justice, the ^aplan of ^bredemption could not be brought about, only on conditions of repentance of men in this probationary state, yea, this preparatory state; for except it were for these conditions, mercy could not take effect except it should destroy the work of justice. Now the work of justice could not be destroyed; if so, God would ^ccease to be God.

14 And thus we see that all mankind were ^afallen, and they were in the grasp of ^bjustice; yea, the justice of God, which consigned them forever to be cut off from his presence.

15 And now, the plan of mercy could not be brought about except an atonement should be made; therefore God himself ^aatoneth for the sins of the world, to bring about the plan of ^bmercy, to appease the demands of ^cjustice, that God might be a ^dperfect, just God, and a ^emerciful God also.

16 Now, repentance could not come unto men except there were a ^apunishment, which also was ^beternal as the life of the soul should be, affixed ^copposite to the plan of happiness, which was as ^deternal also as the life of the soul.

17 Now, how could a man repent except he should ^asin? How could he sin if there was no ^blaw? How could there be a law save there was a punishment?

18 Now, there was a punishment affixed, and a just law given, which brought remorse of ^aconscience unto man.

19 Now, if there was no law given—if a man ^amurdered he should ^bdie—would he be afraid he would die if he should murder?

20 And also, if there was no law given against sin men would not be afraid to sin.

21 And if there was ^ano law given, if men sinned what could justice do, or mercy either, for they would have no claim upon the creature?

22 But there is a law given, and a ^apunishment affixed, and a ^brepentance granted; which repentance, mercy claimeth; otherwise, justice claimeth the creature and executeth the ^claw, and the law inflicteth the punishment; if not so, the works of justice would be destroyed, and God would cease to be God.

23 But God ceaseth not to be God, and ^amercy claimeth the penitent, and mercy cometh because of the ^batonement; and the atonement bringeth to pass the ^cresurrection of the dead; and the ^dresurrection of the dead bringeth ^eback men into the presence of God; and thus they are restored into his presence, to be ^fjudged according to their works, according to the law and justice.

24 For behold, justice exerciseth all his demands, and also ^amercy claimeth all which is her own; and thus, none but the truly penitent are saved.

25 What, do ye suppose that ^amercy can rob ^bjustice? I say unto you, Nay; not one whit. If so, God would cease to be God.

26 And thus God bringeth about his great and eternal ^apurposes, which were prepared ^bfrom the foundation of the world. And thus cometh about the salvation and the redemption of men, and also their destruction and misery.

27 Therefore, O my son, ^awhosoever will come may come and partake of the waters of life freely; and whosoever will not come the same is not compelled to come; but in the last day it shall be ^brestored unto him according to his ^cdeeds.

28 If he has desired to do ^aevil, and has not repented in his days, behold, evil shall be done unto him, according to the restoration of God.

God is God because he is perfectly just. He acts in perfect accordance with law, and as a result, all things must obey him because he operates within the confines of the laws that determine compliance. This is the source of His power.

To some of his creations he has created a space where they are able to act for themselves...

Quote

5 And men are instructed sufficiently that they ^aknow good from evil. And the ^blaw is given unto men. And by the law no flesh is ^cjustified; or, by the law men are ^dcut off. Yea, by the temporal law they were cut off; and also, by the spiritual law they perish from that which is good, and become miserable forever.

6 Wherefore, ^aredemption cometh in and through the ^bHoly ^cMessiah; for he is full of ^dgrace and truth.

7 Behold, he offereth himself a ^asacrifice for sin, to answer the ends of the law, unto all those who have a broken heart and a contrite spirit; and unto ^bnone else can the ^cends of the law be answered.

8 Wherefore, how great the importance to make these things known unto the inhabitants of the earth, that they may know that there is no flesh that can dwell in the presence of God, ^asave it be through the merits, and mercy, and grace of the Holy Messiah, who ^blayeth down his life according to the flesh, and taketh it again by the power of the Spirit, that he may bring to pass the ^cresurrection of the dead, being the first that should rise.

9 Wherefore, he is the firstfruits unto God, inasmuch as he shall make ^aintercession for all the children of men; and they that believe in him shall be saved.

10 And because of the intercession for ^aall, all men come unto God; wherefore, they stand in the presence of him, to be ^bjudged of him according to the truth and ^choliness which is in him. Wherefore, the ends of the law which the Holy One hath given, unto the inflicting of the ^dpunishment which is affixed, which punishment that is affixed is in opposition to that of the happiness which is affixed, to answer the ends of the ^eatonement—

11 For it must needs be, that there is an ^aopposition in all things. If not so, my firstborn in the wilderness, righteousness could not be brought to pass, neither wickedness, neither holiness nor misery, neither good nor bad. Wherefore, all things must needs be a compound in one; wherefore, if it should be one body it must needs remain as dead, having no life neither death, nor corruption nor incorruption, happiness nor misery, neither sense nor insensibility.

12 Wherefore, it must needs have been created for a thing of naught; wherefore there would have been no ^apurpose in the end of its creation. Wherefore, this thing must needs destroy the wisdom of God and his eternal purposes, and also the power, and the mercy, and the ^bjustice of God.

13 And if ye shall say there is ^ano law, ye shall also say there is no sin. If ye shall say there is no sin, ye shall also say there is no righteousness. And if there be no righteousness there be no happiness. And if there be no righteousness nor happiness there be no punishment nor misery. And if these things are not ^bthere is no God. And if there is no God we are not, neither the earth; for there could have been no creation of things, neither to act nor to be acted upon; wherefore, all things must have vanished away.

14 And now, my sons, I speak unto you these things for your profit and ^alearning; for there is a God, and he hath ^bcreated all things, both the heavens and the earth, and all things that in them are, both things to act and things to be ^cacted upon.

15 And to bring about his eternal ^apurposes in the end of man, after he had ^bcreated our first parents, and the beasts of the field and the ^cfowls of the air, and in fine, all things which are created, it must needs be that there was an opposition; even the ^dforbidden ^efruit in ^fopposition to the ^gtree of life; the one being sweet and the other bitter.

16 Wherefore, the Lord God gave unto man that he should ^aact for himself. Wherefore, man could not ^bact for himself save it should be that he was ^centiced by the one or the other.

Because we are free to chose and make many mistakes as we live in this fallen world we are subject to the law and only to the extent that we understand law and operate within it can we exercise any power. By understanding the laws of aerodynamics we have been able to develop the powers of flight and so forth. 

We fall short of eternal laws, the laws of heaven so the only way we could exercise any power in these matters is if someone with that power where to delegate it to us... We have no power of eternal consequence because we who live in a sinful state in a sinful world have no power in that realm due to our non-compliance with its laws. We are under condemnation by those laws.

Quote

3 And thus we see that except the Lord doth ^achasten his people with many afflictions, yea, except he doth visit them with ^bdeath and with terror, and with famine and with all manner of pestilence, they will not ^cremember him.

4 O how ^afoolish, and how vain, and how evil, and devilish, and how ^bquick to do iniquity, and how slow to do good, are the children of men; yea, how quick to hearken unto the words of the evil one, and to set their ^chearts upon the vain things of the world!

5 Yea, how quick to be lifted up in ^apride; yea, how quick to ^bboast, and do all manner of that which is iniquity; and how slow are they to remember the Lord their God, and to give ear unto his counsels, yea, how slow to ^cwalk in wisdom’s paths!

6 Behold, they do not desire that the Lord their God, who hath ^acreated them, should ^brule and reign over them; notwithstanding his great goodness and his mercy towards them, they do set at ^cnaught his counsels, and they will not that he should be their guide.

7 O how great is the ^anothingness of the children of men; yea, even they are ^bless than the dust of the earth.

8 For behold, the dust of the earth moveth hither and thither, to the dividing asunder, at the command of our great and everlasting God.

9 Yea, behold at his ^avoice do the hills and the mountains tremble and ^bquake.

10 And by the ^apower of his voice they are broken up, and become smooth, yea, even like unto a valley.

11 Yea, by the power of his voice doth the ^awhole earth shake;

12 Yea, by the power of his voice, do the foundations rock, even to the very center.

13 Yea, and if he say unto the earth—Move—it is moved.

14 Yea, if he say unto the ^aearth—Thou shalt ^bgo back, that it ^clengthen out the day for many hours—it is done;

15 And thus, according to his word the ^aearth goeth back, and it appeareth unto man that the ^bsun standeth still; yea, and behold, this is so; for surely it is the earth that moveth and not the sun.

16 And behold, also, if he say unto the ^awaters of the great deep—^bBe thou dried up—it is done.

17 Behold, if he say unto this mountain—Be thou raised up, and ^acome over and fall upon that city, that it be buried up—behold it is done.

18 And behold, if a man ^ahide up a treasure in the earth, and the Lord shall say—Let it be ^baccursed, because of the iniquity of him who hath hid it up—behold, it shall be accursed.

19 And if the Lord shall say—Be thou accursed, that no man shall find thee from this time henceforth and forever—behold, no man getteth it henceforth and forever.

20 And behold, if the Lord shall say unto a man—Because of thine iniquities, thou shalt be accursed ^aforever—it shall be done.

21 And if the Lord shall say—Because of thine iniquities thou shalt be ^acut off from my presence—he will cause that it shall be so.

22 And wo unto him to whom he shall say this, for it shall be unto him that will do iniquity, and he cannot be ^asaved; therefore, for this cause, that men might be saved, hath repentance been declared.

23 Therefore, blessed are they who will repent and hearken unto the voice of the Lord their God; for these are they that shall be saved.

To do any of the things listed above we need this delegated power and authority to act in God's name and on his behalf. This is what is encapsulated in the priesthood. With that power and authority come responsibility to, among other things, perform the works the Lord would have us do to bless all the nations of the earth.

I'll pause here for questions...

Edited January 11, 2023 by gav

[MiserereNobis]

16 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

AFAIK, our two churches are the only ones who understand this and think it is important. 

As far as I know, too. In Catholicism, the keys are intrinsically linked to Peter and therefore the papacy, so it is lacking in Eastern Orthodoxy.

[MiserereNobis]

8 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

"IHS (also IHC), a monogram or symbol for the name Jesus, is a contraction of the Greek word for Jesus, which in Greek is spelled IHΣΟΥΣ in uncial (majuscule) letters and Iησους in minuscule letters and is transliterated into the Latin alphabet as Iēsus, Jēsus, or Jesus."

Oh, yes, of course!

Tangentially related, the abbreviation X-mas for Christmas is not removing the name of Christ and replacing it with an X as a way to negate Christ (which I've heard 3 or 4 people say). X is for the Greek letter Chi, which is the first letter of Christos, Greek for Christ.

So, people are still being Christian when they use X-mas.

(for those who say "put Christ back in Christmas!" I like to respond "put Mass back in Christmas!")

[Hamba Tuhan]

4 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

Tangentially related, the abbreviation X-mas for Christmas is not removing the name of Christ and replacing it with an X as a way to negate Christ (which I've heard 3 or 4 people say). X is for the Greek letter Chi, which is the first letter of Christos, Greek for Christ.

Yep, I also use 'X-ian' for Christian after seeing this usage all through the Jesuit documents I used in my PhD research.

[Bernard Gui]

8 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

As far as I know, too. In Catholicism, the keys are intrinsically linked to Peter and therefore the papacy, so it is lacking in Eastern Orthodoxy.

Our keys are also intrinsically linked to Peter, but I think it is better said that they are linked to God through Peter. LDS would say the link is from Father to Son to Peter.

[Bernard Gui]

22 hours ago, smac97 said:

Same here.  At some length, even:

Thanks,

-Smac

Yes. The keys are key.

[Mathete]

So much confusion. 1 Corinthians 14:33 33 For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.