LDS Priesthoods Not Found In The Writings Of The Early Church Fathers

[BigDaddy4]

There is no doubt that the church has changed since Jesus Christ's time.

What are you talking about? You're not making sense. Your church is supposed to be the "restoration" of the church as it exist at Jesus' time. 11 year old Aaronic priests did not exist in Jesus time, not to mention a whole host of other discrepancies unrelated to the thread topic. So are you a "restoration" or a distortion?

 

[chevyontheriver]

Mormons claim that "priesthood authority" must be passed on through the laying on of hands by one with said authority. Mormon history tells us that Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery received the Aaronic Priesthood from John the Baptist. This is problematic because there is no evidence that John the Baptist had such authority. Even though his father was a priest, Scripture tells us John was living in the wilderness preaching repentance, not serving in the temple as his father did.

Even if John the Baptist did have such authority, Joseph and Oliver were not Jewish, nor Levites. Therefore, according to Scripture, they could not be Aaronic priests. Nowadays, Mormon Aaronic Priesthood holders can be as young as 11 years old. That is not supported by Scripture, Jewish tradition, ECF's, or any other source.

Mormonism is more of a distortion than "restoration" to the early church.

One wonders if it was the headless John the Baptist or if his head was knitted back on.

 

[BigDaddy4]

One wonders if it was the headless John the Baptist or if his head was knitted back on.

LOL. Official lds viewpoint is that he was a resurrected being, so whatever form that is...

 

[He is the way]

What are you talking about? You're not making sense. Your church is supposed to be the "restoration" of the church as it exist at Jesus' time. 11 year old Aaronic priests did not exist in Jesus time, not to mention a whole host of other discrepancies unrelated to the thread topic. So are you a "restoration" or a distortion?

Yes there were changes. For one thing the law of Moses was fulfilled (no more animal sacrifices) thus changing some of the priesthood duties. The Law was updated by the sermon on the mount. The sacrament was instituted. The opportunity to have our sins remitted was afforded. Traditions were revoked. The laws of LOVE were reiterated. Those who held the priesthood performed miracles, cast out devils, and healed the sick.

 

[BigDaddy4]

Yes there were changes. For one thing the law of Moses was fulfilled (no more animal sacrifices) thus changing some of the priesthood duties. The Law was updated by the sermon on the mount. The sacrament was instituted. The opportunity to have our sins remitted was afforded. Traditions were revoked. The laws of LOVE were reiterated. Those who held the priesthood performed miracles, cast out devils, and healed the sick.

Despite whatever you think changed, allowing non-Levites and 11 year olds to be Aaronic Priests did not change.

 

[chevyontheriver]

Perhaps the "great apostasy" is Mormonism itself??

No. Mormonism came out of a very religiously 'creative' period in US history that also included the SDA and beliefs about the end of the world at any time, restorationism in many flavors, and more novel concepts like that of Mary Baker Eddy that sickness was all in the mind. It was a rich hotbed of religious diversity with a lot more than I mentioned here. Among the Baptists there was the Landmark idea that Baptists had always existed independent of the Catholic Church, as pristine as they were in the New Testament. The Mormons got to claim somewhat the opposite with their novel idea being that the Church of Christ was put into abeyance until Joseph Smith was chosen to bring it back. Lots of new groups thought they had rediscovered the faith as pristine as in the New Testament, but there was a lot of variety on just what that looked like. Many of these varieties were more or less Christian, but some like Christian Science or Theosophy or Mormonism or Jehovah's Witnesses parted company with Christianity in the process. But those would be, if anything, maybe minor apostasies as we have had here and there all along.

 

[chevyontheriver]

You do have a point, but the Jews are still God's chosen people and they will be gathered and know that Jesus is the Christ.

They are the chosen people and we can hope that when they hear the proclamation of Jesus that they all heed it. They were not all listening the first time, although many did, and among them many priests who were baptized. Of those I am sure many became Catholic priests, in the order of Melchizedek. Just no longer practicing the old priesthood. The fact that many Israelite priests came to Christ and became Catholic does indicate that there were two parallel and distinct paths, one that was a foreshadowing of the other. Not the same entities.

Now the reason the OP asked about the ECF was that there would be historical evidence of this recorded there. Recorded evidence of how these people understood the presbyterate, the bishops, and their connection to the apostles. You have a nice little compact theory of total apostasy and rediscovery by Joseph Smith. How does it hold up to the recorded evidence of the first and second century?

 

[Rescued One]

So they made her a slave? Did she stop being a slave at the Emancipation Proclamation? I kind of doubt it. Colorado just removed slavery from their constitution a few years ago and Nebraska just removed slavery from their constitution this year.

She was a servant, not a slave. However, she couldn't have eternal life without the temple covenants.

How long ago was it that a black man could not become a god because he was black?

June 8, 1978. Part of a letter signed by President (Prophet) Spencer W. Kimball, and his two counselors, N. Eldon Tanner and Marion G. Romney:

...Aware of the promises made by the prophets and presidents of the Church who have preceded us that at some time, in God’s eternal plan, all of our brethren who are worthy may receive the priesthood, and witnessing the faithfulness of those from whom the priesthood has been withheld, we have pleaded long and earnestly in behalf of these, our faithful brethren, spending many hours in the Upper Room of the Temple supplicating the Lord for divine guidance.

He has heard our prayers, and by revelation has confirmed that the long-promised day has come when every faithful, worthy man in the Church may receive the holy priesthood, with power to exercise its divine authority, and enjoy with his loved ones every blessing that flows therefrom, including the blessings of the temple. Accordingly, all worthy male members of the Church may be ordained to the priesthood without regard for race or color. Priesthood leaders are instructed to follow the policy of carefully interviewing all candidates for ordination to either the Aaronic or the Melchizedek Priesthood to insure that they meet the established standards for worthiness.
Official Declaration 2

Sorry. This is a tangent. Can anyone find anything in the early Church Fathers relating to the LDS claims for their priesthood? Has anyone else read the early Church Fathers?

I haven't seen or heard of anything.

 

[chevyontheriver]

I realize that that is all in the past and things are different now. Hopefully we can look to the future without any contention and practice Christ's teachings.

I wanted to come back to this. Hopefully we can be good neighbors and work together as neighbors on this and that. I would not mind a Mormon as a neighbor. But beyond that there can be nothing. Not as long as you continue your opinion of 'total apostasy'. That opinion rules out any possibility of anything ecumenical because you have closed that door. You have bricked that door closed. So if the LDS wants to even discuss our differences on an even footing, you have to first re-evaluate your 'total apostasy' opinion. A good look at history should help.

 

[Peter1000]

They are the chosen people and we can hope that when they hear the proclamation of Jesus that they all heed it. They were not all listening the first time, although many did, and among them many priests who were baptized. Of those I am sure many became Catholic priests, in the order of Melchizedek. Just no longer practicing the old priesthood. The fact that many Israelite priests came to Christ and became Catholic does indicate that there were two parallel and distinct paths, one that was a foreshadowing of the other. Not the same entities.

Now the reason the OP asked about the ECF was that there would be historical evidence of this recorded there. Recorded evidence of how these people understood the presbyterate, the bishops, and their connection to the apostles. You have a nice little compact theory of total apostasy and rediscovery by Joseph Smith. How does it hold up to the recorded evidence of the first and second century?

When the last apostle died around 120ad, the bishops of the churches became the new leaders of the church. Instead of apostles ordaining bishops, two or three bishops got together and ordained other bishops. And congregations lots of times chose their new bishop by popularity.

The problem is, the apostles worked together as one, and were not rivals. The bishops on the other hand almost immediately became rivals for who would be the chief bishop.
Rome took upon itself the preeminent position because both Peter and Paul died in Rome. And so for a hundred years, Rome's bishop was considered the first among equals.

So the ECF knew how it worked, but when the foundation was removed, the rest of the church became unstable. And the idea that you had to have the "keys of the kingdom of heaven" in order to do the work of God, was sort of pushed to the side and eventually not talked about, was because they knew very well that they did not have those keys. And so they inserted their own priesthood, but it became a non-talkable item or it ended up in a fight about who held the "keys". If Rome held the keys, did Alexandria not? If Rome held the keys, did Constantinople not.

For Constantinople, that became an untenable situation and they could not countenance that Rome was greater than they were. So the authentic priesthood became an unnecessary thing among the other 4 sees, because Rome become so stingy with the keys to maintain their preeminence.

Martin Luther in his time actually addressed the priesthood. His position was it was unnecessary all together. He maintained that the priests of the Catholic church were so corrupted that he said that you could have access to God without the priesthood. Therefore, all Protestants wanted nothing to do with the MP or any priesthood.

So that is why ECF is rather silent about MP, except the Catholic church maintained they had the keys.

But by the time of the reformation. All the Eastern churches had broken away from the Catholic church and the reformers all broke away from the Catholic church. So if the Catholic church did hold the MP, those that broke away would not be entitled to keep their Catholic MP. They chose to lose it and replace it with an imposter priesthood. Like I say the reformers just did away with the MP.

That is why today, the only time good church people ever hear about MP is when they encounter a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, who maintain that the MP was restored to the earth by Peter to JS.

 

[chevyontheriver]

When the last apostle died around 120ad, the bishops of the churches became the new leaders of the church. Instead of apostles ordaining bishops, two or three bishops got together and ordained other bishops. And congregations lots of times chose their new bishop by popularity.

The problem is, the apostles worked together as one, and were not rivals. The bishops on the other hand almost immediately became rivals for who would be the chief bishop.
Rome took upon itself the preeminent position because both Peter and Paul died in Rome. And so for a hundred years, Rome's bishop was considered the first among equals.

So the ECF knew how it worked, but when the foundation was removed, the rest of the church became unstable. And the idea that you had to have the "keys of the kingdom of heaven" in order to do the work of God, was sort of pushed to the side and eventually not talked about, was because they knew very well that they did not have those keys. And so they inserted their own priesthood, but it became a non-talkable item or it ended up in a fight about who held the "keys". If Rome held the keys, did Alexandria not? If Rome held the keys, did Constantinople not.

For Constantinople, that became an untenable situation and they could not countenance that Rome was greater than they were. So the authentic priesthood became an unnecessary thing among the other 4 sees, because Rome become so stingy with the keys to maintain their preeminence.

Martin Luther in his time actually addressed the priesthood. His position was it was unnecessary all together. He maintained that the priests of the Catholic church were so corrupted that he said that you could have access to God without the priesthood. Therefore, all Protestants wanted nothing to do with the MP or any priesthood.

So that is why ECF is rather silent about MP, except the Catholic church maintained they had the keys.

But by the time of the reformation. All the Eastern churches had broken away from the Catholic church and the reformers all broke away from the Catholic church. So if the Catholic church did hold the MP, those that broke away would not be entitled to keep their Catholic MP. They chose to lose it and replace it with an imposter priesthood. Like I say the reformers just did away with the MP.

That is why today, the only time good church people ever hear about MP is when they encounter a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, who maintain that the MP was restored to the earth by Peter to JS.

This is all rather fanciful.

It starts by ignoring the rivalry that already existed among the Twelve. Well documented in the NT.

And that Jesus gave the keys to one of the Twelve, that is Peter, in the singular, at least according to the Bible. So it wasn't someone stealing the keys, but a matter of who Jesus bestowed those keys upon. And yes, Peter went to Antioch, and then died in Rome, where his bones reside.

You speak of the foundation being removed and the rest of the Church becoming unstable. Whatever that means. Is this a historical event? The Church had the keys. And that Church included Rome and Alexandria and Antioch, and ever little community within the Church because the Church still had the keys through the successors of Peter. The Church as a whole had the keys because Peter and his successors had the keys.

The keys were not hoarded by Rome, nor neglected by the other apostolic Sees. An authentic priesthood was maintained in all of the apostolic Sees, and in every bishopric faithful to the whole Church. The Catholic Church to this day recognizes the priesthood of the Oriental Orthodox and the Greek Orthodox as fully valid. By the way 'kata holos' means 'according to the whole' as in the 'whole Church' and is how we get the word 'catholic'.

Martin Luther did his own thing. And the other Protestants did their own things too. They did give up on the priesthood in favor of their own understandings. It was their choice theologically to give up on the priesthood. Luther was more conservative than others in this.

Mention of the priesthood of Melchizedek is far from silent in the Catholic Church. We hear of it every week in the canon of the mass. It is also a distinct and essential part of the ordination right. Not silent in the Orthodox Churches either. We Catholics and the Orthodox do form one Church with one set of sacraments.

We understand it in keeping with Hebrews 7 where the Aaronic priesthood is set aside.

Mention of the priesthood of Melchizedek was not silent in the Fathers either, not even in the early Church Fathers.

Why is Melchizedek So Important?
Power of the Keys
The Blessing and Burden of the Keys
Dr Scott Hahn on the Papacy | Catholic-Pages.com
St. Peter, the Rock, the Keys, and the Primacy of Rome in the Early Church
Melchizedek: The Ancient High Priest Who Prefigures Jesus
"look with favor on these offerings and accept them as once you accepted the gifts of your servant Abel, the sacrifice of Abraham, our father in faith, and the bread and wine offered by your priest Melchisedech." Canon 1

 

[Peter1000]

This is all rather fanciful.

It starts by ignoring the rivalry that already existed among the Twelve. Well documented in the NT.

There were a couple of instances when Peter and James saw things a little different, and probably had words, but I'm not sure that created a rivalry. It was an interesting time when it was unclear exactly how to bring gentiles into the church. There was a conference and a lively discussion took place, and then a descision was reached and they went forward. Again, not sure rivalry is the word I would use to describe their attitudes towards each other.

It is a lot different than 150 years later, bishops were fighting against each other for preeminence in the church. One excommunicating the other, one deposing the other. One bishop ordaining bishops all around him, but keeping consolidating power in him through his expansion. It got very unhealthy and surely not holy representative of our Savior.

You speak of the foundation being removed and the rest of the Church becoming unstable. Whatever that means. Is this a historical event? The Church had the keys. And that Church included Rome and Alexandria and Antioch, and ever little community within the Church because the Church still had the keys through the successors of Peter. The Church as a whole had the keys because Peter and his successors had the keys.

If the foundation of the house is damaged, what do you think will happen to the house eventually? The foundation of the church was the apostles and prophets and Jesus. That is what the bible says. It does not say that the foundation is bishops and Jesus. So if the foundation is not there, what do you think will eventually happen to the church. If you read Ephesians 4: 11-14 expecially 14, you will see what happens to the church if there are no living apostles.

The church does not have the keys. Jesus, the High Priest of the MP has the keys. Since he was not going to be on the earth, he gave those keys to Peter, and through Peter to the rest of the apostles. He did not give the keys to his church.

Who did Peter pass those keys to? We say he did not pass them to anyone, or the apostleship would have continued. Since it didn't, we believe it is because the world was already rejecting Jesus Christ and his full message. The apostles were being killed one by one and eventully the Lord quit filling the office of apostle, and took the keys back and allowed the world to meander off to where it wanted to go. Without the foundation the church started to schism and from Christian church in 100ad there are thousands today, all competing against each other over doctrines, and ordinaces, and who is saved, and how you get saved.

That is exactly what a house does when it loses its foundation, it eventally splinters apart and disolves in chaotic ruin.

The keys were not hoarded by Rome, nor neglected by the other apostolic Sees. An authentic priesthood was maintained in all of the apostolic Sees, and in every bishopric faithful to the whole Church. The Catholic Church to this day recognizes the priesthood of the Oriental Orthodox and the Greek Orthodox as fully valid. By the way 'kata holos' means 'according to the whole' as in the 'whole Church' and is how we get the word 'catholic'.

Hoarded is an unfortunate word used here. A better word would be protected. But if Rome recongized the OO's priesthood as the same as its own, that tells you how much value they took in the keys of the kingdom of God. Not much, since the OO broke away from them, and formed their own church, with their own special orthodoxy, and created their own pope, and would not, and may not commune with each other with the sacrament of the Lords supper.
They may be friendly on the outside but their schism is far from being healed.

Martin Luther did his own thing. And the other Protestants did their own things too. They did give up on the priesthood in favor of their own understandings. It was their choice theologically to give up on the priesthood. Luther was more conservative than others in this.

Yes, we agree on this. However the long term effect of this position is to send the MP into darkness and make it as if it were nothing. They succeeded in doing just that. The average protestant, which makes up about 1/4 if Christians, know very little about MP.

Mention of the priesthood of Melchizedek is far from silent in the Catholic Church. We hear of it every week in the canon of the mass. It is also a distinct and essential part of the ordination right. Not silent in the Orthodox Churches either. We Catholics and the Orthodox do form one Church with one set of sacraments.

We agree here too, except that their mention of the MP superficial. Martin Luther called Rome, the home of satan, and the pope was satan incarnated. So if Rome once held the keys to the kingdom of heaven, they lost those keys over hundreds of years of apostacy and wickedness.
No man can hold the MP and use it unworthily, or amen to his MP. It is a foregone conclusion that Rome became a decadent place that brought about its fall, and its reputation as the home of satan.

Mention of the priesthood of Melchizedek was not silent in the Fathers either, not even in the early Church Fathers.

I of course, have not read all of the ECF, but what I have read, I cannot reading anything said about the MP. A lot said about follow your bishop, the bishop is the representative of Jesus, we do not do anything except we are led by our bishop. But nothing of MP.

I am sure there are papers written by ECF on the subject, I have just not read them. I will read what you have given me, and see what they say. Thank you.

"look with favor on these offerings and accept them as once you accepted the gifts of your servant Abel, the sacrifice of Abraham, our father in faith, and the bread and wine offered by your priest Melchisedech." Canon 1

Just mentioning it is good, but this canon gives us no explanation of the the MP is or how it functions in the church. So OK they mention it. Not much help. We read about Melchizedek in the bible and know that he lived and was a priest forever in the MP. We know that Jesus was also a priest forever in the MP. That is good to know, it just does not teach us much about what the MP is all about.

The Church of Jesus Christ has many articles and manuels and history regarding the MP, tons more than any Christian church. We claim Peter gave his keys to JS and Oliver Cowdry by the laying on of hands. JS was instructed by the Lord himself as to how the MP functions in a church and we believe that heaven recognizes our keys and recognizes our authority and power to baptise and do all that is needed to get a person ready for Jesus Christ to save them in the kingdom of heaven. It takes the MP for someone to be saved.

 

[chevyontheriver]

There were a couple of instances when Peter and James saw things a little different, and probably had words, but I'm not sure that created a rivalry. It was an interesting time when it was unclear exactly how to bring gentiles into the church. There was a conference and a lively discussion took place, and then a descision was reached and they went forward. Again, not sure rivalry is the word I would use to describe their attitudes towards each other.

I was referring to Mark 10: 35-45. Sorry but I thought that was obvious when I mentioned rivalry among the apostles. As to Peter and Paul, I see that more as fraternal correction of Peter by Paul, not as an actual rivalry. Some say there was a rivalry between John and Peter later on, but I am neutral on that.

It is a lot different than 150 years later, bishops were fighting against each other for preeminence in the church. One excommunicating the other, one deposing the other. One bishop ordaining bishops all around him, but keeping consolidating power in him through his expansion. It got very unhealthy and surely not holy representative of our Savior.

Which bishops were fighting each other for preeminence in the Church 150 years after the apostles? Do you have names? What I know of is that the bishops were busy resisting Marcionites and Gnostics and Docetists and Sabellians and Montanists, and that the great Christian historians like Eusebius compiled lists of bishops in the principal Sees as markers of unity in the Church. If bishops were fighting they were resisting the above named heresies.

If you want to learn more about these early heresies, in crazy detail, you can read 'Against the Heresies' by Irenaeus of Lyon. Highly recommended. I read it for my Church History course in college. There is a lot of detail about these heresies, particularly about the variety of Gnostic heresies. You should read it. It will enlighten you about the second century of the Christian faith. If you want more after that, Ignatius of Antioch.

 

[chevyontheriver]

If the foundation of the house is damaged, what do you think will happen to the house eventually? The foundation of the church was the apostles and prophets and Jesus. That is what the bible says. It does not say that the foundation is bishops and Jesus. So if the foundation is not there, what do you think will eventually happen to the church. If you read Ephesians 4: 11-14 especially 14, you will see what happens to the church if there are no living apostles.

This is an a-historical or maybe even anti-historical literalism that fails to see that apostolic succession WAS the appointment of bishops by the apostles, with those bishops carrying on and perpetuating the authority of the apostles into the future. The bishops ARE the successors to the apostles. I point you to Eusebius here, who made long lists of the bishops of the principal Sees exactly to point out apostolic succession.

Your error is in presuming that Jesus gave up on His Church and that he did not have the intention of guaranteeing that it would survive. He said it would survive when he said that the gates of Hell would not prevail against it. In the Mormon view, the gates of Hell prevailed for about 1700 years. And that makes Jesus a liar.

The church does not have the keys. Jesus, the High Priest of the MP has the keys. Since he was not going to be on the earth, he gave those keys to Peter, and through Peter to the rest of the apostles. He did not give the keys to his church.

Jesus gave the keys to Peter. To Peter as his prime minister or vicar, as a person who would act as representative of the King. And when Peter died, his office would fall to another. Which it did. Unless of course the Church kind of evaporated. Which is not historically in evidence.

Who did Peter pass those keys to? We say he did not pass them to anyone, or the apostleship would have continued. Since it didn't, we believe it is because the world was already rejecting Jesus Christ and his full message. The apostles were being killed one by one and eventully the Lord quit filling the office of apostle, and took the keys back and allowed the world to meander off to where it wanted to go. Without the foundation the church started to schism and from Christian church in 100ad there are thousands today, all competing against each other over doctrines, and ordinaces, and who is saved, and how you get saved.

Your theory is absolutely essential if Mormonism is to be believed at all. Jesus had to quit His Church for Mormonism to be true. There HAD TO BE a total apostasy. But was there? What is the historical evidence for such a thing. Read the earliest of the Church Fathers, and among them Irenaeus of Lyon. Irenaeus of Lyon was the disciple of Polycarp, who was in turn the disciple of John who was the disciple of Jesus. Was Polycarp a true follower of Jesus? Was Irenaeus a true follower of Jesus? I think you would have to say 'no'. But you can read Irenaeus and see. These things can be examined to see if your view is true or not.

That is exactly what a house does when it loses its foundation, it eventally splinters apart and disolves in chaotic ruin.

You've got a problem here in imagining Jesus built his Church on shifting sand. He told us he built it on rock. He told us we would not be orphaned.

 

[Daniel Marsh]

I started the other thread but I didn’t mention the ECF in my OP.

This is what I did find related to the topic. It has to do with ordaining Bishops, Elders, etc.,

Clement of Rome Recognitions book 10 ch 68 (27-97 ad)
Laodicea, Peter ordered the people to meet on the following day; and having ordained one of those who followed him as bishop over them, and others as presbyters, and having baptized multitudes, and restored to health all who were troubled with sicknesses or demons
Clement of Rome Recognitions book 6 ch 15 (27-97 ad)
and baptized them; and celebrating the Eucharist with them, he appointed, as bishop over them, Maro, who had entertained him in his house, and who was now perfect in all things; and with him he ordained twelve presbyters and deacons at the same time. He also instituted the order of widows, and arranged all the services of the Church; and charged them all to obey Maro their bishop in all things that he should command them
Ignatius of Antioch Epistle to the Magnesians ch 2 [50-117 AD]
"Now, therefore, it has been my privilege to see you in the person of your God-inspired bishop, Damas; and in the persons of your worthy presbyters, Bassus and Apollonius; and my fellow-servant, the deacon, Zotion. What a delight is his company! For he is subject to the bishop as to the grace of God, and to the presbytery as to the law of Jesus Christ"
Ignatius of Antioch Epistle to the Magnesians ch 6 [50-117 AD]
"Take care to do all things in harmony with God, with the bishop presiding in the place of God, and with the presbyters in the place of the council of the apostles, and with the deacons, who are most dear to me, entrusted with the business of Jesus Christ, who was with the Father from the beginning and is at last made manifest"
Ignatius of Antioch Epistle to the Magnesians ch 13 [50-117 AD]
"Take care, therefore, to be confirmed in the decrees of the Lord and of the apostles, in order that in everything you do, you may prosper in body and in soul, in faith and in love, in Son and in Father and in Spirit, in beginning and in end, together with your most reverend bishop; and with that fittingly woven spiritual crown, the presbytery; and with the deacons, men of God. Be subject to the bishop and to one another as Jesus Christ was subject to the Father, and the apostles were subject to Christ and to the Father; so that there may be unity in both body and spirit"
Ignatius of Antioch Epistle to the Trallians ch 2 [50-117 AD]
"Indeed, when you submit to the bishop as you would to Jesus Christ, it is clear to me that you are living not in the manner of men but as Jesus Christ, who died for us, that through faith in his death you might escape dying. It is necessary, therefore-and such is your practice that you do nothing without the bishop, and that you be subject also to the presbytery, as to the apostles of Jesus Christ our hope, in whom we shall be found, if we live in him. It is necessary also that the deacons, the dispensers of the mysteries [sacraments] of Jesus Christ, be in every way pleasing to all men. For they are not the deacons of food and drink, but servants of the Church of God. They must therefore guard against blame as against fire"

 

[Daniel Marsh]

Ignatius of Antioch Epistle to the Trallians ch 3 [50-117 AD]
"In like manner let everyone respect the deacons as they would respect Jesus Christ, and just as they respect the bishop as a type of the Father, and the presbyters as the council of God and college of the apostles. Without these, it cannot be called a church. I am confident that you accept this, for I have received the exemplar of your love and have it with me in the person of your bishop. His very demeanor is a great lesson and his meekness is his strength. I believe that even the godless do respect him"
Ignatius of Antioch Epistle to the Trallians ch 7 [50-117 AD]
"He that is within the sanctuary is pure; but he that is outside the sanctuary is not pure. In other words, anyone who acts without the bishop and the presbytery and the deacons does not have a clear conscience"
Ignatius of Antioch Epistle to the Philadelphians ch 7 [50-117 AD]
"I cried out while I was in your midst, I spoke with a loud voice, the voice of God: 'Give heed to the bishop and the presbytery and the deacons.' Some suspect me of saying this because I had previous knowledge of the division certain persons had caused; but he for whom I am in chains is my witness that I had no knowledge of this from any man. It was the Spirit who kept preaching these words, 'Do nothing without the bishop, keep your body as the temple of God, love unity, flee from divisions, be imitators of Jesus Christ, as he was imitator of the Father'" (Letter to the Philadelphians
Ignatius of Antioch Epistle to the Smyraeans ch 8 [50-117 AD]
See that ye all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as ye would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful without the bishop either to baptize or to celebrate a love-feast; but whatsoever he shall approve of, that is also pleasing to God, so that everything that is done may be secure and valid.
Teachings of the Apostles Syriac
The city of Rome, and all Italy, and Spain, and Britain, and Gaul, together with all the rest of the countries round about them, received the apostles' ordination to the priesthood from Simon Cephas, who went up from Antioch
Teachings of the Apostles Syriac
And by ordination to the priesthood, which the apostles themselves had received from our Lord, did their Gospel wing its way rapidly into the four quarters of the world.
Irenaeus of Lyons Book 4 ch 8.3 (120-180 ad)
And all the apostles of the Lord are priests, who do inherit here neither lands nor houses, but serve God and the altar continually.
Clement of Alexandria The Paedagogus Book III [150-215 AD]
"A multitude of other pieces of advice to particular persons is written in the holy books: some for presbyters, some for bishops and deacons; and others for widows, of whom we shall have opportunity to speak elsewhere"
(Clement of Alexandria The Stromata Book VI ch 13 [150-215 AD]
"Even here in the Church the gradations of bishops, presbyters, and deacons happen to be imitations, in my opinion, of the angelic glory and of that arrangement which, the scriptures say, awaits those who have followed in the footsteps of the apostles and who have lived in complete righteousness according to the gospel"
Hippolytus Appendix Cannons of Hyppolytus 31 (170-236 ad)
31. That a deacon may dispense the Eucharist to the people with permission of a bishop or presbyter.
Hippolytus Appendix Cannons of Hyppolytus 28-29 (170-236 ad)
Canon Twenty-eighth. That none of the believers should taste anything, but after he has taken the sacred mysteries, especially in the days of fasting. [+] Canon Twenty-ninth. Of the keeping of oblations which are laid upon the altar,--that nothing fall into the sacred chalice, and that nothing fall from the priests, nor from the boys when they take communion; that an evil spirit rule them not, and that no one speak in the protection, except in prayer; and when the oblations of the people cease, let psalms be read with all attention, even to the signal of the bell; and of the sign of the cross, and the casting of the dust of the altar into the pool.
Hippolytus Appendix can 37 [170-236 AD]
As often as a bishop takes of the sacred mysteries, let the deacons and presbyters be gathered together, clothed in white robes, brilliant in the view of all the people; and in like manner with a reader.
Origen on Prayer ch 18 (185-254 ad)
So, too, the apostles, and those who have become like apostles, being priests according to the Great High Priest and having received knowledge of the service of God, know under the Spirit’s teaching for which sins, and when, and how they ought to offer sacrifices, and recognize for which they ought not to do so
Cyprian of Carthage Epistle 75 par 3 [200-270 AD]
3. Wherefore, since the Church alone has the living water, and the power of baptizing and cleansing man, he who says that any one can be baptized and sanctified by Novatian must first show and teach that Novatian is in the Church or presides over the Church. For the Church is one, and as she is one, cannot be both within and without. For if she is with Novatian, she was not with Cornelius. But if she was with Cornelius, who succeeded the bishop Fabian by lawful ordination, and whom, beside the honour of the priesthood, the Lord glorified also with martyrdom, Novatian is not in the Church; nor can he be reckoned as a bishop, who, succeeding to no one, and despising the evangelical and apostolic tradition, sprang from himself. For he who has not been ordained in the Church can neither have nor hold to the Church in any way.
Cyprian of Carthage epistle 74 par 16 (200-270 ad)
But what is the greatness of his error, and what the depth of his blindness, who says that remission of sins can be granted in the synagogues of heretics, and does not abide on the foundation of the one Church which was once based by Christ upon the rock, may be perceived from this, that Christ said to Peter alone, "Whatsoever thou shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatsoever thou shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." And again, in the Gospel, when Christ breathed on the apostles alone, saying, remitted unto them, and whose soever sins ye retain they are retained." Therefore the power of remitting sins was given to the apostles, and to the churches which they, sent by Christ, established, and to the bishops who succeeded to them by vicarious ordination. But the enemies of the one Catholic Church in which we are, and the adversaries of us who have succeeded the apostles, asserting for themselves, in opposition to us, unlawful priesthoods, and setting up profane altars, what else are they than Korah, Dathan, and Abiram, profane with a like wickedness, and about to suffer the same punishments which they did, as well as those who agree with them, just as their partners and abettors perished with a like death to theirs?
Cyprian of Carthage epistle 68 par 4 (200-270 ad)
Christ, who says to the apostles, and thereby to all chief rulers, who by vicarious ordination succeed to the apostles: "He that heareth you, heareth me; and he that heareth me, heareth Him that sent me; and he that despiseth you, despiseth me, and Him that sent me." (lk 10:16)
Cyprian of Carthage epistle 67 par 5 (200-270 ad)
For which reason you must diligently observe and keep the practice delivered from divine tradition and apostolic observance, which is also maintained among us, and almost throughout all the provinces; that for the proper celebration of ordinations all the neighbouring bishops of the same province should assemble with that people for which a prelate is ordained.
Cyprian of Carthage epistle 14 par 2 (200-270 ad)
I wrote letters in which I recalled by my advice, as much as possible, the martyrs and confessors to the Lord's commands. To the presbyters and deacons also was not wanting the vigour of the priesthood; so that some, too little mindful of discipline, and hasty, with a rash precipitation, who had already begun to communicate with the lapsed, were restrained by my interposition.
Cyprian of Carthage epistle 2 par 1 (200-270 ad)
We have been informed by Crementius the sub-deacon, who came to us from you, that the blessed father Cyprian has for a certain reason withdrawn; "in doing which he acted quite rightly, because he is a person of eminence, and because a conflict is impending," which God has allowed in the world, for the sake of cooperating with His servants in their struggle against the adversary
Cyprian of Carthage epistle 30 par 5 (200-270 ad)
However, what you also have yourself declared in so important a matter, is satisfactory to us, that the peace of the Church must first be maintained; then, that an assembly for counsel being gathered together, with bishops, presbyters, deacons, and confessors, as well as with the laity who stand fast, we should deal with the case of the lapsed
Cyprian of Carthage epistle 67 par 2 (200-270 ad)
On which account it is fitting, that with full diligence and sincere investigation those should be chosen for God's priesthood whom it is manifest God will hear.
Cyprian of Carthage epistle 54 par 14 (200-270 ad)
After such things as these, moreover, they still dare--a false bishop having been appointed for them by, heretics--to set sail and to bear letters from schismatic and profane persons to the throne of Peter, and to the chief church whence priestly unity takes its source; and not to consider that these were the Romans whose faith was praised in the preaching of the apostle, to whom faithlessness could have no access.
Eusebius of Caesarea Life of Constantine book 1 ch 32 (265-340 ad)
Moreover, he made the priests of God his counselors, and deemed it incumbent on him to honor the God who had appeared to him with all devotion
Eusebius of Caesarea Church History book 6 (265-340ad)
But the bishops of Cesarea and Jerusalem, who were especially notable and distinguished among the bishops of Palestine, considering Origen worthy in the highest degree of the honor, ordained him a presbyter.
Eusebius of Caesarea Church History book 6 ch 18 (265-340ad)
Greece on account of a pressing necessity in connection with ecclesiastical affairs, and went through Palestine, and was ordained as presbyter in Caesarea by the bishops of that country.
Peter of Alexandria Fragments 1 (260-311ad)
Since I have found out that Meletius acts in no way for the common good,--for neither is he contented with the letter of the most holy bishops and martyrs,--but, invading my parish, hath assumed so much to himself as to endeavour to separate from my authority the priests, and those who had been entrusted with visiting the needy; and, giving proof of his desire for pre-eminence, has ordained in the prison several unto himself; now, take ye heed to this, and hold no communion with him
Liturgy of the Blessed Apostles par 6
The Priest says this secret prayer in the sanctuary:- O Lord God Omnipotent, Thine is the Holy Catholic Church, inasmuch as Thou, through the great passion of Thy Christ, didst buy the sheep of Thy pasture; and from the grace of the Holy Spirit, who is indeed of one nature with Thy glorious divinity, are granted the degrees of the true priestly ordination;
Aphrahat Demonstrations 8 Of the Resurrection of the Dead par 8 (280-367 ad)
Then Moses wished by his priestly power to absolve Reuben from his transgression and sin, in that he had lain with Bilhah, his father's concubine; that when his brethren should rise, he might not be cut off from their number.
Athanasius Life of St Anthony par 67 (296-373 ad)
Added to this he was tolerant in disposition and humble in spirit. For though he was such a man, he observed the rule of the Church most rigidly, and was willing that all the clergy should be honoured above himself [17]. For he was not ashamed to bow his head to bishops and presbyters,and if ever a deacon came to him for help he discoursed with him on what was profitable, but gave place to him in prayer, not being ashamed to learn himself.
Athanasius Letter 49 par 4 (296-373 ad)
For if all were of the same mind as your present advisers, how would you have become a Christian, since there would be no bishops? Or if our successors are to inherit this state of mind, how will the Churches be able to hold together?
Hilary of Poitiers On the Trinity book 8 par 1 (300-367 ad)
THE Blessed Apostle Paul in laying down the form for appointing a bishop and creating by his instructions an entirely new type of member of the Church, has taught us in the following words the sum total of all the virtues perfected in him:--Holding fast the word according to the doctrine of faith that he may be able to exhort to sound doctrine and to convict gainsavers. For there are many unruly men, vain talkers and deceivers. For in this way he points out that the essentials of orderliness and morals are only profitable for good service in the priesthood if at the same time the qualities needful for knowing how to teach and preserve the faith are not lacking, for a man is not straightway made a good and useful priest by a merely innocent life or by a mere knowledge of preaching.
Ephriam of Syria on Epiphany (RESP.--Blessed be He Who was baptized that He might baptize you, that ye should be absolved from your offences.) par 19 (307-373 ad)
to the priest who has toiled in baptizing,--let there come the crown of righteousness!
Cyril of Jerusalem Catechetical Lecture 23 par 4 (315-386 ad)
After this the Priest cries aloud, "Lift up your hearts." For truly ought we in that most awful hour to have our heart on high with God, and not below, thinking of earth and earthly things. In effect therefore the Priest bids all in that hour to dismiss all cares of this life, or household anxieties, and to have their heart in heaven with the merciful God. Then ye answer, "We lift them up unto the Lord:" assenting to it, by your avowal.
Cyril of Jerusalem Catechetical Lecture 16 par 22 (315-386 ad)
Consider, I pray, of each nation, Bishops, Presbyters, Deacons, Solitaries, Virgins, and laity besides; and then behold their great Protector, and the Dispenser of their gifts;--how throughout the world He gives to one chastity, to another perpetual virginity, to another almsgiving, to another voluntary poverty, to another power of repelling hostile spirits.
Council of Nicaea under Sylvester I par 4 (325 ad)
It is by all means desirable that a bishop should be appointed by all the bishops of the province. But if this is difficult because of some pressing necessity or the length of the journey involved, let at least three come together and perform the ordination, but only after the absent bishops have taken part in the vote and given their written consent. But in each province the right of confirming the proceedings belongs to the metropolitan bishop.
Council of Nicaea under Sylvester I pa 18 (325 ad)
It has come to the attention of this holy and great synod that in some places and cities deacons give communion to presbyters, although neither canon nor custom allows this, namely that those who have no authority to offer should give the body of Christ to those who do offer. Moreover it has become known that some of the deacons now receive the eucharist even before the bishops. All these practices must be suppressed. Deacons must remain within their own limits, knowing that they are the ministers of the bishop and subordinate to the presbyters. Let them receive the eucharist according to their order after the presbyters from the hands of the bishop or the presbyter.

 

[Daniel Marsh]

Practical Apologetics: Early Church Fathers on Ordination and Priesthood
What the Early Church Believed: Bishop, Priest, and Deacon
Google Priesthood Early Church Fathers

 

[Daniel Marsh]

Yes indeed. The LDS do consider that the Church went off the rails at an exceptionally early date. They might thus have to reject the ECF. I donno.

But so far ... silence.

Friend, if the early church went off the rails early on then there is no reason to believe that the LDS stayed on the tracks at all. There has been so many changes in LDS teachings where modern prophets override what was taught before --- there is no reason to believe the LDS God is the Genuine God of the Bible.

 

[Daniel Marsh]

They are answering on my other thread but only 2 Mormons are there. I’m not sure why they are avoiding this one.

Please post a link to the other thread. thanks

 

[Daniel Marsh]

That doesn’t answer the question.

Are the writings of the ECF reliable?

And can you provide any evidence from their writings for the doctrine of the LDS Priesthoods?

They are reliable because we can recover the NT from their writings and they made copies of the NT manuscripts too. The LDS Priesthood is not there, nor is it in the NT.