Does the Catholic church still have the priesthood?

[Ray Degraw]

cwald, I agree with both of your last comments. Remember, I'm a parser of the highest order. I have no disagreement with your last two comments.

[mormonheretic]

I would say there is a bit of a semantic argument about whether women hold the priesthood. Michael Quinn has said,

The last major development in LDS priesthood is even less recognized today. In 1843 Smith extended the Melchizedek priesthood to LDS women through an “endowment ceremony” rather than through ordination to church office.

For example, in 1843 Presiding Patriarch Hyrum Smith blessed Leonora Cannon Taylor:
“You shall be bless[ed] with your portion of the Priesthood which belongeth to you, that you may be set apart for your Anointing and your induement [endowment].”

Thirty-five years later, Joseph Young (a patriarch and senior president of the Council of Seventy) blessed Brigham Young’s daughter:

“These blessings are yours, the blessings and power according to the Holy Melchi[z]edek Priesthood you received in your Endowments, and you shall have them.”

The decline in women’s awareness that the endowment ceremony gives them Melchizedek priesthood corresponds to the decline in women’s status in the LDS church during those same years. In the process, twentieth-century Mormons–both male and female, conservative and liberal–have identified priesthood with male privilege and hierarchical administrative power. Therefore, some recent writers regard as insignificant the concept that endowed Mormon women had (and continue to have) the Melchizedek priesthood without ordained office and hierarchical status.

I must say that I agree that modern Mormons always associate priesthood with administration. On the other hand, I can remember as a deacon, teacher, and priest, being told the priesthood is “the power to act in the name of God.” So, even though women may not hold an administrative office, it is fascinating to me that Quinn uses a different definition to discuss women’s priesthood power “to act in the name of God.” Isn’t this a more important use of priesthood power?

Jonathan Stapley seems to disagree with Quinn. He said on my blog,

Moreover, power, or the gifts of the spirit are incoherently conflated with priesthood. Now there is no question, as you note, that some have tried to say that priesthood is the power of God or the authority to act in God’s name; however, every day people pray in the name of Jesus that don’t hold the priesthood and no one seriously believes all spiritual gifts are constrained to priesthood office.

If you're interested, here's more info on Stapley's article: http://www.mormonheretic.org/2011/02/19 ... mon-women/

[cwald]

Okay, good enough Ray.

I'm just wondering here, but if jwald, who DOES have the priesthood (at least according to everyone on this site I think) was to anoint and lay hands on someone and give them a blessing --- would she get disciplined by the church today?

[Brian Johnston]

I'm saying if that if I claim to have the priesthood from God, and not some church leader, and that I can administer the sacrament, and that I could start baptizing folks without permission from my BP/SP ---- that I'm going to be up for excommunication. I call that getting in trouble.

I agree with your point Cwald. That crosses the cultural line and directly challenges the power structure. That would get someone ex'ed by even the most liberal mormon standard. Our Church has drifted back into this realm of authority from men. I think in the very very early days of the Church, many of the original converts were attracted to the egalitarian and universal notions of priesthood that JS taught. Heck, even two of the original "apostles" hadn't been formally ordained to a priesthood until a year or two later. They were "special witnesses" of Christ because they had SEEN JESUS CHRIST! (or to be fair to the more agnostic among us, they believed they had seen J.C.).

There were three forms of priesthood "authority" in the proto-LDS Church under Joseph Smith (my date range 1820 to mid 1830's):
1. Charismatic priesthood: A vision or visitation, seeing God and God telling you to perform some work for Him.

2. Patriarchal priesthood (or lineage-based): Joseph at times taught that some family lines (aka blood lines) naturally held priesthood -- like the decendents of Aaron for example, or maybe Levites. JS claimed this as well through his father, and in fact used it as the justification for his father being "The Patriarch" for the church, which later morphed into Stake Patriarch callings we have today.

3. Ordained Priesthood: Authority and power transmitted from person to person by physical ritual of the "laying on of hands" as described in the Bible. This is pretty much the only version we continue to recognize today.

But all three version are a part of our heritage.

And yes, I would get ex'ed if I claimed that I know God wants me to start ordaining women to the offices in the priesthood, and went about doing that, bypassing the "chain of command" cultural / religious power structure.

[Ray Degraw]

if jwald, who DOES have the priesthood (at least according to everyone on this site I think) was to anoint and lay hands on someone and give them a blessing --- would she get disciplined by the church today?

Honestly, I think the major question in that situation for most people would be the anointing.

Well, actually, THE major question would be the words she used in whatever she did - especially if she mentioned "Priesthood authority" while doing it. If she said, however, something like the following, I'm sure the reaction by the leadership would be mixed - with many more Bishops not making any kind of deal about it than you might think:

"As a disciple of Jesus Christ (your mother / a mother in Zion / etc.), I lay my hands on you and pray a blessing upon you . . ."

Your branch and stake . . . well, it is what it is - but in many places, that wouldn't be disciplined in any way. I know it happened fairly regularly in the Boston area when we lived there, even with the wife of one of the Bishopric members.

Again, often it's the wording and the perceived intent that matters as much as the action itself. If she invited others to watch and/or participate with her . . . or if it was seen as a direct challenge to the Priesthood leadership in the area . . . or if it was preceded by a diatribe in church . . .

[mormonheretic]

I would like to see a return to the anointing of women by women (or even anointing of men by women). I posted this over at Wheat and Tares, and BiV commented there that

anyone, female or male, member or not, has the right to perform these types of blessings. Women do it today, but often surreptitiously because of the discomfort you mention in the OP.

Stapley's article explicitly states that women performed anointings, though Stapley says this is a gift of the spirit and not of the priesthood. Stapley says,

“someone apparently reported to Joseph that the women were laying their hands on the sick and blessing them. His reply to the question of the propriety of such acts was simple. He told the women in the next meeting “there could be no evil in it, if God gave his sanction by healing.., there could be no more sin in any female laying hands on the sick than in wetting the face with water.” He also indicated that there were sisters who were ordained to heal the sick and it was their privilege to do so. “If the sisters should have faith to heal,” he said, “let all hold their tongues.”6

Click here for more info: http://www.wheatandtares.org/2011/03/14 ... blessings/

[Brown]

Okay, good enough Ray.

I'm just wondering here, but if jwald, who DOES have the priesthood (at least according to everyone on this site I think) was to anoint and lay hands on someone and give them a blessing --- would she get disciplined by the church today?

I don't get what's really different about laying on of hands vs joining in prayer.

[Cadence]

I am pretty sure the priesthood is simply a mechanism men use to to say they have authority.

I was thinking you meant males rather than mankind here.

No I was just saying the concept of the priesthood is just a man made concept so how can you keep or lose something that does not really exist. really was not referring to men or women.

[Roy]

I was just saying the concept of the priesthood is just a man made concept so how can you keep or lose something that does not really exist. really was not referring to men or women.

Your comment just reminded me of a time when a non-member friend was bemoaning that women were undervalued in the LDS church. She continued, "the RLDS church gave the priesthood to women, why can't you?" "The RLDS did not give the priesthood to women," I countered, "They didn't have it to give. " It really is all about semantics.