Within the theology of the The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, a Great Apostacy is held to. The Great Apostacy is primarily identified by the loss, or removal, of priesthood keys and authority from the earth. I can't find any specifics from a church source on when this occurred. Does anyone know of any detailed explanation on when the apostacy occurred? I'd like to give an idea as to why that is the case, and encourage members to poke holes in it if possible. In our theology, the Apostles hold all the keys of the priesthood, which constitute the right to preside over and direct the Church within a jurisdiction. Sometimes the Apostles delegate those keys. For example, "Bishops hold the priesthood keys to lead the work of the Church in the ward" (local congregation) (source ). "A bishop is called by inspiration of the Lord and ordained by a stake president under the direction of the First Presidency of the Church and the Quorum of the Twelve."(source ) *In the absence of keys held by apostles, there can be no ordination of bishops. A bishop does not hold the keys to authorize the ordination of successor bishop (**this seems to be the key claim**).* As it relates to the Great Apostacy, once the Apostles are all gone, the keys to direct bishop ordination are gone. A bishop could be ordained and alive at the time the last Apostle is taken, and he could ordain others to offices in the Aaronic priesthood, but once he dies the keys he was delegated are gone. So it may be true that holders of the priesthood are alive at the time the last apostle was taken, but within the next 100 years or so, no living key holder will be left and soon following no authoritative ordination will be possible. This seems to be the reason we can't pin a date down, we don't know when the last priesthood holder died. Thoughts?

I was wondering why most monks aren't ordained. It seems like some monasteries are about half and half while others seem to have as few priests as necessary. This would make sense in medieval times when it wasn't possible for that many people to be highly educated but why today? Given that they are Catholic monks and probably just as educated as the priests why would they remain lay, especially in monasteries where many of the monks are priests? Is there a specific reason for this in some monasteries?

Based in part on answers to this question , this definition from the Merriam-Webster dictionary: > : religious belief emphasizing the powers of priests as essential mediators between God and humankind and this definition from Wikipedia: > Sacerdotalism (from Latin sacerdos, "priest", literally "one who presents sacred offerings", sacer, "sacred", and dare, "to give")[1] is the belief in some Christian churches that priests are meant to be mediators between God and humankind. I would like to compile a list of those Churches or denominations which officially affirm Sacerdotalism where that affirmation is not only to the ministry of Priests as mediators but the **essential nature of that mediation** in the salvation of the faithful. The Wikipedia article names Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and some forms of Anglo-Catholic theology as sacerdotal. It also indicates some forms of Lutheranism as sacerdotal, at least as far as the handing down of the priestly work of the Apostles is concerned, but I wonder if that fulfills the 'essential to salvation' qualifier. I also think Latter-Day Saints hold a 'restored' priestly ministry which is theologically important but I wonder if 'essential to salvation' is accurate. Which Christian Churches teach that the mediatorial ministration of their official priesthood is essential to the salvation act/process for individual humans? _____________________________________________________________________________ I hesitate to ask after a denominational survey since that requires a daunting effort. Perhaps answers could come in the form of a 'community wiki' wherein each denomination adds to or edits in its own official support of sacerdotalism? If this is a legitimate method for answering, could someone with the correct amount of computer savvy please make it so?

I once heard that so many priests, monks and nuns left their vocations and returned to lay state immediately after Vatican council II ended. Is this true? I also heard that so many convents and monasteries shutdown. I know now that churches across Europe continue to shutdown and Christianity dwindle. But is there any official trustworthy statistics or records for all this? Is there a good reference that talks about these issues? **Update 1:** I found the following SSPX research paper Fruits of Vatican II : But I need more guidance in evaluating it (how valuable it is and what other research exists in this are, especially books treating this matter). **Update 2:** Another resource I found is a blog article by the same title by Patrick Hawkins, a [contributor to One Peter 5](https://onepeterfive.com/author/pfhawkins/) (a website for restoring Catholic Tradition). But again, I am looking for a trustworthy interpretation of this data in the form of a book. **Update 3:** Another is a book list on Second Vatican Council by [Dr. Peter and Julian Kwasniewski](https://bookshop.org/shop/tradition-sanity-list).

Obviously Moses was not of the Aaronic Priesthood. Not only was he not a descendant of Aaron, but in fact he was greater than Aaron. God made him Moses’ prophet (Exodus 7:1-2). Was Moses of the order of Melchizedek? Or another order perhaps?

> When individuals or groups of people turn away from the principles of the gospel, they are in a state of apostasy. One example is the Great Apostasy, which occurred after the Savior established His Church. After the deaths of the Savior and His Apostles, men corrupted the principles of the gospel and made unauthorized changes in Church organization and priesthood ordinances. Because of this widespread apostasy, the Lord withdrew the authority of the priesthood from the earth. This apostasy lasted until Heavenly Father and His Beloved Son appeared to Joseph Smith in 1820 and initiated the Restoration of the fulness of the gospel. (["Apostasy"](https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topics/apostasy?lang=eng)) But Hebrews says > Hebrews 2:17: Therefore, He/Jesus Christ had to be made like His brethren in all things, that He might become a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people. > Hebrews 5:6: just as He says also in another passage, "Thou art a Priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek." > Hebrews 7:23-25: And the former priests, on the one hand, existed in greater numbers, because they were prevented by death from continuing. but He, on the other hand because He abides forever, holds His priesthood permanently. Hence, also, He is able to save forever those who draw near to God through Him, since He always lives to make intercession for them. By His death and resurrection Jesus Christ secured the priesthood for sinners forever. His death provided a covering for sins. In view of this on what basis can the LDS Church say the priesthood authority was withdrawn from the earth?

Trinitarians assert that Jesus is the Eternal Word of God. From John 1 they assert personified pronouns in order to claim this chapter supports this idea. This assertion of ambiguous Greek pronouns can be discussed and debated at length. However, in the context of this question, let us assume Jesus is actually the personified Eternal Word of God. Furthermore, let us assume every theoretical detail of the Trinity. I often ask Trinitarians why God(Jesus) has a God(the Father) and the response is that the human _part_ of Jesus _has a_ God, but the divine _part_ of him _does not_ have a God because he is God. The common Trinitarian belief is that Jesus began to have a God when he took on flesh. He currently still has his flesh (now glorified) and is still a man. This Jesus then, is now and forever fully man and _not only_ fully God Almighty as he was eternally with the Father. This God-man _has_ a God now and forever who he will serve into eternity as high priest. The Risen Son is not a high priest to himself. Heb 2 >16 For indeed he does not give aid to angels, but he does give aid to the seed of Abraham. 17 Therefore, in all things ***he had to be made like his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful High Priest*** in things pertaining to God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people. 18 For in that he himself has suffered, being tempted, he is able to aid those who are tempted. Heb 7:20 > And it was not without an oath! Others became priests without any > oath, 21 but he became a priest with an oath when God said to him: > > “The LORD(YHWH) has sworn > and will not change his mind: > ***‘You are a priest forever.’***” Heb 8 >1 Now this is the main point of the things we are saying: We have such a High Priest, who is seated at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens, 2 a **Minister** of the sanctuary and of the true tabernacle which the Lord erected, and not man. > >3 For every high priest is **appointed to offer** both gifts and sacrifices. Therefore it is necessary that this One also have something to offer. 4 For if he were on earth, he would not be a priest, since there are priests who offer the gifts according to the law; 5 who serve the copy and shadow of the heavenly things, as Moses was divinely instructed when he was about to make the tabernacle. For He said, “See that you make all things according to the pattern shown you on the mountain.” 6 But now he has obtained a more excellent **ministry**, inasmuch as he is also Mediator of a better covenant, which was established on better promises. Jesus was glorified and exalted beyond the angels... beyond every creature to ever exist. But this Eternal person, the *Logos*, seems to have been diminished in stature to that of a servant/minister of God (high priest) instead of his former status as fully God Almighty. **My questions**: 1. How do Trinitarians understand this change in stature and place of the *Logos* within the Kingdom of God? 2. How do Trinitarians make a case that his stature was not diminished, when formally he was not subordinate to anyone?

**I am seeking a complete and authoritative explanation of this issue.** Who presides at Sacrament meeting (common Sunday services) when the bishop of a ward (pastor of a local congregation) is unavailable? There are several circumstances that should be considered when answering this question. The best answer will cite both the handbook of instructions and scripture to justify the explanation. Linking back to Church resources is appreciated. * **When any higher authority is easily accessible and...** * When the Bishop (perhaps due to illness) is suddenly unavailable. * When the entire bishopric is unavailable, but the absence was expected. * When the entire bishopric is unavailable, but the absence was unexpected. * **When all higher authorities are also unavailable and...** * When the Bishop (perhaps due to illness) is suddenly unavailable. * When the entire bishopric is unavailable, but the absence was expected. * When the entire bishopric is unavailable, but the absence was unexpected. *A bonus would be an explanation of what priesthood keys (or priesthood authority) is NOT available when any or all of these circumstances take place. As an example (and as a hint), if the bishop and all higher authorities are unavailable, non-priesthood disciplinary councils cannot be convened.*

I understand that the LDS church institutes that Aaronic Priesthood. In the Old Testament, this was specifically reserved to the tribe of Levi and the family of Aaron. > and you shall gird **Aaron and his sons** with sashes and bind caps on > them. And the **priesthood shall be theirs by a statute forever**. Thus > you shall ordain Aaron and his sons. Exodus 29:9 ESV In the LDS Church, is this the same priesthood? If so, what is the doctrinal precedent where people other than Jews from the tribe of Levi and the family of Aaron can be given that priesthood? Who receives that Aaronic priesthood today and how long is it held?

Since the restoration, the LDS Church has taught that certain dark skinned people were cursed to be cut off from the presence of the Lord: > 20 Wherefore, the word of the Lord was fulfilled which he spake unto > me, saying that: Inasmuch as they will not hearken unto thy words they > shall be cut off from the presence of the Lord. And behold, **they > were cut off from his presence**. And that their darks skins were a sign of the curse so that they could be recognized as being cursed: > 21 And he had caused the cursing to come upon them, yea, even a sore > cursing, because of their iniquity. For behold, they had hardened > their hearts against him, that they had become like unto a flint; > wherefore, as they were white, and exceedingly fair and delightsome, > that they might not be enticing unto my people the Lord God did cause > a skin of blackness to come upon them. > > 22 And thus saith the Lord God: I will cause that they shall be > loathsome unto thy people, save they shall repent of their iniquities. > > 23 And cursed shall be the seed of him that mixeth with their seed; > for they shall be cursed even with the same cursing. And the Lord > spake it, and it was done. (2 Nephi 5:21-23) Today, the official stance of the church is this: > "Today, the Church disavows the theories advanced in the past that > black skin is a sign of divine disfavor or curse, or that it reflects > unrighteous actions in a premortal life; that mixed-race marriages are > a sin; or that blacks or people of any other race or ethnicity are > inferior in any way to anyone else. Church leaders today unequivocally > condemn all racism, past and present, in any form." (Race and the Priesthood) Does this mean that the Church is disavowing that people of African descent were ever cursed and bore the sign of the curse? Or does this mean that since the curse was lifted, and in 1978 when the Preisthood was officially offered to all worthy males, that the "sign of the curse" was no longer a sign of anything except mortal heritage, and that those spirits being born with those phenotypes today are no longer born to those lines based on premortal favour?

This may seem like a stupid question (ie. why would someone need to be ordained to their own priesthood order?). However, I can't seem to find reference to Him being ordained or to Him not needing to be ordained. I know He had the Priesthood - many references call Him a High Priest after the order of Melchisedec. I'm wondering though if He went through any sort of ordinance where He became ordained (ie. He wasn't ordained before the ordinance). I know that the Priesthood is eternal, but that doesn't necessarily mean that Jesus was born automatically ordained to the order of Melchizedek. Like I've said in a comment on one of the answers, what I'm envisioning is Jesus as a teenager or young adult being ordained to the priesthood the same as any other boy/man of his time. Whether or not that ordination was as meaningful or needful for him as it was for his contemporaries isn't the point of this question, the question is - do we have evidence that an ordination ceremony of some sort happened during his mortal life, or do we have evidence that whoever would have ordained him understood that Jesus didn't need to be ordained? For the sake of my question, I'm interested in an LDS perspective. However, if the answer to the question isn't necessarily an LDS one and I just totally missed something obvious (ie. He was ordained and here's the Bible reference), I'd accept that too. EDIT: As I'm studying more and seeing some answers that are coming in (which have been really helpful - just not quite what I was looking for), I'm realizing that this question is not as simple as I was thinking. So, first of all, **moving forward I'm only interested in the LDS perspective**. Second, here's some background on why I'm asking (which I hadn't thought was relevant initially): Alma 13:2 says: >And those priests were ordained after the order of his Son, **in a manner that thereby the people might know in what manner to look forward to his Son for redemption** Verse 16 mentions something similar: >Now these ordinances were given after this manner, that thereby the people might look forward on th Son of God, it being a type of his order, or it being his order, and this that they might look forward to him for a remission of their sins, that they might enter into the rest of the Lord. There doesn't seem to be any interpretation available to what this means. I got to both of the same conclusions that [this article's section on verse 2](https://clearldsdoctrine.neocities.org/ltltbom/alma/13.html) got to (writing it out would take too much space here). Referring to that article, in my mind the first suggestion seemed right (but too easy of an answer), and the second suggestion felt really interesting to pursue whether or not it has any ground to stand on. In my mind, the first question to ask in determining whether or not the second suggestion could possibly hold any water is "Was Jesus ordained?". If not, then the second suggestion can't possibly be correct. I couldn't think of a time in the New Testament where Jesus gets ordained - but I also couldn't think of any mention in any of the LDS Standard Works suggesting that he didn't need to be ordained. He needed to be baptized, so maybe he also needed to be ordained. Like one of the commenters below suggested, I considered the Transfiguration, but Jesus was using the Priesthood before the Transfiguration. I've also been reading that some other Christian denominations consider Jesus' baptism to be the moment he was "ordained" (ex. [the 'When was Jesus ordained' section of this article on a Catholic website](https://ronconte.com/2012/10/26/when-was-jesus-ordained-a-priest/)) . That idea makes sense to me, but I haven't seen any LDS writings suggesting that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints agrees or disagrees with that.

I was reading a short essay in the [*Word on Fire* Gospel Reflections on Luke 12:49-53](https://www.wordonfire.org/reflections/a-ordinary-wk29-thursday/) where in Luke 12:49 Jesus says that He came to set fire to the world. In the essay Bishop Barron says that Jesus' priesthood is shown as a "spreader of the sacred fire". This reminded me of something I thought was an Old Testament passage, but on reflection it was just a line from the Lord of the Rings - probably only the movie, not the book. Is the notion of a priest as a spreader and/or keeper of the sacred fire based on something to do with Old Testament typology or is it just a general notion of a priest throughout pagan/human history?

Protestantism reject the idea of a *sacerdotal priesthood*, embracing instead the idea of *priesthood of all believers*(cf. 1 Peter 2:9). Protestant Reformers like *Martin Luther* and *John Calvin* also claim these ideas are not an invitation but actually represent historical Christianity. However if one looks at early *Church Fathers* such as *Cyprian of Carthage* seem to believe in the sacerdotal priesthood. Consider Cyprian’a words: > Does he think that he has Christ, who acts in opposition to Christ's > priests, who separates himself from the company of His clergy and > people? He bears arms against the Church, Treatis 1, 17 How are these two reconciled? Did the apostles see themselves as priests?

If a husband man loses his wife to death, is it possible for him to become a Catholic priest in the Latin Rite? What about any children of this marriage union? Can this man now become a priest in the Latin Rite and climb the priestly ladder (bishop, archbishop, ect)?

Sometimes my friends call me Father as a joke. It is funny because I am a woman and not a priest. We are wondering if this is a sin of irreverence.

Who first used the term *alter Christus* ("another Christ") to describe an ordained (ministerial ) priest?

I read a blog post from a Catholic saying that the "pastor" (I believe the more common term in Catholicism is "priest"?) of his church asked for permission to retire and the bishop allowed it. The wording implies that the priest had previously wanted to retire but not been allowed to. Do Catholic priests need permission to retire?

What is the difference between a **“promise”** and a **“vow”** of celibacy? Do secular priests take the vow or promise of celibacy? Do monks take the vow or promise of celibacy?

It’s often claimed that only bishops can could ever validly ordain priests. This is certainly true for modern Catholic practice. I recall reading somewhere though that priests ordaining other priests is recorded or even approved of at points during the Middle Ages. I’ve been unable to verify this claim by my own research. Is there any evidence for Presbyterian ordination prior to the era of the reformation?

**According to Catholicism, which popes have been elected to the papacy without being in priestly orders?** I was recently reading about Pope Leo X on [Wikipedia](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Leo_X) . It claims that he was the last Pope “not to have in priestly orders at the time of his election to the papacy”. > Giovanni was elected pope on 9 March 1513, and this was proclaimed two days later. The absence of the French cardinals effectively reduced the election to a contest between Giovanni (who had the support of the younger and noble members of the college) and Raffaele Riario (who had the support of the older group). On 15 March 1513, he was ordained priest, and consecrated as bishop on 17 March. He was crowned Pope on 19 March 1513 at the age of 37. He was the last non-priest to be elected pope. - [Pope Leo X](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Leo_X) Do we know the other popes who were elected to the papacy without being in priestly orders?