Catholic Presbyterian

According to Milton R. Hunter(Quorum of the 70) and and so-called Apostle John Widtsoe, The LDS Church teaches(as received from Joseph Smith) the Law of Eternal Progression of Deity. Simply stated it is this: Deity is ever-progressing; God availed himself at every opportunity to obey the laws of eternal truth, in doing so he moved from less powerful to more; a progressive order to attain to the glorified and exalted deity that he now is.
There exists multiple problems both biblical/theological, and philosophical. I will briefly examine two of them.
1)The law of eternal progression presupposes an set of Eternal Truths from which our Deity learned and was able to attain to the state of "exalted Deity". How cant these truths be eternal without an equally eternal rational personal being that either is the truth and communicates it, the Christian belief, or at least an eternal rational being that arbitrarily created these "truths" by which the rational creature can progress to this invented state called "Deity". Any other position fails to account for the existence of the set of "eternal truths". The Mormon system assumes these "eternal truths" yet refuses to accept an eternal personal Deity from whom these "Eternal Truths" have come. Very problematic to say the least...
2)The other problem rests in the entire idea of a progression from one being to another in a rational progression or evolution, which is assumed in the Law of Eternal progression(LEP). The questions why and how are not even hinted at in the LDS writings on the LEP. The why question must be avoided because it would require an explanation outside of the Deity that assumes a plan of progression, or at least intelligence that left the truths that would lead one to the state of Deity. So while the first problem deals with the existence of an eternal rational being that is unaccounted for in the LDS system, the second deals with the evidence of this Truth even contained in their own system. If you were to be consistent in examining the LEP and all its principles by logical necessity, a Good Mormon would affirm an eternal personal Deity that created the Laws of Eternal progression, but the the LEP would no longer be a viable option anyways...

So I'm still cruising through Jim Jordan's book The Sociology of the Church and I seem to have hit another Ecclesiological pothole on Jordan's road to Catholicity. In commenting on the theological implications of "Do this as my memorial" Jordan says "The doing takes precedence over any theory of what is being done. If this simple fact were understood, it would be possible for churches to recognize one another and cooperate in true biblical Catholicity."(Jordan is not here trying to pit theory and praxis against one another, he's just placing the accent mark where the Spirit did in the text...we would be wise to do the same!)
Once again Jordan assumes much and defines little! He is saying one of two things here: either 1) The action of the Eucharist among a group is what makes the group a catholic church... or 2) he is assuming some other presupposed, yet not defined up to this point in the book, definition of what a church is and saying the of all existing churches in that sense are made catholic by the Eucharistic celebration. If you see a third way to take this please comment.
I take serious issue with number 1 above. Here's why: in the first place the command and entrustment of the Eucharistic rite was give to the Apostles in the upper room. As Catholic Reformed
Presbyterians(or any episcopal form of ecclesiology as well) we believe that the succession of the Church was organic from Christ, to the apostles, and then entrusted by them to faithful men, apostolically ordained and constituted elders in organic succession, just as Paul tells us the faith would be passed in 2 Tim. 2:2(and as laid out in our standards and BCO.) Thus we cannot assume that any group that comes together, I'm thinking of so-called "independent churches"(defined here as those with no succession from and submission to the duly constituted church as defined scripture and outlined above), under the name "Church" is necessarily a Church, scripturally and historically speaking, because they bring crackers, grape juice, bad hymns and a King James Bible together once a week. It was the action of the Eucharist in the visible apostolic Church that united all Christians together in the Heavenly presence of God to be certain(read Calvin on Worship in the throne room and the Eucharist, its excellent), but to say the same applies for a group that knows the apostolic visible body and refuses to submit to the πρεσβύτερος (presbyters/bishops), is to argue that a schismatic or divisive groups celebration of the Eucharist is not impeded by their inherently divisive constitution, which violates the 1 Cor. 11 principle of the supper ceasing to be the supper in its fullness for the divisive/schismatic party.
As for option 2 I cant really argue anything because I don't have his definition. If his definition was: A Church is all baptized individuals gathered together in the organic apostoliclly succeeded Body, than we would see eye to eye...But I have a sneaking suspicion this is not his definition...

Some of my final thoughts: I agree that the doing of the supper is where we should place the accent mark, just as Jesus did in his very choice of words. However it is to the apostolic fathers, the 12 minus Judas, and their faithful children that received "the faith once delivered for all unto the saints" (Jude 1:3) that this command was given. Just as the Great commission was given to the Apostles, and while we share in it in the priesthood bestowed upon us in our one baptism, it is always under the Authority of the organic, historical Church's succession of the πρεσβύτερος(presbytery) and/or ἐπίσκοπος(episcopate). This is where the keys have been placed, and sect in the world can duplicate those keys or can pick the Ecclesiological lock, no matter how hard they try.

In reading through Dr. Jordan's book the Sociology of the Church, I've found more questions than I have answers. Here are some of my thoughts:
Jordan asserts on page 15 that the reason the spotless lamb, Jesus, could eat with sinners and tax collectors is because they were members of the visible Church(I will simply grant him that point for times sake here, and because i think he is at least partially if not entirely correct in his assertion) even though the church was borderline apostate being run by the Sadducee's and pharisees. And the people Jesus was meeting and eating with were not excommunicated from the visible Church, and that they, the sinners, where willing at least at first to listen to what Jesus had to say. It is what Jordan than goes on to say that i find problematic to his whole illustrated principle of Catholicity and sectarianism(which he doesn't define clearly at all, as very few do) up to this point in the book. Jordan goes on to state that the people that listened to Jesus went on not to persevere in all those things and they thus excommunicated themselves. If this is the case, as i believe he is correct, what light ought this to bear on the church corporately regarding Catholicity and especially sectarianism?
Jordan up to this point in the book seem to speak of all visible bodies that profess Christ and practice the sacraments to be the Church. However since the Church is made up of real men, ordained and non-ordained, and all that is required for excommunication is not persevering in the faith that Jesus teaches, in scripture as understood and declared through his Spirit-filled Church, then how are the elders of these Churches to be considered to be duly constituted and properly installed? An excommunicated person cannot partake of the Eucharist. Surely we are not going to reason that he has the authority to celebrate the Eucharistic feast of the Lord's Supper, are we? These denominations of which Jordan speaks, many of which are have denied far more than the folks that didn't persevere in Christs teaching, are baptizing and celebrating the Eucharist week after week, yet by Jordan's implications these men have excommunicated themselves. So I ask the Question at what point does that ecclesial community become a sect(defined here as an excommunicated group, either implicitly as Jordan defines it or explicitly as declared by session, council or otherwise; that thus cannot be celebrating what they may and can not partake of nor benefit from)? Is there succession then inherently sectarian then as well if no or insignificant reconciliation is made from those previous corporately held errors? So in other words is it sectarian rather than historic apostolic succession(Defined simply biblical ordination by elders that have previously been vested in the apostolic authority by the laying on of hands and thus being duly-ordained and constituted) being conferred upon those men ordained in their communities? Bearing in mind the Church, and especially the reformed Churches have always held that only duly ordained men are permitted and actually able conduct the Lords supper. So do the excommunicants corporately, in Jordan's paradigm of Ecclesiology, fit into a sect and if so 1Cor 11 tells us that divisiveness and division that it produces is the one thing that can keep the Eucharist that they celebrated from even being the Eucharist.
So I am not finding much consistency in Jordan's application of self-excommunication and the visible Church as it stands today particularly by way of this element of Sacramentology and broader Ecclesiological principles regarding the true Church visible.

Just some ramblings I had after reading this first chapter please contribute your thoughts on the matter as well.