Cardinal George and the Mormons

[LittleSoldier]

otjm, you err however in suggesting that we can treat Mormons as if they are some type of Protestant. They’re not. Like Muslims, they accept Jesus as a sort of prophet but add a new book which glosses His words. Like Muslims, Mormons are not a type of Christian. They deny virtually every proposition necessary to qualify one as a Christian.

Do Catholics have a common reference point with Satanists regarding the person of Jesus Christ? We worship Him and they blaspheme Him. Is that all it takes to qualify as a “reference point”?

What a jejune and sophistical proposition.

Actually I didn’t find the proposition to be jejune and/or sophistical in the least.

Ave Maria! Ora pro nobis.

 

[ServantofMary]

The Church has been working with the LDS church on significant moral issues;…

Actually, the LDS is not a “church.” It is a non-Christian group that promotes a non-Christian religion. There isn’t any common reference point between truth and falsehood.

 

[Lormar]

What is this doing here anyway?

How else would you expect traditional Catholics to respond?

Or was this put here to stir up a hornet’s nest?

 

[otjm]

Actually, the LDS is not a “church.” It is a non-Christian group that promotes a non-Christian religion. There isn’t any common reference point between truth and falsehood.

I am thoroughly aware of the LDS and their positions, as I noted in a previous post.

And; you are flat out wrong that there are no points of reference; Cardinal George has pointed out one.

And I have a suspicion he knows a bit more about how the Church views this than you do.

 

[otjm]

What is this doing here anyway?

You would have to ask the original poster, since they simply posted it; however, the first response indicates that some people are having a problem with the statement.

How else would you expect traditional Catholics to respond?

I would expect a tradtional Catholic to respond in charity, which obviously the Cardinal is doing. Nothing in his statement makes any comment about the fact of the theological distance between the two is as vast as it is, but if anyone thinks the Cardinal does not grasp that, they are obvioulsy not aware of the fact that a) the Cardinal is nothing short of brilliant, and b) he is no liberal, and c) is better educated in theology and Church practices than the vast majority of people on these threads. It is a sad fact that a number of people on both ends of the spectrum do not know, or do not understand how the Church responds to other faith expressions, nor do they understand why.

Or was this put here to stir up a hornet’s nest?

That is a question for the OP. Again, if people do not understand why the Church does what it does, then posting is a good way for people to learn.

 

[cathguy]

Actually, the LDS is not a “church.” It is a non-Christian group that promotes a non-Christian religion. There isn’t any common reference point between truth and falsehood.

Except where we argue on matters of natural moral law.

However, your point is well taken in that it is difficult to see how Mormonism is Christian.

You are absolutely correct that the Mormons are not a Church, they are a community, or a religion, but not a Church.

I think, for clarity, we could refer to the protestant sects as “ecclesial communities” and the Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses as non-Christian religions.

To keep this in perspective (some Mormons will take offense) it is important for them to understand that the Catholic Church teaches, and has always taught, that there is only ONE Church. The only Christian groups in the world that qualify as Churches are the Roman Catholics, and the Orthodox.

Now… that said.

The Christ of the New Testament is what the Mormon’s profess. They have a VERY flawed understanding of Him, and they have a whole new testament, which is false, called the book of Mormon, and their founders were extremely and viciously anti-Catholic.

When the Cardinal was referring to the common reference point, he was referring to the Christ of the New Testament, Whom the Mormons also claim to profess (albeit… they are wrong).

Is there anything specifically wrong with referring to this common reference point?

 

[ServantofMary]

When the Cardinal was referring to the common reference point, he was referring to the Christ of the New Testament, Whom the Mormons also claim to profess (albeit… they are wrong).

Is there anything specifically wrong with referring to this common reference point?

But the problem is that Mormons completely reject the Christ of the New Testament. They see Christ as a created being, and not God incarnate. This is not a “common reference point” with Catholicism.

Now, if we were talking about Protestants, it would be different, since they agree with us on the nature of Christ. This would be a “common reference point” with them. But not with Mormons.

 

[otjm]

But the problem is that Mormons completely reject the Christ of the New Testament. They see Christ as a created being, and not God incarnate. This is not a “common reference point” with Catholicism.

Now, if we were talking about Protestants, it would be different, since they agree with us on the nature of Christ. This would be a “common reference point” with them. But not with Mormons.

Your problem is that you do not understand the meaning of “reference point”. It is a point from which differences are marked. As such, the Cardinal’s comment is absolutely correct, as both the LDS and the Catholic Church accept that Jesus was born of Mary, lived when we both say he lived, and died for us.

So Jesus is a common reference point, and our differences can be marked from his commonly accepted existence.

You are attempting to make the term “reference point” mean a far greater commonly held doctrinal set of issues than it does.

You are failing to see the subtlety of the Cardinal’s statement.

 

[ServantofMary]

So Jesus is a common reference point, and our differences can be marked from his commonly accepted existence.

Not really, since the Jesus of Mormonism is a completely different person than the Jesus of Christianity. Two completely different persons cannot be a “common reference point” no matter how many times you say that they can.

 

[Adeodatus]

Not really, since the Jesus of Mormonism is a completely different person than the Jesus of Christianity. Two completely different persons cannot be a “common reference point” no matter how many times you say that they can.

Hence the apt nature of my comparison with Islam, which considers Jesus to be a Muslim prophet.

 

[ServantofMary]

What is astounding is your lack of understanding of Church activity with other religions.

The only activity with other religions that the Church should have is to invite them into the Catholic Church, which is the only ark of salvation, outside of which there is no salvation.

 

[Della]

Like I wrote to someone in another thread on this topic, when those who disagree with the Cardinal are elevated to his station and are put into his situation they can do as they please. The Cardinal was asked to speak at a specific place, in front of a specific audience on a specific topic. He wasn’t free to wing it and proselytize. Not only would his words have been unwelcome he wouldn’t have accomplished his purpose, to find an ally against those who would rob all of us of our religious freedoms in this country. Get a grip, people, and see what is going on around you. We can squabble between faith groups all we want but that won’t help us safeguard our rights, which is what the blooming speech was about! Sheesh!

 

[peary]

I guess I don’t have a problem with what the Cardinal said, given that this is in the context of the churches fighting for religious freedom and to combat common issues such as abortion, pornography and other ills of society. Both Catholicism and Mormonism have historically had to fight discrmination in society, originally from the Protestant majority and now from a dominant secular culture that wishes to suppress the ability for churches to have a voice in the cultural debates.

which is interesting because Mormonism IS protestantism.

 

[Della]

which is interesting because Mormonism IS protestantism.

Not really. It’s certainly not mainstream protestantism, if it can be called protestantism any more than Islam, which is also a heresy derived from Judo-Christian beliefs. Mormonism uses Christian terminology, but it is not Christian.

 

[Lormar]

Servant of Mary is right.

 

[ServantofMary]

Like I wrote to someone in another thread on this topic, when those who disagree with the Cardinal are elevated to his station and are put into his situation they can do as they please. The Cardinal was asked to speak at a specific place, in front of a specific audience on a specific topic. He wasn’t free to wing it and proselytize. Not only would his words have been unwelcome he wouldn’t have accomplished his purpose, to find an ally against those who would rob all of us of our religious freedoms in this country. Get a grip, people, and see what is going on around you. We can squabble between faith groups all we want but that won’t help us safeguard our rights, which is what the blooming speech was about! Sheesh!

Proclaiming the Gospel to the lost is much more important than finding an “ally against those who would rob all of us of our religious freedoms in this country.” Jesus sent His apostles (of whom the cardinal is a successor) to proclaim and teach the Gospel. He did not send them out to find political allies.

 

[Della]

Proclaiming the Gospel to the lost is much more important than finding an “ally against those who would rob all of us of our religious freedoms in this country.” Jesus sent His apostles (of whom the cardinal is a successor) to proclaim and teach the Gospel. He did not send them out to find political allies.

If we are robbed of our religious freedom we will not be able to proclaim the gospel in the public square. If you don’t think that’s important you must be living under a rock somewhere. As I wrote, when you become a cardinal you can do as you please. And if you feel so strongly about it, don’t tell us, write the Cardinal for clarification.

 

[Adeodatus]

Like I wrote to someone in another thread on this topic, when those who disagree with the Cardinal are elevated to his station and are put into his situation they can do as they please.

Let’s not slip into ecclesial idolatry. There’s no doctrine of “episcopal infallibility”. It is possible for a Cardinal, a prince of the Church, to be dead wrong about something, or to do something dumb.

If someone publically makes a statement that is gravely in error and potentially damaging to the faith, it is good to firmly point that out. Lest others be led into sin or confusion.

The Cardinal may be a fine man… for all I know, he is. That’s totally irrelevant because we’re not supposed to judge his heart anyway. His statement constitutes a text, and the laity is allowed to discuss and critique this text. His words ain’t the Bible, and they ain’t an infallible doctrine of the Catholic Church. They’re just this guy’s opinion.

It’s reflexive forelock-tugging that has gotten us into lots of trouble in the past. It’s time that we as Catholics grow up and accept the distinction between loyal obedience and unthinking obedience.

If we were in a Communist dictatorship, we’d find ourselves in the same boat as the Wiccans (religion outlawed). That doesn’t mean we’re supposed to pretend that we have common cause with them.

 

[Della]

Let’s not slip into ecclesial idolatry. There’s no doctrine of “episcopal infallibility”. It is possible for a Cardinal, a prince of the Church, to be dead wrong about something, or to do something dumb.

If someone publically makes a statement that is gravely in error and potentially damaging to the faith, it is good to firmly point that out. Lest others be led into sin or confusion.

The Cardinal may be a fine man… for all I know, he is. That’s totally irrelevant because we’re not supposed to judge his heart anyway. His statement constitutes a text, and the laity is allowed to discuss and critique this text. His words ain’t the Bible, and they ain’t an infallible doctrine of the Catholic Church. They’re just this guy’s opinion.

It’s reflexive forelock-tugging that has gotten us into lots of trouble in the past. It’s time that we as Catholics grow up and accept the distinction between loyal obedience and unthinking obedience.

If we were in a Communist dictatorship, we’d find ourselves in the same boat as the Wiccans (religion outlawed). That doesn’t mean we’re supposed to pretend that we have common cause with them.

Are you serious? Please.

 

[Bran_Stark]

I’m neither a Catholic nor a Latter-day saint (I think both groups are pretty wrong), so I can speak without bias here.

His Eminence’s acknowledgment that Mormons believe in Christ is, I think, a very truthful and measured statement. It doesn’t mean they agree *about * Him, no more than a flat-earther and a hollow-earther agree when both say they believe in the earth.