Catholic to Mormon to Catholic?

[BRB]

I prayed for faith and (I know it sounds “Protestant”) I felt Jesus come into my heart. I knew right then that the Presence I felt was Jesus’ Presence in the Eucharist before me in the Tabernacle. I still wasn’t sure how it could be true, but at that moment, I knew that Jesus was God.
Jesus wanted me to take that first step in faith before he answered all my doubts. In this way, I knew that I was really choosing Him for His sake, not simply because I had my intellectual curiosities satisfied. This is why the traditional definition of theology as “faith seeking understanding” has always meant so much for me. Once I had the faith, then the understanding came so much more easily.

)

As testified to above by Joe Catholic …

Catholics also receive personal ‘private’ revelations. Protestants call it Rebirth/Born Again experiences … cradle Catholics generally use other terminology.

But, whatever it is called … its Supernatural Grace coming to one from outside our minds/universe of knowledge. We know its true because the Gospels and Epistles attest to the rebirth experience in great detail. Christ promised to reveal himself to us via H.S. … and what Christ promises — he always delivers on.

But, its not the Gnostic or Mormon accounts of special revelations in traditions of J.Smith, or any other charlatan.

The true revelations are only thru the Person of Christ and his H.S. To seek revelations from any other … is at great peril and sure err.

 

[1holycatholic]

If I haven’t seen it felt it or touched it, I don’t believe.

When I read your posts I honestly don’t see a love for the LDS faith or even for the truth. I see a quest for the “experience” or “testimony” like you are seeking an emotional high.

Instead of focusing on yourself by seeking “experiences” or “testimonies” seek God for His own sake, not yours.

You need to reconcile with God and come back into communion with His Church, *the Catholic Church, *which the Bible calls “the pillar and foundation of truth” (1 Tim. 3:15).

 

[Little_Katie]

C2M2C,

I don’t have anything very intelligent or helpful to say, because everyone else has pretty much covered it! I just wanted to let you know that I will be praying for you. Hang in there. I’m also praying for your family to be understanding of this huge spiritual trial you are going through.

I don’t know what I can say to assure you that you are on your way back ‘home’ so to speak, in the one true church, but I do hope that once you realize this truth for yourself that it will fill you and your wife in kids with a great sense of peace and happiness.

 

[mfbukowski]

As testified to above by Joe Catholic …

Catholics also receive personal ‘private’ revelations. Protestants call it Rebirth/Born Again experiences … cradle Catholics generally use other terminology.

But, whatever it is called … its Supernatural Grace coming to one from outside our minds/universe of knowledge. We know its true because the Gospels and Epistles attest to the rebirth experience in great detail. Christ promised to reveal himself to us via H.S. … and what Christ promises — he always delivers on.

But, its not the Gnostic or Mormon accounts of special revelations in traditions of J.Smith, or any other charlatan.

The true revelations are only thru the Person of Christ and his H.S. To seek revelations from any other … is at great peril and sure err.

I knew it couldn’t last

 

[mfbukowski]

When I read your posts I honestly don’t see a love for the LDS faith or even for the truth. I see a quest for the “experience” or “testimony” like you are seeking an emotional high.

Instead of focusing on yourself by seeking “experiences” or “testimonies” seek God for His own sake, not yours.

You need to reconcile with God and come back into communion with His Church, *the Catholic Church, *which the Bible calls “the pillar and foundation of truth” (1 Tim. 3:15).

I think only experience can verify truth, and that lingusitic truth is a property of propositions that are definable. So talking about this stuff is not easy.

But the notion of seeking God for HIS sake is an interesting one. Why do you think he needs you? Much less me?

 

[Joe_5859]

I think only experience can verify truth, and that lingusitic truth is a property of propositions that are definable. So talking about this stuff is not easy.

But the notion of seeking God for HIS sake is an interesting one. Why do you think he needs you? Much less me?

I can’t speak for 1holycatholic, but when I use this type of terminology (such as when I said in my previous post that I believed in Jesus for His sake and not my own), I don’t mean to say that God needs me. Of course God doesn’t need any of us. But he wants and desires us to be united with Him. Again, this is not because He needs us but because He loves us and knows that this is the only way we can be truly (and eternally) happy.

It’s basically another way of saying that you’re acting in such a way, not for personal, selfish reasons, but because it’s what God wants.

It’s a difficult standard to live up to, but the ideal is that everything we do would be motivated purely by love for God and the desire to live out His will solely because He is worthy of our love and obedience, not because we might get something in return. Like it says in Isaiah 64, even our good deeds are like a filthy rag/polluted garment. It’s hard not to have an ulterior motive, but that’s the ideal we strive towards. I think some of the saints come closest to doing this. I don’t think I’m quite there yet, but I’m trying.

 

[hosemonkey]

I knew it couldn’t last

And it cannot last, because Truth must always speak out against error. Error is represented by the false religion of mormonism, Truth, by the Church that Jesus Christ Himself founded, the Church that you allege has fallen into “apostacy”, negating the promise of Our Lord Himself.

 

[RebeccaJ]

You needed to be in a church that is based on history. (Not to admit that yours is not based on experience and mine is not based on history – it is a difference in emphasis) I really believe that God teaches us in different schools

Not my need. I was an atheist, and a former Mormon. I had already rejected Mormonism, completely. I never went searching for “historical truth”. I went searching for God. The historical truths of Catholicism are a gigantic bonus for me. And as time goes by and I learn more, I am only astounded even more. But it just one piece.

The reason I am Catholic is because of Jesus Christ. It was He who led me to His Church. Being an atheist with a Mormon upbringing, my atheism was based on what I believed about God the Father, as Mormonism teaches. I had huge hatred and anger for that god. Jesus, in my atheist years, I just thought of a nice historical fellow that held many humanist views that I had when I was an atheist.

When I decided to learn about God, I thought about many different belief systems. I decided to stick with Christianity, because of Jesus. And I decided to look at the Christian Church that had been around the longest. So I guess history played an important part there.

But I couldn’t view Protestant churches as any more correct than Mormonism. To me, they both look (and are) man made. The important historical aspect for me here, is WHO founded the church and why.

I think it was GK Chesterton who said that an atheist should be careful about what they read.

You see history as a focus here, in this forum, because a lot of the apologetics are in answer to Protestanism. And, Mormonism has held onto many aspects of its roots, including Protestant beliefs. And it is by history and Sacred Tradition that both Mormonism and Protestanism can be seen as in error. It is almost too simple.

That is why I told you your rejection of history says something about the purposes and intent of your testimony. It has made you unable to look at, or find value, in even the simplest things. It blocks you from understanding truth.

Mormonism is very young, and you tend to ditch your history, and you have ditched all of Christian history (including Sacred Traditions). But you do have your own sacred traditions. You just call them something different (not sure what). Your D&C certainly is very important to your faith. The lives of your early church leaders, you look to them and their writings to understand your faith better. Even your handcart trek reenactments are a faithful nod to your sacred tradition.

It is no different for a Catholic, just, we have a VAST and beyond HUGE deposit of faith that we can plumb the depths of for a lifetime.

 

[1holycatholic]

I can’t speak for 1holycatholic, but when I use this type of terminology (such as when I said in my previous post that I believed in Jesus for His sake and not my own), I don’t mean to say that God needs me. Of course God doesn’t need any of us. But he wants and desires us to be united with Him. Again, this is not because He needs us but because He loves us and knows that this is the only way we can be truly (and eternally) happy.

It’s basically another way of saying that you’re acting in such a way, not for personal, selfish reasons, but because it’s what God wants.

It’s a difficult standard to live up to, but the ideal is that everything we do would be motivated purely by love for God and the desire to live out His will solely because He is worthy of our love and obedience, not because we might get something in return. Like it says in Isaiah 64, even our good deeds are like a filthy rag/polluted garment. It’s hard not to have an ulterior motive, but that’s the ideal we strive towards. I think some of the saints come closest to doing this. I don’t think I’m quite there yet, but I’m trying.

 

[mfbukowski]

Thanks guys! Interesting stuff, and I think we are really very close to being on the same wavelength for once. The closer we get to Christ the closer we get to eachother. I think we can agree on that.

So what do we do about the doctrinal differences? These rely on different interpretations of scripture, different scriptures. Those doctrines make a very real difference in the way we live our lives.

Is this where we part company, or is there a way to reconcile?

For example, I see remnants of celestial marriage both in the new testament and in the greek orthodox tradition.

You do not see it, we disagree on scripture, and on tradition.

Maybe the question to ask is at what point do these doctrinal differences make a difference to God? I don’t know if we can answer that one.

Pardon me for not remembering the terminology, but you have that “inescapable ignorance” or whatever it is, and we have the notion that in the spirit world, our progression and quest for truth can continue. I see both as similar ideas, in that if we have really done the best we can here, somehow we can make up for it there.

So at what point do the differences make a difference?

 

[BRB]

Thanks guys! Interesting stuff, and I think we are really very close to being on the same wavelength for once.

Is this where we part company, or is there a way to reconcile?

?

You do realize Catholics never compromise on their beliefs

Dialogue yes … but, principles are not negotiable.

 

[RebeccaJ]

So what do we do about the doctrinal differences? These rely on different interpretations of scripture, different scriptures. Those doctrines make a very real difference in the way we live our lives.

Be Catholic!

Pardon me for not remembering the terminology, but you have that “inescapable ignorance” or whatever it is,

Invisible ignorance.

and we have the notion that in the spirit world, our progression and quest for truth can continue. I see both as similar ideas, in that if we have really done the best we can here, somehow we can make up for it there.

Catholicism has no notion of “quest for truth” after death. We believe we will be judged according to our knowledge and understanding.

So at what point do the differences make a difference?

When Mormon missionaries knock on my door. Or Mormons show up here, acting as missionaries.

 

[hosemonkey]

So at what point do the differences make a difference?

At the point where you attempt to propose that “one religion is as good as another.” That is called the sin of “indifferentism” and it is mortal. We, as Catholics, have the duty, among others, “to instruct the ignorant,” the ignorant being those who do not know the Truths of Christ’s Gospel as taught and preserved and guarded by His Holy catholic church. You are attempting to make that proposal. “Can’t we all just get along?” Nope, mormonism is in error and we cannot ignore that fact, especially when innocents are led away from the true Faith.

 

[po18guy]

C2M2C,

I don’t have anything very intelligent or helpful to say, because everyone else has pretty much covered it! I just wanted to let you know that I will be praying for you. Hang in there. I’m also praying for your family to be understanding of this huge spiritual trial you are going through.

I don’t know what I can say to assure you that you are on your way back ‘home’ so to speak, in the one true church, but I do hope that once you realize this truth for yourself that it will fill you and your wife in kids with a great sense of peace and happiness.

I note, with some interest, that only LDS seem to be in such a vexing moral/spiritual quandry upon doubting the veracity of their faith. Many Protestants simply seek a fuller relationship with God in Christ. Switch churches? No problem, they simply move up, with the leading of the Holy Spirit. The LDS agonize over this, specifically when their increasing doubts in JS/BoM naturally lead to doubts about their god. Thus, they cannot, for a time, believe in a God they’ve never actually known. Disillusionment and subsequent atheism naturally follow.

Combine this with the LDS rejection and shunning that is a hallmark of their “enforced beliefs”, and you have the recipe for many members who go through the motions, but are devoid of any true faith. It is the spiritual wasteland that results from the “great deception”.

 

[Joe_5859]

Pardon me for not remembering the terminology, but you have that “inescapable ignorance” or whatever it is,

Invisible ignorance.

Isn’t it invincible ignorance? That’s the term used in Gaudium et Spes 16, anyway.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Isn’t it invincible ignorance? That’s the term used in Gaudium et Spes 16, anyway.

lol. yes. I swear that is what is in my head but typing came out invisible . It’s a new term…ignorance that can be seen.

 

[Joe_5859]

lol. yes. I swear that is what is in my head but typing came out invisible . It’s a new term…ignorance that can be seen.

I thought that might be the case. The spelling is awfully similar.

I think I do know quite a few people suffering from invisible ignorance, though. At least, they certainly seem unable to see their own ignorance when it sweems so obvious to me!

 

[C2M2C]

To all:

I have been reading extensively about Apostolic Succession and have found that Protestants claim that the this doctrine is false based on historical fact i.e. there are several churches; The Roman Catholic Church, Eastern Catholic Churches, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Anglican Church, the Old Catholic Church as well as some Lutheran Churches in Scandinavian countries, all of which differ doctrinally as much as Catholics & Protestants do. So if Apostolic Succession is a true doctrine then why the divide and why the doctrinal differences? If Christ told the original 12 that they were to guide the church under the direction of the Holy Spirit, then who first went wrong?

 

[C2M2C]

Another issue that I have been contemplating and one that is bothering my wife. As Mormons we claim to have the Priesthood as conferred upon JS by Peter, James, & John. Having that authority, we claim to have the power to anoint the sick and give blessings of healing. I have blessed my kids many times when they were sick to then see them shortly thereafter rebound miraculously. My wife says she can’t imagine not having the Priesthood in our home. My response is that if the LDS church is not true, then I don’t have the Priesthood; never did, never will.

Reconciling what seemed to be a miracle, and in other cases answers to prayers is something that has been difficult for us to understand. Mormons claim that all men can be blessed by the power of prayer and can have the spirit of God with them to guide them from time to time, but that it’s only righteous Mormons who have it with them all the time. My guess is that the Catholic answer to this is what the Mormons would say? I was blessed by my faith to pray but not because of the Priesthood that I thought I had and thought I was exercising?

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

To all:

I have been reading extensively about Apostolic Succession and have found that Protestants claim that the this doctrine is false based on historical fact i.e. there are several churches; The Roman Catholic Church, Eastern Catholic Churches, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Anglican Church, the Old Catholic Church as well as some Lutheran Churches in Scandinavian countries, all of which differ doctrinally as much as Catholics & Protestants do. So if Apostolic Succession is a true doctrine then why the divide and why the doctrinal differences? If Christ told the original 12 that they were to guide the church under the direction of the Holy Spirit, then who first went wrong?

Trying to find the truth in Protestant writings can be challenging to say the least. With an estimated 35,000 denominations, I think you’d be better off looking at information offered through the individual Churches you’ve listed yourself.

Lutheran Churches were not formed until Martin Luther’s ‘reformation’ which broke away from the Catholic Church in the 1500s. If not mistaken, Lutherans consider themselves Protestants.

Anglican Churches are part of the Church of England which also considers itself to be Protestant.

Events such as Henry VIII’s schism with the Roman Catholic Church or the excommunication of Elizabeth I or the wider Reformation in mainland Europe are all events that contributed to the establishment of the Church of England, but are regarded as a continuation of the arrival of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church to the British Isles.

The Old Catholic Church split from the Catholic Church in the 1870s.

The Old Catholic Church is a Catholic (non-Roman Catholic: see also Orthodox Church, independent Catholic) denomination originating with churches (many of them German-speaking) that split from the Roman Catholic Church in the 1870s because they disagreed with the dogmatization of the doctrine of papal infallibility promulgated by the First Vatican Council of 1869–1870.

You can read more to explain the Eastern Orthodoxy at the library of Catholic Answers.

After the western Roman Empire collapsed in A.D. 476, the eastern half continued under the title of the Byzantine Empire and was headquartered in Constantinople. The patriarch of that city had jurisdiction over the patriarchates of Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem, and served under the emperor, who ruled those lands with military might. In the East, the emperor wielded tremendous influence in church affairs. Some emperors even claimed to be equal in authority to the twelve apostles, and as such claimed to have the power to appoint the patriarch of Constantinople. Although the two offices were legally autonomous, in practice the patriarch served at the emperor’s pleasure. Many patriarchs of Constantinople were good and holy bishops who ruled well and resisted imperial encroachments on church matters, but it is difficult to withstand the designs of power-hungry or meddlesome emperors with armed soldiers at their disposal.

The patriarch often attempted to bolster his position in the universal Church to give himself more leverage in dealing with the emperor, and this usually brought him into conflict with Rome.

During the years of conflict between East and West, the Roman pontiff remained firm, defending the Catholic faith against heresies and unruly or immoral secular powers, especially the Byzantine emperor. The first conflict came when Emperor Constantius appointed an Arian heretic as patriarch. Pope Julian excommunicated the patriarch in 343, and Constantinople remained in schism until John Chrysostom assumed the patriarchate in 398.

Ironically, in the Church’s eighth-century struggle against the Iconoclastic heresy (which sought to eliminate all sacred images), it was the pope and the Western bishops mainly who fought for the Catholic practice of venerating icons, which is still very much a part of Orthodox liturgy and spirituality. The patriarch of Constantinople sided with the heretical, iconoclastic emperors.

Schism of 1054.

The Norman conquest of southern Italy helped touch off the Great Schism between Eastern and Western Christendom. When the Catholic Normans took over the Byzantine-Rite Greek colonies in southern Italy, they compelled the Greek communities there to adopt the Latin-Rite custom of using unleavened bread for the Eucharist. This caused great aggravation among the Greek Catholics because it went against their ancient custom of using leavened bread.

In response, Patriarch Cerularius ordered all of the Latin-Rite communities in Constantinople to conform to the Eastern practice of using leavened bread. You can imagine the uproar that ensued. The Latins refused, so the patriarch closed their churches and sent a hostile letter to Pope Leo IX.

I’m sure there are others who know more than I can offer, but I’d like to add, as I’ve stated before, it’s better to search for God’s will than to seek a Church or doctrine that “feels comfortable” or convienent to one’s lifestyle. It’s all about obedience to God.