Ecumenism with the LDS Church

  • Thread starter Thread starter Tannhauser_1509
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
venite_adoremus said:
Ecumenism, to be pursued, must consider the three realms of what constitutes faith. Would such pursuit be fruitful? Ecumenism necessitates a joining together, a subsuming of one by the other. Logically, it cannot happen.

(1) Governance. Two completely different systems prevail. Both claim apostolic succession. One is historical from the first century after Christ; the other is restored and historical only from the 19th century. Peter was appointed to be the rock upon which the Church would be built, by Christ himself. One system asserts the successors of Peter in his see alone were Linus, Cletus, Clement, Sixtus, and over a hundred and fifty others. The other system asserts succession from a visionary appearance of Peter, James, and John to ordain a totally new line (by the way, LDS friends, what is the exact date of this event?–on what date was the “Melchisedek priesthood” actually restored?–be specific, please). We can appreciate apples and oranges, but is combining them even possible? Ecumenism would fail here.

(2) Sacrament. Two completely different systems prevail. Let us consider, for the moment, the roots of the word “sacrament.” It comes from the French, which in turn comes from the Latin. Many words in the early Church had to be taken from common usage and given new meanings (much as we would invent words in our own time, such as “bit” and “byte” for computer data, “internet” for this marvel of communication, “astronaut” for someone who flew to the moon). When Christ instituted the sacraments, he introduced something new to human history. “Sacrament” acquired a working definition as “sacred means,” these new, saving, mystical avenues through which God gives grace and humans accept it by outward and visible signs. For Catholics, there are seven of these sacred means. For LDS, there is but one meaning for the word, the bread and water commemoration of the Lord’s Supper. Instead, LDS have ordinances, which are said in some cases to date back to Adam. They are not the same thing.

(3) Creed. There are significant insurmountable issues here separating the two systems, starting from the very words to be used in framing the discussion. Words like: apostasy, scripture, Sacred Tradition, redemption, atonement, grace, conceived by the Holy Spirit, forgiveness of sins, original sin, salvation, exaltation, correct translation, and so forth. Even using the Apostles’ Creed, rather than the Athanasian Creed (and all its incomprehensibility as so often quoted in LDS literature as a “clear statement”), as the baseline for discussion of what Catholic Christians believe, there is no comparison with the LDS Articles of Faith.

We can be friends. We cannot be united. Enjoy the conversation.
Click to expand...
Hi Venite. If you read the first few pages of the thread, the dialogue as turned more to joining in respectful manner as fellow human beings, not joining the churches via creed or sacrament.
 
jane_doe said:
I mean that I feel sad for them. It is a very sad thing to abandon the commands of our Lord.
Click to expand...
I hear you. But consider the Muslims: are they a missionary people? No. Do they still send a message? Yes. And no, not always through war.
 
Marie5890 said:
In what way do you pity them? (In what way are you using the word “pity”)

Interestingly, I see it the same way as I see getting telemarketing calls. Annoying. And I think that we have come to a point in our cultural where that kind of prostylizing is seen much in the same ways as telemarketing. Just my observations based on what I hear from others.

Infact the JW’s in my area, because I lived in a closed community, take to making phone calls and sending letters The letters never get opened and the phone # gets blocked. To the LDS missionaries credit, they don’t bother with our community, either by phone or letters.

That is where I see it as more as marketing.
I can evangelize the Gospel by how I live my life without opening my mouth.
Click to expand...
I was going to make a similar comparison, but was afraid to be so forthright.
 
There’s not enough common ground to warrant any of these types of conversations, and there’s really nothing to be gained by the Catholic church. Now if you’re just interested in joining forces on social/cultural issues, that’s another story. However, even with that, on most topics mormons are too inward facing to look outside of their normal circle. A great example of this is the pro-life movement. There’s a reason that evangelicals and Catholics are the primary groups involved.
 
venite_adoremus said:
Ecumenism, to be pursued, must consider the three realms of what constitutes faith. Would such pursuit be fruitful? Ecumenism necessitates a joining together, a subsuming of one by the other. Logically, it cannot happen.

(1) Governance. Two completely different systems prevail. Both claim apostolic succession. One is historical from the first century after Christ; the other is restored and historical only from the 19th century. Peter was appointed to be the rock upon which the Church would be built, by Christ himself. One system asserts the successors of Peter in his see alone were Linus, Cletus, Clement, Sixtus, and over a hundred and fifty others. The other system asserts succession from a visionary appearance of Peter, James, and John to ordain a totally new line (by the way, LDS friends, what is the exact date of this event?–on what date was the “Melchisedek priesthood” actually restored?–be specific, please). We can appreciate apples and oranges, but is combining them even possible? Ecumenism would fail here.

(2) Sacrament. Two completely different systems prevail. Let us consider, for the moment, the roots of the word “sacrament.” It comes from the French, which in turn comes from the Latin. Many words in the early Church had to be taken from common usage and given new meanings (much as we would invent words in our own time, such as “bit” and “byte” for computer data, “internet” for this marvel of communication, “astronaut” for someone who flew to the moon). When Christ instituted the sacraments, he introduced something new to human history. “Sacrament” acquired a working definition as “sacred means,” these new, saving, mystical avenues through which God gives grace and humans accept it by outward and visible signs. For Catholics, there are seven of these sacred means. For LDS, there is but one meaning for the word, the bread and water commemoration of the Lord’s Supper. Instead, LDS have ordinances, which are said in some cases to date back to Adam. They are not the same thing.

(3) Creed. There are significant insurmountable issues here separating the two systems, starting from the very words to be used in framing the discussion. Words like: apostasy, scripture, Sacred Tradition, redemption, atonement, grace, conceived by the Holy Spirit, forgiveness of sins, original sin, salvation, exaltation, correct translation, and so forth. Even using the Apostles’ Creed, rather than the Athanasian Creed (and all its incomprehensibility as so often quoted in LDS literature as a “clear statement”), as the baseline for discussion of what Catholic Christians believe, there is no comparison with the LDS Articles of Faith.

We can be friends. We cannot be united. Enjoy the conversation.
Click to expand...
Thanks for that break down venite. 🙂
 
Tannhauser_1509 said:
I hear you. But consider the Muslims: are they a missionary people? No. Do they still send a message? Yes. And no, not always through war.
Click to expand...
Islam is the fastest growing religion in the world. And you are right, they do it without missionaries. Yet they get their message out
 
Marie5890 said:
Islam is the fastest growing religion in the world. And you are right, they do it without missionaries. Yet they get their message out
Click to expand...
It’s a little apples and oranges comparison.
  1. Islam is the fastest growing religion due to birth rate in underdeveloped countries
  2. Many Islamic countries don’t have freedom of religion and hence their citizens have no choice of faith.
 
jane_doe said:
It’s a little apples and oranges comparison.
  1. Islam is the fastest growing religion due to birth rate in underdeveloped countries
  2. Many Islamic countries don’t have freedom of religion and hence their citizens have no choice of faith.
Click to expand...
You’re right, you’re right. That wasn’t my intention. And I don’t have to highlight just Islam. I could name any pursuit of faith, whether it be Zen Buddhists, New Agers, etc. My point was, the message of a person’s faith is best found in the mundane lives of regular people.
 
Tannhauser_1509 said:
You’re right, you’re right. That wasn’t my intention. And I don’t have to highlight just Islam. I could name any pursuit of faith, whether it be Zen Buddhists, New Agers, etc. My point was, the message of a person’s faith is best found in the mundane lives of regular people.
Click to expand...
I hear ya 🙂
 
jane_doe said:
I hear ya 🙂
Click to expand...
So how do you see the proselytizing work of your Church? A hindrance to fair dialogue, or the best way to share the message of Christ across the board (“across the board” meaning the technique is used the same way in practically all parts of the world, if I’m not mistaken)?
 
Tannhauser_1509 said:
So how do you see the proselytizing work of your Church? A hindrance to fair dialogue, or the best way to share the message of Christ across the board (“across the board” meaning the technique is used the same way in practically all parts of the world, if I’m not mistaken)?
Click to expand...
Actually, Mormon missionary techniques to very across the globe. For instance, in the US door-to-door style is being abandoned whereas digital style is being expanded (these are both due to culture). On the other hand, like in Peru (where my sister recently was a missionary) people interact door-to-door all the time (it’s the culture) and there’s practically nothing done digitally (internet is very lacking).

I do find proselytizing work (of any faith) to be of benefit, both to those who listen (regardless if they convert) and the missionary themselves (examining faith deeper). I fear a world where people have made it taboo to talk about faith (of any stripe) as a world where Satan has won.
 
I like and respect individual Mormons.

However ecumenical dialogue with them is not, and nor will it ever be, possible.

Mormons by traditional defenition cannot be regarded as catholic. Here I am using catholic as meaning part of the universal church, ie eastern, western and oriental churches. These are the only churches that the Roman church can have ecumenical dialogue with.

Mormons are polytheist. We are monothesit.

We do not share the same scriptures.

Are moromons christian? What is the defenition of a christian? Is it someone who accepts the first 7 ecumenical councils? If so they are not christian. Is it someone who believes in one triune god? If so they are not christian. Is it someone who follows Jesus Christ? Maybe then they could be considered christian, but of course their Jesus was in America.

We do not recognize their baptism. So how can we regard them as christian?

A quote from catholic.com:

Mormons believe that God is only one of many gods who were once men and that each of us in turn can become what God is now. This process of men becoming gods is said to go back infinitely. But of course none of these gods can be infinite if they are multiple and had a beginning and are actually human beings. In Mormons’ view, both Jesus and the Father are what we would call glorified creatures.

catholic.com/quickquestions/why-doesnt-the-catholic-church-accept-mormon-baptism
 
Where I used to live, the LDS Temple put on a brilliant Christmas lights display that was quite popular state-wide. The year I went to see it, I also went into their little museum which beautifully depicted their faith. In this museum, no particular doctrine was displayed. It was all about Jesus and his love for mankind. This touched my heart so much, that I came out of their museum giving thanks and praise to God.

Despite our doctrinal differences, surely, the strong and main foundation that can be built upon is God and His love for us.
 
jane_doe said:
Actually, Mormon missionary techniques to very across the globe. For instance, in the US door-to-door style is being abandoned whereas digital style is being expanded (these are both due to culture). On the other hand, like in Peru (where my sister recently was a missionary) people interact door-to-door all the time (it’s the culture) and there’s practically nothing done digitally (internet is very lacking).

I do find proselytizing work (of any faith) to be of benefit, both to those who listen (regardless if they convert) and the missionary themselves (examining faith deeper). I fear a world where people have made it taboo to talk about faith (of any stripe) as a world where Satan has won.
Click to expand...
Not proselytizing is not the same thing as not talking about religion and proselytizing (trying to get someone to follow your church) is not the same thing as sharing the good news of Jesus Christ.

No matter how the missionary’s techniques vary from place to place or time to time, the sole aim is to get people to discard what they have and be baptized into the LDS church. LDS missionaries have no interest in the whole person, no interest in discussion and getting to know the beliefs of others. They teach they are not taught. If the person is not interested in converting they will see nothing more of the missionaries. Proselytizing is disrespectful of the other person, at is foundation it says, you should not be who you are you should be who I am and I am only interested in you if you are willing to become like me.
 
Tannhauser_1509 said:
Does anyone feel the Church should enter into better dialogue with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints? We each represent a substantial body of believers with great influence and powerful moral authority, yet great doctrinal and theological division. I know it may be hard to engage the LDS doctrinally, given their decentralized engagement with theology and moral philosophy, but would anyone like to see Rome start taking this growing organization with greater attentiveness?
Click to expand...
LDS should be given the same opportunity as any other organization of similar size and moral make-up that is outside of the Catholic Church. And I believe they are.
 
Working together on social issues? Sure. Real ecumenism? Nope.

The Catholic Church’s priority with ecumenism should be with the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox Churches. There is far more common ground than with the LDS church. The Church really needs to fully breathe with both lungs. This is the unity I pray for, especially since it directly affects my family as my husband’s extended family are Orthodox.

While many Mormons do not focus on attempting to convert others, many others do. That is the whole purpose of the missionary program after all.

I have seen LDS missionaries do more service work on their missions than in the past such as volunteering at food banks. This is a good thing and I think most missionaries enjoy this more than other missionary duties. However, there have been (hopefully) isolated examples of missionaries engaging in unethical practices such as sneaking information of food bank beneficiaries for proselyting. No, I don’t have links because the blogs have gone private and the blog posts bragging about such antics have been removed. I see this happening primarily because of immaturity on the part of the missionaries and the pressure on LDS missionaries to produce numbers of contacts, discussions and baptisms. I think a lot of young Mormons would rather spend their time on missions doing real service work in the greater community rather than focusing on proselytizing.
 
zaffiroborant said:
Not proselytizing is not the same thing as not talking about religion and proselytizing (trying to get someone to follow your church) is not the same thing as sharing the good news of Jesus Christ.

No matter how the missionary’s techniques vary from place to place or time to time, the sole aim is to get people to discard what they have and be baptized into the LDS church. LDS missionaries have no interest in the whole person, no interest in discussion and getting to know the beliefs of others. They teach they are not taught. If the person is not interested in converting they will see nothing more of the missionaries. Proselytizing is disrespectful of the other person, at is foundation it says, you should not be who you are you should be who I am and I am only interested in you if you are willing to become like me.
Click to expand...
Thank you for your well articulated thoughts Zaffiroborant. I really appreciate hearing them, even if we disagree on the matter.
 
Just wanted to point our that ecumenism by definition does not apply to Mormons. This is because ecumenism is tied to our common baptism and completing the unity begun by baptism, and Mormons are not baptized.

Here’s how Cardinal Kasper (then in charge of ecumenism) explained the difference between ecumenism and interreligious dialogue (my emphasis):
Cardinal Kasper:
There is a specific, qualitative difference between them and, therefore, they should not be confused. Ecumenical dialogues are not only based on the tolerance and respect due for every human and religious conviction; nor are they founded solely on liberal philanthropy or mere polite courtesy; on the contrary, ecumenical dialogue is rooted in the common faith in Jesus Christ and the reciprocal recognition of baptism, which means that all the baptized become members of the one Body of Christ (cf. Gal 3,28); I Cor 12,13; Ut unum sint, n. 42) and can pray the"Our Father" together, as Jesus taught us. In other religions the Church recognizes a ray of that truth “that enlightens every man” (Jn 1,9), but is revealed in its fullness only in Jesus Christ; only he is “the Way, the Truth and the Life” (Jn 14,6; cf. Nostra aetate, n. 2). It is therefore ambiguous to refer to interreligious dialogue in terms of macro-ecumenism or of a new and vaster phase of ecumenism.

Christians and the followers of other religions can pray, but cannot pray together. Every form of syncretism is to be excluded.
Click to expand...
vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/documents/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_20020107_peace-kasper_en.html
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top