Either Catholics or Mormons have it right...

[onenow1]

KathleenGee,

As you may be aware, the New Testament doesn’t say nor does it imply that the apostles had a delegable “power to forgive sins”.

John 20:22 And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost:
23 Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained.

They would need the inspiration of the Holy Ghost as to the worthiness of the person and the sincerity of a person’s repentance. (This means they would need revelation, by the way–so ultimately the Holy Ghost is providing the guidance to the apostles about what should be done in each and every case.)

But they were not told they could delegate that authority. That authority was given singularly to the apostles–only to them, not to anyone else.

Have a great day.

Untrue ! You obviously are not Trinitarian !

Matthew 16:17 And Jesus answered him, "Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven.

18 And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it.

19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

God Bless

 

[ParkerD]

Untrue !

Matthew 16:17 And Jesus answered him, "Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven.

18 And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it.

19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

God Bless

OneNow1,

Thanks. I do feel blessed in my life. At the moment, I feel particularly blessed in that my family has needed some recent help from heaven and has received that help in a particular way that involved health.

As far as the relationship between Peter and Christ, it was a unique relationship indeed–Peter was “you” and Christ was “I”, and Christ gave to Peter a unique and singular role at that moment in time. Nothing says that it was a delegable role nor a delegable authority.

 

[catholic-rcia]

Catholic-RCIA,
Are you saying the “sacrament of confession” was given in 1 Corinthians 2? Do you think repentance ought to accompany “confession”, and that as a person repents they will be making changes in their life so that they become a better person?

Are you saying Solomon was wrong to ask for wisdom, and that the Bible is wrong in saying that God gave him wisdom?

We certainly can’t be perfect “in our own right”, and we do need Him to lift us up and provide unmerited grace, if that’s what you mean.

All of the Gospels are about the forgiveness of our sins. Jesus died on the Cross for me a sinner. You can see this sinful nature, this game being played in 1 Cor 2. You can see how it is dealt with in love, in humility, because of the forgiveness of sins.

One should be aware of ones sin in order to stay close to Jesus. When the baggage gets a bit to heavy we turn to Jesus where he takes away this baggage, reminding us that we are loved by Him and that there is no greater love. He whispers go in peace and love and sin no more. He knows we are trying, doing the best that we can, in this giving all praise and glory to Him, knowing His victory and what it means to stay close to Him through the Sacrament of Confession. A very special relationship. Like the relationship a patient has with a really good physician, where hiding anything would not help. You lay it all on the table and you allow this physician to do His work, His mission being one of healing.

You can not be healed if you are convinced that you are ok.
Parker, It’s never about us becoming a better person. Its always about allowing Jesus to become bigger in us. He is what makes us a better person , not us. He gives us the choice to choose. Its not about laws to follow. Its about a daily personal relationship with Jesus. The laws just fall into place naturally.

Jesus is the one who makes the change in us. We are believers in the most Holy Trinity. The fountain of Life itself.

As to your question regarding soloman
the answer is no. I am saying it is Gods Wisdom not Solomons. Nothing wrong with asking for Wisdom as long as we know we have no ownership over it. It is a gift from God to be shared, to be entrusted with. Confession of our sins helps with this trust. Not forgetting who we are compared to who Jesus is.

“We certainly can’t be perfect “in our own right”, and we do need Him to lift us up and provide unmerited grace, if that’s what you mean.”

Could not be better said!
Without Him nothing would exist, ya we need Jesus…

Parker, please comment on the following link:

**THE ETERNAL WISDOM **
utahmission.com/pages/cHumility_page.html

 

[SteveVH]

KathleenGee,

As you may be aware, the New Testament doesn’t say nor does it imply that the apostles had a delegable “power to forgive sins”.

John 20:22 And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost:
23 Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained.

They would need the inspiration of the Holy Ghost as to the worthiness of the person and the sincerity of a person’s repentance. (This means they would need revelation, by the way–so ultimately the Holy Ghost is providing the guidance to the apostles about what should be done in each and every case.)

Parker, it is not the job of a priest to determine the worthiness of the person. The entire reason that a person has come to the sacrament of Reconciliation is because they are unworthy. The mere act of coming to the sacrament is evidence of repentance. Each person receives penance which must be completed in order for the sacrament to be effective.

As to the sincerity of a person’s repentance, that is left to God, who reads our hearts. If it is blatantly evident that the person is not sorry for their sins, the priest will first counsel them in an effort to find true contrition. Let me give you an example of when the priest will not offer absolution.

A common situation today are people living together outside of marriage. If the person confesses this sin but refuses to change the situation immediately, the priest can and will withhold absolution. One of the promises we make to God is that we will avoid the near occasion of sin and if the person refuses, then he refuses forgiveness from God.

But they were not told they could delegate that authority. That authority was given singularly to the apostles–only to them, not to anyone else.

Your conclusion that authority was given singularly to the Apostles is nothing but pure speculation which is necessary for you to believe in order to defend the very foundation of Mormonism. The scriptures do not say this. They were certainly not told that they could not delegate that authority and to believe that they could not defies logic. It is along the same line of thought as “priestly authority” as you call it, being removed from the Church upon the death of the last Apostle. If electing other Apostles, upon the death of one of the existing Apostles, was necessary in order for the Church that Christ had just founded to remain intact, then what prevented them from doing just that and why didn’t they?

It is equally ridiculous to say that Christ would “breathe on them” and give them the Holy Spirit and the power to forgive sins and then say that this power would leave the earth upon their deaths. They were commanded to preach the Gospel to all the world. In order to accomplish this, these gifts were given to the Church, through the Apostles and their successors, the bishops, otherwise how were they to reach the whole world? This line of thought reduces God and His plan to nothing but foolishness.

 

[ParkerD]

Catholic-RCIA,
I looked at it and read it. I agree with many of the concepts, to the extent they match Biblical teachings about love and forgiveness. I disagree with the idea of “self-condemnation” or “holding contempt” for self. Christ didn’t teach that. He taught to “lose oneself” (by being of service to others and loving them)–not to self-condemn.

Peace to you.

 

[SteveVH]

I thought the question was what Mormons think of Catholicism, not what Catholics think of Mormonism. Notwithstanding what I said, Mormons regard historical Christianity (Catholic and Protestant) to be apostate religions.

You asked if I believed that the Catholic Church had ever done anything wrong in its history. I agreed that it certainly has. I was drawing a distinction between how we refer to other faiths and how the Mormons refer to other faiths since that was the topic of that particular conversation.

 

[KathleenGee]

Side comment, the ordained priest’s work is to bring us to Christ; he cannot judge whether or not a person is worthy or not…the priest washes his hands at the offertory asking forgiveness and cleansing from all his inquities so that he can offer Christ as the perfect offering for our sins.

Our righteousness is not found in our works but in the grace of Christ…we can claim nothing good of ourselves but refer it to Our Lord.

The official teaching of the Catholic Church is that the sacrament of penance was instituted on the evening of the Resurrection. Amen.

Again, we are a people of faith in relationship to God, not an interpretation of Bible quotes, open to disagreements.

Catholicism draws its construct from Jesus Christ, His Oral Tradition to His chosen witnesses – the Apostles, and then forward through their successors. Jesus Christ is the Final Word…there is no more utterance or revelation. You are putting Joseph Smith on the same level as Jesus Christ, and I don’t want to go there, but the Mormons who are on here know very well our grievances of the circumstances of his life.

 

[lax16]

Absolutely. I love it! I wish I could be a Catholic and a Mormon at the same time!

Why is that?

I never said that. What do you mean?
(from your post)
None of the things you have mentioned were the official teachings of the LDS Church. Some of the ideas you have mentioned have been bandied about in the Church in earlier times, but they were not correct, and the errors have been rectified. There is nothing hidden in Mormon history. The literature and documentation relating to the past are available for anybody who wants to examine them. All churches have made mistakes in their history, and the Catholic Church has probably made more of them than anybody else. But that is okay. We don’t condemn them for that because over the years sincere attempts have been made to rectify them. That goes for the LDS Church too.

---

zerinus

No back-peddling. What gave you that wrong idea?

See your post above. By claiming that the mistakes of the Catholic Church are now okay is back-peddling for sure, my friend.
If the mistakes of the CC were okay, there would be no apostasy.
If there was no apostasy, there would be no LDS religion.
If there was no LDS religion, perhaps many Mormons (including you! ) would be a part of the One Holy Catholic Church established by Jesus Christ 2,000 years ago.

 

[KathleenGee]

The style of communication by Mormons is very different from the style of times past.

Our liturgy, for example, has had its essentials in place since 60 years after the death of the last apostle, St. John the Evangelist. I attended a Mass at a Maronite church where they were using the Eucharistic Prayer of St. John the Evangelist.

How much denial can one continue to do???

 

[zerinus]

You asked if I believed that the Catholic Church had ever done anything wrong in its history. I agreed that it certainly has. I was drawing a distinction between how we refer to other faiths and how the Mormons refer to other faiths since that was the topic of that particular conversation.

Actually I got the threads confused with that one. There are three Mormon threads going on here at the moment in all of which the same subjects are being talked about, and one can get confused which thread one replying to. But to return to the subject, you ought to know that the LDS Church did not acknowledge Catholic baptisms long before the Catholic Church decided not to recognize LDS Baptisms. In fact the LDS Church has never recognized the validity of any other church’s baptism but its own, because we don’t accept that they have the proper authority and valid priesthood to do it. With respect to the Catholic Church, on the other hand, it is quite a recent development. They are also very inconsistent in their theological position. The recognize the baptism of an atheist in an emergency, but not that of a Mormon! Smell a rat? The LDS theological position on the other hand is, and has always been, a consistent one. Go figure.

 

[KathleenGee]

Does the LDS church pay you a stipend to be on CAF and glean info so that you can go back and use our words to further deny the Catholic Church and the Sacraments on your blog???

My work is daily case work with a variety of people…I am going out now to a new case. My husband covers the rest of our expenses…

I sincerely have tried to understand Mormonism in relation to Catholicism and it is very confusing, and appears to rationalize to the point of whittling down our belief system…and with no context except that we are supposedly corrupt and an abomination. Christ is bigger than that and did not fail in His mission.

Just wondering…

 

[lax16]

The style of communication by Mormons is very different from the style of times past.

Our liturgy, for example, has had its essentials in place since 60 years after the death of the last apostle, St. John the Evangelist. I attended a Mass at a Maronite church where they were using the Eucharistic Prayer of St. John the Evangelist.

How much denial can one continue to do???

I am noticing this as well. I think it is in attempt to back away from controversial LDS teachings in order to appear more mainstream. I think the ultimate goal is worldwide acceptance as a legitimate religion. I also believe this is why they are putting a temple in Rome. (Just my opinion).

To continue to say “there was a great apostasy” and all churches are “great and abominable” is not a way to make friends. To talk about our similarities and how together we can somehow solve the world’s ills is another way of saying “don’t look at our past but focus on our present.”

I have noticed this shift in attitude saying things like “I love the Catholic Church” “Mormons and Catholics have so much in common” and “We never said there was a *total *apostasy” - if they keep up this mantra, then eventually maybe people will forget the LDS beginnings.

Again, IMNSHO, I think Mormons want us to focus on their “family values” and ignore their history. Really, who is going to argue with family values?

 

[zerinus]

I am noticing this as well. I think it is in attempt to back away from controversial LDS teachings in order to appear more mainstream. I think the ultimate goal is worldwide acceptance as a legitimate religion. I also believe this is why they are putting a temple in Rome. (Just my opinion).

To continue to say “there was a great apostasy” and all churches are “great and abominable” is not a way to make friends. To talk about our similarities and how together we can somehow solve the world’s ills is another way of saying “don’t look at our past but focus on our present.”

I have noticed this shift in attitude saying things like “I love the Catholic Church” “Mormons and Catholics have so much in common” and “We never said there was a *total *apostasy” - if they keep up this mantra, then eventually maybe people will forget the LDS beginnings.

Again, IMNSHO, I think Mormons want us to focus on their “family values” and ignore their history. Really, who is going to argue with family values?

Let me make a prediction. Then if my prediction comes true you can call me a prophet. Mormonism will never back away from the Apostasy, neither will it teach that Catholicism is an abomination.

 

[Robert_in_SD]

Actually I got the threads confused with that one. There are three Mormon threads going on here at the moment in all of which the same subjects are being talked about, and one can get confused which thread one replying to. But to return to the subject, you ought to know that the LDS Church did not acknowledge Catholic baptisms long before the Catholic Church decided not to recognize LDS Baptisms. In fact the LDS Church has never recognized the validity of any other church’s baptism but its own, because we don’t accept that they have the proper authority and valid priesthood to do it. With respect to the Catholic Church, on the other hand, it is quite a recent development. They are also very inconsistent in their theological position. The recognize the baptism of an atheist in an emergency, but not that of a Mormon! Smell a rat? The LDS theological position on the other hand is, and has always been, a consistent one. Go figure.

This is simply not correct. The Catholic Church has always taken the position that a trinitarian form of baptism is given a presumption of validity. It has only been recently (as Mormonism is still a very new religion when viewed in the context of all of Christianity) that the Catholic Church was drawn into the question of whether or not the LDS form of bapstism was validly trinitiarian. Initially, it was given a presumption of validity based upon the fact that the trinitarian formula was used. Only after deeper scrutiny was given to the LDS understanding of the trinity did the Church conclude (and rightly so), that the LDS understanding of the trinity was so far removed from the orthodox Christian understanding that the baptism could not be considered valid. It’s certainly not the fact that the Church has been inconsistent in its reasoning. Rather, the position of the Church was forced to change to reflect its growing understanding of just how removed LDS doctrine is from the rest of the body of christianity. This finding is certainly consistent with the LDS position that we are all total apostates.

Peace,
Robert

 

[lax16]

Let me make a prediction. Then if my prediction comes true you can call me a prophet. Mormonism will never back away from the Apostasy, neither will it teach that Catholicism is an abomination.

Hi zerinus - is that your definition of a prophet, one who makes predictions?
Well, it is not mine so I will not be calling you a prophet.

Mormons have backed away from the **total apostasy **theory and if you don’t believe me, let me know. I will gladly show you proof.

Mormon prophets/seers/revelators have told the whole world that God told Joseph Smith that the Catholic Church is the whore of babylon, the great abominable church…and I can’t remember what else. But, rest assured, it was not only the Catholic Church that God was disappointed with, but all of the Christian churches.

So, if God told JS that the CC is an abomination, and JS shared this with his followers, and certain LDS prophets/seers/revelators also claimed this in speeches and writings…I would say it is safe to say that Mormonism teaches that Catholicism is an abomination. At least the Mormon God does.

Lucky for you, someone came up with the idea that prophets are not always prophets, and that what a newer prophet says can trump the ones before. Otherwise, how could one explain such things?

 

[lax16]

Actually I got the threads confused with that one. There are three Mormon threads going on here at the moment in all of which the same subjects are being talked about, and one can get confused which thread one replying to. But to return to the subject, **you ought to know that the LDS Church did not acknowledge Catholic baptisms long before the Catholic Church decided not to recognize LDS Baptisms. In fact the LDS Church has never recognized the validity of any other church’s baptism but its own, because we don’t accept that they have the proper authority and valid priesthood to do it. With respect to the Catholic Church, on the other hand, it is quite a recent development. **They are also very inconsistent in their theological position. The recognize the baptism of an atheist in an emergency, but not that of a Mormon! Smell a rat? The LDS theological position on the other hand is, and has always been, a consistent one. Go figure.

zerinus - please cite your sources.

thanks!

 

[zerinus]

Mormons have backed away from the **total apostasy **theory . . .

Not true.

Mormon prophets/seers/revelators have told the whole world that God told Joseph Smith that the Catholic Church is the whore of babylon, the great abominable church…and I can’t remember what else. But, rest assured, it was not only the Catholic Church that God was disappointed with, but all of the Christian churches.

If they did, they were wrong, because Joseph Smith never taught such a thing. Mormonism teaches that there was a universal Apostasy, but it does not teach that the Catholic Church or any other church is an abomination.

 

[zerinus]

zerinus - please cite your sources.

thanks!

The Vatican decision not to recognize LDS baptisms was made in June of 2001, in an official statement that can be seen on the Vatican website.

The LDS decision not to recognize other churches’ baptisms was made in April 1830 (within days after it was organized), as attested in D&C 22.

 

[SteveVH]

Actually I got the threads confused with that one. There are three Mormon threads going on here at the moment in all of which the same subjects are being talked about, and one can get confused which thread one replying to.

No problem. Easy to do.

But to return to the subject, you ought to know that the LDS Church did not acknowledge Catholic baptisms long before the Catholic Church decided not to recognize LDS Baptisms. In fact the LDS Church has never recognized the validity of any other church’s baptism but its own, because we don’t accept that they have the proper authority and valid priesthood to do it. With respect to the Catholic Church, on the other hand, it is quite a recent development.

Not accepting the baptism of non-Christian religions and sects is not a recent development, but has been true for over 2000 years. Christian baptism is accomplished by pouring the element of water, or through immersion into water, and then baptizing in the name of the Holy Trinity, Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Mormonism denies the Trinity, and the Mormon definition of the nature of God is directly contrary to the Christian view. We do not believe that the Father is made of flesh and bone, for instance, and that He is eternal and the creator of all things. Nothing existed before Him. He did not organize existing matter to form creation. I could, obviously, go on and on. The point is, we do not recognize the God you describe and so to be baptized into such a God would not constitute a valid baptism. This has always been true.

The recent statement by the Vatican concerning Mormon baptism is due to several factors, in my estimation. Mormon doctrine has changed substantially as time moves on. The Book of Mormon appears to be very Trinitarian as well as some of the earlier statements by Mormons. Today it is a very different picture. The Church moves very slow and carefully before making a statement such as this. Once the Mormon church was clear as to its doctrine concerning the nature of God, among other things, the Church could make a final determination as to the validity of Mormon baptism. There is also the fact that the Mormon church has not been significant until very recently, in relation to the history of the Church. It does not make proclamations about every small sect that appears. So there’s a feather in your cap.

They are also very inconsistent in their theological position. The recognize the baptism of an atheist in an emergency, but not that of a Mormon! Smell a rat? The LDS theological position on the other hand is, and has always been, a consistent one. Go figure.

The Church recognizes the baptism of an atheist in an emergency as long as a valid baptsim is performed. Mormon baptism is not valid, even in an emergency situation, for the reasons I gave above. There is no rat here. It makes perfect sense. If a person has the right medicine, even though he is not a doctor, he can save someone’s life. On the other hand, even if that person is a doctor and gives the person the wrong medicine the person will die. In baptism it is the power of the sacrament, the incredible free gift of God that brings us life, that matters, not the one giving it or the one receiving it. This has always been consistent within the Catholic Church as well.

 

[lax16]

If they did, they were wrong, because Joseph Smith never taught such a thing. Mormonism teaches that there was a universal Apostasy, but it does not teach that the Catholic Church or any other church is an abomination.

“I was answered by God that I must join none of them, for they were all wrong; and the Personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those professors were all corrupt; that: “they draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me, they teach for doctrines the commandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof.” He again forbade me to join with any of them;…”

• Prophet Joseph Smith, Joseph Smith History 1:18-20

“What is it that inspires professors of Christianity generally with a hope of salvation? It is that smooth, sophisticated influence of the devil, by which he deceives the whole world”

• Prophet Joseph Smith, Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p.270

“…all the priests who adhere to the sectarian religions of the day with all their followers, without one exception, receive their portion with the devil and his angels.”

• **Prophet Joseph Smith **, The Elders Journal, Joseph Smith Jr., editor, vol.1, no.4, p.60

“Christians—those poor, miserable priests brother Brigham was speaking about—some of them are the biggest whoremasters there are on the earth, and at the same time preaching righteousness to the children of men. The poor devils, they could not get up here and preach an oral discourse, to save themselves from hell; they are preaching their fathers’ sermons —preaching sermons that were written a hundred years before they were born. …You may get a Methodist priest to pour water on you, or sprinkle it on you, and baptize you face foremost, or lay you down the other way, and whatever mode you please, and you will be damned with your priest.”

• Apostle Heber C. Kimball, Journal of Discourses, 5:89

“Christianity…is a perfect pack of nonsense…the devil could not invent a better engine to spread his work than the Christianity of the nineteenth century.”

• Prophet Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, vol. 6, p.167

“Doctrines were corrupted, authority lost, and a false order of religion took the place of the gospel of Jesus Christ, just as it had been the case in former dispensations, and the people were left in spiritual darkness.” (p. 266). “For hundreds of years the world was wrapped in a veil of spiritual darkness, until there was not one fundamental truth belonging to the place of salvation …Joseph Smith declared that in the year 1820 the Lord revealed to him that all the ‘Christian’ churches were in error, teaching for commandments the doctrines of men.”- Prophet Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, vol. 3, p.282

“…the Book of Mormon remains secure, unchanged and unchangeable, …But with the Bible it was not and is not so…it was once in the sole and exclusive care and custody of an abominable organization (Christianity), founded by the devil himself, likened prophetically unto a great whore, whose great aim and purpose was to destroy the souls of men in the name of religion. In these hands it ceased to be the book it once was.”

• Apostle Bruce R. McConkie, The Joseph Smith Translation, pp. 12, 13

“And also those to whom these commandments were given, might have power to lay the foudation of this (Mormon) church, and to bring it forth out of obscurity and out of darkness, the only true and living church upon the face of the whole earth…”

• Supposedly Jesus Christ Himself, Doctrine and Covenants 1:30