Gene Fadness, ex-Mormon, on Catholic Answers

[TheosisM]

No, Christ does.
Hebrews 8:1-5

If he would actually read the Catechism excerpts, which give an extensive answer to his question (instead of putting on the blinders), we wouldn’t be having the usual Zerinus runaround. Perhaps I should’ve posted it in my blog, then make him and everyone read it.

 

[zerinus]

No, Christ does.

Two questions:

1. What is the scriptural basis for that?
2. So there is no fault with Mormon priests not offering sacrifices either, right?

Hebrews 8:1-5

I read those, and I am none the wiser as to why Jesus has to sacrifice Himself repeatedly at Mass.

 

[zerinus]

Zerinus, as you can see, multiple people have answered you, and we frankly are tired of your games, which we see in practically every thread you participate in (weren’t you suspended at some point?)

So you are now hoping that I will be suspended so that you will not have to deal with my questions! Good luck with that, but I doubt if it will happen.

I already responded to how we see the Mass in my own words, and then I gave you the official view as well (which is an extensive overview specifically of the sacrificial nature of the Mass. I am not interested in discussing the Mass in this thread, since that’s not what this thread is about!

Indeed. The subject of the thread was the comments made by Gene Fadness about Mormonism on Catholic Radio. But unfortunately he has disappeared. It looks like he has decided to suspend himself rather having to answers my questions! That is a pity, because I think that would have been an interesting discussion to continue.

Instead, my goal was to correct your erroneous view of the Catholic Mass, and that was done. I don’t care that you don’t understand the Mass, or don’t think it is really a sacrifice. The point here is that 1) Catholics view the Mass as a sacrifice; 2) Catholics view the priesthood as a sacrificial priesthood; 3) Catholics do not believe that Jesus Christ is re-sacrificed at the altar.

Which are a series of statements with underlying contradictory elements that do not make a lot of sense. But I suppose if that is part of your theology that is fair enough.

If you would like to discuss whether the Mass is a sacrifice or not, start another thread.

Not terribly interested to be honest; but if you want to start such a thread that is up to you, and I may decide to join it if the discussion becomes interesting.

 

[Jay53]

Actually you haven’t; and I am beginning to lose hope that you ever will—or perhaps even can.

All of your questions HAVE been answered if you would actually bother to go back and read all of the posts, particularly TheosisM’s posts including the information from the Catechism. It is clear from your responses that you did not read it, nor do you have any interest in reading it or actually learning actual Catholic beliefs. You are simply so mired in Mormon belief that you are unwilling to make an effort to understand Catholicism; which is certainly your prerogative, but just because you don’t want to agree with some Catholic beliefs, don’t pretend you you don’t understand or that your questions haven’t been answered. :tsktsk:

 

[KathleenGee]

They have been answered…and you have had some highly educated people come through that are masters in certain topics covered here.

I am coming to the conclusion that in trying to explain differences to people whose construct of faith says others are wrong…right there…is the fracture…no matter how much is said, no matter the exchange of kind words every now and then, the result is the same.

A Moslem, who I alleged was part of a group of Muslims about 4 or so, and using the same name, was the only one who lasted. I called him the third one because he was benevolent, held his ground, as well as being identified with his use of language. He came back and finally wished us a Merry Christmas…he said he is firm in what he believes and we are firm in what we believe and nobody is changing.

Mr Fades is out, was also looking forward to him coming back…will check this thread from time to time to see if he does…

Happy New Year…

 

[TheosisM]

So you are now hoping that I will be suspended so that you will not have to deal with my questions! Good luck with that, but I doubt if it will happen.

No, I am not hoping that you will be suspended. What I am hoping is that you change the way that you interact with people on this forum (not just myself), since it leads people to not want to actually interact with you.

Indeed. The subject of the thread was the comments made by Gene Fadness about Mormonism on Catholic Radio. But unfortunately he has disappeared. It looks like he has decided to suspend himself rather having to answers my questions! That is a pity, because I think that would have been an interesting discussion to continue.

Yes, I was actually waiting to read his responses as well.

Which are a series of statements with underlying contradictory elements that do not make a lot of sense. But I suppose if that is part of your theology that is fair enough.

Again, if you would read the Catechism excerpts, which emphasize that the Mass and the Cross are the same sacrifice (the Catechism uses words such as “re-presentation”, “unbloody”, etc for a reason), you would see how we view it. The fact that we believe the Mass to be outside of time and space (involving Heaven and Earth, and the making present of Jesus’ sacrifice at Calvary) is important to this.

Not terribly interested to be honest; but if you want to start such a thread that is up to you, and I may decide to join it if the discussion becomes interesting.

Nor am I, since I’ve had this discussion about “Jesus dying again and again on the altar” many times over the years.

 

[zerinus]

All of your questions HAVE been answered if you would actually bother to go back and read all of the posts, particularly TheosisM’s posts including the information from the Catechism. It is clear from your responses that you did not read it, nor do you have any interest in reading it or actually learning actual Catholic beliefs.

I have read it, but I don’t agree with it. I accept the Mass being a “memorial” of the sacrifice of Christ; but I don’t accept it being itself a sacrifice; or a continuation, a repetition, a perpetuation, or reenactment of that sacrifice. There is no scriptural basis for that doctrine.

You are simply so mired in Mormon belief that you are unwilling to make an effort to understand Catholicism; which is certainly your prerogative, but just because you don’t want to agree with some Catholic beliefs, don’t pretend you you don’t understand or that your questions haven’t been answered. :tsktsk:

I don’t think that they were answered. I asked those questions in that way for a reason. Does the priest literally offer a sacrifice or not? If so, what does he sacrifice, and how? I guess I should qualify that by saying that Stephen168 did answers it—sort of! He said the priest does not offer a sacrifice—which answers the earlier criticism made against the Mormon priesthood, that they do not offer a sacrifice like Catholics do! But then he qualified it by saying that Jesus does! which again raises the question of why does He need to since He has already done it once. The idea that He is merely continuing or perpetuating the original sacrifice is not a biblical doctrine. He does not need to.

 

[Marie5890]

Zerinus,

It’s a perpetual sacrifice. Like others have said it outside the bounds of time and place.

And since the priest acts in Persona Christi, it’s not the priest offereing it, It’s Christ.

Perhaps you are just wanting to twist what is being told you to fit your paradigm to have it make sense, or perhaps your motives are to lay a trap. I dont know.

But you are coming from a framework of Mormonism. You wont understand the framework of Catholicism. I didnt when I was LDS.

I dont think it’s possible for you to understand it.

The foundations are so very different.

 

[KathleenGee]

True, very true…my pastor said the more people break away from the Catholic Church and the 7 sacraments, the much harder time they will have coming back.

You can have someone come in here who is a maestro and learned among the best…but if the other party doesn’t have basic and correct assumptions of the foundation of our faith and an idea of the overwhelming history of our church and the tremendous work of maintaining its four marks, one, holy, Catholic and apostolic, the communication is always circular…

It is good to dialogue and share but then how far before finding yourself in a circle, then it is time to go.

 

[Answersplease]

So you are now hoping that I will be suspended so that you will not have to deal with my questions! Good luck with that, but I doubt if it will happen.

The way you keep calling people daft & dumb, I’m surprised they haven’t banned you yet.
Your lucky these Catholics probably don’t report you, if more of them would, you wouldn’t be able to play your games here as well as insult people.

The subject of the thread was the comments made by Gene Fadness about Mormonism on Catholic Radio. But unfortunately he has disappeared. It looks like he has decided to suspend himself rather having to answers my questions!

You know very well that Gene Fadness stated conditions for a civil debate.
He wanted you to refrain from attributing “evil motives” to him AND he wanted you to stop insulting the other posters on the thread.
As people can see, the following quotes show what you said about the first condition AND you refused to honor the second condition.

But some ground rules first. We can disagree with each other while not assigning evil motives. Your statement that I would use a scripture passage as an “excuse to get myself out” of the church and your following statement that I deliberately chose to misrepresent LDS teachings are not acceptable.
…

So don’t go there, my friend. Let us begin with the premise that we are both sincere in our beliefs and there is no attempt by to misrepresent my church’s beliefs or mine yours. I may not, in your opinion, have the right understanding of Mormon belief, but there is no attempt on my part to misrepresent it and I’ll assume you come from the same respectful position.

Post # 154

I did not mean to attribute “evil motives”. But people can have hidden motives that they may not be fully aware of themselves.

I also will not tolerate any comments such as those you made to some posters here about some comments being a “load of nonsense” and similar comments you made to others.
…
This will be a civil discussion or it will not happen at all.
…

God bless,
Gene

That is between me and them. I respond to each poster according to his merits.
…

You leave that to me and them.

Thats WHY Gene Fadness didn’t come back.

 

[zerinus]

Thats WHY Gene Fadness didn’t come back.

Who made you the spokesman of Gene Fadness and everyone else on the board? My discussions with Gene has been perfectly civil. The more likely reason why he has chosen not to reply is that he has no replies to give. The honorable thing left for him to do now is to apologize to Mormons (and others) for misrepresenting their religion on Catholic Radio. A lot of the things he said about Mormonism were incorrect. He knows that now, even if he didn’t before; so he should apologize for it and make sure he does not make those mistakes again.

 

[Answersplease]

You appear determined to make yourself as ridiculous as you possibly can be. Be my guest! Who am I to try and stop you!

That is a daft comment.

…because it don’t make sense. But tell that to your Catholic friends!

If it makes sense to you, then good luck to you.

Let’s not talk out of the both sides of our mouth.
…

That is a load of nonsense which doesn’t make any sense to anybody.

From the thread: The Book of Mormon… have you read it?
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=5450918#post5450918

zerinus;5449927:

Read my reply to question 8 in post #307, and don’t ask so many dumb questions.

Glory to Jesus Christ!

You seem to say this sort of thing a lot, Zerinus. Why can’t you ever answer anyone’s claims or criticism? Whenever you get backed into a corner because someone points out serious flaws with Mormonism that you cannot address, you say someone is “boring” or “asking dumb questions.” Your witness on here has shown that Mormonism is built on quicksand.

In Christ,
Andrew

Your witness on here has shown that Mormonism is built on quicksand.

In Christ,
Andrew

 

[zerinus]

From the thread: The Book of Mormon… have you read it?
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=5450918#post5450918

Yea, quoting a bunch of one liners out of context is easy. The answers to that is found in Matthew 23:

13 But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in.
14 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye devour widows’ houses, and for a pretence make long prayer: therefore ye shall receive the greater damnation.
15 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, ye make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves.
16 Woe unto you, ye blind guides, which say, Whosoever shall swear by the temple, it is nothing; but whosoever shall swear by the gold of the temple, he is a debtor!
17 Ye fools and blind: for whether is greater, the gold, or the temple that sanctifieth the gold?
18 And, Whosoever shall swear by the altar, it is nothing; but whosoever sweareth by the gift that is upon it, he is guilty.
19 Ye fools and blind: for whether is greater, the gift, or the altar that sanctifieth the gift?
20 Whoso therefore shall swear by the altar, sweareth by it, and by all things thereon.
21 And whoso shall swear by the temple, sweareth by it, and by him that dwelleth therein.
22 And he that shall swear by heaven, sweareth by the throne of God, and by him that sitteth thereon.
23 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone.
24 Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel.
25 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye make clean the outside of the cup and of the platter, but within they are full of extortion and excess.
26 Thou blind Pharisee, cleanse first that which is within the cup and platter, that the outside of them may be clean also.
27 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are like unto whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men’s bones, and of all uncleanness.
28 Even so ye also outwardly appear righteous unto men, but within ye are full of hypocrisy and iniquity.
29 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because ye build the tombs of the prophets, and garnish the sepulchres of the righteous,
30 And say, If we had been in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partakers with them in the blood of the prophets.
31 Wherefore ye be witnesses unto yourselves, that ye are the children of them which killed the prophets.
32 Fill ye up then the measure of your fathers.
33 Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell?

 

[Answersplease]

Yea, quoting a bunch of one liners out of context is easy. The answers to that is found in Matthew 23:

13 But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! …
…

33 Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell?

Yea, quoting a bunch of one liners out of context is easy.

LOL !!!

Anyone can click the “blue arrows” next to the names of the original posters, so they can find the context if needed.

Thats why I left the “blue arrows” in the post, I don’t have to include them, I can quote somebody’s post and omit the “blue arrows”.

Observe:
"zerinus:

Yea, quoting a bunch of one liners…

Or like this:

Yea, quoting a bunch of one liners…

And it doesn’t take a genius to figure out that “daft” and “dumb” and other derogatory comments say say exactly what they mean, they don’t need any further context. LOL !!!

And as for your bible quotes about hypocrites**:**

From the thread: Mormonism and the Fall of Man

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=5461242&highlight=pot+calls+kettle+black#post5461242

Pot calls the kettle black.

From the thread we’re in now**:**

Transcript from “The Mormons”, PBS documentary by American Experience & Frontline
(The 13th quote down):

Quote:
DALLIN H. OAKS, LDS Quorum of the Twelve Apostles: It’s wrong to criticize leaders of the church, even if the criticism is true.

pbs.org/mormons/etc/script2.html

…
As Elder George F. Richards, President of the Council of the Twelve, said in a conference address in April 1947, ‘when we say anything bad about the leaders of the Church, whether true or false, we tend to impair their influence and their usefulness and are thus working against the Lord and his cause.’ … The Holy Ghost will not guide or confirm criticism of the Lord’s anointed, or of Church leaders, local or general. This reality should be part of the spiritual evaluation that LDS readers and viewers apply to those things written about our history and those who made it."

• Dallin H. Oaks, “Reading Church History,” CES Doctrine and Covenants Symposium, Brigham Young University, 16 Aug. 1985, page 25. also see Dallin H. Oaks, “Elder Decries Criticism of LDS Leaders,” quoted in The Salt Lake Tribune, Sunday August 18, 1985, p. 2B

exmormon.org/mormon/mormon329.htm

Do church leaders think they have a duty to tell the truth, or to protect church authority at all costs?

Apostle Dallin Oaks:

“My duty as a member of the Council of the Twelve is to protect what is most unique about the LDS church, namely the authority of priesthood, testimony regarding the restoration of the gospel, and the divine mission of the Savior. Everything may be sacrificed in order to maintain the integrity of those essential facts. Thus, if Mormon Enigma reveals information that is detrimental to the reputation of Joseph Smith, then it is necessary to try to limit its influence and that of its authors.”

• Apostle Dallin Oaks, footnote 28, Inside the Mind of Joseph Smith: Psychobiography and the Book of Mormon, Introduction p. xliii

exmormon.org/mormon/mormon329.htm

And if anyone wants to watch the documentary “The Mormons” by American Experience & Frontline, it is available online.

pbs.org/mormons/

 

[zerinus]

LOL !!!

Anyone can click the “blue arrows” next to the names of the original posters, so they can find the context if needed.

Thats why I left the “blue arrows” in the post, I don’t have to include them, I can quote somebody’s post and omit the “blue arrows”.

Observe:

Or like this:

And it doesn’t take a genius to figure out that “daft” and “dumb” and other derogatory comments say say exactly what they mean, they don’t need any further context. LOL !!!

And as for your bible quotes about hypocrites**:**

You are doing your own head in now, which is alright by me. LOL!

 

[Answersplease]

You are doing your own head in now, which is alright by me. LOL!

I reported you for threatening me.

Keep laughing, you don’t know me, I’m not afraid.

 

[zerinus]

I reported you for threatening me.

Keep laughing, you don’t know me, I’m not afraid.

LOL! Have you seen any shadows in the dark lately?

 

[KathleenGee]

I am not going to wait for Gene Fadness…there was a scholar here who came on, a specialist in Hebrews…he probably knew quite a bit more on the Hebrews than Gene Fadness and he didn’t make a dent.

I am not for suspending anyone either. But I don’t know the purpose either when people willfully block the truth we are sharing. It is too time consuming…and it appears people come on to vent.

 

[Marie5890]

I am not going to wait for Gene Fadness…there was a scholar here who came on, a specialist in Hebrews…he probably knew quite a bit more on the Hebrews than Gene Fadness and he didn’t make a dent.

I am not for suspending anyone either. But I don’t know the purpose either when people willfully block the truth we are sharing. It is too time consuming…and it appears people come on to vent.

Generally speaking some people just like contentious debate regardless of facts and truth. They find it exhilarating, almost like a sport. It’s like a competition. It an even have an addictive element to it. An adreniline rush of sorts.

Perhaps there is a need of some sort validation in their lives and this is one of the avenues they try.

There could be multiple reasons for such behavior.

I said it once and will say it again. The paradigms of both Catholicism and Mormonism are very different. In order to understand the other, one much put aside their own. Many people won’t (maybe even can’t to be honest) do that.

It takes real humility to put aside one’s one paradigm to consider that of another. We humans have a need to be “right” at the expense of others being “wrong”. Many have a need, a desire to “win”.

I can understand why Gene choses not to engage. He doesn’t “need” to “win”.

It’s called a mature confidence.

Latin “Con fide” === with faith… (did I spell that right??)

 

[Stephen168]

The subject of the thread was the comments made by Gene Fadness about Mormonism on Catholic Radio.

Thank you Gene. I have just finished listening to your interview, and I do have some questions to ask. I think that you have seriously misrepresented or misunderstood many aspects of Mormon theology. Here are some highlights that I picked up after listening to your radio interview:

1. With regard to Hebrews 7 about which you said you had a conversation with a Catholic priest that provided the trigger for you to start doubting Mormonism, here are the relevant verses:

1 For this Melchisedec, king of Salem, priest of the most high God, who met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the kings, and blessed him;
2 To whom also Abraham gave a tenth part of all; first being by interpretation King of righteousness, and after that also King of Salem, which is, King of peace;
3 Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; but made like unto the Son of God; abideth a priest continually.
4 Now consider how great this man was, unto whom even the patriarch Abraham gave the tenth of the spoils.

Did you ever wonder (or ask the Catholic priest) how Melchizedek, who is obviously a man and the king of Salem, to whom Abraham paid tithes, could have been “Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life”? That is the attribute of God! Only God can be “without beginning of days or end of life”. So unless Melchizedek was God—which he wasn’t, because the scriptures tells us that he was a man—how could he have had those attributes? There is obviously something missing from that verse; or there is something wrong with the way we are understanding it. Unless you can clear up that ambiguity, that scripture seems a dubious way to start doubting Mormonism.

Both Jewish and Christian writers are uncertain as to whether Melchizedek was an actual person or a figure or “type” of Christ. But, for the sake of argument, let’s say he was a real person. I tend to agree with writers who say he was. He belonged to a priesthood established by God in pre-Mosaic times and bible writers, who do not give a genealogy of him, bring him up to point out that his priesthood was superior to the Levite priesthood because Abraham paid tithes to him and he blessed Abraham. I’m quoting here from the Navarre Study Bible (and referring to Melchizedek as M):
“Moreover, since Genesis says nothing about M.'s background, the sacred writer, following a common Rabbinical rule of interpretation, sees Scripture’s silence on this point as symbolic: M, since his genealogy is unknown, is a figure or type of Christ who is eternal. … It is not Christ who resembles M but M who is like Christ. … Christ is the perfection of priesthood. M was created and made like Christ so that we by reflecting on him might learn something about the Son of God.”
Theoderet of Cryus wrote: “Christ the Lord possesses all these qualifications in reality and by nature. He is “without mother” for God alone begot him (before he was born in the flesh) . He is “without father” for he was conceived by mother alone (by the power of the Holy Spirit), that is the virgin. He is ‘without genealogy’ as God, for he who was begotten by the unbegotten Father has no need of genealogy. He is without beginning of days for his is an eternal generation. He had no end of life for he possesses an immortal nature. …”
So, in short, if M did exist as King of Salem (Jerusalem) he existed primiraily as a precusor and prototype of the priesthood Christ would come to hold and for which only Christ could qualify.

A short summary:

So unless Melchizedek was God—which he wasn’t, because the scriptures tells us that he was a man—how could he have had those attributes?

He didn’t; Christ does. Hebrews 7:1-3 – Reminds us Melchizedek appears without father, mother, or children, and was a priest always. Melchizedek is compared to the divine Christ, the Son of Man; who was born without earthly parents, or children, and was a priest always.

The moment you introduce me a Mormon man with these qualifications, then I shall gladly accept him as a member of the priesthood type established by Melchizedek for Christ alone.

Hebrews 7:15-19 - Christ is the new High Priest in the likeness or is similar to Melchizedek. He abolishes the Levitical priesthood and the law.

KJV:

And it is yet far more evident: for that after the similitude of Melchisedec there ariseth another priest, Who is made, not after the law of a carnal commandment, but after the power of an endless life. For he testifieth, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec.

ESV:

This becomes even more evident when another priest arises in the likeness of Melchizedek, who has become a priest, not on the basis of a legal requirement concerning bodily descent, but by the power of an indestructible life. For it is witnessed of him,“You are a priest forever, after the order of Melchizedek.”

There was an ongoing Levitical priesthood but never a Melchizedek priesthood.