Gene Fadness, ex-Mormon, on Catholic Answers

[zerinus]

/… Continued

And, finally, in respone to your #10, I would ask you if you believe that Jesus is God … come in the flesh?

I most certainly do believe that Jesus is “God came in the flesh;” and so does every other Mormon! See above.

… (Father, Son and Holy Spirit) …

Well the Bible teaches that God the Son came in the flesh, not God the Father came in the flesh. It says that God the Father sent the Son. That is written all over the Gospels. Jesus prayed to His Father. I don’t think that He was praying to Himself when He was praying to the Father! He said that He came from the Father, and that He was returning to His Father. He also said that His Father was greater than Him. Nowhere in the Bible does it say that the Father came in the flesh, but only the Son came in the flesh. Looking at the flip side of the coin, however, there are passages in the LDS scripture that state that Jesus is both the Father and the Son! Here are a couple of quotes:

“Behold, I am Jesus Christ. I am the Father and the Son. In me shall all mankind have light, and that eternally.” (Ether 3:14.)

“And because of the fall of man came Jesus Christ, even the Father and the Son.” (Mormon 9:12.)

So it looks like you are the one who might be in a quandary, not Mormonism! It appears that you have an incorrect or incomplete understanding not only of Mormon theology, but also of the traditional Christian one.

If you do, then you’ll want to turn in that temple recommend and welcome to the Christian faith.

Not at all! I believe in all the above; and I see no reason to hand in my temple recommend. I am already in the Christian faith! Maybe it would be a good idea if you apologized to Mormons (and non-Mormons) for misrepresenting their religion (intentionally or unintentionally) on Catholic radio!

 

[Stephen168]

The point I am trying to make is that in a discussion of this kind it is best to leave “commentaries” alone, and deal directly with the scriptures—otherwise our discussion would be reduced to just “trading commentaries,” which is not a very enlightening way of conducting such a discussion. Let us get directly into the scriptures, and see what it actually says, and come to an agreed conclusion of possible, rather than just engage in trading commentaries:

Hebrews 7:

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.

That suggests that it is his priesthood that is eternal (because it is God’s priesthood), not that himself is eternal. It says that he abideth a priest continually. Himself is mortal, and has a father and mother, and a date of birth and date of death! But his priesthood is eternal; and after he dies and is resurrected, he remains a priest forever, eternally. That is how Mormons understand this verse; and who is to say that their interpretation is wrong, and everybody else’s is right?

That challenge is based on a false premise. It is based on the assumption that that particular commentary that you had quoted is the correct interpretation, and that I have accepted it as such. It is not, and I have not. I accept the Mormon interpretation of these scriptures, which is the most logical and scriptural interpretation I have found—quite apart from the wealth of additional information that is found in LDS scripture about Melchizedek.

Don’t forget that this discussion started with your comment in your interview that you started questioning Mormonism when a Catholic priest pointed to you that in order to qualify for the Melchizedek Priesthood one had to be “Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life” (Hebrews 7:3). But as you can see, the Mormon theological position is a lot more water tight than that. In Mormonism it was not Melchizedek himself that was “without father and without father …” but his priesthood. It was a higher priesthood than the Levitical Priesthood. And that is a very plausible and biblical interpretation. I can therefore only assume that your knowledge of Mormon theology at that time was very limited; and that your “questioning of Mormonism” at that time on that basis alone was rather superficial and premature, to say the least. Wouldn’t you agree?

No, the Bible never says there was a Melchizedek Priesthood only a priest named Melchizedek.

Genesis 14:18-20 - A King-Priest who suddenly appears with no genealogy; no parents or children gives Abram bread and wine; then blesses Abram.

Psalm 110:4 - King David speaks of a priest that will come in the same way that Melchizedek was a priest: 1) A King-Priest bringing bread and wine and 2) A priest directly from God and not from Aaron; the tribe of Levi.

Jeremiah 31:31-34 - God will make a new covenant. It will be different from the old one: It will last forever, it will be written on the hearts of men not just stone tablets, and all people will know him.

Hebrews 4:14-16 thru Hebrews 5:1-10 - Christ is the High Priest according to the order of Melchizedek.

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.

 

[KathleenGee]

Thank you Zerinius for giving us understanding…

In context to who to believe, you probably have heard this before, that it is Sacred Tradition of the Church to implement the fulfilled priesthood of Jesus Christ.

So in Catholicism, we do not get all our sources from Scripture but from the church…most often it is implementing or clarifying Scripture in context of the times.

Here it would be good to see the Catholic tradition of the priesthood, the liturgies that came after the Apostles.

Stephen, those were simple and excellent references…Thank you!

 

[Answersplease]

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

I did not mean to attribute “evil motives”.

was a definite attempt at misrepresentation.

(emphasis added)

---

But people can have hidden motives that they may not be fully aware of themselves.

I would say

your comment was a definite attempt at misrepresentation.

(emphasis added)

So what is your answer to these?

 

[Answersplease]

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

I would say your comment was a definite attempt at misrepresentation.

 

[cthulhubryan]

Let’s not talk out of the both sides of our mouth. The comparison is not between Mormonism and Catholic theology, but between Mormonism and what the early Christians believed and taught.

I am NOT here to discuss water! I am here to discuss the liquid form of Steam and Ice!!!

early Christianity = Catholicism.

 

[cthulhubryan]

Question

Who was or is Melchizedek, and what was his standing with respect to God?

Answer

Melchizedek was an Old Testament priest of God in the days of Abraham (Gen. 14:18), hundreds of years before the institution of the Levitical priesthood. We don’t know much about him, except what we learn in Genesis 14 and the comments on that chapter that we find in Hebrews 7.

Hebrews 7:2 notes that “Melchizedek” means “king of righteousness” and that “Salem,” the land over which he was king, means “peace.” Some have wrongly taken these names as an indication that Melchizedek was divine, but this is not a reasonable conclusion based on his name or his title. Also, because Melchizedek had neither beginning of days nor end of life (Heb. 7:3), some have thought that Melchizedek was not human, taking these phrases to mean that he was not born and that he did not die. On this basis, some have concluded that Melchizedek was a pre-incarnate appearance of Christ. This speculation, however, is not supported by the text of Genesis; there Melchizedek is merely a man, though a good one. And in Hebrews 7:3, the idea that days were unlimited refers to a detail of the Levitical priesthood that did not apply to Melchizedek, namely that Levites served only between the ages of twenty-five and fifty (Num. 8:24-25). Their lives as priests began when they were twenty-five, and their days of service ended when they were fifty. These restrictions did not apply to Melchizedek because he was not a Levite. He is said to be without father, without mother, without genealogy, simply because the Scripture does not record his parentage, not because he didn’t have parents.

In Hebrews 5:5-10; 6:20; 7:11ff., we learn that Jesus is the foretold priest forever of the order of Melchizedek?of Psalm 110:4. This does not imply that Melchizedek was also a priest forever in the same manner that Jesus is. Jesus holds his priesthood forever because he never dies; Melchizedek was a man and as such died, but the order of his priesthood is forever insofar as Christ is of his order and lives/serves forever.

In summary, Melchizedek was a true priest of God in the days of Abraham. That Christ is of Melchizedek’s order shows great honor to Melchizedek, implying that he must have been a very good priest whom God was pleased to have in his service. Source

Wow. Fascinating stuff. You know, I can find all kinds of interesting quotes on Jews if I ask a Nazi. On blacks if I ask David Duke.

Please try to find documents to support your argument without resorting to quoting bigots.

All of the information you sited above is from the “Reformed” church which still uses the Westminster Confession of 1646 which declares that the Pope is the anti-Christ.

You say that you wish to foster a positive dialog but yet your arguments boil down to “Christians are the unter-mensch!”

 

[zerinus]

No, the Bible never says there was a Melchizedek Priesthood only a priest named Melchizedek.

Well, if there was a priest named Melchizedek, that means that he had a priesthood; and for want of a better word we can call his priesthood the Melchizedek Priesthood—especially since the Bible prophecies that the future Messiah should be ordained to his priesthood.

I am NOT here to discuss water! I am here to discuss the liquid form of Steam and Ice!!!

early Christianity = Catholicism.

I like to hear what the early Christians believed from their own words and their own mouths rather than from the Catholic Catechism.

Wow. Fascinating stuff. You know, I can find all kinds of interesting quotes on Jews if I ask a Nazi. On blacks if I ask David Duke.

Please try to find documents to support your argument without resorting to quoting bigots.

All of the information you sited above is from the “Reformed” church which still uses the Westminster Confession of 1646 which declares that the Pope is the anti-Christ.

You say that you wish to foster a positive dialog but yet your arguments boil down to “Christians are the unter-mensch!”

That is a daft comment. The first quote (commentary) I gave came from a Reformed website; and the second one came from a Pentecostal one. And so what? They are all still Christians, and they still believe in the Bible, and they have as much right to read it, and try to understand and interpret it as the Catholics do. To my knowledge the Catholic Church has not made an infallible declaration as to who Melchizedek was. There is as much diversity of opinion among Catholic theologians as to who he was as there is among Christians of other denominations.

 

[Stephen168]

Well, if there was a priest named Melchizedek, that means that he had a priesthood; and for want of a better word we can call his priesthood the Melchizedek Priesthood—

My priest was named Thomas but he was not part of a Thomas priesthood; he was a priest named Thomas. I knew a Mormon named Ron who said he held the priesthood, but it wasn’t the Ron Priesthood. Melchizedek was a priest that is all we know from scripture.

especially since the Bible prophecies that the future Messiah should be ordained to his priesthood.

Where is that is scripture?

 

[KathleenGee]

What the early Christians believed was summarized in the Apostles Creed, the Eucharist, and the Great Heresy of not believing that the bread and wine become the Body and Blood of Christ.

 

[SteveVH]

As a Catholic, I’m getting a little embarassed here with Catholic ignorance on the “priesthood of Melchizedek”. He was a very curious figure in the Bible, however, as Catholics we consider “Melchizedek ‘priest of God Most High’ as a prefiguration of the priesthood of Christ, the unique ‘high priest after the order of Melchizedek’, by a single offering he has perfected for all time those who are sanctified,’ that is, by the unique sacrifice of the cross”. (CCC par. 1544)

Our Catholic priests, by reason of their participation in the one priesthood of Christ, are also priests in the order of Melchizedek. Unlike other priests of that era, Melchizedek uniquely offered a sacrifice of bread and wine, a prefiguration of the flesh and blood of Christ, now offered to us under the appearance of bread and wine.

My problem with the Mormon view is that they claim that the preisthood was lost and then restored by Joseph Smith. Yet, I know of no Morman priest who performs the one, distinct function of a priest - that is to offer sacrifice. So how is the priesthood “restored” when not a single member actually functions as a priest and offers sacrifice?

 

[Marie5890]

As a Catholic, I’m getting a little embarassed here with Catholic ignorance on the “priesthood of Melchizedek”. He was a very curious figure in the Bible, however, as Catholics we consider “Melchizedek ‘priest of God Most High’ as a prefiguration of the priesthood of Christ, the unique ‘high priest after the order of Melchizedek’, by a single offering he has perfected for all time those who are sanctified,’ that is, by the unique sacrifice of the cross”. (CCC par. 1544)

Our Catholic priests, by reason of their participation in the one priesthood of Christ, are also priests in the order of Melchizedek. Unlike other priests of that era, Melchizedek uniquely offered a sacrifice of bread and wine, a prefiguration of the flesh and blood of Christ, now offered to us under the appearance of bread and wine.

My problem with the Mormon view is that they claim that the preisthood was lost and then restored by Joseph Smith. Yet, I know of no Morman priest who performs the one, distinct function of a priest - that is to offer sacrifice. So how is the priesthood “restored” when not a single member actually functions as a priest and offers sacrifice?

And it should be added that at most Sacraments Meetings, those that says the sacramental prayers over the bread and water are boys who don’t hold, in the LDS view, the Melchizedek priestood, but hold what they call the Aaronic Priesthood (levitical)…

ANd for them it’s not the Real Presence, just a symbol.

It’s almost a flip of understanding of authority.
For Catholics, ONLY a priest can offer the Sacrifice of the Mass. For Mormons, boys who hold the “lesser” Aaronic priesthood can administer the Sacrament.

 

[SteveVH]

Actually, when they claim that the bread is a symbol only, and not the Real Presence, they are speaking the truth. They have no authority to concecrate therefore there can be no Real Presence, but only a symbol, in the LDS church.

 

[Marie5890]

Actually, when they claim that the bread is a symbol only, and not the Real Presence, they are speaking the truth. They have no authority to concecrate therefore there can be no Real Presence, but only a symbol, in the LDS church.

Ah…point well taken

 

[KathleenGee]

Again, Catholicism works through the concrete, not arbitration…Jesus Christ is the High Priest fulfilling the great Melchizedek…who was a priest…a great man…the Levites’ priesthood endured in their faith against the worship of the Golden Calf…but Melchizedek was a solitary figure who although only one person…surpassed the stature of the Levites…

 

[Stephen168]

As a Catholic, I’m getting a little embarassed here with Catholic ignorance on the “priesthood of Melchizedek”. He was a very curious figure in the Bible, however, as Catholics we consider “Melchizedek ‘priest of God Most High’ as a prefiguration of the priesthood of Christ, the unique ‘high priest after the order of Melchizedek’, by a single offering he has perfected for all time those who are sanctified,’ that is, by the unique sacrifice of the cross”. (CCC par. 1544)

Exactly, Melchizedek is a prefiguration of the priesthood of Christ, the unique high priest after the order/style/manner/kind of Melchizedek.
“Look with favor in these offerings and accept them as once you accepted the gifts of your servant Abel, the sacrifice of Abraham , our father in faith, and the bread and wine offered by your priest Melchisedech.’

 

[Answersplease]

Why would anyone trust someone who would break a sacred promise?

…a sacred promise that WE expect them to keep…

We believe that such promises are rather important…

…he still made that promise to God.

I respect that.

The fact is, though, that it doesn’t matter WHAT the promise is made about; it’s a promise made to God.

…I believe that God expects us to keep such promises.

…I believe that the promise he makes to God is binding upon him.

…something very, very wrong.

…breaking a covenant I made with God.
…

The promise is sacred.

…I don’t have to believe that they are honorable when they break a promise that they made to God because YOU don’t like the promise they made.
…

Yes, I can. I can expect that because whether they were made in a complete understanding of truth or not, they WERE made to God.
…

The important thing is the promise. I promised God not to do this. A Priest promises God not to do that…the promise remains.

Matthew 26:35
But Peter declared, “Even if I have to die with you, I will never disown you.” And all the other disciples said the same.

Matthew 26:69-74
Now Peter was sitting out in the courtyard, and a servant girl came to him. “You also were with Jesus of Galilee,” she said.
But he denied it before them all. “I don’t know what you’re talking about,” he said.
Then he went out to the gateway, where another girl saw him and said to the people there, “This fellow was with Jesus of Nazareth.”
He denied it again, with an oath: “I don’t know the man!”
After a little while, those standing there went up to Peter and said, “Surely you are one of them, for your accent gives you away.”
Then he began to call down curses on himself and he swore to them, “I don’t know the man!” Immediately a rooster crowed.

Matthew 26:75
Then Peter remembered the word Jesus had spoken: “Before the rooster crows, you will disown me three times.” And he went outside and wept bitterly.

 

[Answersplease]

I agree with you. Whether its done in a house of worship or in a public building or even on a person to person basis, I’ll go on to say anytime you make a promise, take an oath or obligation, you are bound to honor it. Anything else violates your character and Honor/integrity & I would never, ever trust in that person again, especially in a Religious/Fraternal context.

Just my two cents.

I would never, ever trust in that person again, especially in a Religious/Fraternal context.

Matthew 26:35

Matthew 26:75

 

[Answersplease]

I agree with you. Whether its done in a house of worship or in a public building or even on a person to person basis, I’ll go on to say anytime you make a promise, take an oath or obligation, you are bound to honor it. Anything else violates your character and Honor/integrity & I would never, ever trust in that person again, especially in a Religious/Fraternal context.

Just my two cents.

…I would never, ever trust in that person again, especially in a Religious/Fraternal context.

Mark 14:31
But Peter insisted emphatically, “Even if I have to die with you, I will never disown you.” And all the others said the same.

Mark 14:70-71
Again he denied it. After a little while, those standing near said to Peter, “Surely you are one of them, for you are a Galilean.”
He began to call down curses on himself, and he swore to them, “I don’t know this man you’re talking about.”

Mark 14:72
Immediately the rooster crowed the second time. Then Peter remembered the word Jesus had spoken to him: “Before the rooster crows twice you will disown me three times.” And he broke down and wept.

 

[Answersplease]

That is strange. When I became mormon, no one said that I needed to resign my membership in the catholic church. And now that I attend Mass again, no mormon is saying that I need to be excommunicated from the lds church. I find them to be pretty tolerant. You must have had a crazy lds bishop. I have heard of no one required to give up their previous church membership to become lds.

You must have had a crazy lds bishop.

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

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