LDS and Catholic Differences

[dianaiad]

Could you explain what a “CTR ring” is please? I am totally unfamiliar with those.

peace,
MyzTek).

It began with a ring that we give 8 year olds, with CTR on the top. It stands for “Choose the Right” (I am of the firm belief that the WWJD people stole the idea from us! ). It is to remind the wearer to ‘choose the right’ when they have a decision to make. It is part of the preparation for baptism. THOSE rings are little pot metal rings (you know, the kind that don’t quite go all the way around the finger?) and many people keep them. It became popular for young people to buy better quality examples of them to wear all the time–i’t’s a fairly long lasting fad, evidently. Most remain very simple, but I’ve seen at least one with diamonds on it–and more than one wedding ring with those initials on it. Personally, I think that goes a little far.

 

[dianaiad]

Thanks for this correction, clearly I misunderstood

Sorry if I came of as dismissive, that was not my intent.

peace,
MyzTek

I know you did not mean to be, Myztek–which is why I commented on the impossibility of objectivity in religion.

 

[AMDGtoo]

Actually, we believe that the Melchisedek priesthood IS the Priesthood of Jesus Christ… As well, the LDS think that a 19 year old man MAY hold the Melchisedek priesthood, and it can only be removed upon excommunication from the church.

May? Some don’t? In the LDS, aren’t 12-13 year old boys regularly made Aaronic priests and then at 18-19 they simply become Melchisedek priests? And you mean the boy is without father and mother, without end and is a priest (offering sacrifice for the people) forever?

 

[sablouwho]

How so? this is a clear "either/or’ situation. As you claim, the scriptures say that baptism is necessary for salvation, especially if the concept of original sin remains. The entire point of something being necessary is that if you don’t HAVE that ‘something,’ you don’t get whatever it is that it is necessary to have. Ergo, if you have to be baptised to be saved, then if you are not baptised, you are not saved. The opposite of ‘saved’ is ‘condemned’ in religious terms.

Not sure if this will be helpful or if it will just be confusing, but in my RCIA class I learned of the Catholic belief that God can work outside of the sacraments.

CCC 1257 … God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments.

This makes sense to me…to me, God would be a very petty creature if he were such a stickler as to require baptism to “get in”, no matter what. That was one of the things in the LDS view that didn’t resonate for me. The thought of God making the departed wait a potentially very long time until the living get around to doing their proxy baptisms, and potentially keep them separated from their family members in the meantime…well, it is just not a view of God that I am able to embrace.

Clear as mud?

 

[TheosisM]

Some other differences between Catholicism and Mormonism that I find interesting include:

Catholic: In Baptism, pouring of the water over the candidate is sufficient, and in times of necessity this can be done anywhere, by any believer.
Mormon: In Baptism, only immersion is sufficient, and (as I understand it) only in a Mormon Temple (please correct me if I am mistaken here).

In Catholicism, baptism can be done by pouring or immersion. Ordinarily, baptism is performed by a priest or deacon (or bishop of course). In emergencies (i.e. imminent death), anyone can baptize a person, including non-Christians (so it’s not just “believer”).

1256 The ordinary ministers of Baptism are the bishop and priest and, in the Latin Church, also the deacon.57 In case of necessity, anyone, even a non-baptized person, with the required intention, can baptize58 , by using the Trinitarian baptismal formula. The intention required is to will to do what the Church does when she baptizes. The Church finds the reason for this possibility in the universal saving will of God and the necessity of Baptism for salvation.59

(Interestingly, in Orthodoxy, only baptized Christians can emergency baptize)

In Mormonism, baptism is done by immersion only, and by those with priesthood authority (therefore there is no concept of “emergency baptism” done by non-Mormons). Regular baptisms are done in the ward (or I assume anywhere where there is a body of water). In the temple, “proxy baptisms” are done, where a living person is baptized “for and in behalf of” a dead person, and the dead person, according to the theology, then has the choice of accepting or rejecting it.

So, regular Mormon baptisms are done outside of the temples. Proxy baptisms for the dead are only done in temples.

 

[dianaiad]

May? Some don’t? In the LDS, aren’t 12-13 year old boys regularly made Aaronic priests and then at 18-19 they simply become Melchisedek priests?

No. It is by no means automatic.

And you mean the boy is without father and mother, without end and is a priest (offering sacrifice for the people) forever?

No. His priesthood is, though.

 

[dianaiad]

Not sure if this will be helpful or if it will just be confusing, but in my RCIA class I learned of the Catholic belief that God can work outside of the sacraments.

CCC 1257 … God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments.

This makes sense to me…to me, God would be a very petty creature if he were such a stickler as to require baptism to “get in”, no matter what. That was one of the things in the LDS view that didn’t resonate for me. The thought of God making the departed wait a potentially very long time until the living get around to doing their proxy baptisms, and potentially keep them separated from their family members in the meantime…well, it is just not a view of God that I am able to embrace.

Clear as mud?

I guess you just have to define ‘long time.’ (grin) Remember, we are eternal; we believe we lived a very long time before our physical births, and will live a very long time afterward; what possible length of time can be called “very long” in comparison to that? Nor do I believe that there is any mention of physical separation between family members. We do NOT teach that people are not going to be able to see and interact with each other until their ‘work’ is done, y’know.

 

[AMDGtoo]

No. His priesthood is, though.

Then LDS boys offer sacrifice for the people forever?

When is it not “automatic”? Do the boys and their families know?

 

[sablouwho]

I guess you just have to define ‘long time.’ (grin) Remember, we are eternal; we believe we lived a very long time before our physical births, and will live a very long time afterward; what possible length of time can be called “very long” in comparison to that?

I define it as the way we experience time here on earth. So for people who lived long ago, before accurate records were kept, it seems to follow that they have been waiting what I would consider a long time in the earthly sense.

It just seems mean and petty to me that God would make righteous people wait.

Nor do I believe that there is any mention of physical separation between family members. We do NOT teach that people are not going to be able to see and interact with each other until their ‘work’ is done, y’know.

In all seriousness, I didn’t know. In fact, you are the first LDS to tell me this. (That doesn’t mean you are incorrect, of course, it is possible that I was mis-taught.) That said, I have read and/or heard first-hand accounts of other LDS saying they could “feel the rejoicing in the room” among departed ancestors when they were doing proxy work, rejoining the family. This gave me the impression that prior to the proxy baptism, that there was indeed some sort of separation, and it seems that the people doing the work believed in this themselves.

If there is no physical separation, I do not understand why the work would be necessary?

Of course, my view is probably more liberal than that of the CCC. I do believe that God can and does work outside of the sacraments. It would be hard for me, personally, to be a part of any religion that taught otherwise. (Thus my difficultly being a “good” Protestant! Or Mormon for that matter). I think that my being Jewish has something to do with why I view things this way.

That’s not to say that there aren’t other ways that God can seem to be made out to be petty to me in other religions too. For instance, I have issues with the idea of God being so petty as to really care whether I eat a cheeseburger. I am afraid I would make a very poor observant Jew!

 

[paul_c]

Interesting idea. However…and please do not get me wrong about this because I do believe that the events mentioned in the NT actually did happen… in reality the events that began Christianity are witnessed and talked about by far fewer people than the witnesses of, say, the Book of Mormon plates.

What witnesses OUTSIDE the authors of the NT talk about Jesus Christ at all, much less of the miracles and His death and resurrection? That is, people who actually witnessed these things and wrote about them first hand?

Nobody, actually.

Now, about those who did; we have Mathew, who witnessed these things personally (and who may or may not have written the book of Mathew…he actually never claimed it, y’know.) Mark…who Eusebius claimed wrote HIS gospel as “Peter’s interpreter,” John, and Luke, who was one of Paul’s travel companions, evidently, and was not one of the original 12 apostles…and who may or may not have witnessed the events of Jesus’ life personally. Then there is Paul–who very much did NOT witness the life of Jesus, but who recieved all his information by direct revelation from Jesus after the resurrection and from the teachings of those who did witness it.(I think that counts.The revelation part, anyway) Peter, of course…and John the author of Revelation. That’s it…of these, only five, (perhaps 6) men personally witnessed the events spoken of in the NT.

…and they didn’t all witness all of those events. Yet, on the strength of these few witnesses and their words, billions of people believe.

Now Mormons also have witnesses…men to whom Jesus appeared, three, and then eight, who saw and handled the plates from which the Book of Mormon was translated.

In actuality, then, there are more witnesses to the events of Mormonism than there are to the events of early Christianity. Now whether you accept the word of those witnesses or not is an entirely different matter, but if you are only going to talk about NUMBERS…

The thing is, m’friend, that it doesn’t matter whether there were six, three, eight or many thousands of witnesses to any religious event. What matters is what the Holy Ghost witnesses to YOU.

Now, as to the beginning of the CoJCoLDS, we have, of course, the visions of JS, which is one. We have the three witnesses

I think you are overstating your case. In 1corinthians 15, St. Paul says:

3 For I handed on to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures;
4 that he was buried; that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures;
5 that he appeared to Cephas, then to the Twelve.
6 After that, he appeared to more than five hundred brothers at once, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep.
7 After that he appeared to James, then to all the apostles.
8 Last of all, as to one born abnormally, he appeared to me.

And of course, this was only the resurrection event. There were 3000 who heard the spirit arrive on the Apostles at Pentecost adn were converted. Another 2000 who witnessed Peter heal the lame man outside the temple. and on it goes up to the present day, where 70,000 witnessed the dancing of the sun at Fatima in 1917.

As for the 11 witnesses, by 1847, not one of them was still affiliated with the Mormon church. Not so for the 11 apostles, who were willing to die for their faith.

 

[dianaiad]

Then LDS boys offer sacrifice for the people forever?

When is it not “automatic”? Do the boys and their families know?

You seem to be confused as to what we believe the priesthood IS. We do not think that it is something that LDS men ARE. It is something they HAVE, and HOLD. It is, quite literally, the authority to act in God’s name. Saying that their priesthood is eternal is NOT saying that the men who hold it are.

And it is NEVER automatic. A man must be worthy to hold the priesthood before he is ordained, and that ordination is a choice. It is authority which is offered and accepted, and if the man is not worthy, it will not be offered. If it is offered and the man doesn’t want it, he can say no.

So yes, the 'boys and their families know."

…one question. Are you for real?

 

[dianaiad]

I define it as the way we experience time here on earth. So for people who lived long ago, before accurate records were kept, it seems to follow that they have been waiting what I would consider a long time in the earthly sense.

It just seems mean and petty to me that God would make righteous people wait.

And we have a problem with the idea of ‘leaving it up to God…’ when we believe that God has actually told us what happens.

In all seriousness, I didn’t know. In fact, you are the first LDS to tell me this. (That doesn’t mean you are incorrect, of course, it is possible that I was mis-taught.) That said, I have read and/or heard first-hand accounts of other LDS saying they could “feel the rejoicing in the room” among departed ancestors when they were doing proxy work, rejoining the family. This gave me the impression that prior to the proxy baptism, that there was indeed some sort of separation, and it seems that the people doing the work believed in this themselves.

If there is no physical separation, I do not understand why the work would be necessary?

Hmmn…I think it’s like the difference between being engaged to marry—and actually being married. The two might well be in the same room, conversing and dealing with one another, but when they are MARRIED they have a closer tie, more rights and more obligations. I don’t imagine that this analogy is in anyway exact, but it’s the first thing I thought of.

…or…I have a friend who is a foster parent. She has raised one child, a special needs child, from the time she was born. There was no danger that this child would be taken from her; her care requirements were too difficult for anyone else to want to deal with. However, she wanted to adopt this young girl. It took her twelve years to get the paper work through, and when it finally happened, the joy in that household was really infectious. Why? They were together. She was “Mom,” and she thought of the girl as “my daughter…” Still, when that adoption came through, it was…different.

Of course, my view is probably more liberal than that of the CCC. I do believe that God can and does work outside of the sacraments. It would be hard for me, personally, to be a part of any religion that taught otherwise. (Thus my difficultly being a “good” Protestant! Or Mormon for that matter). I think that my being Jewish has something to do with why I view things this way.

That’s not to say that there aren’t other ways that God can seem to be made out to be petty to me in other religions too. For instance, I have issues with the idea of God being so petty as to really care whether I eat a cheeseburger. I am afraid I would make a very poor observant Jew!

Actually, I’ve been told by too many Catholics and Protestants alike that I am A: not Christian and therefore B: damned to hell for eternity to be that sanguine about the charity of Catholics in this area. I even got told I was hellbound at my husband’s funeral, for crying out loud!

As far as I can see, Mormonism is the only religion that not just ‘hopes’ that "God works outside the Sacraments.’ as you put it. We teach that everybody who has ever been born will have a full and fair chance to hear, and accept, the gospel. We don’t have to ‘hope,’ it, or ‘trust in God.’ It is a very basic part of our theology.

Diana

 

[mfbukowski]

Nor do I…symbols and the reactions to them change over time, and they symbolize what the users of them say they do.

When I was small, in a mostly Idaho and Utah culture, the pervading view of the cross was revulsion…because to THESE people, it symbolized a horrific event; the death of Jesus. To them, it really DOES represent the celebration of the torture device that killed Christ. While mentions of the cross are in the hymns we use, and we also use that symbol in speeches, it is ALWAYS emphasized as the horrific burden and very nasty way to die that it is. There is nothing, and I do mean NOTHING, good about the cross as a method of execution, and that is how we view it; as the method of Christ’s execution.

That we do not wear it, then, isn’t evidence that we are not Christians, or that we don’t believe in Him, or are somehow afraid of it (or Truth…) it is, rather, evidence that we respect the cross TOO much. Every time we see one, it’s purpose is emblazoned in our minds the way it cannot be to Christians who wear instruments of torture as jewelry. Our position is that Christ overcame that cross, was resurrected, and stands with God the Father AS God the Son…He DEFEATED the cross. Why on earth does everybody go around wearing the symbol of the Romans who killed Him?

THAT is what we see when we see that symbol.

That’s what it represents to us. Another poster here said this in a far shorter sentence than I just did…and he does represent the very strong feelings most of us have. Of course it doesn’t help much when other people, who are afraid of US (like my sister’s mother in law) pointedly wear the largest example of it she can every time she gets close to my sister, and who insists (when she and her husband visit them for three months every summer) upon hanging them all over their bedroom, giving them to her grandchildren, and even pouring holy water all over the living room.

However, I’m a lot older than I was, and have come to understand the uses of symbols a lot better. The vast majority of Christians do not see what we do. They see it as a symbol of Christ, of what He overcame. It is a simple symbol that represents everything positive about Him. Just because I don’t see it doesn’t mean that I don’t understand that other Christians do–and when a friend gave me a cross (before she understood how we thought of it) I honored both her and the gift, because to HER that cross meant everything positive. Because it meant that to her, it means that to me, as well.

Symbols mean what we say they mean, those of us who use them…or who do not, as the case may be.

I recall as a little Catholic boy in the early 1950’s during a Good Friday service, being strongly encouraged if not forced to stand in line and bend over to kiss the “wounds” of a very large and bloody crucifix which was propped up at an angle on the floor, on a large red piece of satin or some shiny metallic piece of cloth. It was fairly horrifying, and those were different times, but harbor no resentment toward anyone for that, and understand that the cross is just a symbol like the letter “A” or any other. It has no meaning but what we attach to it.

 

[dianaiad]

I think you are overstating your case. In 1corinthians 15, St. Paul says:

3 For I handed on to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures;
4 that he was buried; that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures;
5 that he appeared to Cephas, then to the Twelve.
6 After that, he appeared to more than five hundred brothers at once, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep.
7 After that he appeared to James, then to all the apostles.
8 Last of all, as to one born abnormally, he appeared to me.

And of course, this was only the resurrection event. There were 3000 who heard the spirit arrive on the Apostles at Pentecost adn were converted. Another 2000 who witnessed Peter heal the lame man outside the temple. and on it goes up to the present day, where 70,000 witnessed the dancing of the sun at Fatima in 1917.

As for the 11 witnesses, by 1847, not one of them was still affiliated with the Mormon church. Not so for the 11 apostles, who were willing to die for their faith.

Paul, we don’t have any written testimonies by any of those 3000 people, y’know, or from any of the 2000 who saw Paul heal anybody. What we have is the testimony of one man who SAID there were all these witnesses.

Again, I am not denying that these events happened, since I believe that they did. As to the events at Fatima…that’s irrelevent. We are talking about the beginnings, not what happened later. If you want to do THAT, you open the door pretty wide for me to bring stuff in, y’know.

As to the testimony of the eleven witnesses…tell me; what is more impressive; the statements of people who remain with the belief system and are willing to die for it (People are willing to die for all sorts of erroneous belief systems, Paul…) or the testimony of men who have come to disagree with the belief system, LEFT it, and still, even when it would have helped them a LOT to deny it, swore by their witness? Because they did, y’know. None of them, even those who never came back (and some did…) EVER denied their testimony.

 

[mfbukowski]

I think we need to define what ‘props’ are. After all, from the instant we walk through the Temple doors we are inundated with just such ‘props…’ and symbols. As I mentioned in an earlier post, the difference isn’t whether we use them or don’t use them…we do. However, ours are simpler, and far more private. No crosses on the walls, but we wear garments. What are THEY, if not exactly the sort of ‘prop’ being mentioned here? We don’t use rosaries because we don’t use memorized prayers…but we do meditate, don’t we? Aren’t we supposed to think about the scriptures and ‘ponder?’ Isn’t a specific scripture to ponder a ‘prop’ of this sort?

What they are is…reminders.

I see a high correlation between garments and scapulars, so I guess I see your point.

 

[mfbukowski]

May? Some don’t? In the LDS, aren’t 12-13 year old boys regularly made Aaronic priests and then at 18-19 they simply become Melchisedek priests? And you mean the boy is without father and mother, without end and is a priest (offering sacrifice for the people) forever?

That verse is about the Priesthood, not the holder of the priesthood. And no, you simply do not become a Melchizdek priesthood holder. You have to be ready as shown by regular church attendance, you have to pass an extensive interview which is very similar to a temple recommend interview, your name has to be approved at a general priesthood meeting of the stake (which includes all Melchizedek priesthood holders) and could be denied by a single objection of perhaps hundreds of men, and THEN you are ordained.

Furthermore, when I was a High Priest Group leader, I can tell you I was responsible for all the “prospective elders” which included many brothers who became inactive over the years and were never ordained elders, but who’s names were still on the records of the church. All of these were over the age of 18

Becoming an elder is a major privilege for a young man, as are attaining all offices of the Aaronic priesthood.

 

[AMDGtoo]

And it is NEVER automatic. A man must be worthy to hold the priesthood before he is ordained, and that ordination is a choice. It is authority which is offered and accepted, and if the man is not worthy, it will not be offered. If it is offered and the man doesn’t want it, he can say no.

What constitutes “worthy” to hold this title that clearly belongs to Jesus alone? (I mean the boy is not anyway without father and mother, beginning or end, as Hebrews 7 states and the canon in a Catholic Mass also references. And from what you have said, the boys offer no unending sacrifice, so under the definition can’t be called “priests”.) And has the LDS Melchisedek priesthood ever been not offered and **not ** accepted?

Just trying to understand since the “glorification of boys” seems to be quite a “draw”

 

[dianaiad]

What constitutes “worthy” to hold this title that clearly belongs to Jesus alone? (I mean the boy is not anyway without father and mother, beginning or end, as Hebrews 7 states and the canon in a Catholic Mass also references. And from what you have said, the boys offer no unending sacrifice, so under the definition can’t be called “priests”.) And has the LDS Melchisedek priesthood ever been not offered and **not ** accepted?

Just trying to understand since the “glorification of boys” seems to be quite a “draw”

You are being deliberately obtuse in this, aren’t you? It is not the MAN that is ‘without father and mother, beginning or end,’ it is the priesthood he holds. As to ‘sacrifice,’ what ARE you talking about? You realize, don’t you, that if your arguments hold against LDS priesthood, they work equally well against the Catholic priesthood? After all, what do YOUR priests 'sacrifice?"

As to whether the Melchisedek priesthood has ever been offered–and refused, I will admit that it happens seldom. It is, after all, something that the men actively prepare themselves for; it isn’t offered until after interviews and such (see M’s post, above). However, I do know one case where a young man did refuse it. He didn’t feel ready for it, or worthy for it. He had to do some repenting. After about a year he was more prepared, and he was ordained then, when he was ready.

I really don’t understand what you are getting at here. You are accusing us of something that is very, frankly, completely out of left field–so far out, in fact, that I don’t really know where it is coming from, at all.

 

[TheosisM]

You realize, don’t you, that if your arguments hold against LDS priesthood, they work equally well against the Catholic priesthood? After all, what do YOUR priests 'sacrifice?"

He’s talking about the Eucharist (I think that one or two other posters have brought up the issue of priests having to offer a sacrifice). The Eucharist/Mass is seen as a sacrifice in Catholicism and Orthodoxy. It is believed to be a re-presentation (not a re-do) of the once and for all sacrifice of Jesus Christ at Calvary. Basically, His sacrifice transcends time, and so the Catholic belief is that at Mass, we are transported back in time to Calvary, and Jesus’ sacrifice is presented. Here is what the Catechism of the Catholic Church says on this:

What is this Sacrament Called?
…
1330 The memorial of the Lord’s Passion and Resurrection.

The Holy Sacrifice, because it makes present the one sacrifice of Christ the Savior and includes the Church’s offering. The terms holy sacrifice of the Mass, “sacrifice of praise,” spiritual sacrifice, pure and holy sacrifice are also used,150 since it completes and surpasses all the sacrifices of the Old Covenant.
**
The sacrificial memorial of Christ and of his Body, the Church**
1362 The Eucharist is the memorial of Christ’s Passover, the making present and the sacramental offering of his unique sacrifice, in the liturgy of the Church which is his Body. In all the Eucharistic Prayers we find after the words of institution a prayer called the anamnesis or memorial.

1364 In the New Testament, the memorial takes on new meaning. When the Church celebrates the Eucharist, she commemorates Christ’s Passover, and it is made present the sacrifice Christ offered once for all on the cross remains ever present.185 "As often as the sacrifice of the Cross by which ‘Christ our Pasch has been sacrificed’ is celebrated on the altar, the work of our redemption is carried out."186

1365 Because it is the memorial of Christ’s Passover, the Eucharist is also a sacrifice. The sacrificial character of the Eucharist is manifested in the very words of institution: “This is my body which is given for you” and "This cup which is poured out for you is the New Covenant in my blood."187 In the Eucharist Christ gives us the very body which he gave up for us on the cross, the very blood which he “poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.”

1366 The Eucharist is thus a sacrifice because it re-presents (makes present) the sacrifice of the cross, because it is its memorial and because it applies its fruit:

[Christ], our Lord and God, was once and for all to offer himself to God the Father by his death on the altar of the cross, to accomplish there an everlasting redemption. But because his priesthood was not to end with his death, at the Last Supper "on the night when he was betrayed," [he wanted] to leave to his beloved spouse the Church a visible sacrifice (as the nature of man demands) by which the bloody sacrifice which he was to accomplish once for all on the cross would be re-presented, its memory perpetuated until the end of the world, and its salutary power be applied to the forgiveness of the sins we daily commit.189

1367 The sacrifice of Christ and the sacrifice of the Eucharist are one single sacrifice: “The victim is one and the same: the same now offers through the ministry of priests, who then offered himself on the cross; only the manner of offering is different.” "And since in this divine sacrifice which is celebrated in the Mass, the same Christ who offered himself once in a bloody manner on the altar of the cross is contained and is offered in an unbloody manner. . . this sacrifice is truly propitiatory."190
scborromeo.org/ccc/p2s2c1a3.htm#V

So, when Catholics say that the priesthood is sacrificial, it means that they are offering the once and for all sacrifice of Jesus Christ, “re-presented”, on the altar.

Now, the Mass is also a sacrifice in another sense, which I think LDS would be more inclined to agree with:

1360 The Eucharist is a sacrifice of thanksgiving to the Father, a blessing by which the Church expresses her gratitude to God for all his benefits, for all that he has accomplished through creation, redemption, and sanctification. Eucharist means first of all “thanksgiving.”

1361 The Eucharist is also the sacrifice of praise by which the Church sings the glory of God in the name of all creation. This sacrifice of praise is possible only through Christ: he unites the faithful to his person, to his praise, and to his intercession, so that the sacrifice of praise to the Father is offered through Christ and with him, to be accepted in him.

However, the emphasis is on the Mass being a re-presentation of the once and for all sacrifice of Christ at Calvary.

 

[AMDGtoo]

You realize, don’t you, that if your arguments hold against LDS priesthood, they work equally well against the Catholic priesthood? After all, what do YOUR priests 'sacrifice?"

Not so, the Mass is known as a sacrifice. Even Malachi 1:11 alludes to it. It is a pure offering. And it is the Catholic priest who offers this pure sacrifice everyday for the people.

So I guess you could say that a difference is that Catholics have priests (by definition) while the LDS claim is just words.

Then there’s the difference in education and training. A Catholic priest has about eight years of specialized college so as to serve the people.