LDS and Catholic Differences

[MyzTek]

If it’s the Eucharist, that makes sense. I don’t believe in the real presence, so I would not accept that it was the sacrifice, but at least from your pov I can see that that makes sense. Why then is it called the “sacrifice of the MASS?”

When and where it is called the “sacrifice of the Mass” I would assume it is called so because the Mass is the context in which the Eucharist is consecrated. I can’t say I have heard the phrase “sacrifice of the Mass” used in my parish or any of the other parishes where I attend weekday masses, but I’ve only been Catholic for two years and attending Mass for three so maybe it just never came up?

Yes, and it need not be in an actual sacrament meeting in a chapel. With the bishop’s permission a priesthood holder’s family on a camping trip for example could have their own rather informal “sacrament service”. Or the sacrament could be blessed in someone’s home if for example they were ill and not able to attend sacrament meeting. Happens every week in my ward for elderly shut-ins.

Thanks for this answer. Issues of what makes the sacrament a sacrament aside, there is a definite parallel here between our faiths.

peace!

EDIT: Can anyone from the Catholic members tell me if a Catholic family who knew they would be in a location they knew would preclude their attending Mass on Sunday take the consecrated Host with them to receive the Eucharist outside of Mass that day (assuming one of them was a Deacon or EM of course)?

 

[Robert_in_SD]

We are not a liturgical group, as a rule. Our Temples are strictly scripted and deeply symbolic, but our every day church meetings are not.

I would say that your liturgies are strictly limited to your temple work. That’s interesting.

dianaiad:

Our education is about theology and doctrine rather than memorized liturgies…we really don’t go that route.

It seems to me that some of your education is related to memorized liturgies - related to temple work.

dianaiad:

As for ‘bible study classes…" well, no. Those classes are formal classes, with grades and the whole enchilada. The "institute’ classes in college are even MORE so; any one of them, taken anywhere, are transferable to other universities as religion classes. “Bible study” type classes are taken in Sunday School, Priesthood Meeting and Relief Society on Sundays. We do know the difference.

Fair enough. Thanks for the explanation.

dianaiad:

No. I am beginning to understand (not really, but I’m getting a glimmer) of the Catholic view on this matter… the DIFFERENCE is that we believe that Christ did that sacrifice Himself; if we “participate” in it in any way, it is because HE not only was the sacrifice, He was the One offering Himself.

Re-read the scriptures and spend some time thinking about the Church… the body of Christ (with Christ as the head/high priest) making the eternal (once for all) sacrifice on heaven and on earth (in the mass), simultaneosly in perpetuity. We as individuals add nothing to His sacrifice. We as the body of Christ, in communion participate, so that what happens in the mass reflects and is the spiritual equivalent of what Christ is doing in Heaven as the perpetual sacrifice offered in atonement. The difference you are trying to establish between LDS and Catholic communion is based on an incorrect assumption of what the Church teaches about the mass.

dianaiad:

There is no need for a priest to continue to do it, or to re-present it. So no, in THAT sense I don’t believe we have a ‘sacrificing’ priesthood; not in the sense that they offer sacrifices of material things. Christ finished that.

But Christ is also the one who told His Apostles to continue to do it… His Body. His Blood. Eating and drinking for eternal life. Your assertion that there is no “need” fails to take Christ’s scriptural command into consideration, and fails to consider the full meaning of John, Chapter 6 (the “Bread of Life” discourse).

dianaiad:

However, we ARE asked to bring ‘a broken heart and a contrite spirit’ to our worship of Him…and that is a sacrifice; we are to give ourselves to Him.

This is how we participate in the sacrifice of the mass as well. We confess our sinfulness and brokenness, we profess our faith, we praise and worship God, and we take take communion.

dianaiad:

…not a substitute for ourselves, as the sacrificial animals and other things were before Christ, but the real thing; ourselves, our lives, our repentence, our faith and our obedience to His commandments.

The eucharist is not a substitute for ourselves. The eucharist gives us the grace to deepen our relationship with Christ, so that our good works are not of our own doing, but the work of God in us. Pelagius was wrong.

Peace,
Robert

 

[mfbukowski]

Are you the typical LDS member?

No, I’m Special.

My point was that without men and women devoting the whole of their lives to prayer, contemplation and the study of God and His revealed religion, the LDS Church’s theology lacks a certain depth.

And your theology has no understanding of the importance of the family theologically.

I suggest this is not a fruitful direction for you to take in the light of recent history.

It appears you do not remember all the discussions we have had in the past.

 

[mfbukowski]

:banghead:

In my opinion you have closed your mind to any explanation supporting the Catholic view. It has been explained to you in great detail. It seems to me, in reading many posts from Mormons on a variety of issues, that anything containing “mystery” just doesn’t compute with you. Heavenly Father must have a body of flesh and bone because you can’t imagine anything else and won’t accept as true anything you cannot fully comprehend. The term “incomprehensible mystery” is mocked by leaders of your organization (Elder Dallin H. Oaks - “Apostasy and Restoration”) As I’ve said before you are trying to pour the ocean into a bucket and you will only accept that portion that remains in the bucket. The rest of the ocean just doesn’t exist. IMO you are not after answers, only promoting your agenda.

Enjoy your ocean. I think God gave us reason, and is smart enough to explain himself in ways we can understand.

And my sole agenda was to comprehend what you say cannot be comprehended, apparently, so it is no wonder I am not understanding you. That is called circular reasoning which you would understand if you believed in reason. Splash Splash.

 

[mfbukowski]

My question is how does the LDS Church define a sacrament and what is a “sacrament meeting”?

The usage is different. For us, the word “sacrament” is roughly equivalent to the word “eucharist” for you. A “sacrament meeting” is a meeting of a congregation which includes blessing bread and water (instead of wine) and passing it in commemoration of the last supper and the savior’s admonition to “do this in remembrance of me”. Protestants and Catholics also use the word “communion” for this practice.

What you describe as “sacraments” (plural) we use the word “ordinances”.

The following are “ordinances”

Baptism
Confirmation
Sealing (Marriage) etc.

 

[mfbukowski]

So are we. And (surprise) we believe that Christ’s great Sacrifice was once for all. We follow what has been given to us by Jesus and his Apostles and the 2000 years that Catholicism has existed (yes, the sacrificial priesthood Jesus gave us, and the Mass–it may have been “bare bones” back then but the description isn’t that off, and of course, to follow Jesus command to eat His body as bread and wine is changed into His body and blood) while you follow a symbolic service that was given you (in what 1830?) by a once Protestant.

No need to attempt to be insulting. I am resisting the temptation, and not too well, I think, to be insulting back

Let’s just say that your snarkyness implies that Catholics were less than you in the second century, and all your venerated “Church Fathers” were just newcomers to be ignored for their lack of history. Just think. They were ex-pagans.

What ever happened to buying pagan babies? I suppose none here are old enough to remember that noble custom.

asksistermarymartha.blogspot.com/2006/08/announcing-pagan-baby-reunion.html

 

[TheosisM]

mfbukowski,

I scanned the Catholic Encyclopedia article (reading the CE makes my eyes glaze over), and I’m a little unsure as to how you came to the conclusion that the Mass is “not a re-presentation of Calvary”, that “the sacrifice of the mass is the sacrifice of the last supper, not Calvary”. The article states this:

“Thus, the Church, as the mystical Christ, desires and must have her own permanent sacrifice, which surely cannot be either an independent addition to that of Golgotha or its intrinsic complement; it can only be the one self-same sacrifice of the Cross, whose fruits, by an unbloody offering, are daily made available for believers and unbelievers and sacrificially applied to them.”

As far as the words “unbloody”/“bloody”, the Catechism (which as you know is an official Catholic source) uses the word “unbloody” to describe the Mass, hence why it is frequently used to describe it.

Catholics have been saying that the Mass is a re-presentation of the sacrifice on the cross at Calvary because that is also what the Catechism states:

"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."188 "

“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”

"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 "

etc.

As we can see, the Catholic Church officially teaches that the Mass is a re-presentation of the sacrifice on the cross at Calvary.

Now, what does this have to do with the Last Supper? Well, Catholics (and Orthodox I assume) of course believe that at the Last Supper, the bread and wine became the body and blood of Christ. I see that the Catholic Encyclopedia states that the Mass is a “continual repetition…of the Sacrifice accomplished at the Last Supper”. It also describes the Last Supper as an “anticipatory commemoration of the sacrifice of the Cross”. I think that it would be in line with Catholic theology to state that, since it is believed that at Mass there is a travel back in time to Calvary to “re-present” that sacrifice, the Last Supper was a travel forward in time to “re-present” (in anticipation) the sacrifice of the cross. I don’t think that Catholics would ever say that the Last Supper was a separate sacrifice from the Cross, but that they are part of the same sacrifice (especially since Catholics believe that the Last Supper was the first Mass). I think this quote from the Council of Trent is helpful:

“[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.”

So, I just wanted to make sure we all see that the official Catechism clearly equates the Mass with the sacrifice on the cross at Calvary, and states that the Mass is a re-presentation of the cross in an unbloody manner. If the Catholic Encyclopedia states that the Mass is not a re-presentation of the cross, it is in error, since official Catholic teaching says otherwise.

Hope that was helpful.

 

[mfbukowski]

Hope that was helpful.

It was, thanks. I guess I should go back and try to keep my eyes from glazing over and figure out where that came from. It’s in there somewhere.

To the others:

I feel that my charitability index is way low at the moment, and I need to take a break from this board for awhile again. Have fun all, I will leave it to d to take your questions and insults and I don’t know how she does it!

I am trying to learn how to take it and not dish it, but I am not there yet.

 

[Answersplease]

She does it by provoking the Catholics in the first place.

You imply that the Mormons here are insulted and don’t insult first or back.

How very self righteous.

 

[Answersplease]

:banghead:

In my opinion you have closed your mind to any explanation supporting the Catholic view. It has been explained to you in great detail.
…

IMO you are not after answers, only promoting your agenda.

You are just now realizing this?

 

[Answersplease]

No need to attempt to be insulting. I am resisting the temptation, and not too well, I think, to be insulting back

Let’s just say that your snarkyness implies that Catholics were less than you in the second century, and all your venerated “Church Fathers” were just newcomers to be ignored for their lack of history. Just think. They were ex-pagans.

What ever happened to buying pagan babies? I suppose none here are old enough to remember that noble custom.

asksistermarymartha.blogspot.com/2006/08/announcing-pagan-baby-reunion.html

Snarky and insulting.

 

[RebeccaJ]

That particular blog is designed to subtly mock Catholic belief.

redcardigan.blogspot.com/2009/10/dont-ask-sister-mary-martha.html

 

[aspirant]

the DIFFERENCE is that we believe that Christ did that sacrifice Himself; if we “participate” in it in any way, it is because HE not only was the sacrifice, He was the One offering Himself.

Christ has no need to offer many sacrifices because he himself is both perfect priest and perfect victim… This single, perfect sacrifice offered to the Father in heaven, never to be repeated, is the one Christ makes present to us through the divine liturgy.

This is not a point of difference.

There is no need for a priest to continue to do it, or to re-present it.

Jesus offers himself to the Father through the actions of the priest. This is not, in our view, a new self-offering of Jesus to the Father, as if it’s being done “again,” but a presentation of the original self-offering of Jesus to the Father.

The priest participates in the priesthood of Christ, who acts through him.

How do priests do that?

However, we ARE asked to bring ‘a broken heart and a contrite spirit’ to our worship of Him…and that is a sacrifice; we are to give ourselves to Him. …not a substitute for ourselves, as the sacrificial animals and other things were before Christ, but the real thing; ourselves, our lives…

We do the same, in Christ: “present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, which is your spiritual worship.”

And your theology has no understanding of the importance of the family theologically.

This is sheer absurdity.

 

[Answersplease]

So are we. And (surprise) we believe that Christ’s great Sacrifice was once for all. We follow what has been given to us by Jesus and his Apostles and the 2000 years that Catholicism has existed (yes, the sacrificial priesthood Jesus gave us, and the Mass–it may have been “bare bones” back then but the description isn’t that off, and of course, to follow Jesus command to eat His body as bread and wine is changed into His body and blood) while you follow a symbolic service that was given you (in what 1830?) by a once Protestant.
mfbukowski;6328665:

No need to attempt to be insulting. I am resisting the temptation, and not too well, I think, to be insulting back

Let’s just say that your snarkyness implies that Catholics were less than you in the second century, and all your venerated “Church Fathers” were just newcomers to be ignored for their lack of history. Just think. They were ex-pagans.

What ever happened to buying pagan babies? I suppose none here are old enough to remember that noble custom.

asksistermarymartha.blogspot.com/2006/08/announcing-pagan-baby-reunion.html

Answrsplease:

AMDGtoo’s post doesn’t seem at all insulting.

mfbukowski’s response to AMDGtoo is definitely meant to insult and provoke.

Where are all the “holier than thou” Catholics like the four who bashed me for exposing Mormonism? Why aren’t they saying anything when mud like the above post gets thrown?

 

[AMDGtoo]

EDIT: Can anyone from the Catholic members tell me if a Catholic family who knew they would be in a location they knew would preclude their attending Mass on Sunday take the consecrated Host with them to receive the Eucharist outside of Mass that day (assuming one of them was a Deacon or EM of course)?

I was an Extraordinary Minister. Extraordinary Ministers are only to help in the parish that the Bishop of their diocese has appointed them. They are not “ordinary” ministers of the Eucharist. (That is reserved to priests and I believe, by virtue of Holy Orders, deacons too–although deacons cannot “convect” the change of the bread and wine as a priest can.)

A Extraordinary Minister can bring the Eucharist to the sick (always “straight away” and always with the greatest reverence) only as a help to their priest in their parish. They cannot act outside the parish. In fact even their priest needs “faculties” from their Bishop (also a priest, but with greater authority) in serving his assigned parish.

If a Catholic family wants to receive the Eucharist yet knows that they will be in a different location from their registered parish, they would do well to seek out another Catholic Church–it’s not too hard–remember the Church is universal and the Latin Rite can indeed receive the Eucharist at the Divine Liturgy of our Eastern Catholic brethren (not Eastern Orthodox).

 

[AMDGtoo]

No need to attempt to be insulting. I am resisting the temptation, and not too well, I think, to be insulting back

Let’s just say that your snarkyness implies that Catholics were less than you in the second century, and all your venerated “Church Fathers” were just newcomers to be ignored for their lack of history. Just think. They were ex-pagans.

When I took communications, I learned that all understanding really depended on the receiver–not on the person communicating the information. IOW if you perceive “insult”, it might just be because the LDS have a “persecution complex” and think that everyone is insulting you.

Actually there wasn’t any insult intended by me. (You read “insult” into my statement of facts.)

Fact: The Catholic Church was founded by Jesus in about 33 A.D. There is a clear line of authority of Popes going all the way back to Peter who Jesus chose to head the Church–you can avail yourself of the list at any public library.

Fact: Often those that first converted to Christianity were some Jewish as well as Romans.

Fact: Many early Church fathers were contemporaries of the Apostles (like St. Ignatius of Antioch who personally studied under the Apostle John) or also had direct lines to the Apostles (like St. Iraneaeus who studied under St. Polycarp, who had been a disciple of the Apostle John.)

Fact: Protestants (who split off from the Catholic Church in the 1600s) do not accept Jesus’ words about the Eucharist and see it only as symbol.

Fact: According to Grant Palmer (LDS institute teacher) Joseph Smith was a Protestant who was upset that his family was being split by all the Protestant sects going around in upper New York. Later, he got together with another Protestant, I believe it was Oliver Crowdley–but it’s been awhile since I’ve read Grant Palmer’s book so may have gotten the name wrong–and viola there were the origins of Mormonism.

 

[sablouwho]

Fact: According to Grant Palmer (LDS institute teacher) Joseph Smith was a Protestant who was upset that his family was being split by all the Protestant sects going around in upper New York. Later, he got together with another Protestant, I believe it was Oliver Crowdley–but it’s been awhile since I’ve read Grant Palmer’s book so may have gotten the name wrong–and viola there were the origins of Mormonism.

AMDGtoo, I’m wondering if the book you refer to above by Palmer was An Insider’s View of Mormon Origins ? I think that it the book Palmer is most known for. I have not read that one but a rather liberal LDS friend of mine had suggested that I read it.

 

[Robert_in_SD]

No, I’m Special.

Oh. I see.

mfbukowski:

And your theology has no understanding of the importance of the family theologically.

Look. I’m not sure why you want to change the subject like this. If my comment hit an emotional nerve then my apologies. I did not say it to be mean. It’s just my (admitedly outside) view of LDS theology. If you disagree or see a problem with my perception, I would appreciate a charitable correction, not a stoning. (FYI - this would be an interesting topic for discussion by separate thread. LDS understanding of family versus Catholic understanding.)

mfbukowski:

I suggest this is not a fruitful direction for you to take in the light of recent history.

I’m not sure what you’re trying to imply here. But if it’s not related to the original post, let’s not go there.

mfbukowski:

It appears you do not remember all the discussions we have had in the past.

I recall them. Again, I’m not sure what your point is? My comment was not intended to imply that LDS members do not devote time and study to their faith. Nor did I mean to imply that the average LDS member did not make efforts to study and learn his or her faith. In fact, my personal experience with LDS members is to the contrary. What I meant to say was that, in my opinion, the lack of a full time clergy has a negative impact on the LDS Church as a whole, where it comes to a full and rich development of the LDS theology. I haven’t heard much of a response to my point. I take it you disagree with me, but I’d like to know why you do.

Peace,
Robert

 

[AMDGtoo]

AMDGtoo, I’m wondering if the book you refer to above by Palmer was An Insider’s View of Mormon Origins ? I think that it the book Palmer is most known for. I have not read that one but a rather liberal LDS friend of mine had suggested that I read it.

Yes it is. I got it on loan from the public library, but as I understood it back then, it was being sold by Dessert Publishing.

I was quite surprised when I read the book to find that an LDS Institute teacher finally suggesting the reason for the long passages in the BOM that seem to have been “lifted” from the Bible! I knew that the LDS use the King James Translation (I remember my convert daughter even wanting mine) but I was surprised to read that the copy the upstate New York library had back in Joseph Smith’s day, was taken out time and time again by Joseph Smith and his friend. And since the KSJ translation originally included the Deuterocanonical books (the called it the Apologetic books), that probably goes a long way to explain the LDS claim that Joseph Smith’s rendition went on to explain some things and is more “complete”.

 

[sablouwho]

Yes it is. I got it on loan from the public library, but as I understood it back then, it was being sold by Dessert Publishing.

I was quite surprised when I read the book to find that an LDS Institute teacher finally suggesting the reason for the long passages in the BOM that seem to have been “lifted” from the Bible! I knew that the LDS use the King James Translation (I remember my convert daughter even wanting mine) but I was surprised to read that the copy the upstate New York library had back in Joseph Smith’s day, was taken out time and time again by Joseph Smith and his friend. And since the KSJ translation originally included the Deuterocanonical books (the called it the Apologetic books), that probably goes a long way to explain the LDS claim that Joseph Smith’s rendition went on to explain some things and is more “complete”.

So, it sounds like you felt it was a helpful book? I am not interesting in becoming LDS, but I do find that I have an intellectual curiosity about them. I do have a sense myself that some of the history has been sanitized in order to be more “faith promoting” – which is to say, the official (revised) versions of church history are more clean, more clear-cut and make faith more easy than what actually took place.

I’ve been thinking about reading this one for quite a while. Maybe when I’m done with RCIA, I already have a heavy reading load in that class!