LDS and Catholic Differences

[wyp8riot]

General Authorities are paid.

"Some members of the Church are unaware that at least some General Authorities do receive a modest living stipend."

en.fairmormon.org/No_paid_ministry#A_modest_living_stipend

(an LDS apologetics website)

Thank you that link is informative…

“No professional ministers
There can be no doubt that the Church does have an unpaid ministry. More precisely, it does not have a professional clergy. Consider:”

 

[TheosisM]

Thank you that link is informative…

“No professional ministers
There can be no doubt that the Church does have an unpaid ministry. More precisely, it does not have a professional clergy. Consider:”

Right, however there are many General Authorities that do receive a “modest stipend”, a fact that is acknowledged by many LDS sources.

 

[wyp8riot]

Right, however there are many General Authorities that do receive a “modest stipend”, a fact that is acknowledged by many LDS sources.

en.fairmormon.org/No_paid_min…living_stipend
That was explained well in the link posted above fairly accurately I believe.

 

[wyp8riot]

What is the modest pay of a Priest?

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

I I think the quote above is accurate in that LDS and Catholic faiths disagree on the line of authority and if there were an apostasy. Am I correct?

Thanks for the opinions and replies.

I’m sorry if I didn’t make myself clear about the disagreement over the ‘great apostasy’. I am not surprised that you did not take time to answer the questions I asked, or address the points I raised. It seems the most Mormons can say about it is, ‘we believe it (apparently because the Mormon Church says it’s so), therefore it’s true.’ None can offer any documentation, from any sources, to support the view.

We have historic evidences from all eras, beginning with the dinosaurs. The exception being, the lack of evidence of many Mormon claims. We have archelogical evidence from the Old Testament era, but no evidence of a ‘tribe’ that travelled to the Americas.

The documentation for a great apostasy doesn’t exist, yet we have documentation from non-Christians from the same era. I’m reading a book right now from Flavius Josephus. He was a Jewish general from the wars of the Jews. He records the war with the Romans and details the destruction of Jerusalem. He wrote nothing about a great apostasy in his mentions of the Christians from that era. Flavius Josephus was captured by the Romans and allowed to compose his writings, still all things considered him being Jewish and under Roman authority, he wrote nothing about a great apostasy.

Then there’s the writings of the early Church fathers, that address the heresies from the beginning. But there’s nothing about the great apostasy. There was nothing to defend against and there’s nothing from those who supposedly apostatized defending their decision to do so because of so much corruption.

The only evidence Mormons have is the accusations from the founder of their Church, who had a vested interest in making those claims. As you say, if the great apostasy is not true, then the Catholic Church is right. With this realization, Joseph Smith had to have a way to assume the authority he did.

Your evidence, of answering a question with a question and avoiding the points raised speaks for itself. There is only a great apostasy, because you believe there was.

From the lack of evidence it is our belief that there was no great apostasy. So it’s safe for you to assume that we disagree.

 

[Answersplease]

A good indication as to why you started the thread, and the meaning you have behind it. So yeah, it is relevant.

Proselytizing Catholics or encouraging them to leave their faith, is against forum rules. So RebeccaJ has a right to point it out if she finds it.

Another new Mormon, does anyone notice that whenever one of the “regular” Mormons starts to loose a debate, a new Mormon starts posting?

 

[wyp8riot]

Maybe I wasn’t clear but I came here to learn more about the Catholic faith and doctrine not to get into the debate of which faith is right or wrong f you wan’t answers about the LDS doctrine and faith you would be better off going to an LDS faith and doctrine forum for those questions. As you see I didn’t go there to ask questions about the Catholic faith.

Maybe I should have just posed these questions;

Does the catholic believe an an apostasy?

“Catholics believe in something called “apostolic succession”, where the original Apostles passed on their authority to bishops. The Bishop of Rome is specifically the successor of Peter.” Tell me more about this please.

Does the catholic faith have a direct line and record of authority from Christ? If so where can this be seen? What is that line of authority?

Does the Catholic faith have a paid clergy? I believe this was answered as a Yes.

I also believe the questions about baptism were answered.

Thank you for the replies and clarifications.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Maybe I wasn’t clear but I came here to learn more about the Catholic faith and doctrine not to get into the debate of which faith is right or wrong f you wan’t answers about the LDS doctrine and faith you would be better off going to an LDS faith and doctrine forum for those questions. As you see I didn’t go there to ask questions about the Catholic faith.

Maybe I should have just posed these questions;

Does the catholic believe an an apostasy?

“Catholics believe in something called “apostolic succession”, where the original Apostles passed on their authority to bishops. The Bishop of Rome is specifically the successor of Peter.” Tell me more about this please.

Does the catholic faith have a direct line and record of authority from Christ? If so where can this be seen? What is that line of authority?

Does the Catholic faith have a paid clergy? I believe this was answered as a Yes.

I also believe the questions about baptism were answered.

Thank you for the replies and clarifications.

Thank you for your many questions in answer to my few questions.

Now, it’s rather suspect that you direct us to a LDS forum for answers to questions, from points you raised to begin with.

You say you didn’t go to an LDS forum to get answers about Catholicism, but you posted the differing views of Mormonism, which I responded too. I provided questions to you, who shows to be LDS in the religion posted in your profile. This is going to the LDS for answers.

 

[FCEGM]

. . .Does the catholic believe an an apostasy?

Catholics believe - as is taught in Sacred Scripture - that there will be a falling away (apostasy) from the true Faith, but not a complete apostasy of the Church (also as taught in Sacred Scripture). These articles address the subject:

catholic.com/thisrock/1992/9203fea.asp

catholic.com/thisrock/2008/0801btb.asp

Does the catholic faith have a direct line and record of authority from Christ? If so where can this be seen? What is that line of authority?

Yes, as has been already stated, it’s called Apostolic succession - with the Popes the direct successors to St. Peter’s authority given to him by Our Lord - and all the bishops in union with Him forming the teaching and governing authority of Christ’s Church. Some articles on this, including a list of the successors of St. Peter:

catholic.com/thisrock/2001/0107bt.asp

catholic.com/library/Apostolic_Succession.asp

catholic.com/thisrock/2005/0504sbs.asp

 

[Inego_de_Loyola]

“Catholics believe in something called “apostolic succession”, where the original Apostles passed on their authority to bishops. The Bishop of Rome is specifically the successor of Peter.” Tell me more about this please.

Does the catholic faith have a direct line and record of authority from Christ? If so where can this be seen? What is that line of authority?

The Succesion of Popes
Starting with Saint Peter the Apostle who recieved his authority from Jesus the Christ himself.

St. Peter (32-67)
St. Linus (67-76)
St. Anacletus (Cletus) (76-88)
St. Clement I (88-97)
St. Evaristus (97-105)
St. Alexander I (105-115)
St. Sixtus I (115-125) Also called Xystus I
St. Telesphorus (125-136)
St. Hyginus (136-140)
St. Pius I (140-155)
St. Anicetus (155-166)
St. Soter (166-175)
St. Eleutherius (175-189)
St. Victor I (189-199)
St. Zephyrinus (199-217)
St. Callistus I (217-22) Callistus and the following three popes were opposed by St. Hippolytus, antipope (217-236)
St. Urban I (222-30)
St. Pontain (230-35)
St. Anterus (235-36)
St. Fabian (236-50)
St. Cornelius (251-53) Opposed by Novatian, antipope (251)
St. Lucius I (253-54)
St. Stephen I (254-257)
St. Sixtus II (257-258)
St. Dionysius (260-268)
St. Felix I (269-274)
St. Eutychian (275-283)
St. Caius (283-296) Also called Gaius
St. Marcellinus (296-304)
St. Marcellus I (308-309)
St. Eusebius (309 or 310)
St. Miltiades (311-14)
St. Sylvester I (314-35)
St. Marcus (336)
St. Julius I (337-52)
Liberius (352-66) Opposed by Felix II, antipope (355-365)
St. Damasus I (366-83) Opposed by Ursicinus, antipope (366-367)
St. Siricius (384-99)
St. Anastasius I (399-401)
St. Innocent I (401-17)
St. Zosimus (417-18)
St. Boniface I (418-22) Opposed by Eulalius, antipope (418-419)
St. Celestine I (422-32)
St. Sixtus III (432-40)
St. Leo I (the Great) (440-61)
St. Hilarius (461-68)
St. Simplicius (468-83)
St. Felix III (II) (483-92)
St. Gelasius I (492-96)
Anastasius II (496-98)
St. Symmachus (498-514) Opposed by Laurentius, antipope (498-501)
St. Hormisdas (514-23)
St. John I (523-26)
St. Felix IV (III) (526-30)
Boniface II (530-32) Opposed by Dioscorus, antipope (530)
John II (533-35)
St. Agapetus I (535-36) Also called Agapitus I
St. Silverius (536-37)
Vigilius (537-55)
Pelagius I (556-61)
John III (561-74)
Benedict I (575-79)
Pelagius II (579-90)
St. Gregory I (the Great) (590-604)
Sabinian (604-606)
Boniface III (607)
St. Boniface IV (608-15)
St. Deusdedit (Adeodatus I) (615-18)
Boniface V (619-25)
Honorius I (625-38)
Severinus (640)
John IV (640-42)
Theodore I (642-49)
St. Martin I (649-55)
St. Eugene I (655-57)
St. Vitalian (657-72)
Adeodatus (II) (672-76)
Donus (676-78)
St. Agatho (678-81)
St. Leo II (682-83)
St. Benedict II (684-85)
John V (685-86)
Conon (686-87)
St. Sergius I (687-701) Opposed by Theodore and Paschal, antipopes (687)
John VI (701-05)
John VII (705-07)
Sisinnius (708)
Constantine (708-15)
St. Gregory II (715-31)
St. Gregory III (731-41)
St. Zachary (741-52)
Stephen II (752) Because he died before being consecrated, many authoritative lists omit him
Stephen III (752-57)
St. Paul I (757-67)
Stephen IV (767-72) Opposed by Constantine II (767) and Philip (768), antipopes (767)
Adrian I (772-95)
St. Leo III (795-816)
Stephen V (816-17)
St. Paschal I (817-24)
Eugene II (824-27)
Valentine (827)
Gregory IV (827-44)
Sergius II (844-47) Opposed by John, antipope (855)
St. Leo IV (847-55)
Benedict III (855-58) Opposed by Anastasius, antipope (855)
St. Nicholas I (the Great) (858-67)
Adrian II (867-72)
John VIII (872-82)
Marinus I (882-84)
St. Adrian III (884-85)
Stephen VI (885-91)
Formosus (891-96)
Boniface VI (896)
Stephen VII (896-97)
Romanus (897)
Theodore II (897)
John IX (898-900)
Benedict IV (900-03)
Leo V (903) Opposed by Christopher, antipope (903-904)
Sergius III (904-11)
Anastasius III (911-13)
Lando (913-14)
John X (914-28)
Leo VI (928)
Stephen VIII (929-31)
John XI (931-35)
Leo VII (936-39)
Stephen IX (939-42)
Marinus II (942-46)
Agapetus II (946-55)
John XII (955-63)

Cont.

 

[Inego_de_Loyola]

cont.

Leo VIII (963-64)
Benedict V (964)
John XIII (965-72)
Benedict VI (973-74)
Benedict VII (974-83) Benedict and John XIV were opposed by Boniface VII, antipope (974; 984-985)
John XIV (983-84)
John XV (985-96)
Gregory V (996-99) Opposed by John XVI, antipope (997-998)
Sylvester II (999-1003)
John XVII (1003)
John XVIII (1003-09)
Sergius IV (1009-12)
Benedict VIII (1012-24) Opposed by Gregory, antipope (1012)
John XIX (1024-32)
Benedict IX (1032-45) He appears on this list three separate times, because he was twice deposed and restored
Sylvester III (1045) Considered by some to be an antipope
Benedict IX (1045)
Gregory VI (1045-46)
Clement II (1046-47)
Benedict IX (1047-48)
Damasus II (1048)
St. Leo IX (1049-54)
Victor II (1055-57)
Stephen X (1057-58)
Nicholas II (1058-61) Opposed by Benedict X, antipope (1058)
Alexander II (1061-73) Opposed by Honorius II, antipope (1061-1072)
St. Gregory VII (1073-85) Gregory and the following three popes were opposed by Guibert (“Clement III”), antipope (1080-1100)
Blessed Victor III (1086-87)
Blessed Urban II (1088-99)
Paschal II (1099-1118) Opposed by Theodoric (1100), Aleric (1102) and Maginulf (“Sylvester IV”, 1105-1111), antipopes (1100)
Gelasius II (1118-19) Opposed by Burdin (“Gregory VIII”), antipope (1118)
Callistus II (1119-24)
Honorius II (1124-30) Opposed by Celestine II, antipope (1124)
Innocent II (1130-43) Opposed by Anacletus II (1130-1138) and Gregory Conti (“Victor IV”) (1138), antipopes (1138)
Celestine II (1143-44)
Lucius II (1144-45)
Blessed Eugene III (1145-53)
Anastasius IV (1153-54)
Adrian IV (1154-59)
Alexander III (1159-81) Opposed by Octavius (“Victor IV”) (1159-1164), Pascal III (1165-1168), Callistus III (1168-1177) and Innocent III (1178-1180), antipopes
Lucius III (1181-85)
Urban III (1185-87)
Gregory VIII (1187)
Clement III (1187-91)
Celestine III (1191-98)
Innocent III (1198-1216)
Honorius III (1216-27)
Gregory IX (1227-41)
Celestine IV (1241)
Innocent IV (1243-54)
Alexander IV (1254-61)
Urban IV (1261-64)
Clement IV (1265-68)
Blessed Gregory X (1271-76)
Blessed Innocent V (1276)
Adrian V (1276)
John XXI (1276-77)
Nicholas III (1277-80)
Martin IV (1281-85)
Honorius IV (1285-87)
Nicholas IV (1288-92)
St. Celestine V (1294)
Boniface VIII (1294-1303)
Blessed Benedict XI (1303-04)
Clement V (1305-14)
John XXII (1316-34) Opposed by Nicholas V, antipope (1328-1330)
Benedict XII (1334-42)
Clement VI (1342-52)
Innocent VI (1352-62)
Blessed Urban V (1362-70)
Gregory XI (1370-78)
Urban VI (1378-89) Opposed by Robert of Geneva (“Clement VII”), antipope (1378-1394)
Boniface IX (1389-1404) Opposed by Robert of Geneva (“Clement VII”) (1378-1394), Pedro de Luna (“Benedict XIII”) (1394-1417) and Baldassare Cossa (“John XXIII”) (1400-1415), antipopes
Innocent VII (1404-06) Opposed by Pedro de Luna (“Benedict XIII”) (1394-1417) and Baldassare Cossa (“John XXIII”) (1400-1415), antipopes
Gregory XII (1406-15) Opposed by Pedro de Luna (“Benedict XIII”) (1394-1417), Baldassare Cossa (“John XXIII”) (1400-1415), and Pietro Philarghi (“Alexander V”) (1409-1410), antipopes
Martin V (1417-31)
Eugene IV (1431-47) Opposed by Amadeus of Savoy (“Felix V”), antipope (1439-1449)
Nicholas V (1447-55)
Callistus III (1455-58)
Pius II (1458-64)
Paul II (1464-71)
Sixtus IV (1471-84)
Innocent VIII (1484-92)
Alexander VI (1492-1503)
Pius III (1503)
Julius II (1503-13)
Leo X (1513-21)
Adrian VI (1522-23)
Clement VII (1523-34)
Paul III (1534-49)
Julius III (1550-55)
Marcellus II (1555)
Paul IV (1555-59)
Pius IV (1559-65)
St. Pius V (1566-72)
Gregory XIII (1572-85)
Sixtus V (1585-90)
Urban VII (1590)
Gregory XIV (1590-91)
Innocent IX (1591)
Clement VIII (1592-1605)
Leo XI (1605)
Paul V (1605-21)
Gregory XV (1621-23)
Urban VIII (1623-44)
Innocent X (1644-55)
Alexander VII (1655-67)
Clement IX (1667-69)
Clement X (1670-76)
Blessed Innocent XI (1676-89)
Alexander VIII (1689-91)
Innocent XII (1691-1700)
Clement XI (1700-21)
Innocent XIII (1721-24)
Benedict XIII (1724-30)
Clement XII (1730-40)
Benedict XIV (1740-58)
Clement XIII (1758-69)
Clement XIV (1769-74)
Pius VI (1775-99)
Pius VII (1800-23)
Leo XII (1823-29)
Pius VIII (1829-30)
Gregory XVI (1831-46)
Blessed Pius IX (1846-78)
Leo XIII (1878-1903)
St. Pius X (1903-14)
Benedict XV (1914-22)
Pius XI (1922-39)
Pius XII (1939-58)
Blessed John XXIII (1958-63)
Paul VI (1963-78)
John Paul I (1978)
John Paul II (1978-2005)
Benedict XVI (2005—)

(List from NewAdvent.org)

 

[Tmaque]

In addition to the popes and perhaps more importantly, most of our bishops can trace their priesthood lineage all the way back as well. There is no doubt that the priesthood of Catholic Church came from Jesus Christ himself. The question LDS need to answer is when did it disappear (as they believe)? Also, what would cause priesthood to disappear from every bishop, even the faithful ones? These are two very pertinent questions that I think make any claim of apostasy dubious.

 

[aquabatix]

Most LDS answers to a “great apostacy” have been weak to say the least. Apparently, the ‘keys’ should have been passed to John the apostle when he was the last of the 12 alive. This stems from how the LDS church ordains a new prophet when the old one passes away. The senior most member takes the leadership role. However, this is not the way of the early Church and the tradition in Judaism either. Blessings where passed on, and not always to the most senior (or eldest). Likewise, the easiest example is in Acts, when Matthias was chosen by lots and then confirmed. There is no indication of his senior status, except that he was with them when Jesus was alive. Our current Conclave process is very similar except it is voting rather than chance/luck.

Also, the LDS want to adhere to a “quorum” needed to ordain and pass on the authority in three people. This “vision” of the three that gave the priesthood to JS and OC is the example. However, there is no evidence for this and Jesus certainly did not need a quorum when He ordained Paul. Another vision to compare to.

I do agree however that either the RCC is the true Church, or it is the LDS. I have done both, and I can assure you, the Catholic Church was, is and always be that Church.

 

[dianaiad]

Well, whoever did write this (not the OP, who is apparently just quoting an unnamed source) doesn’t seem to know the CC well enough to be making these statements.

Mormons complain (quite rightly, IMO) that many non-Mormons misunderstand the LDS because they don’t get their info about LDS from non-LDS (or anti-LDS) sources. They say that if you want to find out what the religion really teaches, that it is best to ask practicing adherents.

But this unnamed author being quoted doesn’t seem to follow this principle when it comes to understanding the CC.

I am still in RCIA so I am just learning myself about vocations, thus I can only speak with limited knowledge. However, I am betting that author here doesn’t know much about it either. Seems to be little appreciate for the sacrifice a priest makes…they work very hard in service of their congregation. IMO it is more of a “calling” than a “career.”

I didn’t see that anybody said that this was not true. After all, the calling of an LDS bishop certainly entails a huge amount of that same dedication and sacrifice, as does the calling of a preacher/priest in any other belief system. The point being made here is simply that Catholic priests and most Protestant clergy actually get paid. Mormon clergy does not…at least not until they become a “general authority.”

While I’ve heard a lot of not-so-great homilies in the CC (not all priests are good at it, frankly), I much prefer them over the LDS “talks”. Lack of trained clergy means you often (usually, in the case of my experiences) get someone who isn’t gifted in this area. I found the talks to be generally uninspired and not teaching me anything worthwhile, nor increasing my faith in God.

The problem with this is, of course, that it is not the calling of one of our Bishops to BE a good public speaker. He is very seldom called on to speak in Sacrament Meeting, actually. “Talks” are given by members of the congregation in general. In fact, I can guarantee you that I have spoken in Sacrament Meeting more often than our Bishop has! Come to think of it, I have heard it said that although the fear of public speaking is the most common phobia among Americans, Mormons don’t seem to be afflicted with it. We can’t be…almost every one of us has to give a speech in Sacrament Meeting at least a couple of times a year, if not more often than that. I sometimes think that this is one of the few benefits of becoming a Bishop, in fact—he doesn’t have to give as many speeches as the rest of us do!

I have some good LDS friends who are offended by what they think the CC believes and teaches about baptism. 'Nuf said?

I wasn’t…though I think that this notion of the ‘indelible mark’ that baptism imparts upon a Catholic whether the baptisee agreed to it or not bothers me a little.

 

[dianaiad]

This is incorrect the General Authorities are not paid by the church and their service is completely without pay

I’m sorry, my friend, but the Apostles do indeed recieve a stipend. So do some of the other General Authorities. While many of them do not accept these stipends, since they were successful in their private lives, quite a few need the stipends in order to cover their expenses.

QUOTE]

 

[Tmaque]

I wasn’t…though I think that this notion of the ‘indelible mark’ that baptism imparts upon a Catholic whether the baptisee agreed to it or not bothers me a little.

Does baptizing people for the dead without their consent bother you?

 

[PaulDupre]

My replies in Red

You are wrong. The GAs do get stipends/salaries - big ones. Not that there’s anything wrong with that - it’s just a fact. They also have church corporate credit cards for expenses while traveling, etc. This does not come out of their own pockets.

Check here and here and here for starters.

The LDS Church will not make this info public, so as to keep innocents like you in the dark.

Paul (a former Mormon, now happily Catholic)

 

[sablouwho]

I didn’t see that anybody said that this was not true.

Can you please clarify Diana, what is “this” refers to above?

After all, the calling of an LDS bishop certainly entails a huge amount of that same dedication and sacrifice, as does the calling of a preacher/priest in any other belief system.

Indeed, LDS bishops have quit a bit of responsibility.

The point being made here is simply that Catholic priests and most Protestant clergy actually get paid. Mormon clergy does not…at least not until they become a “general authority.”

Well, the way I read it, it was saying more than just that.

The problem with this is, of course, that it is not the calling of one of our Bishops to BE a good public speaker. He is very seldom called on to speak in Sacrament Meeting, actually. “Talks” are given by members of the congregation in general. In fact, I can guarantee you that I have spoken in Sacrament Meeting more often than our Bishop has!

My point was that I personally found the talks in the LDS wards (no matter who was making them) in general, (and there were exceptions), to be of significantly lesser quality and inspiration and teaching value than homilies in the Catholic Church or a sermon in a Protestant church. IMO, the LDS would significantly benefit from having trained clergy.

But that’s just my opinion…

 

[paul_c]

I didn’t see that anybody said that this was not true. After all, the calling of an LDS bishop certainly entails a huge amount of that same dedication and sacrifice, as does the calling of a preacher/priest in any other belief system. The point being made here is simply that Catholic priests and most Protestant clergy actually get paid. Mormon clergy does not…at least not until they become a “general authority.”

You must be kidding. The responsibilities of a Catholic Bishop and a Mormon bishop are worlds apart. A catholic Bishop will generally be ministering to a flock of 500,000 Catholics or more and be the responsible for the catholic position for a large metropolitan area. He will typically have 20 years or more of preistly service before he is elevated to this role after spending a minimum of 8 years in college level work in theology. I work with a Mormon bishop and I know I spend more time on religious activities than he does. His flock is only a couple of hundred people at most. The mormon bishop has a full time job and a family to occupy most of his time . My Mormon bishop friend’s degree is in engineering, not theology

 

[sablouwho]

You must be kidding. The responsibilities of a Catholic Bishop and a Mormon bishop are worlds apart. A catholic Bishop will generally be ministering to a flock of 500,000 Catholics or more and be the responsible for a large metropolitan area. He will typically have 20 years or more of preistly service before he is elevated to this role. I work with a Mormon bishop and I know I spend more time on religious activities than he does. The mormon bishop has a full time job and a family to distract him.

PaulC, the way I read Diana’s post, she’s comparing an LDS bishop to an parish priest (or Protestant minister), and NOT to a bishop in the Catholic system. These two posts (LDS bishop, parish priest) in the two faiths seem to be “rough” equivalents of one another. I think her comparison is quite reasonable.