LDS and Catholic Differences

[mfbukowski]

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.

We believe that the sacrifice which Christ made took away the need for sacrifice, but we do make covenants to sacrifice

We distinguish then, the Melchizedek Priesthood from the Aaronic because the Melch. contains with it an “Oath and Covenant” (found in section 84 of the D&C) which actually distinguishes it from the Aaronic Priesthood.

This passage seems to point to the LDS view, in which the author of Hebrews is speaking of the Aaronic priesthood, (Levitical) and distinguishing it from the Melchizedek :

Emphasis Added; From Ch 7 of Hebrews, KJV:

21 (For those priests were made without an oath; but this with an oath by him that said unto him, The Lord sware and will not repent, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec):
22 By so much was Jesus made a surety of a better testament.
23 And they truly were many priests, because they were not suffered to continue by reason of death:
24 But this man, because he continueth ever, hath an unchangeable priesthood.
25 Wherefore he is able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them.
26 For such an high priest became us, who is holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners and made higher than the heavens
27 Who needeth not daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifice, first for his own sins, and then for the people’s: for this he did once, when he offered up himself.
28 For the law maketh men high priests which have infirmity; but the word of the oath which was since the law, maketh the Son who is consecrated for evermore.

So we think because of his supreme sacrifice, the Priesthood of the savior no longer needs to offer sacrifice. All need for sacrifice is done. It was a schoolmaster to point us to Christ; now that he has atoned for us, the need for the teacher (sacrifice) is gone.

 

[mfbukowski]

A Catholic priest has about eight years of specialized college so as to serve the people.

We of course would point out that Peter himself and the other apostles had no such training and it is not necessary.

 

[TheosisM]

We believe that the sacrifice which Christ made took away the need for sacrifice, but we do make covenants to sacrifice

We distinguish then, the Melchizedek Priesthood from the Aaronic because the Melch. contains with it an “Oath and Covenant” (found in section 84 of the D&C) which actually distinguishes it from the Aaronic Priesthood.

This passage seems to point to the LDS view, in which the author of Hebrews is speaking of the Aaronic priesthood, (Levitical) and distinguishing it from the Melchizedek :

Emphasis Added; From Ch 7 of Hebrews, KJV:

So we think because of his supreme sacrifice, the Priesthood of the savior no longer needs to offer sacrifice. All need for sacrifice is done. It was a schoolmaster to point us to Christ; now that he has atoned for us, the need for the teacher (sacrifice) is gone.

And I think that 3 Nephi 9:18-20 is also helpful in understanding the Mormon perspective (especially verse 20):

scriptures.lds.org/en/3_ne/9/18-20#18

 

[mfbukowski]

And I think that 3 Nephi 9:18-20 is also helpful in understanding the Mormon perspective (especially verse 20):

scriptures.lds.org/en/3_ne/9/18-20#18

Yep! I of course am used to sticking to the bible on this board!

 

[aspirant]

We just don’t do anything like this, using “images or props to assist any devotional participants in the meditation.”

I admit that there are many things about Mormon culture and practice I don’t know, but it seems to me probable that there are some parallels.

I mentioned, for example, that Catholics will occasionally carry a large wooden cross when participating in a stations of the cross or “via dolorosa” devotion. It is a tangible aid helping them to meditate on Jesus carrying his cross for us and reminding them of the “cross” we’re supposed to take up daily in our own lives as we follow in his footsteps.

When Mormon groups dress in 19th century clothing and travel with handcarts in reenactments, it seems to me that they are doing something similar. The participants, I would assume, are thinking both about the historic pilgrimage of their spiritual ancestors and their own journeys of faith. The clothing and the handcarts tangibly assist this meditation.

we typically don’t “meditate”. We “ponder” which is a spiritual prayerful thinking about some aspect of the gospel, and we pray which we see as a two way conversation with God. I think the attitude is different than “meditation”.

I fail to see the difference between what you’re describing and what I’m talking about. When we meditate on a narrative from the Gospel, for example, might visualize (sometimes with the aid of images, sometimes only in the imagination) the scene as if we are there and pay attention to the actions performed and words spoken. In the presence of God we reflect in our hearts what God is telling us about himself, what he is doing then and now, what we should be doing, etc.

Using images or props is definitely non- Mormon.

This makes no sense to me. I have read that Mormons reenact pioneer days with clothing, handcarts, etc. How could these tangible elements be entirely divorced from spiritual significance? How could a Mormon not, while doing such a thing, not meditate on the intersection of his own faith journey with the journey made by the earlier pioneers?

We absolutely do not have any problem with this. Anyone who has ever been through the Temple is very aware of our appreciation of the use of ritual and symbology.

I wouldn’t think you’d have a problem with it. (Obviously I’ve never been through the temple personally, but unless I’ve been horribly misinformed I do have some knowledge of the rituals it involves.)

Our pageantry tends to be internal and private.

Well, yes and no. The Temple is restricted, the garments are not outerwear. Generally speaking, only fellow Mormons see each other doing these things. But some things, like the pioneer reenactments, are done in public, or at least places where non-Mormons might be if they chose.

They aren’t supposed to be reminding others of who we are, they are supposed to remind US of who we are.

Ditto for something like praying the stations of the cross. You might walk into a Catholic church and see some folks doing it, but they’re doing it as a prayer, not as a performance for non-Catholics.

On the other hand, we do have CTR rings

Even this, as I understand it, is intended primarily to aid the wearer, not to show off to other people. Sure, some people might misuse it as nothing more than a fashion accessory, but that’s not its real purpose. It’s supposed to remind the wearer to “choose the right” in everything he does.

But our Temples are chock a block with JUST such ‘props.’ We humans need them; it’s how our minds work.

I agree.

And I would say that even religions that appear not to employ so much ritual and symbolism as yours and mine still employ symbolism. The Amish man’s lack of a mustache and metal buttons represent his rejection of militarism, for example, and his plain clothes represent his devotion to a simple life. Quakers generally do not decorate their worship space, but they usually do organize their seating in a circle, and these are meaningful choices.

 

[aspirant]

An unmarried apostle who apparently was married before.

Whether or not he was married before, he affirms he is unmarried, and that is the salient point: his epistles were written by an unmarried bishop.

Actually, I have to chime in here big time. What makes you think that we do not have a 'sacrificing priesthood?" What do you mean by 'sacrifice." in this context?

In previous covenants, priests offered sacrifices of animals, grain, and so forth to God on behalf of the people. We believe that the Mass, the liturgy of the new covenant, is a sacrificial offering, a re-presentation of Christ’s sacrifice.

A contrast may help clarify this. Unlike Catholics, most Protestants do not believe this. Anglicans have priests, but they do not believe that their priests are re-presenting the sacrifice of Christ at the altar. Their priesthood is not, in this sense, believed to be a sacrificial priesthood. (I think a lot of this arises from a misunderstanding of what Catholics believe, but we needn’t go into that here.)

I do not know whether Mormons believe their priests offer sacrifice.

Of course Mormon priests, if they’re practicing their faith, sacrifice in the sense of offering their time and energies. Anglican and Catholic priests do too, and Anglicans would have no objection to saying this. But Catholics believe our priests are also offering sacrifice in a manner that Anglicans do not believe their priests are.

I hope that helps clarify?

if you are not baptised, you are not saved.

FWIW, Catholics believe that it is possible for unbaptized people, or people not validly baptized, to be saved.

Since infants and tiny children (and some adults, for that matter) aren’t capable of DOING this , then why do they require baptism?
Remission of personal sins is not, from our perspective, the only effect of baptism. Baptism, as we understand it, is the normal means by which God bestows the grace of divine life; incorporates us into Christ (and therefore into the Church); infuses in us the supernatural virtues of faith, hope, and charity through which we may grow in righteousness; etc. An infant does not need any personal sins remitted, since he is incapable of committing them, but he does need the grace of divine life, incorporation into Christ, the supernatural virtues through which he can grow in righteousness, and so forth.

 

[paul_c]

We of course would point out that Peter himself and the other apostles had no such training and it is not necessary.

Peter and the Apostles were trained by spending three years traveling with Jesus and learning from him first hand. They also had the aid of the Holy Spirit to aid them. These are advantages that your priests (which in effect is all your males above age 14) do not have. A lack of training is never a plus.

 

[AMDGtoo]

I admit that there are many things about Mormon culture and practice I don’t know, but it seems to me probable that there are some parallels.

I mentioned, for example, that Catholics will occasionally carry a large wooden cross when participating in a stations of the cross or “via dolorosa” devotion. It is a tangible aid helping them to meditate on Jesus carrying his cross for us and reminding them of the “cross” we’re supposed to take up daily in our own lives as we follow in his footsteps.

When Mormon groups dress in 19th century clothing and travel with handcarts in reenactments, it seems to me that they are doing something similar. The participants, I would assume, are thinking both about the historic pilgrimage of their spiritual ancestors and their own journeys of faith. The clothing and the handcarts tangibly assist this meditation.

I fail to see the difference between what you’re describing and what I’m talking about. When we meditate on a narrative from the Gospel, for example, might visualize (sometimes with the aid of images, sometimes only in the imagination) the scene as if we are there and pay attention to the actions performed and words spoken. In the presence of God we reflect in our hearts what God is telling us about himself, what he is doing then and now, what we should be doing, etc.

This makes no sense to me. I have read that Mormons reenact pioneer days with clothing, handcarts, etc. How could these tangible elements be entirely divorced from spiritual significance? How could a Mormon not, while doing such a thing, not meditate on the intersection of his own faith journey with the journey made by the earlier pioneers?

I agree with you here. The LDS say that they don’t use “props” to help them recall, but in fact they do. In my convert to Mormonism daughter’s house are pictures and tapestries of the temple, pictures of Joseph Smith finding the plates of gold, posters of Mormon sayings, videos or the Mormon story, statues of the temple, toys that enable the children to retell the story of the Nephites and Lamenites, their CTR (choose the right) banks, and even the garments of those who are “temple worthy”. Finally, there are those reenactments and pageants.

 

[dianaiad]

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.

Thank you, Theosis. That actually makes sense within the parameters of your faith, and given the very literal nature of the doctrine of Transubstantiation. I couldn’t for the life of me figure out what this ‘sacrifice’ was supposed to be, since Catholic priests don’t actually, physically, do anything LDS priesthood holders do, and especially nothing that could be termed 'sacrifice!"

I think, though, that another poster spoke of the sort of sacrifice LDS priesthood holders bring…the 'broken heart and contrite spirit…" but that is a sacrifice we all bring to the table. It seems to me, then, that if the Eucharist can be seen as a sacrifice, then so to can the Sacrament that we participate in. At least, from my POV it can be.

 

[dianaiad]

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.

My very dear sir, your disdain for us is quite clear. I preferred Theosis’ reasoning. At least he explained it so that it makes sense within YOUR beliefs and faith. It doesn’t within ours, but then it doesn’t HAVE to make sense within ours.

If you go back and read my response to Theosis, I think you will see something in the way I worded it that might make things a little more clear for you. I didn’t even realize that I had written it this way until after I had sent the post…and that indicates a fundamental difference here. We believe that our men HOLD the priesthood. You believe that your priests ARE priests. It’s a paradigm shift in thought…so when you insult and mock our beliefs, you are assuming that we think of the priesthood the same way you do…and it looks very much as if we don’t.

It would help your argument, in other words, if you stopped equivocating. How in the name of all that is wonderful, for instance, can you expect a MORMON to understand that CATHOLICS believe that the Mass is a ‘sacrifice?’ That is an utterly foreign concept to LDS thought. Your basic understanding of the priesthood seems fundamentally different from ours…not only that, but your understanding of what WE think the priesthood is bears absolutely no resemblance to either your understanding of it OR ours.

That’s neither a good thing or a bad thing; it’s simply a thing…but if you are going to talk to us, or expect to change our minds or even educate others about us, you are going to have to come to an understanding of what we really do think about these things, and deal with that.

 

[dianaiad]

And I think that 3 Nephi 9:18-20 is also helpful in understanding the Mormon perspective (especially verse 20):

scriptures.lds.org/en/3_ne/9/18-20#18

Thank you, Theosis, that is precisely right. You seem to do that a lot.

 

[KathleenGee]

I can see the tragedy of good people within Christianity either not recognizing or having objective understanding of what faith, Sacraments, and priesthood means. I do not believe the priesthood coming from the Judeo Christian tradition is meant to be taken as relative. With the splitting of Christianity, the priesthood now has very different definitions and practices.

‘Lord, I pray for healing and unity of all Christians under that which You have deigned to be faith, sacrament and priesthood, and that like the early Christians, we may once again break Bread together. Amen.’

 

[TheosisM]

Thank you, Theosis. That actually makes sense within the parameters of your faith, and given the very literal nature of the doctrine of Transubstantiation. I couldn’t for the life of me figure out what this ‘sacrifice’ was supposed to be, since Catholic priests don’t actually, physically, do anything LDS priesthood holders do, and especially nothing that could be termed 'sacrifice!"

I think, though, that another poster spoke of the sort of sacrifice LDS priesthood holders bring…the 'broken heart and contrite spirit…" but that is a sacrifice we all bring to the table. It seems to me, then, that if the Eucharist can be seen as a sacrifice, then so to can the Sacrament that we participate in. At least, from my POV it can be.

Yes, the Eucharist and the Sacrament can both be sacrifices in the sense of a sacrifice of thanksgiving and praise, and “broken heart and contrite spirit”. However, as you know, it is important to make the distinction that the Mass is also a sacrifice in the sense that it is a re-presentation (in an “unbloody” way) of the sacrifice of Christ, and uses terminology such as “victim”. So, Christ is being sacrificed on the altar, however He is not being sacrificed again and again, but we travel back in time to Calvary, and He is sacrificed, in an unbloody way.

Again though, the sacrifice of thanksgiving and praise, and/or a broken heart and contrite spirit also make both of these rituals sacrifices.

 

[dianaiad]

I admit that there are many things about Mormon culture and practice I don’t know, but it seems to me probable that there are some parallels.

I mentioned, for example, that Catholics will occasionally carry a large wooden cross when participating in a stations of the cross or “via dolorosa” devotion. It is a tangible aid helping them to meditate on Jesus carrying his cross for us and reminding them of the “cross” we’re supposed to take up daily in our own lives as we follow in his footsteps.

When Mormon groups dress in 19th century clothing and travel with handcarts in reenactments, it seems to me that they are doing something similar. The participants, I would assume, are thinking both about the historic pilgrimage of their spiritual ancestors and their own journeys of faith. The clothing and the handcarts tangibly assist this meditation.

Well, perhaps…but to be honest, we do it for two main reasons: to remind ourselves of history, and because it’s fun. We do tend to like ‘show business.’ (grin) Our purely religious meditation aids are more personal and very much more private, as a general rule.

I fail to see the difference between what you’re describing and what I’m talking about. When we meditate on a narrative from the Gospel, for example, might visualize (sometimes with the aid of images, sometimes only in the imagination) the scene as if we are there and pay attention to the actions performed and words spoken. In the presence of God we reflect in our hearts what God is telling us about himself, what he is doing then and now, what we should be doing, etc.

This makes no sense to me. I have read that Mormons reenact pioneer days with clothing, handcarts, etc. How could these tangible elements be entirely divorced from spiritual significance? How could a Mormon not, while doing such a thing, not meditate on the intersection of his own faith journey with the journey made by the earlier pioneers?

We don’t. That is, you are right. The problem here isn’t that we DON"T do this sort of thing. It’s that we don’t THINK of these things as specifically spiritual aids. At least, not pageants and such. I think it’s a matter of 'you do the stations of the Cross and carry rosaries and that’s a prop, and we perform pageants and wear CTR rings but they aren’t." Every body has to step back and do a little logical thinking.

I wouldn’t think you’d have a problem with it. (Obviously I’ve never been through the temple personally, but unless I’ve been horribly misinformed I do have some knowledge of the rituals it involves.)

Well, yes and no. The Temple is restricted, the garments are not outerwear. Generally speaking, only fellow Mormons see each other doing these things. But some things, like the pioneer reenactments, are done in public, or at least places where non-Mormons might be if they chose.

Indeed…they are a celebration of history more than they are of religion, though…at least we look at them that way. For instance, pioneer day isn’t often celebrated with handcarts, etc., in places where there actually WEREN’T any.

Ditto for something like praying the stations of the cross. You might walk into a Catholic church and see some folks doing it, but they’re doing it as a prayer, not as a performance for non-Catholics.

Even this, as I understand it, is intended primarily to aid the wearer, not to show off to other people. Sure, some people might misuse it as nothing more than a fashion accessory, but that’s not its real purpose. It’s supposed to remind the wearer to “choose the right” in everything he does.

I agree.

And I would say that even religions that appear not to employ so much ritual and symbolism as yours and mine still employ symbolism. The Amish man’s lack of a mustache and metal buttons represent his rejection of militarism, for example, and his plain clothes represent his devotion to a simple life. Quakers generally do not decorate their worship space, but they usually do organize their seating in a circle, and these are meaningful choices.

Yes…and I don’t know of a single religion that does NOT use symbols in this way. As you mention, even the lack of symbols is actually a symbol; for instance, the way we do NOT display the cross is a HUGE symbol of what we believe and think about it, and about the Savior Who died on it.

 

[dianaiad]

Whether or not he was married before, he affirms he is unmarried, and that is the salient point: his epistles were written by an unmarried bishop.

Being a widower, at least for US, very much counts as ‘married,’ aspirant.

In previous covenants, priests offered sacrifices of animals, grain, and so forth to God on behalf of the people. We believe that the Mass, the liturgy of the new covenant, is a sacrificial offering, a re-presentation of Christ’s sacrifice.

A contrast may help clarify this. Unlike Catholics, most Protestants do not believe this. Anglicans have priests, but they do not believe that their priests are re-presenting the sacrifice of Christ at the altar. Their priesthood is not, in this sense, believed to be a sacrificial priesthood. (I think a lot of this arises from a misunderstanding of what Catholics believe, but we needn’t go into that here.)

I do not know whether Mormons believe their priests offer sacrifice.

Of course Mormon priests, if they’re practicing their faith, sacrifice in the sense of offering their time and energies. Anglican and Catholic priests do too, and Anglicans would have no objection to saying this. But Catholics believe our priests are also offering sacrifice in a manner that Anglicans do not believe their priests are.

I hope that helps clarify?

FWIW, Catholics believe that it is possible for unbaptized people, or people not validly baptized, to be saved.

Between Mb and Theosis, I think a rather complete and fair explanation for what we believe regarding the priesthood and sacrifice has been given on this thread.

Remission of personal sins is not, from our perspective, the only effect of baptism. Baptism, as we understand it, is the normal means by which God bestows the grace of divine life; incorporates us into Christ (and therefore into the Church); infuses in us the supernatural virtues of faith, hope, and charity through which we may grow in righteousness; etc. An infant does not need any personal sins remitted, since he is incapable of committing them, but he does need the grace of divine life, incorporation into Christ, the supernatural virtues through which he can grow in righteousness, and so forth.

This is a very big difference between Catholic and LDS thought, this is very true.

 

[dianaiad]

I agree with you here. The LDS say that they don’t use “props” to help them recall, but in fact they do. In my convert to Mormonism daughter’s house are pictures and tapestries of the temple, pictures of Joseph Smith finding the plates of gold, posters of Mormon sayings, videos or the Mormon story, statues of the temple, toys that enable the children to retell the story of the Nephites and Lamenites, their CTR (choose the right) banks, and even the garments of those who are “temple worthy”. Finally, there are those reenactments and pageants.

My dear sir, I do hope that you spend all your venom against our beliefs here, and do not take it to your daughter’s home.

 

[TheosisM]

I agree with you here. The LDS say that they don’t use “props” to help them recall, but in fact they do. In my convert to Mormonism daughter’s house are pictures and tapestries of the temple, pictures of Joseph Smith finding the plates of gold, posters of Mormon sayings, videos or the Mormon story, statues of the temple, toys that enable the children to retell the story of the Nephites and Lamenites, their CTR (choose the right) banks, and even the garments of those who are “temple worthy”. Finally, there are those reenactments and pageants.

I think we need to be clear on the issue of “props” here. Yes, Mormons have pictures of Jesus Christ, the apostles, modern apostles, temples, Joseph Smith, etc. in various places, some found in their wards (usually in the hallways not the main chapel), temples, homes, etc. However, there is a difference between this and what the Catechism terms the “veneration of sacred images”. While you will find the above images in Mormonism, you will not find an equivalent to the veneration of icons/statues. There is no concept that ““the honor rendered to an image passes to its prototype,” and “whoever venerates an image venerates the person portrayed in it.”” (Catechism paragraph 2132).

 

[AMDGtoo]

My very dear sir, your disdain for us is quite clear. I preferred Theosis’ reasoning. At least he explained it so that it makes sense within YOUR beliefs and faith. It doesn’t within ours, but then it doesn’t HAVE to make sense within ours.

If you go back and read my response to Theosis, I think you will see something in the way I worded it that might make things a little more clear for you. I didn’t even realize that I had written it this way until after I had sent the post…and that indicates a fundamental difference here. We believe that our men HOLD the priesthood. You believe that your priests ARE priests. It’s a paradigm shift in thought…so when you insult and mock our beliefs, you are assuming that we think of the priesthood the same way you do…and it looks very much as if we don’t.

It would help your argument, in other words, if you stopped equivocating. How in the name of all that is wonderful, for instance, can you expect a MORMON to understand that CATHOLICS believe that the Mass is a ‘sacrifice?’ That is an utterly foreign concept to LDS thought. Your basic understanding of the priesthood seems fundamentally different from ours…not only that, but your understanding of what WE think the priesthood is bears absolutely no resemblance to either your understanding of it OR ours.

That’s neither a good thing or a bad thing; it’s simply a thing…but if you are going to talk to us, or expect to change our minds or even educate others about us, you are going to have to come to an understanding of what we really do think about these things, and deal with that.

I want to address this and I think that it would be best out in the open.

First, I am not a “sir”, I am female. And further, one of my daughters is a convert to Mormonism while another married into a Mormon family. Accordingly I have had some experiences with Mormons, and in no way, am I intentionally insulting or mocking.

Secondly, I am not being equivocal (intentionally ambigous). I have been through discussions with Protestants about the priesthood and their claim at the time was that since a priest is one who offers sacrifice, it would be wrong (by definition) to say that Catholics had priests. (I guess they thought that Protestant ministers and Catholic priests are interchangeable terms and that the Mass isn’t a sacrifice.)

I do know about the Melchizedek priesthood and what a draw it is. I have even heard people who were considering becoming LDS say that one of their reasons is that the LDS hold the Melchizedek priesthood and wonder why Catholics don’t. (It’s because the Melchizedek priesthood belongs to Jesus since He alone is without father and mother, beginning or end, and offers sacrifice forever.)

So, as you say, a difference between Catholics and LDS are terms–in this case, “holding” and “are”, what a priest is, and even the Melchizedek priesthood itself.

You know, these differences in terms alone need to be known to prevent confusion. Otherwise, we tend to think that we are speaking about the same things when we are not.

 

[aspirant]

Being a widower, at least for US, very much counts as ‘married,’ aspirant.

Paul self-identifies as unmarried. This either means that he was never married, or that he was once married and is no longer married.

there is a difference between [Mormons & Catholics regarding] what the Catechism terms the “veneration of sacred images”.

Yes. But not, I think, regarding everything about the use of tangible aids to prayer & spiritual practice.

 

[dianaiad]

I want to address this and I think that it would be best out in the open.

First, I am not a “sir”, I am female.

Nice to know.

And further, one of my daughters is a convert to Mormonism while another married into a Mormon family. Accordingly I have had some experiences with Mormons, and in no way, am I intentionally insulting or mocking.

I am very glad to hear that. I do have to wonder, though, since you have two daughters who are this close to Mormons and LDS culture, that you ask questions that show what I can only term as a complete misunderstanding and misrepresentation of our beliefs about the priesthood.

Secondly, I am not being equivocal (intentionally ambigous). I have been through discussions with Protestants about the priesthood and their claim at the time was that since a priest is one who offers sacrifice, it would be wrong (by definition) to say that Catholics had priests. (I guess they thought that Protestant ministers and Catholic priests are interchangeable terms and that the Mass isn’t a sacrifice.)

Which has nothing whatsoever to do with Mormonism. We are NOT Protestants…and until Theosis explained the idea of sacrifice and the Catholic view of it in regard to the priesthood, I had no clue about how Catholics looked at it other than as ‘authority.’ Now I do, and for that I thank you, and Theosis.

However, as you have probably also read here, we do not believe that there is a need for a ‘sacrificial priesthood,’ and that the priesthood is simply the authority to perform ordinances in God’s Name. The ‘Keys of the Kingdom,’ in other words. We are quite aware that Catholics believe that they have this. We believe we do. The thing to be determined isn’t whether either one of our priesthoods is valid, but rather which one of our BELIEFS is. Whichever one is has the correct idea of what the priesthood is. You believe you are correct, and I believe I am.

I do know about the Melchizedek priesthood and what a draw it is. I have even heard people who were considering becoming LDS say that one of their reasons is that the LDS hold the Melchizedek priesthood and wonder why Catholics don’t. (It’s because the Melchizedek priesthood belongs to Jesus since He alone is without father and mother, beginning or end, and offers sacrifice forever.)

So, as you say, a difference between Catholics and LDS are terms–in this case, “holding” and “are”, what a priest is, and even the Melchizedek priesthood itself.

You know, these differences in terms alone need to be known to prevent confusion. Otherwise, we tend to think that we are speaking about the same things when we are not.

Indeed. I think I made that point…and I wasn’t the one attacking YOUR beliefs regarding the priesthood, or making snide and disrespectful remarks about it.

Again, it is not the man holding the priesthood who is 'without father and mother, beginning or end, and offers sacrifice forever." …especially since Jesus most definitely HAS a Father, God…and most definitely a mother; you give her great reverence. It is indeed HIS sacrifice that is forever so that no further sacrifice needs to be made…so that His priesthood represents that.

We believe that it is His PRIESTHOOD that has all these qualities, not the men holding it.