LDS and Catholic Differences

[aspirant]

What our priests do (at the command of Jesus) is to make present for all (even for those who weren’t alive in 33 A.D. when Jesus was crucified) Jesus’ great Sacrifice.

By the power of the Holy Spirit and the authority given to them in Jesus Christ at their ordination.

 

[Robert_in_SD]

Saying that the once and for all sacrifice is being re-presented on the altar is the same thing as saying that He is being sacrificed, just that it is not a “fresh/new” sacrifice or a “re-do”, but the same sacrifice as Calvary, in an unbloody manner.

Well, again, the way you’ve stated this may be misleading some into thinking that the mass is somehow prolonging or re-creating the bloody death of Jesus on the cross when that is not the case. The sacrifice (not the killers and the killing, but the lamb of God) is made present on the altar. (Rev. 5:6)

TheosisM:

It is as if we are there at Calvary, according to the theology. The “victim” is the same (Jesus), and “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.” (paragraph 1367 CCC).

It’s more like Christ makes Himself present as sacrifice (bread and wine) and High Priest (through the actions of the priest)… not the dead Christ, but the triumphant Lamb of God.

TheosisM:

I agree that He is not re-sacrificed at the Mass, however He is sacrificed in the sense that we travel back in time to Calvary, and Jesus is sacrificed in an “unbloody” manner.

I won’t split hairs. It is a sacrifice that is made present to us now. My initial concern was that the way you stated it previously, one might infer (improperly) that we believe we are re-crucifying Jesus, or that in some way the mass undermines the completeness of the one sacrifice at Calvary. I understand that you are not making such an assertion. I only wanted to clarify as best I could.

Peace,
Robert

 

[zach_dunn]

How do priests do that?

I suppose it is “just a belief” that they do, which makes it so.

I am totally ok with that, but is there a defined mechanism how this happens, or what?

I could not tell you exactly how our priesthood works either- the question is just if the belief itself defines it, or there is some evidence of how this happens?

I am being silly for an example but one example would be “there is a cosmic time warp which takes us back into time”.

Is it symbolic? THAT I can understand. But “actual”? That is why I ask about mechanism.

If it’s a mystery ok- again- I am just looking to see how far the definitions go.

Our priesthood is not simply “belief,” our priests — by the power of God, mind you — have actually turned the wafer into Christs’ Body, in substance and accidence . . . that is not simply belief.

BTW, when the priest says the words of consecration, Christ changes the substance of the bread. This is because the priest is standing in persona Christi; that is, in the person of Christ [cf. Douay-Rheims Bible, 2 Corinthians Chapter 2”]2 Cor 2:10] and Christ acts through him (the priest) during the Eucharist, Confession, Anointing of the Sick, etc.

 

[mfbukowski]

(Hi, I hope you don’t mind my jumping in midstream here…)

I assume that there is probably an orthodox Catholic reply to your question, but that is not the answer that I will give you…

For me, I find it is “better” because I experience God more in that context than in any other. Frankly, I didn’t experience God in the Jewish context into which I was born, nor in the Protestant ones that I checked out after I came to believe in Jesus.

And, despite praying with sincere intent for a significant period of time (often on my knees, crying), despite “wanting it” to the depths of my soul, I just didn’t experience God in the LDS context.

So, for me, the Catholic thing seems to work. (I ignore the parts of it that don’t. Yeah, I know, some people aren’t going to like that–oh well, not much I can do.)

Yet I have no doubt that for you and for many other LDS, the Mormon thing is a glove fit, and for you and other members, “simply reflecting or meditating on the atonement” IS indeed better.

I totally respect that. I am glad you have what makes you feel the spirit. Of course I think you will eventually be “Mormon”, but maybe not in this life!

 

[mfbukowski]

[sarcasm]Yeah, it’s a good thing no one except one gullible congressman listened to those “disgruntled” People’s Temple members who were spreading those rumors about mock suicide rehearsals and the leader’s supposed paranoia and control issues. People might have gotten the wrong idea. [/sarcasm]

Sorry friend, I have to disagree. Former members of a religious movement (and yes I acknowledge I even have to include lapsed Catholics in this) are a valuable and indispensable source of information for forming a complete picture.

Peace,
MyzTek

Great! That makes me an expert on Catholicism!

 

[MyzTek]

Great! That makes me an expert on Catholicism!

You are unquestionably an expert on your experience with Catholicism, and the behavior of the Catholics you encountered. Without knowing more about you and them I can’t speak as to how accurately you, or they, understand the Faith itself.

 

[TheosisM]

Well, again, the way you’ve stated this may be misleading some into thinking that the mass is somehow prolonging or re-creating the bloody death of Jesus on the cross when that is not the case. The sacrifice (not the killers and the killing, but the lamb of God) is made present on the altar. (Rev. 5:6)

It’s more like Christ makes Himself present as sacrifice (bread and wine) and High Priest (through the actions of the priest)… not the dead Christ, but the triumphant Lamb of God.

I won’t split hairs. It is a sacrifice that is made present to us now. My initial concern was that the way you stated it previously, one might infer (improperly) that we believe we are re-crucifying Jesus, or that in some way the mass undermines the completeness of the one sacrifice at Calvary. I understand that you are not making such an assertion. I only wanted to clarify as best I could.

Peace,
Robert

No problem, I completely agree.

 

[mfbukowski]

According to Aquinas, venial sins are remitted not only in the Eucharist, but in all of the sacraments, since they involve an “infusion of grace”. So, the remitting of venial sins is not unique to the Eucharist among the sacraments.

Very interesting. I think it might have helped the cause a bit more if it was restricted to the Eucharist. I mean connecting redemption to Jesus’ sacrifice and atonement just makes sense to me, but of course that is MY theology.

 

[Robert_in_SD]

How do priests do that?

I suppose it is “just a belief” that they do, which makes it so.

A belief that is supported by scripture and 2,000 years of sacred tradition.
mfb:

I am totally ok with that, but is there a defined mechanism how this happens, or what?

Not in a complete sense. But the Church has gone as far as to say what is required for the confection of the sacrament; and they have attempted to distinguish the change in substance from bread and wine (transubstantiation) from other theories (like consubstantiation, etc.) In short, the sacrament requires that the celebrant be a validly ordained priest (apostolic succession), the correct elements (bread and wine), the correct intention by the priest - to do what the Church intends of the sacrament, and the correct words of institution (i.e. the words uttered by Jesus Christ at the Last Supper). You can see this in the Eucharistic prayers I linked to in my earlier posts - compare Eucharistic prayers I through IV and you will see four examples.
mfb:

I could not tell you exactly how our priesthood works either- the question is just if the belief itself defines it, or there is some evidence of how this happens?

I’m not sure what you mean by “the belief defines it.” But if you are asking whether or not the sacrament is “real” only to those who believe it to be real; we believe that the body, blood soul and divinity of Jesus Christ is real and present in the bread and wine regardless of what one may believe personally when receiving. That is another reason why Catholic communion services are “closed” to practicing Catholics.
mfb:

I am being silly for an example but one example would be “there is a cosmic time warp which takes us back into time”.

The furthest the Church has gone is with respect to explaining the change in the substance of bread and wine when Christ is made present. No doctrinal teachings regarding time warps, etc. But you may be able to gain some insight by researching God’s presence separate and apart from time as we understand it.
mfb:

Is it symbolic? THAT I can understand. But “actual”? That is why I ask about mechanism.

Again, transubstantiation is where you want to go.
mfb:

If it’s a mystery ok- again- I am just looking to see how far the definitions go.

Well, to some degree there is always going to be a mystery to the Eucharist. Why would God make Himself real and present in the Eucharist… because He said he would. But what did we do to merit such a blessing?

Peace,
Robert

 

[mfbukowski]

I would not say it quite in this way. The sacrifice of the Mass is Christ’s once-for-all sacrifice at Calvary re-presented. He is not re-sacrificed at every mass. He is not sacrificed on the altar. He is made real and present under the appearance of bread and wine, and offered to God as the one acceptable sacrifice for sins. That is the sacrifice of the mass, and it is why there is/must always be an ordained priesthood in the Catholic Church - the mass. Because there is no such belief, and no such need, in Mormonism, there is really no need for an ordained priesthood. So, my question was, am I wrong. Are there sacrifices offered by the LDS priests? (and I’m not talking about sacrificing time and energy, nor am I talking about bringing contrite hearts to God) Is Christ offered and if so, how?

No sacrifice in your terms- that was taken care of once and for all- again- Hebrews 7, twenty whatever it was (see above)

Incidentally that is now at least the third citation of that scripture with no returned comments

Anyway- the priesthood is required in the LDS church as the authority to lead and receive inspiration for leadership as well as to perform saving ordinances including baptism etc and temple and sealing ordinances. You know- what you seal on earth is sealed in heaven etc.

We believe you must have the priesthood even to perform baptisms, as apparently is also the case in Orthodoxy and “the east” per previous posts- I am not sure if that means eastern rites which are not Orthodox as well- I think TheosisM posted that info.

 

[mfbukowski]

Call it a mystery? Some of my best friends are Catholic? Been trying to understand it for over a year and rejecting all explanations while at it? And I’ve seen you ‘not knocking’ Catholicism, if it would bruise it would be a major blood blister by now.

Smooooooooootch.

 

[aspirant]

Hebrews 7, twenty whatever it was (see above)

Incidentally that is now at least the third citation of that scripture with no returned comments

I’ve been referring to this verse repeatedly in my posts. How can you say no one has commented on it?

 

[mfbukowski]

No, LDS do not have an equivalent to the sacrificial theology of the Mass (i.e. that Jesus’ sacrifice on the cross is re-presented in an unbloody manner on the altar).

Correct. And I could never understand the theology of it, and still don’t.

Edit:

It is as if we are there at Calvary, according to the theology.

Would those who were there be “better off” in some way than those who were not?

If not, what is the efficacy of the mass?

 

[TheosisM]

We believe you must have the priesthood even to perform baptisms, as apparently is also the case in Orthodoxy and “the east” per previous posts- I am not sure if that means eastern rites which are not Orthodox as well- I think TheosisM posted that info.

Yes, the Eastern Catholic churches have the same view as Orthodoxy on the matter of priesthood, where in the West, deacons are the ordinary ministers (along with priests and bishops) of the sacraments of baptism and matrimony (noting that in the West the cleric doesn’t really “confer” matrimony, since the man and woman are the celebrants), while in the East, only priests and bishops can ordinarily celebrate baptism and matrimony. It should be noted in both places that deacons are of course ordained persons.

As far as emergency baptism, the West allows any person, including a non-baptized person, to baptize in an emergency situation (i.e. imminent death). In the East, only baptized persons can baptize in an emergency situation. In this way, I think that the Eastern view may be similar to the LDS view, as far as the traditional (or at least Catholic) view of baptism conferring the “priesthood of the faithful” (in contrast to the “ministerial priesthood”), which means that in the Eastern view, some sort of priesthood is required for someone to baptize in emergency, even if it is the “priesthood of the faithful” instead of the “ministerial priesthood”.

 

[mfbukowski]

This is, not surprisingly, similar to the way Jews understand Passover. To participate in the seder now is to experience the liberation of the original Passover.

(I say “not surprisingly” because this is exactly the way the New Testament talks about the Eucharist: “Christ our Passover has been sacrificed for us, therefore let us celebrate the festival, not with the old leaven, the leaven of malice and evil, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.”)

This I think I could understand because I think Jews take this symbolically since they have no concept (unless I am wrong) of “grace”. It is a sense of unity with the past tradition - a sense of oneness with all of God’s people (I imagine- I have no idea if this is correct)

But that is not the same understanding as Catholics, I think.

 

[RebeccaJ]

No sacrifice in your terms- that was taken care of once and for all- again- Hebrews 7, twenty whatever it was (see above)

“Once and for all” refers to Jesus’ suffering and death, not to the Sacrifice. Heb 9:25-26

 

[mfbukowski]

I think perhaps the best thing you can do to understand the Catholic position on the mass is read the Liturgy of the Eucharist… the prayers and assertions made by the celebrant, to understand what is being offered to the Father, and why. The best I can do is summarize for you what our belief is:

(1) Adam’s sin separated all of us from the Father. Without a restoration of that unity with God, no one can go to the Father in Heaven.

(2) Because Adam’s sin offended God who is infinite, only a sacrifice of infinite worth can redeem for that sin.

(3) Christ was that infinite sacrifice - at Calvary. His submission to the will of the Father by: (a) taking on a human nature and; (b) giving up His own life in obedience to the will of the Father, was the only sacrifice that could restore man’s relationship with the Father.

(4) Before He went to His death, Jesus told his followers to take bread and wine, bless it and share it… that it was His Body and Blood of the new covenant.

(5) Jesus also said He was the Bread of Life, come down from Heaven, and that if we did not eat His body and drink His blood we would not have eternal life…

and so at the mass, we do what He told us to do. Don’t take my word for it. Read for yourself: Here

The mass is offered because we believe Jesus’ words that we must eat his flesh and drink his blood. We offer the mass because he asked us to do it as a remembrance of Him. And we do it because it re-presents that one infinite sacrifice to God in a real and tangible way in which we participate in its benefits, through receiving the real body and blood of Christ made present under the appearance of bread and wine.

Peace,
Robert

Thanks for the link- I will definitely read it. It has been a long time.

I agree with every word of this post, and this is what we refer to as “sacrament meeting”, but as you move through the thread, you will see there is more I disagree with.

“Remembrance” and “represent” are the operative words, but I don’t think you mean that really. If you did, we would totally agree.

It is the re-creation somehow of the sacrifice that I don’t understand and think is unnecessary.

 

[mfbukowski]

By the power of the Holy Spirit and the authority given to them in Jesus Christ at their ordination.

Ok. I can respect that. Not an answer, but I respect that if we leave it there and go no further. It is a mystery.

But then don’t go and tell me it is not, ok?

 

[mfbukowski]

Well, again, the way you’ve stated this may be misleading some into thinking that the mass is somehow prolonging or re-creating the bloody death of Jesus on the cross when that is not the case. The sacrifice (not the killers and the killing, but the lamb of God) is made present on the altar. (Rev. 5:6)

No, I get that. But I don’t know how you think Rev 5:6 refers to the mass. Clearly it about something else. I am not sure what, but clearly we don’t have beasts with eyes etc. present at mass.

It’s more like Christ makes Himself present as sacrifice (bread and wine) and High Priest (through the actions of the priest)… not the dead Christ, but the triumphant Lamb of God.

Very close to what we believe, different terminology.

I won’t split hairs. It is a sacrifice that is made present to us now. My initial concern was that the way you stated it previously, one might infer (improperly) that we believe we are re-crucifying Jesus, or that in some way the mass undermines the completeness of the one sacrifice at Calvary. I understand that you are not making such an assertion. I only wanted to clarify as best I could.

If you make this all symbolic, and turn “re-present” into “represent” I think we would be close. But I think that we are so near, but so far.

I would say that the sacrament symbolically represents the body and blood of Christ and his death and atonement and his sacrifice for us, and he is present with us in the way he is when “two or more are gathered in his name”.

So near but yet so far!

It is the difference between these two positions I am trying to understand.

 

[mfbukowski]

I’ve been referring to this verse repeatedly in my posts. How can you say no one has commented on it?

I obviously didn’t catch it- was that the reference to post 431 or whatever it was?