LDS and Catholic Differences

[Prodigal_Son1]

I am trying to see how it can be the same and yet different, and imo that has not yet been explained. It still is contradictory how it can be both. Sometimes it is said to be the same and other times it is said to be different

It seems you’re making it hard to understand, I suspect for the purposes of ‘pushing’ your view as correct, or ‘more’ correct. I’ve told you, before and again in this thread, it’s sharing in the ONE sacrifice and is not repeated or ‘re-’ anything. His sacrifice was for ALL, all people of all time. As an ex-Catholic, you understand more than you’re willing to let on, again for what seems to be an agenda.

 

[mfbukowski]

OK
As in all things that I have learned in life, I have had to teach myself, and in fairness to all, I need to teach you all a little Catholic doctrine.

But it’s ok because I have a good source which I looked up and the answer is there.

The next time you get this question I suggest you go back to this source:

newadvent.org/cathen/10006a.htm

All this bloody and unbloody stuff is incorrect apparently. This source says there are TWO “sacrifices” going on here, the sacrifice of the cross and the sacrifice of the last supper. It isn’t clear to me how the Last Supper is a “sacrifice”, but for the moment I won’t debate the issue. Maybe later, we shall see if it matters.

But the point is that the “offering” of the bread and wine at the Last Supper was like the offering of Melchzadek when he met with Abraham, but due to the doctrine of transubstantiation, the Last Supper was also an offering of the body and blood of Christ. THIS offering of the Eucharist IS the “sacrifice of the mass”- the mass is NOT a re-presentation of Calvary according to this article.

So unless I am missing something in my quick read of the article, which is certainly possible, all of you have gotten your own doctrine wrong unless the article is mistaken.

The article makes sense to me and resolves the issue, and at least illustrates that the issue I had was genuine if the entire article is basically devoted to solving the problem I was posing.

What is not clear to me is that the article is correct, since it appears you guys all “got it wrong”, you must have been taught that the mass re-presents Calvary, when in fact the sacrifice of the mass is the sacrifice of the last supper, not Calvary. Of course for you, the last supper was an actual shedding of “blood” in what the article describes as a “mystical” way, which I don’t believe, but at least I can see that you accept on faith which I have no problem with.

But that you got it wrong indicates to me that perhaps the article is fudging, which is what I am going to research when I get some time to do so. Or maybe I misread the article- I skimmed it quickly.

But let me point out then that imo, at this moment, except for the “real presence”, which is admittedly a huge issue for you guys and a non-existent one for us, there is very little difference in the religious significance of a Mormon “sacrament meeting” and a Catholic mass. Both are “in remembrance” of the last supper in which Christ blessed the bread and wine, and both have a certain redemptive value in the forgiveness of sins.

Edit:

Well I tried to finish the article but it conflates and contradicts and goes back and forth and I cannot make much sense of it all to pin it to one point of view.

Oh well. There is a reason I am not Catholic. It just doesn’t make sense to me. I guess invincible ignorance describes it best.

 

[mfbukowski]

I would also recommend all of you to read the last half of that article from the previous post about how the mass and the concept of the sacrifice evolved in tradition.

I think you will find it illuminating.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

What is not clear to me is that the article is correct, since it appears you guys all “got it wrong”, you must have been taught that the mass re-presents Calvary, when in fact the sacrifice of the mass is the sacrifice of the last supper, not Calvary. Of course for you, the last supper was an actual shedding of “blood” in what the article describes as a “mystical” way, which I don’t believe, but at least I can see that you accept on faith which I have no problem with.

Below is an excerpt from the article you provided a link too.

In regard to the physical character there arises not only the question as to the concrete portions of the liturgy, in which the real offering lies hidden, but also the question regarding the relation of the Mass to the bloody sacrifice of the Cross. To begin with the latter question as much the more important, Catholics and believing Protestants alike acknowledge that as Christians we venerate in the bloody sacrifice of the Cross the one, universal, absolute Sacrifice for the salvation of the world. And this indeed is true in a double sense first, because among all the sacrifices of the past and future the Sacrifice on the Cross alone stands without any relation to, and absolutely independent of, any other sacrifice, a complete totality and unity in itself; second because every grace, means of grace and sacrifice, whether belonging to the Jewish, Christian or pagan economy, derive their whole undivided strength, value, and efficiency singly and alone from this absolute sacrifice on the Cross.

 

[AMDGtoo]

So unless I am missing something in my quick read of the article, which is certainly possible,

You have. You need to read more than one article. The Mass is a re-presentation. (If it wasn’t it would be sacrificing Jesus over and over again and it is not–Jesus’ sacrifice is once and for all, eternally that is never to stop.) And as I said before, without the Mass there would be no Eucharist (how you would understand transsubstantiation–which is a Latin Rite legal term for the bread and wine becoming the body and blood of Jesus. It is not symbol (like I believe your church and Protestants believe.)

 

[mfbukowski]

Below is an excerpt from the article you provided a link too.

That is not the issue. Of course the sacrifice of the cross and the atonement including the agony in the garden make up the one infinite sacrifice which saves us all.

I don’t know where you came from- read the thread-- I am not disputing that.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

That is not the issue. Of course the sacrifice of the cross and the atonement including the agony in the garden make up the one infinite sacrifice which saves us all.

I don’t know where you came from- read the thread-- I am not disputing that.

The portion of your post that I quoted and the excerpt quoted in my previous post conflict, in my opinion.

 

[mfbukowski]

You have. You need to read more than one article. The Mass is a re-presentation. (If it wasn’t it would be sacrificing Jesus over and over again and it is not–Jesus’ sacrifice is once and for all, eternally that is never to stop.) And as I said before, without the Mass there would be no Eucharist (how you would understand transsubstantiation–which is a Latin Rite legal term for the bread and wine becoming the body and blood of Jesus. It is not symbol (like I believe your church and Protestants believe.)

Trust me. I know Aquinas’ shortcomings better than you can fathom. “Substance” is a construct which explains nothing. Yes, I know that doctrine well.

Edit: It’s ok, I have resolved that this is not the place to get my answer. There is no answer.

 

[mfbukowski]

The portion of your post that I quoted and the excerpt quoted in my previous post conflict, in my opinion.

Put them together in one post and whatever it is, I will explain it - I don’t know what you are talking about

 

[MyzTek]

THIS offering of the Eucharist IS the “sacrifice of the mass”- the mass is NOT a re-presentation of Calvary according to this article.

This is what I was taught and what I believe. I don’t recall ever claiming the Mass was a re-presentation of the sacrifice, I do recall saying the Eucharist was. If any of my statements were ambiguous and led you to believe that was my view I apologise. The Mass is the context in which the Eucharist is consecrated and most frequently received, but there are contexts outside the Mass in which we can receive the Eucharist (eg: my mother and I received the Eucharist from a chaplain while she was in the hospital).

Previously in this thread, someone informed me that a priest can consecrate the Eucharist even absent a congregation. Can someone let me know whether this also means he can do so outside the context of the Mass? I would assume so, but I don’t really know… Thanks in advance!

peace

EDIT: This brings a question to mind: Are there contexts in which Mormons take the bread and wine outside of the Sunday sacrament meeting?

EDIT again: I mean bread and water, sorry…

 

[aspirant]

All this bloody and unbloody stuff is incorrect apparently.

Not according to the link you just posted: “Just as the Church repudiates nothing so much as the suggestion that by the Mass the sacrifice on the Cross is as it were set aside, so she goes a step farther and maintains the essential identity of both sacrifices, holding that the main difference between them is in the different manner of sacrifice — the one bloody the other unbloody.”

(Please keep in mind that the old Catholic Encyclopedia, as useful as it may be for many things, was never magisterial teaching, is flawed or deficient in some matters, and is not being updated/fixed because it has been long out of print and replaced by better texts.)

THIS offering of the Eucharist IS the “sacrifice of the mass”- the mass is NOT a re-presentation of Calvary according to this article.

If you go to actual Church teaching, you will find:

The Eucharist is the memorial anamnesis] 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… 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. “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”… 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.” 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.”

Etc.

all of you have gotten your own doctrine wrong

Nope.

you must have been taught that the mass re-presents Calvary

As I tried to explain before, Jesus offers his whole life to the Father. This certainly includes Calvary, as the quotes above explicitly say, but also what preceded and follows (from the first moment of incarnation through his glorious ascension). The liturgy of the Eucharist presents for our participation the whole offering of Jesus Christ to the Father in heaven.

Both are “in remembrance” of the last supper

We, like the earliest Christians, recognize the the language of anamnesis as intrinsically sacrificial and participatory.

In the sense of Sacred Scripture the memorial anamnesis] is not merely the recollection of past events but the proclamation of the mighty works wrought by God for men. In the liturgical celebration of these events, they become in a certain way present and real. This is how Israel understands its liberation from Egypt: every time Passover is celebrated, the Exodus events are made present to the memory of believers so that they may conform their lives to them. 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. “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.”

 

[aspirant]

Previously in this thread, someone informed me that a priest can consecrate the Eucharist even absent a congregation. Can someone let me know whether this also means he can do so outside the context of the Mass?

Yes, but it is illicit.

When I am speaking of the Mass, I am doing so because this is the normal & licit context for the Eucharistic sacrifice.

 

[Robert_in_SD]

Which is incomprehensible to me at least. Perhaps that is why we don’t have it.

Are you the typical LDS member? Are you saying that no one who is an LDS member comprehends (despite disagreements over its veracity) the meaning and purpose of the Catholic mass? Surely there are at least some former Catholic’s in the LDS Church who could give an honest rendering of what happens and why?
mfbukowski':

We don’t believe this is necessary. What training did Peter have?

Incidentally, when I was an ordinance worker in the temple, I memorized material which would take several hours to present, but that is irrelevant to the discussion. I am sure many Catholics have memorized many many prayers and the entire mass, but that does not give them priesthood authority does it? Does a degree in theology and memorizing all the liturgies give you authority to say mass? Does a college education give you authority to say mass?

No. No. and No again.

I was responding to the initial post that set forth justification for the LDS Church’s lack of a formal ministerial priesthood, or any full-time religious, and the egalitarian approach that makes all men in the LDS priests of the restored church (BTW - Not sure what the female equivalent of a nun would be in the LDS. Is there such a thing? My guess is there’s no value placed on celibacy or devotion of one’s whole life’s to prayer and sacrifice.) 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. This is compared to the Catholic Church as well as other Christian denominations in which substantial numbers of men and women devote their full attention to these things, to some extent removed from the cares of this world. This rich history of a full time religious brothers, sisters, and clergy, gave rise to great mystics and theological minds such as those of Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, St. Therese of Lisieux St. John of the Cross, and St. Theresa of Avila (to name only a few).

I would concede that the LDS Church certainly seems to operate on a more egalitarian level with respect to the ministerial priesthood (at least among the men) by making every man a “priest” but in the same way such a system makes the pool wide, it also seems to make it shallow.

Again, this is just my observation as an outsider. I’m not saying this to put you down, but because this is my perception in a family that includes LDS members. Perhap you can respond to my perception. Are there truly great Mormon theologians that the average person would have heard of, like Augustine and Aquinas. And what is being done to perpetuate these sorts of thinkers in the Restored Church if LDS members are not encouraged to “give up their day job” - so to speak - and be 24 hour-a-day religious?

Peace,
Robert

 

[SteveVH]

There is no need for the mass- that is the point. There is no need for a re-presentation of a sacrifice.

: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.

 

[Robert_in_SD]

Ok who wants to explain to me why this: (empahsis added)

means that priests have to daily re-present Christ’s sacrifice?

Note that this is post 482- I think I will have to refer to it often, since I have already quoted this scripture now four times- with no direct response.

Just tell me why it does NOT say what it explicitly and literally says, that there is no need to offer up daily sacrifice any more.

No more bloody animal sacrifices. That’s what the author is talking about. But see Mal 1:11

For from the rising of the sun to its setting my name is great among the nations, and in every place incense is offered to my name, and a pure offering; for my name is great among the nations, says the LORD of hosts.

and see Lk 22:19

And he took bread, and when he had given thanks he broke it and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me.”

and see Jn 14:26

But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you.

and see 1 Cor 11:24-25

And when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, “This is my body which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.” In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.”

The mass is offered because Christ asked that we do so. The mass is not one ineffective sacrifice after another as would be useless animal sacrifices under the O.T. laws. Rather, the mass is the one worthy sacrifice remembered and celebrated as He taught it to His Apostles.

Peace,
Robert

 

[mfbukowski]

This is what I was taught and what I believe. I don’t recall ever claiming the Mass was a re-presentation of the sacrifice, I do recall saying the Eucharist was. If any of my statements were ambiguous and led you to believe that was my view I apologise. The Mass is the context in which the Eucharist is consecrated and most frequently received, but there are contexts outside the Mass in which we can receive the Eucharist (eg: my mother and I received the Eucharist from a chaplain while she was in the hospital).

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?”

EDIT: This brings a question to mind: Are there contexts in which Mormons take the bread and wine outside of the Sunday sacrament meeting?

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.

 

[dianaiad]

You misunderstand. I did not mean to say that LDS members did not sacrifice their time to the priesthood. What I meant was that you had nothing equivalent to the sacrifice of the mass. (Unless I am mistaken and I very well concede that I may be). No disrespect intended, really.

But that is essentially bible study class, which is akin to any good Catechism program. Focusing on the LDS priesthood for a moment, what formal training in the LDS priesthood is given? Are there rubrics or liturgies to be learned?

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

But there is no sacrifice presented. Unless I am mistaken, the LDS Temple ceremonies are akin to the sacraments of baptism and confirmation, making one a full adult member in the LDS Church. But it is not a sacrifice (animal, vegetable, mineral or other). Is this incorrect? Are there sacrifices made in the LDS temples?

Peace,
Robert

No. I am beginning to understand (not really, but I’m getting a glimmer) of the Catholic view on this matter. Theosis actually did a very nice job of presenting it, and bless him, he ALSO showed how it works for us; the ‘eternal sacrifice’ of the Savior. We participate in that when we take the Sacrament. Not as literally as Catholics believe they do when they partake of the Eucharist, but I believe that the idea is similar at the base.

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. 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. 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, our repentence, our faith and our obedience to His commandments.

 

[ricko]

OK
As in all things that I have learned in life, I have had to teach myself, and in fairness to all, I need to teach you all a little Catholic doctrine.

But it’s ok because I have a good source which I looked up and the answer is there.

The next time you get this question I suggest you go back to this source:

newadvent.org/cathen/10006a.htm

All this bloody and unbloody stuff is incorrect apparently. This source says there are TWO “sacrifices” going on here, the sacrifice of the cross and the sacrifice of the last supper. It isn’t clear to me how the Last Supper is a “sacrifice”, but for the moment I won’t debate the issue. Maybe later, we shall see if it matters.

But the point is that the “offering” of the bread and wine at the Last Supper was like the offering of Melchzadek when he met with Abraham, but due to the doctrine of transubstantiation, the Last Supper was also an offering of the body and blood of Christ. THIS offering of the Eucharist IS the “sacrifice of the mass”- the mass is NOT a re-presentation of Calvary according to this article.

From the article:

It is the express teaching of the Church (cf. Trent, Sess. XXII, i) that the Mass is in its very nature a “representation” (representatio), a “commemoration” (memoria) and an “application” (applicatio) of the Sacrifice of the Cross.

So unless I am missing something in my quick read of the article, which is certainly possible, all of you have gotten your own doctrine wrong unless the article is mistaken.

The article makes sense to me and resolves the issue, and at least illustrates that the issue I had was genuine if the entire article is basically devoted to solving the problem I was posing.

What is not clear to me is that the article is correct, since it appears you guys all “got it wrong”, you must have been taught that the mass re-presents Calvary, when in fact the sacrifice of the mass is the sacrifice of the last supper, not Calvary. Of course for you, the last supper was an actual shedding of “blood” in what the article describes as a “mystical” way, which I don’t believe, but at least I can see that you accept on faith which I have no problem with.

But that you got it wrong indicates to me that perhaps the article is fudging, which is what I am going to research when I get some time to do so. Or maybe I misread the article- I skimmed it quickly.

But let me point out then that imo, at this moment, except for the “real presence”, which is admittedly a huge issue for you guys and a non-existent one for us, there is very little difference in the religious significance of a Mormon “sacrament meeting” and a Catholic mass. Both are “in remembrance” of the last supper in which Christ blessed the bread and wine, and both have a certain redemptive value in the forgiveness of sins.

Edit:

Well I tried to finish the article but it conflates and contradicts and goes back and forth and I cannot make much sense of it all to pin it to one point of view.

Oh well. There is a reason I am not Catholic. It just doesn’t make sense to me. I guess invincible ignorance describes it best.

 

[SteveVH]

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.

In the Catholic Church we define a “sacrament” as an outward sign of an inward reality. In other words in the sacrament of Baptism water signifies life, cleansing, dying (in the case of full submersion) and rising (coming out of the water). Through the sacrament, the Holy Spirit actually accomplishes that which is signified by the outward action. Annointing with oil (Confirmation, Last Rites, Baptism, Holy Orders) signifies both healing and strengthening and we believe that it is exactly what is accomplished.

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

Thanks.

 

[AMDGtoo]

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.

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.