LDS: Why try to convert Catholics, what do we lack for salvation?

[dianaiad]

No Coffee or Tea because they contain caffine. What doesn’t make sense to me is this – mormons ARE allowed to drink soda. And NOT just decaffinated…

No, it’s not the caffeine…and if you understand that it’s about the PROMISE we make, not the substance that is supposed to be ‘bad’ for us (you realize that JS and BY didn’t know about caffiene, right?) then the seeming discrepancy suddenly…isn’t.

 

[dianaiad]

Is it really because they have caffeine, or because the WoW states “hot drinks”? Perhaps some misinterpreted it as referring to the caffeine in coffee and tea, when the WoW doesn’t mention caffeine at all (correct me if I’m wrong, it’s been awhile since I looked at it).

That’s pretty much it, Theosis; the WoW says ‘hot drinks,’ and when, during BY’s trek west, we made the promise to abstain from them, “hot drinks’ were interpreted as 'coffee and tea.”

 

[dianaiad]

I specifically asked in relief society, and was told “because they contain caffine”. When I then asked - “why are we allowed to drink soda” – the reply was – we couldn’t until the late 1970’s. Go figure. I used to ask too many questions for their taste, and all of their answers were inconsistent…

MANY Mormons expand this to include sodas. They figure that if the ‘harmful substance’ in coffee has been identified as caffiene, then by extension anything that contains caffiene is also bad for you. It’s their choice, of course, but the fact is, no matter what your Relief Society teacher said, your Bishop isn’t going to refuse you a Temple Recommend because you drink diet Coke. Even if you drink a LOT of Diet Coke.

…and that should be the final indication that…it’s not the caffeine.

 

[dianaiad]

That’s interesting. Yeah I have heard about the issue of caffeine (and why some would say caffeinated sodas were “borderline”). I never understood that since the WoW doesn’t mention caffeine, just “hot drinks”. Odd.

My copy of “Mormonism for Dummies” (yes, I have a few in the series ) says this:

“Although individual General Authorities have expressed opinions against the consumption of caffeine in soft drinks, the Church has never taken an official position on the subject.”

It then goes on to give a “quick rundown of what’s kosher for Mormons and what’s not, food-wise”, and divides it as “Definitely Okay, Probably okay, Possibly okay, Probably not okay but no one knows for sure, Definitely not okay”, and under the last one, “The subject of endless debate” are “caffeinated soft drinks”.

Ain’t THAT the truth!

It is interesting to note, however, that the debate regarding caffienated soft drinks isn’t related to the ‘coffee/tea’ issue, but rather to the idea that we should abstain from all addicting substances. That’s a slightly different issue.

 

[dianaiad]

I was mistaken about the document this came from but the words seem clear and unambiguous to me. I wonder when the JD became available in writing to non-Mormon’s and the secret was no longer secret? From Anna’s post #36.

Journal of Discourses (JD) 6:3-4, Founder and 1st Mormon Prophet, Joseph Smith, April 6, 1844:

"God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted Man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens. That is the great secret." (momor’s emphasis)
“I am going to tell you how God came to be God. We have imagined and supposed that God was God from all eternity, I will refute that idea, and will take away and do away the vail, so that you may see.”

"Here, then, is eternal life-to know the only wise and true God; and you have got to learn how to be Gods yourselves, and to be kings and priests to God, the same as all the Gods have done before you, - namely, by going from one small degree to another, and from a small capacity to a great one, - from grace to grace, from exaltation to exaltation, until you attain to the resurrection of the dead. . "

Oh, give me a break. The Journal of Discourses was NEVER ‘secret.’ …it was simply a collection of PUBLIC speeches given by leaders of the church. People stood in the back and wrote those speeches down, submitted them to a publisher in England who printed them and sent them back. Until they showed up in bound form, the church leaders didn’t even know that they were being published…though they, and we, are very grateful to those who did so. They have been available to the public since they were first printed.

The point is, none of the speakers were able to check those speeches for accuracy before they were printed, MOST of them were simply speeches to congregations, and NONE of them were meant to be proclamations from on high. Canonized scripture was/is handled in a very different manner.

The Journal of Discourses is not, has never been, and will never be considered scripture, or doctrinally binding, by Mormons. What importance YOU might want to give them is your problem, but in terms of what OUR beliefs are, the only opinion of the JD that counts is…ours.

 

[sablouwho]

The thing is, the WoW advice IS the best health advice for the most people. It isn’t true for you, nor my niece who has Celiac disease, kidney failure AND diabetes, but it’s true for more people than it is not true for.

I won’t go into the scientific reasons here (way too OT), but I’ve researched the “grains” issue extensively and I also see a nutritionist with extensive expertise in this subject. Knowing the research as I do, I just cannot agree with JS recommendations regarding the grain thing. Thus I earnestly (yes, really) am trying to understand how it could have possibly come from some sort of revelation when God didn’t design us to eat a lot of grains.

For instance, there isn’t a single substance advised against in the WoW that has advantages that can’t be found elsewhere, in other foods that don’t have the disadvantages of coffee, tea, alcohol or tobacco…the anti-oxidants and advantages of wine are found in unfermented grape juice, for instance.

There is very solid research that my nutritionist has shared pointed me to that indicates that this is actually *not *the case with regard to wine. Her sense is that the reason it isn’t better known is that people are tip-toe-ing around the date because alcohol is (rightfully) a touchy subject. But the research is indeed there.

Or look at it this way: unless you have a specific medical condition that contraindicates it, following the Word of Wisdom is a going to do you a lot less harm than NOT following it would.

I actually agree to a certain extent. I think that some of the substances in moderation are MORE healthful than none at all. The grain thing is the exception in my mind, though.

And my main question is still nagging me–let’s assume for the sake of discussion here that eating grains preferentially really isn’t all that good for us. Well, if JS was a prophet, how did he come up with advice that actually goes against the most healthful path?

I swear I am not deliberately trying to be annoying here Diana, I am willing to explore options here–perhaps there were some really good reasons (other than optimal nutrition) to not eat too much meat in the summertime. Economic, trade, agricultural reasons perhaps…I dunno exactly what they might have been.

The one thing of which I definitely have a testimony, though, is that the Food Pyramid is way, way off, and that a great majority of humanity (not just the special cases like those with celiac) would be better off eating less grains, not more. Yeah, I’m a kook when it comes to nutrition, I know!

 

[momor]

Oh, give me a break. The Journal of Discourses was NEVER ‘secret.’ …it was simply a collection of PUBLIC speeches given by leaders of the church. People stood in the back and wrote those speeches down, submitted them to a publisher in England who printed them and sent them back. Until they showed up in bound form, the church leaders didn’t even know that they were being published…though they, and we, are very grateful to those who did so. They have been available to the public since they were first printed.

The point is, none of the speakers were able to check those speeches for accuracy before they were printed, MOST of them were simply speeches to congregations, and NONE of them were meant to be proclamations from on high. Canonized scripture was/is handled in a very different manner.

The Journal of Discourses is not, has never been, and will never be considered scripture, or doctrinally binding, by Mormons. What importance YOU might want to give them is your problem, but in terms of what OUR beliefs are, the only opinion of the JD that counts is…ours.

It seems hard to believe that the original leaders of the LDS, who knew Joseph Smith personally, would not have corrected anything quoted as his preaching to the faithful that was published inaccurately. Just sayin, that’s all.

 

[dianaiad]

It seems hard to believe that the original leaders of the LDS, who knew Joseph Smith personally, would not have corrected anything quoted as his preaching to the faithful that was published inaccurately. Just sayin, that’s all.

The Journal of Discourses does not contain any speeches by Joseph Smith, and as I have already mentioned, the journals were published in ENGLAND. The speakers had no way to correct what they wrote before publication.

You know as well as I do what the antis would say if, after those journals were published, a second edition with corrections was to be done. In this, the speakers could not win.

 

[momor]

The Journal of Discourses does not contain any speeches by Joseph Smith, and as I have already mentioned, the journals were published in ENGLAND. The speakers had no way to correct what they wrote before publication.

You know as well as I do what the antis would say if, after those journals were published, a second edition with corrections was to be done. In this, the speakers could not win.

Are you drawing a distinction between a “speech” and a “discourse” to try and make it sound like Joseph Smith’s words are not in the JD?

Publication began in 1854, well before the last of the church founders died. I’m sure they saw the volumes. They certainly recommended them and would have recognized mistakes in their own sermons. If such errors were there as is now implied they would have made sure the faithful knew. It can’t all be due to transcription error.

I know you are giving the official church position on the JD. But you also know that what the church says is their position on some of these controversial writings is what many non-Mormons find the most difficult to believe and what Anna Scott calls the elephant in the room that the LDS refuse to admit to. You can’t have it both ways; either Joseph Smith was God’s prophet and everything he preached was truth or he wasn’t and none of it is truth.

 

[ParkerD]

How does the Mormon church ( or the standard practicing Mormon) decide which of Joseph Smith’s (and his successors) words are to be believed as doctrine and which are to be discarded as mere opinion (and hence, not valid). And how do you decide what has bearing on this life and what does not?

It seems that if Joseph Smith was really the KEY prophet of all times, responsible for the restoration that allows man to be saved, then it would not be appropriate to countermand his statements when they become inconvenient (like for instance, plural marriage) . Unless he himself said that his pronouncements weren’t true, wouldn’t you be obligated to accept what he says at face value. Afterall, your entire religion is based on his pronouncements so how can any true Mormon believer justify doing anything but following and believing everything he says?

Paul C,
For the record, plural marriage was treated as follows in the Book of Mormon, so it would come as not the tiniest bit of surprise for anyone familiar with the Book of Mormon, that God would re-command regarding the practice and that He did so:

Jacob 2:30 “For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people; otherwise they shall hearken unto these things.” (These things had to do with having “one wife”. (v. 27)

As Zerinus has noted, one serious about gospel study uses the scriptures, and one serious about understanding the valid and binding doctrines of the LDS church finds those doctrines in the scriptures.

One can take the Bible and use it to justify themselves, as Christ said several times in His teachings. But it would seem important to unbind the self-justification kinds of reasons for studying a topic, and try to get the Holy Spirit who will never guide toward self-justification, but will guide toward truth and light and love and peace among humankind.

LDS don’t view prophets in the same way that you have described. It is not an all-or-nothing situation. It is “a prophet is a prophet when they are acting as such.” If the words didn’t get placed into the scriptures, then it means those words may have been meaningful at a certain point in time in their context, but the words of the living prophet are what are binding for an LDS member to listen to and be guided by in their life today, along with studying the scriptures and seeking the guidance of the Holy Spirit in their particular studies and decisions for daily choices in life.

 

[dianaiad]

Are you drawing a distinction between a “speech” and a “discourse” to try and make it sound like Joseph Smith’s words are not in the JD?

No, I’m telling you that in this case ‘speech’ and ‘discourse’ are synonyms. None of Joseph Smith’s discourses or speeches are in the Journal of Discourses.

Publication began in 1854, well before the last of the church founders died.

Well, Joseph was murdered in 1844, y’see.

I’m sure they saw the volumes. They certainly recommended them and would have recognized mistakes in their own sermons. If such errors were there as is now implied they would have made sure the faithful knew. It can’t all be due to transcription error.

Did they? Would you explain to me how you can say only “I’m sure they saw the volumes,” and follow that by 'They certainly recommended them…?" As it happens, the FACT is, that none of them saw the transcripts of their speeches before they were published, and Brigham Young SPECIFICALLY stated that in order for something he said to become scripture, he had to a: have a chance to go over and correct the speech, and that he had to declare that what he said WAS scripture. Since it was BY and JS who were so very careful about the process for canonizing scripture, I think that it is safe to say that the Journal of Discourses is not that. They are valuable, but they are NOT binding upon the church. They give us wonderful insight into the thoughts of our leaders, but since those same leaders were so very careful about separating that which is a “Thus Saith the Lord” scripture binding upon us and that which is their own opinion, I think it would be…reasonable at least…for you to accept that we know what we are talking about in this matter.

What astounds me is the irony in this really odd idea that anti’s have, that what THEY claim we believe must trump what WE say we believe, and that we must operate under their rules. Wierd.

I know you are giving the official church position on the JD.

Gee, y’think?

But you also know that what the church says is their position on some of these controversial writings is what many non-Mormons find the most difficult to believe and what Anna Scott calls the elephant in the room that the LDS refuse to admit to. You can’t have it both ways; either Joseph Smith was God’s prophet and everything he preached was truth or he wasn’t and none of it is truth.

I see. Well, that does present a problem. Moses claimed that bats were birds. I guess he’s not a prophet then, is he?

 

[momor]

No, I’m telling you that in this case ‘speech’ and ‘discourse’ are synonyms. None of Joseph Smith’s discourses or speeches are in the Journal of Discourses.

Journal of Discourses,Volume 6

Joseph Smith, April 6, 1844
CHARACTER AND BEING OF GOD - CREATION - SALVATION OF THE DEAD - THEUNPARDONABLE SIN - RESURRECTION - BAPTISM OF THE SPIRIT, ETC.
A Discourse, by President Joseph Smith, delivered at the Conference held near the Temple,in Nauvoo, April 6, 1844.
Reported by W. Richards, W. Woodruff, T. Bullock, and W. Clayton

Well, Joseph was murdered in 1844, y’see.

Brigham Young died 1877
Heber Kimball died 1868
Orson Pratt died 1881
etc.

You get my drift? They certainly lived long enough to have had access to the published JD and could have corrected any errors.

Did they? Would you explain to me how you can say only “I’m sure they saw the volumes,”

Can you explain how you know they didn’t?

and follow that by 'They certainly recommended them…?"

“The Journal of Discourses deservedly ranks as one of the standard works of the Church, and every rightminded Saint will certainly welcome with joy every number (issue) as it comes forth.“ (President George Q. Cannon, Journal of Discourses, Preface, Volume 8.)

“Each successive Volume of these Discourses is a rich mine of wealth, containing gems of great value, and the diligent seeker will find ample reward for his labor. After the fathers and mothers of this generation have made them the study of their lives their children’s children will find that they are still unexhausted, and rejoice that this Record has been handed down from their fathers to also aid them in following the way of life.” (Apostle Orson Pratt, Preface. Volume 3.)

“It is impossible to give monetary value to the past volumes of this publication, … Those who read the utterances of the servants of God, contained in this book, under the same influence by which the speakers were inspired, cannot fail to receive profit from the perusal.” (President Joseph F. Smith, Preface, Volume 18.)

“We take great pleasure in presenting to the Saints and the world the … the Journal of Discourses, which they will find contains rich treasures of information concerning the glorious principles of Eternal Life, as revealed through God’s anointed servants in these last days. All who read the discourses contained in this Volume are earnestly recommended to adapt them to their lives by practice, and we can confidently assure them that, in doing so, they are laying up a store of knowledge that will save and exalt them in the Celestial kingdom.” (Apostle Albert Carrington, Journal of Discourses, Preface, Volume 15.)

As it happens, the FACT is, that none of them saw the transcripts of their speeches before they were published,

As I noted above, if they found errors they could have corrected them **after **they were published so the faithful wouldn’t read things into their statements that you now say they didn’t mean, like **God was once like us **. That’s a pretty big error to leave uncorrected. Look at all the grief it causes Mormons today when they have to deny it.
BTW, BY’s own stenographer recorded the earliest volumes and I presume BY considered him trustworthy.

and Brigham Young SPECIFICALLY stated that in order for something he said to become scripture, he had to a: have a chance to go over and correct the speech, and that he had to declare that what he said WAS scripture. Since it was BY and JS who were so very careful about the process for canonizing scripture, I think that it is safe to say that the Journal of Discourses is not that.

Your church defines what is scripture. Not me - never claimed to. But we find ourselves right back to where we were. Why are some of the most controversial issues today, that were preached by the early church leaders and written down in the JD, now discounted by Mormons? It doesn’t make sense and transcription error just can’t account for it. You make your own prophets seem pathetic if what they preach (outside of Thus sayeth the Lord revelation) can’t be taken at face value. Who better to opine about God’s revelations than the one’s who have received them?

 

[paul_c]

Paul C,
For the record, plural marriage was treated as follows in the Book of Mormon, so it would come as not the tiniest bit of surprise for anyone familiar with the Book of Mormon, that God would re-command regarding the practice and that He did so:

Jacob 2:30 “For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people; otherwise they shall hearken unto these things.” (These things had to do with having “one wife”. (v. 27)

As Zerinus has noted, one serious about gospel study uses the scriptures, and one serious about understanding the valid and binding doctrines of the LDS church finds those doctrines in the scriptures.

One can take the Bible and use it to justify themselves, as Christ said several times in His teachings. But it would seem important to unbind the self-justification kinds of reasons for studying a topic, and try to get the Holy Spirit who will never guide toward self-justification, but will guide toward truth and light and love and peace among humankind.

LDS don’t view prophets in the same way that you have described. It is not an all-or-nothing situation. It is “a prophet is a prophet when they are acting as such.” If the words didn’t get placed into the scriptures, then it means those words may have been meaningful at a certain point in time in their context, but the words of the living prophet are what are binding for an LDS member to listen to and be guided by in their life today, along with studying the scriptures and seeking the guidance of the Holy Spirit in their particular studies and decisions for daily choices in life.

I think I understand. What you are saying is that your Prophets sometimes are getting revelations from god and they know enough to mark them as scripture. Everything else is simply opinion. Fair enough if that’s how you understand it.

I do have a question about truths being meaningful for a certain period of time. Aren’t basic truth’s eternal? The nature of God doesn’t change, nor does man’s relationship to him nor do the truths about the afterlife. Morality doesn’t change. So why do your doctrines need to change. For instance, why was it impossible for a black man to be a Mormon priest until 1981? Surely God didn’t look differently at Black men until that date? Its just hard for Catholics ot fathom this, since we believe that all the truths about faith and morals were made known to the Apostles 2000 years ago and that they have been reliably passed on since that time through the Pope and his brother bishops.

 

[ParkerD]

I think I understand. What you are saying is that your Prophets sometimes are getting revelations from God and they know enough to mark them as scripture. Everything else is simply opinion. Fair enough if that’s how you understand it.

I do have a question about truths being meaningful for a certain period of time. Aren’t basic truth’s eternal? The nature of God doesn’t change, nor does man’s relationship to him nor do the truths about the afterlife. Morality doesn’t change. So why do your doctrines need to change. For instance, why was it impossible for a black man to be a Mormon priest until 1981? Surely God didn’t look differently at Black men until that date? Its just hard for Catholics ot fathom this, since we believe that all the truths about faith and morals were made known to the Apostles 2000 years ago and that they have been reliably passed on since that time through the Pope and his brother bishops.

Paul C,
Not quite so. Prophets may teach their own explanations of what their understanding has been from their own study, or they may be “moved upon by the Holy Ghost” and teach specifically what God has put into their heart to say. If what they had written down was sufficiently important to be set down as scripture, then the prophet and the apostles know that by the Spirit of revelation, and they present the scripture to the church for acceptance as scripture.

Noah was told to build an ark, but that doesn’t mean we should all build an ark, though we are living in days that are “like the days of Noah”. (It does seem pretty important that if God has called a prophet since these days really are like the days of Noah, that some people would want to look around and maybe see if there is a message they ought to be listening to.)

Prophets are given instructions for what the covenant followers of God should do at the time they are alive. They are “living prophets” for living people in changing times when needs of the time are specific.

As to blacks and the priesthood, that was as much a case of the world not having been ready in the 1800’s and the church not being ready because of traditions among the world that had continued for so many years, as for any other reason. God answered “yes” when the people were ready to live by a “yes” answer. (Believe me, I was overjoyed in 1978 when that happened, and I was not surprised at all that it did happen. I had been expecting it as had many other people, as the Spirit prepared hearts for what was coming.)

 

[paul_c]

Paul C,
Not quite so. Prophets may teach their own explanations of what their understanding has been from their own study, or they may be “moved upon by the Holy Ghost” and teach specifically what God has put into their heart to say. If what they had written down was sufficiently important to be set down as scripture, then the prophet and the apostles know that by the Spirit of revelation, and they present the scripture to the church for acceptance as scripture.

Noah was told to build an ark, but that doesn’t mean we should all build an ark, though we are living in days that are “like the days of Noah”. (It does seem pretty important that if God has called a prophet since these days really are like the days of Noah, that some people would want to look around and maybe see if there is a message they ought to be listening to.)

Prophets are given instructions for what the covenant followers of God should do at the time they are alive. They are “living prophets” for living people in changing times when needs of the time are specific.

As to blacks and the priesthood, that was as much a case of the world not having been ready in the 1800’s and the church not being ready because of traditions among the world that had continued for so many years, as for any other reason. God answered “yes” when the people were ready to live by a “yes” answer. (Believe me, I was overjoyed in 1978 when that happened, and I was not surprised at all that it did happen. I had been expecting it as had many other people, as the Spirit prepared hearts for what was coming.)

The Catholic church never descriminated by race so to say the world was not ready for Black priests prior to 1978 is self serving.

 

[ParkerD]

The Catholic church never descriminated by race so to say the world was not ready for Black priests prior to 1978 is self serving.

Paul C,
I am certainly glad that the Catholic church led the way in having blacks receive their priesthood and serve in every one of its callings. If the Mormon church had placed blacks in priesthood leadership roles in the late 1830’s in Missouri, the opposition forces that reared their ugly head (partly over the church’s position about slavery which would be that Mormon voters would vote for Missouri to not be a “slave state”) would no doubt have tripled the extent to which they sought the destruction of the church and its members. It was a different kind of case than for the Catholic church, which did not have an infancy stage right in Missouri and right in the midst of a national difficulty over the slavery question and “slave states” and “free states”.

If you think that no church in the United States placed blacks in a separate role than whites during the course of United States history, than I would say that your knowledge of history lacks study. But you’ve made your point, and that is fine. The Catholic church wasn’t the only other church in the United States in the 1830’s.

 

[dianaiad]

The Catholic church never descriminated by race so to say the world was not ready for Black priests prior to 1978 is self serving.

Paul, I am truly sorry, but that is simply not true of the members and the clergy…and if you use the same standard of "official’ for your own church as you do for ours, it’s not true officially, either.

As to comparing LDS and Catholics in this area, I suggest that you go look at the statistics for your priesthood. According to the United States Conference of Black Catholic Bishops, while African Americans make up 3% of the Catholic population of the United States, and that there are about 350 African American members of the clergy here (that’s rounding UP from the combination of the number of Bishops, active and inactive, plus active priests and men in seminaries preparing for the priesthood.) According to the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, There are 46886 priests, counting seminary students. (Lots of rounding here, all in favor of having MORE African American priests, not less, by the way).

If the church did not discriminate against people by race, would you care to explain why, if African Americans make up 3% of the Catholic population, why African Americans make up only .7% of the priesthood? Pay attention to the dot…that’s not seven percent. That’s POINT 7%. Less than one percent of the priesthood, even after you add in retired bishops and seminary students AND round UP. It’s actually less than .7%.

When your percentage of African American and other minorities in the priesthood come remotely close to matching the percentage of membership in the general population, THEN come and tell me that the church does not discriminate against people because of race.

One poster, in that earlier exchange, actually said that the reason there weren’t more black priests is because blacks don’t feel the ‘call’ as much as white people do. I don’t think you will go that road–but letting you know that one of your fellow Catholics DID go down that road should make you think a bit.

It is true; it doesn’t matter who tells you that your hands are dirty…if they are dirty, they are dirty no matter how filthy the accuser is. However, when the accuser stands there, covered in muck and mud, and tells you that your dirty hands prove that your beliefs are false, it raises quite an interesting question about what the far more long lasting, and stickier, mud on the accuser says about HIS beliefs–if, that is, double standards don’t apply.

Especially when the one with the dirty hands has washed them, and the accuser is still muddy.

 

[Jay53]

I noticed that a few Mormons have posted that they are not here to convert Catholics, but has anyone answered the second part of the question - what do Catholics lack for salvation?

 

[Annie_B]

I noticed that a few Mormons have posted that they are not here to convert Catholics, but has anyone answered the second part of the question - what do Catholics lack for salvation?

Salvation is viewed slightly differently by the LDS. Maybe that is why the answer to your question has not been answered. Also, in general, we do not like to discuss what other churches are lacking, but rather promote what our church has. Personally, I will NEVER tell another person that their church is wrong, as I believe, as the LDS Church teaches, that there is some truth in all the churches

Annie

 

[Jay53]

Salvation is viewed slightly differently by the LDS. Maybe that is why the answer to your question has not been answered. Also, in general, we do not like to discuss what other churches are lacking, but rather promote what our church has. Personally, I will NEVER tell another person that their church is wrong, as I believe, as the LDS Church teaches, that there is some truth in all the churches

Annie

OK. What does your church have that someone would need for salvation that they cannot get in the Catholic church?

It wasn’t my question, just the topic of the thread and I’ve been following along. I guess I just haven’t noticed if anyone actually answered it.