Mormon Author's Video on Catholicism vs. Mormonism

[CatholicGuyNY]

Today I happened upon this video by Mormon author Eric Shuster. Shuster has posted here a few times, and is the author of “Catholic Roots, Mormon Harvest” and “The Biblical Roots of Mormonism”. Shuster was a Catholic who converted (along with his wife) to Mormonism. The video is basically an ad for the book. I would like to discuss some of the claims of the video that I believe are very basic and don’t really tell the whole story. I commented on the video on Youtube and asked Shuster to come here to further discuss. I hope he accepts the invitation.

Shuster claims:

"Catholicism-the priesthood is celibate. Mormonism-the priesthood is married"

This is of course a very simplistic assertion that misses a number of issues. Firstly, what does Shuster mean by “the priesthood” in relation to Mormonism? Surely 12 year old deacons are not married. Perhaps he is referring to bishops and higher? In Catholicism, “the priesthood” can be said to be divided into three offices: deacon, priest, and bishop. Permanent deacons (those deacons that will not go on to be ordained priests) are allowed to be married men (before ordination).

Another issue here is of course the Eastern Catholic churches, which most Mormons are not aware of (heck, many Roman Catholics are also not aware of them either). Married men are allowed to be ordained not only to the diaconate, but also as priests in most of these churches, since they retain practices in common with Eastern Orthodoxy. So, by referring to “Catholicism”, Shuster must only be referring to Roman Catholicism, however, although the Roman Catholic church is the largest “particular church” of the Catholic Church, it is not the only one, and therefore Eastern Catholics must be referenced as well if we are talking about “The Catholic Church” as a whole, and not part of it.

Mormons typically refer to 1 Timothy 3 in support of their belief that bishops must be married men. The problem is that in the same chapter, it also states that deacons must be the husband of one wife. This of course is not possible with 12 year old boys being ordained deacons. And, what about during the days of polygamy? Were these verses just ignored? I think that Catholicism has the most logical and consistent interpretation of this chapter, and states that if they are married, they must be the husband of one wife. It does not mean that they must be married.

Catholicism-The family ends with death. Mormonism-The family can be eternal.

This is very simplistic. It is clear that in both religions, it is taught that if all in our family are saved, we will be with them in God’s presence for eternity. The sealing of children to their parents in Mormonism doesn’t seem to really make sense, since these children will then be sealed to their own spouses, who will then be sealed to their own children. So how does that work out? Catholicism does not teach that we will “forget” our spouses or children, nor does it say that we won’t be with them (assuming we are all saved). We will not only be with our earthly families, but with the entire family of God.

The real difference here is of course eternal marriage. Believing that marriage ends at death does not mean that we are forever parted from our spouses. See above.

Catholicism-God’s revelation ended. Mormonism-God’s revelation continues

Again, this is simplistic. Catholicism teaches that public revelation, that which is necessary to be believed in by all people, relevant to salvation, is complete, with the death of the last apostle. The “deposit of faith”, the faith “once and for all delivered” is complete. However, this does not mean that God no longer speaks to us. In fact, Catholicism has a robust doctrine of private revelation, and we clearly teach that God speaks to us individually. God has also chosen to send Heavenly messengers, such as Mary, at times to certain people. We are not required to believe in these events, since they do not affect our salvation, however it is clear that Catholicism does not believe that the Heavens were “closed”. We also believe that God inspires His authorized leaders in certain situations, such as Ecumenical Councils or in Papal Infallibility, to clarify and explain what has already been revealed. The Bible is not a Catechism or a systematic theology, hence why this is important.

 

[eshuster]

Thank you for setting up this forum. We can give this a try and see how it goes. I have some very strict rules that I follow about forums as they can get out of hand so easily when discussing religion. We are here to learn and exchange ideas, not to convince one another of our beliefs. Sharing together allows us to broaden our understanding and grow in respect of one another’s faith. The most productive forums adhere to the following:

• All posts should be in the spirit of “joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, Meekness, temperance…” (Gal 5:22-23). When accusations fly, harsh evangelism begins, and mean spirited content is posted, the spirit leaves and it simply becomes a bashing session. We all have better things to do and once that happens I move on.

• No laundry lists of things for me to resolve. One thing at a time and we take turns. I resolve something of interest to you and then you resolve something of interest to me. We can exchange on one topic for bit, but then comes the time that we may need to agree to disagree and move on to the next topic.

• Use credible and reliable sources and name them. If you “heard” something, tell us where you “heard it” or “read it” and then we can deal with the specific source. Quoting some website may be dangerous – go to the direct source. LDS.org is the best place for LDS sources (it is the largest single repository of Christian content in the world to date). I use the Catechism of the Catholic Church for my references to Roman Catholicism. There is far too much innuendo and misinformation about all religions out there and therefore we should deal only in reliable and credible sources.

Let’s set a goal to simply learn more about one another and our beliefs. I am blessed to be bilingual in religion – I was an active and strongly practicing Roman Catholic for 27 years. I was in Catholic leadership relating to music ministry, youth ministry and young adult ministry. I graduated from Catholic parochial school and married in the Catholic Church. My wife is a former Franciscan Nun with a degree in Catholic theology from the University of St. Thomas in Houston. She worked for the diocese of Houston-Galveston for many years before becoming a stay-at-home mom.

We love the rich traditions of the Catholic Church and will never voice an unkind word about the Church as evidenced by my book Catholic Roots, Mormon Harvest – which was reviewed as being extremely accurate, fair and respectful to the Catholic Church in my comparisons. My wife and I had concerns with the Catholic Church, especially being in leadership positions, which caused us to ponder the direction of the Church – although we could not think of leaving. We moved next door to an LDS family after we were married and witnessed a Christian lifestyle that we had never seen before. Their family lived the gospel of Jesus Christ so beautifully and bore the fruit of Christ in all that they did. We were extremely uncomfortable when we found out they were Mormon and studied the Mormon faith with great care and caution. After a year of prayer, study, pondering, and soul searching we were baptized into the LDS faith. 20 years later I wrote the book.

With that as a backdrop we can begin our dialogue, to which I will resolve three things to begin with and then let’s migrate to the one topic I spoke of earlier, which I will choose when that time comes:

 

[eshuster]

On married priests:

I of course am speaking of the Roman Catholic Church which practices a celibate priesthood. It is well known, well documented, well established and reinforced under the current Pope. It is a beautiful commitment to make as a priest so as to focus one’s entire life in the service of God. Should a priest choose such a life for himself and follow it strictly I am certain the Lord would be pleased with such a sacrifice.

However, to require such a sacrifice of every priest has both spiritual and temporal issues associated with it. Consider Paul’s letter to Timothy which states: “Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils; Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron; Forbidding to marry and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth” (1 Tim. 4:1-2). It is also true that Paul wrote that “ A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach” (1 Tim. 3:2). It is clear that marriage for the ministry is OK. The Roman Catholic Church started with a married priesthood but in or around 300AD decided to transition to a celibate priesthood. A key issue was property – when a priest died was his property to be given to his wife or the church? To support such a doctrine the church was able to point to some of the writings of Paul which discouraged marriage to one degree or another. Paul thought the second coming would come in his lifetime and believed it was better to not be married. At the same time he also gives us some of the most beautiful scriptures on marriage in the Bible.

Marriage is the most sacred covenant we will make in our lifetime. While the sacrifice of celibacy is noble, one gives up life experiences that cannot be experienced any other way than through marriage, including children. Marriage is ordained of God as “it is not good that the man should be alone” (Gen. 2:18).

As for polygamy it is a complicated issue. There were over two dozen men who lived polygamy in the Old Testament. Keep in mind that David was NEVER admonished by the Lord for having more than one wife, only for his sin of murder and adultery. Where a man and woman come together to be as one flesh is beautiful and strong from a scriptural perspective, therefore it is quite perplexing that the Lord would command plural marriage during the time of Joseph Smith; however, the absence of men (many who were murdered) and the need to grow the Church would easily qualify as reasons for such a practice. When the US made the practice illegal the church ceased the practice and it is now an excommunicable offense in the Church. Keep in mind however that Isaiah prophesied in the last days “… seven women shall take hold of one man, saying, We will eat our own bread, and wear our own apparel: only let us be called by thy name, to take away our reproach” (Isa 4:1). I personally hope plural marriage never returns, but remember our thoughts are not the Lord’s thoughts.

 

[eshuster]

On the Family Ending With Death:

For us to truly give this doctrine justice we must understand the concept of heaven and “salvation” – something very in-depth and perhaps best left for another posting.

What is a sealing? How can a sealing be accomplished?

Christ told Peter that he (and other priesthood holders): “And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven (Matt. 16:19). This was reiterated in Matthew 18:18: The priesthood has the power to seal (or bind) families together forever. Husband to wife; children to parents; and ancestors to ancestors. What do you think is meant by children being turned to their fathers as spoken of in Malachi 4:5-6?

In the LDS faith the priesthood of God is used to seal families in the holy temple. Although the Roman Catholic Church discusses the concept of people being together in the heavens CCC 1690, LDS doctrine takes it much further in actually practicing what the Lord gave Peter in “binding” families together in the eternities. The Roman Catholic marriage ceremony states “till death do you part” – whereas in Mormonism there is no such statement. Should we discuss the concept of purgatory this could get even more interesting and complex.

I am not saying in the Roman Catholic faith that a family could not find itself together in the eternities; however, what I am saying is without some form of interpretation, and the fact that the Roman Catholic Church never/rarely discusses this doctrine with its people, it is certainly not explicit by any means.

 

[eshuster]

On no Revelation in the Roman Catholic Church:

CCC 73 states: “God has revealed himself fully by sending his own Son, in whom he has established his covenant for ever. The Son is his Father’s definitive Word; so there will be no further Revelation after him.” This effectively means that God has spoken all he intends to speak as spoken through his son (seemingly recorded in the Bible) and therefore there will be no further revelation until Christ comes again. There can certainly be private revelation from God through the Holy Spirit, but for the Church there appears to be no further revelation.

St. John of the Cross furthered this notion: “In giving us his Son, his only Word (for he possesses no other), he spoke everything to us at once in this sole Word – and he has no more to say . . . because what he spoke before to the prophets in parts, he has now spoken all at once by giving us the All Who is His Son. Any person questioning God or desiring some vision or revelation would be guilty not only of foolish behavior but also of offending him, by not fixing his eyes entirely upon Christ and by living with the desire for some other novel (St. John of the Cross, The Ascent of Mount Carmel, 2, 22, 3-5, in The Collected Works, tr. K. Kavanaugh, OCD, and O. Rodriguez, OCD (Washington DC: Institute of Carmelite Studies, 1979), 179-180: LH, OR Advent, wk 2, Mon).

Now we know that this is not entirely true. One can point to the creation of the doctrine of the Trinity; the doctrine of Mary being ever virgin; and other such doctrines and decrees that came after Christ. So, the Catholic Church does recognize modern revelations, but reserves to itself the authority to determine which of these are true and useful and which are not. Consider CCC 67 which states “Christian faith cannot accept “revelations” that claim to surpass or correct the Revelation of which Christ is the fulfillment, as is the case in certain non-Christian religions and also in certain recent sects which base themselves on such “revelations””.

One need only recognize that the canon is closed in Roman Catholicism to conclude that revelation has ended.

You can see, it is a bit complicated. In the LDS faith it is simple: God is the great I am, not the great I was. God speaks continually through a prophet on earth and his 12 apostles. Not all revelations are canonized, but are written down. They are spoken in general conference, written in magazines, and given in private. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is a Church built on the spirit of the Lord – we believe in ongoing and continuous revelation. When Christ told Peter “I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it” (Matt. 16:18)—the rock he was speaking of was the rock of revelation (once someone breaks down the Greek translation). Revelation is critical to the Lord leading his people as he spoke to Amos is saying “Surely the Lord God will do nothing, abut he revealeth his secret unto his servants the prophets” (Amos 3:7).

While I can appreciate one can interpret the Roman Catholic Church as believing in some form of revelation with caveats, I believe one is justified in saying the Roman Catholic Church does not ascribe to modern day revelation from God for His church.

 

[CatholicGuyNY]

Thanks for responding.

On married priests:

I of course am speaking of the Roman Catholic Church which practices a celibate priesthood. It is well known, well documented, well established and reinforced under the current Pope. It is a beautiful commitment to make as a priest so as to focus one’s entire life in the service of God. Should a priest choose such a life for himself and follow it strictly I am certain the Lord would be pleased with such a sacrifice.

I am glad that you consider it to be a beautiful commitment. I am aware that you are speaking of the “Roman Catholic church” and celibacy, however my point in bringing up the Eastern Catholic churches is to show that, within the same, one Catholic Church, there are 23 “sui iuris” churches (of which the Roman Catholic church is the largest by far), and most of the Eastern Catholic churches allow a married priesthood, following the practice of the Eastern Orthodox Church(es). Bringing this up is simply for the general purpose of showing that the Catholic Church not only has celibate priests but married priests as well. Within the Roman Catholic church itself as well, there are a few married priests, most of whom are converts from Lutheranism or Anglicanism. And of course the Roman Catholic church and the Eastern Catholic churches allow for married men to be ordained deacons.

So, when you refer to “Roman Catholic Church”, are you talking about the sui iuris church, or the entire, “1 billion member” Catholic Church? Most people would say the latter, and in your video, you simply wrote “Catholicism” when stating “the priesthood is celibate”, hence why I clarified that this is not a practice of the entire Catholic Church.

However, to require such a sacrifice of every priest has both spiritual and temporal issues associated with it. Consider Paul’s letter to Timothy which states: “Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils; Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron; Forbidding to marry and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth” (1 Tim. 4:1-2).

1 Timothy 4:1-2 is of course quoted to Catholics quite frequently when celibacy is being discussed. The problem with this is that the Catholic Church does not forbid marriage. The men that go into this are voluntarily choosing to remain celibate. Renouncing marriage is not the same thing as forbidding marriage, especially when we see Biblical verses stating that it is okay to be unmarried.

It is also true that Paul wrote that “ A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach” (1 Tim. 3:2). It is clear that marriage for the ministry is OK.

Which Catholicism agrees with. In the Roman Catholic church and the Eastern Catholic churches, married men are frequently ordained as permanent deacons. Married men are frequently ordained priests in the Eastern Catholic churches. The Roman Catholic church has also historically allowed married men to be ordained priests as well.

The Roman Catholic Church started with a married priesthood but in or around 300AD decided to transition to a celibate priesthood. A key issue was property – when a priest died was his property to be given to his wife or the church?

Do you have a source for this?

To support such a doctrine the church was able to point to some of the writings of Paul which discouraged marriage to one degree or another. Paul thought the second coming would come in his lifetime and believed it was better to not be married. At the same time he also gives us some of the most beautiful scriptures on marriage in the Bible.

Of course. This is not an either/or situation. It is both/and. Catholicism teaches that not everyone is called to be celibate, let alone to the priesthood. Our salvation and becoming joint-heirs with Christ, living eternally in the presence of God, etc. is not affected by our marital status in Catholicism. Luke 18:29-30 is also important here.

Marriage is the most sacred covenant we will make in our lifetime. While the sacrifice of celibacy is noble, one gives up life experiences that cannot be experienced any other way than through marriage, including children. Marriage is ordained of God as “it is not good that the man should be alone” (Gen. 2:18).

Catholics agree, see above.

 

[CatholicGuyNY]

As for polygamy it is a complicated issue. There were over two dozen men who lived polygamy in the Old Testament. Keep in mind that David was NEVER admonished by the Lord for having more than one wife, only for his sin of murder and adultery. Where a man and woman come together to be as one flesh is beautiful and strong from a scriptural perspective, therefore it is quite perplexing that the Lord would command plural marriage during the time of Joseph Smith; however, the absence of men (many who were murdered) and the need to grow the Church would easily qualify as reasons for such a practice. When the US made the practice illegal the church ceased the practice and it is now an excommunicable offense in the Church. Keep in mind however that Isaiah prophesied in the last days “… seven women shall take hold of one man, saying, We will eat our own bread, and wear our own apparel: only let us be called by thy name, to take away our reproach” (Isa 4:1). I personally hope plural marriage never returns, but remember our thoughts are not the Lord’s thoughts.

I find a number of problems with this. “The need to grow the Church” does not seem to be a valid reason for plural marriage if we look at the scriptural accounts. If this was the logic of God, then why did He not do the same In the Beginning? Why did this not also occur in the original New Testament Church? This situation is therefore unique to the LDS church, and when plural marriage could have done the same thing at other times (such as in the creation of man and the beginning of the NT Church, which could have benefited from the same “need to grow the Church”), it is not found.

Also, there is a clear difference between the Old Testament polygamy and Joseph Smith’s. We find no instance of God commanding plural marriage in the Bible. Instead, we find God being merely silent on the issue. When marriage is spoken of in the Bible, plural wives is never mentioned. Instead, “wife” or “one wife” is used (and of course “the two will become one flesh”.

Also, what happened to 1 Timothy 3 when plural marriage was being practiced? The chapter states that bishops must be the husband of one wife. How was this interpreted? Catholics of course believe that 1 Timothy 3 is not stating that bishops (and deacons) must be married, but that if they are, it is to one wife (or perhaps only be married once to someone).

So, it seems (judging from the plural marriage chapter in your new book) as if you agree that the Bible does not have any instance of God commanding plural marriage. When plural marriage occurred in the LDS church, this was a new revelation, and finds no Biblical precedent.

 

[CatholicGuyNY]

On the Family Ending With Death:

For us to truly give this doctrine justice we must understand the concept of heaven and “salvation” – something very in-depth and perhaps best left for another posting.

Perhaps. Let me just briefly say that in Catholicism, “salvation” is being in the eternal presence of God (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit), being joint-heirs with Christ, being “perfected” in Christ (hence why purification is such an important concept in Catholic belief). Heaven is the abode of God.

What is a sealing? How can a sealing be accomplished?

Christ told Peter that he (and other priesthood holders): “And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven (Matt. 16:19). This was reiterated in Matthew 18:18: The priesthood has the power to seal (or bind) families together forever. Husband to wife; children to parents; and ancestors to ancestors. What do you think is meant by children being turned to their fathers as spoken of in Malachi 4:5-6?

Catholics of course have our own interpretations of the power to “bind and loose”. Neither Matt 16:19 nor Matt 18:18 say anything about sealing/binding families together forever, as I"m sure you are aware. As for Malachi 4:5-6, Catholics of course believe that this is speaking of John the Baptist, and parallels Luke 1:17 and Matthew 11. I do not see what this has to do with sealing families.

In the LDS faith the priesthood of God is used to seal families in the holy temple. Although the Roman Catholic Church discusses the concept of people being together in the heavens CCC 1690, LDS doctrine takes it much further in actually practicing what the Lord gave Peter in “binding” families together in the eternities.

Except that the Lord never told Peter to “bind” families together in the eternities. We also practice what the Lord gave Peter, we simply don’t believe that “binding” is referring to families.

The Roman Catholic marriage ceremony states “till death do you part” – whereas in Mormonism there is no such statement. Should we discuss the concept of purgatory this could get even more interesting and complex.

Purgatory doesn’t really change anything here. Catholic belief is that those being purified in Purgatory will be in the eternal presence of God.

“Till death do you part” does not mean that we will never be with each other again. It is simply a fact that in Catholic belief, there is one Heaven (with various rewards), and that because of this, if our spouses are saved, we will be with them for eternity in God’s presence. It couldn’t be any other way, since there isn’t some other location for the saved.

I am not saying in the Roman Catholic faith that a family could not find itself together in the eternities; however, what I am saying is without some form of interpretation, and the fact that the Roman Catholic Church never/rarely discusses this doctrine with its people, it is certainly not explicit by any means.

Why must it be explicit? It is simply an understood fact of Catholicism that if we are saved, we will be with the entire family of God. If our spouses and children are saved, we will be with them as well. A sealing ceremony is not needed for us, since we do not have more than one Heaven where the Trinity/Godhead is not fully present in. If a person is saved, they will be with all the other saved persons.

The logistics of sealings is also problematic in my view. For example, I am sealed to my parents. I get married and am sealed to my wife (who is sealed to her parents). Our children are sealed to us, and they are subsequently sealed to their spouses and children. When you say “families are together forever”, which family would I be a part of? Would I be with my parents, my spouse and children? Would my parents be with their parents or me? Logistically, this ends up working out in the same way that Catholics view Heaven: we will be with the entire family of God, as we will be one family, not multiple separated families. If we are sealed to more than one nuclear family, and are sealed through our ancestors and descendants, I do not see what “families forever” really means, since it can’t just be the nuclear family, due to the sealing of grandparents, in-laws, etc.

Another issue is of course that of eternal life. Catholicism teaches that while marriage is a blessing (and a type of the relationship between Jesus and His Church), we will not be denied eternal life because we chose to remain unmarried.

 

[CatholicGuyNY]

On no Revelation in the Roman Catholic Church:

CCC 73 states: “God has revealed himself fully by sending his own Son, in whom he has established his covenant for ever. The Son is his Father’s definitive Word; so there will be no further Revelation after him.” This effectively means that God has spoken all he intends to speak as spoken through his son (seemingly recorded in the Bible) and therefore there will be no further revelation until Christ comes again. There can certainly be private revelation from God through the Holy Spirit, but for the Church there appears to be no further revelation.

This is not completely correct. The Catholic Church teaches that the fullness of public revelation, the “deposit of faith”, is found in Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition.

From the Catechism:

**96 What Christ entrusted to the apostles, they in turn handed on by their preaching and writing, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, to all generations, until Christ returns in glory.

97 “Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture make up a single sacred deposit of the Word of God” (DV 10) in which, as in a mirror, the pilgrim Church contemplates God, the source of all her riches. **

St. John of the Cross furthered this notion: “In giving us his Son, his only Word (for he possesses no other), he spoke everything to us at once in this sole Word – and he has no more to say . . . because what he spoke before to the prophets in parts, he has now spoken all at once by giving us the All Who is His Son. Any person questioning God or desiring some vision or revelation would be guilty not only of foolish behavior but also of offending him, by not fixing his eyes entirely upon Christ and by living with the desire for some other novel (St. John of the Cross, The Ascent of Mount Carmel, 2, 22, 3-5, in The Collected Works, tr. K. Kavanaugh, OCD, and O. Rodriguez, OCD (Washington DC: Institute of Carmelite Studies, 1979), 179-180: LH, OR Advent, wk 2, Mon).

Now we know that this is not entirely true. One can point to the creation of the doctrine of the Trinity; the doctrine of Mary being ever virgin; and other such doctrines and decrees that came after Christ. So, the Catholic Church does recognize modern revelations, but reserves to itself the authority to determine which of these are true and useful and which are not. Consider CCC 67 which states “Christian faith cannot accept “revelations” that claim to surpass or correct the Revelation of which Christ is the fulfillment, as is the case in certain non-Christian religions and also in certain recent sects which base themselves on such “revelations””.

This is of course imposing LDS understandings of what “continuous/modern revelation” means on what the Catholic Church is saying about its own beliefs. The Catholic Church does not recognize modern [public] revelations, and claims that these ended with the death of the last apostle. There is nothing else to be revealed that is relevant to our salvation that needs to be known by all. This is what the Catholic Church teaches on the ending of public revelation.

The Catechism actually addresses the issue of the definition of the Trinity and other doctrinal definitions/developments in the history of the Catholic Church:

**66 "The Christian economy, therefore, since it is the new and definitive Covenant, will never pass away; and no new public revelation is to be expected before the glorious manifestation of our Lord Jesus Christ."28 Yet even if Revelation is already complete, it has not been made completely explicit; it remains for Christian faith gradually to grasp its full significance over the course of the centuries. **

The doctrinal definitions of Ecumenical Councils and instances of Papal Infallibility are not considered to be new revelations or new doctrines. Instead, they are a making explicit of what has already been revealed, a grasping of the “full significance” of what was already revealed in public revelation. As I believe I already mentioned, the Bible is not a Catechism or a systematic theology. It is therefore up to the Church to define and make explicit the doctrine found in the Deposit of Faith. Using the Trinity as an example: the Bible clearly teaches the existence of three distinct divine Persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The issue is, how are they “one God”, and more specific to the Ecumenical Council of Nicaea, was Jesus created by the Father, or has He eternally existed? Catholics (and Orthodox) believe that Ecumenical Councils are inspired, and we believe that it made explicit what was already revealed, namely, that God the Son was not created by the Father, since He has the same nature as the Father, and part of that nature is to eternally exist.

One need only recognize that the canon is closed in Roman Catholicism to conclude that revelation has ended.

The closing of the canon signifies that salvation history is complete. It reached its zenith with the birth, death, resurrection, and ascension of the Savior. Catholics do not see what else is needed to be known by all to be saved outside of what is contained in that salvation history. Our understanding of that revelation is not finished, and we believe that through inspired processes (Ecumenical Councils and Papal Infallibility) we can more fully understand what has been revealed. When we look at the most recent addition to the Mormon canon, we find that it is the ending of the priesthood ban of blacks. Why a revelation was needed to end this is unknown (especially when no revelation is recorded to start the ban). This is why Catholics wonder what is needed to be added to public revelation, since we already have what is needed for our salvation.

 

[CatholicGuyNY]

You can see, it is a bit complicated. In the LDS faith it is simple: God is the great I am, not the great I was. God speaks continually through a prophet on earth and his 12 apostles. Not all revelations are canonized, but are written down. They are spoken in general conference, written in magazines, and given in private.

This is of course not as clear cut as you are making it, judging from the recent discussions on this very forum about things stated in General Conference. For example, Brigham Young did speak about the “Adam-God” theory in General Conference. We are told that this was not “God speaking”, but was his opinion. However, you stated that Revelations are spoken in general conference. The issue then is when is God speaking in General Conference? If I look at the recent edition of the Ensign, where are the revelations (how do I know)? We are told that the LDS church believes in continuous public revelation, so it should be easy to know when and where such public revelation was given in modern times.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is a Church built on the spirit of the Lord – we believe in ongoing and continuous revelation. When Christ told Peter “I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it” (Matt. 16:18)—the rock he was speaking of was the rock of revelation (once someone breaks down the Greek translation).

This as I’m sure you are aware of has been discussed multiple times. The Greek translation does not imply or clarify that the rock He was speaking of was the rock of revelation. The poetic structure of the Greek points to Peter (Rock) being the rock of the Church. Now, this does not mean that Peter is the only rock. Nor is this separating Peter’s faith from himself. However the Greek does not point to the rock being revelation, and I would be interested in seeing a source for that conclusion.

Revelation is critical to the Lord leading his people as he spoke to Amos is saying “Surely the Lord God will do nothing, abut he revealeth his secret unto his servants the prophets” (Amos 3:7).

Which then leads up to Hebrews 1:1-2
**
1 God, who at various times and in various ways spoke in time past to the fathers by the prophets, 2 has in these last days spoken to us by His Son, whom He has appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the worlds;**

Hebrews 1:1-2 fits nicely with Amos 3:7. In the past, God spoke through the prophets. Now, in these last days, He has spoken to us by His Son. Hebrews 1:1-2 is clearly demonstrating a change in how God speaks.

While I can appreciate one can interpret the Roman Catholic Church as believing in some form of revelation with caveats, I believe one is justified in saying the Roman Catholic Church does not ascribe to modern day revelation from God for His church.

One does not need to “interpret the Roman Catholic Church” to believe in some form of revelation. It is right in the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Catholicism teaches that public revelation ended with the apostles. Catholicism teaches that private revelations continue, and many have been approved by the Church, and many messages have been given through these revelations. The difference is that they do not affect our salvation, since what we need for our salvation was given anciently. In Catholicism, to say that we need more public revelation is to say that we are missing something pertinent to our salvation. We do not believe that anything was forgotten since New Testament times, and believe that we have always had what we need for salvation throughout the ages, the faith “which was once delivered unto the saints”.

Catholicism also recognizes the inspiration of our leaders (does the LDS church recognize a difference between inspiration and revelation? It seems as if the two are conflated frequently), and believe that God inspires them in certain settings, in Council and the Pope exercising Papal Infallibility, to make explicit what God has already revealed in public revelation. The most recent Ecumenical Council was the Second Ecumenical Council of the Vatican, in the 1960s. Therefore, Catholicism does not believe that God is mute, but that God continues to inspire leaders in certain situations, continues to speak to us individually in private revelations, continues to send Heavenly messengers to individuals (I am sure you are aware of the Marian apparitions), and that we continue to more explicitly understand the faith once delivered to the saints.

 

[eshuster]

Well done.

What is your name by the way?

Your use of scripture and the CCC is impressive. Good to exchange with a Catholic who knows their doctrine and history. Thank you for reaching out.

On the source about married priests: For centuries after the ascension of Christ, historical records indicate that priests, bishops and as many as 39 popes were married (Kelly, J. N. D. Oxford Dictionary of Popes. New York, Oxford Press. 1986). In A.D. 325, at the Council of Nicaea, a proclamation was put forth that outlined that after their ordination a priest was not allowed to marry. It is reported that about 60 years later, around A.D. 385, Siricius severed relations with his wife in order to position himself to become pope (Padovano, A. Power, Sex, and Church Structures. A lecture presented at Call To Action, Chicago. 1994). As pope he decreed that priests could no longer have sexual relations with their wives, moving one step closer to the celibate priesthood. The assertion about priests, wives, and property is a hypothesis born out of the above and rooted in oral tradition. It makes sense for sure.

I don’t begin to have enough time to crawl through and answer what you have provided and am not sure when I can get around to it. I will soon - you just need to be patient as I come up with slices of time. Here are a few things off the top of my head:

Interpretation is the key to most of what you have written. You interpret it one way, we interpret it another way. Evangelicals interpret it yet another way.

Who is right? How can we know for sure?

I have a way that works for me, but it may not work for you. I can speak about that more later.

Is all that God has revealed contained in the Bible? Are you sure? Cannot God provide more as time goes on? There is nothing in the Bible that says that is all. We all must accept this as God is a living God and will not be silenced. Even John said if everything that Jesus said and did was written that the world could not contain all of the books that would be written.

An issue with the Bible is that it is not complete in many respects. When you read my latest book you will understand what I mean by this.

No sense in discussing polygamy. It is like discussing the crusades, the Inquisition, the burning of Tindale, and other things in the past. There are issues that took place in a moment in time and for us to judge in our modern day such events is of little value.

More later,
Eric

 

[CatholicGuyNY]

Well done.

What is your name by the way?

I prefer to stay anonymous

Your use of scripture and the CCC is impressive. Good to exchange with a Catholic who knows their doctrine and history. Thank you for reaching out.

No problem, and thanks for staying here.

On the source about married priests: For centuries after the ascension of Christ, historical records indicate that priests, bishops and as many as 39 popes were married (Kelly, J. N. D. Oxford Dictionary of Popes. New York, Oxford Press. 1986).

Catholics are okay with this, and frequently state the fact of historically married bishops ourselves. You should be aware that Catholicism teaches that clerical celibacy is a practice/discipline of the Roman Catholic church, and can, in theory, be changed in the future (since it obviously changed already). It is not a set in stone dogma, especially when the universal Catholic Church (including its Eastern Catholic churches) has married priests within it.

In A.D. 325, at the Council of Nicaea, a proclamation was put forth that outlined that after their ordination a priest was not allowed to marry. It is reported that about 60 years later, around A.D. 385, Siricius severed relations with his wife in order to position himself to become pope (Padovano, A. Power, Sex, and Church Structures. A lecture presented at Call To Action, Chicago. 1994). As pope he decreed that priests could no longer have sexual relations with their wives, moving one step closer to the celibate priesthood. The assertion about priests, wives, and property is a hypothesis born out of the above and rooted in oral tradition. It makes sense for sure.

Okay, so you are stating that it is a hypothesis in regards to the “property” issue, and not the actual reason for it? If it was a “key issue” as you stated earlier, I’d just like to see evidence that it was a key issue in the matter.

I don’t begin to have enough time to crawl through and answer what you have provided and am not sure when I can get around to it. I will soon - you just need to be patient as I come up with slices of time. Here are a few things off the top of my head:

No problem, I’ll be here.

Interpretation is the key to most of what you have written. You interpret it one way, we interpret it another way. Evangelicals interpret it yet another way.

Who is right? How can we know for sure?

I have a way that works for me, but it may not work for you. I can speak about that more later.

We of course believe that our own interpretations are correct. I personally look at not only the context of Biblical verses, but also the historical record, especially the Ante-Nicene Fathers. This is especially important in my view when we discuss Mormonism being restored Christianity. If it is restoring something, then that means that it existed at some point previously. I would therefore expect to see these restored beliefs anciently, hence why studying the historical record is important.

Is all that God has revealed contained in the Bible? Are you sure? Cannot God provide more as time goes on? There is nothing in the Bible that says that is all. We all must accept this as God is a living God and will not be silenced. Even John said if everything that Jesus said and did was written that the world could not contain all of the books that would be written.

You must be aware, as an ex-Catholic, that the Catholic Church does not claim that “all that God has revealed [is] contained in the Bible”. We believe that the fullness of public revelation is found in Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition. We also do not believe that God is silenced. We believe that God continues to guide us in understanding public revelation, in making “explicit” through the centuries what He has revealed (as the Catechism states). We believe that Councils are inspired by God (which brings me back to whether Mormons believe in a difference between “inspiration” and “revelation”). What God has already provided in our belief is what is necessary for salvation. That public revelation is complete, and we do not need anything else for our salvation.

An issue with the Bible is that it is not complete in many respects. When you read my latest book you will understand what I mean by this.

Sure, I’m still reading it currently. As I mentioned, Catholicism is not sola scriptura, and we do not believe that the Bible is all one needs, nor does it contain the fullness of public revelation.

No sense in discussing polygamy. It is like discussing the crusades, the Inquisition, the burning of Tindale, and other things in the past. There are issues that took place in a moment in time and for us to judge in our modern day such events is of little value.

More later,
Eric

The difference between LDS polygamy and the Crusades and the Inquisition is that polygamy was a dogmatic issue, in LDS scripture. My issue with polygamy is that, while verses can be pulled out from the Bible that show persons having multiple wives, there is no instance of God actually commanding it as He supposedly did in LDS history. So, referencing the Bible in support of the LDS practice of polygamy isn’t really that helpful, since God being silent on the matter is not the same as God commanding it. These are two different situations.

It is okay if you don’t want to discuss it, I just had to clarify my position.

 

[zaffiroborant]

**

You can see, it is a bit complicated. In the LDS faith it is simple: God is the great I am, not the great I was. **

The great I was??? Where do you see Catholics seeing God as the great I was? Quite frankly I don’t see the implication in this little “comment” in anyway conducive to your rule number two:

• All posts should be in the spirit of “joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, Meekness, temperance…” (Gal 5:22-23). When accusations fly, harsh evangelism begins, and mean spirited content is posted

, the spirit leaves and it simply becomes a bashing session. We all have better things to do and once that happens I move on.

 

[SirThomasMore]

No one who truly understands the Catholic Church would ever claim that we believe that God is the “Great I was”. That comment shows an incredible lack of understanding to wha the Catholic Church (the TRUE Church) really is all about.

God is present, vibrant, and the largest part of our lives.

Look at the Mass compared to an LDS Sac meeting: At a Sac Meeting, we do the wonder bread and water thing, and then we have a board meeting: a few chosen people step up and give a talk on the topic they were given. It resembles kids in school giving book reports.

The Mass is a continual ride through the Scriptures from beginning to end. The largest part of that is the Eucharist. And as We believe, and as Jesus taught, that Christ IS the Eucharist, we spend the largest part of our Mass focused on Christ. We kneel to honor and in revererence, we share Christ.

To claim that we believe that God is the “great I was” is insulting and untrue.

 

[RebeccaJ]

It is only how a Mormon views God, and they try to project it onto us. Jesus, for them, was involved in the world, and He will be again. In the meantime, He left us orphans until Smith came around in order to prepare everyone for the will be.

Mormons have very little understanding of the Cross. They view Salvation as an event that happened, not as one that is always happening.

 

[eshuster]

Great conversation with individuals who know their doctrine.

I apologize if my comment about “the great I was” offended one or more of you. It is a way of bringing attention to the issue of closing the canon and closing the door on continuous revelation. Doing so is essentially saying God no longer speaks, and thus the great “I was.”

God is truly alive and the Catholic Church believes and teaches this fact.

But think about it for a moment. Why close the canon? Who decided this? It took hundreds of years after the ascension of Christ to compile the Bible as we know it today, so why close it at all? Someone says in this forum that all that is required for salvation is in the Bible; however, one must accept that that is true if we consider only a few paragraphs of the Bible - accepting Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior and keeping his commandments. If that is all that is needed then why take hundreds of pages to do so?

No, scripture is the word of God and God continues to speak. What is canonized must be vetted carefully, but at least the Church should be open that God may command there to be more scripture. My point is - the Catholic Church closes the door on this, while the LDS Church keeps the door open. One is careful due to the experiences of the past, one is open to God speaking to us now and in the future.One is safe and contained; one is fluid and continuously following the spirit to understand.

I understand both and know why one may feel better than the other. I do not criticize the Catholic position, but rather decided the latter is more in tune with how I understand the Bible and God to be.

God Bless

 

[eshuster]

Rebecca:

I disagree that Mormons know little of the cross. Having been an extremely active Catholic for the first 27 years of my life and an extremely active Mormon for the last 21 years of my life, I can accurately compare and will tell you that the average Catholic knows very little about the cross as compared to the average Mormon.

The atonement of Christ is spoken of over, and over, and over in General Conferences, LDS Church magazines, in Sunday worship, Sunday School and so forth. The Bible for example mentions the word atonement or atoned only once in the New Testament in Romans 5:11. In the Book of Mormon, the word atonement (or atone) as relating directly to the mission of Christ appears 37 times. Here is just one such passage where the Book of Mormon prophet Nephi details the critical importance of the Atonement:

Wherefore, it must needs be an infinite atonement—save it should be an infinite atonement this corruption could not put on incorruption. Wherefore, the first judgment which came upon man must needs have remained to an endless duration. And if so, this flesh must have laid down to rot and to crumble to its mother earth, to rise no more. Wherefore, he has given a law; and where there is no law given there is no punishment; and where there is no punishment there is no condemnation; and where there is no condemnation the mercies of the Holy One of Israel have claim upon them, because of the atonement; for they are delivered by the power of him. For the atonement satisfieth the demands of his justice upon all those who have not the law given to them, that they are delivered from that awful monster, death and hell, and the devil, and the lake of fire and brimstone, which is endless torment; and they are restored to that God who gave them breath, which is the Holy One of Israel (2 Nephi 9:7, 25-26).

It is up to each of us personally to understand who Jesus Christ is. A religion should teach correct doctrine, encourage one to seek Christ, and reinforce the doctrines through example and other means. To say Catholics do something better than Mormons or vice versa is not meaningful. Should we want to look at such things on the whole we might point to the Barna Group study in 2000/2001 which probed theological beliefs among adults in the U.S (6,038 total sample - including a statistically relevant sample of Catholics and Mormons). Only 33% of the Catholics surveyed believed that Jesus was sinless while on the earth, compared to 70% of Mormons. I am personally offended that 30% of Mormons believe Jesus was not sinless; however, one must wonder what those 67% of Catholics were thinking!

I believe both of our religions teach about Christ and his infinite atonement - albeit a bit differently in terms of emphasis. The real issue is - on average how many Catholics are really listening as compared to how many Mormons?

Again, it is an individual thing.

Thank you for being a part of this conversation.

God bless you and your loved ones.

Eric Shuster

 

[LongJourney]

I acknowledge that some priests in the early church were married, and today, some men in the Protestant ministry who are married, and then convert to Catholicism are allowed to remain married and become Catholic priests. However the problems with married priests extend beyond estate issues, although they are related.

It has more to do with children. There is something I call “preacher’s kid syndrome.” A married priest with children needs to use a lot of his time with family responsibilities. A celibate priest has no children. In a sense, all of the children of his parish are his adopted children. (This makes pedophile priests also guilty of incest.) Fathers who are also Protestant ministers at the same time are pressured to raise perfect children. Many “preacher’s kids” rebel against this pressure for perfection, with some sad results.

In sum, a married priesthood is impractical, for the children’s sake. A married man with children can have an important role in the parish, especially in today’s Catholic Church.

 

[SirThomasMore]

Rebecca:

I disagree that Mormons know little of the cross. Having been an extremely active Catholic for the first 27 years of my life and an extremely active Mormon for the last 21 years of my life, I can accurately compare and will tell you that the average Catholic knows very little about the cross as compared to the average Mormon.

Well, not sure how active as a Catholic you were, but as LDS, I was a missionary, in the bishopric, in the eq presidency, and a teacher. I read your book, and was not impressed with your knowledge of the Catholic Church. I can tell you that as a Mormon, I was taught that the cross meant very little. The work Christ needed to do was done in the Garden of Gethsemene when his sweat was like drops of blood. The crucifixion was anticlimatic.

The atonement of Christ is spoken of over, and over, and over in General Conferences, LDS Church magazines, in Sunday worship, Sunday School and so forth. The Bible for example mentions the word atonement or atoned only once in the New Testament in Romans 5:11. In the Book of Mormon, the word atonement (or atone) as relating directly to the mission of Christ appears 37 times. Here is just one such passage where the Book of Mormon prophet Nephi details the critical importance of the Atonement:

And? Since it is fairly clear the the B of M was a compilation of other materials compiled by Joe and others, it is not shocking that they put the words they wanted into the book.

It is up to each of us personally to understand who Jesus Christ is. A religion should teach correct doctrine, encourage one to seek Christ, and reinforce the doctrines through example and other means. To say Catholics do something better than Mormons or vice versa is not meaningful.

Actually, it is. The issue is NOT teaching Christ. It is teaching the RIGHT Christ. The LDS Christ, who is the son of God (who is either Adam or a god who was once a sinful man) and who is the brother of Satan, is not the true Christ. Jesus warned us of false prophets who would teach false doctrine that led people astray…I am sorry that you fell for it as I did. I can only pray you allow God to lead you out as God led me out

Should we want to look at such things on the whole we might point to the Barna Group study in 2000/2001 which probed theological beliefs among adults in the U.S (6,038 total sample - including a statistically relevant sample of Catholics and Mormons). Only 33% of the Catholics surveyed believed that Jesus was sinless while on the earth, compared to 70% of Mormons. I am personally offended that 30% of Mormons believe Jesus was not sinless; however, one must wonder what those 67% of Catholics were thinking!

I am surprised a person like you would so readily accept any study. It is well known in educated circles that polls and studies are typcally invalid. So much depends on the questions asked, how they were asked, and to whom they were asked. I saw an interview recently of a pollster who said he can always get the poll results he wants. All he has to do is choose the right questions, the right people and how the questions are asked.

I believe both of our religions teach about Christ and his infinite atonement - albeit a bit differently in terms of emphasis. The real issue is - on average how many Catholics are really listening as compared to how many Mormons?

I would say a lot. But then, I do not rely on polls. Most educated people don’t

 

[RebeccaJ]

Rebecca:

I disagree that Mormons know little of the cross. Having been an extremely active Catholic for the first 27 years of my life and an extremely active Mormon for the last 21 years of my life, I can accurately compare and will tell you that the average Catholic knows very little about the cross as compared to the average Mormon.

The atonement of Christ is spoken of over, and over, and over in General Conferences, LDS Church magazines, in Sunday worship, Sunday School and so forth. The Bible for example mentions the word atonement or atoned only once in the New Testament in Romans 5:11. In the Book of Mormon, the word atonement (or atone) as relating directly to the mission of Christ appears 37 times. Here is just one such passage where the Book of Mormon prophet Nephi details the critical importance of the Atonement:

Wherefore, it must needs be an infinite atonement—save it should be an infinite atonement this corruption could not put on incorruption. Wherefore, the first judgment which came upon man must needs have remained to an endless duration. And if so, this flesh must have laid down to rot and to crumble to its mother earth, to rise no more. Wherefore, he has given a law; and where there is no law given there is no punishment; and where there is no punishment there is no condemnation; and where there is no condemnation the mercies of the Holy One of Israel have claim upon them, because of the atonement; for they are delivered by the power of him. For the atonement satisfieth the demands of his justice upon all those who have not the law given to them, that they are delivered from that awful monster, death and hell, and the devil, and the lake of fire and brimstone, which is endless torment; and they are restored to that God who gave them breath, which is the Holy One of Israel (2 Nephi 9:7, 25-26).

It is up to each of us personally to understand who Jesus Christ is. A religion should teach correct doctrine, encourage one to seek Christ, and reinforce the doctrines through example and other means. To say Catholics do something better than Mormons or vice versa is not meaningful. Should we want to look at such things on the whole we might point to the Barna Group study in 2000/2001 which probed theological beliefs among adults in the U.S (6,038 total sample - including a statistically relevant sample of Catholics and Mormons). Only 33% of the Catholics surveyed believed that Jesus was sinless while on the earth, compared to 70% of Mormons. I am personally offended that 30% of Mormons believe Jesus was not sinless; however, one must wonder what those 67% of Catholics were thinking!

I believe both of our religions teach about Christ and his infinite atonement - albeit a bit differently in terms of emphasis. The real issue is - on average how many Catholics are really listening as compared to how many Mormons?

Again, it is an individual thing.

Thank you for being a part of this conversation.

God bless you and your loved ones.

Eric Shuster

I wasn’t talking about what is taught in lds Sunday school, I was talking about understanding the Cross, which LDS do not. I’m talking a deep, contemplative, meditative, fall on your face before God understanding. LDS gloss over the Cross, to get to the Resurrection. What lds call the atonement, occurred in Gethsemane. Not on the Cross.

The cross is a symbol of death. We like to remember the living Christ. If you read in the Bible, Christ wasn’t the only one who was killed on a cross. That was a common punishment during those times. It was what happened after his crucifixion that was the most important. He overcame death and was resurrected.

Sorry eshuster, teachings like this say exactly what lds understand about the Cross.