Mormon Author's Video on Catholicism vs. Mormonism

[catholic-rcia]

I see celibacy in the priesthood like I would see a huge stain glassed door to be opened that one could enter through into a great Cathedral where all of its magnificent paintings of the Holy Family would be found.

I have been around priests and nuns, good priests and good nuns that have helped enlighten me to this devotion to Christ and His Church. Not to mention Christ commanded this to those who were and are now called to this wonderful state of being.

Because of my Catholic faith I can understand why Jesus Himself was celibate. How certain men and women are called to imitate Him is this way. Its huge for me a married man with 3 children to have witnessed this, and come to understand this commitment in my lifetime. So seeing this ad for a book only strikes out at my heart. So I strike back with the love I have been gifted.

The part on Marriage. The temptation here is gigantic and very wrong. I love my wife and children so much in this life, to wave this temptation is flat out evil in my Catholic mind. But I can still love those waving this temptation and place my sites on the one behind this. Of course I will have my family in heaven along with every other child of God. Can you love your neighbor as you love your husband or your wife? I am speaking about real love here, not human love. I am speaking about the only kind of love that will endure past this life, this world. Can you love the son or daughter across the street as you love your own daughter and son? Can God do this?

Marriage on earth prepares us for the real thing I heaven. Where we will all be espoused to God Himself, to Love, to the Holy Family where God will be our God and we will be His children. This ad for a book offers us the world as we see the world and desire the world. But the Catholic faith offers Heaven as only God can offer. Where love will not be measured as we measure love here, within our families. We will love “all” as God loves “all” I will run with my friends, dance upon the surfaces of the heavenly bodies with them, laugh with them, play with them and we will always remember from where we came, out of the darkness into the light together. My wife, my 3 children and I.along with all of the others, No measured love, just all immersed into it together forever. Another very large door to enter where the Holy Family will be found. The perfect one Body of Christ for all of eternity. I have had three mothers on this earth. One I loved more than the others. Would it be wrong to have all three to love? How about all mothers? How about just loving above all things God and letting His love fall into its proper place?

God Bless
Rich
www.utahmission.com

 

[CatholicGuyNY]

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.”

This is of course erroneous, since we have repeatedly stated that Catholicism teaches the continuation of revelation to individuals (private revelation), as well as the inspiration of our Church leaders in certain situations, such as Ecumenical Councils and Papal Infallibility. What has ended is public revelation. Since private revelation and inspiration of Church leaders continue, it is not logical to claim that we believe that “God no longer speaks”.

I believe I have asked before: do Mormons recognize a difference between “inspiration” and “revelation”, and if so, what is that difference?

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?

Firstly, Catholicism teaches that the entirety of public revelation is contained in Sacred Scripture (the Bible) and Sacred Tradition, and not just the Bible alone. A “few paragraphs of the Bible” do not contain the entirety of Salvation History, the progressive nature of God’s dealings with the world, with its high point being the Incarnation of God the Son on this earth. Your question of “If that is all that is needed then why take hundreds of pages to do so?” is like asking “Why did God the Son take so long to come to this earth and atone if He could have just done that from the beginning?” The fact is that the Bible tells a progressive salvation story, an unfolding of God’s interactions with humanity, all related to our salvation.

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

Unfortunately, it does not seem that you understand the Catholic position. The Catholic position is that God very much continues to speak, even though public revelation is complete. I am not sure where this false understanding comes from, since I have heard it before (though you seem to be connecting “God speaking” to “scripture”, and if there is no more scripture, then God is no longer speaking, which does not make sense in Catholic theology). We believe that God continues to speak to us as individuals, and He also inspires our authorized leaders in Ecumenical Council and through Papal Infallibility. We also “continuously [follow] the spirit to understand”, so I hope that you were not implying that that is something that the Catholic Church does not do. In Catholicism, as I and others have shown by quoting from the Catechism, although Public Revelation is complete, we are still coming to a deeper understanding of what is in that Revelation, which is an inspired process (and occurs through Council and Papal Infallibility). Again, I wonder if Mormons have a distinction between inspiration and revelation.

 

[CatholicGuyNY]

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.

Please remember that the Eastern Catholic Churches, which are in full communion with Rome, generally allow married men to be ordained to the priesthood (just like the Eastern Orthodox do). I don’t believe celibacy every developed as a practice in the East.

 

[MelanieAnne]

The entire subject matter of this thread is stressful. “Catholic Roots Mormon Harvest” ~ so this is a suggestion that Catholics are ripe for the picking for Mormon missionaries? Does that view explain the presence of many Mormons on this forum including the video’s creator? It is all a missionary exercise? If so, then at the very least, this is contrary to forum rules because it is forbidden to proselytize and all of them should be banned. This is not the purpose of this area of CAF.

It may be true that some Catholics have fallen into complacency, taking their faith for granted. I have yet to encounter a Mormon that was once a Catholic that actually knew their Catholic faith. If they had known their faith, they would never leave. So it is true that our Church has a responsibility to properly communicate the faith so that no one will be lured away into heresy, no matter what that heresy might be.

But that does not give anyone the right to come into this forum and proselytize and if this is being promulgated, not matter what the reason, then I intend to report it to the moderators. Let it be their decision as to whether this sort of thing should continue. And I will abide by the moderators’ decision.

 

[SirThomasMore]

The entire subject matter of this thread is stressful. “Catholic Roots Mormon Harvest” ~ so this is a suggestion that Catholics are ripe for the picking for Mormon missionaries? Does that view explain the presence of many Mormons on this forum including the video’s creator? It is all a missionary exercise? If so, then at the very least, this is contrary to forum rules because it is forbidden to proselytize and all of them should be banned. This is not the purpose of this area of CAF.

It may be true that some Catholics have fallen into complacency, taking their faith for granted. I have yet to encounter a Mormon that was once a Catholic that actually knew their Catholic faith. If they had known their faith, they would never leave. So it is true that our Church has a responsibility to properly communicate the faith so that no one will be lured away into heresy, no matter what that heresy might be.

But that does not give anyone the right to come into this forum and proselytize and if this is being promulgated, not matter what the reason, then I intend to report it to the moderators. Let it be their decision as to whether this sort of thing should continue. And I will abide by the moderators’ decision.

No, the book title refers to the fact they claim to have been knowledgable Catholics (Catholic Roots) but then became LDS (Mormon harvest)

 

[campeador]

As far as Priests and celibacy, I offer this.

Wisdom 3:13-15 :

Yes, blessed is she who, childless and undefiled, knew not transgression of the marriage bed; she shall bear fruit at the visitation of souls.
So also the eunuch whose hand wrought no misdeed, who held no wicked thoughts against the LORD - For he shall be given fidelity’s choice reward and a more gratifying heritage in the LORD’S temple.
For the fruit of noble struggles is a glorious one; and unfailing is the root of understanding.

Wisdom 4:1-2 :

Better is childlessness with virtue; for immortal is its memory: because both by God is it acknowledged, and by men.
When it is present men imitate it, and they long for it when it is gone; And forever it marches crowned in triumph, victorious in unsullied deeds of valor.

 

[MelanieAnne]

No, the book title refers to the fact they claim to have been knowledgable Catholics (Catholic Roots) but then became LDS (Mormon harvest)

Maybe so.

But my experience here on CAF has been that the former Catholics that became Mormon were very lacking in their understanding of their Catholic faith, despite their years in Religious education and despite, in some cases, growing up in Catholic schools.

That doesn’t change the fact that “Catholic Roots Mormon Harvest” can obviously be viewed as proselytizing for Mormonism and has no place on this forum.

 

[Stephen168]

Shuster claims:

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

My first reaction would be, so what? But then as you point out it is not true of the Universal Church in communion with the Bishop of Rome. There are married priests in the Eastern Church and there were a few Popes who were married before they became Pope including the first Pope. But like Peter, almost all were widowers before either becoming a priest or the Bishop of Rome. The Latin Church has followed the example of Christ and The Twelve in practicing celibacy over marriage. The ‘restorated’ church invented polygamy for its priesthood; something never practiced by Christ or the Twelve. They also have a Melchizedek Priesthood which has no foundation in history or scripture.

 

[MelanieAnne]

My first reaction would be, so what? But then as you point out it is not true of the Universal Church in communion with the Bishop of Rome. There are married priests in the Eastern Church and there were a few Popes who were married before they became Pope including the first Pope. But like Peter, almost all were widowers before either becoming a priest or the Bishop of Rome. The Latin Church has followed the example of Christ and The Twelve in practicing celibacy over marriage. The ‘restorated’ church invented polygamy for its priesthood; something never practiced by Christ or the Twelve. They also have a Melchizedek Priesthood which has no foundation in history or scripture.

I would clarify the above by adding this to the last sentence:

… apart from the fact that there is a figure in the Old Testament named Melchizedek that was a priest.

 

[SirThomasMore]

Maybe so.

But my experience here on CAF has been that the former Catholics that became Mormon were very lacking in their understanding of their Catholic faith, despite their years in Religious education and despite, in some cases, growing up in Catholic schools.

That doesn’t change the fact that “Catholic Roots Mormon Harvest” can obviously be viewed as proselytizing for Mormonism and has no place on this forum.

I agree. Their book shows a true lack of understanding of the Catholic Church. I have their book

 

[CatholicGuyNY]

I agree. Their book shows a true lack of understanding of the Catholic Church. I have their book

SirThomasMore, I would be very much interested in more specifics as to your views on this book. As a former Mormon, and a returned missionary, your perspective (as well as the other Catholic posters that were returned Mormon missionaries) is always valuable.

Here are some additional thoughts on this book, that will hopefully be helpful to Catholics:

Chapter 4-The Creation and the Fall

Shuster claims:

"The Catechism of the Catholic Church outlines the doctrine of creation as being carried out by the word of God being facilitated by the Holy Trinity. This coordination between the Holy Trinity and the word of God is described with reference to God as ‘the One who alone made heaven and earth’ (Catechism, 287, emphasis added) for the purpose of showing forth the glory of God (also Isaiah 43:1 and Psalms 115:15, 124:8, and 134:3).

The underlined portion is incoherent to me. Where does the Catechism claim that creation was done “by the word of God being facilitated by the Holy Trinity”, or that there is a “coordination between the Holy Trinity and the word of God”? This seems to separate the “word of God” (meaning God the Son/Jesus Christ) from the Trinity, when the word of God is a member of the Trinity. There can’t be communication “between” the word of God and the Trinity, when the word of God is a member of the Trinity.

Shuster claims that “The Catholic doctrine of God and the word of God creating the earth, and the creation being the work of the Holy Trinity, is somewhat confusing, especially in light of biblical scripture.” Shuster does not clarify what exactly is confusing about the Catholic belief on creation. The Catechism itself, however, is quite clear as to the Catholic doctrine on creation
. We believe that creation is the “common work of the Holy Trinity”. It involved the Father, the Son (i.e. the “word of God”), and the Holy Spirit.

 

[CatholicGuyNY]

Shuster also makes claims without substantiation or clarification. For example:

Chapter 9-Priesthood

"During our investigation we came to the conclusion that there was a need for a comlete restoration of the Catholic priesthood, based on our life experiences and history-not because all priests in the Catholic Church are bad, but because we couldn’t help but feel that the current difficulties among a good percentage of the Catholic priesthood may have come from a broken apostolic succession and subsequent apostasy"

Shuster does not clarify what is “a good percentage of the Catholic priesthood”, nor what these “current difficulties” are, instead leaving it up to the reader to assume. I can only hope that he is not claiming that personal sins are an evidence of “broken apostolic succession and subsequent apostasy”, or that priests are somehow exempt from personal sins (even the Pope confesses his sins). Since he is now a poster on this forum, I would appreciate clarification as to the documented “good percentage”, and what these “current difficulties” are.

Shuster further states:
*
"As a Catholic, the two vocations–priest and husband/father–are mutually exclusive. I had to choose one, and I chose marriage and children.

When I considered becoming a Latter-day Saint, I saw I could combine both destinies. I could hold the priesthood and be a husband and a father. I saw that this combination was indeed the Lord’s intention, and felt that at last I had come home to the truth."*

It is true that in the Roman Catholic church, a man must be celibate to be ordained to the office of priest or bishop (though there are a few exceptions given to men that convert from Anglicanism or Lutheranism, from what I understand). As mentioned before, married men are allowed to be ordained to the office of priest in the Eastern Catholic churches, which are in full communion with Rome (and not to be confused with the Eastern Orthodox).

Many Catholic men that desire to serve the Lord as an ordained minister and have a family (outside of their church family of course) become permanent deacons. These are ordained ministers, to the priesthood office of “deacon”, and married men are allowed to be ordained to the permanent diaconate in the Roman Catholic church and in the East.

Shuster claims that the LDS way is the “Lord’s intention”, without evidence (Biblical or historical) or clarification.

Shuster states:

"We felt refreshed by a priesthood that is bestowed by worthiness and a desire to serve as opposed to academic rigor."

I can only hope that he is not claiming that the Catholic priesthood is bestowed due to “academic rigor”, and not a calling. The Catholic belief is that one must be called by God to the priesthood, and that academic preparation is not the reason why someone is ordained. If I feel that God is calling me to the diaconate or priesthood, I would do what I need to do to prepare myself to serve, which in Catholicism includes academic preparation. Again, I hope that Shuster was not making a contrast in his above statement.

Finally, Shuster also touches on the issue of paid ministry (which is frequently brought up by LDS):

"Several passages in the Bible warn against a paid ministry, or clearly indicate the need to avoid compensation for religious service.

Shuster cites 1 Peter 5:2 as an example. The problem is that this verse is against feeding the flock for “filthy lucre”. This verse would be applicable if men were becoming priests for the money, which is what it is talking about. This verse is therefore not against a paid ministry, but against men that feed the flock of God for the money. These are two different issues.

I also hope that Shuster is aware of these verses in support of a compensated ministry:

*1 Timothy 5:17-18 (KJV)
17Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honour, especially they who labour in the word and doctrine.

18For the scripture saith, thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn. And, The labourer is worthy of his reward. *

Shuster also cites Luke 10:4 as evidence against a paid ministry-

• 4Carry neither purse, nor scrip, nor shoes: and salute no man by the way. *

I fail to see how this is evidence against a paid ministry (do LDS priesthood holders carry purse and shoes?), especially when we go further down in the chapter to verse 7-
*
“7And in the same house remain, eating and drinking such things as they give: for the labourer is worthy of his hire. Go not from house to house.”*

And finally, I hope that Shuster is aware of 1 Corinthians 9:13-14-
*" 13Do ye not know that they which minister about holy things live of the things of the temple? and they which wait at the altar are partakers with the altar?

14Even so hath the Lord ordained that they which preach the gospel should live of the gospel. *

Also, I would appreciate Eric’s view on D&C 42:70-73

"70 The priests and teachers shall have their stewardships, even as the members.
71 And the elders or high priests who are appointed to assist the bishop as counselors in all things, are to have their families supported out of the property which is consecrated to the bishop, for the good of the poor, and for other purposes, as before mentioned;
72 Or they are to receive a just remuneration for all their services, either a stewardship or otherwise, as may be thought best or decided by the counselors and bishop.
73 And the bishop, also, shall receive his support, or a just remuneration for all his services in the church.

It seems that his writing on avoiding compensation for religious service should also apply to LDS scripture as well.

 

[CatholicGuyNY]

Chapter 6-The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit

This is the area where I find a common misunderstanding of a fundamental traditional Christian belief (the Trinity), and Shuster’s misunderstanding is actually quite common among LDS, and is also found among some Trinitarians themselves. I also touch on this issue in this thread. In that thread I also give a quote from Shuster’s new book that makes a claim about the Council of Nicaea that has yet to be substantiated (he essentially states a definition of the Trinity that was never made by the Council of Nicaea, and does not fit coherently in Trinitarian theology). See this post.

Under the heading “Catholic Doctrine”, Shuster claims:

“The doctrine of the Trinity is shrouded in theological explanation and historical lore. God can reveal himself as three separate beings (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) while still being God in ‘one essence, substance, or nature’.”

This quote capture the main issue of misunderstanding: the use of the word “being”. Firstly, the above quote is not an accurate statement of Trinitarian belief. A believing Trinitarian would not claim that God reveals himself as “three separate beings”. Instead, we would claim that God is three distinct persons, and not three distinct beings. The problem here is that today, we use the words “person” and “being” interchangeably. We use them to refer to the same concept. This is not true in Trinitarian language. We must remember that the Trinity doctrine was formalized over 1000 years ago, in a non-English speaking world, and thus we are working with English translations of Greek/Latin words. In the Trinity doctrine, we use “person” and “being”, not interchangeably, but to refer to two different concepts. Author Roger E. Olson, in his book “The Story of Christian Theology” explained the use of “being” (more precisely the word translated as “being”) quite well-
*
“The Arian bishops and their sympathizers pointed out that since the Greek word ousia could mean an individual subsistent thing like a person, saying that Father and Son are homoousios could be interpreted as saying that they are identical in every way, including being the very same person in two disguises. That would be modalism and Sabellianism. The more common meaning of ousia, however, was “substance” or “being,” and affirming that Father and Son are homoousios simply meant to most of the bishops that they share all the same essential attributes of deity. If the Father is eternal, so is the Son. If the Son is omnipotent, so is the Father. And so forth.”*

As we can see, the word “being” is not used to mean that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are the same “person” (which is what Shuster seems to interpret the Trinity doctrine as claiming, which is instead a definition of Modalism, as Olson rightly states), but that they hold the same “essential attributes of deity”, such as omnipotence, being eternal, etc. This is even more evident when we see this oneness as being described as a oneness of “nature” (in the Catechism and the Fourth Lateran Council), and not a oneness of “personhood”.

Shuster’s confusion of Trinitarianism with Modalism is exemplified in the following, on page 99 from his book:

"*How can God the Father give up himself as his Only Begotten Son to be sacrificed for our sins? It is rather circular, we came to think, even nonsensical.

Why was Jesus Christ praying to himself in the Garden of Gethsemane, calling himself father? Why did Jesus have to depart in order for the Holy Spirit to come upon his apostles if he was or had in him the Holy Spirit? Why was the Father talking to himself when he proclaimed at the baptism of Jesus, ‘This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased’ (Mathew 3:17)?"*

Anyone with any familiarity with Modalism or Unitarianism can see these beliefs in the above, and know that these are not accurate questions to ask Trinitarians (and should be asked of Oneness Pentecostals), since we firmly believe that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are distinct Persons, who are not each other. Jesus was not praying to Himself, He was praying to the Father. The Father did not give Himself up, He gave the Son up. Jesus is not the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is a distinct Person from the Son (and the Father). Shuster himself tells us on page 98 to refer to “Catechism, 200-262…”, and we find this in CCC 254:

*254 The divine persons are really distinct from one another. "God is one but not solitary."86 “Father”, “Son”, “Holy Spirit” are not simply names designating modalities of the divine being, for they are really distinct from one another: **“He is not the Father who is the Son, nor is the Son he who is the Father, nor is the Holy Spirit he who is the Father or the Son.”**87 They are distinct from one another in their relations of origin: "It is the Father who generates, the Son who is begotten, and the Holy Spirit who proceeds."88 The divine Unity is Triune. *

If anything, this is a clear example of Shuster arguing against a strawman, and not an accurate portrayal of Catholic belief.

 

[SirThomasMore]

Excellent posts

 

[KathleenGee]

Bravo!!

 

[eshuster]

CatholicGuyNY and SirThomasMore

On the creation: I agree that the CCC explanation of the creation is quite complex and difficult to summarize in a few paragraphs (which is what I had to do to keep things brief). I suggest you read the entire chapter to get the full context SirThomas – it will make more sense to you then.

On the priesthood: “A good percentage” depends on the statistics one wishes to quote. For my wife and I we had multiple experiences of priests involved in homosexuality, drugs, heterosexual adultery, and pedophilia. HOWEVER, we chose not to list each of the experiences because of the sensitive nature of those experiences and the fact that we were beating a dead horse. Why mention our experiences and risk offending Catholics in doing so? I felt to say it as I did was the most tasteful and discrete way I could get the point across.

To substantiate broken apostolic succession I believe one need only look throughout history, including the current day, to hypothesize such a claim. There is in fact no way to prove it, which is why instead of stating it as a fact I instead say “we came to the conclusion” – stating our opinion, instead of claiming it as a fact. Again, I am very careful in the book to avoid absolutes wherever possible.

Priests and all other humans are not exempt from personal sins. I counted money as a member of a bishopric with a ward clerk who ended up going to jail for child abuse. It happens in all religions. The issue is not the personal sin, the issue is when church leadership knowingly turns a blind eye to the issue and does little in the way of punishment for the offenders. Mormons who commit serious sins are excommunicated so as to feel the full impact of the atonement of Christ and repentance. Slaps on the wrist are rejected for such sin.

On the mutually exclusive priest-husband/father issue: This issue really extends much further than the ability to become a deacon. The point is the Lord never put forth educational qualifications to become a priesthood holder. As far as the Bible is concerned it is one who is worthy and willing. 4, 6 or 8 years of schooling and training are something I personally disagree with and do not believe it is a great advantage as a priest. This is one key reason many men in the Catholic Church will not become deacons – it is too much work to do so. For that reason the increase in lay positions is wonderful within the Catholic Church.

On priesthood qualifications: I believe I touched upon the Biblical support, but if not enough then look to my latest book. As a summary: The Lord requires faith and worthiness in the men he calls to the priesthood. The Lord uses the foolish and weak things of the world to accomplish his work (1 Corinthians 1:27). There are instances in the scriptures where specific requirements have been given to hold an office in the priesthood. For example, Paul provided counsel to Titus about elders who are married (an “elder” is an office in the Melchizedek Priesthood). Paul said that elders are only to have one wife and faithful children (Titus 1:5-6). Paul also gave specific counsel to Timothy on the requirements of a bishop (an office in the Aaronic Priesthood, but an office typically held by Melchizedek Priesthood holders as high priests), ensuring the individual was faithful and worthy to serve (1 Timothy 3;1-7). I know of a few men in my Catholic days who wanted very badly to become a priest, but could not handle the “academic rigor.” I spent several days shadowing seminarians in my early 20’s and came to that same conclusion. Too much school for a job that really requires a good heart more than an educated mind. My own opinion of course – as I state in the book continually.

On the unpaid ministry: I believe this is well understood and respected. It is a difference of opinion, but clearly a ministry does not need to be paid and most would agree that when ministry becomes a job there are several issues that can arise from that. Churches from all over the world come to Salt Lake to understand more about how the priesthood is administered and how the Church can do so much with a lay ministry. Again, I believe the record will speak for itself and what I was trying to get across in the book was just that. Remember Jason, there are paid ministers in the LDS Church (a very, very small percentage at the international level). However, at the local level no one is paid.

D&C 42:70-73 speaks of the law of consecration which is not being practiced at this time. Should this law come about to be practiced then this principle of priesthood support will come into being.

SirThomas: pick up the book and read it yourself. You must be able to get the full context of what is being said. My latest book would be a good companion to that as well to get an even deeper understanding from a strictly biblical perspective.

Thanks CatholicGuy for helping the conversation along. I truly appreciate all the work you do. You may be one of the most knowledgeable Catholics I have every come across. They are rare to find my friend!

 

[eshuster]

CatholicGuyNY
I responded to your thoughts on the trinity in the trinity forum for Catholic Answers.

Take care folks,
God Bless

 

[eshuster]

Why did the McConkie Letter thread get closed?

 

[SirThomasMore]

CatholicGuyNY and SirThomasMore

On the creation: I agree that the CCC explanation of the creation is quite complex and difficult to summarize in a few paragraphs (which is what I had to do to keep things brief). I suggest you read the entire chapter to get the full context SirThomas – it will make more sense to you then.

On the priesthood: “A good percentage” depends on the statistics one wishes to quote. For my wife and I we had multiple experiences of priests involved in homosexuality, drugs, heterosexual adultery, and pedophilia. HOWEVER, we chose not to list each of the experiences because of the sensitive nature of those experiences and the fact that we were beating a dead horse. Why mention our experiences and risk offending Catholics in doing so? I felt to say it as I did was the most tasteful and discrete way I could get the point across.

To substantiate broken apostolic succession I believe one need only look throughout history, including the current day, to hypothesize such a claim. There is in fact no way to prove it, which is why instead of stating it as a fact I instead say “we came to the conclusion” – stating our opinion, instead of claiming it as a fact. Again, I am very careful in the book to avoid absolutes wherever possible.

Priests and all other humans are not exempt from personal sins. I counted money as a member of a bishopric with a ward clerk who ended up going to jail for child abuse. It happens in all religions. The issue is not the personal sin, the issue is when church leadership knowingly turns a blind eye to the issue and does little in the way of punishment for the offenders. Mormons who commit serious sins are excommunicated so as to feel the full impact of the atonement of Christ and repentance. Slaps on the wrist are rejected for such sin.

On the mutually exclusive priest-husband/father issue: This issue really extends much further than the ability to become a deacon. The point is the Lord never put forth educational qualifications to become a priesthood holder. As far as the Bible is concerned it is one who is worthy and willing. 4, 6 or 8 years of schooling and training are something I personally disagree with and do not believe it is a great advantage as a priest. This is one key reason many men in the Catholic Church will not become deacons – it is too much work to do so. For that reason the increase in lay positions is wonderful within the Catholic Church.

On priesthood qualifications: I believe I touched upon the Biblical support, but if not enough then look to my latest book. As a summary: The Lord requires faith and worthiness in the men he calls to the priesthood. The Lord uses the foolish and weak things of the world to accomplish his work (1 Corinthians 1:27). There are instances in the scriptures where specific requirements have been given to hold an office in the priesthood. For example, Paul provided counsel to Titus about elders who are married (an “elder” is an office in the Melchizedek Priesthood). Paul said that elders are only to have one wife and faithful children (Titus 1:5-6). Paul also gave specific counsel to Timothy on the requirements of a bishop (an office in the Aaronic Priesthood, but an office typically held by Melchizedek Priesthood holders as high priests), ensuring the individual was faithful and worthy to serve (1 Timothy 3;1-7). I know of a few men in my Catholic days who wanted very badly to become a priest, but could not handle the “academic rigor.” I spent several days shadowing seminarians in my early 20’s and came to that same conclusion. Too much school for a job that really requires a good heart more than an educated mind. My own opinion of course – as I state in the book continually.

On the unpaid ministry: I believe this is well understood and respected. It is a difference of opinion, but clearly a ministry does not need to be paid and most would agree that when ministry becomes a job there are several issues that can arise from that. Churches from all over the world come to Salt Lake to understand more about how the priesthood is administered and how the Church can do so much with a lay ministry. Again, I believe the record will speak for itself and what I was trying to get across in the book was just that. Remember Jason, there are paid ministers in the LDS Church (a very, very small percentage at the international level). However, at the local level no one is paid.

D&C 42:70-73 speaks of the law of consecration which is not being practiced at this time. Should this law come about to be practiced then this principle of priesthood support will come into being.

SirThomas: pick up the book and read it yourself. You must be able to get the full context of what is being said. My latest book would be a good companion to that as well to get an even deeper understanding from a strictly biblical perspective.

Thanks CatholicGuy for helping the conversation along. I truly appreciate all the work you do. You may be one of the most knowledgeable Catholics I have every come across. They are rare to find my friend!

I have your book. I have read your book. In my opinion, you lack understanding as to what Catholics believe and teach. I did not like how you misintepret the Bible in many of your chapters.

And frankly,. I have met many more knowledgable Catholics than Mormons. I am continually amazed how how many Mormons do not truly know the things being taught, or that were taught, by the LDS leadership

 

[CatholicGuyNY]

CatholicGuyNY and SirThomasMore

On the creation: I agree that the CCC explanation of the creation is quite complex and difficult to summarize in a few paragraphs (which is what I had to do to keep things brief). I suggest you read the entire chapter to get the full context SirThomas – it will make more sense to you then.

I read the entire section of the Catechism on the Creation, and simply do not see the confusion that you ascribe to it in your book. For example, you state that the CCC “outlines the doctrine of creation as being carried out by the word of God being facilitated by the Holy Trinity.” What do you mean by this and where does it say this? It doesn’t make sense from our perspective because the “word of God”, meaning God the Son, meaning Jesus Christ, is a member of the Trinity, so you seem to be referring to the “word of God” as something/someone in addition to the Trinity. On page 62, you claim that the “Catholic doctrine of God and the word of God creating the earth, and the creation being the work of the Holy Trinity, is somewhat confusing, especially in light of biblical scripture.” The problem with your claim is that immediately after, you define the LDS doctrine, which is practically the same thing as the traditional view. We believe that the Creation was a coordinated act of the Trinity. The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit were all involved in it. What is confusing about this?

On the priesthood: “A good percentage” depends on the statistics one wishes to quote. For my wife and I we had multiple experiences of priests involved in homosexuality, drugs, heterosexual adultery, and pedophilia. HOWEVER, we chose not to list each of the experiences because of the sensitive nature of those experiences and the fact that we were beating a dead horse. Why mention our experiences and risk offending Catholics in doing so? I felt to say it as I did was the most tasteful and discrete way I could get the point across.

It would be helpful for you to simply cite your source for “a good percentage”. I am not really interested in anecdotal evidence (since I’m sure you’re aware that many of the ex-LDS posters on this forum have their own stories), but would like to know an actual source for the “current difficulties among a good percentage of the Catholic priesthood”.

To substantiate broken apostolic succession I believe one need only look throughout history, including the current day, to hypothesize such a claim. There is in fact no way to prove it, which is why instead of stating it as a fact I instead say “we came to the conclusion” – stating our opinion, instead of claiming it as a fact. Again, I am very careful in the book to avoid absolutes wherever possible.

Priests and all other humans are not exempt from personal sins. I counted money as a member of a bishopric with a ward clerk who ended up going to jail for child abuse. It happens in all religions. The issue is not the personal sin, the issue is when church leadership knowingly turns a blind eye to the issue and does little in the way of punishment for the offenders. Mormons who commit serious sins are excommunicated so as to feel the full impact of the atonement of Christ and repentance. Slaps on the wrist are rejected for such sin.

I still do not see how any of this points to a Great Apostasy, a loss/removal of priesthood authority. The problem is that it is still an issue of personal sins, no matter who is doing it or the number of people, especially when it is not an issue of doctrinal error.

On the mutually exclusive priest-husband/father issue: This issue really extends much further than the ability to become a deacon. The point is the Lord never put forth educational qualifications to become a priesthood holder. As far as the Bible is concerned it is one who is worthy and willing. 4, 6 or 8 years of schooling and training are something I personally disagree with and do not believe it is a great advantage as a priest. This is one key reason many men in the Catholic Church will not become deacons – it is too much work to do so. For that reason the increase in lay positions is wonderful within the Catholic Church.

Catholics never have claimed that God put forth educational qualifications to become a priesthood holder. We believe, in accordance with scripture, that a man must be called of God, either personally or through those with authority (in the case of bishops). I find the educational requirements to be extremely helpful in molding a minister that not only has the guidance of the Spirit, but the use of their reason (which is God given) as well. The study of Biblical Greek and Biblical Hebrew, the history of the Catholic Church, etc. can only be helpful in being a minister in a 2000 year old religion. Catholicism also has a rich theology, and if I’m going to a minister on a theological question, I would hope that they have a real familiarity with it, in general.