Mormon Religion

[dianaiad]

It actually makes membership a lot more meaningful to me. God has made baptism an absolute necessity for salvation, for God to make it so that anyone can baptize anyone really underscores its importance in my eyes.

Just for clarification, no one can be “rebaptized.”

Ephesians 4:5
One Lord, one faith, one baptism.

There is only one baptism.

Indeed… only the baptism performed by one having that authority.

Romans 6:3
Know you not that all we, who are baptized in Christ Jesus, are baptized in his death?

If Paul is correct, and I’m 100% sure he is, then it is impossible to be baptized more than once because Christ has died but once, never to die again.

I understand that you believe this. It doesn’t automatically follow that everybody agrees with your interpretation of that verse. Indeed for me the logic from that verse to your interpretation of it seems to leap a few steps.

 

[dianaiad]

I really wasn’t thinking about baptism. The Encyclopedia quote clearly said that priests can still confer valid sacraments except those that require jurisdiction (Confession and Matrimony). That includes Holy Eucharist, Anointing of the Sick, Confirmation, and Holy Orders (for bishops). These are all sacraments specific to being a priest or bishop, and an excommunicated priest or bishop still has the power to validly confer these sacraments (though they will be illicit, or unlawful, in most situations).

Also, I’m not sure why you keep mentioning “infant” in relation to baptism. Catholics baptize infants, children and adults.

Yes, but the situation in which an older child or an adult would require a non-Catholic to baptise him or her would be incredibly rare, whereas it happens often enough to be of note with newborns who are hanging on to their lives and might not make it until a priest arrives. It’s a practical, not a theological, point I’m making.

 

[dianaiad]

Yes. Personal worthiness has no bearing on the sacraments in Catholicism.

No. An excommunicated priest still can confer most of the sacraments, because they still have the power to do so. If they do so, it is unlawful. Again, the excommunicated priest is still a priest, and still has the powers of a priest. It is unlawful to exercise that however.

If you look at other threads elsewhere, especially on the sacraments and apostolic succession, you will see the words “valid/invalid” and “licit/illicit”. For your Presbyterian analogy to work, the priest would be conferring invalid sacraments, meaning that he doesn’t have the power to do so. In reality, the priest is conferring valid but illicit sacraments, meaning that he still has the capacity to confer the sacrament, but it is unlawful for him to do so.

See above.

If Mormon excommunication makes them a non-member (and basically “undoes” everything), then that person no longer has priesthood power (if it has to be “restored”). They are not bound by “obligations to the law”, because they are no longer members of the LDS church. In contrast, Catholic excommunication does not release someone from their obligations to the law (unless exemptions are made), and a priest still has the power of the priesthood, yet it is unlawful (in most situations) for them to exercise it. They can still validly perform most sacraments. The excommunicated person is not kicked out of the Catholic Church (as the canon lawyer quoted earlier clearly states).

Thank you for explaining how this works for the priesthood. It’s interesting. What about the laity?

 

[dianaiad]

to this:
"dianaiad:

Mortal sins: require knowledge of the gravity of the act, knowledge of the consequences, and deliberate and willing choice.

You write this:

Close but wrong. In order for a sin to be mortal, it must be a sin of grave matter, committed with full knowledge of the sinner, and committed with deliberate consent of the sinner. It can not be an accident.

The Church thinks more morally than legally.

.

ARRRGGGHHHH :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead:

I say…the sinner must be aware of the gravity of the matter (in other words, the matter must be grave AND the sinner must be aware of that fact).

You say no, that’s not it, because it REALLY is that the sin must be a sin of ‘a grave matter,’ done with the full knowledge of the sinner.

I say…it must be a deliberate and willing choice. (‘deliberate’ and ‘willing’ are not adjectives that describe accidents!)

You say no…that’s not it, because it REALLY must be committed with the deliberate consent of the sinner; it cannot be an accident.

Stephen, I appreciate the civil nature of your post. However, right now I am so flippin’ FRUSTRATED that I’d like to throw something. This really IS a case of my saying that the sky is blue, and you saying that no, you are wrong, because the sky is BLUE!!!

Would you care to enlighten me as to the difference between what I said…and your correction?

 

[dianaiad]

You realize that every sin possible is not going to be listed in Canon Law right? I mean that is a logical assumption isn’t it.

Personally, I give up. It is clear you are acting like a jail house lawyer, and have no willingness to honestly discuss this.

Maybe another poster can get through to you, because obviously I cannot.

no, not every sin is listed in canon law, sirs…but every sin that results in latae sententiae excommunication IS.

 

[Stephen168]

to this:

You write this:

ARRRGGGHHHH :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead:

I say…the sinner must be aware of the gravity of the matter (in other words, the matter must be grave AND the sinner must be aware of that fact).

You say no, that’s not it, because it REALLY is that the sin must be a sin of ‘a grave matter,’ done with the full knowledge of the sinner.

I say…it must be a deliberate and willing choice. (‘deliberate’ and ‘willing’ are not adjectives that describe accidents!)

You say no…that’s not it, because it REALLY must be committed with the deliberate consent of the sinner; it cannot be an accident.

Stephen, I appreciate the civil nature of your post. However, right now I am so flippin’ FRUSTRATED that I’d like to throw something. This really IS a case of my saying that the sky is blue, and you saying that no, you are wrong, because the sky is BLUE!!!

Would you care to enlighten me as to the difference between what I said…and your correction?

I would be happy to explain the difference, but first….I noticed you skipped over my post #419 and RebeccaJ’s post #434. Does that mean you now realize that the acts which occur excommunication latae sententiae are NOT sins of the worst kind in all of Catholicism?

 

[Answersplease]

no, not every sin is listed in canon law, sirs…but every sin that results in latae sententiae excommunication IS.

to this:

You write this:

ARRRGGGHHHH :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead:

I say…the sinner must be aware of the gravity of the matter (in other words, the matter must be grave AND the sinner must be aware of that fact).

You say no, that’s not it, because it REALLY is that the sin must be a sin of ‘a grave matter,’ done with the full knowledge of the sinner.

I say…it must be a deliberate and willing choice. (‘deliberate’ and ‘willing’ are not adjectives that describe accidents!)

You say no…that’s not it, because it REALLY must be committed with the deliberate consent of the sinner; it cannot be an accident.

Stephen, I appreciate the civil nature of your post. However, right now I am so flippin’ FRUSTRATED that I’d like to throw something. This really IS a case of my saying that the sky is blue, and you saying that no, you are wrong, because the sky is BLUE!!!

Would you care to enlighten me as to the difference between what I said…and your correction?

God bless you Dianaiad.

As KathleenGee said, it is an apples to oranges comparison. The Catholics and Mormons have different kinds of excommunication. Excommunicated Catholics are still Catholics but they can no longer receive the Eucharist, to a devout Catholic, the Eucharist is the real presence of Jesus Christ.

Just my opinion.

Again, God bless you.

 

[TheosisM]

Thank you for explaining how this works for the priesthood. It’s interesting. What about the laity?

No problem diana! For the laity, I think I remember seeing a quote somewhere that the laity would still be bound by certain obligations, such as attending weekly Mass and on the feast days. I actually was looking for that one in addition to what I posted on priests, but couldn’t find it. I’ll keep checking though.

 

[TheosisM]

But as I recall from another discussion, there is a procedure for “name removal,” or something equivalent to it, whereby you cease to be a member of the Catholic Church. Is not that so?

Yes, I believe there is. The canon lawyer I quoted earlier kind of hinted at it, by saying that there is a process of being removed from the Catholic Church, and that excommunication is not it.

 

[dianaiad]

I would be happy to explain the difference, but first….I noticed you skipped over my post #419 and RebeccaJ’s post #434. Does that mean you now realize that the acts which occur excommunication latae sententiae are NOT sins of the worst kind in all of Catholicism?

No, I don’t, actually. It seems rather obvious to me, at least, that such consequences are reserved to those sins which are the most serious…i.e., the ‘worst.’ It doesn’t seem very logical to impose the most serious consequences upon sins which are lesser than sins that do NOT receive this level of separation from the church.

What you are saying is that…yes, there are worse sins than the ones that incur excommunication, but we don’t kick you to the curb for them. It’s upside down.

The judgement of the seriousness of a sin…or a crime, for that matter–is most clearly seen by the punishment attached to it. For instance, the sentence for murder can be death. The sentence for thievery is, at most, prison time. Would you accept, with any credence whatsoever, a claim that this government thought that theft is worse than murder?

By the same reasoning, Catholicism considers murder to be a mortal sin–but nobody gets excommunicated for it. There are some sins, however, that DO result in excommunication–which is (no matter HOW you define it, what it means to the person laboring under it, or how different it is from the LDS version of it) the most serious consequence the Catholic church imposes upon her members.

More simply put: if these sins, which result in excommunication (the most serious consequence/discipline a Catholic can face) are NOT the most serious of sins, then excommunication wouldn’t be the result. They would be listed among the other mortal sins which can be handled in a different way.

If there ARE more serious sins than these, then why isn’t excommunication the result of commiting them? It is obvious. It’s also not for me to judge why they are considered so. It’s your religion, you do what you want.

Latter-day Saints do not have anything remotely like latae sententiae excommunication. (shrug) That’s neither good nor bad…it simply is.

Just at it simply IS, that it is very strange to think that any group would reserve its most serious punishment/consequences/discipline for ANY sort of ‘lesser’ infraction, while leaving more serious sins with lesser consequences.

But go ahead. Do try to explain to me why any group would impose the most serious of possible consequences on certain acts…but NOT impose them upon acts that they claim are even more serious? What sort of logic IS that?

 

[dianaiad]

God bless you Dianaiad.

As KathleenGee said, it is an apples to oranges comparison. The Catholics and Mormons have different kinds of excommunication. Excommunicated Catholics are still Catholics but they can no longer receive the Eucharist, to a devout Catholic, the Eucharist is the real presence of Jesus Christ.

Just my opinion.

Again, God bless you.

I’m not comparing LDS excommunication to Catholic excommunication, Answersplease!

I was describing what ‘mortal sin’ is…and frankly, my friend, though LDS do not USE the terms ‘mortal sin’ vs. ‘venial sin,’ the description of what it means to sin are alike; we both consider sin to be something that must be deliberate, in full understanding of the nature of the act, and in full understanding that this act IS a sin.

 

[RebeccaJ]

But go ahead. Do try to explain to me why any group would impose the most serious of possible consequences on certain acts…but NOT impose them upon acts that they claim are even more serious? What sort of logic IS that?

Catholics believe in the forgiveness of sins. Therefore, excommunication is not based on the sin(s) that a person commits.

 

[aspirant]

separation from the church
kick you to the curb

You don’t listen to other people, do you?

Excommunicated Catholics are still Catholics.

 

[LAMBOFGODGIRLY]

Sorry, this may have already been asked, but I don’t know because I haven’t read through everyones posts yet.

-When you are Mormon and are excommunicated, can you still go to the church service?

-If you can still go to the church services, what exactly are you excommunicated from?

I am just confused because in the Catholic Church you can not receive the Eucharist, but Mormons do not celebrate the Eucharist, so what is it that you are excommunicated from?

Good to see everyone again!
God Bless,
Alisha

 

[zerinus]

Yes, I believe there is. The canon lawyer I quoted earlier kind of hinted at it, by saying that there is a process of being removed from the Catholic Church, and that excommunication is not it.

Okay, so is that a more serious penalty than excommunication, or less? Is such a person excommunicated as well as no longer Catholic, or is he still in communion with the Church, but not a Catholic (which wouldn’t make sense)?

 

[Stephen168]

No, I don’t, actually. It seems rather obvious to me, at least, that such consequences are reserved to those sins which are the most serious…i.e., the ‘worst.’ It doesn’t seem very logical to impose the most serious consequences upon sins which are lesser than sins that do NOT receive this level of separation from the church.

I’m a professional educator and a postgraduate student. As such, my research skills are supposed to be better than average.

But you are not capable of learning, which makes you an embarrassment to educators everywhere. Because you are not capable of learning, I would be wasting my time explaining why your definition of mortal sin is off.

What you are saying is that…yes, there are worse sins than the ones that incur excommunication, but we don’t kick you to the curb for them.

Not excommunication, but excommunication latae sententiae, which would make a professional educator, who is not a bigot, think.

Professional educators, who are not bigots, might notice the bolded print and think there might be some insight there.

 

[dianaiad]

Catholics believe in the forgiveness of sins. Therefore, excommunication is not based on the sin(s) that a person commits.

At the risk of being clobbered with the ‘only a canon lawyer can understand the words’ slam, I will remind you that according to canon law, it IS the sin that is mentioned in terms of what results in excommunication.

OF COURSE sins may be forgiven. Even sins that result in excommunication may be–else why are there specific steps given in order to get those excommuncations LIFTED? Even those sins which are 'reserved to the Holy See…" mean that even if the Holy See is the only authority which CAN lift an excommunication imposed as a result of a specific sin being committed, the Holy See CAN lift it. Ergo, this sin can be forgiven.

By the way, Mormons also believe in the forgiveness of sins. Most of 'em.

 

[dianaiad]

You don’t listen to other people, do you?

Excommunicated Catholics are still Catholics.

I listen. Excommunicated Catholics are still Catholics. I GET that. Excommunicated Catholics, however, may not recieve communion or partcipate in some other very important activities. That is a degree of separation. It is a ‘kicking to the curb’ in terms of ‘you need not stand in line for communion.’

 

[dianaiad]

Sorry, this may have already been asked, but I don’t know because I haven’t read through everyones posts yet.

-When you are Mormon and are excommunicated, can you still go to the church service?

Yes. In fact, you are encouraged to do so.

-If you can still go to the church services, what exactly are you excommunicated from?

An excommunicated Mormon may not excercise the priesthood, take the sacrament or hold church callings. They are non-members.

I am just confused because in the Catholic Church you can not receive the Eucharist, but Mormons do not celebrate the Eucharist, so what is it that you are excommunicated from?

We do ‘celebrate’ communion. We do not call it that. We call it the ‘sacrament’ because to us it is uniquely important AS a sacrament. We do not believe in the literal presence of Christ in the bread and water, but we partake of it in remembrance of Christ.

…and it is every inch as vital to us as the Eucharist is to you.

Good to see everyone again!
God Bless,
Alisha

 

[aspirant]

I listen. Excommunicated Catholics are still Catholics. I GET that.

Your words continually express otherwise. There is no “kicking to the curb.”