Stephen168
New member
Also not all rebellion is sinful or against God.
- Status
Stephen168
New member
Thank You. That is why we need ex-mormon Catholics on this boardI hear what you are saying Diana, and you have very valid points.
But, and I am sure you realize this considering the the belief in the Real Presence, the danger to partaking of the Eucharist while in such a state of grave sin has a greater sense of of damnation.
I would suggest to you that, in the Mormon point of view, a better equivalent would be being denied access to the temples, where it is believed that Christ, the temples being the House of the Lord, may dwell.
Mormons believe He dwells (or may dwell according to His will) in the temples.
Catholics believe He is really present in the Eucharist.
The Mormon sacrament, even though at first glance seems to be equal to the Eucharist, really isnt in terms of the sacredness and holiness.
I would say that level of sacredness and holiness would be found in how Mormons view the temple.
I hope that make sense.
D
dianaiad
Guest
Actually, you do have a point…though not all Mormons can attend the Temple anytime they want to, ALL of them have access to the sacrament, which, while we do not consider that Christ is actually physically present in it, DOES renew our baptismal covenents. This means that, when partaken of worthily, one comes away from it as free from sin as they were when arising from the waters of baptism.I hear what you are saying Diana, and you have very valid points.
But, and I am sure you realize this considering the the belief in the Real Presence, the danger to partaking of the Eucharist while in such a state of grave sin has a greater sense of of damnation.
I would suggest to you that, in the Mormon point of view, a better equivalent would be being denied access to the temples, where it is believed that Christ, the temples being the House of the Lord, may dwell.
Mormons believe He dwells (or may dwell according to His will) in the temples.
Catholics believe He is really present in the Eucharist.
The Mormon sacrament, even though at first glance seems to be equal to the Eucharist, really isnt in terms of the sacredness and holiness.
I would say that level of sacredness and holiness would be found in how Mormons view the temple.
I hope that make sense.
Can one say…just exploring this a little bit…that for Catholics the Eucharist is a reward for the state of grace they reached in the confessional by the process of repentance, and for Mormons the sacrament is, in some ways, a combination of the confessional/reconciliation and that reward?
When Catholics take the Eucharist, they believe that they are, in a VERY real way, taking Christ Himself into them. When Mormons partake of the sacrament, we believe we are taking His spirit into us; while we do believe that Christ may physically dwell in (or rather, that He visits from time to time…) our Temples, even when we go there it is to be WITH him and partake of His spirit there—rather like the way we do when we take the Sacrament.
…thank you. YOu have made me do some serious thinking about that one…and you really do have a good point.
D
dianaiad
Guest
Yes, we very much believe that. Or rather, we will know our family ties and be aware of who we all are to one another. After all, children grow up and have families of their own, yes?
V
vickimonica
Guest
T
TheosisM
Guest
Because it is a matter of something being authorized (having permission to do something), as well as obedience. The most extreme example of this is ordination. All bishops in the Catholic Church have the power to ordain deacons, priests, and bishops. However they must be authorized to do so. An example of this is the situation with the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX), a subject discussed ad nauseum on the Traditional Catholicism board. In this case, two bishops ordained men to the episcopate (i.e. ordained priests to bishop) despite Pope John Paul II not giving authorization for the ordination. So, these men were ordained to the episcopate, since all bishops can do this, however it was unlawful/unauthorized, because all ordinations to the episcopate must be approved by the Bishop of Rome. These men were all excommunicated latae sententiae, and the SSPX currently has no canonical status in the Catholic Church (although the excommunications were lifted last year), since the formation of this group was unauthorized in the first place.
So, the above ordinations were valid but illicit. Excommunication does not cause someone to no longer have the power to confer most of the sacraments, however they are not authorized to do so, especially since the priests are no longer in full communion with the bishop, and the bishops are no longer in full communion with the Bishop of Rome.
M
Marie5890
Guest
I wouldnt call the Eucharist a reward. It’s more of an opportunity to be united with Him very intimately, Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity. IE “Communion” And with that communion comes an out pouring of Divine Grace.
And in order for that to be done without bringing down damnation on one’s soul, one must be in a state of grace.
While the Mormon sacrament is the place where Mormons renew their baptismal covenants, Catholics do that as they enter the church and bless themselves with holy water.
Could it be seen as a reward? Mmmm, I dont think most Catholics see it as a reward to be honest. The Sacrifice of the Mass is the pinnacle of Catholic worship as you know by now. But I dont think it’s viewed as a reward.
I do understand what you are trying to figure out and why it could be seen this way. But it’s not, no.
Is being temple worthy a reward? I suppose it could be seen that way to outsiders who dont know Mormonism, or for Mormons who dont take their faith seriously, but when I was LDS I never saw being able to go to the temple worthily as a reward. I expect you dont either. It was a desire to be in the house of the Lord, to communion, like you said, spiritually with Him.
Same idea with the Eucharist. It’s the desire to be able to communion with Him, Body, Blood, Soul and Divinty.
I would say that is one very common thing that Mormons have in common with Catholics. The idea of “holy” “sacred” “reverence” and deep desire to communion with the Lord.
It’s just gone about differently.
Catholics=Eucharist
Mormons=Temples
The idea of desecrating the Eucharist is as abhorrant to Catholics as doing the same to a temple.
V
vickimonica
Guest
Stephen, I have a ? that I’m sure you can answer. I follow your posts, and you are VERY knowledgeable re: the Catholic faith… If a Catholic has an abortion, and goes to confession, will The Priest inform her that she will be excommunicated, or will he absolve her of her sin? (providing she is genuinely remorseful) – Thnaks…
T
TheosisM
Guest
Catholics believe that the Eucharist (like all sacraments) confers grace as well. So, while one is in a state of grace after the sacrament of confession, they receive additional grace through the Eucharist. If Mormons believe that their Sacrament remits sins, Catholics would partially agree, in that we believe that the Eucharist remits venial sins. We don’t really see the Eucharist as a “reward”, because we see it as a “gift”, since we believe (and say in a communal prayer right before receiving) that we are unworthy to receive the Eucharist, since we don’t “deserve” it, but God gives it to us as a gift.
Stephen168
New member
Yes, Rebecca could you try a third time to explain what they have in common?
A
aspirant
Guest
Most Catholics are not very familiar with canon law, which is understandable, since it requires special training and there are much more important things they need to know. If they know about it, they usually heard it somewhere else (e.g. reading Evangelium Vitae).
I don’t agree, actually. In my own experience, more Catholics are aware of the abortion penalty than of the others, because it is more often mentioned in texts that aren’t about canon law.
Very true. There was a semester-long elective course on canon law, taught by a canon lawyer, at one of the Catholic universities I attended. But most people at the school did not take it, and even those that did only got a semester’s introduction. Those who became interested in training as canon lawyers would need to go on to a school with a specialization.
Stephen168
New member
Compared to other Catholics on this forum, I’m not sure I’m VERY knowledgeable, but thanks.
I don’t think a Priest would tell her she is going to be excommunicated, because her act already removed her from communion (ex-communion) with the Church. It is my understanding that excommunication latae sententiae due to abortion, is lifted by the Bishop, but most Bishops have delegated it to their Priests. So it would depend on the Diocese and the Priest on how it would be handled. I would think if a Priest had the authority to lift the excommunication, he would treat it like any other confession. But everyone’s mileage may vary. And being genuinely remorseful is the first requirement to reconciliation.
Stephen168
New member
Very true. I once had a Priest tell us that only the Bishop can forgive abortion. No discussion of pentalty or Canon Law just the repair.
D
dianaiad
Guest
I see…
I think…
Maybe…
No.
I guess I don’t. Please be patient with me here, but…
if a marriage is unlawful, it is also invalid; that is, if it was not performed lawfully, then you are not, in fact, married.
You are referencing the SSPX and those ordinations; because of them, the man performing them AND the men who were ordained were all excommunicated latae sententiae; the Pope does not recognize them as being lawful, and any ordinance THEY perform would therefore not be considered lawful, right?
In one aspect of this, I can see it; one might have the ability and the power to move a rock, but be denied the authority to move it. So…you can move the rock, and it is moved (valid…) but not lawful. That is, the city, county–and the people from or to whom you moved it are not happy with you for moving it.
But…and this might be one of those Mormon/Catholic disconnects…it seems to me that the priesthood is nothing BUT ‘authority.’ That is, the essence of the priesthood is that permission to act in God’s name and to perform valid ordinances–thus, if you are not authorized to perform an ordinance, how can it possibly be valid? If the church does not recognize it, (such as in the case of the SSPX, where they have ‘no cannonical standing’) how can it be ‘valid?’
Thinking about this…yeah, I think this is a very basic LDS/Catholic disconnect, and probably explains a LOT about our disparate views of “the great apostasy.”
D
dianaiad
Guest
Well…perhaps ‘reward as Heaven is a reward’ would be more accurate. Not a treat for good behavior, but…what comes when you are doing what Christ asks of you.
I can certainly accept and understand that. I wish that other people did.I do understand what you are trying to figure out and why it could be seen this way. But it’s not, no.
Is being temple worthy a reward? I suppose it could be seen that way to outsiders who dont know Mormonism, or for Mormons who dont take their faith seriously, but when I was LDS I never saw being able to go to the temple worthily as a reward. I expect you dont either. It was a desire to be in the house of the Lord, to communion, like you said, spiritually with Him.
Same idea with the Eucharist. It’s the desire to be able to communion with Him, Body, Blood, Soul and Divinty.
I would say that is one very common thing that Mormons have in common with Catholics. The idea of “holy” “sacred” “reverence” and deep desire to communion with the Lord.
It’s just gone about differently.
Catholics=Eucharist
Mormons=Temples
The idea of desecrating the Eucharist is as abhorrant to Catholics as doing the same to a temple.
D
dianaiad
Guest
My very dear sir…you honestly do not think that it is important for Catholics to know that getting an abortion is not just a mortal sin, but one that results in instant excommunication? It’s not that hard to find out, y’know. The text in which it is couched is very clear and simple to understand. It seems to me that something like that would be rather…important…to know, especially for Catholics who might be faced with this decision.
I would have figured, before I entered into the discussion here, that you would be correct. However, all I really have to go on is the reaction of those Catholics who debated with me on the matter, and almost all of them were quite clear; they didn’t know about it, and they didn’t think that most Catholics are aware of it, either. As I said, it doesn’t make a lot of sense to me that a Catholic would be carefully taught the catachism–and have this rather important bit of information witheld. (shrug) I have no way of testing it, short of designing some sort of poll—and after this many days/weeks, a poll wouldn’t give an accurate measurement.
…hmmn. I wonder if the moderators would allow me to put such a survey on the other subforums of CAF?
As to most of canon law, I can see this. However, this particular aspect of it affects almost every Catholic out there; since 24% of Catholic pregnancies world wide end in abortion, wouldn’t it be to everybody’s advantage to make certain that everybody knew about THIS part?
D
dianaiad
Guest
Most of the actions which result in latae sententiae excommunication are sins that can only be committed by people in official religious life: priests, monks and nuns. In fact, there are only four sins that you don’t have to be a priest/nun/monk to commit; violence against the Pope or a Bishop, defiling the Eucharist, apostasy/heresy and procuring an abortion. I submit that from a purely practical stand point (that is, as they are usually the only people who have sufficient access/knowledge to commit these sins) that it is more likely that a person in official religious life could commit them. Abortion is the only one of these sins that a lay Catholic can commit with full knowledge of what he or she is doing, practically speaking.
One cannot become a priest, a nun or a monk without some basic grounding in canon law, can one?
T
TheosisM
Guest
I believe that I listed the sacraments that an excommunicated priest can still validly confer (as well as saying that an excommunicated priest can still confer “most” of the sacraments). As I mentioned before, an excommunicated priest can consecrate the bread and wine, confirm someone, anoint a sick person, bishops can ordain, and baptize (I left baptism off earlier since we know that a non-cleric can baptize in an emergency). That leaves two sacraments: confession and matrimony. Those sacraments require jurisdiction. Therefore, an excommunicated priest, since he no longer has jurisdiction, cannot validly celebrate the sacraments of Confession nor Matrimony.
Right. Most of their sacraments are all valid, as in, they do what they claim to be doing, but they are illicit, or unlawful, because they are unauthorized. As mentioned above, they would not have valid Confession, because they do not have jurisdiction (SSPX has no canonical status in the Catholic Church).
I think we have to be clear about how the Catholic Church is seeing this (since that’s pretty much all I’m interested in on this topic, not really debating whether it’s “right”), and I know that Mormons view the issue of authorization to perform an ordinance differently (the issue of “keys”).
When someone is ordained a deacon, priest, or bishop, they receive, among other things, the power to do certain things. The question here is, when should those “things” be exercised. A priest can do something, but that does not mean that they should. Ordination is the best example of how Catholics see the issue of validity and lawfulness, because of the example of SSPX (among others). All bishops can ordain (since that is one of the “powers” they receive through ordination), but if they do not have permission to do so (which is required in the Catholic Church), it is unauthorized, and leads to schism. In Catholicism, authorization to do something does not give that person the power to do it (the power comes from being ordained to that office); it makes what they are doing lawful. So, those bishops ordained at the beginning of SSPX were validly ordained, because the bishops doing the ordaining had the power to do so, since they were bishops. However they were unauthorized ordinations, because the Pope did not approve them. Contrast this with another issue in Catholicism: female ordination. There are multiple instances of bishops “ordaining” women to the priesthood. Now, of course such persons are excommunicated. However are the women ordained? No. This would be an example of “invalid and illicit” (contrasting to SSPX ordination being valid but illicit). Bishops do not have the power to ordain women, since only men can be ordained. So, not only is it unlawful to “ordain” women, it is also invalid, since it is not possible anyway.
So, this is a very important concept in Catholicism, and is an issue in how the Catholic Church sees SSPX (there are multiple threads on the Traditional Catholicism subforum with titles like “can I receive Eucharist in an SSPX church?” or “SSPX Mass ok?”, etc), Anglicanism, and the Orthodox Church. It’s actually a whole other topic.
D
dianaiad
Guest
I would like to be clear…and I’m not interested in proving one viewpoint ‘right’ or not. I just want to understand it.
I can see that.
It certainly bumps heads here, though. I’m trying to think of a way to form this next question so that it asks what I actually want to ask…
…when, if (say, the SSPX bishops) a priest who has been ordained unlawfully ordaings another priest, and that one ordains another–at which point does the action become invalid as well as unlawful?
T
TheosisM
Guest
This actually reminds me of the issue of Anglicanism, which addresses the question. Firstly, there is a Papal encyclical called “Apostolicae Curae”, available here:
papalencyclicals.net/Leo13/l13curae.htm
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostolicae_Curae
Now I won’t lie, I haven’t read the encyclical, though I’ve been aware of it for awhile, and know the point of it. Basically, it can be said (this is from a Catholic perspective, Anglicans will disagree) that Anglicanism started out similarly to the SSPX. People were ordained by bishops that had the power to do so, however they were not authorized by Rome. So, the Anglican Church(es) had valid sacraments, in that, they actually did what they claimed to be doing, however they were of course unlawful, since they were also outside of the Catholic Church.
According to the encyclical, the sacrament of Holy Orders in Anglicanism was changed at some point where it lacked a correct “intention” as well as a correct “form” (the Catholic Church requires certain things for a sacrament to be valid, such as intent, form, matter (such as water), minister, and subject). This therefore made Anglican ordination invalid, as well as being unlawful. Therefore, the Catholic Church does not consider Anglicans to have valid sacraments. In contrast, it believes that the Orthodox Church does have valid sacraments.
Now, I have my own personal views on the issue of declaring sacraments outside of full communion with a Church to be valid. However I think that answers your question. SSPX ordinations will continue to be valid but illicit until they change something about the ordinations, such as its form or its intent. The hope of some is that one day they will be both valid and licit, and the lifting of the excommunications last year seems to be a step in that direction.
- Status