Mormonism - A Catholic Perspective

[docdo54]

wait a minuet. Warren Jeffs has nothing to do with the Mormon church. I am very sorry if you lived in a small community of members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints and they treated you poorly. That is not what our doctrine teaches us. We are taught to love our neighbors as ourselves and to embrace people of other faiths. I am so sorry about the negative experiences that you had with the church. Are you sure that it was the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints? What community was it? Anyway, for what it is worth, on behalf of the church and all of it’s members, I apologize if you were discriminated against.

 

[meaprilrain]

I think you don’t know what the Beatific Vision is. I didn’t myself until recently, when I looked it up in Ott’s book, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma.

Once in Heaven, we will be able to see Him exactly as He is. It is this vision that is denied to the innocents who die without baptism. There’s nothing that says they won’t be happy, just that they will still see Him as we do in this life. Certainly God will be able to see them!

Where? I have not heard of this. Can you give me a link?

God bless you,

Ruthie

mostholyfamilymonastery.com/BenedictXVI_new_limbo_heresy.html
The staggering implications of Benedict XVI’s new blatant heresy on Limbo

By Bro. Peter Dimond, O.S.B.
By now many of you have heard that, on Friday April 20, Benedict XVI approved the release of a new document on limbo. According to news reports, this document teaches that limbo (the highest part of Hell where those who die in original sin only go) doesn’t exist. It concludes, therefore, that unbaptized infants go to Heaven. This document had been in the works for a long time; Benedict XVI officially approved its release on Friday. The implications of this blatantly heretical document are very significant, as I will discuss.
catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0702216.htm
foxnews.com/story/0,2933,267420,00.html

 

[AMDGtoo]

According to news reports, this document teaches that limbo (the highest part of Hell where those who die in original sin only go) doesn’t exist. It concludes, therefore, that unbaptized infants go to Heaven.

You forget to check the Catechism of the Catholic Church again? Even though several of us gave you the link and you could also do a search if you really wanted?

Limbo was never an official doctrine of the Church. The Catechism states that we are to entrust babies who die without Baptism to Jesus–you know the merciful one.

BTW, hell is for those who have willfully chosen it (by their willful choosing not to do God’s will). That, my dear, is the Catholic perspective.

 

[Madelena]

Docto54,
This is the exact kinda of respond I have had all my life. There is a small community in a town of about 3,5000 people. It is on the border of New Mexico and Arizona. There are many of these towns surrounding areas,and Mormonism is very,very strong. It is an unbeleiveable place.It exists.About a year or so ago,in another little community they just built one of thier Mormon Temples. Beautiful place. ---- These people are the most polite prejudice people on earth. Sorry but it is a fact. If you are close to this area,I will give you the name and place,and you can go see for yourself. — Yes,sadly enough I lived it,and have no reason to lie about it. People there can tell you the exact same thing,and they still live there,and work there,raise their kids there,and the same thing still goes on,but it is somewhat better than it use to be very little except for the abuse.— The prejudice is still the same,if not worse. It is a good little town,as our culture and Catholic Families unite and support each other at all times. We are a strong Catholic Faith,and are accustomed to this. Everyone just has learned to live this way. They are a line of ancesstors,that go out after graduation,go to thier own college in Utah,and come back and are the lawyers,teachers,head of a Electric Corp.where they take the high jobs,and hire thier own,and of course the labors of us. True all of it is true! I have many,many stories,but why keep going there? I’m just letting you know that this exist in society today.
The Judge is God,and he is to judge the way they have been all thier lives. Alot of the teachers that had taught me,and treated me bad,are now in God’s hands. Sorry to say it is unbelivable!! And Warren Jeffs started his own world,and it is Mormonism. Alot of those little places exist,as the Mormoms did practice it years ago. Some still do,but not in the open. Anyhow,this is A Lived and still Live and Existence of A Catholic Perspective. Unbeleivable isn’t it? Wish I could say it doesn’t exsit but it surely does.I don’t know what else to say,only that it is so. I don’t have to convince anyone,as like I said I’ve lived it. It is my hometown. Madelena

 

[Ed_Rand]

Question for the Mormon’s on here:

1 Nephi 13:26 says that the Catholic Church–the church of Satan, abominable above all others, etc. etc.–has “taken away from the gospel of the Lamb many parts which are plain and most precious; and also many covenants of the Lord have they taken away.”

Where might I find these lost parts of the gospel? What are the covenants that the Catholic Church has taken away?

 

[JLSamuel818]

BTW, hell is for those who have willfully chosen it (by their willful choosing not to do God’s will). That, my dear, is the Catholic perspective.

Very well put.

 

[Ruthie]

April,

If I seem impatient today, it is because I am ill, and too fuzzy to be a good editor. I apologize in advance for anything that seems less than kind.

The Beatific Vision is described in Ludwig Ott’s book, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, on page 20. The book is not an easy read, especially because it is well-sprinkled with untranslated Latin! Here’s a quote:

“They (the souls of the just) see the divine essence by an intuitive vision and face to face, so that the divine essence is known immediately, showing itself nakedly clearly and openly, and not mediately through any creature.”

It’s not online. I wish someone would put ti on a CD; the index is inadequate.

You cited a website Limbo. The website is not by a faithful Catholic; the man is a sedevacantist, who has by his false beliefs excommunicated himself from the Church. So he has no standing whatsoever. He’s a heretic!

The official document about this subject can be found here. It’s long, and a tough read, but have at it if you will. (Today, I gave up after a few pages.)

Limbo never “existed.” It was (and still is) a theory. From the second paragraph of the article:

…the traditional teaching on this topic has concentrated on the theory of limbo… This theory … never entered into the dogmatic definitions of the Magisterium… It remains therefore a possible theological hypothesis.

I hope this helps you understand better. Again, if I seem grumpy, it’s because I am - and it’s not aimed at you or anyone.

God bless us all,

Ruthie

 

[meaprilrain]

You forget to check the Catechism of the Catholic Church again? Even though several of us gave you the link and you could also do a search if you really wanted?

Limbo was never an official doctrine of the Church. The Catechism states that we are to entrust babies who die without Baptism to Jesus–you know the merciful one.

BTW, hell is for those who have willfully chosen it (by their willful choosing not to do God’s will). That, my dear, is the Catholic perspective.

Perhaps what I am not understanding is this… if your CCC says one thing , and it is suppose to be the complete and final word on a doctrine that you must always turn to, then how can the newest Pope say something contrary and still be right ? Or how can he take away something that a previous pope installed and still be right ?

If the CCC says that infants are entrusted to God for his mercy and saving Grace then why all fuse with infant baptism in the first place ? The Popes have teedered back and forth on this issue with one saying yes and now again saying no but what they say makes no differece since the CCC says the final word ?

So throughout all of the different rites and different Popes, the church can claim that their has never been anything contrary to the original church taught because what the individuals and Popes do makes no difference it doesn’t count if the CCC says something else ? Am I getting it right ?

 

[AMDGtoo]

If the CCC says that infants are entrusted to God for his mercy and saving Grace then why all fuse with infant baptism in the first place ?

Not sure why there is still fuss. It’s amply clear. But maybe there are some people, like you, who fail to check to CCC.

the CCC says the final word ?

Yes that’s about it. I believe the last time there was a universal catechism which included all official doctrine was in the 1600s at Trent.

So throughout all of the different rites and different Popes, the church can claim that their has never been anything contrary to the original church taught because what the individuals and Popes do makes no difference it doesn’t count if the CCC says something else ? Am I getting it right ?

Nope. Not right. But I can tell you this–not everything any Pope says becomes infalliable doctrine. And the fact that it is the original Church that Jesus founded is because it is–Jesus said so and the Holy Spirit protects it from error–oh that’s another thing Jesus said. And all the different Rites agree on the same seven Sacraments that were from the beginning (although the Eastern branch call them “mysteries”) so one is welcome at a Latin Rite or a Byzantine Rite or … Furthermore, all the Rites (there are about 6 major, which go back to the original apostles and the original Church seats) are in communion with the Church of Rome–the Bishop of Rome (or Pope).

Oh, another “hint” for you, instead of obsessing with what individual Popes have said and done–I mean that’s an awful lot–about 2000 years or 265 Popes–why not concentrate on the statements from the Ecumenical Councils–the first one is in Acts in the Bible and I believe that there only are about 21 of those (the CCC came out of the last Ecumenical Council–Vatican II.)

 

[meaprilrain]

I’m sorry to ask so many questions, I sense a bit of intolerance and sarcasim in your text You just spout things off like I am suppose to know what all of it means or is ? or even that I should “get it” or understand it the first time !

Your church is completely different in doctrine than mine and it seems so over whelmingly complicated ? Do you think God meant for his church to be so hard to understand ? I mean is salvation really that difficult ? you even have a prayer book of morning and evening prayers?

And the fact that it is the original Church that Jesus founded is because it is–Jesus said so and the Holy Spirit protects it from error

could you show me in scripture where it says that Jesus founded the Catholic church and that the holy spirit protects it from error ?

Yes that’s about it. I believe the last time there was a universal catechism which included all official doctrine was in the 1600s at Trent.

So the Popes can say many things or change things but if it isnt in the CCC then it is not official doctrine and does not constitute a change to the original gospel . Therefore the CCC is the infallible church. correct ?

seven Sacraments that were from the beginning

Where can I find what these are ?

Oh, another “hint” for you, instead of obsessing with what individual Popes have said and done–I mean that’s an awful lot–about 2000 years or 265 Popes–

I did this because I understood the Popes sayings and speeches to be new doctrine. So when they contradict things I took it to mean they were placing new doctrine or revoking past doctrine. that would mean a change to original gospel doctrine? I didn’t understand they could say things contradictory to the CCC and it not hold up as doctrine ?

why not concentrate on the statements from the Ecumenical Councils–the first one is in Acts in the Bible and I believe that there only are about 21 of those (the CCC came out of the last Ecumenical Council–Vatican II.)

Again I do not even know what the Ecumenical councils are or where to find them ?

Thanks for your time

 

[Ed_Rand]

could you show me in scripture where it says that Jesus founded the Catholic church and that the holy spirit protects it from error ?

Correction: The Church is not free from all error. A quick look at history will show you that. The Church has also apologized for past actions–the crusades, the Inquisition–because they were in error. The infallibility of the Church and Pope is in regards to it’s doctrines on faith and morals.

vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P2A.HTM

See paragraphs 890, 891

The Church is a work in progress. The doctrine of the Blessed Virgin Mary’s assumption was announced in the last century, I believe.

 

[AMDGtoo]

You just spout things off like I am suppose to know what all of it means or is ?

I’m sorry. I thought you said you had done research with the Catholic encyclopedia. And I, we really, did try to tell you where to find Church doctrine (the CCC).

Your church is completely different in doctrine than mine

 

[Ed_Rand]

Matthew 16:18 “…upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of hell shall not preveail against it.”

I’ve been reading the book of Mormon today. The teachings that Christ gives the early americans are all nearly word for word except the above verse, unsurprisingly…

3 Nephi 11:39:

“Verily, verily, I say unto you, that this is my doctrine, and whoso buildeth upon this buildeth upon my rock, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against them.”

The hatred expressed towards the Catholic Church in the book of Mormon is a testament to the power of our Church. The devil is quite cognizant of his greatest enemy.

 

[insidemymemory]

I’ve been reading the book of Mormon today. The teachings that Christ gives the early americans are all nearly word for word except the above verse, unsurprisingly…

3 Nephi 11:39:

“Verily, verily, I say unto you, that this is my doctrine, and whoso buildeth upon this buildeth upon my rock, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against them.”

The hatred expressed towards the Catholic Church in the book of Mormon is a testament to the power of our Church. The devil is quite cognizant of his greatest enemy.

Joseph Smith just copied stuff from the KJV if the bible to make the book of mormon seem legit.

I noticed it the first time I read my own copy of the B of M.

If the B of M is so perfect, why did Joseph Smith use an imperfect translation of the Bible to base it off of?

Like, how do mormons believe that Jesus went to America and said almost word for word the same thing to the Nephites and Lamanites?

Also, why would Jesus build two churches just to have them both fail?

Doesn’t make sense to me.

 

[AMDGtoo]

The doctrine of the Blessed Virgin Mary’s assumption was announced in the last century, I believe.

Actually, it was always believed (in the East it was called the Dormition and there was even a Feast Day probably around 300 A.D.) It was just officially proclaimed much later. No, I don’t know why most people don’t know that–but then again, why should they–boggles my mind but there are some that even get Jesus Ascension confused with Jesus taking His mother body and soul into heaven (Assumption).

 

[cthulhubryan]

Your church is completely different in doctrine than mine and it seems so over whelmingly complicated ? Do you think God meant for his church to be so hard to understand ? I mean is salvation really that difficult ? you even have a prayer book of morning and evening prayers?

Many are the divine mysteries. Remember the words of St.Anselm. “I believe that I may understand”

So the Popes can say many things or change things but if it isnt in the CCC then it is not official doctrine and does not constitute a change to the original gospel . Therefore the CCC is the infallible church. correct ?

When the Pope is speaking ex cathedra he is infallible. These can add NOT to the gospels but to our understanding of things. An example would be the assumption of Mary. We are not talking about extreme changes in church teaching such as teaching that black people are black because they have the mark of Cain due to them not fighting so hard against Satan and then changing it when it becomes politically expedient to do so.

I did this because I understood the Popes sayings and speeches to be new doctrine. So when they contradict things I took it to mean they were placing new doctrine or revoking past doctrine. that would mean a change to original gospel doctrine? I didn’t understand they could say things contradictory to the CCC and it not hold up as doctrine ?

The pope can get up and give a speech saying that left is right and top is bottom and it means nothing doctrinal wise. If he were speaking on doctrine then the Holy Spirit would prevent him from being in error but when speaking on other topics he is as fallible as the next guy.

Again I do not even know what the Ecumenical councils are or where to find them ?

Try this link: newadvent.org/cathen/04423f.htm

Bryan

 

[hays1122]

Actually, it was always believed (in the East it was called the Dormition and there was even a Feast Day probably around 300 A.D.) It was just officially proclaimed much later. No, I don’t know why most people don’t know that–but then again, why should they–boggles my mind but there are some that even get Jesus Ascension confused with Jesus taking His mother body and soul into heaven (Assumption).

Well the two words are similar and the meaning isn’t that much different. They both mean to go out of this world as in not living on this planet anymore.
The bible mentions others leaving this world without dying. Elijah and Enoch were taken without experiencing death.
I read in a Catholic site that Thomas the disciple missed Mary’s funeral and when he went to see where she was buried, the tomb was empty. No bones were ever found. It seems like this would be written about in the new Testament by someone.
If Elijah and Enoch get mentioned why not Mary?
I do find this odd.

 

[AMDGtoo]

If Elijah and Enoch get mentioned why not Mary?
I do find this odd.

Why? The New Testament is not about Mary. You’d probably find the “extra” historical notes (and even some circulated letters) in the archives of the different Church communities, afterall it’s even the Bible tells us that not everything is contained in the Bible. (I too read of Thomas being late for Mary’s burial and when the tomb was opened, there was no body. I read about it in the Byzantine Catholic Church–one of the Rites of the one Catholic Church.)

 

[Ruthie]

When things are defined by Ecumenical Councils, they are not inventing something new. Here’s an example.

The books included in the Bible (the canon) was settled by 500 AD, and everybody used that canon for the next thousand years or so, until the Reformation.

Then, various people started saying that this and that book should be removed or changed. So the Council of Trent officially defined the Canon of the Bible. The canon didn’t change - it was still the same as it had been for a thousand years. All that happened was we got an official document saying what it was.

Many people don’t understand this, and accuse us of changing the canon of the Bible at Trent, when what we did was preserve it.

Remember that the same thing is true of other things we are supposed to have “changed” or “invented” at our councils.

God bless you,

Ruthie

 

[seekdatruth]

I haven’t had time to read all the posts here, but I’ll say what scares me is the Mormon church. I moved out here to a small town in the SW that is dominated by Mormons, not in population numbers, but in key positions in every aspect of secular life. They shun anyone who is not one of them, and the children are so convinced that they are better than any other children by virtue of their religious denomination, that i have heard several accounts of them BULLYING others in school! They seem to be very clean-cut well-mannered people, and that is true, but gossip like no one’s business, and have a definite air of superiority. And no business, shop, or hot dog stand (OK, out here taco stand) will long survive unless owned, or the owners are owned, by Mormons. I tried to attend with my in-laws with an open mind and thinking it couldn’t be all that bad when I first got here and was looking for a church, but found it’s worse than I imagined. I had been feeling for some time I wanted to return to the Catholic Church, but was unsure. Once I became fully aware of what’s happening here, and the possible future my small children face in this town, I RAN to the nearest CC! I’m totally “out of Grace” or however one says it, can’t receive the Eucharist, but I don’t care, as long as my kids don’t get sucked in to the LDS, I can deal. i still have my reservations about the CC because of my past negative experiences, but it feels safer than the other options.