C
Chris-WA
Guest
None. A cathedral is a big church. The mass is the same.
- Status
R
RebeccaJ
Guest
The difference between and church and a cathedral is not the mass. The cathedral is the church of the diocesan bishop. A parish church is the church of the pastor (priest).
The word cathedral comes from the Latin cathedra, which translates to “seat”. The bishops chair is located inside a cathedral. The chair is a symbol of the bishop’s role as teacher and overseer/leader/governor of the diocese.
A
Annie_B
Guest
OK - I’ll bite…WHERE in the LDS church handbook does it say this? Please state the specific chapter and verse and I will be happy to concede to your knowledge - if it is true. I have a copy of the handbook and would be able to confirm or deny. I have no desire to go through it all looking for what you claim to be in it, so specifics would be appreciated. Also, does it state that excommunication is MANDATORY or at the discretion of church leaders?
As far as building an LDS temple; they have every right to do it just as any religion has the right to build their own temple/house of worship. If we deny them that right in any way, then we deny ourselves the same right.
Annie
M
mfbukowski
Guest
I won’t quote it. Beleive what you will, I don’t care. Ask your bishop. There are alleged handbooks on line which are false, or are from 1964. What color is your handbook?
A
Annie_B
Guest
Ummmm…I am Catholic - don’t have a bishop…All I asked was for you to back up your claim. Either you can or you can’t. Apparently you can’t. People should not make claims as to what is or is not a church teaching (of ANY church) unless they can and WILL back those claims up. It seems that most Catholics here can back up their claims with the Catechism. If you make a claim about LDS church teaching, you should be able and willing to back it up from the “source” you claim that information is from. Otherwise, you have no business claiming that you know LDS church teaching and telling others that what you say is in the handbook…
Annie
A
Annie_B
Guest
From what I understand, a member may see it if they make the request of their bishop. I only want mfb to be able to back up what he says. One cannot make a statement like he did and be believed unless he is able to back it up. The CHI is not so secret as the “anti-mormons” think. I would never make a statement about the teachings of the RCC UNLESS I was able to back it up with concrete evidence and not just heresay. If you cannot back it up, then don’t make the statement that it is true church teaching…
Annie
M
mfbukowski
Guest
It’s kind of comforting to know that with all those handbooks out there, a more current version is not available on the internet. Ten years is a long time.
M
mfbukowski
Guest
I was giving advice. I don’t care what you believe or if you believe me or not. What I said is true.
R
RebeccaJ
Guest
It will show up someday. Unless of course the LDS Church has put a non-disclosure statement requirement behind getting a copy.
R
RebeccaJ
Guest
Made yourself the mormon bishop of CAF, or what?
A
Annie_B
Guest
Nah…A bishop would not be afraid to back himself up with church teaching - in print - if asked:thumbsup:Made yourself the mormon bishop of CAF, or what?
Annie
Z
zaffiroborant
Guest
Hey Whyme just a heads up, but over on the MADB I see Catholicism is being attacked (again) but surprisingly your defense of Catholicism is missing??? Why is that?
M
mfbukowski
Guest
He was pointing out the anti-mormon posts here ! (really)
Maybe he picked a side finally?
R
ronald_g_w
Guest
R
ronald_g_w
Guest
Z
zaffiroborant
Guest
I think his side has been obvious from the posts here. And his unwillingness to defend Catholicism over there simply gives lie to his claim he will defend it when it’s misrepresented as does his use of derogatory words for our doctrine.
R
Robert_in_SD
Guest
We were not talking about statements. We were talking about facts - being either true or false. Statements can contain truth and falsity. The facts they intend to communicate (or miscommunicate) are fixed as true or false. This is a concept that does not change with time, unless you believe that Truth is not a constant.
Peace,
-Robert
R
Robert_in_SD
Guest
I’m not disagreeing with you on this narrow point. My point is that it’s not a basis for confirming the truth of religious doctrine. Perhaps I should clarify that I’m not talking about proving for the person who had the revelation. Where I think such revelation holds no weight is where a person tells me I should believe exactly what they believe because THEY had a revelation. Well, what about the person who claims a revelation that is completely different. As a practical example, who should I believe, Joseph Smith or St. Faustina Kowalska? Both seem quite sincere that they received revelations directly from Jesus Christ; yet their revelations are not reconcilable.
A secondary question that arises from the first point is that there is no way to absolutely verify that a private revelation comes from God, as opposed to some human or nefarious spirit source. However, I am sure that in many cases the one experiencing the personal revelation is “sure” that God was the source. JS and St. FK both thought this was the case. One of them was wrong unless God is inconsistent. I don’t think either of us will concede the latter.
Perhaps. Unfortunately, these boards do not afford such opportunities.
And I also admit I am not an expert on using all the “quote” and “insert” and “link” buttons that are available.
Peace,
-Robert
R
Robert_in_SD
Guest
We would call this discernment, not revelation. (Although a person could experience a direct revelation from God, who reveals something of the truth of his nature in relation to a doctrine.)
Again, perhaps the distinction is that what you would call revelation about a doctrine, we would call discernment.
It’s not surprising that members of the LDS Church who grew up in the community believing in mormon truth, and converts who found a place in which they feel they can “belong” would have “revelations” that coincided with and confirmed the teaching of the Church. Again, it’s no proof at all that the teaching is true. It only shows that people who belong to the group think the same way about doctrine Indeed, they MUST think this way or… as you say… they leave!
Peace,
-Robert
- Status