My Catholic Mother-in-law will not pray to God

[stumbler]

The Barrister:

By the way, perhaps you can help me with this: My sister-in-law is a Mormon, and she claims that there is only ONE GOD, that He has existed forever, and that He is a TRINITY of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. She also claims that the Son, Jesus, could atone for ALL SINS! My other sister-in-law, who’s also Mormon, claims that these beliefs are wrong! I am curious to know what other Mormons think about this.

leschornmom:

The second sister-in-law is correct. We believe that there are three seperate beings God the Father, God the Son,and the Holy Ghost. While they are one in purpose they are three seperate beings.This can Be found in the Articals of Faith, Located on lds.org. We believe that there is only One God of this Earth (Creator and Master) and that is God the Father. What is the Catholic veiw on this subject?
While we do believe that Christ’s atonement made it possible for us to be forgiven of our sins. We do not believe that we can just say “I’m saved and all is well.” Our salvation is stictly dependent on our knowledge of the gospel and our actions on earth.
My understanding is that the Mormons and the Catholics have very similar beliefs when it comes to this subject.

Uh-oh. leschornmom exposed:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=270371&postcount=11
and
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=270592&postcount=14
and
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=270878&postcount=19

 

[ichabod]

leschornmom:

I have heard her say that prayer. She is talking about personal prayers not recited prayers. Do you think that for her it might be a question of whether or not she feels worthy to pray directly to God?

You never know what’s in another person’s heart; sometimes you’re not even sure what’s in your own. While I don’t think God eavesdrops on prayers to saints, I don’t think there’s anything that he doesn’t hear.

I haven’t read the entire forum, but I’m not sure that the concept of patron saints has been mentioned: basically, we understand that saints did things with their lives that some of us have in common - for example, St. Luke was a physician, so he would have a better insight and sympathies towards the struggles of those in the health industry, and would be a more effective advocate. It also is like having that friend who knows whta you’re talking about. If your MIL has an attachment to a particular saint, I don’t think that God holds that against her, but there are things that are meant for God and God alone, and if her relationship with “her saint” is a healthy one, she’ll come to realize this as well.

I wonder if it might do you both good to read about the life of the saint she prays to. If you follow in the steps of the saints, you look up at the end of the journey to find yourself in heaven.

 

[StubbleSpark]

leschornmom:

I have searched it many times…not only about this subject but many others. I have never found anything reguarding this matter. I must admit that I have never read it through from begining to end so I may very well have missed it. Do you consider searching scripture (Bible) OK under your doctorine or is that not allowed…my MIL says that its not right to find answers there either because every one hears what they want to? I hope that’s not changing the subject to much but I think it all falls in line together.

Your mother in law is fine. I have to say that your question seems to be another one of those attempts at tactical misdirection aimed to inflame or confuse. But to be more specific, we can look at what communion of the saints does NOT mean:

We do not believe the saints in any way have primacy over God. Their existence is dependent upon Him, so there is no way they could be considered His equal or superiors – no matter how many times she prays to any given saint.

Saints do not bend the will of God nor do they sneak around behind God’s back. They exerience total union with the Beatific Vision and, basking in His eternal Love, their wills become as ONE. God is not changeable and nothing can be hidden from Him because He is omniscient. So your MIL is not guilty of that, either.

Saints do not hoard glory or prayer for themselves. From what we have seen above, this would run contrary to God’s will and remember there is no sin in Heaven. When we pray to the saints, we ask them to pray to God for us, so the prayer gets to God. And because the saints pray to God with perfect minds and perfect bodies, the prayer is said perfectly with total humility with all honor and glory due given. In many ways, the saints are magnifiers of our prayers.

Before I became Catholic, I was raised believing that Catholics were not allowed to talk directly to God. But that is not right, (turns head to sky) is it, Heavenly Father? But having said that, there is also nothing wrong with praying to saints either. We get BOTH.

It sounds to me like your MiL just has a special devotion to a particular saint. Just like we can develop special relationships with saints on earth (like if you got to know Billy Graham), Catholics also have the priveledge of communing with the saints above. This is because our Church is continuous – it stretches from Heaven to Earth much like the band of stars in the Milky Ways does in the night sky. Death does not separate us. Christ unites us. This is no mere abstraction for bumper stickers.

In the end, your MiL is neither denying the existence of or arguing with the Almighty. Nor is she circumventing glorifying Him through prayer. It is just that, for whatever reason, she feels more comfortable going to a saint – which is a perfectly VALID option. It is not our place to be judgemental of her reasons. Indeed, her reasons may even stem from virtuous desires like humility or a desire properly glorify Him. I say she can pray to God through whomever she wants (as long as it is an angel or saint).

As for the Bible remark, I think it would be most prudent to evaluate such comments carefully before making reckless remarks meant to suggest our Sacred Traditions have no founding in Sacred Scripture. We compiled it. We declared it the word of God Himself and all Christians (and even Mormons) have the Catholic Church to thank for its existence, and its enormous influence on the course of human history. Like it or not, it did not spring out of a hole in the ground.:tsktsk:

I am running out of room, so I can leave the references for later.

 

[dhnorris]

Why, oh why does my detector go off?

I must remember to take it in for repairs…

---

Hey Barrister,
Leschornmom happens to be my cousin. She and I discuss religion a lot. *I actually suggested she go to Catholic Forums. *I guess I shouldn’t have. I will call her right away to tell her “KEEP OUT! This Forum is for Catholics only!” Often times when we are posting it is difficult to hear the tone behind the words. I just wanted you to know that my tone right now is sarcastic.
Sarcasm gone. I always stop to read your posts, because I enjoy reading what you have to say. (Hope that doesn’t make me a groupie.) I was disappointed this time.

 

[StubbleSpark]

leschornmom:

My husband converted to Mormonism when he was 17. The subject of Catholosism (spelling?) is pretty much off limits. When we do discuss it he has some very negative things to say about the church. Some are so negative that I don’t even want to hear them. I thought that he had missunderstood the things that his Mother taught him growing up but then I talked to her. When that confused me even more I went to her mother. The prayer example is just one of many false teachings about the Catholic church that has been passed down for at least three generations.
That leads me to why I’m here.

And now, a history lesson in reverse: Mormons think the Catholic Church is the Church of the Devil. It is in their Scriptures (1 Ne 13: 5,9; 13:6; 14:3, 9, 17; Alma 5:39; Morm 8:28 and so much more…)

Go back to the founding of their Church in the early 1800’s (specifically, around 1830) and what do you see? Rampant anti-Catholicism! Cross burnings for Catholic politicians. The anti-Catholic “Nativist” political party. The creation of the Seventh Day Adventists movement/church (believe the pope is the anti-Christ, though for them it is not explicitated in scripture like it is for Mormons).

Go back a little further. Puritans set up shop. Their beliefs concerning the evils of alcohol would later resurface in Mormon doctrine despite the fact scriptures explicitly say alcohol is okay. They are from virulently anti-Catholic England (which remains so to this day). The Puritans establish their own oppressive system of religious oppression.

Back again. The Protestant “Reformation” splits the Church into competing branches based on differences in theology and nationalism. King Henry VIII makes a proclamation saying he has primacy over the pope (which is absurd) and the English Church is born.

Pop quiz time: This is purely hypothetical. Religion A over the course of four centuries of hard work and unparralleled scholarship makes a sacred book of worship. Over fifteen centuries later, there is an explosion of thousands of branch religions, each claiming to have the total truth and nothing but the truth. Oddly enough, each of these branches raids the treasury of teaching of Religion A, taking what they want and discarding the rest – not the least of which is that book I told you about. Here is the question. Given that ALL of these new churches owe everything they are to the existence of Religion A and given that none of these churches want to have anything to do with said Religion A, do they or don’t they have a vested interest in portraying Religion A in an excessively derogatory light – even to the point of demonizing it?

Answer: they would have NO REASON TO EXIST if it turned out that their stories about Religion A were unfair exaggerations or outright lies. :bigyikes:

Given that, please note that many religions work exclusively through their hatred of our Church and use that as a uniting force in their congregation. It is no surprise then that faiths like Mormonism, Seventh Day Adventists, and many Baptists and evangelicals are all extremely appealing to anyone who hates the Catholic Church – even Catholics.

But if the Catholic Church is the cause of all history’s evils and practiced revisionist history to cover this up, why is it so easy to find historical information disparaging the Church? If the accussation were true, then why do we have stories about the Inquisition, the Crusades, anti-popes, and popes, priests and bishops with illegimate children? Is the Church both incredibly evil and incredibly dumb?:ehh:

Resist hate. Search for truth.

 

[StubbleSpark]

leschornmom:

Is Catholic Theology theory or fact? I think that different people on this sight use that phrase but mean different things.
I am quickly learning through this sight that all the ideas I have had about Catholics and their beliefs are quite mixed up.

God is Truth. Truth is that which is unchanging – otherwise it would only be partially true and thus, not true.

Our perception of Truth is our mind’s ability to conform to reality. Reality is Truth. What is real but not true, does not exist. All error is defined as a lack of Truth (or unity) just as what sin is defined as a demonstrated LACK of of faith (God is all-good and thus does not make sin – sin does not exist per say, the word describes a lack of God and thus unity and thus Truth and thus love and thus beauty).

Catholic theology rests on the idea that the Holy Spirit (God) guides the Church to Truth (God). Therefore, nothing proclaimed by the Church can contradict the Bible (because it is also true) or Sacred Tradition (the continuing historical teachings of God to this day). When viewed from a totally secular viewpoint, you can see that the Catholic Church, like the US government, is triune (“three in one”). We have the Majesterium (the teaching body of the Church), Sacred Scripture, and Sacred Tradition.

But to define it only in terms of secular structure does a great disservice (even to the point of blasphemy) to the true nature of the Bride of Christ (the Church). But we often like to point out that, in 2000 years of history, the Church has NEVER taught error.

Though there will always be room for development because our mortal brains can only understand in finite terms (see the Catholic definition for “mystery”), no one teaching is capable of nullifying or changing the essence of another teaching. To do so would be to admit that something previously taught as “true” was not as “true” as originally thought.

Please compare this with the Mormon belief that the word of a living prophet trumps those of a dead prophet…

 

[Tinkerbell]

leschornmom,
I’m not trying to be rude but maybe you mother-in-law does not want to discuss religion with you. I know from past experience when someone want to discuss religion they only want to do the talking and does not want to hear anything you have to say. If you do get a word in they look at you like your an idiot. She might let you think whatever you want to keep peace in the family.
Again I’m not trying to be rude.

 

[cazayoux]

The Barrister:

Although it’s mostly a matter of semantics, we Catholics don’t “pray to” (in the “worship” sense) anyone other than God. We *ask * the saints to joint their prayers to ours, and to offer our prayers to God on our behalf.

Zactly!

I, being the imperfect being that I am, cannot pray non-stop. I mean, I gotta sleep sometime, right?

I do pray to God. I also ask others that are part of the true vine (living or dead) to pray to God for my intention as well. I’m pretty sure those that have passed, especially our mother Mary, are much better at praying to God than I am. While I’m at it, I might as well ask AS MANY PEOPLE AS POSSIBLE to pray to God for my intention. I’ll ask my mom, dad, brothers, sister, wife, friends, Mary, the Saints to pray to God, also. Prayer in numbers right?

Cheers!!

michel

 

[lewlo]

stumbler:

Uh-oh. leschornmom exposed:

These kind of sophomoric “exposures” and “troll watching” are partly the unfortunate by-product of the Political forum, which is exactly why I voted NO to keeping them year 'round.

I, too, know leschornmom and her questions are sincere. She is not “trolling the waters” to bait anyone. She comes from a family of both Mormoms and Catholics and she is merely researching. We should take her interest as a good sign.

 

[PaulDupre]

Concerning the Mormon teaching that God the Father had sex with his daughter Mary in order to conceive Jesus:

- I would like to know where it says any where in our doctrine that that is what is taught in our religion. I have NEVER been taught that…

Here is a small bit of the documentation (we are limited to 4000 characters per post). I think you’re being disingenuous when you deny having heard this very well-known teaching. “I never heard that” is the most common dodge that Mormons use to avoid facing shameful doctrines:

The Being whom we call Father was the Father of the spirit of the Lord Jesus Christ, and he was also his Father pertaining to the flesh. (Journal of Discourses, Brigham Young, 7:286, October 9, 1859)

…The man Joseph, the husband of Mary, did not, that we know of, have more than one wife, but Mary the wife of Joseph had another husband…. The very babe that was cradled in the manger, was begotten, not by Joseph, the husband of Mary, but by another Being. Do you inquire by whom? He was begotten by God our heavenly Father. (Journal of Discourses, Brigham Young, 11:268, August 19, 1866)

A MODERN PROPHET’S ANSWER…You all know that your fathers are indeed your fathers and that your mothers are indeed your mothers - you all know that don’t you? You cannot deny it. Now, we are told in scriptures that Jesus Christ is the only begotten Son of God in the flesh. Well, now for the benefit of the older ones, how are children begotten? I answer just as Jesus Christ was begotten of his father…Now my little friends, I will repeat again in words as simple as I can, and you ask your parents about it, that God, the Eternal Father, is literally the father of Jesus Christ. (Joseph F. Smith, Box Elder Stake Conference Dec 20, 1914 as quoted in Brigham City Box Elder News, 28 Jan, 1915, pp.1-2.) (Family Home Evening [Manual], Personal Commitment, copyright 1972 by Corporation of the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, pages 125-126).

This was not just his personal opinion. On page 126 of this last reference, a teaching manual published by the Mormon Church, is a graphic picture of an algebraic equation:

Daddy + Mommy = You

Our Heavenly Father + Mary = Jesus

(Ibid, page 126).

Another LDS teaching manual has:

…he was able to make payment because he lived a sinless life and because he was actually, literally, biologically the Son of God in the flesh. (Messages for Exaltation, For the Sunday Schools of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Gospel Doctrine Class, published by the Deseret Sunday School Union, printed by Deseret News Press, 1967, pages 378-379)

God, the Father of our spirits, became the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ according to the flesh…it was the personage of the Father who begat the body of Jesus…both the spirit and body of Jesus were begotten by the Father… The fleshly body of Jesus required a Mother as well as a Father. Therefore, the Father and Mother of Jesus, according to the flesh, must have been associated together in the capacity of Husband and Wife, hence the virgin Mary must have been, for the time being, the Lawful wife of God the Father. (The Seer, by Apostle Orson Pratt, October 1853, Vol. 1, No. 10, p. 158)

 

[PaulDupre]

Continued…

President Ezra Taft Benson stated, "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints proclaims that Jesus Christ is the Son of God in the most literal sense. (Benson, p. 4). (Encyclopedia of Mormonism, Vol. 2, p. 725, 1992; The Teachings of Ezra Taft Benson, p. 7)

It is very plain if men will comprehend, firstly, the fact, that God is the Father of man, spiritually, and that God is the Father of Jesus Christ, both temporally and spiritually, and that Jesus Christ is nothing more nor less than the Son of God, begotten of His Father, as absolutely, and as truly as any child was begotten of his earthly father. You don’t need to mince the matter. (Latter*Day Saints Follow Teachings of the Savior, Scrapbook of Mormon Literature, Joseph F. Smith, [1838-1918], Vol. 2, p.557)

(While preaching on Christian objections to the LDS belief that Jesus was plurally married and had children, Brigham Young remarked…)

All that I have to say in reply to that charge is this**: they worship a Savior that is too pure and holy to fulfil the commands of his Father. I worship one that is just pure and holy enough “to fulfil [sic] all righteousness;” not only the righteous law of baptism, but the still more righteous and important law “to multiply and replenish the earth.” Startle not at this! for even the Father himself honored that law by coming down to Mary, without a natural body, and begetting a son; and if Jesus begat children, he only “did that which he had seen his Father do.” (Journal of Discourses, Orson Hyde, 2:210, March 18, 1855)

We believe absolutely that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, begotten of God, the first-born in the spirit and the only begotten in the flesh; that He is the Son of God just as much as you and I are the sons of our Fathers. (“Analysis of the Articles of Faith,” Heber J. Grant, Millennial Star, 5 Jan. 1922, p. 2)

Our Lord is the only mortal person ever born to a virgin, [7] because he is the only person who ever had an immortal Father. Mary, his mother, “was carried away in the Spirit” (1 Ne. 11:1321), was “overshadowed” by the Holy Ghost, and the conception which took place “by the power of the Holy Ghost” resulted in the bringing forth of the literal and personal Son of God the Father. (Alma 7:10; 2 Ne. 17:14; Isa. 7:14; Matt. 1:1825; Luke 1:2638.) Christ is not the Son of the Holy Ghost, but of the Father. (Doctrines of Salvation, vol. 1, pp. 1820.)

These name* titles all signify that our Lord is the only Son of the Father in the flesh. Each of the words is to be understood literally. Only means only; Begotten means begotten; and Son means son. Christ was begotten by an Immortal Father in the same way that mortal men are begotten by mortal fathers. (ibid, pp. 546-547)

God the Father is a perfected, glorified, holy Man, an immortal Personage. And Christ was born into the world as the literal Son of this Holy Being; he was born in the same personal, real, and literal sense that any mortal son is born to a mortal father. There is nothing figurative about his paternity; he was begotten, conceived and born in the normal and natural course of events, for he is the Son of God, and that designation means what it says. (ibid, p. 742)

Thus, God the Father became the literal father of Jesus Christ. (Gospel Principles, p. 57 in pre-1986 editions, p. 64 in 1992 edition)

I sincerely hope this puts an end to the denials.
Paul