WhyMe and others: Can you Be Catholic and LDS at the same time?

[Gottle_of_Geer]

But the person in question is not acting in duplicity, as far as I can tell. He has made his status known to both churches.

That is beside the point. For this reason: his having “made his status known to both” parties, does not mean that his position makes theological sense. It doesn’t, because it’s incoherent as a theological position.​

Even if it is possible, from a Mormon POV, to be Mormon & Catholic, it is not possible from a Catholic POV to be both. From a Catholic POV, the two are not complementary, but contradictory: to be either, necessarily entails not being the other. Whether or not Church authorities or Mormon authorities,or both, know or object or approve, is beside the point: such a combination is a doctrinal monstrosity. That is not a new position, but a very old one. To combine two religions like this is syncretism - Catholicism & Mormonism don’t mix. To syncretise them, is to trivialise both.

Lack of duplicity in having a position can’t rectify that position if it is a fundamentally nonsensical one. And this one is. Which is why absense of duplicity is beside the point. If an architect can’t build properly, his being a good parent won’t rectify his incompetence at his job, so there would be no point in defending his iincompetence by saying he’s a good father. The same applies here.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Your qualms with the imperfections of the Church are keeping you from the fullness of Christ and all the riches that a full union with Christ brings. Christ established his living Church to bring man into communion with his very self “He is the life according to his nature as God, and when he became united to his flesh, he made it also to be life-giving.” Jesus never said “My Church will be perfect” you know why he didn’t say that? because then you and I couldn’t belong.

many times the truth is found in the simple answers.

That misses the point, for crying out loud. ​

 

[SimonArizona]

That misses the point, for crying out loud. ​

What’s missing…Catholic Ch_ _ch

 

[RebeccaJ]

What’s missing…Catholic Ch_ _ch

That is cheeeeezy! I like it.

 

[zaffiroborant]

By your “church,” I mean the authorized ministers on the ground who have the ecclesiastical authority and jurisdiction do determine his fate. They evidently don’t agree with you; and I trust their judgment more than yours.

Oh your talking about whyme’s friends from Foster’s.

 

[zaffiroborant]

Could a Mormon explain again to me how we are not supposed to tell you what you believe or how your church does things, how we are supposed to read and accept only official Mormon church explanations. Because right now I’m thinking my “cafeteria” Mormon acquaintance is the go to authority on all things Mormon. His experience with his bishop and the church is how the church believes and is run since his bishop is an ecclesiastical authority in the church and what ever he does is as the church does. Yep at this point I can see I should just accept what I read on the internet about Mormon bishops as actually having more authority than anything put out by the church itself.

 

[Benadam]

That doesn’t explain why the CC appears to have one rule for Jewish converts to RCism, & an entirely different rule for Protestant converts to RCism. There seems to be no principle in the behaviour of the CC. So if the difference does rest on principle - what is the principle ?​

This kind of lack of principle is one of the things that completely undermines the CC - how can anyone take its huffing & puffing about its uniqueness seriously; or its huffing & puffing about the sinfulness of leaving it seriously, or anything else it teaches, when it behaves like this on matters which are so basic to its identity ? It does not take its own dogma seriously - so it is intolerable that it expects anyone else to do so. As the Popes practice & encourage & allow indifferentism, or share the Eucharist with non-Catholics - by what right do they complain when lesser beings follow their example, or, are confused about how to behave ?

I’ve had about as much as I can take of this insanity

If I understand what you mean.
I think it depends on what can be pointed towards Christ. There isn’t much religiously pointeable to Christ when it outwardly imitates but inwardly opposes. Contrasted with religion that is not imitating but conceiving. All identities are not equal I think.

 

[why_me]

That is cheeeeezy! I like it.

You should form a catholic oneliner club. Nothing gets answered but it looks like fun.

 

[why_me]

What’s missing…Catholic Ch_ _ch

Rebecca is forming a catholic one liner club…she is accepting new members.

 

[why_me]

Could a Mormon explain again to me how we are not supposed to tell you what you believe or how your church does things, how we are supposed to read and accept only official Mormon church explanations. Because right now I’m thinking my “cafeteria” Mormon acquaintance is the go to authority on all things Mormon. His experience with his bishop and the church is how the church believes and is run since his bishop is an ecclesiastical authority in the church and what ever he does is as the church does. Yep at this point I can see I should just accept what I read on the internet about Mormon bishops as actually having more authority than anything put out by the church itself.

I think that you should refrain from attacking the mormon church and have a good discussion about the mormon faith. By attacking it, you only bring out mormon apologists who will wish to defend their faith. Should a mormon tell you what you believe? How would you respond if someone was attacking your faith? Or how would you respond if someone was seeking clarification about your religious faith? See the difference.

 

[why_me]

That is beside the point. For this reason: his having “made his status known to both” parties, does not mean that his position makes theological sense. It doesn’t, because it’s incoherent as a theological position.​

Even if it is possible, from a Mormon POV, to be Mormon & Catholic, it is not possible from a Catholic POV to be both. From a Catholic POV, the two are not complementary, but contradictory: to be either, necessarily entails not being the other. Whether or not Church authorities or Mormon authorities,or both, know or object or approve, is beside the point: such a combination is a doctrinal monstrosity. That is not a new position, but a very old one. To combine two religions like this is syncretism - Catholicism & Mormonism don’t mix. To syncretise them, is to trivialise both.

And yet a catholic priest who happens to be Jewish can go to Temple and worship with the Jews who don’t believe that Christ is the messiah. But a catholic who is baptised LDS and then returns to mass cannot be both mormon and catholc. That doesn’t make sense.

 

[Benadam]

See post #108.

Zerinus, I owe you an apology. Even if what I’m thinking isn’t true it could’ve been.

A thought occured to me about our dialogue. If true, I’m sorry you had to suffer my ignorance.

I think being what you appear to be is very important to authenticate membership in the Mormon community. So Authority expects and perhaps finds it a primary duty to actively form that characteristic.

In return you can assume that your life is seen by authority and so you can be certain your beliefs and life are in accord with the community. Unless error is brought to your attention you can be certain you live in accord with the community.

Does that describe how the average Mormon relates to those serving offices invested with authority?

 

[why_me]

That doesn’t explain why the CC appears to have one rule for Jewish converts to RCism, & an entirely different rule for Protestant converts to RCism. There seems to be no principle in the behaviour of the CC. So if the difference does rest on principle - what is the principle ?​

This kind of lack of principle is one of the things that completely undermines the CC - how can anyone take its huffing & puffing about its uniqueness seriously; or its huffing & puffing about the sinfulness of leaving it seriously, or anything else it teaches, when it behaves like this on matters which are so basic to its identity ? It does not take its own dogma seriously - so it is intolerable that it expects anyone else to do so. As the Popes practice & encourage & allow indifferentism, or share the Eucharist with non-Catholics - by what right do they complain when lesser beings follow their example, or, are confused about how to behave ?

I’ve had about as much as I can take of this insanity

In a past post I wrote that much had to do with history. The catholic church persecuted the jews in the past. Now I think that they are trying to make up for past injustices and so they tread carefully in these matters. But as you can see, your post did not get much of an explanation from the punters on the thread or from anyone else. At least I gave you a rational for it. But yes, if it is allowed for a jewish catholic priest who is active in the jewish and catholic faith why not for a catholic/inactive mormon who now goes to mass again?

 

[Benadam]

But as you can see, your post did not get much of an explanation from the punters on the thread or from anyone else. At least I gave you a rational for it.

 

[zerinus]

Zerinus, I owe you an apology. Even if what I’m thinking isn’t true it could’ve been.

A thought occured to me about our dialogue. If true, I’m sorry you had to suffer my ignorance.

Thanks for your comment, and no apologies required.

I think being what you appear to be is very important to authenticate membership in the Mormon community.

Don’t get me wrong; I am no authority in Mormonism. I just like to talk like one—pretend to be! I do however claim to be an authority on LDS doctrine. That is not because I hold any position of authority in the Church; but because every Mormon can and should be. That authority comes from studying the standard works, coupled with the witness of the Spirit which brings it all to life.

So Authority expects and perhaps finds it a primary duty to actively form that characteristic.

In return you can assume that your life is seen by authority and so you can be certain your beliefs and life are in accord with the community. Unless error is brought to your attention you can be certain you live in accord with the community.

Does that describe how the average Mormon relates to those serving offices invested with authority?

Your question wasn’t very clear. I am not quite sure what you are asking. But to give you a general answer, the LDS Church is very much priesthood based. There is a very strong priesthood/ecclesiastical line of authority that runs from the Prophet all the way down to the bishop, who is in charge of the smallest congregational unit of the Church called a “ward,” which is equivalent to your parish. Above him is someone whom we call a stake president, which would be equivalent to a bishop in the Catholic Church. Now these people when they are ordained to their various offices, are given certain “keys” (i.e. spiritual endowment of privileges) that empowers them to receive revelation and inspiration from the Holy Spirit to guide them in running the affairs of their local congregations, and to help them in their problems. If someone commits a transgression for example, he confesses it to his bishop, and the bishop is entitled to receive inspiration to help him repent and be forgiven. Although there are some written guidelines that he can follow, they are very general guidelines, and he must rely on the inspiration of the Holy Spirit to know what to do. My experience is that that inspiration is genuine and real, and that is what makes the LDS Church such a great success story.

Another distinctive feature of the LDS Church is that we do not have a paid or professional clergy. My bishop is not somebody who has gone to seminary and trained to be a Mormon priest or minister. He is not a “career priest”. He doesn’t get paid by the Church for what he does. He is just an ordinary guy with a job, and a family to look after. The same applies to the stake president. None of them are “professional churchmen”. The only training they have received is experience in serving in the Church. They do their job by virtue of that inspiration they are entitled to receive, which in turn comes by virtue of that true and genuine priesthood to which they have been ordained. That inspiration is of greater value than all the theological training they might get in a seminary. That is the secret of the success of Mormonism. A bishop usually serves in that capacity for about four to five years; and then released and succeeded by someone else.

The priesthood is defined as the authority given by God to man to act on His behalf. If that definition means anything, then it must be genuine and real. Our experience it that it is, and that is the source of authority in Mormonism.

 

[Holly3278]

No, you definitely cannot be Catholic and LDS at the same time. You can’t deny a dogma of the Catholic Church such as the Trinity and expect to still be considered a Catholic. And you can’t deny a Mormon dogma such as the “Godhead” and still be considered LDS. It’s really as simple as that. You’re either Catholic or you’re not. You’re either LDS or you’re not.

**Also, to go to a Catholic Church and receive the Eucharist and go to confession on Saturday and then go to the LDS church and receive “communion” on Sunday is to be a cause of deep scandal. **

 

[RebeccaJ]

You should form a catholic oneliner club. Nothing gets answered but it looks like fun.

whyme, I can type for 20 minutes, and you will reply with some BS to ONE LINE. So, now, I give you one line to reply to. And look, YOU CAN’T!

How about you reply to what I write? Simple, concise, nothing to twist around. Or, doesn’t this fit the rules of your BS club?

 

[Jerusha]

The analogy between Jewish converts to Catholicism and Mormon converts to Catholicism is partial. If a Mormon converts to Catholicism, and feels guilty about drinking hot drinks and alcohol, then, by all means, don’t.

Although I hate to admit it, because I have just a touch of Mormon cultural heritage about me, I made it to AA relatively early in my drinking career. For that I am grateful. As for coffee and tea, I did not drink coffee until I was introduced to it with cream and sugar. My parents always drank it with milk. And I was introduced to tea very early, since my grandfather was raised in England. I am truly multicultural!

The problem with many people who reject Mormonism is that they tend to reject even the good things about it. I am thankful, however, that the AA community that I first participated in had almost no cult-like traits or negative aspects of Moronish cultural contamination.

So, yes one cannot deny one’s cultural heritage in the conversion process from LDS to Catholic. Although my gut reacts negatively to men in white shirts and ties at church, I recognize that if that is in their cultural heritage and they feel comfortable that way, by all means, do it.

Does that cool the discussion?

 

[zaffiroborant]

I think that you should refrain from attacking the mormon church and have a good discussion about the mormon faith. By attacking it, you only bring out mormon apologists who will wish to defend their faith. Should a mormon tell you what you believe? How would you respond if someone was attacking your faith? Or how would you respond if someone was seeking clarification about your religious faith? See the difference.

Yes, the bolded part is the point. But isn’t that what Z is doing on this thread, telling us what our practice is in spite of being shown otherwise???

I didn’t attack the Mormon church, I am commenting on the posters here who are not Catholic and ignore our official sources for doctrine. I want to know why when a non-Mormon tells of hearing something erroneous from a Mormon bishop we are told to go to official sources such as the standard works or lds.org, that the bishop in question is wrong and we shouldn’t take their views as Mormon doctrine. But on the other hand when the same thing happens concerning our doctrine, practice and beliefs our official sources are disregarded. And not just disregarded but we are told that the priest in error is the definer of our doctrine etc.

So why can Z ignore our teachings in favor of an errant priest, and continue to say what our beliefs and practices are?

[sarcasm]
Any bets on the response? “St. Theresa” has been played a lot lately maybe the “Catholics would be better if” this time.[/sarcasm]

 

[why_me]

The analogy between Jewish converts to Catholicism and Mormon converts to Catholicism is partial. If a Mormon converts to Catholicism, and feels guilty about drinking hot drinks and alcohol, then, by all means, don’t.

Although I hate to admit it, because I have just a touch of Mormon cultural heritage about me, I made it to AA relatively early in my drinking career. For that I am grateful. As for coffee and tea, I did not drink coffee until I was introduced to it with cream and sugar. My parents always drank it with milk. And I was introduced to tea very early, since my grandfather was raised in England. I am truly multicultural!

The problem with many people who reject Mormonism is that they tend to reject even the good things about it. I am thankful, however, that the AA community that I first participated in had almost no cult-like traits or negative aspects of Moronish cultural contamination.

So, yes one cannot deny one’s cultural heritage in the conversion process from LDS to Catholic. Although my gut reacts negatively to men in white shirts and ties at church, I recognize that if that is in their cultural heritage and they feel comfortable that way, by all means, do it.

Does that cool the discussion?

I think that you understand me very well. And I am rather surprised by your post.