fatima

I inferred that Vort was saying our Sacrament (the Eucharist) is 'sadistic and evil'. If are not already aware, Catholics are often accused by certain groups of being 'cannibals', and that we crucify Christ again in our Sacrament, so I thought Vort had these things in mind when he posted. This usually comes from Evangelicals, but not exclusively.

And I apologized.

Oh, I definitely felt strongly, but I didn't think I let that get out (well, at least until I was told to 'get in line') That's when I got on my soapbox.

Just as reminder, I don't think my initial response to Vort was particularly strong: I've always found LDS to be very respectful, so I'm shocked at the rudeness of this post. The Eucharist is the sum and summit of the Catholic faith, and the True Presence of Christ in the Eucharist is on solid Scriptural, Traditional and historical ground, even if you don't see it." To say that I was 'shocked' doesn't seem like an overreaction to me, but as I've said, language is fluid. I have since not responded to Vort except to offer my apology. What I did do is belabor the point in a handful of posts that we should show respect to one another, which is what I have previously found on this forum. However, it does seem that I have erred in this belief, according to some. All of that said, I've lurked here for years, and only recently decided to post. Maybe I'll just return to lurking.

You make a great point. @Vort-I'm sorry for reacting so strongly to your words.

As Anatess pointed out, a Mormon has no reason to study what other religions view as sacred in order to edit their commentary accordingly. Because language is very fluid, what I think is necessary among those-of-us-who-claim-to-practice Christianity, is to measure everything we say with charity and be excessive in our care towards each other. Heck, if we cannot show love and respect, why should we expect the rest of the world to do so? I don't make the distinction between what I can safely mock or insult about the LDS faith, and what I can't. Meaning I don't think to myself: well, the Temple is off limits, but I'll make fun of the garments/relief society/BoM, whatever. As for the 'cracker' comments, while it stings a bit, I really don't expect them to refer to the Eucharist as "the Body and Blood of Christ". I do think 'cracker' as opposed to 'bread' is an effort to reduce it to the lowest possible terms, but that could just be my perception.

So you are not/would not be offended if someone came here and called the Temple or Joseph Smith "sadistic and evil"? If it happened on the CA forum I would be offended for those good and Godly LDS that I know, and I would take a moment to chastise a fellow Catholic for saying such. But you would chalk that up to "a point of fact from my perspective"? You'd be wrong for doing so. Lastly, you are well versed in Catholic theology, but your priests were wrong. I suspect in the first situation the priest wasn't as much withholding the Eucharist as he was concerned about modesty. He didn't say, "no", he said cover up and come back. In the second situation, again, the priest was just plain wrong. Whatever he suspected was your sin, he had no way of knowing if you had just come from the Confessional, so he had no right to deny you communion. Denying the Eucharist is not a practice that is endorsed by the CC, although an individual priest may erroneously do so.

I think you know enough about Catholic theology to know that the priest was in the wrong to deny you communion, if you were still Catholic at that time. Also, I do recognize that this is Mormon Hub, but the thread was on the topic of other faith communions, and there was no need to denigrate another faith in his effort to say that it wouldn't be right. This forum has shown far more respect to other Christian denominations than the Catholic Answers forum shows towards Mormons, which is why I try to educate myself here. However, based on your logic, the poor treatment LDS receive at CA is simply a reflection of a valid disbelief in LDS authority, and not a terrible lack of Christian charity.

I completely agree with you that Christ would abstain from an illegitimate/illicit sacrament/ordinance, for exactly the reason you are putting forth here. Receiving communion in any church, IMO, implies that you are in communion with that church. It always makes me wonder why anyone would even want to take communion in a church that is not their own. The difference (once again, IMO) is that Christ knew the heart of each person He spoke to, and He knew exactly what they needed to hear. We lack that perfect charity and wisdom, and we certainly don't know enough about anyone on an internet forum. Therefore of we hope to bring others to the Fullness of Truth, we must offer the beauty of our faiths, respect for where others are in their journeys, and measure our words with care. Person0 and Vort said effectively the same thing, but Vort was rude, insulting and violated what Catholics on this forum hold Sacred. Person0 simply made the case, and I am in full agreement with the conclusion.

While I considered whether or not to lash out at Vort, the Holy Spirit has guided me towards a different response. I'll try to be brief and try not to prove why, but stick to the point at hand. As I said, the Eucharist is the sum and summit of the Catholic faith. We believe wholeheartedly (well, those of us who take our faith seriously) that Jesus Christ is Truly Present. Vort's words cut to the Most Sacred, Most Holy thing for a Catholic, Jesus Christ Himself. Please think about the reverence and care you take when you visit the Temple. it is a sacred place for Mormons. I'm sure it hurts when someone mocks, misrepresents or otherwise insults the Temple. Circling back to the original topic of this thread, just as one has to be worthy to enter the Temple, one also has to be worthy to receive Jesus Christ in the Eucharist (as much as any one of us can be worthy, anyway) To be worthy means to believe and live by the Precepts of the Church. In our case, that determination is made by the individual, and he/she will be held accountable accordingly, rather than worthiness being determined by the bishop. All Glory to God.

Well, I now know whose posts to ignore on this forum.

I've always found LDS to be very respectful, so I'm shocked at the rudeness of this post. The Eucharist is the sum and summit of the Catholic faith, and the True Presence of Christ in the Eucharist is on solid Scriptural, Traditional and historical ground, even if you don't see it.

Why would you believe that the gospel, the authority and the true faith would remain, even if the leaders go astray, if you accept that Joseph Smith had to restore a church that had gone astray? If the authority of Christ's Church remains, in spite of human failures, then that church remained in authority nearly 2000 years ago, and did not require the restoration of Joseph Smith, right?

Ummm...I think we are saying the same thing. A civil divorce is permitted by the Catholic Church, but the sacramental marriage is still intact.

My apologies if it sounded as though I was dissing the parts of your service. Lackluster speakers abound, and I was just picking on any situation in which we are a captive audience.

Yes! And imagine if listening to the testimony of lackluster speakers was an integral part of the meeting!

I've often considered that Catholic Masses are so short because it is a requirement of our faith to go every, single Sunday. Only illness releases a practicing Catholic from Mass, not travel, not family obligations, not work, nothing should come before our weekly Mass. Let me edit that...for someone like a doctor, who might work 12-24 hr. shifts and such, might have a dispensation as well. However, he/she should be doing everything in their power to have one free hour for Mass. This is probably why you find the schedules so convenient. Lots of Masses are offered to accommodate the varied schedules people have.

LOL! Well, I've never met one. Every LDS I know is totally devoted, although I suppose the ones who are not are not wearing a signs.

Can I plug the Catholic Church on this site? The teachings have never changed. And as long as you can separate the sinners who are part of the church (that includes priests, popes in history and individuals locally) from the actual doctrines, you will find much that is similar in values and virtues that the LDS church teaches. Just make sure to judge the Catholic Church by those actually practicing their faith, as opposed to those who are Catholic in Name Only!

Well, yes, divorce is permitted in the RCC, just not remarriage after. And as you well know, annulments are a nullification of the marriage based on conditions for marriage not being met/understood at the time of the marriage. On to pre-mortal existence- you say that there is a time between conception and birth where the embryo 'may yet not have become a vessel of the human spirit'. That 'may not' is a sticking point for me, because what if that body HAS become the vessel and it DOES result in the death of the human spirit? Because you don't know, shouldn't we all err on the side of caution? Lastly, I THINK someone in one of these threads said that we have no memory of our pre-mortal existence when we are born into this life. Was Jesus Christ an exception?

Well, speaking for myself, I am 100% Catholic and can say with surety that the Holy Ghost guides me all the days of my life. I am in constant prayer and constant repentance for my sins. I love, love, love God, Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost for creating, forgiving, redeeming and sustaining me. Having been born and raised Catholic, I dove deeply into the teachings, history and theology of the Catholic Church when I had my first child, because all-of-a-sudden, it really, really mattered what Truth was. I also looked into other Christian faiths, including LDS, and came to the conclusion that the Catholic Church had the fullness of Truth. So...returning to the topic at hand, I am pretty sure I know more than the average person about LDS theology, and I do not believe it to be true, based on the nature of God and the purpose of our lives. With that 'rejection', will I still have another chance? Because I totally desire to know, love and serve God?

So...is the LDS Gospel only offered in the next life to those who hadn't had a chance to hear it in this life? Or also to those who heard it but didn't accept it in this life? I can see why it would be considered merciful for those who never heard of Jesus Christ. But, for someone like me...I've heard what the LDS church teaches about God, Jesus Christ, salvation, etc., but I don't believe it is the Fullness of Truth (while still having much good). IOW-I have rejected it. So I do not get another chance in the next life? (which I think is just).

What I learned in my earlier thread about Eternal Marriage has brought me to another question. Now, I want to say that I am impressed with the LDS church/faith, based on the people that I know that are actually striving to be "good Mormons". They love God, their church and they all seem to live God oriented, family oriented, hard working lives. Just the kinds of people that make the world a better place. Doing all of the ordinances, and living WoW, etc. for love of God vs. fear of God is clearly the best way for any of us to go. However...on to where things get muddled for me... In my previous thread it came up that marriage continues through eternity if both spouses, at their own deaths, still will that to be. It also came up that abortion as a great evil is reconciled because God will give that baby/intelligence another chance at life in a human body. My concern/question is-there seems to be no reason for urgency to accept the Gospel in this life. There is a safety net for all of our decisions where we get to 'sign up later', even non-Mormons getting a chance to accept the LDS faith after death. While that may sound lovely, and very merciful of God, it seems to lack any sense of justice. Please forgive the political parallel, but it sounds like one of the oft mentioned issues with Obamacare-that people will ignore healthcare until they need it, or the other cultural topic-that everyone gets a prize. Somewhere along the line in my life, someone wiser than me (C.S. Lewis, maybe?) pointed out that without justice, there is no mercy. Am I misunderstanding something?

Okay, this thread has brought to mind questions that I didn't have before. Starting a new thread, though!