Jason_J

See above. The official websites of the Orthodox Churches clearly state that they believe that the bread and wine become the body and blood of Christ. Again, please stop spreading misinformation.

This isn't what I'm talking about. According to the Code of Canon Law of the Catholic Church, cited above, Catholic priests are allowed to lawfully give the Eucharist to members of the Orthodox Church that are properly disposed (i.e. not in mortal sin). In contrast, they are only allowed to give the Eucharist to Protestants if they are in danger of death or other grave necessity, and have no access to their own ministers. That is what I'm talking about. And I did not quote from Wikipedia. I quoted from the Orthodox Wiki, which is not Wikipedia. This is completely false, and makes the Catholic Church seem as if it doesn't know what it's talking about. Why would the Catholic Church say in the Catechism that the Orthodox have valid Eucharist, apostolic succession, and priesthood, if they didn't actually believe in the Real Presence? It's illogical. Furthermore, here is what Orthodox themselves say about the Eucharist: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of North America "Orthodoxy has clearly avoided reducing the Eucharist to a simple memorial of the Last Supper which is only occasionally observed. Following the teachings of both Scripture and Tradition, the Orthodox Church believes that Christ is truly present with His people in the celebration of the Holy Eucharist. The Eucharistic gifts of bread and wine become for us His Body and His Blood." Orthodox Church in America Holy Communion is the "sacrament of sacraments" in that it is the banquet of the Kingdom of God, the fulfillment of every other sacrament. In Holy Communion we partake of the Body and Blood of Christ, the Eternal Passover Lamb, Who makes us alive and holy with Himself. Through Holy Communion we become sons of God the Father, together with Jesus, filled with the "communion of the Holy Spirit." St John the Baptist Russian Orthodox Cathedral The Holy Fathers of the Church teach that the members of the Church comprise the Church - the Body of Christ - because in the Eucharist they partake of the Body and the Blood of Christ. Antiochian Christian Archdiocese of North America We believe that only a priest who has been given the authority by the Church through Christ can administer those sacraments. Only a priest and a bishop have the function and the authority to consecrate the elements of bread and wine to become the Body and Blood of Christ. ... For example, the Eucharist is the real presence of Christ; it is His Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity. ...In addition to the symbolism of the fiery coal from the altar, the Eucharistic bread itself seems naturally to evoke the image of the oven. This image is amply justified in the Epiclesis, the prayer that asks the Father to send down the Holy Spirit to transform the bread and wine into the Lord's Body and Blood. The Orthodox and Catholic Churches agree on the Real Presence of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist. Please stop spreading misinformation on what these churches are teaching.

No he may not (I'm talking about people that the priest knows are Eastern Orthodox, not random people going up that he knows nothing about). A Catholic priest is forbidden to give the Eucharist to someone that they know is a Protestant, unless they are in grave circumstances (i.e. imminent death) They are allowed to licitly give the sacraments to members of the Orthodox Church, according to the Code of Canon Law: §3. Catholic ministers administer the sacraments of penance, Eucharist, and anointing of the sick licitly to members of Eastern Churches which do not have full communion with the Catholic Church if they seek such on their own accord and are properly disposed. This is also valid for members of other Churches which in the judgment of the Apostolic See are in the same condition in regard to the sacraments as these Eastern Churches. §4. If the danger of death is present or if, in the judgment of the diocesan bishop or conference of bishops, some other grave necessity urges it, Catholic ministers administer these same sacraments licitly also to other Christians not having full communion with the Catholic Church, who cannot approach a minister of their own community and who seek such on their own accord, provided that they manifest Catholic faith in respect to these sacraments and are properly disposed. Therefore, according to Canon Law, a Catholic priest can lawfully give the sacraments to members of the Orthodox Church if they approach the priest and are properly disposed (i.e. they are not in a state of mortal sin). In contrast, Protestants are only allowed to receive Catholic sacraments if they are in danger of death or other grave necessity and do not have access to their own ministers at that point. Also, please read this page from the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops: USCCB - (Liturgy) - Non-Catholics and Holy Communion Uh what? This is completely untrue. The Orthodox Church maintains a belief in the Real Presence, and that the bread and wine become the body and blood of Christ. From the Orthodox Wiki: Orthodox Christians believe that the Real Presence of God (not merely a sign) is present after the consecration of the Gifts. Roman Catholics and some protestants also hold this view. As the Catechism of the Catholic Church clearly states, the Orthodox have valid apostolic succession, priesthood, and valid sacraments, and therefore, from the official perspective of the Catholic Church, they are consuming the body and blood of Christ (the Catechism paragraph linked to specifically mentions the Eucharist in Orthodoxy as a "true sacrament").

This is still incorrect. Whether or not you believe that the Catholic Church should use unleavened bread only does not detract from the fact that the Catholic Church uses both leavened and unleavened bread, and has done so throughout its history. The West does have certain reasons for using unleavened bread (as you note), however those reasons are not shared by the East, including most of those Eastern churches in full communion with Rome. I am aware of no bishop, let alone Pope, that has stated that the East needs to change to using unleavened bread. In fact, the Pope has been quite vocal on saying that the Eastern Catholic churches must maintain their Eastern traditions, and avoid "Latinizations" (which includes the use of unleavened bread, since it was never used in the East). This is not what the Catholic Church teaches. The Catholic Church teaches that the Orthodox Church (not in communion with Rome) has valid sacraments, and that they are allowed to partake in the Eucharist at a Catholic parish. From the Catechism of the Catholic Church: 1399 The Eastern churches that are not in full communion with the Catholic Church celebrate the Eucharist with great love. "These Churches, although separated from us, yet possess true sacraments, above all - by apostolic succession - the priesthood and the Eucharist, whereby they are still joined to us in closest intimacy." A certain communion in sacris, and so in the Eucharist, "given suitable circumstances and the approval of Church authority, is not merely possible but is encouraged."

Real Presence - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia It means that Jesus is "really" present in what appears to be bread and wine. In contrast to a purely symbolic view, or a spiritual presence, it is believed that Jesus is actually fully present there. His body and blood are actually present, and those partaking of the Eucharist believe (or should believe) that they are partaking in the actual body and the actual blood of Christ.

It is believed to be an actual, literal transformation. It is believed that the bread and wine become the body and blood of Christ, while maintaining their appearance. In the West, it is traditionally believed that this transformation occurs when the priest says the "Words of Institution" ("Take this all of you and eat it, this is my body..."). In the East, there is no tradition as to a specific moment when the transformation occurs, though it is commonly said that after the Epiclesis (a prayer of invocation of the Holy Spirit), the bread and wine become the body and blood of Christ.

All of the most ancient traditional Christian churches (Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Assyrian Church of the East, etc) believe in what is called the "Real Presence". Some Protestant churches also believe in it as well (Anglican and Lutheran churches). Whether individuals actually believe what these churches officially teach is a different story of course.

Right, however the host is not used in most Eastern churches. My point is simply that unleavened vs. leavened bread is not an issue, since the Catholic Church uses both types of bread in its Eastern and Western churches, and has done so since ancient times. The Orthodox Church also does so, and the Catholic Church of course recognizes the validity of all its sacraments.

Why "should" it be dealt with? The Eastern Churches have always (i.e. since ancient times) used leavened bread in their Liturgy, and those Eastern Churches in communion with the Bishop of Rome still do. It is tradition in the Latin rite to use unleavened bread, while it is tradition in the East to use leavened bread. It is not an issue.

I'd say boroughs are more like counties, since they all have "towns" within them. And you forgot the borough of the Bronx I'm from Long Island (grew up here, went to college in DC, and moved back last summer), and work in Manhattan.

Eternal Musings

Eastern Catholic (in communion with Rome) and Eastern Orthodox churches use leavened bread in their Divine Liturgy, while the Roman Catholic church uses unleavened bread. Since the Eastern Catholic churches are all in communion with the Roman Catholic church (together making up "The Catholic Church"), and the Catholic Church recognizes the validity of Orthodox sacraments, the use of leavened bread is not a problem, since it is used in the Eastern churches of the Catholic Church.

You can watch this Conference and previous ones here: https://beta.lds.org/general-conference?locale=eng

The closest thing to the Catechism in the LDS Church is a book called "Gospel Principles". It isn't as detailed as the Catechism, however it tends to serve a similar purpose. You can read it online here: Gospel Principles You can also purchase a copy here: DeseretBook.com - Gospel Principles: 2009 Edition I'm currently Catholic, and am currently on Chapter 9 of GP.

I am not LDS (yet), but I thought I'd add another perspective: I see nothing wrong with writing your prayers, perhaps to recite at a later time. This is no different than someone writing a hymn (and many consider hymns to be prayers). As someone said, the important thing is the faith behind the words you are saying, whether they are spontaneous or pre-written. A frequent reference is the "vain repetitions" prohibition in the Bible, and some use it as proof against any sort of repetition or use of pre-written prayers. However, I think that this misses the key word in "vain repetitions": vain. From Websters: 1 : having no real value : idle, worthless <vain pretensions> 2 : marked by futility or ineffectualness : unsuccessful, useless <vain efforts to escape> 3 archaic : foolish, silly 4 : having or showing undue or excessive pride in one's appearance or achievements : conceited So, I may say a prayer written by someone else, or a may say a spontaneous prayer. The important thing is that I actually believe what I am saying, that I believe that God is listening and does answer prayers (sometimes the answer is no), etc. If I am just reciting a pre-written prayer without that faith, as if it is some sort of magic spell that will do what it says just because I am saying it, then that is a vain repetition.

Also, here is an interesting FARMS article Divine Embodiment: The Earliest Christian Understanding of God by David Paulsen

One of the most appealing parts of the Restored Gospel is the belief in a corporeal/embodied Father, who has a body of flesh and bones, just like the Son currently does (due to His bodily Resurrection and Ascension). I am curious as to how Trinitarians understand this issue from a Biblical perspective, and why it is believed that the Father is incorporeal. Is it also safe to assume that all Trinitarians accept that it is possible for the Father to take on a bodily form when interacting with humans, although He does not have a body in the same sense that the Son does now and forever? Also, here is something that I recently posted on another forum that is basically based on a FAIR article: Mormons interpret Genesis 1:26 as referring, not only to a figurative image and likeness (i.e. rational soul) to God, but also a physical likeness. Genesis 1:26 (KJV) 26And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. Genesis 1:26 (NAB ) Then God said: "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. Let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, the birds of the air, and the cattle, and over all the wild animals and all the creatures that crawl on the ground." Mormons will continue the focus on what "image, after our likeness" by referring to Genesis 5:3- Genesis 5:3 (KJV) 3And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness, and after his image; and called his name Seth: Genesis 5:3 (NAB ) Adam was one hundred and thirty years old when he begot a son in his likeness, after his image; and he named him Seth. So, here we see that Adam begets a son "in his likeness, after his image", which clearly (according to the argument) is referring to physicality. So, Mormons wonder why these two instances of the same phrase are interpreted differently (i.e. referring to two different things). A common objection is that if we interpret the Bible as literally talking about God having a body, then we also have to believe that God has wings (Ps. 91:4), for example. Mormons respond that it is clear what the metaphor of "wings" means (Matt 23:37), while the Bible gives no clues as to the metaphorical interpretation of seeing God's back parts, for example (Ex 33:23), or Stephen's vision of God (Acts 7:55-56). The final main part of the Mormon argument is on John 4:24- John 4:24 (KJV) 24God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth. John 4:24 (NAB ) God is Spirit, and those who worship him must worship in Spirit and truth." Trinitarians state that if God is a spirit, then He can't have a body of flesh and bones, since Jesus says that a spirit does not have flesh and bones (Luke 24:39) Now, the Mormon argument identifies that ancient Greek did not have indefinite articles such as "a" and "an", therefore the NAB translation is correct, and leads to a parallel structure with 1 John 1:5 ("God is light") and 1 John 4:8 ("God is love"). So, it seems that it is more likely that John 4:24 is not talking about the "physical" nature of God, but a characteristic of His...personality and "activity towards men", such as "love" and "light". They refer to 1 Cor 6:17 to show that he who is joined unto the Lord is one spirit, yet we also have bodies, so there is no contradiction. They also refer to Jesus' Resurrection and Ascension, where He clearly still has a body of flesh and bones, yet He did not cease being a Spirit, if we accept that God is a spirit only. Also, a curious philosophical question is where does the idea that spirits are incorporeal come from? Do we really believe that those in Heaven have no form (since this is pre-resurrection)? Thanks for any responses, as this is a topic that I find fascinating, and find the Mormon argument very intriguing. I simply would like to understand this issue from a Trinitarian Biblical perspective. I would like to close with this painting from the Sistene Chapel, with an interesting caption on the Vatican website: http://mv.vatican.va/3_EN/pages/x-Sc...tCentr_06.html " Creation of Adam (Genesis 1: 26-27) "God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him" (Genesis 1: 27). The focal point of the episode of the Creation of man is the contact between the fingers of the Creator and those of Adam, through which the breath of life is transmitted. God, supported by angels in flight and wrapped in a mantle, leans towards Adam, shown as a resting athlete, whose beauty seems to confirm the words of the Old Testament, according to which man was created to the image and likeness of God."

my alma mater, Georgetown, was beaten in the first round. they were a 3 seed, beaten by a FOURTEEN. crazy.

Kerry, could you give us a brief overview of the thesis of the book?

No problem! We're all here to learn and hope I would be corrected if I misspoke about something about the LDS faith. The critics of both the Catholic and LDS faiths confuse many people (I see Catholics believing their stories about Mormonism all the time at another forum I participate in).

Just here to clear up some errors on the Catholic position (although I am investigating the LDS church, I still and always will like to see the Catholic faith accurately portrayed) :) : Catholics most certainly do not point to Constantine as the first Pope. Catholics believe that Peter was the first Pope. Even if we ignore Peter, Catholics believe that Linus was the Pope after Peter. Whether or not any of this is true, Catholics most certainly do not believe that Constantine was the first Pope, let alone Pope at any time (and no list of Popes lists Constantine, since again, he never was a Pope). By the time Constantine was born, there were already 26 Popes. Catholics agree that "Pope" is not a position in the Bible. The office that "the Pope" holds is Bishop, specifically of Rome. One is not ordained a Pope. Catholics believe in only three offices in the priesthood: deacon, priest, and bishop. There are then different roles in each priesthood office (such as cardinal, patriarch, archbishop, etc). The "Bishop of Rome" is seen as the head of the church, and is called "Pope", which is a term of endearment, and is not an official title of the Bishop of Rome (though it is the most widely used of course). So, a man is not chosen to be "Pope", but the Bishop of Rome, which affords him certain rights and privileges, and "Pope" is an informal title given to him. He is first and foremost a bishop, specifically of Rome. Modern Popes most certainly do not condemn indulgences. Indulgences are very much a part of the Catholic faith. For example, if I open my copy of the Catholic New American Bible, just before the preface, it states this: "A partial indulgence is granted to the faithful who use Sacred Scripture for spiritual reading with the veneration due the word of God. A plenary indulgence is granted if the reading continues for at least one half hour. What modern Popes condemn was the abuse of indulgences, what is called the "sale of indulgences". Indulgences as a principle are still part of the Catholic faith, are found in the Catechism of the Catholic Church (an official document of official beliefs of the Catholic church), and I believe the Catholic church recently published a new manual of indulgences.

A statement I have seen made somewhat frequently by certain LDS posters on another forum that I participate in is that Jesus' sacrifice "took care of original sin". This usually comes up in the context of infant baptism (since churches that practice it believed that baptism remits original sin, since the infant obviously has no personal sins). What does it mean that original sin has been "taken care of" by Jesus? Perhaps it may be helpful to also define what LDS are referring to by "original sin" when this statement is made (since there are a number of views on it, and not all necessarily believe that we are "guilty" of the original sin as we are guilty of personal sins. Eastern Orthodox reject such a notion, for example).

Hi everyone, I know that authorities in the LDS Church (bishops, stake presidents, etc) do not go to seminaries as a candidate for the Catholic priesthood would. So, what happens after a man is called to be a bishop or stake president? I assume that there must be some sort of training involved to function in that capacity (not just in performing ordinances, but counseling as well). Former/current bishops, I'd appreciate your perspectives. I know that there is the Handbook of Instructions, so I was wondering if they have a time period to go through it with the current bishop, if there is training on counseling, etc. Basically, what happens after the calling is received?

Perhaps it's helpful to realize that "theosis" or "deification" is a major tenet of both the Catholic and Orthodox churches, though I venture to say that it receives more attention in Eastern Catholicism and Orthodoxy than it does in the West. That quote of Athanasius is actually referenced in the Catechism of the Catholic Church: "460 The Word became flesh to make us "partakers of the divine nature":"For this is why the Word became man, and the Son of God became the Son of man: so that man, by entering into communion with the Word and thus receiving divine sonship, might become a son of God." "For the Son of God became man so that we might become God." "The only-begotten Son of God, wanting to make us sharers in his divinity, assumed our nature, so that he, made man, might make men gods."" Theosis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Theosis - OrthodoxWiki Partakers of the Divine Nature - FARMS Occasional Papers (Dissertation by a former Catholic priest turned LDS)

Not sure if anyone has already mentioned this, but FAIR has a helpful article on this topic: FAIR Topical Guide: FAIR Papers Click on "Do We Have a Mother in Heaven?".