SteveVH

The fact that it would take pages here to explain indulgences precludes me from offering an in depth reponse. Luther never objected to the "offering" of indulgences. It was the abuse of selling indulgences that Luther rejcted, as he should have. This had never been Church teaching and those that practiced it were in grave sin. However, this is like asking a Mormon why polygamy was reinterpreted or why the Book of Mormon was reinterpreted concerning blacks and the mark of Cain. As for your statement concerning the Eucharist, I would really be interested in some documentation with which you back up your statement. As a person in your position on this forum, I'm sure you do not want to misrepresent an other's faith. When, in the entire history of the Catholic Church, has the Eucharist ever been considered "a symbolic appendage to church, limited to once a month or so"? It is the center and purpose of the Mass, the source and summit of our faith, which has been on going since Pentecost. It has never changed in practice or in meaning. If you would like quotes, from the first century on, confirming this, I will be happy to provide them.

Yes, sorry for not disclosing that. I'm new to this forum. On the other forum on which I post our religions (if we choose) are stated along with our User Name, location, etc. so we don't have to worry about making that identification. But yes, I am devoutly Catholic. I thought that was fairly clear in the way I answered "we believe this and we believe that". I am curious, though, what difference does it make as far as the comments I made and the questions I asked? Does it make a difference in the way you would answer?

Thanks for responding. I do appreciate it. I think this is a great example of the misunderstanding that seems to be prevalent concerning "THE REVELATION" as you call it. We believe that the Holy Spirit communicates with our Church on a constant basis. All "new" revelation, however, contains the revelation of Jesus Christ at its center. Christ is the subject of all of Sacred Scripture, both the Old Testament and the New. The world had been waiting for Him since the fall of Adam and Eve. When He came to earth all that the world had been waiting for was finally present. That was the "Good News". The kingdom of God had come and the mission of his Church was to spread the Kingdom to the ends of the earth. We await nothing further. All has been fulfilled in Him. That is what we mean when we say there can be no further revelation. This in no way means that we believe God is now silent. He certainly is not. Hope this helps as well.

So you are LDS but still believe in Catholic doctrine? Interesting. You're the first I've ever heard make such a statement. I would disagree on one point. No one is baptized "Catholic". We are baptized into the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. It is why the Catholic Church recognizes and accepts the baptism of any person who is baptized in water and in the name of the Trinity. It is also why the Catholic Church does not recognize Mormon baptisms, at least since 2001. The Catholic Magisterium determined that the Mormon faith was so far removed from Christianity that it could not even be called heretical, but is considered an entirely different religion altogether. Thus, its baptisms would be invalid. In what way? We do not believe in any ordinances. We believe in sacraments and the fact that they may be called by the same name does not mean they carry the same meaning by any stretch of the imagination. I certainly do not see it that way. Catholicism is the fulfillment of Judaism. Mormonism conflicts with both of these religions in almost every way, from the nature of God, to the nature of man, to the nature of salvation to the nature of our eternal destiny; from Genesis to Revelation and everywhere in between. Please tell me what Mormonism would have built upon, other than accepting the Sacred Scriptures from a purportedly apostate Church? By the way, thank you for responding to my post. I have been conversing with Mormons on another forum for a little over two years. My purpose in this is truly to try and understand Mormon theology. By this time I have become fairly familiar with most of the beliefs, but I am still baffled at how one arrives at these beliefs. One thing is for sure, though we do not have really any similarities in our substantive beliefs and I see no reason to pretend that we do. I certainly don't hold it against anyone. :) God bless and thanks again.

It is important to distinguish between public and private interpretation. I am Catholic and so believe that the Jesus Christ IS God's revelation of Himself to mankind. He is God's one and only Word. He has no other. He is the summation and fulfillment of all revelation. Having said that, we constantly receive private revelation which allows us to peel back the onion, so to speak, that we may receive a deeper understanding of the one revelation in Christ.

This is my first post on this forum so forgive me for butting in here. I think what we have in common is very much on the surface and really only applies to social issues (the sanctity of marriage, family etc.). As far as doctrine and belief is concerned, we could not be at more opposite ends. This is why I am here. I believe I understand basic Mormon beliefs, but how you arrive at those beliefs is still beyond me. So I am here to get educated. God bless.