madeleine1

In my diocese, we have a Catholic newspaper that spreads the word (Intermountain Catholic). There are also bulletins at Mass that have a section for all updates in the parish, diocese, and world of all things Catholic. In some instances announcements are given by the priest at Mass. I also am on the parish email list and get email updates that way. Most of the time the same information is in the Sunday bulletin. I pay attention to Catholic news services and blogs, off and on.

All prophecy regarding our salvation, as found in the OT and prophesied by John the Baptist (the last prophet) is fulfilled in and through Jesus Christ. He is God's Word, perfectly revealed. Prophecy is a gift of the Holy Spirit, which is still given to some. However, the need for a prophet to lead us to God, and to Salvation, is not necessary as we have Jesus Christ. The call of a Christian is to follow Him. He is the Way. Hebrews chapter 3 is an excellent exhortation to take head to the words of Jesus Christ. We are in partner with Him, and all the baptized share in His prophetic ministry. Jesus gave to His Church, the gift of the Holy Spirit. It is by the Holy Spirit that people are led to Christ, not by people with messages rooted in novelty.

How do you account for love of God before Moses?

Hi SteveVH :) In my own conversion to Catholicism, that was one question that I kept asking. God could have redeemed us in any way, yet the way we are redeemed is through the suffering and death of the Son of God. Isaiah 43 teaches the redemptive value of the suffering servant, very beautifully. Looking to the Sacrament of Anointing the Sick, we see Christ as physician. The one who heals us, body and soul. So we are not left to suffer alone, and suffering with another (such as a you did with your brother) is, I believe, the greatest act of charity.

I agree. :)

Yes, that is one English translation. "Holy ones" is another translation. Writing to a group of people and calling them the holy ones, is not the same as walking around calling yourself a holy one. We acknowledge we are made holy by Christ, we also acknowledge our sins, which makes us less than holy. So, walking around calling yourself a "saint"??? You'd get looks like this. But, I think LDS use the word saint in a different way, more like a title is what I perceive.

If I may butt in for just a moment. :) A little delving into the etymology of the word "saint" finds us at the Latin sanctus, which means holy or sacred. In Catholicism, holiness is the word we use to describe several different things. A person is made holy by their baptism, a person lives a holy life, a person's soul is found holy before God (they are in heaven). I think this compares closely to the Mormon idea of "sanctified", which is also rooted in the Latin sanctus. In terms of the anglicized word "saint", it is then implicit in our understanding of holiness, that we are indeed sanctified, and thus we are saints. In Catholic writings you will find a distinction that is made, sometimes with "saint", lowercase, and "Saint" uppercase. Both are descriptive of a person who is holy, the lowercase being a living person, the uppercase being one who has died and their soul is in heaven. "Saint" as LDS use it is acceptable to Catholics, in the form of describing the baptized, the Body of Christ, as a holy people. Just it is not our cultural tradition to use it in that manner. We use in English, as I already said, the word "holy", and as I said, in the root of its meaning (sanctus), we're still indicating the same thing. If you look at non-English Catholic speakers and writings, as an example Italian, "saint" is translated to "santo", and "holy" is translated to "santo". There is no distinction in the meaning, or understanding. Mormonism, being American-English in its origins, does not have the Latin meaning and usage of words that have been retained in Roman Catholicism. So it looks to us that the word "saint" has been redefined by LDS to mean something other than its original. Hope that helps.

It is the deposit of faith. Therefore, brothers, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught, either by an oral statement or by a letter of ours. (2 Thess 2:15) O Timothy, guard what has been entrusted to you. (1 Tim 6:20) I now feel a need to write to encourage you to contend for the faith that was once for all handed down to the holy ones. (Jude 1:3)

Quite a few former Catholics have told me they went to Catholic schools, yet, know nothing of the Catholic faith. I worked with a woman who says she was an altar server, but knew little of Church teaching. There's a small bunch at CARM, one who claims to have been a nun for a short while. So such a claim doesn't mean much to me. I go by what people are saying, inferring, and ultimately their actions. There is a wide gulf in what is conveyed as known and what actually is doctrine. I have twice weekly access to very good teaching from good, orthodox clergy, and have so for nearly four years. I can see you are looking up stuff on the internet, but seem to be putting it together in a fashion that doesn't align to Church teaching. People at CARM do this too, so, you aren't alone. Doesn't matter. Some stranger on the internet isn't going to convince you that you've gone off and made up your own idea of Catholicism. Have a good evening.

I read your posts. Don't have a lot of time to reply to everything though. Salvation outside the church, basic stuff, good resource hre: Outside The Church There Is No Salvation For those who leave Catholicism, most certainly true. Not hopeless, as there is always hope, found in Jesus Christ. For those who have never heard or accepted our most holy religion, as put in the link provided, Salvation is still possible. What non-Catholics and many Catholics fail to understand is what Church is, as taught by the Catholic Church since the beginning. I tried to explain, but it isn't getting through. At any rate, I am a convert to Catholicicsm yes, and there are cultural practices thoughout the world that aren't found where I am. The Phillipines has many cultural practices, that aren't practiced here, or anywherei have been to Mass. I have a couple of friends who are from the Phillipines, they lament that catechesis there wasn't strong on doctrine. I also am involved in our RCIA, where I teach people who are converting to Catholicism. As for Marian apparitions, I converted without believing in them at all. I am a convert from atheism, and still have that skepticism about things people claim. The apparitions have many witnesses, so therefore more of a rational belief to them. I have never read the Joseph Smith's first vision had anyone there but himself. So I don't see that there is any rational thought behind believing his claims. I can see how a Catholic raised in a more superstious type of Catholic environment would find Smith's claims to be no different than the superstions they knew. Superstious Catolicism being an issue in some parts of the world. It isn't where I am, for the most part. I will leave it at that, as there isn't anything going on here that requires my time, and I don't have a lot of it. Peace.

Anatess, The Catholic a church is not just the Church in Rome, it is all churches that have valid Apostolic succession. This includes the Orthodox, who are in every sense catholic, with valid Holy Orders. John Paul II called the east and west the "two lungs" of the Church. All who profess the One True God of the Christian faith, Father, Son and Holy Spirit comprise the Body of Christ. I asked what is this Body to you, you haven't answered. It is a heretical belief to claim there is no salvation outside of Christ's Church. This has always been the doctrine of the Catholic church, and still is. This is understood in the light of Christ's Church being the means to salvation, via Baptism, Confirmation and Eucharist. Even a non-Christian is saved through Christ's Church, the Church being the presence of Jesus in the world until His return. The Holy Spirit seeks the hearts of all people, and calls them to Christ. I would never claim that the Holy Spirit is at work somewhere but not somewhere else, and it wouldn't be Catholic doctrine to make this claim either. Church not being an institution but a sign and a communion. All who profess Jesus is Lord, are in this communion. This Communion is perfected through Christ, in the Sacraments of His Church. An extra pouring out of the Holy Spirit is given to those who receive the Sacraments of Christ's Church. This does not mean the Holy Spirit is absent elsewhere. Our Bishops are in communion with each other. Individual Bishops can and have left the communion of the Catholic Church, do you think this doesn't happen in Mormonism? Why are you LDS and not a member of the Community of Christ? So you believe Jesus preserved the LDS church, protecting it and guiding it? If you do, why would you believe Jesus did not protect and guide the Church He established during His ministry? I'm not seeking to offend you, because I know the LDS belief in the Joseph Smith's first vision is an important aspect of your faith. But there is no evidence for what he claimed to see, at all, none. There was no one with him to witness. You believe in this vision without evidence. Any person can claim to have visions, alone, in secret. I'm not bound to believe these visions. On the other hand, no Bishop is alone, a Bishop is ordained with a community there to witness the ordination. The laying on of hands is done by more than one Bishop, so the ordination is not done by one person. A Bishop leads a group of people, which is canonically his own church, exactly the same as you will find in the New Testament and every Christian historical document until the Protestant reformation, when groups broke off and changed or stopped ordinations in their own churches. The catholic churches continue this same ordination, to this day. (Available on youtube now for anyone to see.) What more evidence would you like? In addition to this, Jesus promised that the gates of hell would not prevail against His Church, and promised not to leave us as orphans. Certainly we believe what Jesus taught.

Some Catholics see signs of the apostasy spoken of in Thessalonians as now, given the state of a secular world that is based on relativism. However there is no description or prophesy of a total apostasy as Mormons believe. To believe priesthood authority was lost is to believe the Apostles failed in their commission. One would have to view the Apostles and what they experienced in a strange sort of way n order to believe this. Let alone history, that shows clearly they were steadfast in following the Words of Jesus Christ, ordaining Bishops and Priests to replace themselves, as described by St. Ignatius in in 107AD. As therefore the Lord did nothing without the Father, being united to Him, neither by Himself nor by the apostles, so neither do ye anything without the bishop and presbyters. Neither endeavor that anything appear reasonable and proper to yourselves apart; but being come together into the same place, let there be one prayer, one supplication, one mind, one hope, in love and in joy undefiled. This apostolic succession was never lost, and remains in place today, every Bishop able to trace back very far the line of apostolic succession, which is sacramental, a sanctifying grace of the Holy Spirit. The first clergy ordained by the laying on of hands by the Apostles themselves, this being the Sacrament we call Holy Orders. They ordained successors, to this day. Apostolic succession being of major importance in the Catholic Church. The argument used against heresies that arose, such as Arianism, that there was in them no apostolic succession. The Mormon view is this was completely loss, but given the importance it has always had, from the very beginning, and the historical evidence of Apostolic succession, a claim otherwise would require evidence. So while you may say LDS teaching is that there is good in a lot of places, the teaching remains that none of this "good" is ecclesiastical. This is denying the role of God in His own Church, requiring a view that Jesus Christ, through the Holy Spirit, failed in keeping His own Body alive. You may see "good" but you don't see what is more important, and that is the workings of the Holy Spirit through the ages, the continuing existence of the Catholic Church only possible by the graces given to her. Given the trials she has been through, from within and without, there isn't any other way to explain the continuity of faith, the very faithful who have given witness of the Truth of Jesus Christ. The profession of His death, resurrection and our faithful watch for His return. All,of this would not exist today, we're it not for the Holy Spirit guiding what belongs to Jesus.

Thank you for the explanation. A few points to clarify, the Church that Christ established is the Kingdom of God on earth, united by Christ to the Kingdom of God in heaven. This is the basis of the doctrine of the communion of saints. There is but one faith, one baptism, one Lord. Christ established the Kingdom of God on earth. It is here now, visible in His Church, and His Body, which are the baptized. My understanding is that Mormons are still waiting for Christ's Kingsom to be established, so in this view, the Mormon understanding of "Church" is seriously flawed. Who is the Body of Christ to a Mormon? The idea that there was a "church" in the OT is not founded on anything scriptural. The OT prophecies of the establishment of the Kingdom of God, it never speaks of it being present to Noah, Moses or anyone else. This is because it was not yet established. It is prophesied to be established by the Messiah. So to claim it was established before the Messiah....I wouldn't even know where that idea would come from. I have already known that Mormonism has a skewed view of the OT, and God's saving grace. God is eternal and ever present. People wander, but the clear message of the OT is God never abandons His people. Many, many times God's Mercy is revealed, His Final and Perfect Mercy revealed in Jesus Christ, who is the fulfillment of the prophecies and promises of the old testament. He is the New and Everlasting Covenant. I have never read any LDS material that shows even a glimmer of an understanding that the OT relates salvation history. Rather, I find only an idea that the OT relates a history of apostasy. It is this skewed view that the idea of a great apostasy arises from. Rather than seeing God's work and glory, you see failure, expect failure. It is a skeptical way to see the world. His greatest work is made in us and through us, not around us. We are all sinners, in need of Salvation. God Saved us in our sin. The Mormon view has to deny the work of God. There is no other way to make the conclusions made by LDS without taking that stance. This is not unique to Mormonism, it is a view of Protestants as well, just the ad hoc date given for the complete failure of Christ's Church is different. You must understand, from a Catholic view, a claim that priesthood authority was lost is at best naive, at worse, ludicrous. There is no evidence for a claim, and mountains of evidence otherwise. As for Mary and apparitions, this is not the first time a response to me has tried to make a comparison that cannot be made. The Marian apparitions are verified by either a large number of witnesses, such as at Fatima, or by miracles, signs that the person or persons were not making up a story, such as Our Lady Of Guadalupe and Juan Diegos's tilma. They also must be tested against the faith of the Church, at cannot be at odds with what has already been revealed by Jesus Christ. Lacking in any of these properties, an apparition is a personal revelation, and no one is bound to believe personal revelation as binding on the Church. At any rate, such apparitions are not dogmas or doctrines that must be believed. A person can be a devout Catholic, and never personally accept these apparitions. This is not the case for the Mormon teaching we are discussing. What we are discussing must be believed in order to be a Mormon. There is a lack of evidence for the claims...that is why I say, it is make believe. There is no evidence, and so appears to me to be believed for no other reason than it brings a level of personal satisfaction or happiness.

St. Augustine was speaking of the Catholic faith, that is centered and sourced in the Eucharist. The Body, Blood and Divinity of Jesus Christ received into ourselves. St. Augustine also clearly rooted in the understanding that the creature does not become the Creator, but becomes by grace what he is not by nature. The sacramental graces imparting sanctifying graces, the first is baptism, where through Jesus Christ we are born in water and spirit as children of God, no longer creatures, but children of the light. We do not become the Light itself. Th sacraments prefigure the life to come, just as the sacrificial lamb prefigures the Lamb of God.

I'm not backing out, I just don't find that these kind of discussions go anywhere. Mormonism has a foundation that our creeds are an abomination and those who profess them are corrupt. (That would be me.)An unfounded myth of a "great apostasy", which all bleeds through in everything Mormons say. Such a belief must deny a lot of facts, faith and the working of Holy Spirit in the Church that Jesus established. Which all looks to me as only possible by pretending people, events, places, experiences, didn't and don't exist. Taken even deeper into make believe when you consider that all the witnesses of faith of Our Lord Jesus Christ need to be turned into a Mormon faith in order to be made valid.

I respect the inherent dignity given to you by God, that gifts us with the desire to seek Him, and the gift to do so in freedom. This doesn't mean that I can't judge something as having an irrational foundation, which is what I mean by "silly". Limbo is a subject that is thought about, theologically speaking, and has had different conclusions. Jesus teaching baptism is required, yet, Apostolic teaching that the saving grace of Jesus can extend to the non-believer. So it isnt a struggle, it is a subject that has no further Revelation. Theology is the practice of faith seeking understanding of what has been Revealed by God. Specific to a Christian, Revealed by the Word of God, Jesus Christ. Contrary to the media coverage of the Vatican statement, the teaching of limbo has not changed. It remains, that Jesus taught baptism is required, and within the doctrinal teachings of the graces received in baptism, it wouldn't make any sense whatsoever to withhold baptism from an infant, not any more than it would to withhold food or clothing. Baptism being a joyous occassion, that is celebrated. The beginning of a child's initiation into the Body of Christ and the Kingdom of God. What the Vatican clarifies is that it has always been Church teaching that the saving grace of Jesus Christ is the source, the very hope, of salvation for ALL, and so the hope for salvation of infants who have died without baptism, is the same hope we all have. This hope not being of the type that is wishing for something to happen that may or may not happen, it is a sure hope, Hope having a name, Jesus Christ. At the same time Catholics are very careful about sins against the Holy Spirit. One being, the belief and associated actions that are based on thinking one can do whatever they like, and then just seek forgiveness. This is the sin of presumption. The other is, thinking that ones's sins are so terrible, that they can never be forgiven. This sin denies Jesus Christ. This is not to say, an infant need worry about actual sin, but that the Church has a responsibility to lead people to Christ. That is the reason for her existence, and is her sole mission, as commissioned by Jesus Christ.

*shrug* all things that are known and taught to any Catholic that has spent even a small amount of time studying their faith. Mormons come from a Protestant tradition and make Protestant arguments, which are not new, have been addressesed, and at the root, deny the ability of Jesus Christ to keep His own Church in tact. It isn't a Carholic view. We believe Jesus Christ has never orphaned what is His.

Thinking on the Mormon perspective as presented on this forum, and with all respect, there seems to be a lot of make believe going on in order to prop up faith. Ignoring the witness of 2000 years of the faithful is pretty astounding, to take that further and claim those faithful were really aspiring Mormons is just plain make believe. Silliness, really. Which might be interesting to poke at, but can't be taken seriously. I think I've done enough poking, don't want to waste my time or that of people here. Peace.

As I said, the patristics were Catholic, most certainly weren't Mormon, which didn't exist until 200 years ago. There is a risk of sophistry when pulling out what you want to believe, disregarding the teachings as a whole. Dishonest looking to the people and traditions to whom the writings testify about and to. If Mormonism were a true religion, it should be able to stand on its own claims, and not need to build itself by ripping Catholic sources into pieces.

Constantine was on the side of Arius. He was baptized on his death bed by an Arian Bishop, who he had relied on throughout his life for council. So if the council had gone the way of Constantine, Arianism would have prevailed. It didn't, all the Bishops present (about 300) were in agreement on the nature of Jesus Christ, but 5, one of whom was Arius. The council was then comprised of Eastern Bishops, with a legate representing the congregation of the Western Bishops. The West having already rejected Arius and his heresies long before the council was held. Arius had been excommunicated by his Bishop in the west, and so had taken his teachings east. It should be noted that excommunication in the Catholic Church is rare. As for metaphysics, it isn't used to create doctrine, it is used to describe it. God created us with the ability to reason. Faith and reason are not in opposition, both being gifts that God has given us. The Holy Spirit guides and protects Christ's Church, and has done so since Jesus established it. St. Jerome didn't decide the canon of the Bible, it had been decided before his time. He translated the canon into Latin. The canon itself wasn't completely set until the council of Trent. In response to the Protestants who were removing books from the OT, the council declared that books could not be removed or added to the canon as it had existed at that point for about a 1000 years, unchanged. As for where which books are in the Bible, or not. The Catholic Bible consists of the OT as it was used at the time of Christ, in Jerusalem, which was the Greek Septuagint. The NT came into being over time, the writings known as the four Gospels and the letters of St Paul, the Johannine corpus and the letters of St. peter. These had been copied and shared among the churches. These, along with Sacred Tradition, is what comprise the faith handed on. Hebrews and James were the most controversial, some churches not using them. In some of the Eastern churches you will find a different canon, such as the Coptics, who have included books that the western churches and most of the eastern churches do not. This doesn't cause concern, as the Apostolic faith is what is important to all Catholics, east and west. Sacred scripture and sacred tradition are the two ways in which the Gospel of Jesus Christ is revealed. Our scripture, being a part of sacred tradition. Non-canonical writings are valued, and used, as well as patristics writings, because they contain and convey sacred tradition, but they are not considered scripture.

Ever since the creation of the world, his invisible attributes of eternal power and divinity have been able to be understood and perceived in what he has made. As a result, they have no excuse; for although they knew God they did not accord him glory as God or give him thanks. Instead, they became vain in their reasoning, and their senseless minds were darkened. While claiming to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for the likeness of an image of mortal man or of birds or of four-legged animals or of snakes. (Romans 1:20-23) I'm not trying to insult, but this is what I see in Mormon thought. I found this article, written by a Lutheran pastor. I think it sums up well the differences I am seeing. Christianity is based on the theology of the Cross, Mormonism is based on the theology of Glory. The Theology of the Cross: Cross-Shaped Theology by Todd Wilken The foundational beliefs between Mormonism and Christianity are beyond divergent and I can't see where there is any area of agreement. I don't see any reason to stick around just to hit this fact over and over again. Peace.

What? That question doesn't make sense. God is God. I'm kind of seeing an idea here that Mormons think they are gods. You are not.

Yet, Origen was Catholic, believing and speaking of the Real Presence of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist. And so, Origen is not speaking of the Mormon concept of deity, but of the Carholic, which is, we become by grace what we are not by nature. This being prefigured in the Eucharist. Pagan converts to Christianity held anthropomorphic beliefs, some for a long time after their conversin to Christ. To make God in the image of oneself is considered a form of idolatry, and always has been.

As already stated Genesis, and then also Psalm 148. It is also obvious, by reason, we do not have the attributes of God. We are not All Powereful, infinite and eternal. We are created. God begets God, God creates man, man begets man. God did not beget man. The only begotten of God is Jesus Christ. True God from True God. God is God, and the belief that man is a god is the innovation.

No, I didn't post that and it is not belief or doctrine. What you just wrote is a categorical error. God is God, man is not, no matter what pieces you break us into. We are made in the image and likeness of God. We are not God.