Nature of God and man

[madeleine1]

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.

Edited January 10, 2012 by madeleine1

[rameumptom]

Now Madeleine, if you are going to stand up for the Catholic faith, please do so without lying. The Catholic faith did not always believe that non-believers could be saved. In fact, St Augustine taught that small children who never were baptized would go to hell.

While John Paul II sought a union between the Roman and Orthodox Churches, it hasn't always been so. For centuries, they condemned each other. Each sought the body of Christ to have surgery to remove the other lung.

LDS profess Christ to be Savior and Lord, yet according to recent Catholic statements, we are not considered to be under this communion. They do not recognize our baptism, as they do for Protestant baptisms. Which is another interesting issue regarding priesthood authority - why have it, if the communion of baptism is accepted from almost any break-away religion that only professes a "priesthood of believers"?

Bible history shows that God does not "protect and guide" his Church during times when the people are in rebellion. God destroyed the entire earth over rebellion with the Flood. At Mt Sinai, the people rebelled and the Lord was ready to destroy all of them except Moses, until Moses plead for them. God wiped the Lost Tribes off the known earth. There were long periods of time when Israel did not have prophets, such as the 400 years after Malachi. Jesus restored the Melchizedek Priesthood and higher laws in his day, which were lost by an apostate Israel. Judah was carried off three times for apostasy (600 BC, 70 and 135 AD).

The scriptures foresee apostasy in the future. We have evidence that the Bible we have today is incomplete, just by looking at the hundreds of books found amongst the Dead Sea Scrolls that were once considered holy. We also have books like Enoch and the Shepherd of Hermas, which were once considered holy by early Christians, but rejected by St Jerome in compiling his Bible list.

Was it a complete apostasy? Of course not. The Holy Spirit was still around to guide people willing to listen to it. But many things were rejected by Christianity, which required a restoration of ancient things. These things were not being restored by the Catholics or Protestants. Concepts such as deification, theophany, the divine council of heaven, continuing revelation, prophets and 12 apostles, etc. The Christian Church went from playing all 88 gospel keys in Jesus' day to playing half of them in the days of the Reformation. And Reformers like Martin Luther recognized this. In fighting indulgences, which the Catholic Church later recognized as a valid problem, Martin Luther showed just one area in which the Church had fallen a little bit from grace. Other reformers tried making sense of more things, as well. In the end, it required a restoration, and not just a reformation, to bring back lost things.

There IS evidence for many of Joseph Smith's claims. Yes, he was alone for the First Vision, but to draw the line there is to miss decades of revelations and miracles he experienced with others. There are several other witnesses to the gold plates of the Book of Mormon. Others were with him (such as Sidney Rigdon and Oliver Cowdery) when Christ and other angels appeared on various occasions. During the Kirtland Temple dedication, the Mormons experienced a day of Pentecost, when hundreds inside and outside the temple saw angels, spoke in tongues, prophesied, and some even saw Jesus.

Oliver Cowdery was with Joseph Smith when they both were ordained, first by John the Baptist, and later by Peter, James and John. So, we have evidence of many witnesses.

BTW, Catholic history sometimes gets difficult in regards to priesthood line of authority. For example, there once were three official Popes, each excommunicating one another. Just where did the line of authority go to then? It took a political action by national leaders in France, Germany and Italy to fix the problem. One Pope wrote his own version of the Bible, the next Pope condemned it. One Pope cut the blessing fingers off the right hand of his predecessor.

Jesus promised the gates of hell would not prevail against Peter. It does not say it would not prevail against the Church, as the Lord always allows mankind to choose apostasy if they wish. That said, gates of hell did not fully prevail against the Christian Church anciently. It did bang up the Church, causing it to lose many precious doctrines and covenants. But a form of Christianity still existed through the centuries. For that, we are blessed for the work of good Catholics and Protestants over the centuries for trying to preserve what they could, given how much had already been lost previously.

Note, I do not claim this to negate the belief of Catholics, as I know all history is messy at times. But it isn't as neat and clean as you make it out to be, Madeleine.

[Shelly200]

LDS profess Christ to be Savior and Lord, yet according to recent Catholic statements, we are not considered to be under this communion. They do not recognize our baptism, as they do for Protestant baptisms. Which is another interesting issue regarding priesthood authority - why have it, if the communion of baptism is accepted from almost any break-away religion that only professes a "priesthood of believers"?

I believe the RCC does not recognize LDS baptisms because the LDS church does not hold to the most basic of RCC doctrines, such as the Trinity, creation ex nihilo, etc. To the RCC, these basic doctrines must be believed in order for a baptism to be valid. Since the LDS church does not believe them, their baptisms are not valid in the RCC. It's pretty much that simple. The Catholics aren't trying to be mean or anything; they simply have a list of requirements for valid baptisms and the LDS church does not meet that list. Most (NOT ALL!) Protestants meet that list -- Oneness Pentacostals & Seventh Day Adventists, for example, do not have valid baptisms under the RCC).

Bible history shows that God does not "protect and guide" his Church during times when the people are in rebellion. God destroyed the entire earth over rebellion with the Flood. At Mt Sinai, the people rebelled and the Lord was ready to destroy all of them except Moses, until Moses plead for them. God wiped the Lost Tribes off the known earth. There were long periods of time when Israel did not have prophets, such as the 400 years after Malachi. Jesus restored the Melchizedek Priesthood and higher laws in his day, which were lost by an apostate Israel. Judah was carried off three times for apostasy (600 BC, 70 and 135 AD).

I don't think anyone will dispute that the Church has gone into apostasy during periods of Salvation History. The point of dispute is that there was always a remnant. I think most non-LDS have a problem with LDS who say there was a total apostasy-which I have heard many LDS claim. This is the issue most non-LDS have.

The scriptures foresee apostasy in the future. We have evidence that the Bible we have today is incomplete, just by looking at the hundreds of books found amongst the Dead Sea Scrolls that were once considered holy. We also have books like Enoch and the Shepherd of Hermas, which were once considered holy by early Christians, but rejected by St Jerome in compiling his Bible list.)

In the RCC, we recognize that there will be apostasy in the future as well. In fact, we recognize that there is apostasy now (technically, any church that has split from the RCC is in apostasy in the RCC mindset). There's no argument here either.

However, I would say that most Catholics... and probably ALL Protestants think the Bible is complete as is. (This is a major doctrine of Protestant sola scriptura: the Bible is full, complete, inerrant, and all that is necessary for salvation.) Catholics revere other books, look to the extra-Biblical writings, as well as the writings of the Church Fathers and Saints, but believe that the Bible doesn't need adding to, that the Holy Spirit directed its compiling, and that all the books (and only the books) that God wanted included were included. (It is important to note also that St. Jerome bowed to the Authority of the Church, and understood that they, and not he, had the Authority to decide which books made the cut.)

There IS evidence for many of Joseph Smith's claims. Yes, he was alone for the First Vision, but to draw the line there is to miss decades of revelations and miracles he experienced with others. There are several other witnesses to the gold plates of the Book of Mormon. Others were with him (such as Sidney Rigdon and Oliver Cowdery) when Christ and other angels appeared on various occasions. During the Kirtland Temple dedication, the Mormons experienced a day of Pentecost, when hundreds inside and outside the temple saw angels, spoke in tongues, prophesied, and some even saw Jesus.).

I would personally love to discuss more about Joseph Smith and his visions, but I feel this thread isn't the place. However, sufice it to say that most non-LDS find enough faults/inconsistencies/problems with the Joseph Smith revelations to have them not believe him to be a true prophet. This can be debated at length forever... LDS will believe him, non-LDS will not. Many people did not believe Jesus to be the Messiah either, so the LDS have that going for them if they want. And yet, non-LDS can also point to Muhammed and Ellen G. White too. This is probably a losing battle... a person has to be significantly convinced that Smith was a prophet in order to be LDS.

BTW, Catholic history sometimes gets difficult in regards to priesthood line of authority. For example, there once were three official Popes, each excommunicating one another. Just where did the line of authority go to then? It took a political action by national leaders in France, Germany and Italy to fix the problem. One Pope wrote his own version of the Bible, the next Pope condemned it. One Pope cut the blessing fingers off the right hand of his predecessor.

Actually... there has always been only one pope at a time. However, there have been times when there has been one pope and one or more *false* popes. The story is told by Catholics in one way, and by non-Catholics in another. But to the RCC, there has always been one legitimate and true pope.

Jesus promised the gates of hell would not prevail against Peter. It does not say it would not prevail against the Church, as the Lord always allows mankind to choose apostasy if they wish. That said, gates of hell did not fully prevail against the Christian Church anciently. It did bang up the Church, causing it to lose many precious doctrines and covenants. But a form of Christianity still existed through the centuries. For that, we are blessed for the work of good Catholics and Protestants over the centuries for trying to preserve what they could, given how much had already been lost previously..).

This is also a point that can be debated at length, with neither side getting anywhere.

To the RCC: Peter is the Church. He is Christ's representative on Earth after Christ leaves. So Peter and the Church are the same. *Individuals* and *groups of individuals* can apostasize from the Church, but the entire Church cannot go into apostasy. Christ's Church cannot be wiped out. And when Christ said the gates of Hell would not prevail against the Church, He did not mean "in the end," He meant "ever." In the RCC mindset. Once again, this can be discussed at length in and of itself.

This is just a couple of my thoughts on the subject. Maybe it will lend to the discussion.

And just to note, the LDS church history is not very neat and clean either. We can't argue over who has the perfect church with the perfect people... because no one does.

[Guest]

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.

A recent proclamation. Valid Apostolic Succession as far as the Catholics are concerned is through the throne of Peter and the seat of Rome. Communion with the Orthodox did not happen until post Vatican II and it presupposed that the Orthodox churches acknowledge that the Roman Pontiff leads all of them. And even then Anglicans are excluded. Some Orthodox churches are only in partial communion including the Protestants.

How long have you been Catholic? It doesn't seem like you've been a Catholic long.

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.

I thought it was a rhetorical question. There's no difference between definitions of the Body of Christ between Catholic and LDS. The Body of Christ is His Church. Jesus is the Head, the Church is the Body.

The difference is - you believe that the One Holy and Apostolic Church is the Catholic Church. Of course, the LDS don't. We believe that the Body of Christ is the seat of the Holy Priesthood which, today, is held by the LDS Church. But, the Body of Christ is not a mortal concept. It's an eternal concept. We believe in pre-mortal existence and we believe that the work continues past the veil of death. All people - even those who live in the mountains of Coldiliera who has never heard of the name Jesus before will have the opportunity to join the Body of Christ after death. Because, madeleine, baptism is NOT OPTIONAL.

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.

Like I said, you have not been Catholic long or you never studied your own Church's Doctrines or you are not really a Catholic.

Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus. Remember that from Catechism? How about Bull Cantate Domino of Pope Eugene IV. This doctrine has been in existence in the Catholic Church and still exists until today. In Bull Cantate Domino, Pope Eugne IV proclaims ex cathedra:

"The Most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, also Jews, heretics, and schismatics can ever be partakers of eternal life, but that they are to go into the eternal fire 'which was prepared for the devil and his angels' (Mt. 25:41) unless before death they are joined with Her... No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ can be saved unless they abide within the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church."

Maybe you need to study Catholicism more, madeleine.

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.

You're not offending me. Unlike Catholic Answers Forum that bans people (yep, me included) for trying to explain non-Catholic faith and declare it proselyting, we welcome learning here on LDS.net.

And for your information, Joseph Smith was not alone when John the Baptist conferred the priesthood on his head. Oliver Cowdery was with him and he received his priesthood in the same manner on the same day.

And, it's kinda silly for you to say "we believe in this vision without evidence" when you're a Catholic who claims a history of Marian Apparitions. It's like the pot calling the kettle black.

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?

The number of witnesses to an ordination does not make the ordination valid. Only God makes it valid - and there does not have to be a single person in witness for God to make it valid. He ordained Moses in this manner, the Apostle Paul in the same manner.

And since you're not well-versed on Catholic History, I'm not going to expound on the times of persecution when the Papal seat was in chaos. You can read up on it from your trusted Catholic sources so you will know I'm not just making it up.

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.

Like I said multiple times before (I guess you don't read my posts), the Church is not a mortal ministry. It is an ETERNAL ministry. The Priesthood may not be on earth but it still continues to exist in the hands of the Saints past death. Paul did not receive his priesthood from the hands of man - he received it straight from Christ - after Chirst's death. And just like Jesus Resurrection from death on the cross, the Body of Christ is not put asunder by DEATH nor SIN.

Edited January 10, 2012 by anatess

[Shelly200]

And, it's kinda silly for you to say "we believe in this vision without evidence" when you're a Catholic who claims a history of Marian Apparitions. It's like the pot calling the kettle black.

I just wanted to chime in one thing. You give good explanations for the LDS side of the discussion, and know a lot about Catholicism, which helps with ecumenism. But it is important to note that members of the Catholic Church are not required to believe in any of the Marian apparitions. The Church investigates them and says whether or not they *could* be valid, but does not force any members to believe they ever happened at all, because they were *private* revelations/apparitions. No members of the Church are required to believe in someone else's private revelations/apparitions. Even events that had hundreds and thousands of witnesses aren't required for any member to believe.

Whereas it is the most basic piece of LDS doctrine that Joseph Smith had a vision of God and Jesus when he was alone in the woods. So, to a Catholic, this can seem strange.

I personally don't fault anyone who believes Smith's vision, or anyone who believes in any of the Marian apparitions. To each his/her own. The difference, though, is that one church lets it's members decide for themselves if they want to believe them or not, and the other church requires belief in its founder's private revelation as a main point of basic dogma.

So, in the end, I can see how Madeleine1 would see a problem with this. And I don't think it's really comparable to Marian apparitions.

... but other than that, you make some good points.

[rameumptom]

Shelly, that may be true, but the Catholic church also has considers itself to have an important role in checking out all claims. Then, they have the process of beatification and sainthood. This is pretty much putting an official stamp of approval upon such saints, whether a person has their personal one or not.

When I was on my mission in Bolivia, my companion and I went to experience the celebration of the Virgin of Urkupina. It really was a wonderful experience, with the festivals, the carrying of the Virgin's statue through the town, etc. When we entered the cathedral, I was impressed with the intense focus of the believers. I saw them holding several candles, with hot wax dripping on their hands, showing their love for the Virgin and for their deceased. A side room was filled with candles left, with thousands of burning candles creating such a heat that many of the candles were bent over.

I asked one lady who was praying to please explain the worship to me, so I would understand better. She looked at me stunned and asked if I was a believer. I told her I was a tourist. She told me I needed to leave the cathedral, because the Virgin would curse any unbelievers in the room!

My point is that what is taught in American Catholicism is sometimes very different than in more traditional settings. It IS expected for Catholics to honor and believe in Marian apparitions as part and parcel of their worship. Their devotion causes thousands to crawl for miles on their knees to the Virgin's or saint's church on their special day. That does not suggest that such is just an individual choice, at least among many Catholics in the world today.

That said, I do agree there are differences. The Catholic church is based upon a faith that has not changed in 2000 years. The LDS Church is based upon a restoration of ancient things, necessitating divine apparitions.

However, Madeleine is wrong in attempting to claim that Joseph Smith was the only witness for many of his revelations and divine appearances. Shelly, you show a strong knowledge of Catholicism and a refreshing consideration toward LDS doctrine. I appreciate it.

Sadly, Madeleine tends to "shrug" things off and uses condescending language, rather than logic and any persuasive arguments. Much of it I believe is due to an ignorance of what Mormons actually believe and know. Her example that beyond Joseph Smith there are no witnesses for Mormonism displays that ignorance. Instead of asking a question on whether there were witnesses, she assumed and propounded a concept that is basically wrong. It would be nice if she followed your example and actually engaged the content and context of the discussion.

[rameumptom]

Shelly wrote:

I don't think anyone will dispute that the Church has gone into apostasy during periods of Salvation History. The point of dispute is that there was always a remnant. I think most non-LDS have a problem with LDS who say there was a total apostasy-which I have heard many LDS claim. This is the issue most non-LDS have.

And I actually agree with you on this, Shelly. I do not believe there was a "total apostasy." Otherwise, the Bible would not have been preserved, and there would have been zero believers in Christ over the centuries.

When Doctrine and Covenants 1 states that the LDS Church is the "only true and living Church with whom I, the Lord, am well pleased" I believe it means there are many true and living Churches. However, there is just one that God is well pleased with, or at least in the time when the revelation was written.

I believe all Christian churches may be true and living. How much truth and how much living (i.e, indwelling of the Spirit) they have, differs from faith to faith. Some teach more truth than others. For those closer to the divine truth, they are a notch or two above those that teach less of the truth. They lead people to Christ, faith and repentance. In that, there is no apostasy.

That said, I do repeat what I said earlier regarding certain lost teachings that needed restoration. And because the LDS Church has those restored teachings, it is a notch above in sharing truth and light to mankind.

[Guest]

I just wanted to chime in one thing. You give good explanations for the LDS side of the discussion, and know a lot about Catholicism, which helps with ecumenism. But it is important to note that members of the Catholic Church are not required to believe in any of the Marian apparitions. The Church investigates them and says whether or not they *could* be valid, but does not force any members to believe they ever happened at all, because they were *private* revelations/apparitions. No members of the Church are required to believe in someone else's private revelations/apparitions. Even events that had hundreds and thousands of witnesses aren't required for any member to believe.

Whereas it is the most basic piece of LDS doctrine that Joseph Smith had a vision of God and Jesus when he was alone in the woods. So, to a Catholic, this can seem strange.

I personally don't fault anyone who believes Smith's vision, or anyone who believes in any of the Marian apparitions. To each his/her own. The difference, though, is that one church lets it's members decide for themselves if they want to believe them or not, and the other church requires belief in its founder's private revelation as a main point of basic dogma.

So, in the end, I can see how Madeleine1 would see a problem with this. And I don't think it's really comparable to Marian apparitions.

... but other than that, you make some good points.

Shelly, you are very correct in this.

Filipinos have a strong tradition of Marian devotion so many of them hold the impression (having never heard anything to the contrary) that the Church validated Apparitions (Lourdes, Fatima, Guadalupe) is a requirement of faith. Devotions related to these apparitions are constantly encouraged at the pulpit in the Philippines. I don't remember it being different in the Catholic Churches I attended in the US - although I've only regularly attended 3 different ones.

Regardless, the Church's validation of Lourdes, Fatima, and Guadalupe do put them as "worthy of belief" in the same sense that the LDS Church rose out of the "First Vision" after rigorous attempts to prove/disprove the claim (which, when it comes to matters of faith, is not possible - because try as we might, we can't prove that God is who we say He is, let alone that Jesus is God, let alone that He wants us to do such-and-such - it's all a matter of faith). So the best anyone can do is validate the claim as "worthy of belief".

As to madeleine - if she doesn't believe in any of the Marian apparitions, then you are completely correct, but if she does, I still have a leg to stand on.

But your smart pointing to the difference - one being a foundation of faith, the other not - is a very valid point that requires mention that puts mine at a disadvantage. What would be a better comparison is the Catholic belief in Jesus' apparition to Paul on the road to Damascus.

[Guest]

And just to note, the LDS church history is not very neat and clean either. We can't argue over who has the perfect church with the perfect people... because no one does.

THIS is the difference between a "Shelly" and a "Madeleine". There is no "perfect" Church. There is a "True and Complete" Church. But - who gets the claim on that is a matter of faith - not a matter of debate. Every discussion, therefore, shouldn't be a "I'm right, you're wrong". Every discussion should be - "This is what I believe in, this is what you believe in".

Really, there is only one way for one person to determine which one this Church is - and that is to follow the advice of James 1:5, diligently seek the truth, with humility and complete trust that God, through the promptings of the Holy Spirit will show the way.

This is what I'm teaching my children. They are brought up in the LDS Church because that's where my faith is - but I make it clear to them that eventually, they will have to study, kneel down, and seek the truth for themselves.

[Shelly200]

They are brought up in the LDS Church because that's where my faith is - but I make it clear to them that eventually, they will have to study, kneel down, and seek the truth for themselves.

I love this. If you knew how many Mormons I know who have never actually taken the "Moroni challenge" that they encourage all non-LDS to do, you'd cringe. They simply believe because they were brought up to, not because they sought the Truth themselves.

Even Mormons need to pray to be sure the LDS church is true! Just like every member of every church should!

[Shelly200]

Shelly, that may be true, but the Catholic church also has considers itself to have an important role in checking out all claims. Then, they have the process of beatification and sainthood. This is pretty much putting an official stamp of approval upon such saints, whether a person has their personal one or not.

Yes, the Church has a system for canonization. However, Marian apparitions have nothing to do with canonization. In one way, because Mary has not been canonized: she is not a Saint in the same way we consider, say, Joan of Arc to be a saint. She holds a separate position altogether. And as to those who have seen Marian apparitions... those appearances are not really considered when one is canonized. In order to be canonized a person must have two miracles performed through their intercession (Blessed Kateri Tekakwitha is going to be canonized this year. Another American Saint. I'm very excited about it!) Whether or not Christ or Mary appear to them is of no consequence.

My point is that what is taught in American Catholicism is sometimes very different than in more traditional settings. It IS expected for Catholics to honor and believe in Marian apparitions as part and parcel of their worship. Their devotion causes thousands to crawl for miles on their knees to the Virgin's or saint's church on their special day. That does not suggest that such is just an individual choice, at least among many Catholics in the world today.

It is very true that certain apparitions are widely believed by most Catholics -- no one bats an eye in Mass, even in America, when a priest mentions Fatima or Lourdes or Our Lady of Guadalupe, etc. Most Catholics believe in apparitions if the Church does not deem them heretical. However, my point was that it's not *doctrine*... it might be "expected" in some parts of the world, but disbelieving any and ALL apparitions would not prevent someone from being able to enter the Church.

However, with the LDS church, one cannot become LDS if one does not believe the First Vision. If you don't believe Smith received revelations, private and public, from God, then you can't be Mormon. It is an unchangeable, concrete dogma.

... I can't really think of a good LDS example of this issue... Perhaps things like what God was doing in His mortal life? There are guesses and suggestions, but no hard dogma either way about most things (like, was God a sinner when He was a mortal man?). I'm not sure...

But the dialogue here is good. Perhaps a thread more on Smith and his revelations would be nice...

[Guest]

... I can't really think of a good LDS example of this issue...

There's actually several. During the dedication of the Kirtland Temple, several people testified to strong spiritual experiences. Several people claimed to have seen heavenly beings at the dedication. And even people who were outside of the temple claimed to have seen a pillar of light descend upon the building.

Another instance is the appearance of Jesus Christ at the Salt Lake Temple to Lorenzo Snow.

Belief in these apparitions are not required for any member of the Church.

[madeleine1]

A recent proclamation. Valid Apostolic Succession as far as the Catholics are concerned is through the throne of Peter and the seat of Rome. Communion with the Orthodox did not happen until post Vatican II and it presupposed that the Orthodox churches acknowledge that the Roman Pontiff leads all of them. And even then Anglicans are excluded. Some Orthodox churches are only in partial communion including the Protestants.

How long have you been Catholic? It doesn't seem like you've been a Catholic long.

I thought it was a rhetorical question. There's no difference between definitions of the Body of Christ between Catholic and LDS. The Body of Christ is His Church. Jesus is the Head, the Church is the Body.

The difference is - you believe that the One Holy and Apostolic Church is the Catholic Church. Of course, the LDS don't. We believe that the Body of Christ is the seat of the Holy Priesthood which, today, is held by the LDS Church. But, the Body of Christ is not a mortal concept. It's an eternal concept. We believe in pre-mortal existence and we believe that the work continues past the veil of death. All people - even those who live in the mountains of Coldiliera who has never heard of the name Jesus before will have the opportunity to join the Body of Christ after death. Because, madeleine, baptism is NOT OPTIONAL.

Like I said, you have not been Catholic long or you never studied your own Church's Doctrines or you are not really a Catholic.

Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus. Remember that from Catechism? How about Bull Cantate Domino of Pope Eugene IV. This doctrine has been in existence in the Catholic Church and still exists until today. In Bull Cantate Domino, Pope Eugne IV proclaims ex cathedra:

"The Most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, also Jews, heretics, and schismatics can ever be partakers of eternal life, but that they are to go into the eternal fire 'which was prepared for the devil and his angels' (Mt. 25:41) unless before death they are joined with Her... No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ can be saved unless they abide within the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church."

Maybe you need to study Catholicism more, madeleine.

You're not offending me. Unlike Catholic Answers Forum that bans people (yep, me included) for trying to explain non-Catholic faith and declare it proselyting, we welcome learning here on LDS.net.

And for your information, Joseph Smith was not alone when John the Baptist conferred the priesthood on his head. Oliver Cowdery was with him and he received his priesthood in the same manner on the same day.

And, it's kinda silly for you to say "we believe in this vision without evidence" when you're a Catholic who claims a history of Marian Apparitions. It's like the pot calling the kettle black.

The number of witnesses to an ordination does not make the ordination valid. Only God makes it valid - and there does not have to be a single person in witness for God to make it valid. He ordained Moses in this manner, the Apostle Paul in the same manner.

And since you're not well-versed on Catholic History, I'm not going to expound on the times of persecution when the Papal seat was in chaos. You can read up on it from your trusted Catholic sources so you will know I'm not just making it up.

Like I said multiple times before (I guess you don't read my posts), the Church is not a mortal ministry. It is an ETERNAL ministry. The Priesthood may not be on earth but it still continues to exist in the hands of the Saints past death. Paul did not receive his priesthood from the hands of man - he received it straight from Christ - after Chirst's death. And just like Jesus Resurrection from death on the cross, the Body of Christ is not put asunder by DEATH nor SIN.

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.

[Guest]

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.

Peace.

This is not true in most cases in the Philippines. The Catholic Church is tied to Catholic Schools. The absence of a strong public school system in the Philippines drives majority of the students, Catholic or non-Catholic, into the prolific Catholic School System. Catholic Schools teach everything about Catholicism - everything in catechism as well as historical things outside of catechism and even comparisons with other religions in a class referred to as Religious Education - every single year from Kindergarten all the way through 2nd year of College Education. Yes, the Parish may not have programs for those not attending the school - but usually because everybody who are active in church are in Catholic school or graduated from one. Parishes who have a lot of membership not attending school (usually in the very poor areas who can't afford to have kids go to school past 3rd grade as they join the rest of the family in some semblance of a livelihood) have very strong catechism programs. And there's no such thing as catechesis not strong on doctrine... That's an oxymoron. Catechism teaches nothing else but doctrine.

[madeleine1]

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.

Edited January 17, 2012 by madeleine1

[Jason_J]

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.

Interesting, we see the same thing from quite a few former Latter-day Saints.