Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Hi, CCCyou! I'm back and ready to continue our discussion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CCCyou
Well, yes; the Son proceeds from the Father - everything that the Father has he communicates to the Son, except 'being Father' (paternity). This is more deeply explained/detaily in the next section/links.
In Catholic theology, this is called 'spiration' - that the Son proceeds (comes from) the Father - and the Holy Spirit likewise from the Father and the Son.
Here is a link to a 1-page that concisely describes this better than I ever could, along with 'scripture support': https://icucourses.com/pages/025-06-...-three-persons
The next 'lesson' on that link (7) details why the first two Persons are called 'Father' and 'Son' - because the Fathers 'generates' the Son, and the scriptures and support thereof.
Lesson (8) covers the Spiration of the Holy Spirit, and support thereof.
Yes, this circles back to each being a 'distinct person', yet one divine nature; The Father willed (as father) that the Son (as son) act in His personage.
Clear as mud, right? The above links should make it much more clear - if not just let me know.
Thank you for the links. I read through them and I suppose I understand it as well as might be expected of someone who has never had the Father's and the Son's relationship described in those terms. As a matter of fact, I can't even remember ever having heard LDS theology addressing the subject of whether Jesus Christ was "created" or not. I was always taught that Jesus was God's Only Begotten Son and that theirs was a true Father-Son relationship. Terms like "proceeds from" and "generates" are unfortunately not super meaningful to me. The bottom line, for us, is that the Son is equal to the Father in terms of His divinity, but subordinate to His Father in terms of their relationship to one another.
Quote:
Earlier we both mentioned 'private revelation'. I'm curious, is there a web link where I could 'read up' on Joseph Smiths visions, something from an 'authoritative Mormon' source?
There is all kind of stuff on the web but I'd rather review a source without outside bias.
Mormons strongly believe in continuing revelation from God. We believe that the President of the Church (aka the Prophet) has stewardship of the Church as a whole and can therefore receive revelation for everyone in his care. A bishop (who is over a single congregation) has stewardship over his congregation but not over the Church as a whole. Parents have stewardship of their minor children, and are therefore entitled to receive personal revelation as to how to best meet the needs of those children. Neither my husband nor I (who have two grown children) could go to our bishop and tell him that we'd been given a personal revelation concerning our congregation as a whole; the bishop is the only person who could receive such a revelation. If, on the other hand, I was teaching Sunday School to a group of 8-year-old children, I could receive personal revelation as how to best explain a certain doctrine to them. To me, the most important revelation is the revelation I receive myself. I have heard my husband say on a number of occasions, "I think most of religion [i.e., all religions including ours] is man-made. I don't just believe everything I hear taught in church. The only things I really believe are the things God has taught me." And that's what personal revelation is all about. When I speak with conviction about anything I sincerely believe, it is because I feel that God (through the Holy Ghost) has communicated it directly to me. Therefore, I know it's true. That doesn't mean that at some time in the future, my "truth" might not change. I have often told God that I am open to absolutely anything that He wants to teach me and that if I am able to feel the assurance that what I believe is what He wants me to believe, I'll have no trouble believing it, even if it is different from something I believed at some prior point in my life.
Also, I have had two experiences in my life where I actually felt that God was speaking to me directly. Both of these took place within literally seconds after I woke up from being asleep, and I hadn't been even been thinking (or dreaming) about anything relevant to the message He gave me. I cannot say that I heard an audible voice, because I didn't. But I did "hear" and "inaudible voice" as clearly as if I'd hear God's voice booming down for Heaven, saying, "Noah, build an ark!" Both of these messages were single sentences -- one of them instructing me to do something I had never even considered doing, and the other instructing me not to do something I'd fully made up my mind to do. I followed the instructions both times because I didn't feel as if I really had much of a choice. It wasn't me "thinking" something. It was me "hearing" something, and it didn't originate within my mind. It came from outside of myself. These two experiences took place about 25 years apart, and I couldn't just will something like that to happen to me again no matter how hard I tried. At any rate, they convinced me that personal revelation is real.
Regarding Joseph Smith... here's a good link to the official LDS website's article about his "First Vision." Wiki has one brief section addressing the LDS belief in personal revelation that I think is fairly accurate. It says:
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church) teaches that God restored direct revelation as recently as the nineteenth century by way of Joseph Smith and the First Vision. Since then, direct revelation has been the teaching and practice of the LDS Church. It is the belief of the Latter-day Saints that direct revelation is available to all mankind who diligently seek God with sincerity, and real intent.[1] "Every devoted, obedient and righteous person on the earth has and does receive revelation from God."[2]
Personal or private revelations pertains to that person's life. A person can receive personal revelation from God as would God's prophet, but the difference lies in its purpose. This revelation is to edify, enlighten and fill the soul of that person and assist them in their life, both in a general sense and a religious or spiritual sense. A person can receive private revelation for him/herself or for their immediate family, but will not receive this revelation for others outside their family or for the church. This revelation is considered an integral part of the life of the faithful.
Sometimes personal revelation has an effect upon nations or the world, but in a more indirect manner. In this sense God inspires certain people in history to impart knowledge and moral truths. Basically, God "enlightens" the works of certain people that have influence or will have influence upon the world. God apparently enlightened 'great religious leaders of the world such as Muhammad, Confucius, and the Reformers, as well as philosophers including Socrates, Plato, and others. This was to bring whole nations to a higher level of understanding.'"
Lastly, here is a link to a Church-approved article on "The Power of Personal Revelation".
I guess that's all I really have to say at the moment. I hope you've been thinking about the next topic you'd like to discuss.
Thank you for the links. I read through them and I suppose I understand it as well as might be expected of someone who has never had the Father's and the Son's relationship described in those terms. As a matter of fact, I can't even remember ever having heard LDS theology addressing the subject of whether Jesus Christ was "created" or not. I was always taught that Jesus was God's Only Begotten Son and that theirs was a true Father-Son relationship. Terms like "proceeds from" and "generates" are unfortunately not super meaningful to me. The bottom line, for us, is that the Son is equal to the Father in terms of His divinity, but subordinate to His Father in terms of their relationship to one another.
Thanks for looking those links over. On it's own, trying to describe or understand 'the Trinity' apart from what scripture teaches is difficult/impossible, as it's all tied together.
And just to clarify, Catholicism teaches ' the Son is begotten not made' , so Jesus Christ was not 'created' like an angel or a human are (creatures), though 'the Word (Jesus), who was with the Father from the beginning, was made incarnate' .
For me, verses like John 14:23 'if you love me and cooperate with my teaching the Father & I will come to you and dwell with you' repeated multiple times/places in scripture is where the 'rubber meets the road' so to speak;
as well as Matthew 25:35-45 show Christ alive and living - One with us who would be one with Him, more than just in will and in purpose, but in the very act of 'being' and 'living' and 'loving' itself.
Catholics do believe that God, never changes - so terms like 'proceeds' and 'generates' (begotten) are 'ongoing' in action or 'being' - no beginning and no end, thus eternally divine.
From what I've read, I understand in Mormon theology God himself was once a man: if that is so, then where did the first man come from, or the first God?
Quote:
Mormons strongly believe in continuing revelation from God. We believe that the President of the Church (aka the Prophet) has stewardship of the Church as a whole and can therefore receive revelation for everyone in his care. A bishop (who is over a single congregation) has stewardship over his congregation but not over the Church as a whole. Parents have stewardship of their minor children, and are therefore entitled to receive personal revelation as to how to best meet the needs of those children. Neither my husband nor I (who have two grown children) could go to our bishop and tell him that we'd been given a personal revelation concerning our congregation as a whole; the bishop is the only person who could receive such a revelation. If, on the other hand, I was teaching Sunday School to a group of 8-year-old children, I could receive personal revelation as how to best explain a certain doctrine to them. To me, the most important revelation is the revelation I receive myself. I have heard my husband say on a number of occasions, "I think most of religion [i.e., all religions including ours] is man-made. I don't just believe everything I hear taught in church. The only things I really believe are the things God has taught me." And that's what personal revelation is all about. When I speak with conviction about anything I sincerely believe, it is because I feel that God (through the Holy Ghost) has communicated it directly to me. Therefore, I know it's true. That doesn't mean that at some time in the future, my "truth" might not change. I have often told God that I am open to absolutely anything that He wants to teach me and that if I am able to feel the assurance that what I believe is what He wants me to believe, I'll have no trouble believing it, even if it is different from something I believed at some prior point in my life.
Also, I have had two experiences in my life where I actually felt that God was speaking to me directly. Both of these took place within literally seconds after I woke up from being asleep, and I hadn't been even been thinking (or dreaming) about anything relevant to the message He gave me. I cannot say that I heard an audible voice, because I didn't. But I did "hear" and "inaudible voice" as clearly as if I'd hear God's voice booming down for Heaven, saying, "Noah, build an ark!" Both of these messages were single sentences -- one of them instructing me to do something I had never even considered doing, and the other instructing me not to do something I'd fully made up my mind to do. I followed the instructions both times because I didn't feel as if I really had much of a choice. It wasn't me "thinking" something. It was me "hearing" something, and it didn't originate within my mind. It came from outside of myself. These two experiences took place about 25 years apart, and I couldn't just will something like that to happen to me again no matter how hard I tried. At any rate, they convinced me that personal revelation is real.
Regarding Joseph Smith... here's a good link to the official LDS website's article about his "First Vision." Wiki has one brief section addressing the LDS belief in personal revelation that I think is fairly accurate. It says:
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church) teaches that God restored direct revelation as recently as the nineteenth century by way of Joseph Smith and the First Vision. Since then, direct revelation has been the teaching and practice of the LDS Church. It is the belief of the Latter-day Saints that direct revelation is available to all mankind who diligently seek God with sincerity, and real intent.[1] "Every devoted, obedient and righteous person on the earth has and does receive revelation from God."[2]
Personal or private revelations pertains to that person's life. A person can receive personal revelation from God as would God's prophet, but the difference lies in its purpose. This revelation is to edify, enlighten and fill the soul of that person and assist them in their life, both in a general sense and a religious or spiritual sense. A person can receive private revelation for him/herself or for their immediate family, but will not receive this revelation for others outside their family or for the church. This revelation is considered an integral part of the life of the faithful.
Sometimes personal revelation has an effect upon nations or the world, but in a more indirect manner. In this sense God inspires certain people in history to impart knowledge and moral truths. Basically, God "enlightens" the works of certain people that have influence or will have influence upon the world. God apparently enlightened 'great religious leaders of the world such as Muhammad, Confucius, and the Reformers, as well as philosophers including Socrates, Plato, and others. This was to bring whole nations to a higher level of understanding.'"
In my understanding, Catholics believe that thru the apostles, Jesus conveyed the fullness of public revelation necessary for salvation for all.
There may be ongoing interpretation within the church, but nothing that would contradict scripture - just a further illumination of detail.
There is also canon law within the church, that has to do with church administration at the times as necessary - this stuff IS subject to change due to changes in the church due to the times/society/etc.
Private revelation can and has occurred - but again always tested against scripture, and not 'binding' on the entirety of the church, as 'fullness' of public revelation (binding on whole church) is complete.
There are many 'devotions' within the catholic church that originated with private revelations, but these devotions are not binding on every church member, but allowed at the members discretion, once the magisterium has determined that it doesn't contradict recorded scripture or tradition, but rather usually further colorizes/illuminates/enlivens it.
For example, praying a 'Rosary' in Catholicism is a devotion, not a 'requirement to be catholic' -
(though the 'Our Father' (Lord's prayer) and 'Hail Mary' are essentially bible scripture passages about 95%).
Thanks for providing the link to Joseph Smith's first vision. I read it in detail, and I actually find the 'in his own words' account link https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/...s-h/1?lang=eng therein, thru paragraph 27, to be very believable, and likely happened/truthful, as a private revelation. After that it becomes troublesome in my opinion, given all the circumstances. In chapter 69 Smith speaks of a vision where a messenger from heaven descended and ordained him and Cowdery to the Priesthood of Aaron / keys/ 'never to be taken again from the earth until the sons of Levi do offer again...' - didn't Christ Himself hand those to Peter on building His church that 'hades will NEVER overcome' ? When were the keys allegedly lost? Clearly the OT and NT documents the times our Lord did this then. This account doesn't detail - do you have a link to Mormon documents that detail?
Quote:
Lastly, here is a link to a Church-approved article on "The Power of Personal Revelation".
I guess that's all I really have to say at the moment. I hope you've been thinking about the next topic you'd like to discuss.
I haven't had time to read this link yet, but will shortly.
For me, verses like John 14:23 'if you love me and cooperate with my teaching the Father & I will come to you and dwell with you' repeated multiple times/places in scripture is where the 'rubber meets the road' so to speak;
as well as Matthew 25:35-45 show Christ alive and living - One with us who would be one with Him, more than just in will and in purpose, but in the very act of 'being' and 'living' and 'loving' itself.
I would certainly have to agree with you there.
Quote:
From what I've read, I understand in Mormon theology God himself was once a man: if that is so, then where did the first man come from, or the first God?
Let's put it this way: This teaching is not and never has been part of LDS doctrine, although a great many Latter-day Saints do believe it to be true. Several LDS prophets have implied that this is the case, but none of them ever really elaborated on the subject. It's a doctrine that is almost never even mentioned in LDS worship services or in LDS religion classes. Consequently, 99% of what we believe on the subject can be said to be speculative. As to whether or not I believe it, I'd have to say that I'm not only undecided but unconcerned. As you might put it, it's not "where the rubber meets the road."
If, after reading through that material, you'd still like to discuss it further, just let me know.
Quote:
In my understanding, Catholics believe that thru the apostles, Jesus conveyed the fullness of public revelation necessary for salvation for all.
There may be ongoing interpretation within the church, but nothing that would contradict scripture - just a further illumination of detail.
I'd have to say that we believe similarly, with the caveat that the fact that the Apostles may have received and taught all that was necessary for salvation, that doesn't necessarily mean that all of what they knew and taught was preserved or the the integrity of their teachings was not compromised over time.
Quote:
There is also canon law within the church, that has to do with church administration at the times as necessary - this stuff IS subject to change due to changes in the church due to the times/society/etc.
Private revelation can and has occurred - but again always tested against scripture, and not 'binding' on the entirety of the church, as 'fullness' of public revelation (binding on whole church) is complete.
There are many 'devotions' within the catholic church that originated with private revelations, but these devotions are not binding on every church member, but allowed at the members discretion, once the magisterium has determined that it doesn't contradict recorded scripture or tradition, but rather usually further colorizes/illuminates/enlivens it.
For example, praying a 'Rosary' in Catholicism is a devotion, not a 'requirement to be catholic' -
(though the 'Our Father' (Lord's prayer) and 'Hail Mary' are essentially bible scripture passages about 95%).
That's kind of how we see the relationship between doctrine and policy. Doctrines don't change, but are eternal truths. Policies can and do change constantly, as times change and as the needs of the Church membership changes.
Could you maybe tell me a little bit more about the Rosary and Hail Mary? What is reciting them multiple times in succession supposed to accomplish? My son (who was raised LDS but is not longer religious at all) was at one time engaged to a Catholic girl. She didn't go to mass regularly, but did want to attend occasionally, and wanted him to go with her, which he often did. She also wanted to receive Communion every time she attended mass, and was therefore required (I think) to go to confession beforehand. She was pressuring my son to convert, but he was simply not interested in either Mormonism or Catholicism. They were also living together at the time. According to him, she would go to confession, and confess that she and her fiance were having sex. The priest would tell her to recite a certain number of "Our Fathers," and a certain number of "Hail Marys." He would tell her that if she did, she would be absolved of her sin. They'd go home after mass and would have sex again later that night. My son once said to me, "I don't get it. She says these prayers and we go right back to doing what we were doing. At least in Mormonism, repentance means something. Do you this his fiancee was typical of most Catholics? Is there some point to saying these prayers and how does saying them absolve a person from sin. Whatever happened to "Go and sin no more"?
I apologize for going off topic, but since you mentioned those prayers, I couldn't help but recall that situation. I also don't want to come off as being disrespectful, but I really just don't understand the reason behind prayers repeated verbatim several times in succession.
Quote:
Thanks for providing the link to Joseph Smith's first vision. I read it in detail, and I actually find the 'in his own words' account link https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/...s-h/1?lang=eng therein, thru paragraph 27, to be very believable, and likely happened/truthful, as a private revelation. After that it becomes troublesome in my opinion, given all the circumstances. In chapter 69 Smith speaks of a vision where a messenger from heaven descended and ordained him and Cowdery to the Priesthood of Aaron / keys/ 'never to be taken again from the earth until the sons of Levi do offer again...' - didn't Christ Himself hand those to Peter on building His church that 'hades will NEVER overcome' ? When were the keys allegedly lost? Clearly the OT and NT documents the times our Lord did this then. This account doesn't detail - do you have a link to Mormon documents that detail?
This is an interesting topic. As a matter of fact, I got the idea for this thread after participating in EscAlaMike's thread on Apostolic Succession. Your questions here tie very closely to what was discussed in that thread. I'm not sure how closely you followed it. I'll try to explain our position, and I just hope I don't end up writing a novel on it; brevity has never been one of my talents.
So, we Latter-day Saints, like both Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox Christians and Protestants, believe that Jesus Christ personally chose and ordained twelve men to serve as Apostles. They were His closest associates and were almost certainly better acquainted with His teachings than anyone else at that time. Ephesians 2:19-20 says, "Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellow citizens with the saints, and of the household of God; And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone..." In other words, Christ likens the institutional Church (as opposed to the invisible Church) to a building, of which He is the chief cornerstone and the Apostles the foundation. The New Testament frequently refers to "the Twelve," making clear that they were, in fact, an authoritative body with specific responsibilities that no one else had. After Christ's death, as one Apostle died, another was called and ordained by the remaining members of the group. We know of a handful of them by name, since the scriptures do reference them as Apostles. The Apostles called bishops to serve under them over individual congregations, but because the bishops received instruction from the Apostles (and never the other way around), we know that the bishops held an office subservient to that of Apostle.
Ephesians 4:11-14 states, "And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ: Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ: That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive; But speaking the truth in love, may grow up into him in all things, which is the head, even Christ..."
Latter-day Saints take this to mean that this same organization that Jesus established should continue until the Second Coming, and not just for a few decades. Like Catholics, we recognize the importance of a hierarchy operating in the institutional Church, and agree with you that the integrity doctrine cannot be guaranteed if every congregation is left to operate on its own without being given direction and guidance by someone holding a position of greater authority. Protestants, on the other hand, see things differently, but that's a topic for another thread.
So anyway, to us, Apostles are an essential component of Church leadership. We do not believe that bishops are the same as Apostles since both existed in Jesus' day. We believe that Apostles can ordain bishops, but not the other way around. We would agree with you that Christ gave Peter "keys of the kingdom of heaven," with the intention that they not be lost over the ages, but handed down. Now they couldn't be handed down to a bishop, but only to another Apostle. It's entirely possible that some of the later Apostles that were called had once been bishops, but since Christ gave the keys to an Apostle, He expected them to be held only by one of "the Twelve" in the future.
Peter was the first to hold the keys. Who should have succeeded him? We believe another Apostle should have. Whether he ever served as a bishop in Rome following his appointment as an Apostle is something we are not convinced ever happened. But even if it had, it would not indicate that the bishop over the congregation in Rome should succeed him at his death. Of course, by the time Peter died, the Apostles were scattered all over the place and were being held captive and martyred. Logistically, it turned out to be impossible for the Apostles to get together to ordain a successor when one of them died or when Peter died, under the circumstances they were forced to live in.
As to the statement that Hades will never overcome the Church, here's our take on it... In Matthew 16:18, after giving Peter the keys, Jesus said, "and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." We don't believe that He meant that the keys would never be lost. To a first-century Jewish convert to Christianity (i.e., Jesus' Apostles), the "gates of hell" would have meant the "entrance to the spirit world," or the realm of departed spirits awaiting judgment. It wouldn't have had any of the later connotations Christians associated with hell (a place presided over by Satan, a place of evil or wickedness). To us, Jesus' statement would have been understood by Peter and the other Apostles to mean that not even death would stop his gospel from being preached. And that kind of leads us to another topic entirely, which is the state of the spirit following death but prior to the Last Judgment. And I won't go off in that direction at this point. I suspect that the LDS belief in the Spirit World and the Catholic belief in Purgatory have the same ultimate source.
I've probably left out stuff you may be interested in knowing or I may have raised even more questions, but I've rambled on long enough for now.
Quote:
I haven't had time to read this link yet, but will shortly.
No problem. It's not super long. If you want to continue along this current line of discussion, that would be fine with me, or if you'd rather move on to something else of your choosing, that would be okay with me, too.
Hi Katzpur - sorry it took so long, I've had a crazy busy week.
Quote:
Let's put it this way: This teaching is not and never has been part of LDS doctrine, although a great many Latter-day Saints do believe it to be true. Several LDS prophets have implied that this is the case, but none of them ever really elaborated on the subject. It's a doctrine that is almost never even mentioned in LDS worship services or in LDS religion classes. Consequently, 99% of what we believe on the subject can be said to be speculative. As to whether or not I believe it, I'd have to say that I'm not only undecided but unconcerned. As you might put it, it's not "where the rubber meets the road."
If you're interested, the article, "Mormonism and the Infinite Regress of Gods" is as good an explanation of the various points of view held by Latter-day Saints as I've seen.
If, after reading through that material, you'd still like to discuss it further, just let me know.
I read thouroughly thru this link and some sublinks, but didn't delve into BY's infinate regress sublink therein.
I did find it interesting that in Stance #2 is mentioned "immediately after discussing the fact that generation of a son necessarily requires a father, " so it looks like LDS thought does overlap this aspect of the relationship between the Father and Son, even though perspectives differ.
Thanks for providing the link - I certainly do now have a greater understanding of LDS perspective on this, and while it does differ from Catholic perspective - I personally believe that it will take an eternity (in bliss) for each of us coming to to more deeply know and understand God, in His presence!
Quote:
I'd have to say that we believe similarly, with the caveat that the fact that the Apostles may have received and taught all that was necessary for salvation, that doesn't necessarily mean that all of what they knew and taught was preserved or the the integrity of their teachings was not compromised over time.
I've always pondered 'why did God choose that time (2000 yrs ago) to send His Son to teach/give us this message of the gospel, etc'.
It seems if any sooner, too much info/teaching may have been lost or just remained localized;
too much later and there might not have been a crucifixion.
Seems to me He picked exactly the right time for exactly the right reasons.
Thoughts?
Since this is a discussion rather than a debate, I have no problem going over whatever comes up.
In short, the Rosary is a 'fixed' prayer that a group can 'pray aloud together, when together' - that focuses meditation on 20 mysteries that are Christ centered.
Of course it can be prayed alone, and silently as well, as each has it's own benefits.
It ties together meditation, contemplation, praise, honor, and petition, all in one, and more.
The recitation/repetition engages/occupies the physical, in a way that stops it from focusing on 'self' and instead frees the mind to contemplate Christ (hence the 20 mysteries), Love of God, and Love of neighbor (others). 'Resonating with God', as Mystic would put it! Plus where two or more are gathered in My Name, anything you ask ...'.
When I was young and reciting solo, petition was usually for myself, but as I've matured and have received graces, my petitions are almost exclusively for others, which is usually the focus of group rosary, for specific intentions. I still occasionally pray for strength to deal with difficult situations, but stopped praying for selfish things in my early 20's; one of the benefits of being faithful to this devotion.
Jesus told us 'pray always'; for me this is one way.
The Hail Mary is mostly scripture - and is 'fulfilling scripture': 'Henceforth, all generations shall call me Blessed'.
The last sentence, is petition for Her to 'pray for us' - as scripture tells us 'the prayer of a righteous person is powerful and effective'.
IMO, Mary, for her part, always responds 'do whatever He [Jesus] tells you'.
For me, I can attest through many experiences, no other saint has brought me closer to Jesus, than has Mary.
Actually, in Catholic 'confession' - the sins confessed are confirmed forgiven as the priest says the absolution ; the 'assigned penance' (#O.F., #H.M.) are not a 'condition' of forgiveness, rather a token of reparation.
Just like as in any other faith, there are many Catholics who are just 'cultural Catholics', or just going thru the motions; ('these people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me').
Going to mass regularly (EVERY Sunday & HD's) and confession at least once yearly is a minimum requirement for a faithful Catholic. Most Catholics that are faithful do more, much more.
I myself was raised cradle catholic. I too rebelled, and returned.
The rosary is a big part of why I returned - Mary was pointing to Jesus, and I was going the opposite direction at the time, not listening to either.
Quote:
This is an interesting topic. As a matter of fact, I got the idea for this thread after participating in EscAlaMike's thread on Apostolic Succession. Your questions here tie very closely to what was discussed in that thread. I'm not sure how closely you followed it. I'll try to explain our position, and I just hope I don't end up writing a novel on it; brevity has never been one of my talents.
So, we Latter-day Saints, like both Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox Christians and Protestants, believe that Jesus Christ personally chose and ordained twelve men to serve as Apostles. They were His closest associates and were almost certainly better acquainted with His teachings than anyone else at that time. Ephesians 2:19-20 says, "Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellow citizens with the saints, and of the household of God; And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone..." In other words, Christ likens the institutional Church (as opposed to the invisible Church) to a building, of which He is the chief cornerstone and the Apostles the foundation. The New Testament frequently refers to "the Twelve," making clear that they were, in fact, an authoritative body with specific responsibilities that no one else had. After Christ's death, as one Apostle died, another was called and ordained by the remaining members of the group. We know of a handful of them by name, since the scriptures do reference them as Apostles. The Apostles called bishops to serve under them over individual congregations, but because the bishops received instruction from the Apostles (and never the other way around), we know that the bishops held an office subservient to that of Apostle.
Ephesians 4:11-14 states, "And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ: Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ: That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive; But speaking the truth in love, may grow up into him in all things, which is the head, even Christ..."
Latter-day Saints take this to mean that this same organization that Jesus established should continue until the Second Coming, and not just for a few decades. Like Catholics, we recognize the importance of a hierarchy operating in the institutional Church, and agree with you that the integrity doctrine cannot be guaranteed if every congregation is left to operate on its own without being given direction and guidance by someone holding a position of greater authority. Protestants, on the other hand, see things differently, but that's a topic for another thread.
So anyway, to us, Apostles are an essential component of Church leadership. We do not believe that bishops are the same as Apostles since both existed in Jesus' day. We believe that Apostles can ordain bishops, but not the other way around. We would agree with you that Christ gave Peter "keys of the kingdom of heaven," with the intention that they not be lost over the ages, but handed down. Now they couldn't be handed down to a bishop, but only to another Apostle. It's entirely possible that some of the later Apostles that were called had once been bishops, but since Christ gave the keys to an Apostle, He expected them to be held only by one of "the Twelve" in the future.
Peter was the first to hold the keys. Who should have succeeded him? We believe another Apostle should have. Whether he ever served as a bishop in Rome following his appointment as an Apostle is something we are not convinced ever happened. But even if it had, it would not indicate that the bishop over the congregation in Rome should succeed him at his death. Of course, by the time Peter died, the Apostles were scattered all over the place and were being held captive and martyred. Logistically, it turned out to be impossible for the Apostles to get together to ordain a successor when one of them died or when Peter died, under the circumstances they were forced to live in.
As to the statement that Hades will never overcome the Church, here's our take on it... In Matthew 16:18, after giving Peter the keys, Jesus said, "and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." We don't believe that He meant that the keys would never be lost. To a first-century Jewish convert to Christianity (i.e., Jesus' Apostles), the "gates of hell" would have meant the "entrance to the spirit world," or the realm of departed spirits awaiting judgment. It wouldn't have had any of the later connotations Christians associated with hell (a place presided over by Satan, a place of evil or wickedness). To us, Jesus' statement would have been understood by Peter and the other Apostles to mean that not even death would stop his gospel from being preached.
Thanks for sharing your perspective on this.
I'm not an expert on church hierarchy, but I always thought it incredibly interesting how the original 11 apostles decided Judas's successor; didn't they throw dice or something? (after qualifying candidates, and praying of course!).
It seems to me that Jesus left much in the hands of the apostles, Peter even.
Wasn't it Peter even that first (thru a vision) concluded that gentiles also are to be included in Christ's promise/covenant? I know that Paul later reprimanded (to his face) Peter when he personally backslided a little on this.
I don't suspect that the original apostles themselves documented much of anything - most wern't the scholarly type, plus getting caught by Roman or Jewish authorities with clarifying documents in that day and age would have been sure death upon anybody caught holding or named in such, if there were any.
Despite that, there is still a list of Peters' successors named all the way back to Linus (St. Irenaeus in Against Heresies, book3chap3), with exact dates listed from Clement 1 (4-26-88AD) forward.
For me it's hard to look past the extant writings of the early fathers especially of the 1st and 2nd centuries, even before there was a 'bible'.
Quote:
And that kind of leads us to another topic entirely, which is the state of the spirit following death but prior to the Last Judgment. And I won't go off in that direction at this point. I suspect that the LDS belief in the Spirit World and the Catholic belief in Purgatory have the same ultimate source.
I've probably left out stuff you may be interested in knowing or I may have raised even more questions, but I've rambled on long enough for now.
I don't mind taking the discussion is whatever direction that topics come up, since this isn't a 'debate'.
For Catholics, Purgatory is suggested by scripture which states that 'nothing unclean will enter heaven', and Catholic understanding that even if (all) sins are forgiven, there might still be reparation due for the 'damage' due to that that sin, even forgiven.
I'll stop here for now, as you've waited long enough for my reply...
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
