Jump to content

Anti-Semitism, super-cessionism and compromise


Magyar

Recommended Posts

I was saddened to come across a thread on this board the other day in which some of the posters, if not out-right anti-Semitic in their comments, came quite close.

That got me thinking. While the Book of Mormon is laudable -- and perhaps unique -- in its chastisement to the Gentiles, "What thanks give ye the Jews for (the Bible they have given you)," it also continues the long Christian insistence that Jews are somehow defective until they embrace Christianity. That Christianity has replaced Judaism - supercessionism.

A year or so ago, our Sunday School teacher, in essence, waved off the Law of Moses as if it were a useless and silly spider web from which sensible people have thankfully escaped. To a pious Jew, the Law is a complex but beautiful thing -- a joy to commit to. The local synagogue in my city has just completed a 15-year study of part of the Babylonian Talmud -- deeply in-depth, far more in depth than we ever go in our brief Sunday School lessons.

So what's my point? Maybe no point. One can't be a Christian, including a Mormon Christian, without accepting Christ as Messiah. One doesn't accept Christ as Messiah without believing that there are valid reasons -- i.e, your salvation -- for such acceptance. Having done so, what then of those who don't?

The Roman Catholic Church, if I understand correctly, has recently said that perhaps God is able to accept people to Him by different covenants. In other words, God's covenant with the Jews is still valid for their salvation. My Mormon faith doesn't seem to offer that option for Jews. We seem linked to the chain of older Christian ideas about them.

Link to comment

I was saddened to come across a thread on this board the other day in which some of the posters, if not out-right anti-Semitic in their comments, came quite close.

That got me thinking. While the Book of Mormon is laudable -- and perhaps unique -- in its chastisement to the Gentiles, "What thanks give ye the Jews for (the Bible they have given you)," it also continues the long Christian insistence that Jews are somehow defective until they embrace Christianity. That Christianity has replaced Judaism - supercessionism.

A year or so ago, our Sunday School teacher, in essence, waved off the Law of Moses as if it were a useless and silly spider web from which sensible people have thankfully escaped. To a pious Jew, the Law is a complex but beautiful thing -- a joy to commit to. The local synagogue in my city has just completed a 15-year study of part of the Babylonian Talmud -- deeply in-depth, far more in depth than we ever go in our brief Sunday School lessons.

So what's my point? Maybe no point. One can't be a Christian, including a Mormon Christian, without accepting Christ as Messiah. One doesn't accept Christ as Messiah without believing that there are valid reasons -- i.e, your salvation -- for such acceptance. Having done so, what then of those who don't?

The Roman Catholic Church, if I understand correctly, has recently said that perhaps God is able to accept people to Him by different covenants. In other words, God's covenant with the Jews is still valid for their salvation. My Mormon faith doesn't seem to offer that option for Jews. We seem linked to the chain of older Christian ideas about them.

Hey again Mag!

I didn't see this thread when I responded in the other. I hope I'll have the chance to share some thoughts, especially as relating to how Catholics might be thinking about this question. No time now though.

3DOP

Link to comment

I was saddened to come across a thread on this board the other day in which some of the posters, if not out-right anti-Semitic in their comments, came quite close.

That got me thinking. While the Book of Mormon is laudable -- and perhaps unique -- in its chastisement to the Gentiles, "What thanks give ye the Jews for (the Bible they have given you)," it also continues the long Christian insistence that Jews are somehow defective until they embrace Christianity. That Christianity has replaced Judaism - supercessionism.

A year or so ago, our Sunday School teacher, in essence, waved off the Law of Moses as if it were a useless and silly spider web from which sensible people have thankfully escaped. To a pious Jew, the Law is a complex but beautiful thing -- a joy to commit to. The local synagogue in my city has just completed a 15-year study of part of the Babylonian Talmud -- deeply in-depth, far more in depth than we ever go in our brief Sunday School lessons.

So what's my point? Maybe no point. One can't be a Christian, including a Mormon Christian, without accepting Christ as Messiah. One doesn't accept Christ as Messiah without believing that there are valid reasons -- i.e, your salvation -- for such acceptance. Having done so, what then of those who don't?

The Roman Catholic Church, if I understand correctly, has recently said that perhaps God is able to accept people to Him by different covenants. In other words, God's covenant with the Jews is still valid for their salvation. My Mormon faith doesn't seem to offer that option for Jews. We seem linked to the chain of older Christian ideas about them.

Sorry to hear about the possible anti-Jewish talk on this Board. Next time notify a moderator.

The gathering of the Jews is a huge tenet of Mormonism, but not supercession. Supercession (the replacement of the Jews) is however a major tenet of Roman Catholicism.

Joseph Smith sent Apostle Orson Hyde to Palestine to bless the land and dedicate it to the Gathering of the Jews. Hyde did so in 1841, on the Mount of Olives, and that dedicatory prayer can be found on Mt Olivet in both Hebrew and English. Meantime, the Mormons gathered to Deseret. The futures of both our peoples are irrevocably intertwined.

Link to comment

The Roman Catholic Church, if I understand correctly, has recently said that perhaps God is able to accept people to Him by different covenants. In other words, God's covenant with the Jews is still valid for their salvation. My Mormon faith doesn't seem to offer that option for Jews. We seem linked to the chain of older Christian ideas about them.

As Mormons we see ourselves as adopted Jews, we are the most pro-Jewish Christian Church I can think of. We have deep respect for the blood descendants of Abraham. Yes, like everyone else they too haven't lived perfectly and did some not so reverent stuff, but so have we all. They will find Christ and his Restored Gospel in there own time and pace, the scriptures tell us that they will eventually accept Christ and until then we respect them as the children of God, his chosen people, and our fellow brothers and sisters of Abraham.

Link to comment

As Mormons we see ourselves as adopted Jews, we are the most pro-Jewish Christian Church I can think of. We have deep respect for the blood descendants of Abraham. Yes, like everyone else they too haven't lived perfectly and did some not so reverent stuff, but so have we all. They will find Christ and his Restored Gospel in there own time and pace, the scriptures tell us that they will eventually accept Christ and until then we respect them as the children of God, his chosen people, and our fellow brothers and sisters of Abraham.

Mormons do not see themselves as from the tribe of Judah (Jews), but their patriarchal blessings nearly always place them in other tribes of Israel. There are a number of evangelical churches which are more pro-Jewish than the LDS.

Link to comment

Mormons do not see themselves as from the tribe of Judah (Jews), but their patriarchal blessings nearly always place them in other tribes of Israel. There are a number of evangelical churches which are more pro-Jewish than the LDS.

Jew refers to all descendants of Abraham just like Israeli, Hebrew, or Israelite does.

Jew has nothing to do with the Tribe of Judah anyway, it comes from the Jerusalem, the city of which hosted the house of the Lord in ancient times.

Who are these "number of evangelical churches" and how are them more Pro-Israel?

Most Evangelical churches I know of are more concerned about converting Jews (and any non Evangelicals) or condemning them as false (if they won't convert).

I must admit I am not an expert of the evangelist faith, but I have never seen or heard of a pro Jewish evangelist church, or a pro any other faith evangelist church.

LDS on the other hand sees the Jews as the covenant people of God, there faith is our faith we are all members of the Abrahamic Covenant. We see our Church as the restored Church of Christ, which Christ was restoring from the Church he set up through his Prophet Moses after the Exodus from Egypt, so LDS is a restoration of Judaism as well as Christianity, since Christianity is a form of Judaism.

Those who try and separate Christianity and Judaism are on a fools errand IMO, the two are the same faith made by the same God. You don't have Christianity without Judaism, we are built on the foundation of Judaism, and we are all convert Jews who accept Jesus as the Christ and the Son of God.

Link to comment

Jew refers to all descendants of Abraham just like Israeli, Hebrew, or Israelite does.

Jew is farily narrow, referring mainly to those who are either of Judah and its confederates, or followers of Judaism. Hebrew is broadest, and Israeli is narrowest. Israeli means someone from the state of Israel, be they Jewish, Christian, Muslim, Druse, or Alawi.

Jew has nothing to do with the Tribe of Judah anyway, it comes from the Jerusalem, the city of which hosted the house of the Lord in ancient times.

Huh? The word Jew doesn't come from Jerusalem, but from Judah. Either the tribe or the kingdom.

Who are these "number of evangelical churches" and how are them more Pro-Israel?

I don't remember the names of specific ones, but there is an umbrella organization by the name of ICEJ. I sort of worked for them for a while in Israel. These evangelical churches campaign a lot for Israel, are politically active on our behalf, and do a lot of fundraising and charitable work.

Most Evangelical churches I know of are more concerned about converting Jews (and any non Evangelicals) or condemning them as false (if they won't convert).

I must admit I am not an expert of the evangelist faith, but I have never seen or heard of a pro Jewish evangelist church, or a pro any other faith evangelist church.

Perhaps most, but there are quite a few who are very pro-Israel and pro-Jews. I've seen and heard of thems scores of times in Israel.

Link to comment

I was saddened to come across a thread on this board the other day in which some of the posters, if not out-right anti-Semitic in their comments, came quite close.

That got me thinking. While the Book of Mormon is laudable -- and perhaps unique -- in its chastisement to the Gentiles, "What thanks give ye the Jews for (the Bible they have given you)," it also continues the long Christian insistence that Jews are somehow defective until they embrace Christianity. That Christianity has replaced Judaism - supercessionism.

A year or so ago, our Sunday School teacher, in essence, waved off the Law of Moses as if it were a useless and silly spider web from which sensible people have thankfully escaped. To a pious Jew, the Law is a complex but beautiful thing -- a joy to commit to. The local synagogue in my city has just completed a 15-year study of part of the Babylonian Talmud -- deeply in-depth, far more in depth than we ever go in our brief Sunday School lessons.

So what's my point? Maybe no point. One can't be a Christian, including a Mormon Christian, without accepting Christ as Messiah. One doesn't accept Christ as Messiah without believing that there are valid reasons -- i.e, your salvation -- for such acceptance. Having done so, what then of those who don't?

The Roman Catholic Church, if I understand correctly, has recently said that perhaps God is able to accept people to Him by different covenants. In other words, God's covenant with the Jews is still valid for their salvation. My Mormon faith doesn't seem to offer that option for Jews. We seem linked to the chain of older Christian ideas about them.

IMNSHO you have some serious misunderstandings about Mormon teachings.

Link to comment

IMNSHO you have some serious misunderstandings about Mormon teachings.

You think? I think not. We teach that one must accept Christ in order to be saved, as do other Christian faiths. Until one accepts Christ, one is spiritually defective. True or not true?

The Roman Catholic Church has now stated that it may be possible for Jews to obtain salvation by being faithful to their original covenant. In other words, by living as faithful Jews, adhering to the Law of Moses, without taking Christ as their Savior. Do we LDS teach that? I think not.

I agree that we are one of the most philo-Semitic of Christian churches. Orrin Hatch wears a Jewish mezuzah, of all things. But we still insist that Jews will eventually need to accept Christ as Messiah -- that without Him, their faith is defective. That is offensive to them. That, in their opinion, is asking them no longer to be Jews. That is why they resent having their ancestors baptized as LDS by proxy.

And when we teach, as we too often do, that the Law of Moses was nothing more than an ugly, ill-fitting, scratchy wool coat of which we should be glad to be rid, we seem to forget that God gave the Law and that for the believing Jew, it is a joy to live. Just read Psalms 119 -- an ecstatic, monumental hymn of joy for the Law.

I guess I can make my peace with this by noting what TAO and LDS Guy have said: The salvation of all people, whether Jew or Gentile, is in the Lord's hands, how and when it will happen, and until then we all need to be respectful of the faith of all our brothers and sisters.

Link to comment

You think? I think not. We teach that one must accept Christ in order to be saved, as do other Christian faiths. Until one accepts Christ, one is spiritually defective. True or not true?

The Roman Catholic Church has now stated that it may be possible for Jews to obtain salvation by being faithful to their original covenant. In other words, by living as faithful Jews, adhering to the Law of Moses, without taking Christ as their Savior. Do we LDS teach that? I think not.

I agree that we are one of the most philo-Semitic of Christian churches. Orrin Hatch wears a Jewish mezuzah, of all things. But we still insist that Jews will eventually need to accept Christ as Messiah -- that without Him, their faith is defective. That is offensive to them. That, in their opinion, is asking them no longer to be Jews. That is why they resent having their ancestors baptized as LDS by proxy.

And when we teach, as we too often do, that the Law of Moses was nothing more than an ugly, ill-fitting, scratchy wool coat of which we should be glad to be rid, we seem to forget that God gave the Law and that for the believing Jew, it is a joy to live. Just read Psalms 119 -- an ecstatic, monumental hymn of joy for the Law.

I guess I can make my peace with this by noting what TAO and LDS Guy have said: The salvation of all people, whether Jew or Gentile, is in the Lord's hands, how and when it will happen, and until then we all need to be respectful of the faith of all our brothers and sisters.

You are correct on at least one thing: When and under what circumstances the Jewish people might accept Jesus as the Messiah is between them and their Jewish brother Jesus. Another matter should be clear: both Jesus and Paul were Pharisaic rabbis-- that is, they taught the same ethical and moral principles taught by the rabbis of Beth Hillel, which are the same principles contained in the Talmud. That is why his interlocutors so often left Jesus in frustration. He knew the Law better than they did. Jewish Christians do not feel that they are denying their Jewishness when they begin to follow Jesus as their Messiah.

Roman Catholicism may take a politically correct position for public consumption, but the rock hard base of their theology is supercessionism, i.e., they have permanently replaced the Jews as the chosen people of God; their basilicas and cathedrals are analogs of the ancient Temple in Jerusalem, their priests and cardinals have replaced the priests and high priests of that ancient temple of the Jews, and Roman Catholic rites are the replacement for the Jewish rites and ordinances. Those who are Protestant or Mormon, are considered "separated brethren" by Roman Catholic theology, and they will be damned if they do not return to the RC fold.

Link to comment

And when we teach, as we too often do, that the Law of Moses was nothing more than an ugly, ill-fitting, scratchy wool coat of which we should be glad to be rid, we seem to forget that God gave the Law and that for the believing Jew, it is a joy to live. Just read Psalms 119 -- an ecstatic, monumental hymn of joy for the Law.

In the 50+ years I've been a member of this church I have never heard the Law of Moses described as such. And if an individual has done this they did so ignorantly. The church teaches that the Law of Moses was the gospel of Jesus Christ on a more elementary level.

Jesus himself said he came not to overturn the law but to fulfill it. The fact that certain parts of the practice of the Law of Moses were done away with only means that a higher law was now in place and it is what is in the heart that judges. The example of looking at a woman and lusting after her is on the same level as committing adultery shows that the higher law requires more discipline. Animal sacrifice was done away with and replaced with a broken heart and contrite spirit, once again being more internalized as part of the higher law.

The best explanation of the Law of Moses is in Mosiah 13:

27And now ye have said that salvation cometh by the law of Moses. I say unto you that it is expedient that ye should keep the law of Moses as yet; but I say unto you, that the time shall come when it shall no more be expedient to keep the law of Moses.

28And moreover, I say unto you, that salvation doth not come by the law alone; and were it not for the atonement, which God himself shall make for the sins and iniquities of his people, that they must unavoidably perish, notwithstanding the law of Moses.

29And now I say unto you that it was expedient that there should be a law given to the children of Israel, yea, even a very strict law; for they were a stiffnecked people, quick to do iniquity, and slow to remember the Lord their God;

30Therefore there was a law given them, yea, a law of performances and of ordinances, a law which they were to observe strictly from day to day, to keep them in remembrance of God and their duty towards him.

31But behold, I say unto you, that all these things were types of things to come.

Link to comment
Those who are Protestant or Mormon, are considered "separated brethren" by Roman Catholic theology, and they will be damned if they do not return to the RC fold.

I would like to note that LDS cannot be considered "separated brethren" to the RCC since we have no ties whatsoever to the RCC or any other Church. We are not a break away from Catholicism or Protestantism, we are an entirely new faith based in the belief that the truth of the Gospel of Jesus Christ has been restored by the Prophet Joseph Smith.

We cannot qualify as separated brethren because we were never part of any other Church, this makes us the only legitimate threat to the RCC's claims to hold the Priesthood.

This point was wonderfully explained by an anecdote from Elder Orson F. Whitney "Many years ago a learned man, a member of the Roman Catholic Church, came to Utah and spoke from the stand of the Salt Lake Tabernacle. I became well-acquanted with him, and we conversed freely and frankly. A great scholar, with perhaps a dozen languages at his tongue's end, he seemed to know all about theology, law, literature, science and philosophy. One day he said to me: 'You Mormons are all ignoramuses. You don't even know the strength of your own position. It is so strong that there is only one other tenable in the whole Christian world, and that is the position of the Catholic Church. The issue is between Catholicism and Mormonism. If we are right, your are wrong; if you are right, we are wrong; and that's all there is to it. The Protestants haven't a leg to stand on. For, if we are wrong, they are wrong with us, since they were a part of us and went out from us; while if we are right, they are apostates whom we cut off long ago. If we have apostolic succession from St. Peter, as we claim, there is no need of Joseph Smith and Mormonism; but if we have not that succession, then such a man as Joseph Smith was necessary, and Mormonism's attitude is the only consistent one. It is either the perpetuation of the gospel from ancient times, or the restoration of the gospel in latter days."

Protestantism is the separated brethren of the Catholic Church, they left in protest (hence the name protestant) to the corruption of the RCC.

Mormonism on the other hand declares that the RCC never had the authority of God, that it is the best work of men to continue on after the lost of the Apostles and the Keys of the Kingdom in the first century AD. Without the priesthood the RCC couldn't do the work of God since they didn't have the proper authority to do so. The proper authority was restored through the prophet Joseph Smith in 1830, when the Church of Jesus Christ was organized, this Church was later renamed The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints by revelation. So LDS have no link to the RCC besides our use of the Holy Bible which was complied and preserved by the RCC. Even then though we believe that plain and precious truths of the Gospel were lost and needed to be restored through the Book of Mormon and the Joseph Smith Translation of the Holy Bible.

So while you are right that the RCC has tried to replace supperceede Catholics in place of the Hebrews as the chosen people of God and that they see protestantism as lost sheep that need to return to the fold. That same logic cannot apply to there view of the LDS

Church. We are not lost sheep, but the Shepard claiming to have the authority of the fold that the RCC never really had, they would see LDS more as the wolves in sheep's clothings instead of lost sheep.

Link to comment
And when we teach, as we too often do, that the Law of Moses was nothing more than an ugly, ill-fitting, scratchy wool coat of which we should be glad to be rid, we seem to forget that God gave the Law and that for the believing Jew, it is a joy to live. Just read Psalms 119 -- an ecstatic, monumental hymn of joy for the Law.

In the 50+ years I've been a member of this church I have never heard the Law of Moses described as such. And if an individual has done this they did so ignorantly. The church teaches that the Law of Moses was the gospel of Jesus Christ on a more elementary level.

Jesus himself said he came not to overturn the law but to fulfill it. The fact that certain parts of the practice of the Law of Moses were done away with only means that a higher law was now in place and it is what is in the heart that judges. The example of looking at a woman and lusting after her is on the same level as committing adultery shows that the higher law requires more discipline. Animal sacrifice was done away with and replaced with a broken heart and contrite spirit, once again being more internalized as part of the higher law.

I agree completely, as Mormons we cannot reject the Law of Moses as most mainstream Christianity does. Our claims are based on the need of a restored Church of Jesus Christ that is the duplicate of the Church that existed while the Apostles of Jesus Christ walked the Earth. The Church at that time was a Jewish Church, it was lead by Jews and only accepted Jews until revelation came that the gentiles were to be taught the Gospel as well.

To throw away the law of Moses as "nothing more than an ugly, ill-fitted, scratchy wool coat" is not how the Apostles described the Law of Moses, we cannot have a valid claim to be the Restored Church of Jesus Christ is we feel that the Jews and the Law of Moses is not longer needed. Without the Law of Moses we have no Church, Christ built upon the foundation of the Law of Moses. The purpose of the Law of Moses was to prepare the Hebrews for further revelation when the Messiah came, Christ fulfilled parts of the law (such as the laws for animal sacrifice) but he didn't come to destroy the Law of Moses and make a new set of laws.

This is not an LDS doctrine or teaching that the Law of Moses was something we were glad to be rid of, we still base our life around the Law of Moses especially the Ten Commandments. We simply do not follow many of the old punishments and requirments of the Law of Moses because those things have been fulfilled by Jesus. Without the Law of Moses the LDS Church loses the foundation of a number of it's doctrine, LDS couldn't exist without the commandments contained in the Law of Moses, IMO.

Link to comment

How the Law of Moses is actually described:

http://lds.org/scrip...-moses?lang=eng

http://lds.org/scrip...-moses?lang=eng

If someone is claiming the preparatory gospel of the Law of Moses is "nothing more than an ugly, ill-fitted, scratchy wool coat", then they don't understand the Law of Moses or LDS teachings about it.

And if anyone thinks someone is "spiritually defective" (a term I have never heard used in the Church and does not come up in a search on lds.org) based on whether or not one observes the Law of Moses instead of the higher Law of the Gospel, I don't see how they can avoid labeling LDS as "spiritually defective" because we don't currently live completely the higher Law of Consecration.

Link to comment

Well, I actually have heard members in Sunday School speaking of the law of Moses in a somewhat similar fashion to what Magyar mentioned. In fact, I heard it as recently as two weeks ago.

That's unfortunate.
Link to comment

Certainly there are Mormons who are anti-semite, just as there are Mormons who are racist against non whites and Mormons who are anti-Rolling Stones.

What does any of it prove?

That many Mormons are actually wise in the way of detecting over-the-hill, used-up, R&B-wannabe-yutzes who parlayed the Liverpudlians' popularity into an inexplicably long and irritatingly uninteresting yet completely meaningless career spanning too dang many decades.

Link to comment
  • 2 weeks later...

I would like to note that LDS cannot be considered "separated brethren" to the RCC since we have no ties whatsoever to the RCC or any other Church. We are not a break away from Catholicism or Protestantism, we are an entirely new faith based in the belief that the truth of the Gospel of Jesus Christ has been restored by the Prophet Joseph Smith.

We cannot qualify as separated brethren because we were never part of any other Church, this makes us the only legitimate threat to the RCC's claims to hold the Priesthood.

Of course you are correct in absolute terms, but most if not all Roman Catholics would not agree that we are anything but odd Protestants who "claim" to have been founded by revelation in modern times (the priesthood authority came in 1829, by the way), which claim they would declare false. There is a Roman Catholic bishop in Salt Lake City who will say as much to you if you ask him.

Link to comment

Robert F. Smith:

That good Bishop in Salt Lake City is entitled to his wrong opinion.

I've found that it is never a good idea to tell others what they believe.

I think the intended meaning of "separated brethren" for most Catholics is: Christians who don't go to church with us. I would be sure that the bishop knows that Mormons don't have the same historical connections that some other Protestant groups do.

Link to comment

Of course you are correct in absolute terms, but most if not all Roman Catholics would not agree that we are anything but odd Protestants who "claim" to have been founded by revelation in modern times (the priesthood authority came in 1829, by the way), which claim they would declare false. There is a Roman Catholic bishop in Salt Lake City who will say as much to you if you ask him.

Except of course that LDS baptisms are not considered valid by the Catholic Church, while Trinitarian Protestant baptisms are valid.

Link to comment

Those who are Protestant or Mormon, are considered "separated brethren" by Roman Catholic theology, and they will be damned if they do not return to the RC fold.

No, this is not correct. The Catholic Church does not teach that non-Catholic Christians will be damned if they do not return to full communion with the Catholic Church. What the Catholic Church teaches is that salvation is possible outside the visible bounds of the CC, for those that did not know that the CC is the one true church. From the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

"1260 "Since Christ died for all, and since all men are in fact called to one and the same destiny, which is divine, we must hold that the Holy Spirit offers to all the possibility of being made partakers, in a way known to God, of the Paschal mystery."63 Every man who is ignorant of the Gospel of Christ and of his Church, but seeks the truth and does the will of God in accordance with his understanding of it, can be saved. It may be supposed that such persons would have desired Baptism explicitly if they had known its necessity. "

Also, from Unitatis Redintegratio:

3. Even in the beginnings of this one and only Church of God there arose certain rifts,(19) which the Apostle strongly condemned.(20) But in subsequent centuries much more serious dissensions made their appearance and quite large communities came to be separated from full communion with the Catholic Church-for which, often enough, men of both sides were to blame. The children who are born into these Communities and who grow up believing in Christ cannot be accused of the sin involved in the separation, and the Catholic Church embraces upon them as brothers, with respect and affection. For men who believe in Christ and have been truly baptized are in communion with the Catholic Church even though this communion is imperfect. The differences that exist in varying degrees between them and the Catholic Church-whether in doctrine and sometimes in discipline, or concerning the structure of the Church-do indeed create many obstacles, sometimes serious ones, to full ecclesiastical communion. The ecumenical movement is striving to overcome these obstacles. But even in spite of them it remains true that all who have been justified by faith in Baptism are members of Christ's body,(21) and have a right to be called Christian, and so are correctly accepted as brothers by the children of the Catholic Church.(22)

Moreover, some and even very many of the significant elements and endowments which together go to build up and give life to the Church itself, can exist outside the visible boundaries of the Catholic Church: the written word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, and visible elements too. All of these, which come from Christ and lead back to Christ, belong by right to the one Church of Christ.

The brethren divided from us also use many liturgical actions of the Christian religion. These most certainly can truly engender a life of grace in ways that vary according to the condition of each Church or Community. These liturgical actions must be regarded as capable of giving access to the community of salvation.

It follows that the separated Churches(23) and Communities as such, though we believe them to be deficient in some respects, have been by no means deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation. For the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation which derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Church.

Nevertheless, our separated brethren, whether considered as individuals or as Communities and Churches, are not blessed with that unity which Jesus Christ wished to bestow on all those who through Him were born again into one body, and with Him quickened to newness of life-that unity which the Holy Scriptures and the ancient Tradition of the Church proclaim. For it is only through Christ's Catholic Church, which is "the all-embracing means of salvation," that they can benefit fully from the means of salvation.

So, while Catholics believe that the fullness of salvation and truth is only found in the Catholic Church, elements of that truth are found elsewhere, and salvation is possible for non-Catholics.

As far as "separated brethren", I don't think that this includes Latter-day Saints, since the term applies to "men who believe in Christ and have been truly baptized are in communion with the Catholic Church even though this communion is imperfect.", since, from the Catholic perspective, LDS are not validly/truly baptized. Instead, it refers to other Trinitarian Christians.

Link to comment

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...