Apologetic Conference Talks

[harfad]

... and I imagine the LDS church would frown on someone receiving Catholic communion and attending the temple (but I guess I don't know that for sure).

Absolutely not. No one would be barred from attending a Mormon temple for taking communion in a Catholic Church.

[Calm]

I was under the impression that active membership in another faith could possibly even lead to xcommunication...or at least it used to.

I'd like to see a reference for your claim, Harfad (CFR)

Edited November 6, 2012 by calmoriah

[mfbukowski]

what if she had received a Catolic baptism sometime in the past?

Well if I have my Catholic doctrine right, her participation in a non-Catholic ceremony require as strong a commitment as getting a temple recommend requires would automatically count as self-excommunication from Catholicism and require at minimum confession and true contrition to be forgiven.

But her actions would show that to be a lie, because the presumption is that she keeps on doing the same thing week after week.

Now if she were a Mormon and believed that the Eucharist was nothing "more" than the LDS sacrament, perhaps she is just ignorant or doesn't care what Catholics think of her. But such behavior would be very sacrilegious from a Catholic pov.

[harfad]

The only people who are barred from partaking of the Mormon Sacrament are Church members who are in transgression according to the judgement of the bishop, and are advised not to partake until they had repented. Non-member visitors are neither encouraged nor discouraged from partaking of the Sacrament. It is left to their own conscience. I have advised non-member visitors who were not sure whether to partake or not, to listen carefully to the words of the prayers, and if they felt comfortable with that to partake, otherwise not to.

[mfbukowski]

I was under the impression that active membership in another faith could possibly even lead to xcommunication...or at least it used to.

I'd like to see a reference for your claim, Harfad (CFR)

Yes it does according to the handbook. You could have a disciplinary council for apostasy for that. So it goes both ways. But perhaps she just attends the Catholic service and takes the Eucharist. That would not make her an active member of the Catholic church

Edited November 6, 2012 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

The only people who are barred from partaking of the Mormon Sacrament are Church members who are in transgression according to the judgement of the bishop, and are advised not to partake until they had repented. Non-member visitors are neither encouraged nor discouraged from partaking of the Sacrament. It is left to their own conscience. I have advised non-member visitors who were not sure whether to partake or not, to listen carefully to the words of the prayers, and if they felt comfortable with that to partake, otherwise not to.

But that is not the question here.

[MiserereNobis]

what if she had received a Catolic baptism sometime in the past?

One not only has to be Catholic to receive communion, but one needs to also be active and faithful and free from mortal sin. Being actively involved in another church would count as a mortal sin -- breaking the first commandment. Here is an example examination of conscience for the first commandment (what someone is supposed to do in order to find sin and then confess it):

First Commandment

I am the LORD your God. You shall worship the Lord your God and Him only shall you serve.

Have I...

• Disobeyed the commandments of God or the Church?
  
• Refused to accept what God has revealed as true, or what the Catholic Church proposes for belief?
  
• Denied the existence of God?
  
• Nourished and protected my faith?
  
• Rejected everything opposed to a sound faith?
  
• Deliberately misled others about doctrine or the faith?
  
• Rejected the Catholic faith, joined another Christian denomination, or joined or practiced another religion?
  
• Joined a group forbidden to Catholics (Masons, communists, etc.)?
  
• Despaired about my salvation or the forgiveness of my sins?
  
• Presumed on God's mercy? (Committing a sin in expectation of forgiveness, or asking for forgiveness without conversion and practicing virtue.)
  
• Loved someone or something more than God (money, power, sex, ambition, etc.)?
  
• Let someone or something influence my choices more than God?
  
• Engaged in superstitious practices? (Incl. horoscopes, fortune tellers, etc.)
  
• Been involved in the occult? (Seances, ouija board, worship of Satan, etc.)
  
• Formally left the Catholic Church?
  
• Hidden a serious sin or told a lie in confession?
  

Notice how many of those would apply to someone who was a temple attending Mormon, which means that such a Catholic would be in a state of mortal sin and should not receive communion.

ETA: mfb is right -- it is self-excommunication (to be excommunicated in the Catholic Church means that you are barred from receiving the sacraments)

Edited November 6, 2012 by MiserereNobis

[harfad]

Calmoriah, without looking it up, joining another church by itself didn't used to be an excommunicable offence, but according to the latest rules (if I am not mistsken) I believe it is. However, partsking of a Catholic communion (as a visitor) I dont believe would be (although viewed from a Cstholic perspective it might be a different story).

[Calm]

Taking it weekly doesn't seem quite like a "visitor" though she might not be viewed as a Catholic if she has not been baptised.

However she does it, it seems to me an example of significant disrespect, either because she doesn't care enough to find out what the rites mean to those providing them or she doesn't care even though she is aware of the 'boundaries' placed upon them and is purely focused on her own experience without regard to what her participation means to the community.

I wonder how many bishops on hearing that someone was partaking of communion weekly would require the individual to choose either the Eucharist or the Temple.

I am all for learning from other faiths, but after MN described the conditions of participation and knowing how Catholics view the Eucharist, it seems to me this behaviour is bordering on blasphemy, if not actual blasphemy.

Edited November 6, 2012 by calmoriah

[harfad]

OK, I haven't been reading the thread very carefully, and wasn't fully aware of the scenario under discussion. If that is the case then the situation might be different.

[harfad]

Another possible scenario might be regularly partaking of communion in a non-Catholic (e.g. Protestant) church where it might not be objectionable (from their point of view) for them to do so. For example they might be married to someone of that church, and regularly attend both churches, and partake of the Sacrsment in both. I don't think that from LDS point of view thst would be objectionable.http://www.mormondialogue.org

[mfbukowski]

ETA: mfb is right -- it is self-excommunication (to be excommunicated in the Catholic Church means that you are barred from receiving the sacraments)

So that makes it official: I am an official Heretic!

That said, I was very pleased and grateful that a sweet and compassionate priest allowed me to say a few words and my mother's funeral even though he knew I was a Mormon bishop at the time, and even read from the scriptures during the Mass. I will never forget that act of kindness.

He said "Well, you are a Christian aren't you? It's all the same!" (waving his hand)

It was a sweet and generous gift I will ever be grateful for.

Edited November 6, 2012 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

I wonder how many bishops on hearing that someone was partaking of communion weekly would require the individual to choose either the Eucharist or the Temple.

If you are speaking of Mormon bishops I think the answer would be "all of them" assuming he understood how sacred the Eucharist is to Catholics along with its assumption that one is not only a Catholic but in a "state of grace" meaning without mortal sin.

That clearly not only implies being a member of the Catholic church, but being a member in the highest standing possible for a Catholic who is not a member of the clergy.

For Mormons, membership in another church, as I have said, automatically qualifies one for a disciplinary council for apostasy and pretty automatic excommunication at the bishop's discretion.

So as I said, these kind of actions are pretty much abominations to both sides.

I would take my mother to Mass before her death and routinely, as is their practice, be offered the Eucharist during Mass and of course would refuse.

I knew whatever side I was on, I would showing unbelievable disrespect to both sides by doing such a thing. It was unthinkable!

Edited November 6, 2012 by mfbukowski

[TAO]

Mfb, I think there are a few caveats. I have heard of some Mormon Jews. I think it's becaus the religions don't conflict or something. It's mostly the case with conflicting truth claims, is it not?

Edited November 7, 2012 by TAO

[Duncan]

Mfb, I think there are a few caveats. I have heard of some Mormon Jews. I think it's becaus the religions don't conflict or something. It's mostly the case with conflicting truth claims, is it not?

I had a Bishop who used to be Jewish and a lady in my ward used to be Jewish. I don't know what option of Judaism they were

[volgadon]

Mfb, I think there are a few caveats. I have heard of some Mormon Jews. I think it's becaus the religions don't conflict or something. It's mostly the case with conflicting truth claims, is it not?

It is mainly because Judaism is as much an ethnos as a faith.

[rameumptom]

7 Deadly heresies by Elder McConkie

Reading Church History by Elder Oaks

7 Deadly Heresies is not apologetic in nature. Nor is it a conference talk. It is a list of things that Elder McConkie sought to establish as doctrine, in the same vein as his father-in-law. Many GAs believed or had an open mind regarding evolution, for instance. Yet, Elder McConkie sought to make it a heresy. That was not based on revelation, but on his own speculative reading of the scriptures.

Apologetics defends the teachings of the Church. It does not attempt to create doctrine.

[mfbukowski]

It is mainly because Judaism is as much an ethnos as a faith.

I should know more about Judaism I suppose, but certainly there would be no problem with practicing ceremonies at home etc- and of course many Mormons hold seders, etc.

Clearly there is no problem observing the traditions of our forefathers especially acknowledging ourselves as among those of "Israel" etc. in fact doing so I would think would make one a better Mormon in seeing the connections to our religious heritage and giving ourselves deeper historical "roots".

Anyway that's my personal opinion.

But Judaism as a religion clearly does not acknowledge Jesus as the Messiah. I don't know how one could possibly be both Mormon and not acknowledge Jesus as the Savior! So clearly one could not be religiously a practicing Jew AND be Mormon at the same time.

Did I get that right?

[cinepro]

Apologetics defends the teachings of the Church. It does not attempt to create doctrine.

But at times it does attempt to define it.

[Calm]

But at times it does attempt to define it.

Any discussion of doctrine involves definition of that doctrine.