Similarities & Differences With Catholicism

[EverChanging]

I'd like to get a discussion going about similarities and differences with Catholicism, perhaps trading quotes, sources, and other ideas to get a good discussion started. I think it could be a cool way to discuss our respective theologies.

 

[Katzpur]

I'd like to get a discussion going about similarities and differences with Catholicism, perhaps trading quotes, sources, and other ideas to get a good discussion started. I think it could be a cool way to discuss our respective theologies.

Cool! I would love to do that. I don't have much time right now, but I'll get us started by mentioning two very important beliefs we have in common. First, both of our churches believe that Jesus Christ actually did establish His Church prior to His death. In other words, He did more than just teach us to love one another, etc. He started what we would both recognize as "the institutional church" and gave specific individuals the authority to lead and direct that church in His absence. There may be Protestants who believe this, too, but I have spoken to far more of them who believe only in "the invisible church," an assembly of believers with essentially no leadership, and using the Bible as their sole source of authority.

Unlike every Protestant Church that I'm aware of, Catholics and Mormons both believe in the importance of authorized succession in the Church's leadership. It goes without saying that Catholics don't believe that the Mormon Prophet holds this authority and that the Mormons don't believe the Catholic Pope does. Catholics believe that the Pope can trace his authority all the way back to Peter. Mormons believe that when Peter and the other Apostles were martyred, their deaths left the Church without leadership. Of course, we believe, too, that without Apostles chosen by Christ himself (or by the Apostles themselves once He had risen and was no longer with them, the Church fell into apostasy). We believe that the only way the line of authority could be re-established was through Jesus Christ himself, and that's what we believe happened when Joseph Smith was called as what we refer to as "the Prophet of the Restoration." At first glance, the Mormon belief in a Prophet who heads the Church and the Catholic belief that a Pope does may seem diametrically opposed, but it is very similar in concept and it's something that Protestants don't see as existing or as necessary.

 

[EverChanging]

This should be a good start.

Cool! I would love to do that. I don't have much time right now, but I'll get us started by mentioning two very important beliefs we have in common. First, both of our churches believe that Jesus Christ actually did establish His Church prior to His death. In other words, He did more than just teach us to love one another, etc. He started what we would both recognize as "the institutional church" and gave specific individuals the authority to lead and direct that church in His absence. There may be Protestants who believe this, too, but I have spoken to far more of them who believe only in "the invisible church," an assembly of believers with essentially no leadership, and using the Bible as their sole source of authority.

Yes, this is a similarity for sure.

This is an aside since I am no longer a Protestant, but their view on this can be nuanced. While some Protestants believe strictly in an invisible church that may or may not coincide with a particular congregation or denomination, other Protestants take a different view. For example, Anglicans believe there is a visible church that is known by its proclamation of the gospel and the administering of the sacraments (baptism and the Eucharist), but they do not limit the visible church to themselves. For example they recognize certain other Protestant bodies and the Catholic Church as well, although they might believe they teach error in some ways.

Unlike every Protestant Church that I'm aware of, Catholics and Mormons both believe in the importance of authorized succession in the Church's leadership. It goes without saying that Catholics don't believe that the Mormon Prophet holds this authority and that the Mormons don't believe the Catholic Pope does. Catholics believe that the Pope can trace his authority all the way back to Peter. Mormons believe that when Peter and the other Apostles were martyred, their deaths left the Church without leadership. Of course, we believe, too, that without Apostles chosen by Christ himself (or by the Apostles themselves once He had risen and was no longer with them, the Church fell into apostasy). We believe that the only way the line of authority could be re-established was through Jesus Christ himself, and that's what we believe happened when Joseph Smith was called as what we refer to as "the Prophet of the Restoration." At first glance, the Mormon belief in a Prophet who heads the Church and the Catholic belief that a Pope does may seem diametrically opposed, but it is very similar in concept and it's something that Protestants don't see as existing or as necessary.

Anglicans also claim to possess apostolic succession, but they do not officially claim it is a necessary mark of the visible church.

But I'll try to keep this focused on Mormonism and Catholicism. (I still find Anglicanism interesting because that is what I came from.)

Similarities: Catholics do believe apostolic succession is an essential mark of the church. This is transmitted through the bishops. At least, this is how it works as pertains to holy orders. More broadly, apostolic succession is the transmission through the Church as a whole -- laity, religious, clergy, bishops, and the Pope -- of the apostolic teachings. While baptism can be validly performed by anyone, ordinarily a bishop or priest administers it. A deacon can in some circumstances. Laity are only permitted to do this in an emergency, but regardless it would still be a true baptism if performed with correct intent as evidenced by matter and form (immersion or the pouring of water on the head with the trinitarian formula.) The sacrament of marriage is performed by the couple themselves. Confirmation, the Eucharist, Absolution, and Last Rites (or anointing of the sick) require a priest. A priest can only confirm with chrism blessed by a bishop. Ordination can only be performed by a bishop.

Traditionally Catholics believe apostolic succession came from the apostles directly, but I've come across more nuanced statements about how that works. I've read views that the succession may derive from early Christian leaders in general who were recognized by the Church. I've come across articles in the Modern Catholic Encyclopedia that also raise questions about how exactly the succession was transmitted. Mormons believe it was transmitted spiritually from St. John the Baptist to Joseph Smith (and someone else? You can fill me in here.) A similarity with both the traditional Catholic and Mormon viewpoint is that they are not empirically verifiable.

Differences: Though from the beginning there have been schisms and apostasy, Catholics believe that the Church has always and will always maintain a continuous existence on the earth. That doesn't mean it will always flourish or be numerically large, but the gates of hades cannot prevail against her.

I'm not sure how this works with the Mormon prophet, but the Pope has primacy and ordinary universal jurisdiction over the Church. This means he can exercise authority in any diocese or over the Church as a whole.

Though the Pope is not infallible, when he speaks ex cathedra on matters of faith and morals the statement is infallible. There are caveats to this, though. There is not a sure-fire way of knowing a papal proclamation is infallible by its form, though there are indications. This can only be discerned through time and is evidenced by the common adherence of the faithful according to Canon 750 paragraph 1. I'd say this is similar to how Mormons have to prayerfully discern whether a prophecy is true. However, popes aren't issuing prophecies in these proclamations. Doctrine can develop -- and even come to new conclusions or lead us to discover previously unknown aspects of the truth -- but Jesus is the Truth. Therefore the whole Truth has already been given to the Church. But we cannot perceive the whole Truth. Our understanding of it is always unfolding. Infallible dogmas are therefore not considered new revelations.

Another thing about infallible proclamations is that they can be misunderstood even by the Pope or Council that issued them. Consider this statement from Unam Sanctum: Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff.

To my knowledge this statement was understood exactly as it sounds by Pope Boniface VIII and the bishops at the time. I believe there was conflict with other Christians and the Muslims. But it doesn't matter what the Pope intended or thought, only what the Holy Spirit intended, and this is understood more fully through the course of the ages. Statements like this are now interpreted much more broadly. Some Catholics also believe that persons who have never heard of Christ will have a chance in the last nanosecond of life to accept him because God wills all to be saved and since each moment is infinite to God He has all the time He needs to give each and every person the opportunity for salvation. We also accept baptism by desire (even implicitly) and by blood (martyrdom).

 

[Katzpur]

This should be a good start.

I don't know how many other people will be following our conversation, but I find this to be a very interesting topic, and I really appreciate your input. Since this is the LDS DIR, I will respond to your statements about what Catholicism teaches, but I'll try not to debate the validity of your position. I'm sure neither of us really wants to turn this into a debate.

This is an aside since I am no longer a Protestant, but their view on this can be nuanced. While some Protestants believe strictly in an invisible church that may or may not coincide with a particular congregation or denomination, other Protestants take a different view. For example, Anglicans believe there is a visible church that is known by its proclamation of the gospel and the administering of the sacraments (baptism and the Eucharist), but they do not limit the visible church to themselves. For example they recognize certain other Protestant bodies and the Catholic Church as well, although they might believe they teach error in some ways. Anglicans also claim to possess apostolic succession, but they do not officially claim it is a necessary mark of the visible church.

You obviously know a lot more about Anglican Christianity than I do. It's funny, but when I say, "Protestant," I seldom even think of Anglicans/Episcopalians. I realize they are Protestants, but I have had much less experience in talking to them. I'm usually thinking of Baptists, Lutherans, Methodists, Presbyterians and non-denominational Christians.

Similarities: Catholics do believe apostolic succession is an essential mark of the church. This is transmitted through the bishops. At least, this is how it works as pertains to holy orders. More broadly, apostolic succession is the transmission through the Church as a whole -- laity, religious, clergy, bishops, and the Pope -- of the apostolic teachings. While baptism can be validly performed by anyone, ordinarily a bishop or priest administers it. A deacon can in some circumstances. Laity are only permitted to do this in an emergency, but regardless it would still be a true baptism if performed with correct intent as evidenced by matter and form (immersion or the pouring of water on the head with the trinitarian formula.) The sacrament of marriage is performed by the couple themselves. Confirmation, the Eucharist, Absolution, and Last Rites (or anointing of the sick) require a priest. A priest can only confirm with chrism blessed by a bishop. Ordination can only be performed by a bishop.

Traditionally Catholics believe apostolic succession came from the apostles directly, but I've come across more nuanced statements about how that works. I've read views that the succession may derive from early Christian leaders in general who were recognized by the Church. I've come across articles in the Modern Catholic Encyclopedia that also raise questions about how exactly the succession was transmitted. Mormons believe it was transmitted spiritually from St. John the Baptist to Joseph Smith (and someone else? You can fill me in here.) A similarity with both the traditional Catholic and Mormon viewpoint is that they are not empirically verifiable.[/quote]I'm not going to comment on the various sacraments right now, but since you've alluded to them, that's another similarity between Mormonism and Catholicism. And as you said, we agree that apostolic succession is essential. I'd say we disagree on how authority is transmitted. We actually believe that the resurrected John the Baptist, Peter, James and John all actually appeared to Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery and conferred their priesthood authority on them. You're right that both of our positions are not empirically verifiable. I suppose that if they were, there might be a mass conversion one direction or the other.

Differences:

Though from the beginning there have been schisms and apostasy, Catholics believe that the Church has always and will always maintain a continuous existence on the earth. That doesn't mean it will always flourish or be numerically large, but the gates of hades cannot prevail against her.

Our interpretation of the "gates of Hell" or the "gates of Hades" would be different from yours. That said, we do believe that there has never been a time after Christ lived that Christianity ceased to exist on the earth. When we use the word "apostasy," we are thinking in terms of both "apostolic authority" and "purity of doctrines." Despite the fact that we believe an apostasy took place, we actually believe Christianity as a whole is indebted to Catholicism for keeping it alive and well at all.

I'm not sure how this works with the Mormon prophet, but the Pope has primacy and ordinary universal jurisdiction over the Church. This means he can exercise authority in any diocese or over the Church as a whole.

Though the Pope is not infallible, when he speaks ex cathedra on matters of faith and morals the statement is infallible. There are caveats to this, though. There is not a sure-fire way of knowing a papal proclamation is infallible by its form, though there are indications. This can only be discerned through time and is evidenced by the common adherence of the faithful according to Canon 750 paragraph 1. I'd say this is similar to how Mormons have to prayerfully discern whether a prophecy is true. However, popes aren't issuing prophecies in these proclamations. Doctrine can develop -- and even come to new conclusions or lead us to discover previously unknown aspects of the truth -- but Jesus is the Truth. Therefore the whole Truth has already been given to the Church. But we cannot perceive the whole Truth. Our understanding of it is always unfolding. Infallible dogmas are therefore not considered new revelations.

Another thing about infallible proclamations is that they can be misunderstood even by the Pope or Council that issued them. Consider this statement from Unam Sanctum: Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff.

While we believe that, like Peter, the Prophet himself is the only person who "holds all of the keys" to the Kingdom of Heaven. If the Lord speaks directly to the Church, it will always be specifically to the Prophet first. No doctrine is proclaimed solely by the Prophet, though. All of the Apostles must also pray and receiving a confirming witness from the Holy Ghost that the Prophet has spoken the truth as revealed to him by God. Only when this has happened does any new statement of belief become official doctrine.

To my knowledge this statement was understood exactly as it sounds by Pope Boniface VIII and the bishops at the time. I believe there was conflict with other Christians and the Muslims. But it doesn't matter what the Pope intended or thought, only what the Holy Spirit intended, and this is understood more fully through the course of the ages. Statements like this are now interpreted much more broadly. Some Catholics also believe that persons who have never heard of Christ will have a chance in the last nanosecond of life to accept him because God wills all to be saved and since each moment is infinite to God He has all the time He needs to give each and every person the opportunity for salvation. We also accept baptism by desire (even implicitly) and by blood (martyrdom).

Just a brief comment here. Mormons, like Catholics, believe that God really does want everyone to be saved. It's not His will that certain individuals never have the opportunity to accept Christ. We do not see Him as condemning anyone to Hell simply because the individual had the misfortune to have been born at the wrong time or in the wrong place and never got to know Christ. We don't believe in a "last nanosecond of life" chance to accept Christ, though. Instead we believe that the opportunity to accept Christ continues during the period of time between death and the Day of Judgement and our own resurrections. We don't believe that anyone goes directly to Heaven after death, but awaits the resurrection in what we refer to as the "Spirit World." I can get into the topic more in depth if you'd like, but I believe the Catholic doctrine of Purgatory has some similarities to our belief. Obviously, there are also differences between the two.

Finally, to the best of my knowledge, only Catholicism and Mormonism teach that there is anything at all the living can do for the dead. I know that Catholics pray for the recently deceased, that their spirits may be released from Purgatory sooner rather than later. Mormons believe that the Lord has given us the opportunity to perform vicarious ordinances (i.e. sacraments) of baptism, confirmation and eternal marriage for the dead. The subject of baptism for the dead always seems to get people's dander up. Again, we can talk more about this subject if you want. But for now, suffice it to say that we do not believe that by being baptised on a deceased relative's behalf, we are forcing him to become a Mormon, or even a Christian. He must accept that baptism in the Spirit World in order for it to be considered valid.

 

[EverChanging]

I don't know how many other people will be following our conversation, but I find this to be a very interesting topic, and I really appreciate your input. Since this is the LDS DIR, I will respond to your statements about what Catholicism teaches, but I'll try not to debate the validity of your position. I'm sure neither of us really wants to turn this into a debate.

Right -- I don't care to debate. This is just an exercise for me. By explaining Catholic doctrine I can understand it better and also get a chance to learn more about Mormon doctrine which I find very interesting. I've read the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine & Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price.

You obviously know a lot more about Anglican Christianity than I do. It's funny, but when I say, "Protestant," I seldom even think of Anglicans/Episcopalians. I realize they are Protestants, but I have had much less experience in talking to them. I'm usually thinking of Baptists, Lutherans, Methodists, Presbyterians and non-denominational Christians.

Sometimes Anglicans are put in a different class from either Protestants or Christians. The Church of England bishops did originally describe themselves as "protesting Catholics." As for Lutherans, only some of their bodies claim to possess apostolic succession in terms of bishops, but it is not a universal feature of Lutheranism unlike Anglicanism. Methodists possess something akin to apostolic succession, but the chain of succession passes through priests/presbyters instead of bishops. They do not officially claim apostolic succession, but some members regard themselves as possessing it. None of that's really relevant here -- just interesting information.

I'm not going to comment on the various sacraments right now, but since you've alluded to them, that's another similarity between Mormonism and Catholicism. And as you said, we agree that apostolic succession is essential. I'd say we disagree on how authority is transmitted. We actually believe that the resurrected John the Baptist, Peter, James and John all actually appeared to Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery and conferred their priesthood authority on them. You're right that both of our positions are not empirically verifiable. I suppose that if they were, there might be a mass conversion one direction or the other.

Our interpretation of the "gates of Hell" or the "gates of Hades" would be different from yours. That said, we do believe that there has never been a time after Christ lived that Christianity ceased to exist on the earth. When we use the word "apostasy," we are thinking in terms of both "apostolic authority" and "purity of doctrines." Despite the fact that we believe an apostasy took place, we actually believe Christianity as a whole is indebted to Catholicism for keeping it alive and well at all.

Can you expand on this? What are the gates of hades? You believe that Christianity persisted without the church? Perhaps in an incomplete form?

While we believe that, like Peter, the Prophet himself is the only person who "holds all of the keys" to the Kingdom of Heaven. If the Lord speaks directly to the Church, it will always be specifically to the Prophet first. No doctrine is proclaimed solely by the Prophet, though. All of the Apostles must also pray and receiving a confirming witness from the Holy Ghost that the Prophet has spoken the truth as revealed to him by God. Only when this has happened does any new statement of belief become official doctrine.

In terms of dogma -- infallible teaching -- in Catholicism there need not be an ex cathedra proclamation at all by the Pope, although that is the only clear way besides a defined statement by an ecumenical council to remove controversy, and even then as I said the Church through time must discern that the statement was indeed infallible until which time it cannot be binding on someone's conscience as a doctrine to be assented to with "divine and catholic" faith (such as is the case with the doctrine of the Holy Trinity). This would be a teaching that is undefined yet upheld by the ordinary universal magisterium, meaning that the faithful through the ages have upheld a doctrine as a teaching of the faith. Again, this can be hard to verify -- thus such teachings have at times been taught through councils or papal statements. The Church offers as an example of an infallible teaching not defined but upheld by the ordinary universal magisterium the male-only priesthood. This is a little iffy, though....The papal proclamation that declared this has been itself declared non-infallible by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. So not everyone is convinced that this doctrine is truly infallible.

Just a brief comment here. Mormons, like Catholics, believe that God really does want everyone to be saved. It's not His will that certain individuals never have the opportunity to accept Christ. We do not see Him as condemning anyone to Hell simply because the individual had the misfortune to have been born at the wrong time or in the wrong place and never got to know Christ. We don't believe in a "last nanosecond of life" chance to accept Christ, though. Instead we believe that the opportunity to accept Christ continues during the period of time between death and the Day of Judgement and our own resurrections. We don't believe that anyone goes directly to Heaven after death, but awaits the resurrection in what we refer to as the "Spirit World." I can get into the topic more in depth if you'd like, but I believe the Catholic doctrine of Purgatory has some similarities to our belief. Obviously, there are also differences between the two.

Finally, to the best of my knowledge, only Catholicism and Mormonism teach that there is anything at all the living can do for the dead. I know that Catholics pray for the recently deceased, that their spirits may be released from Purgatory sooner rather than later. Mormons believe that the Lord has given us the opportunity to perform vicarious ordinances (i.e. sacraments) of baptism, confirmation and eternal marriage for the dead. The subject of baptism for the dead always seems to get people's dander up. Again, we can talk more about this subject if you want. But for now, suffice it to say that we do not believe that by being baptised on a deceased relative's behalf, we are forcing him to become a Mormon, or even a Christian. He must accept that baptism in the Spirit World in order for it to be considered valid.

Yes, it would be interesting to compare the spirit world/purgatory beliefs, although there are differences in Western and Eastern theologies in Catholicism on purgatory. As an aside, it is permissible in Catholicism to believe that all souls will be saved, so long as this is not held as a dogmatically certain belief. Few theologians actually have this hope.

Nevertheless in the Prayer of Fatima we pray, "O my Jesus, forgive us our sins, save us from the fires of hell, and lead all souls into heaven, especially those who are in most need of thy mercy."

We cannot be certain that any one soul is in hell. Therefore we may pray for every soul to be saved.