Ask Catholics
This will be a new interactive feature where Mormons can ask questions they wish to find out a Catholic perspective on. Catholic readers are then welcome to respond informally through comments or they can submit a more polished response to the blog authors’ private email forum for consideration as a new blog entry.
Note that message boards such as Catholic Answers Non-Catholic Religions forums are often better suited for getting an informal level response to your question. However, the debate culture of such forums is suspicious of sincerely asked questions. If you are looking for an expert response, but not a protracted conversation to your question consider CA’s Ask an Apologist forum. Make sure you follow CA’s guidelines for submitting questions. Also consider getting in touch, on a local level, with some of Catholics involved with RCIA and Inquiries (for example) on a local level to learn more about Catholic religions in a relatively low pressure environment.
Note that this page is under construction. It is hoped it will be expanded to include more information about the various popular Catholic forums that welcome discussion with Mormons. Of interest is how each fits different needs, what kind of exchanges they are looking for, and include some mormon feedback about what their experience on those forums have been. The same information is sought for local Mormon-Catholic interaction.
Regardless of other forums available for asking questions and discussing or dialoguing, we hope here at M&C that we will be able to fulfill a niche. We hope that conversations will be much more informative, structured, and charitable than what seems to typical elsewhere. We will look for technological ways and encourage charitable contributors, so as to facillitate this type of discussion.
Please use the comment section to ask questions and please be patient for answers while our readership is currently low and our blog authors are few.
May 29th, 2007 at 4:28 pm
in the early christian times..(constantine times) there were bishops with many questions so they wrote letters to each other to help, then power became an issue being that there were no apostles.. if the catholic church says there was no missing link, then were was the “pope” or church leader there and why did constantine a worldly leader take charge?
June 3rd, 2007 at 6:04 pm
IS,
Thanks for the question. I hope I can do justice to answering it. First of all, can you cite a letter from a bishop who was questioning where the authority resided in his age? I would hope you could not, because the bishops of the early church should have known from whence the power, which resided in the office they held, came. It came from Jesus through the apostles and the laying of hands. Immediately following the Ascension of the Lord, Peter, the first Pope, called for the successor to Judas Iscariot (Acts 1:21), “…and his bishoprick let another take.” Some translations read “episcopate” or “office”. At the time Saint John wrote his Gospel, which seems to be in the latter part of the last decade of the 1st century, it would have been completed during the episcopate of Pope St. Clement I or Pope St. Evaristus. To repeat a different way, Saint John’s Gospel, accepted by Mormons as scripture, had not been completed until St. Peter had been succeeded three or four times. And John made sure in his final chapter to emphasize the primacy of Peter. Pope St. Clement confirmed the succession in his letter to the Corinthians:
The standard modern Mormon position has been that the Great Apostacy occured well before Constantine. But there has never been controversy in the Church as the succession has been well understood and practiced.
At the time of Constantine, there were apostles. The bishops themselves are the successors. They knew that. So while there were many letters, which were required to communicate and maintain unity in those days, I doubt more than a few of them regarded “power”. And any that did were out of ignorance, which is plausible. Some people with little or no religous training were elevated to the episcopate. St. Nicholas comes to mind, a bishop who attended the Council of Nicea before he became known for coming down chimneys.
Whether or not Constantine consulted Pope Sylvester I is uncertain, but very likely. Constantine was from the West, and his Father, though not a Christian, used as much influence as he could to protect Christians during the Diocletian persecutions. So we can assume he had respect for the Seat of Peter. There is also evidence in the fact that Rome sent representatives to the Council. Those reps signed the documents of the Council with the authority of the Pope. Sylvester most likely elected not to attend himself for one or more of three reasons:
1) Arianism was mostly an eastern problem. The East had suffered most under the Diocletian/Galarius persecutions, and here is where Arianism held it’s greatest influence (at this time, at least). And it was pretty clear that the eastern Bishops were unified in their opposition to Arius. Arius was condemned at a local Council in Alexandria just a few years previous, and Arius’ persistance, as well as the Roman civil wars which took place between the death of Diocletian and the final victory of Constantine, made a full Ecumenical Council necessary. Constantine himself probably felt somewhat responsible for the schism in the Church which seemed to persist during the civil wars. Constantine himself was not a Christian at the time, let alone partisan in the nature of the Trinity.
2) The Pope’s own diocese had gone from the Diocletian/Maximus persecutions to being the favored religion of Rome’s absolute ruler. Needless to say, Sylvester had a busy pontificate, transforming the Church in his diocese from underground to establishment.
3) Since the Council was called in Nicea, he was not the presiding Bishop. That was the priviledge of Thaoghonius. Not being the presiding Bishop, he may have felt his attendence was not necessary. It was very common for Popes to not attend councils outside of Rome, and even those within Rome, the Papal attendence was still limited.
But Church leaders were indeed there. Over 300 bishops from the East. Many of these bishops spent years in prison or exile, had their churches burned, and saw their fellow Christians tortured and killed. They were probably more motivated than western bishops to defend the faith from Arius. Those are the successors to the apostles, rememeber, so they are indeed leaders of the Chuch.
So I hope that answers your question. I would like to end by summarizing what I think are incorrect assumptions from your question.
1) There wasn’t any question about the source of espiscopal authority by the bishops around the time of Constantine. They understood apostalic succession, and therefore, were not lost simply because no apostles lived into their three-hundred and tens.
2) Popes do not need to dictate to councils. The pope is not a dictator as many believe. One can rightly call him first among equals. And one can rightly call him the Vicar of Christ. But the Church has survived for 2000 years thanks to the spirit of collegiality that exists in the episcopate.
3) Constantine likely had Pope Sylvester’s approval to call the council. The Pope’s cooperation with the council seems to indicate that. The Pope doesn’t have to call the council himself to bless it.
4) Constantine was a “worldly” leader, but there was no 1st ammendment to the constitution in 325AD. There was no seperation of Church and State. “Worldly” leaders did tend to meddle in religion. But at the very least, he stayed out of the preceedings and allowed the “church leaders” to confirm the dogmas that they already taught.
August 3rd, 2007 at 11:19 am
Along the same vein as the above poster, I have some similar questions, regarding the Apostolic times, but post-Peter. According to the lines of Papacy I’ve read, there were three Popes (Linus, [admittedly I can't recall the second off the top of my head], and Clement) who reigned after Peter’s death — but during their reigns, there were living Apostles (James and John for certain, until James’ death in Jerusalem). Did the Apostles answer to the bishop of Rome at the time, or did the bishop of Rome answer to the Apostles? Is there any clear indication that Peter gave signifying that Linus was to be his successor? I’m in the midst of a discussion with one of my Catholic friends about the issue, and she recommended to me a book called ‘Church History’ by Father John Laux. As far as I could tell, St. Linus is not mentioned in the entirety of the book… anyways. In my readings of the New Testament (portions of it written during the reigns of Linus, [Name Escapes Me], and Clement), the post-Peter Apostles seem to be the leaders of the Church, and neither James or John seemed to indicate in their writings any loyalty or endorsemet of the Bishop of Rome at the respective dates of their writings. In short, I suppose my question is: would the Apostles have answered to the bishop of Rome, or would the bishop of Rome have answered to the Apostles?
August 12th, 2007 at 12:19 pm
When you say “answer to”, I would only characterize that in a collegial way. Even Peter himself had to answer to Paul when he was misbehaving. Clearly, this does not indicate that Paul had greater authority than Peter. It shows the necessity of all to lead with humility and listen to your brothers.
James son of Zebedee did not outlive Peter. His exact martyrdom is disputed, but all seem to agree that James lived less than 15 years after the Resurrection, while Peter’s martyrdom is placed 20 years later.
But that is a mute point since we have no reliable writings from this apostle. The Epistle of James was either written by James son of Alpheus or another James known as “the brother of the Lord”. Some believe these two are the same person, while others believe the latter was not one of the original Twelve. Either way, both of these men (or the same person, whichever your perspective) suffered martyrdom prior to Peter.
John certainly did outlive Peter. His last writing was his Gospel. And in his Gospel, you’ll notice an epilogue that was written after he had concluded his Gospel. Ever wonder why John felt the need to add to his own masterpiece? John’s entire Gospel is different from the others, written with a specific chronology and style that seemed directed to answer questions that were probably raging near the end of his life. And thus, looking at the epilogue is very important in understanding what was on John’s mind, as he felt the need to clarify something left unclear in his own Gospel or the Synoptics.
Here was see Peter doing what the Lord had instructed him not to do – returning to his previous life as a fisherman. John and five others follow his lead – a recognition of his authority. When Jesus reminds the apostles of his lordship in their lives, he pulls Peter aside and tells him three times to feed his sheep/lambs. In other words, Peter is Christ’s shepherd. This was written after the death of Peter. Why was it important for John to establish the primacy of Peter if he was already dead? Would he not be writing something to salvage the authority of the Church if it had been lost? Clearly John recognized the successors of Peter.
In my first post, I established that succession did take place. If it did not, than Mathias and Paul would not be legitimate apostles. The faithful people of the new testament who outlived their Apostle, like Barnabas, Timothy, and Luke would have lived without authentic Christianity. The Apostles would be fools. Christ himself would have convicted himself as a fool.
It is no coincidence that the Gospel of Matthew, the one that offers the indisputable designation of Peter as the foundation of the Church, a Church that would not fail (Mt 16:13-18), earlier sets the stage for this with the analogy of the house builders(Mt 7:24-27). “Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them,
I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his
house upon a rock: And the rain descended, and
the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat
upon that house; and it fell not; for it was
founded upon a rock. And everyone thatheareth
these sayings of mine, and doeth them not, shall
be likened unto a foolish man, which built his
house upon the sand: And the rain descended,
and the floods came, and the winds blew, and
beat upon that house; and it fell: and great was
the fall of it”
The language used is not coincidental. If Peter, the Rock, was truly sand, and he did not establish succession (which as shown in my first post, he did), then Christ was a fool by His own words.
Maybe it would be helpful for Mormons to explain their own scriptural establishment of this apostasy. 2 Th 2:3 states: “and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition”, and the Mormon Bible footnotes this as a reference to the antichrist. Okay, since this apostasy has taken place, please let us know who was the antichrist. The revelation of the identity of the antichrist is inextricable from the “falling away” revelation. If you could identify this antichrist, it could go a long way to giving credibility to your claim.
July 28th, 2008 at 1:12 am
If my kids are already baptised Catholic and then get baptised morman. Are they no longer Catholic?
July 28th, 2008 at 2:02 am
Adam, it’s Catholic belief that a valid baptism (which of course includes a Catholic one) imparts a permanent effect to the soul. The person is Catholic forever, strictly speaking. He or she may reject God’s grace, may be in open rebellion against the Church, may be excommunicated, and so forth. However, he or she has been born again from above, there is no return to the former state. There is no re-baptism in the Catholic Church, only the Sacrament of Reconciliation.
February 9th, 2009 at 2:22 am
Since Catholics believe the pope is infallible, what about the pope(s) who was(were) excommunicated. Also, why did Pope Benedict do away with a thousand year old catholic doctrine, Limbo?
March 2nd, 2009 at 10:38 pm
Dear Tomas1,
I would like to clarify two of the points you mentioned. Believing Catholics do in fact hold to papal infallibility – that is a Dogma of the Church. Catholics believe that Christ works in the Church to keep it free from error in its teachings on Faith and Morals. This means that – for Catholics – the Church has not erred in these teachings, no changed any of them, in 2000 years. It’s difficult to understand the distinction here, because of misconceptions about things like limbo.
Limbo was never an official church teaching. It was something that many theologians within the church held an opinion on for many years, but that the Church had adopted no official position on. So, the Vatican didn’t do away with any doctrine, because previously, Limbo was never a doctrine. Now, the Church affirms as a teaching that unbaptized babies are saved in the same way that many other individuals who are outside the Church may be saved through God’s grace. The Church has never claimed that only Catholics go to heaven – it will claim that the Catholic Church contains the fullness of the truth necessary for salvation, however. In other words, being a faithful Catholic and a good person will get you into heaven, as God instituted those requirements and sacraments for salvation. But, the Church teaches that while IT is bound to God’s sacraments, God is not restricted by them – so he can choose to save others outside the Church according to his understanding of each individual’s soul. So, to reiterate my position on your observation, the Vatican simply reaffirmed this teaching in reference to unbaptized babies – Limbo was never a doctrine of the Church, therefore it didn’t have to be done away with.
To return to the first topic you raised – the Church is definitely composed of imperfect individuals. I would say that the vast majority of them are good and holy people, and spiritual leaders (and I would say the same about the Mormon Church). This does not mean that the people in the Church are free from sin, or that if the Pope predicts rain tomorrow, the Church is made invalid if it’s sunny. Papal Infallibility relates only to teachings on Faith and Morals, made “Ex Cathedra” – meaning, the Pope is making the teaching known through his role as the earthly leader of the Catholic Church(rather than, say, an administrative decision regarding the Vatican bureaucracy. To my knowledge, no Pope has been excommunicated. However, there have been a few dastardly Popes who shamed the faith, but Catholics believe that the Holy Spirit intervenes in the Church to keep it free from error in the vital areas of teaching Faith and Morals. This is why certain Church DISCIPLINES, like the celibate priesthood, may change (although it’s highly unlikely), but DOCTRINES, like the male priesthood, cannot be changed by any Pope at any point in time – that is an article of faith.
I hope I’ve helped to clarify those issues for you. Thank you for your comments and interest.
God Bless!
March 4th, 2009 at 5:23 pm
wow! thanks for answering that question on Limbo for me too… DH is Mormon and obviously doesn’t believe in infant baptism. this does a good job clarifying the whole Limbo thing.
March 24th, 2009 at 8:39 pm
Hello. My parents baptised me in the Catholic Church when I was a child. Later in my life I was baptised mormon and ordained an Aaronic priest. Shortly after the mormon baptism took place, I realised my mistake and understood that the Catholic Church is the real Christ Church. I confessed my sin and received absolution. The Catholic confesser wanted me to give up completely contacts with Mormons. I wonder if it is possible to go to the sacrament meetings in a mormon chapel on Sundays without obstacles for receiving the holy communion in the Cahtolich Church.
April 17th, 2009 at 4:03 pm
Thank you for the work you are doing to help everyone learn about Catholicism and Mormonism. I have been blessed to publish my first book last week titled “Catholic Roots, Mormon Harvest” (Cedar Fort). “Catholic Roots, Mormon Harvest” is the captivating story of the conversion of my wife and I from Catholicism to Mormonism with comparisons of 40 key doctrines between both religions that drove our life-changing decision. The book delivers a unique journey of how we were able to retain the spiritual roots from our Catholic upbringing, while enriching our lives with a harvest of peace and joy that comes from membership in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints—hence the title of the book. You can learn more about the book at http://www.catholic2lds.com. The book is immediately available on Amazon and other book retailers. God bless you all on whatever spiritual journey you are on towards a closer relationship with Jesus Christ.
July 2nd, 2009 at 6:34 am
check this out…
this is mine…
February 4th, 2010 at 7:22 pm
Joe…
Check out my domain sometime….