Receiving the Sacrament in another church

[Blueskye2]

20 hours ago, fatima said:

 

 

Person0 and Vort said effectively the same thing, but Vort was rude, insulting and violated what Catholics on this forum hold Sacred.  Person0 simply made the case, and I am in full agreement with the conclusion.  

My observation is, LDS members are more familiar with the practices and beliefs of Protestants. Most have no understanding whatsoever of how a Catholic views the Eucharist. You'll see it here with the usual "cracker" comments now and then. Also Catholicism is often the go to antagonist in analogies and comparisons with some LDS members. It's just how it is. Usually it's an effort to explain the far and above correctness of Mormonism, because this is, a Mormon conversation. Bringing up a Catholic practice or belief is only to make a point about a Mormon practice or belief.  The accuracy about what the Catholic Church teaches or what we believe, is seldom the point.

I recommend speaking up to explain that's something Catholics feel as strongly about as Mormons do their temples. I don't know that you'll be believed.  But yes, we are on a Mormon forum.  Ya just gotta let it go, charitably. 

Edited June 27, 2017 by Blueskye2

[fatima]

As Anatess pointed out, a Mormon has no reason to study what other religions view as sacred in order to edit their commentary accordingly.  Because language is very fluid, what I think is necessary among those-of-us-who-claim-to-practice Christianity, is to measure everything we say with charity and be excessive in our care towards each other.  Heck, if we cannot show love and respect, why should we expect the rest of the world to do so?

I don't make the distinction between what I can safely mock or insult about the LDS faith, and what I can't.  Meaning I don't think to myself: well, the Temple is off limits, but I'll make fun of the garments/relief society/BoM, whatever.

As for the 'cracker' comments, while it stings a bit, I really don't expect them to refer to the Eucharist as "the Body and Blood of Christ".  I do think 'cracker' as opposed to 'bread' is an effort to reduce it to the lowest possible terms, but that could just be my perception.

[The Folk Prophet]

6 hours ago, Carborendum said:

What?  You didn't realize we'd already reached reductio ad absurdum a while back?  The thing is that I have no problem discussing the absurd.  But that's just me.

The conversation didn't degrade because of your presumption that extreme examples cannot be useful in understanding principles. It degraded because you decided that I was personally attacking you by making one of those examples. I'm not interested in a conversation where someone decides to take a thought I'm sharing to try and express an idea and interprets it as me personally mocking them. It's a leftist bull tactic and you should know better.

[Blueskye2]

1 hour ago, fatima said:

As Anatess pointed out, a Mormon has no reason to study what other religions view as sacred in order to edit their commentary accordingly.  Because language is very fluid, what I think is necessary among those-of-us-who-claim-to-practice Christianity, is to measure everything we say with charity and be excessive in our care towards each other.  Heck, if we cannot show love and respect, why should we expect the rest of the world to do so?

I don't make the distinction between what I can safely mock or insult about the LDS faith, and what I can't.  Meaning I don't think to myself: well, the Temple is off limits, but I'll make fun of the garments/relief society/BoM, whatever.

 

Well said.  

I only add that how we, as Christians, respond to slights is just as important. A measured response to a slight requires the same excessive care.

 

Edited June 27, 2017 by Blueskye2

[fatima]

You make a great point.  @Vort-I'm sorry for reacting so strongly to your words.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, The Folk Prophet said:

The conversation didn't degrade because of your presumption that extreme examples cannot be useful in understanding principles. It degraded because you decided that I was personally attacking you by making one of those examples. I'm not interested in a conversation where someone decides to take a thought I'm sharing to try and express an idea and interprets it as me personally mocking them. It's a leftist bull tactic and you should know better.

FP,

No, I didn't take it as a personal attack.  I think of you as a friend.  I never meant the conversation to go any other way.  Like I said.  I believed it to simply be a part of the conversation.  I never took it personally. Perhaps I shouldn't have used the word "mocking" and I apologize for that.  But there was a tone of "this conversation has gotten ridiculous" which is what I was trying to convey.  I simply believed that you had come to the same conclusion when you said things like "duh".  So, I took it as agreement.

Now, here's something that no one responded to -- and I wonder if anyone noticed it.

Quote

 For behold, verily I say, that many there be who are under this condemnation, who use the name of the Lord, and use it in vain, having not authority.

D&C 63:62

This is the reason not to participate in others' communion.  In hindsight, this is what you and Vort have been saying all along.  But the context and the extreme examples being used as illustrations took away from this simple message.

It occurred to me because I kept thinking that the communion in other faiths is really "pointless" or "meaningless".  Why is this such a big deal?  When I kept focusing on the words pointless and meaningless, it occurred to me -- taking the name of the Lord in vain is speaking His name in a manner where it has no meaning.  It is pointless or meaningless.  If their ordinances are without meaning (or they have not authority) and they are invoking the name of the Lord, then they are doing so in vain.  That is why we shouldn't participate.

Edited June 27, 2017 by Guest

[person0]

17 hours ago, Carborendum said:

But it was taken from a religious order that was which was taken from the original endowment of old.

This is speculative.  There have been many leaders of the church who have stated such, however, there is not currently any evidence to support this.  I believed it myself for the longest time.  It would be very interesting if it is true, but it makes no difference to me now, either way.  I presume this fact may have bearing in your discussion with @Vort, as it pertains to using masonry as an example.

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, person0 said:

This is speculative.  There have been many leaders of the church who have stated such, however, there is not currently any evidence to support this.  I believed it myself for the longest time.  It would be very interesting if it is true, but it makes no difference to me now, either way.  I presume this fact may have bearing in your discussion with @Vort, as it pertains to using masonry as an example.

I think you misunderstood my position on that.  I do NOT believe masonic rites came from the Temple of Solomon.  I stated as much when I talked about the "Hiram Key."  What I believe is that the early Saints had the endowment.  Some of the symbols were carried through into the apostasy.  Orthodox churches such as Catholicism would have maintained them as best they could.  They got corrupted over the years and Masonry had access to these corrupted symbols.  So, that is why they are not quite the same as ours (which I believe were directly from the Lord).

But it doesn't really affect my discussion with Vort because either:

A) Masons got their symbols from rites of early saints OR

B) They got it from the temple of Solomon.

Either way, it is a corrupted version of the true endowment.

Another reason it doesn't really affect the discussion with Vort since his position was that primarily the claim to a religious rite or a divine purpose in the Masonic rites is not present anyway.  And considering my take about taking the Lord's name in vain, the source of those symbols is unimportant, but whether they claim a religious intent and invoke the name of God (which they do not).

[anatess2]

18 hours ago, fatima said:

So you are not/would not be offended if someone came here and called the Temple or Joseph Smith "sadistic and evil"?  If it happened on the CA forum I would be offended for those good and Godly LDS that I know, and I would take a moment to chastise a fellow Catholic for saying such. But you would chalk that up to "a point of fact from my perspective"?  You'd be wrong for doing so.  

Lastly, you are well versed in Catholic theology, but your priests were wrong.  I suspect in the first situation the priest wasn't as much withholding the Eucharist as he was concerned about modesty.  He didn't say, "no", he said cover up and come back.  In the second situation, again, the priest was just plain wrong.  Whatever he suspected was your sin, he had no way of knowing if you had just come from the Confessional, so he had no right to deny you communion.  Denying the Eucharist is not a practice that is endorsed by the CC, although an individual priest may erroneously do so.

You need to re-read Vort's post after you've cooled down a bit.  You over-reacted and read into it more than was intended.  And about CAF - doesn't matter what you say in CAF because they would ban Mormons for simply stating their beliefs as point of fact that is contrary to Catholicism.  The reason they gave me was - proselyting.  If some Mormon reacted in CAF in the same manner you did here, for example, that would have gotten them banned from CAF in a quickness.

The point I was making is - the Priest HAS the authority (it is incorrect to call it "a right" - this has nothing to do with "a right", rather, Priests have the authority)  to deny a Catholic the Eucharist even if that same Catholic doesn't believe she has done wrong.  In my situation - yes, as I said, the modesty issue was a temporary denial and I was asked to change and attend a later service.  The other situation - Parish Priests in the Philippines are generally very close to the people.  I had 2 very close Priests growing up - the Priest in the village chapel where we attend Sunday Services (my dad built the chapel which became a satellite of the Parish, the Priests in that chapel became adopted members of the families living in the village) and then there's the Chaplain of my Catholic School where we attend weekday devotional Masses.  They are as close, if not closer, to us as the Bishops of the LDS Church.  Of course they know where our Catholic journey is at any moment.  They're the ones that guided us through the faith.  It is sad for me to hear a Catholic say a Priest "has no right" to deny somebody Communion.  This is an American development where Priests have become ineffective in their callings.  People with grievous sins such as apostasy against the church, abortion, divorce, adultery, even homosexual intercourse, etc., vilify their Bishops and raise a public outcry if they get denied Communion even as they remain publicly unrepentant of such sin.  And the diocese cave in to the public pressure!

Edited June 27, 2017 by anatess2

[Guest]

18 hours ago, fatima said:

So you are not/would not be offended if someone came here and called the Temple or Joseph Smith "sadistic and evil"?

Well, I can speak to this directly.  I have actually heard an anti-Mormon make a remark like Vort's when he knew I could hear it.  I can't say that my reaction was "offense" in terms of intensity of my gut reaction.  I furrowed my brow, made a brief sour face, and then let it go.

In the end I had to admit that he didn't actually call us sadistic and evil. He was making a point with an illustration (very much like Vort).  On the other hand, I believe Vort never meant to imply that Catholics are sadistic or evil.  But I'm pretty certain my anti-Mormon friend did imply that because he had outright said so on a number of occasions.  So, I even had a history to believe he intended an insult.  But I didn't react as strongly as you seemed to.

Edited June 27, 2017 by Guest

[Guest MormonGator]

5 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

Well, I can speak to this directly.  I have actually heard an anti-Mormon make a remark like Vort's when he knew I could hear it.  I can't say that my reaction was "offense" in terms of intensity of my gut reaction.  I furrowed my brow, made a brief sour face, and then let it go.

I admire you for that my friend. I know a lot of people (myself included, no doubt) who, while not getting offended, have a hard time letting things go. The only things I have in common with Donald Trump is that we take everything personal and carry grudges forever. 

[Vort]

1 hour ago, Carborendum said:

But it doesn't really affect my discussion with Vort because either:

A) Masons got their symbols from rites of early saints OR

B) They got it from the temple of Solomon.

Either way, it is a corrupted version of the true endowment.

or

C) They did not get it from any particular sacred source, and Joseph Smith simply found certain elements useful enough to incorporate into the endowment presentation.

This possibility requires a willingness to believe that Joseph did not receive the endowment word-for-word in revelation, but rather constructed it to reflect the principles he had received. Given the history as I understand it of the endowment, I find this a reasonable idea.

[Guest]

4 minutes ago, Vort said:

or

C) They did not get it from any particular sacred source, and Joseph Smith simply found certain elements useful enough to incorporate into the endowment presentation.

This possibility requires a willingness to believe that Joseph did not receive the endowment word-for-word in revelation, but rather constructed it to reflect the principles he had received. Given the history as I understand it of the endowment, I find this a reasonable idea.

Well, Vort, I did not intend "A or B" to be an exhaustive list.  I was simply addressing Person0's comment.

Regarding your option C.  Yes, I see it as a possibility -- even reasonable to believe.  But I personally don't believe it based on other factors such as timing, schedule, the differences as much as the similarities between the ceremonies.  But I've already mentioned all this many times before.  And I realize I'm in the minority.

Edited June 27, 2017 by Guest

[The Folk Prophet]

12 minutes ago, Vort said:

or

C) They did not get it from any particular sacred source, and Joseph Smith simply found certain elements useful enough to incorporate into the endowment presentation.

This possibility requires a willingness to believe that Joseph did not receive the endowment word-for-word in revelation, but rather constructed it to reflect the principles he had received. Given the history as I understand it of the endowment, I find this a reasonable idea.

With no evidence whatsoever, and experiences likely too sacred to discuss here, I have concluded otherwise.

[Vort]

1 hour ago, Carborendum said:

I believe Vort never meant to imply that Catholics are sadistic or evil

Let me clarify my thoughts on this matter, just so that there is no misunderstanding.

It seems to me that Catholics catch grief from both ends, so to speak. From the irreligious and non-Christian, Catholicism is portrayed as a sinister, power-hungry organization of oppression whose goal is to perpetuate its own power by keeping people in ignorance. Catholicism, they claim, is the primary reason for the thousand-year Dark Ages, which was only overcome when the daylight of secular humanism spread its gentle rays over the ignorance of the religious (read: Catholic) savages.

The view from the religious end is no more charitable. Catholicism seems to be viewed as the oppressor of Goodness and the corrupter of True Doctrine (meaning whatever particular doctrine a sect teaches in disagreement with Catholic theology). Mormons have their own version of this: Catholicism as the Great Whore, the very hand of Satan, teaching lies and oppressing the righteous wherever they go. When I announced my mission call to Italy in an institute class in 1983 -- a class where only a small handful of people even knew who I was -- there was an audible gasp and whispers about "going into the belly of the beast" and such.

My own beliefs about Catholicism may well have tended toward this latter view when I was very young, but if so, a year in Italy and decades of study and reflection have greatly modified my beliefs. I am not naive: I know perfectly well that Catholicism has had its corrupt priests, bishops, cardinals, even Popes. I know that many wicked men and women have used the beliefs and the ecclesiastical structure of Catholicism to further their nefarious ends. Catholicism as an organization does not stand spotless.

BUT...

The common accusations against Catholicism (might I add, including many of those leveled from within) are often exaggerated or even baseless. All, or even most, Catholic priests are not corrupt. Catholicism is not the Great Whore, at least not specifically and individually. Catholicism has not destroyed scripture; if anything, we have a hundred generations of Catholic scholars and regular clergy to thank for having so carefully and diligently preserved the New Testament that we enjoy today. Catholicism did not cause the so-called Dark Ages or the slavery of serfdom, but provided a moral framework for western Europe to eventually climb out of that morass and establish a more equitable system. The Renaissance sculptures, paintings, stories, music (!!), and the magnificence of the European cathedrals all bear witness to the desires for goodness that the Catholics of Europe held for many centuries. Our world is what it is today because of Catholicism, and I think on the whole we are much better off for it.

Now, I'm a Latter-day Saint. I do not believe that Catholicism has any true priesthood. They have traditions, most of which are false and some of which might even be pernicious. They have an incorrect understanding of the doctrines of divinity which, in many cases, lead them to err. I am not a missionary for the Catholic faith. But I am no denigrator of it, either. If my speech or examples have led you to think otherwise, please accept my word now that that wasn't my intent.

[fatima]

3 hours ago, Carborendum said:

Well, I can speak to this directly.  I have actually heard an anti-Mormon make a remark like Vort's when he knew I could hear it.  I can't say that my reaction was "offense" in terms of intensity of my gut reaction.  I furrowed my brow, made a brief sour face, and then let it go.

In the end I had to admit that he didn't actually call us sadistic and evil. He was making a point with an illustration (very much like Vort).  On the other hand, I believe Vort never meant to imply that Catholics are sadistic or evil.  But I'm pretty certain my anti-Mormon friend did imply that because he had outright said so on a number of occasions.  So, I even had a history to believe he intended an insult.  But I didn't react as strongly as you seemed to.

Just as reminder, I don't think my initial response to Vort was particularly strong: I've always found LDS to be very respectful, so I'm shocked at the rudeness of this post.  The Eucharist is the sum and summit of the Catholic faith, and the True Presence of Christ in the Eucharist is on solid Scriptural, Traditional and historical ground, even if you don't see it."

To say that I was 'shocked' doesn't seem like an overreaction to me, but as I've said, language is fluid.  I have since not responded to Vort except to offer my apology.

What I did do is belabor the point in a handful of posts that we should show respect to one another, which is what I have previously found on this forum.  However, it does seem that I have erred in this belief, according to some.

All of that said, I've lurked here for years, and only recently decided to post.  Maybe I'll just return to lurking.

 

[Guest]

1 minute ago, fatima said:

Just as reminder, I don't think my initial response to Vort was particularly strong: 

Well, it sounded like it on this side of the screen.  But that's internet forums for you.  If you say you did not react that strongly, then I'll believe you.

[fatima]

1 minute ago, Carborendum said:

Well, it sounded like it on this side of the screen.  But that's internet forums for you.  If you say you did not react that strongly, then I'll believe you.

Oh, I definitely felt strongly, but I didn't think I let that get out (well, at least until I was told to 'get in line')  That's when I got on my soapbox.

[Guest]

Just now, fatima said:

Oh, I definitely felt strongly, but I didn't think I let that get out (well, at least until I was told to 'get in line')  That's when I got on my soapbox.

Well, in Vort's defense, he says that to his friends as well.  So...

[Guest]

1 hour ago, The Folk Prophet said:

With no evidence whatsoever, and experiences likely too sacred to discuss here, I have concluded otherwise.

I know exactly what you mean.

[Vort]

Just now, Carborendum said:

1 minute ago, fatima said:

Oh, I definitely felt strongly, but I didn't think I let that get out (well, at least until I was told to 'get in line')  That's when I got on my soapbox.

Well, in Vort's defense, he says that to his friends as well.  So...

Huh. I thought "Get in line" was an easily understood self-deprecation, another way of saying "Oh, so you're offended by me? You're not the only one, sister." I had no idea anyone would take offense at it.

[Guest]

Just now, Vort said:

Huh. I thought "Get in line" was an easily understood self-deprecation, another way of saying "Oh, so you're offended by me? You're not the only one, sister." I had no idea anyone would take offense at it.

Yup.  That was kinda what I was getting at with the "he says that to his friends.."

[anatess2]

22 hours ago, fatima said:

Just as reminder, I don't think my initial response to Vort was particularly strong:

 

You called @Vort rude.  He wasn't rude.  And we told you so with an explanation of how it wasn't.  That was all there was to it.

This is what made it get more attention:

On 6/25/2017 at 7:06 AM, fatima said:

While I considered whether or not to lash out at Vort, the Holy Spirit has guided me towards a different response. 

If I was the one getting offended by Vort and the Spirit guided me towards a different response, I wouldn't start my post with - "While I considered whether or not to lash out at Vort" because that in itself fosters negativity (something the Spirit told me not to do).  Rather, I would simply respond with how the Spirit guided me to respond.  But that's just me.

But since you started the post that way, from my end of the screen I debated whether that statement meant that you were wrong in thinking Vort was rude and Spirit made you realize it or that you really think Vort is rude and the Spirit guided you to not react in kind.  But the word "lash out" made me choose the 2nd interpretation.  So, I just wanted to let you know you are wrong in your reading of Vort's post.  He wasn't rude.  You read into it more than was there.  And so I responded to your post.  I was just trying to be helpful.

Anyway... that's still all there is to it.

Edited June 28, 2017 by anatess2

[fatima]

1 hour ago, anatess2 said:

You called @Vort rude.  He wasn't rude.  And we told you so with an explanation of how it wasn't.  That was all there was to it.

This is what made it get more attention:

If I was the one getting offended by Vort and the Spirit guided me towards a different response, I wouldn't start my post with - "While I considered whether or not to lash out at Vort" because that in itself fosters negativity (something the Spirit told me not to do).  Rather, I would simply respond with how the Spirit guided me to respond.  But that's just me.

But since you started the post that way, from my end of the screen I debated whether that statement meant that you were wrong in thinking Vort was rude and Spirit made you realize it or that you really think Vort is rude and the Spirit guided you to not react in kind.  But the word "lash out" made me choose the 2nd interpretation.  So, I just wanted to let you know you are wrong in your reading of Vort's post.  He wasn't rude.  You read into it more than was there.  And so I responded to your post.  I was just trying to be helpful.

Anyway... that's still all there is to it.

And I apologized.

[anatess2]

On 6/27/2017 at 7:22 AM, fatima said:

As Anatess pointed out, a Mormon has no reason to study what other religions view as sacred in order to edit their commentary accordingly.  Because language is very fluid, what I think is necessary among those-of-us-who-claim-to-practice Christianity, is to measure everything we say with charity and be excessive in our care towards each other.  Heck, if we cannot show love and respect, why should we expect the rest of the world to do so?

I don't make the distinction between what I can safely mock or insult about the LDS faith, and what I can't.  Meaning I don't think to myself: well, the Temple is off limits, but I'll make fun of the garments/relief society/BoM, whatever.

As for the 'cracker' comments, while it stings a bit, I really don't expect them to refer to the Eucharist as "the Body and Blood of Christ".  I do think 'cracker' as opposed to 'bread' is an effort to reduce it to the lowest possible terms, but that could just be my perception.

Yes, language is very fluid.  Charity is not just in the way we structure our sentences.  It is also in the way we interpret the structure of other people's sentences.  Basically, charity is not just to speak kindly.  It is also to take the default position that the other person was also trying to speak kindly even as the way it was written didn't hit our brains as such.  This is the internet.  The written word is devoid of vocal inflection and non-verbal cues and can easily come off differently from how it was intended.  I'm especially vulnerable to this as English is only my 3rd language.

The "cracker" as opposed to "bread" is not an effort to reduce it to the lowest possible terms.  It is simply a material differentiation of the actual bread that Mormons use versus the wafer that Catholics use.  Calling the wafer bread gives a different visual.  The fact is - It is closer to a cracker than it is to bread.  So it is not an intent to disrespect for non-Catholics to call it cracker instead of bread because... it is a cracker.  I understand this completely because in Bisaya, a cracker is called a biscuit, and the biscuit that comes with your fried chicken is called bread.  So, it takes a lot of mental calisthenics for me to call what in my head is a biscuit a cracker and what in my head is a bread, a biscuit.  Do you know that it took me about 2 years or so before I stopped thinking of the LDS Sacrament as a Mass?  It took a lot of mental calisthenics to stop myself from calling it Mass when I gave a lesson.  And I wouldn't expect non-Catholics to have to go through that mental calisthenics when talking about the Eucharist. 

 

Edited June 28, 2017 by anatess2