Do Catholics consider the LDS Church as a Christian Church?

lunamoth said:

No, I mean do you believe that there are full members of the Church who are not part of the Catholic Church?

Click to expand...

Full? No.....members? Possibly.....but I haven't the foggiest idea who they are.

lunamoth said:

Does the Catholic (RCC) represent the only Visible Church?

Click to expand...

As it represents the Body of Christ....yes.

lunamoth said:

Do you have to be baptized RCC to be a member of the Visible Church?

Click to expand...

You can be baptized outside of it and still mysteriously be part of the Body.

lunamoth said:

I'm not trying to be argumentative Victor, but just a couple of days ago you told me in no uncertain terms I am not part of the Church.

Click to expand...

I'm going to have to ask you to quote me on that. I really do not appreaciate you calling me out in public like this. You've misunderstood me once before so maybe this is yet another time.

lunamoth said:

You also told me that the Catholic Church does not recognzie anything called the 'invisible Church.' I'm just trying to get to the bottom of what exactly all of this means.

Click to expand...

Again, this could be a miscommunication.

Be back in 30 min.....

sojourner said:

People are visible, are they not? People -- laos -- comprise the Church. I maintain that there is no distinction between the visible and the invisible Church. It's all the same thing. What blinds us is our own understanding (or misunderstanding).

Click to expand...

Victor said:

Unless you believe in OSAS, there certainly is a difference. If you are simply talking about a man seeking truth from the bottom of his heart who does not call himself catholic, then salvation outside the visible church is possible. But that's a theological area that I leave to the Grace of God (as I do everything else really). But I think it's bad theology to use exceptions (say for example the thief on the cross) as a means to form a doctrine/belief. If God tells us to do something (say baptize) we use that as the norm, not the exception.

Click to expand...

Victor said:

Please Luna, I'm not that hardcore fundamentalist. You extended that much farther then I would dare imply.

Do I think your are part of the visilbe Church? Nope

Click to expand...

Just trying to sort this out Victor.

Victor said:

Full? No.....members? Possibly.....but I haven't the foggiest idea who they are.

Click to expand...

As it represents the Body of Christ....yes.

You can be baptized outside of it and still mysteriously be part of the Body.

I'm going to have to ask you to quote me on that. I really do not appreaciate you calling me out in public like this. You've misunderstood me once before so maybe this is yet another time.

Again, this could be a miscommunication.

Be back in 30 min.....[/quote]

Victor, I am not 'calling you out' on this, I'm looking for answers to my questions. I previously said that I get uncomfortable pushing people on this but you said you don't mind discussing such things. I am really not clear on all of this and apparently I am not the only one.

lunamoth said:

So, LDS members may indeed be part of the visible Church even though they are formally baptized and practicing LDS?

Click to expand...

I am thinking yes. Do they participate in the visible Church fully? I would say no. I would say that being a member of the visible Church might not require full participation. Of course the ideal and the best thing would be for all to participate fully in the visible Church. I think it is a matter of degree of participation. All who follow the teachings of Christ I would say are members of his Church but not all members of his Church follow everything He taught. I would like to go even so far as to include an atheist who follows the golden rule. By following the golden rule they are following in Christ and are participating in a very limited form in his Church. So yes I will say that LDS participate in the visible church to a degree and so I am not going to deny them the title of Christian.

Of course this whole visible/invisible membership in church deal is just starting to confuse me anyway. I need to think more about it, maybe I am just plain wrong. I mean what makes the Church visible are the consistency of teaching and tradition and belief through time and space and such. Maybe it is not so much that they are members of the visible church but they are like supporters or something. Maybe its not so much that they are members of the Body of Christ but they are like the cloths that cover the Body...or something. I am not sure, need to think more......

lilithu said:

lol, I was just saying the same thing in PM. All this sound and fury over who gets to be "included" and who doesn't.

Hi Terry, namaste.

I understand that I cannot impose a UU perspective on others any more than others can impose their perspectives on me. But even from within the framework of Christianity, it does not make sense to me to define "who is Christian" so exclusively. I thought that where two or more gather in his name, Christ is there. If Christ does not refuse fellowship with anyone who gathers in his name, I don't understand why any Christians would. To be clear, I am not arguing that different denominations should accept each others baptisms or believe that they are all part of the same "Church." I understand that there are accepted rules to being part of a particular denomination. But not Christian??

Click to expand...

I would agree with you.... Jesus set out remarkably few rules, as you say.
However most churches are run much like private clubs.. whose members must toe the official line.

That is why I call myself CofE heretic. so that people do not confuse my beliefs with the narrower view of the official church.

Runlikethewind said:

I am thinking yes. Do they participate in the visible Church fully? I would say no. I would say that being a member of the visible Church might not require full participation. Of course the ideal and the best thing would be for all to participate fully in the visible Church. I think it is a matter of degree of participation. All who follow the teachings of Christ I would say are members of his Church but not all members of his Church follow everything He taught. I would like to go even so far as to include an atheist who follows the golden rule. By following the golden rule they are following in Christ and are participating in a very limited form in his Church. So yes I will say that LDS participate in the visible church to a degree and so I am not going to deny them the title of Christian.

Of course this whole visible/invisible membership in church deal is just starting to confuse me anyway. I need to think more about it, maybe I am just plain wrong. I mean what makes the Church visible are the consistency of teaching and tradition and belief through time and space and such. Maybe it is not so much that they are members of the visible church but they are like supporters or something. Maybe its not so much that they are members of the Body of Christ but they are like the cloths that cover the Body...or something. I am not sure, need to think more......

Click to expand...

Hi Run, Thank you for your candor. The metaphor I tend to think of is that we are different parts of the Body, yet all are needed. Now, who wants to be the Right Elbow?

luna

Runlikethewind said:

Those who are baptized and follow the Catholic faith are members of the Church, the one true faith of Christ. All other Christians including LDS from the Catholic perspective are just out of communion or do not have the fullness of Christ’s teaching in our view, but they are still Christian. I agree not only with James’ assessment of the Church that we know where it is but not where it ends.

Click to expand...

I would submit that when an LDS baptizes in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, no matter what their understanding of the Godhead/trinity is, they desire to be baptized into the body of Christ. I would say that although the LDS baptism is not valid sacramentally it is still a valid baptism of desire and the fruits of that are the same. Now of course it would be better if all where baptized sacramentally and followed the fullness of Christ, I will never stop trying to teach all peoples the fullness of Christ as revealed in the teachings of the Catholic Church, I am not advocating any sort of religious reletivity. But I will not judge or knock down anyone, based on their lack of understanding which in many cases results from circumstances beyond ones own control. James rightly points to Mark 9, 38-41 he who is not against us is on our side.

Click to expand...

Hey, Run! Thank you for your comments. For what it's worth, I don't believe any of us Latter-day Saints would find this point of view at all insulting. As a matter of fact, I personally feel that I could pretty much take these two paragraphs and reverse all of your references to "LDS" and "Catholic" to describe the way the LDS Church views Catholics. I appreciate your willingness to share your perspective. Frubals to you!

I have been thinking about this all day and I have come to several conclusions.

I believe that the Catholic Church is the one true visible Church established by Christ and rightly ordered through time. My faith in the Catholic Church is as strong as I am sure your faith in the LDS church is. I believe that the fullness of Christ teachings are found in the Catholic Church. And I do not think that this belief is in anyway compromised by recognizing all those who attempt to follow Christ as fellow brothers and sister and members of Christ’s body.

Certainly on a theoretical/theological level I can see reasons why one might have serious concerns over the nature of baptism and membership in Christ’s Church because such questions may very well prove to be key in our salvation. I think that they are important and I don’t want to diminish the theological aspects of the questions. But from a practical standpoint I just don’t see the issue as being all that important. In light of the other recent thread concerning whether LDS are Christian or not, and this thread I just don’t see how arguing over who is Christian and who is not is going to get anyone anywhere. And I cannot, I will not, deny the title of Christian to anyone who sincerely attempts and desires to follow what they see as the teachings of Christ.

I believe that it is impossible for humans to do any good things apart from a participation in God’s grace. I believe this is a solid Catholic teaching (God help me if I am wrong). Any one who does anything good, in my mind, has participated in God’s grace to do it, whether they know/believe it or not. Christ said that you will know them by their fruits, that He is the vine and we are the branches. I see many Catholics, members of the visible Church, who are villains. Throughout the history of the Church and even today, there have been withered branches that produce no fruit within the Church. I look upon non-Catholics and I see good fruit all day long and I cannot deny the working of the Holy Spirit in them. Membership in any church does not guarantee Christian behavior. And although I do feel that being a member of the Catholic Church provides one the greatest opportunity and the most and best tools for achieving true Christian behavior, I do not think that Christ will reject anyone who has followed Him no matter what path they took. I will close by pointing to the most relevant biblical passage I can think of, Matt 25: 31-46 and Matt 7. A few key verses:

Matt25
37"Then the righteous will answer him, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?'

40"The King will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.'

Matt7
18A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit.

21"Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.

I still have much to learn on this matter of the visible church and the mystical body of Christ. I understand the concepts as such but do not understand them in practice. I do not think, however, that any harm can come from recognizing the LDS as brothers and sisters in Christ if it is done out of love and charity. I know we have many differences but we both worship the same God and recognize Jesus as His son. I don’t know... I am just so very ignorant and have much growing to do. All that I know is that in my heart it feels right to accept with open arms all those who proclaim Christ as their king and even those who do not. I desire to see all people saved, I desire to see all peoples in paradise with God. I believe that Jesus was telling the truth when He said that He was the way the truth and the light and that no one can get to the Father except through Him. And I believe that God desires the salvation of all people. So I must therefor conclude that there are many ways to Christ. Some ways are better than other (of course I think Catholicism is the best) but still many ways to get there. Anyone who knows where they are headed (to Christ) is a fellow pilgrim on the journey and the Church is the pilgrim church on earth. Even if everyone has slightly different versions of the map (religion) the destination is the same and I am more than happy to recognize those who travel along the way as fellow pilgrims.

God help us all to reach our common destination.

Runlikethewind said:

God help us all to reach our common destination.

Click to expand...

Amen Run. Thank you for another beautiful post. The System *curse you System!* would not let me frubal you again.

luna

Runlikethewind said:

The Church holds that the fruits of baptism, including membership into the Christian community, can come about through a baptism of blood or desire. I would submit that when an LDS baptizes in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, no matter what their understanding of the Godhead/trinity is, they desire to be baptized into the body of Christ. I would say that although the LDS baptism is not valid sacramentally it is still a valid baptism of desire and the fruits of that are the same. Now of course it would be better if all where baptized sacramentally and followed the fullness of Christ, I will never stop trying to teach all peoples the fullness of Christ as revealed in the teachings of the Catholic Church, I am not advocating any sort of religious reletivity. But I will not judge or knock down anyone, based on their lack of understanding which in many cases results from circumstances beyond ones own control. James rightly points to Mark 9, 38-41 he who is not against us is on our side.

Click to expand...

Frubals deserved (sorry but I'll have to owe you them). This is my view precisely. Christians in churches other than ours (including yours, from our perspective, I'm afraid) can still be Christian, can still be saved, still have God's grace poured out on them. They may lack the fullness of the Truth to some degree and they may not possess the sacraments, but God is by no means bound to act only through the sacraments but saves who he wills. To argue, therefore, that a Mormon who sincerely seeks to follow Christ, who desires to be part of His Body, isn't even Christian, is simply not an option for me.

The original question asks if we Catholics consider the Mormons A Christian Church, this makes no sense. Saying A Church implies that there is more than one Christian Church. It would be more accurate to ask if Catholics view Mormons as being members of the one Christian Church. And since as James points out we can say who is in but not who is out, it is a matter of interpretation. Athanasius rightly shows that a valid sacramental baptism puts one in the category of those who are members of the Church. Without a valid sacramental baptism Mormons cannot be placed in that category. It does not follow, however, that members of LDS communities are not members of the body of Christ. We cannot say with certainty that they are a member in the same way that we can say it about those who have received a valid sacramental baptism. They fall into the category of not knowing if they are members, which does not equate to not being members. The Church teaches that God is not bound to the sacramental baptism, the Church teaches the a baptism of desire is a baptism, therefore a baptism of desire would make one a member of the one Christian Church. I say that an LDS baptism is a baptism of desire and therefore they are members of the body of Christ, but I cannot say that with any certainty.

Click to expand...

And I agree here also, except that I have no trouble considering the LDS church to be a church. It is not, in our view, The Church founded by Christ, but it is a body of Christians all of whom may or may not be in the body of Christ (who are we to judge) and I would certainly afford them the courtesy of referring to that body as a church. As the title of the thread was capitalised throughout, I didn't convey any particular significance upon the fact that Church was also, and so I can wholeheartedly answer yes to it. Only if it had said The Church (which would have been a pointless question as none of us would have agreed to that) would I have had to have answered, no.

Anyway, I'm glad to see a Roman Catholic here who agrees with my perspective and especially to see that Athanasius' narrow legalistic view is not shared by all of you.

James

lunamoth said:

Interesting. Victor has said that the Catholic Church does not believe in the 'invisible Church,' which this statement by James and Run seems to imply does exist. What do you guys say about that? Can you be part of the Church if you are not baptized into your repsective churches? Also, how do you see the Church related to the Body of Christ?

Click to expand...

There is an invisible Church, but we don't mean by that what Protestants mean. We mean the Church Triumphant - all those who are saved (which by definition means they are no longer with us). The Church is the Body of Christ, Christ is God and God is not limited by time. Those who are saved are in the Church whether they were in the Church Militant or not during their lifetimes. As time is meaningless to God, from His perspective, then, they are members of the Church, though from ours they only will be. This, therefore, allows us to say that we know where the Church is but not where it is not, to say simultaneously that sacramental grace can only be found in the Church but that God pours out charismatic grace on all, and to affirm that the aphorism 'there is no salvation outside of the Church', while true, is tautologous. I hope that helps. Good question, by the way.

James

JamesThePersian said:

There is an invisible Church, but we don't mean by that what Protestants mean. We mean the Church Triumphant - all those who are saved (which by definition means they are no longer with us). The Church is the Body of Christ, Christ is God and God is not limited by time. Those who are saved are in the Church whether they were in the Church Militant or not during their lifetimes. As time is meaningless to God, from His perspective, then, they are members of the Church, though from ours they only will be. This, therefore, allows us to say that we know where the Church is but not where it is not, to say simultaneously that sacramental grace can only be found in the Church but that God pours out charismatic grace on all, and to affirm that the aphorism 'there is no salvation outside of the Church', while true, is tautologous. I hope that helps. Good question, by the way.

James

Click to expand...

thanks for that....
I have always thought that the various churches stance on who is Christian or Saved is unlikely to be the end of the matter.
God is the final arbiter not us.
To say otherwise limits God's own decision making.

JamesThePersian said:

There is an invisible Church, but we don't mean by that what Protestants mean. We mean the Church Triumphant - all those who are saved (which by definition means they are no longer with us). The Church is the Body of Christ, Christ is God and God is not limited by time. Those who are saved are in the Church whether they were in the Church Militant or not during their lifetimes. As time is meaningless to God, from His perspective, then, they are members of the Church, though from ours they only will be. This, therefore, allows us to say that we know where the Church is but not where it is not, to say simultaneously that sacramental grace can only be found in the Church but that God pours out charismatic grace on all, and to affirm that the aphorism 'there is no salvation outside of the Church', while true, is tautologous. I hope that helps. Good question, by the way.

James

Click to expand...

Yes, well said. In another post when I said we didn't believe in an invisible church I was referring to the Protestant understanding of the term. This position stated by James would apply also to the western Catholics too, as far as my understanding goes.