A Mormon Scholar’s Journey to Catholic Faith

Early in the evening of May 28, 2010, I am attending Mass in the majestic Basilica di Sant’Apollinare next to the Pontificia Università della Santa Croce in Rome. From Utah I have come as a scholar to deliver a paper at an international conference on the work of the great Catholic philosopher Dietrich von Hildebrand, and I have come as a tourist to see the Eternal City for the first time. Mass is being celebrated in the basilica for those attending the conference.

I am not Catholic—in fact, I was raised a Mormon, though I have had serious doubts about the Latter-day Saint faith for decades. Yet my journey of the heart—which ultimately ended in the Catholic Church—came long after I had intellectually departed—so I cannot receive Holy Communion. But when Archbishop Raymond Burke places his hand on my head in a blessing, the extraordinary presence of Jesus Christ moves my soul to tears. I now know, in my head and in my heart, that I have come to Rome as a pilgrim. I have finally heard his voice, and I will not turn away.

Of course, I was awestruck by the beauty of Rome. The conference was wonderful, and I made important contacts and great friends. But infinitely more important, I found a priceless gift: the God of truth I had ignored for decades. I found my soul, which had been lost in the fog of my pride and stubbornness. Thus began a journey that took me to the waters of Catholic baptism, the anointing of confirmation, and first Communion at the Easter Vigil of 2012. You do not need to travel thousands of miles to have a real encounter with Christ. But your soul does need to be open in a way mine had not been for years.

Mormon friends ask how I could leave the LDS Church. Catholic friends ask why the pilgrimage to Rome took me so long. My brother, a rabbi, was the first person I told I was converting. When we talked, he said simply, “You were a Catholic thinker when you were a graduate student at Harvard in the 1970s.”

Intellectually, there are two beliefs at the core of the LDS faith that I eventually realized I could not accept. The first is the doctrine of a “great apostasy” afflicting the church. Mormons do not deny that Peter led the church after Jesus’ Ascension. They deny that the Holy Spirit continued to guide it. Mormons believe that after Peter the patristic church lost its way.

And by “losing its way,” Mormons do not mean that the church suffered from human sinfulness or became too wedded to secular power. Christianity supposedly strayed so far that it was no longer Christianity. It did not merely require renewal, as St. Francis preached. It did not merely require a new vocabulary to express timeless truths, as Vatican II proclaimed. Mormons believe that the church—Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant visions alike—completely died and that Christianity required a “restoration” by God himself.

My intellectual journey was inspired in large part by my study of patristics. Reading the Church Fathers in my first year at Harvard in 1970–71, I realized that this story was false. Even my meager study of the Fathers allowed me to see what Newman had seen—that there was a development of Christian thought, a deepening of our understanding of such truths as the Incarnation and the Trinity. There simply was no evidence of a fundamental break from the church Jesus established. As one of Mormonism’s most brilliant minds of the last half century, Edwin Firmage, wrote after he left the LDS Church: “The idea that God was sort of snoozing until 1820 now seems to me absurd.”

Two passages from the Gospel of Matthew are particularly difficult to reconcile with the Mormon doctrine of the great apostasy. Jesus promised Peter that “the gates of the netherworld” would not prevail against the Church (Matthew 16) and he promised the Apostles that he would be with the Church until the end of the age (Matthew 28).

The other fundamental Mormon teaching that I cannot accept is the absence of an existential distinction between God and man. In an 1844 sermon, Joseph Smith made a claim that profoundly shapes the way Mormons see the world: “God himself was once as we are now and is an exalted man.” Parse this out and God himself becomes a finite, physical being. How, I wondered, can we have absolute confidence in a God whose power and knowledge are limited, not just by the rules of logic, as St. Thomas would have said, but by unknown barriers? A limited God cannot be our anchor in the face of extreme horrors or profound personal loss. In the face of terrible, inexplicable loss, Job did not place his trust in an “exalted man.” The God who spoke to Job did not start out on a world like ours. This God, who comforted Job and comforts millions of others every day, to whom we can truly pray “not my will but yours be done,” cannot be the limited being Mormons call “god.”

The Mormon “god,” who came from a world like ours, cannot be the creator of all worlds, as Scripture and reason tell us he is. The physical god of the Mormons cannot have been present at creation, when there was no matter. Furthermore, if all of us can become “gods,” then Mormonism is incompatible with Christian Trinitarianism and Jewish monotheism. It is polytheism.

Compounding all this, in my experience, is the fact that Mormons generally do not seek for serious answers. In fact, Mormon authorities actively discourage the marriage of faith and reason that we Catholics celebrate. I now profess openly what I always too silently believed: If a faith cannot be sustained in the face of serious questions, it is not a faith worth having.

If these reasons to reject Mormonism were sound for me over forty years ago, why did I stay? I could say it was culture, friendship, or inertia, and those reasons are accurate in a certain sense. But the full truth is found in Psalm 95: “Today if you hear His voice, harden not your heart.” I now know that at least four times in those forty years I specifically heard God calling me to his Church, but I turned away. My oldest and closest friend since 1970 told me twice directly that, like him, I should be a Catholic. I knew he was right. Yet I did nothing.

In one instance, the turning was literal. I had invited a Catholic theologian to speak at Utah State on religion and science, and I arranged a lunch for him with the Newman Club. After lunch, the parish priest and I talked for a long time. As our conversation wound down, I felt strongly that I should go with him to his office and talk about my faith. Yet I turned away and walked back to my office.

In the past two years, my journey towards the Catholic Church has brought me to a deeper relationship with Jesus Christ than I have ever had. I have not “given up my faith.” Leaving Mormonism for Catholicism is a journey many others are making, and it has allowed me to experience God’s love in a profoundly richer way.

you keep under handing them to me and i’ll keep hitting them out of the park ( i just hope i remember all the points that need to be made )

I'm tired of this, because you struck out a long time ago. I think I'll collapse your tent right now.

(1) The Lord Jesus Christ, who baptizes some with the Holy Ghost, and others with fire, baptized one hundred and twenty souls with the Holy Ghost on the 50th day after His Resurrection, regenerated these repented/believing disciples, including His birth mother, to/for whom all previous sins were confessed and abandoned by Him and them, who were cleansed by His Blood, and there was not one smidgin of water involved.

(2) He continues to do so likewise when with foreknowledge, The God instantaneously through His Unmerited Grace saves more totally committed disciples through their complete trust in The Faith of His Beloved Son, apart from any humanistically ritually applied external fluid to their bodies.

(3) NOW, these saved and in the same twinkling Spirit-baptized believer-priest-progeny, as their first step into discipleship, obediently confess and abandon any further errors the Holy Ghost has brought to they mind, then submit themselves for a display of their new role as a bondslave of The Christ, for a visible consent and verbal witness (Apostles' Creed?).

==========

Since you resist the particularity of water baptism, I think I can assure you that Baptism in the Lake of Fire, of which The Lord himself partook, the Baptism of Violent Death, had little, if any, contact with Adam's ale or any other.

Neither did the Baptism into Moses, prefigured by the baptism in the cloud and the sea.

In fact, there are seven baptisms accounted for in the NT; and eight, if you recall the mikvah wet-down for the ritual purification customary for the Jewish culture, which prepared them for the plunging in a stream followed by John (at Aenon), Jesus, His disciples, and Philip.

Now, whatever you think of the age at which baptism ought to take place, there is no certain time in ante-Nicene history that paedobaptism was forbidden (though Tertullian counseled against it), only that Scripture shows it would have no effect upon a being that was not conscious of sin, for which The God does not impute sin to the child not aware of and responsible to the Law, written on vellum or in its heart; nor held by Him as guilt-ridden.

"For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law." (Rom. 5:13)

Also, if you are counting that in 1 Pet. 3:21a "The like figure by which baptism doth also now save us ... ", the verb isin the present tense, which means 'constantly,' or 'continually,' or 'continuously,' or 'persistently,' and thus implies action in progress. So it is not in the aorist tense, not punctiliar. It's not going to mean what you'd like; but more, it is a figure of speech, hot an actual hose-down.

The arguments you propose have no force, they are just unprovable assumptions, mostly. Certainly not by proper exegesis. Salvation comes by faith, not by soaking. Baptism in one spirit, into one body (the local autonomous church), and made to drink into one Spirit (not baptistry water, I hope) in a figure of speech. Salvation came to Noah not in the water, but on it. Q. E. D. (1 Pet. 2:20)

So much for now. Probably no more on this, either.

But it is crystal clear that water baptism of the professed believer was ordained by Christ as applying to disciples made by the Apostles, not merely to converts; nor did John nor Christ nor the Apostles baptize to impart salvation. The purpose was to publicly signify a persistent faith in the Person and Work of The Christ, unto death. By faith, my sins were remitted at the Cross, not by the public rite of inductance into discipleship. That real occasion of invisible commitment was again rehearsed in a public figurative-literal rite of immersion thus displaying in a figure of that which is recounted in Romans 6:3,5 in the likeness of His death, a Biblical metaphor of what happened at the cross for all, and accepted by trusting in His Faith.

Thank you for your well reasoned and Biblical responses. I was baptized as an infant into the Roman Catholic Church. This was something done TO me, supposedly FOR me, yet it was not until I was gently led to the passage in John 10:27-30 and I read God's word for myself, that I first understood what saving faith was all about. I came to faith in Jesus Christ as my Savior and was later baptized (for the second, but really the first, time) as a public profession of faith and as a testimony to henceforth walk in newness of life, a follower of Jesus Christ. My salvation was assured the moment of my belief in and trust of Christ to save me from my sins through his sacrificial death on the cross and it was at that moment also that I received the Holy Spirit, who is the earnest of my inheritance in Christ. This is the blessed assurance we are to live with and which gives our lives purpose and meaning as we do the works preordained by God that we should walk in them. I praise the Lord that He made sure we had His Holy Scriptures so that we can know what is the truth and we would not have to depend upon fallible human beings to tell us - though it is His desire that we have preachers and teachers who know and speak the truth. It is the Holy Spirit within that leads us into all truth and who illuminates that truth within our hearts.

St. Ignatius, 3rd Bishop of Antioch used the term Catholic for the first time. There is a hierarchy since he was a Bishop. St. Peter appointed Ignatius to Antioch.

Yes, I certaily have known this, but I am not convinced he approved of an overarching bishopric that would take away the autonomy of the local churches, and subjugated them to a supralocal scheme. He was a bishop of a local church, as was Peter before him. In fact, I have a little hard time to believe that, unless the church was of predominantly Hebrew constitution, the ministry of Peter was to the circumcision, whereas that of Paul was to the Gentiles.

“Denomination” is a Protestant term, there is only one

I hate to tell you, but there are a lot of denominations, and Romanism is only one of them. Stick your head in the sand, but it won't make a difference to others. Hmmm. In the end, Christ will sort it out.

Skip all the disagreement and pray about the Real Presence, it is the pinnacle of the faith and shows true faith, one doesn’t see a change in the consecrated host.

I think you mean, "Don't interpret Scripture plain and factual." According to the Bible, the Real Presence, all of His Body and all of His Blood, is now in another spiritual dimension, in Heaven; and His sacrifice of His Body was ephapax = once-for-all-time; and all His Blood was placed on the hilasterion = Mercy Seat, and is the great riches of The Father The God, and He's not allowing one iota or keraia out of His direct, watchful eye, to disappear down a million gullets a day.

Figuratively, Christ's body is on the earth, and we engage in the ordinance of the Remembrance Supper that recalls the Last Supper; with tokens which figuratively represent His Body and His Blood, just as they did then. The elements of that supper were not extensions of His Substance. He instructed the disciples to use this example to remember their last moments with him; and later, of the meaning of His Passion. We are to do the same as He did then, with ordinary bread artos, and unleavened juice of the cluster.

"By the which will* we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once** for all. ...
But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins forever, sat down on the right hand of The God,
From henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool.
For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified" (Heb. 10:10,12-14)
* the second, New Covenant, ** a strengthened form of hapax

That wraps up that part of "no more resacrificing," factual, and literal, no smoke and mirrors with the grammar.

What Jesus did promise was: "Nevertheless I tell you the truth; it is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Holy Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you." (John 16:7)

Of course, I am sure you know all this, but ignore the reasonable approach: When the plain sense of Scripture makes common sense, seek no other sense.

I believe from what I have read of their own writings and of later historians, that what happened early on was that many of the Greek-trained ante-Nicene patristics started applying uncalled-for allegorical and other philosophical tricks from their Platonic toolbox to elevate themselves; rather than sticking with a literal, historical, cultural day-to-day hermeneutic to interpret Scripture as The Holy Spirit wrote and meant for it to be understood. As I have mentioned before, leaving a straightforward, simple, direct, plain, ordinary, and literal sense of the phrases, clauses, and sentences, and flying to an irrational composite of allegories, metaphors, and other nonsensical devices places us in ever-more divisive postures, and destroying the unity of The Faith. Rationality has only come back since the general education of the public, tied with a literal, grammatical hermeneutic, allowed the True Faith revealed by God to reemerge omce again, despite every effort to suppress it by the powerful interests that it will undercut.

If an interpretation of the Holy Scriptures cannot stand without the three added hollow legs of humanistic reason, tradition, and experience propping it up, there is something wrong. When one says white is not black, OK. If that is not true, it is not OK by me. The Real Presence is in Heaven, where He said He would be. And the Holy Ghost is here in earth restraining evil, as promised.

What a great encourager!

It is the Holy Spirit within that leads us into all truth and who illuminates that truth within our hearts.

The object of the true discipler is to draw the learner to all the aspects of spiritual growth. One of the aspects is to learn how to confront five adversaries: Satan, his demons, the world system, one's own flesh, and professing false "believers."

The enticements these adversaries are through our thoughts -- reasonings, high thoughts, doubts, and distracting activities -- and appeals to ones lusts.

But to be an effective discipler, one must have fought a few of one's own spiritual battles. Without the power of the Holy Ghost doing His work through prudent employment of Holy Scripture, natural facts, and timing, the command to be an overcomer can bring some disappointments. But in the end, our opponents cannot win when we rest in Christ. Your words today are unexpected but sweet to hear. There's been a lot of opposition in this topic. Thank you--I will rest better tonight.

Hasta la vista!

I would appreciate it if you would give me an accurate exegesis of this verse using a literal, normal, historical interpretation.

According to whom?

It is quite obvious you use scholarship as a cloak, not that there is anything wrong with scholarship, per se. But to rely on erudition to the extent you do is to risk Ronald Reagan's dictum of "knowing so much that isn't so."

I'll note the case of Protestant exegesis on Matthew 16:18 as an example. Many a Protestant scholar bought into the petra/petras canard, not being actual scholars of koine greek. So much so, that in Protestant circles the "testimony" interpretation took on the status of Holy Writ itself.

Now as we've established even the most august of scholars "get it wrong" sometimes, what are we left with?

The answer is very simple: the text.

18 inches and 180 degrees!

Good point! Metanoehoh the key, not just metamelomai.

Some suggest that idolatry is the principle sin ...

Well, that's pretty big, but it might come under covetousness, which seems to cover about all of the 10 Commandments -- the desire to have something that is not yours ---

IHS

??(Constantine's motto Latinized)??

Took my breath away — and then gave me new breath. Summer of 1971. Changed my life! And I should thank Him more often.

Same time for me. About April 1971. Life wrecked. Imminent divorce. Read through "Good News," a paraphrase. Agreed with it all. Cried out for the Rescuer. Decision to submit -- May 24, 1971. Second birthday. New spiritual being created. Old things passing away. Tough battle with the old man ahead. Long road begun, but no longer alone ---

Neat, eh?

imardmd1: I would appreciate it if you would give me an accurate exegesis of this verse using a literal, normal, historical interpretation.

papertyger: According to whom?

According to The Holy Ghost, speaking through Levi, a somewhat literate Jew and government official, in his culture, in what we call mid-first century of our time framing. Do not filter it through religionists yet unborn. You've already fixated on that kind of coloration. Give it straight and unadulterated.

It is quite obvious you use scholarship as a cloak ...

You presume 'way beyond your level of reading minds. "Assume nothing" is the key to staying alive and credible.

I'll note the case of Protestant exegesis on Matthew 16:18 as an example. Many a Protestant scholar bought into the petra/petras canard, not being actual scholars of koine greek.

You have a solid foundation in the common languages of the "1st century" Roman Empire? Yes or no, please. If not, just get the extra help you need to precisely translate the sentence from Greek into my native language, so can get a grasp of what one of Levi's first readers thinking in Koine would have gathered. Keep your thoughts to yourself. Just show me Jesus' thoughts and meaning, and what He wanted understood.

Now as we've established even the most august of scholars "get it wrong" sometimes, what are we left with?

Why not? Justin Martyr got it wrong, and he was a scholar misquoting Beloved John, not being a Jew, and corrupting the text right away. Are you a real scholar or just engaging in reverse snobbishness? Do you regularly occupy yourself with exegeses, or is your forte eisegesis?

The answer is very simple: the text.

Stop dragging your feet. Do it. Give me the translation, particles for particles, word-for-word, case, tense, voice, mood, gender, number, pronouns, conjunctions, prepositions, syntax, diagramming, clauses, immediate context, thrust of passage, progress of revelation, cultural customs, etc.

I want to know it all. Your chance to shine. Go to it.

St. Ignatius, 3rd Bishop of Antioch used the term Catholic for the first time. There is a hierarchy since he was a Bishop. St. Peter appointed Ignatius to Antioch.

“Yes, I certaily have known this, but I am not convinced he approved of an overarching bishopric that would take away the autonomy of the local churches, and subjugated them to a supralocal scheme. He was a bishop of a local church, as was Peter before him. In fact, I have a little hard time to believe that, unless the church was of predominantly Hebrew constitution, the ministry of Peter was to the circumcision, whereas that of Paul was to the Gentiles.”

~ ~ ~

I am back, returning because I want you to become Catholic one day. I am serious. Remember these FR discussions when the “awakening” happens.

Are you saying history shows Ignatius was a bishop but he
didn’t think himself to be an ordained bishop? Those who object centuries later, how can you all, we’re talking about
some of the same people who wrote the Gospel. Selective
in what you believe, don’t you want to believe all the
Apostles have passed down? Ignatius was 3rd Bishop of Antioch and it was Ignatius’ term, Catholic.

All Popes are the Bishop of Rome. Peter was more than the Bishop of Rome, He is head of the Church, Peter as Pope appointed Ignatius. There is record.

Theodoret (”Dial. Immutab.”, I, iv, 33a, Paris, 1642) is the authority for the statement that St. Peter appointed Ignatius to the See of Antioch. St. John Chrysostom lays special emphasis on the honor conferred upon the martyr in receiving his episcopal consecration at the hands of the Apostles themselves (”Hom. in St. Ig.”, IV. 587). Natalis Alexander quotes Theodoret to the same effect (III, xii, art. xvi, p. 53).

p.s. I do not see anything against the faith in this current message to Maria of Divine Mercy. Take the good from it, there is much good. Notice, the Protestant term for the Great Warning in their messages (private revelation) is used...the “awakening.”

Thursday, August 30th, 2012 @ 06:15 p.m.

Virgin Mary: The AWAKENING is coming soon.

My child the renewal of souls has already begun and the Era of Peace is not too far away.

As all of God’s children are being blessed by the Gift of the Word of my beloved and precious Son, the spread of the Holy Spirit continues to spread across all nations.

There will be no stopping the Word of my Son for this is by the command of My Father.

Conversion will ignite the hearts of humanity and many will feel the Love of God, their natural Father, grip them in such a way that it will surprise and shock them.

Once this Divine Love surges through them they will feel an urge to shout for joy for it is like no other love known to man.

The awakening is coming soon.

As the Spirit of God continues to fan out in Flames of Glory, evil will be diluted and Satan’s army will be left bereft of its soldiers.

It will be left defenseless because many of his followers will be won over by God’s Mercy, leaving Satan with only half an army.

Disillusioned with his empty promises they will respond to the Light of my Son’s Divine Mercy.

The battle has not only begun but souls are now following my Son in their multitudes as they seek out the Truth of Eternal Life.

I bless you my child.

Heaven rejoices because of the conversion of souls and the salvation of dark souls, which is being achieved through the PRAYERS of those who love my Son.

Your beloved Mother

Mother of Salvation

http://www.thewarningsecondcoming.com/

Skip all the disagreement and pray about the Real Presence, it is the pinnacle of the faith and shows true faith, one doesn’t see a change in the consecrated host.

“I think you mean, “Don’t interpret Scripture plain and factual.” According to the Bible, the Real Presence, all of His Body and all of His Blood, is now in another spiritual dimension, in Heaven; and His sacrifice of His Body was ephapax = once-for-all-time; and all His Blood was placed on the hilasterion = Mercy Seat, and is the great riches of The Father The God, and He’s not allowing one iota or keraia out of His direct, watchful eye, to disappear down a million gullets a day”

~ ~ ~

Our Lord stated “plain and factual” the words “This IS My Body.” Our Lord did not say “This is a remembrance of My suffering death on the cross” or “This is a symbol of My Body.” You are limiting God because you would have acknowledge the facts for 2000 years, you would have to become Catholic. So you say no. You object at the end again saying no, Jesus is in Heaven. God can do anything, be anywhere He wishes. It is God’s plan to come to everyone this way, believe, it is supernatural. You have to have faith, trust that is totally Him in the consecrated host, God loves when you have faith.

Your final comment. A quote, better than I could explain ~ ~ “It follows, the, that the Body of Christ remains as long as the sacramental species remain intact, that is, until they corrupt. When corruption takes place, either with age or with consumption, so that the species are no longer those of bread and wine, the Body of Christ ceases to be present because the sings are gone. Accordingly, we can say with certainty that the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist begins with the Consecration and ends only with the corruption of the species.” Father Kenneth Baker SJ

with all due respect, thinking Mary and the Apostles were regenerated on Pentecost is an example of the kooky theology one gets when one is not led by the Holy Spirit, when one’s own pride leads them to think they are going to find something in the Scriptures no one has found before.

Mary was declared by the angel to be FULL OF GRACE. does that sound like she was unregenerated?

Jesus breathed on the Apostles BEFORE HIS ASCENSION TO RECEIVE THE HOLY SPIRIT. Peter declared his belief that Jesus was the Son of God. does this sound like they were unregenerated?

your dismissal of the historical orthodox faith as having no force and of being unprovable assumptions is WEAK.
( almost as weak as the Greek gymnastics on Acts 2:38 )

the Bible predicts a time when men wouldn’t heed sound doctrine and instead would be led astray by false teachers.

hmm, the Bible is amazing, it proves itself as the Word of God every day!!

can’t get into tonight, but i NEVER GET TIRED of proclaiming God’s TRUTH, you shouldn’t either.

i am hoping hundreds read this exchange and decide to become John 17 Christians or 1 Corinthians 1 Christians.

some may have never been exposed to historical, orthodox, Biblical Christianity before, you may be included.

i am not sure where you worship, but i suspect it’s the Baptist tradition. i pray people flee this 16th century tradition of men and be added to the Church Jesus established.

let’s look at Philip and the eunuch, it absolutely proves baptismal regeneration and destroys the water baptism is an outward ceremony myth.

also, let’s examine why did Jesus command the Church to baptize?

“Figuratively, Christ’s body is on the earth, and we engage in the ordinance of the Remembrance Supper that recalls the Last Supper; with tokens which figuratively represent His Body and His Blood, just as they did then. The elements of that supper were not extensions of His Substance. He instructed the disciples to use this example to remember their last moments with him; and later, of the meaning of His Passion. We are to do the same as He did then, with ordinary bread artos, and unleavened juice of the cluster.

“By the which will* we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once** for all. ...
But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins forever, sat down on the right hand of The God,
From henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool.
For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified” (Heb. 10:10,12-14)
* the second, New Covenant, ** a strengthened form of hapax”

~ ~ ~

“Once for all” means Christ’s bloody suffering death on the Cross happened once. His “sacrifice” for mankind is represented to the Father every day and every hour around the world in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. Read Revelation, the Mass on earth follows the Holy Liturgy in Heaven. It’s God’s plan, in Daniel and Malachi the Mass and the Holy Eucharist are prophesied. In Daniel, the “continual sacrifice”, this is the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. The Eucharist is the “clean oblation” in Malachi. “Through His intercessory ministry in heaven and through the Mass, Jesus continues to offer Himself to His Father as a living sacrifice, and He does so in what the Church specifically states is “an unbloody manner.”

See below, how the KJV changes the verse, from the original. The Douay-Rheims is a word for word translation of Jerome’s Latin Vulgate.

Catechism of the Catholic Church

1364 In the New Testament, the memorial takes on a new meaning. When the Church celebrates the Eucharist, she commemorates Christ’s Passover, and it is made present: the sacrifice Christ offered once for all on the cross remains every present. (Cf. Heb 7:25-27) As often as the sacrifice of the Cross by which ‘Christ our Pasch has been sacrifice’ is celebrated on the altar, the work of our redemption is carried out. (Lumen Gentium 3; cf. 1 Cor 5:7)

King James Version (KJV)

Malachi 1:11 For from the rising of the sun even unto the going down of the same my name shall be great among the Gentiles; and in every place incense shall be offered unto my name, and a PURE OFFERING: for my name shall be great among the heathen, saith the Lord of hosts.

Douay-Rheims http://www.drbo.org/

Malachi 1:11 For from the rising of the sun even to the going down, my name is great among the Gentiles, and in every place there is sacrifice, and there is offered to my name a CLEAN OBLATION: for my name is great among the Gentiles, saith the Lord of hosts

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.