Catholic and Mormon: A Theological Conversation

by Stephen H. Webb

Elder M. Russell Ballard (of the LDS Quorum of the Twelve Apostles) counseled members of the faith: “Get to know your neighbors. Learn about their . . . views. . . . Our pioneer ancestors were driven from place to place by uninformed and intolerant neighbors. They experienced extraordinary hardship and persecution because they thought, acted, and believed differently from others. If our history teaches us nothing else, it should teach us to respect the rights of all people.”5 Similarly, Vatican II’s Decree on Ecumenism counsels Roman Catholics: “We must become more familiar with the outlook of our separated brethren. Study is absolutely required for this, and it should be pursued in fidelity to the truth and with a spirit of good will. Catholics . . . need to acquire a more adequate understanding of the respective doctrines of our separated brethren, their history, their spiritual and liturgical life, their religious psychology and cultural background.”

“As for the first question, I wouldn’t have joined the Reformers. I’m pretty conservative about social change and skeptical about radical challenges to the status quo. I respect religious authority too much to call for a religious revolution. Speaking as a Protestant with regard to the second question, I don’t think the issues the Reformers were protesting are still alive in the Catholic Church. So I guess I don’t have any personal grudges against Catholicism. I admit I protest in my own way against secularism and atheism, but not against Catholicism. And as for the third question, about the social and theological results of the Reformation: socially, as you know, it led to chaos, war, and the rise of the modern nation-state to fill the vacuum left by the end of Christendom, while theologically it led to incredible intellectual confusion resulting in the fragmentation of the church we see today. So no, I guess I don’t think it was worth it, for the world or the Church.”

When you make your own heart (that is, your feelings or personal experiences) the source of your religious authority, you have not gotten rid of authority. In fact, you are at risk of becoming an authoritarian,

you do not have external guidance in serving the Lord, you have to look within, but how can you tell if you are looking at the Lord within or just a mirror of yourself?

Feelings are too unstable to provide the foundation for religious authority.

I see the life and theology of Joseph Smith emerging out of the social and theological anarchy of the Protestant Reformation.

And he embraced the Catholic insistence that the Church should be led by priests who must be endowed with spiritual power by the successors to the apostles.

In fact, Catholics think that every non-Catholic church imitates, in its own incomplete way, the basics of the Catholic faith.

the history of Mormonism has long been restrained by Protestant scholarship.

But what if Mormons were not trying to be Protestants? What if Mormons were trying to create a more authoritarian, ritualized, and sacramental version of the Christian faith? What if, that is, they were reinventing Roman Catholicism for a time and place where Catholicism was all but unknown—and to the extent that it was known, it was as misunderstood as Mormonism?

I see no reason why Catholics cannot believe that Joseph was inspired by the light of Christ to seek an institutional authority that was basically a tribute to the Roman Catholic Church.

And Mormons could likewise look to Catholics for guidance and inspiration, given that Catholicism is the one Christian tradition (along with its sister tradition, Eastern Orthodoxy) that has tried the hardest to remain in continuity with the authority of the original twelve.

the Church of Rome made many of the changes insisted upon by men like Wycliffe, Tyndale, and Luther.

the Reformation also broke the hold Catholicism had on the world—it made it acceptable to be a Christian and yet not a Catholic.

Christian division is a scandal.

If I had to choose to be like someone (doctrinally, or otherwise), would it be Augustine or Jesus? Aquinas or the Twelve Apostles?

But for Joseph—and for Mormons—the continuity of the office of the Bishop still left a void of religious authority in the Church. Because the New Testament records Bishops existing at the same time that the Apostles existed, Latter-day Saints see those two priesthood positions or offices as distinct from each other.

And Christianity, from a Mormon perspective, was run on a local level until around the time of the pontificate of Pope Leo I (d. A.D. 461),

Peter had that ability, along with his brethren in the Twelve. The bishops upon the earth at the same time as Peter did not.

He, through heavenly manifestations, was returning to the earth not just lost ideas but lost powers.

Whereas Catholics still seek a universal Church, and Latter-day Saints predict the return of one, Protestants seem largely unconcerned about unification—with Catholicism, or with the other branches of Protestantism.

Joseph would not have argued that he was “reinventing the wheel.” Rather, he would have claimed that Jesus had given him the “wheel” back.

From the Catholic experiment that we call Vatican II, a lesson can be learned regarding what Christians want and need. Where Rome loosened up on requirements, standards, and dogmas—even on whether there is salvation outside of the Church—more left than came into the newly calibrated faith. Those who truly wish to be religious want a hierarchy that offers certainty about authority, obedience, salvation, morality, and the like.

Mormonism, Catholicism, and Eastern Orthodoxy represent the main options when it comes to thinking about the authority of the Christian faith.

The restoring impulse of the Saints is different. They want a form of Christianity that is full of tradition, not a church that is wedded to the Bible alone. They are not primitivists, in the sense of wanting to live their Christian faith in the most stripped-down, streamlined, and simplistic manner.

The Saints go back not to the Bible alone but also to the fullness of biblical traditions and early Christian practices, as that fullness is expounded and amplified in various revelations to Joseph Smith.

Mormons, however, are not Pentecostals. They do not demand of their Apostles the display of spiritual gifts like tongue speaking, faith healing, and emotional exuberance.

What is new about Mormonism is its connection of apostolic authority with revelation and its subordination of the office of the Apostles to the prerogative of a Prophet.

Catholics accept the fact that their tradition evolves and changes, but Catholics do not believe that the Bishops of the Church are authorized to receive new revelations about the essentials of the faith beyond what the Bible and tradition jointly teach.

even the Pope cannot add to or subtract from the deposit of the faith found in the Bible and tradition.

So when the Saints say that revelation ceased with the end of the apostolic era, Catholics for the most part agree,

Like Mormons, Catholics believe that God has not ceased speaking to people up to and including the present time.

his successors in the Latter-day Saints, called the Presidents of the Church, rarely claim to have revelations themselves. The LDS Presidents have become defenders, protectors, and promoters of the deposit of revelation that Joseph received.

Is acknowledging Joseph Smith’s prophetic vocation more likely to bring unity to Christianity than acknowledging the primacy of the Bishop of Rome?

the only church with the institutional reach, theological breadth, and practical experience to make unity possible is the one centered in Rome.

Catholics largely believe that revelation to the Church ceased at the close of the Apostolic era, but that “private revelations” continued—constituted by personal promptings and epiphanies to individuals, but not to or for the Church as a whole.

These ancient prophets were men who had more than just “private revelations.” Thus, while LDS Christians believe in “private revelations”—including to those outside of their faith—they also hold that God’s pattern has always been to provide for the Church individuals (like Moses, Isaiah, Ezekiel, Peter, and Paul) who were visionaries in the ultimate sense of the word. These were individuals who entertained angels, saw visions, and received direct revelations from God for the whole Church—the catholic (or universal) church.

Mormons staunchly believe in the biblical model of presiding authorities who hold a calling and vocation over and above that of the laity—and a significant part of that calling is that they have visions and revelations for the Church as a whole. While there is little question as to the holiness and spirituality of men like Pope Francis, traditionally Catholic popes have not seen themselves as prophets in the sense Moses or Isaiah were. Yet that is exactly what Mormons are claiming Joseph Smith and his successors are.

I would not argue (as some unfortunately have) that Catholics are “the Church of the devil” or that the pope is the anti-Christ.

Even the Roman Catholic Pontiff would reject for himself some of the things Mormonism claims for its prophet.

The shift in Mormonism (since Joseph’s death) has been less that visions have ceased and more that the prophets and apostles are a bit more cautious about talking openly about spiritual experiences.

Reconciliation for the Christian Church is a pipe dream—at least prior to the Second Advent.

But Bishops (authorized church leaders) for Catholics are necessary (after the New Testament period) to review, assess, and authorize the claims of Prophets (religious visionaries), while religious visionaries simply are the highest church authorities for Mormons.

Avery Dulles, before he was raised to the rank of a Cardinal in the Catholic Church, wrote a book on dogma with a chapter titled, “The Permanence of Prophecy in the Church.” It is an incredibly relevant chapter for this dialogue. He notes the high standing of prophets in the New Testament (1 Corinthians 14:1–5), but also insists that they were distinguished from and ranked beneath the Apostles (1 Corinthians 12:28; Ephesians 2:20, 3:5, 4:11). Early Christian prophets, Dulles argues, were not official witnesses of the risen Christ. They were also not teachers or theologians. They passed on admonitions and predictions they received from the Holy Spirit. These claims and insights needed to be scrutinized to make sure they harmonized with the faith, since there were many prophets during this period and not a few were false (1 Corinthians 12:3; 1 John 4:3; Mark 13:22). The Church was thus forced (or inspired) to develop rules for distinguishing between genuine and counterfeit prophecies.

There have been countless prophets in the Church since the Gospel was first proclaimed, but Joseph had the heart of a prophet combined with the mind of a pope.

What I find a bit frustrating about the Mormon view of history is how its interpretation of Apostasy goes by the wayside when it comes to the Mormon view of its own history. When Mormons look back over the last two hundred years, they see continuity in much the same way that Catholics find continuity over two thousand years. That seems to me to be a case of a double standard. When Mormons look at Catholicism they see apostasy, but when they look at their own past they see steadfastness and fidelity, even when their own history is full of splits, rebellions, accusations, and a splintering of Smith’s teachings (for just one example, notice the way Smith’s own family broke from those Mormons who followed Brigham Young to Utah). Here I have one suggestion about what a theological dialogue could achieve: Perhaps Catholics need to be more aware of apostasy in their own tradition and Mormons need to be more aware of continuity in Catholicism!