A Survey of the Old Testament Law--Leviticus 17 (Blood, part 1)

Now, we come to one of the most well-known regulations in the Law. The prohibition against eating blood. Leviticus 17:10-14—“‘10 And whatever man of the house of Israel, or of the strangers who dwell among you, who eats any blood, I will set My face against that person who eats blood, and will cut him off from among his people. 11 For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it to you upon the altar to make atonement for your souls; for it is the blood that makes atonement for the soul. 12 Therefore I said to the children of Israel, “No one among you shall eat blood, nor shall any stranger who dwells among you eat blood.” 13 Whatever man of the children of Israel, or of the strangers who dwell among you, who hunts and catches any animal or bird that may be eaten, he shall pour out its blood and cover it with dust; 14 for it is the life of all flesh. Its blood sustains its life. Therefore I said to the children of Israel, “You shall not eat the blood of any flesh, for the life of all flesh is its blood. Whoever eats it shall be cut off.”’” Now, the prohibition against eating blood was not a new one—but it was one that the people needed to be reminded of. God had given this principle to Noah, back in Genesis 9:3-4—“3 Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you. I have given you all things, even as the green herbs. 4 But you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood.” Here, God had given the first permission for man to eat the flesh of animals. But even here, at this early stage in human history, he prohibited the eating or drinking of the blood.

Here in the Law, God makes it real simple: it is the blood that sustains life. Therefore, blood is not to be eaten. Back when we covered the Peace Offering, we talked about “blood pudding” or “blood sausage.” That if the Israelites had eaten anything like these, God would strike the person down dead. That is because when a person ingests blood, they are ingesting the life of that animal. And in many ancient civilizations (and even many that still exist), it was thought that drinking blood could sustain one’s life indefinitely. Elizabeth Bathory, a Hungarian countess who lived from 1560-1614, was tried and convicted of killing young girls in order to bathe in and drink their blood as a way of retaining her youth. Vlad Dracula, the man whose name was co-opted by Bram Stoker for his famous novel, may have been a bloodthirsty man—but he did not drink blood. He gained the moniker “Vlad the Impaler” because he impaled his victims on wooden staves.

While ingesting blood will not perpetuate a person’s life beyond the normal range of years, it is the circulation of blood through the body that sustains life. There are times when a person may seem like they are breathing—but it is not the kind of breathing that can oxygenate the blood. This type of breathing is called “agonal breathing.” There may be air moving into and out of the lungs—but there is no blood moving through the capillaries in those lungs, because the heart has stopped pumping. Even the American Heart Association, the authorities on how to perform CPR, have now determined that if a person is found unresponsive, that chest compressions are to be performed, even at the expense of rescue breathing. They have now determined that it is more important for blood to be pumped than for the lungs to be inflated. Why? Because “the life of the soul is in the blood.”

Also consider two events that can bring about the sudden death of a person: stroke, and heart attack. When a person suffers a stroke, what has happened? One of two things: either a blood clot has obstructed a blood vessel in a part of the brain, cutting off the supply of oxygen to that part of the brain. Or, a blood vessel has ruptured and the blood is pouring out of it. Either way, the brain is being deprived of the oxygen it needs, and unless the situation is corrected, the brain will shut down, and the body with it. All because of a lack of blood. Now, consider a heart attack. During a heart attack, a blood vessel in the heart muscle is blocked (usually by a clot); that part of the heart does not receive the oxygen it needs, and if it is not corrected, not only will that local area be affected, but eventually the entire muscle will be damaged—many times permanently—and, if the degree of damage is great enough, the heart will not function, causing the death of the person. All because of a lack of blood.

God had given the people the option of killing and cutting up animals, and pouring out the blood—the life—of those animals in order to atone for their sins. And the blood that was poured out was to be poured out only around the altar, and sprinkled on the altars. John Gill—

“…the life of the creature, was given for theirs to preserve them alive, and secure them from death their sins deserved; and so the Targum of Jonathan is, for the sins of the soul; which shows that these sacrifices were vicarious, in the room of men, and for the life of them, and to atone for them; and is the reason given why blood should not be eaten, at least while these typical expiatory sacrifices were used.” 

Instead of taking the blood into themselves, thinking that would sustain them alive, they were to pour it out before God, acknowledging that He was the One who sustained them. Which brings us to a very important doctrine, practiced by people who have been led astray by men who claim to be speaking for God, but who are deceived and who deceive others with their deception.

I am speaking, of course, of the Roman Catholic Mass, and the doctrine they call “transubstantiation.” The term transubstantiation refers to the Roman Catholic belief that one the priest speaks the magical words over the bread and wine used in the Eucharist, they magically turn into the actual flesh and actual blood of Christ. And, as with many of the Roman Catholic dogmas, this is based on a faulty interpretation of Scripture. Specifically, the words of our Lord, in John 6:53-57—53 Then Jesus said to them, “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in you. 54 Whoever eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. 55 For My flesh is food indeed, and My blood is drink indeed. 56 He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me, and I in him. 57 As the living Father sent Me, and I live because of the Father, so he who feeds on Me will live because of Me.” Now, taken at face value, this sounds as if Jesus is saying that one must eat His actual flesh and drink His actual blood. But, as with many of Christ’s sayings, we need to examine them further to see what He is actually saying. Jesus said many things that people could not understand without an explanation. For example, consider His well-known conversation with Nicodemus. Jesus told him he must be “born again.” Well, according to Roman Catholic thought, that means Jesus was telling him to climb back up into his mother’s womb and come out again. And isn't that exactly what Nicodemus thought? John 3:4—"How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother's womb and be born?"

Well, how did His disciples respond to His command to eat His flesh and drink His blood? In much the same way as Nicodemus responded—by taking His words in a woodenly literal fashion. John 6:60—Therefore many of His disciples, when they heard this, said, "This is a hard saying; who can understand it?" In other words, “Did He really say what I thought He just said? If so, what does He mean that we need to eat His flesh and drink His blood?” Well, (A) yes, He really did say what they thought He said, and (B) no, He did not mean it the way they thought He meant it. First of all, let’s get one misconception out of the way: this was NOT a reference to the Lord’s Table. If that was the case, then everyone who took the Eucharist would have eternal life in them, seeing as how all who take the wafer and wine “take into them the flesh and blood of Christ” (those are not my words, they are the words of the Roman Catholic). Even the most hard-hearted, rebellious sinner who ingests the wafer and wine would have to be given eternal life, since, according to (the Roman Catholic interpretation of) Christ’s words, “Whoever eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life.” Well, then, perhaps the disciples who understood what Jesus was saying knew that that was NOT what Jesus meant. Why? Because if that was what he meant, then He would be encouraging people to violate God’s Law, and eat blood. Did Jesus ever encourage people to violate the Law of God? No. But we’ll get back to that momentarily. For now, let’s look at what Jesus actually meant.

Just two chapters prior to this, in John 4, Jesus told His disciples, "I have food to eat of which you do not know" (John 4:32). And, believe it or not, the disciples had no clue what He was talking about. And so, being the silly men they could be sometimes, Therefore the disciples said to one another, "Has anyone brought Him anything to eat?" (John 4:33). And, using this as a teachable moment, Jesus said to them, “My food is to do the will of Him who sent Me, and to finish His work” (John 4:34). Was Jesus saying that he was physically ingesting the will of the Father? Of course not! He was saying that what kept Him going. He was talking about what nourished and strengthened His spirit—the will of God. That was what He sought for; that was what He labored for. And was that not what He told the crowd in John 6? Specifically John 6:27—“Do not labor for the food which perishes, but for the food which endures to everlasting life.” And was this not an echo of how He defended Himself against the Accuser of the Brethren? When He had been fasting for 40 days and 40 nights, out in the wilderness, and Abaddon told Him, “Gee, you must be hungry. Here, take these rocks and turn them into bread.” I suspect that if our Lord had taken him up on the offer, he would have produced a couple loaves of really good marbled rye. But I digress. What response did our Lord use to parry the attack? Matthew 4:4—“Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God.” True life does no come from what we take down our gullet and digest and send out in the draught. True life comes from the food Jesus desired—knowing and doing the will of God.

Also, consider the teaching that Christ gave on the boat that night. Matthew 16:6—"Take heed and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and the Sadducees." And once again, the disciples miss the mark. Here they go, thinking He is speaking in woodenly literal terms, thinking He’s talking about baked goods. Matthew 16:7—And they reasoned among themselves, saying, "It is because we have taken no bread." And, yet again—and again and again and again—Jesus once more teach them the true meaning of His words. Matthew 16:8-12—8 But Jesus, being aware of it, said to them, "O you of little faith, why do you reason among yourselves because you have brought no bread? 9 Do you not yet understand, or remember the five loaves of the five thousand and how many baskets you took up? 10 Nor the seven loaves of the four thousand and how many large baskets you took up? 11 How is it you do not understand that I did not speak to you concerning bread—but to beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees?" 12 Then they understood that He did not tell them to beware of the leaven of bread, but of the doctrine of the Pharisees and Sadducees. And how often do we ourselves not perceive of the spiritual meaning behind Christ’s words!

Well, just like the disciples whiffed when Jesus told them He had food they did not know about; just like the disciples whiffed when Jesus told them to avoid the false doctrines of the Pharisees and Sadducees; here also, the crowd in John 6 whiffed when Jesus told them they must eat His flesh and drink His blood. John 6:61-64—61 When Jesus knew in Himself that His disciples complained about this, He said to them, "Does this offend you? 62 What then if you should see the Son of Man ascend where He was before? 63 It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing. The words that I speak to you are spirit, and they are life. 64 But there are some of you who do not believe." This statement throws open the light upon the true meaning of eating the flesh of the Son of Man and drinking His blood. It is not the ingesting of actual flesh and actual blood. It is believing on the Son of Man, taking Him into one’s self and making their abode with Him. For listen again to what Jesus said in John 6:55, but this time from the NASB—“For My flesh is true food, and My blood is true drink.” Notice how this is worded. Notice he does not say “My true flesh is food, and My true blood is drink.” He says that His flesh and blood are the true food and drink—the food and drink of truth, which he calls Himself in John 14:6 and which John tells us in 1st John 1:2 He is that which sustains the soul of men, and gives them everlasting life—He is that Word that proceeded from god. To say that Jesus was encouraging people to eat His actual flesh and drink His actual blood is an absurdity. It is a nonsensical notion cooked up by men who wish to marry the church of Christ to pagans.

So, let’s take a look at this nonsensical notion. The doctrine of transubstantiation was first dogmatized during the Fourth Lateran Council in 1215, in the first “Constitution”, entitled “Confession of Faith” (emphases mine):

 

“There is indeed one universal church of the faithful, outside of which nobody at all is saved, in which Jesus Christ is both priest and sacrifice. His body and blood are truly contained in the sacrament of the altar under the forms of bread and wine, the bread and wine having been changed in substance, by God's power, into his body and blood, so that in order to achieve this mystery of unity we receive from God what he received from us. Nobody can effect this sacrament except a priest who has been properly ordained according to the church's keys, which Jesus Christ himself gave to the apostles and their successors.”

The Council of Trent (1545-1563) affirmed this doctrine, declaring in several of its canons (emphases mine):

 

CANON I.-If any one denieth, that, in the sacrament of the most holy Eucharist, are contained truly, really, and substantially, the body and blood together with the soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, and consequently the whole Christ; but saith that He is only therein as in a sign, or in figure, or virtue; let him be anathema.

CANON II.-If any one saith, that, in the sacred and holy sacrament of the Eucharist, the substance of the bread and wine remains conjointly with the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, and denieth that wonderful and singular conversion of the whole substance of the bread into the Body, and of the whole substance of the wine into the Blood-the species Only of the bread and wine remaining-which conversion indeed the Catholic Church most aptly calls Transubstantiation; let him be anathema.

CANON III.-If any one denieth, that, in the venerable sacrament of the Eucharist, the whole Christ is contained under each species, and under every part of each species, when separated; let him be anathema.

CANON VI.-If any one saith, that, in the holy sacrament of the Eucharist, Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, is not to be adored with the worship, even external of latria; and is, consequently, neither to be venerated with a special festive solemnity, nor to be solemnly borne about in processions, according to the laudable and universal rite and custom of holy church; or, is not to be proposed publicly to the people to be adored, and that the adorers thereof are idolators; let him be anathema.

CANON VIII.-If any one saith, that Christ, given in the Eucharist, is eaten spiritually only, and not also sacramentally and really; let him be anathema.

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 1376 (emphases mine):

 

“The Council of Trent summarizes the Catholic faith by declaring: ‘Because Christ our Redeemer said that it was truly his body that he was offering under the species of bread, it has always been the conviction of the Church of God, and this holy Council now declares again, that by the consecration of the bread and wine there takes place a change of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of his blood. This change the holy Catholic Church has fittingly and properly called transubstantiation.’”

Your garden variety Roman Catholic will not shy away from telling you that yes, they actually tear the flesh of Christ with their teeth, and ingest the blood that runs through His veins, when they take the bread and wine.

And they will tell you that they have the words of the early church fathers to back them up. In fact, paragraph 1375 of the CCC, they quote John Chrysostom (emphases mine):

 

“It is by the conversion of the bread and wine into Christ's body and blood that Christ becomes present in this sacrament. The Church Fathers strongly affirmed the faith of the Church in the efficacy of the Word of Christ and of the action of the Holy Spirit to bring about this conversion. Thus St. John Chrysostom declares: ‘It is not man that causes the things offered to become the Body and Blood of Christ, but he who was crucified for us, Christ himself. The priest, in the role of Christ, pronounces these words, but their power and grace are God's. This is my body, he says. This word transforms the things offered.’”

Well, there you have it! John Chrysostom said it; it must be true! Well, let’s hold on just one moment. Another of their (supposed) supporters, Augustine, wrote something contrary to their position of strictly interpreting Christ’s words to be a command to eat His actual flesh and drink His actual blood: 

“If the sentence is one of command, either forbidding a crime or vice, or enjoining an act of prudence or benevolence, it is not figurative. If, however, it seems to enjoin a crime or vice, or to forbid an act of prudence or benevolence, it is figurative. ‘Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man,’ says Christ, ‘and drink His blood, ye have no life in you.’ This seems to enjoin a crime or a vice; it is therefore a figure, enjoining that we should have a share in the sufferings of our Lord, and that we should retain a sweet and profitable memory of the fact that His flesh was wounded and crucified for us. Scripture says: ‘If thine enemy hunger, feed him; if he thirst, give him drink;’ and this is beyond doubt a command to do a kindness. But in what follows, 'for in so doing thou shalt heap coals of fire on his head,’ one would think a deed of malevolence was enjoined. Do not doubt, then, that the expression is figurative; and, while it is possible to interpret it in two ways, one pointing to the doing of an injury, the other to a display of superiority, let charity on the contrary call you back to benevolence, and interpret the coals of fire as the burning groans of penitence by which a man's pride is cured who bewails that he has been the enemy of one who came to his assistance in distress.” (Augustine, On Christian Doctrine, Book III, chapter 16).

And Augustine is correct. Not simply because this fits my doctrine more closely, and this is one Augustine quote I can take and say “Ha! See! Augustine said it, it must be true!” I don’t believe this because Augustine said it—I believe it because it’s true! When Jesus spoke in parables, those who did not believe Him did not understand. And there were many times when Jesus said a thing—“a hard thing, who can understand it?”—He said these difficult things for the express purpose of not allowing it to be understood by those who would not believe. This is one of those places.

Now, let’s go back to what I briefly alluded to earlier. The fact that if Jesus was telling people to eat His actual flesh and drink His actual blood, he would be encouraging them to violate the Law of God. Let’s go back to our text in Leviticus, specifically Leviticus 17:10—“And whatever man of the house of Israel, or of the strangers who dwell among you, who eats any blood, I will set My face against that person who eats blood, and will cut him off from among his people.” If anyone ate or drank blood, what would God do? He would “set His face against that person” and he would “cut him off from among his people.” Was Jesus born under the Law? Yes. Galatians 4:4—But when the fullness of the time had come, God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under the law. Did Jesus ever violate that Law? No. 1^st Peter 2:21-22—21 Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that you should follow His steps: 22 " Who committed no sin, Nor was deceit found in His mouth." What about encouraging people to violate the Law, would He ever do that? No. Matthew 5:17-19—“17 Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill. 18 For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled”—and now listen to verse 19 real careful—“19 Whoever therefore breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven.” Now, if Jesus was encouraging people to drink actual human blood, would this have violated “the least of these commandments”? Absolutely. Is Jesus called “least” in the kingdom of Heaven? Absolutely not. So if the one who “breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven”, yet Jesus did not teach men to break “the least of these commandments”, then He could not have been teaching people to drink actual human blood, since that would have broken something more than “the least of these commandments” and He would have “[taught] men so”, and for that He would be called “least in the kingdom of heaven.” But that’s not all. And we will look at into that more next week

Jesus Christ is Lord

Amen

The roots Mormonism shares with Rome (part 3)

Finishing up our look at how Mormonism and Roman Catholicism are, basically, theological cousins. Maybe not first cousins, more like third cousins twice removed. But they both spring from the same tree, and they both have the same father (small-'f').

They both teach that the blood of Christ is not the only way to pay for our sins

--Catholicism teaches that the person must pay for some sins themselves in Purgatory.

Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC), paragraphs 1030-1031--1030 All who die in God's grace and friendship, but still imperfectly purified, are indeed assured of their eternal salvation; but after death they undergo purification, so as to achieve the holiness necessary to enter the joy of heaven. 1031 The Church gives the name Purgatory to this final purification of the elect, which is entirely different from the punishment of the damned. The Church formulated her doctrine of faith on Purgatory especially at the Councils of Florence and Trent...we understand that certain offenses can be forgiven in this age, but certain others in the age to come."

--Mormonism teaches forgiveness beyond the grave

Gospel Principles (GP), 1997 ed., chapter 45, p. 292-293--"In the spirit prison are the spirits of those who have not yet received the gospel of Jesus Christ. These spirits have agency and may be enticed by both good and evil. If they accept the gospel and the ordinances performed for them in the temples, they may prepare themselves to leave the spirit prison and dwell in paradise. Also in the spirit prison are those who rejected the gospel after it was preached to them on earth or in the spirit prison...After suffering in full for their sins, they will be allowed to inherit the lowest degree of glory, which is the telestial kingdom."

--Early Mormon leaders also taught the doctrine of "Blood Atonement", which means that a person can commit a sin that can only be forgiven by them shedding their own blood. (PSSTT--Remember last week, we saw that in the Mormon church and the Roman Catholic church there are things that aren't "official doctrine" even though they are taught over and over and over again? This is one of them!)

Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses Volume 3 Page 247 (1856)--"Suppose you found your brother in bed with your wife, and put a javelin through both of them, you would be justified, and they would atone for their sins and be received into the kingdom of God."

Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, Volume 1 Page 133--"But man may commit certain grievous sins...that will place him beyond the reach of the atoning blood of Christ. If then he would be saved he must make sacrifice of his own life to atone—so far as in his power lies—for that sin, for the blood of Christ alone under certain circumstances will not avail."

Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, Pages 92-93, 1966 edition--"But under certain circumstances there are some serious sins for which the cleansing of Christ does not [pay for], and the law of God is that men then have their own blood shed to atone for their sins."

You can read more words of Mormon leaders on "Blood Atonement" here.

———————————————————————————————————————————————————————-

They both teach that one must honor their leader

--Catholicism teaches that one must honor the Pope.

CCC, paragraph 882, 889--"For the Roman Pontiff, by reason of his office as Vicar of Christ, and as pastor of the entire Church has full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered...the People of God, under the guidance of the Church's living magisterium, unfailingly adheres to this faith."

Pope Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam, 468, [quoted in Apostolic Digest, by Michael Malone, Book 4, Chapter 4]--"If, therefore, the Greeks or others say that they are not committed to Peter and to his successors, they necessarily say that they are not of the sheep of Christ, since the Lord says that there is only one fold and one shepherd (Jn.10:16). Whoever, therefore, resists this authority, resists the command of God Himself."

Dogmatic Constitution on the Church of Christ July 18, 1870 Chapter 3--"[I]f anyone says that the Roman pontiff has merely an office of supervision and guidance, and not the full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the whole church...or that this power of his is not ordinary and immediate both over all and each of the churches and over all and each of the pastors and faithful let him he anathema."

Pope Leo XIII, Acts of Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum, Rome, Vatican Press, 1896--"[T]hose who refuse to asso­ciate in communion with the Chair of Peter belong to Antichrist, not to Christ. He who would separate himself from the Roman Pontiff has no further bond with Christ."

Fifth Lateran Council, session 11, On the abrogation of the Pragmatic Sanction, December 19, 1516--"[S]ubjection to the Roman pontiff is necessary for salvation for all Christ's faithful..."

Pope Pius XI Papal Teachings – The Church, Mystici Corporis, St Paul Editions 1962 para 1040-1041--"To be Christian, one must be Roman, governed by Christ's Vicar on earth. The Church does not rest on Christ alone, but also on Peter. That Christ and His Vicar constitute only one single Head is solemn teaching. Therefore, those who think they can ac­cept Christ as the Head of the Church without ad­hering faithfully to His Vicar on earth are in dan­gerous error."

To read more about the Roman Catholic teaching that if one does not honor the Pope they are Anathema, see here.

--Mormonism teaches that one must honor Joseph Smith in the same way they honor Christ.

Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses (7:289)--"From the day that the Priesthood was taken from the earth to the winding-up scene of all things, every man and woman must have the certificate of Joseph Smith, junior, as a passport to their entrance into the mansion where God and Christ are--I with you and you with me. I cannot go there without his consent."

1988 Melchizedek Priesthood Study Guide, p.142--"If we get our salvation, we shall have to pass by him [Joseph Smith]; if we enter our glory, it will be through the authority he has received. We cannot get around him [Joseph Smith]."

Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, vol. 1, p.190--"[There is] no salvation without accepting Joseph Smith. If Joseph Smith was verily a prophet, and if he told the truth...no man can reject that testimony without incurring the most dreadful consequences, for he cannot enter the kingdom of God."

Joseph F. Smith, Gospel Doctrine, 5th ed., p.134; quoted in “Joseph Smith: Restorer of Truth,” Ensign, Dec 2003, 17--“The day will come – and it is not far distance, either – when the name of the Prophet Joseph Smith will be coupled with the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth…”

James E. Faust, “Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon,” Ensign, Jan 1996, p. 2--"A person will never be truly on the road to conversion until he has at least a beginning witness that Joseph Smith was a prophet of God and that the Book of Mormon is another testament of Christ. Further, members of this Church must accept, and its missionaries must teach, some absolutes. These absolutes are: (1) That Jesus is the Christ, the Savior and the Redeemer of all mankind through his atonement; (2) That through Joseph Smith, a prophet of God, the gospel of Jesus Christ was restored in its fulness."

A. Theodore Tuttle, Joseph Smith re-established fullness of true gospel, Church, Church News, March 17, 2001, p.14--"Every man who has lived since the days of Joseph Smith is subject to accepting him as a prophet of God in order to enter into our Heavenly father’s presence."

———————————————————————————————————————————————————————-

They both teach that their leader (Pope, Prophet/President) is still giving new, authoritative revelations today.

--The Catholic Pope speaks ex cathedra

CCC, paragraph 891--"The Roman Pontiff, head of the college of bishops, enjoys this infallibility in virtue of his office, when, as supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful - who confirms his brethren in the faith he proclaims by a definitive act a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals...'The infallibility promised to the Church is also present in the body of bishops when, together with Peter's successor, they exercise the supreme Magisterium', above all in an Ecumenical Council. When the Church through its supreme Magisterium proposes a doctrine "for belief as being divinely revealed," and as the teaching of Christ, the definitions "must be adhered to with the obedience of faith." This infallibility extends as far as the deposit of divine Revelation itself."

Vatican I, Session 4, chapter 4, paragraph 9--"Therefore, faithfully adhering to the tradition received from the beginning of the Christian religion, for the glory of God our Savior, for the exaltation of the Catholic faith and the salvation of the Christian people, with the approval of the sacred council, we teach and define that it is a divinely revealed dogma that the Roman Pontiff, when he speaks "ex cathedra," i.e., when exercising his office as pastor and teacher of all Christians he defines, by his supreme apostolic authority, a doctrine of faith or morals which must be held by the universal Church, enjoys, through the divine assistance, that infallibility promised to him in blessed Peter...So then, should anyone have the temerity to reject this definition of ours: let him be anathema."

--Mormonism teaches strict adherence to the word of the Prophet/President

Doctrine and Covenants (D&C) 132:54--"And I command mine handmaid, Emma Smith, to abide and cleave unto my servant Joseph, and to none else. But if she will not abide this commandment she shall be destroyed, saith the Lord; for I am the Lord thy God, and will destroy her if she abide not in my law."

Elaine Cannon, If We Want to Go Up, We Have to Get On, Ensign, Nov 1978, p.107--"Personal opinions may vary. Eternal principles never do. When the prophet speaks, sisters, the debate is over."

Elder Eldon Tanner references this quote in an later article (N. Eldon Tanner, 'The Debate Is Over', Ensign, Aug 1979, p.2)--Recently, at the Churchwide fireside meeting held for the women of the Church, Young Women President Elaine Cannon made the following statement: "When the Prophet speaks, sisters, the debate is over." I was impressed by that simple statement, which carries such deep spiritual meaning for all of us. Wherever I go, my message to the people is: Follow the prophet."

President Henry D. Moyle, “Beware of Temptation,” as quoted in Teachings of the Living Prophets, Religion 333 Student Manual, p. 19--“The older I get and the closer the contact I have with the President of the church, the more I realize that the greatest of all scriptures which we have in the world today is current scripture. What the mouthpiece of god says to His children is scripture. It is intended for all the children of god upon the earth. It is His word and His will and His law made manifest through His ordained and anointed servant to the world. What the President says is scripture, and I love it more than all other. It applies to me today specifically, and to you all.”

Teachings of the Living Prophets: Religion 333 Student Manual, p. 20--"Occasionally misinformed members of the Church will maintain that, although they accept the standard works as divinely inspired, they are reluctant to give equal credence to pronouncements of the living prophet. Such individuals are pursuing an inconsistent course and 'err, not knowing the scriptures' (Matthew 22:29), for the scriptures themselves plainly testify of the fact that we must give heed to the living prophets (see D&C 1:14, 38; 21:1, 4-5)."

For more quotes concerning the need to follow the living "Prophet" see here.

———————————————————————————————————————————————————————-

So, in conclusion, we see that--
Catholics believe that indulgences can be made for the dead. Mormons believe that one can be baptized for the dead.
Catholics believe that the Pope and the Magisterium hold the "Keys of the Kingdom" and speak for God. Mormons believe their Prophet/President holds the "Keys of the Priesthood" and speaks for God.
Catholics believe that the Bible alone is not sufficiently authoritative--you need the Bible AND Tradition AND the Catechism to know the truth. Mormons believe that the Bible alone is not sufficiently authoritative--you need the Bible (so far as it is correctly translated) AND the Book of Mormon AND the Doctrine and Covenants AND the Pearl of Great Price AND the words of the living "Prophet" to know the truth.
Catholics believe we are saved by grace AND "good works". Mormons believe we are saved by grace "after all that we can do."
Catholics believe their church alone is the continuation of the church founded by Christ. Mormons believe that their church alone has restored the church founded by Christ.
Catholics believe wrongly about Mary (that she was born sinless, that we must believe rightly about her to be saved). Mormons believe wrongly about Mary (that she was impregnated by God the Father).
Catholics and Mormons both believe that some sins cannot be paid for by the blood of Christ, but may be (or may need to be) paid for by the person themselves (or by someone else on their behalf) after they die.
Catholics believe that if one does not honor the Pope properly, they are not saved. Mormons believe that if one does not honor Joseph Smith (as well as the living "Prophet") properly, they may not be saved.
Catholics believe that one must dogmatically accept the teachings of the Pope. Mormons believe that one must dogmatically accept the teachings of the living "Prophet."

So, as you can see, as much as the early Mormon leaders decried the Romish church, they have more in common with Rome than they do with (small-'o') orthodox Christianity. And hopefully you can see, now, how deeply the roots of Mormonism and Catholicism are intertwined. After all, they grow from the same family tree.