This is topic OSC, there is a mistake about Catholic teaching in your response to Dr. Mohler in forum Discussions About Orson Scott Card at Hatrack River Forum.
I have been immensely enjoying the exchange between you and Dr. Mohler linked on the front page. But, in the most recent response by OSC, he says this:
quote:From "Other Mormons Didn't Accept Me," by Orson Scott Card Let's not forget, after all, that Catholics have an even older "mainstream Christian tradition" than any Protestants, and good Catholics are convinced that all those Protestants are going to Hell.
This is, quite simply, not true. See, for example, The Decree on Ecumenism issued by the Second Vatican Council:
quote:Moreover, some and even very many of the significant elements and endowments which together go to build up and give life to the Church itself, can exist outside the visible boundaries of the Catholic Church: the written word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, and visible elements too. All of these, which come from Christ and lead back to Christ, belong by right to the one Church of Christ.
The brethren divided from us also use many liturgical actions of the Christian religion. These most certainly can truly engender a life of grace in ways that vary according to the condition of each Church or Community. These liturgical actions must be regarded as capable of giving access to the community of salvation.
It follows that the separated Churches(23) and Communities as such, though we believe them to be deficient in some respects, have been by no means deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation. For the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation which derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Church.
This is not limited to those that the Church views as Christian, either:
quote:For those who are not formally and visibly members of the Church, "salvation in Christ is accessible by virtue of a grace which, while having a mysterious relationship to the Church, does not make them formally part of the Church, but enlightens them in a way which is accommodated to their spiritual and material situation. This grace comes from Christ; it is the result of his sacrifice and is communicated by the Holy Spirit";81 it has a relationship with the Church, which "according to the plan of the Father, has her origin in the mission of the Son and the Holy Spirit".82
21. With respect to the way in which the salvific grace of God which is always given by means of Christ in the Spirit and has a mysterious relationship to the Church comes to individual non-Christians, the Second Vatican Council limited itself to the statement that God bestows it "in ways known to himself".
quote:From "Other Mormons Didn't Accept Me," by Orson Scott Card And to Catholics, any distinction between Mormons and Baptists is pretty trivial we're all Pope-disdaining, saint-ignoring, transubstantiation-denying menaces to the salvation of souls.
There are significant numbers (I doubt a majority) of Catholics for whom this might be true, but, this also is not really true according to Catholic teachings. For example, if I recall correctly, Baptist baptisms are accepted by the Catholic Church (I know for a fact more mainstream Protestant baptisms are). Mormon baptisms are not. In many important ways, there are far greater differences between Mormon and Catholics than Baptists and Catholics.
quote:From "Other Mormons Didn't Accept Me," by Orson Scott Card And yet, magnanimously, for purposes of our discussion here, Dr. Mohler is willing to admit that Catholics are Christians...at least compared to Mormons. He recognizes no, he asserts that his movement is part of the ancient Christian tradition.
But aren't there plenty of Catholic theologians that would deny Dr Mohler's upstart version of Christianity any place at the table?
...
Right now, Dr. Mohler is as uncomfortable with my insistence that we Mormons are Christians as a Vatican theologian would be with Dr. Mohler"s insistence that his denomination is part of the ancient Christian tradition.
Again, this misstates official Catholic teaching regarding Protestant religions. The difference between Protestant theology and Catholic Theology is much smaller than the difference between either of those Mormon theology.
That is not to say that there are not significant, important differences between Dr. Mohler's beliefs and Catholic teaching. Both he and Catholics believe the other to be mistaken about some very basic and very important doctrines. It would be a mistake to blur those differences (as the recent documents released by the Vatican emphasize).
And your use of those differences between Baptists and Catholics and their ability to find some acceptance of each other as a model of better understanding and cooperation between Mormons and other Christians is well-taken. Indeed, I find that to be the most important thing to come out of all four articles: identify the common ground, acknowledge our differences honestly, but don't let the latter prevent the former. In this way we call all work together to accomplish things that we all believe Christ wants us to.
You make many good points in this exchange, but on this issue your mistaken beliefs about Catholic teaching hinder rather than help those points.
Sincerely,
Dagonee
[ July 13, 2007, 11:02 AM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Do Catholics believe unbaptized babies go to hell? It's not the level of discourse I prefer generally, I'm just wondering if there is a semantic quality to "going to hell" that is the problem here.
But yeah, I understood from the document reported currently that Protestants aren't really churches. I don't think it's the case that they believe all these people are unbaptized. Though I've heard different things about whether Mormon baptism counts.
And I used to be one of those Mormons who was pretty worried about Card's salvation. He has a right to be a bit pugnacious and basically tell anyone he wants that they need to judge as they wish to be judged. I almost said "paranoid" but it's not paranoia if it's real, right?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Do Catholics believe unbaptized babies go to hell? It's not the level of discourse I prefer generally, I'm just wondering if there is a semantic quality to "going to hell" that is the problem here.
Some do. It is not official teaching that they do.
quote:But yeah, I understood from the document reported currently that Protestants aren't really churches. I don't think it's the case that they believe all these people are unbaptized. Though I've heard different things about whether Mormon baptism counts.
Generally Mormon baptism does not count, but there's no official Church-wide teaching - each bishop decides. As far as I know, all at least perform a conditional baptism for conversions from LDS, though, so I don't know any Bishops that actually accept it. It's just that some don't think it's definitely unacceptable.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
I'm also curious as to whether his redundancy of several identical paragraphs in the blog was deliberate or not
This entire passage was repeated, I think verbatim, twice
quote: So the local Mormon congregation had no idea what to make of me. I clearly didn't have a job freelance writer? Of science fiction? and I did something so eccentric as joining the Democratic Party, how could I possibly be a good member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?
My opinion was that the two questions were really unrelated my identity as a Mormon was, I thought, secure. I kept the commandments. I fulfilled my callings in the Church. And here's the clincher I sang tenor in the choir. Good tenors in church choirs are almost as rare as Democrats. I expected to be embraced with open arms.
Unfortunately, my ward (congregation) did not have a choir at that time.
Nor did they have a single calling that they thought I could fulfill.
Now, this is one of the peculiarities of Mormonism (which is, after all, the subject of this discussion, yes?): Because we have a lay ministry, every single member is expected to serve in some ministerial role. We teach or supervise or perform other services as part of an official "calling" in the Church.
In fact, that's much of the way that we create our identity by our callings. No matter where we move in the Mormon Church, our congregation will have a "Relief Society president" and many "Primary teachers" and a "ward clerk" and an "executive secretary," and so on.
Even if these people are complete strangers to us, we know who they are in the ward the function they fulfill, and what we can expect of them, and even some information about the kind of person who is usually given such a calling.
But in my ward in Orem, they couldn't think of a calling that a science-fiction-writing Democrat could possibly fill.
In their minds, because I was such an unfamiliar creature to them, I couldn't really be counted as "Mormon."
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
BannaOJ--
Happened with the last essay, too. You click on the page 2 button, and it displays the text of page 1 plus the text of page 2.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
quote:Some do. It is not official teaching that they do.
Fair enough. There are a lot of older Mormons who think Catholicism is the afore-mentioned "Church of the Devil". Though as I've pointed out, such a view lets an awful lot of people off the hook.
I tend to think evil operates invisibly, like the one ring of power.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
ahhh thanks Scott... stupid computers
I will say that the observers responses on beliefnet seem tedious and pedantic. I like both author's original works much more than the discusion on the discusson that takes place below.
AJ
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I gave up on those after reading some of the comments under OSC's first article.
Posted by striplingrz (Member # 9770) on :
Yeah, reading all those posters just makes me want to pull my hair out. Religion is just too difficult a subject to have a free for all on an internet board.
By the way, as a person who grew up Southern Baptist in a very "southern area" (Toomsuba, MS), I heard many a person refer to the Catholic church as the Church of the Devil. I'm sure that happens across several denominations though.
I like the debate on Beliefnet, but honestly Card and Moehler now are on completely different subjects in my opinion. Moehler is coming across as a "university" type (ironic considering OSC is teaching at So.Virg.), and Card is borderline all over the place in his responses. I like what he's saying, I just wish it were in a more succinct way.
Posted by Qaz (Member # 10298) on :
I looked into the new documents in the news. Benedict is not adding a new doctrine but explaining why Vatican II refers to Protestant churches as "communities of faith" or some such. Vatican II explicitly states that Protestant Christians are saved and their communities, or whatever you call them, are part of the universal church.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
That's true, Qaz.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
I understand that. I'm not sure why Mormonism wouldn't be considered a community of faith under that same theory. I could understand if they wanted to say "it's the trinity" or "apostolic succession" but the problem is there seems to be a general sense that Mormons are especially out there, and people don't can't really put their finger on it. It's very salient to Card's experience of not fitting in as a Mormon.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I'm not sure why Mormonism wouldn't be considered a community of faith under that same theory. I could understand if they wanted to say "it's the trinity"
You've answered your own question right there. Essentially, the definition is those communities whose baptisms are acceptable to the Catholic Church ("whenever the Sacrament of Baptism is duly administered as Our Lord instituted it"). The apostolic succession is not a requirement; churches who the Catholic Church views as not having apostolic succession (including communities who do not claim such succession) are included in "ecclesial Communities" under the Decree On Ecumenism.
In those dioceses which do not accept Mormon baptism, the theory is that even though the same words are used, the vast difference in meaning given to "in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit" renders the baptism entirely different and not "as Our Lord instituted it."
Mormons consider their baptism to be entirely separate from the baptisms performed by Catholic and Protestant churches, and consider Catholic and Protestant baptisms to not be "as Our Lord instituted it." That being the case, it makes sense that a definition based on baptism would include Protestants yet exclude Mormons - the LDS definition itself almost mandates this outcome.
Posted by Qaz (Member # 10298) on :
I dont' think there's anything in the Catholic catechism regarding LDS. ?? (Posted at the same time as Dagonee posted. This is done diocese by diocese?)
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
[ July 13, 2007, 03:54 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
quote:Difference of views: Mormons hold that there is no real Trinity, no original sin, that Christ did not institute baptism
Yeah. The understanding of sin within Mormonism is a pretty big problem. We tend to go by the articles of faith which was written for a non-member. Our actual articles of organization in Doctrine and Covenants 20 says:
quote:But by the transgression of these holy laws man became sensual and devilish, and became fallen man.
We are are not punished for Adam's transgression, but by Adam's transgression came the fall which means we are all sinful. I run into so much resistance from other Mormons on this idea, that we can't avoid repentance by avoiding sinning.
We believe that Jesus, who created the earth, instituted baptism. Who do they say we say instituted baptism? I mean, John the Baptist was baptizing before Jesus, so where do you say it came from? We believe Adam and Eve were baptized under the authority of Jehovah.
Anyway. You've got me on the Trinity, though there is a persistent misunderstanding about who we think Jesus is. He created the Earth. But I constantly argue with Mormons over salvation and exaltation. They say resurrection is free but exaltation is based on faithfulness. At least, I think that's what folks are saying. I feel like when I was born again, this was through the power of Christ and the only merit of my own was trusting in him.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
If I recall correctly, this is also the case for Jehovah's Witnesses, Christadelphians and Unitarian Universalists. It seems that the significant factor is a Trinitarian form.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Who do they say we say instituted baptism?
Later in the article, it states "in [Mormon's] understanding Baptism was not instituted by Christ but by God and began with Adam (cf. Book of Moses 6:64)" The key distinction is that when we say Christ instituted the Sacrament of Baptism, we mean he did so while he was present as a man on earth.
quote:I mean, John the Baptist was baptizing before Jesus, so where do you say it came from?
quote:But above all must be considered the baptism of St. John the Precursor. John baptized with water (Mark 1) and it was a baptism of penance for the remission of sins (Luke 3). While, then, the symbolism of the sacrament instituted by Christ was not new, the efficacy which He joined to the rite is that which differentiates it from all its types. John's baptism did not produce grace, as he himself testifies (Matthew 3) when he declares that he is not the Messias whose baptism is to confer the Holy Ghost. Moreover, it was not John's baptism that remitted sin, but the penance that accompanied it; and hence St. Augustine calls it (De Bapt. contra Donat., V) "a remission of sins in hope". As to the nature of the Precursor's baptism, St. Thomas (III:38:1) declares: The baptism of John was not a sacrament of itself, but a certain sacramental as it were, preparing the way (disponens) for the baptism of Christ." Durandus calls it a sacrament, indeed, but of the Old Law, and St. Bonaventure places it as a medium between the Old and New Dispensations. It is of Catholic faith that the Precursor's baptism was essentially different in its effects from the baptism of Christ, It is also to be noted that those who had previously received John's baptism had to receive later the Christian baptism (Acts 19).
...
That [the Baptism instituted by Christ] was an essentially different rite from John the Precursor's baptism seems plain, because the baptism of Christ is always preferred to that of John, and the latter himself states the reason: "I baptize with water . . . [Christ] baptizeth with the Holy Ghost" (John 1).
Catholics believe that Christ instituted the Sacraments while he was present on Earth as a man, and that his humanity was an essential part of the process (link):
quote:God alone is the principal cause of the sacraments. He alone authoritatively and by innate power can give to external material rites the power to confer grace on men. Christ as God, equally with the Father, possessed this principal, authoritative, innate power. As man He had another power which St. Thomas calls "the power of the principal ministry" or "the power of excellence" (III:64:3). "Christ produced the interior effects of the sacraments by meriting them and by effecting them. . . The passion of Christ is the cause of our justification meritoriously and effectively, not as the principal agent and authoritatively but as an instrument, inasmuch as His Humanity was the instrument of His Divinity" (III:64:3; cf. III:13:1, III:13:3).
Posted by vonk (Member # 9027) on :
quote:Christadelphians
Philidelphia has it's own church? Cool.
Posted by DDDaysh (Member # 9499) on :
I was raised Catholic, and I can tell you that while the vatican might hold a "stardard set of Catholic doctrine", in practicality no one REALLY knows or agrees on what it is. Most Catholic churches have more than one priest, so this problem isn't always so appearant. However, I happen to have been raised in an extremely small town (close to several even SMALLER towns) where a one priest church is the norm... and you're lucky to even get him. It is VERY apparent here that even priests have no idea of what the doctrine REALLY is, even on major points. One priest we have believed the Pope's "Age of enlightenment" was 7, so started working the age of confirmations until he got it to fall immediately after first confession and first communion. Yes, that's right folks, he was having second graders take an adults commitment to the church. Maybe he was right, who knows, but MOST Catholic churches do confirmation in HIGH SCHOOL. The next priest we got stuck it right back at age 16, which basically meant he had no confirmations during his stay at the church, since several whole years of children were already confirmed in second grade. That priest also though that anything done without incense wouldn't reach heaven.
However, everyone who converts to Catholocism absolutely MUST be baptized AND confirmed. This indicates to me that Catholics do not, indeed, believe anyone else offers true baptism. Since they also believe we are all born with original sin, then it you'd be hard pressed to have a clean enough soul to enter heaven without baptism. And ALL Catholics do believe that there is an aspect to getting into heaven that has to do with the cleanliness of one's soul, not just the purity of belief.
:-)
Anyway, I think OSC got it close enough to make his point.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
DDDayish,
Catholics do not re-baptise people who have already been baptised with a Trinitarian form. We consider most Christian baptisms as valid, with a few exceptions as noted. Candidates for reception into full communion - those who have already been baptised - go through RCIA* but are not baptised.
*Rite of Christian Initiation for Adults.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:However, everyone who converts to Catholocism absolutely MUST be baptized AND confirmed.
This is simply not true. I have been involved in RCIA as a sponsor and more often seen the rites conducted at the Easter Vigil. Every year, some are baptized and some are not, and most of the ones not baptized were not baptized Catholic.
quote:Since they also believe we are all born with original sin, then it you'd be hard pressed to have a clean enough soul to enter heaven without baptism.
Yes, but they don't believe that the baptism must be conducted by a Catholic to be valid.
quote:Anyway, I think OSC got it close enough to make his point.
No, he didn't. The statement about hell, especially, directly contradicts what is probably one of the best known sets of teachings ever promulgated by the Church. And it wasn't new even then.
quote:Maybe he was right, who knows, but MOST Catholic churches do confirmation in HIGH SCHOOL. The next priest we got stuck it right back at age 16, which basically meant he had no confirmations during his stay at the church, since several whole years of children were already confirmed in second grade. That priest also though that anything done without incense wouldn't reach heaven.
In general, priests don't perform confirmations. There has to be a Bishop involved in confirmation, either (usually) to conduct the ceremony or to give a specific authorization to the priest to conduct the ceremony.
Posted by Qaz (Member # 10298) on :
Dagonee and kmbboots are right about RCC recognizing the validity of non-RCC baptisms, as I know from personal experience. When I joined RCC a few years back, RCC accepted my Methodist baptism as valid.
quote:while the vatican might hold a "stardard set of Catholic doctrine", in practicality no one REALLY knows or agrees on what it is.
Here it is: The Catechism of the Catholic Church. I don't know how many Catholics know it, but it's there for anyone who wants.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
As an aside I was most pleased to see such a considerable understanding in the report of doctrines within Mormonism that usually go by as completely misunderstood. I was impressed the writers even consulted Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith and cited it in their statements concerning our beliefs.
Don't necessarily agree with their conclusions but at least I understand them.
Posted by striplingrz (Member # 9770) on :
I agree with BlackBlade, it was interesting reading. I had a small problem with them seemingly quoting from "non-canonical" works as fact, but all-in-all it was the best treatment from another church I've seen in writing. Again, like BlackBlade I don't agree with them, but...
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I'm glad they are seen as accurate in that article.
There's probably not a complete understanding amongst Catholic theologians of how non-canonical works should be interpreted within the LDS faith. Without that quote, would the conclusion about LDS teachings (not the ultimate issue, of course) still be sound?
Remember that there's no percentage in it for the Catholic Church to exclude baptisms - in fact, it has a strong preference for avoiding double baptisms (which it doesn't think can really happen, anyway, but still doesn't like to see).
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Dag:
I dunno. The document uses a LOT of non-doctrinal support for its conclusions.
The fact is, the meat of the document (The Form), could have been written using a single Mormon-centric scripture:
quote:D&C 130:22 The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as mans; the Son also; but the Holy Ghost has not a body of flesh and bones, but is a personage of Spirit. Were it not so, the Holy Ghost could not dwell in us.
There was no real need to go into the non-doctrinal ideas about whether or not God has died before this earth was created, or whether Christ was equal to all men in the life before this one. A lot of the text in that section are things that are just speculation.
Additionally, both the document you linked and Doctor Mohler suggest that Mormons have multiple gods. While it's true on the face of it, [i]as it has been presented, it is the opposite of true.
Mormons are monotheistic in terms of worship. Our prayers are not directed to Christ, or the Holy Spirit, but to our Heavenly Father.
When other people talk about Mormons having more than one God, it always sounds to me like they're saying we're pantheistic-- that there's a Mormon "head-honcho-God" and a Mormon "Sun God" and maybe a Mormon "God of Childbearing."
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:When other people talk about Mormons having more than one God, it always sounds to me like they're saying we're pantheistic-- that there's a Mormon "head-honcho-God" and a Mormon "Sun God" and maybe a Mormon "God of Childbearing."
I'm not sure how you get that from this particular article. *shrug*
Thank you for the clarifications on doctrine.
Do you think it seems like a good-faith effort to understand Mormon doctrine?
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:I'm not sure how you get that from this particular article.
I'm probably oversensitive.
quote:Do you think it seems like a good-faith effort to understand Mormon doctrine?
Dag, I normally would. But the more I look at how much non-doctrine they used to prop up their conclusion-- a conclusion which is supportable by actual, acknowledged, scriptural doctrine-- the more wary I am of the intentions of this council.
Meh. Not like it matters to ME.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I'm probably oversensitive.
I understand, given the context of all commentary on LDS beliefs. And I could be the one who's wrong here.
quote:Dag, I normally would. But the more I look at how much non-doctrine they used to prop up their conclusion-- a conclusion which is supportable by actual, acknowledged, scriptural doctrine-- the more wary I am of the intentions of this council.
Meh. Not like it matters to ME.
I think that this may be representing a distinct philosophical difference that distinguishes the Catholic Church from many other churches. Many Catholic writings that are definitely not authoritative doctrine are cited in Ecumenical decrees (which are taken to generally represent as "official" Catholic Doctrine as it gets).
I suspect they are using such LDS writings in a similar way, which it sounds like is not a usual or necessarily "valid" thing to do when attempting to identify differences in doctrine.
To a Catholic - at least, to this Catholic - the article as you suggest it would have felt very incomplete. It would certainly have been unusual. Although Catholic writings quote scripture (for us, the OT, NT, and what's called the apocrypha by others) in explanations of doctrine often, they seldom stop there.
That's not an attempt to say "you are wrong to think that they misused LDS writings" or to suspect their good faith, but rather to explain why it might not seem like misuse or an attempt to be disrespectful to author of the article.
Note also that the article was not an "official" church writing in and of itself, but an attempt to explain a one-word answer to a question.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
I also agree with what Scott said in that pointing out speculative doctrines (some true, others perhaps not) like, "God was born on another planet," or, "Christ obtained his divinity before coming to earth." are not relevant to "The Form" which is the crux of the matter.
But it is entirely true that the members of the trinity (to Mormons) do not form one "subtance" in granting salvation, but they do form one divinity. They are "functionally unified" but certainly not "substancially unified." If it is important for all three members to combine into one substance for a baptism to be valid, then I completely understand why the Catholic church does not accept Mormon baptism.
I would certainly say the document is, "a good-faith effort to understand Mormon doctrine." I did not detect any animosity in the document, it seemed VERY matter of fact.
I think Scott was merely pointing out that many non Mormons say, "Mormons don't believe in the same Jesus I do," they invariably mention our beliefs of the trinity rather then the commandments and ideas Jesus espoused.
To Mormons we believe in the same attonement that Jesus performed, the same spiritual relationship between Jesus and his Father, and in the neccesity of the Holy Ghost.
But many non Christians take our belief in the trinity and the potential for all men to become as God is that we then believe in multiple Gods or that we somehow devalue Christ and His father.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
It's worth restating this, not because I think anyone's lost cite of it (quite the contrary), but rather because I don't want this to get lost amidst the other discussion that's going on:
quote:Indeed, I find that to be the most important thing to come out of all four articles: identify the common ground, acknowledge our differences honestly, but don't let the latter prevent the former. In this way we call all work together to accomplish things that we all believe Christ wants us to.
It's why I think that OSC has the better of the exchange overall.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: To Mormons we believe in the same attonement that Jesus performed, the same spiritual relationship between Jesus and his Father, and in the neccesity of the Holy Ghost.
But to trinitarian Christians, you don't believe in the same atonement, because Christ being of one substance with the Father is a necessary part of the atonement. And you certainly don't believe in the same relationship between Jesus and his Father, because trinitarian Christians believe that they are one being, and Mormons do not.
That said, I agree with Dag that the "lets focus on what we do agree on and how we can work together to support it" is more important.
I don't, however, think it was fair of OSC to criticize the way Dr. Mohler framed the question in his thesis statment if indeed that was the way the question he was asked to write about was worded.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:But to trinitarian Christians, you don't believe in the same atonement, because Christ being of one substance with the Father is a necessary part of the atonement. And you certainly don't believe in the same relationship between Jesus and his Father, because trinitarian Christians believe that they are one being, and Mormons do not.
But Mormons still believe in the same result. So in that sense we DO believe in the same atonement. I guess it remains to be seen whether a difference in how the atonement works or what it does is more important.
And I said same "spiritual" relationship. We believe that Christ was subject to the will of the Father just as Christ himself stated. We are disagreeing on the physiological differences. I am not talking about "spiritual matter or spiritual bodies" just that how the trinity relate in terms of purpose are identical.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
It's funny, on the one hand we are accused of aspiring to be gods, and I can take that from a Baptist, but appealing to Saints demonstrates a faith in the ability of humans to ... what. Dispense grace?
We call ourselves Latter-Day Saints meaning nothing more or less than Christians.
If the Trinity is the issue, why aren't the Christians called Trinitarians?
Well, there are things I don't understand. The teaching that "as man is, God once was" was written by the... fifth (?) prophet of the Mormon Church and as far as I know is not in canonized scripture. I don't quite feel comfortable going further than that in my criticism of it. But I think it is at least commonly misunderstood. What is in our scriptures is God saying "This is my work and my glory, to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man". Eternal life is what most Mormons then see as godhood. But it is not an end unto itself, it is the process "to know Thee, the only true God and Jesus Christ whom thou has sent".
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
The reason I believe the Father and the Son are separate is that the Son prayed "not my will, but Thine be done." He only became perfect in the atonement, as the difference between his mortal discourse and his resurrected discourse on "what manner of men" demonstrates.
It's an interesting question whether Christ was, in substance, different from man before birth. His glory was in the Word, the promise of the Father. He was the annointed, given authority to do what the Father willed.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:It's funny, on the one hand we are accused of aspiring to be gods, and I can take that from a Baptist, but appealing to Saints demonstrates a faith in the ability of humans to ... what. Dispense grace?
I don't understand what this means. Catholics do not believe that saints dispense grace. We ask saints to pray for us, just as we ask our friends here on earth to pray for us. There is nothing associated with a saint being like God (except in the sense we are called to live as Christ lived).
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I don't, however, think it was fair of OSC to criticize the way Dr. Mohler framed the question in his thesis statment if indeed that was the way the question he was asked to write about was worded.
I agree, but only if he knew the question was framed that way to Dr. Mohler, which is not clear to me either way.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:I don't understand what this means. Catholics do not believe that saints dispense grace. We ask saints to pray for us, just as we ask our friends here on earth to pray for us. There is nothing associated with a saint being like God (except in the sense we are called to live as Christ lived).
Perhaps I am wrong, but I was under the impression that saints have lived such exemplery lives that beyond the grace needed to save them they have built up a store of "merit" that sinners can request that Saints grant them access to, or to act as advocates for them.
For example the virgin Mary was free from the effects of the original sin and lived a sinless existance before and after Christ was born to her. Thus her many righteouss actions grant her favor with God far more then is sufficient to save her. Hence God will grant grace to sinners through Jesus but based on her exemplery life if she so requests it.
I'd love to understand this better.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:For example the virgin Mary was free from the effects of the original sin and lived a sinless existance before and after Christ was born to her. Thus her many righteouss actions grant her favor with God far more then is sufficient to save her. Hence God will grant grace to sinners through Jesus but based on her exemplery life if she so requests it.
BB, it's not like a surplus/deficit situation as described here, but I don't think I'm capable of explaining it properly in this context. Nor can I find a suitable explanation online. So I'm going to have to decline to explain further.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I believe that saints and even regular people (even ones who are still alive) can be conduits of grace, can provide a means for God's grace to be spread. I don't think that it grace is somehow transferable in an "I have x amount extra grace so I'm going to give you some" kind of way.
Saints are examples for us and people who we believe are in close communion with God. They may have special insights into specific problems and we draw on their experiences and examples.
Does that help?
[ July 21, 2014, 12:06 PM: Message edited by: kmbboots ]
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
Brief and poor summary (re: Mary):
Mary's role as Mediatrix of God's saving grace (to use the Catholic terminology... I'm fairly sure most other denominations object to this title) is strictly through, about, and around, her Son... even regarding her own salavtion and native state of grace. "Her many righteous actions" are the result of God's grace working in her, not things that she did to obtain some sort of surplus which she in turn bestows on the rest of us.
Corrections are welcome.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
I've read a bit more on it and it sounds like saints can be prayed to as a type or a shadow of how we might ask a fellow human being to intercede for us.
I am not however sure that this interpretation has ALWAYS been the case in the RCC. I'll have to keep looking.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Be aware of very different terminology - or, more precisely, the same terminology having different meanings - regarding this issue.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
I definitely confused the praying to saints with supererogation. From James E. Talmages' The Great Apostasy in regards to supererogation, (With no offense intended to Catholics)
quote: 14. As formulated in the thirteenth century, this doctrine was thus set forth: "That there actually existed an immense treasure of merit, composed of the pious deeds and virtuous actions which the saints had performed beyond what was necessary for their own salvation, and which were therefore applicable to the benefit of others; that the guardian and dispenser of this precious treasure was the Roman pontiff, and that of consequence he was empowered to assign to such as he thought proper a portion of this inexhaustible source of merit, suitable to their respective guilt, and sufficient to deliver them from the punishment due to their crimes."*
*As cited by Mosheim; see "Eccl. Hist.," Cent. 12, Part 2, ch. 3:4.
I am positive I had this passage in mind when I thought about praying to saints. Glad to have clarified this issue.
As an aside is the pope still empowered with the ability to grant pardons to sinners who have paid penance as prescribed by the church? If so, does this follow the rationale from Matthew' "Whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven...etc?" Or is the pope simply the instrument through which God forgives sins? Or is it something else?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
That doctrine (the treasure of merit) is not one I have ever heard, nor would I agree with it.
Priests in confession are conduits of God's forgiveness. I suppose this would also be true of the Pope.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
I think the authority properly resides with the bishops but is extended to all priests. It's based most strongly (scripturally) on John 20:22-23 "22And with that he breathed on them and said, "Receive the Holy Spirit. 23If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven." (NIV)
It should be noted that Thomas was not with them at the time, but the Catholic Church has held that it applied to the Apostles and all their successors.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
quote: but I don't think I'm capable of explaining it properly in this context. Nor can I find a suitable explanation online. So I'm going to have to decline to explain further.
Welcome to our world. It is an interesting disconnect that Saints would be perceived as better off when they are dead. Or is it merely the irreversability of their testimony at that point?
And as I've mentioned previously, I don't understand how Mary's conception could have also been immaculate. I think I understand the concept of original sin. I just don't understand how Mary could have been free from it, or why she would have needed to if Jesus was inherently Virtuous (in the sense of powerful). That is, I don't understand why his conception of the Holy Ghost wasn't enough to make him Virtuous, why his mother would also have to be free of original sin. Dagonee has told me he doesn't understand it before, I thought I'd throw it out there for others.
It's certainly common enough for Mormons to hold various mortals as exemplary, but doctrinally, Jesus is the one supreme Exemplar. If one looks at certain statements about Joseph Smith with the traditional idea of saints, it's a very different statement than what was meant. He's much less, in this sense, than what Mary seems to be for Catholics.
P.S. It's also odd that Mormons say we don't believe in Original Sin when we teach that all will be resurrected through the grace of Christ. I mean, we call it something different, but we're basically saying that mankind is in a universal fallen condition that was reversed for everyone by Jesus. But we're saying it was the ability to die, without which they would have remained in a state of endless happiness but never being able to have children.
P.P.S. I was reading the wikipedia entry on indulgences. It's pretty interesting. I realize it is not necessarily accurate.
[ July 17, 2007, 09:47 AM: Message edited by: pooka ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Pooka, would you mind starting a thread if you want to hear justifications for particular Catholic doctrines? There's not anything wrong with that, but this thread is more about what Catholic teaching is, rather than whether it's right or wrong.
Since I'm hoping very much for a reply in this thread from OSC, I'd like it to stay as close to the topic as possible. Otherwise, there's a greater chance of it getting lost in the shuffle. Thanks!
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Oh, if that's what you wanted, why didn't you e-mail him directly through the contact link? It does not appear he's posted here since December 1 of 2006.
Posted by Scooter (Member # 6915) on :
What about "emergency baptisms" for infants who are expected to die before the normal (or selected) time at which a baptism would be performed? Does that not insinuate the absolute necessity of baptism? If a child is raised Baptist but hasn't been baptized yet (hasn't reached the proper age yet), but then dies before baptism, then is that child not lost? But if that child had lived maybe a month later and was baptized Baptist, the child would be saved?
If I have my facts correct, then I think OSC's point is pretty close, even if he does not use all the proper terminology.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:What about "emergency baptisms" for infants who are expected to die before the normal (or selected) time at which a baptism would be performed? Does that not insinuate the absolute necessity of baptism? If a child is raised Baptist but hasn't been baptized yet (hasn't reached the proper age yet), but then dies before baptism, then is that child not lost? But if that child had lived maybe a month later and was baptized Baptist, the child would be saved?
If I have my facts correct, then I think OSC's point is pretty close, even if he does not use all the proper terminology.
First, none of this supports the statement to which I took exception, especially considering the context of the article. You're reaching terribly here. Even if your facts are "correct" (they are not), none of that supports the assertion that "good Catholics are convinced that all those Protestants are going to Hell." It's not a question of terminology, it's a question of a basic misunderstanding of Catholic doctrine.
Second, your facts are not correct. There is NO official Catholic teaching on the subject of babies who die unbaptized. Limbo, a state of perfect natural happiness which cannot be equated to be "lost," was a popular answer to the question from the 13th century on. The Pope recently promulgated a document declaring that there is prayerful hope that unbaptized babies go to heaven.
If you're interested in finding out how complex Catholic beliefs actually are, and how willing they are to say "I don't know," here's the recent document.
It goes into great detail as to why we can hope that unbaptized infants go to heaven yet still believe in the great good of infant baptism (which also answers why there is emergency baptism), and the necessity of baptism.
Posted by Orson Scott Card (Member # 209) on :
I have had comments from several thoughtful Catholics that caused me to realize that my impressions of Catholic doctrine were all historical and experiential from the time before Vatican II. I had underestimated the degree to which the Catholic Church accepts the acts of Protestant churches. While the Catholic Church has long accepted heretic baptism (i.e., when Arians "converted" they did not have to be rebaptized; ditto with Methodists becoming Catholic today), the Pope did recently reaffirm the exclusivity of the Catholic Church's claim to universality. I overstated the degree to which current Catholic doctrine mirrors Catholic doctrine of fifty years ago, but many have overestimated the degree to which Vatican II changed the Catholic claim to unique authority. In brief, the Pope's recent statement affirmed that while Eastern Orthodox Churches are, in fact, part of the Christian Church (though with a 'defect'), Protestant churches are merely sympathetic congregations or communities, NOT the "Church of Christ." Those who know their New Testament will recognize exactly what that means; I was not as far wrong as many Catholics assumed I was.
Nevertheless, I have asked BeliefNet to revise my essay with the following language (the insertion point in the essay will be clear from the beginning and ending of this passage):
It is true that when it comes to teaching the gospel of Jesus Christ, we Mormons are definitely rivals with the Evangelical Christian movement. Baptism in one requires a clear rejection of the other interpretation of Christs gospel, just as joining either of our Christian traditions means rejecting the Catholic and Orthodox Christian traditions.
Lets not forget, after all, that Catholics and Eastern Orthodox Christians have an even older mainstream Christian tradition than any Protestants, and for hundreds of years they were all convinced that Protestants were going to Hell and causing the damnation of many souls. Since the 1960s, Catholics have been more polite toward Protestants the word heretic is never used anymore (and they long accepted heretic baptism) but the Pope recently reaffirmed that while the Orthodox churches are to be regarded as apostolic with a defect, Protestant churches simply dont have the apostolic authority.
And to hardline Catholics, any distinction between Mormons and Baptists is pretty trivial were all Pope-disdaining, saint-ignoring, transubstantiation-denying distractions from the true Christian message.
Have we forgotten, too, that American Protestants have a long tradition of denying Catholics the status of Christians? Magnanimously, for purposes of our discussion here, Dr. Mohler is willing to admit that Catholics are Christians ... at least compared to Mormons. He recognizes no, he asserts that his movement is part of the ancient Christian tradition, despite the long anti-papist tradition of the Baptist Church.
I submit that tolerance of other views of Christianity is a matter of perspective and situation.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
I'm just glad I didn't bet Dagonee any money Card wasn't going to post here. I'm also glad that if the Catholics turn out to be right, my son won't be stuck in limbo. Though that lady I talked to on Crete sure seemed traumatized by what her priest had told her when her child died.
Posted by Amilia (Member # 8912) on :
quote:Originally posted by dkw:
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: To Mormons we believe in the same attonement that Jesus performed, the same spiritual relationship between Jesus and his Father, and in the neccesity of the Holy Ghost.
But to trinitarian Christians, you don't believe in the same atonement, because Christ being of one substance with the Father is a necessary part of the atonement. And you certainly don't believe in the same relationship between Jesus and his Father, because trinitarian Christians believe that they are one being, and Mormons do not.
It is thanks to you and all of the other thoughtful trinitarian posters here that I am finally coming to understand that. I don't often post on the many Hatrack religion threads, mainly because the things I know about are amply covered long before I get there, but I read them voraciously. And I see you and others having to explain this over and over. Sometimes it must feel as if you are typing at a brick wall. So I just wanted you to know that someone is reading and learning from your posts. Thank you for being so patient and so clear.
Posted by stihl1 (Member # 1562) on :
quote:Originally posted by pooka:
quote: but I don't think I'm capable of explaining it properly in this context. Nor can I find a suitable explanation online. So I'm going to have to decline to explain further.
Welcome to our world. It is an interesting disconnect that Saints would be perceived as better off when they are dead. Or is it merely the irreversability of their testimony at that point?
And as I've mentioned previously, I don't understand how Mary's conception could have also been immaculate. I think I understand the concept of original sin. I just don't understand how Mary could have been free from it, or why she would have needed to if Jesus was inherently Virtuous (in the sense of powerful). That is, I don't understand why his conception of the Holy Ghost wasn't enough to make him Virtuous, why his mother would also have to be free of original sin. Dagonee has told me he doesn't understand it before, I thought I'd throw it out there for others.
It's certainly common enough for Mormons to hold various mortals as exemplary, but doctrinally, Jesus is the one supreme Exemplar. If one looks at certain statements about Joseph Smith with the traditional idea of saints, it's a very different statement than what was meant. He's much less, in this sense, than what Mary seems to be for Catholics.
P.S. It's also odd that Mormons say we don't believe in Original Sin when we teach that all will be resurrected through the grace of Christ. I mean, we call it something different, but we're basically saying that mankind is in a universal fallen condition that was reversed for everyone by Jesus. But we're saying it was the ability to die, without which they would have remained in a state of endless happiness but never being able to have children.
P.P.S. I was reading the wikipedia entry on indulgences. It's pretty interesting. I realize it is not necessarily accurate.
Some of my personal thoughts of the misconceptions about catholics.
Baptism of infants. Catholics baptize infants as the first sacrament. Baptism, as Christ founded it, was the way to wash us of original sins and join us with the work Christ did for us on the cross. Through baptism, we join the Body of Christ, His church on earth. As the nicene creed says, "We believe in one baptism for the forgiveness of sins." That means as long as it has proper form (with water, and in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit) it is valid, no matter what religion does it. At that point, Catholics believe we are all reborn, made new creatures in Christ and a part of His church. Baptist, Luthern, Methodist, Catholic, all part of His church.
However, Catholics believe that salvation comes through the Catholic church. That's the point where we differ from protestants. We believe we must take part in the sacraments, particularly the eucharist, for salvation. The sacraments are mysteries, gifts of grace, instituted by Jesus while He was still on earth. The sacraments help us grow in faith, avoid the path of sin, and to walk the path of grace that God demands from us.
The reasons why the church believes that it is the true, full faith are 3 fold. Apostolic succession, authority, and the sacraments. I explained the sacraments. The church alone has all 7. Others have 1 or 2, the church practices all 7, and can be the only faith to do so because of authority and apostolic sucession.
Apostolic succession means that the apostles that sat at Jesus' feet, learned from him, and received the Holy Spirit at the Pentacost, founded the church. All bishops and priests have directly succeeded them from the beginning. From Peter and the apostles to now, all bishops and priests have been ordained by the direct laying on of hands and all can trace their succession to the apostles.
Authority because Jesus founded the catholic church while on earth. He commanded the apostles to go forth and teach his word on earth. He instituted the sacraments that we practice now. The church that the apostles and disciples founded became the catholic church, and was the only church for 1500 years. Also, he gave Peter the authority on earth, and the keys to the Kingdom.
What the church has always held was that salvation came through the church. Faithful that took part in the sacraments, lived the life God called us to, and tried to avoid sin as much as possible, would have good reason to believe in their salvation. That doesn't mean that one can simply go through the motions and take the sacraments and go to mass and be saved. THat means that the truly faithful that lived through the church would have a great chance at salvation.
That does not mean that non-catholics cannot be saved, however. The church has long recognized that it is possible for people to not be catholic, yet believe as a faithful catholic believes, and live as Jesus has called us to live, and be able to obtain a sufficient state of grace for salvation. And that people not able to know the word of God and of His salvation for all of us, through 'invincible ignorance', could also obtain salvation. And certainly, there are non-catholics more worthy of salvation than some catholics.
The bottom line is, salvation is God's judgement. What the church has taught and does teach is that your best bet to get there, if you are christian, is the catholic church.
A lot of what that document that was released last week is about is combatting the concept of relativism. Pope Benedict in particular has expressed his concern that relativism is hurting the church, and has made it a goal to combat it. Relativism in the sense that many catholics have mistaken the ecumenical movement to reach out to protestant brethren to mean that all religions are valid just because they are a religion. That has never been a teaching of the church. The church has always stated that it is the true, full faith of christianity. Certainly we should and can reach out to other christians, with love and understanding and inclusion. But not at the expense of the truth.
Furthermore, none of that document is anything new, just a restatement of a previous docterine. Lumen Gencia from VII, I do believe. The problem is, a lot of catholics don't understand the fine line the church is walking with these teachings, and just skip right to the 'protestants are going to hell' assumption.
Finally, the problem with catholics, especially in the US, as I see it is that most people don't understand their faith. Don't understand what the faith teaches and why. Blame it on 30+ years of bad formation and teaching in the church. Blame it on laziness and apathy on the part of the laity. Blame it on so-called 'cafeteria catholics'. Whatever reason, not knowing does not negate the teachings of the church, and doesn't mean the church is going to change to make certain people happy. It means that people need to take time to know and UNDERSTAND their faith before deciding they don't agree.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
A few quibbles:
quote:Originally posted by stihl1:
The [RC] church alone has all 7 [sacraments] Others have 1 or 2, the church practices all 7, and can be the only faith to do so because of authority and apostolic sucession.
Orthodox, Anglican, and Episcopal churches also have 7.
quote:Originally posted by stihl1: The church that the apostles and disciples founded became the catholic church, and was the only church for 1500 years.
The Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox churches serarated somewhere between the third and thirteenth centuries, depending on when in the very long process of schism you place the actual seperation.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:Protestant churches are merely sympathetic congregations or communities, NOT the "Church of Christ." Those who know their New Testament will recognize exactly what that means; I was not as far wrong as many Catholics assumed I was.
I'm pretty sure I know my New Testament and I don't see anything in that statement that makes saying Catholics believe all Protestants are going to Hell anywhere close to correct.
It may be that you are unfamiliar with Catholic theology and terminology. You might do well, if you wish to understand this better, to look at some of the stuff linked and referenced in this thread and in the thread where the Pope's recent statement was discussed on the other side.
The Catholic Church asserting itself as the only true Church of Christ seems to have taken on a meaning for you that it does not for the Catholic Church (although, to be honest, I'm not sure about this, because you don't actually say what this is). I'd offer as a rebuttal a section from the Decree on Ecumenism, which I believe Dag has linked to in this thread.
quote:But even in spite of them it remains true that all who have been justified by faith in Baptism are members of Christ's body, and have a right to be called Christian, and so are correctly accepted as brothers by the children of the Catholic Church.
I'm also unsure of what you mean by hard-line Catholics. I note that you changed it to this from merely "Catholics".
If you mean Catholics who take their religion seriously, I don't think your description is accurate. Besides knowing many of these who do not have the beliefs you ascribe to them, I would expect that people who take Catholicism seriously would likewise take the official statements - which directly oppose the beliefs you are saying these people have - seriously.
However, if you are referring to bigots who ignore the doctrine and dictates of their Church, you are likely correct. I have to wonder, however, at the usefulness of referring to them in a discussion of the religion as a whole.
[ July 19, 2007, 12:36 PM: Message edited by: MrSquicky ]
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
This discussion really makes me wish that religious terms like Christian, Jewish, Catholic, etc. were defined by taxonomists from a biological background.
From that perspective, this discussion is really just a discussion as to whether Christianity is a monophyletic or paraphyletic group. In fact, for the vast majority of Christians, the debate would not even quite be that...but just a debate on *how* paraphyletic Christianity is.
It would be so much better if religious labels were redesigned to be purely monophyletic and divorced from their value connotations. I also suspect that at most about three people (in the forum, not necessarily reading this thread) will understand without consulting a reference Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
He already retracted that opinion.
I have never said we believe in the same atonement. As mentioned previously, the separateness of the Father and Son is central to my understanding of the Atonement. And if anything, Mormons could be called "Atonitarians" because we feel what was accomplished in the Atonement, which happened largely in Gethsemane but completed on Golgotha, was primary to Christ's mission. I don't know as it's more important than him dying on the cross, but it is at least equivalent, as is the fact that he was born in the first place, which exists alongside the original instance of Adam's fall as a pillar of what the atonement means. I guess rather than atonement, I could say the passion in Gethsemane.
I think it is tragic that any Mormon would try to say we don't believe what we do believe in order to be more presentable to others. Like the bumper sticker says, "It is better to be hated for what you are then loved for what you are not."
But I clicked on this thread because I was very engaged by the teaching of beatific vision, and I think it helps me understand the Saint thing a lot better. I still would say we don't pray unto people other than God, and pleading with someone who is dead seems awfully similar to praying, but setting that aside, I do think I understand it a bit better now. I also have very different feelings from most people about asking others to pray on my behalf, though now that I think about it I regularly tell people I'll pray for them. So I guess I'm a weirdo in that respect.
And it happens that we believe infants who died with or without baptism are some of the only people we can be sure live in God's presence, but I think the general idea is the same even if we feel different on who goes where when.
I believe people of every faith can enter into a state of grace, if I understand it correctly. And I won't take too much offense at standing outside of Christianity in the company of Gandhi, Frankl, and Mohammed.
Posted by stihl1 (Member # 1562) on :
quote:Originally posted by dkw: A few quibbles:
Orthodox, Anglican, and Episcopal churches also have 7.
Orthodox have all 7. Angelican and Episcopial, any offshoot of the church of England, do not have all of the valid sacraments because they don't have a valid priesthood, from succession. They broke from the catholic church and broke the line of apostolic succession. Which is necessary to perform 6 of the 7 sacraments.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
From a Catholic perspective.
However, they believe that they are able to conduct all 7 sacraments, which differentiates them from many other sects that do not recognize the 7 sacraments that Catholics do, which is, I believe, the point that dkw was raising.
Posted by stihl1 (Member # 1562) on :
I was clarifying my quote, which was this:
quote:Originally posted by stihl1:
The [RC] church alone has all 7 [sacraments] Others have 1 or 2, the church practices all 7, and can be the only faith to do so because of authority and apostolic sucession.
That was taken out of context from my explanation of the stance that the catholic church takes that it has the full faith. Other churches might have the other sacraments, but according to the church, and in my opinion, they are not all valid. Especially the sacraments that require a priest to perform.
Posted by Scooter (Member # 6915) on :
It is hard to understand how "emergency baptism" does not connote that the lack of baptism is detrimental to someone.
This thread has been very interesting. I had no idea the Catholic church has changed so much, but I guess that could be said about most if not all churches.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:It is hard to understand how "emergency baptism" does not connote that the lack of baptism is detrimental to someone.
Has someone here said that Catholic teaching does not consider the lack of baptism to be detrimental? Once again, the link above "goes into great detail as to why we can hope that unbaptized infants go to heaven yet still believe in the great good of infant baptism (which also answers why there is emergency baptism), and the necessity of baptism."
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
OSC, thank you for your response.
I would like to urge anyone who is interested in learning more about what the Catholic Church teaches to consult either primary sources such as the documents at vatican.va or secondary Catholic sources such as ewtn.com or some of the many good articles on diocesan web sites throughout the USA.
Posted by katdog42 (Member # 4773) on :
I know I'm very late to this thread, but I really wanted to thank Dag and all of the others for trying to clear up misconceptions about our church. With some of the media articles written about some of things coming out of the Vatican recently, I feel we've had to do a lot of that lately and I appreciate people who can speak intelligently and appropriately about our beliefs.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Good to see you, katdog!
Posted by katdog42 (Member # 4773) on :
Thanks kmbboots... been lurking a lot, but not able to keep up with posting.
Posted by Objectivity (Member # 4553) on :
quote:In general, priests don't perform confirmations. There has to be a Bishop involved in confirmation, either (usually) to conduct the ceremony or to give a specific authorization to the priest to conduct the ceremony.
Not entirely true. A bishop is the one empowered to confirm. However, in many dioceses, bishops are often granting permission to priests to perform the rite instead.
It's a bit controversial because in many eyes, confirmation is the one time many people get to see their bishop.
Posted by stihl1 (Member # 1562) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scooter: It is hard to understand how "emergency baptism" does not connote that the lack of baptism is detrimental to someone.
This thread has been very interesting. I had no idea the Catholic church has changed so much, but I guess that could be said about most if not all churches.
The catholic church has not "changed so much." The church stands by the same beliefs it as always had. The people within the church try to change it, have tried to change it, but the church stands firm the way it always has.
And in general, baptism is necessary to take part in the new covenant Jesus created. As a catholic, it seems to me to be detrimental that someone would live and die without being batpised in order to take part in that salvation. However, it is not for us to judge someone's salvation, that is up to God. And the church teaches God is merciful and judgement is His. Want to be sure you are in on being saved? Then be baptised. Of course we would want to 'emergency baptize' someone who was dying. We want everyone to be able to take part in salvation.
If you didn't value that, then I suppose it wouldn't be a big deal. But yes, catholics are in the business of evangelizing for Christ and spreading His word. So yes, we would see a death of an unbaptized person as a bad thing.
And I agree with what was said about incorrect interpretations and motives given to the Church as of late, by the media and the rest of the world in general. So much is misunderstood and wrongly interpreted.
Posted by stihl1 (Member # 1562) on :
I would also like to add that OSC should think about his own religion before he begins pointing fingers and raising issues with the catholic church for asserting that it is the one, true, full faith. I have gotten a lot of flak (for the lack of a better word) from Mormons telling me about the apostacy of all christianity and especially the catholic church. That even during the time of Jesus the apostles were in apostacy and that from the start the christian churches had it 'wrong'. And that IS a teaching of the mormon church. And I see it as no different from the mormon church telling everyone else they are wrong and that after 1800 years Joseph Smith found secret golden books buried in New York, and that God and Jesus chose him in particular to bring the real true religion to the world. Frankly, it's more offensive to me for the LDS church, with no historical proof or authority whatsoever, to tell the world they are all wrong, than it is for the Catholic Church to restate what it has always asserted from the beginning. At least the church recognizes that other ecumenical communities worship the same God and Christ, that they have the same intentions, and some have some of the same truths as the church does.
Either way you look at it, all religions believe they are right. Why would you want to be a part of a religion if they didn't think they held the truth? But to pretend that the Catholic Church is doing anything worse than the mormon church does is specious and disingenuous.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Originally posted by Objectivity:
quote:In general, priests don't perform confirmations. There has to be a Bishop involved in confirmation, either (usually) to conduct the ceremony or to give a specific authorization to the priest to conduct the ceremony.
Not entirely true. A bishop is the one empowered to confirm. However, in many dioceses, bishops are often granting permission to priests to perform the rite instead.
It's a bit controversial because in many eyes, confirmation is the one time many people get to see their bishop.
How does this make what I said "not entirely true"? You quoted the part where I said "or to give a specific authorization to the priest to conduct the ceremony." How is this different from "granting permission to priests to perform the rite instead"?
quote:I would also like to add that OSC should think about his own religion before he begins pointing fingers and raising issues with the catholic church for asserting that it is the one, true, full faith. I have gotten a lot of flak (for the lack of a better word) from Mormons telling me about the apostacy of all christianity and especially the catholic church.
I don't think OSC has a problem with the Catholic Church asserting its primacy. I think he believes the Church is wrong in this assertion, of course, but I don't think he's being at all inconsistent here.
He brought up the Catholic Church as a means to demonstrate that Protestants asserting orthodoxy as a reason to exclude Mormons from the term "Christian" are vulnerable to a similar claim of exclusion from Catholics. I think he is incorrect about his specific assertions concerning those differences and does not comprehend that the differences between Catholics and Protestants are of a different kind, not merely a different degree, than the differences between both and LDS beliefs.
But I don't take issue at all with his highlighting Catholic beliefs concerning the nature of the Church to illustrate that Christians can, even while acknowledging important difference, still acknowledge the common elements of their beliefs and work together based on those common beliefs.
quote:Frankly, it's more offensive to me for the LDS church, with no historical proof or authority whatsoever, to tell the world they are all wrong, than it is for the Catholic Church to restate what it has always asserted from the beginning.
I don't see how it's more offensive - or offensive at all, for that matter.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
The LDS church claims it's one-true-ness by virtue of what could be termed innovation and responsiveness. Though a lot of people, and church members are not exempt, mistake it for authoritative orthodoxy. That is, I know of no official LDS source that would call it the one true church, though "true and living" appears frequently and even "The only true and living church."
A similar issue goes along with the Book of Mormon, that we believe it is "the most correct book", but it does not claim to be perfect, and it is not an upgrade or replacement of the Bible. Many unique LDS doctrines come more from the New Testament than from the Book of Mormon. Man's existence as a spirit before birth, for instance, does not appear in the Book of Mormon anywhere that I can see.
Also, I apologize for my revilings earlier in the thread.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Man's existence as a spirit before birth, for instance, does not appear in the Book of Mormon anywhere that I can see.
Alma 13:3
Helaman 14:17
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
quote:Originally posted by stihl1: I have gotten a lot of flak (for the lack of a better word) from Mormons telling me about the apostacy of all christianity and especially the catholic church. That even during the time of Jesus the apostles were in apostacy and that from the start the christian churches had it 'wrong'. And that IS a teaching of the mormon church.
That's not exactly true. I believe the standard position is that the Christian churches went into apostasy after all the apostles were dead, not while they were still alive and leading the church, and definitely not while Christ was still alive.
Posted by Scooter (Member # 6915) on :
quote:Originally posted by stihl1: I would also like to add that OSC should think about his own religion before he begins pointing fingers and raising issues with the catholic church for asserting that it is the one, true, full faith. I have gotten a lot of flak (for the lack of a better word) from Mormons telling me about the apostacy of all christianity and especially the catholic church. That even during the time of Jesus the apostles were in apostacy and that from the start the christian churches had it 'wrong'. And that IS a teaching of the mormon church. And I see it as no different from the mormon church telling everyone else they are wrong and that after 1800 years Joseph Smith found secret golden books buried in New York, and that God and Jesus chose him in particular to bring the real true religion to the world. Frankly, it's more offensive to me for the LDS church, with no historical proof or authority whatsoever, to tell the world they are all wrong, than it is for the Catholic Church to restate what it has always asserted from the beginning. At least the church recognizes that other ecumenical communities worship the same God and Christ, that they have the same intentions, and some have some of the same truths as the church does.
Either way you look at it, all religions believe they are right. Why would you want to be a part of a religion if they didn't think they held the truth? But to pretend that the Catholic Church is doing anything worse than the mormon church does is specious and disingenuous.
I think you have missed OSC's point.
My point about "changing" was speaking to the early position of the Catholic church to claim authority and a direct link to Christ's original church/organization, and deeming those who broke away from the Catholic church as heretics (this is a sloppy description, but I believe it is essentially correct). From this thread, it appears that "the Catholic Church" has softened and acknowledged those who would have formerly been deemed as heretics as having valid baptisms and equal access to salvation (at least that is how the church's positions have been described in this thread, essentially). Furthermore, baptism appears to be a safeguard but not essential (by the way, if God publicly announces a requisite of salvation, it is not human judgment to say that it is essential to do whatever it is that God said was essential. However, to declare a certain individual to be condemned to a certain eternal outcome would be a form of judgment).
I admit I have not gone to all the primary sources, and eventually would like to, but my response was based on the information presented in this thread that were allegedly based on said sources.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Scooter, I don't have time to go into details, but almost all of your summaries are incorrect. For example, baptism is essential and is much more than a mere "safeguard."
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by stihl1: The catholic church has not "changed so much." The church stands by the same beliefs it as always had. The people within the church try to change it, have tried to change it, but the church stands firm the way it always has.
I don't think this is true. And thank goodness!
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: Scooter, I don't have time to go into details, but almost all of your summaries are incorrect. For example, baptism is essential and is much more than a mere "safeguard."
Dagonee -- I thought that with the recent changes/clarifications about unbaptized infants, the Catholic Church was saying that while important, baptism may not be essential. Where did I get it wrong?
quote:Frankly, it's more offensive to me for the LDS church, with no historical proof or authority whatsoever, to tell the world they are all wrong...
From the LDS perspective, that's the crux of the issue -- whether or not we have the authority to say such things.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Hmm. I really don't like that way of putting it. It's what I didn't like initially. I don't think God has ever given authority to say "we are right and you are wrong". What he has told is is "we are all wrong, and we need to repent."
But maybe I'm just not a very good Mormon.
Even Jesus said "Why do you call me good?"
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Even He had to fish for compliments some times.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Even He had to fish for compliments some times.
He wouldn't have if He spent less time loafing...
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Heh. Good one.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jim-Me:
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Even He had to fish for compliments some times.
He wouldn't have if He spent less time loafing...
Don't forget the fishy dealings.
Posted by DDDaysh (Member # 9499) on :
Well, I'm very glad the Catholic church accepted all your baptisms. I suppose there must be an even wider variation than I previously supposed, either that or "methodists" must be special. The Lutherans around here who "convert" are all rebaptised. We really don't have anything except Lutherans that I've ever seen convert. I wonder who decides what will "count"...
On the other hand, I re-affirm my position that Catholic "doctrine" is not the same as Catholic belief, since both tend to change from time to time, and do vary greatly by priest. (As a side note, while a Bishop does do the actual confirmation, the priest directs almost all confirmation prep and decides who the candidates will be.)
Personally, I found both of OSC's statements valid, but I am glad he decided to revise his statement. It means he's still capable of learning from mistakes.... a very good role model.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Well, I'm very glad the Catholic church accepted all your baptisms. I suppose there must be an even wider variation than I previously supposed, either that or "methodists" must be special. The Lutherans around here who "convert" are all rebaptised. We really don't have anything except Lutherans that I've ever seen convert. I wonder who decides what will "count"...
In the two diocese I have been connected with conversion, Lutheran baptisms have been accepted. Most sites I have read cite Lutherans as one of the classic examples of baptisms acceptable to the Catholic Church.
quote:Personally, I found both of OSC's statements valid
Could you please explain this?
His first statement was flat out factually incorrect. How was it "valid" to you, personally?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
According to doctrine, Lutherans should NOT be rebaptized. If you are sure this is what is happening, someone is misinformed and this should be addressed.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
quote:How was it "valid" to you, personally?
He attends a diocese that rebaptizes Lutherans.
It's only invalid if a) no protestants require rebaptism and b) baptism is not necessary to not go to hell.
But the important thing is that we Mormons know we are going to Hell. Good thing we don't believe in Hell.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
pooka, this was discussed somewhere earlier.
Trinitarian baptisms are considered valid baptisms by the Catholic Church. If someone has already had a valid baptism, we don't rebaptise them because that would indicate that we did not consider their baptism to be valid. LDS (along with a few other groups) baptism is not considered valid because it is not trinitarian. Most protestant denominations use what Catholics consider a valid form. It would be disrespectful to indicate those baptisms had to be redone.
And not being baptised does not equal "going to hell".
So that addresses both your conditions.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Originally posted by pooka:
quote:How was it "valid" to you, personally?
He attends a diocese that rebaptizes Lutherans.
It's only invalid if a) no protestants require rebaptism and b) baptism is not necessary to not go to hell.
OSC didn't say "Some Catholics believe that some Protestants are going to Hell." He said "good Catholics are convinced that all those Protestants are going to Hell." (emphasis added)
Unless he thinks "good Catholics" means "Catholics who believe things contrary to official teachings of the Catholic Church," I don't see how the presence of some Catholics mistakenly rebaptizing Lutherans makes what OSC said valid.
quote:But the important thing is that we Mormons know we are going to Hell. Good thing we don't believe in Hell.
Again, not true (assuming you meant to state that Catholic teaching is that Mormons are going to Hell). If that's not what you meant, please clarify.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Dagonee, did you see my earlier question to you?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
mph, I'm sure Dagonee will answer this better and more completely, but as I understand it, it is essential that baptism as a sacrament exist.
There are ways that one can share in the sacrament of baptism without actually going through the ritual. Baptism of intent for example. If someone would have been baptised but couldn't for some reason. The thief on the cross is an example. Babies are another.
It is rather complicated, but my simple "rule of thumb" is that a loving God does not deny His children on technicalities.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Dagonee, did you see my earlier question to you?
I did not.
quote:Dagonee -- I thought that with the recent changes/clarifications about unbaptized infants, the Catholic Church was saying that while important, baptism may not be essential. Where did I get it wrong?
quote:There seems to be a tension between two of the biblical doctrines just mentioned: the universal salvific will of God on the one side and the necessity of sacramental baptism on the other. The latter seems to limit the extension of God's universal salvific will. Hence a hermeneutical reflection is needed about how the witnesses of tradition (church fathers, the magisterium, theologians) read and used biblical texts and doctrines with respect to the problem being dealt with. More specifically, one has to clarify what kind of "necessity" is claimed with respect to the sacrament of baptism in order to avoid a mistaken understanding.
The necessity of sacramental baptism is a necessity of the second order compared to the absolute necessity of God's saving act through Jesus Christ for the final salvation of every human being. Sacramental baptism is necessary because it is the ordinary means through which a person shares the beneficial effects of Jesus' death and resurrection. In what follows, we will be attentive to the way scriptural witnesses have been used in the tradition. Moreover, in dealing with theological principles (Chapter 2) and with our reasons for hope (Chapter 3), we will discuss in greater detail the biblical doctrines and texts involved.
You'd really need the whole thing to answer your question, though.
It's also important to keep in mind what baptism is essential to. For example, it has never been official teaching - though some have taught - that baptism is essential to avoid hell.
Baptism is considered essential for believers to obtain salvation, with various alternative forms available to the standard sacramental form. That's not the same doctrine applied to infants here.
Also, the Church hasn't taught that infants receive salvation. It has taught there is reason to hope that they do.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
See, I told you Dagonee would have a more complete and correct answer!
If it helps, "univeral salvific will" means God's desire for everyone to be saved.
My "reason to hope" is the surety in this universal salvific will and that God (being somewhat smarter even than we are) has ways to save us, if we want to be saved, that we haven't necessarily figured out.
Posted by DDDaysh (Member # 9499) on :
Valid doesn't necessarily mean absolutely factual. Valid means encompassing the heart of the problem. I think both statements make an adequate representation of the situation.
As for the "good Catholic" thing. If the Pope believes Catholics are the only TRUE church, then it's hard to see how MOST other Christians would not go to hell. Yet, since Catholics also believe being good can make up for imperfection of belief, I suppose that just because you're not Catholic doesn't mean you're going to hell. Still... you'd have all those sins on your soul from never going to mass.... how much do you think you have to donate to the United Way to clear up THAT deficit?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Sigh. DDDayish, if you are really interested in the Catholic Church's position on most other Christians, read this:
quote: I think both statements make an adequate representation of the situation.
If "adequate" means "inaccurate, misleading, and wrong" then I agree with you.
That's not how I use "adequate," however.
quote:If the Pope believes Catholics are the only TRUE church, then it's hard to see how MOST other Christians would not go to hell.
This has been explained over and over again in this thread.
quote:Yet, since Catholics also believe being good can make up for imperfection of belief, I suppose that just because you're not Catholic doesn't mean you're going to hell. Still... you'd have all those sins on your soul from never going to mass.... how much do you think you have to donate to the United Way to clear up THAT deficit?
You have a cartoonish view of Catholic beliefs.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
That's it. I'm persuaded to make a series of Catholic Comix.
Posted by Sibyl (Member # 10079) on :
quote: Later in the article, it states "in [Mormon's] understanding Baptism was not instituted by Christ but by God
In Christian understanding, Christ _is_ God. Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, all God.
From the Athanasian Creed: ".... So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Ghost is God. And yet they are not three Gods, but one God. ...."
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:Originally posted by DDDaysh: how much do you think you have to donate to the United Way to clear up THAT deficit?
Less than you would have to pay a college to educate yourself in actual Catholic beliefs.
But don't let actual facts interfere with your skewed beliefs.
(BTW, I am not a Catholic, although I was raised as one.)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Hat]](graemlins/hat.gif)