An exercise for Mormons

[Jerusha]

I wrote refutation to each of these statements, but frankly, they got somewhat abrasive, so I deleted them. I believe you can fill in the blanks. Personally, I think communication is breaking down here. Those statements are offensive to practicing Catholics.

I believe that secrecy was part of the early church. Some things that were originally sacred/secret were de-secretized.

You are correct though as people are baptized without proper authority AND as people are baptized without having faith

were a pagan and an atheist partook of the sacrament with the approval of the priest.

link the entire world, all of God’s children into one family through the sealings and proxy sealings that occur in LDS temples

 

[gryskull]

TOmNossor:

No, I meant heretical Baptism. This clearly was a controversy that occurred in the 3rd century between St. Cyprian and Pope St. Stephen.

I believe the practice of infant baptism was also a development, but the evidence is not as convincing.

You are correct though as people are baptized without proper authority AND as people are baptized without having faith (individual faith assuming this is necessary), their future ordinations would be invalid and eventually there would be no validly ordained folks. So, I guess infant baptism should be part of this too (from a LDS perspective of course).

Charity, TOm

The only controversy about baptism between St. Cypian and St. Stephen was wether to readmit the christians, who have fallen out of their faith, with or without baptizing them again since they were baptized by heretics. Pope Stephen admitted these christians back without rebaptism because their baptism was valid(trinitarian form). It is like asking a Protestant to be baptized again before coming into the RCC which the church doesn’t do as long as we know that the prior baptism had the right form and matter. Totally nothing to do with infant baptism.

Now when it comes to the authority being broken, what is your proof? Is this a part of the revelation to JS?

The line of bishops in the RCC is unbroken, especially the bishop of Rome. Which means the line of authority cannot be broken. I was wondering where the authority really stopped?

 

[TOmNossor]

Jerusha:

I wrote refutation to each of these statements, but frankly, they got somewhat abrasive, so I deleted them. I believe you can fill in the blanks. Personally, I think communication is breaking down here. Those statements are offensive to practicing Catholics.

I do not want to offend you. I am just suggesting that the Catholic Church is not inclusive in certain areas just like the CoJCoLDS is not inclusive in certain areas. It was not I who originally suggested that the secret/sacred nature of the Temple was clear evidence of an un-Godly practice.

I am of the opinion that many of the criticisms lofted against the CoJCoLDS are equally applicable when turned around against the Catholic Church. It is not my intention to say that the Catholic Church cannot be God’s church because it does not allow me to partake of the Eucharist, but rather that it behaves similarly to the CoJCoLDS when non-orthopraxic members cannot participate in temple ceremonies.

Oh, and one thing I did not mention. In response to the statement that I could bless the sacrament if I was called and became a priest, yes this is true. The path to participating in a Temple marriage is shorter and, “adapted for the capacity of the weak and the weakest of all saints." So once again, we see the CoJCoLDS have similar practices and procedures.

Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

gryskull:

The only controversy about baptism between St. Cypian and St. Stephen was wether to readmit the christians, who have fallen out of their faith, with or without baptizing them again since they were baptized by heretics. Pope Stephen admitted these christians back without rebaptism because their baptism was valid(trinitarian form). It is like asking a Protestant to be baptized again before coming into the RCC which the church doesn’t do as long as we know that the prior baptism had the right form and matter. Totally nothing to do with infant baptism.

You are correct. I am sorry if I didn’t state this.

I am suggesting that St. Cyprian advocated the position of the CoJCoLDS and he did. I am suggesting that a change occurred, and I can argue that this is the case, but I will not prove it. I think my position is stronger, but again this is not totally provable.

Had St. Cyprian’s position prevailed, Protestant baptism would not be accepted by the Catholic Church. New Catholics would be baptized just as new LDS are baptized regardless of what non-authoritative actions occurred before choosing to align with the Catholic Church or CoJCoLDS. But St. Cyprian did not prevail.

gryskull:

Now when it comes to the authority being broken, what is your proof? Is this a part of the revelation to JS?

The line of bishops in the RCC is unbroken, especially the bishop of Rome. Which means the line of authority cannot be broken. I was wondering where the authority really stopped?

I do not suggest that line of Bishops is broken. I suggest that the Bishop of Rome was not intended by Peter or Christ to be at the head of the worldwide church. This is a complex issue, and I will not prove my point, but Cardinal Newman definitely realized that the Bishop of Rome did not evidence his primacy for many centuries. If the Catholic Church is true, the authority of the Bishop of Rome is a developed authority that ultimately looked significantly different than it looked for the first Bishop or Rome or than it looked for Peter.

I once saw the apostasy from the Restoration, but my BIASED study of history evidences the apostasy from history too. I do not suggest that Newman’s apologetic is impossible, I merely suggest that the restoration of authority not passed on by Peter is a better read of history than the development of latent authority into the Papacy. I am not sure my posts on this are still on Catholic Answers, but if it is important to you I can look for them. It is my position that Newman’s development is a very pro-Catholic apologetic, but that hopefully it hints at things enough that one does not need to believe LDS “take leave of their senses” when we claim to believe in an Apostasy of authority. That is my desire is to demonstrate that we do not “take leave of our senses.”

Charity, TOm

 

[Jerusha]

I’ve cooled off now.

And neither did I.

suggest that the secret/sacred nature of the Temple was clear evidence of an un-Godly practice.

Silly, yes, but I never mentioned it.
Quote #1:The early Christian Catholic Church was an underground church as a result of persecutions. Therefore secrecy was necessary-- to protect members. The two situation are not legitimate analogies.

Quote #2: And, what, on this Earth, pray tell, makes you think you have the authority to say that the CC has no authority? I do not recognize any authority in your church. I do recognize the authority of mine. Also, any Christian person can baptize a newborn infant in an emergency situation.

Quote #3. Either you are again claiming the authority to label them so, not knowing of the situation, or the priest did not have full knowlege of the situation. OR-- the priest is in gross error and should be severely reprimanded.

Quote #4. You just go ahead and proxy baptize every dead person you want-- (except Jewish people). It isn’t going to help.

Quote #5.

The path to participating in a Temple marriage is shorter and, “adapted for the capacity of the weak and the weakest of all saints."

Your church does not allow non-Mormon or jack-Mormon family and friends to ATTEND weddings and funerals. It is only a guilt trip they lay on non-members to get them to join. Family and friends are WELCOME to attend weddings and funerals in the CC.

 

[Imconfused]

TOmNossor:

Catholic-RCIA,

Two things that I see you addressing. Secrecy and Inclusion.

I believe that secrecy was part of the early church. Some things that were originally sacred/secret were de-secretized. Other things may have disappeared. But the early church struggled with those who were not in communion with a Bishop ordained through an Apostolic linkage teaching sacred/secret doctrines that were polluted or invented. The result was de-secretizing.

Charity, TOm

There is secret and there is secret. Nothing was held secret from members and there were no private ceremonies that the rest of the community could participate in. What was kept secret was the location and names of participants as they ALL participated in the Mass. Kept secret primarily from the Romans and Jews, for obvious reasons.
What happened in the catecombs in 100AD is radically different from the secrecy exercised by the LDS in 2005. First, it is not necessary in order to protect life and limb. Second, the whole Church Community is not there to witness the ceremony. There Is no comparison at all between the two churches and their types and reasons for secrecy. Smith at one time joined the Freemasons.It did not work out well, probably because he was too radical for them, even. But the type of secrecy exercised by the LDS follows closely on the Masonic model.

 

[Imconfused]

Jerusha:

Quote #4. You just go ahead and proxy baptize every dead person you want-- (except Jewish people). It isn’t going to help.

QUOTE]

What the Mormons do not understand is why the Roman Catholic Church must unequivocably reject the LDS method of baptising the dead. It rejects it because it has magic and superstition written all over it. To baptise someone who is unable to participate or give their consent, unable to exercise free will, and who will have no possibility of making use of it, because they are dead, and then claiming they are purified of all sin, is purely an act of magic. It’s like my going out to my kitchen and sprinkling water on my dirty dishes and through the action somehow of the water itself or my intention, presto chango, instantly clean without my having to lift a hand. Magic, superstition. Moreover, the RCC has this little thing called the dignity of man. I t is completely undignified to disallow, completely disrespectful, to perform said acts upon people without their consent. To ignore freewill, is a gross violation of a person’s human rights.

 

[Imconfused]

TOmNossor:

size]

And what could be more inclusive than to link the entire world, all of God’s children into one family through the sealings and proxy sealings that occur in LDS temples. No, you who do not see the truth of the CoJCoLDS cannot be physically present, but one day God’s grace will reach out and include you in this blessing too.

Charity, TOm
What could be more inclusive is the Bible. the Scripture has never stated that all people will be saved, all people will go to heaven. That is why there is a hell and a purgatory. The Scriptures have stated that there are those who will reject God all together. Scripture also states that man can do nothing of himself except sin. LDS teach that men are gods, and that God was first a less than perfect man. Also the LDS do not have an infinite Creator, because LDS have designated man as creator, therefore finite. No matter how much LDS desires all the dead to reach heaven, they defy God when they seal and proxy in the name of dead, for these may have been those who rejected God outright. The LDS do not know the personal sin level of those dead they baptise. But at this time, all these dead go to heaven and LDS say so and LDS say so alone, and the LDS are —human beings.
Hence- not by man willing it shall it be done. Man proposes, holy spirit disposes.

 

[Imconfused]

Imconfused:

Jerusha:

Quote #4. You just go ahead and proxy baptize every dead person you want-- (except Jewish people). It isn’t going to help.

QUOTE]

What the Mormons do not understand is why the Roman Catholic Church must unequivocably reject the LDS method of baptising the dead. It rejects it because it has magic and superstition written all over it. To baptise someone who is unable to participate or give their consent, unable to exercise free will, and who will have no possibility of making use of it, because they are dead, and then claiming they are purified of all sin, is purely an act of magic. It’s like my going out to my kitchen and sprinkling water on my dirty dishes and through the action somehow of the water itself or my intention, presto chango, instantly clean without my having to lift a hand. Magic, superstition. Moreover, the RCC has this little thing called the dignity of man. I t is completely undignified to disallow, completely disrespectful, to perform said acts upon people without their consent. To ignore freewill, is a gross violation of a person’s human rights. The fact is, to even have the implication that God was man first, and magical type rites, and violating freewill is simply Satanic. As such, the RCC must reject it.

 

[Jerusha]

To ignore freewill, is a gross violation of a person’s human rights.

Their incessant prostelytization of the living-- to the point of stalking. Catholics who are being stalked frequently hear anti-Catholic rhetoric. We are told that we have no real faith, and are intimidated into silence about anything negative about Mormonism. They captialized on the pedophile scandal, harp on the Spanish Inquisition, and Spanish Conquest no end, while obscuring and hiding thier own negative history. The persecution of the living is the primary issue here. It borders on terrorism, especially for people whose family history intersects with Mormon history-- rememberances of the Danites.

 

[Jerusha]

The LDS do not know the personal sin level of those dead they baptise.

They make no biographical study of the lives of those they baptize, make no attempt to learn from the lives of others. It is an empty ritual.

claiming they are purified of all sin, is purely an act of magic. It’s like my going out to my kitchen and sprinkling water on my dirty dishes and through the action somehow of the water itself or my intention, presto chango, instantly clean without my having to lift a hand.

 

[gryskull]

TOmNossor:

I do not suggest that line of Bishops is broken. I suggest that the Bishop of Rome was not intended by Peter or Christ to be at the head of the worldwide church. This is a complex issue, and I will not prove my point, but Cardinal Newman definitely realized that the Bishop of Rome did not evidence his primacy for many centuries. If the Catholic Church is true, the authority of the Bishop of Rome is a developed authority that ultimately looked significantly different than it looked for the first Bishop or Rome or than it looked for Peter.

This is something that I find hard to believe. Christ did intend for Peter to be the head of HIS Church. That is the reason why HE left him(Peter) to pastor his sheep before ascending to heaven and not James or John or any of the apostles. It is on Peter that HIS church was built and it is to Peter that the Keys of heaven was given to.

When it comes to the development of authority I really don’t understand what you mean. If you mean the assertion of authority over the other churches such as constantinople, alexandria, etc., I think that is because it was never questioned until the patriach of Constantinople placed himself co-equal of the bishop of rome. But whoever(Linus) succeeded Peter when he died definitely had the authority because with the office of Peter comes also the authority of such office which is the Papacy. And that is something that I know that was passed down from centuries in every succession and was never lost.