Defining Scripture, Revelation and Their Role

[Peter_John]

I am continuing this thread from a discussion that is moving off topic in another forum.

I was not trying to twist your words. I get a lot of (name removed by moderator)ut from a lot of people here and I read some things on the Catholic Answers page that didn’t quite fit in my mind.
I asked for clarification. That is all.

Now you have made statements here that don’t line up with my existing understanding so I have to decide to either ask for clarification or just let them be as “that’s just how it is”.

I don’t want to twist your words or derail the thread, let me ask for definitions then…
What is a Prophet and what is/are his functions?
What is scripture?
What or Who is Rome or The Church? To me, Rome is a city in Italy, and possibly just the Pope. A church is an institution, or an assembly of believers.
Who is it that ratifies new dogma, or dogma that has progressed? Is it just the Pope? The Pope and a council of other leaders? The church members in Rome? The entire membership throughout the world?

These things you may take for granted as part of your foundation of understanding. I don’t have this same foundation.
These are not the only questions but a few. If you feel they will derail the thread then feel free to say so, and I will go with “that’s just how it is”.

I welcome any who think I answer wrong to correct me.
According to the bible any Christian can be a prophet, “The testimony of Jesus is the Spirit of Prophecy.”

Scriptures are the canon of wrings recognized as inspired by God and considered the word of God, composing the Hebrew and Greek Old Testament as recognized in the time of CHrist, and the New Testament. We do not beleive that God whispered in the ears of the authors of the scriptures to tell them what to write, though the Holy Spirit has spoken dircectly through the prophets.

Not all scripture is literal prophecy. Some is history, some is poetry, some is fable. To be understood they have to be read with the form of the narrative as well as the perspectives and biases of the authors in mind. These all reveal the depth of meaning behind them. God did not dictate what to be written so much as use people’s lives like pens in his hand. The Holy Spirit also directed the redaction and translation – hence the story in the Book of Job took on many forms from its pre-Abrahamic beginnings to the poetic narrative we find in the current Old Testament, but this form is precisely what God wants us to have.

The Church is the organization Jesus commissioned Peter to organize to preserve his authority and messages by apostolic succession through the bishops. We recognize the Bishop of Rome as seated in the place of Peter and supreme among other Bishops. There have been divisions in Christianity, and we consider that any valid Christian sect still falls under the umbrella of the Church.

I do not believe I made the statement “New Dogma”. There are Dogmas that have not been fully understood and expressed, but ni new ones. When an understanding of something not specifically expressed in scripture becomes a significant enough part of tradition that some detemination seems in order, there are organizations of the bishops who examine it – such as the Magisterium which supervises the catechesis of members, and the Pope is the ultimate arbiter in these matters. Such things often arise as crises in the Church over specific issues, in which case the bishops take up counsel to determine how scripture and tradition are best applied, through the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

One example I will give is the decision to not recognize LDS baptism as valid. Though the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints never considered any baptism but their own valid, Catholicism generally considers any Christian baptized with water, by immersion or pouring, and using the words “in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,” valid. Matters of differing doctrine are generally not enough for the Church to consider someone so baptized in another faith as an unbaptized Christian. The account of how that decision was made on June 5, 2001 gives a good example of how seriously the Church considers dogmatic issues, and how it handles them ewtn.com/library/theology/mormbap1.htm

Personal revelation can come to anybody, and it can include messages of value for the whole world, and I gave you the example of Sister (now Saint) Maria Faustina’s revelation on the Divine Mercy. This was a case when the Savior himself brought a revelation, but frequently He sends His Mother. These are not considered worthy of belief until the Vatican rules on them, if it does, though sometimes they become incorporated into local traditions before that ruling comes. Also, calling something worthy of belief does not necessarily make it dogma, it just means you will not be guilty of heresy if you follow it. It does not mean you are required to beliueve it.

I realize that these things can be difficult for a Mormon to understand, as you perceive personal revelation as strictly personal, and general revelation as more inherently intertwined with hierarchy. Catholics do not perceive the Church’s organization as imposing limits on to whom God may send messages of Universal import – and we do not perceive our Pope as a mouthpiece of God. The Church authority exists to make sure that false teachings do not creep in.

and that some of them will disagree with what you have been told Catholics believe. When I was LDS I was taught the Catholics did not believe in continuing revelation (false), believed that absolution came through confession without repentance (false), that unbaptized infants could not get into heaven (false).

 

[Barbkw]

Peter John,

Were you a “cradle” LDS?

I’m interested in reading your conversion experience, if you’d like to share it.

 

[Peter_John]

Peter John,

Were you a “cradle” LDS?

I’m interested in reading your conversion experience, if you’d like to share it.

I was a “cradle” LDS. My entire world view depended upon it until I was 28 (1988)… I have given more details on my conversion experience in other posts, so I will offer a shorter verison of it For now I will affrim that from the time I was 17 on I did not lie to LDS authorities about any problems i had living according to LDS standards. I kept them well enough to serve a mission fro 1982-1983 in Brazil. On returning I found contiunal issues following LDS teachings, but I still held to the beliefs. In 1988 I committed an act so blatantly wrong that I had to admit that trying to be a good Mormon was not making me a better person, and I decided that was more important. I began rebuilding my value system form the ground up based on what I observed myself and not what other people told me I should believe.

That took me throughatheism and Paganism, to a belief that Jesus of Nazareth was the physical embodiment of the Creator, and back to Mormonism. In all this time I had never been to a catholic mass. I had several residual prejudices against it form LDS upbringing and Protestant based scripture studies. I had attended Episcopal masses. and they made no sense to me.

By Christmas of 2006 (I am leaving out a lot of details) I had returned to Mormonism, truly beleived it, and accepted that I was never going to achieve the Celestial Kingdom within its doctrines. I beleived it, and sought nothing else. I only attended a Catholic Midnight Mass because I had a long-standing tradition of participating in somne community Christmas activity, and a Catholic church was the only one in my neighborhood. I was not looking to believe anything else.

I left that mass convinced that I had been lied to about what Catholics believe, and resolved to attend another in a couple of weeks, when I had a day off work. I understood it completely, and I left believing.

The LDS Church would not consider me a member of their Church when I converted to Catholicism, but the fact is, I believed nothing else. That is basically it. It took another two years after my conversion for me to be baptized, and for my wife and I to be confirmed (we moved in the middle, and I had two secular marriages that had to be theologically adjudicated). I apologize if I am sometimes not too patient with LDS Apologists. I know what misconceptionists under which most of them function.

I have not gone itno much detail in this post of why I consider my conversion a Eucharistic miracle. For now I will just state that in that second mass I attended, the reality of it was made so clear to me that I had to recognize the Eucharist as evidence of Christ’s church made manifest. Nothing I have learned since then has changed what I understood, only reinforced it, clarified it more thoroughy. I did not understand transubstantiation, but accepted it, and communion of saints with Padre Pio resolved that, hence I accepted Padre Pio as my Patron Saint.

 

[flyonthewall]

I am continuing this thread from a discussion that is moving off topic in another forum.

I welcome any who think I answer wrong to correct me.
According to the bible any Christian can be a prophet, “The testimony of Jesus is the Spirit of Prophecy.”

Scriptures are the canon of wrings recognized as inspired by God and considered the word of God, composing the Hebrew and Greek Old Testament as recognized in the time of CHrist, and the New Testament. We do not beleive that God whispered in the ears of the authors of the scriptures to tell them what to write, though the Holy Spirit has spoken dircectly through the prophets.

Not all scripture is literal prophecy. Some is history, some is poetry, some is fable. To be understood they have to be read with the form of the narrative as well as the perspectives and biases of the authors in mind. These all reveal the depth of meaning behind them. God did not dictate what to be written so much as use people’s lives like pens in his hand. The Holy Spirit also directed the redaction and translation – hence the story in the Book of Job took on many forms from its pre-Abrahamic beginnings to the poetic narrative we find in the current Old Testament, but this form is precisely what God wants us to have.

The Church is the organization Jesus commissioned Peter to organize to preserve his authority and messages by apostolic succession through the bishops. We recognize the Bishop of Rome as seated in the place of Peter and supreme among other Bishops. There have been divisions in Christianity, and we consider that any valid Christian sect still falls under the umbrella of the Church.

I do not believe I made the statement “New Dogma”. There are Dogmas that have not been fully understood and expressed, but ni new ones. When an understanding of something not specifically expressed in scripture becomes a significant enough part of tradition that some detemination seems in order, there are organizations of the bishops who examine it – such as the Magisterium which supervises the catechesis of members, and the Pope is the ultimate arbiter in these matters. Such things often arise as crises in the Church over specific issues, in which case the bishops take up counsel to determine how scripture and tradition are best applied, through the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

One example I will give is the decision to not recognize LDS baptism as valid. Though the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints never considered any baptism but their own valid, Catholicism generally considers any Christian baptized with water, by immersion or pouring, and using the words “in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,” valid. Matters of differing doctrine are generally not enough for the Church to consider someone so baptized in another faith as an unbaptized Christian. The account of how that decision was made on June 5, 2001 gives a good example of how seriously the Church considers dogmatic issues, and how it handles them ewtn.com/library/theology/mormbap1.htm

Personal revelation can come to anybody, and it can include messages of value for the whole world, and I gave you the example of Sister (now Saint) Maria Faustina’s revelation on the Divine Mercy. This was a case when the Savior himself brought a revelation, but frequently He sends His Mother. These are not considered worthy of belief until the Vatican rules on them, if it does, though sometimes they become incorporated into local traditions before that ruling comes. Also, calling something worthy of belief does not necessarily make it dogma, it just means you will not be guilty of heresy if you follow it. It does not mean you are required to beliueve it.

I realize that these things can be difficult for a Mormon to understand, as you perceive personal revelation as strictly personal, and general revelation as more inherently intertwined with hierarchy. Catholics do not perceive the Church’s organization as imposing limits on to whom God may send messages of Universal import – and we do not perceive our Pope as a mouthpiece of God. The Church authority exists to make sure that false teachings do not creep in.

and that some of them will disagree with what you have been told Catholics believe. When I was LDS I was taught the Catholics did not believe in continuing revelation (false), believed that absolution came through confession without repentance (false), that unbaptized infants could not get into heaven (false).

I can understand what you are saying, may not agree with it, but I can understand.
Thanks for the definitions.

In contrast to your statements about what you learned about Catholics while LDS, the LDS church does not teach what other religions believe. There may be general statements about mainstream christianity as a whole, but that is not specifc to any one religion.
The specific examples you bring up -
Ongoing revelation - I have heard many people here on this board state very clearly that public revelation has ceased. There is nothing more that is to be revealed. Revelation stopped with Jesus Christ as He is the fulfillment of all revelation.
Perhaps that revelation has not ceased should be better known throughout the membership?

Absolution comes through confession without repentance - Never heard of this. I would have thought that confession was part of the repentence process.

Unbaptized infants cannot get into heaven: Perhaps there is some truth to this…
usatoday.com/news/religion/2007-04-20-popelimbo_N.htm
This is not an LDS projection upon Catholics but as this article brings up, it is a long held belief by Catholics, even though there was no formal doctrine on it.

 

[Barbkw]

Thank you Peter John for your conversion account. I’m a cradle Catholic revert and a sponsor at RCIA and I’m always interested in how the Holy Spirit works in people’s lives.

I was AWOL from Church for 15 or more years and family circumstances and the Eucharist brought me back. I personally accepted both the mystery of the Eucharist and my membership at the Marriage Supper of the Lamb.

Looking back, it’s unbelievable to me, that I allowed myself to be 15 years absent from the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus.

 

[Peter_John]

I can understand what you are saying, may not agree with it, but I can understand.
Thanks for the definitions.

In contrast to your statements about what you learned about Catholics while LDS, the LDS church does not teach what other religions believe. There may be general statements about mainstream christianity as a whole, but that is not specifc to any one religion.
The specific examples you bring up -
Ongoing revelation - I have heard many people here on this board state very clearly that public revelation has ceased. There is nothing more that is to be revealed. Revelation stopped with Jesus Christ as He is the fulfillment of all revelation.
Perhaps that revelation has not ceased should be better known throughout the membership?

Absolution comes through confession without repentance - Never heard of this. I would have thought that confession was part of the repentence process.

Unbaptized infants cannot get into heaven: Perhaps there is some truth to this…
usatoday.com/news/religion/2007-04-20-popelimbo_N.htm
This is not an LDS projection upon Catholics but as this article brings up, it is a long held belief by Catholics, even though there was no formal doctrine on it.

 

[Peter_John]

I can understand what you are saying, may not agree with it, but I can understand.
Thanks for the definitions.

In contrast to your statements about what you learned about Catholics while LDS, the LDS church does not teach what other religions believe. There may be general statements about mainstream christianity as a whole, but that is not specifc to any one religion.
The specific examples you bring up -
Ongoing revelation - I have heard many people here on this board state very clearly that public revelation has ceased. There is nothing more that is to be revealed. Revelation stopped with Jesus Christ as He is the fulfillment of all revelation.
Perhaps that revelation has not ceased should be better known throughout the membership?

Absolution comes through confession without repentance - Never heard of this. I would have thought that confession was part of the repentence process.

Unbaptized infants cannot get into heaven: Perhaps there is some truth to this…
usatoday.com/news/religion/2007-04-20-popelimbo_N.htm
This is not an LDS projection upon Catholics but as this article brings up, it is a long held belief by Catholics, even though there was no formal doctrine on it.

Your refutation of absolution through confession without repentance indicates the preconceptions of which I speak. Catholicism teaches that absolution through confession is ineffective without repentance. The practice is consistent with the Bible, “If we condfess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.” and the charge that as often as someone begs forgiveness they are to be forgiven, even if they have reoffended in between.

The more important question is why your faith teaches that even confession with repentance does not guarantee absolution.

I have never stated that absolution comes through confession without repentance, That is another common micunderstanding of Catholic doctrine. Whatever USA Today says, “Limbo” was never established Catholic Dogma. It has been perpetuated through such warks as Dante’s “Divine Comedy” which placed Limbo as the first circle in Hell, wheere souls have no overt punishment, but are not free to leave. Dante’s masterpiece of metaphor and allegory has never been, to my knowledge, declared a dogmatic work.

The reference you provide shows how long the Church considers things of importance before formalizing declarations, and the statement it refers to represents centuies of consideration to determine that there is scriptural foundation to believe that

 

[Peter_John]

Even with my current beliefs I frequently find myself defending Mormonism against the following allegations:

Those born Black were fence-sitters in the war in Heaven, or not as valiant (false).
The Church teaches that Polygamy will be re-restored as a valid practice in Mormonism [beyond widowers re-marrying in the temple] (false – and it in fact affirms that this should not be taught).
Black people will be White in the resurrection (false).
You have to be related to a general authority to be a general authority (false).
There is secret knowledge in the Gospel only available to a few even in the Church (false).
The Catholic Church is the Church of the Devil foretold in the Book of Mormon (false).

Whether you recognize it or not, these are commonly held beliefs among many Church members. If I tried to cite these beliefs to refute the LDS Church, you would rightfully respond that these have never been validated teachings of the Church – just things that many have beleived for a long time, often contrary to the actual teachings of the Church.

I therefore reject your argument that just because many Catholics held certain beliefs for a long time validates those as teachings of Catholicism.

 

[Peter_John]

Thank you Peter John for your conversion account. I’m a cradle Catholic revert and a sponsor at RCIA and I’m always interested in how the Holy Spirit works in people’s lives.

I was AWOL from Church for 15 or more years and family circumstances and the Eucharist brought me back. I personally accepted both the mystery of the Eucharist and my membership at the Marriage Supper of the Lamb.

Looking back, it’s unbelievable to me, that I allowed myself to be 15 years absent from the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus.

I find the greater miracle that people having once considered the sensibilityof some beliefs come back anyway. This is the true evidence of the Holy Spirit at work. I know that in my conversion two steps were supreme. 1) When I accepted that Jesus of Nazareth was the physical incarnation of the Creator, with no empirical reason to beleive that beyond my perception of His own words, and 2) When I attended my firs mass with an open mind, and beleived it and understood it.

 

[flyonthewall]

Even with my current beliefs I frequently find myself defending Mormonism against the following allegations:

Those born Black were fence-sitters in the war in Heaven, or not as valiant (false).
The Church teaches that Polygamy will be re-restored as a valid practice in Mormonism [beyond widowers re-marrying in the temple] (false – and it in fact affirms that this should not be taught).
Black people will be White in the resurrection (false).
You have to be related to a general authority to be a general authority (false).
There is secret knowledge in the Gospel only available to a few even in the Church (false).
The Catholic Church is the Church of the Devil foretold in the Book of Mormon (false).

Whether you recognize it or not, these are commonly held beliefs among many Church members. If I tried to cite these beliefs to refute the LDS Church, you would rightfully respond that these have never been validated teachings of the Church – just things that many have beleived for a long time, often contrary to the actual teachings of the Church.

I therefore reject your argument that just because many Catholics held certain beliefs for a long time validates those as teachings of Catholicism.

How about from the Catholic Encyclopedia?
newadvent.org/cathen/02258b.htm

Unbaptized infants
The fate of infants who die without baptism must be briefly considered here. The Catholic teaching is uncompromising on this point, that all who depart this life without baptism, be it of water, or blood, or desire, are perpetually excluded from the vision of God. This teaching is grounded, as we have seen, on Scripture and tradition, and the decrees of the Church. Moreover, that those who die in original sin, without ever having contracted any actual sin, are deprived of the happiness of heaven is stated explicitly in the Confession of Faith of the Eastern Emperor Michael Palæologus, which had been proposed to him by Pope Clement IV in 1267, and which he accepted in the presence of Gregory X at the Second Council of Lyons in 1274. The same doctrine is found also in the Decree of Union of the Greeks, in the Bull “Lætentur Caeli” of Pope Eugene IV, in the Profession of Faith prescribed for the Greeks by Pope Gregory XIII, and in that authorized for the Orientals by Urban VIII and Benedict XIV. Many Catholic theologians have declared that infants dying without baptism are excluded from the beatific vision; but as to the exact state of these souls in the next world they are not agreed.

This particular belief is not only held by the lay members, but taught from the top.
Why would it take so long to make a determination on this particular topic? Seems like revelation would have given the answer much quicker.(And I say unto you, Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you.)

Absolution through confession without repentance- There was no refutation on my part. Sounds like you said the same thing I did. My preconceived notion places confession as part of repentance.

 

[Peter_John]

How about from the Catholic Encyclopedia?
newadvent.org/cathen/02258b.htm

This particular belief is not only held by the lay members, but taught from the top.
Why would it take so long to make a determination on this particular topic? Seems like revelation would have given the answer much quicker.(And I say unto you, Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you.)

Absolution through confession without repentance- There was no refutation on my part. Sounds like you said the same thing I did. My preconceived notion places confession as part of repentance.

The part you miss in that is “of water, blood, or desire,” read up on that, in the Catechism, then reorganize your argument.

 

[Peter_John]

How about from the Catholic Encyclopedia?
newadvent.org/cathen/02258b.htm

This particular belief is not only held by the lay members, but taught from the top.
Why would it take so long to make a determination on this particular topic? Seems like revelation would have given the answer much quicker.(And I say unto you, Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you.)

Absolution through confession without repentance- There was no refutation on my part. Sounds like you said the same thing I did. My preconceived notion places confession as part of repentance.

The way you brought up the confession issue suggests a preconception that catholics believe differently.

I will give you an example: “The Miracle of Forgiveness” suggests that the thief on the Cross whoi confessed could not be saved. Catholics do not beleive that – and according tot he Book of Mormon, Mormons should not either.

The eveidence of repentance displayed by the thief was that he ackonowledged personal responsibility for his own actions, he testified of Christ’s sinlessness, He rebuked another sinner. He asked for mercy. Sure, he couldn’t make restitution for whatever he had stolen, “but it is by grace alone we are saved, after all that we can do,” and that was all that he could do, so the Book of Mormon says that grace should cover it.

Personally, my rule is Jesus trumps anything. He can do what He wants. Do you disagree?

“I the Lord God will forgive whom I will forgive, but of you it is required to forgive all men.” not “I the Lord God will forgive whom I will forgive, but you only need to forgive the people you think I will.”

Repentance and Grace are so inherently intertwined – since it even takes grace to be able to repent – that we best err on the sifde of forgiveness.

The other thing to remember is that in Catholicism life isn’t some kind of a competition to decide who comes out with “so much the advantage in the next life”. There is one good, one saved, and only one who gets into heaven because only one came down from heaven. Everyone else, even His Mother, rides on his coat tails.

 

[flyonthewall]

The way you brought up the confession issue suggests a preconception that catholics believe differently.

I did not bring up the confession issue, you were the first to mention it. I merely commented on it.

I will give you an example: “The Miracle of Forgiveness” suggests that the thief on the Cross whoi confessed could not be saved. Catholics do not beleive that – and according tot he Book of Mormon, Mormons should not either.

The eveidence of repentance displayed by the thief was that he ackonowledged personal responsibility for his own actions, he testified of Christ’s sinlessness, He rebuked another sinner. He asked for mercy. Sure, he couldn’t make restitution for whatever he had stolen, “but it is by grace alone we are saved, after all that we can do,” and that was all that he could do, so the Book of Mormon says that grace should cover it.

It is not that the thief on the cross could not be saved, but could not be saved by a deathbed confession alone. He still would need to hear the gospel of Christ and either accept or reject it.

Personally, my rule is Jesus trumps anything. He can do what He wants. Do you disagree?

“I the Lord God will forgive whom I will forgive, but of you it is required to forgive all men.” not “I the Lord God will forgive whom I will forgive, but you only need to forgive the people you think I will.”

To an extent. God cannot go back on His own word.

Repentance and Grace are so inherently intertwined – since it even takes grace to be able to repent – that we best err on the sifde of forgiveness.

I agree, it is grace that makes repentance possible.

The other thing to remember is that in Catholicism life isn’t some kind of a competition to decide who comes out with “so much the advantage in the next life”. There is one good, one saved, and only one who gets into heaven because only one came down from heaven. Everyone else, even His Mother, rides on his coat tails.

We don’t believe life is some sort of competition. It is a test. A trial. A refining process.

 

[flyonthewall]

The part you miss in that is “of water, blood, or desire,” read up on that, in the Catechism, then reorganize your argument.

I did not miss that. There is only baptism of water and baptism of fire or spriit. Baptisms of blood and desire are man made terms and concepts.

 

[Peter_John]

I did not bring up the confession issue, you were the first to mention it. I merely commented on it.

It is not that the thief on the cross could not be saved, but could not be saved by a deathbed confession alone. He still would need to hear the gospel of Christ and either accept or reject it.

To an extent. God cannot go back on His own word.

I agree, it is grace that makes repentance possible.

We don’t believe life is some sort of competition. It is a test. A trial. A refining process.

Poor choice of words. I believe my point was that catholics do not believe that absolution comes from confession without repentance.

Thief on the Cross-- My point is that he did more than offer a deathbed confession. He did all that he could do in his circumstances.

God can’t go back on his own word, which is why there could have been no Great Apostasy. When Jesus told Peter that the gates of hell would nopt prevail agianst the Church Peter would organize, and tossed him the keys saying, “Do what you want with it, I trust you” he meant it.

If you doubt that the LDS Chuurch teaches life as competition, perhaps you should reconsider what your scriptures and leaders teach of our behavior in the pre-Earth life giving some of us advantages in this life, and how our behavior in this life gives us advantages in the next life. The latter in particular disturbs me, since I do not find the belief in a pre-Earth life scriptural anyway, as it suggests advantages will be needed in the next life. It all seems to be about continual acquisiton of more property and status, and I do not see this in the teachings of Jesus.

 

[Peter_John]

I did not miss that. There is only baptism of water and baptism of fire or spriit. Baptisms of blood and desire are man made terms and concepts.

Sorry I took so long to respond, Hadn’t noticed this one.

Baptism of blood and desire would actually count as detailed application of existing scripture revealed over liturgical practice through time – in other words: continuing Revelation.

Furthermore, LDS doctrine considers major elements of them valid as well. The formative LDS concept of Blood Atonement is one part of it, as is the belief that even those who never hear of Christ can be saved. We fall short of actually performing proxy baptism for the dead in their name, because the Bible supports the concept of judgment at death and because we believe God applies his grace as he will.

Those who die for their testimony of Christ are baptized in blood. Even if unbaptized, God will not deny such a place in Heaven. Those who live and act with a correct intuition of right and wrong, even if they never heard of Christ, are baptized by desire. God will accept them as if they had been able to heaqr the gospel and follow through. It also applies to catechumens, those being prepared for Baptism. If they die before they are actually baptize, but they are pursuing a course in that direction, God will treat them as if they had finished the path.