Did the Pope say Mormonism was a sect ?

[Prince_Hal]

I have been told that the Pope, I am assuming Benedict, said that Mormonism was a sect and that he had great reservations about it. This may have been in the same communication in which he forbade any Catholic Church records (baptism, weddings, etc) to be given to the Mormons for Family History purposes.

Can anyone confirm this ?

Many thanks,

Hal.

 

[Eliza10]

Sorry you never got an answer to this. I guess no one knows? I read something recently when reading aobut Josph Smith that Smith had all the main marks of a cult leader, but Mormonism itself has evolved into a religion rather than a cult. Can’t remember where I read that but I it sounds right to me.

 

[cthulhubryan]

Pope Benedict XVI, when Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger and head of the Congregations for the Doctrine of the Faith did indicate that Mormon baptism is illicit due to their errors regarding the true nature of the Trinity (Jesus taught 3 in 1, Smith taught 3 separate gods), and the nature of the baptism (Mormons do not accept the concept of Original Sin)

Source

That’s about the only thing I can find.

 

[zerinus]

Pope Benedict XVI, when Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger and head of the Congregations for the Doctrine of the Faith did indicate that Mormon baptism is illicit due to their errors regarding the true nature of the Trinity (Jesus taught 3 in 1, Smith taught 3 separate gods), and the nature of the baptism (Mormons do not accept the concept of Original Sin)

Source

Actually, that is not quite right. The Catholic Church itself (or Cardinal Ratzinger), as far as I have been able to determine, has not given an official theological explanation for their decision to not recognize LDS baptisms. Those explanations you found in that article by Fr Luis Ladaria, S.J. are his own explanations, not the Catholic Church’s official explanations. If the Catholic Church has officially given an explanation, I would dearly like to get hold of it. But I wasn’t able to find one.

As regards the actual decision is concerned to not recognize LDS baptisms, I wrote an article in my Blog in response to it which you can read here. In that article I had already addressed the main points raised by Fr Luis Ladaria, S.J. in his article that you had linked to. But after reading it again, I noticed a few other eye-openers that is worth a separate discussion, notably this paragraph:

A) According to the Catholic Church, Baptism cancels not only personal sins but also original sin, and therefore even infants are baptized for the remission of sins (cf. the essential texts of the Council of Trent, DH 1513-1515). This remission of original sin is not accepted by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, which denies the existence of this sin and therefore baptizes only persons who have the use of reason and are at least eight years old, excluding the mentally handicapped (cf. AF, pp. 113-116). In fact, the practice of the Catholic Church in conferring Baptism on infants is one of the main reasons for which the Mormons say that the Catholic Church apostatized in the first centuries, so that the sacraments celebrated by it are all invalid.

What that paragraph says about LDS doctrine is pretty close to the truth; but it is the question that it raises about Catholicism that is worthy of special note: so on the basis of the above statement are we to conclude that according to Catholic theology an newborn infant is a sinner because he is guilty of the original sin; and that he will go to hell if he dies in infancy without baptism? Is that the teaching of the Catholic Church?

Another comment he has made that is worth mentioning is the following:

Difference of views: Mormons hold that there is no real Trinity, no original sin, that Christ did not institute baptism

Well, I am not sure what he means by the “real Trinity”. I think that the LDS doctrine of the Trinity is a lot more “real” than anybody else’s!

That’s about the only thing I can find.

Unfortunately that is the only thing that is! The Catholic Church, as far as I know, has not given an official explanation for its decision not to recognize the validity of Mormon baptisms. I would love to know it if they have.

 

[Religio71]

Pope Benedict XVI, when Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger and head of the Congregations for the Doctrine of the Faith did indicate that Mormon baptism is illicit due to their errors regarding the true nature of the Trinity (Jesus taught 3 in 1, Smith taught 3 separate gods), and the nature of the baptism (Mormons do not accept the concept of Original Sin)

Source

That’s about the only thing I can find.

I don’t really think that the nature of baptism, and Mormons not accepting original sin are the issues. Evangelicals do not believe in original sin, and they don’t believe in regenerational baptism. However, the Catholic Church does accept their baptisms. I don’t believe that there was an official statement made on why they aren’t accepted, however many speculate that it is due to the doctrinal differences in regard to the Trinity. An interesting counterpoint to this is that atheists can baptize validly in emergency situations (presumably having no correct doctrine on God), however Mormon baptisms are not accepted.

Also remember that Mormons do not accept any baptism, and all converts are rebaptized (or, in their view, baptized for the first time, since only they have the authority to do so).

 

[OHCAC]

Zerinus,

I just read your blog post at your site on this topic and it seems you have more Catholic readers than LDS - funny! I think Loretta said it best in response to some of your points:

"The purpose of Christian baptism is to do what Christ did–to infuse the divine life of grace (eradicating original sin and remitting all actual sin) and to incorporate the individual into the mystical body of Christ by an outward and visible sign.

The purpose of LDS baptism is to do what Joseph Smith said Adam and others did–to enter into personal covenants and to incorporate the individual into the hermetic LDS milieu.

Them’s two different purposes." Amen!!! Very different purposes.

In addition, Loretta goes on to state on your post in response to your question about why it took Rome so long to come to the decision to reject LDS baptism - “Rome moves slowly. A “new world religion” which finally reached the ten million plus mark and is now creating waves in regions outside the United States has put Mormonism on the scope after 170+ years. With a billion living souls and counting, the Roman Catholic Church is far from being overwhelmed, but inter-faith marriage is a pastoral problem which is never to be ignored.”

In the beginning of this decade my company merged with a company based in Provo and I came to know many LDS and their/your faith. One of my colleagues taught religion at BYU and once in a discussion he lamented all the millions of preachers every Sunday lashing out at the LDS faith. I laughed so hard I nearly fell over! I grew up in a Baptist church and went every Sunday - # of times I heard the preacher talk about LDS - zero. I’ve now gone to a Catholic church for almost 20 years - # of times I heard the priest/deacon talk about LDS - zero. Love to have you on the forum Zerinus but LDS is simply not a very big blip on the radar screen for Catholics, Protestants or Evangelicals. Pope Ratzinger is a VERY sharp guy - I’m sure he’s not forgotten his past response to the American Churches - why he changed his mind will come clear in the future - again, just not that critical compared to all the other things he has to deal with.

More in a separate post.

 

[OHCAC]

Zerinus - a few other thoughts regarding your post at Catholic Answers:

" so on the basis of the above statement are we to conclude that according to Catholic theology an newborn infant is a sinner because he is guilty of the original sin; and that he will go to hell if he dies in infancy without baptism? Is that the teaching of the Catholic Church?"

All people are ‘guilty’ (your words) of original sin - only Jesus and Mary were not stained by it. Regarding the disposition of infants who die without baptism why don’t you try looking around this great website for the answer? You’d easily find it - here’s a link for you - catholic.com/thisrock/1994/9411qq.asp.

The link says - The Catechism of the Catholic Church states, “As regards children who have died without baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed, the great mercy of God, who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus’ tenderness toward children, which caused him to say, `Let the children come to me, do not hinder them’ [Mark 10:14, cf. 1 Tim. 2:4], allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without baptism. All the more urgent is the Church’s call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy baptism” (CCC 1261).

This is, in part, why Catholics baptize infants. Baptism is a sacrament that infuses Grace into the person and removes their stain of original sin. So if they die as babies their sin has been removed. In addition, the Church has great faith that God will take care of things if we only let Him - I’d guess this is, in part, why it accepted baptism by people who were heretics or even atheists - the sacrament (God, grace) does the work - it’s not about the priest or priesthood authority. We don’t understand it, we just know its true and leave it in God’s hands.

“Well, I am not sure what he means by the “real Trinity”. I think that the LDS doctrine of the Trinity is a lot more “real” than anybody else’s!”

I’m new to this forum but have read many posts on it over the last few months and see you all over the place when the subject involves the LDS. I would hope that you would enter a forum like this to educate people on your faith and correct misconceptions BUT also that you’d do your homework first. You don’t know what Catholics mean by the Trinity - are you serious? Of course we think it is real and LDS isn’t. Give us good reason to believe why LDS is more real and we’ll talk.

“The Catholic Church, as far as I know, has not given an official explanation for its decision not to recognize the validity of Mormon baptisms. I would love to know it if they have.”

I find this type of thing a lot on Mormon blogs and in my discussions with LDS - “…well, is that official?! If not, I can’t really listen to it.” The irony is that what’s official in the LDS church has changed a lot over the years. There certainly are “official” doctrines that non-LDS need to understand and respect. I often find though that my LDS friends would state something as 'this is the way it is" and when pressed say that it’s not official LDS doctrine. A work colleague once told me that it was important to understand that McConkie’s “Mormon Doctrine” was not actually Mormon Doctrine! A little confusing to say the least.

My point is that you’re obviously looking, as made clear in your blog, for ‘official’ material to use to bolster your argument that the the Church’s position is untenable based on their past actions and show the superiority of the LDS position. Go for it Zerinus. But if you want to discuss, let’s approach it a little differently.

 

[OHCAC]

Zerinus - regarding your blog about Catholics rejecting LDS baptism:

"…the baptism of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the baptism of a different gospel dispensation; and if a person wants to “cross-over” from one gospel dispensation to another, the baptism of the other dispensation will not and cannot be regarded as valid. [Emphasis added.]

This puts a much braver face on it for the Catholic Church, and is certainly the most intelligent and face-saving explanation that a Catholic could give."

I can only speak for me but I’d tell you I’m not at all worried about saving face for the LDS - simply not a concern.

"The main reason for making that decision I believe was in retaliation to the LDS policy of not recognizing the validity their baptism! " I can only speak for me, but I seriously doubt Cardinal/Pope Ratzinger is at all concerned with retaliating against the LDS Church.

“In fact, the LDS Church has never recognized the validity of baptisms performed by any church other than its own. That is because LDS doctrine teaches that baptism is a sacrament that needs to be performed by proper priesthood authority, and traditional Christianity is apostate and no longer possesses the necessary priesthood authority to perform a valid baptism (or any other sacrament, for that matter).” And you wonder why we might change our minds on accepting your baptism and why we hesitate to call you Christian?

“The prime mover behind this decision was the Catholic Churches in the United States, where the Protestant Churches had already made the same decision, who then put pressure on the Catholics in the US to do the same thing.”

Right. You know this? You have evidence of this? You talked with these Protestants about this? I went to a Baptist church for over 20 years and we never talked about Catholics - good or bad. This is REAL speculation on your part.

“The Protestant and Evangelical churches, at whose behest the RCC has almost certainly done this, are its worst enemies, and seek its utter destruction. The Catholic Church has no greater friend in the world than the LDS Church. The LDS Church is not an enemy of the Catholic Church; whereas the Protestant Churches are, and have always been.”

Have you been Evangelical or Protestant Zerinus? How do you know this? I grew up Evangelical - Baptists do not, as an organization, hate the Catholic Church. They think it’s wrong, they believe in the solas and once saved always saved but hate it and seek it’s destruction - I may be wrong but that’s rather strong. Also, if E and P hate the RCC so much, why would the RCC give in to this supposed request you imagine? Finally, it would appear that the LDS church is against, at least in small part, all other Christian churches as shown through the words of your prophets and presidents regarding the supposed apostasy. You accuse the E/P churches of calling the RCC the whore of Babylon but have done the same things yourself. Pot calling the kettle black don’t you think?

“But the ultimate question is, does anybody care?” Yes, the Catholic Church cares. We want people to have a ‘valid’ baptism and have their sins removed.

“But the ultimate question is, does anybody care? The LDS Church certainly doesn’t, and I doubt if anybody else does. At the time that the RCC announced its decision, the LDS Church’s official spokesman, speaking on behalf the Church, stated that the LDS Church was “neither concerned nor offended that the Catholic Church has determined not to recognize Latter-day Saint baptisms”. I personally see in this a pretty damning and devastating response.”

And how does that square with “The Catholic Church has no greater friend in the world than the LDS Church. The LDS Church is not an enemy of the Catholic Church?” Seems somewhat unfriendly to me. And if it’s damning and devastating what does that say about what you truly think of the RCC? Feels like you’re not out to educate and explain Zerinus but to stick it to us because you think you found an inconsistency. I could scream anit-Catholic, ant-Catholic, but you’d have to get in line for that.

 

[zerinus]

Zerinus,

I just read your blog post at your site on this topic and it seems you have more Catholic readers than LDS - funny! I think Loretta said it best in response to some of your points:

"The purpose of Christian baptism is to do what Christ did–to infuse the divine life of grace (eradicating original sin and remitting all actual sin) and to incorporate the individual into the mystical body of Christ by an outward and visible sign.

The purpose of LDS baptism is to do what Joseph Smith said Adam and others did–to enter into personal covenants and to incorporate the individual into the hermetic LDS milieu.

Them’s two different purposes." Amen!!! Very different purposes.

Thanks for your reply, and welcome to the board. It is always good to meet new faces with fresh ideas think about. I am not an expert on the Catholic theology of baptism, but I can tell you that the LDS theology isn’t quite as you stated. The LDS doctrine of baptism is as stated in the Bible: firstly, it is for the remission of sins following repentance (Matthew 3:11; Mark 1:4; Luke 3:3; Acts 2:38; 13:24; 19:4). That means that it is for the remission of one’s own sins, not Adam’s sins. I have never met anybody who repented of Adam’s sins! You can only repent of your own sins, not somebody else’s. That is proof positive that baptism does not bring about the remission of Adam’s sins. That was taken care of unconditionally by the Atonement of Jesus Christ.

Secondly, through baptism we are symbolically buried with Jesus and rise with Him to a “newness of life” in Christ (Romans 6:4; Colossians 2:12); which also enables us to “answer a good conscience before God” (1 Peter 3:21).

And lastly, through baptism we “put on Christ” (Galatians 3:26–29), which means that we take upon us His name, and become a member of His Church and the true household of God. It is the gateway by which we enter into the true Church of God.

Now I don’t know what the “infusion of grace” means in Catholic theology. If it means receiving a remission of one’s sins through the grace of God, sure, I have no problem with that. If it means “walking in the newness of life,” as Paul said; or if it means “putting on Christ;” then I have no problem with any of those. If it means something else, you will have to explain. I don’t know what that means.

In addition, Loretta goes on to state on your post in response to your question about why it took Rome so long to come to the decision to reject LDS baptism - “Rome moves slowly. A “new world religion” which finally reached the ten million plus mark and is now creating waves in regions outside the United States has put Mormonism on the scope after 170+ years. With a billion living souls and counting, the Roman Catholic Church is far from being overwhelmed, but inter-faith marriage is a pastoral problem which is never to be ignored.”

Well, if that is the case, why has the Catholic Church kept its cards close to its chest, and not given an official theological explanation for its decision not to recognize LDS baptisms? I think the reason is that they actually can’t! They are caught in a quandary. Whatever explanation they offer, it is going to put them in a fix. So their best option is to keep quiet and say nothing.

In the beginning of this decade my company merged with a company based in Provo and I came to know many LDS and their/your faith. One of my colleagues taught religion at BYU and once in a discussion he lamented all the millions of preachers every Sunday lashing out at the LDS faith. I laughed so hard I nearly fell over! I grew up in a Baptist church and went every Sunday - # of times I heard the preacher talk about LDS - zero. I’ve now gone to a Catholic church for almost 20 years - # of times I heard the priest/deacon talk about LDS - zero.

I can’t comment on what somebody else has allegedly said to you. But anti-Mormonism is certainly a thriving business on the Internet—and so is anti-Catholicism for that matter. And curiously enough, they both seem to be coming from the same source.

Love to have you on the forum Zerinus but LDS is simply not a very big blip on the radar screen for Catholics, Protestants or Evangelicals.

They are sure spending a lot of time taking notice of that tiny “blip”. Maybe they think there is something more behind it than just a tiny blip.

 

[OHCAC]

Thanks for your reply, and welcome to the board. It is always good to meet new faces with fresh ideas think about. I am not an expert on the Catholic theology of baptism, but I can tell you that the LDS theology isn’t quite as you stated. The LDS doctrine of baptism is as stated in the Bible: firstly, it is for the remission of sins following repentance (Matthew 3:11; Mark 1:4; Luke 3:3; Acts 2:38; 13:24; 19:4). That means that it is for the remission of one’s own sins, not Adam’s sins. I have never met anybody who repented of Adam’s sins! You can only repent of your own sins, not somebody else’s. That is proof positive that baptism does not bring about the remission of Adam’s sins. That was taken care of unconditionally by the Atonement of Jesus Christ.

Now I don’t know what the “infusion of grace” means in Catholic theology.

Good to be here! Obviously our theologies disagree. You’ve shown verses you say show proof positive that baptism does not bring about the remission of Adam’s sins. Again, I’d exhort you to look around this fine website, not just in the forums, to find what/why Catholics believe before you take such stands. To disagree is one thing, no worries. To say you have proof positive shows you didn’t do your homework. You should check out this link - catholic.com/thisrock/2005/0502fea5.asp

The link talks in large part about Romans 5: 5:12 “Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for all have sinned.” 5:18 “Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation…”
Etc. Pretty clear that Adam’s sin stains all men. I don’t expect you to agree, just understand.

The Church doesn’t ask us to repent of Adam’s sins - you’re putting something into the verses and onto the Church that isn’t there. The Bible is saying that all men have been condemned and judged by Adam’s act of pride. The Catechism shows “original sin is called ‘sin’ only in an analogical sense: it is a sin ‘contracted’ and not ‘committed’—a state and not an act” (CCC 404)." So we don’t repent of Adam’s sin but we are all affected by it - even new born babies. So we baptize them to remove original sin.

Regarding grace and infusion of grace it’s something I’d encourage you to learn more about if you really want to understand P/E/RCC faiths. It appears LDS define grace somewhat similarly to RCC in a broad sense but in understanding I think our churches are very different. It seems for LDS grace is seen as an enabling power that helps man after their own best efforts (LDS Bible Dictionary). For RCC grace, especially sanctifying grace, is not merited, not based on our works, and without it our sins are not removed - vitally important to understand.

Well, if that is the case, why has the Catholic Church kept its cards close to its chest, and not given an official theological explanation for its decision not to recognize LDS baptisms? I think the reason is that they actually can’t! They are caught in a quandary. Whatever explanation they offer, it is going to put them in a fix. So their best option is to keep quiet and say nothing.

Why do you take this as keeping their cards close to their chests? Simply because they haven’t responded as quickly as you want them to? I think they have other things to do.
You may be right - they may be in a fix - oh my! I think part of the reason for the change is that more and more LDS are joining the Church and so more attention is put on the LDS faith and how vastly it differs from RCC - as evidenced in baptism. Is this a flip flop from the past position - have you got the Pope over a barrel?! I don’t think so but I’ll leave that to the magisterium to answer.

I can’t comment on what somebody else has allegedly said to you. But anti-Mormonism is certainly a thriving business on the Internet—and so is anti-Catholicism for that matter. And curiously enough, they both seem to be coming from the same source.

As far as anti-LDS books, cites, blogs, etc. There are certainly ones out there that are mean, wrong, and total jerks. I don’t like them and I’m not LDS! My same colleague I mentioned reiterated what I’ve heard/seen many times - if you’re not LDS you have no right to have an opinion about LDS. Former LDS who grew up in the church and were taught all the same things as current LDS also have no right to an opinion. This is simply hogwash. I don’t know your opinion Zerinus but I see/hear this sentiment all the time.

What it causes, for the most part, is anything said by a non-LDS about the LDS church is taken as anti. This opinion corrupts heartfelt communication, is arrogant and conceited, and often is not at all an attack on LDS but is taken that way anyway. True communication and dialogue will never occur in that atmosphere. I could easily take your blog as anti-Catholic, but I don’t - you’re trying to make a point and back it up. I think you failed but it’s not anti.

They are sure spending a lot of time taking notice of that tiny “blip”. Maybe they think there is something more behind it than just a tiny blip.

I simply have not found in Baptist, Methodist, Episcopalian or RCC churches ( the ones I’m most familiar with) as an organization, think much about LDS. They know about you, understand your theology in large part, don’t agree with it, speak about that when necessary, and that’s about it. If you think there’s some formulated non-LDS church conspiracy out there go ask your local priest or preacher about it - I think they’d chuckle - they have more important things to do. Of course if there is a conspiracy they couldn’t tell you anyway, right?

The final point as to much, if not most, of what you’d call anti is that Pro/Evang/RCC see your God, Christ and theology as false and, therefore, that people who follow it follow it away from the true God and Christ. You should know by now why. That you don’t accept what we say is not the point - the point is you should know why. And understand that if that’s our understanding we are trying to 1) save our children from it, 2) save others from it and 3) save you from it. This is NOT anti - if we didn’t care we wouldn’t say anything. That some cross the line to bashing LDS is not right - that most don’t and simply don’t agree with your latter day revelations is something you should understand and the motivation behind it.

 

[zerinus]

All people are ‘guilty’ (your words) of original sin - only Jesus and Mary were not stained by it. Regarding the disposition of infants who die without baptism why don’t you try looking around this great website for the answer? You’d easily find it - here’s a link for you - catholic.com/thisrock/1994/9411qq.asp.

The link says - The Catechism of the Catholic Church states, “As regards children who have died without baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed, the great mercy of God, who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus’ tenderness toward children, which caused him to say, `Let the children come to me, do not hinder them’ [Mark 10:14, cf. 1 Tim. 2:4], allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without baptism. All the more urgent is the Church’s call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy baptism” (CCC 1261).

I was already familiar with that. The problem with it is that it involves a lot of confusion and lack of clarity.

This is, in part, why Catholics baptize infants. Baptism is a sacrament that infuses Grace into the person and removes their stain of original sin. So if they die as babies their sin has been removed.

This is the one thing that I have never been able to understand. What is the “stain” if the Original Sin? One is either guilty of a sin or not guilty of a sin. “Stain” doesn’t mean anything. And if they are guilty then they will have to be punished for it. You can’t argue that all mankind are unreservedly guilty of the Original Sin in spite of the Atonement; but that the children are “somehow” taken care of. How? Either God, through the mercy manifested by the Atonement, has unconditionally taken care of the Original Sin (for all men); or else all are guilty of it, and all will be punished for it including children who die without baptism. The Catholic theology of Baptism contains too many inconsistencies to be taken very seriously.

I’m new to this forum but have read many posts on it over the last few months and see you all over the place when the subject involves the LDS. I would hope that you would enter a forum like this to educate people on your faith and correct misconceptions BUT also that you’d do your homework first. You don’t know what Catholics mean by the Trinity - are you serious? Of course we think it is real and LDS isn’t. Give us good reason to believe why LDS is more real and we’ll talk.

I am certainly familiar with the Catholic doctrine of the Trinity—though by no means convinced that it actually makes a lot of sense. What I was questioning was the comment of the author of that article calling it the “real Trinity”. If there is a distinction to be made between the “real Trinity” and the “unreal Trinity,” I think that ours is the “real” one!

I find this type of thing a lot on Mormon blogs and in my discussions with LDS - “…well, is that official?! If not, I can’t really listen to it.” The irony is that what’s official in the LDS church has changed a lot over the years. There certainly are “official” doctrines that non-LDS need to understand and respect. I often find though that my LDS friends would state something as 'this is the way it is" and when pressed say that it’s not official LDS doctrine. A work colleague once told me that it was important to understand that McConkie’s “Mormon Doctrine” was not actually Mormon Doctrine! A little confusing to say the least.

The question was not about what Mormons consider to be their “official doctrines” or not. That has nothing to do with the discussion. The question that is relevant here is the Catholic Church’s official explanation for their decision not to recognize LDS baptism. Surely it is reasonable to expect the Catholic Church to provide an official explanation for such a significant decision. Yet none has been forthcoming. I think that is very significant.

My point is that you’re obviously looking, as made clear in your blog, for ‘official’ material to use to bolster your argument that the the Church’s position is untenable based on their past actions and show the superiority of the LDS position.

Not really. Don’t you think that is the least one should expect from a respected and historic institution such as the Catholic Church?

Go for it Zerinus. But if you want to discuss, let’s approach it a little differently.

Different from what? You haven’t shown what I need to change and why.

 

[zerinus]

I simply have not found in Baptist, Methodist, Episcopalian or RCC churches ( the ones I’m most familiar with) as an organization, think much about LDS. They know about you, understand your theology in large part, don’t agree with it, speak about that when necessary, and that’s about it. If you think there’s some formulated non-LDS church conspiracy out there go ask your local priest or preacher about it - I think they’d chuckle - they have more important things to do. Of course if there is a conspiracy they couldn’t tell you anyway, right?

You are the one who keeps bringing that subject up, not me. I am more interested in discussing serious theology. And for your information, the LDS Church maintains very cordial and friendly relations with other churches in Utah, and especially with the Catholic Church. But since you like to bring that subject up all the time, I need to inform you that anti-Mormonism is not a “conspiracy”. A conspiracy is something that is hidden. Anti-Mormonism is not hidden. It is out in the open. Go search the Internet to find out.

The final point as to much, if not most, of what you’d call anti is that Pro/Evang/RCC see your God, Christ and theology as false and, therefore, that people who follow it follow it away from the true God and Christ. You should know by now why. That you don’t accept what we say is not the point - the point is you should know why. And understand that if that’s our understanding we are trying to 1) save our children from it, 2) save others from it and 3) save you from it. This is NOT anti - if we didn’t care we wouldn’t say anything. That some cross the line to bashing LDS is not right - that most don’t and simply don’t agree with your latter day revelations is something you should understand and the motivation behind it.

So that is how you justify your anti-Mormonism. That is the height of hypocrisy. With one breath you cry foul at the mention of anti-Mormonism, and in the same breath you try to justify it. Well I have got bad news for you. Mormonism is true, and anti-Mormonism will never prevail against it.

 

[zerinus]

Right. You know this? You have evidence of this? You talked with these Protestants about this? I went to a Baptist church for over 20 years and we never talked about Catholics - good or bad. This is REAL speculation on your part.

Maybe; but a justifiable one in the face of the RCC’s deafening silence as to the real motives for their decision. I am not the only one who is “guessing”. The RCC has sent everyone guessing, including their own theologians as to the reasons behind their decision. Fr Ladaria was guessing, and so is everyone else. Okay, since we are all now in the guessing business, I think I am entitled to do some guessing too. Why shouldn’t I? and I think that my guesses is a lot smarter than theirs!

 

[ricko]

*Repent and be baptized! *

The purpose of repenting is to express sorrow for the sins you have committed is it not? If you don’t have any sins to repent of, then that requirement is moot. Therefore the way is open for baptism for infants unless you insist that they sin so they can repent.

Everyone has the stain of original sin at birth and everyone requires baptism to remove that stain. “Nothing defiled can enter heaven” Not the slightest sin may be on your soul.
Baptism removes this “stain” and the person becomes a child of God where before he was a creature of God. One thing baptism does not remove is the punishment for that sin, which is passed on to ALL men because of one man, which is death. All must die, even infants, because ALL have sinned.

I am surprised Zerinus with all the threads we have on baptism that you don’t believe the Catholic Church has issued an explanation on Mormon baptisms. Of course it has!

Because Mormonism is polytheistic and rejects the Trinity, Mormon baptism is not valid, and Mormons are not considered separated brethren.

I have been a Catholic for over 60 years and I have never heard or have had anyone tell me that they heard ANY other religion spoken of in Church. We are too busy reading the gospel and worshipping God to engage in such activities.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Maybe; but a justifiable one in the face of the RCC’s deafening silence as to the real motives for their decision. I am not the only one who is “guessing”. The RCC has sent everyone guessing, including their own theologians as to the reasons behind their decision. Fr Ladaria was guessing, and so is everyone else. Okay, since we are all now in the guessing business, I think I am entitled to do some guessing too. Why shouldn’t I? and I think that my guesses is a lot smarter than theirs!

Fr. Ladaria’s “guessing” was published in “L’Osservatore Romano”, Weekly Edition in English, 1 August 2001, page 4. “L’Osservatore Romano” is the newspaper of the Holy See. Fr. Ladaria is a secretary for the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith: “the duty proper to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith is to promote and safeguard the doctrine on the faith and morals throughout the Catholic world: for this reason everything which in any way touches such matter falls within its competence.”

I’d say the publication of Fr Ladaria far outweighs anything that a non-Catholic could come up with. Fr. Ladaria’s publication is far less a guess, and much more a real explanation.

 

[zerinus]

Fr. Ladaria’s “guessing” was published in “L’Osservatore Romano”, Weekly Edition in English, 1 August 2001, page 4. “L’Osservatore Romano” is the newspaper of the Holy See. Fr. Ladaria is a secretary for the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith: “the duty proper to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith is to promote and safeguard the doctrine on the faith and morals throughout the Catholic world: for this reason everything which in any way touches such matter falls within its competence.”

I’d say the publication of Fr Ladaria far outweighs anything that a non-Catholic could come up with. Fr. Ladaria’s publication is far less a guess, and much more a real explanation.

Thank you RebeccaJ for that interesting observation. I am sore the article does have some kind of official backing, after your explanation, but still doesn’t go far enough. I did some research into that publication, and found the following:

A common error for journalists and theologians is to interpret the texts of L’Osservatore Romano as if they were of official value for the Magisterium. In fact, they cannot have such a value, except if a high-ranking bishop is writing a more solemn text, and not a mere theological opinion. Otherwise, L’Osservatore does not have the ability to write or approve encyclicals and papal allocutions.

For instance, a 2008 article expressed the wish that the debate on brain death be re-opened because of new developments in the medical world. An official spokesman said that the article presented a personal opinion of the author and “did not reflect a change in the Catholic Church’s position”. Source.

And if it is an official or semi-official explanation, then it is a very poor one, because as I have shown in my article, it is self-contradictory. One minute it says that theological differences—even on the Trinity—has traditionally not been a reason for the Catholic not to recognize the baptisms of other churches; and then in the same breath it proceeds to declare the baptism of the LDS Church invalid for precisely a theological difference—the Trinity! So maybe the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith needs to read my Blog, and come up with a more robust theological explanation!

 

[RebeccaJ]

zerinus-I trust what a secretary of the Roman Curia has to say on the matter, far more than what some random guy puts in a blog.

Your reduction to a “theological difference” falls short of understanding. But then, I am sure that understanding is not the point of your blog, at all.

 

[zerinus]

zerinus-I trust what a secretary of the Roman Curia has to say on the matter, far more than what some random guy puts in a blog.

It is not a question of who needs to or should be “trusted” more than the other. That misses the point entirely. The respected Fr Luis Ladaria, S.J. has made a theological argument in support of the RCC decision; and I have in my Bolg article presented a counter argument to challenge the validity of his argument. Each stands or falls on its own merits. I am not expecting anybody to “trust” me more than Fr Ladaria, or the reverse. That is not what a theological debate should center on. What I would expect any reasonable person to do is to examine each argument in the light of reason and logic to see which one makes a stronger case. I think that his theological reasoning is flawed, and I have explained why.

Your reduction to a “theological difference” falls short of understanding. But then, I am sure that understanding is not the point of your blog, at all.

Well, if it is more than a theological understanding then I would dearly love to know what it is; but no one has so far adventured to tell us more.

 

[OHCAC]

I was already familiar with that. The problem with it is that it involves a lot of confusion and lack of clarity.

What’s confusing? What’s not clear? The main point of this forum is to educate - let us know and we’ll try to help.

This is the one thing that I have never been able to understand. What is the “stain” if the Original Sin? One is either guilty of a sin or not guilty of a sin. “Stain” doesn’t mean anything. And if they are guilty then they will have to be punished for it. You can’t argue that all mankind are unreservedly guilty of the Original Sin in spite of the Atonement; but that the children are “somehow” taken care of. How? Either God, through the mercy manifested by the Atonement, has unconditionally taken care of the Original Sin (for all men); or else all are guilty of it, and all will be punished for it including children who die without baptism. The Catholic theology of Baptism contains too many inconsistencies to be taken very seriously.

The stain of original sin has been explained in this thread and lots of info on it is easily found on the site. These other points are discussed to a point in this thread and on the site. If you want to learn, the info is there. It appears with comments like “The Catholic theology of Baptism contains too many inconsistencies to be taken very seriously” that you’re not really here to learn about Catholicism. So why are you here?

I am certainly familiar with the Catholic doctrine of the Trinity—though by no means convinced that it actually makes a lot of sense. What I was questioning was the comment of the author of that article calling it the “real Trinity”. If there is a distinction to be made between the “real Trinity” and the “unreal Trinity,” I think that ours is the “real” one!

Of course you do - we get that. What’s your point? Just feeling a need to defend your view?

The question was not about what Mormons consider to be their “official doctrines” or not. That has nothing to do with the discussion. The question that is relevant here is the Catholic Church’s official explanation for their decision not to recognize LDS baptism. Surely it is reasonable to expect the Catholic Church to provide an official explanation for such a significant decision. Yet none has been forthcoming. I think that is very significant.

It has to do greatly with the discussion in that you keep bringing up that you want an ‘official’ explanation from the Church and why hasn’t one been given? My point is that when I’ve done the same thing you’re doing, pressed LDS for an “official” explanation about a point in LDS theology, I often get/got different answers and when I pressed for an “official” one, there often wasn’t one, or the “official” one had changed, or what was entitled Mormon Doctrine wasn’t Mormon Doctrine; etc.

The Church isn’t going to work by your timetable and if you want to think they’re holding something back, or that you have something over on them, or whatever, feel free. My thinking is they aren’t overly concerned about explaining why they made this change and will get around to it when they do - there’s much more pressing business to be dealt with. So instead of hanging around in this forum why don’t you write the Pope a letter?

Not really. Don’t you think that is the least one should expect from a respected and historic institution such as the Catholic Church?

You’ve raised an interesting question - the Church used to accept LDS baptism and now they don’t and they’ve not ‘officially’ said why they made the change. We can speculate all we want but for now, we don’t know. You keep harping on - but don’t you think that’s important, don’t you think that’s important? And we’ve answered you - Yes - it is important for the ex-LDS convert to have a valid baptism. What the Church HAS made official is they no longer recognize LDS baptism and if you convert you must be baptized again. Why did they make the change? Time will tell. Catholics are concerned a person be validly baptised - we are not overly concerned about why the Church made the change.

In your own blog you state “But the ultimate question is, does anybody care? The LDS Church certainly doesn’t, and I doubt if anybody else does.” And I’d guess that ‘anybody’ includes you? If so, why are you spending soooooo much time on this other than you think you have something on the Church?

Different from what? You haven’t shown what I need to change and why.

I’ve given you many points in my posts about your blog that could have been approached differently. You say you really want to find an answer as to why the change in the Catholic position but you don’t write much of the blog that way - much of it is taken up with speculation, theoretical liaisons between churches, etc. and you end it with statements from the LDS Church saying this is our stand, we don’t care what the Catholic Church does and then you say “I personally see in this a pretty damning and devastating response.” This is an inquiring tone? This is really looking for an answer? Doesn’t strike me that way - at all.

A different approach to your blog might look like this: “I found something interesting that confuses me - the Catholic Church used to accept LDS baptism and now they don’t. I read this letter that tried to explain it but it was confusing and seems to have circular logic in it. I’d like to understand this - could you help me?” I’ll grant that you may be looking for information but you have a very interesting, arrogant, and one-sided way of approaching it in your blog - it is very anti-Catholic.

 

[OHCAC]

You are the one who keeps bringing that subject up, not me. I am more interested in discussing serious theology. And for your information, the LDS Church maintains very cordial and friendly relations with other churches in Utah, and especially with the Catholic Church. But since you like to bring that subject up all the time, I need to inform you that anti-Mormonism is not a “conspiracy”. A conspiracy is something that is hidden. Anti-Mormonism is not hidden. It is out in the open. Go search the Internet to find out.

You stated on your blog “The main reason for making that decision (to no longer accept LDS baptism as valid) I believe was in retaliation to the LDS policy of not recognizing the validity their baptism!” A commenter on your blog, Loretta, brought up the point that the Catholic Church is 2000 years old with 1 billion members and LDS is 180 years old with 10 million members and we’ll get around to you when we do. I echoed that comment from my own experience regarding a LDS work colleague who thought sermons and homilies were being preached every Sunday against LDS. This statement in your blog reminded me of the comment from my friend because you seem to both be operating under the thought that we we think about the issue that way (retaliation), or, for that matter, spend much time thinking about the LDS Church - we don’t.

You then stated on this thread - “But anti-Mormonism is certainly a thriving business on the Internet—and so is anti-Catholicism for that matter. And curiously enough, they both seem to be coming from the same source.” The anti-LDS perception that seems to be ubiquitous with LDS is an illusion as far as the **institutions **, not individuals, of major non-LDS churches are concerned. I’ve spent 20+ years in two major churches and never heard LDS mentioned once in a sermon or homily.

So that is how you justify your anti-Mormonism. That is the height of hypocrisy. With one breath you cry foul at the mention of anti-Mormonism, and in the same breath you try to justify it. Well I have got bad news for you. Mormonism is true, and anti-Mormonism will never prevail against it.

And again, you miss the point. I didn’t cry foul about anti-Mormonism - I stated “As far as anti-LDS books, cites, blogs, etc. There are certainly ones out there that are mean, wrong, and total jerks. I don’t like them and I’m not LDS!” There IS a lot of anti-Mormon info out there, anti-Catholic too - as you point out.

My points are these: From my experience virtually anything that is said, by virtually anybody, that doesn’t praise LDS theology is called anti. Also virtually no one, according to LDS, can have virtually any valid opinion about LDS theology if they’re not LDS. Any opinion that doesn’t agree with LDS is not valid and is anti. This is my experience. I’ve seen many LDS put that same logic on the posts on this forum, many times in fact, and seen it over and over again in many places and it’s hogwash. And it’s also, to a point, what I see in your blog and your posts here Zerinus. I have to question to some extent how much learning and dialogue you really want to have based on some of your comments to mine and other posts.

When you approach things with this mindset it cuts off any form of true communication and dialogue before it ever starts. We can read your theology and scripture, we do understand it, we don’t have to be LDS to understand it. Anti-LDS is definitely out there and it’s wrong - but if everything is anti then’s what’s the point of trying to talk at all?

Secondly, because we do understand your theology and because we don’t agree with it and because we believe it leads people away from God instead of toward Him, we say what we say and try to have dialogue with LDS. You immediately take that as anti - it’s not. Anti is hate - trying to have a discussion with you Zerinus because we think your theology will lead you to hell is not anti - as I said in the post, if we didn’t really care, why bother? I’ve already prayed for you several times - is that anti?

The bigger point for me, especially after reading your blog, is that it doesn’t appear that you’re really here for dialogue and learning. You’ve pounded away on your question over and over and we’ve answered it - the answer is there’s not an answer for now. I could easily call your words and behavior and post anti - and it is to a point. But I’ve taken the time to respond to you and try and answer your questions and will continue to do so - that’s not anti.

Catholics are beat up every day in the press, all over the world - welcome to the big leagues Zerinus. What is said in some books and websites about LDS is minuscule compared to the what the Catholic Church is pasted with. We simply don’t get all crazy about worrying over the thriving anti-Catholic business - we have better things to do - we pray for them!