Did the Pope say Mormonism was a sect ?

[zerinus]

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!

I repeat what I said before. You are the one who keeps bringing the subject of anti-Mormonism into this discussion, and I am merely responding to your comments. I do not complain about anti-Mormonism. I only deal with it when I come across it. Go back and read my first post in this thread. It was not a reply to you. It was a reply to cthulhubryan; and in it I made no complaint against anti-Mormonism. It was a cool-headed response to his post. Then you jumped into the fray, and have been banging on the drum of anti-Mormonism ever since. I am only interested in the theological issues that the thread brings up. I am not obsessed with anti-Mormonism like you appear to be. If that is what interests you, you should start a new thread specifically about that subject, rather than try to divert this thread from its main points. And the rest of your comments haven’t been very useful either. They mostly consist of unsubstantiated accusations with no evidence to back it up, which is impossible to reply to.

 

[OHCAC]

I repeat what I said before. You are the one who keeps bringing the subject of anti-Mormonism into this discussion, and I am merely responding to your comments. I do not complain about anti-Mormonism. I only deal with it when I come across it. Go back and read my first post in this thread. It was not a reply to you. It was a reply to cthulhubryan; and in it I made no complaint against anti-Mormonism. It was a cool-headed response to his post. Then you jumped into the fray, and have been banging on the drum of anti-Mormonism ever since. I am only interested in the theological issues that the thread brings up. I am not obsessed with anti-Mormonism like you appear to be. If that is what interests you, you should start a new thread specifically about that subject, rather than try to divert this thread from its main points. And the rest of your comments haven’t been very useful either. They mostly consist of unsubstantiated accusations with no evidence to back it up, which is impossible to reply to.

Posts in a forum are not the easiest way to communicate and I apologize if I have been less than clear so let me give it another try. You say above “I am only interested in the theological issues that the thread brings up” and I believe that. But in reading your blog, which you brought into the fray, it strikes me that at least part of your intention is not to have an open/honest discussion about the issues but to bash the Church. My responses to you are/were directed toward both the forum and your blog and this seeming motivation.

Let’s look at your direct questions and ones your questions raise from both the thread and blog:

– If the Church used to accept LDS baptism but doesn’t any longer, does that invalidate past LDS baptisms of converts to the Catholic Church? That’s a great question! I don’t know the answer - so I’ve asked an apologist on the site and we’ll see what they say. I’d suspect they are not invalid.

– Why did the Church make this change?" We’ve answered that question in terms of the ‘official’ response and the answer is at this point in time we don’t know. However, in reading Fr. Ladaria’s statement the answer he gives is clear and even though, as you’ve pointed out, he doesn’t speak officially for the Pope, I think that response would be very similar to his. In a section that begins “Huge divergence on Trinity and baptism invalidates…” he answers this question by looking at four requirements for the valid administration of the sacrament of Baptism and spells out that in 3 of the 4 requirements there is such wide divergence between the faiths that LDS baptism is, therefore, not valid for the Catholic church.

He explains in sections 2, 3 and 4 what these divergences are and why they invalidate a LDS baptism for a convert. Another point he makes at the end of section 2 is very important and may not be evident if you’re not familiar with church history - "…to the similarity of titles (of the Trinity used in a LDS baptism) there does not correspond in any way a doctrinal content which can lead to the Christian doctrine of the Trinity. …The differences are so great that one cannot even consider that this doctrine is a heresy which emerged out of a false understanding of the Christian doctrine. The teaching of the Mormons has a completely different matrix. We do not find ourselves, therefore, before the case of the validity of Baptism administered by heretics, affirmed already from the first Christian centuries, nor of Baptism conferred in non-Catholic ecclesial communities, as noted in Canon 869 §2.

His point Zerinus is that heretics and non-Catholic ecclesial communities usually emerged from Christian tradition and theology but chose to diverge from Catholicism on some points (most of the church councils were called to deal with a heresy). LDS is so different from Catholicism, “The teaching of the Mormons has a completely different matrix” as he puts it, that the baptism is invalid even though the words used in baptism are similar.

– "…so on the basis of the above statement are we to conclude that according to Catholic theology 1) a newborn infant is a sinner because he is guilty of the original sin; and 2) that he will go to hell if he dies in infancy without baptism? Both of these questions were answered for you. You replied to the first that “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.” This 1st question was answered for you yet it appears you only want to state your own opinion and not really discuss Catholicism’s answer.

To the second question you also received an answer and said that you were familiar with that answer but it was confusing and lacks clarity. The answer is straightforward, we don’t know - we leave it in God’s hands. We readily acknowledge that many things about God, the Trinity, nature, etc are a mystery that we will never fully understand - we may not even understand it all in heaven. That’s why we trust God.

– “…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. The Catholic theology of Baptism contains too many inconsistencies to be taken very seriously.” This question was also answered and instead of discussing what you don’t understand or have questions about you make a derogatory statement. If you want to discuss this, let’s discuss, but you have to be somewhat open minded about it and not look at everything through a LDS lens

So I think all or your questions on this thread have been answered yet you still seem to have questions. If you do and want to discuss them, please state them and let’s discuss. If you want to make derogatory statement under the guise of objective discussion you can do that too but it then shows your true intention is not really to discuss theological issues.

On another post I’ll put some question I have for you.

 

[SkinnyJay]

Just reading the posts between OHCAC and Zerinus. I am noticing that whenever I have brought up concerns in Mormon theology on the forum I would, in some cases, get vague answers containing an “I/we don’t know” as the definitive statement. You may possibly remember our dialogue concerning “I/we don’t know” Zer. I just find it interesting how I am supposed to accept such answers for Mormon theology yet you cannot accept that answer for Catholic theology. The sides have switched. Overall, a good lesson for both of us. :thumbsup:God Bless.

 

[MelanieAnne]

As I understand it, a “sect” is a Christian community not in communion with Rome. There is one Christian CHURCH ~ and that is the fullness of the faith is found in what we know as the Catholic Church ~ but many other faiths that call themselves Christian fall short of that fullness and are not in communion with Rome and are SECTS of Christianity. Bear in mind, this is the Catholic definition, so don’t go getting your knickers all in a twist.

Non-Christian faiths are not sects of Christianity, they are something else. They are another faith.

Catholics are often taught that Mormons are not Christian. I’m not sure about the precise understanding of such things but I would at least posit that Mormonism, with its polytheistic view of the “Godhead” is not in the same category as non-Catholic Christian sects. Are they outside the definition of “Christian”? ~ hard to say ~ but they’re for sure not in the same non-Catholic Christian category as Presbyterian or Lutheran, etc.

This entire question is really mostly a rather provincial USA issue. Americans may be arrogant enough to believe their world view is THE world view, but it isn’t. Not in religion, not in anything. In the WORLD the figurehead of Christianity is Pope Benedict XVI because in the WORLD most Christians are Catholic. Perhaps Catholic & non-Catholic American Christians would do well to think about that.

 

[Religio71]

Just reading the posts between OHCAC and Zerinus. I am noticing that whenever I have brought up concerns in Mormon theology on the forum I would, in some cases, get vague answers containing an “I/we don’t know” as the definitive statement. You may possibly remember our dialogue concerning “I/we don’t know” Zer. I just find it interesting how I am supposed to accept such answers for Mormon theology yet you cannot accept that answer for Catholic theology. The sides have switched. Overall, a good lesson for both of us. :thumbsup:God Bless.

Yes, this ambiguity is characteristic of the LDS. Try reading this website:

en.fairmormon.org/FAIRwiki:Table_of_contents

Most of the answers are “someone else wrote it, the apostle/prophet didn’t”, or “we don’t know”, “that wasn’t official”, etc. They also think that the silence in the Bible on certain subjects is evidence.

 

[zaffiroborant]

Just reading the posts between OHCAC and Zerinus. I am noticing that whenever I have brought up concerns in Mormon theology on the forum I would, in some cases, get vague answers containing an “I/we don’t know” as the definitive statement. You may possibly remember our dialogue concerning “I/we don’t know” Zer. I just find it interesting how I am supposed to accept such answers for Mormon theology yet you cannot accept that answer for Catholic theology. The sides have switched. Overall, a good lesson for both of us. :thumbsup:God Bless.

It’s part of a general trend with LDS, they can explain our doctrine (prophets in conference have done this, drawing a caricature of our belief to tear up), but we can’t explain theirs in any way shape or form; they can tear up our beliefs (great apostasy) we can’t argue against theirs; they can council to understand things, we can’t (if we do it’s the “council of men” when they do it it’s what ever wonderful thing they ascribe to it.) so of course it is perfectly ok for them to “not know” be we can’t do the same.

 

[Religio71]

It’s part of a general trend with LDS, they can explain our doctrine (prophets in conference have done this, drawing a caricature of our belief to tear up), but we can’t explain theirs in any way shape or form; they can tear up our beliefs (great apostasy) we can’t argue against theirs; they can council to understand things, we can’t (if we do it’s the “council of men” when they do it it’s what ever wonderful thing they ascribe to it.) so of course it is perfectly ok for them to “not know” be we can’t do the same.

Yes, look at the Mormon apostles thread. We’re talking about LDS apostles, then suddenly it’s about the Catholic sex scandals. Always deflect the conversation. Otherwise, just say it wasn’t official.

 

[zerinus]

On another post I’ll put some question I have for you.

That might be a better start, because by attempting to address all the other points you have raised I fear we might be beating a dead horse.

 

[OHCAC]

That might be a better start, because by attempting to address all the other points you have raised I fear we might be beating a dead horse.

I’ll take you at your word Zerinus that you want to discuss theological and other issues and have a post ready to go to start a new thread - I’ll entitle it “RCC Changes Stance of LDS Baptism - Questions for Zerinus”. It will contain questions about your blog post.

However, if we’re going to do this I’d ask that you please enter the discussion with an open mind and desire to honestly, accurately and respectfully discuss the questions; I’ll promise to do the same. I didn’t start the conversation on anti-LDS - you did - see post #9 of this thread. I bring this up not to fight with you about that topic but because your statement is not accurate - if we’re really going to discuss something as important as our faiths accuracy is important, don’t you think?

As you can see by posts #23-27 many of my Catholic brethren experience the same frustration as I do when talking with LDS. My comments about the anti thing is not about bashing LDS, its about the inability to have a meaningful and open discussion when the LDS person is stuck in the anti mindset. Shall we proceed?

 

[zerinus]

I’ll take you at your word Zerinus that you want to discuss theological and other issues and have a post ready to go to start a new thread - I’ll entitle it “RCC Changes Stance of LDS Baptism - Questions for Zerinus”. It will contain questions about your blog post.

However, if we’re going to do this I’d ask that you please enter the discussion with an open mind and desire to honestly, accurately and respectfully discuss the questions; I’ll promise to do the same. I didn’t start the conversation on anti-LDS - you did - see post #9 of this thread. I bring this up not to fight with you about that topic but because your statement is not accurate - if we’re really going to discuss something as important as our faiths accuracy is important, don’t you think?

As you can see by posts #23-27 many of my Catholic brethren experience the same frustration as I do when talking with LDS. My comments about the anti thing is not about bashing LDS, its about the inability to have a meaningful and open discussion when the LDS person is stuck in the anti mindset. Shall we proceed?

Good, I look forward to that. I hope you will make your questions short, simple, and to the point, and not ask too many questions all at once! That way it becomes easier to answer your questions.

 

[PaulDupre]

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?

Here he goes again. Like “why me” constantly says that all Catholics are drunks, Zerinus likes to trot out the old Mormon lie that Catholic dogma condemns unbaptised infants to hell.

Each of these Mormons has had his lie debunked dozens of times in the past few years, but neither will quit bearing his favorite false witness, even though he knows it is false.

 

[dianaiad]

Here he goes again. Like “why me” constantly says that all Catholics are drunks, Zerinus likes to trot out the old Mormon lie that Catholic dogma condemns unbaptised infants to hell.

Each of these Mormons has had his lie debunked dozens of times in the past few years, but neither will quit bearing his favorite false witness, even though he knows it is false.

Explain to me, please, the Catholic position on unbaptized infants?

 

[Religio71]

1261 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,"64 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.

 

[RoryMcKenzie56]

Explain to me, please, the Catholic position on unbaptized infants?

Hi Dianaiad,

The quote from the Catechism while accurate, can leave a mistaken impression. It is correct in that we can hope, and that we do not believe it is definitively revealed what happens to unbaptized infants. But we do know that they cannot suffer the penalty of sense pain since they have never committed actual sin:

We say that a distinction must be made, that sin is twofold:, namely, original and actual: original which is contracted without consent; and actual, which is committed with consent. Original, therefore, which is committed without consent, is remitted without consent through the power of the sacrament; but actual, which is committed with consent, is not mitigated in the slightest without consent…The punishment of original sin is deprivation of the vision of God, but the punishment of actual sin is the torments of everlasting hell.

—Pope Innocent III (1198-1216), Denz. 410

It is important to note that in the catechism, when it speaks of salvation of infants, it is not considering whether they are burning in hell. Divine justice cannot allow that unbaptized babies suffer sense pain for the reasons given above. This is why Limbo, although it has recently fallen into disfavor among Catholics, will continue to be a necessary possible scenario. It would be a place where human beings could enjoy every natural happiness apart from what we call the Beatific Vision.

I would ask you, if unbaptized Mormon infants enter immediately into the celestial kingdom? I have heard some LDS answer in the affirmative. But it would not seem unjust to me if they did not qualify for the highest places in God’s kingdom, having never performed any good works or exercising any acts of faith. While we know that both of our views of the eternal heavens cannot be true, it seems to me that the final rest of unbaptized infants might be comparable to that I have heard about the telestial kingdom.

At the least, there would be for unbaptized infants a place of natural joy and peace and immortality. It would be better than anything that has ever existed since the garden of Eden. At the best, we may hope that even for infants, God in His mercy has ways that have not been revealed to us whereby they are granted the Beatific Vision. I would hate for non-Catholics to perceive that we believe that unbaptized infants descend into a burning hell.

See the entry for Limbo, and then skip to limbus infantium to see what are the limits of our knowledge on this subject. Apparently, it is not popular to call it limbo anymore. But if that name is no longer acceptable, the concept cannot be avoided in some respects. As the catechism says, we may hope they are saved unto the vision of God. But this implies doubt. What we may not believe is that they are burning in hell when they have never committed actual sin. This would mean all that has been previously assigned to the limbo of the children. Limbo or heaven, we don’t know for sure.

Rory

newadvent.org/cathen/09256a.htm

 

[dianaiad]

Hi Dianaiad,

The quote from the Catechism while accurate, can leave a mistaken impression. It is correct in that we can hope, and that we do not believe it is definitively revealed what happens to unbaptized infants. But we do know that they cannot suffer the penalty of sense pain since they have never committed actual sin:—Pope Innocent III (1198-1216), Denz. 410

It is important to note that in the catechism, when it speaks of salvation of infants, it is not considering whether they are burning in hell. Divine justice cannot allow that unbaptized babies suffer sense pain for the reasons given above. This is why Limbo, although it has recently fallen into disfavor among Catholics, will continue to be a necessary possible scenario. It would be a place where human beings could enjoy every natural happiness apart from what we call the Beatific Vision.

I would ask you, if unbaptized Mormon infants enter immediately into the celestial kingdom? I have heard some LDS answer in the affirmative. But it would not seem unjust to me if they did not qualify for the highest places in God’s kingdom, having never performed any good works or exercising any acts of faith. While we know that both of our views of the eternal heavens cannot be true, it seems to me that the final rest of unbaptized infants might be comparable to that I have heard about the telestial kingdom.

At the least, there would be for unbaptized infants a place of natural joy and peace and immortality. It would be better than anything that has ever existed since the garden of Eden. At the best, we may hope that even for infants, God in His mercy has ways that have not been revealed to us whereby they are granted the Beatific Vision. I would hate for non-Catholics to perceive that we believe that unbaptized infants descend into a burning hell.

See the entry for Limbo, and then skip to limbus infantium to see what are the limits of our knowledge on this subject. Apparently, it is not popular to call it limbo anymore. But if that name is no longer acceptable, the concept cannot be avoided in some respects. As the catechism says, we may hope they are saved unto the vision of God. But this implies doubt. What we may not believe is that they are burning in hell when they have never committed actual sin. This would mean all that has been previously assigned to the limbo of the children. Limbo or heaven, we don’t know for sure.

Rory

newadvent.org/cathen/09256a.htm

Thank you very much. I see, from the quote from Pope Innocent III, where the concept of limbo comes from. It matches the impression I have received from several Catholics…that unbaptized infants, while they may not dwell in heaven with God, will still live in a Paradise of sorts.

I can see where you might equate it to our version of the Telestial Kingdom…but the problem for me is that since that’s where we think that liars, murderers and other sorts go, I don’t think that it would be very nice to send infants there just because they had the misfortune to leave mortal life too early.

People are people…they will take with them the attitudes they had here, so unpleasant people might just tend to make even heaven unpleasant, I’m afraid…I could be wrong about that, though.

To answer your question to me, yes, we believe that infants will be in the Celestial Kingdom as soon as anybody else is…remember, we believe that infants, though physically innocent, still have spirits that are very, very old indeed; we believe that we all lived with God before our births, after all. We believe that they go home. They will have to do their learning and growing at another time, in a different way.

I dunno, it just seems more…fair, somehow.

 

[Religio71]

I believe I posted this in another thread, but I’ll mention it here:

While the Catholic Church may refer to other Christian faiths as “churches” informally, such as when we are in discussions with them, etc, formally, we see a Church as a group that has valid apostolic succession, meaning they can trace their authority back to the Apostles, and maintain the Faith, especially in relation to the Eucharist, the symbol of the unity of Faith in Christ. Thus, we only believe that the Catholic Church, the Orthodox Church, and one or two other small groups are properly termed “Churches”. All Protestant churches, and possibly the LDS Church, are termed “ecclesial communities”. Thus, we maintain that the groups properly termed “Churches” can receive the Eucharist in the Catholic Church, with permission from their bishops. We do not admit to the Eucharist any Protestants or other non-Catholics, since most deny the Real Presence, and have broken apostolic succession in various ways.

**1399 The Eastern churches that are not in full communion with the Catholic Church celebrate the Eucharist with great love. “These Churches, although separated from us, yet possess true sacraments, above all - by apostolic succession - the priesthood and the Eucharist, whereby they are still joined to us in closest intimacy.” A certain communion in sacris, and so in the Eucharist, "given suitable circumstances and the approval of Church authority, is not merely possible but is encouraged."238

1400 Ecclesial communities derived from the Reformation and separated from the Catholic Church, "have not preserved the proper reality of the Eucharistic mystery in its fullness, especially because of the absence of the sacrament of Holy Orders."239 It is for this reason that, for the Catholic Church, Eucharistic intercommunion with these communities is not possible. However these ecclesial communities, "when they commemorate the Lord’s death and resurrection in the Holy Supper . . . profess that it signifies life in communion with Christ and await his coming in glory."240 **

Cathedrals and Basilicas in the USA that receive a lot of tourists and people that may be non-Catholic say this in the Mass guides given out:

’For our Fellow Christians:
We welcome our fellow Christians to this celebration of the Eucharist as our brothers
and sisters. We pray that our common baptism and the action of the Holy Spirit in this
Eucharist will draw us closer to one another and begin to dispel the sad divisions which
separate us. We pray that these will lessen and finally disappear, in keeping with Christ’s
prayer for us “that they may all be one” (John 17:21).
Because Catholics believe that the celebration of the Eucharist is a sign of the reality
of the oneness of faith, life, and worship, members of those churches with whom we
are not yet fully united are ordinarily not admitted to Holy Communion. Eucharistic
sharing in exceptional circumstances by other Christians requires permission according
to the directives of the diocesan bishop and the provisions of canon law (canon 844 §4).
Members of Orthodox Churches, the Assyrian Church of the East, and the Polish National
Catholic Church are urged to respect the discipline of their own Churches. According
to Roman Catholic Discipline, the Code of Canon Law does not object to the reception
of Communion by Christians of these Churches (canon 844 §3).
"