Is poor Catechetics the problem?

[MelanieAnne]

I honestly don’t mean any disrespect here, it’s just that I find that sometimes sarcasm communicates where straight prose does not. The irony of a conflicted position is really brought out in sarcasm. I suppose I should repent. I really don’t mean any offense, it is just so obvious to me that there are conflicts in your poisitions that make no sense whatsoever to me, and I have difficulty in controlling my tongue-- or fingers in this case! I want to point out the conflicts in the most forceful way I know.

If that is true, you would do well to drop the sarcasm. I doesn’t add anything positive, nor any force, to your position. In fact, it subtracts from it. Do it enough and people put you on ignore. If you really are seeking discussion, do yourself a favor and drop the sarcasm. It doesn’t make you seem any more clever, it doesn’t make your points any more clear.

And it’s too bad that you felt the need to leave the Church because your questions weren’t answered. There are mysteries and paradoxes that we do not fully understand, it’s true. That doesn’t mean we need to get up and go somewhere that they teach that we can become a God ourselves. I don’t need to google the words you suggested. I know what you are referring to. And I reiterate that you will never be a God and it is arrogant that any Mormon believes they can be. It also is demeaning to God, in my opinion.

 

[mfbukowski]

But Limbo was never doctrine, so using it as an example of doctrine that has changed doesn’t work. Just so we’re clear on that.

And as for Catholic doctrine being similar to Mormon in some place or another ~ it wouldn’t be the first time that Mormons borrowed their doctrine, or their scriptures for that matter, from others.

Fine, but clearly other catholics disagree with you on this point, so I think my point stands. Many here appear to believe in Limbo or something like it. Most seem not to know the answer. Confusion is not God’s way.

 

[mfbukowski]

It’s not a conflict. It’s an area of information that simply remains unrevealed by God.

I appreciate the kind thoughts of those Mormons who baptize for the dead. Their hearts are surely in the right place, and no one can fault their kind generosity.

Thanks! Work for the dead is an enobling experience-- service for anyone who cannot do for themselves is a wonderful experience.

 

[mfbukowski]

Nobody is even talking about apostolic succession. Nothing MelanieAnne or anyone else in this thread has said violates the reality of apostolic succession.

I only brought it up because most catholics think that Catholicism is a very rational religion, especially based on apostolic succession. Yet Melanie appeard to be saying that religion itself doesn’t “make sense” because it must be taken on faith.

I don’t want to bring up the apostasy, because it cannot be proven or disproven and is a dead end. Really I was just commenting on the fact that I was agreeing with Melanie on the necessity of taking religion on faith.

 

[jmcrae]

There seems to be a lot of disagreement here even among priests. Is poor catechetics the problem?

Possible. Although I actually doubt that any Catholic priest said that an unbaptized person, remaining unbaptized, can go to Heaven without in some way being baptized - by water, or by blood, or by desire - or something else - since it would be a heresy to say that a person can go to Heaven without baptism.

The priest may well have said something comforting that was interpreted to mean that all unbaptized babies go to Heaven. But that would not be the fault of the priest, but of the listener who interpreted it that way.

 

[Figaro_Jones]

To answer the original question, poor catechesis was not the problem in this lapsed Catholic’s case. I was well taught and I was intensely interested in the faith for many years, so I’ve done much studying on my own, including the CCC. My problem was not one of not knowing the teachings, but one of eventually just not believing much of it anymore.

 

[jmcrae]

Thanks! Work for the dead is an enobling experience-- service for anyone who cannot do for themselves is a wonderful experience.

On this, we both agree.

 

[jmcrae]

This has to be the hardest thing a person can bear, and I am very sorry for your loss. I know you don’t believe as I do, but I know that your baby is with God.

Where ever she is, is where God needs her to be, for His ultimate plan to be fulfilled. No one goes anywhere by accident - God is in charge.

 

[mfbukowski]

Often the reason Catholics can be conflicted about a belief is simply because they don’t have the definitive answer. And rather than fabricate a pat answer (such as Baptism by angels), they may remain with a conflicted, speculative one simply because it’s a more honest way to be. Where something does become dogma, the HS has provided a definitive answer but while the concept of Limbo may’ve been a popularly accepted idea, it never became dogma-and never will.

BTW, the sensus fidelium, or faith of the people, has nothing to do with democratically arrived at truth. It’s a supernatural endowment of the “Catholic mind”, if you will, which all of the faithful ideally have and which can never conflict-and in fact must always agree- with the official teachings of the Church on faith and morals. Ultimately this “sense” can bring light to bear on an issue such as Limbo that, while important in its own way, has not held center stage and so has not been considered with the same intensiveness that other, more central matters, have.

This is a fascinating notion I have never heard of. But that article I quoted on the limbo issue seemed to say that the – what’s the word if not doctrine-- the concept of limbo was abandoned – if that terminology is satisfactory— due to the “faith of the people”. So what leads, the people or the doctrine-- and how does this “Catholic mind” work? Holy spirit? How does one account for dissenters like catholics who use birth control and are pro- abortion etc? Frankly and I don’t mean to be offensive – this notion seems like an excuse for changing to meet the times without admitting it. But it is fascinating, and I have never heard of it before. I will be glad to repost the link to the other quote, but I think you already have seen it, from the tone of your post.

To me, this is the first post that speaks to the issue, and thank you for it.

 

[MelanieAnne]

I only brought it up because most catholics think that Catholicism is a very rational religion, especially based on apostolic succession. Yet Melanie appeard to be saying that religion itself doesn’t “make sense” because it must be taken on faith.

I don’t want to bring up the apostasy, because it cannot be proven or disproven and is a dead end. Really I was just commenting on the fact that I was agreeing with Melanie on the necessity of taking religion on faith.

That’s not what I wrote at all. If you’re going to make reference to what I write, please do me the courtesy of doing so accurately.

 

[PJM]

Thanks for your concern. My name is real. Regarding Genesis, study the word “eloheim” which is in the first verse of genesis.

Next, study the orthodox and the catholic doctrine of “theosis”. Just google it, that will be fine.

The reason I left catholicism was that I had questions that could never be answered and never have been. Mormonism answered those questions. It’s that simple. Catholics still can’t answer the same questions I originally asked, and the fate of the unbaptized was one of them.

I honestly don’t mean any disrespect here, it’s just that I find that sometimes sarcasm communicates where straight prose does not. The irony of a conflicted position is really brought out in sarcasm. I suppose I should repent. I really don’t mean any offense, it is just so obvious to me that there are conflicts in your poisitions that make no sense whatsoever to me, and I have difficulty in controlling my tongue-- or fingers in this case! I want to point out the conflicts in the most forceful way I know.

The strangeest tenent of Mormonism, is that you too can be a god.

This of course fit’s in with The Baily’s New Age philosophy, and the One World Order, with a common “I am god” as it’s base.

So here is a bit os sarcaism for you: One supposes that one has to be a god one self, inorder to recogonize the logic og your position.

Oh well, I’m just a Mortal, Loved enough by my TRIUNE God, to inable me to know “right from wrong.”

Sorry, I’m right and your wrong. I know I’m right now, your’ll find out when you die. Good luck, your so bright that you can’t see the truth.

God bless you my friend, you sure need it!

PJM m.c.

 

[jmcrae]

This is a fascinating notion I have never heard of. But that article I quoted on the limbo issue seemed to say that the – what’s the word if not doctrine-- the concept of limbo was abandoned – if that terminology is satisfactory— due to the “faith of the people”. So what leads, the people or the doctrine-- and how does this “Catholic mind” work?

This is one of the few times that the dead “get a vote” so to speak, because essentially, it’s what all of the Catholic people, everywhere, at every moment in history, have predominantly believed.

Holy spirit?

Works for me.

How does one account for dissenters like catholics who use birth control and are pro- abortion etc?

This is a modern day phenomenon, and limited to those regions of the world that are influenced at least somewhat by atheistic socialism. It arises out of the Eugenics programs of the early 1920s in Soviet Russia, which were based upon the work of Charles Darwin (yes, that Charles Darwin). One of the triumphs of propaganda is that people even today still continue to believe that they have a “duty” to wipe out their own generations, to prevent the continuation of poverty, immorality, and various genetic diseases - and they willingly sterilize themselves for these purposes.

However, since this is so recent, and since it is still a very small portion of the human race, there is no possiblity of a “sensus fidelium” ever arising, that any form of artificial population control is “God’s will.”

 

[mfbukowski]

Actually, Paradise, aka Limbo, if it exists, is a region of Hell.

But even if they were different places, we still wouldn’t have as much heavenly real estate as the Mormons, who apparently have whole planets for every man ever born to be King of.

No, this is a misconception. God is eternal and is God of all we can know. And there is one God, composed of three distinct persons. It is like a perfect triumverate if you will, who are of “one mind” and purpose. God rules all we can ever conceive of in the past and the future and stands outside of time in a sense. So there was no “time” before God was God, if you will, because if we speculate about such things by faith, we cannot think of anything outside of time due to our human limitations.

If we are fortunate to become like our Father (read John 17) in some other eternity than the one we are in, through some process like the catholic notion of theosis, we will be like our Father, not limited to a “planet” but to all that our children can know about.

Science is now beginning to understand how different universes come to be. It is interesting to speculate on these things.

But what you are proposing is not the mormon conception at all but is like a cartoon of Mormon doctrine. Even we are not that stupid.

 

[mfbukowski]

If that is true, you would do well to drop the sarcasm. I doesn’t add anything positive, nor any force, to your position. In fact, it subtracts from it. Do it enough and people put you on ignore. If you really are seeking discussion, do yourself a favor and drop the sarcasm. It doesn’t make you seem any more clever, it doesn’t make your points any more clear.

And it’s too bad that you felt the need to leave the Church because your questions weren’t answered. There are mysteries and paradoxes that we do not fully understand, it’s true. That doesn’t mean we need to get up and go somewhere that they teach that we can become a God ourselves. I don’t need to google the words you suggested. I know what you are referring to. And I reiterate that you will never be a God and it is arrogant that any Mormon believes they can be. It also is demeaning to God, in my opinion.

I’m sorry you feel that way. Again, I would suggest you study theosis. Not that it is the same-- it’s not. We just take if farther than you do. Look at the status Mary has achieved/been given. She has a body in the same way that Jesus does, and her abilities are God given. Couldn’t God give that incredible gift to his children if he wanted to? Is he incapable of it? If Mary has been given such a gift, could we also be? Yet she is not (yet?) a “Goddess”.

It is not demeaning to God to me- in fact in my opinion it makes him even greater to think that he would want to share such a gift with his children. Would it be “selfish” of him to NOT give a gift like this to his children, or can’t he do it? To me either alternative is unthinkable. Why would he NOT want us to be like him?

I promise to work on the sarcasm, and will definitely refrain from its use with you Melanie. It’s just that when I am attacked, sometimes I lose it and bite back. I will work on it with others as well. Sorry.

 

[MelanieAnne]

No, this is a misconception. God is eternal and is God of all we can know. And there is one God, composed of three distinct persons. It is like a perfect triumverate if you will, who are of “one mind” and purpose. God rules all we can ever conceive of in the past and the future and stands outside of time in a sense. So there was no “time” before God was God, if you will, because if we speculate about such things by faith, we cannot think of anything outside of time due to our human limitations.

If we are fortunate to become like our Father (read John 17) in some other eternity than the one we are in, through some process like the catholic notion of theosis, we will be like our Father, not limited to a “planet” but to all that our children can know about.

Science is now beginning to understand how different universes come to be. It is interesting to speculate on these things.

But what you are proposing is not the mormon conception at all but is like a cartoon of Mormon doctrine. Even we are not that stupid.

The logical extension of Mormon doctrine is that the Mormon God is not, and cannot be, God of the Universe but God of some part of the Universe. If the Mormon God was once a man, and now is exalted, then He cannot be Eternal. And for Him to have once been a man means that before Him there was some predecessor God whom He worshiped and, over time, was exalted. Similarly, as Mormons progress and become exalted themselves, there will be an entire pantheon of Gods.

The first time humans were told that they could become Gods, it was a lie. It’s a lie this time too.

 

[mfbukowski]

The strangeest tenent of Mormonism, is that you too can be a god.

This of course fit’s in with The Baily’s New Age philosophy, and the One World Order, with a common “I am god” as it’s base.

So here is a bit os sarcaism for you: One supposes that one has to be a god one self, inorder to recogonize the logic og your position.

Oh well, I’m just a Mortal, Loved enough by my TRIUNE God, to inable me to know “right from wrong.”

Sorry, I’m right and your wrong. I know I’m right now, your’ll find out when you die. Good luck, your so bright that you can’t see the truth.

God bless you my friend, you sure need it!

PJM m.c.

Why would your God not want you to be like him? Or maybe he can’t do it? Or is he selfish? I want the best for my children-- I want them to be better than I am. So does that make me better than God, because I want them to be better than me?

See Melanie, this is what happens!?? Honestly, what is your advice? Should I just ignore this guy and let him butcher my position, or give back in kind, or waste 14 paragraphs trying to set him straight? Honestly, in your opinion what is the best way to handle this?

 

[MelanieAnne]

I’m sorry you feel that way. Again, I would suggest you study theosis. Not that it is the same-- it’s not. We just take if farther than you do. Look at the status Mary has achieved/been given. She has a body in the same way that Jesus does, and her abilities are God given. Couldn’t God give that incredible gift to his children if he wanted to? Is he incapable of it? If Mary has been given such a gift, could we also be? Yet she is not (yet?) a “Goddess”.

It is not demeaning to God to me- in fact in my opinion it makes him even greater to think that he would want to share such a gift with his children. Would it be “selfish” of him to NOT give a gift like this to his children, or can’t he do it? To me either alternative is unthinkable. Why would he NOT want us to be like him?

I promise to work on the sarcasm, and will definitely refrain from its use with you Melanie. It’s just that when I am attacked, sometimes I lose it and bite back. I will work on it with others as well. Sorry.

Bukowski, one of the things I have seen with Mormons on this forum is to take every question about Mormonism as a personal attack. Maybe you don’t, but a high percentage of Mormons do. I’m sure that some people (including some of the Mormons!) do intend personal attacks on this forum, but most do not.

When someone questions the facts or the basis or the evidence of something, that isn’t a personal attack on anyone. It’s a question. If every question is going to be interpreted as a personal attack, you’re better off hanging out in LDS forums. And that goes for any others who have trouble with personalizing everything. Just a suggestion.

 

[MelanieAnne]

Why would your God not want you to be like him? Or maybe he can’t do it? Or is he selfish? I want the best for my children-- I want them to be better than I am. So does that make me better than God, because I want them to be better than me?

See Melanie, this is what happens!?? Honestly, what is your advice? Should I just ignore this guy and let him butcher my position, or give back in kind, or waste 14 paragraphs trying to set him straight? Honestly, in your opinion what is the best way to handle this?

Sarcasm is unproductive and treads very closely to being uncharitable. You have one life and your time is how we measure that life. You should always make the best use of your time and refrain from engaging in unproductive matters.

If someone is sincerely interested in dialog, even if their views are very different from yours, it is a more productive use of your time to engage in that dialog.

My advice would be to move on.

 

[fhansen]

Why would your God not want you to be like him? Or maybe he can’t do it? Or is he selfish? I want the best for my children-- I want them to be better than I am. So does that make me better than God, because I want them to be better than me?

See Melanie, this is what happens!?? Honestly, what is your advice? Should I just ignore this guy and let him butcher my position, or give back in kind, or waste 14 paragraphs trying to set him straight? Honestly, in your opinion what is the best way to handle this?

The Church does teach theosis but it’s quite different from the Mormon view as I understand it. In Catholicism, one never becomes the equal of God. God is and remains the uncreated creator of all and the rest of us will always depend on Him for our existence-no matter how high He intends to elevate us.

 

[mfbukowski]

However, since this is so recent, and since it is still a very small portion of the human race, there is no possiblity of a “sensus fidelium” ever arising, that any form of artificial population control is “God’s will.”

Fascinating stuff.

But now it sounds from this sentence that God’s will is actually made up of this “vote” of which such a small portion of the human race agrees that it is down on the noise level. I know this is one sentence by one person dashed off as a response to another question but it is fascinating to me. So I won’t hold you to it if you want to modify it – but that is what it sounds like. Sounds kinda new age like Gaia and all that – that all humans have one soul which make up God and his will or something — sure doesn’t sound Catholic to me?? The Universal Soul thing that we all return to? Nah definitely not catholic.