Mormon Religion

[dianaiad]

But you keep trying to lump the two together, when they are different.

One of your comments was “excommunication is excommunication”. Which it isn’t.

Your own observation that this case in Brazil was about the church recognizing the latae sententiae excommunication proves that they ARE the same thing. Excommunication is excommunication…the difference is only in who (or Who) knows about it, and when. As you have pointed out, the steps the sinner needs to take to reconcile himself to the church are the same.

The only difference that I can see is that in one case the church says 'Ok, from now on you are excommunicated…" and in the other, it says “you’ve been excommunicated from the instant you committed this particular sin, and we now know about it.” the state of being excommunicated is the same either way.

This was about your comment about some sins being more egrigous than others etc. (which is what I quoted)

But then again, I believe we were originally talking about Mr. Hardy, and the inconsistencies there, and not the Catholic Church.

My point is that any group that makes judgments about what sins are worthy of excommunication–this is worthy, and that is not, or that commiting this sin instantly excommunicates you, but another sin doesn’t, has no business telling ANY other belief system that their system is ‘inconsistant.’

I understand that part of the process of excommunication in Catholicism has to do with the individual; how repentant he or she is, and so forth. Hardy was not, and is not at all repentant. He continues to commit the acts for which he was excommunicated. The men who modeled have not repeated their acts. I have no way of knowing what their individual responses were to the disciplinary hearings they were called to were—but then NEITHER DO YOU.

You do have the right to call us ‘inconsistent…’ though doing so is not all that logical. However, since you ARE doing so, then I, in return, have the absolute right to comment on your own practices. Fair is, after all, fair.

…and if I find it odd that you would excommunicate the mother and doctors of the nine year old victim of rape for doing what they honestly thought was best for her health and life, but keep in full fellowship the man who raped her, then you will have to put it down to the weirdness of Mormon thought.

I don’t have any problems at all thinking that excommunicating an unrepentant man is just fine, and that NOT excommunicating his models who have not repeated their actions is also consistent–and fine. I also believe that if you are going to excommunicate the mother of a rape victim for doing what she thinks is best for her child, then you really ought to excommunicate the man who raped her. It’s not like the mother is going to repeat HER sin, but you can bet that the stepfather would repeat his, every time he gets a chance. After all, he did it for three years, and only stopped when caught.

 

[dianaiad]

But a person is not removed from the membership of Christ’s body. (the Church) That is your interpretation which is totally incorrect.

There are two types of sin. Venial, and Mortal.

A venial sin can be something as a small white lie to keep from hurting someone, whereas a mortal sin, can be something like murder.

Either one can cause a latae sententiae excommunication, and either one can be resolved.

The list of sins that result in latae sententiae excommunication do not include a small white lie to keep from hurting someone.

It includes: obtaining an abortion, violence against the pope; sacrilege such as throwing away a consecrated host; absolving a person with whom one has sinned against the sixth commandment; consecrating a bishop without authorization; violating the seal of confession; and apostasy, heresy or schism. (from the National Catholic Reporter)
None of the above can be termed to be 'venial."

The results are exactly the same, whether the excommunication is latae sententiae or imposed by a court: “an excommunicated person cannot have any ministerial part in the celebration of the Eucharist of ohter cermonies of public worship; cannot recieve the sacraments; and cannot excrcise any ecclesiastical offices, functions, or acts of governance” (ibid)

So you tell me; what’s the difference? If a latae sententiae excommunication isn’t after all, a ‘real’ excommunication, why do you CALL it an excommunication? If it’s not, after all, an excommunication, why are the results exactly the same, either way? If it’s not, after all, an excommunication, why is the process to get them lifted the same? If it’s not, after all, a ‘real’ excommunication, why bother?

From what I have read (from Catholic sources only, of course) the nature of a venial sin is such that it must not concern a 'grave matter," that it is not committed with full knowledge of its nature, and it is not committed with BOTH deliberate and complete consent. A mortal sin, on the other hand is an act that doesn’t meet any of the above things. That is, a mortal sin is one that is grave, committed in full knowledge that it IS a sin, and is committed deliberately.

Since, according to all the arguments regarding latae sententiae excommunication from YOU guys, one must be fully aware that the act one is committing IS a sin, WILL result in an instant cutting off of oneself from God and the church (excommunication) and must be done deliberately—isn’t that the very definition of ‘mortal sin?’

 

[Stephen168]

Stephen, my reference is the code of canon law.

Which Canon are you referencing?

If some sins were not worse than others, there would not BE an added level of discipline to take care of them.

IF? What is your reference in Canon law. So far I see the assumption of a bigot

 

[dianaiad]

Which Canon are you referencing?

IF? What is your reference in Canon law. So far I see the assumption of a bigot

I am referencing the 1983 Code of Canon Law, and have posted the precise paragraphs many times.

 

[Stephen168]

It is my understanding that some sins are so egregious…so far beyond the normal ‘mortal sin,’ that simply engaging in it cuts one off from the church in a far more permanent and grievous way than other, less serious, sins. Commiting a mortal sin is supposed to be sufficient that the sinner should not take communion before going to confession–**but these sins that result in latae sententaie excommunication are a step beyond that. **

I am referencing the 1983 Code of Canon Law, and have posted the precise paragraphs many times.

No, never, not once. Which is why you didn’t do it this time. Which code of Canon Law states excommunication latae sententaie are sins of the worst order?

 

[aspirant]

It is obvious in the mere fact that some sins instantly remove you from membership–latae sententiae excommunication IS instant–whereas others do not.

It’s already been explained many times that excommunicated Catholics are still Catholics.

 

[dianaiad]

No, never, not once. Which is why you didn’t do it this time. Which code of Canon Law states excommunication latae sententaie are sins of the worst order?

it is a logical progression of thought, Stephen, that frankly I would have considered to be obvious. However, since you seem to have some difficulty with it, I will take it in order, here.

**Mortal sins: ** require knowledge of the gravity of the act, knowledge of the consequences, and deliberate and willing choice.

Mortal sins require that the sinner repent, attend confession and have his/her sins absolved before accepting communion.

Latae sententiae excommunication (from the comments of those who have debated with me regarding this) requires that the sinners who ‘qualify’ understand the gravity of their sin, understand the consequences, and willingly choose to sin anyway. This is also the definition of a mortal sin.

Those in this condition must also repent, and attend confession; they must have their sins absolved AND they must have the excommunication lifted; though both things might happen during confession, they are separate issues. Not all priests have the authority to lift latae sententiae excommunications, and those that do were given that authority specifically by their Bishops. Some sins that result in latae sententiae excommunications of such a nature that only the Holy See can lift the excommunications…while any priest can absolve mortal sins that do not result in this condition.

While the Catholic church, for most of its history, was able to impose imprisonment and death upon its members, that’s no longer true—I think that’s no longer true. Even when it could, excommunication was considered THE most serious consequence that could happen to a person. It still is. It reserves this ultimate form of discipline to very specific acts….and some sins are so serious that simply committing them results in excommunication that the church need only recognize, not impose.

Since not all mortal sins (which separate the sinner from God, but not the church) do not result in this final and most serious of disciplines, then those that DO result in it MUST therefore be ‘sins of the worst order,’ because the consequences for committing them not only exist, they are more serious than the consequences of ‘ordinary’ mortal sins.

In fact, the very fact that such a concept as latae sententiae excommunication exists, and is considered the consequence for certain sins–but not ALL mortal sins, is all the proof required that those sins are considered 'sins of the worst order."

Unless you can find other sins that have more serious consequences, that is.

 

[dianaiad]

It’s already been explained many times that excommunicated Catholics are still Catholics.

So the term ‘excommunication’ has no meaning?

 

[RebeccaJ]

:banghead:

 

[Answersplease]

So the term ‘excommunication’ has no meaning?

You show that you don’t really understand latae sententiae excommunication after all.

 

[TheosisM]

So the term ‘excommunication’ has no meaning?

Of course it does, we simply understand this differently than Mormons do. I believe this was discussed already before. LDS believe that one can “undo” ordinances like baptism. Catholics do not believe that. Excommunication in the LDS church makes one a non-member. Excommunication in the Catholic Church does not.

 

[dianaiad]

Answersplease:
You are equivocating.

Perhaps it would help if I told you that people who are excommunicated from the CoJCoLDS are still Mormons…if they claim to be Mormons?

The problem here is another disconnect between CAtholic and LDS thought; Catholics believe, so I have been told, that baptism leaves an ‘indelible mark’ upon a person that can never be erased… You baptize infants–and no matter what happens to that infant, he remains Catholic for his life and the life hereafter. Nothing changes that or CAN change that.

He can convert to Mormonism, go through the heirarchy and even eventually become the President and prophet of the church—but because he was baptized as an infant, he is still Catholic.

He could throw the whole idea of Christianity…or theism for that matter, out a porthole and he’d STILL be Catholic. So in that sense, then, I understand; an excommunicated Catholic is still a Catholic.

But that’s equivocation. Being an excommunicated Catholic means–it MUST mean, or else y’all wouldn’t bother with the concept of excommunication in the first place–something considerably more serious than 'somebody who committed a mortal sin and hasn’t gone to confession for it yet."

When a member of the CoJCoLDS is excommunicated, then repents and comes back, he must be rebaptized. However, once that is done, he doesn’t have to go through all the steps to get the priesthood back, or go through the Temple as if he had never been. All those things are simply restored to him as if they had never been rescinded. It’s all still there.

When a Catholic is excommunicated and comes back, he doesn’t get rebaptized, but he DOES have to go through an extra step to be reconciled to the church. I understand that y’all might not WANT to think that I ‘get’ the idea, but y’know what?

I do.

 

[TheosisM]

You are equivocating.

Perhaps it would help if I told you that people who are excommunicated from the CoJCoLDS are still Mormons…if they claim to be Mormons?

The problem here is another disconnect between CAtholic and LDS thought; Catholics believe, so I have been told, that baptism leaves an ‘indelible mark’ upon a person that can never be erased… You baptize infants–and no matter what happens to that infant, he remains Catholic for his life and the life hereafter. Nothing changes that or CAN change that.

He can convert to Mormonism, go through the heirarchy and even eventually become the President and prophet of the church—but because he was baptized as an infant, he is still Catholic.

He could throw the whole idea of Christianity…or theism for that matter, out a porthole and he’d STILL be Catholic. So in that sense, then, I understand; an excommunicated Catholic is still a Catholic.

But that’s equivocation. Being an excommunicated Catholic means–it MUST mean, or else y’all wouldn’t bother with the concept of excommunication in the first place–something considerably more serious than 'somebody who committed a mortal sin and hasn’t gone to confession for it yet."

When a member of the CoJCoLDS is excommunicated, then repents and comes back, he must be rebaptized. However, once that is done, he doesn’t have to go through all the steps to get the priesthood back, or go through the Temple as if he had never been. All those things are simply restored to him as if they had never been rescinded. It’s all still there.

When a Catholic is excommunicated and comes back, he doesn’t get rebaptized, but he DOES have to go through an extra step to be reconciled to the church. I understand that y’all might not WANT to think that I ‘get’ the idea, but y’know what?

I do.

Why are you so argumentative? I told you how Catholics view excommunicated Catholics, which is different from how Mormons view excommunicated Mormons. The LDS Handbook of Instructions specifically states “A person who is excommunicated is no longer a member of the Church” (page 109 under “Church Discipline”). This is not how Catholics view excommunication from the Catholic Church. That’s all.

 

[dianaiad]

Of course it does, we simply understand this differently than Mormons do. I believe this was discussed already before. LDS believe that one can “undo” ordinances like baptism. Catholics do not believe that. Excommunication in the LDS church makes one a non-member. Excommunication in the Catholic Church does not.

This whole thing is the result of a position that Catholics and Mormons might NEVER see eye to eye on.

Catholics have this idea of the ‘indelible mark.’ that is, Baptism into Catholicism is permanent in a way that nothing else in the universe is; nothing alters it. Not choice, not decisions, not excommunications, nothing. Once baptised, that’s it. A Catholic child will remain CAtholic as long as he, or his spirit, exists. He could convert with his family to Mormonism; he could serve a mission, marry in the Temple, rise in the hierarchy to apostle and prophet of the CoJCoLDS—but because he was baptised as an infant, he is still, and always, Catholic. It is in THIS way, I think, that an excommunicated CAtholic is still CAtholic.

This idea is something Mormons have a HUGE problem getting their minds around, because it absolutely eliminates the idea of choice. An infant is baptised, and that’s it. He has no say in it, no understanding of it, no way of saying yes or no; it’s simply done to him, and no matter what he may do, or not do, that indelible mark remains…indelible.

I think that the acceptance of this idea is why Catholics are shocked and upset at the idea of LDS proxy work for the dead. Because THEY have a baptism that is forced upon a soul, and affects him whether he wants it or not–and does so for eternity, they automatically assume that we believe our own baptisms and proxy work have the same sort of effect upon those for whom we do it. Why not? THEIRS does.

Yet Mormons have a deep abhorance of this idea. We believe that one must CHOOSE to be baptised, to accept it, and must understand the entire consequences and covenants involved with it. If that acceptance isn’t there–if this isn’t done willingly and in full understanding and knowledge, then baptism is simply a dunking in a small bathtub. It means absolutely nothing. Because that choice is vital, then if a choice is made that breaks all those covenants, and is completely against the idea, then excommunication negates the baptism; it has to—it’s a matter of choice.

…and that is why Mormons honestly don’t get the non-Mormon objection to proxy work; we KNOW that those for whom this work is done have all the say in whether it is effective; nothing is, or can be, done without their active permission and participation; without it, it is simply ink on paper. Meaningless.

It is this fundamental difference of world view that is the problem, I think. However, although I don’t agree with the Catholic view of the efficacy and permanance of infant baptism, I understand that Catholics accept it. It does, however, cause a problem with the concept of excommunication.

Let us agree; an excommunicated CAtholic is still a Catholic in the sense that nobody can undo a Catholic baptism. However, I’m not talking about that ‘indelible mark,’ but about the very real consequences of excommunication; short of erasing that mark, an excommunicated Catholic is…not a communicant, and has to do something considerably more to become a communicant again than someone who has ‘merely’ committed a lesser mortal sin.

 

[TheosisM]

It is this fundamental difference of world view that is the problem, I think. However, although I don’t agree with the Catholic view of the efficacy and permanance of infant baptism, I understand that Catholics accept it. It does, however, cause a problem with the concept of excommunication.

For Catholics it does not, since our view of excommunication is based, in part, on our view of the “indelible mark” of baptism (whether done as an infant or as an adult).

Let us agree; an excommunicated CAtholic is still a Catholic in the sense that nobody can undo a Catholic baptism. However, I’m not talking about that ‘indelible mark,’ but about the very real consequences of excommunication; short of erasing that mark, an excommunicated Catholic is…not a communicant, and has to do something considerably more to become a communicant again than someone who has ‘merely’ committed a lesser mortal sin.

Excommunicated Catholics still have certain obligations that they should fulfill (whether they do so or not is another question). Here are some quotes from the Catholic Encyclopedia:
*
“The excommunicated cleric is not released from any of his obligations in regard to the Divine Office and, if bound to it, must recite it, but privately and not in the choir”

“The sacraments are of course validly administered by excommunicated persons, except those (penance and matrimony) for whose administration jurisdiction is necessary;”*

Here is a quote form canon lawyer Dr.(doctorate in canon law) Edward Peters:
*
“First, there is the idea that excommunication kicks one out of the Church. That is not right. There are ways to cancel one’s Church membership, but excommunication isn’t one of them. The analogy I use to explain it is that of a felon serving a long prison term; he’s in prison, but he remains a citizen bound by the laws of his country. If he, say, owns property upon which he incurs taxes while in prison, he still owns the property and is still liable for the tax from prison; if he commits a crime in prison, he can be prosecuted for it, and so on. A felon loses certain important rights, obviously, like freedom of movement and the right to vote, but he is still a citizen. Similarly, an excommunicated person is still a member of the Church, but he or she has lost certain key rights attached to Church membership and is cut off from many of the activities and benefits of the Church.”*
ignatiusinsight.com/features2006/edpeters_excommun_nov06.asp

This is all I’m saying. I’m really not concerned about proxy baptism, the issue of “choice” in infant baptism, or the indelible mark of baptism belief (since we’ve been through those issues before). All I am saying is this: in the LDS church, excommunication makes someone a non-member. In the Catholic Church, excommunication does not make someone a non-member. In the case of deacons, priests, and bishops, they are still bound by their obligation to recite the Divine Office (daily prayers said throughout the day by all clergy), and, most importantly, they still have the power to validly confer most of the sacraments.

LDS excommunication makes one a non-member. Catholic excommunication does not (with the prime example being the fact that excommunicated priests still have the power to confer certain sacraments). I am simply presenting howCatholics view Catholic excommunication, in response to your odd question of “so the term ‘excommunication’ has no meaning?”. Of course it does, we just understand it differently, in the framework of our worldview. Mormons of course disagree (as we disagree with the belief that one can “undo” certain things), but is irrelevant to how Catholics view Catholic excommunication. That is all.

 

[dianaiad]

For Catholics it does not, since our view of excommunication is based, in part, on our view of the “indelible mark” of baptism (whether done as an infant or as an adult).

Excommunicated Catholics still have certain obligations that they should fulfill (whether they do so or not is another question). Here are some quotes from the Catholic Encyclopedia:
*
“The excommunicated cleric is not released from any of his obligations in regard to the Divine Office and, if bound to it, must recite it, but privately and not in the choir”

“The sacraments are of course validly administered by excommunicated persons, except those (penance and matrimony) for whose administration jurisdiction is necessary;”*

Here is a quote form canon lawyer Dr.(doctorate in canon law) Edward Peters:
*
“First, there is the idea that excommunication kicks one out of the Church. That is not right. There are ways to cancel one’s Church membership, but excommunication isn’t one of them. The analogy I use to explain it is that of a felon serving a long prison term; he’s in prison, but he remains a citizen bound by the laws of his country. If he, say, owns property upon which he incurs taxes while in prison, he still owns the property and is still liable for the tax from prison; if he commits a crime in prison, he can be prosecuted for it, and so on. A felon loses certain important rights, obviously, like freedom of movement and the right to vote, but he is still a citizen. Similarly, an excommunicated person is still a member of the Church, but he or she has lost certain key rights attached to Church membership and is cut off from many of the activities and benefits of the Church.”*
ignatiusinsight.com/features2006/edpeters_excommun_nov06.asp

This is all I’m saying. I’m really not concerned about proxy baptism, the issue of “choice” in infant baptism, or the indelible mark of baptism belief (since we’ve been through those issues before). All I am saying is this: in the LDS church, excommunication makes someone a non-member. In the Catholic Church, excommunication does not make someone a non-member. In the case of deacons, priests, and bishops, they are still bound by their obligation to recite the Divine Office (daily prayers said throughout the day by all clergy), and, most importantly, they still have the power to validly confer most of the sacraments.

LDS excommunication makes one a non-member. Catholic excommunication does not (with the prime example being the fact that excommunicated priests still have the power to confer certain sacraments). I am simply presenting howCatholics view Catholic excommunication, in response to your odd question of “so the term ‘excommunication’ has no meaning?”. Of course it does, we just understand it differently, in the framework of our worldview. Mormons of course disagree (as we disagree with the belief that one can “undo” certain things), but is irrelevant to how Catholics view Catholic excommunication. That is all.

OK…but Catholics ALSO consider that anybody, priest or not, Catholic or not, can baptise an infant, as long as the correct intent is present; the ability to perform such things is not restricted to Catholics. Therefore, simply being allowed to do so does not, in and of itself, mean a whole lot as to membership, it seems to me.

As to requirements to 'repeat the office…" well, LDS excommunicated people are expected to pray and attend services, too. I notice that Catholic priests are not allowed to excercise their authority as priests in any way that a non-Catholic is not allowed to do, if the situation calls for it.

Now, when an excommunication is lifted in Catholicism, I don’t know how the priesthood situation is handled. However, when a Mormon is rebaptised, he (or she) doesn’t have to go through the Temple AGAIN, nor be ordained to the priesthood AGAIN…those things are simply ‘restored’ to him in a single action. In this manner the return of the Catholic and of the Mormon seem to be similar.

 

[dianaiad]

cont…
The difference does seem to be in the perception of the idea of what ‘membership’ means, and of what baptism actually does.

By the way…a priest who has committed a mortal sin may indeed marry and hear confessions and have those marriages and confessions be valid; it’s an office of the priesthood they hold, not of their personal worthiness, correct?

Yet an EXCOMMUNICATED priest can do nothing that, say, a Presbyterian can’t do, all things being equal. It is that level of participation that makes this what it is.

…It seems to me, then, that if the results are pretty much the same as far as what one is allowed to DO, and the requirements for reconciliation are pretty much the same, then the deeper theological ideas of what constitutes membership are a different topic.

Especially since, as far as Catholicism is concerned, pretty much everybody who believes in the Trinity is Christian–and therefore, in some manner, Catholic. Thus the idea of excommunication needs to be narrowed down so that we are comparing apples to apples. After all, when we excommunicate a Mormon, we aren’t kicking THEM out of Christianity altogether, either. We do what you do; they are not allowed to excercise a priesthood authority, nor take communion (the ‘sacrament’) and the resullts are essentially the same.

Whatever it essentially is, the discussion was about who gets clobbered with it, and this percieved inequity on your part regarding our excommunicating a man who deliberately commits what I can only think of as sacriledge, and who blithely continues to do so, while we did NOT excommunicate, but rather treated with lesser penalties, those who posed in the calendar and, evidently, repented.

At the same time, I wonder why this extreme end of discipline is imposed upon this one set of actions (that don’t seem to have a whole lot in common with one another) but not other, equally (if not more) horrific.

Why is abortion worthy of this excommunication, but a pedophile who rapes and murders children is NOT excommunicated…because they are not.

Why is attacking (not succeeding, but simply attacking) the Pope worthy of this, but someone who blows away several people in a bank robbery not?

Finally, since Catholics seem to understand the severe nature of an attack on the Pope and being deliberately disrespectful of the Host as an attack on the very foundation of the most sacred areas of your faith, why can’t you see the problem with a man who makes a calendar for the express purpose of commiting sacriledge against the priesthood offices these young men held?

Because frankly, that’s what Hardy did. That calendar wasn’t about hunky young men without their shirts. It was about deliberately displaying them in a way that mocked their position as missionaries; turned priests into pinups.

It was EXACTLY like someone getting twelve young Catholic priests to perform at Chippendales…with the collars (oh, yes, they can keep their jeans on…) and declaring how dedicated they are to their callings.

Oh…and then, having been told that this is somewhat over the line, expanding his business to include selling mugs, bumper stickers and more shows with different priests.

you should understand this; you really should. Criticism of other belief systems because you have a problem with their doctrine is one thing. Deliberate disrespect and mockery is quite another.

 

[zach_dunn]

OK…but Catholics ALSO consider that anybody, priest or not, Catholic or not, can baptise an infant, as long as the correct intent is present; the ability to perform such things is not restricted to Catholics. Therefore, simply being allowed to do so does not, in and of itself, mean a whole lot as to membership, it seems to me.

It actually makes membership a lot more meaningful to me. God has made baptism an absolute necessity for salvation, for God to make it so that anyone can baptize anyone really underscores its importance in my eyes.

As to requirements to 'repeat the office…" well, LDS excommunicated people are expected to pray and attend services, too. I notice that Catholic priests are not allowed to excercise their authority as priests in any way that a non-Catholic is not allowed to do, if the situation calls for it.

Now, when an excommunication is lifted in Catholicism, I don’t know how the priesthood situation is handled. However, when a Mormon is rebaptised, he (or she) doesn’t have to go through the Temple AGAIN, nor be ordained to the priesthood AGAIN…those things are simply ‘restored’ to him in a single action. In this manner the return of the Catholic and of the Mormon seem to be similar.

Just for clarification, no one can be “rebaptized.”

Ephesians 4:5
One Lord, one faith, one baptism.

There is only one baptism.

Romans 6:3
Know you not that all we, who are baptized in Christ Jesus, are baptized in his death?

If Paul is correct, and I’m 100% sure he is, then it is impossible to be baptized more than once because Christ has died but once, never to die again.

 

[ParkerD]

It actually makes membership a lot more meaningful to me. God has made baptism an absolute necessity for salvation, for God to make it so that anyone can baptize anyone really underscores its importance in my eyes.

Just for clarification, no one can be “rebaptized.”

Ephesians 4:5
One Lord, one faith, one baptism.

There is only one baptism.

Romans 6:3
Know you not that all we, who are baptized in Christ Jesus, are baptized in his death?

If Paul is correct, and I’m 100% sure he is, then it is impossible to be baptized more than once because Christ has died but once, never to die again.

Hi, Zach Dunn,
I would usually be asleep right now, but my daughter happened to wake me up so since I don’t have the tendency to go right back to sleep after having been wakened, here I am.

Jesus didn’t have just anyone baptize Him. He came to the one who had not only authority but who was called of God in that authority. Jesus was baptized to give all of us a perfect example to follow, though He knew we wouldn’t be perfect and we knew He didn’t really need to be baptized other than to show the Way and thus fulfill all righteousness. He was baptized by being submersed in the River Jordan by John the Baptist.

In Ephesians, Paul is primarily addressing those members of the church who had been Gentiles and had been baptized into the church after their belief in Christ. He makes several points about this in chapter 2, and reiterates in chapters 3 and 4 that the Gentiles have been brought into the same faith with the same baptism and the same covenant blessings as “them that were nigh” (2:17)–(the Jews who had had the old law of circumcision). “One baptism” means “the same baptism as the baptism received by the Jews who come into the new covenant through belief in Christ and through His having fulfilled the old law.” He is saying that the baptism of the Gentiles is not a different baptism than the baptism of the Jews.

In Romans 6, Paul writes about baptism being “planted together in the likeness of his death”, and “we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection”, meaning Christ’s resurrection. Note that you can go back to Ephesians and see that Paul emphasized in Ephesians 1:20 that God the Father “raised him from the dead”. He also emphasized in Romans 6 that those who are baptized should “walk in newness of life” and “not serve sin.” (6:4 and 6, also v. 13). The burial in water and the bringing forth out of the water is a similar pattern to the burial of Christ and His resurrection.

Paul and the other apostles had the power and authority to bind on earth that which would be bound in heaven, and to loose on earth that which would be loosed in heaven. Baptism is part of the new covenant, and is kept record of because that act is recorded in heaven. Those who forfeit the meaning of their covenant promise when they were baptized, when they sin grievously or when they prey upon the flock with false doctrines and thus endanger the flock, would logically not be stated in the records in heaven that they are covenant keepers and covenant members of the church, hence there needed to be authority that “loosed” on earth so that the record of a baptism would be “loosed” in heaven.

Once that record of baptism has been “loosed”, if such a person who had made an earlier covenant promise and then failed miserably to keep that covenant promise, then it makes sense to me that if such a person fully repents and completely changes their attitude and desires and actions thereby showing that they have really come into a “newness of life” and will keep their covenant with all their heart, then they can be re-baptized so that their baptism is once again recorded in heaven (bound in heaven) and they can start over in the process of becoming sanctified in Christ through the ministration of the Holy Spirit.

So we see baptism through different eyes than you have expressed as your view.

Have a good day, and peace to you.

 

[Stephen168]

it is a logical progression of thought, Stephen, that frankly I would have considered to be obvious.

No it is not obvious because you have it wrong.

So what I did is to go to that 1983 Code of Canon Law, and see if I could find anything there. Dang it, it reads like a congressional bill. ……………….What I DID find was interesting; murder does not encure an automatic excommunication.

In the code of Roman Catholic canon law currently in force, there are eight instances when a person may incur excommunication latae sententiae. Unless the excusing circumstances outlined in canons 1321-1330 are verified, the following persons incur excommunication latae sententiae:
• an apostate from the faith, a heretic, or a schismatic;(1364)
• a person who throws away the consecrated Eucharistic species or takes and retains them for a sacrilegious purpose;(1367)
• a person who uses physical force against the Pope;(1370)
• a priest who absolves an accomplice, of his, in a sin against the sixth commandment (against sexual sins) except in danger of death;(977, 1378)
• a bishop who ordains someone a bishop without a pontifical mandate, and the person who receives the ordination from him;(1382)
• a confessor who directly violates the sacramental seal of confession (1388)
• a person who procures a completed abortion;(1398)
• accomplices who are not named in a law prescribing latae sententiae excommunication but without whose assistance the violation of the law would not have been committed.(1329)

Yes, she is not thinking like a Catholic; judging a person’s heart or mind seems to be more acceptable to Mormons. Sometimes we are not sure if someone has murdered or not, but abortion is murder every time.
dianaiad;6161095:

Here’s the problem with your statement, Stephen; if excommunication latae sententiae is automatic and instant, and only applies when the sinner is aware that whatever s/he did will result in such a penalty, then it’s a matter of God judging, not man judging, isn’t it?

As I review the list, it appears the actions which occur excommunication latae sententiae are actions against Church unity and its teaching. If a priest was to see someone doing them, it would be very clear what they were doing. In the case of Canon 1378 and 1388 it is only the clergy who can do the act, and 1382 only a Bishop. Also the sinful nature of all three is minuscule but great violations against the Church.

In fact, the very fact that such a concept as latae sententiae excommunication exists, and is considered the consequence for certain sins–but not ALL mortal sins, is all the proof required that those sins are considered 'sins of the worst order."

Unless you can find other sins that have more serious consequences, that is.

You just answered you own question. Again, you did not provide a reference. Which code of Canon Law states excommunication latae sententaie are sins of the worst order?