J
John_Larocque
Guest
This is the book I read a few years ago and the relevant passage.
Look, at least give the chapter a read, OK?
Look, at least give the chapter a read, OK?
My husband's family says im not going to be seen in heaven since im not mormon...
- Status
T
twopekinguys
Guest
It has nothing to do with being anti anything. It is a matter of public record.
A court convicted him.
How is that anti?
But like you say, people see what they want. Evidently you don’t want to look at the record.
T
ThuriferAcolyte
Guest
Now tell us what context Paul was talking about in regards to “degrees of glory”. This is why proof texting doesn’t really work all the time. You have to look at the surrounding verses. What do they say?
W
why_me
Guest
There are many interpretations out there. However Josiah Stowell did not bring up the charges. It was his relative.
There was some conflict among the accounts about the charges, but is there a common theme among the testimony of the witnesses? In a trial you would expect there to be witnesses for the prosecution and witnesses for the defense. But this does not appear to be a trial, mainly because the accounts show that Joseph testified first. If it was a trial, why did Joseph Smith testify first. Wesley P. Walters says, “When Joseph was arrested on the warrant issued by Albert Neely, he would have been brought before Neely for a preliminary examination to determine whether he should be released as innocent of the charges or, if the evidence seemed sufficient, brought to trial.” (Wesley P. Walters, Joseph Smith’s Bainbridge, N.Y. Court Trials, p. 139) The order of the witnesses in the trial records would seem to indicate these accounts are dealing with a preliminary examination and not a trial. The records of charges also supports the fact that this is a hearing.
Since this is a preliminary hearing and not a trial, there is no way that the proceedings would result in a verdict. It is only in the two accounts that come from the record obtained by Miss Emily Pearsall that it mentions a guilty verdict. And that seems out of place. After the last testimony with no comments from the judge or any other information these accounts simple end with the declarative statement, “And thereupon the Court finds the defendant guilty.” or “And therefore the Court find the Defendant guilty”. In light of the testimony and the other records, this would seem to be an addition provided by Tuttle or Marshall. At least it definitely is out of place in the record of a preliminary hearing.
The witnesses don’t seem to be presenting two sides of a charge for deliberation. All of the witnesses testified that Joseph demonstrated the ability to observe things in his stone. Although Arad Stowel and McMaster were disgusted at Joseph’s demonstations where he read from a book with his back turned or told about objects from a distance. They didn’t tell us why they didn’t believe; they only said that the deception was palpable. Maybe they were so convinced that he couldn’t do what he claimed that they wouldn’t accept any demonstration.
We know that under a New York law it was a crime “to tell fortunes, or where lost or stolen goods may be found” (see the legal definition of “Disorderly Persons,” The Justice’s Manual, Albany, New York, 1829, p. 144) But what if a person actually could tell where “lost or stolen goods may be found”? Would it be a crime to tell the truth?
I am reminded of a television show I saw once where a man killed someone because he said that individual was going to kill him. He had no proof since it was his own perception. He also had no motive. He only had his claim to his psyhic abilities. Well the jury convicted him. But before the jury announced the verdict the accused gave his lawyer a slip of paper with the voting record of the jury. He correctly recorded that it took three votes to arrive at a verdict and the count for each vote. Was he psyhic? Apparently so. But was that admissable as evidence? No.
If Joseph actually did possess the ability as the witnesses testified would he be judged guilty of glass looking? Yes. But wouldn’t that also mean that he was innocent of deception and the reason the law was created?
Does this give us a clue as to why the results of this trial was not used against him in the 1830 trial or any anti-Mormon literature in the 1830s. Because to use this trial results would give support to the fact that Joseph did indeed possess extra talents. This can also explain why there is discrepancies among the verdicts. Because he was both guilty and innocent.
lightplanet.com/response/1826Trial/facts.html
W
why_me
Guest
42So also is the resurrection of the dead
He begins to speak in a different direction here as he uses So also as a starter to the sentence.
T
twopekinguys
Guest
Very interesting reading.
T
ThuriferAcolyte
Guest
Obviously, because he was making an analogy. The “so also” indicates a comparison to what was previously stated. This is basic English. The analogy starts here and continues:
39All flesh is not the same flesh: but there is one kind of flesh of men, another flesh of beasts, another of fishes, and another of birds.
40There are also celestial bodies, and bodies terrestrial: but the glory of the celestial is one, and the glory of the terrestrial is another.
41There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars: for one star differeth from another star in glory.
42So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption:
43It is sown in dishonour; it is raised in glory: it is sown in weakness; it is raised in power:
44It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body.
45And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.
46Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual.
47The first man is of the earth, earthy; the second man is the Lord from heaven.
As we can see, it has nothing to do with levels of Heaven, but comparing the differences between celestial vs. terrestrial bodies, the sun vs. moon vs. stars, to the differences between our current bodies and our resurrected, perfected bodies. Certainly degrees of glory of our bodies (current vs. resurrected), not of Heaven.
The NIV makes it even more clear that if Mormons are using these verses as proof of the three levels of Heaven (degrees of glory), it is an incorrect exegesis (especially considering it doesn’t say anything about Heaven):
39-44
39All flesh is not the same: Men have one kind of flesh, animals have another, birds another and fish another. 40There are also heavenly bodies and there are earthly bodies; but the splendor of the heavenly bodies is one kind, and the splendor of the earthly bodies is another. 41The sun has one kind of splendor, the moon another and the stars another; and star differs from star in splendor. 42So will it be with the resurrection of the dead. The body that is sown is perishable, it is raised imperishable; 43it is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory; it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power; 44it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body.
If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body.
Clearly an analogy. Nothing at all to do with Heaven
J
John_Larocque
Guest
whyme, please actually read the link. It’s a polite request. Read it and tell me what you think. Thank you.
B
Bill_Pick
Guest
I will be more likey to say the group that does not believe in the trinty well be the one you will not see heaven
B
Bob_Crowley
Guest
I went looking for official church teaching on the issue. This appears to have come from someone else’s CAF posting.
"The Catechism goes on to quote from the great Vatican II document Lumen Gentium: “‘Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: The one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it’ (LG 14; cf. Mark 16:16, John 3:5).”
How about that—the Church still teaches dogmatically! It says that “outside the Church there is no salvation.” And it does so for the simple reason stated by Jesus: “He who is not with me is against me.”"
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
Like I said, if my old Protestant pastor had doubts about Protestants going to heaven, there was a reason for it. He didn’t make those sorts of statements lightly. Particularly as he was a Protestant himself.
And Mormons aren’t Protestant. They’re a cult, based on the teachings of a con-man. Even mainstream Protestant churches will insist on that.
B
Bob_Crowley
Guest
Here’s the reference if you want to read the original article.
catholic.com/thisrock/2002/0207fea3.asp
T
ThuriferAcolyte
Guest
I highly suggest you read both the Catechism and the full document of Lumen Gentium, as they both say what I have said: The Catholic Church teaches that non-Catholics can go to Heaven (yes, that includes Mormons). Whether or not the Mormon church is a cult is irrelevant, because the members may not be aware of the falsehoods in their religion, nor may they be aware of the truth that the Catholic Church is the true Church and founded by Jesus Christ. This is clearly stated in Lumen Gentium and in the Catechism (both of which state that you do not have to be a member of the Catholic Church to go to Heaven). In fact, the Lumen Gentium quote that you have above states that the people that cannot be saved are those that know that the Catholic Church was founded by God through Christ, and still refuse to join or remain in it. Please read below, which show that you do not have to be explicitly a Catholic to be saved:
Catechism of the Catholic Church
1258 The Church has always held the firm conviction that those who suffer death for the sake of the faith without having received Baptism are baptized by their death for and with Christ. This Baptism of blood, like the desire for Baptism, brings about the fruits of Baptism without being a sacrament.
1260 "Since Christ died for all, and since all men are in fact called to one and the same destiny, which is divine, we must hold that the Holy Spirit offers to all the possibility of being made partakers, in a way known to God, of the Paschal mystery."63** Every man who is ignorant of the Gospel of Christ and of his Church, but seeks the truth and does the will of God in accordance with his understanding of it, can be saved. It may be supposed that such persons would have desired Baptism explicitly if they had known its necessity. **
Lumen Gentium Excerpts
The Church recognizes that in many ways she is linked with those who, being baptized, are honored with the name of Christian, though they do not profess the faith in its entirety or do not preserve unity of communion with the successor of Peter. (14*) For there are many who honor Sacred Scripture, taking it as a norm of belief and a pattern of life, and who show a sincere zeal. They lovingly believe in God the Father Almighty and in Christ, the Son of God and Saviour. (15*) They are consecrated by baptism, in which they are united with Christ. They also recognize and accept other sacraments within their own Churches or ecclesiastical communities. Many of them rejoice in the episcopate, celebrate the Holy Eucharist and cultivate devotion toward the Virgin Mother of God.(16*) They also share with us in prayer and other spiritual benefits. Likewise we can say that in some real way they are joined with us in the Holy Spirit, for to them too He gives His gifts and graces whereby He is operative among them with His sanctifying power. Some indeed He has strengthened to the extent of the shedding of their blood. In all of Christ’s disciples the Spirit arouses the desire to be peacefully united, in the manner determined by Christ, as one flock under one shepherd, and He prompts them to pursue this end. (17*) Mother Church never ceases to pray, hope and work that this may come about. She exhorts her children to purification and renewal so that the sign of Christ may shine more brightly over the face of the earth.
But the plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator. In the first place amongst these there are the Mohamedans, who, professing to hold the faith of Abraham, along with us adore the one and merciful God, who on the last day will judge mankind. Nor is God far distant from those who in shadows and images seek the unknown God, for it is He who gives to all men life and breath and all things,(127) and as Saviour wills that all men be saved.(128) *Those also can attain to salvation who through no fault of their own do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church, yet sincerely seek God and moved by grace strive by their deeds to do His will as it is known to them through the dictates of conscience.(19) Nor does Divine Providence deny the helps necessary for salvation to those who, without blame on their part, have not yet arrived at an explicit knowledge of God and with His grace strive to live a good life. **
S
sdtouchton
Guest
Both good works and faith is required to be saved.
Rom 8:24; – for in hope we are saved
Eph 2:5, 8; – by grace you have been saved through faith
2 Tim 1:9; – He saved us, called us, according to His grace
Tit 3:5; – He saved us through bath of rebirth, renewal by the Holy Spirit
Phil 2:12; – work out your salvation with fear and trembling
1 Pet 1:9; – as you attain the goal of your faith and salvation
Mt 10:22; – he who endures to the end will be saved
Mt 24:13; – he who perseveres to the end will be saved
Mk 8:3-5; – whoever loses his life for My sake will save it
Acts 15:11; – we shall be saved through the grace of Jesus
Rom 5:9-10; – since we are justified, we shall be saved
Rom 13:11; – salvation is nearer now than first believed
1 Cor 3:15; – he will be saved, but only as through fire
1 Cor 5:5; – deliver man to Satan so his spirit may be saved
Heb 9:28; – Jesus will appear a second time to bring salvation
Jam 2:24; – a man is justified by works and not by faith alone
Jam 2:26; – faith without works is dead
Gal 5:4-6; – only thing that counts is faith working in love
1 Cor 13:2; – faith without love is nothing
Jn 14:15; – if you love Me, keep My commandments
Mt 19:16-17; – if you wish to enter into life, keep My commandments
Mt 7:21; – not “Lord, Lord,” but he who does the will of the Father
Jn 14:21; – he who keeps My commandments loves Me
Rom 2:2-8; – eternal life by perseverance in good works
Eph 2:8-10; – we are created in Christ for good works
Jas 2:14-24; – man is justified by works and not faith alone
sdtouchton.webs.com/
Rom 8:24; – for in hope we are saved
Eph 2:5, 8; – by grace you have been saved through faith
2 Tim 1:9; – He saved us, called us, according to His grace
Tit 3:5; – He saved us through bath of rebirth, renewal by the Holy Spirit
Phil 2:12; – work out your salvation with fear and trembling
1 Pet 1:9; – as you attain the goal of your faith and salvation
Mt 10:22; – he who endures to the end will be saved
Mt 24:13; – he who perseveres to the end will be saved
Mk 8:3-5; – whoever loses his life for My sake will save it
Acts 15:11; – we shall be saved through the grace of Jesus
Rom 5:9-10; – since we are justified, we shall be saved
Rom 13:11; – salvation is nearer now than first believed
1 Cor 3:15; – he will be saved, but only as through fire
1 Cor 5:5; – deliver man to Satan so his spirit may be saved
Heb 9:28; – Jesus will appear a second time to bring salvation
Jam 2:24; – a man is justified by works and not by faith alone
Jam 2:26; – faith without works is dead
Gal 5:4-6; – only thing that counts is faith working in love
1 Cor 13:2; – faith without love is nothing
Jn 14:15; – if you love Me, keep My commandments
Mt 19:16-17; – if you wish to enter into life, keep My commandments
Mt 7:21; – not “Lord, Lord,” but he who does the will of the Father
Jn 14:21; – he who keeps My commandments loves Me
Rom 2:2-8; – eternal life by perseverance in good works
Eph 2:8-10; – we are created in Christ for good works
Jas 2:14-24; – man is justified by works and not faith alone
sdtouchton.webs.com/
T
ThuriferAcolyte
Guest
Thanks, yes, that article clearly says what I have said:
“The problem is, neither the Catechism nor Lumen Gentium teaches that “everybody from everywhere is going to be saved whether he is a member of the Church or not.” On the contrary, the Church teaches that anybody from anywhere, if he is saved, will indeed find (perhaps to his surprise) that he is, in fact, in some form of union with the Catholic Church.”
Note that none of this mean that EVERYONE will be saved. It does mean that there are various circumstances where non-Catholics are saved, as we see clearly in the Catechism and in Lumen Gentium. This of course includes Mormons.
All people who are saved are saved through Jesus Christ, and are in “some form of union” with the Catholic Church. That does not mean you have to be a member, since we see that you do not from the Catechism and Lumen Gentium. So, if a Hindu is saved, it isn’t because their gods saved them (since they don’t exist), but that Jesus Christ saved them. Likewise, if a Mormon is saved, it isn’t because of their understanding of God (which we see as false, which is why we do not accept Mormon baptism, since it’s as if they are worshipping a different Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, since there are fundamental contradictory differences), but through the God correctly understood (i.e. the traditional Trinity). That is the actual Catholic teaching on this subject.
B
Bob_Crowley
Guest
From Dominus Iesus by Benedict when he was still Cardinal Ratzinger.
"17. Therefore, there exists a single Church of Christ, which subsists in the Catholic Church, governed by the Successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him.58 The Churches which, while not existing in perfect communion with the Catholic Church, remain united to her by means of the closest bonds, that is, by apostolic succession and a valid Eucharist, are true particular Churches.59 Therefore, the Church of Christ is present and operative also in these Churches, even though they lack full communion with the Catholic Church, since they do not accept the Catholic doctrine of the Primacy, …60
On the other hand, the ecclesial communities which have not preserved the valid Episcopate and the genuine and integral substance of the Eucharistic mystery,61 are not Churches in the proper sense; however, those who are baptized in these communities are, by Baptism, incorporated in Christ and thus are in a certain communion, albeit imperfect, with the Church.62 B …
“The Christian faithful are therefore not permitted to imagine that the Church of Christ is nothing more than a collection — divided, yet in some way one — of Churches and ecclesial communities; nor are they free to hold that today the Church of Christ nowhere really exists, and must be considered only as a goal which all Churches and ecclesial communities must strive to reach”.64 In fact, “the elements of this already-given Church exist, joined together in their fullness in the Catholic Church and, without this fullness, in the other communities”.65 “Therefore, these separated Churches and communities as such, though we believe they suffer from defects, have by no means been deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation. For the spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation which derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Catholic Church”.
&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
The statement is a bit more conciliatory towards the Orthodox Churches than the Protestant. Note however that if one does not “eat the flesh” and “drink the blood” of the Son of Man, that person has no part in Him. The Protestants almost to a denomination deny that Christ’s flesh and blood is in the Eucharist, but merely symbolic.
So I’ll stick with the old Pastor’s thoughts, and I don’t think God let’s them through the Pearly Gates, having denied the Eucharist, the Apostolic succession and the unity of His Church. Actually I had a rather interesting discussion this afternoon with my Catholic psychiatrist (whom I see about twice a year for follow up on depression only), regarding his own Anglican mother. She wanted to become Catholic when she was next to death’s door and some Catholics prayed intensely for her. She recovered, and felt a huge debt to these Catholics.
Her husband however, a mason (and that’s another long story), would not allow that to happen. Yet after she died, the pyschiatrist who had himself become Catholic, kept getting these visions she wanted him to do something for her. It took him about two years to realise what it was, and it was simply to pray that Christ would allow her to join the Catholic Church, even after death. When he prayed for this, he had what might be called an approving vision, and from that time on the visionary tensions ceased.
I don’t think God is particularly impressed with the continuing division of the Church, particularly dating from the Reformation, in which all over Western Europe Christian killing Christian, and with the divisions resonating every since.
From another site
“top 10 Wars - Thirty Year War ~ 7.35 million ? 9 million
This war was the greatest European megadeath until World War I and still remains the greatest ever religious war. With Martin Luther?s reformation in 1517, Europe was effectively divided into Protestant and Catholic powers. Although the major European empire, The Holy Roman Empire remained effectively Catholic, Protestants especially Lutherans also held major states. One these states; Bohemia revolted in 1617 when it became apparent that a staunch Catholic was to be crowned the Holy Roman Emperor. A spectacular show of defiance was given by the Bohemians when they tossed the Emperor?s representatives out of a window (and according to legend, into a pile of horse dung), effectively sparking the bloodbath. With no concept of standing armies in those times, the Empire acquired Spanish and Bavarian help and managed to crush the rebellion. However, the protestant nations of Denmark and Sweden soon intervened with varying political and religious motives, ensuring the continuation of war. Protestant forces were finally defeated in 1634 however France, a Catholic nation soon entered the war against the Empire, turning the conflict completely political. French defeat of the Spaniards in 1543 led to the treaty of Westphalia, which granted Netherlands and Switzerland its independence and gave religious freedom to Protestant states. The last great religious war ravaged the German states, which by some accounts lost 30 % of their population. The armies were mostly composed of paid mercenaries who made their best efforts to plunder and annihilate non combatants. Around 7 million civilians perished in the war with military looses anywhere from 350,000 to 2 million.”
P
PJM
Guest
And maybe we should not be so quick to judge, and maybe a bit more charity could be used? But hey, what do I:shrug: know
The issue of “the plates” considering there origin is hardly a worthy topic on CAF. My humble opinion.
Love and prayers friends,
M
MadScot
Guest
…and when all else fails, bring up the ‘antimormon’ invective. Whatever. The fact remains that there is a preponderance of evidence that Smith plagiarized extensively from Swedenborg. Both ‘The Four Doctrines’ and ‘The Book of Mormon’ have similarities. Both Swedenborg and Smith’s accounts of their visions are very similar. Other doctrines of Swedenborg’s are also found among Smith’s teaching. Smith himself admitted that he was familiar with Swedenborg and even admired him. Said Smith, “Emanuel Swedenborg had a view of the world to come, but for daily food he perished.” To insist that Smith that didn’t also plagiarize the doctrine of the ‘Three Glories’ as well is laughable.
If he didn’t steal this idea from Swedenborg, why had no one else thought of it? You’d think that with a doctrine so important as this, someone else would have come up with it long before the 18th century. Surely, there’d be some mention of it by at least one of the ECF’s. If it wasn’t so unique, why did Smith have to introduce it as dogma as part of a ‘revelation’? Why didn’t he just refer to St. Paul and say ‘this is why’’? Why did Pratt have to allay the fears of Smith’s followers because of it? Obviously, members of Smith’s church had concerns about it. If it were, indeed, supported by Scripture, you’d think that there would have been no need for Pratt to calm the membership.
T
ThuriferAcolyte
Guest
Bob, no matter how many documents you quote, the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Lumen Gentium, and Dominus Iesus do NOT say that non-Catholics will not go to Heaven. It seems as if you have ignored all of those statements and instead are unfortunately grasping at something that none of these documents say. It is also interesting that you’re sticking with the words of a Protestant pastor, when the Catechism and Lumen Gentium are quite clear that non-Catholics can be saved! I’ll post it right here again, because it seems like if you’re not reading it:
Catechism of the Catholic Church
1258 The Church has always held the firm conviction that those who suffer death for the sake of the faith without having received Baptism are baptized by their death for and with Christ. This Baptism of blood, like the desire for Baptism, brings about the fruits of Baptism without being a sacrament.
-Here, we see that non-Catholics without baptism that die for the Faith can be saved.
1260 "Since Christ died for all, and since all men are in fact called to one and the same destiny, which is divine, we must hold that the Holy Spirit offers to all the possibility of being made partakers, in a way known to God, of the Paschal mystery."63** Every man who is ignorant of the Gospel of Christ and of his Church, but seeks the truth and does the will of God in accordance with his understanding of it, can be saved. It may be supposed that such persons would have desired Baptism explicitly if they had known its necessity. **
-Here, we see what I have been saying this whole time: Non-Catholics that are ignorant of the Gospel of Christ and of the truth of the Catholic Church can be saved.
Lumen Gentium
**
But the plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator**. In the first place amongst these there are the Mohamedans, who, professing to hold the faith of Abraham, along with us adore the one and merciful God, who on the last day will judge mankind. Nor is God far distant from those who in shadows and images seek the unknown God, for it is He who gives to all men life and breath and all things,(127) and as Saviour wills that all men be saved.(128) *Those also can attain to salvation who through no fault of their own do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church, yet sincerely seek God and moved by grace strive by their deeds to do His will as it is known to them through the dictates of conscience.(19) Nor does Divine Providence deny the helps necessary for salvation to those who, without blame on their part, have not yet arrived at an explicit knowledge of God and with His grace strive to live a good life. **
-Here we see that those that acknowledge the Creator can be saved. It explicitly notes that Muslims can be saved (this does not mean that ALL Muslims are saved, but that it’s possible for them to be saved). It also mentions what I have said above. Clearly, non-Catholics can be saved.
As far as Dominus Iesus, what does that have to do with what we’re talking about, namely, salvation? Dominus Iesus says exactly what the Catechism notes: the relationship between the various Christian groups. The Orthodox are rightly called a Church, because they have preserved apostolic succession, and thus have valid orders and sacraments (which also means that they have the full means of salvation in their Church, which also adds to the contradiction of your statement that non-Catholics cannot go to Heaven). Protestant groups are not called Churches, instead “ecclesial communities”, because they have not preserved apostolic succession.
Also, why do you keep saying that there is division of the Church? That is heretical! In fact, you already quoted the fallacy of such a statement when you quoted Dominus Iesus: "The Christian faithful are therefore not permitted to imagine that the Church of Christ is nothing more than a collection — divided, yet in some way one — of Churches and ecclesial communities". The Church is NOT divided, it has always fully existed as the Catholic Church. Schism does not cause breaks IN the Church, schism is a break OFF of the Church. Therefore, it is heretical to say that the Church is divided, when it is not.
So, as we can see, the Catechism and Lumen Gentium both say that non-Catholics can be saved, through baptism of blood and baptism of desire. Why do you keep denying this? It’s right there in both of the documents, as well as in that Catholic Answers article.
B
Bob_Crowley
Guest
Your first two quotes state “those who suffer death for the sake of the faith”. That implies marytrdom. How many Protestant martyrs do you know in Western Christianity these days, who specifically suffered death for the sake of the faith? I’m not talking about death in general - that happens to everyone, no matter who they are. And specifically, which “Faith”?
There’s a difference between “salvation” and getting into heaven. All in Purgatory are “saved”. But they’re not in heaven.
How do you purge deliberate and knowing rejection of Christ’s demand for Christian unity? And then using Scripture to “prove” it?
I’m speaking exclusively of Protestants here, not Moslems, Hindus etc. That’s another ball game altogether, and one to which I freely confess I do not know the answer.
In another incident in the Pastor’s office, we were once discussing the papacy. He made a scathing comment about the early papacy, and then went white as a sheet. Apparently a look of judgement had come across my face, which I wasn’t even aware of. I’ve seen the same sort of thing myself, so I suspect God was merely using my face to get across a message.
The next time we met, he commented, “The last time you were here, you shook my faith to the core!” I asked him what the hell he was talking about. He mentioned our discussion about the pope, and what he’d seen. Then he said, "It’s a heresy! That’s what worries me!’ Then a moment later, “Oh, why now!!” He was dying of cancer at the time.
Being Presbyterian, he has sworn on the Westminster Confession of Faith, which when unmodified declares the Pope the anti-Christ, the man of perdition. And in this part of the world, the Presbyterians still swear on it, as far as I know. That’s heresy for a start.
Then he shrugged, and said, “Well, the Lord knows I’ve tried to serve Him.” He had too, and very well. About a month or so after he died, I happened to be at one of his sons homes, and there was a small photograph of him on the wall. As I looked at it, I got this feeling of sweaty torridness. I couldn’t place it as I was still Protestant at the time, but with hindsight, I think I was getting a message he was in Purgatory.
Later, as I said, I had a vision of him saying “We’re not in heaven. Oh, we’re not suffering any pain etc. etc.” And prior to that, another vision where when he was first told he couldn’t get in, he complained, “Who’s responsible for all this!” And Martin Luther turned up.
My old Pastor’s thoughts about Luther did a sea-change somewhere along the line. He gave his second youngest son the middle name Luther, but before he died said that if there was a “false prophet” in Revelation, he thought it was Martin Luther, stating some of the things Luther said and did weren’t very Christian. Which was an understatement. I’ve posted a link which might give a few ideas along this line.
So, if one is going to be a member of Christ’s Church, will it be based on Christ’s declaration to Peter, as stated in the Scriptures which is the same for Catholic and Protestant alike, or will it be based on a former Monk?
If it’s the former monk, what are you going to say to the Keeper of the Keys, St. Peter himself, when you front up?
tentmaker.org/books/MartinLuther-HitlersSpiritualAncestor.html
There’s a difference between “salvation” and getting into heaven. All in Purgatory are “saved”. But they’re not in heaven.
How do you purge deliberate and knowing rejection of Christ’s demand for Christian unity? And then using Scripture to “prove” it?
I’m speaking exclusively of Protestants here, not Moslems, Hindus etc. That’s another ball game altogether, and one to which I freely confess I do not know the answer.
In another incident in the Pastor’s office, we were once discussing the papacy. He made a scathing comment about the early papacy, and then went white as a sheet. Apparently a look of judgement had come across my face, which I wasn’t even aware of. I’ve seen the same sort of thing myself, so I suspect God was merely using my face to get across a message.
The next time we met, he commented, “The last time you were here, you shook my faith to the core!” I asked him what the hell he was talking about. He mentioned our discussion about the pope, and what he’d seen. Then he said, "It’s a heresy! That’s what worries me!’ Then a moment later, “Oh, why now!!” He was dying of cancer at the time.
Being Presbyterian, he has sworn on the Westminster Confession of Faith, which when unmodified declares the Pope the anti-Christ, the man of perdition. And in this part of the world, the Presbyterians still swear on it, as far as I know. That’s heresy for a start.
Then he shrugged, and said, “Well, the Lord knows I’ve tried to serve Him.” He had too, and very well. About a month or so after he died, I happened to be at one of his sons homes, and there was a small photograph of him on the wall. As I looked at it, I got this feeling of sweaty torridness. I couldn’t place it as I was still Protestant at the time, but with hindsight, I think I was getting a message he was in Purgatory.
Later, as I said, I had a vision of him saying “We’re not in heaven. Oh, we’re not suffering any pain etc. etc.” And prior to that, another vision where when he was first told he couldn’t get in, he complained, “Who’s responsible for all this!” And Martin Luther turned up.
My old Pastor’s thoughts about Luther did a sea-change somewhere along the line. He gave his second youngest son the middle name Luther, but before he died said that if there was a “false prophet” in Revelation, he thought it was Martin Luther, stating some of the things Luther said and did weren’t very Christian. Which was an understatement. I’ve posted a link which might give a few ideas along this line.
So, if one is going to be a member of Christ’s Church, will it be based on Christ’s declaration to Peter, as stated in the Scriptures which is the same for Catholic and Protestant alike, or will it be based on a former Monk?
If it’s the former monk, what are you going to say to the Keeper of the Keys, St. Peter himself, when you front up?
tentmaker.org/books/MartinLuther-HitlersSpiritualAncestor.html
T
ThuriferAcolyte
Guest
The point of posting on baptism of blood and baptism of desire is to show that the Catechism (and Lumen Gentium) says that non-Catholics can go to Heaven. Both are explicitly discussing those not formal members of the Catholic Church, and yet are saved.
Those in Purgatory are not in Heaven yet, however they will be. What does that have to do with anything? There will probably be many Catholics in Purgatory as well. The point is that non-Catholics will be in Heaven, and this can include Mormons. And on that point, earlier you stated, in post #68, that Protestants can’t get into Heaven until the churches reunify. That is not Catholic teaching, and you have not posted anything to corroborate that statement. Would that mean that Catholics in Purgatory get to go to Heaven once they are purified, and Protestants will have to wait until the churches are reunifed? That is not Catholic teaching, sorry.
Now, on the last point, the article you linked to earlier addressed this:
““Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience—those too may achieve eternal salvation” (LG 16).”
I do not know the hearts of all, however I can safely assume that many Protestants and other non-Catholics are not deliberately in the churches that they belong to. They most likely really do believe that they have the truth. This is completely different from knowing that the Catholic Church is the true Church of Jesus Christ, and then turning around and rejecting His Church. That is not what I’m talking about. What I’m talking about is what Lumen Gentium and the Catechism are talking about: those who, “through no fault of their own” do not know Christ’s Church. And they aren’t talking about knowing the name of it. They’re talking about knowing that it holds the Fullness of Truth.
So again, unfortunately Church documents do not support your claim, and I’m just trying to help you see that. No document says that Protestants cannot go to Heaven until all churches come back into union with the Catholic Church. Baptism of blood and baptism of desire are clear doctrines that say that it is possible for non-Catholics to be saved. Those in Purgatory will be in Heaven, after purification, and there is no doctrine that says that Protestants can’t leave Purgatory until the churches come into reunion. That just doesn’t make sense. And baptism of desire is NOT referring to those that deliberately turn away from the Catholic Church after knowing that it has the fullness of Truth. It is talking about those who “through no fault of their own” (the very words of the Catechism and Lumen Gentium) do not know the truth of the Catholic Church. I know many Protestants (and Mormons) that do not think that the Catholic Church is the true Church, and follow what they believe is the “full Truth” as best as they can. This is what those documents are talking about. Catholic doctrine is clearly in support of what I have said.
- Status