What do Mormons believe will happen to Hinkley?

[Dauphin]

"“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**.337”

I understand simple English, and the Catechism clearly states that those who do not know His Church may achieve eternal salvation. Tough to get clearer than that.

You’re foisting a heretical interpretation on a text that, although ambiguous, certainly does not teach heresy. Here’s the proper interpretation:

Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, may achieve salvation through a baptism of desire.

It’s really very simple. The Church has always taught that baptism is necessary for salvation, and that there is no salvation outside the Church. Those immutable dogmas can and must be reconciled with the pronouncements of the Second Vatican Council. Otherwise, the church has fallen into heresy.

 

[lukewarm]

You’re foisting a heretical interpretation on a text that, although ambiguous, certainly does not teach heresy. Here’s the proper interpretation:

Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, may achieve salvation through a baptism of desire.

It’s really very simple. The Church has always taught that baptism is necessary for salvation, and that there is no salvation outside the Church. Those immutable dogmas can and must be reconciled with the pronouncements of the Second Vatican Council. Otherwise, the church has fallen into heresy.

Actually it doesn’t say that at all, you added the “baptism of desire” part. You’re like Luther adding faith alone, perhaps the Pope should’ve consulted you before publishing the latest Catechism?

“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”

That’s what it says…

If Baptism is “necessary for salvation” how then is their room for unbaptized babies to be saved? IF they can be saved then obviously there is “wiggle room”.

Maybe the Second Vatican council was heretical? I don’t know, but I know how to read simple English, and it’s pretty clear. like I said I’m not a mental gymnast.

 

[Dauphin]

"“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**.337”

I understand simple English, and the Catechism clearly states that those who do not know His Church may achieve eternal salvation. Tough to get clearer than that.

I also object to your suggestion that my position is “mental gymnastics” and that the teaching of the Second Vatican Council cannot be reconciled with Sacred Tradition. What the Council taught was taught well before the 60’s. The idea that those who do not know the gospel can be saved is summed up nicely in the Catholic encyclopedia (published in 1907):

It should be observed that those who are thus saved are not entirely outside the pale of the Church. The will to fulfill all God’s commandments is, and must be, present in all of them. Such a wish implicitly includes the desire for incorporation with the visible Church: for this, though they know it not, has been commanded by God. They thus belong to the Church by desire (voto). Moreover, there is a true sense in which they may be said to be saved through the Church. In the order of Divine Providence, salvation is given to man in the Church: membership in the Church Triumphant is given through membership in the Church Militant. Sanctifying grace, the title to salvation, is peculiarly the grace of those who are united to Christ in the Church: it is the birthright of the children of God. The primary purpose of those actual graces which God bestows upon those outside the Church is to draw them within the fold. Thus, even in the case in which God Saves men apart from the Church, He does so through the Church’s graces. They are joined to the Church in spiritual communion, though not in visible and external communion. In the expression of theologians, they belong to the soul of the Church, though not to its body.

This is the orthodox interpretation.

 

[lukewarm]

I also object to your suggestion that my position is “mental gymnastics” and that the teaching of the Second Vatican Council cannot be reconciled with Sacred Tradition. What the Council taught was taught well before the 60’s. The idea that those who do not know the gospel can be saved is summed up nicely in the Catholic encyclopedia (published in 1907):

It should be observed that those who are thus saved are not entirely outside the pale of the Church. The will to fulfill all God’s commandments is, and must be, present in all of them. Such a wish implicitly includes the desire for incorporation with the visible Church: for this, though they know it not, has been commanded by God. They thus belong to the Church by desire (voto). Moreover, there is a true sense in which they may be said to be saved through the Church. In the order of Divine Providence, salvation is given to man in the Church: membership in the Church Triumphant is given through membership in the Church Militant. Sanctifying grace, the title to salvation, is peculiarly the grace of those who are united to Christ in the Church: it is the birthright of the children of God. The primary purpose of those actual graces which God bestows upon those outside the Church is to draw them within the fold. Thus, even in the case in which God Saves men apart from the Church, He does so through the Church’s graces. They are joined to the Church in spiritual communion, though not in visible and external communion. In the expression of theologians, they belong to the soul of the Church, though not to its body.

This is the orthodox interpretation.

Yeah that’s not mental gymnastics at all, it’s ridiculous, read it again, it is desperately trying to reconcile two contradictory statements. I won’t lie to myself, obviously the Church simply changed directions.

 

[Dauphin]

Actually it doesn’t say that at all, you added the “baptism of desire” part. You’re like Luther adding faith alone, perhaps the Pope should’ve consulted you before publishing the latest Catechism?

“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”

That’s what it says…

Yes. I don’t see “there is salvation outside the Church” anywhere. It would have been much clearer, true, if the document had mentioned baptism of desire, but it didn’t, so we have to infer it.

The excerpt I posted above from the Catholic Encyclopedia sums it up nicely: those who are not in visible communion with the Church can still belong to the soul of the church. They can still be united to it through a baptism of desire. It is not a matter of mental gymnastics - you simply have to understand the statements of the Second Vatican Council in the light of Tradition.

If Baptism is “necessary for salvation” how then is their room for unbaptized babies to be saved? IF they can be saved then obviously there is “wiggle room”.

They can be saved only insofar as they are joined to the Catholic church through baptism.

Maybe the Second Vatican council was heretical? I don’t know, but I know how to read simple English, and it’s pretty clear. like I said I’m not a mental gymnast.

No, it wasn’t heretical. Your lazy interpretation and refusal to consider understanding the Council in the light of tradition could confuse any Catholic observing your writings. I feel it’s necessary to refute any interpretation which jettisons the Sacred Oral Tradition of the Church.

 

[Dauphin]

Yeah that’s not mental gymnastics at all, it’s ridiculous, read it again, it is desperately trying to reconcile two contradictory statements. I won’t lie to myself, obviously the Church simply changed directions.

No! The Church has always taught that those ignorant of the Gospel can still be saved through a Baptism of Desire. Present one single statement from any council that says otherwise, or admit that the gates of hell have not prevailed against the church.

 

[lukewarm]

Yes. I don’t see “there is salvation outside the Church” anywhere. It would have been much clearer, true, if the document had mentioned baptism of desire, but it didn’t, so we have to infer it.

The excerpt I posted above from the Catholic Encyclopedia sums it up nicely: those who are not in visible communion with the Church can still belong to the soul of the church. They can still be united to it through a baptism of desire. It is not a matter of mental gymnastics - you simply have to understand the statements of the Second Vatican Council in the light of Tradition.

They can be saved only insofar as they are joined to the Catholic church through baptism.

No, it wasn’t heretical. Your lazy interpretation and refusal to consider understanding the Council in the light of tradition could confuse any Catholic observing your writings. I feel it’s necessary to refute any interpretation which jettisons the Sacred Oral Tradition of the Church.

Like I said I can read simple English and the Catechism is clear that those who don’t belong to the Catholic Church can be saved if they are seaking God with a sincere heart. To say this a drastic 180 is an understatement. Without adding to the Catechism you can’t defend your position at all.

Also babies do not have to be baptized to be saved the Church leaves open the possibility that God can save who He wants. We are bound by the sacraments God is not.

Like I said if the mental gymnastics helps you sleep at night go ahead. I’ve never been the type to confuse emotion with the facts, and the facts are that the Church did change their position post Vatican II. It’s right there in plain English.

 

[Dauphin]

Like I said I can read simple English and the Catechism is clear that those who don’t belong to the Catholic Church can be saved if they are seaking God with a sincere heart. To say this a drastic 180 is an understatement. Without adding to the Catechism you can’t defend your position at all.

Also babies do not have to be baptized to be saved the Church leaves open the possibility to save who He wants. We are bound by the sacraments God is not.

Like I said if the mental gymnastics helps you sleep at night go ahead. I’ve never been the type to confuse emotion with the facts, and the facts are that the Church did change their position post Vatican II. It’s right there in plain English.

If the Catholic Church changed its position, then it has changed from the apostolic faith:

“He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved: he that believeth not shall be condemned” (Mark 16:16)

“A man that is a heretic”, he writes to Titus, “after the first and second admonition avoid, knowing that he that is such a one is . . . condemned by his own judgment” - Letter from St. Paul to Titus

“Be not deceived, my brethren. If any man followeth one that maketh schism, he doth not inherit the kingdom of God. If any one walketh in strange doctrine, he hath no fellowship with the Passion” (ad Philad., n. 3). - St Ignatius of Antioch

“Let no man deceive himself. Outside this house, i.e. outside the Church, none is saved” (Hom. in Jos., iii, n. 5 in P. G., XII, 841). - Origen

“He cannot have God for his father, who has not the Church for his mother” (De Unit., c. vi). - St. Cyprian

You’re free to believe that the Church has broken from the apostolic faith, but I believe that to be a grave error. The Second Vatican Council absolutely did not proclaim that there is salvation outside the Church. It has always been the teaching of the Church that salvation can be found through a baptism of desire.

The Facts are plain: Nothing in Catholic doctrine has changed.

 

[lukewarm]

If the Catholic Church changed its position, then it has changed from the apostolic faith:

“He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved: he that believeth not shall be condemned” (Mark 16:16)

“A man that is a heretic”, he writes to Titus, “after the first and second admonition avoid, knowing that he that is such a one is . . . condemned by his own judgment” - Letter from St. Paul to Titus

“Be not deceived, my brethren. If any man followeth one that maketh schism, he doth not inherit the kingdom of God. If any one walketh in strange doctrine, he hath no fellowship with the Passion” (ad Philad., n. 3). - St Ignatius of Antioch

“Let no man deceive himself. Outside this house, i.e. outside the Church, none is saved” (Hom. in Jos., iii, n. 5 in P. G., XII, 841). - Origen

“He cannot have God for his father, who has not the Church for his mother” (De Unit., c. vi). - St. Cyprian

You’re free to believe that the Church has broken from the apostolic faith, but I believe that to be a grave error. The Second Vatican Council absolutely did not proclaim that there is salvation outside the Church. It has always been the teaching of the Church that salvation can be found through a baptism of desire.

The Facts are plain: Nothing in Catholic doctrine has changed.

Again I guess the writers of the Catechism should’ve consulted you:

The Lord himself affirms that Baptism is necessary for salvation.60 He also commands his disciples to proclaim the Gospel to all nations and to baptize them.61 Baptism is necessary for salvation for those to whom the Gospel has been proclaimed and who have had the possibility of asking for this sacrament.62 The Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude; this is why she takes care not to neglect the mission she has received from the Lord to see that all who can be baptized are “reborn of water and the Spirit.” God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism,** but he himself is not bound by his sacraments.**

"As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus’ tenderness toward children which caused him to say: "Let the children come to me, do not hinder them,“64 allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism”

Now if the Church were positve that those that dies without Baptism can’t be saved why do we “hope” that there is a way of salvation for who have died without baptism?

 

[Dauphin]

Again I guess the writers of the Catechism should’ve consulted you:

The Lord himself affirms that Baptism is necessary for salvation.60 He also commands his disciples to proclaim the Gospel to all nations and to baptize them.61 Baptism is necessary for salvation for those to whom the Gospel has been proclaimed and who have had the possibility of asking for this sacrament.62 The Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude; this is why she takes care not to neglect the mission she has received from the Lord to see that all who can be baptized are “reborn of water and the Spirit.” God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism,** but he himself is not bound by his sacraments.**

"As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus’ tenderness toward children which caused him to say: "Let the children come to me, do not hinder them,“64 allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism”

Now if the Church were positve that those that dies without Baptism can’t be saved why do we “hope” that there is a way of salvation for who have died without baptism?

Because we trust in the omnipotence and omnibenevolence of God, but that is not an excuse to begin teaching that people can adhere to whatever peculiar sect they want and expect salvation when they die.

I think the Church is being reasonable by trusting that the unborn may be saved without baptism, but for those that **are born, **there can be no confusion: baptism is absolutely necessary for salvation. If we teach anything else, we’re contradicting that which we have received from the apostles, through the very word of Christ.

I would appreciate it if you put an end to your condescending tone.

 

[lukewarm]

Because we trust in the omnipotence and omnibenevolence of God, but that is not an excuse to begin teaching that people can adhere to whatever peculiar sect they want and expect salvation when they die.

I think the Church is being reasonable by trusting that the unborn may be saved without baptism, but for those that **are born, **there can be no confusion: baptism is absolutely necessary for salvation. If we teach anything else, we’re contradicting that which we have received from the apostles, through the very word of Christ.

Yet the Church teaches that those that didn’t know Christ or his Church can be saved (unbaptized) and unbaptized children can be saved? Your “baptism necessary for salvation” stance is dying on a vine here. The catechism simply contradicts such a view.

I don’t have a condescending tone, it’s all in how you’re reading it. You don’t like what I’m writing so you attribute a condescending “tone” to it. Yet that isn’t implied at all. I find some of what you’re wriitng condescending particularly your initial dressing down of my post.

 

[Dauphin]

Yet the Church teaches that those that didn’t know Christ or his Church can be saved (unbaptized) and unbaptized children can be saved? Your “baptism necessary for salvation” stance is dying on a vine here. The catechism simply contradicts such a view.

Those living, breathing human beings who are capable of rational thought and are thus culpable for their actions cannot be saved without the means of baptism of which we are aware.

The Second Vatican Council did not say that those outside of the Church can be saved without baptism. If it did, point out where. Those who do not know the gospel can attain salvation through a baptism of desire. That is the only orthodox interpretation.

It’s beyond insulting to suggest that the apostolic faith is *dying on the vine, *or that Christ’s affirmation that those who are not born of “water and of spirit” cannot enter into the Kingdom of heaven is untrue.

It is the hope of the Church that the unborn are baptised through some means of which we are not aware - a baptism of blood, water, or desire being impossible.

Baptism is absolutely necessary for salvation. The Catholic faith has not changed.

 

[Dauphin]

The catechism simply contradicts such a view.

It does not.

I don’t have a condescending tone, it’s all in how you’re reading it. You don’t like what I’m writing so you attribute a condescending “tone” to it. Yet that isn’t implied at all. I find some of what you’re wriitng condescending particularly your initial dressing down of my post.

I’m quite sorry. I suppose my incapacity to read the english language is to blame. Wouldn’t you agree?

 

[lukewarm]

Those living, breathing human beings who are capable of rational thought and are thus culpable for their actions cannot be saved without the means of baptism of which we are aware.

The Second Vatican Council did not say that those outside of the Church can be saved without baptism. If it did, point out where. Those who do not know the gospel can attain salvation through a baptism of desire. That is the only orthodox interpretation.

It’s beyond insulting to suggest that the apostolic faith is *dying on the vine, *or that Christ’s affirmation that those who are not born of “water and of spirit” cannot enter into the Kingdom of heaven is untrue.

It is the hope of the Church that the unborn are baptised through some means of which we are not aware - a baptism of blood, water, or desire being impossible.

Baptism is absolutely necessary for salvation. The Catholic faith has not changed.

No it isn’t I’ve already quoted numerous times from the Catechism showing that it isn’t. I don’t know what else to say on the topic. Clearly the option is open for those without baptism to be saved. In simple clear English.

 

[lukewarm]

I’m quite sorry. I suppose my incapacity to read the english language is to blame. Would you agree?

I don’t know maybe, although it’s probably fear of accepting that the Church changed many times and isn’t perfect.

 

[Dauphin]

No it isn’t I’ve already quoted numerous times from the Catechism showing that it isn’t. I don’t know what else to say on the topic. Clearly the option is open for those without baptism to be saved. In simple clear English.

No, you’re very wrong on this. Baptism is absolutely necessary for salvation. This is affirmed by scripture and by the constant teaching of the Church. It is part of the apostolic faith and is absolutely immutable.

Baptism is necessary for salvation. There are three means of baptism of which we are aware: baptism of blood, baptism of desire, and baptism of water.

God, not being bound by the sacraments, can baptise in another way, but it is more than just impious to suggest that we can expect this, and that the ancient doctrines of the church are now quaint. This can only lead to indifferentism.

It is the duty of every Catholic to express the apostolic faith, which says that baptism is necessary for salvation, and that there is no salvation outside the Church. There’s very little else to say.

 

[Dauphin]

I don’t know maybe, although it’s probably fear of accepting that the Church changed many times and isn’t perfect.

…

My point was that your suggestion that I don’t understand the english language was an example of condescension.

The Church has never changed its faith. Like St. Thomas Aquinas said:

"Hold firmly that your faith is identical with that of the ancients. Deny that and you dissolve the unity of the church."

And so I do. The Church is perfect, and the Catholic faith is unchanged.

 

[lukewarm]

No, you’re very wrong on this. Baptism is absolutely necessary for salvation. This is affirmed by scripture and by the constant teaching of the Church. It is part of the apostolic faith and is absolutely immutable.

Baptism is necessary for salvation. There are three means of baptism of which we are aware: baptism of blood, baptism of desire, and baptism of water.

God, not being bound by the sacraments, can baptise in another way, but it is more than just impious to suggest that we can expect this, and that the ancient doctrines of the church are now quaint. This can only lead to indifferentism.

It is the duty of every Catholic to express the apostolic faith, which says that baptism is necessary for salvation, and that there is no salvation outside the Church. There’s very little else to say.

Except that the Church now teaches that those who are not baptized can be saved. Therefore to state those who die without baptism can’t be saved, or those outside the Catholic Church is erroneous. I’ve already shown the quotes from the catehcism.

I agree there isn’t anything else to say. The Church has reversed course before, and it did after Vatican II. I don’t think it means the gates of hell prevailed just the Church is working it out. That’s the only explanation I can come up with. To pretend like something that is so clear and obvious isn’t, is not something I’m prepared to do.

 

[lukewarm]

…

And so I do. The Church is perfect, and the Catholic faith is unchanged.

Except that it’s changed postion several times like I’ve shown between your quotes of past councils and the current catechism.

Not even good old St. Thomas could believe that the current Catholic Church is** identical** to that of the ancients. The current Church looks nothing like the early Church at all.

You have to believe that the CC grew into its own from the early Church. It simply is nothing like it.

 

[Dauphin]

Except that the Church now teaches that those who are not baptized can be saved. Therefore to state those who die without baptism can’t be saved, or those outside the Catholic Church is erroneous. I’ve already shown the quotes from the catehcism.

What you showed was a statement from the Second Vatican Council which did not teach anything contrary to the Catholic faith. I’ve already demonstrated that there is an orthodox interpretation, one which every Catholic is compelled to adhere to.

There is no salvation outside the Church.
Baptism is necessary for salvation.

These are dogmas of the Church - they are immutable. Everything we read in the Catechism or from the Second Vatican Council must be understood in the light of Tradition. If it contradicts the doctines of the Church, it is in error. I for one, believe that an orthodox interpretation can be found of all the documents you’ve presented.

I agree there isn’t anything else to say. The Church has reversed course before, and it did after Vatican II.

The Church has never “changed its doctrine” and it never will. A Catholic isn’t at liberty to believe that the Church is free to blow with the wind.

I don’t think it means the gates of hell prevailed just the Church is working it out. That’s the only explanation I can come up with. To pretend like something that is so clear and obvious isn’t, is not something I’m prepared to do.

It is clear and obvious. Either the Second Vatican Council can be understood in the light of Tradition, or the Catholic Church has fallen into error and the see of Peter is vacant.

I believe that the orthodox interpretation of these documents is clear and easy to understand. There are no “mental gymnastics” involved in the idea that baptism can be achieved through desire, or can be conferred in a non-normative way by an omnipotent God. This view is absolutely compatible with the Catholic faith.

If you can’t understand the concept, then I would advise not getting too far into Catholic theology; it gets a lot more complex than this.