MiserereNobis

LDS friends, We've had a couple of these threads over the years, where Rory, me, Damien the Leper, and other Catholics discuss Catholic issues on your board. I just want to say thank you for letting us have a thread or two here and there when there are things that we wish to discuss in our religion, even though it is barely tangential to Mormonism (I use that term to encompass LDS teaching, practice, doctrine, and culture). Though I did enjoy Rory's half-joking idea that the SSPX are the Catholic version of restorationists Thanks!

I totally agree that the new mass isn't intrinsically irreverent. When priests follow the Vatican II documents, we're all good Do you remember when Pope Benedict XVI celebrated the Novus Ordo in Latin, ad orientam, chant, "smells and bells" and all? Sounds like you have a wonderful parish. Slow moves, as is the Catholic way. (But I'll still stick with FSSP )

Rory, where do you attend now? A traditionally minded diocesan parish? FSSP? The FSSP coming to my area was a godsend for me and others. I’m out of town this weekend, but I am curious if any who attend the SSPX chapel will come join us. My guess is no, but then again I don’t think anyone was expecting that harsh of a punishment coming from Rome.

I attended an SSPX chapel 15 years ago or so for about 2 years. My main reason was the liturgy: the Traditional Latin Mass is beautiful and conveys Catholic truth beautifully. I was part of the Schola (the group that performs the chants for the Mass) for awhile and really enjoyed that. I made some friends, but never fully participated in parish life because I lived an hour away. I did not get involved in their controversies. I fully believed that Vatican II and its documents were valid. The problem was implementation, and frankly many parts of the documents are ignored and even contradicted by current church practices. For example, the document on liturgy says that vernacular may be used but Latin should be retained and that Gregorian chant holds “pride of place.” About the only place you can find Gregorian chant is at a Traditional Latin Mass, however. Quick note to non-Catholics: The Traditional Latin Mass is different in more than language. I took an acquaintance once, a devout Catholic who had never been nor studied it, and he said it felt like a different religious service altogether. Traditionalists would call me “smells and bells” (incense and the ringing of the bells at the consecration of the Host) because I loved the beauty of the liturgy but did not subscribe to the underlying “dogmas” of the SSPX. The bishop of the diocese realized he had many many Catholics who wanted the traditional liturgy and that the SSPX was “poaching” them. So he wisely invited the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Peter (FSSP) to set up shop in an old beautiful church. This society was formed in 1988 when the SSPX did their first illicit consecration of bishops. A group of SSPX priests disagreed with the break from the pope and so formed it with with papal approval and are in full communion with the pope. When they showed up, I switched to them.

No, creation is good. God proclaimed it as such. What do you mean by "incompatible"? God is not made of physical matter; God is not a creation, He is the Creator. God is not finite; He is infinite. In that sense he is not "compatible" with matter because He is not matter. But that does not mean He is at odds with matter, or He and matter oppose each other. Contrarily, God the Father creates, sustains, and acts through matter. No metaphysical incompatibility there. Ok, and yet... The Incarnation! No, you've got it backwards. The Incarnation highlights that God IS compatible with matter, because He became matter, became flesh. I haven't heard any Catholic say that the Incarnation broke the rules of God's nature. Yes, Jesus is a paradox in the sense that he is 100% human and 100% God, but that paradox is a mystery to human understanding, not a breaking of what God is.

Catholicism does not teach that God would be defiled if He touched matter. As you rightly point out, that is a Gnostic heresy. While God is immaterial, matter is not defiling. The Incarnation is God choosing to be embodied! It's interesting reading the accounts of the Franciscan Friars who accompanied the Spanish conquistadors: their view of the undefiled beauty of nature is quite in contrast with the Puritans on the east coast. In Catholicism, matter is not defiled, unholy, or evil. Quite the opposite: matter is used sacramentally. And St. Francis's "Canticle of the Sun" is a wonderful prayer/song showing how nature and matter praise God.

I apologize, I thought you were Protestant (capital P). My understanding is that Anabaptists were Protestants, but I have not studied it and obviously defer to you.

This is a protestant view. The Catholic Church does not view herself as one church among equals. Far from it. I respectfully ask if you have studied the documents from Vatican II? Many have not even read them, and go off of the idea of "the spirit of Vatican II" which often directly contradicts the documents, or repeat things about Vatican II they have heard but are incorrect. This is from Unitatis Redintagratio, the Vatican II Decree on Ecumenism, regarding non-Catholic Christians: This clearly shows the Catholic belief that the Catholic Church is not one among equals, but is the repository of the blessings of Christ and his gospel. This doesn't mean non-Catholics aren't Christian, though. From the same document: I mentioned it earlier in this thread: it does make me kinda giggle that we consider non-Catholic Christians part of the Catholic Church, just in imperfect or partial communion. We're coming for your soul whether you like it or not! This is from Lumen Gentium, the Vatican II Dogmatic Constitution on the Church: The full Church of Christ subsists in the Catholic Church, led by the pope and bishops. Elements of the Church of Christ are found outside of the Catholic Church, but only in the Catholic Church is the fulness. Let's see what our LDS friends say about this. Baptism: My take on their position is that they alone have the correct baptism for the remission of sins because they alone possess God's priestly authority to do so. I don't think they would deny that God can forgive sins whenever He wants, though? And can grant grace even to those who are unbaptized? The Catholic Church holds that God can give grace wherever He pleases, even though she considers herself the only Church with the full means of salvation. Gift of the Holy Spirit: My understanding of their belief is that the Holy Spirit (Ghost) can work with anyone He wants in any capacity He wants, but that confirmation in their church gives a special relationship to the Holy Spirit. It does not deny the gifts of the Spirit to those who are not confirmed, instead it affirms a special relationship. This could be me looking at their beliefs through my Catholicism, because we believe confirmation adds a special strength to the confirmed. From the catechism: Promise of Heaven: My understanding of their view is that you will get there if you want to get there. Their view of the afterlife seems to be quite universalist, with baptism for the dead, etc. It's interesting because this is the Catholic view about the Catholic Church as shown in the quoted documents above. Only the Catholic Church has full and complete Christianity, even though there are elements of it found elsewhere. I guess it depends on what you mean by remission of sin. We believe the forgiveness of sins is an on-going thing, not a one time thing, but I think some protestants don't believe that? We believe that a valid baptism removes all sin, including original sin. But then you can sin after that. To remove mortal and venial sins, there is the sacrament of confession. Also, receiving the Eucharist forgives venial sins. So yes, joining today's Catholic Church would grant you, Navidad, forgiveness of sins. You've already been baptized, but the complete Order of Christian Initiation would have you be confirmed (getting that special strength and relationship with the Holy Spirit), then receive the Eucharist (which grants grace and forgives venial sins). However, prior to confirmation, it is required that you go to your first confession for the forgiveness of mortal sins. This is not a conservative or traditional view of the Sacraments. This is what would happen in any parish where you undergo OCIA. The mainstream Catholic Church absolutely makes claims to exclusivity, as shown in the Vatican II documents above. Again, reference the Vatican II documents. I can provide more quotes if you'd like, or you can read through them. The mainstream Catholic Church, as led by the Pope today, claims to be the one and only Church to have the fullness of the Church of Christ. If someone denies that, then they are contradicting the official documents of the last Ecumenical Council that was promulgated by Pope Paul VI. Eastern Orthodoxy (that Pope St. John Paul II famously called one of the two lungs of the Church), is a close second as they have valid orders (priesthood) and thus fully valid sacraments, but are not united with the Pope.

But by your criteria, I could be your best friend and not know if you are a Christian. How do I know if God has forgiven your sins? Or if you have the Gift of the Holy Spirit? Or if you are going to heaven? Only God knows that. In fact, I am explicitly told by Christ not to judge where you are going after death. So the problem isn't that I don't know you; the problem is that by those criteria I can never know if you are a Christian. I don't disagree here. If someone claims to be a Christian and their beliefs fit within the broad and blurry-edged umbrella of Christianity, then they are Christian. And yeah, faith requires mystery and uncertainty. But that's an issue of faith. Here we are simply talking about words and labels. I agree, which is why the definition of Christian as someone who claims to be a Christian with beliefs that fit within the broad and blurry-edged umbrella of Christianity is useful. Minimal effort required there. It's not that important, but labels can be useful at times, such as when I am admitted to the hospital and they ask my religious affiliation so I can be attended to by a Catholic priest if necessary. I assume you meant "isn't appropriate." I totally agree. Again, if they claim to be Christian and their beliefs fall within the umbrella of Christianity, then voila! Christian! How does another's belief on whether or not you are Christian deny you the three joys of Christendom? I can see why it might bother you, just like it bothers our LDS friends when they are told they are not Christian, but that doesn't take away your joy of being a Christian, does it? I've been called an idolator for being a Catholic, and that didn't take away my joy at being a Catholic. It bothered me because I'm not an idolator, though. What is your basis of using the three criteria to determine if someone is Christian? Why use a much more complicated, subjective, and frankly unknowable list of requirements instead of a simple: they claim it and their beliefs are close enough? This is your protestant view coming through. You are claiming the definition of Christianity is based on what protestants believe. The Catholic Church, with over 1 billion adherents, disagrees with you (and frankly, your reference to "club" and masonry is a little condescending). I agree, but by your definition and the three criteria, I absolutely would have to judge someone to determine if they are a Christian. I would have decide: are their sins forgiven, do they have the gift of the Holy Spirit, and are they going to heaven. That's judgement on a massive scale! Now, do I go around daily trying to determine if someone is a Christian? Nah, it hardly ever comes up. But sometimes it does, such as the point of this thread, when the military judged that LDS are not Christian. So this thread is a good contextual time to discuss it. Yes, you are Christian, as are our LDS friends. By saying that, I don't have to spend much energy, nor do I have to judge the state of someone's soul (which is a big no-no according to Christ). I just think: they claim they are Christian and their beliefs fit within Christianity's big umbrella, so easy-peasy, they are Christian.

Let's look at this from the perspective of the Catholic Church. We consider you Christian in both larger definition (your belief in Christ) and sacramentally (your baptism was valid). Yet we would definitely continue to teach you. We would catechize you, form you, for a year or longer (some people take two or three years) until receiving you into the Church through confirmation and the Eucharist at Easter time. This is officially called the Order of Christian Initiation for Adults (OCIA, previously known as RCIA). So we don't differ from the LDS here. We sincerely look at you as Christian, yet would teach you, catechize you, form you, and then confirm you, and would be very happy that you joined the Catholic Church.

Putting these two posts together leads me to believe that your definition of a Christian is someone who: 1) Has a remission of sins through Christ, 2) Has the Gift of the Holy Spirit present with them all the time, 3) Has the promise of eternal and everlasting life. I see a couple of problems with this definition. First, if you asked me "is Navidad a Christian" and the criterion I have to use to answer that question are these three things, I would have to say "I don't know." How do I know if your sins have been forgiven, if you have the Holy Spirit, or if you will be heaven? Those are things that only God knows. This would be true of every single person. By this definition, I don't know if there is a single Christian on earth. That makes this definition of a Christian not very useful. Another problem is that a large number of non-LDS Christians would use these three criteria to deny LDS of being Christian. I think a more useful definition of Christian is someone who claims to be a Christian and their beliefs fall within the large and blurry-edged umbrella of Christianity. By that definition you, Navidad, are a Christian, and LDS are Christians, too.

I came across this subject in another news article on this subject. Douglas Wilson is the pastor to Hegseth and has preached in the pentagon. On his blog on April 28th he published this letter written to him: A clear appeal for Wilson to talk to Hegseth about it. Not labeling LDS as Christian would be a solution to this pastor's issue. Wilson didn't agree to do anything. His response was: Does anyone know what LDS chaplains wear on their uniform?

Do I need to report you to the Holy Office? You probably are more acquainted since you have spent much time among our LDS friends. The idea of a conditional baptism appeals to me, too.

I think it is the belief that God and humans are the same nature, same species so to speak, that there is no fundamental difference between creator and creature (I wanted to say createe, but it's always fun when we can call ourselves creatures). So, as far as I understand your beliefs, the idea that God is an exalted human.

I'd say it wouldn't be faith if there weren't things we don't quite understand or struggle with.