Jump to content

The Correct Catholic View: Mormons Are Heretical Christians.


David Waltz

Recommended Posts

Why Catholics should consider Mormons as heretical Christians, and not as non-Christians

St. Thomas (II-II:11:1) defines heresy: "a species of infidelity in men who, having professed the faith of Christ, corrupt its dogmas". "The right Christian faith consists in giving one's voluntary assent to Christ in all that truly belongs to His teaching. There are, therefore, two ways of deviating from Christianity: the one by refusing to believe in Christ Himself, which is the way of infidelity, common to Pagans and Jews; the other by restricting belief to certain points of Christâ??s doctrine selected and fashioned at pleasure, which is the way of heretics.

Heresy differs from apostasy. The apostate a fide abandons wholly the faith of Christ either by embracing Judaism, Islamism, Paganism, or simply by falling into naturalism and complete neglect of religion; the heretic always retains faith in Christ.

â?¦a thousand small sects have failed, whose names still encumber the pages of church history, but whose tenets interest only a few students, and whose adherents are nowhere. Such were, in the Apostolic Age, the Judeo-Christians, Judeo-Gnostics, Nicolaites, Docetae, Cerinthians, Ebionites, Nazarenes, followed, in the next two centuries, by a variety of Syrian and Alexandrian Gnostics, by Ophites, Marcionites, Encratites, Montanists, Manichaeans, and others. All the early Eastern sects fed on the fanciful speculations so dear to the Eastern mind, but, lacking the support of temporal power, they disappeared under the anathemas of the guardians of the depositum fidei.

Arianism is the first heresy that gained a strong footing in the Church and seriously endangered its very nature and existence. Arius appeared on the scene when theologians were endeavouring to harmonize the apparently contradictory doctrines of the unity of God and the Divinity of Christ. (The Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. VII, pp. 256, 257.)

IMHO, the The Catholic Encyclopedia is quite clear on this matter; I cannot fathom how any Catholic, after reading the above, can continue to maintain that Mormons are something other than heretical Christians.

Grace and peace,

David

Link to comment

In Jesus' time, he was essentially called a radical. In other words, what he was teaching was vastly different from the conventional wisdom.

Mormonism and conventional wisdom of today are very different. And Mormonism is quite different from other religions. So I can see how Mormons could be called heretics, as long as it's not a pejorative.

T-Bone

Link to comment

Hi T-Bone,

You posted:

>>â?¦ as long as it's not a pejorative.>>

I assure you, from my perspective it is not; it is a descriptive term, a term to describe Christians who do not embrace the fullness of Catholic dogma.

I started this thread in an effort to help enlighten my fellow Catholic brothers and sisters who refuse to treat to Mormons as Christians.

Grace and peace,

David

P.S. On the flip-side, I would fully expect Mormons to use the term â??hereticalâ? Christians to describe Catholics, understanding it as a descriptive term.

Link to comment

P.S. On the flip-side, I would fully expect Mormons to use the term â??hereticalâ? Christians to describe Catholics, understanding it as a descriptive term.

I would never do such a thing because I was taught to be Christ-centered. And any lds that does do so...well...my humble face <_< ....would become..... :P <<<no way would I have my catholic brothers and sisters on this board referred to as heretics. :unsure:

Link to comment
Why Catholics should consider Mormons as heretical Christians, and not as non-Christians

Should not be offensive to LDS. Afterall, Bible doctrine and logic tells us that there can only be one God-authorized Church and of course LDS doctrine is that there is only one. Thus our beliefs are similar in this case.

Link to comment

Hi T-Bone,

You posted:

>>â?¦ as long as it's not a pejorative.>>

I assure you, from my perspective it is not; it is a descriptive term, a term to describe Christians who do not embrace the fullness of Catholic dogma.

I started this thread in an effort to help enlighten my fellow Catholic brothers and sisters who refuse to treat to Mormons as Christians.

Grace and peace,

David

P.S. On the flip-side, I would fully expect Mormons to use the term â??hereticalâ? Christians to describe Catholics, understanding it as a descriptive term.

You are setting yourself in opposition to Church teaching. One has to first be Christian in order to be a heterical Christian. I've already said this like 10 times now....The Catholic Church does NOT consider LDS baptisms to be valid, period. The Catholic Church requires valid baptism for one to be Christian. The catechism has been quoted to back up these positions.

You are running around trying to find whatever you can to shore up your opposition to what the Church says, why?

SV

Link to comment

P.S. On the flip-side, I would fully expect Mormons to use the term â??hereticalâ? Christians to describe Catholics, understanding it as a descriptive term.

No, I don't call them "heretical", I call them apostate, understanding it as a descriptive term... of course.

:P

-SlackTime

Link to comment
I would never do such a thing because I was taught to be Christ-centered.

A Christ-centered Church would not hesitate to identify what is heretical and in fact we can see that the LDS Church is Christ-centered in this regard...church of the devil, abominable doctrines, universal apostasy, etc.

Link to comment

You are setting yourself in opposition to Church teaching. One has to first be Christian in order to be a heterical Christian. I've already said this like 10 times now....The Catholic Church does NOT consider LDS baptisms to be valid, period. The Catholic Church requires valid baptism for one to be Christian. The catechism has been quoted to back up these positions.

You are running around trying to find whatever you can to shore up your opposition to what the Church says, why?

SV

You see veronica, the problem starts when a catholic and a lds marry. Both believe in Christ and consider themselves and each other christian. No problem develops because the name of Christ unites them. Suddenly out of the blue, the catholic discovers that the Mormon spouse is not a christian. And yet, both pray together and perhaps pray the rosary together, and perhaps go to catholic and mormon events together where christ is mentioned quite often. How to reconcile this? What should such a couple think? Should the catholic spouse take the catholic position and consider the partner not christian? Or should they divorce because suddenly the catholic definition interferes in the marriage?

And yet, both put Christ at the center of family life and attempted to honor the faith of the other...your position is so anti such family. It is sad veronica and maybe the catholic church needs to rethink its position since as you can see here on these boards, there are catholics married to mormons. And I am sure that they never thought the mormon spouse 'not christian'.

A Christ-centered Church would not hesitate to identify what is heretical and in fact we can see that the LDS Church is Christ-centered in this regard...church of the devil, abominable doctrines, universal apostasy, etc.

But catholics are still christian! :P

Link to comment

Dear Veronica,

You posted:

>>You are setting yourself in opposition to Church teaching.>>

Me: No I am not; I oppose your private interpretation of Church teaching.

>>One has to first be Christian in order to be a heterical[sic] Christian.>>

Me: This shows your ignorance (descriptive, not pejorative) of the early sects mentioned in The Catholic Encyclopedia, many of which were NEVER part of the Catholic Church.

>>I've already said this like 10 times now....The Catholic Church does NOT consider LDS baptisms to be valid, period.>>

Me: And I have said the CCC is referring to sacramental baptism only.

>>The Catholic Church requires valid baptism for one to be Christian. The catechism has been quoted to back up these positions.>>

Me: And I have quoted the CCC it terms of â??Baptism of Desireâ?.

>>You are running around trying to find whatever you can to shore up your opposition to what the Church says, why?>>

Me: If quoting St. Thomas and The Catholic Encyclopedia is â??running aroundâ?, then so be it. I humbly submit that I must give such sources considerably more credence than the private opinions of a fellow Catholic.

As to the whyâ?¦I think you are wrong in your interpretations, and feel an obligation to present the reasons why I believe this to be so.

Grace and peace,

David

Link to comment

Dear Veronica,

You posted:

>>You are setting yourself in opposition to Church teaching.>>

Me: No I am not; I oppose your private interpretation of Church teaching.

>>One has to first be Christian in order to be a heterical[sic] Christian.>>

Me: This shows your ignorance (descriptive, not pejorative) of the early sects mentioned in The Catholic Encyclopedia, many of which were NEVER part of the Catholic Church.

>>I've already said this like 10 times now....The Catholic Church does NOT consider LDS baptisms to be valid, period.>>

Me: And I have said the CCC is referring to sacramental baptism only.

>>The Catholic Church requires valid baptism for one to be Christian. The catechism has been quoted to back up these positions.>>

Me: And I have quoted the CCC it terms of â??Baptism of Desireâ?.

>>You are running around trying to find whatever you can to shore up your opposition to what the Church says, why?>>

Me: If quoting St. Thomas and The Catholic Encyclopedia is â??running aroundâ?, then so be it. I humbly submit that I must give such sources considerably more credence than the private opinions of a fellow Catholic.

As to the whyâ?¦I think you are wrong in your interpretations, and feel an obligation to present the reasons why I believe this to be so.

Grace and peace,

David

David, you still haven't answered how you reconcile this from the Catechism in YOUR interpretation:

"1271 Baptism constitutes the foundation of communion among all Christians, including those who are not yet in full communion with the Catholic Church: "For men who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in some, though imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church. Justified by faith in Baptism, [they] are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers by the children of the Catholic Church." "Baptism therefore constitutes the sacramental bond of unity existing among all who through it are reborn."

This EXPLICITY addresses who are to be called Christians. I agree that one cannot be a "heretical Christian" if they were never a Christian to begin with. :P

Link to comment

Dear Veronica,

You posted:

>>You are setting yourself in opposition to Church teaching.>>

Me: No I am not; I oppose your private interpretation of Church teaching.

>>One has to first be Christian in order to be a heterical[sic] Christian.>>

Me: This shows your ignorance (descriptive, not pejorative) of the early sects mentioned in The Catholic Encyclopedia, many of which were NEVER part of the Catholic Church.

>>I've already said this like 10 times now....The Catholic Church does NOT consider LDS baptisms to be valid, period.>>

Me: And I have said the CCC is referring to sacramental baptism only.

>>The Catholic Church requires valid baptism for one to be Christian. The catechism has been quoted to back up these positions.>>

Me: And I have quoted the CCC it terms of â??Baptism of Desireâ?.

>>You are running around trying to find whatever you can to shore up your opposition to what the Church says, why?>>

Me: If quoting St. Thomas and The Catholic Encyclopedia is â??running aroundâ?, then so be it. I humbly submit that I must give such sources considerably more credence than the private opinions of a fellow Catholic.

As to the whyâ?¦I think you are wrong in your interpretations, and feel an obligation to present the reasons why I believe this to be so.

Grace and peace,

David

I am giving no private interpertation....I am using the catechism. I'm not changing what it says...it's right there, no need to try and figure out what it says, it's clear.

You say Sacramental Baptism? What are you referring to? Baptism is a Sacrament yes...so what are you getting at? If you think the CC is refering to this 'Sacramental Baptism' you are talking about, prove it.

I already pointed out to you elsewhere that you are totally misunderstanding Baptism of Desire, I explained why in detail. Why don't you address that post?

Your comments from an Encyclopedia are NOT anything more than your own private opinion using someone else's mouth. The Encyclopedia is NOT speaking for the Church. For you to imply it does is misleading to everyone here.

SV

Link to comment

David, you still haven't answered how you reconcile this from the Catechism in YOUR interpretation:

This EXPLICITY addresses who are to be called Christians. I agree that one cannot be a "heretical Christian" if they were never a Christian to begin with. :P

And catholic girl, what do you call a protestant who doesn't think catholics are christian? Have you read Scott Hahn's book: Rome, Sweet Home, where he was anticatholic and did not consider catholics christian until his conversion?

Link to comment

You see veronica, the problem starts when a catholic and a lds marry. Both believe in Christ and consider themselves and each other christian. No problem develops because the name of Christ unites them. Suddenly out of the blue, the catholic discovers that the Mormon spouse is not a christian. And yet, both pray together and perhaps pray the rosary together, and perhaps go to catholic and mormon events together where christ is mentioned quite often. How to reconcile this? What should such a couple think? Should the catholic spouse take the catholic position and consider the partner not christian? Or should they divorce because suddenly the catholic definition interferes in the marriage?

And yet, both put Christ at the center of family life and attempted to honor the faith of the other...your position is so anti such family. It is sad veronica and maybe the catholic church needs to rethink its position since as you can see here on these boards, there are catholics married to mormons. And I am sure that they never thought the mormon spouse 'not christian'.

But catholics are still christian! :P

Well ideally one should not marry outside their faith, however it does happen and unfortunately this can cause problems down the road.

What should a couple think when one discovers the person they are married to is not Christian? In some marriages one of the spouses becomes apostate...it's the same principal. The Bible addresses this in the N.T.

You have to stop thinking of the CC in LDS terms, our Church does not operate that way. We don't have prophets who can come along and reverse former prophets about this that and the other. The Church cannot re-think this position. Just like the Church cannot re-think other issues like birth control, abortion etc etc just because it's not popular or causes difficulties in someone's marriage. The Church is not a democracy.

SV

Link to comment

Dear Catholic Girl,

You wrote:

>>David, you still haven't answered how you reconcile this from the Catechism in YOUR interpretationâ?¦This EXPLICITY addresses who are to be called Christians. I agree that one cannot be a "heretical Christian" if they were never a Christian to begin with.>>

I do not know how to be any clearer CG, the section from the CCC you (and others) keep quoting is dealing with a narrow/specific nuance concerning the doctrine of baptismâ??namely sacramental baptism only. That section says nothing about individuals who believe on Jesus Christ, trust in His atonement, and try to follow His teachings, but have accepted an invalid form of sacramental baptism. If you think that the Baptism of Desire does not come into play with such individuals, well, IMHO, you are dead wrong.

As for your belief â??that one cannot be a "heretical Christian" if they were never a Christian to begin withâ?, such belief is contrary to what we find in The Catholic Encyclopedia.

Quite honestly, I am at a loss as to why you (and others) persist in rejecting the information I have provided on this subjectâ??it seems so clear to meâ?¦

Grace and peace,

David

Link to comment

And catholic girl, what do you call a protestant who doesn't think catholics are christian? Have you read Scott Hahn's book: Rome, Sweet Home, where he was anticatholic and did not consider catholics christian until his conversion?

I've read it. What should we call protestants who think Catholics are not Christian? Nothing. They are entitled to their own beliefs even if they are in error. We pray and are called to evangelize them.

SV

Link to comment

What should a couple think when one discovers the person they are married to is not Christian? In some marriages one of the spouses becomes apostate...it's the same principal. The Bible addresses this in the N.T.

"Some marriages" is definitely an important signifier here.

My mother is Christian and my father is Sikh. They have been married for 48 years and my mother is still Christian as am I. My father is monotheistic, belives in god and prophets and in his case that Jesus was a prophet like others.

My brother practices various religions and does not classify himself as strictly Christian, my sister in law is Lutheran. They have been married for 24 year.

Alot of it also boils down to respect and support for the belief system of the other person regardless of ones own beliefs.

In the end, this had made me a more tolerant person in regards to the variety of religions.

Link to comment

Dear Catholic Girl,

You wrote:

>>David, you still haven't answered how you reconcile this from the Catechism in YOUR interpretationâ?¦This EXPLICITY addresses who are to be called Christians. I agree that one cannot be a "heretical Christian" if they were never a Christian to begin with.>>

I do not know how to be any clearer CG, the section from the CCC you (and others) keep quoting is dealing with a narrow/specific nuance concerning the doctrine of baptismâ??namely sacramental baptism only. That section says nothing about individuals who believe on Jesus Christ, trust in His atonement, and try to follow His teachings, but have accepted an invalid form of sacramental baptism. If you think that the Baptism of Desire does not come into play with such individuals, well, IMHO, you are dead wrong.

As for your belief â??that one cannot be a "heretical Christian" if they were never a Christian to begin withâ?, such belief is contrary to what we find in The Catholic Encyclopedia.

Quite honestly, I am at a loss as to why you (and others) persist in rejecting the information I have provided on this subjectâ??it seems so clear to meâ?¦

Grace and peace,

David

Go read up on baptism of desire. You are misunderstanding what it is if you are trying to use it as a catchall for those lacking valid baptism.

I reject the info you provide because you are misusing it to try and make it fit into a round hole when it's a square peg.

SV

Link to comment

Dear V,

You posted:

>>I already pointed out to you elsewhere that you are totally misunderstanding Baptism of Desire, I explained why in detail. Why don't you address that post?>>

Totally is such an excessive word IMHOâ?¦BTW, I did respond to your post on this matter.

Grace and peace,

David

Link to comment

Hi T-Bone,

You posted:

>>â?¦ as long as it's not a pejorative.>>

I assure you, from my perspective it is not; it is a descriptive term, a term to describe Christians who do not embrace the fullness of Catholic dogma.

I started this thread in an effort to help enlighten my fellow Catholic brothers and sisters who refuse to treat to Mormons as Christians.

Grace and peace,

David

P.S. On the flip-side, I would fully expect Mormons to use the term â??hereticalâ? Christians to describe Catholics, understanding it as a descriptive term.

Finally someone with a modicum of intelligence! Thank you David. <_<

This is the funniest thing I've seen here in a long time. We have an intelligent member of the Catholic Church (David) who is being attacked by fellow Catholics for views that Members of the LDS Church are Christians.

Holey Moley.

David it is good intelligent people can agree to disagree and discouraging that stupid people are well just stupid :P

Link to comment

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...