Infant baptism

[mfbukowski]

As is mentioned in one of the articles I linked to, I think that the Catholic Church's function of what we would call "ongoing revelation" is filled by the following mechanism:

But the document goes beyond strictly theological opinions. It repeatedly refers to the "sensus fidelium" -- the sense of the faithful -- to illustrate how Christians increasingly reject the idea that the vision of God would be denied to innocent babies.

One reason the Second Vatican Council rejected attempts to strengthen teaching against the salvation of unbaptized infants was that bishops felt it was "not the faith of their people," the document said.

It referred to an important teaching of Vatican II, which said that the whole body of the faithful shares in Christ's prophetic office and "cannot err in matters of belief."

To support its conclusions on limbo, the theological commission's document also cited the need for the church to read the "signs of the times" in order to better understand the Gospel.

http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0702310.htm

My underlining.

This is a very interesting doctrine from the LDS point of view, needless to say.

[SearchDog]

Do you mean if the Catholic Church claims to have received "modern" revelation on other matters? What I mean by "there was no revelation on it" is related to the Catholic Church's view on "public revelation". Catholicism teaches that all public revelation ceased with the death of the last apostle (noting also that Catholicism teaches that private revelation (perhaps equivalent to LDS "personal revelation") continues). So, Catholics believe that the entirety of public revelation was given anciently. Within that public revelation, the Catholic Church is saying that there is nothing in Sacred Tradition or Sacred Scripture that says what happens to unbaptized infants. There will never be a new revelation stating definitively what happens to them, since such revelations ended anciently according to Catholicism.

The conclusion of the article I've mentioned that there is "hope" for the salvation of infants is based on what has been revealed, excluding an explicit scripture verse or something in Tradition that states "infants do not need to be baptized because they would be saved if they die". This is hope, and not sure knowledge (as the LDS Church would claim that it has on this issue).

Okay, that's what I thought; the Catholic church will not receive additional scripture.

It sounds like anyone can receive personal revelation. Are there limits or restrictions, requirements or parameters for receiving personal revelations? Have Popes or priests claimed personal revelation?

[ChristKnight]

Okay, that's what I thought; the Catholic church will not receive additional scripture.

It sounds like anyone can receive personal revelation. Are there limits or restrictions, requirements or parameters for receiving personal revelations? Have Popes or priests claimed personal revelation?

Yes, Popes and priests have claimed private revelations. The only requirement that I am aware of if that a private revelation cannot contradict the doctrines of the Catholic Church (if it does, then the person may have to wonder what the source of that revelation was). Some private revelations have received approval from the Catholic Church (such as the Marian apparitions), which means that these were authentic revelations that other Catholics can also believe, though they are not required to.

[mfbukowski]

Yes, Popes and priests have claimed private revelations. The only requirement that I am aware of if that a private revelation cannot contradict the doctrines of the Catholic Church (if it does, then the person may have to wonder what the source of that revelation was). Some private revelations have received approval from the Catholic Church (such as the Marian apparitions), which means that these were authentic revelations that other Catholics can also believe, though they are not required to.

And as far as the "addition" of new doctrine- like say the Immaculate Conception, it is seen as a "development" of earlier beliefs being codified at last- is that about right?

So the EFFECT of what we would call "ongoing revelation" represented by dynamic growth of truth over time- in a sense as Cardinal Newman would have seen it-- is still there-- it is just seen differently, right? So between developmental growth and "sensus fidelium" (the idea described above where the "whole body of the faithful shares in Christ's prophetic office and cannot err in matters of belief", one would imagine that actually quite a lot of "doctrinal drift" would be possible. (?)

Though of course it may not look that way to "chapel Catholics".

What if the "sensus fidelium" at some time in the future condones contraception? (I think abortion would be an unthinkable option)

Pragmatically here I see very little difference between the Catholic position and ours- that doctrines can in fact change over time, though the changes are seen through very different lenses

[ChristKnight]

And as far as the "addition" of new doctrine- like say the Immaculate Conception, it is seen as a "development" of earlier beliefs being codified at last- is that about right?

Yes. Catholics would say that although the Immaculate Conception, for example, was defined as dogma more recently, it can be found, implicitly, anciently. Since Catholics believe that all public revelation ended anciently, there can't be totally new doctrines, so the definition of doctrines in modern times is seen as making explicit ancient beliefs, and/or formally defining beliefs when they are challenged by others.

The interesting thing about this to me is that the Eastern Orthodox are pretty much as old as the Catholic Church, and yet they do not have some of these doctrines that would be considered as coming from "Sacred Tradition" (such as the Immaculate Conception, Indulgences, etc.). Which brings me to my own personal view on the matter, which I think you were saying: I think that Papal Infallibility, the "solemn" defining of doctrines, can be seen as similar to the LDS "ongoing revelation". Catholics will of course say that this isn't possible, because all public revelation ended, however I think it is clear that this definition is seen as some sort of Holy Spirit-inspired process.

So the EFFECT of what we would call "ongoing revelation" represented by dynamic growth of truth over time- in a sense as Cardinal Newman would have seen it-- is still there-- it is just seen differently, right? So between developmental growth and "sensus fidelium" (the idea described above where the "whole body of the faithful shares in Christ's prophetic office and cannot err in matters of belief", one would imagine that actually quite a lot of "doctrinal drift" would be possible. (?)

I think that Catholics would say that doctrines would never change, however they can be more fully understood. Perhaps this is the same as what LDS believe. Over on CAF, for example, a number of posters claim that LDS doctrines have been changed or reversed. I wonder if LDS could say that such things that were "changed" were not really doctrines (dogmas?), but policies/practices, in the sense that Catholicism has a similar demarcation of teachings.

Though of course it may not look that way to "chapel Catholics".

What if the "sensus fidelium" at some time in the future condones contraception? (I think abortion would be an unthinkable option)

I'm not too familiar with the status of contraception teachings as being dogma, practices, etc. I think that it is safe to say that the Catholic Church would never support abortifacent contraception. Perhaps if anything, it could follow the Orthodox Church in allowing certain types (though Catholic apologists criticize the Orthodox Church for this). I don't see this as changing any time soon of course.

Pragmatically here I see very little difference between the Catholic position and ours- that doctrines can in fact change over time, though the changes are seen through very different lenses

Right, and I would say that perhaps they aren't really doctrinal changes (as in...reversals) but an evolution in understanding.

[3DOP]

deleted...

There wasn't anything of value anyway or nasty either.

[mfbukowski]

I think that Catholics would say that doctrines would never change, however they can be more fully understood. Perhaps this is the same as what LDS believe. Over on CAF, for example, a number of posters claim that LDS doctrines have been changed or reversed. I wonder if LDS could say that such things that were "changed" were not really doctrines (dogmas?), but policies/practices, in the sense that Catholicism has a similar demarcation of teachings.

Yes, I think we would say that in most circumstances, which I find odd because we do believe in on-going revelation; but we are very reluctant to say "Nope- the doctrine changed because God wanted it that way".

Actually I am not sure why we would be reluctant to say that. Sometimes perhaps we want too badly to be like the "creedal Christians".

I could never get away with saying any of this stuff on CAF, and I wonder how well that last comment will be received here!

[SearchDog]

Yes, Popes and priests have claimed private revelations. The only requirement that I am aware of if that a private revelation cannot contradict the doctrines of the Catholic Church (if it does, then the person may have to wonder what the source of that revelation was). Some private revelations have received approval from the Catholic Church (such as the Marian apparitions), which means that these were authentic revelations that other Catholics can also believe, though they are not required to.

The requirement I was thinking of was something comparable to receiving the gift of the Holy Ghost by the laying on of hands. The LDS teach that this is a required ordinance for the receipt of personal revelation. The laying on of hands takes place soon after a water baptism unto repentance. It doesn't sound like private revelation as understood in the Catholic church is linked to an ordinance (or as the RCC calls them, a sacrament).

Is that a correct evaluation on my part?

[ChristKnight]

The requirement I was thinking of was something comparable to receiving the gift of the Holy Ghost by the laying on of hands. The LDS teach that this is a required ordinance for the receipt of personal revelation. The laying on of hands takes place soon after a water baptism unto repentance. It doesn't sound like private revelation as understood in the Catholic church is linked to an ordinance (or as the RCC calls them, a sacrament).

Is that a correct evaluation on my part?

Yes, this is good. While the concept of "private revelation" is very much part of Catholic teaching, I personally don't see it as being as much discussed or...encouraged as "personal revelation" in the LDS Church. However, specific private revelations, especially the Marian apparitions, are widely known and believed in.

[mfbukowski]

The requirement I was thinking of was something comparable to receiving the gift of the Holy Ghost by the laying on of hands. The LDS teach that this is a required ordinance for the receipt of personal revelation.

Perhaps this has already been corrected- but the above statement is not a correct statement of LDS doctrine.

One cannot become a member of the church without a personal revelation that the church is true- so clearly receiving personal revelation cannot be conditioned on receiving an ordinance. The church teaching is that with the "gift of the Holy Ghost" one would have the privilege of constant communication with the HG as opposed to "only" an occasional revelation as needed. The difference is a subtle one in practice, however because one might argue that non-members can receive revelation when necessary anyway.

[SearchDog]

Perhaps this has already been corrected- but the above statement is not a correct statement of LDS doctrine.

One cannot become a member of the church without a personal revelation that the church is true- so clearly receiving personal revelation cannot be conditioned on receiving an ordinance. The church teaching is that with the "gift of the Holy Ghost" one would have the privilege of constant communication with the HG as opposed to "only" an occasional revelation as needed. The difference is a subtle one in practice, however because one might argue that non-members can receive revelation when necessary anyway.

Yes, many (including myself) were touched by the Holy Ghost as witness to the truth of the LDS Church before they entered into the covenant of baptism and became a member with the laying on of hands.

And yes, the gift of the Holy Ghost is the promise/privilege of His constant communication/availability (based on worthiness of the individual).

And the Holy Ghost does operate on an individual level outside of the LDS Church membership.

But I do not agree with your statement: "One cannot become a member of the church without a personal revelation that the church is true". The only requirement is that you confess that the church is true. A personal revelation is not required and we do not have a test for it.

I do thank you for clarifying my comments. I was trying to make the distinction that revelation in the LDS church is tied to the gift of the Holy Ghost by the laying on of hands by those with the proper priesthood authority. Whereas, the Catholic church does not make that link.

We also have the 5th Article of Faith which states: "We believe that a man must be called of God, by prophecy, and by the laying on of hands by those who are in authority, to preach the Gospel and administer in the ordinances thereof."

Again, the laying on of hands by priesthood authority is required before a man can teach and administer the Gospel.