Pahoran Posted February 7, 2012 Posted February 7, 2012 Please do realize that ALL of my father's side of the family IS LDS. So I avoid giving the information out. In good conscience, I would tell any Catholic the guidelines of our Bishops.Wait a minute: your conscience tells you to conceal information about their own relatives from them?How very extraordinary!I realize the quidelines and simply question at how well that really is enforced in what is a total honor system.Actually -- you're right. It isn't enforced; as indeed it cannot be. It is simply taught. However, it is at all times a labour of love, and the notion that it could be done maliciously is actually incoherent.Regards,Pahoran
blueadept Posted February 7, 2012 Posted February 7, 2012 Actually -- you're right. It isn't enforced; as indeed it cannot be. It is simply taught. However, it is at all times a labour of love, and the notion that it could be done maliciously is actually incoherent.Regards,PahoranI would love to give you the benefit of doubt on the issue, but news stories of famous individuals (Obama's grandmother, JPII, etc) about their proxy baptisms doesn't help.
Scott Lloyd Posted February 7, 2012 Posted February 7, 2012 I'm not aware of anyone who raises personal prayer to the level of an ordinace (sacrament); therefore, I believe you are comparing apples and oranges. Catholics do not perform sacraments for the dead. Once the body is cold, we don't even perform last rites.But, if I understand correctly, Catholics do not recognize the validity of any ordinance performed by the LDS Church. With that in view, a Mormon ritual — call it what you will: ordinance, sacrament, prayer — done in good faith, performed in private and without any intention of disrespect or ill will cannot logically be viewed as harmful to the Catholic Church or any of its members, living or dead.
Scott Lloyd Posted February 7, 2012 Posted February 7, 2012 I would love to give you the benefit of doubt on the issue, but news stories of famous individuals (Obama's grandmother, JPII, etc) about their proxy baptisms doesn't help.Pardon, but Pahoran said, "The notion that it could be done maliciously is actually incoherent." What about the above examples compels the conclusion that the intent was malicious?
Jeff K. Posted February 7, 2012 Posted February 7, 2012 If one does baptisms for the dead of those who have died, merely because they are famous, well, that bothers me, it trivializes a very important ordinance. However if a family member or descendent does it (no family member has exclusive right to determine what the deceased wish in the next life), then given in sincerity that is how it should be accepted. I like the policy of family lines being done, versus the focus on the famous.
blueadept Posted February 7, 2012 Posted February 7, 2012 But, if I understand correctly, Catholics do not recognize the validity of any ordinance performed by the LDS Church. With that in view, a Mormon ritual — call it what you will: ordinance, sacrament, prayer — done in good faith, performed in private and without any intention of disrespect or ill will cannot logically be viewed as harmful to the Catholic Church or any of its members, living or dead. While the RCC wouldn't recognize any ordinances (sacraments) performed by your church, it does recognize baptisms of other faiths (not yours) and marriages in other faiths (including yours). I'm not aware that it doesn't recognize personal prayers no matter who is doing the praying since ALL prayer goes to HF no matter what.So I believe this issue ENDS in regards to the ordinances (baptism, Eucharist, confirmation, Holy Orders, Reconciliation, and Annointing of the Sick) with the exception of Matrimony since the covenant is made between the husband, wife and HF even in a LDS Temple ceremony in the eyes of the RCC.You still haven't convinced me that prayer reaches the level of a Sacrament (Ordinance) so I see no reason it wouldn't be recognized by the RCC.
Scott Lloyd Posted February 7, 2012 Posted February 7, 2012 You still haven't convinced me that prayer reaches the level of a Sacrament (Ordinance) so I see no reason it wouldn't be recognized by the RCC.I'm not trying to convince you of that. I'm only saying that any harmless religious act done in good faith with no intention to offend ought not be viewed as offensive.
blueadept Posted February 7, 2012 Posted February 7, 2012 I'm not trying to convince you of that. I'm only saying that any harmless religious act done in good faith with no intention to offend ought not be viewed as offensive. Why not simply recognize covenants that already were made? Or does that not matter?
Scott Lloyd Posted February 7, 2012 Posted February 7, 2012 If one does baptisms for the dead of those who have died, merely because they are famous, well, that bothers me, it trivializes a very important ordinance. It bothers me too, and it is forbidden by the Church. My understanding is that Church member who does it in defiance of Church policy could be subject to Church discipline.But I still don't see any justification for people on the outside automatically viewing it as being done maliciously.
Pahoran Posted February 7, 2012 Posted February 7, 2012 I would love to give you the benefit of doubt on the issue, but news stories of famous individuals (Obama's grandmother, JPII, etc) about their proxy baptisms doesn't help.Three points on that:Obama's mother (not grandmother) actually had LDS ancestors, so she may well have had living LDS relatives somewhere. In fact, it may even be the case that her work was done without the submitter knowing who her son was.Unfortunately, some people have submitted the names of famous people they liked and admired, rather than just their own relatives. The Church discourages this, but does not police it. I assure you that there is not, and cannot be, any malicious intent thereby. Nobody thought "Ha! Now that you're dead, we're going to get you!" A lot of Latter-day Saints admired John Paul II when he was alive. I personally like his immediate predecessor better myself, but I won't be submitting the name of Albino Luciani any time soon.The one possible source of malicious submissions is when agitators "salt the mine" by submitting names which they then, triumphantly and with great fanfare, "discover" for the benefit of newspapers. In such cases, the malice is not directed against the deceased, who are merely pawns in the game, but against the Church.Regards,Pahoran
blueadept Posted February 7, 2012 Posted February 7, 2012 (edited) If one does baptisms for the dead of those who have died, merely because they are famous, well, that bothers me, it trivializes a very important ordinance. However if a family member or descendent does it (no family member has exclusive right to determine what the deceased wish in the next life), then given in sincerity that is how it should be accepted. I like the policy of family lines being done, versus the focus on the famous.I'm in total agreement. Edited February 7, 2012 by blueadept
Jeff K. Posted February 7, 2012 Posted February 7, 2012 It bothers me too, and it is forbidden by the Church. My understanding is that Church member who does it in defiance of Church policy could be subject to Church discipline.But I still don't see any justification for people on the outside automatically viewing it as being done maliciously.I agree.
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted February 7, 2012 Posted February 7, 2012 I would love to give you the benefit of doubt on the issue, but news stories of famous individuals (Obama's grandmother, JPII, etc) about their proxy baptisms doesn't help.Wait a sec, I am confused. So the fact that Obama's Grandmother had the ordinance of baptism for the dead done for her after she died that shows how uncaring and malicious Mormons really are. Something here is not adding up.
Scott Lloyd Posted February 7, 2012 Posted February 7, 2012 (edited) Why not simply recognize covenants that already were made? Or does that not matter?Like the Catholic Church, the LDS Church teaches that an ordinance needs to be performed by one having proper authority.But I do not view as offensive a ritual performed by another church, though I might perceive it as invalid. Apparently you and I differ therein. Edited February 7, 2012 by Scott Lloyd 1
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted February 7, 2012 Posted February 7, 2012 Why not simply recognize covenants that already were made? Or does that not matter?It really does not matter. What I find interesting are those that are trying to find offense when none is intended. I just don't see this as an issue at all. If another religion had something similar to proxy baptism I really could care less. Why do you think this is a big deal?
blueadept Posted February 7, 2012 Posted February 7, 2012 (edited) . Why do you think this is a big deal?For myself, it's because you appear to not recognize covenants that the individual had already made with HF........even though that isn't your intention. I'm not aware of other Christian faiths that feel the need to perform ordinances for the dead as LDS seem to.There is a difference between 'praying for the dead' and performing the 'Ordinance of a proxy baptism'Honestly, do what you wish and I promise not to cooperate......let's move on.Honestly, I'm not surprised I'm in the predicament of honoring a marriage I don't foresee the chance of reconcilliation......bummers. Edited February 7, 2012 by blueadept
Scott Lloyd Posted February 7, 2012 Posted February 7, 2012 For myself, it's because you appear to not recognize covenants that the individual had already made with HF........even though that isn't your intention. I'm not aware of other Christian faiths that feel the need to perform ordinances for the dead as LDS seem to.Do you, or does the Catholic Church in general, recognize covenants and ordinances that are performed by LDS authority? If not, should we view that refusal as offensive? Why or why not?
blueadept Posted February 7, 2012 Posted February 7, 2012 Do you, or does the Catholic Church in general, recognize covenants and ordinances that are performed by LDS authority? If not, should we view that refusal as offensive? Why or why not? The point is that WE DO recognize covenants and ordinances of other faiths while the LDS church recognizes NO ONE elses. Both parties will do what it wishes and don't foresee any ecumenical chances on this issue since we are both leaning on having 'proper priesthood authority.' Maybe I'm missing something....Should this be an Ecumenical Issue???? I believe this IS part of us not understanding one another.Good intentions or not, I see no point in further comment about being offended since I know other Catholic who are not offended. A burden I carry since half my family is LDS and the other half is Catholic. My father thankfully converted.
KevinG Posted February 7, 2012 Posted February 7, 2012 I could smoke a fine cigar and take a stiff shot of Irish whiskey in honor of all those years you didn't? I wonder if I would be sinning if I allowed you to enjoy a cigar and a stiff shot in proxy for me?
Pahoran Posted February 7, 2012 Posted February 7, 2012 Then when completed, I could smoke a fine cigar and take a stiff shot of Irish whiskey in honor of all those years you didn't?That reminds me of a story.Paddy and Michael were two drinking buddies. When the war came, they joined up together. Paddy was shot and died in Michael's arms. Just before he died, he said, "Mickey, when you get home, make sure you have a drink for me, for old time's sake."The war ended. Michael went home, and every year on the anniversary of Paddy's death, he would go to the pub and order two pints of Guinness. If anyone asked why, he would say, "This one's for me, and that one's for me good pal Paddy, who died in the war." Then he would drink them both and go home.One day, on the sad anniversary, Michael went to the pub as usual. But this time, he ordered one pint of Guinness and a large glass of lemonade. The bartender, puzzled, said "what's this for, Mickey?""Well, t'Guinness is for me good pal Paddy, who died in the war," he said."But t'lemonade's for me. You see, I'm a Mormon now, so I don't drink."Regards,Pahoran 2
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted February 7, 2012 Posted February 7, 2012 For myself, it's because you appear to not recognize covenants that the individual had already made with HF........even though that isn't your intention. I'm not aware of other Christian faiths that feel the need to perform ordinances for the dead as LDS seem to.There is a difference between 'praying for the dead' and performing the 'Ordinance of a proxy baptism'Honestly, do what you wish and I promise not to cooperate......let's move on.Honestly, I'm not surprised I'm in the predicament of honoring a marriage I don't foresee the chance of reconcilliation......bummers.I guess we will just have to agree to disagree on this one.
Scott Lloyd Posted February 7, 2012 Posted February 7, 2012 The point is that WE DO recognize covenants and ordinances of other faiths while the LDS church recognizes NO ONE elses.Pardon, but that does not answer the question, which was this: "Do you, or does the Catholic Church in general, recognize covenants and ordinances that are performed by LDS authority? If not, should we view that refusal as offensive? Why or why not?"Both parties will do what it wishes and don't foresee any ecumenical chances on this issue since we are both leaning on having 'proper priesthood authority.' Maybe I'm missing something....Should this be an Ecumenical Issue???? I believe this IS part of us not understanding one another.I see it as an issue tolerance, not ecumenicism.
Calm Posted February 7, 2012 Posted February 7, 2012 To not share information I suspect will be used to do LDS Temple work.I assume the reasoning is much like some of those who choose not to pray with those they don't believe are Christians in that they are concerned with giving the impression that it is okay to believe in false doctrines. Instead, by refusing they can teach that such actions or beliefs lead one away from God, not to Him.
blueadept Posted February 7, 2012 Posted February 7, 2012 Pardon, but that does not answer the question, which was this: "Do you, or does the Catholic Church in general, recognize covenants and ordinances that are performed by LDS authority? If not, should we view that refusal as offensive? Why or why not?"I see it as an issue tolerance, not ecumenicism. I recognize that you believe we shouldn't take offense.We agree to disagree.
KevinG Posted February 7, 2012 Posted February 7, 2012 (edited) Q: "Do you, or does the Catholic Church in general, recognize covenants and ordinances that are performed by LDS authority? If not, should we view that refusal as offensive? Why or why not?"A: I recognize that you believe we shouldn't take offense.Huh? I don't think you answered the question.Let me break this down:I. "Do you, or does the Catholic Church in general, recognize covenants and ordinances that are performed by LDS authority?(yes) (no) - if no answer part IIII. If not, should we view RCC refusal to recognize LDS covenants as offensive?(yes) - if yes why?(no) - if no why? Edited February 7, 2012 by DaddyG
Recommended Posts