Catholic Question

[savedbygrace]

Hello everyone, I just read through a thread about how to deal with the catholic question or words to that effect. I Know the topic was locked, but would like to say that the generosity shown in the posts was heartening, and a lesson to yours truly, who has been les than generous in the past, for which I apologise and thank you.

[cursor]

That was "grace"fully said. Thumbs up to you.

[why me]

Hello everyone, I just read through a thread about how to deal with the catholic question or words to that effect. I Know the topic was locked, but would like to say that the generosity shown in the posts was heartening, and a lesson to yours truly, who has been les than generous in the past, for which I apologise and thank you.

The people here are favorable to the catholic church and one would not find anti-catholicism here on this board. Or harsh words about the catholic church. I just can hope and pray that this board's counterpart were the same.

[Storm Rider]

Saved, I hope that you find that this Board is more apologetic than most. Though The Church of Jesus Christ does seek to proclaim truth to the world, we as members are seekers of truth first and foremost. It is our prayer that in our zeal to proclaim truth we never forget that which is most important to us, the Savior of all mankind. With a daily remembrance of his infinite love we can recognize that which binds all believers in Christ together - He binds us in one body. In truth, there is only one Church, one Body of Christ and that is all that seek to follow him or who espouses principles of righteousness. In these times when sin and darkness seek to overwhelm all that is good there is never a important time for all believers to stand together. Let us emulate the example of the servant that buried his gift, but let us use that truth which we have been given and become sources of His peace in the world.

 

You are no worse or better than any of us. We have all fallen short in so many ways, however you have set a good example for all by recognizing the problem, asking for forgiveness, and look forward to doing better. Know that you have been forgiven by all and now us work together; treasure the truths we share in common, seek for the truths we can teach each other, and become better servants of our Master.

[savedbygrace]

Thankyou for your lovely reply, may you all have a happy and blessed Sunday

[Erin15]

The people here are favorable to the catholic church and one would not find anti-catholicism here on this board. Or harsh words about the catholic church.

If only this board treated the LDS church with the same level of respect.

[3DOP]

If only this board treated the LDS church with the same level of respect.

Erin,

 

What do you mean "this board"? It seems unclear whether you are referencing MD&DB or Catholic Answers. I almost spoke up when why me mentioned "this board's counterpart". I don't see Catholic Answers as "this board's counterpart". Catholic Answers is a business. It is non-profit but it provides a significant income to a handful of professional apologists who regularly beg for money. The problem with professional apologetics is that the more one's continuing livelihood is tied up with previously published opinions, the more difficult it is to be objective regarding truths that are less popular. I believe that to some extent, Catholic Answers is compromised by a fear of saying things that could alienate its income base. Sadly, one of the safer kinds of activity involves negativity toward other religions.

 

I am not saying that the books, magazines, articles, and pamphlets that they publish are as irresponsible as the message board. But I think they have found a ready supply of knuckleheads who enjoy being stupid against other religions on their website. They have banned me but I still get e-mails asking for money. Some of you probably do as well. Well, those who love to see people like us banned and ridiculed help pay the bills. As a Protestant (in the early 90's), I received significant help from their literature and even some good telephone counselling when I was converting. But the monster that has developed since the internet would seem to argue against the idea of professional apologists. In my opinion the harm they do possibly outweighs the good. Ironically, one of my major beefs with them as that they are heavily influenced and have often been staffed by recently converted Protestants, even a few ministers who wanted to become Catholic but didn't want to go to work. New converts should think a little bit, and consider that if they were wrong in the recent past, maybe they should be quiet for a while. In no case should new converts start immediately making money from their conversions.

 

In my opinion, this board (MD&DB) does not have a Catholic counterpart. if anyone wants to understand the Catholic faith, they should understand that there are many Catholics like me who wouldn't necessarily agree with everything at Catholic Answers. Nobody is wrong about everything, and I agree with them on a lot of things. But in my opinion, the laypeople who make the money and who run the organization are compromised (To say nothing about the goons assigned to monitor the various discussion forums).

 

3DOP

Edited September 3, 2013 by 3DOP

[why me]

Erin,

 

What do you mean "this board"? It seems unclear whether you are referencing MD&DB or Catholic Answers. I almost spoke up when why me mentioned "this board's counterpart". I don't see Catholic Answers as "this board's counterpart". Catholic Answers is a business. It is non-profit but it provides a significant income to a handful of professional apologists who regularly beg for money. The problem with professional apologetics is that the more one's continuing livelihood is tied up with previously published opinions, the more difficult it is to be objective regarding truths that are less popular. I believe that to some extent, Catholic Answers is compromised by a fear of saying things that could alienate its income base. Sadly, one of the safer kinds of activity involves negativity toward other religions.

 

I am not saying that the books, magazines, articles, and pamphlets that they publish are as irresponsible as the message board. But I think they have found a ready supply of knuckleheads who enjoy being stupid against other religions on their website. They have banned me but I still get e-mails asking for money. Some of you probably do as well. Well, those who love to see people like us banned and ridiculed help pay the bills. As a Protestant (in the early 90's), I received significant help from their literature and even some good telephone counselling when I was converting. But the monster that has developed since the internet would seem to argue against the idea of professional apologists. In my opinion the harm they do possibly outweighs the good. Ironically, one of my major beefs with them as that they are heavily influenced and have often been staffed by recently converted Protestants, even a few ministers who wanted to become Catholic but didn't want to go to work. New converts should think a little bit, and consider that if they were wrong in the recent past, maybe they should be quiet for a while. In no case should new converts start immediately making money from their conversions.

 

3DOP

Great post. I totally agree with what you said. I was referring to the idea of apologetics since both defend their faiths. But you are correct in the difference between both boards. But I marvel how the exmormons there who post on that board don't see the ruse. You were a wonderful poster when I was there. You were kind while others were very antimormon. And you were banned for it like many of the mormon posters.

 

I wanted to invite some of the exmormon now antimormon catholics back to the lds faith to learn some manners.

Edited September 4, 2013 by why me

[Storm Rider]

That is a nasty place over there and 3 has offered a reliable explanation that motivates them. They are at least misguided and at worst choosing evil rather than preach the redeeming joy of the Savior.

I have concluded that if you really want to know about Catholicism just read and get to know some individual Catholic people. We have a lot in common and my relationships are invaluable to me.

[cdowis]

deleted

Edited September 5, 2013 by cdowis

[cdowis]

 

deleted

Edited September 5, 2013 by cdowis

[why me]

 

First Presidency Offers 'Warmest Wishes' to

Newly-Elected Pope Francis

Salt Lake City — 

The First Presidency of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints issued the following statement Wednesday:

 

On behalf of the leadership and members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, we extend our warmest wishes to His Holiness Pope Francis and pray he will feel the peace of the Lord as he serves as pontiff of the Catholic Church.

We have been honored and pleased as our two faiths have worked together on issues of faith, morality and service to the poor and needy. We value the relationships that have been formed in these joint efforts and are grateful for the good that has been accomplished.

We look forward to pursuing together, as the Apostle Paul wrote, all things that are true, honest, just, pure, lovely and of good report (see Philippians 4: .

http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/first-president-offers-warmest-wishes-pope-francis

 

The pope would be very disappointed with that other board. Such recognition and such cooperation is overlooked. What is repeated over and over again is mormons are led by false prophets and they are naive.

[cdowis]

deleted

Edited September 5, 2013 by cdowis

[Calm]

  Unlike other churches, our baptism is not recognized as valid.

 

I guess that sets the tone.

And we rejected their baptism long before they did ours....so if that sets the tone, then it would appear that LDS set it first.

[cdowis]

deleted

Edited September 5, 2013 by cdowis

[Calm]

They specifically put us outside of Christianity by recognizing all other baptisms except LDS.

CFR that they recognize all other baptisms except LDS.

[cdowis]

deleted

Edited September 5, 2013 by cdowis

[Calm]

Just take my word for it.

Nope, I don't consider you either inerrant or an expert on Catholic issues. CFR stands.

Edited September 4, 2013 by calmoriah

[Hestia]

Just take my word for it.

 

That's not how it works. If you are going to make such a statement back it up.

[cdowis]

deleted

Edited September 5, 2013 by cdowis

[Calm]

Bump for CFR

[Calm]

They specifically put us outside of Christianity by recognizing all other baptisms except LDS.

 

CFR that they recognize all other baptisms except LDS.

I see that cdowis decided instead of attempting to prove his claim that he deleted his entire interaction on this thread.

 

So for those who, like me, were wondering if he was correct.....

 

.  Since I had been told by Catholics their understanding why and had read the discussion about the rejection of the LDS baptism in newspapers at the time, I understood that the Catholic Church had rejected the LDS baptism based on our understanding of the Trinity even though we use pretty much the same wording as they do.  So I looked at another faith that does not hold the Catholic understanding and googled if their faith was accepted by the Catholic Church or not.  It took all of one google attempt, about 30 seconds total:

 

http://www.catholicdoors.com/faq/qu267.htm

 

 

Q. 1. Does the catholic Church recognize the baptism of the Jehovah Witnesses Church? 

A. 1. The Catholic Church does not recognize the baptism of the Jehovah Witnesses Church. This decision is based on the lack of proper form and intention on the part of the ministers.

It appears that the Jehovah's Witnesses are fundamentalists, Unitarians. The Divinity of Christ is explicitly denied, as is the existence of the Holy Spirit as a person. In the ceremony of baptism there is a discourse. It is really a symbol of dedication rather than baptism. The person enters the water, but his name is not called out. No words or formula are pronounced while the person is submerged or immersed in the water. If matter and form are valid, the intention of the minister is to baptize the person into the Jehovah's Witness sect, thereby not intending that the person be baptized in the name of the triune God. This is evident since the Divinity of Christ and the personality of the Holy Spirit are denied. These latter refer simply to a power exerted by Jehovah, who alone is God.

 

BTW, I don't see it as impossible that cdowis did actually read that claim somewhere 5 years ago, but unless somehow the simple act of his reading something bestows inerrancy, I don't see why that would invalidate the possibility that what he read was wrong and therefore up for a more thorough examination.  

I see the claim that the Catholic Church accepts all baptism BUT LDS as potentially damaging to the relationship between LDS and Catholics and definitely to the perception that LDS have of the Catholic Church and therefore on that basis alone I would have challenged it.  But I also CFR anything that sounds different than my current understanding because I want to learn if my understanding is wrong, it is not to prove my superior knowledge or to hassle anyone and I hope that if in the future I CFR cdowis again, he will respect that it is a sincere request for information for the purpose of learning and not to torment and be willing to answer it rather than take the route he did in this case, including complaining about it in a Social Hall thread.

Edited September 5, 2013 by calmoriah

[Ran]

Catholic clergy and their lay collaborators face the issue of baptismal validity with regards to the Sacrament of Matrimony (including investigations pertaining to a Decree of Nullity), the Rite of Christian Initiation of Adults, and the Rite of Reception of Baptized Christians into Full Communion with the Catholic Church. Dioceses publish lists like these to assist them in making their determination (PDF):

Archdiocese of Baltimore, Diocese of Davenport, Diocese of Beaumont, Archdiocese of Toronto, Archdiocese of Santa Fe

 

At least one determination came from the Holy See:

 

"RESPONSE TO A 'DUBIUM' on the validity of baptism conferred by «The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints», called «Mormons»"

[Calm]

Thanks Ran, I was always curious about the extent of those who wouldn't be seen as having valid baptism who see themselves though as Christian.

[3DOP]

Hey cal,

 

Just got home. I am ready for some fun at MD&DB! I've been out of town a couple of days or would have been participating.

 

As you may know, I think it is possible that from a Catholic perspective, some LDS baptisms are valid. The reason is that unlike the Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons use the proper form. If I am not mistaken, you invoke the Trinity, saying something like, "I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost..." The problem with LDS baptisms is not the form but, form our perspective, a defective understanding of the Names being invoked. We can see this whenever we have a thread on the Trinity. I'll argue that your view is more compatible with ours than most LDS think. But most Mormons don't like the idea. I say most Mormons, not all.

 

Did you know that a Jew, Muslim, Hindu, or atheist can validly baptize if they invoke the names of the Person of the Blessed Trinity, with the intention of doing it on behalf of someone wanting true, Catholic, baptism, even though the minister is disbelieving? I do believe that many LDS baptisms are invalidated because of a positive rejection of the Catholic view of the Trinity. On the other hand, there are some who hold to a view called the Social Trinity which seems to me to be very close to our view, and there are others who, like a Hindu, might not be thinking much about it, just wanting to get "the job done". One who is not "doctrinaire" might be able to baptise.

 

In light of my opinion that some LDS baptisms might be valid in the way a Hindu baptism might or as a Social Trinitarian might baptise, I think the Church would be better served to have stayed with the older rule, which held that because the former baptism might be valid, conditional baptism is now in order. In the traditional circles that I travel in, it is customary to give conditional baptism to most converts. I was baptized by a Baptist. I have been conditionally baptized by a Catholic priest.

 

My objection to the current policy of the Catholic Church is twofold:

 

1) The Church should continue to conditionally baptise Protestant converts.

2) The Church should continue to conditionally baptise LDS converts.

 

Conditional baptism uses a form which says in effect, "If you are not baptised, I baptise thee..." This because we can only be baptised once according to the Catholic faith. Baptism leaves a permanent character on the soul that will never be removed. A baptised person can fall from grace and still go to Hell. (What a tragedy.) But the remedy for a fall from grace after baptism, cannot be another baptism.

 

Oddly enough, I guess I am defending cdowis a little. I don't see why the modern Church can be so confident that every LDS baptism is invalid. Nor do I see how the modern Church can be so confident that ever Protestant baptism (using the proper form) is valid.

 

3DOP