And This Pope Rocks On

[bluebell]

I don't get what you are looking for or hoping to find.

 

Since God says that He teaches us line upon line, I would guess (maybe i'm wrong) that Nehor is looking for the next line that God is sending his way.

[saemo]

Martin Luther started a movement based on sola scriptura. At least that is what is claimed.

 

From what I understand the Catholics have some more than just the KJV of the Bible, and they add in Sacred Tradition. If you don't please let me know.

 

As a Saint I don't have any problem with the Holy Spirit guiding anyone/group he wants to. Though I obviously believe The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the only one with the authority to act in Gods' name. To have what is bound on earth bound in Heaven.

Yeah, that is what is claimed.

 

Protestant reformers removed books from the Bible. The KJV is a Protestant Bible. I like the KJV, in general. Besides the removed books, it has issues with translation, and usage of English that is difficult for modern speakers like myself to understand.

 

We didn't "add in Sacred Tradition". The Bible came from Sacred Tradition. They are two forms of revelation.

[The Nehor]

I don't get what you are looking for or hoping to find.

 

Union with God.

 

 

From a Catholic view, Mormonism is founded on the idea what Jesus created failed, and so go the Protestant route, which is to search for Jesus outside of His Church.

 

It didn't fail. It saved a lot of people.

 

As to finding Jesus outside of his (Catholic) Church I looked and couldn't find Him in it.

[saemo]

Yet Christ himself was baptized. He felt it necessary enough, though he had no sin to repent of, to seek out John the Baptist and be baptized.

If there is but one way to Heaven how could you not believe in Gods' Son and still get there? The Saints solve that problem with Paradise and Spirit Prison. How do the Catholics solve that problem?

 

We view the Sacraments, including baptism, as prefiguring the life to come. Similar to how Jesus is prefigured in the Old Testament, and revealed in the New.  So in the same way, we believe the Sacraments (including baptism) prefigure the life to come and will be fulfilled in Jesus Christ.  A good example is the temple sacrifice of the lamb, in the Old Covenant, which is fulfilled by Christ (the New Covenant), and so no longer needed to cleansed God's people of sin as we are cleansed by the blood of Christ. We fully expect the Sacraments will be fulfilled, by Christ.

 

This comes from our understanding, mainly, of the Johannine writings, particularly Revelations and the Gospel according to John.

 

Also, I was thinking there is an idea being expressed by LDS that we are saved by knowledge. We don't hold this view. We are saved by Christ, even if/when our knowledge of Him is not there. But I think this explains why an LDS person would think finding more information about Jesus is important? Does it make Salvation more sure to have more knowledge?

[ChristKnight]

So I guess you don't believe it's a good idea for the Lord to provide the opportunity for a spirit, who never had the blessing of hearing the gospel while they lived on earth, to hear and receive the gospel of Christ in the world of departed spirits, prior to the resurrection of the body? Please explain to me why this is a bad idea.

 

The Catechism of the Catholic Church provides this:

 

1260 "Since Christ died for all, and since all men are in fact called to one and the same destiny, which is divine, we must hold that the Holy Spirit offers to all the possibility of being made partakers, in a way known to God, of the Paschal mystery."⁶³ Every man who is ignorant of the Gospel of Christ and of his Church, but seeks the truth and does the will of God in accordance with his understanding of it, can be saved. It may be supposed that such persons would have desired Baptism explicitly if they had known its necessity.

 

845 To reunite all his children, scattered and led astray by sin, the Father willed to call the whole of humanity together into his Son's Church. The Church is the place where humanity must rediscover its unity and salvation. The Church is "the world reconciled." She is that bark which "in the full sail of the Lord's cross, by the breath of the Holy Spirit, navigates safely in this world." According to another image dear to the Church Fathers, she is prefigured by Noah's ark, which alone saves from the flood.³³⁴

 

"Outside the Church there is no salvation"

846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers?³³⁵ Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:

 

Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.³³⁶

847 This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church:

 

Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation.³³⁷

848 "Although in ways known to himself God can lead those who, through no fault of their own, are ignorant of the Gospel, to that faith without which it is impossible to please him, the Church still has the obligation and also the sacred right to evangelize all men."³³⁸

[teddyaware]

Well, from a Catholic view, Jesus set us up to journey towards His return. We are a pilgrim Church.

 

From a Catholic view, Mormonism is founded on the idea what Jesus created failed, and so go the Protestant route, which is to search for Jesus outside of His Church. Which, again from a Catholic view, is a search for novelty ABOUT Jesus. Questioning, well, maybe Jesus didn't really make the setup towards Himself.  Maybe Jesus is found outside of His Church, and so to know where Jesus is, I need something else. These are novelties, to the Catholic mind, and do indeed lead to firing up to one's own Church, based on the things you like, or don't like, and the novelties that are attractive. Calvin, Luther, etc. all did it. I see the same in Joseph Smith. The various break offs from Mormonism, just more of the same. Pick what you like the best, choose your favorite novelties, fire up a church.

Well you've dug yourself in deeper. It's painfully obvious your understanding of the LDS religion is far less than you might imagine. If you're hoping to score "devastating" points here, you must know you're missing the target again and again. I suggest you read and thoroughly digest the book "The Articles of Faith," by LDS Apostle James E. Talmage, and then come back here and try again.

By the way, the Church of Jesus Christ was built upon the foundation of living Apostles and Prophets. Why did your church embrace the "novelty" of an organization that's at variance with the New Testament model for Church organization? Consider the following:

19 Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellow citizens with the saints, and of the household of God;

20 And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;

21 In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord:

And again:

11 And he agave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;

12 For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:

13 Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:

 

And so we see the Church organizational model adhered to by the original Christian Church had living Apostles and Prophets standing at the head. Why and how did the earliest leaders of your Church come to reject the original model of ecclesiastical organization (an organization that was supposed to remain in place until every member of the Church obtained the fullness of perfection in Christ) in favor of the "novelty" of an organization that rejected Paul's most clear direction and solemn admonition?

Edited January 4, 2014 by teddyaware

[thesometimesaint]

Yeah, that is what is claimed.

 

Protestant reformers removed books from the Bible. The KJV is a Protestant Bible. I like the KJV, in general. Besides the removed books, it has issues with translation, and usage of English that is difficult for modern speakers like myself to understand.

 

We didn't "add in Sacred Tradition". The Bible came from Sacred Tradition. They are two forms of revelation.

 

TTBOMK even the Catholic Bible omits several books that have either been lost or never added to the Catholic Bible. I've read the KJV and most of Catholic Bible I love them both. I wish we had more. I don't have any particular problem with understanding the words in either. Just some of the ideas presented in those words.

IE; Pi isn't equally to exactly three no matter what words are used.

 

From what I understand various Popes/Counsels have added in their understandings of the Bible practically from the beginnings of the RCC. IE; The Nicene Creed.

I have no problem with further Revelation, and believe that God has much more to reveal about himself and his kingdom.

[teddyaware]

The Catechism of the Catholic Church provides this:

 

1260 "Since Christ died for all, and since all men are in fact called to one and the same destiny, which is divine, we must hold that the Holy Spirit offers to all the possibility of being made partakers, in a way known to God, of the Paschal mystery."⁶³ Every man who is ignorant of the Gospel of Christ and of his Church, but seeks the truth and does the will of God in accordance with his understanding of it, can be saved. It may be supposed that such persons would have desired Baptism explicitly if they had known its necessity.

 

845 To reunite all his children, scattered and led astray by sin, the Father willed to call the whole of humanity together into his Son's Church. The Church is the place where humanity must rediscover its unity and salvation. The Church is "the world reconciled." She is that bark which "in the full sail of the Lord's cross, by the breath of the Holy Spirit, navigates safely in this world." According to another image dear to the Church Fathers, she is prefigured by Noah's ark, which alone saves from the flood.³³⁴

 

"Outside the Church there is no salvation"

846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers?³³⁵ Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:

 

Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.³³⁶

847 This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church:

 

Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation.³³⁷

848 "Although in ways known to himself God can lead those who, through no fault of their own, are ignorant of the Gospel, to that faith without which it is impossible to please him, the Church still has the obligation and also the sacred right to evangelize all men."³³⁸

Very simply, the Latter-day Saints don't believe people can accept the gospel unless they receive it from a duly ordained and authorized minister of the Lord Jesus Christ. The salvation of God's children is too important to Him to leave the opportunities for that salvation to chance or to some vague notion that somehow they can fully and effectually receive the gospel without ever hearing it from an authorized preacher of the same. This is why the Latter-day Saints believe the gospel is preached to the dead...

6 For for this cause was the gospel preached also to them that are dead, that they might be judged according to men in the flesh, but live according to God in the spirit. (1 Peter 4)

 

This makes perfect sense. Everybody will eventually, sooner or later, have the opportunity to hear the gospel from someone clothed with power and authority to clearly and authoritatively teach it. How fair! How just! How truly merciful! This is a program truly befitting the God of perfect mercy, justice and love. 

 

Paul tells us in no uncertain terms that the gospel cannot be fully and effectually received by someone unless it is taught by a duly authorized minister who is sent by the direct line authority of God Himself:

"13 For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.

14 How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?

15 And how shall they preach, except they be sent? as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things!" (Romans 12)

 

Finally, I would ask you to demonstrate for me a scenario as to how, for instance, a 200 B.C. Pict, living in what is now called Northern Scotland, could have received the Lord without hearing anything about the gospel and knowing absolutely nothing about the Lord for the entire span of his mortal life?

Edited January 4, 2014 by teddyaware

[Ran]

6 For for this cause was the gospel preached also to them that are dead, that they might be judged according to men in the flesh, but live according to God in the spirit. (1 Peter 4)

If 1 Peter 4:6 refers to 1 Peter 3:19, then it would seem to allow for a post-mortem encounter with Christ—"the decisive act of judgement" (Benedict XVI, Encyclical Spe Salvi, 47)— in which the aforementioned Pict would hear the Gospel preached from Christ himself.

[teddyaware]

If 1 Peter 4:6 refers to 1 Peter 3:19, then it would seem to allow for a post-mortem encounter with Christ—"the decisive act of judgement" (Benedict XVI, Encyclical Spe Salvi, 47)— in which the aforementioned Pict would hear the Gospel preached from Christ himself.

Excellent observation! Read D&C 138 to learn of the official LDS doctrine on the scriptures you cite.

[ERayR]

So you say, but I believe I remember being taught that non-LDS will be taught after they are dead and then are baptized (in proxy) after they are dead. So, what was the point of this life? A step to become a God. That's about it. An infant who lives (unfortunately) one hour is the same as someone who lived 90 years and accepted a Mormon baptism after they are dead. One hour, 90 years, what's the difference? May as well skip the hardships and sorrows of life and live an hour!

 

I find no logic in baptism after death. None, whatsoever.

 

I can see why.  It is really quite difficult to understand something if you don't have have the concept correct.  Suggestion:  Clear your mind of all the false doctrine you have collected and then get someone who understands it to teach you correct principles.  If you can do that you should at least understand it whether you agree or not.

[ERayR]

Well, from a Catholic view, Jesus set us up to journey towards His return. We are a pilgrim Church.

 

From a Catholic view, Mormonism is founded on the idea what Jesus created failed, and so go the Protestant route, which is to search for Jesus outside of His Church. Which, again from a Catholic view, is a search for novelty ABOUT Jesus. Questioning, well, maybe Jesus didn't really make the setup towards Himself.  Maybe Jesus is found outside of His Church, and so to know where Jesus is, I need something else. These are novelties, to the Catholic mind, and do indeed lead to firing up to one's own Church, based on the things you like, or don't like, and the novelties that are attractive. Calvin, Luther, etc. all did it. I see the same in Joseph Smith. The various break offs from Mormonism, just more of the same. Pick what you like the best, choose your favorite novelties, fire up a church. 

 

Of course, I understand that is not the Protestant or Mormon view, but it is indeed, the Catholic view.

 

Incorrect understanding again.  See previous post.

[ERayR]

I appreciate your faith. I really do. But for me, what I see in the LDS teaching is this life doesn't matter. Do whatever, whenever, and it's even better if you do not become LDS. Party on!!

 

Again you have bad information, an incorrect understanding.  Go to the Pearl of Great Price (it can be accessed online) and read Abraham 3:24 - 26.  This will give you a basis for understanding .  

[Robert F. Smith]

If 1 Peter 4:6 refers to 1 Peter 3:19, then it would seem to allow for a post-mortem encounter with Christ—"the decisive act of judgement" (Benedict XVI, Encyclical Spe Salvi, 47)— in which the aforementioned Pict would hear the Gospel preached from Christ himself.

Sounds very Mormon to me.  What is your point?

[Robert F. Smith]

Well, from a Catholic view, Jesus set us up to journey towards His return. We are a pilgrim Church.

 

From a Catholic view, Mormonism is founded on the idea what Jesus created failed, and so go the Protestant route, which is to search for Jesus outside of His Church. Which, again from a Catholic view, is a search for novelty ABOUT Jesus. Questioning, well, maybe Jesus didn't really make the setup towards Himself.  Maybe Jesus is found outside of His Church, and so to know where Jesus is, I need something else. These are novelties, to the Catholic mind, and do indeed lead to firing up to one's own Church, based on the things you like, or don't like, and the novelties that are attractive. Calvin, Luther, etc. all did it. I see the same in Joseph Smith. The various break offs from Mormonism, just more of the same. Pick what you like the best, choose your favorite novelties, fire up a church. 

 

Of course, I understand that is not the Protestant or Mormon view, but it is indeed, the Catholic view.

I can see why.  It is really quite difficult to understand something if you don't have have the concept correct.  Suggestion:  Clear your mind of all the false doctrine you have collected and then get someone who understands it to teach you correct principles.  If you can do that you should at least understand it whether you agree or not.

Within Roman Catholicism, the priesthood is both mediator with and interpreter of God to the common folk.  Only Catholic intellectuals who are not afraid to closely examine other religions come away with anything like a correct understanding of what these other religions claim.  I appreciate the profound understanding and breadth which some Catholic intellectuals bring to the discussion about what is the true faith and why.  Rather than the harsh distinctions which saemo perceives, they generally (and I as well) see a great deal of commonality between Catholicism and Mormonism.

 

I have had some very satisfying conversations with such kind-hearted and knowledgeable Catholics.  I did not find in such conversations vilification of other religions, nor of the views of Martin Luther -- who was himself a very sincere and knowledgeable Catholic priest and professor.  I still fondly recall my first semester-long class in Catholicism taught long ago by a Paulist Father at Old St Mary's in Chinatown in San Francisco.  The Church library included the complete works of Luther, and, based on his lectures, he had obviously read them.  Christ shined in his persona, as it sometimes does in individuals from a wide variety of religions.

 

On this board, I have found nothing but kind words from Mormons directed toward the Pope.  And the only criticisms of him from members of his own flock.  That ought to tell us something.

Edited January 4, 2014 by Robert F. Smith

[Robert F. Smith]

......................................  

 

Protestant reformers removed books from the Bible. The KJV is a Protestant Bible. I like the KJV, in general. Besides the removed books, it has issues with translation, and usage of English that is difficult for modern speakers like myself to understand.

 

.....................................  .

Actually, that is incorrect since the Protestant Bible for many centuries included the Apocryphal books (the Deuterocanon).  The 1611 King James Version for example included the Apocrypha, and the copy of the KJV used by Joseph Smith included that section of Scripture.  However, beginning primarily with the work of the American Bible Society in the early 19th century, the Apocrypha was regularly excluded -- until today hardly anyone realizes what the old Protestant Bible actually looked like.

 

I agree with your view on the antiquated nature of much of the KJV, and highly recommend to you the New Jerusalem Bible, which is the result of the work of brilliant Roman Catholic scholars.  I would urge you to carefully read both the translation and notes.  It is a masterpiece.

[Stone holm]

saemo, on 03 Jan 2014 - 4:53 PM, said:

Within Roman Catholicism, the priesthood is both mediator with and interpreter of God to the common folk.  Only Catholic intellectuals who are not afraid to closely examine other religions come away with anything like a correct understanding of what these other religions claim.  I appreciate the profound understanding and breadth which some Catholic intellectuals bring to the discussion about what is the true faith and why.  Rather than the harsh distinctions which saemo perceives, they generally (and I as well) see a great deal of commonality between Catholicism and Mormonism.

 

I have had some very satisfying conversations with such kind-hearted and knowledgeable Catholics.  I did not find in such conversations vilification of other religions, nor of the views of Martin Luther -- who was himself a very sincere and knowledgeable Catholic priest and professor.  I still fondly recall my first semester-long class in Catholicism taught long ago by a Paulist Father at Old St Mary's in Chinatown in San Francisco.  The Church library included the complete works of Luther, and, based on his lectures, he had obviously read them.  Christ shined in his persona, as it sometimes does in individuals from a wide variety of religions.

 

On this board, I have found nothing but kind words from Mormons directed toward the Pope.  And the only criticisms of him from members of his own flock.  That ought to tell us something.

Yeah, I have noticed that, but not sure what it tells us other than possibly conservative Catholics are attracted to our political aura, because our theology is quite different. Nevertheless, I was always treated kindly at Notre Dame and never experienced any form of religious prejudice .

[Robert F. Smith]

Yeah, I have noticed that, but not sure what it tells us other than possibly conservative Catholics are attracted to our political aura, because our theology is quite different. Nevertheless, I was always treated kindly at Notre Dame and never experienced any form of religious prejudice .

Yes, and a couple of years ago I visited the Covenant Theological Seminary (Presbyterian)  in St. Louis for some serious research.  The archivist was very cordial and went the second mile to assist me, even though he knew I am a Mormon.

[ERayR]

Within Roman Catholicism, the priesthood is both mediator with and interpreter of God to the common folk.  Only Catholic intellectuals who are not afraid to closely examine other religions come away with anything like a correct understanding of what these other religions claim.  I appreciate the profound understanding and breadth which some Catholic intellectuals bring to the discussion about what is the true faith and why.  Rather than the harsh distinctions which saemo perceives, they generally (and I as well) see a great deal of commonality between Catholicism and Mormonism.

 

I have had some very satisfying conversations with such kind-hearted and knowledgeable Catholics.  I did not find in such conversations vilification of other religions, nor of the views of Martin Luther -- who was himself a very sincere and knowledgeable Catholic priest and professor.  I still fondly recall my first semester-long class in Catholicism taught long ago by a Paulist Father at Old St Mary's in Chinatown in San Francisco.  The Church library included the complete works of Luther, and, based on his lectures, he had obviously read them.  Christ shined in his persona, as it sometimes does in individuals from a wide variety of religions.

 

On this board, I have found nothing but kind words from Mormons directed toward the Pope.  And the only criticisms of him from members of his own flock.  That ought to tell us something.

 

I have said more than once that if I lost faith in COJCOLDS I would either become an atheist or a Catholic.  I say that because if I lost faith in COJCOLDS I would probably reject religion altogether but if I didn't the only religion I would even consider would be Catholic.

 

Ah but alas the spirit whispers to me that I have taken the right path testifies to me that the truth claims of the COJCOLDS are indeed true.

[Yirgacheffe]

And here we have the problem. The pope needs to clarify just what would send a person to hell in the catholic faith. Would cathoic women who have had abortions and are unrepentant qualify for hell? Would the person who has sexual relations outside of marriage and dies unrepentant go to hell? Would a person who has committed mortal sins and dies without going to a confession be sent to hell? It would seem so from the catholic links I provided.

 

And in all this where is the love and mercy that the pope is speaking about?

I really don't see that you are in a position to decide what a leader of another religion has to do or what they have to preach about in their own churches.  Talk about presumption.  I'll have to check out that site you keep mentioning it can't be worse than much in this thread.

[Yirgacheffe]

Within Roman Catholicism, the priesthood is both mediator with and interpreter of God to the common folk.  Only Catholic intellectuals who are not afraid to closely examine other religions come away with anything like a correct understanding of what these other religions claim.  I appreciate the profound understanding and breadth which some Catholic intellectuals bring to the discussion about what is the true faith and why.  Rather than the harsh distinctions which saemo perceives, they generally (and I as well) see a great deal of commonality between Catholicism and Mormonism.

 

I have had some very satisfying conversations with such kind-hearted and knowledgeable Catholics.  I did not find in such conversations vilification of other religions, nor of the views of Martin Luther -- who was himself a very sincere and knowledgeable Catholic priest and professor.  I still fondly recall my first semester-long class in Catholicism taught long ago by a Paulist Father at Old St Mary's in Chinatown in San Francisco.  The Church library included the complete works of Luther, and, based on his lectures, he had obviously read them.  Christ shined in his persona, as it sometimes does in individuals from a wide variety of religions.

 

On this board, I have found nothing but kind words from Mormons directed toward the Pope.  And the only criticisms of him from members of his own flock.  That ought to tell us something.

I've seen less than kind words from LDS on this thread.

[3DOP]

From what I understand, although the concept of limbo of infants may not be as taught today as it was in the past, it is a theologically allowable belief in Catholicism.  It arises from the issue of unbaptized infants dying in original sin, and the belief that no sin (whether original or personal) can be in Heaven.  I can already hear your response from the LDS perspective (indeed, that was one thing that I considered before I converted to the LDS faith) .  There are Catholics that still believe in it, as they are allowed to (it isn't a belief that came from revelation or a Council decision, but an extrapolation based on what has already been revealed).  The Catholic Church finds that, based on the totality of Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition, there is much more cause to believe that unbaptized infants will be in the eternal presence of God.  One can read about that here-"The Hope of Salvation for Infants Who Die Without Being Baptized". 

 

Thanks CK.

 

I tend to be a Limbo Catholic. Everyone went crazy a few years ago about how the Church was "changing its teaching" on Limbo because of a study that makes a good case that unbaptized babies are indeed saved...in Heaven. I dunno for sure. Like I said, I lean toward Limbo. Not such a bad deal. Most non-Catholics I talk to want an earthly kind of paradise anyway. Live forever. No work. Good music. Games. Laughter. Love (not supernatural). It shouldn't be such a scandal to people who don't want to contemplate God forever (the Beatific Vision) anyway, if unbaptized babies get to have something that resembles there own picture of heaven anyways!

 

I do know for sure that it is either Limbo or Heaven (with that less than exciting Beatific Vision) for unbaptized babies. Nobody suffers any sense pain unless they commit actual sin. That goes for infants, toddlers, teens, whatever. It would be unjust for an unbaptized baby to suffer sense pain in hell. I can quote a medieval pope to that effect if anybody cares. 

Edited January 4, 2014 by 3DOP

[3DOP]

You speak much about love and mercy but seem to forget the catholic hell. No mercy or love for the sinner. We need to be honest if we wish to save catholics from hell. Time to get back to basics. God's love or mercy will not save a sinner in the catholic faith. Hell is very real. But you do make it all sound so nice. But nice try.

 

why me,

 

I have been somewhat sympathetic with your observations about the papacy. But it seems as though the thread is out of control and about other things now.

 

So I object to your characterization above. It isn't accurate.

 

Only sinners are saved in the Catholic faith. And all are sinners. There are saved and unsaved sinners. But God offers His love and mercy to everyone. He doesn't punish anyone until they "force His hand", so to speak. God doesn't will the death of the sinner, and even under judgment there is no malice. Mercy and love always moderate God's justice, even in Hell. That is why there are degrees of punishment there. God isn't just piling the max on everybody because He hates them! No way. His mercy reigns even in Hell where He carefully finds every reason to minimize the punishment that is due. 

[saemo]

Actually, that is incorrect since the Protestant Bible for many centuries included the Apocryphal books (the Deuterocanon).  The 1611 King James Version for example included the Apocrypha, and the copy of the KJV used by Joseph Smith included that section of Scripture.  However, beginning primarily with the work of the American Bible Society in the early 19th century, the Apocrypha was regularly excluded -- until today hardly anyone realizes what the old Protestant Bible actually looked like.

 

I agree with your view on the antiquated nature of much of the KJV, and highly recommend to you the New Jerusalem Bible, which is the result of the work of brilliant Roman Catholic scholars.  I would urge you to carefully read both the translation and notes.  It is a masterpiece.

There is a hint in the word Apocryphal, that tells us the books are not equal to the rest of the Bible. They held a separate and unequal position to what is considered authentic Hebrew scripture, by Protestants. Removed in teaching as equal, as apocryphal,, it was only a matter of time that the books would be physically removed. They were bound for a time, together, placed between the OT and NT as something "other".

I have a fondness for the New American Bible, but also have the New Jerusalem Bible. I have my favorite books, that I never tire of reading over and over, particularly, the Gospel of John the Evangelist,

A Bible teacher I had years ago liked to say, the best Bible to use is the one you'll read. I tend to add qualifiers, as there are some really bad Bibles in circulation.

As for Catholic intellectuals, it's a broad stroke you've made. Which ignores Catholic scholars who are not clergy, or male. But yes, I am a simple Catholic. Mass, prayer, scripture is my focus. I pick up the odd theological book now and then, mainly to assist in my teaching of the faith to Catholic converts. Outside of that my interest is in living the Christian faith. How it is possible to live this way, in the normal, hohum, of everyday life, in a home where I am outnumbered by atheists! In a state where I am outnumbered by Mormons. I see the stark differences because I live in them.

My soul, in this desert, is fed by God. I enjoy Catholic writings, the scriptures, and prayer. And even though I drive Mormons nuts, I like to dialogue with you because you are my roots. And, I like Mormons. Though, I don't get the impression very often the fondness is two-way.

Peace be with you.

[why me]

I really don't see that you are in a position to decide what a leader of another religion has to do or what they have to preach about in their own churches.  Talk about presumption.  I'll have to check out that site you keep mentioning it can't be worse than much in this thread.

I am not in a bad position since I was born catholic and went to catechism every sunday after mass. Back then there was a clear distinction between who went to heaven and who went to hell. And hell was very much alive for us kids. The post where you responded to me was full of questions. Where is the preaching? When a catholic speaks about love and mercy in platitudes, i would like to know just where hell is situated in all this.