Is There Not An Apparent Problem To The Doctrine Of The Trinity?

[saemo]

Ten years, wow that's a long time to think about it.

Questions regarding the Sacraments are taken seriously. What LDS believe and teach would be thoroughly investigated and theologically analyzed. Ten years is a very short time in "Catholic Time". A hundred or two years is not a long time in Catholic Time.

[saemo]

It just seems so strange that there was no controversy or question over the nature of God from the writings of the Apostles...no concern from new converts over who or what they were worshipping. It really seems like it was well understood and accepted.

Arianism arose in the fourth century, preceded by related heresies that ultimately are preceded by Gnosticism. The Pauline letters address various gnostic heresies, which is the oldest of heresies. All heresies over the centuries have teachings that concern "Christology". Who Jesus is, his nature, and relationship to the Father and the Spirit.

Paul addresses heresy in Colossians 2 (now called The Colossians Heresy).

Verses 1-3 addresses the gnostic teaching that higher spiritual understanding is found in secrets and wisdom. Rather, all mystery and wisdom is found in Christ.

Verses 4-8 is a general admonition to "stick to Christ"and not be seduced by philosophies, which, is seen by Biblical scholars as the philosophies coming from Gnosticism, because of later verses of this chapter.

Verses 9-15 Here you find, the Christological declaration, "For in him dwells the whole fullness of the deity bodily" which absolutely addresses the nature of Christ, and continues to assert the sovereignty of Christ.

Verse 18 is considered to be teaching against Gnostic practices and teachings..."Let no one disqualify you, delighting in self-abasement and worship of angels, taking his stand on visions"

Same for verse 20-23, teaching agains Gnosticism....20 If you died with Christ to the elemental powers of the world, why do you submit to regulations as if you were still living in the world? 21 “Do not handle! Do not taste! Do not touch!” 22 These are all things destined to perish with use; they accord with human precepts and teachings. 23 While they have a semblance of wisdom in rigor of devotion and self-abasement [and] severity to the body, they are of no value against gratification of the flesh.

And of course there is Simon Magus, who is considered to be the first heretic. Acts 8:9-24

Edited April 25, 2014 by saemo

[Storm Rider]

Questions regarding the Sacraments are taken seriously. What LDS believe and teach would be thoroughly investigated and theologically analyzed. Ten years is a very short time in "Catholic Time". A hundred or two years is not a long time in Catholic Time.

 

How many times did they meet with the leader of the Church to determine what the Church taught, ask for clarifications, or confirm any findings over this ten year period?

Edited April 25, 2014 by Storm Rider

[saemo]

How many times did they meet with the leader of the Church to determine what the Church taught, ask for clarifications, or confirm any findings over this ten year period?

I have no idea.

[3DOP]

On the other hand, there is not much evidence that the faithful were considering the ideas credited to the council of Nicea before the council began either.  It is at least accurate to say that the Arian ideas are more ancient than the Nicean creed. 

 

This is from wikipedia:

 

 

That is an interesting perspective.  Are you suggesting that it is possible that the original Apostles understanding of the Godhead may have been similar to LDS or Arius' theological views.  The nature of God seems like a critical element of worship to me (It certainly is for Catholics today, why not back then?) that the Apostles of Christ surely understood.  What did they think of when they thought of God?  Who, or what exactly did they pray to?  Surely their God was not dissimilar to the Jewish idea of God.  Their writings have the sense to me that they knew what they were talking about.  They do not come off as mysterious and ill-understood revelations on the nature of God that they wrote without knowing what it really meant.

 

 

I don't see any evidence that it was a problem at all for them (just like it is not for the LDS).  They certainly did not seem concerned by it.  There was no early controversy or question on the matter.  There was no need to create new terminology to define their beliefs or explain it to new converts.  It appears to be simply understood by all who professed Christianity at that time.  If the nature of God (the very core and center of their worship) was not understood, it seems like there would have been more question and controversy over that matter than over matters as simple as circumcision.  A slight deviation from tradition always created great question and controversy.  That did not seem to be present with the nature of God.  Why not?  Did they not view this as more significant an issue than circumcision?  The Catholics of today certainly do.  So much so that the LDS baptism is disqualified due to our belief in the nature of the Godhead. 

 

 

 

I think you make some good points here.  However, as true as it may be that it is better to believe (due to spiritual impressions) than to understand.  I wouldn't expect all early Christians to live according to that mantra.  They were not afraid to create controversy or raise questions over things they did not understand, and the Apostles did not shy away from such questions and controversy.  They did their best to explain to the understanding of the lowest of the saints.  It just seems so strange that there was no controversy or question over the nature of God from the writings of the Apostles...no concern from new converts over who or what they were worshipping.  It really seems like it was well understood and accepted.  

 

I hope I am not coming off as too adversarial, I just like some healthy dialogue and am interested in your perspective.  I like your responses. 

 

Thanks pogi...I spent too much time on something closer to home tonight...I started a topic in "the News" forum. I hate to make an advertisement for it...but I would appreciate ideas and input for a practical problem that isn't going away very soon from anybody so inclined. 

 

Anyway...I hope to have a few more words about the subject of this thread and your reply in particular tomorrow or Saturday.

Edited April 25, 2014 by 3DOP

[Yirgacheffe]

Questions regarding the Sacraments are taken seriously. What LDS believe and teach would be thoroughly investigated and theologically analyzed. Ten years is a very short time in "Catholic Time". A hundred or two years is not a long time in Catholic Time.

Like Ents you are, nothing hasty about you.

[Storm Rider]

I have no idea.

 

If there ever were such a meeting I suspect it would have been of some note and would have been covered by some news outlet.  It would surprise me if it was kept secret.  There was a meeting in the last ten years or so where two LDS apostles attended an ecumenical type of group in New York with representatives of the Catholic Church.  

 

For an in-depth study, particularly one that takes more than a few years, I would think that a discussion with the source would be requisite.  That is how it was done by the early Church Fathers when heresy was identified and found to be in error. Without such discussion it would be a rather narrow decision, certainly not one reflective of an in-depth study.

 

However, the decision to not recognize LDS baptisms is irrelevant and of little significance to either side. 

[Storm Rider]

Questions regarding the Sacraments are taken seriously. What LDS believe and teach would be thoroughly investigated and theologically analyzed. Ten years is a very short time in "Catholic Time". A hundred or two years is not a long time in Catholic Time.

 

Right you are; can you imagine how a Buddhist or Hindus might take even more time given they are significantly older than the "Catholic Time". Talk about Ents. 

[saemo]

If there ever were such a meeting I suspect it would have been of some note and would have been covered by some news outlet.  It would surprise me if it was kept secret.  There was a meeting in the last ten years or so where two LDS apostles attended an ecumenical type of group in New York with representatives of the Catholic Church.  

 

For an in-depth study, particularly one that takes more than a few years, I would think that a discussion with the source would be requisite.  That is how it was done by the early Church Fathers when heresy was identified and found to be in error. Without such discussion it would be a rather narrow decision, certainly not one reflective of an in-depth study.

 

However, the decision to not recognize LDS baptisms is irrelevant and of little significance to either side.

I suspect it would not need to be of note. There are volumes published about LDS belief and practice. If all there were, was a summary document outlining the theological issues, that would be sufficient to give a LDS person, knowledgeable of the faith, for clarification and confirmation. The Curia offices have staff, the Bishops aren't doing the legwork.

It is of great significance to a Catholic clergy member who is performing Baptisms, and significant to the LDS convert being received into the Church. But yes, it has less significance to anyone else other than those with academic or theological interest.

[saemo]

Like Ents you are, nothing hasty about you.

True that.

[Darren10]

Like Ents you are, nothing hasty about you.

 

Seamo just got done saying, "good morning."

[Darren10]

 

I'm referring to the time when a man was married to some woman on some other planet and

they would eventually become the heavenly parents of Earth.

 

From what I have read in teachings published by the LDS Church, Heavenly Mother and

Father are presumably married and we are their spirit children. The 1997 version of Gospel

Principles mentions "heavenly parents" about 21 times. The 2009 version reduces this to

only 5.

 

Chapter 2 says, "All men and women are literally the sons and daughters of God. “Man,

as a spirit, was begotten and born of heavenly parents, and reared to maturity in the

eternal mansions of the Father, prior to coming upon the earth in a temporal [physical]

body".

 

Later in the same chapter, it says "Our Heavenly Father called a Grand Council to present

His plan for our progression (Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Joseph Smith, 209, 511).

We learned that if we followed His plan [i.e. getting married], we would become like Him. We

would be resurrected; we would have all power in heaven and on earth; we would become

heavenly parents and have spirit children just as He does (see D&C 132:19–20)".

 

A large omission is made in the 2009 version of chapter 36 for some reason, so I'll quote from

the 1997 version (The Family Can Be Eternal)

 

"The first family on earth was established by our Heavenly Father when he gave Eve to Adam

in marriage (see Moses 3:21–24). Since then, each of us has been commanded to marry

and have children so that through our own experience we can learn to be heavenly parents.

President Brigham Young explained that our families are not yet ours. The Lord has committed

them to us to see how we will treat them. Only if we are faithful will they be given to us forever.

What we do on earth determines whether or not we will be worthy to become heavenly parents

(see chapter 2, “Our Heavenly Family”).

 

Based on this, the teaching that Heavenly Mother and Father are married and having children

in a marriage covenant is either true, false, or purely speculation.  Or maybe they are not married

and they have children outside of the celestial marriage covenant.

 

What do you believe?

 

I thought all Latter-day Saints believed Heavenly Mother and Father are married.

 

Thanks,

Jim

 

 

Jim;

 

As you tyuorself have noted, a marriage between God the Father and God the Mother is *presumed*. It is not doctrinal. Nor is God the Father oncebeing a mortal man,getting married and becoming Earth's God and Heavenly Mother Earth's Goddess. Reread the doctrines you cited. The emphasis is explicitly on the Father and that's it. Yes, we can become heavenly parents and the LDS understanding of becoming God invoves marriage as essential. Therefore God the Father should also be married. But the bottom line is tha we know nothing about Heavenly Father being married. It's simply nonesense to take one's peripheral doctrine and use it to force an answer on an established doctrine.

[pogi]

Arianism arose in the fourth century, preceded by related heresies that ultimately are preceded by Gnosticism. The Pauline letters address various gnostic heresies, which is the oldest of heresies. All heresies over the centuries have teachings that concern "Christology". Who Jesus is, his nature, and relationship to the Father and the Spirit.

 

I am not arguing for Arianism, as I understand that it attempts to remove the divinity of Jesus.  I think Arianism is as much a deviation from the truth as the trinity idea is.   However, I do think that there were elements of truth in both ideas which were passed down from the Apostles and simply diverged somewhere (most likely due to the incorporation of gnostic ideas over time) creating controversy.  The Nicean creed was right in that they are one and equal in every way (except for substance). Arianism was right in that they are of seperate substance.

 

Here is an excellent link to explain the LDS understanding of Col 2.  If you scroll down to vs. 8-9 you will see our interpretations of Paul's intentions. 

The gnostic heresy that Paul was addressing was the idea that divinity cannot exist in the flesh (as flesh is evil).

http://www.gospeldoctrine.com/content/colossians-2

[saemo]

I am not arguing for Arianism, as I understand that it attempts to remove the divinity of Jesus.  I think Arianism is as much a deviation from the truth as the trinity idea is.   However, I do think that there were elements of truth in both ideas which were passed down from the Apostles and simply diverged somewhere (most likely due to the incorporation of gnostic ideas over time) creating controversy.  The Nicean creed was right in that they are one and equal in every way (except for substance). Arianism was right in that they are of seperate substance.

 

Here is an excellent link to explain the LDS understanding of Col 2.  If you scroll down to vs. 8-9 you will see our interpretations of Paul's intentions. 

The gnostic heresy that Paul was addressing was the idea that divinity cannot exist in the flesh (as flesh is evil).

http://www.gospeldoctrine.com/content/colossians-2

"Such beliefs were so antithetical to the doctrines of Jesus and the Apostles that attempts to merge and reconcile them contributed to the corruption of the original faith. Extra-biblical sources tell us that gnosticism played an important role in the first centuries of Christian history. Whereas the religion of the Apostles did not continue, its gnosticized counterpart did."

This is, of course, an assertion that I don't see as accurate. More like, self serving and blind to God's work.

[theplains]

Jim;

 

As you tyuorself have noted, a marriage between God the Father and God the Mother is *presumed*. It is not doctrinal. Nor is God the Father oncebeing a mortal man,getting married and becoming Earth's God and Heavenly Mother Earth's Goddess. Reread the doctrines you cited. The emphasis is explicitly on the Father and that's it. Yes, we can become heavenly parents and the LDS understanding of becoming God invoves marriage as essential. Therefore God the Father should also be married. But the bottom line is tha we know nothing about Heavenly Father being married. It's simply nonesense to take one's peripheral doctrine and use it to force an answer on an established doctrine.

 

Hi Darren,

 

I wasn't moving in the direction of whether Heavenly Father and Mother being married is a

doctrine or not.  But it is clear from literature that the LDS Church does teach that either he

is truly married to a goddess wife or its just a fable (but it leans more in the direction of the

former).

 

In my discussion with other Latter-day Saints, they usually say, "yes, we teach that, but its

not an official doctrine of the church".  Personally, I don't think it matters if something taught

is official doctrine or not.  I think the more important thing is whether what is being printed in

LDS Church manuals or taught at General Conference is really true or false.

 

Would you agree?

 

Regards,

Jim

[pogi]

"Such beliefs were so antithetical to the doctrines of Jesus and the Apostles that attempts to merge and reconcile them contributed to the corruption of the original faith. Extra-biblical sources tell us that gnosticism played an important role in the first centuries of Christian history. Whereas the religion of the Apostles did not continue, its gnosticized counterpart did."

This is, of course, an assertion that I don't see as accurate. More like, self serving and blind to God's work.

 

I don't know if I would go as far as calling them "self-serving."  It is no mystery that we believe in an apostasy of the early Church.  This assertion is no more self-serving than the Catholic assertion.  One point is clear, the trinity idea was a theological concept developed much later on.

 

Here is another perspective:

"If Paganism was conquered by Christianity, it is equally true that Christianity was corrupted by Paganism. The pure Deism of the first Christians, (who differed from their fellow Jews only in the belief that Jesus was the promised Messiah,) was changed, by the Church of Rome, into the incomprehensible dogma of the trinity. Many of the pagan tenets, invented by the Egyptians and idealized by Plato, were retained as being worthy of belief" (The History of Christianity, by Peter Eckler).

 

I believe it is accurate that the early Christian ideas of God (those taught by Christ and His Apostles) were more similar to Judaism then trinitarianism.  It is clear however that the early Fathers believed in the divinity of the Son.  If you combine Judaistic ideas of God with the divinity of the Son and Messiah, you get what looks like LDS theology of the Godhead.  Gnosticism later removed the divinity of the Son (Arianism).  Opposing the teachings of Arius was Athanasius.  The early beliefs of Athanasius, and before the idea of trinitarianism was established and developed, Athanasius simply believed that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit were one but at the same time distinct from each other (This is no different from LDS belief).

 

I thought this was a fabulous piece on the trinity and aligns with my views: http://www.ucg.org/booklet/god-trinity/surprising-origins-trinity-doctrine/

Edited April 26, 2014 by pogi

[mfbukowski]

One point is clear, the trinity idea was a theological concept developed much later on.

That is the absolute bottom line- nothing more need be said!

[saemo]

I don't know if I would go as far as calling them "self-serving."  It is no mystery that we believe in an apostasy of the early Church.  This assertion is no more self-serving than the Catholic assertion.  One point is clear, the trinity idea was a theological concept developed much later on.

 

Here is another perspective:

"If Paganism was conquered by Christianity, it is equally true that Christianity was corrupted by Paganism. The pure Deism of the first Christians, (who differed from their fellow Jews only in the belief that Jesus was the promised Messiah,) was changed, by the Church of Rome, into the incomprehensible dogma of the trinity. Many of the pagan tenets, invented by the Egyptians and idealized by Plato, were retained as being worthy of belief" (The History of Christianity, by Peter Eckler).

 

I believe it is accurate that the early Christian ideas of God (those taught by Christ and His Apostles) were more similar to Judaism then trinitarianism.  It is clear however that the early Fathers believed in the divinity of the Son.  If you combine Judaistic ideas of God with the divinity of the Son and Messiah, you get what looks like LDS theology of the Godhead.  Gnosticism later removed the divinity of the Son (Arianism).  Opposing the teachings of Arius was Athanasius.  The early beliefs of Athanasius, and before the idea of trinitarianism was established and developed, Athanasius simply believed that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit were one but at the same time distinct from each other (This is no different from LDS belief).

 

I thought this was a fabulous piece on the trinity and aligns with my views: http://www.ucg.org/booklet/god-trinity/surprising-origins-trinity-doctrine/

 

 

There are good Christian apologetics for this common anti-Christian fair, I suggest you read them.

[pogi]

There are good Christian apologetics for this common anti-Christian fair, I suggest you read them.

 

Maybe you didn't intend it the way I read your comment, but you are speaking to a Christian. 

Edited April 26, 2014 by pogi

[3DOP]

pogi

Thanks 3DOP for your response!

Is there any hope at all (from a catholic perspective) for a Mormon who dies without a recognized Catholic baptism?

 

3DOP

It would be a heresy to say that there is no hope for anyone who dies without a recognized Catholic baptism. The Church explicitly teaches that God is good and that He will not judge anyone for what they could not have known about (inculpable ignorance). We know that God wants everyone to be saved. But I wouldn't want you to get the impression that Catholic baptism is advantageous to those who despise the Catholic faith. It isn't like the Church teaches that all who are baptized are saved. Because we are often unfaithful to our baptismal covenants, because we do not persevere in the love of God, choosing to love ourselves instead, I have read a spiritual writer who affirmed that most adult Catholics probably go to Hell.

 

We do believe that we ought to recognize how outrageous sin is by the fact that God sent His only Son to die in atonement for it. I become nonchalant about it sometimes. You get used to it. Ho hum, Jesus died. Ho hum, I disobeyed a commandment. Before we know it, we love ourselves and despise God who by sin is deeply, infinitely offended, and who in His love sent a deep and infinite atonement. My belief, is that those who despise that Sacrifice of God, whoever it might be, including myself potentially, will force God to punish us with a finality and harshness that reflects the malodorous effects that our sins have spread through all of God's good creation, and the malice of heart that refused the forgiveness that God offered. I believe in different degrees of eternal Hell for those who died, or lost their free will in a state of alienation from God's love. 

 

Adult Catholics are more accountable. We know more, or should. I don't know what plea we could make before God for why we don't deserve hell if we should face Him at the judgment without having loved Him to the end. I don't think I will say a word, if God forbid, I should find myself going to Hell. God save me from myself. If we ask for the Spirit, He gives us the Spirit. But if I don't ask? If I don't even have enough love of God or fear of Hell to pray for God's help in believing, and hoping, and loving Him and my neighbor for His sake? Your Scripture and mine affirm that it is a fearful thing to wake up in the presence of the living God. 

 

Baptism? I know, "Here Lord, I hate you, I spit on your Sacrifice during life, but here is my baptismal certificate. Deal?"

 

So, baptism is big, but the baptized still get to go to Hell if they end up hating God, and the unbaptized get to go to Heaven if they end up loving God.     

 

pogi

I find immense peace and assurance in the revealed doctrines of baptism for the dead for all mankind.  I can think of no more charitable act than to perform these temple ordinances for another.  These ordinances testify to me that God truly is no respecter of persons and His grace is made evident in the temples.

That would be an almost impossible pill for me to swallow if I was investigating the Catholic church to find out that my family and friends and ancestors have no hope in the next life as they received no baptism in this life.  How would you respond to a Mormon investigating the Catholic Church who had this question?

 

3DOP

Undoubtedly, your concern would be that they loved God as best as they knew how to do. If it is revealed at the Judgment that they did this, that they died in the love of God and their neighbor, they will be in heaven, whether they are sacramentally baptized or not. I would respond to a Mormon investigating Catholicism by saying that your LDS relatives, who might be in heaven, would exhort you to remember that unlike you, they never considered the Catholic faith and were born and lived in an environment where the good God knew they could not receive Catholic baptism, and so they were not judged for failing to do what they could not do. But you, on the other hand, are investigating the Catholic faith. Wouldn't it be a hard irony, if for the sake of relatives who believed in Mormonism but went to Catholic heaven, one who became aware of the need for Catholic baptism refused it? 

 

pogi

While Mormon's reject the Catholic baptism, the door is not closed for them.  Is there any similar hope from a Catholic perspective?

 

3DOP

Oh yes. The hope is in a good God who loves every human soul, whose Son, because of the alienation of human souls from His Father, died for each one of them. Why? So that they could enjoy eternity in the Loving Presence of God where He discloses to us joys unique to each of us His beloved, that neither eye can see presently nor ear hear. Because such a beneficent God is the One who we all must face one day, our hope for any of our dear departed dead is that they did not despise this great love. We must consent to the justice of Him who sacrificed all for them. We trust, we know, that such a good God would never punish anyone beyond their due. When all of the thoughts and acts and intents of the hearts are revealed, it will perhaps be easier to understand why there is Hell. And if in the Judgment, it is discovered that any of our relatives, be they dear aunts or uncles, brother or sisters, or mother or father, should have hated in their deepest hearts the One who has captured our heart, my choice is clear.    

 

"Think ye, that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, no; but separation. For there shall be from henceforth five in one house divided: three against two, and two against three. The father shall be divided against the son, and the son against his father, the mother against the daughter, and the daughter against the mother, the mother in law against her daughter in law, and the daughter in law against her mother in law." (Luke 12:51-53)

Edited April 26, 2014 by 3DOP

[pogi]

That was a very thoughtful and good response 3DOP.  I like that much better then the responses I got on my mission in the Philippines.  I did not encounter such a belief among the Catholics in the Philippines, so it is surprising to hear it from you.  It is not dissimilar to the LDS view of the goodness of God and His perfect mercy and justice for those who died without the gospel in ignorance.  As you know, the one difference is that we view baptism as an absolute requirement for exaltation as explained in John 3:5 and elswhere, even if you died without it.  No exceptions will be made.  

 

I believe in different degrees of eternal Hell for those who died, or lost their free will in a state of alienation from God's love. 

 

That's funny, that is like the reverse of the Mormon after-life.  Is this a common Catholic belief or doctrine, or just your speculation?  You believe in one relatively small heaven with different degrees of hell, while we believe in one relatively small hell with different degrees of heaven. 

Edited April 26, 2014 by pogi

[3DOP]

That was a very thoughtful and good response 3DOP.  I like that much better then the responses I got on my mission in the Philippines.  I did not encounter such a belief among the Catholics in the Philippines, so it is surprising to hear it from you.  It is not dissimilar to the LDS view of the goodness of God and His perfect mercy and justice for those who died without the gospel in ignorance.  As you know, the one difference is that we view baptism as an absolute requirement for exaltation as explained in John 3:5 and elswhere, even if you died without it.  No exceptions will be made.  

 

 

That's funny, that is like the reverse of the Mormon after-life.  Is this a common Catholic belief or doctrine, or just your speculation?  You believe in one relatively small heaven with different degrees of hell, while we believe in one relatively small hell with different degrees of heaven. 

 

Small heaven? Wow, what a misunderstanding. Oh no, different degrees for everybody wherever they go. There are passages of Scripture that speak pretty certainly about degrees. There is Daniel talking about our comparison to stars, that shine with greater and less brilliance and in the same chapter of St. Luke that talks about "Christ as divider of families" that I quoted above, there is also a parable that talks about why some receive few "stripes" and others more, speaking pretty obviously about the afterlife. It seems like maybe we Catholics need to get the word out about what we really believe! It wouldn't seem just if an unbaptized child got the same "punishment" as somebody who actually sinned. Nor would it seem just if among the actual sinners, one deliberately blasphemed God once and never repented, and another made a lifetime habit of it, and there was no difference in their punishment. The same ideas would apply to rewards. It just wouldn't be right if everybody got the exact same thing. Anyway that is apparently how the Catholic Church reads it because here is a definitive word from the Council of Florence:

 

"...the souls of those, who after the reception of baptism have incurred no stain of sin at all, and those, who after the contraction of the stain of sin whether in their bodies, or when released from the same bodies, as we have said before are purged, are immediately received into heaven, and see clearly the one and triune God Himself, just as He is, yet according to the diversity of merits, one more perfectly than another. Moreover, the souls of those who depart in actual mortal sin or in original sin only, descend immediately into hell but to undergo punishments of different kinds." 

 

(From the Ecumenical Council of Florence, Laetentur coeli, Decree for the Greeks, July 6, 1439)

Edited April 26, 2014 by 3DOP

[pogi]

Small heaven? Wow, what a misunderstanding.

 

I wouldn't call it small either, I was speaking in relative terms to the LDS idea heaven.  The qualifications for hell are vastly more restrictive in Mormonism than in Catholicism, that can only mean that our heaven is bigger. 

 

Oh no, different degrees for everybody wherever they go. There are passages of Scripture that speak pretty certainly about degrees. There is Daniel talking about our comparison to stars, that shine with greater and less brilliance and in the same chapter of St. Luke that talks about "Christ as divider of families" that I quoted above, there is also a parable that talks about why some receive few "stripes" and others more, speaking pretty obviously about the afterlife. It seems like maybe we Catholics need to get the word out about what we really believe!

 

I think you are right about getting the word out to other Catholics about what they believe, because those are the very same scriptures that we used to teach about the different degrees of glory in the mission field, which in my experience, Catholics always rejected.  They always tried to spin those scriptures differently. 

 

It wouldn't seem just if an unbaptized child got the same "punishment" as somebody who actually sinned. 

 

Moreover, the souls of those who depart in actual mortal sin or in original sin only, descend immediately into hell but to undergo punishments of different kinds." 

 

Just curious, how do you reconcile these two ideas?  How can an unbaptized child enter heaven if he is tainted with original sin?

[3DOP]

As for exceptions being made for water baptism, it is only if they receive another baptism. Baptism of Blood, wherein someone who has not been baptized dies for the faith, is as good as water baptism. There is this story in old Roman days, during the persecutions, about 40 men being sent naked to die in icy weather conditions. Finally one of them couldn't take it any longer and came in. But a Roman soldier, observing the steadfast faith of the rest, shed his clothes and took the place of the man who left. I don't think it is, but the story could be apocryphal. In any case, we would teach that such a soldier would not be punished for failing to be baptised. By the grace of God and nothing else, his act of faith was a form of baptism that could never permit anyone to accuse him of hating God or Christ or the faith. No. Only for a moment does a heart need to burn with love for God, and especially at the moment of death. That is what matters.

 

Another baptism is designated baptism of desire, meaning that if the inculpably ignorant knew of the need for water baptism, they would seek it. In 1206, a letter was received in Rome from the Bishop fo Metz, about the death of a Jew of whom it was unclear whether he had been baptized. It seems like a beautiful response to me affirming the doctrine we call, baptism of desire. Although in this example the desire is quite explicit, it is also taught that it applies to those who do not come to the same awareness is the man in question. Anyway, here is Rome's reply:

 

"You have to be sure, intimated that a certain Jew, when at the point of death, since he lived only among Jews, immersed himself in water while saying: 'I baptize myself in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, Amen.'

 

We respond, since there should be a distinction between the one baptizing and the one baptized, as is clearly gathered from the words of the Lord, when he says to the Apostles: 'Go baptize all nations in the name etc,' the Jew mentioned must be baptized again by another, that it may be shown that he who baptized is one person, and he who baptizes another...If however, such a one had died immediately, he would have rushed to his heavenly home without delay because of the faith of the sacrament, although not because of the sacrament of faith."

 

(From the letter "Debitum pastoralis officii", to Berthold, the Bishop of Metz, August 28, 1206)

Edited April 26, 2014 by 3DOP

[3DOP]

Hey pogi...I have really enjoyed this afternoon, but I am now called to go take charge of the first barbecue of the Spring! You make at least one great point I want to acknowledge and raise some more questions. Maybe tomorrow again, the good Lord willing. God bless.

 

Rory