Jump to content

Anti- Catholicism


Recommended Posts

You have neither correct doctrine or authority so no more okay than baptizing adults, but there is nothing in our scriptures that can be pointed as specifically and officially teaching about the Catholic Church or Faith, let alone teaching us to destroy it. You have to write your own assumptions into the text which doesn't count as what believers believe. There may even be some believers who interpret scriptures that way, my experience is those who do are reading them very superficially when I ask them their reasoning why.

I recall differently, and see the articles at LDS.org still site Christian practices as an example of a

"False doctrine", condemned by the Book of Mormon. So while I appreciate your approach and tact, what I read at LDS.org doesn't support your approach.

Link to comment

As I have pointed out many times here, the practice of infant baptism condemned in the Book of Mormon applies only to those (in the New World) who would teach that dead unbaptized babies suffered the sense pains of hell. It doesn't address Catholic baptism. I agree with the Book of Mormon in its condemnation of that kind of infant baptism.

I agree with you. But misinformation about Christianity in general and Catholicism in particularly is infused into Mormon teaching. The practices and beliefs of other religions, not LDS is cited very often, as a negative. Almost always, erroneous in understanding. Edited by saemo
Link to comment

I agree with you. But misinformation about Christianity in general and Catholicism in particularly is infused into Mormon teaching. The practices and beliefs of other religions, not LDS is cited very often, as a negative. Almost always, erroneous in understanding.

 

I agree to the extent that Latter-day Saints (other than Catholic converts who were correctly taught) cannot have a full understanding of what it means to be Catholic.  Just as Catholics cannot have a full understanding of what it means to be Mormon.

 

We have grown out of the polemics of 19th century religion in America but they still rear their ugly head now and then.  Charitable people understand that others may have been taught wrong, and seek understanding.  A less constructive approach is to claim you know what other's believe more then they do, and quote long dead polemicists to prove your point.

 

My long bus rides with a knowledgeable and kind Catholic friend, where we discussed similarities and differences between our faith traditions, taught me how wonderful, and close to my own beliefs Catholicism is.  We of course have differences, but we have more similarities and a common love of Christ.

 

My experience is that a few LDS hang on to old notions borne of more argumentative days on the part of both Catholics and Mormons.  But most have respect and mutual admiration.  Those who post on boards like this may have more polarized opinions but they are not representative of your average Mormon or Catholic.

Edited by KevinG
Link to comment

I recall differently, and see the articles at LDS.org still site Christian practices as an example of a

"False doctrine", condemned by the Book of Mormon. So while I appreciate your approach and tact, what I read at LDS.org doesn't support your approach.

This is the claim I am disputing:

"We all know that anti-Catholicism is canonized in Mormon scripture".

There may be some, even leaders, that have interpreted scripture in antiCatholic ways, but there is nothing that requires this as demonstrated by others, including leaders, who don't.

The closest possibility is their creeds are an abomination, but this was also told to Joseph Smith who grew up in a heavily Protestant area and likely had little to no contact with Catholic belief at that time.

Nor is it completely understood what about the unspecified creeds were problematic, all beliefs taught? Hardly likely given we believe some of them as well. Some beliefs? possibly...but not identified. Could it be how the professors referred to applied them in such a way that prevented individuals from drawing near God? Seems most likely to me given what else is said...if so, one should look for teachings and those who teach in ways that interfere seeking out the Lord.

It is both too generic and too specific, imo, to label the condemnation as inherently "AntiCatholicism". It can certainly be used that way, but doesn't have to be and if not, then the claim that AntiCatholicism has been canonized in LDS scripture is false.

And for me it is not about being tactful, but being precise about what has been revealed from God. I don't think we should be putting words in the mouth of God and claiming this is what his revelations stated when they didn't, we should be clear on what is revelation and what is interpretation...what is personal interpretation and what is official interpretation that is approved by a majority of our leaders overtime (Approaching Mormon Doctrine iirc defines LDS doctrine in this manner imo).

If you are suggesting that someone engages in some form of antism towards a religious faith system any time they label something within it "false doctrine", do you also see yourself as an antiMormon or at least engaging in antiMormonism when you have posted here our doctrines and teachings are false?

Edited by Calm
Link to comment

I think we need to be careful with these types of characterizations.  The period you are describing addresses the acts of individuals rather than the acts of entire memberships or churches.  Also, when we begin to point our finger in accusation at others we have three fingers pointing back at ourselves.  

 

Individuals do terrible things regardless of religious affiliation.  I know of no organization lead by men that has done a perfect job in all things to all people.  If we are going to judge anyone or anything, focus on our own sins and let God take care of everyone else's sins.  

 

I think I understand you main points and agree with them, but let us strive to deliver them in a way that does not cause unnecessarily bad feelings.  

It takes a army to have a war and an army requires people to fight, usually committed people. And it was no different during the religious wars in europe. From the pulpit it was quite easy to convince people to fight on behalf of the faith.

 

http://study.com/academy/lesson/religious-warfare-across-europe-during-the-reformation.html

 

Below you can read about the german peasant revolt against the catholic church. It was real people having a war or a revolt against a church.

 

German Peasants' Revolt

This brings us to Chapter 1, the German Peasants' Revolt of 1524. In this conflict, German Protestants rebelled against the very Catholic, Holy Roman Empire in order to gain political and economic freedom. As the name implies, a majority of them were from the lower classes of society. Sadly, for the rebels, the revolt ended in failure, leaving thousands of peasants dead. Despite this loss, the Peasants' Revolt signaled the beginning of Europe's religious wars.

 

From the above link one can read about people involvement in the other religious wars in europe between the protestants and the catholics too. Before you accuse me of creating bad feelings you should read your history. I was not wrong in my previous post. The bad feelings between catholics and protestants at that time were real and widely shared. And thousands died because of it.

Link to comment

This is the claim I am disputing:

"We all know that anti-Catholicism is canonized in Mormon scripture".

There may be some, even leaders, that have interpreted scripture in antiCatholic ways, but there is nothing that requires this as demonstrated by others, including leaders, who don't.

The closest possibility is their creeds are an abomination, but this was also told to Joseph Smith who grew up in a heavily Protestant area and likely had little to no contact with Catholic belief at that time.

Nor is it completely understood what about the unspecified creeds were problematic, all beliefs taught? Hardly likely given we believe some of them as well. Some beliefs? possibly...but not identified. Could it be how the professors referred to applied them in such a way that prevented individuals from drawing near God? Seems most likely to me given what else is said...if so, one should look for teachings and those who teach in ways that interfere seeking out the Lord.

It is both too generic and too specific, imo, to label the condemnation as inherently "AntiCatholicism". It can certainly be used that way, but doesn't have to be and if not, then the claim that AntiCatholicism has been canonized in LDS scripture is false.

And for me it is not about being tactful, but being precise about what has been revealed from God. I don't think we should be putting words in the mouth of God and claiming this is what his revelations stated when they didn't, we should be clear on what is revelation and what is interpretation...what is personal interpretation and what is official interpretation that is approved by a majority of our leaders overtime (Approaching Mormon Doctrine iirc defines LDS doctrine in this manner imo).

If you are suggesting that someone engages in some form of antism towards a religious faith system any time they label something within it "false doctrine", do you also see yourself as an antiMormon or at least engaging in antiMormonism when you have posted here our doctrines and teachings are false?

You stated, the Book of Mormon is not referencing Catholicism. I said, in the case where Catholicism is used as an example of the false doctrine that the Book of Mormon describes, then there it is, being referenced to Catholicism. You want it both ways? To not be a reference, because then it isn't anti-Catholicism, except when it is referenced to Catholicsm, then calling a belief and practice of the Catholic Church an abomination is still really, not anti-Catholicism. I think you've proved the point of the OP.

Link to comment

You stated, the Book of Mormon is not referencing Catholicism. I said, in the case where Catholicism is used as an example of the false doctrine that the Book of Mormon describes, then there it is, being referenced to Catholicism. You want it both ways? To not be a reference, because then it isn't anti-Catholicism, except when it is referenced to Catholicsm, then calling a belief and practice of the Catholic Church an abomination is still really, not anti-Catholicism. I think you've proved the point of the OP.

 

Umm, Saemo? The assertion at issue is, (yet again) this one: "We all know that anti-Catholicism is canonized in Mormon scripture."

Not that someone or other has "referenced" something to someone, but that "anti-Catholicism is canonized in Mormon scripture." And not only that, but "We all know" it.

Link to comment

I agree with you. But misinformation about Christianity in general and Catholicism in particularly is infused into Mormon teaching. The practices and beliefs of other religions, not LDS is cited very often, as a negative. Almost always, erroneous in understanding.

 

Isn't that a surprise.  It is odd how that happens with churches.  I also expect that you have read how the Catholic Church treats all things Mormon.  Like, all baptisms done in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost are acceptable....unless you are Mormon and then you are not Christian.  That is a fun one, but then it is but the smallest bit of the ice berg.  

 

Pot, meet kettle. 

Link to comment

Isn't that a surprise.  It is odd how that happens with churches.  I also expect that you have read how the Catholic Church treats all things Mormon.  Like, all baptisms done in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost are acceptable....unless you are Mormon and then you are not Christian.  That is a fun one, but then it is but the smallest bit of the ice berg.  

 

Pot, meet kettle.

http://www.catholicdoors.com/faq/qu641.htm

 

 What happens when a baby is born and the doctor says that the infant will not live beyond a few hours because of medical reasons? How can the Church Sacrament of Baptism be administered in such a case?

A. 1. In the case of an emergency, anyone, even a non-Catholic, can administer the Sacrament of Baptism, (C.C.C. # 1284) providing that certain conditions are met. Those conditions are:

 

So we are good enough in an emergency, I guess but not otherwise.

 

The rationale used to be that the baby would go to limbo if not baptized and if the baby died.  Now I don't think they believe that any more yet they have emergency baptism.  It seems to me that if the belief in limbo has been reduced, so is the need for emergency baptism.  If God accepts babies without baptism, why do it at all?

 

I don't understand the rationale here

Edited by mfbukowski
Link to comment

I know.  "Limbo was never doctrine" but I learned it quite emphatically.  Read Augustine on what happens to unbaptized babies.

 

I am just trying to understand.  This was a biggie for me.  I can take ambiguity and mystery but this seems fairly contradictory.

 

What am I missing?

 

http://www.aboutcatholics.com/beliefs/do-unbaptized-babies-go-to-limbo/

 

Oh by the way you must read the comment below the article, by Miguel.  Hilarious.  Major space cadet linking LSD with baptism. Highly entertaining.

Edited by mfbukowski
Link to comment

Umm, Saemo? The assertion at issue is, (yet again) this one: "We all know that anti-Catholicism is canonized in Mormon scripture."Not that someone or other has "referenced" something to someone, but that "anti-Catholicism is canonized in Mormon scripture." And not only that, but "We all know" it.

Yes, exactly.

Link to comment

Isn't that a surprise.  It is odd how that happens with churches.  I also expect that you have read how the Catholic Church treats all things Mormon.  Like, all baptisms done in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost are acceptable....unless you are Mormon and then you are not Christian.  That is a fun one, but then it is but the smallest bit of the ice berg.  

 

Pot, meet kettle.

http://www.fallacyfiles.org/tuquoque.html

Link to comment

I don't know how you folks keep up with what is and isn't, It, but I'm done reading about abominable this and abominable that at LDS.org, just to prove to Mormons what their own church has on their website!

I can totally understand not agreeing with it, because neither do I. So we have that in common.

Link to comment

I don't know how you folks keep up with what is and isn't, It, but I'm done reading about abominable this and abominable that at LDS.org, just to prove to Mormons what their own church has on their website!

I can totally understand not agreeing with it, because neither do I. So we have that in common.

You keep on equating abominable with the catholic church. Not true. But you can't seem to understand this. I think that you have your own prejudices against the lds church which has been demonstrated on the other website that you posted on. All the mormons on this thread told you that it is not the catholic church. What more do you want? I think that you need to reevaluate your own attitude toward mormons and the lds church.

Link to comment

 

I don't understand the rationale here

 If God accepts babies without baptism, why do it at all?

This was my point too. If there is no limbo for unbaptized babies, why do it at all now. In the past it was to assure that the young soul would go to heaven. Now? It is much more unclear why to have infant baptism. However, I think that it is more based on tradition and it is a family moment, complete with godmothers and godfathers. So, I understand why catholics still do it. 

 

But I can also understand why god would consider it an abomination because it assumes that god is so merciless that young children before the age of accountability and babies would be punished for not having a baptism.

Link to comment

I know. "Limbo was never doctrine" but I learned it quite emphatically. Read Augustine on what happens to unbaptized babies.

I am just trying to understand. This was a biggie for me. I can take ambiguity and mystery but this seems fairly contradictory.

What am I missing?

http://www.aboutcatholics.com/beliefs/do-unbaptized-babies-go-to-limbo/

Oh by the way you must read the comment below the article, by Miguel. Hilarious. Major space cadet linking LSD with baptism. Highly entertaining.

I am with you on this one Mark. The practice informs the doctrine. If modern Catholicism is correct about no limbo, there is no emergency status until the age of reason. Of course, I can not believe this commission that gave an opinion that every dead unbaptized baby enjoys the beatific vision. It makes infant baptism symbolic and non sacramental. Edited by 3DOP
Link to comment

I am with you on this one Mark. The practice informs the doctrine. If modern Catholicism is correct about no limbo, there is no emergency status until the age of reason. Of course, I can not believe this commission that gave an opinion that every dead unbaptized baby enjoys the beatific vision. It makes infant baptism symbolic and non sacramental.

 

Doesn't Catholicism have a tradition of leniency with regards to baptism? The notion of the Baptism of Desire and the Baptism of Blood seem to indicate circumstances wherein the individual gains access to the beatific vision without the baptism of water. Given these traditions, is it necessarily against Catholic doctrine to open the possibility of the beatific vision to infants?

Link to comment

Doesn't Catholicism have a tradition of leniency with regards to baptism? The notion of the Baptism of Desire and the Baptism of Blood seem to indicate circumstances wherein the individual gains access to the beatific vision without the baptism of water. Given these traditions, is it necessarily against Catholic doctrine to open the possibility of the beatific vision to infants?

Not in the past. Many mothers and fathers who lost infants before baptism experienced a lot of sadness because their baby was in limbo.

 

It is clear that the traditional teaching on this topic has concentrated on the theory of limbo, understood as a state which includes the souls of infants who die subject to original sin and without baptism, and who, therefore, neither merit the beatific vision, nor yet are subjected to any punishment, because they are not guilty of any personal sin.

 

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20070419_un-baptised-infants_en.html

 

It is unfortunate that such mothers and fathers perhaps experienced such agony unnecessarily since limbo has changed:

 

http://www.reuters.com/article/2007/04/20/us-pope-limbo-idUSL2028721620070420#2MefmyJ4Y2tx0Kz5.97

Edited by why me
Link to comment

I don't know how you folks keep up with what is and isn't, It, but I'm done reading about abominable this and abominable that at LDS.org, just to prove to Mormons what their own church has on their website!

 

In which case, I have a solution for you, and it is this: You speak for your beliefs, and we'll speak for ours.

 

It will save you the frustration, and us the annoyance.

Link to comment

In which case, I have a solution for you, and it is this: You speak for your beliefs, and we'll speak for ours.

 

It will save you the frustration, and us the annoyance.

 

Um..... the problem is that in "speaking for ours" we have a plethora of interpretations and viewpoints.  You speak as if there is some monolithic LDS view on Catholicism.

Link to comment

Not in the past. Many mothers and fathers who lost infants before baptism experienced a lot of sadness because their baby was in limbo.

 

It is clear that the traditional teaching on this topic has concentrated on the theory of limbo, understood as a state which includes the souls of infants who die subject to original sin and without baptism, and who, therefore, neither merit the beatific vision, nor yet are subjected to any punishment, because they are not guilty of any personal sin.

 

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20070419_un-baptised-infants_en.html

 

It is unfortunate that such mothers and fathers perhaps experienced such agony unnecessarily since limbo has changed:

 

http://www.reuters.com/article/2007/04/20/us-pope-limbo-idUSL2028721620070420#2MefmyJ4Y2tx0Kz5.97

 

Let me continue the document right from where you left off:

 

This theory, elaborated by theologians beginning in the Middle Ages, never entered into the dogmatic definitions of the Magisterium, even if that same Magisterium did at times mention the theory in its ordinary teaching up until the Second Vatican Council. It remains therefore a possible theological hypothesis. However, in the Catechism of the Catholic Church (1992), the theory of limbo is not mentioned. Rather, the Catechism teaches that infants who die without baptism are entrusted by the Church to the mercy of God, as is shown in the specific funeral rite for such children.

 

Limbo was never a dogma and never a part of the deposit of faith.  It was and is a "possible theological hypothesis."  Yes, it was heavily taught and most people probably thought it was dogma but a little research would have shown them otherwise.  You could have been a fine Catholic and not believed in limbo (or did), just like today you can be a fine Catholic and believe in limbo (or not).  Since limbo was never dogma, no dogma has changed.

 

Also, let me point out that Mormons are no strangers to possible theological hypothesis that, in your words, cause people to experience agony unnecessarily.  The reasons given for the prohibition of the priesthood pop into mind as a nice parallel.

Link to comment

Doesn't Catholicism have a tradition of leniency with regards to baptism? The notion of the Baptism of Desire and the Baptism of Blood seem to indicate circumstances wherein the individual gains access to the beatific vision without the baptism of water. Given these traditions, is it necessarily against Catholic doctrine to open the possibility of the beatific vision to infants?

Hey Halc.

It would mean that the desire would be provided either by the church or the parents. Obviously the infants themselves are incapable. Some have mentioned the Feast of the Holy Innocents. That is in commemoration of the babies slain by Herod when he was trying to kill the Christ child. That has been offered as an example of infant baptism of blood.

I am not persuaded. I could be wrong. But it seems like wishful thinking coming from a desire not to appear cruel to non Catholics. I would suggest that a better way to counteract this concern is by explaining better what heaven is like and how limbo would resemble what most people would think heaven is like.

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...