Pope Francis - Address to Congress

[Traveler]

Yep.

 

As a Catholic, it was difficult to understand.  As an LDS it made this very clear.  In LDS teaching, death is not the end of works such that we can only be saved by grace with no regard for "all we can do".  Therefore, it does not change God's Plan of Salvation for Him to forge the path of the Good News as better served when certain people are sent to work their salvation from the other side of the veil so that they can be saved by grace after all they can do.

 

So, you don't believe that Nephi was commanded by God to kill Laban either?

 

Actually I believe that there is a great deal missing in this epic.  In essence I believe that Laban openly rebelled against a sacred covenant he had with G-d - and that the covenant was more important and sacred than Laban's life.  I believe that life is sacred and important but not the most important nor the most sacred of things we will encounter.   Yes - I believe that sacred thing have priorities.  Though I believe life is sacred - I believe in law requiring life for crimes against things more sacred than and including life.  I am however, extremely hard pressed to imagine anything more sacred or important than the innocent life of children.  I may be mistaken but I do not believe Hitler gave commands to slaughter young Jewish children especially in the gas chambers.  Charlemagne on the other hand slaughtered even the infants of families connected in any way to paganism.

[Guest]

Actually I believe that there is a great deal missing in this epic.  In essence I believe that Laban openly rebelled against a sacred covenant he had with G-d - and that the covenant was more important and sacred than Laban's life.  I believe that life is sacred and important but not the most important nor the most sacred of things we will encounter.   Yes - I believe that sacred thing have priorities.  Though I believe life is sacred - I believe in law requiring life for crimes against things more sacred than and including life.  I am however, extremely hard pressed to imagine anything more sacred or important than the innocent life of children.  I may be mistaken but I do not believe Hitler gave commands to slaughter young Jewish children especially in the gas chambers.  Charlemagne on the other hand slaughtered even the infants of families connected in any way to paganism.

 

Once again... Medieval Times versus the 20th Century.

 

And about Hitler - he not only killed jewish and gypsy children, he even killed German children who were handicapped.

 

But comparing Hitler's run through Europe and Charlemagne's run through Europe is the same as calling the LDS Church racist for Brigham Young's racial statements because President Monson saying it today would make him a racist... and that's not even 2 centuries apart.

 

The history of Charlemagne's sacking of the Saxons is highly debated by modern historians.  The only source of this history is some book juxtapositioning Charlemagne's Massacre of Verden with the Biblical story of the Amelakites.  Therefore, it is debated if the writer was romanticizing the event to rise to the level of the Biblical story.

 

But, in any case, unless you look at that history through the lens of a Medieval Society, you will never see it in any favorable light no matter what Charlemagne did or didn't do.  Just like you'll never be able to justify any of the Biblical stories when you read it through today's modern lens.  Just like today's Government looking at the founding of the country through modern lenses taking the position that America is built upon immorality and we must, therefore, pay for that sin now.

 

That type of historical reading gets you nowhere close to understanding history.

Edited October 7, 2015 by anatess

[estradling75]

Anatess...  Blueskye  is the one making the claims that the Catholic Church has always maintained the standard it has today...  Traveler is simply pointing out (and you are agreeing to) the simple fact that the Catholic Church has not maintained such a standard...

[Guest]

Anatess...  Blueskye  is the one making the claims that the Catholic Church has always maintained the standard it has today...  Traveler is simply pointing out (and you are agreeing to) the simple fact that the Catholic Church has not maintained such a standard...

 

Uhm no.  I don't agree with Traveler on this point.  At all.

[estradling75]

Uhm no.  I don't agree with Traveler on this point.  At all.

 

So you don't agree that Blueskye was wrong to claim that the Catholic church has always had and practiced a "Modern Morality"? Because that is the point Traveler is making even if you disagree with the supporting evidence he uses.

[Guest]

So you don't agree that Blueskye was wrong to claim that the Catholic church has always had and practiced a "Modern Morality"? Because that is the point Traveler is making even if you disagree with the supporting evidence he uses.

 

First of all... it was Fatima, not Blueskye - I made that mistake in an earlier post, but it's Fatima's rebuttal to Traveler pointing out the Toleration Act that started this train of conversation.

 

Second of all, I have no idea what you mean by "Modern Morality".  Fatima simply stated that the Catholic Church's doctrine has consistently preserved the tradition of the sanctity of Life in its entire history to which Traveler took issue with the claim stating as an example the Toleration Act of 1849 as well as Charlemagne's standing as the Defender of the Faith... to which I issued several rebuttals.

 

Yes, I side completely with Fatima and hold it true that the Catholic Church has always abided by the doctrinal Tradition of the Sanctity of Life in all its development... from its position on abortion without exceptions to euthanasia to suicide to the death penalty to justified killing as opposed to murder, etc. etc.

Edited October 7, 2015 by anatess

[estradling75]

First of all... it was Fatima, not Blueskye - I made that mistake in an earlier post, but it's Fatima's rebuttal to Traveler pointing out the Toleration Act that started this train of conversation.

 

Second of all, I have no idea what you mean by "Modern Morality".  Fatima simply stated that the Catholic Church's doctrine has consistently preserved the tradition of the sanctity of Life in its entire history to which Traveler took issue with the claim stating as an example the Toleration Act of 1849 as well as Charlemagne's standing as the Defender of the Faith... to which I issued several rebuttals.

 

Yes, I side completely with Fatima and hold it true that the Catholic Church has always abided by the doctrinal Tradition of the Sanctity of Life in all its development... from its position on abortion without exceptions to euthanasia to suicide to the death penalty to justified killing as opposed to murder, etc. etc.

 

Ok... My bad on the poster...   But you yourself have stated that it is wrong to hold historical people (like Brigham Young), to modern definitions of morality.  I felt it safe to assume that you also included historical organizations (like the Catholic Church) in that exception.

 

You used the term lenses...  Yet Faitma claims Catholic Church "never wavered"   At best that is an opinion mistakenly stated as fact...  Because by your own post  any "facts" you choose is going to be based on your choice of Lens... and become more of opinions.  Which means Faitma's "opinion" stated as fact can't be supported factually through out Catholic Church's 2000 year history

[Guest]

Ok... My bad on the poster...   But you yourself have stated that it is wrong to hold historical people (like Brigham Young), to modern definitions of morality.  I felt it safe to assume that you also included historical organizations (like the Catholic Church) in that exception.

 

You used the term lenses...  Yet Faitma claims Catholic Church "never wavered"   At best that is an opinion mistakenly stated as fact...  Because by your own post  any "facts" you choose is going to be based on your choice of Lens... and become more of opinions.  Which means Faitma's "opinion" stated as fact can't be supported factually through out Catholic Church's 2000 year history

 

It is FACT.  Both Fatima and I are talking about the DOCTRINE of the Cathoilc Church.  Doctrine is pretty clear throughout the history of the Catholic Church even if it is 2000 years old.  Now, what individual Popes, Bishops, Priests, Emperor, Kings, etc... does in the name of the Church is vastly different from the DOCTRINE of the Church and the teachings of its Magisterium.

[estradling75]

It is FACT.  Both Fatima and I are talking about the DOCTRINE of the Cathoilc Church.  Doctrine is pretty clear throughout the history of the Catholic Church even if it is 2000 years old.  Now, what individual Popes, Bishops, Priests, Emperor, Kings, etc... does in the name of the Church is vastly different from the DOCTRINE of the Church and the teachings of its Magisterium.

 

To many people talk is cheap its the actions that count...  Thus the claim that the Catholic Church has never change will point one to the ACTIONS taken in the name of the church by is leaders...

 

The LDS church held to this standard I see no reason not to hold the Catholic Church to it

[Guest]

To many people talk is cheap its the actions that count...  Thus the claim that the Catholic Church has never change will point one to the ACTIONS taken in the name of the church by is leaders...

 

The LDS church held to this standard I see no reason not to hold the Catholic Church to it

 

So, you're saying, that the Mountain Meadows Massacre is just fine attributed to the LDS Church?  After all, Haight was a Stake President.

 

Or how about... so, the LDS Church must be held to all the contents of the Journal of Discourses... after all, they were all spoken and taught by the leaders of the Church.

 

How many times do we have an argument boil over in LDS.net because people keep on getting confused on what is LDS doctrine versus LDS practice?  If you can even get people to agree what is doctrine...

 

And we're only talking 200 years of history here... as opposed to 2,100.

 

Catholic doctrine doesn't have this same challenge because the doctrine boundaries are pretty clear.  They are at least written in Catechism and Canon Law.  So, all you have to do to know the history of a certain teaching by the magisterium is to go through the history of the Catechism and Canon Law for that particular topic.  And in this history - you can study it if you want - sanctity of life has never changed.

 

And yes, there have been bishops teaching/acting against Canon Law in the Catholic Church... hence, Pope JPII added a canonical penalty to church leaders teaching heterodox positions critical to the Catholic Faith - one of which is the Sanctity of Life.

[estradling75]

So, you're saying, that the Mountain Meadows Massacre is just fine attributed to the LDS Church?  After all, Haight was a Stake President.

 

Or how about... so, the LDS Church must be held to all the contents of the Journal of Discourses... after all, they were all spoken and taught by the leaders of the Church.

 

How many times do we have an argument boil over in LDS.net because people keep on getting confused on what is LDS doctrine versus LDS practice?  If you can even get people to agree what is doctrine...

 

And we're only talking 200 years of history here... as opposed to 2,100.

 

Catholic doctrine doesn't have this same challenge because the doctrine boundaries are pretty clear.  They are at least written in Catechism and Canon Law.  So, all you have to do to know the history of a certain teaching by the magisterium is to go through the history of the Catechism and Canon Law for that particular topic.  And in this history - you can study it if you want - sanctity of life has never changed.

 

And yes, there have been bishops teaching/acting against Canon Law in the Catholic Church... hence, Pope JPII added a canonical penalty to church leaders teaching heterodox positions critical to the Catholic Faith - one of which is the Sanctity of Life.

 

 

I never said I liked it... I said it is used against us and we rarely get to wave it off as an imperfect leader.  But lets go ahead and do that..  If we do.. if we only go by the Doctrine of the church Fatima has no point

 

Because the reality is that religions don't change doctrine all that much.  When there is pressure to change a doctrine on a particular religion the most likely thing to happen is the spawning of a new religion off the old. Catholic Church has tons of spawn.  The LDS church has it share.  So unchanging doctrine is a meaningless metric for a religion, because most of them are that way. (Depending on how you define Doctrine LDS is either also unchanging or the ability to change is a foundational principle).

 

That just leaves time... And while the Catholic Church has all other Christan churches beat on that matter... There are non Christan religions that can beat it time wise...  For example the Jewish faith is older then the Catholic faith by a much larger margin then the Catholic Church is older then the LDS church and their doctrine have also been stable (it has its spawns of course)  But I positive that Fatima would strongly disagree that the Jew faith was somehow superior because it is Older and has been stable in its doctrine longer...

[Traveler]

So, you're saying, that the Mountain Meadows Massacre is just fine attributed to the LDS Church?  After all, Haight was a Stake President.

 

Or how about... so, the LDS Church must be held to all the contents of the Journal of Discourses... after all, they were all spoken and taught by the leaders of the Church.

 

How many times do we have an argument boil over in LDS.net because people keep on getting confused on what is LDS doctrine versus LDS practice?  If you can even get people to agree what is doctrine...

 

And we're only talking 200 years of history here... as opposed to 2,100.

 

Catholic doctrine doesn't have this same challenge because the doctrine boundaries are pretty clear.  They are at least written in Catechism and Canon Law.  So, all you have to do to know the history of a certain teaching by the magisterium is to go through the history of the Catechism and Canon Law for that particular topic.  And in this history - you can study it if you want - sanctity of life has never changed.

 

And yes, there have been bishops teaching/acting against Canon Law in the Catholic Church... hence, Pope JPII added a canonical penalty to church leaders teaching heterodox positions critical to the Catholic Faith - one of which is the Sanctity of Life.

As we look at LDS history; Mountain Meadows actually stands out as a most unusual exception to LDS dealing with those that disagree with them - and as an exception even Mountain Meadows was not a matter of LDS invading new territory and using the threat of death as a method of conversion - plus those that planned and executed the Mountain Meadows being given the titles of "Defender of the Faith" for what they did by the president and prophet of the LDS faith.

 

I understand that there are trends in time.  My point is that the Catholic Church had not been consistent as trends through out history.  I understand that in the history of G-d dealing with his covenant people there have been gross departures from official doctrine.  For example there was King David and Solomon.  We also have the example of the Pharisees and Scribes that - despite their devotion to their law (scripture) and their doctrine - they still found ways around their doctrines to seek to crucify the very G-d that gave them their law and doctrine.

 

I would also point out that Jesus did not teach - "By their doctrine ye shall know them."  Rather he taught, "By their fruits ye shall know them".  Historically what have been the fruits of Catholics introducing themselves and their religion to new nations, lands, tongues and peoples?  Especially those not interesting in converting to their religion?

[Guest]

I never said I liked it... I said it is used against us and we rarely get to wave it off as an imperfect leader.  But lets go ahead and do that..  If we do.. if we only go by the Doctrine of the church Fatima has no point

 

Because the reality is that religions don't change doctrine all that much.  When there is pressure to change a doctrine on a particular religion the most likely thing to happen is the spawning of a new religion off the old. Catholic Church has tons of spawn.  The LDS church has it share.  So unchanging doctrine is a meaningless metric for a religion, because most of them are that way. (Depending on how you define Doctrine LDS is either also unchanging or the ability to change is a foundational principle).

 

That just leaves time... And while the Catholic Church has all other Christan churches beat on that matter... There are non Christan religions that can beat it time wise...  For example the Jewish faith is older then the Catholic faith by a much larger margin then the Catholic Church is older then the LDS church and their doctrine have also been stable (it has its spawns of course)  But I positive that Fatima would strongly disagree that the Jew faith was somehow superior because it is Older and has been stable in its doctrine longer...

 

 

Catholic, Jewish, and LDS are doctrines that don't change.  Other Churches, not so.  For example - abortion is taboo but then IVF comes along... now - sperm, meet egg in a petri dish, some implanted, others discarded... life or not?  Other Churches flip flop and change to allot for an "enlightenment" to fit the IVF cases or any other modern considerations or popular positions.  Catholics do not.  LDS can - they have a different definition of when Life Begins so IVF, rape, whatever... remain consistent to doctrine even as they are not Pro-life.

[estradling75]

Catholic, Jewish, and LDS are doctrines that don't change.  Other Churches, not so.  For example - abortion is taboo but then IVF comes along... now - sperm, meet egg in a petri dish, some implanted, others discarded... life or not?  Other Churches flip flop and change to allot for an "enlightenment" to fit the IVF cases or any other modern considerations or popular positions.  Catholics do not.  LDS can - they have a different definition of when Life Begins so IVF, rape, whatever... remain consistent to doctrine even as they are not Pro-life.

 

Thank you.  You agreed with my point.  The frequency we might think other churches don't change doctrine is irrelevant to the fact that their are other religions that don't.. and some of them are quite old.  Therefore Fatima's statement is simply pointless.  The Catholic church is not special in its unchangingness in doctrine, its not special in its age, and it is not special in the actions of its leaders in living up to its doctrine.  All the points that Fatima's post might have been trying to make have be shot down.

Edited October 8, 2015 by estradling75

[blueskye]

Yep.

As a Catholic, it was difficult to understand. As an LDS it made this very clear. In LDS teaching, death is not the end of works such that we can only be saved by grace with no regard for "all we can do". Therefore, it does not change God's Plan of Salvation for Him to forge the path of the Good News as better served when certain people are sent to work their salvation from the other side of the veil so that they can be saved by grace after all they can do.

So, you don't believe that Nephi was commanded by God to kill Laban either?

Catholics are not sola fide.

[blueskye]

Re: Charlamagne...there is the theology surrounding just war, which is sound and logical, but also used by some to justify unjust actions. That "some" includes Catholics of high station and prominence. But, as Anatess points out, inserting anachronisms into history based on modern ideas and social norms, isn't understanding history.

God will be the judge. And Catholic doctrine will remain the same, regardless of how it is put into practice, or not, by Catholic individuals or groups.

[Guest]

Thank you.  You agreed with my point.  The frequency we might think other churches don't change doctrine is irrelevant to the fact that their are other religions that don't.. and some of them are quite old.  Therefore Fatima's statement is simply pointless.  The Catholic church is not special in its unchangingness in doctrine, its not special in its age, and it is not special in the actions of its leaders in living up to its doctrine.  All the points that Fatima's post might have been trying to make have be shot down.

 

Incorrect.  The Catholic Church is special in all Christian denominations except for the LDS (which Christians argue is not Christian) when it comes to its position on Life.  Fatima's statements is completely not pointless.

 

I went through this study when I was investigating other Christian denominations searching for "truth".  I have 4 main things that were my litmus test that a Church must meet consistently.  1.)  Apostolic Authority, 2.) Biblical tradition, 3.) Sanctity of Marriage, 4.)  Sanctity of Life.

 

The Catholic Church meets all 4 with 1 the main difference between the Roman and non-Roman Catholic Churches.  Most, if not all, Protestant Churches fail 1, 3, and 4.

 

Put it this way - if a Church says - Life is Sacred EXCEPT when the mother was raped... you fail 4.  Your doctrine on the Sanctity of Life is not consistent.

Edited October 9, 2015 by anatess

[estradling75]

Incorrect.  The Catholic Church is special in all Christian denominations except for the LDS (which Christians argue is not Christian) when it comes to its position on Life.  Fatima's statements is completely not pointless.

 

It is.. because she is on a LDS forum talking to LDS people... Thus her argument is pointless as presented to her target audience 

[Guest]

It is.. because she is on a LDS forum talking to LDS people... Thus her argument is pointless as presented to her target audience 

 

It is not.  Because she's not LDS and this is not LDS Discussion Forum.  This is Current Events forum and we're talking about the Pope - obviously not an LDS.

 

And for an LDS to attack her Catholic Faith on the Sanctity of Life over Charlemagne... very poor form in addition to their side of the argument being wrong.

Edited October 9, 2015 by anatess

[estradling75]

It is not.  Because she's not LDS and this is not LDS Discussion Forum.  This is Current Events forum and we're talking about the Pope - obviously not an LDS.

 

And for an LDS to attack her Catholic Faith on the Sanctity of Life over Charlemagne... very poor form in addition to their side of the argument being wrong.

 

 

Are you going to seriously say that here on LDS.net the audience who reads and response to post is not primarily LDS?

[Traveler]

It is not.  Because she's not LDS and this is not LDS Discussion Forum.  This is Current Events forum and we're talking about the Pope - obviously not an LDS.

 

And for an LDS to attack her Catholic Faith on the Sanctity of Life over Charlemagne... very poor form in addition to their side of the argument being wrong.

 

The Catholic Church is singularly the most responsible for the Great Apostasy and the changing of the apostolic doctrine.  I am always amazed that people will stand in the light of noon day and declare it night.  At the core of ever counterfeit is the claim that it is actually the unchanged original – but in reality a counterfeit is always a forgery.   One aspect of apostasy is inconsistency between declared belief (doctrine) and behavior – in order for there to be an apostasy from the original there must be a historical inconsistency.

 

When we speak of the sanctity of life – I will ask the question – which is more the indication of consistency == Consistent doctrine throughout history or Consistent application of doctrine throughout history?  The very definition of hypocrisy is inconsistency between one’s doctrine and one’s application of doctrine.  Jesus pointed out the hypocrisy of the Pharisees and Scribes.  Perhaps the sanctity of life needs to be discussed – not by doctrine but by application.  Abortion is argued as a right of a woman and therefore an argument of the sanctity of her existing life in conflict with a life that does not yet exist (whether or not true).   In essence the application is a discussion over what is life – and it appears to me that historically there have been shifts in the doctrine of what is human life.  There is another aspect – and that is that value or choice between one life (human) and another.  And I believe that historically that there have been significant variations in that doctrine in societies dominated by the Catholic Church.  Not just doctrine hidden away in some dusty document on an obscure library shelf – but the doctrine published and actions either officially praised or opposed and called out.

 

If someone is doing something contrary to official doctrine – they will not be praised and given honorary titles for the action – and if there is official silence at one point of history and not at others – that is not consistency of the official doctrine.    

[Guest]

Are you going to seriously say that here on LDS.net the audience who reads and response to post is not primarily LDS?

 

No.  I'm saying that in LDS.net you can post a thread - which I just did - that is not LDS, but rather, Catholic.  And it should be safe for a Catholic to respond to such threads without having her religion that is dear to her bashed on her face.  Especially with non-truthful claims.

Edited October 13, 2015 by anatess

[estradling75]

No.  I'm saying that in LDS.net you can post a thread - which I just did - that is not LDS, but rather, Catholic.  And it should be safe for a Catholic to respond to such threads without having her religion that is dear to her bashed on her face.  Especially with non-truthful claims.

 

 

By the same token Catholic should not expect to be able attack the Faith of their Host in a passive aggressive manor and not get called out on it.

 

After all it is one thing to say that the Catholic Church has a long standing stance on the sanctity of human life.  It quit another to say what she did (the next quote says anatess but it is a glitch it is a quote from fatima)

 

 

  She is, in fact, the only church who does not waiver on the sanctity of human life regardless of the circumstances of conception.  She is the only church whose doctrine will never, ever counsel a member to pray about an abortion and come to a decision. 

 

That right there is a slap in the face of the religion of her host 

[Guest]

By the same token Catholic should not expect to be able attack the Faith of their Host in a passive aggressive manor and not get called out on it.

 

After all it is one thing to say that the Catholic Church has a long standing stance on the sanctity of human life.  It quit another to say what she did (the next quote says anatess but it is a glitch it is a quote from fatima)

 

 

 

That right there is a slap in the face of the religion of her host 

 

 

Be that as it may, it does not give you license to slap the Catholic Church right back, especially in the manner Traveler has done.  This is not the first thread he has attacked the Catholic Church in such a manner.

 

Revenge is not a trait we practice as LDS folks.

[estradling75]

Be that as it may, it does not give you license to slap the Catholic Church right back, especially in the manner Traveler has done.  This is not the first thread he has attacked the Catholic Church in such a manner.

 

Revenge is not a trait we practice as LDS folks.

 

Pointing out hypocrisy is a standard defense..  We have covered this.. If Fatima meant "Actions of the Leaders of the Catholic church"  as most people would take and understand Fatima' claims... then Traveler's posts point out the clear errors in that.  If however we accept your claim that Fatima meant "Doctrine Only" without any reference to actual practice then I pointed out the flaws in that.  You might not like how it was done, but defending the LDS beliefs from an attack is behavior one should expect here, given what and who we are.

Edited October 13, 2015 by estradling75