403 Forbidden

403 Forbidden

403 Forbidden

Nine Moons » Blog Archive : Frustrated by a Latin Mass Catholic » Frustrated by a Latin Mass Catholic

Frustrated by a Latin Mass Catholic

Don - May 13, 2005

I had a former employee stop by and we got chatting for a few minutes. She is a very conservative Catholic, no Vatican 2, Mass in Latin only….she makes Mel Gibson look like a bleeding heart liberal.

Anyway, the missionaries stopped by and told her how wrong she, and the doctrines of the Catholic church are wrong. I took the president Hinckley approach and talked about common truths inviting her to hold on to the truths she had, but be open to receiving more. We agreed on several truths we share. She then asked me to be specific about doctrines in her church that I felt were in error.

Infant Baptism was my first choice. The conversation led from it not being found in the scriptures, to whether it’s needed or not. What I found interesting was their doctrine provides that in emergencies you don’t have to use “holy water”. And if the emergency is right you don’t even have to be a priest, a lay person can do it.

We also discussed if everyone therefore needed to be baptised. Yes they do, but in special cases no you don’t. Special cases include those who have never heard of Jesus Christ.

I got frustrated with every doctrine we discussed they had a firm belief or doctrine, but then they always had exceptions.

Thinking about the experience I wondered if we do the same thing?

1 Comment »

  1. Ok Ill give this topic a shot…
    Sure we do! We rationalize alot of things here and there! But as far as a church-backed doctrine? I dont really think so.
    BUT we do things on a case by case basis as it is, they’re called Bishiops. One persons premarital sex can be “punished” by being x’d while another just probabtion. It IS up to the Bishop and the “sinner”.
    We’ve made a system that allows for us to still be doctrinly Just as well as exsemptionally so. I mean come on we ARE talkin about modern revaltaion here people.
    Bryce | Email | Homepage | 05.14.05 – 2:56 am | #

    I think that we are flexible in order to cover our bases. Look at children who die before the age of accountability, abortion, polygamy, etc.

    Isn’t this the complaint of most evangelicals against us – that we are to malleable?
    J. Stapley | Email | Homepage | 05.15.05 – 1:34 am | #

    Hey, we can give blessings in an emergancy with only one person instead of two. Of course that’s not a saving ordinance…
    Bret | Email | Homepage | 05.20.05 – 3:02 am | #

    I investigated the LDS Church for a while, but I recently decided to join the Catholic Church instead.

    I think you raise a really interesting question, because it gets at one of the reasons I didn’t become LDS — I felt like there was no doctrinal center, as if the goalposts could always be moved.

    I suspect that’s the feeling you had when talking to your former coworker. Maybe it arises from a lack of understanding on each of our parts about the other religion. On some level I must not be “getting” something.

    For example, I would find strange statements by earlier presidents of the church that didn’t square with what I was presently hearing from Church (on issues like Adam-God or the behavior of Africans in the pre-mortal life) and I was told that when a prophet says something, you have to square it with the Scriptures and with what you feel from the Holy Ghost. If the GA’s words conflict with the Scriptures, then you go with the Scriptures.

    But on the other hand I was told that what sets the LDS Church apart from other churches is that they have a living prophet who can clarify how the Scriptures are to be properly understood and which interpretation is correct. So I felt like I was hearing circular reasoning.

    Knowing that in Mormonism there’s no creed, and that what makes it distinctive is a set of normative practices rather than a set of beliefs, helps me to make sense of it.

    As far as the lady’s statements about infant baptism go – without going into it too deeply – one thought I have is that Catholics and Mormons don’t conceive of baptism in the same way. That may be why what she’s saying doesn’t make sense. For Mormons, it’s a saving ordinance. For Catholics, it’s a sacrament. To use a linguistic analogy, they’re false cognates. They look the same (they both involve water and the invocation of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost) but they have different meanings.
    Greg | Email | Homepage | 05.25.05 – 10:04 pm | #



    Comment: ?

    Commenting by HaloScan.com

    Comment by Comment Restore — November 28, 2005 @ 1:28 am

Leave a comment

RSS feed for comments on this post.