Rick Perry's latest: sinners shouldn't be in the military

[Crackpot]

I could but I don't believe in the Pope.

[Sue U]

Oh, he exists. Have you seen those shoes?

[Lord Jim]

And that hat....

You can't miss it....

[Scooter]

I am reminded, though, of a story told by Troy Perry, founder of the Universal Fellowship of Metropolitan Community Churches, a church which is welcoming to lesbian and gay Christians, when he and others from his church were invited to an ecumenical service during a previous papal visit. One very snooty woman from the Episcopal Church, realizing who they were, asked loudly, "who invited them to come?" to which Troy responded, "the Pope invited all the bastard children to come and visit with him today, and he didn't distinguish between the gay bastards and the straight bastards." In a similar vein, to those who question the appropriatness of a Mormon presence at an ecumenical service hosted by the Pope, one might say, "the Pope wants to meet with all the bastard children no matter what kind of underwear they chose to put on."

[Crackpot]

I'm pretty sure that's Uncle Fester.

[dgs49]

Typical Scooter response. I describe a theoretical meeting (an inter-faith Christian gathering). He describes a totally different meeting (an interfaith gathering), and says I'm wrong because the attendees at HIS meeting are different from the ones at the meeting I desribed.

Is he stupid or what?

I probably shouldn't even ask. The answer is too obvious.

[Lord Jim]

Actually Dave, it looks to me like Scooter is referencing both kinds of meetings, and pointing out that the Mormon representatives were invited by the Pope to attend the one that was exclusively for Christians, when they could have been invited to one that included non-Christian faiths instead:

His Holiness Benedict XVI, Bishop of Rome (and holder of other titles accepted and/or disputed in varying degrees throughout Christendom), who presided over such an ecumenical prayer service on the occasion of his visit to the United States in April 2008, at which two LDS representatives were present. Lest there be any confusion, the Pope in his address at that service referred to those present as "representing Christian communities throughout the United States." And lest there be any attempt to rationalize the Mormon presence at this meeting of Christians as the only way for the Pope to engage with them during his visit, an interfaith gathering already been held on the previous day to which Mormons could have been invited. Instead, a decision was made to include them in the exclusively Christian gathering.

[Scooter]

Thank you, Jim, for pointing out what Dave's lack of reading comprehension precluded him from understanding.

So is Dave stupid or what?

The answer is too obvious, I probably shouldn't even ask.

[rubato]

"...

So the question, properly phrased, would be "is it appropriate to include representatives of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints in an ecumenical (i.e. broad-based Christian) prayer service?" The answer comes from none other than His Holiness Benedict XVI, Bishop of Rome (and holder of other titles accepted and/or disputed in varying degrees throughout Christendom), who presided over such an ecumenical prayer service on the occasion of his visit to the United States in April 2008,... "

OMG! Well Davey and LJ are required to submit to the authority of the pope.

Unless they really, really, really, hate someone bad and need to fuck 'em up a little. Of course. In that case they can just confess, pay a few shekels, and its all good.

yrs,
rubato

[dgs49]

An invitation to an interfaith gathering IS NOT determinative of whether the Vatican considers LDS to be a "Christian" religion. In fact the Church has a good working relationship with LDS organizations in Utah and elsewhere. Gordon Hinkley has visited the Vatican and spoken with high-level Catholic officials, although exactly whom he met with and the subject of the discussions was not revealed.

But the clearest indication of the Church's rejection of LDS as a Christian sect lies in the fact the Roman Catholic Church has taken the extraordinary step of stating formally that it does NOT accept the validity of Mormon "baptism." In contrast, the Church as a longstanding policy accepts ALL Christian baptisms; Christian converts who have already been baptized can skip this step in the formal conversion process. The formal statement from the Vatican (June 5, 2001) says that Mormon beliefs are so far apart from Christian belief that, "one cannot even consider this doctrine to be a heresy arising from a false understanding of Christian doctrine." The statement was signed by Cardinal Ratzinger, kind of a Big Shot in the Church.

Those with an even tepid interest in the subject might also be interested to know that the Mormon church expressly and emphatically has rejected ALL Protestant (Christian) religions, stating that, "...all their creeds were an abomination in [God's] sight," and emphatically the Catholic religion, which Smith refers to as, "the great and abominable church."

But if you want to go on believing that the Catholic Church considers LDS to be a Christian Church, by all means continue. Don't let the facts stand in your way.

[Scooter]

You see, this is why I provided the definitions, because clearly you still don't get the difference.

It was not an interfaith gathering. It was an ecumenical prayer service i.e. a gathering of various Christian bodies. People from non-Christian faiths were not invited, but Mormons were. But of course, you will continue to ignore this and pretend that something referred to on the Vatican's own website, to which I linked, as an ecumenical gathering was really an interfaith gathering, which it was not. It was a gathering of Christians, and the Pope himself explicitly referred to it as such in his address, which I linked to and quoted.

The baptism thing is meaningless, and the Archbishop of Salt Lake City went to great pains at the time to stress that it had no bearing whatsoever on the relationship of Mormons to the rest of the Christian Church. Mormons who wish to become Catholics will have to be baptized first, so what? So do Quakers, because Quakers do not practice baptism at all. Does that mean the Catholic Church considers Quakers to be non-Christian? Of course not, it means nothing more than the fact that neither Mormons nor Quakers have undergone a baptismal ceremony acceptable to Catholics. Period.

The Roman Catholic Church does not recognize most sacraments and rites in other Christian churches as having validity. It certainly does not recognize the validity of the sacrament of holy communion as practiced in most other Christian churches, nor does it recognize the validity of most ordinations performed in other Christian churches. That doesn't mean it doesn't view those churches as Christian. It is a judgment being made on the sacrament or rite, not on the church performing it. How is the refusal to accept Mormom baptism as valid any different?

[dgs49]

Right.

So you acknowledge that the RC church recognizes the baptisms of every Christian church (Baptism being a sine qua non for salvation), and that the VATICAN has specifically stated that it does NOT recognize Mormon "baptism."

And that means nothing.

Right.

Idiot.

[Scooter]

I acknowledge that Christian churches have varying degrees of acceptability of each other's baptisms (for example, many Christian churches reject infant baptism, that doesn't mean they consider churches practicing it to be non-Christian).

But since we agree that it would be inapropriate for non-Christians to be representing their churches at an ecumenical (i.e. exclusively Christian) prayer service, and since it is beyond any dispute that the Roman Catholic Church invited Mormon representatives to such a service on the occasion of a visit by the Pope, then it seems pretty clear that the Roman Catholic Church, in the person of the Pope, considered those Mormons present to be representing a Christian church.

[dgs49]

Scooter you are priceless.

There are no "varying degrees" of accepting baptism. Either they do or they don't. There is no partial baptism - "Oh, let's see, you still need the last 33%, so, we'll just baptize you in the name of the Holy Ghost!"

If you have been baptized as a Christian in ANY Christian faith, you do not have to be baptized as a Catholic (if you want to convert). If you have been "baptized" as a Mormon, you have to be baptized if you want to convert.

Keep arguing, you look more and more ridiculous as the thread goes on.

[Scooter]

Catholics who were baptized as infants need to be baptized again if they want to join a church that does not recognize infant baptism (of which there are several). I don't expect you to be arguing that means Catholics aren't Christians.

And as to looking ridiculous, coming from the man who fell into a trap of his own making by claiming that Mormons would never be welcome at precisely the kind of prayer service to which they were expressely invited by the Pope, thereby proving them to be Christians by the yardstick you chose to measure with, let's just say we are all having a good laugh waiting to see if you can stop tripping over your own tongue long enough to start making some sense.

[Sean]

Is is me or has one side of this debate subtly shifted to, "You are only a proper Christian if Catholics say so"?

[Joe Guy]

From Wikipedia -

"A Christian is a person who adheres to Christianity, an Abrahamic, monotheistic religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth as recorded in the Canonical gospels and the letters of the New Testament. "Christian" derives from the Koine Greek word Christ, a translation of the Biblical Hebrew term Messiah."

Anyone that claims to be a Christian is one.

[Lord Jim]

Anyone that claims to be a Christian is one.

Nonsense.

[Crackpot]

Joe you realize from that wiki definition LDS JWs and CCS are not Christian?

[Crackpot]

Is is me or has one side of this debate subtly shifted to, "You are only a proper Christian if Catholics say so"?

No it's degenerated into DGS makes stupid statements that he can't back up or are contradictory to what is already in record.