Catholic Bishops to withhold Parish information from Mormons to prevent re-baptisms

[tomndebb]

@Kevbo

Perhaps that is the current Catholic point of view. Historically, Pope Leo X seemed to have no problem with providing post-humus indulgences given the right price. It seems that “No sacraments for the dead” would be more of a protestant point of view than Catholic, what with indulgences being pretty much the last straw for Martin Luther and all.

No sacrament is involved in the granting of indulgences, regardless whether it is obtained through personal prayer and sacrifice or by committing the sin of simony by plopping some gold into the hand of the local reeve or prelate.

Indulgences are perceived as efforts to reduce the punishment incurred that will be exacted in Purgatory. It does not invoke the sacrament of Penance/Reconciliation because the sins have already been forgiven. Similarly, there is no other sacrament that would be involved.

Prayer for the dead is clearly part of Catholic tradition, but sacraments are only for those who are still breathing.

[Spectre_of_Pithecanthropus]

@Otto

Good. Stop mucking around with other peoples’ afterlives, you busybody Mormons!

I mean, the whole notion is ridiculous anyway, both the original baptism and the posthumous baptism. Personally I think some atheist organization ought to issue a proclamation that all baptisms throughout history are null and void and watch them all start frothing at the mouth.

In a way, I respect the bishops for defending their faith, as it were. If we accept the premise of God and Jesus and the Holy Ghost, and all that, then what the Mormons do seems to be a kind of predatory interloping.

On the other hand, my understanding of Catholic doctrine is that only the first baptism carries any significance. For instance, if you are Protestant and decide to convert to Catholicism, they won’t re-baptize you unless they can’t confirm that you’ve been baptized previously. So why worry about Mormon posthumous baptisms?

[Voyager]

I think I’m going to start a new branch of Judaism where we make all the deceased Jewish through retroactive circumcisions. :eek:

[Cervaise]

You can have my ghostly foreskin when you pry it from my cold dead cock.

[Guinastasia]

Ooooh, better hope a fellow named Jack Dean Tyler never hears of that!

[Revenant_Threshold]

@Jodi

Then it seems reasonable to conclude the discussion. I’m not much interested in defending the quality or basis for the offensiveness any further than I already have. I also think at this point neither of us is saying anything new.

Ok. I’m sorry again for any offense I caused (or general offensiveness).

[Gorsnak]

Reading this thread makes me wonder if maybe Der Trihs isn’t correct in his views regarding the value of religion. The levels of animosity being generated by a few incantations are just ludicrous. So long as no real live people are hurt, it bloody well doesn’t matter what religious foolishness people engage in, and there’s no reason to get worked up over it. Or perhaps some of you would like to re-fight the 30 Year’s War over the nature of the sacraments? :rolleyes:

[tomndebb]

@Gorsnak

The levels of animosity being generated by a few incantations are just ludicrous.

The breadth and depth of the perceived animosity, however, resembles a trickle of snow melt in a parking lot. There are only a (small) handful of posters actually engaged in outright hostility. Given that there are almost 3300 views and fewer than 200 replies–and many of the replies were civil exchanges of information or polite disagreements, I would say that the overall level of animosity on the SDMB is pretty low on this issue.

[Miller]

We’ve currently got more animosity being generated by a baseball thread, but that’s not a reason to argue for an end to professional athletics.