Is poor Catechetics the problem?

[mfbukowski]

I have heard that babies who were not baptized on earth might be baptized by the Angels (a pious belief; not a doctrine or dogma, and certainly not de fide), but I have never heard that someone with Original Sin could go to Heaven - in fact, I’m pretty sure it is a de fide dogma that any kind of unremitted sin at all, prevents us from entering into Heaven.

We don’t know whether these babies are baptized by the Angels, so we don’t know whether or not they go to Heaven. We may hope, but we can’t assert it as a certainty.

They are baptized by angels. The angels are called Mormons, who do baptism for the dead. See-- even you see the need for it by inventing baptism by the angels! Can’t you see how conflicted you all are about this?

 

[mfbukowski]

A merciful God would not let those babies go to Hell. So if they’re not going to Hell and they’re not going to Purgatory, Paradise is all that remains.

BUT AS I SAID ~ Don’t take my word for it, ask a priest!

This is perfect Mormon doctrine. I think you are right.

 

[mfbukowski]

aka, “Limbo of Infants.”

But that of course is not doctrine, so you have another Mystery, don’t you? Can you see the conflict here?

 

[mfbukowski]

Uh, no, there is no Limbo. It’s just a story.

 

[mfbukowski]

Limbo was a theological speculation.

Now, it is more correct to say that God, being both merciful (innocent cannot be in hell) and just (no sin allowed in heaven) uses a means known only to him (as far as we are concerned) to deal with them. It is possible that God, since he is all knowing, knows which of these would have accepted him had they lived.

And this is Calvinist predestination. You guys better figure this out.

 

[MelanieAnne]

But Limbo was never doctrine, so using it as an example of doctrine that has changed doesn’t work. Just so we’re clear on that.

And as for Catholic doctrine being similar to Mormon in some place or another ~ it wouldn’t be the first time that Mormons borrowed their doctrine, or their scriptures for that matter, from others.

 

[jmcrae]

But that of course is not doctrine, so you have another Mystery, don’t you? Can you see the conflict here?

It’s not a conflict. It’s an area of information that simply remains unrevealed by God.

I appreciate the kind thoughts of those Mormons who baptize for the dead. Their hearts are surely in the right place, and no one can fault their kind generosity.

 

[mfbukowski]

Exactly. I have given up trying to understand how everything works. My mind is human and finite. God is infinite.

People get into a lot of trouble when they start limiting God to what they, with their finite human mind, can understand. Then they start believing all kinds of nonsense because it “makes sense” to them. God is God, we were made in His Image, but we are human and He is Divine. We will never be Divine and it is a tribute to human vanity and arrogance for anyone to believe that we can. Because we are not Divine, we are limited in what we can understand about God. God is not limited to what we can understand, WE are limited. Mix that up and you end up with a boatload of confusion.

Yes. Religion should never make sense. But I thought it was the catholics who were Catholic in the first place because apostolic succession just makes sense? This is confusing.

 

[mfbukowski]

If there is such a place as Paradise, then it is the Limbo of the Infants. (Paradise is not the same place as Heaven. Abraham was in Paradise after he died, but he did not go to Heaven until after Christ was resurrected from the dead.)

So we have paradise, limbo, heaven and hell. Wow I am glad I am in real estate – it seems like there is a lot of it out there.

 

[dzheremi]

Nobody is even talking about apostolic succession. Nothing MelanieAnne or anyone else in this thread has said violates the reality of apostolic succession.

 

[MelanieAnne]

Yes. Religion should never make sense. But I thought it was the catholics who were Catholic in the first place because apostolic succession just makes sense? This is confusing.

It would not be so confusing if you actually looked at the point that was being made.

 

[mfbukowski]

The first thing every human being who has reached the age of reason should learn, is how to do an emergency baptism.

First step is to get to some water. Take the patient to the water, unless the patient cannot be moved. If the patient cannot be moved, fill a container with as clean water as possible, and bring it back without delay. (Anything that would not normally be called water - such as coffee, tea, soda, milk, kool-aid, spittle, etc. cannot be used for baptism. But if it’s not clear, but you would normally call it water, then it’s okay. But use the cleanest water you can find.)

While pouring relatively clean water over the person, say, “If you are still alive, I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.”

Every human being who is not Mormon, because your church teaches that Mormons can’t do this validly. Buddhists can but mormons can’t. Figure that one out.

 

[mfbukowski]

The original reason this subject was brought up in this thread is that Limbo was advanced as an example of a DOCTRINE that had CHANGED. The answer was that it was never a DOCTRINE and so when it was determined that there was no such thing as limbo, Doctrine could not have changed because Limbo was never doctrine.

Babies go to heaven according to the most learned and astute priest in my parish. That’s good enough for me, and it is too bad if it isn’t good enough for anyone else. They are FREE TO ASK THEIR OWN PRIEST!!! The sort of Calvinist thinking that if someone doesn’t go to a particular church or whatever, then they are going to Hell is repugnant to me. A merciful God is inconsistent with that sort of thinking. I submit that vanity also plays no small part among those who believe it to be so, and believe they’re the ones, because of their circumstances, who are “saved”.

I realize that such a thing slams into the need for baptism. I’m not denying the importance of baptism. Having said that, it doesn’t bother me that God would bring unbaptized babies to be with Him and it any person who would be upset by that has a problem, IMO. If any unbaptized person is ever made worthy to be brought to the presence of God, an unbaptized baby is certainly first. Imagine a baby who is accidentally born alive as a result of a botched abortion. This is unfortunately something that can happen in this world. But after being born alive, that baby dies within a few hours. That baby cannot be going to Hell.

This may be a hot button issue with me. It is something I have thought about for nearly 40 years. And my own granddaughter is 7 months old today. She was baptized in October, but had she not been, or had we lost her before then, I cannot believe, and will never accept the notion, that she would have gone to hell. That’s just silly.

 

[mfbukowski]

That’s right, it’s not. It’s a speculation that arose from the dogmatic teaching (de fide) that only the baptized can go to Heaven. It is a heresy to believe that the unbaptized can go to Heaven. However, we may (piously, and not dogmatically) believe that someone we do not see being baptized, may be baptized in some spiritual manner that we are not aware of.

**My priest tends to be more orthodox - he is very insistent on early baptism. **

I have absolutely no idea where this is coming from. Any baptized person (including a Calvinist) - assuming they have no post-baptismal sins - can go to Heaven, and of this we are absolutely assured - you don’t have to “go to a certain church” or whatever - you just have to be baptized.

One is “made worthy” by being baptized. We know of three forms of baptism. Actual water baptism, for the living. Baptism of blood, for the martyr catechumens, and baptism of desire, for catechumens who die by accident. Could there be other forms of Baptism? Yes. Can anyone go to Heaven without baptism? No.

It does no good to get emotional, or to take things personally.

There seems to be a lot of disagreement here even among priests. Is poor catechetics the problem?

 

[MelanieAnne]

There seems to be a lot of disagreement here even among priests. Is poor catechetics the problem?

Only the view of one priest was actually solicited on this subject. So that conclusion is not supported by the facts.

 

[fhansen]

Often the reason Catholics can be conflicted about a belief is simply because they don’t have the definitive answer. And rather than fabricate a pat answer (such as Baptism by angels), they may remain with a conflicted, speculative one simply because it’s a more honest way to be. Where something does become dogma, the HS has provided a definitive answer but while the concept of Limbo may’ve been a popularly accepted idea, it never became dogma-and never will.

BTW, the sensus fidelium, or faith of the people, has nothing to do with democratically arrived at truth. It’s a supernatural endowment of the “Catholic mind”, if you will, which all of the faithful ideally have and which can never conflict-and in fact must always agree- with the official teachings of the Church on faith and morals. Ultimately this “sense” can bring light to bear on an issue such as Limbo that, while important in its own way, has not held center stage and so has not been considered with the same intensiveness that other, more central matters, have.

 

[Meximo]

I believe the biggest problem is parents. You can send your child to a Catholic school or religious education program in your parish, but it is all for nothing if the faith is not lived at home.

I taught religious ed in my parish for two years to fourth graders. The children who got the most out of the program where the ones whose parents where very active in the faith. They went as families to Mass, confession, church functions, etc…

It is very hard, for example, to teach a child the various parts of the Mass and what they mean if the child is never/hardly taken to Mass. It is very hard to teach a child the importance of God when the parents treat the religious ed program as just another after- school activity that can be skipped in order for the child to play in a sports event or act in a school play. Priority should be given to learning about God, but when it is not then what does that teach the child?

There are other factors such as laypersons teaching who might not be well versed in the faith and should not be teaching. However, I really believe it all starts with the parents and living the faith as a family.

Just my take on the question.

God Bless.

Jean

I couldn’t have said it better myself. The first catechists are parents. I didn’t go to mass after I made my 1st communion I was 8. Then didn’t come back for another 10 years as an adult. I just didn’t have the support I needed to be a good Catholic.

 

[mfbukowski]

Note to those who are concerned about poor Catholic Catechism ~ this is an example of what ensues ~ MFBUKOWSKI is a born Catholic (what would you expect with a name like Bukowski?) who fell for the silliness of Mormonism and now professes the Mormon theology.

If such a person had even been taught the TRUTH about JUST the book of GENESIS they may have been able to reject the silliness of Mormonism. Genesis shows us that the lie that we can be Gods is just that ~ a lie. That lie was told by Satan and every time that lie is told it is still a lie. And always told by Satan. Makes you wonder where the Mormon idea of such things comes from?

But somehow, by some means, our Catholic brother/sister here ~ mfbukowski ~ was seduced into the “dark side” to believe he/she could progress to be a God/Goddess in the Mormon pantheon. We have the example within this own thread! We do not need to look to hypotheticals!

Had mfbukowski learned, understood, or realized, as a Catholic, the futility, the utter insanity, not to mention the human vanity, of the very THOUGHT that anyone could become a God, perhaps he/she would have not become seduced by the intrinsic human vanity that is Mormonism. But he/she has been. He/she has fallen, yet another victim, to the lie that “we” can become GOD. The example of what NOT TO DO is right here before us.

It may be too late for Bukowski (I’ve always wondered if that was a real name or one based on the playwright!) but it is not too late for the rest of us. Reject the vanity-based lies of Satan! And pray for the lapsed Catholic MFBUKOWSKI. The fact that he/she haunts this forum must mean SOMETHING!

Thanks for your concern. My name is real. Regarding Genesis, study the word “eloheim” which is in the first verse of genesis.

Next, study the orthodox and the catholic doctrine of “theosis”. Just google it, that will be fine.

The reason I left catholicism was that I had questions that could never be answered and never have been. Mormonism answered those questions. It’s that simple. Catholics still can’t answer the same questions I originally asked, and the fate of the unbaptized was one of them.

I honestly don’t mean any disrespect here, it’s just that I find that sometimes sarcasm communicates where straight prose does not. The irony of a conflicted position is really brought out in sarcasm. I suppose I should repent. I really don’t mean any offense, it is just so obvious to me that there are conflicts in your poisitions that make no sense whatsoever to me, and I have difficulty in controlling my tongue-- or fingers in this case! I want to point out the conflicts in the most forceful way I know.

 

[jmcrae]

So we have paradise, limbo, heaven and hell. Wow I am glad I am in real estate – it seems like there is a lot of it out there.

Actually, Paradise, aka Limbo, if it exists, is a region of Hell.

But even if they were different places, we still wouldn’t have as much heavenly real estate as the Mormons, who apparently have whole planets for every man ever born to be King of.

 

[mfbukowski]

Actually, I do - I lost a daughter to still-birth, and it was not possible to baptize her before her death. I don’t pray to her, because I don’t know where she went. I hope she went to Heaven, and I do know that if she went to Hell, she is not being punished with agonies for personal sins, since she has no personal sins - so, where ever she is, she is resting quietly - but I have nothing firm to base my hope that she is in Heaven on - after all, I hoped she would be born alive, too - and hard experience shows that hoping is not the same thing as reality.

This has to be the hardest thing a person can bear, and I am very sorry for your loss. I know you don’t believe as I do, but I know that your baby is with God.