J
- Status
M
majick275
Guest
this is NOT accurate at all. to imply that the african synods were in any way doctrinally binding or on the same level as ecumenical councils is flat out wrong. from the catholic encyclopedia:
*
There was no general council of the entire Church held at any time in North Africa. There were, however, many national or plenary assemblies of bishops representing the North African Church. These are commonly called African or Carthaginian Synods, and are not to be confounded with the district or provincial assemblies, of which there were also very many in the separate provinces of North Africa. *
this particular synod (carthage 418) could even be considered contrary to official catholic doctrine as it was held in response to Rome reinstating a priest who had repented of heresy. this synod enacted that whoever appeals to a court on the other side of the sea (meaning Rome) may not again be received into communion by any one in Africa.
even if one were to accept the canons of the african church as doctrinally correct it still doesn’t consign infants to hell. it makes limbo problematic but it still provides for Gods sacramental grace removing sin. it still allows (by not proscribing) baptism of blood and baptism of desire. therefore if God knows that an infant with it’s limited capacity desires communion with God and truly desired to enter his kingdom and/or was prevented a baptism they would have chosen due to death then God can provide the necessary grace to remove their impurity and bring them into his kingdom.
at no time has the catholic church held dogmatically that infants who aren’t baptized here on earth go to hell.
Z
zerinus
Guest
I think the evidence is there; you just like to turn a blind eye to it. It is not “my saying”. It is in the official records and history of the Catholic Church.
If you want to debate with yourself, that is OK with me. But as far as I am concerned, the conversation is centered on your original question concerning article #2 of the Article of Faith of the LDS Church, about the original sin. That is the question that you had asked, and to which I have been attempting to respond. My reference to changes in the Catechism, or rather in Catholic doctrine, relates to that particular subject. I am not interested in answering general questions of changes made in the Catholic Catechism. Changing the subject and debating with yourself will not rescue you from that predicament of your own making.
Your feeling is in error. Limbo has nothing to do with what we are presently talking about. My discussion of limbo in other contexts in other threads is irrelevant to the subject of our present discussion. At the most it has peripheral relevance to it as it appears at a certain point in the history of the development of the Catholic doctrine of infant baptism, and then slowly disappears, by which the Catholic Church now seems to be embarrassed. Again, changing the subject will not rescue you from your present difficulty in responding to this discussion.
No rant. I call that burying your head in the sand.
I think my arguments are solid and foolproof, with plenty documentary evidence to back it up. I think you are the one who is living in a dream world, and avoiding reality because it is too uncomfortable for you to accept.
Well, you asked the question, and I gave you the answer. There is nothing wrong in asking a question, and nothing wrong in answering it either!
God bless you too!
zerinus
Z
zerinus
Guest
Not true. Regional councils determined church doctrine. Nicaea (summoned by Constantine!) was the first ecumenical council of the church. All the previous councils held to deal with heresy or other matters (of which there were many) were regional. Their decisions were considered those of the Catholic Church. Carthage was a very important city at that time, both in the Roman world as well as in Catholic history, and many important events in the history of the Catholic Church took place there. If the decision of Carthage was wrong, why didn’t the larger Catholic Church immediately denounce it and pronounce against it? The fact that they didn’t means that the accepted it and agreed with it. If a regional Catholic council today made a decision that went contrary to the beliefs and practices of the Catholic Church, they would come down on them like a ton of bricks. They wouldn’t tolerate it for one minute. A few years ago an African bishop was disciplined for ordaining a couple of married priests. If the decision of the Carthage was contrary to the teachings of the Catholic Church, they should have said so. The fact that they didn’t means that they agreed with it. In fact, the history of the doctrine shows that all generally agreed with it. Those who didn’t were deemed heretics.
The verdict of the council is categorical about the fate of unbaptized children who have died. They are damned.
zerinus
J
Jerusha
Guest
My point was that is not IN the Book of Mormon, but it IS a logical derivative, as are some other LDS doctrines.
X
xmormon
Guest
Once again i suggest we change the subject to a more provable point. let’s change the subject to Mormonism and it’s many changes. In Mormonism we’re not dealing with differing opinions of councils, we’re dealing with the claim of direct revelation from Jesus Christ himself to one man, Joseph Smith.
Let’s start with the thousands of changes made in the Doctrine and Covenants. For those who are unfamiliar with the Doctrine and Covenants (hereafter D&C) it is a Mormon book Joseph Smith taught contained the exact words of revelations from Christ. Many times Mormon leaders have boasted of the exactness of the revelations contained in the D&C for example: Joseph Fielding Smith tenth President of the Mormon church made this comment concerning Joseph Smith’s revelations:
Inspiration is discovered in the fact that each part, as it was revealed, dovetailed perfectly with what had come before. There was no need for eliminating, changing, or adjusting any part to make it fit; but each new revelation on doctrine and priesthood fitted in its place perfectly to complete the whole structure, as it had been prepared by the Master Builder. (Doctrines of Salvation, Vol, 1, page 170)
However any historical study reveals thousands of changes in Joseph Smith’s revelations, many of them changing the meaning of the revelations completely.
A Study of the number of changes made in the revelations reveals
1835 Edition—2643 Changes
1844 Edition—18 Changes
1845 Edition—36 Changes
1846 Edition—No Changes
1852 Edition—11 Changes
1854 Edition—10 Changes
1876 Edition—2 Changes
1882 Edition—1 Change
1921 Edition—91 Changes
While there have been a few Mormons who have been willing to admit that Joseph Smith’s revelations have been changed, many have not been that honest.
Clearly Joseph Smiths numerous changes disqualify his words as being real scripture. In Deuteronomy 4:2 we read:
Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you.
We ask, If the revelations were from God, why would they have to be changed many times completely changing even reversing their original meaning? Was not the Mormon God capable of giving the revelations right the first time? If there is more interest in this subject we will discuss at length the changes and their significance.
Tiber diving team of 2004 (we go deeper to penetrate the darkness with the light)
Let’s start with the thousands of changes made in the Doctrine and Covenants. For those who are unfamiliar with the Doctrine and Covenants (hereafter D&C) it is a Mormon book Joseph Smith taught contained the exact words of revelations from Christ. Many times Mormon leaders have boasted of the exactness of the revelations contained in the D&C for example: Joseph Fielding Smith tenth President of the Mormon church made this comment concerning Joseph Smith’s revelations:
Inspiration is discovered in the fact that each part, as it was revealed, dovetailed perfectly with what had come before. There was no need for eliminating, changing, or adjusting any part to make it fit; but each new revelation on doctrine and priesthood fitted in its place perfectly to complete the whole structure, as it had been prepared by the Master Builder. (Doctrines of Salvation, Vol, 1, page 170)
However any historical study reveals thousands of changes in Joseph Smith’s revelations, many of them changing the meaning of the revelations completely.
A Study of the number of changes made in the revelations reveals
1835 Edition—2643 Changes
1844 Edition—18 Changes
1845 Edition—36 Changes
1846 Edition—No Changes
1852 Edition—11 Changes
1854 Edition—10 Changes
1876 Edition—2 Changes
1882 Edition—1 Change
1921 Edition—91 Changes
While there have been a few Mormons who have been willing to admit that Joseph Smith’s revelations have been changed, many have not been that honest.
Clearly Joseph Smiths numerous changes disqualify his words as being real scripture. In Deuteronomy 4:2 we read:
Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you.
We ask, If the revelations were from God, why would they have to be changed many times completely changing even reversing their original meaning? Was not the Mormon God capable of giving the revelations right the first time? If there is more interest in this subject we will discuss at length the changes and their significance.
Tiber diving team of 2004 (we go deeper to penetrate the darkness with the light)
J
Jerusha
Guest
No, that’s OK with me. I understand completely.
J
Jerusha
Guest
Could someone please post a link to the earliest possible edition of the Book of Mormon available on the internet? Preferably 1835 or 1844?
M
majick275
Guest
there is a huge difference between ecumenical councils and regional ones. the church has documented which councils were ecumenical and carthage was never one of them. if you read the council Rome HAD come down on them, that’s why the prohibited appeal to Rome. however, even so the carthage council merely eliminates limbo as a possibility. their pronouncements have been successfully challenged even there though. (st anselm ) that council never contradicts baptisms of blood or desire. you obviously didn’t read much on this one.Not true. Regional councils determined church doctrine. Nicaea (summoned by Constantine!) was the first ecumenical council of the church. All the previous councils held to deal with heresy or other matters (of which there were many) were regional. Their decisions were considered those of the Catholic Church. Carthage was a very important city at that time, both in the Roman world as well as in Catholic history, and many important events in the history of the Catholic Church took place there. If the decision of Carthage was wrong, why didn’t the larger Catholic Church immediately denounce it and pronounce against it? The fact that they didn’t means that the accepted it and agreed with it. If a regional Catholic council today made a decision that went contrary to the beliefs and practices of the Catholic Church, they would come down on them like a ton of bricks. They wouldn’t tolerate it for one minute. A few years ago an African bishop was disciplined for ordaining a couple of married priests. If the decision of the Carthage was contrary to the teachings of the Catholic Church, they should have said so. The fact that they didn’t means that they agreed with it. In fact, the history of the doctrine shows that all generally agreed with it. Those who didn’t were deemed heretics.
The verdict of the council is categorical about the fate of unbaptized children who have died. They are damned.
zerinus
R
RebeccaJ
Guest
Color scan of 1830 edition.
Z
zerinus
Guest
Verdict of the council:
The Council of Carthage of 418 rejected the teaching of Pelagius. It condemned the opinion that infants “do not contract from Adam any trace of original sin, which must be expiated by the bath of regeneration that leads to eternal life”. Positively, this council taught that “even children who of themselves cannot have yet committed any sin are truly baptised for the remission of sins, so that by regeneration they may be cleansed from what they contracted through generation”. It was also added that there is no “intermediate or other happy dwelling place for children who have left this life without Baptism, without which they cannot enter the kingdom of heaven, that is, eternal life”.
zerinus
J
Jerusha
Guest
Thank you, Rebecca. Reading this will be a much better use of my time than posting here. Even better than I could have hoped for.
Even better than I could have hoped for.
M
majick275
Guest
which does nothing to contradict what I said. it simply does nothing to address baptism of blood or desire. while it speaks clearly against “limbo” it’s position there was successfully challenged later by St. Anselm. in any case this council was NEVER pronounced ecumenical, it’s findings were NOT universal catholic doctrine nor were they ever proclaimed so by the catholic church. find one document stating that this particular synod was binding on the whole church. you can’t because it wasn’t. either way this doesn’t show that catholic doctrine ever consigned infants to hell.
Z
zerinus
Guest
Show me one official document by the Catholic Church of the time, or even an informal statement by the Pope, challenging, cancelling, or invalidating the decision of the council.
zerinus
M
majick275
Guest
why would there be such a response to a regional synod? you argue from silence and you keep missing the bigger point that the pronouncement you posted is not contradictory to the catechism. there is no change in dogma.
Augustine for all his strengths admitted he wasn’t proficient in greek and thus based his scriptural positions on a poor interpretation in a time when the canon wasn’t even set. this makes his position subject to critical review for content. (as st anselm already did with his showing of worst case they are denied the beatific vision) even then there is nothing in the canons of this council that contradict the catechism. (baptisms of desire and blood could still be applied to infants as each case merits, in the end God takes to heaven who he wills)
so in the end there is no catholic doctrine that has ever changed.
Augustine for all his strengths admitted he wasn’t proficient in greek and thus based his scriptural positions on a poor interpretation in a time when the canon wasn’t even set. this makes his position subject to critical review for content. (as st anselm already did with his showing of worst case they are denied the beatific vision) even then there is nothing in the canons of this council that contradict the catechism. (baptisms of desire and blood could still be applied to infants as each case merits, in the end God takes to heaven who he wills)
so in the end there is no catholic doctrine that has ever changed.
Z
zerinus
Guest
M
majick275
Guest
what you choose to call it is irelevant. the catholic church has spoken infallibly on it.
Z
zerinus
Guest
It has? I just checked. “Baptism of desire” applies only to adults who were capable of having the “desire”. It does not apply to infants. Here is a quote:
The Roman Catholic Church teaches that “baptism is necessary for salvation.” (Catechism of the Catholic Church, ss. 1257). It moreover teaches that baptism confers the forgiveness of sins by virtue of the enactment of the sacrament itself: “(b)y Baptism all sins are forgiven, original sin and all personal sins, as well as all punishment for sin.” (ss. 1263). For Catholics, baptism is a unique, unrepeatable act; no one who has been baptized validly can receive the full pardon conferred by the sacrament a second time. (ss. 1272) Given these doctrines, it is a matter of serious concern for the Catholic Church if a believing Christian does not receive a valid baptism.
The doctrine of baptism of desire seeks to address some of the implications of these teachings. It holds that those who come to faith in the Catholic Church as adults and become catechumens before receiving baptism nevertheless are admitted to salvation even though the Church teaches that baptism is necessary for salvation. Non-Christians who seek God with a sincere heart and, moved by grace, try to do His will as they know it through the dictates of conscience can also be saved without water baptism; they are said to desire it implicitly. (cf. Catechism, 1260)
Similarly, those who die as martyrs in a persecution of Christians are also judged by Roman Catholicism to have acquired the benefits of baptism without actually undergoing the ritual; this is the “baptism of blood” (baptismum sanguinis) (ss. 1258). Because the Catholic Church practises infant baptism, these issues seldom arise except for adult converts to Catholicism who were not baptised as children. The Catholic Church officially professes uncertainty about the fate in the afterlife of infants who die before baptism, observing that “the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God” (ss. 1261) although with the recent Papal rejection of the teaching of Limbo it is ***most commonly ***** accepted that children who die in infancy or who are aborted are admitted into heaven. Source
zerinus
M
majick275
Guest
last i checked wikipedia isn’t a valid source of binding catholic doctrine.
anyway… funny that you play sides of the same fence starting with Augustine telling us there can be no part of heaven for unbaptized infants and now regurgitating aquinas telling us there can be no hell for them. (do you see how some came up with limbo?) your own dubious source tells us (rightfully so) that we don’t know what happens to these infants. we are told we can HOPE for their salvation but that the only ASSURANCE of overcoming original sin is thorugh baptism. (doesn’t preclude blood or desire OR “mystic baptism” wherein God grants absolution as he wills)
We know from infallible teaching that original sin must be cleansed in order to permit entry into the presence of God. (beatific vision or “heaven”) we also now in the same way that mortal sin is required to send one to the torments of hell. (which requires knowledge and intent) thus it can be problematic to assign a status. “limbo” was a conjecture that ranged from an outer circle of “heaven” (pelagian heresy) to an outer circle of “hell” in which there is no suffering. (numerous contemporaries of council of Lyon) with the “limbo” that most of us modern folks think of falling somewhere in between and just being an absence of the beatific vision.(Anselm)
FACT… we don’t know what the desires of the unborn are so we really can’t judge the efficacy of baptism of desire regarding them.
FACT…we CAN apply baptism of blood in some circumstances. (we can certainly conjecture on a liberal application of this in the case of abortions!)
FACT…at no time has an infallible statement been made that decrees where unbaptized infants go.
So we are left with the current catechism telling us we don’t know but we are allowed to hope for God’s mercy. (and giving us multiple possibilities for how that could happen) this in no waay contradicts any infallible position ever documented y the Catholic Church. (even wikipedia )
anyway… funny that you play sides of the same fence starting with Augustine telling us there can be no part of heaven for unbaptized infants and now regurgitating aquinas telling us there can be no hell for them. (do you see how some came up with limbo?) your own dubious source tells us (rightfully so) that we don’t know what happens to these infants. we are told we can HOPE for their salvation but that the only ASSURANCE of overcoming original sin is thorugh baptism. (doesn’t preclude blood or desire OR “mystic baptism” wherein God grants absolution as he wills)
We know from infallible teaching that original sin must be cleansed in order to permit entry into the presence of God. (beatific vision or “heaven”) we also now in the same way that mortal sin is required to send one to the torments of hell. (which requires knowledge and intent) thus it can be problematic to assign a status. “limbo” was a conjecture that ranged from an outer circle of “heaven” (pelagian heresy) to an outer circle of “hell” in which there is no suffering. (numerous contemporaries of council of Lyon) with the “limbo” that most of us modern folks think of falling somewhere in between and just being an absence of the beatific vision.(Anselm)
FACT… we don’t know what the desires of the unborn are so we really can’t judge the efficacy of baptism of desire regarding them.
FACT…we CAN apply baptism of blood in some circumstances. (we can certainly conjecture on a liberal application of this in the case of abortions!)
FACT…at no time has an infallible statement been made that decrees where unbaptized infants go.
So we are left with the current catechism telling us we don’t know but we are allowed to hope for God’s mercy. (and giving us multiple possibilities for how that could happen) this in no waay contradicts any infallible position ever documented y the Catholic Church. (even wikipedia
)
Z
zerinus
Guest
- Status