Mormonism; there are many ways of proving it wrong.

[why_me]

At least ParkerD is still defending Mormonism; an anti-catholic (like Whyme) would start attacking Catholics in ignorant frustration without making any attempt at defending the Mormon position.

I wasn’t attacking catholics by posting catholic doctrine about infant baptism. Infants are baptized because unbaptized infants face an uncertain future in the next life. NewAdvent.org is not an anticatholic site but a site dedicated to catholics. You may wish to comment on the idea that infants without baptism will not see the vision of God. Now that is catholic doctrine and one reason why catholics baptize infants.

Now I like the mormon position on baptism. I think that eight years old is a good age to be baptized. I cannot see a loving god cursing an unbaptized infant who dies at birth or at four years old.

 

[Religio71]

I wasn’t attacking catholics by posting catholic doctrine about infant baptism. Infants are baptized because unbaptized infants face an uncertain future in the next life. NewAdvent.org is not an anticatholic site but a site dedicated to catholics. **You may wish to comment on the idea that infants without baptism will not see the vision of God. Now that is catholic doctrine and one reason why catholics baptize infants. **

Now I like the mormon position on baptism. I think that eight years old is a good age to be baptized. I cannot see a loving god cursing an unbaptized infant who dies at birth or at four years old.

 

[Jerusha]

Yep-- he sounds very Mormon to me.

 

[why_me]

Yep-- he sounds very Mormon to me.

I have been honest. Can you explain to me the catholic position on infants who die without baptism? It would be a big help. Since people are ‘attacking’ me, they seem to forget to explain the catholic position about what I linked too. It is a great way to avoid discussion. Attack, or paste and repeat post what I said etc. But in the end, it is uncatholic. Now maybe you can respond to that… Unfortunately honesty is not the best policy on this forum because one can be condemned for honesty. But is that the catholic way…? No.

Now what I don’t like about the mormon faith? People can be too busy doing their callings, at times forgetting why they are there in the first place. But that is just an opinion.

Oh and by the way…if you ever have the unfortunate experience of watching a unbaptized baby die, can you say that that sweet baby will not see god??

 

[Religio71]

I have been honest. Can you explain to me the catholic position on infants who die without baptism? It would be a big help. Since people are ‘attacking’ me, they seem to forget to explain the catholic position about what I linked too. It is a great way to avoid discussion. Attack, or paste and repeat post what I said etc.** But in the end, it is uncatholic**. Now maybe you can respond to that… Unfortunately honesty is not the best policy on this forum because one can be condemned for honesty. But is that the catholic way…? No.

Now what I don’t like about the mormon faith? People can be too busy doing their callings, at times forgetting why they are there in the first place. But that is just an opinion.

Oh and by the way…if you ever have the unfortunate experience of watching a unbaptized baby die, can you say that that sweet baby will not see god??

 

[Convert66]

I cannot see a loving god cursing an unbaptized infant who dies at birth or at four years old.

Proxy, anyone?

I like . . .I cannot see . . .I think . . .

pssst . . .“cannot” is not a word.

 

[Religio71]

Proxy, anyone?

I like . . .I cannot see . . .I think . . .

pssst . . .“cannot” is not a word.

It’s all about him. He claims to be Catholic, yet he likes Mormon doctrines better, such as LDS denouncing of infant baptism and any related theologies, because the Mormon doctrine is nicer.

 

[zaffiroborant]

Yep-- he sounds very Mormon to me.

And anti-Catholic!

 

[why_me]

It’s all about him. He claims to be Catholic, yet he likes Mormon doctrines better, such as LDS denouncing of infant baptism and any related theologies, because the Mormon doctrine is nicer.

I don’t think that it is about me at all. I made a statement. I prefer the mormon understanding about what happens when an infant or child dies without baptism. Never, and I mean never could I accept that an infant would be denied god’s pressence because they died without being baptized.

Heaven forbid, you know parents who watch their unbaptized infant or child die and have to tell them that their child or baby will now be denied god’s pressence. I wish you luck when you do so.

If you have something to say about that doctrine feel free to say it. You and other catholics are making the snide comments which make it about me. Now if I am mistaken about that doctrine please feel free to comment.

And since you are in New York City, please feel free to visit the shrine of Mother Cabrini and read about her reaching out to all faiths to give immigrants their dignity as human beings. She is a wonderful saint. You can learn from her.

 

[why_me]

And anti-Catholic!

I’m catholic. Sorry…

 

[why_me]

Proxy, anyone?

I like . . .I cannot see . . .I think . . .

pssst . . .“cannot” is not a word.

I post in the first person. Sorry. You can notify the board that you wish to be the grammer watch dog. Just be fair and correct all posters regardless of faith when they make a mistake. Anything to say about the catholic doctrine of infant baptism? I would appreciate your opinion regarding infants who die without baptism.

 

[Convert66]

WhyME,

It was a simple attempt to get you to consider whether your opinions are theological or just your personal preferences. Thanks for the snide-swipe. Fair enough. Writing “cannot” is a common mistake. Many people also write “noone” instead of no one.

Why would you want my opinion? I’m a lowly high-school dropout. You have your own already. But, since I took a “cheap shot” that went over your head I will say that I think we’ve overlooked the obvious. If God can call Jeremiah and sanctify him from his mother’s womb; and if God can sanctify Mary at her conception, or John the Baptist (talk about irony) can be filled with the Holy Spirit in the womb, then I see no problem with suggesting that Jesus, who said "suffer the little ones to come unto me, and forbid them not . . ."is not dependent upon our baptismal formula before He can gather infants to Himself.

Perhaps the doctrine of infant baptism is more a test of our faithfulness, and not a criteria for determining whether or not an infant is included or excluded from the Beatific vision.

All my best . . .

 

[why_me]

WhyME,

It was a simple attempt to get you to consider whether your opinions are theological or just your personal preferences. Thanks for the snide-swipe. Fair enough. Writing “cannot” is a common mistake. Many people also write “noone” instead of no one.

Why would you want my opinion? I’m a lowly high-school dropout. You have your own already. But, since I took a “cheap shot” that went over your head I will say that I think we’ve overlooked the obvious. If God can call Jeremiah and sanctify him from his mother’s womb; and if God can sanctify Mary at her conception, or John the Baptist (talk about irony) can be filled with the Holy Spirit in the womb, then I see no problem with suggesting that Jesus, who said "suffer the little ones to come unto me, and forbid them not . . ."is not dependent upon our baptismal formula before He can gather infants to Himself.

Perhaps the doctrine of infant baptism is more a test of our faithfulness, and not a criteria for determining whether or not an infant is included or excluded from the Beatific vision.

All my best . . .

Thanks for the comment. I definitely prefer your explanation to the explanation that I linked to. That site was pretty clear cut and stated the doctrine as I remembered it as a teenager. But if your way is doctrine and not just an opinion, I think that that is great. But maybe you just gave an opinion. And there is nothing wrong with that at all but it would not be doctrine but hopeful thinking.

But thanks for being a catholic and engaging in conversation.

 

[why_me]

WhyME,

It was a simple attempt to get you to consider whether your opinions are theological or just your personal preferences. Thanks for the snide-swipe. Fair enough. Writing “cannot” is a common mistake. Many people also write “noone” instead of no one.

All my best . . .

The site that I linked to was about doctrine and my attitude toward it was my opinion. And yes, the mormon way would be my personal preference if a child died before baptism. In the mormon way, that child gets a fast train to heaven and is welcomed into the arms of heavenly father.

From the newadvent site, I did not get that picture about catholic infants who die without baptism.

 

[ParkerD]

I think you are correct. Catholic baptism is the new circumcision into **the New Covenant for the forgiveness of the sin **of Adam. The only theological difference between the purpose of Catholic baptism and the purpose of Mormon baptism is which sins are forgiven. We believe it is for original and personal sin and Mormons believe it is for personal sin. Both Churches believe sin can be forgiven after baptism, so why not enter the covenant with Christ and all his graces as soon as possible?

Historically Mormonism came out of the Restoration/Primitivism movement. The Restoration movement held to the 16th century invention of a believer’s baptism. Joseph Smith held on to the ancient purpose of baptism but also adopted the restoration movement’s rejection of infant baptism. So Smith rejected infant baptism with no theological reason for doing so.

At least ParkerD is still defending Mormonism; an anti-catholic (like Whyme) would start attacking Catholics in ignorant frustration without making any attempt at defending the Mormon position.

Stephen,
I think it was a logical thing to assume that when baptism replaced circumcision in the new covenant gospel, it needed to be done at about the same age as the old covenant, but just because it was logical to assume that does not make it correct doctrine. The new covenant is a covenant of choice, not a covenant of birth or heritage. That is completely clear from the New Testament. The new covenant of baptism is a second birth, and it is to be chosen by the recipient after they have believed. The steps are belief, repentance, forgiveness, then baptism to enter into the new covenant, then the gift of the Holy Spirit, then more repentance throughout life toward the ultimate goal of becoming sanctified in Christ and purified from all sin.

The practice of circumcision and the doctrines surrounding circumcision were one of the major areas of disagreement and contention within the original church as attested by the apostles. The best debaters won after the apostles died, but that doesn’t make the outcome the correct doctrinal outcome.

 

[Religio71]

I don’t think that it is about me at all. I made a statement. I** prefer the mormon understanding** about what happens when an infant or child dies without baptism. Never, and I mean never could I accept that an infant would be denied god’s pressence because they died without being baptized.

Heaven forbid, you know parents who watch their unbaptized infant or child die and have to tell them that their child or baby will now be denied god’s pressence. I wish you luck when you do so.

If you have something to say about that doctrine feel free to say it. You and other catholics are making the snide comments which make it about me. Now if I am mistaken about that doctrine please feel free to comment.

And since you are in New York City, please feel free to visit the shrine of Mother Cabrini and read about her reaching out to all faiths to give immigrants their dignity as human beings. She is a wonderful saint. You can learn from her.

 

[Religio71]

Thanks for the comment. I definitely prefer your explanation to the explanation that I linked to. That site was pretty clear cut and stated the doctrine as I remembered it as a teenager. But if your way is doctrine and not just an opinion, I think that that is great. But maybe you just gave an opinion. And there is nothing wrong with that at all but it would not be doctrine but hopeful thinking.

But thanks for being a catholic and engaging in conversation.

 

[Religio71]

The site that I linked to was about doctrine and my attitude toward it was my opinion. And yes,** the mormon way would be my personal preference** if a child died before baptism. In the mormon way, that child gets a fast train to heaven and is welcomed into the arms of heavenly father.

From the newadvent site, I did not get that picture about catholic infants who die without baptism.

 

[Religio71]

For actual Catholics, let us look to the Catechism of the Catholic Church for the view on unbaptized infants:
**
1261 As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus’ tenderness toward children which caused him to say: "Let the children come to me, do not hinder them,"64 allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism. All the more urgent is the Church’s call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy Baptism. **

 

[Religio71]

Also, this document provides a theological dissertation on the Catholic position on unbaptized infants. One should read it before commenting on whether another position is “nicer”. It is called “The Hope of Salvation for Infants Who Die Without Being Baptised” by the International Theological Commission.

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20070419_un-baptised-infants_en.html