Mormonism; there are many ways of proving it wrong.

[zaffiroborant]

whyme:

Originally Posted by why me
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.

He probably doesn’t get that picture because he doesn’t have a clue about Catholicism, because he’s Mormon.

 

[Religio71]

Religio71;5606582:

He probably doesn’t get that picture because he doesn’t have a clue about Catholicism, because he’s Mormon.

Seriously. Any real Catholic would look to the Catechism before going to other sources.

And last I checked, we don’t believe things because I “like” them, or because they are “nicer”. we believe things because they are True. I’m sure you’d agree, as would the real LDS here.

 

[why_me]

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.

Why would an infant need god’s mercy? Can a two day old baby need mercy? The canon states:

Canon #867 states that, if an infant is in danger of death, it is to be baptized without any delay. Under ordinary circumstances, states Canon #867, parents are to see to the Baptisms of their infants within the first few weeks: “As soon as possible after birth, even before it, they are to approach the parish priest to ask for the sacrament for their child and to be themselves prepared for it.”

americancatholic.org/Messenger/Mar1998/Wiseman.asp#F4

Also, when I was a boy, unbaptized babies went to limbo. Has that changed?

 

[Stephen168]

I’m sorry, I don’t see why this cannot be done during infancy as well if this is the only purpose of baptism. Except of course that the Book of Mormon denounces it.
Stephen168;5604288:

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?

So far we have not received a straight answer to justify why Mormons baptize at eight years old. From what I’ve learned so far it was a random decision with no theological basis. Maybe I’ve missed something:

In the catholic faith, if you go back in time, what would happen to a baby who died before there was a baptism or a christening? I remember that it wasn’t good at all. But for mormons, those babies or children who die before the age of accountablity will be blessed by god. So there is a difference in intent.

nope, nothing to rationally justify the unbiblical age of eight; just a diversionary attack on Catholics.

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.

Waxing eloquently about the covenant but nothing to justify the age of eight.

I think that eight years old is a good age to be baptized.

No reasoning there at all.

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.

Trying to keep the diversion going but no justification for eight year old baptism.

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??

I had my baby baptized at 2 days old before he died at 4 days. But I’m sure Whyme has seen many more babies die than I have. AND none of this is justification for Mormons baptizing at eight years old.

Religio71
Does Joseph Smith’s work of fiction require the age of eight or just denounce infant baptism?

 

[why_me]

zaffiroborant;5606686:

Seriously. Any real Catholic would look to the Catechism before going to other sources.

And last I checked, we don’t believe things because I “like” them, or because they are “nicer”. we believe things because they are True. I’m sure you’d agree, as would the real LDS here.

So newadvent.org which is a reputable catholic site is wrong? Seems like catholics are no different fhan mormons in knowing their faith since catholic sites seem to teach different things about the same issues.

 

[Religio71]

Religio71;5606698:

So newadvent.org which is a reputable catholic site is wrong? Seems like catholics

are no different fhan mormons in knowing their faith since** catholic sites seem to teach different things about the same issues.**

 

[why_me]

Here is something about limbo. Now I remember that this was taught as a place where unbaptized babies go:

Is Limbo In or Out?
Q: The teaching about limbo has me perplexed because it casts into doubt whether babies who die before being baptized can be saved. Are they sent to limbo? Are aborted babies doubly punished?

About 40 years ago during a novena at our parish, a missionary preached that God is a loving and forgiving God. The priest urged us to ask God to love and forgive us. Why then should so many souls be sent to limbo?

A: On April 20, 2007, the 30-member International Theological Commission (ITC) published, with Pope Benedict XVI’s permission, a 41-page document entitled The Hope of Salvation for Infants Who Die Without Being Baptized. This is the result of a study begun in 2004 by the ITC, whose members are appointed by the pope and work with the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF). This ITC text is available at the CDF section of www.vatican.va.

This document says that the traditional concept of limbo as a place where unbaptized infants spend eternity but without communion with God seems to reflect “an unduly restrictive view of salvation.

“Our conclusion is that the many factors that we have considered…give serious theological and liturgical grounds for hope that unbaptized infants who die will be saved and enjoy the beatific vision.” The text adds, “We emphasize that these are reasons for prayerful hope, rather than grounds for sure knowledge.”

This is not as authoritative a teaching as a papal document, but the Catechism of the Catholic Church never mentions limbo. It teaches: “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” (#1261).

Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI but then prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, stated in 1984: “Limbo was never a defined truth of faith. Personally—and here I am speaking more as a theologian and not as prefect of the Congregation—I would abandon it since it was only a theological hypothesis. It formed part of a secondary thesis in support of a truth which is absolutely of first significance for faith, namely, the importance of Baptism” (The Ratzinger Report, p. 147).

In the 11th century, St. Anselm of Canterbury described theology as “faith seeking understanding.” The ITC’s document described above is an example of such faith.

Many Catholics long ago came to the same conclusion about limbo as the ITC. Apparently, the mission preacher whom you remember did. Over the years, Father Norman Perry, O.F.M., the previous author of the “Ask” column, and I have reflected this view in our “Ask” replies.

Some people have thought that limbo was necessary for unbaptized infants because of Jesus’ teaching, “Amen, amen, I say to you, no one can see the kingdom of God without being born from above” (John 3:3).

The concept of limbo arose in regard to children who die without being baptized, but the same reasoning was applied to adults who lived after Jesus but who died without Baptism. If that were the case, the best that the majority of adults who have ever lived could hope for would be limbo.

In section four of the Declaration on the Relation of the Church to Non-Christian Religions, the bishops at Vatican II taught, “Together with the prophets and that same apostle [Paul], the Church awaits the day, known to God alone, when all peoples will call on God with one voice and ‘serve him shoulder to shoulder’ (Zephaniah 3:9; see also Isaiah 66:23; Psalms 65:4 and Romans 11:11-32).”

The sacrament of Baptism remains very important, but having received it does not guarantee that someone will necessarily be saved. Likewise, not having received it does not mean that a person cannot be saved. That is up to God alone.

americancatholic.org/Messenger/Sep2007/Wiseman.asp

 

[Religio71]

Are any other real Catholics wondering why a Catholic would not go to the Catechism for the actual doctrines of the Church? Are any other real Catholics also wondering why a Catholic will never figure out that limbo was never doctrine, but is doctrinally correct, and Catholics are free to believe in it or not if they want to?

Also from the Catholic Encyclopedia:

newadvent.org/cathen/02258b.htm#XI
“The Catholic teaching is uncompromising on this point, that all who depart this life without baptism, be it of water, or blood, or desire, are perpetually excluded from the vision of God”.

"Many Catholic theologians have declared that infants dying without baptism are excluded from the beatific vision;** but as to the exact state of these souls in the next world they are not agreed**. "

“Editor’s note: On this subject, the 1992 Catechism of the Catholic Church states: “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,” allows 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.””

“Other theologians have urged that, under the law of nature and the Mosaic dispensation, children could be saved by the act of their parents and that consequently the same should be even more easy of attainment under the law of grace, because the power of faith has not been diminished but increased.”

Also, one should read this document before claiming to be Catholic and saying that the Church taught limbo and now doesn’t. It only makes that Catholic look more less Catholic, coupled with preferring Mormon doctrines as well.

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

 

[Religio71]

Here is something about limbo. Now I remember that this was taught as a place where unbaptized babies go:

Is Limbo In or Out?
Q: The teaching about limbo has me perplexed because it casts into doubt whether babies who die before being baptized can be saved. Are they sent to limbo? Are aborted babies doubly punished?

About 40 years ago during a novena at our parish, a missionary preached that God is a loving and forgiving God. The priest urged us to ask God to love and forgive us. Why then should so many souls be sent to limbo?

A: On April 20, 2007, the 30-member International Theological Commission (ITC) published, with Pope Benedict XVI’s permission, a 41-page document entitled The Hope of Salvation for Infants Who Die Without Being Baptized. This is the result of a study begun in 2004 by the ITC, whose members are appointed by the pope and work with the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF). This ITC text is available at the CDF section of www.vatican.va.

This document says that the traditional concept of limbo as a place where unbaptized infants spend eternity but without communion with God seems to reflect “an unduly restrictive view of salvation.

“Our conclusion is that the many factors that we have considered…give serious theological and liturgical grounds for hope that unbaptized infants who die will be saved and enjoy the beatific vision.” The text adds, “We emphasize that these are reasons for prayerful hope, rather than grounds for sure knowledge.”

This is not as authoritative a teaching as a papal document, but the Catechism of the Catholic Church never mentions limbo. It teaches: “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” (#1261).

Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI but then prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, stated in 1984: “Limbo was never a defined truth of faith. Personally—and here I am speaking more as a theologian and not as prefect of the Congregation—I would abandon it since it was only a theological hypothesis. It formed part of a secondary thesis in support of a truth which is absolutely of first significance for faith, namely, the importance of Baptism” (The Ratzinger Report, p. 147).

In the 11th century, St. Anselm of Canterbury described theology as “faith seeking understanding.” The ITC’s document described above is an example of such faith.

Many Catholics long ago came to the same conclusion about limbo as the ITC. Apparently, the mission preacher whom you remember did. Over the years, Father Norman Perry, O.F.M., the previous author of the “Ask” column, and I have reflected this view in our “Ask” replies.

Some people have thought that limbo was necessary for unbaptized infants because of Jesus’ teaching, “Amen, amen, I say to you, no one can see the kingdom of God without being born from above” (John 3:3).

The concept of limbo arose in regard to children who die without being baptized, but the same reasoning was applied to adults who lived after Jesus but who died without Baptism. If that were the case, the best that the majority of adults who have ever lived could hope for would be limbo.

In section four of the Declaration on the Relation of the Church to Non-Christian Religions, the bishops at Vatican II taught, “Together with the prophets and that same apostle [Paul], the Church awaits the day, known to God alone, when all peoples will call on God with one voice and ‘serve him shoulder to shoulder’ (Zephaniah 3:9; see also Isaiah 66:23; Psalms 65:4 and Romans 11:11-32).”

The sacrament of Baptism remains very important, but having received it does not guarantee that someone will necessarily be saved. Likewise, not having received it does not mean that a person cannot be saved. That is up to God alone.

americancatholic.org/Messenger/Sep2007/Wiseman.asp

 

[Religio71]

So far we have not received a straight answer to justify why Mormons baptize at eight years old. From what I’ve learned so far it was a random decision with no theological basis. Maybe I’ve missed something:
nope, nothing to rationally justify the unbiblical age of eight; just a diversionary attack on Catholics.
Waxing eloquently about the covenant but nothing to justify the age of eight.

No reasoning there at all.

Trying to keep the diversion going but no justification for eight year old baptism.

I had my baby baptized at 2 days old before he died at 4 days. But I’m sure Whyme has seen many more babies die than I have. AND none of this is justification for Mormons baptizing at eight years old.

Religio71
Does Joseph Smith’s work of fiction require the age of eight or just denounce infant baptism?

Yes I see no point in waiting until age 8 if baptism only “represents an act of receiving the remission of sins they will commit as they go through life, so they will need to repent of those sins when they do wrong things.” I don’t get why this has cannot be done at infancy, if it has nothing to do with forgiving sins, but receiving remission of future sins.

The Book of Mormon only denounces infant baptism. The age of 8 is a revelation, and is found in the Doctrine and Covenants.

 

[Stephen168]

Also, one should read this document before claiming to be Catholic and saying that the Church taught limbo and now doesn’t. It only makes that Catholic look more less Catholic, coupled with preferring Mormon doctrines as well.

That was my first thought: They didn’t seem to read what they posted and linked. I had to laugh at that. Can you feel the hate?

 

[zaffiroborant]

zaffiroborant;5606686:

Seriously. Any real Catholic would look to the Catechism before going to other sources.

And last I checked, we don’t believe things because I “like” them, or because they are “nicer”. we believe things because they are True. I’m sure you’d agree, as would the real LDS here.

People will say well the Catechism is a new take on this situation, it’s not what used to be taught. And the old BC does mention limbo after all. Your link (which is really long and I only read a bit) mentions Vatican II, and many will say that it was different before.

But in my experience that’s not true. My mother’s father was born in 1900, he was educated in public schools and was a devout, practicing Catholic. He did not believe in limbo. He sent my mom and all her brothers and sisters to Catholic HS and college. None of my aunts and uncles (all born and educated before Vat II) believed in limbo. All of them “trusted God” when it came to the fate of unbaptized infants.

My father born in 1920 (big age difference between my mom and dad) was sent to Catholic grade and high school. He was in the service through out WWII and Korea and attended Catholic college after his service. After his service he was looking for answers and leaned towards theology and philosophy, and all of this Catholic education was before Vat. II.

Not only did he not believe in limbo but on 2 occasions he went out of his way to show to people that the Catholic church did not teach it as doctrine. Both of these instances involved my friends, very embarrassing in high school. But these many years later the mother of my friend who was on the receiving end of his “proofs” (he gave her names of books to read, asked various priests to write her) speaks well of my dad and how much I must miss him.

 

[Religio71]

That was my first thought: They didn’t seem to read what they posted and linked. I had to laugh at that. Can you feel the hate?

Yeah I can definitely feel it. I can also imagine the google search that the person in question did to come up with their information. “Catholics and limbo”, “Catholics infants go to Hell”, “Catholics are horrible people”, etc.

 

[Stephen168]

Also, when I was a boy, unbaptized babies went to limbo. Has that changed?

14 minutes later—

Here is something about limbo. Now I remember that this was taught as a place where unbaptized babies go:

Interesting

 

[why_me]

Yes I see no point in waiting until age 8 if baptism only “represents an act of receiving the remission of sins they will commit as they go through life, so they will need to repent of those sins when they do wrong things.” I don’t get why this has cannot be done at infancy, if it has nothing to do with forgiving sins, but receiving remission of future sins.

The Book of Mormon only denounces infant baptism. The age of 8 is a revelation, and is found in the Doctrine and Covenants.

Since the church in middle ages condemned them to limbo, many catholic families were encouraged to baptize their babies quickly. This was the point of infant baptism.

I remember that teaching very well when I was a boy in the 1960’s. The fate of unbaptized babies was not that good. Now of course, limbo is a word of disrepute but not when I was a boy.

Things change and right they should. Limbo would not be a popular word today. But many catholic families did agonize over their unbaptized infants death when limbo was in vogue.

 

[Religio71]

Religio71;5606698:

People will say well the Catechism is a new take on this situation, it’s not what used to be taught. And the old BC does mention limbo after all. Your link (which is really long and I only read a bit) mentions Vatican II, and many will say that it was different before.

But in my experience that’s not true. My mother’s father was born in 1900, he was educated in public schools and was a devout, practicing Catholic. He did not believe in limbo. He sent my mom and all her brothers and sisters to Catholic HS and college. None of my aunts and uncles (all born and educated before Vat II) believed in limbo. All of them “trusted God” when it came to the fate of unbaptized infants.

My father born in 1920 (big age difference between my mom and dad) was sent to Catholic grade and high school. He was in the service through out WWII and Korea and attended Catholic college after his service. After his service he was looking for answers and leaned towards theology and philosophy, and all of this Catholic education was before Vat. II.

Not only did he not believe in limbo but on 2 occasions he went out of his way to show to people that the Catholic church did not teach it as doctrine. Both of these instances involved my friends, very embarrassing in high school. But these many years later the mother of my friend who was on the receiving end of his “proofs” (he gave her names of books to read, asked various priests to write her) speaks well of my dad and how much I must miss him.

Yep, this is all true. A historical analysis of limbo reveals that limbo was never doctrine. If one simply looks at the declaration of doctrines such as the Immaculate Conception, Papal Infallibility, the Assumption of Mary, etc., one clearly knows why it’s laughable that a “Catholic” thinks that it was ever doctrine. It WAS a highly speculated on theology, and is consistent with Catholic doctrine (it is “doctrinally correct”), and no one is condemned for believing in it. No one is condemned today for believing it either. This is similar to the Orthodox speculation on “toll houses”. It has never been said to be doctrine, yet it is highly speculated on, and can be seen to fit into Orthodox theology (at least by some).

Also, what does Limbo have to do with the topic again? Remember that PM that was sent out? The person in question really is the definition of “troll”.

 

[ParkerD]

Yes I see no point in waiting until age 8 if baptism only “represents an act of receiving the remission of sins they will commit as they go through life, so they will need to repent of those sins when they do wrong things.” I don’t get why this has cannot be done at infancy, if it has nothing to do with forgiving sins, but receiving remission of future sins.

The Book of Mormon only denounces infant baptism. The age of 8 is a revelation, and is found in the Doctrine and Covenants.

Religio71,
By ignoring the covenant part of baptism, you ignore the most important part. I had never said “only represents an act of receiving the remission of sins they will commit…” We are talking about covenant theology, the new covenant gospel. An eight-year-old child can deliberately and knowingly make a covenant of their own accord. An infant cannot do that, of course. It is a privilege that has been taken away from them if they are baptized in infancy. The decision-making about the covenant is taken away from them, by being made for them before they can decide for themselves and really think about what they want in life and whether they want to follow Christ with all of their heart. This is a great, significant loss.

 

[Religio71]

Can someone tell me what THIS:

**
"Since the church in middle ages condemned them to limbo, many catholic families were encouraged to baptize their babies quickly. This was the point of infant baptism.

I remember that teaching very well when I was a boy in the 1960’s. The fate of unbaptized babies was not that good. Now of course, limbo is a word of disrepute but not when I was a boy.

Things change and right they should. Limbo would not be a popular word today. But many catholic families did agonize over their unbaptized infants death when limbo was in vogue."**

Has to do with THIS:

"Yes I see no point in waiting until age 8 if baptism only “represents an act of receiving the remission of sins they will commit as they go through life, so they will need to repent of those sins when they do wrong things.” I don’t get why this has cannot be done at infancy, if it has nothing to do with forgiving sins, but receiving remission of future sins.

The Book of Mormon only denounces infant baptism. The age of 8 is a revelation, and is found in the Doctrine and Covenants."

???

Are any other real Catholics laughing with me that a Catholic would say that the “point” of infant baptism was because of the Church supposedly (i.e. not declared as doctrine) teaching in the middle ages that infants went to limbo?

 

[Religio71]

Religio71,
By ignoring the covenant part of baptism, you ignore the most important part. I had never said “only represents an act of receiving the remission of sins they will commit…” We are talking about covenant theology, the new covenant gospel. An eight-year-old child can deliberately and knowingly make a covenant of their own accord. An infant cannot do that, of course. It is a privilege that has been taken away from them if they are baptized in infancy. The decision-making about the covenant is taken away from them, by being made for them before they can decide for themselves and really think about what they want in life and whether they want to follow Christ with all of their heart. This is a great, significant loss.

Parker, I agree that covenant theology is important here, for both LDS and Catholics. I think the distinction is, as someone else was also saying, circumcision was seen as an initiation or introduction into the covenant. An infant could not “deliberately and knowingly make a covenant of their own accord”, yet they were still brought into the old covenant. Likewise, Catholics believe that baptism is the start of the new covenant. Infants can be brought into that covenant through baptism, and make a conscious decision to be fully in that covenant, as full members of the Church, through confirmation/chrismation.

 

[Religio71]

14 minutes later—
Interesting

can you say GOOGLE CATHOLIC?