Questions on Limbo or more importantly the Fate of the Unbaptized Baby

[TexanKnight]

Tom dodges me and rarely answers…but he has never answered the question…

when he compares Popes and “prophets”, is he elevating Popes or diminishing prophets? It must be one or the other

 

[Stephen168]

This thread was started with me not remembering Trent. I then remembered Trent. I then found Florence and Lyons. I then reflected upon the special grace afforded Mary and the Vatican II solution to “Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus.” This is how I came to the above. You may take it or leave it.

It seemed to me this thread started with 400 words of mewling about how non-Mormons claim that Mormon ‘prophets’ change Mormon doctrine of previous Mormon ‘prophets’ by revelation in such a manner that none of them seem like prophets at all. So in response, you start this thread about limbo and how the Catholic Church has also changed its revelation/dogmatic Doctrine on the fate of unbaptized infants.

You offered a quote from Trent, which didn’t work out.

Now you offer a quote from Florence which you claimed gave you certainty that the Catholic Church has changed its doctrine.

Are you saying now that Florence doesn’t give you that certainty?

Are you suggesting that “By a special grace the original sin is forgiven in aborted babies and children before the age of accountability. This “special grace” comes ONLY to those who die with some form of invincible ignorance, like they died before the age of accountability and it come BEFORE death” is an invention of Vatican II which weakens tradition?

Do you still claim that Catholic teaching on the fate of unbaptized infants was Catholic revelation and has changed?

 

[Stephen168]

Tom dodges me and rarely answers…but he has never answered the question…

when he compares Popes and “prophets”, is he elevating Popes or diminishing prophets? It must be one or the other

That does seem to be the key. Christian revelation was given to us by Jesus Christ and the Twelve. Mormonism equate their ‘prophet’ to the level of Christ and the Twelve who gives revelation on any subject. While the Pope does not claim to give revelation.

 

[TOmNossor]

It seemed to me this thread started with 400 words of mewling about how non-Mormons claim that Mormon ‘prophets’ change Mormon doctrine of previous Mormon ‘prophets’ by revelation in such a manner that none of them seem like prophets at all. So in response, you start this thread about limbo and how the Catholic Church has also changed its revelation/dogmatic Doctrine on the fate of unbaptized infants.

You offered a quote from Trent, which didn’t work out.

Now you offer a quote from Florence which you claimed gave you certainty that the Catholic Church has changed its doctrine.

Are you saying now that Florence doesn’t give you that certainty?

Are you suggesting that “By a special grace the original sin is forgiven in aborted babies and children before the age of accountability. This “special grace” comes ONLY to those who die with some form of invincible ignorance, like they died before the age of accountability and it come BEFORE death” is an invention of Vatican II which weakens tradition?

Do you still claim that Catholic teaching on the fate of unbaptized infants was Catholic revelation and has changed?
If “By a special grace the original sin is forgiven in aborted babies and children before the age of accountability. This “special grace” comes ONLY to those who die with some form of invincible ignorance, like they died before the age of accountability and it come BEFORE death” was taught at Vatican II, perhaps I should have looked for it there. I am not suggesting Vatican II acknowledge the clear teaching of Florence, but I would never suggest it was not at least a thought on some of the Bishops minds. I could be wrong about both.

I do not claim that Catholics receive super-natural public revelation because Catholics do not claim to receive supernatural public revelation. The Pope cannot receive this per Catholic teaching and neither does the EC.
So, I judge Catholicism on what Catholicism claims for itself.
Catholicism claims that it protects tradition via an infallible ability to discern what the faith handed from Christ and the early Apostles (who could it would seem receive revelation and write scripture and …). The ECF witness to this faith and the Catholic Church protects this faith.

I very clearly laid out in this post how my thinking on this issue developed through my engagement with this thread and my research on my own.

TOmNossor:
This thread was started with me not remembering Trent. I then remembered Trent. I then found Florence and Lyons. I then reflected upon the special grace afforded Mary and the Vatican II solution to “Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus.” This is how I came to the above. You may take it or leave it.

So you may offer a different solution than I did as to how to align Florence with the prevalent teaching today, but for me ignoring Florence IMO is not a Catholic thing to do.

I am not sure what you are after from me.
Cont…
Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

Are you suggesting that “By a special grace the original sin is forgiven in aborted babies and children before the age of accountability. This “special grace” comes ONLY to those who die with some form of invincible ignorance, like they died before the age of accountability and it come BEFORE death” is an invention of Vatican II which weakens tradition?

When I talk about the weakening of Tradition this is what I have in mind.

1. The simplistic idea that the Catholic Church guards Tradition has always been wrong. The maxim of St. Vincent de Lerins does not create the Catholic Church of 1000AD nor of today.
2. Newman’s idea of development offered an apologetic that if one was so inclined could be charitably used to show how development of doctrine occurred (and even was a positive for Catholic truth claims).
3. The concept of “early anticipation” (one of the marks of a true development), is not met by the idea that there is salvation outside those who profess the Catholic faith nor is it met by the idea that there is hope for the unbaptized baby who dies.
4. But, concerning the topic of this thread, I believe:

I am trying to explain how it is possible for an irreformable council to say, "

** But the souls of those who depart this life in actual mortal sin, or in original sin alone, go down straightaway to hell to be punished, but with unequal pains."**
And yet the majority of current Catholics teach that we leave them to the mercy of God. Leaving the unbaptized to the mercy of God is not something that the Father’s at Lyons or Florence or Trent taught. Based on their words, I find it quite likely that they would condemn as heretics anyone who did teach that**. But, they didn’t** condemn as heretics those who taught that probably because nobody did teach it.
It is my attempt to align the current teaching of the Catholic Church with the irreformable dogma defined at Florence.

Rejecting limbo and the most clear teaching of Florence has an impact upon ones view of Tradition. Ignorance of these changes/developments allows folks to continue to use the Maxim of St. Vincent de Lerins to defend the Catholic Church and some version of Tradition. I do not intend to be an ignorant Catholic or an ignorant LDS (though I would and do gladly worship with either as I do not believe ignorance of church history is a problem - at least not in a properly catechized ward or parish).

I am not sure what you are after from me.
Charity, TOm

 

[TexanKnight]

Tom dodges me and rarely answers…but he has never answered the question…

when he compares Popes and “prophets”, is he elevating Popes or diminishing prophets? It must be one or the other

 

[ffg]

I have a miscarried boy who I’m sure was just needed a little early, vs my expectation, for God’s purpose.

 

[Stephen168]

I am not sure what you are after from me.

I’d like a yes or a no answer before the rambling starts.

Now you offer a quote from Florence which you claimed gave you certainty that the Catholic Church has changed its doctrine.

**Are you saying now that Florence doesn’t give you that certainty?

Do you still claim that Catholic teaching on the fate of unbaptized infants was Catholic revelation and has changed?**

 

[Stephen168]

I do not claim that Catholics receive super-natural public revelation because Catholics do not claim to receive supernatural public revelation. The Pope cannot receive this per Catholic teaching and neither does the EC.
So, I judge Catholicism on what Catholicism claims for itself.
Catholicism claims that it protects tradition via an infallible ability to discern what the faith handed from Christ and the early Apostles (who could it would seem receive revelation and write scripture and …). The ECF witness to this faith and the Catholic Church protects this faith.

Yet, Mormon ‘Prophets’ claim they receive revelation on any subject. So comparing Popes and Mormon Presidents is not comparing apples to apples.

 

[iepuras]

Again, Is there anything in revelation that allows for sins to be forgiven without baptism?

Since this question has been ignored, I’ll answer with what I was taught in all my years in the LDS church.

Children are incapable of sin before the age of 8. Because the LDS church rejects Original Sin, there is no need for children under the age of 8 to be baptized. Any children who die before turning 8, automatically go to the celestial kingdom.

Baptism is required for everyone else. There is no way for salvation without baptism. This is why Mormons spend so much time doing geneology work. They perform baptisms by proxy for the dead because without baptism, the dead are “stuck” and cannot be saved. Of course, there are no records for most people who have lived, so the expectation is that the names of all the dead will be revealed to the LDS church during the millenium so the baptisms can be performed before the final judgement. At that time, the temples, which will dot the earth by this time, will supposedly be open 24/7 to get all those proxy baptisms done.

People who died without LDS baptism cannot be left to the grace of a loving God because the Mormon Heavenly Father cannot or will not do much until they are baptized by proxy in LDS temples. Not only do all the dead have to be baptized by proxy, but they also have to have the other LDS ordinances by proxy - confirmation, priesthood ordination for the men, washings & annointings, endowment and sealings (marriage and children sealed to parents). The requirement for all these “saving ordinances” does not give comfort to Mormons unless they do all the geneology and the temple work for their ancestors. LDS have an obligation to seek out the names of their ancestors and to perform the proxy ordinances in the temple. The only comfort is that Heavenly Father will provide a way for the names of all the dead to be revealed so Mormons can be busy doing temple work during the millenium.

I’d say the Catholic teaching is far more merciful than the LDS teaching all around. I would rather leave my children and family to the mercy of a loving God who is not bound by the sacraments than leave them to a hope that Heavenly Father will reveal their names to a member of the LDS church so they can receive baptism by proxy because Heavenly Father simply doesn’t have the power to take care of them all by himself.

 

[MacQ]

(added a little to the way MacQ quoted me)

MacQ,
For you to be consistent you do not need to reject what I said. That was specifically to Stephen168. Is that where we misunderstand each other? Stephen168’s treatment of my faith IMO requires that he does not allow the Catholic nuance I offer in my post.
To you who I have seen say very little dogmatic about what I must believe and … I do not believe consistency demands you reject what I have offered.
If that is where the misunderstanding comes from then I am sorry.

I do believe that the concept of DOGMATIC TRADITION is weakened by adopting the view I espouse, but I am guessing that is not as big of a problem for you as it is for my Ultra-Trad friends (and there is a line that the Ultra-Trads are on the WRONG side of IMO and you are on the right side of that line IMO).

This is what I am trying to say to those who have not staked out such dramatic dogmatism when they condemn my religion (which has much less dogmatism that Catholicism anyway).

I am trying to explain how it is possible for an irreformable council to say, “** But the souls of those who depart this life in actual mortal sin, or in original sin alone, go down straightaway to hell to be punished, but with unequal pains.”**
And yet the majority of current Catholics teach that we leave them to the mercy of God. Leaving the unbaptized to the mercy of God is not something that the Father’s at Lyons or Florence or Trent taught. Based on their words, I find it quite likely that they would condemn as heretics anyone who did teach that**. But, they didn’t** condemn as heretics those who taught that probably because nobody did teach it.

It is my attempt to align the current teaching of the Catholic Church with the irreformable dogma defined at Florence (and to stake out a Catholic position I could embrace since I do not believe unbaptized babies are in hell and I find that belief to be difficult to align with God’s love)

Charity, TOm

ah…I see (I think). So you’re not really asking what we believe happens to unbaptized babies…your question is really about whether Church doctrine has changed, or whether specific dogma from councils has been undone.
Here’s a thought for you:
Most theologians do not equate “Limbo” with nowhere…a kind of hell…but rather a place of perfect natural happiness…to be raised up on the last day along with others. I think that’s what most of us assume when we say they are in God’s hands.

“Thus the Council of Florence, however literally interpreted, does not deny the possibility of perfect subjective happiness for those dying in original sin, and this is all that is needed from the dogmatic viewpoint to justify the prevailing Catholic notion of the children’s limbo, while form the standpoint of reason, as St. Gregory of Nazianzus pointed out long ago, no harsher view can be reconciled with a worthy concept of God’s justice and other attributes.” 1917 Catholic Encyclopedia, Limbo
(from catholicessentials.net)

 

[Stephen168]

Since this question has been ignored, I’ll answer with what I was taught in all my years in the LDS church.

Children are incapable of sin before the age of 8. Because the LDS church rejects Original Sin, there is no need for children under the age of 8 to be baptized. Any children who die before turning 8, automatically go to the celestial kingdom.

Baptism is required for everyone else. There is no way for salvation without baptism. This is why Mormons spend so much time doing geneology work. They perform baptisms by proxy for the dead because without baptism, the dead are “stuck” and cannot be saved. Of course, there are no records for most people who have lived, so the expectation is that the names of all the dead will be revealed to the LDS church during the millenium so the baptisms can be performed before the final judgement. At that time, the temples, which will dot the earth by this time, will supposedly be open 24/7 to get all those proxy baptisms done.

People who died without LDS baptism cannot be left to the grace of a loving God because the Mormon Heavenly Father cannot or will not do much until they are baptized by proxy in LDS temples. Not only do all the dead have to be baptized by proxy, but they also have to have the other LDS ordinances by proxy - confirmation, priesthood ordination for the men, washings & annointings, endowment and sealings (marriage and children sealed to parents). The requirement for all these “saving ordinances” does not give comfort to Mormons unless they do all the geneology and the temple work for their ancestors. LDS have an obligation to seek out the names of their ancestors and to perform the proxy ordinances in the temple. The only comfort is that Heavenly Father will provide a way for the names of all the dead to be revealed so Mormons can be busy doing temple work during the millenium.

I’d say the Catholic teaching is far more merciful than the LDS teaching all around. I would rather leave my children and family to the mercy of a loving God who is not bound by the sacraments than leave them to a hope that Heavenly Father will reveal their names to a member of the LDS church so they can receive baptism by proxy because Heavenly Father simply doesn’t have the power to take care of them all by himself.

Thank you the LDS answer. When a Catholic says “revelation” they are talking about Christ and the Apostles which is the New Testament. So my question was really; what does the New Testament say about salvation and the requirement for baptism?

I agree, not only is the Catholic view more merciful it is more biblical.

 

[TOmNossor]

ah…I see (I think). So you’re not really asking what we believe happens to unbaptized babies…your question is really about whether Church doctrine has changed, or whether specific dogma from councils has been undone.

Here’s a thought for you:
Most theologians do not equate “Limbo” with nowhere…a kind of hell…but rather a place of perfect natural happiness…to be raised up on the last day along with others. I think that’s what most of us assume when we say they are in God’s hands.

“Thus the Council of Florence, however literally interpreted, does not deny the possibility of perfect subjective happiness for those dying in original sin, and this is all that is needed from the dogmatic viewpoint to justify the prevailing Catholic notion of the children’s limbo, while form the standpoint of reason, as St. Gregory of Nazianzus pointed out long ago, no harsher view can be reconciled with a worthy concept of God’s justice and other attributes.” 1917 Catholic Encyclopedia, Limbo
(from catholicessentials.net)
No, as I have said repeatedly, I wanted to know what of two position I should weigh when I look at the BEST Catholicism has.
The position you outlined above from the Catholic Encyclopedia of 1917, I would reject, While it does a better job of preserving Tradition than ANY position that preserves hope that the unbaptized baby will be in heaven, I do not agree with St. Gregory that it is a worthy concept of God’s justice (at least if there is a better option).
I think having hope for the unbaptized baby is a better option and were I Catholic I would advocate that it aligns SUFFICIENTLY with Florence.

Again, you can choose your Catholic position as the 1917 Limbo position is a valid position.
Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

Stephen,
I think I am understanding your question now.

** Do you still claim that Catholic teaching on the fate of unbaptized infants was Catholic revelation and has changed?**

No.

The teaching changed, no question about that.

Catholic’s cannot receive supernatural public revelation unless you include Peter the apostle in the group of Catholics. So no Catholic received revelation that changed.

And, most of this thread has been about what I view as the most compelling version of the Catholic faith. And that is that we can have hope for unbaptized babies, but the preservation of Tradition is not something history makes a compelling case for in Catholic doctrinal development. Not having hope for the unbaptized baby would make more of Tradition, but IMO is too much of a burden. And preserving Tradition has for a long time been an apologetic burden for rather than a strength, IMO.

Hope that helps.
Charity, TOm

 

[TexanKnight]

Tom dodges me and rarely answers…but he has never answered the question…

when he compares Popes and “prophets”, is he elevating Popes or diminishing prophets? It must be one or the other

 

[TOmNossor]

Yet, Mormon ‘Prophets’ claim they receive revelation on any subject. So comparing Popes and Mormon Presidents is not comparing apples to apples.

Yes and no.
The Pope does not claim to receive revelation, but claims to infallibly speak concerning faith and morals.
The Prophet claims to receive revelation, but does not claim to infallibly speak concerning faith and morals or geography.
Differences yes.
The bulk of my posts on this thread have been about the Catholic claims (though I have responded to a lot of requests for comparisons, which I am doing now).

Now how can we compare them:
Catholics and LDS both believe that Peter’s authority to lead Christ’s church on earth is possessed by Pope (Catholic belief) and Prophet (LDS Belief) Weighing our traditions based on what they teach:

Did Peter receive Revelation? Both traditions say, Yes. LDS Prophet? Yes. Catholic Pope? No.

Can Peter write scripture? Both traditions say, Yes. LDS Prophet? Yes. Catholic Pope? No.

Is Peter Infalliable? I would say no, and reference his claim that he never knew Christ (where I Catholic I would point out that he was not trying to bind the church to this view and thus he was not exercising his charisim of infallibility). LDS Prophet? No. Catholic Pope? Yes.

Anyway, it is very easy to say, “Peter (and previous occupiers of Moses’s Chair) received revelation and wrote scripture. The Pope can’t thus he is not Peter’s successor. The Prophet can thus he is.” Even a three year old can understand that. But, I will acknowledge it is not so simple.
Charity, TOm

 

[TexanKnight]

Yes and no.
The Pope does not claim to receive revelation, but claims to infallibly speak concerning faith and morals.

And?

The Prophet claims to receive revelation, but does not claim to infallibly speak concerning faith and morals or geography.

WRONG! Please stop being dishonest about your past leaders! First, js was clear that God would NEVER let a prophet lead his people astrayt…so you are wrong!. Second, you are trying desperately to cover the fact that your past prophets have lied or that your lds god has. What about Adam-God?

As for the geography, you STILL have not explained how a guy who talks to God can get it so wrong. You have STILL not explained how God would allow SO MANY PROPHETS to be wrong about Cumorah since HE TALKS TO THEM. Nice try. But you have failed mightily

Differences yes.
The bulk of my posts on this thread have been about the Catholic claims (though I have responded to a lot of requests for comparisons, which I am doing now).

No…you are afraid to respond to me. I am guessing it is because, as a former active mormon, you KNOW I know that what you say is wrong.

Now how can we compare them:

Sure…if you agree that your "prophets do not really, have never really, spoken to God…I am ok with that

and since you NEED to compare them, the only way to be fair about the comparing is that you admit that fact. As you continue to do so shows me that you KNOW they do not talk and have never spoken to God, so the comparison is fair.

Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

Since this question has been ignored, I’ll answer with what I was taught in all my years in the LDS church.

Children are incapable of sin before the age of 8. Because the LDS church rejects Original Sin, there is no need for children under the age of 8 to be baptized. Any children who die before turning 8, automatically go to the celestial kingdom.

Baptism is required for everyone else. There is no way for salvation without baptism. This is why Mormons spend so much time doing geneology work. They perform baptisms by proxy for the dead because without baptism, the dead are “stuck” and cannot be saved. Of course, there are no records for most people who have lived, so the expectation is that the names of all the dead will be revealed to the LDS church during the millenium so the baptisms can be performed before the final judgement. At that time, the temples, which will dot the earth by this time, will supposedly be open 24/7 to get all those proxy baptisms done.

People who died without LDS baptism cannot be left to the grace of a loving God because the Mormon Heavenly Father cannot or will not do much until they are baptized by proxy in LDS temples. Not only do all the dead have to be baptized by proxy, but they also have to have the other LDS ordinances by proxy - confirmation, priesthood ordination for the men, washings & annointings, endowment and sealings (marriage and children sealed to parents). The requirement for all these “saving ordinances” does not give comfort to Mormons unless they do all the geneology and the temple work for their ancestors. LDS have an obligation to seek out the names of their ancestors and to perform the proxy ordinances in the temple. The only comfort is that Heavenly Father will provide a way for the names of all the dead to be revealed so Mormons can be busy doing temple work during the millenium.

I’d say the Catholic teaching is far more merciful than the LDS teaching all around. I would rather leave my children and family to the mercy of a loving God who is not bound by the sacraments than leave them to a hope that Heavenly Father will reveal their names to a member of the LDS church so they can receive baptism by proxy because Heavenly Father simply doesn’t have the power to take care of them all by himself.

I could be wrong, but I recall that LDS believe any concept of original sin was atoned for via Christ’s atonement. LDS view on all being guilty of sin is much closer to the EO tradition than the Catholic tradition. You know Augustine developed the doctrine of original sin using a Bible translations that scholars acknowledge was flawed. The EO Church understood Greek and didn’t follow him.

I think that is quite an ugly way of describing LDS thought BTW. Paul (and at least one Catholic Saint from 600-1600AD that I might be able to dig up) spoke positively of Baptism for the Dead. LDS believe that every human ever born will receive BFTD. LDS also believe that our service as we provide BFTD will help us become more like Christ AND link us to the entire human family.

Finally, individual choice is preserved because the proxy ordinance is only efficacious if it is accepted.

I am sure I could try to make a more elegant case for LDS beliefs, but I could hardly make a worse one than you did. No wonder you ceased to be a LDS, if I believed that I would too.
Charity, TOm

 

[TexanKnight]

Apparently, Tom would have us believe that God will tell js to order the other Mormons to build js a house. God will tell js who to send on a mission. God will tell js about what land to buy. God will tell js just about anything…according to D&C…but when it comes to things like Cumorah, God either is silent and allows his prophets to mislead His people, or God is just wrong.

You have to love a religion where God is concerned about whether his "prophet’ can get a free house, but not so much about something as important as Cumorah…

 

[Nelka]

Although unbaptised children are separated from God as regards the union of glory, they are not utterly separated from Him: in fact they are united to Him by their share of natural goods, and so will also be able to rejoice in Him by their natural knowledge and love.

sacred-texts.com/chr/aquinas/summa/sum649.htm