Z
zaffiroborant
Guest
What’s more, a NIHIL OBSTAT only means that nothing in the work is contrary to Catholic teaching.
Questions on Limbo or more importantly the Fate of the Unbaptized Baby
- Status
Stephen168
New member
When you are a member of a ecclesiastical community that has prophets who give revelation on any subject you just think that is the same with the Catholic Church.
Also it is best to say what you believe with deniability. Here how it works:
Say what you believe, but then say you don’t believe it. For example:
Some say that Brigham Young was the master mind behind the slaughter of innocent pilgrims on September 11th, but I don’t believe that.
Some say that Mormonism is a cult whose followers will do anything their leader tells them to do, but I don’t believe that.
What fun game!!!
T
TexanKnight
Guest
I love it that we have gotten tom to deny his past prophets and minimize them
Z
zaffiroborant
Guest
I think the issue here is Tom saying he wants to compare the best of Catholicism, that’s a nice sentiment but a bit disingenuous in this situation. The fate of the unbaptized and infants in particular (for understandable reasons) has been the topic of theological speculation in the Catholic church for centuries. It is pointless to compare the churches discussion on the issue to the LDS church that never ever declares and defends, never definitively says this is our faith. No one in the LDS faith can say what it is, everything is speculation, they know nothing for certain.
T
TexanKnight
Guest
Tom was lost trying to defend his prophets and the fact they speak directly to God yet keep getting things wrong and overruling each other. It was clear he could no longer defend them, so he did wehat lots do in his position.
It reminded me of when I taught 4th grade. If a kid was caught doing something wrong, he always then tried to deflect to another kid.
When Tom had nowhere else to go, he did what mormons always, unsuccessfully, try to do: compare lds “prophets” to Popes. He still does not get it that doing so either elevates Popes or diminishes his “prophets”.
P
Porknpie
Guest
Quick question…at work, someone from the LDS left brochures on the counter inviting people to their church to find the roots of their family tree. This is taking place for a few hours on an upcoming weekend. Is this a missionary activity, a way of getting additional names to baptize or both?
Tx
PnP
Tx
PnP
Stephen168
New member
Yes, you reminded me about the book Mormon Doctrine. It was Mormon doctrine for only 12 years before it had to be changed and 32 years after that was no longer Mormon doctrine at all.
Stephen168
New member
They may be able to ignore some past ‘prophets’ but they can’t ignore Joseph Smith. His word is the foundation of Mormonism. When he gives a revelation about the success of a Bank, what the Book of Mormon is about, or who God is; it can’t be overruled without bringing the whole organization into question.
R
rinnie
Guest
This kind assessment of my views of course did not deal with Catholic teachings, but with the teachings of my leaders. It didn’t call Catholic leaders and thinkers “liar” but my church leaders.
I am do not believe I have ever or will ever speak of Catholic leaders like this, but the above does frame this discussion so …
With that intro however, I truly believe that “Limbo” and the “Fate of the Unbaptized Baby” is a problem for most Catholics.
A handful of modern Catholics acknowledge that Limbo or hell proper is the Traditional (with a big “T”) final resting place for unbaptized babies.
However, there is a SEA-CHANGE among modern Catholics that I am unsure is defendable.
I was listening to an episode of Catholic Answers and two topics came up. One was either homosexual marriage or female priests. The argument offered was the CCC clearly taught against this and we can hang our hats on that. OK. The other was Limbo. I was quite certain that Limbo was in the Baltimore Catechism with which my mother grew up. I was surprised to find the TENATIVE way in which Limbo was described there. What however was not tentative either here in in my follow on research was the fate of the unbaptized baby.
So, I agree that Limbo is not “big-T Tradition.” It has been taught and is thus strictly speaking a doctrine (or teaching), but it NEVER was an irreformable doctrine. Where I a Catholic I would have no trouble rejecting the theological speculation of Limbo (I find it ironic that I am not allowed to define what is and is not binding doctrine in my church).
That being said, from Thomas Aquinas and earlier (to the ECF), the fate of the unbaptized baby has always been some form of hell. Limbo was theological speculation for the purpose of rescuing the unbaptized baby from the horrors of hell, but Limbo was just the hell associated with the denial of the “beautific vision.”
I, like Thomas Aquinas, am aware of “baptism of desire” which was originally was for Catechumens who didn’t receive baptism for some reason.
I, like Thomas Aquinas, am aware of the “baptism of blood” where a person is martyred for the faith. That being said infant death from Thomas Aquinas and before has ALWAYS been excluded from these two categories.
I also know of nobody from the above timeframe that would have said, “We are governed by God’s sacraments, he is not,” as a reason to teach that unbaptized babies might not be in hell.
Now, I say always, never, and “T”-Tradition, but the literature is so vast I have not read it all (nobody has). My question then is, "Is there anything from Thomas Aquinas or earlier to suggest that the fate of the unbaptized is not hell (hell being at the least a denial of the beautific-vision for eternity)."
Charity, TOm
From what I was taught Limbo was more for the souls that were waiting for Christ to come and free them from original sin. It was the name where the place was where the souls were held. Not a horrible place by any means but not complete happiness either in Christ.
As far as unbaptised babies I was taught that we do not know of any ordinary means of Salvation apart from baptism, but that does not mean it does not exist.
It is for God to judge if someone can enter heaven or not.
We do have what is called baptism of desire, which means it would have happened if one would have lived long enough to receive it.
For instance say someone in RCIA, or an infant who did not make it to be born, or died right after being born.
But unbaptised babies or anyone is not know to us. It is a mystery not revealed to us by Christ.
With that said it would be foolish to not take advantage of ordinary means of baptism and not receive Christ and his Holy Spirit the sooner the better.
H
Horton
Guest
Probably for both.
I
iepuras
Guest
Of course you think that all of the CA tracts are poor. You reject teachings of Jesus Christ and His apostles and accept the teachings of a false prophet who started his career by accepting money in exchange for looking into a peep stone for hidden treasure, which was conveniently never found.
I didn’t bring up St. Paul and his first letter to the Corinthians to support baptism for the dead. You did. You need to show why the LDS interpretation is correct. In chapter 15, St. Paul clearly talks about himself (I), the church at Corinth (you), both (we) and some mysterious “they” in verse 29. This is the only verse in chapter 15 that refers to “they”. It is this verse that the LDS church uses as their sole Biblical “evidence” that the early Christian church did baptisms for the dead. St. Paul is not referring to the Christian church in Corinth when he talks about “they”. The church at Corinth had all kinds of problems as indicated in St. Paul’s letters to them, including not believing in the resurrection. Even if the Corinthian church was performing baptisms for the dead (but based on the pronouns used, they didn’t), they had so many other problems, including false beliefs, I don’t see why we should emulate what they did.
So you accept a tract on CA that, as a Mormon, you don’t agree with as evidence that the Catholic Church is false. But then you also accept that Mesoamerica is the place where Book of Mormon events took place even though there is no evidence accepted by non-LDS archaeologists and it flies in the face of what Joseph Smith, who translated the Book of Mormon and received “revelations” on pretty much everything, said about where the Book of Mormon events took place (e.g., the hill Cumorah in New York is THE Cumorah where the final Nephite/Lamanite battle took place). Yeah, that makes a whole lot of sense.
(sarcasm off) This is why I don’t take your assertions about St. Paul’s letter to the Corinthians or Eastern Orthodox beliefs seriously.When I read the CA tracts on Mormonism, I was pleasantly surprised to see that they accurately present LDS teachings and beliefs. When I was LDS, I believed that critics of the LDS church had no idea what the LDS church actually believes and teaches. Come to find out, critics of the LDS church do not need to resort to exaggeration or falsehood. The truth sets us free.
I
iepuras
Guest
I agree with Horton. It is probably both.
T
TOmNossor
Guest
Before we dig into BftD, I will acknowledge that I responded to a very IMO ugly description of LDS thought by you. In addition to the tone, I offered a few bits that I still think are accurate to correct what you said. But you were the one to take us down this road.
I think I have spent most of this thread trying to determine what I would embrace were I Catholic as the best and most positive read of Catholicism. I have also tried to do it without characterizing Catholic beliefs in the ugliest why I could. But, for my part I am satisfied with this topic.
If you like we can talk about BftD.
However, if you will not take anything I write seriously there is no point.
You may restate the above, or we can agree that you are smarter than I am and there is nothing I can share with you. It really doesn’t matter to me.
It is however a rather direct admission of something that it would take months for you to convince me was not true. You and most folks who post don’t really try to understand what my point of view is.
I have been accused of being afraid of truths and questions. I am not. I can’t respond to everything solely because of time, and since nobody listens I just pick and choose the places I comment.
Anyway, I am sincere about not talking about BftD or EO thoughts on original sin unless you give me something IN CONTRAST to your above statement. And in the presence of that I will engage in the discussion, but I will be a long way from believing that anybody really weighs and evaluates my points.
BTW, I am not trying to goad you into this. You can drop it or defend your statement that you shouldn’t take me seriously. That is fine with me. I do not actually believe that my thoughts are of such great value that anyone should change in order to be blessed by my thoughts. Instead, I think change is warranted here because it would improve the discussion.
Charity, TOm
Stephen168
New member
I have noticed you have stopped responding to posts that are the subject of the OP, so I will assume I’ve made my point and refuted your claim.
I
iepuras
Guest
All I did was state that the LDS church rejects the concept original sin and explain how the LDS Heavenly Father saves children who die before the age of 8 and everyone else (which happens to be through baptism for the dead for everyone age 8 and older at death). The truth is the truth whether you like how it is presented or not. You cannot refute what I stated about LDS beliefs because they are true, so all you can do is complain about my “tone”. I didn’t bring up the verses in 1 Corinthians that the LDS church uses as Biblical support for baptism for the dead. You did. I have no desire to discuss this topic in depth in this thread. If I did, I would start another thread. I merely stated LDS beliefs, and you decided to go further.
I never said anything about one of us being smarter than the other. I don’t think I am particularly smart. In fact, I have gotten less smart over the years. When I graduated from BYU, I felt less smart than I was when I started. I also suffer from mommy brain, and I hope that eventually it will go away.
I’m not in the business of convincing you of anything. You have to look at the evidence and figure it out for yourself. I understand very well what the LDS church teaches. Whether you believe LDS church teachings fully or not, I cannot say. Honestly, many of your posts ramble, and I have a difficult time understanding them. Maybe I am not all that smart.
Ok.
I never said I don’t take **you **seriously. If you state your opinions or beliefs, I will accept them as your opinions and beliefs at face value.
I said that based on your assertions in this and other threads that go against evidence, I have no reason to believe your assertions regarding 1 Corinthians or Eastern Orthodox beliefs. You are the one who is making it personal. You made certain assertions without backing them up. You stated in post #118,
You did not provide any evidence to back up this assertion. If you do so, I will review that evidence and determine if I should accept it or not. I didn’t make the assertion that Eastern Orthodox and LDS beliefs are similar, nor did I make the assertion that 1 Corinthians 15:29 supports the LDS practice of baptism for the dead. You did, and if you want anyone to believe those assertions, you need to back them up.
I
in_servitude
Guest
Hello Tom,
I’ve been following the thread all the way through. You’re attempting to prove that the Catholic Church’s teaching has changed in such a way that it shows that the Catholic Church is flawed - and therefore not the “True” Church?
Have you been able to compare one dogmatic teaching to another dogmatic teaching and show that they are in conflict? If you have, I’m not able to see it. I’d be great if you could summarize:
Teaching A says X.
Teaching B conflicts with A because it says the opposite of X.
I’ve been following the thread all the way through. You’re attempting to prove that the Catholic Church’s teaching has changed in such a way that it shows that the Catholic Church is flawed - and therefore not the “True” Church?
Have you been able to compare one dogmatic teaching to another dogmatic teaching and show that they are in conflict? If you have, I’m not able to see it. I’d be great if you could summarize:
Teaching A says X.
Teaching B conflicts with A because it says the opposite of X.
Stephen168
New member
We don’t know exactly what Paul meant by when he wrote, “Else what shall they do that are baptized for the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, why then are they baptized for them?” (1 Corinthians 15:29)
St. Francis de Sales lived after the start of the protestant revolt. He wrote Catholic Controversies as a defense of Catholic doctrine. In chapter 5 about purgatory, he refers to 2 Maccabees 12:43-45, where Judas Maccabee gives two thousand drachmas of silver as an offering for the sins of the dead. Judas concludes with, Therefore he made atonement for the dead, that they might be delivered from their sin. While Protestants reject the apocryphal books, Francis says, “But if, in the very last resort, we would take it as the testimony of a simple but great historian- which cannot be refused us- we must at least confess that the ancient synagogue believed in Purgatory, since all that army was so prompt to pray for the departed.”
Francis says, “And truly we have marks of this devotion in other Scriptures which ought to make easier to us the reception of the passage which we have just adduced. In Tobias, chap. iv.[Tobias 4:18]: Lay out thy bread and thy wine on the burial of a just man; and do not eat or drink thereof with the wicked.”
Francis says, “And of this custom S. Paul speaks quite clearly in the 1st of Corinthians chap xv.[1 Corinthians 15:29], appealing to it as praiseworthy and right. What shall they do who are baptized for the dead if the dead rise not again at all? Why then are they baptized for them? This passage properly understood evidently shows that it was the custom of the primitive Church to watch, pray, fast, for the souls of the departed.”
Francis continues, “in the Scriptures to be baptized is often taken for afflictions and penances; as in S. Luke, chap xii.[Luke 12:50], where Our Lord speaking of his Passion says: I have a baptism wherewith I am to be baptized and how am I straitened until it be accomplished!-and in S. Mark. chap x.[Mark 10:38], he says : Can you drink of the chalice that I drink of; or be baptized with the baptism wherewith I am baptized? -in which places Our Lord calls pains and afflictions baptism. This then is the sense of that Scripture: if the dead rise not again, what is the use of mortifying and afflicting oneself, of praying and fasting for the dead? And indeed this sentence of S. Paul resembles that of Machabees quoted above: It is superfluous and vain to pray for the dead if the dead rise not again. They may twist and transform this text with as many interpretations as they like, and there will be none to properly fit into the Holy Letter except this.
But [secondly] it must not be said that the baptism of which S. Paul speaks is only a baptism of grief and tears, and not of fasts, prayers, and other works. For thus understood his conclusion would be very false. The conclusion he means to draw is that if the dead rise not again, and if the soul is mortal, in vain do we afflict ourselves for the dead. But, I pray you, should we not have more occasion to afflict ourselves by sadness for the death of friends if they rise no more - losing all hope of ever seeing them again - than if they do rise? He refers then to the voluntary afflictions which they undertook to impetrate the repose of the departed, which, questionless, would be undergone in vain if souls were mortal and the dead rose not again. Wherein we must keep in mind what was said above, that the article of the resurrection of the dead and that of the immortality of the soul were so joined together in the belief of the Jews that he who acknowledged the one acknowledged the other, and he who denied the one denied the other. It appears then by these words of S. Paul that prayer, fasting, and other holy afflictions were practiced for the departed. Now it was not for those in Paradise, who had no need of it, nor for those in hell, who could get no benefit from it; it was, then, for those in Purgatory. Thus did S. Ephrem expound it twelve hundred years ago, and so did the Fathers who disputed against the Petrobusians.”
So instead of restoring the ancient belief in purgatory and prayers that are given for the souls there, Joseph Smith invented proxy water baptism on behalf of the dead. A practice never used by Christians. Mormonism is an invention not a restoration.
I
iepuras
Guest
Thank you so much Stephen! I have this book on my (too large) stack of books to read. I will have to dig it out and read it now. I appreciate the long quotation from St. Francis de Sales and his citing of scripture. In this light, 1 Corinthians 15:29 makes so much more sense.
Stephen168
New member
With Tom’s vague yet convoluted writing style he can suggest something is, when in fact it isn’t; so I just wanted to clear this one up as best I could.
- Status