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

[atassina]

For me this is almost a non-question. You simply need rudimentary knowledge of our faith.

Is hell a choice- yes or no?
Yes

Is it possible for a pre-rational human to choose sin- Yes or No?
No

What do you think a pre-born child, an infant or a child before the age of reason will choose?

What?

Can you imagine the answer ever to be yes?
I cannot.

Get real.
God loves children and so do children - baptized or unbaptized.

 

[Stephen168]

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.

New Testament Apostles did not receive their own personal revelation, which is consistent with Christianity never claiming to have a prophet who claims to receive revelation for the Church.
Five years after the start of the Mormon Church, Smith invented the position of Apostle. The Quorum of Twelve Apostles ran the missionary effort of the church, not the whole church. The Apostles did not hold ‘the keys’ during Smith’s lifetime. The association of ‘keys’ with ‘apostles’ was an invention by Brigham Young to get control of the Church.

A warning against private revelation

Hegesippus:

But Thebuthis, because he was not made bishop, began to corrupt it. He also was sprung from the seven sects among the people, like Simon, from whom came the Simonians, and Cleobius, from whom came the Cleobians, and Dositheus, from whom came the Dositheans, and Gorthæus, from whom came the Goratheni, and Masbotheus, from whom came the Masbothæans. From them sprang the Menandrianists, and Marcionists, and Carpocratians, and Valentinians, and Basilidians, and Saturnilians. Each introduced privately and separately his own peculiar opinion. From them came false Christs, false prophets, false apostles, who divided the unity of the Church by corrupt doctrines uttered against God and against his Christ.

And he tells us about the great job the Bishops were doing through Apostolic Succession.

Hegesippus in the five books of Memoirs which have come down to us has left a most complete record of his own views. In them he states that on a journey to Rome he met a great many bishops, and that he received the same doctrine from all. It is fitting to hear what he says after making some remarks about the epistle of Clement to the Corinthians. His words are as follows: “And the church of Corinth continued in the true faith until Primus was bishop in Corinth. I conversed with them on my way to Rome, and abode with the Corinthians many days, during which we were mutually refreshed in the true doctrine. And when I had come to Rome I remained there until Anicetus, whose deacon was Eleutherus. And Anicetus was succeeded by Soter, and he by Eleutherus. In every succession, and in every city that is held which is preached by the law and the prophets and the Lord.

Clearly he was not concerned with a need for Apostles to maintain the deposit of faith.

The Pope has been the Vicar of Christ with authority handed down for 2000 years.
Mormon Apostles are an invention of Joseph Smith and a tool of Brigham Young, with no authority or ability to give revelation. We know this from history and by the false and counter ruling “revelation” they give.

 

[dronald]

For me this is almost a non-question. You simply need rudimentary knowledge of our faith.

Is hell a choice- yes or no?
Yes

Is it possible for a pre-rational human to choose sin- Yes or No?
No

What do you think a pre-born child, an infant or a child before the age of reason will choose?

What?

Can you imagine the answer ever to be yes?
I cannot.

Get real.
God loves children and so do children - baptized or unbaptized.

Yes, but we’re not here to think logically.

 

[TOmNossor]

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.

If I was trying to show this I would look at the first 4 councils there is some complex stuff in there that I have yet to pin down in my mind. I was actually exploring the teaching on the fate of the unbaptized baby.

My conclusion is that it would be impossible for the Catholic Church to irreformably declare there is some heavenly outcome for the unbaptized baby, but it has not been irreformably declared that there is nothing outside the purview of the earthly Catholic Church that can be positive for the unbaptized baby.

So here is what I said:
“** 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.”**
Is true, but it is possible to postulate…
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 comes BEFORE death.

Anyway, where I to become Catholic I would believe generally and hope totally that the “special grace” was available.
Charity, TOm

 

[TexanKnight]

If I was trying to show this I would look at the first 4 councils there is some complex stuff in there that I have yet to pin down in my mind. I was actually exploring the teaching on the fate of the unbaptized baby.

My conclusion is that it would be impossible for the Catholic Church to irreformably declare there is some heavenly outcome for the unbaptized baby, but it has not been irreformably declared that there is nothing outside the purview of the earthly Catholic Church that can be positive for the unbaptized baby.

So here is what I said:
" 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."
Is true, but it is possible to postulate…
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 comes BEFORE death.

Anyway, where I to become Catholic I would believe generally and hope totally that the “special grace” was available.
Charity, TOm

Not sure why you still dodge all the points that have been made that expose your church for what it is.

Oh…wait…I DO know why…it is the same reason you have deflected by making this thread.

 

[TOmNossor]

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 …
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.

That is the one. I was vague out of necessity as I didn’t remember.
I also learned that it was not St. Francis who observed that there have been 40+ readings of this passage throughout history, but a modern scholar (I almost made that claim, but it would have been wrong).
I will mention that this Doctor of the Church (in addition to a Saint) specifically calls “Baptism for the Dead” a practice Paul approves of and that it is for people who have died. I knew that this view was in opposition to the Protestant view espoused in this thread.
Anyway, I was planning on looking for a couple of unanswered questions that I can answer briefly.
How about Stephen, Iepuras, or even TK or ??? post a 1-2 questions, and I will try to answer. I am leaning toward picking the first 1-2.
Charity, TOm

 

[TexanKnight]

lol…I am sure you are. It is hard to go up against someone like me who can expose the truth about your “church”

 

[TOmNossor]

lol…I am sure you are. It is hard to go up against someone like me who can expose the truth about your “church”

You are in every way my superior.
I do not even belong to a church now it seems, but a “church.”
I did not see a question though.
Charity, TOm

 

[RebeccaJ]

My conclusion is that it would be impossible for the Catholic Church to irreformably declare there is some heavenly outcome for the unbaptized baby,

This is not true, at all. Prior to Christ, and His Church, the fate of all was nothingness. Limbo is not nothing.

 

[TOmNossor]

This is not true, at all. Prior to Christ, and His Church, the fate of all was nothingness. Limbo is not nothing.

Ok?
I meant “heavenly” as connected to Heaven.
Limbo if I understand correctly is part of hell.
Charity, TOm

 

[MacQ]

lol…I am sure you are. It is hard to go up against someone like me who can expose the truth about your “church”

A little humility perhaps…

 

[RebeccaJ]

Ok?
I meant “heavenly” as connected to Heaven.
Limbo if I understand correctly is part of hell.
Charity, TOm

Limbo is a hell, ie, separation from God. It is not the hell of damnation I believe we already went over this.

In the end TOmNossor, the Catholic Church has NEVER taught that anyone, of any age, is entitled to heaven. We are made worthy by Jesus Christ, not by our own merits, including a supposed merit of age and/or innocence. So arguing that an infant SHOULD be in heaven, because their innocence makes them entitled, is no argument to a Catholic, at all.

For after one sin there was the judgment that brought condemnation;
but the gift, after many transgressions, brought acquittal.
For if, by the transgression of the one,
death came to reign through that one,
how much more will those who receive the abundance of grace
and of the gift of justification
come to reign in life through the one Jesus Christ.
In conclusion, just as through one transgression
condemnation came upon all,
so, through one righteous act,
acquittal and life came to all.

You really have to work your way around Original Sin to come to a conclusion that ANY merit to heaven can be based on age and accountability. That, or take a view that Baptism has no effect and is not necessary.

Proposing an infant COULD be in heaven, based on the hope of them finding Mercy in Our Lord Jesus Christ, is an argument that makes sense to a Catholic.

 

[Stephen168]

If I was trying to show this I would look at the first 4 councils there is some complex stuff in there that I have yet to pin down in my mind. I was actually exploring the teaching on the fate of the unbaptized baby.

So it took you 32 words to say, “I got nothin’”

My conclusion is that it would be impossible for the Catholic Church to irreformably declare there is some heavenly outcome for the unbaptized baby, but it has not been irreformably declared that there is nothing outside the purview of the earthly Catholic Church that can be positive for the unbaptized baby.

Your conclusion is wrong as I laid out in post #122.

will mention that this Doctor of the Church (in addition to a Saint) specifically calls “Baptism for the Dead” a practice Paul approves of and that it is for people who have died.

He also said it was not a water baptism on behalf of the dead. Mormon Baptism of the dead is an invention of Joseph Smith; never a Christian practice.

Anyway, I was planning on looking for a couple of unanswered questions that I can answer briefly.

The question I asked you a few times, I answered in post #122.

 

[TexanKnight]

You are in every way my superior.
I do not even belong to a church now it seems, but a “church.”
I did not see a question though.
Charity, TOm

I have posted many. It is a typical LDS ploy to ignore and dodge them then, much later, act like you did not see them

Your superior? I never said that. False modesty is another LDS ploy. I simply said you dislike dealing with me because you know I can expose the LDS “church” for what it is

 

[TexanKnight]

A little humility perhaps…

How is the truth not humble? Hmmmm

 

[Stephen168]

[Anyway, where I to become Catholic I would believe generally and hope totally that the “special grace” was available.

When someone becomes Christian they are baptized, so they do not have to hope for a special grace. Christian revelation gives hope to the unbaptized, but I don’t see the same hope for people who reject their Christian baptism. But there is always hope, however small.

TOmNossor:

I will mention that this Doctor of the Church (in addition to a Saint) specifically calls “Baptism for the Dead” a practice Paul approves of and that it is for people who have died.

Yes, this Doctor of the Church and Saint specifically said, “in the Scriptures to be baptized is often taken for afflictions and penances;” as in Mark 10:38 and Luke 12:50. This Doctor of the Church and Saint also summarized 1 Corinthians 15:29 to show “that it was the custom of the primitive Church to watch, pray, fast, for the souls of the departed.” The Doctor of the Church and Saint said we do this because of the souls in purgatory. He said that 2 Maccabees 43-45 tells us that “we must at least confess that the ancient synagogue believed in Purgatory, since all that army was so prompt to pray for the departed.”

Protestants reject purgatory and to do so had to “reject the aprocyphal books.” Mormonism was invented by a Protestant, so he did the same.

Limbo if I understand correctly is part of hell.

Do you have a reference from revelation or one of the Councils for this definition?
[/QUOTE]

 

[Stephen168]

Limbo if I understand correctly is part of hell.
Stephen168;11802113:

Do you have a reference from revelation or one of the Councils for this definition?

I see you’ve posted elsewhere, so can I assume you’ve got nothin’ here either?

 

[Stephen168]

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).

Vincent of Lerins:

Moreover, in the Catholic Church itself, all possible care must be taken, that we hold that faith which has been believed everywhere, always, by all.

Vincent was answering the question; how do we know the proper interpretation of Holy Scripture? His “rule of thumb” was to be used to “distinguish the truth of Catholic faith and the falsehood of heretical pravity.”

John Henry Newman said anti-catholics like to believe there was once a pure christianity which then became corrupt. Then they have to draw a line between between what is pure and what is corrupt; and then give a date for the corruption. These anti-catholics use the “dictum of Vincent of Lerins” for that purpose. While this dictum “provides a bulwark against Rome,….it opens an assault upon Protestantism.
As John Newman discovered while investigating the development of Christian doctrine for his essay, the Vincentian Canon supports Catholic belief. Unique Catholic beliefs are there, while unique Protestant beliefs are not. We can say the same for Mormonism; their unique beliefs are not there either.

1. 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.

Yes, there is hope for the unbaptized baby who dies but no definitive answer. The collective faith of the Catholic Church through the mercy of Jesus Christ gives us that hope (Mark 2:1-5), which would be “early anticipation” of what doctrine might develop.

Revelation does not give a definite answer for the fate of an unbaptized baby who dies, and we still have no definite answer; which seems like a “logical sequence” in development of doctrine.

As John Henry Newman suggested, where do we find the dictum of Vincent in regard to barring blacks from the priesthood, exaltation, polygamy, Melchizedek Priesthood, excommunicating Apostles, blood atonement, or water baptism on behalf of the dead. These unique Mormon doctrines were believed by the early church: nowhere, never, and not by anyone. By using the Vincentian Canon you have opened “an assault upon” Mormonism that practices inventions not restorations.

 

[grannymh]

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

Snip

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

The earliest that I have found is Genesis 1: 26-27.

 

[Porknpie]

That is the one. I was vague out of necessity as I didn’t remember.
I also learned that it was not St. Francis who observed that there have been 40+ readings of this passage throughout history, but a modern scholar (I almost made that claim, but it would have been wrong).
I will mention that this Doctor of the Church (in addition to a Saint) specifically calls “Baptism for the Dead” a practice Paul approves of and that it is for people who have died. I knew that this view was in opposition to the Protestant view espoused in this thread.

Tom, can you provide the source of St Francis saying this about St Paul? St Paul does not approve of baptism for the dead. This is a misreading of scripture.