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

[Stephen168]

First let me ask, is your point that I should become a Cafeteria Catholic? I expect not.

It would be closer to Christ than being Mormon.

To be a Catholic is to recognize Dogma and irreformable declarations of truth. To be a cafeteria Catholic IMO is not to be a Catholic at all.

By that definition, one could be ‘cafeteria’ through ignorance. Ignorance doesn’t make one a cafeteria Catholic.

Second, I suspect you are referring to my rejection of the opinions of past LDS leaders on geography and science.

And you would be wrong. On this forum you have rejected current Mormon teaching. A Mormon must reject teachings of past ‘prophets.’ They cannot believe in a triune God, three separate Gods, Adam is God, all that the same time. You cannot believe that Christ suffered for all of our sins and then believe in blood atonement. Something has to give; and it is past ‘prophets.’

It would be inappropriate for me to weigh Catholic truth claims based on a version of Catholicism that requires me to embrace teachings of Popes on orbital motion or even non-ex_cathredra speculations on faith and morals. Do you disagree?

It would be inappropriate because it has never been Catholic teaching that Popes teach infallibly on orbital motion; this is a straw man that has been explained to you many times yet you continue to repeat it. While Mormon ‘prophets’ have taught they do teach infallibly on all subjects to the point of having their teachings included in scripture. But when their infallible teaching is found to be false, then something has to give, and it is past prophets; except Mormons teach that the scripture provided by the past prophets are still infallibly scripture. You seem to reject current Mormon teaching, on this forum, as a way to make Mormonism seem reasonable.

I just evaluate my faith by the tenets of my faith and yours by the tenets of yours as best my fallible mind can discern them. I wish others would do the same. *When others fail to do the same it doesn’t give me license to follow their poor examples.

Yes, but your faith is not necessarily the Mormon faith.

Catholic popes fail when tested by LDS expectations. Some of my co-religionist think this is the death blow to Catholic truth claims. I disagree.

Yes, Mormons follow a man who they believe is a prophet. Christianity has never been lead by a ‘prophet.’ Following a ‘prophet’ has allowed them to get Mormonism into this irrational pickle that it finds itself in.

 

[Horton]

Hello Horton,
My first thought as I read your post was, “Cafeteria Catholic!”
Then I read how you claim I choose a church made by man and I was a little put off.

I have returned to my senses. Of course you think my church is made by man, and I doubt you would be posting here if you were a cafeteria Catholic.

Let me share a little with you that is less important and then the most important thing I think you should recognize in the way I deal with Catholicism (as compared to the way you deal with Catholicism).

The little:
I left Catholicism long ago, but in response to an invitation from a committed Catholic (and some dialogue with an evangelical who for a time I convinced to return to Catholicism BTW), I seriously considered returning to Catholicism. Now online Catholics (some of whom I have met IRL) invited me to Catholicism, but IRL this was the fellow. The majority of Catholics I knew IRL kept to themselves. Well, at the time this Catholic began telling me of the importance of returning to Catholicism he was attending mass at the SSPX parish. He is now a Sedavacantist, and still he is among the few IRL, only, who tell me of the importance of becoming Catholic.
My home parish growing up 10-18 years old was very liberal. I have attended mass there a couple of times in the last 2 months and there are a few nuns one who I think is an advocate of female priests and I think she spoke of divine feminine with my mother. The priest is WONDERFUL man, but the epitome of all that is good and all that is not so good in the term “pastoral.” I love him, but two Mormons, an agnostic, and a Hindu should not partake of the Eucharist.
So “Cafeteria Catholicism” is a very real thing for me. When I say, “there are things a Catholic must/should believe,” I am not talking about the oppressive regime in Rome imposing beliefs upon the poor peasants dispersed throughout the world. I am saying, that I have no intention of being a Catholic who is pro-abortion, pro-gay marriage, doesn’t believe the Eucharist is transubstantiated, doesn’t think communion is a shared meal between the friends of God or … Being a Catholic is recognizing that the Catholic Church is God’s church and the Pope is the Vicar of Christ. Knowing that makes choosing to follow the teachings a powerful exercise of embracing God’s will.
cont…

I’m a little offended you would presume me to be a cafeteria Catholic. I am anything but. When I expressed my disagreement with your words “must/should” it was not in anyway regarding our faith but the idea there is a ruling body, like the rulers in the LDS church, mandating what Catholics have to do. Rather we have a wealth of knowledge, history, tradition, scripture, and teaching the truth of Catholic Church. We are then invited to know these truths for ourselves. I believe ALL the Catholic Church teaches even when its not easy. I pray every day for the grace, courage, and strength to live my life for the glory of God and every day I fail in some manner. I don’t pick & choose doctrines to believed based on what “works” for me. I know with all my heart & soul this is the church our Lord Jesus Christ started during his time on earth.

This past week we celebrated thr Rite of Election for our new catechumens. The Bishop’s homily was on point when he summed things up with the simple concept that our God offers all of mankind eternal life and all we have to do is say yes. I believe not because I must or should, I believe because I love our Lord and choose to follow him. I will pray for you to know the truth and return home. Peace.

 

[TOmNossor]

I’m a little offended you would presume me to be a cafeteria Catholic. I am anything but. When I expressed my disagreement with your words “must/should” it was not in anyway regarding our faith but the idea there is a ruling body, like the rulers in the LDS church, mandating what Catholics have to do. Rather we have a wealth of knowledge, history, tradition, scripture, and teaching the truth of Catholic Church. We are then invited to know these truths for ourselves. I believe ALL the Catholic Church teaches even when its not easy. I pray every day for the grace, courage, and strength to live my life for the glory of God and every day I fail in some manner. I don’t pick & choose doctrines to believed based on what “works” for me. I know with all my heart & soul this is the church our Lord Jesus Christ started during his time on earth.

This past week we celebrated thr Rite of Election for our new catechumens. The Bishop’s homily was on point when he summed things up with the simple concept that our God offers all of mankind eternal life and all we have to do is say yes. I believe not because I must or should, I believe because I love our Lord and choose to follow him. I will pray for you to know the truth and return home. Peace.
In the post you quoted, I thought I acknowledged both that your words should not be read as “Cafeteria Catholicism” and that a faithful way to view Catholicism is as a faith and set of beliefs chosen by members who love God and try to follow Him.
That my church can be painted as one where there is a “ruling body” that behaves differently than you experience the magisterium of the Catholic Church I have no doubt. I hope you will recognize that I view my church leaders quite similarly to your view of yours.
What is most important for me to weigh best to best is however that I recognize that to be Catholic is not to be subject to some “ruling body.” And despite an invitation to see my church leaders as some " ruling body" I decline.
I did not mean to offend you by my statement that my first thought when reading through you post was “cafeteria Catholicism.” Sorry.
Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

While Mormon ‘prophets’ have taught they do teach infallibly on all subjects …

You as simply wrong.
It is the foundation of your error concerning my church, and I have told you this OVER AND OVER.
This thread is not about my leaders and what a LDS must/should believe (choose to believe ).
Please start your own thread. If I thought you would listen, I would respond to your other thread. As it is I may or may not respond, but I will read what you write.
Again please take to another thread.
Or, if you really want to know what about the CoJCoLDS and ask question you could post on a LDS board. That is how I try to learn about Catholicism.
Charity, TOm

 

[Stephen168]

. While Mormon ‘prophets’ have taught they do teach infallibly on all subjects
TOmNossor;11783796:

You as simply wrong.

I think I am right.
Ezra Taft Benson; 13th Mormon ‘Prophet’:

In conclusion let us summarize this grand key, these “Fourteen Fundamentals in Following the Prophet”, for our salvation depends on them.
1. The prophet is the only man who speaks for the Lord in everything.
2. The living prophet is more vital to us than the standard works.
3. The living prophet is more important to us than a dead prophet.
4. The prophet will never lead the church astray.
5. The prophet is not required to have any particular earthly training or credentials to speak on any subject or act on any matter at any time.
6. The prophet does not have to say “Thus Saith the Lord,” to give us scripture.
7. The prophet tells us what we need to know, not always what we want to know.
8. The prophet is not limited by men’s reasoning.
9. The prophet can receive revelation on any matter, temporal or spiritual.
10. The prophet may advise on civic matters.
11. The two groups who have the greatest difficulty in following the prophet are the proud who are learned and the proud who are rich.
12. The prophet will not necessarily be popular with the world or the worldly.
13. The prophet and his counselors make up the First Presidency—the highest quorum in the Church.
14. The prophet and the presidency—the living prophet and the First Presidency—follow them and be blessed—reject them and suffer.

I hope you will recognize that I view my church leaders quite similarly to your view of yours.

Which is not what what your Church/Prophet has taught.

 

[TexanKnight]

Tom: First let me ask, is your point that I should become a Cafeteria Catholic? I expect not.

No…you do fine as a cafeteria Mormon…rejecting the ridiculous doctrine of past lds “prophets”

To be a Catholic is to recognize Dogma and irreformable declarations of truth. To be a cafeteria Catholic IMO is not to be a Catholic at all.

Tom: Second, I suspect you are referring to my rejection of the opinions of past LDS leaders on geography and science. It would be inappropriate for me to weigh Catholic truth claims based on a version of Catholicism that requires me to embrace teachings of Popes on orbital motion or even non-ex_cathredra speculations on faith and morals. Do you disagree?

I disagree because, as you keep avoiding, a Pope does not claim, as lds prophets do, to speak face to face with God. I understand your need to avoid this issue, it is telling

Tom: I just evaluate my faith by the tenets of my faith and yours by the tenets of yours as best my fallible mind can discern them. I wish others would do the same. *When others fail to do the same it doesn’t give me license to follow their poor examples.

No, you evaluate your faith based on what YOU decide to reject from your past false prophets.

Tom: Catholic popes fail when tested by LDS expectations. Some of my co-religionist think this is the death blow to Catholic truth claims. I disagree.

What expectations are those? The ones that allow you to reject things prophets have claimed are from God? Interesting, since Popes do not make that claim…

I try to be consistent as best I can!

No… It is not consistent to reject what you cannot explain…even though your prophets have said it is from God

 

[TexanKnight]

Tom: You as simply wrong. (regarding prophet infallibility)

Nope. he is right. This must be another of the lds doctrines that you reject.

Tom: It is the foundation of your error concerning my church, and I have told you this OVER AND OVER.

And there you are in a box all over again. What you saying, since doctrine comes from God in face-to-Face conversations, that the lds God is wrong…interesting.

 

[Nicea325]

Tom: You as simply wrong. (regarding prophet infallibility)

Nope. he is right. This must be another of the lds doctrines that you reject.

Tom: It is the foundation of your error concerning my church, and I have told you this OVER AND OVER.

And there you are in a box all over again. What you saying, since doctrine comes from God in face-to-Face conversations, that the lds God is wrong…interesting.

When I think of Mormon beliefs and theology this comes to mind:

uch:

 

[TexanKnight]

When I think of Mormon beliefs and theology this comes to mind:

uch:

they do not really have a theology…

let me give you an example.

Brigham- “Adam is our God”

Mormons today- but that was never doctrine!

Brigham- “I have never given a teaching that was not doctrine”

Later prophets: “That was never taught”

Facts presented: It WAS taught (we show the evidence)

Later prophets and Mormons today- But it was just his opinion!

Brigham- “I have never given a teaching that was not doctrine”

Later prophets and Mormons today: ok…we are back to that was never taught…or it was just his opinion…just ignore the man behind the curtain…!

 

[Horton]

Tom - You asked a question regarding limbo and unbaptized babies. That question was answered several times over by many posters. Rather than accept the answers you want to argue that because then somehow you can validate your belief in the mormon church.

To be a Catholic is to recognize Dogma and irreformable declarations of truth. To be a cafeteria Catholic IMO is not to be a Catholic at all.

Second, I suspect you are referring to my rejection of the opinions of past LDS leaders on geography and science. It would be inappropriate for me to weigh Catholic truth claims based on a version of Catholicism that requires me to embrace teachings of Popes on orbital motion or even non-ex_cathredra speculations on faith and morals. Do you disagree?

I just evaluate my faith by the tenets of my faith and yours by the tenets of yours as best my fallible mind can discern them. I wish others would do the same. *When others fail to do the same it doesn’t give me license to follow their poor examples.

Catholic popes fail when tested by LDS expectations. Some of my co-religionist think this is the death blow to Catholic truth claims. I disagree.

I try to be consistent as best I can!

You seem to be saying that to be a non-cafeteria Catholic we must be blind little sheep following along with whatever the Catholic Church says. You are wrong in this, very wrong. Just because the answer to your OP question is “we don’t really know” doesn’t mean we know nothing. My comparison between following a church given by God and following a church made by man simply means I am ok with the mystery of my faith. I don’t have to have everything known to me in human terms, I trust in God who knows all. I don’t blindly follow a faith I don’t understand, I’m a convert and needed convincing prior to making the informed decision to convert. I did a great deal of reading, questioning, listening, and praying before I felt I knew the right thing to do, embrace Catholicism.

The LDS church needs to have all the questions answered and answered in human terms. It isn’t ok to not know the answers. The ongoing revelation process of LDS church leaders makes this need easily met. For every seemingly answerable question posed in the LDS church there appears a new revelation bringing things up to date and explainable.

Getting back to the baptism question - When folks were converting to the LDS church and buying into the concept of “eternal” families I’m sure some questioned what would happen to dear old mom & pop who died before they could be converted. No problem, we’ll just assume they would want to be mormon so we’ll baptize them by proxy. The way heaven has to be described in human terms, putting human value on what people & belongings is mormon concept. I love my family as much as the anyone here and I pray I will see them all in heaven but what I want more than anything is to be in the presence of my Lord. I have no idea what form I’ll have in heaven and I’m fine with the fact I don’t know. My faith in God’s love & mercy is all I need to know about heaven. One day I’ll know and I can wait until then. I think you’ll be surprised Tom, to see all us Christians up there in the Kingdom of God.

 

[Nicea325]

they do not really have a theology…

let me give you an example.

Brigham- “Adam is our God”

Mormons today- but that was never doctrine!

Brigham- “I have never given a teaching that was not doctrine”

Later prophets: “That was never taught”

Facts presented: It WAS taught (we show the evidence)

Later prophets and Mormons today- But it was just his opinion!

Brigham- “I have never given a teaching that was not doctrine”

Later prophets and Mormons today: ok…we are back to that was never taught…or it was just his opinion…just ignore the man behind the curtain.…!

Until Toto opens the curtains wide to discover the great and powerful Oz is nothing but a fake?

 

[RebeccaJ]

Tom, I dunno, I can’t tell if you think there is an ideal Catholic somewhere that believes and understands All Things perfectly. I have never met one. For one, we don’t believe that a perfect understanding of the mysteries of God is humanly possible. Mormons can be so literal.

Discernment is of course important. As a member of the RCIA team at our parish we look for life changes that indicate catechumens are seeking a life in Christ. A deepened prayer life, a desire to know and love Christ. A trust in Him. Every individual is different, and conversion to Christ does not end at baptism. It is a lifelong process.

 

[Horton]

Tom, I dunno, I can’t tell if you think there is an ideal Catholic somewhere that believes and understands All Things perfectly. I have never met one. For one, we don’t believe that a perfect understanding of the mysteries of God is humanly possible. Mormons can be so literal.

Discernment is of course important. As a member of the RCIA team at our parish we look for life changes that indicate catechumens are seeking a life in Christ. A deepened prayer life, a desire to know and love Christ. A trust in Him. Every individual is different, and conversion to Christ does not end at baptism. It is a lifelong process.

 

[TOmNossor]

Tom, I dunno, I can’t tell if you think there is an ideal Catholic somewhere that believes and understands All Things perfectly. I have never met one. For one, we don’t believe that a perfect understanding of the mysteries of God is humanly possible. Mormons can be so literal.

Discernment is of course important. As a member of the RCIA team at our parish we look for life changes that indicate catechumens are seeking a life in Christ. A deepened prayer life, a desire to know and love Christ. A trust in Him. Every individual is different, and conversion to Christ does not end at baptism. It is a lifelong process.
Were I to grant that Catholicism were God’s church, I would not expect there to be an ideal Catholic who knows all true propositions concerning faith and morals. I would expect that there are mysteries that cannot be answered by the most knowledgeable Catholic.

By that definition, one could be ‘cafeteria’ through ignorance. Ignorance doesn’t make one a cafeteria Catholic.

I also agree that Catholics who are ignorant of the teaching of Catholicism and by this ignorance believe or teach contrary to the faith are not properly classified “cafeteria Catholics.”

All that being said, my read of Catholic history is that when SOME controversies arose, General Councils resolved those controversies. After the resolution of those controversies, the issue was solved and those who did not accept the resolution ceased to be Catholic. Old Catholics are Vatican I deniers. Oriental Orthodox Christians are Chalcedon deniers. One day Vatican II deniers may consider themselves outside the Catholic Church (today they usually believe Vatican II was not sealed by Papal Authority, and some believe there is no pope).

I will offer the result of my research concerning the two things I was looking for from this post in my next post (shortly I expect).
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=11780518&postcount=47

Charity, TOm

 

[TexanKnight]

Were I to grant that Catholicism were God’s church, I would not expect there to be an ideal Catholic who knows all true propositions concerning faith and morals. I would expect that there are mysteries that cannot be answered by the most knowledgeable Catholic.

True…but those mysteries should NOT include where the heck the Bible took place. Those mysteries should NOT include how js had over 9 versions of a “first vision” those mysteries should NOT include how later prophets can completely overrule prior prophets who had claimed what they said came from God. Those mysteries should NOT include blood oaths. Those mysteries should NOT include how Mark Hoffman fooled people who spoke to God. Those mysteries should NOT include how a “prophet” needed to be be such an egomaniac as to need to be a mayor, general, prophet and force people to build houses for him.

 

[TOmNossor]

2) Everyone suffering in Hell has actual sin to account for.

In searching for a source of this, I found that Aquinas offered this as an argument for why there MUST be a Limbo for children that is part of hell, but does not involve suffering (other than the denial of the beautific vision).
I have not found any ECF who spoke like this. That would help.

I have not found anything beyond Aquinas’s speculation of the above that he used to assert there must be a Limbo for Infants. I am quite certain that for Aquinas the question of the fate of the unbaptized infant was hell. He postulated Limbo as a part of hell because God would not punish the innocent via torment in hell.

The second thing was about Trent’s statement not being absolutely clear.
As I looked into this I found two statements from Florence and Lyons II (Lyons II is included in Denzinger, but I am not sure if it is properly considered part of the infallible council. It says almost the same thing as Florence though).
ECUMENICAL COUNCIL OF FLORENCE (1438-1445)
ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/FLORENCE.HTM

Also, the souls of those who have incurred no stain of sin whatsoever after baptism, as well as souls who after incurring the stain of sin have been cleansed whether in their bodies or outside their bodies, as was stated above, are straightaway received into heaven and clearly behold the triune God as he is, yet one person more perfectly than another according to the difference of their merits. 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. We also define that the holy apostolic see and the Roman pontiff holds the primacy over the whole world and the Roman pontiff is the successor of blessed Peter prince of the apostles, and that he is the true vicar of Christ, the head of the whole church and the father and teacher of all Christians, and to him was committed in blessed Peter the full power of tending, ruling and governing the whole church, as is contained also in the acts of ecumenical councils and in the sacred canons.

I admitted that Trent didn’t offer the certainty I had thought it did. I think Florence offers this certainty, but as I reviewed Rebecca’s statements, she was familiar with Florence. What is the proper way to read the above statement from Florence (I have a guess, but I am not as satisfied as I would think people would hope I would be)?
Charity, TOm

 

[RebeccaJ]

Were I to grant that Catholicism were God’s church, I would not expect there to be an ideal Catholic who knows all true propositions concerning faith and morals. I would expect that there are mysteries that cannot be answered by the most knowledgeable Catholic.

I also agree that Catholics who are ignorant of the teaching of Catholicism and by this ignorance believe or teach contrary to the faith are not properly classified “cafeteria Catholics.”

All that being said, my read of Catholic history is that when SOME controversies arose, General Councils resolved those controversies. After the resolution of those controversies, the issue was solved and those who did not accept the resolution ceased to be Catholic. Old Catholics are Vatican I deniers. Oriental Orthodox Christians are Chalcedon deniers. One day Vatican II deniers may consider themselves outside the Catholic Church (today they usually believe Vatican II was not sealed by Papal Authority, and some believe there is no pope).

I will offer the result of my research concerning the two things I was looking for from this post in my next post (shortly I expect).
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=11780518&postcount=47

Charity, TOm

The Protestant temptation is always present. It is one that Mormons follow as well, that is, that Christ has left His Church an orphan and so one must wander, in search of where He has gone.

There is a difference between a faithful Catholic who understand Jesus Christ is found in the communion of His Church and those who believe that Christ is found outside of that communion. Our communion is made perfect by Christ, not by our imperfect understanding of the mysteries of God.

 

[TOmNossor]

PietroPaolo:

1. Everyone suffering in Hell has actual sin to account for.

In searching for a source of this, I found that Aquinas offered this as an argument for why there MUST be a Limbo for children that is part of hell, but does not involve suffering (other than the denial of the beautific vision).
I have not found any ECF who spoke like this. That would help.
I have not found anything beyond Aquinas’s speculation of the above that he used to assert there must be a Limbo for Infants. I am quite certain that for Aquinas the question of the fate of the unbaptized infant was hell. He postulated Limbo as a part of hell because God would not punish the innocent via torment in hell.

The second thing was about Trent’s statement not being absolutely clear.
As I looked into this I found two statements from Florence and Lyons II (Lyons II is included in Denzinger, but I am not sure if it is properly considered part of the infallible council. It says almost the same thing as Florence though).
ECUMENICAL COUNCIL OF FLORENCE (1438-1445)
ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/FLORENCE.HTM

Also, the souls of those who have incurred no stain of sin whatsoever after baptism, as well as souls who after incurring the stain of sin have been cleansed whether in their bodies or outside their bodies, as was stated above, are straightaway received into heaven and clearly behold the triune God as he is, yet one person more perfectly than another according to the difference of their merits. 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. We also define that the holy apostolic see and the Roman pontiff holds the primacy over the whole world and the Roman pontiff is the successor of blessed Peter prince of the apostles, and that he is the true vicar of Christ, the head of the whole church and the father and teacher of all Christians, and to him was committed in blessed Peter the full power of tending, ruling and governing the whole church, as is contained also in the acts of ecumenical councils and in the sacred canons.

I admitted that Trent didn’t offer the certainty I had thought it did. I think Florence offers this certainty, but as I reviewed Rebecca’s statements, she was familiar with Florence. What is the proper way to read the above statement from Florence (I have a guess, but I am not as satisfied as I would think people would hope I would be)?
Charity, TOm

 

[RebeccaJ]

I admitted that Trent didn’t offer the certainty I had thought it did. I think Florence offers this certainty, but as I reviewed Rebecca’s statements, she was familiar with Florence. What is the proper way to read the above statement from Florence?]

You must remember, this is during a time when the known world was considered to have heard the Gospel message, and to reject it meant condemnation, with no appeal to invisible ignorance.

Map of the known world, 1436.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/99/Biancomap.jpg

 

[MacQ]

TOM:
Just curious…what are you trying to do?
Become a theologian?
Prove one religion “better” than another?
Justify converting to catholicism?