Religions and outer space

[cyberjacques]

Zerinus, not only are Paul and Halsey right, but the material you are trying to use to support your claims has been taken from Wikipedia, which is often less than reliable, and if you would be so kind as to return to that entry, you will notice that the section you referred to is being challenged as to its accuracy. For instance, if you go to the Wikipedia entry on Infant Baptism, it says that the Catholic Church has no official teachings on what happens to unbaptized infants, and that Limbo has never been Catholic doctrine. Clearly Wikipedia contains many differing points of view. Perhaps you would be better off citing the early church fathers or Papal decrees if you want an idea of what Catholics have believed throughout the centuries.

On another note, how has this thread gone from outer space to infant baptism? Discussion of the concept of Limbo by itself I could understand, but baptism?

 

[zerinus]

And what are you quoting here? The Catholic Encyclopedia or Wikipedia?? So no, not clear.

Besides, just because a theologian says it, does not make it official church teaching.

However, the following is the only official teaching on this subject by the Church:

I was not interested in how Catholic doctrine has changed. The quote from the Catechism represents a change in Catholic doctrine. My original statement (post #66) that you had challenged (in post #68) was as follows:

But that is not the “official,” HISTORICAL teaching of the Catholic Church. The HISTORICAL teaching has been total damnation.

zerinus

Did you get that, this time? The historical teaching has been total damnation. Then later on is changed to limbo, and now it has evolved into something else. But that has nothing to do with my original statement that you had challenged. I was responding to your challenge, not to something else. I provided you with evidence what the historical position of the Catholic Church has been, which is what you had originally asked.

zerinus

 

[MHalsey]

I was not interested in how Catholic doctrine has changed. The quote from the Catechism represents a change in Catholic doctrine. My original statement (post #66) that you had challenged (in post #68) was as follows:

Did you get that, this time? The historical teaching has been total damnation. Then later on is changed to limbo, and now it has evolved into something else. But that has nothing to do with my original statement that you had challenged. I was responding to your challenge, not to something else. I provided you with evidence what the historical position of the Catholic Church has been, which is what you had originally asked.

zerinus

Nope, still not buying it. Not until you can quote from official Church documents. I take everything I read on Wikipedia with a grain of salt. Perhaps you should too.

 

[sterryfamily]

The latter doctrine is the Catholic Church’s alternative explanation for the condition of the unbaptized infants. It is either that or Limbo. It it is not Limbo, than it is total damnation.

zerinus

Z - you quote a statement that says HYPOTHESIS and you call it DOCTRINE.

What’s up?

 

[zerinus]

Z - you quote a statement that says HYPOTHESIS and you call it DOCTRINE.

What’s up?

Not so. There is no “hypothesis” in the fact that historically the position of the CC has been damnation for unbaptized Children. “Limbo” may have been a hypothesis. The later developments (such as “God’s mercy,” “baptism of desire,” “we don’t know” etc) may have all been hypothesise. But it is no hypothesis to state that the historical potation of the church has been damnation of unbaptized children. That is a historical fact. It is not a hypothesis.

Furthermore, since all the later developments of the doctrine have at one time or another been labelled “hypothesise,” one may legitimately conclude that the only truly official position of the church still remains damnation for unbaptized children—the Catechism notwithstanding.

zerinus

 

[sterryfamily]

Not so. There is no “hypothesis” in the fact that historically the position of the CC has been damnation for unbaptized Children. “Limbo” may have been a hypothesis. The later developments (such as “God’s mercy,” “baptism of desire,” “we don’t know” etc) may have all been hypothesise. But it is no hypothesis to state that the historical potation of the church has been damnation of unbaptized children. That is a historical fact. It is not a hypothesis.

Furthermore, since all the later developments of the doctrine have at one time or another been labelled “hypothesise,” one may legitimately conclude that the only truly official position of the church still remains damnation for unbaptized children—the Catechism notwithstanding.

zerinus

You make no sense…

In the very quotation you cited, it says all over that Limbo was is and has always been a hypothesis. You claim that it is a doctrine of the Church.

The Church says she has never had such a doctrine. The people on this thread have asked you to show any proof supporting your claim that this was an official doctrine of the Church. To which you have not responded - you just keep repeating the same accusations over and over.

Because some people offer a particular hypothesis will never make that official Church doctrine. Can you show from any reliable source that this ever was official Church doctrine and not just what your quotation claims - a hypothesis?

 

[MHalsey]

Not so. There is no “hypothesis” in the fact that historically the position of the CC has been damnation for unbaptized Children. “Limbo” may have been a hypothesis. The later developments (such as “God’s mercy,” “baptism of desire,” “we don’t know” etc) may have all been hypothesise. But it is no hypothesis to state that the historical potation of the church has been damnation of unbaptized children. That is a historical fact. It is not a hypothesis.

Furthermore, since all the later developments of the doctrine have at one time or another been labelled “hypothesise,” one may legitimately conclude that the only truly official position of the church still remains damnation for unbaptized children—the Catechism notwithstanding.

zerinus

This is really getting rather ridiculous even for you, Z. You have yet to produce any official church document supporting your claim.

All you have are what the theologians have theorized over the course of history. Oh, and quotes from Wiki, which, last I checked, did not have the imprimatur.

 

[zerinus]

This is really getting rather ridiculous even for you, Z. You have yet to produce any official church document supporting your claim.

All you have are what the theologians have theorized over the course of history. Oh, and quotes from Wiki, which, last I checked, did not have the imprimatur.

I think that the ridiculous things are all coming from you. What do you call “official”? Is a decision made by a church council “official”? The following is a quote from an “official” report published on the “official” Catholic website, referencing the decision of a church council (of Carthage of 418):

1. The fate of unbaptised infants first became the subject of sustained theological reflection in the West during the anti-Pelagian controversies of the early 5th century. St. Augustine addressed the question because Pelagius was teaching that infants could be saved without Baptism. Pelagius questioned whether St. Paul’s letter to the Romans really taught that all human beings sinned “in Adam” (Rom 5:12) and that concupiscence, suffering, and death were a consequence of the Fall. Since he denied that Adam’s sin was transmitted to his descendants, he regarded newborn infants as innocent. Pelagius promised infants who died unbaptised entry into “eternal life” (not, however, into the “Kingdom of God” [Jn 3:5]), reasoning that God would not condemn to hell those who were not personally guilty of sin.
2. In countering Pelagius, Augustine was led to state that infants who die without Baptism are consigned to hell. . . .

---

1. The Council of Carthage of 418 rejected the teaching of Pelagius. It condemned the opinion that infants “do not contract from Adam any trace of original sin, which must be expiated by the bath of regeneration that leads to eternal life”. Positively, this council taught that “even children who of themselves cannot have yet committed any sin are truly baptised for the remission of sins, so that by regeneration they may be cleansed from what they contracted through generation”. It was also added that there is no “intermediate or other happy dwelling place for children who have left this life without Baptism, without which they cannot enter the kingdom of heaven, that is, eternal life”. This council did not, however, explicitly endorse all aspects of Augustine’s stern view about the destiny of infants who die without Baptism.
2. So great was Augustine’s authority in the West, however, that the Latin Fathers (e.g., Jerome, Fulgentius, Avitus of Vienne, and Gregory the Great) did adopt his opinion. Gregory the Great asserts that God condemns even those with only original sin on their souls; even infants who have never sinned by their own will must go to “everlasting torments”. He cites Job 14:4-5 (LXX), John 3:5, and Ephesians 2:3 on our condition at birth as “children of wrath”. Source

Bearing in mind that this belief was so widespread among the most prominent Catholic theologians and divines and Doctors of Catholic Church at that time, if that was NOT the official position of the church, then the burden of proof is on you to provide us with what you consider to be an “official” document to that effect. Otherwise the “official” position remains that stated by the Catholic theologians, Divines, and Doctors of the Church at that time—unless you are implying that the Catholic Church deliberately misled people about the true doctrine of the fate of unbaptized children.

Is it “official” Catholic doctrine that infants must be baptized? Where is the “official” document for that? And why are they baptized, unless they are considered to be under the curse or sin of Adam? If they are not under that curse, why are they baptized? If they are under that curse, how can they escape damnation unless they are baptized?

Ever tried having you cake and eating it before?

zerinus

 

[PaulDupre]

The BoM does not (AFAICS) absolutely rule out the possibility that Lehi & Co., & the Jaredites before them, travelled by airships. That would certainly explain the cumoms and cureloms. For all we know, the entire BoM could have taken place on another planet.​

Yes, but it would have to be a rather small planet, inhabited by space-Mongolians so that the Hebrew DNA would be sufficiently watered-down before the Lamanites were transported to the Americas on Earth.

This of course assumes a “limited cosmology theory” of the Book of Mormon.

Paul

 

[zerinus]

Yes, but it would have to be a rather small planet, inhabited by space-Mongolians so that the Hebrew DNA would be sufficiently watered-down before the Lamanites were transported to the Americas on Earth.

This of course assumes a “limited cosmology theory” of the Book of Mormon.

Paul

Yea, when out of your depth, try changing the subject! That is always an easy escape rout. You will be luck though.

zerinus

 

[MHalsey]

I think that the ridiculous things are all coming from you. What do you call “official”? Is a decision made by a church council “official”? The following is a quote from an “official” report published on the “official” Catholic website, referencing the decision of a church council (of Carthage of 418):

(edited for content)

Source
Bearing in mind that this belief was so widespread among the most prominent Catholic theologians and divines and Doctors of Catholic Church at that time, if that was NOT the official position of the church, then the burden of proof is on you to provide us with what you consider to be an “official” document to that effect. Otherwise the “official” position remains that stated by the Catholic theologians, Divines, and Doctors of the Church at that time—unless you are implying that the Catholic Church deliberately misled people about the true doctrine of the fate of unbaptized children.

Is it “official” Catholic doctrine that infants must be baptized? Where is the “official” document for that? And why are they baptized, unless they are considered to be under the curse or sin of Adam? If they are not under that curse, why are they baptized? If they are under that curse, how can they escape damnation unless they are baptized?

Ever tried having you cake and eating it before?

zerinus

Well, I commend you on your research. However, this about what theologians believed, not what the Church officially taught. We been over this already. The reason the Church has never dogmatically defined what happens to unbaptized infants after death is that we simply don’t know. As I quoted before, the only OFFICIAL teaching on the subject is in the Catechism. I’ll quote it again.

Catechism of the Catholic Church (1261)
As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus’ tenderness toward children which caused him to say: "Let the children come to me, do not hinder them,"64 allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism. All the more urgent is the Church’s call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy Baptism.

The fact is the theologians of old didn’t know, and put forth their theories, but because they were not completely sure, the Church never took a definite stand. If they were sure about it, you can bet the Church would have dogmatically defined it as such. But since they didn’t, you cannot say the official teaching of the Church was such.

 

[MHalsey]

Yea, when out of your depth, try changing the subject! That is always an easy escape rout. You will be luck though.

zerinus

Well, this is a little like the pot calling the kettle black. Were you not the one that brought up limbo and purgatory to draw attention away from precious Kolob? Yeah, I think that was you.

 

[cyberjacques]

Zerinus, I don’t understand why you are so hung up on this. It has already been explained that there are several forms of baptism, one of which benefits those infants you are so concerned about. By the time of the Council of Carthage it had already long been accepted as doctrine that baptism by water was not the only valid kind. As Paul has already stated, the other two accepted forms were by blood, or martyrdom, and by desire. The earliest explicit example I’ve found so far is from around 200 A.D. and there are many more. Check out this site:
catholic.com/library/Necessity_of_Baptism.asp
It includes several quotes from your all-time favorite St. Augustine, confirming that even before he participated in the Council of Carthage he already believed in all three forms of baptism.

 

[PaulDupre]

Does anyone have any idea what scriptures Clem. Alex. Eclog. 41 refers to?

He was referring to The Apocalypse of Peter, which during Clement’s time (prior to the formalization of the canon) was considered scriptural and was read in church.

Here is a similar Clement of Alexandria quote that refers to it specifically:

CLEMENS ALEXANDRINUS, Eclog. 48. For instance, Peter in the Apocalypse says that the children who are born out of due time shall be of the better part: and that these are delivered over to a care-taking angel that they may attain a share of knowledge and gain the better abode [after suffering what they would have suffered if they had been in the body: but the others shall merely obtain salvation as injured beings to whom mercy is shown, and remain without punishment, receiving this as a reward].

Only a small portion of this Apocalypse attributed to Peter is extant. Any other parts we know of exist only in fragments like this one preserved in the writings of the ECFs. Read more here.

Interesting that the fragments speak both of children “born out of due time” (miscarried? aborted?) and those “left exposed” (victims of infanticide?) as being commended to the angels. This goes along well with what the CCC says about entrusting children who die without baptism to the mercy of God.

Hope this helps,
Paul

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

from before,

David clearly expected to go where his dead baby went (2 Samuel 12:23); God took the life of King Jeroboam’s child because only in him was any good found (1 Kings 14:12, 13), and Jesus declared that we must become as little children to enter the kingdom of heaven (Mark 10:15).

2 Samuel 12:23 (New International Version)

But now that he is dead, why should I fast? Can I bring him back again? I will go to him, but he will not return to me."

Does anyone have any idea what scriptures Clem. Alex. Eclog. 41 refers to?

The Apocalypse of Peter - if IIRC. This was while the margins of the NT were still rather uncertain… ​

Sorry to contradict the OP - but quite a lot of the AP has survived

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Yes, but it would have to be a rather small planet, inhabited by space-Mongolians so that the Hebrew DNA would be sufficiently watered-down before the Lamanites were transported to the Americas on Earth.

This of course assumes a “limited cosmology theory” of the Book of Mormon.

Paul

Not if the space-Mongolians were descended from Noah - his descendants might have gone into space.​

For example - if Nimrod (Gen. 10) founded Nineveh, & is the god Vulcan, he could have gone into space & become the founder of Vulcan culture. Which would explain why his Vulcan descendants look like Mongolians. They could then go to earth, start building the Tower of Babel, & the Jaredites could separate from them & come to America. 1600 years later, in 600 BC, the Lamanites come along.

If Nimrod AKA Vulcan is the same person as Adama in Battlestar Galactica, through being confused with Noah, all is explained. It all fits !

 

[swariffin]

I don’t! I would rather have God on a planet than purgatory and limbo!

zerinus

Why don’t we ask Capt. James T. Kirk from the Enterprise about God on a Planet and what is his view about Purgatory and Limbo, no matter how boldly he goes where no man has gone before.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Why don’t we ask Capt. James T. Kirk from the Enterprise about God on a Planet and what is his view about Purgatory and Limbo, no matter how boldly he goes where no man has gone before.

I seem to recall that that little enterprise was not a howling success ​

 

[swariffin]

Straight from your quote, Z.

So, like what was said, this is not official Church teaching.

Also, Wiki got it wrong on Purgatory, but since there is quite enough info on Purgatory on this site alone, I’ll refrain from copying and pasting anything here.

Dear MHalsey,

As a Catholic, since the RCIA until now, no priest nor any catholic teachers teach me about Limbo/Limbus. In the Cathecism, Limbo is not taught either. How come somebody accuse us in believing something we do not have faith in. For me, Limbo is such kind of a topic in theological discussion only. No more no less. Whether you believe or not is irrelevant to salvation.

 

[swariffin]

But that is not the “official,” historical teaching of the Catholic Church. The historical teaching has been total damnation.

zerinus

Please quote the Catholic teaching about this?