To Mormons: Did the gates of Hell prevail against the 'Church' when your president taught false doctrine?

[FathersKnowBest]

Briefly, doctrine=teaching.

Pretty much. But Theories do NOT = Doctrine. That’s the point.

Catholic doctrine absolutely changes.

You keep asserting this, without providing any evidence.
The closest you’ve provided was something that you yourself posted was a THEORY.

And, once again, Theories do NOT = Doctrine.

I am of the opinion that things that SEEMED to be IRREFORMABLE seem to have changed and that this is a BIG problem.

Your opinion isn’t in question here.

But doctrine changes is absolutely clear.

And, quite frankly, neither am I interested in false and unsupported assertions.

I can provide citations for things you are quite sure I am wrong on, but it will be much later. Sorry.

I’d love to see your citation for the statement: “Today, Catholics declare that the Father and Son (and Holy Spirit) are three hypostasis.”
At least in the sense that you seem to mean it (that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are of three different substances).

So please highlight what I said that your research suggests is not true and I will investigate, but I do not have time to source all this stuff if you already know I am correct.
Charity, TOm

It was a doctrine of the universal church that unbaptized infants went to hell.

Today, Catholics declare that the Father and Son (and Holy Spirit) are three hypostasis.

the local Council of Antioch declared the idea that Father and Son were Homoousian a heresy,
They rejected the use of the word, true, but context is everything.
As the Catholic Encyclopedia explains:

It must be regarded as certain that the council which condemned Paul rejected the term homoousios; but naturally only in a false sense used by Paul; not, it seems because he meant by it an unity of Hypostasis in the Trinity (so St. Hilary), but because he intended by it a common substance out of which both Father and Son proceeded, or which it divided between them, — so St. Basil and St. Athanasius; but the question is not clear. The objectors to the Nicene doctrine in the fourth century made copious use of this disapproval of the Nicene word by a famous council.

 

[RebeccaJ]

I am claiming that the Council of Nicea said that the Father and Son were the same hypostasis. That today the Father and Son and Holy Spirit are three hypostasis (plural). This is a change. I can probably document it, but are you saying you have researched this and I am wrong? I would rather you do the research for yourself.
Charity, TOm

No, I am saying I’d like to see your references. Mainly, to determine what you’ve left out.

 

[twopekinguys]

I don’t think that I am going to convince you of my view of this scripture by any means I can come up with. Nor do I think that you are going to convince me of the Catholic interpretation, so I think arguing the point is a waste of time. We believe what we believe and you believe what you believe.

As to the exact date and time of the apostasy, I don’t think there is a definitive time. I think that the process was gradual. Here is a good LDS topic page if you want to dig further:

lds.org/topics/apostasy?lang=eng

I don’t believe that the doctrine of the church changes because we believe that truth (doctrine) is eternal. Certainly the practices, emphasis, organization, etc of the church have evolved over time.

Blacks and the priesthood was taught as doctrine by BY, but, now it isn’t. hmmm
Plural marriage is doctrine, but, is not practiced now by mainstream mormons. hmmm

Looks like you have two doctrinal changes there.

Also, as far as the apostasy date, did you see the earlier post(s) regarding the year 570?

Also, assuming there was an apostasy (which there wasn’t), that would mean that Jesus lied, or at best was mistaken when he said the gates of hell would not prevail. Do you think Jesus lied, or was mistaken?

Also, many mormons have said it happened after the death of the last apostle, but, many say John still walks the Earth. If he’s still walking the Earth, then an apostasy didn’t occur.

You have quite a conundrum to deal with here.

 

[twopekinguys]

I am claiming that the Council of Nicea said that the Father and Son were the same hypostasis. That today the Father and Son and Holy Spirit are three hypostasis (plural). This is a change. I can probably document it, but are you saying you have researched this and I am wrong? I would rather you do the research for yourself.
Charity, TOm

You made the claim, it is up to you to support it, or retract it.

 

[RebeccaJ]

I am claiming that the Council of Nicea said that the Father and Son were the same hypostasis. That today the Father and Son and Holy Spirit are three hypostasis (plural). This is a change. I can probably document it, but are you saying you have researched this and I am wrong? I would rather you do the research for yourself.
Charity, TOm

Also, why do you never research the Catholic response before making such claims?

A single google search and I give you this:

reasonablefaith.org/defenders-2-podcast/transcript/s5-7

 

[TOmNossor]

Also, why do you never research the Catholic response before making such claims?

A single google search and I give you this:

reasonablefaith.org/defenders-2-podcast/transcript/s5-7

Rebecca,
Thank you for finding a source that you seem to find acceptable for the piece of data I offered. William Lane Craig is a fine scholar (though not a Catholic). I only skimmed his response as it was what I had in mind when I posted this example.
William Lane Craig provided a response to explain that while the words used at the Council of Nicea absolutely condemned the notion that Father and Son were separate hypostasis, what they meant was that the idea that the Father and Son were separate ousia should be condemned.
Later when the Capadocian Fathers (from a different linguistic tradition and a slightly different time) used hypostasis to say that the Father and Son were not the same person (not “Prosopon” the word linked to the English “person” because it was polluted with modalist meanings like the English “persona.”)
So, what I would say were I Catholic is that council was infallible because what they meant was clearly what came to be the orthodox understanding. Thus their understanding is the understanding we have today (at least as it impacts the word hypostasis). And therefore nothing to see here. Catholics have a strong concept of original understanding.

Now, you and I have spoken at length about the position put forth by this ultra-trad fellow:
romancatholicism.org/jansenism/limbo-pelagianism.html
First, the Council of Carthage is not an EC, so it can teach what it teaches and it is not binding (though it is teaching which is doctrine, just not binding doctrine). The problem is that the Council of Florence and the Council of Lyons are Ecumenical councils. So when they teach on the fate of the unbaptized they are irreformable. As I discussed this here, I came to the conclusion that some radical parsing of words might make this teaching less solid than it appeared. But radical parsing of words would do violence to what the Bishops meeting in Florence and Lyons meant. They meant that it is Catholic doctrine (binding, fixed, irreformable) that the unbaptized go to hell. They made no allowances for infants or … Still, I as we went through that thread I was unaware of a place where the infallibility of a council was explained as only a protection of the words or only a protection of the meaning or … Later I thought again about the issue of hypostatis.

So, why should I parse the words of the Council of Florence and Lyons and believe that God protected the text promulgated by infallibility AND believe that at Nicea God protected the meanings ascribed to the words at Nicea while not actually protecting the text.

I am quite fine if this is “angels on the head of a pin” to folks here, but to me this is a change where change should not exist. God either protects the meaning (original intent) of Ecumenical Councils or he protests that words of Ecumenical Councils. He doesn’t protect one at one time and another at another time (or at least such an idea is a huge stretch for me.
Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

FathersKnowBest:
I’d love to see your citation for the statement: “Today, Catholics declare that the Father and Son (and Holy Spirit) are three hypostasis.”
At least in the sense that you seem to mean it (that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are of three different substances).
I am glad that William Lane Craig dealt with this. I was aware of the broad strokes, but not that Dr. Craig had written/posted this.
Your moniker would suggest to me that you would be familiar with these things, and I had no desire to go look for it.
Do I still need to support my assertion that at Nicea non-scriptural language was used because the Arians had no problems with scriptural language. I think I remember where I first read it. I found were Athanasius in his post-Nicene writings notes disapprovingly the Arians use of scriptural language to say what they believe, but I think I can source it in the Council if you need me to.

So, “in the sense that you seem to mean it” was an assumption on you part. If you see my response to Rebecca, I was specifically contrasting what folks mean and what folks say. I would generally believe that what they mean should trump what they say (and I need to appeal to that due to my errors here), but I think the Bishops at Lyons and Florence meant that the unbaptized would be in hell.

While I think the change in meaning ascribed to the word hypostasis by the Nicene Fathers and the Capadocian Fathers explains well why this is not a change in teaching, I think there are changes in teaching associated with homoousian in addition to the meaning of the word being fluid. Are you familiar with these arguments?
Charity, TOm

 

[Stephen168]

The problem is that the Council of Florence and the Council of Lyons are Ecumenical councils. So when they teach on the fate of the unbaptized they are irreformable. As I discussed this here, I came to the conclusion that some radical parsing of words might make this teaching less solid than it appeared. But radical parsing of words would do violence to what the Bishops meeting in Florence and Lyons meant. They meant that it is Catholic doctrine (binding, fixed, irreformable) that the unbaptized go to hell.

And post #95 explains the error in your thinking, but you ignore it this time like you ignored it before. You said enough in the thread you started on the subject for us to know that you already understand the error in your thinking, so it seems to me you are being dishonest in another attempt to attack the Catholic Church when you are not able to defend Mormonism.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Rebecca,
Thank you for finding a source that you seem to find acceptable for the piece of data I offered. William Lane Craig is a fine scholar (though not a Catholic). I only skimmed his response as it was what I had in mind when I posted this example.
William Lane Craig provided a response to explain that while the words used at the Council of Nicea absolutely condemned the notion that Father and Son were separate hypostasis, what they meant was that the idea that the Father and Son were separate ousia should be condemned.
Later when the Capadocian Fathers (from a different linguistic tradition and a slightly different time) used hypostasis to say that the Father and Son were not the same person (not “Prosopon” the word linked to the English “person” because it was polluted with modalist meanings like the English “persona.”)
So, what I would say were I Catholic is that council was infallible because what they meant was clearly what came to be the orthodox understanding. Thus their understanding is the understanding we have today (at least as it impacts the word hypostasis). And therefore nothing to see here. Catholics have a strong concept of original understanding.

Now, you and I have spoken at length about the position put forth by this ultra-trad fellow:
romancatholicism.org/jansenism/limbo-pelagianism.html
First, the Council of Carthage is not an EC, so it can teach what it teaches and it is not binding (though it is teaching which is doctrine, just not binding doctrine). The problem is that the Council of Florence and the Council of Lyons are Ecumenical councils. So when they teach on the fate of the unbaptized they are irreformable. As I discussed this here, I came to the conclusion that some radical parsing of words might make this teaching less solid than it appeared. But radical parsing of words would do violence to what the Bishops meeting in Florence and Lyons meant. They meant that it is Catholic doctrine (binding, fixed, irreformable) that the unbaptized go to hell. They made no allowances for infants or … Still, I as we went through that thread I was unaware of a place where the infallibility of a council was explained as only a protection of the words or only a protection of the meaning or … Later I thought again about the issue of hypostatis.

So, why should I parse the words of the Council of Florence and Lyons and believe that God protected the text promulgated by infallibility AND believe that at Nicea God protected the meanings ascribed to the words at Nicea while not actually protecting the text.

I am quite fine if this is “angels on the head of a pin” to folks here, but to me this is a change where change should not exist. God either protects the meaning (original intent) of Ecumenical Councils or he protests that words of Ecumenical Councils. He doesn’t protect one at one time and another at another time (or at least such an idea is a huge stretch for me.
Charity, TOm

What I see, is that Nicaea usage of hypostasis was not clear to all the Bishops of the Church. Doctrine did not change when in 362, 37 years later, the wording was clarified so that there was no language controversy in what the council in 325, meant. I find it interesting that you mischaracterize 37 years as “different today”.

“The Hope For Infants Who Die Without Baptism” does no violence to these councils. Its conclusion is, “that there are theological and liturgical reasons to hope that infants who die without baptism may be saved and brought into eternal happiness, even if there is not an explicit teaching on this question found in Revelation”.

Particularly, that Christians are a people of Hope, which is not the sort of hope, that is also called wishing. Our Hope has a name, Jesus Christ, and our Hope in Him is secure.

And, as I said, Sin and Grace are the defining doctrines for any discussion for God’s judgment and mercy. We cannot discuss one without the other.

As for the infallibility of councils, infallibility does not mean that was has been decreed, and approved, cannot be amended.

 

[TOmNossor]

And post #95 explains the error in your thinking, but you ignore it this time like you ignored it before. You said enough in the thread you started on the subject for us to know that you already understand the error in your thinking, so it seems to me you are being dishonest in another attempt to attack the Catholic Church when you are not able to defend Mormonism.

Stephen168,
I am certain that I am not being dishonest.
I would guess your pointing to post #95 means that in your mind LDS prophets are infallible when speaking on all kinds of stuff. I disagree that they are or that I should expect them to be.
This then somehow responds to the concerns that I have with changing Catholic doctrine. I fail to see how this is the case. Catholicism emphasizes “preservation of Tradition” in ways that Mormonism never has and likely never will.

The truth is that I do not know how your point is relevant to what I am speaking about here so I frequently ignore it.
That being said, stop claiming I am being dishonest please.

Charity, TOm

 

[Stephen168]

I would guess your pointing to post #95 means that in your mind LDS prophets are infallible when speaking on all kinds of stuff. I disagree that they are or that I should expect them to be.

You didn’t seem to get past the first paragraph. The first paragraph made two points: 1) Christianity has never had or claimed to have a “prophet” as its leader yet Mormonism does (another Mormon novelty). 2) The founder of Mormonism claimed to receive revelation which later turned out to be a lie.
The President of the Quorum of the 12 Mormon apostles said, “The prophet can receive revelation on any matter, temporal or spiritual.” Joseph Smith made the same claims. While you may disagree with their claims, your Church teaches it.
When you cannot explain the lies of Joseph Smith, you bring up limbo as if it is equal in any way to the stories told by Joseph Smith or several other Mormon Doctrine that have changed.
This brings in my second paragraph.
Just last March, you started a thread on Limbo because you could not defend a claim of Joseph Smith which was also recorded in Mormon scripture. While you like to claim that revelation and scripture are the mark of the true Church of Christ, it seems it doesn’t work well for Mormons.

 

[Stephen168]

You claim that because a recent Pope said we do not know the fate of unbaptized babies that the Catholic Church has changed its teaching on limbo. You started your thread with a quote from the Council of Trent which said that everyone is born with original sin, that baptism, for both adults and children, removes original sin. It was quickly pointed out that Trent made no claims about the fate of those unbaptized, so you moved on to the Council of Florence.

TOmNossor:

I admitted that Trent didn’t offer the certainty I had thought it did. I think Florence offers this certainty,…

Council of Florence:

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.

TOmNossor:

In Catholic thought all humans are subject to original sin and Mary is a human yet she is called sinless. Somewhere I read how Christ’s atonement was applied to Mary to prevent the imputing of original sin to her (don’t tell me where I read this, because I will use it in a LDS apologetic argument ). As I reviewed the ECFs witness of Mary, I had little trouble believing that Mary was “full of Grace” in Catholic Tradition and given quite an important place.

"Stephen168:

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

TOmNossor:

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.

But…
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.
…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 clearly understand that Catholic teaching is that God can remove original sin without baptism of water. So I attempt to clear it up for you in paragraph two:

Stephen168:

Christianity gets its revelation from the Word, the second person of the trinity, Jesus Christ. Christ establish a Church and his first Vicar, St Peter, encourages Christians to always be ready to give an account of the hope that is in them (1 Pet 3:15-16). The revelation of Christ gives the greatest hope to those who are baptized (Mark 16:16) and receive the Eucharist (John 6:53). We are to baptize in the singular name of the one triune God the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit (Matthew 28:19). Christ also told us that all things are possible with God (Mark 10:27). While we all died because of Adam we all live because of the resurrection of Christ (1 Corin 15:20-22). By the example of Christ we know he can save without baptism of water. He saved the penitent thief (Luke 23:42-43) and he also saved because of the faith of others (Mark 2:1-5). So the Word revealed that the ordinary way of salvation is by the sacraments of baptism and the Eucharist, but he can make all things possible.

The magisterium of the Catholic Church has never taught limbo and has never condemned babies not baptized by water to hell. Christ has not reveled their fate, so we leave it to his mercy and grace.
While Mormonism rejects the Eucharist, the trinity, and has made the sin of Adam a goal, we don’t know what their future holds, because Christ gave no revelation on Mormonism.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Remember Zerinus, how he’d take the conversations here and use them in a blog to attack Catholicism? I"m getting the same idea is going on with tomnossor

 

[twopekinguys]

Remember Zerinus, how he’d take the conversations here and use them in a blog to attack Catholicism? I"m getting the same idea is going on with tomnossor

Think it is a sock puppet?

Also, that site he is using, romancatholcism.org is not a good site to be using as a reference. They appear to be sedevacantists, among other things.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Think it is a sock puppet?

Also, that site he is using, romancatholcism.org is not a good site to be using as a reference. They appear to be sedevacantists, among other things.

Different people, same Mormon agenda.

About that site. Yikes. But if it can be used for a Mormon agenda, then apparently it’s ok.

 

[twopekinguys]

Different people, same Mormon agenda.

About that site. Yikes. But if it can be used for a Mormon agenda, then apparently it’s ok.

I guess a reference is a reference whether it’s a good one or not.

I guess we can start using recovery from mormonism, etc.

 

[TOmNossor]

What I see, is that Nicaea usage of hypostasis was not clear to all the Bishops of the Church. Doctrine did not change when in 362, 37 years later, the wording was clarified so that there was no language controversy in what the council in 325, meant. I find it interesting that you mischaracterize 37 years as “different today”.

“The Hope For Infants Who Die Without Baptism” does no violence to these councils. Its conclusion is, “that there are theological and liturgical reasons to hope that infants who die without baptism may be saved and brought into eternal happiness, even if there is not an explicit teaching on this question found in Revelation”.

Particularly, that Christians are a people of Hope, which is not the sort of hope, that is also called wishing. Our Hope has a name, Jesus Christ, and our Hope in Him is secure.

And, as I said, Sin and Grace are the defining doctrines for any discussion for God’s judgment and mercy. We cannot discuss one without the other.

As for the infallibility of councils, infallibility does not mean that was has been decreed, and approved, cannot be amended.
Rebecca, I referenced the Cappadocia Father’s as those who began to use the term “hypostasis” to mean the three persons of the Trinity. I was hardly trying to suggest that this change in terms with little or no change in means represented something that took 1800 years.

Totally unimportant for this discussion, but you said, “the use of hypostasis was not clear to all the Bishops of the church.” I think hypostasis and much more so homoousian have such colorful linguistic shifts because they became the technical terms used to represent what a Catholic would call a mystery. All language that tries to define precisely how God is one and how God is three in the absence of terms that came to mean ONLY what they mean in their Trinitarian context fail to convey sufficient truth to all inquirers.

More on the other topic in response to Stephen.
Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

You didn’t seem to get past the first paragraph. The first paragraph made two points: 1) Christianity has never had or claimed to have a “prophet” as its leader yet Mormonism does (another Mormon novelty). 2) The founder of Mormonism claimed to receive revelation which later turned out to be a lie.

The President of the Quorum of the 12 Mormon apostles said, “The prophet can receive revelation on any matter, temporal or spiritual.” Joseph Smith made the same claims. While you may disagree with their claims, your Church teaches it.
When you cannot explain the lies of Joseph Smith, you bring up limbo as if it is equal in any way to the stories told by Joseph Smith or several other Mormon Doctrine that have changed.
This brings in my second paragraph.
Just last March, you started a thread on Limbo because you could not defend a claim of Joseph Smith which was also recorded in Mormon scripture. While you like to claim that revelation and scripture are the mark of the true Church of Christ, it seems it doesn’t work well for Mormons.
A prophet is “one who speaks for God.” Are you saying that you believe Peter was not a prophet?
I have mentioned in the thread a few times that I think the ability to receive Public Revelation is present within Peter, Old Testaments leaders, and purportedly in LDS leaders AND that this is a worthwhile argument. In my opinion the appellation “Prophet” being infrequently applied to Peter and frequently applied to Moses and the head of the CoJCoLDS has much less value in determining whose leaders are the successor of Peter, but I can see your point.
I do not believe you can prove that the founder of the CoJCoLDS (meaning secondary founder after Christ and other folks not born in the 1800’s) did not receive revelation. In addition to this, one of the most informed critics of the CoJCoLDS would question your “lie” accusation upon other grounds based in his critical, non-believing, investigation Joseph Smith. But, I only mention this because you seem to use the word “lie” in a way that is somewhat foreign to me and the burden of proof for “lie” is higher IMO.
I am not a Kate Kelly LDS. I believe the leaders of the church can receive revelation on “any matter, temporal or spiritual.” I just believe that whatever Catholics believe prevents the Pope from making an error (concerning faith and morals, …) is not a real protection and not one possessed or claimed by LDS prophets.
My experience with revelation in the CoJCoLDS is that it does work well. I never sat at the feet of Brigham Young or Joseph Smith. I have no doubt I would have a different perspective where I to have done so. But I doubt my perspective would be as colored by what I hear on message boards about those two fellows were I able to sit at their feet and hear them. As it is, the prophets I have heard are remarkable and I believe they receive revelation. And the prophets I know only through my studies and what critics say about them are not near so flawed as one might think were one to sit at the feet of a critic.

I am quite sure my memory of the genesis of my Limbo thread was quite different than your memory. I have really little specific idea what you are talking about, but I strongly suspect that I said the same thing here in that previous thread. Joseph Smith was a prophet. Joseph Smith was not infallible. Catholics with their infallible doctrine are far more damaged by changes than are LDS. I suspect you were nonplussed by my take on whatever you thought was so clearly a “LIE.” I suspect you will still be. And when I do not respond to you, you can probably guess that your willingness to label me dishonest and others “liars” has a small bit to do with my lack of response, but a larger reason is I do not find merit in your arguments (as you do not find merit in mine, in fact I think we speak past each other a great deal but I do not know how to fix that).
Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

You claim that because a recent Pope said we do not know the fate of unbaptized babies that the Catholic Church has changed its teaching on limbo. You started your thread with a quote from the Council of Trent which said that everyone is born with original sin, that baptism, for both adults and children, removes original sin. It was quickly pointed out that Trent made no claims about the fate of those unbaptized, so you moved on to the Council of Florence.

You clearly understand that Catholic teaching is that God can remove original sin without baptism of water. So I attempt to clear it up for you in paragraph two:

The magisterium of the Catholic Church has never taught limbo and has never condemned babies not baptized by water to hell. Christ has not reveled their fate, so we leave it to his mercy and grace.
While Mormonism rejects the Eucharist, the trinity, and has made the sin of Adam a goal, we don’t know what their future holds, because Christ gave no revelation on Mormonism.
Aside from my “moving on” seemingly because my first stick didn’t score enough blood, this is one of my most favorite posts you have ever offered. I did point out in the thread that I started with Trent because I was quite confident it would outline the need for Baptismal regeneration. During the thread I encountered various arguments including some Ultra-Trad arguments similar to the one I linked to in this thread. These brought up multiple councils (and like the one I linked seemed to neglect the difference between an Irreformable Ecumenical Council and a local council.
All that being said, I expended effort to see how any view of hope for the unbaptized could be aligned with the two councils Lyons and Florence. Knowing that Mary lacked original sin I thought of such an idea for the unbaptized infant.
I am of the opinion that the anti-Pelagian local council(s) emphasized the need for baptism specifically claiming that unbaptized infants are in hellfire AND that those who suggest otherwise are heritics. That the words of the Fathers at Lyons and Florence are so incredibly clear that one cannot doubt their intention was in alignment with previous councils (local though they be) and previous papal statements (not exercising the Charism of infallibility IMO).
But, if one chooses to believe that the original intent of the authors of the text at the Council of Florence and Lyons is not protected by conciliar infallibility, but only the text as it stands; I could see how the hope for the unbaptized infant might be serpentined through the specific words of the council (assuming translation into English is reasonably correct).
So at the conclusion of the thread you have spoken of here, I thought that though it was a stretch perhaps one could believe that the fate of the unbaptized infant was not irreformably defined at Lyons and Florence.

Sometime later I again reflected upon the anathemas at Nicea that were deleted by an initially local council years later. I knew the explanation for this was that the Fathers clearly meant hypostasis in a way that the later church didn’t. But when I made the connection to Florence and Lyons, it seemed like two large leaps that were tough on their own but impossible together.

That is how we got here. It is perhaps an angels on the heads of pins thing, but it is a real thing for me (and not angels on head of pins).

I find the idea that unbaptized infants (even pre-born infants) are in hell to be horrible, but as an outsider I just reject it. It however is a huge shift in Catholic doctrine that sure seems to be a shift in irreformable doctrine.

Anyway, I could explain either change by itself (though that does not mean “there’s nothing to see here”) but together they are more difficult.
Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

Think it is a sock puppet?

Also, that site he is using, romancatholcism.org is not a good site to be using as a reference. They appear to be sedevacantists, among other things.
They are sedavacantists, but that does not mean their presentation of why “hope for the unbaptized infants” is not theological novum.
They are actually suggesting that Limbo is theological novum because the universal church taught before the middle ages that there was no Limbo like place and that hell proper is the destination for anyone who dies without baptism.
If you thought I was suggesting “here is a good Catholic take on this issue” I was not (I called them ultra-trads).
And of course William Lane Craig is not a good Catholic either so perhaps we cannot accept his description of why Nicea said Father and Son were not multiple hypostasis.
If things posted on RFM were to be removed from Catholic Answer consideration, 90% thread started by Catholics on this message board would need to be deleted.
I find that the ultra-trads I know (and don’t know) argue that something is radically wrong with the post Vatican II church from a position of understanding what Catholicism is (or at least was before Vatican II). Many other arguments are hugely flawed because they don’t have a good understanding of what Catholicism is and don’t seem to care.
The Sedavacantist referenced does IMO extend papal infallibility WAY beyond what the bulk of the Vatican I bishops intended. I have no doubt that one aspect of the thinking of the Sedavacantist today would result in alignment with Dollinger rather than Newman. The near universal Arianism post Nicea would be another example IMO of such things. But it is the denial of continued revelation that produces these “kicking against the pricks” when things change. Orestas Bronson and his bishop took Newman’s theory to task as a remnant of his Protestantism, but they lacked the knowledge of the early church Newman built his theory upon (instead they just knew how preservation of tradition was taught to them). As a non-Catholic I find Newman’s theory necessary for Catholicism’s truth claims, but likely lacking.

BTW, I have no blog. I post here more than elsewhere, but I do post in other spots too. I know that my interactions here inform my thinking, but I do not recall a specific instance where I built non-Catholic Answers posts based on Catholic Answers stuff.
Charity, TOm