Why did the gospel need to be restored?

[Stephen168]

These are all good points meriting additional discussion. As you know, ultimately what LDS do is present their message and invite the individual to inquire of God to know for himself/herself whether the message is true.

The Mormon message is irrational.

The Mormon syllogism:
The true gospel is fully contained in the bible and will never change
The gospel of the Catholic Church is not fully contained in the bible and has changed
Therefore, the gospel had to be restored.

But within Mormonism the first premise is false. All Mormon Doctrine and practice is not contained in the bible. And the Mormon gospel changes in almost every generation. Mormons pride themselves on being lead by a ‘prophet’ who can receive “supernatural public revelation” to change Mormon Doctrine anytime they want, and they do. In fact, Joseph Smith changed the doctrine of who god was within his lifetime and Brigham Young changed it again. Therefore, premise one is irrational and hypocritical. It holds the Catholic Church to a standard it does not hold for itself.

Premise one also means there should be evidence of uniquely Mormon beliefs and practices in the early church. For example:

Led by a Prophet
Practice polygamy
Revelation on behalf of the whole church
non-black priesthood
Melchizedek Priesthood
God the Father was once a man

These are Mormon beliefs that were never Christian. They were inventions of Joseph Smith and Brigham Young. Therefore, there was never an early Mormon gospel to restore.

 

[wmscott]

Do not Catholics believe that the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ is found fully in both the species of the wine and the bread? And isn’t that why a Catholic meets his or her communion obligation by receiving either the bread or the wine?

Thanks for pointing this out. So when I am asked if I have a personal relationship with Christ I answer “Yes, and what better way to have that relationship than to receive the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ in the most Holy Eucharist,” Again, thanks for bringing it up.

 

[Stephen168]

While Christianity has never been lead by a prophet, the founder of Mormonism claimed to be one. He was the first in a line of Mormon ‘Prophets’ who “gave revelations on all kinds of subjects.” Revelation on the success of a bank, history of the American Indians, God the Father, Adam the Father, the Son, the Holy Ghost, blood atonements, etc. Of course, we see that these revelations have been shown to be false, or contradict each other.

Christianity gets its revelation from the Word, the second person of the trinity, Jesus Christ. Christ established 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.

While Mormonism rejects the Eucharist, the trinity, and has made the sin of Adam a goal, like limbo, we don’t know what their future holds, because Christ gave no revelation on Mormonism.

 

[Stephen168]

I am confident that the Fathers at the Council of Florence meant that unbaptized babies die in
“original sin alone” and thus go “straightaway to hell.”
I am confident that an understanding of the Council of Florence that discards the original understanding of the Fathers at the Council of Florence creates a window through which virtually any dogma may be radically modified and essential overturned.

I remembered that Trent spoke clearly concerning the fate of the unbaptized.

The Trent statement by itself does not create the certainty that I had originally thought.

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)

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.

Do you still have certainty about your quote from the Council of Florence?
Stephen168;11791270:

Or did post #122 clear it up for you.

I have noticed you have stopped responding to posts that are the subject of the OP, so I will assume I’ve made my point and refuted your claim.

Of course this tangent is a red herring as pointed out in posts #10, #14, and #60.

 

[lax16]

Not only do I not “know” that, I am about 90%+ sure the historical record directly contradicts what you are suggesting.
Why do you believe St. Monica’s husband forbid infant baptism? What is your source? Is it just a guess based upon the fact that here husband was a pagan? Or do you have some other source of which I am not aware?
I think this situation is precisely as I suggested, it was very common to intentionally delay baptism not only for infants/youths, but for adults/converts too.
Charity, TOm

St. Monica, Mother of Augustine of Hippo

antiochian.org/node/18343

St. Monica, the mother of St. Augustine of Hippo, was born in 322 in Tagaste (located in modern-day Algeria). Her parents were Christians, but little is known of her early life. Most of the information about her comes from Book IX of her son’s “Confessions.”

St. Monica was married to a pagan official named Patritius, who had a short temper and lived an immoral life. At first, her mother-in-law did not like her, but Monica won her over by her gentle disposition. Unlike many women of that time, St. Monica was never beaten by her husband. She said that Patritius never raised his hand against her because she always held her tongue, setting a guard over her mouth in his presence.

St. Monica and Patritius had three children: St. Augustine, Navigius and Perpetua. It was a source of great pain that Patritius would not permit their children to be baptized. She worried about Augustine, who lived with a young woman in Carthage who bore him an illegitimate son. Her constant prayers and tears for her son had the effect of converting her husband to Christ before his death. Augustine, however, continued on the path that led him away from Christ.

While in Carthage, Augustine fell under the influence of the heretical Manichean sect. His mother was horrified and tried to turn him away from this cult. She was calmed after she had a dream in which she was told to be patient and gentle with her son. Augustine, however, paid little attention to her arguments, and remained with this sect for nine years. St. Monica felt disheartened and disappointed, but never gave up. She even tried to enlist the help of a bishop who had once been a Manichean himself, but he would not argue with Augustine. He told St. Monica said that he couldn’t reason with the young man because Augustine was still attracted by the novelty of the heresy. The bishop reassured her saying, “Go on your way, and God bless you, for it is not possible that the son of these tears should be lost.”

St. Monica went to Rome with Augustine when he was scheduled to lecture there in 383. Later, he received an appointment to Milan, where he met St. Ambrose and was greatly impressed by his preaching. Bishop Ambrose came to have a great deal of respect for St. Monica, and often congratulated Augustine on having such a virtuous mother.

While Augustine was reading the New Testament in the garden one day, he came to the passage of Paul’s Letter to the Romans at Chapter 13, Verses 12-14. Augustine immediately decided to “cast off the works of darkness,” and “put on the Lord Jesus Christ.” He was baptized on the eve of Pascha in 387.

After his baptism, Augustine and his mother planned to return to Africa. They stopped to rest in Ostia, where St/ Monica fell asleep in the Lord at the age of fifty-six. She was buried at Ostia, and her holy relics were transferred to the crypt of a church in the sixth century. Nine centuries later, St. Monica’s relics were translated to Rome.

In his book, “Confessions,” Augustine wrote about his reaction to his mother’s death: “If any one thinks it wrong that I thus wept for my mother some small part of an hour – a mother who for many years had wept for me that I might live to thee, O Lord – let him not deride me. But if his charity is great, let him weep also for my sins before thee.”

In the West, St. Monica is considered the patron saint of wives and mothers whose husbands or sons have gone astray.

 

[TOmNossor]

Well the council in general was with regards to refuting Pelagianism, which claimed that people had a hand in their own salvation and essentially denied the role of original sin. The council(s) (if we’re talking about both Carthage and Florence), were intended to vigorously reject Pelagian ideas, not to specifically reference infant baptism.

As to St Thomas Aquinas, he states that infants would be in some sort of state where while they’d be denied the Beatific Vision, they’d have no suffering. That would be consistent with the idea of “differing pains” that we previously discussed. He also, though, leaves open the doors of hope by stating that God is not bound by the sacraments, suggesting there might be an avenue to salvation that is unknown for us. Why not? According to Catholic theology, did not God provide Mary with the means of salvation that is somewhat different from the rest of humanity’s? You and I, for instance, would be saved through our faith in Christ and our commitment to the Church’s sacraments (if we’re Catholics), while Mary was saved in obedience by the Immaculate Conception.

I agree that rejecting Pelagian ideas was the main point. Documents that are part of the “Council of Carthage” (not an Ecumenical Council) leave less room for the salvation of unbaptized infants than Bill Clinton did with his “definition of ‘is.’”
Florence and Lyons as understood by the Fathers who attended Florence and Lyons most certainly spoke of those who die “with original sin only” as unbaptized infants and thus most certainly intended their words to mean that such were in hell.
The oft quoted concept of “God not bound by the sacraments” was offered in question 62 where St. Thomas outlines a concept of “Baptism of Desire” for those who desire baptism and do not get it. The very next question (question 63), makes it clear that unlike the adult who should be baptized only after a proper catechesis there must be no delay in baptizing the infant because the infant has no ability to be saved via the Baptism of Desire outlined in the previous question.
The Aquinas’s discussion of Limbo is a product of his certainty that the unbaptized infant will not be in heaven AND his conviction that suffering hell-fire is unjust.
After Augustine’s positions were embraced by the Catholic Church UNTIL the 19th or 20th century there seems to be little concern for damned infants. Total depravity and God’s sovereignty were so much more important than human concepts of morality (I might even say modern human equality driven concepts of morality) in these instances. There has been a SEACHANGE within Catholic thought here and there IMO is no “early anticipation” to declare this as a valid development consistent with Tradition.
The Catholic teachings on Mary in light of “all sin” and … already require some exceptions and explanations (I am satisfied with these in general). The extension of these exceptions and explanations to unbaptized infants who die would do two things. First, it would wipe away everything said on the subject from Augustine till the 19th or 20th century. Second, it by extension would open up an avenue for virtually any other CHANGE to be made based on the unique Marian situation. Marian devotion has incredibly early roots also.
That being said, I am a non-Catholic using my “private judgement” to assess the strengths of Catholicism. If I did not consider the CoJCoLDS to provide a more rational path, I would be a Catholic. As a Catholic I would recognize that “private judgement” is not a method by which I can be a cafeteria Catholic. I find the damnation of infants so problematic I think I would follow the Vatican and reject Limbo in favor of hope (rather than reject Limbo in favor of damnation as pre-19th century rejecters of Limbo ALL did). Not because it is rational, but because it preserves the goodness of God in my view (an intellectual judgement) and I do not trust my intellect absolutely.

cont…

 

[TOmNossor]

What’s the point of having a prophet at all to lead the Church with continuing revelation if he can utter false doctrines? Again, the Mormon prophet isn’t the same as the Catholic pope - the latter is a man who occupies an office, but is not considered a prophet, and therefore is susceptible to personal and private failings and heretical beliefs.

The LDS main website seems to imply that the prophet is “always trustworthy.” A bit of a contradiction, don’t you think?
"We can always trust the living prophets. Their teachings reflect the will of the Lord, who declared: “What I the Lord have spoken, I have spoken, and I excuse not myself; and though the heavens and the earth pass away, my word shall not pass away, but shall all be fulfilled, whether by mine own voice or by the voice of my servants, it is the same” (D&C 1:38)."
lds.org/topics/prophets?lang=eng

There is no misunderstanding on Jonah. Jonah commented pretty clearly: he fled to Tarshish because he knew that the Lord would spare Nineveh and have them repent. That didn’t make Jonah’s prophecy any less true. Had Jonah gone out and said instead that “God wants you to worship the Assyrian gods” to the Israelites, then that would probably automatically lose him his title as prophet.

The LDS prophet has ALWAYS been known to be human and subject to personal and private failings. Where these private failings cease to be private is perhaps a LITTLE bit more complicated in LDS thought than in Catholic thought, but neither is without pitfalls (Pope Zosimus is among those who taught that unbaptized infants would not be in heaven).

The purpose of the message of the Prophet of Jonah to the Ninevehites was to get them to repent. This message was delivered after the “fleeing to Tarshish” incident and I am not commenting on it all.
I will paraphrase:
Jonah said, “You will be destroyed.” He did not say “You will be destroyed if you do not repent.”
Jonah understood that God told him to say, “You will be destroyed.” Jonah discovered that God theoretically meant/intended/??? “You will be destroyed if you do not repent.” The Bible makes it clear that Jonah heard and delivered, “You will be destroyed” and Jonah was pissed when he discovered that God seemed to mean this as a conditional with “if you do not repent.”

LDS have understood such conditionals on our prophecies even when they are not stated like the Bible teaches.
LDS have understood that God communicates things to prophets who relay them and then when God’s purposes are served, God makes clear that either the prophet didn’t understand perfectly or the prophet was given a partial picture that when expanded reveals something very different than the partial picture did (like the Bible teaches).
I am suggesting that Adam-God did not lead the church astray. I am suggesting that errant doctrinal teachings are unlikely to have the ability to lead the church astray largely because DOCTRINE is far less important than communion with God. I am suggesting that this is consistent with LDS teaching from Joseph Smith through Brigham Young to today.
I will further suggest that this is not a reason to not rely on the message delivered from a prophet to God’s people. Knowing that infallibility is not guaranteed and that errors have been taught does not change the confidence I have that the prophet provides guidance from God to me that 4 volumes of scripture dropped on a desk in front of me cannot (I would generally say if I could digest all 4 volumes instantly at each crossroad in my life that MUCH of purpose of the prophet would be redundant, but MOST of what I receive is an inspired area of focus from God to me through his prophet).

Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

…
St. Monica and Patritius had three children: St. Augustine, Navigius and Perpetua. It was a source of great pain that Patritius would not permit their children to be baptized

Lax,
I have been thinking about how I asked that and I hope it did not come across as ugly (but if it didn’t, it was not because I am not ugly. I am sorry for any ugliness.)

…
St. Monica and Patritius had three children: St. Augustine, Navigius and Perpetua. It was a source of great pain that Patritius would not permit their children to be baptized

Concerning the question, I think Augustine’s own words are most likely to explain why St. Monica delayed baptism.
I had previously read about a “curious custom of delaying baptism” (until I was 10, I attended mass about 25 miles from this church).
I have since read a contradiction of the above.

Here are Augustine’s own words:

CHAPTER XI
17. Even as a boy I had heard of eternal life promised to us through the humility of the Lord our God, who came down to visit us in our pride, and I was signed with the sign of his cross, and was seasoned with his salt even from the womb of my mother, who greatly trusted in thee. Thou didst see, O Lord, how, once, while I was still a child, I was suddenly seized with stomach pains and was at the point of death – thou didst see, O my God, for even then thou wast my keeper, with what agitation and with what faith I solicited from the piety of my mother and from thy Church (which is the mother of us all) the baptism of thy Christ, my Lord and my God. The mother of my flesh was much perplexed, for, with a heart pure in thy faith, she was always in deep travail for my eternal salvation. If I had not quickly recovered, she would have provided forthwith for my initiation and washing by thy life- giving sacraments, confessing thee, O Lord Jesus, for the forgiveness of sins. So my cleansing was deferred, as if it were inevitable that, if I should live, I would be further polluted; and, further, because the guilt contracted by sin after baptism would be still greater and more perilous.
Thus, at that time, I “believed” along with my mother and the whole household, except my father. But he did not overcome the influence of my mother’s piety in me, nor did he prevent my believing in Christ, although he had not yet believed in him. For it was her desire, O my God, that I should acknowledge thee as my Father rather than him. In this thou didst aid her to overcome her husband, to whom, though his superior, she yielded obedience. In this way she also yielded obedience to thee, who dost so command.
18. I ask thee, O my God, for I would gladly know if it be thy will, to what good end my baptism was deferred at that time? Was it indeed for my good that the reins were slackened, as it were, to encourage me in sin? Or, were they not slackened? If not, then why is it still dinned into our ears on all sides, “Let him alone, let him do as he pleases, for he is not yet baptized”? In the matter of bodily health, no one says, “Let him alone; let him be worse wounded; for he is not yet cured”! How much better, then, would it have been for me to have been cured at once – and if thereafter, through the diligent care of friends and myself, my soul’s restored health had been kept safe in thy keeping, who gave it in the first place! This would have been far better, in truth. But how many and great the waves of temptation which appeared to hang over me as I grew out of childhood! These were foreseen by my mother, and she preferred that the unformed clay should be risked to them rather than the clay molded after Christ’s image.

I included the middle of the 3 paragraphs because if that was the only paragraph read, then perhaps that might hint that baptism was delayed due to St. Monica honoring her husband’s wishes. But, I think the full three paragraphs point to St. Monica almost baptizing Augustine as he took ill and might die, but St. Monica choosing to postpone baptism when he got better. Augustine explains why she did this, but argues that it shouldn’t be done this way (here a little, but elsewhere he argues clearly that Baptism should not be delayed).

Anyway, I think Augustine’s mother delayed Augustine’s baptism, Augustine’s father delayed his own baptism, and Constantine delayed his baptism for the same reason. Baptism washes away sin and delayed baptism washes away more sin (by some forms of reckoning, but Augustine offers an argument against this).

Anyway, I am ugly and I am sorry if it came across when I challenged your statement.
Charity, TOm

 

[RebeccaJ]

Lax,
I have been thinking about how I asked that and I hope it did not come across as ugly (but if it didn’t, it was not because I am not ugly. I am sorry for any ugliness.)

Concerning the question, I think Augustine’s own words are most likely to explain why St. Monica delayed baptism.
I had previously read about a “curious custom of delaying baptism” (until I was 10, I attended mass about 25 miles from this church).
I have since read a contradiction of the above.

Here are Augustine’s own words:

I included the middle of the 3 paragraphs because if that was the only paragraph read, then perhaps that might hint that baptism was delayed due to St. Monica honoring her husband’s wishes. But, I think the full three paragraphs point to St. Monica almost baptizing Augustine as he took ill and might die, but St. Monica choosing to postpone baptism when he got better. Augustine explains why she did this, but argues that it shouldn’t be done this way (here a little, but elsewhere he argues clearly that Baptism should not be delayed).

Anyway, I think Augustine’s mother delayed Augustine’s baptism, Augustine’s father delayed his own baptism, and Constantine delayed his baptism for the same reason. Baptism washes away sin and delayed baptism washes away more sin (by some forms of reckoning, but Augustine offers an argument against this).

Anyway, I am ugly and I am sorry if it came across when I challenged your statement.
Charity, TOm

His mother always had a concern for his soul, because he was not baptized. She continued to have this concern, praying for his baptism, until he finally was baptized in his thirties. His father delayed his baptism, because he had the view that once baptized, sin put one in greater jeopardy than it would without baptism.

The father had a distorted understanding of baptism, held by individuals, and a popular view among unbaptized pagans. It reveals an ignorance of the central Christian doctrines of sin and grace.

It has never been the view or teaching of the Church. St. Monica prayed always for her son’s soul, and had the Catholic understanding of baptism.

 

[Stephen168]

This is kind of my point though. If the LDS have a tradition through their living prophets regarding current temple ceremonies, which are not biblical, then how can you criticize non-immersion for baptism?

…

No verses forbid baptism below a certain age.

Yet, Mormons forbid baptism under the age of 8, which, as you say, is not biblical.
The Mormon teaching on baptism seems to be an attempt to mesh infant baptism with believer’s baptism, and Joseph Smith created an irrational mess in the process. And an irrational mess is not from God.

 

[andrewstx]

No offense taken… That reminded me when I first arrived to the area of my LDS mission, the Mission President was asking the LDS missionaries (you know, those occasionally immature 19-25 year olds) to stop calling those who were almost ready to be baptized as “dunky”.

Each Sunday in most of the world each congregation meets for 3 hours of meetings. The worship service is called Sacrament Meeting and lasts about 70 minutes. The remaining time the children are in age-appropriate instructional meetings geared for ages 3 and up. So by age eight the children would have had 1 1/2 hours of instruction weekly for 4-5 years. Also parents are encouraged to teach their children in the home. LDS believe that people should only be baptized who are accountable for their actions and by age of eight a child knows the difference between right and wrong. I hope this helps…

Is it called “Chrismation” because of the use of chrism as part of the ceremony?

Yes.

 

[FabiusMaximus]

The LDS prophet has ALWAYS been known to be human and subject to personal and private failings. Where these private failings cease to be private is perhaps a LITTLE bit more complicated in LDS thought than in Catholic thought, but neither is without pitfalls (Pope Zosimus is among those who taught that unbaptized infants would not be in heaven).

The purpose of the message of the Prophet of Jonah to the Ninevehites was to get them to repent. This message was delivered after the “fleeing to Tarshish” incident and I am not commenting on it all.
I will paraphrase:
Jonah said, “You will be destroyed.” He did not say “You will be destroyed if you do not repent.”
Jonah understood that God told him to say, “You will be destroyed.” Jonah discovered that God theoretically meant/intended/??? “You will be destroyed if you do not repent.” The Bible makes it clear that Jonah heard and delivered, “You will be destroyed” and Jonah was pissed when he discovered that God seemed to mean this as a conditional with “if you do not repent.”

LDS have understood such conditionals on our prophecies even when they are not stated like the Bible teaches.
LDS have understood that God communicates things to prophets who relay them and then when God’s purposes are served, God makes clear that either the prophet didn’t understand perfectly or the prophet was given a partial picture that when expanded reveals something very different than the partial picture did (like the Bible teaches).
I am suggesting that Adam-God did not lead the church astray. I am suggesting that errant doctrinal teachings are unlikely to have the ability to lead the church astray largely because DOCTRINE is far less important than communion with God. I am suggesting that this is consistent with LDS teaching from Joseph Smith through Brigham Young to today.
I will further suggest that this is not a reason to not rely on the message delivered from a prophet to God’s people. Knowing that infallibility is not guaranteed and that errors have been taught does not change the confidence I have that the prophet provides guidance from God to me that 4 volumes of scripture dropped on a desk in front of me cannot (I would generally say if I could digest all 4 volumes instantly at each crossroad in my life that MUCH of purpose of the prophet would be redundant, but MOST of what I receive is an inspired area of focus from God to me through his prophet).

Charity, TOm

This is what I don’t understand:
The LDS Church claims to be an authentic restoration of the ancient Church that Jesus founded, and includes a continuation of the prophets that existed in the Old Testament.

Old Testament prophets did not make false prophecies. Whenever they spoke in the name of the Lord (which Joseph Smith and Brigham Young often did in many of the failed/incorrect prophecies that we discussed), they always prophesied correctly. This doesn’t suggest that the prophets were perfect - they never were. And I wouldn’t expect an LDS prophet to behave perfectly, either. I will not object to an LDS prophet’s office based exclusively on personal failings. But if a prophet can pronounce false doctrines, and indeed have them inserted into Church canon - even temporarily - how can he be truly guided by God? What you’re describing in the LDS Church isn’t a prophet, but more like a pope.

If we have no proper way of discerning whether a prophecy uttered by the prophet is godly on the merit of the prophet speaking in his official capacity, then how may we know it? What’s the purpose of a prophet if we cannot know when he is truly a prophet? Even taking the Adam-God doctrine. Today the Church repudiates it - fine, OK. But when Brigham Young taught it, he certainly believed it was a Church doctrine. If the prophet the Lord divinely installed is stating that the Lord told him this is true, then if people believe his false doctrine because they believe the Lord is speaking through him, then he is leading the Church astray, even if it’s only until his successor disavows the doctrine (but then how can we know that it’s not that new prophet that is speaking falsely?).

 

[FabiusMaximus]

I agree that rejecting Pelagian ideas was the main point. Documents that are part of the “Council of Carthage” (not an Ecumenical Council) leave less room for the salvation of unbaptized infants than Bill Clinton did with his “definition of ‘is.’”
Florence and Lyons as understood by the Fathers who attended Florence and Lyons most certainly spoke of those who die “with original sin only” as unbaptized infants and thus most certainly intended their words to mean that such were in hell.
The oft quoted concept of “God not bound by the sacraments” was offered in question 62 where St. Thomas outlines a concept of “Baptism of Desire” for those who desire baptism and do not get it. The very next question (question 63), makes it clear that unlike the adult who should be baptized only after a proper catechesis there must be no delay in baptizing the infant because the infant has no ability to be saved via the Baptism of Desire outlined in the previous question.

I assume this is what you were referring to:
"I answer that, In this matter we must make a distinction and see whether those who are to be baptized are children or adults. For if they be children, Baptism should not be deferred. First, because in them we do not look for better instruction or fuller conversion. Secondly, because of the danger of death, for no other remedy is available for them besides the sacrament of Baptism."

And this is correct. Because children are not knowledgeable about sin, so they require baptism. But it doesn’t disqualify or negate the comment that God can act outside the bounds of his sacramental power. It is a logical conclusion that unbaptized infants would therefore not seem to enter the beatific vision, but the Church has never proclaimed that that’s what would occur.

The Aquinas’s discussion of Limbo is a product of his certainty that the unbaptized infant will not be in heaven AND his conviction that suffering hell-fire is unjust.
After Augustine’s positions were embraced by the Catholic Church UNTIL the 19th or 20th century there seems to be little concern for damned infants.

This isn’t entirely accurate. While Augustine certainly held a prominent influence in theology concerning it, it was never officially adopted by the Church nor has an opposing view been condemned. Gregory Nazianzen held a much more mild view than Augustine ever did, and his beliefs were never condemned by the Church in any way. The primary focus of condemnation came in terms of rejecting the pelagian heresy which alleged that infants were born without the effects of original sin

 

[FabiusMaximus]

Total depravity and God’s sovereignty were so much more important than human concepts of morality (I might even say modern human equality driven concepts of morality) in these instances. There has been a SEACHANGE within Catholic thought here and there IMO is no “early anticipation” to declare this as a valid development consistent with Tradition.

I don’t see why not. The Church has held this theory entirely within the realm of debate, and even so, the Church has not made an official pronouncement that unbaptized infants all go to heaven or limbo or any place. Indeed, read the statements of the Church in the pronouncement you’ve referred to. They read:

*"In this summary we distinguish first statements of faith and what pertains to the faith; second, common doctrine; and third, theological opinion.

1. a) The Pelagian understanding of the access of unbaptized infants to “eternal life” must be considered as contrary to Catholic faith.
2. b) The affirmation that “the punishment for original sin is the loss of the beatific vision,” formulated by Innocent III,65 pertains to the faith: Original sin is of itself an impediment to the beatific vision. Grace is necessary in order to be purified of original sin and to be raised to communion with God so as to be able to enter into eternal life and enjoy the vision of God."

…
It must be observed however that in a general way the focus of these church pronouncements was not on the lack of salvation for unbaptized infants but on the immediacy of the particular judgment after death and the assignment of souls to heaven or hell. These magisterial statements do not oblige us to think that these infants necessarily die with original sin, so that there would be no way of salvation for them."’’
*

Indeed, you can apply this principle to anyone who does not have the fullness of the Catholic faith. Imagine a non-Catholic who has faith in Jesus Christ and is not aware of the fullness that is contained within the Church. The Church doesn’t teach that that person is automatically punished, even though it teaches clearly extra ecclesiam nulla salus. Why wouldn’t this apply to an infant who is incapable of making a judgment? If God can work beyond the sacraments through the idea of baptism of desire, then I think it’s reasonable to conclude that there is hope he can work the same way for infants who have died without baptism (but baptism is still necessary for salvation, so while God is infinitely merciful, you still follow the sacraments).

That being said, I am a non-Catholic using my “private judgement” to assess the strengths of Catholicism. If I did not consider the CoJCoLDS to provide a more rational path, I would be a Catholic. As a Catholic I would recognize that “private judgement” is not a method by which I can be a cafeteria Catholic. I find the damnation of infants so problematic I think I would follow the Vatican and reject Limbo in favor of hope (rather than reject Limbo in favor of damnation as pre-19th century rejecters of Limbo ALL did). Not because it is rational, but because it preserves the goodness of God in my view (an intellectual judgement) and I do not trust my intellect absolutely.

cont…

Here we can only agree to disagree. I instead take the belief that the Church has seemed to truly preserve the ancient teachings of the Church, while not remaining entirely static. Should also be mentioned that “all” the “rejecters” of limbo referred to damnation for original sin as something completely different than damnation for mortal sin. They have mostly made the distinction that the pains of original sin are due to the loss of the Beatific Vision rather than torment.

 

[Stephen168]

Virtually all non-Catholic and many Catholic scholars now see radical development in the position of Pope and monoepiscopal-Bishop. More than a dozen years ago I was invited to read the ECF to see if they were Catholic. I literally screamed, “he doesn’t know he is Pope.” Most folks agree with me.

Here Tom claims that the position of a mono-episcopal Bishop or Pope is a post-New Testament development.

However, the thread asked what needed to be restored from a LDS perspective. I answer the Apostolic authority to lead the entire church needed to be restored. The historical rational for not believing Peter’s authority was passed to Linus, Cletus, and Clement (or was it passed directly to Clement as the Roman Church believed for many years and as the spurious Pseudo Clementine literature suggests) is a very solid read of history. It is my position that this authority needed to be restored.

Here Tom claims the need to restore the mono-episcopal Bishop.

Either the mono-episcopal Bishop or Pope was a post-New Testament development or it was not.

We do know that Apostolic succession or Apostolic authority is not contained in Mormonism as a clear historical fact.

 

[eddie_too]

the one thing i cannot understand about the concept of restoring the “original” church is why Jesus would have created a Church that He knew would fail, fail very shortly after His Ascension in fact.

Jesus being God surely had the knowledge and understanding to found a Church that would remain faithful to Him for all time. why did Jesus institute a model destined to fail?

also, there is a corollary to my first objection. that corollary is the question, why restore something that was so prone to failure the first time it was tried.

if God failed with His first Church, why restore it?

i simply do not see the internal logic of those who believe the Church Jesus established failed.

 

[Tarquin]

Speaking from experience, in order to see predictions of a total church apostasy in the New Testament, one must first already believe the possibility or actuality of that. If one does not already believe it, when one studies the New Testament, one finds there is nothing pointing to a total apostasy of the Church. In fact, what I find when I read about apostasy has little to do with “church” and everything to do with “Christ.” In the New Testament, apostates are those who betray *Jesus *and perhaps those who reject his appointed successors.

Apostasy in Mormonism is leaving the Church. As long as you are not disfellowshipped or excommunicated, you are considered a member, not an apostate. One wonders how many apostates from Christ there are in the Mormon Church, or any church for that matter. If you quit the Church, however, you are called an apostate, even if you believe in Jesus without all your heart, soul, and mind. The Church (along with Joseph Smith) is the center of the Mormon religion. Jesus is the center (or should be) of Christianity.

 

[zaffiroborant]

the one thing i cannot understand about the concept of restoring the “original” church is why Jesus would have created a Church that He knew would fail, fail very shortly after His Ascension in fact.

Jesus being God surely had the knowledge and understanding to found a Church that would remain faithful to Him for all time. why did Jesus institute a model destined to fail?

also, there is a corollary to my first objection. that corollary is the question, why restore something that was so prone to failure the first time it was tried.

if God failed with His first Church, why restore it?

i simply do not see the internal logic of those who believe the Church Jesus established failed.

It seems God failed twice, once in the old world and once in the new world.