Anti- Catholicism

[MiserereNobis]

I would suggest that a better way to counteract this concern is by explaining better what heaven is like and how limbo would resemble what most people would think heaven is like.

 

This is a good point -- the way limbo was described made it not a half bad place.  I think I could probably enjoy myself there quite a bit (especially if it was Dante's limbo and I got to hang out with all those virtuous pagans!)

[Russell C McGregor]

Um..... the problem is that in "speaking for ours" we have a plethora of interpretations and viewpoints.  You speak as if there is some monolithic LDS view on Catholicism.

 

No actually, I don't.

 

I simply speak as if a Catholic's view of an LDS view of Catholicism is not, and never can be, an LDS view of Catholicism.

 

And that would be the case even if that Catholic were not hostile towards the Church of Jesus Christ.

[Calm]

Um..... the problem is that in "speaking for ours" we have a plethora of interpretations and viewpoints. You speak as if there is some monolithic LDS view on Catholicism.

Well, it can hardly be claimed that anti-Catholicism is canonized then. Edited November 5, 2015 by Calm

[saemo]

Um..... the problem is that in "speaking for ours" we have a plethora of interpretations and viewpoints. You speak as if there is some monolithic LDS view on Catholicism.

Right, which is why I go to LDS.org. Which is supposedly the authority on what the LDS Church teaches. What individual members believe is an entirely different matter. I don't know how anyone could argue that anti-Catholicism isn't infused into certain doctrines. But whatever. Like I said, you don't agree with what your church teaches, neither do I. So nothing more to say.

Edited November 5, 2015 by saemo

[3DOP]

This is a good point -- the way limbo was described made it not a half bad place.  I think I could probably enjoy myself there quite a bit (especially if it was Dante's limbo and I got to hang out with all those virtuous pagans!)

Everything the natural man could enjoy. I cannot access the primary source, but citing St. Thomas Aquinas, Ludwig Ott writes: "A condition of natural bliss is compatible with poena damni." (limbo)

But I see another problem. Two ecumenical councils define what happens to those who die in original sin only.

"...the souls of those who depart in actual mortal sin or in original sin only, descend immediately into hell but to undergo punishments of different kinds."

---Council of Florence, Laetentur Coeli, July 6, 1439

If there is no limbo, no soul has ever died in original sin only anyway. We know that sense pain is for actual sin only, so it is impossible that they would be suffering hell fire. Without a limbo, two ecumenical councils determined what would happen to a category of souls that doesn't exist!

[saemo]

"THE HOPE OF SALVATION FOR INFANTS

WHO DIE WITHOUT BEING BAPTIZED" is the encyclical that defines hope for salvation of the unbaptized. It is hope based in the mercy of God, as shown throughout salvation history. The encyclical does not say, that the doctrine of limbo is changed. As I understand it, from conversations with clergy and from homilies, is that the doctrine of limbo is still Catholic belief, with the hope for the salvation of the souls in limbo, a theological conclusion based as I said on the mercy of God.

Edited November 5, 2015 by saemo

[why me]

"THE HOPE OF SALVATION FOR INFANTS

WHO DIE WITHOUT BEING BAPTIZED" is the encyclical that defines hope for salvation of the unbaptized. It is hope based in the mercy of God, as shown throughout salvation history. The encyclical does not say, that the doctrine of limbo is changed. As I understand it, from conversations with clergy and from homilies, is that the doctrine of limbo is still Catholic belief, with the hope for the salvation of the souls in limbo, a theological conclusion based as I said on the mercy of God.

This is an interpretation that would certainly fit the end of the 20th century and the beginnings of the 21st century. However, before you became a catholic limbo was not something that was looked upon as god's mercy. Just the opposite. Back in my boyhood, limbo was more of a punishment for the unbaptized and no one wanted to go there. This is why parents were fast to baptize their sick baby. They wanted their baby to go to heaven and not end up in limbo.

 

Prior to the Second Vatican Council (1962-1965) of the Catholic Church most Catholics were taught that unless you were baptized you could not go to heaven. The custom of baptizing infants as soon as possible after birth was predominant. Many times, in fact, mothers did not attend the baptism because it took place so soon after birth. People were encouraged not to bring their child out of the house until the child had been baptized.

This popular approach to the sacrament of baptism was based on a literal interpretation of a Christian Scripture from the Gospel of John, chapter 3, where it is written, "Unless a person is born again of water and the spirit, they can not enter the kingdom of heaven." Because of this it was customary, for example, for a Catholic nurse in a crisis situation to baptize babies in hospital even without seeking parental permission. There was a strong focus on "saving" babies from dying without baptism. Today this is radically changed in the Catholic Church.

 

 

http://www.interfaithfamily.com/life_cycle/pregnancy_and_birth_ceremonies/Is_Heaven_Denied_to_an_Unbaptized_Child_Advice_and_Perspective_for_Catholic_Parents_Who_Are_Raising_Their_Children_within_Judaism.shtml

 

The above was written by a catholic priest. We old timers cannot be hoodwinked. Back in my day, the catholic church was rather harsh before the influence of postmodernism and vatican ll. One cannot take back the suffering of catholic parents who lost their baby before baptism. They sufferend much from the above former doctrine before they were taught that their baby was in hell or limbo. How often have I heard on the catholic site that mormons change their doctrine. If true, mormons are not alone in doing this as can be seen in the link.

Edited November 5, 2015 by why me

[MiserereNobis]

How often have I heard on the catholic site that mormons change their doctrine. If true, mormons are not alone in doing this as can be seen in the link.

 

Limbo was never dogma, so no doctrine was changed.  It was a heavily prevalent teaching, for sure, but it was not dogma.  I pointed this earlier and you didn't respond or acknowledge it.

Edited November 5, 2015 by MiserereNobis

[why me]

Limbo was never dogma, so no doctrine was changed.  It was a heavily prevalent teaching, for sure, but it was not dogma.  I pointed this earlier and you didn't respond or acknowledge it.

I don't think that you are right. Let me put it this way. In the past, those parents who lost their babies before baptism were not told by the priest: Don't worry, limbo is not dogma. Just the opposite. These parents suffered greatly when their baby died before baptism because they were told that their baby was now in limbo or in hell because of original sin.

 

So, although it may feel good to say that it wasn't actually dogma, such information was sadly missing. Please read the link and see just what parents were told when I  was a boy. Here is what we were told from the link:

 

Prior to the Second Vatican Council (1962-1965) of the Catholic Church most Catholics were taught that unless you were baptized you could not go to heaven. The custom of baptizing infants as soon as possible after birth was predominant. Many times, in fact, mothers did not attend the baptism because it took place so soon after birth.

 

It was actually taught as doctrine or dogma. No whitewashing please because it is an insult to all those catholic parents who lost their babies before baptism. Many tears were shed because these parents were told that their baby would not go to heaven

 

Knock it off! Mormons don't like it when outsiders tell us what we believe so don't do it to others if you want to stay in the thread.

[MiserereNobis]

So, although it may feel good to say that it wasn't actually dogma, such information was sadly missing. Please read the link and see just what parents were told when I  was a boy. Here is what we were told from the link:

 

Prior to the Second Vatican Council (1962-1965) of the Catholic Church most Catholics were taught that unless you were baptized you could not go to heaven. The custom of baptizing infants as soon as possible after birth was predominant. Many times, in fact, mothers did not attend the baptism because it took place so soon after birth.

 

It was actually taught as doctrine or dogma. No whitewashing please because it is an insult to all those catholic parents who lost their babies before baptism.

Instead of reading a news report from Reuters, why don't we read what the Catholic Church officially says about it, which I posted previously. Here it is again:

This theory, elaborated by theologians beginning in the Middle Ages, never entered into the dogmatic definitions of the Magisterium, even if that same Magisterium did at times mention the theory in its ordinary teaching up until the Second Vatican Council. It remains therefore a possible theological hypothesis. However, in the Catechism of the Catholic Church (1992), the theory of limbo is not mentioned. Rather, the Catechism teaches that infants who die without baptism are entrusted by the Church to the mercy of God, as is shown in the specific funeral rite for such children.

So, it wasn't dogma.  Unless, of course, you'd like to claim that the Catholic Church is lying about it.  Is that what you are doing?

 

Many tears were shed because these parents were told that their baby would not go to heaven

CFR

[Russell C McGregor]

Right, which is why I go to LDS.org. Which is supposedly the authority on what the LDS Church teaches. What individual members believe is an entirely different matter.

And what you think those teachings mean is a different matter again.

It's not up to you to expound or interpret our teachings for us. That's an arrogant presumption.

I don't know how anyone could argue that anti-Catholicism isn't infused into certain doctrines.

Because it isn't.

But whatever. Like I said, you don't agree with what your church teaches, neither do I. So nothing more to say.

You're doing that on purpose, aren't you?

The issue is not that we don't agree with what the Church teaches; it is that we don't agree that you are accurately reporting that teaching.

And if you really, truly are making an honest effort to do so, then your inability just shows all the more convincingly why it isn't your place to do so.

[why me]

So, it wasn't dogma.  Unless, of course, you'd like to claim that the Catholic Church is lying about it.  Is that what you are doing?

 

CFR

http://www.catholiccourier.com/commentary/father-mcbrien/question-of-limbo-receives-renewed-interest/

 

I hope that you will read the whole link. The sorrow of the mothers is toward the bottom of the link. There seems to be much confusion about it. By the way, I am a catholic. I was born catholic.  I also attend mass. I remember what I was taught as a boy. I converted to mormonism at 18. But I am not active. But I have been warned by the moderator to knock it off and so....this is my last post on the subject.

 

I have now giving you two references from priests who have commented on it.

 

This was the first link that I gave from a priest commenting on limbo:

 

http://www.interfait...n_Judaism.shtml

Edited November 5, 2015 by why me

[MiserereNobis]

http://www.catholiccourier.com/commentary/father-mcbrien/question-of-limbo-receives-renewed-interest/

 

I hope that you will read the whole link. The sorrow of the mothers is toward the bottom of the link. There seems to be much confusion about it. By the way, I am a catholic. I was born catholic.  I also attend mass. I remember what I was taught as a boy. I converted to mormonism at 18. But I am not active. But I have been warned by the moderator to knock it off and so....this is my last post on the subject.

 

I have now giving you two references from priests who have commented on it.

 

This was the first link that I gave from a priest commenting on limbo:

 

http://www.interfait...n_Judaism.shtml

 

I appreciate the comments from the priest, but... what priests have to say does not override what the official Catholic Magisterium has to say.  The equivalent in Mormonism would be pitting what a bishop of some ward has to say against what an official statement from Salt Lake has to say and then arguing that the bishop is right and ignoring Salt Lake.

 

The Church never declared limbo to be dogma, even though it was widely held.  I personally lean towards limbo, but the Church has said there is no official doctrine on what happens to children who die before baptism.  I take the Church at its word, just as I take the LDS church at its word when it says the reasons given for the prohibition of the priesthood were not doctrine, but speculation, even though (like limbo) those reasons were widely taught and believed.

[mfbukowski]

Limbo was never dogma, so no doctrine was changed.  It was a heavily prevalent teaching, for sure, but it was not dogma.  I pointed this earlier and you didn't respond or acknowledge it.

I think perhaps the distinction here was missed by even the clergy who taught it, unless the good Augustinian Fathers and Franciscan nums I learned it from just didn't want to teach us the difference.

 

That is not to say anything bad about Catholicism certainly Mormons taught as "doctrine" beliefs that have since been repudiated.  But to deny that it was taught as universally as those of us who were there know, I think, seems like an attempt to sweep it under the rug.

 

That was taught all through my grammar school and high school years, all in Catholic schools, and my belief that it was "dogma" was instrumental in my leaving the church in college.  That was one, the Trinity was another and transubstantiation a third, and original sin a fourth.  Other than that, no problem

 

I compared it earlier to Mormon doctrines taught in the past which were later repudiated, but I think it does not help the Catholic cause to refuse to acknowledge that the distinction between "prevalent teaching" and "dogma" was invisible to everyone I knew.

 

And yes, certainly the stuff about the "curse of Cain" and other beliefs, is in the same category.  We can protest that it was "never doctrine", but what IS preached by apostles in conference then??

 

This is not intended to be a criticism of either church, just an attempt to point out that yes, interpretation of teaching changes over the years in all religions, and we should acknowledge that as normal and indeed desireable if a body of teaching is to remain relevant for the times in which it is preached.

Edited November 5, 2015 by mfbukowski

[MiserereNobis]

Fair enough, Mark.  I probably shouldn't be so adamant about making the distinction, because it ends up being more of an academic exercise.

 

But hey, you know me, I'm all about counting those angels on the pin.

[mfbukowski]

Fair enough, Mark.  I probably shouldn't be so adamant about making the distinction, because it ends up being more of an academic exercise.

 

But hey, you know me, I'm all about counting those angels on the pin.

LOL

Well as we know, that was actuallly an important point about the nature of how "immaterial' the soul is, and whether or not the soul occupied space and therefore had a location which would exclude two souls being in the same place at the same time.

 

I just think that it is a difference in personal preference between us- youi like to think, (I think) that "dogma" is unchanging and I kind of like the idea that it does in fact change.

 

Gosh, maybe you should be Catholic and I should be Mormon. 

[mfbukowski]

Baltimore Catechism #3

 

Q. 631. Is Baptism necessary to salvation?

A. Baptism is necessary to salvation, because without it we cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven.

Q. 632. Where will persons go who -- such as infants -- have not committed actual sin and who, through no fault of theirs, die without baptism?

A. Persons, such as infants, who have not committed actual sin and who, through no fault of theirs, die without baptism, cannot enter heaven; but it is the common belief they will go to some place similar to Limbo, where they will be free from suffering, though deprived of the happiness of heaven.

 

http://www.baltimore-catechism.com/lesson14.htm

 

Yes I read it. "Cannot enter heaven",  "Ordinary belief".  "Similar to Limbo"??  How similar and what is Limbo similar to?    How could there be a place "similar" to Limbo if there is no Limbo?

 

"Cannot enter heaven"....

 

OK- no more on this from me.  Again I just wanted to show that it was taught in official sources even if ambiguously, again, similar to the curse of Cain which has since been repudiated.

Edited November 5, 2015 by mfbukowski

[MiserereNobis]

LOL

Well as we know, that was actuallly an important point about the nature of how "immaterial' the soul is, and whether or not the soul occupied space and therefore had a location which would exclude two souls being in the same place at the same time.

 

I just think that it is a difference in personal preference between us- youi like to think, (I think) that "dogma" is unchanging and I kind of like the idea that it does in fact change.

 

Gosh, maybe you should be Catholic and I should be Mormon. 

 

Hey, I think you and I should have a bro-date.  I've never been to Tito's.  Maybe I could meet you there after John left

[mfbukowski]

Hey, I think you and I should have a bro-date.  I've never been to Tito's.  Maybe I could meet you there after John left

Sounds great- I woiuld love it!

 

We can pm emails and set it up if you ever get to LA, or if I ever get to --- where ever you are.

[MiserereNobis]

The pope scolds America on left wing issues and is silent on abortion and the brutal killing of Catholics in the Middle East. 

 

How about this from September 23, 2015:

 

"In a speech to the nation’s Catholic bishops, Pope Francis encouraged them to remain vigilant in their opposition to abortion and he listed unborn children among those innocent people who the bishops must keep at the top of the priority list of people who deserve protection.

 

The pontiff lists “the innocent victim of abortion, children who die of hunger or from bombings, immigrants who drown in the search for a better tomorrow, the elderly or the sick who are considered a burden, the victims of terrorism, wars, violence and drug trafficking, the environment devastated by man’s predatory relationship with nature – at stake in all of this is the gift of God, of which we are noble stewards but not masters.”

 

Or this:

 

"Pope Francis on Monday again pressed the international community to do something about the killing of Christians in several parts of the world and not "look the other way."

 

He has been increasingly vocal about the fate of Christians being targeted by Islamic extremists in parts of the Middle East, Africa and Asia."

 

You obviously didn't look very hard for what the Holy Father has to say, but then again, based on your posts so far, you appear to be trolling...

[MiserereNobis]

Oh, dear, autodriver was banned and can't come back and read my responses... heh.

[Ares]

Oh, dear, autodriver was banned and can't come back and read my responses... heh.

 

Just cleaning up the spam.   We will leave your response.  

[SmileyMcGee]

Just cleaning up the spam. We will leave your response.

I had a chuckle when I logged on last night he/she was the last respondent to nearly every thread initially listed...

Edited November 23, 2015 by SmileyMcGee

[MiserereNobis]

Just cleaning up the spam.   We will leave your response.  

 

Thanks.

 

I had a chuckle when I logged on last night he/she was the last respondent to nearly every thread initially listed...

 

I guess he was really auto-driven