Apostolic Tradition / Teaching

  • Thread starter Thread starter Among_Strangers
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
A

Among_Strangers

Guest
Part I: It is my understanding that the Church will not say for a certainty that children who die that have not been baptized enjoy the beatific vision of heaven. The reason she will not is that this particular situation or scenario is not part of the Christian teachings as handed down from the Apostles. As a result various theological constructs have emerged over time and these constructs are all seen as possibilities but do not hold the weight of an official teaching and the Church encourages all the faithful that stress over this situation to rely on the mercy of God.

Is that fairly accurate?

If not, please set me straight and there is no reason to go further.

If it is fairly accurate then:

Part II: If the Church is not wanting to hand down teachings not associated with Apostolic Tradition then why do we have these various other teachings:

Fasting for x amount of time prior to receiving communion
ABC
Adoration of the Blessed Sacrament

There are others. Aren’t these examples of teachings that do not originate with Apostolic teachings but are rather based upon theological constructs?

If the Church won’t say that a baby that was miscarried is in heaven because it’s not part of the Apostolic teachings of the Church how can She then say we must fast before communion (or another example)?
 
There seems to be three different questions in this thread, and I think that it is probably best to ask one question per thread, but these are my thoughts.
  1. Regarding the status of the children that died as a result of miscarriage, I think it is important to remember that salvation is part of God’s plan, and as humans, we don’t have the capability to fully understand this mystery. Secondly, apart from the saints, whom we know are in heaven, we don’t know where others are. We do know from the Church’s teaching that God is merciful, God is good, and that He desires the salvation of each human. Apart from that, we have to trust in Him.
  2. Fasting before communion is a purely liturgical measure meant to emphasize the importance of what we are doing. It could be increased or done away with all together. The Church has the authority to tell us how to approach the Sacred Mysteries, and when you consider all that could be mandated, the precepts are fairly easy to follow.
  3. Adoration of the Blessed Sacrament is just a logical conclusion if you believe the words of the Lord and you believe that He is God. His flesh is real flesh, He is real God, therefore adoration is reasonable and logical. The Church didn’t have adoration of the Blessed Sacrament in the early years because there were no churches buildings, because Christianity was illegal.
Scott
 
The reason she will not is that this particular situation or scenario is not part of the Christian teachings as handed down from the Apostles.
I don’t think this is a complete understanding.
It’s more like this particular teaching has never been infallibly taught by any pope or by any Church council. The traditions handed down from the original Apostles and those taught infallibly by their successors are doctrine.

Other teachings could be theological constructs based on infallible teachings or simply practices binding on Catholics. For example, I think you could say the need for fasting is an infallible teaching but the laws governing fasting are merely practices binding on whichever segments of Catholicsm to whom those laws apply. The specifics of fasting are not doctrinal. On the other hand, the prohibition of ABC has biblical precident and has, in recent years, resulted in some infallible teaching.

The case of what happens to children who die before baptism, whether before or after birth, has been the subject of much theological study and speculation. But to this point no pope or Church council has addressed the issue in order to make a definitive doctrinal statement. I have heard rumors that this may be something that could be ruled on in the near future. Of course when one is speaking of the Catholic Church, “near future” could mean sometime in the next couple of hundred years or so.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top