Can the Church change its teaching?

[una_fides]

He was not a heretic because of what he taught, but because of what he believed. The jury is still oiut on this. But that’s another thread.

The question I pose to you, since you’re the one who is challenging John Paul’s statement, do you believe that John Paul was a heretic or that he did not know what the Church had taught before?

Either he was speaking out of ignorance or deliberately misleading, from the way that you’re challenging his statement.

I don’t see you making any effort to understand him or to reconcile what he said with what was said before. I see almost a stubborness on your part. You appear almost determiend to prove this man wrong. I find that rather scary coming from a Catholic speaking about a pope who was both very knowledgeable about theology and philosophy and who was also a very holy man. In fact, one whom the Church has formally declared lived a life of heroic Christian virtue and elevated to the status of Venerable.

But if he was deliberately deviating from previously taught truths, then he is not venerable. On the other hand, he could be excused, if you truly believe that he did not understand what was tuaght in the past; but that would be highly questionable and the burden of proof would fall on the person who makes that allegation, not on him.

The other position is to make a humble effort to reconcile what he said with what was said before. I believe this is what happened when the study of his life for canonization was completed. Part of the study includes examining his teachings, beliefs and writings to ensure that he never taught or held anything that is contrary to revelation. The conclusion was that he did not, but that he was always faithful to revelation.

But now you’re saying that his statement is in conflict with revelation, while an entire army of theologians, cardinals and the pope himself have agreed that he was faithful to revelation and that nothing was found in his work and life that would suggest the opposite. Therefore, the study of his life is now officially closed and he is a venerable.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

I will not comment on your question about JP2 being a heretic or not, as that’s not something I could determine based on my available information. What I will say is that you seem to be judging me in saying that I have some kind of stubbornness or determination to prove him wrong. How do you know that I haven’t been trying and trying and trying and laboring to reconcile his teaching here but have not been able? What I see on your part here is defensiveness. If the teaching can be reconciled, please do so. If not, then please admit that there seems to be an obvious contradiction. Realize that modernism has also invaded the ranks of this army of theologians of whom you are speaking. The Church is truly now in a time of theological crisis. At one point in her history the majority of bishops of the world were manifest heretics and denied the divinity of Jesus Christ. Today, it’s much more difficult to spot the heresy because it is more masked and subtle than something as obvious as whether or not Jesus is God. Also the Church has never held that one must hold with divine and Catholic faith a belief in limbo or technically even that infants cannot be cleansed from original sin through some sort of indirect baptism of desire. She has held so according to her ordinary and universal teaching authority, however, for the past 2000 years.

 

[surritter]

I contend that we need to get over this concept.

Original Sin (First Sin) to us is our wounded nature, actually the effects of the sin, not the sin itself. We need to overcome these effects and defeat them in all occasions of our life experience, there is no wiping it away.

But that’s not the language the Church uses. The effects of original sin are concupiscence and bodily death; yes, our wounded nature.Of course original sin is not a sin in the sense of personal sin – perhaps it’s better to use the term “stain.” But it sounds like you deny the “stain” aspect of that wounded nature that at birth keeps us out of sacramental grace – something that Adam and Eve were given but lost.

Original sin is Adam’s sin, it would specifically bar him from heaven. He would need to be forgiven to realize his entry into heaven.
I might agree with this statement if it weren’t manacled to the idea that First Sin itself (even without our own sins) bars people in general from heaven besides Adam (and probably Eve).
All of this came out of later speculation over the reason we baptize. That is like putting the cart before the horse.

You seem to be denying that the stain of original sin keeps everyone out of heaven. It’s not just Adam. Is this view you present that of the Eastern Orthodox Church?

The reason we baptize is because we were told to, by Jesus. Saint Paul probably gave the best explanation of the original thinking, most especially since he was in contact with the other Apostles and learned directly.

To saint Paul baptism (dying with Christ and rising with Him) makes one a part of the Body of Christ, a member of the church. That’s it.

But this conflicts with your contention that there’s no such thing as original sin. If there’s no original sin, then we are already in the Body of Christ at birth. To be in the Body of Christ is to be filled with sacramental grace. The stain of original sin is the lack of sacramental grace (by heredity) and personal mortal sin also causes a lack of sacramental grace.

 

[simple_soul]

*I am not sure if this will some people on this thread to “reconcile” past, present and future but will post it here just in case it can.
These quotes are taken from a document that I found at the Holy See web site and found to be very enlightening. It is titled:

International Theological Commission

THE HOPE OF SALVATION FOR INFANTS WHO DIE WITHOUT BEING BAPTISED*

1. Reflecting on the question of the destiny of infants who die without Baptism, the ecclesial community must keep in mind the fact that God is more properly the subject than the object of theology. The first task of theology is therefore to listen to the Word of God. Theology listens to the Word of God expressed in the Scriptures in order to communicate it lovingly to all people. However, with regard to the salvation of those who die without Baptism, the Word of God says little or nothing. It is therefore necessary to interpret the reticence of Scripture on this issue in the light of texts concerning the universal plan of salvation and the ways of salvation. In short, the problem both for theology and for pastoral care is how to safeguard and reconcile two sets of biblical affirmations: those concerning God’s universal salvific will (cf. 1 Tim 2:4) and those regarding the necessity of Baptism as the way of being freed from sin and conformed to Christ (cf. Mk 16:16; Mt 28:18-19).

1. Without responding directly to the question of the destiny of unbaptised infants, the Second Vatican Council marked out many paths to guide theological reflection. The Council recalled many times the universality of God’s saving will which extends to all people (1 Tim 2:4).[61] All “share a common destiny, namely God. His providence, evident goodness, and saving designs extend to all humankind” (NA 1, cf. LG 16). In a more particular vein, presenting a conception of human life founded on the dignity of the human being created in the image of God, the constitution Gaudium et Spes recalls that, “[h]uman dignity rests above all on the fact that humanity is called to communion with God,” specifying that “[t]he invitation to converse with God is addressed to men and women as soon as they are born” (GS 19). This same constitution proclaims with vigour that only in the mystery of the Incarnate Word does the mystery of the human being take on light. Furthermore, there is the renowned statement of the Council which asserted: “since Christ died for all, and since all are in fact called to one and the same destiny, which is divine, we must hold that the Holy Spirit offers to all the possibility of being made partners, in a way known to God, in the paschal mystery” (GS 22). Although the Council did not expressly apply this teaching to children who die without Baptism, these passages open a way to account for hope in their favour.[62]

1. b) God does not demand the impossible of us.[108] Furthermore, God’s power is not restricted to the sacraments: ‘Deus virtutem suam non alligavit sacramentis quin possit sine sacramentis effectum sacramentorum conferre’ (God did not bind His power to the sacraments, so as to be unable to bestow the sacramental effect without conferring the sacrament).[109] God can therefore give the grace of Baptism without the sacrament being conferred, and this fact should particularly be recalled when the conferring of Baptism would be impossible. The need for the sacrament is not absolute. What is absolute is humanity’s need for the Ursakrament which is Christ himself. All salvation comes from him and therefore, in some way, through the Church.[110]

3.6. Hope

1. Within the hope that the Church bears for the whole of humanity and wants to proclaim afresh to the world of today, is there a hope for the salvation of infants who die without Baptism? We have carefully re-considered this complex question, with gratitude and respect for the responses that have been given through the history of the Church, but also with an awareness that it falls to us to give a coherent response for today. Reflecting within the one tradition of faith that unites the Church through the ages, and relying utterly on the guidance of the Holy Spirit whom Jesus promised would lead his followers “into all the truth” (Jn 16:13), we have sought to read the signs of the times and to interpret them in the light of the Gospel. Our conclusion is that the many factors that we have considered above give serious theological and liturgical grounds for hope that unbaptised infants who die will be saved and enjoy the Beatific Vision. We emphasise that these are reasons for prayerful hope, rather than grounds for sure knowledge. There is much that simply has not been revealed to us (cf. Jn 16:12). We live by faith and hope in the God of mercy and love who has been revealed to us in Christ, and the Spirit moves us to pray in constant thankfulness and joy (cf. 1 Thess 5:18).

1. What has been revealed to us is that the ordinary way of salvation is by the sacrament of Baptism. None of the above considerations should be taken as qualifying the necessity of Baptism or justifying delay in administering the sacrament.[135] Rather, as we want to reaffirm in conclusion, they provide strong grounds for hope that God will save infants when we have not been able to do for them what we would have wished to do, namely, to baptize them into the faith and life of the Church.

The document is a long read but it is well worth it.

This is the link vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20070419_un-baptised-infants_en.html

 

[JReducation]

I will not comment on your question about JP2 being a heretic or not, as that’s not something I could determine based on my available information.

Realize that modernism has also invaded the ranks of this army of theologians of whom you are speaking. The Church is truly now in a time of theological crisis. At one point in her history the majority of bishops of the world were manifest heretics and denied the divinity of Jesus Christ. Today, it’s much more difficult to spot the heresy because it is more masked and subtle than something as obvious as whether or not Jesus is God…

Maybe it’s my explanation, not your fault. So let me try to show you how I come at this. I begin with trust that the Church is protected by the Holy Spirit. I look at John Paul and I see that he has been declared Venerable and that the Holy Father has officially declared that his life was one of heroic faith and virtue and nothing more can be said on this point. That’s the way that the canonization process works. Once the person’s life has been studied and found satisfactory by the Holy Father, there is no going back and reopening the case. You go forward to the next step, to prove that the alleged miracles were truly his intervention, meaning John Paul’s.

During the process the role of the Defender of the Faith is to prove that John Paul did not live and teach according to the faith. It’s what was once called the Devil’s Advocate. They now have a nicer name for that role. However, it’s the same job. He and his team challenge everything that the man ever said, wrote or did. They question everything in the light of faith and the teaching tradition of the Church from its origins. The job of the Postulator of the Cause and his team is to prove that all of the person’s writings and teachings are consistent with the faith of the Church from time immemorial. Along with that, the Postulator must also prove that the person’s personal life was one of holiness, which is worthy of public veneration, and that the person is a saint.

What interests me most in this study is the part of the writings and teachings of John Paul. Had the Defender of the Faith found a single error or conflict in his teachings and writings, he would have won his case and it would not have gone forward to the Sacred Congregation for the Causes of Saints. This means that this statement and every other statement that John Paul made during his life were defensible and consistent with the faith. If there is a single statement that is indefensible the case dies right there, because we’re speaking about a pope. A pope who is up for canonization cannot teach anything that is contrary to the faith or in conflict with the faith. The case does not move, if that happens.

But to safeguard the faith, everything is sent to the Sacred Congregation for the Causes of the Saints where an entire team of Cardinal theologians re-examines all the evidence that was examined before. The same questions are raised. These included questions about his statements, writings and actions as pope. These were very important, because you cannot canonize a pope who has taught error. This group found no error either.

Then the documentation is sent to the Holy Father for review. He and his theologian re-examine everything again. They found nothing that was a conflict with the faith.

At some point, we have to trust that the Holy Spirit protects the Church. There is no way that John Paul would have been declared Venerable had there been any error in his teachings. Do you see what I’m saying here?

The point is that maybe you and I do not have theological tools to reconcile this point, but obviously someone else does, because it was accepted by an army of people. We can’t use the argument of Modernism here, because we’re talking about a canonization process. There is no way that even Modernism can infiltrate that, because Canonization is an infallible process. Also, it would be too farfetched to even think that someone as astute as Benedict XVI would not catch a statement that was made so openly and not question it, if it was truly in conflict with the Church’s teaching.

Often there are many times when we don’t see how the dots connect. But that does not mean that they don’t connect. Part of being Catholic has always been living with the mystery surrounding many teachings of the Church. We don’t know and understand every teaching. We cannot always connect every dot. The Church does not expect that of the average lay person. What she expects of the average lay person is trust and assent. In this case, I am convinced that there is a connection between what John Paul said and what was said before, even though I may not be able to show how it connect. I am convinced, because I trust the Church’s judgment. The judgment on his work and writings was beyond reproach. The Defender of the Faith, the Sacred Congregation for the Causes of Saints and the Holy Father himself could find nothing in any of his works or teachings that was questionable.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[JReducation]

This may be helpful in understanding how Pope John Paul II viewed this very important question. This statement comes from the conclusions of a study that was done by the International Theological Commission under the supervision of Cardinal Ratzinger. The final approval for the publication of the writing was given by Cardinal Ratzinger while he was the Prefect for the Sacred Congregation of the Faith.

** With respect for the wisdom and fidelity of those who have investigated this difficult matter before, but also with a keen awareness that the magisterium of the Church has specifically and perhaps providentially opted, at key moments in the history of doctrine,[103] not to define that these infants are deprived of the beatific vision but to keep the question open, we have considered how the Spirit may be guiding the Church at this point in history to reflect anew on this exceptionally delicate issue (cf. DV 8).** This reference comes from the document called Dei Verbum. But I found it embedded here:

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20070419_un-baptised-infants_en.html#_ftnref96

The Sacred Congregation of the Faith itself concludes that this point was never defined, but was left open. The statements made by Trent on this particular point, were not intended to be difinitive.

This is something that I did not know and I’m sure that most people did not know. I have always known that not every statement made by a Council was meant as definitive. But I did not know that this particular point was left open for futher discussion. However, Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI did know that this was open for further discussion. Therefore, it makes sense that Benedict XVI would find nothing objectionable in John Paul’s writings and statements, since both knew that the Church had never defined that unbaptized infants would not see the beatific vision.

This is very good news, because it shows how the statement by John Paul II can be reconcile with tradition. Tradition never made a definitive statement on this point. Neither did John Paul for that matter. He simple invokes the mercy of God and reminds us of the fact that God wants to save all people and uses whatever means are possible to do so.

So we still do not have a definitive statement on this question. Therefore, it is open for discussion by future popes.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[una_fides]

*I am not sure if this will some people on this thread to “reconcile” past, present and future but will post it here just in case it can.
These quotes are taken from a document that I found at the Holy See web site and found to be very enlightening. It is titled:

International Theological Commission

THE HOPE OF SALVATION FOR INFANTS WHO DIE WITHOUT BEING BAPTISED*

The document is a long read but it is well worth it.

This is the link vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20070419_un-baptised-infants_en.html

I’ve read the document. Notice it says that Scripture says little if nothing about the fate of the unbaptized. They at no point in the document reference the Scripture that the Church has constantly cited as she has always taught the necessity of the sacrament for salvation, which states that unless a man is born of water and of spirit he cannot enter heaven. When you have passages such as those with universal agreement of the fathers and yet gloss over and ignore them, that demonstrates a clear agenda, which the document itself presents at from its onset. The theological commission, a purely advisory board with absolutely no teaching authority on behalf of the Church, stated in the beginning of the document that the purpose for their questioning and reexamining the Church’s teaching on the state of unbaptized infants was to appease those who worried about the fate of their lost children. That was their intention and they found whatever theological means they could to justify their preconceived and much hoped for conclusion. This same approach is protestant in nature, not Catholic. The Catholic approach is to not start with a theological position and then try to find whatever evidence one can to support it. Instead, the Catholic first begins by determining what the Church has always taught and what his her received Tradition. Our duty as Catholics is not to preach to please man but to please God by remaining faithful to the teachings handed on throughout the centuries.
*-- “we speak, not as pleasing men but God, who proves our hearts” (1 Thes 2:4).*

 

[una_fides]

This may be helpful in understanding how Pope John Paul II viewed this very important question. This statement comes from the conclusions of a study that was done by the International Theological Commission under the supervision of Cardinal Ratzinger. The final approval for the publication of the writing was given by Cardinal Ratzinger while he was the Prefect for the Sacred Congregation of the Faith.

** With respect for the wisdom and fidelity of those who have investigated this difficult matter before, but also with a keen awareness that the magisterium of the Church has specifically and perhaps providentially opted, at key moments in the history of doctrine,[103] not to define that these infants are deprived of the beatific vision but to keep the question open**, we have considered how the Spirit may be guiding the Church at this point in history to reflect anew on this exceptionally delicate issue (cf. DV 8). This reference comes from the document called Dei Verbum. But I found it embedded here:

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20070419_un-baptised-infants_en.html#_ftnref96

The Sacred Congregation of the Faith itself concludes that this point was never defined, but was left open. The statements made by Trent on this particular point, were not intended to be difinitive.

Was this statement infallible? Could it too be in error? While the Church never in a General Council declared specifically that “unbaptized infants” cannot enter heaven it did say that those who die in original sin only cannot enter heaven, and the Church has always understood that unbaptized infants are in that category. Dogmas of the faith also, according to Vatican I, must be understood in the same sense as the Church has always understood them, and the Church has always understood unbaptized infants to have been in a state of original sin. If not, please show me anywhere, show so much as one Church father that taught otherwise. You can’t! The only ones that ever did, as the theological commission itself pointed out in its own document, were the Pelagian heretics! The eastern Churches also hold to their heresy today as well. I don’t know if perhaps this is the Church’s way today of trying to compromise with them into accepting their semi-Pelagian arguments in order to try to bring about some form of reunion, but the goal should be to get those who hold heretical views to change not to change the unchanged teaching of the Church to conform to previously condemned teachings as much as possible.

This is very good news, because it shows how the statement by John Paul II can be reconcile with tradition. Tradition never made a definitive statement on this point. Neither did John Paul for that matter. He simple invokes the mercy of God and reminds us of the fact that God wants to save all people and uses whatever means are possible to do so.
Oh I pray for a pope that doesn’t try to reinvent the wheel but just sticks with what the Church has always taught. These new popes are really making me nervous with the types of things they say. It almost seems as if they have no regard at all for what previous popes have taught throughout the centuries. They never address those things nor do they handle or reference the opposing arguments such as the Scriptures and teachings of popes that clearly are contradictory to the speculations they are now permitting to take place. While the Church has not infallibly taught something that does not mean that it’s up for grabs to reinterpret and try to understand differently. That’s not how it works. It must be based on what the Church through its popes have always taught! Not what makes people feel warm and fuzzy today or what fits with people’s overemphasis on God’s mercy and love while ignoring his justice.

 

[JReducation]

I’ve read the document. Notice it says that Scripture says little if nothing about the fate of the unbaptized. They at no point in the document reference the Scripture that the Church has constantly cited as she has always taught the necessity of the sacrament for salvation, which states that unless a man is born of water and of spirit he cannot enter heaven. When you have passages such as those with universal agreement of the fathers and yet gloss over and ignore them, that demonstrates a clear agenda, which the document itself presents at from its onset. The theological commission, a purely advisory board with absolutely no teaching authority on behalf of the Church, stated in the beginning of the document that the purpose for their questioning and reexamining the Church’s teaching on the state of unbaptized infants was to appease those who worried about the fate of their lost children. That was their intention and they found whatever theological means they could to justify their preconceived and much hoped for conclusion. This same approach is protestant in nature, not Catholic. The Catholic approach is to not start with a theological position and then try to find whatever evidence one can to support it. Instead, the Catholic first begins by determining what the Church has always taught and what his her received Tradition. Our duty as Catholics is not to preach to please man but to please God by remaining faithful to the teachings handed on throughout the centuries.

             *-- “we speak, not as pleasing men but God, who proves our hearts” (1 Thes 2:4).*

Let’s wait a minute here, before we say some things that are not charitable. I remember when the Theological Commission was commissioned to do exactly what they did. They were commissioned to do this by Pope John Paul II and Cardinal Ratzinger. In fact, when we read the document and the bibliography we find that the Sacred Congregation for the Faith had (name removed by moderator)ut on the final draft. Under Cardinal Ratzinger’s watchful eye, the document was reviewed and there were points deleted and other points added by the Sacred Congregation. These points are referenced at the end of the document. They were also asked to make sure that they referenced every statement using on-going Church teaching and they did. Those references are also at the end of the document and the footnotes are embedded in the document itself.

The Commission did act authoritatively. They were authorized by the Holy Father and the Sacred Congregation of the Faith to do what they did. The reason that the document appears on the Vatican website is because it received the approval of both pope and sacred congregation. Therefore, there is nothing in the document or about it that is either wrong, contrary to teaching or Protestant.

Sometimes theologians of different faiths use the same methodology, but that does not make a Catholic theologian Protestant or a Protestant theologian Catholic. Theology is an academic discipline with many methodologies, like any other discipline. These methodoloies can be used by theologians of every faith. That does not guarantee that they will reach the same conclusion. The conclusion does not depend solely on the method being used, but also on the subject and the faith of the theologian.

I would appeal to everyone that we be very gentle and cautious when makiong statements about Church documents that we may find uncomfortable, because many of them were authorized by popes and congregations and have received their approval, even if they don’t receive our assent.

I go back to the same point, trust. We have to trust the Church. Their are no recorded instances where the Church set out to do harm or to teach error. Individuals are another story. But these are documents that are reviewed by people who have earned our respect and trust, in this case John Paul II and Joseph Ratzinger.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[StevenFrancis]

Is it possible for the church to change its teaching on something, or would that mean that it was previously in error? Or is it okay that it may have been in error, if it wasn’t an infallible teaching?

What’s coming to mind is that I have read the church used to teach that babies who died without being baptized could not be saved. Now, I understand that is not the teaching.

The spiritual state of “limbo” is most likely what you’re referring to. While I don’t know if was ever a “church teaching”, and I’m not sure what definition you’re operating under for that term, I do know from my own research that it was not declared dogma, and is one of those things which has NOT been infallibly decided on by a Pope or an apostolic council. And yes, it is my understanding that teachings can change. For instance to adapt and conform to the findings of science. However, the concepts which have been exhausted in reductive reasoning by the magesterium to the point where they are no longer REASONABLY able to be amended by further discovery and yet still be able to support the primary axioms and truths of the Church, (i.e. trinity; the paschal mystery; A fully human/fully divine Jesus, etc.), are then declared dogmatic, and are unlikely to be tampered with further. It is assumed of a dogma that all that is available to mankind in knowledge of the truth has been discovered on those points. Doesn’t mean that it still can’t happen, even still. But suffice it to say, that before some item is declared dogma, it has been pretty well thought through to the full extent that man, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, through apostolic succession and magisterium has the capacity to achieve.

 

[una_fides]

Maybe it’s my explanation, not your fault. So let me try to show you how I come at this. I begin with trust that the Church is protected by the Holy Spirit. I look at John Paul and I see that he has been declared Venerable and that the Holy Father has officially declared that his life was one of heroic faith and virtue and nothing more can be said on this point. That’s the way that the canonization process works. Once the person’s life has been studied and found satisfactory by the Holy Father, there is no going back and reopening the case. You go forward to the next step, to prove that the alleged miracles were truly his intervention, meaning John Paul’s.

During the process the role of the Defender of the Faith is to prove that John Paul did not live and teach according to the faith. It’s what was once called the Devil’s Advocate. They now have a nicer name for that role. However, it’s the same job. He and his team challenge everything that the man ever said, wrote or did. They question everything in the light of faith and the teaching tradition of the Church from its origins. The job of the Postulator of the Cause and his team is to prove that all of the person’s writings and teachings are consistent with the faith of the Church from time immemorial. Along with that, the Postulator must also prove that the person’s personal life was one of holiness, which is worthy of public veneration, and that the person is a saint.

What interests me most in this study is the part of the writings and teachings of John Paul. Had the Defender of the Faith found a single error or conflict in his teachings and writings, he would have won his case and it would not have gone forward to the Sacred Congregation for the Causes of Saints. This means that this statement and every other statement that John Paul made during his life were defensible and consistent with the faith. If there is a single statement that is indefensible the case dies right there, because we’re speaking about a pope. A pope who is up for canonization cannot teach anything that is contrary to the faith or in conflict with the faith. The case does not move, if that happens.

But to safeguard the faith, everything is sent to the Sacred Congregation for the Causes of the Saints where an entire team of Cardinal theologians re-examines all the evidence that was examined before. The same questions are raised. These included questions about his statements, writings and actions as pope. These were very important, because you cannot canonize a pope who has taught error. This group found no error either.

Then the documentation is sent to the Holy Father for review. He and his theologian re-examine everything again. They found nothing that was a conflict with the faith.

At some point, we have to trust that the Holy Spirit protects the Church. There is no way that John Paul would have been declared Venerable had there been any error in his teachings. Do you see what I’m saying here?

The point is that maybe you and I do not have theological tools to reconcile this point, but obviously someone else does, because it was accepted by an army of people. We can’t use the argument of Modernism here, because we’re talking about a canonization process. There is no way that even Modernism can infiltrate that, because Canonization is an infallible process. Also, it would be too farfetched to even think that someone as astute as Benedict XVI would not catch a statement that was made so openly and not question it, if it was truly in conflict with the Church’s teaching.

Often there are many times when we don’t see how the dots connect. But that does not mean that they don’t connect. Part of being Catholic has always been living with the mystery surrounding many teachings of the Church. We don’t know and understand every teaching. We cannot always connect every dot. The Church does not expect that of the average lay person. What she expects of the average lay person is trust and assent. In this case, I am convinced that there is a connection between what John Paul said and what was said before, even though I may not be able to show how it connect. I am convinced, because I trust the Church’s judgment. The judgment on his work and writings was beyond reproach. The Defender of the Faith, the Sacred Congregation for the Causes of Saints and the Holy Father himself could find nothing in any of his works or teachings that was questionable.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

Do you have any infallible documents of the Church that teach that the Church is infallible throughout its entire canonization process? Also it’s quite possible that the decks could have been stacked in his favor. It all depends on who you have in the highest positions here. The “devil’s advocate” could have himself been on the JP2 bandwagon and not presented a good case. Modernism has infected all the way to the highest ranks of the Church. Bella Dodd herself testified to congress that she helped 1100 communists become Catholic priests in order to change the teachings of the Church and stated that at the time of her testimony that many had elevated themselves into the highest ranks of the Church. Wake up and see the contradiction here. I’ve already posted what the Church has always taught on this issue, and you and no one can find anyone who has taught otherwise. We must be intellectually honest here and not just blindly follow what is contrary to what the Church has always taught, even if she hasn’t explicitly infallibly defined the matter. Just because the Church has never infallibly declared that “unbaptized infants” specifically cannot be saved without baptism, she has taught this doctrine definitively through her fathers, through popes, and through catechisms for 2000 years.

 

[JReducation]

Do you have any infallible documents of the Church that teach that the Church is infallible throughout its entire canonization process? Also it’s quite possible that the decks could have been stacked in his favor. It all depends on who you have in the highest positions here. The “devil’s advocate” could have himself been on the JP2 bandwagon and not presented a good case. Modernism has infected all the way to the highest ranks of the Church. Bella Dodd herself testified to congress that she helped 1100 communists become Catholic priests in order to change the teachings of the Church and stated that at the time of her testimony that many had elevated themselves into the highest ranks of the Church. Wake up and see the contradiction here. I’ve already posted what the Church has always taught on this issue, and you and no one can find anyone who has taught otherwise. We must be intellectually honest here and not just blindly follow what is contrary to what the Church has always taught, even if she hasn’t explicitly infallibly defined the matter. Just because the Church has never infallibly declared that “unbaptized infants” specifically cannot be saved without baptism, she has taught this doctrine definitively through her fathers, through popes, and through catechisms for 2000 years.

I’m sorry, but you are making some suggestions here that are very unlikely.

1. It is very unlikely that the Defender of the Faith threw the fight to get John Paul declared Venerable. It would have been caught by the Sacred Congregation. Had it not been caught by them, it would have been caught by Pope Benedict. There are so many layers of scrutiny and so many people involved in the scrutiny that it is one of the most protected processes in the Church. The process of canonization actually has more safety valves built into it than the papal election. One would have to prove that there was conspiracy from the bottom all the way up to and including Pope Benedict XVI.
2. The Defender of the Faith leads an office. He is not a single person. He is the head of a team. His entire team has to agree that the Postulator of the Cause has won. The vote has to be unanimous. In other words, the team has to agree that the Postulator has proven, beyond any reasonable doubt, that John Paul II lived a heroic and virtuous life and that he never taught or believed anything contrary to the faith. The fact is that they agreed. After that the Sacred Congregation Agreed. Then the Pope agreed. There are too many layers here and each step is guided by the Holy Spirit. The final step, the decree of canonization is Ex-Cathedra.
3. As you have said, the Church has never definitively taught that unbaptized children do not enter heaven. She has taught this for centuries, but has never defined it. She has deliberately left it open. Therefore, any pope has the power and authority to try to answer the question. If we observe, John Paul II did not say anything contrary to defined dogma. His position focused on the mercy of God, which is a dogma. He built his case on a defined dogma, not on the teaching on limbo, since that is not a defined dogma. This is not the first time nor the last the something that was held by Catholics, but never defined as dogma, was revisited and re-worked. This also happened with the nature and structure of the created universe. For thousands of years Jews and Christians thought tha the earth was the center of the universe and that God intended it to be that way. Both Jews and Catholics called those who disagreed, heretics. But the fact turned out that this had never been a defined dogma and that the Holy Spirit has preserved the Church from defining it as a dogma, because it was wron. But it was taught for thousands of years and people were angry when they were told that it was incorrect.
4. You say that we must not blindly follow . . . I don’t feel that I’m blindly following and neither do many people. We look at the above example, the canonization process of John Paul II, we see all of the structure and checks and balances involved and we see the conclusion, the man was faithful to the teachings of the Church. He never wrote or said anything that was in conflict with the faith of the Church. At that point, I don’t need someone to reconcile what the Church said in the past about Limbo and what John Paul said about God’s mercy. The fact that the Church has found no fault in his theology is enough for me to believe that what he said is worthy of belief. I’m placing my faith in the Church’s conclusion concerning the man’s writings, theology, fidelity and holiness. I don’t need someone to show me how the dots connect, as long as the Church says that there were no disconnects, I’ll take it. Many of us trust the Church and the systems in place. To distrust them, one would have to prove that there is reason to distrust the system and everyone involved, including the current pope.

You would have to say that Pope Benedict is wrong, because you know that John Paul II spoke contrary to the faith and Pope Benedict gave him a pass and declared him Venerable. We can’t say that, because we have no proof, not to mention the fact that the process is guided by the Holy Spirit.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[una_fides]

I’m sorry, but you are making some suggestions here that are very unlikely.

1. It is very unlikely that the Defender of the Faith threw the fight to get John Paul declared Venerable. It would have been caught by the Sacred Congregation. Had it not been caught by them, it would have been caught by Pope Benedict. There are so many layers of scrutiny and so many people involved in the scrutiny that it is one of the most protected processes in the Church. The process of canonization actually has more safety valves built into it than the papal election. One would have to prove that there was conspiracy from the bottom all the way up to and including Pope Benedict XVI.
2. The Defender of the Faith leads an office. He is not a single person. He is the head of a team. His entire team has to agree that the Postulator of the Cause has won. The vote has to be unanimous. In other words, the team has to agree that the Postulator has proven, beyond any reasonable doubt, that John Paul II lived a heroic and virtuous life and that he never taught or believed anything contrary to the faith. The fact is that they agreed. After that the Sacred Congregation Agreed. Then the Pope agreed. There are too many layers here and each step is guided by the Holy Spirit. The final step, the decree of canonization is Ex-Cathedra.
3. As you have said, the Church has never definitively taught that unbaptized children do not enter heaven. She has taught this for centuries, but has never defined it. She has deliberately left it open. Therefore, any pope has the power and authority to try to answer the question. If we observe, John Paul II did not say anything contrary to defined dogma. His position focused on the mercy of God, which is a dogma. He built his case on a defined dogma, not on the teaching on limbo, since that is not a defined dogma. This is not the first time nor the last the something that was held by Catholics, but never defined as dogma, was revisited and re-worked. This also happened with the nature and structure of the created universe. For thousands of years Jews and Christians thought tha the earth was the center of the universe and that God intended it to be that way. Both Jews and Catholics called those who disagreed, heretics. But the fact turned out that this had never been a defined dogma and that the Holy Spirit has preserved the Church from defining it as a dogma, because it was wron. But it was taught for thousands of years and people were angry when they were told that it was incorrect.
4. You say that we must not blindly follow . . . I don’t feel that I’m blindly following and neither do many people. We look at the above example, the canonization process of John Paul II, we see all of the structure and checks and balances involved and we see the conclusion, the man was faithful to the teachings of the Church. He never wrote or said anything that was in conflict with the faith of the Church. At that point, I don’t need someone to reconcile what the Church said in the past about Limbo and what John Paul said about God’s mercy. The fact that the Church has found no fault in his theology is enough for me to believe that what he said is worthy of belief. I’m placing my faith in the Church’s conclusion concerning the man’s writings, theology, fidelity and holiness. I don’t need someone to show me how the dots connect, as long as the Church says that there were no disconnects, I’ll take it. Many of us trust the Church and the systems in place. To distrust them, one would have to prove that there is reason to distrust the system and everyone involved, including the current pope.

You would have to say that Pope Benedict is wrong, because you know that John Paul II spoke contrary to the faith and Pope Benedict gave him a pass and declared him Venerable. We can’t say that, because we have no proof, not to mention the fact that the process is guided by the Holy Spirit.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

Okay, how about this. I’m not saying he’s a manifest heretic, but I’m saying he was at least wrong on this point. Also I think we may have been going from point to point here. JP2 didn’t authoritatively teach anything concerning limbo, to my knowledge, but he did approve of the new catechism, which contained this teaching. It seems he also taught that it’s possible that all men could be saved by saying its possible that there might not be any people who go to hell, but a previous pope condemned as heretical the teaching that all Christians are saved, and if all Christians are not saved, then obviously all men cannot be saved. So if the only criteria is that one does not disagree with an infallibly declared dogma rather than a very strongly declared yet non-infallibly declared dogma, then I suppose he could pass their canonization tests, which again I will ask do you have anything other than your opinion that states that the entire canonization process is infallible? If you don’t answer this time, I’ll determine by your silence that you do not.

 

[JReducation]

Okay, how about this. I’m not saying he’s a manifest heretic, but I’m saying he was at least wrong on this point. Also I think we may have been going from point to point here. JP2 didn’t authoritatively teach anything concerning limbo, to my knowledge, but he did approve of the new catechism, which contained this teaching. It seems he also taught that it’s possible that all men could be saved by saying its possible that there might not be any people who go to hell, but a previous pope condemned as heretical the teaching that all Christians are saved, and if all Christians are not saved, then obviously all men cannot be saved. So if the only criteria is that one does not disagree with an infallibly declared dogma rather than a very strongly declared yet non-infallibly declared dogma, then I suppose he could pass their canonization tests, which again I will ask do you have anything other than your opinion that states that the entire canonization process is infallible? If you don’t answer this time, I’ll determine by your silence that you do not.

Here is the basis for the position that the process is guided by the Holy Spirit and free of error. Which is what we understand as infallible. Though there are two kinds of papal infallibility, but that’s a subject for another thread.

**In Quodlib. IX, a. 16, St. Thomas says: “Since the honour we pay the saints is in a certain sense a profession of faith, i.e., a belief in the glory of the Saints [quâ sanctorum gloriam credimus] we must piously believe that in this matter also the judgment of the Church is not liable to error.” **

Having said that, the point is that you’re trying to find error in John Paul’s statement, when the Church found none. At some point, we have to trust the Church, in the case, a very large group of people with a lot of authority and knowledge.

If we begin to question every thing that comes out of the mouth of a pope, we can find ourselves not having a life. At some point, part of our gift is the gift of trust in God’s mercy that he will not lead us astray.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Hesychios]

Read your post. It seems you have an aversion to any “extreme position” as if the fact that it is on one end of a spectrum or another makes it inherently wrong. God is on one end of the spectrum by his very nature. He is pure and complete holiness. Not holiness and evil. The same can be said of his other attributes.

This comment does not support the damnation of infants.

You basically pointed to the thief on the cross and said that since he wasn’t baptized by water then therefore baptism is not necessary.

That is not what I said.

My point was that these two incidents have equal weight in the Gospel witness. When taken together perhaps, or even likely, the common Augustinian presuppositions about what baptism is actually intended for are just not supported. There is no question that baptism is efficacious and I realize that it is necessary for one to enter the church.

Here is a third scenario:

As he was setting out on a journey, a man ran up, knelt down before him, and asked him, “Good teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?”

Jesus answered him, "Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone.

You know the commandments: ‘You shall not kill; you shall not commit adultery; you shall not steal; you shall not bear false witness; you shall not defraud; honor your father and your mother.’"

He replied and said to him, “Teacher, all of these I have observed from my youth.”

Jesus, looking at him, loved him and said to him, “You are lacking in one thing. Go, sell what you have, and give to (the) poor and you will have treasure in heaven; then come, follow me.”

At that statement his face fell, and he went away sad, for he had many possessions.
Mark 10-17:22

Here we have a perfect teaching moment. It is not, by the way, a parable. It is another actual account of Jesus’ teaching in public before others.

He is basically inviting the man to become a disciple! Apparently this is one case where He was turned down, He could have used the “big guns”. He does not say, ‘be baptized to avoid the fires of hell because of Adam’s sin’ or anything like that. He simply states "You are lacking in one thing… " and that one thing is not baptism! He doesn’t qualify His promise with “by selling your possessions you can have eternal life, but without the Beatific Vision”, why is He holding back? (rhetorical question)

As before, I do not claim to explain this, but the faith is really full of paradox. We might as well learn to become comfortable with it.

Why do we baptize? Because we have always baptized, Christ commanded us to, and so we will continue to do so. No need to “de-compile the program” to see what’s behind it. God is behind it.

The speculation that the reason we baptize is that baptism “washes away original sin, which can damn us or at the very least deny us a beatific vision” appears to be rather crude, and probably wrong. Therefore the explanation that all these other non-baptisms (martyrdoms, miscarriages, etc.) are really alternate type baptisms are also probably wrong. They seem to be basically just excuses to sweep contradictions and ‘exceptions to the rule’ under the rug.

I do believe that baptism is necessary, Jesus calls upon us to baptize all nations. Let’s just see it for what it really is: Baptism (with the Holy Eucharist and Confirmation) is an initiatory sacrament, it makes one a part of the church and (most unfortunately) some people will not reach the church in this world, they will go before God straight away, some before their wounded nature had committed even one real sin. God, who can read every heart and is pure Love and perfectly Just, will judge according to His own lights, not ours.

… the thief desired baptism at least implicitly.

He never did say so, nor did Jesus say "I baptize you… ".

… he must have had perfect charity for God at the time and consequently received a baptism of desire.

Again, ‘baptism of desire’ is not it. Jesus saved him from the fires of hell (which he seems to have deserved in his own right as ‘a thief’) because he was judged worthy by Jesus right then and there, that’s it.

The rich man was not given that assurance (not condemned and not promised heaven), because his attachment to possessions were an impediment to his spiritual growth and perseverance. The book was still open on that man, and as far as I know we are not informed of his ultimate fate. He was, in his weakness, suffering from the effects of the sin of Adam, not bearing the burden of damnation for the sin of Adam. Otherwise Jesus could have said “You are lacking in one thing: be baptized and be saved”!

This is perfectly in line with Catholic teaching from the Council of Trent, which says that either the reception of baptism by water or at least the desire thereof is necessary for salvation. It seems to me that you must deny the infallibility of the Church and this General Council, but that is another story for another thread.

I believe in the infallibility of the church as a whole.

 

[sidbrown]

While the Church never in a General Council declared specifically that “unbaptized infants” cannot enter heaven it did say that those who die in original sin only cannot enter heaven, and the Church has always understood that unbaptized infants are in that category. .

That was the old teaching. The teaching has since been changed, and it is hoped that infants who die without baptism can be saved. In fact, Pope Benedict XVI has written:God and the World, 2000, p. 401: “Q… But what happens, when a man dies unbaptized? And what happens to the millions of children who are killed in their mothers’ wombs? A. The question of what it means to say that baptism is necessary for salvation has become ever more hotly debated in modern times. The Second Vatican Council said on this point that men who are seeking for God and who are inwardly striving toward that which constitutes baptism will also receive salvation. That is to say that a seeking after God already represents an inward participation in baptism, in the Church, in Christ. To that extent, the question concerning the necessity of baptism for salvation seems to have been answered, but the question about children who could not be baptized because they were aborted then presses upon us that much more urgently. Earlier ages had devised a teaching that seems to me rather unenlightened. They said that baptism endows us, by means of sanctifying grace, with the capacity to gaze upon God. Now, certainly, the state of original sin, from which we are freed by baptism, consists in a lack of sanctifying grace. Children who die in this way are indeed without any personal sin, so they cannot be sent to hell, but, on the other hand, they lack sanctifying grace and thus the potential for beholding God that this bestows. They will simply enjoy a state of natural blessedness, in which they will be happy. This state people called limbo. In the course of our century, that has gradually come to seem problematic to us. This was one way in which people sought to justify the necessity of baptizing infants as early as possible, but the solution is itself questionable. Finally, the Pope made a decisive turn in the encyclical Evangelium Vitae, a change already anticipated by the Catechism of the Catholic Church, when he expressed the simple hope that God is powerful enough to draw to himself all those who were unable to receive the sacrament.”

 

[Hesychios]

I think your post is very interesting and gave me a lot to think about.

But that’s not the language the Church uses. The effects of original sin are concupiscence and bodily death; yes, our wounded nature.Of course original sin is not a sin in the sense of personal sin – perhaps it’s better to use the term “stain.” But it sounds like you deny the “stain” aspect of that wounded nature that at birth keeps us out of sacramental grace – something that Adam and Eve were given but lost.

The stain concept is rather benign.

It can mean different things to different people. Is stain a wound, like a bloody stain? [rhetorical question] Is stain a filth, like a dirty stain? [rhetorical question]

You seem to be denying that the stain of original sin keeps everyone out of heaven. It’s not just Adam. Is this view you present that of the Eastern Orthodox Church?

Sin keeps people out of heaven.

One’s own sin.

Adam, in fact, is in paradise right now. That makes it hard for me to justify damning infants for something that they did not do (and are literally incapable of), when the perpetrator has already been forgiven.

Does that answer your question?

But this conflicts with your contention that there’s no such thing as original sin.

I did not say that, or if I did seem to state that somewhere that is not what I meant.

I would say that there is no such thing as the Original Sin that you conceive in your understanding. Or put another way we are defining it differently. The sin of Adam is not attributable to you or me. We will not burn in hell because of Adam’s sin, but for our own.

Orthodox always call it the First Sin, and it’s effects were devastating. That makes it hard for us.

Following the Holy Fathers, the Orthodox Church holds that when Adam sinned against God, he introduced death to the world. Since all men are born of the same human stock as Adam, all men inherit death. Death means that the life of every human being comes to an end (mortality); but also that death generates in us the passions (anger, hate, lust, greed, etc.), disease and aging.

… In any case, Orthodoxy has always put great stress on “mastery of the passions” through prayer (public worship and private devotions), fasting (self-denial) and voluntary obedience and regular participation in the Eucharist (sometimes called “the Mysteries”). Thus, the highest form of Christian living (“the supreme philosophy”) is monasticism. Here all human energy is devoted to struggle for perfection.
Father M Azkoul

So in the case of the dead, they are past that now. We the living are still subject to the test and the church in this world is for us.

If there’s no original sin, then we are already in the Body of Christ at birth.

This is what you claim, but that is not what I claim.

To become a member of the church (join the Body of Christ) requires the three sacraments of Baptism, the Holy Eucharist and Confirmation, or at the very least Baptism. We are saved in community (one will hear/read this concept also in Catholic circles).

I think there is a question here over the nature of church, and I myself cannot address it adequately, but I think it is fair to say that the church itself is superseded in the afterlife, at least theoretically. In other words, at the last judgment bishops will not be standing in front of God as our bishops, they will be ordinary men.

The 266 or so Popes will not be standing before God as Peter, but as themselves. There will be no need for ‘church’ as such, because we will be in the Presence. There will be no divisions among us, aside from that division between the sheep and the goats.

There will be no further mediation in the sense that we need it here and now, for we will be participating in the one timeless celestial divine liturgy with God, praising Him like the angels.

At least, this my poor understanding of these things.

To be in the Body of Christ is to be filled with sacramental grace.

1. 
   *] The stain of original sin is the lack of sacramental grace (by heredity) …
   *]… and personal mortal sin also causes a lack of sacramental grace.

1. 
   You may see that I broke out your two points. I think that we may not be thinking of grace in the same manner. I would say that to be in the Body of Christ is to be in the church, to keep it simple.
   
   If I accept and use your terminology and definition I could say that to be in the church is to be filled with sacramental grace, but we both know that we can lose this, don’t we? Losing this grace does not mean that we are actually necessarily out of the church, but it can indicate that we’ll lose our salvation.
   
   I can agree with number two.
   
   I find number one lacking. If you said “the stain of Original Sin is equivalent to the wound in our human nature” I think I might agree.
   
   Grace is God.
   
   The term “baptismal Grace,” also appropriately called “ecclesial Grace,” helps one to keep in mind an important distinction in the way God relates to those within the Church. Thus, Holy Baptism is the Mystery by which a person is incorporated into Christ, which is His Body, the Church (Eph. 1:22-23).22
   
   By this Mystery, one is given the Holy Spirit and begins to participate as a new creation and “human temple” (1 Cor. 6:19) in the Divine Energies, or Grace, of God. This special impartation of and relation to the Holy Spirit can only be conferred by the Church.
   Frank Schaeffer [PDF]
   
   Pax et Bonum,

 

[rinnie]

Here is what I don’t understand. The Church has always taught that no matter what we cannot be held accountable for something that we did not understand or have ever been taught. Yes or No?

Then how can a baby be held accountable for a sin that it does not understand?

The Church teaches and has always taught that we are accountable for our sin, and we must repent and confess.

The thief on the cross, did he repent and confess, yes he did, he did the best that he could with what he knew. Did he know when he said he deserved his punishment that he was wrong. Yes he did, he confessed. He showed even though he had done evil he was sorry. But what did the other thief do, he said if you are God turn us loose, he was not sorry for what he had done, he was only sorry he got caught. Big difference, So what did Jesus say when he asked Jesus to remember him? Jesus said yes. Which translates to you are forgiven. Jesus showed him Mercy. Which is exactly what the Church teaches. We can rely on Gods mercy.

If we can rely on Gods mercy for a thief who did wrong and had been forgiven, are you saying we cannot rely on Gods mercy for a inocent Child?

The question that many refuse to accept here is can dogma be developed.

What does scripture say?

Even protestants especially fundamentalists and evangelicals admit that much!

They see that was a real development in doctrine.

There was a intital message much clouded at the fall, and then porgressively fuller explanation of Gods teaching as Israel was prepared for the Messiah, until the apostles were instructed by the Messiah himself. Jesus told his apostles that in the O.T. MANY PROPHETS AND RIGHTEOUS MEN LONG TO SEE, AND DID NOT SEE IT, AND HEAR WHAT YOU HEAR AND DID NOT HEAR IT. (Matt. 13:17)

What seems to be either forgotten here, or ignored is this: The Pope is led by the Holy Spirit! How can we accept the teaching’s of Peter when he explained them all through the bible, and it has happened many of times. And then turn around and refuse to accept the teachings of Peter today???

Did something happen between the time that Peter was given the authority and the Pope of today was given authority to be the leader of the sheep? If so when and where was that authority taken away from him? And by whom? Man? Do we listen to Man now, who refuses to accept this authority?

For those who do not understand Vatican II please go back and read it. The CHurch cannot and DOES NOT change the doctrines God has given it. Nor can it invent new ones which it has been accused of here. New beliefs are not invented but the obscurities and misunderstandings regarding the deposit of faith are CLEARED UP.

 

[surritter]

As he was setting out on a journey, a man ran up, knelt down before him, and asked him, “Good teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?”

Jesus answered him, "Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone.

You know the commandments: ‘You shall not kill; you shall not commit adultery; you shall not steal; you shall not bear false witness; you shall not defraud; honor your father and your mother.’"

He replied and said to him, “Teacher, all of these I have observed from my youth.”

Jesus, looking at him, loved him and said to him, “You are lacking in one thing. Go, sell what you have, and give to (the) poor and you will have treasure in heaven; then come, follow me.”

At that statement his face fell, and he went away sad, for he had many possessions.
Mark 10-17:22

Here we have a perfect teaching moment. It is not, by the way, a parable. It is another actual account of Jesus’ teaching in public before others.

He is basically inviting the man to become a disciple! Apparently this is one case where He was turned down, He could have used the “big guns”. He does not say, ‘be baptized to avoid the fires of hell because of Adam’s sin’ or anything like that. He simply states "You are lacking in one thing… " and that one thing is not baptism

I don’t think you can really use this Gospel passage as a proof that baptism is not always necessary, because there are many instances where we hear of an individual thing as being necessary for salvation.

For instance, Jesus says that we must eat His flesh and drink His blood to live forever. By your logic, John 6 could also be used to show that baptism is not an absolute necessity. I believe that the mind of the Church would say that all the individual commands of what’s necessary for salvation are all interconnected.

I’m not discounting your overall point, but a single conclusion can’t always be drawn from a given passage.

 

[rinnie]

Cont: Look at the Trinity.

The Trinity and the hypostatic union were not understood as clear in the early days of the Church. But did the doctrine change?

Look at Monothelitism, The Church had to clear that up. Did it invent new teaching? No!

Transubstantiation is another doctrine that has always been believed by the Church. But the technical term was not formally adopted by the CC u ntil the Fourth Lateran Council, in 1215.

You either believe the scripture and trust in the Church completely or you will always have doubt. John 14:25-26 16:13 The Church’s teaching authority that the Holy Spirit guides into all truth.

Again what happend to that teaching authority? Did someone take it away from the Pope and the Apostles, If then who and when. Because Jesus promised he would be with them until the end of time. Jesus promised I will give you the words. What happened to all of that.

And on a personal level here are my feelings. How could YOU DARE trump the teachings of the Pope? Who in this world has that authority, and from whom did it come from? God? I think not. God would not give Peter the keys to the kingdom, promise to lead the Church until the end of time, and then let us all down. Its impossible. The Lord made it quite clear that Peter had the keys to the kingdom.

 

[rinnie]

I don’t think you can really use this Gospel passage as a proof that baptism is not always necessary, because there are many instances where we hear of an individual thing as being necessary for salvation.

For instance, Jesus says that we must eat His flesh and drink His blood to live forever. By your logic, John 6 could also be used to show that baptism is not an absolute necessity. I believe that the mind of the Church would say that all the individual commands of what’s necessary for salvation are all interconnected.

I’m not discounting your overall point, but a single conclusion can’t always be drawn from a given passage.

Okay then what conclusion did you come up with. Did Jesus Baptise him at the foot of the Cross yes or no? Prove it next. Did Jesus say to him from this day on you will be with me in paradise? Yes or No? How was that possible then, My only conclusion is the same that the RCC teaches. With Gods mercy all things are possible.

Now to say that there is no way that a baby can not enter heaven w/o baptism adds to the word of God does it not.

But to say that all things are possible with Gods mercy is pretty in line with scripture is it not?

Did the CHurch ever deny Baptism, never it teaches it! But did the Church ever deny Gods mercy again, never it teaches it!