Can the Church change its teaching?

[una_fides]

The reason that the Church doesn’t want babies baptized willy-nilly is because it requires actual faith of the person (or the parents, by proxy). So baptism is not mere magic or superstition, but also forms the foundation of a life in Christ that should be nurtured and grow.

Good point. Baptism itself is a commitment to live according to the true faith revealed by Jesus Christ, the Catholic faith. It is a most serious commitment to follow Christ and his teachings. If someone receives the sacrament and then falls from grace, the state of his soul is worse than if he never believed in the first place.

2 Pet 2:20 For if, flying from the pollutions of the world, through the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, they be again entangled in them and overcome: their latter state is become unto them worse than the former. 21 For it had been better for them not to have known the way of justice than, after they have known it, to turn back from that holy commandment which was delivered to them. 22 For, that of the true proverb has happened to them: The dog is returned to his vomit; and: The sow that was washed to her wallowing in the mire.

 

[una_fides]

I agree 100% but that is not what the Church has always taught. If we just don’t know the fate of an unbaptized child then that’s what should have been taught from the beginning.

Another change in teaching is the fate of people who take their own life. There was no hope in that situation at all. Now there is. It’s another we just don’t know.

Interesting point about what has been taught from the beginning. I can’t find the Church ever saying or find anywhere in the tradition of the fathers anyone saying, “We just don’t know.” The Church and tradition has taught that we do know that they cannot be saved who die without baptism. Now we are hearing that we cannot know if possibly they could be cleansed from original sin apart from baptism. The problem I have with this view is that I cannot find it anywhere in the Church’s tradition. As I pointed out earlier, the only ones that concluded that infants who die without baptism could or would be saved were heretics.

Does anyone have any sources prior to the 20th century that say that we just don’t know the fate of these souls? There may be something there; I just haven’t found it yet… Thanks.

 

[Akini]

The Church has changed some of her teachings or reworded them (in an amicable sense) in order to appease the ever growing liberals in her hierarchy. The Church has become softy, softy. Instead of a narrow door that leads to everlasting life, it is slowly becoming a wider door that leads to everlasting doom.

I think, there is a greater need of Vatican III, now that these changes are becoming obvious.

 

[sidbrown]

The Church has changed some of her teachings or reworded them (in an amicable sense) in order to appease the ever growing liberals in her hierarchy. .

I would say that the post Vatican II Church has made a lot of changes in Catholic teachings.Clown Masses, guitar Masses, clapping in Church, talking and eating and drinking in Church. The Pope bowing down and kissing the Koranic Scriptures of the Muslim religion. No meat on Fridays. Fasting during lent is voluntary. Easy to get marriage annulments, and more.
But then again, it seems like there were changes in teaching before Vatican II also. For example, should slaves be subject to their Masters as St. Paul taught? I think it is OK if today an enslaved woman escaped her slave Master, whereas befote it was taught that a slave should be subject to her Master.

 

[ron77nyc]

Interesting point about what has been taught from the beginning. I can’t find the Church ever saying or find anywhere in the tradition of the fathers anyone saying, “We just don’t know.” The Church and tradition has taught that we do know that they cannot be saved who die without baptism. Now we are hearing that we cannot know if possibly they could be cleansed from original sin apart from baptism. The problem I have with this view is that I cannot find it anywhere in the Church’s tradition. As I pointed out earlier, the only ones that concluded that infants who die without baptism could or would be saved were heretics.

Does anyone have any sources prior to the 20th century that say that we just don’t know the fate of these souls? There may be something there; I just haven’t found it yet… Thanks.

They really didn’t know.

newadvent.org/cathen/09256a.htm
Pre-Augustinian tradition
There is no evidence to prove that any Greek or Latin Father before St. Augustine ever taught that original sin of itself involved any severer penalty after death than exclusion from the beatific vision, and this, by the Greek Fathers at least, was always regarded as being strictly supernatural.

Post-Augustinian teaching
It should be added that in St. Thomas’ view the limbus infantium is not a mere negative state of immunity from suffering and sorrow, but a state of positive happiness in which the soul is united to God by a knowledge and love of him proportionate to nature’s capacity.
The teaching of St. Thomas was received in the schools, almost without opposition, down to the Reformation period.

 

[ron77nyc]

I do not personally understand how it could be possible for a person who has never been infused with the supernatural theological virtues of faith, hope, and charity, could make acts of perfect charity and have supernatural faith.

The bible explains how.
Romans 1:20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.

Acts 10:30 Cornelius said, “Four days ago to this hour, I was praying in my house during the ninth hour; and behold, a man stood before me in shining garments, 31 and he said, ‘Cornelius, your prayer has been heard and your alms have been remembered before God. 32 ‘Therefore send to Joppa and invite Simon, who is also called Peter, to come to you; he is staying at the house of Simon the tanner by the sea.’ 33 “So I sent for you immediately, and you have been kind enough to come. Now then, we are all here present before God to hear all that you have been commanded by the Lord.” 34 Opening his mouth, Peter said:
**“I most certainly understand now that God is not one to show partiality, 35 but in every nation the man who fears Him and does what is right is welcome to Him. **

Regarding children, they are not innocent. They all participate in Adam’s original sin by inheriting the nature of Adam. They are born “children of the devil” and “enemies of God” in need of God and in need of salvation. They are born empty and their souls are born dead.

What do you mean by “their souls are born dead?”

 

[PJM]

=ron77nyc;6243338]Wouldn’t a papal encyclical or an ecumenical council have been a good time to give people hope on these issues rather not leave out the hopeful half of the message? If Augustine said “God is not bound by His sacraments” then those who came later should have known about that one.

Hi Ron,

Good question:thumbsup:

Because of the power and binding signifiance of both of the options you suggest, any such expression would be a defacto change in “Official Church Teaching.” Simply not possible.

**CCC 1281 **Those who die for the faith, those who are catechumens, and all those who, without knowing of the Church but acting under the inspiration of grace, seek God sincerely and strive to fulfill his will, can be saved even if they have not been baptized (cf. LG 16).

This teaching gives foundation to the understanding that Because God is and HAS TO BE PERFECTLY JUST, a child not given an opportunity to decide for or against Christ, by Dvine Will, may well be the exception to John 3:5, and fall under the “cover” of parental desire of Baptism for there child, and, as Baptism of Desire is Recognized by the Church, the Mercy and Goodness of God MAY come into play? That is our Hope and our prayer.

Love and prayer,

Pat

 

[una_fides]

The bible explains how.
Romans 1:20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.

Acts 10:30 Cornelius said, “Four days ago to this hour, I was praying in my house during the ninth hour; and behold, a man stood before me in shining garments, 31 and he said, ‘Cornelius, your prayer has been heard and your alms have been remembered before God. 32 ‘Therefore send to Joppa and invite Simon, who is also called Peter, to come to you; he is staying at the house of Simon the tanner by the sea.’ 33 “So I sent for you immediately, and you have been kind enough to come. Now then, we are all here present before God to hear all that you have been commanded by the Lord.” 34 Opening his mouth, Peter said:
**“I most certainly understand now that God is not one to show partiality, 35 but in every nation the man who fears Him and does what is right is welcome to Him. **

Actually that verse in its context I believe is referring to God accepting not only the Jews but also men from any other nationality (aka Gentiles). It can also mean that those who fear God will be more open to the truth of the faith when it is presented to them and will then be accepted by God. I did a search through the fathers for these verses, and St. John Chrysostom shares this understanding. And St. Jerome applies these verses to a baptized person indicating that it is understood that the way God “welcomes” such a person from various nations is through baptism. Chrysostom also further explains this verse here:

Wherefore says Peter, Acts 10:34-35 Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons; but in every nation he that fears Him, and works righteousness, is acceptable to Him: that is, He calls and attracts him unto the truth. Do you see not Paul, that he was more vehement than any one in warring and persecuting? Yet because he led an irreproachable life, and did these things not through humanpassion, he was both received, and reached a mark beyond all. But if any one should say, How does such a one, a Greek, who is kind, and good, and humane, continue in error? this would be my answer: He has some other passion, vainglory, or indolence of mind, or want of carefulness about his own salvation, accounting that all things which concern him are drifted along loosely and at random. Peter calls the man irreproachable in all things one that works righteousness, [and Paul says] touching the righteousness which is in the law found blameless. Again, I give thanks to God, whom I serve from my forefathers with a pure conscience, 2 Timothy 1:3
Notice such a person is drawn and attracted to the truth. This quote from St. Peter is often used to try to say that anyone is accepted by God as long as he is a moral person. Not so. It is those persons free from vices that seek God who can more easily find him. For these God would send a messenger of the truths needed to be believed for salvation. How few of these people though truly exist on the earth today.

What do you mean by “their souls are born dead?”

Their souls are spiritually dead. They are lacking God, who is life. Being “born again” through baptism means that though one’s body is born, their souls is actually being born for the first time in baptism. Hence in a way they are being born again. This time not their body but their soul receives life. The souls are born empty and completely lacking, aka in the state of spiritual death inherited from their first parents and need to be filled with God’s divine life. In the day Adam ate the fruit he “died the death” yet his body continued to live. It was his soul that day that died. We inherit the same dead soul through our human nature that needs to be vivified through Christ.

 

[una_fides]

Hi Ron,

Good question:thumbsup:

Because of the power and binding signifiance of both of the options you suggest, any such expression would be a defacto change in “Official Church Teaching.” Simply not possible.

**CCC 1281 **Those who die for the faith, those who are catechumens, and all those who, without knowing of the Church but acting under the inspiration of grace, seek God sincerely and strive to fulfill his will, can be saved even if they have not been baptized (cf. LG 16).

This teaching gives foundation to the understanding that Because God is and HAS TO BE PERFECTLY JUST, a child not given an opportunity to decide for or against Christ, by Dvine Will, may well be the exception to John 3:5, and fall under the “cover” of parental desire of Baptism for there child, and, as Baptism of Desire is Recognized by the Church, the Mercy and Goodness of God MAY come into play? That is our Hope and our prayer.

Love and prayer,

Pat

Pat,
I recall reading in the Church’s recent document on limbo that baptism of desire only works in the case of the person and that it doesn’t fit regarding parents intending salvation for their children. I suggest reading the document and seeing its points on this regard. If I had more time, I’d search through it and post the relevant parts myself.
Regarding the Catechism passage, it must be understood that such people would be baptized not by water but by blood or desire. Also regarding those who do not know the truth, the Catechism passage does not say that they necessarily die in that state. Such persons could also be illuminated before death through some infused knowledge of God or through an Angel or it could be that God would send to this person someone to explain the truths of the faith before they depart from this world. St. Thomas Aquinas shared this understanding, and I think it helps to resolve the question of how such a person must desire the sacrament of baptism and also make acts of perfect charity and contrition to receive its effects through a baptism of desire. Such persons are not able to yet be catechumens because their desire is still implicit in that it has not yet been communicated explicitly, but the desire itself would be conscious at the point of receiving the sacrament in voto.

 

[PJM]

=una fides;Pat,

I recall reading in the Church’s recent document on limbo that baptism of desire only works in the case of the person and that it doesn’t fit regarding parents intending salvation for their children. I suggest reading the document and seeing its points on this regard. If I had more time, I’d search through it and post the relevant parts myself.

Regarding the Catechism passage, it must be understood that such people would be baptized not by water but by blood or desire. Also regarding those who do not know the truth, the Catechism passage does not say that they necessarily die in that state. Such persons could also be illuminated before death through some infused knowledge of God or through an Angel or it could be that God would send to this person someone to explain the truths of the faith before they depart from this world. St. Thomas Aquinas shared this understanding, and I think it helps to resolve the question of how such a person must desire the sacrament of baptism and also make acts of perfect charity and contrition to receive its effects through a baptism of desire. Such persons are not able to yet be catechumens because their desire is still implicit in that it has not yet been communicated explicitly, but the desire itself would be conscious at the point of receiving the sacrament in voto.

Thanks Great response, what is th name of th document?

From the Catholic Encypodeia"(Late Latin limbus) a word of Teutonic derivation, meaning literally “hem” or “border,” as of a garment, or anything joined on (cf. Italian lembo or English limb).

In theological usage the name is applied to (a) the temporary place or state of the souls of the just who, although purified from sin, were excluded from the beatific vision until Christ’s triumphant ascension into Heaven (the “limbus patrum”); or (b) to the permanent place or state of those unbaptized children and others who, dying without grievous personal sin, are excluded from the beatific vision on account of original sin alone (the “limbus infantium” or “puerorum”).

Limbus patrum
Though it can hardly be claimed, on the evidence of extant literature, that a definite and consistent belief in the limbus patrum of Christian tradition was universal among the Jews, it cannot on the other hand be denied that, more especially in the extra-canonical writings of the second or first centuries B.C., some such belief finds repeated expression; and New Testament references to the subject remove all doubt as to the current Jewish belief in the time of Christ. Whatever name may be used in apocryphal Jewish literature to designate the abode of the departed just, the implication generally is

•that their condition is one of happiness,
•that it is temporary, and
•that it is to be replaced by a condition of final and permanent bliss when the Messianic Kingdom is established.

In the New Testament, Christ refers by various names and figures to the place or state which Catholic tradition has agreed to call the limbus patrum. In Matthew 8:11, it is spoken of under the figure of a banquet “with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in the kingdom of Heaven” (cf. Luke 8:29; 14:15), and in Matthew 25:10 under the figure of a marriage feast to which the prudent virgins are admitted, while in the parable of Lazarus and Dives it is called “Abraham’s bosom” (Luke 16:22) and in Christ’s words to the penitent thief on Calvary the name paradise is used (Luke 23:43). St. Paul teaches (Ephesians 4:9) that before ascending into Heaven Christ “also descended first into the lower parts of the earth,” **and St. Peter still more explicitly teaches that “being put to death indeed, in the flesh, but enlivened in the spirit,” Christ went and “preached to those souls that were in prison, which had been some time incredulous, when they waited for the patience of God in the days of Noah” (1 Peter 3:18-20). **

It is principally on the strength of these Scriptural texts, harmonized with the general doctrine of the Fall and Redemption of mankind, that Catholic tradition has defended the existence of the limbus patrum as a temporary state or place of happiness distinct from Purgatory. As a result of the Fall, Heaven was closed against men. Actual possession of the beatific vision was postponed, even for those already purified from sin, until the Redemption should have been historically completed by Christ’s visible ascendancy into Heaven. Consequently, the just who had lived under the Old Dispensation, and who, either at death or after a course of purgatorial discipline, had attained the perfect holiness required for entrance into glory, were obliged to await the coming of the Incarnate Son of God and the full accomplishment of His visible earthly mission. Meanwhile they were “in prison,” as St. Peter says; but, as Christ’s own words to the penitent thief and in the parable of Lazarus clearly imply, their condition was one of happiness, **notwithstanding the postponement of the higher bliss to which they looked forward. And this, substantially, is all that Catholic tradition teaches regarding the limbus patrum. **

 

[ron77nyc]

Wouldn’t a papal encyclical or an ecumenical council have been a good time to give people hope on these issues rather than leave out the hopeful half of the message? If Augustine said “God is not bound by His sacraments” then those who came later should have known about that one.

Hi Ron,

Good question:thumbsup:

Because of the power and binding signifiance of both of the options you suggest, any such expression would be a defacto change in “Official Church Teaching.” Simply not possible.

Hope for the unbaptized was introduced in the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council. Doesn’t that make it the official teaching of the church?

 

[ron77nyc]

Do you see not Paul, that he was more vehement than any one in warring and persecuting? Yet because he led an irreproachable life, and did these things not through humanpassion, he was both received, and reached a mark beyond all.

Paul was killing Christians. Thou shalt not kill is one of the 10 commandments.

Here is what Paul writes to Timothy. He took no credit in any of his letters for doing good deeds.

1 Timothy 1:12 I thank Christ Jesus our Lord, who has given me strength, that he considered me faithful, appointing me to his service. 13 Even though I was once a blasphemer and a persecutor and a violent man, **I was shown mercy because I acted in ignorance and unbelief. **14 The grace of our Lord was poured out on me abundantly, along with the faith and love that are in Christ Jesus.

Here is Paul writing to Titus.

Titus 3:3 At one time we too were foolish, disobedient, deceived and enslaved by all kinds of passions and pleasures. We lived in malice and envy, being hated and hating one another. 4 But when the kindness and love of God our Savior appeared, 5 he saved us, not because of righteous things we had done, but because of his mercy.

The souls are born empty and completely lacking, aka in the state of spiritual death inherited from their first parents and need to be filled with God’s divine life. In the day Adam ate the fruit he “died the death” yet his body continued to live. It was his soul that day that died. We inherit the same dead soul through our human nature that needs to be vivified through Christ.

We have no way of knowing how God interacts with a child before or after baptism. Some people are baptized and have a conversion or born again experience in later years and some say they don’t know when they first believed in God because there was never a time when He wasn’t in their life. The bible explains how that happens.

Ephesians 1:4 For he chose us in him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight. In love 5 he predestined us to be adopted as his sons through Jesus Christ, in accordance with his pleasure and will—

2 Thessalonians 2:13 But we should always give thanks to God for you, brethren beloved by the Lord, because God has chosen you from the beginning for salvation through sanctification by the Spirit and faith in the truth.

 

[Ed_Sorenson]

We have no way of knowing how God interacts with a child before or after baptism. Some people are baptized and have a conversion or born again experience in later years and some say they don’t know when they first believed in God because there was never a time when He wasn’t in their life. The bible explains how that happens.

Two questions:

If I understand correctly, original sin makes are souls dead to God. Therefore, how could God interact in any way whatsoever if the soul is dead to Him?

At the end of the world, there will only be Heaven or Hell. This does not leave room for “Limbo”. So, it appears the unbaptized will reside either in Heaven or Hell. If it’s Hell, by definition, there is a complete lack of God and therefore no bliss, joy, contentment or anything else good. If it’s Heaven, then the unbaptized person would have been allowed into Heaven anyway.

How can this be answered? (my understanding could be lacking so if my premise is wrong, please let me know why)

 

[ron77nyc]

Two questions:

If I understand correctly, original sin makes are souls dead to God. Therefore, how could God interact in any way whatsoever if the soul is dead to Him?

That was my reason for bringing up Cornelius in Acts 10; to show that an unbaptized man had faith. He was neither a Jew nor a Christian when he was praying and giving to the poor.

 

[StillWondering]

Ron,

I think I might have some useful thoughts about your concerns. There are different degrees of understanding, and I think it would help to go back again to those encyclicals and read them in context. The Church never taught that some of the things you say.

Let me try to use an analogy. If a mathematician said no numbers that humans can understand can ever exclude real numbers. Someone might say, “HA! You are wrong. Imaginary numbers are not real. For example j is an imaginary number. It’s not real. We understand it.”

The mathecmatician can say, “Yes, j is not a subset of the real numbers. But where did we get the understanding for j from? Well the answer is simple, j is defined as sqrt(-1) or j = sqrt(-1). Since -1 is a real number, and j is defined by a real number. The real numbers are required for humans to understand the number j.”

The mathematician did not cheat. And neither did the Church nor Christ. Christ said that we must eat his flesh and drink his blood else we would have no life in us, right? If Christ says that then well Moses is dead. Well technically Moses has died, but if we know Christ’s teachings in the Gospel we would know Moses is alive and well. God is the Lord of life and Moses was at the transfiguration. Did Jesus chain his teaching or lied?

It’s important to understand what the teaching is besides just the verbatim words. We are taught over and over again in the scriptures that faith is gain by listening (not by reading) and that we cannot learn unless there is someone to teach us.

 

[Ed_Sorenson]

Ron,

I think I might have some useful thoughts about your concerns. There are different degrees of understanding, and I think it would help to go back again to those encyclicals and read them in context. The Church never taught that some of the things you say.

Let me try to use an analogy. If a mathematician said no numbers that humans can understand can ever exclude real numbers. Someone might say, “HA! You are wrong. Imaginary numbers are not real. For example j is an imaginary number. It’s not real. We understand it.”

The mathecmatician can say, “Yes, j is not a subset of the real numbers. But where did we get the understanding for j from? Well the answer is simple, j is defined as sqrt(-1) or j = sqrt(-1). Since -1 is a real number, and j is defined by a real number. The real numbers are required for humans to understand the number j.”

The mathematician did not cheat. And neither did the Church nor Christ. Christ said that we must eat his flesh and drink his blood else we would have no life in us, right? If Christ says that then well Moses is dead. Well technically Moses has died, but if we know Christ’s teachings in the Gospel we would know Moses is alive and well. God is the Lord of life and Moses was at the transfiguration. Did Jesus chain his teaching or lied?

It’s important to understand what the teaching is besides just the verbatim words. We are taught over and over again in the scriptures that faith is gain by listening (not by reading) and that we cannot learn unless there is someone to teach us.

I’m not sure the Moses analagy works since he was held accountable to the old covenant and Jesus was the new covenant. Two different sets of rules.

 

[StillWondering]

Two questions:

If I understand correctly, original sin makes are souls dead to God. Therefore, how could God interact in any way whatsoever if the soul is dead to Him?

At the end of the world, there will only be Heaven or Hell. This does not leave room for “Limbo”. So, it appears the unbaptized will reside either in Heaven or Hell. If it’s Hell, by definition, there is a complete lack of God and therefore no bliss, joy, contentment or anything else good. If it’s Heaven, then the unbaptized person would have been allowed into Heaven anyway.

How can this be answered? (my understanding could be lacking so if my premise is wrong, please let me know why)

Dear Ed,

I have some thoughts that may help. In a discussion with a priest about Hell, we talked about how God is always with us because without him nothing exists. Thus those in hell still have God’s reaching out to them. But they are not with God, they are deprived of God. God is not limited like we are where I have to be next to my mom for her to be next to me. Instead if my mom could do what God can, then she can be there right next to me to watch over me but I can still refuse to be with her both physically and spiritually.

As for original sin, it does not make us dead to God since the Sacrament of Baptism did not come until Jesus. Else, all the people in the Old Testament are dead to God but obviously they aren’t. God spoke to Noah, to Abraham, to Issac, and all sorts of other people. Maybe you were taught this and it is a fine starting point. But if you don’t explore more, than you will get stuck because while the idea is fine, it is not through and deep enough. When someone says they are dead to God because of their sin, it means they are cut off from the vine. They cannot receive the sacraments and need to repent. To turn back. If they truly repent, then they will turn around and see God right there. In fact he’s always been chasing us, it’s us who turn our back to him. That is the love story that is the bible. The Old Testament is about God chasing us, and the New is about us realizing it and embracing that love.

Here’s an example that I learned form Scott Hahn in his book, the Lord’s Supper. In the bible we here often of how “God remembered his people” or “God remembered Leah” and so on. Well if God is really God, He did not forget. So what does this mean. It’s a problem with translation and culture. Basically it means God is renewing His covenant with His people. He is renewing the people with Himself. So it means different things in difference contexts, but it’s like saying God gave people a second chance in some passages of scripture and God is refreshing the covenant that His people fail to keep in other passages.

 

[Ed_Sorenson]

That was my reason for bringing up Cornelius in Acts 10; to show that an unbaptized man had faith. He was neither a Jew nor a Christian when he was praying and giving to the poor.

Good point. So is it possible for God to positively interact with a soul lacking santifying grace? If so, God could then interact positively with this sould after death too. No?

 

[StillWondering]

I’m not sure the Moses analagy works since he was held accountable to the old covenant and Jesus was the new covenant. Two different sets of rules.

That is the point. The God in the Old Testament and the New testament is the same God. Same “rules” one might say. God is consistent. Jesus said himself that He did not come to abolish the old covenant, but to fulfill. In the Exodus, we here of how God’s chosen people failed to live up to the covenant. They were meant to be people set apart in holiness so that they can convert the whole world back to God to repair the harm of original sin and renew the relationship God has with all peoples. God spoke many times of sending his prophets to all the nations. Not just the Jews. But because of the many many things that happen during the Exodus, particularly the golden calf worship and the lack of faith that God will provide for his people, there were all these rules set up in Leviticus and Deuteronomy (ewtn.com/vondemand/audio/seriessearchprog.asp?seriesID=-306548622&T1=scott+hahn) to reteach God’s people.

This is the covenant that Jesus fulfilled. However, the same underlining rules apply. We must repent and receive God. This is done differently by different people. But if you read the Book of Revelations, the celebration of the Mass is described there as the Heavenly Banquet. Moses would probably be up there receiving the fullness of Christ is a Heavenly Eucharist – something we cannot imagine as St. Paul teaches us.

 

[ron77nyc]

Ron,

I think I might have some useful thoughts about your concerns. There are different degrees of understanding, and I think it would help to go back again to those encyclicals and read them in context. The Church never taught that some of the things you say…

It’s important to understand what the teaching is besides just the verbatim words. We are taught over and over again in the scriptures that faith is gain by listening (not by reading) and that we cannot learn unless there is someone to teach us.

To say one thing and then say the opposite is not a fuller understanding. It’s a contradiction. Here are some examples:

“Slavery itself, considered as such in its essential nature, is not at all contrary to the natural and divine law, and there can be several just titles of slavery and these are referred to by approved theologians and commentators of the sacred canons… It is not contrary to the natural and divine law for a slave to be sold, bought, exchanged or given”.
Pius IX (Instruction 20 June 1866 AD). J.F.MAXWELL, ‘The Development of Catholic Doctrine Concerning Slavery’, World Jurist 11 (1969-70) pp.306-307…

“Whatever is opposed to life itself, such as . . . arbitrary imprisonment, deportation, prostitution, the selling of women and children, and slavery . . . all these things and others of their like are infamies indeed. They poison human society and are a supreme dishonour to the Creator . .
Human institutions, both private and public, must labour to minister to the dignity and purpose of the human person. Let them put up a stubborn fight against any form of slavery and safeguard the basic human rights under any political system.”
Vatican II, Gaudium et Spes (AD 1965) § 27, 29.

---

“[It is an error to say that] every human being is free to embrace and profess that religion which, led by the light of reason he/she believes to be true”.
Pius IX Syllabus of Errors (1864 AD), Denz. 1715.

“This Vatican Synod declares that the human person has a right to religious freedom. This freedom means that all people are to be immune from coercion on the part of individuals or of social groups and of any human power, in such wise that in matters religious no one is to be forced to act in a manner contrary to his/her own beliefs.”
Vatican II, Dignitatis Humanae (1965 AD) § 2

---

“[It is an error to say that] it is praiseworthy that in certain Catholic countries it is provided for by law that people who immigrate from outside may publicly exercise their own form of worship.”
Pius IX Syllabus of Errors (1864 AD), Denz. 1778.

“Religious bodies rightfully claim freedom to govern themselves according to their own norms, honour the Supreme Being in public worship, assist their members in the practice of the religious life, strengthen them by instruction and promote institutions by which they may join together for the purpose of ordering their own lives in accordance with their own religious principles.”
Vatican II, Dignitatis Humanae (1965 AD) § 5.