Can the Church change its teaching?

[ron77nyc]

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?

Of course. That’s why there was always hope for the unbaptized and people who take their own life. Why was the hopeful half of the message never recognized or spoken about until the 1960’s? Either the Church didn’t know about it or they knew and didn’t want anyone else to know.

 

[sidbrown]

Their souls are spiritually dead. .

Is it really Catholic teaching today that the souls of the Jews or Hindus or Buddhists are dead? If the souls of Buddhists are dead then why are there so many Jesuit priests and other Catholic clergy studying and finding out all they can about Buddhism and its practices and attempting to bring Buddhist meditation and practices into Christian spirituality?

 

[Ultima_Ratio]

Of course. That’s why there was always hope for the unbaptized and people who take their own life. Why was the hopeful half of the message never recognized or spoken about until the 1960’s? Either the Church didn’t know about it or they knew and didn’t want anyone else to know.

Unless I missed understood you, what you said was totally wrong. After death there is no chance for salvation. Our eternity is fixed at the moment of death.

Regarding how God communicates with those not in the state of grace, he does this through actual grace. Sanctifying grace is a “habitus” something that we are clothed with. Actual grace is, what some call, an inspiration of the Holy Ghost.

Regarding those who die in original sin only: they go immediately to hell, but they suffer different punishment than those who have committed actual sin.

Council of Lyons II, 1274: “The souls of those who die in mortal sin or with original sin only, however, immediately descend to hell, yet to be punished with different punishments.” (Denzinger 464)

**Council of Florence, 1438-1445: **“The souls of those who depart in actual mortal sin or in original sin only, descend immediately into hell but to undergo punishments of different kinds” (Denzinger 694)

There are two schools of thought on the punishment suffered by those who die in original sin only. According to the school of St. Augustine, they suffer the loss of the beatific vision (the vision of God) and a very slight pain or sense. According to the more common teaching adhered to by St. Thomas and most other theologians, those who die in original sin only, live in a state of perfect happiness, only lacking the vision of God.

The Church knows of no way that a child under the age of reason can attain the state of grace. The only reason there can remain any “hope” that they might, is that there could be some way for God to bring this about… but if there is, the Church does not know about it.

**Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence: **“Regarding children, indeed, because of danger of death, which can often take place, when no help can be brought to them by another remedy than through the sacrament of baptism, through which they are snatched from the domination of the Devil and adopted among the sons of God, it advises that holy baptism ought not be deferred for forty or eighty days, or any time according to the observance of certain people.”

 

[Ultima_Ratio]

Is it really Catholic teaching today that the souls of the Jews or Hindus or Buddhists are dead?

They have natural life, but not supernatural life. Supernatural life, which is necessary for salvation, is above our nature. Due to original sin, we come into this world without supernatural life (grace) in our soul. That’s why we must be “born again”, as Jesus said, to enter the kingdom of heaven (John 3).

If the souls of Buddhists are dead then why are there so many Jesuit priests and other Catholic clergy studying and finding out all they can about Buddhism and its practices and attempting to bring Buddhist meditation and practices into Christian spirituality?

Good question. The most probably answer is because they have lost the faith.

 

[sidbrown]

They have natural life, but not supernatural life. Supernatural life, which is necessary for salvation, is above our nature. Due to original sin, we come into this world without supernatural life (grace) in our soul. That’s why we must be “born again”, as Jesus said, to enter the kingdom of heaven (John 3).

Good question. The most probably answer is because they have lost the faith.

I don;t think that Thomas Merton would agree that Buddhists are spiritually dead. Further, I don’t think that Cardinal Kasper would agree with this concerning the Jews since he has declared that the Jewish covenant is salvific for a Jew.

 

[Ultima_Ratio]

I don;t think that Thomas Merton would agree that Buddhists are spiritually dead. Further, I don’t think that Cardinal Kasper would agree with this concerning the Jews since he has declared that the Jewish covenant is salvific for a Jew.

I wouldn’t look to Thomas Merton for theological teachings. And regarding the old covenant, it was abolished and is now null. As such, it won’t save anyone, Jew or Gentile. In fact, practicing the old law today is a mortal sin, since doing so is an implicit denial of Christ. The following is one quote out of many I could provide.

Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis Christi (1943): "29. **And first of all, by the death of our Redeemer, the New Testament took the place of the Old Law which had been abolished; **then the Law of Christ together with its mysteries, enactments, institutions, and sacred rites was ratified for the whole world in the blood of Jesus Christ. For, while our Divine Savior was preaching in a restricted area - He was not sent but to the sheep that were lost of the House of Israel [30] - the Law and the Gospel were together in force; [31] but on the gibbet of His death Jesus made void the Law with its decrees [32] fastened the handwriting of the Old Testament to the Cross, [33] establishing the New Testament in His blood shed for the whole human race.[34] “To such an extent, then,” says St. Leo the Great, speaking of the Cross of our Lord, “was there effected a transfer from the Law to the Gospel, from the Synagogue to the Church, from the many sacrifices to one Victim, that, as Our Lord expired, that mystical veil which shut off the innermost part of the temple and its sacred secret was rent violently from top to bottom.” [35]

1. On the Cross then the Old Law died, soon to be buried and to be a bearer of death, [36] in order to give way to the New Testament of which Christ had chosen the Apostles as qualified ministers

 

[PJM]

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.

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

I kinda recall reading it too, but can’t recall WHEN OR WHERE. Do you remember which document; I’ll see if I can find it before commenting further.

 

[Ultima_Ratio]

Here’s one more quote regarding the old law.

Council of Florence: "It firmly believes, professes, and teaches that the matter pertaining to the law of the Old Testament, of the Mosaic law, which are divided into ceremonies, sacred rites, sacrifices, and sacraments, because they were established to signify something in the future, although they were suited to the divine worship at that time, after our Lord’s coming had been signified by them, **CEASED, and the sacraments of the New Testament began; **and that whoever, even after the passion, placed hope in these matters of the law and submitted himself to them as necessary for salvation, as if faith in Christ could not save without them, sinned mortally. Yet it does not deny that after the passion of Christ up to the promulgation of the Gospel they could have been observed until they were believed to be in no way necessary for salvation; **but after the promulgation of the Gospel it asserts that they CANNOT BE OBSERVED without the loss of eternal salvation. All, therefore, who after that time observe circumcision and the Sabbath and the other requirements of the law, it declares alien to the Christian faith and not in the least fit to participate in eternal salvation, **unless someday they recover from these errors." (February 4, 1441)

 

[sidbrown]

I wouldn’t look to Thomas Merton for theological teachings. And regarding the old covenant, it was abolished and is now null. As such, it won’t save anyone, Jew or Gentile. In fact, practicing the old law today is a mortal sin, since doing so is an implicit denial of Christ. The following is one quote out of many I could provide.

Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis Christi (1943): "29. And first of all, by the death of our Redeemer, the New Testament took the place of the Old Law which had been abolished; then the Law of Christ together with its mysteries, enactments, institutions, and sacred rites was ratified for the whole world in the blood of Jesus Christ. **For, while our Divine Savior was preaching in a restricted area - He was not sent but to the sheep that were lost of the House of Israel [30] - the Law and the Gospel were together in force; [31] but on the gibbet of His death Jesus made void the Law **with its decrees [32] fastened the handwriting of the Old Testament to the Cross, [33] establishing the New Testament in His blood shed for the whole human race.[34] “To such an extent, then,” says St. Leo the Great, speaking of the Cross of our Lord, “was there effected a transfer from the Law to the Gospel, from the Synagogue to the Church, from the many sacrifices to one Victim, that, as Our Lord expired, that mystical veil which shut off the innermost part of the temple and its sacred secret was rent violently from top to bottom.” [35]

1. On the Cross then the Old Law died, soon to be buried and to be a bearer of death, [36] in order to give way to the New Testament of which Christ had chosen the Apostles as qualified ministers

That’s not what Cardinal Kasper has said or what the Pope has said:
Cardinal Walter Kasper: “… the old theory of substitution [that is, the theory of the New Covenant substituting for the Old] is gone since the Second Vatican Council… Therefore, the Church believes that Judaism, i.e., the faithful response of the Jewish people to God’s irrevocable covenant, is salvific for them, because God is faithful to his promises.” (Address at the 17th meeting of the International Catholic-Jewish Liaison Committee, New York, May 1, 2001.)
Pope Benedict XVI (Cardinal Ratzinger):God and the World, 2000, pp. 150-151: “This is another of the paradoxes that the New Testament sets before us. On the one hand, their [the Jews] No to Christ brings the Israelites into conflict with the subsequent acts of God, but at the same time we know that they are assured of the faithfulness of God. They are not excluded from salvation, but they serve in a particular way, and thereby they stand within the patience of God, in which we, too, place our trust.”
So this is another example of where the Church has changed its teaching.

 

[ServantofMary]

That’s not what Cardinal Kasper has said or what the Pope has said:
Cardinal Walter Kasper: “… the old theory of substitution [that is, the theory of the New Covenant substituting for the Old] is gone since the Second Vatican Council… Therefore, the Church believes that Judaism, i.e., the faithful response of the Jewish people to God’s irrevocable covenant, is salvific for them, because God is faithful to his promises.” (Address at the 17th meeting of the International Catholic-Jewish Liaison Committee, New York, May 1, 2001.)
Pope Benedict XVI (Cardinal Ratzinger):God and the World, 2000, pp. 150-151: “This is another of the paradoxes that the New Testament sets before us. On the one hand, their [the Jews] No to Christ brings the Israelites into conflict with the subsequent acts of God, but at the same time we know that they are assured of the faithfulness of God. They are not excluded from salvation, but they serve in a particular way, and thereby they stand within the patience of God, in which we, too, place our trust.”
So this is another example of where the Church has changed its teaching.

No, this is not another example of where the Church has changed its teaching. It’s simply examples of two individuals saying things that are contrary to the Catholic Faith.

 

[Ed_Sorenson]

Council of Lyons II, 1274: “The souls of those who die in mortal sin or with original sin only, however, immediately descend to hell, yet to be punished with different punishments.” (Denzinger 464)

Council of Florence, 1438-1445: “The souls of those who depart in actual mortal sin or in original sin only, descend immediately into hell but to undergo punishments of different kinds” (Denzinger 694)

Are these statements held as infallable? If so, please explain how the innocent could go to hell in regards to justice.

 

[Ultima_Ratio]

That’s not what Cardinal Kasper has said or what the Pope has said:

Cardinal Walter Kasper: “… the old theory of substitution [that is, the theory of the New Covenant substituting for the Old] is gone since the Second Vatican Council… Therefore, the Church believes that Judaism, i.e., the faithful response of the Jewish people to God’s irrevocable covenant, is salvific for them, because God is faithful to his promises.” (Address at the 17th meeting of the International Catholic-Jewish Liaison Committee, New York, May 1, 2001.)

Indeed, Cardinal Kasper may reject what the Church has always taught. He wouldn’t be the first heretic in the history of the Church.

Pope Benedict XVI (Cardinal Ratzinger):God and the World, 2000, pp. 150-151: “This is another of the paradoxes that the New Testament sets before us. On the one hand, their [the Jews] No to Christ brings the Israelites into conflict with the subsequent acts of God, but at the same time we know that they are assured of the faithfulness of God. They are not excluded from salvation, but they serve in a particular way, and thereby they stand within the patience of God, in which we, too, place our trust.”

Regarding the quote from Ratzinger back on 2000 (before being elected Pope), it is true that the Jews “are not excluded from salvation”. Anyone can be saved if the convert to the Catholic Church, including the Jews. But no Jew will be saved by practicing the old Covenent

So this is another example of where the Church has changed its teaching.

The teachings of the Church cannot change. Why? Because no one in the Church has the authority, or ability, to change a definitive teaching. Not even the Pope can change a teaching of the Church, nor can he make up a new teaching. The job of the Pope is simply to guard the deposit of faith by condemning contrary errors and defining doctrines when necessary.

First Vatican Council: “For, the Holy Spirit was not promised to the successors of Peter that by His revelation they might disclose new doctrine, but that by His help they might guard sacredly the revelation transmitted through the apostles and the deposit of faith, and might faithfully set it forth”.

What is happening in the Church in the current crisis, is not that it is officially changing Church teachings (which it can’t do), but rather that the majority of the hierarchy no longer believe what the Church teaches. That is what is happening today, and it began at Vatican II. Prior to that, you found a perfect harmony with what had been taught for 1965 years.

This current crisis has been predicted. In fact, the approved apparition of Our Lady of Good Success even gave the date. Three hundred years ago she said the crisis would hit in the “second half of the 20th century”, and she was right. This crisis will shake the faith of most people. You can see that in this thread. Ron is arguing that the Church can change its teaching. I don’t fault Ron personally. He is simply looking at the situation and has drawn a wrong conclusion. God has allowed this crisis for reasons known to Himself. In order to remain strong in the faith during this time of crsis, you must pray daily for an increase in faith, and read the old encyclical - where the faith is taught clearly. That is the answer.

 

[Ultima_Ratio]

Are these statements held as infallable? If so, please explain how the innocent could go to hell in regards to justice.

1.) Yes, the teachings are infallible.

2.) Great question. The word “hell” does not only mean what we think of by the word “hell”. In other words, it does not only mean the fiery place with the devil. Hell means separation from God. The place that we call “Limbo” is also “hell”. It is separation from God, but a place where there is no pain. It is a place of perfect natural happiness. When we read that those who die in original sin only go to hell, it is referring to Limbo.

Now, someone will surely object by saying *“Limbo was only a theological opinion. It was never a doctrine of the Church”. * That very common statement is false. While it is true that Limbo was never defined de fide, the only thing that is uncertain is if the person suffers pain or not. As mentioned in an earlier post, St. Augustine believed they did suffer a little pain of sense, but the more common opinion is that they suffer no pain at all, but instead are in a place of perfect happiness. But to say Limbo is not a doctrine is completely misleading.

For more on this topic, see the following article by Fr. Brian Harrison: Could Limbo be abolished?

 

[Ed_Sorenson]

Thanks for the answers.

But, how can one call the punishment of the innocent justice? If they are seperated from God, they are being punished. If they feel sense of pain, it’s even worse!

 

[Ed_Sorenson]

Thanks for the answers.

But, how can one call the punishment of the innocent justice? If they are seperated from God, they are being punished. If they feel sense of pain, it’s even worse!

Furthermore, if this is true, why does the Church not take seriously the immediate baptism of every infant as soon as it is born! Baptism is the only matter saving the baby from hell! What more of a salvic concern could there be!

While it is true that Limbo was never defined de fide

If it is not defined de fide, it is not infallible and can therefore be questioned or changed. No?

 

[sidbrown]

No, this is not another example of where the Church has changed its teaching. It’s simply examples of two individuals saying things that are contrary to the Catholic Faith.

Two individuals? But one of them is the Vicar of Christ and the Supreme Pontiff of the Roman Catholic Church?

 

[PJM]

=Ed Sorenson;6246688]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)

Hi Ed,

GREAT questions! Thanks,

Original sin, like Mortal sin [1 John 5:16-17, John 20:19-23] does not in this life “kill us.” Rather the effect is to GREATLY lessen God’s flow of grace, and ruptures our relationship with Him until we take the medicine [do] what Dr. God orders for the cure. Baptism, and for Mortal sin after Baptism, Confession.

This is a far beter and more accurate depiction of what happens, and what needs to happen. SUFFICENT grace if offered by Divine mandate in Divin Jstice; everyone has to have had to opportunity for salvation, and a opportunity to deny, reject this opportunity.

Love and prayers,

Pat

 

[Ultima_Ratio]

Thanks for the answers.

But, how can one call the punishment of the innocent justice? If they are seperated from God, they are being punished. If they feel sense of pain, it’s even worse!

Another great question. This is the answer: Men have no right to supernatural life (grace) or to heaven. It is true that we were created for heaven, but heaven itself is not something that is due to us. If we attain heaven, it is due to a pure gift from God. That being said, it follows that if someone does not attain heaven, they are not being deprived of something that is due. Therefore, it is not a punishment in the true sense of the word. Going to Limbo and living in a state of perfect happiness (similar to the Garden of Eden) is not a bad thing.

Now, I agree with you that suffering pain (such as Augustine taught) would seem to be unjust. This would constitute a punishment in the true sense of the word, and would seem unjust since the person did not do anything to deserve it.
EdSorenson:

Furthermore, if this is true, why does the Church not take seriously the immediate baptism of every infant as soon as it is born! Baptism is the only matter saving the baby from hell! What more of a salvic concern could there be!

It does take it very seriously. It teaches that a baby should be baptized right away, since it is necessary for salvation. It even teaches that if a baby is born sick and may possibly die, the parents should have the nurse baptize the baby in the hospital. But it is the responsibility of the parents primarily to make sure the child is baptised at once.

Catechism of Trent: “Baptism Of Infants Should Not Be Delayed”:** "The faithful are earnestly to be exhorted to take care that their children be brought to the church, as soon as it can be done with safety, to receive solemn Baptism. Since infant children have no other means of salvation except Baptism, we may easily understand how grievously those persons sin who permit them to remain without the grace of the Sacrament longer than necessity may require, particularly at an age so tender as to be exposed to numberless dangers of death.**

 

[Ed_Sorenson]

Hi Ed,

GREAT questions! Thanks,

Original sin, like Mortal sin [1 John 5:16-17, John 20:19-23] does not in this life “kill us.” Rather the effect is to GREATLY lessen God’s flow of grace, and ruptures our relationship with Him until we take the medicine [do] what Dr. God orders for the cure. Baptism, and for Mortal sin after Baptism, Confession.

This is a far beter and more accurate depiction of what happens, and what needs to happen. SUFFICENT grace if offered by Divine mandate in Divin Jstice; everyone has to have had to opportunity for salvation, and a opportunity to deny, reject this opportunity.

Love and prayers,

Pat

How does an unbaptized baby have the opportunity for salvation? The Church has defined they will go to hell. They have made no choice and have rejected nothing. Nor have they had the ability to do so.

 

[sidbrown]

The teachings of the Church cannot change. .

Sorry, but it looks to me like the Catholic Church has changed its teachings in several areas:

1. That slaves be subject to their masters.
2. That torture is allowed to extract confessions.
3. That the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father.
4. That profane music, clapping and clowns be allowed at Mass.
5. The conditions taught in the past necessary to obtain a marriage annulment have been changed so that now almost anyone can get it in the USA. In the past it was only for serious reasons such as impotence or previous marriage or next of kin relationships.
6. the primary purpose of marriage is the procreation of children and the secondary purpose of marriage is unitive. This has been changed so that it is now taught that they are coequal.
7. Baptism is necessary for salvation.