Can the Church change its teaching?

[una_fides]

When the messengers of John had left, Jesus began to speak to the crowds about John. "What did you go out to the desert to see–a reed swayed by the wind?

Then what did you go out to see? Someone dressed in fine garments? Those who dress luxuriously and live sumptuously are found in royal palaces.

Then what did you go out to see? A prophet? Yes, I tell you, and more than a prophet.

This is the one about whom scripture says: ‘Behold, I am sending my messenger ahead of you, he will prepare your way before you.’

I tell you, among those born of women, no one is greater than John; yet the least in the kingdom of God is greater than he."
Luke 7 24:28

These words were spoken by Our Lord Himself of John, before his beheading. I just thought I’d throw that into the mix of thoughts on the subject.

Absolutely right. He was the greatest saint, other than the Blessed Virgin Mary, to have ever lived! He is ranked even higher in the litany of the saints than St. Joseph! That said, he still had concupiscence and as a result most likely committed some sin at some point in his life, whether mortal or venial, I don’t know. Scripture says that “all have sinned” so I would conclude that he would fall into that category since we have no exception given for him according to divine revelation. The only two human exceptions we have are Jesus and Mary. Please don’t think for a minute that I would ever belittle John the Baptist!! He is such a great saint. I think he should be invoked more frequently than he currently is today by name.

Here is the English translation of the Confiteor that used to be prayed at all Catholic Masses before the “reforms” that followed Vatican II cut out the invocation of most saints by name in the new mass:

I CONFESS to almighty God, to blessed Mary ever Virgin, to blessed Michael the Archangel, to blessed John the Baptist, to the holy apostles Peter and Paul, and to all the saints that I have sinned exceedingly in thought, word, and deed, through my fault, through my fault, through my most grievous fault. Therefore, I beseech blessed Mary ever Virgin, blessed Michael the Archangel, blessed John the Baptist, the holy apostles Peter and Paul, and all the saints, to pray for me to the Lord our God. Amen. preces-latinae.org/thesaurus/Basics/Confiteor.html

 

[sidbrown]

If an infant, child, or anyone dies in a state of original sin only, then it goes to hell. This is a dogma of the faith. The soul would be lacking sanctifying grace, without which it could not enter into heaven. “You must be born again”

The Church has in recent years speculated that there could be a way unknown to us that God saves these children who die without being baptized (i.e. he takes them out a state of original sin and places them into a state of grace).

The Catholic Church has been around for 2000 years. Why all this time it has said that the unbaptised child will go to hell, but only recently it has said possibly not. Is this not a serious change in Catholic teaching?

 

[sidbrown]

    Innocent VI: "His [Aquinas’] teaching above that of others, the canonical writings alone excepted, enjoys such a precision of language, an order of matters, **a truth of conclusions**, that **those who hold to it are never found swerving from the path of truth**, and **he who dare assail it will always be suspected of error.**" 
              [http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Leo13/l13cph.htm](http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Leo13/l13cph.htm)

Does this also hold for the teaching of St. Thomas Aquinas that heretics should be exterminated and the women are inferior to men?

 

[StillWondering]

If one is not been baptized in the Church, he cannot bear fruit, for if one has no seed, he has no roots or tree, and if he has no tree, he cannot possibly bear fruit. Otherwise, where would the fruit be coming from? You need to be a branch attached to the Vine in order to produce fruit. To be a branch attached to the Vine, we must “abide” in him. This word “abide” is also used in reference to receiving Christ in holy Communion (John 6), so to abide we must be receiving Christ in his sacraments so we can produce fruit.

There are many conceptions that are not even noticed because they embryo are not viable from the start. There are also countless numbers of miscarriages a year. So what you mean is that these babies are destined to Hell by nature? Also, if this is the case, why would couples who use “the pill” for medical reasons be allowed to have relations since babies would be conceived that would not be allowed baptism.

I remember reading from an apologist here that those who do not commit personal sin cannot go to Hell. However, without sanctifying grace, the same souls cannot go to Heaven. If this is true, then what you are saying is not true.

I will need to investigate this, but my instincts tell me that you are taking statements far beyond their original intention.

---

An inquiry I have that I hope someone can answer, during the first 1000 years of Church history, did the Church officially allowed funeral rites for miscarriage children. If the Church did, then she would not have presumed these children are condemned to Hell because they were not baptized.

 

[una_fides]

The Catholic Church has been around for 2000 years. Why all this time it has said that the unbaptised child will go to hell, but only recently it has said possibly not. Is this not a serious change in Catholic teaching?

Can you show me official teaching of the Church where it says that an unbaptized child will go to hell? The wording I see says those who die in original sin only, but it does not say “unbaptized children.”

Furthermore, this new speculation by the Church was not passed on as doctrine that has to be believed or as anything definitive. It was presented as it is–speculation. It basically said that this hope that there could be some means of salvation for unbaptized infants is a viable belief but not a necessary one.

 

[una_fides]

Does this also hold for the teaching of St. Thomas Aquinas that heretics should be exterminated and the women are inferior to men?

Sid, we’ve had these conversations before. I know of your disdain for the Angelic Doctor and his teachings. If you wish to start up threads on either of these two topics by posting exactly what Aquinas said so that it can then be fairly examined, then be my guest. I do not have the time nor would it be within the scope of this discussion for me to try to clarify these things for you. According to several popes, however, your assailing of Aquinas’s teachings are automatically suspect of error.

 

[una_fides]

There are many conceptions that are not even noticed because they embryo are not viable from the start. There are also countless numbers of miscarriages a year. So what you mean is that these babies are destined to Hell by nature? Also, if this is the case, why would couples who use “the pill” for medical reasons be allowed to have relations since babies would be conceived that would not be allowed baptism.

I remember reading from an apologist here that those who do not commit personal sin cannot go to Hell. However, without sanctifying grace, the same souls cannot go to Heaven. If this is true, then what you are saying is not true.

I will need to investigate this, but my instincts tell me that you are taking statements far beyond their original intention.

Council of Florence (infallible): “the souls of those dying in actual mortal sin or in original sin alone go down at once (mox) into Hell, to be punished, however, with widely different penalties.” newadvent.org/cathen/09256a.htm

-vs.-

Apologist: “Without unforgiven personal sin, a soul cannot go to hell and be punished.”

Which is correct? The authority of a general Council making a dogmatic declaration = infallible. The authority of an apologist speaking from his own theological opinion = 0.

I respect apologists and commend their work, and I’m sure there was likely some source from which the author drew the information. Nevertheless, it appears to be contradictory to this infallible declaration from Florence.

 

[sidbrown]

Sid, we’ve had these conversations before. I know of your disdain for the Angelic Doctor and his teachings. If you wish to start up threads on either of these two topics by posting exactly what Aquinas said so that it can then be fairly examined, then be my guest. I do not have the time nor would it be within the scope of this discussion for me to try to clarify these things for you. According to several popes, however, your assailing of Aquinas’s teachings are automatically suspect of error.

You post a thread supporting the idea that we should follow the teachings of St. Thomas Aquinas. I simply asked if that includes his teaching that heretics should be exterminated or that women are inferior to men. SMT SS Q[11] A[3] Body Para. 1/2 and see:
“The male sex is more noble than the female, and for this reason He took human nature in the male sex.” (ST) III, q. 31, a. 4, reply to obj. 1

 

[sidbrown]

Can you show me official teaching of the Church where it says that an unbaptized child will go to hell? The wording I see says those who die in original sin only, but it does not say “unbaptized children.”

Furthermore, this new speculation by the Church was not passed on as doctrine that has to be believed or as anything definitive. It was presented as it is–speculation. It basically said that this hope that there could be some means of salvation for unbaptized infants is a viable belief but not a necessary one.

The Baltimore Catechism mentions this.

 

[surritter]

Hmm – my little Baltimore Catechism #3 says on page 130 that “Persons, such as infants, who have not committed actual sin and who, through no fault of theirs, die without baptism, cannot enter heaven…”

So Sid brings up a fair question. I would say that’s still not proof of God deviating from His promise to guide the Church forever. The Baltimore Catechism is NOT an infallible document. It was a teaching tool approved for use in the USA.

 

[rinnie]

If we die in a state of actual mortal sin or in original sin only, the result is the same: hell.

Yes that is what I call mortal danger.

 

[rinnie]

Hmm – my little Baltimore Catechism #3 says on page 130 that “Persons, such as infants, who have not committed actual sin and who, through no fault of theirs, die without baptism, cannot enter heaven…”

So Sid brings up a fair question. I would say that’s still not proof of God deviating from His promise to guide the Church forever. The Baltimore Catechism is NOT an infallible document. It was a teaching tool approved for use in the USA.

But the teaching of the CHurch is also with extra-ordinary means it is possible. Which to put it in simple terms we do not know, but must rely on Gods Mercy.

 

[rinnie]

The Catholic Church has been around for 2000 years. Why all this time it has said that the unbaptised child will go to hell, but only recently it has said possibly not. Is this not a serious change in Catholic teaching?

The Catholic Church never did. The CC agrees that God wants no one to enter hell. The CC said it does not know. The CC only knows what is revealed to it by the Holy Spirit. And the Holy Spirit has never confirmed that an infant who is not baptised is condemned to hell. If you see a teaching of the RCC that has ever stated it please show it.

Again the RCC recomments that all be baptised in the Church and cannot enter heaven without being baptised. But it also states that by the mercy and goodness of Christ all is possible. So what the Church states is that God through his love and mercy can trump anything.

Bottom line it can only teach you what has been revealed not what has not. A unbaptised baby going straight to hell has never been revealed to the RCC. But a unbaptised going straight to heaven has never been revealed either.

The RCC thought the Holy Spirit may through the years being guided by the Holy Spirit may undertand this teaching more clear. But for now the HS and not revealed it.

So now the CHurch can only teach when you have a Baby give that soul to God as soon as possible. Do not take any chances.

 

[surritter]

But the teaching of the CHurch is also with extra-ordinary means it is possible. Which to put it in simple terms we do not know, but must rely on Gods Mercy.

True. But the Baltimore Catechism does make it sound like actual water baptism as we know it is required.

Of course, God can operate outside of that physical reception of water to impart the same grace as baptism would, but we can only call that speculation.

Either way, it’s not a proof of the Church changing a teaching.

 

[rinnie]

True. But the Baltimore Catechism does make it sound like actual water baptism as we know it is required.

Of course, God can operate outside of that physical reception of water to impart the same grace as baptism would, but we can only call that speculation.

Either way, it’s not a proof of the Church changing a teaching.

Now my friend comes the problem in religion, don’t you agree. People reading something and seeing what they see, instead of what it is saying

That my dear was what separated the Church. People telling the Church what it meant

 

[rinnie]

True. But the Baltimore Catechism does make it sound like actual water baptism as we know it is required.

Of course, God can operate outside of that physical reception of water to impart the same grace as baptism would, but we can only call that speculation.

Either way, it’s not a proof of the Church changing a teaching.

ANd you are correct is is required Jesus said so. But it never said that babys are condemned to hell. The church actually said it has not been revealed to us yet. But it can from existing scripture. But the Holy Spirit must open our minds to it through the Church. ANd for now our teaching is the mercy on God we can never imagine, And his love for kids is great.

 

[ron77nyc]

If an infant, child, or anyone dies in a state of original sin only, then it goes to hell.

You can’t put all unbaptized infants into one category. Jesus also promised the Father that He would not lose any, so if Jesus does have some other way not known to us (maybe He has His own baptism ceremony after death for those who didn’t get one here) I would not be arguing with Him if I had the chance. The Lord is not one to follow rules and rituals if they get in the way of mercy and compassion. I would argue with Pope Eugene and Thomas Aquinas. Why were they so cold and dogmatic? The bible calls their thinking doctrines of demons and vain imaginings. If they weren’t sure about it they should have said nothing.

 

[una_fides]

Yes that is what I call mortal danger.

What do you mean by that?

 

[ron77nyc]

ANd you are correct is is required Jesus said so. But it never said that babys are condemned to hell. The church actually said it has not been revealed to us yet.

If the state of unbaptized infants was not revealed why were they teaching everyone about limbo?

But it can from existing scripture. But the Holy Spirit must open our minds to it through the Church. ANd for now our teaching is the mercy on God we can never imagine, And his love for kids is great.

The Church always had the scriptures and the Holy Spirit and the fullness of truth. Why did they not know about God’s mercy before. That’s Catholic 101. Something is missing from the puzzle.

 

[una_fides]

The Catholic Church never did. The CC agrees that God wants no one to enter hell. The CC said it does not know. The CC only knows what is revealed to it by the Holy Spirit. And the Holy Spirit has never confirmed that an infant who is not baptised is condemned to hell. If you see a teaching of the RCC that has ever stated it please show it.

See the post just before this one. It cites the Baltimore Catechism: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=6345061#post6345061

The RCC thought the Holy Spirit may through the years being guided by the Holy Spirit may undertand this teaching more clear. But for now the HS and not revealed it.

If the Church doesn’t have the revelation now, it never will. Public revelation ended at the death of the last apostle. The Church now is bound to Tradition, and the problematic thing about this new teaching that unbaptized infants could potentially be saved is that you can’t find this teaching anywhere in the 2000 year tradition of the Church. It is a new proposition. The only ones who ever taught such a thing, were not Catholics, but were excommunicated heretics: the Pelagians.