Can the Church change its teaching?

[una_fides]

Do you have a reference? I am almost positive that the theory of Limbus Infantum does not originate with Saint Augustine.

I have seen it traced as far back as Peter Abelard. Looking just recently for this thread I didn’t find anything else.
Limbo appears to be actually the more modern belief, and the more merciful alternative to Augustine. It may not even be 1000 years as a theory in the Latin church.

To reject Limbo of the infants is to say that the unbaptized are damned straight out, according to Latin Catholic tradition that does go back to Augustine circa 410AD (and possibly Tertullian circa 200AD). This seems to be the underlying theology at the foundation of everything else. It seems to be the original reason in the Latin church why it was considered so important to baptise the newborn.

To reject Limbo of the infants and also doubt the damnation, or to be uncertain over Limbo of the infants and/or be uncertain about the damnation (such as expressions of hope for their full salvation) appears to be the more modern (or some might say modernist) tendency for Latin Catholics. It is not traditional.

Very true. Again you can’t find any Church fathers teaching that unbaptized infants could be saved. It is a new modern(ist) speculation that was only formerly taught by heretics.

 

[una_fides]

Can this theory of developing a more nuanced understanding of faith, be then applied to allow for women priests or allow for the use of artificial birth control, etc.? This would involve no change in Catholic teaching, only a nuanced development such as we see in this case of limbo or in the case of slavery, etc.

Good point. However, the Church has infallibly defined that it is impossible for a woman to be ordained a priest or for contraception to ever be morally licit. She has not infallibly defined that infants that die without baptism go to hell, though she has taught it for 2000 years. Btw, limbo is in hell. It’s in the highest part of hell. It literally means “edge” as in the highest edge of hell.

 

[una_fides]

Divine revelation says that Saint John the Baptist was “filled with the Holy Ghost, even from his mother’s womb” [Luke 1:15]. It should also be noted that in addition to honoring the day of his martyrdom, the Roman Catholic Church also celebrates the day of his birth. As far as I know, the only other saint so honored is our Lady. The other saints are honored on the day they “fell asleep in the Lord”. We know from the moment of their deaths on, they committed no sin. IMHO, we honor the birth of Saint John because from that moment on, he was never guilty of any sin.

As far as the “all have sinned” quote goes, I think that by “all” St. Paul meant both Jews and gentiles. Take another look at Romans 3:9 in context. I think the point that St. Paul was making throughout the chapter is that the Old Testament law is not sufficient for salvation, so that Jews as well gentiles need a savior.

If one reads verse 3:9 as meaning precisely each and every individual who ever lived, then that would include infants, and the verses that follow would be nonsensical. How many lying, cursing, blood-thirsty newborn babies have you ever heard of? It wasn’t St. Paul purpose to go hunting for exceptions that would obscure the point he was making: the need for a savior.

Here’s a more clear verse: **Rom 5:12 Wherefore as by one man sin entered into this world and by sin death: and so death passed upon all men, in whom all have sinned. **
All have sinned in Adam. John the Baptist included inherited original sin. Even if he never committed an actual sin in his life, he nevertheless sinned in Adam by inheriting his human nature.

 

[jmihm2]

I will have to agree to others who have posted that, outside a dogma or infalliable declaration, a teaching of the Church can change.

Matt 16:19
And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.

One of the reasons Jesus established his Church was precisely this: to make whatever laws necessary to implement his teachings - whatever laws would be necessary for the good of souls. (The Faith Explained) We are speaking of laws here, but would the Church not have the power to change its teaching, for the good of souls?

Furthermore, “the power of binding is exercised…by making rules and laws for the government of the Church…by determining what is of faith by the judgments and definitions of the Church. It follows, And whatsoever you shall bind; that is, whomsoever you shall judge unworthy of forgiveness while he lives, shall be judged unworthy with God; and whatsoever you shall loose, that is, whomsoever you shall judge worthy to be forgiven while he lives, shall obtain forgiveness of his sins from God.” Catena Aurea (early Church fathers).

Was teaching that the unbaptized could reach heaven ever formally defined as a heresy by the Church?

Though Augustine and others have stated that unbaptized infants will go to hell, the Church is not bound to this teaching.

 

[una_fides]

Lets say that I am commiting adultery right at this moment, That means my soul is in mortal danger. Which means at this moment its in mortal sin. Mortal danger means you are in danger of dying in mortal sin.

But here comes the hard part, only God can know the difference. It is for him to judge if it is indeed mortal sin. He has the last call on it not us. That is why we as Catholic’s can never ever condemn a soul to hell. We can say their soul is in mortal danger, which means yes mortal sin, but only God can judge at the time of thier death if it is going to be mortal death of the soul. All we know is if God says it is, then you cannot enter heaven.

Because at the time of that persons death, they may have confessed that sin, and were sincere and God accepted that confession. We can never judge or know what goes on between a person and God.

But on the other hand we know the rules, and must follow them.

It’s not that God “says it is sin” or that he chooses that it is not sin and therefore he is merciful and decides your mortal sin was not mortal sin and you can be saved. That would make sin completely relative. We know with absolute certainty that if a sin is committed involving grave matter, with deliberate consent, and full knowledge then it is a mortal sin and a person who commits it is guilty of this sin before God. The only thing we do not know with absolute certainty is whether the three conditions have been met. However, we can know with moral certainty.

 

[una_fides]

I will have to agree to others who have posted that, outside a dogma or infalliable declaration, a teaching of the Church can change.

Matt 16:19
And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.

One of the reasons Jesus established his Church was precisely this: to make whatever laws necessary to implement his teachings - whatever laws would be necessary for the good of souls. (The Faith Explained) We are speaking of laws here, but would the Church not have the power to change its teaching, for the good of souls?

Furthermore, “the power of binding is exercised…by making rules and laws for the government of the Church…by determining what is of faith by the judgments and definitions of the Church. It follows, And whatsoever you shall bind; that is, whomsoever you shall judge unworthy of forgiveness while he lives, shall be judged unworthy with God; and whatsoever you shall loose, that is, whomsoever you shall judge worthy to be forgiven while he lives, shall obtain forgiveness of his sins from God.” Catena Aurea (early Church fathers).

Was teaching that the unbaptized could reach heaven ever formally defined as a heresy by the Church?

Though Augustine and others have stated that unbaptized infants will go to hell, the Church is not bound to this teaching.

How does one reconcile the fact that the only ones who ever in 2000 years of the history of the Church taught that infants who die without baptism could have the possibility of salvation were not Catholics but were heretics (the Pelagians)? Doesn’t the Church base its teachings on tradition, what has been handed down? Where can we find in her tradition that infants that die without baptism can still receive the effects of baptism and be saved?

 

[una_fides]

So then we have to beleive that woman is naturally subject to man because in the male reason predominates?
[It is said by way of objection] ‘Subjection and limitation were a result of sin, for to the woman was it said after sin (Gn. 3:16): “Thou shalt be under the man’s power”; and Gregory says that, “Where there is no sin, there is no inequality.” But woman is naturally of less strength and dignity than man . . . . ’ [But I say] Subjection is twofold. One is servile, by virtue of which a superior makes use of a subject for his own benefit; and this kind of subjection began after sin. There is another kind of subjection which is called economic or civil, whereby the superior makes use of his subjects for their own benefit and good; and this kind of subjection existed even before sin. For good order would have been wanting in the human family if some were not governed by others wiser than themselves. So by such a kind of subjection woman is naturally subject to man, because in man the discretion of reason predominates. Summa Theologica I, qu. 92, art. 1, ad 2.

Again please stop straying from the subject. Since it seems you are itching to get onto this subject to badly, here’s St.'s Peter and Paul writing inerrantly under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost: In like manner also, let wives be subject to their husbands: that, if any believe not the word, they may be won without the word, by the conversation of the wives, Considering your chaste conversation with fear. Whose adorning, let it not be the outward plaiting of the hair, or the wearing of gold, or the putting on of apparel: But the hidden man of the heart, in the incorruptibility of a quiet and a meek spirit which is rich in the sight of God. For after this manner heretofore, the holy women also who trusted in God adorned themselves, being in subjection to their own husbands: As Sara obeyed Abraham, calling him lord: whose daughters you are, doing well and not fearing any disturbance. Ye husbands, likewise dwelling with them according to knowledge, giving honour to the female as to the weaker vessel and as to the co-heirs of the grace of life: that your prayers be not hindered. (1 Peter 3:1-7)

The aged women, in like manner, in holy attire, not false accusers, not given to much wine, teaching well: That they may teach the young women to be wise, to love their husbands, to love their children. To be discreet, chaste, sober, having a care of the house, gentle, obedient to their husbands: that the word of God be not blasphemed. (Titus 2:3-5)

Gen 3:16 To the woman also he said: I will multiply thy sorrows, and thy conceptions: in sorrow shalt thou bring forth children, and thou shalt be under thy husband’s power, and he shall have dominion over thee.

Let women be subject to their husbands, as to the Lord: Because the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ is the head of the church. He is the saviour of his body. Therefore as the church is subject to Christ: so also let the wives be to their husbands in all things. (Ephesians 5:22-24)
Obviously this is not a teaching that is frequently practiced or readily accepted today; nevertheless, that fact does not change its antiquity or veracity. So yeah, I know, you think God is sexist too. Take it up with Him.

 

[una_fides]

On your first paragraph, there is some lingering debate about this. But it has pretty clearly been taught that the Church doesn’t have the authority to ordain women, even if it wanted to. This was emphasized even more strongly in Pope John Paul II’s “Ordinatio Sacerdotalis” that was released in 1994. But the rabble-rousers claim that this teaching was not at the level of a dogma. And it wasn’t, but it was a pretty clear teaching that is consistent with Tradition, so the door was almost certainly closed by him. And if you don’t agree with him, at least read that letter to understand the very cogent reasoning – just as men can’t be fathers in the physical sense, our understanding of baptism and the Eucharist make it impossible for women to be fathers in the spiritual sense.

As for your second paragraph, the only response needed is yes, you are correct, with the emphasis on can.

Actually, Pope John Paul II’s declaration meets all the criteria for infallibility:
4. Although the teaching that priestly ordination is to be reserved to men alone has been preserved by the constant and universal Tradition of the Church and firmly taught by the Magisterium in its more recent documents, at the present time in some places it is nonetheless considered still open to debate, or the Church’s judgment that women are not to be admitted to ordination is considered to have a merely disciplinary force.
Wherefore, in order that all doubt may be removed regarding a matter of great importance, a matter which pertains to the Church’s divine constitution itself, in virtue of my ministry of confirming the brethren (cf. Lk 22:32) I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church’s faithful.

Criteria for infallibility:

1. “the Roman Pontiff”
2. “speaks ex cathedra” (“that is, when in the discharge of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, and by virtue of his supreme apostolic authority….”)
3. “he defines”
4. “that a doctrine concerning faith or morals”
5. “must be held by the whole Church” (Pastor Aeternus, chap. 4)

What condition is not met here??

 

[una_fides]

Oh really? According to the backcover:
“This comprehensive catechism contains the constant, authentic doctrine and moral teaching of the Catholic Faith”
Do you say that they have been misleading us?

That’s a much more definitive claim to authenticity than the new catechism’s claim to being a “sure norm” for teaching the faith.

 

[Hesychios]

Is limbo universally taught? I mentioned early on in this tread that I was never taught limbo nor never heard of limbo till I went to college. This is because I had to leave my orthodox Vietnamese parish to go to college . Maybe I was still not properly catechized even though we had very holy nuns and a priest that have 30-45 minute homilies including catechism and life advice relevant to the parishioners. Or maybe the more likely answer is that I was not taught this because it was not clearly defined as doctrine.

Was the parish in Vietnam, or in the diaspora (like the USA or some other place)?

Perhaps it is your age, you might be too young!

On the other hand, I am not quite certain that it was universally taught (I would like to hear from Latin American and European posters on this), but in Anglophone nations it was taught in catechism classes for my generation.

I did see that the Baltimore catechism (which was composed in the USA, though approved by Rome) was used in Australia, according to someone on another thread some time ago.

Dante Alighieri (reposed 1321AD) has Limbo as the first circle of hell, but if I recall correctly he did not write about the unbaptized children, each was a story about particular individuals (shades) he knew of as prominent personalities.

 

[rinnie]

Good point. However, the Church has infallibly defined that it is impossible for a woman to be ordained a priest or for contraception to ever be morally licit. She has not infallibly defined that infants that die without baptism go to hell, though she has taught it for 2000 years. Btw, limbo is in hell. It’s in the highest part of hell. It literally means “edge” as in the highest edge of hell.

Una I am not sure what you are saying here. First of all Limbo was never an official teaching of the Church.

Secondly the Chuch has never said if baby’s could enter heaven or could not enter heaven. The Church said that they have no official teachng one way or another, and until it is revealed to them by the power of the Holy Spirit all they can say is they cannot condemn an infant to hell. And the Church states that they rely on the mercy of our Lord.

They just stated that through extra-ordinary means it is possible. And that just means the ordinary means is when a baby is born it is baptised in the Church and they recommend that as soon as possible. Extra-ord. means that God makes the call on that one, and by the proof that we have in scripture how the Lord loves baby’s there is no reason to believe that he would not accept them.

 

[rinnie]

[SIGN][/SIGN]

I agree with the Baltimore Catechism here. I do not see how the Church can get around the verses that say unless one is baptized he cannot enter into heaven. These verses were not properly addressed at all in her recent document that tries to speculate that unbaptized infants could be saved through some [SIGN][/SIGN][SIGN]unknown means. [/SIGN]To interpret those verses to mean something different than baptism also goes against the universal understanding of the Fathers and the Church for 2000 years. I understand the Church now wishes to be merciful and compassionate to those who have lost children, but it should not be done at going against 2000 years of unbroken Tradition. In her recent document on this matter, the Church briefly traces the history of this belief, and you will notice that the only ones in the history of the Church who ever taught that infants who died without baptism could be saved were the Pelagian heretics! Not a comforting thought at all!

Its not some unknow means uan fides it extra-ordinary means and that means Gods mercy.

 

[rinnie]

A lot of traditions have been overthrown and changed. To give a few examples:
women to keep silent in the Church
women not to preach over a man
slaves to be subject to their masters
women to wear headcovering in Church
Puppets, clowns, marichi bands, and profane music at Mass
Communion on the tongue
etc.

I disagree with you 100%. Tradition is the oral teaching’s of God. What would be the difference between the RCC changing Tradition or written word? So if the RCC cannot change the written word of God how in the world can it change the oral word of God? This is not true. The Church has taught the same thing when it speaks with the voice of the Holy Spirit thats it, it held until the end of time. I cannot see where you are getting this.

The only thing I could imagine you are trying to say is Church discipline. Now if thats what you are saying and trust me it is totally different then yes Church disciplines can be changed over time if the Pope chooses to do this. But no Pope has ever changed ST or SS.

 

[jmihm2]

How does one reconcile the fact that the only ones who ever in 2000 years of the history of the Church taught that infants who die without baptism could have the possibility of salvation were not Catholics but were heretics (the Pelagians)? Doesn’t the Church base its teachings on tradition, what has been handed down? Where can we find in her tradition that infants that die without baptism can still receive the effects of baptism and be saved?

After more research and some rest I want to flatly reject what I originally stated in an earlier post.
In short: 1 May 418 Council of Carthage condemned 8/9 teachings of Pelagius.

2 New-born children must be baptized on account of original sin.​

9 Children dying without baptism do not go to a “middle place” (medius locus), since the non reception of baptism excludes both from the “kingdom of heaven” and from “eternal life”.​

(Pelagius later changed the language of his work to say children w/o baptism do not go to the kingdom of heaven but are not excluded from eternal life – even this was condemned as heretical).
newadvent.org/cathen/11604a.htm

The authority behind the condemnation of this teaching is clear. Hence, w/o having conducted more research, this teaching cannot change.

 

[rinnie]

This is something People need to understand.

Mt 13:52 The Catechism will contain old and new because faith is always the same yet the source of an ever new light.

The Church is a Mystery guys. It always has, always will be. The Pope today and the Popes to come can only reveal this to us as time goes by and as God throught the Power of the Holy Spirit reveals it to the Church.

If I could get one point across as easy as I can its this. The CHurch never said that baby’s are condemned to hell. The Pope in his time only knew that what God revealed to him at his time here. And he said that we must be Baptised to enter heaven. The present Pope never changed that. All he said is there is a thing such as extra-ordinary means. Which means God can do what he wants.

The Pope never said back when that a baby is going to hell, and the Pope today never said it. Just as the Pope back when said we have to be baptised the Pope now is not disagreeing that we still don’T. BUt as times goes on the mystery of God is revealed as God sees fit.

So to make this simple The Pope only knows what is revealed to him. When it is revealed to him from the Holy Spirit and is clear it becomes a teaching, and then it can never Change.

So if someone could show me where it is a teaching or ever was a teaching of the RCC which means it was revealed to the Church by the HS that a baby is condemned to hell w/o being baptised I cannot understand what you guys are saying.

If it was revealed it would be a teaching and could not ever be changed. It has never been revealed beyond doubt to date. It is still a mystery to this day.

But on the same token.

Does scripture state we must be Baptised to enter heaven. Yes!

Did the Pope or any Pope ever change that . NO, and never can if is an official church teaching, ITs is forever.

Does that scripture say the Lord condemns children to hell? No.

The Church teaches only what is revealed and that is we all must be baptised. And the CHurch baptised babys, Luke 18:16 Let the children come to me, and do not hinder them. for to such belongs to he kingdom of God.

 

[Malleus_01]

Pope Leo the XIII (Yes the same Pope who composed the St Michael the Archangel Prayer ) answered this in Satis Cognitum in 1896 paragraph 9 entitled " Every Revealed Truth, without Exception, Must be Accepted "

Since it is quite long - here is the entire encyclical all of which is pertinent but especially 9

vatican.va/holy_father/leo_xiii/encyclicals/documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_29061896_satis-cognitum_en.html

 

[rinnie]

Pope Leo the XIII (Yes the same Pope who composed the St Michael the Archangel Prayer ) answered this in Satis Cognitum in 1896 paragraph 9 entitled " Every Revealed Truth, without Exception, Must be Accepted "

Since it is quite long - here is the entire encyclical all of which is pertinent but especially 9

vatican.va/holy_father/leo_xiii/encyclicals/documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_29061896_satis-cognitum_en.html

Heres what I think the problem is. People do not understand the differeence between Church Doctrine, and Church dogma.

Go to ewtn Doctrine, dogma infallible statement. It will explain it to you. Then you will see what I have failed to show you.

 

[Malleus_01]

Heres what I think the problem is. People do not understand the differeence between Church Doctrine, and Church dogma.

Malleus: I dont disagree with what you write. Pope Leo the XIII does an ample job of describing what DOGMA is in this encyclical. It takes minutes to read Chapter 9 if one doesnt want to read the entire encyclical. Anyone should be able to understand what Church Dogma is. Now as for specific Dogmas - that is an area that all Catholics must remain vigilent in. Heresy can spring up anywhere at any time. These can only be combated on a case by case basis by Lawful Church Authority. A True Pope teaching Faith and Morals to the Bishops and thereby the Faithful is infallible.

Go to ewtn Doctrine, dogma infallible statement. It will explain it to you. Then you will see what I have failed to show you

EWTN is good but even on ewtn I have seen the evidence of Liberalism from time to time.

 

[surritter]

I agree with the Baltimore Catechism here. I do not see how the Church can get around the verses that say unless one is baptized he cannot enter into heaven. These verses were not properly addressed at all in her recent document that tries to speculate that unbaptized infants could be saved through some unknown means. To interpret those verses to mean something different than baptism also goes against the universal understanding of the Fathers and the Church for 2000 years. I understand the Church now wishes to be merciful and compassionate to those who have lost children, but it should not be done at going against 2000 years of unbroken Tradition. In her recent document on this matter, the Church briefly traces the history of this belief, and you will notice that the only ones in the history of the Church who ever taught that infants who died without baptism could be saved were the Pelagian heretics! Not a comforting thought at all!

Una, you are taking the words and extrapolating them to be a constriction of God’s ability to intervene. We all agree that one does not need explicit water baptism to be saved. This is because we recognize baptism of desire and baptism of blood.

Therefore, it is logically possible for there to be other types of “non-water” baptisms that are known only to God. I am not advocating this, but merely pointing out the logic.

Think of it this way: If you see a man walking on the edge of the Grand Canyon who then slips and falls, you “know” that he is a goner. But wait, you don’t really know – God could miraculously intervene and save him. We all would say that that is very unlikely, but I’m just cautioning about making absolute statements.

I’ll restate my earlier contention: We can absolutely say that those who die with the stain of Original Sin cannot enter heaven. But we cannot absolutely say that each and every person who dies without actual water baptism possesses the stain of Original Sin. To merely hope for their salvation is not being an Pelagian. Teaching that definitively would be, I suppose, which was your point.

 

[una_fides]

Una I am not sure what you are saying here. First of all Limbo was never an official teaching of the Church.

Secondly the Chuch has never said if baby’s could enter heaven or could not enter heaven. The Church said that they have no official teachng one way or another, and until it is revealed to them by the power of the Holy Spirit all they can say is they cannot condemn an infant to hell. And the Church states that they rely on the mercy of our Lord.

They just stated that through extra-ordinary means it is possible. And that just means the ordinary means is when a baby is born it is baptised in the Church and they recommend that as soon as possible. Extra-ord. means that God makes the call on that one, and by the proof that we have in scripture how the Lord loves baby’s there is no reason to believe that he would not accept them.

Can you please show me something prior to Vatican II where the Church stated that there is no official teaching one way or another concerning the fate of unbaptized infants?

We’ve already seen that the Baltimore Catechism and other official Church documents clearly taught that unbaptized infants cannot enter heaven. It would appear that the evidence disproves your theory here.