Can the Church change its teaching?

[una_fides]

Sorry that I missed the implicit answer to my Native American question. But I still think you are erecting several fences that, when connected, cause problems in other areas. For instance, you say that the Native Americans of long ago had the possibility of salvation because of an implicit desire of baptism. This was despite the insurmountable gap in that they did not have the instruments at hand to even know of the Gospel.

But suddenly, when it comes to modern-day infants, you say that this same “implicit desire of baptism” is not possible for them, even though they too have an insurmountable gap in that they do not have the instruments at hand to know of the Gospel.

I think that illustrates the inconsistency.

Actually it’s not an inconsistency because you are essentially comparing apples and oranges and saying that since they are both fruit then they must be the same thing. *Adults *are capable of making an act of perfect charity and are capable of having supernatural faith in God. Infants are not capable of having such a desire as has been settled by Rome and this fact is even attested to in the modern limbo commission document.

But to take it further, let’s cross the two situations together, and examine the case of a Native American baby of long ago who had the misfortune to fall into both camps that I’ve presented above. Now, according to your beliefs, at what age would that child go from having NO hope of salvation (because he was an unbaptized infant) to a person who had SOME hope of salvation (because he would be in your group of Native Americans who had at least a theoretical chance). Would you say the age of reason?

Sorry to get into such specifics, but can you see how this slamming of the door on unbaptized infants might paint us into a corner when that logic is pursued to its absolute ends?

I do see where you are going with this… At least I think this is where you are going… Every one has the possibility of salvation, so teaches the Church today, and therefore, some conclude that would also have to apply to infants who are incapable of making an act of faith themselves. A few thoughts. First, all infants do have the possibility of salvation. They could be baptized. Nothing hinders any infant from baptism except the will of the parent. Now if the parent is invincibly ignorant concerning baptism, does that mean the child should suffer for something that the parent did not know of? That seems to be the question asked and the question with which many have difficulty. Though I do think part of the problem lies in how the question is worded. I think the question to ask is whether any child deserves to be saved or whether any child deserves baptism by his very nature as a human being? Since in Adam we all sin, and since our human nature is in a fallen condition, and since baptism is a free and undeserved gift from God, one can only conclude that no one, myself included, deserves to be filled with the sanctifying grace that his soul is lacking at conception. Yes, this grace is available to infants had their parents not sinned. Will God judge these infants, however? I do not believe so, since they have not committed any actual sins. They do not receive the special grace, the special gift, which they again do not deserve, but at the same time they do not receive any punishment either which again they do not personally deserve through any direct act of sin on their part.

Hence, limbo is such a perfect teaching. These souls live in eternal bliss, in the same unknowing state in which they left this world. They do not suffer from the punishment of loss of the beatific vision like the other souls in hell since they never had the capacity to understand such a thing. They also do not suffer the torments since they never committed any actual sins. They are at peace and are in a blissful state. Why anyone would find such a merciful teaching troublesome is beyond me.

 

[Hesychios]

Interestingly, Pelagianism was condemned as heresy in the General Council of Ephasus. This teaching is similar to what many of the Eastern Churches teach today in that they emphasize the goodness of human nature and deny that man inherits the sinful nature of Adam and that all sin in Adam. …

Pelagianism, like a few other -ism’s is a slippery animal. Much is no longer known about it and we are not sure if what was condemned was what he taught. It is known that he faced examination in the east during his lifetime and no one condemned him then.

However I think I need to point out that the Pelagian errors were considered errors because it was attributed to him, or thought, that he definitively taught that the participation of God was not necessary to achieve salvation.

(I should point out that he was already dead by 431AD, and the condemnation was not high on the agenda. The Council was really interested in the Nestorius problem and the emperor proposed a condemnation of Pelagian errors.)

Augustine taught that all are damned because of Original Sin, and baptism removes that impediment. So by extension Augustine believes anyone who is unable to receive baptism to be seriously in trouble, salvation-wise. He is at least equally as wrong, both ‘positions’ are speaking in absolutes. Yet the Augustinian tradition tends to see the Council of Ephasus as reaffirming it’s own position, it does not.

Eastern Catholics (by which I mean Orthodox) never taught this idea of Augustine. Orthodox know that First (Original) Sin affects human nature (concupiscence - sounds very Catholic ) but it is not the primary reason one gets baptized.

Primarily one is baptized to die with Christ, and rise with Christ, and live a new life in Christ as a member of the church. It brings people into the church. The church is the instrument of God in this world.

“…we are being grafted on to the Body of Christ, the Church, and are acquiring the power to conquer death. This is how we understand the baptism of babies. We baptize them so that they may become members of the Church, members of the Body of Christ, that they may pass over death, overcome the garments of skin, decay, and mortality. That is to say that as they grow, whenever the nous becomes darkened by passions and the darkness of the surroundings, they may have the ability to conquer in Christ, to overcome the passions and to purify the noetic part of their souls once more.”
“Life After Death” by Metropolitan Heirotheos pg 101

The effects of First Sin, which is Adam’s sin, are not attributable to any person but Adam and so he would be the one roasting in hell for that particular sin.

Does baptism effect a forgiveness of sin?

Yes, it does. That is particularly helpful if you actually have sin to atone for.

Children who die before this Baptism is possible are taking a different path, they are no longer of this world and do not face the temptations and corruptions.

For people who live on, we know that the church is the necessary vehicle to achieve salvation, and the means to become part of the church are the three initiatory sacraments of Baptism, Holy Eucharist and Chrismation (Confirmation). We do all three.

We apply these three sacraments at the earliest possible age. Why? Because we can, and because we have always done so. We don’t need any other reason. We have always baptized the young as far as we know, we have always given them the Holy Eucharist and Confirmed them as infants. We don’t need, and did not develop a theory like belief in infant damnation to justify our practices.

Newborn babes who die straightaway, miscarried babes and the aborted are not assumed to have sinned in their own right, and are not automatically assumed to be damned. In the east they never were assumed to be damned, where do they go? Well, we don’t know for sure but we won’t put God in a box. So these infants are in the hands of God, in His judgment and His love.

I know that the Latin church has almost always (from a very early date) taught that these children are damned, but it was not the universal teaching of the church from the time we were all in communion with each other, and that is the only point I wish to make.

The most recent wording in the current catechism does seem like a change, it sounds very Orthodox.

 

[sidbrown]

The truth of the matter is that most people go to hell .

It is just a matter of your opinion and therefore is not a certain truth.

 

[una_fides]

It is just a matter of your opinion and therefore is not a certain truth.

Actually its a matter of universal agreement among the fathers of the Church for 2000 years, and it also corresponds to Christ’s own words, around which one must do a lot of dancing to interpret otherwise.

 

[sidbrown]

Actually its a matter of universal agreement among the fathers of the Church for 2000 years, and it also corresponds to Christ’s own words, around which one must do a lot of dancing to interpret otherwise.

Not according to the Vatican’s declaration by Pope John Paul II, the infallible head of the Roman Catholic Church:
“Eternal damnation remains a real possibility, but we are not granted, without special divine revelation, the knowledge of whether or which human beings are effectively involved in it.”
vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/audiences/1999/documents/hf_jp-ii_aud_28071999_en.html

 

[rinnie]

All revelation ceased after the death the death of the last apostle. To say that God reveals new truths to the Catholic Church that are outside of the sacred deposit already entrusted to the apostles is heretical. Please understand this distinction and clarification.

First, the Church has taught that unbaptized infants cannot enter heaven. That is a positive teaching. Second, God can do what he wants and what he wants to do is always consistent with what he has revealed about himself and how he acts according to divine revelation. So when Scripture says that if one is not baptized he cannot enter the kingdom of heaven, then there can be no extraordinary means outside of baptism.

Popes have taught that unbaptized infants cannot enter heaven. Thus, this teaching would not be able to change then, correct?

Does Scripture state that unless one is baptized he cannot enter heaven? Yes!!

Does the CCC say that a baby that is not baptised is going to hell? No it does not. The teaching’s of the Church is we can only rely on God’s mercy. That is what I said and here is the teaching.

CCC 1261 As regards children who have died without baptism the church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed he great mercy of God desires that all men should be saved and Jesus’ tenderness towards children which caused him to say let the children come to me do not hinder them, alllow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism. All the more urgent is the Church’s call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy Baptism.

That is the teaching of the CCC.

 

[Genesis315]

According to Ott’s Fundamental’s of Catholic Dogma (from 1952), the fate of unbaptized children was at that time at the level Common Teaching (sententia communis), which is “doctrine, which in itself belongs to the field of the free opinions, but which is accepted by theologians generally.”

It cannot be known with certainty because there are other possibilities which also cannot be proven or disproven with certainty. From Ott:

"Other emergency means of baptism for children dying without sacramental baptism, such as prayer and the desire of the parents or the Church (vicarious baptism of desire—Cajetan), or the attainment of the use of reason in the moment of death, so that the dying child can decide for or against God (baptism of desire—H. Klee), or suffering and death of the child as quasi-Sacrament (baptism of suffering—H. Schell), are indeed possible, but their actuality cannot be proved from Revelation. Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, Book 2, Section 2, § 25

Note, the theologians listed are from the 16th, 19th, and 20th centuries respectively. It bears pointing out that St. Bernard (11th century) also taught the same as Cajetan.

 

[rinnie]

[SIGN][/SIGN]

All revelation ceased after the death the death of the last apostle. [SIGN]To say that God reveals new truths to the Catholic Church that are outside of the sacred deposit already entrusted to the apostles is heretical. [/SIGN]Please understand this distinction and clarification.

First, the Church has taught that unbaptized infants cannot enter heaven. That is a positive teaching. Second, God can do what he wants and what he wants to do is always consistent with what he has revealed about himself and how he acts according to divine revelation. So when Scripture says that if one is not baptized he cannot enter the kingdom of heaven, then there can be no extraordinary means outside of baptism.

Popes have taught that unbaptized infants cannot enter heaven. Thus, this teaching would not be able to change then, correct?

Does Scripture state that unless one is baptized he cannot enter heaven? Yes!!

Where did I say the Church reveals new truths outside of Sacred deposit already entrusted to the Apostles. I said as time goes on the Holy Spirit continues to teach us and give us better understanding of the what was revealed to us by Jesus. I never said there is new Revelation, I said our understanding of the revelations grows. The Holy Spirit is forever alive in the CC and continues to lead it until the end of time.

 

[una_fides]

Where did I say the Church reveals new truths outside of Sacred deposit already entrusted to the Apostles.

Here is what you said, as I quoted in my response:

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. … 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.

I wanted to clarify because this part made it seem like you thought that popes and the Church receives some new revelation and then once they receive this revelation from the HS then they define a doctrine that cannot change. It is an important distinction to understand that the Church’s teachings have already been revealed; they just haven’t all been defined by the Church. The Church relies on tradition, meaning what has been handed on. It is her duty to be faithful to what she has received. That said, can you show me where in the 2000 year history of the Church where any of her fathers have taught that unbaptized infants can attain the beatific vision in heaven? No one other than heretics have taught this in the past, and the heretics were condemned for teaching such things.

 

[rinnie]

[SIGN][/SIGN]

WHOAH!!! I’m not sure if anyone else caught this. This is not true. Mary was conceived WITHOUT original sin. She was NEVER contaminated by original sin. God called her into existence completely sinless. In other words, whe was already sinless, while she was still a thought in the mind of God. This is the doctrine of the Immculate Conception.

S[SIGN]he could not have been “cleansed” of original sin immediately at her conception[/SIGN], because she did not exist before her conception. All animals come into existence at the moment of conception. There is not single moment before. Therefore, Mary comes into existence free of any sin. She never had any contact with the original sin of her parents.

Aquinas believed that Mary had original sin and was cleansed in the womb, but the Franciscans proved him wrong. Bl. John Duns Scotus proved that Mary never had any contact with Original sin, not for a fraction of an instant. This has been the faith of the Church since Apostolic times.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

The Immaculate Conception is a singular grace and privilege in virtue of which Mary was created by God in holiness from the FIRST MOMENT OF HER EXISTENCE. She is KEPT free from original sin and enjoyed the grace of God from the MOMENT OF HER CONCEPTION.

Sorry JD hate to disagree with you but that is the teaching of the Church.

Only gradually did the faith of the Church come to realize fully the reality of Marys Immaculate Conception. From the early days it seemed appropriate that she is the Mother of God and should never been touched by sin. But how could she be redeemed by Christ is she never experienced original sin? The Holy Spirit led the church to the solution of this difficulty by helping the faithful to realize Mary we redeemed in a singular way. As a member of a sinful race Mary would naturally have incurred original sin, but by a divine mercy kept her free from sin by the foreseen merrits Of Jesus Christ.

Mary’s first holiness from the FIRST MOMENT OF HER EXISTANCE was the first fruit of her divines sons redeeming work.

And this is also what I mean by the Holy Spirit leading the church to difficult solutions to our faith. Una this is what I mean by gradually at times the church begins to understand things fully. But it is always by previous revelation.

 

[rinnie]

Here is what you said, as I quoted in my response:

I wanted to clarify because this part made it seem like you thought that popes and the Church receives some new revelation and then once they receive this revelation from the HS then they define a doctrine that cannot change. It is an important distinction to understand that the Church’s teachings have already been revealed; they just haven’t all been defined by the Church. The Church relies on tradition, meaning what has been handed on. It is her duty to be faithful to what she has received. That said, can you show me where in the 2000 year history of the Church where any of her fathers have taught that unbaptized infants can attain the beatific vision in heaven? No one other than heretics have taught this in the past, and the heretics were condemned for teaching such things.

That is an misunderstanding between us then buddy, hope my pervious post helps explain. Here is the teaching also on Babys.

Do those babys in infancy enter heaven?

Infants that have been baptized enter promptly into eternal life, infants who have not been baptised will certainly be treated mercifully by God. However no one who dies without the state of grace can enter heaven. Nonbaptized babys have not received grace by the sacrament of baptism and seem unable to achieve grave by a baptism of desire.

Many theologians have taught that unbaptized infants enter limbo a state where those who are unbaptized but who have commited no personal sins would enjoy natural happiness but not the beatific vision. GOD COULD BY EXTRAORDINARY MERCIES PROVIDE MEANS FOR THEM TO ACQUIRE GRACE BEFORE DEATH. But revelation DOES NOT give us certainty on this. For this reason the church insists that the faithful take care to have their children baptized promptly.

Do you see what I am saying Una, we cannot say they are condemned to hell, We do not have a certainly from revelation yet. That does not mean that the Church will not reveal it yet, do you understand what I am saying by that at all?

 

[surritter]

[SIGN][/SIGN]

The Immaculate Conception is a singular grace and privilege in virtue of which Mary was created by God in holiness from the FIRST MOMENT OF HER EXISTENCE. She is KEPT free from original sin and enjoyed the grace of God from the MOMENT OF HER CONCEPTION.

Sorry JD hate to disagree with you but that is the teaching of the Church.

Only gradually did the faith of the Church come to realize fully the reality of Marys Immaculate Conception. From the early days it seemed appropriate that she is the Mother of God and should never been touched by sin. But how could she be redeemed by Christ is she never experienced original sin? The Holy Spirit led the church to the solution of this difficulty by helping the faithful to realize Mary we redeemed in a singular way. As a member of a sinful race Mary would naturally have incurred original sin, but by a divine mercy kept her free from sin by the foreseen merrits Of Jesus Christ.

Mary’s first holiness from the FIRST MOMENT OF HER EXISTANCE was the first fruit of her divines sons redeeming work.

And this is also what I mean by the Holy Spirit leading the church to difficult solutions to our faith. Una this is what I mean by gradually at times the church begins to understand things fully. But it is always by previous revelation.

Rinnie, I don’t get this post. You are taking issue with Br. JR’s post. You seem to have a misunderstanding of the dogma of the Immaculate Conception!! (Or else I am misunderstanding your comments)

You ask, “But how could she be redeemed by Christ if she never experienced original sin?” Recall that Duns Scotus proposed a logical explanation for WHY it is possible. Don’t put a box around God – he could certainly have preemptively kept Mary from original sin.

Please be careful on this one. Mary was never cleansed; rather, she was never even affected to begin with. The proclamation of the dogma may be considered a further development of doctrine, but the seeds for the basic idea were always there.

 

[rinnie]

Rinnie, I don’t get this post. You are taking issue with Br. JR’s post. You seem to have a misunderstanding of the dogma of the Immaculate Conception!! (Or else I am misunderstanding your comments)

You ask, “But how could she be redeemed by Christ is she never experienced original sin?” Recall that Duns Scotus proposed a logical explanation for WHY it is possible. Don’t put a box around God – he could certainly have preemptively kept Mary from original sin.

Please be careful on this one. Mary was never cleansed; rather, she was never even affected to begin with. The proclamation of the dogma may be considered a further development of doctrine, but the seeds for the basic idea were always there.

Because it was by being redeemed by Christ at the moment of her conception that she never experienced original sin.

Let me put it this way, if I jump out and grab you from being hit by a car, did you have to get hit by the car for me to save you? OR could I save you before you got hit by the car?

I agree she was cleansed and never hit by one bit of sin, we agree on that, but it was by the Grace of God at the moment of her conception that it happened. Just Like I saved you from the car God saved her from the sin, before it could enter her. My Point is she needed and was saved by God also. Do you see what I am saying?

 

[surritter]

Because it was by being redeemed by Christ at the moment of her conception that she never experienced original sin.

Let me put it this way, if I jump out and grab you from being hit by a car, did you have to get hit by the car for me to save you? OR could I save you before you got hit by the car?

I agree she was cleansed and never hit by one bit of sin, we agree on that, but it was by the Grace of God at the moment of her conception that it happened. Just Like I saved you from the car God saved her from the sin, before it could enter her. My Point is she needed and was saved by God also. Do you see what I am saying?

Yes, now I agree with your latest post. But frankly, your wording in the other one was misleading. Mary NEVER EXPERIENCED original sin. Just as I never got hit by the car. Yes, there was some “saving” going on, but you made it sound like Mary came into contact with original sin.

So it looks like we both agree with Br. JR…

 

[rinnie]

WHOAH!!! I’m not sure if anyone else caught this. This is not true. Mary was conceived WITHOUT original sin. She was NEVER contaminated by original sin. God called her into existence completely sinless. In other words, whe was already sinless, while she was still a thought in the mind of God. This is the doctrine of the Immculate Conception.

She could not have been “cleansed” of original sin immediately at her conception, because she did not exist before her conception. All animals come into existence at the moment of conception. There is not single moment before. Therefore, Mary comes into existence free of any sin. She never had any contact with the original sin of her parents.

Aquinas believed that Mary had original sin and was cleansed in the womb, but the Franciscans proved him wrong. Bl. John Duns Scotus proved that Mary never had any contact with Original sin, not for a fraction of an instant. This has been the faith of the Church since Apostolic times.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

I have alot of respect for JR and hardly ever disagree with him. But here is where I do not agree with him. He said Mary could not have been cleansed at the exact moment of her conception because she did not exist at her conception? I do not understand that? I was taught she was saved at the moment of her conception? Thats where I am hoping he will enlighten me on where he disagrees with what I said.

ANd he can explain to me what he is saying?

 

[surritter]

I have alot of respect for JR and hardly ever disagree with him. But here is where I do not agree with him. He said Mary could not have been cleansed at the exact moment of her conception because she did not exist at her conception? I do not understand that? I was taught she was saved at the moment of her conception? Thats where I am hoping he will enlighten me on where he disagrees with what I said.

ANd he can explain to me what he is saying?

1. 
   *]Mary was conceived at a moment in time.
   *]She did not exist before that.
   *]Plus, Mary NEVER had contact with original sin. Ever.
   
   That’s all there is to it.
   
   I suspect you wrote something that made it sound like Mary came into contact with sin, but at conception she was then saved from it. That would not make sense because she didn’t exist before conception.
   
   I again caution you about the wording, however. In post #688, you wrote that “she was cleansed and never hit by one bit of sin…”
   
   She was not cleansed! That is the confusion – cleansing automatically means that there was something there to be cleansed from.

 

[rinnie]

1. 
   *]Mary was conceived at a moment in time.
   *]She did not exist before that.
   *]Plus, Mary NEVER had contact with original sin. Ever.
   
   That’s all there is to it.
   
   I suspect you wrote something that made it sound like Mary came into contact with sin, but at conception she was then saved from it. That would not make sense because she didn’t exist before conception.
   
   I again caution you about the wording, however. In post #688, you wrote that “she was cleansed and never hit by one bit of sin…”
   
   She was not cleansed! That is the confusion – cleansing automatically means that there was something there to be cleansed from.

1. 
   Then if I would have used the word saved would it have not meant the same thing though? Was she still not saved from something?
   
   I was taught that she was saved from original sin at the moment of her conception. No before, not after, at the exact moment.
   
   But I do understand the word cleansed may have been the wrong word to say.

 

[surritter]

Yes, I see your point. But I guess in common parlance, we interpret it this way:

Saved = rescued from an actual or potential disaster

Cleansed = scrubbed clean or washed

So to use your car/pedestrian analogy: yes, by pushing me out of the way, you saved me. But if I had been hit and you wiped away some blood from my face, you would have cleansed me (and perhaps saved me also by making a tourniquet, etc.). But I was still hit by the car.

 

[rinnie]

Yes, I see your point. But I guess in common parlance, we interpret it this way:

Saved = rescued from an actual or potential disaster

Cleansed = scrubbed clean or washed

So to use your car/pedestrian analogy: yes, by pushing me out of the way, you saved me. But if I had been hit and you wiped away some blood from my face, you would have cleansed me (and perhaps saved me also by making a tourniquet, etc.). But I was still hit by the car.

Yes we agree, I think sometimes God shows us how it is not always exactly what we say but what we mean, but we must be exact on every word because People interpret things different ways. I think things like this at times is a great lesson to show how our dear Holy Father can be put on the carpet so much. One word and they take what he said and run with it. Where I got the chance to explain myself he may not always be here to defend himself.

Kinda shows how you need to have the teaching taught to you from someone who knows what the other person means,or taught. Kinda like the CHurch with scripture and Tradition huh!

 

[surritter]

Agreed on all counts. And I never really suspected that you were doubting anything about the Immaculate Conception, but in theology I guess the fine points often get picked on.

Plus, my antenna goes up when someone disagrees with the esteemed JR.