Can the Church change its teaching?

[rinnie]

[SIGN][/SIGN]

[SIGN]You inherit original sin. You had no control over it. [/SIGN]Much like a child who is born into a bankrupt family had no control over the fact that his father squandered away his inheritance and left him in debt, so did our father Adam do for us. In the spiritual war, Adam chose not only for himself but also for his descendants. He chose sides, the side of the devil, and as a result, we all must suffer from the effects of his original sin when we inherit his human nature.

Here is what the Church fathers wrote on original sin:
catholic.com/thisrock/1992/9201frs.asp

I hope I’ve proven it from my post above, but if you would like me to dig up the official Church declarations on this matter, I will for you, or perhaps someone else on here will do it for me. For now, here is something to read on limbo:
newadvent.org/cathen/09256a.htm

Una lets get this straight. My child was touched with Original sin because I was. I never disagreed with that. But you show me where my child cannot be saved by Baptism by Christ at the moment of conception or death by Christ when it was in my womb. Prove again to me that CHrist could not have done that. That it is not possible.

Now lets get the Blessed Mother straight. The IMMUNITY of Original sin was given to her by a singular exdemption. By universal law throught the same merits of Christ which other members are cleansed by Baptism.

The only difference is she never had sin ever, she was saved before it could ever enter her. My child did have o.s. but God saved the Blessed Mother at the moment of her conception. What makes you say he could not save my child after their conception. Thats what I am asking.

Again let me stress I will never compare my Child to Mary, There is a big difference one was born into OS one was not. No disagreement there. ever. But I am saying that by God saving Grace and Mercy he can Baptise a child in the womb if he chooses.

Please show me offical church teaching that states that is not possible for God!! I am saying that official church teaching is there is NO LIMIT to GODS MERCY. Are you saying you can prove again for a fact that God did not have mercy on that child and grant it baptism in my womb? And that the child cannot enter heaven by that baptism, that God cannot and willnot execise that mercy.

 

[rinnie]

[SIGN][/SIGN]

The only thing that I’m going to repeat is what Pope Benedict also said. [SIGN]The Church never defined the that children who die without baptism never get to heaven or see the beatific vision. [/SIGN]The Church left this open for further discussion and continues to leave it open. Which Pope Benedict has said that he finds the former position very troublesome.

What you have here is a point that has been held for a very long time, but never defined as dogma. It was stated at the Council of Trent. But according to both Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI, the Council of Trent did not intend to define this as a dogma. Therefore, it is open for these popes and future popes to express their concerns about this bellief, which is what they are doing. I doubt very much that either John Paul or Benedict would not know what Trent intended to define as dogma and what it did not intend to define. These are not dumb men.

As to the nuance, the fact that the documents are written in Latin does not mean that there is an absence of nuance. I read Latin quite fluently and I still find nuance in different writings. We read most of our theology in Latin (because we came from many different language groups) and much of it had nuances that had to be explained. That’s all these two men are saying. They are saying that nuance of this position is disturbing and is open for discussion. You want to say that it is not open for discussion. All I’m defending here is the pope’s right to open a discussion on a point that has never been defined as dogma. And this dicussion has to factor in the nuance of the language that was used. By language I don’t mean Latin. I mean the nunace of the wording.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

Correct, the only person who has said that is Una. But I can even agree that we are taught that we must be baptised to enter heaven. But what I am asking una is where is it said that Baptism has to be done here after birth, and not done by God in the womb? Where has the Church ever stated that? Thats what I want una to show me!

 

[JReducation]

Referencing what has been said earlier by the Theological Commission on the destiny of unborn unbaptized children who die, which commission was created by Paul VI and the topic of discussion was assigned by John Paul II and approved by Cardinal Ratzinger, now we have Pope Benedict XVI referring back to their statement. On October 5, 2007 he said:

Your Eminence has addressed to me on behalf of all. The work of this seventh “quinquennium” of the International Theological Commission, as you recalled, Your Eminence, has already born fruit in practice with the publication of the Document “The Hope of Salvation for Infants Who Die Without Being Baptized”. The subject is treated here in the context of the universal saving will of God, the universality of the one mediation of Christ, the primacy of divine grace and the sacramental nature of the Church. I am confident that this Document will be a useful reference point for Pastors of the Church and for theologians, as well as a help and source of consolation to members of the faithful who have suffered in their families the unexpected death of a child before he or she could receive the bath of baptismal regeneration.
Your reflections will also be an opportunity for further study of, and research into, this subject.
Indeed, it is necessary to penetrate ever more deeply into the comprehension of the various manifestations of God’s love for all human beings, especially the lowliest and the poorest, which was revealed to us in Christ.

It is important to know that the President of the Commission was the man who is now the Prefect for the Sacred Congregation of the Faith, Cardinal Levada, the Prefect then is now Pope and the pope at the time was John Paul II. All three have proven to be orthodox and faithful theologians.

It is important to not that the Holy Father feels that the statement of the Commission will be helpful to pastors.

The entire statement can be read here.

vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/speeches/2007/october/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20071005_cti_en.html

I would certainly follow Pope Benedict’s lead. Even though we may be unable to connect the dots between what has been said and what is being said, we can trust that he can connec them. The man has never given us a reason not to trust him, neither have John Paul II or Cardinal Levada.

As human beings, we must learn when to trust, not only when to be vigilant. The balance is important. When someone has proven credible, it’s OK to trust. As I said before, one of the men involved in this was the Ven. John Paul II, whose life was found to be without conflict in matters of faith and morals, another point that lends credibility to the statement by the Commission.

We have ot ask ourselves, would John Paul II, Cardinal Ratzinger (now Benedict XVI) and Cardinal Levada have lent their support and approved the findings of the commission as Vatican document if it had been in conflict with the faith? If we say yes, then we have to question their orthodoxy and their fidelity to Tradition.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Thomas_Casey]

I have closed some posts that refer to the popes in a manner that may be in conflict with Catholic Answer policies or go beyond what any of us are allowed to say on this forum. When the moderator of this forum has a chance to do so, she will review the posts and make her determination on the matter.

Thank you and enjoy.

Thomas Casey
Moderator

 

[Hesychios]

What you are saying is that these two popes find the Church’s constant teaching for 2000 years “disturbing” and you don’t find that disturbing?

I think it is fair to say that your contention of “constant teaching for 2000 years” is just flat out wrong.

 

[Hesychios]

… But you show me where my child cannot be saved by Baptism by Christ at the moment of conception or death by Christ when it was in my womb. Prove again to me that CHrist could not have done that. That it is not possible.

Let me just say that all of this anguish over your child is not necessary. Baptism is for the people here in this life who need the church. This is, of course, the reason we have missions, to spread the Faith and save souls. It is not ‘to baptize people’, it is to bring them Christ and save them through the church. When admitting these people into the church, we baptize (+ give communion + confirm).

The innocent wee ones do not need the church. If the child is innocent the child has bypassed the trials here among us and gone straight to God. Those who would argue otherwise are attempting to support a theory of human origin, post-Apostolic and built upon sand.

You may call it ‘saved through God’s Love’ or whatever.

I am sorry for your loss.

 

[sidbrown]

The innocent wee ones do not need the church. If the child is innocent the child has bypassed the trials here among us and gone straight to God.

Are you saying then that the Eastern Orthodox Churches have never accepted the teaching of limbo for unbaptised infants?

 

[una_fides]

What are you saying here una, first you say she was not Baptised, then you say a sort of Baptism? ANd she was not cleansed from sin. I made the mistake and used that word myself she was SAVED from sin by the Grace of God. Are you saying we can be saved by sin without Baptism now? SHe was saved by God by Baptism, at the second of her conception. Jesus was also baptised was he not???

Baptism had not yet even been initiated as a sacrament when Mary was conceived. She was not baptized. She was preserved from original sin by a singular grace. She never encountered sin at any point ever, unlike every other human being conceived through natural means who has ever lived on this earth.

 

[una_fides]

Una lets get this straight. My child was touched with Original sin because I was. I never disagreed with that. But you show me where my child cannot be saved by Baptism by Christ at the moment of conception or death by Christ when it was in my womb. Prove again to me that CHrist could not have done that. That it is not possible.

Now lets get the Blessed Mother straight. The IMMUNITY of Original sin was given to her by a singular exdemption. By universal law throught the same merits of Christ which other members are cleansed by Baptism.

The only difference is she never had sin ever, she was saved before it could ever enter her. My child did have o.s. but God saved the Blessed Mother at the moment of her conception. What makes you say he could not save my child after their conception. Thats what I am asking.

Again let me stress I will never compare my Child to Mary, There is a big difference one was born into OS one was not. No disagreement there. ever. But I am saying that by God saving Grace and Mercy he can Baptise a child in the womb if he chooses.

Please show me offical church teaching that states that is not possible for God!! I am saying that official church teaching is there is NO LIMIT to GODS MERCY. Are you saying you can prove again for a fact that God did not have mercy on that child and grant it baptism in my womb? And that the child cannot enter heaven by that baptism, that God cannot and willnot execise that mercy.

How would Jesus baptize the child in the womb? What is the definition of baptism? The Church has officially defined that one can only be saved through water baptism or at least the desire thereof and also has taught that infants are incapable of making an act of desire for baptism. I am not limiting God’s mercy any more than you are expanding it beyond what he has revealed to us through Scripture, Tradition, and the Magisterium throughout history. I am merely reiterating how a merciful God has revealed he acts as he has informed us he acts and does not act. It is our duty then to understand God’s mercy in light of what he has revealed about himself rather than try to invent revelation based on our sinfully-defective ideas of how a merciful God acts. God is mercy and is justice and his ways are so far above our ways. If we understand sin and hated and detested it and saw it like God sees it, I think that is a good starting point for understanding how souls could be sentenced to an eternity in hell and why unbaptized infants are limited to limbo rather than to attaining a gift, which was never their right to have.

 

[JReducation]

How would Jesus baptize the child in the womb? What is the definition of baptism? The Church has officially defined that one can only be saved through water baptism or at least the desire thereof and also has taught that infants are incapable of making an act of desire for baptism. I am not limiting God’s mercy any more than you are expanding it beyond what he has revealed to us through Scripture, Tradition, and the Magisterium throughout history. I am merely reiterating how a merciful God has revealed he acts as he has informed us he acts and does not act. It is our duty then to understand God’s mercy in light of what he has revealed about himself rather than try to invent revelation based on our sinfully-defective ideas of how a merciful God acts. God is mercy and is justice and his ways are so far above our ways. If we understand sin and hated and detested it and saw it like God sees it, I think that is a good starting point for understanding how souls could be sentenced to an eternity in hell and why unbaptized infants are limited to limbo rather than to attaining a gift, which was never their right to have.

Go back and read what Pope Benedict XVI said and see if you can contradict him or prove him wrong. You are bordering on oppositional behavior toward the position of two popes on this matter. You are pushing Limbo as if it were a defined dogma, when two popes are saying that because it is not a defined dogma, they are glad to see the discussion open again. You seem to want to stop the discussion. I fail to understand why you would want to stop it. Pope Benedict is speaking about the possible effects of the “universal saving will of God” at work in these cases. But you don’t want to hear it. You don’t want to let this discussion progress or allow others on this forum to hear it. You keep posting against it. That’s not right.

If the Church says that there is another possible way of looking at this and that we should consider it, then let’s do so. Let’s not be so obstinate about it. What is there to lose?

**Your Eminence has addressed to me on behalf of all. The work of this seventh “quinquennium” of the International Theological Commission, as you recalled, Your Eminence, has already born fruit in practice with the publication of the Document “The Hope of Salvation for Infants Who Die Without Being Baptized”. The subject is treated here in the context of the universal saving will of God, the universality of the one mediation of Christ, the primacy of divine grace and the sacramental nature of the Church. I am confident that this Document will be a useful reference point for Pastors of the Church and for theologians, as well as a help and source of consolation to members of the faithful who have suffered in their families the unexpected death of a child before he or she could receive the bath of baptismal regeneration.

Your reflections will also be an opportunity for further study of, and research into, this subject.
Indeed, it is necessary to penetrate ever more deeply into the comprehension of the various manifestations of God’s love for all human beings, especially the lowliest and the poorest, which was revealed to us in Christ.**

For the source, see post 797.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[StillWondering]

From what I am told, all Sacraments will cease to exist when Final Judgment is here because the realities the Sacraments gives us as well as point to would already be here.

This matches somewhat with how I understand Hesychios’ most recent belief. However, I am also taught that the Church is not just the visible Church here, but is also includes the Saints, who are no longer living as we do. Thus, I cannot agree with Hesychios’ claim that babies do not need the church from my Catholic perspective.

 

[rinnie]

Let me just say that all of this anguish over your child is not necessary. Baptism is for the people here in this life who need the church. This is, of course, the reason we have missions, to spread the Faith and save souls. It is not ‘to baptize people’, it is to bring them Christ and save them through the church. When admitting these people into the church, we baptize (+ give communion + confirm).

The innocent wee ones do not need the church. If the child is innocent the child has bypassed the trials here among us and gone straight to God. Those who would argue otherwise are attempting to support a theory of human origin, post-Apostolic and built upon sand.

You may call it ‘saved through God’s Love’ or whatever.

I am sorry for your loss.

Hesychos, Please first of all, understand what I am posting is not anguish over my Child, if it looked that way let me apologize. I just used that as an example to prove Gods love and mercy. Sometimes if we use our hurts and true storys in life, it gets the point across better to others is all.

I have been at peace with this for years. Thanks to our Church and Priests, and of course God unending mercy and Love. And thank-you for your compassion But the reason I just like to stress this point is for the many of people who like I have lost a child either in child birth or before to let them know, there are no bounds to Gods mercy.

Gods love for Children is great, and his mercy is awesome.

 

[una_fides]

Referencing what has been said earlier by the Theological Commission on the destiny of unborn unbaptized children who die, which commission was created by Paul VI and the topic of discussion was assigned by John Paul II and approved by Cardinal Ratzinger, now we have Pope Benedict XVI referring back to their statement. On October 5, 2007 he said:

…

It is important to know that the President of the Commission was the man who is now the Prefect for the Sacred Congregation of the Faith, Cardinal Levada, the Prefect then is now Pope and the pope at the time was John Paul II. All three have proven to be orthodox and faithful theologians.

It is important to not that the Holy Father feels that the statement of the Commission will be helpful to pastors.

The entire statement can be read here.

vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/speeches/2007/october/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20071005_cti_en.html

I would certainly follow Pope Benedict’s lead. Even though we may be unable to connect the dots between what has been said and what is being said, we can trust that he can connec them. The man has never given us a reason not to trust him, neither have John Paul II or Cardinal Levada.

As human beings, we must learn when to trust, not only when to be vigilant. The balance is important. When someone has proven credible, it’s OK to trust. As I said before, one of the men involved in this was the Ven. John Paul II, whose life was found to be without conflict in matters of faith and morals, another point that lends credibility to the statement by the Commission.

We have ot ask ourselves, would John Paul II, Cardinal Ratzinger (now Benedict XVI) and Cardinal Levada have lent their support and approved the findings of the commission as Vatican document if it had been in conflict with the faith? If we say yes, then we have to question their orthodoxy and their fidelity to Tradition.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

Nowhere in here does Benedict say that the traditional teaching is “troublesome” or “problematic” like you claimed. Do you have such a quote? Also if you find quotes online, I do ask that your provide a link to the online source. This will make it so that anyone can find the information, where you got it from, and will be able to read the quote in the context.

Regarding trust, I trust what has been handed down by the Church and what she has always taught. Just because you find someone trustworthy doesn’t mean he is inerrant. When you are presented with overwhelming evidence that he is teaching contrary to the received tradition of the Church, then that should at least raise some red flag and cause you to want to do some investigation or want to understand the teaching. So far, you keep going back to this generalization argument of trust rather than answer the questions on and discuss the specifics of the matter. How do you deal with the more authoritative declarations from the Magisterium in the past that I’ve posted on here? Do you believe there is a way to reconcile them?

 

[rinnie]

[SIGN][/SIGN]

How would Jesus baptize the child in the womb? What is the definition of baptism? The Church has officially defined that one can only be saved through water baptism or at least the desire thereof and also has taught that infants are incapable of making an act of desire for baptism. I am not limiting God’s mercy any more than you are expanding it beyond what he has revealed to us through Scripture, Tradition, and the Magisterium throughout history. I am merely reiterating how a merciful God has revealed he acts as he has informed us he acts and does not act. It is our duty then to understand God’s mercy in light of what he has revealed about himself rather than try to invent revelation based on our sinfully-defective ideas of how a merciful God acts. God is mercy and is justice and his ways are so far above our ways. If we understand sin and hated and detested it and saw it like God sees it, I think that is a good starting point for understanding how souls could be sentenced to an eternity in hell and why[SIGN][SIGN] unbaptized infants are limited to limbo rather than to attaining a gift, which was never their right to have.

[/SIGN][/SIGN]

Again please show me OFFICIAL Church teaching for this. That is all I ask. Because from what I understand you are saying that there are bounds to Gods mercy and it is not possible for God to extend this Grace of Baptism unless it is given in this world.

And show me How God said that he will not baptise unborn baby’s? You must show scripture or ST that states this. If you cannot then how can it not be possible that by relying on Gods Mercy which is OFFICIAL church teaching is not possible.

 

[una_fides]

[/sign][/sign]

Again please show me OFFICIAL Church teaching for this. That is all I ask. Because from what I understand you are saying that there are bounds to Gods mercy and it is not possible for God to extend this Grace of Baptism unless it is given in this world.

And show me How God said that he will not baptise unborn baby’s? You must show scripture or ST that states this. If you cannot then how can it not be possible that by relying on Gods Mercy which is OFFICIAL church teaching is not possible.

What is the definition of baptism?

 

[surritter]

Baptism is a sacrament which uses water to initiate a Christian and at the same time wash away the stain of original sin and make the person a new creation – a child of God.

But Una, you have admitted that baptism doesn’t always require water; there is baptism of desire (and of blood). So right there we have a deviation from the strictest definition of baptism.

Rinnie is simply taking it one step further to imply that baptism is any act which removes the stain of original sin, even if this act is done directly by God without our knowledge.

Now, I do not really agree with Rinnie. It is stretching the word baptism too far. But I am just trying to help communicate her logic.

It’s better to say that baptism is the sacrament performed by the Church to wash away original sin. But Una – you need to admit that God might also be capable of washing away original sin in His own way; but I don’t think we should call it “baptism.”

 

[rinnie]

What is the definition of baptism?

Receiving God’s Grace and being saved by it by the entrance of the Holy Spirit entering ones soul!

To put it in a more simple term its God comming to a person and saying come with me, and you soul craving to become one with Christ.

 

[rinnie]

Una, read Pope Pius (1846-1878) Enclclical Quant Conficiamur.

This part got my attention, and is what I am building my belief on which I believe is true according to the Church teaching.

Because God knows, searches and clearly understands the minds, hearts,thoughts and nature of ALL, his supreme kindness and clemency do not permit anyone at all who is not guilty of deliberate sin to suffer eternal punishments.

So there is no way that an infant being excluded from Eternal lfe with Christ in heaven is not a eternal punishment. And that can only be awarded in Heaven.

When the final judgement comes there is one place or the other do you not agree?

 

[JReducation]

Nowhere in here does Benedict say that the traditional teaching is “troublesome” or “problematic” like you claimed. Do you have such a quote? Also if you find quotes online, I do ask that your provide a link to the online source. This will make it so that anyone can find the information, where you got it from, and will be able to read the quote in the context.

The link to the Theological Commision’s approved statement and posted on the Vatican’s site was provided several times on this thread. Go back and find it.

The link to Pope Benedict’s approval of the Commission’s work has also been provided. Go back and find that.

Regarding trust, I trust what has been handed down by the Church and what she has always taught. Just because you find someone trustworthy doesn’t mean he is inerrant. When you are presented with overwhelming evidence that he is teaching contrary to the received tradition of the Church, then that should at least raise some red flag and cause you to want to do some investigation or want to understand the teaching. So far, you keep going back to this generalization argument of trust rather than answer the questions on and discuss the specifics of the matter. **How do you deal with the more authoritative declarations from the Magisterium in the past that I’ve posted on here? Do you believe there is a way to reconcile them?/**QUOTE]

1. 
   *]The Magisterium has never taught that Limbo is a dogma

1. 
   

   *]The Maigsterium has always taught that God has an eternal desire to save man.

   *]The Magisterium has never taught that God is limited to saving man through sacraments alone.

   *]What the Magisterium has taught is that baptism is necessary for salvation. But it has always taught this as a positive action on man’s part, meaning that when it is possible for man to be baptized, he must make the use of the ordinary means of salvation. The Magisterium has always taught about the “ordinary means.”

   *]The situation that is being addressed here does not allow for the use of the “ordinary means”. Since God’s mercy and desire for man’s salvation is infinite and God’s mercy tempers God’s justice, then it is logical to explore the possibility that God uses extraordinary means in an extraordinary situation. God in his mercy and justice does not demand what man cannot deliver.

   What you’re teachiing people here is to question the authority of the Pope. You’re actually teaching against tradition. Because tradition has always assented to the authority of the popes unless they commanded sin. What we are being encouraged to explore and discuss is not a sin.

   As I stated many times already, one of the popes involved in this has been declared Venerable, meaning that his writings and teachings are not in conflict with faith and morals, along with the fact that he lived a heroic live of virtue. What you’re doing is casting a shadow on the orthodoxy of a man who has already been declared Venerable by the Church. You’re doing more harm than Pope John Paul II, Pope Benedict XVI, Cardinal Levada and the Theological Commission, because you’re planting the seed of doubt when the issue is not a moral one.

   I will not stand by and let someone lead others into doubt when there is no need for it. To do that is uncharitable. You can sign Una Fides all that you wnat, but faith without charity is dead. Your charity is toward the written word, but not toward the good name of those who have never given us any reason to question their credibility and as I said, one of which has already cleared the hurdle of orthodoxy.

   Fraternally,

   Br. JR, OSF