Hell, Limbo, Pope Innocent III, Council of Florence and St. Thomas Aquinas' limbus infantium

[SalamKhan]

As for the issue of unbaptized infants, I’m sure you’re familiar with the concept of ex cathedra teachings. Here is one:
*
"It firmly believes, professes and teaches*[infallible language] that the legal prescriptions of the old Testament or the Mosaic law, which are divided into ceremonies, holy sacrifices and sacraments, because they were instituted to signify something in the future, although they were adequate for the divine cult of that age, once our lord Jesus Christ who was signified by them had come, came to an end and the sacraments of the new Testament had their beginning. Whoever, after the passion, places his hope in the legal prescriptions and submits himself to them as necessary for salvation and as if faith in Christ without them could not save, sins mortally. It does not deny that from Christ’s passion until the promulgation of the gospel they could have been retained, provided they were in no way believed to be necessary for salvation. But it asserts that after the promulgation of the gospel they cannot be observed without loss of eternal salvation. Therefore it denounces all who after that time observe circumcision, the sabbath and other legal prescriptions as strangers to the faith of Christ and unable to share in eternal salvation, unless they recoil at some time from these errors. Therefore it strictly orders all who glory in the name of Christian, not to practise circumcision either before or after baptism, since whether or not they place their hope in it, it cannot possibly be observed without loss of eternal salvation.

With regard to children, since the danger of death is often present and the only remedy available to them is the sacrament of baptism by which they are snatched away from the dominion of the devil and adopted as children of God, it admonishes that sacred baptism is not to be deferred for forty or eighty days or any other period of time in accordance with the usage of some people, but it should be conferred as soon as it conveniently can; and if there is imminent danger of death, the child should be baptized straightaway without any delay, even by a lay man or a woman in the form of the church, if there is no priest, as is contained more fully in the decree on the Armenians."

Forgot to write that this was from Session 11 of the Council of Florence.

 

[Tyrel]

I was an ex Muslim, who wanted to become Catholic (you can check my early posts on this forum). On the matter of geocentrism, those against Galileo examined two of his propositions and clearly said that they were “formally heretical” and “contrary to Sacred Scripture and Church Fathers”, if something is formally heretical, there is no need for official definitions in order for it to be a teaching of the Church, otherwise you’re saying that the Trinity was merely a theory prior to it being officially defined.

Obviously you recognize, as any sane well read person should by now, that Galileo was wrong. Heliocentrism is literally untrue. This is partly the contribution Einstein made to the debate, for if there is no quiescent state then motion is merely relative to inertial frames of reference, and if Lorentz was wrong about a privileged reference frame then there is no objectivity about what is at rest. Things can only be at rest with respect to some inertial frame of reference if Einstein was right. Unless you’re a very odd sort of Neo-Lorentzian who thinks that there is a preferred reference frame and that, in that frame, the sun is at rest, then you too will accept that Galileo was wrong, and that the Church’s condemnations of his positions were right. Otherwise, what is there here to undermine the Catholic faith at all?

As for the issue of unbaptized infants, I’m sure you’re familiar with the concept of ex cathedra teachings. Here is one:

“It firmly believes, professes and teaches[infallible language] that…
With regard to children, since the danger of death is often present and the only remedy available to them is the sacrament of baptism by which they are snatched away from the dominion of the devil and adopted as children of God, it admonishes that sacred baptism is not to be deferred for forty or eighty days or any other period of time in accordance with the usage of some people, but it should be conferred as soon as it conveniently can; and if there is imminent danger of death, the child should be baptized straightaway without any delay, even by a lay man or a woman in the form of the church, if there is no priest, as is contained more fully in the decree on the Armenians.”

I think you may be reading more into that statement than is contained in that statement. Clearly the Church still teaches that baptism is necessary (whether received ordinarily, as with water (etc.) or extraordinarily (as is the case with the early Martyrs who died before being baptized)) without teaching that without (ordinary) baptism none can be saved, and this is no more a contradiction than claiming that God can both love and hate (for neither of those predicates literally represent the negations of the other, nor do they strictly entail the negations of the other if appropriately qualified). Baptism is necessary for salvation, by which the Church makes clear what she means in the Catechism (and elsewhere). Qualification is not the same as transformation. The Church has always maintained, for instance, that the Martyrs who died in the Ante-Nicene period when the whole church was under immense persecution, even if they died before being baptized, were saved. In fact, that belief had the assent of the very same people who wrote the statement you reproduced for us (above).

Sometimes, people standards for what constitutes a change in the Catholic Church’s teachings are pretty terrible. They often look something like this: the Church made a statement X at time t1, and the Church made another statement Y at a later time t2. The reading which I think is most natural of statement X, and the reading which I think is most natural of statement Y, makes them out to be implicitly or explicitly contradictory. Therefore, the Church changed her teachings from t1 to t2. But this is poor form; we should be making the effort, at least, to read X in the way it was intended by the people at t1, and to read Y in the way it was intended by the people at t2. The principle of charity, often practiced in philosophy (especially when reconstructing an ancient argument), directs us to always prefer a harmonizing reading of some set of statements made by the same person, even if they, at first blush, appear contradictory. If the Catholic faith is true, the Church should be treated in precisely the same way, and we should, additionally, be allowed to consult her about apparent inconsistencies in the things she has said in order to see what she can say for herself. The Church’s response on this issue seems, to me, entirely intellectually satisfying, at least to the extent that it should mollify the critic who insisted that she contradicted herself.

As for the assertion that some things were not infallible teachings but only opinions, I’ve heard it before. If the popes or the church did not teach infallibly on these certain matters, it’s because they never have taught anything infallibly.

I’m not sure that would logically (or theologically) follow, but in any case, I’m happy to say that to the extent that the Church has made clear statements in these cases, her statements continue to be maintained as authoritative and true even today.

 

[SalamKhan]

Obviously you recognize, as any sane well read person should by now, that Galileo was wrong. Heliocentrism is literally untrue…Otherwise, what is there here to undermine the Catholic faith at all?

This is what I mean by attempting to create loopholes. The two propositions were as follows:

1. The sun is the center of the world and completely devoid of local motion…

2. The earth is not the center of the world, nor motionless, but it moves as a whole of itself, and also with diurnal motion.

The condemnation of Galileo read in part:

“We say, pronounce, sentence, and declare that you, the said Galileo, by reason of the matters adduced in trial, and by you confessed as above, have rendered yourself in the judgment of this Holy Office vehemently suspected of heresy, namely, of having believed and held the doctrine—which is false and contrary to the sacred and divine Scriptures—that the Sun is the center of the world and does not move from east to west and that the Earth moves and is not the center of the world; and that an opinion may be held and defended as probably after it has been declared and defined to be contrary to the Holy Scripture; and that consequently you have incurred all the censures and penalties imposed and promulgated in the sacred canons and other constitutions, general and particular, against such delinquents. From which we are content that you be absolved, provided that, first, with a sincere heart and unfeigned faith, you abjure, curse, and detest before use the aforesaid errors and heresies and every other error and heresy contrary to the Catholic and Apostolic Roman Church in the form to be prescribed by us for you.”

Yet the Church today is abandoning geocentrism, if it hasn’t done so already.

I think you may be reading more into that statement than is contained in that statement. Clearly the Church still teaches that baptism is necessary (whether received ordinarily, as with water (etc.) or extraordinarily (as is the case with the early Martyrs who died before being baptized)…The Church has always maintained, for instance, that the Martyrs who died in the Ante-Nicene period when the whole church was under immense persecution, even if they died before being baptized, were saved. In fact, that belief had the assent of the very same people who wrote the statement you reproduced for us (above).

I’m aware of Baptism of Desire and Baptism of Blood (the Church today has added invincible ignorance). Those very same people did not not believe that BOD & BOB applied to unbaptised infants; that’s why, as you admitted, ‘common opinion’ was that unbaptised infants could not be saved. There is no need for official statements anyway, the implications are major if this ‘common opinion’ was taught universally for many generations, centuries even.

Sometimes, people standards for what constitutes a change in the Catholic Church’s teachings are pretty terrible. They often look something like this…If the Catholic faith is true, the Church should be treated in precisely the same way, and we should, additionally, be allowed to consult her about apparent inconsistencies in the things she has said in order to see what she can say for herself. The Church’s response on this issue seems, to me, entirely intellectually satisfying, at least to the extent that it should mollify the critic who insisted that she contradicted herself.

You’re assuming that I haven’t heard of nor bought into this excuse before. It’s just a form of cognitive dissonance.

Vatican I, Third Session, Chapter 4:

*"13. For the doctrine of the faith which God has revealed is put forward not as some philosophical discovery capable of being perfected by human intelligence, but as a divine deposit committed to the spouse of Christ to be faithfully protected and infallibly promulgated.

1. Hence, too, that meaning of the sacred dogmas is ever to be maintained which has once been declared by Holy mother Church, and there must never be any abandonment of this sense under the pretext or in the name of a more profound understanding.

May understanding, knowledge and wisdom increase as ages and centuries roll along, and greatly and vigorously flourish, in each and all, in the individual and the whole Church: but this only in its own proper kind, that is to say, in the same doctrine, the same sense, and the same understanding."*

 

[Tyrel]

This is what I mean by attempting to create loopholes. The two propositions were as follows:

1. The sun is the center of the world and completely devoid of local motion…

2. The earth is not the center of the world, nor motionless, but it moves as a whole of itself, and also with diurnal motion.

"We say, pronounce, sentence, and declare that you, the said Galileo, by reason of the matters adduced in trial, and by you confessed as above, have rendered yourself in the judgment of this Holy Office vehemently suspected of heresy, namely, of having believed and held the doctrine—which is false and contrary to the sacred and divine Scriptures—that the Sun is the center of the world and does not move from east to west and that the Earth moves and is not the center of the world; and that an opinion may be held and defended as probably after it has been declared and defined to be contrary to the Holy Scripture; and that consequently you have incurred all the censures and penalties imposed and promulgated in the sacred canons and other constitutions, general and particular, against such delinquents…"

Yet the Church today is abandoning geocentrism, if it hasn’t done so already.

Ok, I can see the confusion. I was actually trying to look up the condemnation so I could reread the wording, but I didn’t find it before I decided to respond. When I looked at this for myself because I found it to be cause for doubt, I noticed a few things. First of all, that if Einstein was wrong about the aether, then as far as I can tell, the Michelson-Morley experiment continues to stand as outstandingly surprising evidence for geocentrism, unless the Lorentz-Fitzgerald contraction thesis is correct. So if Einstein is wrong (and the jury is still out on this in science for several reasons, including the fact that Einstein’s theory is empirically equivalent to its neo-Lorentzian competitor), and if Lorentz is also wrong about contraction in the direction of motion through the aether, then the most recent experimental evidence testing geocentrism confirms geocentrism. Now, I say all that without wanting to advocate for geocentrism. I think geocentrism is false. I’m just pointing out that if the Catholic Church did teach it, it wouldn’t be as intellectually unconscionable as people imagine.

Second, the Church is not moving away from Geocentrism because she has never officially taught geocentrism. I notice that you read the same statement I read as a list rather than a conjunction. Let’s look at it again: “… that the Sun is the center of the world and does not move from east to west and that the Earth moves and is not the center of the world.” In a conjunction, if any conjunct is false, the conjunction is false. In this conjunction, at least one of the conjuncts is necessarily false. Therefore, the conjunction itself is false. I read the condemned article as a conjunction, rather than a list. It is not necessary to read it as a condemnation of (between two and four) separate articles (indeed, it would be strange to read it that way given the logical connections between the some of the conjuncts).

Third, to the best of my knowledge the original statement against Galileo was drafted up sometime around 1615, and included the phrasing: “… foolish and absurd, philosophically and formally heretical inasmuch as it expressly contradicts the doctrine of Holy Scripture in many passages…” Following this, several Cardinals were able to get it overruled before it was published so it never officially came to light, and “A milder decree, which did not include the word “heresy”, was issued and Galileo was summoned before the Holy Office.” The statement to which you refer, however, is one about which there is still, to this day, controversy. As George Sim Johnston writes:

“There is a still unresolved controversy over whether
this document is genuine, or was forged and slipped
into the files by some unscrupulous curial official. At
Galileo’s request, Bellarmine gave him a certificate
which simply forbade him to “hold or defend” the
theory. When, sixteen years later, Galileo wrote his
famous Dialogue on the Two Great World Systems, he
technically did not violate Bellarmine’s injunction.
But he did violate the command recorded in the
controversial minute, of which he was completely
unaware and which was used against him at the second
trial in 1633.”

So, for several reasons, no definitive case against the Church’s infallibility can be made from this one obscure controversy. In fact, it cannot even be established that the Church ever officially taught geocentrism. Don’t you think, if it did, that this would play a serious factor in the arguments of Catholic geocentrists like Robert Sungenis? I can’t find it now, but I’m sure that I’ve read Sungenis conceding that it isn’t an infallible teaching, though he clearly accepts that what the ordinary magisterium teaches is infallible.

 

[Tyrel]

I’m aware of Baptism of Desire and Baptism of Blood (the Church today has added invincible ignorance). Those very same people did not not believe that BOD & BOB applied to unbaptised infants; that’s why, as you admitted, ‘common opinion’ was that unbaptised infants could not be saved. There is no need for official statements anyway, the implications are major if this ‘common opinion’ was taught universally for many generations, centuries even.

The Church hasn’t ‘added’ invincible ignorance. Those in invincible ignorance may have received the baptism of Desire by the design of God. That’s the same for infants who die in merely original sin. This common opinion wasn’t taught universally. After all, prior to Augustine the more traditional view was that of Gregory Nazianzus:

“It will happen, I believe . . . that those last mentioned [infants dying without baptism] will neither be admitted by the just judge to the glory of Heaven nor condemned to suffer punishment, since, though unsealed [by baptism], they are not wicked. . . . For from the fact that one does not merit punishment it does not follow that one is worthy of being honored, any more than it follows that one who is not worthy of a certain honor deserves on that account to be punished. [Oration 40, no. 23]”

What the Council of Florence affirmed, then, was just that those who die in the state of original sin merely do go to hell. This left it entirely open for theologians like St. Bernard to suggest that God may exercise a special grace with respect to unbaptized infants in giving them baptism through a kind of baptism of desire… You know, actually, if that grace is irresistible then you could make an argument against it based on some canons from Trent… That’s interesting.

 

[SalamKhan]

Ok, I can see the confusion. I was actually trying to look up the condemnation so I could reread the wording, but I didn’t find it before I decided to respond. When I looked at this for myself because I found it to be cause for doubt, I noticed a few things. First of all, that if Einstein was wrong about the aether, then as far as I can tell, the Michelson-Morley experiment continues to stand as outstandingly surprising evidence for geocentrism, unless the Lorentz-Fitzgerald contraction thesis is correct. So if Einstein is wrong (and the jury is still out on this in science for several reasons, including the fact that Einstein’s theory is empirically equivalent to its neo-Lorentzian competitor), and if Lorentz is also wrong about contraction in the direction of motion through the aether, then the most recent experimental evidence testing geocentrism confirms geocentrism. Now, I say all that without wanting to advocate for geocentrism. I think geocentrism is false. I’m just pointing out that if the Catholic Church did teach it, it wouldn’t be as intellectually unconscionable as people imagine.

Second, the Church is not moving away from Geocentrism because she has never officially taught geocentrism. I notice that you read the same statement I read as a list rather than a conjunction. Let’s look at it again: “… that the Sun is the center of the world and does not move from east to west and that the Earth moves and is not the center of the world.” In a conjunction, if any conjunct is false, the conjunction is false. In this conjunction, at least one of the conjuncts is necessarily false. Therefore, the conjunction itself is false. I read the condemned article as a conjunction, rather than a list. It is not necessary to read it as a condemnation of (between two and four) separate articles (indeed, it would be strange to read it that way given the logical connections between the some of the conjuncts).

Third, to the best of my knowledge the original statement against Galileo was drafted up sometime around 1615, and included the phrasing: “… foolish and absurd, philosophically and formally heretical inasmuch as it expressly contradicts the doctrine of Holy Scripture in many passages…” Following this, several Cardinals were able to get it overruled before it was published so it never officially came to light, and “A milder decree, which did not include the word “heresy”, was issued and Galileo was summoned before the Holy Office.” The statement to which you refer, however, is one about which there is still, to this day, controversy. As George Sim Johnston writes:

“There is a still unresolved controversy over whether
this document is genuine, or was forged and slipped
into the files by some unscrupulous curial official. At
Galileo’s request, Bellarmine gave him a certificate
which simply forbade him to “hold or defend” the
theory. When, sixteen years later, Galileo wrote his
famous Dialogue on the Two Great World Systems, he
technically did not violate Bellarmine’s injunction.
But he did violate the command recorded in the
controversial minute, of which he was completely
unaware and which was used against him at the second
trial in 1633.”

So, for several reasons, no definitive case against the Church’s infallibility can be made from this one obscure controversy. In fact, it cannot even be established that the Church ever officially taught geocentrism. Don’t you think, if it did, that this would play a serious factor in the arguments of Catholic geocentrists like Robert Sungenis? I can’t find it now, but I’m sure that I’ve read Sungenis conceding that it isn’t an infallible teaching, though he clearly accepts that what the ordinary magisterium teaches is infallible.

I’m not discussing the scientific studies or debate of geocentrism, I’m talking about the theological position of the Catholic Church.

Those were two propositions, not one.

More from the same condemnation of Galileo:

*"This Holy Tribunal being therefore of intention to proceed against the disorder and mischief thence resulting, which went on increasing to the prejudice of the Holy Faith, by command of His Holiness and of the Most Eminent Lords Cardinals of this supreme and universal Inquisition, the two propositions of the stability of the Sun and the motion of the Earth were by the theological Qualifiers qualified as follows:

The proposition that the Sun is the center of the world and does not move from its place is absurd and false philosophically and formally heretical, because it is expressly contrary to Holy Scripture.

The proposition that the Earth is not the center of the world and immovable but that it moves, and also with a diurnal motion, is equally absurd and false philosophically and theologically considered at least erroneous in faith."*

Oh, and:

“no definitive case against the Church’s infallibility can be made from this one obscure controversy”

I didn’t bring up geocentrism. You did.

 

[SalamKhan]

The Church hasn’t ‘added’ invincible ignorance. Those in invincible ignorance may have received the baptism of Desire by the design of God. That’s the same for infants who die in merely original sin. This common opinion wasn’t taught universally. After all, prior to Augustine the more traditional view was that of Gregory Nazianzus:

“It will happen, I believe . . . that those last mentioned [infants dying without baptism] will neither be admitted by the just judge to the glory of Heaven nor condemned to suffer punishment, since, though unsealed [by baptism], they are not wicked. . . . For from the fact that one does not merit punishment it does not follow that one is worthy of being honored, any more than it follows that one who is not worthy of a certain honor deserves on that account to be punished. [Oration 40, no. 23]”

What the Council of Florence affirmed, then, was just that those who die in the state of original sin merely do go to hell. This left it entirely open for theologians like St. Bernard to suggest that God may exercise a special grace with respect to unbaptized infants in giving them baptism through a kind of baptism of desire… You know, actually, if that grace is irresistible then you could make an argument against it based on some canons from Trent… That’s interesting.

I did not say that the ‘common opinion’ was a universal teaching at all times, why would I, if I believe the Church has changed its teachings? The fact of the matter is, after the East-West schism, you believe the Western Church under Rome is the Catholic Church, and this Catholic Church universally taught the ‘common opinion’ of Augustine/Thomas Aquinas for a long period of time; this would make it part of the ordinary and universal Magisterium and thus, infallible.

Bernard of Clairvaux also considered the Immaculate Conception to be a complete innovation, and the Church subsequently agreed with him until John Duns Scotus, and eventually defined it as dogma. The Eastern Orthodox too believe the Immaculate Conception to be an innovation, based on another innovation known as Original Sin, which itself is considered to be based on the defective Vetus Latina (or Augustine’s crypto Manicheaism according to his opponents).

 

[PluniaZ]

I did not say that the ‘common opinion’ was a universal teaching at all times, why would I, if I believe the Church has changed its teachings? The fact of the matter is, after the East-West schism, you believe the Western Church under Rome is the Catholic Church, and this Catholic Church universally taught the ‘common opinion’ of Augustine/Thomas Aquinas for a long period of time; this would make it part of the ordinary and universal Magisterium and thus, infallible.

Bernard of Clairvaux also considered the Immaculate Conception to be a complete innovation, and the Church subsequently agreed with him until John Duns Scotus, and eventually defined it as dogma. The Eastern Orthodox too believe the Immaculate Conception to be an innovation, based on another innovation known as Original Sin, which itself is considered to be based on the defective Vetus Latina (or Augustine’s crypto Manicheaism according to his opponents).

Only the Pope can define doctrine. The Pope did not sign the condemnation of Galileo, so the Pope did not define any doctrine in that case. Nor has any doctrine defined by a Pope been contradicted by the definition of any other Pope.

 

[SalamKhan]

Only the Pope can define doctrine. The Pope did not sign the condemnation of Galileo, so the Pope did not define any doctrine in that case. Nor has any doctrine defined by a Pope been contradicted by the definition of any other Pope.

A few questions come to mind.

First, are you aware that the consensus of the Fathers is also considered infallible?

Second, are you aware that the teaching of the ordinary and universal magisterium is considered infallible?

Third, when was the first time a pope defined a doctrine, how many doctrines has the pope defined, and what of the doctrines that were not defined prior to the pope defining it, and of the doctrines yet to be defined?

Finally, before I go into my last question…

Canon 1 of the Fourth Council of the Lateran:

*“We firmly believe and openly confess…”

“…There is one Universal Church of the faithful, outside of which there is absolutely no salvation…”*

The Papal Bull, Unam Sanctum:

“Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff.”

The Papal Bull, Cantate Domino:

*"It **firmly believes, professes, and proclaims *that those not living within the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics cannot become participants in eternal life, but will depart “into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels” [Matt. 25:41], unless before the end of life the same have been added to the flock; and that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is so strong that only to those remaining in it are the sacraments of the Church of benefit for salvation, and do fastings, almsgiving, and other functions of piety and exercises of Christian service produce eternal reward, and that no one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has remained in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church."

My last question is that, what have the popes within the last century said on this topic? Keep in mind the following when you answer.

Session 3, Chapter 4, of the First Vatican Council:

*"13. For the doctrine of the faith which God has revealed is put forward not as some philosophical discovery capable of being perfected by human intelligence, but as a divine deposit committed to the spouse of Christ to be faithfully protected and infallibly promulgated.

1. Hence, too, that meaning of the sacred dogmas is ever to be maintained which has once been declared by Holy mother Church, and there must never be any abandonment of this sense under the pretext or in the name of a more profound understanding.

May understanding, knowledge and wisdom increase as ages and centuries roll along, and greatly and vigorously flourish, in each and all, in the individual and the whole Church: but this only in its own proper kind, that is to say, in the same doctrine, the same sense, and the same understanding."*

Refrain from answering in the manner I have described here.

 

[PluniaZ]

First, are you aware that the consensus of the Fathers is also considered infallible?

Cite?

Second, are you aware that the teaching of the ordinary and universal magisterium is considered infallible?

Cite?

Third, when was the first time a pope defined a doctrine, how many doctrines has the pope defined, and what of the doctrines that were not defined prior to the pope defining it, and of the doctrines yet to be defined?

The first doctrine defined by the Pope is this:

“Simon Peter answered and said: Thou art Christ, the Son of the living God.” Matthew 16:18

I don’t know how many doctrines the Pope has defined.

Please elaborate your “what of” questions.

Finally, before I go into my last question…

Canon 1 of the Fourth Council of the Lateran:

"We firmly believe and openly confess…"

“…There is one Universal Church of the faithful, outside of which there is absolutely no salvation…”

The Papal Bull, Unam Sanctum:

"Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff."

The Papal Bull, Cantate Domino:

*“It **firmly believes, professes, and proclaims ***that those not living within the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics cannot become participants in eternal life, but will depart “into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels” [Matt. 25:41], unless before the end of life the same have been added to the flock; and that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is so strong that only to those remaining in it are the sacraments of the Church of benefit for salvation, and do fastings, almsgiving, and other functions of piety and exercises of Christian service produce eternal reward, and that no one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has remained in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.”

Yes, all very good statements by our Holy Roman Pontiffs. We should take them to heart.

My last question is that, what have the popes within the last century said on this topic?

Pope Paul VI said this:

“But the college or body of bishops has no authority unless it is understood together with the Roman Pontiff, the successor of Peter as its head. The pope’s power of primacy over all, both pastors and faithful, remains whole and intact. In virtue of his office, that is as Vicar of Christ and pastor of the whole Church, the Roman Pontiff has full, supreme and universal power over the Church. And he is always free to exercise this power. The order of bishops, which succeeds to the college of apostles and gives this apostolic body continued existence, is also the subject of supreme and full power over the universal Church, provided we understand this body together with its head the Roman Pontiff and never without this head.(27*) This power can be exercised only with the consent of the Roman Pontiff. For our Lord placed Simon alone as the rock and the bearer of the keys of the Church,(156) and made him shepherd of the whole flock;(157) it is evident, however, that the power of binding and loosing, which was given to Peter,(158) was granted also to the college of apostles, joined with their head.(159)(28*) This college, insofar as it is composed of many, expresses the variety and universality of the People of God, but insofar as it is assembled under one head, it expresses the unity of the flock of Christ. In it, the bishops, faithfully recognizing the primacy and pre-eminence of their head, exercise their own authority for the good of their own faithful, and indeed of the whole Church, the Holy Spirit supporting its organic structure and harmony with moderation. The supreme power in the universal Church, which this college enjoys, is exercised in a solemn way in an ecumenical council. A council is never ecumenical unless it is confirmed or at least accepted as such by the successor of Peter; and it is prerogative of the Roman Pontiff to convoke these councils, to preside over them and to confirm them.(29*) This same collegiate power can be exercised together with the pope by the bishops living in all parts of the world, provided that the head of the college calls them to collegiate action, or at least approves of or freely accepts the united action of the scattered bishops, so that it is thereby made a collegiate act.”

vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html

Keep in mind the following when you answer.

Session 3, Chapter 4, of the First Vatican Council:

*"13. For the doctrine of the faith which God has revealed is put forward not as some philosophical discovery capable of being perfected by human intelligence, but as a divine deposit committed to the spouse of Christ to be faithfully protected and infallibly promulgated.

1. Hence, too, that meaning of the sacred dogmas is ever to be maintained which has once been declared by Holy mother Church, and there must never be any abandonment of this sense under the pretext or in the name of a more profound understanding.*

May understanding, knowledge and wisdom increase as ages and centuries roll along, and greatly and vigorously flourish, in each and all, in the individual and the whole Church: but this only in its own proper kind, that is to say, in the same doctrine, the same sense, and the same understanding."

Good stuff.

Refrain from answering in the manner I have described here.

OK

 

[Vico]

…
As attractive as St. Thomas’ view of the limbus infantium is, I wonder if it is consistent with the declaration of the Council of Florence. Intuitively it seems that for it to be consistent with the Council of Florence, the limbus infantium would have to be part of hell, but it seems difficult to accept that hell could, for some of its denizens, involve not only the absence of all suffering, but also union with God proportionate to nature’s capacity and even full enjoyment of natural goods.

What do people here think?

This declaration of the Council of Florence (1431–1449) is based upon the justification required to enter purgatory and then heaven. So the Church only allows for hope without going counter to any dogma of faith, in the absence of revelation. So in the Catechism is stated:
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, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus’ tenderness toward children which caused him to say: "Let the children come to me, do not hinder them,"63 allow 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.

Interestingly, there are some Eastern Orthodox teachings with the opinion that the soul does not transit for a few days after death of the body, during which prayers may be offered for them. Certainly contrary to Catholic teaching of the immediacy of they particular judgment.

Commission:
vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20070419_un-baptised-infants_en.html

 

[SalamKhan]

Cite?

Session 4, Second Decree of the Council of Trent:

“Furthermore, to check unbridled spirits, it decrees that no one relying on his own judgment shall, in matters of faith and morals pertaining to the edification of Christian doctrine, distorting the Holy Scriptures in accordance with his own conceptions, presume to interpret them contrary to that sense which holy mother Church, to whom it belongs to judge of their true sense and interpretation, has held and holds, or even contrary to the unanimous teaching of the Fathers, even though such interpretations should never at any time be published.”

Session 3, Chapter 2, of the First Vatican Council:

“9. In consequence, it is not permissible for anyone to interpret Holy Scripture in a sense contrary to this, or indeed against the unanimous consent of the fathers.”

Cite?

Chapter 3 of Lumen Gentium:

*"25. Among the principal duties of bishops the preaching of the Gospel occupies an eminent place. For bishops are preachers of the faith, who lead new disciples to Christ, and they are authentic teachers, that is, teachers endowed with the authority of Christ, who preach to the people committed to them the faith they must believe and put into practice, and by the light of the Holy Spirit illustrate that faith. They bring forth from the treasury of Revelation new things and old, making it bear fruit and vigilantly warding off any errors that threaten their flock. Bishops, teaching in communion with the Roman Pontiff, are to be respected by all as witnesses to divine and Catholic truth. In matters of faith and morals, the bishops speak in the name of Christ and the faithful are to accept their teaching and adhere to it with a religious assent. This religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra; that is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will. His mind and will in the matter may be known either from the character of the documents, from his frequent repetition of the same doctrine, or from his manner of speaking.

**Although the individual bishops do not enjoy the prerogative of infallibility, they nevertheless proclaim Christ’s doctrine infallibly whenever, even though dispersed through the world, but still maintaining the bond of communion among themselves and with the successor of Peter, and authentically teaching matters of faith and morals, they are in agreement on one position as definitively to be held. *This is even more clearly verified when, gathered together in an ecumenical council, they are teachers and judges of faith and morals for the universal Church, whose definitions must be adhered to with the submission of faith."

The first doctrine defined by the Pope is this:

“Simon Peter answered and said: Thou art Christ, the Son of the living God.” Matthew 16:18

1. Scripture is not considered infallible in itself.
2. If Peter spoke here as the pope, then he also denied Christ before others as the pope, which is impossible according to Church teaching, as the pope is supposed to be protected by the Holy Spirit in this regard.

Please elaborate your “what of” questions.

Were they infallible before being defined? If so, is there any infallible doctrine yet to be defined?

Yes, all very good statements by our Holy Roman Pontiffs. We should take them to heart.

Pope Paul VI said this:

Those statements dealt with salvation dogma, that statement from pope Paul VI was not relevant.

Good stuff.

OK

Keep it in mind.

 

[PluniaZ]

Session 4, Second Decree of the Council of Trent:

"Furthermore, to check unbridled spirits, it decrees that no one relying on his own judgment shall, in matters of faith and morals pertaining to the edification of Christian doctrine, distorting the Holy Scriptures in accordance with his own conceptions, presume to interpret them contrary to that sense which holy mother Church, to whom it belongs to judge of their true sense and interpretation, has held and holds, or even contrary to the unanimous teaching of the Fathers, even though such interpretations should never at any time be published."

Session 3, Chapter 2, of the First Vatican Council:

"9. In consequence, it is not permissible for anyone to interpret Holy Scripture in a sense contrary to this, or indeed against the unanimous consent of the fathers."

Chapter 3 of Lumen Gentium:

"25. Among the principal duties of bishops the preaching of the Gospel occupies an eminent place. For bishops are preachers of the faith, who lead new disciples to Christ, and they are authentic teachers, that is, teachers endowed with the authority of Christ, who preach to the people committed to them the faith they must believe and put into practice, and by the light of the Holy Spirit illustrate that faith. They bring forth from the treasury of Revelation new things and old, making it bear fruit and vigilantly warding off any errors that threaten their flock. Bishops, teaching in communion with the Roman Pontiff, are to be respected by all as witnesses to divine and Catholic truth. In matters of faith and morals, the bishops speak in the name of Christ and the faithful are to accept their teaching and adhere to it with a religious assent. This religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra; that is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will. His mind and will in the matter may be known either from the character of the documents, from his frequent repetition of the same doctrine, or from his manner of speaking.

**Although the individual bishops do not enjoy the prerogative of infallibility, they nevertheless proclaim Christ’s doctrine infallibly whenever, even though dispersed through the world, but still maintaining the bond of communion among themselves and with the successor of Peter, and authentically teaching matters of faith and morals, they are in agreement on one position as definitively to be held. **This is even more clearly verified when, gathered together in an ecumenical council, they are teachers and judges of faith and morals for the universal Church, whose definitions must be adhered to with the submission of faith.

And this infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer willed His Church to be endowed in defining doctrine of faith and morals, extends as far as the deposit of Revelation extends, which must be religiously guarded and faithfully expounded. And this is the infallibility which the Roman Pontiff, the head of the college of bishops, enjoys in virtue of his office, when, as the supreme shepherd and teacher of all the faithful, who confirms his brethren in their faith, by a definitive act he proclaims a doctrine of faith or morals. And therefore his definitions, of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church, are justly styled irreformable, since they are pronounced with the assistance of the Holy Spirit, promised to him in blessed Peter, and therefore they need no approval of others, nor do they allow an appeal to any other judgment. For then the Roman Pontiff is not pronouncing judgment as a private person, but as the supreme teacher of the universal Church, in whom the charism of infallibility of the Church itself is individually present, he is expounding or defending a doctrine of Catholic faith.** The infallibility promised to the Church resides also in the body of Bishops, when that body exercises the supreme magisterium with the successor of Peter.** To these definitions the assent of the Church can never be wanting, on account of the activity of that same Holy Spirit, by which the whole flock of Christ is preserved and progresses in unity of faith."

Thanks for looking these up. These are very valuable passages for us to keep in mind.

1. Scripture is not considered infallible in itself.

Cite?

1. If Peter spoke here as the pope, then he also denied Christ before others as the pope, which is impossible according to Church teaching, as the pope is supposed to be protected by the Holy Spirit in this regard.

Peter did not receive the Holy Spirit until after the resurrection of Jesus. Jesus stated that the Father had revealed to Peter the dogma that Peter confessed in Matthew 16:16.

Were they infallible before being defined? If so, is there any infallible doctrine yet to be defined?

The Pope has always been infallible. I don’t know whether or not the Pope will define any more doctrines or not.

Those statements dealt with salvation dogma, that statement from pope Paul VI was not relevant.

We’re discussing the authority of the Pope here. The statements I quoted from Lumen Gentium show that the bishops have no authority apart from the Pope.

 

[SalamKhan]

Cite?

The Pope has always been infallible. I don’t know whether or not the Pope will define any more doctrines or not.

We’re discussing the authority of the Pope here. The statements I quoted from Lumen Gentium show that the bishops have no authority apart from the Pope.

The Magisterium is considered the rule of faith, not Scripture. That scripture is infallible, is a Protestant teaching.

I asked whether the doctrines were infallible teachings of the church prior to being defined by the pope, I did not ask whether the pope has always been infallible. I also asked whether there are any doctrines that have not been defined by the pope which are infallible teachings of the church, I did not ask whether any more doctrines would be defined in the future.

The excerpts I quoted from the Fourth Lateran Council, Unam Sanctum, and Cantate Domino, dealt with salvation dogma. Pope Paul VI’s statement on papal authority is not relevant to my question on the teaching of salvation dogma.

If you have difficulty understanding my posts and questions, just say so.

 

[PluniaZ]

The Magisterium is considered the rule of faith, not Scripture. That scripture is infallible, is a Protestant teaching.

I asked whether the doctrines were infallible teachings of the church prior to being defined by the pope, I did not ask whether the pope has always been infallible. I also asked whether there are any doctrines that have not been defined by the pope which are infallible teachings of the church, I did not ask whether any more doctrines would be defined in the future.

The excerpts I quoted from the Fourth Lateran Council, Unam Sanctum, and Cantate Domino, dealt with salvation dogma. Pope Paul VI’s statement on papal authority is not relevant to my question on the teaching of salvation dogma.

If you have difficulty understanding my posts and questions, just say so.

The passages from Lumen Gentium that you and I have posted show that there is no Magisterium apart from the Pope, which is the only point I was trying to make when I interrupted your discussion.

 

[SalamKhan]

The passages from Lumen Gentium that you and I have posted show that there is no Magisterium apart from the Pope, which is the only point I was trying to make when I interrupted your discussion.

Lumen Gentium, as I have cited, also teaches that the ordinary and universal magisterium of the church is infallible; that when the bishops in communion with Rome dispersed throughout the world are in agreement on a matter of faith and morals, it is infallible. The Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, by the approval of pope John Paul II, said the following in defense of Ordinatio Sacerdotalis:

"This teaching requires definitive assent, since, founded on the written Word of God, and from the beginning constantly preserved and applied in the Tradition of the Church,* it has been set forth infallibly by the ordinary and universal Magisterium *(cf. Second Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution on the Church Lumen Gentium 25, 2). Thus, in the present circumstances, the Roman Pontiff, exercising his proper office of confirming the brethren, has handed on this same teaching by a formal declaration, explicitly stating what is to be held always, everywhere, and by all, as belonging to the deposit of the faith."

 

[PluniaZ]

Lumen Gentium, as I have cited, also teaches that the ordinary and universal magisterium of the church is infallible; that when the bishops in communion with Rome dispersed throughout the world are in agreement on a matter of faith and morals, it is infallible. The Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, by the approval of pope John Paul II, said the following in defense of Ordinatio Sacerdotalis:

"This teaching requires definitive assent, since, founded on the written Word of God, and from the beginning constantly preserved and applied in the Tradition of the Church,** it has been set forth infallibly by the ordinary and universal Magisterium **(cf. Second Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution on the Church Lumen Gentium 25, 2). Thus, in the present circumstances, the Roman Pontiff, exercising his proper office of confirming the brethren, has handed on this same teaching by a formal declaration, explicitly stating what is to be held always, everywhere, and by all, as belonging to the deposit of the faith."

Yes, and in all these cases, the assent of the Pope is required.

I have a question for you - is there an equivalent to the Pope in Islam?

 

[SalamKhan]

I have a question for you - is there an equivalent to the Pope in Islam?

No.

 

[PluniaZ]

No.

So who is your religious authority?

 

[SalamKhan]

So who is your religious authority?

Prophet Muhammad (S).