Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Okay, but so what? Individual Catholics have taught all kinds of things. Some of those things later became official dogma, some of those things were denounced as heretical, and some of those things are still floating out there with the Church not having taken an official position one way or another.
Just when I thought you were getting it...
Individual Catholics do not speak for the Magisterium of the Church. If something is not established as dogma, then "the Church" as a body doesn't teach it, period.
So, I'm still waiting for you to show me where the Church has actually altered what it teaches. It's never happened. It can't happen.
Was the claim that unbaptized babies go to hell ever taught dogmatically? I don't know that it has. But, even if it has, there is ample room for speculation regarding the nature of the "hell" that they would experience.
Please provide the source of your claim that Popes affirmed "only Catholics go to heaven". If you are referring to the dogma that "there is no salvation outside the Church"; that is dogma and has not been changed, nor can it be - but it doesn't necessarily mean that "only Catholics go to heaven".
To me, you seem to be greatly confused about and very unfamiliar with what the Church teaches. You are making claims that are absurd and are built on faulty premises and false assumptions. Yes, you do need to provide your sources.
Much of your post is just a game of semantics. We are discussing what the church has historically taught, and how it is changing today. Whether what it has historically taught was absolute official dogma is irrelevant to what it has actually taught , whether dogma or just common practice and understanding.
Anyone willing can Google "do unbaptized babies go to Hell" and see the struggles the church has had, and how they have changed from Augustine's declaration that they go to hell to the modern view that they are in limbo, or the newer view that they actually go to communion with God. Why bother hiding from the discussion under the guise "well, that wasn't official doctrine"? It is what was taught and was understood by the average Catholic. Same with the idea of no salvation outside the Church. One , if one is willing , can Google the issue and see , again, that the Church has struggled with this issue and has changed its view. How much of what it taught was official doctrine is irrelevant. It is what was taught, and it has been moved away from in modern times. All of this is evident to anyone bothering to Google it and read.
But so I don't give you the means to simply ignore this on the basis I refused to source it, here you go. Ill give a lesson on Catholic belief to a Catholic , I guess. To clarify, I am not interested in whether this can somehow avoid being considered official dogma, I am just showing what the Church taught, officially or otherwise.
On no salvation outside the Church:
4th Lateran Council: " There is but one universal Church of the faithful, outside which no one at all is saved"
Council of Florence : The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes, and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless before death they are joined with Her
Pope Boniface VIII Official Bull Unam sanctam:
This we firmly believe and profess without qualification. Outside this Church there is no salvation and no remission of sins.
The newer RCC stance on salvation outside the church:
2nd Vatican Council , 1962-1965:
Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart , and , moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience-those too may achieve eternal salvation.
On unbaptized babies and hell
Here is a good summation of the babies in hell quandary the RCC created for itself, and how it has changed over the centuries. In it Catholic scholars admit that the view of Augustine that unbaptized babies went to hell held sway until about the Middle Ages, when the Church softened the teaching to one of a limbo or natural bliss. Now a Catholic theological commission has recommended changing limbo into the belief that they go to Heaven. So yes, despite your attempted denials, the Church has changed its position over the centuries and moved at all times to a kindler gentler view that is close to the view that the Jewish faith holds .
"Limbo emerged as a kind of way of softening the teaching of St. Augustine that unbaptized infants go to hell," said Frederick C. Bauerschmidt, who researches contemporary and medieval theology at Loyola College.
Though the saint said that "they're in the nicest part of hell, people did not find that entirely satisfactory," Bauerschmidt said.
We are getting too many different items to keep quoting. Basically what you are saying is that anything the Church may have taught might not be actual doctrine and dogma, and this is so. But it still doesn't alter the fact that it was taught, even if it never reached the point if official doctrine. So when the Church alters what it teaches, even if it isn't established as canonical doctrine, it changes what it teaches as the supposed purveyor of Christian teachings and morality. If you wish me to clarify any specific item let me know.
Regarding something specific, I just did. Unbaptized babies going to hell. It was taught by the early church, formulated by one of the 4 Great Fathers. The Church has struggled since then to come to grips with it, and has redefined what it believes along the way. Same with the idea that only Catholics go to Heaven. That was affirmed even by past popes. Now it is no longer the teaching of the church as a whole.
Do you really need me to link these , to teach a Catholic what the Catholic Church teaches? I can, but it does seem weird that I need to inform you of what your church has taught and now teaches.
This is a valiant effort, NatesDude, but I fear a quixotic one given the unreasoning credulity Mike accords to the Catholic Church.
This is a valiant effort, NatesDude, but I fear a quixotic one given the unreasoning credulity Mike accords to the Catholic Church.
I'm not worried about getting Mike to agree, just to show the faultiness of his claims. Other readers can see what I have linked to actual statements from the Church on the issue. I'm not sure Mike fully understands what his own faith is all about if he didn't realize any of this.
Much of your post is just a game of semantics. We are discussing what the church has historically taught, and how it is changing today. Whether what it has historically taught was absolute official dogma is irrelevant to what it has actually taught , whether dogma or just common practice and understanding.
It is absolutely NOT irrelevant, it is of utmost importance. That's what you don't seem to get.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NatesDude
Anyone willing can Google "do unbaptized babies go to Hell" and see the struggles the church has had, and how they have changed from Augustine's declaration that they go to hell to the modern view that they are in limbo, or the newer view that they actually go to communion with God. Why bother hiding from the discussion under the guise "well, that wasn't official doctrine"? It is what was taught and was understood by the average Catholic. Same with the idea of no salvation outside the Church. One , if one is willing , can Google the issue and see , again, that the Church has struggled with this issue and has changed its view. How much of what it taught was official doctrine is irrelevant. It is what was taught, and it has been moved away from in modern times. All of this is evident to anyone bothering to Google it and read.
Your assumption (the bolded) makes your whole argument moot. It is of utmost importance to figure out whether a teaching is dogma or not.
Neither Augustine's view, nor "limbo", nor the alleged newer view are dogma; and none have been officially condemned by the Church as far as I know. A Catholic is free to hold any of those views. Whichever one happens to be dominant or hold the most sway in any given time period may be an interesting case study, but has nothing to do with the Church "changing teachings."
Quote:
Originally Posted by NatesDude
But so I don't give you the means to simply ignore this on the basis I refused to source it, here you go. Ill give a lesson on Catholic belief to a Catholic , I guess. To clarify, I am not interested in whether this can somehow avoid being considered official dogma,
Then you're not interested in a real conversation and you're not really discussing this topic in good faith. You'd rather preach to me about what you think I don't know.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NatesDude
I am just showing what the Church taught, officially or otherwise.
On no salvation outside the Church:
4th Lateran Council: " There is but one universal Church of the faithful, outside which no one at all is saved"
Council of Florence : The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes, and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless before death they are joined with Her
Pope Boniface VIII Official Bull Unam sanctam:
This we firmly believe and profess without qualification. Outside this Church there is no salvation and no remission of sins.
The above is definitely considered dogma and cannot be changed. That said, the implications can be speculated upon, so the doctrine can develop over time to an extent.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NatesDude
The newer RCC stance on salvation outside the church:
2nd Vatican Council , 1962-1965:
Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart , and , moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience-those too may achieve eternal salvation.
In the proper context, the above statement does not necessarily contradict the already established dogma. That said, the 2nd Vatican Council did not issue any dogmas, so the statement may simply be flat-out incorrect.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NatesDude
On unbaptized babies and hell
Here is a good summation of the babies in hell quandary the RCC created for itself, and how it has changed over the centuries. In it Catholic scholars admit that the view of Augustine that unbaptized babies went to hell held sway until about the Middle Ages, when the Church softened the teaching to one of a limbo or natural bliss. Now a Catholic theological commission has recommended changing limbo into the belief that they go to Heaven. So yes, despite your attempted denials, the Church has changed its position over the centuries and moved at all times to a kindler gentler view that is close to the view that the Jewish faith holds .
"Limbo emerged as a kind of way of softening the teaching of St. Augustine that unbaptized infants go to hell," said Frederick C. Bauerschmidt, who researches contemporary and medieval theology at Loyola College.
Though the saint said that "they're in the nicest part of hell, people did not find that entirely satisfactory," Bauerschmidt said.
As I said, trends change and different beliefs may hold sway over a given time period, but the above says nothing about any dogmatic declarations being made.
It is absolutely NOT irrelevant, it is of utmost importance. That's what you don't seem to get.
Your assumption (the bolded) makes your whole argument moot. It is of utmost importance to figure out whether a teaching is dogma or not.
Neither Augustine's view, nor "limbo", nor the alleged newer view are dogma; and none have been officially condemned by the Church as far as I know. A Catholic is free to hold any of those views. Whichever one happens to be dominant or hold the most sway in any given time period may be an interesting case study, but has nothing to do with the Church "changing teachings."
Then you're not interested in a real conversation and you're not really discussing this topic in good faith. You'd rather preach to me about what you think I don't know.
The above is definitely considered dogma and cannot be changed. That said, the implications can be speculated upon, so the doctrine can develop over time to an extent.
In the proper context, the above statement does not necessarily contradict the already established dogma. That said, the 2nd Vatican Council did not issue any dogmas, so the statement may simply be flat-out incorrect.
As I said, trends change and different beliefs may hold sway over a given time period, but the above says nothing about any dogmatic declarations being made.
We were not discussing official dogma. We were discussing how the teachings of the church have changed. I have given examples of such. You insist on trying to hide behind the excuse that they were never official dogma. So what? Did the church teach these things or not?
Please answer the above question. Did the church teach these things throughout history or not? If you refuse to give an answer, you are just hiding behind the term dogma to avoid the truth.
We were not discussing official dogma. We were discussing how the teachings of the church have changed. I have given examples of such. You insist on trying to hide behind the excuse that they were never official dogma. So what? Did the church teach these things or not?
Please answer the above question. Did the church teach these things throughout history or not? If you refuse to give an answer, you are just hiding behind the term dogma.
It's important to make a distinction between "individuals within the Church" teaching something, and "the Church" authoritatively teaching something as a body.
I will readily concede that individuals within the Church have taught all kinds of different things in any given time.
Trends have evolved, certain teachings have held sway more than others in any given time. Yes, I will easily concede that.
But when you say "the teachings of the church have changed" - no I absolutely will not concede to that, because that means something very specific and is a false claim.
Unlike Protestantism, the Catholic Church has a Magisterium as a mechanism to control what is considered official Church teaching. Catholic theology is not a free for all.
It's important to make a distinction between "individuals within the Church" teaching something, and "the Church" authoritatively teaching something as a body.
I will readily concede that individuals within the Church have taught all kinds of different things in any given time.
Trends have evolved, certain teachings have held sway more than others in any given time. Yes, I will easily concede that.
But when you say "the teachings of the church have changed" - no I absolutely will not concede to that, because that means something very specific and is a false claim.
So you are saying the 4th Lateran council and the Council of Florence, along with the official Bull of the Pope , were just "individuals within the Church"? You don't accept that the 2 Councils were official stances of the Church, and claim that the Pope wasn't giving the official stance of the Church? You consider the Pope Benedict authorized International Theological Commission on babies and hell just an individual person?
So you are saying the 4th Lateran council and the Council of Florence, along with the official Bull of the Pope , were just "individuals within the Church"? You don't accept that the 2 Councils were official stances of the Church, and claim that the Pope wasn't giving the official stance of the Church?
I already responded to that.
But I'm not surprised you missed it. Like I already said (which you probably also missed), you've shown to be more interested in preaching to me about what you think I don't know than about actually having a real conversation.
You consider the Pope Benedict authorized International Theological Commission on babies and hell just an individual person?
A commission does not issue dogma. They research a topic and make a recommendation. The Pope and the Magisterium would be free to either act on their recommendation or ignore it altogether.
It appears that they were ignored as no dogmas were issued during Benedict's time.
But I'm not surprised you missed it. Like I already said (which you probably also missed), you've shown to be more interested in preaching to me about what you think I don't know than about actually having a real conversation.
No, you sort of waffled. You somehow wish to claim that the 2nd Vatican Council doesn't alter the previous councils, when it directly contradicts them .
But once again, I never brought the term dogma into the discussion. That was your attempt to deny that the church had changed its teachings. I simply referred to what the church historically taught, whether absolute dogma or whatever the term for less than dogma would be. I have shown from church documents that they have. Irrefutably, unless you can explain why the 2nd VC doesn't alter the other two councils position on whether salvation can be found outside the church . I have quoted Catholic leaders admitting that the Church stance on unbaptized babies has changed over time. Whether or not this stance was canonically official is totally irrelevant. The church at one time taught one thing, later they taught a second thing, now they are moving to teach a third thing. Its not arguable, its admitted by the church .
Last edited by NatesDude; 11-03-2021 at 01:21 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
