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.
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.
Was that my point? Or did you avoid my point to try and justify your stance by altering the point? My point was, is the commission " an individual" within the church, as you blithely attempt to portray anything holding a stance that doesn't agree with what you wish.
The commission, BTW, was composed of 30 Catholic theologians appointed by Pope Benedict
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 . I have quoted Catholic leaders admitting that the Church stance on unbaptized babies has changed over time. Whether or not this stance was 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 .
Well, if you agree with me in making the important stipulation that dogma has never been altered, then I can certainly agree that unofficial teachings of the Church have changed over time.
As for the 2nd Vatican Council, that's a completely separate topic; but the Council did not issue any dogmas or anathemas as did nearly every other valid Council before it. Therefore, if it contradicts a previous Council, then the previous Council ought to be deferred to.
Well, if you agree with me in making the important stipulation that dogma has never been altered, then I can certainly agree that unofficial teachings of the Church have changed over time.
As for the 2nd Vatican Council, that's a completely separate topic; but the Council did not issue any dogmas or anathemas as did nearly every other valid Council before it. Therefore, if it contradicts a previous Council, then the previous Council ought to be deferred to.
I never mentioned dogma. I simply said that what the church has taught over time has changed, specifically in this line of discussion regarding various concepts on hell and salvation. I will admit I may not know which particulars of the RCC are dogma or just non dogmatic teachings , I haven't gone that deep , but I do know what they teach the pew sitters in church and what they have taught throughout history, and where they have changed.
I never mentioned dogma. I simply said that what the church has taught over time has changed, specifically in this line of discussion regarding various concepts on hell and salvation. I will admit I may not know which particulars of the RCC are dogma or just non dogmatic teachings , I haven't gone that deep , but I do know what they teach the pew sitters in church and what they have taught throughout history, and where they have changed.
Okay well, it would serve you well to get the full picture and find out what it actually means *to a Catholic* to say that "the Church teaches" something; and how that may be very different from what "that Priest teaches" or "that theologian teaches".
Okay well, it would serve you well to get the full picture and find out what it actually means *to a Catholic* to say that "the Church teaches" something; and how that may be very different from what "that Priest teaches" or "that theologian teaches".
I have no need to do so. I was clearly talking about what the stance of the church is regarding a couple of issues. Those stances are what they are, whether or not those stances can be considered dogma. If the church teaches it to the pew sitters, it is a church teaching, whether or not it can be considered official dogma in the strict sense or not. When priests teach members that aborted babies don't get to go to Heaven because they weren't baptized, that is a church teaching. The fact that the Church has no official dogma on the subject makes it no less a Church teaching.
Your previous post brings up another question though. In post 698 I made mention of an evangelist stating that anyone without Christ went to hell . You replied in post 700 this wasn't a valid stance. Now you seem to be saying that the stances of the early church that limited salvation to only members of the RCC is the official and valid Catholic stance , since this was the view of the earlier councils before the modern inclusive view of the 2nd VC. I don't care personally which way you believe, but do you realize that you have contradicted yourself with claiming the previous councils are the valid ones on the subject of salvation outside the Church?
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.
No, its that you and these other people are discussing a religion that you dont have a clue about.
All you Gentiles have chosen hell because you dont even know that outer darkness is hell, you are standing as a Gentile in outer darkness because you are a Gentile, and then you guys are talking about others joining you in the hell you have chosen for yourself in outer darkness.
You people are quoting things said to Gentiles who wete grafted and adopted into Israel to enjoy the new covenant made only for Israel and Judah.
Because you dont know jack about the religion of Jesus you just come in here making up false notions about what you dont study.
If you studied the temple and its feast of Tabernacles, you would know what the scriptures of hell are referring to.
What happens at the last Passover which takes place in the last feast of Tabernacles?
Maybe you are also wondering why I say that the last Passover happens on the feast of Tabernacles because you simply dont know the missions and sactifices of Jesus which is pathetic with Christians who ONLY CLAIM TO FOLLOW JESUS.
YOU guys dont even have a clue about the feasts and the missions of Christ because you all are lawless NOT EVEN KNOWING THE FEASTS AND SACRIFICES OF CHRIST.
Hell IS outer darkness, IT IS the Gentile court to which all you Christians belong, but not only that, you people are proud to be the least of the kingdom.
I cant even lure a Christian out of hell, they are all proud to remain in the outer court.
The first Christians followed Jesus in the religion Jesus walked in, not only do you guys reject the religion of Christ, you are enemies against any Gentile who dares to join the new covenant of Israel.
Lol, all of you wondering who the lawless pagan Babylonians of Revelation are as you keep all the Sabbaths and holy days of the Babylonian messiah named Tammuz.
If you cant be honest about your own lawlessness and your honored Babylobian Sabbaths, holy days and traditions you keep, how can anyone take any of you serious?
Not one, not one Christian in here is honest enough to admit what they worship, not one Christian will admit they he is a practicing pagan who keeps all the Babylonian holy days and all its traditions.
By law, by the promises of God, whatever set of holy days and traditions you keep, THEY SEAL YOU IN YOUR FOREHEAD BY LAW, BY LAW, NOT BY OPINION.
BY THE LAWS OF GOD, BY GOD PROMISING HIMSELF, GOD PROCLAIMS TO THE GENTILE," IF YOU KEEP MY SABBATHS AND MY FEASTS, I WILL SEAL YOUR HEAD WITH PROTECTION AGAINST THE JUDGMENT."
BY LAW, BY THE PROMISES OF GOD, GOD DECLARES," IF YOU KEEP MY SABBATHS AND FEASTS, I PROMISE YOU THAT I WILL GIVE YOU A BETTER NAME THAN SONS AND DAUGHTERS.
BY LAW, BY THE PROMISES OF GOD, GOD DECLARES, " IF YOU KEEP MY SABBATHS AND MY FEASTS AND YOU LOVE MY LAW, I WILL ALSO GATHER YOU TO THE MOUNTAINS OF ISRAEL AND YOU SHALL ALSO HAVE AN INHERITANCE IN MY HOLY MOUNTAINS.
All you Christians assuming, petending or lying to yourself about how you think you are in the new covenant.
God say that YOU ARE NOT.
There is no Gentiles in the new covenant, and the new Testanent WAS NOT WRITTEN FOR THE LAWLESS PAGAN CHRISTIAN WHO IS SAYING HE IS A JEW BUT IS NOT A JEW.
All of you talking about a hell that you have willingly chosen, just like those lawless Christians who cry saying," But Lord, we taught your name in the streets "
They didnt know Jesus because they refused to study the law, they rejected the Sabbaths and feasts OF Jesus THAT TEACH WHO JESUS IS..
I dont have the words to even explain just how bizzarre it is when speaking to a Christian who doesnt even know what Shenini Atzeret is.
You wanna talk about the bible or Jesus?
Why not try to actually study the religion Jesus was a membet of?
Why not study temple design and its comings and goings?
You wanna know Jesus?
Study the missions through the feasts.
You wanna talk about judgement day and what happens?
Then study Rosh Hashanah, and if you are looking for those sent to hell, then study the feast of Tabernacles and what takes place on its 8th day, the great cirmcision where all you Gentiles who didnt pray for rain are standing.
They are all standing in outer darkness when the rain of Shemini Atzeret falls and turns all of Judah into immortals WHILE YOU WATCH, AND THEN BEGIN TO CRY, WEEPING AND GNASHING OF TEETH BECAUSE YOU REFUSED THE PROMISE OF GOD, YOU REJECTED HOS PASSOVER, HIS RAM OF PENTECOST, HIS YOM KIPPUR GOAT, HIS SUKKOT BULL, AND IN ITS PLACE, YOU PRACTICE EVERYTHING BABYLONIAN
WEEPING because the promises rain had fallen, but it didnt fall on you....
This is eternal punishment, watching the many transformed while you remain mortal, your worm will never die BECAUSE you did not recieve the rain.
Last edited by Hannibal Flavius; 11-03-2021 at 02:10 PM..
No, its that you and these other people are discussing a religion that you dont have a clue about.
All you Gentiles have chosen hell because you dont even know that outer darkness is hell, you are standing as a Gentile in outer darkness because you are a Gentile, and then you guys are talking about others joining you in the hell you have chosen for yourself in outer darkness.
You people are quoting things said to Gentiles who wete grafted and adopted into Israel to enjoy the new covenant made only for Israel and Judah.
Because you dont know jack about the religion of Jesus you just come in here making up false notions about what you dont study.
If you studied the temple and its feast of Tabernacles, you would know what the scriptures of hell are referring to.
What happens at the last Passover which takes place in the last feast of Tabernacles?
Maybe you are also wondering why I say that the last Passover happens on the feast of Tabernacles because you simply dont know the missions and sactifices of Jesus which is pathetic with Christians who ONLY CLAIM TO FOLLOW JESUS.
YOU guys dont even have a clue about the feasts and the missions of Christ because you all are lawless NOT EVEN KNOWING THE FEASTS AND SACRIFICES OF CHRIST.
Hell IS outer darkness, IT IS the Gentile court to which all you Christians belong, but not only that, you people are proud to be the least of the kingdom.
I cant even lure a Christian out of hell, they are all proud to remain in the outer court.
The first Christians followed Jesus in the religion Jesus walked in, not only do you guys reject the religion of Christ, you are enemies against any Gentile who dares to join the new covenant of Israel.
Lol, all of you wondering who the lawless pagan Babylonians of Revelation are as you keep all the Sabbaths and holy days of the Babylonian messiah named Tammuz.
If you cant be honest about your own lawlessness and your honored Babylobian Sabbaths, holy days and traditions you keep, how can anyone take any of you serious?
Not one, not one Christian in here is honest enough to admit what they worship, not one Christian will admit they he is a practicing pagan who keeps all the Babylonian holy days and all its traditions.
By law, by the promises of God, whatever set of holy days and traditions you keep, THEY SEAL YOU IN YOUR FOREHEAD BY LAW, BY LAW, NOT BY OPINION.
BY THE LAWS OF GOD, BY GOD PROMISING HIMSELF, GOD PROCLAIMS TO THE GENTILE," IF YOU KEEP MY SABBATHS AND MY FEASTS, I WILL SEAL YOUR HEAD WITH PROTECTION AGAINST THE JUDGMENT."
BY LAW, BY THE PROMISES OF GOD, GOD DECLARES," IF YOU KEEP MY SABBATHS AND FEASTS, I PROMISE YOU THAT I WILL GIVE YOU A BETTER NAME THAN SONS AND DAUGHTERS.
BY LAW, BY THE PROMISES OF GOD, GOD DECLARES, " IF YOU KEEP MY SABBATHS AND MY FEASTS AND YOU LOVE MY LAW, I WILL ALSO GATHER YOU TO THE MOUNTAINS OF ISRAEL AND YOU SHALL ALSO HAVE AN INHERITANCE IN MY HOLY MOUNTAUNS.
All you Christians assuming, petending or lying to yourself about hiw you think you are in the new covenant.
God say that YOU ARE NOT.
There is no Gentiles in the new covenant, and the new Testanent WAS NOT WRITTEN FOR THE LAWKESS PAGAN CHRISTIAN WHO IS SAYING HE IS A JEW BUT IS NOT A JEW.
All of you talking about a hell that you have willingly chosen hell, just like those lawless Christians who cry saying," But Lord, we taught your bame in the streets "
They didnt know Jesus because they refused to study the law, they rejected the Sabbaths and feasts OF Jesus THAT TEACH WHO JESUS IS..
I dont have the words to even explain just how bizzarre it is when speaking to a Christian who doesnt even know what Shenini Atzeret is.
You wanna talk about the bible or Jesus?
Why not try to actually study the religion Jesus was a membet of?
Why not study temple design and its comings and goings?
You wanna know Jesus?
Study the missions through the feasts.
You wanna talk about judgement day and what happens?
Then study Rosh Hashanah, and if you are looking for those sent to hell, then study the feast of Tabernacles and what takes place on its 8th day, the great cirmcision where all you Gentiles who didnt prar for rain are standing.
They are all standing in outer darkness when the rain of Shemini Atzeret falls and turns all of Judah into immortals WHILE YOU WATCH, AND THEN BEGIN TO CRY, WEEPING AND GNASHING OF TEETH.
WEEPING because the promises rain had fallen, but it didnt fall on you....
This is eternal punishment, watching the many transformed while you remain mortal,your worm will never die BECAUSE you did not recieve the rain.
I have no need to do so. I was clearly talking about what the stance of the church is regarding a couple of issues. Those stances are what they are, whether or not those stances can be considered dogma. If the church teaches it to the pew sitters, it is a church teaching, whether or not it can be considered official dogma in the strict sense or not. When priests teach members that aborted babies don't get to go to Heaven because they weren't baptized, that is a church teaching. The fact that the Church has no official dogma on the subject makes it no less a Church teaching.
Suit yourself. Your refusal to acknowledge that we don't mean the same thing when we say "church teaching" will only cause further confusion for you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NatesDude
Your previous post brings up another question though. In post 698 I made mention of an evangelist stating that anyone without Christ went to hell . You replied in post 700 this wasn't a valid stance. Now you seem to be saying that the stances of the early church that limited salvation to only members of the RCC is the official and valid Catholic stance , since this was the view of the earlier councils before the modern inclusive view of the 2nd VC. I don't care personally which way you believe, but do you realize that you have contradicted yourself with claiming the previous councils are the valid ones on the subject of salvation outside the Church?
I was agreeing with you that "Tough luck" is not a valid theological position. You need not read into it any deeper than that, and I have not contradicted myself.
Suit yourself. Your refusal to acknowledge that we don't mean the same thing when we say "church teaching" will only cause further confusion for you.
Let me ask a sincere question. Is the various teachings throughout church history on where unbaptized babies go "church teachings" or not? Not dogma, I understand that none of it was or is dogma, but was it church teachings? To me a church teaching is merely something the church has taught members and instructed them that this is the approved belief and moral path. What else would you call teaching your members that abortion prevents babies from going to Heaven? What would you call the church's stance on homosexuality? What will it be called if the church follows the recommendations of the commission and begins to teach its members that in fact unbaptized babies do actually go to communion with God?
Quote:
I was agreeing with you that "Tough luck" is not a valid theological position. You need not read into it any deeper than that, and I have not contradicted myself.
OK. Since we were discussing theological ideas, I presumed you responded to the claim that those without Christ go to hell rather than the commentary by the evangelist.
Hilarious is the concept that torment (an emotion) could somehow burn and give off smoke as though a physical / material item.
Like happiness being something you can hold in your hand, or disapproval is something you can weigh on a scale.
And yet people keep chasing after this nonsensical thread.
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.
