Catholic are supposed to believe...

[polonius]

Remarkable reversals in Catholic teaching have occurred starting inn the early 1900's.

For example, in 1909 Catholics just had to believe that:

“The highest degree of certainty appertains to immediately revealed truths. The belief due to them is based on the authority of God revealing (fides divina), and if the Church, through its teaching, vouches for the fact that a truth is contained in Revelation, one's certainty is then also based on the authority of the Infallible Teaching Authority (Magisterium) of the Church (fides catholica). If truths are defined by a solemn judgment of faith (definition) of the Pope or of a General Council, they are "de fide definita" (or simply De Fide).�


Concerning the Historical Character of the First Three Chapters of Genesis
June 30, 1909 (AAS 1 [1909] 567ff; EB 332ff; Dz 2121ff)

"In particular may the literal historical sense be called in doubt in the case of facts narrated in the same chapters which touch the foundations of the Christian religion: as are, among others, the creation of all things by God in the beginning of time; the special creation of man; the formation of the first woman from the first man; the unity of the human race; the original felicity of our first parents in the state of justice, integrity, and immortality; the command given by God to man to test his obedience; the transgression of the divine command at the instigation of the devil under the form of a serpent; the degradation of our first parents from that primeval state of innocence; and the promise of a future Redeemer?
Answer: In the negative."

[Elijah John]

Remarkable reversals in Catholic teaching have occurred starting inn the early 1900's.

For example, in 1909 Catholics just had to believe that:

“The highest degree of certainty appertains to immediately revealed truths. The belief due to them is based on the authority of God revealing (fides divina), and if the Church, through its teaching, vouches for the fact that a truth is contained in Revelation, one's certainty is then also based on the authority of the Infallible Teaching Authority (Magisterium) of the Church (fides catholica). If truths are defined by a solemn judgment of faith (definition) of the Pope or of a General Council, they are "de fide definita" (or simply De Fide).�


Concerning the Historical Character of the First Three Chapters of Genesis
June 30, 1909 (AAS 1 [1909] 567ff; EB 332ff; Dz 2121ff)

"In particular may the literal historical sense be called in doubt in the case of facts narrated in the same chapters which touch the foundations of the Christian religion: as are, among others, the creation of all things by God in the beginning of time; the special creation of man; the formation of the first woman from the first man; the unity of the human race; the original felicity of our first parents in the state of justice, integrity, and immortality; the command given by God to man to test his obedience; the transgression of the divine command at the instigation of the devil under the form of a serpent; the degradation of our first parents from that primeval state of innocence; and the promise of a future Redeemer?
Answer: In the negative."

Moderator Clarification

Once again, interesting observation. But from this, please formulate a question for debate so we don't have to move this to Random Ramblings. Thank you.

Rules
C&A Guidelines


______________

Moderator clarifications do not count as a strike against any posters. They serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received and/or are given at the discretion of a moderator when he or she feels a clarification of the rules is required.

[polonius]

Remarkable reversals in Catholic teaching have occurred starting inn the early 1900's.

For example, in 1909 Catholics just had to believe that:

“The highest degree of certainty appertains to immediately revealed truths. The belief due to them is based on the authority of God revealing (fides divina), and if the Church, through its teaching, vouches for the fact that a truth is contained in Revelation, one's certainty is then also based on the authority of the Infallible Teaching Authority (Magisterium) of the Church (fides catholica). If truths are defined by a solemn judgment of faith (definition) of the Pope or of a General Council, they are "de fide definita" (or simply De Fide).�


Concerning the Historical Character of the First Three Chapters of Genesis
June 30, 1909 (AAS 1 [1909] 567ff; EB 332ff; Dz 2121ff)

"In particular may the literal historical sense be called in doubt in the case of facts narrated in the same chapters which touch the foundations of the Christian religion: as are, among others, the creation of all things by God in the beginning of time; the special creation of man; the formation of the first woman from the first man; the unity of the human race; the original felicity of our first parents in the state of justice, integrity, and immortality; the command given by God to man to test his obedience; the transgression of the divine command at the instigation of the devil under the form of a serpent; the degradation of our first parents from that primeval state of innocence; and the promise of a future Redeemer?
Answer: In the negative."

Moderator Clarification

Once again, interesting observation. But from this, please formulate a question for debate so we don't have to move this to Random Ramblings. Thank you.

Rules
C&A Guidelines


______________

Moderator clarifications do not count as a strike against any posters. They serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received and/or are given at the discretion of a moderator when he or she feels a clarification of the rules is required.

RESPONSE: Sorry! OK, Lets propose this question.

Do Catholics (and perhaps others) really believe that their Church always interprets scripture correctly (for all time)?

[Elijah John]

Do Catholics (and perhaps others) really believe that their Church always interprets scripture correctly (for all time)?

Thank you.

Isn't the Magisterium supposed to be infallible? Seemingly it is not, as they once upon a time believed the Adam and Eve story pretty much literally, and culled doctrine from the religious myth and presented it as dogma to be believed without question.

I got one for them, where did Cain get his wife?

And another. What happens to the doctrine of "original sin" (inherited guilt) if there were no Adam and Eve in the first place?

And what would happen to Paul's doctrine of Christ's ransom blood atonement as the 2nd Adam, if there were no original Adam? Or if that original Adam were simply a myth?

[polonius]

Elijah John posted:

Thank you.

Isn't the Magisterium supposed to be infallible? Seemingly it is not, as they once upon a time believed the Adam and Eve story pretty much literally, and culled doctrine from the religious myth and presented it as dogma to be believed without question.

I got one for them, where did Cain get his wife? Wink

And another. What happens to the doctrine of "original sin" (inherited guilt) if there were no Adam and Eve in the first place?

RESPONSE: Ahhhhhhhhh! Now you've really gone an done it!!! You've asked fundamental reality based questions!

I'll answer the first one facetiously, but the second more seriously since it has so influenced the evolution of Catholic doctrine and has an interesting history.

As to the wife of Cain. Didn't you know he married an orangutan? If fact judging by their mental status, I think I know some of his eventual offspring!!!

The "original sin" story began with a blunder of Augustine. He couldn't read Greek and used a poorly translated Latin bible. It contained an unfortunate phrase "in quo" (or "in whom") in Romans describing Adam's "sin." Thus this"stain" theory of original sin set the stage for centuries of errors in which everybody was personally guilty of Adam's sin which the Catholic Church is now trying to talk it's way out of.

People including infants who were not baptized and all non-Catholics if not baptized went strait to hell in which they were punished for all eternity for Adam's sin. Without admitting this gross error, the church has quietly done away with this absurdity although it can be found even in the writings of the Council of Trent.

For a long while. the church tried using the "limbo" story for the unbaptized kids who died or miscarried, but after centuries (within our lifetime), it was finally admitted to be untrue.

George Carlin once asked what we were going to do with infants who died without being baptized. He suggested that maybe the Church could shoot them off into cyberspace or something.

But remember, if there's no Original Sin, the Immaculate Conception became unnecessary. How could the Blessed Virgin be preserved from the guilt of what didn't exist?

Interestingly the Eastern Catholic Church never bought into the Original Sin claim perhaps because they were using Greek bible translations. So they have no Immaculate Conception teaching either.

(to be continued)

[Elijah John]

But remember, if there's no Original Sin, the Immaculate Conception became unnecessary. How could the Blessed Virgin be preserved from the guilt of what didn't exist?

One absurdity invariably leads to others in loops of theological gymnastics. This is a perfect example. The whole Marian perfection thing, as well as the unblemished perfect Jesus being a perfect blood sacrifice, when it seems YHVH never needed nor did he desire blood in the first place. Only contrite and devoted hearts. (Hosea 6.6, Micah 6.6-6, Proverbs 16.6, The Lord's Prayer, Psalm 79.9, Jer. 7.-21-24, Psalm 50.8-13, etc.)

[brianbbs67]

[Replying to post 6 by Elijah John]

"If you had only known what these words mean, I desire mercy not sacrifice"

The other that comes to mind is "teaching as doctrine the commandments of men."

[polonius]

The knowledge of the existence of God is much, much older than the Bible.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible#Textual_history

Timothy H. Lim, a professor of Hebrew Bible and Second Temple Judaism at the University of Edinburgh,

“He states that it is not a magical book, nor was it literally written by God and passed to mankind. Parallel to the solidification of the Hebrew canon (c. 3rd century BCE), only the Torah first and then the Tanakh began to be translated into Greek and expanded, now referred to as the Septuagint or the Greek Old Testament.[22]

In Christian Bibles, the New Testament Gospels were derived from oral traditions in the second half of the first century.�

Also there is this.

“General revelation deals with that revelation from God universally to all mankind. The external aspect of general revelation are those things which God must be the cause or source of. Because these things exist, God must also exist in order to have put them into existence

"So all men and women everywhere can look at the creation and know that God exists.
The revelation from nature is clear. No one can excuse himself because of ignorance."

[polonius]

Is this another unchangeable infallible teaching of a church council that has now been overturned?


"But the souls of those who depart this life in actual mortal sin, or in original sin alone, go down straightaway to hell to be punished, but with unequal pains.
-ECUMENICAL COUNCIL OF FLORENCE

Here is an ecumenical council saying that those in original sin alone- i.e. unbaptized infants, go to hell.

How does this square with recent Popes and Cardinals talking about hoping for the salvation of unbaptized infants?

Doesn't Florence basically mean that the best unbaptized infants can hope for, according to Catholic theology, is limbo (i.e. a level of hell with no physical sufferings, only the absence of God)?

What's going on here? Surely, recent Church leaders know the canons of Florence, don't they?"

OBSERVATION Perhaps the Catholic Church now realizes that it's so called "infallible" teachings can be in error, so its best to hide them. (Does somebody want a list of the major errors in infallible teachings)? Perhaps one at a time.

I once asked a young priest what he did when he encountered such. He said there were two possible replies. "Older theologians would have said so." or "We don't emphasize that anymore"

[Elijah John]

Is this another unchangeable infallible teaching of a church council that has now been overturned?


"But the souls of those who depart this life in actual mortal sin, or in original sin alone, go down straightaway to hell to be punished, but with unequal pains.
-ECUMENICAL COUNCIL OF FLORENCE

Here is an ecumenical council saying that those in original sin alone- i.e. unbaptized infants, go to hell.

How does this square with recent Popes and Cardinals talking about hoping for the salvation of unbaptized infants?

Doesn't Florence basically mean that the best unbaptized infants can hope for, according to Catholic theology, is limbo (i.e. a level of hell with no physical sufferings, only the absence of God)?

What's going on here? Surely, recent Church leaders know the canons of Florence, don't they?"

OBSERVATION Perhaps the Catholic Church now realizes that it's so called "infallible" teachings can be in error, so its best to hide them. (Does somebody want a list of the major errors in infallible teachings)? Perhaps one at a time.

I once asked a young priest what he did when he encountered such. He said there were two possible replies. "Older theologians would have said so." or "We don't emphasize that anymore"

The whole "what do we do with unbaptized babies who die" question is another absurdity derived from the absurd doctrine of original sin, and limbo was the solution to an artificial and invented problem. .

One falsehood compounds another.