"the words in which magisterial judgments are framed are typically clear enough, in the broader context of Tradition and history, to exclude problematic interpretations as they arise."
Which things are "magisterial judgments" in this context?
Chris:
The "magisterial judgments" I'm talking about in this context are those which have come to be called "definitive", which means those which are meant to bind the whole Church irreformably. In the case of the "extraordinary" magisterium, i.e. general councils or popes propounding dogmatic definitions, the judgments counting as definitive are obvious: those formulated with the traditional formula "If anyone denies that P, let him be anathema" (cf Galatians 1:9). But more often and standardly, teachings that bind the whole Church irreformably are those propounded by the "ordinary and universal magisterium" of the bishops, of whom the pope is chief. The doctrine extra ecclesiam nulla salus is an example of such teaching; so are the teachings on women's ordination and birth control; and of course there are many uncontroversial examples as well, such as that God loves all people, or that Jesus' tomb was left empty when he rose from the dead.
The key thing to remember about interpreting such teachings is that the Church is permanently bound only by what they actually say and by what deductively follows therefrom. The Church is not permanently bound by interpretations which, though common and/or old, are neither actually stated by the teachings nor deductive consequences thereof. If people would only keep that distinction in mind, many problems they have with Church teaching would dissipate.
Well when Florence and Lyons stated that "..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.", then 500 years of Catholics found it necessary to believe in Limbo as a palatable verison of Hell to avoid the obvious meaning of the words that babies go to hell. Aquinas could say "no other remedy is available for them besides the sacrament of Baptism. On the other hand, adults have a remedy in the mere desire for Baptism". Aquinas could give adults a loophole, but not so for infants.
But then in 2007 a commission enlisted by PJPII released its findings that "grounds for hope that unbaptized infants who die will be saved and enjoy the beatific vision."
Somebody has got a problematic interpretation of the magisterial judgements, that is for sure. If Florence doesn't rule out the salvation of unbaptised babies, for what purpose would it refer to those with "original sin alone", the only persons being in that category being someone too young to have personal sins.
On birth control, "All the Pope's men", p210 tells us that Medieval theologians said that one test of the validity of a law is to whether or not it is received, and that many Catholic theologians have argued that the 1968 teaching of Pope Paul VI on birth control in Humanae Vitae fails this test of reception.
Certainly the old fashioned interpretation of Florence on unbaptised babies is now failing in its reception, by the catholic faithful. Humanae Vitae looks headed down that road too.
Yes, Chris; it's all rubbish.
Why, "The Feast of the Holy Innocents" is nothing more than our rejoicing in the cries of babies murdered by Herod and toasting in Hell.
Also, the many valid opinions of the Church Fathers concerning same must also be amongst those very things knowledge as yours so remarkably extends, made evident of course by your own misreading of Florence/Lyon.
Chris:
Once again, the "interpretive problem" here is largely your own. You're assuming that, in Catholic doctrine, going ad infernum can only mean entering into a permanent state of damnation, or at least a state permanently excluding "the Beatific Vision." But it does not mean that for everybody. The Apostles' Creed says that Christ went ad infernum after his death, which has traditionally been understood to be for the purpose of liberating the souls of the "just" who had preceded him; their residency there is called the limbus patrum. Thus the limbus patrum ended with the "Christ-event." Similarly, and as e has reminded us, the Church has always professed that the Holy Innocents went to heaven on their deaths. That was "baptism by blood." The question then arises whether there can be baptism by other extraordinary means.
I have addressed that general issue, and the specific issue of limbo, at considerable length before on this blog, as has Fr. Al Kimel. The upshot is that there's nothing in Catholic dogma to rule out the possibility that many infants who die before baptism can be saved by the vicarious faith and active prayer of others, just as infants who die after baptism are thus saved. That's not to say there is no limbus infantium; it's only to say that, if there is, it need not be permanent for infants who go there. The whole issue is a matter of opinion, not of dogma. No dogma is contradicted by either opinion.
As for Humanae Vitae, your argument overlooks two relevant facts. First, and as even Hans Küng recognized, the teaching against contraception has been consistently preserved and taught by the Church for as far back as we have records. That makes it unlike limbo, which is a later theologoumenon. In fact, some theologians argue that the contraception ban more clearly fulfills the conditions for having been infallibly set forth by the ordinary and universal magisterium than does the exclusion of women from priestly ordination, which latter the present pope has already said has been infallibly set forth by the OUM. Second, and like the restriction of priestly ordination to men, the ban on contraception is not a "law," like fasting before communion, that the Church made up but could revise. It has always been understood to be a precept of the divine and natural law. Hence, the fact that most Catholics, since the advent of The Pill, have not "received" the teaching in HV is irrelevant. All it means is that most people are no longer willing to accept an ancient precept that is perennially valid and was upheld by HV.
Nice work Dr. L. I'm behind on my blog reading and working to catch up. I'm glad I caught this before I posted something similar on CTC. Mine wouldn't have been as good.
This will be a good reference to send people to the next time I see that argument pop up.
Commenting by HaloScan
