Aren't these unchangeable doctrines of the Catholic Church?

[polonius]

The ordinary and universal episcopal magisterium is considered infallible as it relates to a teaching concerning a matter of faith and morals that all the bishops of the Church (including the Pope) universally hold as definitive and only as such therefore needing to be accepted by all the faithful. This aspect of infallibility only applies to teachings about faith and morals .........Additionally, the ordinary and universal episcopal magisterium applies to a teaching to be held definitively by all the bishops at any given moment in history

All infallible teachings whether by the bishops or the pope are "irreformable (unchangeable under any circumstances).

How about this one from the Ecumenical Council of Florence?

"“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.� (Florence, Sixth Session, 6 July 1439.)�

[RightReason]

[Replying to polonius.advice]

What of it? Still is current Catholic teaching -- don't really understand your question/concern.

"“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.� (Florence, Sixth Session, 6 July 1439.)�

Of course this truth is also coupled with the truth that people can be saved via Baptism of desire or by a final repentance of which only God would be privy.

[brianbbs67]

I think its fallacy. No man is reverend or holy, mush less infallible. They assume themselves somehow also consubstantial. RCC assumes too much. Even Christ said, "None is good but God".

[polonius]

[Replying to polonius.advice]

What of it? Still is current Catholic teaching -- don't really understand your question/concern.

"“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.� (Florence, Sixth Session, 6 July 1439.)�

Of course this truth is also coupled with the truth that people can be saved via Baptism of desire or by a final repentance of which only God would be privy.

RESPONSE: Newborns don't have baptism of desire or any repentance for sin because they haven't committed any. Of course, the Original Sin story avoids this question entirely.

Nonetheless, an infallible Church document says they go to Hell. You do believe infallible Catholic teachings, don't you?

[RightReason]

[Replying to post 3 by brianbbs67]

Even Christ said, "None is good but God".

uh huh . . . Christ also said, "He who hears you, hears me . . . " "Whatever you bind on earth, shall be bound in heaven."

Guess He thought it ok to transfer a little of His good authority.

[RightReason]

[Replying to post 4 by polonius.advice]

RESPONSE: Newborns don't have baptism of desire or any repentance for sin because they haven't committed any. Of course, the Original Sin story avoids this question entirely.

I think the Almighty God can take this into consideration and the Church tells us no one knows what becomes of babies that die that aren't baptized.

Nonetheless, an infallible Church document says they go to Hell. You do believe infallible Catholic teachings, don't you? Razz

I already explained -- that document emphasizes the importance of Baptism and not being in the state of mortal sin. If one continues to read further Catholic documents he would find exactly what I stated above. The Church admits she does not know what happens to unbaptized babies.

Why do opposers of the Church always have to submit strawman as proof of their opposition? It isn't the whole truth and therefore isn't the truth. Sometimes nonbelievers are the worst offenders of being too legalistic and getting hung up on the law missing the spirit of the law.

[brianbbs67]

[Replying to post 3 by brianbbs67]

Even Christ said, "None is good but God".

uh huh . . . Christ also said, "He who hears you, hears me . . . " "Whatever you bind on earth, shall be bound in heaven."

Guess He thought it ok to transfer a little of His good authority.

Christ was speaking to the original apostles and Peter. Peter was given authority to bind and loosen(the law). I don't believe that implies or includes anyone has the authority. That would be chaos as even this sight shows, people beleive a variety of things.

[RightReason]

[Replying to brianbbs67]

Christ was speaking to the original apostles and Peter. Peter was given authority to bind and loosen(the law). I don't believe that implies or includes anyone has the authority. That would be chaos as even this sight shows, people beleive a variety of things.

Of course that doesn't mean anyone has the authority, but Scripture is clear on the passing on of this authority via Apostolic Succession, which is exactly what Peter and the first Apostles did. Scripture does not say the authority Christ gave to His Church would end when the first apostles died. In fact, that would make no sense. Christ promised to remain with His Church forever.