If it's not in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, then...

it's "not true," "not defined," just "theological opinion," etc. Okay, Mike, "front and center." Let's consider this one:

Also, the souls of those who have incurred no stain of sin whatsoever after baptism, as well as souls who after incurring the stain of sin have been cleansed whether in their bodies or outside their bodies, as was stated above, are straightaway received into heaven and clearly behold the triune God as he is, yet one person more perfectly than another according to the difference of their merits. 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. We also define that the holy apostolic see and the Roman pontiff holds the primacy over the whole world and the Roman pontiff is the successor of blessed Peter prince of the apostles, and that he is the true vicar of Christ, the head of the whole church and the father and teacher of all Christians, and to him was committed in blessed Peter the full power of tending, ruling and governing the whole church, as is contained also in the acts of ecumenical councils and in the sacred canons. (Council of Florence)

The above in bold was also taught in the Roman Catechism:

And if the possession of a spacious and magnificent mansion contributes to human happiness, what more spacious, what more magnificent, can be conceived than heaven itself, which is illumined throughout with the brightness of God ? Hence the Prophet, contemplating the beauty of this dwelling­place, and burning with the desire of reaching those mansions of bliss, exclaims: How lovely are thy tabernacles, O Lord of hosts! my soul longeth and fainteth for the courts of the Lord. My heart and my flesh have rejoiced in the living God. That the faithful may be all filled with the same sentiments and utter the same language should be the object of the pastor's most earnest desires, as it should also be of his zealous labours. For in my Father's house, says our Lord, there are many mansions," in which shall be distributed rewards of greater and of less value according to each one's deserts. He who soweth sparingly, shall also reap sparingly: and he who soweth in blessings, shall also reap blessings.

Now, I will be happy to admit my error here, but I can find none of the above in the current CCC. Does that mean that we are to regard the above teachings as not being authoritative? In other words, will everyone in Heaven partake of the Beatific Vision to the same and exact degree? Also, if unbaptized infants are in Heaven, will their status be identical to those infants who died with sacramental Baptism?

Jehanne wrote:
The above in bold was also taught in the Roman Catechism:

And if the possession of a spacious and magnificent mansion contributes to human happiness, what more spacious, what more magnificent, can be conceived than heaven itself, which is illumined throughout with the brightness of God ? Hence the Prophet, contemplating the beauty of this dwelling­place, and burning with the desire of reaching those mansions of bliss, exclaims: How lovely are thy tabernacles, O Lord of hosts! my soul longeth and fainteth for the courts of the Lord. My heart and my flesh have rejoiced in the living God. That the faithful may be all filled with the same sentiments and utter the same language should be the object of the pastor's most earnest desires, as it should also be of his zealous labours. For in my Father's house, says our Lord, there are many mansions," in which shall be distributed rewards of greater and of less value according to each one's deserts. He who soweth sparingly, shall also reap sparingly: and he who soweth in blessings, shall also reap blessings.

Now, I will be happy to admit my error here, but I can find none of the above in the current CCC. Does that mean that we are to regard the above teachings as not being authoritative? In other words, will everyone in Heaven partake of the Beatific Vision to the same and exact degree?

I'm glad you will be happy to admit your error, for the absence in the CCC of the specific teaching and universal tradition that says "For in my Father's house, says our Lord, there are many mansions," in which shall be distributed rewards of greater and of less value according to each one's deserts", is really quite irrelevant.

The fact that this particular teaching is not in the CCC does not mean that the Church does not hold the doctrine, or that she in any way challenges it. Seriously, why in the world would she? Its a beautiful common sense doctrine, even if it is not central to our faith (necessary). But that goes for many doctrines that may or may not be included in any particular Roman Catechism (all two of them).

Besides, so common and uncontested is the doctrine, (and so obvious from Scripture) perhaps the CCC commission did not see a compelling need to add another paragraph to the section on "The Communion of the Church of Heaven and Earth", or wherever else it might otherwise be appropriate.

Place the Roman Catechism and the CCC side by side, and tell me if it might be possible that there is a quantitative difference in the number of teachings between the two Catechism, with the latter having the clear majority.

There are obvious and several reasons for that, Jehanne, and I'm not going to waste any more time detailing them. You'll just have to take my word for it that there are universally held traditions and doctrines in the CCC that are not in the Roman Catechism. And, somehow, the Church managed to retain these same doctrines even though the universal Catechisms did not see a need to mention them. The universal Roman Catechisms are sure guides, explications and summaries of the Church's doctrines and disciplines, they are not encyclopedias containing every single tradition and doctrine of the Church.

Jehanne wrote:
Also, if unbaptized infants are in Heaven, will their status be identical to those infants who died with sacramental Baptism?

Why not?

Status? They are enjoying the beatific vision, and that's all we need to know.

Do you really want to play this pointless and silly game? I mean, what will you do if and when you find out that aborted infants enjoy a "status" identical to that of the Holy Innocents?

Let me answer my own question. Here yesterday I finished reading the entire Catechism of the Catholic Church, all 2865 paragraphs. The Catechism is repetitious and sometimes prodding, which is not necessarily a bad thing. (I read each paragraph at least twice.) In any case, I forgot that the above teaching from the Roman Catechism is alluded to in the present Catechism but in a somewhat "indirect" manner:

1021 Death puts an end to human life as the time open to either accepting or rejecting the divine grace manifested in Christ. The New Testament speaks of judgment primarily in its aspect of the final encounter with Christ in his second coming, but also repeatedly affirms that each will be rewarded immediately after death in accordance with his works and faith. The parable of the poor man Lazarus and the words of Christ on the cross to the good thief, as well as other New Testament texts speak of a final destiny of the soul--a destiny which can be different for some and for others.

I have added a new entry to my blog called "The Catechism's 'lost' teachings," which interested readers can find here:

http://unamsanctamecclesiamcatholicam.blogspot.com/2012/09/the-catechisms-lost-teachings.html

What you find may surprise you! Feel free to offer some additional paragraphs for my blog entry.

Jehanne, my only surprise was that you were surprised to find the alleged “lost” teachings of Catholic Church, “some of which groups like the SSPX claimed were ‘missing’."

But I am pleased that you discovered the teaching that says “Catholics must submit to a Pope's Ordinary Magisterium.”

Its too bad a share of your other blog entries suggest just the opposite. In fact, one might get the impression from your blog that some of the teachings of the Pope's Ordinary Magisterium are, well, ... absurd.

They're "lost" in the sense that they do not often get mentioned; they are also "lost" in the sense that the SSPX and others have claimed that they were not in the Catechism but they, are in fact, there. It's just that one has "to look" for them. For me, it's almost been a little "treasure hunt"!

As for submitting to the Ordinary Magisterium, I agree, that one should submit. Problem is, of course, in trying to discern exactly what the Ordinary Magisterium is (and is not) teaching and how that teaching is in harmony with the teachings of all the other "Ordinary Magisteriums" which predated it.

For instance, as this thread documents, one can find the clear teaching of the Roman Catechism which I presented in my OP in the present Catechism but one, as we have found out, "has to look for it." The same is true of the Limbo of the Children. Such a teaching is not directly taught anywhere in the Catechism but it is, nonetheless, "hinted at." Depends on how one chooses to read the text, however.

Jehanne,

That reminds me, can you show us where the Roman Catechism (of the Council of Trent) taught the Limbo of the Children?

Thanks.

Of course, the Roman Catechism never mentioned the Limbo of the Children, and we both know that. Clearly, however, that Catechism did not teach, let alone imply, universal salvation for all infant children who end this life without sacramental Baptism:

"The faithful are earnestly to be exhorted to take care that their children be brought to the church, as soon as it can be done with safety, to receive solemn Baptism. Since infant children have no other means of salvation except Baptism, we may easily understand how grievously those persons sin who permit them to remain without the grace of the Sacrament longer than necessity may require, particularly at an age so tender as to be exposed to numberless dangers of death."

Note the "as soon as it can be done with safety". Not within a "week or two," but more likely, within a day or two.

Jehanne wrote:Of course, the Roman Catechism never mentioned the Limbo of the Children, and we both know that.

Of course, but it goes straight to the point of answering your question that asks:

Now, I will be happy to admit my error here, but I can find none of the above in the current CCC [the "mansions" of heaven]. Does that mean that we are to regard the above teachings as not being authoritative?

"Authoritative" has various meanings in the context of the authority by which the doctrine is proposed. For example, one will not find the doctrine of Indulgences in the Roman Catechism of the Council of Trent, but that does not make the doctrine any less true or authoritative. But one does find the doctrine clearly taught in the CCC (1471-1473).

Jehanne wrote:Clearly, however, that Catechism did not teach, let alone imply, universal salvation for all infant children who end this life without sacramental Baptism:

"The faithful are earnestly to be exhorted to take care that their children be brought to the church, as soon as it can be done with safety, to receive solemn Baptism. Since infant children have no other means of salvation except Baptism, we may easily understand how grievously those persons sin who permit them to remain without the grace of the Sacrament longer than necessity may require, particularly at an age so tender as to be exposed to numberless dangers of death."

And the CCC teaches the exact same doctrine, while emphasizing not only the urgency of Baptism, but also that infant children have no other means of salvation [known to the Church] except Baptism whereby their salvation is assured.

That the Church "implies" a possible universal salvation for unbaptized infants with its doctrine of "hope" does NOT detract from the necessity and urgency of Baptism.

No less true is the universal doctrine which states that God is not bound by His Sacraments to effect the same end. How He might accomplish that end with respect to unbaptized infants has never been resolved (and tradition militates against such a possibility, without definitively closing the door); thus, the Church, in the development of this non-revealed and non-defined doctrine, can offer only hope, and not assurance.

Jehanne wrote:
Note the "as soon as it can be done with safety". Not within a "week or two," but more likely, within a day or two.

To delay "longer than necessity may require" is subjective, and while the reason for urgency remains true, "particularly at an age so tender as to be exposed to numberless dangers of death", infants born today in developed nations are not exposed to the same dangers as in ages past. Additionally, the Church requires today (for good reason) that parents seeking Baptism are properly instructed and are committed to raising the child in the Faith, so a priest baptizing in Catholic homes or within a day or two of birth in hospitals is no longer the "norm".

However, as most parishes instruct, parents should contact the parish priest before their child is born in order to arrange for the necessary instruction and to set a tentative date for Baptism soon after the due date.

Unfortunately, so many Catholic parents today (many of whom are nominal Catholics, or are married to a non-Catholic) are so poorly catechized or fail to take the faith seriously that we often see small children, rather than infants, being Baptized.

Priests tend to give the parent's intention to have their child Baptized as sufficient for the intention to raise the child in the Faith, even if it becomes clear that the child will most likely never see the inside of a Church again until his First Communion, the instruction for which the parents will have their child enrolled if there is a residue of faith remaining. The process will repeat for Confirmation, which normally requires two years of formal instruction.

In my own parish, 80% of those attending R.E. do not attend Mass - because their parents do not attend Mass. The parents want their children to receive the Sacraments (at least once), but have no intention of going to Mass.

Now, that's appalling. This is not the case with my 8th grade class (100% of whom attend Mass), but perhaps I just got lucky.