the catholic church officially teaches nonbaptized infants go to hell

Pro's only 2 references are over 550 years old. She refuses to accept any new changes the church has made., e.g., The Vatican II Councils, Evangelium Vitae, etc, which are authoritative and fall under the terms of the debate. Early authoritative teachings said that the Earth was flat with 4 corners, and that all celestial bodies revolved around the Earth. Are we to assume that the church still believes this doctrine, since it has never officially changed that doctrine? The argument that something has been that way, so we should keep it that way fall under the category of debate fallacies known as the Appeal to History, and renders the argument invalid [1]. Since its inception the Catholic Church has always seen the need to review current teachings, to ensure that they are relevant to the modern era, and make changes if necessary. In the nearly 2,000 years the Pope has called the Ecumenical Councils together 28 times [5]. They currently have a council scheduled to meet next year[6] and another set for the late 2020s with a specific time and date to be named later. The following was published April 27, 2007 in, and with, the authority of the Pope. The following is from the Introduction section[4]. 5. Second, taking account of the principle lex orandi, lex credendi, the Christian community notes that there is no mention of limbo in the liturgy. In fact, the liturgy contains a feast of the Holy Innocents, who are venerated as martyrs even though they were not baptized, because they were killed "on account of Christ." There has even been an important liturgical development through the introduction of funerals for infants who died without baptism. We do not pray for those who are damned. The Roman Missal of 1970 introduced a funeral Mass for unbaptized infants whose parents intended to present them for baptism. The church entrusts to God's mercy those infants who die unbaptized. 6. Third, the church cannot fail to encourage the hope of salvation for infants who die without baptism by the very fact that she "prays that no one should be lost"6 and prays in hope for "all to be saved." On the basis of an anthropology of solidarity, strengthened by an ecclesial understanding of corporate personality, the church knows the help that can be given by the faith of believers. The Gospel of Mark actually describes an occasion when the faith of some was effective for the salvation of another (cf. Mk 2:5). So, while knowing that the normal way to achieve salvation in Christ is by baptism in re, the church hopes that there may be other ways to achieve the same end. Because by his incarnation the Son of God "in a certain way united himself" with every human being and because Christ died for all and all are in fact "called to one and the same destiny, which is divine," the church believes that "the Holy Spirit offers to all the possibility of being made partners, in a way known to God, in the paschal mystery". Section 45 [4], states, "This preferential and universal love of God is intertwined and realized in a unique and exemplary fashion in Jesus Christ, who is the unique savior of all (cf. Acts 4:12), but particularly of whoever becomes low or humble, like the "little ones." Indeed, as one who is gentle or humble in heart (cf. Mt 11:29), Jesus maintains a mysterious affinity and solidarity with them (cf. Mt 18:3-5; 10:40-42; 25:40, 45). Jesus asserts that the care of these little ones is entrusted to the angels of God (cf. Mt 18:3-5). "So it is not the will of my Father who is in heaven that one of these little ones should perish" (Mt 18:14). This mystery of his will, according to the good pleasure of the Father, is revealed through the Son and dispensed by the gift of the Holy Spirit. I don't know of any text that is more authoritative than that of the Bible. (All scripture references are from the KJV Bible.) ---It states that God's mercy is eternal 41 times. [2] This means that nothing can stop or outlast God's Mercy, which is what the Vatican II stated, through it's teaching of the Paschal Mystery. (see reference #1 of Argument #1 in previous round.) ---Matthew 12: 31 "Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men." ALL MANNER OF SIN!! I believe that all manner of sin includes original sin, which means that even the sins of children who are not baptized. ---Romans 8:37-39 - "No, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him who loved us. For I am sure that neither death nor life, nor angels nor rulers, nor things present nor things to come, nor powers, nor height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord." NOTHING THAT GOD HAS CREATED WILL BE ABLE TO SEPARATE US FROM THE LOVE OF GOD, that includes sin and is why the Vatican II states that God's mercy is extended to ALL. (See Con's Round 2, Argument #1, Reference #1.) This is what Pope Benedict XVI taught, in his apostolic letter (which follows Pro's debate guidelines), If this absolute love exists, with its absolute certainty, then"only then"is man "redeemed", whatever should happen to him in his particular circumstances. This is what it means to say: Jesus Christ has "redeemed" us [3]. The main reason I kept asking for references is because what you originally quoted in Round 1 has Wikipedia's commentary on that line from Session 11. I find it difficult to believe that the original document had Wiki's commentary when first written. The references that I provided in Round 1 and 2 doesn't have the Wiki commentary. The second reason I kept asking for a reference is because throughout round 2 you consistently left off the "with unequal pains" phrase from Session 6 quote. The phrase "with unequal pains" refers to LIMBO. Something that you and I agreed was not an official teaching of the Catholic Church. Also, you regularly repeated that unbaptized babies go to hell, is unofficially taught, with speculation. That means that they don't know for sure. Pro stated in this round, " i also provided my interpretation, which is just as good as yours.". She has also mad use of that argument in the previous round. Just because you assume something is true, because it is opposition to the other side, does not make your argument valid; that is called the "Appeal to Closure" [1]. Pro, throughout this debate, has consistently paraphrased the meaning of what I have said and claimed. A.) I have clearly stated my argument, to the point that no interpretation is needed. B.) Pro does not have the right to say what she "thinks" I really meant to say. C.) By doing so, she has changed the meaning of what I said, resulting in her arguing with what she has misquoted me on. D.) Not only has Pro changed what I have said, but also insists that we paraphrase what the authoritative documents have said, by picking and choosing what part of the document she uses as her argument. E.) This is a common practice used by Pro, in all of her debates. She has started this debate, or similar debates, on 6 previous occasions[7], each time using the strategy of twisting her opponent's words around. [1] http://utminers.utep.edu... [2] http://www.answers.com... [3] http://w2.vatican.va... [4] https://www.ewtn.com... [5] https://en.wikipedia.org... [6]http://www.catholicherald.co.uk... [7] www.debate.org/debates/?keywords=infants+go+to+hell&fields=0&category=&challenge=true&debating=true&voting=true&post=true&member=dairygirl4u2c&order=1&sort=1&submit=Search