the catholic church officially teaches nonbaptized infants go to hell

Remember that this is your topic; the Burden of Proof, that infants go to hell, is yours to bear. You have said many things, which are either true or false, however you have not provided any references to check the validity of your claims. Argument #1- Vatican II [1], as part of the Roman Curia[2], established the belief of Paschal Ministry. The Paschal Mystery is the official, and current, teaching, and doctrine, stating that the Passion(the cross)of Christ and the Ascension is all that is needed to be in Heaven; baptism is not necessary, because it then bases salvation on a believer's action, totally negating God's eternal love, grace, and mercy shown in Christ's Passion and ascension [1]. Some, who cling to the post-conciliar (the traditionalist disliked what the Vatican II had to say) era teachings of 1965-71, say that the Vatican II is only a political statement from the Roman Curia. This simply is not true. We have already established, in the previous round, that Canon Law is official, and part of the taught doctrine. What does the the Code of Canon Law say about the Roman Curia? Can. 360 The Supreme Pontiff usually conducts the affairs of the universal Church through the Roman Curia which performs its function in his name and with his authority for the good and service of the churches. [2] This clearly states that the Roman Curia actions has the authority to set forth, and establish, the official teachings and doctrines for the Church, i.e. ex cathedra, Infallible on matters of faith and morals. Pope John Paul the II believed and officially taught the principle of the Paschal Mystery, in the Evangelium Vitae on pages 56-61 and 104 [3]. On page 104, the Pope states that mothers, who have obtained eternal salvation, will be able to ask their aborted baby for forgiveness, in the presence of the Lord [3]. What did Pope Benedict XVI think about the teachings of the Paschal Mystery? In our century, this has gradually come to seem problematic to us. This was one way in which people sought to justify the necessity of baptizing infants as early as possible, but the solution is itself questionable. Finally, the Pope made a decisive turn in the encyclical Evangelium Vitae, when he expressed the simple hope that God is powerful enough to draw to himself all those who were unable to receive the sacrament." [4] What does current Pope Francis say about Vatican II? One thing is clear about the Vatican II, actualizing the message for today, IS IRREVERSIBLE [5]. It is clear to see that the mystery of God's eternal love and mercy, The Paschal Mystery, is the official, authoritative teaching and doctrine of today. The Paschal Mystery states that God's eternal mercy is the sole necessity to being in Heaven. John Paul II stated that infants, who were not baptized go to Heaven. This plainly illustrates how infants who are unbaptized. go to heaven. [1]http://stjosef.at... [2]http://www.vatican.va... [3] http://www.catholic-pages.com... [4] http://www.resurrection-catholic.org... [5] www.americamagazine.org/pope Argument #2- I asked, last round, about the prayers for the dead, and what was the purpose of doing so. You explicitly stated in this round that, "it is talking about satisfaction after baptism. all those prayers for the dead and such extend to them, not to the unbaptized.". You have not provided enough evidence, other than YOUR OWN word, that invalidate my claim, "that prayers for the dead, can open the gates to heaven". Your own word does not meet your terms of this debate, of being "to be authoritative, it has to be the pope, intentionally, teaching, the church, on faith and morals. private letters, presentations to limited audiences etc, theological commissions, do not count.". I ask you to show me one piece of evidence, that any Pope suggests that there is no reason to pray for the sinner; I do not mind where it comes from as long as it is on an authentic Catholic website. --August 7, 2014, Pope Francis, while in South Korea tells them to pray for the aborted babies. [1]https://ronconte.wordpress.com... --August 4, 1999, Pope John Paul II, Jesus enters the heavenly shrine once and for all eternity, to intercede with God on our behalf (cf. Heb 9: 23-26, especially, v. 24). He is both priest and "victim of expiation" for the sins of the whole world (cf. 1 Jn 2: 2) [2]. JESUS ENTERS TO HEAVEN TO INTERCEDE FOR SINNERS, FOR ALL ETERNITY. This means that Jesus eternally intercedes on our behalf. To doubt God's powers, to extend his mercy to sinners after death, undermines the true nature, and mystery, of the eternal mercy and forgiveness. [2]https://www.ewtn.com... --I can list plenty more occasions if you would like. Argument #3- Pro falsely claims what I said, when she wrote, "con says that limbo was taught ot be a neutral area. this isnt true. it was taught to be an upper level of hell." I never said that they went to Limbo. I said Limbo doesn't exist. It is not an official doctrine, and you have not shown proof that it does exist. You have to prove (meaning post legitimate sources with your argument that Limbo exists, if you are going to use your devil's dominion argument. The whole sentence says," --Pro is paraphrasing (see Rebuttal #1 about Pro's arguments) what I said, to the point she changed the meaning of what I clearly stated, "the unofficial Church teaching was that Limbo was where unborn and unbaptized infants went, because they had not been cleansed of original sin they could not be damned to Hell nor admitted to Heaven. The Church has no official position on infant death. There is no support they would be damned to hell." *"the unofficial Catholic teaching of Limbo" means that there is no, none, not a single one official teaching of Limbo. *"The Church has no official position on infant death.", means the church does not have a definitive teaching on whether or not and infant goes to Heaven or Hell. Rebuttal #1- Pro opens this round by assuming that I have confused the actual and intended meaning, and believes that it would be better off paraphrasing what I what I posted about the Florence Council Sessions 6, 8, and 11. The assumption is just her opinion, and nothing more. She has can not prove it; just as she has not proved her initial arguments with a legitimate source, needed to support her pro side and initiated topic. --DairyGirl clearly stated the terms of evidence, when she said, "to be authoritative, it has to be the pope, intentionally, teaching, the church, on faith and morals. private letters, presentations to limited audiences etc, theological commissions, do not count." If Pro argues that we should start paraphrasing, what the Bishop of Rome teaches, then she is in violation of her own terms. Unless it is supported by another Papal teaching, Pro can only argue that she can paraphrase the Pope, if she believes that she has the power and authority to establish what the Pope did, or did not, mean to say. --Pro has not shown that the initial argument is supported by another teaching. If fact, we don't even know where she found her Round 1 quotes from. I have given her the opportunity to read my sources on Papal Teachings, which are authorized by the Vatican. I request that Pro share the link to the page showing where she got her evidence/argument from. Her source can not be from wikipedia.com; it is not a reliable for this debate. Pro shares the belief that Wiki is not a reliable source when she states, "the wiki article tries to act as if it (LIMBO) hasn't been defined, because of catholics who edit the page," The writers/editors each hold their own opinions, of Papal teaching, which they shade subjects topics to resemble their belief. ~Please add your references I'm out of room now