[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

And you're avoiding the truth of the matter. Rome has never declared that to be a dogmatic teaching. So, since it has not been declared to be dogmatic teaching, all kinds of speculation is "free from error", since there is no definitive teaching to refute it. IOW, any speculation about the fate of unbaptized infants is just that. Speculation.

Bollocks on a half-shell, Sinkspur. "Nihil Obstat" is not a Declaration of "Speculation", but of "NO OBJECTIONABLE ERROR WHATSOEVER".

• "NIHIL OBSTAT" does not mean that Rome has declared of a Teaching, "It MIGHT BE FREE from all Doctrinal and Moral Error."

• "NIHIL OBSTAT" means that Rome had declared of a Teaching, "It is ENTIRELY FREE from all Doctrinal and Moral Error."

And this is what Rome has Declared:

"We MUST Conclude that Unbaptized Infants DO NOT ENJOY the Beatific Vision in Heaven" -- NIHIL OBSTAT.

According to Rome, THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO DOCTRINAL ERROR WHATSOEVER IN THIS TEACHING.

"We MUST conclude that Unbaptized Infants DO NOT ENJOY the Beatific Vision in Heaven." -- NIHIL OBSTAT. "There is absolutely ZERO Doctrinal Error in this Teaching."

---

"We MUST conclude that Unbaptized Infants DO NOT ENJOY the Beatific Vision in Heaven." -- NIHIL OBSTAT. "There is absolutely ZERO Doctrinal Error in this Teaching."

• DOGMA requires Positive Affirmations: "This is certainly Right".
• But NIHIL OBSTAT does require Negative Affirmations (by the very definition of "Nihil Obstat"): "This cannot be Wrong."

So why don't you stop square-dancing with the Positive Affirmations of Roman Dogma, Sinkspur, and admit the Negative Affirmations which Roman Nihil Obstat DOES REQUIRE:

"We MUST Conclude that Unbaptized Infants DO NOT ENJOY the Beatific Vision in Heaven."

NIHIL OBSTAT -- "There is ABSOLUTELY ZERO Doctrinal Error in this Teaching. Rome herself declares that there is NO ERROR WHATSOEVER in this Teaching."

So... is this True? Is it True that the Teaching "We MUST Conclude that Unbaptized Infants DO NOT ENJOY the Beatific Vision in Heaven" is NIHIL OBSTAT -- completely free from all doctrinal error whatsoever?

"We must conclude that Unbaptized Infants do not enjoy the Beatific Vision in Heaven". If this teaching is completely free from all Doctrinal Error, we can describe this Teaching as Nihil Obstat.

What say you, Sinkspur? Is the Teaching that "We must conclude that Unbaptized Infants do not enjoy the Beatific Vision in Heaven" in fact Nihil Obstat? Is this Teaching indeed completely free from all Doctrinal Error?

Or did Rome utterly screw up, YET AGAIN, as she always does?

[sinkspur]

"De fide" teaching means one must believe it to be a Catholic.

"Free from doctrinal error" means that the opinion so labeled doesn't contradict authoritative Church teaching. But if the Church has not taught authoritatively about something (the fate of unbaptized babies, for instance), it is difficult to offer an opinion that would contradict a non-existent teaching.

Thus, on a given subject where no authoritative teaching is given, a diverse set of opinions, even in contradiction to each other, could all receive the mark "Nihil Obstat."