D
DominvsVobiscvm
Guest
My lapsed Catholic/Modernist mother and I frequently get into arguments over the validity of the Church’s exclsuive claims, including that to infallibility. She always brings up limbo as proof that the Church’s teachings can and do change.
She always brings up the fact that she, her siblings, her parents, her autns, uncles, cousins, etc. in the U.S. and in Siciliy were all taught that unbaptized babies went to limbo.
They were never once told that this was just “theological speculation,” or that the Church considered infant salvation to be possible. It’s one thing to have a defect here or there in Catechesis, but in Italy itself, so close to Rome, the faithful were being taught, absolutely, that limbo was a truth, and there was no chance of salvation for infants. How could the Church’s hierarchy have been so naive about this, especially since it’s so sensitive an issue?
My great-grandmother actually took one of her dead infants to a priest to have it baptized; she told the priest it was just sleeping. And my grandmother tells me that this was very common, as infant death was frequent in her time.
I told my mom that my understanding is that, when something is a matter of speculation and has not been definitively settled, then the Church, rather than silencing discussion on the issue, allows many variations of the teaching to florusih, including this one about limbo. Thus, while it is allowed, there is nothing wrong with a priest or nun teaching limbo, without adding the note of “this is just speculation.”
And the more that I think about it, there’s many teachings which are not definitive, but which are taught as absolutes by even the most orthodox of Catholics. Thus, many orthodox priests say that the souls in Purgatory can pray for the faithful on earth, and they say so without saying “this is just speculation.” Likewise, most Catholics will tell you that there will be no sacraments in heaven, although this too is speculation. And so forth and so forth.
My mother counters that this is rediciulous on the part of the Church. Definitive teachings should be taught absolutely, and all speculative teachings taught as speculative. In this, she feels the Church has gone astray.
She also can’t understand why anyone would speculate that God could or would not find a way to save infants who die without baptism, as if God was bound by his own sacraments. And in a sense I agree; to argue that infants cannot be saved because they have not been baptized is to miss the whole point of infant baptism: it being Go’s means of saving children. Would God allow his will to be thwarted? Would he not want to take these infants to himself? What would be stopping him? Is he so legalistic?
My mom also asked if me i those childrne in limbo “are with God”? I told her I wasn’t sure. And she said it was just a stupid fairy tale . . .
Sigh
Can anyone help me out with these questions? And please, no citations from the Catechism. They would just support my mother’s belief that Chuch teachings can and do change.
She always brings up the fact that she, her siblings, her parents, her autns, uncles, cousins, etc. in the U.S. and in Siciliy were all taught that unbaptized babies went to limbo.
They were never once told that this was just “theological speculation,” or that the Church considered infant salvation to be possible. It’s one thing to have a defect here or there in Catechesis, but in Italy itself, so close to Rome, the faithful were being taught, absolutely, that limbo was a truth, and there was no chance of salvation for infants. How could the Church’s hierarchy have been so naive about this, especially since it’s so sensitive an issue?
My great-grandmother actually took one of her dead infants to a priest to have it baptized; she told the priest it was just sleeping. And my grandmother tells me that this was very common, as infant death was frequent in her time.
I told my mom that my understanding is that, when something is a matter of speculation and has not been definitively settled, then the Church, rather than silencing discussion on the issue, allows many variations of the teaching to florusih, including this one about limbo. Thus, while it is allowed, there is nothing wrong with a priest or nun teaching limbo, without adding the note of “this is just speculation.”
And the more that I think about it, there’s many teachings which are not definitive, but which are taught as absolutes by even the most orthodox of Catholics. Thus, many orthodox priests say that the souls in Purgatory can pray for the faithful on earth, and they say so without saying “this is just speculation.” Likewise, most Catholics will tell you that there will be no sacraments in heaven, although this too is speculation. And so forth and so forth.
My mother counters that this is rediciulous on the part of the Church. Definitive teachings should be taught absolutely, and all speculative teachings taught as speculative. In this, she feels the Church has gone astray.
She also can’t understand why anyone would speculate that God could or would not find a way to save infants who die without baptism, as if God was bound by his own sacraments. And in a sense I agree; to argue that infants cannot be saved because they have not been baptized is to miss the whole point of infant baptism: it being Go’s means of saving children. Would God allow his will to be thwarted? Would he not want to take these infants to himself? What would be stopping him? Is he so legalistic?
My mom also asked if me i those childrne in limbo “are with God”? I told her I wasn’t sure. And she said it was just a stupid fairy tale . . .
Sigh
Can anyone help me out with these questions? And please, no citations from the Catechism. They would just support my mother’s belief that Chuch teachings can and do change.
