Catholic Church's limbo stance?? (priest, tradition, choice, hell, doctrine)

[UnityNow101]

VATICAN CITY (Reuters) - The Roman Catholic Church has effectively buried the concept of limbo, the place where centuries of tradition and teaching held that babies who die without baptism went.

~~What is up with this? Does anyone else find it strange that the Catholic Church would just scrap a concept that has been thought to be true for over a thousand years? What other concepts or traditions do they not hold very close to their hearts? Granted, I believe that they made the right choice since it is wrong to believe that babies would be going to hell, but why the about-face?

[athanasius]

Originally Posted by UnityNow101

VATICAN CITY (Reuters) - The Roman Catholic Church has effectively buried the concept of limbo, the place where centuries of tradition and teaching held that babies who die without baptism went.

~~What is up with this? Does anyone else find it strange that the Catholic Church would just scrap a concept that has been thought to be true for over a thousand years? What other concepts or traditions do they not hold very close to their hearts? Granted, I believe that they made the right choice since it is wrong to believe that babies would be going to hell, but why the about-face?

Limbo could be scrapped because it was only a theological theory and not a doctrine or dogma. Dogma and doctrine can never change and never have. But theological "theories" even if alot of people hold to them, can be changed and are not set in stone because they are not part of the deposit of faith(Scripture and Aposotlic tradition) but rather a outgrowth of speculation by theologians or Church leaders. I hope that helps.

I am a Catholic theology student. Please le tme know if I can help further .

Also the Catholic church didin't and doesn't teach that infants that died without baptism go to hell. Thats why the theory of limbo was speculated in the first place.

[UnityNow101]

So, in theory, the Roman Catholic Church could change it's stance on a lot of things such as the clergy being able to marry? That may be a good one to go after if you ask me. That makes sense though, I guess. As long as it is not doctrine, then changes are bound to take place. It was a good change so there should be no complaining. But what do the older Catholics think about it. The ones that have always taken to the previous limbo stance?

[Super Universe]

I hope God got the memo from the pope to scrap that place.

[athanasius]

Originally Posted by UnityNow101

So, in theory, the Roman Catholic Church could change it's stance on a lot of things such as the clergy being able to marry? That may be a good one to go after if you ask me. That makes sense though, I guess. As long as it is not doctrine, then changes are bound to take place. It was a good change so there should be no complaining. But what do the older Catholics think about it. The ones that have always taken to the previous limbo stance?

Yes we can change the married clerical state because it is not dogma but rather practice. As a matter of fact we even have married priest in Catholic church. the Eastern rite(22 different ones) Catholic Priest in union with the Pope can Marry. And we even have a few roman rite Priest who are married. I know one of them who teaches Mariology at the seminary.

I appreciate your inquiry. The older Catholics may not like our stance on this. As well, people get stuck in thier ways and do not like change. But if a Catholic is truly being Catholic then he/she will obey and beleive it. I hope that helps.


Have a great day!

[athanasius]

Originally Posted by Super Universe

I hope God got the memo from the pope to scrap that place.

Considering that God was the guy who gave the Pope a memo to scrap that place, I think we have nothing to worry about.

[UnityNow101]

Thanks a lot Athanasius...You have a great day as well brother..

[Runlikethewind]

Just to throw in my Catholic two cents....
athanasius has pretty much hit the nail on the head. Dogma doesn't change, disciplines like married clergy or theories like limbo can change. Although I might add that the ways that we explain dogma to produce a greater clarity and understanding can change which may make it seem as though the Church is changing dogma. Transubstaniation is a good example of this. I have heard people argue that the Church invented this somewhere along the line but in reality it is something the Church always believed but was something that required a better understanding and clarity and so the term was invented to explain what the Church already belived.

Anyway, as for limbo I have always had a problem with it, it is nice that the Church has rejected the theory. I think the question that it sought to answer is still valid though. What does happen to babies who die before baptism? Surely they do not go to hell but do they spend eternity as infants? Do they get to grow up in heaven? What about abortions and embryos junked after in vitro fertilization? Do they have souls? Where do they go? All good questions I think and I have no idea as to any answer to them but I am glad we can recognize that limbo is not the place for them.

[athanasius]

Originally Posted by Runlikethewind

Just to throw in my Catholic two cents....
athanasius has pretty much hit the nail on the head. Dogma doesn't change, disciplines like married clergy or theories like limbo can change. Although I might add that the ways that we explain dogma to produce a greater clarity and understanding can change which may make it seem as though the Church is changing dogma. Transubstaniation is a good example of this. I have heard people argue that the Church invented this somewhere along the line but in reality it is something the Church always believed but was something that required a better understanding and clarity and so the term was invented to explain what the Church already belived.

Anyway, as for limbo I have always had a problem with it, it is nice that the Church has rejected the theory. I think the question that it sought to answer is still valid though. What does happen to babies who die before baptism? Surely they do not go to hell but do they spend eternity as infants? Do they get to grow up in heaven? What about abortions and embryos junked after in vitro fertilization? Do they have souls? Where do they go? All good questions I think and I have no idea as to any answer to them but I am glad we can recognize that limbo is not the place for them.

All human lives have rational souls(Even aborted embyos and infants) unbaptised babies who die will be entrusted to God. Hell is never a possiblilty because they never commited mortal sin, Buy the mercy and grace of God they go to heaven. Orignal sin alone cannot send them to hell accrording to Catholic teaching.

[Victor]

If you wish to venture deeper into what is official teaching for us, the difference between doctrine and dogma, or what can change, I put something together some time back that I hope can be of use to you. Hope if helps....

Posted on 08-26-2005:
In my second post I noted what is considered final say (Ecumenical Councils and ex-cathedra) for Catholics. I want to come at this in a different angle because I realize now when non-Catholics say “Catholic doctrine has changed” they are understanding it differently then I am. Whether someone believes doctrine involves science, history, or what ever else people think is involved. I usually respond by saying anything that involves faith and morals is considered doctrine. Or as Dei Verbum says “everything which contributes toward the holiness of life and increase in faith of the peoples of God”. So doctrine can be found outside of what I called “final say”. Final say is basically dogma. As Pah said, dogma “is a truth further defined”. I was attempting to stick to final say because it is easier for me to explain and for people to misunderstand. But regardless of where doctrine lies (dogma or not yet defined) Scott made an excellent point by saying “no matter how extensive and clear the Church tries to make them, may need explaining”. With that said, doctrine is found in the consciousness of the Church. That is exactly why things are revised and further explained. From day one people have misunderstood and deviated from what the Church was trying to say. If the up rise was large enough the Church would release letters or hold Councils to clarify and settle the matter. This was also part of the growth process for the Church. It’s about presenting your ideas so plainly that most people can understand them regardless of their biases and presuppositions. No text can truly accomplish this on its own. That is why a live interpreter and corrector (The Church) is needed. And that is why I said that doctrine is found in the consciousness o