On The Necessity Of Limbo

Author: 

geneticallycatholic     

Date: 
Friday, June 15, 2018 - 23:15
Article link: 

 

 

When I was younger I wondered why babies were only baptized after they were born. After all, if a mother miscarried early in the pregnancy, with the child very tiny,and not fully formed, but still with a soul, wouldn’t the mother want to see her child in heaven?

I came to the conclusion that the child must have physical contact with the water of baptism….but still am not sure that that is the conclusion.

  • Meant to say correct conclusion at the end of my comment.

  • The conclusion is that God has decreed that baptism should happen after birth. We do not know why some, like the children of Caholic parents, would go to limbo. But we can imagine that this, for example, a grace made to the Catholic parents for children that would otherwise have been predestined for hell

...

 

Gino Lollobrigido

“If murdering an innocent child were enough to merit him paradise, aborting a child would be the most merciful thing one can do to any soul.

If seems to me that this argument is weak, because if a man/woman kills his/her children right after Baptism he/she would “merit” Heaven for the child 100/100, because the child is baptize and he/she cannot lose the state of Grace before the age of reason.

Anyway, i don’t know if the limbo exists, but even if it exists at the end of times those souls will be in Heaven according to the theologians.

  • On the contrary, you are right starting from the premises. The absurdity of the conclusion shows the absurdity of the premises.

    You know that Limbo exists because the Church has always said it does. Kindly stop posting these V II, “I make my own religion” statements.

  • And no, the one with the end of time is more rubbish that has nothing to do with Catholicism.

    Another one of these fake Catholic statements and I am done with you. Use your time to embrace Catholicism instead of making your own religion.

...

 

I fully accept the Catholic and traditional doctrine about Limbo, but I think this argument is very weak, exactly because it implies that parents who choose not to murder their child right after the Baptism are selfish. One just needs to replace “born” with “alive after Baptism” and you get this:

“The desire to have a child alive after Baptism would be no more than this: the risk of the loss of infinite beatitude in heaven for the selfish desire to see one’s own children grow, or to allow them to live a handful of decades in this imperfect vale of tears dominated by injustice, disease, decay and, of course, sin and the snares of the devil. Monstrous selfishness would this be.”

How does one respond to this argument?

 

That it is not an argument. Life is made to be lived because this is what the Lord commanded. What is in the Lord’s design is not selfishness, is collaboration with God’s plan.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Own comment: 

If the Church has taught Limbo, however informally, for all this time, it makes little sense to think that theologians sitting in a committee can abrogate it.

As the piece referred to in the piece above makes clear, there is logic in the notion of Limbo, and really it is the only way to reconcile the fact that baptism is required for Heaven with the fact that one only goes to the hell of the damned based on one's personal choices.