Talk:Limbo

message: The article needs info on the origins of the term limbo. Alan Liefting 04:32, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Origins of Limbo 

message: The links to the Times, etc seem to imply that limbo is to be rejected altogether as a "theological hypothesis" by the Vatican, however they and (seemingly) the Vatican officials they cite make - according to this article - the mistake of assigning limbo as a place from which those resident in it are barred from heaven.
What is to be the Vatican position on limbo as a temporary state in which "their fate cannot be determined by any but God"? 
I think - providing this is to be the properly understood meaning of limbo - it is a reasonable theological position and the Vatican need not abandon limbo.  62.249.242.232 20:50, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links 

message: "Limbo has now officially been denounced by the Catholic church."  Is there a source for this? 172.215.141.223 10:53, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Limbo was never really part of Church doctrine. It was a theory, widely accepted at times not accepted at others, that is now in a period of non-acceptance. It is criticized, but not condemned per se.--T. Anthony 13:28, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:   Limbo today  

message: Is it still the churches posistion that unbaptized babies go to limbo? I'm not sure it is and there is no source. More importantly, as a Roman Catholic I was taught about purgutory, not limbo, and there is a seperate article for purgutory-prehaps this one should be deleted as it doesn't add anything new.
:It never was the church's position that unbaptized babies go to Limbo.  It was theological speculation by Catholics on a matter that had not been doctrinally defined.  Even if it were definitively defined that there is no such place, the article on Limbo would be valid because it describes something that would then be noteworthy historically.  Goldfritha 23:48, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/5412166.stm - Vatican to review "Limbo".  From an atheist point of view this whole thing is crazy! Richard W.M. Jones 10:21, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, Limbo was a part of Church doctrine. The old Catechism describes Christ's descent into hell from the creed as his "soul descending into Limbo" which is defined as "the place where the souls of the just who died before Christ were detained, and were waiting for the time of their redemption. The Vatican's revision of this doctrine is a serious issue that needs to be introduced in the article as "...in the Roman Catholic Church, Limbo was..." (not is) if Catholic, especially Roman Catholic doctrine is to be seen as an introducing issue. 74.61.16.143 (talk) 07:49, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That's the limbo of the Fathers. --217.189.246.166 (talk) 21:51, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: A catechism is Church doctrine, though in general not with the degree of article of faith. A consistent teaching at only catechism level can even without any further magisterial action reach the degree of article of faith, if it's consistently enough taught by virtually the whole episcopal collegium including its head. That does of course not apply to the Limbo of the Infants, which originated in speculation, but apparently did enter ordinary teaching, however with no intention of the publishing authorities of dogmatising it. However, I think even with the new decision of the Theological Commission, the theory of the Limbo of the Infants still is the unchallenged hypothesis concerning the situation of those who, after death, remain in original sin but no other - that is, unbaptized infants if the Lord, blessed be His holy Name, doesn't take their sin away by some other way. So, the question is properly speaking not whether there is a Limbo of the Infants (at least as a theoretical situation, there is), but whether there is someone in it. --77.4.52.38 (talk) 18:39, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unbaptized babies?

message: Catholicism is not the only religion that believes in limbo. The Unification Church also has a concept of limbo. And while I'm not a theology expert, I daresay other faiths have an identical or similar concept.
*the idea that a person's status in the afterlife can change based on what earthly people do (or other factors or events). 
*the idea of "returning to life" to conduct unfinished business, popularized in movies and TV
*reports of people having a near-death experience and encountering a loving being (or white light) and 
*#giving a review of your life
*#telling you that you've been given a second chance
It should go without saying that I'm not saying Wikipedia should endorse any of these beliefs. All I'm asking is that we study what published sources have said about these beliefs; and then report in our articles what various people believe. Starting of course with the most prominent or popular beliefs. 
(By the way, one of the fears that some people have about religion or God or death is the prospect of eternal damnation. It may come as a surprise to some readers that not all religions teach a permanent, irredeemable damnation. Even Christianity as not uniformly 'fundamentalist' in the Fred Phelps sense.) --Uncle Ed 16:08, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Scope of the article

message: I took the liberty of putting the "Limbo today" section earlier, to make a clear partition between Limbo in Catholicism and Limbo beyond Catholicism.  Also, the former "Abolition of Limbo" section should be part of "Limbo today" in my judgment. Pepper2000 18:42, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arrangement of sections 

message: Just a head's up, limbo's in limbo  Nil Einne 14:54, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Limbo in limbo 

message: I swear to God I remember that Limbo was struck from the doctrine in 2006, not 2005. Am I wrong? Lord of Light 22:02, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: off topic, but you might check first and swear then, or better, don't swear at all as there is obviously no need to do so and you could have changed the text even without assuring the rest by oath that what you did is fine. No offense, just as the article discusses a somewhat biblical matter. --77.4.66.158 (talk) 19:55, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Date 

message: (In preparation for discussion on the new document by the ITC)
I changed the reference to the date of the document.  It was incorrectly shown as April 20, 1950.  I changed to 2007.130.76.64.14 20:06, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Does this document have a name, and where may I find it? I would like to read it, thank you - Greg - 9:35PM - 22 April 2007 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 202.84.20.21 (talk) 13:37, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

text: It is a traditionnal theological concept, that indeed has been taught, but never has been an article of faith. My catholic encyclopedia (with nihil obstat and imprimatur) defines it as bad answer to a question taken from the wrong side. Introduction seems a good place IMHO to say it is not doctrine, since this point is important and seems not to be obviously accepted. Michelet-密是力-Me laisser un message 04:57, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Why should there be a "final word" on this subject, being said that it is not a matter of faith? this is final enough. Michelet-密是力-Me laisser un message 05:25, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There have been calls with the Church to get a doctrinal statement on this matter. There may yet be a final word. Jonathan Tweet 03:10, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  International Theological Commission's new document on limbo of children

message: This article has numerous incorrect claims about Cathoic Church teaching on limbo.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.74.23.83 (talk) 16:06, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It is a traditionnal theological concept, that indeed has been taught, but never has been an article of faith. My catholic encyclopedia (with nihil obstat and imprimatur) defines it as bad answer to a question taken from the wrong side. Introduction seems a good place IMHO to say it is not doctrine, since this point is important and seems not to be obviously accepted. Michelet-密是力-Me laisser un message 04:57, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Why should there be a "final word" on this subject, being said that it is not a matter of faith? this is final enough. Michelet-密是力-Me laisser un message 05:25, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There have been calls with the Church to get a doctrinal statement on this matter. There may yet be a final word. Jonathan Tweet 03:10, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Church doctrine

message: According to WP:LEAD, the lead should make you care about the topic. A certain editor, who is also keen to suppress information on original sin and purgatory, recently hacked the lead down to a pair of definitions. I restored the lead.
I agree with Lima that we can reduce coverage of the recent declaration that limbo might be unnecessary after all. It gets a ton of play in the lead, and it doesn't rate that much space there. I disagree that we should delete all reference to this new and exciting development from the lead. Jonathan Tweet 03:09, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Lima, could you please explain what facts you want supported in these lines? "The term reflects the medieval belief that the patriarchs of the Old Testament were kept here until Jesus descended to limbo after his crucifixion and saved them (see Harrowing of hell). The existence of this limbo is dogmatically defined by the Church." Are you challenging the verb "reflects"? Would you prefer some other verb, such as "relates to"? What's in question here? As for the second tag, you want a citation that Jesus went to limbo when he went to "hell"? As for that last line, here I might just be plain wrong. Limbo is in the Roman Catechism, which explains doctrine but isn't itself doctrinal. On that topic, I'd be curious to know whether there is any debate within the RCC regarding Limbo of the Fathers. For baby limbo, there are to alternative places that the unbaptized babies could go (hell or heaven). For the fathers of the OT, there sort of needs to be a third place (that is, spiritual condition). Jonathan Tweet 13:41, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead 

message: Does hypothetical actually have a meaning when talking about theology? The use of the work in this article seemed strange to me. Shouldn't it be replaced with 'non-canonical' or something of the sort? Ashmoo (talk) 12:40, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: In a particular theology (here, Roman Catholic theology) some elements are accepted as facts, such as the Incarnation (Christianity), others are looked on as hypotheses, proposals that may explain something, but about which, within that particular theology, there is not certainty.  Lima (talk) 14:46, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Hypothetical?

message: Limbus fatuorum is a limbo for the mentally ill or disabled who are not responsible for their sins. It can be translated as "fools' paradise" or literally as "lunatic fringe". I thought I'd add some mention of this to the article, but the article is so tightly constructed that there seems to be no room for it. References can be found by googling "Limbus fatuorum". Rwflammang (talk) 14:23, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Limbus Fatuorum

message: Paradise is a term (and actually a more formal term) for Heaven, not a part of Limbo. Will there be weeping or gnashing of teeth if I remove the phrase "or Paradise" from the part about the Limbo of the Fathers? The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 23:55, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I presume that some user put this in because of "This day you will be with me in paradise" said to the Good Thief before the resurrection of Jesus.  I think it likely that some writers have interpreted that phrase as supporting the idea of "paradise" as distinct from heaven in the full sense.  But until a reliable source is cited to support the insertion, I think it should be removed as no more than an illegitimate synthesis.  The same holds for the equation of the Limbo of the Fathers with the "bosom of Abraham".  I will remove both, so as to motivate any editor who wants them back in to find a reliable source that supports the identification of the concepts.  Esoglou (talk) 07:58, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Dante distinguishes the Paradise itself from the earthly paradise where Adam and Eve dwelt before the Fall, and which, according to what is his, of course, fiction, has been placed on the top of Purgatory. I don't know if that helps... As to my own view, the word "Paradise" may only for about 37 hours in history be used to refer to the Realm of the Dead, namely when it enjoyed the presence of the Word Incarnate. Abraham's bosom means indeed the Limbo, but is somewhat inaccurate after Abraham himself has left it, which common belief holds to have taken place immediately following Christ's Resurrection. --84.154.112.33 (talk) 13:35, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Or Paradise? 

message: The "Artemis Fowl" bullet point under "Literature" is nearly incomprehensible. I'd fix it myself, but I haven't read the books and can't understand what the paragraph is driving at.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.15.106.162 (talk) 18:30, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Artemis Fowl" Bullet 

message: The following citation from Thomas' Summa needs to be included:
“Children while in the mother’s womb have not yet come forth into the world to live among other men. Consequently they cannot be subject to the action of man, so as to receive the sacrament, at the hands of man, unto salvation. They can, however, be subject to the action of God, in Whose sight they live, so as, by a kind of privilege, to receive the grace of sanctification; as was the case with those who were sanctified in the womb.” (Summa Theologica IIIa, q.68, a.11, ad 1)
As the above text makes clear, Saint Thomas consider it possible for an infant to be saved without sacramental Baptism.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.20.252.105 (talk) 23:00, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Important quote from Saint Thomas Aquinas. 

message: St. Bernard of Clairvaux, a 12th-century theologian and a Doctor of the Church, wrote to a couple who had suffered a miscarriage:
"Your faith spoke for this child. Baptism for this child was only delayed by time. Your faith suffices. The waters of your womb — were they not the waters of life for this child?  Look at your tears.  Are they not like the waters of baptism?  Do not fear this.  God’s ability to love is greater than our fears.  Surrender everything to God."
Jean Gerson, a prominent theologian, stated at the Council of Constance:
"women great with child, and their husbands, to use their prayers for their infant that is not yet born, that (if it be to die before it come to the grace of baptism with water) the Lord Jesus would vouchsafe to sanctify it beforehand with the baptism of his holy Spirit.  Nay, who would not devoutly hope, that he will not despise the prayer of his humble servants that trust in him?  This consideration  is useful to raise devotion in the parents, and to ease their trouble of mind, if the child die without baptism; forasmuch as all hope is not taken away.  But yet there is, I confess, no certainty exists without a revelation."  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.20.252.105 (talk) 13:14, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Additional citations from the Middle Ages. 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Limbo. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070930092218/http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/p2s2c1a1.htm to http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/p2s2c1a1.htm#VI
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:45, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Limbo. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060806095620/https://www.romancatholicism.org:80/jansenism/limbo-pelagianism.htm to http://www.romancatholicism.org/jansenism/limbo-pelagianism.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:40, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Limbo. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://webarchive.loc.gov/all/20070508193238/http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0702216.htm to http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0702216.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:25, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello guys, should the citation used for the paragraph about limbo in islam be changed as it cites a Primary source and doesn’t actually provide the information in the primary source? It should be changed to a secondary source where the information is taken from. Does anyone have suggestions on what secondary source is appropriate here ? 
Thinktank9238327 (talk) 01:19, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Islam Citation 

message: The so-called "Popular references" section has been deleted as containing nothing but original research despite templates pointing this out dating from 2017. It should not be reinstated without discussion here. Sweetpool50 (talk) 20:46, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Original Research 

message: This passage is open to interpretation, and should come with a  citation where it is placed under 'Christianity' in the article. 72.174.131.123 (talk) 07:23, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Luke 16:19–16:26