Talk:Limbo

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 WikiProject Religion
Religion Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
This article falls within the scope of the Interfaith work group. If you are interested in Interfaith-related topics, please visit the project page to see how you can help. If you have any comments regarding the appropriateness or positioning of this template, please let us know at our talk page.


Christianity
Christianity Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page to become familiar with the guidelines.
B This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale.
Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.
Assessment comments
Catholicism Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Catholicism, which collaborates on articles related to the Roman Catholic Church. To participate, edit this article or visit the project page for details.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the Project's importance scale.

Contents

[edit] Minor Edit

Changed: in other words, their fate cannot be determined

Added: by any but God.

Completed: in other words, their fate cannot be determined by any but God.

[edit] origins of Limbo

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

[edit] External links

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)

[edit] Limbo today

"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)

The 'Limbo: Also a dance' section should be removed. Limbo dancing is listed in the Limbo disambiguation page.

Limbo is no longer part of Church 'doctrine'. Would someone please care to incorporate this into the article using this source: http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070420/ts_nm/pope_limbo_dc? Thanks. Knight45 02:37, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

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)

[edit] Unbaptized babies?

Is it still the churchs posistion that unbaptized babies go to limbo? I'm not sure it is and theres no source. More importantly, as a Roman Catholic I was taught about pergutory, not limbo, and their is a seperate article for pergutory-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)
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)
Actually, Limbo was a part of Church doctrine. The old Catechism describes Christ's descention 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)Christopher Fossedal

[edit] Scope of the article

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
    1. giving a review of your life
    2. 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)

[edit] Arrangement of sections

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)

[edit] Citation Needed

The statement "...many eminent theologians have argued that a merciful and just God would not condemn infants to the torments of hell" is completely unsubstanciated. It should be excised from the article. Some lay folks have made the argument, but the retort is always that man does not merit heaven. St. Thomas Aquinas and many of the fathers have stated as much. Trent is unambigious in stating that regeneration (baptism) is required for salvation (heaven.)

Tell it to the Pope. PiCo

[edit] Limbo in limbo

Just a head's up, limbo's in limbo [1] Nil Einne 14:54, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Game

Do you think the article should be moved due to "limbo" and the game "limbo" [where you would see 'how low you can go' under a set bar]Maybe there should be a redirect instead of it automatically going to a religious topic?--Blackmage337 17:49, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Date

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) I just checked, it was. So I'll change that. Lord of Light 22:04, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] International Theological Commission's new document on limbo of children

(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)

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).

[edit] Church doctrine

If limbo is not a part of church doctrine, what is? Does this current event belong in the introduction? Hyacinth 20:29, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

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)

One paragraph news briefs tend to oversimplify the situation.[2] [3] The CNS article better explains what happened. Limbo is a theological speculation; the ITC document explains that there are good reasons for a contrary speculation. Because it's a speculation and not doctrine, it's an issue of "hope" rather than of "faith". The Pope authorized publication and appears to support this as a private theologian, but it is not yet the final word on the subject. Gimmetrow 18:24, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

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)
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)

[edit] lead

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)

I reverted this sentence to its original form; The term reflects[citation needed] the belief of some that the patriarchs of the Old Testament were kept here (a place, not a state) until Jesus descended to limbo after his crucifixion and saved them, as if his death itself were insufficient and the Harrowing of Hell, as pictured, were a necessary factual additional action, and not rather a way of describing the effect of Christ's death. Try reading this sentence aloud and its issues are evident. I believe that the editor was trying to indicate that most modern Catholics don't believe in the harrowing of hell in the same literal sense that the medievals understood. So now the sentence says: "The term reflects[citation needed] 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)." Jonathan Tweet 14:12, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Lima, could you please explain what facts you want supported in these lines? "The term reflects[citation needed] 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).[citation needed] The existence of this limbo is dogmatically defined by the Church.[citation needed]" 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)

[edit] hypothetical?

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)

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)