Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Dionysiusdecordealcis
Those theologians who advanced the theory of limbo did not advance it as a part of hell, but rather as a part of heaven, short of the beatific vision. They wanted to keep hell unified (as punishment for sin) but were willing to divide heaven.

I think you may have incorrect information. I have honestly never heard any theologian say that, and I've read up on this somewhat intently, though certainly I'm no expert and am eager to be corrected.

Dante quite clearly sets Limbo in his "Inferno", and every theological treatise I've read on it, unquestionably defines Limbo as part of Hell. It has to be: the Limbo of the Fathers was postulated to exist before Heaven was even opened.

167 posted on 11/29/2005 5:28:52 PM PST by Claud
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 150 | View Replies ]


To: Claud

"Dante quite clearly sets Limbo in his "Inferno", and every theological treatise I've read on it, unquestionably defines Limbo as part of Hell. It has to be: the Limbo of the Fathers was postulated to exist before Heaven was even opened."

Are you real sure that Limbo didn't have its actual origins in a painting? I mean, so many Roman Catholics and others really depend a lot on paintings, don't they. Maybe the mural of Limbo was painted from the imagination of a painter, and later some "theologian" saw it and said, "Hey! Here's a new way we can get money! People, who think the priests would never lie can have people PAY MONEY for masses to get their unbaptized infants who die out of Limbo."


178 posted on 11/29/2005 5:37:10 PM PST by Free Baptist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 167 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson