Catholic Church Buries Limbo After Centuries

[FTS]

See, that is simply wrong. God never said He desires us to be baptized by water; rather, God told us that we only the baptized (by water and spirit) will enter the kingdom…that is what God said, not what the voices of men say. God never said anything about desiring baptism, He said very clearly that we must be baptized in to enter the kingdom.

What I am saying is this: if baptism is not required by some of us, then justice would demand that it not be required of all of us. If unborn babies (who cannot be baptized in any way), go to the Beatific Vision, then baptism is meaningless because it means God will save us even without His absolute command for baptism.

Can you not see? There are consequences for our actions. If a baby is aborted there are conseqeunces for the baby, for the mother and for the abortionist. If there are no consequences, then the faith is meaningless. The baby suffers a consequence because it was not baptized, the mother and the abortionist suffers a conseqeunce as a result of their mortal sin. If this is not true, then baptism means nothing, sero, nadda, zilch, and the it also means the Church is not infallible, original does not exist, etc. It all crashes down.

Again you are incorrect. Limbo is not an infallible doctrine of the Catholic Church, so how in the world can you claim that its denial leads to denouncing the infallibility of the Church? However, baptism is necessary for salvation. I agree with you. How we disagree is whether or not infants can be baptised by desire. I believe so and you disagree. But admit I am being intellectually honest and consistent. I am in no way, shape, or form denying the necessity of baptism for salvation, nor the truth of the teaching of Original Sin, which is washed away at baptism. When I say that God desires His people to be baptised by water, but that in extraordinary circumstances they can be baptised by blood and by desire, this is not merely my personal opinion, but the teaching of the Catholic Church. Also, the eternal destination of aborted babies DOES NOT make abortion any less evil. This is truly a ridiculous argument. Because I believe that aborted babies will go to Heaven doesn’t mean the act of murdering them was good! It makes no sense. Would it be good for a person to murder a child immediately after their baptism, in order for them to go strait to Heaven? Would it be good for a person to murder their friend, after this friend told them that they just made a really heartfelt and powerful confession to a priest and feel great about it? Would the person think, “Well they are probably in a state of grace right now, I’m gonna do the Lord’s will and kill them on the spot so they can go to Heaven.” Of course this is asinine. Is it good to murder people because of their Catholic faith? No! They will go to Heaven as holy martyrs, but the act of murdering them is horrible, mortally sinful! I sincerely wish this argument made by some people on this board would cease, because it is very erroneous and common sense immediately disregards it.

 

[FTS]

So, you are re-inventing the Gospel now?

I can say the exact same thing to you. Limbo is not an infallible teaching of the Church! Are you trying to re-invent the Gospel by standing by that teaching? Yet I don’t accuse you of this, because I recognize that you are free to have this theological speculation. I am free to hold my theological speculation on the matter, too. While I respect your acceptable opinion, you for some reason are disregarding my equally acceptable opinion. And it appears the current Pope is on my side. He hasn’t explicity said he feels that baptism of desire could be applied to infants, he didn’t go deep into the “how infants could be saved.” But in 1985 he personally talked of his tendency as a theologian to reject the teaching of Limbo. This tells us he personally believes they can enter Heaven. If my opinion is united with Pope Benedict XVI, I am in good company.

 

[FTS]

Truly, why do people have such trouble with this topic. It is so clear. Jesus said we must be baptized by water and spirit, He left no escape hatches or new paths or new Gospels to follow. He thought so strongly of baptism that He Himself was baptized even though He carried no sin at all. We can theorize all we want and we can talk about the theif on the cross (who I believe went to Paradise, not Heaven), but all of this stuff is mere conjecture, not facts. Limbo is conjecture as well, and that is why it does not have to be believed.

It is simple: All people, the unborn, Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Christians, etc…MUST be baptized to enter the kingdom. Jesus told us this, and He did not qualify His remarks. If God allows a way to Heaven for the non-baptized, it is His business and He simply has not revealed that to us or the Church. What God has revealed to us and the Church is that we must be baptized, so we have no right giving people false expectations of heaven for those who have not been baptized, when God has never once said He will save those who have not been baptized. We must obey by following what God said, and not what we want Him to have said.

Many, many people feel it was quite harsh and unfair for God to have made the Jews His Chosen out of entire world of choices, yet that is what God did, and what the fate of the other people cannot be known unless God tells us, and He has not told us.

It is fine to hope, like the Church says we can, it is wrong to believe that the unbaptized go toe Heaven, and it is wrong to make new inventions that lead people astray.

Follow God, not men.

If it is okay to hope the unborn can go to Heaven, obviously it is okay to believe they go to Heaven. We can do so, but we cannot believe this with 100% certitude, because it has not been revealed to us. You seem to be very tentative to recognize the truth of baptism by blood or desire, which are just as valid as baptism by water, abeit extraordinary means. I do not understand why. This is the teaching of the Catholic Church. Also, it is very odd that you believe the Good Thief went to Limbo and not Heaven. There is no basis for this. Early Church Fathers and Church theologians have always spoken of the Good Thief as entering into Heaven. Jesus told him that “today you will be WITH ME in Paradise.” The Good Thief was baptised by desire. Also, in the Old Testament times, think of all the people on earth that never even heard the term “God the Father.” Think of all the people from the New Testament to now who have never even heard the name of “Jesus.” If they honestly sought the truth in their lifetime and did their best in doing God’s will and following His moral precepts, they can be saved and baptised by desire. There is no need to shy away from this truth, because it is the teaching of the Catholic Church.

 

[FTS]

FTS, please use paragraphs. I’ve taken the liberty of introducing them into your post above.

No Catholic is free to believe that unbaptized infants are baptized via baptism of desire. Summarizing two thousand years of Catholic tradition, Pope Pius XII stated on October 29, 1951, that baptism of desire is impossible for infants…

*CCC *1261 says nothing about baptism of desire. Instead, that section talks about a “hope” that unbaptized infants may achieve a “way of salvation.” In the light of Catholic tradition, this salvation should be understood as salvation from what Jesus calls the “fire” of hell (the “pain of sense”).

Furthermore, using her infallible teaching authority, the Catholic Church has committed herself to the position that the souls of unbaptized infants, since they die in the state of original sin only, are punished in some manner for this sin in the next world. This was taught at two general councils: Lyons II in 1274 and Florence in 1439. Here are the words of the Council of Florence:

"But the souls of those who die in actual mortal sin or only in original sin immediately descend into hell, but to be punished with unequal punishments."

Please note that the souls of unbaptized infants are in hell only in this sense: those souls, like the souls of those who die in unrepented mortal sin, are deprived of the beatific vision. This deprivation is the punishment for original sin.

Consequently, the fact that unbaptized infants are deprived of the beatific vision is not a mere personal opinion, but a Catholic dogma. It is de fide. But please don’t take my word for it. If you don’t believe me, check any approved manual of Catholic dogmatic theology published before the present confusion erupted in the Church’s human dimensions.

It is important to realize this: although the souls in limbo are deprived of the beatific vision, they are not totally separated from God. They are, as St. Thomas Aquinas teaches, united with God through natural knowledge and love, and that union, even though it is not as wonderful as the beatific vision, is not to be belittled.

Keep and spread the Faith.

This is not infallible teaching of the Catholic Church, but merely Pope Pius XII’s personal opinion. I respectfully disagree with it.
.
Yes, the Catechism doesn’t go into detail about the manner in which these persons could be saved, just mentions a hope for this to happen. I personally believe that this hope, this possibility, is manifested by baptism of desire. Also, it is quite radical to state that when the Catechism mentions salvation is merely means saved from Hell. This is totally untrue. The salvation talked about refers to eternal salvation in Heaven. Pope JPII and then Cardinal Ratzinger had major contribution to the Catechism of the Catholic Church. They personally leaned towards rejecting Limbo and believing in their possible entrance to Heaven. You are trying to contort the meaning of the Catechism passage, when the meaning is quite clear.

If an infant is baptised by desire, they are therefore NOT unbaptised.

Limbo wouldn’t event scratch the surface of Heaven. Simply put, one would possess face-to-face communion with God Almighty and one would not. It is like comparing a symbolic Protestant Communon to the Real Presence, the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Jesus Christ in the Holy Eucharist at Catholic Mass.

 

[FTS]

The very words of the Good Thief on the c\his cross addressing jesus as, “Lord, remember me when You enter your kingdom…” These words imply A LOT !!

It implies that, Lord" the GT knew Jesus was divine and he hoped and believed in the hereafter. To my mind Dismas, the Good Thief, was most probably a follower of Jesus despite his sinful past of thievery.

We can take that one step further, that is, if he was a follwer then he most certainly was baptized. Baptism was broadly practiced in Judea and was emphasized as as coincidental with redemption by Jesus Himself when He directed His apostles to g…"go and preach the Gospel to all nations, baptizing them, “In the name of the father, and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost.”

The Good Thief knew well who Jesus was and we cannot say with absolute assurity that he was NOT baptized. I think he was.

I must admit this is probably the first time I’ve ever head someone hold this view. Every Catholic theologian I’ve ever heard of clearly recognizes the fact that the Good Thief was baptised by desire, and was previously not a baptised follower of Christ, but rather had a major conversion to Christ while on the cross. He obviously knew of Jesus, and why He was being put to death. He knew He was referred to as the Lord by His followers, and that He claimed to be a King, who would possess a Kingdom. Just because the Good Thief knew this doesn’t mean he was a personal follower of Jesus before the crucifixtion. I suppose there is a slight chance you may be correct, but I highly doubt it. I agree with the unanimous viewpoint of Catholic theologians. But regardless of this point, baptism by blood and by desire are teachings of the Catholic Church, and I see no reason why you would oppose these truths.

 

[FTS]

A question to anti-limbo people: how can you, as Catholics, continue to advocate baptism of desire as a means for unbaptized infants to atttain the beatific vision? Doesn’t the Council of Florence assure us that, in the case of newborns who face the danger of death, ***“help cannot be brought to them by any remedy except through the sacrament of Baptism” ***(old Denzinger number 712; new Denzinger number 1349)?

How can a Catholic maintain that Christ permitted the Council of Florence to misinform the entire Church in this manner?

Keep and spread the Faith.

The Council of Florence taught the necessity of the Sacrament of baptism for salvation. If infants are baptised by desire, they receive the needed baptism for salvation. Anyone who is baptised by blood or by desire is validly baptised. I see no problem here.

 

[FTS]

Authoritive: Ordinary Magisterium

The provincial Council of Cologne: “Faith teaches us that infants, since they are not capable of this desire, are excluded from the kingdom of heaven if they die [unbaptized].” (Collectio Lacensis, V. 320)

A provincial council doesn’t produce infallible teaching. It is not an Ecumenical Council. As Catholic Encyclopedia states,

“The provincial council is not competent to deal directly with matters of faith, by defining or condemning; yet it may treat of such from a disciplinary point of view: promoting religious teaching, pointing out the errors of the day, defending the truth. Its proper sphere is ecclesiastical discipline; to correct abuses, to watch over the observance of laws especially the reform laws of the Council of Trent; to promote the Christian life of the clergy and people, to settle disputes, to decide minor differences between bishops, to adopt measures and make suitable regulations for all these objects. The decrees of the provincial councils are binding on the whole province; each bishop, however, may prudently grant dispensations in his own diocese, as he is the legislator; but he may not abrogate the decrees of the Council. If the Council deems any derogation from the common law useful, it ought to send a postulatum to the pope.”

At that time, in 1860, Limbo was leading theological speculation. Currently, in 2007, it appears eternal salvation in Heaven for these infants is leading theological speculation among Catholic theologians.

 

[johnstown_johnn]

I must admit this is probably the first time I’ve ever head someone hold this view. Every Catholic theologian I’ve ever heard of clearly recognizes the fact that the Good Thief was baptised by desire, and was previously not a baptised follower of Christ, but rather had a major conversion to Christ while on the cross. He obviously knew of Jesus, and why He was being put to death. He knew He was referred to as the Lord by His followers, and that He claimed to be a King, who would possess a Kingdom. Just because the Good Thief knew this doesn’t mean he was a personal follower of Jesus before the crucifixtion. I suppose there is a slight chance you may be correct, but I highly doubt it. I agree with the unanimous viewpoint of Catholic theologians. But regardless of this point, baptism by blood and by desire are teachings of the Catholic Church, and I see no reason why you would oppose these truths.

It’s not implausible.

 

[Steve_O_Brien]

The Council of Florence taught the necessity of the Sacrament of baptism for salvation. If infants are baptised by desire, they receive the needed baptism for salvation. Anyone who is baptised by blood or by desire is validly baptised. I see no problem here.

I see a huge problem here.

The Council of Florence affirmed the de fide teaching that the souls of those who die in original sin only descend immediately into hell for some kind of punishment. Pope Innocent III tells us that this punishment is deprivation of the beatific vision.

If we say that this punishment does *not *ensue for unbaptized infants, because their original sin is taken away by baptism of desire, then we are turning Florence’s dogma into nonsense, and transforming an ecumenical council of the Catholic Church into the Mad Hatter’s tea party.

Keep and spread the Faith.

 

[Lance]

I don’t believe in Limbo, except as a dance! Never did and never will.

 

[rlg94086]

I see a huge problem here.

The Council of Florence affirmed the de fide teaching that the souls of those who die in original sin only descend immediately into hell for some kind of punishment. Pope Innocent III tells us that this punishment is deprivation of the beatific vision.

If we say that this punishment does *not *ensue for unbaptized infants, because their original sin is taken away by baptism of desire, then we are turning Florence’s dogma into nonsense, and transforming an ecumenical council of the Catholic Church into the Mad Hatter’s tea party.

Keep and spread the Faith.

Actually, Steve, from a logical standpoint (which is all I have to go on here ) your argument does not follow.

Florence: “those who die in original sin” go to hell for punishment (Limbo fits in here because it is in the outer reaches of hell, right?)

Baptism by blood or desire ***removes ***original sin (see CCC 1258 below), therefore Florence is not negated. Now, we don’t know for certain that an unbaptized baby has original sin removed through desire or blood, which is why we can only have “hope.”

CCC:

[1258](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/1258.htm’) The Church has always held the firm conviction that those who suffer death for the sake of the faith without having received Baptism are baptized by their death for and with Christ. This Baptism of blood, like the desire for Baptism, brings about the fruits of Baptism without being a sacrament.

 

[johnstown_johnn]

I don’t believe in Limbo, except as a dance! Never did and never will.

If you are NOT baptized and you expire this way…you’ll find out, won’t you.

 

[napad]

A provincial council doesn’t produce infallible teaching. It is not an Ecumenical Council. As Catholic Encyclopedia states,

“The provincial council is not competent to deal directly with matters of faith, by defining or condemning; yet it may treat of such from a disciplinary point of view: promoting religious teaching, pointing out the errors of the day, defending the truth. Its proper sphere is ecclesiastical discipline; to correct abuses, to watch over the observance of laws especially the reform laws of the Council of Trent; to promote the Christian life of the clergy and people, to settle disputes, to decide minor differences between bishops, to adopt measures and make suitable regulations for all these objects. The decrees of the provincial councils are binding on the whole province; each bishop, however, may prudently grant dispensations in his own diocese, as he is the legislator; but he may not abrogate the decrees of the Council. If the Council deems any derogation from the common law useful, it ought to send a postulatum to the pope.”

At that time, in 1860, Limbo was leading theological speculation. Currently, in 2007, it appears eternal salvation in Heaven for these infants is leading theological speculation among Catholic theologians.

Could you give the CONTINUITY of the current 2007 that babies go to heaven without baptism, through-out Catholic tradition?
(from the last apostle to today)

If it can’t be shown then it is less than a logical speculation it is hoping against what has been revealed because I simply don’t like it.

 

[napad]

Actually, Steve, from a logical standpoint (which is all I have to go on here ) your argument does not follow.

Florence: “those who die in original sin” go to hell for punishment (Limbo fits in here because it is in the outer reaches of hell, right?)

Baptism by blood or desire ***removes ***original sin (see CCC 1258 below), therefore Florence is not negated. Now, we don’t know for certain that an unbaptized baby has original sin removed through desire or blood, which is why we can only have “hope.”

There can be more than just being cleansed from original sin that is necessary to enter heaven.

As strange as it may sound, no-one was ever saved in the old testement.

Yes, no one did or could enter heaven until Jesus opened the gates of heaven and lead them all into heaven. (He desended into hell) Those in the limbo of the Fathers could not enter heaven even though they were all in sanctifying grace, so there can be more than just being in sanctifying grace to enter heaven.

 

[rlg94086]

I’m sorry napad, but I need more then theory. My understanding is that once the gates of heaven were opened, they were opened.

We need to be cleansed from original sin in some way (normally Baptism) and then we must be in a state of grace to head in the right direction by avoiding mortal sin and/or being absolved.

Assuming an unbaptized baby has been cleansed from original sin by extraordinary means (e.g. baptism of desire or blood) at death, then avoiding mortal sin after that point should be pretty easy.

**1263 **By Baptism all sins are forgiven, original sin and all personal sins, as well as all punishment for sin. In those who have been reborn nothing remains that would impede their entry into the Kingdom of God, neither Adam’s sin, nor personal sin, nor the consequences of sin, the gravest of which is separation from God.

There can be more than just being cleansed from original sin that is necessary to enter heaven.

As strange as it may sound, no-one was ever saved in the old testement.

Yes, no one did or could enter heaven until Jesus opened the gates of heaven and lead them all into heaven. (He desended into hell) Those in the limbo of the Fathers could not enter heaven even though they were all in sanctifying grace, so there can be more than just being in sanctifying grace to enter heaven.

 

[Lance]

If you are NOT baptized and you expire this way…you’ll find out, won’t you.

I am baptised, so that is a moot point. I should have said in this life I will refuse to belive in Limbo. If in the next life it turns out to be a fact then I won’t have much choice will I? If it turns out to be false will you apologize to all those children who were aborted or died befor they could be baptised?

 

[johnstown_johnn]

I am baptised, so that is a moot point. I should have said in this life I will refuse to belive in Limbo. If in the next life it turns out to be a fact then I won’t have much choice will I? If it turns out to be false will you apologize to all those children who were aborted or died befor they could be baptised?

Refuse to believe all you want. Original Sin is a REALITY and it has to be removed. Limbo will go on—with—or without you!

 

[napad]

I’m sorry napad, but I need more then theory. My understanding is that once the gates of heaven were opened, they were opened.

We need to be cleansed from original sin in some way (normally Baptism) and then we must be in a state of grace to head in the right direction by avoiding mortal sin and/or being absolved.

Assuming an unbaptized baby has been cleansed from original sin by extraordinary means (e.g. baptism of desire or blood) at death, then avoiding mortal sin after that point should be pretty easy.

John the Baptist was born without original sin. Besides Our Lord and our Lady the Church celebrates only one other birthday, his.

Matthew 11:11 “Amen I say to you, there hath not risen among them that are born of women a greater than John the Baptist: yet he that is the lesser in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he.”

But here our Lord says that the least in the kingdom of God is greater than him. The way we enter the kindom of God is through water baptism. Because only water baptism engraphs us into Christ and the Mystical body and marks our soul to that effect. One can not recieve communion with only the other two “baptisms”, because one is not a member of the Church till recieving baptism.

in Acts Ch.8:38 the Eunuch was baptised by the miracle of Philip being transported to him. The Eunich most likely recieved the sanctifying grace of desire but God wanted him baptised.

St. Paul also recieved the Holy Spirit when he gained his sight, before Baptism:

Acts Of Apostles 9:17-18 “that thou mayest receive thy sight, and be filled with the Holy Ghost. And immediately there fell from his eyes as it were scales, and he received his sight; and rising up, he was baptized.”

Cornelius and family recieved the Holy Spirit but Peter baptised him right after this manifestation.

Acts 10:46 “For they heard them speaking with tongues, and magnifying God. 47 Then Peter answered: Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, who have received the Holy Ghost, as well as we? 48 **And he commanded them to be baptized **in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ. Then they desired him to tarry with them some days.”

A man named Apollo was preaching Christ but was baptised only with John’s baptism, he probably was cleansed from original sin by his desire to follow Christ; but in God’s providence Paul hearing this had him immediately baptised.

Acts 19:4 Then Paul said: John baptized the people with the baptism of penance, saying: That they should believe in him who was to come after him, that is to say, in Jesus. 5 Having heard these things, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.

It is true that “baptism” of desire removes original sin but it is clear in all these cases that baptism was also necessary. Curious isn it?

---

PS: Finally if your theory is that they recieve desire then they have a choice and they could reject God and if they do, they will end up in real hell fire not just limbo. You’ve created another problem not solved one.

 

[rlg94086]

You are confused on this one…I will go with Church teaching. If you take CCC1263 (quoted in my last post) and CCC1257 (I have previously quoted it, but I’ve included it below), it is clear that someone who receives the Baptism of Desire or Blood (note this only happens when one can not receive Baptism by water before their death), is received into the Kingdom of Heaven. I’m not sure why you aren’t clear on that.

If you are insisting that only Baptism by water is valid, then you are going against Church teaching.

1258 The Church has always held the firm conviction that those who suffer death for the sake of the faith without having received Baptism are baptized by their death for and with Christ. This Baptism of blood, like the desire for Baptism, brings about the fruits of Baptism without being a sacrament.

John the Baptist was born without original sin. Besides Our Lord and our Lady the Church celebrates only one other birthday, his.

Matthew 11:11 “Amen I say to you, there hath not risen among them that are born of women a greater than John the Baptist: yet he that is the lesser in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he.”

But here our Lord says that the least in the kingdom of God is greater than him. The way we enter the kindom of God is through water baptism. Because only water baptism engraphs us into Christ and the Mystical body and marks our soul to that effect. One can not recieve communion with only the other two “baptisms”, because one is not a member of the Church till recieving baptism.

in Acts Ch.8:38 the Eunuch was baptised by the miracle of Philip being transported to him. The Eunich most likely recieved the sanctifying grace of desire but God wanted him baptised.

St. Paul also recieved the Holy Spirit when he gained his sight, before Baptism:

Acts Of Apostles 9:17-18 “that thou mayest receive thy sight, and be filled with the Holy Ghost. And immediately there fell from his eyes as it were scales, and he received his sight; and rising up, he was baptized.”

Cornelius and family recieved the Holy Spirit but Peter baptised him right after this manifestation.

Acts 10:46 “For they heard them speaking with tongues, and magnifying God. 47 Then Peter answered: Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, who have received the Holy Ghost, as well as we? 48 **And he commanded them to be baptized **in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ. Then they desired him to tarry with them some days.”

A man named Apollo was preaching Christ but was baptised only with John’s baptism, he probably was cleansed from original sin by his desire to follow Christ; but in God’s providence Paul hearing this had him immediately baptised.

Acts 19:4 Then Paul said: John baptized the people with the baptism of penance, saying: That they should believe in him who was to come after him, that is to say, in Jesus. 5 Having heard these things, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.

It is true that “baptism” of desire removes original sin but it is clear in all these cases that baptism was also necessary. Curious isn it?

As far as your PS… I haven’t put forward a theory that matches what you said. All I have said is that if (that is an “if”) unbaptized babies have original sin removed through Baptism of desire, blood or some other method only known to God, nothing would impede their entrance into the Kingdom of Heaven. If you can refute that statement, have at it. I personally don’t see how an infant whose original sin was removed could could possibly commit a mortal sin after death.

Now, since nothing has been revealed in this case, some theologians theorized that they go to Limbo because they still have original sin. The Catechism says we may “hope” for their salvation. Bottomline is we don’t know.

napad:

PS: Finally if your theory is that they recieve desire then they have a choice and they could reject God and if they do, they will end up in real hell fire not just limbo. You’ve created another problem not solved one.

 

[Lance]

You are confused on this one…I will go with Church teaching. If you take CCC1263 (quoted in my last post) and CCC1257 (I have previously quoted it, but I’ve included it below), it is clear that someone who receives the Baptism of Desire or Blood (note this only happens when one can not receive Baptism by water before their death), is received into the Kingdom of Heaven. I’m not sure why you aren’t clear on that.

If you are insisting that only Baptism by water is valid, then you are going against Church teaching.

As far as your PS… I haven’t put forward a theory that matches what you said. All I have said is that if (that is an “if”) unbaptized babies have original sin removed through Baptism of desire, blood or some other method only known to God, nothing would impede their entrance into the Kingdom of Heaven. If you can refute that statement, have at it. I personally don’t see how an infant whose original sin was removed could could possibly commit a mortal sin after death.

Now, since nothing has been revealed in this case, some theologians theorized that they go to Limbo because they still have original sin. The Catechism says we may “hope” for their salvation. Bottomline is we don’t know.

You and I agree, and since some people here don’t want to listen I will shake the dust from my shoes and leave.