Ordinary vs extraordinary means of salvation

[Faith3Faith]

It looks like none of the “Baptism of Desire” supporters was able to provide any historical evidence for anyone having ever been sanctified through Baptism of Desire.

So as I had promised, I said that after it is shown that “BoD” supporters are unable to meet my challenge, then we Feeneyite Traditional Catholics would provide our evidence which totally refutes “BoD”. We Feeneyite Traditional Catholics can show a historical case where God actually sent an angel to administer Sacraments to persons on Earth, which completely discredits the concept of “BoD”. I will reveal where and when this miracle had taken place tomorrow at this same time 10 PM Central Time.

 

[Acolythus_sum]

It looks like none of the “Baptism of Desire” supporters was able to provide any historical evidence for anyone having ever been sanctified through Baptism of Desire.

So as I had promised, I said that after it is shown that “BoD” supporters are unable to meet my challenge, then we Feeneyite Traditional Catholics would provide our evidence which totally refutes “BoD”. We Feeneyite Traditional Catholics can show a historical case where God actually sent an angel to administer Sacraments to persons on Earth, which completely discredits the concept of “BoD”. I will reveal where and when this miracle had taken place tomorrow at this same time 10 PM Central Time.

Well, good for you.

You portray yourself as a Feeneyite. Feeneyism was condemned as heresy by the Holy See, and Fr. Feeney was excommunicated.

I repeat:
Did you read my post?!?
Have you come up with an answer to the logical arguments put before you?!?

A characteristic of internet forums which works in your favor is being able to ignore arguments which make you awkward. Please consider these arguments, and respond. Any good philosopher (including “any priest or theologian”) will tell you it is unacceptable conduct to not either counter-argue or cede a point made.

Your ignoring of the arguments of Aquinas, the Holy See, and the Catechism of the Catholic Church is becoming very frustrating.

Pax Domini sit semper tecum.

 

[Acolythus_sum]

Oh, and the reason we can’t give specific examples of Baptism of Desire? It is effected only at death…and we are not the ones to judge who has and has not this grace. Neither are you. See the above arguments about societies where the Gospel had not yet been proclaimed, or those with invincible ignorance.

I will repost my arguments, as you seem to have missed them last time around.

“Which therefore totally destroys Baptism of Desire” I fail to see your reasoning. This extraordinary means of the Sacrament (directly from God) in no way can disprove the existence of Baptism of Desire. Please support your argument, and show us the example (from an approved source).

“Catechumens…you don’t know for certain any of them was not Water Baptized.” Yes we do. Catechumens are, by definition, not baptized. Sorry.

“Coming closer to our own times, we can add that the traditional 1917 Code of Canon Law clearly indicates what the constant belief at teaching of the Catholic Church is and always has been, in regard to Baptism of Desire in two of its canons: namely, Canon 7371. “Baptism… if we are to attain salvation, must be either actually received or at least desired…”; and, Canon 1239: “… catechumens who, through no fault of theirs, die without having received baptism… are to be regarded as among those baptized”—the reason being that such catechumens had the desire and intention to be baptized before they died.”
(see christorchaos.com/TheUnBa…rStepanich.htm)

From the Martyrologium Romanum (Pridie Idus Aprilis):

“ancti Victoris Martyris, qui,
adhuc catechumenus, cum noluisset idolum adorare, et
Christum Jesum magna constantia confessus fuisset, ideo,
post multa tormenta, capite abscisso, meruit proprio
sanguine baptizari”

Literally translated as:

“Saint Victor Martyr, who, as yet a catechumen, when he had refused to adore an idol, and had confessed with great firmness Jesus Christ, therefore, after many torments, his head was cut off, and he won by his own blood to be baptized.”

This clearly shows Baptism of Blood–again, as Aquinas said, part of the Sacrament of Baptism, not a separate Sacrament.

Note further that the Martyrologium is an approved liturgical text.

Note also that the Latin “catechumenus” literally is translated as “catechumen, one receiving elementary religious instruction before baptism.” There are other Latin words for catechumens/neophytes; “catechumenus” has its own precise meaning.

 

[Acolythus_sum]

I absolutely agree with your statement Chypmonk. :sad_yes: ,… The key words are “Sacramentally Baptized” which cannot occur from baptism of desire, but instead only through Water Baptism,…This has always been the Universal and Constant teaching of the Holy Catholic Church

We have proved through Aquinas’ writing in the Summa Theologica (a document which bears the imprimatur, attesting that it contains no errors in faith or morals) that each type of baptism is considered Sacramental, as they are each a valid expression of Baptism and incorporation into the Church. Baptism of Blood and Desire occur at death only. Thus we are not to judge who has received this grace from God, as it is not visible as is Baptism of Water (the ordinary means of the sacrament and the only means which can be effected before death).

 

[Ad_Pondus_Omniu]

Faith3faith did this on the Fisheaters Traditional Catholic forum too, and got banned for being offensive. He’s just a troll not seeking to be constructive, but only being a stumbling block here.

Although I’m a Feeneyite too, there’s no need to spread it around so vehemently and pass it off as a simply question.

 

[Gregory_I]

Faith3Faith,
do you think baptism of desire supporters think baptism of desire is the same as baptism, and that you can basically live a live incorporated into the church as a normative catholic? Baptism of desire is almost always associated with death when the Fathers speak of it.

I believe it is*** the explicit desire for baptism ***that is baptism of desire properly speaking (implicit desires cannot be known and are too mushy and ill-defined in our darkened intellect anyway); YET it does not leave the same mark and character as baptism, hence one is not incorporated into the church. It is a movement of Grace in the soul that the free will assents to, but for some reason, is inexplicably, and unitentionally cut short by some unforseen event. These can attain to eternal salvation, for how can I know I would be struck crossing the street to be baptized?

Let’s see what the Baltimore Catechism says, which is church approved and has the nihil obstat and imprimatur:

**Baltimore Catechism #3

Q. 644. How many kinds of Baptism are there?

A. There are three kinds of Baptism: 1.Baptism of water, of desire, and of blood.

Q. 650. What is Baptism of desire?

A. Baptism of desire is an ardent wish to receive Baptism, and to do all that God has ordained for our salvation.

Q. 653. Is Baptism of desire or of blood sufficient to produce the effects of Baptism of water?

A. Baptism of desire or of blood is sufficient to produce the effects of the Baptism of water, if it is impossible to receive the Baptism of water.

Q. 654. How do we know that the baptism of desire or of blood will save us when it is impossible to receive the baptism of water?

A. We know that baptism of desire or of blood will save us when it is impossible to receive the baptism of water, from Holy Scripture, which teaches that love of God and perfect contrition can secure the remission of sins ; and also that Our Lord promises salvation to those who lay down their life for His sake or for His teaching.**

And the Baltimore catechism #4 Teachers guide to the Baltimore Catechism:

1. Q. What is Baptism of desire?
   A. Baptism of desire is an ardent wish to receive Baptism, and to do all that God has ordained for out salvation.

“Ardent wish” by one who has no opportunity of being baptized-for no one can baptize himself. He must be sorry for his sins and have the desire of receiving the Baptism of water as soon as he can; just as a person in mortal sin and without a priest to absolve him may, when in danger of death, save his soul from Hell by an act of perfect contrition and the firm resolution of going to confession as soon as possible.

1. Q. Is Baptism of desire or blood sufficient to produce the effects of Baptism of water?
   A. Baptism of desire or of blood is sufficient to produce the effects of the Baptism of water, if it is impossible to receive the Baptism of water.

Baptism of desire is not the sacrament of baptism and yet applying the term “baptism” to the baptism of blood and baptism of desire has been a practice of the Church for centuries. Even if it is not a baptism in the strict sense, it nevertheless is a baptism in the analogical sense. Just as receiving the Eucharist by making a spiritual “Communion” is not a true Communion, but given the name “Spiritual Communion” in the analogical sense. In both cases, no one is denying the primary term. On the same point, St. Albert the Great says that the baptism of blood and the baptism of desire can only be called baptism when water baptism is lacking.

St. Thomas Aquinas states that "a man may, without Baptism of Water, receive the sacramental effect from Christ’s Passion, in so far as he is conformed to Christ by suffering for Him. Hence, it is written (Apoc. 7:14): “These are they who are come out of great tribulation, and have washed their robes and have made them white in the blood of the Lamb.” In like manner a man receives the effect of Baptism by the power of the Holy Ghost, not only without Baptism of Water, but also without Baptism of Blood: forasmuch as his heart is moved by the Holy Ghost to believe in and love God and to repent of his sins: wherefore this is also called Baptism of Repentance. Of this, it is written (Is. 4:4): “If the Lord shall wash away the filth of the daughters of Zion, and shall wash away the blood of Jerusalem out of the midst thereof, by the spirit of judgment, and by the spirit of burning.” Thus, therefore, each of these other Baptisms is called Baptism, forasmuch as it takes the place of Baptism. Wherefore Augustine says (De Unico Baptismo Parvulorum iv): “The Blessed Cyprian argues with considerable reason from the thief to whom, though not baptized, it was said: ‘Today shall you be with Me in Paradise’ that suffering can take the place of Baptism. Having weighed this in my mind again and again, I perceive that not only can suffering for the name of Christ supply for what was lacking in Baptism, but even faith and conversion of heart, if perchance on account of the stress of the times the celebration of the mystery of Baptism is not practicable.” He also states "Secondly, the sacrament of Baptism may be wanting to anyone in reality but not in desire: for instance, when a man wishes to be baptized, but by some ill-chance he is forestalled by death before receiving Baptism. Moreover, such a man can obtain salvation without being actually baptized, on account of his desire for Baptism, which desire is the outcome of “faith that works by charity,” whereby God, Whose power is not tied to visible sacraments, sanctifies man inwardly. Hence Ambrose says of Valentinian, who died while yet a catechumen: “I lost him whom I was to regenerate: but he did not lose the grace he prayed for.”

catholicapologetics.info/modernproblems/currenterrors/bapdesire.htm

 

[Oneofthewomen]

I want to go back to the OP.

I’m wondering about this. I hear some Catholics claim that God is not bound to ordinary means of salvation(meaning through the Sacraments and the Church which he established), but that God may be able to save souls through extraordinary means(such as to intercede immedietaly at the point of that person’s death).

What are your thoughts on this?

It is not some Catholics, it is the Catholic Church herself who states, unequivocally, God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments.

Catechism of the Catholic Church
1257
The Lord himself affirms that Baptism is necessary for salvation.60 He also commands his disciples to proclaim the Gospel to all nations and to baptize them.61 Baptism is necessary for salvation for those to whom the Gospel has been proclaimed and who have had the possibility of asking for this sacrament.62 The Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude; this is why she takes care not to neglect the mission she has received from the Lord to see that all who can be baptized are “reborn of water and the Spirit.” God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments

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.

I think where some of the confusions arises is in the definitions of “ordinary” & “extraordinary”.

Ordinary- the regular or customary condition or course of things
Extraordinary-going beyond what is usual, regular or customary

I, and presumably everyone who has contributed to this thread, will agree with the fact that Baptism by water is the ordinary, as in the regular, normal, most ideal way. I know I am not disputing this fact, at all!

However, there are always other ways, extraordinary ways, God’s ways.
And we, as sinful human beings, will never be able to understand or provide “proof” for them, because we will always think as man does, and not as God does.

And that, my friend in Christ, is why we call it FAITH!

 

[Faith3Faith]

Ad Pondus Omniu, you claim that I’m banned at the Fisheaters Traditional Catholic Forum and yet anyone can go to Fisheaters and see that I’m not banned there.

I hope you realize that bearing false witness against someone is a Grave Mortal Sin which can cause a soul to end up in Hell

 

[Faith3Faith]

God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments.

God’s Word binds Him exclusively to the sacrament of Water baptism for regeneration and eternal life (He does bind Himself to the sacrament in the sense that no one can be saved without its essential effect)

If you claim that God is not bound by his own Word, then you would have to claim that Jesus was not telling the truth when he told Peter, **“What you bind on Earth, is bound in Heaven” **

 

[Gregory_I]

What about that angelic salutation faith3faith?

 

[Acolythus_sum]

God’s Word binds Him exclusively to the sacrament of Water baptism for regeneration and eternal life (He does bind Himself to the sacrament in the sense that no one can be saved without its essential effect)

If you claim that God is not bound by his own Word, then you would have to claim that Jesus was not telling the truth when he told Peter, **“What you bind on Earth, is bound in Heaven” **

Quote please?

 

[Cecilianus]

Ad Pondus Omniu, you claim that I’m banned at the Fisheaters Traditional Catholic Forum and yet anyone can go to Fisheaters and see that I’m not banned there.

I hope you realize that bearing false witness against someone is a Grave Mortal Sin which can cause a soul to end up in Hell

Do you realize how hateful your speech comes off as sounding? That alone is sufficient refutation.

I frankly do not see the spirit of Christian charity in what you are saying, and I suggest you lay off trying to practice theology. To pray is to do theology and to do theology is to pray, as Evagrius Ponticus said, and the manner in which you casually condemn everyone to Hell is not speech befitting a theologian. I am not as much of a man of prayer as I should be myself, but I try to condemn my own faults before deciding who else is going to Hell. You are not necessarily any more virtuous or more holy than the people you are condemning.

Or take a woman, elegantly dressed in silks and pearls. She offers herself in a brothel. So also the heart of men is like a brothel of unclean spirits, those who discourse about justice without having experienced indeed what they speak about.

-St. Macarius the Great, Homily 17 section 9

 

[Cecilianus]

God’s Word binds Him exclusively to the sacrament of Water baptism for regeneration and eternal life (He does bind Himself to the sacrament in the sense that no one can be saved without its essential effect)

If you claim that God is not bound by his own Word, then you would have to claim that Jesus was not telling the truth when he told Peter, **“What you bind on Earth, is bound in Heaven” **

I suggest you read the book of Jonas in the Old Testament, which will contain the answer to this post.

 

[Faith3Faith]

The Council of Trent never taught BoD. Those who believe Trent taught BoD are misunderstanding it based on the mistranslation of “aut” and “voto”. Also most of the early Church fathers rejected Baptism of Desire. Therefore, BoD is not a teaching of the Universal Magisterium since it was rejected by the early Church.

St. Thomas Aquinas had said that if baptism were essential to the salvation of such a man(who was unable to be baptized by anyone on Earth), then God would sooner send an Angel to (water)baptize him than allow him to be lost.

Today, we now have an example of an angel which did administer a Sacrament from Heaven. The Sacrament of Holy Communion was administered by an Angel for the 3 little children at Fatima, Portugal in 1917. Obviously if an angel can administer the sacrament of the Holy Eucharist, then an angel can easily Water baptize a person. Infact the Church even teaches that an atheist can Water baptize someone and it would be valid.

Therefore, since we know God sends angels to deliver Sacraments, then this completely destroys the case for Baptism of Desire.

 

[Oneofthewomen]

God’s Word binds Him exclusively to the sacrament of Water baptism for regeneration and eternal life (He does bind Himself to the sacrament in the sense that no one can be saved without its essential effect)

If you claim that God is not bound by his own Word, then you would have to claim that Jesus was not telling the truth when he told Peter, **“What you bind on Earth, is bound in Heaven” **

How convenient that you forget to quote Jesus’ whole statement- here it is for you…

“Amen, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

Seems to me, all the proof you want is in the Catechism of the Catholic Church which you can find here, unless what you are really trying to say is that the Magesterium is wrong.

 

[Cecilianus]

St. Thomas Aquinas had said that if baptism were essential to the salvation of such a man(who was unable to be baptized by anyone on Earth), then God would sooner send an Angel to (water)baptize him than allow him to be lost.

Today, we now have an example of an angel which did administer a Sacrament from Heaven. The Sacrament of Holy Communion was administered by an Angel for the 3 little children at Fatima, Portugal in 1917. Obviously if an angel can administer the sacrament of the Holy Eucharist, then an angel can easily Water baptize a person. Infact the Church even teaches that an atheist can Water baptize someone and it would be valid.

Therefore, since we know God sends angels to deliver Sacraments, then this completely destroys the case for Baptism of Desire.

No, actually in completely destroys your case. God never sent angels to baptize every one of the Native Americans before 1492 (who had never had the Gospel preached to them), as you say He would have were water baptism physically necessary for salvation. Therefore, since God did not simply leave them to be lost, they would have been saved through baptism of desire.

 

[Gregory_I]

One thing I do wonder though cecilianus, is that, due to original sin, which results in the darkening of the will and intellect, and the bending of the soul toward evil, and the incapability of man to render any work that is supernaturally pleasing to God, can we really speak about an effective IMPLICIT Baptism of Desire?

I don’t really see how fallen man could have an implicit desire for something they know nothing about.

If God were to save them it would be through extraordinary means known only to himself, but it would not be through their ignorance, because ignorance is NOT sanctifying grace.

One Plausible theory is that “Virtuous Pagans” if you could actually envision such a thing, would share with unbaptized infants the abode of limbo, where they enjoy natural happiness, much like in their own individual mythologies. Actually this makes alot of sense if you think about it, and is in accord with both God’s justice and his mercy. Perhaps the pagan afterlife is what they experience in limbo: a sort of blissful natural happiness that is not the Beatific vision. Perhaps this is the most the isolated peoples of the world could hope for, and God put it in their heart to at least be good enough for That. For example, llimbo is the loss of the beatific vision, but it does not consist in spiritual pain or physical pain, but is much like the garden of eden. Perhaps it is telling that the pagan vision of the afterlife seems to correspond to this.

However I personally hold that those who are in limbo will be finally united to God in the ressurection, sort of like how Christ preached to the dead in the limbo of the Fathers, so, in the ressurection, he will preach in the Limbo of the unbaptized.

And in the end, they will be with God.

But AFTER the ressurection.

I think this is very feasible, what do you think?

 

[Cecilianus]

One thing I do wonder though cecilianus, is that, due to original sin, which results in the darkening of the will and intellect, and the bending of the soul toward evil, and the incapability of man to render any work that is supernaturally pleasing to God, can we really speak about an effective IMPLICIT Baptism of Desire?

I don’t really see how fallen man could have an implicit desire for something they know nothing about.

The reason I think there is an implicit baptism of desire is the example of thousands of Buddhist and Hindu monks and sadhus who devoted their lives seeking salvation and/or union with God. That’s pretty strong evidence to me.

If God were to save them it would be through extraordinary means known only to himself, but it would not be through their ignorance, because ignorance is NOT sanctifying grace.

Their invincible ignorance would be the reason why they would not be held accountable for not being Christians, but neither would it be enough to save them (since salvation is more than simply not deserving damnation). They would be saved through extraordinary graces, coming from the merits of the Church, administered only via means known to God Himself.

One Plausible theory is that “Virtuous Pagans” if you could actually envision such a thing, would share with unbaptized infants the abode of limbo, where they enjoy natural happiness, much like in their own individual mythologies. Actually this makes alot of sense if you think about it, and is in accord with both God’s justice and his mercy. Perhaps the pagan afterlife is what they experience in limbo: a sort of blissful natural happiness that is not the Beatific vision. Perhaps this is the most the isolated peoples of the world could hope for, and God put it in their heart to at least be good enough for That. For example, limbo is the loss of the beatific vision, but it does not consist in spiritual pain or physical pain, but is much like the garden of eden. Perhaps it is telling that the pagan vision of the afterlife seems to correspond to this.

However I personally hold that those who are in limbo will be finally united to God in the ressurection, sort of like how Christ preached to the dead in the limbo of the Fathers, so, in the ressurection, he will preach in the Limbo of the unbaptized.

And in the end, they will be with God.

But AFTER the ressurection.

I think this is very feasible, what do you think?

Sounds very plausible to me. I’ve thought about something like this as well, especially since I had a sibling who was miscarried (and whom I would sincerely rather be in some sort of “limbo” than in Hell). I do think the Church teaches that there are only two ultimate states - Heaven and Hell - and consequently the redemption of Christ must eventually be applied to the souls in limbo as well, just as had been done to the Old Testament saints. The parallelism with the Limbo of the Fathers would have it make more sense for this to occur right before the final triumph of the Last Judgment than immediately after each individual’s death - but the fact that Christ now judges every soul immediately after death (the “particular judgment” in Latin theology) would have it make more sense for each soul to be sent to its eternal destiny (or Purgatory) immediately.

The most probable case imo is that pagans or non-Christians today who die without being sent to Hell learn the truths of the Christian faith in Purgatory. It’s a chance to complete our sanctification for those of us Christians who die without having been perfected on Earth, so it would make complete sense for right-hearted infidels to also get set straight there.

How long this Purgatory would be depends on the individual. I do think the existence of a number of Sufi and Indian saints does provide strong evidence that not only invincible ignorance but real sanctifying grace is sometimes at work outside the visible borders of the Church. For some - like Kabir, Abu Yazid or Hafez for example - all they may need is to see the truth of Christianity and their perfection might be complete. On the other hand, you and the Catholic Church does have a point when you point out that original sin weakens our ability to perform virtue, and gives us a natural (or an unnatural) proclivity or inclination to sin. Lots of people may have never heard of Christianity, yet still be damned because of the sins they commit and become attached to. Consider how women are treated in most pagan cultures, or consider human sacrifice.

Since you are “Eastern in theology”, here is my Eastern explanation. What we inherited from the ancestral sin is death, and Christ definitely conquered death once and for all. (“Christ is risen from the dead - by death he trampled death, and to those in the tombs he granted life”, as we Easterners sing at Paschatime.) Following St. Basil the Great, we view sin and death in their totality and in their unity. (Christ did not conquer lots of little individual deaths, he conquered Death.) Since Christ has already conquered death, there is no reason why His conquest over it cannot be extended over the whole world - an extension we Christians have been actively bringing into effect by preaching the Gospel to the Gentiles.

Of course, everything we can say about the “extraordinary means of grace” is speculation. God is free to save whomever He wills, and we are strictly told not to judge the state of anyone’s soul. We can only hope for - rather than know of - anyone’s salvation until we ourselves are judged. But we are obligated to hope and pray for the salvation of the whole world.

 

[Gregory_I]

THe only problem is Purgatory is only for those who have sanctifying grace: a virtuous pagan couldn’t make it there.

See, I know I am talkiing speculation, but I think we should only have certain degrees of speculation.

FOr example, the first degree would be a speculation built immediate upon dogma, like limbo.

THe second degree of speculation would be the speculation built upon the speculation of a dogma.

I wouldn’t go beyond the second degree to be safe.

 

[Cecilianus]

THe only problem is Purgatory is only for those who have sanctifying grace: a virtuous pagan couldn’t make it there.

See, I know I am talkiing speculation, but I think we should only have certain degrees of speculation.

FOr example, the first degree would be a speculation built immediate upon dogma, like limbo.

THe second degree of speculation would be the speculation built upon the speculation of a dogma.

I wouldn’t go beyond the second degree to be safe.

The virtuous pagan would have to be granted sanctifying grace the moment he chooses to accept salvation (on his deathbed, for example). God can certainly do this; whether or to what degree He in fact does do this is the sort of speculation I wouldn’t want to engage in much.

I read something interesting today repeating and developing the same thoughts you expressed about Limbo, from the supposedly harsh Fra Girolamo Savonarola of all people. This is from pages 122-123 of his book The Triumph of the Cross, the translation of which has a Nihil Obstat and an Imprimatur from 1901 (the imprimatur from Cardinal Vaughan):

Man cannot attain to beatitude without the gift of supernatural grace. Therefore, he who dies in original sin is deprived of eternal life; but he is not, therefore and thereby, subjected to any sorrow or suffering. Not being proportioned to beatitude, he is incapable of enjoying it. He does not, however, suffer from the loss; because God rectifies his will, conforming it to His own, and taking from it the desire of that which is impossible to it. A man who has no claim to an imperial crown, does not grieve because he is not an Emperor. Neither does such a soul suffer any sensible pain. On the contrary, it is endowed with all perfection proper to human nature - such as the knowledge of all natural things, and even the contemplation, by means of creatures, of such as are Divine. It enjoys all the happiness which human nature can enjoy. Furthermore, God confers upon these souls certain supernatural gifts - such as immortality, and impassibility of body - so that they are not subject to human infirmity; nor will they ever suffer sensible pain. And, although we believe that the abode of these souls is Limbo, the place of their habitation signifies but little. My private opinion, (subject to any future pronouncement of the Holy Roman Church), is, that after the resurrection, they will dwell on the purified and glorified earth. My reason for thus thinking is, that if the place of habitation be proportioned to the inhabitant, souls informing immortal and impassible bodies, and enjoying all the happiness natural to man, ought not to be deprived of the light of the sun and of other natural advantages and delights, in which they could have no share were they detained in a subterranean Limbo.

I also think that Ad Pondus Omniu should be able to agree with this “private opinion” of Savonarola’s as well. I certainly would agree with it, preserving of course my insistence that God can impart sanctifying grace to anyone He pleases whether in this life or upon their death (and that in a certain few cases it looks like He may have in fact actually done so).