CathInfo.com

Quite agreed.  At the end of the day, that's all BOD is, speculation. 

Indeed, St. Augustine admitted as such when he floated the speculation.  While he's always cited as THE authority behind the "teaching," if you read what he actually wrote without the ellipses generally inserted by the BoD-promoters, you'll find that he said that he floated the opinion after he had gone back and forth on the question, so, something along the lines of, "Having gone back and forth on the matter in my mind, I find that ..."  There's no assertion that this was received teaching or that he was teaching it with authority, but that he was clearly speculating and opining based on HIS personal thinking ("I find ...").  Lesser known is the fact that he later retracted this youthful speculation, issuing some of the strongest ANTI-BoD statements in existence, after he had cut his teeth battling the Pelagians.  St. Augustine barely ever had a thought he didn't write down, to the point that as the years went by, he felt compelled to issue an entire book of "Corrections".  There's St. Ambrose but I believe that the oration for Valentinian is seriously misinterpreted, probably on purpose.  He said that he HOPED that Valentinian could receive some grace from his confession and zeal, similar to the martyrs, but then added that even the martyrs who die without Baptism are not crowned even if they are washed.  That sentence generally has escaped everyone's notice.  That's your sum total of Patristic authority for BoD.  Meanwhile you have 6 or 7 Church Fathers who explicitly rejected it.

There's no need for it either.  If I promote disbelief in it, that makes it all the MORE likely that someone would ardently desire the Sacrament and possibly be saved by it (if that is in fact part of God's salvific providence).  Yet if I promote BoD, it actually could make individuals more complacent that they could be saved without it and therefore desire it less ardently.  There's no benefit.  If I'm wrong, God will save this soul regardless of my opinion.  If I'm right, then some souls might be lost due to an indifference to receiving the Sacrament.

St. Thomas wrote that explicit faith in the Holy Trinity and the Incarnation are necessary for salvation, and said that if there's some poor ignorant native who had not placed obstacle (from other sin) in the way, God would send an angel if necessary (or else interior enlightenment) to convert the soul ... and then that same angel could easily baptize the individual or God could bilocate a Catholic, such as He had done with Mary of Agreda to the Native Americans.

See, the BoDers claimed that we "limit" or "constrain" God by the Sacraments.  Hogwash.  We're trying to lean what constraints God has imposed on us.  Quite to the contrary, the BoDers limit God by "impossibility", a heretical notion since the Holy Ghost teaches us that with God all things are possible.  So St. Augustine later declared that you can't accept that God could be prevented from bringing the Sacrament to His Elect ... if "you wish to be Catholic".  God arranges all things according to His Providence for the good of His elect.  Period.  And no kind of "impossibility" could ever prevent bringing Baptism to His elect being simple childsplay for God.

Great find, Ladislaus.  This agrees with Christ, in Scripture, where He tells us:


1.  He who believes, and is baptized, will be saved.  (Belief + Baptism = members in the Church)
2.  He who does not believe, will be condemned.  (No belief = no membership = damnation).

The "unspoken middle ground" are those who BELIEVE but are not baptized (i.e. BOD).  These are neither saved, nor condemned.  They aren't members in the Church but they die justified.  Which leaves them to Limbo.

I didn't read what everyone wrote, yet.  So I apologize if this was discussed.

Limbo of the Just existed before Jesus' death, when he went to hell he visited these souls.  I assumed he took them to heaven and that part of Hell was closed.  (sorry just my simplicity of thought)  From your discussion it sounds like it may not have closed, and others continue to go to Limbo of the Just.  These would be people who believed, but were never baptized.  For clarification the Limbo of the Just is a place of natural happiness, but not of the beatific vision, right?  Would this be where miscarried babies go? 

Now this is where I will probably cause heads to spin.

Now here is why this topic becomes very sensitive.  If a mother wants to go to Heaven, and has had miscarriages, and is told that the baby is in a natural place of happiness, but not Heaven and if Heaven is the happiest place, then how could it be happy for the mother who lost a child and will never see that child again.  Do you think that those in Heaven can visit those in the Limbo of the Just.  It is just mothers are constantly told that Heaven will have everything you could want and more, but most Catholic women want there family and friends to be there.  Most of the time when we bring up these thoughts we get "you will understand when you are there", but for miscarriages, that seems kind of insensitive.  Probably some men feel this way, too.

Thoughts?

Personally I could handle EENS and BoD better, if this topic was addressed.