In other words, this principle that God WILLS the salvation of all DOES NOT TRANSLATE TO God gives every soul the actual grace required to be saved.  It translates into God WOULD give every soul the actual grace required to be saved if that souls would want them.  This is yet another example of a fabricated theological principle.  It just "sounds good".

By the way, some theologians, including St. Robert Bellarmine, believed that God's will for the salvation of all extends only to His elect:

Of course, most theologians disagree with them.

Nevertheless, the principle is only that God WILLS and STANDS READY TO GIVE (as it were) to every man the grace necessary for salvation.  But if He foresees that it will be rejected, God can withhold the grace out of mercy.  Let's say I have $20 that I desire to give give to a homeless person.  I suddenly receive the gift of foreknowledge that the homeless person will spend it on drugs that will cause him to overdose and die.  Do I still give him that $20?  I WANTED to give him the money, and I WOULD have ... had I not foreknown the consequences.  So out of mercy to this person, I do not give him the money.  In fact, it would be a great act of cruelty to give him the money given that foreknowledge.  And someone without this gift of foreknowledge might accuse me of being selfish and stingy.  And of course God foreknows everything.  Is it not a great act of mercy by God to allow an infant to die without Baptism and enjoy eternal natural happiness in Limbo rather than to allow him to damn himself?

Well, your $20, like Heaven, is not something that anyone deserves. It's a gift, and can be revoked at will. God creating a soul that didn't get a chance to (potentially) make it to Heaven is fine. But it's Him creating a soul that never had a chance of not being damned that doesn't seem to me like something an infinitely just and merciful God would do. A man in America in 33 AD never had a chance to convert - and it seems impossible that every Native American for 1500 years deserved to be banned, but then in 1500 suddenly some started being worthy of the gift of faith and salvation. 

By the way, some theologians, including St. Robert Bellarmine, believed that God's will for the salvation of all extends only to His elect:

Quote

Did God sincerely and earnestly will the salvation also of the little ones who, without fault of their own, fail to receive the baptism of water or blood and are thus forever deprived of the beatific vision? Only a few theologians (e.g. Bellarmine, Vasquez) are bold enough to answer this question in the negative.

Of course, most theologians disagree with them.

Something close to the quoted box was condemned with the Jansenists, so it's not surprising most theologians land somewhere else.

In any case, to repeat, ad nauseam now, if God withholds graces for salvation from someone, it could simply be because He foreknew that he would not accept the grace and would merely be punished more for it.

And that's your speculation. You rejected speculation of others.


Something like this is a common statement in Catholic theology:

God grants all men sufficient grace for salvation, provided no obstacles on our part.

Why do you spend so much energy arguing against this?

Take note of the "no obstacles" part. So long as a person cooperates with grace, no obstacles, but when the person doesn't, that's an obstacle. And for all we know, that may be the common lot of those living in the wilderness. That should address just about everything you said.

But if someone living in the wilderness is saved, that doesn't have to violate EENS. It may in some formulations, but it doesn't have to.

But yeah... what about the child of a Native American in 1000 AD?  I will admit that kind of threw me for a loop.  I, and Stanley, would've argued that the Native American at least theoretically has some possibility of salvation (leaving aside whether or not any such people actually cooperate with the graces to attain it) but what about the children?

"The Lord is patient and full of mercy, taking away iniquity and wickedness, and leaving no man clear, who visitest the sins of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation".- Num 14:18

It is up to the children to remove the sins and to come back to the faith, then hand down the faith down to their children, who in turn do the same, and so on. That's just the way it works. We are talking about the sins of the fathers being the loss of faith.

For example, consider all of those Catholics who lost the faith to become Lutherans in the 1500s, well here we are 500 years later and the sins of those parents are still being handed down to their children, who, as Scripture says, in turn will continue to do the same - until the children come back to the faith. God put the responsibility of corresponding with grace and breaking the cycle upon the children themselves, certainly in some cases the parents, but primarily it is up to the children.

The fate of the Native American child is a result of the sins of his parents, and their parents, and their parents etc.  

You're basically a Pelagian, man.

Really? I am? That's quite a judgement to make. Are you sure of that?
I  have not said what I believe or don't believe on this issue.
You, on the other hand, reject a common statement in Catholic theology, and have clearly stated so.

A man in America in 33 AD never had a chance to convert - and it seems impossible that every Native American for 1500 years deserved to be banned, but then in 1500 suddenly some started being worthy of the gift of faith and salvation. 

First off, let's 'fact check' your statements above:
.
1.  In 33AD Christ told the Apostles to "go and preach to ALL nations".  This would've included America.  The Apostles bi-located and worked all sorts of miracles and they didn't go to America?  God left an entire continent alone?  No, God sent the Apostles everywhere, even America.
.
2.  The 1500s did not start the preaching of the Faith to America.  Ever heard of Eric the Red, who sailed to America in the 900s (I think)?  This is recorded history.  Then we have Blessed Mary of Agreda who bi-located to teach certain tribes the Faith.  What other saints did so in the past?  Surely more events like this happened.
.
3.  How many "good, God-loving" Indians even existed?  Just watch 30 minutes of the secular, anti-Catholic and famous docuмentary of Ken Burns on the American West.  Almost all tribes at the time were warring against one another.  Their entire culture revolved around war, fighting for animals, and power.  Doesn't sound like they were following the natural law at all.
.
Then the Spanish arrive to preach the Faith, and the Indians had access to horses and what did they do with this blessing from God?  They used horses to attack MORE villages, and to go all across the country to invade, plunder, pillage and kill.  Most of the Indians were savage beasts.  Their religion was power.  Only a very, very small few tribes even allowed the Europeans to talk with them about the Faith.  Most missionaries avoided 90% of the tribes for fear of instant death. 
.
And God is evil because He didn't give these savages (to use the term in the most violent way) an opportunity at the Faith?  Good grief!  Lord forgive us for doubting your Goodness!  Learn some history man.  And pray for wisdom to understand God's Divine Providence, who created all men and knew their souls from all eternity.

(a) God wills the salvation of all men, and as a corollary, (b) God grants all men sufficient grace for salvation, provided no obstacles on our part.

Statements like these are found in most books on Catholic theology of grace and salvation.

Stanley, both of your statements above are correct.  Both are Catholic thinking.  The problem is that you are suggesting that such theology is measurable by the human mind or the naked eye.  Only God knows what the "obstacles" are; only He knows who will or will not accept grace.  And since He would know if a man would reject graces at the age of 70 on his deathbed, so God, in His infinite wisdom, many NOT give the graces to begin with to the same man in his 20s.  Ergo, this man would live his entire life and according to you, "God didn't give him a chance to know the Faith", when in fact, God knew that this man would reject it, so His mercy did not provide it.
.
Salvation is a mystery.  We cannot understand the mind of our neighbor to any degree.  Certainly we cannot know the mind of God.  Lord have mercy on us for trying!