Yes.  No man is promised, owed or can earn salvation, which is a gift from God.

No, it's not a speculation.  Many saints have said it's a fact.

If by "chooses" you mean a type of predestination, then yes, there something called 'catholic predestination'.  But...this does not mean that God is "not fair" to the damned.  It simply means he is "more generous" in grace to those whom He knows will accept such.  As in the gospel of man who goes out and hires the idle laborers to work in the field.  Christ saves some men in the twilight of their lives, while others come into the Faith from birth. 

This is God's plan, but we can't say it's "unfair" to those laborers who rejected the offer to come work in the field.  The gospel does not mention how many laborers turned down the offer to work, but surely there were some.  And they were not saved.

But you're denying actual grace here.  Everyone who commits a mortal sin was given the grace not to.  As St Paul tells us, infallibly, that God will not permit us to be tempted beyond our strength.  This is the doctrine of actual grace, which ALL MEN receive, every second of their life, whether catholic, protestant, jew, etc.  If anyone commits a mortal sin, it is their choice.  If they go to hell, it is ultimately their choice.

God does not consign anyone to hell.  This is heresy.


You are denying free will; you are denying actual grace; you are denying God's salvific will.  You need a reality check.

You are confusing sufficient and efficacious grace. Whatever you accuse decemRationis of you are accusing St Thomas and Fr Lagrange as well as a whole host of Dominican and a few Jesuit theologians of not to mention you implicitly condemn all the scotists. You have also dogmatised the molinist conception of free will. Which is by and large rejected by the majority of scholastics including the thomists scotists and Augustinians



You need a reality check.

If it is, as Pax maintains, then of course one can question how it's "fair" for a Mayan, or Incan, etc. who has never heard of Christ to go to hell - what choice did they have if they didn't reject Christ, but never even heard of him? Or someone, as JPII says in one of his encyclicals, whose cultural upbringing and circuмstances "prevent" them from formally converting to Christ, etc. 

11 For when the children were not yet born, nor had done any good or evil, (that the purpose of God according to election might stand)

12 Not of works, but of him that calleth,

From Haydock's Commentary:


Not yet born. By this example of these twins, and the preference of the younger to the elder, the drift of the apostle is, to shew that God, in his election, mercy, and grace, is not tied to any particular nation, as the Jews imagined, nor to any prerogative of birth, or any foregoing merits. For as, antecedently, to his grace, he sees no merit in any, but finds all involved in sin, in the common mass of condemnation; and all children of wrath; there is no one whom he might not justly leave in that mass; so that whomsoever he delivers from it, he delivers in his mercy: and whomsoever he leaves in it, he leaves in his justice. As when, of two equally criminal, the king is pleased out of pure mercy to pardon one, whilst he suffers justice to take place in the execution of the other. (Challoner) — Nor had done any good or evil. God was pleased to prefer, and promise his blessings to the younger of them, Jacob, declaring that the elder shall serve the younger; that is, that the seed of the elder should be subject to that of the younger, as it happened afterwards to the Idumeans. And the prophet, Malachias, said of them, I have loved Jacob, but hated Esau, and turned his mountains into a desert, &c. — That the purpose of God, his will, and his decree, (see the foregoing chap. ver. 28.) might stand according to election, might be, not according to any works they had done, or that he foresaw they would do, but merely according to his mercy. And though the preference which God gave to Jacob was literally true, as to temporal benefits; yet St. Augustine observes in divers places, that Jacob was a figure of the elect or predestinate, and Esau of the reprobate; and that as Jacob and his posterity was more favoured, purely by the mercy of God, without any merits on their side; so are God’s elect, whom he has called, and to whom, according to his eternal purpose, he decreed to give eternal glory, and special graces to bring them thither. (Witham)

 11 For there is no respect of persons with God.  12 For whosoever have sinned without the law, shall perish without the law; and whosoever have sinned in the law, shall be judged by the law.  13 For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.  14 For when the Gentiles, who have not the law, do by nature those things that are of the law; these having not the law are a law to themselves:  15 Who shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness to them, and their thoughts between themselves accusing, or also defending one another,

I agree with most of what you wrote, but for the above, there needs to be a clarification.


No baptized person can go to Limbo...this is only for the unbaptized/justified.
No unbaptized person can go to Purgatory...this is only for the baptized.

Plato, who was unbaptized, couldn't have been "saved"; he could've gone to limbo, at best. 

No.  The "Limbo of the Just" was temporary, for the Old Testament 'saints'.  It ended when Christ ascended into Heaven and took all of them with him.

The current "Limbo" is part of hell, the uppermost part.  It will have no end.  No one who goes to "Limbo" will ever enter heaven or go anywhere else. 
Correct, because Purgatory is a temporal place.  When time ends, so will Purgatory.

The 4 last things -- death, judgement, heaven, hell.  Limbo is part of hell, which is why it remains forever.  Purgatory is a pathway to heaven, which is why it ends.
It is incorrect to call Plato (or any non-catholic) "just", because Scripture's use of the word "just" means that a person is "justified before God", i.e. has sanctifying grace.  No unbaptized person can be "just".  And any rewards do not apply to them.

And we can't say that Limbo is a reward, for the true reward of heaven is to behold God, which those in Limbo cannot do (and will never be able to).

Heaven = saved
Hell = damned
Limbo = not damned

Limbo isn't a reward; it's a non-punishment.  Two different things.

Accordingly, before Christ’s coming the limbo of hell and Abraham’s bosom were one place accidentally and not essentially: and consequently, nothing prevents Abraham’s bosom from remaining after Christ’s coming and from being altogether distinct from limbo, since things that are one accidentally may be parted from one another.