Is it theologically possible that any of those who die justified are damned?

Based on the general truths the Church has issued, they would go to Limbo, since they aren't full members of the Church, with no baptismal character and no infused theological virtues.  However, the Church is not said SPECIFICALLY on this case, so I don't know.

Based on the general truths the Church has issued, they would go to Limbo, since they aren't full members of the Church, with no baptismal character and no infused theological virtues.  However, the Church is not said SPECIFICALLY on this case, so I don't know.

“General truths?”

Can you produce a single quote from an approved theologian, Saint, council, or pope opining or teaching that, in the Christian Era (the limbus patrum having passed away), a man who dies justified can have any possible eventual destiny besides the beatific vision?

The argument being made is that all (ALL!) who die without baptism die unjustified.

I never argued that.  Baptism wasn't required for the Old Law, so when Baptism is referenced, I'm speaking of the New Law.

I never argued that.  Baptism wasn't required for the Old Law, so when Baptism is referenced, I'm speaking of the New Law.

An excellent refutation of Struthio's contention that NOBODY is justified without baptism.

As regards Christian times, please explain how one can be in the state of sanctifying grace, but not justified (e.g., One with perfect contrition for his sins, but not baptized), and then explain how such a one can be damned.

1274 The Holy Spirit has marked us with the seal of the Lord ("Dominicus character") "for the day of redemption." ⁸⁶ "Baptism indeed is the seal of eternal life." ⁸⁷ The faithful Christian who has "kept the seal" until the end, remaining faithful to the demands of his Baptism, will be able to depart this life "marked with the sign of faith," ⁸⁸ with his baptismal faith, in expectation of the blessed vision of God - the consummation of faith - and in the hope of resurrection.

The Catechism teaches that the baptismal mark is necessary for the beatific vision.


St Alphonsus says that BOD does not provide the indelible mark.

But baptism of desire is perfect conversion to God by contrition or love of God above all things accompanied by an explicit or implicit desire for true Baptism of water, the place of which it takes as to the remission of guilt, but not as to the impression of the [baptismal] character or as to the removal of all debt of punishment.

Ergo, it is unclear what happens to an unbaptized but justified person when they die.  The Church does not clearly say.

It is the effect which saves, not the mark (i.e., the infusion of sanctifying grace).

Please revert to my previous questions and respond to them.

Nothing is unclear, given that the Council of Trent has decreed and defined it all, and that the Vatican Council has made it part of the Profession of Faith. St Alphonsus is irrelevant. Catholics believe what the infallible Magisterium teaches and do not attack the infallible Magisterium using the writings of fallible Saints and fallible Doctors of the Church.

Then thank goodness we have you to clear up all these Popes, saints, and theologians misunderstandings of Trent and Vatican I (which all say the opposite of you)!

Before anything, what exactly are you saying is  part of the ordinary magisterium, what precisely are you talking about and defending,  explicit baptism of desire of the catechumen or salvation by implicit faith (salvation by belief  in a God that rewards)?

Let's be precise before we discuss anything having to do with this "greased pig" (for BOD can mean anything from explicit baptism of desire of the catechumen to salvation in any religion or no religion) or we'll never get ahold of it (this thread will go forever).
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Mr. Mithrandylan,

You never responded to my post above from page 3, perhaps you didn't see it? Please respond.

In my LONG experience with defenders of baptism of desire, I have come to the conclusion that I can safely say that 99% of those that defend BOD are really defending their belief that people in any and all religions can be saved without any real desire to be baptized or to be a Catholic, and without belief in the Incarnation and the Holy Trinity. The fact that the gentleman above avoids my question just confirms that he is part of the 99%. I have never had one of them answer my question directly without having to endure endless double speak, digressions and deflectionsof every kind. 

Frankly, I will never understand why the defenders of the sacrament of baptism and EENS waste their time talking to these people about baptism of desire of the catechumen, when 99% of these people believe that anyone can be saved  in any and all religions without any real desire to be baptized or to be a Catholic, and without belief in the Incarnation and the Holy Trinity