CathInfo.com

Stubborn, the distinction you are not making is this:  justification/cleansing of actual sins vs original sin.  These are 2 different things.  

The Old Testament saints could justify themselves before God, if they were truly contrite for sin.  But no amount of justification could remove Original Sin, which is why they went to Limbo.  

Same thing applies to current day non-Catholics.  An unbaptized Protestant or a pious Muslim could have justification for actual sins if they are contrite.  But they would still have Original Sin.  

So, as Trent explains that the proper disposition for baptism REQUIRES sorrow for sin and desire to amend one’s life, it is logical that a true disposition for baptism (ie a holy desire for it) would suffice for justification (of actual sins).  But not original sin.  That’s why, a “BOD’er” can’t gain heaven but can be justified.  Similar to Trent’s teaching that a perfect act of contrition can justify and supply for confession, provided one “vows” to go at the next opportunity.  

But all this is an exception, not the norm.  The norm is to use the sacraments.  

The error of BOD is adding the grace/effects of the sacrament (remission of Original Sin and baptismal character) in addition to justification of actual sins.  BOD erroneously applies the effects of the norm (ie actual sacrament) to the exception (contrition for sins).  

When Trent teaches justification, it is assuming that we are talking about the ACTUAL sacrament, as your many quotes point out.  And when it speaks of “remission of sins” it’s talking about Original Sin, because that is the primary/important sin that Baptism washes away.

BOD’ers erroneously equate baptismal/sacramental justification with contrition-for-sins justification.  2 different motives and 2 different effects.  The former can save (ie the actual sacrament); the latter (contrition/desire) can only obtain Limbo because Original Sin remains. 

Stubborn, the distinction you are not making is this:  justification/cleansing of actual sins vs original sin.  These are 2 different things. 

The Old Testament saints could justify themselves before God, if they were truly contrite for sin.  But no amount of justification could remove Original Sin, which is why they went to Limbo. 

Same thing applies to current day non-Catholics.  An unbaptized Protestant or a pious Muslim could have justification for actual sins if they are contrite.  But they would still have Original Sin. 

So, as Trent explains that the proper disposition for baptism REQUIRES sorrow for sin and desire to amend one’s life, it is logical that a true disposition for baptism (ie a holy desire for it) would suffice for justification (of actual sins).  But not original sin.  That’s why, a “BOD’er” can’t gain heaven but can be justified.  Similar to Trent’s teaching that a perfect act of contrition can justify and supply for confession, provided one “vows” to go at the next opportunity. 

But all this is an exception, not the norm.  The norm is to use the sacraments. 

The error of BOD is adding the grace/effects of the sacrament (remission of Original Sin and baptismal character) in addition to justification of actual sins.  BOD erroneously applies the effects of the norm (ie actual sacrament) to the exception (contrition for sins). 

When Trent teaches justification, it is assuming that we are talking about the ACTUAL sacrament, as your many quotes point out.  And when it speaks of “remission of sins” it’s talking about Original Sin, because that is the primary/important sin that Baptism washes away.

BOD’ers erroneously equate baptismal/sacramental justification with contrition-for-sins justification.  2 different motives and 2 different effects.  The former can save (ie the actual sacrament); the latter (contrition/desire) can only obtain Limbo because Original Sin remains.

THIS ^^^

In fact, one of the reasons people tend to have an emotional aversion to EENS dogma is because they can see certain "naturally" good or virtuous people dying that they have a hard time understanding how a merciful God would send them to burn in hell with extreme torments for all eternity.  They have this monolithic notion of hell where Judas, Hitler, and a virtuous Protestant mother who was perhaps chaste, virtuous, kind, etc. ... all burning with the same intensity in one single furnace.

But I hold that the pain of sin, or poena of sin, can be remitted by natural virtue.  So for instance, let's say I steel $100  But then I show remorse and spend the rest of my life giving all my possessions away to the poor.  When I die outside the Church, since there's no "remission of sin," I will forever be tormented for the $100 theft, but the rest of my life where I gave all my possessions away will count for nothing to mitigate that punishment.  That kind of thinking is nonsense, and it does in fact cast aspersions on the Mercy of God, and is one of the reasons that people recoil at EENS dogma ... from scenarios like that, except that they are poorly articulated by Catholics who do not understand the core truths of faith.

With sin, there is a supernatural aspect, as well as a natural aspect.  And, on the natural level, which includes the degree of torment or punishment (poena) for sin, natural virtue can offset the punishment due on account of natural vice.

That's certainly plausible. I like to think Dante was closer to the truth about Hell than the common stereotype of fire and brimstone. Recalling Limbo where those naturally virtuous souls wind up, who suffer no torments but the loss of God (an agony enough in its own right).

Yet, there's also the notion of the baptized suffering far more in Hell than the unbaptized who committed the same sin. Such as one's virtuous Lutheran grandma suffering with more intensity for her rejection of the true Faith than the unbaptized Atheist next to her.

Wherever one lands in Hell is the most just and merciful state God willed for their sins. He is the Good, and cannot will evil, therefore whatever state the condemned find themselves is the best possible for their condition.