Rather than telling me to read the whole book. Why don't you find the specific parts that apply to or contradict my position? You act as if you are familiar enough with its argument to suggest that it applies to me.

What was your prompt?

"The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy; I have come that they may have life (Zoe), and have it to the full."

What was your prompt?

This theological hypothesis, proposing a distinction between Zoe (Divine Life/Sanctifying Grace) and Soteria (Salvation/Immediate Beatific Vision) and incorporating a temporary Limbo for the invincibly ignorant leading to eventual admission into the New Heaven and New Earth (NHNE), would have been condemned or considered heterodox before Vatican II, based on the doctrinal consensus of the Ecuмenical Councils and subsequent Papal Magisterium.

Here is an analysis using the relevant pre-Vatican II Ecuмenical Councils:

🛑 Analysis of Condemnation (Pre-Vatican II)

The central conflict lies in the hypothesis's stance on:

The Necessity of Baptism for the Remission of Original Sin and Entry into Heaven.
The Nature of the Intermediate State and the Immediacy of the Beatific Vision.
The Universality of the Eternal Judgment (Heaven or Hell).

I. The Necessity of Baptism and the Immediate Judgment (Soteria)
The hypothesis fails on the crucial connection between the removal of Original Sin and the immediate consequence of judgment, as defined by several Councils.

A. Council of Florence (1438-1445)
This Council is arguably the most direct and forceful condemnation of the hypothesis's treatment of the invincibly ignorant and Limbo.

Necessity of Baptism: The decree Exsultate Deo (on the Armenians) states: "No one can be delivered from the Devil's dominion except through the sacrament of baptism, which either the adult or the infant receives from anyone in the form of the Church." It states that baptism is the "remedy for Original Sin."
Fate of the Unbaptized: The decree Cantate Domino states: "The holy Roman Church... firmly believes, professes and preaches that no one remaining outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews or heretics or schismatics, can become partakers of eternal life; but they will go into the eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless before the end of life they are joined to her... and that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is of such importance that only those who abide in this unity can profit from the sacraments for salvation."

Immediacy of Judgment (Post-Mortem): The decree Laetentur Caeli (with the Greeks) and the Bull Benedictus sit Deus state that the souls of the justified (who are in no need of purification) or those purified immediately enter Heaven and "clearly behold God Himself, One and Three, as He is" (visio immediata - immediate vision).

Condemnation of Limbo/Delayed Vision: The hypothesis's claim that Class B (the invincibly ignorant with Zoe) retains Original Sin and is "deprived of the Intermediate BV" by residing in a temporal Limbo until the General Judgment directly contradicts the doctrine of the immediate, specific judgment of souls leading to one of three immediate states (Heaven/BV, Purgatory, or Hell). The Council's definition of "eternal life" is the immediate Beatific Vision—not a delayed admission into the NHNE.

B. Council of Trent (1545-1563)
Trent reinforces the absolute necessity of Baptism and the process of justification, which the hypothesis violates.

Justification and Original Sin: The decree on Justification (Session VI) explicitly links the fomes peccati (concupiscence) to the necessity of Baptism for its remission: Canon 5 states: "If anyone says that this guilt of Original Sin is remitted neither by the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, which is conferred in Baptism..."

Baptism and Entrance to the Kingdom: Canon 5 on Baptism (Session VII) states: "If anyone says that baptism is optional, that is, not necessary for salvation (ad salutem)... let him be anathema." The hypothesis, by claiming the unbaptized invincibly ignorant (Class B) ultimately enter the NHNE (eternal glory) without Baptism, undermines this defined necessity.

II. The Nature of Grace (Zoe) vs. Salvation (Soteria)

The hypothesis creates a separation that is doctrinally problematic in a pre-Vatican II context.

Zoe (Sanctifying Grace) as the Sine Qua Non for Soteria: For pre-Vatican II theology, Sanctifying Grace (Zoe) is the formal cause of justification and the required disposition for the Beatific Vision (Soteria). To be in a state of grace without being saved (i.e., not progressing to the BV) is only possible in Purgatory (for those already saved/baptized) or immediately after death before the BV.
The hypothesis claims Class B has Zoe but not Soteria (due to Original Sin). If Zoe (Sanctifying Grace) is truly present, it makes the un-remitted stain of Original Sin a technicality preventing the BV, which is not supported. Sanctifying Grace, by its very nature, is the formal beginning of salvation and cannot coexist with the guilt/stain of Original Sin in the unbaptized without a grave theological innovation.

III. The Final State: NHNE and Universalism
The hypothesis's eschatology for Class B is incompatible with the traditional "two-part" final judgment (Heaven or Hell).
The hypothesis allows the invincibly ignorant (Class B) to bypass both Hell (Poena Sensus) and the eternal Poena Damni (loss of BV) and be integrated into the NHNE upon the General Judgment.

This post-mortem "second chance" or delayed, non-sacramental universal salvation for a whole class of people runs counter to the definition of eternal life (BV) being secured through the Church's vessel (Baptism/Votum) before death.

The traditional understanding of the Limbo of the Infants (which the hypothesis seems to adapt for Class B) was a state of natural, not supernatural, happiness, and its inhabitants were considered to be subject to the Poena Damni eternally, precisely because Original Sin remained a barrier to the Beatific Vision, which is the sole, ultimate end of man. The hypothesis admits them to the NHNE, abolishing their eternal Poena Damni, a deviation from the traditional consensus.

📝 Conclusion

The hypothesis would have been condemned, not merely as "unwise" or "unclear," but as heretical or erroneous in key aspects, especially regarding the necessity of Baptism, the nature of Original Sin's effect on the final destiny, and the immediate, definitive nature of the Particular Judgment, which leads only to Heaven (immediately or after Purgatory) or Hell.

The attempt to preserve EENS by defining Soteria as immediate BV and Zoe as non-damnation while postponing the true "salvation" until the NHNE would have been seen as a sophisticated evasion of the Church's dogma on the means of salvation.

Here is a draft of the Anticipated Objections and Responses section to defend your theological hypothesis.

This section addresses the primary theological frictions your model creates, particularly concerning the finality of death and the mechanism of removing Original Sin without water Baptism.

---

VI. Anticipated Objections and Responses

---

This elaborate defense, while theologically sophisticated, would not have prevented the condemnation pre-Vatican II. The core objections raised by the inventor, when analyzed against the formal, definitive decrees of the Ecuмenical Councils and the explicit Papal Magisterium, remain fundamentally incompatible with the settled theology of the time.


The inventor's defense relies heavily on a radical distinction between Zoe and Soteria and a novel eschatological function for the General Judgment and the New Heaven and New Earth (NHNE), which acts as a non-sacramental cleanser of Original Sin.
Here is a systematic pre-Vatican II analysis of the inventor's responses:


🚫 Pre-Vatican II Theological Assessment of the Responses


I. The Finality of the Particular Judgment (Objection 1)

The inventor's response is an attempt to evade the doctrine of status terminis (the soul's fixed state after death) by shifting the nature of the exclusion from a moral fault to a "legal status" (Original Sin/missing paperwork) that Christ resolves through the Resurrection.

Pre-Vatican II Assessment:

Pre-Vatican II Assessment Doctrinal Conflict

Heresy/Error(Immediate Exclusion):

The Magisterium never described Original Sin as mere "legal status" or "missing paperwork" in the unbaptized. Trent defined Original Sin as the "death of the soul" and the "privation of justice."

Contradicts Florence on Judgment:

 The Council of Florence defined the immediate state of the soul after death: Heaven, Purgatory, or Hell. It states that all who die in actual or original sin "will immediately descend into hell, to be punished." The hypothesis interposes a temporal Limbo for those with Original Sin, which ultimately leads to glory, directly contradicting the immediate descent of all with Original Sin.

Change of Economy:

 The claim that the NHNE "supersedes" the Baptismal Character is a denial of the sacrament's indelible effect. The character is an ontological mark, not a mere legal requirement for the intermediate state. This response minimizes the efficacy of the Sacraments as the divinely established means of salvation.

II. The Necessity of Baptism (Objection 2)
The inventor's distinction between the "Sacramental Order" (Church Age) and the "Eschatological Order" (End of Days) is an unsupportable theological novelty in the pre-Vatican II context

Pre-Vatican II Assessment:

Denial of Sacramental Necessity:

 The claim that the NHNE can act as an "ultimate cleansing" of Original Sin, rendering the sacrament "obsolete," would be seen as a heretical denial of the necessity and efficacy of Baptism as established by Christ. Trent explicitly anathematized those who say baptism is "not necessary for salvation."

Contradicts Divine Pedagogy:

 God established the Sacraments as the ordinary means of grace for all time until the Parousia. The final state (NHNE) is the perfection of the res (the reality of grace/union with God) received in the Sacraments, not a completely different system that bypasses the sacraments' necessity for the initial cleansing of sin.

Redefining Res et Sacramentum:

The inventor confuses the res (the reality, grace) with the res et sacramentum (the indelible character and grace). The final res (God being "all in all") is the perfection of the grace begun in the Sacramental Order, not its replacement for the cleansing of Original Sin.

III. The Pelagian Error (Naturalism) (Objection 3)

The inventor attempts to save the hypothesis by invoking Pope Pius IX's Quanto Conficiamur Moerore (on Invincible Ignorance), but the synthesis still fails

Pre-Vatican II Assessment:

Hidden Pelagianism:

 While the inventor claims the invincibly ignorant possess Zoe (Supernatural Life) as a gift, this Zoe is still being posited as sufficient for ultimate eternal glory in the NHNE without the formal, necessary channel of Baptism to remit Original Sin.

Conflict with Trent on Grace:

Trent is clear that the beginning of justification is necessary for final salvation. If Original Sin remains, the soul is, by definition, not justified and is not possessing the full Sanctifying Grace (Zoe) necessary for supernatural happiness. The hypothesis requires Sanctifying Grace to coexist with the guilt/stain of Original Sin—a state that is theologically impossible.

Misinterpretation of Pius IX:

 The Church's allowance for the invincibly ignorant focused on the impossibility of judging their final state, and the possibility of Implicit Votum (Baptism of Desire) for adults. The inventor rejects Implicit Votum for Class B by stating Original Sin remains—a fatal move. If they truly possessed the necessary Grace (Zoe), the traditional path was to argue for an Implicit Votum which removes Original Sin, not to create a new mechanism where the sin remains and is later cleansed by the NHNE.

IV. Redundancy of Evangelization & Definition of Salvation (Objections 4 & 5)

The inventor's defense relies on the distinction between the "Bride" (Church, higher glory) and the "Guests" (Limbo, eventual glory), and the "Loss of Time" in Limbo.

Pre-Vatican II Assessment:

Heresy/Error (The Core Issue):

 The entire defense rests on the premise that the invincibly ignorant (Class B) are eventually saved and granted eternal glory in the NHNE despite dying with Original Sin and lacking Baptism/Votum. This undermines the absolute necessity of the Church and Sacraments for Salvation (Soteria) as understood by the Councils.

Justification by Time:

 The notion that "deprivation for thousands of years" in Limbo is the price paid is theologically bizarre. Punishment or deprivation is measured by the offense. The price for Original Sin is the eternal loss of the Beatific Vision (Poena Damni), not a temporary time-out before final entry.

Degree of Glory:

While there are degrees of glory in Heaven, pre-Vatican II theology held that no soul subject to Original Sin could ever enter Heaven at all. The entire discussion of "higher vs. lower glory" is irrelevant if the soul is not saved (i.e., not justified/cleansed of Original Sin).

🏛️ Summary of Condemnation

This hypothesis would have been condemned for the following reasons, directly related to the decrees of the Ecuмenical Councils:
Denial of Immediate Judgment (Florence): By interposing a Limbo that leads to eventual eternal glory for those with Original Sin, it denies the definitive, immediate, and eternal judgment (Heaven or Hell) of the soul.
Denial of Baptismal Necessity (Trent): By suggesting the New Heaven and New Earth can cleanse Original Sin and grant eternal glory, it undermines the dogma that Baptism is the ordinary and necessary instrumental cause for the remission of Original Sin and the entrance to the Kingdom of God.
Ontological Contradiction: It creates an impossible state where Sanctifying Grace (Zoe) is present in a soul that is simultaneously burdened by the guilt of Original Sin.

The theological consensus was that the only way for an unbaptized adult to be saved was through Baptism of Desire (Implicit Votum), which removes Original Sin and grants Sanctifying Grace, thereby fulfilling the requirements for immediate entry into Heaven (after Purgatory). The inventor explicitly rejects this path for Class B by insisting Original Sin remains.

Ok, now this is fun

Gemini Prompt:
The inventer of the theory responds with this:
[Schizo defense]

Answer:

"...able to attain eternal life [aeternam vitam] by the efficacious virtue of divine light and grace."

And you continue to lie and slander.

You are a heretic if you hold that simply observing the natural law can suffice to obtain salvation.  That is heresy, a direct verbatim denial of Trent's teaching that supernatural faith is required for salvation.  There must be supernatural faith, hope, and charity ... and that requires belief in God, and, according to most theologians, explicit faith / belief in the Holy Trinity and Incarnation.

Again, your assertion that mere adherence to and conformity with natural law suffices to somehow merit salvation is heretical on two counts:  1) supernatural faith is required, and on amount of natural virtue can cause supernatural faith, 2) it's Pelagian heresy.

You increase your pertinacity in heresy with each and every post you make.

You know ... this reminds me of how arrogantly you clung to the extreme stupidity of claiming Bergoglio's election was invalid because the Conclave started before Ratzginer's funeral had occurred.  That has to be one of the dumbest things I've ever read ... and yet you clung to it tooth and nail because of extreme pride.  You're doing the same thing here, except the consequences are extreme ... where you're pertinaciously clinging to heresy, even after you've been corrected on the matter by several posters here.

"You are attacking a position I do not hold. I never claimed that 'observing the natural law suffices' by its own power to merit salvation. That is indeed Pelagianism.

I am quoting Pope Pius IX in Quanto Conficiamur Moerore, who explicitly states that those observing the natural law are 'able to attain eternal life by the efficacious virtue of divine light and grace.'

You are ignoring the 'Divine Light and Grace' clause. My argument is that God, in His mercy, gratuitously bestows this Supernatural Faith/Grace upon the invincibly ignorant who seek Him. It is the Grace that saves, not the natural law. The natural law observance is simply the disposition of the recipient, not the cause of the salvation.

Regarding explicit faith: If explicit belief in the Trinity and Incarnation were an absolute necessity of means without exception, then Pius IX would be in error for suggesting that someone 'struggling with invincible ignorance about our most holy religion' could attain eternal life. The Pope clearly teaches that Implicit Faith (contained in the 'Divine Light') suffices in these extraordinary cases."