Are you saying you're not in union with Bergoglio, R&R, and indult?

."...It is not said in this prayer that we embrace all ideas that the Pope may have or
all the things he may do. With Her, your servant our Holy Father the Pope, our Bishop and all those
who practice the Catholic and Apostolic Orthodox faith! So to the extent where, perhaps,
unfortunately, the Popes would no longer have ..., nor the bishops…, would be deficient in the
Orthodox, Catholic and Apostolic Faith, well, we are not in union with them, we are not with them, of
course. We pray for the Pope and all those who practice the Catholic and Apostolic Orthodox faith!" - Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, retreat at St-Michel en Brenne, April 1st, 1989

False. Salza is very clear who he is referring to:

Well, the OP article on the subject of getting rid of limbo seems like something that the modernists who control and occupy the Church would do. If limbo doesn't exist for infants, then it follows that they are saved.

What is your view of the OP article?

There's nothing in Catholic theology to rule out the possibility of Limbo for adults. You're missing the distinction between the guilt of sin and the punishment due to sin.  While there's no remission of sin, there can be a remission of the punishment due to sin ... which is the state that an adult in Limbo would be.  St. Ambrose believed in a "washing" without "crowning" for unbaptized martyrs (and potentially Valentinian).  St. Gregory nαzιanzen, in the passage where he rejects BoD, says that there are those who are not good enough to be crowned (enter the Kingdom) and not bad enough to be punished.  In the passage from Pius IX that's commonly used to back BoD, what he actually says is that those who are outside the Church through no fault of their own (i.e., in invincible ignorance) will not be afflicted with "punishments" (Latin poenis).  So while adults in Limbo would still be separated from supernatural life (without their sins remitted), they would not (in this theory) be afflicted with punishments, sufferings ... similar to the infants in Limbo, who while they did not have Original Sin remitted by Baptism nevertheless are not afflicted with any punishments.

We see the distinction between guilt of sin and punishment due to sin working in the other direction also.  If someone goes to Confession with the proper dispositions, his sin is remitted, i.e. the guilt of his sin, but the temporal punishment (poena) due to sin can still remain.  That's why there's a Purgatory.  So, conversely, adults in Limbo (such as unbaptized martyrs and possibly others) would have the punishment remitted but not the guilt (causing separation from God's supernatural life).  Due to the separation aspect, Limbo is often considered to be part of "Hell", so in a sense, they are in Hell (the guilty of sin -> separation from God) but in another they are not (punishment due to sin) ... and that's why it's called "Limbo", since both aspects are true.

"...They (the bishops) are going to have to recognize that liberalism is intrinsically false and will not work, because beneath liberalism, the philosophical basis of liberalism, is what we call naturalism. Naturalism proclaims, among other heresies, that there is no such thing as original sin, that man is basically good, that he means well and if you let him grow up, he’ll grow up good, he’ll grow up moral, he’ll grow up to be a good fellow.

But Catholic doctrine says that man is not basically good, that he comes into the world bent on evil, and if you leave him to himself, he’ll become a savage, he’ll become amoral. He’ll not only do most wicked things but he will try to justify them.

We have to recognize that this is the error of liberalism, that it wants to treat all men as if they really are not bad and that the only reason they are bad is that they are misguided, that they’re victims of circuмstances and of their environment."

Well, for me it's a mute point because of original sin, wherein man enters this world and lives their whole life inclined to evil (whether baptized or not), negating any hope of "naturally-virtuous"  - which is the heresy of Naturalism, even if in some ways they may come across to us as being so. I do not believe an adult outside of the Church can live his life naturally virtuous, impossible.

Agree basically, yet this leaves out the intervening effect of individual free will.

Suppose there's a hypothetical savage out there whose given nature optimally does permit him to try to do what's right, resist the evil around him, and seek in his limited way to discern what is and isn't true. Yes, there's Original Sin. But since he's born with the capacity for reason, there still must be a conscious decision in each instance to reject the good. Given the pull of human respect and other worldly temptations, of course he'd succuмb. (Here's where the wishful thinking of some of the missionary Jesuits went ruinously off course and continues now in tiresome arguments over cultural relativism.)

Thus, the problem isn't so much that this fantasy of "natural virtue" does/doesn't suffice. (That's the level of argument where modernist tactics would have us bogged down, without even having to mention God.) The problem is that the heresy of Naturalism cynically denies that supernatural grace exists and is efficacious within the person, and further that we each must take daily responsibility for accepting or disdaining this salvific gift. Otherwise, why bother to insist on the Sacraments?

[If I've inadvertently muddled the various definitions of grace above, I apologize and welcome correction.]

As Fr. Wathen puts it 

failing to distinguish between the natural and supernatural, something which St. Thomas did masterfully.

Quote from: Pax Vobis 5/11/2024, 10:40:12 AM
God is not a sadist.