A common and dangerous error advanced these days is to label certain theological opinions as heretical propositions.
Theological opinions are free opinions concerning doctrines on Faith and morals. Their value depends on facts and reasons adduced in their favor. There are different degrees of opinions ranging from probable, more probable, well-founded, pious, and tolerated. According to Pope Pius XII in Humani Generis, a theological opinion ceases to be a free opinion once the Church pronounces a judgment on the matter.
At times, popes will advance a theological opinion. Theologian Fr. Joachim Salaverri gives us an example with jurisdiction, when he taught, “On the mediate or immediate origin from God of the jurisdiction of Bishops. This question was raised in the Councils of Trent and Vatican, but it was not decided. Several authors with Victoria and Vasquez held that the jurisdiction was given immediately by God to the individual Bishops; but generally Catholic authors with St. Thomas, St. Bonaventure, St. Robert Bellarmine and Suarez hold that jurisdiction is given to the Bishops immediately not by God but mediated through the Roman Pontiff. Pius XII teaches this opinion positively in the Encyclical Mystici Corporis, when he says: ‘But Bishops so far as their own diocese is concerned…are not completely independent but are subject to the Roman Pontiff, although they enjoy ordinary power of jurisdiction received directly from the Sovereign Pontiff himself.’ We think that his opinion is to be preferred.” [1]
What’s most fascinating about this example is that not everything advanced in encyclicals are binding teachings of the faith. This doesn’t mean an encyclical may contain a potential error against the faith. Popes can’t err against the faith, but they may err on something not yet settled by the Church. The Fathers of the First Vatican Council discovered 40 papal errors of the past.
An opinion is an opinion. Twice this year, Feeneyites have accused me of heresy for spreading the following theological opinions on what type of faith is needed to be saved, which St. Alphonsus Liguori taught in his Moral Theology:
1. Which mysteries must be believed by a necessity of means?
Of those things which the faithful are bound to believe explicitly, some must be believed by a necessity of means, or end; without which, even if inculpably unknown, no one can obtain the ultimate end; others, by a necessity of precept, without which, if they be inculpably omitted, the ultimate end may be obtained. — Sanchez, Azor, Valentia.
Resp. I. By a necessity of means these two things are necessary: (1) To believe explicitly that God is, and is a rewarder of the good; according to that of the Apostle to the Hebrews, xi. 6: One must believe. Council of Trent. (2) After the sufficient promulgation of the Gospel, to believe explicitly, as says Molina; or at least implicitly, as some teach as probable with Coninck and Laymann, in Christ and the Most Holy Trinity. See Escobar, where from Vasquez he teaches that culpable ignorance of these mysteries, or negligence in learning them, is a grave sin, distinct from that which is its cause. See Diana.
Faith is thus defined: It is a theological virtue, infused by God, inclining us to firmly assent, on account of the divine veracity, to all that God has revealed, and by the Church has proposed to our belief. It is said (1) A theological virtue, that is, which has God for its object; for faith, as also hope and charity, is aimed directly at God, and thus differs from the moral virtues, which refer to Him indirectly. (2) Infused by God; because faith is a supernatural gift of God. (3) Inclining us to firmly believe; for the assent of faith cannot be joined with fear, as was wrongly said in proposition 21 proscribed by Innocent XI, but must be absolutely firm. (4) On account of the divine veracity. For the infallible truth (which is God Himself) is the formal object of faith. (5) To all that God has revealed; for everything revealed by God is the material object of faith. (6) And by the Church has proposed to our belief; for the divine revelation would not be made known to us, except by the Church, which proposes the things revealed; as it is otherwise evident, on account of the signs of credibility (among which are prophecies, miracles, the constancy of the Martyrs, and such like), that the Church can neither deceive nor be deceived. Apart from which St. Augustine famously uttered the saying: I would not believe the Gospel, unless the authority of the Catholic Church so moved me.
2. Whether the mysteries of the Trinity and Incarnation must be believed explicitly?
It is asked: whether the Mysteries of the Most Holy Trinity and the Incarnation, after the promulgation of the Gospel, must be believed with an explicit faith by necessity of means or of precept?
The first opinion, which is more common and seems more probable, teaches that they are to be believed by a necessity of means. Thus hold Sanchez, Valentia, Molin, Continuator Tournely, Juenin, Antoine, Wigandt, Concina with Ledesma, Serra, Prado, etc.; also Salmant., Cuniliati and Roncaglia. But these last three say, that accidentally and in a rare case one may be justified with a faith that is only implicit. — This they prove from the Scriptures, from which they say is clearly proved the necessity of means. They prove it also from reason: for, granting that before the promulgation of the Gospel an implicit faith in Christ was sufficient, yet after the promulgation, because the state of grace is more perfect, a more perfect knowledge is required, indeed an explicit faith in Christ and the Trinity.
The second opinion, which is also sufficiently probable, says, that by necessity of precept all are bound to believe these Mysteries explicitly; but by necessity of means, it suffices if they be believed implicitly. — Thus Dominicus Soto, where he says: Although the precept of explicit faith (that is, in the Trinity and the Incarnation) is absolutely obligatory upon the whole world, nevertheless many may be excused from this obligation on account of invincible ignorance. Franciscus Sylvius writes: After the sufficient promulgation of the Gospel, explicit faith in the Incarnation is necessary for all for salvation by a necessity of precept, and indeed also (as is probable) by a necessity of means. And in the conclusion that follows, he says the same about the mystery of the Trinity. Cardinal Gotti says: I say (1) The opinion which denies that explicit faith in Christ and the Trinity is so necessary, that without it no one can be justified, or be able to be saved, is very probable. And he asserts that Scotus holds this opinion. Eusebius Amort, the recent and most learned writer, defends absolutely the same opinion. Elbel writes, that today this opinion is held by the illustrious Doctors Castropalao, Viva, Sporer, Laymann, who says this (second opinion) is not less probable than the first, with Richardo, Medina, Vega, Sa, and Turriano. — Cardinal de Lugo calls the first opinion speculatively probable [footnote: Or more correctly: Lugo n. 90, calls the first opinion fairly common], but defends absolutely and in great detail this second one as more probable, with Javello, Zumel, and Suarez; and de Lugo writes, that this same opinion appears to be that of St. Thomas, where the Holy Doctor says: Before Baptism, Cornelius and others like him receive grace and virtues, through their faith in Christ and their desire for Baptism, implicit or explicit. From which Lugo argues: as Cornelius obtained grace through implicit faith, because the Gospel was not yet perfectly promulgated in that region, likewise he can obtain it who is invincibly ignorant of these mysteries; for likewise to these the Gospel is not sufficiently promulgated.
But they say it is repugnant to the divine goodness and providence, to damn adults who are invincibly ignorant, who live honestly according to the light of nature, against which there is: In every nation, he who fears Him, and works justice, is acceptable to Him? (Acts x. 35) — Indeed they respond that all Scriptures, and testimonies of the Holy Fathers that are opposed to this view, can easily be explained as of necessity of precept: either because ordinarily almost no one can be saved without explicit faith in these Mysteries, because after the promulgation of the Gospel almost no one labors under invincible ignorance of them; or because, says Lugo, they may be explained as referring to implicit faith, or explicit in desire. — Furthermore, says Laymann, an adult, if mute and deaf from birth, though he be baptized, could not receive the other Sacraments, although he so desired; indeed he could not be saved, because it is unbelievable that such a man could rightly apprehend and explicitly believe the mystery of the Incarnation, and especially of the Trinity.
It is noted by Tannerus, Silvius, Azor and Valentia, with Gulielmo Parisiensi according to Sanchez, that if one were so very untaught, that he could not grasp these mysteries, then he would be excused on account of inability, and compared to infants, and dunces. — But Sanchez says, that it is one thing to believe, another to know the mysteries, and to give an explanation of them. Thus he thinks that all adults are bound by a necessity of means, to eventually believe such mysteries, but by a necessity of precept to know them; from which precept to know the slow of mind are excused; and he says that the authors cited are to be understood in this way. And he concludes with Gabriele, who says: It is sufficient … for them (that is, the untaught), that … they explicitly believe individual [articles] when proposed to them.
However, propositions 64 and 65 condemned by Innocent XI, say: A man is capable of being absolved, however ignorant he may be of the mysteries of faith, and even if through negligence, even culpable, he does not know the mystery of the Most Holy Trinity and the Incarnation of Our Lord Jesus Christ — It suffices that he should have believed them once; but Viva says with Marchant, that it is probably not necessary to repeat Confessions made in ignorance of the aforesaid Mysteries; since by the aforementioned opinion it is quite probable that they were valid, if the ignorance was inculpable. For it is certain, that such ignorance, if it be vincible, is a mortal sin. But the aforesaid proposition was justly condemned, because it said that even he is capable of being absolved, who at the time of confession suffers from ignorance of the aforesaid mysteries. — But the opinion of Father Viva is not sufficiently probable in my view. For although the penitent probably made a valid confession, so that afterwards he appears exempt from repeating his confession, because he confessed in good faith before; yet out of respect for him who certainly sinned gravely, it should always be urged that above all one is obliged to make a confession, not only probably, but certainly valid. On which account, when one becomes aware that his confession was possibly valid, but also possibly null, because of ignorance of the mysteries of the Most Holy Trinity or the Incarnation of Jesus Christ, he is obliged, after he has been instructed in these Mysteries, to repeat his confession.
Moreover, he is said to believe implicitly, who believes something explicitly, in which another thing is implicit; for example, if you believe what the Church believes. See the Scholastics and Laymann. [2]
St. Alphonsus’ work won the high praise of the very learned Pope Benedict XIV.
In 1831, Pope Gregory XVI decreed it safe to follow all of St. Alphonsus’ opinions. No other saint has been given this approbation.
One Feeneyite refused to call St. Alphonsus a heretic for his teaching, but he labeled me as a heretic for agreeing with St. Alphonsus. The other Feeneyite denied St. Alphonsus wrote this section of his study despite the fact that it’s in all the translations.
Not only do Feeneyites make dogmas out of opinions, but we’ve seen how pseudo-Catholics general who make the universal acceptance opinion a dogma. See The Universal Acceptance Doctrine Not Universally Accepted – How We Can Know a True Pope Rules
They also like to make a dogma out of the rare and extreme minority opinion that a public heretical pope remains pope until warned, declared, or deposed by authorities. Even if they don’t force this opinion on others, they inevitably force it upon themselves. Besides, it appears this opinion has been shot down by the Church by implication. See The First Vatican Council and the Pope.
More and more, we see well-intended Catholics making dogmas out of opinions, whether it’s the Cassiciacum Thesis, home-aloneism, or what’s absolutely necessary to maintain apostolicity.
We want to be very careful not to make dogmas out of opinions. We must be level-headed in this great apostasy and stay focused. God tells us through our first Pope, “Be sober and watch: because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, goeth about seeking whom he may devour” (I Peter 5:8). Satan is trying to rip the last of us apart. Be on guard!
Footnotes
[1] Sacrae Theologiae Summa IB, [1955], pp. 144-145
[2] Theologia Moralis, Lib. II, tract. 1, cap. 1
https://archive.org/details/theologiamoralis01ligu_0/page/212/mode/2up
Speray's Catholicism in a Nutshell 
An excellent summary not easily presented or available for consideration nor forefront in the minds of most. Unfortunately, the NO has abused this theology with their ‘church of believe what you want’.
Is priest without diaconate ordination a validly ordained priest?
Speray: There’s no such thing. You don’t become a priest without the rest of it.
There’s no such thing as far as I know.
Not intending to add to this conflict, but some years ago I kind of thought sedeprivationism should be rejected by sedevacantists as “schismatic”, and I am surprised “The Thesis” continues to be taken seriously. The reason it is “schismatic” is because if tomorrow Francis were to abjure all heresies and reject Vatican 2, for the sedeprivationists he would become pope. In contrast, “conclavists” and sedevacantists would not necessarily recognize him as pope. This suggests that in a way they’re not really in communion with sedevacantists currently.
Speray: Francis may very well become pope if he converted, but not for the reasons sedepriv’s gives. Antipopes in history have assumed the papal office after conversion. Vigilius comes to mind.
Originally the “thesis” also was related to the Pius XII cardinals specifically; the current adherents of the “thesis” have now created a new variant of it, and have asserted the existence of “material cardinals”. This is contrary to the original “thesis” of des Lauriers: http://www.geocities.ws/prakashjm45/einsicht12.2003.html
Speray: You’re more than welcome to totally disagree with the thesis. But to call it heretical/schismatic is a stretch.
Quoting:
In SAKA-Information of January 1984, Bishop Guerard des Laurier wrote:
For the present, the Church is “occupied” and in a state of privation (mice en etat de privation). W. [Monsignor Wojtyla] was properly elected (I hold it valid unless it can be proved otherwise) by a conclave that consisted of ten true cardinals (at least they did not protest against the election), then he occupied the possession of the papal See.
(End quote)
Also historically the “thesis” was created in reaction to Paul VI allegedly approving heresies in the Vatican 2 documents, which made him a “pope that fell in to heresy” and a kind of “material pope”. Hence, the theory also should have disappeared after the attempt to elect a successor, which would have been considered invalid (and thus the sedevacantist “totalist” view prevails).
The motivation for holding to this theory seems to be about trying to provide some kind of visible apostolic succession of Church hierarchy, as well as justify claims to some kind of jurisdiction for the various “independent chapels”. Yet, sedeprivationism is not required for such a theory. Others have argued perhaps the Church’s offices have all become vacant (which has been argued to be impossible), others that there are “bishops in the woods somewhere”, or others that perhaps in some way some among the Vatican 2 “clergy” might retain some kind of Catholic authority. Whichever is true, sedeprivationism’s idea that Francis is a “material pope” seems to be contrary to the clear teaching that the papal election of a heretic is invalid (no mention of “material validity” is brought up).
So perhaps to me the only thing salvageable from the “thesis” is perhaps this argument that there may be Catholics, and Catholic authority, in the Vatican 2 church, since such people did not formally choose to go in to schism and have thought that they are being led by the Catholic Church. This is a slightly different conversation though, and might be termed something else, or the “thesis” might be split up in to different parts, as the “material pope” part seems to have been refuted.
Whatever is left of the hierarchy that can be considered validly ordained is a minuscule number. In order to have a true Pope sit on St. Peter’s throne Heaven will have to provide a Saintly person. I believe the present hierarchy of the Vatican II cult will be removed at some point by Heaven. The Old Testament is filled with such actions
Are you ever going to engage in the debate you agreed to Steven? It’s interesting how you don’t tell your readers here that you agreed to do two different debates on on salvation and then backed out. You seem to have time to write articles but not time to debate. When are you going to man up and do the debates you agreed to?
Speray: I was advised by my priest not to debate you or anyone else who won’t hear the Church. You have done nothing but lie and ignore key points in our email exchange. You’ll do the same in a debate and it will get nowhere. I already explained in my last article: Of course, they won’t apply their own logic – by calling the popes, saints, and fathers heretics as they do with the average Catholic who follows their teaching on Baptism of desire. The Feeneyite goes from one absurdity to another. His reaction to articles such as this one is not to be humbled, but rather to get enraged, have a debate challenge, and condemning as cowardly if failure to engage.
You have perfectly demonstrated me to be right. You never stop with your nonsense.
Here is the first debate you agreed to do and then back out of:
The Magisterium of the Catholic Church teaches that water baptism is the one and only means of salvation for infants.
Speray: You’ve already been shown that the Church has acknowledged the Holy Innocents who were not baptized but made it to heaven on account of their martyrdom. I’ve already shown you where St. Alphonsus even said so. No point in arguing with you if you won’t hear St. Alphonsus.
I was taking the affirmative, you were taking the negative. But you backed out of that debate.
You knew you couldn’t win that debate, so you attempted to shift to a topic you didn’t think I would agree to, viz. That St. Alphonsus is not a heretic but that BOD is heresy. You proposed it, I agreed to it, and then you ghosted. Why?
Speray: I knew that debating you would be like taking candy from a baby. It would make me look bad. My priest strongly advised against it. You have proven yourself to be an idiot by the mere fact that you refuse to call St. Alphonsus a heretic for teaching baptism of desire and for translating Trent as teaching it, but we all are heretics for acknowledging St. Alphonsus’ teaching and Trent, which clearly taught Baptism of Desire. I worked in rockets in the US Navy to make sure they went around the earth, knowing full well the earth is round. I would not debate a flat-earther either. You Feeneyites are all the same. You go on and on with your stupidity and won’t acknowledge basic facts.
What is the name of your priest so I can verify that with him? And if that is true, why didn’t you email me that? I’ve sent several emails asking why you ghosted on the debate. Have you seen them?
Speray: Fr. Oswalt and I don’t have to explain anything to you.
Your posturing is interesting. I’m curious why you haven’t shared the contents of our rather long email exchange if you are so confident that it would be like “taking candy from a baby”?
Speray: I’d be happy to show anyone those emails, but it would take a lot of time to fix them in a readable format for the website. Anyone who wants to read them, I’d be happy to forward. You have been shown to be wrong on every single point.
Also, where are your “4 magisterial texts” which prove infants can be saved without water baptism? You never cited them in the emails, because I claim you don’t have any.
Speray: I will put them together for an article later.
And the Holy Innocents lived before baptism was obligatory, so right out of the gate, you demonstrate ignorance or bad will. This is why debating you on that topic would have been very illuminating.
Speray: I’ve already answered this, which demonstrates your bad will. The Church celebrates their martyrdom for Christ. The Church has emphasized this point in the liturgy, which is part of the magisterial teaching. If infants can be saved by martyrdom for Christ in the Old Testament but not in the New Testament as you claim, then the Old Testament is superior to the New Testament for infants. Your position is heretical and blasphemous! Every single Church authority that speaks on the subject has taught that martyrdom for Christ suffices in place for baptism.
I do remember you saying that all “Feeneyites” could be in the state of grace. Do you ever tell your readers that is what you believe?
Speray: Absolutely because the state of grace is an internal forum issue and we can’t see the internal forum. So it’s possible that all Feeneyites could be in a state of grace but I also believe it’s highly unlikely that most if not all of them are.
Alexander: Also, how do you know I’m a heretic? It’s possible, according to you, that in the internal forum I am not a heretic and in the state of grace, because you can’t judge the internal forum.
Speray replies: That’s correct. You could be in a state of grace in the internal forum. The same applies to all those condemned as heretics by the Catholic Church. Only in the external forum do we consider heretics as heretics. NOT THE INTERNAL FORUM.
Speray: I stand by what I said. Possibility and probability are two different things. What I believe is possible doesn’t mean or imply that I think is probable. You’re just too ignorant to make that distinction as you have nicely demonstrated. I made myself quite clear.
Also, I think your readers deserve to see exactly what you believe on salvation::
Do you believe that atheist Richard Dawkins is currently in the state of mortal sin due to his atheism, or is it possible that while he believes in atheism in his heart that he could be in the state of sanctifying grace in the internal forum?
Speray: NO, I don’t believe that Richard Dawkins is in a state of grace. However, I do believe that God loves Richard Dawkins and might see something in him that is pleasing to HIM. God in His Mercy could provide more grace to Dawkins to see his error more clearly, and then grant him the grace of repentance, and then save him, without baptism even. I have no problem letting my readers know what I believe about salvation because I’ve been very open about it here and everywhere.
Is that Fr. Michael Oswalt?
Speray: Yes
You didn’t quite answer the question, so let me try again:
Is it possible or impossible for someone with the use of reason who professes atheism in the external forum to simultaneously have sanctifying grace in the internal forum?
Speray: Impossible for one with the right use of reason.
Also, if you don’t believe that Richard Dawkins is in the state of grace, then that means he is in the state of mortal sin. Which means you have judged his internal forum and thus betray your principle of “Not being able to judge the internal forum.” If you were consistent, you would say you cannot judge whether he does or does not have sanctifying grace. Why even state what you believe on that if the true principle is that no one can know the internal forum state of another human being?
Speray: Objectively in mortal sin because we don’t know the condition of the individual’s mind and heart. We can’t know with 100% certainty that one is in his right mind although in all appearances he appears to be. We can say objectively that everyone who goes against the Natural law is in mortal sin and we may presume one is in mortal sin not because we see the internal forum, but because in all appearances such a person knows better.
You believe that Richard Dawkins can be saved without baptism AND without repentance or faith in Christ.
Speray: Wrong. I believe he must repent and have faith at least internally before his soul leaves his body.
You said baptism of desire is “something God does to the person.” Does that mean God does not require the human being’s participation in any way? Would Dawkins absolutely need, by a necessity of means, to repent of his sins and believe, positively with an act of his will, that Jesus Christ is the Son of God before his death in order to be saved?
Speray: I’ve repeated this numerous times in my books and here on my blog. Yes, Baptism of desire is God granting the grace to know, have faith, and repent, which the person must do or else is doomed forever.
Since you don’t believe Dawkins is in the state of grace, that means you inversely are claiming that a soul in mortal sin could be pleasing to God.
Speray: Yes, since God must give HIs Grace to all mortal sinners to repent or else no one could repent. So in some sense such souls are pleasing to God or else God wouldn’t grant His Grace and as St. Alphonsus teaches, God won’t grant His Grace after so many mortal sins.
God could see “something” in Richard Dawkins’ mortally sinful soul that pleases him.
Speray: Absolutely or else God would not grant His grace to him to repent.
This means either that mortal sin does not corrupt the entire soul, or you must argue that God can be pleased with a soul in mortal sin.
Speray: God is not pleased that anyone is in mortal sin, that’s why He grants them grace to repent.
Is God pleased with a soul who is in mortal sin? Is the soul composed of parts that stay clean and “pleasing” to God while other parts are tainted and corrupted with the mortal sin of atheism?
Speray: The soul is dead in mortal sin, but God can be pleased with certain persons for other reasons, such as the potential to repent, the natural goodness of men that can translate into supernatural goodness after repentance, etc. I have an atheist friend that gives money to help others, he speaks out against homosexuality and other evils, etc., and for these reasons God can be pleased with him and for these reasons, grant him grace to repent. God is not pleased at all with his sinfulness. This is not hard stuff, Alexander. You just need to use your head.
And you don’t believe in BOD Steven. You believe this:
“God can save man in a mystery at death that we don’t see or understand.” That’s what you believe.
Speray: That’s right, because we don’t know how God does it, the time frame, etc. This is baptism of desire. You just don’t know what BOD is.
You don’t believe a soul must actually desire to be baptized (baptism of desire), or be martyred for Jesus Christ (baptism of blood) or must love Christ above all things with an actual explicit act of faith or repentance.
Speray: You’re not paying attention. I gave a particular example here: https://stevensperay.wordpress.com/2013/07/31/a-true-story-concerning-baptism-of-desire-and-st-john-vianney/
If you did, you would condemn invincible ignorance and all the priests who obstinately promote it. But you don’t, because your priests believe in invincible ignorance. And by that I mean, that souls who die in ignorance of Christ, His name, commandments, religion (Catholicism), etc. and have no actual desire in their will to believe in any of those things, can be saved.
Speray: I’ve explained this numerous times, too. I’ve said very plainly that invincible ignorance does not save. What priests promote, including popes, is that those invincibly ignorant will not be condemned for their ignorance. They may be condemned for other things but if they sincerely observe the natural law and its precepts inscribed by God on all hearts and ready to obey God, they live honest lives and are able to attain eternal life by the efficacious virtue of divine light and grace. Because God knows, searches and clearly understands the minds, hearts, thoughts, and nature of all, his supreme kindness and clemency do not permit anyone at all who is not guilty of deliberate sin to suffer eternal punishments. I believe God will grant them the faith and whatever that’s needed, which is BAPTISM OF DESIRE.
You will retort “I don’t believe invincible ignorance can save anyone” but that completely dodges the point and misses the entire heart of the argument. I am not claiming that you believe the ignorance is what saves the person, or that ignorance is a means of salvation. No. What I am affirming, is that you believe “God can save a man in a mystery at death that we don’t see or understand.” You say God can save anyone He wishes, whether that person desires baptism, or even knows the name of Christ at all.
Speray: You have completely missed the point. What BOD entails is different for each person. God can save, but how He does it is the question.
Is it your claim that God can and does save any person with the use of reason that He wishes, even if that person does not participate and cooperate with God at all in the process of his salvation? If the man must participate, then what exactly and precisely is absolutely necessary as a necessity of means for him to do or believe in order to be saved?
Speray: Yes, he must cooperate, and I believe the Catholic Faith and perfect contrition is needed which comes by God’s Grace at death.
Essentially, what is the minimum requirement of participation for the salvation of a use-of-reason person with God’s grace? And where did the Magisterium teach that precise definition and meaning?
Speray: The Magisterium has never pronounced the precise definition for all cases. Theologians have different opinions as St. Alphonsus Liguori tells us. He believed explicit faith is necessary as I do, but he also said that it’s a probable opinion that implicit faith suffices.
Lastly, as a bit of a tangential issue, if God can do this (save them in a mystery we don’t see or understand) for adults, why can’t He do it for infants? You seem to say that God can ONLY save babies by water baptism or martyrdom. But if “God can save man in a mystery at death that we don’t see or understand”, then why can’t He do that for unbaptized and unmartyred babies? Are you saying God cannot do that, or will not do that? Are you saying God is limited to only being able to use water baptism or martyrdom to save infants?
Speray: Well, if we don’t understand how He does it for adults, I don’t know how I can say I know how He might do it for infants, although He may very well save some of them for some reason or way we don’t know. What I do know is that after Trent defined the necessity of baptism, the same fathers at Trent debated over the possibility of unbaptized infants being saved by other means. Half of them believed that the desire of the parents with a pronouncement of the Holy Trinity can save an unbaptized infant.
Are all the aborted babies definitely and certainly damned since none of them received water baptism and none are being martyred for Christ? Or is there a chance that God saved them without us knowing it, “in a mystery that we cannot see or understand”?
Speray: As I noted, half of Trent’s fathers gave other possibilities, which have never been condemned by the Church. You are asking a totally speculative question, but my opinion is that they go to limbo, which is the highest abode of hell, where there’s no suffering fire.