I guess I might also challenge the premise that diseases are hopeless conditions. I think most, if not all, NT mentions of disease actually presented it in quite the opposite manner.

To be perfectly honest, I've never heard of Jay Adams before. But, I'll address what I perceive to be the core question anyway, if you don't mind me challenging the premise that a thing cannot be both a disease and a sin -- at least as you've presented it.

That's not to suggest that confession is not necessary and important though. A spiritual reality is relatively meaningless to us without its incarnation.

Absolution can be denied if the repentance is not perceived to be genuine. However, this is a very irregular occurrence. And even in cases wherein the priest mistakenly refuses absolution, God's forgiveness, we teach, is still received. His forgiveness occurs immediately upon contrition, before confession. Confession is more-so the incarnation of our contrition and His forgiveness, via the Church.

It might also be useful to incorporate Mark 12:26-27, which seems to suggest that "the dead" are not as "dead" as we presume. They're still alive in God. And the living requiring no sort of reincarnation to "return" and do their work!

The only connection, as your selected answer seems to indicate, is that the sellers think they're Catholic!

I think you're misunderstanding something. Christ descended into hell. That does not suggest that the dead were in hell. They were, as the catechism puts it, "in Abraham's bosom" -- very different than hell. Those in hell stay in hell forever.

Also, I'm skeptical that Limbo is even part of any official Catholic doctrine. It would be wise, if you're convinced it was official doctrine, to add a link to said official doctrine (even an "expired" one) to show that it is or was at one time doctrinal. I'm fairly sure it wasn't, though.

I don't see how Limbo = hell. I see a few things suggesting that Limbo is at the edge of hell. Nothing denoting that it's in hell. Do you have a reference?

I'm not contesting, for the moment, the notion that Christ descended somewhere to raise the righteous. Your terms just aren't in agreement with each other. Was it hell or something else? Abraham's bosom, limbo, purgatory, etc.?

I'm not sure how to square the sentiment that "Then Jesus descended to that part of Hell and saved them" with the notion that they're in limbo and/or Abraham's bosom. Before I react further, are you referring to old Roman Catholic beliefs? Or are you referring to Traditionalist Catholics -- the folks who rejected Vatican-2 and subsequent encyclicals?

Oh, and yes, that's what the serpent told Adam and Eve. But, they were already&& like God (i.e., *made in God's image). Their sin was an act of disobedience and *distrust that God was holding out on them (He wasn't). It was only in rejecting the holiness they already possessed that they became in some respect unholy.

Sure. There's a difference between something happening to you versus doing it yourself. But, Firstly, Jesus endured and welcomed suffering. So, in the very least, it is holy to endure and welcome suffering. But Secondly, whatever happens to Jesus is also blessed -- Christianity depends on it. Because God's presence entered the whole human condition fully, the whole human condition is capable of holiness. Because suffering happened to God, suffering can be holy.

Great answer, but I would suggest two edits. The Son did not temporary give up the rights of Godhood. The mystery of the incarnation, defended to the death for 2000 years, is that Jesus is simultaneously fully human and fully God. It is precisely because of this that humanity is bridged into heaven. I might also add that trinitarian language is intentionally confusing: We cannot fully comprehend God, who is Himself a relationship of three.