When it comes to this stuff, what I do is automatically submit my intellect in humility. All I know is God is just. I'm a flawed and unjust man, a helpless sinner. I'm not qualified to decide what afterlife someone deserves. Unlike me, whatever God decides will be best, as is His nature. All this argumentation is highly interesting, but I won't lose sleep over it, as long as I hold firm the conviction that what He does is perfectly just. This is the same approach I have towards the salvation of (seemingly) innocent souls outside the visible Church. What I can gather from here is two things: - God made it so that we may be incentiviced to rush towards the baptism of our children, and their dutiful instruction of the Faith. - God made it so that we may be incentivized to Evangelize all the Nations as quickly as possible.
"Although unbaptized children are separated from God as regards the union of glory, they are not utterly separated from Him: in fact they are united to Him by their share of natural goods, and so will also be able to rejoice in Him by their natural knowledge and love." - St. Thomas
What do these “natural goods” include though? Because if they are barred from the Beatific Vision, then they would seem to require what is proper to their nature for their happiness existing without supernature. It would be a slightly lesser state than Eden. But Aquinas and similar theologians exclude a lot of natural goods from his vision of the New Creation. The greatest source of natural happiness, marriage, for example is excluded for everyone. As per theology of the body, man naturally desires intimate communion for his fulfillment, and this is fulfilled naturally through marriage, and supernaturally through the Beatific Vision. Even in the contemplative state of Eden, Adam still needed Eve to be happy, for it was not good for man to be alone. Marriage is a sacramental sign of the heavenly communion that it will be superseded by. Yet it is said that there will be no marriage at all in the age to come. How can natural beatitude obtain if natural goods necessary for it must be excluded? In fact, Aquinas thinks that time itself will stop (ST Supp. 91.2, especially Reply to Objection 9). And the bodies of those in Limbo do not have subtlety and agility. How can they experience natural happiness if they can’t even engage in natural movement? Their existence would be more proper to statues than to humans.
Do you understand how outrageously stupid this is? It’s on the level of saying people who never heard the idea of God on a deserted island burn for eternity. It’s a literal abominable joke which nobody really believes. How anyone could possibly believe that infants whose guardians never baptized them miss out on the vision of God by something they had zero say in. ARE YOU KIDDING ME. This has to be one of the dumbest, most diabolical and dumbest beliefs ever. I highly doubt anyone deep down believes it.
@@Unclenate1000not really God creating people does not mean he wills their dammnation, we are not calvinists, God gives sufficient grace to all, and wishes everyone saved, you on the other hand with that positive claim would have to prove that foreknowlage means predestined
@@Unclenate1000 You wouldn't have abandoned it if you knew it to be true. At best you would've been terrified but accepted it. You could look into this deeper, because we are dealing about objective truths.
Have always believed in Limbo since my conversion to the Catholic faith. I'm glad to see somebody else out here defending its orthodoxy. Blessings to you!
@@dianneraimondi8382 no. Definitely Calvinist. The view of God that it seems like you’re advocating is one of an abusive father. And then you’re gonna try and tell yourself that it’s not a relationship with an abusive father. The God of Calvin, not of historic Christianity/Catholicism
@@luizfilipecouto1030 oh I have. I’m just not limited in scope like you are. I’m drawing from some of the greatest of the fathers. I don’t see all questions of theology as limited to Aquinas like you do.
To be fair, this probably is not the most controversial doctrine of the Church. I’d wager that her most controversial doctrine is her actual traditional position on slavery. Edit: btw, spicy thumbnail
I mean no matter how you tackle that, historical anacronism will just make it seem like the Catholic ideal of society was the height of transatlantic slave trade
The idea that any baby could go to any form of hell is literally the stupidest thing I’ve ever heard. The earliest church fathers rejected this. This is how Augustine has poisoned the church
I’ll honestly believe in Limbo if it doesn’t exclude the possibility of unbaptized babies going to heaven after the 2nd judgement. Sounds fitting. What do you think?
@@thelonelysponge5029that’s erroneous (if not outright heretical). Nobody who was not made righteous at death goes to Heaven. You can’t be unrighteous at death and then made righteous in the future.
@@carsonianthegreat4672 the Old Testament prophets were made righteous after death… But I get your point, this is something I made up and I haven’t seen a father that expresses my views, but tell me why this would be an error? Do you have any council documents or papal documents? Any infallible ones?
@@thelonelysponge5029 the Old Testament prophets were not made righteous after death. They were made righteous prior to death by means of Christ. Read Denzinger 410.
Honestly I can’t see how natural beatitude is a coherent idea, especially if it’s something like it was in Eden, and particular if we consider modern theology of the body.
Because he wants people to click on it, and the best way to do that is to appeal to emotions. He's not here affirming the Augustinian position, even though he says Catholics can hold it.
What else do you suggest for a thumbnail on limbo? The entire video is basically answering the question of whether babies are in hell...so what is more fitting then an image that portrays that?
How different is the view of the thomists who affirm natural beatitude and the view of Catharinus? The Catholic Encyclopedia puts as St. Thomas view that the souls in limbo enjoy a state of natural happines, while Catharinus, Savonarola and Suarez would also affirm that the unbaptized infants would receive glorified bodies and inhabit the new earth, but after the video I started to think if there would be any other important difference
The CE article on this point isn’t the greatest…Catharinus’ error was positing a natural beatitude formally speaking. St. Thomas never posited this since our natural end in a state of elevated nature is sublimated to our supernatural end and thus by losing our supernatural end, we cannot formally acquire our natural end, but only materially.
Councils of Florence and Lyons talk about it and sure seem to speak authoritatively and confidently on it, the same way other councils speak on other things that most devout Catholics would consider to be sufficient proof of it being a doctrine, yet many turn around and deny this specific one. Fr. Ripperger explains this well in his homilies on RUclips.
They wouldn't face eternal punishment, but will they face eternal reward? It's not a settled question, brother. The idea is that these babies may be in some Eden, without suffering (as they did nothing wrong) but still not in Heaven. It would be part of Hell, except without punishment. You may choose to think God is so great He may save them all anyway. That's fine, maybe even pious. But it's not a certain reply. We're better off baptizing infants basically the day they're born, and leave those questions up to God. God would never do something unjust. Whatever He does, I shall accept it.
I do not see how you can say it is likely that God would give this potential extra-ordinary grace, rather than stick to the limits of saying it is possible. How can we say it is likely?
"Likely" is a form of probability...it's stating that there are many congruences present between the thesis and reality. The ITC document go over these congruences.
@@MilitantThomistIt does follow that it is possible, yes, but likely would be typically characterised by the preponderance of evidence pointing to an option. In this case, it is merely possible
"And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth." -Genesis 1:28 I mean... God is clear in Genesis
@@balkananimations6389he is questioning the morality of bringing a child into such a dangerous scenario, where you might be creating one more soul to be damned for eternity. Pointing to a passage where God says “Go forth and multiply,” merely sidesteps the question. In essence, you are saying “because God said so.” That might be good enough for you, but it certainly wouldn’t help someone struggling with the fate of souls, hell, problem of sin and evil etc. especially someone outside the Church.
@@JS-ln4ns I mean, the problem would exist regardless considering other people can still damn themselves after baptism. Even if it was the case that an unbaptized child goes to heaven the problem still exists, why are we making more humans if they're going to just damn themselves? It's just anti-natalism. Humanity is good even if it's fallen and so should continue, as existence is better than non-existence. It's not like limbo is damnation, they would experience a natural happiness. Also, I hold to Pope Benedict XVI (Requiescat in pace) position that unbaptized infants have a genuine hope for salvation. I'm simply saying that it's not an evil that more children are born even if some may go to limbo (or are even damned for whatever sin they commit in later life).
@@JS-ln4ns Would be interested to hear others' thoughts but given that being is convertible with goodness it would seem being overly worried about this concern is pointless. Maybe it is not as emotionally satisfying but if being is infinitely greater than non-being it is better to be open to children as the Church teaches and, with proper instruction, allow children to become saints and enjoy everlasting happiness. Just because there is a possibility of one's children misusing their free will and being damned it doesn't mean we should adopt some kind of antinatalist/utilitarian approach to the gift of life. You see this error down the centuries with different gnostic heresies like the Cathars, etc.
If hope is more than just wishful thinking/desire, and our hope is in that which we have faith in, i.e. God, and if faith is that by which we derive knowledge of truth, then if this knowledge be from God, it must be the greatest knowledge. Shall we put other categories of knowledge above the knowledge from faith? And if the knowledge revealed is that of a creator that is absolute pure susbistent Love, who condescends so much as to become human and die to save the world, even those that hate Him, then how can we say that we can't know that God will save unbaptized infants, discarding them from Himself through no fault of their own??
First, this line of reasoning is rejected by every single magisterial document that discusses this issue…every single one clarifies that “prayerful hope” is less than sure and proper knowledge. So, any vestige that you’re following the teaching of these documents must be rejected. Second, you misapprehend the fact that any extraordinary giving of grace is, 1. Extraordinary, and 2. Gratuitous. God is free to give or not give this grace. If you deny this, you are wading into territory that is disastrous to our doctrines of God and Grace. If you concede this, then you concede that this is not proper knowledge, but only grounds for prayerful hope, as the documents of the magisterium speak. Third, this exact line of reasoning, if consistently drawn, would bring you to universalism.
@MilitantThomist you obviously know more wrt the magisterium than I, yet as far as I know, I'm not saying anything contrary to St. Aquinas nor St. Paul. As I've already said what faith is, it's clear that the intellect is its subject, since it relates to knowledge/truth. Certainty given by faith is more certain simply than scientific knowledge, and even though relatively scientific knowledge can be more certain, Aquinas clearly places the certainty of faith as greater. Now certainty essentially pertains to the intellect for obvious reasons, but it can pertain accidentally to those things that gain it through participation in the intellect, and this is the case with the will as it is moved by the intellect, so hope tends to its end with certainty as infallibly moved by the intellect with the certainty of faith. I don’t at all deny that God is free to give it, it's still grace after all, but as far I see I need not concede anything. "If consistently drawn it will bring you to universalism" Oh no! Excuse my flippancy, but you say that like it's a bad thing.
The ITC document denies this line of reasoning and states that the former only grants a prayful hope, not sure knowledge. As to the latter, they have baptism of blood. Why don’t you actually watch the video before commenting?
@@MilitantThomistso all of this seems to be under the divine darkness (hidden from us ) , no true knowledge therefore , but i don't see why God would make the children who come to him go to Hell
@@MilitantThomistsorry i added a negative where it shouldn't have been , but i have another question , since we know that life begins at conception and that the soul is given at this moment , does the child have an effective will (the most basic form , the will to live , to exist ) and so can be judged upon that ?
How does this interact with the notion that God gives everyone sufficient grace to be saved in the case of unbaptized infants with original sin? Normally for unbaptized adults, they would have sufficient graces to investigate and convert to the faith, but what do unbaptized infants recieve in this regard? Do they just get the power to investigate/convert but cannot ever exercise it, or is it something else?
This would only be an issue for those with quite a particular notion of sufficient grace…some of them (like Vazquez) state that infants are excluded from the universality of sufficient grace. Either way, an efficacious grace at the end of life would be something different than sufficient grace, so this still wouldn’t get us to a denial of limbo.
@@MilitantThomist I should be a bit more precise with my question. What would a merely sufficient grace for an unbaptized infant who ends up in limbo amount to? Would it be a certain power tending towards efficacious grace, but lacking the grace of baptism, and never gets to be expressed as conversion, due to a lack of opportunity before death? Or are there other options here and/or it's something else? It does seem odd to say that infants have grace sufficient to believe, but can't express it ever due to a lack of age/baptism, so in a more colloquial sense it's not sufficient. Not impossible, but I want to make sure I'm not misunderstanding anything here
@@MilitantThomist What, if any, does the parents’ faith contribute to this? Consider the response to the jailer “believe and be baptized and you will be saved - you and your household.” Or 1 (2?) cor 7:14 where the children are sanctified by their parents? Why does this not have bearing on this conversation? They seem relevant to me.
It's pretty obvious to me that the Leftists in the Church have treated saint Augustine's teaching on infant baptism as heretical to accommodate abortion 'rights': if the unborn who are killed in the womb go straight to Heaven, why should we oppose abortion at all? THANK YOU for reminding everyone that we can't be sure of anything and that the PRUDENT position on this matter is to assume that God will exercise His justice - not His mercy. Prudence consists in hoping for the best but preparing for the worst!
This is an awful take. Why should we oppose abortion? Because it’s literally murder. Why should we oppose killing newly baptized babies or adults? Either way, baptism for babies is essential, and we can’t be 100% sure for the fate of unbaptized babies.
@@joseluis-kd8xh Romans used primarly IIII, not IV, because it made it easier to calculate. ruclips.net/video/Q5_2o8MITH4/видео.htmlsi=8UnFJx_HcRtkaoEZ&t=78
@@joseluis-kd8xhusing IV to mean 4 was an invention of modern clockmakers to make the clock’s face appear more aesthetically balanced. The traditional Roman Numeral for 4 is IIII.
The Church teaches us at Trent that God gives everybody sufficient grace to be saved. Did those children who die aborted or before being baptized receive sufficient grace to be saved ?? How do you reconcile that
Wagner, by what intent did you have making the thumbnail alongside with the headline? Was it because of trying to get more views and to grow the channel by provoking? I would guess it wasn't for care of souls. If you do not hold on to the Augustinian view, the children in limbo are not having the pain of sense, then why would you add fires around a picture of red crying baby, who seems to be in pain? I presume even Augustine wouldn't make that thumbnail, if he would live bodily in our times, since the pain of sense he held, was minimal. I think evangelizing and care for souls goes before growing the channel. What do you think which is more important, Wagner?
What’s with the strange A-logging? Last time you commented it was about copyrighting music, now it’s about thumbnail choice. As I’ve said to other people, what else would you suggest as a thumbnail? It’s a video about limbo…baby + punishment seems to be about the entirety of the doctrine visually presented. Before I posted it, I asked my Discord to see if people would be fine with it and nobody had an issue…why would you suggest alterior motives?!?
@@MilitantThomist I don't hate you. Just because somebody's relative, friend, neighbor or a RUclips fan criticizes another person's behavior, it doesn't mean, that person is A-logging. But if a person's behavior could bring destruction to others, then that person's behavior should be criticized for the sake of others. What am I saying? I'm saying, that by little things like thumbnail in certain bigger context can have a big consequence. If a non-Catholic (who isn't also a calvinist or a lutheran) sees this thumbnail in a context of Catholic faith, original sin and eternal destination of a baby, that person might choose not to enter Catholic Church, and therefore salvation (although I believe God can make certain people Catholics outside visible boundaries, and material heresy isn't damning), because of an emotional reaction (which is psychologically speaking the most usual reason to reject something). A lot of them might not even listen to the whole video before making the conclusion, that Catholics are just crazy or the God they believe, is crazy. You are in important position for many people visiting RUclips. That comes with a lot of responsibility. I don't know about your Discord channel, but many people are following the people they admire without criticism. Besides, what does it matter, if people in Discord said that? People in the comment section here already said the thumbnail was disturbing etc. But I bet you get more likes for your comment to me than I to you, since you are the owner of this channel.
@@LibraryofStMichael I honestly was not trolling. God sees me, if I would be lying, and I am not lying. I was worried for souls. That's it. Nothing else.
No one is sent to hell, they choose it. The deceased is given a choice at death. Even if the infant's material brain isn't developed enough to make that choice, their immaterial soul has God-given intellect and will.
After 20ish years of devout Catholicism and deep personal interest in the intellectual side of it, I finally discovered that this was in fact a doctrine despite so many trusted Catholic leaders in my life lying to me. I already identified with the obvious injustice of heritable original sin since I was young, but I foolishly just submitted my intellect to the church and figured there was somehow a way that it was just and made sense. Once I found out this was a doctrine and that its plausible that babies through no fault of their own can literally fall through the cracks of eternity on god's watch, it absolutely blew my faith out of the water. I could not be intellectually honest and remain believing that god was a perfect just god and also continue believing that Catholicism was true. It broke my heart, but that was 8 years ago. The world around me has only made more sense since I abandoned that clearly uninspired barbaric religion. It was a fun ride...
The thumbnail is fine. The alleged god actually thinking its cool to basically send innocent babies to hell circumstantially is whats actually inappropriate, but no one seems to have issue with that
What about the fate of infants who die in the womb? It is literally impossible for them to receive the Sacrament of Baptism. Is it probable that God would give them a special dispensation since, unlike in the case of a born infant that does, literally nothing could have been done to save them?
I don't think you really address how the two things are morally distinct. In the one case, the parents of a born infant could have had their child baptized but chose not to for whatever reason. It is a grim situation, but we ultimately have the parents to hold culpable for the child's damnation. Whereas in the case of a miscarriage, the child perish even without the parents' knowledge (such as very early in pregnancy), and as such there is nothing anyone could have possibly done to give that child a chance at beatitude. Are we to believe that God would punish this infant for lacking Baptism when there was never a possibility of such? How can that be squared with God's justice? It is analogous to God asking that a man jump 20 feet in the air or be damned. Perhaps the reason there isn't a clear distinction drawn is because the earlier theological writers and fathers did not have the embryological evidence we have today.
@@colbytheresa45041. The pain of loss is simply a result of having original sin. The children aren’t punished for rejecting grace, but are punished in Adam. 2. The theologians frequently mention the case of abortion (Sylvius, for example), so they knew.
@@MilitantThomist Given how common miscarriages are, doesn't it follow that from the "limboist" theses a large minority of the children of devout Christians are separated from God? How does this further Gods justice?
@@MilitantThomist Fundamentally, I don't disagree with the video at all. It just seems like if you have access to an interpretation of unbaptized infants that cuts out Limbo it should be preferred. It is far more in keeping with God's nature than especially the Augustinian interpretation. Just as most no longer hold to the stricter interpretations of extra ecclesia but you can if you want to.
Bro that thumbnail is crazy LOL
When it comes to this stuff, what I do is automatically submit my intellect in humility.
All I know is God is just. I'm a flawed and unjust man, a helpless sinner. I'm not qualified to decide what afterlife someone deserves. Unlike me, whatever God decides will be best, as is His nature.
All this argumentation is highly interesting, but I won't lose sleep over it, as long as I hold firm the conviction that what He does is perfectly just.
This is the same approach I have towards the salvation of (seemingly) innocent souls outside the visible Church.
What I can gather from here is two things:
- God made it so that we may be incentiviced to rush towards the baptism of our children, and their dutiful instruction of the Faith.
- God made it so that we may be incentivized to Evangelize all the Nations as quickly as possible.
"Although unbaptized children are separated from God as regards the union of glory, they are not utterly separated from Him: in fact they are united to Him by their share of natural goods, and so will also be able to rejoice in Him by their natural knowledge and love." - St. Thomas
What do these “natural goods” include though? Because if they are barred from the Beatific Vision, then they would seem to require what is proper to their nature for their happiness existing without supernature. It would be a slightly lesser state than Eden. But Aquinas and similar theologians exclude a lot of natural goods from his vision of the New Creation. The greatest source of natural happiness, marriage, for example is excluded for everyone. As per theology of the body, man naturally desires intimate communion for his fulfillment, and this is fulfilled naturally through marriage, and supernaturally through the Beatific Vision. Even in the contemplative state of Eden, Adam still needed Eve to be happy, for it was not good for man to be alone. Marriage is a sacramental sign of the heavenly communion that it will be superseded by. Yet it is said that there will be no marriage at all in the age to come. How can natural beatitude obtain if natural goods necessary for it must be excluded? In fact, Aquinas thinks that time itself will stop (ST Supp. 91.2, especially Reply to Objection 9). And the bodies of those in Limbo do not have subtlety and agility. How can they experience natural happiness if they can’t even engage in natural movement? Their existence would be more proper to statues than to humans.
Do you understand how outrageously stupid this is? It’s on the level of saying people who never heard the idea of God on a deserted island burn for eternity. It’s a literal abominable joke which nobody really believes. How anyone could possibly believe that infants whose guardians never baptized them miss out on the vision of God by something they had zero say in. ARE YOU KIDDING ME. This has to be one of the dumbest, most diabolical and dumbest beliefs ever. I highly doubt anyone deep down believes it.
Natural goods ≠ beatific vision. You know this.
Utterly redundant, what does this solve?
still unjust as it's not Heaven and its strictly circumstantial. No real god who's halfway reasonable would settle for this
How then ought we to object to the claim that God "creates people just for them to be damned"?
we don't, and its precisely why I abandoned Christianity
I think a better way to put it is “why would God create someone and give them absolutely no chance or opportunity at salvation?”
@@Unclenate1000not really God creating people does not mean he wills their dammnation, we are not calvinists, God gives sufficient grace to all, and wishes everyone saved, you on the other hand with that positive claim would have to prove that foreknowlage means predestined
@@Unclenate1000 You wouldn't have abandoned it if you knew it to be true. At best you would've been terrified but accepted it.
You could look into this deeper, because we are dealing about objective truths.
Have always believed in Limbo since my conversion to the Catholic faith. I'm glad to see somebody else out here defending its orthodoxy. Blessings to you!
Modern man thinks that he has rights concerning God. Man doesn't know that with God ,all is GIFT!
You sound like a Calvinist lol
@@Notbraydendantin No ,I sound catholic.
@@dianneraimondi8382 no. Definitely Calvinist. The view of God that it seems like you’re advocating is one of an abusive father. And then you’re gonna try and tell yourself that it’s not a relationship with an abusive father. The God of Calvin, not of historic Christianity/Catholicism
@@Notbraydendantin Study more Catholic Theology bro
@@luizfilipecouto1030 oh I have. I’m just not limited in scope like you are. I’m drawing from some of the greatest of the fathers. I don’t see all questions of theology as limited to Aquinas like you do.
To be fair, this probably is not the most controversial doctrine of the Church.
I’d wager that her most controversial doctrine is her actual traditional position on slavery.
Edit: btw, spicy thumbnail
Not touching that, lol
@@MilitantThomist fair enough
I mean no matter how you tackle that, historical anacronism will just make it seem like the Catholic ideal of society was the height of transatlantic slave trade
@@Onlyafool172 it wasn't?
@@Onlyafool172 What? The Church condemned the transatlantic slave trade...
This is a fantastic summary
we don't know about anyone's salvation unless revealed.
The idea that any baby could go to any form of hell is literally the stupidest thing I’ve ever heard. The earliest church fathers rejected this. This is how Augustine has poisoned the church
Great Video Wagner 🙌
Haven't listened yet, I believe in Limbo.
Listened, I still believe in Limbo. Extraordinary working of Grace by God to save them is a possibility, but we can't possibly know.
I’ll honestly believe in Limbo if it doesn’t exclude the possibility of unbaptized babies going to heaven after the 2nd judgement. Sounds fitting. What do you think?
@@thelonelysponge5029that’s erroneous (if not outright heretical). Nobody who was not made righteous at death goes to Heaven. You can’t be unrighteous at death and then made righteous in the future.
@@carsonianthegreat4672 the Old Testament prophets were made righteous after death…
But I get your point, this is something I made up and I haven’t seen a father that expresses my views, but tell me why this would be an error? Do you have any council documents or papal documents? Any infallible ones?
@@thelonelysponge5029 the Old Testament prophets were not made righteous after death. They were made righteous prior to death by means of Christ. Read Denzinger 410.
Honestly I can’t see how natural beatitude is a coherent idea, especially if it’s something like it was in Eden, and particular if we consider modern theology of the body.
why do you put this image on the video ?
Because he wants people to click on it, and the best way to do that is to appeal to emotions. He's not here affirming the Augustinian position, even though he says Catholics can hold it.
What else do you suggest for a thumbnail on limbo? The entire video is basically answering the question of whether babies are in hell...so what is more fitting then an image that portrays that?
@@MilitantThomistit feels a little insensitive bro
@@ronanjm It's a video on limbo...of course it is insensitive
How different is the view of the thomists who affirm natural beatitude and the view of Catharinus? The Catholic Encyclopedia puts as St. Thomas view that the souls in limbo enjoy a state of natural happines, while Catharinus, Savonarola and Suarez would also affirm that the unbaptized infants would receive glorified bodies and inhabit the new earth, but after the video I started to think if there would be any other important difference
The CE article on this point isn’t the greatest…Catharinus’ error was positing a natural beatitude formally speaking. St. Thomas never posited this since our natural end in a state of elevated nature is sublimated to our supernatural end and thus by losing our supernatural end, we cannot formally acquire our natural end, but only materially.
Great video
Councils of Florence and Lyons talk about it and sure seem to speak authoritatively and confidently on it, the same way other councils speak on other things that most devout Catholics would consider to be sufficient proof of it being a doctrine, yet many turn around and deny this specific one.
Fr. Ripperger explains this well in his homilies on RUclips.
The answer is as always trust God
thumbnail pic is mfw when I remember non-shaved bizlarpers exist
God Never will condenms an innocent creature, so the killed babies by abortion obviously don't go to hell
This doctrine contradicts that, so we got a problem lol
They wouldn't face eternal punishment, but will they face eternal reward?
It's not a settled question, brother. The idea is that these babies may be in some Eden, without suffering (as they did nothing wrong) but still not in Heaven. It would be part of Hell, except without punishment.
You may choose to think God is so great He may save them all anyway. That's fine, maybe even pious. But it's not a certain reply. We're better off baptizing infants basically the day they're born, and leave those questions up to God.
God would never do something unjust. Whatever He does, I shall accept it.
@@crusaderACR thats true, they dont go to heaven but also dont go to hell and purgatory
I do not see how you can say it is likely that God would give this potential extra-ordinary grace, rather than stick to the limits of saying it is possible. How can we say it is likely?
"Likely" is a form of probability...it's stating that there are many congruences present between the thesis and reality.
The ITC document go over these congruences.
@@MilitantThomistIt does follow that it is possible, yes, but likely would be typically characterised by the preponderance of evidence pointing to an option. In this case, it is merely possible
What is your opinion on the beatification of the whole Ulm family, including their unborn child? Would you say that baptism of blood works here?
Yes. I mention this in the video.
Why should we have kids? aren't we gambling with someone's eternal destiny every time we have kids because we could have a miscarriage?
"And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth."
-Genesis 1:28
I mean... God is clear in Genesis
Sounds like that’s a problem with limbo or not.
@@balkananimations6389he is questioning the morality of bringing a child into such a dangerous scenario, where you might be creating one more soul to be damned for eternity. Pointing to a passage where God says “Go forth and multiply,” merely sidesteps the question. In essence, you are saying “because God said so.” That might be good enough for you, but it certainly wouldn’t help someone struggling with the fate of souls, hell, problem of sin and evil etc. especially someone outside the Church.
@@JS-ln4ns I mean, the problem would exist regardless considering other people can still damn themselves after baptism. Even if it was the case that an unbaptized child goes to heaven the problem still exists, why are we making more humans if they're going to just damn themselves? It's just anti-natalism. Humanity is good even if it's fallen and so should continue, as existence is better than non-existence. It's not like limbo is damnation, they would experience a natural happiness.
Also, I hold to Pope Benedict XVI (Requiescat in pace) position that unbaptized infants have a genuine hope for salvation. I'm simply saying that it's not an evil that more children are born even if some may go to limbo (or are even damned for whatever sin they commit in later life).
@@JS-ln4ns Would be interested to hear others' thoughts but given that being is convertible with goodness it would seem being overly worried about this concern is pointless. Maybe it is not as emotionally satisfying but if being is infinitely greater than non-being it is better to be open to children as the Church teaches and, with proper instruction, allow children to become saints and enjoy everlasting happiness. Just because there is a possibility of one's children misusing their free will and being damned it doesn't mean we should adopt some kind of antinatalist/utilitarian approach to the gift of life. You see this error down the centuries with different gnostic heresies like the Cathars, etc.
If hope is more than just wishful thinking/desire, and our hope is in that which we have faith in, i.e. God, and if faith is that by which we derive knowledge of truth, then if this knowledge be from God, it must be the greatest knowledge. Shall we put other categories of knowledge above the knowledge from faith? And if the knowledge revealed is that of a creator that is absolute pure susbistent Love, who condescends so much as to become human and die to save the world, even those that hate Him, then how can we say that we can't know that God will save unbaptized infants, discarding them from Himself through no fault of their own??
First, this line of reasoning is rejected by every single magisterial document that discusses this issue…every single one clarifies that “prayerful hope” is less than sure and proper knowledge. So, any vestige that you’re following the teaching of these documents must be rejected.
Second, you misapprehend the fact that any extraordinary giving of grace is, 1. Extraordinary, and 2. Gratuitous. God is free to give or not give this grace. If you deny this, you are wading into territory that is disastrous to our doctrines of God and Grace. If you concede this, then you concede that this is not proper knowledge, but only grounds for prayerful hope, as the documents of the magisterium speak.
Third, this exact line of reasoning, if consistently drawn, would bring you to universalism.
@MilitantThomist you obviously know more wrt the magisterium than I, yet as far as I know, I'm not saying anything contrary to St. Aquinas nor St. Paul. As I've already said what faith is, it's clear that the intellect is its subject, since it relates to knowledge/truth. Certainty given by faith is more certain simply than scientific knowledge, and even though relatively scientific knowledge can be more certain, Aquinas clearly places the certainty of faith as greater. Now certainty essentially pertains to the intellect for obvious reasons, but it can pertain accidentally to those things that gain it through participation in the intellect, and this is the case with the will as it is moved by the intellect, so hope tends to its end with certainty as infallibly moved by the intellect with the certainty of faith.
I don’t at all deny that God is free to give it, it's still grace after all, but as far I see I need not concede anything.
"If consistently drawn it will bring you to universalism"
Oh no! Excuse my flippancy, but you say that like it's a bad thing.
@@TheBrunarr I mean universalism is condemned. Hopeful universalism sure... but universalism itself is heresy
@@TheBrunarruniversalism is condemned.
@@carsonianthegreat4672 no it isn't
i think we can be sure because the way Jesus handled childrens in the gospel + the innocents
The ITC document denies this line of reasoning and states that the former only grants a prayful hope, not sure knowledge.
As to the latter, they have baptism of blood.
Why don’t you actually watch the video before commenting?
@@MilitantThomist because i gave my opinion before the finish line of the video , then
i will move my views
@@MilitantThomistso all of this seems to be under the divine darkness (hidden from us ) , no true knowledge therefore , but i don't see why God would make the children who come to him go to Hell
@@planteruines5619 Because the poena damni refers to a loss of something that is not owed to nature (the beatific vision)
@@MilitantThomistsorry i added a negative where it shouldn't have been , but i have another question , since we know that life begins at conception and that the soul is given at this moment , does the child have an effective will (the most basic form , the will to live , to exist ) and so can be judged upon that ?
What would happen if a baby were "baptized," but it was invalid due to lets say the use of "we" rather than "I," and nobody realized this error?
you answered your own question
So you are saying they would be damned @@sleepystar1638
A false sacrament has no effect other than being a sin if it was known to the confector
@@LibraryofStMichaelGod can work outaide of the Sacraments though.
@@asdfasdf3989”Can” ≠ will, in all likelihood, as far as we know, that’s a false sacrament and the person isn’t baptised.
You know what follows
How does this interact with the notion that God gives everyone sufficient grace to be saved in the case of unbaptized infants with original sin? Normally for unbaptized adults, they would have sufficient graces to investigate and convert to the faith, but what do unbaptized infants recieve in this regard? Do they just get the power to investigate/convert but cannot ever exercise it, or is it something else?
This would only be an issue for those with quite a particular notion of sufficient grace…some of them (like Vazquez) state that infants are excluded from the universality of sufficient grace.
Either way, an efficacious grace at the end of life would be something different than sufficient grace, so this still wouldn’t get us to a denial of limbo.
@@MilitantThomist I should be a bit more precise with my question. What would a merely sufficient grace for an unbaptized infant who ends up in limbo amount to? Would it be a certain power tending towards efficacious grace, but lacking the grace of baptism, and never gets to be expressed as conversion, due to a lack of opportunity before death? Or are there other options here and/or it's something else?
It does seem odd to say that infants have grace sufficient to believe, but can't express it ever due to a lack of age/baptism, so in a more colloquial sense it's not sufficient. Not impossible, but I want to make sure I'm not misunderstanding anything here
@@MilitantThomist What, if any, does the parents’ faith contribute to this? Consider the response to the jailer “believe and be baptized and you will be saved - you and your household.” Or 1 (2?) cor 7:14 where the children are sanctified by their parents?
Why does this not have bearing on this conversation? They seem relevant to me.
It's pretty obvious to me that the Leftists in the Church have treated saint Augustine's teaching on infant baptism as heretical to accommodate abortion 'rights': if the unborn who are killed in the womb go straight to Heaven, why should we oppose abortion at all?
THANK YOU for reminding everyone that we can't be sure of anything and that the PRUDENT position on this matter is to assume that God will exercise His justice - not His mercy.
Prudence consists in hoping for the best but preparing for the worst!
This is an awful take. Why should we oppose abortion? Because it’s literally murder. Why should we oppose killing newly baptized babies or adults? Either way, baptism for babies is essential, and we can’t be 100% sure for the fate of unbaptized babies.
Ayo that thumbnail is insane LOL
Brutal thumbnail, lol
why did you wrote IIII instead of IV?!
IV is modernist
@@MilitantThomist may you elaborate on that please?
@@joseluis-kd8xh Romans used primarly IIII, not IV, because it made it easier to calculate. ruclips.net/video/Q5_2o8MITH4/видео.htmlsi=8UnFJx_HcRtkaoEZ&t=78
@@joseluis-kd8xhNo.
@@joseluis-kd8xhusing IV to mean 4 was an invention of modern clockmakers to make the clock’s face appear more aesthetically balanced. The traditional Roman Numeral for 4 is IIII.
This applies to aborted babies and miscarriages right?
Correct.
The Church teaches us at Trent that God gives everybody sufficient grace to be saved. Did those children who die aborted or before being baptized receive sufficient grace to be saved ?? How do you reconcile that
Sufficient grace is a potential in all people, it does not save, what saves is efficacious grace.
yep. this clearly contradicts that. Just what id expect from a man made religion. glad I left when I did.
Wagner, by what intent did you have making the thumbnail alongside with the headline? Was it because of trying to get more views and to grow the channel by provoking? I would guess it wasn't for care of souls. If you do not hold on to the Augustinian view, the children in limbo are not having the pain of sense, then why would you add fires around a picture of red crying baby, who seems to be in pain? I presume even Augustine wouldn't make that thumbnail, if he would live bodily in our times, since the pain of sense he held, was minimal. I think evangelizing and care for souls goes before growing the channel. What do you think which is more important, Wagner?
What’s with the strange A-logging? Last time you commented it was about copyrighting music, now it’s about thumbnail choice.
As I’ve said to other people, what else would you suggest as a thumbnail? It’s a video about limbo…baby + punishment seems to be about the entirety of the doctrine visually presented.
Before I posted it, I asked my Discord to see if people would be fine with it and nobody had an issue…why would you suggest alterior motives?!?
@@MilitantThomist I don't hate you. Just because somebody's relative, friend, neighbor or a RUclips fan
criticizes another person's behavior, it doesn't mean, that person is A-logging. But if a person's behavior could bring destruction to others, then that person's behavior should be criticized for the sake of others.
What am I saying? I'm saying, that by little things like thumbnail in certain bigger context can have a big consequence. If a non-Catholic (who isn't also a calvinist or a lutheran) sees this thumbnail in a context of Catholic faith, original sin and eternal destination of a baby, that person might choose not to enter Catholic Church, and therefore salvation (although I believe God can make certain people Catholics outside visible boundaries, and material heresy isn't damning), because of an emotional reaction (which is psychologically speaking the most usual reason to reject something). A lot of them might not even listen to the whole video before making the conclusion, that Catholics are just crazy or the God they believe, is crazy.
You are in important position for many people visiting RUclips. That comes with a lot of responsibility. I don't know about your Discord channel, but many people are following the people they admire without criticism. Besides, what does it matter, if people in Discord said that? People in the comment section here already said the thumbnail was disturbing etc.
But I bet you get more likes for your comment to me than I to you, since you are the owner of this channel.
What is your issue? This is full on concern trolling.
@@LibraryofStMichael I honestly was not trolling. God sees me, if I would be lying, and I am not lying. I was worried for souls. That's it. Nothing else.
@@jmmvirtachill out
8:18 But what about baptism of desire? Thesis III seems to ignote it
Keep listening
@@drjanitor3747 Feeneyist detected 🤢🤢🤢
No one is sent to hell, they choose it. The deceased is given a choice at death. Even if the infant's material brain isn't developed enough to make that choice, their immaterial soul has God-given intellect and will.
No...the will is immutable after death. This is a grave error.
@@MilitantThomistWhat about Lazarus?
.
@@captainch6182Lazarus’ will wasn’t mutable while dead.
Why is there a reprobaby thumbnail
After 20ish years of devout Catholicism and deep personal interest in the intellectual side of it, I finally discovered that this was in fact a doctrine despite so many trusted Catholic leaders in my life lying to me. I already identified with the obvious injustice of heritable original sin since I was young, but I foolishly just submitted my intellect to the church and figured there was somehow a way that it was just and made sense.
Once I found out this was a doctrine and that its plausible that babies through no fault of their own can literally fall through the cracks of eternity on god's watch, it absolutely blew my faith out of the water. I could not be intellectually honest and remain believing that god was a perfect just god and also continue believing that Catholicism was true.
It broke my heart, but that was 8 years ago. The world around me has only made more sense since I abandoned that clearly uninspired barbaric religion.
It was a fun ride...
Could've used a more appropriate thumbnail for a topic as sensitive as this
The thumbnail is fine. The alleged god actually thinking its cool to basically send innocent babies to hell circumstantially is whats actually inappropriate, but no one seems to have issue with that
What about the fate of infants who die in the womb? It is literally impossible for them to receive the Sacrament of Baptism. Is it probable that God would give them a special dispensation since, unlike in the case of a born infant that does, literally nothing could have been done to save them?
A significant portion of this video is dedicated to that topic
I don't think you really address how the two things are morally distinct. In the one case, the parents of a born infant could have had their child baptized but chose not to for whatever reason. It is a grim situation, but we ultimately have the parents to hold culpable for the child's damnation. Whereas in the case of a miscarriage, the child perish even without the parents' knowledge (such as very early in pregnancy), and as such there is nothing anyone could have possibly done to give that child a chance at beatitude. Are we to believe that God would punish this infant for lacking Baptism when there was never a possibility of such? How can that be squared with God's justice? It is analogous to God asking that a man jump 20 feet in the air or be damned. Perhaps the reason there isn't a clear distinction drawn is because the earlier theological writers and fathers did not have the embryological evidence we have today.
@@colbytheresa45041. The pain of loss is simply a result of having original sin. The children aren’t punished for rejecting grace, but are punished in Adam.
2. The theologians frequently mention the case of abortion (Sylvius, for example), so they knew.
@@MilitantThomist Given how common miscarriages are, doesn't it follow that from the "limboist" theses a large minority of the children of devout Christians are separated from God? How does this further Gods justice?
@@MilitantThomist Fundamentally, I don't disagree with the video at all. It just seems like if you have access to an interpretation of unbaptized infants that cuts out Limbo it should be preferred. It is far more in keeping with God's nature than especially the Augustinian interpretation. Just as most no longer hold to the stricter interpretations of extra ecclesia but you can if you want to.
Simple answer: reject the nonsensical doctrine of Original Sin inflicting punishment upon us with purgatory and Limbo, and return to Holy Orthodoxy.
Being a Pelagian is not the flex you think it is…
@@MilitantThomist I'm not a Pelagian. Saint John Cassian teaches our view on synergy, he isn't Pelagian, and neither is a rejection of Original Sin.
@@redrifter9586 lol this is why we need an Authority, you cant believe everything you hear
@@redrifter9586The real red pill is that orthodox always agreed with us on original sin until pelagianism of Romanides prevailed.
Purgatory? Purgatory has nothing to do with this