To anyone commenting about the Thumbnail…there’s not really much else that can visually present limbo than baby + punishment. That’s basically the entire doctrine. I actually polled my Discord just to double check and everyone basically said it was shocking, but fine to use. If you don’t like the topic of limbo or like thinking about this issue, just don’t watch the video, no need to be weird and accuse me of baiting.

@sandmaneyes

Ай бұрын

Thanks for changing it. Accurate =/= germane

Bro that thumbnail is crazy LOL

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

@MilitantThomist

Ай бұрын

Not touching that, lol

@johanr4076

Ай бұрын

@@MilitantThomist fair enough

@AbsolutelyRatastic

Ай бұрын

​@@MilitantThomistweak!

@Onlyafool172

Ай бұрын

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

@Big_Steve11

Ай бұрын

@@Onlyafool172 it wasn't?

"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

@captainch6182

Ай бұрын

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 Marriage is a sacramental sign of the heavenly communion that it will be superseded by.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.

@au8363

Ай бұрын

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.

@carsonianthegreat4672

26 күн бұрын

Natural goods ≠ beatific vision. You know this.

@Peppers_mintus

9 күн бұрын

Utterly redundant, what does this solve?

Modern man thinks that he has rights concerning God. Man doesn't know that with God ,all is GIFT!

@Notbraydendantin

Ай бұрын

You sound like a Calvinist lol

@dianneraimondi8382

Ай бұрын

@@Notbraydendantin No ,I sound catholic.

@Notbraydendantin

Ай бұрын

@@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

@luizeventos6414

Ай бұрын

@@Notbraydendantin Study more Catholic Theology bro

@Notbraydendantin

Ай бұрын

@@luizeventos6414 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.

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!

we don't know about anyone's salvation unless revealed.

Great Video Wagner 🙌

How then ought we to object to the claim that God "creates people just for them to be damned"?

Great video

why do you put this image on the video ?

@shlamallama6433

Ай бұрын

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.

@MilitantThomist

Ай бұрын

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?

@ronanjm

Ай бұрын

@@MilitantThomistit feels a little insensitive bro

@MilitantThomist

Ай бұрын

@@ronanjm It's a video on limbo...of course it is insensitive

The answer is as always trust God

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.

Haven't listened yet, I believe in Limbo.

@starlightatdusk4896

Ай бұрын

Listened, I still believe in Limbo. Extraordinary working of Grace by God to save them is a possibility, but we can't possibly know.

@thelonelysponge5029

Ай бұрын

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?

@carsonianthegreat4672

26 күн бұрын

@@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.

@thelonelysponge5029

26 күн бұрын

@@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?

@carsonianthegreat4672

26 күн бұрын

@@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.

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

@MilitantThomist

Ай бұрын

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.

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?

@sleepystar1638

Ай бұрын

you answered your own question

@FrenchToast1

Ай бұрын

So you are saying they would be damned ​@@sleepystar1638

@LibraryofStMichael

Ай бұрын

A false sacrament has no effect other than being a sin if it was known to the confector

@asdfasdf3989

Ай бұрын

​@@LibraryofStMichaelGod can work outaide of the Sacraments though.

@LibraryofStMichael

Ай бұрын

@@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

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??

@MilitantThomist

Ай бұрын

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.

@TheBrunarr

Ай бұрын

​@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.

@balkananimations6389

Ай бұрын

@@TheBrunarr I mean universalism is condemned. Hopeful universalism sure... but universalism itself is heresy

@carsonianthegreat4672

26 күн бұрын

@@TheBrunarruniversalism is condemned.

@TheBrunarr

25 күн бұрын

@@carsonianthegreat4672 no it isn't

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?

@MilitantThomist

Ай бұрын

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.

@popemon7608

Ай бұрын

@@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

@vinciblegaming6817

Ай бұрын

@@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.

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?

@MilitantThomist

Ай бұрын

"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.

@LibraryofStMichael

Ай бұрын

@@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?

@MilitantThomist

Ай бұрын

Yes. I mention this in the video.

thumbnail pic is mfw when I remember non-shaved bizlarpers exist

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!

@thelonelysponge5029

Ай бұрын

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.

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?

@balkananimations6389

Ай бұрын

"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

@MilitantThomist

Ай бұрын

Sounds like that’s a problem with limbo or not.

@JS-ln4ns

Ай бұрын

@@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.

@Augustus-Bon60

Ай бұрын

​​@@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).

@CatholicLawyer77

Ай бұрын

@@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.

why did you wrote IIII instead of IV?!

@MilitantThomist

Ай бұрын

IV is modernist

@joseluis-kd8xh

Ай бұрын

@@MilitantThomist may you elaborate on that please?

@AquiHaGato

Ай бұрын

@@joseluis-kd8xh Romans used primarly IIII, not IV, because it made it easier to calculate. kzread.info/dash/bejne/g2mTlNFxfay6eJc.htmlsi=8UnFJx_HcRtkaoEZ&t=78

@Testimony_Of_JTF

Ай бұрын

​@@joseluis-kd8xhNo.

@carsonianthegreat4672

26 күн бұрын

@@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

@Ryotenian7826

Ай бұрын

Sufficient grace is a potential in all people, it does not save, what saves is efficacious grace.

i think we can be sure because the way Jesus handled childrens in the gospel + the innocents

@MilitantThomist

Ай бұрын

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?

@planteruines5619

Ай бұрын

@@MilitantThomist because i gave my opinion before the finish line of the video , then i will move my views

@planteruines5619

Ай бұрын

​​@@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

@MilitantThomist

Ай бұрын

@@planteruines5619 Because the poena damni refers to a loss of something that is not owed to nature (the beatific vision)

@planteruines5619

Ай бұрын

​@@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 ?

This applies to aborted babies and miscarriages right?

@MilitantThomist

Ай бұрын

Correct.

Ayo that thumbnail is insane LOL

Brutal thumbnail, lol

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?

@MilitantThomist

Ай бұрын

A significant portion of this video is dedicated to that topic

@colbytheresa4504

Ай бұрын

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.

@MilitantThomist

Ай бұрын

@@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.

@colbytheresa4504

Ай бұрын

@@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?

@colbytheresa4504

Ай бұрын

@@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.

8:18 But what about baptism of desire? Thesis III seems to ignote it

@MilitantThomist

Ай бұрын

Keep listening

@igorlopes7589

Ай бұрын

@@drjanitor3747 Feeneyist detected 🤢🤢🤢

Could've used a more appropriate thumbnail for a topic as sensitive as this

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?

@MilitantThomist

Ай бұрын

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?!?

@jmmvirta

Ай бұрын

​@@MilitantThomist I don't hate you. Just because somebody's relative, friend, neighbor or a KZread 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 KZread. 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

Ай бұрын

What is your issue? This is full on concern trolling.

@jmmvirta

Ай бұрын

@@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.

@carsonianthegreat4672

26 күн бұрын

@@jmmvirtachill out

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.

@MilitantThomist

Ай бұрын

No...the will is immutable after death. This is a grave error.

@captainch6182

Ай бұрын

@@MilitantThomistWhat about Lazarus?

@dynaspinner64

Ай бұрын

.

@carsonianthegreat4672

26 күн бұрын

@@captainch6182Lazarus’ will wasn’t mutable while dead.

Why is there a reprobaby thumbnail

Simple answer: reject the nonsensical doctrine of Original Sin inflicting punishment upon us with purgatory and Limbo, and return to Holy Orthodoxy.

@MilitantThomist

Ай бұрын

Being a Pelagian is not the flex you think it is…

@redrifter9586

Ай бұрын

@@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.

@sleepystar1638

Ай бұрын

@@redrifter9586 lol this is why we need an Authority, you cant believe everything you hear

@catholiccrusader123

Ай бұрын

​@@redrifter9586The real red pill is that orthodox always agreed with us on original sin until pelagianism of Romanides prevailed.

@TheBrunarr

Ай бұрын

Purgatory? Purgatory has nothing to do with this