Scholastic Answers

As to the third point…why does the church urgently call us to baptize our children? Because we do not know whether God will give them grace outside the sacraments, or they will descend to limbo. This is hardly anti-traditional or a denial of the reality of limbo.

On Limbo and the ITC Document "The Hope of Salvation for Infants Who Died Without Being Baptized:"

I think from a close reading of the conclusion of the ITC document that it actually turns out to be a much more conservative document than most frame it as being and more frequently condemns those who wish to use it to assert their opinion on the existence of Limbo.

While, throughout the document, it mentions its intention to relegate "limbo" to theological opinion, interestingly enough, this is now what it does throughout the document. Perhaps there was a lack of clarity, maybe the phrase was used colloquially, but, if we seek to understand what the document is actually saying (rather than looking for phrases), we see that the thesis it is actually putting forward is somewhat of a development within the doctrine of limbo than any departure.

I will phrase the thesis thus, "from the ordinary status of an unbaptized infant, we ought to rightly conclude that they will not enter the beatific vision, yet, we may hope that God will grant them grace in an extraordinary way."

Think of it will the "dare we hope?" thesis, yet, applied to infants. Those who affirm "dare we hope?" (which I do not) do not deny hell, neither do they assert that they can have certainty that it will be empty, but they "hope" that it will be.

Likewise, the ITC document (despite what the language may seem like at times) is not denying limbo, neither is it asserting that they can have certainty that limbo is empty, but they "hope" that those who otherwise would head there (unbaptized infants) will not head there, and they give reasons for why this would be fitting (they do not give reasons for why it "WILL" happen, but reasons for why it would be fitting if it did).

This interpretation is most in line with the text of the document and the CCC.

The conclusion reads "Our conclusion is that the many factors that we have considered above give serious theological and liturgical grounds for hope that unbaptised infants who die will be saved and enjoy the Beatific Vision. We emphasize that these are reasons for prayerful hope, rather than grounds for sure knowledge. There is much that simply has not been revealed to us."

First, notice that the grounds are a "grounds of hope." They seem to be articulating a new dimension to the teaching on limbo, i.e., we have good reason to hope that none go there, rather than overturning the teaching.

In an earlier place they describe their goal: "in order to account for the hope that infants dying without Baptism could enjoy eternal life in the beatific vision." (41)

It is important to note that to "hope for the salvation of unbaptized infants" is not at all in formal contradiction to the traditional teaching on limbo. In fact, to hope for such seems like an obvious disposition to have.

Second, notice that it rejects the view of many anti-limbo proponents, i.e., that we have "grounds for sure knowledge."

In another place: "It must be clearly acknowledged that the Church does not have sure knowledge about the salvation of unbaptised infants who die." (79)

It is also interesting to see how the document interprets previous magisterial teaching on limbo, always deferring to the idea that it does not necessitate that unbaptized infants will be there, but only that they WOULD be there if they died in original sin (c.f., 37).

This interpretation is in line with what the CCC says on this issue, holding:

The Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude (1257)
God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments (ibid.)
“As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God….the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved…allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism. All the more urgent is the Church’s call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy Baptism.” (1261)

St. Augustine needs to stop reading Vatican II:

"The Jews on the other hand DO INDEED make their supplication to the ONE GOD ALMIGHTY; but still they are only looking for the visible good things of time from him, and they have been so sure of themselves that they have refused to take any notice of the first hints in their very own scriptures of the new people rising up from humble beginnings." (De Vera Religione, 9)

Fr. Domingo Bañez, teacher of St. John of the Cross, spiritual director of St. Teresa of Avila, son of St. Dominic, student of St. Thomas, defender of the grace of God: “I say before God who judges me, that reading this in St. Augustine and citing him, it gives me great wonder that men who teach prayer and the spirit come to feel so feebly the movement of the grace of God. . . . Because even I, being a sinner as God knows and a man of little spirit and less prayer, but knowing that I am the work of his mercy and that each day he suffers me my ingratitude, reading these words of St. Augustine, have held back tears and, knowing my faults, have invoked the mercy of God that it may efficaciously carry me to him. May God give light to all so that with humility we may attribute to God what is his own, and to ourselves what is our own, that is, sin, in which God has no part, although being able to impede the sin he permits it on account of his secret judgments”

St. Thomas' Glorious Theocentrism:

All due honor to St. Dionysius, the famous convert of Athens and disciple of St. Paul, but St. Thomas purifies and sets in order the teaching of St. Dionysius on the Divine names.

I am not saying that St. Dionysius was wrong (far be it from me!), but, his usage of terms betrays that he did not set theological science in relation to its formal object, i.e., God under the intimate aspect of His Deity. Rather, in synthesizing, unfortunately, he ordered his doctrine in respect to the creature, rather than, as St. Thomas, ordering all things in relation to God (n.b., as I said before, this is linguistic and methodological...far be it from me to accuse him of error!)

One walks away from St. Dionysius with a sense of the poverty of creatures in relation of God.

One would think that this is a virtue in a theologian, right? No. This does not proceed after the order of things, but merely considers things from the perspective of the creature.

Rather, when one reads St. Thomas' treatment (c.f., *Prima pars,* Q. 4, A. 3),* he comes away with a profound sense of the greatness of God in relation to creatures.

St. Thomas, rather than saying that God is "above goodness," would say that creatures are "below goodness." Of course, "goodness" means two things in each of those predications (the first "goodness" as the goodness known from creatures, the second "goodness" as present in God), thus not bringing about any formal contradiction, YET one comes away from these statements with a radically different "sense."

The reader encounters a true theocentrism in the thought of St. Thomas...we judge all things in reference to God. This leads him to judge that "[perfections] belong properly to God, and more properly than they belong to creatures, and are applied primarily to Him." (ST.I.Q13.A3.C)

Yet, for those who prefer to keep the Dionysian manner of speech, creatures are the primary reference.

This is why St. Thomas is the best.

Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange on Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus:

One of the sharpest debates that arises is over the Catholic Dogma that "Outside the Apostolic Roman Church, nobody can be saved."

Many claim that the post-conciliar church has denied this truth by speaking of the possibility of salvation for those united visibly to the Church.

Yet, when we look at pre-conciliar theologians, we see that the teaching of the post-conciliar church is merely a restatement of the church's perpetual teaching.

If you would like to view a video presentation of this topic, go here: https://loom.ly/CjDrv0k

One such example is the Dominican Theologian, Fr. Réginald Marie Garrigou-Lagrange who treats the question in *De Revelatione,* Volume 2, Chapter 15, Article 3, Second Corollary: "No Salvation Outside the Church."

First, it must be admitted that "all are bound to receive divine revelation when it has been sufficiently proposed to them, all have a grave obligation (i.e., under pain of mortal sin) to enter the Catholic Church."

Yet, what happens when revelation has not been "sufficiently proposed?" Either when there is some subjective impediment to the right reception of what is proposed, or objective impediment that cuts off proposition of revelation alltogether?

Fr. Lagrange answers this question by making a distinction between the "body" of the church, i.e., those baptized, professing the true faith, under the Roman Pontiff, in communion with the faithful, and the "soul" of the church, i.e., internally having faith formed by love.

Then, we make a distinction between those who are "culpable" and "inculpable," i.e., those who are held subjectively guilty for objectively evil acts and those who are not.

Concerning the body of the church, there are those who are culpable in refusing to be joined to the church, i.e., those who "faced with serious doubt concerning the matter, does not seek after the truth." (or, those who know that the church is a Divine institution and does not join).

ON THE OTHER HAND, there are those who are inculpable in not joining the body of the church. This is caused by a lack of sufficient proposition of the faith to them (either subjectively or objectively impeded, as laid out above).

YET, these too will be damned on account of their other sins UNLESS they have "faith and charity, or perfect contrition." In this, they will belong to the SOUL of the Church.

Yet, this membership in the soul of the church does not lack all relation to the body. For, in the case of adults, they must, at least, implicitly desire membership in the Church. (In the case of infants, they must be actually joined to the church by baptism to be saved...as is the universal teaching of the fathers and doctors of the church, along with the magisterium of the church)

Thus, Fr. Lagrange concludes: "Therefore, it is necessary, with a necessity of means for salvation, (1) to really belong to the soul of the Church, and (2) to belong to the body of the Church—for adults in reality or in voto (that is, through an implicit desire) and for children in reality."

Fifth, the error of intellectual disproportionality. This is an effect of intellectual laziness. These young Catholics would not be able to explain the basics of the articles of the faith from the Apostles Creed, but they can tell you about the most obscure minutia concerning certain pet topics. Others believe (practically) that certain liturgical truths are as profound as the fact that “the Word became flesh.”

Yet, these errors are all connected. Due to the lack of faith in the proximate rule of faith (the magisterium of the church), the young Catholic believes it is their duty to seek intrinsic evidence for the claims of the faith in order to base their assent on. This leads them to seek out easy sources of information in order to patch the great epistemological anxiety they have about the verity of the faith. This finally leads to catholics who are poorly formed in their intellectual life, only knowing how to debate about the certain narrow topics on the internet in order to make up for their lack of the virtue of faith. This eventually leads to a religious breakdown and apostasy, whether to Orthodoxy, Protestantism, or, in the worst cases, nothing.

The solution? A true notion of Fundamental Theology. I wish there was something out there that presented this in easily accessible form, but there isn’t.

On the Errors of Young Internet Catholics (Pt. 1, On Faith):

I have frequently spoken against individual errors I have encountered in being around internet Gen Z Catholics, whether trad, moderate, or liberal (this also applies for Protestant and "Orthodox"). In this thread, I would like to summarize these critiques and order them for ease of reflection.

In order to better order these errors, I will list them as they contradict the theological virtues, first, faith (lex credendi), second, hope (lex orandi), third, love (lex vivendi). I will split this into separate threads so as not to burden the reader (hope and love will come at a later date).

First, errors against faith. These errors are, sadly, too many to count, but, we can draw a general sketch of principle errors.

First, the error of probabilistic belief. In the first error, the young Catholic, rather than basing the assent of faith upon the firm foundation of God revealing, bases his belief on the weak foundation of his own reasonings.

The young Catholic believes that it is his duty to inquire into the evidence behind each proposition proposed by the church for our belief (n.b., while this is the case with the motives of credibility before the assent of faith, it is not true for Catholics who have assented to the faith) and ONLY assent to said proposition after becoming adequately convinced of the proposition's foundation in the sources.

Rather, the magisterium of the church has a divine mission to propose objects for our belief and that which she presents for our belief ought to be assented to BEFORE any inquiry into its foundation in the theological sources (loci).

Second, the error of rationalism. In this, we have something that very much mirrors the first error. Yet, it is even worse. In this, the young Catholic wishes to base the assent of faith on the same foundation as he would any other belief that he has. He wishes to seek some sort of intrinsic evidence that makes the claim true, e.g., he assents to the mystery of the Trinity because he views it as more logically sound than a pure monad.

Third, the error of crypto-indifferentism. This error has the greatest ruin of souls as any on this list. In this error, while certainly proclaiming the truth of the Catholic faith, the young Catholic, out of pride or ignorance, treats the Catholic faith as “one among many” in his religious studies. The young Catholic will frequently watch material that is heretical (e.g., Protestant videos attempting to debunk Catholic dogmas…I saw this with Dr. Ortlund’s recent video) in order to “get both sides.”

This is foolish pride. St. Bellarmine trembled to read Calvin and Luther, yet, you, a young person with no theological training, believe that it is prudent for you to watch hours of material striking at the foundation of our faith? Many of you have never read through the Catechism, yet you believe that you are ready to debate heretics? Our fathers would be in anguish over the stupidity of such a thought if they did not have perfect beatitude already. The demons rejoice at such a thought.

Fourth, the error of intellectual laziness. In this, the young catholic sins against his duty to study the articles of the faith. Rather than engaging in basic catechetical reading, basic theological/philosophical study, spiritual reading, etc., the young Catholic believes he is fulfilling his duty through the outlet of YouTube videos and Discord/Twitter fights.

While video can be a good tool, answering occasional questions, covering certain topics you wish to begin to study, providing sermons (audio exhorts better than reading), lectures, etc., it is not a normative means of study. The catechism of the church and the writings of the saints/doctors of the church are the normative means that the church uses to communicate truth to us.

Many young catholics live in the world of apologetics. This leads us to our next error.

On the Errors of Young Internet Catholics (Pt. 1, On Faith): https://twitter.com/MilitantThomist/status/1613583231877615643?s=20&t=a_ToaMDQa6LXi9NMBDW-7g

Easy works of St. Thomas: https://twitter.com/MilitantThomist/status/1613218496636194819?s=20&t=MKQe3kY1LkK8dJymtUqyWg