"Those who can more rightly be called torturers of infants (tortores infantium) are those who...cause fetuses to be extinguished in the womb, or who neglect to baptize them before they die through carelessness."
-Francis Sylvius, Commentary on I-II, q. 86
-Francis Sylvius, Commentary on I-II, q. 86
There is a big reason why specifically the topic of sense pleasure (particularly, in marriage) was brought up as the central moral application of the Pelagian crisis.
Original Sin effects the way in which we interact with sensible goods and continues after baptism. It is our task to put off the old man, not simply by destroying what we think of as "vices," but ALSO to go to the very root and destroy concupiscence.
^THIS is the central consideration that drove ascetical theology in the Church throughout her entire history.
If your pastoral, moral, and liturgical theologies does not reflect this fact, you are nothing more than a closet Pelagian.
Original Sin effects the way in which we interact with sensible goods and continues after baptism. It is our task to put off the old man, not simply by destroying what we think of as "vices," but ALSO to go to the very root and destroy concupiscence.
^THIS is the central consideration that drove ascetical theology in the Church throughout her entire history.
If your pastoral, moral, and liturgical theologies does not reflect this fact, you are nothing more than a closet Pelagian.
While I think the document is substantially correct, the ITC document on Limbo was utterly ruined by using the language of the “theory of limbo.”
The document affirms that the only ordinary means of infants having grace is by baptism.
The document affirms that any giving of grace will be extraordinary.
The document affirms that, in accordance with the ordinary laws, infants will be damned.
The document denies any of the other solutions to shoehorning an ordinary means.
Thus, the document denies ANY certain knowledge that these infants are not damned.
To, from these principles, use the term “theory” is weird…it would be like me saying that I merely have a “theory” that those who are dead will stay dead. To posit the ordinary law is not a “theory”…but, positing extraordinary working IS a theory.
The document affirms that the only ordinary means of infants having grace is by baptism.
The document affirms that any giving of grace will be extraordinary.
The document affirms that, in accordance with the ordinary laws, infants will be damned.
The document denies any of the other solutions to shoehorning an ordinary means.
Thus, the document denies ANY certain knowledge that these infants are not damned.
To, from these principles, use the term “theory” is weird…it would be like me saying that I merely have a “theory” that those who are dead will stay dead. To posit the ordinary law is not a “theory”…but, positing extraordinary working IS a theory.
St. Augustine's dialogue with reason on why he doesn't want to get married is amazing 💀:
"Reason: And how about a wife? Would not one beautiful, modest, docile and cultivated, or at least, one who could be easily taught by yourself, bringing, also, — since you despise opulence, — a marriage portion sufficient to prevent her being a tax upon your leisure, especially if you might confidently hope that no annoyance could come to you because of her, would not such a wife greatly delight you?
St. Augustine: No matter how you portray her or load her with desirable things, I have decided that nothing is so much to be shunned as sexual relations, for I feel that nothing so much casts down the mind of man from its citadel as do the blandishments of women, and that physical contact without which a wife cannot be possessed. Therefore if it pertain to the office of a wise man (and I am not yet sure that it does) to give himself the care of a family, whoever sustains the marriage relation for the sake of this alone is, I may indeed concede, to be admired, but not, therefore, to be imitated; for the attempt has in it more of peril than the event can have of satisfaction. Enough, however, that for the sake of my freedom of mind, I have, and as I believe, rightly and usefully, decided neither to desire, nor seek, nor take a wife.
Reason: I do not now ask what you have resolved upon, but whether at the present time you have actually overcome sexual desire itself, or whether you still struggle against it? For this concerns the soundness of your eyes.
St. Augustine: I now neither seek nor desire anything whatever of this sort. It is with horror and loathing that I even remember it. What more can you ask? And this good increases in me every day. For, as much as the hope of seeing that Superior Beauty, for which I am so consumed by vehement desire, increases, so much does all desire and delight converge to that direction." (Soliloquies)
"Reason: And how about a wife? Would not one beautiful, modest, docile and cultivated, or at least, one who could be easily taught by yourself, bringing, also, — since you despise opulence, — a marriage portion sufficient to prevent her being a tax upon your leisure, especially if you might confidently hope that no annoyance could come to you because of her, would not such a wife greatly delight you?
St. Augustine: No matter how you portray her or load her with desirable things, I have decided that nothing is so much to be shunned as sexual relations, for I feel that nothing so much casts down the mind of man from its citadel as do the blandishments of women, and that physical contact without which a wife cannot be possessed. Therefore if it pertain to the office of a wise man (and I am not yet sure that it does) to give himself the care of a family, whoever sustains the marriage relation for the sake of this alone is, I may indeed concede, to be admired, but not, therefore, to be imitated; for the attempt has in it more of peril than the event can have of satisfaction. Enough, however, that for the sake of my freedom of mind, I have, and as I believe, rightly and usefully, decided neither to desire, nor seek, nor take a wife.
Reason: I do not now ask what you have resolved upon, but whether at the present time you have actually overcome sexual desire itself, or whether you still struggle against it? For this concerns the soundness of your eyes.
St. Augustine: I now neither seek nor desire anything whatever of this sort. It is with horror and loathing that I even remember it. What more can you ask? And this good increases in me every day. For, as much as the hope of seeing that Superior Beauty, for which I am so consumed by vehement desire, increases, so much does all desire and delight converge to that direction." (Soliloquies)
There are MAYBE a few dozen actual, traditional Molinists alive today who affirm the key distinctives of Molina’s system.
I’ll use Trent Horn as an example of how this is the case…most would refer to him as a “Molinist” and he might even accept the title for himself.
Yet, he has publicly stated that he affirms a negative antecedent Reprobation, something incompatible with Molina’s system. This also means that he denies the objective identity of sufficient and efficacious grace (another denial).
Therefore, he probably affirms some sort of congruist position on both of these issues, which would consistently lead him to deny the third tenet of Molinism, I.e., election to glory after the consideration of merit.
Lastly, he does also state that he affirms Middle Knowledge…yet, he seems to mean by this that he simply affirms the existence of futuribles. Well, that’s certainly not unique to Molinism. If he pressed him on the question of the relationship of the will to the knowledge of these things, he would probably deny the doctrine, removing the last distinctive.
This is someone who basically everyone would colloquially call a “Molinist,” yet he holds to none of the distinctives of Molinism as a school position (this isn’t a dig at Trent at all, moreso a critique of our classifications).
Today, orthodox Molinism is basically dead…there are very few who affirm it and it has been replaced by the various middling schools of the 20th century along with the already robust current of Suarezians/Bellarmites.
So, it is actually not at all controversial for me to say that Thomism is much, much more popular than Molinism as a position.
I’ll use Trent Horn as an example of how this is the case…most would refer to him as a “Molinist” and he might even accept the title for himself.
Yet, he has publicly stated that he affirms a negative antecedent Reprobation, something incompatible with Molina’s system. This also means that he denies the objective identity of sufficient and efficacious grace (another denial).
Therefore, he probably affirms some sort of congruist position on both of these issues, which would consistently lead him to deny the third tenet of Molinism, I.e., election to glory after the consideration of merit.
Lastly, he does also state that he affirms Middle Knowledge…yet, he seems to mean by this that he simply affirms the existence of futuribles. Well, that’s certainly not unique to Molinism. If he pressed him on the question of the relationship of the will to the knowledge of these things, he would probably deny the doctrine, removing the last distinctive.
This is someone who basically everyone would colloquially call a “Molinist,” yet he holds to none of the distinctives of Molinism as a school position (this isn’t a dig at Trent at all, moreso a critique of our classifications).
Today, orthodox Molinism is basically dead…there are very few who affirm it and it has been replaced by the various middling schools of the 20th century along with the already robust current of Suarezians/Bellarmites.
So, it is actually not at all controversial for me to say that Thomism is much, much more popular than Molinism as a position.