CathInfo.com

It would seem that one of the favorite modern heresies that gets trumped up by the NO "church" and treated as "orthodox" is the heresy of semi-pelagianism. Specifically, that part of the heresy that attempted to grant infants who died without baptism a sort of blessedness that was distinct from eternal life in the kingdom of heaven. This view has of course been condemned especially at the Council of Carthage XVI With St. Augustine in attendance.

Now, I am not a Jansenist. I am an Augustinian. There is perhaps little more than a hair's breadth of difference, but I found this interesting in the Catechism of the Council of Trent, on Baptism:

Necessity of Baptism

"If the knowledge of what has been hitherto explained be, as it is, of highest importance to the faithful, it is no less important to them to learn that the law of Baptism, as established by our Lord, extends to all, so that unless they are regenerated to God through the grace of Baptism, be their parents Christians or infidels, they are born to eternal misery and destruction. Pastors, therefore, should often explain these words of the Gospel: Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God."

Infant Baptism: It's Necessity

"That this law [just previously mentioned] extends not only to adults but also to infants and children, and that the Church has received this from Apostolic tradition, is confirmed by the unanimous teaching and authority of the Fathers."

Besides, it is not to be supposed that Christ the Lord would have withheld the Sacrament and grace of Baptism from children, of whom He said: Suffer the little children, and forbid them not to come to me; for the kingdom of heaven is for such; ° whom also He embraced, upon whom He imposed hands, to whom He gave His blessing.

It seems pretty clear that the Catechism definitely taught that all the unbaptized who die go to MISERY and DESTRUCTION. And this LAW of the necessity of baptism extends to infants, and that the penalties do as well.

SO, I suppose my question is...who is responsible for watering down the Augustinian teaching? Trent clearly did not side with Aquinas's opinion on limbo, and St. Augustine's teachings have at various times been officially promulgated as the doctrine of the church itself (The Tractoria of Pope Innocent I and Zosimus).

I feel inclined to side with Blaise Pascal and blame the moral laxity (and doctrinal simple-mindedness) of the Jesuits. Anyone else?

Ok, Mr. Technically correct, I am a Roman Catholic who holds to the Theological School of Augustinianism that was refined during the 17th century, which was admirably defended by Cardinal Henry Noris and Declared by the Pope to be completely orthodox and free of heresy.

"Henry Noris (-1704) was chosen by the Hermits of St. Augustine to defend the honour of Augustine and the Order. He formulated what is known as the “Strict Augustinian School” in his Historia Pelagiana. Several popes favoured him during his lifetime and Pope Benedict XIV wrote an apologia in defence of him after his death. He was Papal Librarian under Innocent XII. The punishment of infants is identically the same as that of adults “generically and specifically” in the flames of hell and varies only in degree. He vigorously denied that the infants would have any natural happiness. In his view the Scholastics were contrary to the popes, the councils and the Fathers. Jesuits attempted to have the book condemned and it was cleared by the Holy Office in 1672, 1676 and 1692."

This is what I mean.  

Plus, notable Jansenist errors:

1. The gifts of Adam in paradise were intrinsic to his nature. (They were gifts, not particular to his nature).

2. The Victorious delight of grace is INTRINSICALLY IRRESISTIBLE. (The Victorious Delight of Grace infallibly attains its end, but is NOT irresistible. It CAN be resisted, but it is also true that men do NOT resist it. Fine distinction)

3. Mass in Vernacular.

4. Attrition is not sufficient for repentance, even in the confessional. (Attrition is NOT sufficient for repentance OUTSIDE the confessional. However, it is acceptable as a motive for repentance IN the confessional. COT)

5. The Church can err in her preservation of Christian doctrine. (Nope. But parties can rise and shrink).

I could go on. But, you get my drift. I accept the Bull unigenitus. THe Augustinianism I am talking about is legit and orthodox and free of Calvin and Jansenus.

But calling belief in limbo semi-pelagian is condemned.

Right, it is "false and rash and as slander of the Catholic schools" (Denz. 1526, De poena decedentium cuм solo originali)