Augustinian, I appreciate your zeal, but I think there are some things you need to think a bit more about.
Let's assume for a minute that you are a Jansenist. I am not saying you are, but that is the worst case scenario, so let's pretend.
The Jansenist theologian, Arnauld, came to have a great respect fro St. Thomas Aquinas and his writings on free will and liberty. In fact, it was due to St. Thomas that he left behind some of the erroneous propositions of Jansenism. I suggest you read the article entitled:
Grace and free will in Arnauld.
http://www.romancatholicism.org/jansenism/kremer-arnauld.htmI appreciated it, although I myself am NOT a Jansenist. I accept the declarations of the Bull Unigenitus, I accept the condemnation of Baius, and The Bull Auctorem Fidei.
I make no bones about the sanctity of St. Thomas. I make no bones about the fact that in his writings there are some mistakes. Let's remember that, just like St. Augustine, whom everybody is ready to ignore, he also submitted his work to the final judgement of the church, and the church has made decisions that appear to run counter to some of his arguments.
Roman Catholic, perhaps it would be beneficial for peace for you to simply say that there is such a thing as a pelagian understanding of limbo and tell us what it would be in YOUR opinion. You seem to avoid doing that. I converse to understand things.
Nishant, I appreciate you taking the time to reply to me. Let's see if I can get through this intact...lol.
Moreover, please answer this question. Was Pope Innocent's teaching that infants experience no other pain than the deprivation of the beatific vision heretical? I'm even willing to concede it is theologically permissible to say that infants experience some conscious pain, but I don't hold it, nor do I believe the Church requires it, and I'll explain why to the former below.
NO. In the bull Auctorem Fide, Pope Pius VI condemned the notion that a view of infant damnation that does not involve The torment of Fire is pelagian.
TO believe that infants are not tormented by fire is not pelagian. It introduces no middle place and does not grant them any kind of blessedness. This is the essence of a heretical understanding of the condemnation of unbaptized infants.
I would like to see this adressed in your response. I do not call The Angelic Doctor a heretic. It is a mortal sin of sacrilege and blasphemy and temererity to call a canonized saint a heretic.
There ARE objectively speaking, saints who were material heretics, and unwittingly so. St. John Cassian is a prime example. He founded the heresy of semi-pelagianism, albeit somewhat unwittingly.
"Nor does this sin belong to this particular man, except in so far as he has such a nature, that is deprived of this good, which in the ordinary course of things he would have had and would have been able to keep. Wherefore no further punishment is due to him, besides the privation of that end to which the gift withdrawn destined him, which gift human nature is unable of itself to obtain.
Now this is the divine vision; and consequently the loss of this vision is the proper and only punishment of original sin after death: because, if any other sensible punishment were inflicted after death for original sin, a man would be punished out of proportion to his guilt, for sensible punishment is inflicted for that which is proper to the person, since a man undergoes sensible punishment in so far as he suffers in his person. Hence, as his guilt did not result from an action of his own, even so neither should he be punished by suffering himself, but only by losing that which his nature was unable to obtain."
Whose argument is this, Abelard's, or Pope Innocent III's? Or the Angelic doctor?
Here is my sole problem with this argument: If man is guilty for the sin of Adam, which Trent teaches that he is, then he bears IN HIS SOUL the guilt for a proper act. Because of the general corruption of human nature (not total depravity), all men bear the guilt of a proper sin: the sin of Adam. Otherwise, whence flows the inherent guilt of all humanity?
Allow me to establish authoritatively that this is indeed so:
COT, Session 5, Par. 3:
" ...this sin of Adam,--which in its origin is one, and being transfused into all by propogation, not by imitation, is in each one as his own..."
Pardon the ellipses, but they are not deceitful.
COT Session 6 Capter III
"...seeing that, by that propagation, they contract through him, when they are conceived, injustice as their own"
The sin of Adam is in each as his own, as well as the loss of justice . Therefore the guilt is present as well, for there is no sin present without guilt.
Now, the sin of Adam was committed with the body, and we contract this sin, therefore we contract the deserved guilt due to the body and are therefore bodily punished for original sin alone.
Consider this:
"The Augustinian General Vasquez sent a formal petition to Pope Clement XIII requesting protection from calumny in 1758 because the Jesuits of France, Spain and Italy were calling his men “Jansenists” and accused them of heresy. He sent Clement a list of twenty-three propositions fundamental to the Augustinian doctrine. The following was among them.
“Unbaptized children who die in original sin are not only distressed by the loss of the beatific vision but the are tormented by the pain of fire in hell, however mildly it may be. This is in keeping with the opinions of St. Augustine.”
Clement replied that the doctrine of the Augustinian school had been made secure by the decision of Paul III in Alias in 1660; of Innocent XII in Reddidit in 1694; Clement XI in Pastoralis officii in 1718; Benedict XIII in Demissas preces in 1724 and in Pretiosus in 1727; Clement XII in Exponit in 1732 and in Apostolicae providentiae in 1733; and Benedict XIV in his letter to the Spanish Inquisition.
This belief has never been censured or declared as wrong by the church, because the church endorsed it for 800 years.
Now, lest you accuse me of wresting Trent to my own devices, allow me to quote the Catechism of the Council of Trent which is an AUTHENTIC and Authoritative` interpreter of that council:
In Article II of the Apostles creed:
Wherefore, the pastor should not omit to remind the faithful that the guilt and punishment of original sin were not confined to Adam, but justly descended from him, as from their source and cause, to all posterity.
So, in sum, infants are punished sensibly because they are guilty of a sin that was sensibly committed: the sin of Adam. Therefore it is not erroneous to believe that infants are sensibly tormented in hell.
In Fact, the same Catechism which is an AUTHENTIC and AUTHORITATIVE interpreter of Trent CLEARLY says:
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 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.
There is no mention of the mitigation of consequences for infants. Indeed, they are treated as being subject to the same severity.
I just ask you to be careful, because on some points regarding original sin you seem to border on the exaggerations of the early Protestants, who also appealed to St.Augustine, and which neither the Church nor her theologians adopted.
All the terminology I used is used by the council of Trent and its catechism in the same Context. God hates what is in the infant born in original sin. This is taught in Trent. Men are subject to God's wrath because of sin. This is taught in Trent. They are partners with the devil from their birth. This is also taught by Trent.
So if an unborn infant is guilty of the sin of Adam (defined by Trent), they bear the consequences for that guilt, and they are under the wrath of God (Trent), his enemies (Trent), and God hates the sin within them (Trent), deprived of any holiness (Trent) and are unjust (Trent), then what kind of mitigation do you hope for?
Further, right reason does not allow one to be disturbed on account of what one was unable to avoid; hence Seneca proves (Ep. lxxxv, and De ira ii, 6) that "a wise man is not disturbed." Now in these children there is right reason deflected by no actual sin. Therefore they will not be disturbed for that they undergo this punishment which they could nowise avoid."
This to me is EXTREMELY problematic. Hell is a complete absence of the vision of God coupled with the fire of torment for sinners. The will and the intellect are darkened by sin. They are surrounded by sinners and misery and terror. In what conditions are they supposed to enjoy a natural blessedness? How are they even capable of clear and rational thought in HELL? That is to me simply absurd.
The Angelic doctor here does say that we should not be tormented by the thought of the unavoidable. But the problem is that the infants COULD have been baptized. They will know what baptism is. THey will know that they were not given this cure.
But even worse:
What happens in the general judgement? Christ is revealed to ALL. There is no ignorance. The condemned infants in hell, whether at its edge or in its flames are FIXED in their fate. And after the general judgement, death and hades are thrown, along with the Devil, into the burning lake of fire, the second death. So whether now, or later, infants who die without baptism are destined to undergo the sensible punishments of hellfire. In the end, there is nowhere else for them to be except in the fire, justly condemned by the just judge for their participation in the guilt of Adam's sin.
Remember the last day. If they are not in heaven NOW, they never will be, and where will they go but with the devil?
PLease tell me if there was anything in particular you want me to get to. Thanks Nishant!