Send CathInfo's owner Matthew a gift from his Amazon wish list:
https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

Author Topic: All the NOers seem to be semi-pelagians...  (Read 30416 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

All the NOers seem to be semi-pelagians...
« Reply #140 on: January 10, 2012, 08:47:31 AM »
Lastly (for now :smile:)bump:

Quote from: Hobbledehoy
It behooves me to take some time to admonish the participants and readers of this thread (and the Forum in general) regarding a fundamental truth often ignored, and I am not at all implying or insinuating that this applies to the participants of this thread, and I apologize if I give that impression in any way.

In my personal experience, I have seen numerous persons give themselves over to the study and disputation of lofty questions regarding sacred doctrine, whilst neglecting to cultivate their own interior life. It often happens that certain souls neglect prayer for the sake of study, and this is often a dangerous delusion which can ultimately imperil the salvation of the individual. So many have been the heresies, errors and dissensions that have had their ultimate origin in such a diabolical disorientation.

It particularly behooves us to be temperate in intellectual endeavors, for the Angelic Doctor expounds upon studiousness as the moral virtue which has knowledge as its proper matter (Summa IIa IIæ, q. clxvi., art. 1), and “is a potential part of temperance, as a subordinate virtue annexed to a principle virtue” (“studiositas sit pars potentialis temperantiae, sicut virtus secundaria ei adiuncta ut principali virtuti”), for the moderation of the natural desire that all men have for knowledge pertains to the virtue of studiousness (“moderatio autem hujus appetitus pertinet ad virtutem studiositatis;” ibid., art. 2). St. Thomas goes on to teach that “on the part of the soul, [man] is inclined to desire knowledge of things; and so it behooves him to exercise a praiseworthy restraint of this desire, lest he seek knowledge immoderately” (“ex parte animae, inclinatur homo ad hoc quod cognitionem rerum desideret: et sic oportet ut homo laudabiliter huiusmodi appetitum refrenet, ne immoderate rerum cognition intendat;” ibid. ad iii. dub.).

However, what is temperance without humility? For it is never expedient to search into things that are above us if we fail to cultivate a pure and earnest heart wherewith to search into such sacred things, after the example of King David who prayed unto the Lord, singing, "Lord, my heart is not exalted: neither are mine eyes lofty. Neither have I walked in great matters, nor in marvelous things above me," "Domine, non est exaltatum cor meum: neque elati sunt oculi mei. Neque ambulavi in magnis: neque in mirabilibus super me" (Ps. cxxx. 1).

Lend ear to the admonitions placed upon the lips of our dear Lord and found in the great treatise De Imitatione Christi: "Son, be not curious, and give not way to useless cares. What is  this or that to thee? Follow thou Me," ("Fili, noli esse curiosus, nec vacuas gerere sollicitudines. Quid hoc vel illud ad te? tu me sequere," Lib. III., cap. xxiv. n. 1), for, "I would gladly speak My word to thee, and reveal My secrets, if thou wouldst diligently observe My coming, and open to Me the door of thy heart. Be circuмspect, and watch in prayers, and humble thyself in all things," ("Libenter loquerer tibi verbum meum, et abscondita revelarem, si adventum meum diligenter observares, et ostium cordis mihi aperires. Esto providus, et vigila in orationibus, et humilia te in omnibus," ibid., n. 2). For, "I am He that in an instant elevateth the humble mind to comprehend more reasons of the eternal truth than if any one had studied ten years in the schools. I teach without noise of words, without confusion of opinions, without ambition of honor, without strife of arguments," ("Ego sum, qui humilem in puncto elevo mentem: ut plures æternæ veritatis capiat rationes, quam si quis decem annis studuisset in scholis. Ego doceo sine strepitu verborum, sine confusione opinionum, sine fastu honoris, sine pugnatione argumentorum," Lib. III., cap. xliii., n. 3) --- "For a certain person, by loving Me intimately, learned things divine and spoke wonders. He profiteth more by foresaking all things than by studying subtleties," ("Nam quidam amando me intime, didicit divina et loquebatur mirabilia. Plus profecit in relinquendo omnia, quam in studendo subtilia," ibid., n. 4). "Study the mortification of thy vices; for this will more avail thee than the knowledge of many difficult questions," ("Stude mortificationi vitiorum, quia hoc amplius tibi proderit, quam notitia multarum difficilium quæstionum," ibid., n. 1) --- "In everything attend to thyself, what thou art doing, and what thou art saying: and direct thy whole attention to this, that thou mayest please Me alone, and neither desire nor seek anything out of me," ("In omni re attende tibi, quid facias, et quid dicas: et omnem intentionem tuam ad hoc dirige, ut mihi soli placeas, et extra me nihil cupias vel quæras," Lib. III., cap. xxv., n. 3).

Those who are industrious and diligent to study upon lofty matters and yet neglect their interior lives are in exceeding great peril: "Woe to them that inquire after many curious things of men, and are little curious of the way to serve Me," ("Væ eis qui multa curiosa ab hominibus inquirunt, et de via mihi serviendi parum curat," Lib. III., cap. xliii., n. 2). "For he that would fully and with relish understand the words of Christ, must study to conform his whole life to Him," ("Qui autem vult plene et sapide Christ verba intelligere, oportet ut totam vitam suam illi studeat conformare," Lib. I., cap. i., n. 2). "What doth it profit thee to dispute deeply about the Trinity, if thou be wanting in humility, and so be displeasing to the Trinity?" ("Quid prodest tibi, alta de Trinitate disputare, si careas humilitate, unde displiceas Trinitati?" ibid., n. 3). "Oftentimes call to mind the proverb: The eye is not satisfied with seeing, nor is the ear filled with hearing. Study, therefore, to wean thy heart from love of visible things, and to betake thee to the things unseen," ("Memento illius frequenter proverbii: quia non satiatur oculus viso, nec auris impletur auditu. Stude ergo cor tuum ad amore visibilium abstrahere, et ad invisibilia te transferre," ibid., n. 5). "Truly, a lowly rustic that serveth God is better than a proud philosopher who pondereth the courses of the stars, and neglecteth himself," ("Melior est profecto humilis rusticus, qui Deo servit, quam superbus Philosophus, qui se neglecto, cursum cœli considerat," Lib. I., cap ii., n. 1). The humble of heart have not this admonition to fear: "The more thou knowest, and the better, so much the heavier will thy judgment therefore be, unless thy life be also more holy," ("Quanto plus et melius scis, tanto gravius inde judicaberis, nisi sanctius vixeris," ibid., n. 3).

From the above-cited admonitions of this great treatise upon the Christian life, it is clear that prayer should be the primal concern of the student of sacred doctrine.

Now, as I have hitherto written elsewhere, the Holy Rosary is the most apt prayer for students of sacred doctrine, as this most wondrous Psalterium Jesu et Mariæ is above all the school of contemplation and a mirror of virtues to be imitated in the divine lives of Jesus and Mary. The Holy Rosary is in truth a school wherein the Mysteries of the Faith shine forth before the eyes of the soul with a supernal effulgence that dispels the darkness of sin and ignorance, and illumines the soul with a vivifying light that harmonizes prayer with study, and makes the interior and exterior life of the student correspond with these elements that enlighten and strengthen one another.

In my personal experience, at least, it has come to pass that a well-meditated and well-prayed Rosary has in some instances taught me more regarding certain truths than the Manuals and treatises of sacred theology, perhaps because in the course of meditating upon the Rosary Mysteries certain theological principles taken on a profundity and immensity that overwhelm and thrill the amplitude of the soul, so that in due time discursive reasoning at times gives way to the simple and prolonged gaze of the soul rapt in mute veneration and devout dread before the inexhaustible riches of the wisdom and goodness of God. If this continues, and the soul begins to be purified passively (having already been purged actively by the penance and self-abnegation characteristic of the purgative way) and becomes more detached from self and more docile to the Holy Ghost, then the soul enters the ethereal, transluminous realm of the mystical ways of prayer.

Such is the power of the Holy Rosary, and why it was so recommended by Our Lady at Fatima and elsewhere, and so richly indulged and promoted by the Supreme Pontiffs and lauded by Saints and spiritual authors. For the student of sacred doctrine the Holy Rosary is truly the path not only to sacred knowledge, but to holy contemplation, the plenitude of that divinely revealed faith which is the object of sacred theology.

To conclude: a student of sacred doctrine must be given over to prayer first and foremost, and must frequent the holy Sacraments and avail himself of the spiritual direction of a devout and learned Priest (either personally or by correspondence if a Priest is not accessible because of the times). Availing oneself of the divinely-ordained patronage and tutelage of the Blessed Virgin Mary, the Sedes sapientiae (Litaniæ Lauretanæ Beatæ Mariæ Virginis, Rituale Romanum, Tit. XI, cap. iii.), particularly by means of the devout recitation of the Holy Rosary, is morally indispensable for the fruitful study of sacred doctrine, for the greater glory of Our Lord and for the salvation and edification of souls.

Well, those are my two cents... nay, they have been clemently vouchsafed me by holy grace, for I of myself can produce nothing but that which is damnably evil: it is by grace alone that man can work any good.

All the NOers seem to be semi-pelagians...
« Reply #141 on: January 10, 2012, 09:22:26 AM »
So Augustinian, you don't think Pope Pius X is a Saint? Wow, are you AntiClimax (aka "Pope" Augustine) or David Landry on another account?


All the NOers seem to be semi-pelagians...
« Reply #142 on: January 10, 2012, 09:59:16 AM »
Gregory, did you read the New Advent article? Because it traces the history fairly well. Specifically it shows the doctrine of the early Fathers and St.Augustine's own early thought being opposed to his later one. After the ascendancy of extreme Augustinianism, the article says, it was sounded the death knell by the condemnation of Pius VI in 1794. This seems to answer the question with which you began your thread, so I'd like to see you address it. Thanks.

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.

This is the argument offered contra the view of actual sensible torment, and I'd like to see you address it.

Quote
"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."

 
Quote
SO, while I disagree, I hope to do it AMICABLY


Likewise, me too.

Quote
Wait. Stop. Original sin is NOT ONLY the privation of original justice, but also the the actual personal participation in the GUILT of the sin of Adam.


I do not think you express your thought with the precision of the Angelic Doctor, but no problem, I essentially agree with you here. 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.

In all of humanity, descended from one man, the first Adam, there is the character of what is truly and properly sin, and the effect of this is both the privation of grace and a fallen nature that is wounded and turned away from God.

Quote
Wait. There is no PUNISHMENT where the penalty is not experienced.


Not at all. The punishment is the objective loss of supernatural bliss. To say that the loss of such majestic glory, the joy we were created to share, does not constitute punishment, is what is truly baffling to me.

Quote
St. Thomas repeatedly says that the condemned infant does not know of his loss. In what therefore does his punishment consist?


If you want to argue with St.Thomas, you will have to argue against this -
Quote
"If unbaptized children have interior sorrow after death, they will grieve either for their sin or for their punishment.

If for their sin, since they cannot be further cleansed from that sin, their sorrow will lead them to despair. Now sorrow of this kind in the damned is the worm of conscience. Therefore these children will have the worm of conscience, and consequently theirs would not be the mildest punishment, as Augustine says it is.  [Comment: the worm of conscience is formally excluded by Pope Innocent III later, as is material fire]

If, on the other hand, they grieve for their punishment, it follows, since their punishment is justly inflicted by God, that their will opposes itself to divine justice, and thus would be actually inordinate, which is not to be granted. Therefore they will feel no sorrow."

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."


Quote
It is the same problem that reincarnation-ists have: Reincarnation is unjust


Interesting argument, but reincarnation has bigger problems. And the analogy is inaccurate, because divine justice is satisfied by the exclusion of the infant from the beatific vision, and of supernatural bliss.

Quote
It makes FAR MORE sense to say


I disagree, but I note that this is an argument from reason. So I ask again, is this, whether the punishment is positive or not, in your opinion, a matter open to theological dispute, or objectively heretical? Because theologians often disagree with each other and offer arguments in support of their position, and the Church lets it play out before finally passing judgment. Has the Church closed the question or not?

Quote
that the unbaptized infant is made aware of Christ and of his lack, and experiences a kind of eternal sorrow and gloom.


Again, your argument is not based on what follows from the nature of original sin. I maintain that all that follows from the nature of original sin is the deprivation of the beatific vision. Your argument is that God actively intervenes to make the child's fate worse, theologically permissible, but in my judgment, unwarranted by argument.

Quote
Once again, the context is actually irrelevant. We are BOUND to understand the dogmas on their face, and as presented. "


This is exactly what those who follow Fr.Feeney argue, and with their own interpretation of canons opposed to the theological consensus of interpretation on the same canons. It is the same case here. The truth is that we are to understand the dogmas in accordance with the mind of the Church.

Quote
Vatican I clearly taught that NO ONE may rescind from the clear meaning of a dogma on the grounds of a "deeper interpretation.


Of course, but that doesn't apply at all here.

Quote
Yes, before the advent of Pentecost when Baptism was made OBLIGATORY UPON ALL.


St.Thomas treats of baptism and argues for its explicit necessity, especially for infants. He also says infants may be sanctified in the womb today, being cleansed of original sin, because this grace granted them is not to be accounted apart from the sacrament, but is an extraordinary means of the same which remits original sin.

To say God can do this is clearly in his view hindered by no theological difficulty of the Faith considered as a whole, never taught by the Church before or after (he himself held the view that they descend immediately to hell and are punished), and to say the contrary frankly seems to place limits on His Omnipotence. He can do this, therefore the mother can pray for her dying child. He may do it, though, or He may not.

Quote
As I said, the dogmas are clear, the teaching of the XVI council of Carthage is clear, its promulgation as the teaching of the Catholic Church is clear, its ratification at Ephesus and Nicea II is clear, and  800 years of unquestioned Augustinian teaching and the teaching of the Latin Fathers is clear.


If that is the case, Thomas Aquinas is not a Saint but a heretic for embracing something the Church had already condemned, and perhaps one should embrace the sedevacantism that goes further back several centuries. And if that seems evidently absurd, the early Councils must be admitted to have in no way settled the question.

Quote
Moreover, even if one were to admit for the sake of argument that this canon of the Council of Carthage acquired the force of an ecuмenical definition, one ought to interpret it in the light of what was understood to be at issue by both sides in the controversy, and therefore add to the simple locus medius the qualification which is added by Pius VI when, in the Constitution "Auctoreum Fidei", he speaks of "locuм illium et statum medium expertem culpae et poenae."


Quote
I know it's hard, but that's the truth. History bearing witness, and the dogmas of the church.


I appreciate the tone of this discussion with you so far, and also that you think so, but I respectfully disagree.

All the NOers seem to be semi-pelagians...
« Reply #143 on: January 10, 2012, 08:57:08 PM »
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.htm

I 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.

Quote
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.

Quote
"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:

Quote
" ...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

Quote
"...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:

Quote
"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:

Quote
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:

Quote
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.

Quote
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?

Quote
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!









All the NOers seem to be semi-pelagians...
« Reply #144 on: January 10, 2012, 09:38:43 PM »
TO Nishant:

Allow me to Add:

"According to Abbé A. Michel (The Last Things, Edinburgh, 1929), “many eminent theologians, such as Petavius, St. Robert Bellarmine, Estius, Bossuet and others have upheld the Augustinian interpretation of the decree” of Florence that it implies the doctrine that “unbaptized infants are not only deprived of the beatific vision, but have to undergo a positive punishment.”
 
Dionysus Petavius (-1652) judged that the Council of Florence had determined that the punishment of unbaptized infants is of the same kind (in the same hell) as that of adults who died in mortal sin. “Infants,” he taught, “are tormented with unequal tortures of fire but are tormented nevertheless.”

Incredibly, Petavius was a Jesuit.

The idea that Florence was simply a reunion council and did not have these things in mind apparently never crossed the minds of these Catholic theologians