Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Crisis in the Church => The Feeneyism Ghetto => Topic started by: DecemRationis on September 10, 2023, 08:11:08 AM
-
I'd like to know exactly what St. Augustine thought in this regard. Is the claim he thought infants would be tormented with the fires of hell, albeit "mildly," some form of Catholic urban myth?
I read one work that claimed that Augustine thought infants would be so punished, and it cited the following from St. Augustine's works:
Quote
Chapter 93. Both the First and the Second Deaths are the Consequence of Sin. Punishment is Proportioned to Guilt.
And neither the first death, which takes place when the soul is compelled to leave the body, nor the second death, which takes place when the soul is not permitted to leave the suffering body, would have been inflicted on man had no one sinned. And, of course, the mildest punishment of all will fall upon those who have added no actual sin, to the original sin they brought with them; and as for the rest who have added such actual sins, the punishment of each will be the more tolerable in the next world, according as his iniquity has been less in this world.
CHURCH FATHERS: Handbook on Faith, Hope and Love (St. Augustine) (newadvent.org) (https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1302.htm)
Where exactly are the "punishments" of the flames and torments of hell there?
Innocent III stated that deprivation of the beatific vision is a "punishment," the mildest, obviously: "the punishment of original sin is deprivation of the vision of God, but the punishment of actual sin is the torments of everlasting hell. " DZ 410.
Elsewhere, in his work, Against Julian, St. Augustine states:
Quote
But I do not say that children who die without the baptism of Christ will undergo such grievous punishment that it were better for them never to have been born, since our Lord did not say these words of any sinner you please, but only of the most base and ungodly. If we consider what He said about the Sodomites, which certainly He did not mean of them only that it will be more tolerable for one than for another in the day of judgment, 2 who can doubt that nonbaptized infants, having only original sin and no burden of personal sins, will suffer the lightest condemnation of all? I cannot define the amount and kind of their punishment, but I dare not say it were better for them never to have existed than to exist there. But you, also, who contend they are, as it were, free of any condemnation, do not wish to think about the condemnation by which you punish them by estranging from the life of God and from the kingdom of God so many images of God, and by separating them from the pious parents you so eloquently urge to procreate them. They suffer these separations unjustly, if they have no sin at all; or if justly, then they have original sin.
The Fathers Of The Church A New Translation Volume 35 Saint Augustine Against Julian : Roy Joseph Deferrari : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive (https://archive.org/details/fathersofthechur013910mbp/page/n309/mode/2up)
St. Augustine's opinion on the "punishment" of nonbaptized infants who die in infancy appears to accord with the view of Innocent III, and merely mean estrangement from the kingdom of heaven.
Until we're shown proof - an actual quote from St. Augustine - I'm calling FOUL on this claim that he thought infants would be punished by torments or flames in hell.
*************************************************************
I originally posted this in another thread. Because it is an important topic for various reasons, I wanted to start a separate thread on it. PLEASE REPLY HERE.
-
:laugh1: Be careful, you are treading on the sandy ground Ladislaus used to build his “theological tower”. If his Saint Augustine/Limbo argument falls, his whole tower crumbles to the ground.
-
who can doubt that nonbaptized infants, having only original sin and no burden of personal sins, will suffer the lightest condemnation of all? I cannot define the amount and kind of their punishment, but I dare not say it were better for them never to have existed than to exist there. But you, also, who contend they are, as it were, free of any condemnation, do not wish to think about the condemnation by which you punish them by estranging from the life of God and from the kingdom of God
He distinguishes his position from those who say the infants are "free of any condemnation" and proceeds to elaborate that they admit a single condemnation, the deprivation of the Beatific Vision that is.
Clearly, Augustine believed infants suffered some kind of punishment besides the "punishment" (improperly so called because not receiving an inheritance is not a punishment) of deprivation of Heaven his opponents held.
-
Here's the Catholic Encyclopaedia on Limbo.
In his earlier writings St. Augustine himself agrees with the common tradition. Thus in De libero arbitrio III, written several years before the Pelagian controversy, discussing the fate of unbaptized infants after death, he writes: "It is superfluous to inquire about the merits of one who has not any merits. For one need not hesitate to hold that life may be neutral as between good conduct and sin, and that as between reward and punishment there may be a neutral sentence of the judge." But even before the outbreak of the Pelagian controversy St. Augustine had already abandoned the lenient traditional view, and in the course of the controversy he himself condemned, and persuaded the Council of Carthage (418) to condemn, the substantially identical Pelagian teaching affirming the existence of "an intermediate place, or of any place anywhere at all (ullus alicubi locus), in which children who pass out of this life unbaptized live in happiness" (Denzinger 102). This means that St. Augustine and the African Fathers believed that unbaptized infants share in the common positive misery of the damned, and the very most that St. Augustine concedes is that their punishment is the mildest of all, so mild indeed that one may not say that for them non-existence would be preferable to existence in such a state (Of Sin and Merit I.21; Contra Jul. V, 44; etc.). But this Augustinian teaching was an innovation in its day, and the history of subsequent Catholic speculation on this subject is taken up chiefly with the reaction which has ended in a return to the pre-Augustinian tradition.
(...)
St. Anselm was at one with St. Augustine in holding that unbaptized children share in the positive sufferings of the damned; and Abelard was the first to rebel against the severity of the Augustinian tradition on this point.
Exactly as Ladislaus said.
Maybe you should have been less confident and not "calling foul" before investigating a bit.
-
Abelard was also a heretic on several issues. It's my understanding that Original Sin is an actual sin, not just a condition or status. I think that idea is where the severity of the St. Augustine view springs forth.
-
It's my understanding that Original Sin is an actual sin, not just a condition or status. I think that idea is where the severity of the St. Augustine view springs forth.
https://www.newadvent.org/summa/2083.htm#article4
Reply to Objection 2. The infection of actual sin belongs only to the powers which are moved by the will of the sinner. But the infection of original sin is not derived from the will of the contractor, but through his natural origin, which is effected by the generative power. Hence it is this power that is infected by original sin.
-
He distinguishes his position from those who say the infants are "free of any condemnation" and proceeds to elaborate that they admit a single condemnation, the deprivation of the Beatific Vision that is.
Clearly, Augustine believed infants suffered some kind of punishment besides the "punishment" (improperly so called because not receiving an inheritance is not a punishment) of deprivation of Heaven his opponents held.
Yes, denial of the beatific vision is a "condemnation," and infants are part of "all men" condemned as a result of Adam's condemnation, which can only be removed by baptism in Christ. Or haven't you read Romans 5, or heard of "original sin"?
Here, I'll help you Marulus:
Romans 5:18 - Therefore, as by the offence of one, unto all men to condemnation; so also by the justice of one, unto all men to justification of life.
Here's the Council of Trent:
FIFTH SESSION
2. If any one asserts, that the prevarication of Adam injured himself alone, and not his
posterity; and that the holiness and justice, received of God, which he lost, he lost for
himself alone, and not for us also; or that he, being defiled by the sin of disobedience, has
only transfused death, and pains of the body, into the whole human race, but not sin also,
which is the death of the soul; let him be anathema:--whereas he contradicts the apostle
who says; By one man sin entered into the world, and by sin death, and so death passed
upon all men, in whom all have sinned.
SIXTH SESSION, CHAPTER I.
On the Inability of Nature and of the Law to justify man.
The holy Synod declares first, that, for the correct and sound understanding of the
doctrine of Justification, it is necessary [Page 31] that each one recognise and confess,
that, whereas all men had lost their innocence in the prevarication of Adam-having
become unclean, and, as the apostle says, by nature children of wrath . . .
And denial of the beatific vision is a "punishment." Perhaps not in your mind, but in the mind of Innocent III, whose opinion is in Denzinger, and yours isn't.
-
Here's the Catholic Encyclopaedia on Limbo.
Exactly as Ladislaus said.
Maybe you should have been less confident and not "calling foul" before investigating a bit.
I'm perfectly aware of the CE article on Limbo, and on baptism of desire, etc.
As I said: where is the quote from St. Augustine saying infants dying without baptism are subject to "torments" and the "fires of hell"? Still waiting. As of now, it's still in the "myth" category.
-
I'm perfectly aware of the CE article on Limbo, and on baptism of desire, etc.
As I said: where is the quote from St. Augustine saying infants dying without baptism are subject to "torments" and the "fires of hell"? Still waiting. As of now, it's still in the "myth" category.
You're not a very clear thinker. We're distinguishing between the non-suffering (in fact, perfect happiness state) of Limbo vs. the suffering state. As the EENS definitions tell us, each suffers in proportion to their sins. What was under dispute was whether Original Sin alone led to suffering in Hell period, and not the degree of suffering. St. Augustine held that their suffering was mild, but that they suffered nevertheless, i.e. experienced a positive punishment. St. Thomas stated that not only do they not suffer, but they experience perfect natural happiness. It's all laid out quite clearly in the CE article. We're not arguing about the degree of their suffering but about whether they suffer at all.
-
And denial of the beatific vision is a "punishment." Perhaps not in your mind, but in the mind of Innocent III, whose opinion is in Denzinger, and yours isn't.
So what? St. Thomas Aquinas taught other wise. I, and nearly all Catholic theologians since St. Robert Bellarmine, agree with him. What is this stupidity with "Denizinger", which I have already discussed. Inclusion in Denzinger was an editorial decision, giving Innocent III's opinion on the matter more weight than it deserves, not some act of the Church that you pretend it to be.
-
Abelard was also a heretic on several issues. It's my understanding that Original Sin is an actual sin, not just a condition or status. I think that idea is where the severity of the St. Augustine view springs forth.
Nah, Abelard was railroaded. He was no heretic. Abelard basically invented the scholastic method and some, including unfortunately St. Bernard, wrongly considered it impious. I wrote a long post about it. His work "Sic ad non." basically pioneered the method of considering and then refuting counter arguments that was made famous by St. Thomas. This was considered to be impiety at the time. Abelard did make some enemies due to his arrogance, so that didn't help his case.
But regardless of what you say about Abelard, St. Thomas not only fully embraced Abelard's opinion but took it to the next level by teaching that infants who die without Baptism experience perfect natural happiness. Now, St. Thomas is not the Magisterium, and you're entitled to hold to the Augustinian opinion, but you'd be in the minority, and on the same side as the Jansenists.
-
Not sure what the big problem is here. I've repeatedly stated that you're entitled to side with the Jansenists and cling to the opinion of St. Augustine. I agree with St. Thomas (and St. Gregory nαzιanzen) rather than with Innocent III, except that there is in fact a sense in which the loss of the Beatific Vision is a "punishment", a relative sense, where it's not having something that one could have had.
One very apt analogy might be like winning the huge multi-million dollar lottery and than losing the ticket. If I knew that I had the winning ticket but then lost it, that would cause me a tremendous amount of grief. But not winning the lottery if you never bought a ticket or buying a $1 ticket that was a non-winner doesn't have the same effect. St. Thomas likens their state to an individual who didn't win the lottery because he didn't buy a ticket vs. the pain of loss experienced by the individual who had the winning ticket but lost it, where St. Augustine's view is more along the lines of the guy who had a non-winning ticket and was upset over not winning the lottery. Meanwhile, those who were baptized but then lost their souls experience the pain of loss analogous to the guy who had the winning ticket but then lost it.
-
You're not a very clear thinker. We're distinguishing between the non-suffering (in fact, perfect happiness state) of Limbo vs. the suffering state. As the EENS definitions tell us, each suffers in proportion to their sins. What was under dispute was whether Original Sin alone led to suffering in Hell period, and not the degree of suffering. St. Augustine held that their suffering was mild, but that they suffered nevertheless, i.e. experienced a positive punishment. St. Thomas stated that not only do they not suffer, but they experience perfect natural happiness. It's all laid out quite clearly in the CE article. We're not arguing about the degree of their suffering but about whether they suffer at all.
No, you're not a very clear thinker. You argue that there is a radical change in theological opinion and consensus, thereby invalidating the consensus of theologians, showing how it can be false. Ergo, the consensus on baptism of desire can be wrong, and you right.
Your argument is, as Quo said, built on sand. There is no radical change in theological consensus on the fate of unbaptized infants. St. Augustine viewed the deprivation of the beatific vision as a "punishment" due to original sin. Those who place infants in Limbo also view them as being deprived of the beatific vision, as Augustine did. Augustine did not anywhere, to my knowledge, indicate that these unbaptized infants suffered anything beyond the same "penalty" as those who call the place these infants go to, "Limbo" - i.e., the sole penalty of deprivation of the beatific vision.
There is simply no change in theological consensus, but a change in mere terminology. Or so it appears. No one, certainly not you, has shown otherwise. I say the claim that there has been a "radical change" in the opinions of theologians about these unbaptized infants is belied by the actual facts: the actually expressed opinion of St. Augustine, the "opinion" of Innocent III.
You can say Augustine described the deprivation of the beatific vision to these infants as "suffering," while others didn't use that term. That is merely a semantic distinction devoid of the theological consequence you want to lay upon it, a difference in use of terms. It is not a radical theological difference showing a contradiction in position between St. Augustine and St. Thomas and those who don't describe the infants as "suffering." The infants, for both, are under the "penalty" of deprivation of the beatific vision, nothing more.
No one has shown us that St. Augustine believed these infants received a penalty beyond loss of the beatific vision, or that they endured a "suffering" that was different than that. Perhaps someone will, but you haven't, and neither has anyone else.
-
You can say Augustine described the deprivation of the beatific vision to these infants as "suffering," while others didn't use that term. That is merely a semantic distinction devoid of the theological consequence you want to lay upon it, a difference in use of terms. It is not a radical theological difference showing a contradiction in position between St. Augustine and St. Thomas and those who don't describe the infants as "suffering." The infants, for both, are under the "penalty" of deprivation of the beatific vision, nothing more.
What pathetic sophistry.
Are you pretending not to see the difference between a state of perfect natural happiness and suffering a positive punishment or are you that blind?
Either way you should stay out of intellectual discussions.
The fact that you still haven't grasped how the quotes you yourself provided prove you wrong even after I pointed it out is likewise beyond me.
-
Let me try to help you see once more.
How does Augustine's position differ from those he is addressing?
-
What pathetic sophistry.
Are you pretending not to see the difference between a state of perfect natural happiness and suffering a positive punishment or are you that blind?
Either way you should stay out of intellectual discussions.
The fact that you still haven't grasped how the quotes you yourself provided prove you wrong even after I pointed it out is likewise beyond me.
The only "punishment" Augustine could be said to identify was denial of the beatific vision to the infants. No one has shown him to opine that the infants suffered any other penalty of punishment. He said that these infants had the "lightest condemnation of all." Innocent III said that the infants suffered the "penalty" of deprivation of the deprivation of the beatific vision alone. A reasonable man would conclude that Augustine and Innocent III were in agreement: what would be "milder" than something that is not an imposition of punishment beyond the merely the taking away of this benefit? The "Limbo is a place of natural happiness" faction also agree that this benefit is deprived the infants. If you add an additional penalty beyond that, it would not be the "lightest condemnation of all," and St. Augustine opined that the penalty to the infants was "the lightest" or mildest.
There is no contradiction, or incompatible theological shift, between Augustine and the "Limbo is a natural place of happiness" advocates.
This fact may get your goat, and fire up claims of "pathetic sophistry" - as a fact that is "beyond" you - but the fact remains, whether you're inability to refute it gets you worked up, or not.
-
The only "punishment" Augustine could be said to identify was denial of the beatific vision to the infants. No one has shown him to opine that the infants suffered any other penalty of punishment. He said that these infants had the "lightest condemnation of all." Innocent III said that the infants suffered the "penalty" of deprivation of the deprivation of the beatific vision alone. A reasonable man would conclude that Augustine and Innocent III were in agreement: what would be "milder" than something that is not an imposition of punishment beyond the merely the taking away of this benefit? The "Limbo is a place of natural happiness" faction also agree that this benefit is deprived the infants. If you add an additional penalty beyond that, it would not be the "lightest condemnation of all," and St. Augustine opined that the penalty to the infants was "the lightest" or mildest.
There is no contradiction, or incompatible theological shift, between Augustine and the "Limbo is a natural place of happiness" advocates.
This fact may get your goat, and fire up claims of "pathetic sophistry" - as a fact that is "beyond" you - but the fact remains, whether you're inability to refute it gets you worked up, or not.
Please excuse my getting worked up. Thank you for staying polite.
-
Let me try to help you see once more.
How does Augustine's position differ from those he is addressing?
That is easy. They said the infants were "free of any condemnation." St. Augustine says they are wrong: the infants indeed suffered condemnation - denial of the beatific vision.
If you doubt that these infants suffered condemnation, I refer you again to my earlier citation of Romans 5:18 and the Council of Trent. And I remind you that St. Augustine said the infants "suffer the lightest condemnation of all."
Surely you can see that there is a difference between a position of "free from condemnation" and condemnation, but "the lightest" of all, no? One position says condemned, the other not. The difference is quite clear.
-
Please excuse my getting worked up. Thank you for staying polite.
No problem. It is quite easy to get worked up; I've done it often. Let us continue to discuss politely and as dispassionately as possible - in pursuit of truth.
-
That is easy. They said the infants were "free of any condemnation." St. Augustine says they are wrong: the infants indeed suffered condemnation - denial of the beatific vision.
If you doubt that these infants suffered condemnation, I refer you again to my earlier citation of Romans 5:18 and the Council of Trent. And I remind you that St. Augustine said the infants "suffer the lightest condemnation of all."
Surely you can see that there is a difference between a position of "free from condemnation" and condemnation, but "the lightest" of all, no? One position says condemned, the other not. The difference is quite clear.
The way you stated it makes it sound as though his opponents believed the infants went to heaven, that they are not denied the Beatific Vision. However, Augustine states that they themselves admit that the infants are deprived of the Beatific Vision.
But you, also, who contend they are, as it were, free of any condemnation, do not wish to think about the condemnation by which you punish them by estranging from the life of God and from the kingdom of God.
So, if they are in agreement that the infants do not go to Heaven, but to Hell, what is the difference in their positions?
-
I opened the link you cited and I see now that he's debating Pelagians. I made a fool of myself for lack of context it seems...
-
The way you stated it makes it sound as though his opponents believed the infants went to heaven, that they are not denied the Beatific Vision. However, Augustine states that they themselves admit that the infants are deprived of the Beatific Vision.
But you, also, who contend they are, as it were, free of any condemnation, do not wish to think about the condemnation by which you punish them by estranging from the life of God and from the kingdom of God.
So, if they are in agreement that the infants do not go to Heaven, but to Hell, what is the difference in their positions?
No. Augustine is exposing their position of "free from condemnation" as being clearly unsound, since in fact their position entails a clear condemnation: denial of the beatific vision. They "do not wish to think about the condemnation," but that is what their position involves - the condemnation of deprivation of the beatific vision. They are not admitting it or saying it; if they were, they'd be "thinking about it," clearly. You can't say or admit something without thinking about it.
The upshot of their position is a condemnation that they not only do not verbalize, but which they "don't wish to think about." Yet it is inherent in their position, nonetheless.
-
I opened the link you cited and I see now that he's debating Pelagians. I made a fool of myself for lack of context it seems...
Well . . . that's something I've done too. Lol
Actually, you just made me a bit of a fool, as I could have merely pointed out the context, as you did, and saved myself some trouble. :laugh1:
-
No. Augustine is exposing their position of "free from condemnation" as being clearly unsound, since in fact their position entails a clear condemnation: denial of the beatific vision. They "do not wish to think about the condemnation," but that is what their position involves - the condemnation of deprivation of the beatific vision. They are not admitting it or saying it; if they were, they'd be "thinking about it," clearly. You can't say or admit something without thinking about it.
The upshot of their position is a condemnation that they not only do not verbalize, but which they "don't wish to think about." Yet it is inherent in their position, nonetheless.
I'm confused now. Augustine is refuting Pelagianism here, right? What part of the Pelagian position entails the deprivation of Heaven for infants without original sin?
-
While you're answering that, it seems my first argument was based on carelessly disregarding the context.
However, I haven't exhausted the quote. Here's the relevant part:
who can doubt that nonbaptized infants, having only original sin and no burden of personal sins, will suffer the lightest condemnation of all? I cannot define the amount and kind of their punishment, but I dare not say it were better for them never to have existed than to exist there.
Notice two things:
1) Augustine says the punishment has an amount and kind which he does not know. Consider now that the deprivation of the Beatific Vision is a specific kind of punishment and which has no qualifier of amount. Therefore, Augustine is not speaking of merely their being in Hell. To restate the argument: if Augustine was claiming infants are only deprived of Heaven he wouldn't have said he cannot say what amount and kind of punishment they would suffer.
2) Augustine says: I dare not say it were better for them never to have existed than to exist there. Well, if Augustine held that the infants were in a state of perfect natural happiness, not suffering any positive punishment, then he would certainly say it was good for them to be born. However, he is not sure whether their punishment is of such a degree as to be better not to even exist.
-
Saint Augustine’s view on the divine consignment of unbaptized infants to the positive sufferings of the damned in hell, contra S. Aquinas, and in addition to the lack of the Beatific Vision, is found in the following resources:
De pecc. mer. 1.16.21 (CSEL 60, 20f.) ; Sermo 294.3, Patrologia cursus completa, series latina (PL), J.P. MIGNE (ed.), 38, 1337; Contra Iulianum 5.11.44 (PL 44, 809).
For your convenience:
https://archive.org/details/sanctiaureliiau05augugoog/page/n659/mode/1up
Also see attachment.
I don’t have time to translate myself, but you can do so at your convenience using Google Translate. It’s enough to be intelligible.
-
Saint Augustine’s view on the divine consignment of unbaptized infants to the positive sufferings of the damned in hell, contra S. Aquinas, and in addition to the lack of the Beatific Vision, is found in the following resources:
De pecc. mer. 1.16.21 (CSEL 60, 20f.) ; Sermo 294.3, Patrologia cursus completa, series latina (PL), J.P. MIGNE (ed.), 38, 1337; Contra Iulianum 5.11.44 (PL 44, 809).
For your convenience:
https://archive.org/details/sanctiaureliiau05augugoog/page/n659/mode/1up
Also see attachment.
I don’t have time to translate myself, but you can do so at your convenience using Google Translate. It’s enough to be intelligible.
Thank you. There you have it, DR. St. Augustine clearly states that there are only two places in eternity, the Kingdom of Heaven and "eternal fire", and that infants who die without Baptism go into the eternal fire.
-
Saint Augustine’s view on the divine consignment of unbaptized infants to the positive sufferings of the damned in hell, contra S. Aquinas, and in addition to the lack of the Beatific Vision, is found in the following resources:
De pecc. mer. 1.16.21 (CSEL 60, 20f.) ; Sermo 294.3, Patrologia cursus completa, series latina (PL), J.P. MIGNE (ed.), 38, 1337; Contra Iulianum 5.11.44 (PL 44, 809).
For your convenience:
https://archive.org/details/sanctiaureliiau05augugoog/page/n659/mode/1up
Also see attachment.
I don’t have time to translate myself, but you can do so at your convenience using Google Translate. It’s enough to be intelligible.
Welcome! Thank you for the quote. Seems to settle the matter.
-
Saint Augustine’s view on the divine consignment of unbaptized infants to the positive sufferings of the damned in hell, contra S. Aquinas, and in addition to the lack of the Beatific Vision, is found in the following resources:
De pecc. mer. 1.16.21 (CSEL 60, 20f.) ; Sermo 294.3, Patrologia cursus completa, series latina (PL), J.P. MIGNE (ed.), 38, 1337; Contra Iulianum 5.11.44 (PL 44, 809).
For your convenience:
https://archive.org/details/sanctiaureliiau05augugoog/page/n659/mode/1up
Also see attachment.
I don’t have time to translate myself, but you can do so at your convenience using Google Translate. It’s enough to be intelligible.
Ok. That will take some work to get a translation, but thanks.
-
Thank you. There you have it, DR. St. Augustine clearly states that there are only two places in eternity, the Kingdom of Heaven and "eternal fire", and that infants who die without Baptism go into the eternal fire.
Not only that, but he says this Certe habere ?non? vitam aeternam, qui non baptizatur?
It's unfortunate that a few letters from the beginning of each row is missing. What word could be inferred besides non?
I assume he would have said non habere instad of habere non so I think it is something else.
It seems as if you can barely see a footnote at the beginning of the row. And the footnote says non potest so the general sense is clear.
(https://i.imgur.com/fF2CFpN.png)
-
I think I've found a translation. It's sermon 294, right? I suggest all who wish to discuss this further read it in full. I will certainly do so.
https://wesleyscholar.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/Augustine-Sermons-273-305.pdf
-
Here’s the second aforementioned
resource:
- De Peccatorum Meritis et Remissione et de Baptismo Parvulorum (http://archive.org/stream/corpusscriptorum60auguuoft#page/n29/mode/2up)
1.16.21 (CSEL 60, 20f.)
https://archive.org/details/corpusscriptorum60auguuoft/page/19/mode/1up?view=theater
I will post the third shortly.
-
Here’s the second aforementioned
resource:
- De Peccatorum Meritis et Remissione et de Baptismo Parvulorum (http://archive.org/stream/corpusscriptorum60auguuoft#page/n29/mode/2up)
1.16.21 (CSEL 60, 20f.)
https://archive.org/details/corpusscriptorum60auguuoft/page/19/mode/1up?view=theater
I will post the third shortly.
Thanks. I think this is the translation of that:
Chapter 21 [XVI.]— Unbaptized Infants Damned, But Most Lightly; The Penalty of Adam's Sin, the Grace of His Body Lost.
It may therefore be correctly affirmed, that such infants as quit the body without being baptized will be involved in the mildest condemnation of all. That person, therefore, greatly deceives both himself and others, who teaches that they will not be involved in condemnation; whereas the apostle says: Judgment from one offense to condemnation, Romans 5:16 and again a little after: By the offense of one upon all persons to condemnation. Romans 5:18 When, indeed, Adam sinned by not obeying God, then his body — although it was a natural and mortal body — lost the grace whereby it used in every part of it to be obedient to the soul. Then there arose in men affections common to the brutes which are productive of shame, and which made man ashamed of his own nakedness. Genesis 3:10 Then also, by a certain disease which was conceived in men from a suddenly injected and pestilential corruption, it was brought about that they lost that stability of life in which they were created, and, by reason of the mutations which they experienced in the stages of life, issued at last in death. However many were the years they lived in their subsequent life, yet they began to die on the day when they received the law of death, because they kept verging towards old age. For that possesses not even a moment's stability, but glides away without intermission, which by constant change perceptibly advances to an end which does not produce perfection, but utter exhaustion. Thus, then, was fulfilled what God had spoken: In the day that you eat thereof, you shall surely die. Genesis 2:17 As a consequence, then, of this disobedience of the flesh and this law of sin and death, whoever is born of the flesh has need of spiritual regeneration — not only that he may reach the kingdom of God, but also that he may be freed from the damnation of sin. Hence men are on the one hand born in the flesh liable to sin and death from the first Adam, and on the other hand are born again in baptism associated with the righteousness and eternal life of the second Adam; even as it is written in the book of Ecclesiasticus: Of the woman came the beginning of sin, and through her we all die. Sirach 25:24 Now whether it be said of the woman or of Adam, both statements pertain to the first man; since (as we know) the woman is of the man, and the two are one flesh. Whence also it is written: And they two shall be one flesh; wherefore, the Lord says, they are no more two, but one flesh. Matthew 19:5-6
https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/15011.htm
-
But I do not say that children who die without the baptism of Christ will undergo such grievous punishment that it were better for them never to have been born, since our Lord did not say these words of any sinner you please, but only of the most base and ungodly. If we consider what He said about the Sodomites, which certainly He did not mean of them only that it will be more tolerable for one than for another in the day of judgment, 2 who can doubt that nonbaptized infants, having only original sin and no burden of personal sins, will suffer the lightest condemnation of all? I cannot define the amount and kind of their punishment, but I dare not say it were better for them never to have existed than to exist there. But you, also, who contend they are, as it were, free of any condemnation, do not wish to think about the condemnation by which you punish them by estranging from the life of God and from the kingdom of God so many images of God, and by separating them from the pious parents you so eloquently urge to procreate them. They suffer these separations unjustly, if they have no sin at all; or if justly, then they have original sin.
The Fathers Of The Church A New Translation Volume 35 Saint Augustine Against Julian : Roy Joseph Deferrari : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive
I believe the above is the translation of the passage cited Contra Iulianum 5.11.44 (PL 44, 809), which I already quoted on page 1.
This, with the replies 30 and 32, gives us 3 of the 4 passages in translation.
-
While you're answering that, it seems my first argument was based on carelessly disregarding the context.
However, I haven't exhausted the quote. Here's the relevant part:
Notice two things:
1) Augustine says the punishment has an amount and kind which he does not know. Consider now that the deprivation of the Beatific Vision is a specific kind of punishment and which has no qualifier of amount. Therefore, Augustine is not speaking of merely their being in Hell. To restate the argument: if Augustine was claiming infants are only deprived of Heaven he wouldn't have said he cannot say what amount and kind of punishment they would suffer.
2) Augustine says: I dare not say it were better for them never to have existed than to exist there. Well, if Augustine held that the infants were in a state of perfect natural happiness, not suffering any positive punishment, then he would certainly say it was good for them to be born. However, he is not sure whether their punishment is of such a degree as to be better not to even exist.
Marulus,
(1) Augustine clearly believes that these infants are denied the beatific vision, and that this is a "condemnation."
(2) Beyond that, he clearly says that he doesn't know, but that it is "the lightest condemnation of all."
Do we agree on (1) and (2)?
And, remember, he says he doesn't know - beyond (1) above - what the condemnation is, but "it is the lightest of all."
I believe St. Augustine is merely being restrained in his opinion in light of his lack of clear knowledge. Augustine held Scripture in the highest regard and would not be dogmatic about things not taught in Scripture or by the Church. By saying he would not dare say it were better for them not to be born, he is showing that restraint. Yes, he does not say they have a state of perfect natural happiness . . HE DOESN'T KNOW BEYOND (1) above, but he wouldn't dare qualify or opine that the "penalty" was such that it were better for them not to be born. Which, I might add, were that to involve "torments" from the flames of hell, it would be very difficult, if not impossible, for him to say that.
Indeed, as has been noted, the Church hasn't defined Limbo, or a state of natural happiness, to this day.
Augustine is being cautious. I'm working through the first translation, the sermon, but he shows himself to be a close reader of Scripture and and the necessary inferences from it. As he argues, Scripture gives us the right and the left, heaven and hell, and is silent beyond that, and he dissects the Scriptural passages quite lucidly. So he quite reasonably concludes that, since the infants sans baptism cannot go to heaven, then there's that only other place/option. Indeed, even those supporting a Limbo of natural happiness concede that it is not in "some other middle place," but, I believe it is recognized as being on the outer regions or borders of hell.
Love Augustine, and his manner of thinking. Very sound, and of course brilliant.
-
As promised, here’s the third:
Contra Iulianum 5.11.44 (PL 44, 809).
I will post this one in English since I am aware of a faithful translation of it -
https://archive.org/details/fathersofthechur013910mbp
I hope the resources I posted help move this very important discussion forward in a positive direction.
-
As promised, here’s the third:
Contra Iulianum 5.11.44 (PL 44, 809).
I will post this one in English since I am aware of a faithful translation of it -
https://archive.org/details/fathersofthechur013910mbp
I hope the resources I posted help move this very important discussion forward in a positive direction.
Thanks again.
-
I believe the above is the translation of the passage cited Contra Iulianum 5.11.44 (PL 44, 809), which I already quoted on page 1.
This, with the replies 30 and 32, gives us 3 of the 4 passages in translation.
Actually, there are only 3. So we now have all 3 passages in translation I believe.
-
I read the Latin, and the key phrases are that St. Augustine believes that there are only two possible states in eternity, the beatitude of Heaven, and then the place of ignis aeternus ("eternal fire") and damnatio cuм diabolo ("damnation with the devil") ... though their particular punishment would be extremely mild. He simply doesn't admit of even infants who die without Baptism (i.e. those with Original but no actual sin) can be in some place where there's no suffering whatsoever, much less the perfect happiness held by St. Thomas Aquinas.
Now, in Latin, poena mitissima, the "mildest punishment", the superlative form, "mildest" (mitissima) could be an absolute or a relative term, meaning either the mildest possible punishment anyone could possibly suffer period, or else the mildest punishment of all those in Hell. It's hard to say precisely how severe he believed it would be from an absolute (vs. relative) standpoint, since it's the place of "eternal fire". Did he envision a place on the outer edges where they were barely touched by the fire, or not touched by the fire directly, etc.? I don't now. But his main rationale is the interpretation of Sacred Scripture, in Our Lord's parables, where He judges all into two camps, either sheep or goats, on the right hand or the left, and non datur tertium, i.e., "there's no third option".
-
Marulus,
(1) Augustine clearly believes that these infants are denied the beatific vision, and that this is a "condemnation."
(2) Beyond that, he clearly says that he doesn't know, but that it is "the lightest condemnation of all."
It's not just any condemnation, but a damnatio cuм diabolo, condemnation or damnation with the devil, and it's a place of ignis aeternus, eternal fire.
I believe that "condemnation" you speak of (it wasn't in the Latin I looked at posted earlier), actually refers to poena, the actual suffering or affliction or torment part, and not just the condemnation. But I'd have to find more of his Latin to be sure.
But it's important whether the "mildest" refers to the condemnation or the punishment. These are potentially two distinct things. Let's say that two of my children are involved in the same act of mischief. I ground them both for 3 weeks. So they get the same punishment. But I know that the older one was exerting his influence over the younger one, so I am less upset with the younger one than with the older one. Or, another analogy, two people cause $2,000 damage to my car. One of them did so accidentally, the other vandalized the car out of spite. Both owe me $2,000 in damages, and that would correspond to the poena, the penalty, but I'm not upset with the individual who did it accidentally, perhaps even feel sorry for him, but I'm angry at the one who did it deliberately. So there's a distinction between guilt and punishment.
This distinction, BTW, is also the key to understanding Pope Pius IX's famous "invincible ignorance" passages, where he states that those not guilty of actual sin would not be afflicted with punishments, in Latin, the poenis, or penalties, but this does not necessarily mean they will be rewarded with Heaven.
St. Gregory nαzιanzen, in rejecting Baptism of Desire, states that there are some who are not bad enough to be punished but not good enough to be glorified. Our Lord taught that those who believe and are baptized will be saved, but that those who do not believe will be condemned. This leaves a middle ground of those who believe but are not baptized, where they fell into neither category.
-
It's not just any condemnation, but a damnatio cuм diabolo, condemnation or damnation with the devil, and it's a place of ignis aeternus, eternal fire.
I believe that "condemnation" you speak of (it wasn't in the Latin I looked at posted earlier), actually refers to poena, the actual suffering or affliction or torment part, and not just the condemnation. But I'd have to find more of his Latin to be sure.
But it's important whether the "mildest" refers to the condemnation or the punishment. These are potentially two distinct things. Let's say that two of my children are involved in the same act of mischief. I ground them both for 3 weeks. So they get the same punishment. But I know that the older one was exerting his influence over the younger one, so I am less upset with the younger one than with the older one. Or, another analogy, two people cause $2,000 damage to my car. One of them did so accidentally, the other vandalized the car out of spite. Both owe me $2,000 in damages, and that would correspond to the poena, the penalty, but I'm not upset with the individual who did it accidentally, perhaps even feel sorry for him, but I'm angry at the one who did it deliberately. So there's a distinction between guilt and punishment.
This distinction, BTW, is also the key to understanding Pope Pius IX's famous "invincible ignorance" passages, where he states that those not guilty of actual sin would not be afflicted with punishments, in Latin, the poenis, or penalties, but this does not necessarily mean they will be rewarded with Heaven.
St. Gregory nαzιanzen, in rejecting Baptism of Desire, states that there are some who are not bad enough to be punished but not good enough to be glorified. Our Lord taught that those who believe and are baptized will be saved, but that those who do not believe will be condemned. This leaves a middle ground of those who believe but are not baptized, where they fell into neither category.
Lad,
It is clear, both by Scripture, the Council of Trent, and indeed Augustine's own words, that all men are "condemned" by Adam's sin, and that this "condemnation" falls upon infants who die unbaptized, who endure the "penalty" or punishment of that condemnation, which comes by way of God's "judgment" (again, Rom. 5:16,18).
The condemnation is the judgment; the penalty or punishment is the sentence resulting therefrom.
St. Augustine looked at the relevant Scriptural passages, which indicate a final judgment to the "right hand or the left," to a heaven or hell. He addresses those passages in the cited Sermon 294. As I said, it is accepted by Church teaching that there is "no middle place," and that one ends up either in heaven or hell, whether that place is called "Limbo" for the infants because it is on the border or outer reach of hell or not; it's still part of the one, hell, and not the only other, heaven. Necessarily, and so Augustine quite clearly reasons.
Augustine describes the infants as consigned to the "fires of hell" because that is how Scripture describes hell, i.e., a place of eternal flame. He does not do more than reason, a) there are two eternal resting places, heaven and hell; b) hell is Scripturally described as a place of eternal fire, and c) these infants don't go to heaven, but go to hell, the place Scripture describes as of "eternal fire." I've looked at the passages I think fairly closely, and I do not see him indicating these infants are "tormented," or undergo some punishment beyond deprivation of the beatific vision. I say again, if he says they do, let's see the passages and address them.
What he does say, explicitly, is that the "condemnation" these infants undergo is "the lightest condemnation of all," and he says this with "no doubt" whatsoever. Here it is again:
But I do not say that children who die without the baptism of Christ will undergo such grievous punishment that it were better for them never to have been born, since our Lord did not say these words of any sinner you please, but only of the most base and ungodly. If we consider what He said about the Sodomites, which certainly He did not mean of them only that it will be more tolerable for one than for another in the day of judgment, 2 who can doubt that nonbaptized infants, having only original sin and no burden of personal sins, will suffer the lightest condemnation of all? I cannot define the amount and kind of their punishment, but I dare not say it were better for them never to have existed than to exist there. But you, also, who contend they are, as it were, free of any condemnation, do not wish to think about the condemnation by which you punish them by estranging from the life of God and from the kingdom of God so many images of God, and by separating them from the pious parents you so eloquently urge to procreate them. They suffer these separations unjustly, if they have no sin at all; or if justly, then they have original sin.
The Fathers Of The Church A New Translation Volume 35 Saint Augustine Against Julian : Roy Joseph Deferrari : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive
He says there that he "cannot define the amount" by way of caution and humility, since, as I said, he doesn't know. He is, again, quite explicit about this in Sermon 294:
I am myself keenly aware of how profoundly problematic this question is, and I recognize that my powers are not sufficient to get to the bottom of it. Here too I like to exclaim with Paul, Oh the depths of the riches! (Rom 11:33). Unbaptized babies go to damnation; they are the apostle's words, after all: From one to condemnation (Rom 5:16).8 I cannot find a satisfactory and worthy explanation-because I can't find one, not because there isn't one. So where, in the depths, I cannot find bottom, I must take account of human weakness, not condemn divine authority. I certainly exclaim, and I'm not in the least ashamed of it, Oh the depths of the riches of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How inscrutable are his judgments, and untraceable his ways! For who has come to know the mind of the Lord, or who has been his counselor? Or who first gave to him, and will be repaid? Because from him, and through him, and in him are all things; to him be glory for ever and ever (Rom 11:33-36).
So he says he doesn't know what penalty or punishment these infants suffer in "damnation" - again, he feels he must say that because of the plain Scriptural texts, the Word of God, which binds him - beyond saying, again, explicitly and clearly, it's "the lightest condemnation of all." Elsewhere he says it's the "mildest condemnation (or punishment) of all." Again I repeat: the denial of the beatific vision is a condemnation with a "penalty," as Innocent III agrees. Trent recognizes all men as "children of wrath" as a result of the sin of the first Adam, needing rebirth in the second via baptism. These infants, like it or not, are "children of wrath." This is the Scriptural revelation, confirmed by the Church in the highest expressions of its authority (Trent).
So the contention that Augustine consigned children to the "pains or torment of hell," or indicated they endure "torture" or physical suffering, is simply based upon Augustine's acknowledging that these infants go to hell - the only place they can go, other than heaven - and noting that Scripture describes hell as a place of "eternal fire or flames." That's it. He doesn't describe any "torment" or "pains" they suffer; he says whatever they suffer, it's "the lightest condemnation of all," or the "mildest" possible punishment or condemnation; and he adds, he can't say it were better for them not to be born, despite being denied the beatific vision, which is the only "condemnation" he knows they actually receive based upon Scripture. I greatly doubt he would say he could not say it were better for them not to have been born if he believed they suffered torments of the imposition of tangible (so to say) pain in hell.
I say the claim that Augustine consigned these unbaptized infants to "torments" and "suffering" in hell, as if he were some grim theological reaper, is unjust. I say there are assumptions made by many in making that argument, assumptions belied by the "facts" of Augustine's actual statements and thought. I think I've looked at all the relevant texts, and I think my position sound.
I appreciate your discussing this without ad hominem and unneeded rhetoric, and appreciate your input, and look forward to additional thoughts, discussion of other relevant texts, etc.
-
(https://i.ibb.co/PFRg1xK/IMG-4672.jpg)
-
(https://i.ibb.co/P6GLnxY/IMG-4673.jpg)
-
(https://i.ibb.co/G5yNL1b/IMG-4674.jpg)
-
The above from St. Robert Bellarmine who distinguished St. Augustine’s view from that which came later by way of the scholastics, especially St. T. Aquinas.
Source:
https://books.googleusercontent.com/books/content?req=AKW5QadSSWT71abU2TKG0MJX3CqHndUk9XrMIMo5zX8bzjad7S4aZEXFHzbzUO3g_WQWA9teRfOik34_8EcbWDK_C5l8NHCUYrhhYRS9NZtyv7HCDyxpoDvSBWGhpL5AZQGre9-hDAaCtxrdBFZlzc88o8yu13BINjRUPriONOT2chpqkAeQUy2onDfYhH_x4z3vofo_QMCPcahKo_RstetmCMjiwEixcL89V-S7RKoPuzKAIiueFj1UK9gOZdaLedc9v6p0B0UXjRrOQcNtxGMn7gK1VxZ0vQ
-
The above from St. Robert Bellarmine who distinguished St. Augustine’s view from that which came later by way of the scholastics, especially St. T. Aquinas.
Source:
https://books.googleusercontent.com/books/content?req=AKW5QadSSWT71abU2TKG0MJX3CqHndUk9XrMIMo5zX8bzjad7S4aZEXFHzbzUO3g_WQWA9teRfOik34_8EcbWDK_C5l8NHCUYrhhYRS9NZtyv7HCDyxpoDvSBWGhpL5AZQGre9-hDAaCtxrdBFZlzc88o8yu13BINjRUPriONOT2chpqkAeQUy2onDfYhH_x4z3vofo_QMCPcahKo_RstetmCMjiwEixcL89V-S7RKoPuzKAIiueFj1UK9gOZdaLedc9v6p0B0UXjRrOQcNtxGMn7gK1VxZ0vQ
You're just the source of information, aren't you, Random? Some nice light reading. :laugh1:
It will take time to figure out - or isolate, since none of this appears to be Augustine, but commentary - the actual quotations from St. Augustine. But I look forward to reading it. Thanks.
-
Lad,
It is clear, both by Scripture, the Council of Trent, and indeed Augustine's own words, that all men are "condemned" by Adam's sin, and that this "condemnation" falls upon infants who die unbaptized, who endure the "penalty" or punishment of that condemnation, which comes by way of God's "judgment" (again, Rom. 5:16,18).
No, it's not clear from Sacred Scripture. There's a completely different trajectory that the Eastern / Greek Fathers took regarding the distinction between nature and grace vs. in the West, where they followed the thinking of St. Augustine. St. Gregory of nαzιanzen, called "the Theologian", in his famous rejection of BoD, articulated the notion that there are some who are not bad enough to be punished but not good enough to be glorified. Again, I encourage you to read the CE article on Limbo. St. Thomas Aquinas clearly articulated the Eastern perspective, that elevation to the supernatural state is a free gift that is undeserved, and thus being deprived of it is not a punishment in the sense that it's a withholding of a free gift. And you can't just rely upon English words like "condemned" out there but need to cite the original languages, which are more precise. Now, the Jansenists condemned this view as Pelagian, but their condemnation was condemned, and effectively the Church taught that this was not Pelagianism.
I'm not too interested in debating this issue, as the Church has never condemned St. Augustine's position, merely exonerated that of St. Thomas as not being Pelagian, and tenable by Catholics. IMO, both positions are theologically tenable. I happen to agree with St. Thomas and the Greek Fathers on the matter.
-
No, it's not clear from Sacred Scripture. There's a completely different trajectory that the Eastern / Greek Fathers took regarding the distinction between nature and grace vs. in the West, where they followed the thinking of St. Augustine. St. Gregory of nαzιanzen, called "the Theologian", in his famous rejection of BoD, articulated the notion that there are some who are not bad enough to be punished but not good enough to be glorified. Again, I encourage you to read the CE article on Limbo. St. Thomas Aquinas clearly articulated the Eastern perspective, that elevation to the supernatural state is a free gift that is undeserved, and thus being deprived of it is not a punishment in the sense that it's a withholding of a free gift. And you can't just rely upon English words like "condemned" out there but need to cite the original languages, which are more precise. Now, the Jansenists condemned this view as Pelagian, but their condemnation was condemned, and effectively the Church taught that this was not Pelagianism.
I'm not too interested in debating this issue, as the Church has never condemned St. Augustine's position, merely exonerated that of St. Thomas as not being Pelagian, and tenable by Catholics. IMO, both positions are theologically tenable. I happen to agree with St. Thomas and the Greek Fathers on the matter.
True, even if one were to assume that Augustine's view was as rigorous as some claim - i.e., that unbaptized infants who died were delivered to a mild punishment of actual suffering or pain in the "flames of hell" - the Church has not condemned that view, and it is tenable. However, my interest is in the actual view of St. Augustine, and not the assumption of what it was. Is the assumption accurate or not? Based on the actual quotations and what St. Augustine said, I think not . . . so far.
For both Romans 5:16 and 18, the term from the Vulgate for the English condemnation is condemnātiōnem, a form of condemnātiō, which Wiktionary translates as "1. condemnation 2. verdict." condemnatio - Wiktionary, the free dictionary
T (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/condemnatio#Latin)he Greek NT original in both verses is κατάκριμα, katakrima, Strong's G2631, which is translated as "damnatory sentence, condemnation." G2631 - katakrima - Strong's Greek Lexicon (kjv) (blueletterbible.org) (https://www.blueletterbible.org/lexicon/g2631/kjv/tr/0-1/). You see the same original word in Romans 8:1 -
Rom 8:1
There is therefore now no condemnation G2631 to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.
In the Vulgate of Romans 8:1, Jerome uses a different word:
1 There is now therefore no condemnation to them that are in Christ Jesus, who walk not according to the flesh.
Nihil ergo nunc damnationis est iis qui sunt in Christo Jesu : qui non secundum carnem ambulant.
Nonbaptized infants are not "in Christ Jesus." They are "condemned," and "damned," Biblically speaking. In English, Greek and Latin. There is no difference that I see between the English and the original languages.
But anyway, I hold Augustine in very high regard, as I know you do. I'd like to know what he thought, not what others who came after him thought, or what others say he thought. What did St. Augustine himself say and think on the matter? That is my question. As you, I do not condemn (no pun intended) any permitted position here.
-
The above from St. Robert Bellarmine who distinguished St. Augustine’s view from that which came later by way of the scholastics, especially St. T. Aquinas.
Source:
https://books.googleusercontent.com/books/content?req=AKW5QadSSWT71abU2TKG0MJX3CqHndUk9XrMIMo5zX8bzjad7S4aZEXFHzbzUO3g_WQWA9teRfOik34_8EcbWDK_C5l8NHCUYrhhYRS9NZtyv7HCDyxpoDvSBWGhpL5AZQGre9-hDAaCtxrdBFZlzc88o8yu13BINjRUPriONOT2chpqkAeQUy2onDfYhH_x4z3vofo_QMCPcahKo_RstetmCMjiwEixcL89V-S7RKoPuzKAIiueFj1UK9gOZdaLedc9v6p0B0UXjRrOQcNtxGMn7gK1VxZ0vQ
This "book," or rather article entitled "Infant Perdition in the Middle Ages," from the journal, Medieval Studies, is a real eye opener. Wow. It is written by a Protestant critic of the Church, but most importantly, pages 6 - 15 are a translation of a work by St. Robert Bellarmine, and contain Bellarmine's words and thinking, directly, on the question. I will quote from Bellarmine's work embedded in the article later, but . . . really, really interesting.
Thank you for the find, and contribution, RandomFish.
-
If you can't open the link, I attach my downloaded pdf. You can also get it online at Google books by simply searching "Infant Perdition in the Middle Ages."
The highlights are mine.
-
Thanks for the PDF. I couldn't access the links.
-
There are some additional, relevant quotes from St. Augustine in the Bellarmine text quoted in the article - which I will look at in more detail - but St. Robert basically agrees with my assessment of St. Augustine's view:
The seventh objection is from the Fathers Augustine and Fulgentius. For St. Augustine writeth plainly enough that infants shall be tormented in eternal fire (Serm; de Ver. Apost. 14), and St. Fulgentius biddeth us hold most steadfastly to that same belief (De Fide ad Petum, c. 27). I answer, the holy Fathers seem to have wished to signify that the infants should be tormented in eternal fire by detention there, and not by burning. For this is the only thing which Augustine everywhere maintains as certain, that unbaptized children after death shall be in that place where everlasting fire is, together with the devil and his angels. But he plainly said that he could not define what their punishment [poena] should be, or of what quality or how great. And if perchance St. Fulgentius held otherwise, we do him no injustice if we prefer to follow St. Gregory nαzιanzene with the whole school of theologians....
Page 13
As I said, my main interest here is getting St. Augustine right, and doing him justice. I'm going to focus now closely on the actual quotes from him in the article.
-
Thanks for the PDF. I couldn't access the links.
Yeah. I don't recall how I got the whole article. I think I did the Google search by its title and author.
The article is particularly good in that I wasn't able to find an English translation of the Bellarmine work elsewhere online.
-
St. Robert Bellarmine comes down in favor of the Augustine view, which he does not read as suffering any physical pain from the "fires of hell" - see prior post. St. Robert's opinion:
Lastly, it remains for us to discuss the third and fourth opinion, whereof the former exempted infants from all pain, whether inward or outward,
while the latter left them inward pain but freed them altogether from the outward. The former is probable by reason of the authority of St. Thomas, St. Bonaventura, and many other illustrious theologians; but I deem the latter the more probable by reason of the authority of the holy Fathers St. Augustine, St. Fulgentius, St. Gregory, and others ;
, who have been followed by some even among the Schoolmen.
I say therefore that unbaptized children will feel mental pain, since they will understand themselves to be deprived of bliss, severed from the company of their pious brethren and parents, thrust into the dungeon of hell, and destined to spend. their lives in eternal darkness.
Page 13
The copy is not perfect at the end there.
Again, I'm not seeing any discussion by St. Augustine of any pain identified for these infants, outer or inward - maybe I've missed something, or it's in some other quote in the article. All I see St. Augustine doing is consigning these infants to a place of pain, a place of eternal flames; again, he does so for the reasons discussed, namely, only 2 eternal places, heaven, a place of bliss, and hell, a place of eternal flame (and much torment and suffering for those who commited unforgiven, actual sins).
But there's St. Robert's opinion.
-
Augustine, Enchiridion ad Laurentium:
Chapter 46. It is Probable that Children are Involved in the Guilt Not Only of the First Pair, But of Their Own Immediate Parents.
And it is said, with much appearance of probability, that infants are involved in the guilt of the sins not only of the first pair, but of their own immediate parents. For that divine judgment, I shall visit the iniquities of the fathers upon the children, certainly applies to them before they come under the new covenant by regeneration. And it was this new covenant that was prophesied of, when it was said by Ezekiel, that the sons should not bear the iniquity of the fathers, and that it should no longer be a proverb in Israel, The fathers have eaten sour grapes, and the children's teeth are set on edge. Here lies the necessity that each man should be born again, that he might be freed from the sin in which he was born. For the sins committed afterwards can be cured by penitence, as we see is the case after baptism. And therefore the new birth would not have been appointed only that the first birth was sinful, so sinful that even one who was legitimately born in wedlock says: I was shapen in iniquities, and in sins did my mother conceive me. He did not say in iniquity, or in sin, though he might have said so correctly; but he preferred to say iniquities and sins, because in that one sin which passed upon all men, and which was so great that human nature was by it made subject to inevitable death, many sins, as I showed above, may be discriminated; and further, because there are other sins of the immediate parents, which though they have not the same effect in producing a change of nature, yet subject the children to guilt unless the divine grace and mercy interpose to rescue them.
Chapter 92. The Resurrection of the Lost.
But as for those who, out of the mass of perdition caused by the first man's sin, are not redeemed through the one Mediator between God and man, they too shall rise again, each with his own body, but only to be punished with the devil and his angels…
Chapter 93. Both the First and the Second Deaths are the Consequence of Sin. Punishment is Proportioned to Guilt.
And neither the first death, which takes place when the soul is compelled to leave the body, nor the second death, which takes place when the soul is not permitted to leave the suffering body, would have been inflicted on man had no one sinned. And, of course, the mildest punishment of all will fall upon those who have added no actual sin, to the original sin they brought with them; and as for the rest who have added such actual sins, the punishment of each will be the more tolerable in the next world, according as his iniquity has been less in this world.
Source:
https://archive.org/details/saureliiaugusti01augugoog/page/n5/mode/1up
-
Is the claim he thought infants would be tormented with the fires of hell, albeit "mildly," some form of Catholic urban myth?
It could be ignorance about Limbo, not understanding that Limbo is within the confines of Hell, thinking rather that Limbo is outside of both Heaven and Hell.
-
THE MYSTICAL CITY OF GOD
VOLUME III
Chapter XXV
749. To one side of hell is purgatory, where the souls of the just are purged and where they cleanse themselves, if they have not satisfied for their faults in this life, or have not departed from this earthly life entirely free from the defects incapacitating them for the beatific vision. This cavern is also large, but not so large as hell; and though there are severe punishments in purgatory, they have no connection with those of hell.
To the other side is limbo with two different divisions: The one for the children, who die unbaptized and tainted only with original sin, without either good or bad works of their own election. The other served as a retreat for the just, who had already satisfied for their sins; for they could not enter heaven, nor enjoy the vision of God until the Redemption of man was accomplished and until Christ our Savior should open the gates of heaven closed by the sin of Adam (Ps. 23, 9). This cavern is likewise smaller than hell, and has no connection with it, nor are there in it the pains of the senses like in purgatory. For it was destined for the souls already cleansed in purgatory and implied only the absence of beatific vision or pain of privation; there also stayed all those who died in the state of grace until the death of the Redeemer. This is the place to which Christ’s soul descended with the Divinity and which we refer to in saying that He descended into hell.
For the word “hell” may be used to signify any of the infernal regions in the depths of the earth, though commonly we apply it only to the hell of the demons and the damned. This is the most notable meaning of this word, just as “heaven” ordinarily signifies the empyrean, the habitation of the saints, where they are to dwell forever, while the damned remain forever in hell. The other parts of hell have also the more particular names of purgatory and limbo. After the final judgment heaven and hell only are to be inhabited, since purgatory shall become unnecessary and since even the infants shall be transported to another dwellingplace.
-
THE MYSTICAL CITY OF GOD
VOLUME III
Chapter XXV
since even the infants shall be transported to another dwellingplace.
Huh?!?!
-
Huh?!?!
I was wondering about that last sentence, as well.
Infants from Limbo will live, after the last judgement, on the new earth, apparently?
https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/paul-vi-still-alive-and-in-hiding/msg562224/#msg562224
The children without proper reason do not go to hell but to limbo, and they will live on the surface of the earth at the end of the world.
https://www.cathinfo.com/baptism-of-desire-and-feeneyism/baptismofdesire-com/msg272411/#msg272411
Explanation of the Baltimore Catechism Concerning the Salvation of Non-Catholics originally published in 1891
by Rev. Thomas L. Kinkead
[ . . . ]
154. Q. Is Baptism necessary to salvation?
A. Baptism is necessary to salvation, because without it we cannot enter into the kingdom of Heaven.
Those who through no fault of theirs die without Baptism, though they have never committed sin, cannot enter Heaven neither will they go to Hell. After the Last Judgment there will be no Purgatory. Where, then, will they go? God in His goodness will provide a place of rest for them, where they will not suffer and will be in a state of natural peace; but they will never see God or Heaven. God might have created us for a purely natural and material end, so that we would live forever upon the earth and be naturally happy with the good things God would give us. But then we would never have known of Heaven or God as we do now. Such happiness on earth would be nothing compared to the delights of Heaven and the presence of God; so that, now, since God has given us, through His holy revelations, a knowledge of Himself and Heaven, we would be miserable if left always upon the earth. Those, then, who die without Baptism do not know what they have lost, and are naturally happy; but we who know all they have lost for want of Baptism know how very unfortunate they are.
Think, then, what a terrible crime it is to willfully allow anyone to die without Baptism, or to deprive a little child of life before it can be baptized! Suppose all the members of a family but one little infant have been baptized; when the Day of Judgment comes, while all the other members of a family—father, mother, and children—may go into Heaven, that little one will have to remain out; that little brother or sister will be separated from its family forever, and never, never see God or Heaven. How heartless and cruel, then, must a person be who would deprive that little infant of happiness for all eternity—just that its mother or someone else might have a little less trouble or suffering here upon earth.
-
I was wondering about that last sentence, as well.
Infants from Limbo will live, after the last judgement, on the new earth, apparently?
https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/paul-vi-still-alive-and-in-hiding/msg562224/#msg562224
https://www.cathinfo.com/baptism-of-desire-and-feeneyism/baptismofdesire-com/msg272411/#msg272411
Interesting, although I'm skeptical of any book that has salvation of non-Catholics in its title.
-
DecemRationis, it seems like one long game of the telephone game, but I'm struggling to find it's source.
If you search Augustine, infants, and the fires of hell, many authors are merely repeating the claim without even bothering to list a source, even works from so-called scholars, which are nothing of the sort.
I'm now wondering if the claim that St. Fulgenitus also held that infants suffer the fires of hell is likewise a spurious claim.
-
Augustine, Enchiridion ad Laurentium:
Chapter 46. It is Probable that Children are Involved in the Guilt Not Only of the First Pair, But of Their Own Immediate Parents.
Chapter 92. The Resurrection of the Lost.
Chapter 93. Both the First and the Second Deaths are the Consequence of Sin. Punishment is Proportioned to Guilt.
Source:
https://archive.org/details/saureliiaugusti01augugoog/page/n5/mode/1up
That book on the internet archive is in Latin.
The English is here:
https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1302.htm
-
Saint Augustine’s view on the divine consignment of unbaptized infants to the positive sufferings of the damned in hell, contra S. Aquinas, and in addition to the lack of the Beatific Vision, is found in the following resources:
De pecc. mer. 1.16.21 (CSEL 60, 20f.) ; Sermo 294.3, Patrologia cursus completa, series latina (PL), J.P. MIGNE (ed.), 38, 1337; Contra Iulianum 5.11.44 (PL 44, 809).
For your convenience:
https://archive.org/details/sanctiaureliiau05augugoog/page/n659/mode/1up
De peccatorum meritis et remissione et de baptismo parvulorum
On Merit and the Forgiveness of Sins, and the Baptism of Infants
1.16.21 Would be book 1, chapter 16, but I don't understand the significance of the number 21.
https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/15011.htm
Chapter 16 [XIII.]— How Death is by One and Life by One.
And from this we gather that we have derived from Adam, in whom we all have sinned, not all our actual sins, but only original sin; whereas from Christ, in whom we are all justified, we obtain the remission not merely of that original sin, but of the rest of our sins also, which we have added. Hence it runs: "Not as by the one that sinned, so also is the free gift." For the judgment, certainly, from one sin, if it is not remitted — and that the original sin— is capable of drawing us into condemnation; while grace conducts us to justification from the remission of many sins — that is to say, not simply from the original sin, but from all others also whatsoever.
Sermo 294.3, Patrologia cursus completa, series latina
The Works of Saint Augustine, A Translation for the 21st Century
Sermons III/8 (273-305A) on the Saints
Sermon 294
Preached in the Basilica of the Ancestors on the Birthday
of the Martyr Guddens on 27 June
(On the Baptism of Infants, against the Pelagians)
Date: 413
https://wesleyscholar.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/Augustine-Sermons-273-305.pdf
Pages 181 to 182:
3. This is the first error that needs to be turned away from people's ears, and uprooted from their minds. This is something new in the Church, previously unheard of, that there is eternal life apart from the kingdom of heaven, eternal salvation apart from the kingdom of God. First consider, brother, if you shouldn't perhaps agree with us on this point, that whoever is not consigned to the kingdom of God is undoubtedly consigned to damnation. The Lord is going to come, and pass judgment on the living and the dead, as the gospel says, and to make two groups, on the right hand and on the left. To those on the left he is going to say, Go into the eternal fire, which has been prepared for the devil and his angels (Mt 25:41); to those on the right he is going to say, Come, you blessed of my Father, receive the kingdom which has been prepared for you from the origin of the world (Mt 25:34). On this side he mentions the kingdom, on that damnation with the devil. There is no middle place left, where you can put babies.
Judgment will be passed on the living and the dead; some will be on the right, others on the left; I don't know any other destiny. You there, bringing in a middle place, get out of the middle, don't make the person seeking the right hand trip over you. And I'm advising you for your own sake; get out of the middle, but don't go to the left. So if there will be a right hand and a left, and we know of no middle place in the gospel; here on the right hand is the kingdom of heaven: Receive, he says, the kingdom. Whoever isn't there, is on the left. What will be happening on the left? Go into the eternal fire. On the right to the kingdom, eternal of course; on the left to the eternal fire. Whoever is not on the right, is without a doubt on the left; so whoever is not in the kingdom is without a doubt in the eternal fire.
Can those who are not baptized really have eternal life? They won't be on the right, that is they won't be in the kingdom. Do you count everlasting fire as eternal life? And about eternal life itself, listen to a more explicit statement that the kingdom is nothing else but eternal life. First he mentioned the kingdom, but on the right; eternal fire on the left. In the final sentence, though, to teach us what the kingdom is and what eternal fire is, Then these, he says, will go off into eternal burning, the just, however, into eternal life (Mt 25:46).
There you are, he has explained to you what the kingdom is, and what eternal fire is; so that when you confess that a baby won't be in the kingdom, you are admitting it will be in the eternal fire. The kingdom of heaven, you see, is eternal life.
Contra Iulianum 5.11.44
The Fathers of the Church: A New Translation
Saint Augustine
Against Julian
Book 5, chapter 11, (44)
https://archive.org/details/againstjulian0035augu/page/284/mode/2up
Pages 285 to 286
Book 5
[ . . . ]
Chapter 11
(44) You quote from the Gospel: ‘It were better for that man if he had not been born.”* But was his birth not due more to the work of God than his parents? Why did not God, foreknowing the evil that lay before him and which parents cannot know, give the better portion to His own image? Those who understand rightly know that nothing is attributed to God except what is proper to the goodness of the Creator. In like manner, without any difficult investigation, we must attribute to parents their wish to have children, although they know nothing of their future. But I do not say that children who die without the baptism of Christ will undergo such grievous punishment that it were better for them never to have been born, since our Lord did not say these words of any sinner you please, but only of the most base and ungodly. If we consider what He said about the Sodomites, which certainly He did not mean of them only—that it will be more tolerable for one than for another in the day of judgment,? who can doubt that nonbaptized infants, having only original sin and no burden of personal sins, will suffer the lightest condemnation of all? I cannot define the amount and kind of their punishment, but I dare not say it were better for them never to have existed than to exist there. But you, also, who contend they are, as it were, free of any condemnation, do not wish to think about the condemnation by which you punish them by estranging from the life of God and from the kingdom of God so many images of God, and by separating them from the pious parents you so eloquently urge to procreate them. They suffer these separations unjustly, if they have no sin at all; or if justly, then they have original sin.
-
Sermon 294 was in 413 AD, per the source listed above.
Against Julian was incomplete, around 430 AD, per the wiki below.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augustine_of_Hippo_bibliography
-
Thanks. I think this is the translation of that:
Chapter 21 [XVI.]— Unbaptized Infants Damned, But Most Lightly; The Penalty of Adam's Sin, the Grace of His Body Lost.
Seeing this now, I should have read the whole thread, initially.
It could be a reference to both chapter 16 and chapter 21.
-
To me, it doesn't appear that St. Augustine has clear distinction between natural and supernatural ... as the Greek Fathers did. He equates life with the Kingom, but the Kingdom refers to supernatural life, an elevation of the natural state, as St. Thomas explains and as the Greek Fathers held from early on. So there can be eternal (natural) life and eternal (supernatural) life.
-
DecemRationis, it seems like one long game of the telephone game, but I'm struggling to find it's source.
If you search Augustine, infants, and the fires of hell, many authors are merely repeating the claim without even bothering to list a source, even works from so-called scholars, which are nothing of the sort.
I'm now wondering if the claim that St. Fulgenitus also held that infants suffer the fires of hell is likewise a spurious claim.
Trad123,
I think perhaps that some that followed in St. Augustine's footsteps went beyond his position into a more severe treatment of the infants at issue, and their association with him got attributed to him. I like St. Robert Bellarmine's treatment of the issue. The CE article on Limbo says Bellarmine was "embarrassed" by Augustine's position and that stated by the Council of Florence:
It is clear that Bellarmine found the situation embarrassing, being unwilling, as he was, to admit that St. Thomas and the Schoolmen generally were in conflict with what St. Augustine and other Fathers considered to be de fide, and what the Council of Florence seemed to have taught definitively.
I didn't get that sense at all, but a strict and unembarrassed and admirable holding to what I agree are the consequences of what Scripture, and the Church, says and has said.
It's worth noting the actual statements of the Magisterium on the issue. For example, the aforesaid Council of Florence:
DZ693 Moreover, the souls of those who depart in actual mortal sin or in original sin only, descend immediately into hell but to undergo
punishments of different kinds.
And the Catechism of the Council of Trent - we argue about the weight accorded the Catechism, but I agree for example with Fr. Jenkins as to the Roman Catechism's high authority - says this:
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.
http://www.catholicapologetics.info/thechurch/catechism/Holy7Sacraments-Baptism.shtml
The statements of the Magisterium certainly seem to side with St. Augustine in any divergence he has from St. Thomas in my view.
Lad - I would just like to say, regarding differences on this issue as compared to BoD. On BoD, I and many others who recognize the concept do because we believe that it is taught Magisterially in, for example, the Council of Trent and its Catechism. That position does not rely upon theologians, but official Church teaching. So, for example, BoD is in the Catechism of Trent, while Limbo for infants - no matter how you understand it, isn't. If it is, someone please correct me, because I'd like to know if I'm inaccurate there.
As I have argued repeatedly, though BoD is not precisely defined in its parameters, there is a "core concept," i.e. the possibility of justification in voto, that is taught Magisterially.
-
DecemRationis, it seems like one long game of the telephone game, but I'm struggling to find it's source.
If you search Augustine, infants, and the fires of hell, many authors are merely repeating the claim without even bothering to list a source, even works from so-called scholars, which are nothing of the sort.
I'm now wondering if the claim that St. Fulgenitus also held that infants suffer the fires of hell is likewise a spurious claim.
There's nothing spurious about it. I read the Latin posted here earlier, and St. Augustine clearly says that infants go to the place of ignis aeternus, eternal fire. Now, maybe he felt they were in the place of eternal fire but didn't actually somehow directly burn in the fire itself, perhaps off in a corner somewhere, but it's likely that his vision entailed them getting singed in a mild way by the inferno.
-
There's nothing spurious about it. I read the Latin posted here earlier, and St. Augustine clearly says that infants go to the place of ignis aeternus, eternal fire. Now, maybe he felt they were in the place of eternal fire but didn't actually somehow directly burn in the fire itself, perhaps off in a corner somewhere, but it's likely that his vision entailed them getting singed in a mild way by the inferno.
Yes, we can all speculate - e.g, your "it's likely . . . " For example, St. Robert Bellarmine was of the opinion that St. Augustine did not hold that the infants were burned.
That is why I want to consider what he actually said and thought, as he himself expressed it.
-
Lad - I would just like to say, regarding differences on this issue as compared to BoD. On BoD, I and many others who recognize the concept do because we believe that it is taught Magisterially in, for example, the Council of Trent and its Catechism. That position does not rely upon theologians, but official Church teaching. So, for example, BoD is in the Catechism of Trent, while Limbo for infants - no matter how you understand it, isn't. If it is, someone please correct me, because I'd like to know if I'm inaccurate there.
As I have argued repeatedly, though BoD is not precisely defined in its parameters, there is a "core concept," i.e. the possibility of justification in voto, that is taught Magisterially.
I've already said that Limbo isn't defined, but the condemnation of Limbo has been condemned, so one cannot reject Limbo by claiming that it contradicts Church teaching.
There is no "core concept" of justification in voto anywhere in the Magisterium. Of all the individuals who promote the notion of BoD, the greatest common denominator is that the Sacrament of Baptism isn't necessary for justification, which is heretical.
In the Church Fathers, apart from the retracted youthful speculation of St. Augustine, the only other notion that comes up is St. Ambrose's hope that Justinian could, like the martyrs, experience a state of being "washed but not crowned". Crowning refers to entry into the Kingom of Heaven. Then you had the dogmatic teaching of Pope St. Sulpicius holding that each and everyone who desires Baptism would lose the Kingdom without the actual reception of the Sacrament.
So the closest thing is some kind of washing away of the poena due to sin as a result of either martyrdom or the right dispositions for BoD.
Then you have the pre-scholastics next to mention the subject, with some including St. Thomas going with what was wrongly thought to be the "authority of Augsutine and Ambrose". You had Pope Innocent III opining in favor of it in a letter to a bishop. Then after that you have the alleged teaching of Trent about BoD, which I dispute.
That's really all there is to BoD, and there is clearly no Tradition to BoD, and it's clear that BoD was not revealed. It's nothing but pure speculation, based on no evidence whatsoever.
-
Yes, we can all speculate - e.g, your "it's likely . . . " For example, St. Robert Bellarmine was of the opinion that St. Augustine did not hold that the infants were burned.
That is why I want to consider what he actually said and thought, as he himself expressed it.
We know that infants were in the place of fire and they suffered. Rest doesn't really matter and is a waste of time to argue. Whether this suffering was due to their proximity to the fire or simply some internal cause is unknown, but the essential point that this is a distraction from is that Augustine said they went to hell, the place of fire, "with the devil" and that they suffered.
Limbo is probably in the same category as BoD, no? Just like BoD, there's no evidence that it has been revealed, and there's no evidence for it, and you have some Fathers like St. Augustine who rejected the notion, though it seems to be present to some extent in the Greek Fathers. Just like BoD, after Trent and St. Robert Bellarmine, the notion that infants go to hell was almost universally abandoned, and nearly all theologians taught it for the past several hundred years (which the Catholic Encyclopedia article points out).
So why is it OK for you to reject Limbo but not OK for us to reject BoD? Both Limbo and BoD are in the same category o theological speculation.
-
Here's what CE says about St. Robert's understanding of St. Augustine:
It is clear that Bellarmine found the situation embarrassing, being unwilling, as he was, to admit that St. Thomas and the Schoolmen generally were in conflict with what St. Augustine and other Fathers considered to be de fide, and what the Council of Florence seemed to have taught definitively. Hence he names Catharinus and some others as revivers of the Pelagian error, as though their teaching differed in substance from the general teaching of the School, and tries in a milder way to refute what he concedes to be the view of St. Thomas (op. cit., vi-vii). He himself adopts a view which is substantially that of Abelard mentioned above; but he is obliged to do violence to the text of St. Augustine and other Fathers in his attempt to explain them in conformity with this view, and to contradict the principle he elsewhere insists upon that "original sin does not destroy the natural but only the supernatural order." (op. cit., iv).
-
Then it continues:
Neither of these theologians [Bellarmine or a guy named Petavius], however, succeeded in winning a large following or in turning the current of Catholic opinion from the channel into which St. Thomas had directed it. Besides Natalis Alexander (De peccat. et virtut, I, i, 12), and Estius (In Sent., II, xxxv, 7), Bellarmine's chief supporter was Bossuet, who vainly tried to induce Innocent XII to condemn certain propositions which he extracted from a posthumous work of Cardinal Sfrondati and in which the lenient scholastic view is affirmed. Only professed Augustinians like Noris and Berti, or out-and-out Jansenists like the Bishop of Pistoia, whose famous diocesan synod furnished eighty-five propositions for condemnation by Pius VI (1794), supported the harsh teaching of Petavius. The twenty-sixth of these propositions repudiated "as a Pelagian fable the existence of the place (usually called the children's limbo) in which the souls of those dying in original sin are punished by the pain of loss without any pain of fire"; and this, taken to mean that by denying the pain of fire one thereby necessarily postulates a middle place or state, involving neither guilt nor penalty, between the Kingdom of God and eternal damnation, is condemned by the pope as being "false and rash and as slander of the Catholic schools" (Denz. 526).
This condemnation was practically the death-knell of extreme Augustinianism, while the mitigate Augustinianism of Bellarmine and Bossuet had already been rejected by the bulk of Catholic theologians. Suarez, for example, ignoring Bellarmine's protest, continued to teach what Catharinus had taught — that unbaptized children will not only enjoy perfect natural happiness, but that they will rise with immortal bodies at the last day and have the renovated earth for their happy abode (De vit. et penat., ix, sect. vi, n. 4); and, without insisting on such details, the great majority of Catholic theologians have continued to maintain the general doctrine that the children's limbo is a state of perfect natural happiness, just the same as it would have been if God had not established the present supernatural order. It is true, on the other hand, that some Catholic theologians have stood out for some kind of compromise with Augustinianism, on the ground that nature itself was wounded and weakened, or, at least that certain natural rights (including the right to perfect felicity) were lost in consequence of the Fall. But these have granted for the most part that the children's limbo implies exemption, not only from the pain of sense, but from any positive spiritual anguish for the loss of the beatific vision; and not a few have been willing to admit a certain degree of natural happiness in limbo. What has been chiefly in dispute is whether this happiness is as perfect and complete as it would have been in the hypothetical state of pure nature, and this is what the majority of Catholic theologians have affirmed.
So, for the past several hundred years now, there are practically no theologians who have held that unbaptized infants go to Hell and suffer anything at all. Why is it OK for individuals to reject this, including the same ones who keep arguing the "450 years" in support of BoD?
I hold the same opinion that was described that Suarez held above.
But, despite several hundred years of near-unanimous theological opinion in favor of Limbus Infantium, I do not claim that someone is condemned as a heretic for rejecting that Limbo, since it's not been actively taught by the Magisterium nor has the opinion of St. Augustine been condemned. I'm consistent there.
-
We know that infants were in the place of fire and they suffered. Rest doesn't really matter and is a waste of time to argue. Whether this suffering was due to their proximity to the fire or simply some internal cause is unknown, but the essential point that this is a distraction from is that Augustine said they went to hell, the place of fire, "with the devil" and that they suffered.
Limbo is probably in the same category as BoD, no? Just like BoD, there's no evidence that it has been revealed, and there's no evidence for it, and you have some Fathers like St. Augustine who rejected the notion, though it seems to be present to some extent in the Greek Fathers. Just like BoD, after Trent and St. Robert Bellarmine, the notion that infants go to hell was almost universally abandoned, and nearly all theologians taught it for the past several hundred years (which the Catholic Encyclopedia article points out).
So why is it OK for you to reject Limbo but not OK for us to reject BoD? Both Limbo and BoD are in the same category o theological speculation.
I don't "reject" Limbo, since I think even those who recognize the concept place it in hell, albeit "on the border" or whatever. One can argue for a Limbo of "perfect happiness," for example, if one recognizes that the denial of the beatific vision is a punishment or penalty, as Innocent III and the Council of Florence do.
We disagree on BoD, often too emphatically. :laugh1:
The only way BoD is in the same category as "Limbo" is in the sense that the Magisterium has talked about "core concepts" for both, i.e., a possibility of justification in voto, and a "penalty" or "punishment" for those dying in original sin. Beyond that, one can speculate. So you can speculate, a la St. Thomas, that these infants have a state of natural happiness, recognizing that the denial of the beatific vision is a "penalty" or "punishment" for these infants.
In my view, it is not "ok" to speculate that there is no possibility for justification in voto, or that the infants do not receive a "penalty" or "punishment" as a result of not being baptized either in re or in voto.
-
Then it continues:
So, for the past several hundred years now, there are practically no theologians who have held that unbaptized infants go to Hell and suffer anything at all. Why is it OK for individuals to reject this, including the same ones who keep arguing the "450 years" in support of BoD?
I hold the same opinion that was described that Suarez held above.
But, despite several hundred years of near-unanimous theological opinion in favor of Limbus Infantium, I do not claim that someone is condemned as a heretic for rejecting that Limbo, since it's not been actively taught by the Magisterium nor has the opinion of St. Augustine been condemned. I'm consistent there.
I do not rely on theologians, and I think I made that distinction above regarding BoD.
Of course, one may point to theologians in support if they agree with you on the interpretation of a Magisterial text, particularly if they agree unanimously, if not numerically, but by a clear moral majority, as regarding BoD. The opinion of theologians, if they don't conflict with the Magsiterium, are evidence either in support or against an argument.
If, however, a theologian opined that infants who die without baptism do not incur a "penalty" or "punishment," I would reject them on the basis of Magisterial texts - Innocent III, the Council of Florence, the Catechism of Trent.
Our differences on BoD, again, come down to the Magisterial texts. The unanimity of theologians with my view - all of Fr. Cekada's theologians in his list, while differing as to theological classification of BoD, e.g., de fide, etc., all agree with the "core concept" of the possibility of justification in voto - are merely support for my reading of a Magisterial text(s).
-
Here's what CE says about St. Robert's understanding of St. Augustine:
It is clear that Bellarmine found the situation embarrassing, being unwilling, as he was, to admit that St. Thomas and the Schoolmen generally were in conflict with what St. Augustine and other Fathers considered to be de fide, and what the Council of Florence seemed to have taught definitively. Hence he names Catharinus and some others as revivers of the Pelagian error, as though their teaching differed in substance from the general teaching of the School, and tries in a milder way to refute what he concedes to be the view of St. Thomas (op. cit., vi-vii). He himself adopts a view which is substantially that of Abelard mentioned above; but he is obliged to do violence to the text of St. Augustine and other Fathers in his attempt to explain them in conformity with this view, and to contradict the principle he elsewhere insists upon that "original sin does not destroy the natural but only the supernatural order." (op. cit., iv).
We both have issues with the CE, as you know. One of my "favorite" errors is in its article on Predestination:
The notion of predestination comprises two essential elements: God's infallible foreknowledge ( prœscientia ), and His immutable decree ( decretum ) of eternal happiness. The theologian who, following in the footsteps of the Pelagians, would limit the Divine activity to the eternal foreknowledge and exclude the Divine will, would at once fall into Deism, which asserts that God, having created all things, leaves man and the universe to their fate and refrains from all active interference. Though the purely natural gifts of God, as descent from pious parents, good education, and the providential guidance of man's external career, may also be called effects of predestination, still, strictly speaking, the term implies only those blessings which lie in the supernatural sphere, as sanctifying grace, all actual graces, and among them in particular those which carry with them final perseverance and a happy death. Since in reality only those reach heaven who die in the state of justification or sanctifying grace , all these and only these are numbered among the predestined, strictly so called. From this it follows that we must reckon among them also all children who die in baptismal grace, as well as those adults who, after a life stained with sin, are converted on their death-beds. The same is true of the numerous predestined who, though outside the pale of the true Church of Christ, yet depart from this life in the state of grace as catechumens, Protestants in good faith, schismatics, Jєωs, Mahommedans, and pagans. Those fortunate Catholics who at the close of a long life are still clothed in their baptismal innocence, or who after many relapses into mortal sin persevere till the end, are not indeed predestined more firmly, but are more signally favoured than the last-named categories of persons.
Predestination - Encyclopedia Volume - Catholic Encyclopedia - Catholic Online
Read St. Robert's opinion on the issue of this thread again - Chapter VI in the excerpt contained in the article on pp. 16-17. I don't see St. Robert's opinion departing from Augustine at all, whom he quotes at length in the Chapter, and not by way of distinction, but agreement. He doesn't quote Abelard at all.
I question whether St. Robert agreed with Abelard. From what I read, in St. Robert's own expression of his view, he "adopts a view which is substantially that of" Augustine.
The CE is really only useful as confirmation of another source of support, of a reliable independent witness. One can also use it to support an argument in the sense that "I can't be out of my mind or heretical in this, cf. the CE, which agrees with me." But it's limited as authority to those senses in my view.
I say if one agrees with the CE one can't be "heretical" . . . but that's only because I don't make that call. I would call the above excerpt . . . heretical. :laugh1:
-
Nah, Abelard was railroaded. He was no heretic. Abelard basically invented the scholastic method and some, including unfortunately St. Bernard, wrongly considered it impious. I wrote a long post about it. His work "Sic ad non." basically pioneered the method of considering and then refuting counter arguments that was made famous by St. Thomas. This was considered to be impiety at the time. Abelard did make some enemies due to his arrogance, so that didn't help his case.
But regardless of what you say about Abelard, St. Thomas not only fully embraced Abelard's opinion but took it to the next level by teaching that infants who die without Baptism experience perfect natural happiness. Now, St. Thomas is not the Magisterium, and you're entitled to hold to the Augustinian opinion, but you'd be in the minority, and on the same side as the Jansenists.
Sorry for taking a few days to get back to this Lad. I must disagree here and had to look up the source for this because I knew I read it somewhere.
Abelard had 19 condemned errors at the Council of Sens in 1140, that to the best of my knowledge, he hadn't recanted before his death (I'm not 100% sure on this point.) Pope Innocent II had pronounced the anathema of heretic on him and excommunicated him to Henry the Bishop of Sens on July 16th 1140. Unless you want to argue that Pope Innocent II condemnation against Abelard carried no weight for some reason or that Abelard recanted his errors/heresies before death.
Source: Denzinger, Sources of Catholic Dogma p 150-151.
-
This is relevant to Augustine's view on salvation of infants, although not directly to their punishment.
Not only did St. Augustine believe the sacrament of baptism was necessary for all, he believed that every single person, including infants (!) must receive the Eucharist.
(https://i.imgur.com/gTzJwUM.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/KFpInVi.png)
This gives us an insight into Augustine's mind - he does not shy away from harsh doctrine. It would hardly be inconsistent for him to consign infants to positive punishments.
-
Theologians even today still hold that the Eucharist is necessary for all, but not by an absolute necessity of means, as Baptism is, but rather by a moral necessity and a necessity of precept. There's an article in Catholic Encyclopedia discussing the matter. Of course, in the Eastern Rites, infants receive Holy Communion at their Baptism, even an infants.
-
This is relevant to Augustine's view on salvation of infants, although not directly to their punishment.
Not only did St. Augustine believe the sacrament of baptism was necessary for all, he believed that every single person, including infants (!) must receive the Eucharist.
(https://i.imgur.com/gTzJwUM.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/KFpInVi.png)
This gives us an insight into Augustine's mind - he does not shy away from harsh doctrine. It would hardly be inconsistent for him to consign infants to positive punishments.
No, it is not related to their punishment, which isn't mentioned. It says they do not have "life." Yes, they do not have "life" in Christ:
John 11:25-25
25 Jesus said to her: I am the resurrection and the life: he that believeth in me, although he be dead, shall live:
26 And every one that liveth, and believeth in me, shall not die for ever.
"It would hardly be inconsistent for him to consign infants to positive punishments."
The "it would hardly be inconsistent for him" is not a basis for ascribing actual belief of a position to St. Augustine or anyone else. Take a moment to think about the absurdity of such a claim.
This thread concerns what St. Augustine said and affirmed about the punishment of infants who die without baptism.
-
No, it is not related to their punishment, which isn't mentioned. It says they do not have "life." Yes, they do not have "life" in Christ:
"It would hardly be inconsistent for him to consign infants to positive punishments."
The "it would hardly be inconsistent for him" is not a basis for ascribing actual belief of a position to St. Augustine or anyone else. Take a moment to think about the absurdity of such a claim.
This thread concerns what St. Augustine said and affirmed about the punishment of infants who die without baptism.
Actually, Marulus, if you insist on seeing this as relevant to the "punishment" of the infants, the only "punishment" implicated is denial of eternal "life" with Christ - i.e., the deprivation of the eternal beatific vision.
-
No, it is not related to their punishment, which isn't mentioned.
I acknowledged that. There's nothing wrong with my post.
-
I acknowledged that.
You did. My "no" was meant this way: If you said, "this is not related to punishment," and I said, "no, it's not," I'd be agreeing with you. That's how I meant it.
There's nothing wrong with my post.
Well, you posted here, believing it was relevant to the topic of punishment, and then said:
This gives us an insight into Augustine's mind - he does not shy away from harsh doctrine. It would hardly be inconsistent for him to consign infants to positive punishments.
Forgive me if I misread, but it appears you think your citation's relevance is in supporting a view that Augustine had a "harsh doctrine" of "positive punishments" for infants.
I think that view certainly grossly overstated, and contains a poor attribution to Augustine in the sense (taken as true by assumption) that Augustine consigned these infants to some kind of physical torment in the "fires" of hell. Looking at his actual quotes on the fate of these infants, that view goes beyond what Augustine actually said and thought - which must be based on what he said, from our non-omniscient perspective.
I'm sorry if I read your post as an attempt to lend some support to that false view (false IMHO and for reasons discussed in this thread, and on the basis of what the saint actually said).
-
OABrownson1876 posted an article by O A Brownson which discusses, among other things, St. Augustine's position on infants who die without baptism:
https://www.cathinfo.com/fighting-errors-in-the-modern-world/'st-augustine-and-calvinism'-(catholic-church-on-hell-)-orestes-brownson/msg927732/#msg927732
Brownson was of the same view I am regarding the bad rap St. Augustine has received regarding the "suffering" of infants who die unbaptized in hell. I quote from the article:
He taught the eternal suffering of unregenerate infants, because he thought it a necessary consequence from the doctrine of original sin . . .
The infant child, although born in original sin, and therefore degenerate from its archetype of perfection, is thus, according to St. Augustine, worthy of love and reverence as a work of God. It has no actual and personal sin, and if it dies, is forever incapable of committing any sin and incurring any demerit. Its eternal separation from God as the chief good, as we have already said, involved in the mind of St. Augustine the necessity of suffering. He admits this necessity however with evident repugnance, endeavors to soften it down as much as possible, and evidently would be glad to escape from it altogether. An able expositor of his doctrine on this point in modern times, Antoine, explains this suffering of infants dying in original sin as levis tristitia.
St. Augustine's actual statements in this regard are quoted and discussed in this thread.