Author Topic: Saint Augustine’s *supposed* erroneous opinion  (Read 474 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Recusant Sede

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 332
  • Reputation: +136/-59
  • Gender: Male
Saint Augustine’s *supposed* erroneous opinion
« on: December 05, 2017, 08:43:53 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • The forum member “Ladislaus” has stated at least a couple of times that Saint Augustine held an erroneous view concerning the state of the unbaptised who die as infants. He further claims that “every theologian” held this view for “over 700 years”. I’m not sure if he just missed my posts, which there are several, asking him to defend his claim or if he’s just ignoring my question. In any event, I would appreciate an answer from anyone with any knowledge of this as I’m very interested in finding out the facts of this case.

    Offline happenby

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2105
    • Reputation: +875/-1281
    • Gender: Female
    Re: Saint Augustine’s *supposed* erroneous opinion
    « Reply #1 on: December 05, 2017, 08:51:00 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Augustine no longer held bod by the end of his life.


    Offline Recusant Sede

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 332
    • Reputation: +136/-59
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Saint Augustine’s *supposed* erroneous opinion
    « Reply #2 on: December 05, 2017, 08:52:29 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Augustine no longer held bod by the end of his life.
    BOD for infants?

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 13527
    • Reputation: +6985/-1714
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Saint Augustine’s *supposed* erroneous opinion
    « Reply #3 on: December 05, 2017, 10:17:11 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • It's been dealt with multiple times already.  You can find most of the details in the Catholic Encyclopedia article on Limbo.

    http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09256a.htm

    Quote
    Besides the professed advocates of Augustinianism, the principal theologians who belonged to the first party were BellarminePetavius, and Bossuet, and the chief ground of their opposition to the previously prevalent Scholastic view was that its acceptance seemed to compromise the very principle of the authority of tradition. As students of history, they felt bound to admit that, in excluding unbaptized children from any place or state even of natural happiness and condemning them to the fire of HellSt. Augustine, the Council of Carthage, and later African Fathers, like Fulgentius (De fide ad Petrum, 27), intended to teach no mere private opinion, but a doctrine of Catholic Faith; nor could they be satisfied with what Scholastics, like St. Bonaventure and Duns Scotus, said in reply to this difficulty, namely that St. Augustine had simply been guilty of exaggeration ("respondit Bonaventura dicens quod Augustinus excessive loquitur de illis poenis, sicut frequenter faciunt sancti" — Scots, In Sent., II, xxxiii, 2). Neither could they accept the explanation which even some modern theologians continue to repeat: that the Pelagian doctrine condemned by St. Augustine as a heresy (see e.g., On the Soul and its Origin II.17) consisted in claiming supernatural, as opposed to natural, happiness for those dying in original sin (see BellarmineDe amiss. gratiae, vi, 1; PetaviusDe Deo, IX, xi; De Rubeis, De Peccat. Orig., xxx, lxxii). Moreover, there was the teaching of the Council of Florence, that "the souls of those dying in actual mortal sin or in original sin alone go down at once (mox) into Hell, to be punished, however, with widely different penalties."

    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).


    Offline Recusant Sede

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 332
    • Reputation: +136/-59
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Saint Augustine’s *supposed* erroneous opinion
    « Reply #4 on: December 05, 2017, 10:22:11 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Search the forum.  It's been dealt with multiple times already.
    Do you have a link to your post on the subject?


    Offline Ladislaus

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 13527
    • Reputation: +6985/-1714
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Saint Augustine’s *supposed* erroneous opinion
    « Reply #5 on: December 05, 2017, 10:23:15 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Do you have a link to your post on the subject?

    I modified the previous post with some additional information.

    Offline graceseeker

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1311
    • Reputation: +128/-430
    • Gender: Female
    Re: Saint Augustine’s *supposed* erroneous opinion
    « Reply #6 on: December 05, 2017, 11:08:52 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • since I don't know what Bod is, I guess I am excluded from this conversation 

    Offline Cantarella

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 6338
    • Reputation: +3924/-373
    • Gender: Female
    Re: Saint Augustine’s *supposed* erroneous opinion
    « Reply #7 on: December 05, 2017, 11:21:59 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • St. Augustine did not believe in the existence of a Limbo where unbaptized infants go after death. He emphasizes that babies are not saved through the will of the parents or the faith of others, but through Sacramental Baptism only.  In his anti - pelagian writings he says: 

    Quote
    ‘Let no one promise infants who have not been baptized a sort of middle place of happiness between damnation and Heaven, for this is what the Pelagian heresy promised them’  

    He was not the only one with this opinion. Many other fathers supported the same belief. The originator of the “infant-salvation” heresy was Pelagius.
    If anyone says that true and natural water is not necessary for baptism and thus twists into some metaphor the words of our Lord Jesus Christ" Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit" (Jn 3:5) let him be anathema.


    Offline PG

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1624
    • Reputation: +424/-276
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Saint Augustine’s *supposed* erroneous opinion
    « Reply #8 on: December 05, 2017, 12:00:59 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Cantarella - where is that quote from?  It sounds like something from a pope or council.  
    "A secure mind is like a continual feast" - Proverbs xv: 15

    Offline Cantarella

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 6338
    • Reputation: +3924/-373
    • Gender: Female
    Re: Saint Augustine’s *supposed* erroneous opinion
    « Reply #9 on: December 05, 2017, 01:18:33 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Cantarella - where is that quote from?  It sounds like something from a pope or council.  

    This is from his work, "The Soul and Its Origin" (Patrologiae Latinae, Migne, 44:475).
    If anyone says that true and natural water is not necessary for baptism and thus twists into some metaphor the words of our Lord Jesus Christ" Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit" (Jn 3:5) let him be anathema.

    Offline GJC

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 570
    • Reputation: +160/-64
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Saint Augustine’s *supposed* erroneous opinion
    « Reply #10 on: December 05, 2017, 01:32:43 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Also from St Augustine letter 194 to Sixtus (condemning Pelagianism)

    Letters 156-210: Epistulae II

    #42. "If, then, God also punishes evil actions that were not done, first let them notice how false is their promise that infants that die without baptism will not enter into condemnation. For, if they were not baptized because they were going to live bad lives if they lived they would undoubtedly be condemned on account of this bad life, if even those sins that were not going to be committed are condemned".

    This letter is a must read, and refutes in greater depth the silliness that God provides or withholds grace based on the fact that one will co-operate or not co-operate with it in the future....in reality making God the Avenger of sins not committed. This school of thought is certainly Pelagian.

    https://books.google.com/books?id=cJnjXWQpknIC&pg=PA276&lpg=PA276&dq=letter+to+sixtus+St+augustine+194&source=bl&ots=0203VR8Jpy&sig=IiUY_Ajvo6W5nAFAiBXMPB1YJaI&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi8spOHyfPXAhUFMd8KHXS2D8IQ6AEIQDAF#v=onepage&q=letter%20to%20sixtus%20St%20augustine%20194&f=false

    Simply scroll down to the letter 194.





    Offline Recusant Sede

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 332
    • Reputation: +136/-59
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Saint Augustine’s *supposed* erroneous opinion
    « Reply #11 on: December 05, 2017, 02:10:08 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • It's been dealt with multiple times already.  You can find most of the details in the Catholic Encyclopedia article on Limbo.

    http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09256a.htm
    Thanks so much for the link! I remember studying this 20 or so years ago and I’ve forgotten most of what I learned on the subject. I’ll study it again and post my thoughts. 

    Offline Recusant Sede

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 332
    • Reputation: +136/-59
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Saint Augustine’s *supposed* erroneous opinion
    « Reply #12 on: January 07, 2018, 05:33:58 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Ladislaus, sorry for taking so long to get back to you about this discussion.

    It seems that the main point of contention is that Saint Augustine held that an unbaptized infant, who died, would suffer some degree of pain (almost nonexistent) whereas, Saint Thomas along with other Scholastics held that those infants would enjoy a natural happiness with no sense of pain. Saint Thomas’s opinion seems to be held almost universally now, however it must be noted that Saint Augustine’s opinion has not been condemned.

    You stated that the Church allowed an “erroneous view” concerning the state of unbaptised infants formulated by St. Augustine and supported by “every theologian for over 700 years”.  

    I say that you must first must prove that this “erroneous” opinion was in fact condemned by the Church. I’m not sure if there is any theological centure attached to it. If you know of one please enlighten me. Actually, I see that his opinion has been abandoned, but not actually condemned. Secondly, you must prove that his opinion was universally held by all theologians. The article says that the opinion had “undisputed supremacy”, but not that it was held unanimously.

    Offline Recusant Sede

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 332
    • Reputation: +136/-59
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Saint Augustine’s *supposed* erroneous opinion
    « Reply #13 on: January 07, 2018, 05:53:10 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • It seems that Toner, the author of the Catholic Encyclopedia article, needs to give a reference to the following statement: “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.”


     

    Sitemap 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16