> Saint Augustine himself is terrifying enough>  He negated the
Gospel
> with his teaching of "massa damnata et damnabilis" and the
corolloary
> teaching that all of manking is reprobated to hell by original sin
> while a few are sovereignly chosen by God for salvation, quite
> independently of their sins and virtues.

But, it is quite true that the unregenerate are a "massa damnata et
damnabilis." I include myself in this, especially before my baptism.
Since my baptism, I declare with the spirit of the Eastern Church
that "If I dare to enter therein, my raiment will accuse me, since it
is not a wedding garment, and I shall be bound and outcast by the
Angels." If I render myself damnable every day through rejecting my
own baptismal vows, how can I object to the clear truth that
unregenerate man is "damnatus et damnabilis?" There is a reason why
all souls before the advent of Christ languished in the bands of
hades, and why Christ conferred the sacrament of baptism. Are you
saying that God would damn those who are not "able to be damned?"
Does God damn the "undamnable?" What are you saying?

Also, Augustine would be quite correct in teaching that the election
of God is a gift of grace and is not based upon merit. That is
why "it is by grace you are saved." If you are not careful, you will
have to condemn St. Paul together with St. Augustine, for they both
speak in very similar ways. You further object to the idea that all
men are "reprobated to hell through Original Sin." Are you saying
that Orthodoxy does not teach that both physical and spiritual death
are the inheritance of all men on account of Original Sin (or
the "Ancestral Curse," or whatever term you use)? And are you saying
that Christ came to extend the gift of salvation to us because we are
worthy of it? And are you, who just quoted St. Issac the Syrian's
statements on how everything God does for us is a matter of mercy
rather than justice, now implying that God uses justice as the canon
for extending grace to those not yet saved? And if so, how do you
explain why St. Paul the Apostle was chosen by God to be enlightened
with the gift of faith?

I truly believe that God wishes all to be saved, but I truly believe
not all men wish to be saved. God in His omniscience "foresees" that
a great sinner will respond to the salutary grace He offers, and
grants it. Contrarily, God sees a seemingly good and moral man will
not respond, and - in His mercy - withholds this grace so as to avoid
heaping greater judgment upon his head.

> Roman Catholics are aware of this teaching of Augustine - the
teaching
> of a sovereign but (to our eyes at least) unjust God.  EWTN has an
> article on this which I'll locate.  It is a kicking off point for
> further investigation.

I would say that this reflects a poor understanding of Augustine's
thought as an whole.

> John Calvin of course took up Augustine's horrific teaching with
> enthusiasm and it was even the de riguer doctrine of the early
> Anglican Church under the influence of Geneva.

No, Calvin popularized the misunderstanding of Augustine, and has
helped to ensure that most of Augustine's readers will never break
through to understand what he really meant.

> If we were forced to choose between the two heresies,
Augustinianism
> (almost total damnation) and Pelagianism, I would think that most
> Orthodox would say, please let us be pelagianists or even
> apokatatasists.

I believe you are right; most Orthodox (from the secular West,
anyway) would agree with you and choose Pelagianism. This Orthodox
Christian, however, will side with history and the voice of the
Church - a voice which, in popular piety, liturgy and Ecumenical
Synods has confirmed Augustine's position amongst the Saintly
Fathers, and has officially anathematized the doctrines of Pelagius.
For my money, the official pronouncements of the Church are the way
to go - not my personal predilections and theological fancies. I
concede that Augustinianism is a heresy, which I reject. But, I also
maintain that Augustine, ironically, was not an Augustinianist.


Augustine

Did he repose on Sep. 2 new style, or old style?


Augustine

--- In Irenikon@yahoogroups.com, <emrys@...> wrote:
>
>
>
>       Reminder from:   maincin's Calendar
>
>       Title:   + Hieromonk Seraphim Rose
>
>       Date:   2 September 1982
>
>       Time:   All Day
>       Repeats:   This event repeats every year.
>
>       Get reminders on your Yahoo! Messenger or via email.
>       Edit reminder options
> Copyright © 2008  Yahoo! All Rights Reserved | Terms of Service |
Privacy Policy
>

--- In Irenikon@yahoogroups.com, "Mary Lanser" <mel5@...> wrote:
>
> Might as well post the entire article Father.  Can't hurt to have the
> entire text handy.


Well, I was taken to task when I relayed to [occidentalis]  the whole
article by Fr Raphael on the Western Rite which was published here.

The Mod said it was far too long and I should have posted only a link.

Therefore, fingers burned,  I did not post the whole Augustine article
here but just a small extract to illustrate my point and I gave the
link for any interested people to read it on the website in its
entirety.

--- In Irenikon@yahoogroups.com, "Joshua Gonnerman" <joshualg@...>
wrote:
>
> A very unfair and ill-disposed portrait of Augustine, I must say.
But then,
> what more should one expect from EWTN?

Fr William Most, may he rest in peace, seems to have a good reputation
as a Catholic apologist?

--- In Irenikon@yahoogroups.com, "Monk Augustine"
<fatheraugustine@...> wrote:

> For my money, the official pronouncements of the Church are the way
> to go - not my personal predilections and theological fancies. I
> concede that Augustinianism is a heresy, which I reject. But, I
also
> maintain that Augustine, ironically, was not an Augustinianist.


The same is said of Pelagius buit with more cogency.  The teachings
promulated under the name of "Pelagianism" since the word was coined
in the 18th century are not necessarily his.  It would be better use
to Coelestianism maybe.

Neither is terribly important to the Orthodox though since we look not
to either of them but to the doctrine of 'synergy.'

The matter of the Great Augustine's teaching on predestination is
simpler than some try to make it. When Augustine says that God does
not literally "will all men to be saved," he clarifies his reasons
and states that God wills all manner of men to be saved, but not each
and every man.

Furthermore, he makes it clear that he is thinking of the
word "wills" in a very active and decisive way, rather than in a
passive and receptive way. What he is not saying, is that God
wouldn't like it if all men chose to be saved. He is saying that God
may want all men to be saved, but He won't will that they be saved in
spite of themselves. He makes this clear when he elaborates on the
idea:

Non est itaque dubitandum, voluntati Dei, qui in coelo et in terra
omnia quaecumque voluit fecit 145, et qui etiam illa quae futura sunt
fecit 146, humanas voluntates non posse resistere...

(Therefore, it must not be doubted that human will cannot resist the
will of God, Who in heaven and on Earth hath done all that He willed,
and hath wrought even those things yet to come...)

It is clear, then, that St. Augustine is not simply speaking about
what God might have preferred, but of what He purposes to do. He is
not understanding "will" in the sense of "wish or prefer" but in the
sense of "purpose and decide." Augustine is saying that God does not
will every man to be saved, whether the man will it or no. He is
saying that God has purposed to save all manner of men by "willing
that all men be saved." And, He has done this in Christ, in Whom all
the human race is saved, and in the "predestined," in whom also the
whole human race - every manner of man - is present.

Now, I disagree with Augustine's reading here - or, at least, I do
not think this is the primary and most important reading - and I
believe that this verse is indeed trying to say that God wishes all
men would be saved. Yet, Augustine is not denying this, and doubtless
he would agree, as his disciples certainly did when put to the
question. He is merely reading the word "wills" in a different way.
And his exposition of this different reading is not wrong, even if
the reading itself may be atypical.

As far as the predestination to heaven and a predestination to hell,
some men have not taken the time to read Augustine thoroughly enough
to know how he feels. Some people believe that Augustine was teaching
that God, in denying grace to a man, doomed him to failure and
damnation and that the man therefore never had a chance to be saved,
since the will of God had decreed he was destined for hellfire. Some
writers at the time made a similar misunderstanding, and wrote an
objection to St. Augustine:

"It is by his own fault that any man deserts the faith, when he
yields and consents to the temptation which causes him to desert the
faith."

Augustine answered, "Who denies it?"

This might seem to pose a dilemna: how does one reconcile Augustine's
dictum "and unto those whom He has predestined to eternal death, He
is also the most righteous rewarder of punishment" with the above
admission that men are damned by their own fault? This seems to mean
that God, if he predestines men to damnation and also insists on
damning them by a just judgment of their own sins, must be
predestining them to sin, so that He can justly damn them as He had
predestined.

The answer lies in the fact that many people misunderstand what St.
Augustine means by predestination to damnation. St. Fulgence of
Ruspe, a disciple of Augustine, explained the meaning of
Augustine's "predestination to damnation." He said:

"In no other sense do I feel that passage of St. Augustine should be
taken, in which he asserts that there are certain persons predestined
to destruction, than in regard to their punishment, not to their sin:
not to the evil which they shall commit, but to the punishment which
they shall righteously suffer!"

At last! A clear interpretation. What St. Fulgence is saying, which
makes perfect sense, is that St. Augustine holds that
a "predestination to damnation" does not mean that God has decreed
from before all time that a certain man will be damned quite in spite
of himself - but rather, that that the predestined punishment of men
who reject salvation is damnation. This even fits with the
scriptures. The scriptures say:

"For whom he foreknew, he also predestinated to be made conformable
to the image of his Son..."

This is not saying "God has decreed that Jim will be saved whether he
likes it or not." It is saying that the predestined reward for those
whom God foreknows, is to be made conformable to the image of His
Son. I believe that St. Augustine is correctly observing the
distinction here, that the predestination refers chiefly to the final
reward. Predestination does not mean that so-and-so is predestined to
make right choices, and so-and-so is predestined to make bad ones; it
means that "the predestined" are those who, through cooperating with
God's grace, are predestined to be conformed to Christ. In an exactly
parallell way, as St. Fulgence explains, Augustine did not mean that
those who are "predestined to destruction" are predestined to make
evil choices; but rather, those who make evil choices are predestined
to be destroyed. And God foreknows (or, in His case, simply knows)
which choices men make. He has not predestined them to make those
choices. But, those whom he foreknows to make certain choices, he
predestines to reward or punishment.

You see, the term "predestined" emphasizes what final reward is
destined, from before all time, to befall certain men according as
God foreknew their choices and hearts. But it does not mean that God
has somehow destined people to make good or bad choices resulting,
apart from what they themselves might otherwise have done, in
salvation or damnation.

This is what I mean - St. Augustine is subtle and his thought is
sometimes difficult to grasp. Also, many people only know snippets of
Augustine, and only in translation. Greater caution is required.


Augustine





--- In Irenikon@yahoogroups.com, "Joshua Gonnerman" <joshualg@...>
wrote:
>
> A very unfair and ill-disposed portrait of Augustine, I must say.
But then,
> what more should one expect from EWTN?
>
> Regards,
> Joshua
>
> On Tue, Sep 2, 2008 at 7:58 AM, Mary Lanser <mel5@...> wrote:
>
> > Might as well post the entire article Father.  Can't hurt to have
the
> > entire text handy.
> >
> > Mary
> >
> >
> > ST. AUGUSTINE ON GRACE AND PREDESTINATION
> > Fr. William Most
> > St. Augustine is called, rightly, the Doctor of Grace, for his
great
> > work against the Pelagians who practically denied the need of
grace
> > for salvation. Augustine showed very well our total dependence on
God.
> > The Eastern Fathers had not denied this, did not bring it out so
well.
> >
> > I. (1) On human interaction with grace:
> >
> > Every good work, even good will, is the work of God:
> >
> > De gratia Christi 25, 26: "For not only has God given us our
ability
> > and helps it, but He even works [brings about] willing and acting
in
> > us; not that we do not will or that we do not act, but that
without
> > His help we neither will anything good nor do it"—"Non solum enim
Beus
> > posse nostrum donavit atque adiuvat, sed etiam 'velle et operari
> > operatur in nobis' non quia nos non volumus, aut nos non agimus,
sed
> > quia sine ipsius adiutorio nec volumus aliquid boni nec agimus."
> >
> > De gratia et libero arbitrio 16, 32: "It is certain that we will
when
> > we will; but He brings it about that we will good. . . . It is
certain
> > that we act when we act, but He brings it about that we act,
providing
> > most effective powers to the will."—"Certum est nos velle cum
volumus;
> > sed ille facit ut velimus bonum. . . . Certum est nos facere cum
> > facimus, sed ille facit ut faciamus, praebendo vires
efficacissimas
> > voluntati."
> >
> > Ibid. 6. 15: "If then your merits are God's gifts, God does not
crown
> > your merits as your merits, but as His gifts." "Si ergo Dei dona
sunt
> > merita tua, non Deus coronat merita tua tamquam merita tua, sed
> > tamquam dona sua."
> >
> > Ep. 154, 5. 16: "What then is the merit of man before grace by
which
> > merit he should receive grace? Since only grace makes every good
merit
> > of ours, and when God crowns our merits, He crowns nothing else
but
> > His own gifts." "Quod est ergo meritum hominis ante gratiam, quo
> > merito percipiat gratiam, cum omne bonum meritum nostrum non in
nobis
> > faciat nisi gratia et cum Deus coronat merita nostra, nihil aliud
> > coronet quam munera sua?"
> >
> > (2) On the other hand, on the interaction of grace with our
freedom,
> > he lacks something. His theory is the delectatio victrix: if God
shows
> > me more pleasure in something good than in evil, I will choose
good.
> > Thus a poor donkey might starve to death, if placed an equal
distance
> > between two bails of hay.
> >
> > But to be serious: His delight is in the category of final cause.
He
> > does not speak of efficient cause, which is surely needed, and
which 2
> > Cor 3:5 and Phil 2: 13 really call for.
> >
> > II. On predestination:
> >
> > Predestination is an arrangement of Providence to see someone gets
> > either full membership in the Church, or gets to heaven. All early
> > writers, East and West, tended to telescope the two. Scripture
speaks
> > always and only of predestination to full membership in Church.
Only
> > two passages, Rom 8:9ff and Ephesians chapter 1. In Romans, all of
> > chapters 8, 9, 10, 11 mention predestination and they are on
> > membership in Church. Ephesians 1 is too. There are of course
things
> > that are implications relative to predestination to heaven.
> >
> > Basic question: does God decide to predestine to heaven with or
> > without looking at a man's merits or demerits? All in the past
have
> > taken for granted that if He decides to predestine to heaven
without
> > looking, He does same for negative reprobation (letting one go).
Or He
> > decides both with looking.
> >
> > Both views give impossible consequences. Augustine wants to make
both
> > decisions, favorable and unfavorable be given without looking.
> > Easterners reject negative reprobation without looking at
demerits.
> >
> > The Eastern Fathers, absolutely all of them, and Westerners before
> > Augustine, and even after him, saw that there is no reprobation,
not
> > even negative, except in consideration of demerits. Augustine did
not
> > see that, and the unfortunate massa damnata theory, which said the
> > whole human race by original sin became a massa damnata et
damnabilis:
> > God could throw the whole damned race into hell for original sin
> > alone, without waiting for any personal sin.
> >
> > God wanted to display mercy and justice. To display mercy, He
chose a
> > small percent to rescue; the rest He deserted and so they would
go to
> > hell.
> >
> > He thought God picked those to rescue blindly, without any
> > consideration of how they lived. He picked them not that He had
any
> > love for them, but merely to make a point. Augustine did not see
it,
> > but that was a denial of God's love. For to love is to will good
to
> > another for the other's sake. If I will good to another not for
that
> > other's sake, but for some outside purpose of mine, I am not
loving
> > that person, but using him.
> >
> > So in that theory, God does not really love anyone, He merely
uses the
> > few for His own purposes, not for their sake. Hence, as we shall
son
> > see, he explicitly denied several times that "God wills all to be
> > saved: (1 Tim 2:4) . He even said, as we shall soon see below,
that it
> > means nothing to God that most persons are damned, without a
chance.
> >
> > Of course Augustine did not see this fact, or he would surely have
> > stayed away from his theory. Actually, as we shall see later on,
in
> > about six places he implies the opposite of that theory, when his
> > sense of God's goodness took over his thinking.
> >
> > Further, he reached this theory from a collection of reasons,
chiefly,
> > the fact that he misunderstood the passage in Romans 8:29 through
> > chapter 11. He thought it all referred to predestination to
heaven or
> > hell. (Hence, within that framework, he thought that the words of
> > Romans 9:13,"I have loved Jacob and hated Esau" meant that God
really
> > hated Esau. And without even looking at Esau's life wanted to damn
> > him) . Actually, St. Paul does not speak of any such thing, but
only
> > of predestination to full membership in the Church. (We will;
explain
> > below why we use that word full) . By allegory—without any
support in
> > the text or context, he thought that in the image of the potter in
> > Romans 9:19-24 the gob of clay on the potter's table meant the
whole
> > human race, made into a massa damnata et damnabilis by original
sin.
> >
> > St. Prosper of Aquitaine is often called the great defender of
> > Augustine. But he clearly contradicted Augustine on the massa
damnata
> > , three times. For example, in his Responsiones ad capitula
> > obiectionum Gallorum 3: ". . . for this reason they were not
> > predestined because they were foreseen as going to be such as a
result
> > of voluntary transgression . . . For they were not deserted by
God so
> > that they deserted God; but they deserted and were
deserted. . . ."
> >
> > How did St. Augustine happen to reach such a position?
> >
> > I. Predisposing factors:
> >
> > A. Tendency to allegorical interpretations: He first learned a
> > solution to Manichean objections against Old Testament from St.
> > Ambrose: (Conf. 6, 4, 6) : "Joyfully I used to hear Ambrose
saying in
> > his sermons to the people, as though he were most diligently
teaching
> > a rule: 'The letter kills, but the spirit gives life,' when he
opened
> > up in a spiritual sense . . . those things which, taken literally,
> > seemed to each perversity." Actually the words are from 2 Cor
3:6. It
> > meant that the old regime of the law kills spiritually, the new
regime
> > of the spirit gives life. (St. Paul meant this only in a focused
or
> > artificial perspective: cf. W. Most, The Thought of St. Paul on
this
> > passage) . Both St. Ambrose and St. Augustine were completely
wrong in
> > their understanding of this line of St. Paul.
> >
> > B. His view on the salvific will: He was predisposed to deny it is
> > universal, i.e. , God does not really want all to be saved:
> >
> > (a) In natural order, he blurred the line between ordinary and
> > miraculous things (On John's Gospel 6. 1) : "Because . . . His
> > miracles, by which He rules the whole world . . . had become
> > commonplace by constant experience . . . He reserved to Himself
> > certain things which He would perform at opportune times, beyond
the
> > usual course and order of nature, so that they for whom the daily
> > things had become commonplace might be amazed in seeing not
greater
> > but unusual things."
> >
> > (b) In supernatural order: There was a similar failure to see
clearly
> > the line (Sermon 141, 1, 1) : ". . . who would dare to say that
God
> > lacked a way of calling, in which even Esau would apply his mind
to
> > faith, and join his will [to that] in which Jacob was justified?"
I.
> > 5. , Esau was reprobated, God could have used means which would
have
> > saved Esau, He did not. Therefore He did not will Esau's
salvation!
> > God wanted to damn him, and did so without even looking at the
future
> > faults of Esau! Augustine failed to understand Romans 9:13, which
was
> > quoting Malachi. The semitic pattern meant: He loves one more, the
> > other less. Further, love here means a decision to give full
> > membership in the Church. So the mistake made by Augustine was
> > dreadful!
> >
> > (c) His actual comments on God's salvific will:
> >
> > (1) Enchiridion 103: "When we hear and read in sacred Scripture
that
> > He wills all men to be saved . . . we must . . . so understand
[it] .
> > . . as if it were said that no man is saved except whom He wants
[to
> > be saved]. . . . Or certainly it was so said . . . not that there
is
> > no man whom He is unwilling to have saved, He who was unwilling to
> > perform the wonders of miracles among those whom He says would
have
> > done penance it He had done them: but in such a way that we
understand
> > 'all men' to mean the whole human race, distributed into various
> > categories: kings, private citizens, nobles, ordinary men, lofty,
> > lowly, learned, unlearned. . . ."
> >
> > (2) De correptione et gratia 14. 44: "And that which is written
that
> > which is written that 'he wills all men to be saved and yet not
all
> > are saved, can be understood in many ways, of which we have
mentioned
> > some in other works, but I shall give one here. It is said in
such a
> > way . . . that all the predestined are meant: for the whole human
race
> > is in them."
> >
> > (3) De correptione et gratia 15, 47: "That 'God wills all men to
be
> > saved' can be understood also in this way: that He causes us to
wish
> > [that all men be saved]. . . ."
> >
> > (4) Epistle 217, 6, 19: ". . . and so that which is said, 'God
wills
> > all men to be saved' although He is unwilling that so many be
saved,
> > is said for this reason: that all who are saved, are not saved
except
> > by His will."
> >
> > It is tragically obvious that Augustine completely denied the
clear
> > sense of Scripture here. Further, since to love is to will good to
> > another for the other's sake, then when God says He wills all to
be
> > saved, it means He loves all. Augustine was denying the love of
God,
> > without realizing it of course.
> >
> > II. First or explicit theory of Augustine on Predestination:
Massa damnata:
> >
> > As we said above, from an allegorical interpretation of Romans 9,
> > chiefly verses 19-24, Augustine said the whole race is as a mass
of
> > potters's clay from original sin—all could be sent to hell for
that
> > fact of original sin alone (infants dying without baptism are
damned)
> > . First, there was and is no support for such an allegorical
> > interpretation. More importantly, he was sadly wrong. Original sin
> > alone does not deserve hell. St. Thomas Aquinas knew that in
teaching
> > (De malo 5. 3. ad 4) that unbaptized infants suffer no pain at
all,
> > even have natural happiness. More important: Pius IX in Quanto
> > conficiamur moerore (DS 2866) : "God . . . in His supreme
goodness and
> > clemency, by no means allows anyone to be punished with eternal
> > punishments who does not have the guilt of voluntary fault." So
> > original sin alone does not bring hell.
> >
> > (a) Explicit texts:
> >
> > (1) Ad Simplicianum 1, 2, 16: "Therefore all men are . . . one
> > condemned mass [massa damnata] of sin, that owes a debt of
punishment
> > to the divine and supreme justice. Whether it [the debt] be
exacted,
> > or whether it be condoned, there is no injustice."
> >
> > (2) Enchiridion 27: ". . . the whole condemned mass of the human
race
> > lay in evils, or even rolled about in them, and was precipitated
from
> > evils into evils. . . ."
> >
> > (3) City of God 21, 12: "Hence there is a condemned mass of the
whole
> > human race . . . so that no one would be freed from this just and
due
> > punishment except by mercy and undue grace; and so the human race
is
> > divided [into two parts] so that in some it may be shown what
merciful
> > grace can do, in others, what just vengeance can do. . . . In it
> > [punishment] there are many more than in [mercy] so that in this
way
> > there may be shown what is due to all."
> >
> > (4) Epistle 190. 3. 12: He said that reprobates are so much more
> > numerous than the saved that "by an incomparable number they are
more
> > numerous than those whom He deigned to predestine as sons of the
> > promise to the glory of His kingdom; so that by the very number of
> > those rejected, it might he shown that the number, howsoever
large, of
> > the justly damned is of no importance with a just God. . . ."
Which
> > implies that God does not will all to be saved: hence Augustine's
> > explicit denial, several times, of the words of 1 Tim 2:4. Hence
too,
> > as we said above, God does not really love anyone: He merely uses
a
> > few to show mercy.
> >
> > (b) Exclusion of foreseen merits:
> >
> > (1) On the predestination of the saints 17: "Let us, then,
understand
> > the call by which the elect are made [elect]: [they are] not
[persons]
> > who are chosen because they have believed, but [they are persons]
who
> > are chosen so that they may believe. For even the Lord Himself
made
> > this [call] sufficiently clear when He said: 'You have not chosen
me,
> > but I have chosen you. '
> >
> > Comment: In context, Christ was telling the Apostles He had chosen
> > them, not that they had chosen Him. So the text had nothing at
all to
> > do with predestination to heaven or hell. The error, so common,
lies
> > in ignoring the context of the text. ] . . . This is the
unshakable
> > truth of predestination and grace. For what else does that mean,
that
> > the Apostle says, 'As He chose us in Him before the foundation of
the
> > world. '
> >
> > Comment: In context, St. Paul was speaking of predestination to
full
> > membership in the Church, not of predestination to heaven]. For
surely
> > if it was said [that they were chosen] because God foresaw that
they
> > would believe, [and] not because He Himself was going to make them
> > believers—the Son speaks against that sort of foreknowledge,
saying:
> > 'You have not chosen me, but I have chosen you. '[ See comment
above
> > on this text] . So they were chosen before the foundation of the
world
> > by that predestination by which God foreknew His own future acts:
they
> > are chosen out of the world by that vocation by which God
fulfilled
> > that which he had predestined, 'For those whom He predestined,
them
> > also He called. . . . '
> >
> > Comment: In context, all of chapters 8, 9, 10, and 11 of Romans
speak
> > only of predestination to full membership in the Church, not of
> > predestination to heaven]. Therefore God chose the faithful, not
> > because they already were [faithful] but that they might be
> > [faithful]. So by choosing, He makes them rich in faith, just as
[he
> > makes them] heirs of the kingdom."
> >
> > Comment: Sadly, Augustine takes every bit of Scripture used above
out
> > of context, so that the texts prove nothing of what he has in
mind].
> >
> > (2) Enchiridion 99: "For grace alone distinguishes the redeemed
from
> > the lost, whom a common cause from [their] beginning had joined
into
> > one mass of perdition. . . ."
> >
> > Comment: If grace, God's blind decision, alone is decisive, we
arrive
> > at the massa damnata described above. There must be, and is,
another
> > factor deciding who is saved or lost. We will explain that below.
> >
> > (3) Epistle 194, 8, 35: "it is, moreover, marvelous into what
> > precipices they hurl themselves, in their fear of the nets of
truth,
> > when they are pressed by these difficulties. 'It was for this
reason'
> > they say, 'that He hated of those not yet born [Esau] and loved
the
> > other [Jacob] because He foresaw their future works. ' Who would
not
> > be surprised that this most keen thought could be lacking to the
> > Apostle? . . . . This, then, was the place for him to say what
these
> > think: 'For God foresaw their future works', when He said
that 'the
> > elder would serve the lesser. ' But the Apostle did not say this,
but
> > instead, lest anyone dare to boast of the merits of his works, he
> > wanted what he did say to be able to teach the grace and glory of
> > God."
> >
> > Comment: Augustine is right in saying it is not prevision of
merits
> > that is decisive—but he did not see that prevision of demerits
could
> > be the decisive factor. How to reconcile these two points we will
show
> > below.
> >
> > III. Second, or implicit theory: A good theologian knows mysteries
> > occur in theology. So, if, from different points in revelation, he
> > seems to find opposing answers, and if rechecking does not reveal
an
> > error on his part, he will feel obliged to hold both ends of the
chain
> > without knowing how they can fit together (as when we know there
are
> > three divine Persons, only one God) . So Augustine could hold,
even
> > though only implicitly, a second theory which contradicted the
first.
> > The elements of it are these:
> >
> > (a) From above, we retain: (1) Predestination does not depend on
> > merits. (2) We are totally dependent on God.
> >
> > (b) We reject the massa damnata, and substitute instead: God does
not
> > reprobate except after and because of foreseen grave demerits.
All the
> > Eastern Fathers, and all Western Fathers before and after
Augustine
> > held this truth. This position is compatible with the position
that
> > predestination comes independently of foreseen merits, even though
> > Augustine did not see how.
> >
> > We need to see that in God's decision there are three logical
stages
> > or momenta: First, God wills sincerely and vehemently that all be
> > saved; Second, He foresees some will gravely resist grace: on
account
> > of this resistance and because of it, He reprobates; Third, He
decrees
> > to save the others, not because of merits (which are not yet
foreseen
> > logically—only resistance is looked at—merits come after absence
of
> > resistance) but because He has always wanted that (salvific will)
and
> > these do not block His will.
> >
> > Augustine's implication on reprobation is found in: e. g. , De
> > diversis quaest. 83, 68, 5: De correptione et gratia 13, 42; De
> > peccatorum meritis et remissione 2, 17, 26; De actis cum Felice
> > Manichaeo 2, 8, which we shall now examine:
> >
> > The Problem of a Second Theory of Predestination in St. Augustine
> >
> > A theologian who follows precise theological method will first
study
> > under the guidance of official teachings, all passages in
revelation
> > that have any bearing on his problem directly or indirectly. He
will
> > try to work out the answer, so far as possible, from each separate
> > starting point. A good comparison would be this: he is like a man
> > standing on the rim of a circle. From each of two or more points
on
> > the rim he tries to draw a line that will hit the center, the
right
> > answer. If he has done his work well, all lines will focus in the
> > center.
> >
> > Suppose he finds that two (or more) lines do not meet in the
center?
> > He should first recheck his work. But then, if they still do not
meet,
> > he must not force anything, but should just admit there are
mysteries
> > in theology, and so should hold both truths, both lines.
> >
> > Augustine seems to have done that, without realizing it, in his
study
> > of grace. he did arrive, clearly, at the erroneous massa damnata
> > theory from his misinterpretation of Romans 9. But some passages
in
> > his works seem to imply that he felt, without being fully aware
of it,
> > a second line. Here are the passages. 1. On 88 different
questions 68,
> > 5: "For not all who were called wanted to come to that dinner,
which
> > as the Lord says in the Gospel, was prepared, nor would those who
came
> > have been able to come if they had not been called. And so neither
> > should they who came attribute [it] to themselves; for they came
being
> > called nor should those who were unwilling to come attribute [it]
to
> > anyone but themselves, for, in order that they might come, they
were
> > called in free will."
> >
> > Comment: Compare his Enchiridion 99: ". . . grace alone
distinguishes
> > the redeemed from the lest, whom a common cause from [their]
beginning
> > had joined into one mass of perdition. . . .") . [Written 388-98
A. D.
> > In saying those who did not come must attribute it only to
themselves,
> > he is taking position opposite to massa damnata, where the first
> > reason for their not coming is not their own will but God's
desertion
> > of them
> >
> > 2. On correction and grace 13, 42: "Those, then, who do not
belong to
> > that most certain and most happy number [of the predestined] are
> > judged most justly according to their merits. For they either lie
> > under the sin which they contracted originally by generation.
> >
> > . . . Or they receive the grace of God, but are temporary, and do
not
> > persevere: they desert and are deserted. For they were let go in
their
> > free will, not receiving the gift of perseverance, by a just and
> > hidden judgment of God." [written 426].
> >
> > Comment: In the second part of this text, he speaks of those who
have
> > been forgiven original sin—so, original sin cannot be the reason
for
> > reprobation in them. Augustine gives the reason: "They were let
go in
> > their free will by a just judgment of God. They desert and are
> > deserted." But in massa damnata the reason would be that God first
> > deserted them, and then they deserted Him. Nor can some remaining
> > debility left from original explain what he says: that debility
is in
> > all the baptized. So the reason here why they do not persevere is
> > their own free will, not God's desertion within massa damnata.
> >
> > 3. On the merits and remission of sins 2, 17, 26: "Men are not
willing
> > to do what is right either because the fact that it is right is
hidden
> > from the, or because it does not please them. It is from the
grace of
> > God, which helps the wills of man, that that which was hidden
becomes
> > known, and that which did not please become sweet. The reason why
they
> > are not helped [by grace] is in themselves, not in God, whether
they
> > are predestined to damnation because of the wickedness of their
pride,
> > or whether they are to be judged and emended, contrary to the
> > wickedness of their pride if they are sons of mercy." [written
411].
> >
> > Comment: "The reason why they are not helped [by grace] is in
> > themselves, not in God." Now if the fundamental reason were
desertion
> > by God, as in massa damnata, Augustine would have said the
opposite.
> > But he did say "the reason why they are not helped is in
themselves,
> > not in God."
> >
> > 4. The debate with Felix the Manichean 2, 8: "Felix said: You call
> > Manichaeus cruel for saying these things. What do we say about
Christ
> > who said: Go into eternal fire? Augustine said: He said this to
> > sinners. Felix said: These sinners, why were they not purified?
> > Augustine said: Because they did not will [it]. Felix said:
Because
> > they did not will it —did you say that? Augustine said: Yes, I
said
> > it: Because they did not will it." [written 398].
> >
> > Comment: : He says the cause why they were not purified
is "because
> > they did not will it." If he really meant that the first thing
was a
> > desertion by God, as in massa damnata, then Felix would have won
the
> > debate, for men would be damned without any opportunity. And God
would
> > be like the God of the Manichees, who deserted to prepare the way
for
> > a victory that never came.
> >
> > 5. Tracts on the Gospel of St. John 53, 6: " 'They were not able
to
> > believe', since Isaiah the prophet predicted it; and the prophet
> > predicted it, because God had foreseen that this would happen.
But if
> > I am asked why they were not able, I reply quickly: Because they
did
> > not want to: For God foresaw their evil will, and He from whom the
> > future things cannot be hidden announced it in advance through the
> > prophet. But, you say, the prophet speaks of another cause, not of
> > their will. What cause does the prophet speak of? Because 'God
gave
> > them a spirit of compunction, eyes so that they did not see, and
ears,
> > so that they did not hear, and He blinded their eyes and hardened
> > their heart'. I reply that their will merited even this." [written
> > 413-18].
> >
> > Comment: He says the cause is their evil will. And then seeing
someone
> > may say that that bad will came from divine desertion he adds: "I
> > reply that their evil will merited even this." Could he mean they
> > merit it by original sin? Then why such a process of words and
> > objection and solution—it would be a deception of his readers.—So
> > again, Augustine is saying that the first cause why some are
> > reprobated is found in the wills of men, not in God.
> >
> > 6. On instructing the ignorant 52: "The merciful God, wanting to
> > deliver men, if they are not enemies to Him and do not resist the
> > mercy of their Creator, sent His only—begotten Son." [written
399].
> >
> > Comment: Again, Augustine teaches that the distinction between
those
> > who are freed and those who are not freed depends on the
resistance or
> > lack of it on the part of men.
> >
> > Objection: Could it be that Augustine changed his mind over a
period
> > of time? No, for the texts just cited come from all across the
range
> > of his literary activity. Probable dates are as follows:
> >
> > De diversis quaest—between 388 and 398 De actis cum Felice—398 De
> > peccatorum meritis—411 Tract in Ioannem—413-418 De correptione et
> > gratia—426.
> >
> > III. A newer theory using some of the above data from Augustine:
The
> > second series of texts show he admits a power of man on negative
side,
> > which is decisive (even though in #1 above he excludes power on
> > positive side) .
> >
> > Therefore even though he excludes any positive power for good
from the
> > ability of man, and excludes any foreknowledge of merits on the
part
> > of God as a reason for predestination, yet he admits a negative
power
> > in man of rejecting or not rejecting.
> >
> > What is the result: Predestination must be without merits. But
> > reprobation, even negative, is the result of demerits.
> >
> > St Augustine then seems to have wanted, even though only
implicitly,
> > to have this combination. He did not, of course, know how it was
> > possible to hold both things, namely, reprobation depending on
> > demerits, and predestination not depending on merits.
> >
> > Yet we can supply the missing solution. There are three logical
steps
> > in God's decisions:
> >
> > (1) He wills all men to be saved. Augustine did deny this, but
> > Scripture teaches it, so we must and do hold it. Further since to
will
> > salvation is to will good to another, and since love consists in
> > willing good to another for the other's sake, therefore to deny
this
> > first step wold be to deny God's love. Which would be blasphemy.
This
> > will on God's part is extremely strong, measured by how far He
went to
> > make our eternal happiness possible: the terrible death of His
Son,
> > and His binding Himself in the covenant by the infinite price of
> > redemption to offer forgiveness and grace infinitely, that is,
without
> > limit, except that limit set by man's rejection of it.
> >
> > (2) He looks—not ahead, for there is no time with Him—to see who
> > resists His grace both gravely and persistently, so persistently
that
> > he throws away the only thing that could save him. Then sadly God
> > decrees to let him go, negative reprobation. This is the unanimous
> > view of all Eastern Fathers, and Westerners except St. Augustine.
> >
> > (3) All who were not discarded in step two are positively
predestined.
> > But not because of merits. This is St. Augustine's large
contribution.
> > Merits have not yet been considered at all. Rather, God
predestines
> > them to heaven because that is what He wanted to do in step 1,
and thy
> > are not blocking it.
> >
> > Fate of Unbaptized Infants
> >
> > Sermon 294. 3:After quoting Mt. 25 on the last judgment: "In the
one
> > place He names the kingdom; in the other place, damnation with the
> > devil. There is no middle place left where you could put the
infants.
> > There will be judgment for the living and the dead: some at the
right,
> > others at the left: I do not know anything else."
> >
> > Enchiridion 93: "The mildest of all will be the punishment of
those
> > who have contracted nothing but original sin"
> >
> > Epistle 166. 6. 16: "But when we come to the punishment of
infants,
> > believe me I am in a very tight spot, nor do I find at all what I
> > could answer."
> >
> > Others:
> >
> > a) Agreeing with Augustine:
> >
> > St. Fulgentius, <De fide ad Petrum> 27. 68
> >
> > St. Gregory the Great, <Moralia> 9. 21. 32—This however was
written as
> > a private person, not as Pope.
> >
> > b) Disagreeing with him:
> >
> > St. Gregory of Nazianzen, <Orations> 40. 23:" I think that. . .
these
> > are neither glorified, nor are punished by the Just Judge, who on
the
> > one hand were not sealed [baptized] but on the other hand are not
> > evil, but rather suffered a loss than inflicted one."
> >
> > St Gregory of Nyssa, <On Infants Taken away Prematurely>—Thinks
that
> > those who die without baptism are those who would have been lost
by
> > sin had they lived a full life.
> >
> > St. Thomas Aquinas, <De malo> q. 5. a. 3. ad 4 :"The infants are
> > separated from God perpetually, in regard to the loss of glory,
which
> > they do not know, but not in regard to participation in natural
goods,
> > which they do know. . . . That which they have through nature,
they
> > possess without pain."
> >
> > Magisterium:
> >
> > 1) The Council of Florence in 1439, in DS 1306 taught: "The souls
of
> > those who depart in actual mortal sin or in original sin only, go
at
> > once into the realm of the dead, to be punished with different
> > penalties."
> >
> > Comment: About the two underlined words: "realm of the dead" is
Latin
> > infernus which does not always mean the hell of the damned. In the
> > Creed we read that Christ descended into hell. The word punished
has
> > the root of Latin poena which need not mean the infliction of
positive
> > pain, but merely the loss of something. So it would mean that
infants
> > who really die in original sin, are given the loss of the vision
of
> > God. This bypasses the question of whether or not God, in some
way,
> > might provide grace to them even without a sacrament. He can
surely do
> > this if He so wills. St. Thomas, in III. 68. 2. c. says the
obvious,
> > that God's hands are not tied by the Sacraments.
> >
> > 2) The Council of Pistoia: It tried to teach that the idea of a
limbo
> > for unbaptized infants was a Pelagian fable. Pius VI in 1794, in
DS
> > 2626 condemned that teaching.
> >
> > 3) Pius IX in Quanto conficiamur moerore of August 10, 1863 (DS
2866)
> > said: "God. . . in His supreme goodness and clemency, by no means
> > allows anyone to be punished with eternal punishments who does not
> > have the guilt of voluntary fault."
> >
> > Comment: Infants do not have voluntary fault. Therefore, no hell
for
> > the infants. Leonard Feeney (reprinted in Thomas M. Sennott, They
> > Fought the Good Fight pp. 305-06) quoted this text of Pius IX and
> > said: "To say that God would never permit anyone to be punished
> > eternally unless he has incurred the guilt of voluntary sin is
nothing
> > short of Pelagianism. . . . If God cannot punish eternally a human
> > being who has not incurred the guilt of voluntary sin, how then,
for
> > example, can He punish eternally babies who die unbaptized?"—In
other
> > words, Feeney calls Pius IX a heretic!
> >
> > 4) Catechism of the Catholic Church: In # 1261, after carefully
> > explaining that those who without fault do not find the Church,
can
> > still be saved, quoted the words of Christ (Mk 10:14) "Let the
little
> > children come to me, and do not prevent them," added: "[this]
permits
> > us to have hope that there is a way to salvation for infants who
die
> > without Baptism."
> >
> > Objection: A local Council of Carthage in 418 taught, in Canon 3
(DS
> > 224) : "Of anyone says that. . . in the kingdom of heaven there
will
> > be some middle place, or a place elsewhere, where the infants
live as
> > blessed who have departed from this life without Baptism. . . let
him
> > be anathema."
> >
> > Comment: This was only a local council. Some of its canons were
> > approved by Pope Zosimus, and so gained universal teaching
authority.
> > But the note on this section, just ahead of DS 222 (DB 101) that
this
> > text of DS 224 was not approved, but instead the text of DS 225,
also
> > called Canon 3, which makes no mention of infants. It merely
teaches
> > that grace of justification counts not only for the remission of
sins
> > already committed, but also for help that they may not be
committed
> > [again].
> >
> > Provided Courtesy of:
> > Eternal Word Television Network
> > 5817 Old Leeds Road
> > Irondale, AL 35210
> > www.ewtn.com
> >
> >
> > --
> > From Irenikon
> > @ 40 ° 54' 21.5" N, 77 ° 52' 23.3" W
> >
> > Tenebrae eum non comprehenderunt. ~John 1:5
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

Why would you expect EWTN have a negative take on St. Augustine?

Incidentally, rereading this, something struck me:

"It is tragically obvious that Augustine completely denied the clear
sense of Scripture here. Further, since to love is to will good to
another for the other's sake, then when God says He wills all to be
saved, it means He loves all. Augustine was denying the love of God,
without realizing it of course."

It occured to me; where is the humility? How can a man sit in
judgment over one of the most brilliant men ever to have lived, and
believe that he honestly erred in so egregious and plainly wrong a
way? "Augustine was denying the Love of God, without realizing it of
course..." What? That's just insanely stupid. St. Augustine
understood most things better than we could ever hope to - and we
esteem his thought process so little?

So, it occured to me that there is a perfectly simple way of
describing what is going on here. A father tells his sons that they
all have some chores to do that day, and if they finish them, he'll
take them out for ice cream. Now, the father wants all of his sons to
finish their chores, and wants to take them all out for ice cream.
That is his will. At the end of the day, some of his sons have not
done their work, and ask to be taken out for ice cream anyway. But,
the father says no, because he does not will to take them out for ice
cream under those circumstances. You can see how the father wills one
thing and another at the same time. If he had his 'druthers, he'd
take all his sons out for ice cream. Simultaneously, he does not will
to reward those sons who neglected their chores. Surely it is easy to
see how one can "will" one thing and "will" another at the same time.

It is this double meaning of the word "will" (both as something we
wish, and as something we purpose and permit) that causes Augustine
to reflect in such a manner upon the phrase "God wills all men be
saved." And St. Augustine makes this perfectly clear in a passage
which this very EWTN review - that was so quick to doubt so great a
Father's basic powers of observation - quotes:

"Accordingly, when we hear and read in Scripture that He will have
all men to be saved, although we know well that all men are not
saved, we are not on that account to restrict the omnipotence of God,
but are rather to understand the Scripture, Who will have all men to
be saved, as meaning that no man is saved unless God wills his
salvation: not that there is any man whose salvation He does not
will, but that no man is saved apart from His will."

The review apparently took this passage as a denial of the basic
truth that God wills (would prefer) that all men be saved. But, it is
this author's thought process that should be called into question -
for, rather than doing any such thing, Augustine directly affirms
that "there is no man whose salvation he does not will," while yet
affirming that for a man to be saved, he must cooperate with His
will, that he cannot be saved apart from His will. And in his other
writings Augustine dwells on yet more ways of explaining this
passage, more ways of exploring how God's will in this matter is a
two-edged sword. If anything, St. Augustine's subtle and variegated,
even mercurial expositions of the passage, are amongst the most
accurate of all Patristic expositions of the verse for their palpable
manifestation of how subtle, manifold and incircumscribable are the
judgments of God.


Augustine


--- In Irenikon@yahoogroups.com, "Joshua Gonnerman" <joshualg@...>
wrote:
>
> A very unfair and ill-disposed portrait of Augustine, I must say.
But then,
> what more should one expect from EWTN?
>
> Regards,
> Joshua
>
> On Tue, Sep 2, 2008 at 7:58 AM, Mary Lanser <mel5@...> wrote:
>
> > Might as well post the entire article Father.  Can't hurt to have
the
> > entire text handy.
> >
> > Mary
> >
> >
> > ST. AUGUSTINE ON GRACE AND PREDESTINATION
> > Fr. William Most
> > St. Augustine is called, rightly, the Doctor of Grace, for his
great
> > work against the Pelagians who practically denied the need of
grace
> > for salvation. Augustine showed very well our total dependence on
God.
> > The Eastern Fathers had not denied this, did not bring it out so
well.
> >
> > I. (1) On human interaction with grace:
> >
> > Every good work, even good will, is the work of God:
> >
> > De gratia Christi 25, 26: "For not only has God given us our
ability
> > and helps it, but He even works [brings about] willing and acting
in
> > us; not that we do not will or that we do not act, but that
without
> > His help we neither will anything good nor do it"—"Non solum enim
Beus
> > posse nostrum donavit atque adiuvat, sed etiam 'velle et operari
> > operatur in nobis' non quia nos non volumus, aut nos non agimus,
sed
> > quia sine ipsius adiutorio nec volumus aliquid boni nec agimus."
> >
> > De gratia et libero arbitrio 16, 32: "It is certain that we will
when
> > we will; but He brings it about that we will good. . . . It is
certain
> > that we act when we act, but He brings it about that we act,
providing
> > most effective powers to the will."—"Certum est nos velle cum
volumus;
> > sed ille facit ut velimus bonum. . . . Certum est nos facere cum
> > facimus, sed ille facit ut faciamus, praebendo vires
efficacissimas
> > voluntati."
> >
> > Ibid. 6. 15: "If then your merits are God's gifts, God does not
crown
> > your merits as your merits, but as His gifts." "Si ergo Dei dona
sunt
> > merita tua, non Deus coronat merita tua tamquam merita tua, sed
> > tamquam dona sua."
> >
> > Ep. 154, 5. 16: "What then is the merit of man before grace by
which
> > merit he should receive grace? Since only grace makes every good
merit
> > of ours, and when God crowns our merits, He crowns nothing else
but
> > His own gifts." "Quod est ergo meritum hominis ante gratiam, quo
> > merito percipiat gratiam, cum omne bonum meritum nostrum non in
nobis
> > faciat nisi gratia et cum Deus coronat merita nostra, nihil aliud
> > coronet quam munera sua?"
> >
> > (2) On the other hand, on the interaction of grace with our
freedom,
> > he lacks something. His theory is the delectatio victrix: if God
shows
> > me more pleasure in something good than in evil, I will choose
good.
> > Thus a poor donkey might starve to death, if placed an equal
distance
> > between two bails of hay.
> >
> > But to be serious: His delight is in the category of final cause.
He
> > does not speak of efficient cause, which is surely needed, and
which 2
> > Cor 3:5 and Phil 2: 13 really call for.
> >
> > II. On predestination:
> >
> > Predestination is an arrangement of Providence to see someone gets
> > either full membership in the Church, or gets to heaven. All early
> > writers, East and West, tended to telescope the two. Scripture
speaks
> > always and only of predestination to full membership in Church.
Only
> > two passages, Rom 8:9ff and Ephesians chapter 1. In Romans, all of
> > chapters 8, 9, 10, 11 mention predestination and they are on
> > membership in Church. Ephesians 1 is too. There are of course
things
> > that are implications relative to predestination to heaven.
> >
> > Basic question: does God decide to predestine to heaven with or
> > without looking at a man's merits or demerits? All in the past
have
> > taken for granted that if He decides to predestine to heaven
without
> > looking, He does same for negative reprobation (letting one go).
Or He
> > decides both with looking.
> >
> > Both views give impossible consequences. Augustine wants to make
both
> > decisions, favorable and unfavorable be given without looking.
> > Easterners reject negative reprobation without looking at
demerits.
> >
> > The Eastern Fathers, absolutely all of them, and Westerners before
> > Augustine, and even after him, saw that there is no reprobation,
not
> > even negative, except in consideration of demerits. Augustine did
not
> > see that, and the unfortunate massa damnata theory, which said the
> > whole human race by original sin became a massa damnata et
damnabilis:
> > God could throw the whole damned race into hell for original sin
> > alone, without waiting for any personal sin.
> >
> > God wanted to display mercy and justice. To display mercy, He
chose a
> > small percent to rescue; the rest He deserted and so they would
go to
> > hell.
> >
> > He thought God picked those to rescue blindly, without any
> > consideration of how they lived. He picked them not that He had
any
> > love for them, but merely to make a point. Augustine did not see
it,
> > but that was a denial of God's love. For to love is to will good
to
> > another for the other's sake. If I will good to another not for
that
> > other's sake, but for some outside purpose of mine, I am not
loving
> > that person, but using him.
> >
> > So in that theory, God does not really love anyone, He merely
uses the
> > few for His own purposes, not for their sake. Hence, as we shall
son
> > see, he explicitly denied several times that "God wills all to be
> > saved: (1 Tim 2:4) . He even said, as we shall soon see below,
that it
> > means nothing to God that most persons are damned, without a
chance.
> >
> > Of course Augustine did not see this fact, or he would surely have
> > stayed away from his theory. Actually, as we shall see later on,
in
> > about six places he implies the opposite of that theory, when his
> > sense of God's goodness took over his thinking.
> >
> > Further, he reached this theory from a collection of reasons,
chiefly,
> > the fact that he misunderstood the passage in Romans 8:29 through
> > chapter 11. He thought it all referred to predestination to
heaven or
> > hell. (Hence, within that framework, he thought that the words of
> > Romans 9:13,"I have loved Jacob and hated Esau" meant that God
really
> > hated Esau. And without even looking at Esau's life wanted to damn
> > him) . Actually, St. Paul does not speak of any such thing, but
only
> > of predestination to full membership in the Church. (We will;
explain
> > below why we use that word full) . By allegory—without any
support in
> > the text or context, he thought that in the image of the potter in
> > Romans 9:19-24 the gob of clay on the potter's table meant the
whole
> > human race, made into a massa damnata et damnabilis by original
sin.
> >
> > St. Prosper of Aquitaine is often called the great defender of
> > Augustine. But he clearly contradicted Augustine on the massa
damnata
> > , three times. For example, in his Responsiones ad capitula
> > obiectionum Gallorum 3: ". . . for this reason they were not
> > predestined because they were foreseen as going to be such as a
result
> > of voluntary transgression . . . For they were not deserted by
God so
> > that they deserted God; but they deserted and were
deserted. . . ."
> >
> > How did St. Augustine happen to reach such a position?
> >
> > I. Predisposing factors:
> >
> > A. Tendency to allegorical interpretations: He first learned a
> > solution to Manichean objections against Old Testament from St.
> > Ambrose: (Conf. 6, 4, 6) : "Joyfully I used to hear Ambrose
saying in
> > his sermons to the people, as though he were most diligently
teaching
> > a rule: 'The letter kills, but the spirit gives life,' when he
opened
> > up in a spiritual sense . . . those things which, taken literally,
> > seemed to each perversity." Actually the words are from 2 Cor
3:6. It
> > meant that the old regime of the law kills spiritually, the new
regime
> > of the spirit gives life. (St. Paul meant this only in a focused
or
> > artificial perspective: cf. W. Most, The Thought of St. Paul on
this
> > passage) . Both St. Ambrose and St. Augustine were completely
wrong in
> > their understanding of this line of St. Paul.
> >
> > B. His view on the salvific will: He was predisposed to deny it is
> > universal, i.e. , God does not really want all to be saved:
> >
> > (a) In natural order, he blurred the line between ordinary and
> > miraculous things (On John's Gospel 6. 1) : "Because . . . His
> > miracles, by which He rules the whole world . . . had become
> > commonplace by constant experience . . . He reserved to Himself
> > certain things which He would perform at opportune times, beyond
the
> > usual course and order of nature, so that they for whom the daily
> > things had become commonplace might be amazed in seeing not
greater
> > but unusual things."
> >
> > (b) In supernatural order: There was a similar failure to see
clearly
> > the line (Sermon 141, 1, 1) : ". . . who would dare to say that
God
> > lacked a way of calling, in which even Esau would apply his mind
to
> > faith, and join his will [to that] in which Jacob was justified?"
I.
> > 5. , Esau was reprobated, God could have used means which would
have
> > saved Esau, He did not. Therefore He did not will Esau's
salvation!
> > God wanted to damn him, and did so without even looking at the
future
> > faults of Esau! Augustine failed to understand Romans 9:13, which
was
> > quoting Malachi. The semitic pattern meant: He loves one more, the
> > other less. Further, love here means a decision to give full
> > membership in the Church. So the mistake made by Augustine was
> > dreadful!
> >
> > (c) His actual comments on God's salvific will:
> >
> > (1) Enchiridion 103: "When we hear and read in sacred Scripture
that
> > He wills all men to be saved . . . we must . . . so understand
[it] .
> > . . as if it were said that no man is saved except whom He wants
[to
> > be saved]. . . . Or certainly it was so said . . . not that there
is
> > no man whom He is unwilling to have saved, He who was unwilling to
> > perform the wonders of miracles among those whom He says would
have
> > done penance it He had done them: but in such a way that we
understand
> > 'all men' to mean the whole human race, distributed into various
> > categories: kings, private citizens, nobles, ordinary men, lofty,
> > lowly, learned, unlearned. . . ."
> >
> > (2) De correptione et gratia 14. 44: "And that which is written
that
> > which is written that 'he wills all men to be saved and yet not
all
> > are saved, can be understood in many ways, of which we have
mentioned
> > some in other works, but I shall give one here. It is said in
such a
> > way . . . that all the predestined are meant: for the whole human
race
> > is in them."
> >
> > (3) De correptione et gratia 15, 47: "That 'God wills all men to
be
> > saved' can be understood also in this way: that He causes us to
wish
> > [that all men be saved]. . . ."
> >
> > (4) Epistle 217, 6, 19: ". . . and so that which is said, 'God
wills
> > all men to be saved' although He is unwilling that so many be
saved,
> > is said for this reason: that all who are saved, are not saved
except
> > by His will."
> >
> > It is tragically obvious that Augustine completely denied the
clear
> > sense of Scripture here. Further, since to love is to will good to
> > another for the other's sake, then when God says He wills all to
be
> > saved, it means He loves all. Augustine was denying the love of
God,
> > without realizing it of course.
> >
> > II. First or explicit theory of Augustine on Predestination:
Massa damnata:
> >
> > As we said above, from an allegorical interpretation of Romans 9,
> > chiefly verses 19-24, Augustine said the whole race is as a mass
of
> > potters's clay from original sin—all could be sent to hell for
that
> > fact of original sin alone (infants dying without baptism are
damned)
> > . First, there was and is no support for such an allegorical
> > interpretation. More importantly, he was sadly wrong. Original sin
> > alone does not deserve hell. St. Thomas Aquinas knew that in
teaching
> > (De malo 5. 3. ad 4) that unbaptized infants suffer no pain at
all,
> > even have natural happiness. More important: Pius IX in Quanto
> > conficiamur moerore (DS 2866) : "God . . . in His supreme
goodness and
> > clemency, by no means allows anyone to be punished with eternal
> > punishments who does not have the guilt of voluntary fault." So
> > original sin alone does not bring hell.
> >
> > (a) Explicit texts:
> >
> > (1) Ad Simplicianum 1, 2, 16: "Therefore all men are . . . one
> > condemned mass [massa damnata] of sin, that owes a debt of
punishment
> > to the divine and supreme justice. Whether it [the debt] be
exacted,
> > or whether it be condoned, there is no injustice."
> >
> > (2) Enchiridion 27: ". . . the whole condemned mass of the human
race
> > lay in evils, or even rolled about in them, and was precipitated
from
> > evils into evils. . . ."
> >
> > (3) City of God 21, 12: "Hence there is a condemned mass of the
whole
> > human race . . . so that no one would be freed from this just and
due
> > punishment except by mercy and undue grace; and so the human race
is
> > divided [into two parts] so that in some it may be shown what
merciful
> > grace can do, in others, what just vengeance can do. . . . In it
> > [punishment] there are many more than in [mercy] so that in this
way
> > there may be shown what is due to all."
> >
> > (4) Epistle 190. 3. 12: He said that reprobates are so much more
> > numerous than the saved that "by an incomparable number they are
more
> > numerous than those whom He deigned to predestine as sons of the
> > promise to the glory of His kingdom; so that by the very number of
> > those rejected, it might he shown that the number, howsoever
large, of
> > the justly damned is of no importance with a just God. . . ."
Which
> > implies that God does not will all to be saved: hence Augustine's
> > explicit denial, several times, of the words of 1 Tim 2:4. Hence
too,
> > as we said above, God does not really love anyone: He merely uses
a
> > few to show mercy.
> >
> > (b) Exclusion of foreseen merits:
> >
> > (1) On the predestination of the saints 17: "Let us, then,
understand
> > the call by which the elect are made [elect]: [they are] not
[persons]
> > who are chosen because they have believed, but [they are persons]
who
> > are chosen so that they may believe. For even the Lord Himself
made
> > this [call] sufficiently clear when He said: 'You have not chosen
me,
> > but I have chosen you. '
> >
> > Comment: In context, Christ was telling the Apostles He had chosen
> > them, not that they had chosen Him. So the text had nothing at
all to
> > do with predestination to heaven or hell. The error, so common,
lies
> > in ignoring the context of the text. ] . . . This is the
unshakable
> > truth of predestination and grace. For what else does that mean,
that
> > the Apostle says, 'As He chose us in Him before the foundation of
the
> > world. '
> >
> > Comment: In context, St. Paul was speaking of predestination to
full
> > membership in the Church, not of predestination to heaven]. For
surely
> > if it was said [that they were chosen] because God foresaw that
they
> > would believe, [and] not because He Himself was going to make them
> > believers—the Son speaks against that sort of foreknowledge,
saying:
> > 'You have not chosen me, but I have chosen you. '[ See comment
above
> > on this text] . So they were chosen before the foundation of the
world
> > by that predestination by which God foreknew His own future acts:
they
> > are chosen out of the world by that vocation by which God
fulfilled
> > that which he had predestined, 'For those whom He predestined,
them
> > also He called. . . . '
> >
> > Comment: In context, all of chapters 8, 9, 10, and 11 of Romans
speak
> > only of predestination to full membership in the Church, not of
> > predestination to heaven]. Therefore God chose the faithful, not
> > because they already were [faithful] but that they might be
> > [faithful]. So by choosing, He makes them rich in faith, just as
[he
> > makes them] heirs of the kingdom."
> >
> > Comment: Sadly, Augustine takes every bit of Scripture used above
out
> > of context, so that the texts prove nothing of what he has in
mind].
> >
> > (2) Enchiridion 99: "For grace alone distinguishes the redeemed
from
> > the lost, whom a common cause from [their] beginning had joined
into
> > one mass of perdition. . . ."
> >
> > Comment: If grace, God's blind decision, alone is decisive, we
arrive
> > at the massa damnata described above. There must be, and is,
another
> > factor deciding who is saved or lost. We will explain that below.
> >
> > (3) Epistle 194, 8, 35: "it is, moreover, marvelous into what
> > precipices they hurl themselves, in their fear of the nets of
truth,
> > when they are pressed by these difficulties. 'It was for this
reason'
> > they say, 'that He hated of those not yet born [Esau] and loved
the
> > other [Jacob] because He foresaw their future works. ' Who would
not
> > be surprised that this most keen thought could be lacking to the
> > Apostle? . . . . This, then, was the place for him to say what
these
> > think: 'For God foresaw their future works', when He said
that 'the
> > elder would serve the lesser. ' But the Apostle did not say this,
but
> > instead, lest anyone dare to boast of the merits of his works, he
> > wanted what he did say to be able to teach the grace and glory of
> > God."
> >
> > Comment: Augustine is right in saying it is not prevision of
merits
> > that is decisive—but he did not see that prevision of demerits
could
> > be the decisive factor. How to reconcile these two points we will
show
> > below.
> >
> > III. Second, or implicit theory: A good theologian knows mysteries
> > occur in theology. So, if, from different points in revelation, he
> > seems to find opposing answers, and if rechecking does not reveal
an
> > error on his part, he will feel obliged to hold both ends of the
chain
> > without knowing how they can fit together (as when we know there
are
> > three divine Persons, only one God) . So Augustine could hold,
even
> > though only implicitly, a second theory which contradicted the
first.
> > The elements of it are these:
> >
> > (a) From above, we retain: (1) Predestination does not depend on
> > merits. (2) We are totally dependent on God.
> >
> > (b) We reject the massa damnata, and substitute instead: God does
not
> > reprobate except after and because of foreseen grave demerits.
All the
> > Eastern Fathers, and all Western Fathers before and after
Augustine
> > held this truth. This position is compatible with the position
that
> > predestination comes independently of foreseen merits, even though
> > Augustine did not see how.
> >
> > We need to see that in God's decision there are three logical
stages
> > or momenta: First, God wills sincerely and vehemently that all be
> > saved; Second, He foresees some will gravely resist grace: on
account
> > of this resistance and because of it, He reprobates; Third, He
decrees
> > to save the others, not because of merits (which are not yet
foreseen
> > logically—only resistance is looked at—merits come after absence
of
> > resistance) but because He has always wanted that (salvific will)
and
> > these do not block His will.
> >
> > Augustine's implication on reprobation is found in: e. g. , De
> > diversis quaest. 83, 68, 5: De correptione et gratia 13, 42; De
> > peccatorum meritis et remissione 2, 17, 26; De actis cum Felice
> > Manichaeo 2, 8, which we shall now examine:
> >
> > The Problem of a Second Theory of Predestination in St. Augustine
> >
> > A theologian who follows precise theological method will first
study
> > under the guidance of official teachings, all passages in
revelation
> > that have any bearing on his problem directly or indirectly. He
will
> > try to work out the answer, so far as possible, from each separate
> > starting point. A good comparison would be this: he is like a man
> > standing on the rim of a circle. From each of two or more points
on
> > the rim he tries to draw a line that will hit the center, the
right
> > answer. If he has done his work well, all lines will focus in the
> > center.
> >
> > Suppose he finds that two (or more) lines do not meet in the
center?
> > He should first recheck his work. But then, if they still do not
meet,
> > he must not force anything, but should just admit there are
mysteries
> > in theology, and so should hold both truths, both lines.
> >
> > Augustine seems to have done that, without realizing it, in his
study
> > of grace. he did arrive, clearly, at the erroneous massa damnata
> > theory from his misinterpretation of Romans 9. But some passages
in
> > his works seem to imply that he felt, without being fully aware
of it,
> > a second line. Here are the passages. 1. On 88 different
questions 68,
> > 5: "For not all who were called wanted to come to that dinner,
which
> > as the Lord says in the Gospel, was prepared, nor would those who
came
> > have been able to come if they had not been called. And so neither
> > should they who came attribute [it] to themselves; for they came
being
> > called nor should those who were unwilling to come attribute [it]
to
> > anyone but themselves, for, in order that they might come, they
were
> > called in free will."
> >
> > Comment: Compare his Enchiridion 99: ". . . grace alone
distinguishes
> > the redeemed from the lest, whom a common cause from [their]
beginning
> > had joined into one mass of perdition. . . .") . [Written 388-98
A. D.
> > In saying those who did not come must attribute it only to
themselves,
> > he is taking position opposite to massa damnata, where the first
> > reason for their not coming is not their own will but God's
desertion
> > of them
> >
> > 2. On correction and grace 13, 42: "Those, then, who do not
belong to
> > that most certain and most happy number [of the predestined] are
> > judged most justly according to their merits. For they either lie
> > under the sin which they contracted originally by generation.
> >
> > . . . Or they receive the grace of God, but are temporary, and do
not
> > persevere: they desert and are deserted. For they were let go in
their
> > free will, not receiving the gift of perseverance, by a just and
> > hidden judgment of God." [written 426].
> >
> > Comment: In the second part of this text, he speaks of those who
have
> > been forgiven original sin—so, original sin cannot be the reason
for
> > reprobation in them. Augustine gives the reason: "They were let
go in
> > their free will by a just judgment of God. They desert and are
> > deserted." But in massa damnata the reason would be that God first
> > deserted them, and then they deserted Him. Nor can some remaining
> > debility left from original explain what he says: that debility
is in
> > all the baptized. So the reason here why they do not persevere is
> > their own free will, not God's desertion within massa damnata.
> >
> > 3. On the merits and remission of sins 2, 17, 26: "Men are not
willing
> > to do what is right either because the fact that it is right is
hidden
> > from the, or because it does not please them. It is from the
grace of
> > God, which helps the wills of man, that that which was hidden
becomes
> > known, and that which did not please become sweet. The reason why
they
> > are not helped [by grace] is in themselves, not in God, whether
they
> > are predestined to damnation because of the wickedness of their
pride,
> > or whether they are to be judged and emended, contrary to the
> > wickedness of their pride if they are sons of mercy." [written
411].
> >
> > Comment: "The reason why they are not helped [by grace] is in
> > themselves, not in God." Now if the fundamental reason were
desertion
> > by God, as in massa damnata, Augustine would have said the
opposite.
> > But he did say "the reason why they are not helped is in
themselves,
> > not in God."
> >
> > 4. The debate with Felix the Manichean 2, 8: "Felix said: You call
> > Manichaeus cruel for saying these things. What do we say about
Christ
> > who said: Go into eternal fire? Augustine said: He said this to
> > sinners. Felix said: These sinners, why were they not purified?
> > Augustine said: Because they did not will [it]. Felix said:
Because
> > they did not will it —did you say that? Augustine said: Yes, I
said
> > it: Because they did not will it." [written 398].
> >
> > Comment: : He says the cause why they were not purified
is "because
> > they did not will it." If he really meant that the first thing
was a
> > desertion by God, as in massa damnata, then Felix would have won
the
> > debate, for men would be damned without any opportunity. And God
would
> > be like the God of the Manichees, who deserted to prepare the way
for
> > a victory that never came.
> >
> > 5. Tracts on the Gospel of St. John 53, 6: " 'They were not able
to
> > believe', since Isaiah the prophet predicted it; and the prophet
> > predicted it, because God had foreseen that this would happen.
But if
> > I am asked why they were not able, I reply quickly: Because they
did
> > not want to: For God foresaw their evil will, and He from whom the
> > future things cannot be hidden announced it in advance through the
> > prophet. But, you say, the prophet speaks of another cause, not of
> > their will. What cause does the prophet speak of? Because 'God
gave
> > them a spirit of compunction, eyes so that they did not see, and
ears,
> > so that they did not hear, and He blinded their eyes and hardened
> > their heart'. I reply that their will merited even this." [written
> > 413-18].
> >
> > Comment: He says the cause is their evil will. And then seeing
someone
> > may say that that bad will came from divine desertion he adds: "I
> > reply that their evil will merited even this." Could he mean they
> > merit it by original sin? Then why such a process of words and
> > objection and solution—it would be a deception of his readers.—So
> > again, Augustine is saying that the first cause why some are
> > reprobated is found in the wills of men, not in God.
> >
> > 6. On instructing the ignorant 52: "The merciful God, wanting to
> > deliver men, if they are not enemies to Him and do not resist the
> > mercy of their Creator, sent His only—begotten Son." [written
399].
> >
> > Comment: Again, Augustine teaches that the distinction between
those
> > who are freed and those who are not freed depends on the
resistance or
> > lack of it on the part of men.
> >
> > Objection: Could it be that Augustine changed his mind over a
period
> > of time? No, for the texts just cited come from all across the
range
> > of his literary activity. Probable dates are as follows:
> >
> > De diversis quaest—between 388 and 398 De actis cum Felice—398 De
> > peccatorum meritis—411 Tract in Ioannem—413-418 De correptione et
> > gratia—426.
> >
> > III. A newer theory using some of the above data from Augustine:
The
> > second series of texts show he admits a power of man on negative
side,
> > which is decisive (even though in #1 above he excludes power on
> > positive side) .
> >
> > Therefore even though he excludes any positive power for good
from the
> > ability of man, and excludes any foreknowledge of merits on the
part
> > of God as a reason for predestination, yet he admits a negative
power
> > in man of rejecting or not rejecting.
> >
> > What is the result: Predestination must be without merits. But
> > reprobation, even negative, is the result of demerits.
> >
> > St Augustine then seems to have wanted, even though only
implicitly,
> > to have this combination. He did not, of course, know how it was
> > possible to hold both things, namely, reprobation depending on
> > demerits, and predestination not depending on merits.
> >
> > Yet we can supply the missing solution. There are three logical
steps
> > in God's decisions:
> >
> > (1) He wills all men to be saved. Augustine did deny this, but
> > Scripture teaches it, so we must and do hold it. Further since to
will
> > salvation is to will good to another, and since love consists in
> > willing good to another for the other's sake, therefore to deny
this
> > first step wold be to deny God's love. Which would be blasphemy.
This
> > will on God's part is extremely strong, measured by how far He
went to
> > make our eternal happiness possible: the terrible death of His
Son,
> > and His binding Himself in the covenant by the infinite price of
> > redemption to offer forgiveness and grace infinitely, that is,
without
> > limit, except that limit set by man's rejection of it.
> >
> > (2) He looks—not ahead, for there is no time with Him—to see who
> > resists His grace both gravely and persistently, so persistently
that
> > he throws away the only thing that could save him. Then sadly God
> > decrees to let him go, negative reprobation. This is the unanimous
> > view of all Eastern Fathers, and Westerners except St. Augustine.
> >
> > (3) All who were not discarded in step two are positively
predestined.
> > But not because of merits. This is St. Augustine's large
contribution.
> > Merits have not yet been considered at all. Rather, God
predestines
> > them to heaven because that is what He wanted to do in step 1,
and thy
> > are not blocking it.
> >
> > Fate of Unbaptized Infants
> >
> > Sermon 294. 3:After quoting Mt. 25 on the last judgment: "In the
one
> > place He names the kingdom; in the other place, damnation with the
> > devil. There is no middle place left where you could put the
infants.
> > There will be judgment for the living and the dead: some at the
right,
> > others at the left: I do not know anything else."
> >
> > Enchiridion 93: "The mildest of all will be the punishment of
those
> > who have contracted nothing but original sin"
> >
> > Epistle 166. 6. 16: "But when we come to the punishment of
infants,
> > believe me I am in a very tight spot, nor do I find at all what I
> > could answer."
> >
> > Others:
> >
> > a) Agreeing with Augustine:
> >
> > St. Fulgentius, <De fide ad Petrum> 27. 68
> >
> > St. Gregory the Great, <Moralia> 9. 21. 32—This however was
written as
> > a private person, not as Pope.
> >
> > b) Disagreeing with him:
> >
> > St. Gregory of Nazianzen, <Orations> 40. 23:" I think that. . .
these
> > are neither glorified, nor are punished by the Just Judge, who on
the
> > one hand were not sealed [baptized] but on the other hand are not
> > evil, but rather suffered a loss than inflicted one."
> >
> > St Gregory of Nyssa, <On Infants Taken away Prematurely>—Thinks
that
> > those who die without baptism are those who would have been lost
by
> > sin had they lived a full life.
> >
> > St. Thomas Aquinas, <De malo> q. 5. a. 3. ad 4 :"The infants are
> > separated from God perpetually, in regard to the loss of glory,
which
> > they do not know, but not in regard to participation in natural
goods,
> > which they do know. . . . That which they have through nature,
they
> > possess without pain."
> >
> > Magisterium:
> >
> > 1) The Council of Florence in 1439, in DS 1306 taught: "The souls
of
> > those who depart in actual mortal sin or in original sin only, go
at
> > once into the realm of the dead, to be punished with different
> > penalties."
> >
> > Comment: About the two underlined words: "realm of the dead" is
Latin
> > infernus which does not always mean the hell of the damned. In the
> > Creed we read that Christ descended into hell. The word punished
has
> > the root of Latin poena which need not mean the infliction of
positive
> > pain, but merely the loss of something. So it would mean that
infants
> > who really die in original sin, are given the loss of the vision
of
> > God. This bypasses the question of whether or not God, in some
way,
> > might provide grace to them even without a sacrament. He can
surely do
> > this if He so wills. St. Thomas, in III. 68. 2. c. says the
obvious,
> > that God's hands are not tied by the Sacraments.
> >
> > 2) The Council of Pistoia: It tried to teach that the idea of a
limbo
> > for unbaptized infants was a Pelagian fable. Pius VI in 1794, in
DS
> > 2626 condemned that teaching.
> >
> > 3) Pius IX in Quanto conficiamur moerore of August 10, 1863 (DS
2866)
> > said: "God. . . in His supreme goodness and clemency, by no means
> > allows anyone to be punished with eternal punishments who does not
> > have the guilt of voluntary fault."
> >
> > Comment: Infants do not have voluntary fault. Therefore, no hell
for
> > the infants. Leonard Feeney (reprinted in Thomas M. Sennott, They
> > Fought the Good Fight pp. 305-06) quoted this text of Pius IX and
> > said: "To say that God would never permit anyone to be punished
> > eternally unless he has incurred the guilt of voluntary sin is
nothing
> > short of Pelagianism. . . . If God cannot punish eternally a human
> > being who has not incurred the guilt of voluntary sin, how then,
for
> > example, can He punish eternally babies who die unbaptized?"—In
other
> > words, Feeney calls Pius IX a heretic!
> >
> > 4) Catechism of the Catholic Church: In # 1261, after carefully
> > explaining that those who without fault do not find the Church,
can
> > still be saved, quoted the words of Christ (Mk 10:14) "Let the
little
> > children come to me, and do not prevent them," added: "[this]
permits
> > us to have hope that there is a way to salvation for infants who
die
> > without Baptism."
> >
> > Objection: A local Council of Carthage in 418 taught, in Canon 3
(DS
> > 224) : "Of anyone says that. . . in the kingdom of heaven there
will
> > be some middle place, or a place elsewhere, where the infants
live as
> > blessed who have departed from this life without Baptism. . . let
him
> > be anathema."
> >
> > Comment: This was only a local council. Some of its canons were
> > approved by Pope Zosimus, and so gained universal teaching
authority.
> > But the note on this section, just ahead of DS 222 (DB 101) that
this
> > text of DS 224 was not approved, but instead the text of DS 225,
also
> > called Canon 3, which makes no mention of infants. It merely
teaches
> > that grace of justification counts not only for the remission of
sins
> > already committed, but also for help that they may not be
committed
> > [again].
> >
> > Provided Courtesy of:
> > Eternal Word Television Network
> > 5817 Old Leeds Road
> > Irondale, AL 35210
> > www.ewtn.com
> >
> >
> > --
> > From Irenikon
> > @ 40 ° 54' 21.5" N, 77 ° 52' 23.3" W
> >
> > Tenebrae eum non comprehenderunt. ~John 1:5
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

I believe that one finds synergy in Augustine. "Synergy" is the big
picture. St. Augustine's thought is a collage of hyper-magnified
close-ups on many small portions of the big picture. When one puts
the aggregate whole of St. Augustine's thought together, and stops
getting distracted by details, I think the greatest of all the
Fathers (in some respects) emerges.

Augustine clearly taught that men were saved or damned because they
chose to be saved or damned. He also made it perfectly clear that
without God's grace, neither of them could have made any choices at
all. He made it clear that men had to take responsibility for their
own salvation (or damnation) and also made it clear that even the
most perfected cannot claim that they deserved to be saved, but that
all the good showered upon them was grace - i.e., "freely bestowed,"
out of all proportion to their actual merits. Surely, divinization is
out of all proportion to even the best men's merits...

In other words, God's grace came to meet men that could not save
themselves, and men, by cooperating with God's grace, received
something beyond their natural abilities to attain. God did his very
large part, man did his very small part.

And, that is the doctrine of synergy. And Augustine teaches it. In
this, as with so many of his teachings, sometimes St. Augustine looks
at it from one angle, and we think "but wait a minute, that sounds
like x," and then St.  Augustine looks at it from another angle, and
we think "Now hold on! That looks like y!" And the people who think
he meant one thing ask him "but how can you say that when such-and-
such is the case?" And St. Augustine replies "Who denies it?"

He is capable of focusing on the kernel of truth in many
complimentary views, in such a way that we think he is excluding the
other mitigating factors. But, then we read the mitigating factors
we've been looking for elsewhere in his writings - but now devoid of
those points expressed in the first exposition we read! He is
focusing on one thing at a time, often - and we don't have the
attention span (or the infinite amount of years) to read everything
he had to say and think on the subject.

For him, the journey is a part of the destination; lotsa people just
have a hard time following Blessed Austin along for the ride.


Augustine



--- In Irenikon@yahoogroups.com, "Ambrois O Maonaigh" <emrys@...>
wrote:
>
> --- In Irenikon@yahoogroups.com, "Monk Augustine"
> <fatheraugustine@> wrote:
>
> > For my money, the official pronouncements of the Church are the
way
> > to go - not my personal predilections and theological fancies. I
> > concede that Augustinianism is a heresy, which I reject. But, I
> also
> > maintain that Augustine, ironically, was not an Augustinianist.
>
>
> The same is said of Pelagius buit with more cogency.  The teachings
> promulated under the name of "Pelagianism" since the word was
coined
> in the 18th century are not necessarily his.  It would be better
use
> to Coelestianism maybe.
>
> Neither is terribly important to the Orthodox though since we look
not
> to either of them but to the doctrine of 'synergy.'
>

To further clarify that St. Augustine did not mean to exclude the
interpretation that God would indeed have preffered that all men come
to salvation, he here admits any interpretation at all, save one:

"And we may interpret it in any other way we please, so long as we
are not compelled to believe that the omnipotent God has willed
anything to be done which was not done: for setting aside all
ambiguities, if He has done all that He pleased in heaven and in
earth, as the psalmist sings of Him, He certainly did not will to do
anything that He has not done."

Clearly, St. Augustine here means to say that God did not will to
save men no matter what, in spite of themselves. For, if God willed,
He could easily save all mankind right now; He could instantly purify
and reform all creatures. But, because God respects the freedom of
will in the creatures He formed, and does not want to have sons at
the price of the impossibility of defection, He does not will to save
all men - in this sense, at this price.

But certainly, we can agree that God would like it if all men would
themselves will to be saved, and that he *in this sense* does indeed
will all men to be saved. And, as the above passage from the Great
and Diviniloquent Augustine declares, that interpretation is
certainly admissable, insofar as it does not compell us to say that
God did not indeed "do all that He hath willed." When we
understand "willed" to mean "purposed and decreed," it is clear that
God does not will that all men be saved, period. If men themselves do
not will to be saved, then God does not will it, and that is why all
men are not saved. Clearly, if God willed all men to be saved (in the
sense of "purposed and decreed") and wasn't particular about the how,
all men would be saved - whether men willed (wanted or purposed), or
not.

I'll now lay down my whip.


Augustine

oh no Joshua....Father William Most was one of the most brilliant
doctrinal theologians we had in the 20th century.   Not only because
he was extremely faithful to the formal teaching of the Church but
because he was able to break things down into manageable portions for
the layman to digest...if the layman was so disposed to hear what he
was saying at all.  I have found him to be Most helpful over the
years, and I am sorry I never got to meet Father before his death.

What he is pointing to in that article are the actual excesses of
Augustine that are not used in the Church's formal doctrinal teachings
and he explains why not.

I fear that is a most misunderstood article.

Mary

On Tue, Sep 2, 2008 at 4:08 PM, Joshua Gonnerman
<joshualg@...> wrote:
> A very unfair and ill-disposed portrait of Augustine, I must say.  But then,
> what more should one expect from EWTN?
>
> Regards,
> Joshua
>
> On Tue, Sep 2, 2008 at 7:58 AM, Mary Lanser <mel5@...> wrote:
>>
>> Might as well post the entire article Father.  Can't hurt to have the
>> entire text handy.
>>
>> Mary
>>
>>
>> ST. AUGUSTINE ON GRACE AND PREDESTINATION
>> Fr. William Most
>> St. Augustine is called, rightly, the Doctor of Grace, for his great
>> work against the Pelagians who practically denied the need of grace
>> for salvation. Augustine showed very well our total dependence on God.
>> The Eastern Fathers had not denied this, did not bring it out so well.
>>
>> I. (1) On human interaction with grace:
>>
>> Every good work, even good will, is the work of God:
>>
>> De gratia Christi 25, 26: "For not only has God given us our ability
>> and helps it, but He even works [brings about] willing and acting in
>> us; not that we do not will or that we do not act, but that without
>> His help we neither will anything good nor do it"—"Non solum enim Beus
>> posse nostrum donavit atque adiuvat, sed etiam 'velle et operari
>> operatur in nobis' non quia nos non volumus, aut nos non agimus, sed
>> quia sine ipsius adiutorio nec volumus aliquid boni nec agimus."
>>
>> De gratia et libero arbitrio 16, 32: "It is certain that we will when
>> we will; but He brings it about that we will good. . . . It is certain
>> that we act when we act, but He brings it about that we act, providing
>> most effective powers to the will."—"Certum est nos velle cum volumus;
>> sed ille facit ut velimus bonum. . . . Certum est nos facere cum
>> facimus, sed ille facit ut faciamus, praebendo vires efficacissimas
>> voluntati."
>>
>> Ibid. 6. 15: "If then your merits are God's gifts, God does not crown
>> your merits as your merits, but as His gifts." "Si ergo Dei dona sunt
>> merita tua, non Deus coronat merita tua tamquam merita tua, sed
>> tamquam dona sua."
>>
>> Ep. 154, 5. 16: "What then is the merit of man before grace by which
>> merit he should receive grace? Since only grace makes every good merit
>> of ours, and when God crowns our merits, He crowns nothing else but
>> His own gifts." "Quod est ergo meritum hominis ante gratiam, quo
>> merito percipiat gratiam, cum omne bonum meritum nostrum non in nobis
>> faciat nisi gratia et cum Deus coronat merita nostra, nihil aliud
>> coronet quam munera sua?"
>>
>> (2) On the other hand, on the interaction of grace with our freedom,
>> he lacks something. His theory is the delectatio victrix: if God shows
>> me more pleasure in something good than in evil, I will choose good.
>> Thus a poor donkey might starve to death, if placed an equal distance
>> between two bails of hay.
>>
>> But to be serious: His delight is in the category of final cause. He
>> does not speak of efficient cause, which is surely needed, and which 2
>> Cor 3:5 and Phil 2: 13 really call for.
>>
>> II. On predestination:
>>
>> Predestination is an arrangement of Providence to see someone gets
>> either full membership in the Church, or gets to heaven. All early
>> writers, East and West, tended to telescope the two. Scripture speaks
>> always and only of predestination to full membership in Church. Only
>> two passages, Rom 8:9ff and Ephesians chapter 1. In Romans, all of
>> chapters 8, 9, 10, 11 mention predestination and they are on
>> membership in Church. Ephesians 1 is too. There are of course things
>> that are implications relative to predestination to heaven.
>>
>> Basic question: does God decide to predestine to heaven with or
>> without looking at a man's merits or demerits? All in the past have
>> taken for granted that if He decides to predestine to heaven without
>> looking, He does same for negative reprobation (letting one go). Or He
>> decides both with looking.
>>
>> Both views give impossible consequences. Augustine wants to make both
>> decisions, favorable and unfavorable be given without looking.
>> Easterners reject negative reprobation without looking at demerits.
>>
>> The Eastern Fathers, absolutely all of them, and Westerners before
>> Augustine, and even after him, saw that there is no reprobation, not
>> even negative, except in consideration of demerits. Augustine did not
>> see that, and the unfortunate massa damnata theory, which said the
>> whole human race by original sin became a massa damnata et damnabilis:
>> God could throw the whole damned race into hell for original sin
>> alone, without waiting for any personal sin.
>>
>> God wanted to display mercy and justice. To display mercy, He chose a
>> small percent to rescue; the rest He deserted and so they would go to
>> hell.
>>
>> He thought God picked those to rescue blindly, without any
>> consideration of how they lived. He picked them not that He had any
>> love for them, but merely to make a point. Augustine did not see it,
>> but that was a denial of God's love. For to love is to will good to
>> another for the other's sake. If I will good to another not for that
>> other's sake, but for some outside purpose of mine, I am not loving
>> that person, but using him.
>>
>> So in that theory, God does not really love anyone, He merely uses the
>> few for His own purposes, not for their sake. Hence, as we shall son
>> see, he explicitly denied several times that "God wills all to be
>> saved: (1 Tim 2:4) . He even said, as we shall soon see below, that it
>> means nothing to God that most persons are damned, without a chance.
>>
>> Of course Augustine did not see this fact, or he would surely have
>> stayed away from his theory. Actually, as we shall see later on, in
>> about six places he implies the opposite of that theory, when his
>> sense of God's goodness took over his thinking.
>>
>> Further, he reached this theory from a collection of reasons, chiefly,
>> the fact that he misunderstood the passage in Romans 8:29 through
>> chapter 11. He thought it all referred to predestination to heaven or
>> hell. (Hence, within that framework, he thought that the words of
>> Romans 9:13,"I have loved Jacob and hated Esau" meant that God really
>> hated Esau. And without even looking at Esau's life wanted to damn
>> him) . Actually, St. Paul does not speak of any such thing, but only
>> of predestination to full membership in the Church. (We will; explain
>> below why we use that word full) . By allegory—without any support in
>> the text or context, he thought that in the image of the potter in
>> Romans 9:19-24 the gob of clay on the potter's table meant the whole
>> human race, made into a massa damnata et damnabilis by original sin.
>>
>> St. Prosper of Aquitaine is often called the great defender of
>> Augustine. But he clearly contradicted Augustine on the massa damnata
>> , three times. For example, in his Responsiones ad capitula
>> obiectionum Gallorum 3: ". . . for this reason they were not
>> predestined because they were foreseen as going to be such as a result
>> of voluntary transgression . . . For they were not deserted by God so
>> that they deserted God; but they deserted and were deserted. . . ."
>>
>> How did St. Augustine happen to reach such a position?
>>
>> I. Predisposing factors:
>>
>> A. Tendency to allegorical interpretations: He first learned a
>> solution to Manichean objections against Old Testament from St.
>> Ambrose: (Conf. 6, 4, 6) : "Joyfully I used to hear Ambrose saying in
>> his sermons to the people, as though he were most diligently teaching
>> a rule: 'The letter kills, but the spirit gives life,' when he opened
>> up in a spiritual sense . . . those things which, taken literally,
>> seemed to each perversity." Actually the words are from 2 Cor 3:6. It
>> meant that the old regime of the law kills spiritually, the new regime
>> of the spirit gives life. (St. Paul meant this only in a focused or
>> artificial perspective: cf. W. Most, The Thought of St. Paul on this
>> passage) . Both St. Ambrose and St. Augustine were completely wrong in
>> their understanding of this line of St. Paul.
>>
>> B. His view on the salvific will: He was predisposed to deny it is
>> universal, i.e. , God does not really want all to be saved:
>>
>> (a) In natural order, he blurred the line between ordinary and
>> miraculous things (On John's Gospel 6. 1) : "Because . . . His
>> miracles, by which He rules the whole world . . . had become
>> commonplace by constant experience . . . He reserved to Himself
>> certain things which He would perform at opportune times, beyond the
>> usual course and order of nature, so that they for whom the daily
>> things had become commonplace might be amazed in seeing not greater
>> but unusual things."
>>
>> (b) In supernatural order: There was a similar failure to see clearly
>> the line (Sermon 141, 1, 1) : ". . . who would dare to say that God
>> lacked a way of calling, in which even Esau would apply his mind to
>> faith, and join his will [to that] in which Jacob was justified?" I.
>> 5. , Esau was reprobated, God could have used means which would have
>> saved Esau, He did not. Therefore He did not will Esau's salvation!
>> God wanted to damn him, and did so without even looking at the future
>> faults of Esau! Augustine failed to understand Romans 9:13, which was
>> quoting Malachi. The semitic pattern meant: He loves one more, the
>> other less. Further, love here means a decision to give full
>> membership in the Church. So the mistake made by Augustine was
>> dreadful!
>>
>> (c) His actual comments on God's salvific will:
>>
>> (1) Enchiridion 103: "When we hear and read in sacred Scripture that
>> He wills all men to be saved . . . we must . . . so understand [it] .
>> . . as if it were said that no man is saved except whom He wants [to
>> be saved]. . . . Or certainly it was so said . . . not that there is
>> no man whom He is unwilling to have saved, He who was unwilling to
>> perform the wonders of miracles among those whom He says would have
>> done penance it He had done them: but in such a way that we understand
>> 'all men' to mean the whole human race, distributed into various
>> categories: kings, private citizens, nobles, ordinary men, lofty,
>> lowly, learned, unlearned. . . ."
>>
>> (2) De correptione et gratia 14. 44: "And that which is written that
>> which is written that 'he wills all men to be saved and yet not all
>> are saved, can be understood in many ways, of which we have mentioned
>> some in other works, but I shall give one here. It is said in such a
>> way . . . that all the predestined are meant: for the whole human race
>> is in them."
>>
>> (3) De correptione et gratia 15, 47: "That 'God wills all men to be
>> saved' can be understood also in this way: that He causes us to wish
>> [that all men be saved]. . . ."
>>
>> (4) Epistle 217, 6, 19: ". . . and so that which is said, 'God wills
>> all men to be saved' although He is unwilling that so many be saved,
>> is said for this reason: that all who are saved, are not saved except
>> by His will."
>>
>> It is tragically obvious that Augustine completely denied the clear
>> sense of Scripture here. Further, since to love is to will good to
>> another for the other's sake, then when God says He wills all to be
>> saved, it means He loves all. Augustine was denying the love of God,
>> without realizing it of course.
>>
>> II. First or explicit theory of Augustine on Predestination: Massa
>> damnata:
>>
>> As we said above, from an allegorical interpretation of Romans 9,
>> chiefly verses 19-24, Augustine said the whole race is as a mass of
>> potters's clay from original sin—all could be sent to hell for that
>> fact of original sin alone (infants dying without baptism are damned)
>> . First, there was and is no support for such an allegorical
>> interpretation. More importantly, he was sadly wrong. Original sin
>> alone does not deserve hell. St. Thomas Aquinas knew that in teaching
>> (De malo 5. 3. ad 4) that unbaptized infants suffer no pain at all,
>> even have natural happiness. More important: Pius IX in Quanto
>> conficiamur moerore (DS 2866) : "God . . . in His supreme goodness and
>> clemency, by no means allows anyone to be punished with eternal
>> punishments who does not have the guilt of voluntary fault." So
>> original sin alone does not bring hell.
>>
>> (a) Explicit texts:
>>
>> (1) Ad Simplicianum 1, 2, 16: "Therefore all men are . . . one
>> condemned mass [massa damnata] of sin, that owes a debt of punishment
>> to the divine and supreme justice. Whether it [the debt] be exacted,
>> or whether it be condoned, there is no injustice."
>>
>> (2) Enchiridion 27: ". . . the whole condemned mass of the human race
>> lay in evils, or even rolled about in them, and was precipitated from
>> evils into evils. . . ."
>>
>> (3) City of God 21, 12: "Hence there is a condemned mass of the whole
>> human race . . . so that no one would be freed from this just and due
>> punishment except by mercy and undue grace; and so the human race is
>> divided [into two parts] so that in some it may be shown what merciful
>> grace can do, in others, what just vengeance can do. . . . In it
>> [punishment] there are many more than in [mercy] so that in this way
>> there may be shown what is due to all."
>>
>> (4) Epistle 190. 3. 12: He said that reprobates are so much more
>> numerous than the saved that "by an incomparable number they are more
>> numerous than those whom He deigned to predestine as sons of the
>> promise to the glory of His kingdom; so that by the very number of
>> those rejected, it might he shown that the number, howsoever large, of
>> the justly damned is of no importance with a just God. . . ." Which
>> implies that God does not will all to be saved: hence Augustine's
>> explicit denial, several times, of the words of 1 Tim 2:4. Hence too,
>> as we said above, God does not really love anyone: He merely uses a
>> few to show mercy.
>>
>> (b) Exclusion of foreseen merits:
>>
>> (1) On the predestination of the saints 17: "Let us, then, understand
>> the call by which the elect are made [elect]: [they are] not [persons]
>> who are chosen because they have believed, but [they are persons] who
>> are chosen so that they may believe. For even the Lord Himself made
>> this [call] sufficiently clear when He said: 'You have not chosen me,
>> but I have chosen you. '
>>
>> Comment: In context, Christ was telling the Apostles He had chosen
>> them, not that they had chosen Him. So the text had nothing at all to
>> do with predestination to heaven or hell. The error, so common, lies
>> in ignoring the context of the text. ] . . . This is the unshakable
>> truth of predestination and grace. For what else does that mean, that
>> the Apostle says, 'As He chose us in Him before the foundation of the
>> world. '
>>
>> Comment: In context, St. Paul was speaking of predestination to full
>> membership in the Church, not of predestination to heaven]. For surely
>> if it was said [that they were chosen] because God foresaw that they
>> would believe, [and] not because He Himself was going to make them
>> believers—the Son speaks against that sort of foreknowledge, saying:
>> 'You have not chosen me, but I have chosen you. '[ See comment above
>> on this text] . So they were chosen before the foundation of the world
>> by that predestination by which God foreknew His own future acts: they
>> are chosen out of the world by that vocation by which God fulfilled
>> that which he had predestined, 'For those whom He predestined, them
>> also He called. . . . '
>>
>> Comment: In context, all of chapters 8, 9, 10, and 11 of Romans speak
>> only of predestination to full membership in the Church, not of
>> predestination to heaven]. Therefore God chose the faithful, not
>> because they already were [faithful] but that they might be
>> [faithful]. So by choosing, He makes them rich in faith, just as [he
>> makes them] heirs of the kingdom."
>>
>> Comment: Sadly, Augustine takes every bit of Scripture used above out
>> of context, so that the texts prove nothing of what he has in mind].
>>
>> (2) Enchiridion 99: "For grace alone distinguishes the redeemed from
>> the lost, whom a common cause from [their] beginning had joined into
>> one mass of perdition. . . ."
>>
>> Comment: If grace, God's blind decision, alone is decisive, we arrive
>> at the massa damnata described above. There must be, and is, another
>> factor deciding who is saved or lost. We will explain that below.
>>
>> (3) Epistle 194, 8, 35: "it is, moreover, marvelous into what
>> precipices they hurl themselves, in their fear of the nets of truth,
>> when they are pressed by these difficulties. 'It was for this reason'
>> they say, 'that He hated of those not yet born [Esau] and loved the
>> other [Jacob] because He foresaw their future works. ' Who would not
>> be surprised that this most keen thought could be lacking to the
>> Apostle? . . . . This, then, was the place for him to say what these
>> think: 'For God foresaw their future works', when He said that 'the
>> elder would serve the lesser. ' But the Apostle did not say this, but
>> instead, lest anyone dare to boast of the merits of his works, he
>> wanted what he did say to be able to teach the grace and glory of
>> God."
>>
>> Comment: Augustine is right in saying it is not prevision of merits
>> that is decisive—but he did not see that prevision of demerits could
>> be the decisive factor. How to reconcile these two points we will show
>> below.
>>
>> III. Second, or implicit theory: A good theologian knows mysteries
>> occur in theology. So, if, from different points in revelation, he
>> seems to find opposing answers, and if rechecking does not reveal an
>> error on his part, he will feel obliged to hold both ends of the chain
>> without knowing how they can fit together (as when we know there are
>> three divine Persons, only one God) . So Augustine could hold, even
>> though only implicitly, a second theory which contradicted the first.
>> The elements of it are these:
>>
>> (a) From above, we retain: (1) Predestination does not depend on
>> merits. (2) We are totally dependent on God.
>>
>> (b) We reject the massa damnata, and substitute instead: God does not
>> reprobate except after and because of foreseen grave demerits. All the
>> Eastern Fathers, and all Western Fathers before and after Augustine
>> held this truth. This position is compatible with the position that
>> predestination comes independently of foreseen merits, even though
>> Augustine did not see how.
>>
>> We need to see that in God's decision there are three logical stages
>> or momenta: First, God wills sincerely and vehemently that all be
>> saved; Second, He foresees some will gravely resist grace: on account
>> of this resistance and because of it, He reprobates; Third, He decrees
>> to save the others, not because of merits (which are not yet foreseen
>> logically—only resistance is looked at—merits come after absence of
>> resistance) but because He has always wanted that (salvific will) and
>> these do not block His will.
>>
>> Augustine's implication on reprobation is found in: e. g. , De
>> diversis quaest. 83, 68, 5: De correptione et gratia 13, 42; De
>> peccatorum meritis et remissione 2, 17, 26; De actis cum Felice
>> Manichaeo 2, 8, which we shall now examine:
>>
>> The Problem of a Second Theory of Predestination in St. Augustine
>>
>> A theologian who follows precise theological method will first study
>> under the guidance of official teachings, all passages in revelation
>> that have any bearing on his problem directly or indirectly. He will
>> try to work out the answer, so far as possible, from each separate
>> starting point. A good comparison would be this: he is like a man
>> standing on the rim of a circle. From each of two or more points on
>> the rim he tries to draw a line that will hit the center, the right
>> answer. If he has done his work well, all lines will focus in the
>> center.
>>
>> Suppose he finds that two (or more) lines do not meet in the center?
>> He should first recheck his work. But then, if they still do not meet,
>> he must not force anything, but should just admit there are mysteries
>> in theology, and so should hold both truths, both lines.
>>
>> Augustine seems to have done that, without realizing it, in his study
>> of grace. he did arrive, clearly, at the erroneous massa damnata
>> theory from his misinterpretation of Romans 9. But some passages in
>> his works seem to imply that he felt, without being fully aware of it,
>> a second line. Here are the passages. 1. On 88 different questions 68,
>> 5: "For not all who were called wanted to come to that dinner, which
>> as the Lord says in the Gospel, was prepared, nor would those who came
>> have been able to come if they had not been called. And so neither
>> should they who came attribute [it] to themselves; for they came being
>> called nor should those who were unwilling to come attribute [it] to
>> anyone but themselves, for, in order that they might come, they were
>> called in free will."
>>
>> Comment: Compare his Enchiridion 99: ". . . grace alone distinguishes
>> the redeemed from the lest, whom a common cause from [their] beginning
>> had joined into one mass of perdition. . . .") . [Written 388-98 A. D.
>> In saying those who did not come must attribute it only to themselves,
>> he is taking position opposite to massa damnata, where the first
>> reason for their not coming is not their own will but God's desertion
>> of them
>>
>> 2. On correction and grace 13, 42: "Those, then, who do not belong to
>> that most certain and most happy number [of the predestined] are
>> judged most justly according to their merits. For they either lie
>> under the sin which they contracted originally by generation.
>>
>> . . . Or they receive the grace of God, but are temporary, and do not
>> persevere: they desert and are deserted. For they were let go in their
>> free will, not receiving the gift of perseverance, by a just and
>> hidden judgment of God." [written 426].
>>
>> Comment: In the second part of this text, he speaks of those who have
>> been forgiven original sin—so, original sin cannot be the reason for
>> reprobation in them. Augustine gives the reason: "They were let go in
>> their free will by a just judgment of God. They desert and are
>> deserted." But in massa damnata the reason would be that God first
>> deserted them, and then they deserted Him. Nor can some remaining
>> debility left from original explain what he says: that debility is in
>> all the baptized. So the reason here why they do not persevere is
>> their own free will, not God's desertion within massa damnata.
>>
>> 3. On the merits and remission of sins 2, 17, 26: "Men are not willing
>> to do what is right either because the fact that it is right is hidden
>> from the, or because it does not please them. It is from the grace of
>> God, which helps the wills of man, that that which was hidden becomes
>> known, and that which did not please become sweet. The reason why they
>> are not helped [by grace] is in themselves, not in God, whether they
>> are predestined to damnation because of the wickedness of their pride,
>> or whether they are to be judged and emended, contrary to the
>> wickedness of their pride if they are sons of mercy." [written 411].
>>
>> Comment: "The reason why they are not helped [by grace] is in
>> themselves, not in God." Now if the fundamental reason were desertion
>> by God, as in massa damnata, Augustine would have said the opposite.
>> But he did say "the reason why they are not helped is in themselves,
>> not in God."
>>
>> 4. The debate with Felix the Manichean 2, 8: "Felix said: You call
>> Manichaeus cruel for saying these things. What do we say about Christ
>> who said: Go into eternal fire? Augustine said: He said this to
>> sinners. Felix said: These sinners, why were they not purified?
>> Augustine said: Because they did not will [it]. Felix said: Because
>> they did not will it —did you say that? Augustine said: Yes, I said
>> it: Because they did not will it." [written 398].
>>
>> Comment: : He says the cause why they were not purified is "because
>> they did not will it." If he really meant that the first thing was a
>> desertion by God, as in massa damnata, then Felix would have won the
>> debate, for men would be damned without any opportunity. And God would
>> be like the God of the Manichees, who deserted to prepare the way for
>> a victory that never came.
>>
>> 5. Tracts on the Gospel of St. John 53, 6: " 'They were not able to
>> believe', since Isaiah the prophet predicted it; and the prophet
>> predicted it, because God had foreseen that this would happen. But if
>> I am asked why they were not able, I reply quickly: Because they did
>> not want to: For God foresaw their evil will, and He from whom the
>> future things cannot be hidden announced it in advance through the
>> prophet. But, you say, the prophet speaks of another cause, not of
>> their will. What cause does the prophet speak of? Because 'God gave
>> them a spirit of compunction, eyes so that they did not see, and ears,
>> so that they did not hear, and He blinded their eyes and hardened
>> their heart'. I reply that their will merited even this." [written
>> 413-18].
>>
>> Comment: He says the cause is their evil will. And then seeing someone
>> may say that that bad will came from divine desertion he adds: "I
>> reply that their evil will merited even this." Could he mean they
>> merit it by original sin? Then why such a process of words and
>> objection and solution—it would be a deception of his readers.—So
>> again, Augustine is saying that the first cause why some are
>> reprobated is found in the wills of men, not in God.
>>
>> 6. On instructing the ignorant 52: "The merciful God, wanting to
>> deliver men, if they are not enemies to Him and do not resist the
>> mercy of their Creator, sent His only—begotten Son." [written 399].
>>
>> Comment: Again, Augustine teaches that the distinction between those
>> who are freed and those who are not freed depends on the resistance or
>> lack of it on the part of men.
>>
>> Objection: Could it be that Augustine changed his mind over a period
>> of time? No, for the texts just cited come from all across the range
>> of his literary activity. Probable dates are as follows:
>>
>> De diversis quaest—between 388 and 398 De actis cum Felice—398 De
>> peccatorum meritis—411 Tract in Ioannem—413-418 De correptione et
>> gratia—426.
>>
>> III. A newer theory using some of the above data from Augustine: The
>> second series of texts show he admits a power of man on negative side,
>> which is decisive (even though in #1 above he excludes power on
>> positive side) .
>>
>> Therefore even though he excludes any positive power for good from the
>> ability of man, and excludes any foreknowledge of merits on the part
>> of God as a reason for predestination, yet he admits a negative power
>> in man of rejecting or not rejecting.
>>
>> What is the result: Predestination must be without merits. But
>> reprobation, even negative, is the result of demerits.
>>
>> St Augustine then seems to have wanted, even though only implicitly,
>> to have this combination. He did not, of course, know how it was
>> possible to hold both things, namely, reprobation depending on
>> demerits, and predestination not depending on merits.
>>
>> Yet we can supply the missing solution. There are three logical steps
>> in God's decisions:
>>
>> (1) He wills all men to be saved. Augustine did deny this, but
>> Scripture teaches it, so we must and do hold it. Further since to will
>> salvation is to will good to another, and since love consists in
>> willing good to another for the other's sake, therefore to deny this
>> first step wold be to deny God's love. Which would be blasphemy. This
>> will on God's part is extremely strong, measured by how far He went to
>> make our eternal happiness possible: the terrible death of His Son,
>> and His binding Himself in the covenant by the infinite price of
>> redemption to offer forgiveness and grace infinitely, that is, without
>> limit, except that limit set by man's rejection of it.
>>
>> (2) He looks—not ahead, for there is no time with Him—to see who
>> resists His grace both gravely and persistently, so persistently that
>> he throws away the only thing that could save him. Then sadly God
>> decrees to let him go, negative reprobation. This is the unanimous
>> view of all Eastern Fathers, and Westerners except St. Augustine.
>>
>> (3) All who were not discarded in step two are positively predestined.
>> But not because of merits. This is St. Augustine's large contribution.
>> Merits have not yet been considered at all. Rather, God predestines
>> them to heaven because that is what He wanted to do in step 1, and thy
>> are not blocking it.
>>
>> Fate of Unbaptized Infants
>>
>> Sermon 294. 3:After quoting Mt. 25 on the last judgment: "In the one
>> place He names the kingdom; in the other place, damnation with the
>> devil. There is no middle place left where you could put the infants.
>> There will be judgment for the living and the dead: some at the right,
>> others at the left: I do not know anything else."
>>
>> Enchiridion 93: "The mildest of all will be the punishment of those
>> who have contracted nothing but original sin"
>>
>> Epistle 166. 6. 16: "But when we come to the punishment of infants,
>> believe me I am in a very tight spot, nor do I find at all what I
>> could answer."
>>
>> Others:
>>
>> a) Agreeing with Augustine:
>>
>> St. Fulgentius, <De fide ad Petrum> 27. 68
>>
>> St. Gregory the Great, <Moralia> 9. 21. 32—This however was written as
>> a private person, not as Pope.
>>
>> b) Disagreeing with him:
>>
>> St. Gregory of Nazianzen, <Orations> 40. 23:" I think that. . . these
>> are neither glorified, nor are punished by the Just Judge, who on the
>> one hand were not sealed [baptized] but on the other hand are not
>> evil, but rather suffered a loss than inflicted one."
>>
>> St Gregory of Nyssa, <On Infants Taken away Prematurely>—Thinks that
>> those who die without baptism are those who would have been lost by
>> sin had they lived a full life.
>>
>> St. Thomas Aquinas, <De malo> q. 5. a. 3. ad 4 :"The infants are
>> separated from God perpetually, in regard to the loss of glory, which
>> they do not know, but not in regard to participation in natural goods,
>> which they do know. . . . That which they have through nature, they
>> possess without pain."
>>
>> Magisterium:
>>
>> 1) The Council of Florence in 1439, in DS 1306 taught: "The souls of
>> those who depart in actual mortal sin or in original sin only, go at
>> once into the realm of the dead, to be punished with different
>> penalties."
>>
>> Comment: About the two underlined words: "realm of the dead" is Latin
>> infernus which does not always mean the hell of the damned. In the
>> Creed we read that Christ descended into hell. The word punished has
>> the root of Latin poena which need not mean the infliction of positive
>> pain, but merely the loss of something. So it would mean that infants
>> who really die in original sin, are given the loss of the vision of
>> God. This bypasses the question of whether or not God, in some way,
>> might provide grace to them even without a sacrament. He can surely do
>> this if He so wills. St. Thomas, in III. 68. 2. c. says the obvious,
>> that God's hands are not tied by the Sacraments.
>>
>> 2) The Council of Pistoia: It tried to teach that the idea of a limbo
>> for unbaptized infants was a Pelagian fable. Pius VI in 1794, in DS
>> 2626 condemned that teaching.
>>
>> 3) Pius IX in Quanto conficiamur moerore of August 10, 1863 (DS 2866)
>> said: "God. . . in His supreme goodness and clemency, by no means
>> allows anyone to be punished with eternal punishments who does not
>> have the guilt of voluntary fault."
>>
>> Comment: Infants do not have voluntary fault. Therefore, no hell for
>> the infants. Leonard Feeney (reprinted in Thomas M. Sennott, They
>> Fought the Good Fight pp. 305-06) quoted this text of Pius IX and
>> said: "To say that God would never permit anyone to be punished
>> eternally unless he has incurred the guilt of voluntary sin is nothing
>> short of Pelagianism. . . . If God cannot punish eternally a human
>> being who has not incurred the guilt of voluntary sin, how then, for
>> example, can He punish eternally babies who die unbaptized?"—In other
>> words, Feeney calls Pius IX a heretic!
>>
>> 4) Catechism of the Catholic Church: In # 1261, after carefully
>> explaining that those who without fault do not find the Church, can
>> still be saved, quoted the words of Christ (Mk 10:14) "Let the little
>> children come to me, and do not prevent them," added: "[this] permits
>> us to have hope that there is a way to salvation for infants who die
>> without Baptism."
>>
>> Objection: A local Council of Carthage in 418 taught, in Canon 3 (DS
>> 224) : "Of anyone says that. . . in the kingdom of heaven there will
>> be some middle place, or a place elsewhere, where the infants live as
>> blessed who have departed from this life without Baptism. . . let him
>> be anathema."
>>
>> Comment: This was only a local council. Some of its canons were
>> approved by Pope Zosimus, and so gained universal teaching authority.
>> But the note on this section, just ahead of DS 222 (DB 101) that this
>> text of DS 224 was not approved, but instead the text of DS 225, also
>> called Canon 3, which makes no mention of infants. It merely teaches
>> that grace of justification counts not only for the remission of sins
>> already committed, but also for help that they may not be committed
>> [again].
>>
>> Provided Courtesy of:
>> Eternal Word Television Network
>> 5817 Old Leeds Road
>> Irondale, AL 35210
>> www.ewtn.com
>>
>>
>> --
>> From Irenikon
>> @ 40 ° 54' 21.5" N, 77 ° 52' 23.3" W
>>
>> Tenebrae eum non comprehenderunt. ~John 1:5
>>
>> ------------------------------------
>>
>> Yahoo! Groups Links
>>
>>
>>
>
>



--
From Irenikon
@ 40 ° 54' 21.5" N, 77 ° 52' 23.3" W

Tenebrae eum non comprehenderunt. ~John 1:5

Joshua,

Some Catholic apologists focus upon these matters because these are what
dominate our rapidly deteriorating society and culture.  There are other
apologist who focus upon other areas.  Just consider what the Orthodox and
Catholic apologists on this list are doing.  It's great stuff, and I note a
wonderul spirit here.  We are blessed with Fr. Ambrose, Monk Augustine, Mary,
Fr. Hal, Lou, and others.

Stan

"Joshua Gonnerman" <joshualg@...> wrote:

>Catholic apologists, including "good" ones, tend to only focus on external
>issues, which everyone else makes a big fuss over, such as homosexuality,
>female ordination, contraception, Marian devotion, etc.  On these issues,
>the field of apologetics is by nature such that they are good at justifying
>them to others (particularly through quote-mining).  However, apologetics
>does not "dig deeper" into issues, it is only concerned in justifying their
>existence to others.  Apologists, on the whole, tend to pay most of their
>attention to these "external", apologetical issues, and not look deeper into
>the tradition and teaching of the Church very much, not look at the Church's
>interior life very much.  In consequence, many (though not of course all)
>apologists staunchly stand up for Church doctrine on these "apologetical"
>issues, but don't have much to say about other issues.
>
>Regards,
>Joshua
>
>On Tue, Sep 2, 2008 at 10:31 PM, Ambrois O Maonaigh <emrys@...>wrote:
>
>>   --- In Irenikon@yahoogroups.com <Irenikon%40yahoogroups.com>, "Joshua
>> Gonnerman" <joshualg@...>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > A very unfair and ill-disposed portrait of Augustine, I must say.
>> But then,
>> > what more should one expect from EWTN?
>>
>> Fr William Most, may he rest in peace, seems to have a good reputation
>> as a Catholic apologist?
>>
>>  
>>
>

Jame Morgan is that you invading my list?

Where are you?

Show yourself....!!

<smile>

Mary

--
From Irenikon
@ 40 ° 54' 21.5" N, 77 ° 52' 23.3" W

Tenebrae eum non comprehenderunt. ~John 1:5

Father William was far more than a run of the mill apologist and to
suggest that his work is superficial is simply to be in error.

Mary

On Wed, Sep 3, 2008 at 2:33 PM, Joshua Gonnerman
<joshualg@...> wrote:
> Catholic apologists, including "good" ones, tend to only focus on external
> issues, which everyone else makes a big fuss over, such as homosexuality,
> female ordination, contraception, Marian devotion, etc.  On these issues,
> the field of apologetics is by nature such that they are good at justifying
> them to others (particularly through quote-mining).  However, apologetics
> does not "dig deeper" into issues, it is only concerned in justifying their
> existence to others.  Apologists, on the whole, tend to pay most of their
> attention to these "external", apologetical issues, and not look deeper into
> the tradition and teaching of the Church very much, not look at the Church's
> interior life very much.  In consequence, many (though not of course all)
> apologists staunchly stand up for Church doctrine on these "apologetical"
> issues, but don't have much to say about other issues.
>
> Regards,
> Joshua
>
> On Tue, Sep 2, 2008 at 10:31 PM, Ambrois O Maonaigh <emrys@...>
> wrote:
>>
>> --- In Irenikon@yahoogroups.com, "Joshua Gonnerman" <joshualg@...>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > A very unfair and ill-disposed portrait of Augustine, I must say.
>> But then,
>> > what more should one expect from EWTN?
>>
>> Fr William Most, may he rest in peace, seems to have a good reputation
>> as a Catholic apologist?
>>
>
>



--
From Irenikon
@ 40 ° 54' 21.5" N, 77 ° 52' 23.3" W

Tenebrae eum non comprehenderunt. ~John 1:5

HAH! Gotcha!  I wondered if you and Stan remembered me, and evidently you
do!
How nice! It is good to be in this place. Now let's get to work building
those booths!

Jim of Olym aka Rdr. James

-----Original Message-----
From: Irenikon@yahoogroups.com [mailto:Irenikon@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf
Of Mary Lanser
Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2008 11:58 AM
To: Irenikon
Subject: [Irenikon] Reader James

Jame Morgan is that you invading my list?

Where are you?

Show yourself....!!

<smile>

Mary

--
From Irenikon
@ 40 ° 54' 21.5" N, 77 ° 52' 23.3" W

Tenebrae eum non comprehenderunt. ~John 1:5

------------------------------------

Yahoo! Groups Links

LOL...speaking of shallow.

A wee bit o' larnin' is a dangerous thing Josh.

This is all part of what Augustine himself recanted, rethought, retracted etc.

Mary

On Wed, Sep 3, 2008 at 2:50 PM, Joshua Gonnerman
<joshualg@...> wrote:
> Such off-hand lackadaisical condemnation of St. Augustine does not bespeak
> extreme fidelity to the formal teaching of the Church.
>
> " He [Augustine] thought God picked those to rescue blindly, without
> any consideration of how they lived. He picked them not that He had
> any love for them, but merely to make a point. Augustine did not see
> it, but that was a denial of God's love. For to love is to will good
> to another for the other's sake. If I will good to another not for
> that other's sake, but for some outside purpose of mine, I am not
> loving that person, but using him.
>
> So in that theory, God does not really love anyone, He merely uses
> the few for His own purposes, not for their sake. Hence, as we shall
> son see, he explicitly denied several times that "God wills all to
> be saved: (1 Tim 2:4) . He even said, as we shall soon see below,
> that it means nothing to God that most persons are damned, without a
> chance."
>
> And that does not bespeak brilliant doctrinal theology.  It bespeaks a very
> shallow and cursory reading of Augustine, and a dismissal of him with very
> little grounds.  This is article is also very much dirty fighting and low
> blows in the language used, and gives a very one-sided picture of
> Augustine's teaching.  I mean, come on, "So, in that theory, God does not
> really love anyone, He merely uses the few for His own purposes"???  Give me
> a break.  Augustine portrays Augustine much more accurately.
>
> Regards,
> Joshua
>
> On Wed, Sep 3, 2008 at 9:11 AM, Mary Lanser <mel5@...> wrote:
>>
>> oh no Joshua....Father William Most was one of the most brilliant
>> doctrinal theologians we had in the 20th century.   Not only because
>> he was extremely faithful to the formal teaching of the Church but
>> because he was able to break things down into manageable portions for
>> the layman to digest...if the layman was so disposed to hear what he
>> was saying at all.  I have found him to be Most helpful over the
>> years, and I am sorry I never got to meet Father before his death.
>>
>> What he is pointing to in that article are the actual excesses of
>> Augustine that are not used in the Church's formal doctrinal teachings
>> and he explains why not.
>>
>> I fear that is a most misunderstood article.
>>
>> Mary
>>
>> On Tue, Sep 2, 2008 at 4:08 PM, Joshua Gonnerman
>> <joshualg@...> wrote:
>> > A very unfair and ill-disposed portrait of Augustine, I must say.  But
>> > then,
>> > what more should one expect from EWTN?
>> >
>> > Regards,
>> > Joshua
>> >
>> > On Tue, Sep 2, 2008 at 7:58 AM, Mary Lanser <mel5@...> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Might as well post the entire article Father.  Can't hurt to have the
>> >> entire text handy.
>> >>
>> >> Mary
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> ST. AUGUSTINE ON GRACE AND PREDESTINATION
>> >> Fr. William Most
>> >> St. Augustine is called, rightly, the Doctor of Grace, for his great
>> >> work against the Pelagians who practically denied the need of grace
>> >> for salvation. Augustine showed very well our total dependence on God.
>> >> The Eastern Fathers had not denied this, did not bring it out so well.
>> >>
>> >> I. (1) On human interaction with grace:
>> >>
>> >> Every good work, even good will, is the work of God:
>> >>
>> >> De gratia Christi 25, 26: "For not only has God given us our ability
>> >> and helps it, but He even works [brings about] willing and acting in
>> >> us; not that we do not will or that we do not act, but that without
>> >> His help we neither will anything good nor do it"—"Non solum enim Beus
>> >> posse nostrum donavit atque adiuvat, sed etiam 'velle et operari
>> >> operatur in nobis' non quia nos non volumus, aut nos non agimus, sed
>> >> quia sine ipsius adiutorio nec volumus aliquid boni nec agimus."
>> >>
>> >> De gratia et libero arbitrio 16, 32: "It is certain that we will when
>> >> we will; but He brings it about that we will good. . . . It is certain
>> >> that we act when we act, but He brings it about that we act, providing
>> >> most effective powers to the will."—"Certum est nos velle cum volumus;
>> >> sed ille facit ut velimus bonum. . . . Certum est nos facere cum
>> >> facimus, sed ille facit ut faciamus, praebendo vires efficacissimas
>> >> voluntati."
>> >>
>> >> Ibid. 6. 15: "If then your merits are God's gifts, God does not crown
>> >> your merits as your merits, but as His gifts." "Si ergo Dei dona sunt
>> >> merita tua, non Deus coronat merita tua tamquam merita tua, sed
>> >> tamquam dona sua."
>> >>
>> >> Ep. 154, 5. 16: "What then is the merit of man before grace by which
>> >> merit he should receive grace? Since only grace makes every good merit
>> >> of ours, and when God crowns our merits, He crowns nothing else but
>> >> His own gifts." "Quod est ergo meritum hominis ante gratiam, quo
>> >> merito percipiat gratiam, cum omne bonum meritum nostrum non in nobis
>> >> faciat nisi gratia et cum Deus coronat merita nostra, nihil aliud
>> >> coronet quam munera sua?"
>> >>
>> >> (2) On the other hand, on the interaction of grace with our freedom,
>> >> he lacks something. His theory is the delectatio victrix: if God shows
>> >> me more pleasure in something good than in evil, I will choose good.
>> >> Thus a poor donkey might starve to death, if placed an equal distance
>> >> between two bails of hay.
>> >>
>> >> But to be serious: His delight is in the category of final cause. He
>> >> does not speak of efficient cause, which is surely needed, and which 2
>> >> Cor 3:5 and Phil 2: 13 really call for.
>> >>
>> >> II. On predestination:
>> >>
>> >> Predestination is an arrangement of Providence to see someone gets
>> >> either full membership in the Church, or gets to heaven. All early
>> >> writers, East and West, tended to telescope the two. Scripture speaks
>> >> always and only of predestination to full membership in Church. Only
>> >> two passages, Rom 8:9ff and Ephesians chapter 1. In Romans, all of
>> >> chapters 8, 9, 10, 11 mention predestination and they are on
>> >> membership in Church. Ephesians 1 is too. There are of course things
>> >> that are implications relative to predestination to heaven.
>> >>
>> >> Basic question: does God decide to predestine to heaven with or
>> >> without looking at a man's merits or demerits? All in the past have
>> >> taken for granted that if He decides to predestine to heaven without
>> >> looking, He does same for negative reprobation (letting one go). Or He
>> >> decides both with looking.
>> >>
>> >> Both views give impossible consequences. Augustine wants to make both
>> >> decisions, favorable and unfavorable be given without looking.
>> >> Easterners reject negative reprobation without looking at demerits.
>> >>
>> >> The Eastern Fathers, absolutely all of them, and Westerners before
>> >> Augustine, and even after him, saw that there is no reprobation, not
>> >> even negative, except in consideration of demerits. Augustine did not
>> >> see that, and the unfortunate massa damnata theory, which said the
>> >> whole human race by original sin became a massa damnata et damnabilis:
>> >> God could throw the whole damned race into hell for original sin
>> >> alone, without waiting for any personal sin.
>> >>
>> >> God wanted to display mercy and justice. To display mercy, He chose a
>> >> small percent to rescue; the rest He deserted and so they would go to
>> >> hell.
>> >>
>> >> He thought God picked those to rescue blindly, without any
>> >> consideration of how they lived. He picked them not that He had any
>> >> love for them, but merely to make a point. Augustine did not see it,
>> >> but that was a denial of God's love. For to love is to will good to
>> >> another for the other's sake. If I will good to another not for that
>> >> other's sake, but for some outside purpose of mine, I am not loving
>> >> that person, but using him.
>> >>
>> >> So in that theory, God does not really love anyone, He merely uses the
>> >> few for His own purposes, not for their sake. Hence, as we shall son
>> >> see, he explicitly denied several times that "God wills all to be
>> >> saved: (1 Tim 2:4) . He even said, as we shall soon see below, that it
>> >> means nothing to God that most persons are damned, without a chance.
>> >>
>> >> Of course Augustine did not see this fact, or he would surely have
>> >> stayed away from his theory. Actually, as we shall see later on, in
>> >> about six places he implies the opposite of that theory, when his
>> >> sense of God's goodness took over his thinking.
>> >>
>> >> Further, he reached this theory from a collection of reasons, chiefly,
>> >> the fact that he misunderstood the passage in Romans 8:29 through
>> >> chapter 11. He thought it all referred to predestination to heaven or
>> >> hell. (Hence, within that framework, he thought that the words of
>> >> Romans 9:13,"I have loved Jacob and hated Esau" meant that God really
>> >> hated Esau. And without even looking at Esau's life wanted to damn
>> >> him) . Actually, St. Paul does not speak of any such thing, but only
>> >> of predestination to full membership in the Church. (We will; explain
>> >> below why we use that word full) . By allegory—without any support in
>> >> the text or context, he thought that in the image of the potter in
>> >> Romans 9:19-24 the gob of clay on the potter's table meant the whole
>> >> human race, made into a massa damnata et damnabilis by original sin.
>> >>
>> >> St. Prosper of Aquitaine is often called the great defender of
>> >> Augustine. But he clearly contradicted Augustine on the massa damnata
>> >> , three times. For example, in his Responsiones ad capitula
>> >> obiectionum Gallorum 3: ". . . for this reason they were not
>> >> predestined because they were foreseen as going to be such as a result
>> >> of voluntary transgression . . . For they were not deserted by God so
>> >> that they deserted God; but they deserted and were deserted. . . ."
>> >>
>> >> How did St. Augustine happen to reach such a position?
>> >>
>> >> I. Predisposing factors:
>> >>
>> >> A. Tendency to allegorical interpretations: He first learned a
>> >> solution to Manichean objections against Old Testament from St.
>> >> Ambrose: (Conf. 6, 4, 6) : "Joyfully I used to hear Ambrose saying in
>> >> his sermons to the people, as though he were most diligently teaching
>> >> a rule: 'The letter kills, but the spirit gives life,' when he opened
>> >> up in a spiritual sense . . . those things which, taken literally,
>> >> seemed to each perversity." Actually the words are from 2 Cor 3:6. It
>> >> meant that the old regime of the law kills spiritually, the new regime
>> >> of the spirit gives life. (St. Paul meant this only in a focused or
>> >> artificial perspective: cf. W. Most, The Thought of St. Paul on this
>> >> passage) . Both St. Ambrose and St. Augustine were completely wrong in
>> >> their understanding of this line of St. Paul.
>> >>
>> >> B. His view on the salvific will: He was predisposed to deny it is
>> >> universal, i.e. , God does not really want all to be saved:
>> >>
>> >> (a) In natural order, he blurred the line between ordinary and
>> >> miraculous things (On John's Gospel 6. 1) : "Because . . . His
>> >> miracles, by which He rules the whole world . . . had become
>> >> commonplace by constant experience . . . He reserved to Himself
>> >> certain things which He would perform at opportune times, beyond the
>> >> usual course and order of nature, so that they for whom the daily
>> >> things had become commonplace might be amazed in seeing not greater
>> >> but unusual things."
>> >>
>> >> (b) In supernatural order: There was a similar failure to see clearly
>> >> the line (Sermon 141, 1, 1) : ". . . who would dare to say that God
>> >> lacked a way of calling, in which even Esau would apply his mind to
>> >> faith, and join his will [to that] in which Jacob was justified?" I.
>> >> 5. , Esau was reprobated, God could have used means which would have
>> >> saved Esau, He did not. Therefore He did not will Esau's salvation!
>> >> God wanted to damn him, and did so without even looking at the future
>> >> faults of Esau! Augustine failed to understand Romans 9:13, which was
>> >> quoting Malachi. The semitic pattern meant: He loves one more, the
>> >> other less. Further, love here means a decision to give full
>> >> membership in the Church. So the mistake made by Augustine was
>> >> dreadful!
>> >>
>> >> (c) His actual comments on God's salvific will:
>> >>
>> >> (1) Enchiridion 103: "When we hear and read in sacred Scripture that
>> >> He wills all men to be saved . . . we must . . . so understand [it] .
>> >> . . as if it were said that no man is saved except whom He wants [to
>> >> be saved]. . . . Or certainly it was so said . . . not that there is
>> >> no man whom He is unwilling to have saved, He who was unwilling to
>> >> perform the wonders of miracles among those whom He says would have
>> >> done penance it He had done them: but in such a way that we understand
>> >> 'all men' to mean the whole human race, distributed into various
>> >> categories: kings, private citizens, nobles, ordinary men, lofty,
>> >> lowly, learned, unlearned. . . ."
>> >>
>> >> (2) De correptione et gratia 14. 44: "And that which is written that
>> >> which is written that 'he wills all men to be saved and yet not all
>> >> are saved, can be understood in many ways, of which we have mentioned
>> >> some in other works, but I shall give one here. It is said in such a
>> >> way . . . that all the predestined are meant: for the whole human race
>> >> is in them."
>> >>
>> >> (3) De correptione et gratia 15, 47: "That 'God wills all men to be
>> >> saved' can be understood also in this way: that He causes us to wish
>> >> [that all men be saved]. . . ."
>> >>
>> >> (4) Epistle 217, 6, 19: ". . . and so that which is said, 'God wills
>> >> all men to be saved' although He is unwilling that so many be saved,
>> >> is said for this reason: that all who are saved, are not saved except
>> >> by His will."
>> >>
>> >> It is tragically obvious that Augustine completely denied the clear
>> >> sense of Scripture here. Further, since to love is to will good to
>> >> another for the other's sake, then when God says He wills all to be
>> >> saved, it means He loves all. Augustine was denying the love of God,
>> >> without realizing it of course.
>> >>
>> >> II. First or explicit theory of Augustine on Predestination: Massa
>> >> damnata:
>> >>
>> >> As we said above, from an allegorical interpretation of Romans 9,
>> >> chiefly verses 19-24, Augustine said the whole race is as a mass of
>> >> potters's clay from original sin—all could be sent to hell for that
>> >> fact of original sin alone (infants dying without baptism are damned)
>> >> . First, there was and is no support for such an allegorical
>> >> interpretation. More importantly, he was sadly wrong. Original sin
>> >> alone does not deserve hell. St. Thomas Aquinas knew that in teaching
>> >> (De malo 5. 3. ad 4) that unbaptized infants suffer no pain at all,
>> >> even have natural happiness. More important: Pius IX in Quanto
>> >> conficiamur moerore (DS 2866) : "God . . . in His supreme goodness and
>> >> clemency, by no means allows anyone to be punished with eternal
>> >> punishments who does not have the guilt of voluntary fault." So
>> >> original sin alone does not bring hell.
>> >>
>> >> (a) Explicit texts:
>> >>
>> >> (1) Ad Simplicianum 1, 2, 16: "Therefore all men are . . . one
>> >> condemned mass [massa damnata] of sin, that owes a debt of punishment
>> >> to the divine and supreme justice. Whether it [the debt] be exacted,
>> >> or whether it be condoned, there is no injustice."
>> >>
>> >> (2) Enchiridion 27: ". . . the whole condemned mass of the human race
>> >> lay in evils, or even rolled about in them, and was precipitated from
>> >> evils into evils. . . ."
>> >>
>> >> (3) City of God 21, 12: "Hence there is a condemned mass of the whole
>> >> human race . . . so that no one would be freed from this just and due
>> >> punishment except by mercy and undue grace; and so the human race is
>> >> divided [into two parts] so that in some it may be shown what merciful
>> >> grace can do, in others, what just vengeance can do. . . . In it
>> >> [punishment] there are many more than in [mercy] so that in this way
>> >> there may be shown what is due to all."
>> >>
>> >> (4) Epistle 190. 3. 12: He said that reprobates are so much more
>> >> numerous than the saved that "by an incomparable number they are more
>> >> numerous than those whom He deigned to predestine as sons of the
>> >> promise to the glory of His kingdom; so that by the very number of
>> >> those rejected, it might he shown that the number, howsoever large, of
>> >> the justly damned is of no importance with a just God. . . ." Which
>> >> implies that God does not will all to be saved: hence Augustine's
>> >> explicit denial, several times, of the words of 1 Tim 2:4. Hence too,
>> >> as we said above, God does not really love anyone: He merely uses a
>> >> few to show mercy.
>> >>
>> >> (b) Exclusion of foreseen merits:
>> >>
>> >> (1) On the predestination of the saints 17: "Let us, then, understand
>> >> the call by which the elect are made [elect]: [they are] not [persons]
>> >> who are chosen because they have believed, but [they are persons] who
>> >> are chosen so that they may believe. For even the Lord Himself made
>> >> this [call] sufficiently clear when He said: 'You have not chosen me,
>> >> but I have chosen you. '
>> >>
>> >> Comment: In context, Christ was telling the Apostles He had chosen
>> >> them, not that they had chosen Him. So the text had nothing at all to
>> >> do with predestination to heaven or hell. The error, so common, lies
>> >> in ignoring the context of the text. ] . . . This is the unshakable
>> >> truth of predestination and grace. For what else does that mean, that
>> >> the Apostle says, 'As He chose us in Him before the foundation of the
>> >> world. '
>> >>
>> >> Comment: In context, St. Paul was speaking of predestination to full
>> >> membership in the Church, not of predestination to heaven]. For surely
>> >> if it was said [that they were chosen] because God foresaw that they
>> >> would believe, [and] not because He Himself was going to make them
>> >> believers—the Son speaks against that sort of foreknowledge, saying:
>> >> 'You have not chosen me, but I have chosen you. '[ See comment above
>> >> on this text] . So they were chosen before the foundation of the world
>> >> by that predestination by which God foreknew His own future acts: they
>> >> are chosen out of the world by that vocation by which God fulfilled
>> >> that which he had predestined, 'For those whom He predestined, them
>> >> also He called. . . . '
>> >>
>> >> Comment: In context, all of chapters 8, 9, 10, and 11 of Romans speak
>> >> only of predestination to full membership in the Church, not of
>> >> predestination to heaven]. Therefore God chose the faithful, not
>> >> because they already were [faithful] but that they might be
>> >> [faithful]. So by choosing, He makes them rich in faith, just as [he
>> >> makes them] heirs of the kingdom."
>> >>
>> >> Comment: Sadly, Augustine takes every bit of Scripture used above out
>> >> of context, so that the texts prove nothing of what he has in mind].
>> >>
>> >> (2) Enchiridion 99: "For grace alone distinguishes the redeemed from
>> >> the lost, whom a common cause from [their] beginning had joined into
>> >> one mass of perdition. . . ."
>> >>
>> >> Comment: If grace, God's blind decision, alone is decisive, we arrive
>> >> at the massa damnata described above. There must be, and is, another
>> >> factor deciding who is saved or lost. We will explain that below.
>> >>
>> >> (3) Epistle 194, 8, 35: "it is, moreover, marvelous into what
>> >> precipices they hurl themselves, in their fear of the nets of truth,
>> >> when they are pressed by these difficulties. 'It was for this reason'
>> >> they say, 'that He hated of those not yet born [Esau] and loved the
>> >> other [Jacob] because He foresaw their future works. ' Who would not
>> >> be surprised that this most keen thought could be lacking to the
>> >> Apostle? . . . . This, then, was the place for him to say what these
>> >> think: 'For God foresaw their future works', when He said that 'the
>> >> elder would serve the lesser. ' But the Apostle did not say this, but
>> >> instead, lest anyone dare to boast of the merits of his works, he
>> >> wanted what he did say to be able to teach the grace and glory of
>> >> God."
>> >>
>> >> Comment: Augustine is right in saying it is not prevision of merits
>> >> that is decisive—but he did not see that prevision of demerits could
>> >> be the decisive factor. How to reconcile these two points we will show
>> >> below.
>> >>
>> >> III. Second, or implicit theory: A good theologian knows mysteries
>> >> occur in theology. So, if, from different points in revelation, he
>> >> seems to find opposing answers, and if rechecking does not reveal an
>> >> error on his part, he will feel obliged to hold both ends of the chain
>> >> without knowing how they can fit together (as when we know there are
>> >> three divine Persons, only one God) . So Augustine could hold, even
>> >> though only implicitly, a second theory which contradicted the first.
>> >> The elements of it are these:
>> >>
>> >> (a) From above, we retain: (1) Predestination does not depend on
>> >> merits. (2) We are totally dependent on God.
>> >>
>> >> (b) We reject the massa damnata, and substitute instead: God does not
>> >> reprobate except after and because of foreseen grave demerits. All the
>> >> Eastern Fathers, and all Western Fathers before and after Augustine
>> >> held this truth. This position is compatible with the position that
>> >> predestination comes independently of foreseen merits, even though
>> >> Augustine did not see how.
>> >>
>> >> We need to see that in God's decision there are three logical stages
>> >> or momenta: First, God wills sincerely and vehemently that all be
>> >> saved; Second, He foresees some will gravely resist grace: on account
>> >> of this resistance and because of it, He reprobates; Third, He decrees
>> >> to save the others, not because of merits (which are not yet foreseen
>> >> logically—only resistance is looked at—merits come after absence of
>> >> resistance) but because He has always wanted that (salvific will) and
>> >> these do not block His will.
>> >>
>> >> Augustine's implication on reprobation is found in: e. g. , De
>> >> diversis quaest. 83, 68, 5: De correptione et gratia 13, 42; De
>> >> peccatorum meritis et remissione 2, 17, 26; De actis cum Felice
>> >> Manichaeo 2, 8, which we shall now examine:
>> >>
>> >> The Problem of a Second Theory of Predestination in St. Augustine
>> >>
>> >> A theologian who follows precise theological method will first study
>> >> under the guidance of official teachings, all passages in revelation
>> >> that have any bearing on his problem directly or indirectly. He will
>> >> try to work out the answer, so far as possible, from each separate
>> >> starting point. A good comparison would be this: he is like a man
>> >> standing on the rim of a circle. From each of two or more points on
>> >> the rim he tries to draw a line that will hit the center, the right
>> >> answer. If he has done his work well, all lines will focus in the
>> >> center.
>> >>
>> >> Suppose he finds that two (or more) lines do not meet in the center?
>> >> He should first recheck his work. But then, if they still do not meet,
>> >> he must not force anything, but should just admit there are mysteries
>> >> in theology, and so should hold both truths, both lines.
>> >>
>> >> Augustine seems to have done that, without realizing it, in his study
>> >> of grace. he did arrive, clearly, at the erroneous massa damnata
>> >> theory from his misinterpretation of Romans 9. But some passages in
>> >> his works seem to imply that he felt, without being fully aware of it,
>> >> a second line. Here are the passages. 1. On 88 different questions 68,
>> >> 5: "For not all who were called wanted to come to that dinner, which
>> >> as the Lord says in the Gospel, was prepared, nor would those who came
>> >> have been able to come if they had not been called. And so neither
>> >> should they who came attribute [it] to themselves; for they came being
>> >> called nor should those who were unwilling to come attribute [it] to
>> >> anyone but themselves, for, in order that they might come, they were
>> >> called in free will."
>> >>
>> >> Comment: Compare his Enchiridion 99: ". . . grace alone distinguishes
>> >> the redeemed from the lest, whom a common cause from [their] beginning
>> >> had joined into one mass of perdition. . . .") . [Written 388-98 A. D.
>> >> In saying those who did not come must attribute it only to themselves,
>> >> he is taking position opposite to massa damnata, where the first
>> >> reason for their not coming is not their own will but God's desertion
>> >> of them
>> >>
>> >> 2. On correction and grace 13, 42: "Those, then, who do not belong to
>> >> that most certain and most happy number [of the predestined] are
>> >> judged most justly according to their merits. For they either lie
>> >> under the sin which they contracted originally by generation.
>> >>
>> >> . . . Or they receive the grace of God, but are temporary, and do not
>> >> persevere: they desert and are deserted. For they were let go in their
>> >> free will, not receiving the gift of perseverance, by a just and
>> >> hidden judgment of God." [written 426].
>> >>
>> >> Comment: In the second part of this text, he speaks of those who have
>> >> been forgiven original sin—so, original sin cannot be the reason for
>> >> reprobation in them. Augustine gives the reason: "They were let go in
>> >> their free will by a just judgment of God. They desert and are
>> >> deserted." But in massa damnata the reason would be that God first
>> >> deserted them, and then they deserted Him. Nor can some remaining
>> >> debility left from original explain what he says: that debility is in
>> >> all the baptized. So the reason here why they do not persevere is
>> >> their own free will, not God's desertion within massa damnata.
>> >>
>> >> 3. On the merits and remission of sins 2, 17, 26: "Men are not willing
>> >> to do what is right either because the fact that it is right is hidden
>> >> from the, or because it does not please them. It is from the grace of
>> >> God, which helps the wills of man, that that which was hidden becomes
>> >> known, and that which did not please become sweet. The reason why they
>> >> are not helped [by grace] is in themselves, not in God, whether they
>> >> are predestined to damnation because of the wickedness of their pride,
>> >> or whether they are to be judged and emended, contrary to the
>> >> wickedness of their pride if they are sons of mercy." [written 411].
>> >>
>> >> Comment: "The reason why they are not helped [by grace] is in
>> >> themselves, not in God." Now if the fundamental reason were desertion
>> >> by God, as in massa damnata, Augustine would have said the opposite.
>> >> But he did say "the reason why they are not helped is in themselves,
>> >> not in God."
>> >>
>> >> 4. The debate with Felix the Manichean 2, 8: "Felix said: You call
>> >> Manichaeus cruel for saying these things. What do we say about Christ
>> >> who said: Go into eternal fire? Augustine said: He said this to
>> >> sinners. Felix said: These sinners, why were they not purified?
>> >> Augustine said: Because they did not will [it]. Felix said: Because
>> >> they did not will it —did you say that? Augustine said: Yes, I said
>> >> it: Because they did not will it." [written 398].
>> >>
>> >> Comment: : He says the cause why they were not purified is "because
>> >> they did not will it." If he really meant that the first thing was a
>> >> desertion by God, as in massa damnata, then Felix would have won the
>> >> debate, for men would be damned without any opportunity. And God would
>> >> be like the God of the Manichees, who deserted to prepare the way for
>> >> a victory that never came.
>> >>
>> >> 5. Tracts on the Gospel of St. John 53, 6: " 'They were not able to
>> >> believe', since Isaiah the prophet predicted it; and the prophet
>> >> predicted it, because God had foreseen that this would happen. But if
>> >> I am asked why they were not able, I reply quickly: Because they did
>> >> not want to: For God foresaw their evil will, and He from whom the
>> >> future things cannot be hidden announced it in advance through the
>> >> prophet. But, you say, the prophet speaks of another cause, not of
>> >> their will. What cause does the prophet speak of? Because 'God gave
>> >> them a spirit of compunction, eyes so that they did not see, and ears,
>> >> so that they did not hear, and He blinded their eyes and hardened
>> >> their heart'. I reply that their will merited even this." [written
>> >> 413-18].
>> >>
>> >> Comment: He says the cause is their evil will. And then seeing someone
>> >> may say that that bad will came from divine desertion he adds: "I
>> >> reply that their evil will merited even this." Could he mean they
>> >> merit it by original sin? Then why such a process of words and
>> >> objection and solution—it would be a deception of his readers.—So
>> >> again, Augustine is saying that the first cause why some are
>> >> reprobated is found in the wills of men, not in God.
>> >>
>> >> 6. On instructing the ignorant 52: "The merciful God, wanting to
>> >> deliver men, if they are not enemies to Him and do not resist the
>> >> mercy of their Creator, sent His only—begotten Son." [written 399].
>> >>
>> >> Comment: Again, Augustine teaches that the distinction between those
>> >> who are freed and those who are not freed depends on the resistance or
>> >> lack of it on the part of men.
>> >>
>> >> Objection: Could it be that Augustine changed his mind over a period
>> >> of time? No, for the texts just cited come from all across the range
>> >> of his literary activity. Probable dates are as follows:
>> >>
>> >> De diversis quaest—between 388 and 398 De actis cum Felice—398 De
>> >> peccatorum meritis—411 Tract in Ioannem—413-418 De correptione et
>> >> gratia—426.
>> >>
>> >> III. A newer theory using some of the above data from Augustine: The
>> >> second series of texts show he admits a power of man on negative side,
>> >> which is decisive (even though in #1 above he excludes power on
>> >> positive side) .
>> >>
>> >> Therefore even though he excludes any positive power for good from the
>> >> ability of man, and excludes any foreknowledge of merits on the part
>> >> of God as a reason for predestination, yet he admits a negative power
>> >> in man of rejecting or not rejecting.
>> >>
>> >> What is the result: Predestination must be without merits. But
>> >> reprobation, even negative, is the result of demerits.
>> >>
>> >> St Augustine then seems to have wanted, even though only implicitly,
>> >> to have this combination. He did not, of course, know how it was
>> >> possible to hold both things, namely, reprobation depending on
>> >> demerits, and predestination not depending on merits.
>> >>
>> >> Yet we can supply the missing solution. There are three logical steps
>> >> in God's decisions:
>> >>
>> >> (1) He wills all men to be saved. Augustine did deny this, but
>> >> Scripture teaches it, so we must and do hold it. Further since to will
>> >> salvation is to will good to another, and since love consists in
>> >> willing good to another for the other's sake, therefore to deny this
>> >> first step wold be to deny God's love. Which would be blasphemy. This
>> >> will on God's part is extremely strong, measured by how far He went to
>> >> make our eternal happiness possible: the terrible death of His Son,
>> >> and His binding Himself in the covenant by the infinite price of
>> >> redemption to offer forgiveness and grace infinitely, that is, without
>> >> limit, except that limit set by man's rejection of it.
>> >>
>> >> (2) He looks—not ahead, for there is no time with Him—to see who
>> >> resists His grace both gravely and persistently, so persistently that
>> >> he throws away the only thing that could save him. Then sadly God
>> >> decrees to let him go, negative reprobation. This is the unanimous
>> >> view of all Eastern Fathers, and Westerners except St. Augustine.
>> >>
>> >> (3) All who were not discarded in step two are positively predestined.
>> >> But not because of merits. This is St. Augustine's large contribution.
>> >> Merits have not yet been considered at all. Rather, God predestines
>> >> them to heaven because that is what He wanted to do in step 1, and thy
>> >> are not blocking it.
>> >>
>> >> Fate of Unbaptized Infants
>> >>
>> >> Sermon 294. 3:After quoting Mt. 25 on the last judgment: "In the one
>> >> place He names the kingdom; in the other place, damnation with the
>> >> devil. There is no middle place left where you could put the infants.
>> >> There will be judgment for the living and the dead: some at the right,
>> >> others at the left: I do not know anything else."
>> >>
>> >> Enchiridion 93: "The mildest of all will be the punishment of those
>> >> who have contracted nothing but original sin"
>> >>
>> >> Epistle 166. 6. 16: "But when we come to the punishment of infants,
>> >> believe me I am in a very tight spot, nor do I find at all what I
>> >> could answer."
>> >>
>> >> Others:
>> >>
>> >> a) Agreeing with Augustine:
>> >>
>> >> St. Fulgentius, <De fide ad Petrum> 27. 68
>> >>
>> >> St. Gregory the Great, <Moralia> 9. 21. 32—This however was written as
>> >> a private person, not as Pope.
>> >>
>> >> b) Disagreeing with him:
>> >>
>> >> St. Gregory of Nazianzen, <Orations> 40. 23:" I think that. . . these
>> >> are neither glorified, nor are punished by the Just Judge, who on the
>> >> one hand were not sealed [baptized] but on the other hand are not
>> >> evil, but rather suffered a loss than inflicted one."
>> >>
>> >> St Gregory of Nyssa, <On Infants Taken away Prematurely>—Thinks that
>> >> those who die without baptism are those who would have been lost by
>> >> sin had they lived a full life.
>> >>
>> >> St. Thomas Aquinas, <De malo> q. 5. a. 3. ad 4 :"The infants are
>> >> separated from God perpetually, in regard to the loss of glory, which
>> >> they do not know, but not in regard to participation in natural goods,
>> >> which they do know. . . . That which they have through nature, they
>> >> possess without pain."
>> >>
>> >> Magisterium:
>> >>
>> >> 1) The Council of Florence in 1439, in DS 1306 taught: "The souls of
>> >> those who depart in actual mortal sin or in original sin only, go at
>> >> once into the realm of the dead, to be punished with different
>> >> penalties."
>> >>
>> >> Comment: About the two underlined words: "realm of the dead" is Latin
>> >> infernus which does not always mean the hell of the damned. In the
>> >> Creed we read that Christ descended into hell. The word punished has
>> >> the root of Latin poena which need not mean the infliction of positive
>> >> pain, but merely the loss of something. So it would mean that infants
>> >> who really die in original sin, are given the loss of the vision of
>> >> God. This bypasses the question of whether or not God, in some way,
>> >> might provide grace to them even without a sacrament. He can surely do
>> >> this if He so wills. St. Thomas, in III. 68. 2. c. says the obvious,
>> >> that God's hands are not tied by the Sacraments.
>> >>
>> >> 2) The Council of Pistoia: It tried to teach that the idea of a limbo
>> >> for unbaptized infants was a Pelagian fable. Pius VI in 1794, in DS
>> >> 2626 condemned that teaching.
>> >>
>> >> 3) Pius IX in Quanto conficiamur moerore of August 10, 1863 (DS 2866)
>> >> said: "God. . . in His supreme goodness and clemency, by no means
>> >> allows anyone to be punished with eternal punishments who does not
>> >> have the guilt of voluntary fault."
>> >>
>> >> Comment: Infants do not have voluntary fault. Therefore, no hell for
>> >> the infants. Leonard Feeney (reprinted in Thomas M. Sennott, They
>> >> Fought the Good Fight pp. 305-06) quoted this text of Pius IX and
>> >> said: "To say that God would never permit anyone to be punished
>> >> eternally unless he has incurred the guilt of voluntary sin is nothing
>> >> short of Pelagianism. . . . If God cannot punish eternally a human
>> >> being who has not incurred the guilt of voluntary sin, how then, for
>> >> example, can He punish eternally babies who die unbaptized?"—In other
>> >> words, Feeney calls Pius IX a heretic!
>> >>
>> >> 4) Catechism of the Catholic Church: In # 1261, after carefully
>> >> explaining that those who without fault do not find the Church, can
>> >> still be saved, quoted the words of Christ (Mk 10:14) "Let the little
>> >> children come to me, and do not prevent them," added: "[this] permits
>> >> us to have hope that there is a way to salvation for infants who die
>> >> without Baptism."
>> >>
>> >> Objection: A local Council of Carthage in 418 taught, in Canon 3 (DS
>> >> 224) : "Of anyone says that. . . in the kingdom of heaven there will
>> >> be some middle place, or a place elsewhere, where the infants live as
>> >> blessed who have departed from this life without Baptism. . . let him
>> >> be anathema."
>> >>
>> >> Comment: This was only a local council. Some of its canons were
>> >> approved by Pope Zosimus, and so gained universal teaching authority.
>> >> But the note on this section, just ahead of DS 222 (DB 101) that this
>> >> text of DS 224 was not approved, but instead the text of DS 225, also
>> >> called Canon 3, which makes no mention of infants. It merely teaches
>> >> that grace of justification counts not only for the remission of sins
>> >> already committed, but also for help that they may not be committed
>> >> [again].
>> >>
>> >> Provided Courtesy of:
>> >> Eternal Word Television Network
>> >> 5817 Old Leeds Road
>> >> Irondale, AL 35210
>> >> www.ewtn.com
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> From Irenikon
>> >> @ 40 ° 54' 21.5" N, 77 ° 52' 23.3" W
>> >>
>> >> Tenebrae eum non comprehenderunt. ~John 1:5
>> >>
>> >> ------------------------------------
>> >>
>> >> Yahoo! Groups Links
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> From Irenikon
>> @ 40 ° 54' 21.5" N, 77 ° 52' 23.3" W
>>
>> Tenebrae eum non comprehenderunt. ~John 1:5
>>
>> ------------------------------------
>>
>> Yahoo! Groups Links
>>
>>
>>
>
>



--
From Irenikon
@ 40 ° 54' 21.5" N, 77 ° 52' 23.3" W

Tenebrae eum non comprehenderunt. ~John 1:5

LOL...Mine's the one with the yellow and red striped awning!!...

Big ole demons try to get in there!!

But I work hard to be one of God's Own Prayerful Toughies!!  and
because of his abundant blessings and  grace, we will prevail in
running this race and moving beyond this vale of tears...!

It is good to have you here!

Rosie

On Wed, Sep 3, 2008 at 3:20 PM, James Morgan <rdrjames@...> wrote:
> HAH! Gotcha! I wondered if you and Stan remembered me, and evidently you
> do!
> How nice! It is good to be in this place. Now let's get to work building
> those booths!
>
> Jim of Olym aka Rdr. James
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Irenikon@yahoogroups.com [mailto:Irenikon@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf
> Of Mary Lanser
> Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2008 11:58 AM
> To: Irenikon
> Subject: [Irenikon] Reader James
>
> Jame Morgan is that you invading my list?
>
> Where are you?
>
> Show yourself....!!
>
> <smile>
>
> Mary
>
> --
> From Irenikon
> @ 40 ° 54' 21.5" N, 77 ° 52' 23.3" W
>
> Tenebrae eum non comprehenderunt. ~John 1:5
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>



--
From Irenikon
@ 40 ° 54' 21.5" N, 77 ° 52' 23.3" W

Tenebrae eum non comprehenderunt. ~John 1:5

--- In Irenikon@yahoogroups.com, "Joshua Gonnerman" <joshualg@...>
wrote:
>
> Catholic apologists, including "good" ones, tend to only focus on
external
> issues, which everyone else makes a big fuss over, such as
homosexuality,
> female ordination, contraception, Marian devotion, etc.  On these
issues,
> the field of apologetics is by nature such that they are good at
justifying
> them to others (particularly through quote-mining).  However,
apologetics
> does not "dig deeper" into issues, it is only concerned in
justifying their
> existence to others.  Apologists, on the whole, tend to pay most
of their
> attention to these "external", apologetical issues, and not look
deeper into
> the tradition and teaching of the Church very much, not look at
the Church's
> interior life very much.  In consequence, many (though not of
course all)
> apologists staunchly stand up for Church doctrine on
these "apologetical"
> issues, but don't have much to say about other issues.


I have to apologise profoundly for using the word "apologist" in a
sense which was misunderstood.

In now way was I implying that Fr Most was shallow or focused on
externals.  His theological erudition was solidly based, as Mary has
attested.

By "apologist" I was referring to his "popular" work on such as EWTN
where he uses his scholarship to present teachings in a manner
easily accessible to the hoi poloi.

Fr Ambrose

--- In Irenikon@yahoogroups.com, "Joshua Gonnerman" <joshualg@...>
wrote:
>
> P. S.  Scott Hahn has a good reputation as a Catholic apologist,
too.

I would not place him and Fr Most in the same category.


>
> On Wed, Sep 3, 2008 at 11:33 AM, Joshua Gonnerman <
> joshualg@...> wrote:
>
> > Catholic apologists, including "good" ones, tend to only focus
on external
> > issues, which everyone else makes a big fuss over, such as
homosexuality,
> > female ordination, contraception, Marian devotion, etc.  On
these issues,
> > the field of apologetics is by nature such that they are good at
justifying
> > them to others (particularly through quote-mining).  However,
apologetics
> > does not "dig deeper" into issues, it is only concerned in
justifying their
> > existence to others.  Apologists, on the whole, tend to pay most
of their
> > attention to these "external", apologetical issues, and not look
deeper into
> > the tradition and teaching of the Church very much, not look at
the Church's
> > interior life very much.  In consequence, many (though not of
course all)
> > apologists staunchly stand up for Church doctrine on
these "apologetical"
> > issues, but don't have much to say about other issues.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Joshua
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Sep 2, 2008 at 10:31 PM, Ambrois O Maonaigh
<emrys@...>wrote:
> >
> >>   --- In Irenikon@yahoogroups.com <Irenikon%
40yahoogroups.com>, "Joshua
> >> Gonnerman" <joshualg@>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> > A very unfair and ill-disposed portrait of Augustine, I must
say.
> >> But then,
> >> > what more should one expect from EWTN?
> >>
> >> Fr William Most, may he rest in peace, seems to have a good
reputation
> >> as a Catholic apologist?
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
>

Thanks Father for coming back to this for us.

You are quite right about Father Most.  One of the things that made
his work so appealing to people, without their really realizing fully
why, is the fact that Father William walked the theological walk in
his life and his prayer discipline, so his work was imbued with the
aura of a Spirit-driven life as well as being reflective of his
tireless scholarship.

To degrade him and his work so blithely as has been done here is not
at all reflective of the reality of the priest and man.

Mary

On Wed, Sep 3, 2008 at 11:54 PM, Ambrois O Maonaigh <emrys@...> wrote:
> --- In Irenikon@yahoogroups.com, "Joshua Gonnerman" <joshualg@...>
> wrote:
>>
>> P. S. Scott Hahn has a good reputation as a Catholic apologist,
> too.
>
> I would not place him and Fr Most in the same category.
>
>>
>> On Wed, Sep 3, 2008 at 11:33 AM, Joshua Gonnerman <
>> joshualg@...> wrote:
>>
>> > Catholic apologists, including "good" ones, tend to only focus
> on external
>> > issues, which everyone else makes a big fuss over, such as
> homosexuality,
>> > female ordination, contraception, Marian devotion, etc. On
> these issues,
>> > the field of apologetics is by nature such that they are good at
> justifying
>> > them to others (particularly through quote-mining). However,
> apologetics
>> > does not "dig deeper" into issues, it is only concerned in
> justifying their
>> > existence to others. Apologists, on the whole, tend to pay most
> of their
>> > attention to these "external", apologetical issues, and not look
> deeper into
>> > the tradition and teaching of the Church very much, not look at
> the Church's
>> > interior life very much. In consequence, many (though not of
> course all)
>> > apologists staunchly stand up for Church doctrine on
> these "apologetical"
>> > issues, but don't have much to say about other issues.
>> >
>> > Regards,
>> > Joshua
>> >
>> >
>> > On Tue, Sep 2, 2008 at 10:31 PM, Ambrois O Maonaigh
> <emrys@...>wrote:
>> >
>> >> --- In Irenikon@yahoogroups.com <Irenikon%
> 40yahoogroups.com>, "Joshua
>> >> Gonnerman" <joshualg@>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> > A very unfair and ill-disposed portrait of Augustine, I must
> say.
>> >> But then,
>> >> > what more should one expect from EWTN?
>> >>
>> >> Fr William Most, may he rest in peace, seems to have a good
> reputation
>> >> as a Catholic apologist?
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>>
>
>



--
From Irenikon
@ 40 ° 54' 21.5" N, 77 ° 52' 23.3" W

Tenebrae eum non comprehenderunt. ~John 1:5