Augustine versus Aquinas?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Charlemagne_III
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Thomas Aquinas did not believe original sin would send someone to hell. I don’t know whether he thought that this was because of God’s mercy, or that original sin by it’s nature does not deserve this punishment.
My understanding is that Aquinas believed original sin alone would deprive someone of the beatific vision, but would not by itself result in the punishments of hell, which are reserved for actual sin. Hence limbo.

There is a tradition that St. Augustine made an apparition to St. Thomas Aquinas, I’ll try to dig up that info.
 
There was a thread awhile back on the Apologetics section in which someone had a quote from Augustine in which he said that immortality of Adam and Eve before the Fall was caused by the Tree of Life. However, most theologians that came latter said they were immortal because of the state of justice and preternatural abilities that sanctifying grace gave them (I think the Catechism of Trent taught this). I need to find that quote again. An article on the internet (without citing a quotation this time) said that Augustine believe that the “eating of the apple” meant sex, and a weird theory that the tongue of the serpent made Eve think of Adam’s phallus.
 
There was a thread awhile back on the Apologetics section in which someone had a quote from Augustine in which he said that immortality of Adam and Eve before the Fall was caused by the Tree of Life. However, most theologians that came latter said they were immortal because of the state of justice and preternatural abilities that sanctifying grace gave them (I think the Catechism of Trent taught this).
I might tend to agree with Augustine on that position, if he actually held it. Either Adam needed to stay more or less neutral in Eden, and definitely* not* act in disobedience, *or *he actually needed to draw nearer to God, from his original state as a necessity of justice, signified by his eating of the Tree of Life. We’re now called to make such a move ourselves; even as we’re justified at baptism we must partake of the Body and Blood, the “medicine of immortality”, and continue responding to grace, growing in justice throughout the remainder of our lives.
 
Ye I thought maybe Augustine meant that eating from the tree of life was a kind of sacrament, and that it would have kept him alive once the sanctifying grace left. The latter is actually stated in Genesis
 
Maybe it wasn’t an either/or before the Fall. Either the tree of life or grace could have kept adam alive forever, but before the Fall they BOTH together did this, without saying either was insufficient by itself
 
Maybe it wasn’t an either/or before the Fall. Either the tree of life or grace could have kept adam alive forever, but before the Fall they BOTH together did this, without saying either was insufficient by itself
We don’t know that they ever ate from the Tree of Life. I just think that God wants man to be an active participant in maintaining or increasing his justice, which is obvious with man’s having a choice with either of the trees.
 
There was a thread awhile back on the Apologetics section in which someone had a quote from Augustine in which he said that immortality of Adam and Eve before the Fall was caused by the Tree of Life. However, most theologians that came latter said they were immortal because of the state of justice and preternatural abilities that sanctifying grace gave them (I think the Catechism of Trent taught this). I need to find that quote again. An article on the internet (without citing a quotation this time) said that Augustine believe that the “eating of the apple” meant sex, and a weird theory that the tongue of the serpent made Eve think of Adam’s phallus.
At this point I’m reluctant to engage in a discussion of Augustine without specific quotes or passages being referred to. Otherwise, all these reflections we engage in might seem too tentative and possibly erroneous?
 
St. Jerome wrote:

AGAINST JOVINIAN: “And as regards Adam and Eve we must maintain that before the fall they were virgins in Paradise: but after they sinned, and were cast out of Paradise, they were immediately married…This too we must observe, at least if we would faithfully follow the Hebrew, that while Scripture on the first, third, fourth, fifth, and sixth days relates that, having finished the works of each, ‘God saw that it was good,’ on the second day it omitted this altogether, leaving us to understand that** two is not a good number because it destroys unity, and prefigures the marriage compact**…Hence it was that all the animals which Noah took into the ark by pairs were unclean. Odd numbers denote cleanness. And yet by the double number is represented another mystery: that not even in beasts and unclean birds is second marriage approved. For unclean animals went in two and two, and clean ones by sevens, so that Noah after the flood might be able to immediately offer to God sacrifices from the latter… He (Jovinian) raises the objection that when God gave his second blessing, permission was granted to eat flesh, which had not in the first benediction been allowed. He should know that just as divorce according to the Savior’s word was not permitted from the beginning, but on account of the hardness of our heart was a concession of Moses to the human race, so too the eating of flesh was unknown until the deluge. But after the deluge, like the quails given in the desert to the murmuring people, the poison of flesh-meat was offered to our teeth…But once Christ has come in the end of time, and Omega passed into Alpha and turned the end into the beginning, we are no longer allowed divorce, nor are we circumcised, nor do we eat flesh, for the Apostle says, ‘It is good not to eat flesh, nor to drink wine.’ For wine as well as flesh was consecrated after the deluge… The truth is that, in view of the purity of the body of Christ, all sexual intercourse is unclean… Of Adam and Eve he said, They are
driven out of Paradise; and what they did not there, they do on earth; so that from the very earliest days of humanity virginity was consecrated by Paradise, and marriage by earth… A layman, or any believer, cannot pray unless he abstain from sexual intercourse. Now a priest must always offer sacrifices for the people: he must therefore always pray. And if he must always pray, he must always be released from the duties of marriage… To come to the Gymnosophists of India, the opinion is authoritatively handed down that Buddha, the founder of their religion, had his birth through the side of a virgin.”

All of that makes sense to me, accept the part about eating meat, since the New Testament allows eating anything edible
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top