R
Robert_Sock
Guest
Did Saint Augustine once say that we are free in this world, but only to the degree that we get to choose our vices?
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
T
Thomas_White
Guest
Yes. Augustine believed that Adam had free will, which is the power to sin or not sin. As a result of his fall, Adam lost the power not to sin, leaving him free only to sin. In consequence, all human beings are by nature in the same situation as Adam after his fall. Fallen human nature is free only to sin. What was lost was “perseverance”, or the power not to sin, though man still has a choice.Did Saint Augustine once say that we are free in this world, but only to the degree that we get to choose our vices?
This is briefly stated, and Augustine’s argument is more complex. But this is the short answer.
D
Dorothy
Guest
And, thanks be to the Lord, we have the remedy for our wounded human nature. Our Lord Jesus Christ and all the helps (sacraments) he gives us in the Church!
T
Thomas_White
Guest
I should note that when Augustine speaks of “free only to sin”, he is speaking of free will. This is perhaps confusing: As a result of Adam’s fall, man is not able not to sin. Since the fall, man sins of necessity as a result of a corruption of his nature. Without the spirit, man’s will is not free and is shackled by desire. By using free will badly, man lost its power of perseverance. “Free will” was itself corrupted. It is in this way that man is free only to sin.
What Augustine means is that man’s free will was corrupted by the fall, paradoxically leaving him free only to sin. This became man’s nature. When free will was conquered by vice, human nature lost its original freedom. As a punishment for the fall, freedom–or free will–lost its original righteousness (in Augustine’s view, that is).
What Augustine means is that man’s free will was corrupted by the fall, paradoxically leaving him free only to sin. This became man’s nature. When free will was conquered by vice, human nature lost its original freedom. As a punishment for the fall, freedom–or free will–lost its original righteousness (in Augustine’s view, that is).
T
thinkandmull
Guest
*Ugenitus *by Clement XIII. Read
B
Blue_Horizon
Guest
I think it is an ancient wisdom that we only get to choose our god’s, by ourselves we have little strength at all.Did Saint Augustine once say that we are free in this world, but only to the degree that we get to choose our vices?
H
hicetnunc
Guest
No, this is a misconception about St Augustine’s treatment of free will. In fact, for Augustine, we are only truly free when we love and choose the good; choosing evil is never, for Augustine, an authentic expression of free will. While evil is the result of the actions of free will, it is at the same time a result of the distortion of free will.Did Saint Augustine once say that we are free in this world, but only to the degree that we get to choose our vices?
Augustine reasons that obedience to God’s commands would be useless unless we had been endowed with the freedom to choose to do the good:
“There is, to begin with, the fact that God’s precepts themselves would be of no use to a man unless he had free choice of will, so that by performing them he might obtain the promised rewards.”(On Grace & Freewill, 2:II).
That is not to say that we don’t need grace to perform meritorious good works through free will; but the famous maxim of Augustine is that grace perfects nature and freedom, and does not destroy it.
T
thinkandmull
Guest
Augustine said that God moves the will more than it moves itself, so God could save everyone but doesn’t, in this system
T
Thomas_White
Guest
Augustine tried to explain why evil existed in God’s Creation. He concluded that evil exists because man has free will. While God enables man to freely chose his actions, evil inevitably results from these choices. This is the result of original sin, though God’s goodness remains perfect. This is known as Augustinian theodicy.
Augustine’s description of man after the fall was “non posse non peccare” (not able not to sin), i.e., he sins from necessity due to a corruption of the will. --Augustine, Enchiridion, chap. 118
Augustine’s description of man after the fall was “non posse non peccare” (not able not to sin), i.e., he sins from necessity due to a corruption of the will. --Augustine, Enchiridion, chap. 118
T
thinkandmull
Guest
Literally not able not to sin would mean there is no free will. I interpret Augustine to mean that man CAN choose not to sin, but WON’T because they lack grace. Is this not what he means? Do you have the quote from chapter 18 of Enchiridion.
T
Thomas_White
Guest
What Augustine means is that while Creation is good, man, though his fallen state, is only able (or free) to make choices that result in sin. This is through the misuse of what is good and is man’s condition when he is in the fallen state. But yes, Augustine believed that it is through the power of grace that man can again choose what is good and is thereby restored.Literally not able not to sin would mean there is no free will. I interpret Augustine to mean that man CAN choose not to sin, but WON’T because they lack grace. Is this not what he means? Do you have the quote from chapter 18 of Enchiridion.
The quote from Enchiridion is quite long. But I would summarize it as saying that as the result of the fall, man’s free will was corrupted. It is then only through the power of grace that man is again able to freely choose what is good.
T
thinkandmull
Guest
It would be SO helpful for you to cite the paragraph
It isn’t rational to say man is only free to sin when sin is a CHOICE and you have to be able NOT to chose it
It isn’t rational to say man is only free to sin when sin is a CHOICE and you have to be able NOT to chose it
T
Thomas_White
Guest
The citation is simply Chapter 118 of the book. (The chapter is only a single paragraph.) A search for “Augustinian theodicy” will yield the same information.It would be SO helpful for you to cite the paragraph
It isn’t rational to say man is only free to sin when sin is a CHOICE and you have to be able NOT to chose it
It is Augustine’s philosophy, and we are looking here at a small part of it in an isolated way. It is really only comprehensible, I think, when considered in the larger context of the Church as it existed in the Fourth Century. The argument is related (particularly in the ‘Confessions’) to his explanation of his long relationship with a concubine (who bore him a son) at a time when marriage in the Church did not yet even exist. So I would suggest doing the search and going from there.
What Augustine is saying (as I understand it) is that as a result of the fall, man’s free will was corrupted. With his free will corrupted, he is only able to make choices that misuse the good and thus result in evil. This is because his very nature is corrupted. When he is restored by grace, he is then able to freely choose the good. However, he also remains free to choose evil. In the Fourth Century, grace was received by the entire Christian community through the power of the Holy Spirit and was not much an individual gift.
T
Thomas_White
Guest
I would add to the above that in Augustine’s era, there was no Sacrament of Confession either. After baptism was said to wash away prior sin, including Original Sin, a Christian (only later understood as “Catholic”) was expected to lead a virtuous life. Sin could be expiated by the grace of the community, but grave sin often resulted in excommunication. It is in this context that what Augustine is saying about original sin, its corruption of free will and the restorative power of grace should be understood.
Augustine’s relationship, during which his son was born, occurred prior to his conversion and baptism. This situation was not uncommon and was accepted during the era, but Augustine nevertheless explores at length its moral implications. His concept of free will evolves from this analysis.
Augustine’s relationship, during which his son was born, occurred prior to his conversion and baptism. This situation was not uncommon and was accepted during the era, but Augustine nevertheless explores at length its moral implications. His concept of free will evolves from this analysis.
H
hicetnunc
Guest
This is not correct. The sacrament of confession, and all the sacraments of the Church, were instituted by Christ, and have existed and been practised from the very beginning of the Church.I would add to the above that in Augustine’s era, there was no Sacrament of Confession either.
In his encyclical Lamentabili Sane, Pope St Pius X condemned the proposition that “In the primitive Church there was no concept of the reconciliation of the Christian sinner by the authority of the Church, but the Church by very slow degrees only grew accustomed to this concept. Moreover, even after penance came to be recognized as an institution of the Church, it was not called by the name of sacrament, because it was regarded as an odious sacrament.” (LS 46)
St Augustine himself condemned the proposition that the Church did not have the power to forgive sins sacramentally (“We should not listen to those who deny that the Church of God has power to forgive all sins” (On the Christian Struggle, III). He describes, in some detail, the different forms of canonical penance in Sermon 351, “On Penance”, including sacramental penance.
T
Thomas_White
Guest
I would suggest you research the early history of the Church before saying that one thing or another is not correct. During the Fourth Century, there was no “Sacrament of Confession”. That is intentionally capitalized, and it is in reference to confession as it later existed. The encyclical you yourself quote, from Pope St. Pius X, says the same thing: “even after penance came to be recognized as an institution of the Church, it was not called by the name of sacrament…” This encyclical came some 1,500 years after Augustine.
During Augustine’s time, people did not visit a confessor to receive absolution. Grace was thought to be received by the community through the Holy Spirit. The Church of God during that era was thought of as the community of Catholics, i.e., the Body of Christ.
Anyway, I was was only answering the OP’s question. I don’t want to argue about either Augustine’s philosophy or historical facts.
During Augustine’s time, people did not visit a confessor to receive absolution. Grace was thought to be received by the community through the Holy Spirit. The Church of God during that era was thought of as the community of Catholics, i.e., the Body of Christ.
Anyway, I was was only answering the OP’s question. I don’t want to argue about either Augustine’s philosophy or historical facts.
H
hicetnunc
Guest
The quote you are citing from Pope St Pius’ encyclical is not affirming that proposition, it is anathematizing it. The document lists 65 propositions that are condemned, and are introduced with the words, “Therefore, after a very diligent investigation and consultation with the Reverend Consultors, the Most Eminent and Reverend Lord Cardinals, the General Inquisitors in matters of faith and morals have judged the following propositions to be condemned and proscribed. In fact, by this general decree, they are condemned and proscribed.” Your quote is taken from condemned proposition number 46.I would suggest you research the early history of the Church before saying that one thing or another is not correct. During the Fourth Century, there was no “Sacrament of Confession”. That is intentionally capitalized, and it is in reference to confession as it later existed. The encyclical you yourself quote, from Pope St. Pius X, says the same thing: “even after penance came to be recognized as an institution of the Church, it was not called by the name of sacrament…” This encyclical came some 1,500 years after Augustine.
During Augustine’s time, people did not visit a confessor to receive absolution. Grace was thought to be received by the community through the Holy Spirit. The Church of God during that era was thought of as the community of Catholics, i.e., the Body of Christ.
Anyway, I was was only answering the OP’s question. I don’t want to argue about either Augustine’s philosophy or historical facts.
The sacraments of the Church, including the Sacrament of Confession, and including private confession before a priest or canonically ordained minister of the Church, has always been affirmed by the Church. While the form of the sacrament can change (and can even differ from rite to rite) it is not right to say that there was no such sacrament in the early Church. St Augustine’s Sermon, as I pointed out, clearly describes a sacramental confession under four different forms, including at least two we would recognize today. The existence of the sacrament is also affirmed by many Church Fathers, including St Irenaeus, St Cyrpian of Carthage and St Basil, to name just a few.
If you simply wanted to say that the canonical form of the sacrament has gone through some changes throughout history, then I have no beef with that, but that is not what your post stated. But it is clearly not right to say that the Sacrament of Confession did not exist at the time of St Augustine.
Pax
C
Charlemagne_III
Guest
In John 20:23, Jesus tells His disciples, “If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven."
Are we to believe that the Church right up to St. Augustine ignored the command of Jesus regarding the requirement to forgive. And how can forgiveness or unforgiveness be possible unless the sins are confessed?
Are we to believe that the Church right up to St. Augustine ignored the command of Jesus regarding the requirement to forgive. And how can forgiveness or unforgiveness be possible unless the sins are confessed?
T
Thomas_White
Guest
The quote I supposedly used out of context, from Pope Pius X’s encyclical, was taken verbatim from your prior comment: “even after penance came to be recognized as an institution of the Church…”
During the Fourth Century, the “Sacrament of Confession” (or “Sacrament of Reconcilliation”) as the terms are now understood had not yet become an institutionalized practice in the Church. This would occur only near the end of the century, and the practice continued to evolve thereafter. That was the entire point, and it is an historical fact. That is all.
My comment was made in the context of the evolving Church during its early years, but the discussion of the development of penance is hardly new. Here is a link that provides relevant information. There is just no good reason to do this all over again.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=776978&page=3
Peace.
During the Fourth Century, the “Sacrament of Confession” (or “Sacrament of Reconcilliation”) as the terms are now understood had not yet become an institutionalized practice in the Church. This would occur only near the end of the century, and the practice continued to evolve thereafter. That was the entire point, and it is an historical fact. That is all.
My comment was made in the context of the evolving Church during its early years, but the discussion of the development of penance is hardly new. Here is a link that provides relevant information. There is just no good reason to do this all over again.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=776978&page=3
Peace.
H
hicetnunc
Guest
Thanks for that; but what you quoted back at me was not supposedly out of context, but actually of out context. Thanks too for the link to the post from another forum user, which I do not think supports your original contention: “I would add to the above that in Augustine’s era, there was no Sacrament of Confession either” which is certainly not correct. That’s all I wanted to address.
Many thanks for the discussion points.
Many thanks for the discussion points.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.