To What Extent Are Augustine's Views Those of the Church

[Kevin12]

I really want to consider myself an Orthodox Catholic and Christian, but Augustine is a real stumbling block for me. I think I believe in Original Sin, but the way Augustine formulated it (and he did so first I think) seems to me to be that we are all born deserving to have our flesh ripped from our bodies body by grotesque serpents with razor sharp teeth for all eternity, in a lake of fire where our blood will boil, our bones will burn and our marrow will be reduced to putrid black slime, and we deserve this for something we did not even do ourselves.

Since coming up with my own bibliography of references would be impossible, I will just quote this section from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (which I have always found a reliable resource, so I hope that no one will dismiss this because it is a secular resource) on him:

By the time Augustine completed De Civitate Dei in 427 C.E., he came even more emphatically to insist upon the conclusion to which his discussion in Ad Simplicianum had led him, i.e., that original sin is both universally debilitating and insuperable without the aid of unmerited grace [De Civitate Dei XIV.1]. Furthermore, there is a predestination at work that is as rigorous as the foreknowledge by which God knows its results [De Civitate Dei XIV.11]. Here too Augustine insists that we are morally culpable for the sinful choices that the will makes [De Civitate Dei XIV.3], but under the pressures of the Pelagian controversy—a controversy in which he will find his earlier words being cited against him [see Retractationes I.9.3–6]—he presents these views in a manner that is austere and uncompromising. So damaging are the effects of the original sin that the human will is free only to sin [De Correptione et Gratia 1.2; 11.31; Rist 1972, pg. 223]. Thus, the human race is comprised of a massa damnata [De Dono Perseverantiae 35; see also De Civitate Dei XXI.12], out of which God, in a manner inscrutable to us [De Civitate Dei XII.28], has predestined a small number to be saved [De Civitate Dei XXI.12], and to whom he has extended a grace without which it is impossible for the will not to sin. While there is some controversy over whether this grace is sufficient for redemption and whether it can be resisted [Rist, 1972, pp. 228ff.], Augustine makes clear that it is as much a necessary condition as it is unmerited and inscrutable. The ignorance and difficulty that afflict our condition in De Libero Arbitrio III have become more than obstacles to be overcome by means of our will [De Libero Arbitrio III.22]; they are now impassible barriers we have inherited from Adam, and without unmerited grace we are utterly incapable of initiating even the smallest movement away from sin and towards God. In De Libero Arbitrio I, Augustine suggests that the will is confronted by a rational choice between a life spent in the pursuit of what is temporal, changing, and perishable, and a life spent in the pursuit of what is eternal, immutable, and incapable of being lost [De Libero Arbitrio I.7]. By the time he comes to write De Gratia et Libero Arbitrio in 426 C.E., in the midst of the Pelagian controversy, we find a vastly different picture. Here too the will is central, and here too we are culpable for our sins, but gone is the earlier optimism. The post-Adamic will is no longer in a position to initiate any choice of lives; the fact that we have any choice at all is entirely a product of unmerited grace [see, e.g. De Gratia et Libero Arbitrio xx and xxi], a grace that will be given to only a small number whom God has predestined to be saved out of the vast number who are eternally lost.

I understand that Augustine is a Father of the Church, but I sometimes have a hard time accepting that I even believe in the same God he did. I seriously feel like his was an attempt to build a theology entirely from the letters of Paul, ignoring, if not the letter, then definitely the timbre of the Gospels.

I would say that my own views on theodicy are more along the lines that the damned are damned because they chose to be separated from God’s love, and I have heard many people whose orthodoxy seems to me unimpeachable say the same. I am not sure if this contradicts what the Church says, but I think it probably does contradict what Augustine said. So I am just wondering to what extend the Augustine’s views are those of the Church?

 

[katholikos12]

As a convert I too have had much trouble with what was said by Augustine. But what I came to realize is not matter how outlandish some of his statements may seem (like sex with ones wife or husband being a venial sin at the minimum), they are not the infallible declaration of the Church.

If you have questions on the Church’s official stance on something I suggest looking to the catechism and NOT Augustine.

So basically if he said something funky, ignore it. Then look up what the Church teaches and not what Augustine believed. Because he was out there on some stuff.

 

[Robertanthony]

I really want to consider myself an Orthodox Catholic and Christian, but Augustine is a real stumbling block for me. I think I believe in Original Sin, but the way Augustine formulated it (and he did so first I think) seems to me to be that we are all born deserving to have our flesh ripped from our bodies body by grotesque serpents with razor sharp teeth for all eternity, in a lake of fire where our blood will boil, our bones will burn and our marrow will be reduced to putrid black slime, and we deserve this for something we did not even do ourselves.

Since coming up with my own bibliography of references would be impossible, I will just quote this section from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (which I have always found a reliable resource, so I hope that no one will dismiss this because it is a secular resource) on him:

By the time Augustine completed De Civitate Dei in 427 C.E., he came even more emphatically to insist upon the conclusion to which his discussion in Ad Simplicianum had led him, i.e., that original sin is both universally debilitating and insuperable without the aid of unmerited grace [De Civitate Dei XIV.1]. Furthermore, there is a predestination at work that is as rigorous as the foreknowledge by which God knows its results [De Civitate Dei XIV.11]. Here too Augustine insists that we are morally culpable for the sinful choices that the will makes [De Civitate Dei XIV.3], but under the pressures of the Pelagian controversy—a controversy in which he will find his earlier words being cited against him [see Retractationes I.9.3–6]—he presents these views in a manner that is austere and uncompromising. So damaging are the effects of the original sin that the human will is free only to sin [De Correptione et Gratia 1.2; 11.31; Rist 1972, pg. 223]. Thus, the human race is comprised of a massa damnata [De Dono Perseverantiae 35; see also De Civitate Dei XXI.12], out of which God, in a manner inscrutable to us [De Civitate Dei XII.28], has predestined a small number to be saved [De Civitate Dei XXI.12], and to whom he has extended a grace without which it is impossible for the will not to sin. While there is some controversy over whether this grace is sufficient for redemption and whether it can be resisted [Rist, 1972, pp. 228ff.], Augustine makes clear that it is as much a necessary condition as it is unmerited and inscrutable. The ignorance and difficulty that afflict our condition in De Libero Arbitrio III have become more than obstacles to be overcome by means of our will [De Libero Arbitrio III.22]; they are now impassible barriers we have inherited from Adam, and without unmerited grace we are utterly incapable of initiating even the smallest movement away from sin and towards God. In De Libero Arbitrio I, Augustine suggests that the will is confronted by a rational choice between a life spent in the pursuit of what is temporal, changing, and perishable, and a life spent in the pursuit of what is eternal, immutable, and incapable of being lost [De Libero Arbitrio I.7]. By the time he comes to write De Gratia et Libero Arbitrio in 426 C.E., in the midst of the Pelagian controversy, we find a vastly different picture. Here too the will is central, and here too we are culpable for our sins, but gone is the earlier optimism. The post-Adamic will is no longer in a position to initiate any choice of lives; the fact that we have any choice at all is entirely a product of unmerited grace [see, e.g. De Gratia et Libero Arbitrio xx and xxi], a grace that will be given to only a small number whom God has predestined to be saved out of the vast number who are eternally lost.

I understand that Augustine is a Father of the Church, but I sometimes have a hard time accepting that I even believe in the same God he did. I seriously feel like his was an attempt to build a theology entirely from the letters of Paul, ignoring, if not the letter, then definitely the timbre of the Gospels.

I would say that my own views on theodicy are more along the lines that the damned are damned because they chose to be separated from God’s love, and I have heard many people whose orthodoxy seems to me unimpeachable say the same. I am not sure if this contradicts what the Church says, but I think it probably does contradict what Augustine said. So I am just wondering to what extend the Augustine’s views are those of the Church?

“We entrust the souls of unbaptized children to the mercy of God”. Think about it for a second. The eternal fate of unbaptized children is uncertain, which at least leaves the door open to their being damned. That’s c-r-a-z-y. I’d like to know where the souls of unbaptized children go before being taught the splendor of the Immaculate Conception. I don’t care about how Mary is above us all if I know that the God who created her (and me) can damn a one-month old smiling baby who dies suddenly, because of what brother Adam did ages ago? We trust God’s justice yet we can’t say for sure that babies aren’t in hell? Catholicism is answers to questions you’ve never asked while at the same leaving blanks or giving vague, ambiguous answers to burning questions. Of course all of this would be moot if it was either heaven with God or end of existence (soul ceases to exist). Some people here on CAF are quick to say how we deserve hell simply because we were born, that God is v-e-r-y merciful for letting us off the hook. Original sin and its damn stain is very big in God’s economy. So big, water poured on the forehead could potentially make the difference between an eternity of misery or bliss. When I was younger (and more naive) I would shudder at the thought that we have this God, but that we could have been born under a crueller one, one that would take pleasure in inflicting pain, perhaps the God we do have is closer to the one I was afraid we could have had.

 

[Robertanthony]

As a convert I too have had much trouble with what was said by Augustine. But what I came to realize is not matter how outlandish some of his statements may seem (like sex with ones wife or husband being a venial sin at the minimum), they are not the infallible declaration of the Church.

If you have questions on the Church’s official stance on something I suggest looking to the catechism and NOT Augustine.

So basically if he said something funky, ignore it. Then look up what the Church teaches and not what Augustine believed. Because he was out there on some stuff.

Yet he’s a doctor of the Church and a saint, that should say something. You can’t be s aint if you have taught doctrinal errors thta you didn’t recant. Or the Devils’ advocate didn’t do his job carefully. BTW I wonder if it was him or some other big name who said the land which we nowadays call Australia didn’t exist?

 

[Eleve]

Yet he’s a doctor of the Church and a saint, that should say something. You can’t be s aint if you have taught doctrinal errors thta you didn’t recant.

Surely being a Saint doesn’t mean that all of your theological writings are infallible.

 

[Kevin12]

“We entrust the souls of unbaptized children to the mercy of God”. Think about it for a second. The eternal fate of unbaptized children is uncertain, which at least leaves the door open to their being damned. That’s c-r-a-z-y. I’d like to know where the souls of unbaptized children go before being taught the splendor of the Immaculate Conception. I don’t care about how Mary is above us all if I know that the God who created her (and me) can damn a one-month old smiling baby who dies suddenly, because of what brother Adam did ages ago?** We trust God’s justice yet we can’t say for sure that babies aren’t in hell?** Catholicism is answers to questions you’ve never asked while at the same leaving blanks or giving vague, ambiguous answers to burning questions. Of course all of this would be moot if it was either heaven with God or end of existence (soul ceases to exist). Some people here on CAF are quick to say how we deserve hell simply because we were born, that God is v-e-r-y merciful for letting us off the hook. Original sin and its damn stain is very big in God’s economy. So big, water poured on the forehead could potentially make the difference between an eternity of misery or bliss. When I was younger (and more naive) I would shudder at the thought that we have this God, but that we could have been born under a crueller one, one that would take pleasure in inflicting pain, perhaps the God we do have is closer to the one I was afraid we could have had.

I think Augustine’s position is wrong, I would at least point out that the idea of Limbo (which I don’t think is true, but I can understand it at least) was supposed to put unbaptized infants in a state of natural happiness where they would suffer. I think the idea in this case, though I don’t agree with it, is that you have to live your life and suffer and deal with temptation to go genuinely bad things in order to get to heaven, but the unbaptized infants would be allowed in having done nothing good or bad. I don’t agree with this, like I said, but there it is. So I think the reason we have to only hope (though I think it is a strong hope) rather than no for sure is that it might be presumptuous on God’s mercy to let unbaptized infants into heaven in spite of having done nothing good.

I particularly would note that, in the Fatima visions, the Virgin told the children that most people who go to hell are their for sins of the flesh - but I think that if Augustine had been right, the number one reason for being in Hell would definitely be lack of Baptism, considering not only that Christians have never been more than maybe 1/4 of the human population, not to mention that 40% of all fertilized embryos never implant.

And…this is just an idea I have had once or twice, and nothing I would defend if told not to, but I remember that Tolkien came up with the idea that elves who died, since they were bound to the Earth and its fate and so had to wait in the Halls of Mandos for the end of the world, could possibly be reincarnated. He defended the position on the basis that, even though reincarnation is not what we have been taught occurs, that does not necessarily mean God might not allow it under certain circumstances.

 

[Surnaturel]

Yet he’s a doctor of the Church and a saint, that should say something. You can’t be s aint if you have taught doctrinal errors thta you didn’t recant. Or the Devils’ advocate didn’t do his job carefully. BTW I wonder if it was him or some other big name who said the land which we nowadays call Australia didn’t exist?

You can be saint if you make a theological mistake so long as it was prior to an official teaching on the matter, IIRC. Is Maximus the Confessor a saint in EO even though he taught the Filioque? Or how about Gregory of Nyssa and apokatastasis?

 

[Surnaturel]

I really want to consider myself an Orthodox Catholic and Christian, but Augustine is a real stumbling block for me. I think I believe in Original Sin, but the way Augustine formulated it (and he did so first I think) seems to me to be that we are all

I understand that Augustine is a Father of the Church, but I sometimes have a hard time accepting that I even believe in the same God he did. I seriously feel like his was an attempt to build a theology entirely from the letters of Paul, ignoring, if not the letter, then definitely the timbre of the Gospels.
I would say that my own views on theodicy are more along the lines that the damned are damned because they chose to be separated from God’s love, and I have heard many people whose orthodoxy seems to me unimpeachable say the same. I am not sure if this contradicts what the Church says, but I think it probably does contradict what Augustine said. So I am just wondering to what extend the Augustine’s views are those of the Church?

Fear not brother, look to pope emeritus Benedict XVI in his encyclical Spe Salvi:

1. With death, our life-choice becomes definitive—our life stands before the judge. Our choice, which in the course of an entire life takes on a certain shape, can have a variety of forms. There can be people who have totally destroyed their desire for truth and readiness to love, people for whom everything has become a lie, people who have lived for hatred and have suppressed all love within themselves. This is a terrifying thought, but alarming profiles of this type can be seen in certain figures of our own history. In such people all would be beyond remedy and the destruction of good would be irrevocable: this is what we mean by the word Hell[37]. On the other hand there can be people who are utterly pure, completely permeated by God, and thus fully open to their neighbours—people for whom communion with God even now gives direction to their entire being and whose journey towards God only brings to fulfilment what they already are[38].

Yet we know from experience that neither case is normal in human life. For the great majority of people—we may suppose—there remains in the depths of their being an ultimate interior openness to truth, to love, to God. In the concrete choices of life, however, it is covered over by ever new compromises with evil—much filth covers purity, but the thirst for purity remains and it still constantly re-emerges from all that is base and remains present in the soul. What happens to such individuals when they appear before the Judge? Will all the impurity they have amassed through life suddenly cease to matter? What else might occur? Saint Paul, in his First Letter to the Corinthians, gives us an idea of the differing impact of God’s judgement according to each person’s particular circumstances…

 

[Robertanthony]

Fear not brother, look to pope emeritus Benedict XVI in his encyclical Spe Salvi:

1. With death, our life-choice becomes definitive—our life stands before the judge. Our choice, which in the course of an entire life takes on a certain shape, can have a variety of forms. There can be people who have totally destroyed their desire for truth and readiness to love, people for whom everything has become a lie, people who have lived for hatred and have suppressed all love within themselves. This is a terrifying thought, but alarming profiles of this type can be seen in certain figures of our own history. In such people all would be beyond remedy and the destruction of good would be irrevocable: this is what we mean by the word Hell[37]. On the other hand there can be people who are utterly pure, completely permeated by God, and thus fully open to their neighbours—people for whom communion with God even now gives direction to their entire being and whose journey towards God only brings to fulfilment what they already are[38].

**Yet we know from experience that neither case is normal in human life. For the great majority of people—we may suppose—there remains in the depths of their being an ultimate interior openness to truth, to love, to God. In the concrete choices of life, however, it is covered over by ever new compromises with evil—much filth covers purity, but the thirst for purity remains and it still constantly re-emerges from all that is base and remains present in the soul. What happens to such individuals when they appear before the Judge? Will all the impurity they have amassed through life suddenly cease to matter? What else might occur? Saint Paul, in his First Letter to the Corinthians, gives us an idea of the differing impact of God’s judgement according to each person’s particular circumstances… **

It’s actually simpler than that, there is but one criterion that determines where you spend eternity: unrepented mortal sin or not. You may be the most annoying, detestable human being to be around, if you die without one unrepented mortal sin, God has no choice but to say, “Enter into joy my blessed child”.

 

[Kevin12]

I think if you were the most annoying, detestable person who ever lived, you might be able to go to Heaven after being purged for your sin of being detestable, probably until the end of time, if private revelation is any indication.

And obviously, there is no sentence wherein the proposition “God would have no choice” is true. If God had “no choice” in any logically coherent proposition, He would not, by definition, be God.

I understand your distaste for Augustine, and share it. But I don’t think the Church ever bound itself to everything he said - otherwise, the Church would be encouraging people to anathematize themselves, since Augustine said those who hold unbaptized infants do not suffer the real pains of Hell were anathema, but the Church clearly teaches, contrary to Augustine, that we may hope.

 

[Elizabeth502]

It’s actually simpler than that, there is but one criterion that determines where you spend eternity: unrepented mortal sin or not. You may be the most annoying, detestable human being to be around, if you die without one unrepented mortal sin, God has no choice but to say, “Enter into joy my blessed child”.

The Church does not teach that God lacks choice or freedom.
The Church also does not teach that anyone, including the Pope, “knows” the final destination of any soul. Rather, it assumes certain propositions, and – when it comes to those who have led exceptionally holy lives, publicly – that we can be confident that such souls are with God. (Obviously, those are the ones we call Saints. )

 

[CrossofChrist]

I really want to consider myself an Orthodox Catholic and Christian, but Augustine is a real stumbling block for me. I think I believe in Original Sin, but the way Augustine formulated it (and he did so first I think) seems to me to be that we are all born deserving to have our flesh ripped from our bodies body by grotesque serpents with razor sharp teeth for all eternity, in a lake of fire where our blood will boil, our bones will burn and our marrow will be reduced to putrid black slime, and we deserve this for something we did not even do ourselves.

Since coming up with my own bibliography of references would be impossible, I will just quote this section from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (which I have always found a reliable resource, so I hope that no one will dismiss this because it is a secular resource) on him:

Augustine recanted some of his views that he found contrary to the truth (i.e double predestination) toward the end of his life. So a lot of his statements on predestination and sin he backtracks on.

Read the Canons of the Council of Orange to find out more about Augustine’s actual beliefs that he held in all orthodoxy. It is for this that he is called by the Church the “Doctor of Grace”, and the greatest Latin Father of the Church.

I understand that Augustine is a Father of the Church, but I sometimes have a hard time accepting that I even believe in the same God he did. I seriously feel like his was an attempt to build a theology entirely from the letters of Paul, ignoring, if not the letter, then definitely the timbre of the Gospels.

St. Paul doesn’t contradict the Gospels as you seem to imply. Taken out of context, maybe. Maybe that’s what you meant though.

I would say that my own views on theodicy are more along the lines that the damned are damned because they chose to be separated from God’s love, and I have heard many people whose orthodoxy seems to me unimpeachable say the same. I am not sure if this contradicts what the Church says, but I think it probably does contradict what Augustine said. So I am just wondering to what extend the Augustine’s views are those of the Church?

That sounds right to me, and I think Augustine would agree.

It is not the case, therefore, that because God foreknew what would be in the power of our wills, there is for that reason nothing in the power of our wills. For he who foreknew this did not foreknow nothing. Moreover, if He who foreknew what would be in the power of our wills did not foreknow nothing, but something, assuredly, even though He did foreknow, there is something in the power of our wills. Therefore we are by no means compelled, either, retaining the prescience of God, to take away the freedom of the will, or, retaining the freedom of the will, to deny that He is prescient of future things, which is impious. But we embrace both. We faithfully and sincerely confess both. The former, that we may believe well; the latter, that we may live well. For he lives ill who does not believe well concerning God. Wherefore, be it far from us, in order to maintain our freedom, to deny the prescience of Him by whose help we are or shall be free. Consequently, it is not in vain that laws are enacted, and that reproaches, exhortations, praises, and vituperations are had recourse to; for these also He foreknew, and they are of great avail, even as great as He foreknew that they would be of. Prayers, also, are of avail to procure those things which He foreknew that He would grant to those who offered them; and with justice have rewards been appointed for good deeds, and punishments for sins. For a man does not therefore sin because God foreknew that he would sin. Nay, it cannot be doubted but that it is the man himself who sins when he does sin, because He, whose foreknowledge is infallible, foreknew not that fate, or fortune, or something else would sin, but that the man himself would sin, who, if he wills not, sins not. But if he shall not will to sin, even this did God foreknow. - City of God, Book 5 Chapter 10

 

[Kevin12]

I didn’t mean to imply that Paul contradicts the Gospels. It is hard for me to explain what I mean, but I suppose I have often felt that Paul is a bit rigorist in a way that the Gospel writers are not.

 

[Gorgias]

I think Augustine’s position is wrong, I would at least point out that the idea of Limbo (which I don’t think is true, but I can understand it at least) was supposed to put unbaptized infants in a state of natural happiness where they would suffer.

Hmm… I’d have to go back to my books, which are packed away at the moment, but I believe that the idea wasn’t that they would suffer, but where they would likewise not be in the beatific vision.

I think the idea in this case, though I don’t agree with it, is that you have to live your life and suffer and deal with temptation to go genuinely bad things in order to get to heaven, but the unbaptized infants would be allowed in having done nothing good or bad.

No… the idea was to combat Pelagius, who said that a person can get into heaven on his own merits. Augustine wanted to demonstrate that baptism and grace was necessary. That left the thorny problem of how to deal with unbaptized infants. If they automatically went to heaven, then Pelagius had a point – you could attain heaven on your own merits! Therefore, Augustine’s idea was that they had no personal sin, and therefore, didn’t deserve hell, but they weren’t baptized, so they didn’t deserve heaven.

I remember that Tolkien came up with the idea that elves who died, since they were bound to the Earth and its fate and so had to wait in the Halls of Mandos for the end of the world, could possibly be reincarnated. He defended the position on the basis that, even though reincarnation is not what we have been taught occurs, that does not necessarily mean God might not allow it under certain circumstances.

Hmm. Do you have a reference for this?

In any case, it doesn’t hold up: “human beings die once, and after this the judgment” (Hebrews 9:27).

 

[Kevin12]

Hmm… I’d have to go back to my books, which are packed away at the moment, but I believe that the idea wasn’t that they would suffer, but where they would likewise not be in the beatific vision.

No… the idea was to combat Pelagius, who said that a person can get into heaven on his own merits. Augustine wanted to demonstrate that baptism and grace was necessary. That left the thorny problem of how to deal with unbaptized infants. If they automatically went to heaven, then Pelagius had a point – you could attain heaven on your own merits! Therefore, Augustine’s idea was that they had no personal sin, and therefore, didn’t deserve hell, but they weren’t baptized, so they didn’t deserve heaven.

Hmm. Do you have a reference for this?

In any case, it doesn’t hold up: “human beings die once, and after this the judgment” (Hebrews 9:27).

The first part was a typo.

As to your second point, I believe Augustine did in fact say that unbaptized infants deserved Hell and its real pains, though the very mildest form - he considered the idea of Limbo a heresy. It was Aquinas and later theologians who developed the idea of Limbo - but Limbo is still considered part of Hell, since you lose the beatific vision. As to the reasoning for Limbo in terms of merit and original sin, my intention was to say what you said, but I admit I was probably using the wrong terminology.

As for Tolkien, though it is only an unofficial site, this is the citation. Though it seems you are right, since Tolkien only allowed this for the elves, since he considered their nature to be somehow essentially different then Men, who go back to Eru Illuvatar (the name of God in Tolkien’s legendarium), presumably to be judged. Elves literally cannot die in the sense that Men do, so while it might be called “re-incarnation” in the sense of being put back in the flesh, it is not a re-birth in, say, the way Hindus see it.

Still, though…in spite of that quote, I’d like to think that God is able to take some measures in order to avoid the situation of a person losing the chance to pursue the beatific vision, though perhaps it is meaningless to speculate.

 

[Elizabeth502]

Kevin,
I just wanted to remind you that the Doctors of the Church (Augustine, Aquinas, and more) are not considered infallible (free from error). They’re considered very wise and excellent teachers, and all of them have heavily influenced Roman Church dogma and spirituality, but like other theologians (including contemporary theologians), some of their beliefs were theories in development at that time, to bear fruition later in further refinement, or on the other hand to be rejected in part, later.

Edited to remind that Doctors who were also Popes spoke inerrantly when speaking on morals and faith, per universal understanding, but obviously most Doctors were not Popes.