SALVATION IN THE CATHOLIC CHURCH

[Cooper]

We need to look to the author and finisher of our faith and follow Him all the days of our life. With Christ in us, the change in our life will become self evident.

Any other way and we find ourselves going down the path of self-righteousness.

There is no other way except through Jesus. He is the way, the truth and the life.
.

 

[Mungo]

I did say that infants and children were baptized.
I agree with all of the above except for Ambrose.
He had a different idea about baptism and knew Augustine...I forget who taught who, so I won't go into that.

What Augustine changes is the REASON children got baptized.
He changed the idea of Original Sin.
He taught, and the church at the time accepted, that original sin had to be removed if one was to go to heaven.
If a baby died without baptism, he taught that that child went to hell.
So it became absolutely necessary for infants to be baptized as soon as possible.

As you must surely know, many of the early Christians did not get baptized until they were on their death bed.
This shows that Augustine made the change concerning original sin and baptism.

Maybe he gets blamed because he made the changes?
To say noting of predestination...

I'd like to see some evidence that Augustine changed the idea of original sin.
Here are some quotes from the Early Fathers from Catholic Answers about original sin.

Hermas​

“‘They had need,’ [the Shepherd] said, ‘to come up through the water, so that they might be made alive; for they could not otherwise enter into the kingdom of God, except by putting away the mortality of their former life. These also, then, who had fallen asleep, received the seal of the Son of God, and entered into the kingdom of God. For,’ he said, ‘before a man bears the name of the Son of God, he is dead. But when he receives the seal, he puts mortality aside and receives life. The seal, therefore, is the water [of baptism]. They go down into the water [spiritually] dead, and come out of it alive’” (The Shepherd 9:16:2).

Theophilus of Antioch​

“For the first man, disobedience resulted in his expulsion from paradise. It was not as if there were any evil in the tree of knowledge; but from disobedience man drew labor, pain, grief, and, in the end, he fell prostrate in death” (Ad Autolycus 2:25 [A.D. 181]).’

Irenaeus​

“But this man . . . is Adam, if the truth be told, the first-formed man. . . . We, however, are all from him; and as we are from him, we have inherited his title [of sin]” (Against Heresies 3:23:2 [inter A.D. 180-190]).’


“Indeed, through the first Adam we offended God by not observing his command. Through the second Adam, however, we are reconciled, and are made obedient even unto death [Rom. 8:36, 2 Cor. 5:18-19]. For we were debtors to none other except to him, whose commandment we transgressed at the beginning” (ibid., 5:16:3.)

Tertullian​

“On account of his [Adam’s] transgression man was given over to death; and the whole human race, which was infected by his seed, was made the transmitter of condemnation” (The Testimony of the Soul 3:2 [inter A.D. 197-200]).

“‘Because by a man came death, by a man also comes resurrection’ [Romans 5:17]. Here by the word ‘man,’ who consists of a body, as we have often shown already, I understand that it is a fact that Christ had a body. And if we are all made to live in Christ as we were made to die in Adam, then, as in the flesh we were made to die in Adam, so also in the flesh are we made to live in Christ” (Against Marcion 5:9:5 [inter A.D. 207-212]).

Origen​

“The Church received from the apostles the tradition of giving baptism even to infants [Matt. 19:14; Luke 18:15-16; Acts 2:38-39]. For the apostles, to whom were committed the secrets of divine mysteries, knew that there is in everyone the innate stain of sin, which must be washed away through water and the Spirit” [Titus 3:5] (Commentaries on Romans 5:9 [A.D. 244]).

“Everyone in the world falls prostrate under sin. And it is the Lord who sets up those who are cast down and who sustains all who are falling. In Adam all die, and thus the world falls prostrate and requires to be set up again, so that in Christ all may be made to live” (Homilies on Jeremiah 8:1 [post A.D. 244]).

Athanasius​

“Adam, the first man, altered his course, and through sin death came into the world. . . . When Adam transgressed, sin reached out to all men” [Romans 5:12]. (Discourses Against the Arians 1:51 [inter A.D. 358-362]).

Cyril of Jerusalem​

“Indeed, one man’s sin, that of Adam, had the power to bring death to the world. If by the transgression of one man, death reigned over the world, why should not life more fittingly reign by the righteousness of one man [Jesus]? If they were cast out of paradise because of the tree and the eating thereof, shall not the believers now enter more easily into paradise because of the tree of Jesus [the Cross]? If that man first formed out of the earth ushered in universal death, shall not he that formed him out of the earth bring in eternal life, since he himself is life?” [John 10:10, 14:6] (Catechetical Lectures 13:1 [A.D. 350])

Also there is an article about Augustine and original sin:

Where the Orthodox Meet Original Sin​

Subtitled - "St. Augustine and original sin are not the boogeymen many modern Eastern (and Western!) scholars make them out to be"

It goes into the Eastern fathers as well as Augustine and concludes:
"Augustine read carefully and even made verbal use of the teachings of St. Gregory Nazianzus regarding original sin, and Gregory is “the theologian” of the East par excellence. It never occurred to Augustine or to anyone else that his teaching was out of line with the teaching of the Eastern doctors. Indeed, Pelagius was condemned in the East, and Augustine listed among the approved teachers of the Church in ecumenical councils. There is no “original” Latin error in Augustine. He is a universal doctor just as are Chrysostom, Basil, and Gregory."

​

 

[jaybo]

I'd like to see some evidence that Augustine changed the idea of original sin.
Here are some quotes from the Early Fathers from Catholic Answers about original sin.

Hermas​

“‘They had need,’ [the Shepherd] said, ‘to come up through the water, so that they might be made alive; for they could not otherwise enter into the kingdom of God, except by putting away the mortality of their former life. These also, then, who had fallen asleep, received the seal of the Son of God, and entered into the kingdom of God. For,’ he said, ‘before a man bears the name of the Son of God, he is dead. But when he receives the seal, he puts mortality aside and receives life. The seal, therefore, is the water [of baptism]. They go down into the water [spiritually] dead, and come out of it alive’” (The Shepherd 9:16:2).

Theophilus of Antioch​

“For the first man, disobedience resulted in his expulsion from paradise. It was not as if there were any evil in the tree of knowledge; but from disobedience man drew labor, pain, grief, and, in the end, he fell prostrate in death” (Ad Autolycus 2:25 [A.D. 181]).’

Irenaeus​

“But this man . . . is Adam, if the truth be told, the first-formed man. . . . We, however, are all from him; and as we are from him, we have inherited his title [of sin]” (Against Heresies 3:23:2 [inter A.D. 180-190]).’


“Indeed, through the first Adam we offended God by not observing his command. Through the second Adam, however, we are reconciled, and are made obedient even unto death [Rom. 8:36, 2 Cor. 5:18-19]. For we were debtors to none other except to him, whose commandment we transgressed at the beginning” (ibid., 5:16:3.)

Tertullian​

“On account of his [Adam’s] transgression man was given over to death; and the whole human race, which was infected by his seed, was made the transmitter of condemnation” (The Testimony of the Soul 3:2 [inter A.D. 197-200]).

“‘Because by a man came death, by a man also comes resurrection’ [Romans 5:17]. Here by the word ‘man,’ who consists of a body, as we have often shown already, I understand that it is a fact that Christ had a body. And if we are all made to live in Christ as we were made to die in Adam, then, as in the flesh we were made to die in Adam, so also in the flesh are we made to live in Christ” (Against Marcion 5:9:5 [inter A.D. 207-212]).

Origen​

“The Church received from the apostles the tradition of giving baptism even to infants [Matt. 19:14; Luke 18:15-16; Acts 2:38-39]. For the apostles, to whom were committed the secrets of divine mysteries, knew that there is in everyone the innate stain of sin, which must be washed away through water and the Spirit” [Titus 3:5] (Commentaries on Romans 5:9 [A.D. 244]).

“Everyone in the world falls prostrate under sin. And it is the Lord who sets up those who are cast down and who sustains all who are falling. In Adam all die, and thus the world falls prostrate and requires to be set up again, so that in Christ all may be made to live” (Homilies on Jeremiah 8:1 [post A.D. 244]).

Athanasius​

“Adam, the first man, altered his course, and through sin death came into the world. . . . When Adam transgressed, sin reached out to all men” [Romans 5:12]. (Discourses Against the Arians 1:51 [inter A.D. 358-362]).

Cyril of Jerusalem​

“Indeed, one man’s sin, that of Adam, had the power to bring death to the world. If by the transgression of one man, death reigned over the world, why should not life more fittingly reign by the righteousness of one man [Jesus]? If they were cast out of paradise because of the tree and the eating thereof, shall not the believers now enter more easily into paradise because of the tree of Jesus [the Cross]? If that man first formed out of the earth ushered in universal death, shall not he that formed him out of the earth bring in eternal life, since he himself is life?” [John 10:10, 14:6] (Catechetical Lectures 13:1 [A.D. 350])

Also there is an article about Augustine and original sin:

Where the Orthodox Meet Original Sin​

Subtitled - "St. Augustine and original sin are not the boogeymen many modern Eastern (and Western!) scholars make them out to be"

It goes into the Eastern fathers as well as Augustine and concludes:
"Augustine read carefully and even made verbal use of the teachings of St. Gregory Nazianzus regarding original sin, and Gregory is “the theologian” of the East par excellence. It never occurred to Augustine or to anyone else that his teaching was out of line with the teaching of the Eastern doctors. Indeed, Pelagius was condemned in the East, and Augustine listed among the approved teachers of the Church in ecumenical councils. There is no “original” Latin error in Augustine. He is a universal doctor just as are Chrysostom, Basil, and Gregory."

​

These are just comments, not Scripture. I disagree with some of them, as they change what the Bible says. For example, Theophilus of Antioch said " It was not as if there were any evil in the tree of knowledge; but from disobedience man drew labor, pain, grief, and, in the end, he fell prostrate in death”. But Genesis 2:17 says, "but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will certainly die.” So there clearly was "evil in the tree of knowledge [of good and evil]" There is no "tree of knowledge".

And Iraenus said "Indeed, through the first Adam we offended God". Adam offended God; we didn't.

And Hermas said "[the Shepherd] said, ‘to come up through the water, so that they might be made alive". That disagrees with the Scriptural description of baptism, which is symbolic burial.

 

[Christ_empowered]

doesn't Scripture speaking of "living water" ? maybe...that's what going on, there?

 

[Christ_empowered]

doesn't Scripture speaking of "living water" ? maybe...that's what going on, there?

 

[Christ_empowered]

wow. i just double posted -and- quoted myself. -job well done-

sorry about, lol.

 

[jaybo]

doesn't Scripture speaking of "living water" ? maybe...that's what going on, there?

There are several places where "living water" is mentioned, but they have to do with life-giving faith, not physical water or baptismal water. For example, John 7:38, "Whoever believes in me, as Scripture has said, rivers of living water will flow from within them.” and Revelation 7:17, "For the Lamb at the center of the throne will be their shepherd; ‘he will lead them to springs of living water.’ ‘And God will wipe away every tear from their eyes.’”

 

[Christ_empowered]

but...like a literary connection to Scripture? -shrug- I'm big on the "benefit of a doubt," etc.

 

[jaybo]

but...like a literary connection to Scripture? -shrug- I'm big on the "benefit of a doubt," etc.

I have no idea what this means. :^(

 

[GodsGrace]

I don't believe that Mungo was speaking tongue in cheek -- ever.

Of course he was.
Believing and repenting are not works.

See his post no. 149

 

[GodsGrace]

It is the Holy Spirit in us that wrought the change in our life.
.

Of course I agree.
But I think we need to add that we permitted the Holy Spirit to cause that change in our lives.
If we don't say that and put all the burden on the Holy Spirit, then when we sin, we could give the responsibility to the Holy Spirit and this would not be true.

The Holy Spirit guides us but does not force us.

 

[GodsGrace]

I'd like to see some evidence that Augustine changed the idea of original sin.
Here are some quotes from the Early Fathers from Catholic Answers about original sin.

Hermas​

“‘They had need,’ [the Shepherd] said, ‘to come up through the water, so that they might be made alive; for they could not otherwise enter into the kingdom of God, except by putting away the mortality of their former life. These also, then, who had fallen asleep, received the seal of the Son of God, and entered into the kingdom of God. For,’ he said, ‘before a man bears the name of the Son of God, he is dead. But when he receives the seal, he puts mortality aside and receives life. The seal, therefore, is the water [of baptism]. They go down into the water [spiritually] dead, and come out of it alive’” (The Shepherd 9:16:2).

Theophilus of Antioch​

“For the first man, disobedience resulted in his expulsion from paradise. It was not as if there were any evil in the tree of knowledge; but from disobedience man drew labor, pain, grief, and, in the end, he fell prostrate in death” (Ad Autolycus 2:25 [A.D. 181]).’

Irenaeus​

“But this man . . . is Adam, if the truth be told, the first-formed man. . . . We, however, are all from him; and as we are from him, we have inherited his title [of sin]” (Against Heresies 3:23:2 [inter A.D. 180-190]).’


“Indeed, through the first Adam we offended God by not observing his command. Through the second Adam, however, we are reconciled, and are made obedient even unto death [Rom. 8:36, 2 Cor. 5:18-19]. For we were debtors to none other except to him, whose commandment we transgressed at the beginning” (ibid., 5:16:3.)

Tertullian​

“On account of his [Adam’s] transgression man was given over to death; and the whole human race, which was infected by his seed, was made the transmitter of condemnation” (The Testimony of the Soul 3:2 [inter A.D. 197-200]).

“‘Because by a man came death, by a man also comes resurrection’ [Romans 5:17]. Here by the word ‘man,’ who consists of a body, as we have often shown already, I understand that it is a fact that Christ had a body. And if we are all made to live in Christ as we were made to die in Adam, then, as in the flesh we were made to die in Adam, so also in the flesh are we made to live in Christ” (Against Marcion 5:9:5 [inter A.D. 207-212]).

Origen​

“The Church received from the apostles the tradition of giving baptism even to infants [Matt. 19:14; Luke 18:15-16; Acts 2:38-39]. For the apostles, to whom were committed the secrets of divine mysteries, knew that there is in everyone the innate stain of sin, which must be washed away through water and the Spirit” [Titus 3:5] (Commentaries on Romans 5:9 [A.D. 244]).

“Everyone in the world falls prostrate under sin. And it is the Lord who sets up those who are cast down and who sustains all who are falling. In Adam all die, and thus the world falls prostrate and requires to be set up again, so that in Christ all may be made to live” (Homilies on Jeremiah 8:1 [post A.D. 244]).

Athanasius​

“Adam, the first man, altered his course, and through sin death came into the world. . . . When Adam transgressed, sin reached out to all men” [Romans 5:12]. (Discourses Against the Arians 1:51 [inter A.D. 358-362]).

Cyril of Jerusalem​

“Indeed, one man’s sin, that of Adam, had the power to bring death to the world. If by the transgression of one man, death reigned over the world, why should not life more fittingly reign by the righteousness of one man [Jesus]? If they were cast out of paradise because of the tree and the eating thereof, shall not the believers now enter more easily into paradise because of the tree of Jesus [the Cross]? If that man first formed out of the earth ushered in universal death, shall not he that formed him out of the earth bring in eternal life, since he himself is life?” [John 10:10, 14:6] (Catechetical Lectures 13:1 [A.D. 350])

Also there is an article about Augustine and original sin:

Where the Orthodox Meet Original Sin​

Subtitled - "St. Augustine and original sin are not the boogeymen many modern Eastern (and Western!) scholars make them out to be"

It goes into the Eastern fathers as well as Augustine and concludes:
"Augustine read carefully and even made verbal use of the teachings of St. Gregory Nazianzus regarding original sin, and Gregory is “the theologian” of the East par excellence. It never occurred to Augustine or to anyone else that his teaching was out of line with the teaching of the Eastern doctors. Indeed, Pelagius was condemned in the East, and Augustine listed among the approved teachers of the Church in ecumenical councils. There is no “original” Latin error in Augustine. He is a universal doctor just as are Chrysostom, Basil, and Gregory."

​

You're talking about Pelagius and that was after the change in the concept of original sin.

So how to show you this:
Wilson shows that Augustine reverted to his earlier “non-free Free Will” (pg.58) views in 412 CE because of his conflict with Pelagius (pg.57). When Pelagius challenged him because the Church baptizes infants, Augustine concluded that infants were baptized “because of their inherent guilt (reatus) from Adam’s first sin (pg. 58).” Augustine admittedly relied upon the Manichaean concept of 'total inability' in infants because of their inherent guilt, needing God’s unilateral choice for true freedom of the will (pg.59). Wilson quotes Ballock (1998), remarking that “Augustine admitted he had abandoned the centuries-old Christian doctrine of human free-choice”[7] as do famous scholar Jaroslav Pelikan[8] (pg.60).
Wilson concludes, “Augustine now teaches, “God foreordains human wills… God gives the gift of perseverance to only a few baptized infants (pg.63).” Wilson shows that Augustine now holds that “only those elect who believed in Christ had their sins forgiven” and not that Christ had died for everyone, as he earlier held (pg.66).” Other scholars agree with Wilson and distinguished scholar Henry Chadwick (“The Early Christian Church”) observed that Augustine's contemporaries accused him of this Manichean influence: “Julian bishop of Eclanum expressed that Augustine was causing trouble because he 'brought his Manichee ways of thinking into the church... and was denying St Paul's clear teaching that God wills all men to be saved' [9]

source: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/52621818-the-foundation-of-augustinian-calvinism

Ken Wilson, who wrote the above in a book titled The Foundation of Augustinian Calvinism, is a world-expert on Augustine. He did his doctoral thesis on Augustine and has read all his works.

Let me say it like this:

PRE AUGUSTINE: The church believed that Adam's sin caused everyone to be born in a sinful condition that we know as the sin nature, or concupiscence, Adam's sin was an effect in man, but man was not imputed with his sin, man only suffered the effects of Adam's sin. Baptizing infants had nothing to do with the above because the infant was not personally responsible for Adam's sin but only suffered the consequences of it.

POST AUGUSTINE: He was respected by the church due to his skills at debating and it accepted much of what he taught. Augustine came to believe that Adam's sin was IMPUTED to every man born after Adam. This made each and everyone of us responsible for Adam's sin. We were charged with the guilt of that sin, not only with its effects on us.

This meant that infants were born in sin, having already sinned personally, etc.
This meant that they had to be baptized for the REMOVAL of this original sin that was now IMPUTED to each and everyone born...not only were we affected by Adam's sin...we became responsible for it according to Augustine.
So now it was imperative that infants be baptized so that they would not go to hell if they died unbaptized since nothing unclean would enter heaven.

This is plain history and I don't know how to what else to post.

Maybe this:

Original sin - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

There's a lot about this on the internet.

As you must know, the CC no longer believes that children born and die before baptism go to hell.
It now says that they are left to the mercy of God....
The church should just go back to the original teaching...but I think it's difficult to backtrack.

 

[GodsGrace]

but...like a literary connection to Scripture? -shrug- I'm big on the "benefit of a doubt," etc.

What do you think living waters means?
I tend to agree with jaybo 's post.

 

[Mungo]

You're talking about Pelagius and that was after the change in the concept of original sin.

So how to show you this:
Wilson shows that Augustine reverted to his earlier “non-free Free Will” (pg.58) views in 412 CE because of his conflict with Pelagius (pg.57). When Pelagius challenged him because the Church baptizes infants, Augustine concluded that infants were baptized “because of their inherent guilt (reatus) from Adam’s first sin (pg. 58).” Augustine admittedly relied upon the Manichaean concept of 'total inability' in infants because of their inherent guilt, needing God’s unilateral choice for true freedom of the will (pg.59). Wilson quotes Ballock (1998), remarking that “Augustine admitted he had abandoned the centuries-old Christian doctrine of human free-choice”[7] as do famous scholar Jaroslav Pelikan[8] (pg.60).
Wilson concludes, “Augustine now teaches, “God foreordains human wills… God gives the gift of perseverance to only a few baptized infants (pg.63).” Wilson shows that Augustine now holds that “only those elect who believed in Christ had their sins forgiven” and not that Christ had died for everyone, as he earlier held (pg.66).” Other scholars agree with Wilson and distinguished scholar Henry Chadwick (“The Early Christian Church”) observed that Augustine's contemporaries accused him of this Manichean influence: “Julian bishop of Eclanum expressed that Augustine was causing trouble because he 'brought his Manichee ways of thinking into the church... and was denying St Paul's clear teaching that God wills all men to be saved' [9]

source: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/52621818-the-foundation-of-augustinian-calvinism

Ken Wilson, who wrote the above in a book titled The Foundation of Augustinian Calvinism, is a world-expert on Augustine. He did his doctoral thesis on Augustine and has read all his works.

Let me say it like this:

PRE AUGUSTINE: The church believed that Adam's sin caused everyone to be born in a sinful condition that we know as the sin nature, or concupiscence, Adam's sin was an effect in man, but man was not imputed with his sin, man only suffered the effects of Adam's sin. Baptizing infants had nothing to do with the above because the infant was not personally responsible for Adam's sin but only suffered the consequences of it.

POST AUGUSTINE: He was respected by the church due to his skills at debating and it accepted much of what he taught. Augustine came to believe that Adam's sin was IMPUTED to every man born after Adam. This made each and everyone of us responsible for Adam's sin. We were charged with the guilt of that sin, not only with its effects on us.

This meant that infants were born in sin, having already sinned personally, etc.
This meant that they had to be baptized for the REMOVAL of this original sin that was now IMPUTED to each and everyone born...not only were we affected by Adam's sin...we became responsible for it according to Augustine.
So now it was imperative that infants be baptized so that they would not go to hell if they died unbaptized since nothing unclean would enter heaven.

This is plain history and I don't know how to what else to post.

Maybe this:

Original sin - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

There's a lot about this on the internet.

As you must know, the CC no longer believes that children born and die before baptism go to hell.
It now says that they are left to the mercy of God....
The church should just go back to the original teaching...but I think it's difficult to backtrack.

OK, I'm not going to go into Augustine as I don't have the knowledge or the time.
However there are a couple of points I would like to make regarding this.

The first one is the whatever Augustine taught is what Augustine taught.
What the Church teaches is what has been formally defined by an infallible statement at an Ecumenical Council, or under certain condition by the Pope. Until that point what we have are theological opinions. Of course the opinions of important theologians such as Augustine and Thomas Aquinas are to be respected but the are not infallible.

So if Augustine taught that unbaptised infants went to hell that is not an infallible Church teaching.

It seems from Catholic Answers that the first formal teaching on this was at the Ecumenical Council of Florence (1431-1449).
The article Fate of Unbaptized Infants at Death? says this:
The Ecumenical Council of Florence (1431-1449) declared that all who die in original sin end up in hell but not in equal punishment with those who died in mortal sin. This would seem to logically include infants who die before baptism. However, we do know that the Church has always accepted that the righteous before Christ (who died in original sin) were able to attain heaven after the Resurrection, so this teaching clearly accepted that God makes exceptions to this rule. While man is bound by sacraments, God is not. Although all who die in original sin descend to hell, it is also entirely possible that God can remove original sin from the souls of those he chooses right before their death.

The Ecumenical Council of Trent (1545-1563) stated that there is no other means of salvation other than baptism for infants. This is true in the same sense as we stated above. There is no other means that we have in this world, but God can act however he chooses.

The second point is that the Church indeed teaches that it is the effect of original sin that infants inherit. The are not personally responsible for Adam's sin.
It is a sin which will be transmitted by propagation to all mankind, that is, by the transmission of a human nature deprived of original holiness and justice. and that is why original sin is called "sin" only in an analogical sense: it is a sin "contracted" and not "committed" - a state and not an act. (CCC 404)

"...original sin does not have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam's descendants." (CCC405)

 

[Niblo]

I'm not too sure what Jesus meant by this statement in John.
It sure does sound like Jesus meant that the Apostles could forgive sin.
But MAN could not forgive a sin.
This is why Jesus was despised...the Pharisees, Sanhedrin, believe that He made Himself out to be God because He (Jesus) thought He could forgive sin.

Good morning, Sister,

Reading various posts on this, and other threads (and sites), reminds me of a remark made by David. A. Bell:

‘With Constantine’s protection and encouragement, therefore, Christianity flourished, but the consequences were not wholly fortunate. Now that the external threat had been removed, the Christians could devote themselves to what was clearly becoming their predominant interest: arguing among themselves on a multitude of theological points – some minor, some major.’ (‘A Cloud of Witnesses: Cistercian Studies Series’; my emphasis).

In truth, of course, it all boils down to interpretation.

I’m working on a reply to your post. In šāʾ Allāh, I’ll be back by the end of this week.

Meantime, be at peace in your Faith; and take care.

Very best regards.

 

[GodsGrace]

OK, I'm not going to go into Augustine as I don't have the knowledge or the time.
However there are a couple of points I would like to make regarding this.

I'd also like to say that the friar I study with likes Augustine...he knows I don't.
I had Augustine right up there on my list of church Doctors with T. Aquinas and the really ECFs.

As I read more and more about him, I began to respect him less and less.
The reason I got interested in him was because John Calvin took his ideas from Augustine and I wanted to understand why.

But, yes, I think we should drop him, unless you care to study him at some point.

The first one is the whatever Augustine taught is what Augustine taught.
What the Church teaches is what has been formally defined by an infallible statement at an Ecumenical Council, or under certain condition by the Pope. Until that point what we have are theological opinions. Of course the opinions of important theologians such as Augustine and Thomas Aquinas are to be respected but the are not infallible.

So if Augustine taught that unbaptised infants went to hell that is not an infallible Church teaching.

This is what Augustine taught, that unbaptized infants went to hell and the church of that time accepted this.
Every other ECF, of the quotes you posted, did not agree with his teaching.
I think I'm repeating myself at this point.
They believed we all suffered the effects of Adam's sin,
Augustine taught that we inherited, or were imputed, with his sin.
Two totally different ideas.

It seems from Catholic Answers that the first formal teaching on this was at the Ecumenical Council of Florence (1431-1449).
The article Fate of Unbaptized Infants at Death?says this:
The Ecumenical Council of Florence (1431-1449) declared that all who die in original sin end up in hell but not in equal punishment with those who died in mortal sin. This would seem to logically include infants who die before baptism. However, we do know that the Church has always accepted that the righteous before Christ (who died in original sin) were able to attain heaven after the Resurrection, so this teaching clearly accepted that God makes exceptions to this rule. While man is bound by sacraments, God is not. Although all who die in original sin descend to hell, it is also entirely possible that God can remove original sin from the souls of those he chooses right before their death.

The Ecumenical Council of Trent (1545-1563) stated that there is no other means of salvation other than baptism for infants. This is true in the same sense as we stated above. There is no other means that we have in this world, but God can act however he chooses.

That is stating exactly what I've been saying.
But this is NOT what the ECFs believed, and I will always side with the ECF before any changes were made to their teachings.

The second point is that the Church indeed teaches that it is the effect of original sin that infants inherit. The are not personally responsible for Adam's sin.
It is a sin which will be transmitted by propagation to all mankind, that is, by the transmission of a human nature deprived of original holiness and justice. and that is why original sin is called "sin" only in an analogical sense: it is a sin "contracted" and not "committed" - a state and not an act. (CCC 404)

"...original sin does not have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam's descendants." (CCC405)

Don't you realize that the Council of Florence is saying something different than the CCC?

This is from Trent:

4. If any one denies, that infants, newly born from their mothers' wombs, even though they be sprung from baptized parents, are to be baptized; or says that they are baptized indeed for the remission of sins, but that they derive nothing of original sin from Adam, which has need of being expiated by the laver of regeneration for the obtaining life everlasting,--whence it follows as a consequence, that in them the form of baptism, for the remission of sins, is understood to be not true, but false, --let him be anathema. For that which the apostle has said, By one man sin entered into the world, and by sin death, and so death passed upon all men in whom all have sinned, is not to be understood otherwise than as the Catholic Church spread everywhere hath always understood it. For, by reason of this rule of faith, from a tradition of the apostles, even infants, who could not as yet commit any sin of themselves, are for this cause truly baptized for the remission of sins, that in them that may be cleansed away by regeneration, which they have contracted by generation. For, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

source: http://www.thecounciloftrent.com/ch5.htm

I do believe it would be important to understand this difference.

 

[GodsGrace]

Good morning, Sister,

Reading various posts on this, and other threads (and sites), reminds me of a remark made by David. A. Bell:

‘With Constantine’s protection and encouragement, therefore, Christianity flourished, but the consequences were not wholly fortunate. Now that the external threat had been removed, the Christians could devote themselves to what was clearly becoming their predominant interest: arguing among themselves on a multitude of theological points – some minor, some major.’ (‘A Cloud of Witnesses: Cistercian Studies Series’; my emphasis).

In truth, of course, it all boils down to interpretation.

I’m working on a reply to your post. In šāʾ Allāh, I’ll be back by the end of this week.

Meantime, be at peace in your Faith; and take care.

Very best regards.

I look forward to reading your reply.
I must say that, as I've stated to Mungo , I respect and honor and pay very close attention to what the ECFs wrote and believed. By ECFs I mean before 325AD.

 

[Niblo]

I look forward to reading your reply.
I must say that, as I've stated to Mungo , I respect and honor and pay very close attention to what the ECFs wrote and believed. By ECFs I mean before 325AD.

Good morning, Sister.

Apologies for the delay. I trust you are well.

Concerning John 20:19-23:

‘In the evening of that same day, the first day of the week, the doors were closed in the room where the disciples were, for fear of the Jews. Jesus came and stood among them. He said to them, “Peace be with you,” and, after saying this, he showed them his hands and his side. The disciples were filled with joy at seeing the Lord, and he said to them again, “Peace be with you. As the Father sent me, so am I sending you.” After saying this he breathed on them and said: “Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive anyone's sins, they are forgiven; if you retain anyone's sins, they are retained.”’

You have written:

‘I'm not too sure what Jesus meant by this statement in John. It sure does sound like Jesus meant that the Apostles could forgive sin.’

The notion that the ‘authority to either forgive people's sins or to retain them was given only to the disciples by Christ after he had died and risen, before he ascended into heaven, and before Pentecost’ (reference Post 123; my emphasis) makes sense only if we assume that Yeshua (ʿalayhi as-salām) was simply an apocalyptic prophet – one of many in his day – who did not expect the world to survive the lifetime of his contemporaries.

You and I are agreed that Yeshua intended the Church – however we define that term – to endure through the ages.

Knowing that he would not be always be with his Church – visibly – Yeshua delegated his power to the Apostles; a power that could – and indeed must have – be passed on to their successors and agents, to be exercised for as long as sinning is a way of life. This is the meaning that the Church has always given to this pericope.

Please see my post in the thread ‘Development of Doctrine’. It concerns the need for confession, and follows on from this post.

 

[GodsGrace]

Good morning, Sister.

Apologies for the delay. I trust you are well.

Concerning John 20:19-23:

‘In the evening of that same day, the first day of the week, the doors were closed in the room where the disciples were, for fear of the Jews. Jesus came and stood among them. He said to them, “Peace be with you,” and, after saying this, he showed them his hands and his side. The disciples were filled with joy at seeing the Lord, and he said to them again, “Peace be with you. As the Father sent me, so am I sending you.” After saying this he breathed on them and said: “Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive anyone's sins, they are forgiven; if you retain anyone's sins, they are retained.”’

You have written:

‘I'm not too sure what Jesus meant by this statement in John. It sure does sound like Jesus meant that the Apostles could forgive sin.’

Yes. This idea that men can forgive a sin committed toward God is very bothersome to me.
Knowing how sinful man is, how could Jesus have expected the Apostles to know when to forgive a sin and when not to?

Jesus said: As the Father has sent me, so I am sending you.
What did God Father send Jesus for anyway?
Was it mainly to forgive sin?
Or was it mainly to set up the Kingdom of God on earth?
I don't know of any other religion where a person is required to ask forgiveness of a man, the Orthodox have the possibility for one to confess, but it is not required.

Most find a problem with Catholicism in regards to Mary.
My problem is confession.
If confession be a truth, then are the rest going to hell?

The notion that the ‘authority to either forgive people's sins or to retain them was given only to the disciples by Christ after he had died and risen, before he ascended into heaven, and before Pentecost’ (reference Post 123; my emphasis) makes sense only if we assume that Yeshua (ʿalayhi as-salām) was simply an apocalyptic prophet – one of many in his day – who did not expect the world to survive the lifetime of his contemporaries.

You and I are agreed that Yeshua intended the Church – however we define that term – to endure through the ages.

Yes. Agreed.
He also intended for there to be only one church.
The type of confession the early fathers spoke of is not clear...I still say that if it were so important it should have been made very clear to them.
The didache says to confess your sins in church.
What does that mean anyway?
Does it refer to the Penetential Rite at Mass?
Why were venial sins required to be confessed in the recent past, and not anymore?
Was this always a teaching of the church, but kept from the laity?
Too many questions.
(which I don't expect you to answer).

Knowing that he would not be always be with his Church – visibly – Yeshua delegated his power to the Apostles; a power that could – and indeed must have – be passed on to their successors and agents, to be exercised for as long as sinning is a way of life. This is the meaning that the Church has always given to this pericope.

Please see my post in the thread ‘Development of Doctrine’. It concerns the need for confession, and follows on from this post.

Read that last night and will be replying.
Do we all know that the early Christians believed that Baptism would allow us to stop sinning?
Some waited to be on their death bed to be baptized so all their sins would be forgiven.
Problem is that no one knows when they will die...so that didn't work very well.
Confession has a long history of change.

I guess the big question is:
Is confession necessary for sins to be forgiven for salvation?

 

[jaybo]

Yes. This idea that men can forgive a sin committed toward God is very bothersome to me.
Knowing how sinful man is, how could Jesus have expected the Apostles to know when to forgive a sin and when not to?

Jesus said: As the Father has sent me, so I am sending you.
What did God Father send Jesus for anyway?
Was it mainly to forgive sin?
Or was it mainly to set up the Kingdom of God on earth?
I don't know of any other religion where a person is required to ask forgiveness of a man, the Orthodox have the possibility for one to confess, but it is not required.

Most find a problem with Catholicism in regards to Mary.
My problem is confession.
If confession be a truth, then are the rest going to hell?



Yes. Agreed.
He also intended for there to be only one church.
The type of confession the early fathers spoke of is not clear...I still say that if it were so important it should have been made very clear to them.
The didache says to confess your sins in church.
What does that mean anyway?
Does it refer to the Penetential Rite at Mass?
Why were venial sins required to be confessed in the recent past, and not anymore?
Was this always a teaching of the church, but kept from the laity?
Too many questions.
(which I don't expect you to answer).


Read that last night and will be replying.
Do we all know that the early Christians believed that Baptism would allow us to stop sinning?
Some waited to be on their death bed to be baptized so all their sins would be forgiven.
Problem is that no one knows when they will die...so that didn't work very well.
Confession has a long history of change.

I guess the big question is:
Is confession necessary for sins to be forgiven for salvation?

James 5:16, "So confess your sins to one another and pray for one another so that you may be healed." That's all that one needs to know IMHO.

If I have wronged someone in some way, then I tell them and apologize so that I don't carry the feeling of guilt around. Along with that, I should pray for them so that no harm is done either to me or them because of my behavior.

So my answer to "is confession necessary for sins to be forgiven for salvation?" Absolutely not. Jesus died on the cross for forgiveness of all sin for all time for all people.