I have read a little of Augustine. I have to admit I do not understand some of what he wrote.

I don't understand how a Catholic can believe in predestination, if that word is defined as.. well, not having much control over your eternal destiny, which is probably not what Augustine meant

I believe Catholics and other baptized Christians are predestined to know Jesus and therefore, have a good chance of getting to Heaven. But Jesus said the Way is narrow and there are few who find it.So having a chance and actually making are 2 different things. In any case, somewhere in the Word it says that the person who "endures" will be saved--WILL BE.. not IS

so much for once-saved-always-saved (another dumb heresy IMO)

anyway, just wondering what Augustine said about predestination (from someone out there who has read him extensively)

You do realize, don't you, that the word 'predestination', is used several times by St. Paul?

Romans 8:29-30

It's translated as "destined" (without the "pre-") in the NAB for Ephesian 1:5 and 11, but it's the same Greek word.

i think some ppl use predestination as a way to feel superior to others

Perhaps. And perhaps some people use rejecting predestination in the same way.

You do realize, do you not, that this isn't actually an argument for or against predestination?

Predestination is God's providence in respect to our final end.

It is a mystery, but so is providence. Say you thank God for getting a new job. But did not a human person hire you? Didn't you write the application? We recognize God is to be thanked, but we recognize the good came through human actions. It presents an apparent paradox, but as we dig into it we see that both human freedom and God's government over history are true and not contradictory, but how the two reconcile exactly is beyond our sight here

or we can just say we are ignorant humans and just will never know certain things about God

I think a lot of ppl just have a hard time admitting they don't know something.. AND that no one else likely knows either

In any case, there is no such thing as double predestination -- big heresy which can be proved from the Bible alone (not tht I am a Bible alone believer.. ha ha.. no real Catholic is)

A mystery is not something we cannot know anything about, it is something we cannot know everything about.

NB, while it is commonly said in pop theology that "double predestination" is heresy, that statement is most unhelpful . Either what is meant by it is that God predestines both the end (heaven or hell) and the means (merit or sin), in which case it is an unhelpful strawman that no one believes, or it means that God predestines some to heaven and some to hell, but not in the same way, as He predestines both the end and means to heaven (total predestination), whereas in the latter he predestines the end based on foreseen sins, but not the sins (positive reprobation). iN which case, we believe in double predestination!

Sigh....I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you're just honestly ignorant and not very educated on theological matters, but you're really doing a bad job here.

This is generally considered to be the definitive modern resource for information on the Catholic understanding of Predestination

https://www.amazon.com/Predestination-R ... estination

I strongly encourage you to pick it up and at least skim through it enough to learn some of the basics

I only wish that were the case. The Molinist/Congruist wing is much more prevalent, even though I think it's wrong.

I mean 'definitive' in the sense that it provides the most information, discussing the issue in more depth than you're likely to find anywhere else, or at least unlikely to find a book written in the 20th century, any book out there that might discuss the issue in more depth is likely to be several centuries old, and therefore out of date in the sense that it doens't address the current state of research.

It does seem that the West seeks to answer and define difficult matters where as the East leaves them as a mystery...

Nope

Still a broad generalization, but it is truer that the East focuses more on metaphysical questions, the West on ethical.

E.g, Christological and Trinitarian heresies, and the development of the answer to them, is mostly Eastern. But soteriological and moral heresies are Western, e.g pelagianism, donatism, etc are Western, as are the answers to them

Difference is that the West, after a period of forgetfulness, fully absorbed the insights of the East as the homo assumptus theology was abandoned in light of Cyril and the Councils.

But the East has not really incorporated the insights of the West. By and large Eastern Orthodox are semipelagian.

I think most contemporary theologians are heretics on this issue, witting or no. Almost every "Molinist" is actually advancing either semipelagianism or some novel idea (often deterministic with respect to God, like the nonsense of best of possible worlds). Very few actually defend Molinism/Congruism unadulterated. I think it probable, as even many Jesuits defended it, that Thomism was prevalent before the 60's and in any case the official position of the Jesuits, Congruism, still holds to predestination to glory before foreseen merits. Molinists that reject that have certainly been a minority until of late

These are trite arguments that, if taken at face value, negates all theology. Predestination is explained by theologians as orthodox as Garrigou-Lagrange. In his book, to which you have already been referred, you will find answers to your concerns.

But how do you know if those answers are right or not?

again, it is quite possible no one knows the answer. God is a mysterious and all-powerful Entity no mere human can comprehend. But a lot of humans, i have noticed, hate to admit they don't know or at least have a clue about .. just whatever.

humans are known to be arrogant, all of us.. people w/ low self-esteem have to appear to others to always be on the ball or.. people won't like them or respect them or whatever.

the good news is that we don't have to know.. anything more about God than what we NEED to know vis a vis salvation

That attitude is downright evil.

One was created to know, love and serve God. We can only love Him insofar as we know Him, and loving Him we desire to know Him more. It is not love that rejects more knowledge of the beloved.

You speak of arrogance, yet you do so as projection. To dismiss an entire subject, the sacred doctrine, and to paint theologians as arrogant for caring to think about God and things referred to God, strikes me as a lazy defense of a dull and lazy mind.

How dare you accuse saints, and doctors of the Church, and dismiss the theological endeavors of her members, because you quickly found out you didn't know as much about a subject and could not pontificate. How incredibly arrogant and dull, when one is shown to have a shallow understanding of a question, to dismiss the question and cast aspersions on those who know more than you.