Florence, Pius IX, and Damnation for Original Sin Alone

[Transformer]

(Before anyone says anything, I’ve read a few previous threads on this general topic, and they haven’t satisfied me.)

The Council of Florence says:

But the souls of those who depart this life in actual mortal sin, or in original sin alone, go down straightaway to hell to be punished, but with unequal pains.

This statement is quite clear: those who die with original sin on their souls, even if they have no personal voluntary sin whatsoever, go to hell.

Pius IX says (Quanto Conficiamur Moerore 7):

Because God knows, searches and clearly understands the minds, hearts, thoughts, and nature of all, his supreme kindness and clemency do not permit anyone at all who is not guilty of deliberate sin to suffer eternal punishments.

So according to Pius IX, no one can go to hell who is not guilty of personal voluntary sin.

This is an apparent contradiction. Is original sin alone sufficient to damn someone to hell? If it is, as Florence says it is, then how can it be said that no one is damned unless he is guilty of deliberate sin?

Note that similar quotes, from various popes and councils, can be dredged up to support either Florence’s position or Pius IX’s.

I am looking for a solution to this dilemma. I will list the few possibilities that have occurred to me.

1. The teaching of the Council of Florence was not definitive and infallible, and it has been abrogated by later Magisterial teaching. Not all teachings of every ecumenical council are necessarily definitive and infallible; canons/anathemas are, but depending on the language used, other statements may not be.

This is not really plausible, I think. The council uses the word “define” in this section, as in, this teaching is a definition in the technical sense. It’s a stretch to claim that it does not enjoy the charism of infallibility that the extraordinary Magisterium possesses.

I suppose it is also a possible solution to say that the teaching of Pius IX here is not definitive and infallible, that it contradicts the infallible definition of Florence, and is thus wrong. I do not like this solution at all, on several grounds: it involves dissent from a papal teaching, it involves dissent from many other teachings from various popes and documents which seem to agree with Pius IX, and (if the topic is not further nuanced) it involves taking the position that unbaptized infants go to hell.

1. When Florence refers to hell (Latin infernum), it does not necessarily mean the same hell to which those who die in mortal sin go. When the council uses the phrase “but with unequal pains,” it could be indicating that it is really talking about limbo in the case of those who die in original sin alone. Meanwhile, when Pius IX says that no one who is not guilty of deliberate sin suffers eternal punishments, he means that those who lack deliberate sin won’t suffer the positive punishments of hell, but they can suffer the deprivation of the beatific vision which constitutes limbo.

I do not like this solution on two grounds. First, it is a stretch to say that Florence is talking about limbo. Infernum usually means the hell of the damned. It does not say “without positive punishment,” but simply “with unequal (i.e., lesser) pains.” Finally, Florence here is pretty much echoing exactly the position of St. Augustine, and St. Augustine clearly believed that unbaptized infants went to hell with all the other damned.

Second, this solution (if the topic is not further nuanced) is a definitive acceptance of the limbo solution to the problem of unbaptized infants, and I would very much like to believe that the salvation of unbaptized infants is a real possibility.

1. Florence is correct to say that anyone who dies in a state of original sin alone goes to hell. However, this never actually happens, strictly speaking. Unbaptized children somehow receive sanctifying grace (the final effect of baptism, baptism of some kind) before they die. The only people who die in a state of original sin “alone” are those who have reached the age of reason and die having committed the mortal sin of omission of failing to seek out baptism.

Thus it is true that original sin alone is theoretically sufficient to damn someone, at least in a mechanical sense (for what is original sin but a deprivation of sanctifying grace, and who can be saved without sanctifying grace?). But since it would not be just of God to condemn someone who is not guilty of personal fault, he does not allow anyone to die without sanctifying grace (baptism of some kind), or the offer of it.

This is Ron Conte’s solution, as expressed here:

ronconte.wordpress.com/2012/06/24/dying-in-a-state-of-original-sin-only/

The sin of dying in a state of “original sin alone” is nothing other than the actual mortal sin of omission of never having found sanctifying grace in life (by any of the three forms of baptism), despite ample opportunity. No other conclusion is in accord with all of the teachings of the Magisterium on this question — the Conciliar teaching on those who die in original sin alone, and the Papal teaching on the universal salvific will of God and the concrete availability of salvation for all.

(Note that I am aware Ron Conte is not consistently reliable and has some weird ideas. I do not cite him as an authority; I quoting him simply because I think he is right on this particular issue and that he expresses this solution well.)

I favor this solution on several grounds. I think it does the least violence to the teaching of Florence. It proposes the salvation of unbaptized infants, which is of course what we would all like to believe. Moreover, it is difficult to square the other two solutions–which propose hell or limbo for unbaptized infants with no actual way to salvation–with the universal salvific will of God.

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

Even before I got to Option #3 in your post, I was effectively thinking it. Then, with that option, you anticipated and articulated my response to this matter.

In my own words:

Remember what “original sin” is on the most basic level: a deprivation of sanctifying grace, the privation of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.

Florence is most certainly correct, then, to state the obvious conclusion that no one deprived of sanctifying grace can enter heaven.

But note also that it does not presuppose that anyone without personal sin actually will go to hell: I haven’t read the Latin, but assuming this translation is fairly accurate, the phrase “or in original sin alone” is in a subordinate clause.

That clause, in context, seems fairly conditional. To rephrase Florence: if someone with personal sin or original sin alone departs this life, they will go to hell.

Such a claim does not presuppose the actualization of the eventuality it expresses in its conditional clause.

Thus, it seems to leave open the question - which makes sense, since theologians have always discussed the fate of unbaptized babies who die, and they’re the ones who seem to actually be in this position.

Pius IX, then, comes along and authoritatively develops Catholic teaching, providing an interpretation on what Florence was silent about: whether anyone actually does go to hell with original sin but no personal sin.

Considering what “original sin” is (as referenced above), what Pius IX says absolutely makes sense.

 

[snarflemike]

Even before I got to Option #3 in your post, I was effectively thinking it. Then, with that option, you anticipated and articulated my response to this matter.

Same here. Knowing what we know about God, it is impossible to believe that he, who desires all men to be saved, would allow an innocent to go to hell in the case where there was nothing the innocent or the family could do to prevent it. And we have the case of the Holy Innocents to back up this view.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

1. When Florence refers to hell (Latin infernum), it does not necessarily mean the same hell to which those who die in mortal sin go. When the council uses the phrase “but with unequal pains,” it could be indicating that it is really talking about limbo in the case of those who die in original sin alone. Meanwhile, when Pius IX says that no one who is not guilty of deliberate sin suffers eternal punishments, he means that those who lack deliberate sin won’t suffer the positive punishments of hell, but they can suffer the deprivation of the beatific vision which constitutes limbo.

This is the correct understanding and harmonizes both statements. The term “Limbo” means “ledge” so it’s the ledge/fringe of hell.

I do not like this solution on two grounds. First, it is a stretch to say that Florence is talking about limbo. Infernum usually means the hell of the damned. It does not say “without positive punishment,” but simply “with unequal (i.e., lesser) pains.” Finally, Florence here is pretty much echoing exactly the position of St. Augustine, and St. Augustine clearly believed that unbaptized infants went to hell with all the other damned.

It is not a stretch, that’s an accurate way of describing the situation. The only caution is that people can misunderstand and read it too ‘harshly’. St Augustine explicitly said the unbaptized infants experience the least amount of suffering possible, which has been traditionally understood as simply the missing out of heaven but not the experiencing of suffering. One experiences suffering in proportion to how much they’ve sinned, so a person who has not sinned should experience nothing or next to nothing. But just because someone has not sinned does not mean they are entitled to go to Heaven, since Heaven isn’t something we are owed, it’s a gift.

Second, this solution (if the topic is not further nuanced) is a definitive acceptance of the limbo solution to the problem of unbaptized infants, and I would very much like to believe that the salvation of unbaptized infants is a real possibility.

It’s a definitive description of a place where an unbaptized person would have to go. They cannot go to Heaven without sanctifying grace, leaving the only option as hell. But they cannot suffer pains unless they’ve committed actual sins to be punished proportionately, so they don’t suffer. This means there is a layer/level/fringe of hell that at least theoretically exists which we call Limbo. BUT this is a very different question than the possibility of unbaptized infants being saved. Though there is nothing definitively taught, theoretically God could apply the grace of baptism to an unbaptized infant and thus give the baby the grace needed to be in Heaven.

1. Florence is correct to say that anyone who dies in a state of original sin alone goes to hell. However, this never actually happens, strictly speaking. Unbaptized children somehow receive sanctifying grace

To say “this never actually happens” is dangerous speculation and could give the impression that Heaven is owed to a person just because they are born.

The only people who die in a state of original sin “alone” are those who have reached the age of reason and die having committed the mortal sin of omission of failing to seek out baptism.

That cannot be, since to “commit the mortal sin” is in itself an actual sin. Mortal sin is not original sin; the former is volitional (a personal act), while the latter is not (a state of being).

I am aware Ron Conte is not consistently reliable and has some weird ideas. I do not cite him as an authority

Good. Sadly, he has a bad habit of blocking anyone who challenges his ideas, so he acts hypocritically in criticizing others while not being open to criticism.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

St Thomas Aquinas, a solid guide for reading Florence and Pius, says this in the Summa:

Article 1. Whether those souls which depart with original sin alone, suffer from a bodily fire, and are punished by fire?

On the contrary, Augustine says (Enchiridion xxiii) that the mildest punishment of all will be for those who are burdened with original sin only. But this would not be so, if they were tormented with sensible punishment, because the pain of hell fire is most grievous. Therefore they will not suffer sensible punishment.

Further, the grief of sensible punishment corresponds to the pleasure of sin (Apocalypse 18:7): “As much as she hath glorified herself and lived in delicacies, so much torment and sorrow give ye to her.” But there is no pleasure in original sin, as neither is there operation, for pleasure follows operation, as stated in Ethic. x, 4. Therefore punishment by fire is not due to original sin.

Further, Gregory Nazianzen in his fortieth sermon, which is entitled On Holy Baptism, distinguishes three classes of unbaptized persons: those namely who refuse to be baptized, those who through neglect have put off being baptized until the end of life and have been surprised by sudden death, and those who, like infants, have failed to receive it through no fault of theirs. Of the first he says that they will be punished not only for their other sins, but also for their contempt of Baptism; of the second, that they will be punished, though less severely than the first, for having neglected it; and of the last he says that “a just and eternal Judge will consign them neither to heavenly glory nor to the eternal pains of hell, for although they have not been signed with Baptism, they are without wickedness and malice, and have suffered rather than caused their loss of Baptism.” He also gives the reason why, although they do not reach the glory of heaven, they do not therefore suffer the eternal punishment suffered by the damned: “Because there is a mean between the two, since he who deserves not honor and glory is not for that reason worthy of punishment, and on the other hand he who is not deserving of punishment is not for that reason worthy of glory and honor.”

I answer that, Punishment should be proportionate to fault, according to the saying of Isaias (27:8), “In measure against measure, when it shall be cast off, thou shalt judge it.” Now the defect transmitted to us through our origin, and having the character of a sin does not result from the withdrawal or corruption of a good consequent upon human nature by virtue of its principles, but from the withdrawal or corruption of something that had been superadded to nature. Nor does this sin belong to this particular man, except in so far as he has such a nature, that is deprived of this good, which in the ordinary course of things he would have had and would have been able to keep. Wherefore no further punishment is due to him, besides the privation of that end to which the gift withdrawn destined him, which gift human nature is unable of itself to obtain. Now this is the divine vision; and consequently the loss of this vision is the proper and only punishment of original sin after death: because, if any other sensible punishment were inflicted after death for original sin, a man would be punished out of proportion to his guilt, for sensible punishment is inflicted for that which is proper to the person, since a man undergoes sensible punishment in so far as he suffers in his person. Hence, as his guilt did not result from an action of his own, even so neither should he be punished by suffering himself, but only by losing that which his nature was unable to obtain. On the other hand, those who are under sentence for original sin will suffer no loss whatever in other kinds of perfection and goodness which are consequent upon human nature by virtue of its principles.

So the traditional/proper Catholic understanding of Limbo is very “humane” and even beautiful in a sense since the unbaptized enjoys a sort of earthly happiness and does not suffer. There are many who don’t understand this and come off disturbed because they think unbaptized = painful suffering, which is not true.

 

[Fr_of_Jazz]

. . .
It’s a definitive description of a place where an unbaptized person would have to go. They cannot go to Heaven without sanctifying grace, leaving the only option as hell. But they cannot suffer pains unless they’ve committed actual sins to be punished proportionately, so they don’t suffer. This means there is a layer/level/fringe of hell that at least theoretically exists which we call Limbo. BUT this is a very different question than the possibility of unbaptized infants being saved. Though there is nothing definitively taught, theoretically God could apply the grace of baptism to an unbaptized infant and thus give the baby the grace needed to be in Heaven.

In connection with this theoretical possibility it should be mentioned that the International Theological Commission published a document The Hope Of Salvation For Infants Who Die Without Being Baptised. It was, in the words of the preliminary note to the document, “approved in forma specifica by the members of the Commission, and was subsequently submitted to its President, Cardinal William Levada who, upon receiving the approval of the Holy father in an audience granted on January 19, 2007, approved the text for publication.”

It states (§102-103): "Our conclusion is that the many factors that we have considered above give serious theological and liturgical grounds for hope that unbaptised infants who die will be saved and enjoy the Beatific Vision. We emphasise that these are reasons for prayerful hope, rather than grounds for sure knowledge. There is much that simply has not been revealed to us (cf. Jn 16:12). We live by faith and hope in the God of mercy and love who has been revealed to us in Christ, and the Spirit moves us to pray in constant thankfulness and joy (cf. 1 Thess 5:18).

1. What has been revealed to us is that the ordinary way of salvation is by the sacrament of Baptism. None of the above considerations should be taken as qualifying the necessity of Baptism or justifying delay in administering the sacrament. Rather, as we want to reaffirm in conclusion, they provide strong grounds for hope that God will save infants when we have not been able to do for them what we would have wished to do, namely, to baptize them into the faith and life of the Church."

 

[Ron_Conte]

Quoted from above:

The only people who die in a state of original sin “alone” are those who have reached the age of reason and die having committed the mortal sin of omission of failing to seek out baptism.

That cannot be, since to “commit the mortal sin” is in itself an actual sin. Mortal sin is not original sin; the former is volitional (a personal act), while the latter is not (a state of being).

My position is that persons die in a state of “original sin alone” who have had ample opportunity to find sanctifying grace in their lives, through baptism with water or desire (or blood, I suppose), but who, by their own fault and to the extent of an actual mortal sin of omission, fail to obtain sanctifying grace. Though they are not personally culpable for contracting original sin (at conception), they are culpable for not removing original sin by some form of Baptism if they have had ample opportunity. So they are culpable for dying in a state of original sin.

As for prenatals, infants, and young children, as well as persons who are severely mentally disabled, they would receive sanctifying grace from God sometime prior to death.

 

[PRmerger]

And we have the case of the Holy Innocents to back up this view.

'zactly. :yup:

 

[dmar198]

Solutions 2 and 3 both appear to be consistent with the text and do not require denying either one. That is also what we ought to expect, since the current Catholic teaching permits either of them to be believed.

First, it is a stretch to say that Florence is talking about limbo. Infernum usually means the hell of the damned. It does not say “without positive punishment,” but simply “with unequal (i.e., lesser) pains.” Finally, Florence here is pretty much echoing exactly the position of St. Augustine, and St. Augustine clearly believed that unbaptized infants went to hell with all the other damned.

Second, this solution (if the topic is not further nuanced) is a definitive acceptance of the limbo solution to the problem of unbaptized infants, and I would very much like to believe that the salvation of unbaptized infants is a real possibility.

Presumably you’ve read what the other posters on this thread have posted, and thus you’ve seen how Thomas Aquinas interpreted Augustine, and the meaning of “with unequal pains.” That should satisfy your two difficulties: limbo is not excluded by the term “infernum” because limbo is understood as the “edge” of hell, and Augustine’s theory about unbaptized infants, as developed by St. Thomas, allows for unbaptized infants to be in limbo. So that is an acceptable interpretation of Florence, but your third interpretation is permissible as well, and thus we may hope that unbaptized infants are given sanctifying grace before they die – but seemingly it requires us to not interpret Florence as Aquinas did and to instead interpret it in accord with your third option. I only criticize your third option on one ground, which can be corrected without destroying the solution – and that is your statement that it would not be just for God to send someone to Hell for original sin alone. Seemingly, it would be just, since someone in original sin doesn’t have sanctifying grace. If you meant it would be unjust to torment them with sensible torments, on the other hand, then your third solution would be perfect (or anyway so it seems).

 

[Zekariya]

'zactly. :yup:

And we have the case of the Holy Innocents to back up this view.

The Holy Innocents died before the institution of the Church and baptism for the remission of sins. As such, they would be in the same category as the Old Testament saints such as Moses, King David, etc. They would not be an example of infants dying without baptism since baptism at the time did not exist.

 

[PRmerger]

The Holy Innocents died before the institution of the Church and baptism for the remission of sins. As such, they would be in the same category as the Old Testament saints such as Moses, King David, etc. They would not be an example of infants dying without baptism since baptism at the time did not exist.

I am not sure that it is Catholic teaching that baptism is only required for those who lived after the institution of the Church.

The existence of the Holy Innocents is proof, at large, that there are those in heaven who were never baptized with water.

 

[Zekariya]

I am not sure that it is Catholic teaching that baptism is only required for those who lived after the institution of the Church.

The existence of the Holy Innocents is proof, at large, that there are those in heaven who were never baptized with water.

The Old Testament Saint King David committed some grievous mortal sins and was never baptized.

 

[PRmerger]

The Old Testament Saint King David committed some grievous mortal sins and was never baptized.

Exactly. And we proclaim that he is a saint in heaven, even if he was never baptized.

 

[fhansen]

In connection with this theoretical possibility it should be mentioned that the International Theological Commission published a document The Hope Of Salvation For Infants Who Die Without Being Baptised. It was, in the words of the preliminary note to the document, “approved in forma specifica by the members of the Commission, and was subsequently submitted to its President, Cardinal William Levada who, upon receiving the approval of the Holy father in an audience granted on January 19, 2007, approved the text for publication.”

It states (§102-103): "Our conclusion is that the many factors that we have considered above give serious theological and liturgical grounds for hope that unbaptised infants who die will be saved and enjoy the Beatific Vision. We emphasise that these are reasons for prayerful hope, rather than grounds for sure knowledge. There is much that simply has not been revealed to us (cf. Jn 16:12). We live by faith and hope in the God of mercy and love who has been revealed to us in Christ, and the Spirit moves us to pray in constant thankfulness and joy (cf. 1 Thess 5:18).

1. What has been revealed to us is that the ordinary way of salvation is by the sacrament of Baptism. None of the above considerations should be taken as qualifying the necessity of Baptism or justifying delay in administering the sacrament. Rather, as we want to reaffirm in conclusion, they provide strong grounds for hope that God will save infants when we have not been able to do for them what we would have wished to do, namely, to baptize them into the faith and life of the Church."

Yes, based on Gods revelation of Himself, of His nature: His justice, mercy, forgiveness, and love, I can’t help but think Florence may’ve somehow got this one wrong- much as I dislike the thought.