How does Original Sin work?

[Vico]

And interestingly likewise “sin” in connection with “original sin”. It can only be compared with sin proper (mortal sin) in an analogical sense.

Interestingly Aquinas speaks of two types of evil too. Malum culpae and malum poenae.

Does that mean the guilt associated with original sin is similarly different from that associated with sin proper? Possibly, but even if so the word guilt is still validly used it seems. Just as original sin is still validly called sin.

Those terms are from St. Augustine and also used by St. Thomas Aquinas. Evil we do and evil we suffer. St. Thomas Aquinas writes of these two in De malo Q1 A4.

So in humans evil that is due to one’s free will is fault (culpa) and that which is contrary to one’s will is punishment (poena). Now punishment can be medicinal no just as the result of personal sin.

Translation of Latin *reatus *is guilt even though of different types.

reatus, reatus

noun, fourth declension, masculine

Definitions:

• accusation
• charge
• dress of accused
• guilt
• state or condition of being accused

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Those terms are from St. Augustine and also used by St. Thomas Aquinas. Evil we do and evil we suffer. St. Thomas Aquinas writes of these two in De malo Q1 A4.

So in humans evil that is due to one’s free will is fault (culpa) and that which is contrary to one’s will is punishment (poena). Now punishment can be medicinal no just as the result of personal sin.

Translation of Latin *reatus *is guilt even though of different types.

reatus, reatus

noun, fourth declension, masculine

Definitions:

• accusation
• charge
• dress of accused
• guilt
• state or condition of being accused

Is being deprived of the BV a medicinal punishment for unbaptised infants then?
Seems a bit strange. They are not being punished against their will if they are unaware of the BV and therefore cannot will to desire it.

I have always found DeMalo a bit difficult to grasp re Malum Poenae’s proper definition.

 

[Vico]

Is being deprived of the BV a medicinal punishment for unbaptised infants then?
Seems a bit strange. They are not being punished against their will if they are unaware of the BV and therefore cannot will to desire it.

I have always found DeMalo a bit difficult to grasp re Malum Poenae’s proper definition.

Malum poenae is the evil suffered which is different than malum culpae, moral evil (evil in human action).

For St. Thomas Aquinas evil is something that does not have being but is rather an absense of good

We have from St. Augustine that there can be no Beatific Vision withou merit.

Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma (Ludwig Ott) has on p. 114:
In the punishment of Hell theologians distinguish between the “poena damni,” which consists in the exclusion from the Beatific Vision and the “poena sensus” which is caused by external means, and which will be felt by the senses even after the resurrection of the body. While St. Augustine and many Latin Fathers are of the opinion that children dying in original sin must suffer “poena sensus” also, even if only a very mild one (mitissima omnium poena: Enchir. 93) the Greek Fathers (for example, St. Gregory of Nazianzus, Or. 40, 23), and the majority of the Schoolmen and more recent theologians, teach that they suffer “poena danmi” only. The declaration of Pope Innocent III, is in favour of this teaching: Poena originalis peccati est carentia visionis Dei (= poena damni) aetualis vero poena peccati est gehennae perpetuae cruciatus (= poena sensus). Denzinger 410. A condition of natural bliss is compatible with “poena damni.” Cf. St. Thomas, De malo, 5, 3; Sent. IId. 33q. 2a. 2.

Denzinger 410
The Effect of Baptism (and the Character) *

410 (For) they assert that baptism is conferred uselessly on children. . . .

We respond that baptism has taken the place of circumcision. . . .

Therefore as “the soul of the circumcised did not perish from the people” [Gen. 17:4], so “he who has been reborn from water and the Holy Spirit will obtain entrance to the kingdom of heaven” John 3:5]. . . .

Although original sin was remitted by the mystery of circumcision, and the danger of damnation was avoided, nevertheless there was no arriving at the kingdom of heaven, which up to the death of Christ was barred to all. But through the sacrament of baptism the guilt of one made red by the blood of Christ is remitted, and to the kingdom of heaven one also arrives, whose gate the blood of Christ has mercifully opened for His faithful. For God forbid that all children of whom daily so great a multitude die, would perish, but that also for these the merciful God who wishes no one to perish has procured some remedy unto salvation. . . .

As to what opponents say, (namely), that faith or love or other virtues are not infused in children, inasmuch as they do not consent, is absolutely not granted by most. . . .

some asserting that by the power of baptism guilt indeed is remitted to little ones but grace is not conferred; and some indeed saying both that sin is forgiven and that virtues are infused in them as they hold virtues as a possession not as a function, until they arrive at adult age. . . .

We say that a distinction must be made, that sin is twofold: namely, original and actual: original, which is contracted without consent; and actual which is committed with consent. Original, therefore, which is committed without consent, is remitted without consent through the power of the sacrament; but actual, which is contracted with consent, is not mitigated in the slightest without consent. . . .

The punishment of original sin is deprivation of the vision of God, but the punishment of actual sin is the torments of everlasting hell. . .

 

[fhansen]

The punishment of original sin is deprivation of the vision of God, but the punishment of actual sin is the torments of everlasting hell. . .

I wonder if there’s really a difference. I wonder if the essence of hell wouldn’t simply be the eternal deprivation of the vision of God, man’s end, the only thing that could bring complete rest and absolute satisfaction to his soul.

 

[Vico]

I wonder if there’s really a difference. I wonder if the essence of hell wouldn’t simply be the eternal deprivation of the vision of God, man’s end, the only thing that could bring complete rest and absolute satisfaction to his soul.

Denzinger (Sources of Catholic Dogma)

I. COUNCIL OF FLORENCE 1438-1445

Ecumenical XVII, Under Pope Eugenius IV

693 De novissimis] * It has likewise defined, that, if those truly penitent have departed in the love of God, before they have made satisfaction by the worthy fruits of penance for sins of commission and omission, the souls of these are cleansed after death by purgatorial punishments; and so that they may be released from punishments of this kind, the suffrages of the living faithful are of advantage to them, namely, the sacrifices of Masses, prayers, and almsgiving, and other works of piety, which are customarily performed by the faithful for other faithful according to the institutions of the Church. And that the souls of those, who after the reception of baptism have incurred no stain of sin at all, and also those, who after the contraction of the stain of sin whether in their bodies, or when released from the same bodies, as we have said before, are purged, are immediately received into heaven, and see clearly the one and triune God Himself just as He is, yet according to the diversity of merits, one more perfectly than another. Moreover, the souls of those who depart in actual mortal sin or in original sin only, descend immediately into hell but to undergo punishments of different kinds [see n.464].

II. Pope Pius VI

Errors of the Synod of Pistoia*

[Condemned in the Constitution, “Auctorem fidei,” Aug. 28, 1794]

The Punishment of Those Who Die with Original Sin Only

[Baptism, sec. 3]

1526 26. The doctrine which rejects as a Pelagian fable, that place of the lower regions (which the faithful generally designate by the name of the limbo of children) in which the souls of those departing with the sole guilt of original sinare punished with the punishment of the condemned, exclusive of the punishment of fire , just as if, by this very fact, that these who remove the punishment of fire introduced that middle place and state free of guilt and of punishment between the kingdom of God and eternal damnation, such as that about which the Pelagians idly talk,–false, rash, injurious to Catholic schools.

 

[fhansen]

Denzinger (Sources of Catholic Dogma)

I. COUNCIL OF FLORENCE 1438-1445

Ecumenical XVII, Under Pope Eugenius IV

693 De novissimis] * It has likewise defined, that, if those truly penitent have departed in the love of God, before they have made satisfaction by the worthy fruits of penance for sins of commission and omission, the souls of these are cleansed after death by purgatorial punishments; and so that they may be released from punishments of this kind, the suffrages of the living faithful are of advantage to them, namely, the sacrifices of Masses, prayers, and almsgiving, and other works of piety, which are customarily performed by the faithful for other faithful according to the institutions of the Church. And that the souls of those, who after the reception of baptism have incurred no stain of sin at all, and also those, who after the contraction of the stain of sin whether in their bodies, or when released from the same bodies, as we have said before, are purged, are immediately received into heaven, and see clearly the one and triune God Himself just as He is, yet according to the diversity of merits, one more perfectly than another. Moreover, the souls of those who depart in actual mortal sin or in original sin only, descend immediately into hell but to undergo punishments of different kinds [see n.464].

II. Pope Pius VI

Errors of the Synod of Pistoia*

[Condemned in the Constitution, “Auctorem fidei,” Aug. 28, 1794]

The Punishment of Those Who Die with Original Sin Only

[Baptism, sec. 3]

1526 26. The doctrine which rejects as a Pelagian fable, that place of the lower regions (which the faithful generally designate by the name of the limbo of children) in which the souls of those departing with the sole guilt of original sinare punished with the punishment of the condemned, exclusive of the punishment of fire , just as if, by this very fact, that these who remove the punishment of fire introduced that middle place and state free of guilt and of punishment between the kingdom of God and eternal damnation, such as that about which the Pelagians idly talk,–false, rash, injurious to Catholic schools.

Yes, and the Church Is apparently less certain about this now. I think we should feel conflicted by the notion that infants might be damned, denied the very end that they were created for, by being denied remittance of a sin which they didn’t consent to, because of the technicality of missing out on baptism which would’ve otherwise remitted the sin without their consent. That might not be consistent with the God who’s been revealed to us.

 

[grannymh]

I think one needs to believe in the goodness of God.

And once that is accomplished, one should check out the last sentence of CCC 1257 and the first sentence of CCC 1260 and all of CCC 1261. In addition, it is appropriate to learn the meaning of the word deprivation in the context of CCC 405.

 

[Vico]

Yes, and the Church Is apparently less certain about this now. I think we should feel conflicted by the notion that infants might be damned, denied the very end that they were created for, by being denied remittance of a sin which they didn’t consent to, because of the technicality of missing out on baptism which would’ve otherwise remitted the sin without their consent. That might not be consistent with the God who’s been revealed to us.

The Catholic theology of merit is that merit does not mean earning but rather reward. When tempted to sin, there is a reward for successfully cooperating with the grace give by God using free will. That temptation is a test.

Also there are different conceptions about merit.

St Augustine of Hippo: an infant may die without earning either merit or demerit and merit is required for heaven.
Latin tradition: even though an infant has not acted, he is bound with the devil due to no merit. (Stain of original sin: lack of sanctifying grace.)

St Maximus the Confessor: a child may not die without demerit since his first motion was demeritous. For St. Maximos, sin is not only that willed but the condition inherited.
Greek tradition: we have actual sin by the mere fact of our existence.

 

[fhansen]

The Catholic theology of merit is that merit does not mean earning but rather reward. When tempted to sin, there is a reward for successfully cooperating with the grace give by God using free will. That temptation is a test.

Also there are different conceptions about merit.

St Augustine of Hippo: an infant may die without earning either merit or demerit and merit is required for heaven.
Latin tradition: even though an infant has not acted, he is bound with the devil due to no merit. (Stain of original sin: lack of sanctifying grace.)

St Maximus the Confessor: a child may not die without demerit since his first motion was demeritous. For St. Maximos, sin is not only that willed but the condition inherited.
Greek tradition: we have actual sin by the mere fact of our existence.

Neither seem particularly satisfactory. Baptism doesn’t change the fact that an infant cannot merit heaven. And actual sin, according to the Church, would require knowledge and deliberate consent.

God, it seems, would be more just, and more rational, than to condemn a being to eternal punishment for being born in a way he cannot possibly correct. That’s actually tantamount to double predestination for all practical purposes. And I can’t see how living eternally in some sort of half-way state, or state of justice without the BV, could be anything short of punishment for a being whose very purpose revolves around union with God.

 

[Vico]

Neither seem particularly satisfactory. Baptism doesn’t change the fact that an infant cannot merit heaven. And actual sin, according to the Church, would require knowledge and deliberate consent.

God, it seems, would be more just, and more rational, than to condemn a being to eternal punishment for being born in a way he cannot possibly correct. That’s actually tantamount to double predestination for all practical purposes. And I can’t see how living eternally in some sort of half-way state, or state of justice without the BV, could be anything short of punishment for a being whose very purpose revolves around union with God.

A baptized infant does merit heaven! Baptized infants have the initial grace of forgiveness and justification. That justification brings merit necessary for the Beatific Vision.

Catechism
1992 Justification has been merited for us by the Passion of Christ who offered himself on the cross as a living victim, holy and pleasing to God, and whose blood has become the instrument of atonement for the sins of all men. Justification is conferred in Baptism, the sacrament of faith.

2006 The term “merit” refers in general to the recompense owed by a community or a society for the action of one of its members, experienced either as beneficial or harmful, deserving reward or punishment. Merit is relative to the virtue of justice, in conformity with the principle of equality which governs it.

2009 Filial adoption, in making us partakers by grace in the divine nature, can bestow true merit on us as a result of God’s gratuitous justice. This is our right by grace, the full right of love, making us “co-heirs” with Christ and worthy of obtaining “the promised inheritance of eternal life.” (619 Lumen Gentium 48 § 3; Mt 22:13; cf. Heb 9:27; Mt 25:13,26,30,31-46.)…

2010 Since the initiative belongs to God in the order of grace, no one can merit the initial grace of forgiveness and justification, at the beginning of conversion. …

 

[TK421]

Yes, and the Church Is apparently less certain about this now. I think we should feel conflicted by the notion that infants might be damned, denied the very end that they were created for, by being denied remittance of a sin which they didn’t consent to, because of the technicality of missing out on baptism which would’ve otherwise remitted the sin without their consent. That might not be consistent with the God who’s been revealed to us.

@fhansen:

The point is that God always is necessary for us to enjoy the Beatific Vision. This is why we refer to Christ’s entry as “The Ascension”, and Mary’s entry as “The Assumption”, because in the Dormition of Mary - as a creature - she rose to Heaven through the grace & power of God. Heaven is a gift and a perpetual act of love from Creator to creature and then from creature to Creator, and is not something - St Aquinas notes - man has a right to. God can and does prepare Heaven for every single rational soul and for every single angel, and we know this, but just because it is universally given doesn’t change that it is a gift. We can easily take for granted God’s perfect charity and start inventing rights for ourselves, but that isn’t how the divine cosmos works.

So, for an unbaptized infant to go to Heaven, before anything else, it obviously requires divine intervention by God, which ought not to be anything surprising for a well-read Catholic, and it shouldn’t disturb us or cause us to have internal conflict. If we die in Original Sin we would descend into hell, which - broadly speaking - is the place outside of the Beatific Vision, though the punishments are unequal. This was set to rest at the Council of Florence and it is irreversible. I have zero doubt in my mind that the offer of grace is presented to every single soul before they die, regardless of life circumstances.

 

[TK421]

The Council of Florence was not a slam on the door for us to wrestle around, or to shackle God’s all-consuming salvific role on mankind, or for us to wish that it never happened. It defends the necessity of divine grace and the active role God plays, and it would have been gravely problematic to the Church’s doctrinal development if we did not have this Council.

 

[fhansen]

A baptized infant does merit heaven! Baptized infants have the initial grace of forgiveness and justification. That justification brings merit necessary for the Beatific Vision.

Catechism
1992 Justification has been merited for us by the Passion of Christ who offered himself on the cross as a living victim, holy and pleasing to God, and whose blood has become the instrument of atonement for the sins of all men. Justification is conferred in Baptism, the sacrament of faith.

2006 The term “merit” refers in general to the recompense owed by a community or a society for the action of one of its members, experienced either as beneficial or harmful, deserving reward or punishment. Merit is relative to the virtue of justice, in conformity with the principle of equality which governs it.

2009 Filial adoption, in making us partakers by grace in the divine nature, can bestow true merit on us as a result of God’s gratuitous justice. This is our right by grace, the full right of love, making us “co-heirs” with Christ and worthy of obtaining “the promised inheritance of eternal life.” (619 Lumen Gentium 48 § 3; Mt 22:13; cf. Heb 9:27; Mt 25:13,26,30,31-46.)…

2010 Since the initiative belongs to God in the order of grace, no one can merit the initial grace of forgiveness and justification, at the beginning of conversion. …

The main is that, from the standpoint of a just and loving God, it makes little sense that a baptized infant merits heaven without his own *consent *in being justified while an unbaptized infant may merit hell without his *consent *in being unjustified. And St Maximus’s statement makes less sense IMO.

 

[Vico]

The main is that, from the standpoint of a just and loving God, it makes little sense that a baptized infant merits heaven without his own *consent *in being justified while an unbaptized infant may merit hell without his *consent *in being unjustified. And St Maximus’s statement makes less sense IMO.

Well the unbaptized infant does not merit hell but has not merit for heaven. That is why they proposed that there be a natural state of peace without the Beatific Vision.

 

[grannymh]

Well the unbaptized infant does not merit hell but has not merit for heaven. That is why they proposed that there be a natural state of peace without the Beatific Vision.

It is my understanding that “Limbo” is not in the universal* Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition.*

Last sentence of CCC 1257
First sentence of CCC 1260
The entire CCC 1261

INTERNATIONAL THEOLOGICAL COMMISSION
***THE HOPE OF SALVATION FOR INFANTS ***
WHO DIE WITHOUT BEING BAPTISED*

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20070419_un-baptised-infants_en.html

 

[Vico]

It is my understanding that “Limbo” is not in the universal* Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition.*

Last sentence of CCC 1257
First sentence of CCC 1260
The entire CCC 1261

INTERNATIONAL THEOLOGICAL COMMISSION
***THE HOPE OF SALVATION FOR INFANTS ***
WHO DIE WITHOUT BEING BAPTISED*

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20070419_un-baptised-infants_en.html

Limbus infantum or limbus puerorum is neither a prohibited nor required belief.

 

[fhansen]

Well the unbaptized infant does not merit hell but has not merit for heaven. That is why they proposed that there be a natural state of peace without the Beatific Vision.

Yes, as a proposal. Another proposal is CCC1261. The curious thing in a way to me is simply that the Church doesn’t* know *the destiny of unbaptized infants. OTOH, this gives us all the more impetus to baptize them.

 

[Vico]

Yes, as a proposal. Another proposal is CCC1261. The curious thing in a way to me is simply that the Church doesn’t* know *the destiny of unbaptized infants. OTOH, this gives us all the more impetus to baptize them.

In that Catechism entry the Church states certainly that ther is something to “allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism”.

The Catholic Church states that the newborn of a Catholic should be baptised soon after birth (CIC 867) when there is a founded hope that the infant will be brought up in the Catholic religion (CIC 869), or in danger of death (CIC 867), or for an aborted living fetus (CIC 871).

 

[fhansen]

The Catholic Church states that the newborn of a Catholic should be baptised soon after birth (CIC 867) when there is a founded hope that the infant will be brought up in the Catholic religion (CIC 869), or in danger of death (CIC 867), or for an aborted living fetus (CIC 871).

Yes. Thank you

 

[Hunho]

This is the final paragraph of that ITC document:103. 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.[135] 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. **[emphasis added]
In short, the ITC has concluded that this matter is beyond our human understanding and rests solely on the justice, mercy, and grace of God.