Is eternal suffering pointless?

[PumpkinCookie]

1. If anyone denies that by the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ which is conferred in baptism, the guilt of original sin is remitted, or says that the whole of that which belongs to the essence of sin is not taken away, but says that it is only canceled or not imputed, let him be anathema.

For in those who are born again God hates nothing, because there is no condemnation to those who are truly buried together with Christ by baptism unto death,[18] who walk not according to the flesh,[19] but, putting off the old man and putting on the new one who is created according to God,[20] are made innocent, immaculate, pure, guiltless and beloved of God, heirs indeed of God, joint heirs with Christ;[21] so that there is nothing whatever to hinder their entrance into heaven.

But this holy council perceives and confesses that in the one baptized there remains concupiscence or an inclination to sin, which, since it is left for us to wrestle with, cannot injure those who do not acquiesce but resist manfully by the grace of Jesus Christ; indeed, he who shall have striven lawfully shall be crowned.[22]

This concupiscence, which the Apostle sometimes calls sin,[23] the holy council declares the Catholic Church has never understood to be called sin in the sense that it is truly and properly sin in those born again, but in the sense that it is of sin and inclines to sin.

But if anyone is of the contrary opinion, let him be anathema.

This holy council declares, however, that it is not its intention to include in this decree, which deals with original sin, the blessed and immaculate Virgin Mary, the mother of God, but that the constitutions of Pope Sixtus IV, of happy memory, are to be observed under the penalties contained in those constitutions, which it renews.[24]

Everyone is actually guilty of original sin, and baptism is the only solution. No one can disagree and escape the “curse unto damnation” of the Roman Catholic Church. Now, I understand that Trent’s negative formulations and multiple clauses are difficult to understand. But, it is all right there. Even the new (1993) CCC acknowledges we are each guilty of original sin, in the next section of the part quoted above.

 

[Good_Fella]

Everyone is actually guilty of original sin, and baptism is the only solution. No one can disagree and escape the “curse unto damnation” of the Roman Catholic Church. Now, I understand that Trent’s negative formulations and multiple clauses are difficult to understand. But, it is all right there. Even the new (1993) CCC acknowledges we are each guilty of original sin, in the next section of the part quoted above.

To say that all people are “guilty of original sin” is inaccurate. It implies that everyone is guilty in a moral sense and are blameworthy for having contracted this stain of sin. The only sins we are morally responsible for are our own personal sins. The guilt of original sin should be understood in a legal sense, meaning that in our fallen state we are all liable to punishment for our sins which we are inclined to commit. And because we naturally do sin against God, we are indebted to Him. Adam’s personal sin is not imputed to us as if we are morally responsible for his act. However, since we all are inclined to sin because of our innate selfishness, we can say that we are implicated in the sin of Adam (mankind). None of us are born more innocent than the other. We are equally born under the condemnation or curse of the law, for each of us will certainly violate it at some point before we die on account of our inbred selfishness.

When we commit personal sins, we are held morally culpable for them. Adam’s personal sin defines what it means for each human being to offend God. Through temptation we lose our trust in God’s will for our true well-being and happiness. And so we abuse our free will by disobeying God, preferring that which we feel is better and more personally satisfying, and acting on it. Original sin is a state of guilt insofar all human beings are “deprived of the original holiness and justice”. And, according to Catholic teaching, “it does not have the character of a personal fault” in any of us who have descended from Adam. [CCC n.405].

PAX
:heaven:

 

[tonyrey]

It is possible to acknowledge that human beings have an innate tendency to sin and choose self over and against God, without also believing that each human person is born actually guilty of a generic “sin.” The Latin concept of original sin is juridical: we are born in guilt and deserving of everlasting punishment.

The Catechism is quite clear on the subject:

405 Although it is proper to each individual,** original sin does not have the character of a personal fault** in any of Adam’s descendants.

This contrasts with the Jewish concept of yetzer hara or the “evil inclination.” We all feel the internal temptation to benefit ourselves at the expense of others rather than the reverse. Much of the work of our lives is to fight and subdue this inclination so that we will become good human beings, obedient to God.

That is precisely what the Church teaches about original sin:
It is a deprivation of original holiness and justice, but human nature has not been totally corrupted: it is wounded in the natural powers proper to it, subject to ignorance, suffering and the dominion of death, and inclined to sin - **an inclination to evil **that is called concupiscence".

Tremendous evils like WWII, communism in the USSR, abortion, drug addiction, etc, can be explained as the cumulative effect of many selfish and evil people who are technologically advanced and politically organized. We can’t blame only Hitler, Stalin, or “Satan.” Many people had a part to play, and they chose evil. The spectacular evil arises from the common banal evil by way of superior organization and technology. Europeans have hated Jews for centuries, but it was only under the powerful political organization of a modern, technologically advanced Nazi dictatorship that their every-day bigotry and hatred could find expression on such a massive scale. Technology and organization magnify evil…but we can’t forget they also magnify good!!! The same technology that destroyed Hiroshima and Nagasaki provides energy for millions of people to engage in productive internet arguments . The same planes which destroyed thousands of lives at the hands of religious fanatics also bring food, medicine, and supplies to desperate people across the world. They transport refugees to safety. They allow business people to forge productive relationships, and they carry our loved ones home from far off places.

You have already stated:

We all feel the internal temptation to benefit ourselves at the expense of others rather than the reverse. Much of the work of our lives is to fight and subdue this inclination so that we will become good human beings, obedient to God.

This is precisely the result of original sin. Rousseau believed man in his natural state was good and uncorrupted by civilisation but he was clearly wrong. The primitive belief in the need for sacrifice puts paid to that theory because our ancestors felt guilty and their guilt wasn’t fantasy! They had done wrong and realised they had to make amends somehow.

 

[PumpkinCookie]

The Catechism is quite clear on the subject:

405 Although it is proper to each individual,** original sin does not have the character of a personal fault** in any of Adam’s descendants.

Clear as mud! How can sin be “proper to an individual” and not “personal?” Please, flesh this out. I can understand how tax liability or property rights can be “proper to an individual” but not “personal” I suppose, but have no idea what this means when applied to sin.

That is precisely what the Church teaches about original sin:
It is a deprivation of original holiness and justice, but human nature has not been totally corrupted: it is wounded in the natural powers proper to it, subject to ignorance, suffering and the dominion of death, and inclined to sin - **an inclination to evil **that is called concupiscence".

No, “concupiscence” and “original sin” are distinct. Don’t take my word for it, read Trent. “Original sin” causes “concupiscence” but is not identical with it. Every human being is actually guilty of original sin and deserving of endless punishment. Does Trent not say that?

This is precisely the result of original sin. Rousseau believed man in his natural state was good and uncorrupted by civilisation but he was clearly wrong. The primitive belief in the need for sacrifice puts paid to that theory because our ancestors felt guilty and their guilt wasn’t fantasy! They had done wrong and realised they had to make amends somehow.

And Hobbes thought everyone was an evil, selfish, violent monster. Both he and Rousseau were misguided, in my opinion. Our ancestors may have sacrificed to appease angry, capricious Gods. However, all of humanity intuits that children and infants are innocent! Only Christianity, to my knowledge, has posited the outrageous and ghoulish notion that children are guilty and deserving of damnation just for being human! Even the ancient cultures who practiced child sacrifice recognized the innocence and preciousness of children and infants. They sacrificed them precisely because they recognized that they were unblemished and totally innocent offerings.

 

[PumpkinCookie]

To say that all people are “guilty of original sin” is inaccurate… snip… And, according to Catholic teaching, “it does not have the character of a personal fault” in any of us who have descended from Adam. [CCC n.405].

PAX
:heaven:

Read paragraph 5 of the session of Trent I quoted above very carefully. It is full of information that requires careful unpacking. Much of what Trent says is by implication rather than direct declaration. Nonetheless, the implications are clear and unambiguous. It can help to formulate the implications as declarative statements. For instance:

1. If anyone denies that by the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ which is conferred in baptism, the guilt of original sin is remitted, or says that the whole of that which belongs to the essence of sin is not taken away, but says that it is only canceled or not imputed, let him be anathema

This implies that the “guilt of original sin” contains the “whole of that which belongs to the essence of sin” aka moral guilt. Baptism does not merely legally “remit” or “cancel” this actual guilt, but fully “takes it [the guilt] away.”

…But this holy council perceives and confesses that in the one baptized there remains concupiscence or an inclination to sin, which, since it is left for us to wrestle with, cannot injure those who do not acquiesce but resist manfully by the grace of Jesus Christ; indeed, he who shall have striven lawfully shall be crowned.[22]

Concupiscence and the guilt of original sin are distinct. Baptism cures the latter but not the former.

This concupiscence, which the Apostle sometimes calls sin,[23] the holy council declares the Catholic Church has never understood to be called sin in the sense that it is truly and properly sin in those born again, but in the sense that it is of sin and inclines to sin.
But if anyone is of the contrary opinion, let him be anathema.

Here the council acknowledges that Paul’s understanding of “original sin” is blurred in a way that they hope to clarify. Concupiscence is not sin, but this implies that “original sin” is sin for which all of humanity is actually guilty. If not, then why would they not just disavow the term “sin” totally? If I am wrong, please show me precisely how my understanding of Trent is incorrect.

 

[fisherman_carl]

Read paragraph 5 of the session of Trent I quoted above very carefully. It is full of information that requires careful unpacking. Much of what Trent says is by implication rather than direct declaration. Nonetheless, the implications are clear and unambiguous. It can help to formulate the implications as declarative statements. For instance:

This implies that the “guilt of original sin” contains the “whole of that which belongs to the essence of sin” aka moral guilt. Baptism does not merely legally “remit” or “cancel” this actual guilt, but fully “takes it [the guilt] away.”

Concupiscence and the guilt of original sin are distinct. Baptism cures the latter but not the former.

Here the council acknowledges that Paul’s understanding of “original sin” is blurred in a way that they hope to clarify. Concupiscence is not sin, but this implies that “original sin” is sin for which all of humanity is actually guilty. If not, then why would they not just disavow the term “sin” totally? If I am wrong, please show me precisely how my understanding of Trent is incorrect.

My understanding of original sin is as Tony pointed out to you. That is we are not personaly guilty of the sin of Adam and Eve. But, that we have received its effects. In this sense that because we are not isolated individuals but are all connected, part of the family of mankind. There is some mystery to original sin. But, my understanding is that the important thing to take away from it is that it is a fall from grace. So, that origial sin isn’t so much somthing that is passed on, but rather it is what isn’t passed on that is the problem. That original grace that was lost that they enjoyed in the garden. That is where I see the tendency to sin coming in. Because man without God’s grace is incomplete and deprived. This deprivation is what causes man to turn in on himself and sin. This is where Jesus comes to act as a Mediator between us an God and restore us to grace.

 

[fisherman_carl]

Read paragraph 5 of the session of Trent I quoted above very carefully. It is full of information that requires careful unpacking. Much of what Trent says is by implication rather than direct declaration. Nonetheless, the implications are clear and unambiguous. It can help to formulate the implications as declarative statements. For instance:

This implies that the “guilt of original sin” contains the “whole of that which belongs to the essence of sin” aka moral guilt. Baptism does not merely legally “remit” or “cancel” this actual guilt, but fully “takes it [the guilt] away.”

Concupiscence and the guilt of original sin are distinct. Baptism cures the latter but not the former.

Here the council acknowledges that Paul’s understanding of “original sin” is blurred in a way that they hope to clarify. Concupiscence is not sin, but this implies that “original sin” is sin for which all of humanity is actually guilty. If not, then why would they not just disavow the term “sin” totally? If I am wrong, please show me precisely how my understanding of Trent is incorrect.

BTW, just taking snippets of documents is called proof texting and doesn’t prove anything. You have to understand how the Church interprets its own documents rather than trying to make them say what you think they are saying. I’m personally not an expert on the council of Trent, but I do know the Catholic teaching is that we are personally not guilty for the sin of Adam and Eve. There was a show on Catholic Answers that talked about this and that was what the Catholic Apologist had said.

When I read those documents you cite it makes me think of how good and effective Baptism is. The document doesn’t say whose guilt it is. It doesn’t say you are cleansed of your guilt of original sin. How could you be guilty for something you didn’t do? It could be talking about the guilt of Adam and Eve. I must admit I need to look into this further. But, there is a mystery to original sin and we may never fully understand it all in this life. Thank God we are not saved by our knowledge of theology. But, by faith in Christ (and Baptism - Mk 16;16).

 

[Good_Fella]

Read paragraph 5 of the session of Trent I quoted above very carefully. It is full of information that requires careful unpacking. Much of what Trent says is by implication rather than direct declaration. Nonetheless, the implications are clear and unambiguous. It can help to formulate the implications as declarative statements. For instance:

This implies that the “guilt of original sin” contains the “whole of that which belongs to the essence of sin” aka moral guilt. Baptism does not merely legally “remit” or “cancel” this actual guilt, but fully “takes it [the guilt] away.”

That’s because the soul is sanctified. According to the Council of Trent, sanctification is the formal cause of justification. Paul uses the two terms interchangeably. Prenatals and infants have no past personal sins that need to be remitted. So morally they aren’t culpable for any actual sins of their own. But they are deprived of the original justice and holiness which is forfeited by our human condition. Given the chance to develop morally, they will sin by having Adam’s nature (our common human nature). As I see it metaphysically, Adam is the material cause of our contracting the stain of original sin. By our human nature, which we haven’t chosen to acquire, we all fall short of the glory of God. We are born in a state of alienation despite having been created in God’s image which was never lost at the primeval fall of mankind.

In Paragraph 4 of the session we read:

‘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.’

What I highlighted in bold is a mistranslation in the Latin Vulgate of the original Greek in Paul’s letter pointed out in the CCC which can lead to a misunderstanding of what the council intended to decree. This faulty translation makes it appear that we have all sinned in Adam. In other words, we are morally guilty of Adam’s personal sin because we have descended from him. The CCC correctly states by quoting the apostle: '“sin came into the world through one man and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all men sinned.”

Anyway, there is distinction between original sin and actual sin. In essence the former is a primeval state of moral corruption which by nature we are imbrued with by no fault of our own. Thus we are not guilty of it. The latter in essence is a deliberate rejection of God by which we personally do incur moral guilt upon ourselves. John Calvin believed that we inherit Adamic guilt and are in a state of sin upon our conception. Not only do we inherit a sinful nature, but because Adam represents the human race, we inherit his personal guilt by imputation.

Concupiscence and the guilt of original sin are distinct. Baptism cures the latter but not the former.

Despite the lasting effects of original sin, which also include physical suffering and death, because we are inclined to sin and shall sin, we still receive the initial grace of justification and forgiveness by no preceding merit of ours when we are baptized. On account of what Christ has merited for us by his blood, spiritual death is no longer an absolute certainty. For we have been justified and sanctified notwithstanding our sinful inclinations and tendency to sin.

Concupiscence is called sin insofar it is of sin and leads to sin.

Here the council acknowledges that Paul’s understanding of “original sin” is blurred in a way that they hope to clarify. Concupiscence is not sin, but this implies that “original sin” is sin for which all of humanity is actually guilty. If not, then why would they not just disavow the term “sin” totally? If I am wrong, please show me precisely how my understanding of Trent is incorrect.

Original sin is a state or condition and not an act of sin. We are morally responsible only for our own acts which include intentionally prompting others to commit an act of sin. We are morally culpable of an intrinsically evil act by acting in full knowledge of what we are doing is wrong according to our conscience and freely consenting to the act. The state of original sin refers to where we stand justly before God. Jesus died so that the equality of justice between God and mankind would be restored. In our condition we can never hope to restore it by any natural good work of ours apart from God’s grace, for at some point in ours lives “we all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,” so Paul tells us in Romans. Certainly you don’t believe that prenatals and infants have consented with full knowledge to be deprived of the original state of holiness and justice. It isn’t until we have morally matured and are responsible for our actions that we can choose whether to be righteous and act justly by the prevenient grace of God.

:heaven:

 

[fisherman_carl]

Some more points to ponder in regarding the text from the council of Trent. St. Thomas Aquinas writes in the Summa:

“I answer that, There are two things in original sin: one is the privation of original justice; the other is the relation of this privation to the sin of our first parent, from whom it is transmitted to man through his corrupt origin.”

Here is that term again - ‘original justice’. What does that mean?

According to Catholic Culture.org original justice is: “The state of Adam and Eve before they sinned. It was the simultaneous possession of sanctifying grace, with its right to enter heaven, and the preternatural gifts. Had Adam not sinned, original justice would have been transmitted to all his descendants.”

So basically originally justice is having sanctifying grace. That is what they were deprived of after the fall and consequently all who would come after them.

The quote goes on to say : " Later, through repentance, he personally recovered sanctifying grace but not the other prerogatives of original justice. Since Adam, human beings are said to be deprived of original justice."

And continues: " Jesus Christ, the new head of the human race, by his passion and death expiated human sin and regained what Adam had lost. Sanctifying grace is restored at justification,m but the preternatural gifts are returned only as capacities (such as the ability to overcome concupiscence) or only eventually (such as bodily immortality after the final resurrection). "
catholicculture.org/culture/library/dictionary/index.cfm?id=35321

Furthermore, what is this ‘guilt of original sin?’ Does it mean we all share in the personal guilt of Adam and Eve? No. According to Thomas Aquinas:

"On the contrary, Augustine says (Retract. i, 15): “Concupiscence is the guilt of original sin.” "

newadvent.org/summa/2082.htm#article4

He goes into the reasoning behind that:

"I answer that, Everything takes its species from its form: and it has been stated (2) that the species of original sin is taken from its cause. Consequently the formal element of original sin must be considered in respect of the cause of original sin. But contraries have contrary causes. Therefore the cause of original sin must be considered with respect to the cause of original justice, which is opposed to it. Now the whole order of original justice consists in man’s will being subject to God: which subjection, first and chiefly, was in the will, whose function it is to move all the other parts to the end, as stated above (Question 9, Article 1), so that the will being turned away from God, all the other powers of the soul become inordinate. Accordingly the privation of original justice, whereby the will was made subject to God, is the formal element in original sin; while every other disorder of the soul’s powers, is a kind of material element in respect of original sin. Now the inordinateness of the other powers of the soul consists chiefly in their turning inordinately to mutable good; which inordinateness may be called by the general name of concupiscence. Hence original sin is concupiscence, materially, but privation of original justice, formally. "

Which to me the average lay person who doesn’t have a phd in theology means that original sin is the loss of sanctifying grace that our first parents had which resulted in concupiscence or the tendency to sin.

So it follows therefore that Trent is saying that Baptism restores that sanctifying grace (or original justice), but that some of the effects remain temporarily, ie. concupiscence, until that sanctifying grace has a chance to work in a person’s life.

 

[tonyrey]

The Catechism is quite clear on the subject:

It is eminently clear that there are persons without any moral fault - like little children. It is possible for anyone but very difficult, of course, not to have sinned. Guilt certainly cannot be inherited; otherwise the entire human race would have to be put on trial!

That is precisely what the Church teaches about original sin:
It is a deprivation of original holiness and justice, but human nature has not been totally corrupted: it is wounded in the natural powers proper to it, subject to ignorance, suffering and the dominion of death, and inclined to sin - an inclination to evil that is called concupiscence".

No, “concupiscence” and “original sin” are distinct. Don’t take my word for it, read Trent. “Original sin” causes “concupiscence” but is not identical with it. Every human being is actually guilty of original sin and deserving of endless punishment. Does Trent not say that?

No! We have inherited the moral weakness of our ancestors. Concupiscence is simply inordinate desire of any description, not necessarily sexual. In fact the lust for power is often stronger than lust for physical gratification. We are biased in favour of ourselves and we have to struggle to think of others as equal to ourselves. We often behave unreasonably because we tend to be attached to our own point of view and cannot see things objectively. We are often egocentric whether we like to admit it or not but we are not responsible for that weakness until we realise we are discriminating against others even if it is only with our thoughts.

This is precisely the result of original sin. Rousseau believed man in his natural state was good and uncorrupted by civilisation but he was clearly wrong. The primitive belief in the need for sacrifice puts paid to that theory because our ancestors felt guilty and their guilt wasn’t fantasy! They had done wrong and realised they had to make amends somehow.
And Hobbes thought everyone was an evil, selfish, violent monster. Both he and Rousseau were misguided, in my opinion. Our ancestors may have sacrificed to appease angry, capricious Gods. However, all of humanity intuits that children and infants are innocent! Only Christianity, to my knowledge, has posited the outrageous and ghoulish notion that children are guilty and deserving of damnation just for being human!

Repetition does not make a false statement true:

405 Although it is proper to each individual, original sin does not have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam’s descendants.

Even the ancient cultures who practiced child sacrifice recognized the innocence and preciousness of children and infants. They sacrificed them precisely because they recognized that they were unblemished and totally innocent offerings.

Every Christian accepts the truth of Our Lord’s words:

“Suffer children to come to me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God.”

We believe in God’s infinite love for every one whether they have sinned or not and it is not His Will that anyone goes to Hell. Jesus suffered and died on the Cross for everyone even those who reject His teaching and deny He is the Saviour of the world. Whatever we think, say or do nothing can change the fact that we are all blessed with the greatest gift anyone can have:

And I am convinced that nothing can ever separate us from God’s love. Neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons, neither our fears for today nor our worries about tomorrow—not even the powers of hell can separate us from God’s love. No power in the sky above or in the earth below—indeed, nothing in all creation will ever be able to separate us from the love of God that is revealed in Christ Jesus our Lord.

Romans 8:38-39

Thanks be to God…

 

[PumpkinCookie]

Trent trumps both the 1993 Catechism and everything by Aquinas. It is an official, infallible, ecumenical statement of the RCC. If you are Catholic you have to believe it, totally, or you are “cursed unto damnation.” Take a deeper look at paragraph 3:

1. If anyone asserts that this sin of Adam, which in its origin is one, and by propagation, not by imitation, transfused into all, which is in each one as something that is his own, is taken away either by the forces of human nature or by a remedy other than the merit of the one mediator, our Lord Jesus Christ,[9] who has reconciled us to God in his own blood, made unto us justice, sanctification and redemption;[10] or if he denies that that merit of Jesus Christ is applied both to adults and to infants by the sacrament of baptism rightly administered in the form of the Church, let him be anathema; for there is no other name under heaven given to men, whereby we must be saved.[11]

Whence that declaration:
Behold the Lamb of God, behold him who taketh away the sins of the world;[12] and that other:
As many of you as have been baptized, have put on Christ.[13]

From this it can be gathered that:

1. Original sin is deprivation of justice, i.e. GUILT
   …If we’re not deprived of justice (aka guilty) then why would baptism “make unto us justice?”
2. This guilt is “transfused” by propagation (being physically conceived).
   …It is not necessary to be able to make moral choices in order to receive or inherit the guilt via propagation (the sexual action resulting in conception).
3. This guilt is proper to everyone as “something that is his own” i.e. PERSONAL
   …Can this be more clear? We are individually and personally guilty, from the moment of conception.
4. Both infants and adults have this guilt.
   …If infants aren’t guilty…then what does baptism remedy in them specifically, if the council acknowledges that it does not remedy concupiscence???
5. Catholic baptism (whatever the form) is the only remedy for this guilt, always and everywhere, forever.
   …if anyone posits some kind alternative remedy whether it occurs “by forces of human nature” or for any other reason than the atoning blood sacrifice of Jesus they are “cursed unto damnation.”

If they’re not talking about moral guilt…but they later acknowledge that concupiscence is distinct and remains in the soul of a post-baptism believer…then what precisely does baptism remedy??? This is painfully obvious.

Additional clarification: original sin is a special kind of sin that causes moral guilt to be incurred merely by propagation rather than volition. Of course infants cannot be guilty of a real sin, since they cannot make choices and have no moral responsibility. Original sin, however, is the one exception. Everyone is morally guilty of it just by being a human being. We balk against this because it is so outrageous and ridiculous. However, if you pull the pin of original sin from Christian doctrine, the whole thing collapses, unless you believe Pelagius (that Jesus is primarily a good example, not an atoning sacrifice).

Original sin is absolutely inherited guilt as defined by Trent (albeit negatively and indirectly). As a Catholic, you are required to believe that Trent is absolutely and perfectly correct about everything pertaining to doctrine. Aquinas would affirm this, though he lived long before the council. If Trent doesn’t say what I think it does, we’re going to have to go line by line and pull it apart to show specifically why my understanding is incorrect.

 

[PumpkinCookie]

To say that all people are “guilty of original sin” is inaccurate. It implies that everyone is guilty in a moral sense and are blameworthy for having contracted this stain of sin. The only sins we are morally responsible for are our own personal sins. The guilt of original sin should be understood in a legal sense, meaning that in our fallen state we are all liable to punishment for our sins which we are inclined to commit. And because we naturally do sin against God, we are indebted to Him. Adam’s personal sin is not imputed to us as if we are morally responsible for his act. However, since we all are inclined to sin because of our innate selfishness, we can say that we are implicated in the sin of Adam (mankind). None of us are born more innocent than the other. We are equally born under the condemnation or curse of the law, for each of us will certainly violate it at some point before we die on account of our inbred selfishness.

When we commit personal sins, we are held morally culpable for them. Adam’s personal sin defines what it means for each human being to offend God. Through temptation we lose our trust in God’s will for our true well-being and happiness. And so we abuse our free will by disobeying God, preferring that which we feel is better and more personally satisfying, and acting on it. Original sin is a state of guilt insofar all human beings are “deprived of the original holiness and justice”. And, according to Catholic teaching, “it does not have the character of a personal fault” in any of us who have descended from Adam. [CCC n.405].

PAX
:heaven:

I’m sorry, what you have said makes no sense to me. Do people who die in original sin alone go to hell or not? Two other prior infallible ecumencial councils say they do. Why is this, if “those who die in original sin alone” are not guilty in a way that is deserving of punishment? It isn’t that we are guilty of Adam’s personal sin, but rather than we are born into a state of guilt deserving of everlasting punishment due to being conceived as a physical descendant of Adam. We are guilty not merely because we will actually sin at some point in the future, but we are guilty literally just for being human. At least, that is how I understand Trent, Aquinas, and Augustine.

 

[PumpkinCookie]

My understanding of original sin is as Tony pointed out to you. That is we are not personaly guilty of the sin of Adam and Eve. But, that we have received its effects. In this sense that because we are not isolated individuals but are all connected, part of the family of mankind. There is some mystery to original sin. But, my understanding is that the important thing to take away from it is that it is a fall from grace. So, that origial sin isn’t so much somthing that is passed on, but rather it is what isn’t passed on that is the problem. That original grace that was lost that they enjoyed in the garden. That is where I see the tendency to sin coming in. Because man without God’s grace is incomplete and deprived. This deprivation is what causes man to turn in on himself and sin. This is where Jesus comes to act as a Mediator between us an God and restore us to grace.

Yes, we receive the “effects” of original sin (i.e. “concupiscence”) but also the guilt which makes us deserving of endless punishment. Trent specifically makes this distinction! I quoted the topic at length to show this.

 

[PumpkinCookie]

BTW, just taking snippets of documents is called proof texting and doesn’t prove anything. You have to understand how the Church interprets its own documents rather than trying to make them say what you think they are saying. I’m personally not an expert on the council of Trent, but I do know the Catholic teaching is that we are personally not guilty for the sin of Adam and Eve. There was a show on Catholic Answers that talked about this and that was what the Catholic Apologist had said.

When I read those documents you cite it makes me think of how good and effective Baptism is. The document doesn’t say whose guilt it is. It doesn’t say you are cleansed of your guilt of original sin. How could you be guilty for something you didn’t do? It could be talking about the guilt of Adam and Eve. I must admit I need to look into this further. But, there is a mystery to original sin and we may never fully understand it all in this life. Thank God we are not saved by our knowledge of theology. But, by faith in Christ (and Baptism - Mk 16;16).

If citing documents and making comments about them is “proof texting” and “doesn’t prove anything” then no lawyer, scholar, researcher, theologian, or critical commentator has ever made a successful argument about anything. This website is fallible, Catholic Answers apologists are fallible: however Trent is not. It is always and everywhere absolutely correct (according to the RCC).

As I have highlighted above, Trent does say the guilt belongs to each individual as something that is his own. Trent says you can be guilty of something you didn’t do via propagation.

Your statement that we are not saved by our knowledge of theology but rather by faith in Christ and Baptism is itself a statement of theology that must be known in order to be saved (according to you).

 

[PumpkinCookie]

…What I highlighted in bold is a mistranslation in the Latin Vulgate of the original Greek in Paul’s letter pointed out in the CCC which can lead to a misunderstanding of what the council intended to decree. This faulty translation makes it appear that we have all sinned in Adam. In other words, we are morally guilty of Adam’s personal sin because we have descended from him. The CCC correctly states by quoting the apostle: '“sin came into the world through one man and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all men sinned.”

Anyway, there is distinction between original sin and actual sin. In essence the former is a primeval state of moral corruption which by nature we are imbrued with by no fault of our own. Thus we are not guilty of it. The latter in essence is a deliberate rejection of God by which we personally do incur moral guilt upon ourselves. John Calvin believed that we inherit Adamic guilt and are in a state of sin upon our conception. Not only do we inherit a sinful nature, but because Adam represents the human race, we inherit his personal guilt by imputation.

Your skillful mental gymnastics are impressive sir! If we are not guilty of original sin, then how can those who die in original sin alone be deserving of everlasting punishment? If they’re not guilty, then they are innocent. There is no middle ground. Does God punish the innocent, in your view?

Further, Trent says that we “belong the domain of the devil” upon “propagation.” Why would God allow those who are “not guilty” to be ruled by Satan?

Calvin takes the doctrines of original sin and predestination to their logical extremes. He is also wrong, but I’m not arguing here that the RCC is teaching Calvinist total depravity or something. I am just highlighting the RCC’s own teachings.

Original sin is a state or condition and not an act of sin. We are morally responsible only for our own acts which include intentionally prompting others to commit an act of sin. We are morally culpable of an intrinsically evil act by acting in full knowledge of what we are doing is wrong according to our conscience and freely consenting to the act. The state of original sin refers to where we stand justly before God. Jesus died so that the equality of justice between God and mankind would be restored. In our condition we can never hope to restore it by any natural good work of ours apart from God’s grace, for at some point in ours lives “we all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,” so Paul tells us in Romans. Certainly you don’t believe that prenatals and infants have consented with full knowledge to be deprived of the original state of holiness and justice. It isn’t until we have morally matured and are responsible for our actions that we can choose whether to be righteous and act justly by the prevenient grace of God.

I’m sorry, but your view seems unnecessarily nuanced to the point of confusion. We’re born guilty and deserving of everlasting punishment, this is clear via infallible ecumenical teachings. We incur additional wrath due to our actual sins, but the Church is very clear that we are born into wrath. Read Aquinas if you don’t believe Trent. His discussion of the state of souls who die in original sin alone makes no sense if we don’t assume they are actually guilty.

newadvent.org/summa/6001.htm

 

[PumpkinCookie]

Some more points to ponder in regarding the text from the council of Trent. St. Thomas Aquinas writes in the Summa:

“I answer that, There are two things in original sin: one is the privation of original justice; the other is the relation of this privation to the sin of our first parent, from whom it is transmitted to man through his corrupt origin.”

Here is that term again - ‘original justice’. What does that mean?

According to Catholic Culture.org original justice is: “The state of Adam and Eve before they sinned. It was the simultaneous possession of sanctifying grace, with its right to enter heaven, and the preternatural gifts. Had Adam not sinned, original justice would have been transmitted to all his descendants.”

So basically originally justice is having sanctifying grace. That is what they were deprived of after the fall and consequently all who would come after them.

The quote goes on to say : " Later, through repentance, he personally recovered sanctifying grace but not the other prerogatives of original justice. Since Adam, human beings are said to be deprived of original justice."

And continues: " Jesus Christ, the new head of the human race, by his passion and death expiated human sin and regained what Adam had lost. Sanctifying grace is restored at justification,m but the preternatural gifts are returned only as capacities (such as the ability to overcome concupiscence) or only eventually (such as bodily immortality after the final resurrection). "
catholicculture.org/culture/library/dictionary/index.cfm?id=35321

Furthermore, what is this ‘guilt of original sin?’ Does it mean we all share in the personal guilt of Adam and Eve? No. According to Thomas Aquinas:

"On the contrary, Augustine says (Retract. i, 15): “Concupiscence is the guilt of original sin.” "

newadvent.org/summa/2082.htm#article4

He goes into the reasoning behind that:

"I answer that, Everything takes its species from its form: and it has been stated (2) that the species of original sin is taken from its cause. Consequently the formal element of original sin must be considered in respect of the cause of original sin. But contraries have contrary causes. Therefore the cause of original sin must be considered with respect to the cause of original justice, which is opposed to it. Now the whole order of original justice consists in man’s will being subject to God: which subjection, first and chiefly, was in the will, whose function it is to move all the other parts to the end, as stated above (Question 9, Article 1), so that the will being turned away from God, all the other powers of the soul become inordinate. Accordingly the privation of original justice, whereby the will was made subject to God, is the formal element in original sin; while every other disorder of the soul’s powers, is a kind of material element in respect of original sin. Now the inordinateness of the other powers of the soul consists chiefly in their turning inordinately to mutable good; which inordinateness may be called by the general name of concupiscence. Hence original sin is concupiscence, materially, but privation of original justice, formally. "

Which to me the average lay person who doesn’t have a phd in theology means that original sin is the loss of sanctifying grace that our first parents had which resulted in concupiscence or the tendency to sin.

So it follows therefore that Trent is saying that Baptism restores that sanctifying grace (or original justice), but that some of the effects remain temporarily, ie. concupiscence, until that sanctifying grace has a chance to work in a person’s life.

Yes you are correct, we are in agreement. All you have to do now is consider that the negative formulation “privation of justice” is the same as the positive formulation “guilt.”

When a judge hands down a criminal decision in the USA, based on English tradition, he or she says either “guilty” or “not guilty.” The defendant may formulate their plea in a similar manner. However, it is functionally the same thing for the judge to formulate his or her decision in terms of “innocence” or “justice.” You can imagine the judge saying “not just” or “just” instead of “guilty” or “not guilty.” So, as you can see, if we are “deprived of justice” we are also “full of guilt.” They are contraries. Aquinas doesn’t spell this out, but I will. He says:

Therefore the cause of original sin must be considered with respect to the cause of original justice, which is opposed to it.

The opposite cause is original guilt. The cause of original justice is God’s loving act of creation, but the cause of original sin is Adam’s transgression of God’s positive command: Adam is guilty. As he is guilty, so too are we all via propagation.

 

[PumpkinCookie]

It is eminently clear that there are persons without any moral fault - like little children. It is possible for anyone but very difficult, of course, not to have sinned. Guilt certainly cannot be inherited; otherwise the entire human race would have to be put on trial!

Yes tonyrey, we are all on trial, according to the RCC. Except, God has already found us to be guilty just for being born, unless we (or someone on our behalf) accepts Jesus’ sacrificial atonement for our guilt via baptism of some form.

It is clear to me that children are innocent and by no means under the domain of Satan and deserving of everlasting punishment. The RCC disagrees though. Actually, this is one of the biggest reasons I am not a Christian anymore, right here, so please forgive me if I respond in anger or frustration. This is a sore spot for me.

No! We have inherited the moral weakness of our ancestors. Concupiscence is simply inordinate desire of any description, not necessarily sexual. In fact the lust for power is often stronger than lust for physical gratification. We are biased in favour of ourselves and we have to struggle to think of others as equal to ourselves. We often behave unreasonably because we tend to be attached to our own point of view and cannot see things objectively. We are often egocentric whether we like to admit it or not but we are not responsible for that weakness until we realise we are discriminating against others even if it is only with our thoughts.

Please read paragraph 5 again. Trent draws a distinction between the guilt of original sin and concupiscence. Aquinas also explains this distinction. Baptism removes the guilt, but the inclination to sin remains. The inclination itself is not identical with the guilt. The guilt is a separate element. If I’m wrong, please show me exactly where Trent says concupiscence and original sin are the same thing, or explain what Trent is talking about when it says that baptism removes something. What does it remove???

Repetition does not make a false statement true:

405 Although it is proper to each individual, original sin does not have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam’s descendants.

You have to LOL at the irony of this right? I accept that original sin is not due to our own fault or choice. I don’t believe the Church teaches this, and I’ve never argued it. Original sin is not our fault, but nonetheless we are guilty of it via propagation. This is the one sin that we can be guilty of without choosing. Unfair, I know, but it is de fide.

Every Christian accepts the truth of Our Lord’s words:

“Suffer children to come to me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God.”

We believe in God’s infinite love for every one whether they have sinned or not and it is not His Will that anyone goes to Hell. Jesus suffered and died on the Cross for everyone even those who reject His teaching and deny He is the Saviour of the world. Whatever we think, say or do nothing can change the fact that we are all blessed with the greatest gift anyone can have:

Romans 8:38-39

Thanks be to God…

I would write a long response to this but sometimes pithy statements are better:

If the almighty God truly desired everyone to be saved, then they would be. If any are not saved, he does not truly desire it. Every honest theologian acknowledges this.

 

[Good_Fella]

I’m sorry, what you have said makes no sense to me. Do people who die in original sin alone go to hell or not? Two other prior infallible ecumencial councils say they do. Why is this, if “those who die in original sin alone” are not guilty in a way that is deserving of punishment? It isn’t that we are guilty of Adam’s personal sin, but rather than we are born into a state of guilt deserving of everlasting punishment due to being conceived as a physical descendant of Adam. We are guilty not merely because we will actually sin at some point in the future, but we are guilty literally just for being human. At least, that is how I understand Trent, Aquinas, and Augustine.

You haven’t been paying attention. I argued that prenatals and infants who die with only original sin aren’t morally guilty, since original sin is not a committed but contracted sin. Original sin is the fallen state of the soul which is deprived of the original grace of justice and holiness which humanity was created with. The guilt of original sin lies with our natural inclination to sin. Thus only Jesus, in his divinity and humanity, could make that perfect sacrifice of atonement for our sins and make up for our fallen nature. Jesus restored the equality of justice that existed between God and mankind before the fall. So I can’t help but believe that Jesus would have died in vain if prenatals, infants, and young children who died only in original sin went to Hell, especially if they didn’t deserve to be punished for any wicked acts of their own. We read in Revelation that all the dead - the baptised and unbaptised- shall be judged by their deeds. Those whose names are written in the Book of Life are not only those who have received the sacrament of Baptism. The Holy Spirit does operate beyond the actual administration of the sacraments.

For centuries the question has been whether those who die with only original sin can attain the Beatific Vision in Heaven. You’ll have to cite these ecumenical councils which you claim have infallibly defined and declared that all unbaptized souls go to Hell. The truth is that the Magisterium leaves us no unqualified answer to this question. It is even admitted by a theological commission that the Scriptures fail to provide a clear and explicit answer. The Church is hopeful that infants and children below the age of reason who die with only original sin can be saved by the fact that “God desires everyone to be saved”(1 Tim. 2:4). This is God’s antecedent will. His consequent will applies to everyone who either consciously and willingly accepts or rejects Him.

Finally, by your reasoning we can only assume that all the righteous unbaptized people who died before Christ are in Hell. Yet Moses and Elijah appeared with Jesus at his transfiguration.

**From the Second Vatican Council in its Dogmatic Constitution on the Church:

“Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do His will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience–those too can achieve eternal salvation”
[Lumen Gentium, 16]**

This statement implies that unbaptised infants and children who die before the age of reason can also be saved.

PAX
:heaven:

 

[tonyrey]

It is eminently clear that there are persons without any moral fault - like little children. It is possible for anyone but very difficult, of course, not to have sinned. Guilt certainly cannot be inherited; otherwise the entire human race would have to be put on trial!

Nonsense!

405 Although it is proper to each individual, original sin does not have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam’s descendants.

It is clear to me that children are innocent and by no means under the domain of Satan and deserving of everlasting punishment. The RCC disagrees though. Actually, this is one of the biggest reasons I am not a Christian anymore, right here, so please forgive me if I respond in anger or frustration. This is a sore spot for me.

405 Although it is proper to each individual, original sin does not have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam’s descendants.

No! We have inherited the moral weakness of our ancestors. Concupiscence is simply inordinate desire of any description, not necessarily sexual. In fact the lust for power is often stronger than lust for physical gratification. We are biased in favour of ourselves and we have to struggle to think of others as equal to ourselves. We often behave unreasonably because we tend to be attached to our own point of view and cannot see things objectively. We are often egocentric whether we like to admit it or not but we are not responsible for that weakness until we realise we are discriminating against others even if it is only with our thoughts.

Please read paragraph 5 again. Trent draws a distinction between the guilt of original sin and concupiscence. Aquinas also explains this distinction. Baptism removes the guilt, but the inclination to sin remains. The inclination itself is not identical with the guilt. The guilt is a separate element. If I’m wrong, please show me exactly where Trent says concupiscence and original sin are the same thing, or explain what Trent is talking about when it says that baptism removes something. What does it remove???

978 "When we made our first profession of faith while receiving the holy Baptism that cleansed us, the forgiveness we received then was so full and complete that there remained in us absolutely nothing left to efface, neither original sin nor offenses committed by our own will, nor was there left any penalty to suffer in order to expiate them…

Original sin leaves a stain on our souls because we are not isolated individuals. We are not born evil but contaminated by belonging to the human family. We need to be purified by the water of baptism which makes us worthy to enter the kingdom of heaven because Jesus has died for us and liberated us from our slavery. Slaves are not criminals but potential saints! We suffer and die through no fault of our own and it is for that reason Jesus chose to suffer and die like us and for us. We are united to Him if we choose to accept His love and grace. That is all He asks. His love for us is so immense we cannot grasp how wonderful it is. Just one prayer of gratitude is enough to take us heaven but we have to prove we mean it by the way we live. Otherwise we are hypocrites. If we are really grateful we demonstrate it by treating others as if they are our brothers and sisters, not just strangers we happen to meet.

405 Although it is proper to each individual,** original sin does not have the character of a personal fault **

in any of Adam’s descendants.You have to LOL at the irony of this right? I accept that original sin is not due to our own fault or choice. I don’t believe the Church teaches this, and I’ve never argued it. Original sin is not our fault, but nonetheless we are guilty of it via propagation. This is the one sin that we can be guilty of without choosing. Unfair, I know, but it is de fide.

We cannot be guilty of something that does not have the character of a personal fault. At birth we are not sinners but victims of original sin.

Every Christian accepts the truth of Our Lord’s words:

“Suffer children to come to me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God.”

We believe in God’s infinite love for every one whether they have sinned or not and it is not His Will that anyone goes to Hell. Jesus suffered and died on the Cross for everyone even those who reject His teaching and deny He is the Saviour of the world. Whatever we think, say or do nothing can change the fact that we are all blessed with the greatest gift anyone can have:

Romans 8:38-39

Thanks be to God…

I would write a long response to this but sometimes pithy statements are better:

If the almighty God truly desired everyone to be saved, then they would be. If any are not saved, he does not truly desire it. Every honest theologian acknowledges this.

If any are not saved, they do not truly desire it. As far as God is concerned might is not right. He respects our freedom even if we reject His love and choose to say:

“My kingdom come, hallowed be my name, my will be done in hell as it was on earth!”

He wouldn’t have given us free will if He intended to compel us to be good and unselfish. It’s easy to create toadies and sycophants but rather more arduous to create beings in His own image who have the power to defy Him for all eternity. That is a real sacrifice of divine power but then only God is capable of absolutely unselfish love which lasts forever and ever. I think you underestimate the significance of sacrifice…

 

[PumpkinCookie]

Lol, once again I’m in the awkward position of defending Roman Catholic dogma against Pelagianism even though I acknowledge that Pelagius was both more reasonable and likable than Augustine, and I think the whole thing is misguided anyway! Please, read this website. No I am not the author though we are making identical arguments. I sincerely believe that the arguments presented in this thread against my understanding of Trent are Pelagian and heretical for Catholics.
romancatholicism.org/jansenism/original-sin-pelagianism.html