Is eternal suffering pointless?

[jmcrae]

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?

Barring unrevealed divine intervention, they do not go to Heaven. Hell is simply the default destination of all human beings who do not receive the Sacraments of the Catholic Church. There, they are punished for their sins. Those without actual sin would not actually receive any punishment, even though they are in Hell. This condition was referred to as “Limbo”'at one time.

In order to get to Heaven it is essential to become related to God through Jesus Christ. One does this by means of genuine prayer and the Sacraments of Jesus Christ, which we find in the Catholic Church.

The error that many modern people make is to think tat Heaven is the default destination and that you have to actively do something to change it to Hell. Once you realize that, because of whatever Adam did, the default is Hell, the rest of it falls into place.

 

[Michael19682]

It looks like we have encountered a loophole. If unbaptized infants/fetuses die separated from God, then there would be a lot of pointless, eternal suffering.
Original sin in my opinion rekindles the nature vs. nurture debate of human life.
Baptism will not restore the preternatural gifts Adam received but lost.
Therefore, we are a new creature, but our temperaments and concupiscence affect NOT ONLY our natural, individually characterized development and separation (closeness) to God, BUT how we are received and nurtured by the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic group called a Church. Without Baptism, we are guilty of being, ironically,
“too natural” and thus inclined to not see the light of the restoration of our preternatural gifts, which we receive in heaven in their true fullness by God’s grace.
Yet we have said that no one goes to hell unless he so desires.
How can an infant or fetus choose either way?
It would be filled by love and dependency on its mothers womb and or parents. Therefore it dies with the sacramental of our prayers and novenas – for those generous enough to make them.

 

[Vico]

It looks like we have encountered a loophole. If unbaptized infants/fetuses die separated from God, then there would be a lot of pointless, eternal suffering.
Original sin in my opinion rekindles the nature vs. nurture debate of human life.
Baptism will not restore the preternatural gifts Adam received but lost.
Therefore, we are a new creature, but our temperaments and concupiscence affect NOT ONLY our natural, individually characterized development and separation (closeness) to God, BUT how we are received and nurtured by the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic group called a Church. Without Baptism, we are guilty of being, ironically,
“too natural” and thus inclined to not see the light of the restoration of our preternatural gifts, which we receive in heaven in their true fullness by God’s grace.
Yet we have said that no one goes to hell unless he so desires.
How can an infant or fetus choose either way?
It would be filled by love and dependency on its mothers womb and or parents. Therefore it dies with the sacramental of our prayers and novenas – for those generous enough to make them.

The infant cannot choose with reason. The Catholic Church said that there is hope for them, not certainty. We do not know if their souls, at the particular judgment having then the use of reason, will give assent.

The ITC stated in 2007"The conclusion of this study is that there are theological and liturgical reasons to hope that infants who die without baptism may be saved and brought into eternal happiness, even if there is not an explicit teaching on this question found in Revelation."
vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20070419_un-baptised-infants_en.html

Catechism of the Catholic Church ****1261As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus’ tenderness toward children which caused him to say: "Let the children come to me, do not hinder them,"64 allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism. All the more urgent is the Church’s call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy Baptism.

 

[arte]

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

I have been reading through most but not all of the comments on Original Sin. All of the posts that I have read contain quotes from various Catholic sources to support the poster’s side of the debate. Confusion reigns. The only clear point to make is that the information is unclear. Do unbaptised babies and infants go to hell or does God’s mercy rescue them? The rescuing part is a hope and not definite. Is original sin on everyone’s soul or is it the affect of original sin that is transmitted through time to us as in we die and we can sin? Do we need baptism to remove original sin even though baptism does not remove the affect that original sin has on our bodies and souls? We still die and can still commit sins. Unless I missed it, Limbo wasn’t mentioned in any of the posts. Is this because Limbo has never been accepted as official doctrine by the Church in that it is a speculative idea? I read through some of the link that PumpkinCookie provided. It states that Limbo is a heretical Palagian fable. However, as a child in the 1950’s, Limbo was a very important part of Catholic teaching. In primary school, we were all taught how to baptise an unbaptised baby to stop the baby from going to Limbo. I can vividly remember a little girl about 9 years old in our parish baptising a baby just before the baby died. She was quite rightly given celebrity status by the Catholic community.

From my personal viewpoint, original sin does not exist. The reason for my disbelief in original sin is my disbelief in Adam and Eve. I believe that Adam and Eve is a myth. Death entered our World about 13.798 billion years ago when our universe was created by God. Everything dies; galaxies, stars, planets and us. That is the universe that God created. Death has always been with us. Unbaptised babies and infants go directly to Heaven. There is no need for burdensome religious teaching and theology on the matter.

Many thanks PumpkinCookie for providing the link. I read this interesting part which seems (not sure?) to agree with my belief in unbaptised babies and infants going to heaven and my Christian Universalist views on all being saved. “However, medieval Scholastics departed from the doctrine and revived the Limbo heresy of the Pelagians; **“Rome would now admit unbaptised infants to heaven in the universal salvation of all people”. ** The British monk Pelagius seems to have a lot going for him and he lived from AD390-418! I must research him further.

Of interest to me personally was the interaction with Pelagianism of the Patron Saint of my home country, Wales, by Saint David (in Welsh: Dewi Sant). Around AD550, Saint David attended the Synod of Brefi (Wales), where his eloquence in opposing Pelagianism caused his fellow monks to elect him primate of the region.

 

[fisherman_carl]

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:

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.

I have looked and I do not see the terminology that you are using to describe original sin used in Catholic sources that I have seen. You seem to be equating the term privation of justice with guilt. This is an extrapolation that you are making. However, I do not see that terminology being used. According to the Catholic encyclopedia:

“The Council of Trent, although it did not make this solution obligatory by a definition, regarded it with favour and authorized its use (cf. Pallavicini, “Istoria del Concilio di Trento”, vii-ix). Original sin is described not only as the death of the soul (Sess. V, can. ii), but as a “privation of justice that each child contracts at its conception” (Sess. VI, cap. iii). But the Council calls “justice” what we call sanctifying grace (Sess. VI), and as each child should have had personally his own justice so now after the fall he suffers his own privation of justice.”
newadvent.org/cathen/11312a.htm

So in other words, what I have said before the council equates justice with sanctifying grace, (and does not make any association with guilt). It is important that we define our terms properly so that we know what we are talking about. This is a difficult subject made even more complex if we do not have our terms defined properly.

The encyclopedia continues:

“We may add an argument based on the principle of St. Augustine already cited, “the deliberate sin of the first man is the cause of original sin”. This principle is developed by St. Anselm: “the sin of Adam was one thing but the sin of children at their birth is quite another, the former was the cause, the latter is the effect” (De conceptu virginali, xxvi). In a child original sin is distinct from the fault of Adam, it is one of its effects. But which of these effects is it? We shall examine the several effects of Adam’s fault and reject those which cannot be original sin:”

So here the cause of original sin is the sin of Adam. And, the effect is what is passed on to children at birth. It specifically says that “In a child original sin is distinct from the fault of Adam, it is one of its effects”. In other words the the fault of Adam is Adam’s fault. But, the effect of his sin is original sin played out in the child. Thus, the child is not guilty of Adam’s sin. But is victim to its effects. And what are these effects? The encyclopedia goes on to list them in detail as death and suffering, concupiscence, and the absence of sanctifying grace.

No where do I read in there that the child is guilty of the sin of Adam. Rather, I read that the effects of the sin of Adam are passed on to the child. Now, someone may still consider that to be unfair, but the children are not deprived original justice (sanctifying grace) because of their own personal guilt, but because of Adam’s. They just happen to belong to Adam’s family and unfortunately that means share in his fate.

Nonetheless, to end on a positive note, the solution to this problem is Christ as Redeemer and Mediator, to restore us to sanctifying grace.

 

[fisherman_carl]

I have been reading through most but not all of the comments on Original Sin. All of the posts that I have read contain quotes from various Catholic sources to support the poster’s side of the debate. Confusion reigns. The only clear point to make is that the information is unclear. Do unbaptised babies and infants go to hell or does God’s mercy rescue them? The rescuing part is a hope and not definite. Is original sin on everyone’s soul or is it the affect of original sin that is transmitted through time to us as in we die and we can sin? Do we need baptism to remove original sin even though baptism does not remove the affect that original sin has on our bodies and souls? We still die and can still commit sins. Unless I missed it, Limbo wasn’t mentioned in any of the posts. Is this because Limbo has never been accepted as official doctrine by the Church in that it is a speculative idea? I read through some of the link that PumpkinCookie provided. It states that Limbo is a heretical Palagian fable. However, as a child in the 1950’s, Limbo was a very important part of Catholic teaching. In primary school, we were all taught how to baptise an unbaptised baby to stop the baby from going to Limbo. I can vividly remember a little girl about 9 years old in our parish baptising a baby just before the baby died. She was quite rightly given celebrity status by the Catholic community.

From my personal viewpoint, original sin does not exist. The reason for my disbelief in original sin is my disbelief in Adam and Eve. I believe that Adam and Eve is a myth. Death entered our World about 13.798 billion years ago when our universe was created by God. Everything dies; galaxies, stars, planets and us. That is the universe that God created. Death has always been with us. Unbaptised babies and infants go directly to Heaven. There is no need for burdensome religious teaching and theology on the matter.

Many thanks PumpkinCookie for providing the link. I read this interesting part which seems (not sure?) to agree with my belief in unbaptised babies and infants going to heaven and my Christian Universalist views on all being saved. “However, medieval Scholastics departed from the doctrine and revived the Limbo heresy of the Pelagians; **“Rome would now admit unbaptised infants to heaven in the universal salvation of all people”. ** The British monk Pelagius seems to have a lot going for him and he lived from AD390-418! I must research him further.

Of interest to me personally was the interaction with Pelagianism of the Patron Saint of my home country, Wales, by Saint David (in Welsh: Dewi Sant). Around AD550, Saint David attended the Synod of Brefi (Wales), where his eloquence in opposing Pelagianism caused his fellow monks to elect him primate of the region.

I have a theory about original sin and death. First of all although Evolution suggests that death was always a part of life I would go further and say that anything that is made up of matter or material has the potential to die because it is made up of parts. And, anything that is composed of parts has the potential for those parts to come apart which means either suffering or death. Given the law of entropy it would suggest that all material beings would eventually suffer degradation or death.

Now, how do I reconcile that with Adam and Eve. First off the Church states that it is permissible to believe that the bodies of Adam and Eve were made through some evolutionary process directed by God. But, that at some point God put a human soul in his chosen Adam and Eve. Can we reconcile this with Genesis? If we look at the creation story we see that God created man from the earth. Thus, he was not created out of nothing, but from existing material. This is compatible with the view that his body was evolved in some way. Second, the creation story says that after he created man then he placed him in the garden. Thus, this could mean that in the garden man was protected from death by grace. However, during the evolutionary stage outside the garden this may not have been the case. But, in the garden God protected man from entropy and material degradation by grace. When man was expelled from the garden and lost that grace he was no longer under that protection from death.

 

[Good_Fella]

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?

You are raising questions based on the faulty assumption that the Catholic Church teaches “original guilt” rather than “original sin”. Let’s finally settle the matter by re-examining Session V, 5 of the Council of Trent.

“If any one denies, that, by the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, which is conferred in baptism,** the reatum of original sin is remitted**; or even asserts that the whole of that which has the true and proper nature of sin is not taken away; but says that it is only razed, or not imputed; let him be anathema.”

I discovered that many English translations of this anathema inaccurately read “the guilt of original sin is remitted”. The original Latin of the Council reads “reatum originalis peccati remitti.” The term “reatus” does not mean “guilt” in the strict sense. In Roman law “reatus” means liable to, indicted, or a penal sentence. The Latin word “culpa” means an actual act of wrongdoing.

Reatus refers to the state that accrues as a consequence of a culpa. The following two words have been adopted by the Catholic Church:

Reatus culpa is guilt associated with the sentence (that is, culpability)

Reatus poena is the penalty of the sentence (the word penalty comes from poena); we receive only the penalty of sin (reatus poena) which by definition of the Church is the loss of sanctifying grace and the preternatural gifts, suffering, and death.

If a person commits armed robbery, the ‘reatus culpa’ would be his personal act of robbing someone. He could be declared guilty of committing armed robbery. The ‘reatus poena’ would be the penalty or sentence passed by the judge associated with the crime. In this case, he might end up serving ten years in prison. Regarding Adam and Eve, they incurred both the personal guilt (reatus culpa) of original sin and the penalty (reatus poena). All their descendants from the time they are conceived in the womb are not guilty of eating the forbidden fruit, but they do receive the penalty (reatus poena) of this sin. Human beings are not penalized for this sin. But once they attain reason and are morally responsible for their actions. they universally do in fact commit sins and incur personal guilt (reatus culpa).

Now there are Catholic theologians who use the word ‘culpa’ when referring to original sin. But the word is usually qualified as ‘culpa contracta’ which does not mean personal guilt, but guilt by association. All babies who are born are naturally capable of committing their first sin and countless other personal sins once they have attained the age of reason and moral responsibility. It is this state of nature which we have inherited from Adam and Eve that alienates us from God and incurs the divine justice. This is the middle ground between total innocence and total depravity.

Calvin takes the doctrines of original sin and predestination to their logical extremes.

You might understand what Calvin taught, but you surely don’t understand what the Catholic Church teaches.

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

How paradoxical it may sound, there is a subtle distinction between being actually guilty and in a state of guilt by implication. Original sin is a state of guilt insofar as the soul is deprived of sanctifying grace, and thus cannot see God. However, since unbaptised children haven’t voluntarily committed any personal sins, they cannot justly be punished in the fires of Hell. If they should die before being baptized and restored to God’s grace, they might still exist in a realm of natural, perfect beatitude, but apart from God’s immediate supernatural presence. These souls receive no pain of sense or loss, but because they lack sanctifying grace they cannot see the vision of God as the baptised souls of the saints in Heaven do. This natural realm of perfect happiness is what the Catholic Church calls Limbo. This has been the majority position in the history of the Catholic Church held by the greatest Doctors and theologians from St. Anselm through Pope St. Pius X, including St. Thomas Aquinas.

newadvent.org/summa/5069.htm#article6

This is what Aquinas has to say about being saved through ‘baptism by desire’.

newadvent.org/summa/4068.htm#article2

PAX
:heaven:

 

[tonyrey]

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

Labels are not an adequate substitute for facts…

 

[Good_Fella]

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?

It could be because we are guilty by association. In Mexico there are mothers who are confined to prison along with their young children, since there is no one else to look after them. By analogy, we may liken them to Eve. A mother may have committed robbery or engaged in drug trafficking (reatus culpa). Because of her crime, she may be sentenced for up to ten years (reatus poena) under the rule of the warden. Although her five year old son never committed either of these crimes with his mother, he nevertheless must pay the penalty as a consequence of her act by being in prison with her (reatus poena) until she is either released or he is old enough to take care of himself. He is guilty by association, implicated in his mother’s criminal offense. Still he isn’t necessarily more innocent than his mother or entirely removed from guilt ontologically. There is the possibility that when he grows up he too will commit a crime (reatus culpa) and be sent to prison (reatus poena). Not unlike his mother, he too might then be tempted to commit a crime for personal gain and stands under condemnation of the law.

*PAX *
:heaven:

 

[Vico]

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:

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.

Concupiscence, which is the result of the first sin, is the loss of the preternatural gift of integrity that God gave to mankind. The loss of sanctifying grace is a different, supernatural gift, that we are not born with, which is also termed the “stain of original sin”.

Catholic and Orthodox reject the idea that humanity has inherited the* personal guilt* of Adam and Eve. CCC 404 - “original sin is called “sin” only in an analogical sense: it is a sin “contracted” and not “committed” - a state and not an act.”

How is original sin transmitted? CCC 404 “404 How did the sin of Adam become the sin of all his descendants? The whole human race is in Adam “as one body of one man”. 293 By this “unity of the human race” all men are implicated in Adam’s sin, as all are implicated in Christ’s justice. Still, the transmission of original sin is a mystery that we cannot fully understand. But we do know by Revelation that Adam had received original holiness and justice not for himself alone, but for all human nature.”

The Latin Church has used two terms associated with guilt:

• reatus culpae - personal guilt, the actual sin of Adam and Eve
• reatus poenae - the inherited consequences of the sin of Adam and Eve by those with no personal guilt. Only the consequence of lack of sanctifying grace at birth (for which we must be baptized) is known as the stain of original sin. There are other consequences besides the stain of original sin.

Orthodox do not use these Latin terms, but do share with the west that there is personal guilt of Adam and Eve, and consequences of the sin of Adam and Eve. All must be baptized for justification.

St. John Chrysostom, Baptismal Instruction 3:6. (Ancient Christian Writers, p. 57) “You have seen how numerous are the gifts of baptism. Although many men think that the only gift it confers is the remission of sins, we have counted its honors to the number of ten. It is on this account that we baptize even infants, although they are sinless, that they may be given the further gifts of sanctification, justice, filial adoption, and inheritance, that they may be brothers and members of Christ, and become dwelling places of the Spirit.”
Baptismal Instruction 12:6:“You are called faithful both because you believe in God and have as a trust from him justification, sanctity, purity of soul, filial adoption, and the kingdom of heaven.”

 

[Michael19682]

The Holy Innocents are called innocent for a reason. I think they must be the type of the suffering endured by unbaptized infants who die. To claim otherwise would be heretical. Babies [that die] die with love for and dependency on their mother. How could their hearts harbor rejection of God, their own loving father?

These technical passages quoted are obviously historical attempts to walk the fine line balance between the final need for baptism to wash clean our sins, and the position that babies should be baptized. Protestant Churches as we know do not baptize infants. Yet they also recognize the need for baptism. As the evangelical device, i.e., the title of the passage shows, babies are innocent en masse.
This innocence can be used to emphasize their innocence and to postpone baptism in a gamble that they will survive. It can also be used to see the urgent demand that life continues as normative as possible at as early an age as possible.
Which of the two approaches leads to a greater tolerance for future deviance is obvious. The Protestants are clear: Salvation and damnation are either/or genetic?

 

[Aloysium]

:twocents:

There are sharks in these waters, so I should be careful as to how I say things.

Lets start with the observation that there are lots of rooms in God’s house.

It is God’s will that I did not die an infant. As innocent and joyful as are their smiles, as wondrous their world of experience as it unfolds, they will not experience God as will someone who has lived a full life. I have always been me and I suppose even in the womb, I might have given myself to God

One’s struggles, the successes, failures, happiness and despair, the relationships with others and ultimately God, transforms one into who one is. This being whom we individually become as part of the human body, is created through our choices in time and for all eternity. Judgement is the reality that Is oneself, whether it is called being in heaven, hell or limbo, in relation to God.

Heaven and hell may be understood as sort of metaphysical places, but they are labels describing the nature of one’s relationship with God and the rest of His creation.

 

[PumpkinCookie]

Ok, if people want to re-define “deprived of justice” into “deprived of sanctifying grace” that is fine.

1. Those who die in original sin slone die “deprived of sanctifying grace.”
2. Only those who are in a state of “sanctifying grace” can go to heaven.
3. Therefore, those who die in original sin alone cannot go to heaven.
4. The only permanent option to heaven is hell.
5. Therefore those who cannot go to heaven go to hell.
6. Some infants, prenatals, children, and simpletons die in original sin alone.
7. Therefore, it follows from the conclusions above that they are or will be in hell.

Since the second council of Lyons has dogmatically defined the state of hell as “punishment” for both those who die inmortal sin as well as original sin alone, it follows that many infants, prenatals, children, and simpletons are punished forever for nothing other thsn having been conceived.

This is really quite obvious and simple. It is horrendous, disgusting, and ridiculous but I truly believe it is de fide teaching.

 

[fisherman_carl]

Ok, if people want to re-define “deprived of justice” into “deprived of sanctifying grace” that is fine.

1. Those who die in original sin slone die “deprived of sanctifying grace.”
2. Only those who are in a state of “sanctifying grace” can go to heaven.
3. Therefore, those who die in original sin alone cannot go to heaven.
4. The only permanent option to heaven is hell.
5. Therefore those who cannot go to heaven go to hell.
6. Some infants, prenatals, children, and simpletons die in original sin alone.
7. Therefore, it follows from the conclusions above that they are or will be in hell.

Since the second council of Lyons has dogmatically defined the state of hell as “punishment” for both those who die inmortal sin as well as original sin alone, it follows that many infants, prenatals, children, and simpletons are punished forever for nothing other thsn having been conceived.

This is really quite obvious and simple. It is horrendous, disgusting, and ridiculous but I truly believe it is de fide teaching.

Ok, I think what you have wrote here is more correct as far as a possible Catholic view. I think for instance St. Thomas Aquinas would agree with what you wrote (except for the “disgusting, and ridiculous” part). However, the terms that you have wrote may still have a different meaning than you realize to someone like St. Thomas Aquinas. For instance, the word ‘hell’ is often thought of as meaning the hell of the damned by most people today. However, in Aquinas’ day it meant the ‘underworld’ or the ‘netherworld’. This place included the abode of the damned, but it also included 3 other places as well. There is also Purgatory, which is one level up from this, and is also a place of suffering. However, the people there will eventually be in heaven. Then there is the Limbo of the Fathers which is considered to be a natural paradise that the saints of the OT went to after they died, awaiting for their redemption. Then there was the limbo of the children which was considered to be on the very outskirts of hell and a place of natural paradise. Where angels ministered to them and they are perfectly content. This was believed to be a place where it was thought unbaptized babies went. The difference between this place and heaven is that heaven is a supernatural paradise, whereas the limbo of the children was a natural paradise. It was thought by Aquinas that only those with sanctifying grace can have the beatific vision (ie. heaven) because man in his natural state is not able to do it on his own. He needs help from supernatural grace in order to participate in the supernatural beatific vision of God.

So you can see the English word ‘hell’ described a number of places. It is less confusing in Greek or Latin because they each have their own name. But, in English the word ‘hell’ was used to describe them all. For more info see this video by Dr. Taylor Marshall: youtu.be/oP8_Cx0Osd0

 

[fisherman_carl]

The reality of things may be different than what Aquinas envisioned. I heard he had a vision of God before he died and said that he felt that everything he had written was like straw compared to the reality. Also, I have heard of near death experiences where people say they have met their relatives in heaven who had died as stillborn. That boy that went to heaven for instance, met his sibling there, - there was a movie about it - called “heaven is for real”. So, we won’t know for sure until we get there.

 

[Michael19682]

Ok, if people want to re-define “deprived of justice” into “deprived of sanctifying grace” that is fine.

1. Those who die in original sin slone die “deprived of sanctifying grace.”
2. Only those who are in a state of “sanctifying grace” can go to heaven.
3. Therefore, those who die in original sin alone cannot go to heaven.
4. The only permanent option to heaven is hell.
5. Therefore those who cannot go to heaven go to hell.
6. Some infants, prenatals, children, and simpletons die in original sin alone.
7. Therefore, it follows from the conclusions above that they are or will be in hell.

Since the second council of Lyons has dogmatically defined the state of hell as “punishment” for both those who die inmortal sin as well as original sin alone, it follows that many infants, prenatals, children, and simpletons are punished forever for nothing other thsn having been conceived.

This is really quite obvious and simple. It is horrendous, disgusting, and ridiculous but I truly believe it is de fide teaching.

The condition of hell is so serious and grave that warnings can’t be soft enough. Without the council’s warning, you have a situation where mortally wounding a baby could be construed as a act sending it directly to heaven. The consequences are unthinkable! I think we have to be mature here and not get overly obsessive about the main point – and this will entail coping personally with ambiguous talk and uncomfortable feelings. ** I’m not sure that modifying the entire doctrine on hell and sin would result in any less bloodshed or sin. In fact, I think it would be worse? ** Do you have evidence suggesting that the immediately above is not true?
Consider what Jesus said about the coming persecution. People get the wrong message and before you know it there is mayhem.

Jn 16:1-2

1 “I have told you this so that you may not fall away.
2 They will expel you from the synagogues; in fact, the hour is coming when everyone who kills you will think he is offering worship to God.
3 They will do this because they have not known either the Father or me.
4 I have told you this so that when their hour comes you may remember that I told you.

 

[Good_Fella]

Since the second council of Lyons has dogmatically defined the state of hell as “punishment” for both those who die inmortal sin as well as original sin alone, it follows that many infants, prenatals, children, and simpletons are punished forever for nothing other thsn having been conceived.

This is really quite obvious and simple. It is horrendous, disgusting, and ridiculous but I truly believe it is de fide teaching.

**Nothing impure will ever enter it [Heaven] nor will anyone who does what is shameful or deceitful, but only those whose names are written in the Lamb’s book of life.
Revelation 21, 27

Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity,
and in sin did my mother conceive me.
Psalm 51, 5

“He saved us by the washing of regeneration and renewal in the Holy Spirit, which He poured out on us richly through Jesus Christ, so that we might be justified by His grace and become heirs of eternal life.” *
Titus 3, 5-7*

“The souls of those who die in mortal sin or with original sin only, however, immediately descend to hell, yet to be punished with different punishments.”
Council of Lyons ll

"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.”
Council of Florence

What the fathers of the councils are affirming is that the unjustified souls which are deprived of sanctification cannot enter Heaven. This is a divine truth which belongs to the deposit of faith which the Magisterium of the Church must abide by as the custodians of the faith. Moreover, they declare that the punishments of Hell are unequal, meaning that they fit the culpability that each person has for unrepentant sins. In other words, these souls are eternally punished as they justly deserve to be by measure of culpability. And they also affirm, in accord with the deposit of faith, that Baptism is salvific; no unclean soul can enter Heaven unless it is washed by the regenerating water of the sacrament. In the words of St. Paul: " And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God" (1 Cor. 6:11).

Still prenatals, infants, children below the age of reason, and adolescents and adults who die with only venial sins on their souls can be saved at least by having been baptised informally. In mediaeval time and in the middle ages, the Church believed in the informal baptism by desire (the Patriarchs) and by blood (the holy innocents). A person who dies without having received any of these forms of baptism dies in original sin alone and, therefore, cannot enter Heaven. Aquinas attested to the Church’s belief that those who die with only venial sins on their soul but have been baptised by desire, which is evident that their souls aren’t tainted with any unrepentant mortal sins, must pass through Purgatory, where the souls of the saved must be purged and cleansed by having their bad works consumed by fire. But Purgatory is temporal, and the suffering there doesn’t remotely compare with the everlasting suffering of the damned in Hell where there isn’t even any hope of release that would mitigate the suffering of these lost souls - the greatest pain being the sense of having been separated from God: His perfect love and goodness. The Catholic Church has always taught that only the souls which deserve to be in Hell are eternally consigned there. We read in Scripture that God takes no delight in the (spiritual) death of any person. He implores that we choose “life” and not “death” so that we will “live”. Hell is for those who prefer to lead wicked lives rather than righteous lives. (Eke. 18: 23-24; Deut. 30:18-20).

Hence, the fathers of the councils did not declare anything unqualifiedly with regard to the souls that die only in original sin. There is hope for these souls who don’t deserve to be punished forever in Hell because of unrepentant mortal sins. And these souls can be saved by baptism of desire. Final Impenitence is the unpardonable sin against the Holy Spirit. Surely prenatals, infants, and children below the age of reason don’t deserve to go to Hell and probably not even Purgatory. But to enter Heaven, their souls must be sanctified and justified by being baptised in Christ’s redeeming blood, since they too are implicated in the sin of Adam and Eve. God has revealed that no impure soul can enter Heaven. Sin and death have been passed down to all of Adam and Eve’s descendants (Rom. 5:9,12). Thankfully, “God gave Himself as a ransom for all”, since He “desires that everyone be saved” (1 Tim 2:4-6). The fathers of the councils were well-versed in the Scriptures which serve as the objective norm for any magisterial declaration and definition of the faith. We should be careful in how we interpret any magisterial document for ourselves.

Strive for peace with all men, and for the holiness without which no one will see the Lord.
Hebrews 12, 14

PAX
:heaven:

 

[Vico]

Ok, if people want to re-define “deprived of justice” into “deprived of sanctifying grace” that is fine.

1. Those who die in original sin slone die “deprived of sanctifying grace.”
2. Only those who are in a state of “sanctifying grace” can go to heaven.
3. Therefore, those who die in original sin alone cannot go to heaven.
4. The only permanent option to heaven is hell.
5. Therefore those who cannot go to heaven go to hell.
6. Some infants, prenatals, children, and simpletons die in original sin alone.
7. Therefore, it follows from the conclusions above that they are or will be in hell.

Since the second council of Lyons has dogmatically defined the state of hell as “punishment” for both those who die inmortal sin as well as original sin alone, it follows that many infants, prenatals, children, and simpletons are punished forever for nothing other thsn having been conceived.

This is really quite obvious and simple. It is horrendous, disgusting, and ridiculous but I truly believe it is de fide teaching.

Those you mentioned as “Some infants, prenatals, children, and simpletons die in original sin alone” are not destined for the torments of everlasting hell according to Pope Innocent III.

Pope Innocent III (1206)
“The punishment of original sin is deprivation of the vision of God, but the punishment of actual sin is the torments of everlasting hell.” (Denzinger 410)
patristica.net/denzinger/#n400

**Catechism of the Catholic Church ****1261 **As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus’ tenderness toward children which caused him to say: “Let the children come to me, do not hinder them,” 64 allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism. All the more urgent is the Church’s call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy Baptism.
64 Mk 10 14; cf. 1 Tim 2:4.

Cardinal Ratzinger speculated in 2000:Now, certainly, the state of original sin, from which we are freed by baptism, consists in a lack of sanctifying grace. Children who die in this way are indeed without any personal sin, so they cannot be sent to hell, but, on the other hand, they lack sanctifying grace and thus the potential for beholding God that this bestows. They will simply enjoy a state of natural blessedness, in which they will be happy. This state people called limbo. In the course of our century, that has gradually come to seem problematic to us. This was one way in which people sought to justify the necessity of baptizing infants as early as possible, but the solution is itself questionable. Finally, the Pope [John Paul II] made a decisive turn in the encyclical Evangelium Vitae, a change already anticipated by the Catechism of the Catholic Church, when he expressed the simple hope that God is powerful enough to draw to himself all those who were unable to receive the sacrament. (God and the World, 2002, pp. 401-402 - original German Gott und die Welt, 2000)

 

[arte]

It’s important to not think of God as a bigger version of oneself. Independent philosophical considerations are irrelevant when compared to revelation. Basically, the argument goes: “If I can’t understand it [Hell], God must not be saying it”. That is backwards, though. In Islam, we don’t believe that carnal reasoning trumps revelation; revelation trumps it in every case.

It comes down to pride, in my view. Sin has been gutted and man no longer thinks his sin is a big deal. It makes us uncomfortable, so we try to explain it away with our own points and counter-points; and on and on it goes. None of that is how meaningful theology is done. Theology is only as good as its obediance to Allah’s revelation (which, I believe, is the Qur’an).

I am not sure whether you are still on this thread. I have only just read your comment otherwise I would have replied earlier.

Human reasoning can certainly trump revelation when it is obvious to humans that the revelation is seriously flawed. In cases like this, the revelation was likely not a revelation in the first place or it had been incorrectly translated. Just because it is written in the Bible or the Quran does not mean that it is flawless. No religious books are inerrant including the Bible and the Quran. At the end of the day, human beings wrote down the “revelations” even if it is said that they were guided by a higher being.

Of course, human language is limited when it’s used to describe higher truths. That is one of the reasons why prophets have come; so that we may see, on a practical level, how spirituality is lived out. God knows what I mean to say even before I say it. The Qur’an says “And We have already created man and know what his soul whispers to him, and We are closer to him than [his] jugular vein” [surah 50:16] (Allah is using the royal We, as is often the case).

I don’t believe philosophy and/or natural reasoning is necessarily corrupt-- rather, I believe that it’s inferior to theology. There have been some excellent philosophers throughout history, but, from an Islamic perspective, they were good philosophers because they affirmed Islamic theology. In other words, their theology was the measuring stick by which they deciphered wrong from right.

If they were only good philosophers because they affirmed Islamic theology, then you are using circular reasoning. Therefore, by your reasoning, if philosophers disagree with Islamic theology, they are bad philosophers. Am I correct?

If I commit rape, it may only take 15 minutes to do. However, the punishment I get should be much more than a 15 minute punishment. Because of how severe the crime of rape is, it deserves a severe punishment, like say, 20 years [or more] in prison. Because of how evil rape is, even though I was only breaking the law for 15 minutes, I deserve to be locked away for much longer.

Yes, it is logical to receive a 20 year jail sentence for a very serious crime like rape even if it only lasts 15 minutes. I can kill someone with a gun in a microsecond but it is still logical to be awarded a life sentence without parole or 35 to 40 years in prison because it is a far worse crime than rape.

Such is the case with living a life of sin. Even though persons live for a relatively short amount of time, the crime of sinning against God is severe enough to warrant damnation. He’s worthy of more praise then we could ever give. We could never number all the blessings He gives. Let me finish by saying that, categorically, I don’t get any joy from believing that certain persons deserve to go to Hell. I don’t want people to go there.

You do the crime; you do the time. The time you spend in punishment is directly proportional to the seriousness of the crimes and the number of crimes committed. If someone lives a life of sin which lasts say 70 years then 10,000 years or longer in jail in the afterlife would be logical and acceptable. Surely an omnipotent being, Allah, who is capable of creating a whole universe, can understand proportionality in criminal law! Furthermore, even if the sins are against Allah, surely He can handle sins against him much better than we can. If He cannot, then He is isn’t much of an omnipotent being and Father of His creation/children.

 

[PumpkinCookie]

The condition of hell is so serious and grave that warnings can’t be soft enough. Without the council’s warning, you have a situation where mortally wounding a baby could be construed as a act sending it directly to heaven. The consequences are unthinkable! I think we have to be mature here and not get overly obsessive about the main point – and this will entail coping personally with ambiguous talk and uncomfortable feelings. ** I’m not sure that modifying the entire doctrine on hell and sin would result in any less bloodshed or sin. In fact, I think it would be worse? ** Do you have evidence suggesting that the immediately above is not true?
Consider what Jesus said about the coming persecution. People get the wrong message and before you know it there is mayhem.

Jn 16:1-2

1 “I have told you this so that you may not fall away.
2 They will expel you from the synagogues; in fact, the hour is coming when everyone who kills you will think he is offering worship to God.
3 They will do this because they have not known either the Father or me.
4 I have told you this so that when their hour comes you may remember that I told you.

Pragmatic questions aside, the principal issue remains:

Is the “doctrine of original sin” true or not? If true, seemingly innocent people go to hell where they are punished endlessly (although with less harsh punishments than those who commit actual sins).

Most acknowledge this must be wrong, so they come up with elaborate theological speculations and qualifications, and push casuistry to the breaking point in a desperate attempt to avoid this hideous conclusion. The principle of economy tells us that the other possibility is more likely: there is no such thing as original sin (as defined by the RCC) so this is a non-issue.

Practically speaking, there is no evidence to suggest that infanticide or abortion are more common in non-Christian cultures (the majority of humanity throughout history) than in Christian cultures.