Original sin and damnation

[Philthy]

Lazerlike42:

Exactly. So how are we different from Protestants in this regard? Protestants all have different views of what the Scriptures say. Catholics have different views of what the Magisterium says. We say we have a Magisterium to interpret Scripture, but who do we have to interpret the Magisterium? The Magisterium? That is the same as a Protestant saying that Scripture interprets itself.

I understand your frustration, but there are some very big differences:

The bible typically uses descriptive (imprecise, ambiguous) language to communicate while the Magisterium typically uses affirmative (explicit, unambiguous) language.
An example of ambiguous descriptive Scripture would be John 3:5
Where does such a statement leave people who want to know if they should have their baby baptized? Compare that to the Tradition of the Church and the Catechism which speaks clearly on the subject.

In addition, the Magisterium is *interactive. If *there is a question on an issue, the Magisterium can - in time - respond to the issue for further clarification. I realize that this can be agonizingly slow from our perspective, but clarification does come with time. The bible can not - ever - explain itself. John 3:5 will not get any clearer than it is right now - ever.

Finally, the Magisterium can write in our own languages, meant for our times and cultures. The bible, without indicating exactly the context, was written for a time and culture long since gone, and in a language almost none of us know.

Big differences.

 

[Jasny]

Lazerlike42,
you have entered very interesting waters that has become mysterious.

DavidFilmer:

The Church has never precluded the possibility that the unbaptized innocents may have some opportunity for salvation even in the next life. After all, Jesus went to some place of unbaptized innocents (the “Bosom of Abraham”) between his death and ressurection.

So the Church encourages us to pray that innocent people who die unbaptized will somehow attain their salvation, just as those ancient unbaptized innocents were able to do.

Dave,
I also thought as you once but I discovered these things:

“It has been decided likewise that if anyone says that for this reason the Lord said: “In my father’s house there are many mansions”(JN14:2): that it might be understood that in the kingdom of heaven there will be some middle place or some place anywhere where the blessed infants live who departed from this life without baptism, without which they cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven, which is eternal, let him be anathama. For when the lord says :“Unless a man be born of water and the Holy Ghost, he shall not enter into the kingdom of God”(Jn3:5), what Catholic will doubt that he will be partner of the devil who has not deserved to be a coheir of Christ? For he who lacks the right part will without doubt run into the left” (Denzinger 102 fn.2; 30th edition)

Now what of my surprise when looking at the 1919 Catholic encyclo. I discovered this:

"Council of Carthage (418) to condemn, the substantially identical Pelagian teaching affirming the existence of “an intermediate place, or of any place anywhere at all (ullus alicubi locus), in which children who pass out of this life unbaptized live in happiness” (Denzinger 102). "

This is a small Columbo, eh? The 30th edition it is a footnote but in the 1919 Ecyclo. it is number 102. (Could Karel Rahner, editor of 30th, do it to down play the opposion to his annonimus Christian theory? We’ll never know.)

Anyway it is tradition that Zosimus published the canons of Council of Carthage as his own making them infallable in his famous :

“Tractoria”, in which Pelagianism and its authors were condemned. Thus, finally, the occupant of the Apostolic See at the right moment maintained with all authority the traditional dogma of the Church, and protected the truth of the Church against error." (catholic Ecyclo. “Zosimus”)

Unfortunatly Zosimus’ Tractoria, has only one of the two brief fragments of that document that have reached our day. But Augustine was quite happy with it, even enthusiastic. Since a major part of the fight with Pelagianism was infant baptism we can trust that the canon of Carthage above was contained.

This canon explains the effort of the middle ages to soften it with limbo for the unbaptised, ie loss of Beatific Vision without torment.

 

[Matt16_18]

"It has been decided likewise that if anyone says that for this reason the Lord said: “In my father’s house there are many mansions”(JN14:2): that it might be understood that in the kingdom of heaven there will be some middle place or some place anywhere where the blessed infants live who departed from this life without baptism, without which they cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven, which is eternal, let him be anathama.

What is being condemned is the idea that there could be “mansion” within the kingdom of heaven that is a place where non-baptized infants eternally dwell without seeing the beatific vision.

This does not condemn the idea that unbaptized infants could go to a temporal “limbo” in the abode of the dead - a temporary place of suffering from which these poor souls can be translated to a mansion in the kingdom of heaven where they eternally behold the beatific vision. Likewise, we don’t call Purgatory a “mansion” in the kingdom of heaven, even though the poor souls in Puragtory are members of the kingdom of heaven.

"Council of Carthage (418) to condemn, the substantially identical Pelagian teaching affirming the existence of “an intermediate place, or of any place anywhere at all (ullus alicubi locus), in which children who pass out of this life unbaptized live in happiness” (Denzinger 102). "

Which does not preclude the possibility that aborted infants in the abode of the dead are unhappy dwelling in their temporal limbo, and that they are in need of the succor of the prayers of the Church Militant so that they can be translated to a state of bliss in the kingdom of heaven.
CCC 1283 With respect to children who have died without Baptism, the liturgy of the Church invites us to trust in God’s mercy and to pray for their salvation.

 

[DavidFilmer]

Jasny:

… Carthage. Carthage, Carthage …

Matt 16:18’s answer to this post was excellent, but I also wish to point out, ahem, AGAIN, that the Council(s) of Carthage was(were) NOT Ecumenical in nature or charism. Carthage was one(several) of thousands of provencial councils which do not matter a rotten fig today, except as a historical curiosity. Carthage did not define Catholic dogma in any way, shape, or form. While Matt 16:18 points out that the council (lowercase-c) was consistent in this matter with regard to defined doctrine, nobody really cares if the this council got it totally wrong in this or any other regard.

If Carthage had not happened to enumerate our Canon of Scripture (which was not actually canonized until Trent), few people would be aware of its existance today.

 

[Lazerlike42]

DavidFilmer:

Matt 16:18’s answer to this post was excellent, but I also wish to point out, ahem, AGAIN, that the Council(s) of Carthage was(were) NOT Ecumenical in nature or charism. Carthage was one(several) of thousands of provencial councils which do not matter a rotten fig today, except as a historical curiosity. Carthage did not define Catholic dogma in any way, shape, or form. While Matt 16:18 points out that the council (lowercase-c) was consistent in this matter with regard to defined doctrine, nobody really cares if the this council got it totally wrong in this or any other regard.

If Carthage had not happened to enumerate our Canon of Scripture (which was not actually canonized until Trent), few people would be aware of its existance today.

If I’m not mistaken, the pope approved the canon accepted at Carthage, but did not make any approval/disapproval of other matters discussed therein.

 

[DavidFilmer]

Lazerlike42:

If I’m not mistaken, the pope approved the canon accepted at Carthage, but did not make any approval/disapproval of other matters discussed therein.

There were two priests at Carthage acting as Papal delegates. The Pope accepted their reports when they returned to Rome. This gives Carthage greater-than-usual status, but it does not even begin to elevate Carthage to the status of an Ecumenical Council. Papal acceptance of his delegates reports does not constitute an ex Cathedra teaching. This was still a provencial council with no Ecumenical authority whatsoever, and the presence of Papal delegates does not change that.

 

[Jasny]

DavidFilmer:

Matt 16:18’s answer to this post was excellent, but I also wish to point out, ahem, AGAIN, that the Council(s) of Carthage was(were) NOT Ecumenical in nature or charism. Carthage was one(several) of thousands of provencial councils which do not matter a rotten fig today, except as a historical curiosity. Carthage did not define Catholic dogma in any way, shape, or form. While Matt 16:18 points out that the council (lowercase-c) was consistent in this matter with regard to defined doctrine, nobody really cares if the this council got it totally wrong in this or any other regard.

If Carthage had not happened to enumerate our Canon of Scripture (which was not actually canonized until Trent), few people would be aware of its existance today.

Sorry i did’t make it clear I guess, Cathage is not the infallable teaching I was meaning.
“Tractoria” of St Pope Zosimus was published for the entire Church tradion holds that the “Tractoria” is infallable and containing the cannons Carthage in the “Tractoria”. This is why the above quote of Carthage is always listed under Zosimus.

(BTW it was Forence that first appoved Hippo’s canon of the Bible not Trent)

 

[DavidFilmer]

“Tractoria” of St Pope Zosimus was published for the entire Church tradion holds that the “Tractoria” is infallable

Says who? If that Tractoria was infallable, it would mean an ex Cathedra teaching, but most theologians regard the teaching of the Immaculate Conception to be the very first *ex Cathedra *teaching. Besides, the Tractoria survives only in fragments (thanks to Prosper Tiro and Augustine). I’ve never heard any claim that this lost document was ever generally regarded to be an ex Cathedra teaching.

(BTW it was Forence that first appoved Hippo’s canon of the Bible not Trent)

Trent is the ONLY Ecumenical Council to define the Canon of Scripture (and is the ONLY instance when the Church has spoken infallably on the matter). Hippo was held in October 393, but nobody noticed until a brevarium of its canons were read into the record of the 397 Council of Carthage (under Aurelius). It is this event which gave the Canon traction (though it was not infallably defined until Trent).

 

[Tom]

The problem is linguistics. We are looking at translations of translations and attempting to put restrictive definitions on modern English (or other modern languages) words which do not carry the original ideas. For example in early Jewish tradition there was a tradition of several “levels” (up to 7, the total presence of God being level “7” or seventh heaven) of heaven (see Jn 14, 1-3; 2 Cor 12,2 the Talmud), today we think of heaven as one “place”. These “levels” of heaven are not given specific names in Scripture but would correspond with the ideas of purgatory, limbo, etc. Souls in purgatory proceed after their cleansing into heaven, so it could be construed as a “room” or “mansion” (depending on your Bible version) of Gods house (heaven). Several terms we use today did not express the same meanings they did 2,000 years ago, hell for example today means only one place us, but to ancient Jews it implied a place of the dead.

 

[Jasny]

DavidFilmer:

Says who? If that Tractoria was infallable, it would mean an ex Cathedra teaching, but most theologians regard the teaching of the Immaculate Conception to be the very first *ex Cathedra *teaching. Besides, the Tractoria survives only in fragments (thanks to Prosper Tiro and Augustine). I’ve never heard any claim that this lost document was ever generally regarded to be an ex Cathedra teaching.
Trent is the ONLY Ecumenical Council to define the Canon of Scripture (and is the ONLY instance when the Church has spoken infallably on the matter). Hippo was held in October 393, but nobody noticed until a brevarium of its canons were read into the record of the 397 Council of Carthage (under Aurelius). It is this event which gave the Canon traction (though it was not infallably defined until Trent).

Here it is:
Council of Florence
Session 11—4 February 1442
[Bull of union with the Copts]
It professes that one and the same God is the author of the old and the new Testament — that is, the law and the prophets, and the gospel — since the saints of both testaments spoke under the inspiration of the same Spirit. It accepts and venerates their books, whose titles are as follows.
Five books of Moses, namely Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy; Joshua, Judges, Ruth, four books of Kings, two of Paralipomenon, Esdras, Nehemiah, Tobit, Judith, Esther, Job, Psalms of David, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Baruch, Ezechiel, Daniel; the twelve minor prophets, namely Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi; two books of the Maccabees; the four gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John; fourteen letters of Paul, to the Romans, two to the Corinthians, to the Galatians, to the Ephesians, to the Philippians, two to the Thessalonians, to the Colossians, two to Timothy, to Titus, to Philemon, to the Hebrews; two letters of Peter, three of John, one of James, one of Jude; Acts of the Apostles; Apocalypse of John.

 

[Jasny]

DavidFilmer:

Says who? If that Tractoria was infallable, it would mean an ex Cathedra teaching, … Besides, the Tractoria survives only in fragments (thanks to Prosper Tiro and Augustine). I’ve never heard any claim that this lost document was ever generally regarded to be an ex Cathedra teaching.

Sorry i have a demanding job and couldn’t get time to post this till now:

Council of Ephesus 432

Chapter 5 deals with the Zosimus tract being a teaching for the whole Church and condemnation of Pelegianism. containing the African bishops advice, i.e. Carthage. And it talks about the Bishops thanking Zosimus.

Chapter 6 again praises Zosimus for his tract teaching the whole Church.

Chapter 10 We don’t dare to treat lightly the the deeper more difficult parts…[of the Tactora]” Because Zosimus teaching is so Catholic.

Ends with: “…[W]e do not deem that to be at all Catholic which appears contrary to the views presented above.”
( DS. 134, 135, 142)

but most theologians regard the teaching of the Immaculate Conception to be the very first *ex Cathedra *teaching.

The definition of infallability clearified but didn’t create infallability.
The tradition is that, when the Pope condemed anything for the whole Church it was infallable. I thought this was common knowledge

 

[Lazerlike42]

Jasny:

Sorry i have a demanding job and couldn’t get time to post this till now:

Council of Ephesus 432

Chapter 5 deals with the Zosimus tract being a teaching for the whole Church and condemnation of Pelegianism. containing the African bishops advice, i.e. Carthage. And it talks about the Bishops thanking Zosimus.

Chapter 6 again praises Zosimus for his tract teaching the whole Church.

Chapter 10 We don’t dare to treat lightly the the deeper more difficult parts…[of the Tactora]” Because Zosimus teaching is so Catholic.

Ends with: “…[W]e do not deem that to be at all Catholic which appears contrary to the views presented above.”
( DS. 134, 135, 142)

But the Council of Ephesus was not an ecumenical council. It was not binding on the whole Church.

The definition of infallability clearified but didn’t create infallability.
The tradition is that, when the Pope condemed anything for the whole Church it was infallable. I thought this was common knowledge

This would fit in with the current definition of infallibility.

 

[Jasny]

Lazerlike42:

But the Council of Ephesus was not an ecumenical council. It was not binding on the whole Church.

According to the Catholic encyclopedia it was:

The third ecumenical council.

Even if it wasn’t it wouldn’t effect the point, that was to show the traditon that the Tract of Zosimus is infallible and contained the council of the African Bishops within it.

 

[Jasny]

Matt16_18]What is being condemned is the idea that there could be “mansion” within the kingdom of heaven that is a place where non-baptized infants eternally dwell without seeing the beatific vision.

I made an error I left out the word ** life** maybe that is the confusion.
Where it says: *baptism, without which they cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven, which is eternal **life, ** let him be anathama. *
Eternal life is clearly the kindom of heaven, i.e. Heaven. There is no middle place or any place in heaven for them.

This does not condemn the idea that unbaptized infants could go to a temporal “limbo” in the abode of the dead - a temporary place of suffering from which these poor souls can be translated to a mansion in the kingdom of heaven where they eternally behold the beatific vision.

Sounds good but it is the complete opposite of what it clearly says they can not enter without Baptism and he clearifies :“Unless a man be born of water and the Holy Ghost, he shall not enter into the kingdom of God”(Jn3:5) this is the definition of water baptism not any other kind.

Likewise, we don’t call Purgatory a “mansion” in the kingdom of heaven, even though the poor souls in Puragtory are members of the kingdom of heaven.

The Souls in Puragtory have entered eternity but not eternal life. Zosimus is equating heaven and eternal life. When our Lord promises eternal life He didn’t mean Purgatory.

Maybe your not familar with the Pelegian Heresy? St. Augustine hammered away at the un-baptised infant problem and there would have been a big reaction if Zosimus was saying it wasn’t needed.
Do you think that all the theologians until the 20th century wanted babies to go to hell? Including St. Augustine and St Thomas Aquinas? No, no one does. They had to be honest in what the deposit of Faith was. Limbo is the most merciful conclusion these geniuses could reach.

 

[Jasny]

Lazerlike42]The council does not say that they will have different experiences. The council says that they will suffer different punishments, thus defining that there will be punishment for those with only original sin.

this is clear

Pius IX in the Encyclical Quanto conficiamur wrote: “God in His supreme clemency and goodness by no means allows anyone to suffer eternal punishments who does not have the guilt of personal sin.”

This is not the translation in my Denzinger, mine says **eternal torment ** it reads:

“God in His supreme clemency and goodness by no means allows anyone to suffer eternal tourment who does not have the guilt of personal sin.” (the 1954, 30th edition DS §1677)

This is the correct translation because it does not contradict Council of Lyons or Florence. With the word punishment he would be advocating Pelagianism.

 

[Jasny]

why does this thread not show that someone has posted?

 

[Terry_Collins]

Unbaptized Infants are not condemned to hell because of original sin, we do not inherit the guilt of Adam for his personal sin, we inherit the consequences of his transgression.

From the teaching of Pope Pius IX, in , August 10, 1863: “God… in His supreme goodness and
clemency, by no means allows anyone to be punished with eternal punishments
who does not have the guilt of voluntary fault.” Of course, the infants do
not have any voluntary fault. Hence they cannot be in the hell of the
damned.

 

[ReformedCatholic]

I believe that an active and persistent turning away from God is required for one to go to “hell,” which to me simply means to exist without the presence of God. “Damnation” to me is a description of existing in a state outside the presence of God.

Babies and children, baptised or not, transcend directly to Heaven. I have no doubt about that.

I find the whole concept of “original sin” is a bit shakey and believe the allegory of the garden is greatly misunderstood.

 

[Jasny]

Terry Collins:

Unbaptized Infants are not condemned to hell because of original sin, we do not inherit the guilt of Adam for his personal sin, we inherit the consequences of his transgression.

From the teaching of Pope Pius IX, in Quanto
conficiamur moerore, August 10, 1863: “God… in His supreme goodness and
clemency, by no means allows anyone to be punished with eternal punishments
who does not have the guilt of voluntary fault.” Of course, the infants do
not have any voluntary fault. Hence they cannot be in the hell of the
damned.

Maybe I did not make it clear of what I was quoting
This is not the translation in my Denzinger, mine says eternal torment it reads:
Pope Pius IX, in Quanto Conficiamur Moerore, August 10, 1863:
“God in His supreme clemency and goodness by no means allows anyone to suffer eternal torment who does not have the guilt of personal sin.” (the 1954, 30th edition DS §1677)

This is the correct translation because it does not contradict Council of Lyons or Florence. With the word punishment he would be advocating Pelagianism.

 

[Jasny]

hi1