Original Sin Problem

[jinc1019]

In the Gospels, Jesus clearly taught that punishment in Hell is eternal. The Church has always taught this same doctrine. As Catholic Christians, we are all obligated to believe what Jesus and His Church teaches.

The idea that the ‘second death’ described in the book of Revelation is annihilation is not compatible with the Gospel teaching on Hell, nor with the ordinary and universal teaching of the Church. The second death mentioned in Revelation is simply the continuation of the sufferings of Hell for all the condemned, after the general Resurrection.

This is not true. You should read up on the translation of hell in the bible. You will find that it isn’t accurate at all. Jews did not, and still do not, even believe in the Catholic conception of hell where there is eternal torment. Jesus was a Jew and so were his apostles, so how do explain the radical shift in doctrine? If Jesus did change that doctrine, why is there no mention of it changing? Why didn’t any of the Jews Jesus confronts in the Gospels bring up this change?

Most of the language Jesus uses for hell has either been mistranslated and reinterpreted to mean “endless torment” when the original Greek shows that the real meaning was simply “grave” OR, in the case of the language that talks about “torment,” “lake of fire,” etc…Jesus was using the VERY SAME language in Greek used by numerous people in the Old Testament to denote the coming judgment on Israel, which I believe Jesus is clearly warning about again. Almost always, when Jesus is talking about hell, he is talking about national judgment in this life…and when he isn’t talking about that and he is talking about life after death, he is talking about a completely different conception of “hell.” He is talking about the Jewish understanding of life after death, where everyone goes to sheol (the Hebrew term translated to mean “hell.”) and is purified before going to paradise. The overwhelming majority of Jews in time of Jesus did not believe in eternal torment or a hell anything like what the Catholic Church teaches. This is a fact. Again, I urge you to look it up and research the claims I have made. You will find a ton of literature out there on it.

 

[jinc1019]

The Church does speak for God, and your belief has been condemned as absolutely and undeniably false.

Yes it has. But it cannot be denied that “hell” to the Jews of Jesus’ day meant something ENTIRELY different than the hell Catholics teach today. When Jesus talked about life after death, his listeners would have understood him in that Jewish context, not in the current Catholic conception of hell.

 

[jinc1019]

Human nature is harmed by original sin, in body and soul. However, our nature remains fundamentally good. It is an error of Calvinism to say that fallen human nature is entirely corrupted. Catholics say that it is worsened by original sin, but still good.

The Magisterium has not decided the question of what happens to prenatals, infants and young children, who die without the formal Sacrament of Baptism. The idea of limbo for these souls has fallen out of favor (rightly so, I think). They do not deserve eternal punishment in Hell. But they must die in a state of grace in order to have eternal life in Heaven.

My theological opinion is that they are all given a non-formal baptism of blood, prior to the moment of death, so that they do die in a state of grace. The suffering of the loss of the vast majority of a normal life span is sufficient to unite them to Christ suffering on the Cross for our salvation. Christ himself then gives them sanctifying grace, so that they will die in the state of grace.

Original sin is contracted without consent, and so it can be removed without any action or consent on the part of the infant. That is why we are able to baptize infants, and it also explains why prenatals, infants, and young children can receive a baptism of blood by virtue of their death at such a young age.

Thank you for this, I greatly appreciate your post and opinion.

I would like to point out though, that Catholic teaching has traditionally said that baptism by blood, which you mention as a potential solution to the problem of infants dying without baptism, is for martyrs who die willingly for the cause of Christ. Infants can’t really be put in this category. I suppose, however, you could make an argument from the Catholic view that infants could die with baptism by desire, although this is also tough to make since infants don’t really desire or understand any of this. However, I think the baptism by desire argument fits better than baptism by blood. Just my opinion!

 

[Ron_Conte]

Thank you for this, I greatly appreciate your post and opinion.

I would like to point out though, that Catholic teaching has traditionally said that baptism by blood, which you mention as a potential solution to the problem of infants dying without baptism, is for martyrs who die willingly for the cause of Christ. Infants can’t really be put in this category. I suppose, however, you could make an argument from the Catholic view that infants could die with baptism by desire, although this is also tough to make since infants don’t really desire or understand any of this. However, I think the baptism by desire argument fits better than baptism by blood. Just my opinion!

It is an open question as to how God might save unbaptized infants. The baptism of blood argument has the support of the example of the Holy Innocents. Although the classic case is for catechumenate martyrs, it is not difficult to extend this to infants who have committed no personal sin. Similarly, the baptism of desire is classically applied to those who explicitly desire baptism, but extension to an implicit desire is also possible.

 

[ericc]

Thank you for this, I greatly appreciate your post and opinion.

I would like to point out though, that Catholic teaching has traditionally said that baptism by blood, which you mention as a potential solution to the problem of infants dying without baptism, is for martyrs who die willingly for the cause of Christ. Infants can’t really be put in this category. I suppose, however, you could make an argument from the Catholic view that infants could die with baptism by desire, although this is also tough to make since infants don’t really desire or understand any of this. However, I think the baptism by desire argument fits better than baptism by blood. Just my opinion!

In Rev 20:13, it is clear that the dead is judged by what they have done. In the case of babies and aborted babies, it is clear that they have done no wrong. Hence, there is no justification for them to end up in the lake of fire.

But, we were not told what will happen to them. The Catholic Church has wisely admitted that they do not know and that they entrust these babies to the mercy of God. I too don’t see how baptism by fire is applicable when they are are not able to express their “desire”.

Perhaps Limbo is just a convenient placeholder while awaiting judgement day. On one extreme, strictly “by the books” you can’t go to heaven because you weren’t baptised. And because you have done no wrong, I couldn’t put you into hell. Hence Limbo because I do not know?

 

[Nita]

It is an open question as to how God might save unbaptized infants. The baptism of blood argument has the support of the example of the Holy Innocents. Although the classic case is for catechumenate martyrs, it is not difficult to extend this to infants who have committed no personal sin. Similarly, the baptism of desire is classically applied to those who explicitly desire baptism, but extension to an implicit desire is also possible.

The Holy Innocents were considered martyrs because, as the Catholic Encyclopedia notes, it is considered that* “they died not only for Christ, but in his stead.”

• newadvent.org/cathen/07419a.htm

In what way would you propose the death of unbaptized infants can be understood as giving up their lives for Christ – that is, to be martyrs?

 

[AmbroseSJ]

Jesus gave a command to the Apostles to bring the little children to Him. He is a just God ! In the unfortunate situation of a child’s death Jesus will conquer.

God Bless
Onenow1

+1

 

[Ron_Conte]

The Holy Innocents were considered martyrs because, as the Catholic Encyclopedia notes, it is considered that* “they died not only for Christ, but in his stead.”*
newadvent.org/cathen/07419a.htm

In what way would you propose the death of unbaptized infants can be understood as giving up their lives for Christ – that is, to be martyrs?

In one sense, the holy innocents were martyrs, since they died in Christ’s place. But in another sense, they are not martyrs, since they did not knowingly choose to die for Christ. I suggest that a baptism of blood is available to persons who are not martyrs. For we are all baptized into the death of Christ by His blood. The suffering of the loss of the vast majority of a normal life span unites the unbaptized prenatal or infant with Christ on the Cross, and obtains for them a baptism into His blood, with sanctifying grace, prior to death.

Pope Pius XI, in the encyclical Quanto Conficiamur Moerore:

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

Unbaptized infants and prenatals are not guilty of any deliberate sin, so God does not send them to Hell, nor to the limbo of Hell.

 

[aemcpa]

In one sense, the holy innocents were martyrs, since they died in Christ’s place. But in another sense, they are not martyrs, since they did not knowingly choose to die for Christ. I suggest that a baptism of blood is available to persons who are not martyrs. For we are all baptized into the death of Christ by His blood. The suffering of the loss of the vast majority of a normal life span unites the unbaptized prenatal or infant with Christ on the Cross, and obtains for them a baptism into His blood, with sanctifying grace, prior to death.

Pope Pius XI, in the encyclical Quanto Conficiamur Moerore:

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

Unbaptized infants and prenatals are not guilty of any deliberate sin, so God does not send them to Hell, nor to the limbo of Hell.

But Limbo is understood not as a place of punishment, but merely a place in which the inhabitants are deprived of the Beatific Vision. No person can merit the Beatific Vision simply by refraining from deliberate sin; it is granted positively by the Grace of God and entirely unmerited.

 

[Ron_Conte]

But Limbo is understood not as a place of punishment, but merely a place in which the inhabitants are deprived of the Beatific Vision. No person can merit the Beatific Vision simply by refraining from deliberate sin; it is granted positively by the Grace of God and entirely unmerited.

There are different versions of the idea of limbo:

1. limbo as a fringe of Purgatory (the limbo of the Fathers)
2. limbo as a fringe of Hell (where those souls who died in original sin only are punished)
3. limbo as a third final destination

The first two ideas are doctrine, even dogma. But the third idea was never taught infallibly, and is incompatible with recent magisterial teachings on salvation.

Heaven is unmerited, and therefore infants can go there, as long as they die in a state of grace. If an infant lacks the Sacrament of Baptism, he might receive a baptism of blood. however, this is still an open question.

 

[Darryl_B]

I don’t understand how original sin prevents babies who are unbaptized from going to heaven.

If I am missing something here, please let me know. My understanding of the Catholic view on original sin is that when Adam sinned, he created in each of us a corrupted and sinful nature that exists in every single person on earth. We are not, according to modern Catholic teachings, personally guilty of Adam’s sin. Thus, babies, who cannot personally sin, have no personal sin, only a sinful and corrupt nature.

Catholics believe then that because everyone in heaven must be clean, babies who are unbaptized and die cannot go to heaven ordinarily because they still have a sinful and corrupted nature due to their lack of baptism.

However, the Church also teaches that we have a sinful and corrupt nature even after baptism, which is apparently obvious. So, if we still have some form of a sinful nature both before and after baptism, why does it matter if babies are baptized or not? Obviously it’s not the sinful nature keeping them out of heaven since we all, regardless of baptism, have sinful natures until we die. Why does the Catholic Church teach this then? What am I missing?

The problem I have with your logic, reasoning, is that we should then rejoice in abortion.

 

[Ron_Conte]

The problem I have with your logic, reasoning, is that we should then rejoice in abortion.

Not so. We rejoice that the holy martyrs have eternal life, but we don’t rejoice in the grave sins that caused their deaths.

Also, prenatals who die in the womb lack the advantages of infants who die after baptism. The latter have the indelible mark of the Sacrament of Baptism, and they go directly to Heaven. In my opinion, prenatals who die in the womb first go to the limbo of Purgatory, then to Heaven.

As for original sin, it harms the person in body and soul, most especially by the lack of sanctifying grace (which includes love, faith, hope). The state of grace is absolutely necessary for entrance into Heaven.

However, those who die without any actual mortal sin on the conscience are not deserving of eternal punishment.