A few errors with regard to Original Sin. Specifically, the errors of Fr. William Most and his senseless teachings against St Augustine:
"As we said above, from an allegorical interpretation of Romans 9, chiefly verses 19-24, Augustine said the whole race is as a mass of potters's clay from original sin—all could be sent to hell for that fact of original sin alone (infants dying without baptism are damned) . First, there was and is no support for such an allegorical interpretation. More importantly, he was sadly wrong. Original sin alone does not deserve hell. St. Thomas Aquinas knew that in teaching (De malo 5. 3. ad 4) that unbaptized infants suffer no pain at all, even have natural happiness. More important: Pius IX in Quanto conficiamur moerore (DS 2866) : "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." So original sin alone does not bring hell."
There Seems to be this erroneous notion developing, perhaps due to Karl Rahner, that Original Sin, considered in itself and without any other sin, does NOT deserve Hell. The teaching of the Church of Course, which Fr. Most seems to have abandoned, is that the penalty for Original Sin alone is Hell. It is in fact a dogma of our glorious faith.
"Moreover, the souls of those who depart in actual mortal sin or in original sin only, descend immediately into hell but to undergo punishments of different kinds." Denz. 693:
Also Fr. Most seems to be confusing sensible punishment with deprivation of the beatific vision and laboring under the delusion that Limbo and Hell are two different things.
TO touch on Limbo: Many seem to get confused with regard to Limbo, as though it is an abstract theoretical place between Heaven and Hell. It isn't, it IS Hell. It's just the easiest part to deal with.
SO, really, when we look at what the Church has constantly actually TAUGHT from Augustine to Peter Abelard (800 years), we have infants who die without baptism being tormented with the devil in sensible punishment. After Peter Abelard and Pope Innocent III (about 60 years), we have the distinction clearly made that the damned souls of infants merely feel the pain of loss, not the punishment of the senses. A few decades later, St. Thomas argues that it is theoretically POSSIBLE that the damned souls of infants could enjoy a happiness natural to their state, yet still be without the vision of God. Yet this place of Natural happiness is still in Hell, just the outer edge of it. This is the view that prevailed until the 1960's (The last 600 + years).
So REALLY, the Church has always taught infant damnation, because it has always correctly understood original sin. What INDIVIDUAL THEOLOGIANS have speculated over is the degree to which the souls of those who die in Original Sin alone are punished. In this sense, Limbo is speculation, that is, that a state of natural happiness is available to those who die in original sin alone.
But what are the alternatives? According to Catholic Dogma, and striving to be faithful to it, the alternatives to Limbo are Internal Misery and Despair for infants who die without baptism, or punishment in sensible hellfire. The latter is actually a very feasible option in light of revelation. Consider:
In the general resurrection, the dead will be gathered from all places, including Hades. Hades is the current abode of the dead and the location of Hell (and Possibly purgatory, because there are souls in hades whose names are found written in the book of life), and therefore Limbo. Hades is thrown into the Lake of Fire; therefore, in the end, the Condition of Natural Happiness in Hell will be destroyed, and there is only one of two destinies, eternal fire and eternal bliss. There is no implied degree of suffering in this fire, for it is one lake and one substance, and the souls of unbaptized Children are not written in the book of life. It is therefore necessary that they are thrown into the fire with the devil and his angels, for there is no middle way.
This is the exact Context whereby the 16th Council of Carthage, in 418, taught in one of its canons:
“If anyone says that, because the Lord said ‘In My Father’s house are many mansions,’ 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 life eternal: Let him be anathema. For when the Lord says ‘Unless one be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he shall not enter into the Kingdom of God,’ what Catholic will doubt that one who has not deserved to be a co-heir with Christ will be a partner of the Devil?” (Council of Carthage XVI, Canon 3, Denzinger , 30th edition, p.45, note 2).
And also we read St. Fulgentius of Ruspe saying:
“The quality of an evil life begins with lack of faith, which takes its beginnings from the guilt of original sin. In it, each one begins to live in such a way that, before he ends his life, which is ended when freed from its bonds, if that soul has lived in the body for the space of one day or one hour, it is necessary that it suffer with that same body the endless punishments of Hell, where the devil with his angles will burn forever. […] Hold most firmly and never doubt that, not only adults with the use of reason but also children who either begin to live in the womb of their mothers and who die there or, already born from their mothers, pass from this world without the sacrament of holy baptism, must be punished with the endless penalty of eternal fire. Even if they have no sin from their actions, still, by their carnal conception and birth, they have contracted the damnation of original sin.” (To Peter on the Faith 36, 70)
Consider what the Catechism of the Council of Trent says, as an authoritative interpreter of Trent:
"If the knowledge of what has been hitherto explained be, as it is, of highest importance to the faithful, it is no less important to them to learn that the law of Baptism, as established by our Lord, extends to all, so that
unless they are regenerated to God through the grace of Baptism, be their parents Christians or infidels, they are born to eternal misery and destruction. Pastors, therefore, should often explain these words of the Gospel: Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God."
"That this law extends not only to adults but also to infants and children, and that the Church has received this from Apostolic tradition, is confirmed by the unanimous teaching and authority of the Fathers.
Besides, it is not to be supposed that Christ the Lord would have withheld the Sacrament and grace of Baptism from children, of whom He said: Suffer the little children, and forbid them not to come to me; for the kingdom of heaven is for such; ° whom also He embraced, upon whom He imposed hands, to whom He gave His blessing."
So the Catechism of the Past 400 years has taught us that the strictness with which we are to understand Christ's words is not mitigated for infants. That, on the contrary to Natural Happiness, those who are born into this life, without baptism are born to "eternal misery and destruction." And this is said to apply to infants.
In light of this clear teaching of the councils and fathers, where do you suppose this utterly irresponsible teaching on Original Sin comes from?
One Dominican Father put it to us very well: "We must believe there is a Limbo. So many girls get pregnant and have abortions thinking 'I don't want to raise my child in a wicked world like this!' and fall into the Evil One's deception, whereby souls are lost!"
This all seems dark and morbid to some. But let's understand: When the backdrop of life is deepest black, the graces that flash and illuminate stand out all the clearer, and dearer.
Topic: Modern errors regarding Original Sin (Read 1729 times)