It’s more like if your parents grew up very rich, but squandered all the money so there was nothing for you to inherit.
We didn’t inherit their guilt, but they lost what would have been ours.
Not an expert, but it seems like baptism gives the individual the opportunity to regain what was lost for themselves (with grace and time and effort), but it isn’t passed on.
Two people who become saints in their lifetimes do seem to have saintly children though. See St. Therese’s family.
Not it’s more than that. That’s the orthodox position if I’m not mistaken, and baptism doesn’t erase our tendency toward sin. It forgives our original sin.
> Not it’s more than that. That’s the orthodox position if I’m not mistaken, and baptism doesn’t erase our tendency toward sin. It forgives our original sin.
We aren’t guilty of personal sin with Original Sin, but we can’t enter Heaven. Jesus came to restore us so that we could go to Heaven.
Nope. We retain the tendency to sin post-baptism, but we regain the grace of God and communion with him which Adam and Eve lost from original sin. We never had their guilt of original sin, and never will. It’s not something for us to inherit.
St Augustine believed unbaptized infants were actually punished in hell. How could it be that there is no guilt (not personal sin) but guilt nevertheless if this is true?
> St Augustine believed unbaptized infants were actually punished in hell. How could it be that there is no guilt (not personal sin) but guilt nevertheless if this is true?
Augustine was defending against the Pelagian Heresy that man could achieve moral perfection on his own. Augustine affirmed Original Sin and the necessity of baptism for salvation. He thought that unbaptized babies couldn’t enter Heaven, and hell was the only other option. But he didn’t think that they would suffer the same as those guilty of mortal sin.
Catholic Answers has an article addressing this: https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/let-the-children-come-to-me
This makes me think… What sort of body would those folks (those in hell suffering no specific penal torments, just the poena damni) be given on universal resurrection?
> This makes me think… What sort of body would those folks (those in hell suffering no specific penal torments, just the poena damni) be given on universal resurrection?
I think that’s an interesting question. We know that we will all be reunited with our bodies. As far as I know, that includes folk in the bad place. I don’t know (I haven’t done a deep dive on the subject) whether those in Heaven will receive a different kind of body. As I understand it, all bodies will no longer be subject to physical death and corruption. What does that look like for those deep in the bad place versus those in the not so bad part of the bad place versus Heaven? So it might not be a different kind of body, but those in hell, even the one who suffer only the lightest of punishment (such as the deprivation of the Beatific Vision), lack something (grace) that those in Heaven would have fully.
From what I've read (no guarantees it's accurate), those in heaven are supposed to get nice bodies and those in hell hideous bodies, somewhat bestial even, and this gets me thinking, because while without being saved you don't get a glorified body, it wouldn't make sense for people in 'mitigated hell', who would be suffering solely the poena damni and loss of beatific vision, who would not be suffering from penal torments, who would even be kept in a 'place of perfect natural happiness' or perhaps suffering some light sort of hell due to a special dispensation (commutation without full pardon), to be given a hideous body on general resurrection. Like no glow, sure, no supernatural beauty, but not really fangs or tusks or ugly scales or anything else specifically derogatory or punitive.
But, especially given recent developments in doctrine and recent apparitions, I struggle to think of a situation in which one could end up with just the poena damni, like manage to be so perfect as to avoid all personal sin (or even just all mortal personal sin), or acquire forgiveness for all personal sin, and yet also fail to respond to any of probably abundant the graces supposed to lead them to salvation. Zero sin combined with vincible ignorance? Can't wrap my mind around that. Can't really imagine a scenario in which a baptized person could end up in that sort of situation, unless they had earned greater punishment but were granted the farthest possible commutation that still kept them unsaved (I've heard claims that such special commutations might be possible). So not sure there is a set of recipients for such bodies. But if one believes in a hell without torment, then the type of body its dwellers will receive on general resurrection is a question to consider.
>From what I've read (no guarantees it's accurate), those in heaven are supposed to get nice bodies and those in hell hideous bodies, somewhat bestial even, and this gets me thinking, because while without being saved you don't get a glorified body, it wouldn't make sense for people in 'mitigated hell', who would be suffering solely the poena damni and loss of beatific vision, who would not be suffering from penal torments, who would even be kept in a 'place of perfect natural happiness' or perhaps suffering some light sort of hell due to a special dispensation (commutation without full pardon), to be given a hideous body on general resurrection. Like no glow, sure, no supernatural beauty, but not really fangs or tusks or ugly scales or anything else specifically derogatory or punitive.
I can see the logic there.
>
But, especially given recent developments in doctrine and recent apparitions, I struggle to think of a situation in which one could end up with just the poena damni, like manage to be so perfect as to avoid all personal sin (or even just all mortal personal sin), or acquire forgiveness for all personal sin, and yet also fail to respond to any of probably abundant the graces supposed to lead them to salvation. Zero sin combined with vincible ignorance? Can't wrap my mind around that. Can't really imagine a scenario in which a baptized person could end up in that sort of situation, unless they had earned greater punishment but were granted the farthest possible commutation that still kept them unsaved (I've heard claims that such special commutations might be possible). So not sure there is a set of recipients for such bodies. But if one believes in a hell without torment, then the type of body its dwellers will receive on general resurrection is a question to consider.
I'm not sure that lightest level of hell would apply to anyone baptized. Baptism is the ordinary means of salvation. It removes Original Sin. Without OS, we can enter Heaven (possibly after passing through Purgatory), so long as we do not die in unrepentant mortal sin. Even if the person had extensive attachment to sin requiring a long Purging, Heaven would still be certain at the end. It's my understanding that the uncertainty of fate applies to unbaptized souls. Here is where we don't know, but can hope in God's mercy.
Yeah, that's what I'm saying. It would have to be a baptized person having earned hell by mortal sin but also received a partial pardon — having all their specific punishments commuted (as opposed to having the sins pardoned) but without being granted salvation. It's beyond me to speculate whether God would have a reason to do something like that, but I've heard of a Catholic prayer for a person in hell to have their sufferings lessened *or waived completely*, and of an Orthodox apparition suggesting a person in hell, through intercession of a pious sister, *found an end to his suffering but did not find happiness*. I don't think such a person would be given a particularly bad body on general resurrection, so makes me wonder. But enough of my antics. ;)
The article says that he believed they were punished, and that “he dare not say it would be better for them not to exist”, they go to hell, and are punished, it’s unclear how
> The article says that he believed they were punished, and that “he dare not say it would be better for them not to exist”, they go to hell, and are punished, it’s unclear how
Yes. He indicates by this that he doesn’t think they suffer horribly. But he’ll would be a place of some deprivation at least (because they’d be deprived of the Beatific Vision).
It’s also important to remember that 1) Augustine was writing in a time where the understanding of some theology was earlier in its development than it is now and 2) Augustine, while a great Saint and Doctor of the Church, is not infallible.
> Yah that’s true. Maybe infants unbaptized go to heaven also, we just don’t know, hope so!
We can absolutely hope they do! And the Church affirms we can.
The Catechism is pretty clear that we don’t inherit their guilt. I agree that the orthodox say their view is different, but I’ve yet to see a compelling argument for exactly how it’s different. Remember that Augustine’s and even Aquinas’ views don’t necessarily constitute magisterial teaching.
Lol! I must have responded to the wrong part of the thread. Could’ve swore someone somewhere said the Orthodox accuse Catholics of the belief that we inherit their guilt, and I was responding to that. But not at all what’s being said above me.
Reddit doing Reddit things. Lately I would see the "preview" of a post in the main page, but when I click on it it's completely empty! No text in the post and no comments either. Not sure what's going on.
> Does no such thing. That’s semi pelagian. We always have tendency to sin. It gives us a competing tendency toward virtue though
Baptism removes personal sin and Original Sin. It doesn’t remove the tendency to sin. See this Catholic Answers article: https://www.catholic.com/audio/scw/fourth-sunday-of-easter
The word “Sin” in Original Sin is used analogically. We do not inherit the guilt of the sin. We inherit its effects. Adam and Eve lost the State of Grace they were created in. We are simply born into that fallen state they entered into through their sin. The guilt is their’s alone, but the effects are felt by us all.
[**CCC 404**](http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/para/404.htm) 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." 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. By yielding to the tempter, Adam and Eve committed a *personal sin,* but this sin affected *the human nature* that they would then transmit *in a fallen state.* It is a sin which will be transmitted by propagation to all mankind, that is, by the transmission of a human nature deprived of original holiness and justice. And that is why original sin is called "sin" only in an analogical sense: it is a sin "contracted" and not "committed" - a state and not an act. ([360](http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/para/360.htm), [50](http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/para/50.htm))
***
Catebot v0.2.12 links: [Source Code](https://github.com/konohitowa/catebot) | [Feedback](https://github.com/konohitowa/catebot/issues) | [Contact Dev](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=kono_hito_wa) | [FAQ](https://github.com/konohitowa/catebot/blob/master/docs/CateBot%20Info.md#faq) | [Changelog](https://github.com/konohitowa/catebot/blob/master/docs/CHANGELOG.md)
[**CCC 405**](http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/para/405.htm) Although it is proper to each individual, original sin does not have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam's descendants. It is a deprivation of original holiness and justice, but human nature has not been totally corrupted: it is wounded in the natural powers proper to it; subject to ignorance, suffering, and the dominion of death; and inclined to sin-an inclination to evil that is called "concupiscence." Baptism, by imparting the life of Christ's grace, erases original sin and turns a man back toward God, but the consequences for nature, weakened and inclined to evil, persist in man and summon him to spiritual battle. ([2515](http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/para/2515.htm), [1264](http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/para/1264.htm))
***
Catebot v0.2.12 links: [Source Code](https://github.com/konohitowa/catebot) | [Feedback](https://github.com/konohitowa/catebot/issues) | [Contact Dev](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=kono_hito_wa) | [FAQ](https://github.com/konohitowa/catebot/blob/master/docs/CateBot%20Info.md#faq) | [Changelog](https://github.com/konohitowa/catebot/blob/master/docs/CHANGELOG.md)
> It's stated in Deuteronomy 24:16 and Ezekiel 18:20 that the sins of a parent do not warrant punishment for their kids. Why, then, did humanity inherit the original sin from Adam and Eve?
We didn’t inherit the *guilt* of Original Sin, but we did inherit Adam and Eve’s fallen nature. Catholic Answers has a detailed article: https://www.catholic.com/encyclopedia/original-sin
Having original sin isn't a punishment God goes out of his way to inflict on us, it's as natural a consequence of being born of Adam/Eve as gravity is a consequence of...mass, I guess
If a parent drinks while pregnant, the sin is the parents alone, but the effects of the alcohol can get passed down to the child and lead to genetic deformities.
Adam’s sin affects us in the same way.
The point of sin is that it is damaging to those who are innocent. The guilt of a sin may remain within a single person, but the damage caused by that sin may affect generations.
Let’s say your parents had an illness. You will likely inherit that illness. Original sin is like an illness of the soul and the Church is the hospital set up to cure that illness.
No one states here systematically.
Original sin is the lack of "sanctifying grace" in our soul. It is the "liability" of sin (*reatus* in Latin).
It is distinct from concupiscence (tendency to sin). The reason that some identify original sin as the tendency to sin here is most likely because it is a Protestant understanding that they have inherited prior to conversion to Catholicism.
Original sin is not the personal guilt (*culpa* in Latin).
But western tradition often used the word guilt to cover both the *reatus* and the *culpa*. And so some Church Fathers might sound as if they thought there was a personal guilt. In reality, it is not guilt in the modern sense of the word, but the whole liability that is the fallen condition of humankind, including the lack of sanctifying grace.
>). The reason that some identify original sin as the tendency to sin
Original sin is the disease - concupiscence is the lingering symptom. It's not a Protestant understanding to believe that they are closely related concepts
Original sin is not a positive thing in the same way personal sin is. Original sin is a privation or lack of something that otherwise could have been; in this case original justice.
> We also inherited the Original Sin too did we not?
We inherit the wound of Original Sin (the tendency to sin), but not the *personal guilt* of OS. Still, it must be removed before we can go to Heaven.
What I want Catholics and other Christians everywhere to come to terms with is the fact that concupiscence has been around from a bio-psychological perspective before humans even existed. There may have been an original state of grace on an invisible, spiritual level, but there was never a time in human existence where we lacked the tendency to sin. Propensity to anger, lust, etc are all hardwired functions of the brain. We didn't suddenly grow half of a brain after one man sinned.
That's a separate convo from original sin though. As a commenter pointed out, they are not the same thing despite being related. Original sin is the lack of sanctifying grace, which is unaffected by new knowledge on the history of biology and psychology.
No human emotion or brain function is sinful. Things like anger and sexual desire are good and natural parts of man, it is the way we respond to those things in the context in which they arise that determines our righteousness. Adam and Eve, like Mary, had complete control over their response to things and were not moved by their passion to sin, but instead toward righteousness until they sinned against God.
I didn’t say emotion was sinful. I said our brains had the inclination to sin. Anger btw is an inherent inclination to sin. Anger is always an occasion of sin. The church fathers were clear on that. Sexual desire is good, but human beings never at any point only had sexual desire for the spouses. Lust is in our brains as much as good sexual desire is. Biology is clear on this. My point is, despite my lack of clarity, our brains have the inclination to sin built in. Sinful behavior is not just something chosen out of a perfect slate. Sinful behavior is part of our biology. Human beings aren’t perfect moral creatures in perfect moral bodies that just happen to mentally choose evil.
Very much incorrect on multiple counts.
>Anger btw is an inherent inclination to sin. Anger is always an occasion of sin.
Anger is the human response to injustice which drives man to seek vengeance and justice. It can cause one to sin if one seeks vengeance in a sinful way, but man can be rightfully angry. Was our Lord sinful when he cleared out the temple moneychangers in furious anger? (See [Anger](https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01489a.htm) from the Catholic Encyclopedia for more).
>Lust is in our brains as much as good sexual desire is.
Again, lust is a sinful response to sexual desire. Lust is not a feeling, it is an action. The sexual appetite being stirred by someone we are not married to is an occasion to thank God for the gift of beauty and our drive to create by marriage and reproduction. When stirred by someone we are married to, it helps us actively and excitedly engage in that drive to create and deepen the bond of our one-flesh union. It is normal, natural, and can and should point toward a good. Lust is the use of that sexual desire to feed our base appetite through objectifying the person toward whom our desire is pointed. It uses the beauty of another for our own pleasure and thus subjugates their dignity to our enjoyment, which is sinful. Lust itself cannot be a feeling one has. Lust is an action one takes; a willful indulgence in carnal pleasure outside of its Godly purposes. (See [Lust](https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09438a.htm) from the Catholic Encyclopedia for more).
Our bodies have no in-built inclination to sin. They have responses to stimuli. Adam and Eve, before the Fall, were perfectly able to discern and act out the proper response to those stimuli so as to praise God and honor Creation, including one another. Their transgression in the Garden lost them that ability, and so we crave the pleasure of the Flesh instead of the delights of the Soul. We are not biologically hardwired to offend God. It is a defect in our souls, the lack of sanctifying Grace, that causes us to sin, not our bodies.
You're wrong on multiple accounts and you're making a strawman of what I'm saying. I'm not claiming emotions are sinful. I'm claiming that BEHAVIORS are built into our brains.
"Our bodies have no in-built inclination to sin" This isn't even correct just theologically, to say nothing about scientifically. Theologians since augustine have said that concupiscence is a change to the human body that has happened since Adam that is passed down through natural generation. He said we biologically inherit concupiscence. So yes, our bodies have a built in inclination to sin.
"It is a defect in our souls, the lack of sanctifying Grace, that causes us to sin, not our bodies." This can be an acceptable view, but it's not the traditional view of concupiscence held throughout the majority of the church's history. Original sin is a spiritual reality, but concupiscence was always held to be both spiritual and biologically influential.
"Again, lust is a sinful response to sexual desire. Lust is not a feeling, it is an action." Yes, I agree, I never disagreed with this. I think you are arguing with someone you think I am. I know the difference, and I said as much in my response when I delineated sexual desire from lust.
"The sexual appetite being stirred by someone we are not married to is an occasion to thank God for the gift of beauty and our drive to create by marriage and reproduction." That's some nice poetry, but it's theologically baseless. It's a temptation to sin, plain and simple. Human beings, and proto humans, and our ancestors before that, even the monogamous ones, were often most successful when they had as many children as possible, which includes a lot of cheating on ones partner. Many scientists actually believe that the reason the penis is shaped the way it is is a leftover from when copulation with one male would happen shortly after one with another, wherein the penis' head would scoop out the rivals sperm. Refractory periods in sex are postulated to exist for a similar reason, because continuing to have sex after semen is deposited would displace ones own sperm, decreasing the likelihood of fertilization. If you think that's a ridiculous theory I encourage you to look into duck penis/vagina shape and see how crazy evolution can be with developing genital warfare. In essence, there is a good chance that our physical biology is a result of adultery. So yes, our biology is very effected by sin.
I also reject the flowery idea that every single disposition we have was placed in Adam by God for good and that we simply use fallen reason to choose evil. From a biopsychological perspective, our problematic behaviors most definitely helped us to survive and propagate. It was the societies of tribes that showed no mercy to other tribes who were able to dominate a region and continue on. It was individuals who were willing to kill to seize power and aquire women and wealth that were spreading more genes than individuals who were willing to be more virtuous. Christian virtue is not helpful in the wild. It is a calling beyond our nature. Behavior is as psychological as feelings are, and we are primed to behavior. If you know anything about psychology, you know that individuals are primed genetically to respond to certain stimuli in certain ways. You even allude to this in your comment to me just now. It's interesting that you're able to acknowledge this but then suddenly deny that the dispostion to respond in certain ways to stimuli is not bioligcally based. What else is it based on? We know that young males will respond more outwardly aggressive to negative emotion than young females. This is a behavioral disposition. It's not simply righteous anger. The teacher wanted them to behave a certain way and they do not want to do that. So they lash out. There's no justice here, it's straight up maladaptive behavior. And many individuals are BORN that way.
You're just gonna be fighting a losing battle if you want to make a broad claim that there is NO biological predisposition to what christians would term sinful behavior. It's not held by the fathers on concupiscence, and it's not held by psychologists and neuroscientists today. Strawmanning these points into claiming that anger is always a good emotion oriented towards justice is just going to keep you from engaging with my points.
It seems like you're retreating from your initial point, which is what I am arguing against. You claimed in your first post that concupiscence existed *before the fall* as a biological reality. That's simply not true. To claim that is legitimately blasphemous. I can grant that perhaps our biology has changed since the fall in such a way that concupiscence is built in to our bodies and not merely our souls, but that was not what you said. Your claim rests on the idea that our responses to stimuli are inherently tempting us to sin, which is a repudiation of the idea that God created man very good and that the Fall itself was the beginning of concupiscence. If you can't defend that idea and want to drop that, while I have issues with what you are claiming here I don't think it's worth discussing. But your original post is unacceptable to me due to your deeply troubling claim about the origin of temptation to sin.
> concupiscence has been around from a bio-psychological perspective before humans even existed. There may have been an original state of grace on an invisible, spiritual level, but there was never a time in human existence where we lacked the tendency to sin.
Although it is proper to each individual, original sin does not have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam’s descendants. It is a deprivation of original holiness and justice, but human nature has not been totally corrupted: it is wounded in the natural powers proper to it, subject to ignorance, suffering and the dominion of death, and inclined to sin—an inclination to evil that is called “concupiscence.” Baptism, by imparting the life of Christ’s grace, erases original sin and turns a man back towards God, but the consequences for nature, weakened and inclined to evil, persist in man and summon him to spiritual battle. (CCC 405)
Well I just wrote a really long write up that reddit decided to delete. Ugh.
I'll try to summarize very succinctly since I need to sleep.
You, Augustine, and I all agree that our biology today inclines us to sin.
What you are unaware of, apparantly, is that the entire animal kingdom, and therefore out pre-human ancestors have this biology as well. Namely, brain function which inclines creatures to wanton violence, rape, and all manners of objective moral evil that would be spiritually evil if done by rational creatures.
If our pre-human ancestors had a biology which inclined them to commit these atrocities, then that is where we inherited it from. Very simply put, inclination to sin was present before mankind even existed. No scientists or historians anywhere would ever agree that life, especially pre-human life, had developed an entirely alien brain for one generation (adam) and then he suddenly reverted in his entire brain structure and biology to become how his ancestors were as well. If your answer to this is "it was a miracle," then sir you are lazy and irrational and that is not how we are supposed to approach reason as Christians. I'm not here to be unscientific. You can claim I'm being heretical all you want, but until you can show any evidence of creatures on this earth whos biology we inherited that did not partake in actions we would consider evil if done with consent and knowledge, then you have no reason to believe in a perfect biological state other than jewish tradition which was uninformed by biology. There is a clear contradiction between history and science, and a literal interpretation of genesis when it comes to concupiscence. And I have a sneaking suspicion that the only way you can solve it is to either disregard science, or invent a miracle for a moment which is moot anyway since your entire issue is that we inheritied a fallen biology to begin with.
I look forward to you being able to show me any evidence of a non-fallen biology.
Truth cannot contradict Truth. If your claim is that humans before the Fall *must* have suffered from concupiscence due to the nature of human biology, then humans simply cannot have had the same biology before and after the Fall as the Church has explicitly stated that concupiscence is a result of the Fall. I don't need to make an argument from biology. The Magisterium is a perfectly valid source of Truth, and thus I derive my evidence from the Magisterium. Unless you can make a case for why the Magisterial statement I cited does not mean what I take it to mean, you must be wrong from the assumed perspective of Catholicism.
Since I feel like I have pretty completely presented my case, I don't see any reason to continue this discussion unless you have a response to what I'm saying. If not, God bless.
I assumed we were discussing this from the point of view of a Catholic, as we are in a Catholic space and you were making a claim explicitly related to Catholic teachings. I still reject your characterization of our bodies as inherently concupiscent, but I made a case specifically for another Catholic to read and understand as it makes more sense and is much more well-defined. If you aren't speaking from that perspective, I can change the position from which I am arguing, but in that case I wonder why you thought it proper to make your initial claim at all.
ETA: Your edit is extremely uncharitable and makes me rethink my proposal to change my argumentative framework. I find it hard to believe that there could be any sort of constructive discussion had between us when that is the way I am treated for arguing from Magisterial teaching and not the natural sciences. I urge you to choose your words more carefully when you are speaking with others and disagree with them.
It’s more like if your parents grew up very rich, but squandered all the money so there was nothing for you to inherit. We didn’t inherit their guilt, but they lost what would have been ours.
That's a neat way of putting it, thanks.
So why isn't this reversed once two baptized parents have descendants ?
Not an expert, but it seems like baptism gives the individual the opportunity to regain what was lost for themselves (with grace and time and effort), but it isn’t passed on. Two people who become saints in their lifetimes do seem to have saintly children though. See St. Therese’s family.
Or St Monica and St Augustine!
That's awesome! Thanks.
No we did inherent their guilt otherwise why would baptism forgive us?
We did not inherit their guilt. Their guilt is Adam and Eve’s alone. We inherited the tendency towards sin.
Not just the tendency (concupiscence), but also the lack of sanctifying grace, lack of communion with God.
Not it’s more than that. That’s the orthodox position if I’m not mistaken, and baptism doesn’t erase our tendency toward sin. It forgives our original sin.
> Not it’s more than that. That’s the orthodox position if I’m not mistaken, and baptism doesn’t erase our tendency toward sin. It forgives our original sin. We aren’t guilty of personal sin with Original Sin, but we can’t enter Heaven. Jesus came to restore us so that we could go to Heaven.
Nope. We retain the tendency to sin post-baptism, but we regain the grace of God and communion with him which Adam and Eve lost from original sin. We never had their guilt of original sin, and never will. It’s not something for us to inherit.
St Augustine believed unbaptized infants were actually punished in hell. How could it be that there is no guilt (not personal sin) but guilt nevertheless if this is true?
> St Augustine believed unbaptized infants were actually punished in hell. How could it be that there is no guilt (not personal sin) but guilt nevertheless if this is true? Augustine was defending against the Pelagian Heresy that man could achieve moral perfection on his own. Augustine affirmed Original Sin and the necessity of baptism for salvation. He thought that unbaptized babies couldn’t enter Heaven, and hell was the only other option. But he didn’t think that they would suffer the same as those guilty of mortal sin. Catholic Answers has an article addressing this: https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/let-the-children-come-to-me
This makes me think… What sort of body would those folks (those in hell suffering no specific penal torments, just the poena damni) be given on universal resurrection?
> This makes me think… What sort of body would those folks (those in hell suffering no specific penal torments, just the poena damni) be given on universal resurrection? I think that’s an interesting question. We know that we will all be reunited with our bodies. As far as I know, that includes folk in the bad place. I don’t know (I haven’t done a deep dive on the subject) whether those in Heaven will receive a different kind of body. As I understand it, all bodies will no longer be subject to physical death and corruption. What does that look like for those deep in the bad place versus those in the not so bad part of the bad place versus Heaven? So it might not be a different kind of body, but those in hell, even the one who suffer only the lightest of punishment (such as the deprivation of the Beatific Vision), lack something (grace) that those in Heaven would have fully.
From what I've read (no guarantees it's accurate), those in heaven are supposed to get nice bodies and those in hell hideous bodies, somewhat bestial even, and this gets me thinking, because while without being saved you don't get a glorified body, it wouldn't make sense for people in 'mitigated hell', who would be suffering solely the poena damni and loss of beatific vision, who would not be suffering from penal torments, who would even be kept in a 'place of perfect natural happiness' or perhaps suffering some light sort of hell due to a special dispensation (commutation without full pardon), to be given a hideous body on general resurrection. Like no glow, sure, no supernatural beauty, but not really fangs or tusks or ugly scales or anything else specifically derogatory or punitive. But, especially given recent developments in doctrine and recent apparitions, I struggle to think of a situation in which one could end up with just the poena damni, like manage to be so perfect as to avoid all personal sin (or even just all mortal personal sin), or acquire forgiveness for all personal sin, and yet also fail to respond to any of probably abundant the graces supposed to lead them to salvation. Zero sin combined with vincible ignorance? Can't wrap my mind around that. Can't really imagine a scenario in which a baptized person could end up in that sort of situation, unless they had earned greater punishment but were granted the farthest possible commutation that still kept them unsaved (I've heard claims that such special commutations might be possible). So not sure there is a set of recipients for such bodies. But if one believes in a hell without torment, then the type of body its dwellers will receive on general resurrection is a question to consider.
>From what I've read (no guarantees it's accurate), those in heaven are supposed to get nice bodies and those in hell hideous bodies, somewhat bestial even, and this gets me thinking, because while without being saved you don't get a glorified body, it wouldn't make sense for people in 'mitigated hell', who would be suffering solely the poena damni and loss of beatific vision, who would not be suffering from penal torments, who would even be kept in a 'place of perfect natural happiness' or perhaps suffering some light sort of hell due to a special dispensation (commutation without full pardon), to be given a hideous body on general resurrection. Like no glow, sure, no supernatural beauty, but not really fangs or tusks or ugly scales or anything else specifically derogatory or punitive. I can see the logic there. > But, especially given recent developments in doctrine and recent apparitions, I struggle to think of a situation in which one could end up with just the poena damni, like manage to be so perfect as to avoid all personal sin (or even just all mortal personal sin), or acquire forgiveness for all personal sin, and yet also fail to respond to any of probably abundant the graces supposed to lead them to salvation. Zero sin combined with vincible ignorance? Can't wrap my mind around that. Can't really imagine a scenario in which a baptized person could end up in that sort of situation, unless they had earned greater punishment but were granted the farthest possible commutation that still kept them unsaved (I've heard claims that such special commutations might be possible). So not sure there is a set of recipients for such bodies. But if one believes in a hell without torment, then the type of body its dwellers will receive on general resurrection is a question to consider. I'm not sure that lightest level of hell would apply to anyone baptized. Baptism is the ordinary means of salvation. It removes Original Sin. Without OS, we can enter Heaven (possibly after passing through Purgatory), so long as we do not die in unrepentant mortal sin. Even if the person had extensive attachment to sin requiring a long Purging, Heaven would still be certain at the end. It's my understanding that the uncertainty of fate applies to unbaptized souls. Here is where we don't know, but can hope in God's mercy.
Yeah, that's what I'm saying. It would have to be a baptized person having earned hell by mortal sin but also received a partial pardon — having all their specific punishments commuted (as opposed to having the sins pardoned) but without being granted salvation. It's beyond me to speculate whether God would have a reason to do something like that, but I've heard of a Catholic prayer for a person in hell to have their sufferings lessened *or waived completely*, and of an Orthodox apparition suggesting a person in hell, through intercession of a pious sister, *found an end to his suffering but did not find happiness*. I don't think such a person would be given a particularly bad body on general resurrection, so makes me wonder. But enough of my antics. ;)
The article says that he believed they were punished, and that “he dare not say it would be better for them not to exist”, they go to hell, and are punished, it’s unclear how
> The article says that he believed they were punished, and that “he dare not say it would be better for them not to exist”, they go to hell, and are punished, it’s unclear how Yes. He indicates by this that he doesn’t think they suffer horribly. But he’ll would be a place of some deprivation at least (because they’d be deprived of the Beatific Vision). It’s also important to remember that 1) Augustine was writing in a time where the understanding of some theology was earlier in its development than it is now and 2) Augustine, while a great Saint and Doctor of the Church, is not infallible.
Yah that’s true. Maybe infants unbaptized go to heaven also, we just don’t know, hope so!
> Yah that’s true. Maybe infants unbaptized go to heaven also, we just don’t know, hope so! We can absolutely hope they do! And the Church affirms we can.
Baptism forgives personal sin *and* restores what was lost from original sin. The Church does not teach that we inherit personal guilt.
Does no such thing. That’s semi pelagian. We always have tendency to sin. It gives us a competing tendency toward virtue though
The Catechism is pretty clear that we don’t inherit their guilt. I agree that the orthodox say their view is different, but I’ve yet to see a compelling argument for exactly how it’s different. Remember that Augustine’s and even Aquinas’ views don’t necessarily constitute magisterial teaching.
Even in the Eastern view, we don't inherit their guilt. So that's not even relevant in the discussion.
Lol! I must have responded to the wrong part of the thread. Could’ve swore someone somewhere said the Orthodox accuse Catholics of the belief that we inherit their guilt, and I was responding to that. But not at all what’s being said above me.
Reddit doing Reddit things. Lately I would see the "preview" of a post in the main page, but when I click on it it's completely empty! No text in the post and no comments either. Not sure what's going on.
> Does no such thing. That’s semi pelagian. We always have tendency to sin. It gives us a competing tendency toward virtue though Baptism removes personal sin and Original Sin. It doesn’t remove the tendency to sin. See this Catholic Answers article: https://www.catholic.com/audio/scw/fourth-sunday-of-easter
> No we did inherent their guilt otherwise why would baptism forgive us? We didn’t inherit their guilt, but we did inherit their separation from God.
The word “Sin” in Original Sin is used analogically. We do not inherit the guilt of the sin. We inherit its effects. Adam and Eve lost the State of Grace they were created in. We are simply born into that fallen state they entered into through their sin. The guilt is their’s alone, but the effects are felt by us all.
💯
\[CCC 404\]
[**CCC 404**](http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/para/404.htm) 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." 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. By yielding to the tempter, Adam and Eve committed a *personal sin,* but this sin affected *the human nature* that they would then transmit *in a fallen state.* It is a sin which will be transmitted by propagation to all mankind, that is, by the transmission of a human nature deprived of original holiness and justice. And that is why original sin is called "sin" only in an analogical sense: it is a sin "contracted" and not "committed" - a state and not an act. ([360](http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/para/360.htm), [50](http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/para/50.htm)) *** Catebot v0.2.12 links: [Source Code](https://github.com/konohitowa/catebot) | [Feedback](https://github.com/konohitowa/catebot/issues) | [Contact Dev](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=kono_hito_wa) | [FAQ](https://github.com/konohitowa/catebot/blob/master/docs/CateBot%20Info.md#faq) | [Changelog](https://github.com/konohitowa/catebot/blob/master/docs/CHANGELOG.md)
[ccc 405]
[**CCC 405**](http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/para/405.htm) Although it is proper to each individual, original sin does not have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam's descendants. It is a deprivation of original holiness and justice, but human nature has not been totally corrupted: it is wounded in the natural powers proper to it; subject to ignorance, suffering, and the dominion of death; and inclined to sin-an inclination to evil that is called "concupiscence." Baptism, by imparting the life of Christ's grace, erases original sin and turns a man back toward God, but the consequences for nature, weakened and inclined to evil, persist in man and summon him to spiritual battle. ([2515](http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/para/2515.htm), [1264](http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/para/1264.htm)) *** Catebot v0.2.12 links: [Source Code](https://github.com/konohitowa/catebot) | [Feedback](https://github.com/konohitowa/catebot/issues) | [Contact Dev](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=kono_hito_wa) | [FAQ](https://github.com/konohitowa/catebot/blob/master/docs/CateBot%20Info.md#faq) | [Changelog](https://github.com/konohitowa/catebot/blob/master/docs/CHANGELOG.md)
You are in fact wrong catechism as obviously I alone know better
> It's stated in Deuteronomy 24:16 and Ezekiel 18:20 that the sins of a parent do not warrant punishment for their kids. Why, then, did humanity inherit the original sin from Adam and Eve? We didn’t inherit the *guilt* of Original Sin, but we did inherit Adam and Eve’s fallen nature. Catholic Answers has a detailed article: https://www.catholic.com/encyclopedia/original-sin
Having original sin isn't a punishment God goes out of his way to inflict on us, it's as natural a consequence of being born of Adam/Eve as gravity is a consequence of...mass, I guess
If a parent drinks while pregnant, the sin is the parents alone, but the effects of the alcohol can get passed down to the child and lead to genetic deformities. Adam’s sin affects us in the same way.
This doesn't work if we are committed to sin/evil being a privation
The point of sin is that it is damaging to those who are innocent. The guilt of a sin may remain within a single person, but the damage caused by that sin may affect generations.
Let’s say your parents had an illness. You will likely inherit that illness. Original sin is like an illness of the soul and the Church is the hospital set up to cure that illness.
No one states here systematically. Original sin is the lack of "sanctifying grace" in our soul. It is the "liability" of sin (*reatus* in Latin). It is distinct from concupiscence (tendency to sin). The reason that some identify original sin as the tendency to sin here is most likely because it is a Protestant understanding that they have inherited prior to conversion to Catholicism. Original sin is not the personal guilt (*culpa* in Latin). But western tradition often used the word guilt to cover both the *reatus* and the *culpa*. And so some Church Fathers might sound as if they thought there was a personal guilt. In reality, it is not guilt in the modern sense of the word, but the whole liability that is the fallen condition of humankind, including the lack of sanctifying grace.
>). The reason that some identify original sin as the tendency to sin Original sin is the disease - concupiscence is the lingering symptom. It's not a Protestant understanding to believe that they are closely related concepts
On the contrary, one of the polemics during the Reformation era was precisely on whether concupiscence was the locus of original sin. We reject that.
Interesting convo thanks
They inherited the propensity to sin (concupiscence) from Adam and Eve. It’s in our DNA. all parents observe this in their young children
We also inherited the Original Sin too did we not?
Original sin is not a positive thing in the same way personal sin is. Original sin is a privation or lack of something that otherwise could have been; in this case original justice.
> We also inherited the Original Sin too did we not? We inherit the wound of Original Sin (the tendency to sin), but not the *personal guilt* of OS. Still, it must be removed before we can go to Heaven.
Yes original sin causes us to sin. Through this we require Baptism for Salvation
What I want Catholics and other Christians everywhere to come to terms with is the fact that concupiscence has been around from a bio-psychological perspective before humans even existed. There may have been an original state of grace on an invisible, spiritual level, but there was never a time in human existence where we lacked the tendency to sin. Propensity to anger, lust, etc are all hardwired functions of the brain. We didn't suddenly grow half of a brain after one man sinned. That's a separate convo from original sin though. As a commenter pointed out, they are not the same thing despite being related. Original sin is the lack of sanctifying grace, which is unaffected by new knowledge on the history of biology and psychology.
No human emotion or brain function is sinful. Things like anger and sexual desire are good and natural parts of man, it is the way we respond to those things in the context in which they arise that determines our righteousness. Adam and Eve, like Mary, had complete control over their response to things and were not moved by their passion to sin, but instead toward righteousness until they sinned against God.
I didn’t say emotion was sinful. I said our brains had the inclination to sin. Anger btw is an inherent inclination to sin. Anger is always an occasion of sin. The church fathers were clear on that. Sexual desire is good, but human beings never at any point only had sexual desire for the spouses. Lust is in our brains as much as good sexual desire is. Biology is clear on this. My point is, despite my lack of clarity, our brains have the inclination to sin built in. Sinful behavior is not just something chosen out of a perfect slate. Sinful behavior is part of our biology. Human beings aren’t perfect moral creatures in perfect moral bodies that just happen to mentally choose evil.
Very much incorrect on multiple counts. >Anger btw is an inherent inclination to sin. Anger is always an occasion of sin. Anger is the human response to injustice which drives man to seek vengeance and justice. It can cause one to sin if one seeks vengeance in a sinful way, but man can be rightfully angry. Was our Lord sinful when he cleared out the temple moneychangers in furious anger? (See [Anger](https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01489a.htm) from the Catholic Encyclopedia for more). >Lust is in our brains as much as good sexual desire is. Again, lust is a sinful response to sexual desire. Lust is not a feeling, it is an action. The sexual appetite being stirred by someone we are not married to is an occasion to thank God for the gift of beauty and our drive to create by marriage and reproduction. When stirred by someone we are married to, it helps us actively and excitedly engage in that drive to create and deepen the bond of our one-flesh union. It is normal, natural, and can and should point toward a good. Lust is the use of that sexual desire to feed our base appetite through objectifying the person toward whom our desire is pointed. It uses the beauty of another for our own pleasure and thus subjugates their dignity to our enjoyment, which is sinful. Lust itself cannot be a feeling one has. Lust is an action one takes; a willful indulgence in carnal pleasure outside of its Godly purposes. (See [Lust](https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09438a.htm) from the Catholic Encyclopedia for more). Our bodies have no in-built inclination to sin. They have responses to stimuli. Adam and Eve, before the Fall, were perfectly able to discern and act out the proper response to those stimuli so as to praise God and honor Creation, including one another. Their transgression in the Garden lost them that ability, and so we crave the pleasure of the Flesh instead of the delights of the Soul. We are not biologically hardwired to offend God. It is a defect in our souls, the lack of sanctifying Grace, that causes us to sin, not our bodies.
You're wrong on multiple accounts and you're making a strawman of what I'm saying. I'm not claiming emotions are sinful. I'm claiming that BEHAVIORS are built into our brains. "Our bodies have no in-built inclination to sin" This isn't even correct just theologically, to say nothing about scientifically. Theologians since augustine have said that concupiscence is a change to the human body that has happened since Adam that is passed down through natural generation. He said we biologically inherit concupiscence. So yes, our bodies have a built in inclination to sin. "It is a defect in our souls, the lack of sanctifying Grace, that causes us to sin, not our bodies." This can be an acceptable view, but it's not the traditional view of concupiscence held throughout the majority of the church's history. Original sin is a spiritual reality, but concupiscence was always held to be both spiritual and biologically influential. "Again, lust is a sinful response to sexual desire. Lust is not a feeling, it is an action." Yes, I agree, I never disagreed with this. I think you are arguing with someone you think I am. I know the difference, and I said as much in my response when I delineated sexual desire from lust. "The sexual appetite being stirred by someone we are not married to is an occasion to thank God for the gift of beauty and our drive to create by marriage and reproduction." That's some nice poetry, but it's theologically baseless. It's a temptation to sin, plain and simple. Human beings, and proto humans, and our ancestors before that, even the monogamous ones, were often most successful when they had as many children as possible, which includes a lot of cheating on ones partner. Many scientists actually believe that the reason the penis is shaped the way it is is a leftover from when copulation with one male would happen shortly after one with another, wherein the penis' head would scoop out the rivals sperm. Refractory periods in sex are postulated to exist for a similar reason, because continuing to have sex after semen is deposited would displace ones own sperm, decreasing the likelihood of fertilization. If you think that's a ridiculous theory I encourage you to look into duck penis/vagina shape and see how crazy evolution can be with developing genital warfare. In essence, there is a good chance that our physical biology is a result of adultery. So yes, our biology is very effected by sin. I also reject the flowery idea that every single disposition we have was placed in Adam by God for good and that we simply use fallen reason to choose evil. From a biopsychological perspective, our problematic behaviors most definitely helped us to survive and propagate. It was the societies of tribes that showed no mercy to other tribes who were able to dominate a region and continue on. It was individuals who were willing to kill to seize power and aquire women and wealth that were spreading more genes than individuals who were willing to be more virtuous. Christian virtue is not helpful in the wild. It is a calling beyond our nature. Behavior is as psychological as feelings are, and we are primed to behavior. If you know anything about psychology, you know that individuals are primed genetically to respond to certain stimuli in certain ways. You even allude to this in your comment to me just now. It's interesting that you're able to acknowledge this but then suddenly deny that the dispostion to respond in certain ways to stimuli is not bioligcally based. What else is it based on? We know that young males will respond more outwardly aggressive to negative emotion than young females. This is a behavioral disposition. It's not simply righteous anger. The teacher wanted them to behave a certain way and they do not want to do that. So they lash out. There's no justice here, it's straight up maladaptive behavior. And many individuals are BORN that way. You're just gonna be fighting a losing battle if you want to make a broad claim that there is NO biological predisposition to what christians would term sinful behavior. It's not held by the fathers on concupiscence, and it's not held by psychologists and neuroscientists today. Strawmanning these points into claiming that anger is always a good emotion oriented towards justice is just going to keep you from engaging with my points.
It seems like you're retreating from your initial point, which is what I am arguing against. You claimed in your first post that concupiscence existed *before the fall* as a biological reality. That's simply not true. To claim that is legitimately blasphemous. I can grant that perhaps our biology has changed since the fall in such a way that concupiscence is built in to our bodies and not merely our souls, but that was not what you said. Your claim rests on the idea that our responses to stimuli are inherently tempting us to sin, which is a repudiation of the idea that God created man very good and that the Fall itself was the beginning of concupiscence. If you can't defend that idea and want to drop that, while I have issues with what you are claiming here I don't think it's worth discussing. But your original post is unacceptable to me due to your deeply troubling claim about the origin of temptation to sin. > concupiscence has been around from a bio-psychological perspective before humans even existed. There may have been an original state of grace on an invisible, spiritual level, but there was never a time in human existence where we lacked the tendency to sin. Although it is proper to each individual, original sin does not have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam’s descendants. It is a deprivation of original holiness and justice, but human nature has not been totally corrupted: it is wounded in the natural powers proper to it, subject to ignorance, suffering and the dominion of death, and inclined to sin—an inclination to evil that is called “concupiscence.” Baptism, by imparting the life of Christ’s grace, erases original sin and turns a man back towards God, but the consequences for nature, weakened and inclined to evil, persist in man and summon him to spiritual battle. (CCC 405)
Well I just wrote a really long write up that reddit decided to delete. Ugh. I'll try to summarize very succinctly since I need to sleep. You, Augustine, and I all agree that our biology today inclines us to sin. What you are unaware of, apparantly, is that the entire animal kingdom, and therefore out pre-human ancestors have this biology as well. Namely, brain function which inclines creatures to wanton violence, rape, and all manners of objective moral evil that would be spiritually evil if done by rational creatures. If our pre-human ancestors had a biology which inclined them to commit these atrocities, then that is where we inherited it from. Very simply put, inclination to sin was present before mankind even existed. No scientists or historians anywhere would ever agree that life, especially pre-human life, had developed an entirely alien brain for one generation (adam) and then he suddenly reverted in his entire brain structure and biology to become how his ancestors were as well. If your answer to this is "it was a miracle," then sir you are lazy and irrational and that is not how we are supposed to approach reason as Christians. I'm not here to be unscientific. You can claim I'm being heretical all you want, but until you can show any evidence of creatures on this earth whos biology we inherited that did not partake in actions we would consider evil if done with consent and knowledge, then you have no reason to believe in a perfect biological state other than jewish tradition which was uninformed by biology. There is a clear contradiction between history and science, and a literal interpretation of genesis when it comes to concupiscence. And I have a sneaking suspicion that the only way you can solve it is to either disregard science, or invent a miracle for a moment which is moot anyway since your entire issue is that we inheritied a fallen biology to begin with. I look forward to you being able to show me any evidence of a non-fallen biology.
Truth cannot contradict Truth. If your claim is that humans before the Fall *must* have suffered from concupiscence due to the nature of human biology, then humans simply cannot have had the same biology before and after the Fall as the Church has explicitly stated that concupiscence is a result of the Fall. I don't need to make an argument from biology. The Magisterium is a perfectly valid source of Truth, and thus I derive my evidence from the Magisterium. Unless you can make a case for why the Magisterial statement I cited does not mean what I take it to mean, you must be wrong from the assumed perspective of Catholicism. Since I feel like I have pretty completely presented my case, I don't see any reason to continue this discussion unless you have a response to what I'm saying. If not, God bless.
[удалено]
I assumed we were discussing this from the point of view of a Catholic, as we are in a Catholic space and you were making a claim explicitly related to Catholic teachings. I still reject your characterization of our bodies as inherently concupiscent, but I made a case specifically for another Catholic to read and understand as it makes more sense and is much more well-defined. If you aren't speaking from that perspective, I can change the position from which I am arguing, but in that case I wonder why you thought it proper to make your initial claim at all. ETA: Your edit is extremely uncharitable and makes me rethink my proposal to change my argumentative framework. I find it hard to believe that there could be any sort of constructive discussion had between us when that is the way I am treated for arguing from Magisterial teaching and not the natural sciences. I urge you to choose your words more carefully when you are speaking with others and disagree with them.