Has the Church changed its teaching on original sin?

  • Thread starter Thread starter stpurl
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
S

stpurl

Guest
At Mass today the priest told us that the significance of the Immaculate Conception of Mary was that now we are all ‘born sinless as well’, holy people. He then specifically went on to state that the people born ‘before Vatican II" were taught erroneously and that "now we know better’.

Well, this came as news to me, so I thought I would ask if I somehow (since I’m part of that "older person’ cadre) missed the memo that Mary’s Immaculate Conception in the past brought us to a future of today where we too are perfectly sinless and holy at birth.

Paging Father David and Don Ruggero and Deacon Jeff --can you help me understand this?
 
The teaching on original sin has not changed. We are all born with original sin. That’s why we need Baptism, to remove original sin and restore sanctifying grace.
 
The Church hasn’t changed its teaching on original sin. The Catechism of the Catholic Church still says that we are all born with original sin in CCC 403:
Following St. Paul, the Church has always taught that the overwhelming misery which oppresses men and their inclination towards evil and death cannot be understood apart from their connection with Adam’s sin and the fact that he has transmitted to us a sin with which we are all born afflicted, a sin which is the “death of the soul”
Click to expand...
 
I’d suggest you ask Father, “Father, on Immaculate Conception I understood you to say …” and ask him to clarify.
 
If you accurately heard and are accurately reporting this, the Priest has severely erred on this issue. So severely in fact, that it would seem he’s preaching blatant heresy from the ambo.

Not sure how to go about correcting him…
 
I believe I am accurate, but I am open to somebody like Father David or Don Ruggero who might have a greater understanding, as fellow priests, and might be able to point out a way that this might be understood or at least be able to tell me how they, as priests, would appreciate a lay person asking them for clarification (if that’s not a bad word 😉). The last thing in the world I want is to approach a priest in a disobedient, judgmental, or hateful way.
 
You might have better luck “paging” them this way - calling @FrDavid96 @Don_Ruggero and @(name removed by moderator)
 
Last edited:
Thank you! I had seen that @ sign but hadn’t realized what it signified. I am not tech-savvy. I’m more comfortable with knitting patterns than code and other tools!
 
Spyridon said:
You might have better luck “paging” them this way - calling @FrDavid96 @Don_Ruggero and @(name removed by moderator)
Click to expand...
No. We are not “all born sinless”

But we are all born with the potential to become free of original sin through Baptism, by the Incarnation passion-death-resurrection.

Nothing has changed with regard to the Church’s teaching of Original Sin.

It’s difficult (sometimes dangerous) to write against what another priest said in a homily without actually hearing it myself or reading it. All I have to go by here is one sentence.

I can say with certainty that Vatican II did not change any doctrine of Original Sin. Nothing changed.

He might be saying that there used to be an idea called limbo (which most probably know about). It was the idea that if a baby died unbaptised, that baby went to hell, but to a special pace in it called “limbo.” Pope Benedict cleared that up in the 21st century—that it was an idea of theologians but never the teaching of the Church, and the Church now rejects the idea of limbo.

If he specifically said “we are all born without Original Sin” that would be a serious problem. If he said “we are all born without individual/actual sin” then he’s be correct.
 
Precisely why we paged the Reverend Father @FrDavid96 !

Reading her OP, if the verbatim words of the Priest were actually “we are all born sinless” there IS an orthodox way to interpret that - we ARE all born sinless in that we are free from actual sin.

If he said “we are all born totally Immaculate and sinless, both of actual sin and ancestral sin” - now that’s a heterodox statement which is basically impossible to reconcile to orthodox Catholic doctrine.

@stpurl You should ask the Priest to clarify his statement in his homily by saying something like “Father, excuse me, could you tell me what you meant in your homily by saying we are born without sin? You meant actual sin right? Or were you talking of both actual and original sin?”, then let him clarify and reassert himself.

Take note of what he says verbatim and report back!
 
Unless he means born as in reborn in baptism, which it doesn’t seem so with vat ii comments, then this appears to be grave error if this is accurate.
 
Last edited:
Thank you, Father. He did specifically ask the children (there’s a church school in this parish) if they knew that because of Mary’s being saved by Jesus in her Immaculate Conception, that we were all now holy and pure as well. Then he turned to the adults on the other side of the church and said, “You guys, when you were in school before Vatican II, were YOU taught that you were born holy and perfect?” and lots of people said, “No”. And he said, “There were a lot of errors back then, and they taught wrong things, but we know better now.”

If it helps to have context, he never has us say a creed at all of any kind, and he makes up his own Eucharistic prayers, and Jesus was dead wrong and had to be enlightened by the gentile women because He called her a dog, and St. Paul is hopelessly wrong, and the whole Reformation started because the POPE was selling indulgences and good Martin Luther called him out on it and we’re finally starting to recognize how right he was.

It gets very confusing because I never know what is going to be said or done, or what has supposedly been changed. . . How am I supposed to be a full active participant when we don’t do what the Mass calls for, add things here, subtract things here, and say that doctrines and dogma which the Catechism and the Popes have stated were ‘wrong.’
 
Last edited:
stpurl said:
At Mass today the priest told us that the significance of the Immaculate Conception of Mary was that now we are all ‘born sinless as well’, holy people. He then specifically went on to state that the people born ‘before Vatican II" were taught erroneously and that "now we know better’.

and he makes up his own Eucharistic prayers,

and Jesus was dead wrong and had to be enlightened by the gentile women because He called her a dog,
Click to expand...
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
 
Last edited:
stpurl said:
Thank you, Father. He did specifically ask the children (there’s a church school in this parish) if they knew that because of Mary’s being saved by Jesus in her Immaculate Conception, that we were all now holy and pure as well.
Click to expand...
That’s what I mean about not hearing the exact words in context.

Because of the Incarnation of Christ (and we include the Immaculate Conception in that, overall), we are indeed made pure and holy.

Yes, we are born without individual sin. We are also born WITH Original Sin–if he denied this, then he would be in error.

I find it troubling to read the comments about before versus after Vatican II.

At the same time there is some truth to the idea that before Vatican II theology and catechism took a lesser view of the human person and we have a better perspective on things today. Better perspective does not mean any change to the Church’s teaching–only the methods of explaining that teaching.
Then he turned to the adults on the other side of the church and said, “You guys, when you were in school before Vatican II, were YOU taught that you were born holy and perfect?” and lots of people said, “No”. And he said, “There were a lot of errors back then, and they taught wrong things, but we know better now.”

If it helps to have context, he never has us say a creed at all of any kind, and he makes up his own Eucharistic prayers, and Jesus was dead wrong and had to be enlightened by the gentile women because He called her a dog, and St. Paul is hopelessly wrong, and the whole Reformation started because the POPE was selling indulgences and good Martin Luther called him out on it and we’re finally starting to recognize how right he was.

It gets very confusing because I never know what is going to be said or done, or what has supposedly been changed. . . How am I supposed to be a full active participant when we don’t do what the Mass calls for, add things here, subtract things here, and say that doctrines and dogma which the Catechism and the Popes have stated were ‘wrong.’
Click to expand...
Based on what you post here, I find that disturbing and troubling.

Still, don’t take that as any kind of judgement on my part. It’s not my place.
 
Such a dramatic change of dogma would have been splashed across every headline, your Bishop would have issued a letter to be read at all masses (not to mention that it would mean that the Gates of Hell have prevailed and the Church is out of business).
 
The priest is teaching incorrectly. He needs to be called on it.
 
Does the change of substance even occur if the Eucharistic prayer is not said properly but made up?!
 
Kei said:
Does the change of substance even occur if the Eucharistic prayer is not said properly but made up?!
Click to expand...
That depends. I can’t answer that based on only what you typed here.

The Church requires that every priest use an approved Eucharistic Prayer. No exceptions. It must be approved by the Holy See (even if approved ad experimentum).

If it’s not an approved EP the validity of the consecration is usually “questionable.” At least, that applies if the priest is using different words for the actual narrative itself (as opposed to the text before and after it).

It isn’t difficult to compose an EP that would be valid. (That’s not to say one that could legitimately be used either).

Validity is not the only issue.

No priest can either change the words of the EP nor use his composition.
 
Thank you for responding, Father. I’ve prayed about this a lot and I still really don’t know what to do, especially as my boys get older (it’s confusing enough in the secular world for them as they’re in kindergarten and 1st grade, lots to learn) and since I don’t drive this is the only parish we have. When I’ve tried to talk to him he just says to be open, and I’m so afraid of coming across like some kind of fault-finding rigid Pharisee that the few things I do say are on the order of, "Gosh, Father, when I attended St. So-and-So and the classes they had on the catechism and liturgy, the Catechism said we do X but I haven’t seen that here’, and he’ll say, “we need to be open to the Spirit, let yourself be open, and you’ll feel the Spirit, I’d like to thank you for sharing”. . . so you feel like maybe you ARE all rigid and wrong, but you can’t help wondering why the Spirit seems to be leading only this priest and only this parish in a totally different direction from all the other priests and parishes. . .
 
Did you walk into a Friends Society meeting by mistake? Or perhaps the priest was in the wrong place?
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top