Is Florence on original sin inconsistent with current Magisterium?

[chevalier]

I’ve been thinking about this lately, less in the context of the actual fate of those dying outside the visible Church than rather in the context of limitations on the supposed infallibility of ordinary Magisterium.

Florence:

“But the souls of those who depart this life in actual mortal sin, or in original sin alone, go down straightaway to hell to be punished, but with unequal pains.” (Florence, Sixth Session, 6 July 1439.)”

The quotation marks a clear distinction between actual mortal sin and original sin. The addition of “alone” clearly means that the person does not have an actual mortal sin. Logically, it must mean, “with original sin only and without any actual mortal sin.”

Lyons II (1274 or so):

“The souls of those who die in mortal sin or with original sin only, however, immediately descend to hell, yet to be punished with different punishments.”

Again, “only” means expressly without a mortal sin.

Now John Paul II:

“However, as I wrote in the Encyclical Redemptoris Missio, the gift of salvation cannot be limited ‘to those who explicitly believe in Christ and have entered the Church. Since salvation is offered to all, it must be made concretely available to all."

There is not even a distinction drawn between the visible and the invisible Church.

Current teaching:

Compendium of the Catechism: “Hell consists in the eternal damnation of those who die in mortal sin through their own free choice.” (Compendium, n. 212)

CCCC 1037:

God predestines no one to go to hell; for this, a willful turning away from God (a mortal sin) is necessary, and persistence in it until the end.

Let me rephrase: in order to go to tell, a mortal sin is absolutely necessary.

Logically, therefore, without an actual mortal sin, the original sin is not sufficient—modern teaching specifically denies that hell for the original sin and without an actual mortal sin is impossible.

However, the councils are supposedly infallible, as is the ordinary Magisterium. But the two cannot be infallible at the same time: they are clearly mutually exclusive.

To complicate matters a bit, Trent seems to deny, under the pain of anathema no less, the modern notion that the original sin does not involve personal guilt.

Council of Trent: “If any one denies, that, by the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, which is conferred in baptism, the guilt of original sin is remitted, let him be anathema.” (Session Five)

Council of Trent: “If any one asserts, that this sin of Adam – which in its origin is one, and being transfused into all by propagation, is in each one as his own – is taken away by any other remedy than the merit of the one mediator, our Lord Jesus Christ, let him be anathema.” (Session Five)

Council of Trent: “If any one asserts, that the prevarication of Adam injured himself alone, and not his posterity; and that the holiness and justice, received of God, which he lost, he lost for himself alone, and not for us also; or that he, being defiled by the sin of disobedience, has only transfused death and the punishments of the body into the whole human race, but not sin also, which is the death of the soul; let him be anathema.”

Catechism of Trent: “Wherefore, the pastor should not omit to remind the faithful that the guilt and punishment of original sin were not confined to Adam, but justly descended from him, as from their source and cause, to all posterity. To remedy the evil and repair the loss it became necessary that the Son of God should remove the infinite weight of sin and reconcile us to God in His blood.”

(Translations are from: romancatholicism.org/jansenism/original-sin-pelagianism.htm.)

Especially the “death of the soul” is something heavy, as it is normally associated with a mortal sin but not a venial one. The original sin is never defined as a mortal sin.

Now Council of Carthage XVI:

It has been decided likewise that if anyone says that for this reason the Lord said: “In my house there are many mansions”: that it might be understood that in the kingdom of heaven there will be some middle place or some place anywhere where happy 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 a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he shall not enter into the kingdom of God” [John 3:5], what Catholic will doubt that he will be a partner of the devil who has not deserved to be a coheir of Christ? For he who lacks the right part will without doubt run into the left

Obviously, the above is very different from modern teaching, including the most recent popes.

 

[chevalier]

Another “nice” part from Florence:

“The Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that none of those outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but neither Jews, nor heretics and schismatics, can become participants in eternal life, but will depart ‘into the everlasting fire that was prepared for the devil and his angels’ [Matt. 25:41], unless before the end of life they have been added to the Church.”

While the invisible Church and the power of God to include people in the Church without acting through its mortal members is not denied, there is no disclaimer about the invisible Church. There is no mention of God appearing to those people in the last seconds of the earthly life and offering baptism of desire. There is no mention of invincible ignorance excusing some “heretics and schismatics” from mortal sin and thus removing their need for punishment (the condemnation seems to be attached to a failure to belong rather than the guilt of a mortal sin), there is no notion of the absence of formal heresy or schism as different from material. It seem to imply rather clearly that failure to be a baptised Catholic means eternal fire, barring maybe those of the old martyrs who actually died without receiving the baptism of water and are still considered holy saints.

When I was younger, I would probably make impossible leaps of logic to reconcile the texts to show that there is no inconsistency, no change. But as one grows up, one needs answers that have more than appearances to them. For one, I’ve got to admit I’m no longer capable of claiming that old and new teachings are perfectly consistent and both infallible at the same time.

How do we go about the old anathemas in believing in what is taught in the present day? (Not to mention that under old definitions choosing to believe in the modern teachings would seem to be formal heresy.) How do we go about the infallibility of old councils coexisting with the infallibility of modern papal teaching and the ordinary Magisterium in its modern shape, taught in the Catechism?

I’ve recently seen an explanation, in.al. offered by this gentleman, that dying in the original sin alone constitutes an actual mortal sin. That would make sense except the old councils clearly put “the original sin only/alone” in stark contrast to an actual mortal sin. And Carthage seems to put prenatals and infants in eternal fire, as some people who accuse others of Pelagianism are happy to believe.

I do wonder how many old anathemas I might be incurring in refusing to believe in babies being punished in eternal fire (and I’m not talking about young children managing to effect a mortal sin and die unrepentant of it).

 

[thistle]

Another “nice” part from Florence:

While the invisible Church and the power of God to include people in the Church without acting through its mortal members is not denied, there is no disclaimer about the invisible Church. There is no mention of God appearing to those people in the last seconds of the earthly life and offering baptism of desire. There is no mention of invincible ignorance excusing some “heretics and schismatics” from mortal sin and thus removing their need for punishment (the condemnation seems to be attached to a failure to belong rather than the guilt of a mortal sin), there is no notion of the absence of formal heresy or schism as different from material. It seem to imply rather clearly that failure to be a baptised Catholic means eternal fire, barring maybe those of the old martyrs who actually died without receiving the baptism of water and are still considered holy saints.

When I was younger, I would probably make impossible leaps of logic to reconcile the texts to show that there is no inconsistency, no change. But as one grows up, one needs answers that have more than appearances to them. For one, I’ve got to admit I’m no longer capable of claiming that old and new teachings are perfectly consistent and both infallible at the same time.

How do we go about the old anathemas in believing in what is taught in the present day? (Not to mention that under old definitions choosing to believe in the modern teachings would seem to be formal heresy.) How do we go about the infallibility of old councils coexisting with the infallibility of modern papal teaching and the ordinary Magisterium in its modern shape, taught in the Catechism?

I’ve recently seen an explanation, in.al. offered by this gentleman, that dying in the original sin alone constitutes an actual mortal sin. That would make sense except the old councils clearly put “the original sin only/alone” in stark contrast to an actual mortal sin. And Carthage seems to put prenatals and infants in eternal fire, as some people who accuse others of Pelagianism are happy to believe.

I do wonder how many old anathemas I might be incurring in refusing to believe in babies being punished in eternal fire (and I’m not talking about young children managing to effect a mortal sin and die unrepentant of it).

I don’t think its complicated.

If you die in a state of mortal sin you go to Hell.
If an unbaptised baby, for example, dies it dies in original sin only. However, we do not know what happens to such a baby which is why the Church states we entrust it to God’s mercy. Baptism is necessary (but not sufficient) for salvation but God is not bound by the Sacraments.

 

[TomD123]

Well,
I’ll start by saying I can give a much more thorough answer but I’ll give a brief one now. Also, I could provide links for more info but I am limited on time and I’m going to give my quick thoughts.

There are 2 issues one is for infants and original sin, the other is for those outside the Church.

As for the infants, there is no twisting words or leaps of logic.
Its simple, a good place to look is Ott’s fundamentals (book). This clears things up. It is a dogma (from Florence) that those who die in original sin go to hell. (This is NOT hell of the damned but reffered to as hell because of loss of beatific vision. For the hell of the damned–hell we think of/call “hell”-- willfull mortal sin is necessary). This doctrine is pretty simple as original sin is the lack of sanctifying grace which transforms us and gives us charity, makes us heirs to heaven, children of God, etc.
Thats what Florence said. Thats what we believe.
What we KNOW is that baptism confers this grace. We do NOT know if God through some other means known only to Him confers this grace on infants who die without baptism. If God does, he has not revealed this to us. If God does, it does not contradict Florence. We do not know. That is why the Catechism reminds us to trust infants to God’s mercy. Knowing that the Merciful Father will handle them accordingly.

Second, salvation outside the Church.
I don’t wanna get too detailed here as there is not enough time and this could become too wordy for the conversation but I’m willing to discuss further if you like.
The basic idea is what St. Augustine said: (paraphrase) “There is no salvation outside the Church…but some are in teh Church in body but not in heart and others are in the Church in heart but not body. God sees the heart” (Thats just a paraphrase, I can find the quote) Florence clearly does not exclude invisible membership in the Church because Baptism of desire was already a widely accepted theological opinion. Even the Council of Florence made an implicit reference too it. So I think its safe to say Florence was not excluding this invisible membership.
tom

 

[Robyn_p]

Another “nice” part from Florence:

While the invisible Church and the power of God to include people in the Church without acting through its mortal members is not denied, there is no disclaimer about the invisible Church. There is no mention of God appearing to those people in the last seconds of the earthly life and offering baptism of desire.

When I was younger, I would probably make impossible leaps of logic to reconcile the texts to show that there is no inconsistency, no change. But as one grows up, one needs answers that have more than appearances to them. For one, I’ve got to admit I’m no longer capable of claiming that old and new teachings are perfectly consistent and both infallible at the same time.

I’ve recently seen an explanation, in.al. offered by this gentleman, that dying in the original sin alone constitutes an actual mortal sin. That would make sense except the old councils clearly put “the original sin only/alone” in stark contrast to an actual mortal sin. And Carthage seems to put prenatals and infants in eternal fire, as some people who accuse others of Pelagianism are happy to believe.

I do wonder how many old anathemas I might be incurring in refusing to believe in babies being punished in eternal fire (and I’m not talking about young children managing to effect a mortal sin and die unrepentant of it).

None of the quotes you quoted above said that infants who die in original sin suffer the same eternal fire as the damned. It actually said specifically that those who die in original sin have a different suffering. We can’t go to heaven without sanctifying grace, that’s still a teaching of the Church by the way. And if left on our own, when we die, we couldnt possibly even live in heaven, because that requires powers we dont naturally have, so that would mean hell. (Not hell of the damned. But not heaven either) And that’s what Florence was talking about. And that’s what Carthage was referring to as well. As you know, Carthage was dealing with the pelagian heresy, which said we don’t need God’s grace to get to heaven, we can do it on our own. Therefore we don’t need to be baptized. Carthage and Florence and Trent and Vatican II and the Catechism of the Catholic Church all say no, we can’t get to heaven on our own, we need Gods grace which comes through baptism.

Notice however, like you said yourself, that nowhere does any of these quotes exclude the possibility of the invisible Church or God being able to transmit sanctifying grace to souls some other way known to him alone. It doesn’t mention what God does at all, it simply is emphasizing the need for baptism, which again, the Church STILL teaches is the ordinary means to heaven.

I wouldn’t fault a council for not saying everything there is to say about a subject in a single statement. That in no way disproves the infallibility of the Church They’re dealing with particular issues that need to be addressed. That’d be like saying, Well the council of Jerusalem said we’re saved by Christ, but it didn’t say Christ was God like the council of Nicaea, so the Church is contradicting itself. No it just didn’t deal with that aspect of why we are saved by Christ, because He’s true God and true man. Doesnt mean the apostles didnt believe it or taught against it. Same thing with Florence. It didn’t deal with invincible ignorance or Gods mercy, didn’t mean the Church didn’t believe in it or taught against it. It was dealing with the truth of our nature, that we are a fallen race and we need grace, which comes from Christ through the Church.

That’s why we have development of doctrine, it doesn’t contradict what went before but it gains a fuller understanding of the teaching as the Church ponders these mysteries. Here we have two truths, if you die without sanctifying grace, you can’t go to heaven. 100% true. I gotta repeat here that’s STIlL a teaching of the Church. But how do we reconcile that truth from John 3:3-5 with 1 Tim 2:4? That’s what John Paul II was dealing with. And I gotta point out that the early Church already had an understanding of this with the baptism of blood. Also, the Immaculate Conception is another good example, and the early Christians believed in that dogma as well.

If the Church said, nope original sin doesn’t exist or you don’t need to be baptized at all or you don’t need the Church to get to heaven, THEN we have a contradiction. But nowhere does the Church say that, not today’s magisterium, not yesterday’s. She’s just emphasizing different aspects of the same truth. That we can’t get to heaven on our own, that we need sanctifying grace, that baptism is the only way to receive sanctifying grace in this life. If we deny either of these truths TODAY that would be heresy. But God does want all to be saved, so there must be a way for him to get that grace to those who had no opportunity to be baptized. Hence, we entrust them to Gods mercy.

I don’t think that involved any twists or leaps of logic. It did involve looking at all those statements in the context they were meant to be taken though.

 

[Robyn_p]

Also, I noticed that quote from JP II didn’t have any reference. Do you know what encyclical or book that was from? I’d like to read the whole quote in context.

 

[chevalier]

I don’t think its complicated.

If you die in a state of mortal sin you go to Hell.
If an unbaptised baby, for example, dies it dies in original sin only. However, we do not know what happens to such a baby which is why the Church states we entrust it to God’s mercy. Baptism is necessary (but not sufficient) for salvation but God is not bound by the Sacraments.

The modern, i.e. current Church, teaches just that and I agree.

On the other hand, look at Florence and Lyons quotes. The old councils explicitly teach that dying in original sin only still makes one go to hell.

 

[chevalier]

None of the quotes you quoted above said that infants who die in original sin suffer the same eternal fire as the damned. It actually said specifically that those who die in original sin have a different suffering. We can’t go to heaven without sanctifying grace, that’s still a teaching of the Church by the way. And if left on our own, when we die, we couldnt possibly even live in heaven, because that requires powers we dont naturally have, so that would mean hell. (Not hell of the damned. But not heaven either) And that’s what Florence was talking about. And that’s what Carthage was referring to as well. As you know, Carthage was dealing with the pelagian heresy, which said we don’t need God’s grace to get to heaven, we can do it on our own. Therefore we don’t need to be baptized. Carthage and Florence and Trent and Vatican II and the Catechism of the Catholic Church all say no, we can’t get to heaven on our own, we need Gods grace which comes through baptism.

Florence teaches that the poena damnii applies to those who die in the original sin but without an actual mortal sin. Carthage teaches that there is no place where happy children dwell.

Notice however, like you said yourself, that nowhere does any of these quotes exclude the possibility of the invisible Church or God being able to transmit sanctifying grace to souls some other way known to him alone. It doesn’t mention what God does at all, it simply is emphasizing the need for baptism, which again, the Church STILL teaches is the ordinary means to heaven.

It doesn’t really specify an ordinary path. It uses explicit, categorical terms.

I wouldn’t fault a council for not saying everything there is to say about a subject in a single statement. That in no way disproves the infallibility of the Church They’re dealing with particular issues that need to be addressed. That’d be like saying, Well the council of Jerusalem said we’re saved by Christ, but it didn’t say Christ was God like the council of Nicaea, so the Church is contradicting itself.

There was no contradiction in your example. Not positively saying something didn’t exclude it. On the other hand, when the old councils say dying in original sin and without a mortal sin = hell, that’s a contradiction with the current belief that condemnation necessarily requires a mortal sin and even obstinacy in it. In fact, even entrusting unbaptised babies to God’s mercy in the hope of salvation for them, which the Church does currently do, seems to fall under the anathemas of the old councils.

That’s why we have development of doctrine, it doesn’t contradict what went before but it gains a fuller understanding of the teaching as the Church ponders these mysteries. Here we have two truths, if you die without sanctifying grace, you can’t go to heaven. 100% true. I gotta repeat here that’s STIlL a teaching of the Church. But how do we reconcile that truth from John 3:3-5 with 1 Tim 2:4? That’s what John Paul II was dealing with. And I gotta point out that the early Church already had an understanding of this with the baptism of blood. Also, the Immaculate Conception is another good example, and the early Christians believed in that dogma as well.

Strictly speaking, being added to the Church does include baptism of desire or baptism of blood. That baptism makes you Catholic, not Protestant. So yeah. On the other hand, it’s hard to resist the impression that the old teachings gravitate towards certain conclusions hardly acceptable to modern sensibilities.

If the Church said, nope original sin doesn’t exist or you don’t need to be baptized at all or you don’t need the Church to get to heaven, THEN we have a contradiction.

Well, nowadays the teaching seems to be that we inherit the original sin as a condition rather than as guilt, while Trent taught it was guilt. Carthage seems to associate that guilt with punishability, the same seems to go for Florence and Lyons.

She’s just emphasizing different aspects of the same truth.

That’s what’s usually said but propositional calculus seems to make some of the propositions incompatible.

That we can’t get to heaven on our own, that we need sanctifying grace, that baptism is the only way to receive sanctifying grace in this life. If we deny either of these truths TODAY that would be heresy. But God does want all to be saved, so there must be a way for him to get that grace to those who had no opportunity to be baptized. Hence, we entrust them to Gods mercy.

From that it follows that the way which must exist is a non-formal baptism.

 

[chevalier]

Also, I noticed that quote from JP II didn’t have any reference. Do you know what encyclical or book that was from? I’d like to read the whole quote in context.

Salvation in Christ Is Offered to All

1. The universality of salvation means that it is granted not only to those who explicitly believe in Christ and have entered the Church. Since salvation is offered to all, it must be made concretely available to all. But it is clear that today, as in the past, many people do not have an opportunity to come to know or accept the gospel revelation or to enter the Church. The social and cultural conditions in which they live do not permit this, and frequently they have been brought up in other religious traditions. For such people salvation in Christ is accessible by virtue of a grace which, while having a mysterious relationship to the Church, does not make them formally part of the Church but enlightens them in a way which is accommodated to their spiritual and material situation.** This grace comes from Christ; it is the result of his Sacrifice and is communicated by the Holy Spirit. It enables each person to attain salvation through his or her free cooperation.**

For this reason the Council, after affirming the centrality of the Paschal Mystery, went on to declare that "this applies not only to Christians but to all people of good will in whose hearts grace is secretly at work. Since Christ died for everyone, and since the ultimate calling of each of us comes from God and is therefore a universal one, we are obliged to hold that the Holy Spirit offers everyone the possibility of sharing in this Paschal Mystery in a manner known to God."19

vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_07121990_redemptoris-missio_en.html

The grace in the bolded part can mean baptism of non-explicit desire since it seems to make people part of the invisible Church.

But why do I think that preaching this several hundred years ago would have led to a gruesome death?

 

[Genesis315]

Original sin is cleansed by sanctifying grace, ordinarily through Baptism, but it can also be cleased in extraordinary ways. When we say someone may be saved who is unbaptized, the presumption is original sin is cleansed in them before death,

Also, the JPII quote comes from the following audience, which actually does go into detail, despite what the OP says to the contrary. It explicitly affirms the doctrine of no salvation outside the Church and he explicitly references Florence, Lateran IV, and Boniface VIII’s Unam Sanctam:

vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/audiences/alpha/data/aud19950531en.html

Some highlights:

The first quote comes after the quote in the OP:
Bl. John Paul II:

What I have said above, however, does not justify the relativistic position of those who maintain that a way of salvation can be found in any religion, even independently of faith in Christ the Redeemer, and that interreligious dialogue must be based on this ambiguous idea. That solution to the problem of the salvation of those who do not profess the Christian creed is not in conformity with the Gospel. Rather, we must maintain that the way of salvation always passes through Christ, and therefore the Church and her missionaries have the task of making him known and loved in every time, place and culture. Apart from Christ “there is no salvation.” As Peter proclaimed before the Sanhedrin at the very start of the apostolic preaching: “There is no other name in the whole world given to men by which we are to be saved” (Acts 4:12).
For those too who through no fault of their own do not know Christ and are not recognized as Christians, the divine plan has provided a way of salvation. As we read in the Council’s Decree Ad Gentes, we believe that “God in ways known to himself can lead those inculpably ignorant of the Gospel” to the faith necessary for salvation (AG 7). Certainly, the condition “inculpably ignorant” cannot be verified nor weighed by human evaluation, but must be left to the divine judgment alone.

From the same audience:
Bl. John Paul II:

Since Christ brings about salvation through his Mystical Body, which is the Church, the way of salvation is connected essentially with the Church. The axiom extra ecclesiam nulla salus"–“outside the Church there is no salvation”–stated by St. Cyprian (Epist. 73, 21; PL 1123 AB), belongs to the Christian tradition. It was included in the Fourth Lateran Council (DS 802), in the Bull Unam Sanctam of Boniface VIII (DS 870) and the Council of Florence (Decretum pro Jacobitis, DS 1351). The axiom means that for those who are not ignorant of the fact that the Church has been established as necessary by God through Jesus Christ, there is an obligation to enter the Church and remain in her in order to attain salvation (cf. LG 14). For those, however, who have not received the Gospel proclamation, as I wrote in the Encyclical Redemptoris Missio, salvation is accessible in mysterious ways, inasmuch as divine grace is granted to them by virtue of Christ’s redeeming sacrifice, without external membership in the Church, but nonetheless always in relation to her (cf. RM 10). It is a mysterious relationship. It is mysterious for those who receive the grace, because they do not know the Church and sometimes even outwardly reject her. It is also mysterious in itself, because it is linked to the saving mystery of grace, which includes an essential reference to the Church the Savior founded.
In order to take effect, saving grace requires acceptance, cooperation, a yes to the divine gift. This acceptance is, at least implicitly, oriented to Christ and the Church. Thus it can also be said that sine ecclesia nulla salus–“without the Church there is no salvation.” Belonging to the Church, the Mystical Body of Christ, however implicitly and indeed mysteriously, is an essential condition for salvation.

Also, the other sections in the CCC on original sin fill in what the OP is said is left out, including the effects of said sin as sin in the Trent definitions:

vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p1s2c1p7.htm

For example:

[403](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/403.htm’) 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”.291 Because of this certainty of faith, the Church baptizes for the remission of sins even tiny infants who have not committed personal sin.292

 

[Genesis315]

One additional note regarding the Compendium limiting Hell to mortal sinners. The Compendium is meant as a popular document and does lack the precision of the CCC. That being said, while it is technically true that dying in original sin only (which is only possible for whose without reason; the obligation to seek God and truth and of faith binds all gravely–without faith it is impossible to please God) leads to “Hell,” this state has commonly be denoted by a different term, “Limbo,” while “Hell” commonly refers to those who are being tormented for actual sins.

Cardinal Manning, in the 19th century, in his book The Temporal Mission of the Holy Ghost, explains well who the Church may use different terminology differently over time, and that it belongs to the Church to judge whether these things are consonant or not, not private critics.
Cardinal Manning:

The maturity of theology is not antiquity, but its later days ; and language which was blameless in earlier and simpler times, may become heterodox in after ages…Again, language which once was heterodox may become the test of truth, as the Homoousion, which was condemned by the Council of Antioch in the Sabellian sense, and in half a century was inserted in the Creed by the Council of Nicea. No critic except the living and lineal judge and discerner of truth, the only Church of God, can solve these inequalities and anomalies in the history of doctrine. To the Church the facts of antiquity are transparent in the light of its perpetual consciousness of the original revelation.

 

[chevalier]

Original sin is cleansed by sanctifying grace, ordinarily through Baptism, but it can also be cleased in extraordinary ways. When we say someone may be saved who is unbaptized, the presumption is original sin is cleansed in them before death,

Also, the JPII quote comes from the following audience, which actually does go into detail, despite what the OP says to the contrary. It explicitly affirms the doctrine of no salvation outside the Church and he explicitly references Florence, Lateran IV, and Boniface VIII’s Unam Sanctam:

vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/audiences/alpha/data/aud19950531en.html

Some highlights:

The first quote comes after the quote in the OP:

From the same audience:

Also, the other sections in the CCC on original sin fill in what the OP is said is left out, including the effects of said sin as sin in the Trent definitions:

vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p1s2c1p7.htm

For example:

[403](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/403.htm’) 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”.291 Because of this certainty of faith, the Church baptizes for the remission of sins even tiny infants who have not committed personal sin.292

Prove the bolded assertion please.

As for no salvation outside of the Church, that is not the point. Salvation always involves the Church and we have already covered the issue of the invisible Church.

One additional note regarding the Compendium limiting Hell to mortal sinners. The Compendium is meant as a popular document and does lack the precision of the CCC. That being said, while it is technically true that dying in original sin only (which is only possible for whose without reason; the obligation to seek God and truth and of faith binds all gravely–without faith it is impossible to please God) leads to “Hell,” this state has commonly be denoted by a different term, “Limbo,” while “Hell” commonly refers to those who are being tormented for actual sins.

Show me the “hell” and “limbo” differentiation in Florence. And then apply it to Carthage.

 

[Genesis315]

Prove the bolded assertion please.

As for no salvation outside of the Church, that is not the point. Salvation always involves the Church and we have already covered the issue of the invisible Church.

You said:

“There is not even a distinction drawn between the visible and the invisible Church.”

In the context of everything else you said, I took that to mean the Pope was saying, due to what you believe is a change in teaching on original sin, people could be saved without belonging to the Church at all, visible or invisible. Sorry if I misunderstood. He clearly states in the portions I provided that belonging to the one Church even in invisible ways is necessary for salvation (there is only one Church and it is visible, there are not two Churches, one visible and one invisible). The last sentence of the second quote from the audience is an example.

chevalier:

Show me the “hell” and “limbo” differentiation in Florence. And then apply it to Carthage.

The distinction in “different punishments” has traditionally been seen as a reference to Limbo. If we define Hell as the state lacking the beartific vision, then it is true Limbo is nothing more than Hell without the actual torments due to actual sins. That being said, they are commonly spoken of in the Church as if they were different “places.”

The Carthage canon addresses the Pelagian doctrine of a locus medius which was explicitly based on their denial of original sin. It’s condemnation is distinguishable from the idea of Limbo, as definitively judged by the Church (which has definitively condemned the Jansenist proposition that Limbo is a Pelagian fable, as was the locus medius condemned in St. Auguistine’s day), which is a result of original sin.

The principle Cardinal Manning enunciated in my previous post is key here. It’s possible to look back and misinterpret what was being taught in the past. The Church has the right and ability to be able to evaluate these kinds of issues with past formulations, etc. to judge whether or not they are ultimately orthodox. or consistent with those of other time periods.

 

[chevalier]

You said:

“There is not even a distinction drawn between the visible and the invisible Church.”

In the context of everything else you said, I took that to mean the Pope was saying, due to what you believe is a change in teaching on original sin, people could be saved without belonging to the Church at all, visible or invisible. Sorry if I misunderstood. He clearly states in the portions I provided that belonging to the one Church even in invisible ways is necessary for salvation (there is only one Church and it is visible, there are not two Churches, one visible and one invisible). The last sentence of the second quote from the audience is an example.

Sorry for overreaction. So the way we reconcile the teachings is that people do get the opportunity to get their original sin removed before they die. Therefore nobody goes to hell (proper) for torment without an actual sin. There could, I guess, still be controversies about going to hell without receiving torment.

The difficult part in that is that people at or above the age of reason would be receiving an opportunity to go to heaven (by removal of the original sin, which would happen by non-formal baptism, I guess) while those below (young children, prenatals) would only go to the so called limbo.

As for the invisible Church I’ve been used to that expression but could drop it without regret. That’d make people invisibly the members of the same Church.

The distinction in “different punishments” has traditionally been seen as a reference to Limbo.

But the limbo has traditionally been seen as pelagianist.

If we define Hell as the state lacking the beartific vision, then it is true Limbo is nothing more than Hell without the actual torments due to actual sins.

Sounds about right but what about the devil’s dominion over hell? Surely those people wouldn’t be given over to the devil to rule, nor would the devil be interested in maintain a tormentless place in hell, let alone anything close to the description of a place of natural happiness?

That being said, they are commonly spoken of in the Church as if they were different “places.”

I guess because of the difficulties.

The Carthage canon addresses the Pelagian doctrine of a locus medius which was explicitly based on their denial of original sin. It’s condemnation is distinguishable from the idea of Limbo, as definitively judged by the Church (which has definitively condemned the Jansenist proposition that Limbo is a Pelagian fable,

Waitasec, I think I recall that one.

Carthage would seem to condemn the placement of the locus medius in heaven, from what seems to me from the text.

The principle Cardinal Manning enunciated in my previous post is key here. It’s possible to look back and misinterpret what was being taught in the past. The Church has the right and ability to be able to evaluate these kinds of issues with past formulations, etc. to judge whether or not they are ultimately orthodox. or consistent with those of other time periods.

Well, yeah, I guess the lesser infallibility of the ordinary teaching is a problem there but then nobody can claim the same infallibility for the ordinary Magisterium as for actual infallible decrees of popes.

So I guess we can interpret the old teaching in conjunction with the new into something along these lines: “the original sin in the absence of actual mortal sin is sufficient for condemnation itself but not for torment, and people receive an opportunity to have the original sin removed from them (some form of baptism of desire or blood or non-formal baptism) prior to their deaths?” The necessity of baptism and belonging to the Church being the more important truth here next to which the rest is only a supplement further defined at a later time?

 

[thistle]

The modern, i.e. current Church, teaches just that and I agree.

On the other hand, look at Florence and Lyons quotes. The old councils explicitly teach that dying in original sin only still makes one go to hell.

I do not believe there is a contradiction. In the past these teachings were primarily to encourage people to get their children baptised as soon as possible and not to condemn unbaptised children to Hell. They are basically saying there is no way except baptism for us to communicate supernatural life to a child. However God can communicate that life to the child in other ways because he is not bound by the Sacraments. It is only we who are bound by them and therefore we leave such children to God’s mercy. I believe that the teaching as of today is simply a development of the past teaching and not a contradiction.

 

[TomD123]

Chevalier,
Did you see my comments?
Tom

 

[Catholic_Jay]

I’ve been thinking about this lately, less in the context of the actual fate of those dying outside the visible Church than rather in the context of limitations on the supposed infallibility of ordinary Magisterium.

You forgot one:

1. If anyone asserts that this sin of Adam, which in its origin is one, and by propagation, not by imitation, transfused into all, which is in each one as something that is his own, is taken away either by the forces of human nature or by a remedy other than the merit of the one mediator, our Lord Jesus Christ,[9] who has reconciled us to God in his own blood, made unto us justice, sanctification and redemption;[10] or if he denies that that merit of Jesus Christ is applied both to adults and to infants by the sacrament of baptism rightly administered in the form of the Church, let him be anathema; for there is no other name under heaven given to men, whereby we must be saved.[11] -THE COUNCIL OF TRENT Session V - Celebrated on the seventeenth day of June, 1546 under Pope Paul III

The Catechism of the Catholic Church on this:

891 “The Roman Pontiff, head of the college of bishops, enjoys this infallibility in virtue of his office, when, as supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful - who confirms his brethren in the faith he proclaims by a definitive act a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals. . . . The infallibility promised to the Church is also present in the body of bishops when, together with Peter’s successor, they exercise the supreme Magisterium,” above all in an Ecumenical Council.418 When the Church through its supreme Magisterium proposes a doctrine "for belief as being divinely revealed,"419 and as the teaching of Christ, the definitions "must be adhered to with the obedience of faith."420 This infallibility extends as far as the deposit of divine Revelation itself.421

892 Divine assistance is also given to the successors of the apostles, teaching in communion with the successor of Peter, and, in a particular way, to the bishop of Rome, pastor of the whole Church, when, without arriving at an infallible definition and without pronouncing in a “definitive manner,” they propose in the exercise of the ordinary Magisterium a teaching that leads to better understanding of Revelation in matters of faith and morals. To this ordinary teaching the faithful "are to adhere to it with religious assent"422 which, though distinct from the assent of faith, is nonetheless an extension of it.

Green = must be believed
Purple = “religious assent”

 

[chevalier]

Well, I’m struggling with this stuff but I’d like to make it clear that this comes down to my problems with understanding, not that I actually want to question official teaching, let alone dissuade anybody from believing it.

I don’t have any difficulty with the idea that salvation always comes through the Church and with baptism along the way, including baptism of desire–for example including people in whom the desire isn’t explicit e.g. because they’ve got no idea what baptism is. While difficult to swallow, the idea that the original sin alone (if not removed by God in His infinite mercy in some way) is sufficient for condemnation but without torment, is something I wouldn’t question.

My problem here is the implication, when I’m reading into those councils, of people actually going to hell simply because they failed to enter the visible Church (e.g. full external communion wasn’t there because they were Orthodox, albeit without grave personal culpability for being in error about anything) or even because the missionaries didn’t make it to their island or jungle. Maybe I’m reading too much in here but the way those pronouncements are worded, it looks like that to me. I understand Florence can still be argued to be infallible this way, escaping a direct logical contradiction, and so the idea that the modern teaching doesn’t violate Florence can also be defended, and both infallible at the same time, but this leaves me less than enthusiastic about the way infallibility is so strongly asserted. It makes me feel bad.

However, there does seem to be a contradiction when the modern teaching says mortal sin is necessary for condemnation, i.e. no condemnation without mortal sin, and the old teaching says mortal or original sin, it would make no sense to list original sin separately if the only way to retain the original sin was by committing a mortal sin.

Anyone?

 

[grannymh]

No.

Please refer to CCC 66 for the reason. Another possible source is the “Index of Citations”, page 689 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition.
CCC 1260 has an interesting reference to “a way known to God”

 

[TomD123]

My problem here is the implication, when I’m reading into those councils, of people actually going to hell simply because they failed to enter the visible Church (e.g. full external communion wasn’t there because they were Orthodox, albeit without grave personal culpability for being in error about anything) or even because the missionaries didn’t make it to their island or jungle. Maybe I’m reading too much in here but the way those pronouncements are worded, it looks like that to me. I understand Florence can still be argued to be infallible this way, escaping a direct logical contradiction, and so the idea that the modern teaching doesn’t violate Florence can also be defended, and both infallible at the same time, but this leaves me less than enthusiastic about the way infallibility is so strongly asserted. It makes me feel bad.

However, there does seem to be a contradiction when the modern teaching says mortal sin is necessary for condemnation, i.e. no condemnation without mortal sin, and the old teaching says mortal or original sin, it would make no sense to list original sin separately if the only way to retain the original sin was by committing a mortal sin.

Anyone?

The same Council of Florence which taught no salvation outside of the Church is the Council that defined that people only go to hell with mortal or original sin.
This implies that those outside of the Church have mortal sin (because adults cannot have original sin alone according to Aquinas).

Pope Pius IX reaffirmed the idea that no one could be condemned without personal sin in 2 encyclicals ( I think) that addressed salvation outside the Church specifically.

I think the point is this: If one is outside visible communion with the Church, one is in objective grave sin but may not be culpable. However they have other mortal sins UNLESS they are invisibly united to the Church. This would happen through perfect contrition. So in other words, one outside the Church by necessity is culpable for mortal sin.

Lastly, I do not quite understand what you are saying with your last paragraph. But I’ll try to answer: The Church has not abandon the idea that original sin is sufficient for damnation. However, the language can be VERY confusing. See, the concept of Hell Florence used meant simply the loss of heaven. Technically this is damnation. But the connotation is the problem. This is why we speak of limbo because although technically part of hell, it subjectively is very different. In other words those who die in original sin alone enjoy perfect natural happiness…I would say far different than eternal torment!! So for connotation purposes we say mortal sin alone is how one is damned to hell and those who die in original sin alone are in limbo.