Is Florence on original sin inconsistent with current Magisterium?

[TomD123]

And one more point:

I think the key to reconciling our understanding of the doctrine now and the teaching of florence is this:

The Council of Florence does certainly leave room for membership with the Church through desire. It does not emphasize this point, it does not delve deep into this point or explain what it means but it certainly leaves it open, here are some reasons to support my claim:

1. the first definition of EENS was by a Pope who specifically wrote about baptism of desire.
2. The Council of Florence quotes St. Thomas on the issue of baptism for the infants. This quote of his implies adults can have baptism of desire (I can get the quote if you wish)
3. The specific definition from the Council of Florence does not say specifically baptism of water or what articles of faith must be believed. Simply that none outside the Church may be saved
4. The definition of Florence is pretty much a quote from one of the Church Fathers who defends Baptism of Desire and Blood.
5. During the time of the Council the idea of invisible membership in the Church was prominant. It was the teaching of the Fathers and of St. Thomas. The Council did not condemn this idea
6. The Church after the council did not ever say that the Council must be interpreted to exclude invisible membership with the Church. Trent taught BoD, theologians and Saints taught the same. St. Alphonsus taught BoD and implicit faith in the Trinity to be sufficient for salvation. Pope Pius IX, Pius X, Pius XII, Paul VI, JPII and Vatican 2 all uphold this position.

 

[chevalier]

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.

Florence and Lyons seem to be very explicit on the possibility of condemnation without a personal sin.

Also, why list original sin as a separate category if it comes down to a mortal sin anyway?

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.

Sounds pukkah, no complaint there. But why would Florence and Lyons list mortal OR original ALONE then? “Mortal or original,” okay, sure, we aren’t always 100% precise. But the “alone” is pretty significant, as in to me it makes it obvious that the original sin alone, in the absence of any mortal sin, suffices for condemnation. (And if the continued presence of the original sin is a conclusive hint that a mortal sin must be there, then, again, it would seem unnecessary to make the differentiation.)

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.

Well, I’d at least expect it to be outside of Satan’s power…?

In other words those who die in original sin alone enjoy perfect natural happiness…I would say far different than eternal torment!!

Actually, the problem that makes in light of the instant judgement upon death (would they hear their condemnation?) or last judgement (resurrection for the death? final annihilation?) would be even more difficult than what we’re discussing here. But those are things I lack any real understanding of, so I’m not talking about them.

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.

There isn’t any negative teaching about the possibility of hell without torment?

 

[Gorgias]

Florence and Lyons seem to be very explicit on the possibility of condemnation without a personal sin.

Also, why list original sin as a separate category if it comes down to a mortal sin anyway?

Sounds pukkah, no complaint there. But why would Florence and Lyons list mortal OR original ALONE then?

My take on it is that it’s there to affirm the teaching against Pelagius, who asserted that original sin didn’t exist – that is, he asserted that people were born with the ability to get to heaven on their own. Therefore, if they only mentioned personal sin, then it would seem to imply that they were refuting Augustine’s position against Pelagianism. Moreover, Florence is really concerned about the question of Purgatory; the notion of ‘limbo’ is really not on their radar, per se.

We really have too many threads on this same topic that are floating about on these forums. Perhaps we should combine them, so that there’s not five different conversations on the same subject (e.g., Florence and original sin)…

 

[TomD123]

Florence and Lyons seem to be very explicit on the possibility of condemnation without a personal sin.
**I should have been more precise. What I meant to say is that no one could be condemned to the “hell of the damned” or “hell proper” without personal sin. **

Also, why list original sin as a separate category if it comes down to a mortal sin anyway?
**Because they are very different. The only thing they have in common is that they both result in the lack of sanctifying grace in the individual, thus one cannot enter into heaven. However, this is where all similarities stop. Mortal sin is personal and worthy of eternal torment where original sin is not personal and the guilt of original sin is much much different. The punishment reflects this as even Florence points out the punishments of those in mortal sin and original sin alone are very different. Most would even say that those in original sin alone would go to limbo not hell proper…therefore it is good the two concepts were listed separately. **

Sounds pukkah, no complaint there. But why would Florence and Lyons list mortal OR original ALONE then? “Mortal or original,” okay, sure, we aren’t always 100% precise. But the “alone” is pretty significant, as in to me it makes it obvious that the original sin alone, in the absence of any mortal sin, suffices for condemnation. (And if the continued presence of the original sin is a conclusive hint that a mortal sin must be there, then, again, it would seem unnecessary to make the differentiation.)

**Original sin can only exist alone in infants or those who have never had the use of reason (according to St. Thomas). Original sin alone IS sufficient for condemnation (depriving a soul of heaven) but NOT sufficient for sending one to hell (in the way we think of hell…the hell of the damned). **

Actually, the problem that makes in light of the instant judgement upon death (would they hear their condemnation?) or last judgement (resurrection for the death? final annihilation?) would be even more difficult than what we’re discussing here. But those are things I lack any real understanding of, so I’m not talking about them.
I don’t see a problem. I think there are many theories about what limbo could be like and its relation with heaven could be…Although its all speculation. We don’t even know if such a place exists.

There isn’t any negative teaching about the possibility of hell without torment?
Again, divisions need to be made. To say there can be a hell of the damned without torment would be of course contrary to the teachings of the Church and to Christ’s words. BUT, when talking about hell in the broader sense we mean all those who are deprived of the beatific vision. In this case, the Church specifically affirms the possibility of a “hell” (limbo) without pain and with happiness

My comments above in your quote in bold

 

[chevalier]

Hello again, good folks. I’ve done searching and asking and never been fully satisfied with the answers… up to a point. Easter coming I just didn’t want to be in the metaphorical limbo of spiritual anguish over unanswered questions when it’s time to confess and be united to God and the Church for Easter (and I know what a no-communion, scruple-ridden Easter feels like when you keep digesting, over and over, things that are keeping you away), so I decided to put some relatively urgent secular matters away for a time and did something which I should’ve done right away. I went to the Catholic Encyclopedia. Sure, its best formal claim to reliability is a nihil obstat, which is not that big, but the arguments are as solid as one can get. Not to mention they’re written in the language I find the easiest to digest. I was shocked to see how candidly they admitted all sorts of embarrasments that arose along the way, and how candidly they named the bases for certain theological positions. If something just simply doesn’t look compatible with the idea of a merciful God, they just say so and there’s no mumbo jumbo around the fact.

They wrote all that I needed to hear about Carthage and about Florence and, with the supplementation of whatever they had to say about infallibility (papal, conciliar and general magisterial), that was enough to put an end to my problems without forcing me to pretend that problems didn’t exist, were strictly subjective, I was wrong but didn’t yet know how etc. (Not that wasn’t wrong but anyway.)

What I really needed to hear was a credible claim that Carthage addressed the specific Pelagian locus medius, not the previous and later limbo, that justifications and expositions weren’t infallible and in fact that even solid logic wasn’t guaranteed but only the absence of erroneous final definitions and that latter only with regard to what the definers actually wanted to define, not requiring that the statement be true with only minimal definition of the words in it, but actually involving a context and intent. Meaning, in other words, that the single sentence containing a definition is not meant to be some abstract truth in itself (even though only that sentence may be what’s actually infallible in the entire document). Much clarifying.

Then, what was extremely helpful was the part about how St. Augustin and papal-approved Carthage might actually have personally believed in torments for unbaptised children but still failed to define that kind of thing in a final way. Which was great because it didn’t skirt around anything or pretend that problems didn’t exist.

Guess I made an idiot of myself again but more importantly hope nobody felt shaken in his faith from this thing and nobody shaken tripped.

 

[Michael_Francis]

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)