"No person is excluded from salvation simply because of so-called original sin"

[tdgesq]

I’ve held off for a while posting this until the media furor died down surrounding Pope Francis’ homily of May 22, 2013, where he stated in part: “The Lord has redeemed all of us, all of us, with the Blood of Christ: all of us, not just Catholics. Everyone! ‘Father, the atheists?’ Even the atheists.” This isn’t the statement that I’m concerned about here though. It’s the follow-up by Vatican spokesman Fr. Thomas Rosica.

As you may recall, the media’s interpretation of the Vatican statement was that it was retracting the Pope’s homiletic message. I didn’t see it that way and wrote the whole thing off as much ado about nothing. However, nobody mentioned this troubling passage from Fr. Rosica’s follow-up explanatory note:

1. As Christians, we believe that God is always reaching out to humanity in love. This means that every man or woman, whatever their situation, can be saved. Even non-Christians can respond to this saving action of the Spirit. No person is excluded from salvation simply because of so-called original sin; one can only lose their salvation through serious personal sin of their own account.
   Explanatory Note.

I do not believe this is traditional Catholic teaching on the subject. While it may be a possibility, I don’t think it has been revealed to the Church. Thoughts?

 

[Francie3]

You might find this page of the Catechism of the Catholic Church helpful,

scborromeo.org/ccc/p123a9p3.htm

including from paragraph 845

It would be most helpful if you read the page, especially from paragraph 830

Paragraph 845.
“Outside the Church there is no salvation”…

846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers?335 Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:

Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.336

847 This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church:

 

[grannymh]

I’ve held off for a while posting this until the media furor died down surrounding Pope Francis’ homily of May 22, 2013, where he stated in part: “The Lord has redeemed all of us, all of us, with the Blood of Christ: all of us, not just Catholics. Everyone! ‘Father, the atheists?’ Even the atheists.” This isn’t the statement that I’m concerned about here though. It’s the follow-up by Vatican spokesman Fr. Thomas Rosica.

As you may recall, the media’s interpretation of the Vatican statement was that it was retracting the Pope’s homiletic message. I didn’t see it that way and wrote the whole thing off as much ado about nothing. However, nobody mentioned this troubling passage from Fr. Rosica’s follow-up explanatory note:
9) As Christians, we believe that God is always reaching out to humanity in love. This means that every man or woman, whatever their situation, can be saved. Even non-Christians can respond to this saving action of the Spirit. No person is excluded from salvation simply because of so-called original sin; one can only lose their salvation through serious personal sin of their own account.
Explanatory Note.

I do not believe this is traditional Catholic teaching on the subject. While it may be a possibility, I don’t think it has been revealed to the Church. Thoughts?

My first thought is a two-part question. What is Original Sin? And why is it different from serious personal sins committed by the descendants of Adam and Eve?

The difficulty with pope-speak is that there is an assumption that all of us know our Catholic doctrines. Therefore, when there is a problem of misunderstanding, one should start with basic questions related to the topic such as the ones above.

 

[devoutchristian]

Priest vs. Ecumenical Council of Florence (among others)

I’ll stick with the Council.

 

[larsont7]

Priest vs. Ecumenical Council of Florence (among others)

I’ll stick with the Council.

Agreed. I don’t know if the priest was speaking of invincible ignorance and the Baptism of Blood/Baptism of Desire, but his wording was certainly not clear. For Catholics and non-Catholics who do not know the faith, these words could be a danger to their salvation. It gives the impression that the Sacrament of Baptism is not that big of a deal. Hopefully this priest will come out and explain what he meant.

 

[Mike30]

I’ve held off for a while posting this until the media furor died down surrounding Pope Francis’ homily of May 22, 2013, where he stated in part: “The Lord has redeemed all of us, all of us, with the Blood of Christ: all of us, not just Catholics. Everyone! ‘Father, the atheists?’ Even the atheists.” This isn’t the statement that I’m concerned about here though. It’s the follow-up by Vatican spokesman Fr. Thomas Rosica.

As you may recall, the media’s interpretation of the Vatican statement was that it was retracting the Pope’s homiletic message. I didn’t see it that way and wrote the whole thing off as much ado about nothing. However, nobody mentioned this troubling passage from Fr. Rosica’s follow-up explanatory note:

1. As Christians, we believe that God is always reaching out to humanity in love. This means that every man or woman, whatever their situation, can be saved. Even non-Christians can respond to this saving action of the Spirit. No person is excluded from salvation simply because of so-called original sin; one can only lose their salvation through serious personal sin of their own account.
   Explanatory Note.

I do not believe this is traditional Catholic teaching on the subject. While it may be a possibility, I don’t think it has been revealed to the Church. Thoughts?

So called original sin? I guess it doesn’t exist anymore.

Oh well, too bad for those who died with it when it did exist huh?

 

[tdgesq]

Agreed. I don’t know if the priest was speaking of invincible ignorance and the Baptism of Blood/Baptism of Desire, but his wording was certainly not clear.

Unfortunately, I think it was quite clear. Nobody loses salvation simply because of original sin. Baptism of blood/desire doesn’t make it, because we don’t know who actually falls within these exceptions. I think this is a declaration far beyond what the Church knows.

So called original sin? I guess it doesn’t exist anymore.

Oh well, too bad for those who died with it when it did exist huh?

Well, I don’t agree with the Vatican priest’s comment. Except I don’t think you get to decide if anyone dies with the stain of original sin on their soul, since not even the Church has that right.

 

[larsont7]

Unfortunately, I think it was quite clear. Nobody loses salvation simply because of original sin. Baptism of blood/desire doesn’t make it, because we don’t know who actually falls within these exceptions. I think this is a declaration far beyond what the Church knows.

You’re probably right. I was just trying to give him the benefit of the doubt. Either way, he needs to either recant or clarify his position.

 

[grannymh]

You’re probably right. I was just trying to give him the benefit of the doubt. Either way, he needs to either recant or clarify his position.

Not really.

In addition to post 3.

The difficulty with pope-speak is that there is an assumption that all of us know our Catholic doctrines. It is the listener who must clarify her or his knowledge of the involved Catholic doctrine.

Granted that I have only started skimming the link to the Explanatory Note in post 1. Nonetheless, before one can ask a person to either recant or clarify his position, one has to have firm knowledge of the Catholic doctrines (plural intended) implied in this answer/sentence from the link.
152. What does it mean to say that the Church is the universal sacrament of salvation?
This means that she is the sign and instrument both of the reconciliation and communion of all of humanity with God and of the unity of the entire human race.

 

[Transformer]

I made a thread recently about the apparent contradiction between Florence and Pius IX. I laid out my position on this issue in it. It’s here.

 

[Sirach2]

tdgesq:

Unfortunately,** I think it was quite clear**. Nobody loses salvation simply because of original sin. Baptism of blood/desire doesn’t make it, because we don’t know who actually falls within these exceptions.** I think this is a declaration far beyond what the Church knows.**

Well, I don’t agree with the Vatican priest’s comment. Except I don’t think you get to decide if anyone dies with the stain of original sin on their soul, since not even the Church has that right.

Initially, you asked … “thoughts?” Now the truth comes out, as you declare and imply that the the priest/Church are wrong. Do you really want our “thoughts?” Is anyone able to correct your wrongful assumptions? For the sake of those whom you troubled by your post, I refer them to a few scriptures.

When did God justify Abraham by faith? Before circumcision…or after? [Gen. 15:6; Gen. 17:11]
And Rahab, when did James 2:21-25 say she was justified by God? “You see that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.”

Below, in essence, was Fr. Rosica’s underlying thought, which is in accord with Catholic teaching. You simply have a problem with comprehension as you isolate one single phrase and dismiss the context.

1. The Scriptures teach that God regards the love shown to a neighbor as love shown to Himself. Therefore the loving relationship between a person and his or her neighbor indicates a loving relationship between that person and God. This is not to say that the non-Christian is able to perform these acts of neighborly love without the help of God. Rather these acts of love are in fact evidence of God’s activity in the person.
2. As Christians, we believe that God is always reaching out to humanity in love. This means that every man or woman, whatever their situation, can be saved. Even non-Christians can respond to this saving action of the Spirit.

Original sin may be remitted and credited to a person as justice, in the same way as Abraham and Rahab were justified. It was NOT circumcision, but an interior baptism born of desire and faith that caused their justification … neither of which could be effected, had not God’s activity first been present in the soul of the person.

Similarly, when does justification take place in the soul of one with original sin? At the moment of their baptism? Or when they turned to God PRIOR to their formal baptism and prepared to receive it? This is why St. Thomas Aquinas taught that these persons are already saved by “desire” even though the sacrament has not yet been received.

It is wise to think positively of this priest and not dismiss his statement in preference for one’s private opinion. He was delegated to clarify the Pope’s homily which previously caused undue concern on the part of some faithful. If it is read in the correct light, there is no cause for alarm.

 

[mikee]

Sirach2:

imply that the the priest/Church are wrong.

Asserting that one priest (in this case Fr. Thomas Rosica) is wrong, does not imply that the Church is.

The Church teaches the original sin needs to be remitted somehow, otherwise one cannot enter heaven.

Fr. Thomas Rosica seems to contradict that by saying only personal sin bars one from heaven.

 

[grannymh]

I made a thread recently about the apparent contradiction between Florence and Pius IX. I laid out my position on this issue in it. It’s here.

Thank you for your work in putting together post 1 of your interesting thread.

What are your citations (and/or context) for the two quoted sentences, one from the Council of Florence and the other from Quanto Conficiamur Moerore 7? My apology if I missed them in subsequent posts. Today I am a tad cranky (feminine of snarky) granny because I am putting the finishing touches on my Ark because our weather forecaster, Noah, predicted more rain.

I did find 18 paragraphs, Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition, which referenced the Council of Florence,1439-1445, (CCC page 721) in some manner. But, the only two documents by Pius IX cited in the Catechism are Ineffabilis Deus and Quanta cura (CCC page 730).

According to the two documents by Blessed Pope John Paul II (CCC page xiii and page 1) this book is the universal catechism to be used in proclaiming the Catholic Faith. This why I recommend this book as a primary source of information.

 

[Pug]

If the context is “atheists” and “man or woman”, likely they are talking about ordinary adults. Then original sin is getting called “so-called” because it doesn’t have the character of a personal fault, and a personal, willful fault or turning away is required for hell for such folks. They will have rejected grace, and likely done a slew of other things to end in hell.

I see the passage as easy enough to connect to several CCC paragraphs. So I see no reason to assume the writer had anything odd in mind.

 

[Sirach2]

Asserting that one priest (in this case Fr. Thomas Rosica) is wrong, does not imply that the Church is.

The Church teaches the original sin needs to be remitted somehow, otherwise one cannot enter heaven.

Fr. Thomas Rosica seems to contradict that by saying only personal sin bars one from heaven.

Seems to contradict … indeed. Since nobody knows the heart of man prior to formal sacramental baptism, it is possible that one such person - [by his works of love performed through God’s grace] demonstrates interior “baptism of desire” which remits original sin non-sacramentally if he were to die at that moment. See Rom. 2:14-16] The Church always encourages sacramental baptism and entry into the Church, including all persons mentioned by Pope Francis. We do not cease to evangelize, which is incumbent upon us by the gospel.

St. Paul taught the reality of natural law as being salvific. It is an important scriptural point, along with the teachings in Lumen Gentium that recognize this possibility. Why not allow the Church to exercise her authority without man’s interjection of human understanding.

 

[eyesopening]

Initially, you asked … “thoughts?” Now the truth comes out, as you declare and imply that the the priest/Church are wrong. Do you really want our “thoughts?” Is anyone able to correct your wrongful assumptions? For the sake of those whom you troubled by your post, I refer them to a few scriptures.

When did God justify Abraham by faith? Before circumcision…or after? [Gen. 15:6; Gen. 17:11]
And Rahab, when did James 2:21-25 say she was justified by God? “You see that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.”

Below, in essence, was Fr. Rosica’s underlying thought, which is in accord with Catholic teaching. You simply have a problem with comprehension as you isolate one single phrase and dismiss the context.

Original sin may be remitted and credited to a person as justice, in the same way as Abraham and Rahab were justified. It was NOT circumcision, but an interior baptism born of desire and faith that caused their justification … neither of which could be effected, had not God’s activity first been present in the soul of the person.

Similarly, when does justification take place in the soul of one with original sin? At the moment of their baptism? Or when they turned to God PRIOR to their formal baptism and prepared to receive it? This is why St. Thomas Aquinas taught that these persons are already saved by “desire” even though the sacrament has not yet been received.

It is wise to think positively of this priest and not dismiss his statement in preference for one’s private opinion. He was delegated to clarify the Pope’s homily which previously caused undue concern on the part of some faithful. If it is read in the correct light, there is no cause for alarm.

Seems to contradict … indeed. Since nobody knows the heart of man prior to formal sacramental baptism, it is possible that one such person - [by his works of love performed through God’s grace] demonstrates interior “baptism of desire” which remits original sin non-sacramentally if he were to die at that moment. See Rom. 2:14-16] The Church always encourages sacramental baptism and entry into the Church, including all persons mentioned by Pope Francis. We do not cease to evangelize, which is incumbent upon us by the gospel.

St. Paul taught the reality of natural law as being salvific. It is an important scriptural point, along with the teachings in Lumen Gentium that recognize this possibility. Why not allow the Church to exercise her authority without man’s interjection of human understanding.

I really think you’re right on the money. This is very helpful. Thank you!

 

[mikee]

Seems to contradict … indeed. Since nobody knows the heart of man prior to formal sacramental baptism, it is possible that one such person - [by his works of love performed through God’s grace] demonstrates interior “baptism of desire” which remits original sin non-sacramentally if he were to die at that moment. See Rom. 2:14-16] The Church always encourages sacramental baptism and entry into the Church, including all persons mentioned by Pope Francis. We do not cease to evangelize, which is incumbent upon us by the gospel.

St. Paul taught the reality of natural law as being salvific. It is an important scriptural point, along with the teachings in Lumen Gentium that recognize this possibility. Why not allow the Church to exercise her authority without man’s interjection of human understanding.

I agree with you. But the way Fr. Rosica worded his statement made it sound like he was saying that personal sin was the only thing that could bar one from heaven. This is wrong. Original sin alone can also bar one from heaven.

 

[clem456]

My first thought is a two-part question. What is Original Sin? And why is it different from serious personal sins committed by the descendants of Adam and Eve?

The difficulty with pope-speak is that there is an assumption that all of us know our Catholic doctrines. Therefore, when there is a problem of misunderstanding, one should start with basic questions related to the topic such as the ones above.

This.

We should give those with training in theology the benefit of the doubt when it comes to misunderstandings. We should understand the doctrine to the best of our ability, but even when we do seem to have a good grasp, we may not know the intentions of the individual speaker, the context, how he is using the words, etc…

My assumption would be that if Fr Rosica mis-spoke, someone smarter than me would have given him a call and asked him to clarify his statement…The good thing about assuming the best is, I don’t need to be anxious about something I can’t control, and is not within my sphere of influence.

 

[tdgesq]

The difficulty with pope-speak is that there is an assumption that all of us know our Catholic doctrines. It is the listener who must clarify her or his knowledge of the involved Catholic doctrine.

I agree with you, but as I stated at the outset I don’t have any problem at all with Pope Francis’ homily. I read the entire explanatory note when it was issued, and it seemed to me that it was consistent with the Pope’s message - contrary to the media conclusions. In fact, I agree with everything in the explanatory note itself, except the one sentence in paragraph 9; which doubly affirms (at least by the literal language) that “no person is excluded from salvation simply because of so-called original sin” and “one can only lose their salvation through serious personal sin of their own account.”

I made a thread recently about the apparent contradiction between Florence and Pius IX. I laid out my position on this issue in it. It’s here.

This is an excellent analysis. I believe that (3) is correct, although that is a belief based upon speculative theology and not a clear teaching of the Church. I think the most difficult scenario is the unbaptized child who has just reached the age of reason.

Initially, you asked … “thoughts?” Now the truth comes out, as you declare and imply that the the priest/Church are wrong.

What are you talking about? From the outset I made it clear that I didn’t believe it was traditional Catholic teaching.

Do you really want our “thoughts?” Is anyone able to correct your wrongful assumptions? For the sake of those whom you troubled by your post, I refer them to a few scriptures.

A list of rhetorical questions concerning my motives isn’t likely to convince me or anybody else of your position. And the reason I didn’t post this in the general apologetics forum is because I don’t desire to scandalize anybody.

Below, in essence, was Fr. Rosica’s underlying thought, which is in accord with Catholic teaching. You simply have a problem with comprehension as you isolate one single phrase and dismiss the context.

There is no way you could possibly know my subjective comprehension of those matters, or whether I dismissed the surrounding context. Since I read the entire explanatory note and agree with all of it, except the two conclusions in paragraph 9, it seems you’ve made some unwarranted assumptions. Now hopefully we can get to the substantive comments.

Original sin may be remitted and credited to a person as justice, in the same way as Abraham and Rahab were justified. It was NOT circumcision, but an interior baptism born of desire and faith that caused their justification … neither of which could be effected, had not God’s activity first been present in the soul of the person.

I agree that this prefigures justification through desire, and I hold to everything the Catholic Church teaches in this regard. Just as circumcision was a sign of initial justification in the old covenant, so to is baptism by water the sacrament of initial justification in the new. Neither was or is the exclusive mode of justification.

Similarly, when does justification take place in the soul of one with original sin? At the moment of their baptism? Or when they turned to God PRIOR to their formal baptism and prepared to receive it? This is why St. Thomas Aquinas taught that these persons are already saved by “desire” even though the sacrament has not yet been received.

Yes, baptism of desire of Catechumens. I agree with St. Thomas’ teaching in this regard.

It is wise to think positively of this priest and not dismiss his statement in preference for one’s private opinion. He was delegated to clarify the Pope’s homily which previously caused undue concern on the part of some faithful. If it is read in the correct light, there is no cause for alarm.

I do think positively of him, but here is his opinion. No person is excluded from salvation simply because of so-called original sin; one can only lose their salvation through serious personal sin of their own account. If father meant it is possible every person achieves baptism through desire, blood, water or other means, then I agree that is possible. If he meant that it is possible that only those who lose salvation do so through mortal sin, then I also agree that is possible.

The problem is this: that isn’t what these two clauses state. As much as I wish they did, they just don’t; even given the most generous interpretation and construction within the context. I think there is another interpretation here that is likely though.

 

[tdgesq]

My assumption would be that if Fr Rosica mis-spoke, someone smarter than me would have given him a call and asked him to clarify his statement…The good thing about assuming the best is, I don’t need to be anxious about something I can’t control, and is not within my sphere of influence.

I think the only way we can proceed with someone of Fr. Rosica’s abilities and position is to give the most positive interpretation, without denying what is actually stated. To that end, I propose that what he stated is his own personal theological opinion. It doesn’t conflict with revealed truth, and it is a real possibility.

On the other hand, I don’t know of any dogmatic statement of the Church that teaches no one is excluded from salvation due solely to original sin, and that a person can only lose their salvation through mortal sin. Even in the case of infants, the Church does not claim to know this. salvation of infants. If we see this as theological opinion (one that is supported by many) rather than Church dogma, then I think we have a solution.