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

[bben15]

“So-called original sin?” Did original sin all of a sudden stop existing?

 

[tdgesq]

“So-called original sin?” Did original sin all of a sudden stop existing?

I don’t believe that’s what he’s saying, although the use of language is somewhat unfortunate. I believe he means that no one will lose salvation as a consequence of original sin alone.

 

[Transformer]

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.

ewtn.com/library/councils/florence.htm

Here is, I believe, the complete text of the Council of Florence. The part I quoted is in the section “Session 6—6 July 1439.” If you just do a text search (ctrl + f) for “original sin,” you should be able to find it.

papalencyclicals.net/Pius09/p9quanto.htm

Here is Quanto Conficiamur Moerore; the part I quoted is in art. 7.

As for what you say about the Catechism, certainly, it’s authoritative and John Paul II intended it to be used throughout the world (or at least throughout the Latin Church) to teach the Catholic faith. And I would have no problem with a Catholic who said “when a confusing issue comes up, I just rely on what the Catechism says.” But it’s important not to overstate the authority of the Catechism. It is important, but I don’t believe it is itself infallible. And it is certainly not a higher authority than the text of an ecumenical council. The text of an ecumenical council is usually infallible by extraordinary magisterium, especially when it uses words like “define.” Most of our dogmas come from ecumenical councils.

 

[paperwight66]

I don’t believe that’s what he’s saying, although the use of language is somewhat unfortunate. I believe he means that no one will lose salvation as a consequence of original sin alone.

I honestly think this is a translation issue. I have even heard English speakers use the phrase ‘so-called’ where I would have said ‘that which is known by the name of’ or ‘that which is called’’.
In other words, the phrase ‘so-called’ seems to some (most?) English speakers to imply doubt, but perhaps historically or regionally it didn’t have this implication at all, but was just a statement of fact… something was ‘so-called’ because it was so called.

 

[edwest2]

That may be, by why qualify it this way? Original Sin is Original Sin. All human beings are born with it. Perhaps, “Original Sin as it is commonly called…” However, there is no doubt in Church teaching that Original Sin exists without qualification.

"Catholics must accept the teaching of Christ’s Church, and learn what it means. Thus the Dogmatic Constitution of the Church (Lumen Gentium) # 16, Vatican II, teaches:
“Nor is God remote from those who in shadows and images seek the unknown God, since He gives to all men life and breath and all things (cf. Acts 17:25-28), and since the Saviour wills all men to be saved (cf. 1 Tim 2:4). Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do God’s will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience – those too may achieve eternal salvation. 19
[19. See Epist. Of the Sacred Cong. Of the Holy Office to the Archbishop of Boston: Denz. 3869-72].

“Nor shall divine providence deny the assistance necessary for salvation to those who, without any fault of theirs, have not yet arrived at an explicit knowledge of God, and who, not without grace, strive to lead a good life. Whatever good or truth is found amongst them is considered by the Church to be a preparation for the Gospel 20 and given by Him who enlightens all men that they may at length have life.”
[20. See Eusebius of Caesarea, Praeparatio Evangelica, I, 1: PG 21,28].

Hope this helps…

Ed

 

[CB_Catholic]

“So-called original sin?” Did original sin all of a sudden stop existing?

I believe another way to phrase what he meant is “by what we call original sin”, or “what is known as original sin”.

Try not to automatically assume the worst. “So-called” is not necessarily a negative or pejorative term.

Example: “They found my tumor to be a so-called “benign” tumor.” Meaning, “This is what they call my tumor–a benign tumor.” Just a description, not pejorative.

Sorry, I missed the above post explaining this. However, Ed, this is not necessarily an attempt to qualify. It’s just a figure of speech. I doubt if he had any ulterior motive for using the phrase. We should not be looking for or assuming the worst, esp. when we don’t have any voice inflections or facial expressions to help interpret meaning.

 

[edwest2]

I believe another way to phrase what he meant is “by what we call original sin”, or “what is known as original sin”.

Try not to automatically assume the worst. “So-called” is not necessarily a negative or pejorative term.

Example: “They found my tumor to be a so-called “benign” tumor.” Meaning, “This is what they call my tumor–a benign tumor.” Just a description, not pejorative.

Sorry, I missed the above post explaining this. However, Ed, this is not necessarily an attempt to qualify. It’s just a figure of speech. I doubt if he had any ulterior motive for using the phrase. We should not be looking for or assuming the worst, esp. when we don’t have any voice inflections or facial expressions to help interpret meaning.

I’m not assuming. Much less, the worst. I just found the phrasing odd.

Peace,
Ed