Original Sin and the Immaculate Conception

[FCEGM]

Fr Ambrose:

But Pope Pius XII who died in 1985 most certainly did not get this teaching from the Reformers. Here is what he teaches in Humani Generis:

“Now it is in no way apparent how such an opinion [as your speculative one] can be reconciled with that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the Teaching Authority of the Church propose with regard to original sin, which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam and which through generation is passed on to all and is in everyone as his own.”[12]

Since the pontificate of Pope Paul VI there has been a great change of emphasis about the doctrine of original sin which begins to incorporate the Orthodox views. However it becomes confusing since the original doctrine is still in complete force via various earlier Councils and papal pronouncements. the result is that the Roman Catholic Church is in a transition period regarding this doctrine, and the older pre-Vatican II Catholics and the younger ones have contradictory teachings on the subject. I think it was Fr Robert Taft of the Pontifical Oriental Institute who pointed out that there has been an undeniable change of teaching.

Sorry for the long delay in responding, Fr. Ambrose.

Pius got his teaching mainly from the Scholastic tradition, especially Aquinas following Augustine, as do I.

. . .as your speculative one (ie opinion)

My text is simply a restatement of the classical theology of St. Thomas which I learned at a Dominican theologate; it is not therefore my opinion.

“and which through generation is passed on to all”

This means the personal sin of Adam is connected to the concrete human nature of each person, since generation is through nature by the parents. The person is not passed on by the human agents of generation, however, but is directly created out of nothing by God when the soul is so created and infused into the disposed matter at conception.

“. . .and is in everyone as his own.’ [12].

It is as his own in the same way his nature is, i.e., by the substantial union of the person to his own nature. So whatever is in the concrete individual nature or not is experienced by the person as his own, e.g., someone born without arms due to the mother taking thalidomide during pregnancy is personally experiencing the lack of arms as his own, but not due to his personal decision.

On the contrary, IF the guilt of Adam is attached to the person, rather than the inherited concrete nature, as a personal guilt, then each descendant of Adam prior to any personal decision of his own would be deserving damnation ipso facto. This is the error of the Reformers misinterpreting both St. Paul and St. Augustine. Thus a miscarriage or a child dying before the use of free will would in justice deserve hell. This would be to condemn the innocent and mean that God contradicts His own Nature as being absolutely innocent of evil. It would mean God was not Love and had no mercy, a monster God such as Calvin’s hideous idea of arbitrary double predestinationism before human action. Both Luther and Calvin denied the gift of free will, thus God is made responsible for all human actions by reason of ultimate cause, just like Islam!

Recall that Augustine concluded differently: namely that the innocent who die before capable of a personal act who are not baptized can not go to hell, but can not get into heaven either and so must be in a state of non-suffering until the Redemption of Christ can be applied to them. The Latin Church teaches that the sin of Adam attaching to the nature prevents as a matter of justice the entry into Heaven (rather than requires entry into hell), until the Redemption of Christ is applied to them by Baptism in any of its three forms or in a way only God knows.

continued. . .

 

[FCEGM]

This means that the word guilt is not used in a strict sense, but in an extended sense when referring to the transmitting of Original Sin and its consequence to each person generated. It is understandable that modern man not properly educated in the Tradition of the Latin Church – even if a Catholic, even if a theologian (like Fr. Taft, a Jesuit), cannot easily understand the word guilt used in an extended sense.

It is to be noted the that Jesuits follow generally Suarez, one of their own (16th cent.) on Grace and free will and emphasize the latter as their Order is very practical in its conception. For example, on the scriptural teaching of Predestination, the Jesuits have traditionally be indistinguishable from the Eastern teaching and do not follow the Augustine-Aquinas tradition, with the notable exception of St. Robert Bellarmine, S.J., also 16th - early 17th century, who agreed with St. Thomas. This is allowed in the Church. Prior to Vatican II it was a minority position; but after Vatican II with the general leaving behind of St. Thomas, the whole question of Predestination is quietly avoided. It is not reversed, however, and the ignoring of the topic is likely just temporary. Suarez does not understand St. Thomas on some key teachings. As mentioned earlier, Pius XII would be in the Augustinian-Thomistic camp.

 

[FCEGM]

The apparent variance of papal and conciliar statements with Post-Vatican II teaching is no more contradictory or confused that the apparent variance and contradictions found in Scripture, and is solved in the same way. It appears Fr. Taft, S.J., does not have the theological acumen to see how to reconcile the differing emphases in a satisfactory way and simply states that a change in teaching has occurred. Let me say to this that such a progressivist approach is found by others on other emphases of Vatican II and is erroneous. Vatican II must be seen in reference to the past tradition of the Catholic Church, as is the case of any advance in theological intuition. For example, Pope John Paul II was very aware of Thomistic classical teaching. His own personalist perspective does not really contradict St. Thomas, but it does change perspective and is an advance in awareness that synthesizes the traditional morality on sexual morality, e.g., in a higher vision of the dignity of persons relating to one another in marriage. I doubt that Fr. Taft can do the same with regard to Original Sin.

 

[Irenicist]

FCEGM:

As humans we have the capacity to know and love God - something non-human creatures lack - and to become, as St. Peter writes, “partakers of the Divine nature.”.

Good thread, but I would note that the Church teaches that angels are non-human creatures with the capacity to know and love God (or to choose not to).

Irenicist

 

[FCEGM]

Irenicist:

Good thread, but I would note that the Church teaches that angels are non-human creatures with the capacity to know and love God (or to choose not to).

Right, Irenicist. That should have been amended to note that. Thanks for the heads-up.