Original Sin

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ichthus
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I suspect somewhere along the way the meaning of “guilt” has been changed a bit. I’m no linguist. So I am willing to accept the way most people on this thread are referring to one’s guilt of original sin, which I want to qualify by saying, it’s not personal guilt. I actually see guilt always referring to personal responsibility for an action (it’s how my dictionary defines the word) hence ‘personal guilt’ seems redundant. Nonetheless, if someone is willing to refer to guilt as being a thing different from ‘being responsible for the commission of an offense’ then I will work with their definition. I prefer to follow John Paul II 's lead in how he defines Original Sin as a privation of grace and not a stain or personal guilt. ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/JP2ORSIN.htm

What still concerns me though is the idea being presented by Ichthus and DCS that someone can be damned because of the ‘guilt’ inherited in original sin. DCS says two oecumenical councils declared that anyone guilty of only original sin would be damned to hell.

What councils were they? Are these really infallibly proclaimed teachings? I find such an idea quite disturbing. Teach me.
 
Adam:
I just wasn’t clear how you were using the term “consequences,” but I see what you’re saying now. I was speaking of original sin in the older sense, so I’m sorry if my old-style use of “guilt” was confusing you. We appear to be on the same page.

It is clear that original sin is technically sufficient to damn someone, but even people who rigorously insisted that unbaptized infants were damned noted that the “damnation” was something like eternal comfort (no direct vision of God, but no pain or suffering either). However, I would say that most Catholics place their hope in God that he would show mercy to the little ones and apply Christ’s forgiveness to them at the end of their lives even if they are not baptized in this life.
 
Thank you for the links Dave. I agree with what I read there. They say that an unbaptised infant (i.e., one guilty only of original sin) may indeed get to heaven. But ichthus and dcs claim that the Church has taught to the contrary. I am curious especially about dcs’s claim
Two Oecumenical Councils taught that those guilty of Original Sin only would descend immediately into hell.
Click to expand...
Where does that come from and if it’s true then how does it fit into Catholic theology?
 
I found this on the web (I don’t have my Denzinger with me so I cannot look in context)…

Council of Lyons II, 1274
**We believe…**that those truly penitent die in charity before they have done sufficient penance for their sins of omission and commission, their souls are cleansed after death in purgatorial or cleansing punishments; … the souls of those who have not committed any sin at all after they received holy baptism, and the souls of those who have committed sin, but have been cleansed, either while they were in the body or afterwards … are promptly taken up into heaven. The souls of those who die in mortal sin or with only original sin soon go down into hell, but there they will receive different punishments. (Denzinger 464)
Click to expand...
My opinion … infallibility is not manifest in the words used above. For example, it doesn’t have the usual “we define … must believe … anathema” wording typical of a de fide declaration. So it alone is not evidence that this is an infallible dogma of Catholicism.

I’m looking elsewhere.

God bless,

Dave
 
40.png
geocajun:
respectfully, the Council of Trent was not speaking ex chathedra - that is a formula the Pope uses when speaking infallibly when excersizing the extraordinary magisterium.
It is also an infallable statement, not a de fide dogma.
Trent was an infallible ecumenical council.
Click to expand...
You are splitting hairs. Oecumenical Councils are an exercise of the Extraordinary Magisterium and the infallibility of their decrees depends on the infallibility of the Pope.
The quotes you provided do not state that we are born with personal guilt for original sin.
We are born with the stain of original sin, which bears with it, the guilt of original sin, not the guilt of personal [actual] sin.
Click to expand...
I did not say that we are guilty of actual sin. But we most certainly do inherit the guilt of Original Sin.
 
AdamD,

From the Council of Florence, session 6, 1439:
ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/FLORENCE.HTM
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.
Click to expand...
Again, this doesn’t seem to be an infallible definition, in my opinion. Nonetheless, it is clearly formal and authoritative magisterial definition.

Using the rule of St. Vincent de Lerins (antiquity, consent, universal), I would tend to believe the proposition that those who die with original sin alone DO NOT attain eternal glory, whether these ecumenical decrees were defined infallibly or not.

The question that is speculated upon is whether infants who die before sacramental baptism can be described as having been baptized by desire or blood. This theological speculation is not condemned by the Church as far as I understand it.

You might also reference …

Catholic Encyclopedia - “Limbo”
newadvent.org/cathen/09256a.htm

It gives a good historical review of the various theological opinions up to 1909.

God bless,

Dave
 
Oecumenical Councils are an exercise of the Extraordinary Magisterium and the infallibility of their decrees depends on the infallibility of the Pope.
Click to expand...
Yet, the Ecumenical Council of Florence affirmed the books of the Bible, but it wasn’t until the Council of Trent that the canon of Scripture was defined infallibly. In otherwords, up to the Council of Trent, one could licitly maintain an alternative opinion as to the canon of Scripture without being a formal heretic. After Trent…not so much.

I think that’s the difference between “formally and authoritatively defined” and “infallibly defined.” The former has a high degree of theological certainty, the latter is absolutely certain to be true.

God bless,

Dave
 
40.png
itsjustdave1988:
Yet, the Ecumenical Council of Florence affirmed the books of the Bible, but it wasn’t until the Council of Trent that the canon of Scripture was defined infallibly. In otherwords, up to the Council of Trent, one could licitly maintain an alternative opinion as to the canon of Scripture without being a formal heretic. After Trent…not so much.
Click to expand...
Yes, I understand that not all of the decrees of Oecumenical Councils are infallible. Otherwise we’d be in deep trouble as the teaching of the Council of Florence on the form of Holy Orders (the handing over of the instruments) was contradicted by Pius XII. I was responding to a charge that the Canon I cited from Trent was not ‘ex cathedra.’
 
40.png
dcs:
Yes, I understand that not all of the decrees of Oecumenical Councils are infallible.
Click to expand...
How to identify which is infallible which is not?
 
And what excatly was the sin of Adam and Eve ?
It was disobedience, that is why obedience is so important, Priests to Bishops,and they to the Cardinals, likewise to the Pope.
Jesus said to Saint Margaret Mary Alaquoe, that the devil has no power over the obedient, so I’m afraid hard as it is sometimes to do, It is better to be obedient, as the devil tries to sow confusion and strife.
God Bless 😉
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top