All my teachers in the faith have always told me that the Church has never changed her docrine; and I do still believe that. But I have a problem. I was talking with some Orthodox about Original Sin and they were of the opinion that the Church believes that all unbaptized persons carry the guilt of Original Sin. This is denied by the CCC (I don't have it with me right now, I'll quote it later), but is affirmed by the Roman Catechism. The Roman Catechism also states emphatically that children who die without baptism cannot obtain salvation, while the CCC acknowledges the possibility of their salvation. I'm a faithful Catholic kid, but I don't know what to do. Any advice?
No need to be frightened. There is no contradiction between the Catechisms, just a development of the doctrine not a change in the doctrine.
The CCC clearly states the same thing that the Roman Catechism does in regard to the efficacy and necessity of Baptism.
Matter of fact it specifically states:
The Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude; this is why she takes care not to neglect the mission she has received from the Lord to see that all who can be baptized are "reborn of water and the Spirit.
The development of doctrine however is that as the Church grows in faith and understanding, certain concepts become better understood and clarification of past statements is needed.
Which is why the current catechism goes on to say:
God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments.
Which is why we understand that we can hope in God's mercy on the unborn and unbaptised.
The doctrine of the Church is in what we know Baptism does. The theological ponderings throughout the ages regarding what not having baptism does is not doctrine.
__________________ Words which do not give the light of Christ increase the darkness. - Blessed Mother Teresa
Thanks for the response Maggie; that's pretty much the same answer I've gotten before. I'll post some specific references tomorrow that I have a hard time with and maybe then you can help me more specifically.
Ok, here's the Roman Catechism second article, paragraph 2 :
"Adam departed from the obediance due to God and violated theis divine command... And this made him subject to all those other evils which are taught in detail by the holy Council of Trent.
The Pastor, therefore, will not omit to remind the faithful that the guilt and punishment of original sin were not confined to Adam. This guilt and this punishment descended justly from him, as from their source and cause, to all his posterity."
What I read in that, is that guilt and punishment is transfered "as from their source and cause" to everybody else - like a cancer.
CCC 405:
"Although it is proper to each individual, original sin does not have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam's descendants. It is a deprivation of original holiness and justice, but human nature has not been totally corrupted: it is wounded in the natural powers proper to it; subject to ignorance, suffering, and the dominion of death; and inclined to sin - an inclination to evil that is called "concupiscence." Baptism, by imparting the life of Christ's grace, erases original sin and turns a man back toward God, but the consequences for nature, weakened and inclined to evil, persist in man and summon him to spiritual battle."
In this one, I read that original sin is in everyone at birth ("proper to each individual") but we are not guilty of the guilt and punishment because it "does not have the character of a personal fault".
I don't understand how this is a docrinal development; it seems like a complete reversal.
I think what may be confusing is that there are two types of sin. Original sin and actual sin. The difference being that original sin is a state where actual sin is an action. So two very different concepts of sin.
When people talk of original sin, we are really talking about a state of sin where we are unable to be holy. When we talk about actual sin, we are talking about the action of sinning which is against the state of holiness.
Adam commit an actual sin which caused all of humanity to be born in a state of sin.
So the Roman Catechism is clarifying in strong terms what the punishment for the state of original sin is. While in a state of original sin, we are subject to the guilt and punishment for that state of unholiness. We are not subject to the guilt and punishment of Adam's actual sin....that is his. But because we are in a state original sin we are incapable of holiness and therefore are subject to the guilt and punishment that coincide with that.
That is specifically what Jesus came to save us from. It is through His sacrifice that we are able to be made holy even though we are born into original sin. Baptism removes that guilt and punishment for the state of original sin and allows us to be able to be holy.
The CCC is explaining that same thing but differently and I'm guessing there is an underlying purpose in the way they have posed this.
They are clarifying that original sin is not our personal sin, our actual sin. It is a state of unholiness.
I believe one of the reason they are clarifying this bit "but human nature has not been totally corrupted" is because reformed theology considers human beings to be in a state of Total Depravity. The Church does not teach this. It teaches that while we are unable to be completely holy, we are still created in the image of God and have value and goodness in us. The act of removing original sin through baptism makes us capable of complete holiness. Considering that we can only experience God in the beatific vision in heaven if we are in a state of complete holiness...this is critical to our salvation.
The CCC does go on to elaborate that while we are now cleansed of original sins guilt and punishment and therefore capable of holiness, we do still have the residual effects, the consequences of original sin such as mortality, concupiscience, etc.
It's important to also note that our actual sins, our acts of sinning also have guilt and punishment attached to them as well as consequences. So when we go to the sacrament of confession we are forgiven our sins....in other words the guilt and punishment due us for our actual sins are removed. That doesn't mean that all the consequences of our actual sins are removed though. Obviously if you drink and drive and kill a person with your car.....you may be forgiven for the sin, but someone is still dead and you still will have to deal with the consequences of the action here on earth....but your spiritual guilt and punishment due to that sin have been removed.
Does that help clarify or have I fully missed your question?
__________________ Words which do not give the light of Christ increase the darkness. - Blessed Mother Teresa
doess that help clarify or have I fully missed your question?
You got it right on!
Thank you very much! The funny thing is, you didn't say anything I really didn't already know, I just needed someone to connect the dots for me I guess. There are still one or two areas that gave me pause, but I think they'll work their way out now. I'll post them if they persist. This helps immensely for me to understand Original Sin!
Thank you very much! The funny thing is, you didn't say anything I really didn't already know, I just needed someone to connect the dots for me I guess. There are still one or two areas that gave me pause, but I think they'll work their way out now. I'll post them if they persist. This helps immensely for me to understand Original Sin!
Great! I love it when my ramblings can help.
I understand what you mean with the connect the dots things. Honestly when I came back to the Church I was amazed at how frequent that would happen for me. I'd read the bible cover to cover many times as a protestant and read tons of protestant theology but when I start reading the Church teachings and theology of the saints....everything started to click!
Glad to have you around and I'll help out however I can .
__________________ Words which do not give the light of Christ increase the darkness. - Blessed Mother Teresa
Pass me, me sloe gin, I've got some work to do....
Join Date: 14th January 2006
Location: In Partibus Infidelium.
Posts: 3,735
Blessings: 52,085
Reps: 54,240,790,191,449 (power: 54,240,790,199)
Read the Roman Catechism and the Holy Council of Trent they both help. Plus, the Roman Catechism is clearer and more straightforward than the CCC. I recommend the Roman Catechism as it definitely explains the Faith better than CCC which is overly wordy, vague, and confusing.
Heck, even my Baltimore Catechisms with their awesome cartoons and pictures work better and catechize more effectively [and they're based on the Roman Catechism.]
And I've looked at/have both the CCC and the Roman Catechism. The Roman Catechism is indeed infinitely better and less watered-down towards heretics, schismatics, and unbelievers, the sacraments, "Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus," as the Holy Catholic Faith has traditionally and always been----that is until the late 40s, 50s, and 60's. Kyrie Eleision.
__________________ "I dare not longer contradict the decrees of him [The Roman Pontiff] who keeps the doors of the Kingdom of Heaven, lest he should refuse me admission."
[-- King Oswy, at the Synod of Whitby in A.D. 664, declaring himself in favor of the arguments of Bishop Wilfrid (who himself had just quoted Saint Peter) thereby aligning England with the Holy Apostolic See of Rome.]
"Err I may, but a heretic I am not and never will be. I wish to save my soul, and I believe that, for me at least there is no salvation out of the Catholic Church."
~ Orestes Brownson
Read the Roman Catechism and the Holy Council of Trent they both help. Plus, the Roman Catechism is clearer and more straightforward than the CCC. I recommend the Roman Catechism as it definitely explains the Faith better than CCC which is overly wordy, vague, and confusing.
I'm afraid I'll have to disagree with you. I might be able to read the Roman Catechism only, if I knew about the faith as much as you or some of the other posters on these forums do, but without that knowledge I'd be lost in the transition of 500 year-old "faith language".
I do know, though, that the CCC is not "watered down" in regard to Protestants and the like, they simpy take a different approach than Trent did. By looking at the question posed by our common Baptism, we can see that really we have more in common than we have contrary. Of course, that's not to downplay the differences, and in fact I'm reading the Vatican II document on Ecumenism right now and it doesn't look like they're watering it down. True, they are saying "all you are heretics! heretics! heretics! But what purpose would that really serve?
I'm afraid I'll have to disagree with you. I might be able to read the Roman Catechism only, if I knew about the faith as much as you or some of the other posters on these forums do, but without that knowledge I'd be lost in the transition of 500 year-old "faith language".
I do know, though, that the CCC is not "watered down" in regard to Protestants and the like, they simpy take a different approach than Trent did. By looking at the question posed by our common Baptism, we can see that really we have more in common than we have contrary. Of course, that's not to downplay the differences, and in fact I'm reading the Vatican II document on Ecumenism right now and it doesn't look like they're watering it down. True, they are saying "all you are heretics! heretics! heretics! But what purpose would that really serve?
I can't remember who posted it or which thread it was, but someone said that, like the current Catechism, they wanted to have perfect balance in justice and mercy. That is an excellent way to see it in my opinion.
I want to say it was Gwendolyn, but I can't remember. Should've repped 'em.
__________________ "Love is the first ingredient in the relief of suffering" ~ St. Padre Pio
St. Padre Pio, pray for us!
My Lenten purpose: to make room for Christ, suffer with Him, and be ready to receive Him this Easter.
Linear Mode
