Hereditary guilt?

Scotty

Member
Joined
Apr 3, 2011
Messages
86
Reaction score
0
Points
0
I'm surprised at how productive a good part of this thread is!  Strange to see most of the arguing is between two Catholics, Eastern Catholics at that!

I'm guessing the Roman Catholic doctrine of inherited guilt comes from the theology on heaven and hell (or perhaps vice versa), and of course St. Augustine.  Prior to Christ, all humankind went to hell.  Even the righteous, even the infants; Elijah is the an exception.  Since God is righteous and just, to be sent to hell would require sinfulness, some sort of "guilt", even to the sinless infants.  For what would they be guilty of to be sent to such a place?  If God truly is just, why would even the sinless be damned?  I'm guessing it is along this line of thinking.  I know St. Augustine was also very adamant about unbaptized infants being sent to hell.  Therefore, if Baptism is necessary for salvation, then Baptism must wipe away the stain (guilt) of original sin.  

And I understand the Eastern concepts of heaven and hell are slightly different, though I am do not know the Eastern beliefs in pre-Christ afterlife.  Romans will admit that there is quite a bit unknown about man's condition, and we aren't as adamant about original guilt as we're made out to be.  

As far as the Roman Catholic Church changing their views on Augustinian original sin, I'm not sure I'd say its an honest, theologically thought out change.  We all have to admit, original guilt isn't exactly pleasant to the ears.  Since the Church has also abruptly changed its views on the salvation of unbaptized infants, non-Catholics, and non-Christians, as well as liturgy and sacramental rites, all at the rise of liberal theologians and bishops, I'm not sure I'd trust the changes [in Augustinian though] as genuine or permanent.  Time will tell.
 

elijahmaria

Taxiarches
Joined
Mar 28, 2010
Messages
6,515
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Website
irenikontheskete.blogspot.com
Scotty said:
I'm surprised at how productive a good part of this thread is!  Strange to see most of the arguing is between two Catholics, Eastern Catholics at that!

I'm guessing the Roman Catholic doctrine of inherited guilt comes from the theology on heaven and hell (or perhaps vice versa), and of course St. Augustine.  Prior to Christ, all humankind went to hell.  Even the righteous, even the infants; Elijah is the an exception.  Since God is righteous and just, to be sent to hell would require sinfulness, some sort of "guilt", even to the sinless infants.  For what would they be guilty of to be sent to such a place?  If God truly is just, why would even the sinless be damned?  I'm guessing it is along this line of thinking.  I know St. Augustine was also very adamant about unbaptized infants being sent to hell.  Therefore, if Baptism is necessary for salvation, then Baptism must wipe away the stain (guilt) of original sin.  

And I understand the Eastern concepts of heaven and hell are slightly different, though I am do not know the Eastern beliefs in pre-Christ afterlife.  Romans will admit that there is quite a bit unknown about man's condition, and we aren't as adamant about original guilt as we're made out to be.  

As far as the Roman Catholic Church changing their views on Augustinian original sin, I'm not sure I'd say its an honest, theologically thought out change.  We all have to admit, original guilt isn't exactly pleasant to the ears.  Since the Church has also abruptly changed its views on the salvation of unbaptized infants, non-Catholics, and non-Christians, as well as liturgy and sacramental rites, all at the rise of liberal theologians and bishops, I'm not sure I'd trust the changes [in Augustinian though] as genuine or permanent.  Time will tell.
I hadn't heard that the Roman Catholic Church had accepted ever word that St. Augustine ever wrote and I am pretty sure that there's more to St. Augustine on original sin that is presented in venues such as this one.  So I am sincerely confused by your commentary...and curious about how you came to these conclusions.

 

Scotty

Member
Joined
Apr 3, 2011
Messages
86
Reaction score
0
Points
0
elijahmaria said:
I hadn't heard that the Roman Catholic Church had accepted ever word that St. Augustine ever wrote and I am pretty sure that there's more to St. Augustine on original sin that is presented in venues such as this one.  So I am sincerely confused by your commentary...and curious about how you came to these conclusions.
Yes, there is a LOT more.  The Roman Catholic Church doesn't accept every word that St. Augustine wrote, in fact it rejects much of his teachings and ideas.  Many of these were later was blown out of context by John Calvin.  It has always (since St. Augustine) accepted his teaching on original sin and holy orders.  The commentary was just me thinking, blurbs of thoughts; you are talking about the conclusions in the first paragraph, right?  I was just suggesting points that made sense to me in light of the little I've read of St. Augustine; I was not claiming to even believe them.  Brevity and teh internets do not mix with Church teaching.
 

elijahmaria

Taxiarches
Joined
Mar 28, 2010
Messages
6,515
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Website
irenikontheskete.blogspot.com
Scotty said:
elijahmaria said:
I hadn't heard that the Roman Catholic Church had accepted ever word that St. Augustine ever wrote and I am pretty sure that there's more to St. Augustine on original sin that is presented in venues such as this one.  So I am sincerely confused by your commentary...and curious about how you came to these conclusions.
Yes, there is a LOT more.  The Roman Catholic Church doesn't accept every word that St. Augustine wrote, in fact it rejects much of his teachings and ideas.  Many of these were later was blown out of context by John Calvin.  It has always (since St. Augustine) accepted his teaching on original sin and holy orders.  The commentary was just me thinking, blurbs of thoughts; you are talking about the conclusions in the first paragraph, right?  I was just suggesting points that made sense to me in light of the little I've read of St. Augustine; I was not claiming to even believe them.  Brevity and teh internets do not mix with Church teaching.
Actually it was the last paragraph that made me sit up and take notice, Scotty.

What evidence do we have that the Church has changed with respect to original guilt.  Where in the past has it been taught that original sin is the personal guilt of Adam?

M.
 

Scotty

Member
Joined
Apr 3, 2011
Messages
86
Reaction score
0
Points
0
elijahmaria said:
Scotty said:
elijahmaria said:
I hadn't heard that the Roman Catholic Church had accepted ever word that St. Augustine ever wrote and I am pretty sure that there's more to St. Augustine on original sin that is presented in venues such as this one.  So I am sincerely confused by your commentary...and curious about how you came to these conclusions.
Yes, there is a LOT more.  The Roman Catholic Church doesn't accept every word that St. Augustine wrote, in fact it rejects much of his teachings and ideas.  Many of these were later was blown out of context by John Calvin.  It has always (since St. Augustine) accepted his teaching on original sin and holy orders.  The commentary was just me thinking, blurbs of thoughts; you are talking about the conclusions in the first paragraph, right?  I was just suggesting points that made sense to me in light of the little I've read of St. Augustine; I was not claiming to even believe them.  Brevity and teh internets do not mix with Church teaching.
Actually it was the last paragraph that made me sit up and take notice, Scotty.

What evidence do we have that the Church has changed with respect to original guilt.  Where in the past has it been taught that original sin is the personal guilt of Adam?

M.
Catechism of the Council of Trent.  Again, I said the Roman Catholic Church; I wasn't implying all Catholic Churches when I said the Church.  The notion of inherited punishment of the soul due to Adam's sin separate from the bodily effects of original sin has for some time been a Roman Catholic doctrine. 

"Wherefore, the pastor should not omit to remind the faithful that the guilt and punishment of original sin were
not confined to Adam, but justly descended from him, as from their source and cause, to all posterity." - COCT, Article II

"If, then, through the transgression of Adam, children inherit original sin, with still stronger reason can they attain through Christ
our Lord grace and justice that they may reign in life. This, however, cannot be effected otherwise than by
Baptism." - COCT, Infant Baptism: Its Necessity
 

elijahmaria

Taxiarches
Joined
Mar 28, 2010
Messages
6,515
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Website
irenikontheskete.blogspot.com
Scotty said:
elijahmaria said:
Scotty said:
elijahmaria said:
I hadn't heard that the Roman Catholic Church had accepted ever word that St. Augustine ever wrote and I am pretty sure that there's more to St. Augustine on original sin that is presented in venues such as this one.  So I am sincerely confused by your commentary...and curious about how you came to these conclusions.
Yes, there is a LOT more.  The Roman Catholic Church doesn't accept every word that St. Augustine wrote, in fact it rejects much of his teachings and ideas.  Many of these were later was blown out of context by John Calvin.  It has always (since St. Augustine) accepted his teaching on original sin and holy orders.  The commentary was just me thinking, blurbs of thoughts; you are talking about the conclusions in the first paragraph, right?  I was just suggesting points that made sense to me in light of the little I've read of St. Augustine; I was not claiming to even believe them.  Brevity and teh internets do not mix with Church teaching.
Actually it was the last paragraph that made me sit up and take notice, Scotty.

What evidence do we have that the Church has changed with respect to original guilt.  Where in the past has it been taught that original sin is the personal guilt of Adam?

M.
Catechism of the Council of Trent.  Again, I said the Roman Catholic Church; I wasn't implying all Catholic Churches when I said the Church.  The notion of inherited punishment of the soul due to Adam's sin separate from the bodily effects of original sin has for some time been a Roman Catholic doctrine. 

"Wherefore, the pastor should not omit to remind the faithful that the guilt and punishment of original sin were
not confined to Adam, but justly descended from him, as from their source and cause, to all posterity." - COCT, Article II

"If, then, through the transgression of Adam, children inherit original sin, with still stronger reason can they attain through Christ
our Lord grace and justice that they may reign in life. This, however, cannot be effected otherwise than by
Baptism." - COCT, Infant Baptism: Its Necessity
Where does it say this is a "personal guilt"?  How was original sin defined?  What was the "stain" of original sin?

 

Scotty

Member
Joined
Apr 3, 2011
Messages
86
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Well first of all, how do you define personal guilt?  What definition are you looking for?  The first blurb from Trent is about as clear as it gets.  Do you personal guilt as opposed to collective guilt?  If its the former, I'm not sure you'll find one.  But I'm not out to prove personal guilt, if that is the sense you mean it.

The stain of original sin IS original guilt.  This is why St. Thomas Aquinas and St. Bernard say that Mary was conceived without the stain of original sin, yet still retaining the physical effects of original sin.  Neither believed in the immaculate conception of Mary.  I only say that to illustrate a point that this was taught in the past in Roman Catholicism.  If you're looking for a dogmatic definition, I doubt you'll find one.

Sorry for confusing you M!
 

elijahmaria

Taxiarches
Joined
Mar 28, 2010
Messages
6,515
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Website
irenikontheskete.blogspot.com
Scotty said:
Well first of all, how do you define personal guilt?  What definition are you looking for?  The first blurb from Trent is about as clear as it gets.  Do you personal guilt as opposed to collective guilt?  If its the former, I'm not sure you'll find one.  But I'm not out to prove personal guilt, if that is the sense you mean it.

The stain of original sin IS original guilt.  This is why St. Thomas Aquinas and St. Bernard say that Mary was conceived without the stain of original sin, yet still retaining the physical effects of original sin.  Neither believed in the immaculate conception of Mary.  I only say that to illustrate a point that this was taught in the past in Roman Catholicism.  If you're looking for a dogmatic definition, I doubt you'll find one.

Sorry for confusing you M!
So St. Bernard and St. Augustine reject the Immaculate Conception and teach personal guilt in original sin therefore the Catholic Church has changed its teaching on original sin, and innovated the Immaculate Conception.

That's fascinating.

Learn something new every day.
 

Scotty

Member
Joined
Apr 3, 2011
Messages
86
Reaction score
0
Points
0
elijahmaria said:
Scotty said:
Well first of all, how do you define personal guilt?  What definition are you looking for?  The first blurb from Trent is about as clear as it gets.  Do you personal guilt as opposed to collective guilt?  If its the former, I'm not sure you'll find one.  But I'm not out to prove personal guilt, if that is the sense you mean it.

The stain of original sin IS original guilt.  This is why St. Thomas Aquinas and St. Bernard say that Mary was conceived without the stain of original sin, yet still retaining the physical effects of original sin.  Neither believed in the immaculate conception of Mary.  I only say that to illustrate a point that this was taught in the past in Roman Catholicism.  If you're looking for a dogmatic definition, I doubt you'll find one.

Sorry for confusing you M!
So St. Bernard and St. Augustine reject the Immaculate Conception and teach personal guilt in original sin therefore the Catholic Church has changed its teaching on original sin, and innovated the Immaculate Conception.

That's fascinating.

Learn something new every day.
That is not at all what I said!  Why are you coercing me and then drawing your own conclusions and putting words into my mouth (keyboard)?

For starters,  I never said St Augustine rejected the Immaculate Conception (though to my knowledge he did), I never said the immaculate conception was an innovation (for I believe it to be true).  I was only illustrating a point that it was taught by the Church (Trent Catechism) and the Saints that a guilt (stain) of original sin which affects the soul is separate from original sin which affects the body.  St. Thomas, St Bernard, and St. Bonaventure's for that matter, view of St. Mary was a great illustration of this.  THAT IS ALL I WAS SAYING.

The newest Catechism does not mention guilt in the original sin section.  Trent does.  In light of what the saints in literature have always identified as original guilt, yes I would say this is a change.  I did not say I disagree with it either!  Me mentioning change was only in response to a poster some bit above me who mentioned the Roman Catholic Church appears to be moving away from Augustinian views of original sin.  A quote to that might've helped.
 

elijahmaria

Taxiarches
Joined
Mar 28, 2010
Messages
6,515
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Website
irenikontheskete.blogspot.com
Scotty said:
elijahmaria said:
Scotty said:
Well first of all, how do you define personal guilt?  What definition are you looking for?  The first blurb from Trent is about as clear as it gets.  Do you personal guilt as opposed to collective guilt?  If its the former, I'm not sure you'll find one.  But I'm not out to prove personal guilt, if that is the sense you mean it.

The stain of original sin IS original guilt.  This is why St. Thomas Aquinas and St. Bernard say that Mary was conceived without the stain of original sin, yet still retaining the physical effects of original sin.  Neither believed in the immaculate conception of Mary.  I only say that to illustrate a point that this was taught in the past in Roman Catholicism.  If you're looking for a dogmatic definition, I doubt you'll find one.

Sorry for confusing you M!
So St. Bernard and St. Augustine reject the Immaculate Conception and teach personal guilt in original sin therefore the Catholic Church has changed its teaching on original sin, and innovated the Immaculate Conception.

That's fascinating.

Learn something new every day.
That is not at all what I said!  Why are you coercing me and then drawing your own conclusions and putting words into my mouth (keyboard)?

For starters,  I never said St Augustine rejected the Immaculate Conception (though to my knowledge he did), I never said the immaculate conception was an innovation (for I believe it to be true).  I was only illustrating a point that it was taught by the Church (Trent Catechism) and the Saints that a guilt (stain) of original sin which affects the soul is separate from original sin which affects the body.  St. Thomas, St Bernard, and St. Bonaventure's for that matter, view of St. Mary was a great illustration of this.  THAT IS ALL I WAS SAYING.

The newest Catechism does not mention guilt in the original sin section.  Trent does.  In light of what the saints in literature have always identified as original guilt, yes I would say this is a change.  I did not say I disagree with it either!  Me mentioning change was only in response to a poster some bit above me who mentioned the Roman Catholic Church appears to be moving away from Augustinian views of original sin.  A quote to that might've helped.
Presuming that the Catholic Church used "stain" and "guilt" interchangeably, because they did, again I ask you what the guilt/stain of original sin is as understood by the Catholic Church, at Trent even.

That makes a difference in two of your conclusions...but you...like others...simply ignore it as irrelevant or untrue, depending upon your approach to the subject.

I am not putting words in your mouth.  What I am trying to do is show you the logical conclusions to your presumptions.

Better to look at the reality.
 

Scotty

Member
Joined
Apr 3, 2011
Messages
86
Reaction score
0
Points
0
elijahmaria said:
Scotty said:
elijahmaria said:
Scotty said:
Well first of all, how do you define personal guilt?  What definition are you looking for?  The first blurb from Trent is about as clear as it gets.  Do you personal guilt as opposed to collective guilt?  If its the former, I'm not sure you'll find one.  But I'm not out to prove personal guilt, if that is the sense you mean it.

The stain of original sin IS original guilt.  This is why St. Thomas Aquinas and St. Bernard say that Mary was conceived without the stain of original sin, yet still retaining the physical effects of original sin.  Neither believed in the immaculate conception of Mary.  I only say that to illustrate a point that this was taught in the past in Roman Catholicism.  If you're looking for a dogmatic definition, I doubt you'll find one.

Sorry for confusing you M!
So St. Bernard and St. Augustine reject the Immaculate Conception and teach personal guilt in original sin therefore the Catholic Church has changed its teaching on original sin, and innovated the Immaculate Conception.

That's fascinating.

Learn something new every day.
That is not at all what I said!  Why are you coercing me and then drawing your own conclusions and putting words into my mouth (keyboard)?

For starters,  I never said St Augustine rejected the Immaculate Conception (though to my knowledge he did), I never said the immaculate conception was an innovation (for I believe it to be true).  I was only illustrating a point that it was taught by the Church (Trent Catechism) and the Saints that a guilt (stain) of original sin which affects the soul is separate from original sin which affects the body.  St. Thomas, St Bernard, and St. Bonaventure's for that matter, view of St. Mary was a great illustration of this.  THAT IS ALL I WAS SAYING.

The newest Catechism does not mention guilt in the original sin section.  Trent does.  In light of what the saints in literature have always identified as original guilt, yes I would say this is a change.  I did not say I disagree with it either!  Me mentioning change was only in response to a poster some bit above me who mentioned the Roman Catholic Church appears to be moving away from Augustinian views of original sin.  A quote to that might've helped.
Presuming that the Catholic Church used "stain" and "guilt" interchangeably, because they did, again I ask you what the guilt/stain of original sin is as understood by the Catholic Church, at Trent even.

That makes a difference in two of your conclusions...but you...like others...simply ignore it as irrelevant or untrue, depending upon your approach to the subject.

I am not putting words in your mouth.  What I am trying to do is show you the logical conclusions to your presumptions.

Better to look at the reality.
Well pull me out of ignorance, massa!

The stain of original sin is absence of the beatific vision of God, whether that be from heaven or from hell, upon death.  The doctrine of limbo also derives from this.  Is this what you are looking for?  Or do you have a different idea of what the church means (or more what others say) it means?  If this is as you understand it, then we have nothing to argue about.

Again, I'm sorry about the confusion.
 

Wyatt

Archon
Joined
Jun 26, 2008
Messages
2,465
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
32
Location
Illinois, US
Scotty said:
Well pull me out of ignorance, massa!

The stain of original sin is absence of the beatific vision of God, whether that be from heaven or from hell, upon death.  The doctrine of limbo also derives from this.  Is this what you are looking for?  Or do you have a different idea of what the church means (or more what others say) it means?  If this is as you understand it, then we have nothing to argue about.

Again, I'm sorry about the confusion.
Limbo is not a doctrine.
 

elijahmaria

Taxiarches
Joined
Mar 28, 2010
Messages
6,515
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Website
irenikontheskete.blogspot.com
Scotty said:
elijahmaria said:
Scotty said:
elijahmaria said:
Scotty said:
Well first of all, how do you define personal guilt?  What definition are you looking for?  The first blurb from Trent is about as clear as it gets.  Do you personal guilt as opposed to collective guilt?  If its the former, I'm not sure you'll find one.  But I'm not out to prove personal guilt, if that is the sense you mean it.

The stain of original sin IS original guilt.  This is why St. Thomas Aquinas and St. Bernard say that Mary was conceived without the stain of original sin, yet still retaining the physical effects of original sin.  Neither believed in the immaculate conception of Mary.  I only say that to illustrate a point that this was taught in the past in Roman Catholicism.  If you're looking for a dogmatic definition, I doubt you'll find one.

Sorry for confusing you M!
So St. Bernard and St. Augustine reject the Immaculate Conception and teach personal guilt in original sin therefore the Catholic Church has changed its teaching on original sin, and innovated the Immaculate Conception.

That's fascinating.

Learn something new every day.
That is not at all what I said!  Why are you coercing me and then drawing your own conclusions and putting words into my mouth (keyboard)?

For starters,  I never said St Augustine rejected the Immaculate Conception (though to my knowledge he did), I never said the immaculate conception was an innovation (for I believe it to be true).  I was only illustrating a point that it was taught by the Church (Trent Catechism) and the Saints that a guilt (stain) of original sin which affects the soul is separate from original sin which affects the body.  St. Thomas, St Bernard, and St. Bonaventure's for that matter, view of St. Mary was a great illustration of this.  THAT IS ALL I WAS SAYING.

The newest Catechism does not mention guilt in the original sin section.  Trent does.  In light of what the saints in literature have always identified as original guilt, yes I would say this is a change.  I did not say I disagree with it either!  Me mentioning change was only in response to a poster some bit above me who mentioned the Roman Catholic Church appears to be moving away from Augustinian views of original sin.  A quote to that might've helped.
Presuming that the Catholic Church used "stain" and "guilt" interchangeably, because they did, again I ask you what the guilt/stain of original sin is as understood by the Catholic Church, at Trent even.

That makes a difference in two of your conclusions...but you...like others...simply ignore it as irrelevant or untrue, depending upon your approach to the subject.

I am not putting words in your mouth.  What I am trying to do is show you the logical conclusions to your presumptions.

Better to look at the reality.
Well pull me out of ignorance, massa!
;) ;) ;)

Fraid my rope ain't long enough.
 

elijahmaria

Taxiarches
Joined
Mar 28, 2010
Messages
6,515
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Website
irenikontheskete.blogspot.com
Scotty said:
The stain of original sin is absence of the beatific vision of God, whether that be from heaven or from hell, upon death.  The doctrine of limbo also derives from this.  Is this what you are looking for?  Or do you have a different idea of what the church means (or more what others say) it means?  If this is as you understand it, then we have nothing to argue about.
Since the stain/guilt of original sin is, as you note, a loss of original justice [which has also been understood as a darkening of the nous/intellect and a weakening of the will] is attested to in both the Catechism of Trent and the Catechism of the Catholic Church, then nothing has changed with respect to the Church's teaching on original sin...at least not between Trent and the present...

So you are wrong to agree with the mob on that one.
 
Top