Author Topic: Original Sin (Read 10813 times)

Isaac Jogues · « **on:** June 16, 2013, 07:11:22 AM »

Can a person go to heaven in a state of original sin? Can Baptism of Desire or Baptism of Blood remit original sin?

Sigismund · « **Reply #1 on:** June 16, 2013, 04:39:12 PM »

No, and yes.

SJB · « **Reply #2 on:** June 16, 2013, 08:18:31 PM »

Of course Issac is going to tell us that Sacramental Baptism is the only way Original Sin can be remitted and he'll tell us the below quote is not infallible, yet he can't explain why Pope Pius XII would mention this truth in expaining the absolute necessity of Baptism for an infant of someone who has no use of reason.

Quote from: Pope Pius XII, Address to Midwives

Supernatural life

If what We have said up to now concerns the protection and care of natural life, much more so must it concern the supernatural life, which the newly born receives with Baptism. In the present economy there is no other way to communicate that life to the child who has not attained the use of reason. Above all, the state of grace is absolutely necessary at the moment of death without it salvation and supernatural happiness—the beatific vision of God—are impossible. An act of love is sufficient for the adult to obtain sanctifying grace and to supply the lack of baptism; to the still unborn or newly born this way is not open. Therefore, if it is considered that charity to our fellowman obliges us to assist him in the case of necessity, then this obligation is so much the more important and urgent as the good to be obtained or the evil to be avoided is the greater, and in the measure that the needy person is incapable of helping or saving himself with his own powers; and so it is easy to understand the great importance of providing for the baptism of the child deprived of complete reason who finds himself in grave danger or at death's threshold.

Undoubtedly this duty binds the parents in the first place, but in case of necessity, when there is no time to lose or it is not possible to call a priest, the sublime office of conferring baptism is yours.

Stubborn · « **Reply #3 on:** June 17, 2013, 04:51:15 AM »

You allege Pope Pius XII, *in a letter to midwives* teaches BOD, (which he doesn't), yet Pope St. Pius V's catechism, which is specifically reiterating the de fide teaching of Trent, teaching about the the necessity of the sacrament, teaches "pastors can teach in the first place that water, which is always at hand and within the reach of all, was the fittest matter of a Sacrament which is necessary to all for salvation"

Why do you ignore one pope's teaching which echoes his infallible teaching of the necessity of the sacrament for salvation, for another pope's mention of baptism in a letter to midwives?

Unless you continue to believe that the sacrament is both "necessary to all" and unnecessary to all, one of them is wrong - what do you believe?

SJB · « **Reply #4 on:** June 17, 2013, 06:56:31 AM »

Quote from: Stubborn

You allege Pope Pius XII, *in a letter to midwives* teaches BOD, (which he doesn't), yet Pope St. Pius V's catechism, which is specifically reiterating the de fide teaching of Trent, teaching about the the necessity of the sacrament, teaches "pastors can teach in the first place that water, which is always at hand and within the reach of all, was the fittest matter of a Sacrament which is necessary to all for salvation"

Why do you ignore one pope's teaching which echoes his infallible teaching of the necessity of the sacrament for salvation, for another pope's mention of baptism in a letter to midwives?

Unless you continue to believe that the sacrament is both "necessary to all" and unnecessary to all, one of them is wrong - what do you believe?

They don't conflict. It's interesting that you first deny what Pius XII said (characterizing it as merely "mentioning Baptism"), then you make a further claim that these two somehow conflict as in one is infallible and the other is not.

Water is the matter of the Sacrament. The Sacrament is necessary for salvation and one who has the use of reason and refuses it is certainly lost.

For those who do not have the use of reason, it is absolutely necessary, as they cannot make an act of faith or charity, which requires the use of reason. Infants who die after Baptism, yet unable to make an act of faith or charity, are saved by the virtues infused by Baptism, so they are not saved without faith and charity in a manner compatible with their condition.

Isaac Jogues · « **Reply #5 on:** June 17, 2013, 07:07:09 AM »

Quote from: SJB

Of course Issac is going to tell us that Sacramental Baptism is the only way Original Sin can be remitted and he'll tell us the below quote is not infallible, yet he can't explain why Pope Pius XII would mention this truth in expaining the absolute necessity of Baptism for an infant of someone who has no use of reason.

Quote from: Pope Pius XII, Address to Midwives
Supernatural life

If what We have said up to now concerns the protection and care of natural life, much more so must it concern the supernatural life, which the newly born receives with Baptism. In the present economy there is no other way to communicate that life to the child who has not attained the use of reason. Above all, the state of grace is absolutely necessary at the moment of death without it salvation and supernatural happiness—the beatific vision of God—are impossible. An act of love is sufficient for the adult to obtain sanctifying grace and to supply the lack of baptism; to the still unborn or newly born this way is not open. Therefore, if it is considered that charity to our fellowman obliges us to assist him in the case of necessity, then this obligation is so much the more important and urgent as the good to be obtained or the evil to be avoided is the greater, and in the measure that the needy person is incapable of helping or saving himself with his own powers; and so it is easy to understand the great importance of providing for the baptism of the child deprived of complete reason who finds himself in grave danger or at death's threshold.

Undoubtedly this duty binds the parents in the first place, but in case of necessity, when there is no time to lose or it is not possible to call a priest, the sublime office of conferring baptism is yours.

Here's a few quotes from that are of the same authority as the one you quote, except they say the opposite;

Pope Pius XI, Ad Salutem (#44), April 20, 1930: “Some bishops and priests were at a loss as to what course to pursue in the midst of so many crushing disasters. One of them asked Augustine his opinion: ‘Surely we know [Augustine said] that when such perils reach their crest and no escape is possible, people of both sexes of all ages are wont to flock to the Church. Some beg for baptism, some for reconciliation, some for the performance of penance, all for consolation and the sacraments to be made available and administered. In such a crisis, if ministers be lacking, utter ruin is the lot of those who leave this world unregenerated or unshriven.’”

Pope St. Siricius, Letter to Himerius, 385:
“As we maintain that the observance of the holy Paschal time should in no way be relaxed, in the same way we desire that infants who, on account of their age, cannot yet speak, or those who, in any necessity, are in want of the water of holy baptism, be succored with all possible speed, for fear that, if those who leave this world should be deprived of the life of the Kingdom for having been refused the source of salvation which they desired, this may lead to the ruin of our souls. If those threatened with shipwreck, or the attack of enemies, or the uncertainties of a siege, or those put in a hopeless condition due to some bodily sickness, ask for what in their faith is their only help, let them receive at the very moment of their request the reward of regeneration they beg for. Enough of past mistakes! From now on, let all the priests observe the aforesaid rule if they do not want to be separated from the solid apostolic rock on which Christ has built his universal Church.”

St. Ambrose: "You have read, therefore, that the three witnesses in Baptism are one: water, blood, and the spirit; and if you withdraw any one of these, the Sacrament of Baptism is not valid. For what is water without the cross of Christ? A common element without any sacramental effect. Nor on the other hand is there any mystery of regeneration without water: for ‘unless a man be born again of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.’ [John 3:5] Even a catechumen believes in the cross of the Lord Jesus, by which also he is signed; but, unless he be baptized in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, he cannot receive the remission of sins nor be recipient of the gift of spiritual grace."

Pius XII also said the belief in evolution is alright and that people may limit the births of their children. He was not a very good pope. The point is that we must believe what we are taught from the popes infallibly.

Pope Paul III, Council of Trent, Sess. 5, on original sin, ex cathedra: "If any one asserts, that this sin of Adam,--which in its origin is one, and being transfused into all by propogation, not by imitation, is in each one as his own, --is taken away either by the powers of human nature, or by any other remedy than the merit of the one mediator, our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath reconciled us to God in his own blood, made unto us justice, santification, and redemption; or if he denies that the said merit of Jesus Christ is applied, both to adults and to infants, by the sacrament of baptism rightly administered in the form of the church; let him be anathema: For there is no other name under heaven given to men, whereby we must be saved. Whence that voice; Behold the lamb of God behold him who taketh away the sins of the world; and that other; As many as have been baptized, have put on Christ."

Stubborn · « **Reply #6 on:** June 17, 2013, 07:41:43 AM »

Quote from: SJB

Quote from: Stubborn
You allege Pope Pius XII, *in a letter to midwives* teaches BOD, (which he doesn't), yet Pope St. Pius V's catechism, which is specifically reiterating the de fide teaching of Trent, teaching about the the necessity of the sacrament, teaches "pastors can teach in the first place that water, which is always at hand and within the reach of all, was the fittest matter of a Sacrament which is necessary to all for salvation"

Why do you ignore one pope's teaching which echoes his infallible teaching of the necessity of the sacrament for salvation, for another pope's mention of baptism in a letter to midwives?

Unless you continue to believe that the sacrament is both "necessary to all" and unnecessary to all, one of them is wrong - what do you believe?

They don't conflict. It's interesting that you first deny what Pius XII said (characterizing it as merely "mentioning Baptism"), then you make a further claim that these two somehow conflict as in one is infallible and the other is not.

Water is the matter of the Sacrament. The Sacrament is necessary for salvation and one who has the use of reason and refuses it is certainly lost.

I do not see where it says that if one refuses it is certainly lost - which they would be - but this is an exception *you added* - why?

And why did you change what was taught be leaving out the words necessary *to all* ?

SJB · « **Reply #7 on:** June 17, 2013, 08:37:17 AM »

Quote from: Stubborn

Quote from: SJB
Quote from: Stubborn
You allege Pope Pius XII, *in a letter to midwives* teaches BOD, (which he doesn't), yet Pope St. Pius V's catechism, which is specifically reiterating the de fide teaching of Trent, teaching about the the necessity of the sacrament, teaches "pastors can teach in the first place that water, which is always at hand and within the reach of all, was the fittest matter of a Sacrament which is necessary to all for salvation"

Why do you ignore one pope's teaching which echoes his infallible teaching of the necessity of the sacrament for salvation, for another pope's mention of baptism in a letter to midwives?

Unless you continue to believe that the sacrament is both "necessary to all" and unnecessary to all, one of them is wrong - what do you believe?

They don't conflict. It's interesting that you first deny what Pius XII said (characterizing it as merely "mentioning Baptism"), then you make a further claim that these two somehow conflict as in one is infallible and the other is not.

Water is the matter of the Sacrament. The Sacrament is necessary for salvation and one who has the use of reason and refuses it is certainly lost.

I do not see where it says that if one refuses it is certainly lost - which they would be - but this is an exception *you added* - why?

And why did you change what was taught be leaving out the words necessary *to all* ?

One who refuses it has neither the Sacrament nor the desire for it, either explicit or implicit.

SJB · « **Reply #8 on:** June 17, 2013, 08:40:39 AM »

Quote

Pius XII also said the belief in evolution is alright and that people may limit the births of their children. He was not a very good pope. The point is that we must believe what we are taught from the popes infallibly.

That isn't a Catholic's rule of faith.

Stubborn · « **Reply #9 on:** June 17, 2013, 09:54:11 AM »

Quote from: SJB

Quote from: Stubborn
Quote from: SJB
Quote from: Stubborn
You allege Pope Pius XII, *in a letter to midwives* teaches BOD, (which he doesn't), yet Pope St. Pius V's catechism, which is specifically reiterating the de fide teaching of Trent, teaching about the the necessity of the sacrament, teaches "pastors can teach in the first place that water, which is always at hand and within the reach of all, was the fittest matter of a Sacrament which is necessary to all for salvation"

Why do you ignore one pope's teaching which echoes his infallible teaching of the necessity of the sacrament for salvation, for another pope's mention of baptism in a letter to midwives?

Unless you continue to believe that the sacrament is both "necessary to all" and unnecessary to all, one of them is wrong - what do you believe?

They don't conflict. It's interesting that you first deny what Pius XII said (characterizing it as merely "mentioning Baptism"), then you make a further claim that these two somehow conflict as in one is infallible and the other is not.

Water is the matter of the Sacrament. The Sacrament is necessary for salvation and one who has the use of reason and refuses it is certainly lost.

I do not see where it says that if one refuses it is certainly lost - which they would be - but this is an exception *you added* - why?

And why did you change what was taught be leaving out the words necessary *to all* ?

One who refuses it has neither the Sacrament nor the desire for it, either explicit or implicit.

But the implication of you adding exceptions to the catechism's teaching, is that the necessity of the Sacrament does not apply to *all*.

You are leaving a proviso of your own choosing, this proviso contradicts what is being taught. No where does the catechism's teaching add; "the use of reason" as a condition as to whether the Sacrament is necessary or not - only you are doing that. Either *all* means *all* or the catechism, echoing Trent's de fide canons would not have said *all*.

So why do you add your own opinion into the teaching - which, in so doing, changes what is being taught.

Isaac Jogues · « **Reply #10 on:** June 17, 2013, 05:48:19 PM »

Quote from: SJB

Quote
Pius XII also said the belief in evolution is alright and that people may limit the births of their children. He was not a very good pope. The point is that we must believe what we are taught from the popes infallibly.

That isn't a Catholic's rule of faith.

Tell me what a Catholic's rule of faith is.

SJB · « **Reply #11 on:** June 17, 2013, 09:09:27 PM »

Quote from: Christ's Church, Monsignor G. Van Noort

The rule of faith. It seems timely to add here a few remarks on the rule of faith. This term signifies the standard or norm according to which each individual Christian must determine what is the material object of his faith.

Protestants claim that the written Word of God, Holy Scripture, and that alone, is the one rule of faith. Catholics, on the other hand, even though they, too, admit that our faith must be regulated in the final analysis by the Word of God — including tradition as well as Scripture — hold that the proximate and immediate rule of faith — that rule to which each of the faithful and each generation of the faithful must look directly — is the preaching of the Church. And so, according to Catholics, there exists a twofold rule of faith: one remote and one proximate. The remote rule of faith is the Word of God (handed down in writing or orally), which was directly entrusted to the Church's rulers that from it they might teach and guide the faithful. The proximate rule of faith, from which the faithful, one and all, are bound to accept their faith and in accordance with which they are to regulate it, is the preaching of the ecclesiastical magisterium.(27) The following assertions concern the proximate rule of faith.

1. The Church's preaching was established by Christ Himself as the rule of faith. This can be proved from Matthew 28:19—20 and Mark 16:15—16; the command to teach all nations certainly implies a corresponding duty on the part of the nations to believe whatever the apostles and their successors teach, On the other hand, there is no notice anywhere of Christ's having commanded the apostles to give the people the doctrine of salvation in writing, and never did He command the faithful as a whole to seek their faith in the Bible.(28)

2. The Church's preaching is a rule of faith which is nicely accommodated to people's needs. For (a) it is an easy rule, one that can be observed by all alike, even the uneducated and unlettered. What could be easier than to give ear to a magisterium that is always at hand and always preaching? (b) It is a safe rule, for the Church's teaching office is infallible in safeguarding and presenting Christ's doctrine. (c) It is a living rule, in accordance with which it is possible in any age to explain the meaning of doctrines and to put an end to controversies.

bowler · « **Reply #12 on:** June 18, 2013, 06:01:39 AM »

Quote from: SJB

Of course Issac is going to tell us that Sacramental Baptism is the only way Original Sin can be remitted and he'll tell us the below quote is not infallible, yet he can't explain why Pope Pius XII would mention this truth in expaining the absolute necessity of Baptism for an infant of someone who has no use of reason.

Quote from: Pope Pius XII, Address to Midwives
Supernatural life

If what We have said up to now concerns the protection and care of natural life, much more so must it concern the supernatural life, which the newly born receives with Baptism. In the present economy there is no other way to communicate that life to the child who has not attained the use of reason. Above all, the state of grace is absolutely necessary at the moment of death without it salvation and supernatural happiness—the beatific vision of God—are impossible. An act of love is sufficient for the adult to obtain sanctifying grace and to supply the lack of baptism; to the still unborn or newly born this way is not open. Therefore, if it is considered that charity to our fellowman obliges us to assist him in the case of necessity, then this obligation is so much the more important and urgent as the good to be obtained or the evil to be avoided is the greater, and in the measure that the needy person is incapable of helping or saving himself with his own powers; and so it is easy to understand the great importance of providing for the baptism of the child deprived of complete reason who finds himself in grave danger or at death's threshold.

Undoubtedly this duty binds the parents in the first place, but in case of necessity, when there is no time to lose or it is not possible to call a priest, the sublime office of conferring baptism is yours.

1st - I don't believe this translation.
2nd, if true, this is an oddball quote never said by any pope before.
3rd - even if all is true, there may never have been such a person in the history of the Church, a person that could make such an act of love, a perfect act of contrition, that would be so great as to relieve him of the need to be baptized. Keep in mind that no person can make an perfect act of contrition unless God gives him the grace. When we die, we will know then that really, all that we did to be saved is maybe lean 1/1000 of one degree toward God , if that much, and that His Grace did the rest. Me thinks that you are counting the number of angels on a pin head. I think that you just like to argue for arguments sake.

bowler · « **Reply #13 on:** June 18, 2013, 06:09:21 AM »

Quote from: SJB

Quote from: Christ's Church, Monsignor G. Van Noort
The rule of faith. It seems timely to add here a few remarks on the rule of faith. This term signifies the standard or norm according to which each individual Christian must determine what is the material object of his faith.

Protestants claim that the written Word of God, Holy Scripture, and that alone, is the one rule of faith. Catholics, on the other hand, even though they, too, admit that our faith must be regulated in the final analysis by the Word of God — including tradition as well as Scripture — hold that the proximate and immediate rule of faith — that rule to which each of the faithful and each generation of the faithful must look directly — is the preaching of the Church. And so, according to Catholics, there exists a twofold rule of faith: one remote and one proximate. The remote rule of faith is the Word of God (handed down in writing or orally), which was directly entrusted to the Church's rulers that from it they might teach and guide the faithful. The proximate rule of faith, from which the faithful, one and all, are bound to accept their faith and in accordance with which they are to regulate it, is the preaching of the ecclesiastical magisterium.(27) The following assertions concern the proximate rule of faith.

1. The Church's preaching was established by Christ Himself as the rule of faith. This can be proved from Matthew 28:19—20 and Mark 16:15—16; the command to teach all nations certainly implies a corresponding duty on the part of the nations to believe whatever the apostles and their successors teach, On the other hand, there is no notice anywhere of Christ's having commanded the apostles to give the people the doctrine of salvation in writing, and never did He command the faithful as a whole to seek their faith in the Bible.(28)

2. The Church's preaching is a rule of faith which is nicely accommodated to people's needs. For (a) it is an easy rule, one that can be observed by all alike, even the uneducated and unlettered. What could be easier than to give ear to a magisterium that is always at hand and always preaching? (b) It is a safe rule, for the Church's teaching office is infallible in safeguarding and presenting Christ's doctrine. (c) It is a living rule, in accordance with which it is possible in any age to explain the meaning of doctrines and to put an end to controversies.

Van Noort is a modern day theologian, he has no doctrinal authority, the Fathers do, and they unanimously interpreted John 3:5 literally, exactly as it is written. So does the Council of Trent and all of the dogmatic decrees on the subject. It is called Tradition, and your theoligians can't change that, it is etched in stone.

"But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema".

SJB · « **Reply #14 on:** June 18, 2013, 08:05:49 AM »

Quote from: bowler

Quote from: SJB
Of course Issac is going to tell us that Sacramental Baptism is the only way Original Sin can be remitted and he'll tell us the below quote is not infallible, yet he can't explain why Pope Pius XII would mention this truth in expaining the absolute necessity of Baptism for an infant of someone who has no use of reason.

Quote from: Pope Pius XII, Address to Midwives
Supernatural life

If what We have said up to now concerns the protection and care of natural life, much more so must it concern the supernatural life, which the newly born receives with Baptism. In the present economy there is no other way to communicate that life to the child who has not attained the use of reason. Above all, the state of grace is absolutely necessary at the moment of death without it salvation and supernatural happiness—the beatific vision of God—are impossible. An act of love is sufficient for the adult to obtain sanctifying grace and to supply the lack of baptism; to the still unborn or newly born this way is not open. Therefore, if it is considered that charity to our fellowman obliges us to assist him in the case of necessity, then this obligation is so much the more important and urgent as the good to be obtained or the evil to be avoided is the greater, and in the measure that the needy person is incapable of helping or saving himself with his own powers; and so it is easy to understand the great importance of providing for the baptism of the child deprived of complete reason who finds himself in grave danger or at death's threshold.

Undoubtedly this duty binds the parents in the first place, but in case of necessity, when there is no time to lose or it is not possible to call a priest, the sublime office of conferring baptism is yours.

1st - I don't believe this translation.
2nd, if true, this is an oddball quote never said by any pope before.
3rd - even if all is true, there may never have been such a person in the history of the Church, a person that could make such an act of love, a perfect act of contrition, that would be so great as to relieve him of the need to be baptized. Keep in mind that no person can make an perfect act of contrition unless God gives him the grace. When we die, we will know then that really, all that we did to be saved is maybe lean 1/1000 of one degree toward God , if that much, and that His Grace did the rest. Me thinks that you are counting the number of angels on a pin head. I think that you just like to argue for arguments sake.

No, I just hate to see you possibly deceive people here.