Is Karl Keating Pelagian? and the CCC? on original sin


#1

romancatholicism.org/jansenism/original-sin-pelagianism.htm

CCC 405 quotes Trent “to each one as his own” or “proper to everyone” but then says there is no personal fault (culpae) of original sin in us. Contradictory?

The Catechism of Trent says:
“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.”

The Council ofTrent speaks about the reatum (guilt) of original sin being remitted by baptism… and Florence says those who die in original sin go to hell to be punished with different punishments…

is there a distinction between guilt/fault, reatum/culpa?

Appreciate your help!


#2

Guess, it depends on which CC your talking about.
Traditionalists, Conservatives, Sedavacantists, Liberals, Marian Sects, etc…


#3

With respect to original and actual sin, yes there is a clear distinction. In the case of original sin, it is an inherited guilt, a “disorder” if you will, much like an inherited genetic disobey.

In actual sin the guilt is in direct response to the act of the actor.


#4

So I am “guilty” of the disorders I inherit? I am guilty of depression and anxiety? Wow, sucks to be me. :frowning:


#5

Are anxeity and depression sins?


#6

First, depression and anxiety are not sins.
Second, nobody inherits depression and anxiety.


#7

Yes, in the sense that you suffer the consequences of the disorders.

I am guilty of depression and anxiety? Wow, sucks to be me. :frowning:

I don’t know. Where they inherited?


#8

The distinction is discussed here.


#9

I haver been reading old threads tonight.

To me fault and culpa were the same.

Mea culpa, mea mexima culpa, through my fault, through my most grievfious fault.

I also see:

The Council ofTrent speaks about the reatum (guilt) of original sin being remitted by baptism… and Florence says those who die in original sin go to hell to be punished with different punishments…

This is contrary to what I was traught in school.

So who says trhe Church is infallible and does not change its teachings?


#10

That link is pure garbage. Those people are notorious for ripping things out of context to make modern Popes and teachings look bad and even heretical. They will quote anything (no matter how bad the misquote) that makes the Church today look heretical.

The issue here is simple, yet the people who wrote that link made it something major. The only guilt that contributes towards suffering in hell is from actual (personal) sin. Those with Original Sin only dont suffer the pains hellfire, but are deprived of the Beatific Vision (ie Limbo). THAT is what Florence is saying with “different punishments.” Original Sin guilt and actual sin guilt are not the same, that is why modern day works avoid using the term guilt with Original Sin because people mistake that with the actual sin guilt. A similar thing takes place with the more modern terminology of “sanctifying grace” rather than the old language of “justice”, even though both mean the same thing the latter can be misunderstood today.

The Church still and has infallibly taught that nobody can enter Heaven without sanctifying grace in their soul and that all men are born lacking this grace.


#11

Catholic Dude,

You wrote:
A similar thing takes place with the more modern terminology of “sanctifying grace” rather than the old language of “justice”, even though both mean the same thing the latter can be misunderstood today.

This may be an over-simplifiacation. Here is not the place (perhaps) to discuss this huge question in detail.

I learned in school that grace is a supernatural gift, while justice is a natural, but one of the four cardinal, virtues.


#12

This is a good point, but I was simply trying to get across the idea that terminology can change. The term “sanctifying grace” is not used by Trent, but the phrase “justice” appears right where we would use the term “sanctifying grace.”


#13

A good reason for being particularly cautious in making statements about the meaning of papal and counciliar documents from the past. Words like Justice in the document of Trent has a whole different meaning for the contemporary man. Such terms are dragged forth to attempt to show how more recent pronouncements by the magisterium “contradict” old teachings. Similar to interpreting Sacred Scripture one must understand the context and language of the original document or risk being led astray.


#14

I totally agree.

The real problem this thread is dealing with is a RadTrad group that is notorious for ripping quotes out of context and claiming the Church today has fallen into error. The desperation of those guys to smear the most recent Pope’s is sub-Christian.


#15

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.