A Number of Inquiries

[Brother_Xavier]

Papal Supremacy. What are the arguments for it?

If I am not mistaken, a Council can only be called by the Pope. How should I react to comments made by certain individuals claiming that some of the early Councils were indeed not? More to come…

 

[FCEGM]

Papal Supremacy. What are the arguments for it?

If I am not mistaken, a Council can only be called by the Pope. How should I react to comments made by certain individuals claiming that some of the early Councils were indeed not? More to come…

Though some early Councils (e.g. First Nicea) were not called by the Pope, his approval of the results were always necessary. A helpful book for you would be Jesus, Peter and the Keys, by Butler, Dahlgren and Hess. Also check out the website of The Catholic Legate for material on the papacy.

 

[Brother_Xavier]

Thank you for your reply and recommendation. I have a few books going now, but I’ll definitely get around to reading that.

Original Sin: How is it that the Sin itself is “transmitted” down upon all peoples, rather than just the fallen nature itself? Wouldn’t that seem to suggest that all sins are “transmitted?”

 

[FCEGM]

Thank you for your reply and recommendation. I have a few books going now, but I’ll definitely get around to reading that.

Original Sin: How is it that the Sin itself is “transmitted” down upon all peoples, rather than just the fallen nature itself? Wouldn’t that seem to suggest that all sins are “transmitted?”

It’s more helpful, I think, to consider Original Sin as something we are lacking than something we have. An analogy, inadequate as it may be: a wealthy man with a growing family makes bad investments and and loses all his money. His heirs, although they weren’t the ones who made the bad investment, inherit the poverty into which their father has delivered them, his poverty has been “transmitted” to them, not his essential bad judgment.

This article should help you better understand the Catholic teaching vis-a-vis Orthodoxy on the subject:

eirenikon.wordpress.com/2008/07/20/on-original-sin-and-the-immaculate-conception/

I also recommend these articles from Catholic Answers’ THIS ROCK magazine:

catholic.com/thisrock/2005/0504bt.asp

catholic.com/thisrock/2008/0810fea3.asp

 

[Jesus_123]

****. . . :coffeeread: . . .

CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH****

ARTICLE 1
“I BELIEVE IN GOD THE FATHER ALMIGHTY, CREATOR
OF HEAVEN AND EARTH”

Paragraph 7. The Fall

Man’s first sin

**397 **
Man, tempted by the devil, let his trust in his Creator die in his heart and, abusing his freedom, disobeyed God’s command. This is what man’s first sin consisted of.278 All subsequent sin would be disobedience toward God and lack of trust in his goodness.

**398 **
In that sin man preferred himself to God and by that very act scorned him. He chose himself over and against God, against the requirements of his creaturely status and therefore against his own good. Constituted in a state of holiness, man was destined to be fully “divinized” by God in glory. Seduced by the devil, he wanted to “be like God,” but "without God, before God, and not in accordance with God."279

**399 **
Scripture portrays the tragic consequences of this first disobedience. Adam and Eve immediately lose the grace of original holiness.280 They become afraid of the God of whom they have conceived a distorted image—that of a God jealous of his prerogatives.281

**400 **
The harmony in which they had found themselves, thanks to original justice, is now destroyed: the control of the soul’s spiritual faculties over the body is shattered; the union of man and woman becomes subject to tensions, their relations henceforth marked by lust and domination.282 Harmony with creation is broken: visible creation has become alien and hostile to man.283 **Because of man, creation is now subject "to its bondage to decay."284 Finally, the consequence explicitly foretold for this disobedience will come true: man will "return to the ground,"285 for out of it he was taken. Death makes its entrance into human history.**286

…

The consequences of Adam’s sin for humanity

**402 **
All men are implicated in Adam’s sin, as St. Paul affirms: “By one man’s disobedience many [that is, all men] were made sinners”: "sin came into the world through one man and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all men sinned. . . ."289 The Apostle contrasts the universality of sin and death with the universality of salvation in Christ. "Then as one man’s trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one man’s act of righteousness leads to acquittal and life for all men."290

**403 **
Following St. Paul, the Church has always taught that the overwhelming misery which oppresses men and their inclination toward evil and death cannot be understood apart from their connection with Adam’s sin and the fact that he has transmitted to us a sin with which we are all born afflicted, a sin which is the "death of the soul."291 **Because of this certainty of faith, the Church baptizes for the remission of sins even tiny infants who have not committed personal sin.**292

**404 **
How did the sin of Adam become the sin of all his descendants? The whole human race is in Adam **“as one body of one man.”**293 By this “unity of the human race” all men are implicated in Adam’s sin, as all are implicated in Christ’s justice. Still, the transmission of original sin is a mystery that we cannot fully understand. But we do know by Revelation that Adam had received original holiness and justice not for himself alone, but for all human nature. By yielding to the tempter, Adam and Eve committed a personal sin, but this sin affected the human nature that they would then transmit in a fallen state.294 It is a sin which will be transmitted by propagation to all mankind, that is, by the transmission of a human nature deprived of original holiness and justice.

And that is why original sin is called “sin” only in an analogical sense:
it is a sin "contracted

" and not “committed”
—a state and not an act.

**405 **
Although it is proper to each individual,295 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.

:compcoff: Link: usccb.org/catechism/text/pt1sect2chpt1art1p7.shtml

. . . all for Jesus+
. . . thank You Dear Lord+
. . . Spirit of our Holy God+
. . . guide, teach and direct+
. . . thank you Holy Mother Church+​

 

[peary]

Papal Supremacy. What are the arguments for it?

If I am not mistaken, a Council can only be called by the Pope. How should I react to comments made by certain individuals claiming that some of the early Councils were indeed not? More to come…

**
From Wikipedia:**

**Due to schisms, the acceptance of these councils varies widely between different branches of Christianity.

Those churches that parted ways with the others over christological matters accept the councils prior to their separation.

the Assyrian Church only accepts the first two;

the Oriental Orthodoxy Churches the first three, as Ecumenical.

Prior to the East-West Schism the united Western and Eastern Churches held the first eight Ecumenical councils (meeting from the 4th to the 9th century). They accept as Ecumenical the same first seven but differ on the identity of the eighth.

While the Eastern Orthodox Church has not generally accepted any later synod as Ecumenical, the Roman Catholic Church continues to hold Ecumenical Councils of those bishops in full communion with the Pope and has counted twenty-one to date.

Anglicans and some Protestants, most commonly Lutherans, accept either the first seven or the first four as Ecumenical councils.**

 

[MonFrere]

It’s more helpful, I think, to consider Original Sin as something we are lacking than something we have. An analogy, inadequate as it may be: a wealthy man with a growing family makes bad investments and and loses all his money. His heirs, although they weren’t the ones who made the bad investment, inherit the poverty into which their father has delivered them, his poverty has been “transmitted” to them, not his essential bad judgment.

I never heard that analogy before. That really helps clarify things. It’s still hard to imagine how this “poverty” (the propensity to sin) is passed on – or at least how this “works” as we move from generation to generation.

MonFrere

 

[peary]

*Originally Posted by ***FCEGM **
It’s more helpful, I think, to consider Original Sin as something we are lacking than something we have. An analogy, inadequate as it may be: a wealthy man with a growing family makes bad investments and and loses all his money. His heirs, although they weren’t the ones who made the bad investment, inherit the poverty into which their father has delivered them, his poverty has been “transmitted” to them, not his essential bad judgment.

The problem I have with this analogy is that, it is not necessary that the rich man’s heirs inherit his poverty. Of course, from the perspective of capitalism, this would be impossible. People can always better themselves in order to raise themselves out of the poverty level. Perhaps, though, this is what we do by being baptized and partake of the great graces given to us by God through His Church.

 

[MonFrere]

The problem I have with this analogy is that, it is not necessary that the rich man’s heirs inherit his poverty. Of course, from the perspective of capitalism, this would be impossible. People can always better themselves in order to raise themselves out of the poverty level. Perhaps, though, this is what we do by being baptized and partake of the great graces given to us by God through His Church.

Analogies cannot prove but they can clarify aspects of something complex and/or abstract comparing it to something more easily understood. In this respect, I thought the analogy a very good one.

MonFrere

 

[peary]

Analogies cannot prove but they can clarify aspects of something complex and/or abstract comparing it to something more easily understood. In this respect, I thought the analogy a very good one.

MonFrere

Mine was better.

 

[FCEGM]

I never heard that analogy before. That really helps clarify things. It’s still hard to imagine how this “poverty” (the propensity to sin) is passed on – or at least how this “works” as we move from generation to generation.

MonFrere

If I’m remembering my theology correctly, Original Sin is the absence of the Indwelling Trinity in the soul - that Indwelling which our First Parents enjoyed before the Fall making of them more than natural creatures, but now enjoying covenantal friendship with God. With that lack (the lack which we inherit) thus comes the propensity - the lack is prior to the propensity (concupiscence). When we are Baptized into Christ that Divine Indwelling elevates the soul the Divine level, actually bringing us to a higher level of relationship with God than that which our First Parents enjoyed because the Son became one of us, making us heirs of an even richer inheritance.

 

[FCEGM]

The problem I have with this analogy is that, it is not necessary that the rich man’s heirs inherit his poverty. Of course, from the perspective of capitalism, this would be impossible. People can always better themselves in order to raise themselves out of the poverty level.

Even in a capitalistic society, if the father is poor then all he has to leave his children is his lack; they, of course, can better themselves in their own right, but not from the nothing that the father left them, except, perhaps, using that want as an incentive. This wouldn’t be applicable, though, to the reality of the poverty humanity was left in by our First Parents for which the only solution is the grace of Christ and not our own efforts to save ourselves.

Perhaps, though, this is what we do by being baptized and partake of the great graces given to us by God through His Church.

Indeed!