Adam & Logic, 2nd Edition

[simpleas]

Before we accidentally lose sight of some Catholic teachings, I need to stop in the middle of this post 474

I would appreciate some kind of clarification about these sentences in relationship to the real Adam. Thank you.
Bare with me…

To me, this would lead to the proposition that we descended from two fully-complete humans.

Fully complete with matter and a soul, but without the divine gifts that give us full control over our choices, and which would take us to a higher level of being, almost God like.

Hi,

The first sentence of yours was what I was working off :

To me, this would lead to the proposition that we descended from two fully-complete humans.

Fully complete as in matter and a soul…but with the “fault” of original sin…no prenatural gifts that the first two humans enjoyed.

Maybe I should have started from your sentence with the question :

What is a fully complete human person?

I’m considering Adam and Eve before sin as fully complete humans as they had prenatural gifts, but we as their decendants don’t enjoy the prenatural gifts, we have to work, pray etc to gain our understanding.
I don’t want this to sound like I’m degrading us beautiful humans, I had something ticking over in my mind, but this morning my mind needs winding up…
So please bare with me…

 

[grannymh]

Hi,

The first sentence of yours was what I was working off :

To me, this would lead to the proposition that we descended from two fully-complete humans.

Fully complete as in matter and a soul…but with the “fault” of original sin…no prenatural gifts that the first two humans enjoyed.

Maybe I should have started from your sentence with the question :

What is a fully complete human person?

I’m considering Adam and Eve before sin as fully complete humans as they had prenatural gifts, but we as their decendants don’t enjoy the prenatural gifts, we have to work, pray etc to gain our understanding.
I don’t want this to sound like I’m degrading us beautiful humans, I had something ticking over in my mind, but this morning my mind needs winding up…
So please bare with me…

According to Catholic teachings, Adam is a fully-complete human without the addition of extra preternatural gifts. Because the addition of extra gifts was directly connected to the divine intimacy between Adam and his Creator, these generous extra gifts naturally disappeared when Adam broke humanity’s bond with the real God.

What is a fully complete human person? My gentle suggestion is to look in the mirror.

When *CCC *356 and CCC 1730 and a few other pertinent paragraphs are skipped, logic becomes less and less important in speculations about how God should behave regarding Adam before sin.

My apology for referring to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition.
I did give a clear warning in Post 1. Up front, I stated that I use the Catholic Church for basic truths. The source is the *Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition. *

scborromeo.org/ccc.htm

usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/what-we-believe/catechism/catechism-of-the-catholic-church/

Please read CCC, 18-22 first for the explanation of smaller print.

 

[simpleas]

According to Catholic teachings, Adam is a fully-complete human without the addition of extra preternatural gifts. Because the addition of extra gifts was directly connected to the divine intimacy between Adam and his Creator, these generous extra gifts naturally disappeared when Adam broke humanity’s bond with the real God.

What is a fully complete human person? My gentle suggestion is to look in the mirror.

When *CCC *356 and CCC 1730 and a few other pertinent paragraphs are skipped, logic becomes less and less important in speculations about how God should behave regarding Adam before sin.

My apology for referring to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition.
I did give a clear warning in Post 1. Up front, I stated that I use the Catholic Church for basic truths. The source is the *Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition. *

scborromeo.org/ccc.htm

usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/what-we-believe/catechism/catechism-of-the-catholic-church/

Please read CCC, 18-22 first for the explanation of smaller print.

Thanks,

Yes I agree with what the CCC says about man being rational, and having control over our actions etc.
I’m thinking of our spiritual level of being. For us as decendants of a fallen nature, we are free to seek God or not. It was the reserve for Adam and Eve.

Sorry I didn’t think my questions were uncatholic

 

[simpleas]

Thanks,

Yes I agree with what the CCC says about man being rational, and having control over our actions etc.
I’m thinking of our spiritual level of being. For us as decendants of a fallen nature, we are free to seek God or not. It was the reserve for Adam and Eve.

Sorry I didn’t think my questions were uncatholic

Even living in sin, we are fully human, but spiritually speaking we are broken, to some degree…

 

[grannymh]

From post 1.

1. God as Creator exists.
   Therefore,
2. God as Creator interacts with humans by bringing them into existence and maintaining their existence.
   Therefore,
3. God as Creator interacts personally with each individual human.

1. God as Creator exists.

This is a basic essential truth.

2. God as Creator interacts with humans by bringing them into existence and maintaining their existence.

Here we need to quickly state that the human species is peerless. Note the dramatic shift from Genesis 1: 25 to Genesis 1: 26-28. Genesis 2: 19-20 confirms that Adam, as founder of the human species, is peerless, needing a spouse of his own nature.

God bringing humans into existence and maintaining their existence is based on paragraph 301 in the universal Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition. Please refer to CCC 20-21 for the explanation of small print usage. Note that this paragraph refers to creatures. Adam is definitely a creature when one eventually explores Original Sin. CCC 396-409.

What is striking about *CCC *301 is that God enables humans to act. Please refer to CCC 1730-1732 for the primary function of human actions. Adam’s first job as an acting human is in Genesis 2: 15. Genesis 2: 16-17 is God’s personal dialogue with Adam which, by the way, limits Adam’s actions because Adam is a real creature. An easy explanation of these verses is in CCC 396.

What could be a problem is that truth 2. uses humans in the plural. The Science of Human Evolution suggests that the origin of the human species started as a population of thousands. Catholicism directly challenges that assumption with a flat out doctrine that human origin started as a population of two fully complete persons, biblically known as Adam and his spouse Eve.

Current Catholic position is in this link
crisismagazine.com/2014/did-adam-and-eve-really-exist

And this link
amazon.com/Origin-Human-Species-Third-Edition/dp/1932589686/ref=sr_1_cc_1?s=aps&ie=UTF8&qid=1412467670&sr=1-1-catcorr&keywords=Origin+of+the+human+species++Bonnette

The credibility, that is, the possibility of Adam and Eve is evident.

*3. God as Creator interacts personally with each individual human. *

Finally, with truth 3, we can have some fun with logic.

God as Creator interacting personally with each individual human starts with *CCC *366. Refer back to CCC 365 for the original human nature and then to Genesis 1: 26-27 where we find the purpose of our image. We are meant to share in the divine life of our Maker. Being the first person, Adam was created in the State of Original Holiness aka State of Sanctifying Grace. CCC 374-376.

Logically, the author of the first three chapters of Genesis should have started with the importance of God’s chosen people. However, not only were there Hebrew people, there were pagan people who were just as human as the Genesis author. Having one Adam and one Eve is the logical explanation that all people, regardless of where they lived, shared the same human nature. A peerless nature in the image of the Creator.

The key is that the Genesis author believed in one God. CCC 222-227. Therefore, all humans would come from the same Creator. The author credited the Creator with creating that which was good. Genesis : 1: 4; 10; 12; 18; 21; 25; 31-“God looked at everything He had made, and He found it very good.” Yet, in the time of the author, there were evil people. Not sure how the author logically came to his conclusion. Perhaps, like scientists today, he observed without prejudice. That evil resulted from people having the free choice to do good or to do bad. Genesis 2: 15-17; Genesis 3: 11; CCC 1730-1732.

Like scientists today, the Genesis author looked to nature for evidence. The author chose to look at human nature per se. He could not pinch the spirituality which he sensed in human nature. Still, there had to be an inherent spiritual principle because his nation worshiped a Pure Spirit Creator God. It did not make logical sense that the Creator was in the image of His creatures. The opposite was the truth. Genesis 1: 26-28. The logical result of humans in the image of God is *CCC *356.

For a moment, let us step aside and ponder what it means for us to be in the image of God. What it means for us to be able to share in God’s life. All of us are invited to live in joy eternal if we follow God’s original command of obedience. Genesis 2: 15-17; *CCC *356; CCC 1730-1732. None of us can escape from that command. We all live under the same command because none of us is the sole Creator God. Therefore, it makes sense that we descended from Adam and Eve who received that command. Genesis 3: 1-3. All of us are in Adam “as one body of one man.” CCC 404; Romans 5: 12-21; 1Corinthians 15: 21-22; 1Corinthians 15- 54-55. Therefore, we can say in truth, that Jesus Christ hung bloody on His cross for all. CCC 1260.

Links to the universal Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition

scborromeo.org/ccc.htm

usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/what-we-believe/catechism/catechism-of-the-catholic-church/

 

[grannymh]

From post 1.
“I like the Deductive Method of Reasoning because truth follows truth. The key is that the first truths (axioms) need to be accepted as true. Following propositions or hypotheses need to be demonstrated as truth either by their logical connection to the initial axioms or by proper demonstrations of their truth. While the Deductive Method of Reasoning is my preference, there is a place for the Inductive Method of Reasoning.”

One of the things I hoped for in this thread is that we could deduce additional truths from the beginning axioms. For example, when we study Original Sin as the shattering of the unique relationship between humanity and Divinity, we come to the realization that there had to be a real individual who committed it. And if all of us are born in the State of Original Sin, then that contracted state had to come from the same human ancestor.

 

[grannymh]

From post 1.

1. God as Creator exists.
   Therefore,
2. God as Creator interacts with humans by bringing them into existence and maintaining their existence.
   Therefore,
3. God as Creator interacts personally with each individual human.

1. God as Creator exists.

This is a basic truth.

2. God as Creator interacts with humans by bringing them into existence and maintaining their existence.

We need to state that the human species is peerless. Note the dramatic shift from Genesis 1: 25 to Genesis 1: 26-28. Genesis 2: 19-20 confirms that Adam, as founder of the human species, is peerless, needing a spouse of his own nature.

God bringing humans into existence and maintaining their existence is based on paragraph 301 in the universal Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition. Please refer to CCC 20-21 for the explanation of small print usage. This paragraph refers to creatures. Adam is definitely a creature when one eventually explores Original Sin. CCC 396-409.

What is striking about *CCC *301 is that God enables humans to act. Please refer to CCC 1730-1732 for the primary goal of humans. Genesis 2: 15-17 is God’s personal dialogue with Adam which, by the way, limits Adam’s actions. Adam must live in free submission (obedience) to his Maker. An explanation of these verses is in CCC 396.

What may be a problem is that truth 2. uses the plural humans. The Science of Human Evolution suggests that the human species started as a population of thousands. Catholicism directly challenges that assumption with a flat out doctrine that the human species started as a population of two fully complete persons.

Current Catholic position is in this link
crisismagazine.com/2014/d…e-really-exist

And this link
amazon.com/Origin-Human-S…cies++Bonnette

The possibility of Adam and Eve is evident.

*3. God as Creator interacts personally with each individual human. *

Finally, with truth 3, we can have some fun with logic.

God as Creator interacting personally with each individual human starts with *CCC *366. Refer back to CCC 365 for the original human nature and then to Genesis 1: 26-27 where we find our purpose. We are meant to share in the divine life of our Maker. CCC 356. Being the first person, Adam was created in the State of Original Holiness aka State of Sanctifying Grace. CCC 374-376.

Logically, the author of the first three chapters of Genesis should have started with the importance of God’s chosen people. However, not only were there Hebrew people, there were pagan people who were just as human as the Genesis author. Having one Adam and his spouse Eve is the logical explanation that all people, regardless of where they lived, shared the same human nature. A peerless nature in the image of the Creator.

The key is that the Genesis author believed in one God. CCC 222-227. Therefore, all humans came from the same Creator. CCC 366.The author credited the Creator with creating that which was good. Genesis : 1: 4; 10; 12; 18; 21; 25; 31-“God looked at everything He had made, and He found it very good.” Yet, in the time of the author, there were evil people. Not sure how the author logically came to his conclusion. Perhaps, like scientists today, he observed without prejudice. That evil resulted from people having the free choice to do good or to do bad. Genesis 2: 15-17; Genesis 3: 11; CCC 1730-1732.

Like scientists today, the Genesis author looked to nature for evidence. He chose human nature per se. He could not pinch the spirituality which he sensed in human nature. Still, there had to be an inherent spiritual principle because his nation worshiped a Pure Spirit Creator God. It did not make logical sense that the Creator was in the image of His creatures. The opposite was the truth. Genesis 1: 26-28. The logical result of humans in the image of God is *CCC *356.

For a moment, let us step aside and ponder what it means for us to be in the image of God. What it means for us to be able to share in God’s life. All of us are invited to live in joy eternal if we follow God’s original command of obedience. Genesis 2: 15-17; *CCC *356; CCC 1730-1732. None of us can escape from that command. We all live under the same command because none of us is the sole Creator God. Therefore, it makes sense that we descended from Adam and Eve who received that command. Genesis 3: 1-3.

All of us are in Adam “as one body of one man.” CCC 404; Romans 5: 12-21; 1Corinthians 15: 21-22; 1Corinthians 15- 54-55. Therefore, we can say in truth, that Jesus Christ hung bloody on His cross for all of us. CCC 1260.

Links to the universal Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition

scborromeo.org/ccc.htm

usccb.org/beliefs-and-tea…tholic-church/

 

[simpleas]

*Therefore, it makes sense that we descended from Adam and Eve who received that command. Genesis 3: 1-3. *

We may have decended from two first humans, who were given a command, and did not obey, but how do we know for sure we contracted this human nature from them. How can the first two be the founders of our human race in its condition, when God is the sole creator of his creation?

 

[grannymh]

*Therefore, it makes sense that we descended from Adam and Eve who received that command. Genesis 3: 1-3. *

We may have decended from two first humans, who were given a command, and did not obey, but how do we know for sure we contracted this human nature from them. How can the first two be the founders of our human race in its condition, when God is the sole creator of his creation?

Please accept my apology. I cannot locate the logic of Adam in your question. I think I could do better if I knew what is meant by “condition” in the question " --How can the first two be the founders of our human race in its condition, when God is the sole creator of his creation? I am pretty sure that God is the sole creator or His creation.

 

[simpleas]

Please accept my apology. I cannot locate the logic of Adam in your question. I think I could do better if I knew what is meant by “condition” in the question " --How can the first two be the founders of our human race in its condition, when God is the sole creator of his creation? I am pretty sure that God is the sole creator or His creation.

Well I’m looking at it like being born without Original Holiness/Justice.

Adam and Eve had this when they were created, they loose it for themselves, but as we all decend from them, then we in turn must be born without it.

Yet man can not play a part in anything that has been created, biologically speaking (except of course now were we grow cells etc in a lab)

But man played a massive part in the spritiuality of each human being, by making the first choice in the very beginning. And altering what God had given. How can that be?

Ps sorry for late reply I have a stinking cold at the mo and couldn’t look at the screen for long

 

[grannymh]

*Therefore, it makes sense that we descended from Adam and Eve who received that command. Genesis 3: 1-3. *

We may have decended from two first humans, who were given a command, and did not obey, but how do we know for sure we contracted this human nature from them. How can the first two be the founders of our human race in its condition, when God is the sole creator of his creation?

The logical way to answer these concerns is to start with Adam’s nature per se. Providing a description of Adam’s nature would be basic. Actually, you could pick out the key points of Adam’s nature.

I am waiting to read what you think about Adam’s nature.

 

[simpleas]

The logical way to answer these concerns is to start with Adam’s nature per se. Providing a description of Adam’s nature would be basic. Actually, you could pick out the key points of Adam’s nature.

I am waiting to read what you think about Adam’s nature.

You didn’t answer my question!

But man played a massive part in the spritiuality of each human being, by making the first choice in the very beginning. And altering what God had given. How can that be?

I’ll change altering what God had given, to losing what God had given.

The whole thought of us being in one body of one man and we all sinned when Adam sinned is rather “far out there” in my mind. Unless of course it’s thought about like some do, that our souls existed before our matter and that is how we sinned with Adam…

I can only relate to adam’s nature as the same as ours, matter and soul, by decending from the first couple minus of original holiness/justice. Yet still a beloved child of God even in a now wounded nature.

You often refer to Adam/ us as creatures and God as creator. God the creator as a pure spiritual being created a creature but then breathed life (soul) into the creature, making the creature a being of both matter and spirit, the spirit being part of God himself, I suppose that is why we say we have the life of God within us, temples of the holy spirit etc. So we become more than just a creature.

 

[Aloysium]

. . . God the creator as a pure spiritual being created a creature but then breathed life (soul) into the creature, making the creature a being of both matter and spirit, the spirit being part of God himself, I suppose that is why we say we have the life of God within us, temples of the holy spirit etc. So we become more than just a creature.

:twocents:

God is Love.
The Triune Godhead is perfect “relationality”.

Out of His compassion, His love, He has brought the cosmos into existence.
As part of that totality, we exist.
And, we exist as relational beings

• the mystery that is each one of us, is in relation to all that is, and He who is the Source of it all.

It is all about love.
This voyage which all creation through us,
has as its final fulfillment, loving communion with God.

I am an expression of what is human, as all are who read this.
We are brothers and sisters in that humanity.
We have the capacity, and the imperative to love one another.
In that love we are the body of Christ.

Although I am united with all humanity to the degree
that I am love,
that I am Christ,
my primary relationship is, and always has been with God,
the love through which I exist and
allows me to commune with all that is an expression of that ultimate Love.

We do not bring ourselves into existence.
Although we relate to and love God and one another,
that love springs forth from us only through God’s grace.

The choice that we made as one humanity in Adam,
in one moment and in all moments,
the choice that put ourselves ahead of God,
which refused to return in love, trust and obedience that is our filial response to the love given us,
that choice remains in each and everyone of us; it is our choice.

Through Jesus Christ,
we are able to return to our rightful place that was set for us
within the universe and in a mutually loving relationship between the Father and His Creation.

 

[grannymh]

You didn’t answer my question!

Please accept my sincere apology. However, I have decided to return to Adam & Logic. Unfortunately, I am still dealing with a health issue …so I am not sure of the exact timing.

 

[simpleas]

:twocents:

God is Love.
The Triune Godhead is perfect “relationality”.

Out of His compassion, His love, He has brought the cosmos into existence.
As part of that totality, we exist.
And, we exist as relational beings

• the mystery that is each one of us, is in relation to all that is, and He who is the Source of it all.

It is all about love.
This voyage which all creation through us,
has as its final fulfillment, loving communion with God.

I am an expression of what is human, as all are who read this.
We are brothers and sisters in that humanity.
We have the capacity, and the imperative to love one another.
In that love we are the body of Christ.

Although I am united with all humanity to the degree
that I am love,
that I am Christ,
my primary relationship is, and always has been with God,
the love through which I exist and
allows me to commune with all that is an expression of that ultimate Love.

We do not bring ourselves into existence.
Although we relate to and love God and one another,
that love springs forth from us only through God’s grace.

The choice that we made as one humanity in Adam,
in one moment and in all moments,
the choice that put ourselves ahead of God,
which refused to return in love, trust and obedience that is our filial response to the love given us,
that choice remains in each and everyone of us; it is our choice.Through Jesus Christ,
we are able to return to our rightful place that was set for us
within the universe and in a mutually loving relationship between the Father and His Creation.

So Adam chose for all of us or we chose with Adam? Meaning we existed before in some way to be able to make this choice?
That can’t make sense because we know many people who will always choose God’s will over their own and people who do not.
We might be tied together as humanity and come from one set of parents yet we can see we are all very different on a spiritual level.

 

[cfauster]

*There are three common misunderstandings of Original Sin.

The first rejects the doctrine on the assumption that it denies human freedom and therefore exempts us from responsibility for the condition of the world and of human relationships …

The second accepts the doctrine but … Original Sin is equated with the absurdity of human existence, about which we can do nothing … This is the view of a pessimistic existentialism …

The third misunderstanding equates Original Sin with personal sin–a personal sin which somehow is imposed on our otherwise innocent shoulders … How can one be really guilty of a sin that someone else committed, without our knowledge or approval?

God wills that all should have grace. Thus, if it is not present, this must be because of some guilt freely incurred… Yet the absence of grace … is also against God’s will, even when the individual is not at all responsible for its absence … But God remains attached to us in spite of the sin of Adam and Eve… As children of Adam and Eve, we do not have grace. As sons and daughters of God in Christ, we do.

We are born into a “situation” in which, because of the sin of Adam and Eve, grace is not at our disposal in the manner and measure which God intended. Accordingly, now we have to make our decision about salvation …

Either we freely ratify our state of Original Sin by personal sin, or we freely ratify our redeemed condition by faith, hope, and love. *

The above all comes from pages 184-190 of Catholicism by Richard P. McBrien (1994).

 

[grannymh]

Originally Posted by Aloysium forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif
:twocents:

God is Love.
The Triune Godhead is perfect “relationality”.

Out of His compassion, His love, He has brought the cosmos into existence.
As part of that totality, we exist.
*And, we exist as relational beings *
- the mystery that is each one of us, is in relation to all that is, and He who is the Source of it all.

It is all about love.
*This voyage which all creation through us, *
has as its final fulfillment, loving communion with God.

I am an expression of what is human, as all are who read this.
We are brothers and sisters in that humanity.
We have the capacity, and the imperative to love one another.
In that love we are the body of Christ.

*Although I am united with all humanity to the degree *
*that I am love, *
*that I am Christ, *
*my primary relationship is, and always has been with God, *
*the love through which I exist and *
allows me to commune with all that is an expression of that ultimate Love.

We do not bring ourselves into existence.
*Although we relate to and love God and one another, *
that love springs forth from us only through God’s grace.

*The choice that we made as one humanity in Adam, *
in one moment and in all moments,
*the choice that put ourselves ahead of God, *
which refused to return in love, trust and obedience that is our filial response to the love given us,
*that choice remains in each and everyone of us; it is our choice.*Through Jesus Christ,
*we are able to return to our rightful place that was set for us *
within the universe and in a mutually loving relationship between the Father and His Creation.

So Adam chose for all of us or we chose with Adam? Meaning we existed before in some way to be able to make this choice?
That can’t make sense because we know many people who will always choose God’s will over their own and people who do not.
We might be tied together as humanity and come from one set of parents yet we can see we are all very different on a spiritual level.

The print in red needs clarification.

Because all humanity is in Adam “as one body of one man”, we are implicated in Adam’s sin in the same way that we are implicated in Christ’s justice. It is important to note that the Catholic teaching of “implication” does not mean that we personally committed Original Sin. Responsibility for Original Sin is Adam’s. That is why Adam is specifically named in
1 Corinthians 15: 22: “For just as in Adam all die, so too in Christ shall all be brought to life,”

Understanding how all this works when look at human nature can be difficult especially for those, like myself, who were taught that Original Sin was something like a stain on our soul. Adam’s descendants did not actively choose to scorn God; however, because we inherited Adam’s human nature, we inherited Adam’s state of deprivation. We contracted Adam’s state of Original Sin. (Information source. CCC 404-405)

The print in red above, addresses the unity of humanity; however, this unity refers to our inheriting Adam’s fallen nature. It does not mean that because we are one in nature that we are also one with Adam’s choice. We did not deliberately imitate Adam’s singular action. We suffered the results of Adam’s singular choice.

One thing which is often overlooked, is that Adam received his State of Original Holiness and Justice for all his descendants. Adam messed up. Yet, he did have the real opportunity to pass his human nature in the State of Original Holiness aka State of Sanctifying Grace to our human nature. Our imagination could do a great job on how it would be to be born in the State of Sanctifying Grace. As my Irish Mother would say: “We can’t cry over spilled milk.”

What I have been hoping to do was to establish the nature of Adam and proceed somewhat logically to what can and what cannot happen to that nature. As we all have experienced, this is not easy to do.

Ideas and thoughts are welcomed.

 

[fhansen]

So Adam chose for all of us or we chose with Adam? Meaning we existed before in some way to be able to make this choice?
That can’t make sense because we know many people who will always choose God’s will over their own and people who do not.
We might be tied together as humanity and come from one set of parents yet we can see we are all very different on a spiritual level.

Maybe the real question, which God wants to bring to our attention, is, 'Do we now choose with Adam,? Will each of us, as a singular part of humanity, continue to *prefer ourselves *to God as Adam did? Adam had to choose between life and death, obedience and disobedience, heaven and hell, God and no God. We have the same choice now, but perhaps from an even better vantage point from which to decide, having spent time in exile from our Creator.

 

[grannymh]

*There are three common misunderstandings of Original Sin. *

The first rejects the doctrine on the assumption that it denies human freedom and therefore exempts us from responsibility for the condition of the world and of human relationships …

The second accepts the doctrine but … Original Sin is equated with the absurdity of human existence, about which we can do nothing … This is the view of a pessimistic existentialism …

The third misunderstanding equates Original Sin with personal sin–a personal sin which somehow is imposed on our otherwise innocent shoulders … How can one be really guilty of a sin that someone else committed, without our knowledge or approval?

God wills that all should have grace. Thus, if it is not present, this must be because of some guilt freely incurred… Yet the absence of grace … is also against God’s will, even when the individual is not at all responsible for its absence … But God remains attached to us in spite of the sin of Adam and Eve… As children of Adam and Eve, we do not have grace. As sons and daughters of God in Christ, we do.

We are born into a “situation” in which, because of the sin of Adam and Eve, grace is not at our disposal in the manner and measure which God intended. Accordingly, now we have to make our decision about salvation …

*Either we freely ratify our state of Original Sin by personal sin, or we freely ratify our redeemed condition by faith, hope, and love. *

The above all comes from pages 184-190 of Catholicism by Richard P. McBrien (1994).

Oh my heavens!
I briefly googled Rev. Richard P. McBrien en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_McBrien

and found out that he was a source for a “complaint” against Eucharistic Adoration. As one of the lay founders of Perpetual Eucharistic Adoration in our town, I heard about some kind of general complaint, but nothing occurred in our area. However, I was prepared for any fight.

In addition, I have never read any of Father McBrien’s writings. That being said, the first and second misunderstandings are understandable. The third misunderstanding needs a lot of work from the Catholic position.

It is the following information on grace which has me wondering what Father McBrien is referring to. The Catholic teaching is that there are two types of grace: the State of Sanctifying Grace which is the benefit of the Sacrament of Baptism and actual grace which generally refers to God’s interventions.

This is about as far as I can go at the moment.

 

[Gary_Sheldrake]

Good Evening Granny and company: I am looking or a place to join in, but I can’t tell what we’re trying to establish. Are we starting with the premise that there were two physical people named Adam and Eve from whom we are all descendant?

All the best,
Gary