P
phil8888
Guest
Just wanted clarification on baptism. Does it remove the stain of original sin and bring us into the mystical body of Christ? If so, is there anything else we need to know about Baptism?
- Status
A
Alicat
Guest
My Catholic Encyclopedia offers this definition of the Sacrament of Baptism:
“The sacrament in which…the one baptized is cleansed of original sin and is incorporated into Christ and made a member of His Body the Church; he is infused with sanctifying grace and receives the theological virtues of faith, hope and charity, and the gifts of the Holy Spirit; and this enables him to receive the other sacraments effectively.”
“The sacrament in which…the one baptized is cleansed of original sin and is incorporated into Christ and made a member of His Body the Church; he is infused with sanctifying grace and receives the theological virtues of faith, hope and charity, and the gifts of the Holy Spirit; and this enables him to receive the other sacraments effectively.”
T
thistle
Guest
J
jkiernan56
Guest
What does it mean “to remove the stain of original sin”?
Our Catholic faith tells us that Mary was conceived Immaculate - “free from the stain of original sin.” When we are Baptised, does that bring our soul into the same state as Mary when she was conceived?
I’m not sure that is TRUE. Mary did not suffer concupiscence which results from the stain of original sin. After Baptism, we still suffer from concupiscence. If that is TRUE, our Baptism (being cleansed from the stain of original sin) is NOT like Mary’s Immaculate Conception.
That leaves me with the question - what stain of original sin does Baptism afford us?
J
Joe_5859
Guest
I recommend reading the section in the Catechism on Baptism: CCC 1213-1284
In particular, look at the section on The Grace of Baptism (CCC 1262-1274). One of those graces is the forgiveness of all sin (including Original Sin). However, this is not the same thing as being free from concupiscence. Mary was free from both. We are free from Original Sin after Baptism, but not concupiscence:
J
jkiernan56
Guest
Thank you very much. I really do appreciate your response. This has been nagging me for some time.
You and I suffer from concupiscence because of Adam. God did not wash that away in Baptism. It was a grace God gave to Mary. I always thought something wasn’t right because we have to suffer from concupiscense because of the fault of Adam. Why should we have to suffer because of what our father did? Even asking the question is probably because of original sin - but God wants us to be honest with Him and ourselves. I struggle with the doctrine of original sin.
J
Joe_5859
Guest
Not a problem. There’s no shame in wrestling with questions from time to time, and I think your questions are very important ones.
You might also want to take a look at what the Catechism says on Original Sin (CCC 396-409). In particular, paragraphs 402-406 talk of the consequences of Adam’s Sin for humanity. This may strike to the heart of your question:
Basically, it’s all about the unity of the human family. It is this same unity that allows us to be saved from sin by the action of Christ, the New Adam.
T
Tantum_ergo
Guest
Adam and Eve were created without the predisposition to concupiscence. . .yet, they sinned.
So while Mary was, in her Immaculate Conception, without the predisposition to concupiscence, she still could have sinned. . .just as Adam and Eve did. However, she chose to obey God in all things. . .as Eve likewise could have, and should have, done. As we ourselves, though with a ‘prediliction’ to sin can, and should, do, even if we have previously been guilty of (and repented for) all our past sins. . .
The idea that God should create us ‘like Mary’ to guarantee that we won’t sin is faulty in its assumption both that Mary ‘could not sin’ and that God is somehow ‘punishing us unfairly’ by not ‘giving us’ what He gave the Blessed Mother.
So while Mary was, in her Immaculate Conception, without the predisposition to concupiscence, she still could have sinned. . .just as Adam and Eve did. However, she chose to obey God in all things. . .as Eve likewise could have, and should have, done. As we ourselves, though with a ‘prediliction’ to sin can, and should, do, even if we have previously been guilty of (and repented for) all our past sins. . .
The idea that God should create us ‘like Mary’ to guarantee that we won’t sin is faulty in its assumption both that Mary ‘could not sin’ and that God is somehow ‘punishing us unfairly’ by not ‘giving us’ what He gave the Blessed Mother.
C
CatsAndDogs
Guest
Which is why we appreciate HER, and not “whomever would have been given the graces she was given”, so much.
This is why it’s important that she never did sin during her entire life (such as by “having children by Joseph” and other supposed “unimportant details”).
She is massively appreciated for being herself, and not just as “the vessel that bore Christ”.
(( Sorry for the rant. I’ve just gotten rather tired of the so-called “lesser [Marian] doctrines”-argument used to “appease” those who have trouble with Mary [or transubstantiation, or etc, etc].
)):shamrock2:
J
jkiernan56
Guest
My idea of God creating us like Mary does not include thinking we would not sin. I think it was possible for Mary and Jesus to sin because they still had free-will and were fully human. Jesus was tempted to sin (and I’m sure Mary was as well) - but never did. A person can’t be tempted if they can never sin. I wish God had given us the same grace in Baptism and restored original justice (freedom from concupiscence) … but that wasn’t His plan for us. I especially liked Joe’s comment that … “Basically, it’s all about the unity of the human family. It is this same unity that allows us to be saved from sin by the action of Christ, the New Adam.” We didn’t deserve to be created or saved or sanctified. God is good.
J
jkiernan56
Guest
I believe and accept that Mary remained a virgin all her life.
I take exception with you saying that Mary would have “sinned” if she had had other children by Joseph. (Please correct me if that is not what you meant). There is no more beautiful image of God (The Holy Trinity) than Christian Marriage. The gift of sexual expression in marriage is very beautiful to God and not sinful. The fact that Mary did not have other children was not because “she did not sin.” That idea diminishes the beauty and gift of Christian marriage.
C
CatsAndDogs
Guest
She had children only by her “espousal” to the Holy Spirit.
To have had children by anyone else would be adultery.
Adultery is sin.
“Mary, the all-holy ever-virgin Mother of God,…”
Do you think that Mary was “ever virgin” simply “because”, or that she was ever virgin for a reason?
She was ever virgin because for her to have been otherwise would have been a sin.
“Within marriage” is the point in question.
Mary was “legally married” to Joseph, but not the mother of his child, who was his “foster child”.
Mary was “actually married” (meaning “a true marriage existed regardless of ‘civil legalities’ to the contrary”) to God, the Father of her child.
The “civil authorities” saw one “marriage”, while God, and eventually the faithful, saw/sees the other one.
OK, then. Having said all that, I’d like to know if I’m correct in my understanding, as I can’t seem to find any Magisterial document which explicitly states that our Mother Mary would have sinned if she had had other children with Joseph as their father.
So, am I correct,…
…or am I allowed only to THINK that I MAY be correct as my “private revelation” doesn’t contradict any actual dogma but isn’t actually confirmed BY any actual dogma either,…
…or am I overreaching and incorrect (aka "talking completely out of my hat yet again!) because of my not being aware of the dogma which my “private revelation” DOES contradict?
Any correction would be VERY welcome!
(( Thanks for prompting me to try to find a definitive answer to this “thorny problem”. ))
:shamrock2:
J
jkiernan56
Guest
I think you are over reaching. Its ok to have questions, but your conclusion as to why Mary remained a virgin all her life is an assumption not based on fact.
You and I are also called to be “espoused” to the Holy Spirit as well. One day that will happen if we cooperate with God’s grace. For Mary to remain a virgin was a choice she made, not because it would have been sinful for her not to do so.
You’re probably better off asking this question to an Apologist such as Fr. Vincent Serpa. They would be much more qualified to answer this for you.
P
phil8888
Guest
So does that mean if someone was baptized and immediately killed after that, that he would end up in heaven without going to purgatory? Assuming he committed no sin between his baptism and death.
C
CatsAndDogs
Guest
Most likely purgatory, but yes, heaven is basically assured,… as far as that CAN be assured.
Of course, killing yourself, or having someone kill you (on purpose) directly after being baptized would be a rather large no-no.
Was it the Albigensians that postponed baptism until one’s deathbed, and then if the “dying” person recovered he was ritually murdered to ensure that he’d “go to heaven”?
Such “fun” those people were! <yeesh!>
:shamrock2:
C
CatsAndDogs
Guest
You’re probably right. I shall do that. Thank you.
← OK, who put the Holy Water in my tea? It’s just bleach you say? Oh. Never mind, then.:shamrock2:
P
phil8888
Guest
What would someone have to do to go straight to heaven without having to pass through purgatory? Could they go to confession, then receive a plenary indulgence. Would they then go to heaven if they died?
C
CatsAndDogs
Guest
Here’s a response:You’re probably right. I shall do that. Thank you.
:shamrock2:
(( …via here, via here, via here, via here, via here. ))
To begin with, the Protoevangelium records that when Mary’s birth was prophesied, her mother, St. Anne, vowed that she would devote the child to the service of the Lord, as Samuel had been by his mother (1 Sam. 1:11). Mary would thus serve the Lord at the Temple, as women had for centuries (1 Sam. 2:22), and as Anna the prophetess did at the time of Jesus’ birth (Luke 2:36–37). A life of continual, devoted service to the Lord at the Temple meant that Mary would not be able to live the ordinary life of a child-rearing mother. Rather, she was vowed to a life of perpetual virginity.
However, due to considerations of ceremonial cleanliness, it was eventually necessary for Mary, a consecrated “virgin of the Lord,” to have a guardian or protector who would respect her vow of virginity. Thus, according to the Protoevangelium, Joseph, an elderly widower who already had children, was chosen to be her spouse. (This would also explain why Joseph was apparently dead by the time of Jesus’ adult ministry, since he does not appear during it in the gospels, and since Mary is entrusted to John, rather than to her husband Joseph, at the crucifixion).
According to the Protoevangelium, Joseph was required to regard Mary’s vow of virginity with the utmost respect. The gravity of his responsibility as the guardian of a virgin was indicated by the fact that, when she was discovered to be with child, he had to answer to the Temple authorities, who thought him guilty of defiling a virgin of the Lord. Mary was also accused of having forsaken the Lord by breaking her vow. Keeping this in mind, it is an incredible insult to the Blessed Virgin to say that she broke her vow by bearing children other than her Lord and God, who was conceived through the power of the Holy Spirit.
So, it WOULD have been a sin for her to have borne ANY children with anyone, since she was avowed to absolute perpetual virginity.
That she DID bear Jesus says that, officially, she was a (rather large) sinner for having broken her vow, while WE know that she was thus wrongly persecuted as she hadn’t actually sinned.
But in any case, she was NOT “free” to bear children at all, except in her actual “special case”, and it would have obliterated her “sinless” status if she had any after Jesus.
:shamrock2:
C
CatsAndDogs
Guest
I do suppose that a plenary indulgence WOULD do it.
Though, if they hadn’t sinned between baptism and “indulgence getting” they wouldn’t need to reconcile (confession).
But this sounds like some weird form of “game playing” to me.
It might be a mortal sin simply to WANT to pull this gamemanship in the first place, and totally muck up one’s hoped for “guarantee” of heaven.
But, what the heck do I know? <chuckle!>
:shamrock2:
P
phil8888
Guest
I was only bringing up a hypothetical situation, not looking at it like a game. I was trying to gain a better understanding of confession, baptism and indulgences. Thanks for your (name removed by moderator)ut.I do suppose that a plenary indulgence WOULD do it.
Though, if they hadn’t sinned between baptism and “indulgence getting” they wouldn’t need to reconcile (confession).
But this sounds like some weird form of “game playing” to me.
It might be a mortal sin simply to WANT to pull this gamemanship in the first place, and totally muck up one’s hoped for “guarantee” of heaven.
But, what the heck do I know? <chuckle!>
:shamrock2:
- Status