C
ClemtheCatholic
Guest
Self explanatory thread 
In Christ,
ClemtheCatholic
In Christ,
ClemtheCatholic
- Status
G
GaryTaylor
Guest
The removal or withdrawal of a degree of Gods Grace from the Soul, left man in confrontation with his own Human Nature, thus the inclination to sin.
Let me see if I can find the link to help you. We were just talking about this on another thread.
memoryhole.net/~chris/research/original_sin.html
St Thomas Aquinas, found that original sin was primarily of human nature.
Trent affirmed.
âHoly council perceives and confesses that in the one baptized there remains concupiscence or an inclination to sin, which, since it is left for us to wrestle with, cannot injure those who do not acquiesce but resist manfully by the grace of Jesus Christ; indeed, he who shall have striven lawfully shall be crowned.22 This concupiscence, which the Apostle sometimes calls sin,23 the holy council declares the Catholic Church has never understood to be called sin in the sense that it is truly and properly sin in those born again, but in the sense that it is of sin and inclines to sin. But if anyone is of the contrary opinion, let him be anathema.â
Let me see if I can find the link to help you. We were just talking about this on another thread.
memoryhole.net/~chris/research/original_sin.html
St Thomas Aquinas, found that original sin was primarily of human nature.
Trent affirmed.
âHoly council perceives and confesses that in the one baptized there remains concupiscence or an inclination to sin, which, since it is left for us to wrestle with, cannot injure those who do not acquiesce but resist manfully by the grace of Jesus Christ; indeed, he who shall have striven lawfully shall be crowned.22 This concupiscence, which the Apostle sometimes calls sin,23 the holy council declares the Catholic Church has never understood to be called sin in the sense that it is truly and properly sin in those born again, but in the sense that it is of sin and inclines to sin. But if anyone is of the contrary opinion, let him be anathema.â
G
grannymh
Guest
For further information on the teachings of Trent, please refer to the universal *Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition *paragraphs 402 - 409.
For an explanation of the smaller print found in CCC 406, CCC 409, and additional paragraphs, please read CCC 20-21.
For an explanation of the triple concupiscence, please read CCC 377.
For basic information about the human person and human nature, please read CCC 355-421.
Blessings,
granny
The human person is worthy of profound respect from the moment of conception.
M
MarcoPolo
Guest
Real short answer, yes. Human nature was wounded:CCC#1714 Man, having been wounded in his nature by original sin, is subject to error and inclined to evil in exercising his freedomPrior posts will give deeper explanations, however, of course.Self explanatory thread
F
fhansen
Guest
If not, then all human behavior that we see and experience and read about in this world is Gods intended behavior for man.Self explanatory thread
In Christ,
ClemtheCatholic
S
Skye_Ariel
Guest
Yes, sin changed human nature as well as the earth and the animals in nature etc. Man was originally made to live forever, then in the old testament before the flood man lived for hundreds of years till sin altered mankind to live what our current life span is. Animals were not aggressive towards humans in the beginning, sin altered that. Everything changed when sin entered. It altered everything because everything is interconnected.
R
Robert_Sock
Guest
I believe Adam and Eve were spiritual beings and did not become human until God clothed them in âgarments of skin.â
G
grannymh
Guest
I am trying to understand this point of view.
Adam was a totally spiritual being? How is that related to the need for a Messiah Who had to be True Man as well as True God? Adam received the garments after he realized that he was naked. Adam would have sinned as a spiritual being?
I have heard the phrase that man is a spiritual being because he has a spiritual soul uniquely united with his material anatomy so that he is one nature. But that does not indicate that man was a soul before he had a body.
.
S
Skye_Ariel
Guest
Genesis says first God formed Adamâs body from the dirt of the earth, THEN He breathed a living soul and spirit into him. Adam was not a spiritual being first.
M
manualman
Guest
Of course. Man was created in the image and likeness of God, but that nature was damaged by Original Sin. Continuing the âimageâ metaphor, original sin vandalized manâs image like the mustache and goatee kids like to put on magazine pictures.
G
grannymh
Guest
You referred to manâs image being hurt or metaphorically vandalized. That is o.k. However, we need to remember that regardless of manâs image, we continue to be in Godâs image in that we still have the capability to share in Godâs life.
M
manualman
Guest
Agreed only once you add the necessity of Grace to that sentence. It is only through Grace that we can overcome the damage of Original Sin and adequately share the love of God with one another and God himself.
G
grannymh
Guest
:thumbsup:
F
fhansen
Guest
I think there may be another helpful way to look at the culpability of Adams descendants and the manner in which our nature is changed. What does it mean to say that humans carry the âguiltâ of OS? We can ask the question, âWhat, about humankind, offends God?â And the answer, IMO, is that, when God looks at His creation, Heâs struck, offended, saddened by whatâs missing in us, rather than by anything thatâs been added. Man fell, he became wounded, he lost something, all by actually attempting to gain something, to gain something more that he didnât need, something that wasnât even available to him, his own âgodhoodâ, apart from God, and whatever additional âlifeâ he thought that would give him. Man lost sanctifying grace, he lost the life of God in him, and this constitutes a disorder in the universe, an injustice.
Our responsibility is not in having committed the first sin but rather in coming to see that the first sin, and the distancing from God that it caused, really was a sin, that this injustice really does âexistâ in man. Then we can turn back to Him and have restored relationship; harmony can resume its course. All it takes is revelation/grace combined with our experience here on earth in the âpigstyâ, away from God, immersed in a world where sin brings about the awareness of good and evil, so we may, as weâre willing, run back to the source of all Goodness itself.
Our responsibility is not in having committed the first sin but rather in coming to see that the first sin, and the distancing from God that it caused, really was a sin, that this injustice really does âexistâ in man. Then we can turn back to Him and have restored relationship; harmony can resume its course. All it takes is revelation/grace combined with our experience here on earth in the âpigstyâ, away from God, immersed in a world where sin brings about the awareness of good and evil, so we may, as weâre willing, run back to the source of all Goodness itself.
G
grannymh
Guest
There was only one person in the entire universe capable of committing The One and Only Original Sin and that was Adam, not his descendants. Only a real individual Adam could shatter the relationship between God and humans. The result, not the guilt, was transmitted to Adamâs descendants. This is why Catholicism teaches that "Although it is proper to each individual, Original Sin does not have the character of a personal fault in any of Adamâs descendants. (CCC 405) However, to get the full story about Original Sin, one should study CCC 396 - 409.
Regarding your question âWe can ask the question, 'What, about humankind, offends God?â
Humankind is constantly offending God. But this cannot be confused with the Original Sin by the parent of humankind.
F
fhansen
Guest
I think it should be obvious to most that my question could be phrased to ask, 'what is it in Adamâs descendents with or without any personal sins of their own that offends God to the extent that Jesus needed to die for them?
F
fhansen
Guest
The Council of Trent used the term âguiltâ to describe the sin that is remitted in infants, for example. But yes, itâs understood that this does not imply a fault in us, and yet it does imply a change nonetheless, a change from where God would have us to be. OS is a state, and yet an unjust state which can only be remedied with the justice that comes from God- which He offers due to the Atonement.
S
Skye_Ariel
Guest
Just think of it like this, you know what happens to the children of pregnant drug addicts, the children are born hooked on drugs, so imagine if using drugs led to a permanent state of being a drug addict and the drugs **never **left your system, and then any children you have would be born as drug addicted babies or crack babies and their children would be born crack babies with the drugs permanently in their system and so on down the line. Well the original sin was for the spirit what drugs are to the body. The same way that drugs alter the personâs body chemistry and gets passed on to the unborn babies is the same way that the original sin altered the **spirit **of mankind and gets passed on from generation to generation. The same way that drugs make people act crazy is the same way that the original sin makes people act crazy, and we call it sin.
The same way that crack babies are ADHD is the same way that humanity has spiritual ADHD called sin. Mankind cannot enter into heaven with the messed up ADHD, drug addicted spirit that we call sin nature, so Jesus came to die on the cross as a way to wash away that sin nature with His blood so that we can enter into Heaven and He did it because we all ended up with the sin nature because of Adam & Eve we didnât do the original sin personally ourselves we were born into it the way crack babies are born hooked on drugs even though they themselves did not make the choice to use drugs. The sin nature is a dysfunctional state of being and God cannot allow someone in that dysfunctional state into Heaven without washing away that stain with His blood.
F
fhansen
Guest
Yes, as long as we understand âsin natureâ to simply mean the natural state weâre left in, or fall to, when God effectively recedes from being the God of our lives. IOW, the reason man sins is because he lacks the integrity necessary to control himself, to keep his normal appetites in harmony with and controlled by reason. And this is due to his having âforfeitedâ the âpreternaturalâ and supernatural gifts at the fall. Man fell from grace, and without grace, without God, he can neither save himself nor maintain control over himself. Our obligation is to accept reconciliation with God so that relationship is restored (He becomes the God of man again as per Jer 31), and this relationship involves the proper subjugation/obedience of creature to Creator.Just think of it like this, you know what happens to the children of pregnant drug addicts, the children are born hooked on drugs, so imagine if using drugs led to a permanent state of being a drug addict and the drugs **never **left your system, and then any children you have would be born as drug addicted babies or crack babies and their children would be born crack babies with the drugs permanently in their system and so on down the line. Well the original sin was for the spirit what drugs are to the body. The same way that drugs alter the personâs body chemistry and gets passed on to the unborn babies is the same way that the original sin altered the **spirit **of mankind and gets passed on from generation to generation. The same way that drugs make people act crazy is the same way that the original sin makes people act crazy, and we call it sin.
Z
zro_x
Guest
Are you sure about this? Suppose that Adam and Eve hadnât commited the original sin, but Cain did. Would Cain and his descendents be the only ones with original sin? Maybe Cainâs sin would affect the whole human race, and not just his descendents. Or perhaps Adam and Eve were the only ones who could have transmitted original sin to future generations, in which case Cainâs sin would have no affect on even his own descendents.
- Status