Difficulties accepting interpretations of adam and eve

[frangiuliano115]

Oh yeah, the way I see it, we are baptized as the first step on our journey back to God.

Just wanted to repost! I cheated.

I love what it says. One sentence. I don’t know how to do this…

We were once with God
Then we abandoned God
Now we journey back to HIM

Walk till you run
And don’t look back
For HERE
I AM

Fran

 

[frangiuliano115]

I am fairly certain that the word OS when used in the catechism for the inherited sin cannot be referring to the personal sin of Adam, it must necessarily refer to the condition. For we are not accountable for our fathers’ sins. This is scripture based. (Same argument used on transgenerational sins and healing the family tree kind of stuff)

In fact the CC404 that you quoted says OS “is called “sin” only in an analogical sense”. This statement must therefore necessarily define all references to inherited OS in this manner.

John 9:1-3
Jesus said the blind man was not responsible for his father’s sin.

Neither did I say we are accountable for Adam’s sin.
Don’t know what more could be said. I DO think it’s a problem of just understanding what each of us is saying.

If you care to continue, I’m good but we’ll have to get to specifics.

The problem I’m having personally with this is that it is not mentioned in Genesis, but is a doctrine and teaching of the church so we kind of have to use the CCC of which I’m not a big fan. I did suggest a catechism book. They come straight to the point and is what we’re teaching our kids nowadays. Going to have to take the time to look this up and refer you to it - if you’re intersted. I had to stop teaching catechism last year but still have all my books.

I mean, is this what we’re discussing? If O.S. is removed at baptism?

Can’t remember anymore!!!



Fran

 

[guanophore]

John 9:1-3
Jesus said the blind man was not responsible for his father’s sin.

Neither did I say we are accountable for Adam’s sin.
Don’t know what more could be said. I DO think it’s a problem of just understanding what each of us is saying.

If you care to continue, I’m good but we’ll have to get to specifics.

The problem I’m having personally with this is that it is not mentioned in Genesis, but is a doctrine and teaching of the church so we kind of have to use** the CCC of which I’m not a big fan.** I did suggest a catechism book. They come straight to the point and is what we’re teaching our kids nowadays. Going to have to take the time to look this up and refer you to it - if you’re intersted. I had to stop teaching catechism last year but still have all my books.

I mean, is this what we’re discussing? If O.S. is removed at baptism?

Can’t remember anymore!!!



Fran

Perhaps you do not realize how problematic it is for a person who claims to be a Catholic catechist to make statements that she is “not a big fan” of the Catechism, which has been promoted as a “sure norm for the faith” by the Holy Father?

I am relieved to know you are having memory problems. Perhaps some of the outrageous statements you make can be excused by that?

We were discussing the nature of original sin. The Catechism teaches that it is a condition, not a personal sin. It is removed along with all personal sins in baptism.

 

[JM3]

The EFFECT of original sin is called concupiscence. That is what could be referred to as the sin nature, the sinful flesh, etc etc. It’s the inclination toward evil.

Agreed. And it still remains even after baptism.

"In a child original sin is distinct from the fault of Adam, it is one of its effects. But which of these effects is it? We shall examine the several effects of Adam’s fault and reject those which cannot be original sin:

(1) Death and Suffering.- These are purely physical evils and cannot be called sin. Moreover St. Paul, and after him the councils, regarded death and original sin as two distinct things transmitted by Adam.

(2) Concupiscence.- This rebellion of the lower appetite transmitted to us by Adam is an occasion of sin and in that sense comes nearer to moral evil. However, the occasion of a fault is not necessarily a fault, and whilst original sin is effaced by baptism concupiscence still remains in the person baptized; therefore original sin and concupiscence cannot be one and the same thing, as was held by the early Protestants (see Council of Trent, Sess. V, can. v).

(3) The absence of sanctifying grace in the new-born child is also an effect of the first sin, for Adam, having received holiness and justice from God, lost it not only for himself but also for us (loc. cit., can. ii). If he has lost it for us we were to have received it from him at our birth with the other prerogatives of our race. Therefore the absence of sanctifying grace in a child is a real privation, it is the want of something that should have been in him according to the Divine plan. If this favour is not merely something physical but is something in the moral order, if it is holiness, its privation may be called a sin. But sanctifying grace is holiness and is so called by the Council of Trent, because holiness consists in union with God, and grace unites us intimately with God. Moral goodness consists in this, that our action is according to the moral law, but grace is a deification, as the Fathers say, a perfect conformity with God who is the first rule of all morality. (See GRACE.) Sanctifying grace therefore enters into the moral order, not as an act that passes but as a permanent tendency which exists even when the subject who possesses it does not act; it is a turning towards God, conversio ad Deum. Consequently the privation of this grace, even without any other act, would be a stain, a moral deformity, a turning away from God, aversio a Deo, and this character is not found in any other effect of the fault of Adam. This privation, therefore, is the hereditary stain."

 

[frangiuliano115]

Perhaps you do not realize how problematic it is for a person who claims to be a Catholic catechist to make statements that she is “not a big fan” of the Catechism, which has been promoted as a “sure norm for the faith” by the Holy Father?

I am relieved to know you are having memory problems. Perhaps some of the outrageous statements you make can be excused by that?

We were discussing the nature of original sin. The Catechism teaches that it is a condition, not a personal sin. It is removed along with all personal sins in baptism.

Remember when we first started posting and you said I had insulted you in some way?

Well, I don’t believe I ever said anything to you similar to your second pp above.

Please read:

Mathew 7:1-5

And does “claiming to be a Catholic catechist” mean I am lying?

 

[frangiuliano115]

"In a child original sin is distinct from the fault of Adam, it is one of its effects. But which of these effects is it? We shall examine the several effects of Adam’s fault and reject those which cannot be original sin:

(1) Death and Suffering.- These are purely physical evils and cannot be called sin. Moreover St. Paul, and after him the councils, regarded death and original sin as two distinct things transmitted by Adam.

(2) Concupiscence.- This rebellion of the lower appetite transmitted to us by Adam is an occasion of sin and in that sense comes nearer to moral evil. However, the occasion of a fault is not necessarily a fault, and whilst original sin is effaced by baptism concupiscence still remains in the person baptized; therefore original sin and concupiscence cannot be one and the same thing, as was held by the early Protestants (see Council of Trent, Sess. V, can. v).

(3) The absence of sanctifying grace in the new-born child is also an effect of the first sin, for Adam, having received holiness and justice from God, lost it not only for himself but also for us (loc. cit., can. ii). If he has lost it for us we were to have received it from him at our birth with the other prerogatives of our race. Therefore the absence of sanctifying grace in a child is a real privation, it is the want of something that should have been in him according to the Divine plan. If this favour is not merely something physical but is something in the moral order, if it is holiness, its privation may be called a sin. But sanctifying grace is holiness and is so called by the Council of Trent, because holiness consists in union with God, and grace unites us intimately with God. Moral goodness consists in this, that our action is according to the moral law, but grace is a deification, as the Fathers say, a perfect conformity with God who is the first rule of all morality. (See GRACE.) Sanctifying grace therefore enters into the moral order, not as an act that passes but as a permanent tendency which exists even when the subject who possesses it does not act; it is a turning towards God, conversio ad Deum. Consequently the privation of this grace, even without any other act, would be a stain, a moral deformity, a turning away from God, aversio a Deo, and this character is not found in any other effect of the fault of Adam. This privation, therefore, is the hereditary stain."

For no. 1: It’s interesting how you say it. I don’t ask for substantiating sources because I can pretty much tell if the statement sounds right to me or not; however, in this case I’d love to know where the scripture is referring to Paul saying that death and original sin are two distinct things. I can’t think of anywhere in the bible that this is stated by him - but I don’t know each and every verse by heart. If it’s not too much trouble, I’d really be interested. The way I know it is that there was no death (physical) before the fall. Then Adam committed O.S. and all the preternatural gifts he had were removed from his nature and death entered. Is this two different things? Death is a RESULT of O.S.

No. 2 Perfect O.S. and concupiscence are two totally different concepts.

No. 3 I’d say that grace is a lot more than that, but I’m sure the writer is limiting his description to the subject at hand. Original sin explained as a stain: Okay.

See, you have to know all those fancy words.


Fran

 

[JM3]

For no. 1: It’s interesting how you say it.

Perhaps, you didn’t notice the quotation marks or the link on “original sin”(here it is again).

I don’t ask for substantiating sources because I can pretty much tell if the statement sounds right to me or not; however, in this case I’d love to know where the scripture is referring to Paul saying that death and original sin are two distinct things. I can’t think of anywhere in the bible that this is stated by him - but I don’t know each and every verse by heart. If it’s not too much trouble, I’d really be interested.

I believe the verse you are looking for is

Romans 5:12 - Wherefore as by one man sin entered into this world, and by sin death; and so death passed upon all men, in whom all have sinned.

The way I know it is that there was no death (physical) before the fall. Then Adam committed O.S. and all the preternatural gifts he had were removed from his nature and death entered. Is this two different things? Death is a RESULT of O.S.

Yes, I believe it is two different things.

CCC 399 Scripture portrays the tragic consequences of this first disobedience. Adam and Eve immediately lose the grace of original holiness.

CCC 400…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.

CCC 1008 Death is a consequence of sin. The Church’s Magisterium, as authentic interpreter of the affirmations of Scripture and Tradition, teaches that death entered the world on account of man’s sin. Even though man’s nature is mortal, God had destined him not to die. Death was therefore contrary to the plans of God the Creator and entered the world as a consequence of sin.

No. 3 Original sin explained as a stain: Okay.

I believe the part I put in bold said that the absence of sanctifying grace is the hereditary stain.

Also, from the link:

“Being a distinct person I am not strictly responsible for the crime of another; the act is not mine. Yet, as a member of the human family, I am supposed to have acted with its head who represented it with regard to the conservation or the loss of grace. I am, therefore, responsible for my privation of grace, taking responsibility in the largest sense of the word. This, however, is enough to make the state of privation of grace in a certain degree voluntary, and, therefore, “without absurdity it may be said to be voluntary” (St. Augustine, “Retract.”, I, xiii).”

 

[frangiuliano115]

Perhaps, you didn’t notice the quotation marks or the link on “original sin”(here it is again).

I believe the verse you are looking for is

Romans 5:12 - Wherefore as by one man sin entered into this world, and by sin death; and so death passed upon all men, in whom all have sinned.

Yes, I believe it is two different things.

CCC 399 Scripture portrays the tragic consequences of this first disobedience. Adam and Eve immediately lose the grace of original holiness.

CCC 400…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.

CCC 1008 Death is a consequence of sin. The Church’s Magisterium, as authentic interpreter of the affirmations of Scripture and Tradition, teaches that death entered the world on account of man’s sin. Even though man’s nature is mortal, God had destined him not to die. Death was therefore contrary to the plans of God the Creator and entered the world as a consequence of sin.

I believe the part I put in bold said that the absence of sanctifying grace is the hereditary stain.

Also, from the link:

“Being a distinct person I am not strictly responsible for the crime of another; the act is not mine. Yet, as a member of the human family, I am supposed to have acted with its head who represented it with regard to the conservation or the loss of grace. I am, therefore, responsible for my privation of grace, taking responsibility in the largest sense of the word. This, however, is enough to make the state of privation of grace in a certain degree voluntary, and, therefore, “without absurdity it may be said to be voluntary” (St. Augustine, “Retract.”, I, xiii).”

Hello JM3,

Checked out the link. Didn’t read it all. I’ve always been taught that the death of which God warned Adam was both physical and spiritual because after the fall, Adam definitely had separated himself from God spiritually. But this is an aside…

I’m familiar with Romans 5:12 and I had mentioned it up above in an earlier post because I think the study of how Adam was the first man - and by him sin entered, so Jesus was the firstfruits, or new man through which we gain salvation, is very interesting. See Genesis 3:15 for the prophecy.

Regarding the hereditary stain. I hope we do understand that this stain is removed at baptism AND sanctifying grace is infused. I found the following on catholicism.about.com/the sacrament of baptism :

The Effects of the Sacrament of Baptism

Baptism has six primary effects, which are all supernatural graces:

1. The removal of the guilt of both Original Sin (the sin imparted to all mankind by the Fall of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden) and personal sin (the sins that we have committed ourselves).
2. The remission of all punishment that we owe because of sin, both temporal (in this world and in Purgatory) and eternal (the punishment that we would suffer in hell).
3. The infusion of grace in the form of sanctifying grace (the life of God within us); the seven gifts of the Holy Spirit; and the three theological virtues.
4. Becoming a part of Christ.
5. Becoming a part of the Church, which is the Mystical Body of Christ on earth.
6. Enabling participation in the sacraments, the priesthood of all believers, and the growth in grace.

They’re calling it the “guilt” of original sin ,which is what the OP is disturbed about, and your link is calling it the “stain” of original sin. It’s the same thing. Depends on whose thesis you’re reading. Also, I’m sure you know, that at baptism all sins - sins - are also removed. For instance if an adult gets baptized; at that moment he has no sins at all on his soul. If he were to die at that moment he’d go straight to heaven. I don’t like to judge but just as an explanation.

I do hope this is helpful for the O.P.

Sin had to enter the world somehow or there would be no sin! No use to worry about it forever. There is much to learn from the story of Adam and Eve - we should take that and stop blaming them IMO.

I must say that WORDS get in the way of our BELIEFS !

Fran

 

[frangiuliano115]

.

Ericc,

Haven’t forgotten you.
I think my exchange with JM3 will also cover our discussion.
If not, we could continue.

Fran

 

[JM3]

Regarding the hereditary stain. I hope we do understand that this stain is removed at baptism AND sanctifying grace is infused.

As the Church teaches;

CCC 1266 The Most Holy Trinity gives the baptized sanctifying grace, the grace of justification

 

[guanophore]

Remember when we first started posting and you said I had insulted you in some way?

Well, I don’t believe I ever said anything to you similar to your second pp above.

No. But you did deny a fundamental doctrine of the Church, and asserted that the Church does not teach it anymore.

Please read:

Mathew 7:1-5

And does “claiming to be a Catholic catechist” mean I am lying?

Certainly not! In fact, I personally feel quite sure you are who you claim to be, despite some of the appalling statements one would never want to hear from a Catechist. But the fact is, any of us can get on here and claim to be whoever we want.

I am not judging you, Fran, I am responding to what you have written.

  I've always been taught that the death of which God warned Adam was both physical and spiritual because after the fall, Adam definitely had separated himself from God spiritually.  But this is an aside...

I am not so sure it is an “aside”, since it seems quite on target with the thread title. I agree, the death was both physical and spiritual.

Regarding the hereditary stain. I hope we do understand that this stain is removed at baptism AND sanctifying grace is infused. I found the following on catholicism.about.com/the sacrament of baptism :

The Effects of the Sacrament of Baptism

Baptism has six primary effects, which are all supernatural graces:

I find it shocking that you are using a secular site to support your point, especially since you told me I could not learn about my religion on the internet!

For the record, though, I think it is a good article and I agree with the points. When we began this discussion, you repeatedly told other posters to “go back and read about baptism”, presumably because you believed knowing these points would solve the difficulties on original sin.

They're calling it the "guilt" of original sin ,which is what the OP is disturbed about, and your link is calling it the "stain" of original sin.  It's the same thing.  Depends on whose thesis you're reading.

Yes. I think this whole thread has been an exercise in semantics.

I must say that WORDS get in the way of our BELIEFS !

Fran

That happens a lot here on the threads.