Does the church still beleive in original sin?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Suppression
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
napad said:
But then that can be interpreted too etc… So we will never know the real answer :hmmm:
Click to expand...
For those with normal intellectual capacity, understanding human communication is not that difficult.
 
kleary said:
And you can point him to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, most recently published in the 20’th century where Original Sin is clearly stated as part of the faith.

CCC #397-401

Then tell the priest he now needs to go to confession himself for his attempt to lead the faithful astray, for self professed heresy (Modernism), and for denial of the faith. Basically this priest is excommunicated ipso-facto for his disbelief.

Ken
Click to expand...
This is a pretty extreme reaction. Without having actually heard the sermon its hard to say, but nothing in the OP sounded heretical to me. The priest is correct, the Church teaches monogenism - that we all descend from an original father and mother. There have been some hints that teaching may change, but that is the current teaching. I agree with the post that said that we should just call them Adam and Eve. But the Church does not teach that we must believe the literal account of Adam and Eve in Genesis. We must believe in original sin, but the priest is correct that many theologians are rethinking the nature of original sin. There is nothing wrong with that.

Sounds like much ado about nothing to me.
 
itsjustdave1988 said:
For those with normal intellectual capacity, understanding human communication is not that difficult.
Click to expand...
I am trying to show ( with a little sarcasm) that dogmas ie definitions are not interpreted they are proclaimed.

Dogmas are infallible statements i.e. DEFINITIONS.

American Heritage Dictionary states:
definition :
1.A statement conveying fundamental character.
2.A statement of the meaning of a word, phrase, or term, as in a dictionary entry.
3.The act or process of stating a precise meaning or significance; formulation of a meaning.

A dogmatic definition is the highest use of the magesterium. It is above the ordinary magisterium. How can we subject the higher authority to a lower authority for INTERPRETATION? There is no such thing as interpreting dogma. You either accept them or reject them.

Otherwise you will have the problem of what I was trying to show that we will never know the truth because it is just one interpretation, ie. meaning there could be other meanings.🙂
 
itsjustdave1988 said:
For those with normal intellectual capacity, understanding human communication is not that difficult.
Click to expand...
For once, I think this is a first but I could be wrong, I vehemently disagree with you Dave! 🙂

Highly intellectual people can interpose SO MANY misinterpretations between what another says and what that person meant, usually by not inquiring further of the speaker for clarity, that they can be THE WORST at actually understanding “human communication”.

The lack of listening for understanding and simple agenda-driven prejudice are the biggest barriers to communication, and intellectual capacity has absolutely nothing to do with one’s capacity to misunderstand others.

Both gits and geniuses are equally capable of refusing truth in favor of “what makes me comfy”.
 
Do you think that maybe you have strayed from the original question?
Deacon Ed B
 
CalmDownWisWins said:
Highly intellectual people can interpose SO MANY misinterpretations between what another says and what that person meant, usually by not inquiring further of the speaker for clarity, that they can be THE WORST at actually understanding “human communication”.
Click to expand...
You’re right. 👍 For those with “normal” intellectual capacity, human communication isn’t that difficult. However, for those with “extraordinary” intellect, the situation is much different. 😃

Throughout Church history, it is almost always the so-called “learned” who are at the root of every novel departure from the Faith. Ordinary faithful normally have a pretty good sense for spotting something novel and contrary to sensus fidei.

When a priest tells you that “it wasn’t because of original sin that we need salvation,” you can be confident that what he has just sung was “off key,” doctrinally speaking.
 
itsjustdave1988 said:
…

When a priest tells you that “it wasn’t because of original sin that we need salvation,” you can be confident that what he has just sung was “off key,” doctrinally speaking.
Click to expand...
To hyper-extend and thoroughly mangle my metaphors, You can smell an off-key note like that, which is ugly to the bone, and **ONLY **the machinations of the intellectual can make that stinky discordant atrocity smell like a rosey pageant winning piano!
 
Suppression said:
I just came from mass and heard somethings from a visiting priest that bothered me. It may be that I am wrong so here is my situation:

In the homily the priest said that the church has rethought its position on the story of Adam and Eve and the fall of man. He stated that the church now believes that the story is a parable as opposed to historical (a position he said St Aquinas held, may be wrong on the saint as i didn’t have a notepad handy :D). He said the new theologians and the church no longer believe in original sin as Aquinas viewed it. i remember his saying “Not that the church doesn’t believe in it but I’m just trying to explain what the church now believes.” The homily was on baptism and what it did. He brought up Adam and eve because he said that it wasn’t because of original sin that we need salvation, but because of who humans are by nature. After mass i asked him if he could tell me where i could read the thoughts of the church and these theologians because i was confused by what he said.

He started by saying that he was a modern priest and he liked to keep up with what the church believes now not “way back then.” That really got me worried. He also said, “Did Adam and Eve really exist? Who knows.All the church says is we have two original parents.” In regards to original sin hes said “original sin… a baby is beautiful. What has he done?”

Anyway he said there are update pamphlets that are sent to every church that i assume covers doctrinal matters for priest to consider. Has anyone ever head of this priests position being put forth by theologians or the church. Does anyone know what “Updates” pamphlet he was referring to? He told me to ask our local priest and that he would be able to provide me with the “updates” pamphlet he was basing his homily on. So can any one help me with this?

From his statements i am just really confused as two if he believed Adam and Eve existed or if he even believed in original sin. I am hoping i just misunderstood him. Right now I just don’t know if he was mistaken or I am.

Thanks

Edgar
Click to expand...
HERESY

“We must know Christ as the source of grace in order to know Adam as the source of sin.” (CCC 388)

I can go on if need be.
 
If it wasn’t Adam and Eve it was two people that looked just like them with the same name.

We believe in Original Sin and the need for Redemption. Period. Always have, always will. Its that simple.
 
napad said:
Thats your interpretation of dogma but maybe others have a different interpretation since dogmas can be interpreted 😉
Click to expand...
“2.a specific tenet or doctrine authoritatively laid down, as by a church: the dogma of the Assumption.” (Dictionary.com)

A dogma isn’t interpreted. It is the interpretation.
 
JMMK said:
If it wasn’t Adam and Eve it was two people that looked just like them with the same name.

We believe in Original Sin and the need for Redemption. Period. Always have, always will. Its that simple.
Click to expand...
🙂

Oh my GOODNESS! That is SO lovely!

Hah ha ha ha… beautiful! Ha ha…

That answers that. Close this thread now or face eternal damnation for wasting pixels, and drive space!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top