G
grannymh
Guest
Your post 19 sounds reasonable. Thank you.
Unfortunately, I have no clue about the “divine gift of understanding God”. Would it be possible for you to direct me to my comments which would imply such a gift?
- Status
R
rinnie
Guest
Sure, See when Adam was here in the beginning there was a perfect harmony with God.
Once they sinned not only was that perfect harmony lost for Adam it was lost for us also.
This is not how it was meant to be. Once sin entered the world harmony with God and eachother and with the whole world shattered. The Church calls this as you know Original Sin and its results human condition.
That is why we have Baptism, but even with Baptsim we do not have the original harmony with God Adam and Eve had. The effects of that sin still remain, The consequences of original sin remain in the form of a weakened human nnature that is so readily inclined to do evil.
Romans 7:15-20 Explains this well.
That is why St Paul speaks of the old person which is the Adam in us, and the new person which is Christ in us.
Adam never had to struggle in the beginning to do good like we do. It was simple easy, he had a personal relationship with God, A perfect balance.
But when sin entered we are off balance. By our Baptism we have the Grace from Christ to do good, but its also a struggle and we don’t always use it. Its just such a day to day struggle.
We cannot know who God is by ourselves. God dwells in unapprochable light and we are ensnared by the burden of our sins and our own human limitations,
In the beginning Adam and Eve had full communion with God, But lost it for us, Jesus came to help us restore that relationship with God that will hopefully lead us back into full communion with God, That is why we can’t wait to see God, because we do not have the ability to understand him here on earth, because we can only think as humans think. But when we become Holy and Good once again we will have all the answers we cannot get in this world.
I
Iron_Donkey
Guest
I’m not actually sure how “bullheaded college student” compares to “stubborn granny” on the obstinacy scale. My own experience is that stubborn grannies win every time, but bullheaded college students won’t admit that, and keep arguing anyway. In keeping with this characterization:
I completely agree that our natural end is to join with God in heaven, however I would also say that because of Original Sin we are fundamentally damaged and that this is no longer the default destination. So I would tend to think that babies are born in a damaged state that would not end in heaven if it were unmodified.
I also agree that for adults, everyone goes where they freely choose to go (with of course the “God enables the choice” thing to avoid Pelagianism). And I also cannot see God not making special arrangements for those who have not yet made any choices at all.
That is, I see humans as being born in a state where they are not immediately going to heaven (without extra-ordinary action by God), and then by their choices and responses to God’s Grace determining their final destination.
A person who has made no such choices at all would, I think, normally be destined for a place like limbo - however, I also agree that that does not seem likely to be acceptable to God, and that He is likely to make an exception to the normal operation of things. How so, I could not say - perhaps He simply takes them to heaven, perhaps He grants them a moment of clarity and offers them a choice, perhaps… anyway, I would expect that He do something.
But in the same way that He is not bound to act only within the sacraments, He is also not bound to act according to my expectations.
This is why I tend to think it likely that Limbo is a possible place, but tend to hope and think that it’s empty, for pretty much exactly the reasons that you object to it completely.
Of course, the distinction between there being no Limbo, and there being a Limbo and it being empty is pretty small, and I may only be making it because of my bullheaded-college-kid-ness, but there you go.
G
grannymh
Guest
I certainly understand the desire to name the various gifts Adam had. However, as one can see below, there was no speculation about possible gifts before the Fall.
Here is my reference to harmony. It does not include the “divine gift of understanding God”. This harmony referred to Adam’s nature in that he had mastery of himself and not to his relationship with God. Even with mastery over himself, Adam was still free to go against God. Some refer to Adam’s sin as one of pride.
G
grannymh
Guest
R
rinnie
Guest
Let me explain this anotherway. Let me use for example my Loving Blessed Mother. See the Blessed Mother was saved from the stain of Oirginal Sin. And it all ties the O.T. into the N.T.
The Blessed Mother is the New Eve, Jesus the New Adam. Now all 4 were saced from Original Sin, They were Holy,
Now look at the Blessed Mother, where did you hear her ever question God, or doubt him. She was in the same boat as Adam, she could have turned away from God. But you must remember Adam was made holy, without sin, the same of the Blessed Mother.
But the more Holy you are the closer to God you and and the less problems you have with understanding him.
Here is another example, you and I truly Love and know God knows more then we every will or could. But its our closeness to him that gives us that understanding to trust him.
But the further we are into sin, the further we are away from God and understanding him. But the closer we are, and the less sin we have, the more we are to accepting and understanding him.
Its like this,
Less Sin ------ easier to understand and accept the word and teachings of Christ.
More Sin------- harder time in trying to understand the word and teachings of Christ.
Adam had no sin, when he had no sin, he had no questions, anxiety’s, pains, etc. But when sin entered he had many questions, anxiety, physical pain, labor etc. Eves labor became pain, it wasn’t supposed to be that way.
And its truly no different today if you truly understand scripture, which I am sure you can, and I can, but someone who does not know God can ever understand and it is this.
God told Adam eat the fruit and you will die, Did he die? Yes he did, but not physical death. It was death of his soul, his bond with God was broken, he no longer had the easy free, clear mind, no problems etc, paradise he once had.
He never had to question God, all was good,
But then he died, he was thrown out of the garden, then he had many problems, many questions, pains, etc. he had death of the soul.
When Jesus came back Baptism took away that death of the soul, but because of Original sin, the burden is still left to struggle between right and wrong. The Adam wants the bad, the Jesus wants the good. Adam never had the struggle of good and bad, Because until he sinned there was no bad.
He created the bad and disobeyed God. But there was never any sin prior to that day he choose to created sin.
That is why we are taught the closer you become to God, the further you become detached from this world. As I am getting older and closer to God and can truly see what this means,
Things that I used to want to do that were wrong, by prayer etc, they don’t even tempt me how they did when I was 20, 30, etc.
Material things no longer matter as they did even 4 years ago. When God enters your heart sin leaves and the want of sin leaves.
But that is why I see how the Blessed Mother was so good, Eve had ever single opportunity to remain good also. Sin did not exist before her. But she choose to sin anyway by free will.
But do you see the difference. She did not have the as we call sinsfull nature that we were born with.
She started out 100% good, we did not, we were born into a state of sin, She was not. Neither was the Blessed Mother. But the Blessed Mother remained by her own choice, but Eve did not.
P
PJM
Guest
FYI:
God’s Mercy is exceedingly powerful; BUT not so powerful as to be able to override or overpower God’s Necessary Justice and Fairness.
Original sin like a Soul is imputed to every Human being. God then commits Himself to offer to every SOUL “sufficient” [the minimum needed] grace for ALL to e able to not just “kown of Him” but to actually “KNOW HIM.”
But because humanity alone can emulate God; can choose freely to love or to hate God; we are permitted to accept and to reject God’s offer. Thus it is we; you anf me who choose heaven or hell for Eternity
Deuteronomy 30:19
I call heaven and earth to witness this day, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing. Choose therefore life, that both thou and thy seed may live:
Ecclesiasticus 11:14
Good things and evil, life and death, poverty and riches, are from God.
Ecclesiasticus 15:18
Before man is life and death, good and evil, that which he shall choose shall be given him:
Come on HOME!
God’s continued Blessings be with you!
God only Founded One Church and One set of Faith beliefs my friend:
John.10: 16 “And I have other sheep, that are not of this fold; I must bring them also, and they will heed my voice. So there shall be one flock, one shepherd”
Ps.127:1 “Unless the LORD builds the house, those who build it labor in vain.
Unless the LORD watches over the city, the watchman stays awake in vain”
G
grannymh
Guest
Is that why “Iron” is in your name?
To your credit, you stated your presupposition about Original Sin up front. Actually, there are three basic positions regarding Original Sin. Yours, mine, and a third which ignores Original Sin.
Great choice of words. So often we read about man’s goal or man’s end. Adding the word natural reminds me of my personal human nature.
.
There was a Catholic poster who would say that humans are “sin machines”. Eventually, someone referred to a teaching of Calvin’s which said that human nature was corrupted by Original Sin. Bingo! I realized that this person was describing his conception of the Fall. Paragraph 406 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition, refers to the first Protestant reformers who “taught that Original Sin has radically perverted man and destroyed his freedom: …”
*Sidebar: Paragraph 406 is in smaller print. The use of small print indicates observations of an historical or apologetic nature, or supplementary doctrinal explanations. They are intended to enrich the doctrinal presentations. (CCC 20-21) CCC 406 also mentions Pelagianism. *
In my opinion, fundamentally damaged is in the same category as the thinking of the early Protestant reformers. I am not saying you are Protestant. Rather, the fundamentally damaged concept is still influencing people, regardless of their chosen religion.
“this” refers back to “our natural end to join with God in heaven.” The Catholic position is that human nature was wounded not destroyed. This is why I was doing cartwheels when you said natural end. Original Sin did not take away our natural end to be with God. Our natural end is connected to our rational, spiritual soul which enables us to share in God’s life here and hereafter. (I exaggerated about the cartwheels.)
Regarding babies, there is the third Original Sin position which is that it never existed.
Catholicism is right in the middle, second position, with the doctrine that babies have a wounded nature which is innocent of personal sin and thus a baby’s natural end is with God in heaven. Granted the baby has the contracted state of Original Sin which is a deprivation of original holiness and justice; but that does not prevent a baby from seeking God. Obviously, a baby seeking God is not the same as an adult seeking God. At this point, we need to recall that children naturally wanted to be near Jesus. Jesus’ response was “Let the children come to Me, do not hinder them,” (Mark 10:14)
God’s love cannot be limited.
God knows the depth of our being and whether or not we are capable of making free choices. We should not underestimate the power of God to touch a soul.
CCC 404 uses the word “state” this way. In reference to Original Sin being transmitted by propagation to all humankind, i.e., human nature is transmitted, it says: “And that is why original sin is called “sin” only in an analogical sense: it is a sin “contracted” and not “committed” – a state and not an act.” CCC 405 continues with “Although it is proper to each individual, Original Sin does not have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam’s descendants.” Later it says: “Baptism, by imparting the life of Christ’s grace, erases Original Sin.”
CCC 1260 says: “Since Christ died for all, and since all men are in fact called to one and the same destiny, which is divine, we must hold that the Holy Spirit offers to all the possibility of being made partakers, in a way known to God, of the Paschal mystery.”
Notice – All of us “are in fact called to one and the same destiny, which is divine,”
There’s that “natural end” again.
:clapping:
Continued in Post 28
G
grannymh
Guest
Continued from Post 27
In my neighborhood, no choice is a choice. However, I will assume that for some reason, a person did not make a choice. My vote is that it is likely that God grants her or him a moment of clarity, invites her or him to be in heaven, and then offers a choice. I also like to think that sinners have a moment of clarity at the moment of death and can ask God for mercy.
It is good to see a bullheaded college student with a sense of humility.
I will not dispute that distinction.
C
chimo
Guest
The Eastern Church while it accepts original sin does not agree towards the West’s judgement on it. The Eastern Church tends to express itself in line with God’s attribute of Mercy much deeper than with her Catholc brothers and sisters of the West. This does not mean the Western christian is incorrect but it tells us there is a more heavier judgment placed on sin in the West than what is there in the East. These two Churches while showing two different degrees of judgments are actually portraying what gifts and teachings to which they already possess. The Church of Rome is gifted in acknowledging God’s attribute of His Justice. This is why Purgatory was developed more in the West for their gift in understanding the Justice of God is evident throughout her history and reflected in much of the writings of her Saints. The Eastern Church’s gift is to show more the attribute of Mercy and this is reflected and found in the many writings of her Saints.
I believe God has given to His one Church His attribute of Justice more reflected in the West and His attribute of Mercy more contained in the East. It is to mine understanding that each of the Churches can help the other with what gift she already posseses. So in effect a more balanced teaching of the two will be the greatest benefit. Every christian has now the potential to know each other’s Church and by doing so we can receive that balance that I believe what God wants from each one of us.
While I grew up Westerner I found the Western Church’s teaching on Original Sin much too harsh to accept. It was when I studied and found the Eastern Church’s teaching that it helped balanced what I had and gave me the more acceptable teaching towards the judgment on sin. There is nothing wrong in how the two Churches developed their teachings and the Holy Spirit has guided both up to this day. The time has come though to see what the Holy Spirit has given to each and learning both teachings we can hopefully adopt them into our lives.
I find that even though one Church can be more higher in judgment than the other Church this can be actually be good for it is much like when a man and a woman marries and while the woman can be more on the discipline side her husband can lend her a hand with his soft touch and lead her into a more understanding judgment when they need to tackle issues facehand. This is the analogy I see in both West and East. While the West tends to be more the disciplinarian the East tends to be more the nurturer. It is good to have both working together for the nurturer needs someone who is discipline (Justice) and the one who is discipline needs one who is a nurturer (Mercy).
In accordance to babies the Eastern Father John Chrysostom does not agree about Original sin effecting any judgment on them. He of all the Church Fathers teaches more about the Mercy of God and would say that all babies are innocent and no way have any judgment imparted to them. This is why the Eastern Church baptises, confirms and gives the Eucharist right away to babies.
I
Iron_Donkey
Guest
Things have been somewhat hectic with the end of the semester, so I’ve been somewhat distracted. To reiterate before responding in slightly more depth: I don’t think limbo is likely, I just think it’s what would happen should God not choose to save the unbaptized infants or present them with some choice, or something similar. However, I tend to think (for pretty much the same reasons that you do) that God would do one of those things; I just consider Limbo to be a likely alternative to suffering in Hell should we both turn out to be wrong.
grannymh:
grannymh:
(In seriousness, I really enjoyed the -]arguments/-] conversations with street preachers, but there are amusing sides to almost everything humans do, and I do think that such conversations helped me grow in my faith. If it turns out that I absorbed some incorrect ideas with the the good ones, well refining that knowledge is a large part of why I’m here.)
But to address the actual point - so far as I understand, the Calvinist position is that we are now totally depraved and that our free will is destroyed. I reject this - humans are good (everything God makes is good, and God makes us each individually). But though we are not totally depraved and our free will is not destroyed, both we and it are not exactly as we were meant to be.
When I said we are fundamentally damaged, I did not mean completely destroyed, I just meant damaged on level that is very basic to who we are. So I stand by the fact that our natural end - the place where we are meant to go, and where we will go if we are restored to a state of grace - is heaven (your cartwheels, even if they were only metaphorical, were not wasted), but we are no longer born exactly how we are supposed to be.
So I would say that our natural end is union with God because we are basically good and designed to go there, and this is why God works so hard to get us there. However, we are also damaged so that absent God’s work, this will not happen.
The “ordinary” (in the sense of “the way that He has explicitly told us that He will and that we can count on happening no matter what because He keeps His word”) way that God works to take us to heaven is via baptism and then confession when we fall again.
Unbaptized babies are not saved via the ordinary way, because they are not baptized. So if they are saved - and I completely agree that God would want them to be - then it would be via an extraordinary way, a way which we are not aware of.
Basically, it actually sounds an awful lot like we expect exacty the same thing to happen for pretty much the same reasons, but with various levels of certainty. Our main disagreement seems to be that you think that my guess about what would happen - should both our guesses about what actually will happen be wrong - is not going to happen. Which I also think, because I think it likely that God’s treatment of babies will make my fallback superfluous. And so I find myself in the rather odd position of arguing for the possibility of something that I don’t think will happen either. My position can be summed up by “in the unlikely event that God does not save babies, they are likely to go somewhere like limbo rather than hell.”
I actually have no idea. I’ve been using the name for 10-12 years now and have no idea why. But this seems like as good a reason as any.
I’ll not deny the possibility that I have been somewhat influenced by protestants. I did grow up in the South, which is mostly protestant - to the point that as an undergrad I could decide when I needed a haircut by how often I got approached by street preachers in a given week. The way I figured it, if more than 5 of the street preachers on campus thought I looked sufficiently heathen to approach in the same week, then it was time to find a barber. One of the key disadvantages of being up north at the moment is that I no longer have that reminder.
(In seriousness, I really enjoyed the -]arguments/-] conversations with street preachers, but there are amusing sides to almost everything humans do, and I do think that such conversations helped me grow in my faith. If it turns out that I absorbed some incorrect ideas with the the good ones, well refining that knowledge is a large part of why I’m here.)
But to address the actual point - so far as I understand, the Calvinist position is that we are now totally depraved and that our free will is destroyed. I reject this - humans are good (everything God makes is good, and God makes us each individually). But though we are not totally depraved and our free will is not destroyed, both we and it are not exactly as we were meant to be.
When I said we are fundamentally damaged, I did not mean completely destroyed, I just meant damaged on level that is very basic to who we are. So I stand by the fact that our natural end - the place where we are meant to go, and where we will go if we are restored to a state of grace - is heaven (your cartwheels, even if they were only metaphorical, were not wasted), but we are no longer born exactly how we are supposed to be.
So I would say that our natural end is union with God because we are basically good and designed to go there, and this is why God works so hard to get us there. However, we are also damaged so that absent God’s work, this will not happen.
The “ordinary” (in the sense of “the way that He has explicitly told us that He will and that we can count on happening no matter what because He keeps His word”) way that God works to take us to heaven is via baptism and then confession when we fall again.
Unbaptized babies are not saved via the ordinary way, because they are not baptized. So if they are saved - and I completely agree that God would want them to be - then it would be via an extraordinary way, a way which we are not aware of.
I agree completely, with the stipulation that people seek God because God actively (and before they begin seeking) enables them to do so. I have no idea how this would work with babies. I think it entirely likely that God, being infinitely more intelligent than we are, would not devise a system that allows millions of people to fall through the gaps because their parents did not baptize them (possibly their parents did not even know what baptism is). I’m just uncomfortable saying that I know for sure that He saves such children without being told that by Him.
I agree that no choice is a choice - unless the reason why we didn’t make a choice is because we were not yet capable of doing so, such as a baby or severely mentally disabled person. I also think your solution for such people is likely.
Basically, it actually sounds an awful lot like we expect exacty the same thing to happen for pretty much the same reasons, but with various levels of certainty. Our main disagreement seems to be that you think that my guess about what would happen - should both our guesses about what actually will happen be wrong - is not going to happen. Which I also think, because I think it likely that God’s treatment of babies will make my fallback superfluous. And so I find myself in the rather odd position of arguing for the possibility of something that I don’t think will happen either. My position can be summed up by “in the unlikely event that God does not save babies, they are likely to go somewhere like limbo rather than hell.”
I try to be humble, and it’s so hard when I’m always right too.
G
grannymh
Guest
M
mercytruth
Guest
I have never understood the concept of original sin. The way it appears to me, we are all walking around in a fallen human nature, which is only remedied completely by a glorified resurrected body.
God’s peace
micah
God’s peace
micah
G
grannymh
Guest
May I suggest that the concept of Original Sin begins with Adam as the real first human being.
From the start, he possessed original holiness which made it possible for a creature to have a true, loving relationship with his Creator. The Catholic Church teaches that Adam received original holiness in friendship with God not for himself alone but for all human nature which would be his biological descendents. This follows the explanation of St. Thomas Aquinas who pointed out that the whole human race is in Adam “as one body of one man.” (Source: * Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition*, paragraph 404)
In order for Adam to maintain his relationship with God, his Creator, he had to live in free submission to God. Free submission means that Adam would humbly obey God’s commandments. This obedience to God had to be Adam’s free choice.
Does this make sense so far?
M
mercytruth
Guest
So far. What does not make sense is how Adam’s original sin of disobedience is imparted to our souls? I can understand that the consequences of Adam’s sin of disobedience to God resulted in the corruption of human nature, and of creation itself. "By envy of the devil death entered the world"
**“The soul that sinneth, it shall die”. ** (Ezek.18:4)
How does a preborn baby sin?
Even as St. James says, “Everyone is tempted when he is drawn away of his own lust and enticed. Then when lust has conceived, it brings forth sin; and sin, when it is finished, brings forth death.” (James 1:14-15)
How does a preborn baby ever arrive at this state?
So I see the effects of Adam’s original sin as bringing the human race into physical corruption, and also with the proclivity to be tempted and led away by lust which leads to sin and spiritual death to the soul.
I think our Creator imparts to each of us a soul without sin, within the weakness of a fallen physical human body.
Where in sacred scripture, and early church fathers am I misunderstanding?
God’s peace be with you
micah
G
grannymh
Guest
“How does a preborn baby sin?” This is a precise question, thank you.
If you will have patience with me, I would like to stick with Adam’s sin for a bit. We know how Adam sinned. He had the spiritual attributes of intellect and will. He knew his position in relationship with God. Not only that, but he knew he had to live within the requirements of his Creator. Bottom line is that he knew he could never be equal with God no matter how much he thought about it.
Satan, too, knew what his relationship with God required and he freely chose to rebel. Being cunning, Satan was right on the money when he tempted Adam with the idea of being like God, One description of Adam’s reaction is that he let his trust in his Creator die in his heart. In other words, Adam was doubting his subservient relationship with God in comparison to Satan’s offer to be like God. The* Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition *paragraphs 396-406 explains Adam’s sin in detail. Paragraph 398 explains that Adam “chose himself over and against God, against the requirements of his creaturely status and therefore against his own good.” This is what Adam’s sin was. How he sinned is connected to his mature intellect and free will.
A preborn baby’s intellect and free will is present but undeveloped so she or he cannot sin per se. However, I think your question actually centers on the sin itself–how this sin, which is Adam’s original sin of disobedience, is imparted to our souls.
If I am misunderstanding, please correct me.
If I am right, then sticking with Adam may bring understanding. Adam does not only name animals, he will be responsible for transmitting his human nature to all his descendents. The state of his relationship with God is an intrinsic element of his human nature. Today, we would say that Adam was in the state of sanctifying grace. He shared in the divine life of God.
Adam was totally responsible for his actions. He freely chose the action which shattered his divine relationship with God. Therefore, his human nature was in a state deprived of original holiness, i.e., he lost sanctifying grace. It took only the one Original Sin to wound Adam’s human nature, the same nature he would pass, through the years, to us. Therefore, it would not be necessary to have any descendent commit that same sin. In other words, babies are born with the contracted state of Adam’s wounded human nature without having to commit a personal sin. Baptism, by imparting the life of Christ’s grace, removes the state of “original sin” so that a person can share in God’s divine life.
And yes, it does come down to semantics – the difference between a personal sin and the state of human nature due to Adam’s sin.
There is a lot more we need to discuss. However, I am interested in your reactions to the above explanation.
M
mercytruth
Guest
Having read this section of the Catechism. Let us proceed to the IN BRIEF section. Articles 413-421. I have difficulty with articles 416 & 417 which states that all of humanity were/are deprived of the original holiness and justice of Adam and Eve due to their original sin.
Since no two individuals are alike, and all holiness and justice is originally from God, and not from human beings such as Adam and Eve these statements seem to be false.
That is, holiness and justice does not originate with human beings, such virtues originate with God.
And I think it would be wrong to say that the patriarchs, and the prophets were not accounted as being righteous with God. Enoch walked with God, and God took him. David was a man after God’s own heart.Abraham was a friend of God. Daniel was holy. Moses was the meekest of all men and was faithful in all of God’s house. Hebrews 11 gives us a litany of OT saints of faith…all to the contrary of this supposition.
What Adam and Eve’s original sin seemed to have deprived the human race was universal friendship and fellowship with God, (the saints of the OT excluded from this deprivation)
We were also deprived of the abiding Holy Spirit. Both of these are restored in baptism.
The apostle Paul says that in baptism we have received the ‘earnest’ of our inheritance. The ‘earnest’ being the Holy Spirit, and our inheritance is the redemption of our body, which will be changed like the glorious body of Jesus Christ.
(Eph.1:13-14, Rom.8:23, Phil 3:20-21)
I also have trouble with article 419 as explained in 404 where it states that original sin is ‘contracted’ and not committed sin. This seems to be someone’s theory that has no scriptural, nor early church father documentation.
Sin is a committed offense against God, not a ‘contracted’ sin against God.
This is explained very forcibly in Ezekiel 18:1-20.
Other than these three aforementioned articles, the remainder seem to be very scriptural and in keeping with the teaching of the early church fathers.
So, what comes off as confusing to me, I put aside. The Sermon on the Mount is enough for me to focus on. The Sermon on the Mount really seems to get to the heart of the teaching of our Christian/Catholic faith rather than to theological ‘mysteries’ that are debateable.
God’s peace be with you
micah
C
ConstantineTG
Guest
The East teaches that we are all born spiritually dead and that it is in baptism that we are born anew. That is why those who are not baptized and yet have never committed any personal sin are still spiritually dead. But, remember, that God’s power to save cannot be limited by our perception. The lack of baptism isn’t certain doom, though baptism does grant certain rebirth.
G
grannymh
Guest
Thank you for sharing.
I think part of the understandable confusion regarding the paragraphs you mentioned is due to a misunderstanding of some of the terminology. A brief example is the above comment * ‘contracted’ sin against God.* The Catechism does not say that Original Sin is a contracted sin against God. The word “contracted” refers to the transmission of Original Sin to us, which in CCC 405 “does not have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam’s descendants.”
Also, the term original sin can refer to the direct action of Adam or in today’s language it can be the name of human nature’s “state” before Baptism.
The Catechism term of “holiness and justice” is not the same as the virtues of holiness and justice. As noted in CCC 375 "This grace of original holiness was “to share in…divine life.” The cross reference in the margin is CCC 1997 which says “Grace is a participation in the life of God.” For more information on “grace and justification” one can start reading at CCC 1987.
While I have a basic idea of the Catechism’s structure, I am not sure where the patriarchs and prophets are mentioned in the section on Original Sin. My guess is that this information would be in the part of the Catechism which deals with our Creed–“He descended into hell” CCC 631-637. “Hell” being the abode of the dead before Christ atoned for the Original Sin of Adam. This abode of the dead was where the “just” were as they waited for the redemptive work of Christ.
The teaching of St. Paul on Original Sin is Romans 5: 12-21.
A side note – not every verse of Scripture or every word of the Early Church Fathers has been turned into a Catholic doctrine. As one reads chapter 14, Gospel of John, one learns of the mission of the Holy Spirit. Under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, the Catholic Church, over the centuries, has gradually grasped the full significance of Divine Revelation, CCC 66. Through its protocol for declaring doctrines, the Catholic Church, under the wisdom of the Holy Spirit, chooses Scripture verses that reflect Divine Revelation.
One way to cross check Scripture with the Catechism is to use its “Index of Citations” starting on page 689. For example, the citation James 1: 14-15 is found in CCC 2847, footnote 153.
I hope this helps with those difficult paragraphs.
M
mercytruth
Guest
“contracted sin” seems to me to be a mysterious concept, and foreign to sacred scripture and the early church fathers. The patriarchs were just, as the book of Hebrews says, they were ‘righteous’ men whose spirits became ‘perfect.’ (Apparently through their resurrection from sheol by and through the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ from the dead.)
I personally have a difficult time embracing a particular doctrine of the church which is not supported by sacred scripture and the early church fathers. The revelation of God is complete as revealed in sacred scriptures and as taught by the apostolic fathers.
Whenever the apostolic and early church fathers were faced with opposition from gnostic sects, sacred scripture were their proof texts, and apostolic tradition was their defense of doctrinal truths of the faith.
I need to avoid theological doctrinal debates of the intellect, they distract my soul from being obedient to the teachings of Jesus Christ which lead to eternal life. The Apostle’s Creed seems to be sufficient for my doctrinal salvation.
Thank you for taking your time in explaining the Catholic teaching with regard to the doctrine of original sin.
God’s peace be with you
micah
- Status