How does Original Sin work?

[Daniel_Lysinger]

“Baptism washes away all, absolutely all, our sins, whether of deed, word, or thought, whether sins original or added, whether knowingly or unknowingly contracted” -St. Augustine, A.D. 420

Catholic doctrine clearly states that Original Sin is on everyone’s soul at birth. The results of having this on your soul is you do not have the benefit of Sanctifying Grace, essentially dooming you to eternal damnation if you do not rectify the situation. The reasons they posit for the reasonableness of the transmission of this sin are many, including considering it as a “disease that spreads down through the generations,” or simply a state of necessity because of the transgression of the “head” of the human race, namely Adam. I prefer the latter explanation simply because physically comparing sin to a disease seems to me to be a bit lacking in the concept of sin (which is willfully choosing a lesser good over a greater). However, if you have a better explanation please tell me.

On to the main question – how does it work? I mean, it is true that the state of Adam’s soul after he committed the sin was passed down. It is also true that no means for getting rid of the mark of Original Sin existed before the sacrament of Baptism was initiated. So, why doesn’t the state of the parent’s soul (assuming that the parent has had a legitimate Baptism) pass on to the child? If the undoings of one parent can pass on, why can’t the benefits of another get passed down? It is impossible from a reasonable point of view to argue that babies in the womb choose to sin Adam’s sin, and therefore the results of the sin are simply passed down regardless. But if that is the case, wouldn’t it also be reasonable for the good deeds of more recent parents to be transmitted? If it is simply a matter of who your parents are, why should each individual have to “start all over again” in redeeming himself from a parent’s sin regardless of any other person in the family tree (say if the grandfather and the dad got baptized)…

It just seems logically incoherent. Please enlighten me.

 

[edwest2]

From Catholic Answers:

"Adam and Eve: Real People

"It is equally impermissible to dismiss the story of Adam and Eve and the fall (Gen. 2–3) as a fiction. A question often raised in this context is whether the human race descended from an original pair of two human beings (a teaching known as monogenism) or a pool of early human couples (a teaching known as polygenism).

“In this regard, Pope Pius XII stated: “When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty. For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains either that after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parents of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents. Now, it is in no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the teaching authority of the Church proposed with regard to original sin which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam in which through generation is passed onto all and is in everyone as his own” (Humani Generis 37).”

The story of the creation and fall of man is a true one, even if not written entirely according to modern literary techniques. The Catechism states, “The account of the fall in Genesis 3 uses figurative language, but affirms a primeval event, a deed that took place at the beginning of the history of man. Revelation gives us the certainty of faith that the whole of human history is marked by the original fault freely committed by our first parents” (CCC 390)."

Ed

 

[grannymh]

In the Catholic Church, it is not true that “the state of Adam’s soul after he committed the sin was passed down.”

The rational spiritual soul, immediately given by God at human conception, animates the material matter of a human anatomy so that there is a living human person. The spiritual soul continues to live following bodily death. Therefore, because each soul is personal to a human person, the soul cannot be passed down.

 

[grannymh]

On to the main question – how does it work? I mean, it is true that the state of Adam’s soul after he committed the sin was passed down.

In the Catholic Church, it is not true that “the state of Adam’s soul after he committed the sin was passed down.”

The rational spiritual soul, immediately given by God at human conception, animates the material matter of a human anatomy so that there is a living human person. The spiritual soul continues to live following bodily death. Therefore, because each soul is personal to a human person, the soul cannot be passed down.

---

The human person is worthy of profound respect.

 

[simpleas]

“Baptism washes away all, absolutely all, our sins, whether of deed, word, or thought, whether sins original or added, whether knowingly or unknowingly contracted” -St. Augustine, A.D. 420

Catholic doctrine clearly states that Original Sin is on everyone’s soul at birth. The results of having this on your soul is you do not have the benefit of Sanctifying Grace, essentially dooming you to eternal damnation if you do not rectify the situation. The reasons they posit for the reasonableness of the transmission of this sin are many, including considering it as a “disease that spreads down through the generations,” or simply a state of necessity because of the transgression of the “head” of the human race, namely Adam. I prefer the latter explanation simply because physically comparing sin to a disease seems to me to be a bit lacking in the concept of sin (which is willfully choosing a lesser good over a greater). However, if you have a better explanation please tell me.

On to the main question – how does it work? I mean, it is true that the state of Adam’s soul after he committed the sin was passed down. It is also true that no means for getting rid of the mark of Original Sin existed before the sacrament of Baptism was initiated. So, why doesn’t the state of the parent’s soul (assuming that the parent has had a legitimate Baptism) pass on to the child? If the undoings of one parent can pass on, why can’t the benefits of another get passed down? It is impossible from a reasonable point of view to argue that babies in the womb choose to sin Adam’s sin, and therefore the results of the sin are simply passed down regardless. But if that is the case, wouldn’t it also be reasonable for the good deeds of more recent parents to be transmitted? If it is simply a matter of who your parents are, why should each individual have to “start all over again” in redeeming himself from a parent’s sin regardless of any other person in the family tree (say if the grandfather and the dad got baptized)…

It just seems logically incoherent. Please enlighten me.

It’s a mystery with no real answer…IMO…

 

[Cathoholic]

Concerning Original Sin . . . .

Daniel Lysinger.

Don’t think of Original Sin as a proverbial black mark upon the soul.

Look at it as a privation or a deprivation of sanctifying grace in the now-fallen nature of a person.

God bless.

Cathoholic

PS

These links may be of help to you.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=14002388&postcount=28

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=14372027&postcount=100

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=14372035&postcount=101

 

[1ke]

On to the main question – how does it work?

Sanctifying grace is a free and unmerited gift from God. It is supernatural-- above our nature. Adam and Eve had supernatural gifts from their creation by God. When they sinned, God withdrew these supernatural gifts.

Therefore, we are born without them. Sanctifying grace is infused into our soul at our baptism. We lack some of the other supernatural and preternatural gifts God originally bestowed upon Adam and Eve. He has not chosen to give those to us.

So, why doesn’t the state of the parent’s soul (assuming that the parent has had a legitimate Baptism) pass on to the child? If the undoings of one parent can pass on, why can’t the benefits of another get passed down?

Nothing is “passed on”. Original sin is not a physical thing, inherited biologically. Nor is grace. Humanity is in a state that **results **from the original sin of our parents.

Grace is supernatural, it is metaphysical. It comes from God to us individually.

 

[Barricade]

Catholic theology on this is often presented in a muddled way.

You are told you inherit from Adam’s sin his mortality and concupiscence. And then on the one hand that Adam’s sin, original sin, deprives you of sanctifying grace, but on the other hand are told that the personal guilt of Adam’s sin does not pass on to you. Well this is a bit misleading.

The personal guilt of Adam’s sin does not pass on to you in the sense that you personally ate the fruit from the tree. You didn’t; nevertheless Catholic teaching is that you inherit the penalty for his sin which is separation from God that needs to be rectified by baptism.

I really don’t see how this is fair at all. It’s like two parents committing murder and being sent to jail, and then having their child born in captivity in the jail because of the parents’ sin and not being allowed to leave because of their parents sin with the caveat that in spite of the child’s captivity they themselves are not personally guilty of what their parents did, they just have to suffer the penalty also.

 

[grannymh]

Catholic theology on this is often presented in a muddled way.

You are told you inherit from Adam’s sin his mortality and concupiscence. And then on the one hand that Adam’s sin, original sin, deprives you of sanctifying grace, but on the other hand are told that the personal guilt of Adam’s sin does not pass on to you. Well this is a bit misleading.

The personal guilt of Adam’s sin does not pass on to you in the sense that you personally ate the fruit from the tree. You didn’t; nevertheless Catholic teaching is that you inherit the penalty for his sin which is separation from God that needs to be rectified by baptism.

I really don’t see how this is fair at all. It’s like two parents committing murder and being sent to jail, and then having their child born in captivity in the jail because of the parents’ sin and not being allowed to leave because of their parents sin with the caveat that in spite of the child’s captivity they themselves are not personally guilty of what their parents did, they just have to suffer the penalty also.

A major part of the misunderstandings regarding Original Sin is that some people do not believe that Adam’s human nature is transmitted to all humankind.

When we start with human nature per se, we learn that
“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.” Every man who is ignorant of the Gospel of Christ and of his Church, but seeks the truth and does the will of God in accordance with his understanding of it, can be saved. It may be supposed that such persons would have desired Baptism explicitly if they had known its necessity. (CCC 1260)

Instead of guessing this or that about what happened in the famous Garden, CCC 1260 says that the 3rd Person of the Most Holy Trinity interacts personally with each individual human person. The Paschal Mystery refers to the successful redemption of humankind by the 2nd Person of the Most Holy Trinity, (CCC Glossary, Paschal Mystery/Sacrifice, page 891)

Considering that the Most Holy Trinity is involved, it becomes difficult to compare the Divine God with a human creature such as a human father, etc. This means that one has to go back to square one and learn about human nature found in Genesis 1:27

 

[Daniel_Lysinger]

Thank you all for your answers, it is greatly appreciated!

In the Catholic Church, it is not true that “the state of Adam’s soul after he committed the sin was passed down.”

The rational spiritual soul, immediately given by God at human conception, animates the material matter of a human anatomy so that there is a living human person. The spiritual soul continues to live following bodily death. Therefore, because each soul is personal to a human person, the soul cannot be passed down.

I know this might seem like semantics, but when talking about theology you really need to be careful about what you say. I never once posited that a soul was passed down. Reread my quote. Interestingly, it could be argued that the state of the soul is also personal, but how come it is definitely passed down?

"It is equally impermissible to dismiss the story of Adam and Eve and the fall (Gen. 2–3) as a fiction. A question often raised in this context is whether the human race descended from an original pair of two human beings (a teaching known as monogenism) or a pool of early human couples (a teaching known as polygenism).

“In this regard, Pope Pius XII stated: “When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty. For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains either that after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parents of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents. Now, it is in no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the teaching authority of the Church proposed with regard to original sin which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam in which through generation is passed onto all and is in everyone as his own” (Humani Generis 37).”

The story of the creation and fall of man is a true one, even if not written entirely according to modern literary techniques. The Catechism states, “The account of the fall in Genesis 3 uses figurative language, but affirms a primeval event, a deed that took place at the beginning of the history of man. Revelation gives us the certainty of faith that the whole of human history is marked by the original fault freely committed by our first parents” (CCC 390)."

While this is very interesting, it is also slightly off topic. My question is about the nature of Original Sin, not the Genesis account. This is interesting as well though, definitely something to consider.

Don’t think of Original Sin as a proverbial black mark upon the soul.

Look at it as a privation or a deprivation of sanctifying grace in the now-fallen nature of a person.

And yet, even if we only considered Original Sin to be the deprivation of Sanctifying Grace, there still remains the question of why the deprivation of this grace is passed down but the grace itself is never inherited. I know that it is a gift, and I also know that it is unmerited, but if the state of the soul of your parents is important to your own how come those parents with sanctifying grace pass it down to their children like Adam passed down his privation of it?

I will definitely take the time to look at your links by the way, they do seem interesting.

 

[Daniel_Lysinger]

Sanctifying grace is a free and unmerited gift from God. It is supernatural-- above our nature. Adam and Eve had supernatural gifts from their creation by God. When they sinned, God withdrew these supernatural gifts.

Therefore, we are born without them. Sanctifying grace is infused into our soul at our baptism. We lack some of the other supernatural and preternatural gifts God originally bestowed upon Adam and Eve. He has not chosen to give those to us.

Nothing is “passed on”. Original sin is not a physical thing, inherited biologically. Nor is grace. Humanity is in a state that **results **from the original sin of our parents.

Grace is supernatural, it is metaphysical. It comes from God to us individually.

Your first two paragraphs I could follow, but I am confused by what you mean by “nothing is passed on.” The Catechism is pretty clear that it is something that is contracted, and even mentions inheritance (check 404-06). While it is true that it is not physical, apparantly you can contract/inherit spiritual things as well.

Catholic theology on this is often presented in a muddled way.

You are told you inherit from Adam’s sin his mortality and concupiscence. And then on the one hand that Adam’s sin, original sin, deprives you of sanctifying grace, but on the other hand are told that the personal guilt of Adam’s sin does not pass on to you. Well this is a bit misleading.

The personal guilt of Adam’s sin does not pass on to you in the sense that you personally ate the fruit from the tree. You didn’t; nevertheless Catholic teaching is that you inherit the penalty for his sin which is separation from God that needs to be rectified by baptism.

I really don’t see how this is fair at all. It’s like two parents committing murder and being sent to jail, and then having their child born in captivity in the jail because of the parents’ sin and not being allowed to leave because of their parents sin with the caveat that in spite of the child’s captivity they themselves are not personally guilty of what their parents did, they just have to suffer the penalty also.

This is exactly my dilemma. It doesn’t seem rational to me to punish descendants for the fault of a parent. Even St. Augustine’s comparison of the implication of an entire nation in the sins of the king/leader doesn’t make sense to me. For example, the Emperor of Japan was someone who was very greedy and desperate during WWII. However, one would not say that it is just to send all people of Japanese race to concentration camps. You would also be laughed at if you were to say that sending nuclear bombs on cities of people under his reign is perfectly just. Of course, in some circumstances (fear of drawn out war, immense casualties) it could be made just, but it is not inherently just.

A major part of the misunderstandings regarding Original Sin is that some people do not believe that Adam’s human nature is transmitted to all humankind.

When we start with human nature per se, we learn that
“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.” Every man who is ignorant of the Gospel of Christ and of his Church, but seeks the truth and does the will of God in accordance with his understanding of it, can be saved. It may be supposed that such persons would have desired Baptism explicitly if they had known its necessity. (CCC 1260)

Instead of guessing this or that about what happened in the famous Garden, CCC 1260 says that the 3rd Person of the Most Holy Trinity interacts personally with each individual human person. The Paschal Mystery refers to the successful redemption of humankind by the 2nd Person of the Most Holy Trinity, (CCC Glossary, Paschal Mystery/Sacrifice, page 891)

Considering that the Most Holy Trinity is involved, it becomes difficult to compare the Divine God with a human creature such as a human father, etc. This means that one has to go back to square one and learn about human nature found in Genesis 1:27

Maybe I’m the only one, but I am a bit confused by a lot of what you say here… What do you mean by “instead of guessing this or that about what happened in the famous Garden…” ? Also, by “Trinity is involved, it becomes difficult to compare the Divine God with a human creature such as a father…” ?

The point is not that the humanity is passed down, that this nature is passed down is hardly questionable. Each parent passes down some chromosomes to the child and that is used to determine the nature. What is confusing is when the spiritual consequences of a personal sin get passed down sometimes, but not all.

 

[grannymh]

Your first two paragraphs I could follow, but I am confused by what you mean by “nothing is passed on.” The Catechism is pretty clear that it is something that is contracted, and even mentions inheritance (check 404-06). While it is true that it is not physical, apparantly you can contract/inherit spiritual things as well.
This is exactly my dilemma. It doesn’t seem rational to me to punish descendants for the fault of a parent. Even St. Augustine’s comparison of the implication of an entire nation in the sins of the king/leader doesn’t make sense to me. For example, the Emperor of Japan was someone who was very greedy and desperate during WWII. However, one would not say that it is just to send all people of Japanese race to concentration camps. You would also be laughed at if you were to say that sending nuclear bombs on cities of people under his reign is perfectly just. Of course, in some circumstances (fear of drawn out war, immense casualties) it could be made just, but it is not inherently just.
Maybe I’m the only one, but I am a bit confused by a lot of what you say here… What do you mean by “instead of guessing this or that about what happened in the famous Garden…” ? Also, by “Trinity is involved, it becomes difficult to compare the Divine God with a human creature such as a father…” ?

The point is not that the humanity is passed down, that this nature is passed down is hardly questionable. Each parent passes down some chromosomes to the child and that is used to determine the nature. What is confusing is when the spiritual consequences of a personal sin get passed down sometimes, but not all.

Please note that I withdraw all my comments. I accidentally used items that belong to a different thread topic. Please accept my apology for the confusion.

 

[grannymh]

In the Catholic Church, it is not true that “the state of Adam’s soul after he committed the sin was passed down.”

The rational spiritual soul, immediately given by God at human conception, animates the material matter of a human anatomy so that there is a living human person. The spiritual soul continues to live following bodily death. Therefore, because each soul is personal to a human person, the soul cannot be passed down.

Clarification/Correction
It is true that following his Original Sin, Adam was in a State Deprived of his Original Holiness and Justice. The Original Sin affected not only the spiritual soul, it also wounded human nature per se. (CCC 404-405)

---

The human person is worthy of profound respect.

 

[Cathoholic]

And yet, even if we only considered Original Sin to be the deprivation of Sanctifying Grace, there still remains the question of why the deprivation of this grace is passed down but the grace itself is never inherited.

I didn’t say “only”. There are other issues like concupiscence too.

still remains the question of why the deprivation of this grace is passed down but the grace itself is never inherited

Because the parents very NATURE was changed in the fall.

And the best you can do is pass on your nature to your children.

Turtles have by nature, baby turtles.
Dogs have by nature, baby dogs.

Fallen humans have by nature, fallen humans.

Adam and Eve, by their NATURE had Original Justice.

When they fell, their sin changed their very nature.

The effects of sin are very radical!

Now you are going to ask, “Well WHY would God allow THAT?”

The answer is found in the Easter Vigil Liturgy’s Exultet in the Latin Rite.

“O Happy Fault (Felix culpa) that merited such and so great a Redeemer!”

God allows evil . . . . So He Himself, will bring a GREATER good out of it

 

[simpleas]

I’m not certain human nature can be compared with animal nature.

Apparently animals have not got souls, we do, infused by God not man, yet the soul is separate from God when it becomes a fully human being in the womb…

I’m also just as un certain how A&E’S nature was changed after sin, seems they chose with the same nature before and after.

I wonder what way humanity would think/do if we were told we did not have a fallen nature. Just like we are baptised, original sin washed away, yet effects remain as we are not completely supernatural beings, but then being a supernatural being does not mean one would not go against the will of God as seen in the fall of the angels.

 

[grannymh]

I’m not certain human nature can be compared with animal nature.

We compare human nature with animal nature in order to learn the difference. Creation before Genesis 1:25 and after Genesis 1:25.

Apparently animals have not got souls, we do, infused by God not man, yet the soul is separate from God when it becomes a fully human being in the womb…

The spiritual soul as in Genesis 1:27 is God’s marvelous gift to us. Humans are not the same as a Divine God. Thus, the two are separate. Still, God, in His ultimate love, makes it possible for us to share in His own life.

I’m also just as un certain how A&E’S nature was changed after sin, seems they chose with the same nature before and after.

Adam’s human nature per se will remain as an unique unification of the material (decomposing anatomy) and the spiritual (ability to share in the life of the Spiritual God). Before and after Original Sin, Adam has intellective free choice.
The Catholic teaching is that human nature was damaged but not destroyed following Original Sin. So, yes, Adam can still make human nature choices.

I wonder what way humanity would think/do if we were told we did not have a fallen nature. Just like we are baptised, original sin washed away, yet effects remain as we are not completely supernatural beings, but then being a supernatural being does not mean one would not go against the will of God as seen in the fall of the angels.

No need to wonder. That approach that we do not have a fallen nature has been around for ages. It is known as Universal Salvation which means that anyone can do whatever because they will be automatically in heaven. At this point, one needs a clear idea of intellective free choice aka free will. We know that free will exists; but, we do not know how everyone uses it. One possible theory is that everyone chooses God at the point of death. On the other hand, everyone can choose to reject God. Universal Salvation is above our paygrade.

The main effect of Original Sin is the broken friendship relationship between humanity and Divinity.

A better way to describe our human nature is that we are simply a spiritual being because of Genesis 1: 27

CCC 396-400 is a good source for learning the effects of Original Sin. CCC 1730-1732 is also useful.

Links to the universal Catechism of the Catholic Church Second Edition.

scborromeo.org/ccc.htm

usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/what-we-believe/catechism/catechism-of-the-catholic-church/

vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_INDEX.HTM

 

[simpleas]

Originally Posted by grannymh

We compare human nature with animal nature in order to learn the difference. Creation before Genesis 1:25 and after Genesis 1:25.

There was not much comparison that I read in a previous post, saying dogs by their nature have baby dogs, and fallen human being have fallen human babies doesn’t explain anything.

Difference is the soul.

The spiritual soul as in Genesis 1:27 is God’s marvelous gift to us.

Humans are not the same as a Divine God

I never said humans were the same as a Divine God.

Thus, the two are separate.

Yes there is a difference in a complete supernatural being, and us, spiritual human beings.
BUT
We are part of God, we have the ‘breath of life’ within us, the holy spirit dwells within each human person, therefore we are not separate from God in that respect. IMO.

Adam’s human nature per se will remain as an unique unification of the material (decomposing anatomy) and the spiritual (ability to share in the life of the Spiritual God). Before and after Original Sin, Adam has intellective free choice.
The Catholic teaching is that human nature was damaged but not destroyed following Original Sin. So, yes, Adam can still make human nature choices.

So the nature was not changed.

No need to wonder. That approach that we do not have a fallen nature has been around for ages.

It is still quite new to me.

 

[grannymh]

There was not much comparison that I read in a previous post, saying dogs by their nature have baby dogs, and fallen human being have fallen human babies doesn’t explain anything.

Difference is the soul.



I never said humans were the same as a Divine God.

Yes there is a difference in a complete supernatural being, and us, spiritual human beings.
BUT
We are part of God, we have the ‘breath of life’ within us, the holy spirit dwells within each human person, therefore we are not separate from God in that respect. IMO.

Technically, it is hard to say that we are a part of God because God is a pure spirit without parts. This is why we are careful to say that being in God’s spiritual image, we share in the divine life of God.

So the nature was not changed.

Human nature was wounded. So we can look at human nature as being changed. On the other hand, being wounded did not take away human’s ability to love God. The basic stuff of human nature remains.

It is still quite new to me.

We all have to start somewhere – even when there are tough questions.

The difficulty we all have is to understand the terminology.

 

[simpleas]

Technically, it is hard to say that we are a part of God because God is a pure spirit without parts. This is why we are careful to say that being in God’s spiritual image, we share in the divine life of God.

Human nature was wounded. So we can look at human nature as being changed. On the other hand, being wounded did not take away human’s ability to love God. The basic stuff of human nature remains.

We all have to start somewhere – even when there are tough questions.

The difficulty we all have is to understand the terminology.

Wow, I don’t know what to say then. If we do not have the spirit of God dwelling inside us I have no idea why I believe there is a Divine creator.

Yes, sharing in, being apart of is more or less the same thing to me. Like saying we are a part of the church, or a community, or a part of each other. Though we can feel very distant from each other, God isn’t like that, not to me anyway.

I mean by the nature not changing as in A&E made a decision while having the ability to choose God over the temptation much strongly than after the choice.
While in the state of grace, having never known sin, they acted on a sin by their choosing.

 

[grannymh]

Wow, I don’t know what to say then. If we do not have the spirit of God dwelling inside us I have no idea why I believe there is a Divine creator.

God dwelling inside us is not the same as being a part of God even when sharing in, being a part of, is more or less the same thing.

Yes, sharing in, being apart of is more or less the same thing to me. Like saying we are a part of the church, or a community, or a part of each other. Though we can feel very distant from each other, God isn’t like that, not to me anyway.

I mean by the nature not changing as in A&E made a decision while having the ability to choose God over the temptation much strongly than after the choice.
While in the state of grace, having never known sin, they acted on a sin by their choosing.

Here is another example. “having never known sin” is different from "knowing what
sin consists of.