How does Original Sin work?

[fhansen]

It looks like you never learned who that “one man” is and what is his destiny. In addition, I wonder if you ever learned about the original friendship relationship between the Creator and the created.

That is understandable since many Catholics no longer use the first three fabulous chapters of Sacred Scripture. The word “use” is important. And you need to “use” on your own.

Yes, apparently Augustine was one of those Catholics.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Yes, that we are.

I don’t seem to be getting very far here. BTW, I’m older than you, not that it matters much. I was thinking for a while that you may be young and insulated from the world-but I’m sure that’s not the issue here anyway. I’ll try it this way:

**385 God is infinitely good and all his works are good. Yet no one can escape the experience of suffering or the evils in nature which seem to be linked to the limitations proper to creatures: and above all to the question of moral evil. Where does evil come from? “I sought whence evil comes and there was no solution”, said St. Augustine, and his own painful quest would only be resolved by his conversion to the living God. For “the mystery of lawlessness” is clarified only in the light of the “mystery of our religion”. The revelation of divine love in Christ manifested at the same time the extent of evil and the superabundance of grace. We must therefore approach the question of the origin of evil by fixing the eyes of our faith on him who alone is its conqueror.

309 If God the Father almighty, the Creator of the ordered and good world, cares for all his creatures, why does evil exist? To this question, as pressing as it is unavoidable and as painful as it is mysterious, no quick answer will suffice. Only Christian faith as a whole constitutes the answer to this question: the goodness of creation, the drama of sin and the patient love of God who comes to meet man by his covenants, the redemptive Incarnation of his Son, his gift of the Spirit, his gathering of the Church, the power of the sacraments and his call to a blessed life to which free creatures are invited to consent in advance, but from which, by a terrible mystery, they can also turn away in advance. There is not a single aspect of the Christian message that is not in part an answer to the question of evil.**

You see the question of evil, resulting from humanity being exiled from Eden and its Creator, is a very logical and honest one, both personally- and theologically in general. And there aren’t pat answers to it; this has nothing to do with feuding French families or with the ancient vs the spoiled modern mind; it’s a universal issue, and one that the Savior came to directly address. So I’m still waiting for an answer to the question concerning “why we are not born in Adam’s State of Original Holiness and Justice?” Why would God deem it wise to pass down the consequences, the moral and spiritual as well as physical effects, by whatever means, of one’s man’s sin onto all of his descendants? That could only be a determination on His part.

Your question seems to start out with the usual how there can be a good God if evil exists…yet it is somehow different. It keeps coming back to why we get punished for Adam’s sin.

But you advise your question has nothing to do with the self evident fact of human solidarity whereby it is readily observable in other affairs that we inherit the advantages and disadvantages passed on to us by the works of our forebears…all without our consent or effort.

So I am still at a loss to understand your question.
Do you have difficulties also with Christians being advantaged, without doing good anything for ourselves, by the saving and redemptive acts of Jesus too?

 

[fhansen]

Your question seems to start out with the usual how there can be a good God if evil exists…yet it is somehow different. It keeps coming back to why we get punished for Adam’s sin.

But you advise your question has nothing to do with the self evident fact of human solidarity whereby it is readily observable in other affairs that we inherit the advantages and disadvantages passed on to us by the works of our forebears…all without our consent or effort.

So I am still at a loss to understand your question.
Do you have difficulties also with Christians being advantaged, without doing good anything for ourselves, by the saving and redemptive acts of Jesus too?

I guess I don’t understand the last question. Firstly, the two questions, ‘why is there evil if a good God exists?’, and, ‘why does man inherit the consequences of Adam’s sin?’ are intrinsically related. Humankind was thrust into a world of alienation from God, with all that entails including the evils we experience daily, by the act of the one man.

Anyway, the example you suggested is a human relational one. It has nothing to do with inheriting a spiritual/moral defect or effect in nature by propagation, which would be a matter of God’s will, while the other is determined by human will. I don’t know if you are being purposely overly-defensive about this or not, but I’d consider the balanced approach of the Church’s words from CCC309: “If God the Father almighty, the Creator of the ordered and good world, cares for all his creatures, why does evil exist? To this question, as pressing as it is unavoidable and as painful as it is mysterious, no quick answer will suffice.”

But it all seems to be easily explainable by you, by everyday occurrences in fact.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

In a just society we do not purposely punish anyone for another’s crime.

Nature does so all the time.
So whence the self evident principle that it can never be just for man or God to do so.

Rather the opposite is more self evident, at least to myself.
Solidarity is an important component of human nature and virtue.
We cannot have solidarity with God if we deny our solidarity with other smelly members of our race/family. Jesus didn’t come to save individuals, he came to save the race.

Yes, it’s a very hard lesson…yet nature and God clearly work by that “law” and it is not unjust …though we hope for more than strict justice from God. But it is not a right, just like friendship.

Is it a punishment to be deprived of something that was never ours to begin with?
And if we never possessed it or knew of it in the first place then, at a personal level, there is in fact no pain of deprivation either. Not really worthy of the name “punishment” then is it?

Let’s keep in mind that medieval punishment does not have quite the same meaning today as it does in the theology books. Today it seems to mean something you only do to your enemies.

 

[fhansen]

Nature does so all the time.
So whence the self evident principle that it can never be just for man or God to do so.

Rather the opposite is more self evident, at least to myself.
Solidarity is an important component of human nature and virtue.
We cannot have solidarity with God if we deny our solidarity with other smelly members of our race/family. Jesus didn’t come to save individuals, he came to save the race.

Yes, it’s a very hard lesson…yet nature and God clearly work by that “law” and it is not unjust …though we hope for more than strict justice from God. But it is not a right, just like friendship.

Is it a punishment to be deprived of something that was never ours to begin with?
And if we never possessed it or knew of it in the first place then, at a personal level, there is in fact no pain of deprivation either. Not really worthy of the name “punishment” then is it?

Let’s keep in mind that medieval punishment does not have quite the same meaning today as it does in the theology books. Today it seems to mean something you only do to your enemies.

I don’t consider it to be a punishment; I consider it to be an educational process, for one, something God has a specific purpose in fostering. Most Roman Catholics, I believe, seem to see it as strictly punitive, probably without being sure why.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

I don’t consider it to be a punishment; I consider it to be an educational process, for one, something God has a specific purpose in fostering. Most Roman Catholics, I believe, seem to see it as strictly punitive, probably without being sure why.

So why do you not apply this insight to answer your question as to why we are not born as Adam was first made?

 

[Blue_Horizon]

I guess I don’t understand the last question. Firstly, the two questions, ‘why is there evil if a good God exists?’, and, ‘why does man inherit the consequences of Adam’s sin?’ are intrinsically related. Humankind was thrust into a world of alienation from God, with all that entails including the evils we experience daily, by the act of the one man.

Anyway, the example you suggested is a human relational one. It has nothing to do with inheriting a spiritual/moral defect or effect in nature by propagation, which would be a matter of God’s will, while the other is determined by human will. I don’t know if you are being purposely overly-defensive about this or not, but I’d consider the balanced approach of the Church’s words from CCC309: “If God the Father almighty, the Creator of the ordered and good world, cares for all his creatures, why does evil exist? To this question, as pressing as it is unavoidable and as painful as it is mysterious, no quick answer will suffice.”

But it all seems to be easily explainable by you, by everyday occurrences in fact.

As the CCC states nobody but God knows why this was necessitated.

I am simply observing that it is not self evidently unjust if God did will this intentionally (as opposed to Granny’s karma we did it to ourselves thesis).
You must admit you have already bordered on saying previously that it is unjust for God to do so…I do not believe it is self evident.

And now you have reversed a little by saying God could justly do this as an educational process. Well, yes that is what we mean by disciplining those whom we love…which is a form of punishment is it not?

 

[fhansen]

So why do you not apply this insight to answer your question as to why we are not born as Adam was first made?

Well, I did, in post #127. But I was hoping the discussion would take itself around to that line of thought, or at least bring up the “Felix Culpa”.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Well, I did, in post #127. But I was hoping the discussion would take itself around to that line of thought, or at least bring up the “Felix Culpa”.

Yes, I think I understood your line of reasoning at the time - but that was only about Adam’s “punishment” for his actual sin.

Here you are speaking of a different matter, that of his “innocent” descendants.
You seem to be wondering why they even need the happy fault that brought about the Incarnation (note I do not say Redemption).

The Exultet is a wonderful mine of lesser known Christian truths. Including that “Lucifer” was originally not a pseudo name for Satan but an honorific title in the Early Church and many children were given that name and it was also a title once applied to both Jesus and Mary. I still recall the privilege of being able to sing the Exultet at my parish Church one Easter Vigil long ago.

 

[Vico]

Why not?

Not something else.

It is like it is because God created everything in wisdom. God wisely used genes.
So concupiscence is transmitted to all through natural generation because it is transmitted by genes.

 

[grannymh]

Whatever happened to the spiritual State in reference to the destruction of Divinity’s relationship with humanity? Also known in some circles as Original Sin.

 

[Vico]

Whatever happened to the spiritual State in reference to the destruction of Divinity’s relationship with humanity? Also known in some circles as Original Sin.

You mean the circle of Catholic and Orthodox Christianity which accept free will of mankind?

Collins Dictionary

scorn, verb:

• to treat with contempt or derision.
• (transitive) to reject with contempt

Catechism
Man’s first sin

398 In that sin man preferred himself to God and by that very act scorned him. …

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Not something else.

It is like it is because God created everything in wisdom. God wisely used genes.
So concupiscence is transmitted to all through natural generation because it is transmitted by genes.

Its not fHansen’s question but interesting from a purely speculative point of view.

All the Church commits to is that the propogation is through the body not the soul.
How exactly through the body we do not really know.

The medievals thought it was through the male line only and that this conclusion was fully consistent with theological principles. That is why, I suppose, Aquinas famously erred (or rather didnt foresee) re the Immaculate Conception. In this medieval view there would be no need for Mary to be completely without sin to produce a child free of Original Sin. If there was no male seed involved in there would be no OS anyways.

It is very interesting that Aquinas and many of the Scholastics did not have their way on the issue of Mary’s Immaculate Conception in medieval times. Very interesting because it suggests a flaw in their, until then, seamless garment Scholastic approach to OS.

And the discoveries of modern embryology vindicate the Church in her affirmation of the ImmConc as “required” for a better understanding of the mechanism of OS and its propogation.

In the light of modern embryology and ther discoveries of egg and sperm made only 150 years ago we do see the conclusions of the medievals were based on flawed scientific premises.

For if we went along with them we would now have to say, in the light of modern science, that OS is passed down through the Y chromosome which is only from the male, and that the X chromosome is free from “defect”.

But then that means females must be free from OS which is obviously against Church teaching. So its a case of new embryology requiring new theological principles.

It seems the medievals were in fact mistaken to believe that OS is passed down through a defect in male “seed”.

And in fact the whole propogation by sex angle is now thrown into complete confusion. We have to accept this statement as a theological principle confirmed by the Church I suppose. But in the light of modern ebryology and genetics it seems to still lead to more of a dead end than it did in medieval times.

You suggest above that it is due to a defect in the genes (presumably of both male and female). Yet this is a very sterile approach to the issue that was not the case with ther medieval understanding.

At least in their understanding there was a spiritual aspect to this propogation. They considered semen to be very powerful at a spiritual level. It was not really a seed but a sort of architectural life force that formed protoplasm from the female - and its own matter did not enter into the formation of the embryo. So the defect was in the semen’s spiritual formative properties.

We see this spiritual life-force power at work in the speculations of the Eastern Fathers as to what sort of physical sex would have taken place before the Fall. They do not see the need, to be blunt, for penetrative sex. They seemed to suggest it would be enough for Adam and Eve to embrace with the intent of having children and the combined spiritual intent would have been enough to form a conceptus in the female. Thus the concept of virginal motherhood in Eden was asserted - due to the ancients largely believing carnal sex always involved some form of evil intrinsically. In other words carnal sex was necessitated by the Fall but that allegedly was not God’s original plan for us. (The same seems to go for bodily excrative functions which are considered “dirty”, the paradisial food was such that nothing was left unused when passing through the body. And again with childbirth, babies in Eden would not pass down the birth canal as that would destroy virginity. Hence the assertions of extra pain in childbirth outside Eden and why we have those traditions that Mary’s virginity remain intact even during childbirth - even to the extent that Jesus magically caesared through the abdominal wall as was the case with Buddhe 600 yrs prior).

But if we try and duplicate this sort of thinking into modern genetics it doesn’t work. Modern genetics is totally “materialistic” in understanding the process, no room for the communication of spiritual defects via a purely physical propogation mechanism that has completely lost its “spiritual” aspects.

And as we cannot say that God creates new souls with OS before they inform flesh…we are left without any decent solutions to this propogation of OS by sex teaching anymore.

It must be to do with something more than genetics.
It is something defective in materiality itself I suggest. Its not just human flesh that is wounded, the very soil itself is somehow implicated aslo.

Enough raving.

 

[Vico]

Its not fHansen’s question but interesting from a purely speculative point of view.

All the Church commits to is that the propogation is through the body not the soul.
How exactly through the body we do not really know.

The medievals thought it was through the male line only and that this conclusion was fully consistent with theological principles. That is why, I suppose, Aquinas famously erred (or rather didnt foresee) re the Immaculate Conception. In this medieval view there would be no need for Mary to be completely without sin to produce a child free of Original Sin. If there was no male seed involved in there would be no OS anyways.

It is very interesting that Aquinas and many of the Scholastics did not have their way on the issue of Mary’s Immaculate Conception in medieval times. Very interesting because it suggests a flaw in their, until then, seamless garment Scholastic approach to OS.

And the discoveries of modern embryology vindicate the Church in her affirmation of the ImmConc as “required” for a better understanding of the mechanism of OS and its propogation.

In the light of modern embryology and ther discoveries of egg and sperm made only 150 years ago we do see the conclusions of the medievals were based on flawed scientific premises.

For if we went along with them we would now have to say, in the light of modern science, that OS is passed down through the Y chromosome which is only from the male, and that the X chromosome is free from “defect”.

But then that means females must be free from OS which is obviously against Church teaching. So its a case of new embryology requiring new theological principles.

It seems the medievals were in fact mistaken to believe that OS is passed down through a defect in male “seed”.

And in fact the whole propogation by sex angle is now thrown into complete confusion. We have to accept this statement as a theological principle confirmed by the Church I suppose. But in the light of modern ebryology and genetics it seems to still lead to more of a dead end than it did in medieval times.

You suggest above that it is due to a defect in the genes (presumably of both male and female). Yet this is a very sterile approach to the issue that was not the case with ther medieval understanding.

At least in their understanding there was a spiritual aspect to this propogation. They considered semen to be very powerful at a spiritual level. It was not really a seed but a sort of architectural life force that formed protoplasm from the female - and its own matter did not enter into the formation of the embryo. So the defect was in the semen’s spiritual formative properties.

We see this spiritual life-force power at work in the speculations of the Eastern Fathers as to what sort of physical sex would have taken place before the Fall. They do not see the need, to be blunt, for penetrative sex. They seemed to suggest it would be enough for Adam and Eve to embrace with the intent of having children and the combined spiritual intent would have been enough to form a conceptus in the female. Thus the concept of virginal motherhood in Eden was asserted - due to the ancients largely believing carnal sex always involved some form of evil intrinsically. In other words carnal sex was necessitated by the Fall but that allegedly was not God’s original plan for us. (The same seems to go for bodily excrative functions which are considered “dirty”, the paradisial food was such that nothing was left unused when passing through the body. And again with childbirth, babies in Eden would not pass down the birth canal as that would destroy virginity. Hence the assertions of extra pain in childbirth outside Eden and why we have those traditions that Mary’s virginity remain intact even during childbirth - even to the extent that Jesus magically caesared through the abdominal wall as was the case with Buddhe 600 yrs prior).

But if we try and duplicate this sort of thinking into modern genetics it doesn’t work. Modern genetics is totally “materialistic” in understanding the process, no room for the communication of spiritual defects via a purely physical propogation mechanism that has completely lost its “spiritual” aspects.

And as we cannot say that God creates new souls with OS before they inform flesh…we are left without any decent solutions to this propogation of OS by sex teaching anymore.

It must be to do with something more than genetics.
It is something defective in materiality itself I suggest. Its not just human flesh that is wounded, the very soil itself is somehow implicated aslo.

Enough raving.

Per the Council of Trent, concupiscence remains in those that are baptized. This means that the stain of original sin which is removed in baptism is not concupiscence. I did not state any connection exclusively to a male gene or to one the only expresses in males.

 

[grannymh]

Whatever happened to the spiritual State in reference to the destruction of Divinity’s relationship with humanity? Also known in some circles as Original Sin.

Answer to thread’s question.

The original Spiritual State of Adam’s nature made it possible for humans (plural intended) to be in a relationship with the Divine Creator. This Spiritual State of Relationship would be transmitted to descendants.

Original Sin cannot work as long as Adam lives in submission (obedience) to his Creator God.

What makes Original Sin work is that the Adam/God relationship is no longer possible. That answers the thread’s basic question.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Per the Council of Trent, concupiscence remains in those that are baptized. This means that the stain of original sin which is removed in baptism is not concupiscence.

Nobody disagrees with this, not quite sure why you need to mention re my response?

I did not state any connection exclusively to a male gene or to one the only expresses in males.

Neither did I say that you did.
I simply observed that if Aquinas was correct on the mechanism of propagation being in the male then, if your genetic hypothesis was also correct, then logic suggests the defect must be passed in the Y chromosome.

This conclusion cannot be true as women also suffer from concupiscence.
Therefore either Aquinas, your hypothesis, or both, must be mistaken.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Per the Council of Trent, concupiscence remains in those that are baptized. This means that the stain of original sin which is removed in baptism is not concupiscence.

That would suggest that what is removed is lack of holiness and that aspect of original justice known as the ordering of the soul to God.

That also suggests the preternatural gifts are somehow linked to that aspect of original justice known as the ordering of the body to the soul.

 

[simpleas]

Per the Council of Trent, concupiscence remains in those that are baptized. This means that the stain of original sin which is removed in baptism is not concupiscence. I did not state any connection exclusively to a male gene or to one the only expresses in males.

The more I have read on original sin, the more I think about it not as something removed in baptism, but rather a mortal state. Baptism gives sanctifying grace to the person/soul, which is supernatural, something more than the natural state humans normally live by when not given supernatural graces.
Baptism adds to the person/soul, it doesn’t remove anything or we would not have still a fallen nature.
The first people had to remain in God’s life, the supernatural ability to be more than mortal, because we are told these two first people were immortal, almost god like in their ability, something we have never known, not even through baptism.
According to Catholicism sanctifying grace can be lost, yet the CCC refers to it as :

2000 Sanctifying grace is an habitual gift, a stable and supernatural disposition that perfects the soul itself to enable it to live with God, to act by his love. Habitual grace, the permanent disposition to live and act in keeping with God’s call, is distinguished from actual graces which refer to God’s interventions, whether at the beginning of conversion or in the course of the work of sanctification.

I don’t think SG can be lost completely, once baptised either knowingly or not, permanent means forever.
It’s a work in progress.
I’ve noticed in some internet writings the word permanent is left out when explaining what SG is through baptism, as if you can just throw it away so easily through mortal sin.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

I don’t think SG can be lost completely, once baptised either knowingly or not, permanent means forever. It’s a work in progress.
I’ve noticed in some internet writings the word permanent is left out when explaining what SG is through baptism, as if you can just throw it away so easily through mortal sin.

I think this bit may be a little off tangent.
It is the very definition of an actual mortal sin that SG has been lost and one can do nothing of oneself to regain.

“Permanent” above does not really mean what you have interpreted it to mean.
What it really means in the above context is that the soul, by means of SG, is able to merit more SG of its own nature as it were. In this sense it can abide permanently if we don’t disrespect that state. With the presence of SG our virtuous disposition/acts will abide permanently. It doesn’t mean SG itself must remain permanently.

It can be lost, as obviously happened with Adam and Eve.

The contrast of abiding internal SG is with external actual grace - which is one time only and short lived in affecting our dispositions.

 

[Vico]

The more I have read on original sin, the more I think about it not as something removed in baptism, but rather a mortal state. Baptism gives sanctifying grace to the person/soul, which is supernatural, something more than the natural state humans normally live by when not given supernatural graces.
Baptism adds to the person/soul, it doesn’t remove anything or we would not have still a fallen nature.
The first people had to remain in God’s life, the supernatural ability to be more than mortal, because we are told these two first people were immortal, almost god like in their ability, something we have never known, not even through baptism.
According to Catholicism sanctifying grace can be lost, yet the CCC refers to it as :

I don’t think SG can be lost completely, once baptised either knowingly or not, permanent means forever.
It’s a work in progress.
I’ve noticed in some internet writings the word permanent is left out when explaining what SG is through baptism, as if you can just throw it away so easily through mortal sin.

Adam and Eve had both supernatural and preternatural gifts that we are not born with. The supernatural gift is sanctifying grace. The preternatural gifts were bodily immortality, integrity (freedom from concupiscence), and infused knowledge.

Permanent does not imply forever. Loss of sanctifying (habitual) grace result in loss of heaven if one were to die in that state.

Merriam Webster has in Synonyms:
lasting, permanent, durable, stable mean enduring for so long as to seem fixed or established.