How does Original Sin work?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Daniel_Lysinger
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
How does Original Sin work?

The first Catholic step is to accept the historic reality of Adam as the original founder of the human species.

Be careful when using some kind of metaphor in the first three sacred chapters of Genesis. A metaphor can be somewhat short-sighted when it comes to the gift of the rational soul which humans need in order to escape the animal kingdom which includes all the living creatures that crawl on the ground. Dramatic shift from Genesis 1: 25 to Genesis 1: 26-27.

Obviously, no one likes the concept of Original Sin. Therefore, some writers, like the early Matthew Fox , will substitute the metaphor of original blessings. On the other hand, readers have to delve into the reality of Genesis 1: 27.

CCC 1730-1732 has some interesting comments about the spiritual human of Genesis 1: 27. When we accept the historic reality of the original Adam, then we can explore Adam’s relationship (CCC 1730 & CCC 396) with his Divine Creator. There are some historic blessings in the first three informative chapters of Genesis. There is Genesis 1: 27 followed by Genesis 3: 9 and Genesis 3:15. Interestingly, CCC 1730 has the cross-reference of CCC 30 with its strong words.

The above lays the groundwork for understanding the facts about how Original Sin works.
 
grannymh said:
It is my understanding that “Limbo” is not in the universal* Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition.*

Last sentence of CCC 1257
First sentence of CCC 1260
The entire CCC 1261

INTERNATIONAL THEOLOGICAL COMMISSION
***THE HOPE OF SALVATION FOR INFANTS ***
WHO DIE WITHOUT BEING BAPTISED*

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20070419_un-baptised-infants_en.html
Click to expand...
That may well be correct.

That does not mean your previous eggregious assertion (that this means the previous teaching was in error or no longer holds) is correct.

As stated correctly by others we may accept limbo if we wish.
The Church simply does not yet know the final answer to this question but has every hope there is a positive outcome.
 
Vico said:
In that Catechism entry the Church states certainly that ther is something to “allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism”.

The Catholic Church states that the newborn of a Catholic should be baptised soon after birth (CIC 867) when there is a founded hope that the infant will be brought up in the Catholic religion (CIC 869), or in danger of death (CIC 867), or for an aborted living fetus (CIC 871).
Click to expand...
It is interesting that there is no longer any great imperative to baptize the newborn unlikely to be brought up Catholic.

That ancient imperative was what drove the extraordinary efforts of the missionaries to the new world.
 
Blue_Horizon said:
It is interesting that there is no longer any great imperative to baptize the newborn unlikely to be brought up Catholic.

That ancient imperative was what drove the extraordinary efforts of the missionaries to the new world.
Click to expand...
Did the priests have a founded hope that the infants would be raised Catholic back then?
 
Blue_Horizon said:
It is interesting that there is no longer any great imperative to baptize the newborn unlikely to be brought up Catholic.

That ancient imperative was what drove the extraordinary efforts of the missionaries to the new world.
Click to expand...
Baptism isn’t just “one weird trick” for getting rid of original sin. It’s entrance into a community. To baptize someone who is not in danger of death and who will subsequently not be taught about his or her new status is problematic. The parents or other guardians bring the child to be baptized; we don’t send roving baptizers around to make sure we get everybody. Even John the Baptist had people come to him.

Those missionaries of old (and their modern successors) didn’t just baptize willy-nilly and go home, either. They taught and planted churches. The goal was most definitely that future generations be brought up in the Faith. (As you hint, from time to time they went to hideous extremes to insure that.)
 
Usagi said:
Baptism isn’t just “one weird trick” for getting rid of original sin. It’s entrance into a community. To baptize someone who is not in danger of death and who will subsequently not be taught about his or her new status is problematic. The parents or other guardians bring the child to be baptized; we don’t send roving baptizers around to make sure we get everybody. Even John the Baptist had people come to him.

Those missionaries of old (and their modern successors) didn’t just baptize willy-nilly and go home, either. They taught and planted churches. The goal was most definitely that future generations be brought up in the Faith. (As you hint, from time to time they went to hideous extremes to insure that.)
Click to expand...
Glossing over the self-serving dissonant collaboration between European Missionaries/Settlers re natives in the New World or even Japan is disturbing.

As I say, with the loss of more treasure to be had both the original colonising and missionising rationales have largely been discredited in both Church and State.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top