How does Original Sin work?

[Blue_Horizon]

Thank you.

I often use Original Holiness because many, not all, readers have a hard time understanding Adam’s human nature as it is. For example, there is plenty of misunderstanding about the Preternatural Gifts, the freedom from concupiscence, and mastery of self. Then there is the “dumb Adam” approach to forbidden organic fruit.

Maybe I am wrong, but I keep hoping that if readers learn that Original Holiness is the State of Sanctifying Grace, they will understand the *deprived *State of Sanctifying Grace which is not the same as the State of Mortal Sin.

If we can understand the importance of Original Holiness, then hopefully we could understand the original friendship relationship between Divinity and Humanity and subsequently the Full Divinity of Jesus Christ.

How does Original Sin work?

We will never find the true answer until we learn, understand, and accept the first three sacred chapters of Genesis.

To be without sanctifying grace is to be in a state of mortal sin by the very definition of those terms. It matters not how one got there because the act by which one got into this state does not enter into the definition of that state. This is what you have done above.

Your use of these two bolded words bleeds the defintion at the edges, so yes you are mistaken.

 

[simpleas]

INTERNATIONAL THEOLOGICAL COMMISSION

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

1. Finally, when reflecting theologically on the salvation of infants who die without Baptism, the Church respects the hierarchy of truths and therefore begins by clearly reaffirming the primacy of Christ and his grace, which has priority over Adam and sin. Jesus Christ, in his existence for us and in the redemptive power of his sacrifice, died and rose again for all. By his whole life and teaching, he revealed the fatherhood of God and his universal love. While the necessity of Baptism is de fide, the tradition and the documents of the magisterium which have reaffirmed this necessity need to be interpreted. While it is true that the universal salvific will of God is not opposed to the necessity of Baptism, it is also true that infants, for their part, do not place any personal obstacle in the way of redemptive grace. On the other hand, Baptism is administered to infants, who are free from personal sins, not only in order to free them from original sin, but also to insert them into the communion of salvation which is the Church, by means of communion in the death and resurrection of Christ (cf. Rom 6:1-7). Grace is totally free, because it is always a pure gift of God. Damnation, however, is deserved, because it is the consequence of free human choice.[10] The infant who dies with Baptism is saved by the grace of Christ and through the intercession of the Church, even without his or her cooperation. It can be asked whether the infant who dies without Baptism, but for whom the Church in its prayer expresses the desire for salvation, can be deprived of the vision of God even without his or her cooperation.

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20070419_un-baptised-infants_en.html

 

[grannymh]

INTERNATIONAL THEOLOGICAL COMMISSION

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

1. Finally, when reflecting theologically on the salvation of infants who die without Baptism, the Church respects the hierarchy of truths and therefore begins by clearly reaffirming the primacy of Christ and his grace, which has priority over Adam and sin. Jesus Christ, in his existence for us and in the redemptive power of his sacrifice, died and rose again for all. By his whole life and teaching, he revealed the fatherhood of God and his universal love. While the necessity of Baptism is de fide, the tradition and the documents of the magisterium which have reaffirmed this necessity need to be interpreted. While it is true that the universal salvific will of God is not opposed to the necessity of Baptism, it is also true that infants, for their part, do not place any personal obstacle in the way of redemptive grace. On the other hand, Baptism is administered to infants, who are free from personal sins, not only in order to free them from original sin, but also to insert them into the communion of salvation which is the Church, by means of communion in the death and resurrection of Christ (cf. Rom 6:1-7). Grace is totally free, because it is always a pure gift of God. Damnation, however, is deserved, because it is the consequence of free human choice.[10] The infant who dies with Baptism is saved by the grace of Christ and through the intercession of the Church, even without his or her cooperation. It can be asked whether the infant who dies without Baptism, but for whom the Church in its prayer expresses the desire for salvation, can be deprived of the vision of God even without his or her cooperation.

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20070419_un-baptised-infants_en.html

 

[Blue_Horizon]

INTERNATIONAL THEOLOGICAL COMMISSION

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

1. Finally, when reflecting theologically on the salvation of infants who die without Baptism, the Church respects the hierarchy of truths and therefore begins by clearly reaffirming the primacy of Christ and his grace, which has priority over Adam and sin. Jesus Christ, in his existence for us and in the redemptive power of his sacrifice, died and rose again for all. By his whole life and teaching, he revealed the fatherhood of God and his universal love. While the necessity of Baptism is de fide, the tradition and the documents of the magisterium which have reaffirmed this necessity need to be interpreted. While it is true that the universal salvific will of God is not opposed to the necessity of Baptism, it is also true that infants, for their part, do not place any personal obstacle in the way of redemptive grace. On the other hand, Baptism is administered to infants, who are free from personal sins, not only in order to free them from original sin, but also to insert them into the communion of salvation which is the Church, by means of communion in the death and resurrection of Christ (cf. Rom 6:1-7). Grace is totally free, because it is always a pure gift of God. Damnation, however, is deserved, because it is the consequence of free human choice.[10] The infant who dies with Baptism is saved by the grace of Christ and through the intercession of the Church, even without his or her cooperation. It can be asked whether the infant who dies without Baptism, but for whom the Church in its prayer expresses the desire for salvation, can be deprived of the vision of God even without his or her cooperation.

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20070419_un-baptised-infants_en.html

Nothing I stated below denies your quote.
How could it, respected Catechisms and theologians taught exactly what I stated. It has never been denied.

A state of mortal sin entered by a mortal act (commission) is very concerning.
Whe entered by “contaction” rather than commission then not so much. See post #29.

 

[Vico]

Thank you.

I often use Original Holiness because many, not all, readers have a hard time understanding Adam’s human nature as it is. For example, there is plenty of misunderstanding about the Preternatural Gifts, the freedom from concupiscence, and mastery of self. Then there is the “dumb Adam” approach to forbidden organic fruit.

Maybe I am wrong, but I keep hoping that if readers learn that Original Holiness is the State of Sanctifying Grace, they will understand the *deprived *State of Sanctifying Grace which is not the same as the State of Mortal Sin.

If we can understand the importance of Original Holiness, then hopefully we could understand the original friendship relationship between Divinity and Humanity and subsequently the Full Divinity of Jesus Christ.

How does Original Sin work?

We will never find the true answer until we learn, understand, and accept the first three sacred chapters of Genesis.

And you did not miss the significance of the loss being of “Original Holiness and justice” as consistently given in the Catechism?

Catechism
1807 Justice is the moral virtue that consists in the constant and firm will to give their due to God and neighbor. Justice toward God is called the “virtue of religion.”

375 … Adam and Eve, were constituted in an original “state of holiness and justice”.250 …
250 Cf. Council of Trent (1546): DS 1511.

384 Revelation makes known to us the state of original holiness and justice of man and woman before sin: from their friendship with God flowed the happiness of their existence in paradise.

400 The harmony in which they had found themselves, thanks to original justice, is now destroyed…

404 …But we do know by Revelation that Adam had received original holiness and justice not for himself alone … the transmission of a human nature deprived of original holiness and justice.

405 … It is a deprivation of original holiness and justice, …

416 By his sin Adam, as the first man, lost the original holiness and justice he had received from God, not only for himself but for all human beings.

417 Adam and Eve transmitted to their descendants human nature wounded by their own first sin and hence deprived of original holiness and justice; this deprivation is called “original sin”.

Modern Catholic Dictionary
Original Justice, Definition

The state of Adam and Eve before they sinned. It was the simultaneous possession of sanctifying grace, with its right to enter heaven, and the preternatural gifts. Had Adam not sinned, original justice would have been transmitted to all his descendants. Later, through repentance, he personally recovered sanctifying grace but not the other prerogatives of original justice. Since Adam, human beings are said to be deprived of original justice. Jesus Christ, the new head of the human race, by his passion and death expiated human sin and regained what Adam had lost. Sanctifying grace is restored at justification, but the preternatural gifts are returned only as capacities (such as the ability to overcome concupiscence) or only eventually (such as bodily immortality after the final resurrection).

 

[grannymh]

And you did not miss the significance of the loss being of “Original Holiness and justice” as consistently given in the Catechism?

Catechism
1807 Justice is the moral virtue that consists in the constant and firm will to give their due to God and neighbor. Justice toward God is called the “virtue of religion.”

375 … Adam and Eve, were constituted in an original “state of holiness and justice”.250 …
250 Cf. Council of Trent (1546): DS 1511.

384 Revelation makes known to us the state of original holiness and justice of man and woman before sin: from their friendship with God flowed the happiness of their existence in paradise.

400 The harmony in which they had found themselves, thanks to original justice, is now destroyed…

404 …But we do know by Revelation that Adam had received original holiness and justice not for himself alone … the transmission of a human nature deprived of original holiness and justice.

405 … It is a deprivation of original holiness and justice, …

416 By his sin Adam, as the first man, lost the original holiness and justice he had received from God, not only for himself but for all human beings.

417 Adam and Eve transmitted to their descendants human nature wounded by their own first sin and hence deprived of original holiness and justice; this deprivation is called “original sin”.
Modern Catholic Dictionary
Original Justice, Definition

The state of Adam and Eve before they sinned. It was the simultaneous possession of sanctifying grace, with its right to enter heaven, and the preternatural gifts. Had Adam not sinned, original justice would have been transmitted to all his descendants. Later, through repentance, he personally recovered sanctifying grace but not the other prerogatives of original justice. Since Adam, human beings are said to be deprived of original justice. Jesus Christ, the new head of the human race, by his passion and death expiated human sin and regained what Adam had lost. Sanctifying grace is restored at justification, but the preternatural gifts are returned only as capacities (such as the ability to overcome concupiscence) or only eventually (such as bodily immortality after the final resurrection).

Thank you for the information on Original Justice. When we learn more about
pre-Original Sin Adam and post-Original Sin Adam, there will be no reason to think that at human conception, God creates a soul in Mortal Sin.

We need to use the universal Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition, because it corrects some of the misunderstandings which appear in local Catechisms.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

:We need to use the universal because it corrects some of the misunderstandings which appear in local Catechisms.

By all means explain Baltimore’s misunderstanding of unbaptized infants being in a “state of mortal sin” if you are capable…

 

[Vico]

Thank you for the information on Original Justice. When we learn more about
pre-Original Sin Adam and post-Original Sin Adam, there will be no reason to think that at human conception, God creates a soul in Mortal Sin.

We need to use the universal Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition, because it corrects some of the misunderstandings which appear in local Catechisms.

What are you referring to? No quotes are from Baltimore Catechism in my post but from The Catechism (2nd ed.) and the Moderrn Catholic Dictionary.

The Catechism (2nd ed.) has the description of the initial state:

1250 Born with a fallen human nature and tainted by original sin, children also have need of the new birth in Baptism to be freed from the power of darkness and brought into the realm of the freedom of the children of God, to which all men are called.50 The sheer gratuitousness of the grace of salvation is particularly manifest in infant Baptism. The Church and the parents would deny a child the priceless grace of becoming a child of God were they not to confer Baptism shortly after birth.51

As an additional reference since you mention it, the Baltimore Catechism agrees:

Q. 621. What is Baptism?

A. Baptism is a Sacrament which cleanses us from original sin, makes us Christians, children of God, and heirs of heaven.

Q. 636. Why do the consequences of original sin, such as suffering, temptation, sickness, and death, remain after the sin has been forgiven in baptism?

A. The consequences of original sin, such as suffering, temptation, sickness and death, remain after the sin has been forgiven in baptism: (1) To remind us of the misery that always follows sin; and (2) To afford us an opportunity of increasing our merit by bearing these hardships patiently.

 

[grannymh]

What are you referring to? No quotes are from Baltimore Catechism in my post but from The Catechism (2nd ed.) and the Moderrn Catholic Dictionary.

From Blue Horizon, post 31. The issue I put in bold is that a baby in the womb is in the State of Mortal Sin.

"Unbaptised babies clearly are without sanctifying grace as one of the many effects of Original Sin. Therefore they are in a state of mortal sin - which is therefore also one of the effects of Original Sin.

Not only will you find no recent Magisterial statement that denies this - respected Catechisms of the past explicitly teach this. I still remember this teaching from 50 years ago."

I would compare some of the posts which follow post 31 with the modern issue of the local Dutch Catechism. Basically, a misunderstanding of Original Sin, which appears in an early edition of the local Baltimore Catechism, is being promoted. There are some interesting posts if one is curious.

Because some, not all, current Catholics are not familiar with Original Sin, occasionally I will remind them that a baby in the womb is not in the State of Mortal Sin. The baby is **deprived **of Original Holiness and Justice. (CCC 404-405)

Note that the subsequent revised edition of the local Baltimore Catechism does not teach that a baby is in the State of Mortal Sin. Info about the Baltimore Catechism, Revised Edition (1941) is in post 48.

Even when hope for a baby who dies is presented, the erroneous hint that this child is in the State of Mortal Sin only adds pain to the grieving family.

 

[simpleas]

Nothing I stated below denies your quote.
How could it, respected Catechisms and theologians taught exactly what I stated. It has never been denied.

A state of mortal sin entered by a mortal act (commission) is very concerning.
Whe entered by “contaction” rather than commission then not so much. See post #29.

Did you think I was trying to accuse you of denying something?

I posted the piece from the commission to help others make their mind up on what the church actually says nowadays about the fate of the un baptised baby.

I know of no priest or lay person who would ever hint that an unbaptised child could be in hell due to original sin. That is medieval thought.

This is an important part of the statement :

The infant who dies with Baptism is saved by the grace of Christ and through the intercession of the Church, even without his or her cooperation. It can be asked whether the infant who dies without Baptism, but for whom the Church in its prayer expresses the desire for salvation, can be deprived of the vision of God even without his or her cooperation.

 

[grannymh]

By all means explain Baltimore’s misunderstanding of unbaptized infants being in a “state of mortal sin” if you are capable…

The misunderstanding about baby in the State of Mortal Sin was deliberately omitted from section 5. “The Creation and the Fall of Man”, in this 1941 revised edition of the early Baltimore Catechism.
catholicity.com/baltimore-catechism/

Readers need to understand that omission of the baby State of Mortal Sin in the Revised Edition of the *Baltimore Catechism, *section 5. “The Creation and the Fall of Man.”
catholicity.com/baltimore-catechism/lesson05.html
is the proper correction to a previous misunderstanding of Original Sin effects on human nature. Please note carefully that the State of Mortal Sin is not present in the revised edition of the local Baltimore Catechism. Please note that “deprived” is the operative word.

This is a free speech public message board and everyone has a right to quote any old thing they wish.

May I remind readers that when any old outdated local Baltimore Catechism is quoted, one has the responsibility to check the new revised version of the local Baltimore Catechism or to check the universal Catechism of the Catholic Church which is primary.

---

---

---

---

---

1941 Revised Edition of the local Baltimore Catechism, question 57
What has happened to us on account of the sin of Adam?

On account of the sin of Adam, we, his descendants, come into the world deprived of sanctifying grace and inherit his punishment, as we would have inherited his gifts had he been obedient to God.

 

[fhansen]

The misunderstanding about baby in the State of Mortal Sin was deliberately omitted from section 5. “The Creation and the Fall of Man”, in this 1941 revised edition of the early Baltimore Catechism.
catholicity.com/baltimore-catechism/

Readers need to understand that omission of the baby State of Mortal Sin in the Revised Edition of the *Baltimore Catechism, *section 5. “The Creation and the Fall of Man.”
catholicity.com/baltimore-catechism/lesson05.html
is the proper correction to a previous misunderstanding of Original Sin effects on human nature. Please note carefully that the State of Mortal Sin is not present in the revised edition of the local Baltimore Catechism. Please note that “deprived” is the operative word.

This is a free speech public message board and everyone has a right to quote any old thing they wish.

May I remind readers that when any old outdated local Baltimore Catechism is quoted, one has the responsibility to check the new revised version of the local Baltimore Catechism or to check the universal Catechism of the Catholic Church which is primary.

---

---

---

---

---

1941 Revised Edition of the local Baltimore Catechism, question 57
What has happened to us on account of the sin of Adam?

On account of the sin of Adam, we, his descendants, come into the world deprived of sanctifying grace and inherit his punishment, as we would have inherited his gifts had he been obedient to God.

So, granny, you would deny that Baptism is necessary in order to make an infant a child of God, and to thereby gain eternal life, against church teachings?

 

[grannymh]

So, granny, you would deny that Baptism is necessary in order to make an infant a child of God, and to thereby gain eternal life, against church teachings?

???

If you read the quote in post 148 carefully, thank you – – it does not refer to the Sacrament of Baptism.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

The misunderstanding about baby in the State of Mortal Sin was deliberately omitted from section 5. “The Creation and the Fall of Man”, in this 1941 revised edition of the early Baltimore Catechism.
catholicity.com/baltimore-catechism/

Readers need to understand that omission of the baby State of Mortal Sin in the Revised Edition of the Baltimore Catechism
catholicity.com/baltimore-catechism/lesson05.html
is the correction to a previous misunderstanding of Original Sin effects on human nature.

This is a free speech public message board and everyone has a right to quote any old thing they wish.

May I remind readers that when any old outdated local Baltimore Catechism is quoted, one has the responsibility to check the new revised version of the local Baltimore Catechism or to check the universal Catechism of the Catholic Church which is primary.

You are certainly welcome to opine that pigs can fly too. That doesn’t mean your opinions are credible, especially when you assert equally silly rationales such as an omission by a later condensed version Catechism MUST mean correction of a prior error . That is just wishful thinking on your part.

Is it erroneous to belive in the limbo of babies also? I do not believe so, while it is not currently taught explicitly in the Catechism it is still acceptable to hold that teaching, it has been omitted but never denied as possible.

The Church has clearly taught that unbaptised babies are in a state of mortal sin and this teaching is much stronger than that of limbo.

If you opine, contrary to the Church, this teaching is actually in error the burden is on you to make a clear case. What you actually need to do is provide a brief and clear theological reason why it cannot be true for you will not find anything so explicit ever asserted by the Magisterium.

The real issue is not that the Church was in error on this point…rather you yourself do not seem to quite understand what it actually means. Possibly because your own understanding of sin is where the mistakeness actually lies. A possibility you seem unwilling to acknowledge.

 

[fhansen]

???

What do you think the reason for Baptism* is*? Why is it necessary? What happens without it? What happens if we’re not adopted as God’s children? Do any of us really need Baptism according to your opinion? Should we take it less seriously now?

 

[grannymh]

You are certainly welcome to opine that pigs can fly too. That doesn’t mean your opinions are credible, especially when you assert equally silly rationales such as an omission by a later condensed version Catechism MUST mean correction of a prior error . That is just wishful thinking on your part.

Is it erroneous to belive in the limbo of babies also? I do not believe so, while it is not currently taught explicitly in the Catechism it is still acceptable to hold that teaching, it has been omitted but never denied as possible.

The Church has clearly taught that unbaptised babies are in a state of mortal sin and this teaching is much stronger than that of limbo.

If you opine, contrary to the Church, this teaching is actually in error the burden is on you to make a clear case. What you actually need to do is provide a brief and clear theological reason why it cannot be true for you will not find anything so explicit ever asserted by the Magisterium.

The real issue is not that the Church was in error on this point…rather you yourself do not seem to quite understand what it actually means. Possibly because your own understanding of sin is where the mistakeness actually lies. A possibility you seem unwilling to acknowledge.

Really loved the comment about when pigs fly.

Can’t remember where, but there was a clip of a kid putting something around a pig so that his sling thing could propel the pig into the air. Thank you for giving me the chance to laugh.

If you have time, you can go back to my posts. If you carefully read them, you will discover I have presented an important Catholic teaching.

My apology. I can’t get the picture out of my head of the kid using a sling shot thing to help the pig fly… That pig was really having one great time!

                  ......:rotfl:

 

[grannymh]

What do you think the reason for Baptism* is*? Why is it necessary? What happens without it? What happens if we’re not adopted as God’s children? Do any of us really need Baptism according to your opinion? Should we take it less seriously now?

Perhaps you misunderstood me. Plainly, I am not interested in discussing the Sacrament of Baptism on this thread.

Now, if you have a question about the word “deprived” I can refer you to CCC 404-405.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Really loved the comment about when pigs fly.

Can’t remember where, but there was a clip of a kid putting something around a pig so that his sling thing could propel the pig into the air. Thank you for giving me the chance to laugh.

If you have time, you can go back to my posts. If you carefully read them, you will discover I have presented an important Catholic teaching.

My apology. I can’t get the picture out of my head of the kid using a sling shot thing to help the pig fly… That pig was really having one great time!

Not sure what’s so hysterical about pigs.
But what is sure is that you are unable to actually present a clear or credible theological response to my challenge of your less than credible assertions.
Your disingenuous passive aggressive approach and excessive use of emoticons doesn’t make your case any stronger I am afraid .

 

[simpleas]

When we are conceived we are given a soul from God, we are deprived of the original holiness and justice Adam and Eve had due to their sin, that does not mean we are in a state of mortal sin, because as the church teaches one needs three things in order to be in a state of mortal sin :

An act of grave matter that is…
Committed with full knowledge and…
Deliberate consent.

As I said before, a child can not meet those requirements.

Being depraved of something is not the same as acting upon something.

So it’s God’s call, and I’ll trust the God I know over any human.

 

[grannymh]

When we are conceived we are given a soul from God, we are deprived of the original holiness and justice Adam and Eve had due to their sin, that does not mean we are in a state of mortal sin, because as the church teaches one needs three things in order to be in a state of mortal sin :

An act of grave matter that is…
Committed with full knowledge and…
Deliberate consent.

As I said before, a child can not meet those requirements.

Being depraved of something is not the same as acting upon something.

So it’s God’s call, and I’ll trust the God I know over any human.

It is music to my ears …to read actual Catholic teaching. Thank you for being faithful to the beautiful Catholic truth regarding our precious children.