How does Original Sin work?

[Daniel_Lysinger]

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

Certainly. But, why is it that after one sin, all the offspring of the sinner inherited the desire to sin more, and yet even after many good deeds the offspring of a virtuous person may or may not have the desire to be virtuous? It seems as though only the harmful things are being passed down, and the good ones die with the good people.

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.

When I first served and listened to the Exultet, I thought it was a mistake when I heard the priest chant “O Felix Culpa.” How can a sin that has perversely affected billions of people possibly be in the least bit good? Not saying that having a savior is not awesome or anything, but really?

However, this is not even my main problem with original sin. I can see that nature being passed down is natural and perfectly reasonable (although it isn’t the best in some cases). The problem is when guilt of sin is passed down. You do realize that from a purely theological point of view, if a baby dies without baptism they are going to hell? How can it be possible for someone who is truly innocent to merit eternal damnation, you ask? Well, they are implicated in the fault of their parent by an all just God who just happens to require a certain cleansing ceremony to wipe clear a sin that has been “redeemed” by a savior. Doesn’t that sound just a little bit strange?

We know that free will exists

Actually, modern philosophers and psychologists have pretty much agreed that there is not enough information to prove that we have it or that we don’t. If it turns out that we do not, it would be a major breakthrough in psychology, although it would be slightly problematic in terms of Church doctrine. It is definitely not a foregone conclusion though.

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

Why is it that even after the Son of God has died for the sins of humanity that there is still sin on the souls of innocent children? You would think that if someone paid the price for sin, that the sin would no longer have to be paid for in eternity, but despite this there is still universal guilt for something that no one today could possibly have committed. The annoying thing is that the catechism flat out admits that the transmission of this “sin” is a mystery – I don’t like mysteries that make me guilty of stuff I didn’t commit.

I know there are explanations both from St. Thomas and St. Augustine, but they are logical only if you presuppose that the leader can make an entire race guilty of something. Even Americans, acknowledging the immense evil of Hitler (leader of the German people), would not say that all Germans should pay the price for the atrocities of their leader in bygone times. It is an affront to justice to propose such a thing.

 

[grannymh]

In the real Catholic Church
** CCC1260** “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.”
**All **means all humans. Babies in the womb are human.

**1261 **As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus’ tenderness toward children which caused him to say: “Let the children come to me, do not hinder them,” allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism. All the more urgent is the Church’s call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy Baptism.

In the real world
There cannot be two equal primary all powerful supreme gods. When a human is given the gift of sharing in Divine Life, that means that he has to choose to live in submission to the Divine Creator.

**CCC 396 **God created man in his image and established him in his friendship. A spiritual creature, man can live this friendship only in free submission to God. The prohibition against eating “of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil” spells this out: “for in the day that you eat of it, you shall die.” The “tree of the knowledge of good and evil” symbolically evokes the insurmountable limits that man, being a creature, must freely recognize and respect with trust. Man is dependent on his Creator, and subject to the laws of creation and to the moral norms that govern the use of freedom.

One needs to believe that God has the power to love to the point that God lets humans use their rational spiritual soul, Genesis 1: 27, Genesis 2: 15-17, Genesis 3: 11.

 

[simpleas]

In the real Catholic Church
** CCC1260** “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.”
**All **means all humans. Babies in the womb are human.

**1261 **As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus’ tenderness toward children which caused him to say: “Let the children come to me, do not hinder them,” allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism. All the more urgent is the Church’s call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy Baptism.

In the real world
There cannot be two equal primary all powerful supreme gods. When a human is given the gift of sharing in Divine Life, that means that he has to choose to live in submission to the Divine Creator.

**CCC 396 **God created man in his image and established him in his friendship. A spiritual creature, man can live this friendship only in free submission to God. The prohibition against eating “of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil” spells this out: “for in the day that you eat of it, you shall die.” The “tree of the knowledge of good and evil” symbolically evokes the insurmountable limits that man, being a creature, must freely recognize and respect with trust. Man is dependent on his Creator, and subject to the laws of creation and to the moral norms that govern the use of freedom.

One needs to believe that God has the power to love to the point that God lets humans use their rational spiritual soul, Genesis 1: 27, Genesis 2: 15-17, Genesis 3: 11.

One needs to believe that God has the power to love to the point that God lets humans use their rational spiritual soul, Genesis 1: 27, Genesis 2: 15-17, Genesis 3: 11.

I agree here with God letting humans use their rational spiritual soul, the love God has is beyond human love. Original sin doesn’t allow humans to use their own rational soul, the choice is made for them by another human, not God.

 

[grannymh]

I agree here with God letting humans use their rational spiritual soul, the love God has is beyond human love. Original sin doesn’t allow humans to use their own rational soul, the choice is made for them by another human, not God.

From post 22.
“Original sin doesn’t allow humans to use their own rational soul, the choice is made for them by another human, not God.”

That sounds like the “heresy” of the first Protestant reformers. I am concerned because the Catholic teaching is that we are not totally corrupted by Original Sin.

 

[grannymh]

**“O Felix Culpa.” **

In modern English
“O Felix Culpa.”
can reasonably refer to the action of Jesus. Because of Jesus …

The Gates of Heaven are open
**CCC 637 **
In his human soul united to his divine person, the dead Christ went down to the realm of the dead. He opened heaven’s gates for the just who had gone before him.

 

[Daniel_Lysinger]

**“O Felix Culpa.” **

In modern English
“O Felix Culpa.”
can reasonably refer to the action of Jesus. Because of Jesus …

The Gates of Heaven are open
**CCC 637 **
In his human soul united to his divine person, the dead Christ went down to the realm of the dead. He opened heaven’s gates for the just who had gone before him.

No, I think not. The very next verse, “quæ talem ac tantum méruit habére Redemptórem” kind of makes sure there is no confusion (translated, it is “that earned us so great a Redeemer”)

 

[Blue_Horizon]

“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.

You are correct, the effects of original sin are indeed passed down by means of a physical mechanism, sexual generation. That is why the medievals believed it is passed by the male, it caused a defect in the formative principle of the semen. If Eve could have had children without semen as the formative principle then they would be without original sin. We know of only one such case, formed not by semen but by the Holy Spirit acting on the woman’s passive material. All very well fitting explanation until modern science came along in the late 1800s and showed the medieval understanding of reproductive biology was seriously inadequate re how semen worked. We still have original sin of course but the way it is traditionally exampled to work in the passing down no longer holds very well. Nevertheless it clarifies the theology a little more on this point.

BTW the state mortal sin of unbaptized babies and that of sinful adults does not mean they have the same damned destiny. It just means neither can do anything of themselves to restore life to their souls. Clearly those with personal guilt are in a far more precarious position re God’s merciful intervention than are personally guiltless babies.

 

[grannymh]

.

BTW the state mortal sin of unbaptized babies and that of sinful adults does not mean they have the same damned destiny. It just means neither can do anything of themselves to restore life to their souls. Clearly those with personal guilt are in a far more precarious position re God’s merciful intervention than are personally guiltless babies.

BTW The Catholic Church does not teach that innocent unbaptized babies are in the state of mortal sin.

 

[Daniel_Lysinger]

BTW The Catholic Church does not teach that innocent unbaptized babies are in the state of mortal sin.

It teaches that, while they have never committed any sin, they do not have sanctifying grace on their soul (which is a consequence of grave or mortal sin. If you want to play around with semantics, go ahead – it still doesn’t explain the questions which are posed on this topic.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

BTW The Catholic Church does not teach that innocent unbaptized babies are in the state of mortal sin.

While the Church currently declines to say much about the fate of unbaptized babies these days (other than a trust in God’s mercy and the acknowledgment that the top level of “hell” is in fact an earthly paradise anyways) it certainly was mainstream up until recently to commonly teach that such babies are in a state of mortal sin.

That does not of course mean they were personally guilty of getting into that state - hence the strong hope in God’s mercy.

Unfortunately people think “state of mortal sin” damnation end of story.
This is an incorrect understanding of the “state” versus the “act”.
Babies have never “committed” an act of mortal sin to enter that state.
They entered that state by way of “contraction”.

Its the “old magic” as CS Lewis would say. So few lay Catholics understand the deep roots underpinning of their “new” Catechism these days. Old fashioned terminology, but if one understands it correctly its still perfectly accurate even today.

 

[grannymh]

It teaches that, while they have never committed any sin, they do not have sanctifying grace on their soul (which is a consequence of grave or mortal sin. If you want to play around with semantics, go ahead – it still doesn’t explain the questions which are posed on this topic.

The Catholic Church teaches that the human person at conception is in a State Deprived of Original Holiness and Justice, contracted and not committed. This is extremely different from the State of Mortal Sin which requires three conditions. 1. grave matter, 2. full knowledge of the evil of the act, and 3. full consent of the will.

**CCC 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”.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

The Catholic Church teaches that the human person at conception is in a State Deprived of Original Holiness and Justice, contracted and not committed. This is extremely different from the State of Mortal Sin which requires three conditions. 1. grave matter, 2. full knowledge of the evil of the act, and 3. full consent of the will.

**CCC 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”.

Grannymh I suggest you let this go as you are on a hiding to nothing on this point if you keep pursuing it.
As I have said twice now, you like most lay people think an “act of mortal sin” and a “state of mortal sin” are wholly interconvertible. They are not.

It is the clear understanding of Moral Theologians that a state of mortal sin (the absence of sanctifying grace) can be incurred by two completely different ways:
(a) actively by commission of an act of mortal sin
(b) passively by contraction through the personal sins of another.

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.

 

[grannymh]

Grannymh I suggest you let this go as you are on a hiding to nothing on this point if you keep pursuing it.
As I have said twice now, you like most lay people think an “act of mortal sin” and a “state of mortal sin” are wholly interconvertible. They are not.

It is the clear understanding of Moral Theologians that a state of mortal sin (the absence of sanctifying grace) can be incurred by two completely different ways:
(a) actively by commission of an act of mortal sin
(b) passively by contraction through the personal sins of another.

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.

 

[grannymh]

Grannymh I suggest you let this go as you are on a hiding to nothing on this point if you keep pursuing it.
As I have said twice now, you like most lay people think an “act of mortal sin” and a “state of mortal sin” are wholly interconvertible. They are not.

It is the clear understanding of Moral Theologians that a state of mortal sin (the absence of sanctifying grace) can be incurred by two completely different ways:
(a) actively by commission of an act of mortal sin
(b) passively by contraction through the personal sins of another.

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.

My apology. I do not recall that you used the standard designation for Adam’s state. His is known as the State of Original Holiness and Justice. Original Holiness is what we now call the State of Sanctifying Grace.

When you have some time, do read “The consequences of Adam’s sin for humanity” CCC 402 - 406. Oops. It would probably be easier if you read CCC 396-401 first.
Take your time reading.

Since Adam did not give his Mortal Sin to future babies, we need the actual description for what happened to his “state”. There is an unique description for Adam’s state after Original Sin. Adam’s human nature is now deprived of his Original Holiness and Justice. Please note the word deprived.

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

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

scborromeo.org/ccc.htm

vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_INDEX.HTM

 

[grannymh]

From the Baltimore Catechism on line. Note the word “deprived.” No mention of Mortal Sin.
catholicity.com/baltimore-catechism/lesson05.html

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.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

From the Baltimore Catechism on line. Note the word “deprived.” No mention of Mortal Sin.
catholicity.com/baltimore-catechism/lesson05.html

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.

Granny may I kindly suggest you get a digital copy of the full edition of Baltimore and search on “state of mortal sin”.

You will find that one of the handful of hits that comes up explicitly says exactly what I have now advised you the last three times .

And this I know without checking what I learnt at the age of 9.
Ye of little faith .

 

[simpleas]

From post 22.
“Original sin doesn’t allow humans to use their own rational soul, the choice is made for them by another human, not God.”

That sounds like the “heresy” of the first Protestant reformers. I am concerned because the Catholic teaching is that we are not totally corrupted by Original Sin.

No concern needed I don’t think. Most Christian faiths, except a few, believe there was a first unimpaired and rational man and woman who went against God’s plan for their own plan.
Granted they have some different views of human nature, but the basic story is the same.

All theses faiths basically point to the first man and woman making a decision for everyone born of them. Their descendants did not choose to be born without relationship with God, or to be in a spiritual struggle for all their lives.

No we are not totally corrupted by Original sin, affected by it, yet the point remains that we did not choose this.

 

[grannymh]

Granny may I kindly suggest you get a digital copy of the full edition of Baltimore and search on “state of mortal sin”.

You will find that one of the handful of hits that comes up explicitly says exactly what I have now advised you the last three times .

And this I know without checking what I learnt at the age of 9.
Ye of little faith .

From post 22.
“Original sin doesn’t allow humans to use their own rational soul, the choice is made for them by another human, not God.”

That sounds like the “heresy” of the first Protestant reformers. I am concerned because the Catholic teaching is that we are not totally corrupted by Original Sin.

 

[grannymh]

Granny may I kindly suggest you get a digital copy of the full edition of Baltimore and search on “state of mortal sin”.

You will find that one of the handful of hits that comes up explicitly says exactly what I have now advised you the last three times .

And this I know without checking what I learnt at the age of 9.
Ye of little faith .

I will post the Baltimore Catechism on mortal sin separately.

I do not want our readers, CAF members and guests, to be confused with the misunderstandings regarding innocent babies.

It is understandable that there will inquiries as to the meanings. I will be glad to connect the dots.

Teaching 63 points to one of the problems that some people have. Original Sin is not the same as actual sin.

 

[grannymh]

Actual Sin

link: catholicity.com/baltimore-catechism/lesson06.html

Lesson 6 from the Baltimore Cathechism
« prev : next »

63. Is original sin the only kind of sin?

Original sin is not the only kind of sin; there is another kind, called actual sin, which we ourselves commit.
Amen, amen, I say to you that whosoever commiteth sin is the servant of sin. (John 8:34)

64. What is actual sin?

Actual sin is any willful thought, desire, word, action, or omission forbidden by the law of God.

65. How many kinds of actual sin are there?

There are two kinds of actual sin: mortal sin and venial sin.

66. What is mortal sin?

Mortal sin is a grievous offense against the law of God.
Flee from sins as from the face of a serpent; for if thou comest near them, they will take hold of thee. (Ecclesiasticus 21:2)

67. Why is this sin called mortal?

This sin is called mortal, or deadly, because it deprives the sinner of sanctifying grace, the supernatural life of the soul.
Before man is life and death, good and evil; that which he shall choose shall be given him. (Ecclesiasticus 15:18)

68. Besides depriving the sinner of sanctifying grace, what else does mortal sin do to the soul?

Besides depriving the sinner of sanctifying grace, mortal sin makes the soul an enemy of God, takes away the merit of all its good actions, deprives it of the right to everlasting happiness in heaven, and makes it deserving of everlasting punishment in hell.
For the wages of sin is death; but the grace of God, life everlasting in Christ Jesus our Lord. (Romans 6:23)

69. What three things are necessary to make a sin mortal?

To make a sin mortal these three things are needed:

1. 
   *]the thought, desire, word, action, or omission must be seriously wrong or considered seriously wrong;
   *]the sinner, must be mindful of the serious wrong;
   *]the sinner must fully consent to it.