How does Original Sin work?

[grannymh]

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.

My apology. This comment “No we are not totally corrupted by Original sin, affected by it, yet the point remains that we did not choose this.” makes me wonder – do we choose our parents?

Seriously. Do we choose our parents? Do we actually choose human parents over the critters in the beginning of the first three sacred chapters of Genesis?

Was there a real opportunity for us not to choose the contracted state Original Sin which is the deprivation of Adam’s Original Holiness and Justice?

The positive approach is that we humans are eligible for joy eternal in the heavenly presence of our Divine Creator, following our own bodily death.

**CCC 356 **Of all visible creatures only man is “able to know and love his creator”. He is “the only creature on earth that God has willed for its own sake”, and he alone is called to share, by knowledge and love, in God’s own life. It was for this end that he was created, and this is the fundamental reason for his dignity:

What made you establish man in so great a dignity? Certainly the incalculable love by which you have looked on your creature in yourself! You are taken with love for her; for by love indeed you created her, by love you have given her a being capable of tasting your eternal Good.
(St. Catherine of Siena, footnote 221)
​

 

[simpleas]

Originally Posted by grannymh

Was there a real opportunity for us not to choose the contracted state Original Sin which is the deprivation of Adam’s Original Holiness and Justice?

No, and that is my point.

 

[grannymh]

Originally Posted by grannymh

Was there a real opportunity for us not to choose the contracted state Original Sin which is the deprivation of Adam’s Original Holiness and Justice?

No, and that is my point.

The is a free speech public message board. You may present as many points as you wish.

My personal free speech point is that it is better to look at the benefits of being human, Genesis 1: 27, than to worry about not having the choice to deny what comes with human nature, that is, human nature begins life in the womb in the state of deprivation of Adam’s original holiness and justice according to basic Catholicism. This particular state is also known as the contracted state of “Original Sin.” The State of Original Sin is not the same as a person, with the use of reason, who is in the State of Mortal Sin.

The first human on earth, Adam had the intellective free choice to remain in his original friendship relationship with his Creator God or to break this relationship via his disobedience. His choice wounded his human nature.

**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”.

Genesis 3: 15
CCC 410
After his fall, man was not abandoned by God. On the contrary, God calls him and in a mysterious way heralds the coming victory over evil and his restoration from his fall. This passage in Genesis is called the *Protoevangelium *(“first gospel”): the first announcement of the Messiah and Redeemer, of a battle between the serpent and the Woman, and of the final victory of a descendant of hers.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

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.

I do not understand this post sorry.

But what is clear is that contrary to your view below Baltimore3 explicitly teaches that unbaptized babies are in a state of mortal sin.

There is nothing difficult to explain or understand here if one accepts that this simply means such souls are as if like a dead or paralysed body, unable of themselves to attain merit or heavenly reward. It is but another way of saying they are without sanctifying grace.

But such babies have far better prospects than those adults who died with personal acts of mortal sin. The latter committed mortal sin which is morally blame worthy while the former only contracted this state which is not.

As you appear unwilling to research this for yourself in the full Baltimore version mentioned and come back to us here is the article I paraphrased below from memory.

The Baltimore Catechism (full students version):
“141: We say a soul is dead while in a state of mortal sin because in that state it is as helpless as a dead body and can merit nothing for itself.”

“258: The loss of the gift of original justice left our parents and us in mortal sin because it deprived them of the Grace of God…as all their children are deprived of the same gift they too come into the world in a state of mortal sin.”

As previously indicated you continue to quote from the seriously edited, young children’s abridged version of Baltimore. My quote is from the full version.

 

[1Lord1Faith]

…
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.

IMO, the doctrine of original sin is sorely in need of a Magisterial treatment that does not leave people who want to understand it scratching their heads. I also understand that some things need to be taken on faith because they cannot be rationally explained, for example: the resurrection, transubstantiation, the transfiguration, and more. However, I do not believe that original sin needs to fall into that category.

First of all, Humani Generis does not shut the door on polygenism. It states that Catholics do not now have the luxury of holding such beliefs. This is similar to the Church not adopting Galileo’s work on the solar system until it could be proven beyond a doubt.

I look at it this way, God will not create a being for the purpose of evil. God will, however, give a being free will to chose God or not. Angels were given this choice, as were humans. According to Genesis, humans chose themselves over God so quickly after their creation that Adam didn’t even have time to consummate his relationship with Eve. No but seriously, people are designed to be able to chose between good and evil…that is our nature, without it, we would not be human. Adam and Eve always had it in their nature to sin, but the sin was not present until it happened for the first time.

More food for thought (I’m the cook ) : It helps me to think of the human race as being one single being. Starting from the moment of ensoulment of the human race until the end of time. In this sense, we can all be one body, as the Church states she is. But all of humanity also shares in the form of a “body”; albeit, not the same as the body of the Church. But the body of humanity shares these things in common: synderesis, concupesince, original sin, and free will; all these things are part of our nature and passed on in a chain of human life.

Alas, explaining how Baptism works, in a logical way, is not much easier than defining how original sin works, in a logical way…so, it stands to reason that my articulation of original sin will be indistinguishable from error.

 

[grannymh]

I do not understand this post sorry.

But what is clear is that contrary to your view below Baltimore3 explicitly teaches that unbaptized babies are in a state of mortal sin.

There is nothing difficult to explain or understand here if one accepts that this simply means such souls are as if like a dead or paralysed body, unable of themselves to attain merit or heavenly reward. It is but another way of saying they are without sanctifying grace.

But such babies have far better prospects than those adults who died with personal acts of mortal sin. The latter committed mortal sin which is morally blame worthy while the former only contracted this state which is not.

As you appear unwilling to research this for yourself in the full Baltimore version mentioned and come back to us here is the article I paraphrased below from memory.

As previously indicated you continue to quote from the seriously edited, young children’s abridged version of Baltimore. My quote is from the full version.

Please. What is the link to the The Baltimore Catechism (full students version) and to the “full Version” from which you quoted.

Apparently, there have been a number of Baltimore Catechisms according to Google. Thus, it is important to determine the authorization of your full students version. If you are referring to Full Versions the date would be needed in addition to authorization.

Or we can simply cut to the chase.

The Baltimore Catechism is a local Catechism. The current* Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition*, is an universal Catechism which replaced all local Catechisms. On page xv, it says that this universal Catechism
will serve as a “valid and legitimate instrument for ecclesial communion” and as a “sure norm for teaching the faith,” as well as a “sure and authentic reference text” for preparing local catechisms (cf. Apostolic Constitution Fidei Depositum, no. 4).

The above means that if there is a conflict between a local catechism (Baltimore Catechism) and the current *Catechism of the Catholic Church, *It is the current universal Catechism which is to be used.

Therefore, one has to put the links (wish I would like to know) that you are using in relationship to what the current universal Catechism teaches.

It is actually up to you to demonstrate what the current universal Catechism teaches about babies being in the State of Mortal Sin.

If you cannot do this, then I am correct that babies are not in the State of Mortal Sin.

 

[grannymh]

IMO, the doctrine of original sin is sorely in need of a Magisterial treatment that does not leave people who want to understand it scratching their heads. I also understand that some things need to be taken on faith because they cannot be rationally explained, for example: the resurrection, transubstantiation, the transfiguration, and more. However, I do not believe that original sin needs to fall into that category.

First of all, Humani Generis does not shut the door on polygenism. It states that Catholics do not now have the luxury of holding such beliefs. This is similar to the Church not adopting Galileo’s work on the solar system until it could be proven beyond a doubt.

My apology for stopping here. It is because many Catholics on CAf make the same mistake about the word polygenism in Humani Generis.

To understand why Pope Pius XII was shutting the door on polygeneism, one has to understand the basic principle of the Science of Human Evolution. Its Evolution Model is firm that a new species evolves as a large population. Regarding humankind, it is firm that this new species developed in an indiscriminate, random breeding, humanizing population in the thousands which basically evolved in similar previous “Homo” populations. Therefore, polygenism which naturally needs a large polygenesis population is opposed to the Catholic teaching that humankind descended from a population of two.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Please. What is the link to the The Baltimore Catechism (full students version) and to the “full Version” from which you quoted.

Apparently, there have been a number of Baltimore Catechisms according to Google. Thus, it is important to determine the authorization of your full students version. If you are referring to Full Versions the date would be needed in addition to authorization.

Or we can simply cut to the chase.

The Baltimore Catechism is a local Catechism. The current* Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition*, is an universal Catechism which replaced all local Catechisms. On page xv, it says that this universal Catechism
will serve as a “valid and legitimate instrument for ecclesial communion” and as a “sure norm for teaching the faith,” as well as a “sure and authentic reference text” for preparing local catechisms (cf. Apostolic Constitution Fidei Depositum, no. 4).

The above means that if there is a conflict between a local catechism (Baltimore Catechism) and the current *Catechism of the Catholic Church, *It is the current universal Catechism which is to be used.

Therefore, one has to put the links (wish I would like to know) that you are using in relationship to what the current universal Catechism teaches.

It is actually up to you to demonstrate what the current universal Catechism teaches about babies being in the State of Mortal Sin.

If you cannot do this, then I am correct that babies are not in the State of Mortal Sin.

Such hubris.
You attempted to use the Baltimore against me below…but you used the abridged version.
When shown the Baltimore actually goes against you then you decry the authority of the Baltimore .

Now you vainly try to say that there is a conflict between two very well respected Catechisms .

Give it up Granny, pride seems to have got the better of humble truth seeking here.
You have made a clear mistake in gainsaying my completely acceptable theological statements below, you do not know everything about Church teaching just yet sorry.

If you had any saving grace in this matter you would apologise, though I won’t be naiive enough to wait up for it .

God’s peace, this issue is clearly sorted.

 

[simpleas]

Originally Posted by grannymh

Was there a real opportunity for us not to choose the contracted state Original Sin which is the deprivation of Adam’s Original Holiness and Justice?

The is a free speech public message board. You may present as many points as you wish.

My personal free speech point is that it is better to look at the benefits of being human, Genesis 1: 27, than to worry about not having the choice to deny what comes with human nature, that is, human nature begins life in the womb in the state of deprivation of Adam’s original holiness and justice according to basic Catholicism. This particular state is also known as the contracted state of “Original Sin.” The State of Original Sin is not the same as a person, with the use of reason, who is in the State of Mortal Sin.

The first human on earth, Adam had the intellective free choice to remain in his original friendship relationship with his Creator God or to break this relationship via his disobedience. His choice wounded his human nature.

**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”.

Genesis 3: 15
CCC 410
After his fall, man was not abandoned by God. On the contrary, God calls him and in a mysterious way heralds the coming victory over evil and his restoration from his fall. This passage in Genesis is called the *Protoevangelium *(“first gospel”): the first announcement of the Messiah and Redeemer, of a battle between the serpent and the Woman, and of the final victory of a descendant of hers.

It’s not about denying what comes with human nature, A&E by all accounts had the same human nature as we do, since they chose with their human freewill.
It’s about two humans acting with their freewill to make a choice which would affect billions of humans.
Original holiness and justice should have been a given for all humans, then each could choose to ‘eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil’ and suffer or delight in their choice.

 

[grannymh]

I look at it this way, God will not create a being for the purpose of evil. God will, however, give a being free will to chose God or not. Angels were given this choice, as were humans. According to Genesis, humans chose themselves over God so quickly after their creation that Adam didn’t even have time to consummate his relationship with Eve. No but seriously, people are designed to be able to chose between good and evil…that is our nature, without it, we would not be human. Adam and Eve always had it in their nature to sin, but the sin was not present until it happened for the first time.

More food for thought (I’m the cook ) : It helps me to think of the human race as being one single being. Starting from the moment of ensoulment of the human race until the end of time. In this sense, we can all be one body, as the Church states she is. But all of humanity also shares in the form of a “body”; albeit, not the same as the body of the Church. But the body of humanity shares these things in common: synderesis, concupesince, original sin, and free will; all these things are part of our nature and passed on in a chain of human life.

Alas, explaining how Baptism works, in a logical way, is not much easier than defining how original sin works, in a logical way…so, it stands to reason that my articulation of original sin will be indistinguishable from error.

 

[grannymh]

The Baltimore Catechism, Revised Edition (1941)

Revised Edition means that a previous edition, such as Baltimore Catechism #3 (1891 version) should not be used. This means that “258” in post 41 should not be taught because the State of Mortal Sin does not appear in the revised “57” and “60” below.

Therefore, the proposal that babies in the womb “come into the world in a state of moral sin” is not a Catholic teaching according to the Baltimore Catechism, Revised Edition (1941)

From the Baltimore Catechism, Revised Edition (1941)

catholicity.com/baltimore-catechism/

catholicity.com/baltimore-catechism/lesson05.html

56. What happened to Adam and Eve on account of their sin?

On account of their sin Adam and Eve lost sanctifying grace, the right to heaven, and their special gifts; they became subject to death, to suffering, and to a strong inclination to evil, and they were driven from the Garden of Paradise.
In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread till thou return to the earth, out of which thou wast taken; for dust thou art, and into dust thou shalt return. (Genesis 3:19)

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.
But, by the envy of the devil, death came into the world. (Wisdom 2:24)

58. What is this sin in us called?

This sin in us is called original.

59. Why is this sin called original?

This sin is called original because it comes down to us through our origin, or descent, from Adam.

Therefore as through one man sin entered into the world and through sin death, and thus death has passed unto all men because all have sinned. (Romans 5:12)

60. What are the chief punishments of Adam which we inherit through original sin?

The chief punishments of Adam which we inherit through original sin are: death, suffering, ignorance, and a strong inclination to sin.

61. Is God unjust in punishing us on account of the sin of Adam?

God is not unjust in punishing us on account of the sin of Adam, because original sin does not take away from us anything to which we have a strict right as human beings, but only the free gifts which God in His goodness would have bestowed on us if Adam had not sinned.

62. Was any human person ever preserved from original sin?

---

The Blessed Virgin Mary was preserved from original sin in view of the merits of her Divine Son, and this privilege is called her Immaculate Conception.
I will put enmities between you and the woman, between your seed and her seed; he shall crush your head, and you shall lie in wait his heel. (Genesis 3:15)

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.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

The Baltimore Catechism, Revised Edition (1941)

Revised Edition means that a previous edition, such as Baltimore Catechism #3 (1891 version) should not be used.

A strange mix of hubris and high functioning autism might see reasonable logic in this assertion granny; but most balanced people of reasonable intelligence intuitively grasp that a revised text does not mean that everything that was left out was in error .

“A state of mortal sin” is simply an old fashioned way of saying the absence of sanctifying grace.

Unbaptized babies do not have sanctifying grace so they are in a state of mortal sin. QED.
It isn’t rocket science.

You were quite mistaken to say I was wrong in stating the Church has validly taught this .
Let it go for pity’s sake and move on.

 

[fhansen]

The truth is that, for two thousand years, the Church has struggled with a fair degree of uncertainty regarding the fate of those who die as unbaptized infants. But the reason for baptizing early to begin with was because it was believed that one *must *be born of water and spirit in order to enter heaven; it was feared that the baby could die before baptism made that possible. Man is born lost, dead, out of communion with God, and Jesus came to find the lost, give new life, reestablish communion with the Father; we all need the Savior.

But in my understanding the Church, having grown even deeper over the centuries in her understanding of the light of the gospel and the mercy and love of God, finds it to be possibly inconsistent with that light and mercy and love that infants, for whom it would be impossible to commit a personal sin, should necessarily be eternally denied the happiness which results from achieving the very purpose of their existence, the Beatific Vision, the immediate presence of God. So the teaching on Limbo is now in question, and no longer explicitly taught.

There’s also been debate, both in Catholicism and later in Protestantism, about “how bad” man really is as a result of the Fall. Some taught that concupiscence virtually defines Original Sin, that man became innately corrupted towards evil behavior, he became a sin machine, so to speak, with a “sin nature”, whereas the Catholic Church came to understand that man is simply weakened and wounded by virtue of his loss of sanctifying grace, resulting from no longer having union with God. Man died as he spurned God’s life in him. In this sense concupiscence is seen as a result of being in the state of OS, not as the essence of it. Man is still perfect in his human nature, but no longer in intimate union with He whose grace we need in order to be elevated above the natural, in order to have reason for and capability of retaining moral integrity and self-mastery. Our free wills are easily rampantly abused once that higher, divine, level of life is no longer in our sights, let alone valued or appreciated, let alone realized in us. Anyway, this difference of perspective on man’s fallen nature can impact how we think God might view and deal with a person (an infant) who’s died without committing any personal sins.

 

[simpleas]

A strange mix of hubris and high functioning autism might see reasonable logic in this assertion granny; but most balanced people of reasonable intelligence intuitively grasp that a revised text does not mean that everything that was left out was in error .

“A state of mortal sin” is simply an old fashioned way of saying the absence of sanctifying grace.

Unbaptized babies do not have sanctifying grace so they are in a state of mortal sin. QED.
It isn’t rocket science.

You were quite mistaken to say I was wrong in stating the Church has validly taught this .
Let it go for pity’s sake and move on.

May I say, just because you are confident in your learning’s regarding Original sin, not everyone who reads these threads are.

 

[simpleas]

From Post 48

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

To make a sin mortal these three things are needed:

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.

None of the 3 things above can a unborn person do, so how are they without Sanctifying Grace, how can they be in mortal sin?

 

[grannymh]

A strange mix of hubris and high functioning autism might see reasonable logic in this assertion granny; but most balanced people of reasonable intelligence intuitively grasp that a revised text does not mean that everything that was left out was in error .

“A state of mortal sin” is simply an old fashioned way of saying the absence of sanctifying grace.

Unbaptized babies do not have sanctifying grace so they are in a state of mortal sin. QED.
It isn’t rocket science.

You were quite mistaken to say I was wrong in stating the Church has validly taught this .
Let it go for pity’s sake and move on.

From post 49.

“A state of mortal sin” is simply an old fashioned way of saying the absence of sanctifying grace.
That may be true in someone’s old fashioned neighborhood. However, we are on Catholic Answers Forums, not in some old fashioned back yard talking over the fence.

Therefore, it is important to present precise Catholic teaching found in the words of the universal Catechism of the Catholic Church. CCC 404-405 do not teach that an unbaptized baby, way below the use of reason, is in the State of Mortal Sin.

Would someone really tell a Mother who lost her child in the womb that this precious baby is in the State of Mortal Sin and will be …

These Questions from the Baltimore Catechism 3. should help you understand the mix-up.

Q. 277. Is original sin the only kind of sin?
A. Original sin is not the only kind of sin; there is another kind of sin, which we commit ourselves, called actual sin.
Q. 278. What is actual sin?
A. Actual sin is any willful thought, word, deed, or omission contrary to the law of God.
Q. 279. How many kinds of actual sin are there?
A. There are two kinds of actual sin – mortal and venial.

It appears to me that you see only the actual sin known as Mortal Sin.
The State of Mortal Sin does not have Sanctifying Grace;
therefore, anyone who does not have Sanctifying Grace
is in the State of Mortal Sin.
What you fail to see is that there is another kind of sin.* Baltimore Catechism* 3 says plainly that “Original sin is not the only kind of sin.” Q. 277
The other kind of sin is actual sin… Q. 278-279

With two completely different kinds of serious sins, one cannot assume that lack of Sanctifying Grace always leads to the State of Mortal Sin. According to results of Original Sin, human nature is deprived of Adam’s Original Holiness aka Sanctifying Grace. “deprived” is not the same as an intellective free choice to commit “a grave infraction of the law of God” (CCC Glossary, Mortal Sin, page 889)

The current universal Catechism of the Catholic Church has as one of its missions to clean up the language of some of the local Catechisms, such as the local *Baltimore Catechism 3 *and the local Dutch Catechism.

From post 1
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?

I am interested in addressing a few of the thoughts expressed above in post 1.

Nonetheless, I will remain firm in repeating that a baby in the womb or a small child, far below the use of reason, is not in the State of Mortal Sin.

 

[fhansen]

It appears to me that you see only the actual sin known as Mortal Sin.
The State of Mortal Sin does not have Sanctifying Grace;
therefore, anyone who does not have Sanctifying Grace
is in the State of Mortal Sin.
What you fail to see is that there is another kind of sin.* Baltimore Catechism* 3 says plainly that “Original sin is not the only kind of sin.” Q. 277
The other kind of sin is actual sin… Q. 278-279

With two completely different kinds of serious sins, one cannot assume that lack of Sanctifying Grace always leads to the State of Mortal Sin. According to results of Original Sin, human nature is deprived of Adam’s Original Holiness aka Sanctifying Grace. “deprived” is not the same as an intellective free choice to commit “a grave infraction of the law of God” (CCC Glossary, Mortal Sin, page 889)

But the Baltimore Catechism already teaches that Original Sin is mortal sin-as does the new Catechism:

403 Following St. Paul, the Church has always taught that the overwhelming misery which oppresses men and their inclination towards evil and death cannot be understood apart from their connection with Adam’s sin and the fact that he has transmitted to us a sin with which we are all born afflicted, a sin which is the “death of the soul”.291 Because of this certainty of faith, the Church baptizes for the remission of sins even tiny infants who have not committed personal sin.292

 

[grannymh]

But the Baltimore Catechism already teaches that Original Sin is mortal sin-as does the new Catechism:

403 Following St. Paul, the Church has always taught that the overwhelming misery which oppresses men and their inclination towards evil and death cannot be understood apart from their connection with Adam’s sin and the fact that he has transmitted to us a sin with which we are all born afflicted, a sin which is the “death of the soul”.291 Because of this certainty of faith, the Church baptizes for the remission of sins even tiny infants who have not committed personal sin.292

This is a great paragraph. I love the idea that even tiny infants should be baptized because then they have the Holy Spirit within them. These tiny girls and boys are sharing in God’s life.
Their deprivation of Adam’s Original Holiness aka Sanctifying Grace is ended. “Baptism, by imparting the life of Christ’s grace, erases original sin …” CCC 405.

Deprivation is like the “death of a soul” when compared with the amazing truth of the State of Sanctifying Grace. When I think about the “death of a soul”, I picture myself standing in the cold rain because the gate to the warm house is locked.

 

[grannymh]

From post 1

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?

What we need to remember is that in addition to our spiritual immortal soul, we have a material decomposing anatomy. Thus, we really need to approach the dang Original Sin as affecting our complete human nature. While it is common to talk about the state of Adam’s children’s souls or our own parent’s souls, we need to be realistic when we are trying to figure out how Original Sin works. We have to first understand the marvelous unification of material and spiritual worlds. (CCC 355-356)

Baptism is a personal sacrament. In a sense, it changes a person’s human nature which starts out in a state of deprivation into the human nature of the State of Sanctifying Grace. (CCC 405)

Obviously, human parents pass on their human nature to their children. This does not mean that they can give away whatever state that their soul is in. This is because at conception, God immediately creates the spiritual soul with its own state. It is because of the spiritual soul, that the body made of matter becomes a real living human person. (CCC 365) Two states and one soul would be complicated.

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

vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_INDEX.HTM

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

scborromeo.org/ccc.htm

 

[fhansen]

This is a great paragraph. I love the idea that even tiny infants should be baptized because then they have the Holy Spirit within them. These tiny girls and boys are sharing in God’s life.
Their deprivation of Adam’s Original Holiness aka Sanctifying Grace is ended. “Baptism, by imparting the life of Christ’s grace, erases original sin …” CCC 405.

Deprivation is like the “death of a soul” when compared with the amazing truth of the State of Sanctifying Grace. When I think about the “death of a soul”, I picture myself standing in the cold rain because the gate to the warm house is locked.

Ok, granny. But the question involves what would happen to the infants if they’re *not *baptized.