How does Original Sin work?

[grannymh]

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

I suggest CCC 1257, last sentence "God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments."

And CCC 1260-1261

CCC 1260 has these wonderful words – “in a way known to God, of the Paschal mystery”

L:inks to the universal Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition

vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_INDEX.HTM

usccb.org/beliefs-and-tea…tholic-church/

scborromeo.org/ccc.htm

 

[fhansen]

I suggest CCC 1257, last sentence "God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments."

And CCC 1260-1261

CCC 1260 has these wonderful words – “in a way known to God, of the Paschal mystery”

L:inks to the universal Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition

vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_INDEX.HTM

usccb.org/beliefs-and-tea…tholic-church/

scborromeo.org/ccc.htm

The bottom line is that the Church simply doesn’t know, but has questioned the doctrine of limbo or any kind of milder punishment relative to outright hell-and rather than heaven. From “The Hope of Salvation for Infants Who Die without Being Baptized.”, issuing from the International Theological Commission in 2007, quoted from Wikipedia:

**"Our conclusion is that the many factors that we have considered above give serious theological and liturgical grounds for hope that unbaptized infants who die will be saved and enjoy the beatific vision. We emphasize that these are reasons for prayerful hope, rather than grounds for sure knowledge. There is much that simply has not been revealed to us.[33] We live by faith and hope in the God of mercy and love who has been revealed to us in Christ, and the Spirit moves us to pray in constant thankfulness and joy.[34]

What has been revealed to us is that the ordinary way of salvation is by the sacrament of baptism. None of the above considerations should be taken as qualifying the necessity of baptism or justifying delay in administering the sacrament. Rather, as we want to reaffirm in conclusion, they provide strong grounds for hope that God will save infants when we have not been able to do for them what we would have wished to do, namely, to baptize them into the faith and life of the Church."**

 

[Blue_Horizon]

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

It’s not about you Granny. You can believe whatever you like even though you explicity contradict the standard Baltimore Catechism.

You had the temerity to contradict my statement that the Church in her ordinary teaching, along with Limbo, once used to validly teach the faithful that babies were in a state of mortal sin. That may no longer be a mainstream hypothesis, but it once was…and has never been condemned as wrong. It is still a valid Catholic view along with Limbo and either side of the debate whether Mary died or not before her Assumption.

I tire of curmudgeons who believe their view is always the only acceptable Catholic view allowed or once held . I really hope you are not such a person after all.

If you had any grace you would apologise to me for stating I am wrong…but still you try to wheedle and rationalize. It’s sad.

 

[grannymh]

It’s not about you Granny. You can believe whatever you like even though you explicity contradict the standard Baltimore Catechism.

You had the temerity to contradict my statement that the Church in her ordinary teaching, along with Limbo, once used to validly teach the faithful that babies were in a state of mortal sin. That may no longer be a mainstream hypothesis, but it once was…and has never been condemned as wrong. It is still a valid Catholic view along with Limbo and either side of the debate whether Mary died or not before her Assumption.

I tire of curmudgeons who believe their view is always the only acceptable Catholic view allowed or once held . I really hope you are not such a person after all.

If you had any grace you would apologise to me for stating I am wrong…but still you try to wheedle and rationalize. It’s sad.

You have my apology.

In presenting evidence regarding the State of Mortal Sin, I simply wanted you to review the evidence without prejudice. Apparently, I was too harsh and I sincerely apologize for whatever I said.

My final suggestion is – to use the universal Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition because it is the proper Catholic Deposit of Faith for all Catholics. While this universal Catechism reuses information from local Catechisms, it also corrects or deletes errors found in some local Catechisms. It has the last word. Note. It is not necessary to declare heresy when there is an error. It should be obvious that the information in the universal *Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition *is what is to be believed.

 

[Usagi]

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?

They can be without sanctifying grace because sanctifying grace is not intrinsic to human nature. It is something “added on top” by God, a share in God’s own life. God does freely offer us that addition, but chooses to do so ordinarily via baptism.

They are not in mortal sin in the sense of having committed a mortal sin (granny’s point), but they are in the same state (lacking sanctifying grace) as someone who once had sanctifying grace but threw it away through mortal sin (Blue Horizon’s point).

 

[Usagi]

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.

It would be nice, I agree, but God is not unjust to give out original justice and holiness only the once and to bestow His grace in a different way on the rest of us.

The key thing that Adam and Eve lost was an intimate relationship with God. That was not essential to their nature and it was not owed to them; it was extended to them by God at His option.

When they spurned His friendship, God withdrew it (and certain other gifts He’d given them). He still offers that intimacy (and, indeed, through Jesus an even closer relationship than the one in the Garden) to us, their descendants, but He chooses to do so in a different way. Since we’re not owed that intimacy in any form, it is not unjust of God to make that change.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

You have my apology.

Gracious of you thanks.

… I sincerely apologize for whatever I said.

Well you just took the gloss off…but nevermind.

While this universal Catechism reuses information from local Catechisms, it also corrects or deletes errors found in some local Catechisms. It has the last word. Note. It is not necessary to declare heresy when there is an error. It should be obvious that the information in the universal *Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition *is what is to be believed.

This is nonsense sorry.
There are some teachings that are no more than a mainstream hypothesis because there is still ongoing debate. Catechisms at different times or different locations, when different, sometimes simply simply reflect changing majority opinion on such matters. Limbo, whether or not Mary died, did Jesus pass down the birth canal and more are examples of as yet undefined teachings - Catechisms over time emphasise or downplay one side or the other. Currently they are on the backburner but they could come back because they have not been definitively rejected.

That “state of mortal sin” is essentially the same as “deprived of sanctifying grace” is probably not even one of the above types…because even today few have problems affirming that babies are without sanctifying grace. We simply do not know what fate God has for them…but we do know it will not be the same as those who have committed mortal sin.

 

[grannymh]

They can be without sanctifying grace because sanctifying grace is not intrinsic to human nature. It is something “added on top” by God, a share in God’s own life. God does freely offer us that addition, but chooses to do so ordinarily via baptism.

They are not in mortal sin in the sense of having committed a mortal sin (granny’s point), but they are in the same state (lacking sanctifying grace) as someone who once had sanctifying grace but threw it away through mortal sin (Blue Horizon’s point).

May I present some Thoughts?

The “adding on top” refers to the dramatic shift from Genesis 1: 25 to Genesis 1:26-27. Human nature will always be in the image of God. It is human nature which is presented at conception and not the concept that babies “are in the state of lacking sanctifying grace as someone who had sanctify grace but threw it away through mortal sin.”

If one seriously looks at Sacred Scripture in the first three chapters of Genesis, does one find a clone system?

The clone system would include the transfer of the state of the parents. Can you imagine that the transfer of the parent’s State of Sanctifying Grace would mean that the conceived child would not be in the State of Mortal Sin?

Why would the universal Catholic Church delete a local description of the State of Mortal Sin applied to babies under the age of reason? My guess is that each conception of a person with a true human nature is precious to God. Would God really give a new human nature the State of Mortal Sin?

This granny is not the sharpest knife in the drawer which is why I have to discover every angle before I can answer why a point in a local Catechism has not appeared in the current universal Catechism.

At this point in time, I would suggest that the original human nature of Adam is involved.

There is no need for you to reply to all the stuff presented above. What I am saying is that it is appropriate to fully look at human nature per se.

Here is an interesting point. “But we do know by Revelation that Adam had received original holiness and justice not for himself alone, but for all human nature.” (CCC 404)

Technically, the above has to be considered in some manner in order to properly answer the thread question – How does Original Sin work? If we skip the wounded human nature of Adam, then the basics of the first three sacred chapters of Genesis …

 

[grannymh]

The key thing that Adam and Eve lost was an intimate relationship with God. That was not essential to their nature and it was not owed to them; it was extended to them by God at His option.

Very glad to see that Eve and Adam’s intimate relationship with God is mentioned.

 

[fhansen]

May I present some Thoughts?

The “adding on top” refers to the dramatic shift from Genesis 1: 25 to Genesis 1:26-27. Human nature will always be in the image of God. It is human nature which is presented at conception and not the concept that babies “are in the state of lacking sanctifying grace as someone who had sanctify grace but threw it away through mortal sin.”

If one seriously looks at Sacred Scripture in the first three chapters of Genesis, does one find a clone system?

The clone system would include the transfer of the state of the parents. Can you imagine that the transfer of the parent’s State of Sanctifying Grace would mean that the conceived child would not be in the State of Mortal Sin?

Why would the universal Catholic Church delete a local description of the State of Mortal Sin applied to babies under the age of reason? My guess is that each conception of a person with a true human nature is precious to God. Would God really give a new human nature the State of Mortal Sin?

But do we all need a Savior? Here’s a question similar to yours: would God create a new human that needed saving in order to enter heaven? And, would that new human, as a descendant of Adam, inevitably sin, once able? What does the “certainty of faith” refer to below?

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

 

[Usagi]

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.

The “good things” are the result of a close relationship with God, something God has to offer. It’s not a purely mechanical process of inheriting whatever spiritual status our immediate forebears had. God does offer that relationship, but chooses to do so on an individual basis.

Note that we also don’t directly inherit the spiritual state of a particularly depraved or vice-ridden ancestor. We all get the same deal – a will and intellect that don’t always control our passions and appetites, plus the offer of God’s grace to strengthen the one against the other. Our First Parents got a better deal, sure, but they still screwed it up and God is under no obligation to keep dispensing His grace the same way.

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?

It is the “happy fault” not because it was not evil and destructive (it was, calling for the sacrifice of God Himself to illustrate its gravity and His response to it), but because our subsequent situation – with concupiscence but also with the option to become adopted children of God and spend eternity in His unveiled presence – is actually a greater destiny than Adam and Eve’s “live immortal earthly lives with a close relationship with God but not the Beatific Vision.” A fallen but redeemed and glorified humanity is a higher thing even than unfallen humanity.

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?

No one inherits guilt for the first sin. We inherit a broken and deprived state, yes, but not moral fault.

It’s true that, without sanctifying grace supplied by God (whether through the ordinary means of baptism or by some extraordinary exercise of His mercy), even a human innocent of personal sin cannot enter Heaven. However, with only a few exceptions (such as the rather pessimistic St. Augustine), theologians do not generally consign infants to eternal suffering. They may technically be in Hell because that’s the only permanent alternative to Heaven, but we have always realized that it would be unjust to punish them as “proper” mortal sinners are punished, and God is not unjust.

The thing is, God hasn’t revealed to us what happens to such children, so we have had to hypothesize over the millennia, taking into account that baptism is the only definite means revealed to us for receiving sanctifying grace the first time. As others point out, those hypotheses have gotten ever more generous over time, increasingly recognizing that God is perfectly merciful and loving and isn’t going to lose a soul just because we couldn’t baptize someone before death. Thus the speculation has moved from lesser punishment in Hell, to existence in a very pleasant “top layer” of Hell (Limbo) that is Hell only in the sense that it is not Heaven, to the current “God can save whom He wills regardless of the rules He gives us, so entrust them to His mercy.” We only stop short of outright saying they all go to Heaven because God has revealed no such thing and there must be some reason baptism of infants is important. (Oddly, some Protestants who are totally okay with assigning any and every adult non-Christian to Hell do make that leap and assert that all children below a certain age go to Heaven, even though that really doesn’t seem to fit with their idea of how Original Sin and “the sin nature” work. I do not speak of all Protestant groups, of course.)

 

[fhansen]

The “good things” are the result of a close relationship with God, something God has to offer. It’s not a purely mechanical process of inheriting whatever spiritual status our immediate forebears had. God does offer that relationship, but chooses to do so on an individual basis.

Note that we also don’t directly inherit the spiritual state of a particularly depraved or vice-ridden ancestor. We all get the same deal – a will and intellect that don’t always control our passions and appetites, plus the offer of God’s grace to strengthen the one against the other. Our First Parents got a better deal, sure, but they still screwed it up and God is under no obligation to keep dispensing His grace the same way.

It is the “happy fault” not because it was not evil and destructive (it was, calling for the sacrifice of God Himself to illustrate its gravity and His response to it), but because our subsequent situation – with concupiscence but also with the option to become adopted children of God and spend eternity in His unveiled presence – is actually a greater destiny than Adam and Eve’s “live immortal earthly lives with a close relationship with God but not the Beatific Vision.” A fallen but redeemed and glorified humanity is a higher thing even than unfallen humanity.

This is true. Adam & Eve were sort of like spoiled children with no appreciation for what they had. We, on the other hand, experiencing exile from God and the subsequent poverty of His presence, with all that entails, have the opportunity to come to gain that appreciation, to come to hunger and thirst for truth and righteousness in a world that’s lost them both to an enormous degree.

But according to the catechism our first parents were destined to be divinized, so I don’t know that remaining in a more neutral state, living “immortal earthly lives with a close relationship with God but not the Beatific Vision”, was ever really an option. Either way, yes, I believe that a being who’s been tested and refined, who’s experienced and struggled with good and evil, struggled against sin as they come to participate in choosing and owning their justice, would be a greater being, closer to God whose image he’s to be transformed into.

 

[grannymh]

But do we all need a Savior?

If all of us are human, then we all need the Second Person of the Most Holy Trinity to open the gates of heaven.

Here’s a question similar to yours: would God create a new human that needed saving in order to enter heaven? And, would that new human, as a descendant of Adam, inevitably sin, once able?

The Catholic Church teaches that there is only one human nature. This follows from the difference in creatures before Genesis 1: 25 and the singularity of human nature after Genesis 1: 27. Therefore, there is no need to speculate about a “new human.”

What does the “certainty of faith” refer to below?

My first guess is that it refers to Original Sin which is different from Mortal Sin aka actual sin

**

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

**

 

[fhansen]

If all of us are human, then we all need the Second Person of the Most Holy Trinity to open the gates of heaven.

The Catholic Church teaches that there is only one human nature. This follows from the difference in creatures before Genesis 1: 25 and the singularity of human nature after Genesis 1: 27. Therefore, there is no need to speculate about a “new human.”

You speculated on it already, with the question, "Would God really give a “new human” nature the State of Mortal Sin?

My first guess is that it refers to Original Sin which is different from Mortal Sin aka actual sin

That’s speculative.

So I take it then that you agree with the Church that babies are born with a dead soul, and that they must be baptized in order to be born again, made new creatures, in order to gain entrance into heaven. But that you, along with the Church, hope that God in His mercy would save them without being baptized.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

They can be without sanctifying grace because sanctifying grace is not intrinsic to human nature. It is something “added on top” by God, a share in God’s own life. God does freely offer us that addition, but chooses to do so ordinarily via baptism.

They are not in mortal sin in the sense of having committed a mortal sin (granny’s point), but they are in the same state (lacking sanctifying grace) as someone who once had sanctifying grace but threw it away through mortal sin (Blue Horizon’s point).

Well put and and balanced.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

The “good things” are the result of a close relationship with God, something God has to offer. It’s not a purely mechanical process of inheriting whatever spiritual status our immediate forebears had. God does offer that relationship, but chooses to do so on an individual basis.

Note that we also don’t directly inherit the spiritual state of a particularly depraved or vice-ridden ancestor. We all get the same deal – a will and intellect that don’t always control our passions and appetites, plus the offer of God’s grace to strengthen the one against the other. Our First Parents got a better deal, sure, but they still screwed it up and God is under no obligation to keep dispensing His grace the same way.

It is the “happy fault” not because it was not evil and destructive (it was, calling for the sacrifice of God Himself to illustrate its gravity and His response to it), but because our subsequent situation – with concupiscence but also with the option to become adopted children of God and spend eternity in His unveiled presence – is actually a greater destiny than Adam and Eve’s “live immortal earthly lives with a close relationship with God but not the Beatific Vision.” A fallen but redeemed and glorified humanity is a higher thing even than unfallen humanity.

No one inherits guilt for the first sin. We inherit a broken and deprived state, yes, but not moral fault.

It’s true that, without sanctifying grace supplied by God (whether through the ordinary means of baptism or by some extraordinary exercise of His mercy), even a human innocent of personal sin cannot enter Heaven. However, with only a few exceptions (such as the rather pessimistic St. Augustine), theologians do not generally consign infants to eternal suffering. They may technically be in Hell because that’s the only permanent alternative to Heaven, but we have always realized that it would be unjust to punish them as “proper” mortal sinners are punished, and God is not unjust.

The thing is, God hasn’t revealed to us what happens to such children, so we have had to hypothesize over the millennia, taking into account that baptism is the only definite means revealed to us for receiving sanctifying grace the first time. As others point out, those hypotheses have gotten ever more generous over time, increasingly recognizing that God is perfectly merciful and loving and isn’t going to lose a soul just because we couldn’t baptize someone before death. Thus the speculation has moved from lesser punishment in Hell, to existence in a very pleasant “top layer” of Hell (Limbo) that is Hell only in the sense that it is not Heaven, to the current “God can save whom He wills regardless of the rules He gives us, so entrust them to His mercy.” We only stop short of outright saying they all go to Heaven because God has revealed no such thing and there must be some reason baptism of infants is important. (Oddly, some Protestants who are totally okay with assigning any and every adult non-Christian to Hell do make that leap and assert that all children below a certain age go to Heaven, even though that really doesn’t seem to fit with their idea of how Original Sin and “the sin nature” work. I do not speak of all Protestant groups, of course.)

Again, we’ll put and an excellent summary of the Church’s evolution of thought.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

If all of us are human, then we all need the Second Person of the Most Holy Trinity to open the gates of heaven.

This misses half the question. There is a distinction between being saved from our sins and having the Beatific Vision made accessible to us. That is, we can be saved from our sin (and thus walking with God in the cool of the evening) and still not see heaven.
It seems then that Mary did not need saving from sin proper. However she did need saving from some of the effects of sin such as loss of the preternatural gifts (which loss only after the Fall and Redemption did we become aware of)…and I suppose the same could be said of heaven too which loss we now know by the Incarnation to have been another effect of sin.

My first guess is that it refers to Original Sin which is different from Mortal Sin aka actual sin

You still seem confused here. It’s clear that what is referred to is deprivation of SG, that is, intimacy with God. This is exactly what a “state of mortal sin” means. You still have this idea that this state can only be entered by way of actual committed sin. This is not the case. This state can also be entered by way of contraction or contagion.
Need it be also said that Original Sin is different from a state of mortal sin…this state is but one effect of OS.

It’s all solid and certain teaching if one understands the terms correctly.

 

[fhansen]

If all of us are human, then we all need the Second Person of the Most Holy Trinity to open the gates of heaven.

But why? Why would God require the sacrifice of His Son to save one one who has no sin, who’s, presumably, never fallen into the pit?

 

[grannymh]

The “good things” are the result of a close relationship with God, something God has to offer. It’s not a purely mechanical process of inheriting whatever spiritual status our immediate forebears had. God does offer that relationship, but chooses to do so on an individual basis.

Note that we also don’t directly inherit the spiritual state of a particularly depraved or vice-ridden ancestor. We all get the same deal – a will and intellect that don’t always control our passions and appetites, plus the offer of God’s grace to strengthen the one against the other. Our First Parents got a better deal, sure, but they still screwed it up and God is under no obligation to keep dispensing His grace the same way.

It is the “happy fault” not because it was not evil and destructive (it was, calling for the sacrifice of God Himself to illustrate its gravity and His response to it), but because our subsequent situation – with concupiscence but also with the option to become adopted children of God and spend eternity in His unveiled presence – is actually a greater destiny than Adam and Eve’s “live immortal earthly lives with a close relationship with God but not the Beatific Vision.” A fallen but redeemed and glorified humanity is a higher thing even than unfallen humanity.

No one inherits guilt for the first sin. We inherit a broken and deprived state, yes, but not moral fault.

It’s true that, without sanctifying grace supplied by God (whether through the ordinary means of baptism or by some extraordinary exercise of His mercy), even a human innocent of personal sin cannot enter Heaven. However, with only a few exceptions (such as the rather pessimistic St. Augustine), theologians do not generally consign infants to eternal suffering. They may technically be in Hell because that’s the only permanent alternative to Heaven, but we have always realized that it would be unjust to punish them as “proper” mortal sinners are punished, and God is not unjust.

The thing is, God hasn’t revealed to us what happens to such children, so we have had to hypothesize over the millennia, taking into account that baptism is the only definite means revealed to us for receiving sanctifying grace the first time. As others point out, those hypotheses have gotten ever more generous over time, increasingly recognizing that God is perfectly merciful and loving and isn’t going to lose a soul just because we couldn’t baptize someone before death. Thus the speculation has moved from lesser punishment in Hell, to existence in a very pleasant “top layer” of Hell (Limbo) that is Hell only in the sense that it is not Heaven, to the current “God can save whom He wills regardless of the rules He gives us, so entrust them to His mercy.” We only stop short of outright saying they all go to Heaven because God has revealed no such thing and there must be some reason baptism of infants is important. (Oddly, some Protestants who are totally okay with assigning any and every adult non-Christian to Hell do make that leap and assert that all children below a certain age go to Heaven, even though that really doesn’t seem to fit with their idea of how Original Sin and “the sin nature” work. I do not speak of all Protestant groups, of course.)

A personal thank you because you are teaching me better ways to describe my basic knowledge.

 

[simpleas]

They can be without sanctifying grace because sanctifying grace is not intrinsic to human nature. It is something “added on top” by God, a share in God’s own life. God does freely offer us that addition, but chooses to do so ordinarily via baptism.

They are not in mortal sin in the sense of having committed a mortal sin (granny’s point), but they are in the same state (lacking sanctifying grace) as someone who once had sanctifying grace but threw it away through mortal sin (Blue Horizon’s point).

This is where I don’t understand Justice, a person has not committed any offence to God, but still is not in a state of S.G.
There is no third state to be in.
When in a state sanctifying grace, one can lose this state through mortal sin, and lose Heaven.
When never being in a state of S.G (never baptised) one can not lose this state, of grace, but one may still enter Heaven should God desire them.