Is Genesis 2: 15-17 an explanation of Original Sin?

[OneSheep]

Good Morning Granny,

Please. A second clarification is needed.

Regarding the “No” comment in the opening paragraph. What exactly are you trying to say in this post? Is the Catholic Church a good Christian Church or does it need a lot of rebuilding from the bottom up?

Arguably, the Spirit leads our Church in a constant state of rebuilding. It’s always good!

Clarification please. Which Christian Church did this come from?

Not sure what your question refers to.

 

[OneSheep]

Onesheep when you say new aspects of unfolding revelation what do you mean?

I looked alittle at the older CCC and supporting documents and the only ‘changes’ to each ‘new’ writing was the words? The meaning or instruction is the same.

For example, I’ll refer back to Pope Benedict vs Anselm vs Augustine on the subject of atonement.

I’ve posted it on this thread already, but here it is:

robertaconnor.blogspot.com/2011/03/reappraisal-of-meaning-of-redemption.html

Another example, which I discovered while doing some investigating on the “other” thread, is the Church’s use of “anathema”. While the council of Trent was full of description of anathemas:

The current Catechism does not mention anathema, it only references Trent. Nowhere in its text does it use the word “anathema”. This anathema issue was put to bed by 1983 Canon law. The anathemas per se do not apply today, since the 1983 Code of Canon Law (CIC) abolished the canonical penalty of anathema, which was a form of excommunication.

catholicbridge.com/catholic/anathemas.php

So, our concept of anathemas is part of unfolding revelation.

The Church’s stance on capital punishment is a matter of unfolding revelation.

These sample changes reflect new ways (arguably deeper ways) of looking at God’s image, faith, communion and other aspects of Revelation.

 

[grannymh]

Good Morning Granny,

Arguably, the Spirit leads our Church in a constant state of rebuilding. It’s always good!

In the old days of reality, someone would ask What kind of a hammer did the Holy Spirit use when He was knocking out the wall of the Catholic Church?

Not sure what your question refers to.

You can forget the question. There are a few people who use common sense observation and they will understand.

Unfortunately, it looks like reality in various groups has been lost in the wide internet – because no one names or explains the real, I assume real, “rebuilding.” Second thought. If “rebuilding” is not real, why is it mentioned?

Sometime back, I wanted to use a good expression from my childhood. Thank heavens, my friend Google was nearby. That expression has really changed. I mean really changed. Consequently, I will say that regarding “rebuilding” I am not interested in * ##!! ^^ I want the facts, the plain facts.

 

[fhansen]

For example, I’ll refer back to Pope Benedict vs Anselm vs Augustine on the subject of atonement.

I’ve posted it on this thread already, but here it is:

robertaconnor.blogspot.com/2011/03/reappraisal-of-meaning-of-redemption.html

Another example, which I discovered while doing some investigating on the “other” thread, is the Church’s use of “anathema”. While the council of Trent was full of description of anathemas:

The current Catechism does not mention anathema, it only references Trent. Nowhere in its text does it use the word “anathema”. This anathema issue was put to bed by 1983 Canon law. The anathemas per se do not apply today, since the 1983 Code of Canon Law (CIC) abolished the canonical penalty of anathema, which was a form of excommunication.

catholicbridge.com/catholic/anathemas.php

So, our concept of anathemas is part of unfolding revelation.

The Church’s stance on capital punishment is a matter of unfolding revelation.

These sample changes reflect new ways (arguably deeper ways) of looking at God’s image, faith, communion and other aspects of Revelation.

Anathemas were just a less modern, less tactful way of emphasizing the seriousness of diverging from the true faith, at a time when the Church’s teachings were under attack and such reactions were appropriate enough. They basically echoed the shunning which the apostles were counseled to do when the word was not received. They weren’t wrong-just less considerate, to the modern mind. The Church needed to take a strong position, clearly defining basic orthodox teachings. Today is a different world; the Reformation is no longer an earth-shaking new movement. Unity is possible again and using such language as “anathema” does not suit that purpose.

 

[grannymh]

For example, I’ll refer back to Pope Benedict vs Anselm vs Augustine on the subject of atonement.

I’ve posted it on this thread already, but here it is:

robertaconnor.blogspot.com/2011/03/reappraisal-of-meaning-of-redemption.html

Another example, which I discovered while doing some investigating on the “other” thread, is the Church’s use of “anathema”. While the council of Trent was full of description of anathemas:

The current Catechism does not mention anathema, it only references Trent. Nowhere in its text does it use the word “anathema”. This anathema issue was put to bed by 1983 Canon law. The anathemas per se do not apply today, since the 1983 Code of Canon Law (CIC) abolished the canonical penalty of anathema, which was a form of excommunication.

catholicbridge.com/catholic/anathemas.php

So, our concept of anathemas is part of unfolding revelation.

The Church’s stance on capital punishment is a matter of unfolding revelation.

These sample changes reflect new ways (arguably deeper ways) of looking at God’s image, faith, communion and other aspects of Revelation.

My apology to all Gentle Readers

There are still some Catholics who do not understand the protocol of the visible Catholic Church on earth in regard to properly defined and duly declared Catholic doctrines.

Post 770, page 52 describes one of the headaches. Post 770 also mentioned Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI and his wonderful information.

In order for readers to understand the first link above, Pope Benedict vs Anselm vs Augustine on the subject of atonement, they need to understand the Catholic Church. Most important, readers need to understand how the visible Catholic Church works when it comes to Divine (not unfolding) Revelation.

Please note that in my world, understanding does not always equal acceptance. The importance of understanding stands on its own.

Because of the natural seriousness in this thread, I cannot honestly give my short explanation that not every word of Sacred Scripture, of popes and poets, of great theologians and philosophers, of early Church Fathers and following great women – automatically becomes a Catholic doctrine. I need to go back to Mark 8: 29.

My sincere apology, but there are a lot of major issues which I am currently dealing with. At the moment, there is no room in my mind to tackle a major project. I have been thinking about a break. Thus, I will take a break from posting and let my issues work out. God is good.

I can start notes from a variety of sources. I will check my PM box. Therefore, if anyone has a question, idea, resource, Scripture quotation, CCC quotation, etc., please PM me. It is not like I am going to do a book. Being an old-time journalist, I check information bottom to top. I like to try different versions. I would like to condense information. I do not rebuild information.

May God bless all who have seen this thread and all who have not seen this thread.

Blessings,
granny

---

The human person is worthy of profound respect.

 

[simpleas]

For example, I’ll refer back to Pope Benedict vs Anselm vs Augustine on the subject of atonement.

I’ve posted it on this thread already, but here it is:

robertaconnor.blogspot.com/2011/03/reappraisal-of-meaning-of-redemption.html

Another example, which I discovered while doing some investigating on the “other” thread, is the Church’s use of “anathema”. While the council of Trent was full of description of anathemas:

The current Catechism does not mention anathema, it only references Trent. Nowhere in its text does it use the word “anathema”. This anathema issue was put to bed by 1983 Canon law. The anathemas per se do not apply today, since the 1983 Code of Canon Law (CIC) abolished the canonical penalty of anathema, which was a form of excommunication.

catholicbridge.com/catholic/anathemas.php

So, our concept of anathemas is part of unfolding revelation.

The Church’s stance on capital punishment is a matter of unfolding revelation.

These sample changes reflect new ways (arguably deeper ways) of looking at God’s image, faith, communion and other aspects of Revelation.

Thanks.
The Robert A Connor Blog isn’t the CCC.

But I do find the investigating on anathema interesting. I don’t think that particular word is used now in the CCC, but it means excommunication, which is used in some parts like :

2272 Formal cooperation in an abortion constitutes a grave offense. The Church attaches the canonical penalty of excommunication to this crime against human life. "A person who procures a completed abortion incurs excommunication latae sententiae,"77 "by the very commission of the offense,"78 and subject to the conditions provided by Canon Law.79 The Church does not thereby intend to restrict the scope of mercy. Rather, she makes clear the gravity of the crime committed, the irreparable harm done to the innocent who is put to death, as well as to the parents and the whole of society.

Yet recently we have heard that the Pope has allowed priests to forgive the sin of abortion for those who ask, so they would no longer be latae sententiae.

Latae sententiae means that the person becomes automatically excommunicated as soon as the offence is committed.

I’m not sure what excommunication actually means, does it mean one can not fully participate in church life or they can not participate at all.

Will the words of CCC 2272 need to be changed now so people know they can be forgiven of a serious sin by the priest, and not automatically excommunicated?

My point is that although one word has been taken out, another has replaced it in the current CCC.

 

[OneSheep]

Hi Simpleas,

Thanks.
The Robert A Connor Blog isn’t the CCC.

It is the words of Cardinal Ratzinger, who became Pope Benedict. It isn’t the CCC, but he shows a progression of unfolding revelation.

But I do find the investigating on anathema interesting. I don’t think that particular word is used now in the CCC, but it means excommunication, which is used in some parts like :

Yet recently we have heard that the Pope has allowed priests to forgive the sin of abortion for those who ask, so they would no longer be latae sententiae.

Latae sententiae means that the person becomes automatically excommunicated as soon as the offence is committed.

Yes, do you see what unfolding revelation looks like? Does automatic excommunication in itself reflect a God who loves unconditionally? Does it reflect a God who forgives all? Does it reflect Christ, who ate with outcasts?

I’m not sure what excommunication actually means, does it mean one can not fully participate in church life or they can not participate at all.

Will the words of CCC 2272 need to be changed now so people know they can be forgiven of a serious sin by the priest, and not automatically excommunicated?

My point is that although one word has been taken out, another has replaced it in the current CCC.

Well, the Spirit has already guided the Church whether the CCC changes or not, see? The Church is much more than any written document. The Church is the body of Christ; it is people.

Individual people develop, become more aware. Likewise, the mass of humanity develops and becomes more aware. Understand that any change in doctrine or practice is very scary for some people. I think that because the Church takes a very pastoral approach, efforts are made to make changes very slowly so as not to alienate people and to give time to discern.

 

[grannymh]

To our contributor, OneSheep

I sincerely hope you are around when I finish my study of certain sections of real Catholicism – comparing them to the inviting ideas of one of the current popular public speaker/writers. This very intelligent talented person wants to have a happy-go-lucky Christian organization which will get rid of the annoying first three chapters of Sacred Scripture.

Apparently, there are a few Catholics standing in line for this unfolding news.

So stick around. You may accidentally discover that the real Catholic Church does not need rebuilding.

 

[grannymh]

To our contributor, OneSheep

I sincerely hope you are around when I finish my study of certain sections of real Catholicism – comparing them to the inviting ideas of one of the current popular public speaker/ writers. This very intelligent talented person wants to have a happy-go-lucky Christian organization which will get rid of the annoying first three chapters of Sacred Scripture.

Apparently, there are a few Catholics standing in line for this unfolding news.

So stick around. You may accidentally discover that the real Catholic Church does not need rebuilding.

 

[simpleas]

Hi Simpleas,

It is the words of Cardinal Ratzinger, who became Pope Benedict. It isn’t the CCC, but he shows a progression of unfolding revelation.

Yes, do you see what unfolding revelation looks like? Does automatic excommunication in itself reflect a God who loves unconditionally? Does it reflect a God who forgives all? Does it reflect Christ, who ate with outcasts?

Well, the Spirit has already guided the Church whether the CCC changes or not, see? The Church is much more than any written document. The Church is the body of Christ; it is people.

Individual people develop, become more aware. Likewise, the mass of humanity develops and becomes more aware. Understand that any change in doctrine or practice is very scary for some people. I think that because the Church takes a very pastoral approach, efforts are made to make changes very slowly so as not to alienate people and to give time to discern.

I do think revelation is unfolding, but with regards to the CCC it is only the words that are changed, yet they express the same message. At least that is how I read it and understand it.
In fact is the CCC that important to the teaching? I mean it is there to guide teachers and priests on what the church teaches, and instruct the student, but in part is the work of the Holy Spirit. Maybe it is needed more for some, less for others. I remember questioning a priest about what was written in the CCC and he said it’s not a document to beat over our heads, but it is a guide, an aid to help learn.
It’s not the Bible, yet it has an importance along with the Bible within our church.

 

[grannymh]

I do think revelation is unfolding,

It would really help my research project if you would kindly give me the description name and text of the revelation which is unfolding. A citation of this unfolding revelation would also be important.

Thank you for your help.

---

The human person is worthy of profound respect.

 

[fhansen]

The Church’s position is that revelation can be-and should be where possible- better understood/clarified but not changed, and not added to as if new revelation could be had.

 

[simpleas]

It would really help my research project if you would kindly give me the description name and text of the revelation which is unfolding. A citation of this unfolding revelation would also be important.

Thank you for your help.

---

The human person is worthy of profound respect.

I have nothing official, I think you know this

From the CCC

66 "The Christian economy, therefore, since it is the new and definitive Covenant, will never pass away; and no new public revelation is to be expected before the glorious manifestation of our Lord Jesus Christ."28 Yet even if Revelation is already complete, it has not been made completely explicit; it remains for Christian faith gradually to grasp its full significance over the course of the centuries.

No public revelation is to be expected. I’m not sure why the CCC uses the word if

If revelation is already complete, it remains for the christian faith to gradually grasp its full significance over the course of the centuries.

So while God has revealed himself in his son Jesus, we still have learning to do in order to* grasp its full significance*

This in a way would be like revelation unfolding to the individual, in their own journey.

This is just my own way of thinking about it, other posters may have a completely different thought.

 

[grannymh]

I have nothing official, I think you know this

Like natural science, this thread deals in reality. I was taught to double check research. While philosophical proposals are wonderful for discussions, this thread is based on the reality found in those awful first three chapters in Sacred Scripture and also the reality of major Ecumenical Catholic Church Councils.

From the CCC
66 "The Christian economy, therefore, since it is the new and definitive Covenant, will never pass away; and no new public revelation is to be expected before the glorious manifestation of our Lord Jesus Christ."28 Yet even if Revelation is already complete, it has not been made completely explicit; it remains for Christian faith gradually to grasp its full significance over the course of the centuries.

No public revelation is to be expected. I’m not sure why the CCC uses the word if

If revelation is already complete, it remains for the christian faith to gradually grasp its full significance over the course of the centuries.

The “if” sentence refers to the previous major Ecumenical Catholic Church Councils which have already declared various doctrines. The reference to the Christian faith refers to the mechanics of major Ecumenical Church Councils.

I am having a computer problem and will continue in a new post.

 

[grannymh]

Continued from post 804

So while God has revealed himself in his son Jesus, we still have learning to do in order to* grasp its full significance*

This in a way would be like revelation unfolding to the individual, in their own journey.

This is just my own way of thinking about it, other posters may have a completely different thought.

In the Catholic Church, it is not we, us, current living humans who officially grasp the full significance of a properly declared Catholic Doctrine and therefore present its full significance. That is the official job of the major Ecumenical Catholic Church Councils.

In the Catholic Church, it is the major Ecumenical Catholic Church Councils which declares Divine Revelation and not we, us, current living individuals.

All CAF posters can present their own thinking. This is what makes CAF interesting.

The bottom line is that in the real Catholic Church, it is the major Ecumenical Catholic Church Councils which define and declare significant real Catholic doctrines flowing from Divine (not unfolding) Revelation.

All those messages that tell us that all of we, us, independent individuals have the right to tamper with this or that doctrine presented by major Ecumenical Catholic Church councils are leading us down the wrong path.

I repeated major Ecumenical Catholic Church Councils because some of us do not realize their importance.

 

[grannymh]

Here is an interesting internet misunderstanding about the Founder of the Catholic Church.
From this this morning’s research.
“This pattern of incarnation reaches its fullness in one small place on the planet, in one short period of history, in one very ordinary man named Jesus.”

Another interesting bit of internet news. I am confused. I always thought that Genesis 1: 27 clearly informed us that we are spiritual because we are created in the image of God. It seems to me that Catholics should know they are spiritual because they are descendants of the first two human beings referenced in Genesis 1: 27.
From this morning’s research.
“The biblical revelation is saying that we are already spiritual beings; we just don’t know it yet, and we have to be shocked into it.”

---

The human person is worthy of profound respect.

 

[simpleas]

Like natural science, this thread deals in reality. I was taught to double check research. While philosophical proposals are wonderful for discussions, this thread is based on the reality found in those awful first three chapters in Sacred Scripture and also the reality of major Ecumenical Catholic Church Councils.

The “if” sentence refers to the previous major Ecumenical Catholic Church Councils which have already declared various doctrines. The reference to the Christian faith refers to the mechanics of major Ecumenical Church Councils.

I am having a computer problem and will continue in a new post.

Ok thanks for explaining the if question. Think I get it

 

[simpleas]

Continued from post 804

In the Catholic Church, it is not we, us, current living humans who officially grasp the full significance of a properly declared Catholic Doctrine and therefore present its full significance. That is the official job of the major Ecumenical Catholic Church Councils.

In the Catholic Church, it is the major Ecumenical Catholic Church Councils which declares Divine Revelation and not we, us, current living individuals.

All CAF posters can present their own thinking. This is what makes CAF interesting.

The bottom line is that in the real Catholic Church, it is the major Ecumenical Catholic Church Councils which define and declare significant real Catholic doctrines flowing from Divine (not unfolding) Revelation.

All those messages that tell us that all of we, us, independent individuals have the right to tamper with this or that doctrine presented by major Ecumenical Catholic Church councils are leading us down the wrong path.

I repeated major Ecumenical Catholic Church Councils because some of us do not realize their importance.

Yes that is true, I was explaining what I thought might be believed by revelation unfolding.

 

[simpleas]

Here is an interesting internet misunderstanding about the Founder of the Catholic Church.
From this this morning’s research.
“This pattern of incarnation reaches its fullness in one small place on the planet, in one short period of history, in one very ordinary man named Jesus.”

Another interesting bit of internet news. I am confused. I always thought that Genesis 1: 27 clearly informed us that we are spiritual because we are created in the image of God. It seems to me that Catholics should know they are spiritual because they are descendants of the first two human beings referenced in Genesis 1: 27.
From this morning’s research.
“The biblical revelation is saying that we are already spiritual beings; we just don’t know it yet, and we have to be shocked into it.”

---

The human person is worthy of profound respect.

Yes the use of ordinary man is very unusual to a Catholic, I find it strange that the author uses certain terms to explain things. He does refer to Jesus becoming the Christ in some work, which I didn’t understand.

The piece there about spiritual beings, I think could be true for some people. Don’t forget, the writer isn’t speaking to Catholics alone, he is reaching out to a variety of people, and not all people would consider themselves to be spiritual.

 

[OneSheep]

real Catholic doctrines flowing from Divine (not unfolding) Revelation.
.

Good Morning Granny,

There are several books by Catholics containing information about unfolding revelation, including books by our Pope Emeritus. Unfortunately, I cannot copy/paste from online books.

Besides the examples I gave previously, (atonement, capital punishment, anathema) there is certainly slavery, usery, “Americanism”, salvation for those outside the Church, and other examples of unfolding revelation can be found in the history of the Church

Keep in mind that before 1991, there was no CCC. Within the CCC we have this:

66 "The Christian economy, therefore, since it is the new and definitive Covenant, will never pass away; and no new public revelation is to be expected before the glorious manifestation of our Lord Jesus Christ."28 Yet even if Revelation is already complete, it has not been made completely explicit; it remains for Christian faith gradually to grasp its full significance over the course of the centuries.

And we have this:

the Catechism recognizes that faith is an ongoing journey on which questions and doubts come naturally and need to be addressed at the opportune moment. The Catechism - far from preempting discussion - provides accurate information with which to carry on informed discussion.

usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/what-we-believe/catechism/catechism-of-the-catholic-church/frequently-asked-questions-about-the-catechism-of-the-catholic-church.cfm

Thus, informed discussion continues…

I did get the impression that you were ready to give this thread a rest for awhile. If this post is unwanted, I apologize.