Looking for an in-depth explanation of CCC389 (original sin)

[OneSheep]

In any case Jesus was offended by their positions. And this can only be because, in one way or another, choice was also involved; sheer ignorance was not their only motivation. God has the right and reason to oppose pride and the actions it causes.

To give Jesus the benefit of the doubt, He forgave the Pharisees but criticized their actions and beliefs.

Ignorance itself is not a motivation. Ignorance is the filter through which we see our choices. The pharisees were either blind or ignorant, and Jesus eliminated the former. The Pharisees thought that their sight was clear, but they were incorrect in that assessment. Yes, they loved the status of their positions and wanted to hang onto that status, and God is right in opposing actions that lead to harm, but the desire for status, in itself, is God-given. It is part of the beauty of our nature that we are called not to be enslaved to. We have been here before, of course.

Thanks, and response to my post 33 would bring us back to the topic of this thread.

 

[fisherman_carl]

GK Chesterton would say Original sin is the one doctrine that can be proved. Just looking at the world around us leads us to conclude that something has gone wrong, something ancient in man’s history that explains how he ended up the way he is.

Just take one example in humans, evil to a degree not seen in the animals. Now an animal might kill for food but he doesn’t usually kill because he is evil. Human cruelty and evil far exceeds even the most rabid dogs. It goes way beyond just survival. And if an animal should develop a mean streak we think there is something wrong with him. But, with humans it is not the occasional dog that is wrong, but humanity in general. The exception is not the one dog that has gone bad, but with the one dog that has gone right. Something has gone wrong with the whole kit and kaboodle.

 

[OneSheep]

Good Morning Vico,

The baptism may very well be valid, but that is not really the issue is it? These are dogmas of faith and are to be accepted and are grave matter to dissent from the teaching of the Church. So one can be baptized and then immediately reject the teaching of the Church upon receiving catechesis. This is why catechesis precedes adult initiation.

And during that catechesis, this Jewish man expresses:

1. that he does not believe that God gets angry and indignant,
2. finds integrity, indeed finds the goodness of God, in humanity,
3. does not believe that God punishes the children of people who commit sins, nor
4. believes in a separate power that dominates people.

yet he wants to follow Christ, make Him the center of his life, repents from his sins, and wishes to belong to the Church and serve God and man. Is his desire for baptism rejected?

Vico, I would venture to say that 99% of priests would open their arms to this person’s desire to be Christian, as he would indeed be Christian, a follower of Christ. Jesus’ first ministry was to His fellow Jews, and the beliefs of this Jewish man are very typical. Jesus did not give the Apostles a litmus test for negative anthropologies, as such negative anthropologies do not reflect Judaism (as I know it).

As the Catechism states: “we cannot tamper with the revelation of original sin without undermining the mystery of Christ”. So no, it cannot be changed.

Actually, if you read this thread there are several aspects of the mystery of Christ, and some of them would be undermined, those associated with negative anthropologies, but some mysteries would remain unaffected. Undermining mysteries does not mean undermining faith itself.

However, I hear your opinion on the matter, Vico, and I respect your opinion that no tampering can be done. And, in fact, for the Jewish person I mentioned, no tampering is necessary. He does not believe in man’s depravity, so that aspect of the mystery simply does not pertain to him.

Let’s look again at the mystery:

518 Christ’s whole life is a mystery of recapitulation. All Jesus did, said and suffered had for its aim restoring fallen man to his original vocation:

When Christ became incarnate and was made man, he recapitulated in himself the long history of mankind and procured for us a “short cut” to salvation, so that what we had lost in Adam, that is, being in the image and likeness of God, we might recover in Christ Jesus.185 For this reason Christ experienced all the stages of life, thereby giving communion with God to all men.186

If one takes Genesis literally, in order to recover the “image and likeness of God”, we must judge one another, enact curses, cause pain and suffering to people’s descendents for their disobedience, and put wonderful, tempting things in front of people and tell them not to eat of it for penalty of death. Do you see why we are not to take Genesis literally? Literalism is not the way that Jewish people read Genesis.

“The only standpoint from which we can read the whole Bible is the standpoint of Christ crucified.”

youtube.com/watch?v=1A65Wfr2is0

During that crucifixion, Vico, Jesus forgave those who offended Him. He understood them, He saw their ignorance and blindness.

Is there objection to the words anger and indignation applied to God and the idea of dominion to the Devil of Adam and Eve?

John 12
29 The crowd there heard it and said it was thunder; but others said, “An angel has spoken to him.” 30 Jesus answered and said, “This voice did not come for my sake but for yours. 31 Now is the time of judgment on this world; now the ruler of this world will be driven out. 32 And when I am lifted up from the earth, I will draw everyone to myself.”

For the Jewish person I described, so that there is not a separate power opposed to God (dualism), this verse could be interpreted in viewing what “rules the world”. For him, what rules the world is our ignorance, blindness, and enslavement to our nature. Part of the ignorance is believing that people have negative value, that God does not forgive enemies, and that people who amass wealth and power are favored by God. For this Jewish person, Jesus reveals God’s infinite love, mercy, and means by which one can overcome enslavement to our nature.

 

[OneSheep]

Good Morning, Carl

GK Chesterton would say Original sin is the one doctrine that can be proved. Just looking at the world around us leads us to conclude that something has gone wrong, something ancient in man’s history that explains how he ended up the way he is.

Yes, when we look at the negatives, we surmise a negative nature. Here is a useful guide:

“through the Spirit we see that whatsoever exists in any way is good.” - St. Augustine

What is “wrong” is that people are born ignorant and are capable of blindness. The ignorance and blindness compromise our ability to do what we think is best.

Just take one example in humans, evil to a degree not seen in the animals. Now an animal might kill for food but he doesn’t usually kill because he is evil. Human cruelty and evil far exceeds even the most rabid dogs. It goes way beyond just survival. And if an animal should develop a mean streak we think there is something wrong with him. But, with humans it is not the occasional dog that is wrong, but humanity in general. The exception is not the one dog that has gone bad, but with the one dog that has gone right. Something has gone wrong with the whole kit and kaboodle.

One would have to start with the question, “why did this person do this cruel act?”. The answer “because he is evil” is a circular argument:

Why did he do evil?
Because he is evil.
Why is he described as evil?
Because he does evil.
Why did he do evil?..

So, we can get back to “why did this person do this cruel act?”. Very commonly, the answer is “Because he wished to destroy something he saw as evil.” or “He takes joy in the powerful feeling of destroying something he perceives is worthless and a pestilence.” or “He is thinking he is carrying out justice in some way.”

 

[fhansen]

To give Jesus the benefit of the doubt, He forgave the Pharisees but criticized their actions and beliefs.

Ignorance itself is not a motivation. Ignorance is the filter through which we see our choices. The pharisees were either blind or ignorant, and Jesus eliminated the former. The Pharisees thought that their sight was clear, but they were incorrect in that assessment. Yes, they loved the status of their positions and wanted to hang onto that status, and God is right in opposing actions that lead to harm, but the desire for status, in itself, is God-given. It is part of the beauty of our nature that we are called not to be enslaved to. We have been here before, of course.

Thanks, and response to my post 33 would bring us back to the topic of this thread.

I’m sure Jesus loved the Pharisees as much as He loves any of us-while opposing the harm they did by their misguided values. They were basically worshiping themselves while paying lip-service to God for all practical purposes. We all sin in one way or another.

But what Jesus clearly demonstrates with them is that anger coming from righteous indignation is good and proper when called for, when injustice is encountered, whether it involves a parent and a wayward child, or society and some criminal behavior, or God and the human pride that opposes love of Him and neighbor. We would be dead -and unjust ourselves-if we could not experience such reactions. Such anger can be clean and appropriate in the right situations, even if human anger is often tainted by other motives or selfish desires or even contrived IMO. Like anything else anger stems from a good source which can be manipulated or abused.

So I then ask if you’re not trying to relieve humans of the pains of all guilt when wrong is committed, pain that has its roots in an obligation to be morally right, pain that can help lead to conviction and repentance when responded to with a change of heart?

 

[fhansen]

Hi Folks,

We’ve run across this section often on the forum, and it dawned on me that an assertion expressed within is neither explained or backed up with evidence. Therefore, it would be very interesting to me for someone to provide some backing for this section, someone who is willing to make some effort to scrutinize and provide opinions, resources, etc.

Here is the section:

389 The doctrine of original sin is, so to speak, the “reverse side” of the Good News that Jesus is the Savior of all men, that all need salvation and that salvation is offered to all through Christ. The Church, which has the mind of Christ,263 knows very well that we cannot tamper with the revelation of original sin without undermining the mystery of Christ.

It is the second sentence that needs the most explanation, the first is more or less supported in CCC388.

What is it about “tampering with the revelation of original sin” that could “undermine the mystery of Christ”?

Note: this is not meant to be a challenge, but an investigation.

Why do “all need salvation” to begin with? Why aren’t at least some free of that need, free from the sin that apparently causes the need for salvation? And why can’t man save himself?

 

[Vico]

…

We ***are ***created in the image and likeness of God, but are not divine as Jesus Christ is, rather we become adopted sons and daughters of God, becoming Clothed with Christ. Through baptism the Holy Spirit imparts faith, hope, and charity, and from that beginning there is growth in faith. Catechism:

1237 Since Baptism signifies liberation from sin and from its instigator the devil, one or more exorcisms are pronounced over the candidate. The celebrant then anoints him with the oil of catechumens, or lays his hands on him, and he explicitly renounces Satan. Thus prepared, he is able to confess the faith of the Church, to which he will be “entrusted” by Baptism.39

1243 The white garment symbolizes that the person baptized has "put on Christ,"42 has risen with Christ. The candle, lit from the Easter candle, signifies that Christ has enlightened the neophyte. In him the baptized are "the light of the world."43
vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p2s2c1a1.htm

(1) One of the Father of the Church, Lucius Caecilius Firmianus Lactantius, wrote:

Chapter 6.— That God is Angry.

These are the opinions entertained by the philosophers respecting God. But if we have discovered that these things which have been spoken are false, there remains that one last resource, in which alone the truth can be found, which has never been embraced by philosophers, nor at any time defended: that it follows that God is angry, since He is moved by kindness. This opinion is to be maintained and asserted by us; for this is the sum and turning-point on which the whole of piety and religion depend: and no honour can be due to God, if He affords nothing to His worshippers; and no fear, if He is not angry with him who does not worship Him.

newadvent.org/fathers/0703.htm

Catechism 2303 (except):
Anger is a desire for revenge. “To desire vengeance in order to do evil to someone who should be punished is illicit,” but it is praiseworthy to impose restitution "to correct vices and maintain justice."95

Romans 12:19
Beloved, do not look for revenge but leave room for the wrath; for it is written, “Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord.”

See Isaiah 1:24

(2) The Catholic Church condemned the idea of total depravity of mankind (it was proposed by Martin Luther).

405 Although it is proper to each individual,295 original sin does not have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam’s descendants. It is a deprivation of original holiness and justice, but human nature has not been totally corrupted: it is wounded in the natural powers proper to it, subject to ignorance, suffering and the dominion of death, and inclined to sin - an inclination to evil that is called concupiscence". Baptism, by imparting the life of Christ’s grace, erases original sin and turns a man back towards God, but the consequences for nature, weakened and inclined to evil, persist in man and summon him to spiritual battle.

vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p1s2c1p7.htm

(3) The Bible describe the eternal and temporal punishments, which follow from sin, see Catechism:

The punishments of sin

1472 To understand this doctrine and practice of the Church, it is necessary to understand that sin has a double consequence. Grave sin deprives us of communion with God and therefore makes us incapable of eternal life, the privation of which is called the “eternal punishment” of sin. On the other hand every sin, even venial, entails an unhealthy attachment to creatures, which must be purified either here on earth, or after death in the state called Purgatory. This purification frees one from what is called the “temporal punishment” of sin. These two punishments must not be conceived of as a kind of vengeance inflicted by God from without, but as following from the very nature of sin. A conversion which proceeds from a fervent charity can attain the complete purification of the sinner in such a way that no punishment would remain. 84

(4) The Catholic Church does not teach Dualism, see Catholic Encyclopedia:

Christian philosophy, expounded with minor differences by theologians and philosophers from St. Augustine downwards, holds generally that physical evil is the result of the necessary limitations of finite created beings, and that moral evil, which alone is evil in the true sense, is a consequence of the creation of beings possessed of free wills and is tolerated by God. Both physical and moral evil are to be conceived as some form of privation or defect of being, not as positive entity. Their existence is thus not irreconcilable with the doctrine of theistic monism.

Maher, M. (1909). Dualism. In The Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton Company. newadvent.org/cathen/05169a.htm

Also the Devil influnces mankind, see Catholic Encyclopedia.

As may be gathered from the language of the Lateran definition, the Devil and the other demons are but a part of the angelic creation, and their natural powers do not differ from those of the angels who remained faithful. Like the other angels, they are pure spiritual beings without any body, and in their original state they are endowed with supernatural grace and placed in a condition of probation. It was only by their fall that they became devils. This was before the sin of our first parents, since this sin itself is ascribed to the instigation of the Devil: “By the envy of the Devil, death came into the world” (Wisdom 2:24).

Kent, W. (1908). Devil. In The Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton Company. newadvent.org/cathen/04764a.htm

 

[fisherman_carl]

Good Morning, Carl

Yes, when we look at the negatives, we surmise a negative nature. Here is a useful guide:

“through the Spirit we see that whatsoever exists in any way is good.” - St. Augustine

What is “wrong” is that people are born ignorant and are capable of blindness. The ignorance and blindness compromise our ability to do what we think is best.

One would have to start with the question, “why did this person do this cruel act?”. The answer “because he is evil” is a circular argument:

Why did he do evil?
Because he is evil.
Why is he described as evil?
Because he does evil.
Why did he do evil?..

So, we can get back to “why did this person do this cruel act?”. Very commonly, the answer is “Because he wished to destroy something he saw as evil.” or “He takes joy in the powerful feeling of destroying something he perceives is worthless and a pestilence.” or “He is thinking he is carrying out justice in some way.”

People who do evil are evil. Just as a dog is considered bad if he does what is bad. The darkness of Evil is seen most clearly when it is seen in the light of what is good. The exception in humans is not the one bad dog, but the one good dog. And if there is one dog who truly does what is right and good the other dogs want to test him, try him, and hang him on a tree to see if he truly is one who is right and true. The evil man does not want to come into the light for fear that his evil deeds will be exposed.

"If you then, who are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will the heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to those who ask him!” (Luke 11:13)

 

[fisherman_carl]

Good Morning, Carl

Yes, when we look at the negatives, we surmise a negative nature. Here is a useful guide:

“through the Spirit we see that whatsoever exists in any way is good.” - St. Augustine

What is “wrong” is that people are born ignorant and are capable of blindness. The ignorance and blindness compromise our ability to do what we think is best.

One would have to start with the question, “why did this person do this cruel act?”. The answer “because he is evil” is a circular argument:

Why did he do evil?
Because he is evil.
Why is he described as evil?
Because he does evil.
Why did he do evil?..

So, we can get back to “why did this person do this cruel act?”. Very commonly, the answer is “Because he wished to destroy something he saw as evil.” or “He takes joy in the powerful feeling of destroying something he perceives is worthless and a pestilence.” or “He is thinking he is carrying out justice in some way.”

People who do evil are evil. Just as a dog is considered bad if he does what is bad. The darkness of Evil is seen most clearly when it is seen in the light of what is good. The exception in humans is not the one bad dog, but the one good dog. And if there is one dog who truly does what is right and good the other dogs want to test him, try him, and hang him on a tree to see if he truly is one who is right and true. The evil man does not want to come into the light for fear that his evil deeds will be exposed.

"If you then, who are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will the heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to those who ask him!” (Luke 11:13)

“Jesus said to them, “If you were blind, you would have no guilt; but now that you say, ‘We see,’ your guilt remains.” (John 9:41)

“If I had not come and spoken to them, they would not have been guilty of sin,b but now they have no excuse for their sin. 23Whoever hates me hates my Father also. 24If I had not done among them the works that no one else did, they would not be guilty of sin, but now they have seen and hated both me and my Father.” (John 15:22+)

 

[Usagi]

Punishing a person’s children or breaking off a relationship based on a single infraction is a contradiction to merciful perfection, so many are inclined to “tamper” with the doctrine of original sin.

Are you aware that there are perfectly orthodox, non-“tampered with” understandings of Original Sin that do not involve God actively punishing anyone’s children or being the one to break off the relationship between Himself and humanity?

The usual understanding is that the sinner breaks the relationship by his or her actions. God, as you say, continues to love and forgive and seeks the return of the lost sheep from that moment on. Even in the Eden story, we see the proto-Gospel, promising a son of Eve who will defeat the serpent and restore what was lost.

Likewise, we don’t have to imagine God as deciding to impose unnecessary suffering on our First Parents and their descendants. The usual analogy is that of an ancestor who came into a great fortune (the extra gifts Adam and Eve received freely from God), but foolishly spent it all and left nothing for future generations to inherit. The descendants have no claim against the original source of the fortune for disadvantaging them; all blame attaches to their ancestor for squandering what could have been theirs.

 

[Vico]

Are you aware that there are perfectly orthodox, non-“tampered with” understandings of Original Sin that do not involve God actively punishing anyone’s children or being the one to break off the relationship between Himself and humanity?

The usual understanding is that the sinner breaks the relationship by his or her actions. God, as you say, continues to love and forgive and seeks the return of the lost sheep from that moment on. Even in the Eden story, we see the proto-Gospel, promising a son of Eve who will defeat the serpent and restore what was lost.

Likewise, we don’t have to imagine God as deciding to impose unnecessary suffering on our First Parents and their descendants. The usual analogy is that of an ancestor who came into a great fortune (the extra gifts Adam and Eve received freely from God), but foolishly spent it all and left nothing for future generations to inherit. The descendants have no claim against the original source of the fortune for disadvantaging them; all blame attaches to their ancestor for squandering what could have been theirs.

That original sin is analogical sin not actual sin in the ancestors. Any idea of punishment from that to ancestors then would only be analogical punishment not actual punishment.

 

[Usagi]

That original sin is analogical sin not actual sin in the ancestors. Any idea of punishment from that to ancestors then would only be analogical punishment not actual punishment.

Do you mean “in the descendants”? I am having trouble understanding your reply.

 

[Vico]

Do you mean “in the descendants”? I am having trouble understanding your reply.

Yes I mangled that. In the descendants. So it should have read:

Original sin is analogical sin not actual sin of the descendants. Therefore any idea of punishment from the original sin to the descendants would only be analogical punishment not actual punishment.

 

[OneSheep]

Good Morning Vico,

We ***are ***created in the image and likeness of God, but are not divine as Jesus Christ is, rather we become adopted sons and daughters of God, becoming Clothed with Christ. Through baptism the Holy Spirit imparts faith, hope, and charity, and from that beginning there is growth in faith. Catechism:

1237 Since Baptism signifies liberation from sin and from its instigator the devil, one or more exorcisms are pronounced over the candidate. The celebrant then anoints him with the oil of catechumens, or lays his hands on him, and he explicitly renounces Satan. Thus prepared, he is able to confess the faith of the Church, to which he will be “entrusted” by Baptism.39

These words do not conflict with the faith of the Jewish convert I described. In Judaism, satan is a challenger, a tester, in league with God. The convert commits to avoid temptation.

1243 The white garment symbolizes that the person baptized has "put on Christ,"42 has risen with Christ. The candle, lit from the Easter candle, signifies that Christ has enlightened the neophyte. In him the baptized are "the light of the world."43
vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p2s2c1a1.htm

(1) One of the Father of the Church, Lucius Caecilius Firmianus Lactantius, wrote:

Chapter 6.— That God is Angry.

These are the opinions entertained by the philosophers respecting God. But if we have discovered that these things which have been spoken are false, there remains that one last resource, in which alone the truth can be found, which has never been embraced by philosophers, nor at any time defended: that it follows that God is angry, since He is moved by kindness. This opinion is to be maintained and asserted by us; for this is the sum and turning-point on which the whole of piety and religion depend: and no honour can be due to God, if He affords nothing to His worshippers; and no fear, if He is not angry with him who does not worship Him.

newadvent.org/fathers/0703.htm

Catechism 2303 (except):

Romans 12:19

See Isaiah 1:24

There are some very pertinent items to interject in this. First of all, though Jesus is part of the Trinity, as incarnate he grew in wisdom. Therefore, unlike the Father, He was not omniscient. As we add the Father’s omniscience to theology, one would have to consider that if God does get angry, when does it happen? The logical end is that if God ever were angry, He was angry before he created man. And then, what did He do with that anger, if He did experience it? Did He forgive, or did He hold onto His anger?

What we learn from the cross is that He forgave us, for Christ shows us the Father.

(2) The Catholic Church condemned the idea of total depravity of mankind (it was proposed by Martin Luther).

405 Although it is proper to each individual,295 original sin does not have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam’s descendants. It is a deprivation of original holiness and justice, but human nature has not been totally corrupted: it is wounded in the natural powers proper to it, subject to ignorance, suffering and the dominion of death, and inclined to sin - an inclination to evil that is called concupiscence". Baptism, by imparting the life of Christ’s grace, erases original sin and turns a man back towards God, but the consequences for nature, weakened and inclined to evil, persist in man and summon him to spiritual battle.

vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p1s2c1p7.htm

Yes, the Catechism does not communicate a total depravity, but a partial one. So, what is the source of such partial depravity? Since the Jewish convert does not believe in any sort of depravity of nature, concupiscence as something added by God making it more difficult for man to avoid sin, the convert is inclined to tamper with the concept of original sin, and for example describe it as an “original ignorance”.

It is indeed ignorance and blindness that are predictors of a person giving in to temptation, Vico. The wise person of 75 and the youth of 25 have the same nature, but the latter is much more likely to give in to temptation.

(continued)

 

[OneSheep]

quote=Vico The Catholic Church does not teach Dualism, see Catholic Encyclopedia:

Christian philosophy, expounded with minor differences by theologians and philosophers from St. Augustine downwards,…

Maher, M. (1909). Dualism. In The Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton Company. newadvent.org/cathen/05169a.htm

Also the Devil influnces mankind, see Catholic Encyclopedia.

As may be gathered from the language of the Lateran definition, the Devil and the other demons are but a part of the angelic creation, and their natural powers do not differ from those of the angels who remained faithful. Like the other angels, they are pure spiritual beings without any body, and in their original state they are endowed with supernatural grace and placed in a condition of probation. It was only by their fall that they became devils. This was before the sin of our first parents, since this sin itself is ascribed to the instigation of the Devil: “By the envy of the Devil, death came into the world” (Wisdom 2:24).

Kent, W. (1908). Devil. In The Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton Company. newadvent.org/cathen/04764a.htm
[/quote]

As I mentioned, the Jewish convert sees this language as continuing to promote the idea that satan, a power, does not act in accordance with God’s will. If there is a separate will, a power in the cosmos, it is seen to the Jewish convert as another god. You would have to convince the convert that either the devil has no power, or that he works in concert with God’s wishes. None of the above achieves this end, so it remains dualistic to him. The Wisdom passage seems to conflict with the tenets of Judaism, so I am sure that passage, if regarded by their faith, has a different interpretation or explanation.

This is a going a bit off the main topic, but again for this Jewish convert, the undermining of some aspect of mystery does not undermine his faith. The Catholic who contests this man’s beliefs is put into the awkward position of trying to convince the convert of a “bad news” that the convert. through his own faith, does not see. He sees that the enslavement people have to their natures, with the condition of ignorance, as “bad news” enough.

Must a Catholic believe in partial depravity of nature? Is it inadequate that the Jewish convert believes in a deprivation of awareness, which is mitigated by Revelation?

 

[davidv]

Good Morning Vico,

These words do not conflict with the faith of the Jewish convert I described. In Judaism, satan is a challenger, a tester, in league with God. The convert commits to avoid temptation.

There are some very pertinent items to interject in this. First of all, though Jesus is part of the Trinity, as incarnate he grew in wisdom. Therefore, unlike the Father, He was not omniscient. As we add the Father’s omniscience to theology, one would have to consider that if God does get angry, when does it happen? The logical end is that if God ever were angry, He was angry before he created man. And then, what did He do with that anger, if He did experience it? Did He forgive, or did He hold onto His anger?

What we learn from the cross is that He forgave us, for Christ shows us the Father.

Yes, the Catechism does not communicate a total depravity, but a partial one. So, what is the source of such partial depravity?

Knowledgeable, willfull disobedience, Sin, in other words.

Since the Jewish convert does not believe in any sort of depravity of nature, concupiscence as something added by God making it more difficult for man to avoid sin, the convert is inclined to tamper with the concept of original sin, and for example describe it as an “original ignorance”.

What a Jewish convert believes has little bearing on what is true.

It is indeed ignorance and blindness that are predictors of a person giving in to temptation, Vico. The wise person of 75 and the youth of 25 have the same nature, but the latter is much more likely to give in to temptation.

(continued)

What happened to temptation and selfishness?

 

[davidv]

As I mentioned, the Jewish convert sees this language as continuing to promote the idea that satan, a power, does not act in accordance with God’s will. If there is a separate will, a power in the cosmos, it is seen to the Jewish convert as another god. You would have to convince the convert that either the devil has no power, or that he works in concert with God’s wishes. None of the above achieves this end, so it remains dualistic to him. The Wisdom passage seems to conflict with the tenets of Judaism, so I am sure that passage, if regarded by their faith, has a different interpretation or explanation.

This is a going a bit off the main topic, but again for this Jewish convert, the undermining of some aspect of mystery does not undermine his faith. The Catholic who contests this man’s beliefs is put into the awkward position of trying to convince the convert of a “bad news” that the convert. through his own faith, does not see. He sees that the enslavement people have to their natures, with the condition of ignorance, as “bad news” enough.

Must a Catholic believe in partial depravity of nature? Is it inadequate that the Jewish convert believes in a deprivation of awareness, which is mitigated by Revelation?

What a Catholic must believe in this regard is that a moral wrong (sin) was culpably committed by Adam and that this had really bad consequences for the rest of humanity,

 

[OneSheep]

Good Morning fhansen,

I’m sure Jesus loved the Pharisees as much as He loves any of us-while opposing the harm they did by their misguided values. They were basically worshiping themselves while paying lip-service to God for all practical purposes. We all sin in one way or another.

If they worshiped themselves, they did so in ignorance.

But what Jesus clearly demonstrates with them is that anger coming from righteous indignation is good and proper when called for, when injustice is encountered, whether it involves a parent and a wayward child, or society and some criminal behavior, or God and the human pride that opposes love of Him and neighbor. We would be dead -and unjust ourselves-if we could not experience such reactions. Such anger can be clean and appropriate in the right situations, even if human anger is often tainted by other motives or selfish desires or even contrived IMO. Like anything else anger stems from a good source which can be manipulated or abused.

So I then ask if you’re not trying to relieve humans of the pains of all guilt when wrong is committed, pain that has its roots in an obligation to be morally right, pain that can help lead to conviction and repentance when responded to with a change of heart?

No, I am not trying to do that. I’m not sure how the question developed from my posts on this thread.

Why do “all need salvation” to begin with?

Because we have (had) acquired a distorted image of God. See CCC399. There is much more to this, though, additional reasons.

Why aren’t at least some free of that need, free from the sin that apparently causes the need for salvation?

Well, if a person is “free of the need” it could only be because the person has already been graced, which is through the Spirit, right? All of us by nature are capable of sin, all of us capable of being enslaved. Redemption comes through relationship with the Father.

And why can’t man save himself?

Because salvation comes through relationship.

You see, none of this discussion depends on the doctrine of original sin. Leaving original sin out of the picture may undermine some aspect of mystery, but it does not necessarily undermine faith. However, if a person’s faith depends on a negative anthropology, there may be some serious undermining taking place. It seems to me that the language could be modified to allow for a broader range of faithful.

 

[OneSheep]

What a Catholic must believe in this regard is that a moral wrong (sin) was culpably committed by Adam and that this had really bad consequences for the rest of humanity,

Yes, David, this is the kind of language that is more all-encompassing. There is nothing in that statement that says that man has a bad nature, etc.

 

[OneSheep]

People who do evil are evil. Just as a dog is considered bad if he does what is bad. The darkness of Evil is seen most clearly when it is seen in the light of what is good. The exception in humans is not the one bad dog, but the one good dog. And if there is one dog who truly does what is right and good the other dogs want to test him, try him, and hang him on a tree to see if he truly is one who is right and true. The evil man does not want to come into the light for fear that his evil deeds will be exposed.

"If you then, who are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will the heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to those who ask him!” (Luke 11:13)

Good Morning, Carl.

When Jesus refers to people as “wicked” or “evil”, He is saying that we do evil. To say that we are evil contradicts Genesis 1.

And I’m thinking you disagree with the quote from St. Augustine?