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

[Vico]

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?

The real (historical) states of human nature are given in Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma as:

• elevated nature (gifted with both sanctifying grace and preternatural integrity)
• fallen nature (without sanctifying grace and without preternatural integrity)
• restored nature
  • * before resurrection (gifted with sanctifying grace and without preternatural integrity)
  • at resurrection (gifted with both sanctifying grace and preternatural integrity)
  Merely possible states:
  • pure nature
  • unimpared nature
  The dogmas of faith are:
  
  PAUL III 1534-1549
  COUNCIL OF TRENT 1545-1563
  Session v (June 17, 1546)
  Decree On Original Sin
  
  788 I. If anyone does not confess that the first man Adam, when he had transgressed the commandment of God in Paradise, immediately lost his holiness and the justice in which he had been established, and that he incurred through the offense of that prevarication the wrath and indignation of God and hence the death with which God had previously threatened him, and with death captivity under his power, who thenceforth “had the empire of death” [Heb. 2:14], that is of the devil, and that through that offense of prevarication the entire Adam was transformed in body and soul for the worse [see n. 174], let him be anathema.
  
  ST. FELIX III 526-530
  COUNCIL OF ORANGE II 529
  Confirmed by Boniface II (against the Semipelagians)
  Original Sin, Grace, Predestination
  
  174 * Can. 1. If anyone says that by the offense of Adam’s transgression not the whole man, that is according to body and soul, was changed for the worse [St. Augustine], * but believes that while the liberty of the soul endures without harm, the body only is exposed to corruption, he is deceived by the error of Pelagius and resists the Scripture which says:“The soul, that has sinned, shall die” [Ezech. 18:20]; and: “Do you not know that to whom you show yourselves servants to obey, you are the servants of him whom you obey?” [Rom. 6:16]; and: Anyone is adjudged the slave of him by whom he is overcome [2 Pet.2:19].
  
  (Denzinger, Sources of Catholic Dogma)*

 

[OneSheep]

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.

From Vico:

Vico:

Through the sin our first parents lost sanctifying grace and provoked the anger and the indignation of God. (De fide.)
Our first parents became subject to death and to the dominion of the Devil. (De fide.) D788.
Adam’s sin is transmitted to his posterity, not by imitation, but by descent. (De fide.)
Original sin is transmitted by natural generation. (De fide.)
In the state of original sin man is deprived of sanctifying grace and all that this implies, as well as of the preternatural gifts of integrity. (De fide in regard to Sanctifying Grace and the Donum Immortalitatus. D788 et seq.)
Souls who depart this life in the state of original sin are excluded from the Beatific Vision of God. (De fide.)

You see, these items imply that God did not forgive, but became angry and indignant and actually modified human nature. Since grace comes from God, the deprivation is seen as a withholding, not God seeking lost sheep. God adding “concupiscence” as a negative aspect of human nature compromises the image of God seeking lost sheep.

Do you have a resource I can read?

Thanks,Usagi.

 

[Vico]

From Vico:

You see, these items imply that God did not forgive, but became angry and indignant and actually modified human nature. Since grace comes from God, the deprivation is seen as a withholding, not God seeking lost sheep. God adding “concupiscence” as a negative aspect of human nature compromises the image of God seeking lost sheep.

Do you have a resource I can read?

Thanks,Usagi.

God gave the supernatural grace and preternatural integrity (freedom from concupiscence) only as gifts, and those were lost. They did not exist by human nature (see state of pure nature below from Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma). One place where the Apostolic Penitentiary refers to these is in the Decree - Plenary Indulgences for the 15th World Day of the Sick:

Since man fell in consequence of original sin which deprived him of both supernatural and preternatural gifts, God the Creator and Redeemer, in his infinite mercy, has closely united in a mysterious bond what justice demands and what forgiveness obtains; therefore, suffering that has a penal character becomes a favourable opportunity for expiating sin and for obtaining the growth of virtue, and hence, for attaining eternal salvation.

This disposition of divine Providence is fulfilled for the faithful by virtue of the Paschal Mystery of Christ, who, in dying, made himself the dispenser of life and in rising is the cause of the firmest hope in our future resurrection.

Therefore, if the very condition which subjects human beings to illness and the suffering that result from it is accepted through acts of Faith, Hope and Charity since, as the subject of God’s most holy Will, it is a cause of greater holiness.

vatican.va/roman_curia/tribunals/apost_penit/documents/rc_trib_appen_doc_20070125_decreto-giornata-malato_en.html

From Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, Ludwig Ott, p. 106:

1. Merely Possible States

a) The *state of pure nature *(status naturae purae), that is, a condition in which man would possess all that, and only that, which appertains to human nature, and in which he could attain to a natural final end only.

The possibility of a pure state of nature, which was denied by Luther, Baius and Jansenius, is certain Church doctrine. It springs as a necessary consequence from the doctrine of the supernatural character of the gifts of the primitive state. Pope Pius V rejected the assertion of Baius: Deus non potuisset ab initio talem creare hominem, qualis nunc nascitur (D 1055). The Church teaches therefore that God could have created man without supernatural or praeter-natural gifts, but not in a condition of sin.

St. Augustine and the Schoolmen expressly teach the possibility of the pure state of nature. Cf. St. Augustine, Retract. I 8(9), 6. St. Thomas, In Sent. II d. 31 q.
a. 2 ad 3.

b) The state of unimpaired nature (status naturae integrae), i.e., that is a condition in which man, in addition to his nature, would possess the preternatural gifts of integrity, in order to reach his natural final goal with ease and with certainty.

Denzinger (Sources of Catholic Dogma) 1055, ST. PIUS V 1566-1572, Errors of Michael du Bay (BAII) [Condemned in the Bull “Ex omnibus afflictionibus,” Oct. 1, 1567]

1055 55. God would not have had the power from the beginning to create such a man as is born now.

 

[fhansen]

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.

But in past posts I believe you rejected the notion of obligation-that man is morally obligated, as a matter of the will, to choose to do the right thing. It’s one thing to say that ignorance plays a role in sin but another to say that this ignorance is so complete as to totally absolve man of culpability, which would mean that obligation and will really play no part in the end since there aren’t any eternal consequences to willing wrongly.

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

I agree that man-“we”- had “acquired a distorted image of God”. And that this negatively affects our concept of Him to this day even as Jesus’s purpose was to set us straight on the Father’s nature and will. The light can take a while to penetrate our darkness. But that leads back to OS doesn’t it? Why do we all start with this distortion? We begin with a hazy knowledge of God at best, a distorted image at worst, that of a quasi-wrathful distant God, aloof in His superiority and power. Until we come to know Him for ourselves, that is, which is the purpose of the New Covenant. Then we find that the real enmity came from man, not God. “They hated Me without reason Jesus says”, quoting Psalms.

But the state, itself, of not knowing God- of not believing in, let alone hoping in, let alone loving Him- is a state of disorder for man. And so that state then constitutes the state of OS, the “death of the soul”, apparently something shared by all humans at birth. Original Ignorance? Or Original Disorder? Should we view Adam as a being who was originally just but naturally ignorant? Or as a being who was originally just but fell into injustice? Did God directly intend and therefore cause all of the worst atrocities committed by humans, or was any of that a matter of beings who should know better? If we hold that ignorance is the sole culprit then all of Catholic theology begins to fall apart, beginning with the doctrine of natural law, that God has instilled certain knowledge-a conscience- into man which he’s obliged to follow, and that he can refuse to follow.

 

[OneSheep]

Merely possible states:

• pure nature
• unimpared nature

The dogmas of faith are:

PAUL III 1534-1549
COUNCIL OF TRENT 1545-1563
Session v (June 17, 1546)
Decree On Original Sin

788 I. If anyone does not confess that the first man Adam, when he had transgressed the commandment of God in Paradise, immediately lost his holiness and the justice in which he had been established, and that he incurred through the offense of that prevarication the wrath and indignation of God and hence the death with which God had previously threatened him, and with death captivity under his power, who thenceforth “had the empire of death” [Heb. 2:14], that is of the devil, and that through that offense of prevarication the entire Adam was transformed in body and soul for the worse [see n. 174], let him be anathema.

ST. FELIX III 526-530
COUNCIL OF ORANGE II 529
Confirmed by Boniface II (against the Semipelagians)
Original Sin, Grace, Predestination

174 * Can. 1. If anyone says that by the offense of Adam’s transgression not the whole man, that is according to body and soul, was changed for the worse [St. Augustine], * but believes that while the liberty of the soul endures without harm, the body only is exposed to corruption, he is deceived by the error of Pelagius and resists the Scripture which says:“The soul, that has sinned, shall die” [Ezech. 18:20]; and: “Do you not know that to whom you show yourselves servants to obey, you are the servants of him whom you obey?” [Rom. 6:16]; and: Anyone is adjudged the slave of him by whom he is overcome [2 Pet.2:19].

(Denzinger, Sources of Catholic Dogma)*
Vico;14378260:

God gave the supernatural grace and preternatural integrity (freedom from concupiscence) only as gifts, and those were lost. They did not exist by human nature (see state of pure nature below from Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma). One place where the Apostolic Penitentiary refers to these is in the Decree - Plenary Indulgences for the 15th World Day of the Sick:

Since man fell in consequence of original sin which deprived him of both supernatural and preternatural gifts, …

vatican.va/roman_curia/tribunals/apost_penit/documents/rc_trib_appen_doc_20070125_decreto-giornata-malato_en.html

From Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, Ludwig Ott, p. 106:

1. Merely Possible States

a) The *state of pure nature *(status naturae purae), that is, a condition in which man would possess all that, and only that, which appertains to human nature, and in which he could attain to a natural final end only.

The possibility of a pure state of nature, which was denied by Luther, Baius and Jansenius, is certain Church doctrine. It springs as a necessary consequence from the doctrine of the supernatural character of the gifts of the primitive state. Pope Pius V rejected the assertion of Baius: Deus non potuisset ab initio talem creare hominem, qualis nunc nascitur (D 1055). The Church teaches therefore that God could have created man without supernatural or praeter-natural gifts, but not in a condition of sin.

St. Augustine and the Schoolmen expressly teach the possibility of the pure state of nature. Cf. St. Augustine, Retract. I 8(9), 6. St. Thomas, In Sent. II d. 31 q.
a. 2 ad 3.

b) The state of unimpaired nature (status naturae integrae), i.e., that is a condition in which man, in addition to his nature, would possess the preternatural gifts of integrity, in order to reach his natural final goal with ease and with certainty.

Denzinger (Sources of Catholic Dogma) 1055, ST. PIUS V 1566-1572, Errors of Michael du Bay (BAII) [Condemned in the Bull “Ex omnibus afflictionibus,” Oct. 1, 1567]

1055 55. God would not have had the power from the beginning to create such a man as is born now.

Good Morning Vico,

What I put in bold appears to clarify CCC389. The use of the word “could” allows the Jewish convert to hold onto his convictions about man. The convert knows that man does not create himself, and knows that no other power creates, so man is not born in a condition of sin. The convert can acknowledge that man is born in a condition of ignorance, and capable of sin.

In addition, I found this:

“Original sin” in the Christian sense in no way implies that the original, personal act of freedom of the first person or persons is transmitted to us as our moral quality. - Karl Rahner

Rahner’s work may be one of the accepted Catholic “tamperings” Usagi referred to.

As far as the whole concept of a person being labeled an “anathema”, in its entirety it does not reflect that God seeks the lost sheep, nor does it reflect that God always loves and forgives. There is a difference between criticizing, even condemning, a person’s words, vs declaring a person out of communion. Jesus never declared a Pharisee as being non-Jewish or outside the faith.

I also found this:

Catholicism does not use “Anathema” anymore

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

Do tell me more about the “possibility of a pure state of nature”. You are a great resource, as always.

 

[OneSheep]

Good Morning fhansen

But in past posts I believe you rejected the notion of obligation-that man is morally obligated, as a matter of the will, to choose to do the right thing. It’s one thing to say that ignorance plays a role in sin but another to say that this ignorance is so complete as to totally absolve man of culpability, which would mean that obligation and will really play no part in the end since there aren’t any eternal consequences to willing wrongly.

There is a bit of “teasing apart” to be done in all this, friend. For example, I have no qualms against the word “obligation” if meaning that we are to do what is right and avoid what is wrong, as guided by our correctly formed consciences. What we do in life is very important, and we have the theology of “purging” to deal with our retained malformations of conscience. The observation that people do not know what they are doing when they sin is not made for the purpose of absolution, but it does lead one towards forgiveness, as it did St. Paul, the apostles, and, of course, Christ from the cross.

When it comes to “eternal consequences” we know that eternity involves choice. We also know that God would never let a person choose against Him out of ignorance.

I agree that man-“we”- had “acquired a distorted image of God”. And that this negatively affects our concept of Him to this day even as Jesus’s purpose was to set us straight on the Father’s nature and will. The light can take a while to penetrate our darkness. But that leads back to OS doesn’t it? Why do we all start with this distortion? We begin with a hazy knowledge of God at best, a distorted image at worst, that of a quasi-wrathful distant God, aloof in His superiority and power. Until we come to know Him for ourselves, that is, which is the purpose of the New Covenant. Then we find that the real enmity came from man, not God. “They hated Me without reason Jesus says”, quoting Psalms.

Why do we start with this distortion? People naturally project onto God what they see in themselves (I am using “projection” in both the positive and negative sense). By nature, we get angry, so we project anger upon God. By nature, we seek to punish wrongdoing, so we project the desire to punish upon God. By nature, we want power and status, so we project power and status upon God. We naturally condemn ourselves for doing wrong, we feel guilt, so we think God also condemns us, sees us as evil in some way.

But the state, itself, of not knowing God- of not believing in, let alone hoping in, let alone loving Him- is a state of disorder for man. And so that state then constitutes the state of OS, the “death of the soul”, apparently something shared by all humans at birth. Original Ignorance? Or Original Disorder?

Well, both, I think. There is definitely an orginal something that puts in all mankind the capacity to sin. Awareness leads to order, and awareness is the product of Revelation, so it all works together.

Should we view Adam as a being who was originally just but naturally ignorant? Or as a being who was originally just but fell into injustice?

I don’t see “justice” or “injustice” as some kind of natural conditions. Take a look at the quote from Rahner I put into my response to Vico. Adam made an error. If his error changed his nature, it would put involve saying that our own awareness is a characterization of our nature, which goes against modern use. But fhansen, I can’t see how people’s errors actually change our nature. Our nature is what it is, especially in terms of value. I will grant that there are many addictions and enslavements, and these will temporarily alter one’s mind in terms of obsession. But are obsessions in themselves a change of nature? Not in the ordinary use of the word.

Did God directly intend and therefore cause all of the worst atrocities committed by humans, or was any of that a matter of beings who should know better?

I’m a little confused by the question. Of course God neither intended or caused atrocities committed by people, and they were committed by people who “should” know better, but do not.

If we hold that ignorance is the sole culprit then all of Catholic theology begins to fall apart, beginning with the doctrine of natural law, that God has instilled certain knowledge-a conscience- into man which he’s obliged to follow, and that he can refuse to follow.

Well, the conscience is there, but there is a matter of becoming aware of it. My wife is a kindergarten teacher, and a big part of her job is developing the type of awareness that leads to healthy consciences.

People’s consciences can be malformed or undeveloped. When I saw no wrong in abortion, my conscience was malformed and undeveloped. Hearing the Church say “it is wrong” did not develop my conscience, but seeing the development of an unborn child in photos and science developed my conscience. The behaviors of five-year-olds are superficially guided by imposed rules (most of the time!), but real ownership happens when, i.e., the child knows what it feels like to be hit by someone, and realizes that they have caused the same hurt when they do so to someone else. Conscience development is part of empathy development.

Thanks, fhansen. Our approaches are very close, but of course not in everything.

 

[Vico]

Good Morning Vico,

What I put in bold appears to clarify CCC389. The use of the word “could” allows the Jewish convert to hold onto his convictions about man. The convert knows that man does not create himself, and knows that no other power creates, so man is not born in a condition of sin. The convert can acknowledge that man is born in a condition of ignorance, and capable of sin.

In addition, I found this:

“Original sin” in the Christian sense in no way implies that the original, personal act of freedom of the first person or persons is transmitted to us as our moral quality. - Karl Rahner

Rahner’s work may be one of the accepted Catholic “tamperings” Usagi referred to.

As far as the whole concept of a person being labeled an “anathema”, in its entirety it does not reflect that God seeks the lost sheep, nor does it reflect that God always loves and forgives. There is a difference between criticizing, even condemning, a person’s words, vs declaring a person out of communion. Jesus never declared a Pharisee as being non-Jewish or outside the faith.

I also found this:

Catholicism does not use “Anathema” anymore

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

Do tell me more about the “possibility of a pure state of nature”. You are a great resource, as always.

The word could in that sentence is not in conflict but an implication of the actual dogma given in the prior section.

Canon law (CIC 1998 update) does have this:

Canon 750 – § 1. Those things are to be believed by divine and catholic faith which are contained in the word of God as it has been written or handed down by tradition, that is, in the single deposit of faith entrusted to the Church, and which are at the same time proposed as divinely revealed either by the solemn Magisterium of the Church, or by its ordinary and universal Magisterium, which in fact is manifested by the common adherence of Christ’s faithful under the guidance of the sacred Magisterium. All are therefore bound to avoid any contrary doctrines.

§ 2. Furthermore, each and everything set forth definitively by the Magisterium of the Church regarding teaching on faith and morals must be firmly accepted and held; namely, those things required for the holy keeping and faithful exposition of the deposit of faith; therefore, anyone who rejects propositions which are to be held definitively sets himself against the teaching of the Catholic Church.

Canon 1371 – The following are to be punished with a just penalty:

1° a person who, apart from the case mentioned in canon 1364 § 1, teaches a doctrine condemned by the Roman Pontiff, or by an Ecumenical Council, or obstinately rejects the teachings mentioned in canon 750 § 2 or in canon 752 and, when warned by the Apostolic See or by the Ordinary, does not retract;

2° a person who in any other way does not obey the lawful command or prohibition of the Apostolic See or the Ordinary or Superior and, after being warned, persists in disobedience.

For Karl Rahner’s comment, the dogma is about the concupiscence that is transmitted.

Catechism
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.

 

[fhansen]

Hello OneSheep

I don’t see “justice” or “injustice” as some kind of natural conditions. Take a look at the quote from Rahner I put into my response to Vico. Adam made an error. If his error changed his nature, it would put involve saying that our own awareness is a characterization of our nature, which goes against modern use. But fhansen, I can’t see how people’s errors actually change our nature. Our nature is what it is, especially in terms of value. I will grant that there are many addictions and enslavements, and these will temporarily alter one’s mind in terms of obsession. But are obsessions in themselves a change of nature? Not in the ordinary use of the word.

Man possesses justice to the extent that he’s freely involved in a relationship with God, in communion with Him. Adam’s sin did not change his nature; it simply broke communion with God, apart from Whom he could do nothing (John 15:5 again). Adam *lost *something at the fall, entering a different state; he didn’t gain a new nature.

People’s consciences can be malformed or undeveloped. When I saw no wrong in abortion, my conscience was malformed and undeveloped. Hearing the Church say “it is wrong” did not develop my conscience, but seeing the development of an unborn child in photos and science developed my conscience. The behaviors of five-year-olds are superficially guided by imposed rules (most of the time!), but real ownership happens when, i.e., the child knows what it feels like to be hit by someone, and realizes that they have caused the same hurt when they do so to someone else. Conscience development is part of empathy development.

Thanks, fhansen. Our approaches are very close, but of course not in everything.

Your experience with changing positions on abortion parallels my own. I’d add that hearing the Church and others say “it is wrong” is extremely important though, which you probably agree with-the message must be kept continuously present in the public forum and so in our minds until we, hopefully, *do *own it, even if the message by itself can’t produce the personal insight/change.

 

[OneSheep]

Good Morning Vico,

The word could in that sentence is not in conflict but an implication of the actual dogma given in the prior section.

Canon law (CIC 1998 update) does have this:

Canon 750 – § 1. Those things are to be believed by divine and catholic faith which are contained in the word of God as it has been written or handed down by tradition, … All are therefore bound to avoid any contrary doctrines.

You see, Vico, the Catholic Church has a very rich tradition, and theologians and others are constantly clarifying what we know as Revelation. Given that what the Church teaches actually changes over the years (the treatment of anathemas the most proximate example on this thread) the question of this thread is not investigating what contrary doctrines are acceptable “tampering”, but what expansions or modification of doctrine or general teachings are acceptable and/or are already within the scope of Catholic teachings at this time. Karl Rahner provides some modern approaches, I think.

§ 2. Furthermore, each and everything set forth definitively by the Magisterium of the Church regarding teaching on faith and morals must be firmly accepted and held; namely, those things required for the holy keeping and faithful exposition of the deposit of faith; therefore, anyone who rejects propositions which are to be held definitively sets himself against the teaching of the Catholic Church.

Canon 1371 – The following are to be punished with a just penalty:

1° a person who, apart from the case mentioned in canon 1364 § 1, teaches a doctrine condemned by the Roman Pontiff, or by an Ecumenical Council, or obstinately rejects the teachings mentioned in canon 750 § 2 or in canon 752 and, when warned by the Apostolic See or by the Ordinary, does not retract;

2° a person who in any other way does not obey the lawful command or prohibition of the Apostolic See or the Ordinary or Superior and, after being warned, persists in disobedience.[/INDENT]

The Jewish convert I put forth sees that with a positive view of mankind, the human can see infinite value of humanity. With a view of infinite value of humanity, a natural morality follows that inspires people to care for the unborn, reject capitol punishment, reject all negative action between people. The Jewish convert sees that any works promoting “wounding” of the original state of goodness compromise or put in doubt the infinite value of humanity, thus making it easier for people to justify capital punishment and abortion.

The Jewish convert sees that an emphasis on the control of an outside force against God leads people to seek out and destroy what is perceived as foreign or contrary, as demonstrated by Nazism and Daesh. So, the Jewish convert remains firm that the satan, if in “control” of the world, is working because of the will of the Father, not contrary to His will. To speak otherwise to him he sees as support for the tenets of violent extremism.

Given that Jesus was also a Jew, it seems to me that some “tampering” has merit. Catholicism must not be only attractive to Jewish people who reject the infinite value of humanity and reject the idea of a single power in the universe.

For Karl Rahner’s comment, the dogma is about the concupiscence that is transmitted.

Well, let’s look again at the quote:

“Original sin” in the Christian sense in no way implies that the original, personal act of freedom of the first person or persons is transmitted to us as our moral quality. - Karl Rahner

If moral quality is not transmitted, that means that the actual state of the human remains in the state described in Genesis 1, that all He made is good. It is true, it is not man that creates man today, it remains God who creates man, and what He creates is to be cherished. Our moral quality remains firm. Transmitted concupiscence does not diminish that moral quality.

Catechism
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.

So, the Jewish convert sees the human as ignorant, suffering, and sure to experience death, but sees “corruption” as a diminishment of moral quality. In addition, the words “domination of death” if implying that there is a separate power in opposition to God, continue to be seen in his eyes as polytheism. To him, a separate power is another god.

Therefore, it would appear to Catholic teachings that they be written in such a way that incorporates, allows, and/or more explicitly defines terms and concepts in a way that the people to whom Jesus first preached can morally and theologically embrace the incarnation and seek Baptism. Indeed, if a Jewish person was required to take a more dim view of humanity and adhere to the idea of a separate power in the cosmos, he could understandably see that these requirements only serve to compromise his seeing of God’s goodness in everyone and take away from his own perfectly sound definition of monotheism. Do you really think, Vico, that our Catholic Church today would promote such compromise?

I do not see the Church today promoting such compromise. Instead, I see the Church doing the opposite, prioritizing a positive view of both mankind and Maker.

 

[fhansen]

Well, let’s look again at the quote:

“Original sin” in the Christian sense in no way implies that the original, personal act of freedom of the first person or persons is transmitted to us as our moral quality. - Karl Rahner

OneSheep, maybe you could provide more context with this quote. The intended meaning’s a bit hazy.

 

[OneSheep]

Good Morning fhansen,

Hello OneSheep

Man possesses justice to the extent that he’s freely involved in a relationship with God, in communion with Him. Adam’s sin did not change his nature; it simply broke communion with God, apart from Whom he could do nothing (John 15:5 again). Adam *lost *something at the fall, entering a different state; he didn’t gain a new nature.

If what was “lost” has to do with getting a distorted view of God, then it does not involve a change in nature. However, since A&E are described as “preternatural” then this appears to promote the idea of a change in nature.

Here, a new way of looking at Genesis 2 comes to mind. The tree of knowledge of good and evil is obviously a metaphor for the human conscience, as the result of the eating was man’s shame and thinking of nudity as shameful (bad), which are manifestations of development of conscience. While the conscience itself is very valuable and obviously a gift from God, could it be that the A&E story subtly demonstrates the expense, the somewhat challenging side-effect of having a conscience?

As I said before, IMO the reason why we naturally have a distorted view of God is because we naturally seek to punish bad behavior, we have a triggered anger/condemnation of others when they misbehave and we project these human characteristics upon God. The distortion is natural. One would question why God Himself would allow for this natural distortion, but in seeing that the distortion comes as the expense of having a conscience, the distortion is(was) truly worth it. Arguably, for the person of developing conscience, the distortion is still worthwhile.

And as long as human existence was primarily in a tribal format, the natural distortion mostly served human kind; those who misbehaved were ostracized. What is significant about the incarnation is that it takes place as the world not only became a place where the ostracized could continue to survive, but the world turned irreversibly toward becoming a “smaller place” where peoples of differing races, cultures, and religions are found side-by-side, needing to interact with forgiveness and reconciliation as central tenets. In one motion, the incarnation heals the expense of the conscience, He gives us the means to deal with the expense and clears up the projected distortion of God’s image.

So, in my mind “original sin” as being defined or alternatively defined as an “original ignorance” or “original distortion” has some merit. I don’t see it as undermining faith, though it may undermine some aspect of “mystery” that needs not be mysterious.

 

[Vico]

…

We are not born with actual sin but have the influence of concupiscence. God offsets this with actual grace and sanctifying grace. A dim view is not required.

There are definite dogmas of faith regarding the angelic beings. There is no other god opposing God, but there is the devil, a fallen creature. In the Book of Job we read where God allowed the devil to test Job. The dogma of faith is that the Devil posesses a certain dominion over mankind by reason of Adam’s sin. Gospel of John 8
42 Jesus therefore said to them: If God were your Father, you would indeed love me. For from God I proceeded, and came; for I came not of myself, but he sent me: 43 Why do you not know my speech? Because you cannot hear my word. 44 You are of your father the devil, and the desires of your father you will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and he stood not in the truth; because truth is not in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father thereof. 45 But if I say the truth, you believe me not. 46 Which of you shall convince me of sin? If I say the truth to you, why do you not believe me? 47 He that is of God, heareth the words of God. Therefore you hear them not, because you are not of God.

The Fourth Lateran Council declared against the Gnostic-Manichaean dualism.

 

[OneSheep]

Good Morning Vico,

We are not born with actual sin but have the influence of concupiscence. God offsets this with actual grace and sanctifying grace. A dim view is not required.

If “inclination” involves intent to actually do harm for its own sake, or separate oneself from God for its own purpose, saying that man has an inclination to sin is already a dim view.

There are definite dogmas of faith regarding the angelic beings. There is no other god opposing God, but there is the devil, a fallen creature. In the Book of Job we read where God allowed the devil to test Job. The dogma of faith is that the Devil posesses a certain dominion over mankind by reason of Adam’s sin. Gospel of John 8

If that “certain dominion” is contrary to God’s will, in opposition to God, this again would conflict with the Jewish convert’s definition and experience of dualism. So, would it be better for this convert to embrace a dualism, or would it be better for him to do a little “tampering” with the doctrine in his own mind in order to keep Christianity monotheistic?

And as I think about it, this is a very important question. How do we keep the Christian from believing in a power in opposition to God, that is not in itself a god? The Jewish convert sees people fearing a “power of the devil” and the like, which he sees as compromising monotheistic faith. He finds comfort in St. Paul’s (paraphrased) “nothing separates us from the love of God”.

42 Jesus therefore said to them: If God were your Father, you would indeed love me. For from God I proceeded, and came; for I came not of myself, but he sent me: 43 Why do you not know my speech? Because you cannot hear my word. 44 You are of your father the devil, and the desires of your father you will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and he stood not in the truth; because truth is not in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father thereof. 45 But if I say the truth, you believe me not. 46 Which of you shall convince me of sin? If I say the truth to you, why do you not believe me? 47 He that is of God, heareth the words of God. Therefore you hear them not, because you are not of God.

The above section does not express that the devil is in opposition to God, but can still remain a tester in concert with God. The most problematic words would be “he speaks of his own”. The translation in the NIV says “When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies.” which allows more for a creature of God’s will whose purpose is to challenge.

The Fourth Lateran Council declared against the Gnostic-Manichaean dualism.

Yes, the Jewish convert takes heart in this, but still sees the faith of many Christians based on a belief in two opposing powers.

From Wikipedia:

Second Temple period
See also: Angra Mainyu

Some scholars see contact with religious dualism in Babylon, and early Zoroastrianism in particular, as influencing Second Temple Judaism, and consequently early Christianity.[15][16] Subsequent development of Satan as a “deceiver” has parallels with the evil spirit in Zoroastrianism, known as the Lie, who directs forces of darkness.[17]

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satan#Judaism

In my own observation, the dualism of Zoroastrianism is extremely attractive to people because it mirrors the activity of the conscience. We tend to condemn parts of ourselves, those motives, drives, and capacities that occasionally impel us to do harm, actions that conflict with what we know as righteous. If a person sees forces of good and evil within himself, he projects this observation upon the cosmos. Parts of the Gospel that I think monotheistic Jewish people would find very attractive are references to light and darkness, particularly those that depict the light obliterating darkness. Psychologically speaking, an effort at self-awareness that leads to an individual’s reconciliation with his shadow is a “light” that makes the darkness disappear. Once the human sees no “evil force” within, the projection of dualism upon the cosmos simply disappears, creating a truly monotheistic outlook.

To take it to another level, the incorporation of Zoroastrian tenets (if Wikipedia is right) for a period of the history of Judaism may have been very important for the development of Christianity. Since dualistic outlook is a natural manifestation of the activity of conscience, and the conscience serves humanity, dualism is understandably incorporated as an acceptable way of looking at the universe. In spite of Catholicism’s theological assertions, many Christians essentially believe that there are two gods fighting in the world. Jesus does not appear to contest this view, but calls us to forgive and reconcile, which ultimately leads to a reconciliation with the parts of ourselves we condemn. Jesus provides a light, including a light of awareness; the darkness of a force opposing God, which is only an illusion, goes away.

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

 

[OneSheep]

OneSheep, maybe you could provide more context with this quote. The intended meaning’s a bit hazy.

3rdmillennium.blogspot.com/2006/09/karl-rahner-on-original-sin.html

In the context I read it, it was a bit hazy, but the wording may be the legitimate “tampering” that Usagi was referring to. My impression is that Rahner speaks for a more developed Catholicism for our era.

 

[davidv]

Good Morning Vico,

If “inclination” involves intent to actually do harm for its own sake, or separate oneself from God for its own purpose, saying that man has an inclination to sin is already a dim view.

If that “certain dominion” is contrary to God’s will, in opposition to God, this again would conflict with the Jewish convert’s definition and experience of dualism. So, would it be better for this convert to embrace a dualism, or would it be better for him to do a little “tampering” with the doctrine in his own mind in order to keep Christianity monotheistic?

And as I think about it, this is a very important question. How do we keep the Christian from believing in a power in opposition to God, that is not in itself a god? The Jewish convert sees people fearing a “power of the devil” and the like, which he sees as compromising monotheistic faith. He finds comfort in St. Paul’s (paraphrased) “nothing separates us from the love of God”.

The above section does not express that the devil is in opposition to God, but can still remain a tester in concert with God. The most problematic words would be “he speaks of his own”. The translation in the NIV says “When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies.” which allows more for a creature of God’s will whose purpose is to challenge.

Yes, the Jewish convert takes heart in this, but still sees the faith of many Christians based on a belief in two opposing powers.

From Wikipedia:

Second Temple period
See also: Angra Mainyu

Some scholars see contact with religious dualism in Babylon, and early Zoroastrianism in particular, as influencing Second Temple Judaism, and consequently early Christianity.[15][16] Subsequent development of Satan as a “deceiver” has parallels with the evil spirit in Zoroastrianism, known as the Lie, who directs forces of darkness.[17]

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satan#Judaism

In my own observation, the dualism of Zoroastrianism is extremely attractive to people because it mirrors the activity of the conscience. We tend to condemn parts of ourselves, those motives, drives, and capacities that occasionally impel us to do harm, actions that conflict with what we know as righteous. If a person sees forces of good and evil within himself, he projects this observation upon the cosmos. Parts of the Gospel that I think monotheistic Jewish people would find very attractive are references to light and darkness, particularly those that depict the light obliterating darkness. Psychologically speaking, an effort at self-awareness that leads to an individual’s reconciliation with his shadow is a “light” that makes the darkness disappear. Once the human sees no “evil force” within, the projection of dualism upon the cosmos simply disappears, creating a truly monotheistic outlook.

To take it to another level, the incorporation of Zoroastrian tenets (if Wikipedia is right) for a period of the history of Judaism may have been very important for the development of Christianity. Since dualistic outlook is a natural manifestation of the activity of conscience, and the conscience serves humanity, dualism is understandably incorporated as an acceptable way of looking at the universe. In spite of Catholicism’s theological assertions, many Christians essentially believe that there are two gods fighting in the world. Jesus does not appear to contest this view, but calls us to forgive and reconcile, which ultimately leads to a reconciliation with the parts of ourselves we condemn. Jesus provides a light, including a light of awareness; the darkness of a force opposing God, which is only an illusion, goes away.

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

Intent is a function of the will, therefore it cannot be a part of concupiscence.

Every sin committed is contrary to God’s will, so it is not clear why Satan’s dominion is singled out.

What do a Jewish convert’s definitions and experience have to do with explaining OS?

 

[OneSheep]

Intent is a function of the will, therefore it cannot be a part of concupiscence.

Every sin committed is contrary to God’s will, so it is not clear why Satan’s dominion is singled out.

What do a Jewish convert’s definitions and experience have to do with explaining OS?

Well, concupiscence (strong desire) does have an effect on our focus, it effects what is primary in our minds. So while concupiscence has no effect on a deeper intent to do good, it does effect our ability to see the importance of that deeper good.

The discussion of the Jewish convert came about because I brought up the example of someone who grew up with the same scriptures, but does not believe in os as defined by the RCC. The person wishes to be baptized even though he does not believe in os.

 

[Vico]

…

Certain dominion is correct, because born with concupiesence and without sanctifying grace, there is an inclination to sin. So then, if you call that a dim view, then a dim view is required for the faith. I don’t know what you mean precisely by do harm for its own sake, we sin through ignorance, passion, or malice.

In Christianity there are not two gods but one Holy Trinity and the fallen angels that freely choose to sin are mere creatures. More from the Catechism:

II. THE FALL OF THE ANGELS

391 Behind the disobedient choice of our first parents lurks a seductive voice, opposed to God, which makes them fall into death out of envy.266 Scripture and the Church’s Tradition see in this being a fallen angel, called “Satan” or the “devil”.267 The Church teaches that Satan was at first a good angel, made by God: "The devil and the other demons were indeed created naturally good by God, but they became evil by their own doing."268

392 Scripture speaks of a sin of these angels.269 This “fall” consists in the free choice of these created spirits, who radically and irrevocably rejected God and his reign. We find a reflection of that rebellion in the tempter’s words to our first parents: "You will be like God."270 The devil “has sinned from the beginning”; he is “a liar and the father of lies”.271

393 It is the irrevocable character of their choice, and not a defect in the infinite divine mercy, that makes the angels’ sin unforgivable. "There is no repentance for the angels after their fall, just as there is no repentance for men after death."272

 

[simpleas]

Certain dominion is correct, because born with concupiesence and without sanctifying grace, there is an inclination to sin. So then, if you call that a dim view, then a dim view is required for the faith. I don’t know what you mean precisely by do harm for its own sake, we sin through ignorance, passion, or malice.

In Christianity there are not two gods but one Holy Trinity and the fallen angels that freely choose to sin are mere creatures. More from the Catechism:

II. THE FALL OF THE ANGELS

391 Behind the disobedient choice of our first parents lurks a seductive voice, opposed to God, which makes them fall into death out of envy.266 Scripture and the Church’s Tradition see in this being a fallen angel, called “Satan” or the “devil”.267 The Church teaches that Satan was at first a good angel, made by God: "The devil and the other demons were indeed created naturally good by God, but they became evil by their own doing."268

392 Scripture speaks of a sin of these angels.269 This “fall” consists in the free choice of these created spirits, who radically and irrevocably rejected God and his reign. We find a reflection of that rebellion in the tempter’s words to our first parents: "You will be like God."270 The devil “has sinned from the beginning”; he is “a liar and the father of lies”.271

393 It is the irrevocable character of their choice, and not a defect in the infinite divine mercy, that makes the angels’ sin unforgivable. "There is no repentance for the angels after their fall, just as there is no repentance for men after death."272

Adam and Eve were created without concupiscence, and were in a state of sanctifying grace, yet they sinned.

We have the inclination to sin because of being born with concupiscence and not in a state of SG.

How were they ever ‘different’ in that respect?( Their state of being)

 

[Vico]

Adam and Eve were created without concupiscence, and were in a state of sanctifying grace, yet they sinned.

We have the inclination to sin because of being born with concupiscence and not in a state of SG.

How were they ever ‘different’ in that respect? (Their state of being)

The question is not clear, however maybe this will suffice: Adam and Eve had gifts which mankind is not now born with.

St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica,

Question 94 – The State of the First Man with Respect to Intellect, Article 4. Whether man in his first state could be deceived?

On the contrary, Augustine says (De Lib. Arb. iii, 18): “To regard what is true as false, is not natural to man as created; but is a punishment of man condemned.”

I answer that, in the opinion of some, deception may mean two things; namely, any slight surmise, in which one adheres to what is false, as though it were true, but without the assent of belief–or it may mean a firm belief. Thus before sin Adam could not be deceived in either of these ways as regards those things to which his knowledge extended; but as regards things to which his knowledge did not extend, he might have been deceived, if we take deception in the wide sense of the term for any surmise without assent of belief. This opinion was held with the idea that it is not derogatory to man to entertain a false opinion in such matters, and that provided he does not assent rashly, he is not to be blamed.

Such an opinion, however, is not fitting as regards the integrity of the primitive state of life; because, as Augustine says (De Civ. Dei xiv, 10), in that state of life “sin was avoided without struggle, and while it remained so, no evil could exist.” Now it is clear that as truth is the good of the intellect, so falsehood is its evil, as the Philosopher says (Ethic. vi, 2). So that, as long as the state of innocence continued, it was impossible for the human intellect to assent to falsehood as if it were truth. For as some perfections, such as clarity, were lacking in the bodily members of the first man, though no evil could be therein; so there could be in his intellect the absence of some knowledge, but no false opinion.

This is clear also from the very rectitude of the primitive state, by virtue of which, while the soul remained subject to God, the lower faculties in man were subject to the higher, and were no impediment to their action. And from what has preceded (I:85:6, it is clear that as regards its proper object the intellect is ever true; and hence it is never deceived of itself; but whatever deception occurs must be ascribed to some lower faculty, such as the imagination or the like. Hence we see that when the natural power of judgment is free we are not deceived by such images, but only when it is not free, as is the case in sleep. Therefore it is clear that the rectitude of the primitive state was incompatible with deception of the intellect.

Also note objection 1 and reply:

Objection 1. It would seem that man in his primitive state could have been deceived. For the Apostle says (1 Timothy 2:14) that “the woman being seduced was in the transgression.”

Reply to Objection 1. Though the woman was deceived before she sinned in deed, still it was not till she had already sinned by interior pride. For Augustine says (Gen. ad lit. xi, 30) that “the woman could not have believed the words of the serpent, had she not already acquiesced in the love of her own power, and in a presumption of self-conceit.”

newadvent.org/summa/1094.htm

 

[fhansen]

The question is not clear, however maybe this will suffice: Adam and Eve had gifts which mankind is not now born with.

St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica,

Question 94 – The State of the First Man with Respect to Intellect, Article 4. Whether man in his first state could be deceived?

On the contrary, Augustine says (De Lib. Arb. iii, 18): “To regard what is true as false, is not natural to man as created; but is a punishment of man condemned.”

I answer that, in the opinion of some, deception may mean two things; namely, any slight surmise, in which one adheres to what is false, as though it were true, but without the assent of belief–or it may mean a firm belief. Thus before sin Adam could not be deceived in either of these ways as regards those things to which his knowledge extended; but as regards things to which his knowledge did not extend, he might have been deceived, if we take deception in the wide sense of the term for any surmise without assent of belief. This opinion was held with the idea that it is not derogatory to man to entertain a false opinion in such matters, and that provided he does not assent rashly, he is not to be blamed.

Such an opinion, however, is not fitting as regards the integrity of the primitive state of life; because, as Augustine says (De Civ. Dei xiv, 10), in that state of life “sin was avoided without struggle, and while it remained so, no evil could exist.” Now it is clear that as truth is the good of the intellect, so falsehood is its evil, as the Philosopher says (Ethic. vi, 2). So that, as long as the state of innocence continued, it was impossible for the human intellect to assent to falsehood as if it were truth. For as some perfections, such as clarity, were lacking in the bodily members of the first man, though no evil could be therein; so there could be in his intellect the absence of some knowledge, but no false opinion.

This is clear also from the very rectitude of the primitive state, by virtue of which, while the soul remained subject to God, the lower faculties in man were subject to the higher, and were no impediment to their action. And from what has preceded (I:85:6, it is clear that as regards its proper object the intellect is ever true; and hence it is never deceived of itself; but whatever deception occurs must be ascribed to some lower faculty, such as the imagination or the like. Hence we see that when the natural power of judgment is free we are not deceived by such images, but only when it is not free, as is the case in sleep. Therefore it is clear that the rectitude of the primitive state was incompatible with deception of the intellect.

Also note objection 1 and reply:

Objection 1. It would seem that man in his primitive state could have been deceived. For the Apostle says (1 Timothy 2:14) that “the woman being seduced was in the transgression.”

Reply to Objection 1. Though the woman was deceived before she sinned in deed, still it was not till she had already sinned by interior pride. For Augustine says (Gen. ad lit. xi, 30) that “the woman could not have believed the words of the serpent, had she not already acquiesced in the love of her own power, and in a presumption of self-conceit.”

newadvent.org/summa/1094.htm

This seems to contradict itself. If man in his primitive state could not be deceived, why was Eve deceived? And how could she sin interiorly with pride if she had been created good, without sin?