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

[davidv]

Good Morning David,

The problem is, though, that those of us who are parents know that when our child breaks a command we really care about, they are doing so without knowing what they are doing.

Having help raise six children, I know for a fact that most time they knew exactly what they were doing. They chose, with complete disregard for what their parents knew was the best for them. Whether they consciously thought of it as breaking the relationship, it did so nonetheless.

Their doubt and defiance does not indicate an intent to break a relationship, so why would a parent take it that way?

Again, this is going to depend on personal experience of love. Perhaps there are parents out there who really do take disobedience as a direct communication that relationship is no longer wanted. If this is a person’s experience with their own parents, and their own parents are their primary experience of love, then she/he will be more inclined to make sense of the doctrine of original sin.

It is not a judgment against anyone to give him the benefit of the doubt, David. If a person experiences God’s love in an infinite way, yet sees the doctrine of os as a conflict, then in turn seeks to “tamper” with the doctrine rather than compromise what he knows about Love, this is not a judgment against anyone.

It can be seen as a “judgment” against the doctrine, but that observation does not keep in mind that the Gospel is a living document. Revelation unfolds, and it unfolds through the Spirit.

Claiming that Adam didn’t know is tampering with Original Sin.

 

[Ubenedictus]

God as a human father is at best an analogy, we human relate to stuff that way. Like all analogy it is weak on certain issues.

God may be viewed a father but certainly not in all sense as a human father, he has his own idea of justice that transcends that of our earthly fathers, his has his own principles of judgement and the bible thinly reveals those principles.

Adam is like a covenantal head, he receives gifts for himself and his progeny, if and when he loses it he does so for all. That is God’s own justice, it may not be how we understand the term but we are not God.

 

[simpleas]

Hi Simpleas!

I didn’t give an answer, actually. I gave an answer such that you can draw from your own experience for the answer you find within.

We are talking about original sin, and we are called to see all scripture in light of revelation. From Revelation we know that God always forgives, as Jesus forgave from the cross without condition. Does the doctrine of OS reflect this absolute and infinite love of God? Does it reflect a perfection in love and justice? These are questions that motivate some people to “tamper” things a bit.

And our answers will be very different from each other then. You were asking questions about God, fine if you can answer them from your own experience,world view etc, but looking at the questions you posed about the creator (not a human father) I could not answer them from my own experience.

To me when Jesus died for our sins and Adams it was finished, it is we who hold onto grudges etc not God. But then I am a wary ward Catholic…

 

[ffg]

If a person experiences Truth as knowing that God always loves and forgives, yet is under the impression that the doctrine of original sin shows a God who does not forgive, they might want to “tamper” with the doctrine in order to make it reflect a God who forgives. In addition, if a person’s experience of people is such that they can see that Adam had no ill intent, yet the doctrine appears to blame people’s nature (rather than their ignorance or blindness) a person may also be motivated to “tamper”.

For the person who experiences the nature of man as a negative, or God as conditionally forgiving, then yes, that person may believe that the tampering I described above is a walk away from the truth. But to the person “tampering”, it is not.

That’s why the CCC is spelled out the way it is, this game has been well played through the centuries.

That would depend on a person taking Genesis 2&3 as a historical document.

Are you understanding why a person might be inclined to “tamper”? And if so, the question is how much “tampering” might be acceptable? Would it be fruitful to broaden the doctrine in order to incorporate a wider experience of God’s love?

Thanks for your response!

The history is the redemption. To clear that up. I think we might be hunting a bit to find someone who believes in talking snakes. Genesis is an allegory.

In the same way a person wants to sin, a person might want to tamper with a definition that the Church says is sealed.

Thus there is no question about ‘how much tampering’ if the goal is truth and the church defends and shares the truth.

Take care,

 

[ffg]

They did* become like one of us, knowing good and evil*

Though I would flip that as we come after the first parents, what does it have to do with defending Adam as someone who is not what we find in the only account?

 

[simpleas]

Though I would flip that as we come after the first parents, what does it have to do with defending Adam as someone who is not what we find in the only account?

Originally Posted by ffg
The problem with a power hungry Adam is that is not what we have in the one version of the story that exists.

When temptation first rears it’s head, the humans defend / restate God’s law.

After sin, is shame, not the promise by the tempter, or any reference that a goal was met.

I was referring to your comment here (bold)

The goal apparently was to become like gods, not God, and later in the story God even says man has become like one of us knowing good and evil, Adam and Eve knew good and evil after sin like God does, in some way, they didn’t expect to feel shame though, that is where the lie played it’s part.

Thanks.

 

[OneSheep]

Hi David, and joyous Christmas!

Having help raise six children, I know for a fact that most time they knew exactly what they were doing. They chose, with complete disregard for what their parents knew was the best for them. Whether they consciously thought of it as breaking the relationship, it did so nonetheless.

I guess it depends on a person’s definition of “breaking”, and “knowing exactly what they are doing.” To me, if a person does not know that they are compromising a relationship, then they do not know what they are doing, there is some relevant information missing.

My relationship with my own children has never been broken. They always knew that I would love them and forgive them no matter what they do. That said, I have no control over their own decision to never see me again, which would definitely be a “break”. Because of my own unconditional love and acceptance of them, though, they have no reason to break off anything.

Claiming that Adam didn’t know is tampering with Original Sin.

I respect your POV. Thanks for contributing to the discussion!

 

[OneSheep]

God as a human father is at best an analogy, we human relate to stuff that way. Like all analogy it is weak on certain issues.

God may be viewed a father but certainly not in all sense as a human father, he has his own idea of justice that transcends that of our earthly fathers, his has his own principles of judgement and the bible thinly reveals those principles.

Adam is like a covenantal head, he receives gifts for himself and his progeny, if and when he loses it he does so for all. That is God’s own justice, it may not be how we understand the term but we are not God.

Well, the guide that I like the most is “God loves us at least as much as the person who loves us most”. My own parents would never punish me in a way that effects my own children, in fact they love me and forgive all my wrongdoings.

Now we could leave this all to “mystery”, which means that God is not knowable in some way, but Love is indeed knowable. We are to Love as guided by Jesus Christ, and we are to “be perfect” in our mercy and compassion “as our heavenly Father is perfect”.

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.

 

[OneSheep]

Hi Simpleas!

And our answers will be very different from each other then.

They will differ based on our own experiences of Love. Amazingly, people’s experience and knowledge of Love are quite similar.

You were asking questions about God, fine if you can answer them from your own experience,world view etc, but looking at the questions you posed about the creator (not a human father) I could not answer them from my own experience.

I understand your hesitation, but I am confident in your ability to talk about Love from your own experiences. Your posts communicate love and acceptance.

To me when Jesus died for our sins and Adams it was finished, it is we who hold onto grudges etc not God. But then I am a wary ward Catholic…

Yes, God never holds grudges. To the degree that the doctrine of original sin communicates that God held a grudge, or at least held something against Adam and Eve, to that degree a person might be willing to “tamper” with the doctrine in a way that makes the doctrine reflect a God who always forgives. This is not to say that there is no place for punishment, as rehabilitative punishment has its purpose. As you know though, one’s punishment of the children of a wrongdoer would not rehabilitate.

And yes, we hold grudges, and we naturally project that God also holds grudges. Jesus came, among other reasons, to correct that projection.

 

[OneSheep]

The history is the redemption. To clear that up. I think we might be hunting a bit to find someone who believes in talking snakes. Genesis is an allegory.

In the same way a person wants to sin, a person might want to tamper with a definition that the Church says is sealed.

Thus there is no question about ‘how much tampering’ if the goal is truth and the church defends and shares the truth.

Take care,

Actually, I did not see anywhere that the definition is sealed. What I did see was that tampering with the definition undermines the mystery of Christ. Did you see my posts 33 and 44? Perhaps some mysteries would be fruitfully undermined…?

I wish you a joyous Christmas season!

 

[Vico]

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.

• Front: Jesus is the Savior of all men, that all need salvation and that salvation is offered to all through Christ.
• Reverse: (CCC 407) By our first parents’ sin, the devil has acquired a certain domination over man, even though man remains free. Original sin entails “captivity under the power of him who thenceforth had the power of death, that is, the devil” [Council of Trent (1546): DS 1511; cf. Heb 2:14.]

 

[OneSheep]

• Front: Jesus is the Savior of all men, that all need salvation and that salvation is offered to all through Christ.
• Reverse: (CCC 407) By our first parents’ sin, the devil has acquired a certain domination over man, even though man remains free. Original sin entails “captivity under the power of him who thenceforth had the power of death, that is, the devil” [Council of Trent (1546): DS 1511; cf. Heb 2:14.]

Good Morning Vico,

From my post 23 of this thread:

For example, imagine a Jewish person considering the Gospel. Their own scripture includes the creation story, but they do not have a concept of Original Sin. This Jewish person takes great value in Christ’s works, His challenging of the pious authority, His call for forgiveness of enemies, His discipline to be free of all the human trappings. The Jewish person sees Jesus suffering on the cross as something he can relate to in the most desperate times of his own past, when he truly thought that God had abandoned him. He finds hope in the resurrection. He sees a humble divinity, and he wants to dedicate his life to serving others and following Christ. However, he does not agree with the doctrine of original sin, he sees it as compromising an image of a forgiving Father. Is his faith invalid in some way? Is his faith undermined?

So, Vico, if we take this a bit further, let’s say, like most (all? see this ) Jews, this same Jewish person does not see Satan as a separate power against God in any way. He does not see that people are “under captivity” of a separate power. Indeed, he sees the idea of a separate power as compromising the concept of “One God”. Is his faith undermined by his lack of acknowledgement? Well, no. So, while his theology has no use for belief in a separate power, thus “undermining” aspects of the “mystery”, this person’s commitment to Christ is not undermined.

Given the above, is there a rationale for a bit of “tampering”, or instead is there no need for tampering at all? For the case of this Jewish person, he can simply acknowledge for himself that though he neither believes in the doctrine of original sin nor a separate “captive power”, his own faith remains solid in commitment to Christ. For him, undermining the mystery does not undermine his faith.

What do you think, Vico?

 

[Vico]

Good Morning Vico,

From my post 23 of this thread:

For example, imagine a Jewish person considering the Gospel. Their own scripture includes the creation story, but they do not have a concept of Original Sin. This Jewish person takes great value in Christ’s works, His challenging of the pious authority, His call for forgiveness of enemies, His discipline to be free of all the human trappings. The Jewish person sees Jesus suffering on the cross as something he can relate to in the most desperate times of his own past, when he truly thought that God had abandoned him. He finds hope in the resurrection. He sees a humble divinity, and he wants to dedicate his life to serving others and following Christ. However, he does not agree with the doctrine of original sin, he sees it as compromising an image of a forgiving Father. Is his faith invalid in some way? Is his faith undermined?

So, Vico, if we take this a bit further, let’s say, like most (all? see this ) Jews, this same Jewish person does not see Satan as a separate power against God in any way. He does not see that people are “under captivity” of a separate power. Indeed, he sees the idea of a separate power as compromising the concept of “One God”. Is his faith undermined by his lack of acknowledgement? Well, no. So, while his theology has no use for belief in a separate power, thus “undermining” aspects of the “mystery”, this person’s commitment to Christ is not undermined.

Given the above, is there a rationale for a bit of “tampering”, or instead is there no need for tampering at all? For the case of this Jewish person, he can simply acknowledge for himself that though he neither believes in the doctrine of original sin nor a separate “captive power”, his own faith remains solid in commitment to Christ. For him, undermining the mystery does not undermine his faith.

What do you think, Vico?

No tampering is needed. The examples you give are not of people that are committed in faith to the Most Holy Trinity. There is a change in qualification once the Gospel is known.

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

Who can be saved?

Lumen Gentium (from Vatican II) item 16:

1. Finally, those who have not yet received the Gospel are related in various ways to the people of God.(18*)

• In the first place we must recall the people to whom the testament and the promises were given and from whom Christ was born according to the flesh.(125) On account of their fathers this people remains most dear to God, for God does not repent of the gifts He makes nor of the calls He issues.(126)* But the plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator. In the first place amongst these there are the Muslims, who, professing to hold the faith of Abraham, along with us adore the one and merciful God, who on the last day will judge mankind. * Nor is God far distant from those who in shadows and images seek the unknown God, for it is He who gives to all men life and breath and all things,(127) and as Saviour wills that all men be saved.(128) Those also can attain to salvation who through no fault of their own do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church, yet sincerely seek God and moved by grace strive by their deeds to do His will as it is known to them through the dictates of conscience.(19*) * Nor does Divine Providence deny the helps necessary for salvation to those who, without blame on their part, have not yet arrived at an explicit knowledge of God and with His grace strive to live a good life. Whatever good or truth is found amongst them is looked upon by the Church as a preparation for the Gospel.(20*)

She knows that it is given by Him who enlightens all men so that they may finally have life. But often men, deceived by the Evil One, have become vain in their reasonings and have exchanged the truth of God for a lie, serving the creature rather than the Creator.(129) Or some there are who, living and dying in this world without God, are exposed to final despair. Wherefore to promote the glory of God and procure the salvation of all of these, and mindful of the command of the Lord, “Preach the Gospel to every creature”,(130) the Church fosters the missions with care and attention.

The Catechism 847 teaches

This affirmation “Outside the Church there is no salvation”] is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church: Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience—those too may achieve eternal salvation.

 

[OneSheep]

No tampering is needed. The examples you give are not of people that are committed in faith to the Most Holy Trinity. There is a change in qualification once the Gospel is known.

Oh, I definitely left something out, then. The Jewish convert I presented indeed has faith in the Holy Trinity, which is not polytheistic.

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

This verse has an internal contradiction when taken out of context. Jesus is not saying that their own admission of sight is in Truth. Therefore, if they are not blind, they are ignorant. They are guilty of believing untruths.

Who can be saved?

Lumen Gentium (from Vatican II) item 16:

1. Finally, those who have not yet received the Gospel are related in various ways to the people of God.(18*)

• In the first place we must recall the people to whom the testament and the promises were given and from whom Christ was born according to the flesh.(125) On account of their fathers this people remains most dear to God, for God does not repent of the gifts He makes nor of the calls He issues.(126)* But the plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator. In the first place amongst these there are the Muslims, who, professing to hold the faith of Abraham, along with us adore the one and merciful God, who on the last day will judge mankind. * Nor is God far distant from those who in shadows and images seek the unknown God, for it is He who gives to all men life and breath and all things,(127) and as Saviour wills that all men be saved.(128) Those also can attain to salvation who through no fault of their own do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church, yet sincerely seek God and moved by grace strive by their deeds to do His will as it is known to them through the dictates of conscience.(19*) * Nor does Divine Providence deny the helps necessary for salvation to those who, without blame on their part, have not yet arrived at an explicit knowledge of God and with His grace strive to live a good life. Whatever good or truth is found amongst them is looked upon by the Church as a preparation for the Gospel.(20*)

She knows that it is given by Him who enlightens all men so that they may finally have life. But often men, deceived by the Evil One, have become vain in their reasonings and have exchanged the truth of God for a lie, serving the creature rather than the Creator.(129) Or some there are who, living and dying in this world without God, are exposed to final despair. Wherefore to promote the glory of God and procure the salvation of all of these, and mindful of the command of the Lord, “Preach the Gospel to every creature”,(130) the Church fosters the missions with care and attention.

The Catechism 847 teaches

This affirmation “Outside the Church there is no salvation”] is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church: Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience—those too may achieve eternal salvation.

The example Jewish person, in his commitment to Christ, has chosen to be baptized. Is there something written above that invalidates his baptism, based on his beliefs I presented previously?

I apologize for not clarifying what I meant by “commitment”, that his commitment included Baptism. Now that you know more about this person, I am interested in your new answer.

 

[fhansen]

. This verse has an internal contradiction when taken out of context. Jesus is not saying that their own admission of sight is in Truth. Therefore, if they are not blind, they are ignorant. They are guilty of believing untruths.

They’re guilty of believing what they prefer to believe-making up their own truths. We’re prone to do this-to forsake the truth- for the sake of pride, position, wealth, etc. People often turn a blind eye to authentic justice. To say that it’s from pure ignorance is probably as faulty as saying that people can, alternatively, possess perfect knowledge. But we can certainly possess sufficient knowledge in any case to make us culpable for our sins. Otherwise the whole model of the Christian faith, which involves moral accountability with God prompting and goading and “gracing” man towards an increasingly greater justice makes no sense.

 

[Vico]

Oh, I definitely left something out, then. The Jewish convert I presented indeed has faith in the Holy Trinity, which is not polytheistic.

This verse has an internal contradiction when taken out of context. Jesus is not saying that their own admission of sight is in Truth. Therefore, if they are not blind, they are ignorant. They are guilty of believing untruths.

The example Jewish person, in his commitment to Christ, has chosen to be baptized. Is there something written above that invalidates his baptism, based on his beliefs I presented previously?

I apologize for not clarifying what I meant by “commitment”, that his commitment included Baptism. Now that you know more about this person, I am interested in your new answer.

The Pharisees were not invincibly ignorant that is why they were guilty.

Catechism 1256 has that the Trinitarian baptismal formula is necessary among other things:
The ordinary ministers of baptism are the bishop and priest and, in the Latin Church, also the deacon. In case of necessity, anyone, even a non-baptized person, with the required intention, can baptize by using the Trinitarian baptismal formula. The intention required is to will to do what the Church does when she baptizes. The Church finds the reason for this possibility in the universal saving will of God and the necessity of baptism for salvation.

The Catholic faithful must accept the dogmas of faith which include those below, once they learn of them, even if not understanding them. They must not be denied since they are the teaching of thd Catholic Church. The person may not have been taught Christian Anthropology.

• The first man was created by God. (De fide.)
• Man consists of two essential parts–a material body and a spiritual soul. (De fide.)
• The rational soul is per se the essential form of the body. (De fide.)
• Every human being possesses an individual soul. (De fide.)
• God has conferred on man a supernatural Destiny. (De fide.)
• Our first parents, before the Fall, were endowed with sanctifying grace. (De fide.)
• They were also endowed with the donum immortalitatis, i.e., bodily immortality. (De fide.)
• Our first parents in paradise sinned grievously through transgression of the Divine probationary commandment. (De fide.)
• 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.)

From Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma (Ludwig Ott).

 

[OneSheep]

The Pharisees were not invincibly ignorant that is why they were guilty.

Catechism 1256 has that the Trinitarian baptismal formula is necessary among other things:
The ordinary ministers of baptism are the bishop and priest and, in the Latin Church, also the deacon. In case of necessity, anyone, even a non-baptized person, with the required intention, can baptize by using the Trinitarian baptismal formula. The intention required is to will to do what the Church does when she baptizes. The Church finds the reason for this possibility in the universal saving will of God and the necessity of baptism for salvation.

The Catholic faithful must accept the dogmas of faith which include those below, once they learn of them, even if not understanding them. They must not be denied since they are the teaching of thd Catholic Church. The person may not have been taught Christian Anthropology.

• The first man was created by God. (De fide.)
• Man consists of two essential parts–a material body and a spiritual soul. (De fide.)
• The rational soul is per se the essential form of the body. (De fide.)
• Every human being possesses an individual soul. (De fide.)
• God has conferred on man a supernatural Destiny. (De fide.)
• Our first parents, before the Fall, were endowed with sanctifying grace. (De fide.)
• They were also endowed with the donum immortalitatis, i.e., bodily immortality. (De fide.)
• Our first parents in paradise sinned grievously through transgression of the Divine probationary commandment. (De fide.)
  *** 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.) **

From Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma (Ludwig Ott).

So, if this Jewish person I described does not believe the parts I colored, what happens? Is his baptism invalid? He personally sees no reason to believe that God is ever angry or indignant. He finds integrity, indeed finds the goodness of God, in humanity. He does not believe that God punishes the children of people who commit sins. He doesn’t believe in a separate power that dominates people. These are the aspects of God and man that he was brought up with, and he came forth to be Baptized.

Bringing it back to CCC389, is there a rationale for a bit of “tampering”, or instead is there no need for tampering at all? For the case of this Jewish person, he can simply acknowledge for himself that though he neither believes in the doctrine of original sin or a separate “captive power”, his own faith remains solid in commitment to Christ. For him, undermining the mystery does not undermine his faith. His Anthropology, as he sees it taught in his Judaical background, does not contradict his own commitment to Christ.

What do you think? Is the “mystery” undermined the assertion that God was angry and indignant? Is the “mystery” undermined the assertion that man is/was dominated by a separate power?

 

[OneSheep]

They’re guilty of believing what they prefer to believe-making up their own truths. We’re prone to do this-to forsake the truth- for the sake of pride, position, wealth, etc. People often turn a blind eye to authentic justice. To say that it’s from pure ignorance is probably as faulty as saying that people can, alternatively, possess perfect knowledge. But we can certainly possess sufficient knowledge in any case to make us culpable for our sins. Otherwise the whole model of the Christian faith, which involves moral accountability with God prompting and goading and “gracing” man towards an increasingly greater justice makes no sense.

If the Pharisees were blind, though, then Jesus would not have drawn the contrast. He said, “If you were blind”. If the Pharisees had forsaken the truth, it would be because they saw a greater good in such forsaking, which is either because of blindness or ignorance. The Pharisees said “we see”, but they did not see their error, they believed they were doing and believing the right things.

There may be something lost in the translation and years. Because of all the confusion, it is best not to be taken as a stand-alone verse. Jesus and the disciples saw that their enemies were unaware.

Did you see my post 33? I didn’t hear back from you on that one.

Thanks

 

[fhansen]

If the Pharisees were blind, though, then Jesus would not have drawn the contrast. He said, “If you were blind”. If the Pharisees had forsaken the truth, it would be because they saw a greater good in such forsaking, which is either because of blindness or ignorance. The Pharisees said “we see”, but they did not see their error, they believed they were doing and believing the right things.

There may be something lost in the translation and years. Because of all the confusion, it is best not to be taken as a stand-alone verse. Jesus and the disciples saw that their enemies were unaware.

Did you see my post 33? I didn’t hear back from you on that one.

Thanks

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.

 

[Vico]

So, if this Jewish person I described does not believe the parts I colored, what happens? Is his baptism invalid? He personally sees no reason to believe that God is ever angry or indignant. He finds integrity, indeed finds the goodness of God, in humanity. He does not believe that God punishes the children of people who commit sins. He doesn’t believe in a separate power that dominates people. These are the aspects of God and man that he was brought up with, and he came forth to be Baptized.

Bringing it back to CCC389, is there a rationale for a bit of “tampering”, or instead is there no need for tampering at all? For the case of this Jewish person, he can simply acknowledge for himself that though he neither believes in the doctrine of original sin or a separate “captive power”, his own faith remains solid in commitment to Christ. For him, undermining the mystery does not undermine his faith. His Anthropology, as he sees it taught in his Judaical background, does not contradict his own commitment to Christ.

What do you think? Is the “mystery” undermined the assertion that God was angry and indignant? Is the “mystery” undermined the assertion that man is/was dominated by a separate power?

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.

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.

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

Anger and indignation is in scripture where God appears as judge sentencer (Gn. 3, 16 et seq.).

The dominion is here in scripture Gn. 3, 15 and explicitly in John 12, 31; 14, 30; 2 Cor. 4, 4; Hebr. 2, 14; 2 Peter 2,19.

Genesis 3:15
I will put enmity between you and the woman,
and between your offspring and hers;
They will strike at your head,
while you strike at their heel.

Genesis 3:16
To the woman he said:
I will intensify your toil in childbearing;
in pain you shall bring forth children.
Yet your urge shall be for your husband,
and he shall rule over you.

Gen. 3:17-19
To the man he said: Because you listened to your wife and ate from the tree about which I commanded you, You shall not eat from it,

17 Cursed is the ground because of you!
In toil you shall eat its yield
all the days of your life.
18 Thorns and thistles it shall bear for you,
and you shall eat the grass of the field.
19 By the sweat of your brow
you shall eat bread,
Until you return to the ground,
from which you were taken;
For you are dust,
and to dust you shall return.

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.”