J
J_C
Guest
bum p for zeriuns attention, please
- Status
Z
zerinus
Guest
You need to ask yourself that question. That was in response to what you had written.
I am afraid you are wrong about that. Historical Christian teaching has been that mankind have been condemned (i.e. damned, hence punished) directly as a consequence of the sin of Adam, even if they hadn’t done anything wrong themselves (as in the case of infants, for example). Here is a quote form the Catholic Encyclopedia:
“There can be no sin that is not voluntary, the learned and the ignorant admit this evident truth”, writes St. Augustine (De vera relig., xiv, 27). The Church has condemned the opposite solution given by Baius [prop. xlvi, xlvii, in Denz., n. 1046 (926)]. Original sin is not an act but, as already explained, a state, a permanent privation, and this can be voluntary indirectly—just as a drunken man is deprived of his reason and incapable of using his liberty, yet it is by his free fault that he is in this state and hence his drunkenness, his privation of reason is voluntary and can be imputed to him.
But how can original sin be even indirectly voluntary for a child that has never used its personal free will? Certain Protestants hold that a child on coming to the use of reason will consent to its original sin; but in reality no one ever thought of giving this consent. Besides, even before the use of reason, sin is already in the soul, according to the data of Tradition regarding the baptism of children and the sin contracted by generation. . . . The whole Christian religion, says St. Augustine, may be summed up in the intervention of two men, the one to ruin us, the other to save us (De pecc. orig., xxiv). The right solution is to be sought in the free will of Adam in his sin, and this free will was ours: “we were all in Adam”, says St. Ambrose, cited by St. Augustine (Opus imperf., IV, civ). St. Basil attributes to us the act of the first man: “Because we did not fast (when Adam ate the forbidden fruit) we have been turned out of the garden of Paradise” (Hom. i de jejun., iv). Earlier still is the testimony of St. Irenæus; "In the person of the first Adam we offend God, disobeying His precept" (Haeres., V, xvi, 3).
St. Thomas thus explains this moral unity of our will with the will of Adam.
"An individual can be considered either as an individual or as part of a whole, a member of a society . . . . Considered in the second way an act can be his although he has not done it himself, nor has it been done by his free will but by the rest of the society or by its head, the nation being considered as doing what the prince does. For a society is considered as a single man of whom the individuals are the different members (St. Paul, 1 Corinthians 12). Thus the multitude of men who receive their human nature from Adam is to be considered as a single community or rather as a single body . . . . If the man, whose privation of original justice is due to Adam, is considered as a private person, this privation is not his ‘fault’, for a fault is essentially voluntary. If, however, we consider him as a member of the family of Adam, as if all men were only one man, then his privation partakes of the nature of sin on account of its voluntary origin, which is the actual sin of Adam" (De Malo, iv, 1). (Source)
zerinus
Continued . . . /
Z
zerinus
Guest
/. . . Continued
And here is another quote from a Wikipedia article:
It was Paul who developed the term justification in the theology of the church. Justification is a major theme of the epistles to the Romans and to the Galatians in the New Testament, and is also given treatment in many other epistles. In Romans, Paul develops justification by first speaking of God’s just wrath at sin (Rom. 1:18 - 3:20). Justification is then presented as the solution for God’s wrath. One is said to be ‘justified by faith apart from works of the Law.’ Further, Paul writes of sin and justification in terms of two men, Adam and Christ. Through Adam, sin came into the world; through Jesus, righteousness came into the world, bringing justification. In this connection, Paul speaks of Adam’s sin being ’imputed’ or ’accounted’ and speaks of justification as acting in analogy to sin. (Source)
zerinus
And here is another quote from a Wikipedia article:
It was Paul who developed the term justification in the theology of the church. Justification is a major theme of the epistles to the Romans and to the Galatians in the New Testament, and is also given treatment in many other epistles. In Romans, Paul develops justification by first speaking of God’s just wrath at sin (Rom. 1:18 - 3:20). Justification is then presented as the solution for God’s wrath. One is said to be ‘justified by faith apart from works of the Law.’ Further, Paul writes of sin and justification in terms of two men, Adam and Christ. Through Adam, sin came into the world; through Jesus, righteousness came into the world, bringing justification. In this connection, Paul speaks of Adam’s sin being ’imputed’ or ’accounted’ and speaks of justification as acting in analogy to sin. (Source)
This is irrelevant to what we are talking about. I have already stated that I do not question that we have inherited a tendency to commit sin as a consequence of the Fall of Adam. I don’t see the point of repeating the same thing over and over again.
zerinus
Z
zerinus
Guest
The source of the first quote was wrong. Here is the correct source:
newadvent.org/cathen/11312a.htm
zerinus
newadvent.org/cathen/11312a.htm
zerinus
J
J_C
Guest
zerines, try this more bitesized parapraph, the one you quote from Catholic Encyclopedia, is difficult for me to wade thru (though I will do so when I have time. This is from the imprimatured Modern Catholic Dictionary by John A. Hardon, SJ. I have emphasized sections by bolding them:
Original Sin. Either the sin committed by Adam as the head of the human race, or the sin he passed onto his posterity with which every human being, with the certain exception of Christ and his Mother, is conceived and born. The sin of Adam is called originating original sin (originale originans); that of his descendents is originated original sin (originale originatum). Adam’s sin was personal and grave, and it affected human nature. It was personal because he freely committed it; it was grave because God imposed a serious obligation; and it affected the whole human race by depriving his progeny of the supernatural life and preternatural gifts they would have possessed on entering the world had Adam not sinned. Original sin in his descendants is personal only in the sense that the children of Adam are each personally affected, but not personal as though they had voluntarily chosen to commit the sin; it is grave in the sense that it debars a person from the beatific vision, but not grave in condemning one to Hell; and it is natural only in that all human nature, except for divine intervention, has it and can have it removed only by supernatural means.
I belive this accurately describes Catholic teaching on the so-called “punishment” that accrues to mankind because of original sin. You state it as “condemnation” but that is not true. Being deprived of the beatific vision is not the same thing as being condemned to Hell.
Original Sin. Either the sin committed by Adam as the head of the human race, or the sin he passed onto his posterity with which every human being, with the certain exception of Christ and his Mother, is conceived and born. The sin of Adam is called originating original sin (originale originans); that of his descendents is originated original sin (originale originatum). Adam’s sin was personal and grave, and it affected human nature. It was personal because he freely committed it; it was grave because God imposed a serious obligation; and it affected the whole human race by depriving his progeny of the supernatural life and preternatural gifts they would have possessed on entering the world had Adam not sinned. Original sin in his descendants is personal only in the sense that the children of Adam are each personally affected, but not personal as though they had voluntarily chosen to commit the sin; it is grave in the sense that it debars a person from the beatific vision, but not grave in condemning one to Hell; and it is natural only in that all human nature, except for divine intervention, has it and can have it removed only by supernatural means.
I belive this accurately describes Catholic teaching on the so-called “punishment” that accrues to mankind because of original sin. You state it as “condemnation” but that is not true. Being deprived of the beatific vision is not the same thing as being condemned to Hell.
J
J_C
Guest
z i do not have time right now because of Mass this evening, but either tongith or tomorrow I will study the Catechism on this subject of original sin and see what exactly it says, unless someone else already familiar with it wants to get in and beat me to it, please. in the meantime I’d be interested in your take on the excerpt from John Hardon’s encyclopedia I quoted, which was imprimatured in 1979 by the vicar general of the Archdiocese of New York, Joseph T. O’Keefe.
J
J_C
Guest
I will try to study this article you quote in very small part from Wikipedia. Had you noticed that this article gives tiny blurbs to each of the Christian traditions? Few things separate the Christian denominations more than their various interpretations of justification. I wonder if maybe you jsut did a google on the word “impute” and grabbed what came up. I do not know who wrote this article, but like I said when I get time I will study it and see if it makes sense.
Z
zerinus
Guest
The Catechism has changed. It was completely revised and rewritten by the Council of Trent. It is not a true reflection of the historical teachings of the Catholic Church. I have already discussed that several times before on this board. I don’t really want to keep rehashing the same thing over and over again here.
The quote from the Catholic Encyclopedia gives a more comprehensive treatment of the subject in its historical context, with plenty of quotes form original sources. It is not my invention. I did not write the Catholic Encyclopedia. It is a Catholic publication, and it is imprimatured. I have no comment to make on Hardon’s Encyclopedia.
zerinus
J
justinthemartyr
Guest
That does not answer my question.
Where is the baptism for the dead IN the book of mormon?
J
J_C
Guest
OK, why don’t we take the 1st paragraph of your quote from the Catholic Encyclopedia. I have not verified the accuracy of your quote from the Catholic Encyclopeidai, I am assuming that you have quoted it correctly. Here is the first paragraph that you quote:
J
J_C
Guest
yes, i know, and to repeat my point, if you actually look at the article you see that it deals, though shallowly, with several christain variations on the justification theme. your selection wasn’t even taken from the Catholic paragraph,
i wouldn’t deny that there are christian sects that take a hradline view on original sin, saying that people go to hell as a result of it and it alone. so what? That isn’t catholic teaching, and i’d like to know where you get that it is.
All for the love of Jesus, Jesus for me, me for Jesus.
J
J_C
Guest
there have been many different versions of the catechism. I was instructed out of something called the Dutch Catechism. in the U.S. the Baltimore Catechism was popular for a long time. I imagine that there hvae been dozens, maybe hundreds of various translations and renditiosn of the Catholic Catechism over the centuries, in many countries.
I am not familiar with the catechism that came out of Trent. thoigh I have been following these threads for a few months, i don’t recall any of your discussion of this subject, that Trent changed the Catholic teaching on original sin. If you would be so kind, could you point me in the direction of this discussion?
I like the Catholic Encyclopedia, but i find it tedious reading. When it comes to catechsim i like things cut and dried without a lot of technical jargon. That is one of the main reasons to have a catechism in the first place, something easier to read that ordinary men can understand wiht just a minimal of reading work. It is true that the CE gives a lot of detail on how things may have developed over time, but the catechism gives the straight line on official teaching.
In any case, based on what you quoted out of the CE, and based on my reading of the current universal catechism, I don’t see how your case is supported at all.
God loves you, z.
J
J_C
Guest
in view of this discussion about original sin and condemnation, i looked up the catechism definition for hell, which pretty well lays out who will go there, and it doesn’t seem to include babies who die without baptism. Here it is:
- In what does hell consist? Hell consists in the eternal damnation of those who die in mortal sin through their own free choice. The principal suffering of hell is eternal separation from God in whom alone we can have the life and happiness for which we were created and for which we long. Christ proclaimed this reality with the words, “Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire” (Mt 25:41)
Z
zerinus
Guest
The problem with that is that you are quoting it out of context. You need the context to properly understand what is being said. The rest of the quote explains what is meant by “voluntary” in this context. It ways that a newborn infant has “voluntarily sinned” in Adam, even though the infant itself has not played any role in that sin. Here is what it says in the rest of the quote:
But how can original sin be even indirectly voluntary for a child that has never used its personal free will? . . . The right solution is to be sought in the free will of Adam in his sin, and this free will was ours: . . . "In the person of the first Adam we offend God, disobeying His precept".
In other words, a newborn child who has not done anything wrong by his own act of volition, is nevertheless guilty because he has “voluntarily sinned in Adam”. The voluntary sin of Adam is attributed, or imputed, to him even though he himself has not done anything wrong.
It is no good throwing the Catechism at me. The Catechism is not a true reflection of the historical teaching of the Catholic Church. It was changed after the Council of Trent to make many of its teachings more politically acceptable, and to counter the rise of Protestantism. On the salvation of little children who die without baptism, it does not give the historical teaching of the Catholic Church.
You are wrong. The selection form the Catholic Encyclopedia does indirectly give that teaching. It teaches that those who have not committed any sins themselves, such as little Children, have the sin of Adam imputed to them. They are “voluntary partakers of the sin of Adam” because “in Adam they have sinned”. The consequence of that sin is damnation, unless it is waved through the baptism of regeneration. That has been the historic teaching of the Catholic Church.
Yes, I will look for and find them for you when I get back later on.
Thank you. God bless you too, and may you also have an enjoyable Easter occasion.
zerinus
Z
zerinus
Guest
Yes. Here are a couple of posts from my latest discussions on this subject:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=2972974&postcount=69
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=2974155&postcount=88
The quote given second post comes form an official publication by the Catholic Church and published on the Vatican website. You can’t have it more authoritative than that. I have discussed this in several threads earlier on. Here is a post from another thread:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=1847532&postcount=626
As you can see, this doctrine was all-pervasive in the theology of the Catholic Church in its earlier history. It is only in modern times that it has been watered down to make it more politically acceptable to modern ways of thinking. But the underlying theology of it still remains in force, notwithstanding the Catechism’s protestations to the contrary. If not, why continue to baptize little children? The theological justification of infant baptism is to erase the effect of the original sin, the implication of which is that they are damned (i.e. go to hell) if they aren’t baptized. In the LDS Church, as in Catholicism (and unlike Protestantism) we teach the absolute necessity of baptism for eternal salvation; but at the same time, unlike both Catholicism and classic Protestantism, we do NOT teach the necessity of infant baptisms. Luther actually agreed with the Catholic Church on the infant baptism. We do don’t. So as you can see, we are neither being Catholic nor Protestant by stating in our Article of Faith that “men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam’s transgression”. That teaching departs from traditional and historical Christianity, both Catholic and Protestant.
zerinus
J
J_C
Guest
thank you. It certainly does appear that Augustine had this opinion that unbaptised infants go to hell based on these small pieces of things from him, and that he influenced other theologians of his day. but i do not get the impression from these short quips that it was firm teaching of the universal Church; certainly that is not found in any teaching that I’ve ever heard of, and the universl catechism of today is clear on this subject, which is that we trust the mercy of God for the souls of babies who die unbaptised.
you had said that the catholic Chruch changed its teacing on this matter, sometime during and after Trent, for political reasons, is how i think you put it. I recall also that you had claimed that the Catholic has changed many other “doctrines” but I asked you to name just two or three, but you were unable to do it. i know how you hate to rehash old talk, but I’ll take the risk of offending by just putting this out here once again:
let’s allow, for th3e sake of this argument, that the Catholic Church did change a doctrine, and let’s say that that “dcotrine” is limbo. There’s one. if one doctrine changed, then there must be many more, dozens at least in the course of 2000 years. Can you point to lets say two other changed doctrines? Or even one? if you cant’, then your argument about changing doctrines is too thin to be taken seriously.
as you know, we dont’ see limbo as a changed doctrine becuase, frist, limbo is not a doctrine, but the idea of it shows how understanding of these mysterious things has moved along during the passage of time and as various thinkers have thought about them over the course of many centuries, so that, second, it has not changed but has developed more fully.
words in parenthesis is mine.
in the final analysis what counts is what is taught in the universal catechism, and what is taught is that original sin in and of itself does not condemn to hell. therefore babies unbaptised do not go to hell. The only souls in hell are those who sinned mortally ie with full assent of the will and full knowledge, and unforgiven, of grave matter. an unbaptised infant could not possibly fit into hell according to Catholic teaching.
Z
zerinus
Guest
Well, if a decision of a church council does not make it a “firm teaching,” then I don’t know what else should. As you saw from those quotes, that doctrine was affirmed by the council of Carthage of 418.
I should have thought so. Since the Catechism has been modified so as not do teach that doctrine any more, that should not come as a surprise, no?
That is a distraction and a diversion. That is not the subject of our current discussion. The subject of our discussion is “original sin,” and how it was understood in traditional Christian churches, and how it is understood by the LDS Church. Some people, when they find that they are losing the argument, try to save the day by changing the subject! Well, I am not going to let it! We will stick to the subject, or we will end the discussion.
So you are jumping on the old “limbo” mantra again, are you? Bad luck, I won’t bite!
Well and good, I am glad to hear it! I am glad that you no longer believe in that, and that the Catholic Church no longer teaches that people will be punished for the sin of Adam, or that unbaptized children will go to hell! But too bad they didn’t think of that a little sooner! Pitty they didn’t think of it in the third, or in the forth, or the fifth, or sixth, or seventh, or eighth, or ninth, or tenth, or eleventh centuries of Christianity! Too bad that when, in the twelfth century for the first time they decided to change their doctrine to something less cruel and more acceptable, and less unjust, the solution they came up with was “limbo,” which if not worse than the first, it certainly wasn’t any better!
Too bad that it took them another 500 years to move away from “limbo” to the Council of Trent, to finally and begrudgingly allow “some” degree of salvation to unbaptized children who die in infancy; and too bad that they still did not have the good sense to do away with infant baptism altogether, because as long as they practice infant baptisms, the underlying theology of salvation that justifies it must remain in force—i.e. that salvation is not possible for them unless they are baptized—because that is what the theology of baptism necessarily entails.zerinus
X
xmormon
Guest
Since original sin has been hashed thoroughly and Z and others will never accept the plain clear teachings of the New Testament on the matter, let’s change the subject to Mormonism and it’s many changes. Let’s start with the thousands of changes made in the Doctrine and Covenants. For those who are unfamiliar with the Doctrine and Covenants (hereafter D&C) it is a Mormon book Joseph Smith taught contained the exact words of Christ. Many times Mormon leaders have boasted of the exactness of the revelations contained in the D&C for example: Joseph Fielding Smith tenth President of the Mormon church made this comment concerning Joseph Smith’s revelations:
Inspiration is discovered in the fact that each part, as it was revealed, dovetailed perfectly with what had come before. There was no need for eliminating, changing, or adjusting any part to make it fit; but each new revelation on doctrine and priesthood fitted in its place perfectly to complete the whole structure, as it had been prepared by the Master Builder. (Doctrines of Salvation, Vol, 1, page 170)
However any historical study reveals thousands of changes in Joseph Smith’s revelations, many of them changing the meaning of the revelations completely.
A Study of the number of changes made in the revelations reveals
1835 Edition—2643 Changes
1844 Edition—18 Changes
1845 Edition—36 Changes
1846 Edition—No Changes
1852 Edition—11 Changes
1854 Edition—10 Changes
1876 Edition—2 Changes
1882 Edition—1 Change
1921 Edition—91 Changes
While there have been a few Mormons who have been willing to admit that Joseph Smith’s revelations have been changed, many have not been that honest.
Clearly Joseph Smiths numerous changes disqualify his words as being real scripture. In Deuteronomy 4:2 we read:
Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you.
We ask, If the revelations were from God, why would they have to be changed many times completely changing even reversing their original meaning? Was not the Mormon God capable of giving the revelations right the first time? If there is more interest in this subject we will discuss at length the changes and their significance.
Inspiration is discovered in the fact that each part, as it was revealed, dovetailed perfectly with what had come before. There was no need for eliminating, changing, or adjusting any part to make it fit; but each new revelation on doctrine and priesthood fitted in its place perfectly to complete the whole structure, as it had been prepared by the Master Builder. (Doctrines of Salvation, Vol, 1, page 170)
However any historical study reveals thousands of changes in Joseph Smith’s revelations, many of them changing the meaning of the revelations completely.
A Study of the number of changes made in the revelations reveals
1835 Edition—2643 Changes
1844 Edition—18 Changes
1845 Edition—36 Changes
1846 Edition—No Changes
1852 Edition—11 Changes
1854 Edition—10 Changes
1876 Edition—2 Changes
1882 Edition—1 Change
1921 Edition—91 Changes
While there have been a few Mormons who have been willing to admit that Joseph Smith’s revelations have been changed, many have not been that honest.
Clearly Joseph Smiths numerous changes disqualify his words as being real scripture. In Deuteronomy 4:2 we read:
Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you.
We ask, If the revelations were from God, why would they have to be changed many times completely changing even reversing their original meaning? Was not the Mormon God capable of giving the revelations right the first time? If there is more interest in this subject we will discuss at length the changes and their significance.
- Status