'Original Sin' a Legitimate Concept?

[ffg]

Legitimate Concept?

In the same way I might have health issues as an effect of my parents sin of drug abuse while my Mom is pregnant with me, OS is due to the first sin of my first Mom.

In both cases their sins are not mine to repent from, but their sins caused a need for me to seek healing.

A doctor for the effects of drug abuse, baptism for the effects of OS.

Take care,

mike

 

[friardchips]

Legitimate Concept?

In the same way I might have health issues as an effect of my parents sin of drug abuse while my Mom is pregnant with me, OS is due to the first sin of my first Mom.

In both cases their sins are not mine to repent from, but their sins caused a need for me to seek healing.

A doctor for the effects of drug abuse, baptism for the effects of OS.

Take care,

mike

It has been pronounced in the Catholic Church that non-Christians can go to Heaven. I think Pope Emeritus stated this (and possibly others). This post would support that claim. This means that humans are inherently good. But OS draws away. Hence, why babies are not evil and only until the age of reason can humans err.

 

[dmar198]

It has been pronounced in the Catholic Church that non-Christians can go to Heaven.

I think this is the pronouncement you are referring to: “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…moved by grace…may achieve eternal salvation.” source

This means that humans are inherently good.

It is true that humans are inherently good: “Because creation comes forth from God’s goodness, it shares in that goodness.” source But I don’t think the possibility of salvation for non-Christians proves that by itself.

But OS draws away.

Do you mean original sin implies that man is not good? I don’t think so. The Catechism says: “[Even though he is d]isfigured by sin and death, man remains in the image of God.” source But original sin does imply that we are not perfect – and who would claim we are?

Hence, why babies are not evil and only until the age of reason can humans err.

First, I think you mean “only after the age of reason can humans err.” You said “only until.”

Second, it is true that babies are not evil. They are made in the image of God and are therefore inherently good. But they do lack divine holiness. “Adam and Eve transmitted to their descendants human nature…deprived of original holiness and justice.” source We can only get it back through baptism: “Because of this certainty of faith, the Church baptizes for the remission of sins even tiny infants who have not committed personal sin.” source

I hope that makes sense. Please let me know if I’ve missed something or said something wrong, I would love to be corrected if I’ve said something that goes against Church teaching. God bless!

 

[ffg]

The book of wisdom is a great book, this is the first reading for Mass on June 28th of this year… (bold mine)

"
READING 1 WIS 1:13-15; 2:23-24
God did not make death,
nor does he rejoice in the destruction of the living.

For he fashioned all things that they might have being;
and the creatures of the world are wholesome,
and there is not a destructive drug among them
nor any domain of the netherworld on earth,
for justice is undying.

For God formed man to be imperishable;
the image of his own nature he made him.

But by the envy of the devil, death entered the world,
and they who belong to his company experience it.
"
Why did a spiritual stain carry through God’s physical creations from the first person who made an error?

It looks like the answer is ‘by the envy of the devil’. (we know it’s not God doing the envy)

Why is the concept legitimate? because ‘they who belong to his (devil) company experience it’ (death).

How do we exit from the devil’s company? Baptism (life-giving).

This would also assist with the concept of Hell as Satan (Lucifer) was cast out of Heaven and surely there are '‘they who belong to his (devil’s) company’.

 

[friardchips]

I think this is the pronouncement you are referring to: “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…moved by grace…may achieve eternal salvation.” source It is true that humans are inherently good: “Because creation comes forth from God’s goodness, it shares in that goodness.”

source But I don’t think the possibility of salvation for non-Christians proves that by itself. Do you mean original sin implies that man is not good? I don’t think so. The Catechism says: “[Even though he is d]isfigured by sin and death, man remains in the image of God.”

No, I don’t mean that OS means that man is not good. I mean that the stain of original sin draws man further away from goodness (makes being good more difficult via the corruption to the soul).

source But original sin does imply that we are not perfect – and who would claim we are?

We are not perfect, no. Agreeing on all points so far.

First, I think you mean “only after the age of reason can humans err.” You said “only until.”

Bad grammar. Sorry. When we reach the age of reason man can begin to err.

Second, it is true that babies are not evil. They are made in the image of God and are therefore inherently good. But they do lack divine holiness.“Adam and Eve transmitted to their descendants human nature…deprived of original holiness and justice.” source We can only get it back through baptism: “Because of this certainty of faith, the Church baptizes for the remission of sins even tiny infants who have not committed personal sin.” source

Divine holiness means a non-corruption of the will. Babies and very young children cannot use reason. They are dependent creatures. Therefore, they are not corrupted. Pope Emeritus got rid of Limbo and said babies go straight to Heaven. If babies and very young children could make free choices as Adam and Even could when they chose the Tree of Knowledge then, yes. In order to be in Heaven one must have the character of our Lord on their soul for the Kingdom is in Him and yet because all creation came to be through Him it can only be via sin that we move from Him. The stain of OS only comes into being on earth for it is only on earth that the knowledge of good and evil comes into existence. As with Adam and Eve, a baby is in a similar state, in that they cannot know the difference between good and evil and so are in a state of holiness. So I suppose that what we are missing is the info. that tells us that those who through know fault of their own never got to know our Lord, whether through circumstances or age, automatically entwine with His Holy Spirit after death for it is that they never in themselves have a chance to take their eyes of what is eternally sanctifying.

I hope that makes sense. Please let me know if I’ve missed something or said something wrong, I would love to be corrected if I’ve said something that goes against Church teaching. God bless!

I wouldn’t say I have the ability to correct to you. But the subject is interesting to discuss.

Thanks!

 

[friardchips]

Please excuse my million typos in last post. The question remains: does being in a state of holiness, of good - that is the soul, created - need further baptism before death, to remove original sin, inherited, even though the holy state has not reached the stage of corruption of the will, of the soul; in other words, does death itself act as a baptism of the soul, to that soul which, at the point of death, is good, but not perfect? Remember that most if not all saints have to pass through Purgatory so the state of eternal sanctification is theirs only after the sanctifying process has fully purged the soul of the saint. There are those who went straight to Heaven when having died in the Odour of Sanctity; well, how much more likely is it that a baby, who has itself committed no evil, will pass straight to Heaven. IOW, I think it is likely that because the baby or young child who dies has committed no actual sin, the stain of OS is automatically wiped, for it no longer applies and has not come to fruition. Take also into account that Adam and Eve were created beings (though figurative) not Heavenly Angels. Their state was a state of holiness as in on earth as that of a baby, and when they chose to sin, they did so due to then being in receipt of knowledge of good and evil. With actual death, OS ceases, to those who die good - like a cancer that stayed benign. Possibly?

 

[dmar198]

I wouldn’t say I have the ability to correct to you. But the subject is interesting to discuss.

Aw, don’t flatter me, you have more than enough ability to correct me.

We are not perfect, no. Agreeing on all points so far.

Divine holiness means a non-corruption of the will.

And maybe more. Holiness is when we do good and don’t do evil, but that’s not enough to make it into heaven. We need divine grace. Luckily, the very act of doing good, not to mention the ability to do good, is a grace from God. He is good, and He offers His sanctifying grace to all, if we accept it.

Babies and very young children cannot use reason. They are dependent creatures. Therefore, they are not corrupted.

The Catechism says the nature they receive is corrupted: “[Adam and Eve’s] sin affected the human nature that they would then transmit in a fallen state.” source

Pope Emeritus got rid of Limbo and said babies go straight to Heaven.

First, can you give a citation? I don’t think he said Limbo isn’t true. The closest thing I can find is a report from the International Theological Commission which, during Benedict’s tenure, said that we have good grounds to “hope” that unbaptized babies go to heaven. But it did not get rid of Limbo. It said that Limbo is still an acceptable theory: “besides the theory of Limbo (which remains a possible theological opinion), there can be other ways to integrate and safeguard the principles of the faith grounded in Scripture.” source

Second, I’m not saying Limbo is necessarily true. I regard it as a possible opinion. But it seems certain that (1) babies have original sin and (2) if anybody dies with original sin they cannot get to heaven. I think that both of those statements are true because both seem to be confirmed by Catholic dogma, and assuming they are true, I don’t see any way around this conclusion: the only way we can be certain that babies get to heaven is if we get rid of their original sin, and the only certain way we have of doing that is by baptizing them. We can hope there are other ways, but God hasn’t told us, not from what I can see anyway. Does all of that make sense? It looks like a lot. I hope I am saying the truth. I don’t want to ever stray from Church teaching.

If babies and very young children could make free choices as Adam and Even could when they chose the Tree of Knowledge then, yes. In order to be in Heaven one must have the character of our Lord on their soul for the Kingdom is in Him and yet because all creation came to be through Him it can only be via sin that we move from Him.

But not just personal sins. Original sin keeps us from God too, and babies have that.

As with Adam and Eve, a baby is in a similar state, in that they cannot know the difference between good and evil and so are in a state of holiness.

The Catechism says they have a nature lacking in holiness (until they are baptized): “Adam and Eve transmitted to their descendants human nature wounded by their own first sin and hence deprived of original holiness and justice.” source

So I suppose that what we are missing is the info. that tells us that those who through know fault of their own never got to know our Lord, whether through circumstances or age, automatically entwine with His Holy Spirit after death for it is that they never in themselves have a chance to take their eyes of what is eternally sanctifying.

Let us hope and pray that all who die without baptism sincerely desire salvation before they die. Certainly our prayers do much good.

 

[friardchips]

"Adam and Eve transmitted to their descendants human nature wounded by their own first sin and hence deprived of original holiness and justice."

source

This has no mention of when this takes effect!

"[Adam and Eve’s] sin affected the human nature that they would then transmit in a fallen state.

Again, no mention of when this takes effect! Remember that when Adam and Even chose to be disobedient this was an action. So, in effect, literally, OS, could be seen as active.

Aw, don’t flatter me, you have more than enough ability to correct me. And maybe more. Holiness is when we do good and don’t do evil, but that’s not enough to make it into heaven. We need divine grace. Luckily, the very act of doing good, not to mention the ability to do good, is a grace from God. He is good, and He offers His sanctifying grace to all, if we accept it. The Catechism says the nature they receive is corrupted: “[Adam and Eve’s] sin affected the human nature that they would then transmit in a fallen state.”

Please see post 26.

source First, can you give a citation? I don’t think he said Limbo isn’t true. The closest thing I can find is a report from the International Theological Commission which, during Benedict’s tenure, said that we have good grounds to “hope” that unbaptized babies go to heaven. But it did not get rid of Limbo. It said that Limbo is still an acceptable theory: “besides the theory of Limbo (which remains a possible theological opinion), there can be other ways to integrate and safeguard the principles of the faith grounded in Scripture.” source

Limbo is not mentioned in the CCC.

Second, I’m not saying Limbo is necessarily true. I regard it as a possible opinion. But it seems certain that (1) babies have original sin and (2) if anybody dies with original sin they cannot get to heaven. I think that both of those statements are true because both seem to be confirmed by Catholic dogma, and assuming they are true, I don’t see any way around this conclusion: the only way we can be certain that babies get to heaven is if we get rid of their original sin, and the only certain way we have of doing that is by baptizing them. We can hope there are other ways, but God hasn’t told us, not from what I can see anyway. Does all of that make sense? It looks like a lot. I hope I am saying the truth. I don’t want to ever stray from Church teaching. But not just personal sins. Original sin keeps us from God too, and babies have that. The Catechism says they have a nature lacking in holiness (until they are baptized): “Adam and Eve transmitted to their descendants human nature wounded by their own first sin and hence deprived of original holiness and justice.” source Let us hope and pray that all who die without baptism sincerely desire salvation before they die. Certainly our prayers do much good.

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20070419_un-baptised-infants_en.html

What the Church teaches is not Limbo. The CCC does not mention anywhere anything about Limbo but rather the need to hope in mercy.

As far as theological and pastoral concerns remain, I think possibly my reasoning in post 26 is worth considering (if read as one paragraph ).

I don’t see where the problem occurs.

 

[friardchips]

Please excuse my million typos in last post. The question remains: does being in a state of holiness, of good - that is the soul, created - need further baptism before death, to remove original sin, inherited, even though the holy state has not reached the stage of corruption of the will, of the soul; in other words, does death itself act as a baptism of the soul, to that soul which, at the point of death, is good, but not perfect? Remember that most if not all saints have to pass through Purgatory so the state of eternal sanctification is theirs only after the sanctifying process has fully purged the soul of the saint. There are those who went straight to Heaven when having died in the Odour of Sanctity; well, how much more likely is it that a baby, who has itself committed no evil, will pass straight to Heaven. IOW, I think it is likely that because the baby or young child who dies has committed no actual sin, the stain of OS is automatically wiped, for it no longer applies and has not come to fruition. Take also into account that Adam and Eve were created beings (though figurative) not Heavenly Angels. Their state was a state of holiness as in on earth as that of a baby, and when they chose to sin, they did so due to then being in receipt of knowledge of good and evil. With actual death, OS ceases, to those who die good - like a cancer that stayed benign. Possibly?

Just seen this! Seems to concur: ‘It remains therefore a possible theological hypothesis. However, in the Catechism of the Catholic Church (1992), the theory of limbo is not mentioned. Rather, the Catechism teaches that infants who die without baptism are entrusted by the Church to the mercy of God, as is shown in the specific funeral rite for such children.’

 

[friardchips]

So the word here is active. We think of an active cancer passed through the generations. It began as an active choice and carries on due to the fact that it is active in the soul.

The Creation story says that Adam and Eve were in a state of holiness and so to say that choosing not to sin is what makes one holy is not actually correct if we refer to the text. Holiness comes with grace. It is only grace that keeps the universe in existence. If we had no grace then we would cease to exist let alone be extremely sinful. Adam and Eve were in a state of continual grace until they were given the freedom to disobey. If we believe that Creation was made good then we believe that creation is not perfect but is holy. Saints are not perfect until they reach Heaven but they can still be holy. And so creation is holy because our Creator cannot make that which is not blessed. Furthermore, OS is transmitted, not nature itself. Adam and Eve did not create the souls of other humans. Rather, what the Church means, is that with each soul created, OS is transmitted in the soul, to the next person.

So going back to the cancer analogy. The cancer that is OS is transmitted but remains inactive until reason determines that the cancer can come alive. Until such time, the cancer is benign.

 

[John_Columba]

The Creator said not to eat from the Tree of Knowledge. There are two trees.

Yes, there are indeed two trees. The Creator says not to eat from the Tree of Knowledge, however after Adam and Eve sinned, God expresses His desire that He does not want them to eat from the Tree of Life by the fact of guarding it and sending them out of the garden (Gen 3:2-26).

 

[adrift]

…

The Roman Catholic Church believes that man was created immortal and that there was no death in the beginning of creation, but this paragraph from the article makes an interesting point:

1. It is the Catholic Church
2. From the Catechism

How to read the account of the fall

390 The account of the fall in Genesis 3 uses figurative language, but affirms a primeval event, a deed that took place at the beginning of the history of man.264 Revelation gives us the certainty of faith that the whole of human history is marked by the original fault freely committed by our first parents.265
404 How did the sin of Adam become the sin of all his descendants? the whole human race is in Adam “as one body of one man”.293 By this “unity of the human race” all men are implicated in Adam’s sin, as all are implicated in Christ’s justice. Still, the transmission of original sin is a mystery that we cannot fully understand. But we do know by Revelation that Adam had received original holiness and justice not for himself alone, but for all human nature. By yielding to the tempter, Adam and Eve committed a personal sin, but this sin affected the human nature that they would then transmit in a fallen state.294 It is a sin which will be transmitted by propagation to all mankind, that is, by the transmission of a human nature deprived of original holiness and justice. and that is why original sin is called “sin” only in an analogical sense: it is a sin “contracted” and not “committed” - a state and not an act.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.

 

[friardchips]

The book of wisdom is a great book, this is the first reading for Mass on June 28th of this year…

"
READING 1 WIS 1:13-15; 2:23-24
God did not make death,
nor does he rejoice in the destruction of the living.

For he fashioned all things that they might have being;
and the creatures of the world are wholesome,
and there is not a destructive drug among them
nor any domain of the netherworld on earth,
for justice is undying.

For God formed man to be imperishable;
the image of his own nature he made him.

But by the envy of the devil, death entered the world,
and they who belong to his company experience it.!

 

[ffg]

Something to keep in mind -

Discussions on OS and the need for baptism always seem to work their way to the exceptions. (The babies, mentally disabled, etc.).

For the person doing the soul searching, truth hunting research, this has no benefit and can confuse and lead astray.

We have reason and are tasked with using it. Which every person can apply to the exceptions under the umbrella assumption of God as defined by Jesus, loving.

For the truth seeker, they need to apply the normative teaching, if they come to believe. In other words, if you are evaluating, you are not an exception.

Take care,

Mike

 

[friardchips]

Yes, there are indeed two trees. The Creator says not to eat from the Tree of Knowledge, however after Adam and Eve sinned, God expresses His desire that He does not want them to eat from the Tree of Life by the fact of guarding it and sending them out of the garden (Gen 3:2-26).

Yes, but by eating from the Tree of Knowledge, they themselves turned from the Tree of Life. They themselves, threw themselves, out of the Garden, by aligning themselves with death. They themselves, bit into the apple of curiosity, which they did not have to choose to do. The result was Divine Justice automatically exacted in their direction. The result of being thrown out of the Garden and being kept from the Tree of Life was the consequence of their own choice to sin. One cannot be in a state of perpetual sin and simultaneously be deserving of eternal sanctity. Hence, why we speak of our Creator’s design - sin brought death and decay into the world from an eternally blessed state as the angels had their choice and Adam and Eve had a choice and so too humans have their choice - that such weakness on the part of humankind would require the need for the Word Made Flesh to pour out His Mercy on us and our ancient ancestors. He has allowed for everything. Thus, humanity from its origins (and oranges) can come to the Tree of Life, having taken the longer but still scenic route, to Salvation!

 

[friardchips]

Something to keep in mind -

Discussions on OS and the need for baptism always seem to work their way to the exceptions. (The babies, mentally disabled, etc.).

For the person doing the soul searching, truth hunting research, this has no benefit and can confuse and lead astray.

We have reason and are tasked with using it. Which every person can apply to the exceptions under the umbrella assumption of God as defined by Jesus, loving.

For the truth seeker, they need to apply the normative teaching, if they come to believe. In other words, if you are evaluating, you are not an exception.

Take care,

Mike

The point about the babies and children who die before reason kicks in needs to be confidently addressed. It is clear that children need love but not only do they need love but also express that desire to be fed with love. This should indicate that such innocents as these are not deprived of the greatest blessing for they made a sacrifice of death without even being given a chance to live longer. Did our Lord not say that Heaven belonged to the little children. Maybe something to reflect upon.

 

[ffg]

The point about the babies and children who die before reason kicks in needs to be confidently addressed. It is clear that children need love but not only do they need love but also express that desire to be fed with love. This should indicate that such innocents as these are not deprived of the greatest blessing for they made a sacrifice of death without even being given a chance to live longer. Did our Lord not say that Heaven belonged to the little children. Maybe something to reflect upon.

Discussion about unbaptized folks of all scenario’s has been addressed on these forums a lot, and is a good thing.

I have a child who died before baptism.

The key for the unbaptized Truth seeker is that time is passing by and they are not an exception, like the baby.