Original Sin/Adam and Eve/Heresy Again

  • Thread starter Thread starter ICXCNIKA
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
You continue to make excuses. The inquisition, marriage or celibacy of priests, Galileo, limbo, and a few other dozens of things have not changed. Anything you can’t refute becomes not doctrinal. Limbo has never been officially changed, its simply not mentioned because the furor that has arisen has never died down and people outside the Church have been so vocal and so vicious in their condemnation of such a belief that it’s been quietly dropped. As i said, the more you insist on this “perfection” the more you harm the Church. There are excellent histories of the church out there by Catholics and nobody denies that changes have occured in doctrine. No one is claiming they revolve around basic tenets, but they were accepted Church teaching and they are no longer.

Those who propose an actual Adam and Eve no doubt had no idea that some day they would run into DNA testing and evolution and the great discoveries of paleontology. These simply make it highly unlikely that Adam was the first human, unless of course you posit that Eden was in Africa.
The Church hands sown faithfully and truthfully what Revelation and Jesus taught and did. I harm the Church by also being faithful? I submit heresy does the damage.

Doctrine develops organically. What doctrines have been held and then reversed?
 
Try to speak English. There is no need to try to impress with fine sounding isms. I am not tortured whatsoever. I am amused however and the fear expressed here.
Sorry if I used words that were too difficult for you. But I thought you would like the hymn I quoted at least. What you think is fear is in fact sympathy and even compassion. 🙂
 
Even freemasons believe the human race is in need of redemption. However, theirs is through “good works,” not the blood of the cross. Father’s position necessarily refutes the sacrament of Baptism. For only through the transgenerational transmission of original sin is Baptism necessary. I fear that his instruction is more closely alligned with secularism than Catholicism. Understand that our church has been infiltrated by secular humanist and freemasonic ideas beginning with Vatican II. Unfortunately, I think his is a new age belief too, which may be very much in vogue at Catholic University and Georgetown, amoung others. I would caution against taking advice from any cleric who does’nt speak to you in plain language. He surely did not. Red flag…Catholics must be highly vigilant and discerning in this age of apostacy. Frankly, the answer is already in your heart. You did’nt need any advice. You already know the truth.
 
Sin isn’t essentially a stain; it isn’t a spiritual substance. It isn’t a thing at all. It is, rather, the lack of something, the absence of something, namely sanctifying grace. The indwelling life of the Trinity was evacuated from human nature by Adam’s sin. That’s what original sin is. We have to get at it by explaining what it isn’t. It’s the absence of something necessary for human beings to reach their divinely appointed end. The absence of sanctifying grace certainly does plunge us into darkness and blindness and death.

But it’s critically important for us to recognize that original sin is not something that’s transmitted biologically or psychologically. Yet at the same time we can speak of original sin as being something hereditary. Pope Pius XI wrote that “Original sin is the hereditary but impersonal fault of Adam’s descendants.”

Even that word choice - fault – might lead you to believe that original sin is something that renders us guilty. But it isn’t. Think of fault here in the sense of the San Andreas Fault, the fracture in the earth’s crust that renders California vulnerable to devastating earthquakes. It isn’t my fault, but it’s like a fault line that runs my soul and inclines me to be separate from God.

Original sin is the hereditary but impersonal fault of Adam’s descendants: One man’s trespass led to condemnation for all men…By one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, who have sinned in him. (Rom 5:18-19)

The mystery, of course, is how we sinned in Adam. We sinned in Adam, in a sense, because there is a mystical solidarity we share with him, based upon two realities: biologically, we’re his descendants; and theologically, he’s our covenant head. As our father, he is our representative in making the covenant with God. Since he broke the covenant, we, his progeny, inherit the consequences. Consider an analogy from human relations: If I mismanaged my business affairs and ended by declaring bankruptcy before passing my estate to my sons and daughter, my creditors could pursue my children, now rendered debtors through our family bond.

In effect, original sin means the loss of sanctifying grace and, therefore, the loss of eternal life. The soul is immortal, and people in hell will live everlastingly, though miserably. Eternal life is more than everlasting. It is God’s life, divine life. God alone is eternal because He utterly transcends time. So when we speak of eternal life, we are talking about sharing in the very being and communion of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. And that is what humanity lost through original sin.

Original sin is hereditary but impersonal. It is contracted, not committed; and we contract original sin without consent. That is why God can remove original sin without personal consent, as He does with newborn babies on their baptismal day.

The same thing can be said for actual sin. Actual sin can only be committed through informed consent. And so it can only be removed through informed consent. That’s why we need confession.

THE LAW OF (MORAL) GRAVITY
It can be helpful to keep in mind that sin is like a terminal – but curable – illness, one that afflicts all of the organs of the body. Only in this case, it affects the eternal life of the soul.
Are people better off not knowing that they are sick? Or how accessible (though difficult) the cure is? Are they any happier not being told how serious – but also how treatable – their condition is?
For me, the key is remembering that sin is more than breaking laws, it is breaking lives – our own and others’.

Likewise, our spiritual life is far more precious – and fragile – than physical life. And far more fulfilling, eternally speaking.

Just because people don’t recognize all (or any) of God’s laws, and how they reflect His loving concern for our spiritual and physical health, doesn’t change the fact that it’s all still true. If an overwhelming majority of Americans wanted to abolish the law of gravity, and so both houses of congress voted to repeal it, and the president signed it into law – what would happen if the president and all the congressman decided to celebrate their “liberation” by jumping off the White House roof? They wouldn’t break the law of gravity, of course; their fall would demonstrate gravity, and that law would break them and whatever bones hit first.

What people often forget is that the moral laws of God are just as firmly fixed as the physical laws – it’s just that the results of sin are not as visible or immediately painful as broken bones.

That’s why the church has to get the word out – both the bad news of sin’s deadly effect, and the Good News of Christ as the only total cure. And again, that’s why we need confession.

“Lord, Have Mercy” The Healing Power of Confession by Scott Hahn, Doubleday, April 2003, pg. 72-75
 
Even freemasons believe the human race is in need of redemption. However, theirs is through “good works,” not the blood of the cross. Father’s position necessarily refutes the sacrament of Baptism. For only through the transgenerational transmission of original sin is Baptism necessary. I fear that his instruction is more closely alligned with secularism than Catholicism. Understand that our church has been infiltrated by secular humanist and freemasonic ideas beginning with Vatican II. Unfortunately, I think his is a new age belief too, which may be very much in vogue at Catholic University and Georgetown, amoung others. I would caution against taking advice from any cleric who does’nt speak to you in plain language. He surely did not. Red flag…Catholics must be highly vigilant and discerning in this age of apostacy. Frankly, the answer is already in your heart. You did’nt need any advice. You already know the truth.
Get a grip man-! you see free masons everywhere:eek:
 
Eastern Christians believe Original Sin is the physical death we must all suffer as children of Adam. Beside the Spiritual view of Original Sin, and its effect on the soul, there is also the physical aspect of bodily death. That is a very important attribute of Original Sin, and seems often to be forgotten by Roman Catholics.
 
I submit that neither you nor I are qualified to define what is and what is theologically doctrinare unless you have a doctorate in theology. I certainly don’t. Very few lay persons are able to work their way through the multitudinous volumes of papal statements and define Church teaching in any exactitude. The fact that you choose to argue with your professors even when given additional material, suggests that you need to find a professor who agrees with you before you proceed further. there is little need for your education if you already know more than your professors.
On the other hand, I could blindly agree with what my professors say simply because they have degrees in theology. I won’t do that. I am a seeker of truth. I will always argue (not in a contentious meaning) with my professors when I think they are wrong. If they can show me that their assumptions are correct and that my reading of Church documents are wrong, I will gladly accept that.
 
I’m with the Catechism: both our day’s and Trent’s.

And glorisky, just look about us, and behind us chronologically. I say the Catechisms get it right.
 
Pope Pius XI wrote that “Original sin is the hereditary but impersonal fault of Adam’s descendants.”

Even that word choice - fault – might lead you to believe that original sin is something that renders us guilty. But it isn’t. Think of fault here in the sense of the San Andreas Fault, the fracture in the earth’s crust that renders California vulnerable to devastating earthquakes. It isn’t my fault, but it’s like a fault line that runs my soul and inclines me to be separate from God.

“Lord, Have Mercy” The Healing Power of Confession by Scott Hahn, Doubleday, April 2003, pg. 72-75
I wonder how Scott Hahn understands what he says here, about us not being rendered guilty, in light of what Trent says here:

“If any one denies, that, by the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, which is conferred in baptism, the guilt of original sin is remitted …] let him be anathema.”
 
SM:
This particular professor also sent me some copies of the writings of other theologians who do not believe Adam and Eve were two literal persons and who do not believe that original sin is passed down through propagation.

I’ve been reading papal encyclicals, re-reading the catechism and documents from Vatican II.

Doctrine develops but does not change. So far I’ve not seen any evidence of changing doctrine. What it does seem to me is that I am being taught something that comes close to heresy. I believe all that the Church teaches is true and beneficial for the salvation of my soul. I don’t always take everything at face value, but so far in my search for truth, I’ve found the Church to be right on.
Well, before you start shouting “heresy”, please consider a broader perspective. I think you will find that the Eastern ideas about Adam and Eve and original sin are quite different than the Latin formulations. However, since we are all in union with Rome, that clearly indicates that one does not have to submit to Latin theological developments to be orthodox in belief. 😉
 
You are correct! Doctrine grows organically as a bush does, it gets fuller, but does not get chopped down to resprout differently.
I believe there’s a whole bunch of room for growth when it comes to the doctrine of original sin - I’d love to grasp it better and free-thinking is a necessary part of the process- but the professors’ comments sound like a foreign graft with little or nothing to offer the plant and which will eventually fail on its’ own or need pruning.
 
Sorry if I used words that were too difficult for you. But I thought you would like the hymn I quoted at least. What you think is fear is in fact sympathy and even compassion. 🙂
You term yourself a Jesuit I assume by the SJ yet your rhetoric is insulting. The words are not “too hard” as you suggest but rather but a mask to hide behind. I truly doubt your compassion given the tenor of your posts, nor your “sympathy” either. What I see is overweaning self satisfaction and lack of any humility. Fear is dominate when folks insist on literal perfection in the face of clear facts to the contrary. Fear that if all is not as one has assumed somehow the entire ediface will come crashing down. Such is not the case I assure you.
 
You term yourself a Jesuit I assume by the SJ yet your rhetoric is insulting. The words are not “too hard” as you suggest but rather but a mask to hide behind. I truly doubt your compassion given the tenor of your posts, nor your “sympathy” either. What I see is overweaning self satisfaction and lack of any humility. Fear is dominate when folks insist on literal perfection in the face of clear facts to the contrary. Fear that if all is not as one has assumed somehow the entire ediface will come crashing down. Such is not the case I assure you.
You are quite wrong is supposing me a Jesuit. That you would leap to this conclusion based on just two letters in a screen name does not seem to me to be very critical thinking. :cool: I have updated my sig in hopes of making it plainer for people to guess correctly its origins. The space we are allotted just doesn’t allow me to put in a better explanation. You must not be a fan of John Henry Newman, or you would easily know the allusion. I am not surprised, as you also missed the import and allusion of those difficult words too. I used them with precision I hope, as being for my purposes, the mot juste! 🙂

I must confess though, that aside from my certainty that I have been thoroughly excoriated, your post seemed most incoherent. 😉
 
Well, before you start shouting “heresy”, please consider a broader perspective. I think you will find that the Eastern ideas about Adam and Eve and original sin are quite different than the Latin formulations. However, since we are all in union with Rome, that clearly indicates that one does not have to submit to Latin theological developments to be orthodox in belief. 😉
I don’t think the Eastern ideas of Original Sin are unorthodox, nor do I think that means we do not have to submit to Latin doctrinal developments. They may just be two different perspectives of the same idea, and they may co-exist in my view, even if they don’t in the Orthodox East’s view. 🙂
 
Well, before you start shouting “heresy”, please consider a broader perspective. I think you will find that the Eastern ideas about Adam and Eve and original sin are quite different than the Latin formulations. However, since we are all in union with Rome, that clearly indicates that one does not have to submit to Latin theological developments to be orthodox in belief. 😉
Well here is my concern. I am in a diaconate formation program in the Roman Catholic Church. I am being formed for ordination as a minister. Shouldn’t I be taught what is clearly orthodox?

If these classes were comparative studies into some theological ideas that others hold, that would be one thing. But this stuff is being presented in over-view classes.
 
I, too have been told by theologians that Adam and Eve were just a myth that ignorant people made up to explain how man first sinned.-There is no arguing with them that the catechism states Adam and Eve by name.
And wondering if this story is a myth-which others were myths-(the slaughter of the Holy innocents is another of their “myths”) has sent me in a tailspin quandary for awhile-a very unpleasant state to be in .

Why would God create creatures knowing that they would betray His trust, lose their capacity of union with Him-and that He would then have to become Human, teach them the right way to live, then die for them.-All this just to restore the original order of how He wanted things to be.

Don’t know yet, but when I die I will be given all the answers.

As for now-try to accept that God revealed His Truth to man in words and ways that could be most understood by all.

It is when one has a personal relationships with God, Jesus AND the Holy Spirit that the knowledge infused by Him will be more readily understood.

Wishing you the Peace of Jesus Christ
 
Please excuse me for jumping in on a very interesting thread!

I appreciated hearing the theology of original sin from an Eastern perspective, but was confused when it was stated that the Latin rite has forgotten physical death as part of Original Sin. I’m no scholar, and perhaps our theologians have, but for me and other faithful Scripture students, physical death was one of the principal results of Adam & Eve’s choice to become like God in knowledge instead of remaining in union with Him as they were created to be. By free will they chose not to be in communion with God Who is Life.

A personal aside as to why God would create us knowing we would fall and He would have to redeem us–the only answer I find is Love. Love is perfected through choice and trial. Love without trial and choice often leads to it being taken for granted instead of appreciated as a pearl without price. Unquestionably, true love requires total self-sacrifice on the part of those in Love, and total self-sacrifice requires the willingness to suffer and die on behalf of the beloved–exactly what Adam was not willing to risk when the serpent (read: Leviathan) in the garden subtly threatened Him. The new Adam, of course, gave His Life for us when threatened.

As for a historical Adam and Eve, I believe Pope Pius XII (?) emphatically stated that the historicity of Adam & Eve is not in question in Humani Generis. The importance of this doctrine, other than being revealed Truth, of course, lies in the danger of believing that not all men are created in the likeness of God, which can lead to such things as the Shoah–the extermination of Jews, and genocide.

Theologians, no matter how much they wish it, are not members of the Magisterium. The Magisterium relies on the research and ideas of theologians, true, but theologians are not necessarily inspired. Remember if you will, that limbo was the construct of theologians, and was never officially promulgated by the Church.There were many texts being read in churches when the Magisterium considered and decided upon the canon of Scripture, but not all of them were accepted as inspired. So too, the ideas and writings of today’s theologians.

As for Galileo, may he rest in peace, his story is complicated. As a layman he tried to tell the Pope what truth was, using a partially discovered theory of science which couldn’t even be used to predict eclipses, etc., which the outmoded Ptolemaic theory could. Galileo thought that the planets had circular orbits, rather than elliptical ones, and instead of letting his sponsor, the Pope himself, handle the situation, Galileo went out, published brochures and handed them out declaring the Church wrong, and his system, that couldn’t be used to predict celestial movement, correct.

It was a period of growth and challenge for the Church to realize that revelations presented to a preliterate society, were explained in terms accessible to a preliterate society, without in any way infringing on the moral and religious truths contain therein.

Truly, God walked among men and chose principally the lowly and the uneducated as His spokesman. The educated of the day received from Him the Seven Woes, as opposed to the Beatitudes.

Scholars also try to tell us that an Aramaic John the Apostle couldn’t have written the Book of John and Revelation because of the quality of the Greek and the literary components used. I offer myself as a counter-argument: a homeschool mom who has never taken a computer course has been able to design and implement an audio website, utilizing open source audio players and web design tools that necessitated learning more html than I ever anticipated. Not likely–but when it’s God’s will, He provides.

In Christ’s peace and joy,

Robin L. in TX
 
Why would God create creatures knowing that they would betray His trust, lose their capacity of union with Him-and that He would then have to become Human, teach them the right way to live, then die for them.-All this just to restore the original order of how He wanted things to be.
Maybe if we start with the assumption that there’s no love like that of a being who’s come to know loves’ value the hard way we might still ask this question: Just why wasn’t the presence/love of God enough for Adam and Eve? Why couldn’t they see the stupidity of doubting the Word of God and disobeying One so mighty? Maybe the reason lies simply in the fact that they weren’t Him- and that His plan for man was to undergo a process, of “little-god-making”, where they would not only have the opportunity to learn just who He is- that only He deserves the right to call the shots and wear the title “God”- but also to be molded into beings of a higher order than even the angels. Maybe what God had in mind for man could only be accomplished by a learning process which would end up with man being elevated above beings who weren’t put through this process.

Hebrews: 2 says that man was made a little lower than the angels (some translations say “for a little while lower than the angels”, which is interesting) and it goes on to say that Jesus, also, was made lower than the angels and that He was made perfect in the work of salvation through suffering. Suffering seems to be an important part of Gods molding process. Then in 1 Cor 6 Paul writes, “Do you not know that we will judge angels? How much more matters of this life?” It seems to be saying that man will end up higher than the angels in the end and I think in any case this could shed some light on why mans’ lot in this world is the way it is.That’s the extent of my speculation- probably nothing new.
 
Our Mother, Mary already is higher than angels as their queen.

I can easily see how misinterpretation of this could have led the founders of LDS astray-we do become similar to God, but we do not replace or become higher than God.

In the end we will spend eternity in heaven or in hell (Fr.Corapi)

Although I do not know why God chose life here as it is, I do know that the life that awaits us at our death is just the beginning of something truly spectacular: and that that life actually begins while we are still on earth if we choose to believe and trust in our God.
 
Well here is my concern. I am in a diaconate formation program in the Roman Catholic Church. I am being formed for ordination as a minister. Shouldn’t I be taught what is clearly orthodox?

If these classes were comparative studies into some theological ideas that others hold, that would be one thing. But this stuff is being presented in over-view classes.
That is exactly what my original point was regarding whether there were two truths being taught, viz. one for students held captive by speculative theologians, and another, orthodox view, as promulgated by the Magisterium of the Church.

I only hope more students can see through this sophistry as clearly as you have done! 👍
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top