Original Sin and Death

[davidv]

Here I think you contradict Catholicism, for original sin is a punished for those unbaptized by the fact that they never see the face of God.

I’ve also looked back in the Catechism and it is pretty difficult to come to a conclusion based solely on the writings therein.

Perhaps you can point me to some authoritative document actually saying that original sin does not merit death?

When did I say or imply that it did not?

Or some document that says that original sin is explicitly not voluntary.

Not sure what you mean here?. Adam exercised his free will and disobeyed God. This brought death into the world. That I will now also suffer death does not mean that I am personally guilty of Adam’s sin. I am only suffering the natural consequences of his sin.

Still though, as was earlier written by me and by Aquinas, :"Wherefore granted that the rational soul were transmitted, from the very fact that the stain on the child’s soul is not in its will, it would cease to be a guilty stain binding its subject to punishment; for, as the Philosopher says (Ethic. iii, 5), “no one reproaches a man born blind; one rather takes pity on him.”

since this is a quote in connection with his discussion of original sin (newadvent.org/summa/2081.htm), then it seems that this authority implicitly believed that original sin merited death.

If a preborn infant is killed by abortion, is the child guilty of its mother’s sin? It is not, yet it suffers the consequences of that sin. I believe original sin should viewed in a similar way.

 

[fakename]

When did I say or imply that it did not?

Not sure what you mean here?. Adam exercised his free will and disobeyed God. This brought death into the world. That I will now also suffer death does not mean that I am personally guilty of Adam’s sin. I am only suffering the natural consequences of his sin.

If a preborn infant is killed by abortion, is the child guilty of its mother’s sin? It is not, yet it suffers the consequences of that sin. I believe original sin should viewed in a similar way.

Okay I thought you said that, death was not the punishment for original sin -death as in the death of mankind at large and not just for Adam and Eve. I talked to a priest today and he also said that death was the punishment for original sin. He didn’t make any distinction b/t death as punishment for Adam and us so I’m assuming that he meant death was the punishment for everyone for everyone’s original sin.

The preborn infant is however sent to limbo (my opinion granted) due to his original sin. If original sin was simply the existence of disordered concupiscence or some such state, then it would not be a voluntary sin in us and we could never be sent to limbo. Babies would go to heaven instead. Neither would the Catholic Encyclopedia disagree by stating that original sin is more than just transmitted concupiscence -again if it were then what would it serve to send kids to limbo? Further why doesn’t baptism take away concupiscence, if what you say is true?

 

[davidv]

Okay I thought you said that, death was not the punishment for original sin -death as in the death of mankind at large and not just for Adam and Eve. I talked to a priest today and he also said that death was the punishment for original sin. He didn’t make any distinction b/t death as punishment for Adam and us so I’m assuming that he meant death was the punishment for everyone for everyone’s original sin.

The preborn infant is however sent to limbo (my opinion granted) due to his original sin. If original sin was simply the existence of disordered concupiscence or some such state, then it would not be a voluntary sin in us and we could never be sent to limbo. Babies would go to heaven instead. Neither would the Catholic Encyclopedia disagree by stating that original sin is more than just transmitted concupiscence -again if it were then what would it serve to send kids to limbo? Further why doesn’t baptism take away concupiscence, if what you say is true?

Baptism doesn’t take away concupiscence because that is not its function. Baptism’s function is to restore our relationship with God and make us His adopted son or daughter.
CCC 1213:

Holy Baptism is the basis of the whole Christian life, the gateway to life in the Spirit…

CCC:

1263 By Baptism all sins are forgiven, original sin and all personal sins, as well as all punishment for sin.66 In those who have been reborn nothing remains that would impede their entry into the Kingdom of God, neither Adam’s sin, nor personal sin, nor the consequences of sin, the gravest of which is separation from God.
1264 Yet certain temporal consequences of sin remain in the baptized, such as suffering, illness, death, and such frailties inherent in life as weaknesses of character, and so on, as well as an inclination to sin that Tradition calls concupiscence, or metaphorically, “the tinder for sin” (fomes peccati); since concupiscence "is left for us to wrestle with, it cannot harm those who do not consent but manfully resist it by the grace of Jesus Christ."67 Indeed, "an athlete is not crowned unless he competes according to the rules."68

 

[fakename]

Baptism doesn’t take away concupiscence because that is not its function. Baptism’s function is to restore our relationship with God and make us His adopted son or daughter.

Baptism’s function is to take away original sin. But you stated that original sin was some state like concupiscence. So if original sin was concupiscence or some other state, then why doesn’t Baptism take away said state?

It doesn’t so clearly Original sin isn’t just some hereditary stain but it is also a voluntary thing, called sin only in an analogous way.

As the Catholic Encyclopedia states:

" ‘Free will is essentially incommunicable.’ Physically, yes; morally, no; the will of the father being considered as that of his children."

" ‘It is unjust to make us responsible for an act committed before our birth.’ Strictly responsible, yes; responsible in a wide sense of the word, no; the crime of a father brands his yet unborn children with shame, and entails upon them a share of his own responsibility."

Now back to the OP, how can the child’s will be considered that of his father?