Original Sin Makes No Sense

[bilop]

But this is Catholic doctrine:
The Church never defined it. That is not to say it is not true. Most truthes of the Faith are not defined. The infallibility of the Church has never been defined…yet all Catholics must believe it.

Yes, it is a result of spectulative theology. Actually, and contrary to the English meaning of the word, “speculative” in this context does not refer to “speculation” as though the matter was uncertain. Speculative theology is the Scholastic Theology (theology developed by applying reason to the data of revelation), as distinct from Positive Theology (which is the arrangement of proofs from Scripture and Tradition).

Dogmatic theology since the Reformation tends to consist of a combination of the speculative and positive methods. That is what the theologians do…they abstract a thesis (speculative theology), explain it (speculative theology), and prove it from the data of Revelation (positive theology). They do the latter because they know that we have all heard the Protestant objections and therefore our Faith may need the support of knowing what data of Revelation supports our doctrines. This was unnecessary prior to the Reformation, for obvious reasons.
SFD

You have no quarrel wth me. I, personally, believe in Limbo Infantum. But, the Church has not ruled one way, or the other.

A Catholic is free to believe, or disbelieve in Limbo Infantum.

God Bless

 

[SFD]

You have no quarrel wth me. I, personally, believe in Limbo Infantum. But, the Church has not ruled one way, or the other.

A Catholic is free to believe, or disbelieve in Limbo Infantum.

God Bless

But a Catholic is not free to disbelieve the dogmas and theological truths and conclusions behind the morally unanimous teaching of the Church’s own theologians for the last 800 years. Limbo Infantium has not been defined…but it has been taught by the theologians for 800 years…and that does not mean that one may disregard the doctrine behind these theologian’s conclusions. No one has addressed this so far…they just keep repeating that Limbo Infantium has not been defined. Again, the Infallibility of the Church has not yet been defined … Papal Infallibility was explained as follows, just before it was defined:
Relatio of Bp. Gasser:

Therefore just as everyone admits that to deny the infallibility of the Church in defining dogmas of faith is heretical, so the force of this decree of the Vatican Council makes it no less heretical to deny the infallibility of the supreme Pontiff, considered in itself, when he defines dogmas of faith. However, in respect to those things about which it is theologically certain - but not as, yet certain “de fide” - that the Church is infallible, these things are also not defined by this decree of the sacred Council as having to be believed “de fide” in respect to papal infallibility. With the theological certitude which is had that these other objects, apart from dogmas of the faith, fall within the extension of the infallibility which the Church enjoys in her definitions, so, with that same theological certitude, must it be held, now and in the future, that the infallibility of definitions issued by the Roman Pontiff extends to these same objects.

Here is Pope Pius IX explaining that we are bound by the common doctrine of theologians, not just Roman decisions:

“But, since it is a matter of that subjection by which in conscience all those Catholics are bound who work in the speculative sciences, in order that they may bring new advantage to the Church by their writings, on that account, then, the men of that same convention should realize that it is not sufficient for learned Catholics to accept and revere the aforesaid dogmas of the Church, but that it is also necessary to subject themselves to the decisions pertaining to doctrine which are issued by the Pontifical Congregations, **and also to those forms of doctrine which are held by the common and constant consent of Catholics as theological truths and conclusions, so certain that opinions opposed to these same forms of doctrine, although they cannot be called heretical, nevertheless deserve some theological censure.” **Tuas Libenter (1863), DZ 1684.

What is disturbing is that many here simply disregard anything they don’t agree with if it has never been the subject of a definition. This is erroneous and poisonous.

SFD

 

[RubyT]

I think it’s pretty simple to understand. Christ substituted Himself in His sacrifice for us. The debt was ours but He paid it for us. How is that not substitution?

That’s another question. Why is substitutionary sacrifice accepted by Christians? Seems a little like tossing virgins into volcanoes to appease angry gods.

I don’t see it that way at all.
Christ did not substitute Himself for our sins. He cleansed our sins, there was no replacement, no substitution but rather He enabled us the possibility of cleansing our souls. You are saying that He substituted His life for our sins as if He replaced our sins. That did not happen. He was the only one to offer this sacrifice. Christ voluntarily paid for our sins through the option of absolution. He did not substitute for us but rather stepped up to the plate because He and the Father knew it needed to be done for our redemption.

If I owe the bank money and the bank forgives the debt is that a substitution or just a clean slate? The bank bill is now null and void or clean. The bank did not substitute the funds for me to remove the bill but rather absolved the debt. If I then incur more debt I would have to ask the bank to absolve it again. This is why we go to confession to continually cleanse (absolve) our souls of sin. Christ gave us that option.

Christ did not substitute himself for the sin but rather gave us the option of absolving the sin through our confessions and faith. The sin still exist and goes on today. Christ enabled us to cleanse our souls from the sins. He was not a substitute for the sin but rather enabled us to wipe it clean or absolve the debt. Absolution is quite different from substitution.

God Bless you my friend and I hope this makes my point clearer. If you still disagree than we will have to agree to disagree.

 

[Aramis]

Thanks for the correction, also the two quotes on those with original sin going to hell. God bless!

EDIT: I found this in the Catechism. Not sure if it means the Church changed her position on unbaptized children or not:

1261 As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus’ tenderness toward children which caused him to say: "Let the children come to me, do not hinder them,"63 allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism. All the more urgent is the Church’s call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy Baptism.

In part, it’s an acknowledgment of the long held Byzantine Rite doctrine that enough prayers by others can get someone out of hell. But keep in mind also: Until the second millenium, the byzantine theology acknowledged only two states: in heaven, or in hell. Being in hell was not (and is not) de fide permanent.

This is also based in the biblical assertion that Christ led the OT Saints and worthies out of hell and into heaven.

And yes, the church HAS changed its stance since 1917 on several major issues, including formally denying the theologumenon of Limbo, formally allowing the theologumenon of the invisible church, allowing transfers from the Latin Church to the Eastern Rite Churches, allowing married clerics to function within the United States, ordaining married men in the Roman Church without individual Papal review, removing permission for non-ordained Friars to have preaching faculties,permission for Catholics to associate with non-catholics socially, permission to marry non-Catholics, and several others. Including a couple flip-flops… like disallowing the 1965 missal, then allowing it as an extraordinary form.

 

[SFD]

Aramis:

In part, it’s an acknowledgment of the long held Byzantine Rite doctrine that enough prayers by others can get someone out of hell. But keep in mind also: Until the second millenium, the byzantine theology acknowledged only two states: in heaven, or in hell. Being in hell was not (and is not) de fide permanent.

This is also based in the biblical assertion that Christ led the OT Saints and worthies out of hell and into heaven.

This is heretical. It is de fide that souls condemned to Hell are there for eternity. Aramis, I don’t doubt that you are merely confused about what hell is, confusing old and new testament, hell and purgatory, which is not uncommon these days.

What you are calling “the Byzantine theology” is not the teaching of the Catholic Church to which the Byzantine Rite is part.

SFD

 

[SFD]

Aramis:

And yes, the church HAS changed its stance since 1917 on several major issues,

Issues?

including formally denying the theologumenon of Limbo,

This isn’t even what the ITC said…where are you getting this?

formally allowing the theologumenon of the invisible church

The invisible church theory and the branch theory have been condemned. Did you know that?

Aramis, your error is that you don’t accept the teaching of the Church. You read afew things, do your own theology, and then develop your opinion based on what you believe and accept.

You accept nothing soley based on the authority of the Church.

SFD

 

[Aramis]

SFD:

Your slander is not appreciated. It’s also quite wrong.

According to the CCC, as posted on the vatican website, only those who die in a state of mortal sin are damned to hell for all eternity for certain. Mortal sin requires willfulness of action.

1037 God predestines no one to go to hell; for this, a willful turning away from God (a mortal sin) is necessary, and persistence in it until the end. In the Eucharistic liturgy and in the daily prayers of her faithful, the Church implores the mercy of God, who does not want “any to perish, but all to come to repentance”:

Father, accept this offering
from your whole family.
Grant us your peace in this life,
save us from final damnation,
and count us among those you have chosen.
vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_P2O.HTM#60

Further, the CCC defines hell thusly:

633 Scripture calls the abode of the dead, to which the dead Christ went down, “hell” - Sheol in Hebrew or Hades in Greek - because those who are there are deprived of the vision of God. Such is the case for all the dead, whether evil or righteous, while they await the Redeemer: which does not mean that their lot is identical, as Jesus shows through the parable of the poor man Lazarus who was received into “Abraham’s bosom”: “It is precisely these holy souls, who awaited their Saviour in Abraham’s bosom, whom Christ the Lord delivered when he descended into hell.” Jesus did not descend into hell to deliver the damned, nor to destroy the hell of damnation, but to free the just who had gone before him.
vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_P1R.HTM#ED

Further, in the section on original sin, original sin does not condemn man de fide to hell.
( vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_P1C.HTM#QU )
It does, however, define that original sin is a change in state, opening mankind to further sinfulness, and bringing death into the world.

But then, you have implied that you reject the decree on ecumenism, and several other post VII documents… do you reject as well the Catechism of the Catholic Church?

 

[SFD]

SFD:

It is de fide that souls condemned to Hell are there for eternity. Aramis, I don’t doubt that you are merely confused about what hell is, confusing old and new testament, hell and purgatory, which is not uncommon these days.

This is what I said…there is no slander…and you haven’t addressed it either.

SFD

 

[SFD]

SFD:

Your slander is not appreciated. It’s also quite wrong.

According to the CCC, as posted on the vatican website, only those who die in a state of mortal sin are damned to hell for all eternity for certain. Mortal sin requires willfulness of action.

1037 God predestines no one to go to hell; for this, a willful turning away from God (a mortal sin) is necessary, and persistence in it until the end. In the Eucharistic liturgy and in the daily prayers of her faithful, the Church implores the mercy of God, who does not want “any to perish, but all to come to repentance”:

Now let us compare here:

The Council of Florence also defined

 

[Harri_Laaksonen]

Interesting thread that wanders from original sin to divine attributes and back again.

The fact is that we do sin. It is also a fact that none of us commits an “original sin” in that we are unique in committing it.

There was a first sin that affected all of humanity by disposing us to sin. That led to the good point that we feel guilt and thus turn to Christ. The person who feels no guilt is defined as sociopathic, psychopathic and insane. These people are in the grip of that attitude to being God, the sin of Satan.

Blessings to you all.

Harri

 

[EasterJoy]

Interesting thread that wanders from original sin to divine attributes and back again.

The fact is that we do sin. It is also a fact that none of us commits an “original sin” in that we are unique in committing it.

There was a first sin that affected all of humanity by disposing us to sin. That led to the good point that we feel guilt and thus turn to Christ. The person who feels no guilt is defined as sociopathic, psychopathic and insane. These people are in the grip of that attitude to being God, the sin of Satan.

Blessings to you all.

Harri

The other thing to remember is that the word “sin” does not just refer to individual bad acts we have chosen. It also applies to the state of being outside of union with God and the state of life that naturally flows from being outside that union.

To argue that original sin puts us outside of union with God does not say that we have personally chosen anything wrong or that we are inherently bad. It is to say that, although we are all made in the image and likeness of God and for the purpose of eternal happiness with God–“good” hardly covers a blessing like that!–we lack the relationship with God that alone will give us life. Both individually and collectively, we need the saving death and resurrection of Our Lord Jesus Christ in order to be put into the full relationship with God for which we were made. God himself had to mend the rift.

 

[peary]

How can people be held accountable for an act that they did not commit? It seems to imply that humans are inherently bad and weak.

It’s a spiritual malady that was committed within the realm of what was once eternity which included the physical and, as such, affected past, present, and future.

It doesn’t say that humans are inherently bad and weak, just spiritually broken in need of healing.

 

[Harri_Laaksonen]

The other thing to remember is that the word “sin” does not just refer to individual bad acts we have chosen. It also applies to the state of being outside of union with God and the state of life that naturally flows from being outside that union.

This is part of the problem. It is a linguistic and semantic problem in that “Sin” is a noun and a verb. Most of us, most of the time think of sin as a verb. It is however a noun and as such agrees with your post. I do not disagree with you. I guess I am fishing for a way of separating the concept of being “in sin”>separated from God, and in committing an act of harm to our relationship with God.

 

[wynnejj]

I have this view of original sin as the inherited disorder & disease of mind, body and spirit passed down and maybe magnified by successive generations descended from Adam & Eve. This idea of mind, body and spirit as being the recipient of disease can explain much about our natures. It is our special cross to bear that is unique to us.

Why do individuals have different intelligence levels, different degrees of “common sense” judgement and capacities for rational thought? That might be an inherited disorder & disease of the mind.

Why do individuals have different levels of physical prowess? Why are some born with deformities, or susceptibilities to different physical diseases? That might be an inherited disorder & disease of the body.

Why do individuals all seem to have their special sin? You know, the one that we cry out to God and say, “Well, you made me this way!!!”. The one that is our special cross to bear and, seems so hard to master. That would be an inherited disorder & disease of the spirit.

Because we are all made imperfect of mind, body, and spirit, it is why we all need each other to complement & supplement each other’s deficiencies. It is also why we all must be patient, understanding, and non-judgemental of the deficiencies of others, if we are honest with ourselves.

 

[peary]

My explanation makes the most sense.

 

[crowonsnow]

How can people be held accountable for an act that they did not commit? It seems to imply that humans are inherently bad and weak.

The Apple and Eve version of original sin doesn’t make sense primarily because it is not the first occurrence of sin. Sin is original to heaven and rebellious angelic servants. So theologically speaking it appears we’re being punished because we listened to rebellious former angels.

If we weren’t just childishly naïve and trusting then we deserve our freedom, which obviously comes with a cost. If we were just childishly naïve and trusting, then no, it doesn’t make sense to punish the whole school for the behavior of two children.

On another level, why punish the student body because they listened to bad profs that the administration removed but still let hang around on campus?

 

[CatsAndDogs]

How can people be held accountable for an act that they did not commit?

But they DID commit it!

The “they” you are referring to is “mankind”. Mankind chose to want to be “schooled” in the consequences of sin, and our “fallen” condition is God’s response, which is the offer to us to either learn that sin is an awful thing not to be chosen in place of eternity with God or that an eternity nearly infinitely distant from Him is an awful thing.

It seems to imply that humans are inherently bad and weak.

concupiscence - CCC

concupiscence - NewAdvent

 

[AndyF]

Et Cetera:

No.

Some theologians believe that because an unbaptized child through no fault of his own, he still does not warrant the beatific vision, and because God is merciful, the child finds himself in a state of natural bliss and contentment. He neither desires anything nor is sad in any way. I think it can only be a positive described in mystical rather than wordly terms. I guess one can say God has something appropriate for them.

So yes, Jesus really meant it when he said, “Unless a man(person) be born again, he cannot enter the kingdom of heaven.” Which is another way of saying every person needs to work out their redemption to qualify.

AndyF

 

[Namesake]

I don’t see it that way at all.
Christ did not substitute Himself for our sins. He cleansed our sins, there was no replacement, no substitution but rather He enabled us the possibility of cleansing our souls. You are saying that He substituted His life for our sins as if He replaced our sins. That did not happen. He was the only one to offer this sacrifice. Christ voluntarily paid for our sins through the option of absolution. He did not substitute for us but rather stepped up to the plate because He and the Father knew it needed to be done for our redemption.

If I owe the bank money and the bank forgives the debt is that a substitution or just a clean slate? The bank bill is now null and void or clean. The bank did not substitute the funds for me to remove the bill but rather absolved the debt. If I then incur more debt I would have to ask the bank to absolve it again. This is why we go to confession to continually cleanse (absolve) our souls of sin. Christ gave us that option.

Christ did not substitute himself for the sin but rather gave us the option of absolving the sin through our confessions and faith. The sin still exist and goes on today. Christ enabled us to cleanse our souls from the sins. He was not a substitute for the sin but rather enabled us to wipe it clean or absolve the debt. Absolution is quite different from substitution.

God Bless you my friend and I hope this makes my point clearer. If you still disagree than we will have to agree to disagree.

Bad logic. Christ sacrificed Himself in our place. He paid our debt.

If another person paid off the bank debt then they substituted for us. Christ paid what we owed and therefore He was a substitute for us.

We should have paid the debt but He took it upon Himself so that we would not have to pay the debt.

I don’t know how many more ways to explain it. Christ willingly substituted Himself for us through His passion. He sacrificed so that we would benefit. We did not sacrifice, but He did in our place.That is substitution.

 

[JohnJFarren]

JMJ / MMM 081002 Thursday
Hey Fellows ande Girls, Sons and Daughters of God –

HOW ABOUT WE GET BACK TO EXACTLY WHAT IS ORIGINAL SIN? Adam? Eve? Garden? Serpent? Fruit?

New wine is needed … and in new wine skins!

More mature understanding of the truth in “Original Sin” … and this presented, formulated, in new and true terms.

Too long have we been worshipping the beautiful box with the beautiful ribbon – and failing even to know what’s inside the box!

I think this calls for a new topic.
John (JohnJFarren) Trinity5635@aol.com