Original Sin ... Scott Hahn's take from Church Fathers

[BRB]

I had always thought Original Sin was a ‘genetic blight’ place upon man by God.

Hahn says Chruch Fathers taught otherwise. St. Francis of A. taught that O.Sin is not something God has cursed us with … its really a ‘Nothing’ … its something we lack. A default issue for us.

H.S. was withdrawn from mankind … after sin of Adam/Eve. Thus, we are born in fallen state. Without H.S. we will always default into sinful status at ‘age of reason’ … until H.S. restores us.

Infant Baptism is of value in restoration of H.S. … so the Early Fathers taught. Still they did not believe infants actually sinned … at least until age of accountability was reached.

Clearly Chruch Fathers saw baptism as the SEAL of Christian.

Interesting idea … God didn’t ‘curse’ us, he just removed original ‘blessing’ from us. Baptism restores what we lack … making us whole again.

 

[NotWorthy]

Baptism makes us “semi-whole”. We still have Concupiscence, or the inclination to sin.

Think of Sanctified Grace as an inheritance. When God created Adam and Eve, He created them with this Grace. But when they lost it, their children could not inherit this Gift of Grace. This would seem to jive with Scott Hahn’s (and the Church throughout Her history) interpretation of Original Sin being born without this Sanctifying Grace.

 

[Ron_Conte]

The description of original sin that you give is not in accord with Church teaching. Original sin is from conception, not from the age of reason. Original sin is the absence of sanctifying grace in the soul (a lack of something), but it is also that our physical human nature is in a fallen state (which is not merely a lack of something). Even after Baptism, the fallen state remains and is expressed as a tendency toward sin, concupiscence.

Where did you read this?

 

[puzzleannie]

neither OP nor Scott Hahn is stating OS starts at the age of reason. re-read the OP. I don’t think the idea is new with Scott as it was presented that way as one explanation many moons ago when I was a tyke in Catholic school. that is, OS as a condition of need into which we are born, a lack of sanctifying grace, with concupiscenc and all the other effects. Baptism restores the lack of grace but does not remove the other effects–concupiscence, bodily death etc., however it does provide for their remedy through living the Christian life, resurrection of the body etc.

Way I remember it from 3rd grade is we had an inheritence from our ancestors. The sinful actions of our ancestors lost that wealth (grace) so we are born without, rather than as rightful heirs. Baptism makes us again heirs.

 

[Contarini]

I had always thought Original Sin was a ‘genetic blight’ place upon man by God.

Hahn says Chruch Fathers taught otherwise. St. Francis of A. taught that O.Sin is not something God has cursed us with … its really a ‘Nothing’ … its something we lack. A default issue for us.

H.S. was withdrawn from mankind … after sin of Adam/Eve. Thus, we are born in fallen state. Without H.S. we will always default into sinful status at ‘age of reason’ … until H.S. restores us.

Infant Baptism is of value in restoration of H.S. … so the Early Fathers taught. Still they did not believe infants actually sinned … at least until age of accountability was reached.

Clearly Chruch Fathers saw baptism as the SEAL of Christian.

Interesting idea … God didn’t ‘curse’ us, he just removed original ‘blessing’ from us. Baptism restores what we lack … making us whole again.

There were two views in the Middle Ages on this: one held that original sin was simply the privation of original righteousness, and the other that it was more than that. Many of the Protestant Reformers picked on the former view as evidence that medieval Catholicism had an inadequate doctrine of original sin. However, some, such as Martin Bucer, pointed out that one could get a very strong doctrine of original sin from the notion of privation (which seems to be the way Hahn is going as well).

Edwin

 

[benedictgal]

First of all, St. Francis of Assisi is not a Church Father. The Church Fathers (and Pope Benedict is doing a series on them during his General Audience) encompass St. Justin, Martyr, St. Ireneaus, Origin, Terullian, St. Eusebius, St. Athanasius, St. Agustine of Hippo and quite a few others. The period of the Church Fathers ended at or around the latter part of the 4th, early 5th century.

Original Sin has nothing to do with whether or not someone is of the age of reason. If that were the case, then why celebrate the Feast of the Immaculate Conception?

 

[BRB]

First of all, St. Francis of Assisi is not a Church Father. The period of the Church Fathers ended at or around the latter part of the 4th, early 5th century.

?

Actually … most take the period up to 7th century … ending with Gregory the Great in early 600’s.

On St. Francis … yes, I’d say he doesn’t qualify … except for sainthood.

 

[BRB]

There were two views in the Middle Ages on this: one held that original sin was simply the privation of original righteousness, and the other that it was more than that. Many of the Protestant Reformers picked on the former view as evidence that medieval Catholicism had an inadequate doctrine of original sin. However, some, such as Martin Bucer, pointed out that one could get a very strong doctrine of original sin from the notion of privation (which seems to be the way Hahn is going as well).

Edwin

Hahn [former Protestant] prior to 1987 … started with idea of Adam/Eve’s curse upon mankind. Seems he has come full circle, and now sees O.S. from the privation viewpoint.

Protestants uniformly believe age of reason/accountability.

 

[Nita]

Check out the Catechism. Some samples (underlining mine):

**#403 **Following St. Paul, the Church has always taught that the overwhelming misery which oppresses men and their inclination towards evil and death cannot be understood apart from their connection with Adam’s sin and the fact that he has transmitted to us a sin with which we are all born afflicted, a sin which is the “death of the soul”.291 Because of this certainty of faith, the Church baptizes for the remission of sins even tiny infants who have not committed personal sin.292

404 …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 … 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.

406 The Church’s teaching on the transmission of original sin was articulated more precisely in the fifth century, especially under the impulse of St. Augustine’s reflections against Pelagianism, and in the sixteenth century, in opposition to the Protestant Reformation. Pelagius held that man could, by the natural power of free will and without the necessary help of God’s grace, lead a morally good life; he thus reduced the influence of Adam’s fault to bad example. the first Protestant reformers, on the contrary, taught that original sin has radically perverted man and destroyed his freedom; they identified the sin inherited by each man with the tendency to evil (concupiscentia), which would be insurmountable. the Church pronounced on the meaning of the data of Revelation on original sin especially at the second Council of Orange (529)296 and at the Council of Trent (1546).297

 

[BRB]

Check out the Catechism. Some samples (underlining mine):

**#403 **Following St. Paul, the Church has always taught that the overwhelming misery which oppresses men and their inclination towards evil and death cannot be understood apart from their connection with Adam’s sin and the fact that he has transmitted to us a sin with which we are all born afflicted, a sin which is the “death of the soul”.291 Because of this certainty of faith, the Church baptizes for the remission of sins even tiny infants who have not committed personal sin.292

404 …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 … 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.

406 The Church’s teaching on the transmission of original sin was articulated more precisely in the fifth century, especially under the impulse of St. Augustine’s reflections against Pelagianism, and in the sixteenth century, in opposition to the Protestant Reformation. Pelagius held that man could, by the natural power of free will and without the necessary help of God’s grace, lead a morally good life; he thus reduced the influence of Adam’s fault to bad example. the first Protestant reformers, on the contrary, taught that original sin has radically perverted man and destroyed his freedom; they identified the sin inherited by each man with the tendency to evil (concupiscentia), which would be insurmountable. the Church pronounced on the meaning of the data of Revelation on original sin especially at the second Council of Orange (529)296 and at the Council of Trent (1546).297

In another talk of S. Hahn’s … he does refer to the ‘curse of Adam’ upon mankind.

I think Scott tried to argue the point from one aspect of a twofold problem.

It does appear the Chruch believes mankind has a ‘sin curse’ upon us (whether by Adam or by God … result is the same). We lack H.S. from birth … and do not naturally seek God and practice Beatitudes, until we are reborn in the New Adam/New Moses.