G
grannymh
Guest
Of course, our human nature includes intellect and will. Not sure about God tweaking us.
Adam was the one who lost original holiness on his own.
- Status
Adam was the one who lost original holiness on his own.
G
grannymh
Guest
Part of Genesis 3 uses figurative language in order to affirm a real event which took place at the beginning of the history of man. Catholic teaching is firm on the reality of Adam and Eve as the two, true, first, sole parents of the human species.
The whole of human history reflects the effects of the very real original sin committed by Adam.
R
RebeccaJ
Guest
Pope Benedict XVI addressed this question during an audience in December 2008 (Advent).
vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/audiences/2008/documents/hf_ben-xvi_aud_20081203_en.html
vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/audiences/2008/documents/hf_ben-xvi_aud_20081203_en.html
K
KathleenGee
Guest
Guerny, certainly agree with you on the liturgy…
Grannyh, yes free will and intellect…
But nevertheless, we are creatures with a free choice. When we depend on ourselves, and not on the grace of God, then we leave ourselves open to deceit by the evil one or attaching ourselves to carnal pleasures to the point they overtake us.
Being a creature and to assume to become more than what Our Father created us to be is going into a life of lies and presumption. To break away from God to be selfish for our own glory is pride, the first and greatest sin.
This nun told me pride dies 4 hours after the body.
Grannyh, yes free will and intellect…
But nevertheless, we are creatures with a free choice. When we depend on ourselves, and not on the grace of God, then we leave ourselves open to deceit by the evil one or attaching ourselves to carnal pleasures to the point they overtake us.
Being a creature and to assume to become more than what Our Father created us to be is going into a life of lies and presumption. To break away from God to be selfish for our own glory is pride, the first and greatest sin.
This nun told me pride dies 4 hours after the body.
R
rinnie
Guest
Here is an easy way to understand it. Remember when Adam and Eve ate the apple. Okay they disobeyed God. Now that is original sin. Now they were thrown out of the garden of eden.
Now because of original sin we had death. Now here is the tricky part. The devil works on half truths. Now God said if you eat it you will die, the devil said no you won’t.
But see because of that we do have physical death. But physical death was not the first effect of original sin, Death of the soul was. That is why SIN is considered death of our soul.
Now see how the devil works on half truths. No they did not physically die at that moment they had death of the soul which is sin. Now what is original sin, simple separation from God, which is worse then any physical death could ever be.
Now that is washed away by Jesus in Baptism. Until we were Baptised (wiped away from original sin) we could not have LIFE OF THE SOUL lets say,
Now think back and read the O.T and you will understand it better. Those souls were not released into heaven until Jesus came and cleaned us from Original sin.
Now when he died remember he was gone 3 days. There you go, he released those souls. ANd now our souls can enter heaven at death now, because of Baptism.
R
rinnie
Guest
That is why we say that Baptism washes away sin. Original sin. Not actual sin, which is the sin we personally commit.
The blood of Jesus washed it away for us all in Baptism, So when Jesus reached the souls that were waiting with Abraham you could say that got Baptised also.
But even though it is washed away in Baptism the STAIN of it is left. That is what we call the URGE to sin, Kind of like once you do something wrong, its always easier to revert back to it.
But the Good part is Jesus promises us that the urge to sin, cannot over power the urge to not to sin either. Thats called free will. Its in our hands. And if we pray and ask him, he will help us with any sin in the world and beat it. That is why there is no sin stronger then his love for us.
That is why we say he beat DEATH (Sin) by his cross. He took it away, It no longer lives. That is why when we physically die, it does not matter. Our souls live on for eternal life in Christ. IF of course we are made worthy by him.
See pretty simple huh!
The blood of Jesus washed it away for us all in Baptism, So when Jesus reached the souls that were waiting with Abraham you could say that got Baptised also.
But even though it is washed away in Baptism the STAIN of it is left. That is what we call the URGE to sin, Kind of like once you do something wrong, its always easier to revert back to it.
But the Good part is Jesus promises us that the urge to sin, cannot over power the urge to not to sin either. Thats called free will. Its in our hands. And if we pray and ask him, he will help us with any sin in the world and beat it. That is why there is no sin stronger then his love for us.
That is why we say he beat DEATH (Sin) by his cross. He took it away, It no longer lives. That is why when we physically die, it does not matter. Our souls live on for eternal life in Christ. IF of course we are made worthy by him.
See pretty simple huh!
G
GaryTaylor
Guest
Death of the Soul
This is a difficult point and many systems have been invented to explain it: it will suffice to give the theological explanation now commonly received. Original sin is the privation of sanctifying grace in consequence of the sin of Adam. This solution, which is that of St. Thomas, goes back to St. Anselm and even to the traditions of the early Church, as we see by the declaration of the Second Council of Orange (A.D. 529): one man has transmitted to the whole human race not only the death of the body, which is the punishment of sin, but even sin itself, which is the death of the soul [Denz., n. 175 (145)]. As death is the privation of the principle of life, the death of the soul is the privation of sanctifying grace which according to all theologians is the principle of supernatural life. Therefore, if original sin is “the death of the soul”, it is the privation of sanctifying grace.
The Council of Trent, although it did not make this solution obligatory by a definition, regarded it with favour and authorized its use (cf. Pallavicini, “Istoria del Concilio di Trento”, vii-ix). Original sin is described not only as the death of the soul (Sess. V, can. ii), but as a “privation of justice that each child contracts at its conception” (Sess. VI, cap. iii). But the Council calls “justice” what we call sanctifying grace (Sess. VI), and as each child should have had personally his own justice so now after the fall he suffers his own privation of justice.
We may add an argument based on the principle of St. Augustine already cited, “the deliberate sin of the first man is the cause of original sin”. This principle is developed by St. Anselm: “the sin of Adam was one thing but the sin of children at their birth is quite another, the former was the cause, the latter is the effect” (De conceptu virginali, xxvi). In a child original sin is distinct from the fault of Adam, it is one of its effects. But which of these effects is it? We shall examine the several effects of Adam’s fault and reject those which cannot be original sin:
(1) Death and Suffering.- These are purely physical evils and cannot be called sin. Moreover St. Paul, and after him the councils, regarded death and original sin as two distinct things transmitted by Adam.
(2) Concupiscence.- This rebellion of the lower appetite transmitted to us by Adam is an occasion of sin and in that sense comes nearer to moral evil. However, the occasion of a fault is not necessarily a fault, and whilst original sin is effaced by baptism concupiscence still remains in the person baptized; therefore original sin and concupiscence cannot be one and the same thing, as was held by the early Protestants (see Council of Trent, Sess. V, can. v).
(3) The absence of sanctifying grace in the new-born child is also an effect of the first sin, for Adam, having received holiness and justice from God, lost it not only for himself but also for us (loc. cit., can. ii). If he has lost it for us we were to have received it from him at our birth with the other prerogatives of our race. Therefore the absence of sanctifying grace in a child is a real privation, it is the want of something that should have been in him according to the Divine plan. If this favour is not merely something physical but is something in the moral order, if it is holiness, its privation may be called a sin. But sanctifying grace is holiness and is so called by the Council of Trent, because holiness consists in union with God, and grace unites us intimately with God. Moral goodness consists in this, that our action is according to the moral law, but grace is a deification, as the Fathers say, a perfect conformity with God who is the first rule of all morality. (See GRACE.) Sanctifying grace therefore enters into the moral order, not as an act that passes but as a permanent tendency which exists even when the subject who possesses it does not act; it is a turning towards God, conversio ad Deum. Consequently the privation of this grace, even without any other act, would be a stain, a moral deformity, a turning away from God, aversio a Deo, and this character is not found in any other effect of the fault of Adam. This privation, therefore, is the hereditary stain.
This is a difficult point and many systems have been invented to explain it: it will suffice to give the theological explanation now commonly received. Original sin is the privation of sanctifying grace in consequence of the sin of Adam. This solution, which is that of St. Thomas, goes back to St. Anselm and even to the traditions of the early Church, as we see by the declaration of the Second Council of Orange (A.D. 529): one man has transmitted to the whole human race not only the death of the body, which is the punishment of sin, but even sin itself, which is the death of the soul [Denz., n. 175 (145)]. As death is the privation of the principle of life, the death of the soul is the privation of sanctifying grace which according to all theologians is the principle of supernatural life. Therefore, if original sin is “the death of the soul”, it is the privation of sanctifying grace.
The Council of Trent, although it did not make this solution obligatory by a definition, regarded it with favour and authorized its use (cf. Pallavicini, “Istoria del Concilio di Trento”, vii-ix). Original sin is described not only as the death of the soul (Sess. V, can. ii), but as a “privation of justice that each child contracts at its conception” (Sess. VI, cap. iii). But the Council calls “justice” what we call sanctifying grace (Sess. VI), and as each child should have had personally his own justice so now after the fall he suffers his own privation of justice.
We may add an argument based on the principle of St. Augustine already cited, “the deliberate sin of the first man is the cause of original sin”. This principle is developed by St. Anselm: “the sin of Adam was one thing but the sin of children at their birth is quite another, the former was the cause, the latter is the effect” (De conceptu virginali, xxvi). In a child original sin is distinct from the fault of Adam, it is one of its effects. But which of these effects is it? We shall examine the several effects of Adam’s fault and reject those which cannot be original sin:
(1) Death and Suffering.- These are purely physical evils and cannot be called sin. Moreover St. Paul, and after him the councils, regarded death and original sin as two distinct things transmitted by Adam.
(2) Concupiscence.- This rebellion of the lower appetite transmitted to us by Adam is an occasion of sin and in that sense comes nearer to moral evil. However, the occasion of a fault is not necessarily a fault, and whilst original sin is effaced by baptism concupiscence still remains in the person baptized; therefore original sin and concupiscence cannot be one and the same thing, as was held by the early Protestants (see Council of Trent, Sess. V, can. v).
(3) The absence of sanctifying grace in the new-born child is also an effect of the first sin, for Adam, having received holiness and justice from God, lost it not only for himself but also for us (loc. cit., can. ii). If he has lost it for us we were to have received it from him at our birth with the other prerogatives of our race. Therefore the absence of sanctifying grace in a child is a real privation, it is the want of something that should have been in him according to the Divine plan. If this favour is not merely something physical but is something in the moral order, if it is holiness, its privation may be called a sin. But sanctifying grace is holiness and is so called by the Council of Trent, because holiness consists in union with God, and grace unites us intimately with God. Moral goodness consists in this, that our action is according to the moral law, but grace is a deification, as the Fathers say, a perfect conformity with God who is the first rule of all morality. (See GRACE.) Sanctifying grace therefore enters into the moral order, not as an act that passes but as a permanent tendency which exists even when the subject who possesses it does not act; it is a turning towards God, conversio ad Deum. Consequently the privation of this grace, even without any other act, would be a stain, a moral deformity, a turning away from God, aversio a Deo, and this character is not found in any other effect of the fault of Adam. This privation, therefore, is the hereditary stain.
R
rinnie
Guest
Ah, Death of the soul. Its mortal sin. Mortal sin = total separation from God.
Now death of the soul does no longer exist. Simply because by Gods Sant. Grace of his Son Jesus Christ he bought it back for us in Baptism.
Now to have death of the Soul, Mortal sin, its up to us now. NOTHING in this world can any longer separate us from God. Well okay I am wrong, ONE thing. US. The only way we can have death of the soul now is to kinda do what Adam and Eve did. Don’t Repent,
See if Adam and Eve were never thrown out because of their sin either. What did Adam say? I am sorry Father forgive me? No he said its Eves fault Did Eve repent, NO she blamed the devil.
Then when God would not accept Adam blaming Eve who did Adam blame. GOD, He turned it around on God, and said, If you didn’t send her I would not have been tempted. There you go.
I think we better learn our lesson this time. Confess, Repent and turn BACK to God. But you want Mortal SIn, Then don’t confess, repent, and stay separated from God. ITs up to you. ITs as simple or hard as you want to make it really.
R
rinnie
Guest
By the way death and suffering do have to do with sin. Rather its our sin or someone elses. If there was no sin, there would be no death or suffering.
Death and suffering are a result of sin. If sin did not exist in this world, neither would death or suffering.
Death and suffering are a result of sin. If sin did not exist in this world, neither would death or suffering.
R
RoryMcKenzie56
Guest
Original sin is so-called because it orignates from our first parents. Adam and Eve could not give to their children the supernatural grace they forfeited. As with all the other creatures in Genesis, we are born “after the kind” of our parents. Original sin, being inherited through no fault of our own, must be differentiated from actual sin, which is so-called because it describes evil acts for which we are personally blamable. Catholics think that original sin is passed along from parent to child, with two significant exceptions, Our Lord Jesus and His Blessed Mother. The result of original sin is an inability to enjoy the vision of God in heaven. The result of actual sin is sensual pain. We call all such states of existence Hell, although there are certainly wide degrees of difference according to the just deserts of the individuals who dwell in that condition.
To be separated from God is certainly a misery from the supernatural point of view. But if I am not mistaken, it is not certain whether the natural man will recognize the potential which is destroyed through original sin. The misery of deprivation requires an insight that may or may not be present. Does a mouse feel bad that in cannot fly? Or a bird that it cannot swim? In any event, it is probably not so much a question of whether the punishment is just, but a question of aptitude. Would you like to live in an environment to which you were wholly unsuited. No. None of us would. And the unregerate indivudal who bears the sin of Adam is not going to enjoy the “atmosphere” of heaven.
Since we are separated from God by our first birth, the remedy God has provided is regeneration. A new birth. We must “born again”.
K
KathleenGee
Guest
Rory, good draw on that original sin denies us the vision of God…
And when people cannot understand why the Church inserts the dogmas of Mary – her sinless state and her assumption into heaven, there is lacking in words to describe Mary’s state being sinless and the benefits of it – but also that this vision of God will be ours some day, with the use of our free will to choose God, and to ask the intercession of Mary to pray for us.
As a Catholic, I also believe we are created new creatures in cooperation between God and our own parents, that we had no other life before us.
And when people cannot understand why the Church inserts the dogmas of Mary – her sinless state and her assumption into heaven, there is lacking in words to describe Mary’s state being sinless and the benefits of it – but also that this vision of God will be ours some day, with the use of our free will to choose God, and to ask the intercession of Mary to pray for us.
As a Catholic, I also believe we are created new creatures in cooperation between God and our own parents, that we had no other life before us.
S
SteveVH
Guest
You have had some great answers here. The most simplistic way I can explain original sin is this. I you leave a gallon of milk out for too long it will spoil. Now, every glass of milk poured from that original gallon will also be spoiled. It wasn’t the glass of milk that spoiled, it was the origin of that glass of milk that had spoiled.
R
rinnie
Guest
Also If I can add, Gary I also agree with what you are saying, after I went back I saw that It may look as I am not in agreement with what you said
Which I am. Thanks
Which I am. Thanks
S
SteveVH
Guest
You have had some great (and not so great) answers here Diana so I will not attempt to rehash comments already made. However, I think it is interesting that Adam’s sin not only affected mankind, but all of creation, which is why all of creation waits and groans until Jesus comes again to make everything new.
The whole concept of original sin makes sense when we realize that God’s creation was perfect in its original state. Before original sin there was original innocence. The reality of evil, pain, death and decay in our world is evidence that something happened to God’s perfect creation. Since human beings are the only creatures on earth capable of sinning, that is where the fault must lie and is the entire purpose for Christ becoming incarnate. We needed a Savior to wash us clean once again, for without Him we were doomed.
D
dianaiad
Guest
I have seen some great replies here…and a few confusing ones.
Most of you have explained that original sin isn’t actual sin…that it’s not an act for which we will be punished (though it seems that we WILL be, if someone doesn’t take pity on us as infants and get us baptised). It is more like a propensity to sin; a built in character flaw that tilts us toward sinning…making us want sin rather than righteousness, and it is this concupiscence that is the inheritance we get from Adam and Eve.
OK, I happen to agree with this idea that our human nature loves the short term consequences of sin, and tends to prefer it to the long term blessings of righteousness; we do seem to be born with it–and that a lack of this tendency would make it much easier NOT to sin (hence the idea that Mary was born without this problem).
…but if this is inherited FROM Adam and Eve, where did they get it? Because…they had it. If not, why did they disobey God and go for the ‘easy fix’ with the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil?
In other words, it seems to me that Adam and Eve were just as infected with this problem as we are–and if that’s so, what does that mean?
Most of you have explained that original sin isn’t actual sin…that it’s not an act for which we will be punished (though it seems that we WILL be, if someone doesn’t take pity on us as infants and get us baptised). It is more like a propensity to sin; a built in character flaw that tilts us toward sinning…making us want sin rather than righteousness, and it is this concupiscence that is the inheritance we get from Adam and Eve.
OK, I happen to agree with this idea that our human nature loves the short term consequences of sin, and tends to prefer it to the long term blessings of righteousness; we do seem to be born with it–and that a lack of this tendency would make it much easier NOT to sin (hence the idea that Mary was born without this problem).
…but if this is inherited FROM Adam and Eve, where did they get it? Because…they had it. If not, why did they disobey God and go for the ‘easy fix’ with the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil?
In other words, it seems to me that Adam and Eve were just as infected with this problem as we are–and if that’s so, what does that mean?
G
GaryTaylor
Guest
Consequently the privation of this grace, even without any other act, would be a stain, a moral deformity, a turning away from God, aversio a Deo, and this character is not found in any other effect of the fault of Adam. This privation, therefore, is the hereditary stain
So then the stain is passed through all generations from Adam. Even though through the supernatural imposed virtued of Grace at Baptism we are lightened of Sin. Yet we stll aquire all the attributes that God gave Adam/Eve as a result if their disobediance. Shame, serf-awareness etc
OK …so now God speaks to Cain a couple verse’s later, matter of fact the very next time God speaks and he said this; " If thou does well, shall though not be accepted? And if thou does not do well, sin lies at your door. And unto thee be the desire, and thou shall rule over him." Thus Free Will.
So then the stain is passed through all generations from Adam. Even though through the supernatural imposed virtued of Grace at Baptism we are lightened of Sin. Yet we stll aquire all the attributes that God gave Adam/Eve as a result if their disobediance. Shame, serf-awareness etc
OK …so now God speaks to Cain a couple verse’s later, matter of fact the very next time God speaks and he said this; " If thou does well, shall though not be accepted? And if thou does not do well, sin lies at your door. And unto thee be the desire, and thou shall rule over him." Thus Free Will.
L
Louie1983
Guest
With all the graces that God gave Adam and Eve he gave them free will also. He warned them not to eat from the forbidden tree and unfortunately this was their undoing.
They were not infected with this from the beginning for god made them perfect however they made the choice(with satan’s help) to disobey God. They had the choice either to remain perfect (obey God’s instructions) or go against his command.
They were never infected with this problem they unfortunately made a decision that led them to sin.
G
GaryTaylor
Guest
Diana , I hear you. But its also at the point God returns to Adam and Eve and He realizes that they now know shame,
And satan said; for God knows that in the day you eat of the fruit, then your eyes shall be opened, And ye shall be as gods knowing good and evil
And though satan deceived them on the being like god part, but their eyes were opened, they certainly were able to know Good and evil at this point.
And satan said; for God knows that in the day you eat of the fruit, then your eyes shall be opened, And ye shall be as gods knowing good and evil
And though satan deceived them on the being like god part, but their eyes were opened, they certainly were able to know Good and evil at this point.
R
Reuben_J
Guest
It is not inherited from Adam and Eve like how we inherit the DNA.
Before the fall Adam and Eve did not have this problem. They were innocent, so to speak. It was when they committed the sin that their eyes were ‘opened’. They knew they were naked, et al. Later we see that a brother killed (his brother). There is a distinction between before and after the fall; and this we cannot lump together as the same.
The original sin as been explained came with the fall. It affects us all until today. The spiritual aspect of it is the sin of disobedience to God that results in the fall. We cannot deny this sin since we all have it unlike when Adam and Eve were first created - a point we don’t agree with those who think that we do not have the original sin.
Probably if we really dissect this like a lawyer where we have to answer a ‘yes’ or ‘no’, some of the arguments probably do not make sense. But sometimes in spirituality one cannot approach it that way.
T
Tuno
Guest
The story of original “sin” is the allegorical tale of how man ascended from instinct to the subject/object mode of awareness, which in its higher forms includes reflexive awareness as the individual matures away from narcissism. It is a state of “sin” in that we now have the ability to decide and make mistakes as distinct from acting instinctually as animals which are undifferentiated from nature, in a sense. It is similar to the story of Lucifer, the Light Bearer, who represents the faculty of awareness falling for the suggestion of duality. Identification with duality is the essential nature of hell, in that duality is separation, while heaven is Union.
- Status