Original Sin

[fhansen]

I can’t disagree with anything you said there, and I don’t see that it conflicts with what I stated. I just don’t believe that man’s appetites are a punishment, nor that God did not immediately forgive Adam’s disobedience, if such a story actually happened. The story attempts to explain the human condition. We have better explanations now.

What better explanations? The Church teaches that our appetites are good, created by God, but the loss of control over them results in all of the most evil acts committed. Our loss of control is directly related to our separation from God-and therefore His control. In fact the chief aspect of OS is taught to be this very separation, constituting a disorder, an injustice in man.

Exactly. Well stated. And if God is seen as a punishing god, then we do not have the freedom to choose; instead, we have coercion. Do you see what I am saying?

Yes. I see the exile from the garden as the natural consequence of man’s separating himself from God. And God’s use of this is more formative rather than punitive or even reformative in nature.

 

[OneSheep]

In the Catholic Church, there is only one “Original Sin.” This is the watershed between Adam’s pre-Fall condition and Adam’s post-Fall condition.

I do recognize the secular view of no Original Sin and the bunch of innate compulsions which bypass some basic teachings on human nature and its spirituality. Spirituality can be seen in many ways. One of these numerous ways is that spirituality is based on our individual relationship with our Creator. Since there is an explanation for our relationship with our Creator on every street corner, my suggestion is to stick with the Catholic Church, participating in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, reception of the appropriate Sacraments, and a daily prayer life…along with acts of love toward others.

By the way,
what you are talking about – is that a result from the early days of Matthew Fox? I never got past his original book titles; consequently, the only thing I remember is his objection to the Catholic doctrines of Original Sin. However, objections to Original Sin have been around for centuries. And still the Catholic Church stands strong.

Our individual relationships with our Creator have to do with our prayer lives. Are you thinking that I have borrowed my views from somewhere else? My views are a result of my prayer life. The God I know did not punish us for disobedience, He forgives us. Disobedience carries its own natural consequence that has nothing to do with God’s wrath, resentment, or desire to punish. That is the God I know. That said, life does have plenty of consequences, and many stem from our own behaviors. Is it God punishing us? To you, maybe yes. To me, no. Both viewpoints are acceptable.

Are you making an assumption that I am not “sticking with the Catholic Church”? If so, I encourage you to abide by the CAF guidelines. It is better to ask. The Catholic Church, as St. Augustine and St Thomas Aquinas, has always been open to revelations made by science. True, scientific discoveries have opened my eyes to the wonder and beauty of what it means to be human. Are you suggesting this goes against the Creation story? If so, that is okay.

We can break down “original sin” into several innate compulsions, such as the desire for stuff that someone else possesses. Since we are all born with the compulsion, it is indeed original, and it does often lead to sin. So, why not put it under the umbrella? Are we as humans in a state of depravity, such as many other denominations preach? Well, if we are feeling particularly guilty, such an outlook makes sense. Does it fit in the Catholic Church? Sure, why not? Again, it is based in relationship. Does anyone have a perfect view of God?

This is a matter of making sense of the whole concept of original sin. Please, try to be open to other points of view that continue to glorify the Trinity and help those of us that see great contradiction in the standard fare.

 

[OneSheep]

What better explanations? The Church teaches that our appetites are good, created by God, but the loss of control over them results in all of the most evil acts committed. Our loss of control is directly related to our separation from God-and therefore His control. In fact the chief aspect of OS is taught to be this very separation, constituting a disorder, an injustice in man.

Yes. I see the exile from the garden as the natural consequence of man’s separating himself from God. And God’s use of this is more formative rather than punitive or even reformative in nature.

Well, this is a difference in viewpoint. I go with Paul’s absolute. Nothing can separate us from the love of God. Since we exist, we cannot separate ourselves from God. We can ignore God, we can try to defy God, but even our ability to defy comes from God. We are nothing without God. To me, separation is impossible.

Now, it appears you think differently on this. I accept completely your point of view. There are many things that matter a lot more. Love of neighbor, for example.

 

[fhansen]

Well, this is a difference in viewpoint. I go with Paul’s absolute. Nothing can separate us from the love of God. Since we exist, we cannot separate ourselves from God. We can ignore God, we can try to defy God, but even our ability to defy comes from God. We are nothing without God. To me, separation is impossible.

Now, it appears you think differently on this. I accept completely your point of view. There are many things that matter a lot more. Love of neighbor, for example.

If not for man’s separation from God, all rape, torture, genocide, gossip, lying, cheating, stealing, small and large, would be impossible. Communion with God is a New Covenant promise and phenomenon. The reconciliation of man with God wrought by Jesus’ passion and death would be unnecessary if not for the division between man and God, as well as between man and himself. Man is fully complete (holy) to the extent that He loves God with his whole heart, soul, mind, and strength and his neighbor as himself.

 

[OneSheep]

If not for man’s separation from God, all rape, torture, genocide, gossip, lying, cheating, stealing, small and large, would be impossible. Communion with God is a New Covenant promise and phenomenon. The reconciliation of man with God wrought by Jesus’ passion and death would be unnecessary if not for the division between man and God, as well as between man and himself. Man is fully complete (holy) to the extent that He loves God with his whole heart, soul, mind, and strength and his neighbor as himself.

I see what you mean. I am thinking that you are talking about apples and I am talking about oranges. On the one hand, without God, we are nothing. We can agree on that, right? On the other hand, people do evil deeds, which shows our lack of awareness about God, our behaviors are the manifestation of blindness. So, to the degree we are blind, we are, in a sense, not in touch with His love, His presence, in those who are harmed. If this blindness means “separation” to you, then it works.

It is very important to know why people rape, torture, etc. People do so because they are motivated by their “appetites” but they are blind.

God has always loved and forgiven us. To me, Jesus was not sacrificed to appease an angry god. The problem has been our own ability to love and be aware of God. Jesus came to show us who God really is. That said, if a person does believe that Jesus came to appease an angry God, that is okay too.

And, by the way, adding pain to childbirth is neither formative or reformative, unless God wanted us to stop having kids. Again, the creation story was a shot at explaining why we are the way we are. The creation story is a good story, but does not fully reflect a forgiving God. Jesus straightened that all out for us.

 

[grannymh]

Our individual relationships with our Creator have to do with our prayer lives. Are you thinking that I have borrowed my views from somewhere else?

snip

Are you making an assumption that I am not “sticking with the Catholic Church”? If so, I encourage you to abide by the CAF guidelines.

My apology.

Time prevents me from a complete reply.

As a researcher of Catholicism, I try to trace various *current *thoughts and concepts back to 20th century writers who influenced teachers and readers who in turn influenced others who in turn influenced teachers who…

Looking at the career of the former Dominican Matthew Fox, I found that he was very popular. He did leave the Catholic Church after disputes over his theological teachings. As I said, I could not get past the titles of some of his early books. Thus, I am always curious about his influence which is why I like to name drop. I am satisfied that he is one of many writers who changed the perception of Original Sin.

What my research indicates is that various views, such as symbolism, historical, independent truths, denial, etc. have apparently merged so that current misunderstandings of Original Sin are a hodgepodge. This hodgepodge is the darling of the media which often highlights this or that clergy person who is respectfully challenging contemporary Catholic doctrines about Original Sin. Practically speaking, none of us remain totally separate from “influences.”

Since you understand CAF as a Catholic project, you know that presenting the Catholic position is encouraged. One of the appropriate ways to do this is found in post 20 which begins:
“In the Catholic Church, there is only one “Original Sin.” This is the watershed between Adam’s pre-Fall condition and Adam’s post-Fall condition.”

The are other variations that can be used which come under the CAF policy of respect, for example, presenting Catholic information as different from this or that information. The only “assumption” is that readers are free to examine and evaluate the Catholic position.
“Since there is an explanation for our relationship with our Creator on every street corner, my suggestion is to stick with the Catholic Church, participating in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, reception of the appropriate Sacraments, and a daily prayer life…along with acts of love toward others.”

This is an appropriate suggestion for all Catholics since it is an assumed affirmation that one is already doing that. It demonstrates that one is already sticking with Catholicism. It applauds the idea that one is doing the good stuff… and should keep doing that which is a practical good idea…since there are many, many influences, both good and bad, which can affect us. We can say that our prayer life is due to the influence of Jesus Christ Who taught us to pray the Our Father. Paslm 23 is another influence on our prayer life. Our daily troubles influence our prayer life. An horrible accident can influence our prayer life in that we pray for those involved.

Our prayer life is essential, extremely important, communication with our loving God.

 

[fhansen]

I see what you mean. I am thinking that you are talking about apples and I am talking about oranges. On the one hand, without God, we are nothing. We can agree on that, right? On the other hand, people do evil deeds, which shows our lack of awareness about God, our behaviors are the manifestation of blindness. So, to the degree we are blind, we are, in a sense, not in touch with His love, His presence, in those who are harmed. If this blindness means “separation” to you, then it works.

It is very important to know why people rape, torture, etc. People do so because they are motivated by their “appetites” but they are blind.

God has always loved and forgiven us. To me, Jesus was not sacrificed to appease an angry god. The problem has been our own ability to love and be aware of God. Jesus came to show us who God really is. That said, if a person does believe that Jesus came to appease an angry God, that is okay too.

And, by the way, adding pain to childbirth is neither formative or reformative, unless God wanted us to stop having kids. Again, the creation story was a shot at explaining why we are the way we are. The creation story is a good story, but does not fully reflect a forgiving God. Jesus straightened that all out for us.

I agree that Jesus didn’t come to appease an angry God. Enmity has always been from our side, not His. He hates sin while loving man lavishly.

In my understanding the teaching on OS has for its purpose the explanation for the existence of moral evil (sin).

 

[OneSheep]

“In the Catholic Church, there is only one “Original Sin.” This is the watershed between Adam’s pre-Fall condition and Adam’s post-Fall condition.”
.
​

I think what is significant is the need for redemption, and that in seeing such a need evangelism is necessary. We need to hear the “good news”.

The “good news” includes the fact that Abba loves us unconditionally. The problem with the creation story we are discussing is that it is not obvious that God forgave Adam and Eve for their disobedience. If God did forgive them, His behavior begs the question of the meaning of forgiveness. If we are still inclined to punish, forgiveness has not happened. I am not ruling out punishment as a functional impulse that is part of the goodness of man’s nature, but we can be a slave of the drive to punish. Indeed, our own drive to punish what we see as wrongdoing is one of the many parts of our nature for which repentance is called for. The antidote of the drive to punish is forgiveness. Does God have this drive to punish, as we humans do? Well, it is obvious that writers of the OT thought He did; it is only natural to anthropomorphize God. It is clear to me that Jesus showed us otherwise.

This contradiction is not overlooked by the faithful. Lost Sheep describes himself as a “cynical Catholic”, and it is worthy to discuss the roots of such cynicism, and the creation story is indeed problematic.

We can say ad infinitum that God loves us unconditionally, but there are enough contradictions in the Bible and in orthodoxy to lead to doubt among the faithful. It is my opinion that apologetics needs to address these concerns, so that the “good news” does not lead to anxiety and scrupulosity. Anxiety and scrupulosity are not Jesus’ idea of redemption.​

 

[grannymh]

The Catholic Church has specific teachings in regard to the actual Original Sin committed by the one person biblically known as Adam.

Joe5859 has contributed an excellent summary in post 6 above.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=11186935&postcount=6

He also provided the official source for the Catholic doctrines about Original Sin
in post 15.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=11189694&postcount=15

One of the many reasons that we can say that God loves us unconditionally is because His existence is beyond the limits of a created universe including its created inhabitants.

On the other hand, humans with a decomposing anatomy are not on an equal status with God; they are subject to the conditions of physical time and space on a material planet.

When one follows the sound advice of Joe5859 and studies human nature which was Adam’s, (beginning with CCC 355) one will find a valuable concept. This simple concept is the difference between a transcendent Pure Spirit Creator and a creature who is in the image of God and therefore has the unique capability to share now and forever in the life of God. This sharing is known by two terms, original holiness and sanctifying grace.

According to the Catholic Church, humans did not create themselves as being in the image (spiritual soul) of God. (CCC 366) This simple fact, about the Creator and the created, is a good foundation for understanding the truth of Original Sin.

Technically, Adam’s human condition pre-Fall is different from God. Human nature is an unique unification of the both the spiritual world and the material world. God, as a transcendent Pure Spirit, is the Creator of the material world. Therefore, Adam needed to live according to the Creator’s conditions governing the relationship between the created creature in the material world and the Creator. The Catholic Church teaches (CCC 396; 1730; 311) that the way Adam, and subsequently you and me, can be in a true friendship relationship with Divinity is through free submission to one’s Creator. Free submission necessitates the free choice to do so through obedience. (CCC 1730)

The above is helpful in understanding the background conditions which Adam faced on a daily basis.

At this point, we need to dwell on the Catholic teaching that “The whole human race is in Adam ‘as one body of one man’.” (CCC 404) Technically, this means that the state of Adam’s own nature is transmitted by propagation to his descendants. In other words, if Adam freely chose to obey God’s command --which was the condition or requirement for Adam to remain in relationship with his Creator-- we would be born in the state of original holiness. Once born, obviously we could freely disobey God, but since we are not the first human, that would be considered a personal sin with personal consequences for each individual.

Adam shattered humanity’s relationship with divinity. As his natural descendants, we are born in his broken relationship with God. As Adam’s natural descendants, we have the benefit of Christ’s obedience unto death on the Cross. Baptism, by imparting the life of Christ’s grace, erases the contracted state of original sin and brings us into the state of sanctifying grace which is our relationship with our Creator.

Please reread post 6.

 

[grannymh]

In addition, according to CCC 410, God’s forgiveness is demonstrated in Genesis 3:15. For most of us, God’s forgiveness is found in John 3: 16.

God’s forgiveness, via Christ’s victory over death, is what sustains us as we struggle in our spiritual lives. The condition is that like the Good Thief, we freely call out to our loving Creator. Christ’s arms are stretched out in openness to us.

 

[OneSheep]

Technically, Adam’s human condition pre-Fall is different from God. Human nature is an unique unification of the both the spiritual world and the material world. God, as a transcendent Pure Spirit, is the Creator of the material world. Therefore, Adam needed to live according to the Creator’s conditions governing the relationship between the created creature in the material world and the Creator. The Catholic Church teaches (CCC 396; 1730; 311) that the way Adam, and subsequently you and me, can be in a true friendship relationship with Divinity is through free submission to one’s Creator. Free submission necessitates the free choice to do so through obedience. (CCC 1730)

Yes, free submission is very important. Coerced submission is not free submission.

At this point, we need to dwell on the Catholic teaching that “The whole human race is in Adam ‘as one body of one man’.” (CCC 404) Technically, this means that the state of Adam’s own nature is transmitted by propagation to his descendants. In other words, if Adam freely chose to obey God’s command --which was the condition or requirement for Adam to remain in relationship with his Creator-- we would be born in the state of original holiness. Once born, obviously we could freely disobey God, but since we are not the first human, that would be considered a personal sin with personal consequences for each individual.

, it affected human nature. That nature became clouded and disordered with the loss of original holiness.

This may not seem “fair” at cursory glance, but I am grateful that this is the case. If we were not all implicated in Adam’s sin, then neither could we be redeemed by Christ’s Paschal Mystery. It is because of our unity in the one human family that both arepossible.

So, are you saying that our nature is a good nature or a badnature? In your opinion, what is specifically unholy about the human? (I am not asking this to challenge unholiness, I agree that we are somewhat unholy.)

We don’t have to be implicated in Adam’s sin in order to need redemption. Let me put this in a new perspective. Chimpanzees murder each other. Did they also have an “Adam” that turned against God? No, they have a nature which has helped them survive over the millennia. We have the same nature, to some degree, and it has also helped our species survive. However, our nature, our innate drives, are now somewhat unnecessary for our species survival, and in fact diminish the quality of life, the “Kingdom” in which we live. Repentance means controlling our drives, and forgiveness means controlling our drive to punish and bringing about a oneness, a holiness, in the Kingdom through reconciliation.

The way I see it, our nature may seem awful, but it is God-given for our benefit. In my experience, to learn to truly love God with all my heart and mind has meant recognizing that all He has given us is a gift, our nature included.

In addition, according to CCC 410, God’s forgiveness is demonstrated in Genesis 3:15. For most of us, God’s forgiveness is found in John 3: 16.

Whoa, did you read Genesis 3:15? Hmmm. Sure, John 3:16 is about God’s forgiveness, but we are discussing the creation story. As far as John 3:16 goes, how do we perish? We perish every day as automatons of our nature, striving for material wealth and lots of mates and everyone else’s stuff. We perish in our addictions and holding onto condemnation of others. We perish in miserable lives.

God’s forgiveness, via Christ’s victory over death, is what sustains us as we struggle in our spiritual lives. The condition is that like the Good Thief, we freely call out to our loving Creator. Christ’s arms are stretched out in openness to us.

I agree completely. I see that we mostly agree on everything here. I am coming from the position of smoothing out the minor contradictions.

 

[OneSheep]

I must add a note here. God forgave us already, had He not? Christ’s life meant to bring about reconciliation, a deeper knowing and relationship with our Creator. It is this relationship that pulls us out of slavery to our nature.

 

[fhansen]

Yes, free submission is very important. Coerced submission is not free submission.

Well, this is the standard story, but again, the problem is that we have no indication, in the old testament, that God forgave Adam’s disobedience. Quite the opposite. I still think it is a great story, though, and served a purpose. The ancient tribes survival depended on submission to authority. A divided people would have perished at the hands of outsiders. The threat of punishment for disobedience was functional, and it had to start from that image of God.

So, I reread post #6, and these are my comments.

So, are you saying that our nature is a good nature or a badnature? In your opinion, what is specifically unholy about the human? (I am not asking this to challenge unholiness, I agree that we are somewhat unholy.)

We don’t have to be implicated in Adam’s sin in order to need redemption. Let me put this in a new perspective. Chimpanzees murder each other. Did they also have an “Adam” that turned against God? No, they have a nature which has helped them survive over the millennia. We have the same nature, to some degree, and it has also helped our species survive. However, our nature, our innate drives, are now somewhat unnecessary for our species survival, and in fact diminish the quality of life, the “Kingdom” in which we live. Repentance means controlling our drives, and forgiveness means controlling our drive to punish and bringing about a oneness, a holiness, in the Kingdom through reconciliation.

The way I see it, our nature may seem awful, but it is God-given for our benefit. In my experience, to learn to truly love God with all my heart and mind has meant recognizing that all He has given us is a gift, our nature included.

Whoa, did you read Genesis 3:15? Hmmm. Sure, John 3:16 is about God’s forgiveness, but we are discussing the creation story. As far as John 3:16 goes, how do we perish? We perish every day as automatons of our nature, striving for material wealth and lots of mates and everyone else’s stuff. We perish in our addictions and holding onto condemnation of others. We perish in miserable lives.

I agree completely. I see that we mostly agree on everything here. I am coming from the position of smoothing out the minor contradictions.

The doctrine of OS teaches that man’s nature is good-everything God creates is good. But that, due to free will, man has the radical possibility, unlike chimpanzees, to act outside of or against his own God-given nature. But also that he, together with the angels, have the responsibility to not do so.

Our faith further teaches that God is patient and understanding; His entire dealings with man from Adam on through the old and new covenants, have had the purpose of leading us to salvation, back to Him, the Atonement of Jesus Christ being the culmination of that endeavor.

 

[grannymh]

This is general information gleaned from other CAF threads. There is a tradition that Adam and Eve went to heaven. I am not qualified to verify that information.

Catholic teaching actually goes beyond the issue of forgiveness for Adam.

Adam, like you and me, can repent and receive forgiveness. However, there is a gap or distinction between the status of the pre-Fall of Adam and the status of his post-Fall descendants which needs to be understood correctly in the light of Catholic doctrines.

The misleading idea of good nature before the Fall; bad nature after the Fall dates to the first Protestant reformers who taught that Adam’s one and only Original Sin had radically perverted man and destroyed his freedom. Unfortunately for all concerned, some of these reformers identified the contracted state of Original Sin with concupiscentia [sic]. (Source: CCC 406 --note smaller print via CCC 20-21) Additional interesting teachings are found in CCC 377 and 2514. We are not “sin machines” as one poster said long ago.

In regard to one’s understanding of human spirituality, there is a huge difference between thinking that one’s nature has been totally corrupted and the recognition that one’s nature is *wounded *in the natural powers proper to it. (CCC 405)
However, ignoring the actual Original Sin is not a realistic way to approach the fact that our nature is wounded.

The Catholic Church understands that we cannot tamper with the doctrine of Original Sin without also undermining the mystery of Jesus, bloody, on the Cross. (CCC 389 and 422)

Genesis 3: 15 is the first sign of God’s promise that there will be a Messiah Who is qualified to make reparation for the Original Sin. While Adam could receive forgiveness for his sin, he still is a created human who is not on the same level as the Creator. Adam and his natural descendants could not be a Divine Messiah. Adam and his natural descendants could not undo the real damage of Original Sin which destroyed the original relationship between Divinity and humanity.

Genesis 3: 15 points to a battle won-- a battle described in Romans 5: 12-21. It is Christ Who will strike at the head of Satan. “For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord” ( Romans 6-23)

Genesis 3: 15, in its context, is called the Protoevangelium (“first gospel”) that is, the first announcement of the Messiah and Redeemer. (CCC 410)

What is promised to Adam and his descendants is the only way to overcome the effects of Original Sin. Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life. And Jesus Christ established His Catholic Church so that we will have His presence with us as we struggle through life.

Jesus Christ, our Messiah, gives life to our spiritual life because He has *restored *Adam’s shattered relationship with our Creator. With Christ’s grace, Baptism erases the contracted state of Original Sin and restores us in friendship with God.

 

[simpleas]

This is general information gleaned from other CAF threads. There is a tradition that Adam and Eve went to heaven. I am not qualified to verify that information.

Catholic teaching actually goes beyond the issue of forgiveness for Adam.

Adam, like you and me, can repent and receive forgiveness. However, there is a gap or distinction between the status of the pre-Fall of Adam and the status of his post-Fall descendants which needs to be understood correctly in the light of Catholic doctrines.

The misleading idea of good nature before the Fall; bad nature after the Fall dates to the first Protestant reformers who taught that Adam’s one and only Original Sin had radically perverted man and destroyed his freedom. Unfortunately for all concerned, some of these reformers identified the contracted state of Original Sin with concupiscentia [sic]. (Source: CCC 406 --note smaller print via CCC 20-21) Additional interesting teachings are found in CCC 377 and 2514. We are not “sin machines” as one poster said long ago.

In regard to one’s understanding of human spirituality, there is a huge difference between thinking that one’s nature has been totally corrupted and the recognition that one’s nature is *wounded *in the natural powers proper to it. (CCC 405)
However, ignoring the actual Original Sin is not a realistic way to approach the fact that our nature is wounded.

The Catholic Church understands that we cannot tamper with the doctrine of Original Sin without also undermining the mystery of Jesus, bloody, on the Cross. (CCC 389 and 422)

Genesis 3: 15 is the first sign of God’s promise that there will be a Messiah Who is qualified to make reparation for the Original Sin. While Adam could receive forgiveness for his sin, he still is a created human who is not on the same level as the Creator. Adam and his natural descendants could not be a Divine Messiah. Adam and his natural descendants could not undo the real damage of Original Sin which destroyed the original relationship between Divinity and humanity.

Genesis 3: 15 points to a battle won-- a battle described in Romans 5: 12-21. It is Christ Who will strike at the head of Satan. “For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord” ( Romans 6-23)

Genesis 3: 15, in its context, is called the Protoevangelium (“first gospel”) that is, the first announcement of the Messiah and Redeemer. (CCC 410)

What is promised to Adam and his descendants is the only way to overcome the effects of Original Sin. Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life. And Jesus Christ established His Catholic Church so that we will have His presence with us as we struggle through life.

Jesus Christ, our Messiah, gives life to our spiritual life because He has *restored *Adam’s shattered relationship with our Creator. With Christ’s grace, Baptism erases the contracted state of Original Sin and restores us in friendship with God.

Alittle confused (doesn’t take much) I thought Adam amd Eve were holy/good natured before the fall?
The teaching of the c.c i recall say’s man’s nature isn’t evil, but because of OS we are inclined to sin.(sorry don’t have the actual text)
So after the OS was committed Adam and Eve’s nature would have changed from holy, in union with God to bad nature?

 

[fhansen]

Alittle confused (doesn’t take much) I thought Adam amd Eve were holy/good natured before the fall?
The teaching of the c.c i recall say’s man’s nature isn’t evil, but because of OS we are inclined to sin.(sorry don’t have the actual text)
So after the OS was committed Adam and Eve’s nature would have changed from holy, in union with God to bad nature?

Fallen man doesn’t have a bad nature; he has a wounded nature according to the CCC. He’s unable to restore himself to the heights from which he fell-he lost his original justice, a state of being which only God can give back since it’s not ours to take: it’s the gift of His own life-of* Himself*-whom Adam basically rejected. And apart from God we can do nothing as Jesus tells us: everything worthwhile, which includes ourselves/our natures, comes from Him; we can add nothing more (even if we may think otherwise)-and we have need of nothing more. That’s what we’re here to learn.

 

[grannymh]

Alittle confused (doesn’t take much) I thought Adam amd Eve were holy/good natured before the fall?
The teaching of the c.c i recall say’s man’s nature isn’t evil, but because of OS we are inclined to sin.(sorry don’t have the actual text)
So after the OS was committed Adam and Eve’s nature would have changed from holy, in union with God to bad nature?

A lot less little can confuse me lots.

Our human nature is body and soul. Our anatomy can be in the healthy state or the unhealthy state. Because of our spiritual soul, we can be in the state of friendship with God in that we share in His life through Sanctifying Grace. Or we can abandon God’s friendship by choosing the state of mortal sin. Regardless, we are always the good basic body and soul.

Adam started out in the friendship state with God which is called original holiness because Adam was the original human at the origin of human history. He had mastery of self which means he wasn’t inclined to sin; however, Adam could freely choose to sin by disobeying God, his Creator. What Adam did was to choose himself against God, against the requirement of obedience to his Creator, and therefore against his own good. Because of his disobedience, Adam’s human nature was no longer in the state of original holiness. His human nature was in the state of Original Sin which had shattered Adam’s relationship with God just as mortal sin does today. Yet, Adam’s human nature remained the good basic body and soul only now this human nature was wounded. Mastery of self was replaced by the inclination to sin known as concupiscence.

Adam’s human nature in the state of Original Sin (deprivation of original holiness/sanctifying grace) along with the consequences (concupiscence) has been transmitted to us by propagation through many centuries. Please note that God directly creates each soul. The unity of soul and body is so profound that one has to consider the soul to be the “form” of the body: i.e., it is because of its spiritual soul that the body made of matter becomes a living human person. (CCC 365-366)

We are still loved by God and we have the capability to love God in return. This capability of our spiritual soul is why our nature is good regardless of how nasty we are. We need to understand what happened to human nature so that we can realistically act in accordance with God’s basic 10 commands or the simple two commands of love God and love neighbor.

The short answer is that the Original Sin changed the state of Adam’s human nature to one of deprivation and Baptism erases that *state *of deprivation with the presence of God, via sanctifying grace. Since we are not original like the original Adam, the term original holiness was replaced.

Because Christ was crucified for all humanity, Catholics hold that the Holy Spirit offers to all humanity the possibility of being made partakers,
in a way known to God, of the Paschal mystery. (CCC 1260) God continues to call each and every person to share in His own life. (CCC 356)

God made human nature so that we can reach the highest heights of goodness, provided we freely choose to do so.

 

[grannymh]

There is a question about Original Sin that I cannot answer.

Is the popular avoidance of Original Sin’s reality a modern version of Adam’s spiritual greed?

 

[OneSheep]

The doctrine of OS teaches that man’s nature is good-everything God creates is good. But that, due to free will, man has the radical possibility, unlike chimpanzees, to act outside of or against his own God-given nature. But also that he, together with the angels, have the responsibility to not do so.

Interesting. The question is begged as to what is our nature. It is our nature to want to hoard wealth, for example, in order to feel secure. It seems to me that we have the responsibility to act outside of such nature. Jesus referred often to the slavery of materialism, etc., which are in our nature. It is a good nature in that it aids in our survival, but it is also enslaving. I am thinking that “woundedness” refers to the enslaving aspect of our nature.

It is also in our nature to empathize with, and care for, one another which are aspects that are not enslaving.

The decision to forgive an enemy or “turn the cheek” is not part of our nature. Jesus calls us to live beyond our nature.

What is your view on man’s nature? What is it, and what isn’t it?

Our faith further teaches that God is patient and understanding; His entire dealings with man from Adam on through the old and new covenants, have had the purpose of leading us to salvation, back to Him, the Atonement of Jesus Christ being the culmination of that endeavor.

Agreed. We have already talked about what we think atonement is and is not.

 

[fhansen]

Interesting. The question is begged as to what is our nature. It is our nature to want to hoard wealth, for example, in order to feel secure. It seems to me that we have the responsibility to act outside of such nature. Jesus referred often to the slavery of materialism, etc., which are in our nature. It is a good nature in that it aids in our survival, but it is also enslaving. I am thinking that “woundedness” refers to the enslaving aspect of our nature.

It is also in our nature to empathize with, and care for, one another which are aspects that are not enslaving.

The decision to forgive an enemy or “turn the cheek” is not part of our nature. Jesus calls us to live beyond our nature.

What is your view on man’s nature? What is it, and what isn’t it?

Man’s nature involves more than a bunch of impulses, more or less selfish. We’re also created with a conscience, which means we’re morally responsible beings. And an aspect of that responsibility is that we’re obligated to be subjugated to God, in a relationship of mutual love. Although the conscience may be dimmed, obscured, compromised by the Fall, we remain obligated to align ourselves with the good, the obligation to know, love, and obey God is still part of our make up.