Original Sin

[vames]

40 Q. Were these gifts due to man?
A. These gifts were in no way due to man, but were absolutely gratuitous and supernatural; and hence, when Adam disobeyed the divine command,** God could without any injustice deprive both Adam and his posterity of them.**
I underlined the last part of the above because the current popular words describing God’s reaction to Original Sin are punishment and curse. In post 662, chastisement and condemned are used. The key issue of God’s reaction to Original Sin is the determination of whether or not God was acting justly. 40 Q & A is clear that God could without any injustice deprive both Adam and his posterity of gifts that were in no way due to man.

A literal belief in the Genesis is assumed whenever we think that Adam was made before Eve and from a different material, so Adam has to bear and transmit the whole responsibility for the OS, as the First Human. It shows a mythological sense of justice: we all have to be punished because “all the humankind is in Adam” (but then why Eve and all the women are given a separate, specific punishment? and why the whole nature has to be punished because of Adam? very simple - because the ancient writers of Genesis didn’t have any explanation about why all the living beings have to age and die, why there are typhoons, why animals can be dangerous to man, why there are illnesses, why man has to work hard to earn his living, why birth is painful).

The word “curse” is used twice by God in Genesis 3, so we could hardly ignore it or translate it as “just punishment”. The problem with Genesis is not that it shows how God took back certain undeserved gifts, immortality and superhuman perfection of mind and will: it’s the fact that we are compelled to believe that such gifts existed in the first place and that WE have lost them as a result of Adam’s disobedience. As if God had a plan, Adam thwarted it and God was constrained to activate a plan B.

But an Almighty God can’t be constrained by anything and doesn’t have a plan A and then a plan B. The enunciation of such a devastating curse against powerless creatures makes obvious that the God of Genesis was simply interested in satisfying his anger and in protecting himself from man. For all of his “gifts” of immortality and extraordinary perfection, Adam was powerless: he couldn’t oppose God or negotiate a pardon or ask for a milder punishment. A truly just Creator, who is aware that he has an infinite power over a limited creature (not to mention a Creator who loves his creature) doesn’t behave like an angry, offended, primitive deity and doesn’t use his infinite powers to crush the creature, *unless *the creature really has the power to threaten, fight against, equal or dethrone said deity. Was Adam in the position to threaten, dethrone, “become like” God? Not in the slightest. But the God of Genesis thought so; otherwise he wouldn’t have remarked that “man has become like one of us and now he might reach out his hand…” (wow, God is in danger, someone has to stop Adam!) and wouldn’t have barricaded the entrance of Eden after A&E were kicked out. These are clear features of a mythological tale.

If such a mythological tale is assumed to be the truth, it encourages an unhealthy thinking, with people being made to regret an imaginary Golden Age when man was perfect and immortal, being made to blame themselves (Adam) because we aren’t immortal or perfect, being made to believe that we deserve more and more punishments. Check out the CAF thread about the Philippine typhoon, for example, and you’ll find absurd, insulting statements which essentially blame the victim, saying that humankind deserves such things because we are in a post-Fall world - with quotes from the OT “proving” that an angry God did punish Israel and other nations with wars and natural disasters. If you keep telling a child that he is fallen, wounded, “justly punished” by the owner of Paradise LLC because his parents or ancestors were dumb enough* or crazy enough* to disobey the boss once, it will make the child feel guilty, unworthy, prone to hate his parents or ancestors, to hate his life, to hate the owner of Paradise LLC.

• Dumb enough = A&E didn’t experience anything bad, they weren’t “like one of us (God/gods)” before eating from the tree of knowledge of good and bad => A&E were like innocent children (but then why were they punished like if they were fully developed adults?)
• Crazy enough = A&E were originally endowed with superhuman qualities (immortality, a perfect mind, perfect self-control) => A&E were like superhuman robots (but then why were they so easily tempted to sin like if they were ordinary humans like all of us?).

 

[vames]

Some people were able to easily avoid this unnecessary dilemma between “dumb” and “crazy”. St Irenaeus, one of the wisest Early Church Fathers, didn’t interpret the Genesis in terms of decisive offense/decisive punishment, plan A/plan B. He simply believed that man was created imperfect, the sin of Adam didn’t frustrate the plan of God and Jesus came here to “recapitulate” (to complete, to perfect, to renew, to sanctify) the existence of man, from birth and childhood to death. The plan of God is "that man, passing through all things, and acquiring the knowledge of moral discipline, then attaining to the resurrection from the dead, and learning by experience what is the source of his deliverance, may always live in a state of gratitude to the Lord, having obtained from Him the gift of incorruptibility, that he might love Him the more; for “he to whom more is forgiven, loves more”. St Irenaeus said that the glory of man is God and the glory of God is a living man - this is what Pope Francis quoted in his Urbi et Orbi message.

This is a more elegant and coherent theology - and much earlier than Augustine’s “Nor would any of this kind [people] have died had not the first two (the one whereof was made from the other, and the other from nothing) incurred this punishment by their disobedience: in committing so great a sin, that their whole nature being hereby depraved, was so transfused through all their offspring in the same degree of corruption, and necessity of death” (City of God). Taking the same curse literally, Aquinas felt the need to say that the Blessed Virgin Mary couldn’t feel childbirth pains and didn’t die, because if she were mortal and subjected to such pains, it would have meant that she wasn’t free from the OS. Of course, Aquinas forgot that to be mortal supposes to be free from aging (but Mary was a child and become an adult) and to be free from childbirth pains supposes to be free of any kind of pain and sorrow (which would have made Mary indifferent to Jesus’ sufferings).

 

[grannymh]

I’m not getting hung up about it, but it is something that prompts questions for me

Please accept my apology for misunderstanding.

Thanks for your (name removed by moderator)ut.

I was trying to ask how we see a loving God in the stories of the O.T. I’m getting mixed messages on here (and i know its mostly me who doesn’t quite understand)

The reason for the mixed messages is that God is not an either - or personality; He is a both -and personality.

One way we say, God loves us unconditionally and always has from the beginning.

Correct

Next we say God loves us on condition we act and do exactly as he has told us to do, and then God loves us and wants us to be who we are without us feeling fear.

Regarding fear, there is a different connotation in Scripture. Please see fhansen’s post 708

A more realistic way of describing the state or condition of a human person is that
God loves us in any state or condition. This is evinced by the Resurrection.

Mortal Sin, a state or condition of the human person, does not block God’s love. Mortal Sin blocks God’s presence in our soul by eliminating Sanctifying Grace.
The* Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition*, describes Mortal Sin as “a grave infraction of the law of God** that destroys the divine life in the soul of the sinner** (sanctifying grace) constituting a turn away from God.” It then gives the three conditions for a sin to be mortal.

When we listen to Jesus’ words on His cross, Luke 23: 34,
Then Jesus said, “Father, forgive them, they know not what they do.”
we need to keep in mind that Jesus is True God and therefore He knows the state or condition of each person’s soul. We cannot assume that we have that knowledge.

What we do know is that Jesus was speaking about individuals who were part of a crowd, which did include Mary, His mother. There was Peter who knew his sin and began to weep bitterly. " …the cock crowed and the Lord turned and looked at Peter …" Luke 22: 54-62.

Jesus, being True God, knew which people were determined to remain in the state of full hatred toward Him. He also knew which people were sincerely sorry about what was happening to an innocent person even though they may not have known all the truths about Jesus. The forgiveness of Jesus on the cross settled on those who, in sorrow, sought God’s forgiveness. The choice to remain in mortal sin becomes a barricade to God’s forgiveness that includes Sanctifying Grace, that is, God’s gift of sharing His own life with human creatures.

Very important sources of Catholic information.

CCC, 1730; CCC, 355-421*; *
CCC, 1440-1460;
CCC, Glossary, Mortal Sin, Page 889; CCC, 1854 -1857; CCC, 1870-1876;
CCC, Glossary, Sanctifying Grace, page 898. CCC, 1998-2000; CCC, 2023-204.

scborromeo.org/ccc.htm

usccb.org/beliefs-and-tea…tholic-church/

.

 

[vames]

But why should it be wrong for man to be held to moral accountability? Why shouldn’t the created-as a sentient, rational being-have an obligation to obey his creator? I like St Basil of Caesarea’s way of stating the correct way for this to take place:

"If we turn away from evil out of fear of punishment, we are in the position of slaves. If we pursue the enticement of wages, . . . we resemble mercenaries. Finally if we obey for the sake of the good itself and out of love for him who commands . . . we are in the position of children."

St Basil himself offers the answer to this question
I didn’t say and I don’t believe that it’s wrong for man to be held to moral accountability, with an obligation to obey his creator. But man didn’t ask or compel God to be created, endowed with rationality and the capacity to know good from bad. Man grows up and understands that it’s good to live, good to be a rational being, good to trust and love his creator, good to make the most of our God-given gifts instead of misusing them. Man can’t do that if he doesn’t experience suffering and sin.

If we postulate that suffering, sin, death are the result of a punishment applied to the first man because of his first mistake and that our hands are tied by OS (all people continue to suffer, sin and die), then we resent ourselves, resent God and understand obedience towards God as something that has to be done out of fear - fear of even greater punishments and sufferings, perhaps of an earlier and more painful death, perhaps of more temptations and more falling into sin - “lead us not into temptation” (Aquinas even spoke of cases when God refuses to enlighten the mind of some people and they succumb to temptation, while in other cases, God enlightens their minds and they are able to avoid sin - this would be a kind of predestination).

But if we don’t think anymore that our life with its natural limitations represents a divine punishment that has deprived us of an original perfection and immortality, we can love God, we can love ourselves and we can accept that “we are in the position of children”. No parent exiles or sentences all his children and grandchildren to death at the first mistake done by his first child. Our sufferings, sins and death aren’t punishments: they are unavoidable, natural steps towards perfection, towards God.

 

[vames]

I wish I could adequately address the false idea that every word of the first three chapters of Genesis is definitely literal truth. But that is almost impossible to do because one has to first know how to distinguish real Catholic doctrines from supporting material. That is why I try to present the real Catholic doctrines and their common sense reasons once the existence of God as Creator is accepted as truth.

Well, *this *is the greatest stumbling block for me. Why does the Church feel the need to adopt Genesis as “true”, as if the obvious parallel with other mythological tales about angry, irrational gods and goddesses didn’t exist? Why does the Church pick and choose passages from Genesis so as to present a God who is white as snow (no, he didn’t curse the humankind) and a man who is black as coal (he disobeyed, so we all have to pay and pay and Jesus had to pay and pay)? Why does the Church say that Adam was a perfectly rational and brilliant man, while the Genesis shows us a primitive creature who falls so easily into temptation and then runs away and passes the blame on Eve? Why does the Church choose to claim that the serpent was Satan, when even Pope Benedict said that it was a figure derived from oriental fertility cults? Why does the Church continue to claim that Eve was made later, from one of Adam’s ribs? Why does the Church continue to tell us that suffering, sin and death, even childbirth pains are punishments deserved for OS, as if natural science didn’t progress at all from the times when the writers of Genesis have lived?

 

[vames]

“an utterly limited creature” is one of the issues which was new to me when I first landed on CAF. Finally, I posted that I flat out refused to be a rock. Back then, the discussion flowed around some form of “determinism.” I was just as determined that I could commit my own sins, thank you.

Perhaps in other threads, “utterly limited creature” meant that man is just a rock or a monkey who can talk, or that man doesn’t have free will. This was not my idea. I meant that God was infinite and man was finite; man can’t menace God or take away from his powers or become like him (though the text of Genesis says exactly that); and Adam’s reaction was a reaction of an utterly limited creature - he doesn’t even try to ask for pardon and mercy, he was just scared, tried to hide himself and then suffered the punishment, without being able to defend himself or fight back.

 

[fhansen]

Perhaps in other threads, “utterly limited creature” meant that man is just a rock or a monkey who can talk, or that man doesn’t have free will. This was not my idea. I meant that God was infinite and man was finite; man can’t menace God or take away from his powers or become like him (though the text of Genesis says exactly that); and Adam’s reaction was a reaction of an utterly limited creature - he doesn’t even try to ask for pardon and mercy, he was just scared, tried to hide himself and then suffered the punishment, without being able to defend himself or fight back.

I just never read Genesis as suggesting that God was menaced by Adam. Adam seemed to be the only one who was compromised by jealousy. It always read to me as though God was simply aware of the danger to Adam in thinking he could be-and attempting to be- something other than who he was. There’s an illness in that, an illness which is present with us to this day. It took me a long time to begin to be satisfied with what I have, to not suffer sorrow or shame over what I don’t have, to do the best with what I’ve been given, to see the glass as half full rather than half-empty, rather than feel deprived regardless of what I have. And in the rampant drug and alcohol abuse, divorce, domestic abuse, human angst in general, let alone genocide, war, etc, I see division, I see dissatisfaction, I see an unnamed, unidentified hunger that sort of transcends reason, a wanting without needing. Why is it there? Where does it come from? I think you may be missing some wisdom in Genesis and the doctrine of OS. Genesis reads differently to me than other creation stories. Its symbolic language presses us to dig deep for its meaning IMO.

 

[grannymh]

Well, *this *is the greatest stumbling block for me. Why does the Church feel the need to adopt Genesis as "true", as if the obvious parallel with other mythological tales about angry, irrational gods and goddesses didn’t exist?

Sorry, that there is some miscommunication in the part I put in bold. First, there are 50 chapters in the book of Genesis. Thus, the Church cannot be said to adopt Genesis without specifying the appropriate verses.

Second, the “as true” in the Catholic Church refers to God’s Divine Revelation. Since Adam’s descendants migrated across the globe, there can be both the whole Divine Revelation maintained correctly and there can be the possibility of parts of Divine Revelation in other “ancestral histories”. For example, the Divine Revelation that humans are very important and that they are peerless on earth. And that humans have an inherent ability to recognize the existence of the non-material spiritual.

Third, Divine Revelation is under the protection of the Holy Spirit. (Chapter 14, Gospel of John) which means that the valid Church Councils followed proper protocol to patiently choose and properly define only Divine Revelation.

To get rid of the very common stumbling block, my suggestion, from experience, is to refer to the teaching of Catholicism such as those presented in post 661. In addition, if you will go to the Index of Citations, beginning on page 689,* Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition*, you will find a list of Genesis verses which pertain to actual Catholic teachings.

Why does the Church pick and choose passages from Genesis so as to present a God who is white as snow (no, he didn’t curse the humankind) and a man who is black as coal (he disobeyed, so we all have to pay and pay and Jesus had to pay and pay)?

As said in the first answer above, Church Councils look for Divine Revelation. The Catechism of St. Pius X and the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition, present the truth without a lot of personal, creative, opinionated, and somewhat on the extreme side, kinds of writing. It gets to be difficult when there are “have to pay and pay” and then “had to pay and pay” without an explanation of what was paid, and why something mysterious had to be paid.

Why does the Church say that Adam was a perfectly rational and brilliant man,

The Catholic Church teaches that Adam has a rational spiritual soul and a material anatomy. That is ordinary for a human person. (CCC, 355-368) Whether or not Adam is considered perfect and brilliant sounds more like an individual interpretation which depends on how one individually determines perfection. Personally, I consider that Adam could be considered perfect because he started with Sanctifying Grace. Someone else I know would not consider Adam “perfect” until he achieved the human goal to be in heaven which is far better than the Garden of Eden.

while the Genesis shows us a primitive creature who falls so easily into temptation and then runs away and passes the blame on Eve?

In what way primitive? And where? But then, maybe your definition of primitive is different than mine. That is probably why Catholicism keeps simple the description of the first two human creatures. As for Adam blaming Eve and Eve blaming the tricky serpent, someone pointed out that this all-too-familiar chain of blame is one of the first results of a shattered relationship between humanity and Divinity.

Why does the Church choose to claim that the serpent was Satan, when even Pope Benedict said that it was a figure derived from oriental fertility cults?

This is the principle of both - and. It is often found in Catholic teachings.

Why does the Church continue to claim that Eve was made later, from one of Adam’s ribs?

This is where both a literal reading and a figurative reading can miss the point of Eve’s creation. The current universal Catechism says that God “fashions” from the man’s rib in CCC, 371. The footnotes refer to certain verses in Genesis, chapter 2. The doctrine here is not the “how”, it is the affirmation that God created a real human being with exactly the same human nature as the first human Adam. God created man and woman together and willed each for the other. (CCC, 371-373) This point of the same and equal humanity is another affirmation that we descended from two, sole, real, fully-complete human persons.

Why does the Church continue to tell us that suffering, sin and death, even childbirth pains are punishments deserved for OS, as if natural science didn’t progress at all from the times when the writers of Genesis have lived?

I cannot speak for natural science because it is restricted to the material universe.

In practical reality, anyone can prefer punishments over results. The simple fact is that when the original Adam freely and deliberately committed the Original Sin, which destroyed the relationship between humanity and Divinity, suffering, additional sins, death, and nasty childbirth pains happened.

 

[OneSheep]

Maybe read post 698 first if you don’t mind and we can take it from there.

thanks, I did not see the next post.

399 Scripture portrays the tragic consequences of this first disobedience. Adam and Eve immediately lose the grace of original holiness.280 They become afraid of the God of whom they have conceived a distorted image - that of a God jealous of his prerogatives

I’d like to explain the doctrine of OS a bit more from my perspective. The offense was only harmful to the offender. God, IMO, was never angry at man; enmity came from our side, not His. A “distorted image” of God is integral to the human psyche as we experience it in ourselves-Adam & Eve “hid” from Him. And we don’t overcome this image-this fear- simply because we’ve become a believer; it takes time and grace to come to know that God is love-to know what that really means.

The Atonement seeks to “undistort” this image, to prove what God shouldn’t have to prove: that He definitively exists, that He’s uncompromisingly, incomparably, trustworthy and good, that He loves with an unconditional love on a scale beyond our ability to even begin to imagine-that He was never angry at man in spite of man’s mistrust and even hatred, conscious or not, of Him.

The sin, the injustice, lies in our only vaguely believing in Him at best, let alone not hoping in, let alone not loving Him. We weren’t made to exist in such a state; our full integrity isn’t at all possible in such a state. We have an enormously difficult time leaving or overcoming such a state on our own; humbling ourselves before and bending the knee to God is to turn away from-to betray-the world in some basic manner. It cannot be done without grace.

Wow, I like the way you wrote that, especially the part I colored!

I have posted in the past that we are not far off in our perspectives. I don’t think I could have expressed what you wrote here much differently, and certainly not as eloquently. The “disorder” we’ve discussed is partly because of the distortion, but I think you would agree that our appetites also create some disorder, as well as lack of resources. We may differ in terms of whether we started out great and got worse, or started out worse and are getting better (better=less distortment), but what does that matter? What matters, among other things, is how we treat one another, what is love, what is faith, what is forgiveness, and how and when we are to forgive.

The rest, well, is so many angels on the head of a pin.

So, using my vernacular (not that it is better), our “state” is one of ignorance and blindness, but we are gaining in awareness. We are all a “work-in-progress”!

 

[grannymh]

thanks, I did not see the next post.

Wow, I like the way you wrote that, especially the part I colored!

I have posted in the past that we are not far off in our perspectives. I don’t think I could have expressed what you wrote here much differently, and certainly not as eloquently. The “disorder” we’ve discussed is partly because of the distortion, but I think you would agree that our appetites also create some disorder, as well as lack of resources. We may differ in terms of whether we started out great and got worse, or started out worse and are getting better (better=less distortment), but what does that matter? What matters, among other things, is how we treat one another, what is love, what is faith, what is forgiveness, and how and when we are to forgive.

The rest, well, is so many angels on the head of a pin.

So, using my vernacular (not that it is better), our “state” is one of ignorance and blindness, but we are gaining in awareness. We are all a “work-in-progress”!

My “state” is human nature which is neither ignorant nor blind. But it is cranky which is the feminine of snarky.:bigyikes:

 

[OneSheep]

My “state” is human nature which is neither ignorant nor blind. But it is cranky which is the feminine of snarky.:bigyikes:

Where do you get those cool smileys?

YOUR human nature is neither ignorant nor blind?

Goodness, are you now the Omniscient, Glamorous Granny?

 

[vames]

I just never read Genesis as suggesting that God was menaced by Adam. Adam seemed to be the only one who was compromised by jealousy. It always read to me as though God was simply aware of the danger to Adam in thinking he could be-and attempting to be- something other than who he was. There’s an illness in that, an illness which is present with us to this day. It took me a long time to begin to be satisfied with what I have, to not suffer sorrow or shame over what I don’t have, to do the best with what I’ve been given, to see the glass as half full rather than half-empty, rather than feel deprived regardless of what I have. And in the rampant drug and alcohol abuse, divorce, domestic abuse, human angst in general, let alone genocide, war, etc, I see division, I see dissatisfaction, I see an unnamed, unidentified hunger that sort of transcends reason, a wanting without needing. Why is it there? Where does it come from? I think you may be missing some wisdom in Genesis and the doctrine of OS. Genesis reads differently to me than other creation stories. Its symbolic language presses us to dig deep for its meaning IMO.

Again, if God simply thought that Adam was under a mere illusion that he could become like God, the text of Genesis simply wouldn’t contain the conclusion “man has become like one of us and now he might reach out his hand…” and God wouldn’t have barricaded the entrance of Eden after A&E were kicked out. If Genesis was really meant to teach us in a symbolic way that God wants to protect Adam and his descendants from the dangers of his fallible nature, then how come that God doesn’t intervene so promptly to protect us and the others from our sins and doesn’t punish right away or strike dead each and every sinner? (Notice that God striking sinners dead or ordering their killing is a common occurence in the OT, even if we dismiss the story of the Flood.)

All these bad things that you speak about come from our God-given nature. You can’t have the good without the bad and the other way around: you have to work and fight to achieve the right measure of self-control and to direct your drives to their best use. Because when you do admirable things, you use the same natural gifts that you use when you sin. You use your reason to explain why babies shouldn’t be aborted and to explain why you need to kill Jews or the bourgeoisie. You use your drive to explore and dominate the world when you invent the penicilline and when you become a conquistador and enslave other people. You use your ability to forget and ignore when you rebuild your life after a horrific car accident and when you don’t care about the needs of others. You use your drive to disobey when you fight for the liberation of your country from a dictatorship and when you do drugs instead of following the good advice of your parents. You use your ability to better your life and to accumulate resources when you escape poverty thanks to a wonderful idea born in a garage and when you deprive others of their just pay, because you want to become rich at their expense. You use your curiosity, your appetite for more knowledge when you discover that the Earth gravitates around the Sun and when you search the net for porn or ogrish videos. It’s that simple.

 

[OneSheep]

Mortal Sin, a state or condition of the human person, does not block God’s love. Mortal Sin blocks God’s presence in our soul by eliminating Sanctifying Grace.
The* Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition*, describes Mortal Sin as “a grave infraction of the law of God** that destroys the divine life in the soul of the sinner** (sanctifying grace) constituting a turn away from God.” It then gives the three conditions for a sin to be mortal.

Those conditions are:

1857 For a sin to be mortal, three conditions must together be met: "Mortal sin is sin whose object is grave matter and which is also committed with full knowledge and deliberate consent

The first and the third condition make sense, the second is the problem. Unless you are an Omniscient Glamorous Granny, the rest of us only sin out of ignorance and blindness. I’ve asked for a counterexample, and you have never been able to present one.

When we listen to Jesus’ words on His cross, Luke 23: 34,
Then Jesus said, “Father, forgive them, they know not what they do.”
we need to keep in mind that Jesus is True God and therefore He knows the state or condition of each person’s soul. We cannot assume that we have that knowledge.

What we do know is that Jesus was speaking about individuals who were part of a crowd, which did include Mary, His mother. There was Peter who knew his sin and began to weep bitterly. " …the cock crowed and the Lord turned and looked at Peter …" Luke 22: 54-62.

Jesus, being True God, knew which people were determined to remain in the state of full hatred toward Him. He also knew which people were sincerely sorry about what was happening to an innocent person even though they may not have known all the truths about Jesus. The forgiveness of Jesus on the cross settled on those who, in sorrow, sought God’s forgiveness. The choice to remain in mortal sin becomes a barricade to God’s forgiveness that includes Sanctifying Grace, that is, God’s gift of sharing His own life with human creatures.

I have never read any Catholic document upon which to base the above. What you are presenting, again, is conditional forgiveness, that Jesus only forgave the repentant. I have never seen this commentary of Luke 23:34 anywhere until you wrote it here. On what basis are we to assume that He only forgave the repentant in the crowd? Do you really think that Jesus only forgave the people who looked sorrowful? Would anyone hesitate to forgive the sorrowful? No, granny, you missed the challenge, you missed the part that takes will.

Withheld forgiveness is an activity of the conscience. Such withholding has a mechanical purpose, to manipulate compliance on the part of the condemned. This is the slavery that St. Basil was talking about. It is part of our nature, and it functions, but it is still slavery.

And this is a bit confusing. If you personally retain no one’s sins, then you do not retain the sins of the unrepentant either. So, God retains sins that you do not?

Jesus asks us to love our enemies, and those who hate us are our worst enemies. Forgiveness is an act of love. Are you saying that Jesus is telling us to love our enemies, but did (does) not do the same to His own enemies?

:

 

[vames]

This is where both a literal reading and a figurative reading can miss the point of Eve’s creation. The current universal Catechism says that God “fashions” from the man’s rib in CCC, 371. The footnotes refer to certain verses in Genesis, chapter 2. The doctrine here is not the “how”, it is the affirmation that God created a real human being with exactly the same human nature as the first human Adam. God created man and woman together and willed each for the other. (CCC, 371-373) This point of the same and equal humanity is another affirmation that we descended from two, sole, real, fully-complete human persons.

I cannot speak for natural science because it is restricted to the material universe.

In practical reality, anyone can prefer punishments over results. The simple fact is that when the original Adam freely and deliberately committed the Original Sin, which destroyed the relationship between humanity and Divinity, suffering, additional sins, death, and nasty childbirth pains happened.

Then it seems that the current Catechism is even more inclined towards a literal reading? Because I wasn’t taught that Eve was made later than Adam, from a rib, or that childbirth pains are a punishment or a result of Adam’s disobedience. No priest has ever taught us such things. Even as children, we’d have laughed at them if they tried to do so. Natural science is restricted to the material universe, but God’s punishment had everything to do with our material universe, as aging, mortality and vulnerability to pain and sorrow are things that happen both to human beings and to any other living being. And nowadays people are able to explain the material universe better than the writers of Genesis. That’s why we were taught that Genesis 2-3 is allegorical and doesn’t have to be taken literally. If one says that death and pain are natural phenomena, he doesn’t deny God. So we don’t have to believe that human death and pain is something unnatural for a man who was originally immortal, unable to age and feel pain, or that all the past, present and future animals were punished with death and pain for one man’s sin.

I didn’t ask what the CCC says. I asked why the Church did choose this harsh interpretation of Genesis 2-3 and didn’t follow St Irenaeus, for example. Irenaeus (#710) wasn’t more versed in natural science than Augustine or Aquinas, but he didn’t interpret The Fall like them - as the worst event in the history of humankind, that destroyed the whole relationship between humanity and Divinity, ended the short-lived epoch of man’s physical, intellectual and spiritual perfection and prompted God to resort to Jesus as a “plan B”. Why would the harsh interpretation be more in line with the Divine Revelation, as long as God Himself allowed man to research nature (which is a source of revelation) and to discover that human death, aging and pain are not unnatural things, but natural phenomena that happen to all the living creatures? And if Irenaeus was so wrong to think that man was created imperfect, why is he still a saint along with Augustine and Aquinas, who introduced completely other interpretations of Genesis?

 

[OneSheep]

I was trying to ask how we see a loving God in the stories of the O.T. I’m getting mixed messages on here (and i know its mostly me who doesn’t quite understand) One way we say, God loves us unconditionally and always has from the beginning. Next we say God loves us on condition we act and do exactly as he has told us to do, and then God loves us and wants us to be who we are without us feeling fear.

The first reading at mass on sunday was Malachi 3:19-20

“But for you who fear my name, the sun of righteousness will shine out with healing in its rays”

So we can love God, but we must also fear him to a certain degree?

You know, it is a bit confusing, isn’t it. There are plenty of apologetic sources that equate “fear” with “awe”, but really, there isn’t a reason to.

If instead, we look at the people of OT times equating “God” with conscience, then everything that seems negative about God in the OT falls under a different light. Those that believed that God smiled on the fearful were operating under the idea that God was the same as our conscience. If people were fearful and submissive to leadership, the conscience of those in leadership positions had their approval triggered, so to them, God approved. Those who were not fearful were not manipulated by threats, so they were a pain in the backsides of the leadership.

It would be foolish, though, to judge the leadership as “wrong” in modern-day standards. The life of the tribe was usually at stake, due to threats from the outside or threats from the inside, breaking into factions. Compliance was vital to the community.

 

[grannymh]

Then it seems that the current Catechism is even more inclined towards a literal reading?

As readers may have noticed, I am far more analytical about Catholic doctrines regarding our ancestral heritage. Therefore, I do not consign basic doctrines to a general umbrella approach inclined towards a literal reading.

Because I wasn’t taught that Eve was made later than Adam, from a rib, or that childbirth pains are a punishment or a result of Adam’s disobedience. snip

I have a similar excuse because I was not taught from any kind of personal “literal” reading of any particular verse in the first three chapters of Genesis. We were taught the basic details of the story of Adam in the form of the basic doctrines of the Catholic Faith.

By the way, the “story of Adam” included the basic doctrines of the Incarnation and the salvific mission of a Divine Jesus Christ. Christ’s victory over death is essential knowledge for the Catholic understanding of the real Adam story. I learned Catholic doctrines, which have not changed despite individual interpretations. I had to wait until CAF to learn about “catholic” dissent of basic foundational doctrines which flow from Adam’s experience with his Creator.

 

[grannymh]

Where do you get those cool smileys?

Go to the Smilies list on the right. Click the word More at the bottom. Enjoy!

YOUR human nature is neither ignorant nor blind?

Our, yours and mine, human nature includes a rational spiritual soul.

Since God is the Creator of this spiritual soul (CCC, 366), it is safe to conclude that God does not create ignorant blind souls in the image of Himself. (*CCC, *28 with supporting information in the small print) In addition, there is some fascinating information in paragraphs 29-35 which happen to include “Ways of Coming to Know God.” CCC, 1260 points out that the Holy Spirit offers to all human persons, the possibility of being made partakers, in a way known to God, of the Paschal mystery. (CCC, 1260; CCC, Glossary, Paschal Mystery/Sacrifice, page 891)

I flat out refuse to have anyone downgrade my human nature to that of a rock.

Goodness, are you now the Omniscient, Glamorous Granny?

The “rulebook” states that the only adjectives that can describe granny are those which begin with the letter g. Therefore, it is permissible for me to be known as the genius granny.

 

[grannymh]

I didn’t ask what the CCC says. I asked why the Church did choose this harsh interpretation of Genesis 2-3 and didn’t follow St Irenaeus, for example.

snip

And if Irenaeus was so wrong to think that man was created imperfect, why is he still a saint along with Augustine and Aquinas, who introduced completely other interpretations of Genesis?

The Catholic Church way of answering these types of concerns is based on the promise of the Holy Spirit in Chapter 14, Gospel of John.

St. Irenaeus’ sainthood is based on his holiness as a member of the Catholic Church.

The wisdom of the promised Holy Spirit guided the major Ecumenical Councils (CCC, Index of Citations, page 720) in their proper choice of Early Church Fathers’ Scripture explanations. From the dates of these essential Councils, it is important to realize that some Divine Revelation documents were more formally defined or made more explicit in later centuries. (CCC, 66) .

When one reads the Footnotes and the Index of Citations in the* Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition*, there is sheer amazement that so many different sources of information have been consulted. Only the Holy Spirit could sort out the exact truth of Divine Revelation—which is one of the reasons Pentecost occurred.

The holiness of Saints like Irenaeus, Augustine, and Thomas Aquinas was at such a high concentration that they desired more explicit explanations for the truths accepted at the beginning of Catholic Church history. Two of these prominent truths are Chapter 6, Gospel of John and Romans 5: 12-21.

The fact that Saints disagreed among themselves (over the centuries) did not alter their love of God and their subsequent holiness. They remained devoted members of the Catholic Church. They offered their intellectual talents in humility, always ready to bow to the wisdom and guidance of the Holy Spirit. In their holiness of obedience to Divine Revelation, these Saints gave to the Church various ways that people might use when trying to explain indiviudal, particular details of Divine Revelation. Then, they trusted the Holy Spirit, via an Ecumenical Council, for decision.

Yes, I know that some Saint writers used very strong language to get their point across. However, the Holy Spirit remains the “boss” of Ecumenical Councils.

The opening sentence of the 1992 “Apostolic Constitution Fidei Depositum on the publication of the Catechism of the Catholic Church prepared following the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council” (CCC, page1 following page xvi) with capitalization is:
GUARDING THE DEPOSIT OF FAITH IS THE MISSION WHICH THE LORD ENTRUSTED TO HIS CHURCH, and which she fulfills in every age.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition, fulfills this mission in our age.

 

[simpleas]

Can’t answer about how the readings are selected but I’d imagine some might be more problematic than others. I’d think the Church, having received the deposit of faith herself would use her resources, Scripture and Tradition, with the wisdom necessary to best reflect God’s will according to her understanding of it.

Thanks.
I’m currently looking through The companion to the ccc.
It may shed some light on my questions!

 

[simpleas]

"Fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom" Prov 9:10. It could be said that Adam didn’t properly fear the Lord, in terms of standing in awe, in terms of respect for His power, in terms of acknowledging God’s rightful claim to his obedience. God has the right to place requirements/obligations on man, even if that only obligation could be summed up with “Thou Shalt Love”, which, ultimately, is what God wants from us, but more importantly,* for *us. God’s first command to man was, essentially, “Thou Shalt Obey”.

But man didn’t obey, for whatever reasons, and the rest of God’;s dealings with man are aimed at showing us just why-and how- man should obey God. St Basil’s quote sums it up. It all boils down to* love*. As we come to know God better we begin to trust Him more, as we trust Him more we begin to love Him. As we begin to love Him fear of punishment is abated-dissolved-because, “There is no fear in love. But perfect love drives out fear, because fear has to do with punishment. The one who fears is not made perfect in love.” John 4:18 If we want to have a decent description of what love is-of God’s nature-read 1 Cor 13.

When we meet God we’ll still stand in awe-if we can remain standing at all-but fear won’t be part of the equation-as in fear of harm. Just the opposite in fact; total security, well-being, peace, ineffable happiness is the direct result of the presence of God. But to the extent that we’re outside of His will, that we’re not turned towards Him, that we haven’t come to know and trust in Him, that we fail to love, we miss-we dismiss- those gifts, and fear still plays a role.

Thanks.

If people believe with a good conscience that what they do is of love for another, its only of goodness and they respect each other and love God then they could not fear God.
But our teaching will still put the thought in our minds that we can not do or live a certain way without losing grace.
If people are living or doing certain things which disrespect each other, there’s no love or care for each person, then I can see were our teaching comes into play.

God loves us, I wonder did he love Adam and Eve as much. Leaving them to fall from grace when that wasn’t his plan…