K
Kevin_PM
Guest
About original sin, Is it venial or mortal in nature?
- Status
G
gvogt4
Guest
Great question.
I’m no expert, so this is my opinion until someone more knowledgeable than I answers.
I believe the answer will be neither. My reason for believing this:
(1) It can’t be venial as we say Baptism is required for salvation (I know we hold to other possibilities, but stay with me here).
(2) The criteria for mortal sin does not exist in the subjective sense of the individual.
(3) Here’s a little bit from the CCC on original sin.
404 How did the sin of Adam become the sin of all his descendants? The whole human race is in Adam “as one body of one man”.293 By this “unity of the human race” all men are implicated in Adam’s sin, as all are implicated in Christ’s justice. Still, the transmission of original sin is a mystery that we cannot fully understand. But we do know by Revelation that Adam had received original holiness and justice not for himself alone, but for all human nature. By yielding to the tempter, Adam and Eve committed a personal sin, but this sin affected the human nature that they would then transmit in a fallen state.294 It is a sin which will be transmitted by propagation to all mankind, that is, by the transmission of a human nature deprived of original holiness and justice. And that is why original sin is called “sin” only in an analogical sense: it is a sin “contracted” and not “committed” - a state and not an act.
405 Although it is proper to each individual,295 original sin does not have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam’s descendants. It is a deprivation of original holiness and justice, but human nature has not been totally corrupted: it is wounded in the natural powers proper to it, subject to ignorance, suffering and the dominion of death, and inclined to sin - an inclination to evil that is called concupiscence". Baptism, by imparting the life of Christ’s grace, erases original sin and turns a man back towards God, but the consequences for nature, weakened and inclined to evil, persist in man and summon him to spiritual battle.
406 The Church’s teaching on the transmission of original sin was articulated more precisely in the fifth century, especially under the impulse of St. Augustine’s reflections against Pelagianism, and in the sixteenth century, in opposition to the Protestant Reformation. Pelagius held that man could, by the natural power of free will and without the necessary help of God’s grace, lead a morally good life; he thus reduced the influence of Adam’s fault to bad example. The first Protestant reformers, on the contrary, taught that original sin has radically perverted man and destroyed his freedom; they identified the sin inherited by each man with the tendency to evil (concupiscentia), which would be insurmountable. The Church pronounced on the meaning of the data of Revelation on original sin especially at the second Council of Orange (529)296 and at the Council of Trent (1546).297
I’m no expert, so this is my opinion until someone more knowledgeable than I answers.
I believe the answer will be neither. My reason for believing this:
(1) It can’t be venial as we say Baptism is required for salvation (I know we hold to other possibilities, but stay with me here).
(2) The criteria for mortal sin does not exist in the subjective sense of the individual.
(3) Here’s a little bit from the CCC on original sin.
404 How did the sin of Adam become the sin of all his descendants? The whole human race is in Adam “as one body of one man”.293 By this “unity of the human race” all men are implicated in Adam’s sin, as all are implicated in Christ’s justice. Still, the transmission of original sin is a mystery that we cannot fully understand. But we do know by Revelation that Adam had received original holiness and justice not for himself alone, but for all human nature. By yielding to the tempter, Adam and Eve committed a personal sin, but this sin affected the human nature that they would then transmit in a fallen state.294 It is a sin which will be transmitted by propagation to all mankind, that is, by the transmission of a human nature deprived of original holiness and justice. And that is why original sin is called “sin” only in an analogical sense: it is a sin “contracted” and not “committed” - a state and not an act.
405 Although it is proper to each individual,295 original sin does not have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam’s descendants. It is a deprivation of original holiness and justice, but human nature has not been totally corrupted: it is wounded in the natural powers proper to it, subject to ignorance, suffering and the dominion of death, and inclined to sin - an inclination to evil that is called concupiscence". Baptism, by imparting the life of Christ’s grace, erases original sin and turns a man back towards God, but the consequences for nature, weakened and inclined to evil, persist in man and summon him to spiritual battle.
406 The Church’s teaching on the transmission of original sin was articulated more precisely in the fifth century, especially under the impulse of St. Augustine’s reflections against Pelagianism, and in the sixteenth century, in opposition to the Protestant Reformation. Pelagius held that man could, by the natural power of free will and without the necessary help of God’s grace, lead a morally good life; he thus reduced the influence of Adam’s fault to bad example. The first Protestant reformers, on the contrary, taught that original sin has radically perverted man and destroyed his freedom; they identified the sin inherited by each man with the tendency to evil (concupiscentia), which would be insurmountable. The Church pronounced on the meaning of the data of Revelation on original sin especially at the second Council of Orange (529)296 and at the Council of Trent (1546).297
B
Br.Rich_SFO
Guest
It’s neither. But has the effect of Mortal sin, because it separates the soul from God and gives satan full access.
H
HEAVY_HAND
Guest
Thank you Br. Rich…that gets right to the heart of the matter.
P
promethius95945
Guest
Brother Rich is correct. It’s not mortal in the sense that we have comitted the original sin of adam and eve through our own willful choice, however, the stain of original sin is the fallen and seperated nature of man which otherwise puts a chasm between man and God. That is why baptism (which cleanses us of original sin) is so incredibly important (even baptism by desire, which the first responder alluded to).
M
Michael_Howard
Guest
We have to make the distiction bewteen origanal sin and origanal guilt. The church teaches origanal sin not origanal guilt. Each member of the human race is born with a stain on their soul which gives the inclination toward sin and without grace in the soul they remain defenseless against sin and outside of the covenant relationship with God.
L
Lepanto1071571
Guest
It seems to make sense.
Can you provide authoritative sources that support the statement that an effect of mortal sin includes giving Satan full access?
Thanks. God bless.
G
grannymh
Guest
The freely chosen disobedient act of Adam is mortal in nature according to the criteria for Mortal Sin. Genesis 2: 16-17; Genesis 3: 11.
Start with the belief that Adam is a fully-complete human person in the State of Original Holiness and Justice aka Sanctifying Grace.
M
MrSnaith
Guest
Adam’s Original Sin? Yes. The stain of that Original Sin that each one of us is conceived with? No.
T
thenobes
Guest
I don’t wish to quarrel with you, but how do you handle Trent’s declaration on original sin and baptism?
Per the fifth session of the Council of Trent
The only way I can handle this, if original sin transmits no original guilt, is that the guilt Trent refers to is the guilt of all sins committed while having the taint of original sin.
Does this solution seem like a good one?
peace,
steve
G
Genesis315
Guest
There was a thread on the topic of the “guilt” of original sin a while back. “Guilt” is being used in the canon of Trent to describe the deprivation of original holiness to which we are liable–the penalty–not a personal guilt like that of a sin you actually committed.
See this article for the linguistic breakdown:
taylormarshall.com/2011/07/does-original-sin-guilty-babies.html
See also the second to last paragraph of this article:
newadvent.org/cathen/11312a.htm
See also CCC 404-405.
See this article for the linguistic breakdown:
taylormarshall.com/2011/07/does-original-sin-guilty-babies.html
See also the second to last paragraph of this article:
newadvent.org/cathen/11312a.htm
See also CCC 404-405.
T
thenobes
Guest
L
Lepanto1071571
Guest
[Originally Posted by Kevin PM View Post
About original sin, Is it venial or mortal in nature]
God bless
About original sin, Is it venial or mortal in nature]
The effect of original sin does not seem to have the same effect as mortal sin in at least one instance relating to the separation of the soul from God. In the the case of mortal sin, separation from God it merits eternal damnation, but not with an unbaptized person who by virtue having no personal sin, dies before the age of reason.
God bless
J
JoeT777
Guest
I would suggest that original sin has the same effect as a mortal sin; both can be considered stains which can be removed through baptism or confession, and both are the cause of physical and spiritual death.
Original sin is a privation of an original justice. Original justice accompanying Adam’s creation was a moral quality or habit that perfectly joined the will to an enlightened understanding of the will of God. Justice is inexplicably joined to the other cardinal virtues; justice gives the rights to honorable prudence, temperance, and fortitude in moral acts. All acts are for the glory and honor of God, thus without justice any act is avaricious. It could be said Adam ‘abides’ in God, much like we are invited to abide in Christ partaking in the Eucharist. [John 6:57].
The original man was created with a soul that was perfectly joined to the intellect and united with the will of God, overflowing with the knowledge of truth; where the intellect functioned in the light of God’s will disciplining the lower appetites through reason alone. Original man could ‘reason’ why he should be honorable, just, prudent, and strong in his virtuous graces simply because he knew God, spoke with God, and was befriended by God. However, because of an unjust act we, as heirs, bear the just punishment for the sin of one man.
Deprivation of original justice explains an inability to “know God”. Jon Eck said;
“Original Sin is that men are born without the fear of God and without trust in God, is to be entirely rejected, since it is manifest to every Christian that to be without the fear of God and without trust in God is rather the actual guilt of an adult than the offence of a recently-born infant, which does not possess as yet the full use of reason, as the Lord says “Your children which had no knowledge between good and evil,” Deut 1:39. (Johann Eck, The Confutatio Pontificia, 1530)
Being the son or daughter of Adam and Eve, having a privation of an original justice is not “an act of sin”. Actual sin is a voluntary immoral act of thought, word, or deed.
“… sin is nothing else than a bad human act. Now that an act is a human act is due to its being voluntary, whether it be voluntary, as being elicited by the will, e.g. to will or to choose, or as being commanded by the will, e.g. the exterior actions of speech or operation. Again, a human act is evil through lacking conformity with its due measure: and conformity of measure in a thing depends on a rule, from which if that thing depart, it is incommensurate. Now there are two rules of the human will: one is proximate and homogeneous, viz. the human reason; the other is the first rule, viz. the eternal law, which is God’s reason, so to speak. See Contra Faustum . xxii, 27 CHURCH FATHERS: Contra Faustum, Book XXII (Augustine), St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, I, II, 71,6
Justification, “the sanctification of the whole being” [CCC 1995] is received in Baptism as an effect of grace re-introducing man to the mercy of God, thereby weakening the original privation of justice creating a new man, ‘born again’ into the rectitude of divine love. [CCC 1991] No law reforms the interior, instills honor or perfects the will effectively removing the deficiency of that original justice man once exercised in Adam.
Justice is a two sided coin, on which one side is guilt and on the other is righteousness. Justice demands that guilt deserves punishment and innocence deserves righteousness. Adam’s sin was a voluntary act for which God’s justice results in physical and spiritual death, i.e. the life leaves the physical body, and life (sanctification) leaves the soul. In Baptism the punishment for the first sin of Adam is removed, there being no guilt in the individual because the sin committed by Adam was not a voluntary act of the individual. We can see through the lens of Baptism how the nature of original sin stains all of mankind transferring only the punishment, but not the guilt.
JoeT
G
grannymh
Guest
Privation of Adam’s State of Original Holiness (aka State of Sanctifying Grace) refers to the automatic result of Adam’s actual freely chosen action which shattered humanity’s relationship with Divinity. Because the creature Adam is not on the same level as the Divine Creator, it is necessary that a Divine Jesus Christ restore the broken relationship between humanity and Divinity.
- Status