Passion of the Christ

[jimmy]

Ediana:

I seem to say this because of the assumption I’ve made that, along with tons of other people (many are Protestant–my major source of theology over the years), based loosely on
Romans 3:23 “all have sinned”, and 1 John 1 “If we say that we have no sin, we are deceiving ourselves and the truth is not in us.”, among others, that there isn’t a human being that is
without sin…which would realistically imply that no one can be sinless.

This does not imply that we can not not sin. It only says that we all end up sinning because we are all selfish. Original Sin is not an actual sin as some protestants believe, it is a loss of the Original holyness that Adam and Eve had. It is kind of like a state. It is possible though that we could avoid sin completely though. That is why I give Mary as an example in my posts, and I feel that she can give hope.

Ediana:

Did Adam and Eve then pass-on guilt (the need for infant baptism)…what did they pass-on?

I have been doing some reading about this and Original Sin lately. It is not guilt as in the sense of a courtroom like guilt. The guilt that was past on is the guilt that we feel when we do something wrong. St. Thomas defines Original Sin as concupisence materially and the loss of Original Justice formally. Concupiscence is the feeling of guilt you have plus a little more. I am not sure of the exact definition of it.

ccel.org/a/aquinas/summa/FS/FS082.html

I will go in depth more a little later, and I will go over what I have not done here. I have to go to class now so I can not do it now. I hope what I have given you can help. I will probably finish it in a couple hours.

 

[Shiann]

jimmy:

This does not imply that we can not not sin. It only says that we all end up sinning because we are all selfish. Original Sin is not an actual sin as some protestants believe, it is a loss of the Original holyness that Adam and Eve had. It is kind of like a state. It is possible though that we could avoid sin completely though. That is why I give Mary as an example in my posts, and I feel that she can give hope.

I think this is a fair explaination. Good job!

I have been doing some reading about this and Original Sin lately. It is not guilt as in the sense of a courtroom like guilt. The guilt that was past on is the guilt that we feel when we do something wrong. St. Thomas defines Original Sin as concupisence materially and the loss of Original Justice formally. Concupiscence is the feeling of guilt you have plus a little more. I am not sure of the exact definition of it.

This is also a fair explaination as to what occured as a result of the first sin, but I think it misleads one into thinking that concupisence is part of the Stain of Original Sin- it isn’t. I am going to add the following to it from the Catholic Encyclopedia- A great resource for thorough concise answers:
Catholic Encyclopedia:

We shall examine the several effects of Adam’s fault and reject those which cannot be original sin:

Death and Suffering-
These are purely physical evils and cannot be called sin. Moreover St. Paul, and after him the councils, regarded death and original sin as two distinct things transmitted by Adam.

Concupiscence-
This rebellion of the lower appetite transmitted to us by Adam is an occasion of sin and in that sense comes nearer to moral evil. However, the occasion of a fault is not necessarily a fault, and whilst original sin is effaced by baptism concupiscence still remains in the person baptized; therefore original sin and concupiscence cannot be one and the same thing, as was held by the early Protestants (see Council of Trent, Sess. V, can. v).

The absence of sanctifying grace-
in the new-born child is also an effect of the first sin, for Adam, having received holiness and justice from God, lost it not only for himself but also for us (loc. cit., can. ii). If he has lost it for us we were to have received it from him at our birth with the other prerogatives of our race. Therefore the absence of sanctifying grace in a child is a real privation, it is the want of something that should have been in him according to the Divine plan. If this favour is not merely something physical but is something in the moral order, if it is holiness, its privation may be called a sin. But sanctifying grace is holiness and is so called by the Council of Trent, because holiness consists in union with God, and grace unites us intimately with God. Moral goodness consists in this that our action is according to the moral law, but grace is a deification, as the Fathers say, a perfect conformity with God who is the first rule of all morality. (See GRACE.) Sanctifying grace therefore enters into the moral order, not as an act that passes but as a permanent tendency which exists even when the subject who possesses it does not act; it is a turning towards God, conversio ad Deum. Consequently the privation of this grace, even without any other act, would be a stain, a moral deformity, a turning away from God, aversio a Deo, and this character is not found in any other effect of the fault of Adam. This privation, therefore, is the hereditary stain.

I believe jimmy is correct in stating that Original Sin isn’t a punishment, but a state- more specifically a state of “lacking grace”. Baptism (at any age) is God’s re-gift (by the free will choice of our parents) of that Grace which Adam rejected. Catholics believe that it is important for people to be allowed these gifts from God as soon as possible after birth.

 

[jimmy]

Shiann:

I think this is a fair explaination. Good job!

This is also a fair explaination as to what occured as a result of the first sin, but I think it misleads one into thinking that concupisence is part of the Stain of Original Sin- it isn’t. I am going to add the following to it from the Catholic Encyclopedia- A great resource for thorough concise answers:

I believe jimmy is correct in stating that Original Sin isn’t a punishment, but a state- more specifically a state of “lacking grace”. Baptism (at any age) is God’s re-gift (by the free will choice of our parents) of that Grace which Adam rejected. Catholics believe that it is important for people to be allowed these gifts from God as soon as possible after birth.

Concupiscence is not part of Original Sin, but it is like a result of Original Sin. It is one of the ways that the loss of the holyness, we once had, manifests itself.

God created the human race holy and that is how we originally were but when Adam and Eve sinned they made the race unholy because they rejected God. That does not mean that no man can be holy or become holy, it just means that now we kind of have to prove our selves to be holy by accepting God. We were originally holy and it did not have to be proved because that is the way that we were, but when we first sinned we became unholy and now we have to prove ourselves.

I think that is a true interpretation of it. That is all in my own words, so I can’t be 100%. If I am wrong hopefully someone will correct me.

 

[jimmy]

Ediana:

I don’t know if I’d go that far and say we had the same chance as Mary did to not sin. But is this the theology of the RCC?

I am going to have to think about this one a little. Like John the Baptist and others, Mary was sanctified before birth. She was filled with the grace of God but that does not mean that she did not have the choice to sin or that she was not tempted at times. The difference between us and Mary is that she accepted the grace that was given to her and we have rejected it, sometimes, when it has been given to us.

Ediana:

It seems all we have to do is try to die in a good moment, the more I read Catholic teaching. Another sticky issue with me.

I used to think like this, and it was depressing that I could just commit one sin and I could go to hell. This comes from a primitive knowledge of Sin, which I had for a long time, and am recently coming to a more full understanding of sin.

Mortal versus venial sin is a very big distinction. A mortal sin is a complete rejection of God, and his grace, and a turning away from him. A venial sin, while being a sin, is not really a rejection of God and his grace. You are commiting a sin, but you are not doing it with the idea that you are turning from God. You may even have good intentions when commiting a venial sin.

The fact that a mortal sin is a complete rejection of God makes all the difference regarding this. Its like saying to God, “I see what you want of me, and I understand it, but I would rather do this.”

The criteria of a mortal sin is that it is

1. A grave matter - It must be something serious like lust or something along those lines.
2. Full knowledge - If you do not understand what you are doing then it is not a mortal sin. You must understand that it is a sin.
3. Free Will - You must do it with complete free will. It can not be done by force from someone else. Also if there is some kind of addiction or compulsion it may degrade your free will.

If any one of these is missing, then it is not a mortal sin. It may be a venial sin though.

Whether a person goes to Heaven or hell is more of whether they accept God and his will, or whether they reject him.

Ediana:

Romans 11:32 "For God has shut up all in disobedience so that He may show mercy to all. "
How do you explain this passage, by the way? It seems to “say what I’m seeming to say” 8)

You need to watch taking a single verse and interpreting a whole theology into it. It can be very dangerous to the whole understanding of the bible. This is the verse and comentary from the Douay Rheims bible of that Verse.

32 For God hath concluded all in unbelief, that he may have mercy on all.

32 “Concluded all in unbelief”… He hath found all nations, both Jews and Gentiles, in unbelief and sin; not by his causing, but by the abuse of their own free will; so that their calling and election is purely owing to his mercy.

 

[jimmy]

Ediana:

I understand. Your premise that we can totally avoid sin is the lynch-pin in this whole issue, it seems, for me. And the only evidence of this is what was defined about a hundred years ago, ex cathedra, yes?

The Immaculate Conception was formally defined 150 years ago, but that is not the origin of the doctrine. The church has always taught that Mary was free from sin and never committed a sin. St. Thomas defended and taught in the 1100’s that Mary had never commited an actual sin. You can find it in the church fathers also. Mary is called the Immaculate ever virgin in a couple councils. Which basically calls her spotless and pure.

Although the Immaculate Conception has only been celebrated in the west for about 150 years, the eastern Catholic Church has celebrated the conception of St. Anne since the 400’s. St. Anne was the mother of Mary, and they celebrate when she concieved Mary. This was always celebrated on December 9th but now they celebrate it on December 8th(tomorrow, so go to church ) because the west celebrates the Immaculate conception on the 8th.

So the doctrine is an old one, but it was formally defined in 1854 by Pope Leo XIII.

Ediana:

I’d have to be convinced that scriptures mentioned above (plus many others) are not contradicted with this view.

Which part, that Mary was sinless, or that we can be sinless? I believe you are talking about us. Our free will is written all over scripture. The fact that Jesus even teaches us is a testamony to our free will. It would be pointless for him to come and tell people to not sin, if they had no choice in the matter of whether they sinned. He talks in Matthew 25 about the judgement. He says that those who do the will of God will be saved, and those who do not do it will be condemned. If we do not have the free will to do Gods will then this whole chapter is superfluous(I think that word is properly placed). The words are meaningless because we can not follow them.

James chapter 2 would also be meaningless. It would also be meaningless for Jesus to make the statement in the gospel of Luke 6;46

46 And why call you me, Lord, Lord; and do not the things which I say?

The parable of the vine and its branches being removed for not producing good fruits is also meaningless. This parable compares us to the branches and Christ to the vine. What is the point of this passage if we can not choose to bear good fruits?

Ediana:

Again, thanks much for this–it is quite helpful to me to run this past good people.

Eugene

No problem, I am glad to be of service.

 

[Ediana]

Hello all,

Good food for thought, all of this. And yes, I aware that I need to do more reading. 8) I just finished Keating’s “Catholicism and Fundamentalism”, and on to “The Usual Suspects”. Perhaps I need a Catholic Encyclopedia…in my head.

Anyway, I hear the argument for man’s capability of sinlessness. And, I understand now that Original Sin doesn’t seem to be guilt passed down from Adam, but a blemish, of sorts.

More thoughts: I believe that the RCC says that Mary didn’t have Original Sin…for some reason. What was this reason? Was it because of whom she was to become? But this lack of O.S. must have very little to do with her ability to avoid sin perfectly, yes? Otherwise, the rest of us are handicapped by Original Sin in our efforts to avoid sin perfectly, right?

Was she chosen because of her sinlessness? And I smile when I ask this–> Or was it a mere ‘coincidence’ that she was both sinless AND the chosen Mother of God? I think one had to do
with the other…but here’s a dilemma, I think: How could she be born w/o Original Sin, and then only later assume the role of Mother of God? They seem quite intertwined. Or maybe you’ll answer that “God knew she would be sinless, so He gave her that extra grace.”, which wouldn’t seem to hold water, I would say.

But let’s say all humanity has the ability to be sinless. Then certain people would not need the sacrifice of Jesus at all…right? You’re saying that Jesus died for the sake of the world’s sins…but what about the people without sin? They don’t need anything but an infant’s baptism (to restore innocence, membership in church, etc), not for forgiveness of anything.

How many people do you think are in this position? Protestants would say zero, because of Romans 3, among other scriptures (this was my point before, Jimmy, not the point about Mary,
if you recall). If the answer is “very few”, then it would seem reasonable to assume that humanity really can’t do it, and that Mary did it, 1) because of her good heart, and 2) directly
because of the grace bestowed her (for she was to be the Mother).

Not being formally schooled in RCC theology, I don’t mean any belittlement, by the way, of any figure that deserves veneration (Mary, e.g.)…so please don’t misinterpret me! 8)

So, if Mary is literally 1 in 10 billion, then do we essentially and in reality have the option to be totally without sin? It doesn’t seem so…I don’t take responsibility away from us, but in all this I’m trying to understand the Plan, the Passion, and why it was caused…was it because God knew that SOME people would sin, and SOME would not? I only hear of 1 person (or perhaps some Saints?) that didn’t need to sacrifice for her sin…

Or is this a faith-thing? We can’t see the fact that humanity can indeed be sinless, but it’s true and belief-worthy?

Much thanks,
Eugene

 

[Shiann]

Questions are good. I think everyone here appreciates the opportunity to learn and help others learn more about their Catholic Faith.

*Anyway, I hear the argument for man’s capability of sinlessness. And, I understand now that Original Sin doesn’t seem to be guilt passed down from Adam, but a blemish, of sorts. *

I understand it to be more like born with something missing but absolutely necessary like a heart or kidneys. We could no more live on this earth without kidneys or a heart, than we could live with God in heaven without his Grace (the lack of which is called Original Sin). We get that Grace back when we are Baptised.

More thoughts: I believe that the RCC says that Mary didn’t have Original Sin…for some reason. What was this reason?

Mary was to Jesus what the Ark of the Covenant was to the Ten Commandments. She was the vessel by which God made the Word, Flesh. Just as the Ark of the Covenant was to be beautiful, revered and special in every way- God made his earthly vessel for Jesus the same- Immaculate.

*Was it because of whom she was to become? *

Yes.

But this lack of O.S. must have very little to do with her ability to avoid sin perfectly, yes? Otherwise, the rest of us are handicapped by Original Sin in our efforts to avoid sin perfectly, right?

I believe one can be sinless in this life. But if one still has the stain of Original Sin one cannot go to Heaven. (Putting aside the argument for Invincible Ignorance and Baptism of Desire for the moment.) So I believe you are correct in your assumption that Original Sin and comiting sin are mutually exclusive. But in regards to getting to Heaven- if you carry one or both- you are excluded.

Was she chosen because of her sinlessness? And I smile when I ask this–> Or was it a mere ‘coincidence’ that she was both sinless AND the chosen Mother of God? I think one had to do
with the other…but here’s a dilemma, I think: How could she be born w/o Original Sin, and then only later assume the role of Mother of God? They seem quite intertwined. Or maybe you’ll answer that “God knew she would be sinless, so He gave her that extra grace.”, which wouldn’t seem to hold water, I would say.

When reading your last statement here, I think you probably won’t like what I am going to offer for my comment. I think it would help to remember that God is not bound by time like we are. He knew about Mary before Adam sinned.

I won’t presume to guess why God chose Mary. To me this is part of the Mystery. I do know that it must have been something pretty astounding for Him to Grace her at her conception.

Forgive me, but it seems like you are trying to put ‘timeline’ limitations on this Mystery. I think this is a futile effort. And though you may not like the answer- Faith really plays a big part in calming your heart and mind in this matter. I believe that God has given me immeasurable evidence of his existence and his Church- this is one of the matters that I have given up in Faith for my ignorance.

 

[Shiann]

But let’s say all humanity has the ability to be sinless. Then certain people would not need the sacrifice of Jesus at all…right? You’re saying that Jesus died for the sake of the world’s sins…but what about the people without sin? They don’t need anything but an infant’s baptism (to restore innocence, membership in church, etc), not for forgiveness of anything.

Jesus came to open the Gates to Heaven. He bridged the gap that was created between God and man at the fall. In saying Jesus died for us, we are saying he absorbed the negative effects of the Fall so we can be with God in Heaven.

You are still responsible for your sins. Jesus died so you could sin and STILL GO TO HEAVEN. People who choose not to sin thank GOD that he came so they might reap the benefits eternally. Jesus still died for these people in that they needed His sacrifice to go to Heaven, and he died for these people IN CASE THEY STILL CHOSE TO SIN.

*How many people do you think are in this position? Protestants would say zero, because of Romans 3, among other scriptures (this was my point before, Jimmy, not the point about Mary,
if you recall). If the answer is “very few”, then it would seem reasonable to assume that humanity really can’t do it, and that Mary did it, 1) because of her good heart, and 2) directly
because of the grace bestowed her (for she was to be the Mother).

Not being formally schooled in RCC theology, I don’t mean any belittlement, by the way, of any figure that deserves veneration (Mary, e.g.)…so please don’t misinterpret me! 8)*

No offense taken. I’m not sure what benefit this speculation could be intellectually though. Like our mama’s told us “Don’t worry about your sister- you just worry about you.” Humanity is fully capable of being sinless. They choose not to be.

*So, if Mary is literally 1 in 10 billion, then do we essentially and in reality have the option to be totally without sin? It doesn’t seem so…I don’t take responsibility away from us, but in all this I’m trying to understand the Plan, the Passion, and why it was caused…was it because God knew that SOME people would sin, and SOME would not? I only hear of 1 person (or perhaps some Saints?) that didn’t need to sacrifice for her sin…

Or is this a faith-thing? We can’t see the fact that humanity can indeed be sinless, but it’s true and belief-worthy?*

A lot of this is Faith. I know, Faith is a hard thing to have. We want everything to fit into a nice neat package that we can put beside our bed at night and take with us during the day. It is our nature. But having Faith means you can allow peace into your heart about the things that you don’t quite understand, knowing that there is someone looking out for you who understands things perfectly- and loves you anyway.

 

[Ediana]

Greetings to you,

Mary was to Jesus what the Ark of the Covenant was to the Ten Commandments. She was the vessel by which God made the Word, Flesh. Just as the Ark of the Covenant was to be beautiful,
revered and special in every way- God made his earthly vessel for Jesus the same- Immaculate.

Ok, that’s perfectly fine by me. And you’re also telling me that she has been the only person who was without sin, yes? I can live with that, since it makes sense, but only because of the way God intended to use her. She was born w/o Original Sin and was given grace [and here’s where I might go awry] -->so that she could be sinless in order to be the pure vessel for baby Jesus. That seems to explain how she could avoid sin her whole life better than saying ‘Mary just obeyed more than all others, and no one’s done it since, but it’s possible’ --i.e. It’s not probable at all, given our sordid history–therefore it stands to reason that we might as well say it’s not possible–but we can try, and should.

If Mary is the only one who has been able to totally avoid sin for the entire Christian period (and she just happens to have been especially blessed w/grace, AND born w/o Original Sin), how am I supposed to believe that sinlessness is supposed to be possible for anyone else–if no one else has done it except Mary, 2000 years ago, having been born w/o Original Sin, having been chosen as God’s instrument to bear Jesus? The coincidence actually hampers your position that merely anyone can avoid sin for his lifetime, I would think.

At first glance, the benefit of believing that humans can’t be sinless (without God’s explicit help–e.g. Mary) is modest–Mary retains her high status, and we ‘mere mortals’ 8) settle with God that [perhaps, because we’ve been born w/Original Sin], we need Him in order tp avoid sin…we can do our best, but that’s not good enough to be able to stand before Him. We are sinners, and born that way–we can and should fight it, but by no means expect to have any significant percentage of us be able to avoid sin their whole lives.

In any event, I need to keep mulling this over.

Re: your point about Faith, though…I’m willing to accept certain things on faith. However, if this is a doctrine that separates Catholics from Protestants (it’s possible to avoid all sin versus it’s not, respectively), then a bit more than faith will probably be required…like scriptures and early historical writings (Tradition), I suspect, for me to see the light…

Thanks again,
Eugene

 

[Shiann]

Ediana:

Greetings to you,

If Mary is the only one who has been able to totally avoid sin for the entire Christian period (and she just happens to have been especially blessed w/grace, AND born w/o Original Sin), how am I supposed to believe that sinlessness is supposed to be possible for anyone else–if no one else has done it except Mary, 2000 years ago, having been born w/o Original Sin, having been chosen as God’s instrument to bear Jesus? The coincidence actually hampers your position that merely anyone can avoid sin for his lifetime, I would think.

How do we know that Mary was the only person in 2000 years to avoid sin? I’m not sure anyone who was sinless would go around tooting their own horn regarding their sinlessness. And we certainly don’t recieve earthly medals and commendations and notariety for Sinlessness. You can’t see someone’s sinFULLness, what makes you think we can percieve their sinLESSness?

At first glance, the benefit of believing that humans can’t be sinless (without God’s explicit help–e.g. Mary) is modest–Mary retains her high status, and we ‘mere mortals’ 8) settle with God that [perhaps, because we’ve been born w/Original Sin], we need Him in order tp avoid sin…we can do our best, but that’s not good enough to be able to stand before Him. We are sinners, and born that way–we can and should fight it, but by no means expect to have any significant percentage of us be able to avoid sin their whole lives.

WHY NOT?

I darenot speculate on the status of someone’s soul- for the very reason that I am unequipped to do so. Only God is to make that discernment. Even our confessors pass penance only on what we tell them, as a tool of God, they cannot personally see how sinfull we are.

In any event, I need to keep mulling this over.

Re: your point about Faith, though…I’m willing to accept certain things on faith. However, if this is a doctrine that separates Catholics from Protestants (it’s possible to avoid all sin versus it’s not, respectively), then a bit more than faith will probably be required…like scriptures and early historical writings (Tradition), I suspect, for me to see the light…

It is an ongoing pursuit. I offer the following prayer for your challenges…

Under thy patronage, dear Mother, and calling on the mystery of thine Immaculate Conception, I desire to pursue my studies and my literary labors: I hereby solemnly declare that I am giving myself to these studies chiefly to the following end: that I may the better contribute to the glory of God and to the promotion of thy veneration among men. I pray thee, therefore, most loving Mother, who art the Seat of Wisdom, to bless my labors in thy loving-kindness. Moreover I promise with true affection and a willing spirit, as it is right that I should do, to ascribe all the good that shall come to me therefrom, wholly to thine intercession for me in God’s holy presence. Amen.

 

[Ediana]

Hi,

Just to keep things clear, even though I appreciate the dialogue, I’m not looking for opinions about my theological questions, as far as personal opinions go…I’m more looking for what the RCC actually teaches. So, in that vein, I came across this, as it relates to our discussion:

"
Mary’s sinlessness was a gift from God not something she attained on her own. In the words of Pope Pius IX’s solemn definition, made in 1854, "The most holy Virgin Mary was, in the first moment of her conception, by a unique gift of grace and privilege of almighty God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ the Redeemer of mankind, preserved free from all stain of original sin."

The official definition of Concupiscence from the Modern Catholic Dictionary: **Insubordination of man’s desire to the dictates of reason, and the propensity of human nature to sin as a result of original sin. More commonly, it refers to the spontaneous movement of the sensitive appetites toward whatever the imagination portrays as pleasant and away from whatever it protrays as painful. However concupiscence also includes the unruly desires of the will, such as pride, ambition, and envy. **
"

So, the RCC teaches that Mary, because of the Immaculate Conception, was able to be sinless because of the special deposit of grace that was afforded her…do you agree?

This opens-up lots of interesting thoughts for me…I knew I should’ve strapped the Catholic dictionary to my side! 8)

Regards,
Eugene

 

[Shiann]

Yes, exactly.

And for further information please follow the links provided in one of my earlier posts to the Catholic Encyclopedia. The links go to specific topics, but you can easily move to other topics by using the alphabet at the top.

I recommend the following topics:

Immaculate Conception
Sin
Original Sin

 

[Ediana]

OK, now I’m confused by your position. Concupiscence and Original Sin don’t have anything to do with our own choice, therefore our own guilt. It is completely at the feet of Adam and Eve…isn’t this right?

And the ONLY reason that Mary was sinless was because she lacked Original Sin, therefore lacking concupiscence (if I have to type that word one more time I don’t know what I’m going to do! 8) )

So, doesn’t it follow that, since 100% of the human race is born with Original Sin, and therefore has concupiscence, that we are BOUND to sin? I don’t see how this couldn’t follow…

So it’s (realistically and in ALL practicality) inevitable that humanity sins…because of the effects of Original Sin.

Anyone, am I on the right RCC track here?

Thanks,
Eugene

 

[Lisa4Catholics]

Ediana:

Lisa, thanks for your post.

See the film! It seems like you feel like the crucifixion is a planned guilt trip.Should it make you feel guilty? It does me.

Is it the belief of Catholics that all people can avoid sin?

Then why infant baptism, if the infant hasn’t sinned yet? Did the fact that Adam sinned ruin our chances? Isn’t that why Jesus came, because the Garden gates have been shut? Then why could this be anyone’s but Adam’s fault?

But, what is it that I saw in the movie, that I think you could get out of it?LOVE!

I see your point…but I’m looking into the necessity of this brutality–why was it necessary?

Thanks,
Eugene

Well, its not as brutal as it was in reality,scriptures attest to this.There are so many reasons that the brutality of the movie was important.1) the statement of Gods love for us2)The message of forgiveness(forgive them Father for they know not what they do)3)It has stirred up among Christians a new and deeper love of Jesus. Please, see the movie. I would love to hear your response,I am on pins and needles over here God Bless

 

[Shiann]

Ediana:

OK, now I’m confused by your position. Concupiscence and Original Sin don’t have anything to do with our own choice, therefore our own guilt. It is completely at the feet of Adam and Eve…isn’t this right?

This is correct in that Original Sin was caused by ADAM- he passed it down, along with the affects of that.

Original Sin is the LACK of the special Graces from the Holy Spirit passed down to every person from Adam. (Adam refused these Graces when he turned his back on God.)

As a result of the LACK of these Graces:

We die
We toil
Women feel pain during childbirth
We have concupiscence
et.al.

Please note the following:
This rebellion of the lower appetite transmitted to us by Adam is an occasion of sin and in that sense comes nearer to moral evil. However, the occasion of a fault is not necessarily a fault, and whilst original sin is effaced (removed) by baptism concupiscence still remains in the person baptized; therefore original sin and concupiscence cannot be one and the same thing, as was held by the early Protestants.

Baptism removes Original Sin. Someone has chosen (albeit for us as infants) to open ourselves to the Holy Spirit/God after Adam turned his back. In other words we are given back that which we lacked. When we are baptised, the lacking which was passed down from Adam are filled. We NO LONGER HAVE Original Sin or are as Mary was from the very beginning of her Immaculate Conception, ‘Graced’.

Concupiscence, on the other hand, is not Original Sin, but the result of it. It remains after Baptism. It is the little devil on our shoulder reminding us of all sorts of wonderful pleasures. But just because we have the “near occasion of sin” does not mean we have sinned. We can have concupiscence and NEVER SIN.

So we can be born, with Original Sin and with concupiscence. We can be baptised (which fills up what Original Sin had caused to be lacking), and we can have the near occasion of sin but never commit a sin; therefore remain sinless in our life.

And the ONLY reason that Mary was sinless was because she lacked Original Sin, therefore lacking concupiscence (if I have to type that word one more time I don’t know what I’m going to do! 8) )

This is where I believe you falter. Yes of course, Mary lacked Original Sin. In fact:
The state of original sanctity, innocence, and justice, as opposed to original sin, was conferred upon her, by which gift every stain and fault, all depraved emotions, passions, and debilities, essentially pertaining to original sin, were excluded. But she was not made exempt from the temporal penalties of Adam – from sorrow, bodily infirmities, and death.

But you assume that just because you have neither Original Sin and Concupiscence, that you are unable to sin. Then what caused Adam to sin when he was created the same way?

Free will. Which Mary had, by the way. But she could no more disobey her Lord, than I could murder my child. She and I both have the choice, but refuse to make it.

So, doesn’t it follow that, since 100% of the human race is born with Original Sin, and therefore has concupiscence, that we are BOUND to sin? I don’t see how this couldn’t follow…

Again, FREE WILL. Just because we have the near occasion of sin- doesn’t make it a sin. And once we are baptised, we are embued with all the Love and Grace that we will allow the Holy Spirit to give us.

So it’s (realistically and in ALL practicality) inevitable that humanity sins…because of the effects of Original Sin.

Original Sin increases the likelyhood yes. But it certainly does not make it inevitable.

Anyone, am I on the right RCC track here?

Almost.

 

[Ediana]

I agree that concupiscence isn’t sin. I understand your view that this means we don’t HAVE to sin.

My question is–just because this might technically means we are not bound to sin, were any of the Popes/Saints sinless? If not, then your argument doesn’t hold any weight at all, and concupiscence must be a debilitating thing–an inclination to sin that is a strong one. And this is not of our own doing…if the best (see above) of us cannot avoid sin completely, then it might be safe to say that the possibility doesn’t exist, and never was intended, after the Fall. There are scriptures that talk to this, but I’ll let you respond to that first.

thanks,
Eugene

 

[Shiann]

Because we are forbidden to speculate on the status of anyone’s soul, I darenot speculate on the “sinlessness” of anyone dead or alive.

I responded to this line of the argument earlier. It is Dogma of the Holy Catholic Church that Mary Mother of God, was sinless. I am not equipped to speculate or know for sure whether anyone else in history is sinless, including Popes and cannonized Saints. Even when the Church cannonizes people, it does so only with MUCH consideration of their lives on earth, and any miracles that are attributed with them. And even after someone has been cannonized a Saint, the Church doesn’t officially deem anyone sinless- except of course Jesus and his Mother Mary.

But regardless, I have proven via my posts above on FREE WILL, that it is possible (albeit very difficult) for people to live sinless lives.

It might be tough to live a sinless life. And I submit to you it isn’t only due to the affect of concupiscence on our lives. Many fear death, and make the choice to sin out of their fear of it. Many people don’t like to work- and one of the deadly sins is the antithesis of toil- sloth.

It seems though, your trouble here is that people don’t have the individual choice, like Adam did, to originally reject God. And you seem to focus on the fact that it seems like the sins of the father are the sins of the son… This is true, we don’t have the opportunity to go from being a perfect being, to a fallen one by choosing to reject our Father personally as Adam did.

But, we do have the opportunity to FREELY CHOOSE to go from a fallen being to a perfect one by choosing to TURN BACK to God and ask Him to help us be that perfect person in everything we do and say on this earth. Obviously we can never be as perfect as Adam, Eve, Mary or Jesus, because of the time that we were without Him…(the time we had the stain of Original Sin).

But God still wanted us, to want to be perfect- so he made it possible to be with Him again by sending the Son. If we want to be perfect beyond our baptism- it is VERY DIFFICULT- but VERY POSSIBLE with the help of God.

It is very difficult and improbable to win the lottery too, but obviously possible. But the winnings of God’s lottery isn’t only for one person who has a ticket, but EVERYONE who has a ticket. The winnings of God’s lottery are completely dependent on all of the choices made by the person holding the ticket.

Now, all of that said, I’m not sure why you wish to dwell on the possiblity of being sinless your whole life or not. We are not required to live sinless lives in order to get to heaven, we must wish to live sinless, and officially ask God’s forgiveness for any indiscretions that may occur through the sacrament of Penance when we may fall- as you are so sure everyone will do.

In follow up, I think an interesting question to pose would be: Do those who are technically sinless KNOW they are? My answer would be of course not! I would further submit that those who are technically sinless are also humble and pius- and are penitential anyway. Only God knows the status of our souls.

 

[st_felicity]

God does not want slaves. He loves us and wants us to love Him. He couldn’t say–“Hey, look at what I’ve done for you–Love me!” --if he desired actual true love. He has to give us the choice to believe or not to believe.

I must say, I truly appreciate your eloquent and genuine posts! You certainly have a gift for written expression–it comes across clearly and concisely–I like that!!! I have a bit of trouble being clear and concise!

For what it’s worth, here’s how I see it. You seem to be looking to understand God’s mind–why He chose to do things the way He has. Think deeply about this now…because it may come across as dismissive, but it is not intended so–

How would YOU have Him do it?

or,

How would you HAVE him do it?

Does that seem trite? Off the point? Is this really an easy answer? I don’t know…God is so far above what His creatures are able to comprehend. Sometimes it is much harder to admit that we simply can’t “get” where God is coming from than to nail it down to a set of “truths”. (pun intended)

I see it as kind of like: Why do I love my children? There are so many “reasons” that it becomes pointless to try and define exactly the thing that makes me love them. Do I love them because of what I go through birthing them? Raising them? How funny they can be? How proud they make me feel? The way they run to me to hug me crying “Mommy, you’re home!” after I merely went out to get the mail from the box? But then, that leads me to ask, why do they love me? Is it only for what I do for them or what I can give them? Do they question my love for them? They simply can’t comprehend full width and depth and breadth of WHY I love them. And if they tried to nail me down as to WHY I love them, WHY I had them, I could give them many answers–but they still would not “get” exactly what I feel in my heart.

We are God’s children.

 

[Ediana]

Felicity, thanks much for your kind words.

I’m not questioning why God loves me at all. I realize I can know part of that from my own experiences with my 2 daughters.

I’m talking about the Passion, and should I feel guilty that it happened? Some Protestants seem to revel in that Act as a way to “convict” people of their sin. I can be grateful that God would go to lengths to provide for me…but I can’t logically understand how it is my fault that Christ died–being that (and the jury’s still out in my mind) most everyone has and will sin. And that’s despite positions I’ve heard that ‘people can be sinless’.

If a dog can’t fly, we do not blame the animal for that. If a person cannot be sinless, are we to blame the person for not being perfect and have them study the Passion and feel a huge sense of guilt, a la “Jesus died because of your sins”.

Are you catching my drift? I’m starting to wonder if Catholics really see the Passion that way…more and more it just seems like God had a contingency plan (the cross) due to the fact of Original Sin.

Thanks so much,
Eugene

 

[st_felicity]

Ediana:

Felicity, thanks much for your kind words.

I’m not questioning why God loves me at all. I realize I can know part of that from my own experiences with my 2 daughters.

I’m talking about the Passion, and should I feel guilty that it happened? Some Protestants seem to revel in that Act as a way to “convict” people of their sin. I can be grateful that God would go to lengths to provide for me…but I can’t logically understand how it is my fault that Christ died–being that (and the jury’s still out in my mind) most everyone has and will sin. And that’s despite positions I’ve heard that ‘people can be sinless’.

If a dog can’t fly, we do not blame the animal for that. If a person cannot be sinless, are we to blame the person for not being perfect and have them study the Passion and feel a huge sense of guilt, a la “Jesus died because of your sins”.

Are you catching my drift? I’m starting to wonder if Catholics really see the Passion that way…more and more it just seems like God had a contingency plan (the cross) due to the fact of Original Sin.

Thanks so much,
Eugene

Well–I just flat out disagree that there were any “sinless” saints–they all struggled toward sinlessness, but the only two who achieved it were Jesus and Mary. Both had an advantage over us regular folks–Jesus being God, and Mary, free from the stain of Original Sin.

To your point about being “guilty” of the Passion: I believe we are guilty in the sense that we participate in Original Sin. I mean, God gave us (mankind) choice from the beginning. You may eat of any fruit except this one…(choice to do as God says or not). When our First Parents chose to disobey, they set into motion a warping of our nature and each time we sin in the least, a stray unchairitable thought for example, we are participating in that OS by virtue of the fact that it is born out of our warped human nature. Undoubtedly God expected this to happen, since he is Omnipresent, so he also knew from the beginning His creation was going to need the Redeemer–It was part of the plan–it’s unfair to hold God responsible for planning our failings, He didn’t set us up for failure, but he knew we would fail. He gave us the opportunity for perfection and knew we would fall, but in His mercy, he had a plan for redemption–ergo, our love for him could truly be our “choice”. Not a “contingency plan”–part of the whole plan–Jesus WAS and IS, just as the Father and the Holy Spirit WAS and IS–timeless and eternal.

As for Mary being conceived without OS: She got to make that original choice again all throughout her life and chose to ALWAYS obey God–she is the new Eve so that our warped human nature can be redeemed to through Christ’s Passion.

So we are guilty in a sense of the Passion, but we should not feel guilty about it. It’s a gift given us out of mercy and love.