G
- Status
K
Kliska
Guest
Not just one. lol If I hadn’t found one, I’d be RC.But astonishing as it is, I cannot find it. You?And take my word here, I looked and hard.
E
eddie_too
Guest
did i miss something?
did someone prove Mary sinned?
did someone prove that Mary’s sinlessness was added to christian belief subsequent to apostolic times?
did someone prove Mary sinned?
did someone prove that Mary’s sinlessness was added to christian belief subsequent to apostolic times?
P
PRmerger
Guest
What about those with Down syndrome? Have they sinned?
D
dronald
Guest
I thought Catholics believe they have, what with being born with original sin and all?
E
eddie_too
Guest
being born with original sin on our souls is not the same as being culpable for performing a sinful act. that is what the RCC teaches.
glad to provide you with accurate information.
glad to provide you with accurate information.
P
PRmerger
Guest
We don’t speak of someone having the stain of original sin as saying they “have sinned”.
At any rate, the context in Romans is talking about actual sin, not original sin.
These are actual sins:
None is righteous, no, not one; no one understands, no one seeks for God. All have turned aside, together they have gone wrong; no one does good, not even one. Their throat is an open grave. They use their tongues to deceive. The venom of.asps is under their lips. Their mouth is full of curses and bitterness.
I
Isaiah45_9
Guest
I will agree with studying all the early fathers and early writers. Maybe you were arguing with an ECF-Only Catholic
.I don’t have a problem reading and engaging in arguments with early writers. The main problem with these writers is when they depart from what the Church as Whole holds to be part of Church teaching.
For example: The deuterocanonical books. They were questioned by St. Jerome, Cajetan and other Catholic writers and teachers. And it was ok to question them until Trent. The problem lies on the the minimalistic approach to what the Church exposes. Some will argue that because there was some minimal disagreement by some prominent members of the Church - then it is ok to support their particular view.
This is a very minimalistic approach to what the Church as a Whole is actually teaching and in agreement with. So when someone appeals to an ECF, the person is appealing to authority. Clearly demonstrating not wanting to engage in the subject and seeking to deliver a quick way to end the argument.
My goodness, you have to be the first self-proclaimed Protestant I have ever heard say this! You are a closet Catholic!
I totally agree with you and in fact this position is completely and entirely consistent with the Great Commission from Christ!
Now this is a bit extreme and I think it is just showing your frustration in the conversation.
I don’t know if you have noticed, but we stay away from lists
. I can offer my personal philosophical view of why - or - if you’d like to read 
, I could offer you 3 really good resources that will help you understand better our position. One of the being the Catechism and the other 2 being: Sources of Catholic Dogma and Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma.
D
dronald
Guest
Interesting. So what passages do Catholics quote to prove original sin? (any from NT as well?)
P
PRmerger
Guest
ronald, you have it exactly backwards.
The Catholic faith was whole and entire before a single word of the NT was ever put to writ.
Thus, we do not glean our doctrines from the pages of a book, no matter how holy.
Rather, the Scriptures reflect the Faith which was already given, once for all, to the saints.
P
PRmerger
Guest
But, to answer your question, see Romans 5 for an expository on the Church’s teaching on OS.
D
dronald
Guest
Hm, I don’t see it in there; it still points to the act of sinning imo:
Romans 5:12 Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned
Romans 5:12 Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned
P
PRmerger
Guest
Annnnnddd…that’s why you need the CC, to act as the lens so you can see it in there.
Otherwise, if you follow the paradigm that you don’t need to be guided by any authority, and can read the Scriptures and come to your own conclusion…you can’t argue with the Westboro Baptist Church when they come to their own conclusions and say that Scripture says that God hates homosexuals.
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
The doctrine of original sin is that “in” Adam all have sinned. This parallels the doctrine of justification that “in” Christ all are righteous. Many Catholics do not fully understand or appreciate the importance of this parallel and how it weaves through much of Catholic teaching.
We can begin to understand this parallel—namely, through the first Adam all have died and through the second Adam (Christ) all have life—by looking at Romans 5. Verse 12 says that “sin came into the world through one man and death through sin.” And look at the evidence throughout verses 15–19: “Many died through one man’s trespass. . . . For the judgment following one trespass brought condemnation. . . . Because of one man’s trespass, death reigned through that one man. . . . Then as one man’s trespass led to condemnation for all men. . . . By one man’s disobedience many were made sinners.”
Look at verse 16: “For the judgment following one trespass brought condemnation.” Who did it bring condemnation for? Adam only? No—verse 18 says, “Then as one man’s trespass led to condemnation for all men” (emphasis added). This is stated even more clearly by the King James rendering the same verse: “Therefore, as by the offense of one, judgment came upon all men to condemnation.”
These passages are all about the Church’s doctrine of original sin. Because of Adam’s sin, all men were made subject to sin and death. That is Scripture’s teaching on the doctrine of original sin.
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
This sin of Adam’s was not your ordinary sin. This was a sin that affected all mankind forever. This sin changed the course of human history. It did not just affect Adam personally; it also affected his human nature—which means it affected our nature, since we inherited it from him. Adam and Eve were created with immortal bodies. They knew no suffering, they knew no disease, they knew no death. Before the fall, their bodies would not have been subject to cancer or to Alzheimer’s disease or heart attacks or muscular dystrophy or sickle cell anemia or any one of a host of other diseases. But ours are.
Adam was tested by God not just as Adam but as the representative of the whole human race, since we are all the seed of Adam. Just as David and Goliath met on the battlefield as champions of their respective armies, Adam was our champion. If your champion lost in battle to the other army’s champion, then you lost the battle—even though you never unsheathed your sword and were never bloodied in battle. David slew the Philistines’ champion and the Philistines took off running (cf. 1 Sam. 17:51). In the battle against the evil one, Adam lost. As a result, we also lost.
Some folks have a problem with the concept that we, Adam’s posterity, should have to pay a price for a sin we didn’t commit. They do not understand how the Church is using the term original sin. As the Catechism says, “original sin is called ‘sin’ only in an analogical sense: it is a sin ‘contracted’ and not ‘committed’—a state and not an act” (CCC 404).
Adam’s sin changed everything—for him and for us. There was a fundamental change in man’s relationship with God. God no longer walked the earth with man. What’s more, Satan was now ruler of the world. There was a fundamental change in the relationship of man to nature and a fundamental change in nature itself (cf. Rom. 8:19–22). A fundamental change in the relationship between man and woman. A fundamental change in relationships among all men, since sin and death had entered the world. A fundamental change in the nature of man himself. It’s all right there in the Bible. And it is the Church’s teaching on the doctrine of original sin.
But for each of those verses in Romans 5 about how Adam’s disobedience affected us, there is a parallel verse describing how Jesus’ obedience affected us. This parallel is paramount. One man’s disobedience leads to death for all; one man’s obedience leads to life for all. We see this parallel in 1 Corinthians 15:21–22: “For as by a man came death, by a man has come also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive.”
Let’s expand for a minute on this concept of being “in” Adam. The writer of Hebrews says something interesting in referring to when Abraham and Melchizedek met in Genesis 14: “Levi himself, who receives tithes, paid tithes through Abraham. For he was still in the loins of his ancestor [Abraham] when Melchizedek met him [Abraham]” (Heb. 7:9–10).
Levi wasn’t born for another seventy years or so after this incident of Abraham paying a tithe to Melchizedek, yet the Bible says that Levi paid tithes to Melchizedek. How is that possible? Because Levi was in Abraham—in his loins, according to the Bible.
This is the same concept we are talking about with original sin and being in Adam and with salvation and being in Christ.
We are born with a fallen nature, a nature that is separated from God as a result of Adam’s sin. We have to be born again to become joined to God, to be in Christ, to become a member of the body of Christ, to be saved. We are born of Adam’s body into condemnation. We are born of Christ’s body unto salvation.
E
eddie_too
Guest
the doctrine is that Mary was preserved from original sin.
Mary is part of the all to which Paul refers.
however, through a special dispensation of God Himself, Mary was preserved from the fate adam’s sin imposed on all human beings.
i mean really, why would God not want His mother to be perfetly pure?
Mary is part of the all to which Paul refers.
however, through a special dispensation of God Himself, Mary was preserved from the fate adam’s sin imposed on all human beings.
i mean really, why would God not want His mother to be perfetly pure?
S
SteveVH
Guest
Awesome, Randy!
S
spina1953
Guest
eddie too: Like what you wrote. I think God can do what He wants and if He wants Mary to be His earthly bride and have His only begotten Son become Man through her why then is that such a problem? seems to me that to say that Mary has to be in sin because she is human is to make God a limited God instead of a God who can do all and I think Mary is special becuse God made her so. buts thats my opinion.
S
SteveVH
Guest
Mary was made pure through the eternal merits of the sacrifice of her Son. She was saved by Jesus. He just saved her before she fell into the quicksand rather than later, like the rest of us.
B
bubbawanda
Guest
- Status