Some theological questions

[MarysLittleFlower]

I have some questions for whoever has studied these topics or knows

1. Adam’s nature: I read that Adam was mortal in his nature but made immortal with grace. Is this correct? how does it relate to the following Canon from an approved (though not ecumenical) council:

"The Councils on Original Sin:

Council of Mileum II 416, Approved by Innocent and Council of Carthage (XVI) 418, Approved by Zosimus against the Pelagians

The First Canon States:

All the bishops established in the sacred synod of the Carthaginian Chruch have decided that whoever says that Adam, the first man, was made mortal, so that, whether he sinned or whether he did not sin, he would die in body, that is he would go out of the body not because of the merit of sin but by reason of the necessity of nature, let him be anothema."

1. Our Lord didn’t sin and doesn’t have a human nature with concupiscence but is it fallen nature that He has or unfallen nature?
2. Was He naturally subject to death, even though without concupiscence?
3. In Jesus’ Divine and Human wills, - I’m a little confused because on one hand, we can’t say that His Human Will was not free, on another hand, there could be potential errors in the opposite direction… what is the right way to say this? This seems to relate t the early Church controversy about Eustratius and the “three chapters”, can someone explain that to me in simple English?
4. St Augustine talked about original sin is passed on through conception because of the disordered passions involved. How do we explain that marriage isn’t sinful, given this? (if it’s affected by disordered passions according to St Augustine).

thank you

 

[1ke]

I suggest you obtain Frank Sheed’s book Theology for Beginners. It will help give you a framework for these questions.

 

[MarysLittleFlower]

I’ll see if I can find it…

I’m just trying to figure out how to avoid any heresy

 

[MarysLittleFlower]

Can we say that Our Lord accepted effects of the fall like suffering or hunger but not those that include an interior inclination to sin ie concupiscence or disordered passions… in Catholic terms this would be not having the stain of original sin. Am I correct and is there a name for those other effects?

 

[Gorgias]

I have some questions for whoever has studied these topics or knows

I’m with @1ke: these are really great (but fairly subtle) questions! A good book on basic theology will really help you out, here!

1. Adam’s nature: I read that Adam was mortal in his nature but made immortal with grace. Is this correct?

Adam has a human nature. In addition, Adam (and Eve) were given ‘preternatural gifts’ by God. Adam (and Eve) lost these gifts when they sinned. Among these gifts was immortality.

how does it relate to the following Canon from an approved (though not ecumenical) council:

whether [Adam] sinned or whether he did not sin, he would die in body, that is he would go out of the body not because of the merit of sin but by reason of the necessity of nature

So, this canon is really talking about a refusal to believe in the Church’s teaching on the preternatural gifts given to the first humans. In other words, those who say “Adam didn’t die because of sin – he would’ve gotten old and died anyway!” are dissenting from the teachings of the Church.

Does that help?

1. Our Lord didn’t sin and doesn’t have a human nature with concupiscence but is it fallen nature that He has or unfallen nature?

Jesus has a human nature like ours in all things but sin. I would call His human nature ‘unfallen’, although I wouldn’t say that He possessed ‘preternatural gifts’ (in the way Adam & Eve did).

1. Was He naturally subject to death, even though without concupiscence?

He had a human nature, so physical death was possible. However, He freely gave Himself up to death, for our sake, so that we might be able to attain to heaven.

(Are you asking the ‘speculative theology’ question “if Jesus didn’t die on the cross, would He have died of old age?”…?)

1. In Jesus’ Divine and Human wills, - I’m a little confused because on one hand, we can’t say that His Human Will was not free, on another hand, there could be potential errors in the opposite direction

Not sure what you’re trying to ask, here. What kind of “potential errors in the opposite direction” are you thinking of?

(I’ve run out of room for a single post… I’ll continue the thought in another post…)

 

[Gorgias]

MarysLittleFlower:

1. St Augustine talked about original sin is passed on through conception because of the disordered passions involved. How do we explain that marriage isn’t sinful, given this?

We do it by not saying that ‘conception’ is the means by which “original sin” is “transmitted”.

The Catechism admits that “the transmission of original sin is a mystery that we cannot fully understand”, but notes that “it is a sin … transmitted by propagation to all mankind, that is, by the transmission of a human nature deprived of original holiness and justice.” (CCC, #404)

So, by that standard, the “sin” (which the Catechism explains “is called ‘sin’ only in an analogical sense: it is a sin ‘contracted’ and not ‘committed’”), is transmitted by virtue of human nature and not by conception. Therefore, there are no implications that marriage itself is sinful. (In fact, noting God’s command to “be fruitful and multiply” and Jesus’ affirmation that “what God has joined, no man shall tear asunder”, we would conclude that marriage is virtuous, not vicious.)

 

[Blue_Horizon]

All the bishops established in the sacred synod of the Carthaginian Chruch have decided that whoever says that Adam, the first man, was made mortal, so that, whether he sinned or whether he did not sin, he would die in body, that is he would go out of the body not because of the merit of sin but by reason of the necessity of nature, let him be anothema."

What is the problem?
If Adam had not sinned there would have been no need for him to die.
It sounds like some people were saying he would die whether he sinned or not.

Adam was mortal but had the capacity for immortality by staying in grace.
He didn’t.

 

[blanchardman]

Question for all:
Who committed the original sin?

 

[Vonsalza]

Lucifer
Assuming, of course, that his banishment from heaven precedes the Fall.

 

[blanchardman]

Very good. I forgot that one. Let me rephrase my question.
What member of the human race committed the original sin.

 

[Gorgias]

Let me rephrase my question.
What member of the human race committed the original sin.

The first human!

 

[blanchardman]

I’ll take that to be Adam.
So; Adam committed the original sin yet Eve ate the forbidden fruit before Adam.
Either Eve could not sin or Adam sinned prior to this event.
What was it?

 

[Gorgias]

I’ll take that to be Adam.
So; Adam committed the original sin yet Eve ate the forbidden fruit before Adam.
Either Eve could not sin or Adam sinned prior to this event.
What was it?

Neither.

In fact, both Adam and Eve – or, if you want to state it more generically, “our first human parents,” sinned in the narrative of Genesis 3.

Their sin, I would assert, was the same (call it ‘pride’ or ‘hubris’ or ‘disobedience’), but it played it out in different ways in each of them. For Eve, the sin was listening to the temptation, believing the serpent (and not believing God), and doing what God told them not to do. For Adam, the sin was failing to “cultivate and protect” the garden which God had entrusted to him; Adam was responsible for protecting Eve, and in failing to help her in her temptation, he sinned. Likewise, he too did what God told them not to do.

Therefore, both Adam and Eve sinned, and through them, ‘original sin’ is transmitted to all humanity.

Hope that helps…

 

[blanchardman]

For the first sin read Gen:2 20-23.
Adam was not satisfied with the way God made him.
God could have made Eve the way He made Adam from the dirt. Instead He opened Adam’s flesh and removed something to make Eve. Why?

 

[Gorgias]

For the first sin read Gen:2 20-23.

Wow. No. Just… no.

Adam was not satisfied with the way God made him.

No, that’s not what Gen 2:20-23 expresses.

In the narrative, it’s God who expresses the opinion that Adam is alone and needs a suitable helper. Adam, then, is simply following God’s will and doing what God wishes. Finally, he finds a ‘suitable helpmate’, and gives praise that God has blessed him with her!

God could have made Eve the way He made Adam from the dirt. Instead He opened Adam’s flesh and removed something to make Eve. Why?

In a sense, the narrative is telling us that the rest of creation, while related to us in certain ways, is nevertheless different – we are created distinct from the rest of creation. The creation of Eve, then, demonstrates the bond between man and woman, and the bond between all humans, as distinct from the other creatures in the universe.

 

[blanchardman]

God formed Adam’s body with His hands. It was exactly as He wanted it. Adam rejected it along with God’s plan for mankind.
God had many options for removing the female from Adam. He chose to open his flesh to shed blood for the remission of this sin.
Part of what was removed was external. Adam could see that part of his flesh was gone from him and was now on Eve.

 

[blanchardman]

Adam in his original form would have been able to reproduce without a partner. Everything would have been handled internally. This would have made mankind unique among all mammals.

 

[DetectiveNiko]

1. I am pretty sure thats correct. Not sure if the wording here is correct though.

whether he sinned or whether he did not sin

not because of the merit of sin

Merit of sin = mortality based off sinlessness or sinfulness. So the wording confuses me, since those seem to be contradictory statements.
2. God’s nature is good, so he is not fallen or unfallen , he has no possibility of falling, unless you mean Jesus, which I would say he was born without sin so unfallen. Its why Mary was concieved without original sin.
3. Thats a really good quesiton. I would personally say no, as we have no evidence of somebody sinless dying. Jesus raised himself to heaven after the ressurection, (he didnt die because of sin, but because he volunterally gave his life away ) , Mary wa also brought up into heaven, we see it with Elijah and others.
4. My interpretaion is : Jesus wasn’t 50 % human and 50 % God. He was 100 % human and 100 % God, essentially, he was God assuming a bodily form. He was subject to the laws of nature and similliar things, but as he was God he was omniscient, and sometimes he decided to speak out of his human nature and sometime out of his divine nature. For example when he says : "Why hast thou forsaken me ? " He is saying that in his human nature because of the agony of the vast amount of sin from the world.
5. Not sure about this myself, but I found this which helps The Original View of Original Sin
Only one part confuses me a bit which is : “Paul’s view corresponds with the rest of the biblical account in that Genesis records that Adam and Eve were denied access to the tree of life, which would have afforded them eternal life. Thus, although they were cut off or alienated from God because of sin and driven from the Garden of Eden, they had never really engaged the relationship with God that He desired, which would have been accomplished only by eating of the tree of life.” < This seems to imply that God wanted Adam and Eve to eat from the tree of good and evil, but I disagree. Otherwise it seems to explain things.

 

[PJM]

GREAT Q’s, thanks

1. No! Were such, He would not have denied God’s Sovereignty & sinned

2.Jesus always GOD alone has 2 PERFECT natures : his perfect human nature & and His Perfect Divine Nature: Heb 4:15

1. Yes: ONLY the fact ta He was SINLESS makes His human nature different from me & you
2. Jesus WAS Truly human in every way EXCEPT sin; and it WAS in and through his freely choosing to suffer and dies as he did in his HUMANITY [God is Eternal & and cannot die

I’m [ME here[ is unclear about .Eustratius; please offer further explanation and I’ll respond to it

1. Marriage [between one man and one women] is a Sacrament Instituted by Jesus Christ.
   Heb 13: 4

Conception CAN only happen when God permits it too. Not every sexual act results in a pregnancy… So it is GOD who creates our human Souls with a mind, intellect and freewill, and it is GOD who imposes Original Sin on every HUMAN Soul at its inception with coincides precisely with conception.

God Bless you,
Patrick

 

[De_Maria]

I have some questions for whoever has studied these topics or knows

1. Adam’s nature: I read that Adam was mortal in his nature but made immortal with grace. Is this correct?

I would say, yes.

CCC#376 …As long as he remained in the divine intimacy, man would not have to suffer or die…

how does it relate to the following Canon from an approved (though not ecumenical) council:

"The Councils on Original Sin:…The First Canon States:

All the bishops established in the sacred synod of the Carthaginian Chruch have decided that whoever says that Adam, the first man, was made mortal, so that, whether he sinned or whether he did not sin, he would die in body, that is he would go out of the body not because of the merit of sin but by reason of the necessity of nature, let him be anothema."

That squares perfectly. The context is, “was made mortal”. So, if anyone says that Adam was made mortal and it doesn’t matter whether he sinned or not, he would die anyway. That person is anathema.

The Teaching is that Adam is created in Original Justice and as long as he remains in grace, he will not suffer or die. The person who repeats this Teaching is NOT anathema.

Do you see the difference?

1. Our Lord didn’t sin and doesn’t have a human nature with concupiscence but is it fallen nature that He has or unfallen nature?

Unfallen.

1. Was He naturally subject to death, even though without concupiscence?

No. He laid down His life because He was the only one who could give it away. He is God, the Second Person of the Holy Trinity.

• Although it is said that the Jews and the Romans killed Jesus, they literally couldn’t do it because of His Divinity. They could only do it in their minds. Remember “raqa”?

Matt 5:22 But I say to you that if you are angry with a brother or sister,[e] you will be liable to judgment;…you will be liable to the hell[h] of fire

1. In Jesus’ Divine and Human wills, - I’m a little confused because on one hand, we can’t say that His Human Will was not free, on another hand, there could be potential errors in the opposite direction… what is the right way to say this?

No. Jesus is God. God is perfect. There was no concupiscence in Jesus. No potential errors.

This seems to relate t the early Church controversy about Eustratius and the “three chapters”, can someone explain that to me in simple English?

Not me.

1. St Augustine talked about original sin is passed on through conception because of the disordered passions involved.

St. Augustine was wrong.

How do we explain that marriage isn’t sinful, given this? (if it’s affected by disordered passions according to St Augustine).

The Catholic Church Teaches that man and woman are made for each other and that God commanded us to procreate. If any disordered passions exist within a marriage, it is not by God’s design nor by the Sacrament of matrimony.

See the Theology of the Body by Pope St. JPII

thank you

I hope that helps.