Yes, we are all guilty of OS, but this guilt is not the same as guilt of actual sin. Since sin is just the lack of grace, or a deficiency in us of God(if it is possible to say that), we are all guilty of it because we are not showing forth God in the way that we are meant to OS is just a lacking of this grace and consequently, in a way it is sin.
Actually, Father Ambrose, I may well stand corrected. Looking through the older Catechisms, it does appear the current teaching on Original Sin is consistent with the pre-Vatican II Tradition.
Believe me, I am very well versed in the early Christian understandings on the discrepancy between the times of conception and animation. Even today there are unresolved questions about animation (the time of creation of the soul) such as that surrounding a fetus which splits into twins several days after conception and even of twins which fuse into one fetus.
I have read some of the threads on here discussing this and there is no discrepancy. Your understanding of traditional Catholicism is not how it truely is. There are several saints that discuss OS as a privation of Original Justice. Anselm, Aquinas, and St. John of The Cross are a few of them.
Yes, Father Ambrose; as hard as it may seem for me to believe, you are correct again, for the second time today!
Then what is the point of your earlier statement if you know the earlier controvercies(and I trust that you do considering you are a mon-preist)?
You have to assume that animation occurs at conception. Otherwise you are opening the door to a world of problems in modern society. Some of it is very confusing, but you are better off assuming that conception and animation are the same time.
I believe this is what we call “erring on the side of life,” and I’m sure Father Ambrose would agree that this is what any reasonable man should do.
Bwahahaha!
Dear Sacramentalist and Coptic, in my denseness I do not see any obvious connection between Papal Primacy and Infallibility and the Church of Rome and the Copts breaking communion in the middle of the 5th century. To my knowledge neither Papal Primacy nor Papal Infallibility were ruffling anybody’s feathers in 451 AD when Chalcedon took place and the schism ocurred. So really, to say that these issues were “obvious” factors in the making of the 5th century schism is a glaring anachronism, I think?
Yes, it is always murder but what makes a fascinating study is the early Christian ideas of ensoulment-animation which seem to have been current in the West but not in the East. For example, among the Irish Orthodox (both pre- and post-patrician) of the early centuries we have disturbing hagiographical examples of pre-ensoulment abortions being wrought by Irish Saints. I think that I wrote a little about this in a previous thread… let me find the post…
It is mentioned on one of EWTN’s sites where the revelation is attributed to Our Lady and not to Our Lord (which was what I understood.) Maybe someone here has access to the actual words of the revelation?
It is mentioned on one of EWTN’s sites where the revelation is attributed to Our Lady and not to Our Lord (which was what I understood.) Maybe someone here has access to the actual words of the revelation?
Sounds like the best we can say is that St. Thomas may have been undecided on the issue.
You asked:
You asked why there is, at present, no full Communion. The answer is obvious to someone who doesn’t have an agenda of trying to make fellow posters look like idiots.
The problem, Father Ambrose, is that your sources were not cited, so I cannot check up on their veracity. The early Irish saints have a lot of weird stories; you ever heard of Saint Murgen the Mermaid?
Sacramentalist, The problem is yours. I believe you are projecting. Your very first post to me was abrasive and ended with the insulting words: “Get real.” So I looked at your other posts to other people on thr Forum here and saw that you were addressing them in the same confrontational way and some of them are protesting about it. Tone it down, my friend.
The point is not the weirdness of the stories but that the hagiographers narrated these early terminations of pregnancies approvingly. They saw no sin in what happened. They give evidence that the early belief about ensoulment occuring after conception was believed and acted on.
I have. She was baptized by St Comgall and her relics are said to be in the church of Teodebeoc in Ireland. There are ways of making sense of the extravagant elements of her vita, just as we do with the “dog-headed” Saint Christopher.
For Saint Kieran of Saigher please see Plummer’s Vitae Sanctorum Hiberniae and for Saint Brigid please see the *Triadis Thaumaturgae * (The Triad of Miracle-Workers) by John Colgan (early 16th century.) Saint Kenneth of Kilkenny (Aghaboe) -in Bethada Náem nÉrenn (Lives of the Saints of Ireland.)
My question would be what time period these hagiographers wrote their acounts; then we could evaluate around what time theological and philosophical currents were adopting Aristotle’s views on conception and animation.
What about my argument that, even by current Catholic/Orthodox standards these actions would not have been sinful? God is free to take life as He pleases no? And who are we to say that he cannot do this through His Saints?
Do they?