Still don’t understand Original Sin

[1Lord1Faith]

Those links certainly attempted to define Original sin and it’s reason for existing. But the answers just don’t make any sense when I examine them closely.

The first CA article you linked to is practically unintelligible.

On the second link, one of last callers on the CA call in show had a couple of interesting insights to the story of Adam and Eve, but Fr. Sebastian just kind of blew him off.

 

[Zynxensar]

I don’t completely understand myself, but I think the Catechism has a section on it.

 

[Lee1]

From the catechism
389 The doctrine of original sin is, so to speak, the “reverse side” of the Good News that Jesus is the Savior of all men, that all need salvation and that salvation is offered to all through Christ. The Church, which has the mind of Christ,263 knows very well that we cannot tamper with the revelation of original sin without undermining the mystery of Christ.

There is more but perhaps you should read it. I have also read that the idea of original sin was first developed in the 2nd century by the Bishop of Lyon.

Clearly the concept of original sin is a far more complex one than I had imagined.

 

[CelticWarlord]

I have trouble with this one too. Bishop Barron offers an excellent view;

 

[TULIPed]

#patientzero

 

[ratio1]

if Jesus’ sacrifice is the reverse side of Original sin, then why is baptism required to wash away Original sin? And why are those who are unbaptized able to get into heaven?..where is my disconnect on that one?

I’m not an expert on original sin so I’m also trying to learn in this thread.

But my answers to the above questions are:
Baptism works because of Jesus sacrifice.
Baptism by desire works also is because of Jesus sacrifice.

 

[hergratefulchild]

Baptism doesn’t wash away the stain if original sin

 

[1Lord1Faith]

I don’t know what you mean by “stain”, but original sin doesn’t remain after baptism.

 

[hergratefulchild]

Stain is the mark left by original sin

 

[Reuben_J]

It still doesn’t make sense to me. Any takers?

When I was a kid, my Catechism teacher taught us it is a sin we inherit from Adam. There was no explanation to it. This sin can only be washed away by the Sacrament of Baptism. That is why we need to be baptized, which makes us a new person without the original sin.

Today there are many explanation as to what it is but ones I can never understand fully. Besides, there is always question marks to those explanations.

 

[Vico]

I don’t know what you mean by “stain”, but original sin doesn’t remain after baptism.

The stain of original sin is that we are not conceived with sanctifying grace, except for the Blessed Virgin who was immaculately conceived.

Original sin “is grave in the sense that it debars a person from the beatific vision, but not grave in condemning one to hell; and it is natural only in that all human nature, except for divine intervention, has it and can have it removed only by supernatural means.” – Modern Catholic Dictionary

Catechism

1263 By Baptism all sins are forgiven, original sin and all personal sins, as well as all punishment for sin. …
1258 The Church has always held the firm conviction that those who suffer death for the sake of the faith without having received Baptism are baptized by their death for and with Christ. This Baptism of blood , like the desire for Baptism , brings about the fruits of Baptism without being a sacrament.
1259 For catechumens who die before their Baptism, their explicit desire to receive it, together with repentance for their sins, and charity, assures them the salvation that they were not able to receive through the sacrament.
1260 "Since Christ died for all, and since all men are in fact called to one and the same destiny, which is divine, we must hold that the Holy Spirit offers to all the possibility of being made partakers, in a way known to God, of the Paschal mystery."63 Every man who is ignorant of the Gospel of Christ and of his Church, but seeks the truth and does the will of God in accordance with his understanding of it, can be saved. It may be supposed that such persons would have desired Baptism explicitly if they had known its necessity.
1261 As regards children who have died without Baptism , the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them …

 

[1Lord1Faith]

You’ve just replaced the word stain with the word mark. If you could, please explain what the nature of this mark, or stain, is?

 

[TULIPed]

Romans - especially the first few chapters - is a good place to start an investigation of sin and its universality I should think.

 

[1Lord1Faith]

The stain of original sin is that we are not conceived with sanctifying grace, except for the Blessed Virgin who was immaculately conceived.

The baptized receives sanctifying grace. I suppose you mean to say that the stain of original sin is concupiscence?

 

[Vico]

Vico:

The stain of original sin is that we are not conceived with sanctifying grace, except for the Blessed Virgin who was immaculately conceived.

The baptized receives sanctifying grace. I suppose you mean to say that the stain of original sin is concupiscence?

Baptism removes the stain or original sin. Original sin and concupiscence are not one and the same thing, as was held by the early Protestants (see the Council of Trent, Sess. V, can. v). Concupiscence which remains is not really and properly sin.

Catechism

1263 By Baptism all sins are forgiven, original sin and all personal sins, as well as all punishment for sin.66 In those who have been reborn nothing remains that would impede their entry into the Kingdom of God, neither Adam’s sin, nor personal sin, nor the consequences of sin, the gravest of which is separation from God.

1264 Yet certain temporal consequences of sin remain in the baptized, such as suffering, illness, death, and such frailties inherent in life as weaknesses of character, and so on, as well as an inclination to sin that Tradition calls concupiscence, or metaphorically, “the tinder for sin” (fomes peccati); since concupiscence "is left for us to wrestle with, it cannot harm those who do not consent but manfully resist it by the grace of Jesus Christ."67 Indeed, "an athlete is not crowned unless he competes according to the rules."68

 

[semper_catholicus]

Original sin is the effect of our original parents’ first sin. That is how it was transmitted to us. It’s like a punishment for their sin.

 

[thedweh]

Original sin is not something that the earliest christians believed, they had no concept of it. It was a dogma that was developed in later centuries. That’s one of the reasons that the Church of Jesus Christ of latter day saints does not believe in it.
2nd article of faith: We believe that men will be punished only for their own sins and not for Adam’s transgression.

 

[1Lord1Faith]

Original sin is the effect of our original parents’ first sin.

What first sin? What original parent? As I said up thread, an allegorical reading of Genesis’s first few chapters does not fit with the way the Church teaches original sin. To me, there isn’t any harmony there between those two teachings.

That is how it was transmitted to us.

How is it transmitted?

It’s like a punishment for their sin.

I do know that the Church does not teach that original sin is a punishment.

 

[semper_catholicus]

Adam and Eve were the first parents, their first sin was eating of the forbidden fruit from the knowledge of the tree of good and evil, and by that act they lost all the preternatural gifts as well as the state of sanctifying grace. When they procreated, their kids inhereted that sad state. I’m really not competent enough to tell you the how’s and whys yet, but I might do some research.

Do you deny original sin? or do you just not understand it and want an explanation?

 

[1Lord1Faith]

Do you deny original sin? or do you just not understand it and want an explanation?

Do you think a person can truly deny something that they don’t understand? I think that a person could outwardly deny something they don’t understand, but depending on the motivations for such an action, an interior reservation for the truth can remain.

I’ve thrown out questions in this thread about original sin. Some of the answers the Church provides, and posters have so generously relayed here, to the more general questions don’t make sense to me.