What is your objection to the Catholic doctrine of Indulgences?

[steve_b]

Now that is one of the major problems with the western concept of OS. It is our nature in all its fallenness that Christ assumed.

Nope! He was like us in all things but sin.
j:

You have turned God’s creation into an evil.

You yourself said, a person can’t enter heaven in this state inherited from Adam. WHY?
j:

Essentially you have said that human nature is naturally evil, unless it has a superadded Grace.

Our nature is prone to sin. Is sin evil?
j:

What would you say that Christ recieved from Mary that makes him consubstantial with us?

Since A&E didn’t stay sinless, They can only pass on what they have. Which now ,is a fallen nature, weak, prone to ignorance, and prone to sin.

As scripture says, Jesus is like us in all but sin. A huge distinction!
j:

The very concept of the Incarnation is that God did recieve the fallen nature as His own.

He was without sin, therefore, He didn’t receive a fallen nature.
j:

To tell the truth, you sound like a Eutychian monophysite. Eutyches said that the human nature of Christ was descended from heaven.

[snip]

**467 **the fourth ecumenical council, at Chalcedon in 451, confessed:

Following the holy Fathers, we unanimously teach and confess one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ: the same perfect in divinity and perfect in humanity, the same truly God and truly man, composed of rational soul and body; consubstantial with the Father as to his divinity and consubstantial with us as to his humanity; “like us in all things but sin”. He was begotten from the Father before all ages as to his divinity and in these last days, for us and for our salvation, was born as to his humanity of the virgin Mary, the Mother of God.

**654 **The Paschal mystery has two aspects: by his death, Christ liberates us from sin; by his Resurrection, he opens for us the way to a new life. This new life is above all justification that reinstates us in God’s grace, “so that as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life.” Justification consists in both victory over the death caused by sin and a new participation in grace. It brings about filial adoption so that men become Christ’s brethren, as Jesus himself called his disciples after his Resurrection: “Go and tell my brethren.” We are brethren not by nature, but by the gift of grace, because that adoptive filiation gains us a real share in the life of the only Son, which was fully revealed in his Resurrection.
j:

The Byzantines don’t even speak of the fall in relation to heaven. They speak of it in relation to deification and death.

If you can’t be deified then you don’t go to heaven by definition…true? Seems you’re trying to create a distinction without a difference.
j:

The fall caused death and the loss of deification.

ergo loss of heaven…true?

BTW, If you can’t go to heaven where do you go?
j:

It didn’t condemn man to eternal hell, and there is no reference to the loss of heaven.

Did I say you did? No. Weren’t you speaking about the EO when I quoted you? Weren’t we talking about EO views? Am I sensing those weren’t EO views but your own?
j:

Heaven isn’t even an issue at the time of Adam. They do not say that fallenman ‘is not a friend of God’s’. That is specifically a western statement. After all, Moses was a friend of God’s and spoke to Him face to face.

Did Adam and Moses go to heaven when they died? No! If they died in friendship with God why couldn’t they go to heaven when they died?

Did Jesus call everybody friend? Nope! Is Jesus God? Yes!
j:

They have no problem defending it because they have no tendency to fatalism as the west does.

This isn’t about fatalism. It’s about defense of a belief. Catholics can defend our beliefs.
j:

I have to admit that my last post may have been a little misrepresentative of the western view of Grace. I hadn’t considered prevenient Grace.

We all have things to learn.

 

[grannymh]

Thanks, Granny, I know that there are Early Church Fathers in the beginning of the development of dogma in the Church whose teachings could stand their ground and were accepted by the authority in Rome and the communion of bishops – who represent all faithful believers in the One, True Lord.

I am seeking the reference from Steve B that states Original Sin and the works of Thomas and Augustine are not completely defined dogma…because there is possibly a movement that will create a bridge of understanding on this entire issue that will help resolve the fracture between the Latin and Orthodox churches…that is what I am seeking.

Thanks again and comply with all your directives!

The works of Thomas and Augustine would not be considered defined dogma per se.

Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition, paragraph 66 contains an interesting explanation regarding dogma development. “Yet even if Revelation is already complete, it has not been made completely explicit; it remains for Christian faith gradually to grasp its full significance over the course of the centuries.”

Thomas and Augustine were among those chosen by the Holy Spirit to be part of the process of making Revelation more explicit. Every word of their struggle cannot be considered dogma. Yet, it is their contribution which eventually brought about dogma development and definition. Praise God!

Blessings,
granny

Come Holy Spirit.

 

[grannymh]

When I was writing that Origen occured to me as a possibility instead of Eutyches. From what I have heard of Origens theology he believed that in the beginning there were many logoi in communion with God. Upon the fall many (not all) of these logoi fell and became human (some fell even further). The Incarnation for him is that God took one of the logoi that was not fallen and assumed it to himself and took a human body. There seems to be some serious problems with this.

It seems that you are right. It is as if there is this idealized human type in heaven. It isn’t the humanity that is here on earth, but it is the ideal. This is very similar to platonism.

And I don’t think that the west has to fall into this view. Thomas Weinandy wrote a book called In the Likeness of Sinfull Flesh that defends that Christ took the fallen humanity as his own. The author is a western Catholic priest.

Christ is like us in all things but sin.

 

[steve_b]

Thanks, Granny, I know that there are Early Church Fathers in the beginning of the development of dogma in the Church whose teachings could stand their ground and were accepted by the authority in Rome and the communion of bishops – who represent all faithful believers in the One, True Lord.

I am seeking the reference from Steve B that states Original Sin and the works of Thomas and Augustine are not completely defined dogma…because there is possibly a movement that will create a bridge of understanding on this entire issue that will help resolve the fracture between the Latin and Orthodox churches…that is what I am seeking.

Thanks again and comply with all your directives!

Kathleen,

I think you misunderstood.

I said the IC wasn’t defined by the Church at the time of Aquinas. I only drew comparisons between Aquinas and Augustine in their similar disposition. They were both obedient to the Church vs absolutizing their own views.

 

[jimmy]

Nope! He was like us in all things but sin.

That is the problem the east has with the western definition of OS, you declare that all are guilty of the sin of one man.

You yourself said, a person can’t enter heaven in this state inherited from Adam. WHY?

No I didn’t, you said that.

Our nature is prone to sin. Is sin evil?

No it isn’t, nature is naturally directed toward God. We may be weakened by the fall and by our own sins, but that doesn’t make our nature any more evil. Human nature is good, and it is naturally directed toward God.

Since A&E didn’t stay sinless, They can only pass on what they have. Which now ,is a fallen nature, weak, prone to ignorance, and prone to sin.

As scripture says, Jesus is like us in all but sin. A huge distinction!

What YOU’RE seeming to argue is, Jesus is like us in all including sin.

No I am not arguing anything like that. You are arguing that man is naturally evil. Human nature is evil within your perception. I am arguing that OS is not properly sin at all, except in the sense that it refers to Adam himself. In reference to the fallen state of man it is the effects of the sin of Adam.

He was without sin, therefore, He didn’t receive a fallen nature.

Again, this is the problem the east sees in the western idea of OS. You assume personal sin whereas the eastern perception of OS isn’t even really sin at all but the effects of the sin of Adam.

**
**
**467 **the fourth ecumenical council, at Chalcedon in 451, confessed:

Following the holy Fathers, we unanimously teach and confess one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ: the same perfect in divinity and perfect in humanity, the same truly God and truly man, composed of rational soul and body; consubstantial with the Father as to his divinity and consubstantial with us as to his humanity; “like us in all things but sin”. He was begotten from the Father before all ages as to his divinity and in these last days, for us and for our salvation, was born as to his humanity of the virgin Mary, the Mother of God.

**654 **The Paschal mystery has two aspects: by his death, Christ liberates us from sin; by his Resurrection, he opens for us the way to a new life. This new life is above all justification that reinstates us in God’s grace, “so that as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life.” Justification consists in both victory over the death caused by sin and a new participation in grace. It brings about filial adoption so that men become Christ’s brethren, as Jesus himself called his disciples after his Resurrection: “Go and tell my brethren.” We are brethren not by nature, but by the gift of grace, because that adoptive filiation gains us a real share in the life of the only Son, which was fully revealed in his Resurrection.

---

Its good that you profess this, but what does it mean that Jesus was consubstantial with us? Why was it necessary that Jesus recieve His flesh from the line of Adam and not directly from God?

If you can’t be deified then you don’t go to heaven by definition…true? Seems you’re trying to create a distinction without a difference.

No, they are not saying the same thing. But I don’t even remember why we are arguing this point. Either way it doesn’t say anything about whether man is a friend of God or not. And it certainly doesn’t speak about man in a way that implies that “God wouldn’t take His flesh from this source”.

ergo loss of heaven…true?

BTW, If you can’t go to heaven where do you go?

Limbo Patrum or Sheole.

Did I say you did? No. Weren’t you speaking about the EO when I quoted you? Weren’t we talking about EO views? Am I sensing those weren’t EO views but your own?

Read my post as it is written, not one sentence at a time. What you have quoted is part of a whole paragraph.

I am going to cut it off here. The way you post makes it difficult for me to respond. Responding to every sentence as if it is its own paragraph doesn’t help.

 

[grannymh]

I don’t want to challenge your faith or anyone elses. I just want to balance out the western view with the eastern view. It seems at times that the western view is assumed to be the official view, and anything else is heresy.

Your quote is common to many of the Church Fathers. Sts. Irenaeus, Athanasius, Augustine, Cyril, Maximus and many others used the phrase ‘God became man so that man might become God’ or some derivation of it.

This thought is entirely out of the blue so I have no way to verify it. Wouldn’t the phrase “God became man so that man might become God” be possibly derived from man created “in the image of God.” CCC 356 points out that the human person alone is called to share in God’s own life by knowledge and love. In my humble opinion, knowledge and love refer to the faculties of the spiritual soul, that of intellect and will. Because CCC 355 says that man in his own nature unites the spiritual and material, one can understand that man has the capability of sharing in the life of the Supreme Spiritual Being.

When Adam lost his state of original holiness, that is sharing in the life of God, he was no longer on the spiritual level needed to atone or reconcile with God. That is why the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity assumed human nature in order to raise it up to the level of God.

Blessings,
granny

Link to the Catechism of the Catholic Church
scborromeo.org/ccc.htm

 

[grannymh]

That is the problem the east has with the western definition of OS, you declare that all are guilty of the sin of one man.

It takes me so long to write a reply, that I often feel like I have been run over by a train of posts. I will work on your interesting post 378 when I return from a short trip.

In the meantime, a red flag went up about all being guilty of the sin of one man. That is not Catholic teaching.

I agree with you when you said:

No I am not arguing anything like that. You are arguing that man is naturally evil. Human nature is evil within your perception. I am arguing that OS is not properly sin at all, except in the sense that it refers to Adam himself. In reference to the fallen state of man it is the effects of the sin of Adam.

I am backing you up with the Catechism.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition is very clear that Original Sin is called “sin” only in an analogical sense. In us, it is a sin “contracted” and not “committed” – a state and not an act. Only Adam bears the guilt of Original Sin. However, as one body of one man, we are implicated in Adam’s sin just as all of us are implicated in Christ’s justice.

As a state deprived of original holiness, Original Sin is proper to each individual. But, this state does not have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam’s descendents. Please see CCC paragraphs 402-409. (The Catechism’s use of the word proper seems different than your use above; but I am not sure of a better descriptive word.)

Can a person enter heaven in this deprived state? What about people who…?
I usually refer the person to CCC paragraphs 1257 - 1261 on the necessity of Baptism. These are the most important concepts.

“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.”

Who are we to underestimate the power of God? Can we really limit the Holy Spirit? The last sentence in paragraph 1257 says it all. “God has bound salvation to the Sacrament of Baptism, but He Himself is not bound by His Sacraments.”

Blessings,
granny

Come Holy Spirit.

 

[Bluegoat]

The Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition is very clear that Original Sin is called “sin” only in an analogical sense. In us, it is a sin “contracted” and not “committed” – a state and not an act. Only Adam bears the guilt of Original Sin. However, as one body of one man, we are implicated in Adam’s sin just as all of us are implicated in Christ’s justice.

Perhaps someone more learned can comment, but it seems to me that this is a real departure from what the CC used to say about Original Sin. I’m also not sure what it is really supposed to mean, but that is another issue.

 

[steve_b]

That is the problem the east has with the western definition of OS, you declare that all are guilty of the sin of one man.

Didn’t Paul say something similar?

**402 **All men are implicated in Adam’s sin, as St. Paul affirms: “By one man’s disobedience many (that is, all men) were made sinners”: “sin came into the world through one man and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all men sinned.” The Apostle contrasts the universality of sin and death with the universality of salvation in Christ. “Then as one man’s trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one man’s act of righteousness leads to acquittal and life for all men.”

I didn’t say guilty. I’ll address that down the page.
j:

Human nature is good, and it is naturally directed toward God.

On it’s own or after grace is infused?
j:

No I am not arguing anything like that. You are arguing that man is naturally evil.

I quoted the Church which says man is prone to sin because of OS.
j:

Human nature is evil within your perception. I am arguing that OS is not properly sin at all, except in the sense that it refers to Adam himself. In reference to the fallen state of man it is the effects of the sin of Adam.

I said human nature is prone to sin. Since all sin is evil, and all have committed sin, all have committed evil. True or false?

**404 **How did the sin of Adam become the sin of all his descendants? The whole human race is in Adam “as one body of one man”.By this “unity of the human race” all men are implicated in Adam’s sin, as all are implicated in Christ’s justice. Still, the transmission of original sin is a mystery that we cannot fully understand. But we do know by Revelation that Adam had received original holiness and justice not for himself alone, but for all human nature. By yielding to the tempter, Adam and Eve committed a personal sin, but this sin affected the human nature that they would then transmit in a fallen state. It is a sin which will be transmitted by propagation to all mankind, that is, by the transmission of a human nature deprived of original holiness and justice. And that is why original sin is called “sin” only in an analogical sense: it is a sin “contracted” and not “committed” - a state and not an act.
j:

Again, this is the problem the east sees in the western idea of OS. You assume personal sin whereas the eastern perception of OS isn’t even really sin at all but the effects of the sin of Adam.

jimmy, the definition above from the CCC gives the CC position. No one in the East has an excuse to misrepresent CC positions. But I can tell you, Catholics spend far too much time correcting disinformation from EO as well as Protestants, and other non Catholics, about what we believe.
j:

Its good that you profess this, but what does it mean that Jesus was consubstantial with us? Why was it necessary that Jesus recieve His flesh from the line of Adam and not directly from God?

Jesus did perfectly what Adam should have done. Obey perfectly till the end. And because He’s God, His actions have eternal effects.
j:

No, they are not saying the same thing. But I don’t even remember why we are arguing this point. Either way it doesn’t say anything about whether man is a friend of God or not. And it certainly doesn’t speak about man in a way that implies that “God wouldn’t take His flesh from this source”.

Jesus did NOT take on fallen nature. That was the point.
j:

Read my post as it is written, not one sentence at a time. What you have quoted is part of a whole paragraph.

I am going to cut it off here. The way you post makes it difficult for me to respond. Responding to every sentence as if it is its own paragraph doesn’t help.

I only took apart the sentences that had misinformation.

 

[Hesychios]

As you describe it here, it seems like the Western view is rather neoplatonic.

Some have credited blessed Augustine of Hippo with initiating the trend of Platonism/neo-Platonism in the west, at least when reading books on philosophy it sometimes gets a mention.

Another significant neo-Platonic figure (whose works were very popular in the east as well), was pseudo-Dionysius (a man who may have actually been a Monophysite). His writings were circulating widely in western Europe in the Scholastic period during the Middle Ages and a big source for saint Thomas Aquinas (cited many times).

 

[KathleenGee]

Granny, thanks…I am not dissenting, still learning and clarifiying…I am not opposing either Augustine or Thomas but am aware of both of their own humanity…

But yes, I would say I need clarification because in general the Rome and the communion of bishops, representing the Church define dogma…doctrine is completed with the full revelation of Jesus Christ defined in Nicene Creed…and it was early church fathers whose teachings by some could stand alone and be accepted by the administration of the Church…comprehend significance of Aquinas and Augustine…

But there is a new world here opening up for me with the Byzantines…especially since the Franciscans are actually under more the spirituality of the east…rather they seem to be at the center between East and West…not promoting Franciscan spirituality here either…

And how everything can circle back to indulgences…

SteveB…no problem… I am really just reflecting and studying the posts here and wonder if there is a ‘bridge’ out there between the two churches…

Be interesting to see a flow chart according to a time line of both churches and how they interconnect…

 

[Bluegoat]

Some have credited blessed Augustine of Hippo with initiating the trend of Platonism/neo-Platonism in the west, at least when reading books on philosophy it sometimes gets a mention.

Another significant neo-Platonic figure (whose works were very popular in the east as well), was pseudo-Dionysius (a man who may have actually been a Monophysite). His writings were circulating widely in western Europe in the Scholastic period during the Middle Ages and a big source for saint Thomas Aquinas (cited many times).

Yes, I’ve read some of Augustine, I took classes on The Confessions and on the City of God in university. I don’t think it is bad to be influenced by neoplatonism - it has a lot going for it in many ways. I hadn’t particularly thought much about indulgences in that light though, I suppose since my Church doesn’t practice them.

I haven’t read the* Divine Names*, which I am a bit embarrassed about, but I read Eriugena’s *Periphyseon *which was influenced by it. It influenced my a lot when I first became a Christian. It was condemned though, so perhaps that is not a good thing?

 

[Hesychios]

I haven’t read the* Divine Names*, which I am a bit embarrassed about,

Well, here you go then.

Better than reading threads on the internet.

… but I read Eriugena’s *Periphyseon *which was influenced by it. It influenced my a lot when I first became a Christian. It was condemned though, so perhaps that is not a good thing?

I think there is no harm in becoming familiar with the literature. You have piqued my curiousity, I will now want to read it

People had to have known it for it to get the condemnation, and if the manuscript has survived for 1000 years it is a sure bet that very many people have read it over the centuries.

Study what the work was condemned for and see if you agree with the reasoning.

I personally do not like the idea that religion should borrow ideas from philosophy. For instance I am a big fan of Origin but some of what he wrote I have to recognize as Christian oriented fantasy, not a revelation of Christ through the Apostles.

Thus the apokatastasis, that universal dream and hope for salvation of all creation (as nice a thought as it is), is rooted in some very unChristian ideas about the pre-existence of the soul which come out of Platonic thought.

We might really like some of the stuff we read, it makes great sense to us and is attractive, but we can wind up just feeding our heads instead of our souls.

It seems from what I have read that Eriugena did not have access to the early non-Christian sources for these ideas, he ‘distilled’ them out from earlier Christian sources, who got them not from the Apostolic witness, but their classical training. That is derivative theology (my term).

I am a ‘strict constructionist’ as far as theology goes, probably much more-so than most other Orthodox actually. I tend to regard this kind of building up of religious ideas from one writer to the next, generation after generation, as a bit dangerous. It leads to excesses and some fantastic assumptions.

One has to recognize that it is OK to have a theological opinion about things that have never actually been revealed (something I have to occasionally remind myself), but that it is ultimately an intellectual exercise, not a spiritual one.

 

[grannymh]

Perhaps someone more learned can comment, but it seems to me that this is a real departure from what the CC used to say about Original Sin. I’m also not sure what it is really supposed to mean, but that is another issue.

Are you thinking about the reference to a “stain”? As I recall, Original Sin was seen more in relationship to salvation and opening the gates of heaven. To me, the Catechism is giving all the details. Maybe like an expansion more than a departure.

Blessings,
granny

Catholic teaching regarding Adam and Original Sin is found in the
Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition, ISBN: 1-57455-109-4
Paragraphs 355-421.

The good news of Jesus Christ follows in Paragraph 422, etc.

One can put paragraph numbers and topics . in the Catechism’s search bar in link www.scborromeo.org/ccc.htm

 

[grannymh]

Yes I believe God created human nature good.

I believe in purgatory in the sense that I believe that those who die are purified or deified or saved through the prayers of those on earth.

I am fine with you using Catholic, I realize what you mean.

I have been thinking about this tonight. It is my understanding that the doctrine is that purgatory exists. This is the important thing.

It seems to me that all the details lead to one thing – final union with God. Scripture talks about the wedding garment. It doesn’t mention if it had buttons, zippers, or a contrasting belt.

 

[grannymh]

Granny, thanks…I am not dissenting, still learning and clarifiying…I am not opposing either Augustine or Thomas but am aware of both of their own humanity…

But yes, I would say I need clarification because in general the Rome and the communion of bishops, representing the Church define dogma…doctrine is completed with the full revelation of Jesus Christ defined in Nicene Creed…and it was early church fathers whose teachings by some could stand alone and be accepted by the administration of the Church…comprehend significance of Aquinas and Augustine…

But there is a new world here opening up for me with the Byzantines…especially since the Franciscans are actually under more the spirituality of the east…rather they seem to be at the center between East and West…not promoting Franciscan spirituality here either…

And how everything can circle back to indulgences…

SteveB…no problem… I am really just reflecting and studying the posts here and wonder if there is a ‘bridge’ out there between the two churches…

Be interesting to see a flow chart according to a time line of both churches and how they interconnect…

I am learning too. It just happens that some of the items here were in some rather rough threads last year. Consequently, I had to check out some Catholic teachings.

 

[jimmy]

Jesus did NOT take on fallen nature. That was the point.

Then we are all still in our sins because Jesus wasn’t consubstantial with us. He was consubstantial with some imaginary humanity that had no connection with us.

I guess we are going to have to agree to disagree on this though because it seems that we won’t convince eachother on the issue, and I really don’t have the endurance to go much longer. I will just recommend this book by the Catholic theologian Fr. Thomas Weinandy.

In the Likeness of Sinful Flesh

 

[Bluegoat]

Are you thinking about the reference to a “stain”? As I recall, Original Sin was seen more in relationship to salvation and opening the gates of heaven. To me, the Catechism is giving all the details. Maybe like an expansion more than a departure.

Blessings,
granny

Catholic teaching regarding Adam and Original Sin is found in the
Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition, ISBN: 1-57455-109-4
Paragraphs 355-421.

The good news of Jesus Christ follows in Paragraph 422, etc.

One can put paragraph numbers and topics . in the Catechism’s search bar in link www.scborromeo.org/ccc.htm

Simply in that I think that it used to be taught that we carried the guilt for OS, for which we need to be forgiven, otherwise we would be condemned to Hell. None of this “just the effects” stuff.

 

[Bluegoat]

Well, here you go then.

Better than reading threads on the internet.
I think there is no harm in becoming familiar with the literature. You have piqued my curiousity, I will now want to read it

People had to have known it for it to get the condemnation, and if the manuscript has survived for 1000 years it is a sure bet that very many people have read it over the centuries.

Study what the work was condemned for and see if you agree with the reasoning.

I personally do not like the idea that religion should borrow ideas from philosophy. For instance I am a big fan of Origin but some of what he wrote I have to recognize as Christian oriented fantasy, not a revelation of Christ through the Apostles.

Thus the apokatastasis, that universal dream and hope for salvation of all creation (as nice a thought as it is), is rooted in some very unChristian ideas about the pre-existence of the soul which come out of Platonic thought.

We might really like some of the stuff we read, it makes great sense to us and is attractive, but we can wind up just feeding our heads instead of our souls.

It seems from what I have read that Eriugena did not have access to the early non-Christian sources for these ideas, he ‘distilled’ them out from earlier Christian sources, who got them not from the Apostolic witness, but their classical training. That is derivative theology (my term).

I am a ‘strict constructionist’ as far as theology goes, probably much more-so than most other Orthodox actually. I tend to regard this kind of building up of religious ideas from one writer to the next, generation after generation, as a bit dangerous. It leads to excesses and some fantastic assumptions.

One has to recognize that it is OK to have a theological opinion about things that have never actually been revealed (something I have to occasionally remind myself), but that it is ultimately an intellectual exercise, not a spiritual one.

Thanks for the link! I will have to get more ink - I don’t find I can read long texts on the computer very comfortably.

I didn’t realize until yesterday that the Periphysion had been condemned, so I don’t yet know much about why it was, though I can make some guesses. It is a beautiful book though - the whole argument is an unpacking of the first statement. When I read it it was no longer in print in English - my class had a hard time coming up with five English copies.

I also think that influence from non-Christian philosophy can lead to a kind of contamination. On the other hand, it is impossible to really extinguish it, not least because we have to use the philosophical language we have. Inventing something new from scratch simply isn’t possible. And also we are always going in some sense to be responding to the non-Christian philosophy that surrounds us, which forces us to address its ideas.

I find your comment of the building up of religious ideas interesting, it reminds me of something one of my professors said, which was progress in philosophy often came from one philosopher misunderstanding an earlier one. But we are lucky that with revealed religion we can to some extent always look back to something to compare and ground our thought. I think this is what the Protestant Reformers had in mind in making all theological speculation contingent on Scripture.

 

[grannymh]

Simply in that I think that it used to be taught that we carried the guilt for OS, for which we need to be forgiven, otherwise we would be condemned to Hell. None of this “just the effects” stuff.

Got you. I am pre-pre Vatican II.

The English which was used back then was not as clear as the current Catechism. Instead of “guilt” some areas used the word stain which is just as bad.
The idea was that somehow, what Adam did changed all humanity in that we were not automatically in God’s grace or in His friendship. People naturally connected the words “original sin” with the need to be forgiven. In the broad sense, forgiveness in the sense of being reconciled with God, was technically o.k. Next, we were taught that only Jesus, as true God and true man, could reconcile us to God.

“Open the Gates to Heaven” was a fair description. Only in the listener’s mind, there was this picture of a ragged beggar shivering in the cold outside those pearly gates. Or maybe I should say sweating in the heat with no prospect of entering the air-conditioned room on the other side of those pearly gates.

In other words, the basics of Original Sin became clouded and then eventually dropped from Catholic catechesis in some areas. Obviously, there was a need to restore and defend the Catholic doctrine of Original Sin on an universal basis. This was one of the intentions behind the* Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition*.

In addition, there is a relatively newer attack on Original Sin which comes under the form of “symbolism”. Again, Catholic armour is the universal Catechism.

Blessings,
granny

Human life is meant for eternal life with our Creator.