What is your objection to the Catholic doctrine of Indulgences?

[KathleenGee]

Blue Goat,

I do like philosophy but cannot call myself a student in it. I look at philosophy for its purpose – metaphysics – the study of reality.

Philosophy helps us discern truth from false through the use of reason… Reason is the bridge to science. Faith and science need to work hand in hand. Science needs a moral dimension that the Church can give because it is an institution and has different functions and sources to deal with interpreting the Word of God in light of today’s conditions for humankind.

You can study metaphysics from the point that God does not exist, as Aristotle’s cause and effect, or you can study metaphysics from the point that God does exist as the Unmoved Mover from Thomas Aquinas. He also stated that we can compare the knowledge of man as an eye of an owl next to the sun.

For me, witness of faith means more than debates. But debates serve a great purpose and help us eradicate erroneous ideas.

 

[grannymh]

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 each other 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

Unfortunately, my computer will not allow me to copy what I found on your link. At first glance, I spotted that the author seemed to say that Jesus took His humanity from the race of Adam. This may account for the different views of “fallen nature”.
Maybe one needs to look at Adam, himself, who was created in original holiness and justice. It seems that it is the first Adam that St. Paul refers to. This is my own speculation.

Earlier this AM, I did post 908 on thread “Many Adams and Eves?” in the Sacred Scripture Forum. I put in the following Catechism reference:

Below is the paragraph from the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition. Please note that according to Catechism instructions (CCC 20) the section which begins with “St. Paul” is considered an observation of an historical or apologetic nature or a supplementary doctrinal explanation.

CCC 359 “In reality it is only in the mystery of the Word made flesh that the mystery of man truly becomes clear.”
St. Paul tells us that the human race takes its origin from two men: Adam and Christ. . . The first man, Adam, he says, became a living soul, the last Adam a life-giving spirit. The first Adam was made by the last Adam, from whom he also received his soul, to give him life… The second Adam stamped his image on the first Adam when he created him. That is why he took on himself the role and the name of the first Adam, in order that he might not lose what he had made in his own image. The first Adam, the last Adam: the first had a beginning, the last knows no end. The last Adam is indeed the first; as he himself says: “I am the first and the last.” *

• footnote: St. Peter Chrysologus, Sermo 117; PL 52, 520-521

To gain a deeper understanding of the nature of Adam, please read Catechism paragraphs 355-421. One can put the word paragraph and the number in the Catechism’s search bar in link www.scborromeo.org/ccc.htm Entering topics such as Adam, etc., is also very useful.

Blessings,
granny

Come Holy Spirit

 

[grannymh]

Blue Goat,

I do like philosophy but cannot call myself a student in it. I look at philosophy for its purpose – metaphysics – the study of reality.

Philosophy helps us discern truth from false through the use of reason… Reason is the bridge to science. Faith and science need to work hand in hand. Science needs a moral dimension that the Church can give because it is an institution and has different functions and sources to deal with interpreting the Word of God in light of today’s conditions for humankind.

You can study metaphysics from the point that God does not exist, as Aristotle’s cause and effect, or you can study metaphysics from the point that God does exist as the Unmoved Mover from Thomas Aquinas. He also stated that we can compare the knowledge of man as an eye of an owl next to the sun.

For me, witness of faith means more than debates. But debates serve a great purpose and help us eradicate erroneous ideas.

This is a good explanation. Thank you.

 

[jimmy]

Unfortunately, my computer will not allow me to copy what I found on your link. At first glance, I spotted that the author seemed to say that Jesus took His humanity from the race of Adam. This may account for the different views of “fallen nature”.
Maybe one needs to look at Adam, himself, who was created in original holiness and justice. It seems that it is the first Adam that St. Paul refers to. This is my own speculation.

I don’t know if it is even possible to cut and paste from google books. The thesis of the author is that it is essential to Christian soteriology that Christ assumed the fallen human nature in all its sinfulness. In my signature is a short piece of a quote from Tertullian that the author quotes. I quoted this in another thread (can’t recall which one) earlier today. Here is a fuller quotation.
The famous Alexander,(8) too, instigated by his love of disputation in the true fashion of heretical temper, has made himself conspicuous against us; he will have us say that Christ put on flesh of an earthly origin,(9) in order that He might in His own person abolish sinful flesh.(10) Now, even if we did assert this as our opinion, we should be able to defend it in such a way as completely to avoid the extravagant folly which he ascribes to us in making us suppose that the very flesh of Christ was in Himself abolished as being sinful; because we mention our belief (in public),(11) that it is sitting at the right hand of the Father in heaven; and we further declare that it will come again from thence in all the pomp(12) of the Father’s glory: it is therefore just as impossible for us to say that it is abolished, as it is for us to maintain that it is sinful, and so made void, since in it there has been no fault. We maintain, moreover, that what has been abolished in Christ is not carnem peccati, “sinful flesh,” but peccatum carnis, “sin in the flesh,”–not the material thing, but its condition;(13) not the substance, but its flaw;(14) and (this we aver) on the authority of the apostle, who says, “He abolished sin in the flesh.”(15) Now in another sentence he says that Christ was “in the likeness of sinful flesh,”(16)not, however, as if He had taken on Him “the likeness of the flesh,” in the sense of a semblance of body instead of its reality; but he means us to understand likeness to the flesh which sinned,(17) because the flesh of Christ, which committed no sin itself, resembled that which had sinned,–resembled it in its nature, but not in the corruption it received from Adam; whence we also affirm that there was in Christ the same flesh as that whose nature in man is sinful. In the flesh, therefore, we say that sin has been abolished, because in Christ that same flesh is maintained without sin, which in than was not maintained without sin. Now, it would not contribute to the purpose of Christ’s abolishing sin in the flesh, if He did not abolish it in that flesh in which was the nature of sin, nor (would it conduce) to His glory. For surely it would have been no strange thing if He had removed the stain of sin in some better flesh, and one which should possess a different, even a sinless, nature! Then, you say, if He took our flesh, Christ’s was a sinful one. Do not, however, fetter with mystery a sense which is quite intelligible. For in putting on our flesh, He made it His own; in making it His own, He made it sinless. A word of caution, however, must be addressed to all who refuse to believe that our flesh was in Christ on the ground that it came not of the seed of a human father,(1) let them remember that Adam himself received this flesh of ours without the seed of a human father. As earth was converted into this flesh of ours without the seed of a human father, so also was it quite possible for the Son of God to take to Himself’ the substance of the selfsame flesh, without a human father’s agency.(3)

This passage asserts that the Word assumed sinful human flesh as His own, and in this very assumption there is a redemptive character. The assumption of sinful flesh brings it into communion with the divine nature. Through the life, death and resurrection of Christ human nature is healed in him.

 

[steve_b]

Then we are all still in our sins because Jesus wasn’t consubstantial with us.

You’re not understanding the incarnation. Jesus was NOT incarnated in a fallen state. Anymore than Adam was created in a fallen state. Jesus was incarnated perfect and remained perfect. THAT’s what Adam should have done. Jesus did it and because He is God He can transmit THAT perfection to ALL humanity. He restored creation as it was intended BEFORE the fall.

Remember Jesus saying, be perfect as my heavenly Father is perfect?
j:

He was consubstantial with some imaginary humanity that had no connection with us.

Jesus ushered in a new creation. The new Adam, Not the old, who could pass on to all creation, not the sin and rebellion of the old Adam. He took on human nature BEFORE the fall. A nature that He kept perfect as it was originally designed.
j:

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

Likeness ≠ exact

The fact Jesus was like us in all things but sin automatically makes HIM different than us.
Don’t you see that?

I don’t have time to read the book you listed. So I won’t comment on the book or the author. But I read some of the book. I refer to what the author says in Chapter 3 Jesus humanity: in Patristic Christology. The author brings up Irenaeus and said as follows. "Irenaeus argues that Jesus in his humanity"summed up" and embodied all the sinful generations since Adam so that He might redeem every generation12"

Here’s the text he quotes from Irenaeus

12 Irenaeus Against Heresies Bk 3, Ch 21, paragraph 10

1. For as by one man’s disobedience sin entered, and death obtained [a place] through sin; so also by the obedience of one man, righteousness having been introduced, shall cause life to fructify in those persons who in times past were dead. Romans 5:19 And as the protoplast himself Adam, had his substance from untilled and as yet virgin soil (for God had not yet sent rain, and man had not tilled the ground Genesis 2:5, and was formed by the hand of God, that is, by the Word of God, for all things were made by Him, John 1:3 and the Lord took dust from the earth and formed man; so did He who is the Word, recapitulating Adam in Himself, rightly receive a birth, enabling Him to gather up Adam [into Himself], from Mary, who was as yet a virgin. If, then, the first Adam had a man for his father, and was born of human seed, it were reasonable to say that the second Adam was begotten of Joseph. But if the former was taken from the dust, and God was his Maker, it was incumbent that the latter also, making a recapitulation in Himself, should be formed as man by God, to have an analogy with the former as respects His origin. Why, then, did not God again take dust, but wrought so that the formation should be made of Mary? It was that there might not be another formation called into being, nor any other which should [require to] be saved, but that the very same formation should be summed up [in Christ as had existed in Adam], the analogy having been preserved.

Do you see what Irenaeus is saying? Jesus took on Adams nature with respect to his origin. And Jesus preserved that nature perfectly, free from ALL stain of sin and rebellion just as God created it.

 

[grannymh]

I don’t know if it is even possible to cut and paste from google books. The thesis of the author is that it is essential to Christian soteriology that Christ assumed the fallen human nature in all its sinfulness. In my signature is a short piece of a quote from Tertullian that the author quotes. I quoted this in another thread (can’t recall which one) earlier today. Here is a fuller quotation.
The famous Alexander,(8) too, instigated by his love of disputation in the true fashion of heretical temper, has made himself conspicuous against us; he will have us say that Christ put on flesh of an earthly origin,(9) in order that He might in His own person abolish sinful flesh.(10) Now, even if we did assert this as our opinion, we should be able to defend it in such a way as completely to avoid the extravagant folly which he ascribes to us in making us suppose that the very flesh of Christ was in Himself abolished as being sinful; because we mention our belief (in public),(11) that it is sitting at the right hand of the Father in heaven; and we further declare that it will come again from thence in all the pomp(12) of the Father’s glory: it is therefore just as impossible for us to say that it is abolished, as it is for us to maintain that it is sinful, and so made void, since in it there has been no fault. We maintain, moreover, that what has been abolished in Christ is not carnem peccati, “sinful flesh,” but peccatum carnis, “sin in the flesh,”–not the material thing, but its condition;(13) not the substance, but its flaw;(14) and (this we aver) on the authority of the apostle, who says, “He abolished sin in the flesh.”(15) Now in another sentence he says that Christ was “in the likeness of sinful flesh,”(16)not, however, as if He had taken on Him “the likeness of the flesh,” in the sense of a semblance of body instead of its reality; but he means us to understand likeness to the flesh which sinned,(17) because the flesh of Christ, which committed no sin itself, resembled that which had sinned,–resembled it in its nature, but not in the corruption it received from Adam; whence we also affirm that there was in Christ the same flesh as that whose nature in man is sinful. In the flesh, therefore, we say that sin has been abolished, because in Christ that same flesh is maintained without sin, which in than was not maintained without sin. Now, it would not contribute to the purpose of Christ’s abolishing sin in the flesh, if He did not abolish it in that flesh in which was the nature of sin, nor (would it conduce) to His glory. For surely it would have been no strange thing if He had removed the stain of sin in some better flesh, and one which should possess a different, even a sinless, nature! Then, you say, if He took our flesh, Christ’s was a sinful one. Do not, however, fetter with mystery a sense which is quite intelligible. For in putting on our flesh, He made it His own; in making it His own, He made it sinless. A word of caution, however, must be addressed to all who refuse to believe that our flesh was in Christ on the ground that it came not of the seed of a human father,(1) let them remember that Adam himself received this flesh of ours without the seed of a human father. As earth was converted into this flesh of ours without the seed of a human father, so also was it quite possible for the Son of God to take to Himself’ the substance of the selfsame flesh, without a human father’s agency.(3)

This passage asserts that the Word assumed sinful human flesh as His own, and in this very assumption there is a redemptive character. The assumption of sinful flesh brings it into communion with the divine nature. Through the life, death and resurrection of Christ human nature is healed in him.

On first reading, I am seeing something new. Perhaps a metaphysical approach? In that possibility, one usually defines human nature as spirit/matter, rational/corporeal, soul/body. Both spirit and matter are neutral in that they by their nature are not sin. By the way is that Tertullian in his Catholic period?

Even Original Sin did not completely change original human nature. It wounded the original human nature or as some say, human nature became flawed. Original Sin is a deprived state not something which blood flows through. Neither is personal sin hooked up to the heart.

By putting on our nature of soul/body, Christ made it His own. The difference is that Christ freely chose not to sin. See “temptation in the desert”. This passage clearly shows that the human nature of Christ was exactly like ours in that it is vulnerable to temptation and sin. By not sinning, Christ raised up our human nature to the level of Adam’s original holiness. Christ, as Creator, could take on the sins of the world without Himself sinning. As Creator, He was not bound by our sins. Please refer to post 400 above.

I have gone about as far as I can on this topic. Just thinking about what Christ actually did amazes me. I hope I can give Christ all the gratitude He deserves.

Blessings,
granny

John 3: 16&17

 

[Bluegoat]

Got you. I am pre-pre Vatican II.

I wasn’t thinking of Vatican II necessarily.

 

[KathleenGee]

I found the paper from the Franciscans…the ones who believed in Mary’s immaculate conception when the other areas of the Church did not.

This is the info I got from the Franciscans…and I see them now as the link between the Latins and the Orthodox…

There is the spirituality of the Ascent that has been in place for 1,000 years…laws, rules, commandments are performance based. Steeped in sin, guilt, penance, body vs soul. Laws, rules commandments, rituals and devotions are aimed at me and God. Who is right, who is wrong.

But mature faith calls us to transform the 2nd half, or descent…

The Western Latin Fathers: St. Augustine, Original Sin, St. Anselm, Doctrine of Atonement…Dominican Tradition, Thomas Aquinas, Sin and atonement centered, Jesus as expiation of sin…performance based…Primary Catholic Theology, Pope Leo XIII, Juridical, Path of Ascent.

Then there is the Cappodocians – the Greek Fathers…Athanasius, Basil the Great, Gregory of Nyssa, Gregory Nazianzus…(Funny, I draw on their documents…) and the Franciscan Tradition …Francis and Clare, Bonaventure and Scotus, Love-centered, Jesus–blueprint of creation…Only God is worthy vs the prior work at worthiness, from performance based to Love and gifted based, from Primary Catholic Theology to Alternate Catholic Theology, from juridical, Path of Ascent to relational, Path of Descent…the focus not so much on God and me, but descending down to the feet of Christ to wash His feet as a servant…but Christ present in our neighbor…

 

[KathleenGee]

Both juridical and relational are necessary for balance in the spiritual life…penance, indulgences, … but in the spirit of joy and service…and yet there is such great merit of Christ in the Mass…for the remission of sins…

 

[steve_b]

The Orthodox do not believe in “original sin” properly so called, so they have no problem saying that Our Lady was sinless while also saying that she came into the world suffering from the effects of the Fall.

If she came into the world suffering from the effect of the fall, i.e. a fallen nature, she would have passed a fallen nature onto Jesus. And THAT didn’t happen.

Therefore, Mary was sinless from her conception.
C:

You don’t give a source for this. The source appears to be This Rock,

True. It was from This Rock.
C:

and the position described is, if I’m not mistaken, one possible interpretation of the Catholic view. Of course, the question is, “what do we mean by privation of grace and loss of innocence”? I think the Orthodox would say that this is still looking at the matter in too juridical a way. But I need to study this more.

I think that is described in the following passages .

From the CCC

**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.

**405 **Although it is proper to each individual, original sin does not have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam’s descendants. It is a deprivation of original holiness and justice, but human nature has not been totally corrupted: it is wounded in the natural powers proper to it, subject to ignorance, suffering and the dominion of death, and inclined to sin - an inclination to evil that is called concupiscence". Baptism, by imparting the life of Christ’s grace, erases original sin and turns a man back towards God, but the consequences for nature, weakened and inclined to evil, persist in man and summon him to spiritual battle.

Jesus didn’t receive a fallen nature from Mary. Therefore, Jesus preserved Mary in advance, (from her conception), of all sin and consequences of sin.

 

[KathleenGee]

#405 answers some reservations I had about original sin…that came from just living…it explains it clearly.

And that Mary had no fallen nature to pass on to Christ…

Thanks, Steve!

 

[grannymh]

Basic Catholic teaching **regarding Adam and Original Sin with its consequences **
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 the word paragraph and the number in the Catechism’s search bar in link www.scborromeo.org/ccc.htm Entering topics is also very useful.