Born Into Mortal Sin?

[Fidei Defensor]

From the Baltimore Catechism

Q. 258. But how did the loss of the gift of original justice leave our first parents and us in mortal sin?

A. The loss of the gift of original justice left our first parents and us in mortal sin because it deprived them of the Grace of God, and to be without this gift of Grace which they should have had was to be in mortal sin. As all their children are deprived of the same gift, they, too, come into the world in a state of mortal sin.

 

If mortal sin requires intent, how can we be born into mortal sin?

[Basilisa Marie]

The Baltimore Catechism is icky. 

[Apotheoun]

I agree with St. John Chrysostom who said:  "Blessed be God, who alone does wonderful things! You have seen how numerous are the gifts of baptism. Although many men think that the only gift it confers is the remission of sins, we have counted its honors to the number of ten. It is on this account that we baptize even infants, although they are sinless, that they may be given the further gifts of sanctification, justice, filial adoption, and inheritance, that they may be brothers and members of Christ, and become dwelling places for the Spirit" [St. John Chrysostom, Third Baptismal Instruction, no. 6]. 

[add]

The doctrine of original sin is tied to the doctrine of original justice (iusitia originalis), which is also sometimes known as original righteousness or original grace.  Original sin is tied to original justice because it is the explanatory doctrine of how we lost original justice.  Original sin is also tied to Jesus Christ through whom we regain original justice, which is to say, salvation and eternal life in heaven.
 

[Fidei Defensor]

The doctrine of original sin is tied to the doctrine of original justice (iusitia originalis), which is also sometimes known as original righteousness or original grace.  Original sin is tied to original justice because it is the explanatory doctrine of how we lost original justice.  Original sin is also tied to Jesus Christ through whom we regain original justice, which is to say, salvation and eternal life in heaven.
 

 

I understand this much. However, how can one be in a state of mortal sin upon birth if one is incapable of sinful intent?

[Byzantine]

The Baltimore Catechism is icky. 

 

?

Didn't it have an imprimatur?

[Apotheoun]

Eastern Christians have never accepted the Late Medieval teaching of the Western Scholastics on "original justice," instead holding that Adam and Eve were created innocent with the potential to become just. After all, justice - like any virtue - requires willed effort in order to be actualized.  To put it another way there is no such thing as passive justice, i.e., a justice received but not lived through personal activity.

Edited January 2, 2013 by Apotheoun

[Basilisa Marie]

?

Didn't it have an imprimatur?

 

It can have an imprimatur and still be icky.  That just means it's free from error...but it still has to be read in it's proper context.  There are so many editions of the Baltimore Catechism that the name really refers to a group of books in a certain style, more than anything.  Some editors changed the order around, others added explanations of ambiguous wording...so really you can have two "Baltimore Catechisms" that both have imprimaturs but are two very different books.  The modern Baltimore Catechisms are generally pretty good, but unless you're quoting a specific edition (which tardis ad astra did not), there's no way of knowing if it's one that came out last year or in 1885.  Not only would there be a difference in preferred theological terminology, but development in our understanding of doctrine between then and now. 

 

Plus they were meant to teach the faith through memorization to a people who were absolutely saturated in strong Catholic culture. The fact is most people don't grow up in that culture anymore, and the fact that it's meant for memorization means that it generally lacks a lot of nuance so the wording can be awkward...hence this thread on why the heck it says we were born into mortal sin.  

 

To me it's a lot like digging out Pius X's motu proprio that said pianos were forbidden in liturgical music and saying "Ha! See! Your piano is evil!" (No, it's not, Pius didn't like it because it was an instrument that at the time was associated with frivolity and whatnot, and organs and chant were plentiful, plus he notes you can have permission from your bishop anyway) Why bother with awkward Baltimore Catechisms when we've got an excellent up-to-date Catechism of the Catholic Church?

Edited January 2, 2013 by Basilisa Marie

[Basilisa Marie]

But as far as the original question goes...

 

My theory is that what was meant was the state of being in mortal sin.  We transition into the state of mortal sin through freely, intentionally and gravely violating God's commandments.  In this case, "mortal sin" is just another way of describing the state of being separated from God.  It's lousy, confusing language. They should have just said "separated from God." 

 

So we start in a state of separation from God (aka "mortal sin"), we transition into a state of grace through baptism, transition back into a state of mortal sin through committing mortal sins, and transition back to a state of grace through confession.  

[Nihil Obstat]

I think the Baltimore Catechism is a handy tool, just like the current Catechism. Neither are perfect, nor comprehensive, nor were they ever intended to be.

That is what Denzinger is for. :hehe:

[add]

Eastern Christians have never accepted the Late Medieval teaching of the Western Scholastics on "original justice," instead holding that Adam and Eve were created innocent with the potential to become just. After all, justice - like any virtue - requires willed effort in order to be actualized. To put it another way there is no such thing as passive justice, i.e., a justice received but not lived through personal activity.

Edited January 2, 2013 by add

[add]

DP

Edited January 2, 2013 by add

[Anomaly]

You can't bs out of acknowledgeing that is what the Church has taught. Its fundamentally dishonest to claim a completely radical 're-interpretation of what was plainly stated.
Roman Catholics often box themselves into a corner when they attempt to justify infallibility in details of teachings.

[add]

 that Adam and Eve were created innocent with the potential to become just. After all, justice - like any virtue - requires willed effort in order to be actualized.

 

~ well, yes before the fall from Grace ~

[add]

Oddly enough, The Qur'an relates the story of Adam and his wife (curiously, it does not mention Eve by name) in various places and appears superficially similar to the narrative in Genesis.   However, it is clear that as traditionally interpreted it rejects the concept of original sin. 

 

The Qur'an places the first couple in Paradise.  God commands them not to eat of "this tree," but they are tempted and tricked by the Devil.  "So by deceit he brought about their fall: when they tasted of the tree, their shame became manifest to them, and they began to sew together the leaves of the garden over their bodies. And their Lord called unto them: 'Did I not forbid you that tree, and tell you that Satan was an avowed enemy unto you?'" (Qur'an 7:22).  They, and their progeny, are debarred from Paradise.  Importantly, Adam and Eve ask Allah for forgiveness, and they receive it, as "his Lord turned towards him, for he is oft-returning, most merciful." 

 

While the Qur’an narrative is similar to the narrative in Genesis, there is this significant theological difference.  Islam understands that the sin of Adam and his wife were personal to them alone.  Islam maintains that mankind is unaffected by the sin of Adam and his wife.  Accordingly, humans are born innocent, pure, and sufficiently free so that sin can be easily avoided by their own efforts. 

In Islam, theologically, Adam's fall means nothing.