Anomaly Posted January 2, 2013 Share Posted January 2, 2013 (edited) Tech snafu. Edited January 2, 2013 by Anomaly Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apotheoun Posted January 2, 2013 Share Posted January 2, 2013 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: I think that the Baltimore Catechism provides a simplistic and one-sided treatment of the nature of man before and after the fall. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apotheoun Posted January 2, 2013 Share Posted January 2, 2013 (edited) 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. Islamic teaching is right in denying that anyone can be born sinful, but where it fails to fully grasp the truth is in rejecting the fact that Adam's personal sin made himself, and all of his descendants, mortal. Edited January 2, 2013 by Apotheoun Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apotheoun Posted January 2, 2013 Share Posted January 2, 2013 You can't bs out of acknowledging that is what the Roman 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. I made a small correction to your post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
add Posted January 2, 2013 Share Posted January 2, 2013 Islamic teaching is right in denying that anyone can be born sinful, but where it fails to fully grasp the truth is in rejecting the fact that Adam's personal sin made himself, and all of his descendants, mortal. 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apotheoun Posted January 3, 2013 Share Posted January 3, 2013 (edited) 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. You have set forth the Western view of things, but the Eastern Church Fathers never taught that man was conceived or born sinful. The original sin made all human beings mortal, but no one is sinful from birth (see the homilies of St. John Chrysostom, St. Cyril of Alexandria, Theodore of Mopsuestia, Theodoret of Cyrus, St. Maximos the Confessor, St. Gregory Palamas, et al.). Moreover, I do not believe in the fanciful Scholastic notion of "original justice"; instead, I believe that Adam was created innocent with the potential to become just through virtuous activity. Original sin is not a sin at all in Adam's descendants, analogical or otherwise; instead, the effect of the original sin in mankind is mortality, and it is because men are mortal that they tend to fall into personal sins (i.e., as they satiate their passions in a futile attempt to overcome death). Edited January 3, 2013 by Apotheoun Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
add Posted January 3, 2013 Share Posted January 3, 2013 That's my faith and I'm sticking to it! I do not pretend to understand all the Mysteries of the Universe, so something's I take on good faith. So, You have a problem with that, Apoth? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Selah Posted January 3, 2013 Share Posted January 3, 2013 That's my faith and I'm sticking to it! I do not pretend to understand all the Mysteries of the Universe, so something's I take on good faith. So, You have a problem with that, Apoth? Why are you getting so defensive? He was just explaining his views to you. Calm down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apotheoun Posted January 3, 2013 Share Posted January 3, 2013 (edited) That's my faith and I'm sticking to it! I do not pretend to understand all the Mysteries of the Universe, so something's I take on good faith. So, You have a problem with that, Apoth? What you believe is your own business. Clearly, we do not agree on the topic, and nor are we ever likely to agree, because the tradition of the Eastern Church (of which I am a member) has never accepted the idea that men are born sinful. Edited January 3, 2013 by Apotheoun Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amppax Posted January 3, 2013 Share Posted January 3, 2013 What you believe is your own business. Clearly, we do not agree on the topic, and nor are we ever likely to agree, because the tradition of the Eastern Church (of which I am a member) has never accepted the idea that men are born sinful. Does Eastern tradition address concupiscence? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apotheoun Posted January 3, 2013 Share Posted January 3, 2013 Does Eastern tradition address concupiscence? Not with that specific term, but Eastern theology does talk about the passions and how - because man is mortal - he allows his passions to often control his decisions. The Eastern Church Fathers always speak of the need to overcome the passions by the practice of ascesis. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Socrates Posted January 7, 2013 Share Posted January 7, 2013 The Baltimore Catechism is icky. No, liberal "theology" is icky. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dells_of_bittersweet Posted January 7, 2013 Share Posted January 7, 2013 No, liberal "theology" is icky. Any reinterpretation of Church teaching is icky. I find it disturbing how the people on this board will condemn the abuses of liberals while excusing the abuses of conservatives such as Michael Voris or the SSPX. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nihil Obstat Posted January 7, 2013 Share Posted January 7, 2013 http://youtu.be/xSLlZh9yelk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fidei Defensor Posted January 8, 2013 Author Share Posted January 8, 2013 Ignoring the derailment, can we chalk this up to differing interpretations of the word "mortal" based on different contexts? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now