Original Sin, or actually Original Sins?

[scardella]

I noticed yesterday that Original Sin is singular, not plural. However, we know that both Adam and Eve sinned in the garden. So, why is it not plural?

When I mentioned it, someone said that it was singular in that they essentially committed the same type of sin, but separately. That would make it two acts, and wouldn't that essentially mean that it's more properly Original Sins? That explanation does not really satisfy me.

I proposed that the sin was a communal act. The moral union which existed before the sin was present until the sin was committed. Though their wills were two, they were morally united in the marriage bond, and thus, in their pristine state, they were able to act together, essentially. In the same way that Jesus has a Divine and human will, yet they are one act that results, I was proposing that the original marriage bond was such that a unified act of the wills was possible. However, in deciding upon Original Sin, that unity was shattered, for God is the source of that unity.

Am I just reading too much into the singularity of it?

[Guest JeffCR07]

While I may be wrong, I have understood that, while there were indeed two seperate sins for which each was individually morally culpable, when we refer to "the Sin of Adam" and by that term we mean "Original Sin" we attribute the communal culpability (for the sin of the community) to Adam, who was its head and leader.

Edit: By this, I mean to say that Adam assumes a certain degree of responsibility for the Original Sin, even if technically Eve's personal sin was prior to his, for the first sin was committed "under his watch" so to speak, and he should take responsibility for those under his care. Thus, we rightly call "Original Sin" "The Sin of Adam."

Edited June 21, 2005 by JeffCR07

[Guest Eremite]

"Original sin" doesn't refer to the personal sins of Adam and Eve, but to the consequent state of fallen humanity. "Original sin" is sin by analogy, because a person cannot be guilty of of someone else's sin. We are born on a purely natural level, lacking supernatural life.

[Guest JeffCR07]

[quote name='Eremite' date='Jun 21 2005, 10:33 AM']"Original sin" doesn't refer to the personal sins of Adam and Eve, but to the consequent state of fallen humanity. "Original sin" is sin by analogy, because a person cannot be guilty of of someone else's sin. We are born on a purely natural level, lacking supernatural life.
[right][snapback]617898[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

This is important to note, because the state of "Original Sin" into which we are born is the consequence of the Sin of Adam. The Catechism terms it "inhereted" sin rather than "personal" sin.

[Semperviva]

ok-i know inheriting "sins" of your ancestors and forefathers is a biblical thing-but how can one possibly inherit sin? this has always bothered me-because isin't all sin a direct willing, ie personal sin? woulden't it not be sin anymore since its not a personal willing or disobedience? it seems more like a gene or something. i think its just the wording thats confusing maybe...(can't we call original sin like the adam syndrome or something? implying its not a choice...)

[Guest Eremite]

It's not that we "inherit" Adam's sin in the sense that we inherit diabetes.

Adam was given a test. His victory or failure would [i]determine[/i] whether his progeny were graced with supernatural life, or were created on a purely natural level.

Adam is, in a sense, the "head" of the human family. Of necessity, his choice affected his children, because a head and a body must be compatible.

[Apotheoun]

Sin is by definition personal, and as a consequence it cannot be either natural or communal, and this was confirmed by Pope John Paul II in his Apostolic Exhortation [u]Reconciliatio et Paenitentia[/u], when he said, "Sin, in the proper sense, is always a personal act, since it is an act of freedom on the part of an individual person and not properly of a group or community." [Pope John Paul II, [u]Reconciliatio et Paenitentia[/u], no. 16] Moreover, as Pope Pius XII said, original sin ". . . proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam and . . ., through generation, is passed on to all and is in everyone as his own." [Pope Pius XII, [u]Humani Generis[/u], no. 37] That being said, original sin is the personal sin of Adam alone, while in Adam's descendants it is a state of being, i.e., the lack of deifying grace in the soul, and not a personal act.

[Guest JeffCR07]

Do not think of Original Sin as a personal sin. Perhaps an example will help.

Imagine that you and I are siblings, and that our great-great grandfather was a Baron in England.

However, our great-great grandfather betrayed the King, and the King cast him out, and confiscated his land and title of Nobility.

Technically speaking, though our ancestors were Nobility, you and I are not, for that Nobility was lost by our great grandfather and cannot be restored to us unless the King grants it to us personally as a gift.

Think of "Original Sin" as being born outside a state of Nobility (which is supernatural grace).

- Your Brother In Christ,

Jeff

[Guest Eremite]

For further reference, see the Catechism, paragraph 1263:

[quote]By Baptism all sins are forgiven, original sin and all personal sins, as well as all punishment for sin. 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.[/quote]

Note that "original sin" is distinguished from "personal sins". More often than not, a reference to "original sin" is a reference to man's state of being, rather than the personal sins of Adam and Eve. Hence, the singular.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Eremite' date='Jun 21 2005, 08:33 AM']"Original sin" doesn't refer to the personal sins of Adam and Eve, but to the consequent state of fallen humanity. "Original sin" is sin by analogy, because a person cannot be guilty of of someone else's sin. We are born on a purely natural level, lacking supernatural life.
[right][snapback]617898[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
The theological term "original sin" has a double meaning, it does refer to the personal sinful act of Adam, which brought about the fall from grace in the Garden, but it also refers to the state of being in which all men exist after the fall, that is, to the loss of the divine likeness, which is only restored by the incarnation of the eternal Logos.

[Guest Eremite]

[quote name='Apotheoun' date='Jun 21 2005, 10:56 AM']The theological term "original sin" has a double meaning, it does refer to the personal sinful act of Adam, which brought about the fall from grace in the Garden, but it also refers to the state of being in which all men exist after the fall, that is, to the loss of the divine likeness, which is only restored by the incarnation of the eternal Logos.
[right][snapback]617918[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Yes, but more often than not, "original sin" refers to the state of man, and not Adam's personal sin. They are closely related, because one effected the other. But they bear an important distinction, in that one is an historical and personal sin, whereas the other is only sin by analogy. See, for example, Pope John Paul II's 1986 summary of catechesis on original sin:

[quote]it is evident that original sin in Adam's descendants has not the character of personal guilt. It is the privation of santifying grace in a nature which through the fault of the first parents has been diverted from its supernatural end. It is a "sin of nature" and only analogically comparable to "personal sin." In the state of original justice before sin, sanctifying grace was like a supernatural "endowment" of human nature. Its loss is contained in the inner "logic" of sin which is a rejection of the will of God, the bestower of this gift. Sanctifying grace has ceased to constitute that supernatural enrichment of that nature which the first parents passed on to all their descendant in the state in which it existed when human generation began.

[url="http://www.ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/JP2ORSIN.htm"]http://www.ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/JP2ORSIN.htm[/url][/quote]

The term "original sin" is most often used in the context of baptism; here we are set free from a state of being, rather than a personal sin committed by Adam.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Eremite' date='Jun 21 2005, 09:02 AM']Yes, but more often than not, "original sin" refers to the state of man, and not Adam's personal sin. They are closely related, because one effected the other. But they bear an important distinction, in that one is an historical and personal sin, whereas the other is only sin by analogy. See, for example, Pope John Paul II's 1986 summary of catechesis on original sin:
[right][snapback]617922[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
It refers to both ideas (see CCC no. 404}.

[Apotheoun]

Adam's original sin is the cause of the state of being called "original sin."

[Guest Eremite]

[quote name='Apotheoun' date='Jun 21 2005, 11:05 AM']It refers to both ideas (see CCC no. 404}.
[right][snapback]617925[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Generally speaking, yes. But any discussion of original sin more often than not is in the context of baptism. In this context, "original sin" refers to our ontological state, and not the personal sin of Adam. We are set free from that state, rather than his personal sin (which only he had to be set free from).

This is why, to bring it all back to the original question, "original sin" is singular. Its primary usage is in the context of man's state of being, and not historical sins committed by Adam and Eve.

But, also, it is generally accepted that Adam alone bore the test for all humanity; that is, if Eve alone had sinned, humanity would not have been born on a natural level. There are problems with this idea, though. If Eve had sinned, she would be as we are now, and could not reproduce with Adam, who would be perfect.

[Guest Eremite]

[quote]Adam's original sin is the cause of the state of being called "original sin." [/quote]

Right. That about sums it up.