Original Sin, or actually Original Sins?

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Eremite' date='Jun 21 2005, 09:50 AM']So is that a no, it's not an actual teaching of the Church?
[right][snapback]617998[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
It is a dogma of faith. As Pius XII said in reference to polygenism, "Now it is no no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled with that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the Teaching Authority of the Church propose with regard to original sin, which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam and which, through generation, is passed on to all and is in everyone as his own. [Pope Pius XII, [u]Humani Generis[/u], no. 37]

[Guest Eremite]

thedude,

Yah, that's what I was thinking. But it would all depend on whether the Church has in fact taught one way or the other. If not, then it's a matter of freedom for exegetes.

For example, the Catechism says:

[quote]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.

(404)[/quote]

Note that it says "by yielding to the tempter, Adam [i]and[/i] Eve committed a personal sin, but [i]this sin[/i] affected the human nature..." It refers to [i]both[/i] Adam and Eve as the "personal sin" which "affected the human nature", and not Adam's personal sin alone.

[Guest Eremite]

[quote name='Apotheoun' date='Jun 21 2005, 11:53 AM']It is a dogma of faith.  As Pius XII said in reference to polygenism, "Now it is no no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled with that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the Teaching Authority of the Church propose with regard to original sin, which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam and which, through generation, is passed on to all and is in everyone as his own. [Pope Pius XII, [u]Humani Generis[/u], no. 37]
[right][snapback]618001[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Ok, calling something from Humani Generis a "dogma of faith" is stretching it. But that's neither here nor there.

While the passage does speak through Adam (as does the Catechism in certain places), neither does it rule out the possibility of further theological speculation on other details of the test.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Eremite' date='Jun 21 2005, 09:47 AM'][quote name='Apotheoun. Jun 21 2005' date=' 11:24 AM']Can Mary's act of righteous obedience save anyone in separation from the Paschal Mystery of Christ the Head?[/quote]
We can get to that later (or not).
[right][snapback]617994[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
This question is connected to the theology we are discussing, in fact it proves my point, because just as Mary's righteous act of obedience in separation from the Paschal Mystery of Christ, the New Adam, cannot save us, neither can the sin of the first Eve, separated from the sin of Adam, condemn humanity to damnation.

[EcceNovaFacioOmni]

[u]Summa Theologica[/u]:
[quote][b]Whether if Eve, and not Adam, had sinned, their children would have contracted original sin?[/b]

[u]Objection 1.[/u] It would seem that if Eve, and not Adam, had sinned, their children would have contracted original sin. Because we contract original sin from our parents, in so far as we were once in them, according to the word of the Apostle (Rm. 5:12): "In whom all have sinned." Now a man pre-exist in his mother as well as in his father. Therefore a man would have contracted original sin from his mother's sin as well as from his father's.

[u]Objection 2.[/u] Further, if Eve, and not Adam, had sinned, their children would have been born liable to suffering and death, since it is "the mother" that "provides the matter in generation" as the Philosopher states (De Gener. Animal. ii, 1,4), when death and liability to suffering are the necessary results of matter. Now liability to suffering and the necessity of dying are punishments of original sin. Therefore if Eve, and not Adam, had sinned, their children would contract original sin.

[u]Objection 3.[/u] Further, Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iii, 3) that "the Holy Ghost came upon the Virgin," (of whom Christ was to be born without original sin) "purifying her." But this purification would not have been necessary, if the infection of original sin were not contracted from the mother. Therefore the infection of original sin is contracted from the mother: so that if Eve had sinned, her children would have contracted original sin, even if Adam had not sinned.

[u]On the contrary[/u], The Apostle says (Rm. 5:12): "By one man sin entered into this world." Now if the woman would have transmitted original sin to her children, he should have said that it entered by two, since both of them sinned, or rather that it entered by a woman, since she sinned first. Therefore original sin is transmitted to the children, not by the mother, but by the father.

[u]I answer that[/u], The solution of this question is made clear by what has been said. For it has been stated (1) that original sin is transmitted by the first parent in so far as he is the mover in the begetting of his children: wherefore it has been said (4) that if anyone were begotten materially only, of human flesh, they would not contract original sin. Now it is evident that in the opinion of philosophers, the active principle of generation is from the father, while the mother provides the matter. Therefore original sin, is contracted, not from the mother, but from the father: so that, accordingly, if Eve, and not Adam, had sinned, their children would not contract original sin: whereas, if Adam, and not Eve, had sinned, they would contract it.

[u]Reply to Objection 1.[/u] The child pre-exists in its father as in its active principle, and in its mother, as in its material and passive principle. Consequently the comparison fails.

[u]Reply to Objection 2.[/u] Some hold that if Eve, and not Adam, had sinned, their children would be immune from the sin, but would have been subject to the necessity of dying and to other forms of suffering that are a necessary result of the matter which is provided by the mother, not as punishments, but as actual defects. This, however, seems unreasonable. Because, as stated in the I, 97, A1, 2, ad 4, immortality and impassibility, in the original state, were a result, not of the condition of matter, but of original justice, whereby the body was subjected to the soul, so long as the soul remained subject to God. Now privation of original justice is original sin. If, therefore, supposing Adam had not sinned, original sin would not have been transmitted to posterity on account of Eve's sin; it is evident that the children would not have been deprived of original justice: and consequently they would not have been liable to suffer and subject to the necessity of dying.

[u]Reply to Objection 3.[/u] This prevenient purification in the Blessed Virgin was not needed to hinder the transmission of original sin, but because it behooved the Mother of God "to shine with the greatest purity" [Cf. Anselm, De Concep. Virg. xviii.]. For nothing is worthy to receive God unless it be pure, according to Ps. 92:5: "Holiness becometh Thy House, O Lord."

Source: [url="http://www.newadvent.org/summa/208105.htm"]http://www.newadvent.org/summa/208105.htm[/url][/quote]
Does this help at all?

Edited June 21, 2005 by thedude

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Eremite' date='Jun 21 2005, 09:56 AM']Monogenism has to do with our biological descendance from two actual people. It has nothing to do with how God chose to dish out the test.
[right][snapback]618007[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
The italicized portion of the text is what is important, you will notice that the Pope calls it the sin of the "individual" Adam.

[Guest JeffCR07]

How come nobody ever argues about and discusses my post...they just fade away in the silence that surrounds them...

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Eremite' date='Jun 21 2005, 09:56 AM']Ok, calling something from Humani Generis a "dogma of faith" is stretching it. But that's neither here nor there.

While the passage does speak through Adam (as does the Catechism in certain places), neither does it rule out the possibility of further theological speculation on other details of the test.
[right][snapback]618007[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
You are aware that the Ordinary Papal Magisterium is also infallible, as long as the Pope intends to bind the Church to a doctrinal position. Now in the case of [u]Humani Generis[/u] and original sin, the Pope is merely reaffirming an already existing dogma.

[Guest Eremite]

[quote]This question is connected to the theology we are discussing, in fact it proves my point, because just as Mary's righteous act of obedience in separation from the Paschal Mystery of Christ, the New Adam, cannot save us, neither can the sin of the first Eve, separated from the sin of Adam, condemn humanity to damnation.
[right][snapback]618008[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

It seems that Adam and Eve cannot be separated. I can't find the citations, but a few of the Fathers noted that Satan tempted Eve purposely, rather than Adam. If Eve had never given the fruit to Adam, Adam could never have sinned. In the same way, if Mary had never said yes to Gabriel, Jesus could never have redeemed us (not in the way he planned to, that is). So I can see how the actual act required the agency of both men (Adam and Christ), but at the same time, neither would be possible without the agency of both women (Eve and Mary).

I'll look over Aquinas's thoughts, but that still does nothing to raise this to the level of doctrine. Anyways, it's a tangential issue I was curious about.

[Guest Eremite]

[quote name='JeffCR07' date='Jun 21 2005, 12:00 PM']How come nobody ever argues about and discusses my post...they just fade away in the silence that surrounds them...



[right][snapback]618013[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

LOL. Because you leave nothing to argue. No stones left unturned.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='thedude' date='Jun 21 2005, 09:58 AM'][u]Summa Theologica[/u]:

Does this help at all?
[right][snapback]618009[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Although I am no longer a Thomist, I agree with the majority of what St. Thomas is saying on this dogma.

[Guest JeffCR07]

[quote name='Eremite' date='Jun 21 2005, 12:05 PM']LOL. Because you leave nothing to argue. No stones left unturned. 
[right][snapback]618021[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Bah, there are always things to argue, plus I [i]at least[/i] should be able to expect Todd to kindly explain how my response is "too Latin" or some such thing

[EcceNovaFacioOmni]

[quote name='Eremite' date='Jun 21 2005, 01:04 PM']I'll look over Aquinas's thoughts, but that still does nothing to raise this to the level of doctrine. Anyways, it's a tangential issue I was curious about.
[right][snapback]618018[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
You're right, but it helped me understand Apotheoun's position and now I think it makes sense.

[Guest Eremite]

[quote name='Apotheoun' date='Jun 21 2005, 12:02 PM']You are aware that the Ordinary Papal Magisterium is also infallible, as long as the Pope intends to bind the Church to a doctrinal position.  Now in the case of [u]Humani Generis[/u] and original sin, the Pope is merely reaffirming an already existing dogma.
[right][snapback]618015[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

As Pope Benedict XVI notes, even Ordinatio Sacerdotalis was not infallible, in itself. And it certainly goes above and beyond the language of HG. But, as I said, that's neither here nor there. HG does not set out a comprehensive treatise on the matter.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Eremite' date='Jun 21 2005, 10:04 AM']It seems that Adam and Eve cannot be separated. I can't find the citations, but a few of the Fathers noted that Satan tempted Eve purposely, rather than Adam. If Eve had never given the fruit to Adam, Adam could never have sinned. In the same way, if Mary had never said yes to Gabriel, Jesus could never have redeemed us (not in the way he planned to, that is). So I can see how the actual act required the agency of both men (Adam and Christ), but at the same time, neither would be possible without the agency of both women (Eve and Mary).
[right][snapback]618018[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Although they are "one flesh" there hypostatic actions most certainly can, and in fact must, be separated. Unless you are saying that they are one and the same person.

Even in the case of Christ and Mary, their actions are distinct because they have separate enhypostatic energies.