Infants And Original Sin

[Nihil Obstat]

This quote comes from then Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger.

[quote]In the Genesis story that we are considering, a further characteristic of sin is described. Sin is spoken of in general not as an abstract possibility but as a deed, as the sin of a particular person, Adam, who stands at the origin of humankind and with whom the history of sin begins. This account tells us that sin begets sin, and that, therefore, all the sins of history are interlinked. Theology refer to this state of affairs by the certainly misleading and imprecise term original sin. What does this mean? Nothing seems to us today to be stranger or, indeed, more absurd that to insist upon original sin, since, according to our way of thinking, guilt can only be something very personal, and God does not run a concentration camp in which one's relatives are imprisoned, because he is a liberating God of love who calls each one by name. What does original sin mean, then, when we interpret it correctly?
Finding an answer to this requires nothing less than trying to understand the human person better. It must once again be stressed that no human being is closed in upon himself or herself and that no one can live of or for himself or herself alone. We receive our life not only at the moment of birth but every day from without- from others who are not ourselves but who nonetheless somehow pertain to us. Human beings have their selves not only in themselves but also outside of themselves: they live in those whom they love and in those who love them and to whom they are present. Human beings are relational, and the possess their lives- themselves- only by way of relationship. I alone am not myself, but only in and with you am I myself. To be truly a human being means to be related in love, to be of and for. But sin means the damaging or destruction of relationality. Sin is a rejection of relationality because it wants to make the human being a god. Sin is loss of relationship, a disturbance of relationship, and therefore, it is not restricted to the individual. When I destroy a relationship, then this event- sin- touches the other person involved in the relationship. Consequently sin is always an offense that touches others, that alters the world and damages it. To the extent that this is true, when the network of human relationships is damaged from the very beginning, then every human being enters into a world that is marked by relational damage. At the very moment when a person begins human existence, which is a good, he or she is confronted by a sin-damaged world. Each of us enters into a situation in which relationality has been hurt. Consequently each person is, from the very start, damaged in relationships and does not engage in them as he or she ought. Sin pursues the human being, and he or she capitulates to it.
But from this it is also clear that human beings alone cannot save themselves. Their innate error is precisely that they want to do this by themselves. We can only be saved- that is, free and true- when we stop wanting to be God and renounce the madness of autonomy and self-sufficiency. We can only be saved- that is, become ourselves- when we engage in the proper relationship. But our interpersonal relationships occur in the context of our utter creatureliness, and it is there that the damage lies. Since the relationship with Creation has been damaged, only the Creator himself can be our savior. We can be saved only when he from whom we have cut ourselves off takes the initiative with us and stretches out his hand to us. Only being loved is being saved, and only God's love can purify damaged human love and radically re-establish the network of relationships that have suffered from alienation.
[/quote]

[rkwright]

So what of Jesus's words about the children who believe in him? Maybe proof that Children can have a saving faith also?

[Selah]

Apoth, you might be turning me into an Eastern Catholic!

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='rkwright' date='23 September 2009 - 06:37 PM' timestamp='1253752665' post='1971851']
So what of Jesus's words about the children who believe in him? Maybe proof that Children can have a saving faith also?
[/quote]
Yes, that is how I understand the text.

See post number [url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=98923&view=findpost&p=1971682"][u]13[/u][/url]

[Mark of the Cross]

[quote name='Apotheoun' date='24 September 2009 - 07:04 AM' timestamp='1253736289' post='1971646']
Theancestral sin, according to the Eastern Fathers, makes all men mortal,and not sinful. Sins are always - and only - personal actions.
[/quote]

I like that! It seems very logical.
[quote name='Apotheoun' date='24 September 2009 - 07:37 AM' timestamp='1253738275' post='1971693']
I don't believe in Limbo.
[/quote]

I find it incomprehensible the idea that a person or persons can by an act or lack of an act have any effect on the fate of another before God. And people just cannot grasp the idea that categories or levels don't exist in Gods Kingdom. Here on earth as a mere parishioner I am at the bottom and the Pope is at the top (Catholic viewpoint) and there are numerous levels in between but in God's kingdom there is only those on the left and those on the right. As a newbie I entered into a debate with some members regarding the infallibility of the Church yet as people have pointed out on this thread there have been differing teachings regarding the fate of unbaptised children. They can't all be correct! Only one can be.
[quote name='Apotheoun' date='24 September 2009 - 08:13 AM' timestamp='1253740411' post='1971724']
We simply understand it differently.

I do not believe that anyone is born sinful or guilty. Adam's sin made him and his descendants mortal, and Christ came primarily to free us from death, and by triumphing over death He secondarily destroyed the personal sins of those who are united to Him in the sacramental life of the Church.

Finally, as far as Adam's sin is concerned, I call it "the" original sin or "the" ancestral sin. It was -- and always will be -- a sin peculiar to Adam, because it was a particular act that he performed, and no one can inherit that particular action.
[/quote]
Is Adam really a person that existed or is it a parable with a deeper meaning about mankind. Like Adam we have the propensity for sin which makes us mortal and Jesus through OUR choosing has the power to take away our death and bring us to immortality.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Mark of the Cross' date='23 September 2009 - 08:26 PM' timestamp='1253759210' post='1971911']
Is Adam really a person that existed or is it a parable with a deeper meaning about mankind. Like Adam we have the propensity for sin which makes us mortal and Jesus through OUR choosing has the power to take away our death and bring us to immortality.
[/quote]
Both Eastern and Western Catholics, along with the Eastern Orthodox, reject polygenism (i.e., the idea that there was more than one original parental couple from whom all human being descend) as heretical.

So, to answer your question, [b]yes[/b], I do believe that Adam (the name means "man") and Eve (the name means "mother of all the living") are true historical persons created by God, and that they are the sole progenitors of all human beings.

[Resurrexi]

+AMDG+

[quote name='Mark of the Cross' date='23 September 2009 - 09:26 PM' timestamp='1253759210' post='1971911']
Is Adam really a person that existed or is it a parable with a deeper meaning about mankind. Like Adam we have the propensity for sin which makes us mortal and Jesus through OUR choosing has the power to take away our death and bring us to immortality.
[/quote]

All humans are descended from one man and one woman. This is a sententia definitive tenenda, a dogmatic teaching. It has been infallibly taught by the ordinary and universal Magisterium of the Church (cf. Pius XII, [i]Humani Generis[/i], 37). All Catholics must hold this truth in order to maintain full communion with the Catholic Church (cf. Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, [i]Doctrinal Commentary on the Concluding Formula of the Professio Fidei[/i], 6).

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Mark of the Cross' date='23 September 2009 - 08:26 PM' timestamp='1253759210' post='1971911']
And people just cannot grasp the idea that categories or levels don't exist in God's Kingdom. [/quote]
God is the final end (i.e., the [i]telos[/i]) of all human beings, but how each person will experience that end -- whether as bliss or pain -- is determined by his own free will actions in cooperation with God's energy; for as Christ said: "In my Father's house there are many mansions," and so each man will experience the eschaton differently.

[Mark of the Cross]

[quote name='Apotheoun' date='24 September 2009 - 01:44 PM' timestamp='1253760268' post='1971925']
God is the final end (i.e., the [i]telos[/i])of all human beings, but how each person will experience that end --whether as bliss or pain -- is determined by his own free will actionsin cooperation with God's energy; for as Christ said: "In my Father'shouse there are many mansions," and so each man will experience theeschaton differently.
[/quote]
Yes, but God loves all his peopleand God's love is unbounded so there cannot be a difference in how muchhe loves me and how much he loves the Pope. The term "my Fathers househas many mansions" could also have many meanings. Mansions, I wouldimagine refer to glorious places. He didn't say many abodes from shantyto mansion. so therefore many in the this case would not mean levels but choices like whether we prefer a rose or a pansy. To me many mansions would mean choices not levels.

[quote name='Resurrexi' date='24 September 2009 - 01:44 PM' timestamp='1253760253' post='1971924']
+AMDG+



All humans are descended from one man and one woman. This is a sententia definitive tenenda, a dogmatic teaching. It has been infallibly taught by the ordinary and universal Magisterium of the Church (cf. Pius XII, [i]Humani Generis[/i], 37). All Catholics must hold this truth in order to maintain full communion with the Catholic Church (cf. Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, [i]Doctrinal Commentary on the Concluding Formula of the Professio Fidei[/i], 6).
[/quote]
So what you are saying is that you believe in the literal translation. ie Creation in seven days fourK years ago. Dinosaur fossils do exist you know! And we agree that only God creates! Why did Jesus need to employ parables if the OT was literal. I don't question the word of God but I only read English. Even our modern English is often inadequate to convey meaning. That is why we have debates because we often don't understand each other.
I disagree that to question is to be a heretic. If you love someone you will always strive to understand and learn more about them. I love Jesus and want to know more about him.

[Resurrexi]

+AMDG+

[quote name='Mark of the Cross' date='23 September 2009 - 10:09 PM' timestamp='1253761743' post='1971943']
Yes, but God loves all his peopleand God's love is unbounded so there cannot be a difference in how muchhe loves me and how much he loves the Pope. The term "my Fathers househas many mansions" could also have many meanings. Mansions, I wouldimagine refer to glorious places. He didn't say many abodes from shantyto mansion. so therefore many in the this case would not mean levels but choices like whether we prefer a rose or a pansy. To me many mansions would mean choices not levels.


So what you are saying is that you believe in the literal translation. ie Creation in seven days fourK years ago. Dinosaur fossils do exist you know!
[/quote]

Please don't put words into my mouth. I think that the earth is about four billion years old and that the origin of the human [b]body[/b] was from pre-existent, living matter. (Obviously I believe that the [b]soul[/b] of the first man was created immediately by God.)

I do, however, think that Genesis is to be interpreted according to the literal sense, i.e., the meaning that the human author of Genesis intended.

Edited September 24, 2009 by Resurrexi

[Vincent Vega]

It should be noted that "literally" is not a synonym of "literalistically".

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='USAirwaysIHS' date='23 September 2009 - 10:24 PM' timestamp='1253762658' post='1971956']
It should be noted that "literally" is not a synonym of "literalistically".
[/quote]

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Mark of the Cross' date='23 September 2009 - 09:09 PM' timestamp='1253761743' post='1971943']
Yes, but God loves all his peopleand God's love is unbounded so there cannot be a difference in how muchhe loves me and how much he loves the Pope. The term "my Fathers househas many mansions" could also have many meanings. Mansions, I wouldimagine refer to glorious places. He didn't say many abodes from shantyto mansion. so therefore many in the this case would not mean levels but choices like whether we prefer a rose or a pansy. To me many mansions would mean choices not levels.[/quote]
I never said that there is a difference in how much God loves us, but I do believe that there is a difference in how much each one of us loves Him, and so our experience of His love will differ in the eschaton. God is a burning fire of love, and that divine love is the bliss of the saints, and the pain of the damned.

[quote name='Mark of the Cross' date='23 September 2009 - 09:09 PM' timestamp='1253761743' post='1971943']So what you are saying is that you believe in the literal translation. ie Creation in seven days fourK years ago. Dinosaur fossils do exist you know! And we agree that only God creates! Why did Jesus need to employ parables if the OT was literal. I don't question the word of God but I only read English. Even our modern English is often inadequate to convey meaning. That is why we have debates because we often don't understand each other. [/quote]
No, I am not saying that. What I am saying is that the Genesis account records true history in metaphorical language, but the truth that there is one parent couple from whom every human being descends is not itself metaphorical; instead, it is a truth of faith.

[quote name='Mark of the Cross' date='23 September 2009 - 09:09 PM' timestamp='1253761743' post='1971943']I disagree that to question is to be a heretic. If you love someone you will always strive to understand and learn more about them. I love Jesus and want to know more about him.[/quote]
I cannot judge whether or not you personally are a heretic, but I can - and in fact I must - judge whether or not your comments (or actions) are orthodox or heretical.

[Mark of the Cross]

[quote name='Apotheoun' date='24 September 2009 - 01:35 PM' timestamp='1253759711' post='1971916']
Both Eastern and Western Catholics, along with the Eastern Orthodox, reject polygenism (i.e., the idea that there was more than one original parental couple from whom all human being descend)
[/quote]
What's the Church view on why I'm totally different than my indigenous counterpart? (I'm a white Oz of Anglo lineage)
[quote name='Apotheoun' date='24 September 2009 - 02:37 PM' timestamp='1253763455' post='1971965']
No,I am not saying that. What I am saying is that the Genesis accountrecords true history in metaphorical language, but the truth that thereis one parent couple from whom every human being descends is not itselfmetaphorical; instead, it is a truth of faith.

[/quote]

Hmmm! This is interesting. Could you please explain how it is determined that the 'creation story' is a metaphor, but the 'the Adam and Eve' story is literal. I've never come across that one before. I would also like to do some reading on that, if you would be so kind as to point to some reference. I know that there are people who believe in a literal interpretation of creation and there are those like myself who believe that the general gist is true but written and/or translated metaphorically.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Mark of the Cross' date='23 September 2009 - 11:30 PM' timestamp='1253770217' post='1972049']
What's the Church view on why I'm totally different than my indigenous counterpart? (I'm a white Oz of Anglo lineage)[/quote]
The Church has never said anything definitive on the nature of ethnic differentiation.

[quote name='Mark of the Cross' date='23 September 2009 - 11:30 PM' timestamp='1253770217' post='1972049']
Hmmm! This is interesting. Could you please explain how it is determined that the 'creation story' is a metaphor, but the 'the Adam and Eve' story is literal. I've never come across that one before. I would also like to do some reading on that, if you would be so kind as to point to some reference. I know that there are people who believe in a literal interpretation of creation and there are those like myself who believe that the general gist is true but written and/or translated metaphorically.[/quote]
The creation story is not a metaphor; instead, it is true history written using metaphorical language. There is a difference.