or Connect
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Mom › Talk Amongst Ourselves › Spirituality › Religious Studies › Original Sin
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Original Sin - Page 2

post #21 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arduinna View Post
Sorry to make you repeat mamabadger but what is the Orthodox Churches teaching regarding the purpose of Jesus' death?
Jesus is believed to be God incarnate. The purpose of his taking on human form was to sanctify human nature. Once God Himself has taken on human nature, that nature is necessarily changed forever. By going on to experience death and then pass through it and live again, he changed the nature of death as well. All humankind, and their experience of death, is altered by God's direct contact with us, through Jesus Christ. That was the purpose of Jesus' life and his death. Someone once described Jesus as God's hand, reaching down to fix something that was broken.

By contrast, the Western doctrine of the Atonement teaches that sin had placed us at such a distance from God that God's wrath could be appeased only by the ultimate sacrifice: the painful death of His own son. This is foreign to Orthodox theology because it places God in a position of being so angry with mankind that only a horrible human sacrifice would satisfy his fury.
I have also heard it suggested that this is the reason why Western churches display so many images of the Crucifixion, since this sacrifice is so central to their idea of salvation; while Eastern Orthodox churches emphasize the Resurrection, which is the main point of Jesus' existence and the reason for his death. The image that is always displayed at Pascha (Easter) in Orthodox churches shows Jesus during his three days in the tomb, symbolically breaking open the graves and pulling the people free, alive and well. That is what we believe was the purpose of his death.
http://www.execulink.com/~peacelight...surrection.jpg
post #22 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by mamabadger View Post

By contrast, the Western doctrine of the Atonement teaches that sin had placed us at such a distance from God that God's wrath could be appeased only by the ultimate sacrifice: the painful death of His own son. This is foreign to Orthodox theology because it places God in a position of being so angry with mankind that only a horrible human sacrifice would satisfy his fury.
I have also heard it suggested that this is the reason why Western churches display so many images of the Crucifixion, since this sacrifice is so central to their idea of salvation; while Eastern Orthodox churches emphasize the Resurrection, which is the main point of Jesus' existence and the reason for his death.
The doctrine of Atonement absolutely does NOT teach that.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02055a.htm

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04517a.htm
post #23 of 67
The Catechism of the Catholic Church has a good explanation of its teachings on Original Sin:http://www.usccb.org/catechism/text/...hpt1art1p7.htm
(See paragraph 7, section 396-409)

Here's a portion:

Quote:
Although it is proper to each individual, original sin does not have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam's descendants. It is a deprivation of original holiness and justice, but human nature has not been totally corrupted: it is wounded in the natural powers proper to it; subject to ignorance, suffering, and the dominion of death; and inclined to sin—an inclination to evil that is called "concupiscence." Baptism, by imparting the life of Christ's grace, erases original sin and turns a man back toward God, but the consequences for nature, weakened and inclined to evil, persist in man and summon him to spiritual battle.
post #24 of 67
Thanks for the links you both posted. CherryBomb, I'm not sure why I didn't think of checking at Catholic Encyclopedia myself, but thanks for the reminder since I haven't used that bookmark lately.
post #25 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChasingPeace View Post
The Catechism of the Catholic Church has a good explanation of its teachings on Original Sin:http://www.usccb.org/catechism/text/...hpt1art1p7.htm
(See paragraph 7, section 396-409)

Here's a portion:
You posted when I was reading the other links Thanks.
post #26 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arduinna View Post
Thanks for the links you both posted. CherryBomb, I'm not sure why I didn't think of checking at Catholic Encyclopedia myself, but thanks for the reminder since I haven't used that bookmark lately.
NP! I love Catholic Encyclopedia. It's a little wordy but it always clarifies things for me!
post #27 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by CherryBomb View Post
The doctrine of Atonement absolutely does NOT teach that.
Modern Catholic documents certainly would not express it that way, but for most of Roman Catholic history, its theologians saw the sufferings of Christ as a kind of payment for God's injured honour. Anselm of Canterbury considered it repaying a "dept of honour" to God, on our behalf. Thomas Aquinas described the Crucifixion and related sufferings as Jesus accepting punishment in our place: "Christ bore a satisfactory punishment, not for His, but for our sins." (Summa Theologiae) The penal aspect of it, and God's requirement that someone be punished, was always at the forefront. Current Catholic thinking may have taken another direction, but for centuries it was a source of disagreement between Orthodox and Catholic churches.
post #28 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by mamabadger View Post
Modern Catholic documents certainly would not express it that way, but for most of Roman Catholic history, its theologians saw the sufferings of Christ as a kind of payment for God's injured honour. Anselm of Canterbury considered it repaying a "dept of honour" to God, on our behalf. Thomas Aquinas described the Crucifixion and related sufferings as Jesus accepting punishment in our place: "Christ bore a satisfactory punishment, not for His, but for our sins." (Summa Theologiae) The penal aspect of it, and God's requirement that someone be punished, was always at the forefront. Current Catholic thinking may have taken another direction, but for centuries it was a source of disagreement between Orthodox and Catholic churches.

Yes - medieval theology focused on Christ's Satisfaction of Adam's sin. God demanded retribution for the Fall, but a human sacrifice would not fulfill Satisfaction completely, nor would a divine sacrifice, so God sent Christ, both human *and* divine to sacrifice himself to fulfill the Satisfaction for the Fall. Hopefully that is somewhat clear. Kinda like how Mary sacrificed for the sins of Eve. Christ was the new Adam as Mary was the new Eve. Except Mary didn't need to be divine as well as human - so does that mean Eve's sin was lesser? Anybody?
post #29 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arduinna View Post
Probably subject for another thread but lately I'm having a hard time with the concept that God would need to send someone as a human sacrifice, especially his son, to save the world from sin. I mean the concept that killing someone is somehow a sacrificial act is just
I'm Protestant, but I find this idea that God HAD to have this perfect human sacrifice as the ONLY way to atone for human sin everywhere in Protestantism. I haven't read the Catholic links, but IME the Evangelical understanding of Atonement paints a picture of a god with his hands tied and not other option than to kill his only son. That just doesn't add up to me. I resonate much more with the Eastern Orthodox perspective on this one.

To the OP, again, I'm not Catholic, but I do see "the stain" of sin everywhere. However, I also see evidence of basic human goodness and our "image-bearing-ness" everywhere too. I think of original sin as being something very deep in our human makeup, but not the deepest truth. Before anything else, we are made in God's image, and the more we can work to peel back the layers of sin's stain, the closer we'll be to having that image more perfectly revealed. I believe that Christ did not come merely to die, but also to show us how to live. When we practice the Way of Christ, we create space for the Spirit of God to fill us and burn away the marks of sin.
post #30 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by suzywan View Post
Kinda like how Mary sacrificed for the sins of Eve. Christ was the new Adam as Mary was the new Eve. Except Mary didn't need to be divine as well as human - so does that mean Eve's sin was lesser? Anybody?
The Orthodox church also refers to Christ as the new Adam, Mary as the new Eve, symbolically, but the metaphor can only go so far. Mary participated in God's plan for our salvation, but it is still Christ who saved us. Christ did not save only men (as in males) but all human beings. Mary did not need to do her part for the female half of the human race, any more than the Fall, or its effects, were divided up according to gender.
post #31 of 67
Raised protestant here, too, and yeah I was always taught that Jesus was the "spotless lamb" whose sacrifice was necessary to expiate our sins eternally, just as an actual "spotless lamb" was sacrificed in Judaism to expiate sins temporarily (apologies to any Jews if that incorrectly characterizes your actual beliefs; it's just what I was taught).

I had no idea the Catholic church is teaching something different.

I no longer believe in Original Sin; just that humankind is a complicated tangle of both good and bad impulses but this is not the result of some primordial sin. I read the story of Adam and Eve as myth rather than fact, and believe it reflects the moment in our history when humankind became conscious of ourselves which set us forever apart from animals. We gained knowledge (remember that the tree is called the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil--as a child I always wondered why God didn't want Adam and Eve to have knowledge), but in doing so we lost the paradise that animals live in where they are unconcious of their own mortality and live by instinct rather than morality. To me, taken that way, it is a beautiful and tragic story, and deeply, deeply true.
post #32 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thao View Post
Raised protestant here, too, and yeah I was always taught that Jesus was the "spotless lamb" whose sacrifice was necessary to expiate our sins eternally, just as an actual "spotless lamb" was sacrificed in Judaism to expiate sins temporarily (apologies to any Jews if that incorrectly characterizes your actual beliefs; it's just what I was taught).

I had no idea the Catholic church is teaching something different.

I no longer believe in Original Sin; just that humankind is a complicated tangle of both good and bad impulses but this is not the result of some primordial sin. I read the story of Adam and Eve as myth rather than fact, and believe it reflects the moment in our history when humankind became conscious of ourselves which set us forever apart from animals. We gained knowledge (remember that the tree is called the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil--as a child I always wondered why God didn't want Adam and Eve to have knowledge), but in doing so we lost the paradise that animals live in where they are unconcious of their own mortality and live by instinct rather than morality. To me, taken that way, it is a beautiful and tragic story, and deeply, deeply true.

I like your description. Eating from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil was a mythical way of describing how we lost our innocence. BTW, the Catholic Church teaches that the story of the Fall is myth.
post #33 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by suzywan View Post
Except Mary didn't need to be divine as well as human - so does that mean Eve's sin was lesser? Anybody?
A lot of Catholics I know tend to see Eve's sin as lesser than Adam's, though I'm not sure if that's what you're talking about. A lot of theologians seem to agree,though I don't think there's an official Church stance on that. I mean, Eve was genuinely tricked by Satan- Adam knew full well what was happening and did it anyway.
post #34 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChasingPeace View Post
BTW, the Catholic Church teaches that the story of the Fall is myth.
I'm not sure who told you that, but that is not true at all.

Any of the Church's Catechism's teach the Fall of mankind and it's punishment of Original Sin to be true, not any kind of myth.

Think about it for a moment - if the Fall were not true and was just a myth, there would be no Original Sin. If there is no Original Sin, there is no need for a Redeemer. If there is no Redeemer for the human race, then that would make Jesus Christ completely irrelevant and His Resurrection from the dead totally insignificant.

Here are some excerpted passages from various Catechisms about the reality of the Fall:



From the Baltimore Catechism:

Quote:
39. Q. Who were the first man and woman?
A. The first man and woman were Adam and Eve.

40. Q. Were Adam and Eve innocent and holy when they came from the hand of God?
A. Adam and Eve were innocent and holy when they came from the hand of God.

43. Q. Did Adam and Eve remain faithful to God?
A. Adam and Eve did not remain faithful to God; but broke His command by eating the forbidden fruit.

44. Q. What befell Adam and Eve on account of their sin?
A. Adam and Eve on account of their sin lost innocence and holiness, and were doomed to misery and death.

45. Q. What evil befell us through the disobedience of our first parents?
A. Through the disobedience of our first parents we all inherit their sin and punishment, as we should have shared in their happiness if they had remained faithful.

47. Q. What is the sin called which we inherit from our first parents?
A. The sin which we inherit from our first parents is called original sin.

50. Q. Was any one ever preserved from original sin?
A. The Blessed Virgin Mary, through the merit of her Divine Son, was preserved free from the guilt of original sin, and this privilege is called her Immaculate Conception.
From the Catechism of the Council Of Trent:

Quote:
To obtain the object of our prayers it will be found most helpful to reflect within ourselves who we are, - namely, children of Adam, exiled from Paradise by a just sentence of banishment, and deserving, by our unworthiness and perversity, to become the objects of God's supreme hatred, and to be doomed to eternal punishment.

This consideration should excite in us humility and lowliness.
From the Spirago-Clarke Catechism:

Quote:
12. Original Sin

The story of the Fall of man is a true story, not a mere fable. This is the general opinion of theologians.

1. God imposed on man in Paradise a precept; He forbade him to eat the fruit of one of the trees which stood in the midst of the Garden of Eden.

The fruit of the tree of good and evil was not bad in itself, for God did not place anything that was evil in Paradise; it was only bad and injurious to man because it was forbidden.

2. Man allowed himself to be led astray by the devil, and transgressed the precept of his Creator.

4. The sin of our first parents with all its evil consequences has passed on to their descendents.

The sin we inherit from Adam is called original sin.

All children have sinned in Adam, even though absolutely free from any personal act of sin.

Only Jesus Christ and His holy Mother were free from original sin.
post #35 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by CherryBomb View Post
A lot of Catholics I know tend to see Eve's sin as lesser than Adam's, though I don't think there's an official Church stance on that.
Yes, the Church teaches that Eve's sin is lesser than Adam's because man is the head of woman, and Adam was responsible for Eve and therefore culpable for her transgression. That is why original sin is passed through Adam.
post #36 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by AngelBee View Post
Can anyone please post the scripture that dicusses this stain on us?
Genesis 3:17/DRV - "And to Adam he said: Because thou hast hearkened to the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldst not eat, cursed is the earth in thy work; with labour and toil shalt thou eat thereof all the days of thy life."

Ecclus. 40:1/DRV - "A heavy yoke lies upon the shoulders of the children of Adam from the day of their birth to the day of their death."

Psalms 50:7/DRV - "For behold I was conceived in iniquities; and in sins did my mother conceive me."

Romans 7:23/DRV - "But I see another law in my members, fighting against the law of my mind, and captivating me in the law of sin, that is in my members."

Ephesians 2:3/DRV - "In which also we all conversed in time past, in the desires of our flesh, fulfilling the will of the flesh and of our thoughts, and were by nature children of wrath, even as the rest:"

Galatians 5:17/DRV - "For the flesh lusteth against the spirit: and the spirit against the flesh; for these are contrary one to another: so that you do not the things that you would."
post #37 of 67
Actually, CP is correct. The current Church teaching IS that story of Adam and Eve is, likely, just that - a STORY, used to illustrate a point.

I know this b/c I just took a diocesan-appointed youth ministry intermediate certification class; and this is what we were told by the instructor (the head of catechesis for the diocese).
post #38 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by spero View Post
The current Church teaching IS that story of Adam and Eve is, likely, just that - a STORY, used to illustrate a point.

I know this b/c I just took a diocesan-appointed youth ministry intermediate certification class; and this is what we were told by the instructor (the head of catechesis for the diocese).
Please post text of link showing what reference that is being taught from.
post #39 of 67
Again, that would be wrong to be told by a diocesean instructor (!) that the Fall is a myth.

In fact, here's the Church's most recent Catechism ('97) on the topic:


Quote:
Original sin - an essential truth of the faith

379 This entire harmony of original justice, foreseen for man in God's plan, will be lost by the sin of our first parents.

388 With the progress of Revelation, the reality of sin is also illuminated. Although to some extent the People of God in the Old Testament had tried to understand the pathos of the human condition in the light of the history of the fall narrated in Genesis, they could not grasp this story's ultimate meaning, which is revealed only in the light of the death and Resurrection of Jesus Christ.261 We must know Christ as the source of grace in order to know Adam as the source of sin. The Spirit-Paraclete, sent by the risen Christ, came to "convict the world concerning sin",262 by revealing him who is its Redeemer.

389 The doctrine of original sin is, so to speak, the "reverse side" of the Good News that Jesus is the Savior of all men, that all need salvation and that salvation is offered to all through Christ. The Church, which has the mind of Christ,263 knows very well that we cannot tamper with the revelation of original sin without undermining the mystery of Christ.

How to read the account of the Fall

390 The account of the fall in Genesis 3 uses figurative language, but affirms a primeval event, a deed that took place at the beginning of the history of man. 264 Revelation gives us the certainty of faith that the whole of human history is marked by the original fault freely committed by our first parents.265
post #40 of 67
The reference is the Catechism of the Catholic Church. The teaching is that Adam, Eve, the serpent, the garden, and the tree were used figuratively to illustrate a point. It's quite complicated, but leading Catholic theologians are now considering ancient language and cultural mis-translation, scientific proof of evolution, and other relevant factors to better understand ancient Scripture.

It was also pointed out that it doesn't matter if you believe that Adam and Eve were actual people, or not. The point is the origin of sin.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Religious Studies
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Mom › Talk Amongst Ourselves › Spirituality › Religious Studies › Original Sin