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

Original Sin - Page 3

post #41 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by spero View Post
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.

You mean the one I just quoted?

I didn't get any of that out of the excerpt on the topic from the Catechism posted above.
post #42 of 67
Actually, the most recent edition of the Catechism was published in 2003.

Quote:
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 #43 of 67
I'm not looking to convince you, Stacy. Just pointing out that CP's statement was correct, according to the diocesan-approved class I took last month.
post #44 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by spero View Post
Actually, the most recent Catechism was published in 2003.

Here's the link to it online:

http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc.htm
post #45 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by spero View Post
Just pointing out that CP's statement was correct, according to the diocesan-approved class I took last month.
I do not see any reference to the Fall being a myth anywhere in ANY of these Catechisms.

I believe you when you say you were told that in your class, but nowhere in any of those texts does it deny that the Fall was an actual event nor that original sin is the reality of the consequence of man's Fall from grace.
post #46 of 67
Stacy - I'm not going to engage in a pissing match with you over the most recent edition. You can Google it.

I was simply affirming what CP stated, based on my own active continuing education in the Catholic faith. Sorry if you don't like it, but that's what it is.

I'll not derail this thread further.
post #47 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by spero View Post
Actually, the most recent Catechism was published in 2003.
Link please, to an online version? TIA.

BTW, your new signature is very funny.
post #48 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by StacyL View Post
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.

Ah okay, good to know! That makes sense.

http://www.catholic.com/library/adam..._evolution.asp

My understanding and what I was taught in RCIA is that Adam and Eve were indeed real people and the fall really happened, though Genesis is figurative. If that makes sense! Seems backed up by what's in my 2003 CCC.
post #49 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by StacyL View Post
Link please, to an online version? TIA.
I think this is the most recent one-

http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/ccc_toc.htm
post #50 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by CherryBomb View Post
I think this is the most recent one-

http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/ccc_toc.htm
Ah, thanks. I don't know why that didn't come up on Google.
post #51 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by AngelBee View Post
Can anyone please post the scripture that dicusses this stain on us?
BTW, besides the passages I listed, I wanted to mention that the link from the latest Catechism on the topic of the Fall and Original Sin has a long, long list of the Scriptural references at the bottom of it - along with the references to the specific passages from the Council Of Trent, the Summa Theologica, and writings from several other Doctors of the Church.

Scroll all the way to the bottom:


http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/p1s2c1p7.htm

Quote:
257 St. Augustine, Conf. 7,7,11: PL 32,739.
258 2 Thess 2:7; 1 Tim 3:16.
259 Cf. Rom 5:20.
260 Cf. Lk 11:21-22; Jn 16:11; 1 Jn 3:8.
261 Cf. Rom 5:12-21.
262 Jn 16:8.
263 Cf. 1 Cor 2:16.
264 Cf. GS 13 § 1.
265 Cf. Council of Trent: DS 1513; Pius XII: DS 3897; Paul VI: AAS 58 (1966), 654.
266 Cf. Gen 3:1-5; Wis 2:24.
267 Cf Jn 8:44; Rev 12:9.
268 Lateran Council IV (1215): DS 800.
269 Cf. 2 Pet 2:4.
270 Gen 3:5.
271 1 Jn 3:8; Jn 8:44.
272 St. John Damascene, De Fide orth. 2,4: PG 94,877.
273 Jn 8:44; cf. Mt 4:1-11.
274 1 Jn 3:8.
275 Rom 8:28.
276 Gen 2:17.
277 Gen 2:17.
278 Cf. Gen 3:1-11; Rom 5:19.
279 St. Maximus the Confessor, Ambigua: PG 91,1156C; cf. Gen 3:5.
280 Cf. Rom 3:23.
281 Cf. Gen 3:5-10.
282 Cf. Gen 3:7-16.
283 Cf. Gen 3:17,19.
284 Rom 8:21.
285 Gen 3:19; cf. 2:17.
286 Cf. Rom 5:12.
287 Cf. Gen 4:3-15; 6:5,12; Rom 1:18-32; 1 Cor 1-6; Rev 2-3.
288 GS 13 § 1.
289 Rom 5:12,19.
290 Rom 5:18.
291 Cf. Council of Trent: DS 1512.
292 Cf. Council of Trent: DS 1514.
293 St. Thomas Aquinas, De Malo 4,1.
294 Cf. Council of Trent: DS 1511-1512
295 Cf. Council of Trent: DS 1513.
296 DS 371-372.
297 Cf. DS 1510-1516.
298 Council of Trent (1546): DS 1511; cf. Heb 2:14.
299 Cf. John Paul II, CA 25.
300 Jn 1:29.
301 Cf. John Paul II, RP 16.
302 1 Jn 5:19; cf. 1 Pet 5:8.
303 GS 37 § 2.
304 Cf. Gen 3:9,15.
305 Cf. 1 Cor 15:21-22,45; Phil 2:8; Rom 5:19-20.
306 Cf. Pius IX, Ineffabilis Deus: DS 2803; Council of Trent: DS 1573.
307 St. Leo the Great, Sermo 73,4: PL 54,396.
308 St. Thomas Aquinas, STh III,1,3, ad 3; cf. Rom 5:20.
post #52 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by suzywan View Post
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.
Sorry, not clear.

Why would God demand a bigger sacrifice than anyone was capable of paying? Why is a divine sacrifice asked for from humans, and then even that would not be enough,were they capable of making it? Why not demand the largest sacrifice they could actually make on their own?

If my basically innocent 3 year old son breaks a $100 vase after I told him not to throw a ball in the house, does it really help me to demand he give me $100 or I won't be satisfied? The poor kid doesn't have $100 and is incapable of understanding what $100 even is. And does it help any more to hand him $100 of my own money and have him give it back so I'm satisfied he's made his retribution?

Sorry if this is a stupid analogy but I just don't get it. Help?

ETA: I hope my analogy doesn't offend anyone. It just came to mind because a lot of religious people of all faiths have told me that God thinks of us as we think of our children and loves us the same way. I like this idea, so I'm having trouble with the part I noted above.
post #53 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by avent View Post
Sorry, not clear.

Why would God demand a bigger sacrifice than anyone was capable of paying? Why is a divine sacrifice asked for from humans, and then even that would not be enough,were they capable of making it? Why not demand the largest sacrifice they could actually make on their own?

If my basically innocent 3 year old son breaks a $100 vase after I told him not to throw a ball in the house, does it really help me to demand he give me $100 or I won't be satisfied? The poor kid doesn't have $100 and is incapable of understanding what $100 even is. And does it help any more to hand him $100 of my own money and have him give it back so I'm satisfied he's made his retribution?

Sorry if this is a stupid analogy but I just don't get it. Help?
I don't have an answer, but your siggy made me feel warm and fuzzy inside.
post #54 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by avent View Post
Sorry, not clear.

Why would God demand a bigger sacrifice than anyone was capable of paying? Why is a divine sacrifice asked for from humans, and then even that would not be enough,were they capable of making it? Why not demand the largest sacrifice they could actually make on their own?

If my basically innocent 3 year old son breaks a $100 vase after I told him not to throw a ball in the house, does it really help me to demand he give me $100 or I won't be satisfied? The poor kid doesn't have $100 and is incapable of understanding what $100 even is. And does it help any more to hand him $100 of my own money and have him give it back so I'm satisfied he's made his retribution?

Sorry if this is a stupid analogy but I just don't get it. Help?

ETA: I hope my analogy doesn't offend anyone. It just came to mind because a lot of religious people of all faiths have told me that God thinks of us as we think of our children and loves us the same way. I like this idea, so I'm having trouble with the part I noted above.

God is a mystery. "Why?" won't get you far. That's how I see it anyway.
post #55 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by avent View Post
Sorry, not clear.

Why would God demand a bigger sacrifice than anyone was capable of paying? Why is a divine sacrifice asked for from humans, and then even that would not be enough,were they capable of making it? Why not demand the largest sacrifice they could actually make on their own?

If my basically innocent 3 year old son breaks a $100 vase after I told him not to throw a ball in the house, does it really help me to demand he give me $100 or I won't be satisfied? The poor kid doesn't have $100 and is incapable of understanding what $100 even is. And does it help any more to hand him $100 of my own money and have him give it back so I'm satisfied he's made his retribution?

Sorry if this is a stupid analogy but I just don't get it. Help?

ETA: I hope my analogy doesn't offend anyone. It just came to mind because a lot of religious people of all faiths have told me that God thinks of us as we think of our children and loves us the same way. I like this idea, so I'm having trouble with the part I noted above.


I get what you're trying to say. The retribution thing doesn't work so well for me either. The Orthodox Christian approach to this topic resonates with me much more. (Which thread did I read that made me think this.....?)
post #56 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by anotherKatrina View Post
I get what you're trying to say. The retribution thing doesn't work so well for me either. The Orthodox Christian approach to this topic resonates with me much more. (Which thread did I read that made me think this.....?)
I agree. I think the "satisfaction of a debt" view of the Atonement is pretty two-dimensional and misses the richness of meaning present in the Orthodox Church's view. But there is value in the "satisfaction of a debt" view (for me, at least). It's turning the story of Abraham and Isaac (as well as the Jewish practice at the time of offering sacrifice to God) on its head. When I view it mythically, it's a very beautiful description of God's amazing love for us.
post #57 of 67
Interesting I open this thread when I was just reading the USCCB on this topic. In the catecism quiz the question was :

True or False

The sin of Adam and Eve has opened up for us greater blessings from God than if Adam and Eve had never sinned.

Answer

True. Para. 412: But why did God not prevent the first man from sinning? St. Leo the Great responds, "Christ's inexpressible grace gave us blessings better than those the demon's envy had taken away" (St. Leo the Great, Sermo 73, 4: PL 54, 396). And St. Thomas Aquinas wrote, "There is nothing to prevent human nature's being raised up to something greater, even after sin; God permits evil in order to draw forth some greater good. Thus St. Paul says, 'Where sin increased, grace abounded all the more'; and the Exultet sings, 'O happy fault, . . . which gained for us so great a Redeemer!'" (St. Thomas Aquinas, STh III, 1, 3, ad 3; cf. Rom 5:20).
post #58 of 67
AngelBee--
As a precursor, I am a member of a Protestant religion, and we do not practice infant baptism in my church.
Okay. I do not believe that infants are sinful, and thus I do not believe they need to be baptised. I do believe that all humans are born with the capacity inside themselves to sin. I look at salvation through the eyes of grace. It is a gift. All I have to do is accept it. I believe there comes a time in each life where they are faced with the choice to accept God's gift of grace and salvation. Out of my four children, my 11yo dd is the only one who has been baptised. She was baptised at the age of 8 when she made a conscious decision to accept God's gift. My other children (I have a 5yo ds, a 3yo dd and a 3yo ds) have not been baptised because they have not yet come to a point where they understand God's gift. My feeling is if a person has come to that point where they understand God's gift and they choose to reject it, THEN there is a problem.

I do not believe that an infant needs to be baptised to save them from going to hell if they die. I do not believe that God sends innocent babies to hell.

If you're looking for scripture to help you understand, I would recommend reading the gospel of John.

Blessings to you.
post #59 of 67
Thank you for the responses. Can someone point me in the direction of resources to read the Orthodox Church's point of view? I googled a bit but am not finding something that represents the angle being spoken of here. I'm Muslim and believe in Adam's fall, but not in the concept of original sin. It's difficult to get my mind around it. Thanks.
post #60 of 67
I'm not Orthodox, but I found this article helpful:

http://bible.beliefnet.com/story/182/story_18227_1.html
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