Original Sin

[willguy]

When is original sin imparted upon a person? Conception? Birth?

The reason I ask is because it would affect babies who are aborted or who are miscarried.

Can even original sin be removed in purgatory, or must that be removed through baptism and then other sins are purged in purgatory (should this question be a seperate thread)?

[M.SIGGA]

In the [i]Summa[/i], doesn't Aquinas argue that Original Sin is there whenever death can occur. He argue that original sin must exist and that babies are not born sinless or else they would not die, sort of like Adam and Eve before the Fall because sin allows death. So it would therefore exist in the womb because unborn babies can either be killed or die by themselves. I dunno for sure, but I remember reading something about this in the [i]Summa[/i] once.

[Theoketos]

Mary was concieved with out original sin.

[CatholicCrusader]

[quote]When is original sin imparted upon a person? Conception? Birth?
[/quote]

Original sin is imparted when the soul is imparted.

[quote]Can even original sin be removed in purgatory, or must that be removed through baptism and then other sins are purged in purgatory[/quote]

ONLY Baptism can forgive Original Sin. However, St. Thomas Aquinas writes in the Summa Theologica that this is the least of all sins; therefore, one dying with ONLY Original Sin receives the least harsh punishment (Limbo). Baptism is, of course, necessary for salvation, and these babies are not baptised.

God bless.

[willguy]

[quote name='CatholicCrusader' date='Mar 31 2004, 04:51 PM'] therefore, one dying with ONLY Original Sin receives the least harsh punishment (Limbo). Baptism is, of course, necessary for salvation, and these babies are not baptised.
[/quote]
I seem to remember that the Church taught that unbaptized infants are in the hands of God, that we do not know what their punishment is or is not. Couldn't the babies go through purgatory to have original sin removed and then heaven because they never had the opportunity to be baptized (sort of a baptism of desire)?

[Thy Geekdom Come]

I've always understood that the unbaptized babies would fall under the baptism of desire category.

[Dave]

If Mary was conceived without original sin, then it would follow that that's where everyone else receives original sin.

[CatholicCrusader]

[quote]I seem to remember that the Church taught that unbaptized infants are in the hands of God, that we do not know what their punishment is or is not[/quote]

No, the Church teaches that Baptism is necessary. We know that those who die outside the Church or without Baptism cannot be saved. Babies have neither Baptism nor existance in the Church.

[quote]Couldn't the babies go through purgatory to have original sin removed and then heaven because they never had the opportunity to be baptized (sort of a baptism of desire)? [/quote]

1) We don't know for sure if there even is a Baptism of Desire that God uses as a means of Salvation

2) the Babies have no desire to be Baptised...that is why when people talk abotu "Outtside the Church no salvation" it is stupid to always discuss the supposed "exceptions", which we don't even know if God uses because people come away with ideas that this is a "Baptism of Desire" whern there is clearly no desire whatsoever...the Church defined the Dogma without listing any "exceptions"; there is no need for us to analyize them. We need, rather, to convert all to the one True Church. God bless.

[the lumberjack]

"but to him that knows to do good, and does it not...to him it is sin."

and the wages of sin is death.


soooooo, let me know how a newborn child can know the difference between good and evil?

let me know how a baby can choose salvation?

let me know how a baby can choose ANYTHING....

a child in born IN sin...and inherits sin...but its not born with sin.

ELSE, WHY WOULD HAVE CHRIST SAID Mat 19:14 "But Jesus said, Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven."

and even you guys say that they were babies they brought to him...infants and toddlers...barely capable of walking...much less of making an ETERNAL decision with their soul.

or had their parents baptized them already? because the Bible makes no reference to this....

[willguy]

[quote]"but to him that knows to do good, and does it not...to him it is sin."
and the wages of sin is death.
soooooo, let me know how a newborn child can know the difference between good and evil?
[/quote]
You're asuming that this one verse contains the full and only definition of sin.

[quote]ELSE, WHY WOULD HAVE CHRIST SAID Mat 19:14 "But Jesus said, Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven."
[/quote]
Jesus was making a metaphor, saying we must have "child-like" faith and trust in God.

[quote]and even you guys say that they were babies they brought to him...infants and toddlers...barely capable of walking...much less of making an ETERNAL decision with their soul.
[/quote] Who is "you guys" and where did they say that?

[quote]because the Bible makes no reference to this....
[/quote] And? Now, I don't know whether or not the children had been baptized, and it really doesn't matter, but you've got to learn that saying "The Bible does not explicitly say _____" is not a valid arguement around here. The Bible doesn't explicitly say a lot of things that Catholics believe (as well as several key Protestant beliefs).

[the lumberjack]

[quote name='willguy' date='Apr 1 2004, 11:44 AM']


[/quote]
[quote]You're asuming that this one verse contains the full and only definition of sin.[/quote]

doesn't it?

something you KNOW you're supposed to do...something that the Lord INSTRUCTED you to do, or NOT do...if you do it, or not...is that not sin?

[quote]Jesus was making a metaphor, saying we must have "child-like" faith and trust in God.[/quote]

and why would he choose an INNOCENT child for us to have faith like? why not a teenager? because children ARE innocent...and because when they are very young, they know to trust their father completely.

[quote]Who is "you guys" and where did they say that?[/quote]

"you guys" is other catholics on this board...and I don't remember where...

[quote]And?  Now, I don't know whether or not the children had been baptized, and it really doesn't matter,[/quote]

how can it not?

why would Jesus called SINFUL, DIRTY, DOOMED children to Himself? why would WE as CHRISTIANS be called to have faith as a child if they're NOT innocent?

[quote]but you've got to learn that saying "The Bible does not explicitly say _____" is not a valid arguement around here.  The Bible doesn't explicitly say a lot of things that Catholics believe (as well as several key Protestant beliefs).[/quote]

and saying that YOUR church has 2000 years of "tradition" holds as much weight with us "protestants".

and could you list the protestant beliefs you speak of?

peace.

[willguy]

[quote]doesn't it?
[/quote]
Does it claim to? For example, I could say that love is the feeling between a parent and child. That is true. But it is not the only definition of love. That verse gives A definition of sin, but does not claim to be THE definition of sin.

[quote]why would Jesus called SINFUL, DIRTY, DOOMED children to Himself? [/quote]

I've got news for you, you're sinful, dirty, and (except by the grace of God) doomed.

[quote]why would WE as CHRISTIANS be called to have faith as a child if they're NOT innocent?[/quote] Why do people praise Paul for his willingness to suffer if he was not innocent? Child-like faith means a complete trust that God will always be there for us and loving him with all our heart, the same way a child trusts and loves his/her parents.

[quote]and could you list the protestant beliefs you speak of?
[/quote]

The terms Trinity, Sola Scriptura, and Sola Fide come to mind.

[the lumberjack]

[quote]Does it claim to? For example, I could say that love is the feeling between a parent and child. That is true. But it is not the only definition of love. That verse gives A definition of sin, but does not claim to be THE definition of sin.[/quote]

there are different TYPES of love...as far as I knew sin is sin...and the verse, especially when its Christ speaking, doesn't HAVE to claim that its THE definition. give me ANY OTHER definition of sin that would NOT fall in the guidlines of that verse, please.

[quote]I've got news for you, you're sinful, dirty, and (except by the grace of God) doomed.[/quote]

thats why Christ DIDN'T use midtwenties Mexican Sailors as the example of faith to have. He used pure, innocent children.

[quote]Why do people praise Paul for his willingness to suffer if he was not innocent?[/quote]

because Christ said, "for my name you shall suffer" and "in my name you shall be persecuted" and "the world will HATE YOU, because it HATED ME first." and Paul didn't care who or what tried to tear him down, he wouldn't let go of God.

[quote]The terms Trinity, Sola Scriptura, and Sola Fide come to mind.[/quote]

so are you saying that Catholics believe a PROTESTANT belief? I speak of the trinity here. as for the second two: amen and amen.

love.

[willguy]

[quote]as far as I knew sin is sin[/quote] Where does the Bible say that?

[quote]give me ANY OTHER definition of sin that would NOT fall in the guidlines of that verse, please.
[/quote] Original sin.

The Paul question was rhetorical. We can use people as examples of faith even if they aren't perfect. Just because Christ praised the faith of a child doesn't mean that children are perfect.

[quote]so are you saying that Catholics believe a PROTESTANT belief? [/quote] You wish. What I was getting at is that Catholics have no problem with having beliefs that are not explicitly scirptural, while protestants claim to have a problem with it but in practice do not.

[the lumberjack]

[quote]Where does the Bible say that?[/quote]

first, answer my question, then I'll answer yours.



[quote]Original sin.[/quote]

but what sin has the child COMMITED, and what CHOICE has the CHILD MADE? if a choice can not be made, then how can you condemn?

[quote]The Paul question was rhetorical.[/quote]

don't ask questions you don't want the answer to.

[quote]You wish.[/quote]

hahahahaha

[quote]What I was getting at is that Catholics have no problem with having beliefs that are not explicitly scirptural, while protestants claim to have a problem with it but in practice do not.[/quote]

the Trinity is undeniable. its written about throughout the whole Bible. Sola Fide is undeniable. its written about throughout the whole New Testament. Sola Scriptura is undeniable. its written about throughout the whole Bible as well. The age of reason? deduced from the scriptures and common sense...

love.

oh, and you still haven't answered ALL of my past posts.

[willguy]

[quote]first, answer my question, then I'll answer yours[/quote]

Technically, you didn't ask any questions. Now, if you are refering to a type of sin that doesn't fit the category, I gave you an answer. Original sin. It doesn't fit the definiton you gave. That said, where does the Bible say that sin is sin? Where does it say that the one sentence definition of sin that you gave is the full definition of sin?

[quote]but what sin has the child COMMITED, and what CHOICE has the CHILD MADE? [/quote] The child is born with original sin because that is the nature of humanity. We are born with the stain of sin.

[quote]Sola Fide is undeniable. its written about throughout the whole New Testament. Sola Scriptura is undeniable. its written about throughout the whole Bible as well. The age of reason? deduced from the scriptures and common sense...
[/quote] Give me a second to pull myself off the floor and stop laughing. Ok, I'm better now. Anyways, I don't want to turn this into an arguement about these subjects, so let me just say you ought to take a look at the reference section that phatcatholic has compiled.

[CatholicCrusader]

[quote]let me know how a baby can choose salvation?

let me know how a baby can choose ANYTHING....

a child in born IN sin...and inherits sin...but its not born with sin.[/quote]

It's called ORIGINAL SIN. A baby can't choose salvation...that is why they go to Limbo and not the Hell of the damned. Yet, as Our Lord taught, Baptism is necessary for salvation, so they cannot be saved, for they have not Baptism. God bless.

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='the lumberjack' date='Apr 1 2004, 02:58 AM'] "but to him that knows to do good, and does it not...to him it is sin."

and the wages of sin is death.


soooooo, let me know how a newborn child can know the difference between good and evil?

let me know how a baby can choose salvation?

let me know how a baby can choose ANYTHING....

a child in born IN sin...and inherits sin...but its not born with sin.

ELSE, WHY WOULD HAVE CHRIST SAID Mat 19:14 "But Jesus said, Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven."

and even you guys say that they were babies they brought to him...infants and toddlers...barely capable of walking...much less of making an ETERNAL decision with their soul.

or had their parents baptized them already? because the Bible makes no reference to this.... [/quote]
A newborn child, born with Original Sin, cannot choose salvation, but the responsible parents can choose Baptism for the child. Original Sin is the inheritance of our first parents sin. Baptism is entrance into the kingdom and erases the Original Sin.
The Church considers the age of reason to be 7.

[Pio Nono]

JMJ
4/2 - St. Francis of Paola

And what, then, becomes of the Holy Innocents under this thought? The Holy Innocents, though unbaptized, are officially martyrs and enjoy the Beatific Vision. We [u]seem[/u] to have a case where the unbaptized are in Heaven.

What of St. Augustine, who says, "Baptism is ministered invisibly to one whom not contempt of religion but death excludes" (City of God VIII)?

And what of the Council of Trent, which says, "...and this translation [from a child of Adam to a child of God] after the promulgation of the Gospel cannot be effected except through the laver [water] of regeneration, or a [i]desire for it[/i]" (Decree on Justification, 4)?

Now, for the baptism of children to be valid, the intention either of the parents must be present (since the child cannot intend to be baptized on his own). Trent (cf. above) clearly indicates that a desire for baptism could translate one from being a child of Adam to a child of God. Is it [i]entirely impossible[/i] that the desire of the parents for the baptism of their child is able to act in the way Trent describes?

I do not wish to destroy the thought on Limbo, I just think it's necessary to remember that it ain't decided because it's got lots of problems. It's not out of a desire to feel all warm and pretty that I don't believe in Limbo, it's that, in light of the "baptism by desire" as presented above as well as the "baptism of blood" as shown by the example of the Holy Innocents, that I cannot [i]make sense[/i] of the belief.

Thoughts?

[CatholicCrusader]

[quote]The Church considers the age of reason to be 7. [/quote]

Actually, the Church says the AVERAGE age of use is seven. The definition of the age of use is when one realizes what sin is and can choose right or wrong.

The Holy Innocents were in the OLD TESTAMENT....ther wasn't Baptism...besides, they died in place of Our Lord...that's not the same as some drug addict prostitute having her fourth abortion.

God bless.