There is a group on Facebook that discusses the books and ideas of Fr. Richard Rohr. It is not a group sponsored by Rohr or the Center for Action and Contemplation, but just a place where those interested in his insights and ideas can converse. There was a post today that caught my eye because I don't agree with the Augustinian understanding (official church teaching) of original sin. I accepted all of it when I was a kid, and was well into adulthood before I really began dissenting from the many christian and Catholic teachings that don't make sense to me, such as atonement theology, transubstantiation, and original sin (among others). This was the lead comment in the FB group today. Thoughts?
Several years ago, i attended a church that was doing an infant dedication, and the pastor offered an interesting suggestion.
He asked his creative arts department to design "onesies" for the babies, with the following printed on the front:
Dιɾƚყ Rσƚƚҽɳ Sιɳɳҽɾ
And on the back:
𝗣𝗿𝗲𝗮𝗰𝗵 𝗠𝗲 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗚𝗼𝘀𝗽𝗲𝗹
What do you think of this idea?
If YOU were the Creative Arts Director...
What would you have printed on the front/back?!
[Note: most in the audience that day cheered loudly, while I became a little sick to my stomach. They likely hadn't read Immortal Diamond, or anything else by Father Richard... and they need to]
I would guess that pastor's church wasn't a Catholic church. Even apart from putting "dirty rotten sinner"(!) on a baby's clothing, I don't think we have a ceremony called "infant dedication". Maybe that is done in denominations that don't baptize until later in the child's (or adult's) life?
ReplyDeleteI also don't think we Catholics consider infants to be "dirty rotten sinners". We think they have the stain of original sin (which is not the same as an actual, personal sin); and the waters of baptism wash away that stain.
FWIW, we don't think young children commit sins until they reach the age of reason - typically thought to be around the age of seven. Speaking as a parent: that age isn't a bad proxy for children understanding right from wrong (and choosing to do the wrong anyway).
I’m quite sure it was a Protestant church, most likely evangelical. Our eldest grandson was dedicated in his maternal grandmother’s church in Florida - an African American church. I have heard of infant dedications previously. Not everyone who is part of the Richard Rohr discussion group on FB is Catholic. But most Catholics have relatives and friends who aren’t Catholic so are invited to infant dedications. In my Jewish neighborhood we have gone to bris ceremonies for boys and naming ceremonies for girls but no infant dedications.
DeleteUnfortunately the teaching on original sin does imply that we are born sinners.
I had to look up what a “onesie” was. AI says it is a one-piece garment.
ReplyDeleteIn this case with dirty rotten sinner on the front and preach me the gospel on the back the onesie tells me more about the people surrounding the child than about the child.
By implication they seem to regard themselves and others such as this little child as dirty rotten sinners in need of preaching the gospel. What is the Good News? Is it that we are all dirty rotten sinners that have been redeemed?
I don’t think self-loathing and certainly loathing of others is very desirable.
Such thinking is difficult to square with the biblical doctrine that we are all made in the image and likeness of God. Is God a dirty rotten sinner?
It is difficult to square with the Catholic Doctrine of the fundamental dignity and equality of all human beings. Surely that does mean that everyone is a dirty rotten sinner!
It is also difficult to square with the summary of the whole law as consisting of love of God and love of neighbor as oneself. Does that really mean that we love them and ourselves as dirty rotten sinners?
In announcing the Kingdom of God, Jesus called us to repent. But the Greek word is METANOIA, literally to go beyond our present ways of thinking. These are the first words of Jesus in the Gospel of Mark as he begins to preach the God News.
What METANOIA means differs greatly for the individuals that Jesus met.
For Peter and Andrew, James and John it meant transforming their lives as fishermen into being the company of Jesus.
For the people in the synagogue, it meant the experiencing the authority of Jesus teaching.
For Peter’s mother-in-law it meant healing from an illness that kept her from serving the family.
The Good News transforms people in very different ways. What they were before matters very little. Also, what they become differs greatly from person to person.
I agree with Jim that this story likely comes from a Protestant environment and does not represent official Catholic thinking on the issue of sin. However, Protestant thinking on the issue of sin has had a warping influence on American Catholic thinking at the popular level.
Historically I think Lutheran and Calvinist theology has given Protestant theology a much more negative attitude toward man than Augustine ever had. And we have to remember that most Orthodox do not regard Augustine as a saint much less a Church Father because of his views on original sin. Some recent Catholic theology as attempted to rethink human nature more in terms of Orthodox theology which emphasizes the elevation of all humanity and all creation through the incarnation and our relationship to the glorified humanity of Christ, and the giving of the Holy Spirit. One finds little of that in contemporary Evangelical theology. I think we American Catholics have hesitated to become more like the Orthodox largely because of our national Protestant heritage.
Jack, thanks - that is a brilliant exposition.
DeleteI' recently started a book on what it means to be made in the image of God. I've had to temporarily set it aside to finish a biography of Calvin Coolidge that is due back pretty soon at the library.
I would actually doubt that the proposed wording on the onesie alludes to catholic theology or to Augustine.. Many Protestants have no idea who he was nor do they know anything about his influence on the development of Christian theology. I was a bit surprised when I first realized that.
ReplyDeleteI suspect that Jack is right - the whole idea reflects a Calvinist mindset. But it could reflect catholic theology as well- that human beings are born with sin on their souls and must be baptized in order to gain heaven. Jim, you have repeated this idea more than once, saying that “ well, the church teaches ….that the only SURE way to gain access heaven is Christian baptism using the trinitarian formula “ so you had better convince your kids to get their kids baptized. .
Examples of onesies for Jack . Onesies are the most important articles of apparel in an infant’s wardrobe.
https://www.shutterstock.com/search/baby-wearing-onesie?dd_referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2F
"well, the church teaches ….that the only SURE way to gain access heaven is Christian baptism using the trinitarian formula "
DeleteRight, I know what you're referring to. This is from paragraph 1257 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church:
"The Lord himself affirms that Baptism is necessary for salvation. [Cf. Jn 3:5] He also commands his disciples to proclaim the Gospel to all nations and to baptize them. [ Cf. Mt 28:19-20; cf. Council of Trent (1547) DS 1618; LG 14; AG 5.] Baptism is necessary for salvation for those to whom the Gospel has been proclaimed and who have had the possibility of asking for this sacrament. [Mk 16:16.] The Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude..."
And that is so wrong. In my humble opinion ;). And I suspect the PTB of the RCC realize that it’s wrong.So it came up with baptism by blood and baptism of desire that can.be interpreted rather “generously” In order to wiggle out of the implication that anyone who has ever heard of the Catholic Church but didn’t seek baptism is out of luck. No heaven for you! I would have more respect for the church if it ever honestly admitted that sometimes it has been wrong about things. That way it wouldn’t have to twist itself into pretzels trying to explain away changes in teachings in a “ infallible” church. Infallibility is at the top of the list of teachings that should be dropped, to make it easier to “ develop” doctrine. The. Council of Trent should be relegated to ” historical documents”. Just as the ECUSA has done with the Anglican foundational document called “the Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion”. The church should also say that being baptized isn’t a get out of jail free card. That kind Hindu neighbor who refuses the entreaties of his Catholic neighbors to go to mass with them and convert might get to “ eternal beatitude “ and the lying, cheating, and nasty Catholic neighbor might be kept out out of whatever heaven might be.
DeleteBut the catholic church is the best of the bunch. Or maybe the Orthodox Church is - in Theology. But after going to many services in my friend’s Greek Orthodox Church I know I can’t handle their liturgies on a routine basis. The Anglicans didn’t develop a lot of theology but they seem to have interpreted the bible better and don’t demand that their members believe every word of their teachings. They respect the minds and consciences of the laity more than the RCC does the minds and consciences of its laity. As some members of ECUSA say ( often converts from Catholicism) they don’t ask their members to check their brains at the door.
Delete"So it came up with baptism by blood and baptism of desire that can.be interpreted rather “generously” In order to wiggle out of the implication that anyone who has ever heard of the Catholic Church but didn’t seek baptism is out of luck."
DeleteWhen I was young, right before Vatican II, Father Leonard Feeney was excommunicated for maintaining that "outside the Church there is no salvation." Part of the beliefs of SSPX go in that direction, they reject Vatican II on ecumenism, interfaith dialogue and better relationships with Judaism.
In someways we have gone too far with ecumenism in that we are reluctant to criticize the many things in the many forms of Protestantism that are at variance with Catholicism and let some of these infiltrate into American Catholicism.
We sometimes adopt aspects of their practice such as having a personal relationship with Jesus which is far short of our Trinitarian ideal of a relationship to God. The Protestant notion of sin focuses too much on personal sin rather that the sinfulness of society involved in the worship of money, status and power.
No that doesn't sound like a Catholics Baptism. Who in their right mind puts that on a baby's garment!
ReplyDeleteThe evangelical church that my husband grew up in did have a dedication ceremony if the parents wanted i
Usually parents dress a baby in a white garment of some kind for Baptism. Some of the church ladies made little white bibs in case the parents didn't have anything white for the child. My mom made my baptismal dress out of the same cloth that her wedding dress was made of. My grandma made a white gown (a lot longer than the baby!) for our sons. It was used by all our granddaughters too. They tried my little dress on them, but apparently I was a smaller baby, it didn't fit them..
About original sin, I think it is a place holder for something we can't explain. That is the fact that humans frequently choose to do bad things. As one of our pastors put it in his homilies, "man's propensity for evil". That propensity is on display, all the time.
I think of Baptism as the first sacrament of initiation, a celebration of being in the family of God. I don't worry too much about what the theologians say about original sin, they're trying to explain a mystery that is inexplicable in the end..
Katherine-“ they're trying to explain a mystery that is inexplicable in the end”
DeleteWhich is the fundamental flaw in theology . It tries to explain that which cannot be truly understood by limited human minds.
The problem is that too many accept these teachings uncritically. Blindly, as we young Catholics were taught back in the day. We were expected to believe all, accept all that the church teaches, with “ docility “. I did when I was young, even as the doubts grew. I wanted the feeling of community. But eventually community was not enough. My spiritual journey will continue until I die, but without answers, without certainty. Religion fascinates me, but the only thing I can say that I believe without question is that there is a creator of this universe. Most people refer to this.creator as God. So I do too.
How much harm has been done by doctrine and dogma over the years? How many were persecuted, tortured and killed for
“heresy”? How much harm is done by the type of thinking that leads to having a onesie worn by a baby that says Dirty Rotten Sinner’ ?
My Wesleyan, Amish, and Baptist in-laws have infant dedication. Even the ones who think humans are rotten to the core would not sanction that horrible onesie.
ReplyDeleteInfant dedication welcomes new life and reminds the congregation that they all play a part in setting a good example and bringing the child into the Church. Failure to join the Church among the Amish is seen as a failing of the family and community.
At our nephew's dedication, the Wesleyan minister said that a Christian example can come from many sources, including family members from other denominations.
It was not much different from a Catholic baptism in which parents and godparents vow to raise the child in the faith.
I'd like to offer a few brief thoughts about original sin.
ReplyDeleteThe first point is: it is not the same as a sin. As the CCC puts it (#404), "It is "contracted", not "committed"". It "does not have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam's descendants" (405). These observations of what original sin is not (i.e. it is not sin per se) help us to understand, not only what original sin is, but what sin is - and that they are not the same.
An interesting aspect of the doctrine of original sin that I think is seldom mentioned is that, according to the Adam and Eve myth, sin was not originally bound up with humanity. There was a time prior to original sin. During that time, humans lived in a state of original holiness and original justice (399, 400, 404).
That there was once a time of original holiness and origianal justice may help explain our innate sense that life 'doesn't have to be this way' - that the sinfulness and evil in the world is not something simply to be accepted, much less to be cooperated with.
The notions of original holiness and original justice help us to see that sin, although we may consider it intrinsic to humanity, is not so - sin only came after humanity. Because sin is not intrinsic to humanity, it is possible for us to imagine living without sin - that it may be possible, somehow (and that is only with God's help) to live some day win a holy and justified way.
The doctrine of original sin also presupposes a profound connectedness among humans - the "unity of the human race" (CCC 404). The church does not have a precise explanation for how this is so - how it is we are all bound together, such that original sin is disseminated to each of us. But surely we all sense it is true; and the notion permeates our best ideas. It is why solidarity makes sense to us; it is why is seems so self-damning, in one of the myth-stories, when Cain asks God, "am I my brother's keeper?""
The concept of original holiness is better than original sin. This explanation from the CCC again seems like an attempt to unsay what the. church says — that original sin IS sin and if not ”washed clean” by baptism even a newborn baby, totally innocent, is not guaranteed entry into “eternal beatitude “. Whether the sin was “contracted” or “committed “ is another example of twisting the teaching into a pretzel in order to justify it - but according to the church, the consequences are the same if the poor innocent baby isn’t baptized before dying. Because the “sin” the baby was born with that didn’t get washed away by baptism is too much sin for the eternal beatitude!
DeleteJim—“ it ( original sin) is not the same as a sin.”
If original sin and “sin” are not the same then 1) the baby should not be barred from “eternal beatitude “, and 2) the word “sin” should not be applied to innocent, just born souls! The human race has plenty of characteristics that bind them together as human. Humans certainly don’t need something called “sin” to be transmitted and disseminated to each of us to bind the human race together. The “unity” of the human race is simply that we are all human. We are distinct from every other form of life on the planet. If you need a “profound” connection, it seems all humans possessing a soul would be the tie that binds, not “sin”, original or otherwise. Sin is what divides us—breaks the profound connection.
Perhaps exploring these concepts in some source other than the CCC would be a good idea.
"If original sin and “sin” are not the same then 1) the baby should not be barred from “eternal beatitude “"
DeleteI would say that the church does not teach that unbaptized babies are barred from "eternal beatitude". I am sure you are aware that the teaching of limbo (which would be a fate that falls short of eternal beatitude) is not official church teaching, but rather speculation.
In that quote from the Catechism which you referenced and I supplied above, "The Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude...", I'd suggest a key phrase is, "The Church does not know". That Baptism assures entry into eternal beatitude would seem to be an article of faith. But the inverse - that being unbaptized assures eternal separation from God - is not an article of faith, to the best of my knowledge.
This question seems to continue to be a topic of contemporary theological work. You may be familiar with this document from ~20 years ago from the International Theological Commission. It reaches no firm conclusion.
https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20070419_un-baptised-infants_en.html
"Whether the sin was “contracted” or “committed “ is another example of twisting the teaching into a pretzel in order to justify it"
DeleteMorally, the difference between "contracted" and "committed" seems pretty significant. If a person chooses to drive 100 mph, crashes the car and loses a limb - that's something that person *committed* - something s/he chose to do. That person is morally culpable. If a person contracts a disease that results in the loss of a limb (as happened to my brother when we were children), that person is not morally culpable for it. It is a tragic thing that happened to him.
"Humans certainly don’t need something called “sin” to be transmitted and disseminated to each of us to bind the human race together. The “unity” of the human race is simply that we are all human. We are distinct from every other form of life on the planet. "
DeleteWe don't call it "sin" - we call it "original sin". The two are not the same (cf "contracted" vs. "committed"). It's too bad "original sin" has the word "sin" in it. It would be better if it was called "cheeseburger" or "marimba" - some term that doesn't include the word "sin".
I think the Catechism is trying to tell us that humans are bound together more profoundly than simply all belonging to the same species. To be sure: many of us don't apprehend that; we live lives that suggest we see others as truly "other" rather than connected with us. The so-called culture of death is one terrible manifestation of this. The deportation quotas now in place in the US, and the politics that gave birth to it, are another. We live in an age in which the bonds of solidarity are weakened or even severed. It's not how we're meant to live.
Seems like we have to work through understanding the "bonds of solidarity" in every generation. We are all too willing to place others outside those bonds in various ways. It does seem like that tendency is the effect of something we call original sin.
DeleteJim, let’s get to the essence of the question. You are trying to say that original sin is not really “sin”. But the church maintains that every newborn child has to be baptized to wash away sin - original sin. You have said that also. The word “sin” and the consequences of not “washing“ that sin away imply that the innocent newborn will suffer the consequences of a sin it did not commit if it dies. If the child isn’t baptized it may not be admitted to eternal beatitude (is that another term for “ heaven”.? ) Fudging it to say that the church doesn’t KNOW if that’s the consequence is wiggling out of the bind the church has put itself in by the Augustinian theology. The church refuses to admit when it’s offered questionable theology during its history. It would be so much better if it came clean about its own errors and its institutional sins . I’ve been appalled with the way conservative Catholics try to whitewash such major historical errors as the Galileo affair, witch hunts and torture and executions, burning heretics at the stake, etc, etc.—many many crimes that were egregious sins!
DeleteJim, are you really trying to set up a straw man with the nonsense about cheeseburger and marimba?
If the church is trying to say that there are bonds of solidarity besides just being human, then why have a baptism ritual with the express purpose of washing away original sin? If it’s not “ real” sin it doesn’t need washing away. Get your head out of the CCC and explain in your own words.
If all humans have souls, isn’t that enough of a profound bond? Far more profound than “contracting” a sin committed by others. Repeating — sin divides, it doesn’t create unity.
Original sin implies that the innocent newborn child is guilty of offending God by inheriting the guilt of mythical ancestors. They need to change the terminology and adopt some form of the explanation that Katherine puts forth - it’s a ritual to welcome the baby into a specific religious community and has nothing at all to do with sin - contracted or committed. Once the child reaches the age of reason (7 or thereabouts) the parents and community work to guide the child in avoiding sin, teaching that harm to others is a sin and that Jesus said that the commandment is to love! This love means making moral choices that don’t harm others. That harm can be done in countless ways, so the child is guided and taught how to avoid committing harm.
Jean, if baptism washes away our ability to commit sins, it obviously doesn’t work! The child is born without sin. No sin is present in infants that require washing away. The propensity to sin as the child grows towards maturity is a separate matter and is real. But the concept of “original sin” as defined by the church needs to be redefined— and separated from the purpose of baptism.
No. I'm saying that, to me, Baptism is a sign/symbol/hope that our ability to sin without feeling pangs of conscience is washed away.
DeleteI don't have much faith in the "powers" of the Sacraments to make God dance to our tune a la, I'm Baptized, gotta let me in Heaven!
The theological explanation that Jim offers seems to acknowledge this in that the Church knows of no way to salvation without Baptism (but that doesn't mean there isn't).
That's as close as I can get to orthodoxy.
I'm not trying to argue or convince anybody that I'm right. In fact I made a vow not to participate on here on topics having to do with theology or Church matters.
So back to my hole I go!
I understand where you’re coming from. But technically speaking, we can’t each have our own individual understanding of official church teachings according to the church. It says every human being is born with sin that must be washed away by baptism lest the innocent baby die and there is no guarantee about the consequences of that failure to baptized.
Delete. Your background was in a church that encourages independent thought. Mine, as a cradle Catholic in a family with a mother who never questioned one word of Catholic teaching, was in a church that provides a 1000 page book of official teachings. The CCC does not convince people like me, but that is what is usually offered to doubters in the RCC. For many years I have tried to get an honest answer to the must- believe questions. But the only thing offered is catechism answers, that don’t satisfy— that don’t really answer the questions. . The doubters usually leave out of frustration after a while because quoting the CCC does not answer those questions. Catholicism provides the most ““intellectual “ interpretations, but often they fail to actually answer the questions.
"You are trying to say that original sin is not really “sin”:
DeleteCorrect. There is no need to put "sin" in quotes; original sin is not the same as sin.
"But the church maintains that every newborn child has to be baptized to wash away sin - original sin.""
The church does not maintain that - because it does not maintain that original sin is the same as sin. They are different. It's possible to be stained by original sin without being wounded by sin. I
For 10-12 years, I led baptism preparation sessions with parents of infants. This was an item (one of many, and far from the main point of discussion) we covered in every session: their infant children, who rarely were old than two years old, had not committed any sins. Yet they were still stained by this other thing called original sin.
(If it's of interest, we brought up this point in the context of the meaning of the pouring of water. This is a traditional Catholic view of the meaning of that powerful symbol: that the water washes that stain away.)
said this many, many times - not here, but in baptism
Jim, you are still trying to obfuscate the clear meaning of the word “ sin” in “ original sin”. Saying it is (something) that “ stains” the soul is an oiling the reality that the church calls it a sin. If it isn’t a sin, it doesn’t need washing away.
DeleteI did a baptism yesterday. As this topic was at the front of my mind, I noted this reference to original sin in the rite. This prayer, which is a prayer of exorcism, is prayed immediately before the celebrant is anointed with the Oil oc Catechmens on his/her breast:
DeleteAlmighty ever-living God,
who sent your Son into the world
to drive out from us the power of Satan, the spirit of evil,
and bring the human race, rescued from darkness,
into the marvelous Kingdom of your light:
we humbly beseech you
to free this child from Original Sin,
to make him (her) the temple of your glory,
and to grant that your Holy Spirit may sell in him (her).
Through Christ our Lord.
If I am not mistaken, this is the only reference to original sin in a typical celebration of the rite. In my view, this freeing from original sin is one of the multiplicity of meanings of the rite.
When I celebrate it, I tend to focus more on baptism's meaning as a sacrament of initiation: it marks the beginning of the child's journey with and to Jesus. That is usually the message of my brief preaching on these occasions.
While I don't pretend to understand the depth of what Jim is saying, I appreciate his trying to explain it.
ReplyDeleteI see "original sin" as the inevitability that humans are going to commit sins. Baptism washes away our ability to commit sins and not feel bad about it. Our faith and our parish help us develop our conscience.
I started this thread because of the horrible recommendation for onesies at dedications. As mentioned , the comment was made in a FB group that discusses the ideas of Richard Rohr. He is definitely not your standard orthodox Catholic priest although he started out as one. His notions horrify and scandalize conservative Catholics. He has been reported to his bishops many times but the bishops always ruled that he doesn’t teach heresy as has been so often charged. Pope Francis told him when they met to “keep teaching what you’re teaching “. I was ready to give up completely on Christianity until I was introduced to Rohr 26 years ago. . His understandings kept me Christian. Even kept me in the Catholic Church for years until I couldn’t take it anymore. He was the start of a 25 year journey through spiritual writers, mostly Christian, mostly Catholic Christians, but also Buddhist and Hindu. Although I am familiar enough with his thoughts that I could guess what he would say about original sin and baptism I googled it. I haven’t read his more recent books in the last 10 or so years. I am reading one now, but plan to reread his earlier that are on my shelf at home. It’s pretty obvious why I like him - he has affirmed my thoughts about so many ideas that I was taught by the Catholic Church that I didn’t think reflect what Jesus taught. So it was nice to find out that I’m not crazy - that a catholic priest steeped in theology and spirituality affirms my own beliefs. He presents his ideas much better than I do.
ReplyDeleteAI Summary of RR on original sin and baptism.
“ Overview— Franciscan priest Richard Rohr teaches that human beings are rooted in "original blessing" (the inherent goodness of creation) rather than "original sin". He views baptism not as a magical transaction to wash away an inherited stain of guilt, but as a sacrament of initiation that publicly affirms we are already God's beloved children.Rohr's distinct understanding of these two foundational concepts can be broken down into the following specific points:
Original Sin— from Guilt to Brokenness: Rohr argues that the doctrine of original sin is best understood as a universal human condition of brokenness or frailty, rather than an inherited legal guilt passed down from Adam and Eve.
The Shared Wound— He describes it as an inherent, communal wound that creates an illusion of separation from God, making it difficult for humans to fully love or connect.
Original Blessing—Rohr frequently advocates for starting the Christian narrative with Genesis 1 (creation's inherent goodness) rather than Genesis 3 (the Fall), which he terms "original blessing". He believes framing humanity's story around a "problem" (sin) from the very beginning has led to a fear-based, exclusionary religion.
Baptism—Beginning with the Positive: Rohr believes you cannot successfully begin a spiritual journey on a negative foundation. Therefore, baptism serves as a public declaration that we are starting from a baseline of grace.
Dipped into Mystery—He notes that the literal meaning of baptism is "to be dipped into". Through baptism, believers are immersed into the unifying mystery of God's life, death, and love.
Acknowledging our True Self— It is a symbolic realization and claiming of our "true self" (the divine image within us) rather than the ego-driven "false self," reminding us that we are beloved just as Jesus was.
You can read more about his perspective on starting the faith narrative with grace in his books.”
"Rohr argues that the doctrine of original sin is best understood as a universal human condition of brokenness or frailty"
DeleteYes. To me, this is the meaning of the Catechism's phrase, "contracted, not committed" that I mentioned elsewhere in this conversation.
I disagree that this is the same thing. You, and the church on the catechism say that it is a “ legal” guilt passed down from the *first parents”
DeleteHuman frailty is not a sin that needs to be washed away by. baptism.
Ok. I’ll go away now and remain a heretic who rejects the official teachings on original sin and baptism. One reason I never encouraged our sons to have their own kids baptized. It puts forward such negative ideas with the first introduction to Catholicism—focused on sin instead of love.
ReplyDeleteMaybe it makes me a "cafeteria Catholic" but I'm not going to worry about stuff where I am missing a bunch of the puzzle pieces. God will explain it all when I meet him.
ReplyDeleteCatechism 390 says: "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. 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."
ReplyDeleteI have come to the conclusion that while there may be a God, the Bible is not his "inspired word" and owes its existence not to any special divine communication. It is ancient religious literature, certainly worthy of study, but it has no special authority other than what we grant it.
The story of Adam and Eve is an intriguing myth or allegory open to many interpretations, but it is not in any way an account of a "primeval event" in human history. I think it would be difficult to find any Catholic biblical scholar or theologian who asserted in any way the historicity of Adam and Eve, but the Catechism nevertheless refers to an "original fault freely committed by our first parents." It is almost as if the Catechism is telling us that Adam and Eve were the first two humans, but for those who find that difficult to believe, it is acceptable to maintain that the Bible is not using their real names.
While I do not doubt that Jesus was a real person, I see no reason to accept any particular saying reported in the Gospels as coming directly from him, or to believe that a saying (such as, "[N]o one can enter the kingdom of God without being born of water and Spirit") is some kind of binding Christian law. It strains credulity to imagine that an all good Creator would let the eternal fate of babies who die be radically different depending on whether those taking care of them had them baptized or not.
Both the Bible and the Catechism are texts, and texts must be interpreted. Human beings who depend on certain texts as authoritative are often able to interpret them in a surprising number of different or even contradictory ways. (See, for example, the many 5-4 decisions of the Supreme Court.)
David—“ I have come to the conclusion that while there may be a God, the Bible is not his "inspired word" and owes its existence not to any special divine communication. It is ancient religious literature, certainly worthy of study, but it has no special authority other than what we grant it.”
ReplyDeleteDavid, I agree with you. The trouble seems to be that while the church. claims that it does not interpret the Bible literally as fundamentalist sects do, it often uses scripture in a literal manner to support one of its assertions such as the necessity of baptism. The CCC does that all the time. The CCC is very self- referential. Its footnotes frequently source its teachings to many previous documents , essentially saying that because some theologian or pope or church father wrote something centuries ago, it proves that the teaching is correct and doesn’t need to be re- examined. It apparently just assumes that an interpretation that was written down by someone hundreds or thousands of years ago is “proof” of whatever is asserted in the catechism today.
Jim said, several comments back, "...The Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude...", I'd suggest a key phrase is, "The Church does not know". That Baptism assures entry into eternal beatitude would seem to be an article of faith. But the inverse - that being unbaptized assures eternal separation from God - is not an article of faith, to the best of my knowledge."
ReplyDeleteYes, I think that is true. I have shared before that I had a brother who died shortly after birth. The priest at the time told my parents that they had intended his baptism if he had lived long enough, and to entrust him to the mercy of God. He didn't day anything about eternal separation from God. This was in the early 1950s. So a more nuanced, less black and white understanding of Baptism and original sin has existed for a long time.
Katherine it may have existed for decades, But they still state what Jim states - that only baptism “assures “ entry to the “eternal beatitude”—and that this is an article of faith! . That statement blows my mind, but apparently not the minds of others who just accept it with the desired “ docility”. I was once told that I needed to do that instead — just accept everything the church teaches with docility. Sorry —. I can’t.
Delete. They should just say that baptism is an initiation rite to welcome a baby (or not baby) into the church community and not make reference to original sin or whether or not it is necessary to. have access to “ heaven” or admit doubt that an unbaptized baby or any unbaptized person might be turned away from the pearly gates by St Peter because of no baptism. Seriously — do you really believe that God thinks like a Catholic Canon lawyer?
This is why I deal with God directly most of the time and not the institution.
I realized by the time I was in 8th grade that I don’t think the same way most people do — that I have a labyrinthian thought process. It drove my teacher (only one because it was k-8) nuts. But he wasn’t the first. Of course I had no idea what my thinking style is called back then, but it frustrated teachers, priests, and especially the professor who taught my Thomistic Synthesis class in college.
Isn't the central issue that we really do not trust God?
DeleteI trust God more than I trust what the church teaches about God. That’s why I skip the middlemen ( clergy) these days
DeleteHi Anne - I truly don't know whether or not it's a good use of our time to continue this discussion - to what extent it might be fruitful for either of us. But in case this might be edifying:
DeleteYou characaterized the CCC as saying this:
"only baptism “assures “ entry to the “eternal beatitude”"
Whereas the actual quote is this:
"The Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude"
I am sure you see the difference between those two quotes?
If you don't want to pursue this any farther, that is fine. Life is short and there are many other things we can discuss together.
Jim I am quoting one of your comments of July 17 — you quoted the CCC.paragraph 1257.
DeleteIf this is what you are referring to (I just copied this from one of my comments on July 17, but I made several that day):
Delete"That Baptism assures entry into eternal beatitude would seem to be an article of faith."
... then you didn't quote it preciisely; you changed it to "only baptism “assures “ entry to the “eternal beatitude”.
You can see how appending the word "only" changes the meaning in a crucial way, true?
I think the whole point of that phrase we've mentioned a couple of times now, "The church does not know of any means other than Baptism..." is to make clear that the church does *not* claim that only through baptism may one obtain eternal life. It's the only way that * the church knows of*. But there may be other ways that *the church does not know of* with any certainty. The church believes that God's mercy is capacious, and so it takes care to leave plenty of space in people's minds (and anxieties) for that mercy to operate.
Liturgies tell us more about what Churches believe than catechisms.
ReplyDeleteEaster Vigil readings in the Roman Rite tell us what baptism is about. Historically they have always begun with the story of creation. The Exodus story has always been very prominent. The Story of the Fall was not part of the readings even before the reform when there were 12 readings!
Baptism is not about undoing the fall, it is about mankind as a new creation, and God liberating humanity from the bondage of human institutions and human despots.
A similar pattern occurs in the Orthodox celebration of Theophany, the Baptism of Jesus. The first reading again is the Creation Narrative. The second reading is the Exodus Story. The story of the Fall is not part of the fifteen readings.
Where in Liturgy do we find the story of the Fall? It is the first lesson of Nine Lessons and Carols. The Anglicans invented this service in the aftermath of the discouraging events of the First World War. Seeing the Incarnation as God's response to the failings of mankind is a Protestant, and recent idea.
All these other services of readings are almost two thousand years old, the Anglican less than two hundred.
And as for the CCC, it is an even more recent product, the pet project of Cardinal Law. The film on sexual abuse has him giving a reporter a copy of "his" book in response to an interview.
DeleteI put my money on almost two thousand years of liturgy both East and West. We don't have wonder about where the scriptures came from and what they originally meant, only what they meant in the liturgical life of communities of Christians.
Baptism is about new life in Christ and liberation from human institutions and rulers. That is why Christ died and that is why we are given the Holy Spirit.
"Liturgies tell us more about what Churches believe than catechisms." Thanks Jack. I think there is a lot of truth in that.
DeleteDid the RCC NOT teach that the Incarnation happened because Jesus had to atone for human sin? It most definitely did teach that Jesus came to die on the cross to atone for human sin. Neither the ransom theory of redemption nor the atonement theology came from the Protestants but from the Catholic Church long before there were Protestant churches. As far as what is in the liturgy Is concerned, it’s almost irrelevant because there is an enormous body of written doctrine that the church teaches. In the Catholic Church baptism most certainly does NOT bring liberation from human institutions and rulers. The Catholic Church is a human institution and has had a whole lot of rotten rulers over the centuries who persecuted and killed those who refused to accept the rule of the institution. These days it only excommunicates them. As I recall, while Law initially proposed the writing of a new catechism, it was a pet project of Cardinal Ratzinger who shaped the “ vision” of what should be in it.
DeletePS. AI confirms that the story of the Fall IS in the Catholic liturgy. I was pretty sure it is but double checked.
Delete“ The Fall (Original Sin): Genesis 3:9-15, which recounts the temptation, the fall, and the promise of the "new Eve" (Mary) and "new Jesus" (Jesus).These stories are most prominently featured on the First Sunday of Lent and the Solemnity of the Immaculate Conception”. Mary’s- conceived without ORIGINAL sin. She didn’t even have to be baptized to get rid of the stain of sin on her soul that all bumans allegedly contracted from the first humans. ☺️
Just as we should not make the story of the Fall the centerpiece of Genesis, we should not make the reading of the story of the fall the centerpiece of the Liturgy, especially on the Immaculate Conception which is a late development of Western theology not accepted by the Orthodox because they do not accept western notions of original sin.
DeleteThe goodness of Creation despite human failings is certainly the central message of Genesis just as the liberation of humanity from human domination is the central message of the Exodus.
When we look for the meaning of baptism, we need to see it in the readings of the Easter Vigil and Theophany not in the readings for the beginning of the season of Lent which are about the temptations of Jesus in the desert.
As for Ratzinger as head of the CDF he, of course oversaw the project, I would hardly say it was his personal project or that he saw it as his main accomplish but as one of the major projects of JP2 pontificate like the revision of the code of canon law. Neither he nor JP2 went around giving out copies.
Jack, you are right. But , many brush away the inconvenient realities of church teachings and find a way to rationalize them. Basically saying “Yes, that’s the official teaching, but the church really doesn’t mean it.” Nobody has said the myth of Adam and Eve and the fall is the “centerpiece “ of liturgy. But it is central to the teachings on baptism and redemption as is the Immaculate Conception. “Mary, conceived without sin…”. Obviously the sin referenced in this teaching is “real” sin — a sin that nobody actually committed, but “contracted”, and, according to the church, heaven MAY. (not will for sure) be barred if people aren’t baptized. That’s the reality of.official church teaching and manipulating words to have it mean something else doesn’t change the reality.
DeleteSo few Catholics read the CCC it hardly matters whose pet project it was. Ratzinger was apparently a more important influence on the content than Law was, even if it was Law’s idea. I have had a copy of the CCC for 25 or more years. I refer to it now and then, but I haven’t read the whole thing. That would come close to being purgatory on earth I fear. Vaticanese is not a pleasant read.
Here is some information I posted elsewhere (13 years ago!) from By What Authority? A Primer on Scripture, the Magisterium, and the Sense of the Faithful by Richard R. Gaillardetz on levels of Church teaching and the required response of the believer, from highest level to lowest level. My point was that according to Catholic teaching, one does not have the option of picking and choosing from among Catholic teaching to decide what is and is not "important." It has always been made clear that the inclusion of something in the Catechism does not give it any more weight than it already had. However, dogmas in the Catechism such as the fall, Original Sin, and the Immaculate Conception are infallible teachings which Catholics "have to believe," and a great deal of other teachings must be accepted in some manner or another in this chart:
DeleteDogma - Assent of Faith [The believer makes an act of faith, trusting that this teaching is revealed by God.]
Definitive Doctrine - Firm Acceptance [The believer "accepts and holds" these teachings to be true.]
Authoritative Doctrine - "A Religious Docility of Will and Intellect" [The believer strives to assimilate a teaching of the Church into their religious stance, while recognizing the remote possibility of church error.]
Provisional Applications of Church Doctrine, Church Discipline and Prudential Admonitions - Conscientious Obedience [The believer obeys (the spirit of) any church law or disciplinary action which does not lead to sin, even when questioning the ultimate value or wisdom of the law or action.]
David, you are coy, of course. However, the CCC sections dealing with primacy of conscience also exist.
Delete1782 Man has the right to act in conscience and in freedom so as personally to make moral decisions. "He must not be forced to act contrary to his conscience. Nor must he be prevented from acting according to his conscience, especially in religious matters."
Correct, not “coy”
DeleteChristianity is about loving God and neighbor. It is not about and an intellectual understanding of God, or church teaching. You don't past an intellectual test to get into heaven. Life is about how you live not how you think.
DeleteCatholicism and Christianity are deeply infected with the sin of clericalism. Some clerics want to dominate people and force their ideas (whether right or wrong) on others. All the schisms and heresies of Christianity exist because some clerics want to force their ideas on others. They want to convince us that ideas are more important than loving God and neighbor, i.e. being a saint.
Jesus had to deal with that in his time. The priests, the scribes, the Sadducees, the Pharisees had their versions of Judaism.
I agree with you Jack. Clericalism may be the biggest obstacle to trying to follow Jesus that exists. This is a major reason for the rise of the nones and the SBNRs. Jesus taught orthopraxy, but the institution preaches orthodoxy.
DeleteYes, liturgy does encompass much of what we believe. The law of prayer is the law of belief.
DeleteNeverthess, catechisms (of which the Catechism of the Catholic Church is not the only one) also summarize what we believe. The CCC includes major sections on areas of belief such as social teaching which the mass does not treat of in a very encompassing or systematic way.
The first section of the of the CCC, which includes its exposition on the fall and original sin, is organized according to the contents of the Apostles' Creed, which is from the liturgy.
I consider the CCC to be a wonderful gift to the church. It is good to have a baseline understanding when we think about what has developed or changed, even in the space of the 30-odd years since the CCC was first published. Francis updated the section on capital punishment. I believe a section on homosexuality also was tweaked after initial publication. Perhaps other sections have, too, about which I'm not aware. I think this is a good practice, and I hope the church authorities continue to update it as necessary.
I suppose there are many Christians who would insist on "lex Scripturae, lex orandi". (I had to use Google to check the grammar on that, I hope it is not lying to me!)
Delete