No, that was about your understanding of original sin, which is wrong.
What you believe is not the Catholic faith.
Disagree. And I an aware of the host of scientific knowledge you mention.
The human soul does separate us from animals, and Adam and Eve had human souls before sinning.
Opened to sin. Evil. Experience. Shame. It’s your issue if you chose to take a surface level approach to scripture apart from the traditions it belings to. Your assertion is false, none the less.
(1) God created man and woman in his image, a reference to their rational soul, not to their animal body.
(2) Adam is shown to have named the birds and the beasts, to have been given dominion over them, and to recognize Eve as like him.
(3) The very fact that God gives them a command is indicative of their ability to understand it.
These aren’t altogether incompatible. And original sin is different from personal/actual sin. Original sin is not a personal sin, but a lack of a quality.
That doesn’t follow.
No, a wolf does not sin, nor did early hominids that lacked a rational soul. Indeed, it was because Adam and Eve had a conscience that they were capable of sin, but that does not mean they never had and lost of original holiness and justice they had all their lives up to the Fall.
People in heaven who see God, don’t have the ability (or any desire) to say no to God. It is not a matter of being forced to be so.
This passage from the Bible can act as a comment on the original questions posed here.
32.But he said to them, "I have food to eat of which you do not know."33.So the disciples said to one another, “Has any one brought him food?” 34.Jesus said to them, "My food is to do the will of him who sent me, and to accomplish his work.
Yes, I do believe He had two will, just as we are body and soul. But while the human will of Jesus would have loved to say no, He did always defer His will to the Father’s. But while the result was Jesus accepting the will of the Father His human will was opposed until He accepted without question the Divine will… hence His calmness in meeting those sent to get Him.
The Divine Will was certainly present in Jesus, but He was fully human as well and as is seen in the temptations and the Agony that while He always deferred to the will of God His human will was saying something different.
One of the most intense experiences I have had was an Out-of-Body Experience which convinced me that even we have two wills… physical and spiritual… that can disagree. I haven’t thought this through but that might be the reason why our physical nature can tell us to do one thing while our conscience can tell us the opposite.
Most of us do fight against God’s plan, sometimes daily. That is what sin is all about. And while I agree that we should always follow Him in His ways, we do not always succeed at that. Jesus DID have an encounter with the devil in the devil which left Him exhausted and He had to be tended to by the angels. So the three offers of the devil must have been very tempting for Him but He still did the will of God.
Without a human will and the ability to say NO is to say that Jesus, as a man, was forced to accept His suffering and death blindly with no choice. Without a free choice there was no sacrifice.
I firmly believe that the physical realm exists so that we can learn to love selflessly. Love is one thing that God could not embed in us because love by its very nature must be freely given and cannot be forced. We learn to love through our dealings with evil, pain, suffering, toil and death (the so-called punishments given to Adam for his disobedience). If Jesus did not have the ability to say no then His actions were not done out of love for us but rather through programming.
Are you saying that Jesus, the man, did not have a human will? At the agony in the Garden He said He did and His human will was to have His task taken from Him. But He made the choice to do the will of God over His own will. If He did not have the ability to say No then His actions were not a sacrifice at all.
His human will was subject to temptation, but He was unable to sin or otherwise oppose His divine Will. His human nature wasn’t corrupted like ours is.
It is not my understanding of Original Sin which is wrong. I understand it just fine, but I think that the Church’s teaching on it is incorrect (or at least was incorrect). If the Church has admitted that they were wrong about Galileo and that his concept of the universe was correct and theirs wrong, why would it be so difficult to take a look at other areas where they may have erred. I think I have made some logical points here that so far most want to ignore is favor of tradition. Our understanding on a whole lot of things has dramatically changed in the last century alone. I am just suggesting another look.
The Church only took issue with Galileo because he tried to use Scripture to back up his unproven scientific theories. It didn’t have an issue with the actual science. The Church cannot allow someone to use Scripture to validate whatever scientific theory they may have when that theory isn’t even confirmed to be correct.
No. He had to have a choice. In order to have a choice, one must have options: in this case, the option to sin or not-sin. If He had no choice, then the fact that He did not sin would be meaningless. It’s like me choosing not to sprout wings and fly. I can claim all day long that I “choose” not to do it, but that’s meaningless because I could never do it in the first place.
This isn’t a complicated question really. The Temptation in the Desert event proves to us that it was possible for Him to sin. Clearly, that’s an important Gospel event.
Obedience also means that one must have a choice.
Finally, I never wrote that He did sin—I don’t know where you’re getting that. Of course, He never sinned.
I’m not saying that He didn’t have a human will.
"But if Jesus could not sin, was he really free?
“Of course Our Lord had free will! After all, the ability to sin does not make us more free, but less free, God cannot sin, and so He is absolutely free - His freedom is essentially greater than our freedom”
Fr, I’m having a difficult time of making sense of what you’re saying.
How is it possible that Christ could have sinned?
That article is seriously flawed.
It contradicts basic Christology–that Christ is one person with two natures, human and divine. The author is unwittingly teaching the monophysite heresy.
The author seems to forget the entire human nature of Christ. Again, seriously flawed.
Not “submit” but cooperate. It’s an important distinction.
Christ is one person, two natures (human and divine), two wills (human and divine). Neither side submits to the other–rather they are in complete cooperation.
Folks, this is all covered in a field of theology called "Christology."
These questions were settled centuries ago. The Church KNOWS the answers.
See 3rd Council of Constantinople (the 6th ecumenical Council).
Fr I never said that you said that. Bless you.
It’s hard for me to explain this mystery I am seeing except for I know that God doesn’t make mistakes.