[quote=“MarysLittleFlower, post:1, topic:449878, full:true”]
I have some questions for whoever has studied these topics or knows
- Adam’s nature: I read that Adam was mortal in his nature but made immortal with grace. Is this correct?
I would say, yes.
CCC#376 …As long as he remained in the divine intimacy, man would not have to suffer or die…
how does it relate to the following Canon from an approved (though not ecumenical) council:
"The Councils on Original Sin:…The First Canon States:
All the bishops established in the sacred synod of the Carthaginian Chruch have decided that whoever says that Adam, the first man, was made mortal, so that, whether he sinned or whether he did not sin, he would die in body, that is he would go out of the body not because of the merit of sin but by reason of the necessity of nature, let him be anothema."
That squares perfectly. The context is, “was made mortal”. So, if anyone says that Adam was made mortal and it doesn’t matter whether he sinned or not, he would die anyway. That person is anathema.
The Teaching is that Adam is created in Original Justice and as long as he remains in grace, he will not suffer or die. The person who repeats this Teaching is NOT anathema.
Do you see the difference?
- Our Lord didn’t sin and doesn’t have a human nature with concupiscence but is it fallen nature that He has or unfallen nature?
- Was He naturally subject to death, even though without concupiscence?
No. He laid down His life because He was the only one who could give it away. He is God, the Second Person of the Holy Trinity.
- Although it is said that the Jews and the Romans killed Jesus, they literally couldn’t do it because of His Divinity. They could only do it in their minds. Remember “raqa”?
Matt 5:22 But I say to you that if you are angry with a brother or sister,[e] you will be liable to judgment;…you will be liable to the hell[h] of fire
- In Jesus’ Divine and Human wills, - I’m a little confused because on one hand, we can’t say that His Human Will was not free, on another hand, there could be potential errors in the opposite direction… what is the right way to say this?
No. Jesus is God. God is perfect. There was no concupiscence in Jesus. No potential errors.
This seems to relate t the early Church controversy about Eustratius and the “three chapters”, can someone explain that to me in simple English?
- St Augustine talked about original sin is passed on through conception because of the disordered passions involved.
St. Augustine was wrong.
How do we explain that marriage isn’t sinful, given this? (if it’s affected by disordered passions according to St Augustine).
The Catholic Church Teaches that man and woman are made for each other and that God commanded us to procreate. If any disordered passions exist within a marriage, it is not by God’s design nor by the Sacrament of matrimony.
See the Theology of the Body by Pope St. JPII
I hope that helps.