A question

[Colabomb]

He also said that one difference in Catholic and Protestant Theology was that most Prostestants view people as inherently evil due to original sin, and that the Catholic view was that people are inherently good, as created by God. I didn't know about this difference.

Someone said this in a post on a different subject.

The Problem i saw is that no one objected to this, and in fact it appeared some approved of it.

Is this the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church?

 

[Benedicta00]

Someone said this in a post on a different subject.

The Problem i saw is that no one objected to this, and in fact it appeared some approved of it.

Is this the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church?

Yep.

The fall did not destroy us to the point that we are born evil to the core, like Luther and Calvin taught.

We are born inherently good but fallen, meaning we suffer from the wounds of sin (the 7 deadly sins) which are the root cause of all our actual sins.

Luther taught we are no good and we can not become good that we must be covered up with Christ righteousness.

The Church since day one has always taught that we can become what Christ redeemed us to be, transformed and healed by his grace.

Of course this takes an act of our will and cooperating with those graces that are given to us. Calvin believed that was impossible because the fall rendering us evil meant that choosing any good was not within our power. That the nature was not just wounded with sin but completely evil and a evil nature can not choose anything good.

 

[marciadietrich]

I would think this is the teaching of Lutherans and Anglicans and many other protestants as well, as I thought being totally depraved or inherently evil was a Calvinist specific teaching.

Or are you confusing the idea that we are all sinners as being the same as being inherently evil? Catholic teaching is that we are created good, but wounded by a tendency to sin (concupscience -sp?) and born with original sin - so would explain it as we are created good but born into a state or condition of sin and a weakness towards sinning. Does that make any more sense?

Marcia

 

[Cosmic Charlie]

Yep.

The fall did not destroy us to the point that we are born evil to the core, like Luther and Calvin taught.

We are born inherently good but fallen, meaning we suffer from the wounds of sin (the 7 deadly sins) which are the root cause of all our actual sins.

Luther taught we are no good and we can not become good that we must be covered up with Christ righteousness.

The Church since day one has always taught that we can become what Christ redeemed us to be, transformed and healed by his grace.

Of course this takes an act of our will and cooperating with those graces that are given to us. Calvin believed that was impossible because the fall rendering us evil meant that choosing any good was not within our power. That the nature was not just wounded with sin but completely evil and a evil nature can not choose anything good.

See ? We can agree on something.

This is my biggest, baddest, most imposing problem with born-again Christian theology. They believe that we are evil and not part of the greater universe. Catholics believe we are good but have issues and we are an integeral part of God's great tapesty.

Feel's good, doesn't it ?

 

[Markh]

Anglicans follow the "intrinsically evil" line as well.

This is why in the UK traditionally, Anglicans have voted Conservative and Catholics have voted Labour.

Of course boundaries have blurred between the parties today and this isn't the case anymore.

 

[PeterPaul]

Ya que el ser humano, creado en la bondad de Dios refleja esa bondad, carece de un bien debido.

 

[JeffreyLloyd]

Yep.

The fall did not destroy us to the point that we are born evil to the core, like Luther and Calvin taught.

We are born inherently good but fallen, meaning we suffer from the wounds of sin (the 7 deadly sins) which are the root cause of all our actual sins.

Luther taught we are no good and we can not become good that we must be covered up with Christ righteousness.

The Church since day one has always taught that we can become what Christ redeemed us to be, transformed and healed by his grace.

Of course this takes an act of our will and cooperating with those graces that are given to us. Calvin believed that was impossible because the fall rendering us evil meant that choosing any good was not within our power. That the nature was not just wounded with sin but completely evil and a evil nature can not choose anything good.

Well said.

 

[BornCath]

Yep.



Luther taught we are no good and we can not become good that we must be covered up with Christ righteousness.

This is the basis of the fundamentalist doctrines of 'imputed righteousness' and 'once saved always saved.' "Sin boldly but believe more, thus even if I have relationship with 100 prostitutes, it will not affect my salvation" was his teaching because anybody's sins are covered by Jesus' righteousness. Catholic theologians refer to Luther & those who believe in this teaching as the 'dunghill covered by snow'.

 

[Colabomb]

This is the basis of the fundamentalist doctrines of 'imputed righteousness' and 'once saved always saved.' "Sin boldly but believe more, thus even if I have relationship with 100 prostitutes, it will not affect my salvation" was his teaching because anybody's sins are covered by Jesus' righteousness. Catholic theologians refer to Luther & those who believe in this teaching as the 'dunghill covered by snow'.

(Not all non-Roman Catholics are like that)

 

[Mystery5]

Luther had psychological problems, I've read. He was obsessed with his sins and had scrupulosity, feeling constantly compelled to go to confession. So, his new approach to salvation was more of a personal salve for his own torments, from what I've read.

I think the Catholic approach makes more sense, that we are inherently good, but are affected by a tendency to make the choice to sin, and also by living in a fallen world surrounded by others in the same predicament.

 

[ZiSunka]

This is the basis of the fundamentalist doctrines of 'imputed righteousness' and 'once saved always saved.' "Sin boldly but believe more, thus even if I have relationship with 100 prostitutes, it will not affect my salvation" was his teaching because anybody's sins are covered by Jesus' righteousness. Catholic theologians refer to Luther & those who believe in this teaching as the 'dunghill covered by snow'.

That is definitely NOT a teaching of any protestant church I have ever been in contact with, and that ranks in the dozens. Where did you get the idea that protestants believe they can sin with impunity??? The idea is shocking and even inflammatory. There is no "amount" of belief that confers grace, because saving grace doesn't come in increments. Christ died once for all our sins and they are all covered the moment we are saved, but we are very aware that wanton sin is a sign that we never had faith in Christ at all, and no one who willfully does evil can rightfully consider himself saved. If a person goes to a hundred prostitutes after coming to faith in Christ, I would either think that there is some mental pathology going on or that this person has no relationship with Christ at all.

 

[plmarquette]

prior to the day of Pentecost , we had " the law of moses " , do's and don'ts .... we all were like Paul's quote " I do what I do not wish & cannot be what I desire " for we lacked the strength of the Spirit of God by baptism and confirmation to walk .

We seem to be mixing up the doctrine of " election or predestination " with the nature of man ... we are where we are , for that is where we chose to be ... our decisions : past , present either expand or limit our choices future ... Yes God wants us all to come home , step up to the plate , succeed , win the lost .... but many of us choos to do what the " herd " does .... to follow the heathens who walk on the broad and wide path to destruction ....

 

[ZiSunka]

Luther had psychological problems, I've read. He was obsessed with his sins and had scrupulosity, feeling constantly compelled to go to confession. So, his new approach to salvation was more of a personal salve for his own torments, from what I've read.

That's inflammatory and unnecessary to the discussion. I'd like you to edit it if you would, please. Luther's mental status is considered crazy by catholics, but it makes perfectly rational sense to those who believe in salvation by faith, and since that is the case, it is just plain wrong for someone who does not accept the concept of salvation through faith alone to accuse him of being unstable. The same things could be said of Augustine, because he exhibited the same traits, but it is undoubtedly because both men were so passionate about God that they came off as being crazy.

I think the Catholic approach makes more sense, that we are inherently good, but are affected by a tendency to make the choice to sin, and also by living in a fallen world surrounded by others in the same predicament.

To each his own, and no doubt that is the reason you chose the faith you did as opposed to the other choices.

 

[Wolseley]

This is the Catholic forum, lambslove. From the Catholic theological standpoint, Luther's mental condition was aberrant, and it was also erroneous from a doctrinal standpoint. I see nothing in Mystery5's statement that was disrespectful or in need of editing; he was merely making an observation. Further, it is not your place to come into the Catholic forum and demand that any statements made either conform to Protestant theology or be edited out. Editing or the need to edit is the job of the Catholic moderators, and I suggest we leave it to them to handle.

Thank you.

 

[kimber1]

ADMIN HAT ON
i sure am seeing a lot of debating going on in here. i suggest it stop pronto.
ADMIN HAT OFF

 

[Michelina]

Right, Wolse. Luther's psychological health would have been a factor. Whether he had problems or not is a question of Fact. There have been many studies on this question but to see for oneself, read his volumes of Table Talk.

 

[ZiSunka]

This is the Catholic forum, lambslove. From the Catholic theological standpoint, Luther's mental condition was aberrant, and it was also erroneous from a doctrinal standpoint. I see nothing in Mystery5's statement that was disrespectful or in need of editing; he was merely making an observation. Further, it is not your place to come into the Catholic forum and demand that any statements made either conform to Protestant theology or be edited out. Editing or the need to edit is the job of the Catholic moderators, and I suggest we leave it to them to handle.

Thank you.

If something similar had been posted about one of the catholic saints in the protestant forums, it would certainly be considered disrespectful and any or all catholics would ask for it to be edited and I'm merely asking that you show the same consideration for our feelings that you would want us to show for your feelings.

 

[MParedon]

If a Catholic Saint had shown signs of being crazy, then there would probably be posts in OBOB wondering about just how crazy they were.

 

[Colabomb]

That's inflammatory and unnecessary to the discussion. I'd like you to edit it if you would, please. Luther's mental status is considered crazy by catholics, but it makes perfectly rational sense to those who believe in salvation by faith, and since that is the case, it is just plain wrong for someone who does not accept the concept of salvation through faith alone to accuse him of being unstable. The same things could be said of Augustine, because he exhibited the same traits, but it is undoubtedly because both men were so passionate about God that they came off as being crazy.

To each his own, and no doubt that is the reason you chose the faith you did as opposed to the other choices.

Actually, Luther was nuts... That is historical.

Now, he may or may not have been right, but he was still nuts.

 

[Mystery5]

We're not allowed to discuss the fact that someone might have suffered psychological problems here? Sorry, I didn't realize that. I had read, though, that Luther suffered scrupulousity, which is a form of OCD. I believe that was from neutral sources.

Yes, though, back to the original topic, the Catholic POV on the inherent goodness of God's creation does make more sense to me personally. Hopefully my belief regarding this isn't offensive as well.