Using potty language on the religion forum is against the rules.
for a while you’d find out that the gotcha from In the Beginning that you are referring to had to do with the question of in what sense one can call something sin if it does not involve free choice of will.
I am not a Lefebvrist; merely someone who recognizes that the current Pope is a Teilhardian. Considering the choice in Catholicism between liberalism on the Left and anti-Semitism on the Right there really isn't anything there that appeals to me.
I assume even a theologically illiterate might agree that for something to be sin it has to be assented to by free will with full knowledge. Infants can’t do that.
It depends on what one's theology is. Some people's theology denies original sin altogether; others' teaches "innate total depravity." And of these latter some teach "infant damnation" while others teach an "age of accountability." It's all very confusing because chrstianity is a confusing religion.
This is exactly the position of the Eastern Orthodox. That’s what Ratzinger was addressing.
Which is why they reject the "immaculate conception" ("a poor solution to a non-existent problem"). I suppose as an enlightened, non-traditionalist Catholic who agrees with the Orthodox that you do the same.
The Eastern Orthodox do indeed reject original sin. In fact, they admit that the true doctrine of human nature is taught by the Talmud, which raises the question of why a new religion was ever necessary. At any rate, the EO teach that since the "fall" man is now a "slave" to "the devil" and to "the passions" although he is never compelled to sin and is totally free to cooperate with G-d during the entire process of "salvation" (which is a funny idea of "slavery," but never mind). At any rate, the Orthodox teaching is not that sin causes death but that death causes sin. "Salvation" consists of the fact that since J*sus' death on the cross put an end to death (ie, no one has died in the past two thousand years) so now the "pull" towards sin which death exerts no longer exists. This is of course buncombe as any glance at the obituary section of any newspaper will tell you at once.
Already Anselm and Innocent the III noted that Augustine’s use of “sin” for the original condition was confusing, since sin requires free assent.
Everything about chrstianity is confusing. Mankind has been "saved" but every individual must spend a lifetime walking on a tightrope over the flames of hell? J*sus "took our place" on the cross (whatever that means)? "Vicarious damnation?" Vicarious payment of lost honor? A ransom? Bait for a "mousetrap" for "the devil?" "Chr*stus victor?" None of this makes any sense. The only thing every chrstian is sure of is that he is "better" than every other kind of chrstian. And that's about it.
But I suppose you have no qualms about taking on all the Orthodox and the whole Catholic theological tradition of the last 1000 years. That’s what Ratzinger was affirming—1000 years of Catholic theology.
All the breast beating about "two thousand years of tradition" (usually aimed at Protestants, which I am not) is hypocritical considering that chrstianity began as a "protestant revolt" against the immemorial Tradition of Sinai which had been spoken by the very Mouth of G-d (and not by a man claiming to be G-d, G-d forbid). I suppose the knowledge that one's religion began as an innovation and an apostasy leads to an inferiority complex that can only be soothed by constant boasts of antiquity.
By the way . . . religion is older than yours. Nyah.
There . . . did I say it right?
No