CathInfo.com

She is wrong because all of mankind (did) still would have fallen. Her fall might have transcended over to Adam, thus making him more susceptible to her corrupting him, subsequently, his eating of the apple.

All of nature fell because of Eve.

Considering you are on Cathinfo, I presume you to be "Resistance", SSPX, or some flavor of Sede. With this in mind, I would mention that clerics teach the way I mentioned above. A particular Risistance bishop I have heard say it more than once with my own ears. And considering he was SSPX trained and insists he has changed nothing from the way he was taught and formed, we can conclude the SSPX and resulting Resistance clerics hold this position/opinion.

Many theologians would disagree with you.

That's what I would be inclined to think as well. I have never heard a cleric suggest God would obliterate Eve, as Ladislaus suggested as a possibility, or any other conclusion of what might've happened. In general, this thread is the first time I've actually seen anyone bring up different ideas to this subject. It seems Universal to me so far that Adam would help Eve do penance/contrition and make some form of reparation, but the human race as a whole would not have fallen. That's the position I currently hold on the matter as well. 

Frankly, while it is interesting to speculate on, what good does it benefit us to think of the "what ifs" on this subject? We cant change our current reality by the speculation, and we may simply be wasting time on it. Please explain to me if one thinks otherwise.


P.s. I'm not certain if yall were referring to me as "she", but just to be clear, this poster is a "he". 

I understand what baptism is. I am a baptized Catholic, Quid. I mean if it’s not part of us genetically, what would the purpose of baptism be? You can’t wash away genetics.

Only its transmission has a genetic component, but there's no Original Sin gene per se.

The fall of mankind is at the feet of Adam. Quid lost his argument blaming Eve on another thread.

Quid incorrectly blamed Eve by quoting the Old Testament.
"From the woman came the beginning of sin, and by her we all die." ~ Ecclesiasticus 25:33

 I quoted the New Testament
“For by a man came death: and by a man the resurrection of the dead. And as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all shall be made alive” (1 Cor. 15:21-22).

Quid repeated his Old Testament quote and made an infantile statement.

I quoted proof that the New Testament completes and supercedes the Old Testament.

The Old Testament declares that man was separated from God through sin (Genesis chapter 3), and the New Testament declares that man can now be restored in his relationship to God (Romans chapters 3-6).

Hebrews 8:7, "For if that first covenant had been faultless, then no place would have been sought for a second." 8:13, "In that He ( God) says, " A new covenant," He has made the fist obsolete.

Quid pretended not to hear the truth that “In Adam all die” and jumped over to this thread.

Your exegesis is wrong, woman.

1 Cor. 15: 21-22 means the first person to die is Adam, a man, but the person responsible for his death (and the death of all mankind) is Eve as told in Ecclesiasticus 25:33

Eve sinned first and corrupted Adam to sin, but Adam was the first person to die, just as men, today, generally have shorter life spans due to bearing more physical labors (one of the consequences of original sin intrinsic to men) than women (they have their own consequences intrinsic to them).

Your citing of Genesis 3 and Hebrews 8 is mere padding, and it's absolutely void of supporting your argument that "man (Adam) is the cause of original sin and the fall of nature".

You lose, again, woman.