UNKNOWN TO MOST CRADLES & CONVERTS

[afanasiy]

     The Turks conquered the Balkan countries (including Romania, Serbia, Bulgaria, Greece) and for 4.5 centuries forbade the pinting of Orthodox religious books.  The Greeks sent these to Venice to be printed.  There the Latins censored them--erased the Eigth and Ninth orthodox Ecumenical Synods (and SS. Photios the Geat and Gregory Palamas the Theologian.)  They added notes to the Pedalion ("Rudder"--the canons) that so distressed the author, St. Nikodimos of the Holy Mt., that his biographer tells us he was brought to tears.  He lacked funds to have the volume republished elsewhere.  The English translation retains the Latin stuff.  
     To Moscow, Peter the Great invited the Jesuits to run the educational system.  Another long Latin captiivity.  THe Uniates still publishe Metrop. Mogila's "Confession of Faith"--a Latinized document that the Pope evidently thinks is "Orthodox."  Read it ans see!  This head of the Kyivan CHurch died just before his planned submission to Rome.

    I should add that the holy body is heir to much non-Orthodox theolgoy that passes for Orthodox.  Till Fr. J. Romanides came on the scene and effected a return to Patristic Orthodoxy in some quarters, the "captive" stuff ruled; it still rules in some quarters, excet among some of the most pious monks.  We don't believe the pagan view that the human soul is immortal "by nature," that God imposed death as a penalty for sin (He let the devil impose death to stop a person's sinning from being perpetual), that Adam's guilt can be inherited by newborns, etc., etc.  The Eastern framework is an entirely different thought world from that of the West.   If the Fall was ontological--the loss of the Assimilation to God than energies the reason and freewill of the Icon of God to serve God in ways pleasing to Him--so is its reversal in Salvation:  the restoration of the Assimilaton to God.  If all are born "immaculate," the all-holy Theotokos doesn't need an immaculate conception--just the Assimilation to GOd she received from the beginning--; and if death is not a penalty for sinning, her dying is no more of a problem than is Our Saviaor's dying.

[Anastasios]

Afanasy,

I read the English translation of the Pedalion and found it to be quite anti-Latin.  What in specific did the Latins add that was *favorable* to them?

As far as a "Latin captivity" yes you are historically right in one sense, but after the Protestant Patriarch Cyril Lukaris, what was worse--having books printed in Rome, or having them printed in Holland?  Furthermore, in Venice they were printed by the Greek community, so I wonder how they were censored?  Do you have some reading I could do on the subject to clear up any misconceptions I might have?

You're right that in some instances the Greek thought is different entirely from the Latin, but one correction: the Latins do not believe that the soul is immortal by nature, but is only created by God and could be destroyed at his will.

In Christ,

anastasios

[afanasiy]

Dear in Christ Anastasie:

Your view and that of St. Nikodimos (who edited the volume) differ radically, it seems.

I wonder whether you think Mogila's Confession is Orthodox, when I know of no theologian (Orthodox, in contrast with Uniate) who thinks that?

Your statement about the Latins' view of the soul does not seem to square with that of the magisterial Latin theologian, Ludwig Ott.  I don't have time to check other Latins and Protestants.  I'm do not doubt that I am right on this point, but since I am not infallible, I always stand open to correction.

Afanasiy, sinner

PS--Are you aware that when Greece won its freedom, the theological faculty at the Univ. of Athens was established on Latin lines?

[Anastasios]

Afanasy:

I asked you some honest questions and you make some radical assumptions about me.  I don't appreciate that.

I said that the Rudder/Pedalion has some anti-Latin statements (which is not necessarily bad), and ask you where it contains pro-Latin statements.  You do not bother to respond with facts but rather you accuse me of accepting Peter Moghila's Latin-minded confession, which you further claim is not accepted as Orthodox by any "Orthodox theologian", even though it was accepted by the Council of Jassey in Romania as *the* Orthodox confession of faith, with some modifications (the Synod ommited the verses about purgatory).  Certainly I view Peter Moghila's confession as Latin-minded but it is a product of his time and you can't discredit his whole area and his whole work (which was pioneering) just because he could not extricate himself from his upbringing. What I am saying is this: like the Synod which approved his Catechism after editing it, we should not insult the memory of Peter Moghila by condemning him for things he might not have even been aware of--ie his Latin-leaning bias.  And I also said that a Latin-leaning bias is certainly preferrable to Cyril Lukaris who in his confession confessed Calvinism.  What's worse: an Orthodox bishop (Peter Moghila) who erred slightly by expressing himself with some Latin errors but who meant well, or Cyril Lukaris who actually pushed Calvinism from the Ecumenical Throne?

You oversimplify situation of 1600-1800's Orthodoxy.  There were several competing movements at this time, as documented by Kallistos Ware in his book "Eustratios Argenti: A Study in the Greek Church Under Turkish Rule".  I suggest you get this book from the library and read it through to see the type of problems this era presented.  I am not opposed to discussing the pros and cons of things like Peter Moghila's confession, but I am opposed to simplistic notions being expressed without backing.  It's not all about "he's bad and he's good."  People are complex and we can't dismiss them so easily.

If you have a citation from Ott, please give it, as I do not have it.

Thank you.

anastasios

[afanasiy]

Cool it Bro!  You find insults where none are discernible.  As far as the info you have required, I had already asked a leading theologian to supply it.

Item, “. . . you make some radical assumptions about me.  I don’t appreciate that.”

Reply:  I didn’t dispute the anti-Latin stuff you mention, but responded with the author’s own judgment of the whole.  I simply said, “I wonder whether (not “if”--which would be assumptive in grammar; “whether” leaves the alternatives open) you think Mogila’s Confession is Orthodox, . . .”

You now reply that it was approved at Jassy [1642?], precisely the time of the capitivity under scrutiny.  Consequently, how is that relevant, given that you judge the confession as “Latin-minded”?  When you add that “it is a product of his time,” how is that in any; way discordant with my point of view?  Doesn’t it rather square with what I said?  .  It is unclear what assumptions you refer to.

Had I not read further, it would have seemed that you think the Confession is Orthodox because Jassy approved of it.   What is there to appreciate or not to appreciate?  Where is there any hint of any insult?  We write to equals; if one were writing to a superior or inferior, one would hedge every item so as to avoid misinterpretations and possible insubordinations or put-downs, respectively.. You don’t want that, do you?  (That is not an assumption; it is a question whose tag implies “No.”)  It remains true, as I said, that “. . . I know of no theologian (Orthodox, in contrast with Uniate) who thinks that.”

Item:  “You cannot discredit his whole area . . .”  Did I do that?   I certainly don’t discredit pious people like St. Nikodimos on down to St. Seraphim of Sarov and to the Saints of our time.  What makes you  think that what I said was as sweeping as you think--or are you just inferring/assuming such?  Anyhow, be my guest.

Item:  “. . . I am not opposed to discussing the pros and cons of things . . . but I am opposed to simplistic notions being expressed without backing.”  etc.  I’ll let the other readers decide how “simplistic” my point of view is.  You are of course a free person and welcome to maintain what you say.  I won’t even say that “I don’t appreciate your assumptions.”  Be my guest.  

You can get the English translation of Ott from any decent theological library.  He is but one of many you can refer to.

Conclusion.  If you dispute the ills of the Latin Captivity of Orthodox theology (of which I cited one or two examples rather than everything that occurred during that time), I don’t think that is historically correct.  If you wish to dissent, do so, but please don’t impute assumptions to me about this and that--including about you--that are not supportable.

I conclude now as I did before by saying “since I am not infallible, I always stand open to correction.    Afanasiy, sinner”

[Anastasios]

OK Afanasiy, thank you for clarifying that you were not trying to be combative.  I guess I just took your post the wrong way.  I am sorry that I got defensive.

I will have to think about these issues more before responding to your post.

Yours in Christ,

anastasios

[rchrd_lionheart]

Anastasios,

I for one appreciate your outside-of-the-box approach to these East vs. West or Greek vs. Latin issues.  What you wrote here is awesome.  It does get wearisome to constantly hear these canned arguments in dealing with complex theological issues.  Simplistically blaming the ills of Orthodoxy on conspiratorial plots from the West, or the *rationalistic* Latins, is getting old.  It's also boringly unoriginal.

[Frobie]

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church (366), "The Church teaches that every spiritual soul is created immediately by God--it is not 'produced' by the parents--and also that it is immortal: it does not perish when it separates from the body at death, and it will be reunited with the body at the final Resurrection."

(I added the italics)

[afanasiy]

Dear in Christ Anastasie:

   Thanks for your gracious reply.  The timing made it clear that you had written in haste, just as I did in my reply.

    I trust that we both are seeking the truth, which is not always clear.  The issue is not, as Bonheart (that's all I rmember of his hame; no offence intended in forgetting the rest) writer seems to think, . . . the issue is not to BLAME the Latins or anyone else for any problems in our theology but to EXPLAIN.  The Patristic system is masterfully simple and consistent--and for a systematic mind, cogent.

   The only blame would lie in trying to hide the historical facts and--worse--not doing all one can do to get things right . . . whoever may be to blame . . . even if they are teachers of our own time who should but do not know any better.

   Much argumentation (not yours, Bro) is emotional and based on wishful thnking.  Much stems from the lack of an ability to think systematically--the list mind.  But more deplorable than all else, I submit, is how little both cradle and converts know of real Patristic Orthodoxy.  Have you seen those encyclopedia articles that hardly mention beliefs (other than our rejection of the Filioque) and dwell on organization and practices in which we DIFFER from the Latins?

    What most people are given to read on becoming Orthodox BELIEFS is--and I can only speak of what I have come across, and that's a lot--is useless, I submit, for forming the Orthodox phronema or outlook or mindset.  But belief is what the higher things are built on; without a solid foundation, a belief is superstitious, love is misdirected, etc.   We should all read FATHER ARSENY . . . priest, prisoner, spiritual father.

    Things have begun to change in recent decades.  I think it's good to co-operate with that, not to resist it.  As for blame, let those with a juridical mindset assess blame.  That's not my trip.  Bonheart's confusion of explanaton with blame is lame.

[rchrd_lionheart]

Afanasiy,

You made some very cogent points and if it looked like I was insinuating that your post was full of blame, I apologize.  I was directly my remarks in a general manner and not necessarily at your message.

You wrote:
"Much argumentation (not yours, Bro) is emotional and based on wishful thnking.  Much stems from the lack of an ability to think systematically--the list mind.  But more deplorable than all else, I submit, is how little both cradle and converts know of real Patristic Orthodoxy."

That's exactly right!!!  And that has been my main sticking point in discussing theological issues with other Orthodox, whether online or in the parish.  Too many Orthodox are too lazy to systematically investigate their theology (or the opposing side's theology).  What's worse, they will frequently make nonsensical, rhetorically illogical statements about Orthodoxy which portrays us as sloppy, irrational thinkers.  Repeatedly using the line, "you are being too rational/Western in your thinking..." as an excuse to avoid being held accountable to produce logical, coherent discourse gets really old and irritating.  This kind of attitude is anti-Patristic and, therefore, anti-Orthodox.  Anyone who delves into the Church Fathers can readily see elegant, logical, systematic thought being pursued.  They are not handing us a bag full of snake oil "nothingness."

[Linus7]

that Adam's guilt can be inherited by newborns

You know, I used to think the RCC taught that, but I am not so sure anymore.

Check this out from the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

404    How did the sin of Adam become the sin of all his descendants? The whole human race is in Adam "as one body of one man." By this "unity of the human race" all men are implicated in Adam's sin, as all are implicated in Christ's justice. Still, the transmission of original sin is a mystery that we cannot fully understand. But we do know by Revelation that Adam had received original holiness and justice not for himself alone, but for all human nature. By yielding to the tempter, Adam and Eve committed a personal sin, but this sin affected the human nature that they would transmit in a fallen state. It is a sin which will be transmitted by propagation to all mankind, that is, by the transmission of a human nature deprived of original holiness and justice. And that is why original sin is called "sin" only in an analogical sense: it is sin "contracted" and not "committed" - a state and not an act.

405    Although it is proper to each individual, original sin does not have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam's descendants. It is a deprivation of original holiness and justice, but human nature has not been totally corrupted: it is wounded in the natural powers proper to it; subject to ignorance, suffering, and the dominion of death; and inclined to sin - an inclination to evil that is called "concupiscence." Baptism, by imparting the life of Christ's grace, erases original sin and turns a man back toward God, but the consequences for nature, weakened and inclined to evil, persist in man and summon him to spiritual battle.

If I read all that rightly, the RCC is not saying that newborns inherit the guilt of Adam and Eve's sin but rather the human nature deprived of original justice and holiness that  they (our first ancestors) transmitted to us.

Someone correct me if I am wrong, but is that very much different than what we say?

Although it is proper to each individual, original sin does not have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam's descendants.

Isn't that saying that what we inherit is something other than guilt?

Someone clear this up for me, if possible. I am bringing this up for just such a clarification, not for heated debate.

Just what is the difference between the Orthodox and RC understandings of original sin and its consequences?

Please cite and quote some sources.  

[afanasiy]

Dear in Christ RIchard of the Lionheart (Leonard?):

     I agree with you and am happy that we are all now in synch.

     It is my position that interfaith discussions are cross-talk, as Fr. J. Romanides said.  The reason why I think this is so is that we have different paradigms, i.e. sets of axioms/premises that impose on the words we use what they have to mean for us.  

     I refer readers to http://orlapubs.com/AR/R265.html

     I am guilty too--when I read your comment about how boring it was to read about blaming our difficulties on the Latins, etc., I assumed you were not Orthodox.  That assumption caused me to interpret you the way I did.  

     We are all guilty at one time or another.

     Given the problem under scrutiny here, where do meaningful interfaith discussions have to begin?  I thiink that we must begin with the axioms of our paradigms--precisely where I have seldom if ever seen them begin.   To say more would create a whole 'nother thread.

Afanasiy, sinner

[afanasiy]

    I will reply as I read along.  First, though, I will observe that the new Catechism evidently departs from what was written in the manuals before Pope John-Paul I.  There was a complex matter of reatus poenae (liability to punishment) vs. one or more other reatus.  I’ve read these things various times and find they simply throw sand in one’s eyes.  But the authors of the Catechism apparently assume that all of that warrants their saying what you quote as 404 and 405.  A linguistic examination suggests otherwise.

That all men are implicated in Adam’s sin [and] Christ’s justice (i.e. righteousness is good English].”  There are four or five ways this can be so.  Ontologically, it would be a category confusion between nature and person to say that we share Adam’s sinning/guilt.
The Orthodox ontology escapes this by saying we have an ontological privation--of the Assimilation to God.  (One can ontologically inherit death and the absence of the Assimilation = ‘omoiosis in Gen. 1:26.)  Non-ontologically, we can share Adam’s sin metaphorically, by imputation (but then God would be the cause of evil), covenantally (but that would be an agreement we haven’t signed on to), or intentionally-conceptually (the way we are united, according to Thomists, with God’s ideas).   None of the being “implicated in” proposals avoids grave difficulties, like the one that makes God the Cause of sin.  No wonder it’s “a mystery that we cannot fully understand”; it makes no sense!  Neither does the “in an analogical sense” make sense unless someone can figure out how that differs from metaphor.

If you go on, you fall into a category confusion--of nature and person and of a moral trait with physical inheritance.  These are total confusion from a rational point of view.  We don’t physically inherit Adam’s morality--or Christ’s, for that matter.  Deut. 24:16 is very clear; cf. Gal. 6:5 (citing from memory, I hope correctly).  

Q 405 comes nearer the truth with the term “deprivation.”   But then it gets lost.  The natural powers (dynameis) are not wounded, etc.; they are potentials that are simply deprived of the energizations that would energize them to function to please God--the uncreated Energies of the (lost) Assimilation to God.  Calling this “an inclination to evil” or “concupiscence” doesn’t help.  The loss is ontological, not analogical.  Without the energies to use reason and freewill (dynameis or capacities or potentials of the Icon of God; also in Gen. 1:26) to please God, we live in “a sin-prone condition” (a phrase not in the Catechism).

“Baptism erases original sin.”  So negative.  Baptism rather  “adds” the Assimilation to God.

I hope this clears up your quandary.  They take a straightforward matter and mess it up with pseudo-logic.

Afanasy, sinner

PS email me if you still have problems.

[afanasiy]

POSTSCRIPT TO THE FOREGOING

    Semantic theory considers it a form of word magic to suppose that saying something makes it real.  This applies to the reatus stuff.  Notice that the Catechism (at least the two paragraphs under discussion) avoid it.

Afanasiy, sinner

[afanasiy]

SECOND POSTSCRIPT

As the best living Orthodox theolgian I know or have heard of, one who has read the Fathers in Greek all of his life,  pointed out to me, translators confuse 'amartia "a sin-prone condition" (in the singular; the plural is usually like the plural of the next term) and 'amartema "a sin [hat one has committed]."   THe Oxford Greaek dicitionary confirms this, though (my memory is a bit vague) the Oxford Patristic Greek Lexicon is less clear.  

I highly recommend that you read Dr. George Gabriel's translation of Protoprvyter John Romanides's "The ancestral sin" ('amartema) for further clarifications and much else that goes way beyond the narrow title!!!!!!  Zephyr Publishing in New Jersey, I think--not to be confused with Zephyr Publications in NY and in Greece.   Try Amazon.com.
     Secondly, there are taboos (eating the apple on the tree; Uzzah's dying for touching the Ark to keep it from faling; etc) that constitute things one should not do, even though they harm the nature of no being (they just insult God).  They harm no one except in terms of subsquent punishmnt; but they do involve disobedience or at least ill-will of some kind.   So while most sins are against someone's or something's nature (unless you are a positivist-juridicalist like most Western Christians), there are other offences.

But that's another thread.

Hurriedly,
Afanasiy, sinner

[Linus7]

Honestly, Afanasy, I am having trouble following what you posted.

Please try to keep things simple for me.

What is original sin and how did it affect mankind (stated simply)?

I think I understand theosis (somewhat, anyway), but "Assimilation to God" sounds a little to me like something out of pantheism akin to moksha or nirvana. Please explain what you mean.

Are you saying the RCC really does teach inherited guilt, despite what the CCC says?

Anyone out there have a nice, clear statement of the Orthodox doctrine of original sin?

Actually, I think I may use my original post above to start a new thread on this if I don't get a satisfactory answer.

[Keble]

If you want to understand what the Catholics are saying, you have to talk to the Catholics. Straining at their words in an Orthodox vacuum will not do.

As it happens, I believe that Linus is reading the passage correctly, because that is the way modern (as a opposed to modernist!) Wesern theology understands the concept. A lot of Western theologians tend to back away from the words "Original Sin" because of the guilt angle. The Episcopal Catechism doesn't mention the matter at all except extremely indirectly during its discussion of infant baptism, but the "O.S. as state of being" mindset is definitely there. And after all, cathechisms are aimed at an audience which, by virtue of being able to read, is surely old enough to have accrued sufficient actual guilt as to render he issue of O.S. moot.

Likewise, I have to say that worrying in depth about the nature of the soul is in a sense pointless. If one has placed one's hope in Christ (and is a member of the right Church :-) ), then presumably one need not worry whether one's soul could be destroyed or not, because one is assured that it won't be!

[Linus7]

Thanks, Keble, for a western response and some clarification.

I should have created a new thread, I guess, in the Catholic forum, so that I could get some RC reaction to my questions, too.

Any RC out there care to read the last several posts and respond?

Do we inherit the guilt of Adam and Eve's sin in the RC view?

[Anastasios]

I will let the folks at http://forums.catholic-convert.com where I sometimes post know of your request in case any of them are interested.

anastasios

[Trento]

Do we inherit the guilt of Adam and Eve's sin in the RC view?

    From the Catholic Catechism  404. "How did the SIN of Adam become the SIN of all his descendants? The whole human race is in Adam 'as one body of one man'.[St. Thomas Aquinas, De malo 4, I.] By this 'unity of the human race' all men are implicated in Adam's SIN, as all are implicated in Christ's justice. Still, the transmission of ORIGINAL SIN is a mystery that we cannot fully understand. But we do know by Revelation that Adam had received ORIGINAL holiness and justice not for himself alone, but for all human nature. By yielding to the tempter, Adam and Eve committed a personal SIN, but this SIN affected the human nature that they would then transmit in a fallen state.[Cf. Council of Trent: DS 1511-1512.] It is a SIN which will be transmitted by propagation to all mankind, that is, by the transmission of a human nature deprived of ORIGINAL holiness and justice. And that is why ORIGINAL SIN is called 'SIN' only in an analogical sense: it is a SIN 'contracted' and not 'committed' - a state and not an act."

[Linus7]

Trento -

I posted that section and the succeeding one (405) several posts back, although I thank you for your response.

I, like you apparently, interpret that to mean that the RCC does NOT teach that we inherit Adam and Eve's guilt, but rather that we inherit a human nature deprived of original holiness and justice (as the CCC states).

Is that your understanding?

Do RCs believe we inherit guilt or simply a wounded human nature? I think the CCC says the latter.

Care to clarify this for us?

[Mor Ephrem]

I'm going to post some selections from Ludwig Ott's Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma.  It's sorta like a textbook of Latin theology from the pre-Vatican II days, and so the claim that this departs from the "traditional" Latin teaching (the way the CCC is claimed to have done) is a non-issue.  I hope this helps the conversation.  

This is from p.110:

1. False Views

a)  The view of Peter Abelard that Original Sin consists in eternal punishment ("reatus poenae aeternae") is false.  According to the teaching of the Council of Trent, Original sin is a true and proper sin, that is, a guilt of sin.  Cf. Denzinger 376, 789, 792...

b) Original Sin does not consist, as the Reformers, the Baians, and the Jansenists taught, in: "The habitual concupiscence, which remains, even in the baptised, a true and proper sin, but is no longer reckoned for punishment."  The Council of Trent teaches that through Baptism everything is taken away which is a true and proper sin, and that the concupiscence which remains behind after Baptism for the moral proving is called sin in an improper sense only.  D 792...

c) Original Sin does not consist, as, among others, Albert Pighius (+1542) and Ambrosius Catharinus, O.P. (+1553) taught, in a mere external imputation of the sinful deed of Adam (imputation theory).  According to the teaching of the Council of Trent, Adam's sin is transferred by inheritance to all the children of Adam, and exists as his own proper sin in every single one of them: propagatione, non imitatione transfusum omnibus, inest unicuique proprium.  D 790.  Cf. D 795.  Propriam iniustitiam contrahunt.  According to the teaching of the Council of Trent, the efficacy of baptism consists in a real eradication of sin, not in a mere non-imputation of an alien guilt.  D 792...

2. Positive Solution

Original sin consists in the deprivation of grace caused by the free act of sin committed by the head of the race.  (Sent. communis.)

a) The Council of Trent defined Original Sin as the death of the soul (mors animae: D 789).  The death of the soul is, however, the absence [not-being-present] of supernatural life, that is, of sanctifying grace.  In Baptism Original Sin is eradicated through the infusion of sanctifying grace (D 792).  It follows from this that Original Sin is a condition of being deprived of grace.  This flows from the Pauline contrast between sin proceeding from Adam and justice proceeding from Christ (Rom. 5.19).  As the justice bestowed by Christ consists formally in sanctifying grace (D 799) so the sin inherited from Adam consists formally in the lack of sanctifying grace.  The lack of sanctifying grace, which, according to the will of God, should be present, establishes that the guilt of Original Sin signifies a turning away from God.  

As the ratio voluntarii, that is the free incurring of guilt, belongs to the concept of formal sin, and as a young child cannot perform a personal voluntary act, in original sin, the factor of spontaneity must be explained from its connection with Adam's deed of sin.  Adam was the representative of the whole human race.  On his voluntary decision depended the preservation or the loss of the supernatural endowment, which was a gift, not to him personally but, to human nature as such.  His transgression was, therefore, the transgression of the whole human race.  Pope Pius V rejected the assertion of Baius, that Original Sin had the character of sin in itself without any reference to the will from which it sprung.  D 1047.  Cf. St. Augustine, Retract. I 12 (13), 5. S. th. I II 81, 1.

[Kefx]

Do RCs believe we inherit guilt or simply a wounded human nature? I think the CCC says the latter.

Also from the CCC:

416 By his sin Adam, as the first man, lost the original holiness and justice he had received from God, not only for himself but for all human beings.

417 Adam and Eve transmitted to their descendants human nature wounded by their own first sin and hence deprived of original holiness and justice; this deprivation is called "original sin".

418 As a result of original sin, human nature is weakened in its powers, subject to ignorance, suffering and the domination of death, and inclined to sin (this inclination is called "concupiscence").

419 "We therefore hold, with the Council of Trent, that original sin is transmitted with human nature, "by propagation, not by imitation" and that it is. . . 'proper to each'" (Paul VI, CPG -º 16).

Here is an except from an audience given by the Pope on October 1, 1986:

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/audiences/alpha/data/aud19861001en.html

Under part 2, Reference to the mystery of redemption

In this context it is evident that original sin in Adam's descendants does not have the character of personal guilt. It is the privation of sanctifying grace in a nature which has been diverted from its supernatural end through the fault of the first parents. It is a "sin of nature," only analogically comparable to "personal sin."

The Pope's audience makes lots of references to the Council of Trent.  Canon 5 uses the phrase "guilt of original sin."

Link to The Council of Trent, Session V, Decree Concerning Original Sin:
http://www.ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/TRENT5.HTM

5. If anyone denies that by the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ which is conferred in baptism, the guilt of original sin is remitted, or says that the whole of that which belongs to the essence of sin is not taken away, but says that it is only canceled or not imputed, let him be anathema.

I'm looking into what exactly "guilt of original sin" means considering that the Pope said and the CCC seems to be saying we do not bear personal guilt.  I keep running into references to St. Augustine.   Then I see seen this:
 

St. Augustine of Hippo, Corrections I, 15 (C. 427 AD):
"Concupiscence is the guilt of original sin."

I'm not sure if that fits canon 5 given how concupiscence is defined in the CCC at paragraphs 405 and 418.  I want to look for more on the subject.

Kefx

[Keble]

This is getting to be rather a mess of different citations.

One must remember that Ott, if "magisterial", isn't the Magisterium per se. I'm having a bit of trouble quite straightening out what he's saying, but there's a point where it doesn't matter. If the pope is teaching with the intent of expressing of teaching of the Magisterium, then we have to go with the pope.

Likewise, when looking at Trent, one needs to read it in its historical context (keeping in mind that we're reading it in translation). The point of this passage is to condemn the anabaptists. It doesn't seem to me to be a complete explication of Original Sin as a doctrine.

[Linus7]

Someone correct me if I am wrong, but what I am getting from all this is that the RC doctrine of original sin is not the simple straw man of inherited guilt that some of us have constructed.

In fact, it looks to me to be pretty much what we believe, though perhaps expressed in somewhat different words.

Am I wrong? Is there an Orthodox explanation out there that is clearly contrary to what I have read in the CCC and the links posted here?

[Jakub]

A quote from JP II regarding original sin:

" Original sin is not only the violation of a positive command of God but also, and above all, a violation of the will of God as expressed in that command".

Then he goes into paradigms of master-slave and father-son which is beyond my thought state (brewski)at this moment.

james

[Linus7]

I know that state of mind, Jakub. It's one of my favorites!  

[Tags:]

OrthodoxChristianity.net > Moderated Forums > Orthodox-Other Christian Discussion > Orthodox-Catholic Discussion (Moderator: username!) > Topic: UNKNOWN TO MOST CRADLES & CONVERTS