OrthodoxChristianity.net
September 23, 2014, 10:25:50 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: 1 2 3 »  All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Hereditary guilt?  (Read 5157 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
William
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Posts: 4,315


« on: September 14, 2011, 05:24:57 PM »

In my theology class today, my teacher defined original sin. I noticed that he didn't mention guilt, so I asked him if, according to Roman Catholicism, guilt is inherited and not just humanity's sinful condition. He said that it was only the condition that is inherited, not guilt.

So...was he misrepresenting RC teaching or does the RC really teach that only the fallen condition is inherited? If so, how is that different from the Orthodox doctrine of ancestral sin?
« Last Edit: September 14, 2011, 05:25:56 PM by William » Logged

Apart from moral conduct, all that man thinks himself able to do in order to become acceptable to God is mere superstition and religious folly. - Immanuel Kant
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,192


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #1 on: September 14, 2011, 06:42:19 PM »

If you read the Catechism of the Catholic Church, any discussion of "guilt" must be understood in an anological fashion, so that one does not literally become guilty of the Sin of Adam, the way one becomes guilty of one's own sins.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
William
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Posts: 4,315


« Reply #2 on: September 14, 2011, 06:57:12 PM »

Doesn't that fly in the face of the Augustinian doctrine of original sin?
Logged

Apart from moral conduct, all that man thinks himself able to do in order to become acceptable to God is mere superstition and religious folly. - Immanuel Kant
NicholasMyra
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian/Greek
Posts: 5,895


Avowed denominationalist


« Reply #3 on: September 14, 2011, 07:03:55 PM »

Doesn't that fly in the face of the Augustinian doctrine of original sin?
What people did with Augustine is not what Augustine did.  Wink
Logged

Quote from: Orthonorm
if Christ does and says x. And someone else does and says not x and you are ever in doubt, follow Christ.

"You are philosophical innovators. As for me, I follow the Fathers." -Every heresiarch ever
scamandrius
Crusher of Secrets; House Lannister
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek by desire; Antiochian by necessity
Posts: 6,014



« Reply #4 on: September 14, 2011, 07:09:12 PM »

Doesn't that fly in the face of the Augustinian doctrine of original sin?
What people did with Augustine is not what Augustine did.  Wink

Most people (i.e. Orthodox in the Romanides camp) who claim that Augustine did this or did that have never read Augustine.  IF they had, they would find that Augustine is clearly in the apophatic tradition of the Eastern Churches.
Logged

I seek the truth by which no man was ever harmed--Marcus Aurelius

Those who do not read  history are doomed to get their facts from Hollywood--Anonymous

What earthly joy remains untouched by grief?--St. John Damascene
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Online Online

Posts: 29,878


« Reply #5 on: September 14, 2011, 07:19:43 PM »

IF they had, they would find that Augustine is clearly in the apophatic tradition of the Eastern Churches.

So is Aquinas, according to some.  Huh
Logged
akimori makoto
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Non-heretical Christian
Jurisdiction: Fully-sik-hektic archdiocese of Australia, bro
Posts: 3,126

No-one bound by fleshly pleasures is worthy ...


« Reply #6 on: September 14, 2011, 08:19:25 PM »

IF they had, they would find that Augustine is clearly in the apophatic tradition of the Eastern Churches.

So is Aquinas, according to some.  Huh

That is drawing a long bow!
Logged

The Episcopallian road is easy and wide, for many go through it to find destruction. lol sorry channeling Isa.
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,192


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #7 on: September 15, 2011, 01:06:20 AM »

IF they had, they would find that Augustine is clearly in the apophatic tradition of the Eastern Churches.

So is Aquinas, according to some.  Huh
Smiley
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
William
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Posts: 4,315


« Reply #8 on: September 15, 2011, 05:05:49 AM »

So is there a difference between the Orthodox and Catholic camps on this point?

I also wonder if this isn't another one of the CCC's teachings that aren't really in line with Catholic tradition (e.g., Judaism being Islam being quasi-valid religions).
Logged

Apart from moral conduct, all that man thinks himself able to do in order to become acceptable to God is mere superstition and religious folly. - Immanuel Kant
Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #9 on: September 15, 2011, 01:15:11 PM »

So is there a difference between the Orthodox and Catholic camps on this point?
If there is...I can't grasp what it is. I have a feeling it is one of those things that we actually agree upon, but some EO reject it solely because they perceive it as something Latin.
Logged
HabteSelassie
Ises and I-ity
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church
Posts: 3,332



« Reply #10 on: September 15, 2011, 02:03:33 PM »

Greetings in that Divine and Most Precious Name of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ!

In my theology class today, my teacher defined original sin. I noticed that he didn't mention guilt, so I asked him if, according to Roman Catholicism, guilt is inherited and not just humanity's sinful condition. He said that it was only the condition that is inherited, not guilt.

So...was he misrepresenting RC teaching or does the RC really teach that only the fallen condition is inherited? If so, how is that different from the Orthodox doctrine of ancestral sin?

There is no "guilt" associated with the "Original Sin" in the Orthodox theology.  We do not inherit any specific or personal guilt in Adam and Eve's sin.  Rather, what Adam and Eve did was to alter the nature of the human experience, into a "fallen nature" with the potentiality for further and further personal sin. The Divine Mysteries redeems us from as the RC explains, "the privation of the sanctifying Grace of God" which is the condition inherited from Adam and Eve's ancestral sin and the fallen nature.

Quote
"The way the Orthodox teachers look at the story of Adam and Eve is quite different from the way it is generally understood in the West. In the West, commentaries tend to emphasize the themes of disobedience, guilt, sin, and remorse, including a fairly heavy hint that the sin of our first parents was somehow sexual in nature [I suspect this is a reference to the Latin term Concupiscence with its root of Cupid/Desire]..  For the East, by contrast, the story of Adam and Eve is, at its heart, a story of disintegration, fragmentation, and estrangement.  The man and woman, and the world in which they lived, were torn apart by their behavior, and vast gaps came to exist between God and man, between heaven and earth, between one person and another, between the genders, and finally even within the human personality itself.  Each and every person is internally fragmented and externally isolated from the outside world, right down to the ultimate depths of his or her being. Fragmentation within the human personality is observed essentially as the division between the mind and the nous or heart." Father Meletios Webber Bread and Water, Oil and Wine

In Orthodox we emphasize the fragmentation of the fallen nature which we inherited, and the continual process of healing which our participation and proximity with the Divine Mysteries brings into our lives.  Our heart has been separated from our reasoning minds, and this is the privation of Grace which the RC theologians speak of, however in Orthodox we emphasize more so healing rather than forgiveness.  The healing makes it seem more like the illness or disease it is, where as forgiveness tends to insinuate culpability and guilt.
So is there a difference between the Orthodox and Catholic camps on this point?
If there is...I can't grasp what it is. I have a feeling it is one of those things that we actually agree upon, but some EO reject it solely because they perceive it as something Latin.

Folks here can vouch for my reverent Ecumenism and so I am not bashing RC here, but I think there is definitely a difference, about as sharp as the difference between Oriental and Eastern Orthodox Christology.  It is subtle, and the gaps can be bridged by dialogue, but the openings lead to far different theological interpretations and influences in practice.

The RC (and their children the Pentecostals) ,as Father Meletios explained, tend to overemphasize the sin of Adam and Eve, interconnect it too much with our own tendency towards personal sin, and this creates a kind of guilt complex, even if ostensibly  the RC teaches there is not guilt, many common folks infer such.



stay blessed,
habte selassie
« Last Edit: September 15, 2011, 02:06:52 PM by HabteSelassie » Logged

"Yet stand aloof from stupid questionings and geneologies and strifes and fightings about law, for they are without benefit and vain." Titus 3:10
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #11 on: September 15, 2011, 05:32:15 PM »

Doesn't that fly in the face of the Augustinian doctrine of original sin?

No
Logged

elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #12 on: September 15, 2011, 05:33:15 PM »

IF they had, they would find that Augustine is clearly in the apophatic tradition of the Eastern Churches.

So is Aquinas, according to some.  Huh

That is drawing a long bow!

Not if you understand Aquinas the Mystic, the Angelic Doctor.
Logged

elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #13 on: September 15, 2011, 05:34:30 PM »


The RC (and their children the Pentecostals) ,as Father Meletios explained, tend to overemphasize the sin of Adam and Eve, interconnect it too much with our own tendency towards personal sin, and this creates a kind of guilt complex, even if ostensibly  the RC teaches there is not guilt, many common folks infer such.


Sorry but this is junk theology.  It sure ain't Catholic.
Logged

Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,192


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #14 on: September 15, 2011, 05:51:45 PM »

So is there a difference between the Orthodox and Catholic camps on this point?
If there is...I can't grasp what it is. I have a feeling it is one of those things that we actually agree upon, but some EO reject it solely because they perceive it as something Latin.
This
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Cynical
Jurisdiction: Vestibule of Hell
Posts: 3,918



WWW
« Reply #15 on: September 15, 2011, 05:56:06 PM »

The RC (and their children the Pentecostals) ,as Father Meletios explained, tend to overemphasize the sin of Adam and Eve, interconnect it too much with our own tendency towards personal sin, and this creates a kind of guilt complex, even if ostensibly  the RC teaches there is not guilt, many common folks infer such.

So because someone might not understand the theology fully (inside or outside the faith), then it is a valid critique?

Is there anything within Orthodoxy that can be/has been misunderstood (inside and/or outside the Church)?
Logged


I'm going to need this.
Kasatkin fan
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA - Archdiocese of Canada
Posts: 636



« Reply #16 on: September 15, 2011, 06:43:27 PM »

The question I have, is if the re is no guilt, and it is only a fallen nature (exactly what Orthodoxy teaches), then why do Catholics view baptism as a rite for the remission of those sins? Or is this another case of pop Catholicism where Catholics don't understand what their faith teaches?
I can't tell you how many times, both on the internet and in real life, after hearing the Orthodox explanation of Original Sin, Catholics ask what Baptism is for if there is no guilt, before going on to accuse the Orthodox of holding to a semi-pelagian position.
Logged
William
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Posts: 4,315


« Reply #17 on: September 15, 2011, 06:49:53 PM »

The question I have, is if the re is no guilt, and it is only a fallen nature (exactly what Orthodoxy teaches), then why do Catholics view baptism as a rite for the remission of those sins? Or is this another case of pop Catholicism where Catholics don't understand what their faith teaches?
I can't tell you how many times, both on the internet and in real life, after hearing the Orthodox explanation of Original Sin, Catholics ask what Baptism is for if there is no guilt, before going on to accuse the Orthodox of holding to a semi-pelagian position.
And the whole "we inherit guilt" thing was always my impression when I was Catholic.

I wonder if any reliable Catholic theologian/doctor/saint/father said that inheriting Adam's sin is analogous (meaning no guilt is actually involved) before the CCC said it.
Logged

Apart from moral conduct, all that man thinks himself able to do in order to become acceptable to God is mere superstition and religious folly. - Immanuel Kant
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #18 on: September 15, 2011, 06:52:52 PM »

The question I have, is if the re is no guilt, and it is only a fallen nature (exactly what Orthodoxy teaches), then why do Catholics view baptism as a rite for the remission of those sins? Or is this another case of pop Catholicism where Catholics don't understand what their faith teaches?

What a crappy way to ask a question  Undecided

In the Catholic Church, Baptism removes the "stain" of original sin, and it is known as the sacrament of Laver and Illumination.

In the Catholic Church the "stain" of original sin is the loss of original justice [the darkening of the intellect and the weakening of the will.]

In Baptism the soul is illumined [reconnected with God so that there may be interaction between the creature and the Creator] and the will is strengthened and oriented to the good by the graces of the sacrament.
Logged

Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Online Online

Posts: 29,878


« Reply #19 on: September 15, 2011, 06:56:45 PM »

IF they had, they would find that Augustine is clearly in the apophatic tradition of the Eastern Churches.

So is Aquinas, according to some.  Huh

That is drawing a long bow!

Not if you understand Aquinas the Mystic, the Angelic Doctor.

Well that might be interesting. I've read little of St. Thomas other than brief excerpts (mostly regarding the existence of God), and portions of his collection of patristic quotes commenting on the Gospels. If you (or anyone else) comes across a quote or idea in him and want to share, by all means do start a thread on it.
Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #20 on: September 15, 2011, 07:01:44 PM »

IF they had, they would find that Augustine is clearly in the apophatic tradition of the Eastern Churches.

So is Aquinas, according to some.  Huh

That is drawing a long bow!

Not if you understand Aquinas the Mystic, the Angelic Doctor.

Well that might be interesting. I've read little of St. Thomas other than brief excerpts (mostly regarding the existence of God), and portions of his collection of patristic quotes commenting on the Gospels. If you (or anyone else) comes across a quote or idea in him and want to share, by all means do start a thread on it.

Are you familiar with his hymns?  They are a good place to begin.
Logged

Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Online Online

Posts: 29,878


« Reply #21 on: September 15, 2011, 07:54:24 PM »

Are you familiar with his hymns?  They are a good place to begin.

The copy on Google Books doesn't seem to have a preview...  ahh well, I might come across a copy eventually...
Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #22 on: September 15, 2011, 08:21:39 PM »

Are you familiar with his hymns?  They are a good place to begin.

The copy on Google Books doesn't seem to have a preview...  ahh well, I might come across a copy eventually...

We can use the post-it topic Wisdom: also: when one of us finds pertinent texts from Aquinas the Mystic

Much of it is in his biblical commentaries.  I have the one on Job and it is amazing!!

M.
« Last Edit: September 15, 2011, 08:22:47 PM by elijahmaria » Logged

Severian
God save Egypt, Syria, Lebanon & Iraq
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Coptic/Egyptian Orthodoxy
Posts: 5,039


In solidarity with Iraqi and Syrian Christians

Partisangirl
WWW
« Reply #23 on: September 15, 2011, 09:06:16 PM »

*Subscribed*
Logged

"What on Earth was I smoking?"

-My personal reaction when re-reading half of the c**p I've written on this forum.
HabteSelassie
Ises and I-ity
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church
Posts: 3,332



« Reply #24 on: September 16, 2011, 02:09:23 PM »

Greetings in that Divine and Most Precious Name of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ!


The RC (and their children the Pentecostals) ,as Father Meletios explained, tend to overemphasize the sin of Adam and Eve, interconnect it too much with our own tendency towards personal sin, and this creates a kind of guilt complex, even if ostensibly  the RC teaches there is not guilt, many common folks infer such.


Sorry but this is junk theology.  It sure ain't Catholic.

I agree that its not supposed to be Catholic, but already no less than three people have posted on this thread alone that from their experience as Catholics, "guilt" seemed very much part of the equation, which was why I specifically said
Quote
"even if ostensibly the RC teaches there is no guilt, many common folks infer such"
Wink

By the way, I have never heard any Orthodox folks bring up "guilt" in connection with Adam and Eve, and yet all the Pentecostals and Catholics I have met and known tend to insist upon it as this thread has mentioned so...

If many folks misunderstand a Catechism, then perhaps that Catechism needs reforming to properly elucidate certain misunderstandings?

stay blessed,
habte selassie
« Last Edit: September 16, 2011, 02:09:56 PM by HabteSelassie » Logged

"Yet stand aloof from stupid questionings and geneologies and strifes and fightings about law, for they are without benefit and vain." Titus 3:10
J Michael
Older than dirt; dumber than a box of rocks; colossally ignorant; a little crazy ;-)
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 10,128


Lord, have mercy! I live under a rock. Alleluia!


« Reply #25 on: September 16, 2011, 02:24:00 PM »

The question I have, is if the re is no guilt, and it is only a fallen nature (exactly what Orthodoxy teaches), then why do Catholics view baptism as a rite for the remission of those sins? Or is this another case of pop Catholicism where Catholics don't understand what their faith teaches?
I can't tell you how many times, both on the internet and in real life, after hearing the Orthodox explanation of Original Sin, Catholics ask what Baptism is for if there is no guilt, before going on to accuse the Orthodox of holding to a semi-pelagian position.

With reference to the bolded part above:

The Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed (As recited in the Orthodox Church)

I believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible;....

....And I believe in One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.

I acknowledge one Baptism for the remission of sins.

I look for the Resurrection of the dead,

And the Life of the age to come. Amen.



So I would ask you regarding that, what sins are being remitted?
Logged

"May Thy Cross, O Lord, in which I seek refuge, be for me a bridge across the great river of fire.  May I pass along it to the habitation of life." ~St. Ephraim the Syrian

"Sometimes you're the windshield.  Sometimes you're the bug." ~ Mark Knopfler (?)
Αριστοκλής
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese
Posts: 10,026


« Reply #26 on: September 16, 2011, 03:20:10 PM »

The question I have, is if the re is no guilt, and it is only a fallen nature (exactly what Orthodoxy teaches), then why do Catholics view baptism as a rite for the remission of those sins? Or is this another case of pop Catholicism where Catholics don't understand what their faith teaches?
I can't tell you how many times, both on the internet and in real life, after hearing the Orthodox explanation of Original Sin, Catholics ask what Baptism is for if there is no guilt, before going on to accuse the Orthodox of holding to a semi-pelagian position.

With reference to the bolded part above:

The Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed (As recited in the Orthodox Church)

I believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible;....

....And I believe in One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.

I acknowledge one Baptism for the remission of sins.

I look for the Resurrection of the dead,

And the Life of the age to come. Amen.



So I would ask you regarding that, what sins are being remitted?

Apparently (and I could be wrong) you are using the word "remission" in a far too constraining manner. In the Greek the word so translated means much more than "forgiveness" (which it does include for past transgressions). The meaning is "CESSATION" as an active, willful turning away from sin and embracing, Born Anew -Born from Above- in the life-saving (salvation) of the Christian life as nurtured and fostered within the Body of Christ: the only Way to salvation is through the Sacramental Life of the Holy Church of Christ into which one enters with Baptism and Confirmation and one continues by living the righteous life .
Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides
J Michael
Older than dirt; dumber than a box of rocks; colossally ignorant; a little crazy ;-)
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 10,128


Lord, have mercy! I live under a rock. Alleluia!


« Reply #27 on: September 16, 2011, 03:48:36 PM »

The question I have, is if the re is no guilt, and it is only a fallen nature (exactly what Orthodoxy teaches), then why do Catholics view baptism as a rite for the remission of those sins? Or is this another case of pop Catholicism where Catholics don't understand what their faith teaches?
I can't tell you how many times, both on the internet and in real life, after hearing the Orthodox explanation of Original Sin, Catholics ask what Baptism is for if there is no guilt, before going on to accuse the Orthodox of holding to a semi-pelagian position.

With reference to the bolded part above:

The Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed (As recited in the Orthodox Church)

I believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible;....

....And I believe in One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.

I acknowledge one Baptism for the remission of sins.

I look for the Resurrection of the dead,

And the Life of the age to come. Amen.



So I would ask you regarding that, what sins are being remitted?

Apparently (and I could be wrong) you are using the word "remission" in a far too constraining manner. In the Greek the word so translated means much more than "forgiveness" (which it does include for past transgressions). The meaning is "CESSATION" as an active, willful turning away from sin and embracing, Born Anew -Born from Above- in the life-saving (salvation) of the Christian life as nurtured and fostered within the Body of Christ: the only Way to salvation is through the Sacramental Life of the Holy Church of Christ into which one enters with Baptism and Confirmation and one continues by living the righteous life .

Thank you for that!

It wasn't me, however, using the word "remission".  Kasatkin fan used it in his post with reference to Catholics and the Catholic Rite of Baptism.  I was just pointing out that the same word, in English, is used by Orthodox, also with reference to sins.  Perhaps what I should have asked was how would you describe the difference, if any, between the Orthodox understanding of the words "remission" and "sins" and the Catholic understanding of them?  Apologies if I wasn't clear.  (My question is, by the way, absolutely sincere and not meant to bait or entrap.  If I knew how it would be answered I wouldn't ask.)

I can neither speak nor read Greek, but a cursory search on google yielded this:
aphesis: dismissal, release, fig. pardon
Original Word: ἄφεσις, εως, ἡ
Part of Speech: Noun, Feminine
Transliteration: aphesis
Phonetic Spelling: (af'-es-is)
Short Definition: deliverance, pardon, complete forgiveness
Definition: a sending away, a letting go, a release, pardon, complete forgiveness.

Cognate: 859 áphesis (from 863 /aphíēmi, "send away, forgive" ) – properly, "something sent away"; i.e. remission ("forgiveness"), releasing someone from obligation or debt. See 863 (aphiēmi).


Is that on the right track?
Logged

"May Thy Cross, O Lord, in which I seek refuge, be for me a bridge across the great river of fire.  May I pass along it to the habitation of life." ~St. Ephraim the Syrian

"Sometimes you're the windshield.  Sometimes you're the bug." ~ Mark Knopfler (?)
Kasatkin fan
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA - Archdiocese of Canada
Posts: 636



« Reply #28 on: September 16, 2011, 04:12:00 PM »

The question I have, is if the re is no guilt, and it is only a fallen nature (exactly what Orthodoxy teaches), then why do Catholics view baptism as a rite for the remission of those sins? Or is this another case of pop Catholicism where Catholics don't understand what their faith teaches?

What a crappy way to ask a question  Undecided

Thank you. Your opinion is always important to me, and you do your faith a great service.
Quote
In the Catholic Church, Baptism removes the "stain" of original sin, and it is known as the sacrament of Laver and Illumination.

In the Catholic Church the "stain" of original sin is the loss of original justice [the darkening of the intellect and the weakening of the will.]
That is not part of the Orthodox belief in Original sin. The fallen nature remains after Baptism.

So I suppose, if you are correct, we have shown there is a difference in belief beyond mere semantics.
Logged
Kasatkin fan
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA - Archdiocese of Canada
Posts: 636



« Reply #29 on: September 16, 2011, 04:14:45 PM »

The question I have, is if the re is no guilt, and it is only a fallen nature (exactly what Orthodoxy teaches), then why do Catholics view baptism as a rite for the remission of those sins? Or is this another case of pop Catholicism where Catholics don't understand what their faith teaches?
I can't tell you how many times, both on the internet and in real life, after hearing the Orthodox explanation of Original Sin, Catholics ask what Baptism is for if there is no guilt, before going on to accuse the Orthodox of holding to a semi-pelagian position.

With reference to the bolded part above:

The Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed (As recited in the Orthodox Church)

I believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible;....

....And I believe in One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.

I acknowledge one Baptism for the remission of sins.

I look for the Resurrection of the dead,

And the Life of the age to come. Amen.



So I would ask you regarding that, what sins are being remitted?
That doesn't read as past tense to me.
Logged
Kasatkin fan
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA - Archdiocese of Canada
Posts: 636



« Reply #30 on: September 16, 2011, 04:17:01 PM »

The question I have, is if the re is no guilt, and it is only a fallen nature (exactly what Orthodoxy teaches), then why do Catholics view baptism as a rite for the remission of those sins? Or is this another case of pop Catholicism where Catholics don't understand what their faith teaches?
I can't tell you how many times, both on the internet and in real life, after hearing the Orthodox explanation of Original Sin, Catholics ask what Baptism is for if there is no guilt, before going on to accuse the Orthodox of holding to a semi-pelagian position.

With reference to the bolded part above:

The Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed (As recited in the Orthodox Church)

I believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible;....

....And I believe in One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.

I acknowledge one Baptism for the remission of sins.

I look for the Resurrection of the dead,

And the Life of the age to come. Amen.



So I would ask you regarding that, what sins are being remitted?

Apparently (and I could be wrong) you are using the word "remission" in a far too constraining manner. In the Greek the word so translated means much more than "forgiveness" (which it does include for past transgressions). The meaning is "CESSATION" as an active, willful turning away from sin and embracing, Born Anew -Born from Above- in the life-saving (salvation) of the Christian life as nurtured and fostered within the Body of Christ: the only Way to salvation is through the Sacramental Life of the Holy Church of Christ into which one enters with Baptism and Confirmation and one continues by living the righteous life .

Thank you for that!

It wasn't me, however, using the word "remission".  Kasatkin fan used it in his post with reference to Catholics and the Catholic Rite of Baptism.  I was just pointing out that the same word, in English, is used by Orthodox, also with reference to sins.  Perhaps what I should have asked was how would you describe the difference, if any, between the Orthodox understanding of the words "remission" and "sins" and the Catholic understanding of them?  Apologies if I wasn't clear.  (My question is, by the way, absolutely sincere and not meant to bait or entrap.  If I knew how it would be answered I wouldn't ask.)

I can neither speak nor read Greek, but a cursory search on google yielded this:
aphesis: dismissal, release, fig. pardon
Original Word: ἄφεσις, εως, ἡ
Part of Speech: Noun, Feminine
Transliteration: aphesis
Phonetic Spelling: (af'-es-is)
Short Definition: deliverance, pardon, complete forgiveness
Definition: a sending away, a letting go, a release, pardon, complete forgiveness.

Cognate: 859 áphesis (from 863 /aphíēmi, "send away, forgive" ) – properly, "something sent away"; i.e. remission ("forgiveness"), releasing someone from obligation or debt. See 863 (aphiēmi).


Is that on the right track?
The issue is that Catholics whom I have talk to specify that it means the remission of original sin in particular, rather than all sins past, present, and future.
Logged
Αριστοκλής
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese
Posts: 10,026


« Reply #31 on: September 16, 2011, 04:18:09 PM »

The question I have, is if the re is no guilt, and it is only a fallen nature (exactly what Orthodoxy teaches), then why do Catholics view baptism as a rite for the remission of those sins? Or is this another case of pop Catholicism where Catholics don't understand what their faith teaches?
I can't tell you how many times, both on the internet and in real life, after hearing the Orthodox explanation of Original Sin, Catholics ask what Baptism is for if there is no guilt, before going on to accuse the Orthodox of holding to a semi-pelagian position.

With reference to the bolded part above:

The Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed (As recited in the Orthodox Church)

I believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible;....

....And I believe in One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.

I acknowledge one Baptism for the remission of sins.

I look for the Resurrection of the dead,

And the Life of the age to come. Amen.



So I would ask you regarding that, what sins are being remitted?

Apparently (and I could be wrong) you are using the word "remission" in a far too constraining manner. In the Greek the word so translated means much more than "forgiveness" (which it does include for past transgressions). The meaning is "CESSATION" as an active, willful turning away from sin and embracing, Born Anew -Born from Above- in the life-saving (salvation) of the Christian life as nurtured and fostered within the Body of Christ: the only Way to salvation is through the Sacramental Life of the Holy Church of Christ into which one enters with Baptism and Confirmation and one continues by living the righteous life .

Thank you for that!

It wasn't me, however, using the word "remission".  Kasatkin fan used it in his post with reference to Catholics and the Catholic Rite of Baptism.  I was just pointing out that the same word, in English, is used by Orthodox, also with reference to sins.  Perhaps what I should have asked was how would you describe the difference, if any, between the Orthodox understanding of the words "remission" and "sins" and the Catholic understanding of them?  Apologies if I wasn't clear.  (My question is, by the way, absolutely sincere and not meant to bait or entrap.  If I knew how it would be answered I wouldn't ask.)

I can neither speak nor read Greek, but a cursory search on google yielded this:
aphesis: dismissal, release, fig. pardon
Original Word: ἄφεσις, εως, ἡ
Part of Speech: Noun, Feminine
Transliteration: aphesis
Phonetic Spelling: (af'-es-is)
Short Definition: deliverance, pardon, complete forgiveness
Definition: a sending away, a letting go, a release, pardon, complete forgiveness.

Cognate: 859 áphesis (from 863 /aphíēmi, "send away, forgive" ) – properly, "something sent away"; i.e. remission ("forgiveness"), releasing someone from obligation or debt. See 863 (aphiēmi).


Is that on the right track?

Yes, on the right track but you must include the further meanings of "setting free", "setting apart from", and "a quittance" for the full meaning. As hard as Greek may be, it's much better than  English in some aspects.
Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides
J Michael
Older than dirt; dumber than a box of rocks; colossally ignorant; a little crazy ;-)
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 10,128


Lord, have mercy! I live under a rock. Alleluia!


« Reply #32 on: September 16, 2011, 04:29:43 PM »

The question I have, is if the re is no guilt, and it is only a fallen nature (exactly what Orthodoxy teaches), then why do Catholics view baptism as a rite for the remission of those sins? Or is this another case of pop Catholicism where Catholics don't understand what their faith teaches?
I can't tell you how many times, both on the internet and in real life, after hearing the Orthodox explanation of Original Sin, Catholics ask what Baptism is for if there is no guilt, before going on to accuse the Orthodox of holding to a semi-pelagian position.

With reference to the bolded part above:

The Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed (As recited in the Orthodox Church)

I believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible;....

....And I believe in One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.

I acknowledge one Baptism for the remission of sins.

I look for the Resurrection of the dead,

And the Life of the age to come. Amen.



So I would ask you regarding that, what sins are being remitted?
That doesn't read as past tense to me.

 Huh Huh
Logged

"May Thy Cross, O Lord, in which I seek refuge, be for me a bridge across the great river of fire.  May I pass along it to the habitation of life." ~St. Ephraim the Syrian

"Sometimes you're the windshield.  Sometimes you're the bug." ~ Mark Knopfler (?)
J Michael
Older than dirt; dumber than a box of rocks; colossally ignorant; a little crazy ;-)
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 10,128


Lord, have mercy! I live under a rock. Alleluia!


« Reply #33 on: September 16, 2011, 04:32:18 PM »

The question I have, is if the re is no guilt, and it is only a fallen nature (exactly what Orthodoxy teaches), then why do Catholics view baptism as a rite for the remission of those sins? Or is this another case of pop Catholicism where Catholics don't understand what their faith teaches?
I can't tell you how many times, both on the internet and in real life, after hearing the Orthodox explanation of Original Sin, Catholics ask what Baptism is for if there is no guilt, before going on to accuse the Orthodox of holding to a semi-pelagian position.

With reference to the bolded part above:

The Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed (As recited in the Orthodox Church)

I believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible;....

....And I believe in One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.

I acknowledge one Baptism for the remission of sins.

I look for the Resurrection of the dead,

And the Life of the age to come. Amen.



So I would ask you regarding that, what sins are being remitted?

Apparently (and I could be wrong) you are using the word "remission" in a far too constraining manner. In the Greek the word so translated means much more than "forgiveness" (which it does include for past transgressions). The meaning is "CESSATION" as an active, willful turning away from sin and embracing, Born Anew -Born from Above- in the life-saving (salvation) of the Christian life as nurtured and fostered within the Body of Christ: the only Way to salvation is through the Sacramental Life of the Holy Church of Christ into which one enters with Baptism and Confirmation and one continues by living the righteous life .

Thank you for that!

It wasn't me, however, using the word "remission".  Kasatkin fan used it in his post with reference to Catholics and the Catholic Rite of Baptism.  I was just pointing out that the same word, in English, is used by Orthodox, also with reference to sins.  Perhaps what I should have asked was how would you describe the difference, if any, between the Orthodox understanding of the words "remission" and "sins" and the Catholic understanding of them?  Apologies if I wasn't clear.  (My question is, by the way, absolutely sincere and not meant to bait or entrap.  If I knew how it would be answered I wouldn't ask.)

I can neither speak nor read Greek, but a cursory search on google yielded this:
aphesis: dismissal, release, fig. pardon
Original Word: ἄφεσις, εως, ἡ
Part of Speech: Noun, Feminine
Transliteration: aphesis
Phonetic Spelling: (af'-es-is)
Short Definition: deliverance, pardon, complete forgiveness
Definition: a sending away, a letting go, a release, pardon, complete forgiveness.

Cognate: 859 áphesis (from 863 /aphíēmi, "send away, forgive" ) – properly, "something sent away"; i.e. remission ("forgiveness"), releasing someone from obligation or debt. See 863 (aphiēmi).


Is that on the right track?
The issue is that Catholics whom I have talk to specify that it means the remission of original sin in particular, rather than all sins past, present, and future.

Hmm...interesting.  Perhaps you misunderstood them?  How does baptism remit sins present and future?  If it did, there would be no need for the Sacrament of Reconciliation (Confession) and absolution, it seems to me.
Logged

"May Thy Cross, O Lord, in which I seek refuge, be for me a bridge across the great river of fire.  May I pass along it to the habitation of life." ~St. Ephraim the Syrian

"Sometimes you're the windshield.  Sometimes you're the bug." ~ Mark Knopfler (?)
J Michael
Older than dirt; dumber than a box of rocks; colossally ignorant; a little crazy ;-)
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 10,128


Lord, have mercy! I live under a rock. Alleluia!


« Reply #34 on: September 16, 2011, 04:34:40 PM »

The question I have, is if the re is no guilt, and it is only a fallen nature (exactly what Orthodoxy teaches), then why do Catholics view baptism as a rite for the remission of those sins? Or is this another case of pop Catholicism where Catholics don't understand what their faith teaches?
I can't tell you how many times, both on the internet and in real life, after hearing the Orthodox explanation of Original Sin, Catholics ask what Baptism is for if there is no guilt, before going on to accuse the Orthodox of holding to a semi-pelagian position.

With reference to the bolded part above:

The Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed (As recited in the Orthodox Church)

I believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible;....

....And I believe in One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.

I acknowledge one Baptism for the remission of sins.

I look for the Resurrection of the dead,

And the Life of the age to come. Amen.



So I would ask you regarding that, what sins are being remitted?

Apparently (and I could be wrong) you are using the word "remission" in a far too constraining manner. In the Greek the word so translated means much more than "forgiveness" (which it does include for past transgressions). The meaning is "CESSATION" as an active, willful turning away from sin and embracing, Born Anew -Born from Above- in the life-saving (salvation) of the Christian life as nurtured and fostered within the Body of Christ: the only Way to salvation is through the Sacramental Life of the Holy Church of Christ into which one enters with Baptism and Confirmation and one continues by living the righteous life .

Thank you for that!

It wasn't me, however, using the word "remission".  Kasatkin fan used it in his post with reference to Catholics and the Catholic Rite of Baptism.  I was just pointing out that the same word, in English, is used by Orthodox, also with reference to sins.  Perhaps what I should have asked was how would you describe the difference, if any, between the Orthodox understanding of the words "remission" and "sins" and the Catholic understanding of them?  Apologies if I wasn't clear.  (My question is, by the way, absolutely sincere and not meant to bait or entrap.  If I knew how it would be answered I wouldn't ask.)

I can neither speak nor read Greek, but a cursory search on google yielded this:
aphesis: dismissal, release, fig. pardon
Original Word: ἄφεσις, εως, ἡ
Part of Speech: Noun, Feminine
Transliteration: aphesis
Phonetic Spelling: (af'-es-is)
Short Definition: deliverance, pardon, complete forgiveness
Definition: a sending away, a letting go, a release, pardon, complete forgiveness.

Cognate: 859 áphesis (from 863 /aphíēmi, "send away, forgive" ) – properly, "something sent away"; i.e. remission ("forgiveness"), releasing someone from obligation or debt. See 863 (aphiēmi).


Is that on the right track?

Yes, on the right track but you must include the further meanings of "setting free", "setting apart from", and "a quittance" for the full meaning. As hard as Greek may be, it's much better than  English in some aspects.

Okay, thanks again!  I'll take your word for that, as it's all Greek to me Grin.  (Sorry, I just couldn't resist that and it fit perfectly  Wink)
Logged

"May Thy Cross, O Lord, in which I seek refuge, be for me a bridge across the great river of fire.  May I pass along it to the habitation of life." ~St. Ephraim the Syrian

"Sometimes you're the windshield.  Sometimes you're the bug." ~ Mark Knopfler (?)
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #35 on: September 16, 2011, 06:43:33 PM »

Greetings in that Divine and Most Precious Name of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ!


The RC (and their children the Pentecostals) ,as Father Meletios explained, tend to overemphasize the sin of Adam and Eve, interconnect it too much with our own tendency towards personal sin, and this creates a kind of guilt complex, even if ostensibly  the RC teaches there is not guilt, many common folks infer such.


Sorry but this is junk theology.  It sure ain't Catholic.

I agree that its not supposed to be Catholic, but already no less than three people have posted on this thread alone that from their experience as Catholics, "guilt" seemed very much part of the equation, which was why I specifically said
Quote
"even if ostensibly the RC teaches there is no guilt, many common folks infer such"
Wink

By the way, I have never heard any Orthodox folks bring up "guilt" in connection with Adam and Eve, and yet all the Pentecostals and Catholics I have met and known tend to insist upon it as this thread has mentioned so...

If many folks misunderstand a Catechism, then perhaps that Catechism needs reforming to properly elucidate certain misunderstandings?

stay blessed,
habte selassie

I have catechized.  You cannot always reach everyone with everything.  That's just a plain truth.  So we do the best that we can.  The CCC specifically reiterates other older teaching documents and says outright that there is no PERSONAL guilt in original sin.  I don't know how you can do better than that.
« Last Edit: September 16, 2011, 06:48:20 PM by elijahmaria » Logged

Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Online Online

Posts: 29,878


« Reply #36 on: September 16, 2011, 06:45:14 PM »

I'm sorry peeple, none of us inheretied guilt, just bad jeans.!
Logged
Kasatkin fan
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA - Archdiocese of Canada
Posts: 636



« Reply #37 on: September 16, 2011, 06:45:31 PM »

The question I have, is if the re is no guilt, and it is only a fallen nature (exactly what Orthodoxy teaches), then why do Catholics view baptism as a rite for the remission of those sins? Or is this another case of pop Catholicism where Catholics don't understand what their faith teaches?
I can't tell you how many times, both on the internet and in real life, after hearing the Orthodox explanation of Original Sin, Catholics ask what Baptism is for if there is no guilt, before going on to accuse the Orthodox of holding to a semi-pelagian position.

With reference to the bolded part above:

The Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed (As recited in the Orthodox Church)

I believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible;....

....And I believe in One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.

I acknowledge one Baptism for the remission of sins.

I look for the Resurrection of the dead,

And the Life of the age to come. Amen.



So I would ask you regarding that, what sins are being remitted?

Apparently (and I could be wrong) you are using the word "remission" in a far too constraining manner. In the Greek the word so translated means much more than "forgiveness" (which it does include for past transgressions). The meaning is "CESSATION" as an active, willful turning away from sin and embracing, Born Anew -Born from Above- in the life-saving (salvation) of the Christian life as nurtured and fostered within the Body of Christ: the only Way to salvation is through the Sacramental Life of the Holy Church of Christ into which one enters with Baptism and Confirmation and one continues by living the righteous life .

Thank you for that!

It wasn't me, however, using the word "remission".  Kasatkin fan used it in his post with reference to Catholics and the Catholic Rite of Baptism.  I was just pointing out that the same word, in English, is used by Orthodox, also with reference to sins.  Perhaps what I should have asked was how would you describe the difference, if any, between the Orthodox understanding of the words "remission" and "sins" and the Catholic understanding of them?  Apologies if I wasn't clear.  (My question is, by the way, absolutely sincere and not meant to bait or entrap.  If I knew how it would be answered I wouldn't ask.)

I can neither speak nor read Greek, but a cursory search on google yielded this:
aphesis: dismissal, release, fig. pardon
Original Word: ἄφεσις, εως, ἡ
Part of Speech: Noun, Feminine
Transliteration: aphesis
Phonetic Spelling: (af'-es-is)
Short Definition: deliverance, pardon, complete forgiveness
Definition: a sending away, a letting go, a release, pardon, complete forgiveness.

Cognate: 859 áphesis (from 863 /aphíēmi, "send away, forgive" ) – properly, "something sent away"; i.e. remission ("forgiveness"), releasing someone from obligation or debt. See 863 (aphiēmi).


Is that on the right track?
The issue is that Catholics whom I have talk to specify that it means the remission of original sin in particular, rather than all sins past, present, and future.

Hmm...interesting.  Perhaps you misunderstood them?  How does baptism remit sins present and future?  If it did, there would be no need for the Sacrament of Reconciliation (Confession) and absolution, it seems to me.
The Sacrafice of Christ is something which happens outside of time. The Eucharist is something which happens outside of time. Why is it so hard to see Baptism as something that similarly happens outside of time?

While anyone who is Orthodox and has a better understanding of this is welcome to correct me, but Baptism does not grant automatic forgiveness of any sin we may commit, that would be antinomianism at its worst, it would mean that simply by being baptized we are as close to God as we need to be. We must still repent of our sins. Confession is to either show our repentence, or to help bring it about (If the priest denies absolution, due to a belief that you are not repentant or do not see the seriousness of it). In and of itself it does not result in the forgiveness of sins.
That is at any rate my understanding. It is amazing how such minor disagreements over something can have such cascading effects in our understanding of the world. Wink

edit: If Baptism was for past sins only, wouldn't it stand to reason that we should baptize later in life? What point is there in baptizing a child which is held to be sinless?
« Last Edit: September 16, 2011, 06:47:04 PM by Kasatkin fan » Logged
JLatimer
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ROCOR
Posts: 1,202



« Reply #38 on: September 17, 2011, 10:34:52 AM »

So is there a difference between the Orthodox and Catholic camps on this point?
If there is...I can't grasp what it is. I have a feeling it is one of those things that we actually agree upon, but some EO reject it solely because they perceive it as something Latin.

I somewhat agree.
Logged

1 Samuel 25:22 (KJV)
So and more also do God unto the enemies of David, if I leave of all that pertain to him by the morning light any that pisseth against the wall.
Severian
God save Egypt, Syria, Lebanon & Iraq
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Coptic/Egyptian Orthodoxy
Posts: 5,039


In solidarity with Iraqi and Syrian Christians

Partisangirl
WWW
« Reply #39 on: September 17, 2011, 10:38:36 AM »

So is there a difference between the Orthodox and Catholic camps on this point?
If there is...I can't grasp what it is. I have a feeling it is one of those things that we actually agree upon, but some EO reject it solely because they perceive it as something Latin.

I somewhat agree.
A ROCOR EO dismissing something as a matter of semantics?  Shocked

LOL! laugh
Logged

"What on Earth was I smoking?"

-My personal reaction when re-reading half of the c**p I've written on this forum.
JLatimer
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ROCOR
Posts: 1,202



« Reply #40 on: September 17, 2011, 10:47:38 AM »

402 All men are implicated in Adam's sin, as St. Paul affirms: "By one man's disobedience many (that is, all men) were made sinners": "sin came into the world through one man and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all men sinned."289 The Apostle contrasts the universality of sin and death with the universality of salvation in Christ. "Then as one man's trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one man's act of righteousness leads to acquittal and life for all men."290

403 Following St. Paul, the Church has always taught that the overwhelming misery which oppresses men and their inclination towards evil and death cannot be understood apart from their connection with Adam's sin and the fact that he has transmitted to us a sin with which we are all born afflicted, a sin which is the "death of the soul".291 Because of this certainty of faith, the Church baptizes for the remission of sins even tiny infants who have not committed personal sin.292

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".293 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.294 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.

405 Although it is proper to each individual,295 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 towards God, but the consequences for nature, weakened and inclined to evil, persist in man and summon him to spiritual battle.

- from the RC Catechism
Logged

1 Samuel 25:22 (KJV)
So and more also do God unto the enemies of David, if I leave of all that pertain to him by the morning light any that pisseth against the wall.
JLatimer
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ROCOR
Posts: 1,202



« Reply #41 on: September 17, 2011, 11:06:42 AM »

So is there a difference between the Orthodox and Catholic camps on this point?
If there is...I can't grasp what it is. I have a feeling it is one of those things that we actually agree upon, but some EO reject it solely because they perceive it as something Latin.

I somewhat agree.
A ROCOR EO dismissing something as a matter of semantics?  Shocked

LOL! laugh

Not dismissing something as a matter of semantics; rather, agreeing with Wyatt that there is a tendency among today's Orthodox to disavow the (Orthodox) teaching on original sin as something Latin. Often this proceeds from a genuine desire to clarify our position away from the pop-caricature of original sin many of us grew up with (or thought we did). However, oftentimes too little care is taken to distinguish between that caricature and the actual RC position.
Logged

1 Samuel 25:22 (KJV)
So and more also do God unto the enemies of David, if I leave of all that pertain to him by the morning light any that pisseth against the wall.
Melodist
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: The Faith That Established The Universe
Jurisdiction: AOANA
Posts: 2,523



« Reply #42 on: September 17, 2011, 11:17:03 AM »

The Sacrafice of Christ is something which happens outside of time. The Eucharist is something which happens outside of time. Why is it so hard to see Baptism as something that similarly happens outside of time?

The Lamb was slain from the foundation of the world. Christ's saving act transcends time and space. He was crucified and raised from the dead inside of time and space (this is why we worship on sunday). Baptism, Communion, and confession, all join us to Christ's saving action, the power of which transcends space and time, but we receive the sacraments inside of space and time. This is why we have confession when we sin after our one baptism (the creed says "one baptism" not "baptism is the only thing for remission of sins"). This is why we receive Communion "for the remission of sins" (can also be taken to condemnation), and Communion is not a "once only" event.

Quote
edit: If Baptism was for past sins only, wouldn't it stand to reason that we should baptize later in life? What point is there in baptizing a child which is held to be sinless?

We are born under Adam's curse. This misses the mark that God intends for us. That makes it sin. Not personal sin, but a condition of sin. Baptism unites to Christ through His death and resurrection, introduces us to life in Him, and is what makes us disciples of Him. This is why children are baptized.
Logged

And FWIW, these are our Fathers too, you know.

Made Perfect in Weakness - Latest Post: The Son of God
JLatimer
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ROCOR
Posts: 1,202



« Reply #43 on: September 17, 2011, 02:07:47 PM »

So is there a difference between the Orthodox and Catholic camps on this point?
If there is...I can't grasp what it is. I have a feeling it is one of those things that we actually agree upon, but some EO reject it solely because they perceive it as something Latin.

I somewhat agree.
A ROCOR EO dismissing something as a matter of semantics?  Shocked

LOL! laugh

As to ROCOR, I fail to see how that relates.
Logged

1 Samuel 25:22 (KJV)
So and more also do God unto the enemies of David, if I leave of all that pertain to him by the morning light any that pisseth against the wall.
Severian
God save Egypt, Syria, Lebanon & Iraq
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Coptic/Egyptian Orthodoxy
Posts: 5,039


In solidarity with Iraqi and Syrian Christians

Partisangirl
WWW
« Reply #44 on: September 17, 2011, 02:37:45 PM »

I was just joking. I mentioned ROCOR because she tends to be quite conservative about these things. I did not mean to insult her or you.
Logged

"What on Earth was I smoking?"

-My personal reaction when re-reading half of the c**p I've written on this forum.
Tags: The passion of the Wyatt Never mind! No offense! 
Pages: 1 2 3 »  All   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.187 seconds with 72 queries.