OrthodoxChristianity.net
October 23, 2014, 12:33:41 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 5269 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
William
Muted
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 4,354


« 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: 12,264


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
Muted
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 4,354


« 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
Avowed denominationalist
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian/Greek
Posts: 5,971


When in doubt, say: "you lack the proper φρόνημα"


« 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.
scamandrius
Crusher of Secrets; House Lannister
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: I'm Greek and proud of it, damn it!
Posts: 6,146



« 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
****************
Offline Offline

Posts: 30,094


Goodbye for now, my friend


« 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

Paradosis ≠ Asteriktos ≠ Justin
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: 12,264


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
Muted
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 4,354


« 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: 12,264


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
Muted
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 4,354


« 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
****************
Offline Offline

Posts: 30,094


Goodbye for now, my friend


« 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

Paradosis ≠ Asteriktos ≠ Justin
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
****************
Offline Offline

Posts: 30,094


Goodbye for now, my friend


« 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

Paradosis ≠ Asteriktos ≠ Justin
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: 5,041


Saint Severus of Antioch - the Eloquent Mouth

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

*Subscribed*
Logged

"These things I have spoken unto you, that in me ye might have peace. In the world ye shall have tribulation: but be of good cheer; I have overcome the world." -Jesus Christ (Cf. St. John 16:33)
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: 10,172


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: 10,172


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: 10,172


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: 10,172


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: 10,172


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
****************
Offline Offline

Posts: 30,094


Goodbye for now, my friend


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

I'm sorry peeple, none of us inheretied guilt, just bad jeans.!
Logged

Paradosis ≠ Asteriktos ≠ Justin
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: 5,041


Saint Severus of Antioch - the Eloquent Mouth

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

"These things I have spoken unto you, that in me ye might have peace. In the world ye shall have tribulation: but be of good cheer; I have overcome the world." -Jesus Christ (Cf. St. John 16:33)
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: 5,041


Saint Severus of Antioch - the Eloquent Mouth

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

"These things I have spoken unto you, that in me ye might have peace. In the world ye shall have tribulation: but be of good cheer; I have overcome the world." -Jesus Christ (Cf. St. John 16:33)
Kasatkin fan
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

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



« Reply #45 on: September 17, 2011, 03:55:21 PM »


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.
Yes of course they are given within time, but the sacrament itself is outside of time.

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.
[/quote] Yes, that's the Orthodox answer, my question was to the Catholics, they're the one asking what Baptism is for if there isn't original sin. I'm asking the Catholics here if they are misrepresenting the Catholic position, or if Catholics actually do believe something different in regards to Original sin than us. So far it seems they believe something different.
Logged
JLatimer
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ROCOR
Posts: 1,202



« Reply #46 on: September 17, 2011, 04:45:59 PM »

Yes, that's the Orthodox answer, my question was to the Catholics, they're the one asking what Baptism is for if there isn't original sin. I'm asking the Catholics here if they are misrepresenting the Catholic position, or if Catholics actually do believe something different in regards to Original sin than us. So far it seems they believe something different.

I posted the entry from the RC catechism on original sin. I don't see the difference you are seeing.
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 #47 on: September 17, 2011, 04:48:37 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.

No offense taken. BTW, I thought I was making a conservative case.
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.
Apotheoun
"Three realities pertain to God: essence, energy, and the triad of divine hypostaseis." St. Gregory Palamas
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: Melkite Catholic
Posts: 1,388


St. John Maximovitch


WWW
« Reply #48 on: September 17, 2011, 06:53:06 PM »

"Blessed be God, who alone does wonderful things! You have seen how numerous are the gifts of baptism. Although many men think that the only gift it confers is the remission of sins, we have counted its honors to the number of ten. It is on this account that we baptize even infants, although they are sinless, that they may be given the further gifts of sanctification, justice, filial adoption, and inheritance, that they may be brothers and members of Christ, and become dwelling places for the Spirit" [St. John Chrysostom, Third Baptismal Instruction, no. 6].

Baptism is not simply about the remission of sins, but about giving the person baptized a real and living participation in the divine life.
Logged

"All that the Father has belongs likewise to the Son, except Causality."
St. Gregory Nazianzen

"We should believe that divine grace is present in the icon of Christ and that it communicates sanctification to those who draw near with faith."
St. Theodore Studite
Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #49 on: September 17, 2011, 06:56:11 PM »

"Blessed be God, who alone does wonderful things! You have seen how numerous are the gifts of baptism. Although many men think that the only gift it confers is the remission of sins, we have counted its honors to the number of ten. It is on this account that we baptize even infants, although they are sinless, that they may be given the further gifts of sanctification, justice, filial adoption, and inheritance, that they may be brothers and members of Christ, and become dwelling places for the Spirit" [St. John Chrysostom, Third Baptismal Instruction, no. 6].

Baptism is not simply about the remission of sins, but about giving the person baptized a real and living participation in the divine life.
Sinless as in free of personal sin, but infants are not without original sin.
Logged
Apotheoun
"Three realities pertain to God: essence, energy, and the triad of divine hypostaseis." St. Gregory Palamas
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: Melkite Catholic
Posts: 1,388


St. John Maximovitch


WWW
« Reply #50 on: September 17, 2011, 07:03:56 PM »

"Blessed be God, who alone does wonderful things! You have seen how numerous are the gifts of baptism. Although many men think that the only gift it confers is the remission of sins, we have counted its honors to the number of ten. It is on this account that we baptize even infants, although they are sinless, that they may be given the further gifts of sanctification, justice, filial adoption, and inheritance, that they may be brothers and members of Christ, and become dwelling places for the Spirit" [St. John Chrysostom, Third Baptismal Instruction, no. 6].

Baptism is not simply about the remission of sins, but about giving the person baptized a real and living participation in the divine life.
Sinless as in free of personal sin, but infants are not without original sin.
The original sin in Adam's descendants is mortality, not sin or guilt.

Adam's sin makes him subject to death, and it is the mortal condition that he passes on to his descendants.  Now because all men are mortal - in the likeness of Adam - they fall into sins as they attempt on their own power to maintain their existence without God. Baptism - in the case of an adult - washes away a man's sins, while also imparting to him the other gifts mentioned by St. John Chrysostom in his Baptismal Instruction.  While - in the case of an infant who has not sinned - the mystery of Baptism imparts the "gifts of sanctification, justice, filial adoption, and inheritance, that they may be brothers and members of Christ, and become dwelling places for the Spirit," as St. John said.  In other words, the holy mystery of Baptism gives children all the other gifts that St. John Chrysostom mentioned in his homily, but it does not remit sins in the case of a child because the child has no sins to remit.

« Last Edit: September 17, 2011, 07:19:29 PM by Apotheoun » Logged

"All that the Father has belongs likewise to the Son, except Causality."
St. Gregory Nazianzen

"We should believe that divine grace is present in the icon of Christ and that it communicates sanctification to those who draw near with faith."
St. Theodore Studite
Apotheoun
"Three realities pertain to God: essence, energy, and the triad of divine hypostaseis." St. Gregory Palamas
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: Melkite Catholic
Posts: 1,388


St. John Maximovitch


WWW
« Reply #51 on: September 17, 2011, 07:15:34 PM »

I found Fr. Meyendorff's text on the original sin from his book Byzantine Theology helpful.  Click the link below in order to read what he wrote:

Fr. Meyendorff on the Original Sin
« Last Edit: September 17, 2011, 07:16:18 PM by Apotheoun » Logged

"All that the Father has belongs likewise to the Son, except Causality."
St. Gregory Nazianzen

"We should believe that divine grace is present in the icon of Christ and that it communicates sanctification to those who draw near with faith."
St. Theodore Studite
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #52 on: September 17, 2011, 07:24:40 PM »

"Blessed be God, who alone does wonderful things! You have seen how numerous are the gifts of baptism. Although many men think that the only gift it confers is the remission of sins, we have counted its honors to the number of ten. It is on this account that we baptize even infants, although they are sinless, that they may be given the further gifts of sanctification, justice, filial adoption, and inheritance, that they may be brothers and members of Christ, and become dwelling places for the Spirit" [St. John Chrysostom, Third Baptismal Instruction, no. 6].

Baptism is not simply about the remission of sins, but about giving the person baptized a real and living participation in the divine life.


The original sin in Adam's descendants is mortality, not sin or guilt.

Adam's sin makes him subject to death, and it is the mortal condition that he passes on to his descendants.  Now because all men are mortal - in the likeness of Adam - they fall into sins as they attempt on their own power to maintain their existence without God. Baptism - in the case of an adult - washes away a man's sins, while also imparting to him the other gifts mentioned by St. John Chrysostom in his Baptismal Instruction.  While - in the case of an infant who has not sinned - the mystery of Baptism imparts the "gifts of sanctification, justice, filial adoption, and inheritance, that they may be brothers and members of Christ, and become dwelling places for the Spirit," as St. John said.  In other words, the holy mystery of Baptism gives children all the other gifts that St. John Chrysostom mentioned in his homily, but it does not remit sins in the case of a child because the child has no sins to remit.
Sinless as in free of personal sin, but infants are not without original sin.


Then we believe in 2 baptisms: One baptism for the remission of sin: and the Second: not so much!!
« Last Edit: September 17, 2011, 07:29:42 PM by elijahmaria » Logged

Apotheoun
"Three realities pertain to God: essence, energy, and the triad of divine hypostaseis." St. Gregory Palamas
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: Melkite Catholic
Posts: 1,388


St. John Maximovitch


WWW
« Reply #53 on: September 17, 2011, 07:29:47 PM »

There is but one baptism, but the holy mystery has many different effects, and so it is not limited to the remission of sins.

We must also remember that the various baptismal creeds were written during the time that adult baptism was the norm in the Church.  The catechumen would recite the creed and be baptized.  Infant baptism was adapted to the existing liturgical usage, and so we must not read too much into the phrase "remission of sins" when applied to infant baptism, and of course Fr. Meyendorff addresses that very issue in the text I gave a link to above.
« Last Edit: September 17, 2011, 07:30:41 PM by Apotheoun » Logged

"All that the Father has belongs likewise to the Son, except Causality."
St. Gregory Nazianzen

"We should believe that divine grace is present in the icon of Christ and that it communicates sanctification to those who draw near with faith."
St. Theodore Studite
Apotheoun
"Three realities pertain to God: essence, energy, and the triad of divine hypostaseis." St. Gregory Palamas
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: Melkite Catholic
Posts: 1,388


St. John Maximovitch


WWW
« Reply #54 on: September 17, 2011, 07:32:49 PM »

Postscript:  It is also important to note that the creed speaks of the "remission of sins" in the plural, and so it is not referring to the Augustinian notion of "original sin" that only developed in the late 4th and early 5th centuries.
« Last Edit: September 17, 2011, 07:33:10 PM by Apotheoun » Logged

"All that the Father has belongs likewise to the Son, except Causality."
St. Gregory Nazianzen

"We should believe that divine grace is present in the icon of Christ and that it communicates sanctification to those who draw near with faith."
St. Theodore Studite
JLatimer
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ROCOR
Posts: 1,202



« Reply #55 on: September 17, 2011, 08:05:46 PM »

"Blessed be God, who alone does wonderful things! You have seen how numerous are the gifts of baptism. Although many men think that the only gift it confers is the remission of sins, we have counted its honors to the number of ten. It is on this account that we baptize even infants, although they are sinless, that they may be given the further gifts of sanctification, justice, filial adoption, and inheritance, that they may be brothers and members of Christ, and become dwelling places for the Spirit" [St. John Chrysostom, Third Baptismal Instruction, no. 6].

Baptism is not simply about the remission of sins, but about giving the person baptized a real and living participation in the divine life.
Sinless as in free of personal sin, but infants are not without original sin.
The original sin in Adam's descendants is mortality, not sin or guilt.

Adam's sin makes him subject to death, and it is the mortal condition that he passes on to his descendants.  Now because all men are mortal - in the likeness of Adam - they fall into sins as they attempt on their own power to maintain their existence without God. Baptism - in the case of an adult - washes away a man's sins, while also imparting to him the other gifts mentioned by St. John Chrysostom in his Baptismal Instruction.  While - in the case of an infant who has not sinned - the mystery of Baptism imparts the "gifts of sanctification, justice, filial adoption, and inheritance, that they may be brothers and members of Christ, and become dwelling places for the Spirit," as St. John said.  In other words, the holy mystery of Baptism gives children all the other gifts that St. John Chrysostom mentioned in his homily, but it does not remit sins in the case of a child because the child has no sins to remit.



Already posted this elsewhere:

Canon 110 of the Council of Carthage in 419: “He who denies the need for young children and those just born from their mother’s womb to be baptized, or who says that although they are baptized for the remission of sins they inherit nothing from the forefathers’ sin that would necessitate the bath of regeneration [from which it would follow that the form of baptism for the remission of sins would be used on them not in a true, but in a false sense], let him be anathema. For the word of the apostle: ‘By one man sin came into the world and death entered all men by sin, for in him all have sinned’ (Romans 5.12), must be understood in no other way than it has always been understood by the Catholic Church, which has been poured out and spread everywhere. For in accordance with this rule of faith children, too, who are themselves not yet able to commit any sin, are truly baptized for the remission of sins, that through regeneration they may be cleansed of everything that they have acquired from the old birth.
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.
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

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



WWW
« Reply #56 on: September 17, 2011, 08:12:14 PM »

Postscript:  It is also important to note that the creed speaks of the "remission of sins" in the plural, and so it is not referring to the Augustinian notion of "original sin" that only developed in the late 4th and early 5th centuries.

Where do you get this? The plural doesn't necessarily exclude anything.

The early 4th century council in Carthage supports the notion of Baptism for Original Sin.
« Last Edit: September 17, 2011, 08:12:58 PM by Azurestone » Logged


I'm going to need this.
Apotheoun
"Three realities pertain to God: essence, energy, and the triad of divine hypostaseis." St. Gregory Palamas
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: Melkite Catholic
Posts: 1,388


St. John Maximovitch


WWW
« Reply #57 on: September 17, 2011, 08:23:52 PM »

"Blessed be God, who alone does wonderful things! You have seen how numerous are the gifts of baptism. Although many men think that the only gift it confers is the remission of sins, we have counted its honors to the number of ten. It is on this account that we baptize even infants, although they are sinless, that they may be given the further gifts of sanctification, justice, filial adoption, and inheritance, that they may be brothers and members of Christ, and become dwelling places for the Spirit" [St. John Chrysostom, Third Baptismal Instruction, no. 6].

Baptism is not simply about the remission of sins, but about giving the person baptized a real and living participation in the divine life.
Sinless as in free of personal sin, but infants are not without original sin.
The original sin in Adam's descendants is mortality, not sin or guilt.

Adam's sin makes him subject to death, and it is the mortal condition that he passes on to his descendants.  Now because all men are mortal - in the likeness of Adam - they fall into sins as they attempt on their own power to maintain their existence without God. Baptism - in the case of an adult - washes away a man's sins, while also imparting to him the other gifts mentioned by St. John Chrysostom in his Baptismal Instruction.  While - in the case of an infant who has not sinned - the mystery of Baptism imparts the "gifts of sanctification, justice, filial adoption, and inheritance, that they may be brothers and members of Christ, and become dwelling places for the Spirit," as St. John said.  In other words, the holy mystery of Baptism gives children all the other gifts that St. John Chrysostom mentioned in his homily, but it does not remit sins in the case of a child because the child has no sins to remit.



Already posted this elsewhere:

Canon 110 of the Council of Carthage in 419: “He who denies the need for young children and those just born from their mother’s womb to be baptized, or who says that although they are baptized for the remission of sins they inherit nothing from the forefathers’ sin that would necessitate the bath of regeneration [from which it would follow that the form of baptism for the remission of sins would be used on them not in a true, but in a false sense], let him be anathema. For the word of the apostle: ‘By one man sin came into the world and death entered all men by sin, for in him all have sinned’ (Romans 5.12), must be understood in no other way than it has always been understood by the Catholic Church, which has been poured out and spread everywhere. For in accordance with this rule of faith children, too, who are themselves not yet able to commit any sin, are truly baptized for the remission of sins, that through regeneration they may be cleansed of everything that they have acquired from the old birth.
Lovely as that Western quotation is, there is no evidence that that particular text was approved by an ecumenical council.  Moreover, as should be evident by its geographic locale, that local council reflects an Augustinian approach, which was not known in the Church of East or West prior to the 5th century.
« Last Edit: September 17, 2011, 08:28:17 PM by Apotheoun » Logged

"All that the Father has belongs likewise to the Son, except Causality."
St. Gregory Nazianzen

"We should believe that divine grace is present in the icon of Christ and that it communicates sanctification to those who draw near with faith."
St. Theodore Studite
Apotheoun
"Three realities pertain to God: essence, energy, and the triad of divine hypostaseis." St. Gregory Palamas
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: Melkite Catholic
Posts: 1,388


St. John Maximovitch


WWW
« Reply #58 on: September 17, 2011, 08:26:08 PM »

Postscript:  It is also important to note that the creed speaks of the "remission of sins" in the plural, and so it is not referring to the Augustinian notion of "original sin" that only developed in the late 4th and early 5th centuries.

Where do you get this? The plural doesn't necessarily exclude anything.

The early 4th century council in Carthage supports the notion of Baptism for Original Sin.
The Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed certain does not reflect the theology of Augustine, who hadn't even written all that much prior to that the convening of that council.

Sins in the plural is certainly not a reference to St. Augustine's Manichaean notion of human depravity passed on through sexual intercourse because of the heating up of the genitals through lust.  Cheesy
Logged

"All that the Father has belongs likewise to the Son, except Causality."
St. Gregory Nazianzen

"We should believe that divine grace is present in the icon of Christ and that it communicates sanctification to those who draw near with faith."
St. Theodore Studite
Apotheoun
"Three realities pertain to God: essence, energy, and the triad of divine hypostaseis." St. Gregory Palamas
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: Melkite Catholic
Posts: 1,388


St. John Maximovitch


WWW
« Reply #59 on: September 17, 2011, 08:27:20 PM »

Thankfully, even the Roman Church is moving away from the Augustinian viewpoint, as evidenced by its 1994 Catechism, which - unlike Trent - never mentions guilt in connection with the original sin.
Logged

"All that the Father has belongs likewise to the Son, except Causality."
St. Gregory Nazianzen

"We should believe that divine grace is present in the icon of Christ and that it communicates sanctification to those who draw near with faith."
St. Theodore Studite
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

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



WWW
« Reply #60 on: September 17, 2011, 08:36:57 PM »

Postscript:  It is also important to note that the creed speaks of the "remission of sins" in the plural, and so it is not referring to the Augustinian notion of "original sin" that only developed in the late 4th and early 5th centuries.

Where do you get this? The plural doesn't necessarily exclude anything.

The early 4th century council in Carthage supports the notion of Baptism for Original Sin.
The Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed certain does not reflect the theology of Augustine, who hadn't even written all that much prior to that the convening of that council.

Sins in the plural is certainly not a reference to St. Augustine's Manichaean notion of human depravity passed on through sexual intercourse because of the heating up of the genitals through lust.  Cheesy

Yet, you haven't backed up that understanding. I, for one, am less inclined to label theology opposing modern Orthodoxy positions as automatically "Augustine", as if it's a dirty word. Therefore, simple relation to him will not be sufficient.

Council of Carthage 419
Quote
Canon CX.  (Greek cxii. bis)

That infants are baptized for the remission of sins.

Likewise it seemed good that whosoever denies that infants newly from their mother’s wombs should be baptized, or says that baptism is for remission of sins, but that they derive from Adam no original sin, which needs to be removed by the laver of regeneration, from whence the conclusion follows, that in them the form of baptism for the remission of sins, is to be understood as false and not true, let him be anathema.

For no otherwise can be understood what the Apostle says, “By one man sin is come into the world, and death through sin, and so death passed upon all men in that all have sinned,” than the Catholic Church everywhere diffused has always understood it.  For on account of this rule of faith (regulam fidei) even infants, who could have committed as yet no sin themselves, therefore are truly baptized for the remission of sins, in order that what in them is the result of generation may be cleansed by regeneration.
Logged


I'm going to need this.
Apotheoun
"Three realities pertain to God: essence, energy, and the triad of divine hypostaseis." St. Gregory Palamas
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: Melkite Catholic
Posts: 1,388


St. John Maximovitch


WWW
« Reply #61 on: September 17, 2011, 08:39:06 PM »

Postscript:  It is also important to note that the creed speaks of the "remission of sins" in the plural, and so it is not referring to the Augustinian notion of "original sin" that only developed in the late 4th and early 5th centuries.

Where do you get this? The plural doesn't necessarily exclude anything.

The early 4th century council in Carthage supports the notion of Baptism for Original Sin.
The Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed certain does not reflect the theology of Augustine, who hadn't even written all that much prior to that the convening of that council.

Sins in the plural is certainly not a reference to St. Augustine's Manichaean notion of human depravity passed on through sexual intercourse because of the heating up of the genitals through lust.  Cheesy

Yet, you haven't backed up that understanding. I, for one, am less inclined to label theology opposing modern Orthodoxy positions as automatically "Augustine", as if it's a dirty word. Therefore, simple relation to him will not be sufficient.

Council of Carthage 419
Quote
Canon CX.  (Greek cxii. bis)

That infants are baptized for the remission of sins.

Likewise it seemed good that whosoever denies that infants newly from their mother’s wombs should be baptized, or says that baptism is for remission of sins, but that they derive from Adam no original sin, which needs to be removed by the laver of regeneration, from whence the conclusion follows, that in them the form of baptism for the remission of sins, is to be understood as false and not true, let him be anathema.

For no otherwise can be understood what the Apostle says, “By one man sin is come into the world, and death through sin, and so death passed upon all men in that all have sinned,” than the Catholic Church everywhere diffused has always understood it.  For on account of this rule of faith (regulam fidei) even infants, who could have committed as yet no sin themselves, therefore are truly baptized for the remission of sins, in order that what in them is the result of generation may be cleansed by regeneration.
I guess you don't accept the sources Fr. Meyendorff included in his article, which I posted earlier, or perhaps you just didn't take the time to read the article.  That happens a lot on internet fora.

Postscript:  You can reference the Augustinian Council of Carthage all you like, but I see no reason to accept its teaching as ecumenically binding.
« Last Edit: September 17, 2011, 08:40:28 PM by Apotheoun » Logged

"All that the Father has belongs likewise to the Son, except Causality."
St. Gregory Nazianzen

"We should believe that divine grace is present in the icon of Christ and that it communicates sanctification to those who draw near with faith."
St. Theodore Studite
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

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



WWW
« Reply #62 on: September 17, 2011, 08:43:31 PM »

I guess you don't accept the sources Fr. Meyendorff included in his article, which I posted earlier, or perhaps you just didn't take the time to read the article.  That happens a lot on internet fora.

I didn't see this post. I'll scroll back and take a look.

Postscript:  You can reference the Augustinian Council of Carthage all you like, but I see no reason to accept its teaching as ecumenically binding.

This council was included in the Quinisext Council, which is considered a continuation of the Ecumenical Councils and Ecumenical itself by the Orthodox.
« Last Edit: September 17, 2011, 08:43:47 PM by Azurestone » Logged


I'm going to need this.
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

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



WWW
« Reply #63 on: September 17, 2011, 08:47:53 PM »

I guess you don't accept the sources Fr. Meyendorff included in his article, which I posted earlier, or perhaps you just didn't take the time to read the article.  That happens a lot on internet fora.

I didn't see this post. I'll scroll back and take a look.

I perused the article. It isn't anything I haven't heard before, and it is neither very convincing. It presents the theology that I have come to consider "modern" Orthodox thought.
Logged


I'm going to need this.
Apotheoun
"Three realities pertain to God: essence, energy, and the triad of divine hypostaseis." St. Gregory Palamas
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: Melkite Catholic
Posts: 1,388


St. John Maximovitch


WWW
« Reply #64 on: September 17, 2011, 08:48:49 PM »

I guess you don't accept the sources Fr. Meyendorff included in his article, which I posted earlier, or perhaps you just didn't take the time to read the article.  That happens a lot on internet fora.

I didn't see this post. I'll scroll back and take a look.

Postscript:  You can reference the Augustinian Council of Carthage all you like, but I see no reason to accept its teaching as ecumenically binding.

This council was included in the Quinisext Council, which is considered a continuation of the Ecumenical Councils and Ecumenical itself by the Orthodox.
The local Quinisext Synod, which is not itself ecumenical having taken place several years after the close of the Sixth Ecumenical Council, approved an unspecified local Carthaginian council, and later mentioned St. Cyrprian's headship, which means that it cannot be referring to the council held in the year 419 because St. Cyrprian had been long dead when that Western synod was convened.

Which of the more than a dozen Carthaginian Councils held from the year 250 A.D. until 500 A.D. is being approved by the vague reference in the Trullan canon you are referring to?
« Last Edit: September 17, 2011, 08:58:16 PM by Apotheoun » Logged

"All that the Father has belongs likewise to the Son, except Causality."
St. Gregory Nazianzen

"We should believe that divine grace is present in the icon of Christ and that it communicates sanctification to those who draw near with faith."
St. Theodore Studite
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

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



WWW
« Reply #65 on: September 17, 2011, 08:50:16 PM »

I guess you don't accept the sources Fr. Meyendorff included in his article, which I posted earlier, or perhaps you just didn't take the time to read the article.  That happens a lot on internet fora.

I didn't see this post. I'll scroll back and take a look.

Postscript:  You can reference the Augustinian Council of Carthage all you like, but I see no reason to accept its teaching as ecumenically binding.

This council was included in the Quinisext Council, which is considered a continuation of the Ecumenical Councils and Ecumenical itself by the Orthodox.
The local Quinisext Synod, which is not itself ecumenical having taken place several years after the close of the Sixth Ecumenical Council, approved an unspecified local Carthaginian council, and later mentioned St. Cyrprian's headship, which means that it cannot be referring to the council held in the year 419 because St. Cyrprian had been long dead when that Western synod was convened.

The council itself calls itself a continuation and mentions both councils, not to mention includes the canons.
« Last Edit: September 17, 2011, 08:50:49 PM by Azurestone » Logged


I'm going to need this.
Apotheoun
"Three realities pertain to God: essence, energy, and the triad of divine hypostaseis." St. Gregory Palamas
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: Melkite Catholic
Posts: 1,388


St. John Maximovitch


WWW
« Reply #66 on: September 17, 2011, 08:50:31 PM »

I guess you don't accept the sources Fr. Meyendorff included in his article, which I posted earlier, or perhaps you just didn't take the time to read the article.  That happens a lot on internet fora.

I didn't see this post. I'll scroll back and take a look.

I perused the article. It isn't anything I haven't heard before, and it is neither very convincing. It presents the theology that I have come to consider "modern" Orthodox thought.
It does give several patristic sources that counter the Manichaean teaching of St. Augustine on the transmission of sin, and one of the sources in particular speaks to the very point at issue between us.
Logged

"All that the Father has belongs likewise to the Son, except Causality."
St. Gregory Nazianzen

"We should believe that divine grace is present in the icon of Christ and that it communicates sanctification to those who draw near with faith."
St. Theodore Studite
Apotheoun
"Three realities pertain to God: essence, energy, and the triad of divine hypostaseis." St. Gregory Palamas
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: Melkite Catholic
Posts: 1,388


St. John Maximovitch


WWW
« Reply #67 on: September 17, 2011, 08:51:45 PM »

I guess you don't accept the sources Fr. Meyendorff included in his article, which I posted earlier, or perhaps you just didn't take the time to read the article.  That happens a lot on internet fora.

I didn't see this post. I'll scroll back and take a look.

Postscript:  You can reference the Augustinian Council of Carthage all you like, but I see no reason to accept its teaching as ecumenically binding.

This council was included in the Quinisext Council, which is considered a continuation of the Ecumenical Councils and Ecumenical itself by the Orthodox.
The local Quinisext Synod, which is not itself ecumenical having taken place several years after the close of the Sixth Ecumenical Council, approved an unspecified local Carthaginian council, and later mentioned St. Cyrprian's headship, which means that it cannot be referring to the council held in the year 419 because St. Cyrprian had been long dead when that Western synod was convened.

The council itself calls itself a continuation and mentions both councils.
It can call itself anything it chooses, but the Sixth Ecumenical Council had been closed for some years prior to the convening of the Trullan Synod.  After all, the robber synod of 449 calls itself ecumenical, but I do not see any reason to agree with that idea.
Logged

"All that the Father has belongs likewise to the Son, except Causality."
St. Gregory Nazianzen

"We should believe that divine grace is present in the icon of Christ and that it communicates sanctification to those who draw near with faith."
St. Theodore Studite
Apotheoun
"Three realities pertain to God: essence, energy, and the triad of divine hypostaseis." St. Gregory Palamas
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: Melkite Catholic
Posts: 1,388


St. John Maximovitch


WWW
« Reply #68 on: September 17, 2011, 08:53:17 PM »

The only ecumenical council that explicitly mentions approval of local synods is Nicaea II, and it restricts its approval of those synods to those things issued by them (i.e., the local synods) in order to promulgate the decrees of the ecumenical councils (Nicaea II, canon 1).
« Last Edit: September 17, 2011, 08:53:45 PM by Apotheoun » Logged

"All that the Father has belongs likewise to the Son, except Causality."
St. Gregory Nazianzen

"We should believe that divine grace is present in the icon of Christ and that it communicates sanctification to those who draw near with faith."
St. Theodore Studite
JLatimer
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ROCOR
Posts: 1,202



« Reply #69 on: September 17, 2011, 08:56:43 PM »

"Blessed be God, who alone does wonderful things! You have seen how numerous are the gifts of baptism. Although many men think that the only gift it confers is the remission of sins, we have counted its honors to the number of ten. It is on this account that we baptize even infants, although they are sinless, that they may be given the further gifts of sanctification, justice, filial adoption, and inheritance, that they may be brothers and members of Christ, and become dwelling places for the Spirit" [St. John Chrysostom, Third Baptismal Instruction, no. 6].

Baptism is not simply about the remission of sins, but about giving the person baptized a real and living participation in the divine life.
Sinless as in free of personal sin, but infants are not without original sin.
The original sin in Adam's descendants is mortality, not sin or guilt.

Adam's sin makes him subject to death, and it is the mortal condition that he passes on to his descendants.  Now because all men are mortal - in the likeness of Adam - they fall into sins as they attempt on their own power to maintain their existence without God. Baptism - in the case of an adult - washes away a man's sins, while also imparting to him the other gifts mentioned by St. John Chrysostom in his Baptismal Instruction.  While - in the case of an infant who has not sinned - the mystery of Baptism imparts the "gifts of sanctification, justice, filial adoption, and inheritance, that they may be brothers and members of Christ, and become dwelling places for the Spirit," as St. John said.  In other words, the holy mystery of Baptism gives children all the other gifts that St. John Chrysostom mentioned in his homily, but it does not remit sins in the case of a child because the child has no sins to remit.



Already posted this elsewhere:

Canon 110 of the Council of Carthage in 419: “He who denies the need for young children and those just born from their mother’s womb to be baptized, or who says that although they are baptized for the remission of sins they inherit nothing from the forefathers’ sin that would necessitate the bath of regeneration [from which it would follow that the form of baptism for the remission of sins would be used on them not in a true, but in a false sense], let him be anathema. For the word of the apostle: ‘By one man sin came into the world and death entered all men by sin, for in him all have sinned’ (Romans 5.12), must be understood in no other way than it has always been understood by the Catholic Church, which has been poured out and spread everywhere. For in accordance with this rule of faith children, too, who are themselves not yet able to commit any sin, are truly baptized for the remission of sins, that through regeneration they may be cleansed of everything that they have acquired from the old birth.
Lovely as that Western quotation is, there is no evidence that that particular text was approved by an ecumenical council.  Moreover, as should be evident by its geographic locale, that local council reflects an Augustinian approach, which was not known in the Church of East or West prior to the 5th century.

Oh come on.
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.
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

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



WWW
« Reply #70 on: September 17, 2011, 08:57:05 PM »

I guess you don't accept the sources Fr. Meyendorff included in his article, which I posted earlier, or perhaps you just didn't take the time to read the article.  That happens a lot on internet fora.

I didn't see this post. I'll scroll back and take a look.

Postscript:  You can reference the Augustinian Council of Carthage all you like, but I see no reason to accept its teaching as ecumenically binding.

This council was included in the Quinisext Council, which is considered a continuation of the Ecumenical Councils and Ecumenical itself by the Orthodox.
The local Quinisext Synod, which is not itself ecumenical having taken place several years after the close of the Sixth Ecumenical Council, approved an unspecified local Carthaginian council, and later mentioned St. Cyrprian's headship, which means that it cannot be referring to the council held in the year 419 because St. Cyrprian had been long dead when that Western synod was convened.

The council itself calls itself a continuation and mentions both councils.
It can call itself anything it chooses, but the Sixth Ecumenical Council had been closed for some years prior to the convening of the Trullan Synod.  After all, the robber synod of 449 calls itself ecumenical, but I do not see any reason to agree with that idea.



Quote
The Orthodox Churches consider this council as ecumenical and adds its canons to the decrees of the Fifth and Sixth Councils.
http://orthodoxwiki.org/Quinisext_Council


From the Greek Archdiocese
Quote
LEGISLATIVE MATTERS

It is regarded as supplementing the Fifth and the Sixth Ecumenical Councils, hence, it is called "Quinisext." Its work was purely legislative, it ratified 102 canons and the decisions of the previous Ecumenical Councils.

DOCTRINAL AND DISCIPLINARY CANONS

Sanctioned the so-called "Eighty-five Apostolic Canons" and approved the disciplinary decisions (Canons) of certain regional Councils. The Council added a series of disciplinary decisions or canons to the existing ones. The "Quinisext" Council laid the foundation for the Orthodox Canon Law.
http://www.goarch.org/ourfaith/ourfaith8070
Logged


I'm going to need this.
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Posts: 30,094


Goodbye for now, my friend


« Reply #71 on: September 17, 2011, 08:58:40 PM »

I'm not sure how persuasive an Eastern Catholic is going to find your quotes of orthodox wikis and Greek Orthodox sites. But I've been surprised before. Smiley
Logged

Paradosis ≠ Asteriktos ≠ Justin
Apotheoun
"Three realities pertain to God: essence, energy, and the triad of divine hypostaseis." St. Gregory Palamas
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: Melkite Catholic
Posts: 1,388


St. John Maximovitch


WWW
« Reply #72 on: September 17, 2011, 08:59:52 PM »

"Blessed be God, who alone does wonderful things! You have seen how numerous are the gifts of baptism. Although many men think that the only gift it confers is the remission of sins, we have counted its honors to the number of ten. It is on this account that we baptize even infants, although they are sinless, that they may be given the further gifts of sanctification, justice, filial adoption, and inheritance, that they may be brothers and members of Christ, and become dwelling places for the Spirit" [St. John Chrysostom, Third Baptismal Instruction, no. 6].

Baptism is not simply about the remission of sins, but about giving the person baptized a real and living participation in the divine life.
Sinless as in free of personal sin, but infants are not without original sin.
The original sin in Adam's descendants is mortality, not sin or guilt.

Adam's sin makes him subject to death, and it is the mortal condition that he passes on to his descendants.  Now because all men are mortal - in the likeness of Adam - they fall into sins as they attempt on their own power to maintain their existence without God. Baptism - in the case of an adult - washes away a man's sins, while also imparting to him the other gifts mentioned by St. John Chrysostom in his Baptismal Instruction.  While - in the case of an infant who has not sinned - the mystery of Baptism imparts the "gifts of sanctification, justice, filial adoption, and inheritance, that they may be brothers and members of Christ, and become dwelling places for the Spirit," as St. John said.  In other words, the holy mystery of Baptism gives children all the other gifts that St. John Chrysostom mentioned in his homily, but it does not remit sins in the case of a child because the child has no sins to remit.



Already posted this elsewhere:

Canon 110 of the Council of Carthage in 419: “He who denies the need for young children and those just born from their mother’s womb to be baptized, or who says that although they are baptized for the remission of sins they inherit nothing from the forefathers’ sin that would necessitate the bath of regeneration [from which it would follow that the form of baptism for the remission of sins would be used on them not in a true, but in a false sense], let him be anathema. For the word of the apostle: ‘By one man sin came into the world and death entered all men by sin, for in him all have sinned’ (Romans 5.12), must be understood in no other way than it has always been understood by the Catholic Church, which has been poured out and spread everywhere. For in accordance with this rule of faith children, too, who are themselves not yet able to commit any sin, are truly baptized for the remission of sins, that through regeneration they may be cleansed of everything that they have acquired from the old birth.
Lovely as that Western quotation is, there is no evidence that that particular text was approved by an ecumenical council.  Moreover, as should be evident by its geographic locale, that local council reflects an Augustinian approach, which was not known in the Church of East or West prior to the 5th century.

Oh come on.
There is nothing in the Trullan Synod's canon, beyond a vague reference to Carthage and St. Cyprian, so the burden of proof lies with you and not with me when it comes to showing which one of the more than a dozen Carthaginian Councils is being referenced.
« Last Edit: September 17, 2011, 09:00:10 PM by Apotheoun » Logged

"All that the Father has belongs likewise to the Son, except Causality."
St. Gregory Nazianzen

"We should believe that divine grace is present in the icon of Christ and that it communicates sanctification to those who draw near with faith."
St. Theodore Studite
Apotheoun
"Three realities pertain to God: essence, energy, and the triad of divine hypostaseis." St. Gregory Palamas
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: Melkite Catholic
Posts: 1,388


St. John Maximovitch


WWW
« Reply #73 on: September 17, 2011, 09:01:37 PM »

I'm not sure how persuasive an Eastern Catholic is going to find your quotes of orthodox wikis and Greek Orthodox sites. But I've been surprised before. Smiley
Sometimes an Eastern Catholic is more orthodox than a particular Eastern Orthodox Christian.  I have several Orthodox friends who have said as much when reading what I have written.  Cheesy
Logged

"All that the Father has belongs likewise to the Son, except Causality."
St. Gregory Nazianzen

"We should believe that divine grace is present in the icon of Christ and that it communicates sanctification to those who draw near with faith."
St. Theodore Studite
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Posts: 30,094


Goodbye for now, my friend


« Reply #74 on: September 17, 2011, 09:02:22 PM »

There is nothing in the Trullan Synod's canon, beyond a vague reference to Carthage and St. Cyprian, so the burden of proof lies with you and not with me when it comes to showing which one of the more than a dozen Carthaginian Councils is being referenced.

You are forgetting the possibility that it meant all of them. The Fathers who wrote the 2nd canon at Trullo had no issues accepting canons which contradicted each other... they basically just rubber stamped stuff without worrying much about confusion it might cause. Could be the case with this as well...
« Last Edit: September 17, 2011, 09:02:30 PM by Asteriktos » Logged

Paradosis ≠ Asteriktos ≠ Justin
Apotheoun
"Three realities pertain to God: essence, energy, and the triad of divine hypostaseis." St. Gregory Palamas
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: Melkite Catholic
Posts: 1,388


St. John Maximovitch


WWW
« Reply #75 on: September 17, 2011, 09:04:07 PM »

Let's face facts, no one should base his faith upon a single canon issued by an obscure council in North Africa that would end up forcing him to ignore the vast majority of the Eastern Fathers (St. John Chrysostom, St. Maximos, St. Theophylact, Theodoret, et al.), all of whom reject the idea that a man is conceived or born sinful.
« Last Edit: September 17, 2011, 09:04:44 PM by Apotheoun » Logged

"All that the Father has belongs likewise to the Son, except Causality."
St. Gregory Nazianzen

"We should believe that divine grace is present in the icon of Christ and that it communicates sanctification to those who draw near with faith."
St. Theodore Studite
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

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



WWW
« Reply #76 on: September 17, 2011, 09:04:28 PM »

The only ecumenical council that explicitly mentions approval of local synods is Nicaea II, and it restricts its approval of those synods to those things issued by them (i.e., the local synods) in order to promulgate the decrees of the ecumenical councils (Nicaea II, canon 1).

The seventh EC also ascribes the canons of Trullo (quinisext) as part of the sixth council.
Logged


I'm going to need this.
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

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



WWW
« Reply #77 on: September 17, 2011, 09:05:26 PM »

Let's face facts, no one should base his faith upon a single canon issued by an obscure council in North Africa that require him to then ignore the vast majority of the Eastern Fathers (St. John Chrysostom, St. Maximos, St. Theophylact, Theodoret, et al.), all of whom reject the idea that a man is conceived or born sinful.

Yet, the council isn't "obscure". You're trying to argue against a canon of the ecumenical councils.
Logged


I'm going to need this.
Apotheoun
"Three realities pertain to God: essence, energy, and the triad of divine hypostaseis." St. Gregory Palamas
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: Melkite Catholic
Posts: 1,388


St. John Maximovitch


WWW
« Reply #78 on: September 17, 2011, 09:05:43 PM »

There is nothing in the Trullan Synod's canon, beyond a vague reference to Carthage and St. Cyprian, so the burden of proof lies with you and not with me when it comes to showing which one of the more than a dozen Carthaginian Councils is being referenced.

You are forgetting the possibility that it meant all of them. The Fathers who wrote the 2nd canon at Trullo had no issues accepting canons which contradicted each other... they basically just rubber stamped stuff without worrying much about confusion it might cause. Could be the case with this as well...
That would be interesting, a blanket statement covering every council ever held in North Africa.  The burden of proof is yours, I await your detailed and scholarly response.
Logged

"All that the Father has belongs likewise to the Son, except Causality."
St. Gregory Nazianzen

"We should believe that divine grace is present in the icon of Christ and that it communicates sanctification to those who draw near with faith."
St. Theodore Studite
Apotheoun
"Three realities pertain to God: essence, energy, and the triad of divine hypostaseis." St. Gregory Palamas
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: Melkite Catholic
Posts: 1,388


St. John Maximovitch


WWW
« Reply #79 on: September 17, 2011, 09:07:21 PM »

Let's face facts, no one should base his faith upon a single canon issued by an obscure council in North Africa that require him to then ignore the vast majority of the Eastern Fathers (St. John Chrysostom, St. Maximos, St. Theophylact, Theodoret, et al.), all of whom reject the idea that a man is conceived or born sinful.

Yet, the council isn't "obscure". You're trying to argue against a canon of the ecumenical councils.
I do not recognize the Trullan Synod as ecumenical, although I do honor its canons.  Be that as it may, I do recognize Nicaea II as ecumenical and it approved the canons of the local synods of North Africa (and other regions) but only in so far as those canons were issued in order to promulgate the decrees of the ecumenical synods.  Once again, the God-inspired Fathers at Nicaea II did not give a blanket recognition to anything and everything ever said at a local synod.  You of course may wish to think that the Fathers gathered at the Trullan Synod did that, but so far you have given no evidence to support your assertion.
« Last Edit: September 17, 2011, 09:09:41 PM by Apotheoun » Logged

"All that the Father has belongs likewise to the Son, except Causality."
St. Gregory Nazianzen

"We should believe that divine grace is present in the icon of Christ and that it communicates sanctification to those who draw near with faith."
St. Theodore Studite
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

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



WWW
« Reply #80 on: September 17, 2011, 09:07:33 PM »

I'm not sure how persuasive an Eastern Catholic is going to find your quotes of orthodox wikis and Greek Orthodox sites. But I've been surprised before. Smiley

I doubt he will. But I'm backing my statement that the Orthodox Church holds the Quinisext Council to be part of the 6th EC, as described in the 7th EC. Therefore, Carthage 419's canons are Ecumenical canons.
Logged


I'm going to need this.
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

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



WWW
« Reply #81 on: September 17, 2011, 09:08:25 PM »

Let's face facts, no one should base his faith upon a single canon issued by an obscure council in North Africa that require him to then ignore the vast majority of the Eastern Fathers (St. John Chrysostom, St. Maximos, St. Theophylact, Theodoret, et al.), all of whom reject the idea that a man is conceived or born sinful.

Yet, the council isn't "obscure". You're trying to argue against a canon of the ecumenical councils.
I do not recognize the Trullan Synod as ecumenical, although I do honor its canons.  Be that as it may I do recognize Nicaea II as ecumenical and it approved the canons of the local synods of North Africa (and other regions) but only in so far as those canons were issued in order to promulgate the decrees of the ecumenical synods.

Under what pretext?
Logged


I'm going to need this.
Apotheoun
"Three realities pertain to God: essence, energy, and the triad of divine hypostaseis." St. Gregory Palamas
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: Melkite Catholic
Posts: 1,388


St. John Maximovitch


WWW
« Reply #82 on: September 17, 2011, 09:12:22 PM »

Let's face facts, no one should base his faith upon a single canon issued by an obscure council in North Africa that require him to then ignore the vast majority of the Eastern Fathers (St. John Chrysostom, St. Maximos, St. Theophylact, Theodoret, et al.), all of whom reject the idea that a man is conceived or born sinful.

Yet, the council isn't "obscure". You're trying to argue against a canon of the ecumenical councils.
I do not recognize the Trullan Synod as ecumenical, although I do honor its canons.  Be that as it may I do recognize Nicaea II as ecumenical and it approved the canons of the local synods of North Africa (and other regions) but only in so far as those canons were issued in order to promulgate the decrees of the ecumenical synods.

Under what pretext?
The Trullan Synod was held eleven years after the close of the Sixth Ecumenical Council, so even if the bishops assembled at that synod saw there work as a continuation of the work of the God-inspired Fathers of Constantinople III - even though there is really no connection between what was done at the two synods - no one one can be made to accept their claim.   The same bishops weren't even present at the two synods, in fact the Patriarch of Constantinople who was involved in Constantinople III had died five years before the Trullan Synod convened.
« Last Edit: September 17, 2011, 09:15:27 PM by Apotheoun » Logged

"All that the Father has belongs likewise to the Son, except Causality."
St. Gregory Nazianzen

"We should believe that divine grace is present in the icon of Christ and that it communicates sanctification to those who draw near with faith."
St. Theodore Studite
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

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



WWW
« Reply #83 on: September 17, 2011, 09:15:42 PM »

Let's face facts, no one should base his faith upon a single canon issued by an obscure council in North Africa that require him to then ignore the vast majority of the Eastern Fathers (St. John Chrysostom, St. Maximos, St. Theophylact, Theodoret, et al.), all of whom reject the idea that a man is conceived or born sinful.

Yet, the council isn't "obscure". You're trying to argue against a canon of the ecumenical councils.
I do not recognize the Trullan Synod as ecumenical, although I do honor its canons.  Be that as it may I do recognize Nicaea II as ecumenical and it approved the canons of the local synods of North Africa (and other regions) but only in so far as those canons were issued in order to promulgate the decrees of the ecumenical synods.

Under what pretext?
The Trullan Synod was held eleven years after the close of the Sixth Ecumenical Council, so even if the bishops assembled at that synod saw there work as a continuation of the work of the God-inspired Fathers of Constantinople III - even though there is really no connection between what was done at the two synods - no one one can be made to accept their claim. 

It's not just that synod, though. It was also the Seventh EC, as well.

Quote
That the Seventh Ecumenical Council at Nice ascribed the Trullan canons to the Sixth Ecumenical Council, and spoke of them entirely in the Greek spirit, cannot astonish us, as it was attended almost solely by Greeks.  They specially pronounced the recognition of the canons in question in their own first canon; but their own canons have never received the ratification of the Holy See.
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.xiv.ii.html

The very first canon from the 7th Ecumenical Council
Quote
The Canons of the Council in Trullo.

(Labbe and Cossart, Concilia, Tom. VI., col. 1135 et seqq.)

Canon I.
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.xiv.iii.i.html
« Last Edit: September 17, 2011, 09:18:34 PM by Azurestone » Logged


I'm going to need this.
Apotheoun
"Three realities pertain to God: essence, energy, and the triad of divine hypostaseis." St. Gregory Palamas
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: Melkite Catholic
Posts: 1,388


St. John Maximovitch


WWW
« Reply #84 on: September 17, 2011, 09:17:36 PM »

Let's face facts, no one should base his faith upon a single canon issued by an obscure council in North Africa that require him to then ignore the vast majority of the Eastern Fathers (St. John Chrysostom, St. Maximos, St. Theophylact, Theodoret, et al.), all of whom reject the idea that a man is conceived or born sinful.

Yet, the council isn't "obscure". You're trying to argue against a canon of the ecumenical councils.
I do not recognize the Trullan Synod as ecumenical, although I do honor its canons.  Be that as it may I do recognize Nicaea II as ecumenical and it approved the canons of the local synods of North Africa (and other regions) but only in so far as those canons were issued in order to promulgate the decrees of the ecumenical synods.

Under what pretext?
The Trullan Synod was held eleven years after the close of the Sixth Ecumenical Council, so even if the bishops assembled at that synod saw there work as a continuation of the work of the God-inspired Fathers of Constantinople III - even though there is really no connection between what was done at the two synods - no one one can be made to accept their claim. 

It's not just that synod, though. It was also the Seventh EC, as well.

A comment from introduction of the 7EC on ccel.org. I don't think thye make available this presentation, though I could be wrong.
Quote
That the Seventh Ecumenical Council at Nice ascribed the Trullan canons to the Sixth Ecumenical Council, and spoke of them entirely in the Greek spirit, cannot astonish us, as it was attended almost solely by Greeks.  They specially pronounced the recognition of the canons in question in their own first canon; but their own canons have never received the ratification of the Holy See.
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.xiv.ii.html
Alas, this helps to prove one thing.  The bishops of a council are not God-inspired in all their acts, that is, they can be historically mistaken.  Cheesy

The Trullan Synod is not ecumenical.

By the way, Rome did similar things in that regard, as when the Pope Zosimus (and several of his successors) - like Patriarch Tarasius and his error in connection with the Trullan canons - ascribed one of the Sardican Canons to Nicaea I.  Lofty personages are of course not immune to making historical mistakes.
« Last Edit: September 17, 2011, 09:26:28 PM by Apotheoun » Logged

"All that the Father has belongs likewise to the Son, except Causality."
St. Gregory Nazianzen

"We should believe that divine grace is present in the icon of Christ and that it communicates sanctification to those who draw near with faith."
St. Theodore Studite
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #85 on: September 17, 2011, 09:28:37 PM »

Let's face facts, no one should base his faith upon a single canon issued by an obscure council in North Africa that require him to then ignore the vast majority of the Eastern Fathers (St. John Chrysostom, St. Maximos, St. Theophylact, Theodoret, et al.), all of whom reject the idea that a man is conceived or born sinful.

Yet, the council isn't "obscure". You're trying to argue against a canon of the ecumenical councils.
I do not recognize the Trullan Synod as ecumenical, although I do honor its canons.  Be that as it may I do recognize Nicaea II as ecumenical and it approved the canons of the local synods of North Africa (and other regions) but only in so far as those canons were issued in order to promulgate the decrees of the ecumenical synods.

Under what pretext?
The Trullan Synod was held eleven years after the close of the Sixth Ecumenical Council, so even if the bishops assembled at that synod saw there work as a continuation of the work of the God-inspired Fathers of Constantinople III - even though there is really no connection between what was done at the two synods - no one one can be made to accept their claim. 

It's not just that synod, though. It was also the Seventh EC, as well.

A comment from introduction of the 7EC on ccel.org. I don't think thye make available this presentation, though I could be wrong.
Quote
That the Seventh Ecumenical Council at Nice ascribed the Trullan canons to the Sixth Ecumenical Council, and spoke of them entirely in the Greek spirit, cannot astonish us, as it was attended almost solely by Greeks.  They specially pronounced the recognition of the canons in question in their own first canon; but their own canons have never received the ratification of the Holy See.
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.xiv.ii.html
Alas, this helps to prove one thing.  The bishops of a council are not God-inspired in all their acts, that is, they can be historically mistaken.  Cheesy

The Trullan Synod is not ecumenical.

By the way, Rome did similar things in that regard, as when the Pope Zosimus (and several of his successors) - like Patriarch Tarasius and his error in connection with the Trullan canons - ascribed one of the Sardican Canons to Nicaea I.  Lofty personages are of course not immune to making historical mistakes.

In which graduate school classes did you learn this spin on the history of the Councils?

Is this a part of some textbook that you are planning?
Logged

Apotheoun
"Three realities pertain to God: essence, energy, and the triad of divine hypostaseis." St. Gregory Palamas
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: Melkite Catholic
Posts: 1,388


St. John Maximovitch


WWW
« Reply #86 on: September 17, 2011, 09:31:30 PM »

Let's face facts, no one should base his faith upon a single canon issued by an obscure council in North Africa that require him to then ignore the vast majority of the Eastern Fathers (St. John Chrysostom, St. Maximos, St. Theophylact, Theodoret, et al.), all of whom reject the idea that a man is conceived or born sinful.

Yet, the council isn't "obscure". You're trying to argue against a canon of the ecumenical councils.
I do not recognize the Trullan Synod as ecumenical, although I do honor its canons.  Be that as it may I do recognize Nicaea II as ecumenical and it approved the canons of the local synods of North Africa (and other regions) but only in so far as those canons were issued in order to promulgate the decrees of the ecumenical synods.

Under what pretext?
The Trullan Synod was held eleven years after the close of the Sixth Ecumenical Council, so even if the bishops assembled at that synod saw there work as a continuation of the work of the God-inspired Fathers of Constantinople III - even though there is really no connection between what was done at the two synods - no one one can be made to accept their claim. 

It's not just that synod, though. It was also the Seventh EC, as well.

A comment from introduction of the 7EC on ccel.org. I don't think thye make available this presentation, though I could be wrong.
Quote
That the Seventh Ecumenical Council at Nice ascribed the Trullan canons to the Sixth Ecumenical Council, and spoke of them entirely in the Greek spirit, cannot astonish us, as it was attended almost solely by Greeks.  They specially pronounced the recognition of the canons in question in their own first canon; but their own canons have never received the ratification of the Holy See.
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.xiv.ii.html
Alas, this helps to prove one thing.  The bishops of a council are not God-inspired in all their acts, that is, they can be historically mistaken.  Cheesy

The Trullan Synod is not ecumenical.

By the way, Rome did similar things in that regard, as when the Pope Zosimus (and several of his successors) - like Patriarch Tarasius and his error in connection with the Trullan canons - ascribed one of the Sardican Canons to Nicaea I.  Lofty personages are of course not immune to making historical mistakes.

In which graduate school classes did you learn this spin on the history of the Councils?

Is this a part of some textbook that you are planning?
In graduate school I was taught to examine the sources, and not to blindly follow a given position.  Perhaps you were taught to accept any and all claims uncritically, and if that is the case - so be it.

I see no reason why I - or anyone else for that matter - should accept a single canon from an obscure local council that speaks imprecisely about the holy mystery of baptism, and in the process reject the teaching of the God-inspired Fathers (e.g., the teaching of St. John Chrysostom).

Are babies born sinful?  No, I do not believe that they are. 

Are babies born mortal?  Yes, and that is why we baptize them, in order to impart the many gifts that St. John spoke about in his Baptismal Instruction.  That said, I do not believe it is necessary to ascribe imaginary sins, or an imaginary "original sin" (as proposed by St. Augustine), to them in order to bestow the holy mysteries upon them, but you are of course free to do that if you wish.
« Last Edit: September 17, 2011, 09:39:01 PM by Apotheoun » Logged

"All that the Father has belongs likewise to the Son, except Causality."
St. Gregory Nazianzen

"We should believe that divine grace is present in the icon of Christ and that it communicates sanctification to those who draw near with faith."
St. Theodore Studite
Apotheoun
"Three realities pertain to God: essence, energy, and the triad of divine hypostaseis." St. Gregory Palamas
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: Melkite Catholic
Posts: 1,388


St. John Maximovitch


WWW
« Reply #87 on: September 17, 2011, 09:44:17 PM »

There is nothing in the Trullan Synod's canon, beyond a vague reference to Carthage and St. Cyprian, so the burden of proof lies with you and not with me when it comes to showing which one of the more than a dozen Carthaginian Councils is being referenced.

You are forgetting the possibility that it meant all of them. The Fathers who wrote the 2nd canon at Trullo had no issues accepting canons which contradicted each other... they basically just rubber stamped stuff without worrying much about confusion it might cause. Could be the case with this as well...
That would be interesting, a blanket statement covering every council ever held in North Africa.  The burden of proof is yours, I await your detailed and scholarly response.
The bishops at the Trullan Synod, if Asteriktos is correct, sound a lot like the Democrats in the 111th Congress who voted for Obamacare without even knowing what was in the bill.  Cheesy
Logged

"All that the Father has belongs likewise to the Son, except Causality."
St. Gregory Nazianzen

"We should believe that divine grace is present in the icon of Christ and that it communicates sanctification to those who draw near with faith."
St. Theodore Studite
Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #88 on: September 17, 2011, 09:46:56 PM »

"Blessed be God, who alone does wonderful things! You have seen how numerous are the gifts of baptism. Although many men think that the only gift it confers is the remission of sins, we have counted its honors to the number of ten. It is on this account that we baptize even infants, although they are sinless, that they may be given the further gifts of sanctification, justice, filial adoption, and inheritance, that they may be brothers and members of Christ, and become dwelling places for the Spirit" [St. John Chrysostom, Third Baptismal Instruction, no. 6].

Baptism is not simply about the remission of sins, but about giving the person baptized a real and living participation in the divine life.
Sinless as in free of personal sin, but infants are not without original sin.
The original sin in Adam's descendants is mortality, not sin or guilt.

Adam's sin makes him subject to death, and it is the mortal condition that he passes on to his descendants.  Now because all men are mortal - in the likeness of Adam - they fall into sins as they attempt on their own power to maintain their existence without God. Baptism - in the case of an adult - washes away a man's sins, while also imparting to him the other gifts mentioned by St. John Chrysostom in his Baptismal Instruction.  While - in the case of an infant who has not sinned - the mystery of Baptism imparts the "gifts of sanctification, justice, filial adoption, and inheritance, that they may be brothers and members of Christ, and become dwelling places for the Spirit," as St. John said.  In other words, the holy mystery of Baptism gives children all the other gifts that St. John Chrysostom mentioned in his homily, but it does not remit sins in the case of a child because the child has no sins to remit.


Just to be clear, do you agree with the teaching on original sin as outlined in the Catechism of the Catholic Church?


The consequences of Adam's sin for humanity

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.
Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #89 on: September 17, 2011, 09:54:09 PM »


In graduate school I was taught to examine the sources, and not to blindly follow a given position.  Perhaps you were taught to accept any and all claims uncritically, and if that is the case - so be it.


My formal theology lessons never came from a secular school.  Perhaps that is the difference.
Logged

Apotheoun
"Three realities pertain to God: essence, energy, and the triad of divine hypostaseis." St. Gregory Palamas
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: Melkite Catholic
Posts: 1,388


St. John Maximovitch


WWW
« Reply #90 on: September 17, 2011, 09:54:29 PM »

"Blessed be God, who alone does wonderful things! You have seen how numerous are the gifts of baptism. Although many men think that the only gift it confers is the remission of sins, we have counted its honors to the number of ten. It is on this account that we baptize even infants, although they are sinless, that they may be given the further gifts of sanctification, justice, filial adoption, and inheritance, that they may be brothers and members of Christ, and become dwelling places for the Spirit" [St. John Chrysostom, Third Baptismal Instruction, no. 6].

Baptism is not simply about the remission of sins, but about giving the person baptized a real and living participation in the divine life.
Sinless as in free of personal sin, but infants are not without original sin.
The original sin in Adam's descendants is mortality, not sin or guilt.

Adam's sin makes him subject to death, and it is the mortal condition that he passes on to his descendants.  Now because all men are mortal - in the likeness of Adam - they fall into sins as they attempt on their own power to maintain their existence without God. Baptism - in the case of an adult - washes away a man's sins, while also imparting to him the other gifts mentioned by St. John Chrysostom in his Baptismal Instruction.  While - in the case of an infant who has not sinned - the mystery of Baptism imparts the "gifts of sanctification, justice, filial adoption, and inheritance, that they may be brothers and members of Christ, and become dwelling places for the Spirit," as St. John said.  In other words, the holy mystery of Baptism gives children all the other gifts that St. John Chrysostom mentioned in his homily, but it does not remit sins in the case of a child because the child has no sins to remit.


Just to be clear, do you agree with the teaching on original sin as outlined in the Catechism of the Catholic Church?


The consequences of Adam's sin for humanity

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.
No, I do not agree with it in its entirety, although I see it as a vast improvement over the Tridentine understanding of the fall.  I do not believe that there can be such a thing as a sin "contracted" but not "committed."  As I see it, sin is always - and by definition - personal (i.e., it is a personal act), and there can be no such thing as a "state of sin" because human nature and the natural human will remains good and complete even after the fall.  So there is no defect in human nature itself; instead, where the defect in man arises is in his personal (i.e., hypostatic) mode of willing, which is why sin is a hypostatic reality.  Moreover, because sin is a hypostatic reality (and not natural to man) it follows that Christ is sinless, because He is a divine hypostasis, and not a human hypostasis.  Christ's mode of willing in His humanity is divine and free from any form of distortion, and the nature He assumed, which is identical to our own, is also free from sin, because otherwise He would be a sinner, and we know that is a false proposition based upon the teaching of scripture itself.  It is mortality that is the end result of Adam's fall, and as Adam brought death to manking, so Christ bring life.

Nevertheless, as I already said, I do see the new teaching of the Roman Church - i.e., as presented in the 1994 catechism - as a vast improvement over the Tridentine teaching on original sin and guilt.  I hope that answers your question.
« Last Edit: September 17, 2011, 10:03:33 PM by Apotheoun » Logged

"All that the Father has belongs likewise to the Son, except Causality."
St. Gregory Nazianzen

"We should believe that divine grace is present in the icon of Christ and that it communicates sanctification to those who draw near with faith."
St. Theodore Studite
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #91 on: September 17, 2011, 10:02:09 PM »

"Blessed be God, who alone does wonderful things! You have seen how numerous are the gifts of baptism. Although many men think that the only gift it confers is the remission of sins, we have counted its honors to the number of ten. It is on this account that we baptize even infants, although they are sinless, that they may be given the further gifts of sanctification, justice, filial adoption, and inheritance, that they may be brothers and members of Christ, and become dwelling places for the Spirit" [St. John Chrysostom, Third Baptismal Instruction, no. 6].

Baptism is not simply about the remission of sins, but about giving the person baptized a real and living participation in the divine life.
Sinless as in free of personal sin, but infants are not without original sin.
The original sin in Adam's descendants is mortality, not sin or guilt.

Adam's sin makes him subject to death, and it is the mortal condition that he passes on to his descendants.  Now because all men are mortal - in the likeness of Adam - they fall into sins as they attempt on their own power to maintain their existence without God. Baptism - in the case of an adult - washes away a man's sins, while also imparting to him the other gifts mentioned by St. John Chrysostom in his Baptismal Instruction.  While - in the case of an infant who has not sinned - the mystery of Baptism imparts the "gifts of sanctification, justice, filial adoption, and inheritance, that they may be brothers and members of Christ, and become dwelling places for the Spirit," as St. John said.  In other words, the holy mystery of Baptism gives children all the other gifts that St. John Chrysostom mentioned in his homily, but it does not remit sins in the case of a child because the child has no sins to remit.


Just to be clear, do you agree with the teaching on original sin as outlined in the Catechism of the Catholic Church?


The consequences of Adam's sin for humanity

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.
No, I do not agree with it in its entirety, although I see it as a vast improvement over the Tridentine understanding of the fall.  I do not believe that there can be such a thing as a sin "contracted" but not "committed."  As I see it sin is always - and by definition - personal (i.e., it is a personal act), and there can be no such thing as a "state of sin" because human nature and the natural human will remains good and complete.  There is no defect in human nature, where the defect in man arises is in his personal (i.e., hypostatic) mode of willing, which is why sin is a hypostatic reality.  Moreover, because sin is a hypostatic reality (and not natural to man) it follows that Christ is sinless, because He is a divine hypostasis, and not a human hypostasis.  Christ's mode of willing in His humanity is divine and free from any form of distortion, and the nature He assumed, which is identical to our own, is also free from sin, because otherwise He would be a sinner, and we know that is a false proposition based upon the teaching of scripture itself.  It is mortality that is the end result of Adam's fall, and as Adam brought death to manking, so Christ bring life.

Nevertheless, as I already said, I do see the new teaching of the Roman Church - i.e., as presented in the 1994 catechism - as a vast improvement over the Tridentine teaching on original sin and guilt.  I hope that answers your question.

Do you believe that Jesus redeemed mankind or each human person individually one at a time, even those who were not yet conceived?
Logged

Apotheoun
"Three realities pertain to God: essence, energy, and the triad of divine hypostaseis." St. Gregory Palamas
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: Melkite Catholic
Posts: 1,388


St. John Maximovitch


WWW
« Reply #92 on: September 17, 2011, 10:07:19 PM »

"Blessed be God, who alone does wonderful things! You have seen how numerous are the gifts of baptism. Although many men think that the only gift it confers is the remission of sins, we have counted its honors to the number of ten. It is on this account that we baptize even infants, although they are sinless, that they may be given the further gifts of sanctification, justice, filial adoption, and inheritance, that they may be brothers and members of Christ, and become dwelling places for the Spirit" [St. John Chrysostom, Third Baptismal Instruction, no. 6].

Baptism is not simply about the remission of sins, but about giving the person baptized a real and living participation in the divine life.
Sinless as in free of personal sin, but infants are not without original sin.
The original sin in Adam's descendants is mortality, not sin or guilt.

Adam's sin makes him subject to death, and it is the mortal condition that he passes on to his descendants.  Now because all men are mortal - in the likeness of Adam - they fall into sins as they attempt on their own power to maintain their existence without God. Baptism - in the case of an adult - washes away a man's sins, while also imparting to him the other gifts mentioned by St. John Chrysostom in his Baptismal Instruction.  While - in the case of an infant who has not sinned - the mystery of Baptism imparts the "gifts of sanctification, justice, filial adoption, and inheritance, that they may be brothers and members of Christ, and become dwelling places for the Spirit," as St. John said.  In other words, the holy mystery of Baptism gives children all the other gifts that St. John Chrysostom mentioned in his homily, but it does not remit sins in the case of a child because the child has no sins to remit.


Just to be clear, do you agree with the teaching on original sin as outlined in the Catechism of the Catholic Church?


The consequences of Adam's sin for humanity

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.
No, I do not agree with it in its entirety, although I see it as a vast improvement over the Tridentine understanding of the fall.  I do not believe that there can be such a thing as a sin "contracted" but not "committed."  As I see it sin is always - and by definition - personal (i.e., it is a personal act), and there can be no such thing as a "state of sin" because human nature and the natural human will remains good and complete.  There is no defect in human nature, where the defect in man arises is in his personal (i.e., hypostatic) mode of willing, which is why sin is a hypostatic reality.  Moreover, because sin is a hypostatic reality (and not natural to man) it follows that Christ is sinless, because He is a divine hypostasis, and not a human hypostasis.  Christ's mode of willing in His humanity is divine and free from any form of distortion, and the nature He assumed, which is identical to our own, is also free from sin, because otherwise He would be a sinner, and we know that is a false proposition based upon the teaching of scripture itself.  It is mortality that is the end result of Adam's fall, and as Adam brought death to manking, so Christ bring life.

Nevertheless, as I already said, I do see the new teaching of the Roman Church - i.e., as presented in the 1994 catechism - as a vast improvement over the Tridentine teaching on original sin and guilt.  I hope that answers your question.

Do you believe that Jesus redeemed mankind or each human person individually one at a time, even those who were not yet conceived?
I believe, as St. Maximos taught, that Christ redeemed all of human nature by His assumption of our humanity in the incarnation and in the process He gave everlasting existence to everyone who has lived, lives, or will live; and that each and every man - in synergy with God - is working out his own individual salvation, so that ever-well-being (heaven) or ever-ill-being (hell) is left to the free choice of each man.  In the former case (i.e., the blessed) the choice is made in cooperation with God, while in the latter case (i.e., the damned) it is made by man alone.
« Last Edit: September 17, 2011, 10:12:44 PM by Apotheoun » Logged

"All that the Father has belongs likewise to the Son, except Causality."
St. Gregory Nazianzen

"We should believe that divine grace is present in the icon of Christ and that it communicates sanctification to those who draw near with faith."
St. Theodore Studite
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #93 on: September 17, 2011, 10:17:15 PM »


I believe, as St. Maximos taught, that Christ redeemed all of human nature by His assumption of our humanity in the incarnation and in the process He gave everlasting existence to everyone who has lived, lives, or will live; and that each and every man - in synergy with God - is working out his own individual salvation, so that ever-well-being (heaven) or ever-ill-being (hell) is left to the free choice of each man.  In the former case (i.e., the blessed) the choice is made in cooperation with God, while in the latter case (i.e., the damned) it is made by man alone.

I see.  We are redeemed by the Nativity.  Well that fits with the rest of your theology.
Logged

Apotheoun
"Three realities pertain to God: essence, energy, and the triad of divine hypostaseis." St. Gregory Palamas
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: Melkite Catholic
Posts: 1,388


St. John Maximovitch


WWW
« Reply #94 on: September 17, 2011, 10:20:46 PM »


I believe, as St. Maximos taught, that Christ redeemed all of human nature by His assumption of our humanity in the incarnation and in the process He gave everlasting existence to everyone who has lived, lives, or will live; and that each and every man - in synergy with God - is working out his own individual salvation, so that ever-well-being (heaven) or ever-ill-being (hell) is left to the free choice of each man.  In the former case (i.e., the blessed) the choice is made in cooperation with God, while in the latter case (i.e., the damned) it is made by man alone.

I see.  We are redeemed by the Nativity.  Well that fits with the rest of your theology.
We are redeemed by the incarnation, which includes everything that Christ is, and everything that He has done.  I know it is hard, because today we like to specialize in things, but the Fathers did not speak that way, and so when they speak about the mystery of the incarnation they include everything that is connected to the Christ event.
Logged

"All that the Father has belongs likewise to the Son, except Causality."
St. Gregory Nazianzen

"We should believe that divine grace is present in the icon of Christ and that it communicates sanctification to those who draw near with faith."
St. Theodore Studite
Apotheoun
"Three realities pertain to God: essence, energy, and the triad of divine hypostaseis." St. Gregory Palamas
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: Melkite Catholic
Posts: 1,388


St. John Maximovitch


WWW
« Reply #95 on: September 17, 2011, 10:23:42 PM »

If you wish to turn this into a general discussion about soteriology and predestination that is fine with me.

To put it simply, all of human nature is predestined to ever-being by the incarnation [1] of the eternal and uncreated Logos; while ever-well-being (i.e., heaven) or ever-ill-being (i.e., hell) is determined by the free will activity of each man in cooperation with, or the failure to cooperate with, the divine activity (i.e., grace).


Note:
[1]  By the term "incarnation" I include the paschal mystery, and everything else in Christ's life.
« Last Edit: September 17, 2011, 10:27:37 PM by Apotheoun » Logged

"All that the Father has belongs likewise to the Son, except Causality."
St. Gregory Nazianzen

"We should believe that divine grace is present in the icon of Christ and that it communicates sanctification to those who draw near with faith."
St. Theodore Studite
Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #96 on: September 18, 2011, 02:19:08 AM »

"Blessed be God, who alone does wonderful things! You have seen how numerous are the gifts of baptism. Although many men think that the only gift it confers is the remission of sins, we have counted its honors to the number of ten. It is on this account that we baptize even infants, although they are sinless, that they may be given the further gifts of sanctification, justice, filial adoption, and inheritance, that they may be brothers and members of Christ, and become dwelling places for the Spirit" [St. John Chrysostom, Third Baptismal Instruction, no. 6].

Baptism is not simply about the remission of sins, but about giving the person baptized a real and living participation in the divine life.
Sinless as in free of personal sin, but infants are not without original sin.
The original sin in Adam's descendants is mortality, not sin or guilt.

Adam's sin makes him subject to death, and it is the mortal condition that he passes on to his descendants.  Now because all men are mortal - in the likeness of Adam - they fall into sins as they attempt on their own power to maintain their existence without God. Baptism - in the case of an adult - washes away a man's sins, while also imparting to him the other gifts mentioned by St. John Chrysostom in his Baptismal Instruction.  While - in the case of an infant who has not sinned - the mystery of Baptism imparts the "gifts of sanctification, justice, filial adoption, and inheritance, that they may be brothers and members of Christ, and become dwelling places for the Spirit," as St. John said.  In other words, the holy mystery of Baptism gives children all the other gifts that St. John Chrysostom mentioned in his homily, but it does not remit sins in the case of a child because the child has no sins to remit.


Just to be clear, do you agree with the teaching on original sin as outlined in the Catechism of the Catholic Church?


The consequences of Adam's sin for humanity

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.
No, I do not agree with it in its entirety, although I see it as a vast improvement over the Tridentine understanding of the fall.  I do not believe that there can be such a thing as a sin "contracted" but not "committed."  As I see it, sin is always - and by definition - personal (i.e., it is a personal act), and there can be no such thing as a "state of sin" because human nature and the natural human will remains good and complete even after the fall.  So there is no defect in human nature itself; instead, where the defect in man arises is in his personal (i.e., hypostatic) mode of willing, which is why sin is a hypostatic reality.  Moreover, because sin is a hypostatic reality (and not natural to man) it follows that Christ is sinless, because He is a divine hypostasis, and not a human hypostasis.  Christ's mode of willing in His humanity is divine and free from any form of distortion, and the nature He assumed, which is identical to our own, is also free from sin, because otherwise He would be a sinner, and we know that is a false proposition based upon the teaching of scripture itself.  It is mortality that is the end result of Adam's fall, and as Adam brought death to manking, so Christ bring life.

Nevertheless, as I already said, I do see the new teaching of the Roman Church - i.e., as presented in the 1994 catechism - as a vast improvement over the Tridentine teaching on original sin and guilt.  I hope that answers your question.
The teachings in the Catechism of the Catholic Church are not "teachings of the Roman Church," they are teachings of the entire Catholic Church and that includes the Eastern Catholic Churches.
Logged
JLatimer
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ROCOR
Posts: 1,202



« Reply #97 on: September 18, 2011, 08:16:53 AM »

Let's face facts, no one should base his faith upon a single canon issued by an obscure council in North Africa that require him to then ignore the vast majority of the Eastern Fathers (St. John Chrysostom, St. Maximos, St. Theophylact, Theodoret, et al.), all of whom reject the idea that a man is conceived or born sinful.

Yet, the council isn't "obscure". You're trying to argue against a canon of the ecumenical councils.
I do not recognize the Trullan Synod as ecumenical, although I do honor its canons.  Be that as it may I do recognize Nicaea II as ecumenical and it approved the canons of the local synods of North Africa (and other regions) but only in so far as those canons were issued in order to promulgate the decrees of the ecumenical synods.

Under what pretext?
The Trullan Synod was held eleven years after the close of the Sixth Ecumenical Council, so even if the bishops assembled at that synod saw there work as a continuation of the work of the God-inspired Fathers of Constantinople III - even though there is really no connection between what was done at the two synods - no one one can be made to accept their claim. 

It's not just that synod, though. It was also the Seventh EC, as well.

A comment from introduction of the 7EC on ccel.org. I don't think thye make available this presentation, though I could be wrong.
Quote
That the Seventh Ecumenical Council at Nice ascribed the Trullan canons to the Sixth Ecumenical Council, and spoke of them entirely in the Greek spirit, cannot astonish us, as it was attended almost solely by Greeks.  They specially pronounced the recognition of the canons in question in their own first canon; but their own canons have never received the ratification of the Holy See.
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.xiv.ii.html
Alas, this helps to prove one thing.  The bishops of a council are not God-inspired in all their acts, that is, they can be historically mistaken.  Cheesy

The Trullan Synod is not ecumenical.

By the way, Rome did similar things in that regard, as when the Pope Zosimus (and several of his successors) - like Patriarch Tarasius and his error in connection with the Trullan canons - ascribed one of the Sardican Canons to Nicaea I.  Lofty personages are of course not immune to making historical mistakes.

In which graduate school classes did you learn this spin on the history of the Councils?

Is this a part of some textbook that you are planning?

LOL   laugh
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 #98 on: September 18, 2011, 08:22:05 AM »

"Blessed be God, who alone does wonderful things! You have seen how numerous are the gifts of baptism. Although many men think that the only gift it confers is the remission of sins, we have counted its honors to the number of ten. It is on this account that we baptize even infants, although they are sinless, that they may be given the further gifts of sanctification, justice, filial adoption, and inheritance, that they may be brothers and members of Christ, and become dwelling places for the Spirit" [St. John Chrysostom, Third Baptismal Instruction, no. 6].

Baptism is not simply about the remission of sins, but about giving the person baptized a real and living participation in the divine life.
Sinless as in free of personal sin, but infants are not without original sin.
The original sin in Adam's descendants is mortality, not sin or guilt.

Adam's sin makes him subject to death, and it is the mortal condition that he passes on to his descendants.  Now because all men are mortal - in the likeness of Adam - they fall into sins as they attempt on their own power to maintain their existence without God. Baptism - in the case of an adult - washes away a man's sins, while also imparting to him the other gifts mentioned by St. John Chrysostom in his Baptismal Instruction.  While - in the case of an infant who has not sinned - the mystery of Baptism imparts the "gifts of sanctification, justice, filial adoption, and inheritance, that they may be brothers and members of Christ, and become dwelling places for the Spirit," as St. John said.  In other words, the holy mystery of Baptism gives children all the other gifts that St. John Chrysostom mentioned in his homily, but it does not remit sins in the case of a child because the child has no sins to remit.


Just to be clear, do you agree with the teaching on original sin as outlined in the Catechism of the Catholic Church?


The consequences of Adam's sin for humanity

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.
No, I do not agree with it in its entirety, although I see it as a vast improvement over the Tridentine understanding of the fall.  I do not believe that there can be such a thing as a sin "contracted" but not "committed."  As I see it sin is always - and by definition - personal (i.e., it is a personal act), and there can be no such thing as a "state of sin" because human nature and the natural human will remains good and complete.  There is no defect in human nature, where the defect in man arises is in his personal (i.e., hypostatic) mode of willing, which is why sin is a hypostatic reality.  Moreover, because sin is a hypostatic reality (and not natural to man) it follows that Christ is sinless, because He is a divine hypostasis, and not a human hypostasis.  Christ's mode of willing in His humanity is divine and free from any form of distortion, and the nature He assumed, which is identical to our own, is also free from sin, because otherwise He would be a sinner, and we know that is a false proposition based upon the teaching of scripture itself.  It is mortality that is the end result of Adam's fall, and as Adam brought death to manking, so Christ bring life.

Nevertheless, as I already said, I do see the new teaching of the Roman Church - i.e., as presented in the 1994 catechism - as a vast improvement over the Tridentine teaching on original sin and guilt.  I hope that answers your question.

Do you believe that Jesus redeemed mankind or each human person individually one at a time, even those who were not yet conceived?
I believe, as St. Maximos taught, that Christ redeemed all of human nature by His assumption of our humanity in the incarnation and in the process He gave everlasting existence to everyone who has lived, lives, or will live; and that each and every man - in synergy with God - is working out his own individual salvation, so that ever-well-being (heaven) or ever-ill-being (hell) is left to the free choice of each man.  In the former case (i.e., the blessed) the choice is made in cooperation with God, while in the latter case (i.e., the damned) it is made by man alone.

Why would Christ need to redeem human nature if, as you said, postlapsarian human nature remained "good and complete", without "defect"?
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 #99 on: September 18, 2011, 08:30:37 AM »

Nevertheless, as I already said, I do see the new teaching of the Roman Church - i.e., as presented in the 1994 catechism - as a vast improvement over the Tridentine teaching on original sin and guilt.  I hope that answers your question.

You mean this (from the council of Trent):


1. If any one does not confess that the first man, Adam, when he had transgressed the commandment of God in Paradise, immediately lost the holiness and justice wherein he had been constituted; and that he incurred, through the offence of that prevarication, the wrath and indignation of God, and consequently death, with which God had previously threatened him, and, together with death, captivity under his power who thenceforth had the empire of death, that is to say, the devil, and that the entire Adam, through that offence of prevarication, was changed, in body and soul, for the worse; let him be anathema.

2. If any one asserts, that the prevarication of Adam injured himself alone, and not his posterity; and that the holiness and justice, received of God, which he lost, he lost for himself alone, and not for us also; or that he, being defiled by the sin of disobedience, has only transfused death, and pains of the body, into the whole human race, but not sin also, which is the death of the soul; let him be anathema:--whereas he contradicts the apostle who says; By one man sin entered into the world, and by sin death, and so death passed upon all men, in whom all have sinned.

I don't see how it differs significantly from the 1994 definition.
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 #100 on: September 18, 2011, 10:30:39 AM »

we know that is a false proposition based upon the teaching of scripture itself.  It is mortality that is the end result of Adam's fall, and as Adam brought death to manking, so Christ bring life.

Just as we know you propositions concerning ancestral sin are false based upon the teaching of Scripture itself.

BTW, if we do not contract Adam's sin, why on earth do we contract his mortality? If it is not fair for God to impute Adam's sin to us, is it then fair for God to punish us with Adam's death? No, it is less fair and less reasonable; for it is one thing for one who has sinned to receive the penalty of death, but for one who is without sin to be so punished is an outrage.
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.
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #101 on: September 18, 2011, 11:28:01 AM »

we know that is a false proposition based upon the teaching of scripture itself.  It is mortality that is the end result of Adam's fall, and as Adam brought death to manking, so Christ bring life.

Just as we know you propositions concerning ancestral sin are false based upon the teaching of Scripture itself.

BTW, if we do not contract Adam's sin, why on earth do we contract his mortality? If it is not fair for God to impute Adam's sin to us, is it then fair for God to punish us with Adam's death? No, it is less fair and less reasonable; for it is one thing for one who has sinned to receive the penalty of death, but for one who is without sin to be so punished is an outrage.

When you get so "specialized"  Cheesy at proving your own point at ALL costs:  well:  Other aspects of the same truth are bound to suffer.

Logged

Kasatkin fan
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

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



« Reply #102 on: September 18, 2011, 02:41:20 PM »

If a mother drinks during pregnancy, and her child is born with FAS, who bears the guilt of the sin? Who bears the consequences?
Logged
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

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



WWW
« Reply #103 on: September 18, 2011, 03:09:16 PM »

Quote
hamartia
Greek, lit. “fault, failure, guilt,” from hamartanein "to fail of one's purpose; to err, sin," originally "to miss the mark."
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=hamartia&allowed_in_frame=0

Why does the guilt argument never die?

A) You believe this!
B) No we don't...
A) Yes, you do. SEE!
B) That's not what it means.
A) Yes, it does. CLEARLY... see.
B) No, that's not what it means.
Logged


I'm going to need this.
HabteSelassie
Ises and I-ity
Archon
********
Offline Offline

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



« Reply #104 on: September 19, 2011, 01:29:24 PM »

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

In graduate school I was taught to examine the sources, and not to blindly follow a given position.  Perhaps you were taught to accept any and all claims uncritically, and if that is the case - so be it.


My formal theology lessons never came from a secular school.  Perhaps that is the difference.

Its good to have both approaches, I am also academically trained in the field of historical research and I feel it has added many benefits to my religious studies. In history we look for three key ingredients, 1) factual accuracy based on primary source evidence [this usually insinuates in the original languages as well),  2) identified biases,  3) thorough analysis of all contributing factors.  So when I study the Church, I automatically do all of this, and it is very enlightening about the Councils specifically.  A lot of politics, economics, baggage, historical circumstances, etc etc have their influence within Church canons, histories, and texts.  Examining for them only conveys the deeper Truth within, as God indeed cooperates within a real world, just as King David's theocracy had as much drama as a pulpy  TV Novella..

 stay blessed,
habte selassie
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 #105 on: September 19, 2011, 03:52:14 PM »

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

In graduate school I was taught to examine the sources, and not to blindly follow a given position.  Perhaps you were taught to accept any and all claims uncritically, and if that is the case - so be it.


My formal theology lessons never came from a secular school.  Perhaps that is the difference.

Its good to have both approaches, I am also academically trained in the field of historical research and I feel it has added many benefits to my religious studies. In history we look for three key ingredients, 1) factual accuracy based on primary source evidence [this usually insinuates in the original languages as well),  2) identified biases,  3) thorough analysis of all contributing factors.  So when I study the Church, I automatically do all of this, and it is very enlightening about the Councils specifically.  A lot of politics, economics, baggage, historical circumstances, etc etc have their influence within Church canons, histories, and texts.  Examining for them only conveys the deeper Truth within, as God indeed cooperates within a real world, just as King David's theocracy had as much drama as a pulpy  TV Novella..

 stay blessed,
habte selassie

I agree with you and am similarly trained.   My comment was that my theology teachers were/are faithful sons of the Church, and prayerful monks who also have studied history and philosophy and a range of other subjects in science and mathematics: in other words I have formal seminary training, not secular training in theology.  Now I could have had seminary training from more liberal seminaries that are not much better at being faithful to the teachings of the Church than secular instructors.   But I did not.
Logged

William
Muted
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 4,354


« Reply #106 on: September 19, 2011, 05:35:04 PM »

My little thread is all grown up! Too bad I don't have the time to read it, though.
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
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Posts: 30,094


Goodbye for now, my friend


« Reply #107 on: September 19, 2011, 05:37:32 PM »

My little thread is all grown up! Too bad I don't have the time to read it, though.

Don't worry, just read the first page and you should be good. Don't forget the third law of forumdynamics: as a thread progresses the substance of posts will decrease at the same rate that the number of posts increase.
Logged

Paradosis ≠ Asteriktos ≠ Justin
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

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



WWW
« Reply #108 on: September 19, 2011, 05:42:42 PM »

My little thread is all grown up! Too bad I don't have the time to read it, though.

Don't worry, just read the first page and you should be good. Don't forget the third law of forumdynamics: as a thread progresses the substance of posts will decrease at the same rate that the number of posts increase.

Logged


I'm going to need this.
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Posts: 30,094


Goodbye for now, my friend


« Reply #109 on: September 19, 2011, 05:54:10 PM »


I'm sorry, you must have been socioeconomically disadvantaged and forced to go to a school that was not in compliance with all the markers of a beneficial and productive educational experience. As a 21st century caucasian male, who is aware of the importance and strength in diversity, and also aware of the negative impact of cultural and ideological prejudice against people such as yourself, allow me to acknowledge my sorrowful guilt and express my apologies for our failures, which have caused you such problems.
Logged

Paradosis ≠ Asteriktos ≠ Justin
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

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



WWW
« Reply #110 on: September 19, 2011, 06:19:22 PM »


I'm sorry, you must have been socioeconomically disadvantaged and forced to go to a school that was not in compliance with all the markers of a beneficial and productive educational experience. As a 21st century caucasian male, who is aware of the importance and strength in diversity, and also aware of the negative impact of cultural and ideological prejudice against people such as yourself, allow me to acknowledge my sorrowful guilt and express my apologies for our failures, which have caused you such problems.

Meh.

Logged


I'm going to need this.
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Posts: 30,094


Goodbye for now, my friend


« Reply #111 on: September 19, 2011, 06:23:36 PM »



Finally! Something of value on this here thread! *drolls*
Logged

Paradosis ≠ Asteriktos ≠ Justin
FormerReformer
Convertodox of the convertodox
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: I'll take (e) for "all of the above"
Posts: 2,438



WWW
« Reply #112 on: September 19, 2011, 06:57:39 PM »



Finally! Something of value on this here thread! *drolls*

How drool.
Logged

"Funny," said Lancelot, "how the people who can't pray say that prayers are not answered, however much the people who can pray say they are."  TH White

Oh, no: I've succumbed to Hyperdoxy!
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Posts: 30,094


Goodbye for now, my friend


« Reply #113 on: September 19, 2011, 07:00:50 PM »

Pffh, you'd think I kood spell buy now, ya no?
Logged

Paradosis ≠ Asteriktos ≠ Justin
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,264


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #114 on: September 19, 2011, 08:39:19 PM »

"Blessed be God, who alone does wonderful things! You have seen how numerous are the gifts of baptism. Although many men think that the only gift it confers is the remission of sins, we have counted its honors to the number of ten. It is on this account that we baptize even infants, although they are sinless, that they may be given the further gifts of sanctification, justice, filial adoption, and inheritance, that they may be brothers and members of Christ, and become dwelling places for the Spirit" [St. John Chrysostom, Third Baptismal Instruction, no. 6].

Baptism is not simply about the remission of sins, but about giving the person baptized a real and living participation in the divine life.
Sinless as in free of personal sin, but infants are not without original sin.
The original sin in Adam's descendants is mortality, not sin or guilt.

Adam's sin makes him subject to death, and it is the mortal condition that he passes on to his descendants.  Now because all men are mortal - in the likeness of Adam - they fall into sins as they attempt on their own power to maintain their existence without God. Baptism - in the case of an adult - washes away a man's sins, while also imparting to him the other gifts mentioned by St. John Chrysostom in his Baptismal Instruction.  While - in the case of an infant who has not sinned - the mystery of Baptism imparts the "gifts of sanctification, justice, filial adoption, and inheritance, that they may be brothers and members of Christ, and become dwelling places for the Spirit," as St. John said.  In other words, the holy mystery of Baptism gives children all the other gifts that St. John Chrysostom mentioned in his homily, but it does not remit sins in the case of a child because the child has no sins to remit.


Just to be clear, do you agree with the teaching on original sin as outlined in the Catechism of the Catholic Church?


The consequences of Adam's sin for humanity

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.
No, I do not agree with it in its entirety, although I see it as a vast improvement over the Tridentine understanding of the fall.  I do not believe that there can be such a thing as a sin "contracted" but not "committed."  As I see it, sin is always - and by definition - personal (i.e., it is a personal act), and there can be no such thing as a "state of sin" because human nature and the natural human will remains good and complete even after the fall.  So there is no defect in human nature itself; instead, where the defect in man arises is in his personal (i.e., hypostatic) mode of willing, which is why sin is a hypostatic reality.  Moreover, because sin is a hypostatic reality (and not natural to man) it follows that Christ is sinless, because He is a divine hypostasis, and not a human hypostasis.  Christ's mode of willing in His humanity is divine and free from any form of distortion, and the nature He assumed, which is identical to our own, is also free from sin, because otherwise He would be a sinner, and we know that is a false proposition based upon the teaching of scripture itself.  It is mortality that is the end result of Adam's fall, and as Adam brought death to manking, so Christ bring life.

Nevertheless, as I already said, I do see the new teaching of the Roman Church - i.e., as presented in the 1994 catechism - as a vast improvement over the Tridentine teaching on original sin and guilt.  I hope that answers your question.
The teachings in the Catechism of the Catholic Church are not "teachings of the Roman Church," they are teachings of the entire Catholic Church and that includes the Eastern Catholic Churches.
You probably don't want to get into this with Todd. He is a dissenting "Catholic"
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #115 on: September 21, 2011, 01:03:27 AM »

"Blessed be God, who alone does wonderful things! You have seen how numerous are the gifts of baptism. Although many men think that the only gift it confers is the remission of sins, we have counted its honors to the number of ten. It is on this account that we baptize even infants, although they are sinless, that they may be given the further gifts of sanctification, justice, filial adoption, and inheritance, that they may be brothers and members of Christ, and become dwelling places for the Spirit" [St. John Chrysostom, Third Baptismal Instruction, no. 6].

Baptism is not simply about the remission of sins, but about giving the person baptized a real and living participation in the divine life.
Sinless as in free of personal sin, but infants are not without original sin.
The original sin in Adam's descendants is mortality, not sin or guilt.

Adam's sin makes him subject to death, and it is the mortal condition that he passes on to his descendants.  Now because all men are mortal - in the likeness of Adam - they fall into sins as they attempt on their own power to maintain their existence without God. Baptism - in the case of an adult - washes away a man's sins, while also imparting to him the other gifts mentioned by St. John Chrysostom in his Baptismal Instruction.  While - in the case of an infant who has not sinned - the mystery of Baptism imparts the "gifts of sanctification, justice, filial adoption, and inheritance, that they may be brothers and members of Christ, and become dwelling places for the Spirit," as St. John said.  In other words, the holy mystery of Baptism gives children all the other gifts that St. John Chrysostom mentioned in his homily, but it does not remit sins in the case of a child because the child has no sins to remit.


Just to be clear, do you agree with the teaching on original sin as outlined in the Catechism of the Catholic Church?


The consequences of Adam's sin for humanity

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.
No, I do not agree with it in its entirety, although I see it as a vast improvement over the Tridentine understanding of the fall.  I do not believe that there can be such a thing as a sin "contracted" but not "committed."  As I see it, sin is always - and by definition - personal (i.e., it is a personal act), and there can be no such thing as a "state of sin" because human nature and the natural human will remains good and complete even after the fall.  So there is no defect in human nature itself; instead, where the defect in man arises is in his personal (i.e., hypostatic) mode of willing, which is why sin is a hypostatic reality.  Moreover, because sin is a hypostatic reality (and not natural to man) it follows that Christ is sinless, because He is a divine hypostasis, and not a human hypostasis.  Christ's mode of willing in His humanity is divine and free from any form of distortion, and the nature He assumed, which is identical to our own, is also free from sin, because otherwise He would be a sinner, and we know that is a false proposition based upon the teaching of scripture itself.  It is mortality that is the end result of Adam's fall, and as Adam brought death to manking, so Christ bring life.

Nevertheless, as I already said, I do see the new teaching of the Roman Church - i.e., as presented in the 1994 catechism - as a vast improvement over the Tridentine teaching on original sin and guilt.  I hope that answers your question.
The teachings in the Catechism of the Catholic Church are not "teachings of the Roman Church," they are teachings of the entire Catholic Church and that includes the Eastern Catholic Churches.
You probably don't want to get into this with Todd. He is a dissenting "Catholic"
I've noticed. He's one of the few people who truly are "Orthodox in Communion with Rome."
Logged
Melodist
Archon
********
Offline Offline

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



« Reply #116 on: September 21, 2011, 06:55:48 AM »

As I see it, sin is always - and by definition - personal (i.e., it is a personal act), and there can be no such thing as a "state of sin" because human nature and the natural human will remains good and complete even after the fall.  So there is no defect in human nature itself; instead, where the defect in man arises is in his personal (i.e., hypostatic) mode of willing, which is why sin is a hypostatic reality.  Moreover, because sin is a hypostatic reality (and not natural to man) it follows that Christ is sinless, because He is a divine hypostasis, and not a human hypostasis.  Christ's mode of willing in His humanity is divine and free from any form of distortion, and the nature He assumed, which is identical to our own, is also free from sin, because otherwise He would be a sinner, and we know that is a false proposition based upon the teaching of scripture itself.  It is mortality that is the end result of Adam's fall, and as Adam brought death to manking, so Christ bring life.
You probably don't want to get into this with Todd. He is a dissenting "Catholic"
I've noticed. He's one of the few people who truly are "Orthodox in Communion with Rome."

My understanding is that the presence of physical death inclines the person's will to seek self preservation and prefer one's self over others.

This is how "sin reigned in death" and "by one man's disobedience, many were made sinners".

I don't mean to say that man is born wholly opposed to God or incapable of responding to grace.
Logged

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

Made Perfect in Weakness - Latest Post: The Son of God
William
Muted
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 4,354


« Reply #117 on: October 04, 2011, 07:06:03 PM »

The theology teacher I mentioned in the OP might as well be Orthodox. He's teaching us about theosis now and assigned us homework reading writings from an Orthodox Archimandrite about it. He had an icon of the Ladder of Divine Ascent on the powerpoint today. He assigned us to read some St. Athanasius last night.

Best theology teacher I've ever had.
« Last Edit: October 04, 2011, 07:06:46 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
Severian
God save Egypt, Syria, Lebanon & Iraq
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Coptic/Egyptian Orthodoxy
Posts: 5,041


Saint Severus of Antioch - the Eloquent Mouth

Partisangirl
WWW
« Reply #118 on: October 04, 2011, 07:07:03 PM »

The theology teacher I mentioned in the OP might as well be Orthodox. He's teaching us about theosis now and assigned us homework reading writings from an Orthodox Archimandrite about it. He had an icon of the Ladder of Divine Ascent on the powerpoint today. He assigned us to be some St. Athanasius last night.

Best theology teacher I've ever had.
I wish they had theology classes in my area... Sad
Logged

"These things I have spoken unto you, that in me ye might have peace. In the world ye shall have tribulation: but be of good cheer; I have overcome the world." -Jesus Christ (Cf. St. John 16:33)
Jonathan Gress
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOC/HOTCA
Posts: 3,464


« Reply #119 on: October 04, 2011, 08:21:46 PM »

Isn't it possible that we inherit sin without inheriting guilt? It seems that the extreme anti-Westerners on the Orthodox side object to the idea of inheriting sin because they never distinguish sin and guilt, and maybe the pre-Vatican II RCs did the same thing. I don't know for sure if the RC now teach that we inherit guilt, but I've read that this was the RC teaching starting with Anselm of Canterbury (not St Augustine, who only said that children are born with sin). You could think of ancestral or original sin as a sinful condition, i.e. not some specific bad thing the infant is supposed to have committed (or even Adam's particular sin of disobedience), but nevertheless a state of spiritual impurity that needs cleansing in baptism. I don't think it's legitimate to reduce original sin entirely to mortality, either, since, as some here have pointed out, it is certainly an Orthodox dogma that death is the wages of sin, not vice versa.

I think an actual error of St Augustine (at least according to the notes on Fr Michael Pomazansky's Orthodox Dogmatic Theology I have before me) is the view that man apart from sacramental grace cannot do good. I think the Orthodox position is that even outside the Church, i.e. without sacramental grace, it is still possible for man to do good, aided by the charismatic grace of the Holy Spirit.

I also think this is where the whole "penal satisfaction" theory comes into play. This doctrine says that Christ atoned for humanity's collective, inherited guilt through the Cross. But the Orthodox interpretation is that, while Christ did destroy both sin and death on the Cross, there is no understanding that He took on and atoned for our collective guilt vicariously, because there was no collective guilt to begin with.
« Last Edit: October 04, 2011, 08:24:19 PM by Jonathan Gress » Logged
Scotty
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Jurisdiction: Diocese of Portland
Posts: 86



« Reply #120 on: October 06, 2011, 07:14:52 PM »

I'm surprised at how productive a good part of this thread is!  Strange to see most of the arguing is between two Catholics, Eastern Catholics at that!

I'm guessing the Roman Catholic doctrine of inherited guilt comes from the theology on heaven and hell (or perhaps vice versa), and of course St. Augustine.  Prior to Christ, all humankind went to hell.  Even the righteous, even the infants; Elijah is the an exception.  Since God is righteous and just, to be sent to hell would require sinfulness, some sort of "guilt", even to the sinless infants.  For what would they be guilty of to be sent to such a place?  If God truly is just, why would even the sinless be damned?  I'm guessing it is along this line of thinking.  I know St. Augustine was also very adamant about unbaptized infants being sent to hell.  Therefore, if Baptism is necessary for salvation, then Baptism must wipe away the stain (guilt) of original sin.  

And I understand the Eastern concepts of heaven and hell are slightly different, though I am do not know the Eastern beliefs in pre-Christ afterlife.  Romans will admit that there is quite a bit unknown about man's condition, and we aren't as adamant about original guilt as we're made out to be.  

As far as the Roman Catholic Church changing their views on Augustinian original sin, I'm not sure I'd say its an honest, theologically thought out change.  We all have to admit, original guilt isn't exactly pleasant to the ears.  Since the Church has also abruptly changed its views on the salvation of unbaptized infants, non-Catholics, and non-Christians, as well as liturgy and sacramental rites, all at the rise of liberal theologians and bishops, I'm not sure I'd trust the changes [in Augustinian though] as genuine or permanent.  Time will tell.
« Last Edit: October 06, 2011, 07:15:47 PM by Scotty » Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #121 on: October 06, 2011, 07:45:02 PM »

I'm surprised at how productive a good part of this thread is!  Strange to see most of the arguing is between two Catholics, Eastern Catholics at that!

I'm guessing the Roman Catholic doctrine of inherited guilt comes from the theology on heaven and hell (or perhaps vice versa), and of course St. Augustine.  Prior to Christ, all humankind went to hell.  Even the righteous, even the infants; Elijah is the an exception.  Since God is righteous and just, to be sent to hell would require sinfulness, some sort of "guilt", even to the sinless infants.  For what would they be guilty of to be sent to such a place?  If God truly is just, why would even the sinless be damned?  I'm guessing it is along this line of thinking.  I know St. Augustine was also very adamant about unbaptized infants being sent to hell.  Therefore, if Baptism is necessary for salvation, then Baptism must wipe away the stain (guilt) of original sin.  

And I understand the Eastern concepts of heaven and hell are slightly different, though I am do not know the Eastern beliefs in pre-Christ afterlife.  Romans will admit that there is quite a bit unknown about man's condition, and we aren't as adamant about original guilt as we're made out to be.  

As far as the Roman Catholic Church changing their views on Augustinian original sin, I'm not sure I'd say its an honest, theologically thought out change.  We all have to admit, original guilt isn't exactly pleasant to the ears.  Since the Church has also abruptly changed its views on the salvation of unbaptized infants, non-Catholics, and non-Christians, as well as liturgy and sacramental rites, all at the rise of liberal theologians and bishops, I'm not sure I'd trust the changes [in Augustinian though] as genuine or permanent.  Time will tell.

I hadn't heard that the Roman Catholic Church had accepted ever word that St. Augustine ever wrote and I am pretty sure that there's more to St. Augustine on original sin that is presented in venues such as this one.  So I am sincerely confused by your commentary...and curious about how you came to these conclusions.

Logged

Scotty
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Jurisdiction: Diocese of Portland
Posts: 86



« Reply #122 on: October 06, 2011, 09:45:02 PM »


I hadn't heard that the Roman Catholic Church had accepted ever word that St. Augustine ever wrote and I am pretty sure that there's more to St. Augustine on original sin that is presented in venues such as this one.  So I am sincerely confused by your commentary...and curious about how you came to these conclusions.



Yes, there is a LOT more.  The Roman Catholic Church doesn't accept every word that St. Augustine wrote, in fact it rejects much of his teachings and ideas.  Many of these were later was blown out of context by John Calvin.  It has always (since St. Augustine) accepted his teaching on original sin and holy orders.  The commentary was just me thinking, blurbs of thoughts; you are talking about the conclusions in the first paragraph, right?  I was just suggesting points that made sense to me in light of the little I've read of St. Augustine; I was not claiming to even believe them.  Brevity and teh internets do not mix with Church teaching.
Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #123 on: October 06, 2011, 09:52:11 PM »


I hadn't heard that the Roman Catholic Church had accepted ever word that St. Augustine ever wrote and I am pretty sure that there's more to St. Augustine on original sin that is presented in venues such as this one.  So I am sincerely confused by your commentary...and curious about how you came to these conclusions.



Yes, there is a LOT more.  The Roman Catholic Church doesn't accept every word that St. Augustine wrote, in fact it rejects much of his teachings and ideas.  Many of these were later was blown out of context by John Calvin.  It has always (since St. Augustine) accepted his teaching on original sin and holy orders.  The commentary was just me thinking, blurbs of thoughts; you are talking about the conclusions in the first paragraph, right?  I was just suggesting points that made sense to me in light of the little I've read of St. Augustine; I was not claiming to even believe them.  Brevity and teh internets do not mix with Church teaching.

Actually it was the last paragraph that made me sit up and take notice, Scotty.

What evidence do we have that the Church has changed with respect to original guilt.  Where in the past has it been taught that original sin is the personal guilt of Adam?

M.
Logged

Scotty
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Jurisdiction: Diocese of Portland
Posts: 86



« Reply #124 on: October 06, 2011, 10:10:20 PM »


I hadn't heard that the Roman Catholic Church had accepted ever word that St. Augustine ever wrote and I am pretty sure that there's more to St. Augustine on original sin that is presented in venues such as this one.  So I am sincerely confused by your commentary...and curious about how you came to these conclusions.



Yes, there is a LOT more.  The Roman Catholic Church doesn't accept every word that St. Augustine wrote, in fact it rejects much of his teachings and ideas.  Many of these were later was blown out of context by John Calvin.  It has always (since St. Augustine) accepted his teaching on original sin and holy orders.  The commentary was just me thinking, blurbs of thoughts; you are talking about the conclusions in the first paragraph, right?  I was just suggesting points that made sense to me in light of the little I've read of St. Augustine; I was not claiming to even believe them.  Brevity and teh internets do not mix with Church teaching.

Actually it was the last paragraph that made me sit up and take notice, Scotty.

What evidence do we have that the Church has changed with respect to original guilt.  Where in the past has it been taught that original sin is the personal guilt of Adam?

M.

Catechism of the Council of Trent.  Again, I said the Roman Catholic Church; I wasn't implying all Catholic Churches when I said the Church.  The notion of inherited punishment of the soul due to Adam's sin separate from the bodily effects of original sin has for some time been a Roman Catholic doctrine. 

"Wherefore, the pastor should not omit to remind the faithful that the guilt and punishment of original sin were
not confined to Adam, but justly descended from him, as from their source and cause, to all posterity." - COCT, Article II

"If, then, through the transgression of Adam, children inherit original sin, with still stronger reason can they attain through Christ
our Lord grace and justice that they may reign in life. This, however, cannot be effected otherwise than by
Baptism." - COCT, Infant Baptism: Its Necessity
Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #125 on: October 06, 2011, 10:18:00 PM »


I hadn't heard that the Roman Catholic Church had accepted ever word that St. Augustine ever wrote and I am pretty sure that there's more to St. Augustine on original sin that is presented in venues such as this one.  So I am sincerely confused by your commentary...and curious about how you came to these conclusions.



Yes, there is a LOT more.  The Roman Catholic Church doesn't accept every word that St. Augustine wrote, in fact it rejects much of his teachings and ideas.  Many of these were later was blown out of context by John Calvin.  It has always (since St. Augustine) accepted his teaching on original sin and holy orders.  The commentary was just me thinking, blurbs of thoughts; you are talking about the conclusions in the first paragraph, right?  I was just suggesting points that made sense to me in light of the little I've read of St. Augustine; I was not claiming to even believe them.  Brevity and teh internets do not mix with Church teaching.

Actually it was the last paragraph that made me sit up and take notice, Scotty.

What evidence do we have that the Church has changed with respect to original guilt.  Where in the past has it been taught that original sin is the personal guilt of Adam?

M.

Catechism of the Council of Trent.  Again, I said the Roman Catholic Church; I wasn't implying all Catholic Churches when I said the Church.  The notion of inherited punishment of the soul due to Adam's sin separate from the bodily effects of original sin has for some time been a Roman Catholic doctrine. 

"Wherefore, the pastor should not omit to remind the faithful that the guilt and punishment of original sin were
not confined to Adam, but justly descended from him, as from their source and cause, to all posterity." - COCT, Article II

"If, then, through the transgression of Adam, children inherit original sin, with still stronger reason can they attain through Christ
our Lord grace and justice that they may reign in life. This, however, cannot be effected otherwise than by
Baptism." - COCT, Infant Baptism: Its Necessity


Where does it say this is a "personal guilt"?  How was original sin defined?  What was the "stain" of original sin?

Logged

Scotty
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Jurisdiction: Diocese of Portland
Posts: 86



« Reply #126 on: October 06, 2011, 10:33:55 PM »

Well first of all, how do you define personal guilt?  What definition are you looking for?  The first blurb from Trent is about as clear as it gets.  Do you personal guilt as opposed to collective guilt?  If its the former, I'm not sure you'll find one.  But I'm not out to prove personal guilt, if that is the sense you mean it.

The stain of original sin IS original guilt.  This is why St. Thomas Aquinas and St. Bernard say that Mary was conceived without the stain of original sin, yet still retaining the physical effects of original sin.  Neither believed in the immaculate conception of Mary.  I only say that to illustrate a point that this was taught in the past in Roman Catholicism.  If you're looking for a dogmatic definition, I doubt you'll find one.

Sorry for confusing you M!
« Last Edit: October 06, 2011, 10:36:19 PM by Scotty » Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #127 on: October 06, 2011, 10:46:09 PM »

Well first of all, how do you define personal guilt?  What definition are you looking for?  The first blurb from Trent is about as clear as it gets.  Do you personal guilt as opposed to collective guilt?  If its the former, I'm not sure you'll find one.  But I'm not out to prove personal guilt, if that is the sense you mean it.

The stain of original sin IS original guilt.  This is why St. Thomas Aquinas and St. Bernard say that Mary was conceived without the stain of original sin, yet still retaining the physical effects of original sin.  Neither believed in the immaculate conception of Mary.  I only say that to illustrate a point that this was taught in the past in Roman Catholicism.  If you're looking for a dogmatic definition, I doubt you'll find one.

Sorry for confusing you M!

So St. Bernard and St. Augustine reject the Immaculate Conception and teach personal guilt in original sin therefore the Catholic Church has changed its teaching on original sin, and innovated the Immaculate Conception.

That's fascinating.

Learn something new every day.
Logged

Scotty
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Jurisdiction: Diocese of Portland
Posts: 86



« Reply #128 on: October 06, 2011, 11:55:37 PM »

Well first of all, how do you define personal guilt?  What definition are you looking for?  The first blurb from Trent is about as clear as it gets.  Do you personal guilt as opposed to collective guilt?  If its the former, I'm not sure you'll find one.  But I'm not out to prove personal guilt, if that is the sense you mean it.

The stain of original sin IS original guilt.  This is why St. Thomas Aquinas and St. Bernard say that Mary was conceived without the stain of original sin, yet still retaining the physical effects of original sin.  Neither believed in the immaculate conception of Mary.  I only say that to illustrate a point that this was taught in the past in Roman Catholicism.  If you're looking for a dogmatic definition, I doubt you'll find one.

Sorry for confusing you M!

So St. Bernard and St. Augustine reject the Immaculate Conception and teach personal guilt in original sin therefore the Catholic Church has changed its teaching on original sin, and innovated the Immaculate Conception.

That's fascinating.

Learn something new every day.

That is not at all what I said!  Why are you coercing me and then drawing your own conclusions and putting words into my mouth (keyboard)?

For starters,  I never said St Augustine rejected the Immaculate Conception (though to my knowledge he did), I never said the immaculate conception was an innovation (for I believe it to be true).  I was only illustrating a point that it was taught by the Church (Trent Catechism) and the Saints that a guilt (stain) of original sin which affects the soul is separate from original sin which affects the body.  St. Thomas, St Bernard, and St. Bonaventure's for that matter, view of St. Mary was a great illustration of this.  THAT IS ALL I WAS SAYING.

The newest Catechism does not mention guilt in the original sin section.  Trent does.  In light of what the saints in literature have always identified as original guilt, yes I would say this is a change.  I did not say I disagree with it either!  Me mentioning change was only in response to a poster some bit above me who mentioned the Roman Catholic Church appears to be moving away from Augustinian views of original sin.  A quote to that might've helped.
Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #129 on: October 07, 2011, 09:07:29 AM »

Well first of all, how do you define personal guilt?  What definition are you looking for?  The first blurb from Trent is about as clear as it gets.  Do you personal guilt as opposed to collective guilt?  If its the former, I'm not sure you'll find one.  But I'm not out to prove personal guilt, if that is the sense you mean it.

The stain of original sin IS original guilt.  This is why St. Thomas Aquinas and St. Bernard say that Mary was conceived without the stain of original sin, yet still retaining the physical effects of original sin.  Neither believed in the immaculate conception of Mary.  I only say that to illustrate a point that this was taught in the past in Roman Catholicism.  If you're looking for a dogmatic definition, I doubt you'll find one.

Sorry for confusing you M!

So St. Bernard and St. Augustine reject the Immaculate Conception and teach personal guilt in original sin therefore the Catholic Church has changed its teaching on original sin, and innovated the Immaculate Conception.

That's fascinating.

Learn something new every day.

That is not at all what I said!  Why are you coercing me and then drawing your own conclusions and putting words into my mouth (keyboard)?

For starters,  I never said St Augustine rejected the Immaculate Conception (though to my knowledge he did), I never said the immaculate conception was an innovation (for I believe it to be true).  I was only illustrating a point that it was taught by the Church (Trent Catechism) and the Saints that a guilt (stain) of original sin which affects the soul is separate from original sin which affects the body.  St. Thomas, St Bernard, and St. Bonaventure's for that matter, view of St. Mary was a great illustration of this.  THAT IS ALL I WAS SAYING.

The newest Catechism does not mention guilt in the original sin section.  Trent does.  In light of what the saints in literature have always identified as original guilt, yes I would say this is a change.  I did not say I disagree with it either!  Me mentioning change was only in response to a poster some bit above me who mentioned the Roman Catholic Church appears to be moving away from Augustinian views of original sin.  A quote to that might've helped.


Presuming that the Catholic Church used "stain" and "guilt" interchangeably, because they did, again I ask you what the guilt/stain of original sin is as understood by the Catholic Church, at Trent even.

That makes a difference in two of your conclusions...but you...like others...simply ignore it as irrelevant or untrue, depending upon your approach to the subject.

I am not putting words in your mouth.  What I am trying to do is show you the logical conclusions to your presumptions.

Better to look at the reality.
Logged

Scotty
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Jurisdiction: Diocese of Portland
Posts: 86



« Reply #130 on: October 07, 2011, 10:41:49 AM »

Well first of all, how do you define personal guilt?  What definition are you looking for?  The first blurb from Trent is about as clear as it gets.  Do you personal guilt as opposed to collective guilt?  If its the former, I'm not sure you'll find one.  But I'm not out to prove personal guilt, if that is the sense you mean it.

The stain of original sin IS original guilt.  This is why St. Thomas Aquinas and St. Bernard say that Mary was conceived without the stain of original sin, yet still retaining the physical effects of original sin.  Neither believed in the immaculate conception of Mary.  I only say that to illustrate a point that this was taught in the past in Roman Catholicism.  If you're looking for a dogmatic definition, I doubt you'll find one.

Sorry for confusing you M!

So St. Bernard and St. Augustine reject the Immaculate Conception and teach personal guilt in original sin therefore the Catholic Church has changed its teaching on original sin, and innovated the Immaculate Conception.

That's fascinating.

Learn something new every day.

That is not at all what I said!  Why are you coercing me and then drawing your own conclusions and putting words into my mouth (keyboard)?

For starters,  I never said St Augustine rejected the Immaculate Conception (though to my knowledge he did), I never said the immaculate conception was an innovation (for I believe it to be true).  I was only illustrating a point that it was taught by the Church (Trent Catechism) and the Saints that a guilt (stain) of original sin which affects the soul is separate from original sin which affects the body.  St. Thomas, St Bernard, and St. Bonaventure's for that matter, view of St. Mary was a great illustration of this.  THAT IS ALL I WAS SAYING.

The newest Catechism does not mention guilt in the original sin section.  Trent does.  In light of what the saints in literature have always identified as original guilt, yes I would say this is a change.  I did not say I disagree with it either!  Me mentioning change was only in response to a poster some bit above me who mentioned the Roman Catholic Church appears to be moving away from Augustinian views of original sin.  A quote to that might've helped.


Presuming that the Catholic Church used "stain" and "guilt" interchangeably, because they did, again I ask you what the guilt/stain of original sin is as understood by the Catholic Church, at Trent even.

That makes a difference in two of your conclusions...but you...like others...simply ignore it as irrelevant or untrue, depending upon your approach to the subject.

I am not putting words in your mouth.  What I am trying to do is show you the logical conclusions to your presumptions.

Better to look at the reality.

Well pull me out of ignorance, massa!

The stain of original sin is absence of the beatific vision of God, whether that be from heaven or from hell, upon death.  The doctrine of limbo also derives from this.  Is this what you are looking for?  Or do you have a different idea of what the church means (or more what others say) it means?  If this is as you understand it, then we have nothing to argue about.

Again, I'm sorry about the confusion.
Logged
Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #131 on: October 07, 2011, 04:08:48 PM »

Well pull me out of ignorance, massa!

The stain of original sin is absence of the beatific vision of God, whether that be from heaven or from hell, upon death.  The doctrine of limbo also derives from this.  Is this what you are looking for?  Or do you have a different idea of what the church means (or more what others say) it means?  If this is as you understand it, then we have nothing to argue about.

Again, I'm sorry about the confusion.
Limbo is not a doctrine.
Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #132 on: October 07, 2011, 04:21:17 PM »

Well first of all, how do you define personal guilt?  What definition are you looking for?  The first blurb from Trent is about as clear as it gets.  Do you personal guilt as opposed to collective guilt?  If its the former, I'm not sure you'll find one.  But I'm not out to prove personal guilt, if that is the sense you mean it.

The stain of original sin IS original guilt.  This is why St. Thomas Aquinas and St. Bernard say that Mary was conceived without the stain of original sin, yet still retaining the physical effects of original sin.  Neither believed in the immaculate conception of Mary.  I only say that to illustrate a point that this was taught in the past in Roman Catholicism.  If you're looking for a dogmatic definition, I doubt you'll find one.

Sorry for confusing you M!

So St. Bernard and St. Augustine reject the Immaculate Conception and teach personal guilt in original sin therefore the Catholic Church has changed its teaching on original sin, and innovated the Immaculate Conception.

That's fascinating.

Learn something new every day.

That is not at all what I said!  Why are you coercing me and then drawing your own conclusions and putting words into my mouth (keyboard)?

For starters,  I never said St Augustine rejected the Immaculate Conception (though to my knowledge he did), I never said the immaculate conception was an innovation (for I believe it to be true).  I was only illustrating a point that it was taught by the Church (Trent Catechism) and the Saints that a guilt (stain) of original sin which affects the soul is separate from original sin which affects the body.  St. Thomas, St Bernard, and St. Bonaventure's for that matter, view of St. Mary was a great illustration of this.  THAT IS ALL I WAS SAYING.

The newest Catechism does not mention guilt in the original sin section.  Trent does.  In light of what the saints in literature have always identified as original guilt, yes I would say this is a change.  I did not say I disagree with it either!  Me mentioning change was only in response to a poster some bit above me who mentioned the Roman Catholic Church appears to be moving away from Augustinian views of original sin.  A quote to that might've helped.


Presuming that the Catholic Church used "stain" and "guilt" interchangeably, because they did, again I ask you what the guilt/stain of original sin is as understood by the Catholic Church, at Trent even.

That makes a difference in two of your conclusions...but you...like others...simply ignore it as irrelevant or untrue, depending upon your approach to the subject.

I am not putting words in your mouth.  What I am trying to do is show you the logical conclusions to your presumptions.

Better to look at the reality.

Well pull me out of ignorance, massa!



 Wink Wink Wink

Fraid my rope ain't long enough.
Logged

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

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #133 on: October 08, 2011, 09:51:04 AM »


The stain of original sin is absence of the beatific vision of God, whether that be from heaven or from hell, upon death.  The doctrine of limbo also derives from this.  Is this what you are looking for?  Or do you have a different idea of what the church means (or more what others say) it means?  If this is as you understand it, then we have nothing to argue about.

Since the stain/guilt of original sin is, as you note, a loss of original justice [which has also been understood as a darkening of the nous/intellect and a weakening of the will] is attested to in both the Catechism of Trent and the Catechism of the Catholic Church, then nothing has changed with respect to the Church's teaching on original sin...at least not between Trent and the present...

So you are wrong to agree with the mob on that one.
Logged

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 0.518 seconds with 161 queries.