OrthodoxChristianity.net
August 20, 2014, 10:25:32 PM *
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 4965 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
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
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Posts: 4,306


« 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

Leave there thy gift before the altar, and go thy way; first be reconciled to thy brother, and then come and offer thy gift. - Matt. 5:24
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Online Online

Posts: 29,474



« 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
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
****************
Online Online

Posts: 29,474



« 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
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
****************
Online Online

Posts: 29,474



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



Finally! Something of value on this here thread! *drolls*
Logged
FormerReformer
Convertodox of the convertodox
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: I'll take (e) for "all of the above"
Posts: 2,404



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
****************
Online Online

Posts: 29,474



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

Pffh, you'd think I kood spell buy now, ya no?
Logged
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,182


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
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Posts: 4,306


« 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

Leave there thy gift before the altar, and go thy way; first be reconciled to thy brother, and then come and offer thy gift. - Matt. 5:24
Severian
God save Egypt, Syria & Iraq
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Coptic/Egyptian Orthodoxy
Posts: 5,039

Currently on hiatus from posting

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


In solidarity with the "Nasara" (I.e. Christians) of Iraq & Syria

Forgive me if my posts have lacked humility or tact. Please note that some of my older posts -especially those pre-dating late 2012- may not necessarily reflect my current views.
Jonathan Gress
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOC/HOTCA
Posts: 3,057


« 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 0.216 seconds with 71 queries.