Hereditary guilt?

[Kasatkin fan]

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

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

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

We are born under Adam's curse. This misses the mark that God intends for us. That makes it sin. Not personal sin, but a condition of sin. Baptism unites to Christ through His death and resurrection, introduces us to life in Him, and is what makes us disciples of Him. This is why children are baptized.
[/quote] Yes, that's the Orthodox answer, my question was to the Catholics, they're the one asking what Baptism is for if there isn't original sin. I'm asking the Catholics here if they are misrepresenting the Catholic position, or if Catholics actually do believe something different in regards to Original sin than us. So far it seems they believe something different.

[JLatimer]

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

I posted the entry from the RC catechism on original sin. I don't see the difference you are seeing.

[JLatimer]

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

No offense taken. BTW, I thought I was making a conservative case.

[Apotheoun]

"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.

[Wyatt]

"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.

[Apotheoun]

"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.

[Apotheoun]

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

Fr. Meyendorff on the Original Sin

[elijahmaria]

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

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

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

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

Then we believe in 2 baptisms: One baptism for the remission of sin: and the Second: not so much!!

[Apotheoun]

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

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

[Apotheoun]

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

[JLatimer]

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

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

Sinless as in free of personal sin, but infants are not without original sin.

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

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

Already posted this elsewhere:

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

[Aindriú]

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

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

The early 4th century council in Carthage supports the notion of Baptism for Original Sin.

[Apotheoun]

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

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

Sinless as in free of personal sin, but infants are not without original sin.

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

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

Already posted this elsewhere:

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

Lovely as that Western quotation is, there is no evidence that that particular text was approved by an ecumenical council.  Moreover, as should be evident by its geographic locale, that local council reflects an Augustinian approach, which was not known in the Church of East or West prior to the 5th century.

[Apotheoun]

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

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

The early 4th century council in Carthage supports the notion of Baptism for Original Sin.

The Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed certain does not reflect the theology of Augustine, who hadn't even written all that much prior to that the convening of that council.

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

[Apotheoun]

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

[Aindriú]

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

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

The early 4th century council in Carthage supports the notion of Baptism for Original Sin.

The Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed certain does not reflect the theology of Augustine, who hadn't even written all that much prior to that the convening of that council.

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

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

Council of Carthage 419

Canon CX.  (Greek cxii. bis)

That infants are baptized for the remission of sins.

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

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

[Apotheoun]

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

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

The early 4th century council in Carthage supports the notion of Baptism for Original Sin.

The Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed certain does not reflect the theology of Augustine, who hadn't even written all that much prior to that the convening of that council.

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

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

Council of Carthage 419

Canon CX.  (Greek cxii. bis)

That infants are baptized for the remission of sins.

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

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

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

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

[Aindriú]

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

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

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

This council was included in the Quinisext Council, which is considered a continuation of the Ecumenical Councils and Ecumenical itself by the Orthodox.

[Aindriú]

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

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

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

[Apotheoun]

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

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

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

This council was included in the Quinisext Council, which is considered a continuation of the Ecumenical Councils and Ecumenical itself by the Orthodox.

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

Which of the more than a dozen Carthaginian Councils held from the year 250 A.D. until 500 A.D. is being approved by the vague reference in the Trullan canon you are referring to?

[Aindriú]

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

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

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

This council was included in the Quinisext Council, which is considered a continuation of the Ecumenical Councils and Ecumenical itself by the Orthodox.

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

The council itself calls itself a continuation and mentions both councils, not to mention includes the canons.

[Apotheoun]

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

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

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

It does give several patristic sources that counter the Manichaean teaching of St. Augustine on the transmission of sin, and one of the sources in particular speaks to the very point at issue between us.

[Apotheoun]

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

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

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

This council was included in the Quinisext Council, which is considered a continuation of the Ecumenical Councils and Ecumenical itself by the Orthodox.

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

The council itself calls itself a continuation and mentions both councils.

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

[Apotheoun]

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

[JLatimer]

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

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

Sinless as in free of personal sin, but infants are not without original sin.

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

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

Already posted this elsewhere:

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

Lovely as that Western quotation is, there is no evidence that that particular text was approved by an ecumenical council.  Moreover, as should be evident by its geographic locale, that local council reflects an Augustinian approach, which was not known in the Church of East or West prior to the 5th century.

Oh come on.

[Aindriú]

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

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

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

This council was included in the Quinisext Council, which is considered a continuation of the Ecumenical Councils and Ecumenical itself by the Orthodox.

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

The council itself calls itself a continuation and mentions both councils.

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

The Orthodox Churches consider this council as ecumenical and adds its canons to the decrees of the Fifth and Sixth Councils.

http://orthodoxwiki.org/Quinisext_Council


From the Greek Archdiocese

LEGISLATIVE MATTERS

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

DOCTRINAL AND DISCIPLINARY CANONS

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

http://www.goarch.org/ourfaith/ourfaith8070

[Justin Kissel]

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

[Apotheoun]

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

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

Sinless as in free of personal sin, but infants are not without original sin.

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

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

Already posted this elsewhere:

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

Lovely as that Western quotation is, there is no evidence that that particular text was approved by an ecumenical council.  Moreover, as should be evident by its geographic locale, that local council reflects an Augustinian approach, which was not known in the Church of East or West prior to the 5th century.

Oh come on.

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

[Apotheoun]

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

Sometimes an Eastern Catholic is more orthodox than a particular Eastern Orthodox Christian.  I have several Orthodox friends who have said as much when reading what I have written. 

[Justin Kissel]

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

You are forgetting the possibility that it meant all of them. The Fathers who wrote the 2nd canon at Trullo had no issues accepting canons which contradicted each other... they basically just rubber stamped stuff without worrying much about confusion it might cause. Could be the case with this as well...

[Apotheoun]

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

[Aindriú]

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

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

[Aindriú]

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.

[Apotheoun]

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

You are forgetting the possibility that it meant all of them. The Fathers who wrote the 2nd canon at Trullo had no issues accepting canons which contradicted each other... they basically just rubber stamped stuff without worrying much about confusion it might cause. Could be the case with this as well...

That would be interesting, a blanket statement covering every council ever held in North Africa.  The burden of proof is yours, I await your detailed and scholarly response.

[Apotheoun]

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

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

I do not recognize the Trullan Synod as ecumenical, although I do honor its canons.  Be that as it may, I do recognize Nicaea II as ecumenical and it approved the canons of the local synods of North Africa (and other regions) but only in so far as those canons were issued in order to promulgate the decrees of the ecumenical synods.  Once again, the God-inspired Fathers at Nicaea II did not give a blanket recognition to anything and everything ever said at a local synod.  You of course may wish to think that the Fathers gathered at the Trullan Synod did that, but so far you have given no evidence to support your assertion.

[Aindriú]

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

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

[Aindriú]

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?

[Apotheoun]

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

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

I do not recognize the Trullan Synod as ecumenical, although I do honor its canons.  Be that as it may I do recognize Nicaea II as ecumenical and it approved the canons of the local synods of North Africa (and other regions) but only in so far as those canons were issued in order to promulgate the decrees of the ecumenical synods.

Under what pretext?

The Trullan Synod was held eleven years after the close of the Sixth Ecumenical Council, so even if the bishops assembled at that synod saw there work as a continuation of the work of the God-inspired Fathers of Constantinople III - even though there is really no connection between what was done at the two synods - no one one can be made to accept their claim.   The same bishops weren't even present at the two synods, in fact the Patriarch of Constantinople who was involved in Constantinople III had died five years before the Trullan Synod convened.

[Aindriú]

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.

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

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.xiv.ii.html

The very first canon from the 7th Ecumenical Council

The Canons of the Council in Trullo.

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

Canon I.

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.xiv.iii.i.html

[Apotheoun]

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.

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. 

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.

[elijahmaria]

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.

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. 

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?

[Apotheoun]

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.

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. 

The Trullan Synod is not ecumenical.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Apotheoun]

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

You are forgetting the possibility that it meant all of them. The Fathers who wrote the 2nd canon at Trullo had no issues accepting canons which contradicted each other... they basically just rubber stamped stuff without worrying much about confusion it might cause. Could be the case with this as well...

That would be interesting, a blanket statement covering every council ever held in North Africa.  The burden of proof is yours, I await your detailed and scholarly response.

The bishops at the Trullan Synod, if Asteriktos is correct, sound a lot like the Democrats in the 111th Congress who voted for Obamacare without even knowing what was in the bill. 

[Wyatt]

"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.

[elijahmaria]

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.

[Tags:]

OrthodoxChristianity.net > Moderated Forums > Orthodox-Other Christian Discussion > Orthodox-Catholic Discussion (Moderator: username!) > Topic: Hereditary guilt?