I'm officially giving up re: Original Sin

[mbkndomer]

Help! Somebody help me with the difference between Catholic Original Sin and Orthodox Ancestral Curse.

Here's the CCC definition of Original Sin-

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

What is the Orthodox contrast?

[Xpycoctomos]

I'm no expert... but if you compare this catechism's definition to past definition, this one has a much more Orthodox bent on it.

Sense a dark thread coming on I do.

[tizziale]

I actually happened upon the recent Catechism's definition and thought to myself how Orthodox it sounded. I think that's a great thing, myself.

[Marjorie]

There is no real difference from the '94 Catechism. But this is not how it has been traditionally taught, so a lot of people in the West have a very different view of original sin. I'm not saying that Catholicism changed its doctrines but rather some very good Catholic scholars seemed to-- in the '94 Catechism-- realize that Catholicism is larger than the Augustinian and then scholastic thread therein.

Augustine taught that actual guilt was imparted through original sin via the sex act; this has traditionally been the standard line, if not dogmatic definition, of Catholicism. So it's the general tendency of the Catholic tradition, not any papally defined dogma itself, that we reject.

This was the definition of the Baltimore Catechism:


45. Q. What evil befell us through the disobedience of
our first parents?

A. Through the disobedience of our first parents we all inherit their
sin and punishment, as we should have shared in their happiness if they had
remained faithful.

As you see, the terminology differs.

In IC XC,
Marjorie

[Matrona]

So it's the general tendency of the Catholic tradition, not any papally defined dogma itself, that we reject.

Ah, but the dogma of the Immaculate Conception hinges on the Augustinian understanding of Original Sin. How does the IC jibe with this passage from the '94 catechism?

[mbkndomer]

Much obliged everyone.

[Marjorie]

Ah, but the dogma of the Immaculate Conception hinges on the Augustinian understanding of Original Sin. How does the IC jibe with this passage from the '94 catechism?

Beats me, as every explanation of the IC I've heard relies on "she was exempt only from original sin proper, not the consequences of original sin like sorrow and death"... and it's like... but isn't that like everyone???

Maybe a Catholic can clarify on this point.

In IC XC,
Marjorie

[pilgrimtim]

IMHOO
Original sin affect the world as a whole creating an environment them makes it easier to sin. But until a child commits it own sin it possesses the same holiness that GOD created Adam with. If the child does not sin it is possible that the child will not die. See Enoch and Elijah. But the odds are stack against the child remaining sinless. We are all immaculately concieved.

[Padraig]

IMHOO
Original sin affect the world as a whole creating an environment them makes it easier to sin. But until a child commits it own sin it possesses the same holiness that GOD created Adam with. If the child does not sin it is possible that the child will not die. See Enoch and Elijah. But the odds are stack against the child remaining sinless. We are all immaculately concieved.

The teaching of Scripture, and therefore the Church is quite clear on the matter. In Psalm 50, the Septuagint Translation reads: "In sins did my mother bear me..." Hosea 4.1-3 gives a good description of the world we are brought into at birth. Also, St Paul says that sin and death entered the world through Adam, affecting us all. A child, while remaining guiltless of personal sin is still affected by the sin of our first parents. The child is not guilty, mind, but born under the curse the first sin created. Enoch and Elijah did not die because God took them before they died prefiguring the new life in the age to come. We are not immaculately conceived. Mary, the Mother of God, all-pure and blameless died. This is the teaching of the Church.

kevin

[Cary.Melvin]

The teaching of Scripture, and therefore the Church is quite clear on the matter. In Psalm 50, the Septuagint Translation reads: "In sins did my mother bear me..." Hosea 4.1-3 gives a good description of the world we are brought into at birth. Also, St Paul says that sin and death entered the world through Adam, affecting us all. A child, while remaining guiltless of personal sin is still affected by the sin of our first parents. The child is not guilty, mind, but born under the curse the first sin created. Enoch and Elijah did not die because God took them before they died prefiguring the new life in the age to come. We are not immaculately conceived. Mary, the Mother of God, all-pure and blameless died. This is the teaching of the Church.

kevin

Isn't the child guilty of the Orginal Sin by being part of the Human Race?

What is the difference between being guilty of the original sin and being under the curse of the first sin?

[Padraig]

Isn't the child guilty of the Orginal Sin by being part of the Human Race?

What is the difference between being guilty of the original sin and being under the curse of the first sin?

The child isn't guilty of original sin, no. The curse of the first sin - of all sin - is being born into a fallen world corrupted by sin and death. Sin has cosmic consequences. When we sin it negatively affects the entire created order. The account in Hosea above (4.1-3) shows the cosmic significance of sin. Also, Elder Zossima in Brothers Karamazov tells his disciples that one day they will ask the birds for forgiveness.

[Cary.Melvin]

The child isn't guilty of original sin, no. The curse of the first sin - of all sin - is being born into a fallen world corrupted by sin and death. Sin has cosmic consequences. When we sin it negatively affects the entire created order. The account in Hosea above (4.1-3) shows the cosmic significance of sin. Also, Elder Zossima in Brothers Karamazov tells his disciples that one day they will ask the birds for forgiveness.

If the child is not guilty, then why is he being punished with eternal seperation from God (Damnation)?

[Matrona]

If the child is not guilty, then why is he being punished with eternal seperation from God (Damnation)?

We don't believe in that kind of damnation, that's why.

[Padraig]

If the child is not guilty, then why is he being punished with eternal seperation from God (Damnation)?

Who said the child is automatically damned? There is no such notion in the Orthodox Church. The child is born in a world of sin, a world of death and corruption. And each time we sin, we contribute to the fallenness of the world, making it that much more difficult for the child to resist and fight off this disease. Salvation is not a saving from damnation but a return to partaking in the divine Life. Children are much closer to this than adults as they believe inherently and are not weighed down by the cares and worries of this world.

God does not damn anyone, especially children. Christ shows that we must become like children in order to receive the Kingdom. Why would He tell us to do this if they were damned? The notion of original sin in the western mindset is not ours, nor has it ever been. How could anyone believe in a god that damns children to hell?

[Cary.Melvin]

Who said the child is automatically damned? There is no such notion in the Orthodox Church. The child is born in a world of sin, a world of death and corruption. And each time we sin, we contribute to the fallenness of the world, making it that much more difficult for the child to resist and fight off this disease. Salvation is not a saving from damnation but a return to partaking in the divine Life. Children are much closer to this than adults as they believe inherently and are not weighed down by the cares and worries of this world.

God does not damn anyone, especially children. Christ shows that we must become like children in order to receive the Kingdom. Why would He tell us to do this if they were damned? The notion of original sin in the western mindset is not ours, nor has it ever been. How could anyone believe in a god that damns children to hell?

So children don't need Jesus to save them? If they are not guilty of anything, why should they?

[knee-v]

So children don't need Jesus to save them? If they are not guilty of anything, why should they?

Cary, even if we had never sinned, God would still have taken on human flesh in the person of Jesus Christ, although He would probably have had a different name. Our salvation is more than just reversing the effects of sin. It is about uniting God and man. A baby, although sinless, is still not in the state that God ultimately planned for that person to be in. So a sinless baby still needs Christ, since that baby is not fully united to God as it will be after the resurrection.

[Padraig]

So children don't need Jesus to save them? If they are not guilty of anything, why should they?

All of humanity is in need of salvation, of a participation in the divine Life of God Himself. Are children "required" to "accept Jesus as their personal Lord and Savior?" Not exactly. We are responsible for only what we know and what we do with that. Anyone who is "saved" no matter where they are or who they are, are saved by Christ, whether this includes a profession of faith, or baby coos and giggles. How all this happens is not really up to us, nor should it be dwelt upon. God is merciful, requiring of children only what they are capable of.

[Cary.Melvin]

We don't believe in that kind of damnation, that's why.

Is Orthodox Hell nicer than Catholic Hell?

[Padraig]

Is Orthodox Hell nicer than Catholic Hell?

Oh, yes. There's a nice view of the lake of fire ;) .
Seriously, we don't believe in the literal hellfire that most western Christians teach. That's not to say that it won't indeed be hell, just different. Here's a good post from Rilian from another thread dealing with it:

Hell/Heaven are just the different names we give to the same paradigm. Do we love God or do we reject him? That's what makes Heaven or Hell. Hell can be eternal, because we are free to reject God. There is no compulsion to love him.

St. Isaac of Nineveh wrote the following in his Mystic Treatises:

those who find themselves in Hell will be chastised by the scourge of love. How cruel and bitter this torment of love will be! For those who understand that they have sinned against love, undergo no greater suffering than those produced by the most fearful tortures. The sorrow which takes hold of the heart, which has sinned against love, is more piercing than any other pain. It is not right to say that the sinners in Hell are deprived of the love of God ... But love acts in two ways, as suffering of the reproved, and as joy in the blessed!

How we experience God's love is what makes Heaven or Hell. We are transformed or scourged by it.

[Matrona]

Is Orthodox Hell nicer than Catholic Hell?

We don't believe "hell" is "separation from God". I know this is how a lot of people try to play down the blazing inferno imagery, but I think the Orthodox would wonder how in the heck* one could possibly be separated from omnipresence?

* Not really an effective joke.

[Cary.Melvin]

So does that mean that Orthodox believe that children that die before the age of reason and that are not Baptised will still go to Heaven because they have no guilt?

[Padraig]

So does that mean that Orthodox believe that children that die before the age of reason and that are not Baptised will still go to Heaven because they have no guilt?

They enter to the joy of the risen Lord, yes.

[Matrona]

So does that mean that Orthodox believe that children that die before the age of reason and that are not Baptised will still go to Heaven because they have no guilt?

What 'age of reason'?

We believe God is merciful to them, but that they are still subject to His judgment, they don't get an automatic ticket to heaven.

[Cary.Melvin]

What 'age of reason'?

We believe God is merciful to them, but that they are still subject to His judgment, they don't get an automatic ticket to heaven.

Based on the revelation we have been given by God of his justice, How will God judge a person that is not within the Body of Christ (not Baptised)? Will they be found guilty of the sins of mankind?

[Matrona]

Based on the revelation we have been given by God of his justice, How will God judge a person that is not within the Body of Christ (not Baptised)?

I will not speculate in that way.

Will they be found guilty of the sins of mankind?

No. One's sins are one's own.

[Mary of Bethany]

So does that mean that Orthodox believe that children that die before the age of reason and that are not Baptised will still go to Heaven because they have no guilt?

Recently in our parish, a 6-week old who had not yet been baptized died of SIDS. We believe he is indeed in heaven, and able to pray for those of us still struggling here on earth.

Mary

[Cary.Melvin]

Recently in our parish, a 6-week old who had not yet been baptized died of SIDS. We believe he is indeed in heaven, and able to pray for those of us still struggling here on earth.

Mary

That is a nice thought, but how does that fit with Jesus' teachings in John 3?


1: Now there was a man of the Pharisees, named Nicode'mus, a ruler of the Jews.
2: This man came to Jesus by night and said to him, "Rabbi, we know that you are a teacher come from God; for no one can do these signs that you do, unless God is with him."
3: Jesus answered him, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born anew, he cannot see the kingdom of God."
4: Nicode'mus said to him, "How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother's womb and be born?"
5: Jesus answered, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.
6: That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.
7: Do not marvel that I said to you, `You must be born anew.'
8: The wind blows where it wills, and you hear the sound of it, but you do not know whence it comes or whither it goes; so it is with every one who is born of the Spirit."

[Xpycoctomos]

Cary,

How does that fit in with the Theif on the Cross?

[prodromos]

So children don't need Jesus to save them? If they are not guilty of anything, why should they?We tend to focus on salvation from our sins because most of us have so many we need saving from, but our salvation is primarily from DEATH. There is one particular verse which states clearly that we have a tendancy to sin because of the fact that we are going to die. I can't think of it off the top of my head but you will find many references to our salvation being from death all through Paul's epistles.

John

[Padraig]

Cary,

How does that fit in with the Theif on the Cross?

And also, the words of Christ in Matthew:

Matt 18.1-5: At that time the disciples came to Jesus, saying, "Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?" And calling to him a child, he put him in the midst of them, and said, "Truly, I say to you, unless you turn and become like children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. Whoever humbles himself like this child, he is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven. "Whoever receives one such child in my name receives me;

Matt 19.13-14: Then children were brought to him that he might lay his hands on them and pray. The disciples rebuked the people; but Jesus said, "Let the children come to me, and do not hinder them; for to such belongs the kingdom of heaven."

Children are not held to the same standards as adults. They are far closer to God than even the holiest monks, at least I've heard monks say so. In some ancient traditions of the Church, children were always allowed to approach the Mysteries before anyone else, though this doesn't happen much nowadays.

[Rilian]

In some ancient traditions of the Church, children were always allowed to approach the Mysteries before anyone else, though this doesn't happen much nowadays.

Padraig, at my parish the first to commune are the kids. They are also the first up to venerate the cross.

I've also noticed the kids will always commune if at church, not all of the adults will.

[Xpycoctomos]

Not to say that this isn't true for you Padraig, but at nearly all parishes I have gone to, this is defintely the practice (my experience, however, is limited mostly to Slavic Parishes so...)

[Padraig]

Not to say that this isn't true for you Padraig, but at nearly all parishes I have gone to, this is defintely the practice (my experience, however, is limited mostly to Slavic Parishes so...)

It has been my experience, but I've been to several parishes where this isn't the case. Not sure if it's an ethnic thing or not.

[Marjorie]

Based on the revelation we have been given by God of his justice, How will God judge a person that is not within the Body of Christ (not Baptised)? Will they be found guilty of the sins of mankind?

Even your '94 Catechism seems to be more merciful than what you are implying:

As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus' tenderness toward children which caused him to say: "Let the children come to me, do not hinder them," allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism. All the more urgent is the Church's call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy Baptism.

In IC XC,
Marjorie

[Marjorie]

That is a nice thought, but how does that fit with Jesus' teachings in John 3?

"God has bound salvation to the Sacrament of Baptism, but He Himself is not bound by His sacraments" (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1257.)

Of course baptism is required for salvation, but God will have mercy on whom He has mercy.

In IC XC,
Marjorie

[Servus Iesu]

Cary, even if we had never sinned, God would still have taken on human flesh in the person of Jesus Christ, although He would probably have had a different name. Our salvation is more than just reversing the effects of sin. It is about uniting God and man. A baby, although sinless, is still not in the state that God ultimately planned for that person to be in. So a sinless baby still needs Christ, since that baby is not fully united to God as it will be after the resurrection.

That is just one theological opinion. Why would Jesus Christ sacrifice by becoming Incarnate if Redemption was not needed though? Couldn't Adam have been divinized thus being the one Mediator between God and Man? Then Jesus could have gone on for all eternity as divine alone.

[Servus Iesu]

Beats me, as every explanation of the IC I've heard relies on "she was exempt only from original sin proper, not the consequences of original sin like sorrow and death"... and it's like... but isn't that like everyone???

Maybe a Catholic can clarify on this point.

In IC XC,
Marjorie

The Immaculate Conception's main effect is that the Blessed Virgin and theotokos was not subject to concupiscence.

[Rilian]

The Immaculate Conception's main effect is that the Blessed Virgin and theotokos was not subject to concupiscence.

Which certainly lessens her ascetic achievement (were the dogma true).

[Servus Iesu]

Which certainly lessens her ascetic achievement (were the dogma true).

Mary remained holy because Christ has the power to keep His own. The First Adam failed to protect Eve from the serpent where the Second Adam succeeds. This doesn't mean it wasn't an achievement on the part of the Virgin to remain holy. She had to exercise her free will in order to utter the fiat to God's will. Mary could have sinned in the manner of Eve but she did not.

We don't view the sinlessness of the Virgin as an ascetic achievement. I could easily ask the same thing about Jesus. Does Jesus have concupiscence? Was He subject to the law of sin (fomas peccati)? The fact is that it was IMPOSSIBLE for Jesus to sin because He was divine whereas the possibility actually existed for Mary, only she would have had to sin in the manner that Eve did.

[Rilian]

Mary remained holy because Christ has the power to keep His own.

The treasury of merits is not an Orthodox view of what happened.

The First Adam failed to protect Eve from the serpent where the Second Adam succeeds. This doesn't mean it wasn't an achievement on the part of the Virgin to remain holy. She had to exercise her free will in order to utter the fiat to God's will. Mary could have sinned in the manner of Eve but she did not.

The achievement of the Theotokos was not limited to her saying "yes" to God. It was in the entirety of the life she lived. The exercise of her free will was not just one act. The idea that God removed a part of the humanity we are all born with clearly does lessen what she achieved.

We don't view the sinlessness of the Virgin as an ascetic achievement.

There we differ, which is odd because many people from OBOB have told us we believe the same thing regarding this topic.

I could easily ask the same thing about Jesus. Does Jesus have concupiscence? Was He subject to the law of sin (fomas peccati)? The fact is that it was IMPOSSIBLE for Jesus to sin because He was divine whereas the possibility actually existed for Mary, only she would have had to sin in the manner that Eve did.

Christ had a human and a divine will.

[Servus Iesu]

The achievement of the Theotokos was not limited to her saying "yes" to God. It was in the entirety of the life she lived. The exercise of her free will was not just one act. The idea that God removed a part of the humanity we are all born with clearly does lessen what she achieved.

I agree with you in that Mary's fiat was not a one time act. The humility and virtue of Mary was exercised throughout the entire course of her life. Whether not having concupiscence somehow lessens Mary's works doesn't concern me that much. Did Jesus have concupiscence according to the Orthodox view?


There we differ, which is odd because many people from OBOB have told us we believe the same thing regarding this topic.

They said that Mary achieved holiness through ascetism and sheer will power rather than through prevenient grace?


Christ had a human and a divine will.

Christ had a human will and a divine will which were in complete accord. A divine will and a divine nature cannot sin. Can God the Father sin? Of course not. Jesus and the Father are one (consubstantial) so Jesus can't act in a way which is contrary to the nature of God. Jesus is a divine person who assumes a human nature, will, and soul.

To say that Jesus could sin in his human nature but not in his divine nature would be the error of Nestorianism.

[Rilian]

Whether not having concupiscence somehow lessens Mary's works doesn't concern me that much.

Having part of the humanity of the Theotokos removed is a big deal to me. It boils down to original sin though. The RC doctrine of the IC in my opinion is just the solution to a problem that doesn't exist.

Did Jesus have concupiscence according to the Orthodox view?

Concupiscence is not a term that is used in Eastern theology.

They said that Mary achieved holiness through ascetism and sheer will power rather than through prevenient grace?

They said we believe what they do.

[Bulldog]

Does the Eastern Orthodox rejection of original sin make sinlessness possible?

[Servus Iesu]

Concupiscence is not a term that is used in Eastern theology.


Fair enough. Is Christ subject to the law of sin (see Romans 7)? In other words, do the Easterns believe that there was an interior source of temptation within Christ?

Roman Catholic theology as I understand it conceives of no such possibility. No sin or temptation could be conceived of from within the human nature of Jesus. The temptation to sin would have to be something external (ie Satan coming to Jesus in the wilderness).

[Servus Iesu]

Does the Eastern Orthodox rejection of original sin make sinlessness possible?

That is a good question. As I understand it, what the Orthodox believe is that Mary simply chose not to sin during the whole course of her life. I do not see how Mary could succeed in this regard where every other human being in history has failed.

[Rilian]

Does the Eastern Orthodox rejection of original sin make sinlessness possible?

Sin is a fact of life. The idea that infants are born with the contagination of sin implanted in them is not.

[Rilian]

I do not see how Mary could succeed in this regard where every other human being in history has failed.

Because she was not like every other human being in history. I'm also glad someone from OBOB is finally willing to admit we view this differently.

[Rilian]

do the Easterns believe that there was an interior source of temptation within Christ?

Not that I'm aware of.

[Marjorie]

The idea that Mary just "chose" to be free of sin smacks of some form of Pelagianism to me. The belief is instead that Mary was full of the Holy Spirit so she did not sin. It was a perfect and complete cooperation of her will and God's, and she was *chosen* by God, she wasn't just the only human to successfully abide by God's terms-- as if she could do just as well without God's grace. Our difference isn't in how we view Mary's chosenness, but instead in our view of fallen humanity.

It's also not dogma that Mary was personally sinless. But this is something that shouldn't be viewed so legalistically. How many of us would coldly and shrewdly sit down to discuss our own mother's sinlessness or conception or amount of holiness? She is our Mother and we love her and she was the holiest creature of God ever to be made. She followed God and was joined to God in a way that perfectly epitomizes the Christian life. She is, as the Catholic Catechism says, the eschatological icon of the Church. Just as she was joined perfectly to Christ, so are we. And so Mary is the Church, and to follow Christ we must emulate Mary and have her as our intercessor.

But it seems greatly out of touch with the Orthodox spirit to sit down and discuss how and when she was tempted. We know that she completely gave up her will to God, and was chosen by God, filled with the Holy Spirit. She is the All-Holy.

And she is not the great exception, but the great example, as one of our theologians has said. She too was part of our fallen nature. Christ took on the fallen nature-- he took it from his mother. Her flesh was the flesh of the whole world, which he redeemed.

In IC XC,
Marjorie

[Servus Iesu]

Because she was not like every other human being in history. I'm also glad someone from OBOB is finally willing to admit we view this differently.

She was not like every other human being in history precisely because she was Immaculately Conceived.

I think in EO-RC discussions we need to be honest about certain facts. We are not in Communion with one another. We have very strong disagreements. No amount of wishing it were otherwise will change that.

It seems that many Catholics have been convinced by the Ecumaniacs that there are no real differences between us and the Orthodox. The more I actually speak with Orthodox the more I find out that this is not the case. It is a sad form of self-deception to allow oneself to believe that the end of the 1000 year schism is imminent.

I respect Orthodox Christians. I think on the whole they are very pious and virtuous people with laudable traditions and wonderful liturgical rites. Hopefully you can also respect me as a human being.

My point is that we should just be honest with each other. We don't need to be polemical about it but we do need to understand reality. It seems Catholics convince themselves too often that if they pretend there are no differences then there are in fact no differences.

[Servus Iesu]

Not that I'm aware of.

This is what we mean by concupiscence.

[Bulldog]

Sin is a fact of life. The idea that infants are born with the contagination of sin implanted in them is not.

Thank you.

[Marjorie]

She was not like every other human being in history precisely because she was Immaculately Conceived.

I think in EO-RC discussions we need to be honest about certain facts. We are not in Communion with one another. We have very strong disagreements. No amount of wishing it were otherwise will change that.

It seems that many Catholics have been convinced by the Ecumaniacs that there are no real differences between us and the Orthodox. The more I actually speak with Orthodox the more I find out that this is not the case. It is a sad form of self-deception to allow oneself to believe that the end of the 1000 year schism is imminent.

I respect Orthodox Christians. I think on the whole they are very pious and virtuous people with laudable traditions and wonderful liturgical rites. Hopefully you can also respect me as a human being.

My point is that we should just be honest with each other. We don't need to be polemical about it but we do need to understand reality. It seems Catholics convince themselves too often that if they pretend there are no differences then there are in fact no differences.

Actually, this is refreshing. I'm sick of hearing Catholics telling me that I don't really know what I believe, that I actually believe everything they do. I'd much rather hear that I'm in evident error.

In IC XC,
Marjorie

[Rilian]

She was not like every other human being in history precisely because she was Immaculately Conceived.

That would be true if IC were true. In this case it's true because of the reasons Marjorie very eloquently laid out.

I think in EO-RC discussions we need to be honest about certain facts. We are not in Communion with one another. We have very strong disagreements. No amount of wishing it were otherwise will change that.

It seems that many Catholics have been convinced by the Ecumaniacs that there are no real differences between us and the Orthodox. The more I actually speak with Orthodox the more I find out that this is not the case. It is a sad form of self-deception to allow oneself to believe that the end of the 1000 year schism is imminent.

I respect Orthodox Christians. I think on the whole they are very pious and virtuous people with laudable traditions and wonderful liturgical rites. Hopefully you can also respect me as a human being.

My point is that we should just be honest with each other. We don't need to be polemical about it but we do need to understand reality. It seems Catholics convince themselves too often that if they pretend there are no differences then there are in fact no differences.

You're preaching to the choir. :D

[Servus Iesu]

Actually, this is refreshing. I'm sick of hearing Catholics telling me that I don't really know what I believe, that I actually believe everything they do. I'd much rather hear that I'm in evident error.

In IC XC,
Marjorie

Amazing isn't it! Sometimes truth can bring us together more than ecumenical platitudes.

Gratia et pax Iesu Christi Domini Nostri tecum,
Ryan

[Rilian]

This is what we mean by concupiscence.

How I've traditionally heard this term used is not simply that it is an internal proclivity to sin, it is like choke hold on the will that stops one from being able to choose to do good at all. That's why I'm hesitent to say we go along with this specific term.

I have no problem saying it is not in Christ's nature to sin.

[Kripost]

If the child is not guilty, then why is he being punished with eternal seperation from God (Damnation)?

Firstly, Hell is not eternal seperation from God, but rather it is being in His presence.


So children don't need Jesus to save them? If they are not guilty of anything, why should they?


The first question to ask is: "To be saved from what or who?" As humans, children needed Christ to unite Divinity and Humanity for their salvation.


Is Orthodox Hell nicer than Catholic Hell?


It would be just as tormenting. Imagine being in room with a person you really hate, whose 'aura' fills the whole room, but you cannot escape nor get rid of the person.


So does that mean that Orthodox believe that children that die before the age of reason and that are not Baptised will still go to Heaven because they have no guilt?



Based on the revelation we have been given by God of his justice, How will God judge a person that is not within the Body of Christ (not Baptised)? Will they be found guilty of the sins of mankind?

The problem here is that the above statements rely on an judicial view of salvation and atonement, and stretching the analogy too far. God is interested mainly in the healing of soul and body, not in determining innocence or guilt.

Regarding God's justice, this is what St. Isaac the Syrian has to say:

Do not call God just, for His justice is not manifest in the things concerning you. And if David calls Him just and upright, His Son revealed to us that He is good and kind. 'He is good', He says 'to the evil and to the impious.' How can you call God just when you come across the Scriptural passage on the wage given to the workers?...How can a man call God just when he comes across the passage on the prodigal son who wasted his wealth with riotous living, how for the compunction alone which he showed, the father ran and fell upon his neck and gave him authority over all his wealth? Where, then, is God's justice, for while we are sinners Christ died for us!

[Servus Iesu]

How I've traditionally heard this term used is not simply that it is an internal proclivity to sin, it is like choke hold on the will that stops one from being able to choose to do good at all. That's why I'm hesitent to say we go along with this specific term.

I have no problem saying it is not in Christ's nature to sin.

The idea of a choke hold on the will is not something Catholic so far as I know Catholicism. I believe that is more in line with the total depravity teaching of the Protestant 'Reformers'.

Concupiscence is a disorder which causes our irrational urges, impulses, desires, sensuousness, etc to exercise power over the free will. In other words, concupiscence causes one to seek immediate gratification rather than consider holiness and virtue. Concupiscence does not entirely overpower the will though. Catholics believe our will and our nature is weakened and wounded, not destroyed by original sin.

As I see it, concupiscence causes all people to sin in some respect in an attritional manner. The constant demands of the flesh will cause us to sin in some way even if only venial. The will can take control but it is a battle. Apart from the graces won by Jesus Christ it is a losing battle. With the grace of the sacraments the battle can and will be won.

[Xpycoctomos]

Actually, this is refreshing. I'm sick of hearing Catholics telling me that I don't really know what I believe, that I actually believe everything they do. I'd much rather hear that I'm in evident error.

In IC XC,
Marjorie

I was thinking the same thing. Servus... I agree with you and the only way we can even dream of approaching reconciliation is admitting that we have irreconciliable differences (not that all of our differences are irreconciliable, but there are important ones that are) that we cannot just ignore.

This probably turned out to be one of the most productive "Original Sin" threads I have ever read.

John

[Servus Iesu]

I have no problem saying it is not in Christ's nature to sin.

I've always maintained that Christ could not sin. My reasons are perhaps even a little Eastern in ethos.

The argument often given for why Christ could have sinned was that he was a human with a human nature and will, therefore he could sin. However, doesn't that imply that sinfulness in some way defines what it is to be human? I believe that sin is not so much human but rather something which robs us of our humanity.

What makes humans different from animals is that they are rational creatures with immortal souls. If sin is contrary to reason (and it is) then it follows that sin is inhuman. When we act on impulse or for the sake of immediate gratification then we are behaving like animals and not men.

Therefore, I don't think it is inconsistent with Christ's human nature for him to not be capable of sin. Instead, we could say that Christ is more of a man than you or I!

[Marjorie]

We had a post about this a LONG time ago-- about Christ being tempted and what this means. I'll see if I can dig it up later.

In IC XC,
Marjorie

[Servus Iesu]

The idea that Mary just "chose" to be free of sin smacks of some form of Pelagianism to me. The belief is instead that Mary was full of the Holy Spirit so she did not sin. It was a perfect and complete cooperation of her will and God's, and she was *chosen* by God, she wasn't just the only human to successfully abide by God's terms-- as if she could do just as well without God's grace. Our difference isn't in how we view Mary's chosenness, but instead in our view of fallen humanity...
In IC XC,
Marjorie

Remember Joseph the 'Orthodox' Bishop who denies the perpetual virginity of Mary. I had an argument with him awhile back over the issue of Pelagianism. He claimed that Pelagius was actually Orthodox and the Pelagius was right and St. Augustine was wrong.

What do real Orthodox actually think about Pelagius and his doctrines?

[Marjorie]

Remember Joseph the 'Orthodox' Bishop who denies the perpetual virginity of Mary. I had an argument with him awhile back over the issue of Pelagianism. He claimed that Pelagius was actually Orthodox and the Pelagius was right and St. Augustine was wrong.

What do real Orthodox actually think about Pelagius and his doctrines?

Short version:

He was a heretic. We like God's grace and are very big on it.

We also think Augustine went too far in the opposite extreme when countering him, though.

In IC XC,
Marjorie

[Bulldog]

Short version:

He was a heretic. We like God's grace and are very big on it.

We also think Augustine went too far in the opposite extreme when countering him, though.

In IC XC,
Marjorie

Would you consider an Orthodox to be in error if he said something like "I associate more tieh Pelagius than Augustine when it comes to salvation" (something that I have seen)?

[Unified in Christ]

I believe that sin is not so much human but rather something which robs us of our humanity.

That's exactly St. Paul's doctrine on sin: The turning away of love from God and neighbor toward the self is breaking of communion with the life and truth of God, which cannot be separated from His love. The breaking of this communion with God can be consummated only in death, because nothing created can continue indefinitely to exist of itself. Thus, by the transgression of the first man, the principle of "sin (the devil) entered into the world and through sin death, and so death passed upon all men..." Not only humanity, but all of creation has become subjected to death and corruption by the devil. It is through death and corruption that all of humanity and creation is held captive to the devil and involved in sin, because it is by death that man falls short of his original destiny, which was to love God and neighbor without concern for the self. Man does not die because he is guilty for the sin of Adam. He becomes a sinner because he is yoked to the power of the devil through death and its consequences.

[Servus Iesu]

That's exactly St. Paul's doctrine on sin: The turning away of love from God and neighbor toward the self is breaking of communion with the life and truth of God, which cannot be separated from His love. The breaking of this communion with God can be consummated only in death, because nothing created can continue indefinitely to exist of itself. Thus, by the transgression of the first man, the principle of "sin (the devil) entered into the world and through sin death, and so death passed upon all men..." Not only humanity, but all of creation has become subjected to death and corruption by the devil. It is through death and corruption that all of humanity and creation is held captive to the devil and involved in sin, because it is by death that man falls short of his original destiny, which was to love God and neighbor without concern for the self. Man does not die because he is guilty for the sin of Adam. He becomes a sinner because he is yoked to the power of the devil through death and its consequences.

Good to see we agree on something. Does that mean you agree with my conclusion that to be human does not necessitate an ability to sin (specifically in the person of Jesus Christ Our Blessed Lord and Redeemer)?

[knee-v]

Good to see we agree on something. Does that mean you agree with my conclusion that to be human does not necessitate an ability to sin (specifically in the person of Jesus Christ Our Blessed Lord and Redeemer)?

Just look at Jesus. Fully divine, but also fully human. Yet he never sinned.

[Servus Iesu]

Just look at Jesus. Fully divine, but also fully human. Yet he never sinned.

I am well aware that Jesus was fully human. This question really stems out of the 'Could Jesus have sinned?' debate. The question is: What does it mean for Jesus to be fully human?

Those who say that Jesus possessed the capability to sin tend to cite the humanity of Jesus as proof that He could have sinned. What I am saying is that I don't believe one must possess the ability to sin to be fully human. This choice is what I think the scholastics referred to as liberty of indifference. It doesn't perfect human liberty, rather it is a weakness of human liberty.

The other issue I have with the notion that Jesus could have sinned is that I believe it lends itself to Nestorianism or perhaps even Arianism. Jesus had two natures but He was ONE person. If Jesus were to sin He would sin in His whole person, human and divine. How can sin enter into a divine person? This seems to me to be an impossibility. Jesus is consubstantial with the Father. The Father can neither sin nor lie, so how can the Son?

[Unified in Christ]

I am well aware that Jesus was fully human. This question really stems out of the 'Could Jesus have sinned?' debate. The question is: What does it mean for Jesus to be fully human?

Those who say that Jesus possessed the capability to sin tend to cite the humanity of Jesus as proof that He could have sinned. What I am saying is that I don't believe one must possess the ability to sin to be fully human. This choice is what I think the scholastics referred to as liberty of indifference. It doesn't perfect human liberty, rather it is a weakness of human liberty.

The other issue I have with the notion that Jesus could have sinned is that I believe it lends itself to Nestorianism or perhaps even Arianism. Jesus had two natures but He was ONE person. If Jesus were to sin He would sin in His whole person, human and divine. How can sin enter into a divine person? This seems to me to be an impossibility. Jesus is consubstantial with the Father. The Father can neither sin nor lie, so how can the Son?

According to St.Maximus the confessor, the creation of man had five divisions, that Adam had to transcend: The division between uncreated and created, noetic and tangible, Heaven and earth, Paradise and world, male and female. Adam would have to overcome these divisions and reach communion and unity with the uncreated. He failed though to transcend the divisions mentioned, with the result that decay and mortality entered into nature, that he wore the coats of skin of decay and mortality. The transcending of the five divisions took place in Christ. The fall in reality is darkness of the image (darkening of the nous), loss of the divine life. Adam lost his noetic function and enslaved himself to the passions. Fallen man uses God to safeguard his individual security and regards his neighbour as an object for predatory exploitation. He cannot have selfless love, because all his expressions and all his love contain the element of self-seeking, which is to say that man is characterised by self-seeking love. What our Lord Jesus did, according to the Holy Fathers, is that in his divine & human nature, The transcending of the five divisions took place: He took the human nature through his birth from Theotokos, a human nature perfect from every aspect. And why is that? Because His Human nature was united unconfusedly, immutably, indivisibly, inseparably with His Divine nature. According to St. Gregory Palamas, Christ received Adam's human nature before the fall. Yet, He accepted the consequences of the fall, in order to restore mankind to the previous stage. Since Christ accepted a t w i l l the consequences of the Fall & yet not the d a r k n e s s of the human image, He could not have sinned.

[Servus Iesu]

Exactly... thank you.