Eastern Orthodox Criticism of Catholicism?

[Bluegoat]

No, you didn’t say that the orthodox don’t require baptism of babies (at least not directly, any way) but you did explain that the western belief that a stain exists which must be wiped is the reason they (the west) have- or require babies to be baptized- Thereby implying that the orthodox who don’t believe in this stain-being-wiped deal do not- At least that was my understanding, forgive me if I’m wrong.

Now the Stain being wiped business- Sorry, I don’t buy it as the Catholic Church’s understanding of original sin. The term “stain” is used to differentiate between the physical consequences of the fall (bodily death, physical suffering etc) and the *spiritual *consequences (the tendency to evil is a characteristic of man’s soul, not his body). What the Church is saying is that baptism does not take away the physical consequences of the fall, after all, we do still die, get sick and suffer all kinds of problems.

Baptism is aimed at the spiritual renewal of the man, where a new man (the church calls it a spiritual organism) is born, possessing gifts of the Holy Spirit, making it possible for him to commune with the Blessed Trinity now living in his soul after baptism.
This new life, just like the natural life of a man, requires sustenance, or else will starve to death- It must be fed and strengthened through the sacraments, prayer and asceticism. This life too, just like the natural life of a man, can be killed- through deliberate, unrepentant, persistent “turning away” from God (sin). Now as this “new man” grows, there will a war between him and the fallen man- hence mortification (or asceticism). But if the christian persists in the ways of his lord and the sacraments and certainly constant prayer and submission of his will, the new life will overtake his whole soul and life- He will become what we call a saint.

The physical renewal will happen at the resurrection where we will be given “new bodies” as such- or our bodies will be perfectly made new and we will resemble Christ at the resurrection. For “the incorruptible saints”, it seems this renewal of the bodies has already began in a slight way (My thinking).

Don’t buy it if you don’t want to, but you are incorrect. Try reading Augustine on baptism and original sin - that is where much of the Western Church’s teaching on those subjects came from for a long time. These days, the teaching has been softened up considerably, but one of the main purposes of baptism is to remove the stain of original sin.

 

[Marybeloved]

Don’t buy it if you don’t want to, but you are incorrect. Try reading Augustine on baptism and original sin - that is where much of the Western Church’s teaching on those subjects came from for a long time. These days, the teaching has been softened up considerably, but one of the main purposes of baptism is to remove the stain of original sin.

I’m not at all objecting to what you’ve stated here-(bold parts). The language here is quite appropriate. What I was “not buying” is the meaning that I thought you were giving to the word “stain”(perhaps I assumed incorrectly, if I did, pardon me). The stain is not like a blotch of ink on white linen that needs to be wiped off. I meant to say that the “stain” of original sin refers to the “effects” of Adam’s sin on the souI, which are indeed removed at baptism. I understood you as saying that this “stain” operates much like personal sin- It does not. It means that the very character/nature of a man is fallen, he shares in Adam’s sin by the unity of men, inheriting the evil effects of his sin in his own nature- That’s what I called the “old man”. This man has no power to commune with God by virtue of his fallen nature, but at baptism, he’s spiritually reborn and given this power and eternal life.

 

[Marybeloved]

I’m not at all objecting to what you’ve stated here-(bold parts). The language here is quite appropriate. What I was “not buying” is the meaning that I thought you were giving to the word “stain”(perhaps I assumed incorrectly, if I did, pardon me). The stain is not like a blotch of ink on white linen that needs to be wiped off. I meant to say that the “stain” of original sin refers to the “effects” of Adam’s sin on the souI, which are indeed removed at baptism. I understood you as saying that this “stain” operates much like personal sin- It does not. It means that the very character/nature of a man is fallen, he shares in Adam’s sin by the unity of men, inheriting the evil effects of his sin in his own nature- That’s what I called the “old man”. This man has no power to commune with God by virtue of his fallen nature, but at baptism, he’s spiritually reborn and given this power and eternal life.

Just to explain myself further I’ve borrowed this quotes from the catholic encyclopedia page on original sin on the New Advent site:
newadvent.org/cathen/11312a.htm#VI

"We may add an argument based on the principle of St. Augustine already cited, “the deliberate sin of the first man is the cause of original sin”. This principle is developed by St. Anselm: “the sin of Adam was one thing but the sin of children at their birth is quite another, the former was the cause, the latter is the effect” (De conceptu virginali, xxvi). In a child original sin is distinct from the fault of Adam, it is one of its effects." Now, please note that st. Anelm is from the early 12th Century- The understanding was already quite clear as to the meaning of original sin. The article then goes to explain the effects thus: "But which of these effects is it? We shall examine the several effects of Adam’s fault and reject those which cannot be original sin: (1) Death and Suffering.- These are purely physical evils and cannot be called sin. Moreover St. Paul, and after him the councils, regarded death and original sin as two distinct things transmitted by Adam. (2) Concupiscence.- This rebellion of the lower appetite transmitted to us by Adam is an occasion of sin and in that sense comes nearer to moral evil. However, the occasion of a fault is not necessarily a fault, and whilst original sin is effaced by baptism concupiscence still remains in the person baptized; therefore original sin and concupiscence cannot be one and the same thing, as was held by the early Protestants (see Council of Trent, Sess. V, can. v). ****(3) The absence of sanctifying grace in the new-born child is also an effect of the first sin, for Adam, having received holiness and justice from God, lost it not only for himself but also for us (loc. cit., can. ii). If he has lost it for us we were to have received it from him at our birth with the other prerogatives of our race. Therefore the absence of sanctifying grace in a child is a real privation, it is the want of something that should have been in him according to the Divine plan. If this favour is not merely something physical but is something in the moral order, if it is holiness, its privation may be called a sin. But sanctifying grace is holiness and is so called by the Council of Trent, because holiness consists in union with God, and grace unites us intimately with God. Moral goodness consists in this, that our action is according to the moral law, but grace is a deification, as the Fathers say, a perfect conformity with God who is the first rule of all morality. (See GRACE.) Sanctifying grace therefore enters into the moral order, not as an act that passes but as a permanent tendency which exists even when the subject who possesses it does not act; it is a turning towards God, conversio ad Deum. Consequently the privation of this grace, even without any other act, would be a stain, a moral deformity, a turning away from God, aversio a Deo, and this character is not found in any other effect of the fault of Adam. This privation, therefore, is the hereditary stain. This is what I meant to explain before.

Now compare this to this excerpt on Baptism, from the web site of St. John the Baptist Orthodox Cathedral (ROCOR) in Washington, DC
stjohndc.org/Russian/orthhtrdx/e_P12.htm

"But, after all, Scripture clearly teaches, according to the word of the Apostle Paul, that in Adam all have sinned (Romans 5:12). Consequently, even children, not having personal sins, are all the same not free from original sin, from the legacy of Adam, and in order to be delivered from this legacy, they must be united with Christ; and this union, as we have already said, is accomplished in the sacrament of Holy Baptism. “For behold, I was conceived in iniquities, and in sins did my mother bear me,” exclaims King David with sorrow in the Fiftieth Psalm. In order to cleanse a child from original sin, in order to sanctify it and by this very means bring it into the Kingdom of Heaven, whither, as it says in the book of the Apocalypse (Revelation 21:27), “no unclean thing will enter,” now already for two thousand years children have been brought through this cleansing in the sacrament of Holy Baptism. People that deny children the sacrament of Baptism subject them to danger, for if children die before baptism, not having been born of water and the Spirit (John 3:5), how will they be able to inherit life eternal? Of course, we believe in God’s mercy, and also in the fact that Christ said that what is impossible for men is possible for God; but why tempt the Lord?" I’d say this is pretty close to the Catholic understanding.

PS-I apologize for the mountains of data- I just got tired of having to explain things over and over again.

 

[Bluegoat]

I’m not at all objecting to what you’ve stated here-(bold parts). The language here is quite appropriate. What I was “not buying” is the meaning that I thought you were giving to the word “stain”(perhaps I assumed incorrectly, if I did, pardon me). The stain is not like a blotch of ink on white linen that needs to be wiped off. I meant to say that the “stain” of original sin refers to the “effects” of Adam’s sin on the souI, which are indeed removed at baptism. I understood you as saying that this “stain” operates much like personal sin- It does not. It means that the very character/nature of a man is fallen, he shares in Adam’s sin by the unity of men, inheriting the evil effects of his sin in his own nature- That’s what I called the “old man”. This man has no power to commune with God by virtue of his fallen nature, but at baptism, he’s spiritually reborn and given this power and eternal life.

No, actually the effects are not wiped away according to Catholic theology, or any Christian theology I know of. If they were, then none of us would suffer the effects of the fall after we were baptized, such as concupiscence, or the inability to discern God’s will.

And yes, in Catholic theology the stain does operate in a very similar way to personal sin, in that it may keep you out of Heaven if it is not removed. If it does that, it is hard to see the difference between it and personal sin as far as the effects go.

The idea that men have no power to commune with God before baptism is interesting, but seems unlikely. If it were true, how would one ever decide to become baptized? Do you really think all the unbaptized are unable to commune with God - the Old Testament, and even the New, seem to suggest that is not so - not to mention personal experience - do you actually believe that all the non-baptized people you meet can’t and don’t commune with God?

 

[Marybeloved]

No, actually the effects are not wiped away according to Catholic theology, or any Christian theology I know of. If they were, then none of us would suffer the effects of the fall after we were baptized, such as concupiscence, or the inability to discern God’s will.

And yes, in Catholic theology the stain does operate in a very similar way to personal sin, in that it may keep you out of Heaven if it is not removed. If it does that, it is hard to see the difference between it and personal sin as far as the effects go.

The idea that men have no power to commune with God before baptism is interesting, but seems unlikely. If it were true, how would one ever decide to become baptized? Do you really think all the unbaptized are unable to commune with God - the Old Testament, and even the New, seem to suggest that is not so - not to mention personal experience - do you actually believe that all the non-baptized people you meet can’t and don’t commune with God?

Of course what we are talking about here is not a natural communing in the sense of being able to know that there is a God and developing some relationship through the natural means available to the natural man- a type of “natural religion” and a very limited one in the christian sense- But if you’ve read anything about the lives of the saints, particularly the writings of the mystics, you know that the life being born in the soul at baptism and the “communing” or union of a Christian in the state of grace with The Blessed Trinity (Having the very life of the Blessed Trinity subsisting in his own soul!) is something of a radically different character and a whole other scale- It’s supernatural (of God himself). That’s why the scriptures differentiate between servants of God and children of God- That’s why it’s called deification. Christians get to participate in something that is really “not there’s to participate in.”- We are joined to Christ who is at the same time God- Who shares in the life and love of God himself- You understand? The love with which God himself loves, his own happiness- not our own perfect happiness, not our own perfected love, but God’s own love is born in our soul- With what other love can we love an infinite being if not his own? Which other love is sufficient? It’s such a beautiful mystery. The saints in heaven do not enjoy the perfect happiness that Adam enjoyed in the garden before the fall- They participate in the happiness of Christ, of God! In fact there’s a hymn in the church that sings of our fall “Oh happy fault!” Meaning, we lost a perfect natural happiness in our sin, but because our redeemer was not another mere perfect man, or even an angel incarnating, but a man who was God himself- We’ve gained a supernatural happiness-God gets to laugh at Satan- By trying to destroy man’s happiness in order to spite me, you have ensured, by my own perfect designs, an infinitely better reward for him!

I think it’s a good idea for Christians, in attempting to understand the faith to go beyond the intellectual deductions of theologians and look at these truths lived and experienced in the saints- Then they’ll make so much more sense to us. So no, the natural man, without this special grace cannot acquire the fullness of life intended for him, but God can get it to him in his own way-to the innocent.

 

[Marybeloved]

@BlueGoat (Very interesting name, by the way)

The grace of God operates in the world of course, but not in the same way as it does in the soul of a Christian who is joined to our Lord- Where there’s less openness, it’s power is not felt as much as where there is- We are free, after all. When we are in the world it serves to draw us to our lord, like the samaritan woman at the well, we can say no, many in fact do, as our lord’s parables show us. But even then it’s not “in” us properly speaking as we can see our lord saying to her “If you only knew…you’d ask for a drink” When we say Yes, even more comes rushing in propelling us forward- When the new life is born in us, we say it vivifies us. Whenever we receive the sacraments it strengthens and increases this life in us, and if as st Teresa and st John would say, we place no obstacles in the way of the Spirit, this grace-which is life will completely transform us into “other christs.”

 

[Marybeloved]

**No, actually the effects are not wiped away according to Catholic theology, or any Christian theology I know of. If they were, then none of us would suffer the effects of the fall after we were baptized, such as concupiscence, or the inability to discern God’s will. **

And yes, in Catholic theology the stain does operate in a very similar way to personal sin, in that it may keep you out of Heaven if it is not removed. If it does that, it is hard to see the difference between it and personal sin as far as the effects go.

The idea that men have no power to commune with God before baptism is interesting, but seems unlikely. If it were true, how would one ever decide to become baptized? Do you really think all the unbaptized are unable to commune with God - the Old Testament, and even the New, seem to suggest that is not so - not to mention personal experience - do you actually believe that all the non-baptized people you meet can’t and don’t commune with God?

Ok, I promise this is the last post in this round- I just keep realizing there’s something I’ve missed- Sorry (lol)
Again, I think you haven’t fully understood-Read those quotations again and my previous posts- The effects of Adam’s sin to all his descendants are manifold-The quotations say that not all those effects constitute what we call “original sin” or “the stain of original sin” that is cured by baptism. It goes further to show that the Physical effects are not cured (But we all know that, don’t we?) and that the concupiscence is also not cured (The concupiscence is a type of disorder that was introduced at the fall- Before then, God ruled over man (ie without man’s rebellion) The Spiritual part of man ruled over his passions and his body, and man ruled over the material- After the fall, man no longer perfectly submits to God as the highest good, the passions no longer submit to the will and reason of man as higher, spiritual goods, and man is also controlled in many ways by the material world) This fight is not taken away by baptism, therefore, the article concludes, that’s not the effect of Adam’s sin that is cured by baptism-We are made strong to fight for sure, but the fight remains until we conquer it completely. The effect that’s cured by baptism, and therefore constitutes the hereditary stain called “sin” is a privation of grace- the loss of Adam’s friendship with God. Of course now we gain a much more intimate relationship through Christ.