For ORTHODOX: Why is IC heresy?

[mardukm]

Marduk,

If a non-descript church introduced a doctrine that had neither merit in Scripture or tradition, what would people potentially call it? I am speaking in hypotheticals.

It would be called a heresy if it can be proven to actually oppose the Faith. Anything seemingly novel cannot be rejected by its mere novelty. Homousious was a novelty, yet it was judged not to be heretical. The Church is called to judge whether it actually opposes Sacred Tradition.

What does the doctrine of Original Sin say, then?

It says that our first parents sinned. From this we inhereted spiritual death (natural separation from God) and physical death (natural corruption). This is exactly what the Latins teach, This is exactly what the Catholic Church teaches. This is exactly what ALL the apostolic Churches teach. Further, all apostolic Churches teach that we inherited a propensity to sin. Latins call it concupiscence. Latins say it is a result of spiritual and physical corruption. Easterns say it is primarily the result of our fear of death. Orientals accept both explanations.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Roamin_Xian]

Also, if some ECFs identified Mary as the “New Eve,” then it should be pointed out that Eve sinned. I think the more rational notion for this description is that Mary gave her absolute obedience to God’s will, as did Eve?

 

[mardukm]

Also, if some ECFs identified Mary as the “New Eve,” then it should be pointed out that Eve sinned. I think the more rational notion for this description is that Mary gave her absolute obedience to God’s will, as did Eve?

The comparison with Eve rests in BOTH the similarity in the fact that Eve and Mary were both created immaculate, AND the distinction that while Eve chose to sin, Mary chose to obey.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Roamin_Xian]

The comparison with Eve rests in BOTH the similarity in the fact that Eve and Mary were both created immaculate, AND the distinction that while Eve chose to sin, Mary chose to obey.

Blessings,
Marduk

So they chose to call Mary the “New Eve” by pointing out a stark distinction? (Sin vs. Obey)

 

[mardukm]

So they chose to call Mary the “New Eve” by pointing out a stark distinction? (Sin vs. Obey)

Yes.

 

[Madaglan]

Thank you so much, brother Madaglan.

If I read that link correctly, it assumed that the Latin Catholic doctrine of Original Sin teaches that man inherited Adam’s guilt. But that is NOT what the Latin Catholic doctrine teaches. Rather, that is the Latin PROTESTANT understanding of original sin.

Barring that, it does not seem there is anything that would merit assignation of the dogma of the IC as “heresy?” What do you think?

Blessings,
Marduk

Mardukm,

St. Thomas Aquinas (and I’m pretty sure St. Augustine as well) teaches that we inherit the guilt of Original Sin from our first parents.

I believe Pope John Paul II said that we do not inherit the personal guilt of their sin.

 

[Roamin_Xian]

Yes.

You see, that doesn’t quite add up in my mind. Look here:

1. Eve sinned, disobeying God’s command
2. Mary obeyed, acknowledging God’s command for her to birth His son.
3. Therefore, Mary is the New Eve, because they did very different things/

Perhaps I missed something?

 

[Madaglan]

It would be called a heresy if it can be proven to actually oppose the Faith. Anything seemingly novel cannot be rejected by its mere novelty. Homousious was a novelty, yet it was judged not to be heretical. The Church is called to judge whether it actually opposes Sacred Tradition.

It says that our first parents sinned. From this we inhereted spiritual death (natural separation from God) and physical death (natural corruption). This is exactly what the Latins teach, This is exactly what the Catholic Church teaches. This is exactly what ALL the apostolic Churches teach. Further, all apostolic Churches teach that we inherited a propensity to sin. Latins call it concupiscence. Latins say it is a result of spiritual and physical corruption. Easterns say it is primarily the result of our fear of death. Orientals accept both explanations.

Blessings,
Marduk

The interesting thing is that homoousios was rejected by an earlier Council against Paul of Samosata, who used that term.

 

[mardukm]

Mardukm,

St. Thomas Aquinas (and I’m pretty sure St. Augustine as well) teaches that we inherit the guilt of Original Sin from our first parents.

GUILT is the moral obligation to make up for the lack of holiness that God demands.

Would you agree with that definition?

Assuming you agree, would you say that each of us has inherited a moral obligation to make up for the lack of holiness that God demands?

I believe Pope John Paul II said that we do not inherit the personal guilt of their sin.

That is correct. It has been the CONSTANT and IMMEMORIAL teaching of the Catholic Church that ANY guilt ONLY extends to one’s own person. I do not see how the Orthodox can take a statement like “We have inherited guilt from Adam” and, given what else the Catholic Church has CONSTANTLY taught about guilt, conclude that we have inherited the PERSONAL guilt of ADAM’S own disobedience.

Given this, I ask again, what exactly is it about the dogma of the IC that is opposed to the Faith of the early Fathers?

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

You see, that doesn’t quite add up in my mind. Look here:

1. Eve sinned, disobeying God’s command
2. Mary obeyed, acknowledging God’s command for her to birth His son.
3. Therefore, Mary is the New Eve, because they did very different things/

Perhaps I missed something?

Yes, it seems you disregarded the part in my explanation that stated that the comparison with Eve extends to the fact that BOTH Mary and Eve were both made in an immaculate state, i.e., free of original sin. They were both intended to be the first womenn. Eve, made immaculate, was the first woman of the Creation. Mary, made immaculate, was the first woman of the NEW Creation.

Recall the prophecies from Scripture (I can’t p(name removed by moderator)oint their exact location right now):

1. Who has ever heard of a woman giving birth before she was in travail?
2. Behold I show you a new thing, a woman encompasses a man.

These are confusing passages, but I believe they refer to Mary. The first verse indicates that the woman giving birth did not have original sin because the pangs of childbirth was specifically one of the penalties that women would inherit because of original sin.

The second verse indicates the New Eve. Whereas in the first Creation, the first woman came from man, in the New Creation, the first man comes from woman.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Roamin_Xian]

I think that if I understand the debate, Orthodox believe in Ancestral Sin, while Roman Catholics adhere to the notion of Original Sin (in this case, inherited). The guilt in Roman Catholic view, I gather, is passed down from Adam and Eve to each and every person in every generation. From what I read in other quarteres, the Orthodox treat it as a “condition,” a “disease”. Basically, Adam and Eve’s disobedience in the Garden imbued a “parasite of sin” into each human, and it is each individual’s responsibility to react positively to God by following his commandments or fall into sin.

 

[Roamin_Xian]

Yes, it seems you disregarded the part in my explanation that stated that the comparison with Eve extends to the fact that BOTH Mary and Eve were both made in an immaculate state, i.e., free of original sin. They were both intended to be the first womenn. Eve, made immaculate, was the first woman of the Creation. Mary, made immaculate, was the first woman of the NEW Creation.

No, I saw it, and in that instance, yes, they are similar due to the notion of both being Immaculate. However, people can’t ignore the other major portion of the story, in which Eve disobeyed God. It just seems like an extremely double-edged sword, to be avoided.
Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

No, I saw it, and in that instance, yes, they are similar due to the notion of both being Immaculate. However, people can’t ignore the other major portion of the story, in which Eve disobeyed God. It just seems like an extremely double-edged sword, to be avoided.

I don’t understand the double-edged sword. Mary indeed, despite being immaculate, actually used her free will to obey God, while Eve, despite being immaculate, used her free will to DISobey God. It refutes the Orthodox objection that the dogma of the IC deprives Mary of her free will.

In any case, even that notion of depriving Mary of her free will is not enough to adjudge the dogma of the IC as “heretical,” is it?

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

I think that if I understand the debate, Orthodox believe in Ancestral Sin, while Roman Catholics adhere to the notion of Original Sin (in this case, inherited). The guilt in Roman Catholic view, I gather, is passed down from Adam and Eve to each and every person in every generation. From what I read in other quarteres, the Orthodox treat it as a “condition,” a “disease”. Basically, Adam and Eve’s disobedience in the Garden imbued a “parasite of sin” into each human, and it is each individual’s responsibility to react positively to God by following his commandments or fall into sin.

I believe I responded to this in post#29. Do you have any comments on my post#29?

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Roamin_Xian]

I don’t understand the double-edged sword. Mary indeed, despite being immaculate, actually used her free will to obey God, while Eve, despite being immaculate, used her free will to DISobey God. It refutes the Orthodox objection that the dogma of the IC deprives Mary of her free will.

In any case, even that notion of depriving Mary of her free will is not enough to adjudge the dogma of the IC as “heretical,” is it?

Blessings,
Marduk

I should point out that I am at the learning stage of apologetics and matters relating to doctrine and the (dis)agreements thereof. I take in all these arguments, and strive to read up on the sources of the matter. I doubt I’ll ever attend divinity school, but I obviously think if one is to adhere to the Church, they should be aware of her beliefs.

As I understand it, when you “compare” people, usually it is based on similarities. Eve disobeyed (sinned); Mary obeyed (didn’t sin)? What’s the point over arguing about “New Eve?” God isn’t sending you to hell over it. Really, the disagreement is mere nothing compared to more important matters.

 

[mardukm]

As I understand it, when you “compare” people, usually it is based on similarities. Eve disobeyed (sinned); Mary obeyed (didn’t sin)?

Yes, I believe their comparison is based on their similarity of both being made by God immaculate.

What’s the point over arguing about “New Eve?” God isn’t sending you to hell over it. Really, the disagreement is mere nothing compared to more important matters.

That would be my point too, brother. I guess you are happily not one of those who think the dogma of the IC is “heresy” and enough to be a basis for separation?

Blessings,
Marduk

P.S. To all readers, my original question still stands - what is it about the dogma of the IC that is “heretical?”

 

[Roamin_Xian]

P.S. To all readers, my original question still stands - what is it about the dogma of the IC that is “heretical?”

I guess you’ll need EOs to answer that one.

 

[Roamin_Xian]

Excellent article- stmaryorthodoxchurch.org/orthodoxy/articles/2004-hughes-sin.php

Ancestral Versus Original Sin:
An Overview with Implications for Psychotherapy

by V. Rev. Antony Hughes, M.Div
St. Mary Antiochian Orthodox Church, Cambridge, Massachusetts
Abstract[1]

The differences between the doctrine of Ancestral Sin—as understood in the church of the first two centuries and the present-day Orthodox Church—and the doctrine of Original Sin—developed by Augustine and his heirs in the Western Christian traditions—is explored. The impact of these two formulations on pastoral practice is investigated. It is suggested that the doctrine of ancestral sin naturally leads to a focus on human death and Divine compassion as the inheritance from Adam, while the doctrine of original sin shifts the center of attention to human guilt and Divine wrath. It is further posited that the approach of the ancient church points to a more therapeutic than juridical approach to pastoral care and counseling.

 

[Madaglan]

GUILT is the moral obligation to make up for the lack of holiness that God demands.

Would you agree with that definition?

Assuming you agree, would you say that each of us has inherited a moral obligation to make up for the lack of holiness that God demands?

That is correct. It has been the CONSTANT and IMMEMORIAL teaching of the Catholic Church that ANY guilt ONLY extends to one’s own person. I do not see how the Orthodox can take a statement like “We have inherited guilt from Adam” and, given what else the Catholic Church has CONSTANTLY taught about guilt, conclude that we have inherited the PERSONAL guilt of ADAM’S own disobedience.

Given this, I ask again, what exactly is it about the dogma of the IC that is opposed to the Faith of the early Fathers?

Blessings,
Marduk

If we do not inherit the PERSONAL guilt of Adam for Original Sin, whose guilt for what sin do we inherit?
…The guilt of concupiscence?

I don’t see how strictly limiting guilt to one’s person (extending it to no other) and then passing it on through the generations through inheritance works out.

Something does not feel right about your definition of guilt. If guilt were the moral obligation to make up for the lack of holiness that God demands, then what to make of those Catholic teachings on baptism in which guilt is removed, remitted? Is the moral obligation removed, remitted?

 

[mardukm]

Excellent article- stmaryorthodoxchurch.org/orthodoxy/articles/2004-hughes-sin.php

That is indeed an excellent article. The HUUUUUUGE problem with it is that it does not properly distinguish between the Catholic understanding of St. Augustine and the Protestant understanding of St. Augustine. What the author is comparing in his work is actually the Eastern Orthodox understanding versus the PROTESTANT understanding of St. Augustine. Unfortunately, the author was not wise enough to make the distinction between Catholic and Protestant interpretations of Augustine, and not prescient enough to see how his work would be a stumbling block to unity thereby. Easterns THINK they will be rejecting the Catholic understanding of Augustine and reject the Catholic Church, but in fact, they have only been apprised of the PROTESTANT understanding of Augustine through the article. Brother Xian, I pray the Holy Spirit gives you the wisdom to make the distinction.

Blessings,
Marduk