Inherited Guilt

[Lucretius]

Why is it that Orthodox Christians think that, by inherented guilt, we Catholics necessarily mean that we are culpable or at fault for the original sin? Is it because CTrent was translated into English incorrectly, or that the English word guilt had a broader meaning in the past? The Latin doesn’t really read as saying we are personally culpable (although it doesn’t toss out that interpretation either), but rather just that we inherit the consequences of our First Parents’ actions.

Furthermore, why is it that Orthodox tend to continue to attack this error even though they have been corrected, and that the current catechism clearly specifies the correct teaching.

I’m just shocked on how often Orthodox make this mistake. Are Catholics being really unclear with out theology?

Christi pax,

Lucretius

 

[Wesrock]

This is a point that’s been on my mind, as well. My searching has brought up Jesus’ nature as the most important issue. Did he inherit original sin? The Catholic position is that he was conceived immaculate (as we say of Mary). He did not inherit original sin, even for the briefest moment. He did not inherit the disorder of the intellect, will, and passions we suffer from.

The strongest Orthodox objection, so far as I’ve found it, is that Christ then had our pre-Fall nature and not our post-Fall nature. If his nature differed from ours in this, how could our nature be redeemed? Mustn’t Christ have shared in this in order to lift us up? Shared our struggles and burdens in this matter to fully understand us? And I don’t find the objection entirely unreasonable either (though I don’t go so far as to say it is correct).

I am still searching. I believe the answer must be that the Orthodox have created a false dichotomy between pre and post Fall, as if they were two different natures. They are not. They are the same nature, only manifested differently. I am still working this out myself, so any insight into the matter would be helpful.

I hope my post adds to the discussion and doesn’t set it on an alternate path, though.

 

[Iron_Donkey]

If I were to make a guess: there is a tendency in these sorts of debates for one side to say “well they say they think this, but that is unintellible [read: we don’t understand], so they must really think this other thing that we do understand, which is wrong.”

You can find this when people accuse Catholics of worshiping Mary or saints, or of saying we work our way into heaven by our own merits, or that… The list goes on. I’m sure some Catholics are guilty of similar things towards other faiths. Not much you can do except keep saying “yes that would be wrong, but it’s not what we believe. Rather: …”.

 

[Iron_Donkey]

This is a point that’s been on my mind, as well. My searching has brought up Jesus’ nature as the most important issue. Did he inherit original sin? The Catholic position is that he was conceived immaculate (as we say of Mary). He did not inherit original sin, even for the briefest moment. He did not inherit the disorder of the intellect, will, and passions we suffer from.

The strongest Orthodox objection, so far as I’ve found it, is that Christ then had our pre-Fall nature and not our post-Fall nature. If his nature differed from ours in this, how could our nature be redeemed? Mustn’t Christ have shared in this in order to lift us up? Shared our struggles and burdens in this matter to fully understand us? And I don’t find the objection entirely unreasonable either (though I don’t go so far as to say it is correct).

I am still searching. I believe the answer must be that the Orthodox have created a false dichotomy between pre and post Fall, as if they were two different natures. They are not. They are the same nature, only manifested differently. I am still working this out myself, so any insight into the matter would be helpful.

I hope my post adds to the discussion and doesn’t set it on an alternate path, though.

I am certainly no expert on either what the Orthodox say, or on this subject at all, but I would tend to agree that saying that there is (or that there would be as a consequence of Catholic teaching) a pre- and post-fall nature is incorrect. We are humans, and we are damaged by consequence of the fall, but “damaged humans” and “humans” are not two different natures.

 

[Wesrock]

I am certainly no expert on either what the Orthodox say, or on this subject at all, but I would tend to agree that saying that there is (or that there would be as a consequence of Catholic teaching) a pre- and post-fall nature is incorrect. We are humans, and we are damaged by consequence of the fall, but “damaged humans” and “humans” are not two different natures.

Thanks. I may be putting words in the Orthodox mouths, so to speak, too. So I guess we’ll see.

 

[Lucretius]

This is a point that’s been on my mind, as well. My searching has brought up Jesus’ nature as the most important issue. Did he inherit original sin? The Catholic position is that he was conceived immaculate (as we say of Mary). He did not inherit original sin, even for the briefest moment. He did not inherit the disorder of the intellect, will, and passions we suffer from.

The strongest Orthodox objection, so far as I’ve found it, is that Christ then had our pre-Fall nature and not our post-Fall nature. If his nature differed from ours in this, how could our nature be redeemed? Mustn’t Christ have shared in this in order to lift us up? Shared our struggles and burdens in this matter to fully understand us? And I don’t find the objection entirely unreasonable either (though I don’t go so far as to say it is correct).

I am still searching. I believe the answer must be that the Orthodox have created a false dichotomy between pre and post Fall, as if they were two different natures. They are not. They are the same nature, only manifested differently. I am still working this out myself, so any insight into the matter would be helpful.

I hope my post adds to the discussion and doesn’t set it on an alternate path, though.

I think each side disagrees on what exactly is human nature.

The Latin Catholic view teaches that immortality and ordered and controlled passions are not part of human nature, but a gift given to us (dubed Original Grace). After the Fall, we lost this Grace, and so we were subject to death and the wildness of passions, which is naturally a part of human nature. This is actually basically St. Athanasius’ teaching stated in Aristotlean langauge.

Think of it this way: we were made for a supernatural end (partaking in Divinity), and through such we transend the weaknesses in our nature.

You can basically read the Latin understand here: google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://www.copticchurch.net/topics/theology/incarnation_st_athanasius.pdf&ved=0ahUKEwiw7Lq446zMAhWLND4KHdeLBvAQFghhMAs&usg=AFQjCNFOa2em-qzqySTQXUkdguPebysevQ&sig2=0zrm373f1cpGPqFyJzGH8A

Christi pax,

Lucretius

 

[twf]

Yes, it is frustrating to hear from some Orthodox (though not all) again and again that Catholicism teaches that we inherit personal guilt from Adam’s sin. The Catechism, available for all to read, clearly states that this is false. “The stain of original sin” is primarily the absence of something, not something itself: namely, the absence of sanctifying grace (the divine life of the Trinity). At baptism we “put on Christ” and come to participate in the divine life of the Trinity (sanctifying grace) and thus the “stain” is washed away.

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.

 

[Wesrock]

Just wanted to hop in and say my characterization of the Orthodox issue is not entirely correct. I have seen it spoken of this way, but it seems to be something debated in Orthodox circles, too, and the way I stated it may only be a minority opinion.

I understand it was a related but side, point, though. I wanted to be sure I didn’t hijack the topic with a mischaracterization of the other side’s arguments.

As to why Orthodox sometimes mischaracterize the Catholic argument today, I do think that is, in part, Catholic fault, at least historically. It’s my understanding that we are much more careful in speaking of it than we used to be prior to Vatican II (or perhaps a little earlier).

 

[Lucretius]

Just wanted to hop in and say my characterization of the Orthodox issue is not entirely correct. I have seen it spoken of this way, but it seems to be something debated in Orthodox circles, too, and the way I stated it may only be a minority opinion.

I understand it was a related but side, point, though. I wanted to be sure I didn’t hijack the topic with a mischaracterization of the other side’s arguments.

As to why Orthodox sometimes mischaracterize the Catholic argument today, I do think that is, in part, Catholic fault, at least historically. It’s my understanding that we are much more careful in speaking of it than we used to be prior to Vatican II (or perhaps a little earlier).

I’m not sure if the Magisterium has actually ruled it out though. It might be able to be held as a opinion (like I hold that St. John the Baptist never sinned).

I haven’t read too much St. Augustine, but does he even teach inherited guilt?

cough cough Amy Orthodox wish to comment? cough

Christi pax,

Lucretius

 

[HelenRose]

I think that original sin can be summed up in the expression, “It is human nature.”

It is human nature to want something that someone else has.
It is human nature to become angry when one gets hurt.
It is human nature to think of oneself first.
It is human nature to act before one thinks.
It is human nature to want to escape the consequences of one’s actions.

We inherited the fallen human nature of Adam and Eve.

It isn’t a punishment. It is simply human nature.

I don’t understand why or how Baptism changes that but until - God willing - I have a chance to ask Him, I will trust in His promises.

 

[Vico]

Why is it that Orthodox Christians think that, by inherented guilt, we Catholics necessarily mean that we are culpable or at fault for the original sin? Is it because CTrent was translated into English incorrectly, or that the English word guilt had a broader meaning in the past? The Latin doesn’t really read as saying we are personally culpable (although it doesn’t toss out that interpretation either), but rather just that we inherit the consequences of our First Parents’ actions.

Furthermore, why is it that Orthodox tend to continue to attack this error even though they have been corrected, and that the current catechism clearly specifies the correct teaching.

I’m just shocked on how often Orthodox make this mistake. Are Catholics being really unclear with out theology?

Christi pax,

Lucretius

Two phrases translate as guilt from Latin:

• reatus poena - means liability to punishment without personal fault
• reatus culpae - means personal fault

And reatus poena is what we receive from Adam and Eve.

 

[Augustine]

And reatus poena is what we receive from Adam and Eve.

Of course, according to Latin theology, for Eastern (Catholic or otherwise) theology there is neither poena nor culpa to be inherited, just death.

“Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned.”

Same truths, different understandings.

 

[Lucretius]

Of course, according to Latin theology, for Eastern (Catholic or otherwise) theology there is neither poena nor culpa to be inherited, just death. Same truths, different understandings.

Then from that point of view, the poena reatus would be death.

I know St. Gregory Palamas distinguishes “somewhere” between physical death and spiritual death, and arguing that the Fall directly caused spiritual death (lack of Grace), and because the relationship between God and the soul of man was ruined by sin, so also was the relationship between the soul of man and the body of man, as the Image and likeness of God is the Holy Integrated Trinity, and although man never loses the Image, he loses the likeness, and so the integration of all parts of himself, including that of his soul and body, which results in physical death.

When a son of God ruins his relationship between his Father in Heaven, he ruined his relationships within each part of himself and between him and his fellow man.

Or at least this is how I’m reading him I’m basing this off a book of homilies and other writings by him, which I don’t possess anymore. Just curious: does anyone have online sources?

The more I read St. Gregory’s anthropology, the more I realize just how similar it is to St. Thomas’

Christi pax,

Lucretius

 

[Vico]

Of course, according to Latin theology, for Eastern (Catholic or otherwise) theology there is neither poena nor culpa to be inherited, just death. Same truths, different understandings.

Per Homily 31 of St. Gregory Palamas, there is no temporal punishment that remains. The eastern Catholic churches accept the dogmas of purgatory and the value indulgences however, unlike the Orthodox, even though it is not necessarily in their oldest traditions.

 

[Augustine]

Then from that point of view, the poena reatus would be death…

The temptation to read one school of thought into another is quite dangerous, even when the subject of both is the same. Words and ideas may seem congruent, but it’d be a mistake to interpret this in a scholastic way, for they do not exist outside of the spirituality and practice that inspired them. If anything, this is perhaps where Eastern and Western Theologies diverge, for the former theology is subjected to practice and finds its source in it, while for the latter it’s the other way around, roughly speaking.

 

[Rohzek]

I’m not sure if the Magisterium has actually ruled it out though. It might be able to be held as a opinion (like I hold that St. John the Baptist never sinned).

I haven’t read too much St. Augustine, but does he even teach inherited guilt?

cough cough Amy Orthodox wish to comment? cough

Christi pax,

Lucretius

Sure, I’ll comment. Augustine did in fact teach inherited guilt. It is important to understand where Augustine was coming from. He believed that the Fall damaged human nature so much, that it literally deprived human beings of free will. In other words, they can no longer help but choose to do evil. And because they choose to do evil, God damns them by the merits of their own sins. Free will is restored by an act of grace which also predestines one to salvation. Although the predestined one might still continue to sin, they have begun upon a process of theosis of sorts by which they continue to exercise their restored free will in order to acquire more grace. As for infants themselves who die before baptism, Augustine believed that even the stain of Original Sin constituted a personal guilt. See chapter 21 of this following work of his: newadvent.org/fathers/15011.htm In the next chapter, Augustine makes the distinction that infants have yet the time to do evil, so it would be wrong to attribute their damnation, however light, to a personal sin that they willingly chose. However, they are still damned. This seems to match up with Augustine’s maxim that the wicked and reprobate are punished by God justly in according to the merits of their evil deeds. In other words, a murderer is punished far more harshly than let’s say a thief, perpetual liar, etc. The same principle applies to an infant, according to Augustine.

Orthodox have historically been cautious of the Latin phrasing of Original Sin because they vehemently oppose Augustine’s predestinarianism, understanding of inherited guilt, and that Augustine does not hold a synergetic view of grace. The Orthodox position is that of St. John Cassian’s, but seeing as how many Latin theologians have openly accused Cassian of heresy in the centuries past, this once again gives us concern. Now it is clear that the present-day Catholic Church is very clear on this issue, as its catechism reveals. However, we are still cautious if only because of the mixed historical record of Catholic theologians on this specific issue.

 

[dvdjs]

However, we are still cautious if only because of the mixed historical record of Catholic theologians on this specific issue

Good grief. I suppose, then, that Catholics should be suspicious of Orthodox on Christology, pneumatology, icons, …

 

[Vico]

Why is it that Orthodox Christians think that, by inherented guilt, we Catholics necessarily mean that we are culpable or at fault for the original sin? Is it because CTrent was translated into English incorrectly, or that the English word guilt had a broader meaning in the past? The Latin doesn’t really read as saying we are personally culpable (although it doesn’t toss out that interpretation either), but rather just that we inherit the consequences of our First Parents’ actions.

Furthermore, why is it that Orthodox tend to continue to attack this error even though they have been corrected, and that the current catechism clearly specifies the correct teaching.

I’m just shocked on how often Orthodox make this mistake. Are Catholics being really unclear with out theology?

Christi pax,

Lucretius

Concupiscence is the result of the personal sins of Adam and Eve.

St. Cyril of Alexandria:

What has Adam’s guilt to do with us? Why are we held responsible for his sin when we were not even born when he committed it? Did not God say : “The parents will not die for the children, nor the children for parents, but the soul which had sinned, it shall die.” How then shall we defend this doctrine? The soul, I say, which had sinned, it shall die. We have become sinners because of Adam’s disobedience in the following manner… After he fell into sin and surrendered to corruption, impure lusts invaded the nature of his flesh, and at the same time the evil law of our members was born. For our nature contracted the disease of sin because of the disobedience of one man, that is Adam, and thus many became sinners. This was not because they sinned along with Adam, because they did not then exist, but because they had the same nature as Adam, which fell under the law of sin. Thus, just as human nature acquired the weakness of corruption in Adam because of disobedience, and evil desires invaded it, so the same nature was later set free by Christ, who was obedient to God the Father and did not commit sin.

– Saint Cyril of Alexandria: Explanation of the Letter to the Romans:
Migne PG 74, col 788-89 in: Romans By Gerald Lewis Bray, Thomas C. Oden
pp 142-143

canon15.nicaea.ca/index.php/14-a-discussion-with-h-e-metropolitan-bishoy/52-fr-athanasius-on-original-sin

Catechism shows the same, that we are inclined to evil as the result of the personal sin of Adam and Eve.

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.

406 The Church’s teaching on the transmission of original sin was articulated more precisely in the fifth century, especially under the impulse of St. Augustine’s reflections against Pelagianism, and in the sixteenth century, in opposition to the Protestant Reformation. Pelagius held that man could, by the natural power of free will and without the necessary help of God’s grace, lead a morally good life; he thus reduced the influence of Adam’s fault to bad example. The first Protestant reformers, on the contrary, taught that original sin has radically perverted man and destroyed his freedom; they identified the sin inherited by each man with the tendency to evil (concupiscentia), which would be insurmountable. The Church pronounced on the meaning of the data of Revelation on original sin especially at the second Council of Orange (529)296 and at the Council of Trent (1546).2