N
Nine_Two
Guest
Then why does one need forgiveness of it?
- Status
U
una_fides
Guest
Hey did you catch my post earlier? I’m interested in your reply.
U
una_fides
Guest
I think that it helps to understand sin not as a something but as a lack of being, as a lack or deprivation of the Good, who is God. We are born sinners, meaning in a state lacking God’s sanctifying grace. When we are baptized this void is filled with the life of God, who then dwells within us and gives life to our dead souls. In this sense, we are “forgiven” for Adam’s sin by having one of its effects–the void in our soul–corrected and remedied through the sanctifying grace we receive in baptism. In this sense we are forgiven of Adam’s sin though not personally being guilty for having committed it as an actual sin ourselves but through having inherited the fallen state and all those corresponding effects.
The theological problem arises when sin is looked at as a being or substance. If sin is a something, then it must have had a creation. God who is pure being, the alpha and omega, the infinite and all powerful one, created ex nihilo. He created free will, a good thing, which man abused, “wherefore as by one man sin entered into this world and by sin death: and so death passed upon all men, in whom all have sinned” (Rom 5:12). How does the Scripture say “in whom all have sinned” if Adam alone shared in this sin? Adam represented and contained and was the whole human race and of his own undistorted free will choice he plummeted the whole of humanity into the state of original sin.
G
Ghosty
Guest
I don’t know of any teaching, off hand, that does say we need “forgiveness” for it. If you’re referring to the English text of the Nicene Creed used in the U.S. Latin Catholic Church, that’s a matter of mistranslation; the actual words are “one Baptism for the remission of sin”.
Regardless, even if we use the term “forgiveness” it is obvious from the writings on the subject that the sin in question is not something that people after Adam are guilty of. We tend to use the term forgiveness only for matters of personal guilt in our culture and time, but it has a broader meaning and application which includes repairing a relationship that was damaged, or to remove a debt that is carried. In that sense Christ forgave us of the debt of death by the Crucifixion and Resurrection.
Peace and God bless!
D
dcointin
Guest
Very well said! Sin is not only juridicial, i.e. the breaking of a law that requires punishment, but more importantly ontological, a state of being, and when viewed this way takes on a whole new meaning.
N
Nine_Two
Guest
I saw, it, but I it looks like one I’ll have to think through an answer on, I’ll answer later.
N
Nine_Two
Guest
Then why do Catholics keep accusing Orthodox of semi-pelagianism for not believing that babies need forgiveness? If babies have no guilt they don’t need forgiveness for sins already committed and this should not be a point of contention.I don’t know of any teaching, off hand, that does say we need “forgiveness” for it. If you’re referring to the English text of the Nicene Creed used in the U.S. Latin Catholic Church, that’s a matter of mistranslation; the actual words are “one Baptism for the remission of sin”.
Regardless, even if we use the term “forgiveness” it is obvious from the writings on the subject that the sin in question is not something that people after Adam are guilty of. We tend to use the term forgiveness only for matters of personal guilt in our culture and time, but it has a broader meaning and application which includes repairing a relationship that was damaged, or to remove a debt that is carried. In that sense Christ forgave us of the debt of death by the Crucifixion and Resurrection.
Peace and God bless!
For a religion unified under the pope and the teachings of the magisterium, there certainly are a lot of diverse thoughts on this.
A
Aramis
Guest
One need not have sinned to be affected by sin. I commit no sin when my things are stolen; the thief commits the sin, but I suffer for it.
Babies suffer for Adam’s sin allowing Death into the world, which also has the side effect of prevention of theosis… of cutting us off from primal Grace. Without that grace being restored in baptism, the hope is only for an eternity without suffering.
D
dcointin
Guest
I think they sometimes misunderstand what we say, the same as we sometimes misunderstand them.
When Orthodox say that we don’t share the Catholic understanding of original sin, Catholics assume this means we believe that we inherit no corruption of our nature, no lack of grace, no alienation from God, etc. Orthodox commonly believe that Catholics teach that we inherit the guilt of Adam’s sin, and this is the main point they disagree with, but as I learned Catholics don’t in fact believe this. For example, take the following statement from the Question & Answers section of the website of the Orthodox Church in America:
“Concerning the original – or “first” – sin, that commited by Adam and Eve, Orthodoxy believes that, while everyone bears the consequences of the first sin, the foremost of which is death, only Adam and Eve are guilty of that sin. Roman Catholicism teaches that everyone bears not only the consequence, but also the guilt, of that sin.”
oca.org/QA.asp?ID=3&SID=3
Now take what the following statement from the Catechism of the Catholic Church:
“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" [bold mine]"
I personally have no objections to this understanding, and wish that more Orthodox would take the time to understand the Catholic faith before publishing responses to it.
N
Nine_Two
Guest
I agree, but they are not being Baptised for something upon which they have guilt. Merely the first step in reunification with God.
N
Nine_Two
Guest
I agree with you 100%, the problem is those who come out, accuse us of saying we lack the belief, and using the baptism of infants for “forgiveness” of sin (by extension saying the infant holds guilt) who make it difficult to see them as having a common teaching that they claim.I think they sometimes misunderstand what we say, the same as we sometimes misunderstand them.
When Orthodox say that we don’t share the Catholic understanding of original sin, Catholics assume this means we believe that we inherit no corruption of our nature, no lack of grace, no alienation from God, etc. Orthodox commonly believe that Catholics teach that we inherit the guilt of Adam’s sin, and this is the main point they disagree with, but as I learned Catholics don’t in fact believe this. For example, take the following statement from the Question & Answers section of the website of the Orthodox Church in America:
“Concerning the original – or “first” – sin, that commited by Adam and Eve, Orthodoxy believes that, while everyone bears the consequences of the first sin, the foremost of which is death, only Adam and Eve are guilty of that sin. Roman Catholicism teaches that everyone bears not only the consequence, but also the guilt, of that sin.”
oca.org/QA.asp?ID=3&SID=3
Now take what the following statement from the Catechism of the Catholic Church:
“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" [bold mine]"
I personally have no objections to this understanding, and wish that more Orthodox would take the time to understand the Catholic faith before publishing responses to it.
N
Nine_Two
Guest
The first bit of what you quoted says that the human race is guilty, I would disagree with that. Adam is guilty, and we all bare the consequences (which that goes on to say, and which I agree with). Certainly though, we are born in a state of needing the grace of God, and that includes everyone, even the theotokos. I agree with everything in the quoted bit, except the two parts I just mentioned.
A
Aramis
Guest
But without that first step, there can be no journey.
N
Nine_Two
Guest
That would be the implication.
U
una_fides
Guest
So just so I can be clear you do agree that the souls of Adam and Eve were made just and in perfect communion with God and that as a result of their sin that they fell from that position of grace and that the souls of all men are thereafter conceived without saving grace, in a state out of fellowship and communion with God?
N
Nine_Two
Guest
Yes. Everyone is in need of salvic healing.
V
Vico
Guest
I would avoid interchanging the terms ancestral sin and original sin due to the body of writings using those terms are from different traditions and it may have implications.
With either Orthodox or Catholic expression we need baptism for the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.
Confusion occurs on use of the word guilt in English which means culpa (fault) but in the dogmatic declarations in Latin the word is not culpa but reatum (i.e., consequences, it is not personal). Reatum is a legal term describing the legal status of one charged or convicted of a crime, such that in Roman law to be reatus means to be liable to or actually under an indictment or a sentence whereas culpa refers to actual guilt for wrongdoing. Even though there is no personal guilt (fault) in the term reatum, it gets translated as guilt in English. So you see the need for the Catechism of the Catholic Church to explain the lack of personal fault in the (state of) original sin that we are born into, also called the stain of original sin.
From Council of Trent, Fifth Session we read “reatum originalis peccati”:
“Si quis per Iesu Christi Domini nostri gratiam, quae in baptismate confertur, reatum originalis peccati remitti negat . . . an. s.”
Council of Trent,
Decretum de peccato originale, n. 5. H. Denzinger, A. Schönmetzer, S.J., *Enchiridion Symbolorum *33rd ed. (Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder, 1965), n. 1515.
M
mardukm
Guest
I’d like to give a concrete example to add to brother Vico’s very sound explanation.
Suppose your father is driving down the street one day and smashes into someone else’s car. He now has a moral responsibility of reparation (guilt) to the owner of that car. Your father passes on, and you inherit that moral responsibility of reparation (guilt).
The guilt that your father had would be culpa, whereas the guilt you have would be reatum. One can see from this example that a more colloquial, and more proper, translation of culpa would be blame. While your father had blame for his action, you do not, even though you both have the debt (or guilt) connected with the action.
Blessings
U
una_fides
Guest
Obviously in order for one to be deprived of God’s gifts he must share in some form of “guilt;” the question is the type of guilt or what exactly is meant by that term. When Adam sinned, he sinned on behalf of all of humanity; therefore, as humans, we are held “guilty” for Adam’s sin, not as a personal fault, but through inheritance of our humanity. One can only be held personally guilty for a sin that he himself commits through an abuse of his own will; nevertheless, though we did not personally commit the sin of Adam and though we are not held guilty for Adam’s personal guilt (fault), we inherited our natures from Adam, a nature, which itself was in Adam, and in this way, we all in a sense participated in that sin through generation and bear that form of consequential guilt.
I do not believe that a soul would be condemned to suffer the fires of hell for the sin of Adam; however, because all humans are conceived outside a state of sanctifying grace, if they die in that state without having committed any actual sins they also cannot enter into heaven because they are in a state lacking God’s divine life in their souls, a state of enmity with God. Thus, we entrust those infants to the mercy of God, and we believe that God will not let souls suffer who are not guilty of any personal sin.
The Blessed Virgin Mary, however, is an entirely different case. On account of the fact that she was to be the Theotokos, God did not find it fitting for His singular vessel through which the Son of God would be conceived to be infected at any point with original sin. Therefore, we believe that through a singular grace God preserved her from original sin from the moment of her conception and that she never contracted it but was conceived in a state of fellowship with her Creator, whom she would bear to the world. Consequently, she also did not suffer from the effects of concupiscence and was able to always live her life as a continual fiat to the divine will without reservation.
- Status