Mentally handicapped and original sin

[chimo]

If it doesn’t need to be “treated,” whatever that means, then why do we baptize babies for the forgiveness of sins?

You have to understand the Eastern Church and her teachings to understand what “treated” means. You are a Catholic so you were brought up with a different understanding to Original Sin. The Eastern Christian does not see that Original Sin implies us to “forgive” babies. This is what the Eastern Church Father St. John Chrysostom had applied to correct what the Church had believed that babies who had died without any baptism were not saved. The saint believed this was monstrous that God would condemned anyone where there was no fault on their own. But this was the type of teaching that was circling around. The Eastern Church does not teach that we carry any guilt of the sin of Adam and Eve only the consequences to that sin which means physical death, suffering and the inclination to sin. The baptism of babies is encouraged not because they will be condemned but in order that Sanctifying Grace is placed into them early on. This will give anybody a great head start when they are baptised when they are a baby. The Holy Spirit to teach us has a better turn if we receive Him early on. Catholics and the Eastern Church sees differently Original Sin and its effect.

The Catholic Church of the past were very high judgmental of what this sin was while the Eastern Church tends to see the sin not in this greater judgment. The two Churches both teach Original Sin but the Western Church were high in judgment while the Eastern Church was light in its view of the sin of Adam and Eve. In fact any sin would have started this Original Sin so that in terms of what this sin implied a venial sin would have started this ball to roll. In terms of what the Original Sin implied it seems that the Catholic Church sees it as mortal as it was taught in the past but the teaching of the Eastern Church Father would not apply mortal sin to Original Sin. Perhaps the sin of Adam and Eve was only venial in its nature. The point though was any sin was to effect this change in man and woman. The view of the Catholic Church is presently aligning herself more towards the Eastern understanding. The Eastern Church teaches that Adam and Eve did not fall at their highest spiritual height but at their lowest spiritual height. They sinned at this lowest height. It is from this understanding that we know why. Man and woman do sin but not at their highest setting but initially at their lowest setting in order so with the Grace of God they would achieve a higher setting.

That is why we baptised babies so that with the proper teaching the grace of God will help them (when they get older) to achieve a higher spiritual setting in accordance to their understanding of sin and its consequences. The baptism of babies do help us when we have inherited what the Original Sin of our first parents have carried to us but I do sense the Eastern Church’s teaching on it tends to be more lenient than what is taught in the West.

 

[garysibio]

You have to understand the Eastern Church and her teachings to understand what “treated” means. You are a Catholic so you were brought up with a different understanding to Original Sin. The Eastern Christian does not see that Original Sin implies us to “forgive” babies. This is what the Eastern Church Father St. John Chrysostom had applied to correct what the Church had believed that babies who had died without any baptism were not saved. The saint believed this was monstrous that God would condemned anyone where there was no fault on their own. But this was the type of teaching that was circling around. The Eastern Church does not teach that we carry any guilt of the sin of Adam and Eve only the consequences to that sin which means physical death, suffering and the inclination to sin. The baptism of babies is encouraged not because they will be condemned but in order that Sanctifying Grace is placed into them early on. This will give anybody a great head start when they are baptised when they are a baby. The Holy Spirit to teach us has a better turn if we receive Him early on. Catholics and the Eastern Church sees differently Original Sin and its effect.

The Catholic Church of the past were very high judgmental of what this sin was while the Eastern Church tends to see the sin not in this greater judgment. The two Churches both teach Original Sin but the Western Church were high in judgment while the Eastern Church was light in its view of the sin of Adam and Eve. In fact any sin would have started this Original Sin so that in terms of what this sin implied a venial sin would have started this ball to roll. In terms of what the Original Sin implied it seems that the Catholic Church sees it as mortal as it was taught in the past but the teaching of the Eastern Church Father would not apply mortal sin to Original Sin. Perhaps the sin of Adam and Eve was only venial in its nature. The point though was any sin was to effect this change in man and woman. The view of the Catholic Church is presently aligning herself more towards the Eastern understanding. The Eastern Church teaches that Adam and Eve did not fall at their highest spiritual height but at their lowest spiritual height. They sinned at this lowest height. It is from this understanding that we know why. Man and woman do sin but not at their highest setting but initially at their lowest setting in order so with the Grace of God they would achieve a higher setting.

That is why we baptised babies so that with the proper teaching the grace of God will help them (when they get older) to achieve a higher spiritual setting in accordance to their understanding of sin and its consequences. The baptism of babies do help us when we have inherited what the Original Sin of our first parents have carried to us but I do sense the Eastern Church’s teaching on it tends to be more lenient than what is taught in the West.

Thank you for the explanation. I was not aware of the differences.

 

[QNDNNDQDCE]

You have to understand the Eastern Church and her teachings to understand what “treated” means. You are a Catholic so you were brought up with a different understanding to Original Sin. The Eastern Christian does not see that Original Sin implies us to “forgive” babies. This is what the Eastern Church Father St. John Chrysostom had applied to correct what the Church had believed that babies who had died without any baptism were not saved. The saint believed this was monstrous that God would condemned anyone where there was no fault on their own. But this was the type of teaching that was circling around. The Eastern Church does not teach that we carry any guilt of the sin of Adam and Eve only the consequences to that sin which means physical death, suffering and the inclination to sin. The baptism of babies is encouraged not because they will be condemned but in order that Sanctifying Grace is placed into them early on. This will give anybody a great head start when they are baptised when they are a baby. The Holy Spirit to teach us has a better turn if we receive Him early on. Catholics and the Eastern Church sees differently Original Sin and its effect.

The Catholic Church of the past were very high judgmental of what this sin was while the Eastern Church tends to see the sin not in this greater judgment. The two Churches both teach Original Sin but the Western Church were high in judgment while the Eastern Church was light in its view of the sin of Adam and Eve. In fact any sin would have started this Original Sin so that in terms of what this sin implied a venial sin would have started this ball to roll. In terms of what the Original Sin implied it seems that the Catholic Church sees it as mortal as it was taught in the past but the teaching of the Eastern Church Father would not apply mortal sin to Original Sin. Perhaps the sin of Adam and Eve was only venial in its nature. The point though was any sin was to effect this change in man and woman. The view of the Catholic Church is presently aligning herself more towards the Eastern understanding. The Eastern Church teaches that Adam and Eve did not fall at their highest spiritual height but at their lowest spiritual height. They sinned at this lowest height. It is from this understanding that we know why. Man and woman do sin but not at their highest setting but initially at their lowest setting in order so with the Grace of God they would achieve a higher setting.

…,

On what basis can you set this forward as the teaching of the so-called “Eastern” teaching (as if every Christian outside of Western Europe belonged to a homogeneous mass)? I am not aware of any such quotation from St. John Chrysostom, and the Eastern doctors who do speak to the issue do not say that infants who die without baptism are “saved,” or at least not without significant qualification. For example, St. Gregory Nazianzen says in Ortation 40,

XXIII. And so also in those who fail to receive the Gift, some are altogether animal or bestial, according as they are either foolish or wicked; and this, I think, has to be added to their other sins, that they have no reverence at all for this Gift, but look upon it as a mere gift— to be acquiesced in if given them, and if not given them, then to be neglected. Others know and honour the Gift, but put it off; some through laziness, some through greediness. Others are not in a position to receive it, perhaps on account of infancy, or some perfectly involuntary circumstance through which they are prevented from receiving it, even if they wish. As then in the former case we found much difference, so too in this. They who altogether despise it are worse than they who neglect it through greed or carelessness. These are worse than they who have lost the Gift through ignorance or tyranny, for tyranny is nothing but an involuntary error. And I think that the first will have to suffer punishment, as for all their sins, so for their contempt of baptism; and that the second will also have to suffer, but less, because it was not so much through wickedness as through folly that they wrought their failure; and that the third will be neither glorified nor punished by the righteous Judge, as unsealed and yet not wicked, but persons who have suffered rather than done wrong. For not every one who is not bad enough to be punished is good enough to be honoured; just as not every one who is not good enough to be honoured is bad enough to be punished. And I look upon it as well from another point of view. If you judge the murderously disposed man by his will alone, apart from the act of murder, then you may reckon as baptized him who desired baptism apart from the reception of baptism. But if you cannot do the one how can you do the other? I cannot see it. Or, if you like, we will put it thus:— If desire in your opinion has equal power with actual baptism, then judge in the same way in regard to glory, and you may be content with longing for it, as if that were itself glory. And what harm is done you by your not attaining the actual glory, as long as you have the desire for it?

Regarding infants, he suggests that they have no guilt deserving punishment nor merit deserving glory, something akin to the Scholastic distinction between pain of loss and pain of sense or perhaps the description from Augustine along those same lines of the part of hell with the least fires (so its inhabitants are without torments). This is probably the common thread running throughout the majority of writers: men are not punished for sins which they never committed, but they are not rewarded things which they are not owed.

 

[chimo]

On what basis can you set this forward as the teaching of the so-called “Eastern” teaching (as if every Christian outside of Western Europe belonged to a homogeneous mass)? I am not aware of any such quotation from St. John Chrysostom, and the Eastern doctors who do speak to the issue do not say that infants who die without baptism are “saved,” or at least not without significant qualification. For example, St. Gregory Nazianzen says in Ortation 40,

Regarding infants, he suggests that they have no guilt deserving punishment nor merit deserving glory, something akin to the Scholastic distinction between pain of loss and pain of sense or perhaps the description from Augustine along those same lines of the part of hell with the least fires (so its inhabitants are without torments). This is probably the common thread running throughout the majority of writers: men are not punished for sins which they never committed, but they are not rewarded things which they are not owed.

I don’t know what exactly you are complaining about but I have not given anything that you can call so called Eastern teaching. The Eastern Church thinks differently on Original Sin. That is not hard to understand except for Catholics who do not know this. The problem with the Catholic Church is she does not know what the Eastern Church teaches on this matter. Look to contemporary theologians rather than the one you had chosen for if you had really check out the Eastern Church’s teachings you will see and even understand it is different in judgment on how she sees Original Sin. The Eastern Church does not give judgment to where the Western Church does on this matter. This difference in opinion is why the Eastern Orthodox Churches are not readily to accept communion with Rome. They see this as one of the stumbling blocks towards unity. If you wish to understand better the teaching of the East I will give you this excerpt of St. John Chrysostom on this subject.

“Are we all sinners because of the sin of Adam? Does the stain of sin pass from one generation to another? Does every man, woman, and child on this earth stand condemned by God unless they hear and believe in Jesus Christ? To most people this sounds utterly unreasonable and unjust; and indeed it is. To anyone who believes that God loves his creation, and especially loves humanity, it is inconceivable that he should condemn people through no fault of their own. The very idea that an innocent child deserves eternal punishment is monstrous. Yet it is utterly reasonable that we are made good through the goodness of Christ. Although the sin of one person cannot condemn humanity, the radiant love of one man can transform humanity, and is doing so. God waits for our hearts to open to his grace; he waits for an opportunity to reveal to each of us his truth. Then, when we are ready, he ensures that we hear about Christ and about the Gospel; and we find ourselves faced with a choice, which will affect the entire course of life and death; whether to embrace the words of Jesus Christ or to reject them. If we deliberately reject the Gospel, even when we fully understand it, then we condemn ourselves; if we embrace it, we shall ourselves be embraced by God in heaven.”

If Catholics really want to understand why the Eastern Churches think differently than them it is better to check out their contemporary theologians who think the same as St. John Chrysostom. St John Chrysostom who lived around the same time as the Church Father you had chosen was very much against the teaching which was popular in his time on Original Sin. St. John would never had agreed to the teaching of the Church Father you had chosen to quote. Even though these men were given the title Church Father does not mean every teaching of theirs were correct. Another Church Father can refute another Church Father. It was certain to St. John Chrysostom that all babies who had died without baptism can receive Heaven.

 

[mcloud]

re: Jude 24-25

Since much of what you said has already been mentioned in this thread, I’m going to limit my response to this.

Wrong!!!

If what you say is the case, then Mary had no free will.

Gary

I won’t say your wrong but here is my response. Mary did have free will. She received the graces that were needed from God to preserver and to choose God over all things. How much grace? She was “full of grace” or “highly favored” and the angel “greeted” or “Hail” to Mary only as you would address a king (John 19:3, Acts 23:26 – Greek word “chaire”) She had no want, need, or desire to sin against her Savior because she loved God more. Why, because it’s fitting that the mother of God, the mother of all disciples, the co-redeemer that cooperated with God’s will to bring in our Savior Jesus Christ, to say “no” to sin. She is completely unique. The analogy can almost be made that when we receive our heavenly reward that we do not want to be separated from God and remain in His love for all eternity.

 

[mcloud]

Aquinas did not believe that the soul entered the baby until quickening, not at conception. Therefore, according to Aquinas, she could not have been saved at the moment of her conception. I mever said that Aquinas denied that Mary was sinless; I said he denied the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception as it is taught today by the Catholic Church.

Gary

The doctrine of the Immaculate Conception wasn’t defined until 1845. It was finally defined as dogma because it was formulated into something that was understandable to the faithful. Yes, Aquinas believed in the quickening but he followed his logic and the information he had at the time in the 13 century to the best possible conclusion when the soul entered the body. Aquinas didn’t have the scientific evidence that we have now that life starts at conception. It’s not the Aquinas was wrong, it means it wasn’t clear for him yet.

 

[garysibio]

I won’t say your wrong but here is my response. Mary did have free will. She received the graces that were needed from God to preserver and to choose God over all things. How much grace? She was “full of grace” or “highly favored” and the angel “greeted” or “Hail” to Mary only as you would address a king (John 19:3, Acts 23:26 – Greek word “chaire”) She had no want, need, or desire to sin against her Savior because she loved God more. Why, because it’s fitting that the mother of God, the mother of all disciples, the co-redeemer that cooperated with God’s will to bring in our Savior Jesus Christ, to say “no” to sin. She is completely unique. The analogy can almost be made that when we receive our heavenly reward that we do not want to be separated from God and remain in His love for all eternity.

The fact that Mary had free will - just like the rest of us - i s exactly why I said that your interpretation of Jude 24-25 is wrong. If God forces us not to sin (or forced Mary not to sin) then our choice has been taken away from us and free will disappears.

Whether she actually did sin or not, if she did not have the ability to choose to sin, then Mary had no free will.

 

[garysibio]

The doctrine of the Immaculate Conception wasn’t defined until 1845. It was finally defined as dogma because it was formulated into something that was understandable to the faithful. Yes, Aquinas believed in the quickening but he followed his logic and the information he had at the time in the 13 century to the best possible conclusion when the soul entered the body. Aquinas didn’t have the scientific evidence that we have now that life starts at conception. It’s not the Aquinas was wrong, it means it wasn’t clear for him yet.

I assume 1845 was a typo. It was 1854.

re: Aquinas

Following your logic the people who believed in the homunculus weren’t wrong, they were just not far enough along in their understanding of human reproduction. You are just making excuses to cover up a situation you find embarrassing.

Thomas Aquinas did not believe in the doctrine in the same way that it is taught by the Catholic Church today. Neither did Bernard of Clairvaux, Bonaventure or Catherine of Sienna, all of them Doctors of the Church. In fact the first Catholic theologian to embrace the belief was John Duns Scotus in the 13th century.

 

[mcloud]

The fact that Mary had free will - just like the rest of us - i s exactly why I said that your interpretation of Jude 24-25 is wrong. If God forces us not to sin (or forced Mary not to sin) then our choice has been taken away from us and free will disappears.

Whether she actually did sin or not, if she did not have the ability to choose to sin, then Mary had no free will.

When we cooperate with God’s graces it doesn’t mean He is forces us. It just means we freely choose to cooperate with His Will just like Mary did when she responded back to the angel “let it be to me according to your word”. Mary wasn’t forced. She could of said no but didn’t. Why? Because she choose God’s word-her Savior. It’s just like the heaven analogy. If we receive the external reward, I’m sure we can refuse it, but it wouldn’t make sense if our will is aligned with God’s will. He’s not forcing heaven on us. We are choosing to be with Him eternally after we have been judge worthy.

 

[Randy_Carson]

re: Jude 24-25

Since much of what you said has already been mentioned in this thread, I’m going to limit my response to this.

Wrong!!!

If what you say is the case, then Mary had no free will.

Gary

As I posted in #17 in anticipation of this argument:

Does this suggest that Mary did not have free will? Not at all. Any one of us may ask God to protect us from the attacks of the evil one and from temptation; we ask for these things every time we pray the Our Father. Our struggles occur when we waiver in our commitment to avoid actual sins. However, by virtue of the fact that Mary was born free from the natural attraction to sin that plagues the rest of us, she was able to ask for God’s protection and remain committed to a sin-free life.

 

[mcloud]

I assume 1845 was a typo. It was 1854.

Yes, sorry, it was a typo. Thank you for understanding

 

[mcloud]

Thomas Aquinas did not believe in the doctrine in the same way that it is taught by the Catholic Church today. Neither did Bernard of Clairvaux, Bonaventure or Catherine of Sienna, all of them Doctors of the Church. In fact the first Catholic theologian to embrace the belief was John Duns Scotus in the 13th century.

Why? Because it wasn’t clear yet

 

[mcloud]

Following your logic the people who believed in the homunculus weren’t wrong, they were just not far enough along in their understanding of human reproduction. You are just making excuses to cover up a situation you find embarrassing.

The people that believed in the homunculus, believed in something that is fictional. Aquinas didn’t believe in something that was fictional. He believed in something that is factual, that the soul enters into the body. It wasn’t clear to him when that happened with the information he had at the time. You’re assuming that I find it embarrassing. If my logic is incorrect or have a misunderstanding, I would change view point.

 

[garysibio]

The people that believed in the homunculus, believed in something that is fictional. Aquinas didn’t believe in something that was fictional. He believed in something that is factual, that the soul enters into the body. It wasn’t clear to him when that happened with the information he had at the time. You’re assuming that I find it embarrassing. If my logic is incorrect or have a misunderstanding, I would change view point.

If you hold to the Catholic position today, Aquinas also believed in something fictional: the alleged delay between conception and quickening. I understand that he rejected the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception because he accepted as fact something that wasn’t true but he still rejected the Immaculate Conception. That’s a fact that Catholics have to deal with.

Gary

 

[mcloud]

If you hold to the Catholic position today, Aquinas also believed in something fictional: the alleged delay between conception and quickening. I understand that he rejected the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception because he accepted as fact something that wasn’t true but he still rejected the Immaculate Conception. That’s a fact that Catholics have to deal with.

Gary

Believing in the spaghetti monster is fictional just like believing in homunculus. Aquinas didn’t believe in something fictional. He was logically following the truth where it lead him. He didn’t have the scientific evidence to lead him to what we know now. If this was the year 2015 B.C. we would probably deny the earth revolved around the sun. Why?

I hope you read Aquinas’s teachings. I think you would be surprised that he didn’t reject the Immaculate Conception. You would see the formulation of it.

 

[garysibio]

When we cooperate with God’s graces it doesn’t mean He is forces us. It just means we freely choose to cooperate with His Will just like Mary did when she responded back to the angel “let it be to me according to your word”. Mary wasn’t forced. She could of said no but didn’t. Why? Because she choose God’s word-her Savior. It’s just like the heaven analogy. If we receive the external reward, I’m sure we can refuse it, but it wouldn’t make sense if our will is aligned with God’s will. He’s not forcing heaven on us. We are choosing to be with Him eternally after we have been judge worthy.

The person to whom I was responding said that God could force us to not sin. I agree with what you said.

 

[garysibio]

As I posted in #17 in anticipation of this argument:

Does this suggest that Mary did not have free will? Not at all. Any one of us may ask God to protect us from the attacks of the evil one and from temptation; we ask for these things every time we pray the Our Father. Our struggles occur when we waiver in our commitment to avoid actual sins. However, by virtue of the fact that Mary was born free from the natural attraction to sin that plagues the rest of us, she was able to ask for God’s protection and remain committed to a sin-free life.

If you want to say that God can give us the grace we need to avoid sin then I agree with you. However, you said that God could prevent us from sinning. That implies that He can do so whether we want to or not. In other words, He can force us. If He can force us, there is no free will.

 

[garysibio]

Why? Because it wasn’t clear yet

The reason for their rejection is irrelevant. The fact is they rejected it and that is something that Catholic apologists just have to deal with. I’m not implying anything about their devotion to God or calling them heretics. I’m simply saying they did not accept the doctrine as taight today by the Catholic Church.

 

[garysibio]

The people that believed in the homunculus, believed in something that is fictional. Aquinas didn’t believe in something that was fictional. He believed in something that is factual, that the soul enters into the body. It wasn’t clear to him when that happened with the information he had at the time. You’re assuming that I find it embarrassing. If my logic is incorrect or have a misunderstanding, I would change view point.

Yes, Aquinas did believe in something fictional. The fictional delay between conception and the imparting of the soul.

 

[garysibio]

Believing in the spaghetti monster is fictional just like believing in homunculus. Aquinas didn’t believe in something fictional. He was logically following the truth where it lead him. He didn’t have the scientific evidence to lead him to what we know now. If this was the year 2015 B.C. we would probably deny the earth revolved around the sun. Why?

I hope you read Aquinas’s teachings. I think you would be surprised that he didn’t reject the Immaculate Conception. You would see the formulation of it.

So you believe that Fr. Most is incorrect when he says that Aquinas rejected it? Sorry, I think he put a little more study into the issue during his lifetime than you have.

Again, Aquinas did believe in something fictional: the delay between conception and the imparting of the soul. There is no delay. I don’t care if it was the common belief of the time. It’s fiction.

By the way, people of Aquinas’ time did believe the sun revolved around the earth.