Original Sin and Baptism:

[Zabdi_Premjit]

Agreed. This is the exact same thing as saying that the stain of Original Sin is removed, according to Catholic teaching.

Okay.

Disagreed. We retain concupiscence despite Baptism. Baptism only removes the stain of Original Sin/makes our souls pure by and with that Grace of the Holy Spirit. It does not remove the disorder in our use of reason (leading to a disoriented will).

We are completely healed from Original Sin and possess a healed nature. What remains are the passions that we incurred as a result of our personal sins. It is this we struggle with after baptism.

Scripture teaches us that Christ came to REMOVE Sin, while it is our mortality/corruptibility that will be TRANSFORMED into immortality/incorruptibility.

I said nothing otherwise.

In truth, Christ did not come to RESTORE our nature. He came to MAKE IT BETTER THAN EVEN WHAT ADAM AND EVE HAD. You see, Adam and Eve’s nature was immortal/incorruptible “only” BY GRACE. In distinction, what Christ’s resurrection promises us is that our nature will actually BE TRANSFORMED INHERENTLY immortal/incorruptible.

Once again, this is a matter that goes back to the Church Fathers disagreement on what was our original nature, and what was purely Grace. It is a matter of theologoumenon, I suppose.

Disagreed. To say that Mary’s honour was due SOLELY to her exceptional conduct and piety is the Pelagian heresy. Rather, her honor was due to GRACE to which she responded wholeheartedly throughout her life.

I was referring to the honour that WE give her. We honour her for her piety, not for the acts of Grace done to her. The actions of Grace are a reason to honour GOD, not Man.

Pelagianism denies Original Sin, so how can my statements take specifically state that Mary had Original Sin even remotely be Pelagian?

This is the Grace that she received at her Immaculate Conception. I can agree that she was not the singular recipient of any Grace not available to all humanity. The Grace she received at her IC is simply the same Grace we receive at Baptism. The only difference is that she received this Grace at her conception. In distinction, St. Jeremiah and the Forerunner (and perhaps other Prophets) received it after their conception in their mother’s womb. In further distinction, the rest of humanity receives it at their Baptism.

What is the source for what you say about the saints Jeremias and John the Forerunner?

While Mary did not have concupiscence, she nevertheless did not lose her free will. She STILL COULD have sinned, but she did not. In contrast, though Adam and Eve likewise did not have concupiscence, they CHOSE to sin nevertheless.

Again, I do not believe Orthodoxy has a concept of concupiscence.

About her ability to sin: yes, Mary had free will and could have sinned. However, she consistently acted righteously and so, her every act, at all moments of her life, were in synergy with Grace. Therefore, she committed no personal sin, and incurred none of the passions that would result from personal sin. Of course, being afflicted with Original Sin, she still had disoriented desires, and so would have passions in so far as these desires could be described as passions, but through her synergy with Grace, these desires would have been utterly suppressed at all moments of her life, and thus effectually absent.

It was not mercy. It was Grace. The same Grace we can all possess at Baptism.

I don’t know about you, but I am a descendant of Adam, and so an heir of his corrupted nature. All of us people who descend from Adam are unworthy of Grace, and so the fact that we can partake of ANY Grace is an act of mercy on the part of God.

Mary was given the Graces of Baptism at her conception. Since it was at her conception, and Original Sin never touched her, then that means she did not have concupiscence. However, having the Graces of Baptism does not remove her natural state of death and corruptibility (exactly as it is with us). The Graces of Baptism only remove what is UNnatural to our nature - namely sin, actual and original. In what way do you think that is heresy?

I was referring to Original sin as I defined it, not as Catholicism defines it. I’m still not sure I understand enough to know whether the IC asserts that Mary lacks Original Sin (as I defined it).

 

[Ghosty]

We are completely healed from Original Sin and possess a healed nature. What remains are the passions that we incurred as a result of our personal sins. It is this we struggle with after baptism.

These passions can’t be the result of personal sin, otherwise most people would have no passions because of infant Baptism. These passions must be a result of a disordered nature, not due to personal actions on our part, though our own actions certainly feed and enhance these wicked passions.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Zabdi_Premjit]

These passions can’t be the result of personal sin, otherwise most people would have no passions because of infant Baptism. These passions must be a result of a disordered nature, not due to personal actions on our part, though our own actions certainly feed and enhance these wicked passions.

Peace and God bless!

This would raise the questions: Can infants seek after something other than God as the ultimate good? I think they can. Certainly they don’t have the rational capacity to be held responsible for their actions in the same way adults are, but culpability doesn’t change the fact that an act is sin. As sin, it would generate passions. Furthermore, the lack a developed rational capacity would likely make it easier to choose wrongly.

Of course, I am no theologian. Yet, I don’t see how infant baptism proves that passions cannot be a result of personal sins.

 

[Ghosty]

This would raise the questions: Can infants seek after something other than God as the ultimate good? I think they can. Certainly they don’t have the rational capacity to be held responsible for their actions in the same way adults are, but culpability doesn’t change the fact that an act is sin. As sin, it would generate passions. Furthermore, the lack a developed rational capacity would likely make it easier to choose wrongly.

Of course, I am no theologian. Yet, I don’t see how infant baptism proves that passions cannot be a result of personal sins.

Sin is a rational act, though, so without some level of rational choice there can be no sin. One can sin indeliberately, but it is still by a rational choice, just an ill-informed one.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Zabdi_Premjit]

Sin is a rational act, though, so without some level of rational choice there can be no sin. One can sin indeliberately, but it is still by a rational choice, just an ill-informed one.

Peace and God bless!

Hmmm…maybe.

But humans must be able to chose at all times, since free will is inherent to our nature. We always have free will, so we are always able to reject God, and therefore sin. Even the fetus in the womb has free will.

 

[mardukm]

Hmmm…maybe.

But humans must be able to chose at all times, since free will is inherent to our nature. We always have free will, so we are always able to reject God, and therefore sin. Even the fetus in the womb has free will.

Free will is always contingent upon the faculty of reason. The two cannot be taken separately. That is why beasts cannot be said to have free will - because they have no faculty of reason. They are subject completely to the passions. Babies, much less fetuses in the womb, cannot be said to have free will because they have not yet acquired the faculty of reasoning. That’s my understanding from an Alexandrian perspective. That is why infants cannot be said to have ACTUAL sin. They do, however, inherit from the Fall the state of being separated from God spiritually.

Anything DIRECTLY contributing to separation from God (i.e., spiritual death) is regarded by the Catholic Church as “sin.” That is why the Latins and the Orientals and (I’m sure) a great many Easterns (Catholic and Orthodox), teach and preach that Baptism remits ALL sin, INCLUDING Original Sin.

Blessings

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Zabdi,

I think we have much agreement on many points already. But there are a few things that need to be worked out, and I think most of them are just matters of definition.

Nope, never heard of it. Buuuuutttt…OrthodoxWiki says that it is similar to the Orthodox concept of the passions. As I understand it, passions are like sinful attachments/habits/tendencies that result personal sin. Also, the natural desire for good, which, disoriented, seek after evil, and is therefore a source of sin and passions, could be referred to as a passion in and of itself. I’m going to assume this is the Orthodox counterpart of concupiscence, though not equivalent.

Yes, I am aware of the concept of passions. From my reading of the Fathers, the passions are those things that connect us to beasts - irrational tendencies. Beasts don’t have the faculty of reason, and have passions. When we are not using the faculty of reason correctly (i.e., irrationally), the we have given in to the “passions” and have likened ourselves to beasts. Does that explanation sound more familiar to you. In any case, according to the Fathers, the idea of “passions” is connected with that basic idea of the faculty of reason insofar as they are the ABSENCE of the righteous use of reason…

Some Church Fathers say that immortality our natural state. Others, of course, say otherwise. From what I can tell, there was no consensus on this issue. Everyone agreed that man was initially immortal, but they disagreed on whether this immortality was a part of prelapsarian human nature, or a result of Grace.

I agree that there seems to be an ambiguity. However, I think it is merely on the same order as your own earlier statement that we are “naturally” immortal, but only by Grace. So there is really no discrepancy between one Father saying “we are immortal by nature” and another saying “we are immortal by Grace.”

However, I can likewise agree that, due to this ambiguity, there is has been no consensus on the matter. AFAIK, the Catholic Church has never pronounced definitely on this matter either. The only thing the Catholic Church has definitively condemned is the belief that Adam would have died naturally even if he did not sin. On the other hand, I do think that it is more logical to assume the Alexandrian position (which the Latins also possess) is correct, and this will be explained in my response to the next paragraph.

About sinless people before the advent of Christ: I haven’t heard of these, but even if they existed, they would still die because they still had Original Sin.

My position is that they still died NOT because they HAD Original Sin, but because it was the NATURAL state of their human nature to die. This is proven by the fact that even though Baptism washes away Original Sin, we STILL die even though we no longer have Original Sin. This would indicate that physical death is not attached to the definition of Original Sin (per se) in the same way that spiritual death is intimately attached to the term.

Whether or not immortality was a property of prelapsarian Man or not, they still had Original Sin and a distorted nature, so the fact that they died has no bearing on the issue at hand.

It would have great relevance for the teaching of the IC. The fact that Mary died the physical death has no bearing on the teaching that she had no Original Sin.

Okay, from what I gather, invoking papal authority does not mean that a dogma is being defined; it simply means that a decision has the same force as the decisions of an ecumenical council.

True. It is a very rare occurence for the Pope to use his papal authority to define a dogma. There is more to the matter, but that would be for another thread.

Also, the Pope’s statement on the IC was not that the IC occurred, but that the Catholic Church is ignorant on the matter and so cannot rule out the possibility of its occurrence. Therefore, whether one believes in the IC is a matter of personal opinion, but one should not condemn the opposing opinion on the matter since it cannot be proven or disproven with absolute verity.

I hope you did not get this understanding from what I stated. If I misled you in any way, please forgive me. The Catholic teaching is that the IC is a FACT. A Catholic is bound not merely by religious assent, but by an assent of faith, as well, to believe the teaching of the IC. What I am saying is that the proscription contained in the dogma applies to whether or not one believes in the teaching, NOT whether one thinks a person who does not believe in it will endanger their very salvation (i.e., an anathema). In fact, the proscription contained in the IC is not an anathema, but an excommunication. Do you understand the difference between an anathema and an excommunication?

I agree that this is largely a terminological variance, since out natural state is one in which we partake of Grace. It’s also not really clear cut as to what exactly was a property of nature, and what was a property of Grace. Much depends on how terms are used.

Agreed.

Blessings

 

[Zabdi_Premjit]

Free will is always contingent upon the faculty of reason. The two cannot be taken separately. That is why beasts cannot be said to have free will - because they have no faculty of reason. They are subject completely to the passions. Babies, much less fetuses in the womb, cannot be said to have free will because they have not yet acquired the faculty of reasoning. That’s my understanding from an Alexandrian perspective. That is why infants cannot be said to have ACTUAL sin. They do, however, inherit from the Fall the state of being separated from God spiritually.

But Free Will is a part of the “image of God”. We are all born with the “image of God”, however distorted it may be. If free will was a result of reason and not an inherent property of man, then there is reason to believe that the “image of God” is not inherent in Fallen Man.

Anything DIRECTLY contributing to separation from God (i.e., spiritual death) is regarded by the Catholic Church as “sin.” That is why the Latins and the Orientals and (I’m sure) a great many Easterns (Catholic and Orthodox), teach and preach that Baptism remits ALL sin, INCLUDING Original Sin.

Okay. I didn’t say anything that would contradict this. I specifically said that Original Sin was remitted, so you’re emphasis on the remittance of Original Sin makes me think you’re not understanding me. Allow me to quote myself:

1. As part of his body, we possess his recapitulated human nature, including his healed will. Thus, baptism restores our nature, and heals us from the ailment of Original Sin.

 

[Aramis]

Two ecumenical councils is pretty firm “non-definition”, friend.

 

[mardukm]

Noted. I don’t think it’s a significant difference though.

Well, the significance becomes obvious when we consider the difference between your belief that a fetus has free will, on the one hand, and my belief that a fetus (and infants) don’t have free will because they lack the use of reason (and therefore cannot commit actual sin).

What are Original Holiness and Original Justice?

They are the Graces that our first parents possessed before the Fall that permitted them to be in communion with the Holy Ones (as taught by St, Athanasius). Through baptism, we reacquire these Graces, and therefore are able to be called “children of God.” The more common term for “Original Holiness” that you may be more readily familiar with is “sanctification”; the more common term for “Original Justice” that you may be more readily familiar with is “righteousness.”

Since they all happen simultaneously, I don’t know if the order of what came really matters all that much, but I’ll note the difference in thought.

Yes, I’ll agree that the difference is mostly conceptual. However, as you can see with our discussion regarding free will above (in relation to the faculty of reason) for fetuses, the conceptual differences have important ramifications for doctrine. So I appreciate that you will keep the conceptual differences in mind.

While our distorted nature may hamper our partaking of Grace to the extent that Adam was initially able to, we are certainly not deprived of Grace. Our personal actions are very much involved in our partaking of Grace. A righteous act is in synergy with Grace, and so by committing one we partake of Grace. Likewise, a sinful act is not in synergy with Grace, and so by committing one we separate ourselves from God and are deprived of Grace.

Agreed. Catholics have a specific name for this Grace that ALL people have -PREVENIENT GRACE. It is by no means the Grace of Original Holiness (i.e., sanctification) nor the Grace of Original Justice (“righteousness”). The difference is poignant when one considers that these two latter Graces are immediate causes of salvation, while the former (prevenient Grace) is not.

As for personal sin being a result of Fall Nature, I point out that the very root of the Fall was Adam’s sin, which was a personal sin. If Adam could commit a personal sin before the Fall, how can personal sin be a result of Fallen Nature?

Is this merely a rhetorical question? I’m asking sincerely, because if you are claiming that personal sin does not result from our Fallen Nature, you would seriously be the first Eastern Orthodox person I’ve come across to make that claim.

But to answer your question, the reason Adam was able sin even though he did not have a Fallen Nature is because he had FREE WILL. Again, this has ramifications for the debate on the IC. A lot of non-Catholics claim that to teach that Mary did not have a Fallen Nature means that she could not sin. The very example of Adam and Eve refutes that argument.

CONTINUED

 

[mardukm]

CONTINUED

Christ took on human nature, which is sick, yet Christ had a perfect will. If the he took on something imperfect, and it became perfect, would not that mean that his incarnation perfe**cted the human nature he was given? When something sick is made perfect or whole, it is called being healed. Yet, as you say, terminology.

On this point, I’m afraid I’ll have to say that the difference is not just a matter of terminology. The Catholic and Oriental Orthodox Churches do not teach that Christ’s human nature was fallen in the sense that his human nature was sick. The CC and OOC teach that Christ’s human nature was immaculate - no “stain” or “sickness” ever touched his nature. Christ took on a “Fallen Human Nature” ONLY in the sense that the Human Nature lacked the Grace of Immortality/Incorruptibility which it lost when Adam first sinned. ONLY in that sense can it be stated that the Human Nature Christ took on was fallen, but NEVER in the sense that it was “sick” as if it had concupiscence.

And from whom did Christ inherit this Immaculate Human Nature free of concupiscence? From the Virgin Mary conceived Immaculate. This is, in fact, among NUMEROUS Eastern Fathers, the teaching of St. Gregory Palamas:
"For this purpose, He had to assume a flesh that was both new and ours, that He might refashion us from out of ourselves. Now He finds a Handmaiden perfectly suited to these needs, the supplier of Her own unsullied nature, the Ever-Virgin now hymned by us, and Whose miraculous Entrance into the Temple, into the Holy of Holies, we now celebrate. God predestined Her before the ages for the salvation and reclaiming of our kind…Therefore, God deigned to receive our nature from us, hypostatically uniting with it in a marvellous way. But it was impossible to unite that Most High Nature,Whose purity is incomprehensible for human reason, to a sinful nature before it had been purified. Therefore, for the conception and birth of the Bestower of purity, a perfectly spotless and Most Pure Virgin was required…God is born of the spotless and Holy Virgin, or better to say, of the Most Pure and All-Holy Virgin. She is above every fleshly defilement, and even above every impure thought…So, in order to render the Virgin worthy of this sublime purpose, God marked this ever-virgin Daughter now praised by us, from before the ages, and from eternity, choosing Her from out of His elect…In this manner, the choice of the future Mother of God, beginning with the very sons of Adam and proceeding through all the generations of time, through the Providence of God, passes to the Prophet-king David and the successors of his kingdom and lineage. When the chosen time had come, then from the house and posterity of David, Joachim and Anna are chosen by God. Though they were childless, they were by their virtuous life and good disposition the finest of all those descended from the line of David. And when in prayer they besought God to deliver them from their childlessness, and promised to dedicate their child to God from its infancy. By God Himself, the Mother of God was proclaimed and given to them as a child, so that from such virtuous parents the all-virtuous child would be raised. So in this manner, chastity joined with prayer came to fruition by producing the Mother of virginity, giving birth in the flesh to Him Who was born of God the Father before the ages. Now, when Righteous Joachim and Anna saw that they had been granted their wish, and that the divine promise to them was realized in fact, then they on their part, as true lovers of God, hastened to fulfill their vow given to God as soon as the child had been weaned from milk… The High Priest, seeing that this child, more than anyone else, had divine grace within Her, wished to set Her within the Holy of Holies.
Sermon on the Entry of the Theotokos into the Temple

At this point, it is good to point out another important difference between the “Passions” and “concupiscence.” You see, since Christ was human, he possessed “Passions.” That is simply part of Human Nature - not fallen Human Nature, but merely human nature. Adam and Eve also possessed “passions” in their prelapsiarian state. In that prelapsarian state, their passions (such as hunger, loneliness, concern, etc.) did not lead to sin because they had the perfect use of reason, However, while Adam and Eve were yet without concupiscence (or a disordered faculty of reason), they nevertheless used their Free Will irrationally, which led to disobedience/sin. From that point onward, concupiscence (the disordered faculty of reason) was passed on to all the descendants of Adam. From that point onward, this disordered use of reason caused the passions (which normally in and of themselves would not lead to sin) to be become sinful - hunger became gluttony, loneliness became lust and idolatry, simple possession became greed, concern became hopelessness, etc., etc., etc.). For the sake of the Recreation of the world, God created a new Adam and Eve, in the same prelapsarian state as the old Adam and Eve. This new Adam and Eve used their Free Will in complete obedience to God becoming the spiritual progenitors of the new Israel.

I agree with St. Ephrem, but I don’t know you felt the need to mention this, especially with such emphasis on the “utterly equal”. Mary and Eve are compared both because their equality before their decisions and for the reason I mentioned.

The emphasis (which St. Ephraim used) indicates that Mary likewise had the same human nature as Eve - liable to death and corruption, yet created pure and immaculate in spirit without Original Sin. If Mary had Original Sin - which non-Catholics claim - then St, Ephraim would never have emphasized that they were “UTTERLY EQUAL” before their respective cosmic decisions.

Blessings

 

[Zabdi_Premjit]

Dear brother Zabdi,

I think we have much agreement on many points already. But there are a few things that need to be worked out, and I think most of them are just matters of definition.

Yes, I am aware of the concept of passions. From my reading of the Fathers, the passions are those things that connect us to beasts - irrational tendencies. Beasts don’t have the faculty of reason, and have passions. When we are not using the faculty of reason correctly (i.e., irrationally), the we have given in to the “passions” and have likened ourselves to beasts. Does that explanation sound more familiar to you.

Yes, that sounds more familiar

I agree that there seems to be an ambiguity. However, I think it is merely on the same order as your own earlier statement that we are “naturally” immortal, but only by Grace. So there is really no discrepancy between one Father saying “we are immortal by nature” and another saying “we are immortal by Grace.”

However, I can likewise agree that, due to this ambiguity, there is has been no consensus on the matter. AFAIK, the Catholic Church has never pronounced definitely on this matter either. The only thing the Catholic Church has definitively condemned is the belief that Adam would have died naturally even if he did not sin.

Okay.

On the other hand, I do think that it is more logical to assume the Alexandrian position (which the Latins also possess) is correct,

To each his own.

My position is that they still died NOT because they HAD Original Sin, but because it was the NATURAL state of their human nature to die. This is proven by the fact that even though Baptism washes away Original Sin, we STILL die even though we no longer have Original Sin. This would indicate that physical death is not attached to the definition of Original Sin (per se) in the same way that spiritual death is intimately attached to the term.

This is all a matter of terminology/definition.

Maybe this is why the Jesus Prayer is more common among Orthodox than among Roman Catholics. They think humans were corrupt and mortal by nature, so they have less of a sense of loss; there’s less reason to be sad and ask for mercy.

It would have great relevance for the teaching of the IC. The fact that Mary died the physical death has no bearing on the teaching that she had no Original Sin.

If whether a person has an Alexandrian or Orthodox viewpoint has relevance to the IC, it would suggest that perhaps the IC can only be conceived of through an Alexandrian theology, as it addresses an issue that would not arise in the Orthodox worldview.

True. It is a very rare occurence for the Pope to use his papal authority to define a dogma. There is more to the matter, but that would be for another thread.

Okay.

I hope you did not get this understanding from what I stated. If I misled you in any way, please forgive me. The Catholic teaching is that the IC is a FACT. A Catholic is bound not merely by religious assent, but by an assent of faith, as well, to believe the teaching of the IC. What I am saying is that the proscription contained in the dogma applies to whether or not one believes in the teaching, NOT whether one thinks a person who does not believe in it will endanger their very salvation (i.e., an anathema).

I gather:

1. 
   *]The Catholic church deems the IC to be a fact, i.e. a dogma.
   *]As a dogma, all Catholics must believe it. Denying the dogma is grounds of excommunication
   *]All who don’t believe are not necessarily damned.
   
   My concerns:
   
   If the IC is a dogma, then a Catholic would be guilty of heresy if he denied it. If one commits heresy and continues in that heresy till the day of his death, he is guilty of the blasphemy of the Holy Spirit. Christ mentions that this is the only unforgivable sin. In the case that someone commits this type of sin, it is certain that they have no forgiveness and receive damnation, i.e. anathema. Therefore, if the IC is a dogma, then a Catholic who denies it till the day of his death must be anathema. Now, you said that Catholics are not required to believe that someone guilty of of denying the IC endangers their salvation, but if they don’t necessarily endanger their salvation, then denying the IC cannot be a heresy, as heresies always endanger one’s salvation. If denying the IC is not a heresy, then the IC cannot be a dogma, since the knowing rejection of a dogma is heresy.
   
   Hence, we see a blatant contradiction. There are four possibilities:
   
   1. 
      *]You were right about the IC being a dogma, but wrong about not being required to believe that rejecting it endangers salvation.
      *]You were wrong about the IC being a dogma, but right about not being required to believe that rejecting it endangers salvation. (i.e. The IC would then be a theologoumenon.)
      *]You were both wrong about the IC being a dogma and wrong about not being required to believe that rejecting it endangers salvation. (i.e. No stance on the IC has been taken.)
      *]You were both right about the IC being a dogma, but right about not being required to believe that rejecting it endangers salvation. (i.e. The situation describe above, in which the Catholic Church claims two mutual exclusive stances and contradicts itself.)
      

      In fact, the proscription contained in the IC is not an anathema, but an excommunication. Do you understand the difference between an anathema and an excommunication?

      As far as I know, an excommunication is barring a person from participating in the life of the Church, e.g. sacraments; an anathema is an acknowledgement of damnation.

 

[mardukm]

But Free Will is a part of the “image of God”. We are all born with the “image of God”, however distorted it may be. If free will was a result of reason and not an inherent property of man, then there is reason to believe that the “image of God” is not inherent in Fallen Man.

The faculty of Reason is also part of the “Image of God.” It is something that the beasts do not share. So the distinction shouldn’t lead to your conclusion.

Okay. I didn’t say anything that would contradict this. I specifically said that Original Sin was remitted, so you’re emphasis on the remittance of Original Sin makes me think you’re not understanding me. Allow me to quote myself:

My concern for mentioning this is that apparently you believe that babies have actual sin even while they are still fetuses (unless I misunderstood you since you said earlier that “fetuses have sin because they have free will”). I suppose this would justify the necessity of infant baptism, if it is true that even fetuses have actual sin. I acknowledge your quote, but it seems what you are saying is that original sin leads to actual sin, and you baptize babies for their actual sin, not their original sin. My position is that babies cannot have actual sin, and we baptize them for remission of original sin alone. Did I simply misunderstand you and we are we actually in agreement that Baptism remits Original Sin in infants?

Blessings

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Aramis,

Two ecumenical councils is pretty firm “non-definition”, friend.

May I ask what you are referring to?

Blessings

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Zabdi,

Mardukm:

My position is that they still died NOT because they HAD Original Sin, but because it was the NATURAL state of their human nature to die. This is proven by the fact that even though Baptism washes away Original Sin, we STILL die even though we no longer have Original Sin. This would indicate that physical death is not attached to the definition of Original Sin (per se) in the same way that spiritual death is intimately attached to the term.

This is all a matter of terminology/definition.

Can you please explain this? IMO, this is one of the central tenets involving a proper understanding of not only the IC, but of Christ’s human nature, as well as the nature of Baptism, So I don’t think the difference can be reduced to a matter of terminology.

Here are the consequences of either belief that I perceive for each of the dogmas mentioned:

If you believe that the existence of physical death defines the very nature of Original Sin per se (and not simply that physical death is natural to human nature), then.

1. As far as the IC, it means Mary had Original Sin because she died;
2. As far as Christ’s human nature, it means that Christ had Original Sin because He died;
3. As far as the doctrine of Baptism, it means that it does NOT wash away Original Sin because we still die.

However, if one takes the position that death is simply NATURAL to us, then:

1. As far as the IC, it explains how Mary could die even though she was preserved from Original Sin;
2. As far as Christ’s human nature, it explains how Jesus could die even though He did not have Original Sin;
3. As far as the doctrine on Baptism, it means that it DOES wash away Original Sin even though we still die.

If whether a person has an Alexandrian or Orthodox viewpoint has relevance to the IC, it would suggest that perhaps the IC can only be conceived of through an Alexandrian theology, as it addresses an issue that would not arise in the Orthodox worldview.

This would, respectfully, be a point of difference between us. From my reading of the Fathers of all the Churches, the Latins, the Orientals, and the Easterns up until the 19th century all shared the same teaching on Original Sin. After that, only the Latins and Orientals (and still a great many indivudal Easterns) have retained the Traditional teaching, while another group of Easterns have changed it.

Proof would entail references to the Fathers before the 19th century. Here are two articles from Eastern Orthodox Christians on the modern idea of a “false dichotomy” between Original Sin and Ancestral Sin.
razilazenje.blogspot.com/2006/12/ancestral-vs-original-sin-false.html

orthodoxchristianbooks.co…-original-sin/

The second one is from Vladimir Moss which I made a link to earlier in the thread.

As far as the IC is concerned, the Latins and the Easterns shared the teaching on the IC up until the 19th century. After that, only the Latins and the Eastern and Oriental Catholics share the teaching. The discussion on this would likewise entail references to the Fathers, especially of the Eastern Church down to the 19th century. But this thread is not the place for that.

Blessings

 

[mardukm]

I gather:

1. 
   *]The Catholic church deems the IC to be a fact, i.e. a dogma.
   *]As a dogma, all Catholics must believe it. Denying the dogma is grounds of excommunication
   *]All who don’t believe are not necessarily damned.
   
   My concerns:
   
   If the IC is a dogma, then a Catholic would be guilty of heresy if he denied it. If one commits heresy and continues in that heresy till the day of his death, he is guilty of the blasphemy of the Holy Spirit. Christ mentions that this is the only unforgivable sin. In the case that someone commits this type of sin, it is certain that they have no forgiveness and receive damnation, i.e. anathema. Therefore, if the IC is a dogma, then a Catholic who denies it till the day of his death must be anathema. Now, you said that Catholics are not required to believe that someone guilty of of denying the IC endangers their salvation, but if they don’t necessarily endanger their salvation, then denying the IC cannot be a heresy, as heresies always endanger one’s salvation. If denying the IC is not a heresy, then the IC cannot be a dogma, since the knowing rejection of a dogma is heresy.
   
   Hence, we see a blatant contradiction. There are four possibilities:
   
   *]You were both right about the IC being a dogma, but right about not being required to believe that rejecting it endangers salvation. (i.e. The situation describe above, in which the Catholic Church claims two mutual exclusive stances and contradicts itself.)

1. 
   I am not denying it is a dogma by claiming that those who believe it but believe it only as a theologoumenon do not fall under its proscription.
   
   What I am saying is that the dogma insists that it be believed and that none should speak against it; the dogma does NOT insist that it be believed AS a dogma.
   
   So:
   Those Catholics who do not believe in it willfully and with full knowledge that it is to be held as divine Truth are excommunicated;
   Those Catholics who speak against it willfully and with full knowledge that it is to be held as divine Truth are excommunicated;
   Those Catholics who believe it and do not speak willfully against it, but believe that those who do not believe it are not condemned are NOT excommunicated.
   

   As far as I know, an excommunication is barring a person from participating in the life of the Church, e.g. sacraments; an anathema is an acknowledgement of damnation.

   Good. My concern is that many (Catholics and Orthodox alike) think that the dogma contains an anathema, which it does not. Some have argued to me that when the dogma of the IC was promulgated, the use of “anathema” had fallen into disuse and that at that time an “excommunication” was the same as an “anathema.” My response to them was that it is obvious that the distinction still existed because while the dogma of the IC explicitly contains an excommunication, the First Vatican Council (which occurred after the promulgation of the IC) pronounced anathemas.
   
   Some Orthodox have claimed that the dogma condemns to damnation any one who does not believe in it. Since you, brother Zabdi, understand the difference between an excommunication and an anathema, then I’m sure you would admit that such a statement would be false.
   
   Blessings,
   Marduk

 

[mardukm]

orthodoxchristianbooks.co…-original-sin/

The second one is from Vladimir Moss which I made a link to earlier in the thread.

I don’t know why, but the link I gave here does not work. Please see the original link in post #14 on page one. That one works.

Thanks

 

[Zabdi_Premjit]

Dear brother mardukm,

I’m think there are noticeable differences in what we are saying here. There are thing I don’t necessarily agree with you on, but I think I should withdraw from the conversation. I don’t have the deepest understanding of the Orthodox Church’s stance. While I could respond to your points, I want prevent myself from being in a position that may causes me to speculate too much. If the Lord wills, I will look more into the Church’s position to get a better understanding, and I’ll read what the Fathers have to say on the topic. Perhaps, when I am more familiar with the Fathers, a discussion like this won’t cause so much misunderstanding and confusion. If, in time, I feel I have gained sufficient background, and I remember about this thread, I will perhaps revisit it so that the discussion can be concluded.

Your brother-in-Christ,
Athanasios

 

[Addai]

Dear brother Addai,

f guilt comes in. It is NOT an “inherited” guilt. The “guilt” comes from the reality of my OWN inherent lack of holiness, which I am responsible for – NOT for the sin that Adam himself committed (which is the lie that anti-Catholics like to perpetuate). To repeat, there is no such thing as “INHERITED guilt” in the teaching of the Catholic Church.

It’s fine if some EO reject the idea of Original Sin as inherited guilt. I imagine some Protestant groups might teach that very thing. But that is simply not what the Catholic Church teaches.,

What do you think? Would you agree that the “guilt” issue is just a matter of terminology, and not really a difference in Faith between the Catholics and Orthodox?

BUT EVEN ASSUMING IT IS JUST A MATTER OF TERMINOLOGICAL DEFINITIONS, just imagine the danger to the faith of claiming “original sin is not being removed at Baptism, just actual sin.”

Blessings

I am coming around to the idea of guilt. For a long time, rejecting Original sin was one of the big selling points for Orthodoxy. (Catholicism is always imagined according to some kind of hyper-juridicalism, while Orthodoxy is cast as the rational alternative that makes sense of various theological dynamic tension type conflicts). I can see some basis for things that I would have imagined being open minded too in reading Catholic writings. Indulgences is probably the biggest topic (in terms of anti-Catholic baggage) that I’ve had to deal with.

In terms of how I was taught to think on the issue, from one of the Orthodox writings converts read. Baptism was taught as the proper way of entering a relationship with Christ. It was depicted as analogous to marriage, where marriage is the proper way to start a intimate relationship between man and woman. They depicted it as a sacrament, and grace etc.

Of course all of this does dance around semantics. Or it begs the question to put it another way. If you say 1) You deny original sin, 2) See Baptism as a kind of marriage (to Christ) 3) see man as separated by God, 4) in need of a grace/ salvation from God to repair that separation. You basically end up endorsing some kind of view of original sin when you ask the obvious follow up question “What caused that separation and continues to maintain it?”

It’s just that some issues of Augustinian terminology they don’t like. About sin being passed on down the blood line that seems to be against their notions of the justice of God etc. But if you look at everything they say in context, their is basically some kind of unofficial theology of Original Sin.

 

[Messenger71]

**I have found it to be true that if you admit your sins in prayer to God then be baptized you can get the true Holy Ghost to whom we all need in order to learn God and to be in the Kingdom. We need this confirmation to show us that we have part in the life that God foreordained for His people.After I did repent and be baptized I have never learned as much from others as I have from the Comforter. Follow the instructions and you too shall know **