Original Sin and Baptism:

[mardukm]

Mardukam:
I have (for a role-play gaming supplement I’ve been working on) been examining the heresies of the 4th through 6th centuries. Since the game is set in 6th C Britain ca 500-550, Pelagianism is a major part of that research. The last Gasp of Pelagianism seems to have been his students who fled to Britain. (So is Gnosticism and Arianism.) You just got lucky and hit a heresy I’m readily familiar with.

And given the harsh condemnations of the Pelagian and Semi-Pelagian heresies, it is shocking how an orthodox Christian could come to that conclusion, especially if they have ever attended a baptism!

That role-playing game sounds fun - and educational! Anyway, I’ll keep you posted here on my discussions from the Orthodox forum.

Blessings

 

[Zabdi_Premjit]

In an Orthodox forum with an EO brother, I am discussing the idea that Baptism remits Original Sin. He stated that Baptism does not remit Original Sin, but only ACTUAL sin.

What online forum was this, if you don’t mind me asking? I’d like to see the discussion firsthand.

“Fr. Harakas, just what is Original Sin? You are certainly entitled to ask. Few teachings of the Church have been subject to so many misinterpretations. Some churches and religious traditions understand the meaning of Original Sin as inherited guilt, others as social disorder, others as sexual intercourse, and so on. In his book Original Sin (To Propatorikon Amartema), Fr. John Romanides explains the Eastern Orthodox position. Original Sin is the condition in which humanity finds itself as separated from true and full communion with God. As a consequence, our human nature is distorted. Our mind is darkened; our will weakened, our desires rampant; our judgment impaired; our relationships with others in constant tension. In short, we are in a condition which is disturbed and distorted. It is a condition which calls for redemption since we cannot remove ourselves from it by our own effort. The Church proclaims that it is Christ who has redeemed us from Original Sin through His death and resurrection. Through Baptism, we are freed from the determining power of this condition of separatedness from God. As a result of our membership in the Church we are given the potential of restoring our proper relationship to God, our neighbor and our own selves.” (Father Stanley S. Harakas, “The Orthodox Church: 455 Questions and Answers”, Pages 238-239, Light and Life Publishing Co., 1987)

That is what Orthodoxy teaches.

The person you were talking to is mistaken about what the Church has always taught.

 

[Ghosty]

What online forum was this, if you don’t mind me asking? I’d like to see the discussion firsthand.

That is what Orthodoxy teaches.

The person you were talking to is mistaken about what the Church has always taught.

And that is the same teaching as the Latin and Oriental traditions, thanks be to God (“guilt of Original Sin” is actually the same as the definition you gave; it’s unfortunately often misunderstood and misrepresented).

Peace and God bless!

 

[Addai]

In an Orthodox forum with an EO brother, I am discussing the idea that Baptism remits Original Sin. He stated that Baptism does not remit Original Sin, but only ACTUAL sin. I informed him that this is not the teaching of the Oriental Orthodox, the Oriental Catholic, or the Latin Catholic Churches. The following are representative statements from the OO (I’m sure I don’t need to quote any Latin documents, though if a Latin wants to join the discussion and wishes to provide a quote from a Magisterial document, please do so):

Well first of all you might need to define what you think “Original Sin is”. In Kallistos Wares book, “The Orthodox Way”, a book widely read by Coptic Sunday Schools, he describes it as guilt passed on “via the bloodline from Adam” (A literal Augustinian view). And goes on to say that Orthodox do not believe in that. He then goes on to say what “Orthodox believe in”. That there is a weakness in humankind and a universal predilection to sin. Basically what is usually called “iniquity” in the West.

Anyway it all boils down what you mean by the term. The original definition is almost strawmanish in its literalism. While an “iniquity” type concept I think is pretty much universal.

And of course books the “Orthodox Way” and others are widely read and endorsed to the point that they unofficially become the theology of the Church, due to a form Orthodox Ecumenicism, irregardless of what the actual theology and stance of the Church might be.

 

[4everjustjesus]

Hey

       I belong to an Eastern Catholic Church, one of the Syrian rites (Syro-Malabar Catholics).  We DO believe that original sin  as well as actual sin is washed away by baptism. And I, like Ghosty (hope that's the right one!), have never heard of any Church that's under the Pope that does not believe that original sin is washed away by baptism. :confused: Idk, I may be wrong....but I really don't think so. Please correct if I am! But anyway, that's what I know. Hope this helps!

4everonlyjesus
just

 

[Chaldean_Rite]

Hey

       I belong to an Eastern Catholic Church, one of the Syrian rites (Syro-Malabar Catholics).  We DO believe that original sin  as well as actual sin is washed away by baptism. And I, like Ghosty (hope that's the right one!), have never heard of any Church that's under the Pope that does not believe that original sin is washed away by baptism. :confused: Idk, I may be wrong....but I really don't think so. Please correct if I am! But anyway, that's what I know. Hope this helps!

4everonlyjesus
just

correct.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Addai,

Well first of all you might need to define what you think “Original Sin is”. In Kallistos Wares book, “The Orthodox Way”, a book widely read by Coptic Sunday Schools, he describes it as guilt passed on “via the bloodline from Adam” (A literal Augustinian view). And goes on to say that Orthodox do not believe in that. He then goes on to say what “Orthodox believe in”. That there is a weakness in humankind and a universal predilection to sin. Basically what is usually called “iniquity” in the West.

Anyway it all boils down what you mean by the term. The original definition is almost strawmanish in its literalism. While an “iniquity” type concept I think is pretty much universal.

And of course books the “Orthodox Way” and others are widely read and endorsed to the point that they unofficially become the theology of the Church, due to a form Orthodox Ecumenicism, irregardless of what the actual theology and stance of the Church might be.

Yes, these are matters that I am discussing over at that Orthodox website. The guilt issue is one of them. Here is my response, so far (which I copied from that other site):

It depends on what one thinks “guilt” represents in the Catholic understanding as far as Original Sin is concerned. If one thinks it is the guilt of Adam himself, that would be a gross misunderstanding of the Catholic understanding (and that is the usual misrepresentation of the Catholic teaching non-Catholic polemicists like to promote - not saying you yourself are a polemicist for I sense a genuine query in your statement instead of an accusatory tone). One can acquire this though an open-minded reading of the Catholic Church’s dogmatic statements on Original Sin. First. consider the usual understanding/definition of “guilt.” Guilt is a moral obligation to make up for something that is lacking in view of God’s justice. Second, consider that each human being inherits from Adam a lack of holiness/perfection that is the blemish on our nature and short of the holiness/perfection that God requires. Third, and this is the most important - THOUGH AUTHORITATIVE CATHOLIC MAGISTERIAL DOCUMENTS MENTION THE GUILT OF ORIGINAL SIN, THERE ARE NONE THAT CLAIM THAT GUILT IS INHERITED. It is the imaginative divisive mind of anti-Catholics that have created a caricature of the Catholic teaching by claiming that the CC teaches that guilt is inherited (thereby wrongly assuming that we inherit Adam’s OWN guilt). What the Catholic Church actually teaches is that we inherit “sin” from Adam. This “sin” is specifically defined by the Catholic Church as spiritual death (i.e., the state of separation from God). We are each responsible for the recovery of this lost holiness - i.e., the moral obligation to make up for something lacking in view of God’s justice - i.e., guilt. That is where the concept of 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?

In any case, the guilt issue aside, the whole problem - that brothers Aramis and Ghosty smartly pointed out - of teaching that original sin (or the sin of Adam) is not actually removed by Baptism, but only actual sin, is that it violates a DOGMATIC DEFINITION of FAITH of the Ecumenical Councils. No matter how one defines “original sin” or “the sin of Adam” or “ancestral sin,” Baptism removes something else besides just actual sin - that is the dogmatic definition. The EO claim that Baptism removes only actual sin. The Orientals and Latins retain the language of the Ecumenical Councils on the matter, and that is telling. Has the EO changed a fundamental teaching of the Church?

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

 

[Zabdi_Premjit]

What website is this occurring on?

Dear brother Addai,

Yes, these are matters that I am discussing over at that Orthodox website. The guilt issue is one of them. Here is my response, so far (which I copied from that other site):

It depends on what one thinks “guilt” represents in the Catholic understanding as far as Original Sin is concerned. If one thinks it is the guilt of Adam himself, that would be a gross misunderstanding of the Catholic understanding (and that is the usual misrepresentation of the Catholic teaching non-Catholic polemicists like to promote - not saying you yourself are a polemicist for I sense a genuine query in your statement instead of an accusatory tone). One can acquire this though an open-minded reading of the Catholic Church’s dogmatic statements on Original Sin. First. consider the usual understanding/definition of “guilt.” Guilt is a moral obligation to make up for something that is lacking in view of God’s justice. Second, consider that each human being inherits from Adam a lack of holiness/perfection that is the blemish on our nature and short of the holiness/perfection that God requires. Third, and this is the most important - THOUGH AUTHORITATIVE CATHOLIC MAGISTERIAL DOCUMENTS MENTION THE GUILT OF ORIGINAL SIN, THERE ARE NONE THAT CLAIM THAT GUILT IS INHERITED. It is the imaginative divisive mind of anti-Catholics that have created a caricature of the Catholic teaching by claiming that the CC teaches that guilt is inherited (thereby wrongly assuming that we inherit Adam’s OWN guilt). What the Catholic Church actually teaches is that we inherit “sin” from Adam. This “sin” is specifically defined by the Catholic Church as spiritual death (i.e., the state of separation from God). We are each responsible for the recovery of this lost holiness - i.e., the moral obligation to make up for something lacking in view of God’s justice - i.e., guilt. That is where the concept of 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?

In any case, the guilt issue aside, the whole problem - that brothers Aramis and Ghosty smartly pointed out - of teaching that original sin (or the sin of Adam) is not actually removed by Baptism, but only actual sin, is that it violates a DOGMATIC DEFINITION of FAITH of the Ecumenical Councils. No matter how one defines “original sin” or “the sin of Adam” or “ancestral sin,” Baptism removes something else besides just actual sin - that is the dogmatic definition. The EO claim that Baptism removes only actual sin. The Orientals and Latins retain the language of the Ecumenical Councils on the matter, and that is telling. Has the EO changed a fundamental teaching of the Church?

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

 

[Zabdi_Premjit]

I’m copying the following from a conversation I was having earlier today; it is my personal understanding of the issues around Original Sin, IC, Baptism, etc:

Here is what I understanding:

1. Man is intended to be a creature in fellowship with God, through synergy, wherby our wills come into harmony, allowing us to partake of Grace.
2. This Grace is none other than the Energies of God, and it acts to deify us, so that ultimately we may possess within our persons both humanity (by nature) and divinity (by Grace).
3. The natural tendency of the human will is to seek after good. At our creation, this will was oriented toward God, as there is no good but Him.
4. As the natural state of Man is a state in which we partake of Grace, it is our natural condition to have immortality, health, etc.
5. Will is a function of nature, and, while always pulling us where it would, it does not contradict our persons’ function of choice. We may choose to follow our will’s pull or not.
6. The sin of Adam was a choice to ignore the natural tendency of our will toward God, and was an attempt to find goodness out side of good itself.
7. It is this imaginary good, which we take to be actual good, that is evil, and the pursuit of this evil is sin.
8. The consequences, then, of sin is to disorient our will from God.
9. Thus disoriented, the will is like a man in the dark, grasping his way aimlessly to find some destination. It does not cease to seek good, but is simply unable to discern good, and so it inevitably wanders astray, following false “goods”.
10. As all men receive the same human nature possessed by Adam, we all receive a will that is disoriented and prone to sin.
11. This disoriented will leads to a state of hemartia, or “missing the mark”. The term hemartia testifies to some active pursuit (of the will toward God), but also to a perpetual state of failure to reach what is ultimately being pursued (due to the will’s disorientation).
12. The condition of a disoriented will is best described as a sickness, whose symptoms include death, delusion, physical illness, etc., and is often referred to as Original (or Ancestral) Sin.
13. These symptoms are a product of the separation from God resulting from sin, as God is Life, Truth, etc.
14. The accessibility of Grace has never changed; it is always available to those who choose to seek God rather than sin.
15. Our deprivation of Grace, then, is a consequence of our personal sin alone.
16. In theory, one could make all the right choices and therefore avoid all personal sin. This, however, would not heal the distortion of nature caused by a disoriented will. It would be like managing to make your way across a dark, crowded room without bumping into anything. In the end, it’s still dark; the ailment of effectual blindness remains. Therefore, it is not within our power to restore our nature it its prelapsarian state.
17. Given the circumstances that face us, it is inevitable that all persons will commit personal sin.
18. Christ, by being incarnate, recapitulated human nature and became the second Adam, possessing a healed will.
19. Mary was the second Eve, in that, just as the first Eve facilitated the first Adam’s distortion of human nature, so also the second Eve facilitated the second Adam’s recapitulation of human nature.
20. Though baptism the Holy Spirit operates in us, enduing us with that Grace whereby we are united to Christ and become part of his body.
21. 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.
22. Mary has a special honour among the saints in that she alone was an active participant in the salvation of humanity. This, again, parallels the role of the first Eve, who actively participated in the fall by offering the fruit necessary for the the first Adam’s disobedience. Likewise, the second Eve actively participated in salvation by offering the the womb and flesh necessary for the second Adam’s obedience. This is what is meant by “the second Eve facilitated the second Adam’s recapitulation of human nature”.
23. Mary’s honour is due solely to her exceptional conduct and piety. She by no means differed from the rest of humanity on the level of nature. She was equally afflicted by the ailment of Original Sin, and had the same tendencies toward sin that are consequential of distorted human nature. Neither was she the singular recipient of any Grace not available to all humanity.
24. Despite the tendencies resulting from Original Sin, Mary consistently chose righteousness, such that she never committed an act of personal sin.
25. Given the effectual inevitability of sin, Mary remains an anomaly among Mankind, and could only have lived such a pious life through a particular act of mercy from God. Such mercy is evident in the peculiar circumstances of her life.
26. Like any other human, Mary received salvation through the incarnation, death, and resurrection.

 

[Zabdi_Premjit]

Regarding the IC, I have this to say:

1. If it implies salvation through any other means than that of the incarnation, death, and resurrection, I reject it as heresy.
2. If it implies that Mary was without Original Sin (as I defined it above), I reject it as heresy.
3. If it implies that Grace is inaccessible to humanity at any time, I reject it as heresy.

If it does not fall into any of these three categories, I would need an explanation as to what exactly the Latin understanding of Original Sin is, and what the implications of the IC are within this understanding. I am inclined to believe, based on forums, that Catholics do not fall in the first category. I’m not 100% sure on the other two, since I don’t know how Latin theology conceives of Original Sin and Grace.

As an aside, you mentioned the IC being accepted as a valid theologoumenon by some EO. I thought that a teaching expressed by a pope ex cathedra was considered an infallible dogma, not a theologoumenon that one is not required to believe. Was I mistaken on this issue? I admittedly haven’t really looked into the dynamics of papal infallibility.

 

[Zabdi_Premjit]

To clarify # 04, the immortaily, health, etc. is not an inherent property of unfallen Man. These come from the partaking of the fullness of Grace. However, since Man’s natural state is to seek to participate in Grace, he inevitably attains immortality unless there is some other impediment.

To clarify # 21, though we have our natural state again, we do not instantly attain immortality because one such impediment does exist, namely, the passions that result from our past sins.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Zabdi,

I agree as a Catholic and Oriental with a majority of your points. The ones which I feel require some comment/questions are below:

04. As the natural state of Man is a state in which we partake of Grace, it is our natural condition to have immortality, health, etc.

I will agree if you define this natural state as a state of Grace. Otherwise, I cannot agree because the Athanasian/Alexandrian understanding is that death and corruptibility are our NATURAL states (i.e., Adam was MADE NATURALLY mortal and corruptible), whereas he was immortal/incorruptible BY GRACE. I understand that this is only a matter of terminology, and that we actually believe the same thing.

08. The consequences, then, of sin is to disorient our will from God.

Here, I am assuming that by “sin,” you mean the sin of Adam (i.e, the Original or Ancestral Sin). I believe, according to the Alexandrian Tradition, that the disorientation of our will is only a secondary consequence of sin. The immediate consequence of Original Sin is the disordered use of reason, and it is this latter which in turn is the immediate cause of our disordered will. The disordered use of Reason is just one of the immediate consequences of Original Sin. The other immediate consequences of Original Sin are:
spiritual death (separation from God), loss of the Grace of Original Holiness, loss of the Grace of Original Justice, and loss of the Grace of Immortality/incorruptibility.

12. The condition of a disoriented will is best described as a sickness, whose symptoms include death, delusion, physical illness, etc., and is often referred to as Original (or Ancestral) Sin.

I would disagree insofar as it seems to make the disoriented will the immediate cause of the other consequences of Original Sin. On the contrary, the disoriented will is only a secondary consequence of Original Sin, as explained above.

13. These symptoms are a product of the separation from God resulting from sin, as God is Life, Truth, etc.

I can agree with this, but only in light of my comments to your point#8 above.

15. Our deprivation of Grace, then, is a consequence of our personal sin alone.

I don’t agree. Deprivation of Grace is the major consequence on our NATURE of Adam’s Sin. Rather, personal sin is a result of that Fallen Nature.

16. In theory, one could make all the right choices and therefore avoid all personal sin. This, however, would not heal the distortion of nature caused by a disoriented will. It would be like managing to make your way across a dark, crowded room without bumping into anything. In the end, it’s still dark; the ailment of effectual blindness remains. Therefore, it is not within our power to restore our nature it its prelapsarian state.

Yes, this is certainly an element of the Catholic Church’s teaching on Natural Law.

18. Christ, by being incarnate, recapitulated human nature and became the second Adam, possessing a healed will.

I know it’s just a matter of terminology, again, but I would not personally say that Christ had a “healed” will, but rather a PERFECT will (and this because he had the perfect use of reason).

CONTINUED

 

[mardukm]

CONTINUED

19. Mary was the second Eve, in that, just as the first Eve facilitated the first Adam’s distortion of human nature, so also the second Eve facilitated the second Adam’s recapitulation of human nature.

St. Ephrem specifically states that before their respective cosmic decisions, Mary and Eve were “UTTERLY EQUAL.”

20. Though baptism the Holy Spirit operates in us, enduing us with that Grace whereby we are united to Christ and become part of his body.

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

21. 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.

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

23. Mary’s honour is due solely to her exceptional conduct and piety. She by no means differed from the rest of humanity on the level of nature. She was equally afflicted by the ailment of Original Sin, and had the same tendencies toward sin that are consequential of distorted human nature. Neither was she the singular recipient of any Grace not available to all humanity.

1. Despite the tendencies resulting from Original Sin, Mary consistently chose righteousness, such that she never committed an act of personal sin.

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. 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. 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.

25. Given the effectual inevitability of sin, Mary remains an anomaly among Mankind, and could only have lived such a pious life through a particular act of mercy from God. Such mercy is evident in the peculiar circumstances of her life.

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

1. Like any other human, Mary received salvation through the incarnation, death, and resurrection.

WHOLEHEARTEDLY AGREED. God did this by an application of the ETERNAL power of Christ’s Sacrifice (we know Christ’s Sacrifice is Eternal, as St. John relates in Revelation) to His Mother Mary, a unique Grace. There are other facts that that we can consider to come to the belief that the power of Christ’s Sacrifice is Eternal. We know by Tradition that St. Jeremiah and the Forerunner were give the Grace of sinlessness while still in their mother’s womb. These two (other) instances of the Grace of sinlessness being applied were also before the Advent of Christ and His Sacrifice. Yet we know that any Grace of sinlessness can only come from that awesome Sacrifice of our Lord. Therefore, we know that the power of Christ’s Sacrifice is Eternal, the Grace flowing from it applied to whomever God willed to have it for His divine purposes.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Regarding the IC, I have this to say:

1. If it implies salvation through any other means than that of the incarnation, death, and resurrection, I reject it as heresy.

This one is settled between us.

1. If it implies that Mary was without Original Sin (as I defined it above), I reject it as heresy.

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?

1. If it implies that Grace is inaccessible to humanity at any time, I reject it as heresy.

I don’t know what you mean by “inaccessible to humanity at any time.” Can you please explain in relation to the IC?

As an aside, you mentioned the IC being accepted as a valid theologoumenon by some EO. I thought that a teaching expressed by a pope ex cathedra was considered an infallible dogma, not a theologoumenon that one is not required to believe. Was I mistaken on this issue? I admittedly haven’t really looked into the dynamics of papal infallibility.

The proscription attached to the dogma states (basically) that only those who willfully and knowingly reject the teaching itself are held liable to its condemnation. It does not make any statement about having to believe it is a dogma or not. So a person who actually believes in the teaching, but merely as a theologoumenon, would not fall under its condemnation. In addition, of course, regardless of whether one considers it a theologoumenon or dogma, one would be held under the condemnation if one speaks against it.

I hope that has helped explain the Catholic position. I know one can’t learn the whole thing in one sitting, so if you have any more questions, I pray I, or someone here, will have the ability to answer them. Thank you for the honest and gentle dialogue.

Abundant Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

To clarify # 04, the immortaily, health, etc. is not an inherent property of unfallen Man. These come from the partaking of the fullness of Grace. However, since Man’s natural state is to seek to participate in Grace, he inevitably attains immortality unless there is some other impediment.

OK. Acknowledged.

To clarify # 21, though we have our natural state again, we do not instantly attain immortality because one such impediment does exist, namely, the passions that result from our past sins.

We do not instnatly attain immortality because we CAN’T. As St. Athanasius teaches us, there were many even before the advent of Christ who were sinless, yet even these people died. That is because death and corruptibility are our NATURAL state. We must await the Day of Resurrection to actually gain immortality/incorruptibility.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Zabdi_Premjit]

I’ll try to reply to your posts later tonight, as I have a test to study for.

For now though, what is concupiscence?

I don’t know what you mean by “inaccessible to humanity at any time.” Can you please explain in relation to the IC?

By “inaccessible to humanity at any time” I mean a total depravity from Grace, in which fallen Man has zero access to Grace.

 

[mardukm]

I’ll try to reply to your posts later tonight, as I have a test to study for.

Take your time, brother. I know the stress of such things. I’ll be praying for you.

For now though, what is concupiscence?

Concupiscence, as defined by St, Athanasius (and, off the top of my head, St. Basil, as well - I’m sure there are others, but I can’t think of them right now), is the disordered use of reason that resulted from the Fall. As you had stated, humanity wants what is good. But since the Fall darkened our rational powers (i.e, our reason), then we wrongly choose (i.e., use our free will) evil for good. We THINK (because our rational mind has became disordered) that we are choosing good, but it is really, objectively evil in the eyes of God. For example, sensual pleasures such as fornication, or gluttony, or greed, etc.

Here is what the Catholic Catechism states:
2515. Eytmologically, “concupiscence” can refer to any intense form of human desire. Christian theology has given it a particular meaning: the movement of the sensitive appetite contrary to the operation of human reason. The apostle St. Paul identifies it with the rebellion of the “flesh” against the “spirit.” Concupiscence stems from the disobedience of the first sin. It unsettles man’s moral faculties and, without being in itself an offense, inclines man to commit sin.

By “inaccessible to humanity at any time” I mean a total depravity from Grace, in which fallen Man has zero access to Grace.

OK. No. This is the teaching of Calvinism, not St. Augustine nor the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church teaches, in line with Augustine, that humanity is indeed depraved, and depraved to a point that without Grace, he can never rise to the righteousness or holiness that is acceptable to God. The difference between the heresy of Total Depravity (taught by Calvinists) and the Catholic/Augustinian teaching, is that Total Depravity presumes that nothing of the human, not even the will, is involved in acquiring the initial Gift of Faith/Justification. In contrast, St. Augustine taught in several places that the Human Will is not lost despite the teaching on the necessity of Grace. That is the teaching of the Catholic Church - that human will can be aided by Grace to accept the initial Gift of Faith. In Catholic teaching, humanity is not so damaged that it cannot participate in its own salvation (with Grace, of course), before, during, and after the intial Gift of Faith/Justification.

This has been the constant teaching of the Catholic Church from the beginning. If you understand what I am saying, then we should be able to move on to the last of your three objections to the IC - namely, that Mary was without Original Sin. But this depends on your understanding of Original Sin, in light of my own responses to you.

Looking forward to our discussion later.

Abundant blessings (especially for your test),
Marduk

 

[Aramis]

It is also catholic teaching that, by act of will, those rare few who can overcome their debased nature without formal baptism may possibly still find some of that grace in their desire to be united to God.

 

[Zabdi_Premjit]

Take your time, brother. I know the stress of such things. I’ll be praying for you.

Thank you!

OK. No. This is the teaching of Calvinism, not St. Augustine nor the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church teaches, in line with Augustine, that humanity is indeed depraved, and depraved to a point that without Grace, he can never rise to the righteousness or holiness that is acceptable to God. The difference between the heresy of Total Depravity (taught by Calvinists) and the Catholic/Augustinian teaching, is that Total Depravity presumes that nothing of the human, not even the will, is involved in acquiring the initial Gift of Faith/Justification. In contrast, St. Augustine taught in several places that the Human Will is not lost despite the teaching on the necessity of Grace. That is the teaching of the Catholic Church - that human will can be aided by Grace to accept the initial Gift of Faith. In Catholic teaching, humanity is not so damaged that it cannot participate in its own salvation (with Grace, of course), before, during, and after the intial Gift of Faith/Justification.

Okay.

Concupiscence, as defined by St, Athanasius (and, off the top of my head, St. Basil, as well - I’m sure there are others, but I can’t think of them right now), is the disordered use of reason that resulted from the Fall. As you had stated, humanity wants what is good. But since the Fall darkened our rational powers (i.e, our reason), then we wrongly choose (i.e., use our free will) evil for good. We THINK (because our rational mind has became disordered) that we are choosing good, but it is really, objectively evil in the eyes of God. For example, sensual pleasures such as fornication, or gluttony, or greed, etc.

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.

We do not instnatly attain immortality because we CAN’T. As St. Athanasius teaches us, there were many even before the advent of Christ who were sinless, yet even these people died. That is because death and corruptibility are our NATURAL state. We must await the Day of Resurrection to actually gain immortality/incorruptibility.

For God created man according to His own image, that is, immortal, master of himself, and adorned with every virtue. But when he transgressed the commandment, eating the fruit of the tree of which God had commanded him not to taste, then he was banished from Paradise (Gn. 3), fell away from the natural condition, and fell into a condition against nature, and then he remained in sin, in love of glory, in love for the enjoyments of this age and of other passions, and he was mastered by them, for he became himself their slave through the transgression. (Abba Dorotheus)

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.

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. 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.

The proscription attached to the dogma states (basically) that only those who willfully and knowingly reject the teaching itself are held liable to its condemnation. It does not make any statement about having to believe it is a dogma or not. So a person who actually believes in the teaching, but merely as a theologoumenon, would not fall under its condemnation. In addition, of course, regardless of whether one considers it a theologoumenon or dogma, one would be held under the condemnation if one speaks against it.

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. 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 will agree if you define this natural state as a state of Grace. Otherwise, I cannot agree because the Athanasian/Alexandrian understanding is that death and corruptibility are our NATURAL states (i.e., Adam was MADE NATURALLY mortal and corruptible), whereas he was immortal/incorruptible BY GRACE. I understand that this is only a matter of terminology, and that we actually believe the same thing.

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.

 

[Zabdi_Premjit]

Here, I am assuming that by “sin,” you mean the sin of Adam (i.e, the Original or Ancestral Sin).

Yes, I mean sin of Adam.

I believe, according to the Alexandrian Tradition, that the disorientation of our will is only a secondary consequence of sin. The immediate consequence of Original Sin is the disordered use of reason, and it is this latter which in turn is the immediate cause of our disordered will.

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

The disordered use of Reason is just one of the immediate consequences of Original Sin. The other immediate consequences of Original Sin are:
spiritual death (separation from God), loss of the Grace of Original Holiness, loss of the Grace of Original Justice, and loss of the Grace of Immortality/incorruptibility.

What are Original Holiness and Original Justice?

I would disagree insofar as it seems to make the disoriented will the immediate cause of the other consequences of Original Sin. On the contrary, the disoriented will is only a secondary consequence of Original Sin, as explained above.

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.

I don’t agree. Deprivation of Grace is the major consequence on our *NATURE *of Adam’s Sin. Rather, personal sin is a result of that Fallen Nature.

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. 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?

Yes, this is certainly an element of the Catholic Church’s teaching on Natural Law.

Okay.

I know it’s just a matter of terminology, again, but I would not personally say that Christ had a “healed” will, but rather a PERFECT will (and this because he had the perfect use of reason).

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.

St. Ephrem specifically states that before their respective cosmic decisions, Mary and Eve were “UTTERLY EQUAL.”

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.