Original Sin and Trent

[Myhrr]

Ghosty:

That’s exactly what I’ve been saying this whole time. I’m even more at a loss now as to what you are challenging me about. I never denied that people have inherited a broken nature by virtue of the Original Sin.

My point is only that the word guilt is misunderstood in a modern context because when we hear it we think of personal sin, as if the child in question committed the crime rather than children inheriting the results of the crime, i.e. a wounded human nature. The term is archaic because we don’t say, for example, that when a parent refuses to pay their taxes and their belongings are confiscated, that their children are also “guilty” of the crime despite the fact that they must live with the diminished belongings just as much as their parent. The children inherit the sin of their parent, but they don’t commit the sin, so we wouldn’t use the word guilt in a modern context.

It is individual rather than ‘personal’, but it is still inherited guilt.

The individual shares in the guilt of Adam through generation, the whole individual is subject to the punishment which is complete loss of friendship with God, etc.

 

[Ghosty]

Myhrr: Nothing I’ve said is in contridiction of what you just stated. All I’ve said is that guilt is an archaic term to describe what is actually taking place, since guilt in modern parlance usually means what we’ve both described as personal guilt. I never denied the inheritance of the fallen nature, nor did I deny that every individual is subject to it by virtue of generation from Adam.

 

[jimmy]

Myhrr:

It is individual rather than ‘personal’, but it is still inherited guilt.

The individual shares in the guilt of Adam through generation, the whole individual is subject to the punishment which is complete loss of friendship with God, etc.

Ghosty is not saying that isn’t true.

 

[Ghosty]

Thank goodness someone else realizes that. I was beginning to think I was losing my mind

 

[Myhrr]

“inherited” by definition can’t be ‘personal’, it is still guilt. Guilt as in court judgement, and it not ‘archaic’ use, it is the correct word to use in context. According to your dogmas and doctrines Original Sin is the individual’s guilt, that individual is still guilty, guilty, guilty. All the rest of the doctrines are based on this one - you can’t just dismiss it as ‘it’s not a personal sin so it doesn’t matter’ - it says something very well defined about an individual’s personal relationship to God.

 

[jimmy]

“inherited” by definition can’t be ‘personal’, it is still guilt. Guilt as in court judgement, and it not ‘archaic’ use, it is the correct word to use in context. According to your dogmas and doctrines Original Sin is the individual’s guilt, that individual is still guilty, guilty, guilty. All the rest of the doctrines are based on this one - you can’t just dismiss it as ‘it’s not a personal sin so it doesn’t matter’ - it says something very well defined about an individual’s personal relationship to God.

OK, since when do you define what the meaning of the words are. You are very confusing. In the begining you say that inherited does not mean personal, which we agree with, then in the end you say that you can’t say that it is not personal.

We agree that we recieve guilt, but that guilt is not personal guilt. There is a big difference. You only recieve personal guilt from actual sins.

 

[Myhrr]

jimmy:

OK, since when do you define what the meaning of the words are. You are very confusing. In the begining you say that inherited does not mean personal, which we agree with, then in the end you say that you can’t say that it is not personal.

We agree that we recieve guilt, but that guilt is not personal guilt. There is a big difference. You only recieve personal guilt from actual sins.

I said:

All the rest of the doctrines are based on this one - you can’t just dismiss it as ‘it’s not a personal sin so it doesn’t matter’ - it says something very well defined about an individual’s personal relationship to God.

Inherited guilt alters your relationship to God in certain ways
because it is the inherited guilt for Adam’s disobedience for which an angry, wrathful God punished him with death.

Pope John Paul II

IV

1. Man in the beginning (in the state of original justice) spoke to the Creator with friendship and confidence in the whole truth of his spiritual/corporeal being, created in God’s image but he now has lost the basis of that friendship and covenant. He has lost the grace of sharing in God’s life: the good of belonging to him in the holiness of the original relationship of subordination and sonship. But sin has immediately made its presence felt in the existence and the whole comportment of the man and the woman: shame for their transgression and the consequent condition as sinners and therefore fear of God.
2. The biblical texts on the universality and hereditary nature of sin as through “congenital” in nature in the state in which everyone receives it at the moment of conception from one’s parents, lead us to examine more directly the Catholic teaching on original sin. (Also quoted: Ps 50, Rom 3:9, 19; Eph 2:3)

It is a case of a truth transmitted implicitly in the church’s teaching from the very beginning which became a formal declaration of the Magisterium in the XV Synod of Carthage in 418 and the Synod of Orange in 329, principally against the errors of Pelagius (DS 222-223; 371-372). Later, during the period of the Reformation, this truth was solemnly formulated by the Council of Trent in 1546 (DS 1510-1516). The Tridentine Decree on original sin expresses this truth in the precise form in which it is the object of faith and of the church’s teaching. We can therefore, refer to this Decree for the essential content of the Catholic dogma on this point.

V

1. The Council of Trent solemnly expressed the Church’s faith concerning original sin. In the previous catechesis we considered that Council’s teaching in regard to the personal sin of our first parents. Now we wish to reflect on what the council says about the consequences of that sin for humanity.
2. In this regard, the Tridentine Decree states first of all: Adam’s sin has passed to all his descendants, that is to all men and women as descendants of our first parents and their heirs in human nature already deprived of God’s friendship.

• From:

SUMMARY OF CATECHESIS ON ORIGINAL SIN
Pope John Paul II

**
ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/JP2ORSIN.HTM **

 

[Myhrr]

Pope Pius XII uses “as his own”. So he’s saying that once inherited it does become personal, a personal guilt even though not personally committed by the individual.

Humani Generis Pope Pius XII

“Now it is in no way apparent how such an opinion [as your speculative one] can be reconciled with that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the Teaching Authority of the Church propose with regard to original sin, which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam and which through generation is passed on to all and is in everyone as his own.”[12]

1. Cfr. Rom., V, 12-19, Conc. Trid., sess, V, can. 1-4.

“Nor is this all. Disregarding the Council of Trent, some pervert the very concept of original sin, along with the concept of sin in general as an offense against God, as well as the idea of satisfaction performed for us by Christ.”

This is what we call your juridical relationship to God, that sin is disobedience and an offense against God and is punished, as Adam and Eve were punished by being driven out of the Garden of Eden, we don’t have that in Orthodoxy.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=153135&postcount=14

 

[jimmy]

It does say alot about our relationship with God and it is a dogma. We are not trying to dismiss it, but you are distorting the meaning of it.

 

[Myhrr]

jimmy:

It does say alot about our relationship with God and it is a dogma. We are not trying to dismiss it, but you are distorting the meaning of it.

Jimmy, I’m not distorting the meaning of it, the quotes I’ve given are from your Infallible Popes, recognised infallible councils and any of your recognised infallible teaching authorities would say the same.

This is the last post, at the moment, on E-catholics Original Sin thread, posted by a Catholic.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=228590&postcount=397

 

[jimmy]

Myhrr:

Jimmy, I’m not distorting the meaning of it, the quotes I’ve given are from your Infallible Popes, recognised infallible councils and any of your recognised infallible teaching authorities would say the same.

This is the last post, at the moment, on E-catholics Original Sin thread, posted by a Catholic.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=228590&postcount=397

Myrr, I don’t think you understand what Original sin is. It is the loss of Original Justice. It does not incur a punishment. That is why some Catholics believed Limbo. Limbo was not a punishment. Aquinas taught Limbo as where the babys went that were unbaptised. They experienced no pain in his description and most who believed in it after that believed like that. His description of it was that it was happiness. You are saying that we teach that Original Sin incurrs a penalty. If that were true Aquinas and Anselm certainly would not have believed in Limbo. Aquinas completely rejected the Augustinian theology that all unbaptised babies go to Hell.

 

[Ghosty]

Myhrr: I’m not at all saying that inherited guilt doesn’t change the relationship between a human and God, nor am I saying that it doesn’t matter. I don’t know where you are getting this from.

A personal sin is one that is commited by the individual in direct opposition to God, and merits punishment. Inherited sin is a sin that was commited by someone else, but that has effects that extend to all those who are generated from the sinner. I am broken, but I performed absolutely no actions at birth to break myself. I am personally guilty of absolutely no crimes, but I am not born into the vision and friendship of God because it is not in my nature to be so, any more than it is the nature of a dog to enter Heaven. This is why we are told to be “born again” through Baptism, aquiring a new nature through a new birth.

Furthermore, in the CCC, personal sin is explicitly set apart from Original Sin in numerous places.

 

[Myhrr]

Ghosty and Jimmy, Original Sin does incur a punishment. It is inherited, yes, so not something committed by the individual, but the guilt of it is also inherited as the individual’s own, and, because there is guilt there is punishment. That’s the reasoning behind the doctrines. I’m not surprised you don’t like it…

…but it is infallible doctrine and has been for ages. Whether or not Anselm agrees with it doesn’t make any difference, we don’t agree with Augustine either, but it it infallibly defined by Trent, Florence, etc. and infallibly taught for centuries and to date, by Pope John Paul II.

We, Orthodox and Eastern Catholics, don’t have this particular broken relationship with God that you have. Our unbaptised babies don’t go to hell to be punished for being guilty of a crime they didn’t commit.

Neither the Orthodox, and as mentioned earlier by Hesychios, nor the Eastern Catholics have this doctrine:

That is a purely Western concept, it informs both Protestant and Catholic thinking in the West and is assumed in the dialog.

So to be honest about it, there are 21 Catholic Sui Iuris churches that do not teach the guilt of original Sin and 1 that does.

Maybe the new council called to discuss this will find some way to ditch the infallibility attached to the doctrine? Like ditching infallibility?

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=228410&postcount=395

 

[Ghosty]

Myhrr: With all due charity, you really need to stop putting words in the mouth of the Magesterium. The Western Church does not teach that the unbatised (as in the norm of baptism) necessarily go to Hell, nor does it teach that any punishment is due by virtue of inherited sin. I’ve already referenced the CCC on the matter, and you’ve refused to acknowledge the fact that the CCC does NOT say what you say it does. Please read the CCC, as put forth by John Paul II and the Council of Bishops, before making such vacuous statements. Challenge what the Church actually teaches, not your strawmen.

Furthermore, to imply that the Eastern Catholics hold a view that is against Catholic Dogma shows your ignorance of the nature of the Catholic Church and its workings. Dogmas are universal to the Church, Eastern and Western, and there is no Dogma that is held by the Western Church that is not held by the Eastern. The Augustinian definition of Original Sin was NEVER Dogma, nor even Doctrine, and it has fallen out of favor in Western Catholic theology.

You deign to lecture me on the Dogmas of the Church without understanding the Dogmas, or even the nature of what a Dogma is. Until you address the facts of Catholic teaching, as presented in the Councils and explained in the CCC (not merely your personal, and fallible, interpretation of what the Councils say), I see no reason in continuing to beat the same dead horse. Read the CCC’s entries on Original Sin, and then read the Councilar and Papal documents in light of its direction. That’s the only way for you to get past these false arguments that have already been amply addressed.

 

[Myhrr]

Ghosty, I’ve already been through all these arguments on the Original Sin thread, the CCC has put a different slant on things because of Melkite and Paul VI influence, a good thing, I’m not knocking it, but, the dogma of Original Sin doctrines where guilt means guilt as in deserving punishment is still infallible teaching. Without it there wouldn’t be any reason to say as you do “I am personally guilty of absolutely no crimes, but I am not born into the vision and friendship of God because it is not in my nature to be so”.

Abraham was a friend of God… Does this mean he was born without original sin?

library.timelesstruths.org/texts/Treasures_of_the_Kingdom_20/Abrahams_Friend/

 

[jimmy]

Myhrr:

Ghosty, I’ve already been through all these arguments on the Original Sin thread, the CCC has put a different slant on things because of Melkite and Paul VI influence, a good thing, I’m not knocking it, but, the dogma of Original Sin doctrines where guilt means guilt as in deserving punishment is still infallible teaching. Without it there wouldn’t be any reason to say as you do “I am personally guilty of absolutely no crimes, but I am not born into the vision and friendship of God because it is not in my nature to be so”.

Abraham was a friend of God… Does this mean he was born without original sin?

library.timelesstruths.org/texts/Treasures_of_the_Kingdom_20/Abrahams_Friend/

As I said above Original sin is the deprivation of Original Justice.

 

[Ghosty]

Myhrr: You simply misunderstand what the infallible doctrine is, that’s all. Furthermore, you are completely misunderstanding and misrepresenting what I am saying, and misrepresenting the meaning of punishment in the context. The text cited by our Catholic brother in the thread you linked to implies this difference when it says that people who die with mortal sin on their souls are punished with “unequal pains” to those who die with only original sin. What unequal pains exist in the complete absence of God’s presence, which is what Catholics understand to be Hell? The implication is already there in this very text that the understanding of the “punishment” for original same is not the same as the “punishment” for personal mortal sin. This fuzzy area has simply been clarified in recent years, as has the reiteration that God can remove Original Sin in any way at any time, and is in no way bound by the Sacraments.

In short, “deserving punishment” in the context of Original Sin is very different from “deserving punishment” in the context of mortal sin, and this difference has been highlighted and clarified while retaining the substance of the original teachings.