Original Sin by Vladimir Moss

[marlo]

Brothers,

I would like to share this article by an Orthodox writer Vladimir Moss regarding Original sin…

his view or analysis on the traditional understanding of original sin fits the RC view of original sin, and he showed that the new orthodox understanding of original sin that death not sin was transferred to man was because of the thesis of Fr. Romanides

He also defended St. Augustine and a western council

He also put a statement that would fit the Immaculate Conception (below)
“Christ was born from a virgin who had been cleansed beforehand from all sin by the Holy Spirit precisely in order to break the cycle of sin begetting sin. As St. Gregory Palamas writes”

although his conclusion would say that the traditional view would contradict the IC doctrine, i think its not…however,its very interesting to read.

orthodoxchristianbooks.com/articles/258/-new-soteriology-(1)-original-sin/

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Marlo,

I would like to share this article by an Orthodox writer Vladimir Moss regarding Original sin…

his view or analysis on the traditional understanding of original sin fits the RC view of original sin, and he showed that the new orthodox understanding of original sin that death not sin was transferred to man was because of the thesis of Fr. Romanides

He also defended St. Augustine and a western council

He also put a statement that would fit the Immaculate Conception (below)
“Christ was born from a virgin who had been cleansed beforehand from all sin by the Holy Spirit precisely in order to break the cycle of sin begetting sin. As St. Gregory Palamas writes”

although his conclusion would say that the traditional view would contradict the IC doctrine, i think its not…however,its very interesting to read.

orthodoxchristianbooks.com/articles/258/-new-soteriology-(1)-original-sin/

Can the teaching of Eastern Orthodoxy really have developed to such an extent within a mere 50 years? I’ve always regarded the focus on “death or fear of death as cause of sin” to be — different, for lack of a better word. I never realized how recent the focal shift was. A definite eye-opener.

I wonder how far this change has affected Eastern Catholics?

I do think, however, that your statement regarding the IC is a bit of a stretch. The value of the article to the dogma of the IC is in relation to the issue of original sin, not to the issue of Mary’s sinlessness.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[marlo]

Dear Brother Mardukm

When im reading it, it seems that i’m reading catholic apologetics…
The reason i posted it, is i would like to know if our eastern catholic brethen do view this article as the traditional view of original sin, or do they coincide with Fr. Romanides view.

Also a good thing to note is that this understanding of original sin complements the infant baptism in which during my discussion with EO posters in the old eastern Christianity forum, they replied that infant baptism is because it was a tradition and the faith of their parents. but with this view, the traditional orthodox view do support the catholic view of infant baptism, quote below from the same article.

“The fact that original sin taints even children is the reason for the practice of infant baptism. And this practice in turn confirms the traditional doctrine of original sin. Thus the Council of Carthage in 252 under St. Cyprian decreed “not to forbid the baptism of an infant who, scarcely born, has sinned in nothing apart from that which proceeds from the flesh of Adam. He has received the contagion of the ancient death through his very birth, and he comes, therefore, the more easily to the reception of the remission of sins in that it is not his own but the sins of another that are remitted”.”

thanks
marlo

Dear brother Marlo,

Can the teaching of Eastern Orthodoxy really have developed to such an extent within a mere 50 years? I’ve always regarded the focus on “death or fear of death as cause of sin” to be — different, for lack of a better word. I never realized how recent the focal shift was. A definite eye-opener.

I wonder how far this change has affected Eastern Catholics?

I do think, however, that your statement regarding the IC is a bit of a stretch. The value of the article to the dogma of the IC is in relation to the issue of original sin, not to the issue of Mary’s sinlessness.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Taboric_Light]

Dear Brother Mardukm

The reason i posted it, is i would like to know if our eastern catholic brethen do view this article as the traditional view of original sin, or do they coincide with Fr. Romanides view.

Thank you for posting the link; it was a very interesting read. No doubt, I will have to go back and read it again. Unfortunately, I am not able to give my view as a Byzantine, but only as a Roman in “transition.” Though I have heard Fr. Romanides’ view before it has never really seemed right to me. I think Vladimir Moss has presented the traditional and orthodox view of original sin. However, I do disagree with him concerning the Immaculate Conception. I believe that the argument he put forth by way of St. John Maximovich has many misunderstandings concerning what exactly is taught by the IC.

In Christ through Mary

 

[marlo]

Brothers,

In this link entitled “C A T E C H I S M O F THE EASTERN ORTHODOX CHURCH”
WRITTEN BY Rev. Constas H. Demetry, D. D.

christusrex.org/www1/CDHN/catechis.html

I do not know how old this document and it is not an authoritative document as far a the EO church is concerned however the author is a Doctor of the Ecumenical Throne, received from the Patriarchate of Constantinople, and was decorated with the Golden Cross of the Savior by the Greek Government. So this guy must really knew the Orthodox doctrine especially on the topic Original Sin

so here it goes. here are excerpt from the website

Q. What is that sin of disobedience, with all the evils which it brought,
called?

A. The original sin.

Q. Are we responsible for the original sin?

A. Personally none; because we did not personally commit the sin of our First
Parents; but we are charged with it by inheritance because we were in Adam
and Eve when they sinned, and for this reason the Apostle Paul writes:

            "..all have sinned."  ...Book of Romans, Chapter 5, Verse 12.

Page 16

Q. Has anyone been exempted from the original sin?

A. Only Jesus Christ, because He was incarnate of the Holy Spirit, which,
being God, is without sin, and of the Virgin Mary after her cleansing of
original sin by the Holy Spirit when the Angel announced to her the
conception and birth of Christ.

Q. Does man also carry the burden of other sins besides the original sin?

A. Assuredly; personal sins. (The personal sins are mortal and non-mortal.
Mortal are those which destroy any hope of repentance, because they bring
the death of the soul, namely, moral, eternal death. But every sin may be
forgiven by since repentance.

Q. What do personal sins lead to?

A. Personal sins lead to passion.

Q. What is passion and what evils does it inflict?

A. Passion is a bad habit, acquired through the repetition of sin. It takes
away freedom and inflicts the same evils as the original sin.
Basically he called original sin as the “sin of disobedience”, with all the evils which it brought, and of course we are not guilty of this first sin of disobedience, however he states: “but we are charged with it by inheritance”. This is exactly the catholic doctrine.

If we go on, according to him, the Lord and the Mother of God are both exempted from Original sin, and Our Lady was because of the purification of the Holy Spirit. In Catholic view, this happened in the womb of St. Ann, however, the difference only is when did it occur, but most importantly, it shows that there really is an exemption of the Mother of God from Original Sin that the EO now rejects.

If you read further on the text, you will know that the good father did indeed believed that the doctrine of Original Sin of the Catholic and Orthodox are the same:

Q. How do the Churches differ respecting the Dogma of the fall of man?
A.
a) The Orthodox, Anglican, and Papal Churches accept that the nature
of man has suffered from sin, i.e. the image of God in him has been
corrupted and the “in His likeness” has not been attained, and all men are
responsible before God for the original sin.

Q. Which Church is right in its teaching on the Dogma of the fall?

A. The Orthodox, the Anglican, and Papal Churches, whereas others are in error
because:

It is interesting to find out that during those intense debate regarding original sin, the question is, are we really getting the accurate or traditional view of Original Sin from the EO posters since there is no universal and authoritative document we can get to verify if there were really recent changes on their doctrine… as per the two websites i found, it seems that there should be no issue between catholic and orthodox regarding OS.

the best source we can get is the traditional doctrine from our eastern catholic brethren.

thanks
marlo

Thank you for posting the link; it was a very interesting read. No doubt, I will have to go back and read it again. Unfortunately, I am not able to give my view as a Byzantine, but only as a Roman in “transition.” Though I have heard Fr. Romanides’ view before it has never really seemed right to me. I think Vladimir Moss has presented the traditional and orthodox view of original sin. However, I do disagree with him concerning the Immaculate Conception. I believe that the argument he put forth by way of St. John Maximovich has many misunderstandings concerning what exactly is taught by the IC.

In Christ through Mary

 

[mardukm]

If we go on, according to him, the Lord and the Mother of God are both exempted from Original sin, and Our Lady was because of the purification of the Holy Spirit. In Catholic view, this happened in the womb of St. Ann, however, the difference only is when did it occur, but most importantly, it shows that there really is an exemption of the Mother of God from Original Sin that the EO now rejects.

We are all “exempted” from original sin upon baptism. The grace Mary received at her IC is no different from the grace we receive at Baptism (though Mary received it at a MUCh earlier time, earlier than even John the Baptist). However, normally, we would say that we are “cleansed” from original sin. I find it — unique that this EO priest uses the word “exempted” in regards to Mary.

It is interesting to find out that during those intense debate regarding original sin, the question is, are we really getting the accurate or traditional view of Original Sin from the EO posters since there is no universal and authoritative document we can get to verify if there were really recent changes on their doctrine… as per the two websites i found, it seems that there should be no issue between catholic and orthodox regarding OS.

Though I am not certain, I think this priest might be expressing the patristic understanding of original sin. After all, the concept of original sin was originally (no pun intended) most intricately explicated by St. Augustine in his debate against the Pelagians, and the Third Ecumenical Council accepted these arguments in condemnation of Pelagianism.

I am steadily becoming convinced (and have been in the past year) that there is a marked difference between modern polemical EO’xy (though certainly not all EO are like that) and historic EO’xy. I believe our Eastern Catholic brethren represent historic EO’xy much better than modern polemical EO’xy.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[jimmy]

Dear brother Marlo,

Can the teaching of Eastern Orthodoxy really have developed to such an extent within a mere 50 years? I’ve always regarded the focus on “death or fear of death as cause of sin” to be — different, for lack of a better word. I never realized how recent the focal shift was. A definite eye-opener.

I wonder how far this change has affected Eastern Catholics?

I do think, however, that your statement regarding the IC is a bit of a stretch. The value of the article to the dogma of the IC is in relation to the issue of original sin, not to the issue of Mary’s sinlessness.

Blessings,
Marduk

The idea that death and the fear of death is the cause of sin is not new. It dates atleast back to St. Maximus the Confessor.

 

[marlo]

Interesting, can you post some of his writings regarding this?

The idea that death and the fear of death is the cause of sin is not new. It dates atleast back to St. Maximus the Confessor.

 

[jgress]

Hello everyone

I’m Eastern Orthodox and new to this forum. I was brought up as a Roman Catholic.
When I first started to inquire into Orthodoxy, I admit I was attracted by this take on original sin, namely that we don’t in fact inherit sin, but only mortality. I was impressed by Fr Romanides’ argument that it is the fear of death which causes sin, rather than vice versa. St Paul seems to suggest something of the sort in his epistle to the Hebrews.
However, on reading Vladimir Moss’ work and the Church Fathers, I have come to the conclusion that he is right, and that Romanides’ thesis is a distortion of the traditional, patristic teaching on original sin. It is especially interesting to note that in the Russian church, a corresponding distortion appeared in the work of Met Anthony (Khrapovitsky), “The Dogma of Redemption”. These are not the only distortions to appear in recent times. Others include the rejection of the patristic teaching of the ‘toll-houses’. It is noteworthy that both distortions have flourished in ‘traditionalist’ Orthodox jurisdictions (such as my own) which otherwise reject contemporary innovations (such as the New Calendar, or the ecumenical movement).
Regarding the alleged IC of Mary, I think what is important is that Mary was pure from sin at the time she conceived Christ. In that the Catholics and Orthodox are in agreement. However, I think one can show the Orthodox are correct in maintaining the ancient understanding that Mary was purified from sin at the Annunciation, rather than the innovative teaching that she was purified at her conception. It is very important that she explicitly consented to her role as mother of the Word, and also (as St John Maximovich pointed out) that she was like every one else in being conceived in sin, since only the Incarnate Word can be conceived without sin without making God ‘unjust’ in singling out only one human to be conceived sinlessly. Only One at any time was completely without sin, and that is Christ.
Regarding someone’s point about the Orthodox tradition of keeping ancient teachings, I think this is very important even where the reason for the ancient teaching is not immediately understood. Where a teaching is innovative, we find that prima facie evidence that the teaching is false, regardless of whether it happens to appear more ‘rational’ at the time. Remember that these teachings, being revelations of the Holy Spirit, are ultimately beyond our full understanding in any case. We hold them by means of faith, rather than reason.
In Christ
Jonathan

 

[codebilly]

Dear Brothers and Sisters in Christ,

“Lord Jesus Christ, Have Mercy on Me a sinner”.

I first confess my weaknesses and limitations in presenting any commentary on this topic, “Original Sin”.

My direct and personal non speculative realization regarding this topic is that the Roman Catholic position is the correct one.

Fortunately this is rather easy to prove in Scripture and with Orthodox sayings of theologians as well, which baffles me why the Orthodox see holds to its position on this matter.

The original sin is NOT the sin of disobedience. Disobedience is the artifact of the “Original Sin”.

Original Sin is the desire to be God, independent of God. In Genesis we read of the original temptation:

*"… eat of this and ye shall be as gods…"

• • Gen. 3:5

I am currently reading “A Night in the Desert of the Holy Mountain” which is pure Orthodox and the hermit in that book teaches this very thing as well, i.e., that the fall was of the desire of to “be God”.

If any sincere seeker examine sin and one’s sinfulness, we will find this desire to be a god as the original cause of propensity to sin, AND that it exists in our nature.

The Roman Catholic Church and its communion of Eastern Rite Churches are absolutely correct in their teaching on Original sin. There is can be no question.

The Orthodox position denies that we possess this “original sin”. We definitely do.

 

[jimmy]

Interesting, can you post some of his writings regarding this?

I can’t recall where exactly I read it. It was most likely either in the short book of his writings published by SVS Press or maybe in Byzantine Theology by John Meyendorff.

 

[Patrick1982]

Dear Brothers and Sisters in Christ,

“Lord Jesus Christ, Have Mercy on Me a sinner”.

I first confess my weaknesses and limitations in presenting any commentary on this topic, “Original Sin”.

My direct and personal non speculative realization regarding this topic is that the Roman Catholic position is the correct one.

Fortunately this is rather easy to prove in Scripture and with Orthodox sayings of theologians as well, which baffles me why the Orthodox see holds to its position on this matter.

The original sin is NOT the sin of disobedience. Disobedience is the artifact of the “Original Sin”.

Original Sin is the desire to be God, independent of God. In Genesis we read of the original temptation:

*"… eat of this and ye shall be as gods…"

• • Gen. 3:5

I am currently reading “A Night in the Desert of the Holy Mountain” which is pure Orthodox and the hermit in that book teaches this very thing as well, i.e., that the fall was of the desire of to “be God”.

If any sincere seeker examine sin and one’s sinfulness, we will find this desire to be a god as the original cause of propensity to sin, AND that it exists in our nature.

The Roman Catholic Church and its communion of Eastern Rite Churches are absolutely correct in their teaching on Original sin. There is can be no question.

The Orthodox position denies that we possess this “original sin”. We definitely do.

I’m trying to figure out why you think the propensity to sin somehow validates the Roman Catholic understanding of original sin in opposition to the Orthodox understanding. Both sides would agree that death and propensity to sin are the results of the original sin of Adam… so far nothing you’ve mentioned does anything to discredit the Orthodox understanding of “original sin”.

The point of divergence between the two understandings traditionally is that in times past(less so these days) “original sin” in the Catholic understanding implied an actual guilt… as in every person born being guilty of the sin of Adam, and this guilt described as the “stain” of original sin. This understanding was at least prevalent enough for the Catholic Church to feel the need to declare the Virgin Mary free from the “stain” of original sin (Immaculate conception) so as to assert the sinlessness of she who bore Christ.

You may be slightly confused and possibly have heard Orthodox sources say, "we don’t believe in “Original Sin” or something to that effect. What is meant is that the Orthodox Church teaches that there is no *personal guilt * inherited by virtue of being born, no “stain” to need to be preserved from. Hence while the sin of Adam brought death and propensity to sin and was the cause of our fallen nature, we are not born guilty of his sin. That is a main objection to the “Immaculate Conception”- that it is an unnecessary answer to a non-existent problem. I’ve been reading the same book and so far nothing in it does anything to reinforce the Catholic understanding of original sin except in as much as it currently resembles the Orthodox understanding.

I’m well aware that most Catholics will go out of their way and do backflips to prove that the concept of an actual inherited guilt was never taught- or that even if it was the general understanding that it was never correct and therefore was innocent foolishness or some such thing- even in light of magisterial documents that plainly read seem to indicate to the contrary.

As for that whole argument- not getting into it, but I felt like I might be able to clarify what is traditionally understood to be the differing understandings or focus. You’re not likely to find the Roman Catholic understanding promoted by an Athonite hesychast monk, so I could only assume you were getting confused somewhere.

 

[jimmy]

St. Maximus spoke of Original Sin and associated three things with it: death, corruption, subjection to the passions (this is in the SVS Press Popular Patristics volume of his writings on like page 119). He does not associate it with any personal guilt. This is the Orthodox perspective. There is no personal guilt and they do not speak of a loss of original justice or holiness. You are still affected by Grace but it does not become united to your nature as it does through the incarnation but is from outside so to speak. You can read about OS in the writings of Vladimire Lossky or Michael Pomazansk. They both discuss it and they recognize that it is not simply death but at the same time it is not the same as the Latin perspective.

 

[codebilly]

I’m trying to figure out why you think the propensity to sin somehow validates the Roman Catholic understanding of original sin in opposition to the Orthodox understanding. Both sides would agree that death and propensity to sin are the results of the original sin of Adam… so far nothing you’ve mentioned does anything to discredit the Orthodox understanding of “original sin”.

The point of divergence between the two understandings traditionally is that in times past(less so these days) “original sin” in the Catholic understanding implied an actual guilt… as in every person born being guilty of the sin of Adam, and this guilt described as the “stain” of original sin. This understanding was at least prevalent enough for the Catholic Church to feel the need to declare the Virgin Mary free from the “stain” of original sin (Immaculate conception) so as to assert the sinlessness of she who bore Christ.

You may be slightly confused and possibly have heard Orthodox sources say, "we don’t believe in “Original Sin” or something to that effect. What is meant is that the Orthodox Church teaches that there is no *personal guilt * inherited by virtue of being born, no “stain” to need to be preserved from. Hence while the sin of Adam brought death and propensity to sin and was the cause of our fallen nature, we are not born guilty of his sin. That is a main objection to the “Immaculate Conception”- that it is an unnecessary answer to a non-existent problem. I’ve been reading the same book and so far nothing in it does anything to reinforce the Catholic understanding of original sin except in as much as it currently resembles the Orthodox understanding.

I’m well aware that most Catholics will go out of their way and do backflips to prove that the concept of an actual inherited guilt was never taught- or that even if it was the general understanding that it was never correct and therefore was innocent foolishness or some such thing- even in light of magisterial documents that plainly read seem to indicate to the contrary.

As for that whole argument- not getting into it, but I felt like I might be able to clarify what is traditionally understood to be the differing understandings or focus. You’re not likely to find the Roman Catholic understanding promoted by an Athonite hesychast monk, so I could only assume you were getting confused somewhere.

Well… I may have over simplified, but I think the essence of the two teachings are as follows:

Rome and the Catholic Communion : Each person inherits Original sin (is guilty)
Orthodox See: Each person inherits the effect (death)

Am I mistaken?

I am certain Orthodox theologians , and yes Athonite hesychast monks, will tell you that the first sin was the “willful desire to be a god unto oneself”, and that “vain idea of an existence separate from God” … is in each person at birth. Its also called ‘false ego’. or ‘false I-sense’ . Hence, a person is “guilty” of the (original) sin if they have their “I, me, my sense” covering the nous .

It’s not rocket science. No real Anthonite can contest this fact, and I will find references if you insists.

I’m not trying to prove anything. As I said, I am not debating from speculation.

We’re guilty of the sin, period.

The Orthodox ‘official’ position, somehow, is even in conflict with the realizations of some Orthodox theologians.

Anyone arguing that one’s greed/envy is not the root sin, is just arguing with themselves.

That is my humble opinion.

 

[codebilly]

St. Maximus spoke of Original Sin and associated three things with it: death, corruption, subjection to the passions (this is in the SVS Press Popular Patristics volume of his writings on like page 119). He does not associate it with any personal guilt. This is the Orthodox perspective. There is no personal guilt and they do not speak of a loss of original justice or holiness. You are still affected by Grace but it does not become united to your nature as it does through the incarnation but is from outside so to speak. You can read about OS in the writings of Vladimire Lossky or Michael Pomazansk. They both discuss it and they recognize that it is not simply death but at the same time it is not the same as the Latin perspective.

Personal guilt has to be part of it. The original sin is the ‘vain idea of an existence separate from God’, … its clear in the Genesis. "… eat of this and ye shall be as gods.’

Adam and Eve wanted to be a god unto themselves.

Now examine any time one commits sin. Go deep to the root cause. The sinner places themselves above the position of God, by disobedience. The sinner willfully surrenders to their own law rather than God’s.

If a person were pure and spotless and free from the propensity to put “I/Me/My” first before Love of God, then that person could not sin.

Hence, one must have this propensity first (‘be a god unto themselves’) in order to commit the first sin. Hence, they are ‘guilty’ of this propensity and succumbing to it, aka Original Sin

 

[Patrick1982]

Personal guilt has to be part of it. The original sin is the ‘vain idea of an existence separate from God’, … its clear in the Genesis. "… eat of this and ye shall be as gods.’

Adam and Eve wanted to be a god unto themselves.

Now examine any time one commits sin. Go deep to the root cause. The sinner places themselves above the position of God, by disobedience. The sinner willfully surrenders to their own law rather than God’s.

If a person were pure and spotless and free from the propensity to put “I/Me/My” first before Love of God, then that person could not sin.

Hence, one must have this propensity first (‘be a god unto themselves’) in order to commit the first sin. Hence, they are ‘guilty’ of this propensity and succumbing to it, aka Original Sin

Then that person will be guilty of whatever sin the commit when they commit it. They are not guilty of a fallen nature or of any sin that they did not commit. The root cause is our fallen nature, not guilt. You cannot be guilty of a propensity to sin, just as you are not guilty of temptation, only succumbing to it.

 

[Patrick1982]

Well… I may have over simplified, but I think the essence of the two teachings are as follows:

Rome and the Catholic Communion : Each person inherits Original sin (is guilty)
Orthodox See: Each person inherits the effect (death)

Am I mistaken?

I am certain Orthodox theologians , and yes Athonite hesychast monks, will tell you that the first sin was the “willful desire to be a god unto oneself”, and that “vain idea of an existence separate from God” … is in each person at birth. Its also called ‘false ego’. or ‘false I-sense’ . Hence, a person is “guilty” of the (original) sin if they have their “I, me, my sense” covering the nous .

It’s not rocket science. No real Anthonite can contest this fact, and I will find references if you insists.

I’m not trying to prove anything. As I said, I am not debating from speculation.

We’re guilty of the sin, period.

The Orthodox ‘official’ position, somehow, is even in conflict with the realizations of some Orthodox theologians.

Anyone arguing that one’s greed/envy is not the root sin, is just arguing with themselves.

That is my humble opinion.

You’re right, it isn’t rocket science, and yet you’re still not getting it. You are not guilty of a propensity to sin or of temptation, only succumbing to sin. Neither propensity to sin nor temptation is a sin, and neither incurs a personal guilt. If you misread certain Orthodox theologians and see what you want to see, well, that’s your own problem.

 

[codebilly]

You’re right, it isn’t rocket science, and yet you’re still not getting it. You are not guilty of a propensity to sin or of temptation, only succumbing to sin. Neither propensity to sin nor temptation is a sin, and neither incurs a personal guilt. If you misread certain Orthodox theologians and see what you want to see, well, that’s your own problem.

“But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.” - Matt. 5:28

Did Jesus not mean what He said? When temptation turns to lust (desire) the sin is already committed.

“… eat of this and ye shall be as gods …”

The original sin is the desire to be a god unto themselves. A god independent of God.

We are guilty.

 

[Patrick1982]

“But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.” - Matt. 5:28

Did Jesus not mean what He said? When temptation turns to lust (desire) the sin is already committed.

“… eat of this and ye shall be as gods …”

The original sin is the desire to be a god unto themselves. A god independent of God.

We are guilty.

So a newborn baby is guilty of wanting to be a god unto themself is what you’re saying? No.

 

[codebilly]

So a newborn baby is guilty of wanting to be a god unto themself is what you’re saying? No.

In people, and at any age, we don’t have the conscious desire the ‘be god unto ourself’ but the reality is, the nature of sin, is replacement of God’s law with our own desire.

It’s difficult to say a baby has sin, even a toddler. But put a few 1 year olds together and a battle will ensue regarding playthings, pacifiers, etc. We don’t think of it as sinful because ‘they’re babies’

but transfer the same behavior to adults … we would say … its greedy selfishness and that is a sin.

So again, babies don’t have conscious desire to ‘be a god’, but there is a desire in all people to ‘Lord over their existence’ as opposed to letting the Lord “Lord over it”.

And that is why we are taught to continually trust in God … we have to give Him the body and the senses in all things, and hence lose our ‘lordship … or false lordship’ of ourselves.

Again, it is easy to see that whole ‘fall down’ has to do with this sort of greed. And we see original sin and all its manifestations in the Divine Passion of Our Lord, as Judas, the personification of envy/greed is so full of himself, that he has so much pride as to ‘dip his hand in the bowl’ that was Jesus’ at the table.

He trades Jesus for his greed, and from this the Son of Man is given over to all manner of sinfulness.

The same occurs in us, in every sin we commit. We decide, by greed, or our desire to be lord over our body and senses, to exchange Jesus in our midst, for some material sense gratification.

Thus we do violence to the Lord of our Heart with slaps of rebellion, and the spittle of ungratefulness. Our conscious is as Pilate, confused then dispassionate and we continue along our conscious willingness to ‘let loose the murderer’ which is the act of sin itself. Our passions scourge our body and our consciousness becomes so much thorny bramble, to the point that we are nothing but dead wood, which the Lord has to carry by only His Mercy.