Original Sin by Vladimir Moss

[johnnykins]

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.

This is not quite as clear as you would make it. See below from the ROC in Europe:

“However, if we read the text to mean ‘in whom all have sinned’, this can be understood as the passing on of Adam’s sin to all future generations of people, since human nature has been infected by sin in general. The disposition toward sin became hereditary and responsibility for turning away from God sin universal. As St Cyril of Alexandria states, human nature itself has ‘fallen ill with sin’; thus **we all share Adam’s sin **as we all share his nature. St Macarius of Egypt speaks of ‘a leaven of evil passions’ and of ‘secret impurity and the abiding darkness of passions’, which have entered into our nature in spite of our original purity. Sin has become so deeply rooted in human nature that not a single descendant of Adam has been spared from a hereditary predisposition toward sin.”
orthodoxeurope.org/page/10/1.aspx#25
Note the language and wavering back and forth in the language.

Catholics clearly make a distinction between Actual Sin and Original Sin. NO Catholic believe anyone except Adam is guilty of Adam’s sin. Yet, the wavering seen above and the complexity of the distinction between Original Sin and Actual Sin in Catholcism seems to me to be reflective of differences in language, a historic anti-Catholic bias found in Orthodox (not to say there isn’t a historic anti-Orthodox bias in Catholicism), and the general infelicity in any language in addressing spiritual matters rather than a real difference in theology.

When anyone wants to find differences they will find them. When not, they won’t.

The same can be said for the IC. Again from the source above:

The Orthodox Church glorifies the Mother of God as Ever-Virgin (aeiparthenos). This term was upheld by the Fifth Ecumenical Council in 533 and emphasizes the virginity of the Mother of God before, during and after Christ’s Birth. She is also called Most Holy, Most Pure and Immaculate. The Orthodox Church follows early church tradition in believing that the Holy Virgin after Her death rose again on the third day and was assumed bodily into heaven like Christ and the Old Testament saints Enoch and Elijah. orthodoxeurope.org/page/10/1.aspx#25

OK, how much “before”? Note the term “Immaculate”. You want to say we disagree? OK. You want to say we agree? OK. Do you really think there is anything more than history, pride and xenophobia separating us on these issues?

 

[Ghosty]

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.

The Latin tradition has never taught that anyone is “guilty” of Original Sin besides Adam; it’s taught that we “inherit the guilt”, which is something entirely different. Inheriting the guilt refers to the effects of the sin, not to personal responsibility, just like how a person can inherit the bad name of his parents, or a child born to a man who wasted all his money gambling is just as poor as their father.

St. Thomas Aquinas said this in his treatise on Original Sin in the Summa Theologica:

A man is not blamed for that which he has from his origin, if we consider the man born, in himself. But it we consider him as referred to a principle, then he may be reproached for it: thus a man may from his birth be under a family disgrace, on account of a crime committed by one of his forbears.

So the individual, taken in and of themself, is not “guilty” of Original Sin, but he bears the guilt of Original Sin by virtue of being born to the general body of humanity, which has inherited the judgement placed upon Adam. The example is often used comparing the unity of humanity in the personal sin of Adam with the unity of humanity in the Redemption of Christ. We are personally responsible for neither, but we are received into these actions by virtue of our nature; if such a unity were not possible, both for sin and for Grace, then we would not have become the inheritors of the Grace of God by virtue of Christ.

Unfortunately, with the Protestant Reformation, some theologians did indeed begin to insist on “personal guilt” that comes with Original Sin, but this is a Protestant development and not a Latin one, and it was never accepted by the Catholic Church (though individual Catholics may have agreed with it).

As for the “stain of Original Sin”, this refers to the darkness of the soul due to the absence of Divine Life, since “stain” is a darkening of something. Again, to quote Aquinas:

A stain is properly ascribed to corporeal things, when a comely body loses its comeliness through contact with another body, e.g. a garment, gold or silver, or the like. Accordingly a stain is ascribed to spiritual things in like manner. Now man’s soul has a twofold comeliness; one from the refulgence of the natural light of reason, whereby he is directed in his actions; the other, from the refulgence of the Divine light, viz. of wisdom and grace, whereby man is also perfected for the purpose of doing good and fitting actions. Now, when the soul cleaves to things by love, there is a kind of contact in the soul: and when man sins, he cleaves to certain things, against the light of reason and of the Divine law, as shown above (Question 71, Article 6). Wherefore the loss of comeliness occasioned by this contact, is metaphorically called a stain on the soul.

This is why it is taught that the “stain of Original Sin” is removed with Baptism, because the Divine Light is imparted to the soul, and the darkness eliminated, even though some of the effects of Original Sin remain in us (mortality, propensity to sin, ect). Since the Light replaces the darkness of Its absence, we are said to have the “stain” washed away.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Ghosty]

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

Adam and Eve did not have the propensity to sin before they actually sinned; if they did, then we would have to say that God made them to be sinners. They had no innate drive to sin, but they chose to sin by their free choice. We, on the other hand, do have such a drive because we’ve inherited the damage of Adam and Eve, but even this drive doesn’t totally negate our free will; if it did then we couldn’t be guilty of the sins we commit. This drive makes it harder for us to resist sinning, and it lessens our responsibility when compared to the first sin of Adam and Eve, but it doesn’t take away our ability to resist all together.

Peace and God bless!

 

[codebilly]

Adam and Eve did not have the propensity to sin before they actually sinned; if they did, then we would have to say that God made them to be sinners. They had no innate drive to sin, but they chose to sin by their free choice. We, on the other hand, do have such a drive because we’ve inherited the damage of Adam and Eve, but even this drive doesn’t totally negate our free will; if it did then we couldn’t be guilty of the sins we commit. This drive makes it harder for us to resist sinning, and it lessens our responsibility when compared to the first sin of Adam and Eve, but it doesn’t take away our ability to resist all together.

Peace and God bless!

You’ve got a point there … they must have had a propensity to let their attention wander from fixed love and obedience of God.

I suppose with “Free Will” comes an “ego”, individuality which brings us right back to the temptation.

 

[Ghosty]

You’ve got a point there … they must have had a propensity to let their attention wander from fixed love and obedience of God.

I suppose with “Free Will” comes an “ego”, individuality which brings us right back to the temptation.

Again, they couldn’t have had any propensities that would lead them away from God. If they did, then God would not have said they were “very good”. They simply had free will, with the ability to turn away from God, but not the propensity to do so.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Aramis]

Fundamentally Adam AND Eve’s sins altered the nature of humankind and the world, since humankind was given dominion over it.

It made all humans subject to the discord of sin. Even tho we are not guilty of his sin, it casts a pallor over all of us poor banished children of Eve.

We inherit the effects, not the sin itself, but the effects stain our souls in a way that baptism remedies; a stain that usually bars one from attaining heaven without baptism. (Tho’ clearly not in the case of the OT Saints, nor certain martyred catechumen.)

 

[Ghosty]

Fundamentally Adam AND Eve’s sins altered the nature of humankind and the world, since humankind was given dominion over it.

It made all humans subject to the discord of sin. Even tho we are not guilty of his sin, it casts a pallor over all of us poor banished children of Eve.

We inherit the effects, not the sin itself, but the effects stain our souls in a way that baptism remedies; a stain that usually bars one from attaining heaven without baptism. (Tho’ clearly not in the case of the OT Saints, nor certain martyred catechumen.)

Precisely.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Taboric_Light]

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

A point of clarification: Eastern Catholics approach the reality of Original Sin differently than the West. In fact, they approach it as the Orthodox tradition does. That being said, it is not an accurate portrayal of the Eastern Catholic position to use Western terminology and approaches (like guilty).

What I am now saying is not intended to be representative of Eastern thought. I am giving my understanding as it has changed since encountering the East. When we are born with Original Sin we are not personally guilty. How can I be? I haven’t done anything. I haven’t committed a personal sin. I didn’t commit the sin of Adam and Eve. I didn’t make myself be born in the condition that I was. I didn’t give myself a tendency towards sin. I didn’t do it, so I’m not personally guilty for it. Yes, I inherit death, but death is not a sin. Yes, I am born subject to the passions, but that is not a sin. I most definitely have a desire to be God, but that is the most natural of all human desires. The desire is not the sin, trying to bring about our dizinisation outside of God is the sin. When Adam and Eve committed the original sin God’s divine life, in which they participated, was lost. The only humanity they could pass on was one devoid of divine life. Hence, death, not just physical, but also spiritual.

I would be interested in hearing from Eastern Catholics how my understanding jives with the Eastern approach. Thanks and God bless.

In Christ through Mary

 

[Taboric_Light]

Gee, don’t I feel stupid. I completely overlooked the fact that there was a whole second page of posts. Peace and God bless you, everyone.

In Christ through Mary