Original Sin - Catholic and Orthodox

[eOxy]

For the last time it is not …, but we did contract the consequences of that guilt/sin.

We didn’t.

We inherited the consequences of sin only.

You are free to keep anything related to guilt.

Why are you renouncing it lately?

 

[josie_L]

We didn’t.

We inherited the consequences of sin only.

You are free to keep anything related to guilt.

Why are you renouncing it lately?

But that’s what I’ve been saying this whole time (we never believed otherwise). Contracted (like inherited) does not mean we are implicated (guilty of) in the sin committed by our first parents but rather we inherited the consequences/stain of original sin (that’s why we baptize even infants who have committed no sins).

 

[josie_L]

It really isn’t that wise to try to apply chronology to the Annunciation in that way. On top of that, it doesn’t appear that “full of grace” is an agreed upon translation. So no, I don’t believe that Mary was full of sanctifying grace before the Annuciation.

Ancestral sin doesn’t involve any stain. Thus, Mary was without stain but was with the ancestral sin.

So if ancestral sin doesn’t involve any stain, (although all men are tainted by original sin, i.e., are fallen), then to what avail is it to us Christians to be baptized (as infants no less)?

Secondly, the Catholic Church views Mary (not only as the ark of the covenant) but as the new Eve just like Jesus is the new Adam. Mary was conceived without original and/or ancestral sin to prepare her as the woman who would become mother to God the Son. No sin not even ancestral sin could taint her. She is therefore as the new Eve a perfect foil for Jesus, the new Adam for both were obedient to God.

 

[John_Larocque]

By one man sin entered into the world, and by sin death, and so death passed upon all men, in whom all have sinned.

Interestingly enough, when Erasmus was rejecting Luther’s interpretation of the passage - and he noted specifically the mistranslation in the Latin bible, there were elements in the Catholic hierarchy that sided with Luther. The Council of Trent sided with St. Augustine (and Luther) that original sin is passed along physically, and not by example (against Erasmus). I’ve often wondered what it would be like to find the strand of DNA that is related to original sin and wipe it out. “Whoah, we’ve found the concupiscence gene… and look, here’s the gene that involves physical death.” John Paul II noted the mistranslation in the Vulgate but affirmed the teachings of Trent.

In the broad strokes, what I was taught years ago, was that Adam’s legacy as being that of what the Latin theologians call “concupiscence” or a tendency to sin. And there was physical death as well, on top of the moral corruption. There’s also some strange stuff on limbo and sin physically passed onto your descendants, which mystically doesn’t get erased, even if you are yourself baptized with all your sins removed. The Easterns have a different word for concupiscence which roughly translates to a damaged nature. There is a definite and very strong Pauline connection between baptism - literally buried in the death, descent in to hell and resurrection of the new Adam, Jesus) and dying to the old Adam.

 

[eOxy]

But that’s what I’ve been saying this whole time (we never believed otherwise).

Are you saying that you deny that the guilt of “original sin” is remitted by baptism?

I do.

Because I don’t believe there was any guilt prior to baptism.

Do you believe the same?

 

[Vico]

Infants have not committed personal (actual) sin, they only have original (contracted) sin. (Refer to CCC 4040 below.) For absolution of actual sin must first be confessed with true contrition, and then the penalty (penance) is also paid. With contracted sin, just the penalty is paid.

In the Immaculate Conception dogma, pronounced in 1854, you can see the term for original sin, in Latin, which is “originalis culpa labe”, as shown below:

… beatissimam Virginem Mariam in … ab omni originalis culpae labe praeservatam immunem …]

“… the most Blessed Virgin Mary, …, was preserved free from all stain of original sin,…”

If one does not understand the Catechism explainations, then terms can be quite confusing.

In Roman law reatus means liable to or indicted or a sentence, and culpa means actual act of wrongdoing. Reatus means state that accrues as a consequence of a culpa. Justinian terms, taken by the Church, have the following meanings.

Reatus culpa is guilt-debt of culpability (removed by absolution).

Reatus poena is punishment for sin (removed by penance). Reatus poena is culpa contracta: contracted fault. Inherited original sin is reatus poena and is without reatus culpa; we inherit only the sentence of our ancestor, i.e., the consequences.

Ineffiable Deus used the phrase “originalis culpa labe”, which is the culpa contracta.

Catechism of the Catholic Church:
403 Following St. Paul, the Church has always taught that the overwhelming misery which oppresses men and their inclination toward evil and death cannot be understood apart from their connection with Adam’s sin and the fact that he has transmitted to us a sin with which we are all born afflicted, a sin which is the “death of the soul.” Because of this certainty of faith, the Church baptizes for the remission of sins even tiny infants who have not committed personal sin.
…
404 …original sin is called “sin” only in an analogical sense: it is a sin “contracted” and not “committed”—a state and not an act.
…
405 Although it is proper to each individual, original sin does not have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam’s descendants. …
Baptism, by imparting the life of Christ’s grace, erases original sin and turns a man back toward God, but the consequences for nature, weakened and inclined to evil, persist in man and summon him to spiritual battle.

 

[eOxy]

Infants have not committed personal (actual) sin, they only have original (contracted) sin. …
Because of this certainty of faith, the Church baptizes for the remission of sins even tiny infants who have not committed personal sin.
…

Thanks for your effort, but that isn’t what I asked josie L.

I deny, with the rest of us Orthodox, that the guilt of “original sin” is remitted by baptism.

Josie L says RCs believe exactly the same, and that you always believed so and never changed your position.

I challenge him to respond and says if he can deny that the guilt of “original sin” is remitted by baptism.

 

[eOxy]

…
In the Immaculate Conception dogma, pronounced in 1854, you can see the term for original sin, in Latin, which is “originalis culpa labe”, as shown below:

… beatissimam Virginem Mariam in … ab omni originalis culpae labe praeservatam immunem …]

“… the most Blessed Virgin Mary, …, was preserved free from all stain of original sin,…”

In Roman law reatus means liable to or indicted or a sentence, and culpa means actual act of wrongdoing.
…

Culpa means guilt.

You give a very poor explanation of Roman legal terms. You are apparently an amateur.

Liability is related to the relation between parties in civil law, while indictment refers to procedural position of a party accused under the criminal law, which is always part of public (as opposed to civil) law.

Yes, indeed, she was preserved from culpa. The same as the rest of us, humans.

 

[eOxy]

If one does not understand the Catechism explainations, then terms can be quite confusing.

Well, since you apparently understand Roman Catholic catechism properly, unlike me, are you able to deny hat the guilt of “original sin” is remitted by baptism?

 

[josie_L]

Are you saying that you deny that the guilt of “original sin” is remitted by baptism?

I do.

Because I don’t believe there was any guilt prior to baptism.

Do you believe the same?

You seem to be looping your responses/questions even though I have clarified my position, oh, about 3 or 4 times now. You misunderstood what was said at Trent because you take the word “guilt” literally. The Church views (and as always viewed) original “sin” analogically which means we are not actually guilty of the sin that our first parents committed (therefore it is not this which we contract but the consequences of that guilt/sin). It is for this reason we baptize infants (who have committed no personal sin but are nevertheless marked by original sin). God bless.

 

[josie_L]

Are you saying that you deny that the guilt of “original sin” is remitted by baptism?

I do.

Because I don’t believe there was any guilt prior to baptism.

Do you believe the same?

I finally understood what you mean (and what the Church means) by “guilt” it refers to the stain of original sin that is remitted by baptism (as the consequences are not remitted because we still sin after we have been baptized). So in answer to your question, I do not deny the stain of original sin which is remitted by baptism. To do so would be to go against scripture and believe as Pelagius did.

p.s. I’m not sure why you couldn’t be clearer in your responses by stating you reject the stain or mark of original sin that is transmitted through all men and which is remitted by baptism?

 

[Vico]

eOxy,

Sorry for the poor explaination, truly I am an amature. The statement was not that she was preserved from culpa like us all but that she was preserved from stain of original sin. The stain is the result of the original sin, and carries no fault, only the sentence. This stain of original sin is the inherited consequence of the original sin.

Council of Trent declared, “If any one denies, that, by the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, which is conferred in baptism, the guilt of original sin is remitted … let him be anathema” (Decree on Original Sin, canon 5).

The above translates “reatum” as “guilt” but reatum is not culpa. It is misleading to translate reatum, as used in the dogmatic texts, as “guilt” with its normal meaning in English, so that is why this continues to be a problem reading historical documents in English.

eOxy you ask: “…are you able to deny [t]hat the guilt of “original sin” is remitted by baptism?”

Psalm 51:5 “Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.”

The guilt (with fault) of original sin is not remitted by baptism.
The guilt (without any fault) of original sin is remitted by baptism.

I believe you can understand it like this, Initially and Fallen refer to Adam and Eve, Inherited to Ancestors.

Initially: Sinless, Grace.
Fallen: Fault, Consequences, No Grace.
Inherited: No Fault, Consequences, No Grace.

 

[John_Larocque]

“Original versus Ancestral Sin - A False Dichotomy”
razilazenje.blogspot.com/2006/12/ancestral-vs-original-sin-false.html

There’s a goldmine of quotes in here.

Despite the popular presentation by Orthodox of the aforementioned incorrect characterization of Western teaching, the reality is that the Western confessions, whether Roman Catholic or Protestant, say nothing about inheriting the personal guilt of Adam’s personal act of sin, but rather concentrate on the effects of that sin, which are transmitted to the entire race of man, which forms an ontological unity with Adam - something we Orthodox also teach. The one document that discusses imputation of guilt, the Westminster Confession, does so in the context of the ontological corruption of mankind, not simply as an unconnected act of transgression by the federal head of the race. In other words, the basis of imputation is not an unjust transfer of guilt-by-association, but a reality rooted in the effect of one man’s sin on the whole race. At the same time, it should be pointed out that the language of the Orthodox in this regard has, historically, been much the same.

razilazenje.blogspot.com/2006/03/original-sin-in-eastern-orthodox.html

I believe that [Father John] Romanides misinterprets St. Augustine in general, and does so in particular here by his assertion that for the Bishop of Hippo the power of Satan, death, and corruption were pushed into the background in favour of personal guilt. I believe Romanides radical opposition to everything Augustinian and Western hopelessly colours his assessments. In short, Romanides normally operated in the realm of attacking straw-men.

Nobody at all, Eastern or Western, teaches that all men are personally guilty of Adam’s personal sin. Rather, we all believe that, in a judicial sense, humanity was declared guilty when our federal head, Adam, sinned, thus placing the entire race under the dominion of Satan. In an ontological sense, we affirm that by his sin, Adam brought on the whole race of man death and corruption of nature so that the is not one innocent person born by normal generation. As St. Cyril of Alexandria said, “Since [Adam] produced children after falling into this state, we, his descendants, are corruptible as the issue of a corruptible source. It is in this sense that we are heirs of Adam’s curse. Not that we are punished for having disobeyed God’s commandment along with him, but that he became mortal and the curse of mortality was transmitted to his seed after him, offspring born of a mortal source . . . So corruption and death are the universal inheritance of Adam’s transgression…Human nature became sick with sin. Because of the disobedience of one (that is, of Adam), the many became sinners; not because they transgressed together with Adam (for they were not there) but because they are of his nature, which entered under the dominion of sin . . . Human nature became ill and subject to corruption through the transgression of Adam, thus penetrating man’s very passions.”

Fr. Alexander Golubov puts it this way:

It can be said that while we have not inherited the guilt of Adam’s personal sin, because his sin is also of a generic nature, and because the entire human race is possessed of an essential, ontological unity, we participate in it by virtue of our participation in the human race. “The imparting of Original Sin by means of natural heredity should be understood in terms of the unity of the entire human nature, and of the homoousiotitos * of all men, who, connected by nature, constitute one mystic whole. Inasmuch as human nature is indeed unique and unbreakable, the imparting of sin from the first-born to the entire human race descended from him is rendered explicable: ‘Explicitly, as from the root, the sickness proceeded to the rest of the tree, Adam being the root who had suffered corruption’” [St. Cyril of Alexandria].

Thus, the Orthodox confessions and catechisms I quoted take what is in my opinion a very balanced view of the Original or Ancestral Sin, while Romanides, and other currently popular teachers like Kalomiros and Azkoul take what I consider to be an unbalanced view that (maybe deliberately) entirely misrepresents and slanders the position of the Christian West.

It is interesting to note that if you look at the Reformed Confessions, the ultimate in “Augustinianism”, while they do talk about the imputation of Original Sin to the race, they more concerned with the ontological effects of this corrupt inheritance*

 

[eOxy]

“Original versus Ancestral Sin - A False Dichotomy”
razilazenje.blogspot.com/2006/12/ancestral-vs-original-sin-false.html

There’s a goldmine of quotes in here.

razilazenje.blogspot.com/2006/03/original-sin-in-eastern-orthodox.html

John, I found you intelligent and decent poster. Why on Earth you attribute any weight to the writings of a man who profess his moral bankruptcy and states his astrological sign on his blog? Why do you bring it as a point to me?

 

[eOxy]

The guilt (with fault) of original sin is not remitted by baptism.
The guilt (without any fault) of original sin is remitted by baptism.

O.K., that may be understood as a straight answer.

Since I’ve already pointed that we refuse the guilt altogether, isn’t your response enough to underline the difference between the Orthodox understanding of Ancestral Sin and RC understanding of Original Sin?

 

[John_Larocque]

John, I found you intelligent and decent poster. Why on Earth you attribute any weight to the writings of a man who profess his moral bankruptcy and states his astrological sign on his blog? Why do you bring it as a point to me?

I find some - note the qualification - Orthodox accounts of what I’ve read on original sin as a distortion of what Western Christians actually believe. It is what I said before - they take something Augustine teaches, and then claim it’s what all Western Christians believe. And that’s simply not the case. Westerns focus more on the fallen or disfigured nature more than physical death, but both are part of the original sin equation. What differs Calvinists from other Christians is the degree of “depravity” (to use their term). That blog seemed to make the point better than anything I could write. I really think this is a false dichotomy, and with some writers, a straw man argument.

 

[eOxy]

I find some - note the qualification - Orthodox accounts of what I’ve read on original sin as a distortion of what Western Christians actually believe.
…

So you took an account about what Fr. Romanides actually wrote from a guy stating his lack of education?

There is no need for that kind of game.

On this very thread I presented the difference.

I deny the guilt of “original sin” needs to be remitted by baptism. That is an Orthodox position.

Present RCs affirm the guilt of “original sin” needs to be removed by baptism.

Stop saying there is no difference between our beliefs in that regard.

 

[John_Larocque]

Well since you put it that way, actually we are getting somewhere. There are accounts which state that baptism is absolutely necessary for salvation. Such that there were speculations made about the final state of infants who died without baptism. I think there is evidence for infant baptism as early as St. Irenaeus, but without the theological underpinnings of original sin damning children to hell. Can you have infant baptism without this theology? Yes.

We can all make presumptions about the mercy of God, but it is just as true that we can make presumptions about the LACK of mercy of God.

I think that looking at baptism strictly as an exercise to remove original sin is really narrow in scope. St. Paul is really your best place to look on this. The Old Adam and the New Adam. The rebirth of baptism (through the death and resurrection of Christ) and the inauguration of the new law. It needs to look at it both cosmically and sacramentally. Catholics teach that baptism does not erase either death or the tendency to sin, but it does erase sin and effects grace in the recipient. Is this fundamentally different in the East?

 

[Vico]

O.K., that may be understood as a straight answer.

Since I’ve already pointed that we refuse the guilt altogether, isn’t your response enough to underline the difference between the Orthodox understanding of Ancestral Sin and RC understanding of Original Sin?

The guilt (with fault) of original sin is not remitted by baptism neither is it inherited, it pertains to Adam and Eve only.
The guilt (without fault) of original sin is remitted by baptism and it is inherited, it is called the stain of original sin, or the consequences of original sin.

An analogy of the original sin and its consequences with baptism could be given as a cloth that an ancestor has stained (original sin) is given to you (inherited), with the stain (consequences), which is then cleaned (baptism).

Catechism 405 “Although it is proper to each individual, original sin does not have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam’s descendants.”

So no, Orthodox and Roman Catholic are the same, no fault is transmitted.

 

[Vico]

Refer, as mentioned in one of my previous postings, that reatum is the Latin word used at Trent and other times, has been translated into guilt, which is misleading because reatum does not mean guilt as the English word is used today.

The “guilt of original sin” or reatum originalis peccati, is a euphemism for the lack of sanctifying grace, the consequence of the fall, not the personal blame.

reus -i m. and rea -ae , f. [a party in a law suit, whether plaintiff or defendant]; esp. [a defendant, accused person]; in gen. [one bound or answerable].

We are bound to the original sin of Adam and Eve, the ancestral sin, but without personal fault (culpa).