Original Sin - Catholic and Orthodox

[eOxy]

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

One could say the same for humans and apes.

It is obvious we disagree. The difference regarding guilt is obvious.

We see and know you are different from us.

Are you able to acknowledge the Orthodox disagreement regarding the difference in the beliefs concerning Ancestral Sin vs Original Sin?

 

[eOxy]

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).

Doesn’t deserve a comment.

 

[eOxy]

…
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?

The fundamental difference is regarding guilt.

The theology of baptism could be expressed in various ways. I could accept “the narrow” interpretation pf RCs as you defined. Basically St. Athanasios the Great explained it long ago.

But the guilt, as reasoned by some RCs, also implies each one of us is having a litigation pending against God.

Fr. John Romanides, of blessed memory, explains that in great detail. Since RCs aren’t able to produce the reply to that book, it is simply ignored and Fr. Romanides is labeled “anti”. This is poor reply to his critique.

 

[John_Larocque]

The fundamental difference is regarding guilt.

The theology of baptism could be expressed in various ways. I could accept “the narrow” interpretation pf RCs as you defined. Basically St. Athanasios the Great explained it long ago.

But the guilt, as reasoned by some RCs, also implies each one of us is having a litigation pending against God.

Fr. John Romanides, of blessed memory, explains that in great detail. Since RCs aren’t able to produce the reply to that book, it is simply ignored and Fr. Romanides is labeled “anti”. This is poor reply to his critique.

Part of the problem with Trent is lingustics. “reatum” being a form of juridicial guilt as opposed to “personal guilt”. So I’m going to have to side with the bloggers and commentators and reject Trent being raised as a voice in favour of Adam’s “personal guilt”. In any case, I was taught from a pre-Vatican II catechism, and that was never my understanding either. There are elements to RCC “original sin” that are foreign to the Eastern thinking but the passing on of Adam’s personal guilt should not be considered one of them.

The bit about the approach to Catholic baptism being “narrow” in scope was something I read from Fr. Schmemann. A poster here recommend his book on the seven sacraments - so I ordered it and initially it didn’t sink in with me. It was more of a slow osmosis. I passed it on to my parents. The section on Western attitudes towards death was something which got the most comment. If death is just another part of life, then death is treated as something natural (and not something triggered by Adam’s fall). It’s also easy to downplay the role of the Resurrection, which in this secularized scheme of things could be reduced to being something merely symbolic. Basically you drop someone in the ground and forget about them. One of the more nuanced critiques of a scholastic “overdefining” of the sacraments (reducing the scope of meaning from them) - it helps that the “For the life of the world” wasn’t originally authored for non-Orthodox. Any Catholic who wants to think and live “sacramentally” would benefit from exposure to it.

The Eastern understanding appears to be that the fall triggered physical corruption (death) of the whole human race, which also triggered moral corruption as well. Or as +Kallistos Ware put it, an environment in which it is easy to sin and hard to do good. (Ware also cited passages from Romans to that effect). This is not an exact analog to what I have called “concupiscence” but it is the Western parellel. The equation of “sin and death” found in Romans.

What I consider narrow about RCC baptism is that the EFFECT of baptism is confused with the PURPOSE. Baptism washes away sins (including “original sin”) and since 98% of baptisms are conducted on little children, you wind up with a very narrow Latin equation, “baptism washes away original sin.” It’s a LOT more than that. Schmemann made references to “private” baptism ceremonies as being a bad thing because this is an act that should involve the whole community. I don’t know how much is prevelant in the RCC, because I have seen babies and adults baptised (albeit by sprinkling) within the body of the liturgy. Also, RCIA catecumen completion (including baptism, if necessary) takes place at Easter - which is actually perfectly normal when you consider the interconnectedness between baptism and Easter. I think a lot of things are being done because they’ve always been done that way without a person being aware of the underlying theology. In a Catholic church during baptism, the congregation renounces Satan, and all his works and pomps and affirms the Creed - basically a renewal of the baptismal promise (the exorcism) alongside the baptismal candidates. Just like Eucharist is an act of communion, so is baptism.

 

[Vico]

One could say the same for humans and apes.

It is obvious we disagree. The difference regarding guilt is obvious.

We see and know you are different from us.

Are you able to acknowledge the Orthodox disagreement regarding the difference in the beliefs concerning Ancestral Sin vs Original Sin?

There is a difference in the presentation of Catholic and Orthodox theology, however there is agreement on the principal of no guilt being on the descendents of Adam, and the principal of death and sin resulting. Therefore they are in agreement not conflict, it is only an manner of expression that differs. Somehow you continue to use the English dictionary definion of guilt for ratrum which is incorrect. I used this term to show the historical continuity and not to be accussed of dishonesty. Yet one must understand that there is no blame implied in ratrum which was translated as guilt. The word guilt can be replaced with the word consequences, but that would not show the bondage to the ancestors action. If you say the the difference regarding guilt is obvious, you are incorrect, as it has been widely misunderstood.

And we can see what effect of death occurred from Adam’s action.

1. On whatever day you eat from the forbidden tree you will certainly die.
   – So Adam experienced the death of his soul immediately.
2. Earth will be cursed because of what you do, it will produce thorns and thistles for you.
   – So all sorts of death and suffering ensued.

Catholic: each is born into a condition of spiritual death and alienation from God such that each is conceived into an orientation directed away from God. So baptism is needed to spiritually restore to them the life of grace.

Orthodox: sin is inevitable because of our inherited mortality. Romans 5:12 “As sin came into the world through one man and death through sin, so death spread to all men; and because of death, all men have sinned …”

These statements are not contradictory.

Since I am Eastern Catholic I will rely on St. Gregory of Palamas for explaination. Refer to “Topics on Natural and Theological Science”, Chapters 9-14, Philokalia 4:296-297, 363.

The ideas there are that we are created in both the image and likeness of God. The transgression of our ancestors has brought the death of our soul, i.e., the separation of the soul from God, which is a loss our divine likeness, yet we did not lose our divine image.

And death is for the soul to be uncoupled from divine grace and to be yoked to sin. This is followed by the death of the body and then the soul’s banishment to Hades.

So the Ancestral Sin is death and sin from death, yet the death is twofold: physical and soul.

We see this in both the Orthodox and Roman Catholic teachings that at birth we inherit the consequences of the ancestors without any personal fault. And those consequences are twofold: soul death (lack of sanctifying grace) and bodily death and suffering.

So a typical problem occurs undestanding the Roman Catholic dogma of the Immaculate Conception because of the failure to consider both forms of death. Virgin Mary is preserved from the lack of sanctifying grace (stain of original sin), yet being fully human is still succeptible to bodily death and suffering, the Dormition, as our Lord also demonstrated through the suffering in His inherited human nature.

 

[eOxy]

Somehow you continue to use the English dictionary definion of guilt for ratrum which is incorrect.

I’ve never done that.

Guilt is for culpa.

Reatrum is an adjective to culpa, to specify something. There are probably more than a hundred expression of culpa with adjective.

There is a difference in the presentation of Catholic and Orthodox theology, however there is agreement on the principal of no guilt being on the descendents of Adam, and the principal of death and sin resulting.

I am glad you think so.

Yet, I would agree with it once RCs are able to deny that guilt of “original sin” is remitted by baptism.

 

[eOxy]

Part of the problem with Trent is lingustics. “reatum” being a form of juridicial guilt as opposed to “personal guilt”. So I’m going to have to side with the bloggers and commentators and reject Trent being raised as a voice in favour of Adam’s “personal guilt”. In any case, I was taught from a pre-Vatican II catechism, and that was never my understanding either. There are elements to RCC “original sin” that are foreign to the Eastern thinking but the passing on of Adam’s personal guilt should not be considered one of them.

Don’t you think it would be more appropriate you let us decide for ourselves what is foreign to us and what is not?

The bit about the approach to Catholic baptism being “narrow” in scope was something I read from Fr. Schmemann.

I am not a fan of his. We don’t have infallible teachers and, apart from Fr. Schmemmann’s contributions, there are valid points that he was not always as accurate as he should have been.

 

[fhansen]

history.hanover.edu/texts/trent/ct05.html

The Council of Trent
The Fifth Session
…
5. 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; …

The separation from God resulting from OS left man with positive (albeit wrong) characteristics-self-righteousness as opposed to a God-based righteousness being an easily identifiable one, I think. It would be interesting to start a thread on listing some of the ideas people have of how humans might differ before and after the fall.

Death of the soul, meaning separation from God-an exile from the garden which takes place interiorly as well as exteriorly- meant that man now operated under his own righteousness, rather than Gods. And this self-determining self-righteousness which is in us all provides the ability and rational for carrying out the various sinful desires of the heart that ultimately causes all moral evil in the world. Adam simply made this decision for us all. Loss of holiness is a state-originally foreign to man-that we all inherit.

 

[Vico]

I’ve never done that.

Guilt is for culpa.

Reatrum is an adjective to culpa, to specify something. There are probably more than a hundred expression of culpa with adjective.

I am glad you think so.

Yet, I would agree with it once RCs are able to deny that guilt of “original sin” is remitted by baptism.

The Roman Catholic Church denys that guilt of “original sin” is remitted by baptism, where guilt is defined as in English: “the fact of having committed a breach of conduct especially violating law and involving a penalty”, because, as stated in the Catechism of the Catholic Church for the descendents of Adam and Eve:

“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,295 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 [a state and not an act] and turns a man back towards God, but the consequences for nature, weakened and inclined to evil, persist in man and summon him to spiritual battle."

Ancestral sin brings us with two deaths: body and soul. As can be seen in the writings of St. John Chysotsom, below, we are born without personal sin (infants are sinless), yet there is purpose in the baptism to bring us the sanctification and justice. It is the lack of sanctification and justice which is the “stain of original sin” that is referred to in Roman Catholic doctrines. Death of the body is not removed by baptism. Similarly in the Immaculate Conception dogma, Mary is preserved from the stain of orignal sin, means she is saved by our Lord (like baptism) in anticipation or her acceptance of the role of the Theotokos.

St. John Chysotsom [from Ancient Christian Writers vol. 31, St. John Chrysostom: Baptismal Instruction, p. 57, Paulist Press, New Jersey, 1963]:

“Blessed be God, who alone does wonderful things!. You have seen how numerous are the gifts of baptism. Although many men think that the only gift it confers is the remission of sins, we have counted its honors to the number of ten. It is on this account that we baptize even infants, although they are sinless, that they may be given the further gifts of sanctification, justice, filial adoption, and inheritance, that they may be brothers and members of Christ, and become dwelling places for the Spirit.”

 

[John_Larocque]

Don’t you think it would be more appropriate you let us decide for ourselves what is foreign to us and what is not?

Methinks one cannot have a meaningful conversation with you. You claimed that I believed that EO original sin is the same as RCC. I didn’t make the claim, so I conceded your point that, yes, Virginia, there are differences. I never identified those differences, only that they existed. However, now I’m being told that it is not for me to affirm that there are differences, it is for you… !

For the record, the element that I thought was foreign to Orthodoxy was the whole concept of original sin being passed on through sexual generation. Of course if you want to declare that I’m wrong on this… ]

Round and round it goes.

You’re mistaken about this whole question of Adams’s “personal guilt”. But I don’t expect you’ll ever give up the ghost on that. We can go around the block another 10 pages on it.

There is an odd focus because I have read in several places that Orthodox believe that “ancestral sin is removed through baptism.” That specific quote can be traced to here:
orthodoxinfo.com/praxis/exo_thoughts.aspx

An internal cause of thoughts, however remote, is the passionate and corrupted condition of human nature which was brought about by the ancestral sin.[14] This condition remains in our nature also after baptism, not as ancestral sin as such (for this is removed through baptism, according to Canon 120 of Carthage), but as a consequence of the ancestral sin, for the exertion and test of our free will, and in exchange for greater crowns and rewards, according to the theologians. For after the fall the intellect lost its innocent memory and thought which it had fixed formerly only on the good; but now when it wishes to remember and think upon the good, it is immediately dispersed and also thinks upon the bad.

At the risk of being accused of claiming that it’s the same thing, let me simply ask what is the difference between the removal of ancestral sin at baptism, and the removal of original sin at baptism?

 

[eOxy]

“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.”

Strange.

We believe the Ancestral Sin was a real sin. We don’t believe there is anything analogical there.

Only the guilt for it is personal - it’s Adam’s and Eve’s sin.

There is no guilt for it on their descendants.

 

[eOxy]

Methinks one cannot have a meaningful conversation with you…

For the record, the element that I thought was foreign to Orthodoxy was the whole concept of original sin being passed on through sexual generation. Of course if you want to declare that I’m wrong on this… ]

That is foreign, also, on many accounts - underlying platonism one of them. I’ve completely forgotten about that part of RCs belief.

There is an odd focus because I have read in several places that Orthodox believe that “ancestral sin is removed through baptism.” That specific quote can be traced to here:
orthodoxinfo.com/praxis/exo_thoughts.aspx

Yes, it is. But not the guilt for it, since it is non-existent.

At the risk of being accused of claiming that it’s the same thing, let me simply ask what is the difference between the removal of ancestral sin at baptism, and the removal of original sin at baptism?

I should not try to explain what RCs believe, but for us Orthodox, the baptism is explained in Carthage link

At baptism, we are buried in Christ’s death so we could be resurrected in His Resurrection.

 

[eOxy]

It would be interesting to start a thread on listing some of the ideas people have of how humans might differ before and after the fall.

It is actually part of the question of the Ancestral Sin vs Original Sin.

How had Adam changed after the fall. Why?

What was the cause of the change?

Why did God expell him and Eve from Paradise?

 

[Vico]

Strange.

We believe the Ancestral Sin was a real sin. We don’t believe there is anything analogical there.

Only the guilt for it is personal - it’s Adam’s and Eve’s sin.

There is no guilt for it on their descendants.

Yes, Catholic is the same. “Analogical” is just for the descendents; I will include part just before pertaining to Adam and Eve. (Catechism of the Catholic Church)

"404 … By yielding to the tempter, Adam and Eve committed a personal sin, but this sin affected the human nature that they would then transmit in a fallen state.294 It is a sin which will be transmitted by propagation to all mankind, that is, by the transmission of a human nature deprived of original holiness and justice. And that is why original sin is called “sin” only in an analogical sense: it is a sin “contracted” and not “committed” - a state and not an act."

 

[josie_L]

Effects of Original Sin

Adam and Eve lived in a state of “original justice”: the state of integrity wherein their whole beings were ordered to the will of God. With the fall, man has been deprived of the gifts our first parents enjoyed. These gifts are commonly called the “preternatural and supernatural gifts.” With baptism, only the supernatural gifts are restored.

The preternatural gifts, lost in the fall, are:

infused knowledge,

absence of concupiscence, and

freedom from death and sickness.

The supernatural gifts, restored in baptism, are:

indwelling of God in our souls through grace, and

the theological virtues (faith, hope, and charity).

catholic.com/thisrock/2005/0509fea4sb2.asp

eOxy do you not believe that when we are baptized we wash away (the stain) original/ancestral sin so that we may receive grace, i.e., the Holy Spirit?

 

[fhansen]

It is actually part of the question of the Ancestral Sin vs Original Sin.

How had Adam changed after the fall. Why?

What was the cause of the change?

Why did God expell him and Eve from Paradise?

If the Orthodox position is that the change is mainly one of pain, suffering, and death entering mans’ reality, then I think there is more to be understood-on both sides. Pope Benedict wrote as much regarding the first sin and its effects on man before becoming pope.

 

[StillWondering]

I think this might be an easy to read summery of Original Sin. It is by Mike Sullivan and is found here at Catholic Answers in a 4 second search according to the search program. Does this help?

---

Effects of Original Sin

By Mike Sullivan

Adam and Eve lived in a state of “original justice”: the state of integrity wherein their whole beings were ordered to the will of God. With the fall, man has been deprived of the gifts our first parents enjoyed. These gifts are commonly called the “preternatural and supernatural gifts.” With baptism, only the supernatural gifts are restored.

  The preternatural gifts, lost in the fall, are:

* infused knowledge,

* absence of concupiscence, and

* freedom from death and sickness.

  The supernatural gifts, restored in baptism, are:

* indwelling of God in our souls through grace, and

* the theological virtues (faith, hope, and charity).

 

[josie_L]

I think this might be an easy to read summery of Original Sin. It is by Mike Sullivan and is found here at Catholic Answers in a 4 second search according to the search program. Does this help?

---

Effects of Original Sin

By Mike Sullivan

Adam and Eve lived in a state of “original justice”: the state of integrity wherein their whole beings were ordered to the will of God. With the fall, man has been deprived of the gifts our first parents enjoyed. These gifts are commonly called the “preternatural and supernatural gifts.” With baptism, only the supernatural gifts are restored.

  The preternatural gifts, lost in the fall, are:

* infused knowledge,

* absence of concupiscence, and

* freedom from death and sickness.

  The supernatural gifts, restored in baptism, are:

* indwelling of God in our souls through grace, and

* the theological virtues (faith, hope, and charity).

Hi Still Wondering, great minds must think alike because I already quoted that for him on the last page.

 

[fhansen]

I think this might be an easy to read summery of Original Sin. It is by Mike Sullivan and is found here at Catholic Answers in a 4 second search according to the search program. Does this help?

---

Effects of Original Sin

By Mike Sullivan

Adam and Eve lived in a state of “original justice”: the state of integrity wherein their whole beings were ordered to the will of God. With the fall, man has been deprived of the gifts our first parents enjoyed. These gifts are commonly called the “preternatural and supernatural gifts.” With baptism, only the supernatural gifts are restored.

  The preternatural gifts, lost in the fall, are:

* infused knowledge,

* absence of concupiscence, and

* freedom from death and sickness.

  The supernatural gifts, restored in baptism, are:

* indwelling of God in our souls through grace, and

* the theological virtues (faith, hope, and charity).

I think this stuff is great but I think there may be a whole theological field open to continue to explore the matter over the next, say, two centuries or so. Many people don’t notice or admit to the effects of Ancestral or Original Sin in us and so suspect it’s not a valid concept but I think that it’s effects are quite visible because, like all Christians, I don’t accept that the way things are in this world is the way they “should be”. Many identifying signs exist that should be able to demonstrate this but I haven’t seen it explored so exhaustively-I think there’s a lot to be learned about human nature in general.

 

[Vico]

I’ve never done that.

Guilt is for culpa.

Reatrum is an adjective to culpa, to specify something. There are probably more than a hundred expression of culpa with adjective.

I want to make sure that I explain the latin translation from Trent properly. (It took me a while to locate a Latin scan of the book.)

Below is the Latin statement from Trent on baptism and original sin, showing the phrase “reatum originalis peccati”. Note that there is no word culpa there. People have been translating the word reatum as “guilt of” which is not correct. (I think before I said it was rea which was the wrong Latin word.) See The Biblical Doctrine of Sin By James Stuart Candlish, p. 88, which states that the English word guilt is used by theologians to represent two words culpa and reatus but in English literature guilt only corresponds to culpa. Reatus means liability or obligation to suffer punishment. He states that this practice of translating reatus as guilt has lead to confusion and misunderstanding.

Sacrosanctum Concilium Tridentinum
Sessio V. De Peciato Originali. p. 16

1. Si quis per JESU Chirsti Domini nostri gratiam, quae in Baptismate confertur, reatum originalis peccati remitte negat; aut etiam afferit non tolli totum id, quod veram & propriam peccati rationem habet: sed illud dicit tantum radi, aut non imputari; anathema sit.