Original Sin - Catholic and Orthodox

[eOxy]

…
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.

Many thanks for this!

I’ve been googling a bit, here is the link, the page 88 is not available for me at the moment, but I’ll rely on your quote.

I am grateful you hit me with this.

 

[Vico]

eOxy,

Sorry, it is page 38 not 88 in The Biblical Doctrine of Sin By James Stuart Candlish,
T. & T. Clark, Endinburgh, 1893.

 

[eOxy]

I… 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.

Translation of reatus link.

If we take his assertion absolutely right, and give it the meaning of
a) liability
b) obligation to suffer punishment

we are left with several important questions without an answer, namely:

a) is each of one having a litigation pending against God?
b) what kind of God is punishing each one of us without one’s guilt?

How could it be possible to have a litigation pending against The Judge?

How could we speak of Justice with sucha punishment-without-guilt God?

 

[fhansen]

Translation of reatus link.

If we take his assertion absolutely right, and give it the meaning of
a) liability
b) obligation to suffer punishment

we are left with several important questions without an answer, namely:

a) is each of one having a litigation pending against God?
b) what kind of God is punishing each one of us without one’s guilt?

How could it be possible to have a litigation pending against The Judge?

How could we speak of Justice with sucha punishment-without-guilt God?

But even if we look at this world, with its many trials including death, as a consequence of Adam’s sin, how fair is it that we have to suffer that consequence in any case, regardless of who’s “blamed”? Doesn’t it make sense that mankind is being held accountable in some manner, not necessarily for the purpose of punishment so much as for education/formation, perhaps?

 

[Vico]

eOxy, fhansen, those are all good questions. The ultimate question is how can God allow evil when God is only Good. Logic is insufficient to understand God that is not subject to the laws He created. We have to take it that God is good.

We are “liable to punishment” since we begin our existence corrupted in various ways due to our ancestors sin, not because it is our fault. Our ancestors fault (culpa) and sin (the Fall) is analogous to our liability (reatus) and fallen state. In the fallen state is it likely that we will sin, so it seems correct that Paul says “all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.” (Rom 3:9)

God allowed Satan to severly trouble Job, so likely our trials are being delivered by Satan (an idea from St. John Chrysotsom). Trials seem undeserved, is heaven then undeserved? However, God can be generous.

Maybe some light is contained in the following:

1 And as Jesus passed by, he saw a man which was blind from his birth. 2 And his disciples asked him, saying, Master, who did sin, this man, or his parents, that he was born blind? 3 Jesus answered, Neither hath this man sinned, nor his parents: but that the works of God should be made manifest in him. (John 9:1-3 KJV)

Catholic teaching is that it is a mystery.

“404 How did the sin of Adam become the sin of all his descendants? The whole human race is in Adam “as one body of one man”.[293] By this “unity of the human race” all men are implicated in Adam’s sin, as all are implicated in Christ’s justice. Still, the transmission of original sin is a mystery that we cannot fully understand. But we do know by Revelation that Adam had received original holiness and justice not for himself alone, but for all human nature. …”

My opinion is that in order for us to manifest the image and likeness of God, our Theosis, we must choose to keep the precepts whatever happens in our lives, and that is our expression of love. So it seems that there must be a test or trial of some kind. And there is the joy of having God help us.

From Psalm 51:

Give me again the joy of your help;
With a spirit of fervor sustain me,
That I may teach transgressors your ways,
And sinners may return to you.

 

[fhansen]

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?

It is said in the CCC that by his sin, man preferred himself to God, and I think that this disposition in Adam & Eves’ descendants- us -is quite observable, meaning that there exists something that marks mankind, an unrighteousness consisting of being positively turned away from God and towards ourselves, rather than something strictly or merely missing in us.

 

[eOxy]

Instead of this

eOxy, fhansen, those are all good questions. The ultimate question is how can God allow evil when God is only Good. Logic is insufficient to understand God that is not subject to the laws He created. We have to take it that God is good.

We are “liable to punishment” since we begin our existence corrupted in various ways due to our ancestors sin, not because it is our fault. Our ancestors fault (culpa) and sin (the Fall) is analogous to our liability (reatus) and fallen state. In the fallen state is it likely that we will sin, so it seems correct that Paul says “all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.” (Rom 3:9)

God allowed Satan to severly trouble Job, so likely our trials are being delivered by Satan (an idea from St. John Chrysotsom). Trials seem undeserved, is heaven then undeserved? However, God can be generous.

…
Catholic teaching is that it is a mystery.

and this

But even if we look at this world, with its many trials including death, as a consequence of Adam’s sin, how fair is it that we have to suffer that consequence in any case, regardless of who’s “blamed”? Doesn’t it make sense that mankind is being held accountable in some manner, not necessarily for the purpose of punishment so much as for education/formation, perhaps?

(all of which I either reject vehemently, being horrified by it, or simply ignore as unsatisfactory), what would you say about the following:

While the expulsion from Paradise may have been the punishment for Adam and Eve for the Sin, it was also primarily the cure for them, since God allowed death so the sin in them wouldn’t become eternal.

They got the second chance to repent when they became mortal, in order not to be tortured by committed sin eternally.

We also have that chance, each one of us.

 

[fhansen]

Instead of this

and this

(all of which I either reject vehemently, being horrified by it, or simply ignore as unsatisfactory), what would you say about the following:

While the expulsion from Paradise may have been the punishment for Adam and Eve for the Sin, it was also primarily the cure for them, since God allowed death so the sin in them wouldn’t become eternal.

They got the second chance to repent when they became mortal, in order not to be tortured by committed sin eternally.

We also have that chance, each one of us.

That may be what I’m getting at-that this world provides us with the experience of life without God, and the evil that follows from being separated in will from Him-so that here we can learn the wisdom of clinging to Him- of our dependency on Him for our very life, death being the only alternative if He doesn’t intervene.

 

[Vico]

They got the second chance to repent when they became mortal, in order not to be tortured by committed sin eternally.

We also have that chance, each one of us.

That is in agreement with my thoughts and what the Catholic Church teaches, in regard to the children of Adam and Eve. (The mystery statement of the Catholic Church was only in regard to how “all men are implicated [to involve as a consequence] in Adam’s sin, as all are implicated in Christ’s justice” (a technical detail).

There is no question that in our individual instance to “not be tortured by committed sin eternally” we are enduring difficulties and have a propensity toward sin. This is what I mean by liable to punishment, not as any retribution for any error. (Also, for continuity with older writings, the word reatus which does not mean culpability rather liability or consequences.)

 

[dvdjs]

Translation of reatus link.

If we take his assertion absolutely right, and give it the meaning of
a) liability
b) obligation to suffer punishment

we are left with several important questions without an answer, namely:

a) is each of one having a litigation pending against God?
b) what kind of God is punishing each one of us without one’s guilt?

How could it be possible to have a litigation pending against The Judge?

How could we speak of Justice with sucha punishment-without-guilt God?

What kind of God? The God:

“… who brought us from non-existence into being, and when we had fallen away didst raise us up again, and didst not cease to do all things until Thou hadst brought us up to heaven, and hadst endowed us with Thy Kingdom which is to come.”

That kind. This should be obvious to you.

 

[fhansen]

Translation of reatus link.

If we take his assertion absolutely right, and give it the meaning of
a) liability
b) obligation to suffer punishment

we are left with several important questions without an answer, namely:

a) is each of one having a litigation pending against God?
b) what kind of God is punishing each one of us without one’s guilt?

How could it be possible to have a litigation pending against The Judge?

How could we speak of Justice with sucha punishment-without-guilt God?

If, for man, the inheritance of Ancestral Sin is nothing other than death, then does all sin follow from this fact? What of the rebellious nature apparent in man? Is that not a share in Adams rebelliousness? Is that not responsible for many of our sins? If Ancestral sin leaves nothing to rid ourselves of, and our own sins are merely the result of an illness resulting from being held in deaths relentless grip, then why would there be an onus on man to do anything, including believe and repent? If there’s no injustice in us, then why is it considered just for man to come to believe in and love God?

 

[eOxy]

What kind of God? The God:

That kind. This should be obvious to you.

Umm…, I am an Orthodox Christian.

What does it make you think that you can assume anything about God that should be obvious to me from your perspective?

 

[eOxy]

If, for man, the inheritance of Ancestral Sin is nothing other than death, then does all sin follow from this fact? What of the rebellious nature apparent in man? Is that not a share in Adams rebelliousness? Is that not responsible for many of our sins? If Ancestral sin leaves nothing to rid ourselves of, and our own sins are merely the result of an illness resulting from being held in deaths relentless grip, then why would there be an onus on man to do anything, including believe and repent? If there’s no injustice in us, then why is it considered just for man to come to believe in and love God?

You are retreating to previous explanations that you (and Vico, to certain extent - sorry I can’t make a difference at the moment) ended describing as “a mystery”. Every single sentence above is filled with at least one false assumption, or a non-issue, from the Orthodox perspective.

There is nothing mysterious to me regarding Ancestral Sin and God, because I can grasp it entirely by logic, along with all Orthodox.

Thus, I believe the difference in the belief of Orthodox regarding Ancestral Sin viz the belief of RCs regarding Original Sin has been made obvious.

 

[eOxy]

If, for man, the inheritance of Ancestral Sin is nothing other than …

What if not?

What if there is no inheritance of Ancestral Sin?

If, for man, the inheritance of Ancestral Sin is nothing other than death,

If there is the inheritance, why would the death be the single thing to be inherited?

then does all sin follow from this fact?

What is the meaning of “follow”? Is it in the sense of 'cause"? What kind of “cause”? Would it be the ultimate cause of all sin? Would it be the single cause, of the indirect cause, as opposed to the direct cause of any specific sin?

What of the rebellious nature apparent in man?

Define nature. Is it some stock out of which we are all created? Like Plato taught? Like Talmudists teach?

Prove what you believe to be “apparent” in man by examples.

Is that not a share in Adams rebelliousness?

Define “share”.

Particularly explain if it is somehow related to your understanding of “nature”. How would your understanding differ from saying that we share/inherit the Adam’s nature?

Is that not responsible for many of our sins?

There is no “what” is responsible. There is only “who” is responsible.

Are you making a convenient excuse for sins? Is it someone else’s responsibility, not ours?

If Ancestral sin leaves nothing to rid ourselves of,

Exactly.

and our own sins are merely the result of an illness resulting from being held in deaths relentless grip,

This sounds like a pathetic excuse. Our sins are the result of the fall of our will and faible faith.

There is no death’s relentless grip anymore, haven’t you heard the Novelty? Christos Resurrectit!!!

then why would there be an onus on man to do anything, including believe and repent?

Who believes it is an onus (the literary meaning of onus = burden)? There is no onus, just a chance for partaking the eternal life in God.

If there’s no injustice in us,

I wouldn’t know about you, but there is justice in us. We believe we are created in the image of God.

then why is it considered just for man to come to believe in and love God?

Who considers it just to believe & love?

Could you explain what would God get that He lack without our love?

To comprehend Justice barely as a relation of “believing and loving” God is to downgrade it tremendously.

So, what were you trying to say?

 

[fhansen]

What if there is no inheritance of Ancestral Sin?

If there is the inheritance, why would the death be the single thing to be inherited?

I come from the RC side but I’m not intending to take sides so much as to understand both. I apologize for not having a full grasp of these issues but that’s why I’m here. The Eastern understanding was novel to me until about a year ago when I attended some talks by a Byzantine priest as well as read some about it since. Rev. Antony Hughes put it this way:

“The Eastern Church, unlike its Western counterpart, never speaks of guilt being passed from Adam and Eve to their progeny, as did Augustine. Instead, it is posited that each person bears the guilt of his or her own sin. The question becomes, “What then is the inheritance of humanity from Adam and Eve if it is not guilt?” The Orthodox Fathers answer as one: death.”

Now if I understand, decay and death, themselves, are the main consequences man faces as a result of Ancestral Sin. And he as well as other sources seem to maintain that concupiscence and sin are primarily a result of being trapped in this unnatural situation. This implies that that there’s no fault in man that causes him to sin-simply a fault in his environment which makes sin inevitable. I don’t think this is the full story, however, from the Eastern side.

Define nature. Is it some stock out of which we are all created? Like Plato taught? Like Talmudists teach?

Just the essential qualities or characteristics shared by human beings- altered in some manner by the fall.

Prove what you believe to be “apparent” in man by examples.

I’m referring to the* unreasonableness *of moral evil-which should become evident by living in a world under no compulsion to operate within the will of God and of the order prescribed by Him, and ultimately related to the cause of the perverse separation of man from God related in verses like: “But this is to fulfill what is written in their Law: ‘They hated me without reason.’”

I’m referring to egos that compete selfishly for domination-all the while believing themselves to be right-there often being no reason or call for this other than the desire for power and absolute autonomy. I’m looking at lack of innocence in general and trying to understand where it resides and where it issues from. Man acts outside of his own nature and contrary to his own best interests and the question is, why is this so?

Define “share”.

Particularly explain if it is somehow related to your understanding of “nature”. How would your understanding differ from saying that we share/inherit the Adam’s nature?

I’m saying that, in the most basic way of looking at it, God was rejected by Adam and that disposition still resides in us.

This sounds like a pathetic excuse. Our sins are the result of the fall of our will and faible faith.

I don’t disagree with this. Maybe I’m getting inconsistent teachings or opinions on Eastern beliefs.

There is no death’s relentless grip anymore, haven’t you heard the Novelty? Christos Resurrectit!!!

Of course, but it applies positively only for those who respond-who enter Gods will-in spite of the reasons why they were outside the will of God to begin with. What happens to those, who through no fault of their own, don’t respond-and I don’t see how they can be faulted if their sin is merely an illness-a concept also expressed by Rev Antony and others.

Who believes it is an onus (the literary meaning of onus = burden)? There is no onus, just a chance for partaking the eternal life in God.

And the consequences of not doing so?

I wouldn’t know about you, but there is justice in us. We believe we are created in the image of God.

There was no amount of justice lost in us? Then why would man sin?

Who considers it just to believe & love?

The commandments are summed up by love-to love God with our whole heart, soul, mind, and strength and our neighbor as ourselves.

Could you explain what would God get that He lack without our love?

He gets what He wills- for us and from us.

To comprehend Justice barely as a relation of “believing and loving” God is to downgrade it tremendously.

The relation of believing in and loving God is the perfection of man-fully just, holy, or righteous in Gods eyes.

 

[Vico]

fhansen, you asked:
“If, for man, the inheritance of Ancestral Sin is nothing other than death, then does all sin follow from this fact? …”

The Catechism of the Catholic Church uses the term original sin in two ways, for the specific sin of the ancestors, and for the inherited state resulting from that sin. Sin in us is entirely the result of death, but there are two deaths: of the body and of the soul. Both deaths are inherited according to Catholic teachings, but the term for the death of the soul used by the Latin Church is foreign to the Eastern Churches, which is the “lack of sanctifying grace”, and neither teaches that any culpability is attached to what is inherited. It is probably best to use two different terms ancestral sin and original sin for the two teachings as they are using different concepts.

Romans 5:12 **"**Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned"

I posted a reply to death before:

…

(Some difficulties arise, not from ancestral or original sin, but in consideration of the purification required for sin that occurs prior to the last day in those that have been saved. The topic for another thread: purgatory and indulgences.)

 

[fhansen]

Sin in us is entirely the result of death, but there are two deaths: of the body and of the soul.

Some Eastern commentators say that sin follows from physical death because of the unnatural circumstance it places Adams descendants in. I’m not quite sure I understand this but the death of the soul-understood to mean losing sanctifying grace/Divine Energies-would explain most of the following consequences that mark humanity now?:

**399 Scripture portrays the tragic consequences of this first disobedience. Adam and Eve immediately lose the grace of original holiness.280 They become afraid of the God of whom they have conceived a distorted image - that of a God jealous of his prerogatives.281

400 The harmony in which they had found themselves, thanks to original justice, is now destroyed: the control of the soul’s spiritual faculties over the body is shattered; the union of man and woman becomes subject to tensions, their relations henceforth marked by lust and domination.282 Harmony with creation is broken: visible creation has become alien and hostile to man.283 Because of man, creation is now subject “to its bondage to decay”.284 Finally, the consequence explicitly foretold for this disobedience will come true: man will “return to the ground”,285 for out of it he was taken. Death makes its entrance into human history.286
**

 

[josie_L]

What if not?

What if there is no inheritance of Ancestral Sin?

If there is the inheritance, why would the death be the single thing to be inherited?

What is the meaning of “follow”? Is it in the sense of 'cause"? What kind of “cause”? Would it be the ultimate cause of all sin? Would it be the single cause, of the indirect cause, as opposed to the direct cause of any specific sin?

Define nature. Is it some stock out of which we are all created? Like Plato taught? Like Talmudists teach?

Prove what you believe to be “apparent” in man by examples.

Define “share”.

Particularly explain if it is somehow related to your understanding of “nature”. How would your understanding differ from saying that we share/inherit the Adam’s nature?

There is no “what” is responsible. There is only “who” is responsible.

Are you making a convenient excuse for sins? Is it someone else’s responsibility, not ours?

Exactly.

This sounds like a pathetic excuse. Our sins are the result of the fall of our will and faible faith.

There is no death’s relentless grip anymore, haven’t you heard the Novelty? Christos Resurrectit!!!

Who believes it is an onus (the literary meaning of onus = burden)? There is no onus, just a chance for partaking the eternal life in God.

I wouldn’t know about you, but there is justice in us. We believe we are created in the image of God.

Who considers it just to believe & love?

Could you explain what would God get that He lack without our love?

To comprehend Justice barely as a relation of “believing and loving” God is to downgrade it tremendously.

So, what were you trying to say?

It is almost a form of pelagianism that you are describing when you state that our human nature was not wounded by the fall of Adam.

 

[dvdjs]

Umm…, I am an Orthodox Christian.

What does it make you think that you can assume anything about God that should be obvious to me from your perspective?

The post that you made, that provoked my response which you quoted above, questioned the justice of God for allowing us to incur penalties for another’s sin. You asked, what kind of God would do this.

I did not make assumptions in response, but gave a quotation about the benevolence of His plan of salvation that you - umm - as an Orthodox Christian ought to recognize and endorse. It answers the question that you asked.

 

[Vico]

Some Eastern commentators say that sin follows from physical death because of the unnatural circumstance it places Adams descendants in. I’m not quite sure I understand this but the death of the soul-understood to mean losing sanctifying grace/Divine Energies-would explain most of the following consequences that mark humanity now?

Yes, it is an unnatural circumstance in that we were destined to be divinized (theosis)!

CCC 398 … Constituted in a state of holiness, man was destined to be fully “divinized” by God in glory. …
CCC 1807 Justice is the moral virtue that consists in the constant and firm will to give their due to God and neighbor.
CCC 1992 … Justification is conferred in Baptism, the sacrament of faith. It conforms us to the righteousness of God, who makes us inwardly just by the power of his mercy. …
CCC 417 Adam and Eve transmitted to their descendants human nature wounded by their own first sin and hence deprived of original holiness and justice; this deprivation is called “original sin”.
CCC 1030 All who die in God’s grace and friendship, but still imperfectly purified, are indeed assured of their eternal salvation; but after death they undergo purification, so as to achieve the holiness necessary to enter the joy of heaven.