Original Sin - Catholic and Orthodox

[eOxy]

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.

Not “allowing us to incur penalties”, but punishing us, imposing the punishment Himself for something each one of us didn’t do.

You asked, what kind of God would do this.

An unjust God.

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.

No, I don’t have to recognize and endorse it…

The quotation isn’t satisfactory.

I’ve already exposed the Orthodox approach to this.

 

[eOxy]

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.

I also apologize if I haven’t had a full grasp of your questions.

The issue is subtle, yet fundamental. It takes time (at least it took it for me, but more clever than me may get it faster).

Basically it is about resolving God’s omnipotence and goodness with the story of the Bible about Adam’s Sin and fall.

There is a tendency in RCs theology on Original sin to interpret it by adding a number of presumptions that makes the explanation fractured, with a number of interpretation of required side-interpretations, at least some of which are ambiguous. As a final result, such theology contradicts in some of its points either that God hasn’t created evil, or that He is omnipotent.

There is nothing alike in Orthodox theology on Ancestral Sin.

I think it is premature to respond to your responses at the moment.

 

[eOxy]

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.

JosieL is back. Could you now deny that the guilt of Original Sin is remitted by baptism?

Apart from attributing me the words I’ve never said, there is the word almost in your accusation rendering it irrelevant.

 

[Vico]

This post is not directly about original sin, but has bearing on understanding sin and the use of legalistic wording of the Catholic doctrines. Between Orthodoxy and Catholic sin has a similar expression but Catholicism has grave and venial sin categories and purgatory which are foreign to Orthodoxy. Although the term punishment is used by Catholics, it is understood as “following from the very nature of sin”, so it like the Orthodox understanding.

CCC 1472 To understand this doctrine and practice of the Church, it is necessary to understand that sin has a double consequence. Grave sin deprives us of communion with God and therefore makes us incapable of eternal life, the privation of which is called the “eternal punishment” of sin. On the other hand every sin, even venial, entails an unhealthy attachment to creatures, which must be purified either here on earth, or after death in the state called Purgatory. This purification frees one from what is called the “temporal punishment” of sin. These two punishments must not be conceived of as a kind of vengeance inflicted by God from without, but as following from the very nature of sin. A conversion which proceeds from a fervent charity can attain the complete purification of the sinner in such a way that no punishment would remain.

 

[eOxy]

Although the term punishment is used by Catholics, it is understood as “following from the very nature of sin”, so it like the Orthodox understanding.

I’ve been complaining all along to the attempt to equalize RCs’ Original Sin with Orthodox’ Ancestral Sin.

It is not “like” the Orthodox understanding.

These two punishments must not be conceived of as a kind of vengeance inflicted by God from without, but as following from the very nature of sin.

This is what I meant when I wrote about fractured RCs theology on Original Sin. The invention of punishment which is imposed on us without our guilt, that should not lead us to conceive “a vengeable God” (I say an unjust God) is contradictory to reason, therefore RCs need to end qualifying it as “a mystery”.

No need for that for Orthodox. Our theology is consistent with the premises of God’s omnipotence and goodness.

These are subtle, yet fundamental differences.

 

[Vico]

First I want to say that I personally do not conceive of what results from sin as a punishment. It is in the spirit of fostering understanding that I present the Catholic teachings which I believe are misunderstood due to the many non-canonical opinions that have been made throughout history, and the latter developments by the Catholic Church since it was united with Orthodoxy. I have tried to rely on the Catechism since that is the modern view, which also is the Latin view, since Eastern Catholic Churches have a different theology (but the same ‘de fide’ dogmas).

eOxy, you said: “I’ve been complaining all along to the attempt to equalize RCs’ Original Sin with Orthodox’ Ancestral Sin. It is not “like” the Orthodox understanding.”

I am not referring to inherited original or ancestral sin being alike in my remark. It is about the meaning of comitted sin; the suffering from sin “following from the very nature of sin” is alike.

eOxy, you said: “This is what I meant when I wrote about fractured RCs theology on Original Sin. The invention of punishment which is imposed on us without our guilt, that should not lead us to conceive “a vengeable God” (I say an unjust God) is contradictory to reason, therefore RCs need to end qualifying it as “a mystery”.”

The mystery remark refers to working of the incarnation for the inherited effects of ancestral sin. It is a mystery due to our not comprehending it completely. The Catechism stated about the inheritance, that “Still, the transmission of original sin is a mystery that we cannot fully understand.” Saint Athanasius said that the Word “might become in dying a sufficient exchange for all,” Athanasius Chapter 2, section 9. Christ is the Lamb.

worldinvisible.com/library/athanasius/incarnation/incarnation.c.htm

The Catholic Church does not teach punishment imposed on us without our guilt, as was shown with the previous quotes from the Catechism. The Catechism item is referring to sin in our lifetimes that some may think is vengence.

I made the post to show that the Catholic teaching is that the sins that we commit in our lifetime has results that are “following from the very nature of sin”.

 

[dvdjs]

eOxy:

Not “allowing us to incur penalties”, but punishing us, imposing the punishment Himself for something each one of us didn’t do.

You had already seemed to have grasped the sense of “reatus”. And surely agree that we incur a liabilty in the aftermath of Adam’s sin; that reality is clear. You may which to call this an injustice on the part of God, and express a lack of gratitude for the plan of salvation that He provided. So be it. However,…

No, I don’t have to recognize … it. The quotation isn’t satisfactory.

Your failure to recognize the quote, and to call it unsatisfactory, makes me wonder if you are actually Orthodox; you clearly lack knowledge of fundamental texts of the Orthdoox church.

 

[josie_L]

JosieL is back. Could you now deny that the guilt of Original Sin is remitted by baptism?

By guilt we mean the “stain” of original sin so yes it is remitted at baptism. What is the purpose of baptism in Orthodoxy?

Apart from attributing me the words I’ve never said, there is the word almost in your accusation rendering it irrelevant.

Ok, then let me be blunt, do you believe that man’s nature was wounded (but not totally corrupted as the reformers would have it) with the fall of Adam?

 

[fhansen]

I don’t get this. I google in Eastern Orthodox Catechism, read five or so of them regarding the fall/first sin, and they all sound remarkably similar to the Roman Catholic teaching-the presumably older ones even say as much while not being shy about stating differences having to do with other areas of theology. It’s interesting in any case to read the different explanations as each sheds a bit more light on the topic-some more clearly than others.

 

[eOxy]

First I want to say that I personally do not conceive of what results from sin as a punishment.

It results either that God created sin, or that we are punished by the Master of all sin.

Or that God and Master of all sin joined efforts in punishing us. A strategic alliance?

It is in the spirit of fostering understanding that I present the Catholic teachings which I believe are misunderstood due to the many non-canonical opinions that have been made throughout history, and the latter developments by the Catholic Church since it was united with Orthodoxy.

The more I read about Catholic teaching, the more I know that it seems fractured and the fractured parts are in contradiction with themselves.

eOxy, you said: “I’ve been complaining all along to the attempt to equalize RCs’ Original Sin with Orthodox’ Ancestral Sin. It is not “like” the Orthodox understanding.”

I am not referring to inherited original or ancestral sin being alike in my remark. It is about the meaning of comitted sin; the suffering from sin “following from the very nature of sin” is alike.

I cannot see the relevance of that issue. I have never debated it here.

eOxy, you said: “This is what I meant when I wrote about fractured RCs theology on Original Sin. The invention of punishment which is imposed on us without our guilt, that should not lead us to conceive “a vengeable God” (I say an unjust God) is contradictory to reason, therefore RCs need to end qualifying it as “a mystery”.”

The mystery remark refers to working of the incarnation for the inherited effects of ancestral sin. It is a mystery due to our not comprehending it completely. The Catechism stated about the inheritance, that “Still, the transmission of original sin is a mystery that we cannot fully understand.” Saint Athanasius said that the Word “might become in dying a sufficient exchange for all,” Athanasius Chapter 2, section 9. Christ is the Lamb.

worldinvisible.com/library/athanasius/incarnation/incarnation.c.htm

The fragmented quote of St. Athanasios doesn’t refer to “a mystery” at all. Besides that part of his exposition isn’t central in “On Incarnation”, since he carefully explained all reasons of Incarnation in his brilliant work.

But you still insist on “inheritance”, although I’ve pointed several times that the inheritance of sin is exactly what is rejected. It is interesting to note that the text of the Council of Carthage as published in the link I’ve given in my post #72 on this thread differs from the text I read. The published text in English does mention “inheritance” (whoever denies inheritance of Original Sin), while the text I read doesn’t (whomever says that we get nothing of Ancestral Sin).

Kindly note the difference.

 

[eOxy]

That may be what I’m getting at-that this world provides us with the experience of life without God,

Jesus said he would send us Paracletos (the Holy Spirit).

Jesus also said to “little flock” not to be afraid for he would be with them/us until the End of the World.

How does your explanation of the “experience of life without God” stand related to these two specific messages from the New Testament?

 

[eOxy]

What is the purpose of baptism in Orthodoxy?

I have already answered that by the last sentence of my post #72 on this thread. Do your reading.

 

[eOxy]

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

I have never said there wasn’t a loss incurred by Adam’s sin and fall. Actually I believe there was.

But I have never said there was a gain in it, like that we “gained a stain”.

This might sound like splitting the hair, but the explanation of “stain” always sounded unsatisfactory to me.

 

[fhansen]

Jesus said he would send us Paracletos (the Holy Spirit).

Jesus also said to “little flock” not to be afraid for he would be with them/us until the End of the World.

How does your explanation of the “experience of life without God” stand related to these two specific messages from the New Testament?

I’m speaking of the experience of being exiled from God by being cast from the garden with the result that evil, alongside of good, is known in this world and that, while becoming a follower of Christ gains us great hope, lessens the burden of this life and gives value to suffering, we still struggle with concupiscence-and we must still walk by faith-where we’ll see dimly until later when we’ll see face to face. Until then, we grow in faith and perfection, the experience of life in a world effectively without God-a world that rejected Him- meanwhile contributing its part in progressively convincing us of our need for Him after all and of the perfection of His will-until attraction to anything else is completely done away with and our love for Him is complete.

 

[Vico]

…

You wanted me to note the difference in Catholic vs Orthodox teaching on the inheritance. If I saw a difference I would do that. The phrase “inheritance of original sin” means the effects of original sin, which are death and lack of sanctifying grace (not personal guilt or actual sin). The mode of transmission is through human generation, the same as stated by Saint Cyril of Alexandria:

“'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…”

John Karmiris, A Synopsis of the Dogmatic Theology of the Orthodox Catholic Church, trans. from the Greek by the Reverend George Dimopoulos (Scranton, Pa.: Christian Orthodox Edition, 1973), p. 36

You said: “The fragmented quote of St. Athanasios doesn’t refer to “a mystery” at all.”

I am saying that the idea of the incarnation is what the Catholic Catechism is referring to as what is mysterious, in that we do not fully comprenend it. However, it is partially comprehended and expounded by Athanasios and in the Catechism.

I must not have been clear in my statement, because you did not read it the way I meant it, so I will rephrase it.

Instead of “First I want to say that I personally do not conceive of what results from sin as a punishment.”

It should have read as:
“First I want to say that I personally do not consider the results of sin to be a punishment.”

You said: “The more I read about Catholic teaching, the more I know that it seems fractured and the fractured parts are in contradiction with themselves.”

I can see how that can happen. This can happen if one does not understand the theological terminology, which differs from standard dictionary. It can also happen if you read opinions that were written in different eras and try to paste them together, such as St. Thomas or Aquinas and St. Augustine, each with their own different viewpoint. If you want to understand the teaching of the Catholic Church, then read the Catechism of the Catholic Church and the references that it makes. Just as in Orthodoxy, there are many opinions but not all are considered a matter of faith, rather just opinions.

The dogmas of faith (de fide) about original sin are very few, which I summarize below, but not from the Catholic Catechism, rather from an older document by Catholic theologian Ludwig Ott (1906-1985).

Our first parents, before the Fall, were endowed with sanctifying grace and bodily immortality. They sinned grievously through transgression of the Divine probationary commandment and through that sin, lost sanctifying grace and became subject to death and to the dominion of the Devil. The state of Adam’s original sin is transmitted to his posterity, not by imitation, but by descent through natural generation whereby man is deprived of sanctifying grace and all that this implies, as well as of the preternatural gifts of integrity (i.e., bodily immortality). Souls who depart this life in the state of original sin are excluded from the Beatific Vision of God.

I could assemble a list from the latest Catechism of 8 September 1997 which would be official. You can read it here.

usccb.org/catechism/

Compendium:
vatican.va/archive/compendium_ccc/documents/archive_2005_compendium-ccc_en.html

 

[StillWondering]

I don’t understand the recent posts on sin here.

Sin, from my understanding, is missing the mark. The mark being a loving relationship with God. God is who He is and He is perfect no matter what we think of Him. Thus, for those who seek God, our relationship with Him is the target of our existence. If we do something that acts as a temporary obstacle in that, it’s a venial sin. If we do something that acts as a full barrier against a relationship, it’s a mortal sin. We cannot bridge the gap ourselves when we commit a mortal sin, we need God’s grace.

For original sin, it is the graces of baptism that gives us God’s life in us so that we can have a true relationship with him. You can’t have a relationship with someone else until you invite them into your life.

For mortal sins after baptism, it is the graces of reconciliation that removes that barrier hindering our chances of a relationship with God.

At the same time, God never created sin or the barriers. He gives us a choice to continue the relationship or not. As for Adam, this first man made a choice that had lasting consequences to his descendants. Adam distanced himself from God and continuing his linage away from God (“Garden of Edan” in my children bible). Consequently, we who are his descendants are not born within the Garden (ie us in God’s presence) in the same way that Adam was at his creation.

What else is there to know (that does not follow from this) about Original sin?

 

[eOxy]

What else is there to know (that does not follow from this) about Original sin?

From the Orthodox point of view - absolutely nothing.

That notwithstanding that you added “venial” and “mortal” sin, which is a RCs point of view not shared by us.

I shouldn’t be speaking what is there else to know for RCs, by at the present debate RCs presented that the guilt you profess actually isn’t guilt but reatus - either a litigation against God or a state of undergoing punishment, where sin is a means of punishment itself, but in spite of that God neither created sin nor is in alliance with the Creator/Master of all sin, nor we are punished by the Master of Sin for Adam’s transgression of God’s commandment. Some other stuff too, but I believe they will explain it better.

 

[dvdjs]

… at the present debate RCs presented that the guilt you profess actually isn’t guilt but reatus - either a litigation against God or a state of undergoing punishment…

In post #83 you had it better, where you used “liability” before curiously morphing into “litigation against God”. The sense of liability in this context, is “hindrance or disadvantage” or “something that works to one’s disadvantage” - a sense found in any dictionary.

I think it understood by all that because of Adam’s sin we lost advantages (or acquired disadvantages). That state of affairs is clear. What else is there to discuss? Certainly not this straw man idea of “litigation against God” or your other inventions that stretch Catholic teaching beyond recognition. And while you seem to like to portray this situation as representing an unjust punishment, the reality is that God responded to this situation with His benevolent plan of salvation. It is your portrayal that is unjust.

 

[eOxy]

In post #83 you had it better, where you used “liability” before curiously morphing into “litigation against God”. The sense of liability in this context, is “hindrance or disadvantage” or “something that works to one’s disadvantage” - a sense found in any dictionary.

Liability is a legal term, that is settled either amicably or by litigation.

I think it understood by all that because of Adam’s sin we lost advantages (or acquired disadvantages).

Do you deny “the stain”, or you just conveniently forgot to mention it?

 

[dvdjs]

Liability is a legal term, that is settled either amicably or by litigation.

First, “liabiliy” can have legal connotations, just as “corn” can refer to a growth on your foot. Picking among definitions to reinforce a polemical stance just inhibits your ability to hear the answers to your questions. The definitions I quoted for “liability” are not legal ones, but fit the context perfect well, and make the meaning of the Catholic teaching clear.

I am happy to note some development in your thinking: you apparently now recognize, even in a legal context, that “liabilities” can be removed amicably. Which, indeed, is what happened.

Do you deny “the stain”, or you just conveniently forgot to mention it?

I agree with your comment that your disatisfaction with “stain” sounds like hair splitting. It would be akin to quibbling over whether we should we call the Theotokos “achrantou” or “prechistuju”, i.e., “immaculate” or “most pure”. But I did make the point, both ways:
“we lost advantages (or acquired disadvantages)”. Is there something more to your remark?