Original Sin - Catholic and Orthodox

[dvdjs]

Unlike anything you wrote before, this is actually absolutely Orthodox and is one of the meanings and reasons (kindly note the emphasize on “one of”) for Christs Incarnation, Death and Resurrection. St. Athanasios wrote about it in “On Incarnation…”.

But why are you speaking about the liability/reatus/guilt after the settlement? Do you deny that Christs’ Incarnation, Death and Resurrection was sufficient?

I have been writing the same thing all along. I am glad that, at long last, you tire of pushing the legalistic perspective far beyond anything resembling Catholic teaching, let alone dogma, and begin to see the orthodoxy of the Catholic teaching.

You get hung up on on trying to force very narrow, specific meanings on words and even on translations of words to create a hollow contradiction, when the truth is obvious. Why quibble over semantics?

For example. you ask: “Do you deny that Christs’ Incarnation, Death and Resurrection was sufficient?” Well, for those who cooperate with God’s plan of salvation nothing more is necessary or even possible; yet we must admit that we are free to reject cooperating with this plan: we can continue our separation from God and ultimately perish. Now is that a “yes” or a “no” to the question that you posed?

I’ve already done that in the posts Nos.: #33, #36, #39, #41 & #45. You just came late.

No you haven’t. Those posts were about the semantics of “guilt”, before Vico had set you straight on that point.

But thanks for the asking me to go back on the thread.
You had mentioned that " For a start my point on difference is proved - Orthodox can always expose the understanding of Ancestral Sin easily and without dispute." Of course the thread was steaming along with two EO’s contesting ideas, when you first entered with a criticism of what was being said.

 

[fhansen]

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.

I don’t know if it’s hair-splitting or not. I think a general question could be asked, is sin in Adams descendants caused by our merely being cut off from God, the source of our life and holiness, or is there something more to the matter than just the lack of something? Maybe this is a false dichotomy but isn’t there something added, speaking of the disobedience itself that originally caused the separation?

Adam & Eve rejected God by rejecting His authority over them, i.e., they rejected His godhood. That rejection, that preference for ourselves rather than Him, or that self-based righteousness rather than a God-based one, reveals itself every time we sin. Somehow Adams undeserved mistrust of God, his rebellious, disordered stance or disposition continues on in human nature. The evil we can observe as being prevalent in the world and ourselves just seems to come too easily to us, encouraged by a desire for “something” so long as God’s not part of it-or fearing He’ll spoil the fun if He is.

We aren’t responsible for being in this situation-we’re just responsible for recognizing that the situation exists and taking the opportunity, when offered, to rectify it. A blind man may not be responsible for his blindness but, if the offer to cure him comes along and he refuses, then he is responsible for staying blind and no one can say he didn’t have a fair shake. Adam & Eve’s choice turned mankind away from God. We each have the opportunity to reverse that choice, within ourselves, turning mankind back to God- one of us at a time, by Gods call and through His grace. But maybe *I’m *hair-splitting.

 

[eOxy]

The analogy was mentioned, is nothing new, and was accepted early on in this thread with the first mention Catholic Catechism 404.

You misunderstood, and you keep misunderstanding.

The analogy was left aside to let you explain reatus.

Besides, there you referred to the analogy to “sin” within the meaning of Adam’s descendants’ relation to his Sin.

Now you speak about the analogy to guilt.

Apart from that, why do you assume something is “accepted” by silence?

404 …this sin affected the human nature that they would then transmit in a fallen state. … 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. "

I explicitly reject “analogical sin” and “a sin contracted”. You’d need to show me the binding contract, identify the parties of it and show the assignments, if any.

So it would even be correct, even though confusing sometimes, to call the state a sin.

To Orthodox it isn’t correct, but I do acknowledge RCs believe so. That is one of the differences I am pointing to.

 

[eOxy]

Of course the thread was steaming along with two EO’s contesting ideas, when you first entered with a criticism of what was being said.

Your deep misunderstanding of the Orthodox theology regarding Ancestral Sin is apparent.

I’ve already directed anyone interested to St. Athanasios the Great and Fr. John Romanides as the sources of Orthodox theology early on this thread.

 

[eOxy]

But maybe *I’m *hair-splitting.

I don’t think so.

Upon a cursory reading of your post I could say that there is nothing you wrote that is plan wrong, or heterodox from the Orthodox point of view.

However, that doesn’t mean your exposition could be accepted as Orthodox. You completely missed Christus Victor aspect and remained completely within the Satisfaction theory, which is usual RCs stance regarding Original Sin.

The Orthodox teaching on Ancestral Sin emphasize on Christ’s victory over death.

 

[eOxy]

@fhansen

Just a short note:

The evil we can observe as being prevalent in the world and ourselves just seems to come too easily to us, encouraged by a desire for “something” so long as God’s not part of it-or fearing He’ll spoil the fun if He is.

The evil entered the World through Adam’s Sin.

The evil is as prevalent in this World to the extent we induce it by our sins.

Don’t take it as a polemics, or as an argument of difference. Just a demonstration of emphasize.

 

[josie_L]

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

But you didn’t answer this question, so I’ll repeat it one more time?

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?

 

[eOxy]

But you didn’t answer this question, so I’ll repeat it one more time?

The only one that hasn’t answered a question is you.

Are you able to deny that the guilt of original sin is remitted by baptisim? Yes or no?

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?

Whatever happened with the human nature by Adam’s fall, it isn’t the human nature that is treated by baptism. A person is being baptized, not person’s nature.

 

[fhansen]

Whatever happened with the human nature by Adam’s fall, it isn’t the human nature that is treated by baptism. A person is being baptized, not person’s nature.

But how do you understand this cannon from the council of Carthage?

Can. 2 “If any man says that new-born children need not be baptized, or that they should indeed be baptized for the
remission of sins, but that they have in them no original sin inherited from Adam which must be washed away in the
bath of regeneration, so that in their ease the formula of baptism ‘for the remission of sins’ must not be taken literally,
but figuratively, let him be anathema; because, according to Romans 5:12, the sin of Adam (in quo omnes
peccaverunt) has passed upon all.”

 

[eOxy]

But how do you understand this cannon from the council of Carthage?

Can. 2 “If any man says that new-born children need not be baptized, or that they should indeed be baptized for the
remission of sins, but that they have in them no original sin inherited from Adam which must be washed away in the
bath of regeneration, so that in their ease the formula of baptism ‘for the remission of sins’ must not be taken literally,
but figuratively, let him be anathema; because, according to Romans 5:12, the sin of Adam (in quo omnes
peccaverunt) has passed upon all.”

In the compillation of canons I read, it is canon 100 of Carthage (several councils of Carthage compilled, as accepted by the Canon 2 of the 6th Ecumenical Council). It also reads slightly different, as I already mentioned in one of my previous posts:

Can. 2 “If any man says that new-born children need not be baptized, or that they should indeed be baptized for the remission of sins, but that they have in them -]no original sin inherited from/-] [SIGN]nothing of [/SIGN]Adam[SIGN]'s sin[/SIGN] which must be washed away in the …

No inheriting.

It would be interesting to read it in original Latin, as well as in Greek (as it has been accepted by 6th council).

I understand this cannon that everyone is baptized in Christ’s death so one could be resurrected in His Resurrection. I have already answred that upon JosieL’s question.

 

[SingleMomMonica]

But how do you understand this cannon from the council of Carthage?

Can. 2 “If any man says that new-born children need not be baptized, or that they should indeed be baptized for the
remission of sins, but that they have in them no original sin inherited from Adam which must be washed away in the
bath of regeneration, so that in their ease the formula of baptism ‘for the remission of sins’ must not be taken literally,
but figuratively, let him be anathema; because, according to Romans 5:12, the sin of Adam (in quo omnes
peccaverunt) has passed upon all.”

Why are you ignoring eOxy’s question?

 

[fhansen]

Why are you ignoring eOxy’s question?

I think you mean to address another poster who was asked the question.

 

[SingleMomMonica]

I think you mean to address another poster who was asked the question.

Looking back, you would be correct! Sorry.

 

[fhansen]

Looking back, you would be correct! Sorry.

No problem.

 

[josie_L]

The only one that hasn’t answered a question is you.

Are you able to deny that the guilt of original sin is remitted by baptisim? Yes or no?

I’ve answered this question two times already, please look back at my posts.

Whatever happened with the human nature by Adam’s fall, it isn’t the human nature that is treated by baptism. A person is being baptized, not person’s nature.

**I never mentioned baptism in my question, I asked if the nature of man was injured with Adam’s fall, yes or no? **

 

[eOxy]

I’ve answered this question two times already, please look back at my posts.

You answered swinging the guilt to stain

**I never mentioned baptism in my question, I asked if the nature of man was injured with Adam’s fall, yes or no? **

Define nature.

 

[eOxy]

But are you implying that Adams descendants* don’t* suffer as a result of his sin?

That isn’t my intention. It isn’t my belief.

Adam’s descendants do suffer.

But what is the cause?

Is the sin (that is in the World) the cause?

Is it the Master of all Sin?

Is it Adam?

Is it Adam’s Sin?

Is it God, who created all things, visible and invisible?

Or is the cause of our suffering actually our own sins, by which we induce the evil in the World? I stand here - that is the immediate cause of suffering. Ancestral Sin is only an intermediate cause - of course being the prerequisite, but it isn’t profitable for our salvation to put the blame on Adam. He is our forefather, after all.

I think we should previously define the meaning of “cause” and all types of the cause, to have a straight and meaningful answer to your question.

 

[fhansen]

That isn’t my intention. It isn’t my belief.

Adam’s descendants do suffer.

But what is the cause?

Is the sin (that is in the World) the cause?

Is it the Master of all Sin?

Is it Adam?

Is it Adam’s Sin?

Is it God, who created all things, visible and invisible?

Or is the cause of our suffering actually our own sins, by which we induce the evil in the World? I stand here - that is the immediate cause of suffering. Ancestral Sin is only an intermediate cause - of course being the prerequisite, but it isn’t profitable for our salvation to put the blame on Adam. He is our forefather, after all.

I think we should previously define the meaning of “cause” and all types of the cause, to have a straight and meaningful answer to your question.

I think it’d be safe to say that Catholics don’t put the blame on Adam-they put the blame on mankind-which includes Adam, Eve, and ourselves. Satan deceived man but man was attracted to the deception. And yet we call it a Blessed Fault for winning us so great a Redeemer. So apparently without the fall man may never have had the potential or opportunity to rise even higher than where he started.

In any case God would probably have been justified in eliminating man immediately for opposing His will but He’s patient and kind and loving and knows the beginning from the end and has His purposes for creation which will be fulfilled. Our main job here on earth is to come to know the error in opposing God and to cooperate in being molded into beings who’ll freely love Him with our whole heart soul, mind, and strength.

Suffering is the result of living in a world where man’s will, always tempted by the evil one working in conjunction with man’s own pride-and so sin-reigns and where disease, corruption and ultimately death are the lot of us all. But we’re given the chance to choose life by following Jesus into His death -and triumphing with Him over it.

Humankind was “prodigalized” by Adam & Eve. We each now have the opportunity to come back home to a Father whose always been waiting with unconditional love-after exiling ourselves for the time it takes to learn of our “unconditional need” for Him…

 

[SingleMomMonica]

I think it’d be safe to say that Catholics don’t put the blame on Adam-they put the blame on mankind-which includes Adam, Eve, and ourselves.

Is that really logical to you?

Does it sound like a Just & Loving God Who would place the blame on you personally, for what someone else did?

Does this really make sense to you?

If so, I feel really bad for you that you have to personally deal with that kind of guilt/blame, the guilt/blame for a horrible thing that you actually had no personal part of.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m all for taking personal responsibility - but personal responsibility for all the things that I am actually responsible for: my own actions & my own failures to act.

Heck - I would even be happy to take partial personal responsibility for something that some else did, if I had been given a chance to influence them in a positive manner to not do something bad and I failed to take advantage of that opportunity; however, I am in now way responsible for something that someone else did in a situation where I had no possible way to be there to influence them.

I’m not about to take personal responsibility for what Eve and Adam did. I’m not about to take personal responsibility for what Stalin, Hitler, Mussolini, Ted Bundy and others have done! Do I live in a world that has been negatively affected by what these people I mentioned have done - YES! Am I to blame for their personal actions - NO WAY!

 

[fhansen]

Is that really logical to you?

Does it sound like a Just & Loving God Who would place the blame on you personally, for what someone else did?

Does this really make sense to you?

If so, I feel really bad for you that you have to personally deal with that kind of guilt/blame, the guilt/blame for a horrible thing that you actually had no personal part of.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m all for taking personal responsibility - but personal responsibility for all the things that I am actually responsible for: my own actions & my own failures to act.

Heck - I would even be happy to take partial personal responsibility for something that some else did, if I had been given a chance to influence them in a positive manner to not do something bad and I failed to take advantage of that opportunity; however, I am in now way responsible for something that someone else did in a situation where I had no possible way to be there to influence them.

I’m not about to take personal responsibility for what Eve and Adam did. I’m not about to take personal responsibility for what Stalin, Hitler, Mussolini, Ted Bundy and others have done! Do I live in a world that has been negatively affected by what these people I mentioned have done - YES! Am I to blame for their personal actions - NO WAY!

But we do all suffer as a result, directly or indirectly, of Adam & Eve’s sin. Not only they, but everyone after them, were cast from the garden-and into a life where we all ultimately face death. And the evils that some endure in this life, whether from the hands of others or from disease, etc. between birth and death can be unimaginable.

So why *do *we suffer for Adams sin? I don’t have a perfect, pat answer for this. But we’re definitely separated from even the knowledge of God from birth and I believe we’re to come to learn the evil inherent in that separation-through Revelation combined with the experience of this life- so we can then take steps with Gods help to resolve it. We may not be responsible for the situation we find ourselves in, but we are in it-and we are responsible for doing our part to extricate ourselves from it-even if that’s no more initially than crying, Abba, Father.

Or do you think nothing was changed after the fall for the rest of mankind-that we all begin in basically the same situation as Adam & Eve started out in and that all suffering in this life is due to personal sins? If so, I’m not sure I understand this notion.