Original sin in Orthodox view

[OrbisNonSufficit]

Also, in regard to the teaching of the Council of Florence, it is incredible that the Fathers there assembled had any intention of defining a question so remote from the issue on which reunion with the Greeks depended, and one which was recognized at the time as being open to free discussion and continued to be so regarded by theologians for several centuries afterwards. What the council evidently intended to deny in the passage alleged was the postponement of final awards until the day of judgement. Those dying in original sin are said to descend into Hell, but this does not necessarily mean anything more than that they are excluded eternally from the vision of God. In this sense they are damned; they have failed to reach their supernatural destiny, and this viewed objectively is a true penalty. Thus the Council of Florence, however literally interpreted, does not deny the possibility of perfect subjective happiness for those dying in original sin, and this is all that is needed from the dogmatic viewpoint to justify the prevailing Catholic notion of the children’s limbo, while from the standpoint of reason, as St. Gregory of Nazianzus pointed out long ago, no harsher view can be reconciled with a worthy concept of God’s justice and other attributes.

From Catholic encyclopedia

 

[CathBoy1]

Also, note that Limbo is not actual Catholic doctrine, although it got taught for centuries.

Wouldn’t it being taught for centuries fall under the rule of St Vincent Of Lérins “ Moreover, in the Catholic Church itself, all possible care must be taken, that we hold that faith which has been believed everywhere , always, by all .”?

Furthermore, as pointed out earlier in the thread, proclamations of multiple Popes at multiple councils would make it official Church teaching, no?

For what it’s worth Church never states that “all” of those… but that those… technically it still allows for exception such as with infants. Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus is also a dogma and yet we understand that invincible ignorance exists. I think that interpretation and circumstances matter more than official declaration in this scenario. At the same time, Church says “those who die in original Sin” and God can work outside Sacraments to purify. God does not punish us for what is not up to us- hence if baby dies before birth, or if there is invincible ignorance, mercy should apply.

I do not disagree at all, but that doesn’t change what the Church officially teaches, no?

I agree that the wording leaves the possibility open, but that does not mean that it is anything other than a possibility from the RCC pov.
That is why I said I tend to agree with the Eastern Churches on this particular subject.

Council of Carthage was accepted by 7th Ecumenical Council (which is accepted by the East of course). Council of Carthage teaches:
" whosoever denies that infants newly from their mother’s wombs should be baptized, or says that baptism is for remission of sins, but that they derive from Adam no original sin , which needs to be removed by the laver of regeneration , from whence the conclusion follows, that in them the form of baptism for the remission of sins, is to be understood as false and not true, let him be anathema ".

Clearly Eastern Church also states that Original Sin “needs” to be removed by Baptism.

I am not arguing that there is no such thing as Original Sin, just that there’s different understandings of what that is and it’s effects.

Continued…

 

[CathBoy1]

…Continued from above

Those dying in original sin are said to descend into Hell, but this does not necessarily mean anything more than that they are excluded eternally from the vision of God. In this sense they are damned; they have failed to reach their supernatural destiny, and this viewed objectively is a true penalty. Thus the Council of Florence, however literally interpreted, does not deny the possibility of perfect subjective happiness for those dying in original sin, and this is all that is needed from the dogmatic viewpoint to justify the prevailing Catholic notion of the children’s limbo, while from the standpoint of reason, as St. Gregory of Nazianzus pointed out long ago, no harsher view can be reconciled with a worthy concept of God’s justice and other attributes.

This is exactly what I have been trying to say all along, I am not saying that the Catholic Church says that unbaptized infants are tormented in hell, I’m saying that the Catholic Church teaches that:

Those dying in original sin are said to descend into Hell, but this does not necessarily mean anything more than that they are excluded eternally from the vision of God. In this sense they are damned.

 

[dochawk]

Wouldn’t it being taught for centuries fall under the rule of St Vincent Of Lérins

not when it wasn’t actually church teaching, but got taught anyway.

Furthermore, as pointed out earlier in the thread, proclamations of multiple Popes at multiple councils would make it official Church teaching, no?

that depends upon how it was pronounced. Sometimes yes, sometimes no,.

Also, much/most church teaching is not infallible, and therefore subject to correction.

 

[CathBoy1]

not when it wasn’t actually church teaching, but got taught anyway.

So why would the Church teach something for centuries, that wasn’t actually the Church’s teaching?

Also, much/most church teaching is not infallible

I was always under the impression that a proclamation from a Pope, pronounced at an ecumenical council, is considered infallible, from a RC pov.

 

[dochawk]

So why would the Church teach something for centuries, that wasn’t actually the Church’s teaching?

It wasn’t “the Church” so much as legions of sisters and nuns.

I was always under the impression that a proclamation from a Pope, pronounced at an ecumenical council, is considered infallible, from a RC pov.

No. Contrary to what is commonly misstated in this forums, there are very particular requirements in the formulation of Vaticn I on this topic.

(You don’t really think that attending a Jewish physician or kneeling on Sunday are Mortal Sin, do you?)

 

[CathBoy1]

No. Contrary to what is commonly misstated in this forums, there are very particular requirements in the formulation of Vaticn I on this topic.

I was meaning pre-Vatican I, wouldn’t a proclamation from a pope during an ecumenical council (let alone proclamations from multiple popes during multiple ecumenical councils) be one (of several) ways papal infallibility can be gleaned pre-Vatican I?

(You don’t really think that attending a Jewish physician or kneeling on Sunday are Mortal Sin, do you?)

Absolutely not, lol.

 

[CathBoy1]

It wasn’t “the Church” so much as legions of sisters and nuns.

Lol, I was under the impression that when popes were making proclamations at ecumenical councils, that the Church was teaching such things, not only legions of sisters and nuns.

*Edit
Whilst reading aloud what I posted above, the lol seems to come off as rude, and honestly that was not my intention, your comment genuinely made me laugh whilst thinking of legions of sisters and nuns.

While completely off subject, I wish I seen as many sisters and nuns in habit today, at our churches, as I did in my youth, sadly it is much more uncommon nowadays.

 

[dochawk]

I was meaning pre-Vatican I, wouldn’t a proclamation from a pope during an ecumenical council (let alone proclamations from multiple popes during multiple ecumenical councils) be one (of several) ways papal infallibility can be gleaned pre-Vatican I?

No.

Also, “papal infallibility” is not it’s own thing, but rather a way of the pope, president of the bishops, recognizing an infallible teaching of the church.

Absolutely not, lol.

OK, that takes care of unqualified infallibility for ecumenical councils ratified by the pope . . . I forget which council the physician canon comes from, but the ban on kneeling on Sunday was Nice . . .

 

[CathBoy1]

Also, “papal infallibility” is not it’s own thing, but rather a way of the pope, president of the bishops, recognizing an infallible teaching of the church.

I agree, a pope only declares a teaching that is/has been taught by the Church as infallible, for instance a pope cannot randomly declare that Buddhism is correct and put an infallible stamp on it, it must be something that the Church has taught and that the pope is recognizing as infallible.

But from what I’ve read through studying this subject it seems that the Church (various saints and popes alike) was teaching this for some time when these Popes then made proclamations during ecumenical councils, thereby seemingly ratifying said proclamations.

 

[CathBoy1]

but the ban on kneeling on Sunday was Nice

First or second council? I may want to rethink my position on kneeling on Sunday

 

[pohandes]

But against that hope must surely be placed what I understand to be the Catholic belief that the pain and suffering of non-humans - chimps, dolphins, flies, antelopes, lions, cows - exists as a result of human original sin. These creatures have no personal sin to be forgiven by God and have no prospect at all of eternal life (again as I understand Catholic teaching).

Your claim is not true. They are not exist as a result of human original sins. They existed before original sin. They existed in 5th day of creation. (Gen1: 19-22) And we do not say that animals have to suffer in the hell.

What is the reason for hope in the case of unbaptised children given the lack of hope for other creatures who not only lack personal sin to be forgiven, but also original sin?

There are no evidence that they have to go to hell, so there are hope for them to be saved.

Also, note that Limbo is not actual Catholic doctrine, although it got taught for centuries.

We do not talk about lombo.

Ecumenical Council of Constantinople states this:
logy mentioned (just as there is none for most saints of the Church):

We further declare that we hold fast to the decrees of the four Councils, and in every way follow the holy Fathers , Athanasius, Hilary, Basil, Gregory the Theologian, Gregory of Nyssa, Ambrose, Theophilus, John (Chrysostom) of Constantinople, Cyril, Augustine , Proclus, Leo and their writings on the true faith.

So… yeah.

 

[FiveLinden]

Your claim is not true. They are not exist as a result of human original sins. They existed before original sin. They existed in 5th day of creation. (Gen1: 19-22) And we do not say that animals have to suffer in the hell.

You have misunderstood. I said their pain and suffering exists as a result of original sin. My understanding is that this is represented by the statement in Gen. 1:30 that animals were all given green plants for food. Their habit of eating one another followed the fall.

 

[FiveLinden]

There are no evidence that they have to go to hell, so there are hope for them to be saved.

You have misunderstood again. I was not saying that Catholics believe that unbaptised children go to hell. I was saying that Catholics hope, rather than believe they know, that such a fate does not await them. And I was saying that the infliction of pain and suffering on most creatures, without hope of eternal life indicated at least the possibility that punishment could be inflicted on the guiltless.

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

I am not arguing that there is no such thing as Original Sin, just that there’s different understandings of what that is and it’s effects.

I am saying that according to Council of Carthage it is necessary to baptize infants hence they don’t get to Heaven anyway.

This is exactly what I have been trying to say all along

Oh I see. If that bothers you… there are also degrees of Salvation in Heaven. There is degree of reward and punishment based on how well did we nurture or corrupt or soul. Babies did neither of that so they experience what they are able to- and they just aren’t able to experience Beatific visions.

Wouldn’t it being taught for centuries fall under the rule of St Vincent Of Lérins “ Moreover, in the Catholic Church itself, all possible care must be taken, that we hold that faith which has been believed everywhere , always, by all .”?

Actually it was opinion in a debate. It was taught only by group of theologians (large but never “all”).

(You don’t really think that attending a Jewish physician or kneeling on Sunday are Mortal Sin, do you?)

It is hard to argument Limbo is about discipline though…

But for example, Haec Sancta was document from Ecumenical Council of Constance that got rejected by subsequent Popes. Council of Constantinople and decision to make Ecumenical Patriarchate outrank Alexandria got rejected by other Patriarchates. So in reality not everything is infallible.

 

[pohandes]

You have misunderstood. I said their pain and suffering exists as a result of original sin. My understanding is that this is represented by the statement in Gen. 1:30 that animals were all given green plants for food. Their habit of eating one another followed the fall.

This verse just says that first animals were Vegetarian. But this verse does not say “Their habit of eating one another followed the fall.”

 

[FiveLinden]

This verse just says that first animals were Vegetarian. But this verse does not say “Their habit of eating one another followed the fall.”

I had always thought Catholics were not Biblical literalists. Unless you attribute pain and suffering in creation to original sin, to what do you attribute it?

 

[pohandes]

I had always thought Catholics were not Biblical literalists. Unless you attribute pain and suffering in creation to original sin, to what do you attribute it?

What I say is not formal beliefs of Catholic church. I have a few knowledge. But I think original sin did not sufferin effect on non-human beings. vegetarian animals eat living beings too, they just do not eat animals.

 

[pohandes]

Ecumenical Council of Constantinople states this:
logy mentioned (just as there is none for most saints of the Church):

We further declare that we hold fast to the decrees of the four Councils, and in every way follow the holy Fathers , Athanasius, Hilary, Basil, Gregory the Theologian, Gregory of Nyssa, Ambrose, Theophilus, John (Chrysostom) of Constantinople, Cyril, Augustine , Proclus, Leo and their writings on the true faith.

So… yeah.

Can you give a orthodox formal evidence that show nobody can have salvation if s/he has original sin?

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

Can you give a orthodox formal evidence that show nobody can have salvation if s/he has original sin?

Council of Carthage was accepted by 7th Ecumenical Council (which is accepted by the East of course). Council of Carthage teaches:
" whosoever denies that infants newly from their mother’s wombs should be baptized, or says that baptism is for remission of sins, but that they derive from Adam no original sin , which needs to be removed by the laver of regeneration , from whence the conclusion follows, that in them the form of baptism for the remission of sins, is to be understood as false and not true, let him be anathema".

Notice that it states that it is absolutely necessary to remove Original Sin by baptism.

Now notice this also says “infants newly from their mother’s wombs”… so it may not concern the unborn.