Original sin in Orthodox view

[RolandThompsonGunner]

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

Does it? I’m not sure. I’m not seeing it preclude the possibility that God would save unbaptized infants by some other means. We as humans are constrained by the rules God has ordained: we should be baptized. God is not constrained.

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

there was no original sin, or the fall of man.

no i am roman catholic,i dont tell anyone this,but i believe this,

I just want to charitably remind you that if you know Church teaches something but you deny it, you are in state of heresy and as such should not receive Sacraments from the Church. It is only logical- you don’t believe that Catholic Church is True Church of Christ, so why would you want to be Catholic? If you believe Catholic Church is True Church of Christ, then you should also believe that She can not be wrong.

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

Does it? I’m not sure. I’m not seeing it preclude the possibility that God would save unbaptized infants by some other means. We as humans are constrained by the rules God has ordained: we should be baptized. God is not constrained.

“Original sin, which needs to be removed by layer of regeneration”

Anyway, since you are Catholic there is also this ex cathedra teaching quoted above:

The souls of those who die in mortal sin or with original sin only…immediately descend into hell, yet to be punished with different punishments". —Pope Gregory X, Second Council of Lyons, 1274

“The souls of those who depart this life in actual mortal sin, or in original sin alone , go down straightaway to hell to be punished, but with unequal pains”. —Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Laetentur Caeli , 6 July 1439

Of course, above teachings were promulgated with intention that there is “immediate” judgment which is emphasis of that teaching.

 

[RolandThompsonGunner]

“Original sin, which needs to be removed by layer of regeneration”

Is baptism the only possible “layer of regeneration”?

Anyway, since you are Catholic there is also this ex cathedra teaching quoted above:

Right. I’m saying it’s possible that God removes original sin by some other means unknown to us, not that they go to Heaven despite still having original sin.

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

Is baptism the only possible “layer of regeneration”?

Reasonable question. Ordinarily, yes. Extraordinarily no but if God saved “every” infant then there is no reasonable way to say it is “Extraordinary”.

And for Catholicism we have following clarification:

The souls of those who die in mortal sin or with original sin only…immediately descend into hell, yet to be punished with different punishments ". —Pope Gregory X, Second Council of Lyons, 1274

“The souls of those who depart this life in actual mortal sin, or in original sin alone , go down straightaway to hell to be punished, but with unequal pains ”. —Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Laetentur Caeli , 6 July 1439

 

[RolandThompsonGunner]

Reasonable question. Ordinarily, yes. Extraordinarily no but if God saved “every” infant then there is no reasonable way to say it is “Extraordinary”.

I’m not sure you can understand “extraordinary” vs “ordinary” in terms of raw numbers. I think it’s best to simply say what the Catechism currently says: we’re not sure, but we hope.

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

I’m not sure you can understand “extraordinary” vs “ordinary” in terms of raw numbers. I think it’s best to simply say what the Catechism currently says: we’re not sure, but we hope.

Catechism does not delete what was stated before. It is infallible teaching of the Church that those who die with original sin only immediately descent into hell yet to be punished with different punishments.

What is meant by Hell however is lack of Salvation. In other words they who do not attain glory do not immediately get punished and they who do not get punished do not immediately get the glory. It is “Hell” and “Damnation” because they failed to be saved… but they do not need to suffer. They can even experience natural happiness (opposed to supernatural happiness Saints in Heaven have).

 

[RolandThompsonGunner]

Catechism does not delete what was stated before. It is infallible teaching of the Church that those who die with original sin only immediately descent into hell yet to be punished with different punishments.

Papal infallibility wasn’t articulated until centuries after the statements you quoted. It’s not clear that they’re infallible.

And as I said, I’m not questioning whether original sin precludes salvation. I’m questioning whether God might not remove original sin via some other means in some cases.

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

Papal infallibility wasn’t articulated until centuries after the statements you quoted. It’s not clear that they’re infallible.

It was Ecumenical Council. That would be like saying Nicea is not infallible and hence teaching on Holy Trinity can change.

And as I said, I’m not questioning whether original sin precludes salvation. I’m questioning whether God might not remove original sin via some other means in some cases.

In some, perhaps… but if they were majority Church wouldn’t promulgate doctrine contrary to that.

 

[RolandThompsonGunner]

In some, perhaps… but if they were majority Church wouldn’t promulgate doctrine contrary to that.

Then you agree we can hope. If we agree that it’s possible that God removes original sin by some other means, at least in some cases, then we’re right back to the current catechism: we can hope.

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

Then you agree we can hope. If we agree that it’s possible that God removes original sin by some other means, at least in some cases, then we’re right back to the current catechism: we can hope.

Yes. I am just saying that in no way does Catechism contradict previous teaching.

 

[RolandThompsonGunner]

Yes. I am just saying that in no way does Catechism contradict previous teaching.

Given that we don’t know how often God does this, it might be better to think in terms of “guaranteed” and “possible” than “ordinary” and “extraordinary.” in the mathematical sense. We know baptism removes original sin. Other unknown means are possible .

And again, what’s “ordinary” and “extraordinary” for us is not binding on God. The Church is promulgating teaching and guidance for human beings. God can do whatever He wants.

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

And again, what’s “ordinary” and “extraordinary” for us is not binding on God. The Church is promulgating teaching and guidance for human beings. God can do whatever He wants.

I agree… however teaching of the Church in this regard is about how God acts.

 

[RolandThompsonGunner]

I agree… however teaching of the Church in this regard is about how God acts.

We know God does x. We don’t know whether He only does x.

 

[RolandThompsonGunner]

By the way, thoroughly enjoying this discussion. I love a back-and-fourth on the internet that doesn’t involve anger or ill will.

 

[CathBoy1]

Yes. I am just saying that in no way does Catechism contradict previous teaching.

Absolutely correct, many people do not like the idea of the “limbo of infants” or whichever term one wishes to apply to it, but no matter of personal feelings it does not change previous church teaching, contrary to what many will say throughout these forms.

Certainly the catechism tells us that we can hope, and surely I do hope, But that does not do away with what was taught before, for centuries.

God can do whatever He wants.

We know God does x. We don’t know whether He only does x.

I 1,000,000% agree.

By the way, thoroughly enjoying this discussion. I love a back-and-fourth on the internet that doesn’t involve anger or ill will.

I am too, although the back-and-forth is not between me and you

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

We know God does x. We don’t know whether He only does x.

I see. That makes sense. I was focused on the part that if Church teaches something then there is reason Church teaches that… though to be quite precise, this teaching was meant to contradict heresy that some souls are judged later. So my emphasis is not really what Church intended in the first place either way.

By the way, thoroughly enjoying this discussion. I love a back-and-fourth on the internet that doesn’t involve anger or ill will.

Thank you, I am enjoying this as well and I also appreciate that you are very kind in your responses. May God bless You.

 

[Genesis315]

The Eastern Orthodox churches used to agree with us on original sin–notice it was never an issue at the reunion Councils, whereas much more minor topics like purgatorial fire were. Their new idea that has become common among them (although it is certainly not universal among EOs) is a novelty that grew from an anti-Latin, anti-Augustine element of the Neo-Palamite movement of the 19th and 20th centuries.

For example, at the pan-Orthodox Council of Jerusalem in 1672, the EO patriarchates agreed to the following justification of infant baptism, founded on the understanding of original sin they held in common with the Roman Church (even citing St. Augustine approvingly):

And since infants are men, and as such need salvation, needing salvation they need also Baptism. And those that are not regenerated, since they have not received the remission of hereditary sin, are, of necessity, subject to eternal punishment, and consequently cannot without Baptism be saved. So that even infants should, of necessity, be baptized. Moreover, infants are saved, as is said in Matthew; {Matthew 19:12} but he that is not baptized is not saved. And consequently even infants must of necessity be baptized. And in the Acts {Acts 8:12; 16:33} it is said that the whole houses were baptized, and consequently the infants. To this the ancient Fathers also witness explicitly, and among them Dionysius in his Treatise concerning the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy; and Justin in his fifty-sixth Question, who says expressly, “And they are guaranteed the benefits of Baptism by the faith of those that bring them to Baptism.” And Augustine says that it is an Apostolic tradition, that children are saved through Baptism; and in another place, “The Church gives to babes the feet of others, that they may come; and the hearts of others, that they may believe; and the tongues of others, that they may promise;” and in another place, “Our mother, the Church, furnishes them with a particular heart.”

Now the matter of Baptism is pure water, and no other liquid. And it is performed by the Priest only, or in a case of unavoidable necessity, by another man, provided he is Orthodox, and has the proper intention to Divine Baptism. And the effects of Baptism are, to speak concisely, firstly, the remission of the hereditary transgression, and of any sins of any kind that the baptized may have committed. Secondly, it delivers him from the eternal punishment, to which he was liable, as well for original sin and for mortal sins he may have individually committed. Thirdly, it gives to the person immortality; for in justifying them from past sins, it makes them temples of God.
The Confession of Dositheus (Eastern Orthodox)

continued…

 

[Genesis315]

continued from above…

To add to my post above,here’s a Catechism that was used for a long time in the EO world:

Question 20.
What is Original Sin ?

Answer.

Original Sin is the Transgression of that Law of God which was given to Adam, the Father of all Men, in these "Words {Gen. ii. 17), Of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil thou shall not eat ; for in the Day that thou eatest thereof thou shall surely die. This original Sin spreadeth over all human Nature ; forasmuch as we were all then contained in Adam. Wherefore by one Adam Sin hath passed into us all. And we are conceived and born with this Blemish, as the Scripture teacheth us {Rom. v. 12), By one Man Sin entered into the World, and Death by Sin ; and so Death passed upon all Men, for that all have sinned. This hereditary Sin cannot be rooted out or abolished by any Repentance what-ever, but only by the Grace of God, through the Work of Redemption, wrought by our Lord Jesus Christ, in taking upon him our Flesh and pouring out his precious Blood. And this is done in the Mystery of holy Baptism; and whosoever is not a Partaker thereof, such an one remains unabsolved from his Sin, and continueth in his Guilt, and is liable to the eternal Punishment of the divine Wrath : As it is said {John iii. 5), Verily, verily, I say unto you, that except a Man be born of Water, and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of Heaven.

(The approval of this Catechism by the four traditional EO Patriarchates of Constantinople, Antioch, Alexandria, and Jerusalem in council states: “this book is in perfect accordance with the dogmas of the Church of Christ and with the sacred Canons; that it contains nothing contrary to the Church: and we declare, assembled in Synod, that every pious and orthodox Christian, who is a member of the Apostolic Church of the East, ought to read this book, and not to reject it.”).

But despite modern polemics against original sin from many EOs, I’ve never met a modern EO person who claimed that infants were not baptized for the remission of sin or that anyone could be saved without grace, even if they had not committed any actual sin. That’s original sin–it’s effects are more than just physical ailments, physical death, and concupiscence. As one knowledgable EO person who maintained the traditional faith once explained to me, it also deprives us of the gifts of the Holy Spirit necessary for salvation and causes the noetic faculties to be ordered away from God and paradise–the grace of baptism is needed to reorder the noetic faculties so that man can be saved and deified.

 

[George720]

but the ban on kneeling on Sunday was Nice . . .

There was a Council at Nice???

Catechism does not delete what was stated before. It is infallible teaching of the Church that those who die with original sin only immediately descent into hell yet to be punished with different punishments.

Is there any other Church than the Latin Communion that holds this dogma, ONS?
Perhaps a Council that teaches that aborted infants descend into hell? Or unbaptized new-borns who die go to hell for punishments… ?? @OrbisNonSufficit

OrbisNonSufficit:

“Original sin, which needs to be removed by layer of regeneration”

Is baptism the only possible “layer of regeneration”?

Sounds like a barn-yard chicken, this “layer of regeneration”!

Laver of Regeneration is correct, and martyrdom can suffice, and as God said: “I will have Mercy on whom I will have Mercy!”

geo