Original Sin in the catholic Church vs Orthodoxy

[Genesis315]

Since you seem rather familiar with the history, is it possible that it really became a larger issue between us and the EO around the time the dogma of the Immaculate Conception was proclaimed? That kind of thing (papal declaration) sticks in the craw of EO folks and it certainly involved discussions of original sin…

That was part of it. In general, in the last couple centuries they went through a very anti-Latin period where they purged a lot of things they saw as Latin corruptions–pretty much anything they saw as originating in the Latin West, even if they had themselves taught it for centuries at pan-Orthodox Councils (another good example is indulgences, taught in their pan-Orthodox Councils at Constantinople in 1727 and 1838, but now generally denied). Since the doctrine on original sin was explicitly formulated most notably by St. Augustine in opposition to the Pelagians, it became suspect.

Either they are right now, but were in error about this for over a thousand years, or they changed their doctrine on this recently. Neither options helps their credibility.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Exactly. IT was Christ who remitted that sin. What would be the reason for Christ to pay our debt for that sin, if we did not have the sin upon us.

Thank you then for confirming that the Catholic Church did change her doctrine from Trent to the current CCC which states that there is no guilt with Original Sin, as opposed to Trent where there is guilt that needs to be repaid.

 

[rinnie]

Thank you then for confirming that the Catholic Church did change her doctrine from Trent to the current CCC which states that there is no guilt with Original Sin, as opposed to Trent where there is guilt that needs to be repaid.

How did it change it doctrine? Where was it ever a teaching in the RCC or any Catholic Church as far as that goes that all sin always constitutes guilt?

Let me put this another way, are you trying to say actual sin is the same as original sin?

The guilt that was paid for was not OUR sin that we were guilty of, it was the Guilt of Adam.

If you have to be Guilty of sin, to have the guilt of sin, where was the guilt of Christ then? Because he sure paid for that guilt of Adam. SO please explain this to me.

 

[rinnie]

Thank you then for confirming that the Catholic Church did change her doctrine from Trent to the current CCC which states that there is no guilt with Original Sin, as opposed to Trent where there is guilt that needs to be repaid.

Also please show me where the RCC ever claimed Adam was not guilty of his sin? And where does Trent say that also.

The RCC teaches and has always taught that Christ took away Original sin but was GUILTY of nothing.

I think you need to understanding that the CCC just explains easier that although the guilt was thrown on us all of Original sin did not mean we had actual guilt.

Original sin is not our guilt, as far as personally committed guilt, just like the sin is our sin, but not personally committed sin. I think you need to understand the teaching before you try to confirm it.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Also please show me where the RCC ever claimed Adam was not guilty of his sin? And where does Trent say that also.

The RCC teaches and has always taught that Christ took away Original sin but was GUILTY of nothing.

I think you need to understanding that the CCC just explains easier that although the guilt was thrown on us all of Original sin did not mean we had actual guilt.

Original sin is not our guilt, as far as personally committed guilt, just like the sin is our sin, but not personally committed sin. I think you need to understand the teaching before you try to confirm it.

How does that even make sense? We bear the guilt of something we are not guilty of. And if you throw in Immaculate Conception with that, why can’t God just have an entire generation immaculately concieved to save us all? Why does he have to have His Son lower himself to take on the flesh of a created being, to suffer in our mortality, to experience death when He is immortal, when He has the power to remit Original Sin?

 

[rinnie]

How does that even make sense? We bear the guilt of something we are not guilty of. And if you throw in Immaculate Conception with that, why can’t God just have an entire generation immaculately concieved to save us all? Why does he have to have His Son lower himself to take on the flesh of a created being, to suffer in our mortality, to experience death when He is immortal, when He has the power to remit Original Sin?

Why do you think Jesus died on the cross? Was it not because of the guilt and sin of us?

And why does he have to have his Son Lower himself? Lower himself are you kidding me? Christ came to free us from sin because we were not strong enough to do it ourself.

He did not send his only Son to lower himself, he sent his only Son to pay the debt for our sins because he loved us that much. He took the sins of the world because he had no sin of his own.

It was because of the Cross we are Forgiven for our sins. Why do you think Jesus had to die on the cross? Can you show me ONE human being in the world that was sinless before Christ?

Tell me why do You think Christ died if not for all sin?

 

[rinnie]

Also just because you have got me curious here, What does God having the Blessed Mother saved from the stain of Original sin have to do with saving the whole world.

I mean Granted she was the frist to be saved from it since Adam and Eve, but its her Sons death on the Cross that saved us all.

But what truly is the big difference. Baptism saves us at birth, the same way it saved the Blessed Mother at the moment of her conception. But just as baptism saved us, and she was saved at her conception does not mean she could not sin, or we can’t. SHe had as much a free will to sin as us but choose not to, I am totally missing your point here.

 

[Nine_Two]

So the main thing is not that you should listen to mine over theirs but rather the correct understanding of original sin. Once that is understood, then the rest come in place. I think we are straining gnats here which I think what this thread want to ascertain.

This is the crux of the matter. You accuse me of misunderstanding because I listen to them (Rinnie, above, seems to be saying the opposite you are). If I am to learn what Catholicism teaches, who should I be listening to? I will tend to believe what I have heard previously, but I understand that this can lead me into erroneous thought.

When we get down to it, for Original Sin not to be an issue between our Churches there must be two things.

1. The Church must hold the position that we have inherited a fallen nature, though not guilt.
2. It must demonstrate this my teaching its faithful this, as, if you are right, a great many seem to disagree.

 

[rinnie]

This is the crux of the matter. You accuse me of misunderstanding because I listen to them (Rinnie, above, seems to be saying the opposite you are). If I am to learn what Catholicism teaches, who should I be listening to? I will tend to believe what I have heard previously, but I understand that this can lead me into erroneous thought.

When we get down to it, for Original Sin not to be an issue between our Churches there must be two things.

1. The Church must hold the position that we have inherited a fallen nature, though not guilt.
2. It must demonstrate this my teaching its faithful this, as, if you are right, a great many seem to disagree.

Please explain this to me what do you take of this scripture.

It is a teaching of St. Pauls By one mans disobedience many were MADE sinners.

We are all called to bare the guilt of the sin of Adam. Its truly very simple.

But how do us carry the burden for the guilt of Adams sin, differ from the fallen nature.

ANd let me put this another way, If we are not carrying the burden of Adams sin why were we thrown out of paradise?

I am still at odds how carrying the burden of Adams guilt which is his sin his guilt was indeed his sin, makes us personally guilty.

I am just as such a loss here of what you are saying?

 

[rinnie]

Orginal sin

This is what the RCC teaches.

Each of us is an heir to Adam and Eve. The actions they took shattered God’s created harmony not only for them but also us.

The Catechism goes on to teach us that Original Sin is not the SAME as PERSONAL fault in each of Adam’s decendants. Rather it is a loss of orginal holiness and justice that has wounded our human nature and incline us to sin.

It is Because of ORIGINAL SIN that the Church baptised even infants who have NOT committed PERSONAL SIN!

Baptism washes away original sin but the effects still remain.

 

[rinnie]

I really wish that IgnatianPhilo would answer my post since it was referring to his post. He mentioned about actual sin. Not that you cannot respond to me but yours is not what I had in mind actually.

In any case, I would have to ask you what guilt is that? Do you mean to say that is the original sin? In that case, does it mean that Catholic believe that we also are guilty of eating the forbidden fruit as Adam did?

So I don’t want your answer. As has been explained here, the original sin is not a sin per se. We do not inherit Adam’s sin or guilt as you put it. The CCC spells it clearly we do not inherit this.

We are living in a fallen world as a consequence of Adam sin, whether we like it or not. So that has become our nature. Then you bring in Mary. … .

Ruben J where are you and I in disagreement?

You are also correct Original sin is not actual sin on our part it is a state of being because of actual sin committed by Adam and Eve.

Original Sin is a state that we were put in as a result of the guilt of Adams sin.
And a state that is wiped away by Baptism by the Grace given to us by Christ.

 

[Reuben_J]

Ruben J where are you and I in disagreement?

You are also correct Original sin is not actual sin on our part it is a state of being because of actual sin committed by Adam and Eve.

Original Sin is a state that we were put in as a result of the guilt of Adams sin.
And a state that is wiped away by Baptism by the Grace given to us by Christ.

Hi rinnie. You are spot on.

This explanation is perhaps the simplest way to understand original sin. Not a sin per se. We do not sin as Adam sinned. We do not eat the forbidden fruit. We do not inherit this sin. We lost the original holiness. In Genesis this translated to when the first parents knew that they were naked.

The Catechism goes on to teach us that Original Sin is not the SAME as PERSONAL fault in each of Adam’s decendants. Rather it is a loss of orginal holiness and justice that has wounded our human nature and incline us to sin.

It is Because of ORIGINAL SIN that the Church baptised even infants who have NOT committed PERSONAL SIN!

Baptism washes away original sin but the effects still remain.

 

[Reuben_J]

This is the crux of the matter. You accuse me of misunderstanding because I listen to them (Rinnie, above, seems to be saying the opposite you are). If I am to learn what Catholicism teaches, who should I be listening to? I will tend to believe what I have heard previously, but I understand that this can lead me into erroneous thought.

When we get down to it, for Original Sin not to be an issue between our Churches there must be two things.

1. The Church must hold the position that we have inherited a fallen nature, though not guilt.
2. It must demonstrate this my teaching its faithful this, as, if you are right, a great many seem to disagree.

When you use word like ‘accuse’ you know that discussion can always be tinged with insincerity. And you said I was strangely hostile toward you and never knew why. If I said you misrepresent Catholic belief, you can always state your position on it. No need for the accusation.

Please refer to my reply to rinnie. That should address your concern.

You can go to another current thread here on Original Sin but more on the Catholic perspective (without having to worry whether some Orthodox posters would have a go at you.).

 

[Cavaradossi]

Please explain this to me what do you take of this scripture.

It is a teaching of St. Pauls By one mans disobedience many were MADE sinners.

That is not quite accurate. Romans 5:12 was mistranslated in the Vulgate as saying that we all sinned in Adam. But the verse does not carry this meaning in Greek. It could be construed as saying that all sinned because of Adam, or that all sinned because of death (both are valid interpretations), but it cannot be construed to mean that all share in the personal fault and guilt of Adam. We bear the consequences of mortality and concupiscience as a race (as some commentators pointed out, this is the meaning of Adam and Eve being clothed in animal skins, that they were being clothed in mortality and irrationality), but not the personal guilt of Adam.

We are all called to bare the guilt of the sin of Adam. Its truly very simple.

No, because we are not guilty of his sin. We are born ‘fettered’ so to speak, by the effects of the original sin, which causes us to sin further, something which Nicholas Cabasilas compares to an endless cycle which cannot be loosed by the efforts of man alone. But these effects are not Adam’s guilt for his transgression.

But how do us carry the burden for the guilt of Adams sin, differ from the fallen nature.

ANd let me put this another way, If we are not carrying the burden of Adams sin why were we thrown out of paradise?

Because paradise refers to man’s prelapsarian state, which was lost after the original sin.

I am still at odds how carrying the burden of Adams guilt which is his sin his guilt was indeed his sin, makes us personally guilty.

Bearing the effects of Adam’s sin (mortality and irrationality) does not make us personally guilty, that is the whole point.

 

[Nine_Two]

When you use word like ‘accuse’ you know that discussion can always be tinged with insincerity. And you said I was strangely hostile toward you and never knew why. If I said you misrepresent Catholic belief, you can always state your position on it. No need for the accusation.

Please refer to my reply to rinnie. That should address your concern.

You can go to another current thread here on Original Sin but more on the Catholic perspective (without having to worry whether some Orthodox posters would have a go at you.).

First, please don’t read into my motives. I don’t sanitize my answers so Orthodox posters won’t “have a go” at me, nor has something like that ever entered my thoughts. I’m not sure what inspired you to take that shot, but I’ll let it go.

I’m looking over this thread, rereading posts in the light of what has been posted since, and I’m willing to admit that perhaps this is just an issue of speaking different (cultural) languages (much as Chalcedon was). For example Rinnie (and this is what I was thinking of with my last comment), spoke of the inheritance of Adam’s sin - to my ears this conveys the idea of the inheritance of guilt, which Rinnie went on to say wasn’t what was meant. Of course to us in the east, the concept of sin and guilt are inseparable. Although one can bare the taint of sin without guilt (which is what we would call something like Original Sin), one cannot bare the sin itself.

While I still question Original Sin within the context of the IC, which seems to indicate a hereditary guilt (though perhaps in all this all that is meant is a taint?), you’ve made clear that this isn’t a subject you wish to discuss.

I think the solution to this issue, is the same as when you deal with two different cultural backgrounds. You put everything in the simplest language possible to convey your position. For the most part Orthodox posters here do that (being such a small minority we would seldom be understood speaking in Orthodox terms), and some Catholics do, but many do not. Waxing poetic in philosophical terms means we will never understand each other. Hostility and insults will never help anyone understand the flowery language of scholasticism.

 

[Reuben_J]

First, please don’t read into my motives. I don’t sanitize my answers so Orthodox posters won’t “have a go” at me, nor has something like that ever entered my thoughts. I’m not sure what inspired you to take that shot, but I’ll let it go.

I’m looking over this thread, rereading posts in the light of what has been posted since, and I’m willing to admit that perhaps this is just an issue of speaking different (cultural) languages (much as Chalcedon was).

I think it is an issue of speaking different (cultural) languages that it seems to come up as unfriendly, not that you are unfriendly person. Perhaps that is something useful to note.

God bless you.

 

[Cavaradossi]

That was part of it. In general, in the last couple centuries they went through a very anti-Latin period where they purged a lot of things they saw as Latin corruptions–pretty much anything they saw as originating in the Latin West, even if they had themselves taught it for centuries at pan-Orthodox Councils (another good example is indulgences, taught in their pan-Orthodox Councils at Constantinople in 1727 and 1838, but now generally denied). Since the doctrine on original sin was explicitly formulated most notably by St. Augustine in opposition to the Pelagians, it became suspect.

Either they are right now, but were in error about this for over a thousand years, or they changed their doctrine on this recently. Neither options helps their credibility.

The practice of issuing ‘certificates of absolution’ has never been condemned, only the practice of selling them. That bishops possess the faculty to absolve people of their sins through the power of binding and loosing is unquestionable (of course, great care must be used with this power). The objection to indulgences comes from the disagreement over whether forgiven sins necessitate temporal punishment (temporal punishment which indulgences are meant to remit). This proposition was, if I recall, almost unanimously rejected by the Greek party at Florence, and continues to be rejected to this day. To claim that we taught ‘indulgences’ is misleading because certificates of absolution had a different function, namely, the forgiveness of sins (as defined by the Council of 1727), not the remission of temporal punishment due for an already forgiven sin, a concept which is foreign to our faith.

On original sin, it should be clear that we do not hold to some sort of Pelagian understanding that man is born free. Man is born sickened by mortality and with a darkened intellect, which causes him to be enslaved to sin. Baptism frees man from his enslavement, and it is for this reason and for giving the gifts of the Spirit, that infants are baptized, even though they have no sins of their own, as St. John Chrysostom confesses. What we reject is the belief that every human being bears personal fault for the sin of Adam.

 

[GaryTaylor]

"Thus, we have two similar but different views of original sin, as explained by Augustine of Hippo and Thomas Aquinas. Augustine finds original sin to be primarily of the will and concupiscence to be its wholly unnatural consequence. In terms of propagation, Augustine found that original sin was propagated by carnal generation, and that Jesus’ body had need of cleansing from it.

Aquinas, on the other hand, found that original sin was primarily of human nature, and that concupiscence was only a product of sin insofar as it exceeded reason. In terms of propagation, Aquinas found that original sin was propagated through being ``moved’’ by the will of Adam, which was accomplished by carnal generation. For him, Jesus’ miraculous conception alone would have sufficed to give him a body freed from original sin."

Carnal generation could be read in depth in Thomas Aquinas, Summa.

Trent is linked already on this thread which doesn’t differ from Aquinas. Let me see if I can find the paragraph from Trent…commercial break.

“Holy council perceives and confesses that in the one baptized there remains concupiscence or an inclination to sin, which, since it is left for us to wrestle with, cannot injure those who do not acquiesce but resist manfully by the grace of Jesus Christ; indeed, he who shall have striven lawfully shall be crowned.22 This concupiscence, which the Apostle sometimes calls sin,23 the holy council declares the Catholic Church has never understood to be called sin in the sense that it is truly and properly sin in those born again, but in the sense that it is of sin and inclines to sin. But if anyone is of the contrary opinion, let him be anathema.” [from above link by CTG]

 

[GaryTaylor]

The objection to indulgences comes from the disagreement over whether forgiven sins necessitate temporal punishment (temporal punishment which indulgences are meant to remit)

Indulgence may well have been began in Constantinople with the Marion following. Which is addressed in “Life of the Virgin” by Maximus the Confessor.

commonwealmagazine.org/maximus%E2%80%99s-mary

Newer English version out now by Shoemaker

yalepress.yale.edu/yupbooks/book.asp?isbn=9780300175042

First known complete recorded biography of Mary from 600AD.

Nevertheless one must “first” be in line with the yearly requirements of the Church, thus already be seeking Christ crucified and Communion through the sacraments. Then the indulgence can only draw one deeper into Faith.

On original sin, it should be clear that we do not hold to some sort of Pelagian understanding that man is born free. Man is born sickened by mortality and with a darkened intellect, which causes him to be enslaved to sin. Baptism frees man from his enslavement

It frees man as recorded Biblically.

Yet it does not remove the physical nature of man with the inclination to sin.

The heresy which Augustine contended with which he is accredited with two, yet appears closer to three, may well have granted his thinking the benefit of the doubt in this realm. Which I addressed above. I don’t see where Augustine was highly contested anywhere. The fact that his thinking was addressed and modified at a later date is not unprecedented in History. Had correct thinking in theology not prevailed the Church would have been lost during the Athanasius period. What we see is the guidance of the Holy Spirit as promised. Man is going to make mistakes and be wrong. No man is always right, not one Saint was “always” right. It would indicate human perfection which doesn’t exist.

 

[rinnie]

That is not quite accurate. Romans 5:12 was mistranslated in the Vulgate as saying that we all sinned in Adam. But the verse does not carry this meaning in Greek. It could be construed as saying that all sinned because of Adam, or that all sinned because of death (both are valid interpretations), but it cannot be construed to mean that all share in the personal fault and guilt of Adam. We bear the consequences of mortality and concupiscience as a race (as some commentators pointed out, this is the meaning of Adam and Eve being clothed in animal skins, that they were being clothed in mortality and irrationality), but not the personal guilt of Adam.

No, because we are not guilty of his sin. We are born ‘fettered’ so to speak, by the effects of the original sin, which causes us to sin further, something which Nicholas Cabasilas compares to an endless cycle which cannot be loosed by the efforts of man alone. But these effects are not Adam’s guilt for his transgression.

Because paradise refers to man’s prelapsarian state, which was lost after the original sin.

Bearing the effects of Adam’s sin (mortality and irrationality) does not make us personally guilty, that is the whole point.

But we have been saying all along and the Church has taught all along personal guilt has never played an issue.

We are held for the guild of the sin of Adam. Where did any of us say we are responsible for the guilt that has been layed upon us.

And truly common sense would explain there Could have been no personal guilt (what I mean by personal guilt us commiting the sin) because none of us were alive.

Its seems foolish to say we are not personally guilty because its never been said. What has been said is we are all held personally accountable for the guilt of the sin of Adam and Eve. We call this original sin, and are all born into it. Until we are re-united again with Christ in Baptism.

But we have said this all along.