Original Sin in the catholic Church vs Orthodoxy

  • Thread starter Thread starter RKO
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
“original sin does not have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam’s descendants. It is a deprivation of original holiness and justice, but human nature has not been totally corrupted” (§405). CCC
Not according to Trent…

If any one asserts, that this sin of Adam,–which in its origin is one, and being transfused into all by propogation, not by imitation, is in each one as his own

catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=5391
 
This whole thread is discussing that distinction.

Catholic belief seems to believe the guilt is hereditary (hence why Mary had to be born untouched, in order that she might be sinless). Orthodox belief is that the consequences, but not the guilt are hereditary (and therefore Mary did not need anything special in her birth).
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. … .
 
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. … .
Why do you ask me questions and then tell me you don’t want my response?

At any rate, I will respond with a question of my own - if what you say is true regarding guilt, than why is the IC necessary for Mary to be sinless?
 
Why do you ask me questions and then tell me you don’t want my response?

At any rate, I will respond with a question of my own - if what you say is true regarding guilt, than why is the IC necessary for Mary to be sinless?
I will not be responding to you then. In any case, you fail to respond to my post regarding Catholic belief in original sin. I know there is no use for you to respond to me. I

As for Mary, if you want the answer to that you can look into the concept of the immaculate conception which is not the topic of this thread.
 
I don’t know how that is accomplished in the way you explained it. If we are sinful because of Original Sin which we inherit from Adam, Adam was created without Original Sin. So how did he sin in the first place?

But to be saved from Original Sin, you have to have it first, right? How can you be saved from something you never had? You can’t be saved from drowning if you’re in the middle of the desert.

If God can save Mary from Original Sin, why not just do it for all of us?
If I pull you out of a pit that you’ve just fallen into, have I saved you from the pit? Yes.
If I jump in front of you and stop you from falling into the pit, have I saved you from the pit? Yes.
Our Lady was saved in the latter sense.
Why didn’t God do the same for all of us? I’m not sure you’re driving at - don’t the Orthodox agree that the Theotokos is special? Do the Orthodox believe that all of the graces and favors God has given to the Theotokos are given to each and every once of us to the same degree? If the answer is no, then why can’t Catholics believe that Our Lady was given certain special favors?
 
I will not be responding to you then. In any case, you fail to respond to my post regarding Catholic belief in original sin. I know there is no use for you to respond to me. I

As for Mary, if you want the answer to that you can look into the concept of the immaculate conception which is not the topic of this thread.
The IC is tied into this concept, it demonstrates the Catholic doctrines regarding Original Sin - it hinges on those differences.

I’m not sure what post you’re saying I failed to respond to, or why you say you will not be responding to me.

I’m having difficulty understand what it is you’re trying to get across, or why you have this strange hostility toward me.
 
The IC is tied into this concept, it demonstrates the Catholic doctrines regarding Original Sin - it hinges on those differences.

I’m not sure what post you’re saying I failed to respond to, or why you say you will not be responding to me.

I’m having difficulty understand what it is you’re trying to get across, or why you have this strange hostility toward me.
I just want to say I am not upset at you. I just wanted to go over that ‘actual sin,’ the answer anyway I had given you already. Apparently, you do not understand correctly Catholic belief on original sin. I had explained that which you did not respond to. Again, it is not a sin per se, other that the propensity to sin, the nature of the fallen world. This is the consequence of Adam’s sin and what we are today.

I feel the Catholic’s position on this have been explained clearly if you have read them in the thread but you seem to misrepresent it. I don’t know whether it is on purpose or you do not read the posts here or I misunderstand what you were trying to say. That’s why I did not want your response.

As for the Immaculate Conception, it is a whole different doctrine altogether and not necessary tied to Adam’s sin. Original sin as we can see is NOT a sin per se and not Adam’s sin. The Immaculate Conception has wider theological implication, which i think is not the scope of this thread, and it has to do with who Jesus is.
 
I would agree that the IC has a much wider implication having to do with who Jesus Christ is, and that is precisely why Orthodox reject it, as it warps the theology of the incarnation. “That which is not assumed is not saved” and all that.
 
I would agree that the IC has a much wider implication having to do with who Jesus Christ is, and that is precisely why Orthodox reject it, as it warps the theology of the incarnation. “That which is not assumed is not saved” and all that.
Hi dzheremi. Aside how Orthodoxy views it, it is not the scope of this thread. One cannot simply incorrectly condensed it and simplified it and tie it to this thread because we can easily misunderstand it that way. So it is best not brought up here, a different topic altogether.

God bless you.🙂
 
I just want to say I am not upset at you. I just wanted to go over that ‘actual sin,’ the answer anyway I had given you already. Apparently, you do not understand correctly Catholic belief on original sin. I had explained that which you did not respond to. Again, it is not a sin per se, other that the propensity to sin, the nature of the fallen world. This is the consequence of Adam’s sin and what we are today.

I feel the Catholic’s position on this have been explained clearly if you have read them in the thread but you seem to misrepresent it. I don’t know whether it is on purpose or you do not read the posts here or I misunderstand what you were trying to say. That’s why I did not want your response.

As for the Immaculate Conception, it is a whole different doctrine altogether and not necessary tied to Adam’s sin. Original sin as we can see is NOT a sin per se and not Adam’s sin. The Immaculate Conception has wider theological implication, which i think is not the scope of this thread, and it has to do with who Jesus is.
If the Catholic belief truly is that there is no guilt implicit in Original Sin, then yes, we believe the same thing. However other Catholics in this thread have indicated it does contain that implication of sin.

So the question is, why should I believe your claims over theirs?
 
If the Catholic belief truly is that there is no guilt implicit in Original Sin, then yes, we believe the same thing. However other Catholics in this thread have indicated it does contain that implication of sin.

So the question is, why should I believe your claims over theirs?
The key word is original sin. This is misunderstood for much of the time as a sin. If you are clear on what is the original sin, then there is actually nothing that we inherit from Adam. We just suffer the consequence of his sin. Anyway, the CCC is clear on this. It is not the fault (sin) of Adam that we inherit.

As for other Catholics explanation, well, it is a their way of explanation. Sometimes it may be too simplified for easy understanding. But when we explain the distinction as the requirement of this thread, we therefore has to be more careful. That is the approach I am explaining it to you and the others.

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.
 
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.
Right my thoughts also. 👍
 
Not according to Trent…

If any one asserts, that this sin of Adam,–which in its origin is one, and being transfused into all by propogation, not by imitation, is in each one as his own

catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=5391
You do own in my brother, that has nothing to do with “guilt”. Whatever the complexity of the “it” is in Gods wisdom, we most definitely all have it. We assume the fallen state, not the guilt of the actual sin which I would assume Adam and Eve carried. This is what’s said above by propagation not imitation.
 
In other words by St Athanasius through to Maximus the Confessor and the Incarnation. When I speak of “it” as in a fallen state. The “it” is a withdrawal of Gods Grace, the devil had poisoned the tree of knowledge and spoiled our nature as the gift given by God in His image, the removal of Gods Grace placed us in confrontation with our own nature minus some degree of this sustaining Grace. It is Gods Grace which preserves us. sustains us, and in the end saves us from ourselves. It was Grace that God gave to Adam and Eve in eternal life when created. The grace of Communion. They severed the life line of Communion. So then without this needed degree of Grace we see the human condition, which in essence is very animal.
 
I’ve never been convinced by that idea I am responsible for the sin of another human being. How does one limit it adam’s single sin and not all of his sins and the sins of the billions of mothers and fathers before him? Why can’t we inherit every single sin? It makes more sense to say we have inherited Adam’s nature and not his actual sin.
The actual sin of Adam we inherited is the disobedience of and separation from God Himself, which constitutes an enormous wound or injustice in the universe. Man is “born dead” now, so to speak, in need of revival by reconciling with God so He may take up His rightful residence within. Then and only then is integrity restored to man.

And, as with our ancestor Adam, our wills are involved. Even as we come to gain the knowledge of God, via the revelation He gave to the church, we still don’t change all at once; we struggle with sin, rebellion against God and His will. Our love of God and neighbor is demonstrated, in part, by the extent to which we don’t sin against either, more so by the way we actually express authentic acts of love for them. The Catholic Catechism teaches that, by his act of disobedience, man preferred himself to God. This preference, that caused the original separation and perpetuates it, is what must be dealt with in us. And this preference-or lack of it - is demonstrated in how we live our lives. And full justice for man is finally attained when he loves God with his whole heart, soul, mind, and strength and his neighbor as himself.

But meanwhile there’s still something missing in us, this fullness of life/love/grace, this life of God in us with whom we must commune. And the evidence for this fault can be found by reading past and current human history-in the daily newspaper, for example- as well as our own personal histories.

From what I understand, some Eastern teachings maintain that OS, or Ancestral Sin, affects us mainly by having caused death to enter our world. This causes concupiscence to arise because of the unavoidable sense that we’re trapped in a world where our time is limited, kind of like cattle moving inexorably towards slaughter. However, IMO, while true, this does not go far enough in explaining why man sins; there seems to me to be a predisposing proclivity for sin in us, as explained above, that reveals itself almost as soon in life as we’re able to express it, a proclivity that seems to be of the same stuff as-in solidarity with-Adam’s sin, an unreasonable, selfish proclivity that asserts itself at times almost in spite of or in denial of death, as if still believing we won’t die.

Perhaps to sum it up more simply, I think the bottom line in terms of what man inherited from Adam is the idea that man doesn’t need God. And that’s what Jesus came to rectify. Just some thoughts.
 
What would you say is the argument in favor of inheriting Adam’s actual sin, versus the Orthodox position that we do not inherit the actual sin itself, but only the result of it?
I would say we inherited the actual sin in itself the way the bible states it. Because if we did not inherit the actual sin itself we would not have actual original sin.

The Church teaches us we have sin, If we did not have the stain of the sin upon us we would not have to be baptised.

Original sin is not a result of actual sin, Original sin is a result of the Sin of Adam and Eve.Not ours.
 
I’ve never been convinced by that idea I am responsible for the sin of another human being. How does one limit it adam’s single sin and not all of his sins and the sins of the billions of mothers and fathers before him? Why can’t we inherit every single sin? It makes more sense to say we have inherited Adam’s nature and not his actual sin.
Then why are we baptised to have original sin erased if we do not have original sin?

Why does the bible or the Church not teach us then, that we are erased from Adams nature? It does not state that, it states we all have original sin because of the sin of Adam and Eve.

We did not inherit the nature of Adams and Eve, we inherited thier sin that was committed.
 
I’ve never been convinced by that idea I am responsible for the sin of another human being. How does one limit it adam’s single sin and not all of his sins and the sins of the billions of mothers and fathers before him? Why can’t we inherit every single sin? It makes more sense to say we have inherited Adam’s nature and not his actual sin.
Okay then why did we need a Savior. Why did Christ have to die for the sins of all? Was it not Christ and Only Christ that could take away original sin?

And if we only inherited Adams nature, why did Christ not die for the Nature of Man, not his sin?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top