Original Sin

[mardukm]

Dear Latin brethren,

I was having a debate with an adherent of SSPX on this issue. Here’s the gist of our debate:

Further the council says ‘For, in those who are born again, there is nothing that God hates; because, There is no condemnation to those who are truly buried together with Christ by baptism into death;…’ Now if it was just a matter of us inheriting the consequences of sin why would be condemned? It is unjust to be condemned for inheriting something which you had no choice about, however it is clearly perfectly just to be condemned for participating in that original sin that is to say 'Through Adam all mankind participated in Original Sin’

Your opinion (highlighted in red) is, forgive me for saying, an aberration of Catholic teaching on Original Sin. We are in “a state of condemnation” not because we participated in the Original Sin through Adam, but because of the inherited consequence (i.e. reatus) of spiritual separation from God.

Since I am not a Latin Catholic, I’ll submit to your wisdom on the matter. I would like to ask you folks here whose position is correct?

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[ZDHayden]

The Church teaches one Truth, not many truths.

When going through RCIA, I was taught something similar to your definition, Mardek.

From the Catechism:

CCC 404: How did the sin of Adam become the sin of all his descendants? The whole human race is in Adam “as one body of one man”.By this “unity of the human race” all men are implicated in Adam’s sin, as all are implicated in Christ’s justice. Still, the transmission of original sin is a mystery that we cannot fully understand. But we do know by Revelation that Adam had received original holiness and justice not for himself alone, but for all human nature. By yielding to the tempter, Adam and Eve committed a personal sin, but this sin affected the human nature that they would then transmit in a fallen state. It is a sin which will be transmitted by propagation to all mankind, that is, by the transmission of 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.
CCC 405 Although it is proper to each individual, 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: it is wounded in the natural powers proper to it, subject to ignorance, suffering and the dominion of death, and inclined to sin - an inclination to evil that is called concupiscence". Baptism, by imparting the life of Christ’s grace, erases original sin and turns a man back towards God, but the consequences for nature, weakened and inclined to evil, persist in man and summon him to spiritual battle.

 

[Verbum]

Hi Marduk,

As you know, Eastern theology does not use the original sin vocabulary. It emphasizes the fact that, through the sin of Adam, we became dominated by sin. The sacrifice of Jesus freed us from the domination of sin. As St Paul says, in baptism, we are buried wilth Christ and resurrect to a new life. This is why the Eastern Church insists on baptism by immersion, which symboloizes that burial and that resurrection.

This difference of emphasis is what caused the Orthodox Churches to reject the dogma of the Immaculate Conception, which states that “The most Blessed Virgin Mary was, from the first moment of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege of almighty God and by virtue of the merits of Jesus Christ, Savior of the human race, preserved immune from all stain of original sin.”

Of course Orthodoxy does not believe that Mary was ever subject to sin. They would agree that Mary, as the most holy of all creatures, did not need to be baptized to accede to the status of adopted child of God.

So, as in many other cases, our differences stem from a different vocabulary.

Verbum

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Verbum,

Thank you for your (name removed by moderator)ut. The issue here is not one of theological terminology. It goes to the very basics of the doctrine of original sin.

Our SSPX brother claims that Trent taught that we actually participate in the original sin of Adam, and thus participate in his guilt. ( As you know, we non-Latin Catholics would summarily reject that teaching).

I explained to him that Trent does not teach that, but that Trent teaches that we inherit the consequences of the original sin of Adam, and that this is what is meant by the phrase “guilt of original sin.” I explained to him that the “guilt” in that phrase is not culpa (which would indicate that we inherit the fault or blame for Adam’s own sin) but rather reatus (which indicates we inherit the consequences). But he did not believe me.

Do you have any further comments?

Blessings,
Marduk

As you know, Eastern theology does not use the original sin vocabulary. It emphasizes the fact that, through the sin of Adam, we became dominated by sin. The sacrifice of Jesus freed us from the domination of sin. As St Paul says, in baptism, we are buried wilth Christ and resurrect to a new life. This is why the Eastern Church insists on baptism by immersion, which symboloizes that burial and that resurrection.

This difference of emphasis is what caused the Orthodox Churches to reject the dogma of the Immaculate Conception, which states that “The most Blessed Virgin Mary was, from the first moment of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege of almighty God and by virtue of the merits of Jesus Christ, Savior of the human race, preserved immune from all stain of original sin.”

Of course Orthodoxy does not believe that Mary was ever subject to sin. They would agree that Mary, as the most holy of all creatures, did not need to be baptized to accede to the status of adopted child of God.

So, as in many other cases, our differences stem from a different vocabulary.

Verbum

 

[JRKH]

Since your friend is ascribing this to Trent, I would ask him for a specific reference (what session/chapter/canon) he is using for his argument. Then one could carefully look at what the council says in it’s entirety and make determination as to what the council is actually trying to convey.

Your friend states:

“It is unjust to be condemned for inheriting something which you had no choice about, however it is clearly perfectly just to be condemned for participating in that original sin that is to say 'Through Adam all mankind participated in Original Sin”

To which I respond that it is just as unjust to condemn for “participating” in something when I was not even born yet…How could I “participate in original sin” when I did not yet exist?

Eve sinned - Adam likewise sinned, and by their sin there came a fundamental change in the relationship between God and man. We have inherited the consequences of that change.

A very poor analogy might be atomic energy. When the secret of nuclear fission was unlocked, it fundamentally changed the world, and the world can never “undo” what was done. There is no way ot put that genie back in it’s bottle.
Now -
You and I did not unlock the secrets of nuclear fission but like it or not, we have inherited the consequences (for good or bad) of what others did.

The same with original sin. By eating of the Tree of Knowledge, Adam and Eve acquired “knowledge” of right and wrong - of “good and evil”. The past this on to their children and to all succeeding generations…Not the sin of eating of the tree, but the consequences of that eating…which is the knowledge of Good and Evil…and the responsibility (and culpability) that goes with that knowledge.

Peace
James

 

[Verbum]

Hi mardukm,

Here’s one way to explain this. Suppose my father dies owing a large sum of money. As his heir, I am obligated to pay that debt, although no one can say I was the one who contracted it. In the same way, we inherit Adam’s sin in its consequences without having committed the original sin. Baptism free us from that debt as it applies to us individually.

 

[Benadam]

Do we see human nature made* incomplete*, human nature minus something? Or do we see human nature not minus anything but still* whole* albeitt lacking something it had before? Or in some way both ?

 

[ConstantineTG]

Do we see human nature made* incomplete*, human nature minus something? Or do we see human nature not minus anything but still* whole* albeitt lacking something it had before? Or in some way both ?

In Eastern Theology, the first sin changed human nature in a way that we lost the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. So Baptism doesn’t remove something from us (original sin) but rather restores us to our original state (thus born again) capable of receiving God’s graces and have the Holy Spirit dwell within us again.

 

[Benadam]

In Eastern Theology, the first sin changed human nature in a way that we lost the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. So Baptism doesn’t remove something from us (original sin) but rather restores us to our original state (thus born again) capable of receiving God’s graces and have the Holy Spirit dwell within us again.

Is it seen as something like a distortion? Original sin distorted our soul?

 

[Nita]

Do we see human nature made* incomplete*, human nature minus something? Or do we see human nature not minus anything but still* whole* albeitt lacking something it had before? Or in some way both ?

It’s better to think of our human nature as damaged/wounded rather than incomplete. Incomplete carries the idea that there is some part of our human nature that is no longer present.

Sanctifying grace was lost by Adam’s sin, but that grace was not part of his human nature; it was a gift bestowed on him by God.

 

[grannymh]

Do we see human nature made* incomplete*, human nature minus something? Or do we see human nature not minus anything but still* whole* albeitt lacking something it had before? Or in some way both ?

Human nature was wounded or flawed.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Is it seen as something like a distortion? Original sin distorted our soul?

Well, Western theology states that we are born with something that shouldn’t be there (original sin) and baptism washes it away.

Eastern theology states that we are born without something that should be there (Holy Spirit) and baptism renews us.

Not only our soul was distorted but our very nature. In either theology, our very nature became incapable or receiving grace from God. But through Baptism we become capable again, and through the other Sacraments we receive specific graces from God.

 

[Benadam]

Well, Western theology states that we are born with something that shouldn’t be there (original sin) and baptism washes it away.

Eastern theology states that we are born without something that should be there (Holy Spirit) and baptism renews us.

Not only our soul was distorted but our very nature. In either theology, our very nature became incapable or receiving grace from God. But through Baptism we become capable again, and through the other Sacraments we receive specific graces from God.

Thank you for that clarification. Everyone’s else too. Very grounding answers. Thanks

 

[Ghosty]

Well, Western theology states that we are born with something that shouldn’t be there (original sin) and baptism washes it away.

Eastern theology states that we are born without something that should be there (Holy Spirit) and baptism renews us.

Not only our soul was distorted but our very nature. In either theology, our very nature became incapable or receiving grace from God. But through Baptism we become capable again, and through the other Sacraments we receive specific graces from God.

Actually, Original Sin is simply the privation of Grace in Western theology too. The term “stain” doesn’t refer to an added mark, but the darkness due to the lack of Divine Illumination of the soul.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Pitcharan]

Dear Latin brethren,

I was having a debate with an adherent of SSPX on this issue. Here’s the gist of our debate:

Since I am not a Latin Catholic, I’ll submit to your wisdom on the matter. I would like to ask you folks here whose position is correct?

Blessings,
Marduk

One big source of confusion has always been language. Every language seems to abound in it and english compounds it. The english word “sin” can mean two things: (i) Interior defilement, (ii) Sin that is comited because of our interior defilement succumbing to a temptation. The first is the cause and the second is the effect.

*Sin as I understand, is the exercise of our God given free will by thought, word or deed, to foolishly choose evil rather than good, thereby empowering Satan to stake a claim on our soul. Interior defilement makes us sin; the cause and the effect need to be dealt with differently. Through the Parable of the Prodigal Son, our Lord makes it quite obvious that repentance brings forgiveness and saves us from eternal condemnation and He also subtly but clearly reveals this — suffering cleanses interior defilement.

Suffering is the only remedy available for cleansing interior defilement and uprooting the very cause of sin. Recall what our Lord taught: “If your hand causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life maimed than with two hands to go into hell, where the fire never goes out. ‘For everyone will be salted with fire’*.” (Mk 9:43, 49)

 

[Benadam]

Actually, Original Sin is simply the privation of Grace in Western theology too. The term “stain” doesn’t refer to an added mark, but the darkness due to the lack of Divine Illumination of the soul.

Peace and God bless!

I assume that privation is the cause of physiological changes inherent in a body that is going to die as opposed to a body that was not.

 

[Ghosty]

I assume that privation is the cause of physiological changes inherent in a body that is going to die as opposed to a body that was not.

It’s not necessarily a physiological change. Many Fathers believed that we were always naturally mortal, like all physical things, and that Original Grace preserved us from that mortality (St. Athanasius, and I personally find this view to be the best). Others believed that it was the Fruit of Life that would have preserved us (St. Augustine).

That being said, whatever the nature of our mortality, the Fall caused us to have a limited lifespan. That view is the same in both East and West.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Benadam]

It’s not necessarily a physiological change. Many Fathers believed that we were always naturally mortal, like all physical things, and that Original Grace preserved us from that mortality (St. Athanasius, and I personally find this view to be the best). Others believed that it was the Fruit of Life that would have preserved us (St. Augustine).

That being said, whatever the nature of our mortality, the Fall caused us to have a limited lifespan. That view is the same in both East and West.

Peace and God bless!

What I mean is the physiological changes that occurred to the human body when it was no longer animated by a soul in possession of the preternatural gifts. The body now moved of it’s own volition. Involuntary movements of the body informed the intellect of the change in state. It was the body that made our fallen state visible and consequently, our falleness realized caused the experience of shame that for us is inherent to our state. The change from life to death caused our bodies to respond to our earthly life in the same ways the lesser animal bodies do. Which is not natural for us since it is not a natural state for the body and soul to seperate. So, it’s fallen modus operati’ became survival.

This is what I’m thinking could be called the stain of sin.

 

[fhansen]

It’s better to think of our human nature as damaged/wounded rather than incomplete. Incomplete carries the idea that there is some part of our human nature that is no longer present.

Sanctifying grace was lost by Adam’s sin, but that grace was not part of his human nature; it was a gift bestowed on him by God.

I think this is correct. We have to understand that, at least in RC theology, an injustice resides in man, and this is why we so easily fall into sin ourselves, sort of carrying on and confirming the family tradition we’ve inherited. IMO, this tendency in us is not brought about solely by fear of death as some eastern theology instructs, death being one of the consequences of Ancestral or Original Sin, but rather we sin in spite of such reasons-we sin due to our own injustice, which consists primarily in our own pride and selfishness, IOW it consists in not loving God and neighbor as we ought-a disposition only His sanctifying grace can keep us from falling into.

IOW, man needs direct communion with God, the God he spurned, in order to become just, because his injustice consists of his being separated from God-and of his own preference for keeping things that way. And all sin is evidence of that very preference. It’s sort of a Catch-22 because we need the very God we reject in order for us to stop rejecting Him so we can have the life He created us to have and have it “more abundantly” We need God, first of all, to help us come to even recognize our need for Him-which He takes the initiative in accomplishing in us by His grace. This, among other things, is the reconciliation the Atonement won for us.

 

[Pitcharan]

It’s not necessarily a physiological change. Many Fathers believed that we were always naturally mortal, like all physical things, and that Original Grace preserved us from that mortality (St. Athanasius, and I personally find this view to be the best). Others believed that it was the Fruit of Life that would have preserved us (St. Augustine).

That being said, whatever the nature of our mortality, the Fall caused us to have a limited lifespan. That view is the same in both East and West.

Peace and God bless!

*God made humans in His own image and likeness and showered them with all kinds of bounties. Adam and Eve apparently lacked nothing and even enjoyed a father- child relationship with God; how then did they fall into sin? A careful reading of Genesis 3 reveals complete absence of this one thing — gratitude. For all the love and loving bounties received from God, had there been any sense of gratitude in Adam and Eve, then they would have got Grace and held fast to God’s command and would have rejected Satan’s apparently attractive offer. The saving Grace would have enabled seeing through Satan’s deception; but sadly that was not to be.

**Gratitude is not only the greatest of virtues, but the parent of all the others. ***(Marcus Tullius Cicero—106-43BC).

*They ungratefully failed to provide any place for God in their hearts, rendering themselves vulnerable and paving the way for Satan to inject pride. They became spiritually blind because of their pride and stooped so low to do these detestable deeds:
• Eve took Satan’s advice to become like God.
• Adam followed suit and later went on to literally blame God by responding: "The woman You put here with me ….”.
Had Eve truly been in awe of God she would have rather told Him plainly: “Lord I am in awe of You; teach me Your ways”. It is quite obvious, that she had become filled with pride and envy after listening to Satan and blindly rejected her maker’s warning to readily believe the deceiver’s lie. Adam’s behaviour is the height of pride; Eve blamed the serpent but Adam blamed God.

In the words of St. Augustine of Hippo: **They would not have fallen into pride and lack of wisdom, if Satan hadn’t sown into their senses “the root of evil”. ***(Contra Julianum, I, 9.42; PL 44, 670)

*Pride is an ugly variety of self-love and better described as self-worship. It is Satan’s DNA that produces in us an exaggerated illusion of self, making us appear great in our own eyes and worse than that, like authors of our own greatness. Pride is our enemy no.1 that puts us in constant conflict with God, neighbour and self.

We may deduce that disobedience is the original sin and the cause is pride which entered humans because of ingratitude. When we fail to respond with gratitude for all of God’s bounties, we are only inviting Satan to afflict us with pride which will render us spiritually blind and slaves to all kind of sinful natures.

Never suffer pride to reign in your mind or in your words, for from it all perdition took its beginning. (Tobit 4:14)

Remember the Israelites in the Desert of Sin, who were ungrateful for the innumerable bounties received — freedom from cruel slavery, water-manna-quails in the wilderness. It is because of their ingratitude that they had no abiding Grace to fulfil God’s Law and stumbled.

“For although they knew God, they neither glorified Him as God nor gave thanks to Him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened.”* (Rom 1:21)

*This is the process of falling into sin – as we are interiorly defiled we suffer from sinful urge and are helpless against temptations despite desiring good and end up sinning against our own will.

**“For we know that the law is spiritual, but I am carnal, sold under sin. For what I am doing, I do not understand. For what I desire to do, that I do not practice; but what I hate, that I do. If, then, I do what I desire not to do, I agree with the law that it is good. But now, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells in me. For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out.” ***(Rom 7:14-18)

*Just as it takes two hands to produce a clap it takes two forces to commit a sin – an external temptation pulls us while an internal sinful urge pushes us and we fall into the quagmire called sin. There is very little we can do about external snares and our sole defence therefore is in cleansing ourselves of all interior defilement.

“For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false testimony, slander. These are what make a man ‘unclean’.” *(Matt 15:19-20a)