Original Sin

[Myhrr]

Matt16_18

Would you read through this selection of explanations about grace and tell me where you agree or disagree with them?

olrl.org/Lessons/Lesson8.shtml

marys-touch.com/Teaching/XVI.htm

ewtn.com/faith/teachings/goda42.htm

angelfire.com/ok3/apologia/grace.html

From the last link:

Sanctifying grace is an habitual gift, a stable and supernatural disposition that perfects the soul itself to enable it to live with God, to act by his love. Habitual grace, the permanent disposition to live and act in keeping with God’s call, is distinguished from actual graces which refer to God’s interventions, whether at the beginning of conversion or in the course of the work of sanctification.

dailycatholic.org/issue/archives/may2000/87may4,vol.11,no.87txt/may4cat.htm

The presence of God in the soul give it life. When the Holy Spirit is dwelling in the soul, it is enabled to know and love God, to do supernatural works. Speaking of the “gift of God”, Our Lod said it "shall become in him a fountain of water, springing up unto life everlasting" (John 4:14). Without sanctifying grace, the soul is without God; and without God, the soul becomes the devil’s.

One cannot gain any merit for Heaven as long as he is not in sanctifying grace, what is termed "in the state of grace". For without sanctifying grace one is an enemy of God, and cannot enter His kingdom.     Mortal sin makes the soul displeasing to God, and thus deprives it of sanctifying grace.

Orlapubs is a good resource for Orthodox RCC differences, if you can get through the terminology… I’ve found a simpler worded explanation than he usually gives:

Note that “supernatural” is a Western religious term, referring to something created in-between uncreated and creatures of this world–something heavenly, but not uncreated. **Præternatural )and sometimes supranatural) refers to what is beyond natural experience or expectation. Certain inexplicable events are so termed. *Supernatural *events or things are those that are divinely caused in a specific, non-general, way and are miraculous in going beyond the ordinary possibilities of nature; but they nevertheless belong to the finite, created economy. **

orlapubs.com/AR/R174.html

 

[Matt16_18]

Myhrr:

I still think we’re talking past each other. I’m still saying the CCC is using words from the Orthodox tradition without actually meaning the same thing. … What I’m saying is the RCC never talked about uncreated grace, sanctifying grace is something created for man, a gift.

Since you don’t even know what the Catholic Church teaches about uncreated grace, how can you possibly know that what she teaches about uncreated grace is different than what the Orthodox teach?

You might now be using terms like ‘uncreated grace’, but it still doesn’t mean what it means to the Orthodox … Show me where your tradition pre Vatican II teaches about theosis and divinization.

No problema.

You can read on the web the The Three Ages Of The Interior Life, by Rev. Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange, OP. This book was copyrighted in 1948, and is still readily available. You can read for yourself the pre-Vatican II spiritual theology that was taught in seminaries, and you can check this book’s extensive footnotes.

You should be interested in these chapters:
THE BLESSED TRINITY PRESENT IN US, UNCREATED SOURCE OF OUR INTERIOR LIFE
A. The Testimony of Scripture
B. The Testimony of Tradition

THE CAUSE OF THE PASSIVE PURIFICATION OF THE SPIRIT
A. Purifying Infused Light and Spiritual Fire

THE SPIRITUAL AGE OF THE PERFECT, THEIR UNION WITH GOD
C. The Indwelling of the Blessed Trinity in the Purified Soul
D. The Signs of the Indwelling of the Blessed Trinity in the Purified Soul

 

[Matt16_18]

Myhrr:

[Matt: You say that the Orthodox believe that Adam and Eve had the indwelling of the Holy Spirit before the Fall.]

Where have I said this?

You implied it. But make this point clear to us Catholics. Do the Orthodox believe that Adam and Eve had the indwelling of the Holy Spirit before the Fall? Yes or no will be a sufficient answer. Then answer this question. Did Adam and Eve fall from grace (as you have defined grace) by committing their sin of willful disobedience?

I certainly do not believe that men and women are born into this world in a dis-graced condition. That’s just nonsense.

Then by your own definition of grace, I must conclude that you believe that men and women are born with the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. And I see that this belief contradicts what you claim about the effect of baptism and chrismation. The only way out of this bind is for YOU to redefine what YOU mean by grace, or to admit that you are totally confused.

 

[Myhrr]

Correction to:

“Note, John Paul II teaches as the RCC has always taught about sanctifying grace, that it is something ‘received’, given, a gift, - i.e. it is created. The Orthodox don’t have this, so we’re not talking about the same thing, is all I’m saying here.”

this should make it clearer:

Note, John Paul II teaches as the RCC has always taught about sanctifying grace, that it is something ‘received’, given, a gift given to man, created specifically for him.

This comes back to what I was saying earlier, that the RCC doctrines about this are all based on Genesis II - an Adam and Eve living in some paradise created by God for them and that situation contradicts Genesis I where God created and saw that it was good, creating male and female and blessing them to procreate - if Adam and Eve didn’t have a physical death in the RCC version then what was all this procreation about?

Procreation is in the natural order of creation,* and* they were created in the image and likeness of God. All your Original Sin teachings are based on an unnatural situation. It even begins unnaturally, Adam created without Eve. Is that what sanctifying grace takes you back to now, and then where does ‘divinization’ take you to?

 

[Matt16_18]

Myhrr:

Orlapubs is a good resource for Orthodox RCC differences, if you can get through the terminology… I’ve found a simpler worded explanation than he usually gives:

Note that “supernatural” is a Western religious term, referring to something created in-between uncreated and creatures of this world–something heavenly, but not uncreated.

Why don’t you try reading what Catholic theologians mean by supernatural. Catholics believe that God is supernatural, and that God is uncreated.

You are simply mistaken in your understanding of what the Catholic Church teaches about created grace and uncreated grace.

 

[Myhrr]

Matt16_18:

Since you don’t even know what the Catholic Church teaches about uncreated grace, how can you possibly know that what she teaches about uncreated grace is different than what the Orthodox teach?

No problema.

You can read on the web the The Three Ages Of The Interior Life, by Rev. Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange, OP. This book was copyrighted in 1948, and is still readily available. You can read for yourself the pre-Vatican II spiritual theology that was taught in seminaries, and you can check this book’s extensive footnotes.

Oh give me a break! Give me something from 1848 and let’s discuss this. Your basic, bog standard dogmas and doctrines on Original Sin have not changed. Whatever else you’ve added with all this new stuff and terms doesn’t obliterate that, we can only look at it together through that.

And you know full well that if the next Catechism excluded all these words and ideas which you didn’t ever use before you’d have to accept it because it came from your infallible teaching authority.

And I’m not going to go off to buy a book just to continue discussing this with you. I’ve given you several links we can both look at and discuss together.

 

[Myhrr]

And do you know where I can find the Aquinas quote in context?

 

[Myhrr]

Matt16_18:

Why don’t you try reading what Catholic theologians mean by supernatural. Catholics believe that God is supernatural, and that God is uncreated.

You are simply mistaken in your understanding of what the Catholic Church teaches about created grace and uncreated grace.

It can’t possibly mean the same thing because the Orthodox don’t have your doctrine of Original Sin. Give me some examples from your theologians, from Augustine onward on, your side of the Orthodox/RCC divide, and explain it from there.

Which councils talk about it?

 

[Matt16_18]

Myhrr:

And I’m not going to go off to buy a book just to continue discussing this with you. I’ve given you several links we can both look at and discuss together.

You don’t have to buy the book, it can be read online. Just click on the link that I provided.

Oh give me a break! Give me something from 1848 and let’s discuss this.

Chech the footnotes that Garrigou-Lagrange provides in the chapters I referenced. You will find many sources much older than 1848.

Your basic, bog standard dogmas and doctrines on Original Sin have not changed. Whatever else you’ve added with all this new stuff and terms doesn’t obliterate that … And you know full well that if the next Catechism excluded all these words and ideas which you didn’t ever use before you’d have to accept it because it came from your infallible teaching authority.

It is only in your closed mind that the Catholic Church has never taught that we receive that indwelling of the Holy Spirit at Baptism. But that is patently ridiculous, because the NT scriptures clearly speak about the indwelling of God in the soul in the Christian, and certainly Catholic theologians have not been totally ignorant of what is written in scriptures for the last two thousand years.

I provided you with quotes from scriptures concerning the indwelling of God, and then provided you quotes from the Catechsim that reference those scriptures. What more should I do? Sheesh!

Please be reasonable.

 

[Matt16_18]

Myhrr

Check this out:Saint John’s Seminary, COURSE LECTURES and
SELF-STUDY PROGRAMS by Fr. Luke Dysinger, O.S.B.

THE DOCTRINE of THEOSIS – DIVINZATION

 

[Matt16_18]

“The Word became flesh to make us ‘partakers of the divine nature’:[2 Pet 1:4] ‘For this is why the Word became man, and the Son of God became the Son of man: so that man, by entering into communion with the Word and thus receiving divine sonship, might become a son of God.’[St. Irenaeus, Adv. haeres] ‘For the Son of God became man so that we might become God.’[St. Athanasius, De inc.] ‘The only-begotten Son of God, wanting to make us sharers in his divinity, assumed our nature, so that he, made man, might make men gods.’[St. Thomas Aquinas, Opusc.]” (**Catechism of the Catholic Church ** [CCC] 460)

The Eastern Catholic tradition emphasizes a number of beliefs or attitudes regarding the spiritual life. These include:

1. A profound and humble respect for the Holy Mysteries of God
2. A focus on the reality of divinization, the partaking the the divine nature of the Triune God …

©2000 Nativity of the Mother of God Ukrainian Catholic Church

 

[Matt16_18]

**Catechism of the Catholic Church

1988 ** Through the power of the Holy Spirit we take part in Christ’s Passion by dying to sin, and in his Resurrection by being born to a new life; we are members of his Body which is the Church, branches grafted onto the vine which is himself:

[God] gave himself to us through his Spirit. By the participation of the Spirit, we become communicants in the divine nature. . . . For this reason, those in whom the Spirit dwells are divinized.[37]

37 St. Athanasius, Ep. Serap. 1,24G 26,585 and 588.​

 

[Matt16_18]

mhyrr

This should help you understand what Catholics mean by “supernatural gift”, and how it relates to the last post. This Catholic Encyclopedia article is Copyright © 1909 – so it is was written many years prior to Vatican II, and prior to the publishing of the Catechism of the Catholic Church.
Supernatural Gift

A supernatural gift may be defined as something conferred on nature that is above all the powers (vires) of created nature. When God created man, He was not content with bestowing upon him the essential endowments required by man’s nature. He raised him to a higher state, adding certain gifts to which his nature had no claim. They comprise qualities and perfections, forces and energies, dignities and rights, destination to final objects, of which the essential constitution of man is not the principle; which are not required for the attainment of the final perfection of the natural order of man; and which can only be communicated by the free operation of God’s goodness and power. Some of these are absolutely supernatural, i.e. beyond the reach of all created nature (even of the angels), and elevate the creature to a dignity and perfection natural to God alone; others are only relatively supernatural (preternatural), i.e. above human nature only and elevate human nature to that state of higher perfection which is natural to the angels. The original state of man comprised both of these, and when he fell he lost both. Christ has restored to us the absolutely supernatural gifts, but the preternatural gifts He has not restored.

The absolutely supernatural gifts, which alone are the supernatural properly so called, are summed up in the divine adoption of man to be the son and heir of God. This expression, and the explanations given of it by the sacred writers, make it evident that the sonship is something far more than a relation founded upon the absence of sin; it is of a thoroughly intimate character, raising the creature from its naturally humble estate, and making it the object of a peculiar benevolence and complaisance on God’s part, admitting it to filial love, and enabling it to become God’s heir, i.e. a partaker of God’s own beatitude. …

Divine adoption is a new birth of the soul (John, i, 12, 13, iii, 5; I John, iii, 9; v, 1; I Pet., i, 3; and i, 23; James, i, 18; Titus, iii, 5, Eph., ii 5). This regeneration implies the foundation of a higher state of being and life, resulting from a special Divine influence, and admitting us to the dignity of sons of God. “For whom he foreknew, he also predestinated to be made conformable to the image of his Son; that he might be the firstborn amongst many brethren” (Rom., viii, 29). cf. also II Cor., iii, 18; Gal., iii, 26, 27; iv, 19, Rom., xiii, 14. As a consequence of this Divine adoption and new birth we are made “partakers of the divine nature” (theias koinonoi physeos, II Pet., i, 4). The whole context of this passage and the passages already quoted show that this expression is to be taken as literally as possible not, indeed, as a generation from the substance of God, but as a communication of Divine life by the power of God, and a most intimate indwelling of His substance in the creature.

The Fathers have not hesitated to call supernatural union of the creature with God the deification of the creature. This is a favorite expression of St. Irenæus (“Adv. Haer.”, III, xvii, xix; IV, xx, etc.), and is frequently used by St. Athanasius (see Newman, “St. Athanasius”, II, 88). See also St. Augustine (? Serm. cxci, “In Nat. Dom.”), quoted by St. Thomas (III:1:3).

The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume VI
Copyright © 1909 by Robert Appleton Company

 

[Myhrr]

Matt16_18

Apologies, missed that you’d linked to the book, however, my links came first so when you let me know that you’ve read them I’ll read your one - OK?

Last night when I finished posting to you I continued thinking about this and want to say that I really am looking for a reasonable discussion on this which you appear to be avoiding.

This line of reasoning I’m following came out of another discussion here about Orthodox religions, Father Ambrose believed that only the Orthodox give the Gift of the Holy Ghost at baptism, I then found that Paul VI changed this and explained the changed by saying he was now including this and that it came from the Orthodox, that’s a given, the history of where these new ideas come from is clear. A couple of points about all this.

They are recent additions to your ‘Catholic’ beliefs and until Paul VI made this a definite move these Orthodox beliefs from those Churches that acknowledge the Bishop of Rome as supreme head of the RCC family of Churches were not considered Orthodox by the Orthodox Church because the dogmas of the RCC changed the faith. This is an important point and your ‘side’ of this shouldn’t try to brush it away as if it never existed. That is grossly unjust.

Last century, before all these changes, the Eastern Catholics were considered second class, if that, member Churches - they were ignored by the Vatican at best and at worst were insulted whenever they had contact with the Vatican for any reason.

Now, since the two lung theory many of the practices have been included in the general system which has been expressed by your magesterium in the CCC.

But, it’s also clear, as I’ve shown in going through this with GreszeszDeL, the doctrines of the RCC such as Original Sin still apply, none of these changes can alter that.

You can include these and anything else you care to according to the RCC doctrine of development, but your dogmatic base is still, as John Paul II explained which is definitely noted in the CCC, based on the Augustinian doctrines dogmatically confirmed at Orange, Trent, Florence etc. This does alter the meanings of the words you’ve taken from the Orthodox.

If you continue to ignore all my references to this and therefore the actual differences in meanings I’m trying to discuss, there’s no point me continuing this discussion with you.

For all these many centuries the dogmatic, de fide, infallible teaching of your Church has been that given the stamp of authority by the RCC, not any other Church obedient to your Pope, not any other tradition contrary to that defined infallibly, so, unless the Trent etc. dogmas are actually definitively stated to be superceded or null and void then you cannot exclude them from this analysis.

If you don’t want to continue with this discussion including the points I’m making then you don’t have to, but I find it insulting to be told in post after post from you that I don’t understand your doctrines whenever I remind you of your own dogmas which at least must show that I’ve spent some time in trying to learn about your Church.

 

[RBushlow]

Matt16_18:

RBushlow:

Thanks for taking the time to explain this to me. When one receives Jesus in the Blessed Sacrament of Eucharist (sorry I don’t know the proper Orthodox term), we receive the Body and Blood of Christ. Is our understanding of this similar to the Orthodox way?

Catholics believe that we receive the Real Presence in the Eucharist - i.e. we receive the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Christ.

Catholics have never believed that the divinity of Christ is something that is created.
Matt??? My question is “What is the Orthodox Churches understanding of the Eucharist?”.

BTW Who said anything about the divinity of Christ being created? Please show me where you got that from in my post! There is no such reference!

 

[Matt16_18]

RBushlow:

Who said anything about the divinity of Christ being created? Please show me where you got that from in my post! There is no such reference!

Please excuse my poor writing. I didn’t mean to imply that you believe that the divinity of Christ is created. I am sure that you don’t believe such a thing!

I was commenting on your post because you made an excellent point to Myhrr. Catholics believe in the real presence in the Eucharist, and we believe that the Eucharist is a fountain of grace. It is nonsense to say that Catholics believe that the divinity of Jesus that we commune with by receiving the Eucharist is created! Myhrr keeps trying to tell Catholics that our only concept of grace is that it is a thing that is created. She is flat out wrong about that.

 

[Matt16_18]

Matt16_18

Apologies, missed that you’d linked to the book, however, my links came first so when you let me know that you’ve read them I’ll read your one - OK?

I have looked at your links. The **River of Fire ** link was full of ignorance about what the Catholic Church teaches. There is just way to much error in that source to try and refute it all.

The links I gave to you were so that you would understand that the Orthodox idea of Uncreated Grace is not alien to Catholic theology. Are you willing to concede that Catholics do indeed believe that Baptism bestows the gift of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit? Are you willing to concede that Catholics do not think that the Holy Spirit is a created thing?

Last night when I finished posting to you I continued thinking about this and want to say that I really am looking for a reasonable discussion on this which you appear to be avoiding.

I am more than willing to have a reasonable discussion. Some of your points that you are trying to make are not at all clear.

This line of reasoning I’m following came out of another discussion here about Orthodox religions, Father Ambrose believed that only the Orthodox give the Gift of the Holy Ghost at baptism, I then found that Paul VI changed this and explained the changed by saying he was now including this and that it came from the Orthodox, that’s a given, the history of where these new ideas come from is clear.

How can Pope Paul VI change Orthodox teaching? I am not familiar with the argument that you have had with Father Ambrose. It is clear to me from reading the various Orthodox catechisms on the web that the Orthodox believe that the reception of baptism and chrismation bestows the gift of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. The Catholic Church believes that the Sacrament of Baptism bestows the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, and she has always taught this. What is your point? This is where you lose me.

They are recent additions to your ‘Catholic’ beliefs and until Paul VI made this a definite move these Orthodox beliefs from those Churches that acknowledge the Bishop of Rome as supreme head of the RCC family of Churches were not considered Orthodox by the Orthodox Church because the dogmas of the RCC changed the faith. This is an important point and your ‘side’ of this shouldn’t try to brush it away as if it never existed. That is grossly unjust.

The Catholic Church does not change her dogmas. The onus is on you to prove such a slanderous charge. Surely you know that this accusation is highly insulting for a Catholic to hear. It would help greatly if you could actually back up what you are saying by quoting two Catholic dogmas from Catholic sources, and then show how the Catholic Church has altered her dogma. A theological opinion uttered by St. Augustine is not automatically Catholic dogma.

But, it’s also clear, as I’ve shown in going through this with GreszeszDeL, the doctrines of the RCC such as Original Sin still apply, none of these changes can alter that.

The infallible teachings of the Catholic Church about original sin do indeed still stand. I have never denied that. But not everything written by Catholics over the last two thousand years about original sin reflect the actual infallible teachings. I am sure that if you dig hard enough, you could find some false teaching by some Catholic theologian or bishop about original sin.

 

[Matt16_18]

Matt16_18

If you don’t want to continue with this discussion including the points I’m making then you don’t have to, but I find it insulting to be told in post after post from you that I don’t understand your doctrines whenever I remind you of your own dogmas which at least must show that I’ve spent some time in trying to learn about your Church.

I am glad that you are trying to understand Catholic teachings, but it is obvious to me as a Catholic that you have many misconceptions about what the Catholic Church actually teaches. Please don’t take that observation as an insult. I have my own questions about Orthodox teachings, and it would not surprise me to find out that my understanding of Orthodox teachings are muddled. For example, I think that the Orthodox teaching on Energies is somehow related to the Catholic conception of created grace. But then, I admit that I really don’t know why the Orthodox are so keen to distinguish between the Energies of God and the Essence of God. “Energies” is not a term that is commonly used in Catholic theology, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that the concepts that support what the Orthodox mean when they use this term are unknown to Catholics. The word “theosis” is not used that often in western Catholic theology books, but the concept behind theosis is certainly a part of western Catholic spiritual theology.

Back to original sin. I understand what the Catholic Church infallibly teaches about original sin. But I don’t understand Orthodox theology concerning the Fall, and what the Orthodox believe are the consequences of the Fall.

Catholic theology of Baptism, the seven sanctifying gifts, the gift of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, and the Fall are linked together.

It is clear to me that the Orthodox believe that the Uncreated Grace of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit is bestowed by reception of baptism and chrismation. But that means that it must be possible for a man to NOT to have the indwelling of the Holy Spirit if baptism and chrismation bestow this gift.

You have said that the ONLY way to conceive grace, is to conceive it as the Uncreated Grace of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, and that you do NOT believe that people are born without grace. This is why I cannot fathom what you believe, because it seems to me to be full of contradiction.

Please clarify this apparent contradiction in your beliefs. When I understand what YOU believe, then perhaps we can discuss our differences in beliefs. That would be much more fruitful than for me to try and correct all your misconceptions about Catholic teaching, with me being in the dark about what you believe as an Orthodox.

 

[Matt16_18]

Matt: What do you think, that Adam and Eve were destined to die even if they were obedient to God? There nothing in a scripture that supports such a crazy idea. God hates death, why would God send death to Adam and Eve if they were obedient?
For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. The last enemy to be destroyed is death.
1Cor. 15:25-26
Myhrr: But what sort of death is meant here?

Let us look at the above quote from scriptures in context:
But if there is no resurrection of the dead, then Christ has not been raised; if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain. We are even found to be misrepresenting God, because we testified of God that he raised Christ, whom he did not raise if it is true that the dead are not raised. For if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised. If Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins. Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. If for this life only we have hoped in Christ, we are of all men most to be pitied. But in fact Christ has been raised from the dead, the first fruits of those who have fallen asleep. For as by a man came death, by a man has come also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive. But each in his own order: Christ the first fruits, then at his coming those who belong to Christ. Then comes the end, when he delivers the kingdom to God the Father after destroying every rule and every authority and power. For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. The last enemy to be destroyed is death.
1Cor. 15:13-26

From the context, it is obvious that the death that is conquered by Jesus is the physical death of the body, since this whole passage has to do with the doctrine of the Resurrection of the Dead. It is also clear that Paul teaches that Adam’s sin brought physical death to all of mankind. That is why I am astounded to hear you say that the Orthodox believe that Adam and Eve would have been subject to death in Paradise even if they had been obedient to God. I have a real hard time believing that the Orthodox actually believe what you are saying. But I would be more willing to accept it if you could lead me to an Orthodox catechism that teaches that Adam and Eve were subject to death before the Fall.

If the Orthodox really do believe that Adam and Eve were predestined to die even if they had not sinned in Paradise, then I can begin to see why the Orthodox say that they reject the concept of original sin. Of course, I would also wonder what the Orthodox think when they read in 1John that Jesus is the expiation of the sins of the world.

 

[Myhrr]

Matt16-18

I’d just like to remind you and everyone here that I am not an apologist for the ‘Eastern Orthodox Church’. I have explained this before, but offhand I don’t remember if it was in this discussion or the one linked to it, Zoe Theodora’s, “The Immaculate Conception: An Eastern Doctrine”* which raised the differences in perception between Orthodox and the RCC and which, I think, is what prompted E-catholic to start this thread.

e-catholic asked:

What is the difference between the Eastern Orthodox definition of Original Sin, and the Catholic definition?

Also, what exactly is the difference between the dogma of the Immaculate Conception, and the Eastern belief that Mary is Immaculate?

How did these differences come to be?

The second question continued to be explored in Zoe’s discussion and has been answered there. The Orthodox don’t have a definition of Original Sin, it’s a dogma of the RCC and so they don’t have a need to explain the Mother of God in terms of this dogma, and so, the use of Immaculate by the Orthodox, especially as the Divine Liturgy teaches Orthodox theology, is her purity minus the RCC doctrines of Original Sin.

How these differences came to be still being discussed here because its history begins with the different views of the Orthodox and the RCC which brings us back to E-catholic’s first question.

The key difference which really must be remembered, is that the Orthodox do not have a definition of Original Sin, the RCC do.

The RCC has some 1500 centuries of defining and explaining Original Sin which is still the base of RCC thinking and which is still dogmatically taught as I’ve shown, by John Paul II etc. and so, I say, this must not be lost sight of in our discussion. We are still dealing with how they came to be, not how the emphasis has been changed in recent years or what the change of emphasis means or the reasons for this change of emphasis.

You continually refer to the thinking of recent Catholic theologians and their similarities with Orthodox in arguments against me ignoring my pleas that these similarities need to be taken in context, and, the context here is the very recent changes, less than a century, of RCC moves to include the traditions of the Orthodox. Including these doesn’t help to answer E-catholic’s question, it only serves to confuse the issue.

I have only recently understood the extent of these changes, from the discussion with GrzeszDeL and from a re-exploration of the RCC baptism in another discussion in which Father Ambrose categorically stated that only the Orthodox baptism includes the gift of the Holy Spirit which was the difference between the Orthodox and all other Churches. But, from my point of view, this is irrelevant to E-catholic’s question except in so far as that I was able to conclude the CCC still maintains the official doctrines of Original Sin and to say any changes introduced by Paul VI, as in the new baptism and any moves to assimilate more Orthodox understanding, have to be discussed together with the dogma of Original Sin and this should not be ignored or forgotten whatever the reasons for these changes, for examples, of the benign idea that unity can be established by smudging the differences or the not so benign that the smudging of the differences is a way out of the infallible corner the RCC has painted itself into by this and other dogmas.

You say there are so many errors in the River of Fire about your Church and think you can correct them, to what? With respect, you don’t even know your own Church’s teachings of the last 1500 years.

*****forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=10930