Orthodox Churches, and Eastern Rite

[frjohnmorris]

I do not know what translation you used. But even the Douay Rheims transltion does not use the word guilt in this verse. It translates the verse as "For behold I was conceived in iniquities; and in sins did my mother conceive me. "
There is a major difference between being conceived by a sinful man and a sinful woman and being conceived in guilt. The concept of inherited guilt came from Augustine’s use of a bad Latin translation of Romans 5:12 which incorrectly stated that all sinned in Adam. The original Greek states that we we die not because we sinned in Adam, but because we all sin. There is a difference. We inherit the cosequences of the sin of Adam, but are guilty only of our own sins.
That is what is so confusing about Catholic theology. In one post you quoted Trent and expressed your beliefs on ancestral sin in a way that we can accept, but in the next posting contradict yourself and express a doctrine of original sin that is virtually indistinguishable from the Protestant teaching on original sin.

Fr. John

 

[mardukm]

I would love to do a study on those verses from Psalms and Isaiah. I want to know the Greek words used in the Septuagint translated as “guilt.” The English versions are no help because different versions mix up “guilt,” “iniquity” and “sin,” though each term is clearly a different concept. I’m going to have to dig up my Septuagint and concordance. That may take a while though.

As far as English versions go, my preferred Bible is the RSV Catholic Edition. It uses “iniquity” instead of “guilt.” I think this is the best translation. “Iniquity” means “injustice” and this properly reflects the Latin/Oriental understanding that humanity lost original Justice in Adam and has inherited this loss of original Justice. It is not “fault” or “guilt” that we inherit in the common sense.

Blessings,
Marduk

Or here for example as I suggested earlier.

Thus the psalmist sings “Behold, I was born in guilt, in sin my mother conceived me” (Psalm 51:7). And Isaiah “We had all gone astray like sheep, all following our own way; But the LORD laid upon him the guilt of us all.” (53:6). And St Paul “and we were by nature children of wrath” (Ephesians 2:3).

I’m not sure how we are defining this guilt other than what has been suggested. Bible, Council or otherwise than what’s already posted. I take the Bible to indicate we’re guilty in absentee since we were not there the day Adam and Eve transgressed and we are Adam and Eve as above. I guess some would view that as an injustice?

Perhaps where communion was severed they felt this way, as St Paul states: “among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind.”

I tend to see this as explained, as God given Grace with the same offer in love as Adam and Eve…communion with God.

 

[frjohnmorris]

Even if I took the Saints verse and applied it to the Assumption, its still true, no one is saved until they stand before the eternal throne of God. So we are talking supernatural imposed Grace with the sacrament’s as to saved and Mary’s supernatural birth of the Word of God.

Just to put saved in perspective. No one is saved until we stand before the throne of God. Christ redeemed mankind at the Cross from captivity, so saved defined again comes to mind.

Also if you are born, baptized and do not sin, you are saved. Because of Christs redemption. But everyone stands before the throne of God.

I agree. That is one of many faults of Calvinism. According to Calvin God judges us before we are even born and decides whether we will be saved or damned. The Bible teaches that God judges us after we die, not before we are born.

Fr. John

 

[GaryTaylor]

I do not know what translation you used. But even the Douay Rheims transltion does not use the word guilt in this verse. It translates the verse as "For behold I was conceived in iniquities; and in sins did my mother conceive me. "
There is a major difference between being conceived by a sinful man and a sinful woman and being conceived in guilt. The concept of inherited guilt came from Augustine’s use of a bad Latin translation of Romans 5:12 which incorrectly stated that all sinned in Adam. The original Greek states that we we die not because we sinned in Adam, but because we all sin. There is a difference. We inherit the cosequences of the sin of Adam, but are guilty only of our own sins.
That is what is so confusing about Catholic theology. In one post you quoted Trent and expressed your beliefs on ancestral sin in a way that we can accept, but in the next posting contradict yourself and express a doctrine of original sin that is virtually indistinguishable from the Protestant teaching on original sin.

Fr. John

How so I don’t see where my expression ever changed.

I repeated the verse’s addressed by Richca all but St Paul which I added the complete verse. I can only assume how OT prophets felt, the original text would be an interesting read with the Septuagint and concordance. Nevertheless as to the Baptized and those in communion and it relation to the CCC, I’m not seeing it, all blessing.

 

[mardukm]

I see you noticed the same distinction that I just noted, as well, while I was writing.

I do not know what translation you used. But even the Douay Rheims transltion does not use the word guilt in this verse. It translates the verse as "For behold I was conceived in iniquities; and in sins did my mother conceive me. "
There is a major difference between being conceived by a sinful man and a sinful woman and being conceived in guilt. The concept of inherited guilt came from Augustine’s use of a bad Latin translation of Romans 5:12 which incorrectly stated that all sinned in Adam. The original Greek states that we we die not because we sinned in Adam, but because we all sin. There is a difference. We inherit the cosequences of the sin of Adam, but are guilty only of our own sins.
That is what is so confusing about Catholic theology. In one post you quoted Trent and expressed your beliefs on ancestral sin in a way that we can accept, but in the next posting contradict yourself and express a doctrine of original sin that is virtually indistinguishable from the Protestant teaching on original sin.

Humbly,
Marduk

 

[frjohnmorris]

I would love to do a study on those verses from Psalms and Isaiah. I want to know the Greek words used in the Septuagint translated as “guilt.” The English versions are no help because different versions mix up “guilt,” “iniquity” and “sin,” though each term is clearly a different concept. I’m going to have to dig up my Septuagint and concordance. That may take a while though.

We use the Greek LXX for the Psalms in the Eastern Orthodox Church none of our translations of Psalm 50 use the world “guilt.” The text reads that we are conceived in iniquity. One commentator that I read, stated that the text means that David, who wrote the Psalm was confessing that he has been a sinner since birth. The concept of inherited guilt comes from Augustine’s interpretation of the incorrect translation of Romans 5:12 into Latin.

Fr. John

 

[GaryTaylor]

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”.293 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.294 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.

I RESPOND: Except for the part about “original holiness and justice,” I agree. The Eastern Fathers teach that Adam and Eve were created innocent of sin, but not fully sanctified. They were as children. They failed in their responsibility to grow to full deification for themselves and all creation.

405 Although it is proper to each individual,295 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.

I RESPOND: I agree. Notice that the text that you have quotes carefully does not include the idea of inherited guilt.

406 The Church’s teaching on the transmission of original sin was articulated more precisely in the fifth century, especially under the impulse of St. Augustine’s reflections against Pelagianism, and in the sixteenth century, in opposition to the Protestant Reformation. Pelagius held that man could, by the natural power of free will and without the necessary help of God’s grace, lead a morally good life; he thus reduced the influence of Adam’s fault to bad example.

I RESPOND: That is why Pelagius was an heretic. He taught that we are not born corrupted by ancestral sin, and that we could by our own ability without the aid of grace earn eternal life by good works.

The first Protestant reformers, on the contrary, taught that original sin has radically perverted man and destroyed his freedom; they identified the sin inherited by each man with the tendency to evil (concupiscentia), which would be insurmountable. The Church pronounced on the meaning of the data of Revelation on original sin especially at the second Council of Orange (529)296 and at the Council of Trent (1546).297

I RESPOND: I totally agree the Protestants went too far. Luther and Calvin based their theology on only part of Augustine and did not have the balance of the other Fathers that both the East and the West had.

1264 Yet certain temporal consequences of sin remain in the baptized, such as suffering, illness, death, and such frailties inherent in life as weaknesses of character, and so on, as well as an inclination to sin that Tradition calls concupiscence, or metaphorically, “the tinder for sin” (fomes peccati); since concupiscence “is left for us to wrestle with, it cannot harm those who do not consent but manfully resist it by the grace of Jesus Christ.” Indeed, “an athlete is not crowned unless he competes according to the rules.”

I RESPOND: I agree.

1426 Conversion to Christ, the new birth of Baptism, the gift of the Holy Spirit and the Body and Blood of Christ received as food have made us “holy and without blemish,” just as the Church herself, the Bride of Christ, is “holy and without blemish.” Nevertheless the new life received in Christian initiation has not abolished the frailty and weakness of human nature, nor the inclination to sin that tradition calls concupiscence, which remains in the baptized such that with the help of the grace of Christ they may prove themselves in the struggle of Christian life. This is the struggle of conversion directed toward holiness and eternal life to which the Lord never ceases to call us.

I RESPOND: I agree.
2515 Etymologically, “concupiscence” can refer to any intense form of human desire. Christian theology has given it a particular meaning: the movement of the sensitive appetite contrary to the operation of the human reason. The apostle St. Paul identifies it with the rebellion of the “flesh” against the “spirit.” Concupiscence stems from the disobedience of the first sin. It unsettles man’s moral faculties and, without being in itself an offense, inclines man to commit sins.

Needless to say we can begin to see how the EOC has streamlined the theology while admittedly the CCC is confronted with history Anselm/Augustine/Aquinas/Scotus/Suarez.

I RESPOND: We seem to agree on the basics, but because of our different traditions express it differently.
I admit that my view of the Western doctrine of original sin was largely shaped by my participation in the Lutheran dialogue, especially the Lutheran interpretation of original sin as total depravity and the denial of free will.

Fr. John

I added Reconciliation in the above post which indeed corresponds to my conversation. My position always been the same, its the only one I know. Perhaps when we are speaking of the West, other areas are thrown in such as the English Church, Reformers etc. I have no idea I suppose there’s contrary beliefs in various areas East and West.

 

[GaryTaylor]

I don’t know I agree.

in·iq·ui·ty
i níkwətee ]

1.injustice or immorality: great injustice or extreme immorality
2.immoral act: a grossly immoral act

Pretty much in line with what I was saying above about injustice.

 

[frjohnmorris]

Or here for example as I suggested earlier.

Thus the psalmist sings “Behold, I was born in guilt, in sin my mother conceived me” (Psalm 51:7). And Isaiah “We had all gone astray like sheep, all following our own way; But the LORD laid upon him the guilt of us all.” (53:6). And St Paul “and we were by nature children of wrath” (Ephesians 2:3).

I’m not sure how we are defining this guilt other than what has been suggested. Bible, Council or otherwise than what’s already posted. I take the Bible to indicate we’re guilty in absentee since we were not there the day Adam and Eve transgressed and we are Adam and Eve as above. I guess some would view that as an injustice?

Perhaps where communion was severed they felt this way, as St Paul states: “among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind.”

I tend to see this as explained, as God given Grace with the same offer in love as Adam and Eve…communion with God.

I use an online program called Bible gateway that has 100 English translations. There is great deal of variety on how this text is translated from the Hebrew text that Protestants use. I suspect that many Protestants read their Lutheran and Calvinist views into their translations. The one that is closest to the commentaries that I have read from Orthodox theologians of this verse is the New International Version which translated, the text of “Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me.” In other words, we begin to sin from birth and because of our own sins become guilty of sin. We inherited a nature corrupted by mortality into world that is polluted by sin. Because of that we sin and become guilty before God.
Does the Catholic Church use the Septuagint as its official version of the Old Testament. Eastern Orthodox consider the Septuagint the official version because it is the version used by the ancient Church, not the Hebrew text used by the Protestants. The Septuagint is actually several hundred years older than the Masoratic text used by the Protestants. It is also the Old Testament version quoted in the New Testament.

Fr. John

Fr. John

 

[mardukm]

I added Reconciliation in the above post which indeed corresponds to my conversation. My position always been the same, its the only one I know. Perhaps when we are speaking of the West, other areas are thrown in such as the English Church, Reformers etc. I have no idea I suppose there’s contrary beliefs in various areas East and West.

You know, that actually crossed my mind yesterday when I was reading one of your posts. When YOU use “West,” you are obviously meaning the Western Catholic Church. But when an Eastern uses “West,” they are obviously referring to all things “not East,” which would include both Latin Catholicism and Protestantism.

This nuance would be relevant, for example, in the case of St. Augustine. The Latin Catholic Church does not accept all of St. Augustine’s teachings in toto, particularly certain portions that the Protestants use to defend their own particular teachings.

Imagine a Latin Catholic saying, “The West accepts St. Augustine’s teachings.” To the Latin Catholic mind, this is translated as “the Latin Catholic Church accepts only those portions of St. Augustine’s teachings that the episcopal Magisterium accepts.”

However, an Eastern hearing this might translate it as “Ahh, so you accept, along with the Protestants, the concept of inherited guilt.”

Just a theory.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[frjohnmorris]

You know, that actually crossed my mind yesterday when I was reading one of your posts. When YOU use “West,” you are obviously meaning the Western Catholic Church. But when an Eastern uses “West,” they are obviously referring to all things “not East,” which would include both Latin Catholicism and Protestantism.

This nuance would be relevant, for example, in the case of St. Augustine. The Latin Catholic Church does not accept all of St. Augustine’s teachings in toto, particularly certain portions that the Protestants use to defend their own particular teachings.

Imagine a Latin Catholic saying, “The West accepts St. Augustine’s teachings.” To the Latin Catholic mind, this is translated as “the Latin Catholic Church accepts only those portions of St. Augustine’s teachings that the episcopal Magisterium accepts.”

However, an Eastern hearing this might translate it as “Ahh, so you accept, along with the Protestants, the concept of inherited guilt.”

Just a theory.

Blessings,
Marduk

That is a very important point that I am just learning. My exposure to Augustine comes from dialogue with Protestants. As a result, I have a very negative view of Augustine. I think that Catholics will recognize that on some things Augustine went too extremes. Unfortunately, during Lyons and Florence the Latins cited Augustine as the ultimate authority on theological matters. In other words, they told the Eastern Orthodox that if Augustine wrote it it had to be true. Therefore, our impression that the Catholic Church takes all of Augustine as authoritative is not without reason. I remember from the dialogue with the Lutherans that they relied on Augustine extensively. If you look at Calvin’s Institutes, you will find that he cites Augustine far more than any other Father. I remember that once during the dialogue with the Lutherans Metropolitan Maximos of the Greek Archdiocese calling upon the Lutherans to go beyond Augustine and to consider the Eastern Fathers. One of the Lutherans responded, “But we are Augustinian.”

Fr. John

 

[GaryTaylor]

Amen, I’m not seeing the verse’s translated as above in the RSV-CE I kinda favor it today due to large print.

Look at this.

Psalms 51:7

Purge me with hyssop and I shall be clean, wash me and I shall be whiter than snow.

Isaiah 53:6

All we like sheep have gone astray: we have turned every one of us his own way. and the Lord has laid on him the “iniquity” of us all.

Let alone the context of Isaiah is in relation to Jesus Christ.

 

[GaryTaylor]

I have to think iniquity is correct, then with misinterpretation added to the context thus taken out of context.

Encyclopedias - International Standard Bible Encyclopedia - Iniquity

INIQUITY

in-ik’-wi-ti (`awon; anomia):

In the Old Testament of the 11 words translated “iniquity,” by far the most common and important is awon (about 215 times). Etymologically, it is customary to explain it as meaning literally "crookedness," "perverseness," i.e. evil regarded as that which is not straight or upright, moral distortion (from iwwah, “to bend,” “make crooked,” “pervert”). Driver, however (following Lagarde), maintains that two roots, distinct in Arabic, have been confused in Hebrew, one equals “to bend,” “pervert” (as above), and the other equals “to err,” “go astray”; that `awon is derived from the latter, and consequently expresses the idea of error, deviation from the right path, rather than that of perversion (Driver, Notes on Sam, 135 note) Whichever etymology is adopted, in actual usage it has three meanings which almost imperceptibly pass into each other:

(1) iniquity,

(2) guilt of iniquity,

(3) punishment of iniquity.

Primarily, it denotes “not an action, but the character of an action” (Oehler), and is so distinguished from “sin” (chaTTa’th). Hence, we have the expression “the iniquity of my sin” (Psalms 32:5). Thus the meaning glides into that of “guilt,” which might often take the place of “iniquity” as the translation of `awon (Genesis 15:16; Exodus 34:7; Jeremiah 2:22, etc.). From “guilt” it again passes into the meaning of “punishment of guilt,” just as Latin piaculum may denote both guilt and its punishment. The transition is all the easier in Hebrew because of the Hebrew sense of the intimate relation of sin and suffering, e.g. Genesis 4:13, “My punishment is greater than I can bear”; which is obviously to be preferred to King James Version margin, the Revised Version, margin “Mine iniquity is greater than can be forgiven,” for Cain is not so much expressing sorrow for his sin, as complaining of the severity of his punishment; compare 2 Kings 7:9 (the Revised Version (British and American) “punishment,” the Revised Version margin “iniquity”); Isaiah 5:18 (where for “iniquity” we might have “punishment of iniquity,” as in Leviticus 26:41,43, etc.); Isaiah 40:2 (“iniquity,” the Revised Version margin “punishment”). The phrase “bear iniquity” is a standing expression for bearing its consequences, i.e. its penalty; generally of the sinner bearing the results of his own iniquity (Leviticus 17:16; 20:17,19; Numbers 14:34; Ezekiel 44:10, etc.), but sometimes of one bearing the iniquity of another vicariously, and so taking it away (e.g. Ezekiel 4:4; 18:19 f). Of special interest in the latter sense are the sufferings of the Servant of Yahweh, who shall “bear the iniquities” of the people (Isaiah 53:11; compare Isaiah 53:6).

Other words frequently translated “iniquity” are:

'awen, literally, “worthlessness,” “vanity,” hence, “naughtiness,” “mischief” (47 times in the King James Version, especially in the phrase “workers of iniquity,” Job 4:8; Psalms 5:5; 6:8; Proverbs 10:29, etc.); awel and awlah, literally, “perverseness” (Deuteronomy 32:4; Job 6:29 the King James Version, etc.).

In the New Testament “iniquity” stands for anomia equals properly, “the condition of one without law,” “lawlessness” (so translated in 1John 3:4, elsewhere “iniquity,” e.g. Matthew 7:23), a word which frequently stood for `awon in the Septuagint; and adikia, literally, “unrighteousness” (e.g. Luke 13:27).

 

[Richca]

Hi

I’m not seeing where your saying anything different; “The Council of Trent taught on the contrary that nothing of that which has the true and proper nature of sin remains in the baptized person whatever.”

Except the inclination to sin already posted, or as I posted from the CCC which references Trent and the Council of Orange.

We are only guilty in so far as we by our own free will imitate Adam and Eves counterproductive choice, namely disobeying God. CCC above: The whole human race is in Adam “as one body of one man”.

The point as I understand it as suggested is we have some sort of inherited guilt ?

Hi Gary,
Yes, we have some sort of inherited guilt because the Council of Trent states it so. The council says that if anyone denies that the guilt of original sin is remitted…let him be anathema. Now, since original sin is a contracted sin and not a personal sin or fault in each human being, the guilt of original sin that the council talks about must be contracted or inherited; but in some manner real nonetheless just as original sin is real in some manner in each person.

Original sin is not a sin of immitation. Every human being is born with original sin on their soul even before they are capable of commiting an actual personal sin such as at the age of reason. This is why we baptize infants for the forgiveness of sins, i.e, original sin which results in the infusion of sanctifying grace and charity which makes us just and righteous before God. For God intended that the sanctifying grace he bestowed on Adam and Eve should be transmitted to all their descendants. They lost sanctifying grace through their disobedience to God’s command and have transmitted a human nature deprived of sanctifying grace to all of us.

When the CCC states that all human beings are implicated in Adam’s sin as though " The whole human race is in Adam "as one body of one man, " it is referring to how it is we are implicated in Adam’s sin. This statement of the church is not suggesting that we have original sin because we imitate Adam and Eve’s bad act; for it is not possible for a person who is first conceived or until they reach the age of reason to commit a personal sin yet everyone is conceived with original sin.

"The whole human race is in Adam “as one body of one man,” the CCC takes from St Thomas Aquinas and specifically from his work “De Malo.” Aquinas says the same thing in his summa theologica. I have quoted what Aquinas says about this in previous posts. He says:

"Accordingly the multitude of men born of Adam, are as so many members of one body. Now the action of one member of the body, of the hand for instance, is voluntary not by the will of that hand, but by the will of the soul, the first mover of the members. Wherefore a murder which the hand commits would not be imputed as a sin to the hand, considered by itself as apart from the body, but is imputed to it as something belonging to man and moved by man’s first moving principle. In this way, then, the disorder which is in this man born of Adam, is voluntary, not by his will, but by the will of his first parent, who, by the movement of generation, moves all who originate from him, even as the soul’s will moves all the members to their actions. Hence the sin which is thus transmitted by the first parent to his descendants is called “original,” just as the sin which flows from the soul into the bodily members is called “actual.” And just as the actual sin that is committed by a member of the body, is not the sin of that member, except inasmuch as that member is a part of the man, for which reason it is called a “human sin”; so original sin is not the sin of this person, except inasmuch as this person receives his nature from his first parent, for which reason it is called the “sin of nature,” according to Ephesians 2:3: “We . . . were by nature children of wrath.” (ST I-II, Q. 81, Art.1).

Richca

 

[Richca]

I do not know what translation you used. But even the Douay Rheims transltion does not use the word guilt in this verse. It translates the verse as "For behold I was conceived in iniquities; and in sins did my mother conceive me. "
There is a major difference between being conceived by a sinful man and a sinful woman and being conceived in guilt. The concept of inherited guilt came from Augustine’s use of a bad Latin translation of Romans 5:12 which incorrectly stated that all sinned in Adam. The original Greek states that we we die not because we sinned in Adam, but because we all sin. There is a difference. We inherit the cosequences of the sin of Adam, but are guilty only of our own sins.
That is what is so confusing about Catholic theology. In one post you quoted Trent and expressed your beliefs on ancestral sin in a way that we can accept, but in the next posting contradict yourself and express a doctrine of original sin that is virtually indistinguishable from the Protestant teaching on original sin.

Fr. John

Hi frjohn,
Although the exact rendering of Romans 5:12 may be a matter of dispute, the understanding of Romans 5 within the Church’s tradition and the entire bible is what is important to the Church’s doctrine on original sin. As far as Romans 5:12 meaning that we all die because we all sin does not make a whole lot of sense since St Paul says in the same chapter that all men die because of Adam’s sin; death came on all men through Adam’s sin. This is seen quite clearly in Genesis too. Also, infants and children die without having committed any personal sin so how can it be said that they die as a result of committing a sin? St Paul also compares Adam’s one transgression which brought death to all men with Christ’s one righteous act which brought life and acquittal to all.

Richca

 

[GaryTaylor]

Hi Gary,
Yes, we have some sort of inherited guilt .

We have this in context. Its the history of the word we are discussing as I discussed.

because the Council of Trent states it so. The council says that if anyone denies that the guilt of original sin is remitted…let him be anathema.

We all know this, we want to know where the distorted version of guilt comes from.

Now, since original sin is a contracted sin and not a personal sin or fault in each human being.

No personal fault, we are all there.

Right I agree the CC doesn’t state it is, nor has any early teaching.

, the guilt of original sin that the council talks about must be contracted or inherited; but in some manner real nonetheless just as original sin is real in some manner in each person…

Right we discussed this.

Original sin is not a sin of immitation…

No-one said it was.

Every human being is born with original sin on their soul even before they are capable of commiting an actual personal sin such as at the age of reason…

No-one disagrees with you.

his is why we baptize infants for the forgiveness of sins, i.e, original sin which results in the infusion of sanctifying grace and charity which makes us just and righteous before God. For God intended that the sanctifying grace he bestowed on Adam and Eve should be transmitted to all their descendants. They lost sanctifying grace through their disobedience to God’s command and have transmitted a human nature deprived of sanctifying grace to all of us.

I believe everyone would agree with you here.

When the CCC states that all human beings are implicated in Adam’s sin as though " The whole human race is in Adam "as one body of one man, " it is referring to how it is we are implicated in Adam’s sin…

I’m glad you agree with us all.

This statement of the church is not suggesting that we have original sin because we imitate Adam and Eve’s bad act; …

What statement, no-one suggests this.

for it is not possible for a person who is first conceived or until they reach the age of reason to commit a personal sin yet everyone is conceived with original sin.

We all agree with you its all mentioned.

Anyway, Where did you get the Bible quotes above. Do you have them in context and of which Bible they came from?

 

[GaryTaylor]

Also, infants and children die without having committed any personal sin so how can it be said that they die as a result of committing a sin

Where did Father or anyone say this?

 

[GaryTaylor]

Thus the psalmist sings “Behold, I was born in guilt, in sin my mother conceived me” (Psalm 51:7).

And Isaiah “We had all gone astray like sheep, all following our own way; But the LORD laid upon him the guilt of us all.” (53:6).

And St Paul “and we were by nature children of wrath” (Ephesians 2:3).

Paul is covered already. Could you post where the others come from and in context.

 

[frjohnmorris]

Hi frjohn,
Although the exact rendering of Romans 5:12 may be a matter of dispute, the understanding of Romans 5 within the Church’s tradition and the entire bible is what is important to the Church’s doctrine on original sin. As far as Romans 5:12 meaning that we all die because we all sin does not make a whole lot of sense since St Paul says in the same chapter that all men die because of Adam’s sin; death came on all men through Adam’s sin. This is seen quite clearly in Genesis too. Also, infants and children die without having committed any personal sin so how can it be said that they die as a result of committing a sin? St Paul also compares Adam’s one transgression which brought death to all men with Christ’s one righteous act which brought life and acquittal to all.

Richca

You are treating ancestral sin too legalistically. Ancestral sin something that we inherit and is the condition caused by Adam’s rebellion against God, that condition is mortality and corruption. The sinful acts that we commit are the result of our inherited corrupted condition. An infant or child is still born infected with mortality which came into the world as a result of the sin of Adam. It is like any other inherited disease or genetic defect. Because we are born corrupted with ancestral sin, we commit sinful acts and become guilty of our own sins. Thus salvation is healing of the disease of mortality. That is the great mistake of the Protestants who treat salvation solely in legalistic terms of forensic justification instead of healing of the disease of sin which leads to deification.

Fr. John

 

[twf]

You are treating ancestral sin too legalistically. Ancestral sin something that we inherit and is the condition caused by Adam’s rebellion against God, that condition is mortality and corruption. The sinful acts that we commit are the result of our inherited corrupted condition. An infant or child is still born infected with mortality which came into the world as a result of the sin of Adam. It is like any other inherited disease or genetic defect. Because we are born corrupted with ancestral sin, we commit sinful acts and become guilty of our own sins. Thus salvation is healing of the disease of mortality. That is the great mistake of the Protestants who treat salvation solely in legalistic terms of forensic justification instead of healing of the disease of sin which leads to deification.

Fr. John

Father,
You may recall that some time ago I quoted from the Catechism illustrating the Catholic belief in true deification of redeemed man beginning with baptism. I would argue that Dominican theology has an even stronger tradition of deification than does Byzantine theology. I believe, as do others on this board, that the Orthodox and Catholics fundamentally agree on this issue (despite different theological language) and disagree with the Protestants. It was, in part, a rejection of total deptavity and an understanding that we are MADE righteous, not simply declared righteous, that led me from Protestantism to Catholicism.