K
Kmon23
Guest
Actually I’m Eastern Orthodox 
- Status
V
Vonsalza
Guest
Not particularly true as the ideas are inseparably linked.
For the Catholics, the consequence of original sin is that all men die and due to the added element of guilt (which, presently, it seems some Catholics deny and some accept) the souls of all men, including babies, “dies” too - barring some salvific act.
For the Orthodox, the consequence of ancestral sin is that all men die. Full stop.
Sure, due to the all-damning effect of original sin absent divine intervention.
Limbo, aka “Heaven Lite” was introduced to settle-down folks who objected to the doom of dead infants due to the sins of another on the basis that it flies in the face of anything approaching a just God.
In recent developments in Catholic doctrine, Limbo’s been more officially set aside in favor of “We trust them to God’s grace” (aka “we don’t know”). And that’s fine with me. It’s a scoot toward Orthodoxy, imo.
Tell me about it. Pre-Christ, the doomed were just annihilated and enduring to paradise was the reward for the faithful. There was a time in Judaism when hell didn’t even exist.
All the text on Limbo I’ve ever read described it as the zenith of mortal happiness. I’ve never read it described as part of hell.
The EO position seems to be what the RCs are shifting toward - which is great.
If it ever gets dogmatically pronounced, “This shall be, as it’s always been”, I’ll be in the back, agreeing fully while gazing skyward with tongue firmly planted in-cheek.
Z
ziapueblo
Guest
There is no difference in what the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Churches teach on original/ancestral sin. There is a misconception by both Roman Catholic and Orthodox that Rome teaches that we inherit the guilt of Adam when we are born. As was stated earlier, the CCC 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.
Inherited guilt was an idea of Augustine’s and later an Orthodox priest name Fr. Romanides made the mistake of teaching that Rome taught we inherit guilt. This is false. Again, a clear reading of the CCC when speaking of The Fall, it says basically the same thing that the Orthodox teach.
As stated earlier by hawk, the fact that Rome does not teach that we inherit guilt causes a contradiction with the Immaculate Conception.
ZP
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.
Inherited guilt was an idea of Augustine’s and later an Orthodox priest name Fr. Romanides made the mistake of teaching that Rome taught we inherit guilt. This is false. Again, a clear reading of the CCC when speaking of The Fall, it says basically the same thing that the Orthodox teach.
As stated earlier by hawk, the fact that Rome does not teach that we inherit guilt causes a contradiction with the Immaculate Conception.
ZP
V
Vonsalza
Guest
Serious question: how do we reconcile your statement to CCC 402 which states that all men are implicated in Adam’s sin?
Do we debate what “implicate” means?
Do we debate what “implicate” means?
Z
ziapueblo
Guest
Good question. I read a great article on the EWTN website about this very issue. It had to do with the Eastern Catholic/Eastern Orthodox view of original sin and the Latin take on it. Wish I had saved it because I have been searching for it but no luck.
ZP
ZP
T
twf
Guest
We share the consequences of Adam’s sin. We don’t inherit his personal guilt, as the Catechism also clarifies. That’s how I would read “implicate”. The primary consequences being death and deprivation of original holiness…which baptism restores.
R
Roguish
Guest
Thanks for this very informative post, Genesis. First, this confirms that there’s something not quite right about the current Orthodox rejection of the RC view of Original Sin. And second, this also demonstrates that it’s a bit of a mistake to take a romantic view of the Orthodox Church as a strand of Christianity that has not meddled with its theology in order to serve political goals. Unfortunately it too has done that.
V
Vonsalza
Guest
Personally, I think its yet another example of the west over-dogmatizing itself into corners.
Oxford gives “implicate” as “Show (someone) to be involved in a crime” and “be implicated in” is given as “Bear some of the responsibility for (an action or process, especially a criminal or harmful one)”.
Merely dealing with the consequences of something isn’t implication - by any stretch. Implication is involvement.
But as you subjectify the running definition of the word so as to attempt to avoid possible contradiction, it reminds me that in many cases the “Catholic definition” of a word is different from it’s standard usage.
I’ve consistently held mixed feelings about this reality.
F
fhansen
Guest
But why, then, would a group of immaculately conceived infants ever become a group of adults that corrupt the next generation of immaculately conceived infants? Unless for a pre-existing state or condition that already tends to orient or attract all people towards corruption to one degree or another?
Last edited:
V
Vonsalza
Guest
For the same reason a crisp, new, white dress shirt will become soiled when you take it out of the package and put it on.
Doesn’t matter how careful you are - after a few wears it’s gotta go to the dry-cleaners.
Last edited:
F
fhansen
Guest
But that doesn’t follow; you’re comparing apples and oranges IMO. We know where the dirt comes from that soils shirts. But where does the corrupting dirt come from that soils people who start out spotless? There’s at least a weakness in people, something missing to begin with.
Maybe we can resolve differences between the various perspectives this way: What’s missing in fallen man is “knowledge of God”, which refers to the revealed God, knowledge that is personal and intimate, the knowledge that Adam & Eve possessed to one degree or another in Eden. This knowledge implies communion and this communion constitutes justice for man. With this knowledge/relationship fear of death, for one, and the way that fear affects us is basically eradicated while man is also placed in a more advantageous position in terms of refraining from sin as well; grace seeks to produce holiness. Faith, hope, and love replace doubt, despair, selfishness and hate as God, ‘apart from whom we can do nothing’ comes to indwell man.
What’s missing in fallen man is God for all practical purposes, true awareness of and communion with Him. This is the essence of the state of OS. This shattered relationship is what our faith seeks to reconcile and restore; it’s the reason Jesus came.
Last edited:
P
pacloc
Guest
From the same document are the following statements that show that the Orthodox view is what I have presented. I can’t speak for what others have presented as Orthodox.
from Decree 3:
“But than to affirm that the Divine Will is thus solely and without cause the author of their condemnation, what greater defamation can be fixed upon God? and what greater injury and blasphemy can be offered to the Most High? We do know that the Deity is not tempted with evils, {cf. James 1:13} and that He equally wills the salvation of all, since there is no respect of persons with Him. we do confess that for those who through their own wicked choice, and their impenitent heart, have become vessels of dishonor, there is justly decreed condemnation. But of eternal punishment, of cruelty, of pitilessness, and of inhumanity, we never, never say God is the author, who tells us that there is joy in heaven over one sinner that repents. {Luke 15:7} Far be it from us, while we have our senses, to believe or to think this; and we do subject to an eternal anathema those who say and think such things, and esteem them to be worse than any infidels.”
From Decree 5:
“We believe that all things, whether visible or invisible, are be governed by the providence of God. Although God foreknows evil things and permits them, yet in that they are evils, He is neither their contriver nor their author. When evil things occur, they may be over-ruled by the Supreme Goodness for something beneficial, not indeed as being their author, but as engrafting onto them something for the better.”
And most importantly Decree 6:
“We believe the first man created by God to have fallen in Paradise, when, disregarding the Divine commandment, he yielded to the deceitful counsel of the serpent. And as a result hereditary sin flowed to his posterity; so that everyone who is born after the flesh bears this burden, and experiences the fruits of it in this present world. But by these fruits and this burden we do not understand [actual] sin, such as impiety, blasphemy, murder, sodomy, adultery, fornication, enmity, and whatever else is by our depraved choice committed contrarily to the Divine Will, not from nature. For many both of the Forefathers and of the Prophets, and vast numbers of others, as well of those under the shadow [of the Law], as well as under the truth [of the Gospel], such as the divine Precursor, and especially the Mother of God the Word, the ever-virgin Mary, did not experience these [sins], or such like faults. But only what the Divine Justice inflicted upon man as a punishment for the [original] transgression, such as sweats in labor, afflictions, bodily sicknesses, pains in child-bearing, and, finally, while on our pilgrimage, to live a laborious life, and lastly, bodily death.”
from Decree 3:
“But than to affirm that the Divine Will is thus solely and without cause the author of their condemnation, what greater defamation can be fixed upon God? and what greater injury and blasphemy can be offered to the Most High? We do know that the Deity is not tempted with evils, {cf. James 1:13} and that He equally wills the salvation of all, since there is no respect of persons with Him. we do confess that for those who through their own wicked choice, and their impenitent heart, have become vessels of dishonor, there is justly decreed condemnation. But of eternal punishment, of cruelty, of pitilessness, and of inhumanity, we never, never say God is the author, who tells us that there is joy in heaven over one sinner that repents. {Luke 15:7} Far be it from us, while we have our senses, to believe or to think this; and we do subject to an eternal anathema those who say and think such things, and esteem them to be worse than any infidels.”
From Decree 5:
“We believe that all things, whether visible or invisible, are be governed by the providence of God. Although God foreknows evil things and permits them, yet in that they are evils, He is neither their contriver nor their author. When evil things occur, they may be over-ruled by the Supreme Goodness for something beneficial, not indeed as being their author, but as engrafting onto them something for the better.”
And most importantly Decree 6:
“We believe the first man created by God to have fallen in Paradise, when, disregarding the Divine commandment, he yielded to the deceitful counsel of the serpent. And as a result hereditary sin flowed to his posterity; so that everyone who is born after the flesh bears this burden, and experiences the fruits of it in this present world. But by these fruits and this burden we do not understand [actual] sin, such as impiety, blasphemy, murder, sodomy, adultery, fornication, enmity, and whatever else is by our depraved choice committed contrarily to the Divine Will, not from nature. For many both of the Forefathers and of the Prophets, and vast numbers of others, as well of those under the shadow [of the Law], as well as under the truth [of the Gospel], such as the divine Precursor, and especially the Mother of God the Word, the ever-virgin Mary, did not experience these [sins], or such like faults. But only what the Divine Justice inflicted upon man as a punishment for the [original] transgression, such as sweats in labor, afflictions, bodily sicknesses, pains in child-bearing, and, finally, while on our pilgrimage, to live a laborious life, and lastly, bodily death.”
P
pacloc
Guest
This decree 14 I think explains all of the misunderstandings, though I do think it is written with a pretty heavy Latin influence. It even makes sense of the decree referred to earlier with the decrees I just shared. This spiritual life it mentions is a little tricky to understand, but the point is that we are not what God wants us to finally be when we are born, but requires us to mature and become Holy, which we need baptism to do.
Decree 14
We believe man in falling by the [original] transgression to have become comparable and similar to the beasts; that is, to have been utterly undone, and to have fallen from his perfection and impassibility, yet not to have lost the nature and power which he had received from the supremely good God. For otherwise he would not be rational, and consequently not a human. So [he still has] the same nature in which he was created, and the same power of his nature, that is free-will, living and operating, so that he is by nature able to choose and do what is good, and to avoid and hate what is evil. For it is absurd to say that the nature which was created good by Him who is supremely good lacks the power of doing good. For this would be to make that nature evil — what could be more impious than that? For the power of working depends upon nature, and nature upon its author, although in a different manner. And that a man is able by nature to do what is good, even our Lord Himself intimates saying, even the Gentiles love those that love them. {Matthew 5:46; Luke 6:32} But this is taught most plainly by Paul also, in Romans 1:19, [actually Rom 2:14] and elsewhere expressly, saying in so many words, “The Gentiles which have no law do by nature the things of the law.” From which it is also apparent that the good which a man may do cannot truly be sin. For it is impossible for that what is good to be evil. Although, being done by nature only and tending to form the natural character of the doer but not the spiritual, it does not itself contribute to salvation without faith Nor does it lead to condemnation, for it is not possible that good, as such, can be the cause of evil. But in the regenerated, what is wrought by grace, and with grace, makes the doer perfect, and renders him worthy of salvation.
A man, therefore, before he is regenerated, is able by nature to incline to what is good, and to choose and work moral good. But for the regenerated to do spiritual good — for the works of the believer being contributory to salvation and wrought by supernatural grace are properly called spiritual — it is necessary that he be guided and prevented [preceded] by grace, as has been said in treating of predestination. Consequently, he is not able of himself to do any work worthy of a Christian life, although he has it in his own power to will, or not to will, to co-operate with grace.
Decree 14
We believe man in falling by the [original] transgression to have become comparable and similar to the beasts; that is, to have been utterly undone, and to have fallen from his perfection and impassibility, yet not to have lost the nature and power which he had received from the supremely good God. For otherwise he would not be rational, and consequently not a human. So [he still has] the same nature in which he was created, and the same power of his nature, that is free-will, living and operating, so that he is by nature able to choose and do what is good, and to avoid and hate what is evil. For it is absurd to say that the nature which was created good by Him who is supremely good lacks the power of doing good. For this would be to make that nature evil — what could be more impious than that? For the power of working depends upon nature, and nature upon its author, although in a different manner. And that a man is able by nature to do what is good, even our Lord Himself intimates saying, even the Gentiles love those that love them. {Matthew 5:46; Luke 6:32} But this is taught most plainly by Paul also, in Romans 1:19, [actually Rom 2:14] and elsewhere expressly, saying in so many words, “The Gentiles which have no law do by nature the things of the law.” From which it is also apparent that the good which a man may do cannot truly be sin. For it is impossible for that what is good to be evil. Although, being done by nature only and tending to form the natural character of the doer but not the spiritual, it does not itself contribute to salvation without faith Nor does it lead to condemnation, for it is not possible that good, as such, can be the cause of evil. But in the regenerated, what is wrought by grace, and with grace, makes the doer perfect, and renders him worthy of salvation.
A man, therefore, before he is regenerated, is able by nature to incline to what is good, and to choose and work moral good. But for the regenerated to do spiritual good — for the works of the believer being contributory to salvation and wrought by supernatural grace are properly called spiritual — it is necessary that he be guided and prevented [preceded] by grace, as has been said in treating of predestination. Consequently, he is not able of himself to do any work worthy of a Christian life, although he has it in his own power to will, or not to will, to co-operate with grace.
V
Vonsalza
Guest
I obviously disagree.Vonsalza:
But that doesn’t follow; you’re comparing apples and oranges IMO.
In keeping with the comparison - I don’t care how careful you are in avoiding dirt and grime, your new white dress shirt will need to go to the cleaners after several wears - if for no other reason than to clean off your accumulated body-funk and collar-grime.
Same deal with folks. Sin is a hazard of living in a tempting world. Just as Adam and Eve chose to sin, we all chose to sin - which I think was kind of the point of the story.
But to be sure, I don’t particularly care if you agree. I just wanted you to understand the comparison a little better.
Respectfully and gently, there is disharmony between Catholics in this very thread as to what “fallen man” actually means or implies.
That said, we likely agree that man requires divine intervention by God through Christ’s substitutionary atonement in order to stand blameless and, thus worthy of heaven.
But in the above statement, I find that most understand “man” as human beings that aren’t babies or very young children. Perhaps you disagree, which is fine with me.
Last edited:
T
twf
Guest
I think we would have to look at the Catechism’s Latin text and understand the various connotations of whatever word was translated here as “implicate”. I’ve seen similar discussions in regards to the Latin word Trent used that is, in English, rendered as “guilt”, arguing that the original Latin word doesn’t have to imply personal guilt.
V
Vonsalza
Guest
As an olive branch, I’m comfortable with original sin orienting folks toward the capability of sin. I think that’s good and correct in that it implies that all men fall to temptation to sin - but are not individually condemned until they have individually done so - preserving the innocents from condemnation.
In light of that, I’d guess Mary’s immaculate conception is better viewed (by me, anyway) as being a special, prevenient grace that might have been present at her conception, but it wasn’t materially effective until Mary was of sufficient age to experience temptation and occasion to sin.
As to whether that state presents a material change in mankind, we have to remind ourselves that Adam and Eve both sinned when both they were still presumably pristine. As such, it seems that the consequence of the Fall is much more Death than some possible damage to the agency of mankind.
YMMV.
In light of that, I’d guess Mary’s immaculate conception is better viewed (by me, anyway) as being a special, prevenient grace that might have been present at her conception, but it wasn’t materially effective until Mary was of sufficient age to experience temptation and occasion to sin.
As to whether that state presents a material change in mankind, we have to remind ourselves that Adam and Eve both sinned when both they were still presumably pristine. As such, it seems that the consequence of the Fall is much more Death than some possible damage to the agency of mankind.
YMMV.
P
pacloc
Guest
This also can be understood in an Orthodox way today. Much like the words of Christ, that speak generally to the majority, each individual case might be handled different on judgment day. So to help the majority, who have the option to baptize their infants but for whatever reason don’t want to, the caution is made because it is what has been revealed, namely that without baptism there is no salvation. The same goes for suicide, it is wise to say that those that commit suicide will not enter into heaven either. But in both cases, and many others I am sure, we really don’t know what specifically will happen to anybody unless it is revealed by God. It is left out what this eternal punishment will be for these infants, but based on the other points in the article, it is clear that it will not be severe, because that would not be something God would do to someone innocent of personal sin. It is also not mentioned that perhaps God can forgive them this necessity in a special way after death, but is merely explaining that entrance into Heaven is only for the baptized; how others will be treated is not fully known. The threats are good, because it can help the immature to start moving. It is for this reason that God will have people eternally in Hell instead of annihilating them, that the fear of this could help even one person begin to move toward salvation.
F
fhansen
Guest
Not particularly relevant. The RCC explains it pretty well in her catechism.
Yes, but we need to know what that atonement actually accomplished-and that involves knowing what was wrong to begin with, what it means to be lost, why man needs to be saved.
Babies end up as “men” who apparently inevitably sin/give into temptation in one way or the other. But we don’t believe that God intended sin to be inevitable; as far as we know He’s not the direct creator or cause of evil. So there must be an explanation for moral evil in our world-for the cause of dirt and why people can’t seem to avoid it -other than that they are tempted to sin.
V
Vonsalza
Guest
Yeah, about that…
Both sides cite the CCC.
That’s not really true, is it?
The Jesus Prayer tells us about all we need to really know. Christ himself commanded us to hinder not the children coming unto them.
We armchair theologians like to know (especially being children of the western world). But do we need to know? I’m not convinced we do.
Absolutely! Barring some mortal event, they become “men” and fulfill their destiny to sin just as Adam and Eve did.
Yeah, that’s a very difficult can of worms to open. If God is both Creator and All-Knowing, then he created everything that occurred - good and bad. And if something exists that he didn’t create, then his roles as Sovereign and Creator come into question.
Big can of worms, there.
- Status