Orthodox original sin

[twf]

I appreciate this post and I think it is more or less compatible with at least certain theological schools within Catholicism. If we speak in terms of positives, rather than negatives, I think we can both agree that our respective Churches honour both Our Lady and St. John the Forerunner as having come into this world as saints, in a special manner that set them apart from other children, in that we celebrate their birthdays liturgically. All others are honoured as saints as they leave this world rather than entering it.
I am probably muddying the waters by bringing St. John into this…

I do have a question regarding children not being condemned. The Lord says that baptism is necessary for salvation. If children are not condemned until they actively choose to sin later in life, are they not then guaranteed salvation without baptism?
This is an age old problem in Catholicism… though the modern Church seems to lean towards non-baptized children being saved through unknown means (something other than baptism).

 

[pacloc]

I do have a question regarding children not being condemned. The Lord says that baptism is necessary for salvation. If children are not condemned until they actively choose to sin later in life, are they not then guaranteed salvation without baptism?
This is an age old problem in Catholicism… though the modern Church seems to lean towards non-baptized children being saved through unknown means (something other than baptism).

I touched on this very question in my previous post.

 

[Wannano]

I do have a question regarding children not being condemned. The Lord says that baptism is necessary for salvation. If children are not condemned until they actively choose to sin later in life, are they not then guaranteed salvation without baptism?
This is an age old problem in Catholicism… though the modern Church seems to lean towards non-baptized children being saved through unknown means (something other than baptism).

What would you give as a definition for “salvation?” The child is innocent until he comes to the mental realization that he is a sinner and needs a Savior. It is then he is accountable for his decision to either accept God’s plan of Salvation or reject it. Do we have a loving God who patiently knocks on the door of each individuals heart?

 

[Capt_Padfoot]

I’m pretty sure the Marian dogmas were only stated to squash protestant herasies cropping up at the time. Since they believe so differently from either Catholic or Orthodox communites I’ve always thought of it this way:

Protestants were making a mess of things. The Catholic Church released the dogmas (clarifications of things they[Orthodox and Catholics] had already been believing for over a thousand years) to refute Protestant claims, and did so using language the protestants would “follow”. So, it kinda makes sense it would leave the Orthodox “scratching their heads”. Making 2+2=4 a dogma makes sense when you’re speaking to someone who denies there is a 2 ya know?

My thoughts anyway. God bless!

 

[Vico]

… the “Catholic definition” of a word is different from it’s standard usage.
I’ve consistently held mixed feelings about this reality.

It is explained in the Catechism that is about human nature:

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. … But we do know by Revelation that Adam had received original holiness and justice not for himself alone, but for all human nature. …
293 St. Thomas Aquinas, De Malo 4,1.

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. 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
296 DS 371-372.
297 Cf. DS 1510-1516.

 

[Vonsalza]

Vonsalza:

… the “Catholic definition” of a word is different from it’s standard usage.
I’ve consistently held mixed feelings about this reality.

It is explained in the Catechism that is about human nature:

Sure. But as it pertains to the now-dead discussion, the Catholic definition only works if you’re already a Catholic. Otherwise one would use the word “implicate” in a way that’s consistent with the dictionaries of the world.

It just reinforces the idea that you can’t rationally argue someone into believing that view - via logos. You can only do it by Catholic evangelism - via pathos.

Which is fine.

 

[tafan2]

But would not the Immaculate Conception still have meaning, that Mary would not have disordered passions, to use the phrase in the first answer, what we latins would call concupiscence?

 

[Vico]

Vico:

Vonsalza:

… the “Catholic definition” of a word is different from it’s standard usage.
I’ve consistently held mixed feelings about this reality.

It is explained in the Catechism that is about human nature:

Sure. But as it pertains to the now-dead discussion, the Catholic definition only works if you’re already a Catholic. Otherwise one would use the word “implicate” in a way that’s consistent with the dictionaries of the world.

It just reinforces the idea that you can’t rationally argue someone into believing that view - via logos. You can only do it by Catholic evangelism - via pathos.

Which is fine.

The Catechism does not use the old meaning for implicate being to inculpate, but rather the current meaning for implicate (Oxford Dictionary):

1.1 be implicated in Bear some of the responsibility for
Responsibility 1 The state or fact of having a duty to deal with something or of having control over someone.

Oxford Dictionary implicate

Late Middle English: from Latin implicatus ‘folded in’, past participle of implicare (see imply). The original sense was ‘entwine’; compare with employ and imply. The earliest modern ( implicate (sense 2 of the verb)), dates from the early 17th century.

The human nature is common. Now there is a difference east and west between the western idea of merit vs St. Maximum the Confessor who taught that we all sin in our first act due to the human nature.

Gloss on Romans 5:12, from the Orthodox Study Bible:

For Adam and Eve, sin came first, and this led to death. This death then spread to all men. The rest of
humanity inherits death, and then in our mortal state, we all sin. Thus, all mankind suffers the consequences of Adam’s “original sin.” However, the Orthodox Church rejects any teaching that would assign guilt to all mankind for Adam’s sin. We indeed suffer the consequences of others’ sins, but we carry guilt only for our own sins.

 

[Vonsalza]

Well that’s interesting - Oxford is where I get my definitions too.

It’s just troubling to an outsider because…

CCC 295 original sin does not have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam’s descendants.
CCC 402 All men are implicated in Adam’s sin

…looks like a pretty clear contradiction. In order to set it aside, one must already be Catholic.

 

[Vico]

…

I guess you did not understand Oxford Dictionary. Culpability is not implied by the word implicate.

 

[Vonsalza]

Vonsalza:

…

I guess you did not understand Oxford Dictionary. Culpability is not implied by the word implicate.

From Oxford…
1 Show (someone) to be involved in a crime.
he implicated his government in the murders of three judges

1. 1.1 be implicated in Bear some of the responsibility for (an action or process, especially a criminal or harmful one)
   ‘viruses are known to be implicated in the development of certain cancers’

 

[dochawk]

But would not the Immaculate Conception still have meaning, that Mary would not have disordered passions, to use the phrase in the first answer, what we latins would call concupiscence?

Given the prevalence in Eastern liturgy of “Hail Oh Maiden ever pure” and similar, that wouldn’t be an extension/expansion/explanation that isn’t already in Eastern understanding.

hawk

 

[tafan2]

It wasn’t in the Western Church either. Just a proclamation of widely accepted doctrine.

 

[Vico]

…


From Oxford…
1 Show (someone) to be involved in a crime.
he implicated his government in the murders of three judges

1. 1.1 be implicated in Bear some of the responsibility for (an action or process, especially a criminal or harmful one)
   ‘viruses are known to be implicated in the development of certain cancers’

Yes, we are bearing some of the responsibility with our human natures inclined to sin, however we are not culpable for it. It is reatus poenae which is because we do not receive the gifts that Adam and Eve were given.