Orthodox View of the Immaculate Conception

[Cavaradossi]

Randy,

The Orthodox almost universally believe that the Theotokos never sinned. However, they don’t believe in the Immaculate Conception.

Indeed. It might be more fruitful to explore the question of whether all who are born by natural propagation have sinned in Adam. The former seems to have been the dominant understanding among Latins of original sin when the Immaculate Conception was promulgated.

 

[Randy_Carson]

I think the underlying problem or difference is that some Catholics, maybe all?, believe that to be a Human, that is to be conceived into a world with the affects of Ancestral Sin, IS a Sin that each baby conceived is personally guilty of the sin our human Ancestors personally did in the garden of Eden.

Orthodox don’t share this misunderstanding.

I don’t either, though I’m willing to be corrected. My view is that it is not a sin for a child to be conceived and born with the effects of original sin. Original sin is not something the child did (which would be a personal sin); it is something that the child simply HAS as a result of being born of fallen parents. However, we are ALL guilty of the sin of Adam because we were all in the loins of Adam when he sinned.

Romans 5:12 Death Through Adam, Life Through Christ ] Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned—

1 Corinthians 15:22 For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive.

See? That’s not “Catholic” theology. That’s in your Bible. And by the way, here is another example of this principle (and this one is positive):

Hebrews 7:9-10
9 One might even say that Levi, who collects the tenth, paid the tenth through Abraham, 10 because when Melchizedek met Abraham, Levi was still in the body of his ancestor.

Do you see? Levi paid the tenth to Melchizedek through his forefather Abraham because Levi was still in the loins of Abraham when Abraham met Melchizedek.

But if Catholics do have this misunderstanding then it would make sense that it would be necessary for Catholics to come up with a new dogma about Mary that she’s unlike the rest of the human race in her conception in order for her to be considered truly Sinless, which is exactly what happened about 1,800 years after the Resurrection of Jesus.

Now that I have shown you that “this misunderstanding” is yours and not ours, we can revisit the dogma of the Immaculate Conception. But you probably need some time to come to grips with this first.

Orthodox don’t confuse the Sin itself with the Consequences of the Sin. Only the Sinner has sinned, the others who are affected by the sin are still totally innocent of the sin.

And this is normally true. However, Original Sin is not the same as personal sins that we commit.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Randy,

The Orthodox almost universally believe that the Theotokos never sinned. However, they don’t believe in the Immaculate Conception.

Yes, I know.

But that ignores Scripture which teaches otherwise beginning with Romans 5:12 and continuing to the end of the chapter.

If Mary is not prevented from inheriting the stain from Adam’s sin, then explain how she is not guilty since Adam’s sin resulted in the condemnation of ALL people?

Romans 5:18
18 Consequently, just as one trespass resulted in condemnation for all people, so also one righteous act resulted in justification and life for all people.

The EO say that Mary never sinned? Amen! I agree with them. But without the Immaculate Conception, Mary is condemned because of the trespass of Adam. A few verses earlier, Paul had made this really clear:

Romans 5:12-14
12 Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned—13 To be sure, sin was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not charged against anyone’s account where there is no law. 14 Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who is a pattern of the one to come.

The wages of sin is death, and death reigned even among those who did not sin by breaking the law. Through Adam, condemnation and death came to all people descended from Adam. Even if Mary did not sin, death reigned over her because she was under the sin of Adam.

This is the Word of God, Ryan.

 

[Nektarios_Lady]

The same Greek Orthodox Church that wrote the original Greek New Testament is able to correctly interpret it. The “all sinned” doesn’t include every single person who inherited death, a direct consequence of Ancestral Sin: Jesus didn’t sin, Mary didn’t sin, babies & small children who die didn’t sin, people with mental incapacity didn’t sin. The “all” in ‘all sinned’ is not all inclusive.

Yes, I know.

But that ignores Scripture which teaches otherwise beginning with Romans 5:12 and continuing to the end of the chapter.

If Mary is not prevented from inheriting the stain from Adam’s sin, then explain how she is not guilty since Adam’s sin resulted in the condemnation of ALL people?

Romans 5:18
18 Consequently, just as one trespass resulted in condemnation for all people, so also one righteous act resulted in justification and life for all people.

The EO say that Mary never sinned? Amen! I agree with them. But without the Immaculate Conception, Mary is condemned because of the trespass of Adam. A few verses earlier, Paul had made this really clear:

Romans 5:12-14
12 Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned—13 To be sure, sin was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not charged against anyone’s account where there is no law. 14 Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who is a pattern of the one to come.

The wages of sin is death, and death reigned even among those who did not sin by breaking the law. Through Adam, condemnation and death came to all people descended from Adam. Even if Mary did not sin, death reigned over her because she was under the sin of Adam.

This is the Word of God, Ryan.

 

[GaryTaylor]

The same Greek Orthodox Church that wrote the original Greek New Testament is able to correctly interpret it. The “all sinned” doesn’t include every single person who inherited death, a direct consequence of Ancestral Sin: Jesus didn’t sin, Mary didn’t sin, babies & small children who die didn’t sin, people with mental incapacity didn’t sin. The “all” in ‘all sinned’ is not all inclusive.

Mary would have been included in the all, had she not been the Mother of God. All have sinned thus the redemption of Christ. In the same manner which God is not subject to time, He is also not subject to the law He placed on mankind. Nor was He subject to human death, He chose to die for all. So that all sin would be forgiven through His act.

Romans 5:19 For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous.

Phil 2:8 And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to death-- even death on a cross!

Romans 5:12 Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned.

1 Corinthians 15:3 For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures.

1 John 4:10 This is love: not that we loved God, but that he loved us and sent his Son as an atoning sacrifice for our sins.

Matthew 20-28 just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many

Note- you also see many exchanged for all- thus the mass.

1 Peter 1:18 For you know that it was not with perishable things such as silver or gold that you were redeemed from the empty way of life handed down to you from your ancestors,

The prophecy

Isaiah 53:11 After he has suffered, he will see the light of life and be satisfied; by his knowledge my righteous servant will justify many, and he will bear their iniquities.

Which is why you are Baptized, for the remission of original sin. And every time you continue to sin you wound Christ who indeed died for your sins. As everything is inside and outside of time. When you sin you might as well be nailing Him to the Cross. And of course He continues to say “Forgive them Father”.

As to the pre baptized and so forth I don’t know what the Greeks teach. Guilt has no bearing and I don’t know what the Greeks are insinuating with that.

Nektarios Lady-Sin that each baby conceived is personally guilty

You’ll have to answer all this for yourself, unless you actually believe you have a new theology other than the one handed down from the Apostles, then all this applies “equally” to you!

 

[GaryTaylor]

I only have one question for the East what is Original/Ancestral sin and for what purpose is it stated in the Creed, “for the remission of sin” What effect does it have on all mankind, what is the difference between Adam and Eve and all the rest of us? Explain this sin theology to us.

Do you have this “new theology” we have waited for years to hear it and silence is the only thing which followed with the false accusations. John Romanides isn’t here to help you either, your on your own to explain this innovation and insinuation.

Redemption is the re-uniting of our human nature which was attacked by evil, with God. Simply put we were no longer in “communion” with the savior and exiled from the garden thus the tree of life. All are subject to the iniquity clearly stated throughout the OT.

Personally I think you all are being much too juridical in emphasis on all this and legalistic paradigms and seem to be following protestant polemics with all have sinned.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Orthodox believe she was Human, not an exception to the Human Race.

And we, Orthodox, believe the Panagia (All Holy) has never sinned. I’ve repeatedly stated that.

I think the underlying problem or difference is that some Catholics, maybe all?, believe that to be a Human, that is to be conceived into a world with the affects of Ancestral Sin, IS a Sin that each baby conceived is personally guilty of the sin our human Ancestors personally did in the garden of Eden.

Orthodox don’t share this misunderstanding.

But if Catholics do have this misunderstanding then it would make sense that it would be necessary for Catholics to come up with a new dogma about Mary that she’s unlike the rest of the human race in her conception in order for her to be considered truly Sinless, which is exactly what happened about 1,800 years after the Resurrection of Jesus.

Orthodox don’t confuse the Sin itself with the Consequences of the Sin. Only the Sinner has sinned, the others who are affected by the sin are still totally innocent of the sin.

Guilt is “non sequitur” What is the consequence of all men in relation to Adam and Eve? Then too you’ll have to explain how Mary was different than all of us when she conceived Jesus Christ who is uncorrupt. However guilt is often misunderstood for the injustice of iniquity. For example this quote from the East…

ST. EPHRAIM OF SYRIA (c. 306 - 373 AD)
Adam sinned and EARNED ALL SORROWS, AND THE WORLD, FOLLOWING HIS LEAD, ALL GUILT. And it took no thought of how it might be restored, but only of how its fall might be made more pleasant for it. Glory to Him that came and restored it! (Hymns of the Epiphany 10:1)

As stated its “non sequitur” in relation to scriptural understanding “injustice-iniquity” We are not guilty of Eve and Adams actual sin.

Apparently it is Catholics who do not confuse the Sin itself with the Consequences of the sin. As it appears your pointing to only actual sin.

1. Our creation and God’s Incarnation most intimately connected. As by the Word man was called from non-existence into being, and further received the grace of a divine life, so by the one fault which forfeited that life they again incurred corruption and untold sin and misery filled the world.

The Word, then, visited that earth in which He was yet always present ; and saw all these evils. He takes a body of our Nature, and that of a spotless Virgin, in whose womb He makes it His own, wherein to reveal Himself, conquer death, and restore life.

google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=4&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CC8QFjAD&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.newadvent.org%2Ffathers%2F2802.htm&ei=hZuSVLmTFcWegwS8u4CgDw&usg=AFQjCNH3pM8SQpYkllOH7NHHaVTgzmHbYw

ST. ATHANASIUS (c. 360 AD)
Adam, the first man, altered his course, and through sin death came into the world…When Adam transgressed, SIN reached out TO ALL MEN. (Discourses Against the Arians 1:51)

ST. BASIL THE GREAT (c. 379 AD)
Little given, much gotten; by the donation of food the ORIGINAL SIN IS DISCHARGED [Greek given by Jurgens]. JUST AS ADAM TRANSMITTED THE SIN by his wicked eating, we destroy that treacherous food when we cure the need and hunger of our brother…For prisoners, Baptism is ransom, FORGIVENESS OF DEBTS, DEATH OF SIN, regeneration of the soul, a resplendent garment, an unbreakable seal, a chariot to heaven, a protector royal, a gift of adoption. (Eulogies on the Martyrs 8:7; 13:5)

Death of the body and death of the soul is the consequence per scripture. Thus the Creed and Baptism for the remission of sin correctly understood by the most holy St.

ST. IRENAEUS (c. 180 AD)
…having become disobedient, [Eve] was made the cause of death for herself and for the whole human race; so also Mary, betrothed to a man but nevertheless still a virgin, being obedient, was made the cause of salvation for herself and for the whole human race…Thus, the knot of Eve’s disobedience was loosed by the obedience of Mary. What the virgin Eve had bound in unbelief, the Virgin Mary loosed through faith. …But this man [of whom I have been speaking] is Adam, if truth be told, the first-formed man…WE, however, are all FROM him; and as WE are FROM him, WE have INHERITED his title [of sin]. …Indeed, THROUGH the first Adam, WE offended God by not observing His command. Through the second Adam, however, we are reconciled, and are made obedient even unto death. For we were debtors to none other except to Him, whose commandment WE transgressed at the beginning. (Against Heresies 3:22:4; 3:23:2; 5:16:3)

ST. CYPRIAN OF CARTHAGE (c. 250 AD)
If, in the case of the worst sinners and of those who formerly sinned much against God, when afterwards they believe, the REMISSION OF THEIR SINS is granted and no one is held back from Baptism and grace, how much more, then, should an INFANT not be held back, who, having but recently been BORN, has done no sin [committed no personal sin], EXCEPT THAT, BORN OF THE FLESH ACCORDING TO ADAM, HE HAS CONTRACTED THE CONTAGION OF THAT OLD DEATH FROM HIS FIRST BEING BORN. For this very reason does he approach more easily to receive the REMISSION OF SINS: because the SINS FORGIVEN HIM are NOT his OWN but THOSE OF ANOTHER . (Letters 64:5 of Cyprian and his 66 colleagues in Council to Fidus)

 

[GaryTaylor]

One more point to note as the protestant understanding of tight scripture is invoked. If you follow this path then it also applies to you and makes you required to account for Marys death. Which is not biblical, nor historical or traditional pre-500 AD in fact its lifted from apocryphal. In other words you have no answer but to continue to invoke a double standard? yes? Do you not understand how this equally applies to you and even more-so as you not only have to explain the Incarnation, but the non existing death of Mary of which scripture is silent. As explained repetitively from the Incarnation to the Cross in regards to Mary applies to all who hold to the first 4 ecumenical councils. Those of homoousios following to be more specific.

The theory that actual sin is the only issue, is an innovation, non historic, non biblical in context/content. And in relation to Council and homoousios understanding. Often what happens is protestants being of many variety often do not follow a homoousios understanding. So when pick up their polemics for example Jimmy Swaggart, dispensationalism , then you defend his understanding of the nature of Jesus Christ and contrary to apostolic teaching.

All bad arguments and counter-productive as I see right here.

 

[Randy_Carson]

The same Greek Orthodox Church that wrote the original Greek New Testament is able to correctly interpret it.

First, as Ignatius of Antioch clearly demonstrates, the Church began calling itself the “Catholic Church” before the end of the first century. Those who separated themselves from the See of Rome (whether justifiably or not) did not begin calling themselves the “Orthodox Church” until the 10th Century.

Second, does the GOC claim infallibility?

The “all sinned” doesn’t include every single person who inherited death, a direct consequence of Ancestral Sin: Jesus didn’t sin, Mary didn’t sin,

Correct. Jesus was God, so He is in a unique category. Mary did not sin because whe did not desire to do so because she was not afflicted with the effects of original sin, concupiscence,

babies & small children who die didn’t sin, people with mental incapacity didn’t sin. The “all” in ‘all sinned’ is not all inclusive.

I am familiar with the argument since I use it regularly when talking with Protestants. However, while babies, the mentally challenged, etc. do not commit personal sins (plural), they still inherit Sin (the principle or stain) because they were “in Adam” when he sinned.

That is IN YOUR BIBLE. Open it. Read it. Then prove me wrong with other verses.

 

[RyanBlack]

Yes, I know.

But that ignores Scripture which teaches otherwise beginning with Romans 5:12 and continuing to the end of the chapter.

If Mary is not prevented from inheriting the stain from Adam’s sin, then explain how she is not guilty since Adam’s sin resulted in the condemnation of ALL people?

Romans 5:18
18 Consequently, just as one trespass resulted in condemnation for all people, so also one righteous act resulted in justification and life for all people.

The EO say that Mary never sinned? Amen! I agree with them. But without the Immaculate Conception, Mary is condemned because of the trespass of Adam. A few verses earlier, Paul had made this really clear:

Romans 5:12-14
12 Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned—13 To be sure, sin was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not charged against anyone’s account where there is no law. 14 Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who is a pattern of the one to come.

The wages of sin is death, and death reigned even among those who did not sin by breaking the law. Through Adam, condemnation and death came to all people descended from Adam. Even if Mary did not sin, death reigned over her because she was under the sin of Adam.

This is the Word of God, Ryan.

The Orthodox do not believe that anyone inherits the stain from Adam’s sin; rather, they believe that it is through Adam’s sin that all are subject to death. Just as the Orthodox are virtually universal in their belief that the Theotokos never sinned, they are virtually universal in their belief that she actually died before being assumed into Heaven. I personally strongly incline towards the Eastern understanding of the passages upon which the doctrine of original sin is based. However, I don’t see how the Theotokos remained sinless apart from being granted graces that are particular to her.

 

[GaryTaylor]

google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=5&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CD0QFjAE&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.newadvent.org%2Fcathen%2F07706b.htm&ei=0sWSVNOqDYewggTwm4DwDA&usg=AFQjCNEnV3eqctQ8_UbuQmSRmXc6J1SoYw

It is to be remembered that, when the Word took Flesh, there was no change in the Word; all the change was in the Flesh. At the moment of conception, in the womb of the BlessedMother, through the forcefulness of God’s activity, not only was the human soul of Christcreated but the Word assumed the man that was conceived. When God created the world, the world was changed, that is, it passed from the state of nonentity to the state ofexistence; and there was no change in the Logos or Creative Word of God the Father. Nor was there change in that Logos when it began to terminate the human nature. A new relation ensued, to be sure; but this new relation implied in the Logos no new reality, no real change; all new reality, all real change, was in the human nature. Anyone who wishes to go into this very intricate question of the manner of the Hypostatic Union of the two natures in the one Divine Personality, may with great profit read St. Thomas (III:4:2);Scotus (in III, Dist. i); (De Incarnatione, Disp. II, sec. 3); Gregory, of Valentia (in III, D. i, q. 4). Any modern text book on theology will give various opinions in regard to the way of the union of the Person assuming with the nature assumed

Catholics hold that, before the Resurrection, the Body of Christ was subject to all the bodily weaknesses to which human nature unassumed is universally subject; such are hunger, thirst, pain, death

newadvent.org/cathen/07674d.htm

Mary

The formal active essence of original sin was not removed from her soul, as it is removedfrom others by baptism; it was excluded, it never was in her soul. Simultaneously with the exclusion of sin. The state of original sanctity, innocence, and justice, as opposed tooriginal sin, was conferred upon her, by which gift every stain and fault, all depraved emotions, passions, and debilities, essentially pertaining to original sin, were excluded.

But she was not made exempt from the temporal penalties of Adam — from sorrow, bodily infirmities, and death.

“…by a singular privilege and grace granted by God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Saviour of the human race.”

The immunity from original sin was given to Mary by a singular exemption from a universal law through the same merits of Christ, by which other men are cleansed fromsin by baptism. Mary needed the redeeming Saviour to obtain this exemption, and to be delivered from the universal necessity and debt (debitum) of being subject to original sin. The person of Mary, in consequence of her origin from Adam, should have been subject tosin, but, being the new Eve who was to be the mother of the new Adam, she was, by theeternal counsel of God and by the merits of Christ, withdrawn from the general law oforiginal sin. Her redemption was the very masterpiece of Christ’s redeeming wisdom. He is a greater redeemer who pays the debt that it may not be incurred than he who pays after it has fallen on the debtor.
Such is the meaning of the term “Immaculate Conception.”

ST. BASIL THE GREAT (c. 379 AD)
Little given, much gotten; by the donation of food the ORIGINAL SIN IS DISCHARGED [Greek given by Jurgens]. JUST AS ADAM TRANSMITTED THE SIN by his wicked eating, we destroy that treacherous food when we cure the need and hunger of our brother…For prisoners, Baptism is ransom, FORGIVENESS OF DEBTS, DEATH OF SIN, regeneration of the soul, a resplendent garment, an unbreakable seal, a chariot to heaven, a protector royal, a gift of adoption. (Eulogies on the Martyrs 8:7; 13:5)

He is a greater redeemer who pays the debt that it may not be incurred than he who pays after it has fallen on the debtor.
Such is the meaning of the term “Immaculate Conception.”

I can’t help it, Randy is inspirational

 

[GaryTaylor]

The Orthodox do not believe that anyone inherits the stain from Adam’s sin; rather, they believe that it is through Adam’s sin that all are subject to death. Just as the Orthodox are virtually universal in their belief that the Theotokos never sinned, they are virtually universal in their belief that she actually died before being assumed into Heaven. I personally strongly incline towards the Eastern understanding of the passages upon which the doctrine of original sin is based. However, I don’t see how the Theotokos remained sinless apart from being granted graces that are particular to her.

I don’t see any difference but in understanding inherit, or as the consequence of all man. How the Theotokos remained sinless apart from being granted graces that are particular to her is also scriptural in relation the OT prophets as they too were yet redeemed by Christ. In the same sense is how unbaptized infants can indeed be saved. The prophets such as the transfiguration were living and dying in love of the Lord, there will become one with His. Still how much further are graces granted being in the real presence of the Lord from this point to the Cross thus mans redemption. Suffice to say Mary needed a Savior as all do including Elijah and Enoch, Moses and so forth and the redemption and resurrection made this possible.

Jude 1

And have mercy on some, who are doubting; save others, snatching them out of the fire; and on some have mercy with fear, hating even the garment polluted by the flesh. To him who is able to keep you from stumbling and to present you before his glorious presence without fault and with great joy to the only God our Savior be glory, majesty, power and authority, through Jesus Christ our Lord, before all ages, now and forevermore! Amen.

As to Marys death I see no reason to excuse Mary from anything all others should be subject to. I do not know how Mary was divinized in relation to Elijah and death understood, which perhaps dying in love with the Lord and His will while asleep as in death or awake in death seems not to matter. Nor does it seem at the final judgement nor in relation to the living or the dead, and awake or not.

 

[Randy_Carson]

The Orthodox do not believe that anyone inherits the stain from Adam’s sin; rather, they believe that it is through Adam’s sin that all are subject to death.

So, we haven’t inherited the guilt of Adam, but we have to die as a result of something he did?

Now, that’s a coherent view.

We’re not guilty of his sin, but we’re being punished anyway? C’mon…

Just as the Orthodox are virtually universal in their belief that the Theotokos never sinned, they are virtually universal in their belief that she actually died before being assumed into Heaven.

Me, too.

I personally strongly incline towards the Eastern understanding of the passages upon which the doctrine of original sin is based. However, I don’t see how the Theotokos remained sinless apart from being granted graces that are particular to her.

Correct. Apart from the singular grace granted to her, Mary would not have been able to remain sinless.

 

[GaryTaylor]

So if we are following the bread crumbs, just one question, how is it the Orthodox propose Mary and the IC is contrary to what we all must suffer, yet seem to forget how they deem all infants not Baptized worthy of being saved? Not that I disagree about the infants but another apparent double standard?

 

[RyanBlack]

So, we haven’t inherited the guilt of Adam, but we have to die as a result of something he did?

Now, that’s a coherent view.

We’re not guilty of his sin, but we’re being punished anyway? C’mon…

Are the sarcasm and the insults to the Orthodox really needed? Please tell me how you think that anyone will be persuaded by such an approach. Not to mention the fact that we suffer the consequences of the sinful actions of others all the time. That is one of the consequences of the Fall.

 

[GaryTaylor]

I don’t know I learn more everytime we talk about this mystery. Personally I’m attempting to consolidate all the orthodox teaching for who-ever reads thus hopefully better understanding. Aside from the body and soul aspect I can’t see a difference but for language, tons of misunderstanding all the way around, Catholics, Orthodox and Protestants alike. Actually I’m quiet upset with the protestants lumping us together with the entire “orthodoxy” thing, and was rather surprised to see that. Perhaps its more telling how they view us as opposed to how we view ourselves. I also think both Shoemaker and Pelikan both have a slight bias which I don’t agree with the “polemical” part as a conspiracy nor do I think Pelikan focused enough in discussing the IC in relation to the importance to doctrine revealed, thus also with the Dormition which he really did a ton or research on. Seems there was a connection missed but he never intended to teach Catholicism. Least he found the Orthodox Church from his long Lutheran roots. Stephan Shoemaker another beautiful mind, he wants the Church united and I would only humbly say he went a bit far with the Marion Culture thing in the East post 500 AD. But he made his point.

 

[twf]

In Post #3 of this thread, I quoted from the Catechism of the Catholic Church demonstrating that it is NOT Catholic teaching that we each literally or personally inherit Adam’s sin. Original sin refers to the consequences of Adam’s sin. The stain of original sin is primarily the absence of sanctifying grace. Essentially, Catholics believe that Our Lady received the full graces of baptism at the first moment of her conception. If, as the Orthodox on this board often maintain, there was no reason for the immaculate conception and each of us is born “immaculate”, what is the purpose of baptism? If Our Lady and each of us is conceived with the same graces, as Orthodox have stated on this board, is not baptism just an empty gesture? The Catholic understanding is that, due to Adam’s fall, each of us is conceived out of communion with the Divine Trinity…that is what the “stain” of original sin primarily refers to. In Christ, and through the sacrament of baptism, we “put on Christ” and thus remove the “stain” by being filled with the indwelling of God’s divine life. Our Lady simply received these graces of baptism when she was conceived.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Are the sarcasm and the insults to the Orthodox really needed? Please tell me how you think that anyone will be persuaded by such an approach. Not to mention the fact that we suffer the consequences of the sinful actions of others all the time. That is one of the consequences of the Fall.

Here is what our Catechism says:

1250 Born with a fallen human nature and tainted by original sin, children also have need of the new birth in Baptism to be freed from the power of darkness and brought into the realm of the freedom of the children of God, to which all men are called. The sheer gratuitousness of the grace of salvation is particularly manifest in infant Baptism. The Church and the parents would deny a child the priceless grace of becoming a child of God were they not to confer Baptism shortly after birth.

457 The Word became flesh for us in order to save us by reconciling us with God, who “loved us and sent his Son to be the expiation for our sins”: “the Father has sent his Son as the Savior of the world”, and “he was revealed to take away sins”:

Sick, our nature demanded to be healed; fallen, to be raised up; dead, to rise again. We had lost the possession of the good; it was necessary for it to be given back to us. Closed in the darkness, it was necessary to bring us the light; captives, we awaited a Savior; prisoners, help; slaves, a liberator. Are these things minor or insignificant? Did they not move God to descend to human nature and visit it, since humanity was in so miserable and unhappy a state?

(Oh, that indented quote? Gregory of Nyssa.)

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.

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.

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) and at the Council of Trent (1546).​

The Council of Orange is a lot earlier than has been proposed as the date the Immaculate Conception was invented to deal with bad Catholic Doctrine.

So, we can see:

1. We know our nature is fallen because we inherit the sin of Adam from scripture.
2. The united Church addressed the issue of Original Sin being transmitted to all men in 529.
3. The Early Church Fathers also acknowledged that Mary was without Sin.
4. The Church defined that Mary was protected from Original Sin by virtue of the Immaculate Conception.

 

[Novocastrian]

So, we haven’t inherited the guilt of Adam, but we have to die as a result of something he did?

Now, that’s a coherent view.

We’re not guilty of his sin, but we’re being punished anyway? C’mon…

If you see death as a punishment (and only as a punishment) for the Fall, then it doesn’t make sense. If you see it as a consequence of the Fall, or as a punishment for Adam which entails consequences for his descendants, then it’s not nonsensical.

The Orthodox, in my experience, stress sin-as-sickness. This is, surprisingly, not far removed from Augustine’s wider theology in which evil is a privatio boni. It explains why Orthodox devotional prayers seem often (though I’m relying on my own experience here, again) to place particular emphasis on Christ as the Physician of Souls.

 

[Randy_Carson]

If you see death as a punishment (and only as a punishment) for the Fall, then it doesn’t make sense. If you see it as a consequence of the Fall, or as a punishment for Adam which entails consequences for his descendants, then it’s not nonsensical.

The Orthodox, in my experience, stress sin-as-sickness. This is, surprisingly, not far removed from Augustine’s wider theology in which evil is a privatio boni. It explains why Orthodox devotional prayers seem often (though I’m relying on my own experience here, again) to place particular emphasis on Christ as the Physician of Souls.

Novo, you know the Scriptures; what do they say?

Genesis 3
17 To Adam he said, “Because you listened to your wife and ate fruit from the tree about which I commanded you, ‘You must not eat from it,’
“Cursed is the ground because of you;
through painful toil you will eat food from it
all the days of your life.
18 It will produce thorns and thistles for you,
and you will eat the plants of the field.
19 By the sweat of your brow
you will eat your food
until you return to the ground,
since from it you were taken;
for dust you are
and to dust you will return.”

“To dust you will return”???

If Adam already knew that he and the missus would die one day, why is it necessary for God to state the obvious? And why would even bother to say it in the context of Adam being banished from the Garden and being subjected to a life of labor - unless death was not part of the punishment?