I changed the emphasis for you above.
Here lies the difference between us. This is a false dichotomy.
An inherited state of what (although we too believe that original sin is an inherited state, i.e., loss of our original holiness)? Moreover, why do the Orthodox baptize? Is it necessary to be a baptized Christian? The two latter questions will overlap no doubt.
In the Orthodox Church, baptism is not seen as a rite which merely washes away original sin, so in that context, no; Baptism is not necessary for ridding us of our original sin or for the acquisition of the Holy Spirit (hence why we don’t typically support limbo for unbaptized babies, we don’t believe that there’s anything which prevents the unbaptized from entering into heaven). Baptism is, however, the only guarantee for those things.
You forgot to put into your quote “not by imitation” hence the emphasis. And I don’t think it’s funny when someone plays around with Catholic canon (consider the possibility that I had not verified the canon as you wrote it).I changed the emphasis for you above.
Catechism of Trent: Wherefore, the pastor should not omit to remind the faithful that the guilt and punishment of original sin were not confined to Adam, but justly descended from him, as from their source and cause, to all posterity.
But you really haven’t explained what baptism is and/or what it does? What did Jesus mean when he said to Nicodemus that he must be reborn? I agree that God’s mercy is infinite and that there is such a thing as baptism of desire (thief on the cross), but scripture seems to imply that baptism is imperative. Also, you never mentioned what the inherited state was?
But it is saying that the sin of Adam is in each one AS HIS OWN.
Make no mistake…I don’t think there is anything humorous about it…and I am surely not “playing around” with it.
I hereby declare you “guilty” of prooftexting.
One says tomato … One says tomahtoe … I see no logic in calling the whole thing off.Yes. This is why we should be baptized as infants with the Mystery (Sacrament) of Holy Baptism. And then sincerely repent and seek the Mystery (Sacrament) of Holy Confession often throughout our lifetimes to be administered by a priest or bishop who has received the Mystery (Sacrament) of Holy Orders.
What difference? Tell me what you believe.
The Mysteries of the Church are there for mankind to participate in the sanctifying grace that God has provided through apostolic succession and the Holy Church. They are not the only means of grace, but they are there for the edification of the fallen human race. They assist us to strive for theosis as we attempt to cleanse the nous.
LOL! It is you who are attempting to put new meanings to the word “guilt”.
No, this is a book example holding to the teaching of the Council of Carthage, while rejecting the teaching of the pseudo Council of Trent.
We don’t put the false dichotomy between “good” and “with defect”.
We didn’t create a schism over this as the schism was already created (in the 11th century). God bless.
One needs baptism to die to old self and rise to a new life in Christ.
That’s what I asked? Why didn’t you just answer the first time?
Baptism does serve as a guaranteed way of receiving the Holy Spirit, but it is not the only way. This is why the unbaptized saints of the old testament may still be regarded as saints. They obviously did not come to God through baptism. When I speak of the inherited state of original sin, I’m speaking of death and the inclination to sin. Adam and Eve through their sin brought death and sin into the world, and so we suffer the consequences of their sin through death and our own inclination to sin. We’re not guilty of what they have done, we have simply inherited the consequences of their sin because their sin affected the entire world. That’s what original sin is, from an Eastern view. So when we say that the Virgin Mary lived her life without any sin, that does not mean that she was free from the forces of death and sin which Adam and Eve let loose upon creation, hence she still suffered from original sin.
No, not a new meaning of the word “guilt” (did you even bother to read my lenghty post to you) just a difference in how it was defined/understood in a theological context vis a vis Adam’s culpability and that of the rest of humanity. It would clear a lot of the confusion if you would read the entirety of the article I posted from Catholic Encyclopedia.LOL! It is you who are attempting to put new meanings to the word “guilt”.