Question on Baptism

[Marc_Anthony]

So, from what I’ve learned of original sin as it’s believed by Eastern Catholics, they believe that the “stain” of original sin is death, not any sort of inherited guilt, as is believed by the latins. But then, why do we need baptism, or at least infant baptism? We’re all going to die whether we’re baptized or not. For babies especially, who haven’t sinned at all, why is baptism necessary if it’s not getting rid of the effects of original sin?

Thanks!

 

[IntegraCatholic]

So, from what I’ve learned of original sin as it’s believed by Eastern Catholics, they believe that the “stain” of original sin is death, not any sort of inherited guilt, as is believed by the latins. But then, why do we need baptism, or at least infant baptism? We’re all going to die whether we’re baptized or not. For babies especially, who haven’t sinned at all, why is baptism necessary if it’s not getting rid of the effects of original sin?

Thanks!

Anyone who holds that position would not be an Eastern Catholic but an Eastern Separatist, a schismatic and heretic.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

Anyone who holds that position would not be an Eastern Catholic but an Eastern Separatist, a schismatic and heretic.

From a website written by an Eastern Catholic called “From East to West”.

"Original Sin #3: Can you explain the difference in the way the East views Original Sin?

I’ll try to briefly summarize the issue, but I can’t do it justice in so little space.

**In the East: The primary consequence of Original Sin is death. The reality of death causes people to desire that which can distract them from the reality of their impending death. Hence, people turn to sex, money, and power as a way to forget about death. In this way, death leads to sin. **

In the West: The primary consequence of Original Sin is a “stain” of guilt. People are born with a guilt that needs to be washed away as soon as possible."

east2west.org/doctrine.htm

 

[Ghosty]

The Eastern view is much more varied and complex than what is presented on that website. Different traditions have different emphasis, and there is no “Eastern” view per se. What that website describes is a more modern Byzantine view that has become dominant in the past few centuries.

We recently had a discussion on another thread where I asked for some example of the Fathers speaking this way about death, and so far nobody has provided a single citation that backs it up. I’ve yet to find it in any of the Fathers’ works myself, either.

That isn’t to say that the Latin view is used, just saying that the “original sin is mortality” view only seems to come up recently, and isn’t found in the Fathers East or West.

What is more Patristic, I think, is to say that “corruption” is passed down, and that is the primary aspect of Original Sin (this includes spiritual and physical corruption). This includes mortality, but that is not the primary point of it. As a side note, that website doesn’t accurately reflect the Latin tradition, either; personal guilt has never been said to be passed down.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Marc_Anthony]

The Eastern view is much more varied and complex than what is presented on that website. Different traditions have different emphasis, and there is no “Eastern” view per se. What that website describes is a more modern Byzantine view that has become dominant in the past few centuries.

We recently had a discussion on another thread where I asked for some example of the Fathers speaking this way about death, and so far nobody has provided a single citation that backs it up. I’ve yet to find it in any of the Fathers’ works myself, either.

That isn’t to say that the Latin view is used, just saying that the “original sin is mortality” view only seems to come up recently, and isn’t found in the Fathers East or West.

What is more Patristic, I think, is to say that “corruption” is passed down, and that is the primary aspect of Original Sin (this includes spiritual and physical corruption). This includes mortality, but that is not the primary point of it. As a side note, that website doesn’t accurately reflect the Latin tradition, either; personal guilt has never been said to be passed down.

Peace and God bless!

Thank you for the response.

I’m a little confused here. Can you try and briefly summarize the Byzantine view of Original Sin and Baptism’s rule in correcting the issues orignal sin causes?

 

[RyanBlack]

So, from what I’ve learned of original sin as it’s believed by Eastern Catholics, they believe that the “stain” of original sin is death, not any sort of inherited guilt, as is believed by the latins. But then, why do we need baptism, or at least infant baptism? We’re all going to die whether we’re baptized or not. For babies especially, who haven’t sinned at all, why is baptism necessary if it’s not getting rid of the effects of original sin?

Thanks!

Baptism is more than just the washing away of sin. Baptism is also the beginning of a new spiritual life. Those who are baptized are granted a share in the life of Christ and are initiated into the Church (this is not an understanding of baptism that is unique to the East-it is part of the Roman Catholic theology of baptism as well). Furthermore, in the East, baptism is administered together with chrismation, in which the newly baptized receives the Holy Spirit.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

Baptism is more than just the washing away of sin. Baptism is also the beginning of a new spiritual life. Those who are baptized are granted a share in the life of Christ and are initiated into the Church (this is not an understanding of baptism that is unique to the East-it is part of the Roman Catholic theology of baptism as well). Furthermore, in the East, baptism is administered together with chrismation, in which the newly baptized receives the Holy Spirit.

Thank you.

So in Eastern Catholic theology, would a child who died without being baptized but also without any personal sin end up in heaven?

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Ghosty,

As a side note, that website doesn’t accurately reflect the Latin tradition, either; personal guilt has never been said to be passed down.

I’ve always liked Anthony Dragani’s explanations (Anthony Dragani is the one who runs the “East to West” site).

I think Anthony presented the Latin view accurately (though generally) enough:
The primary consequence of Original Sin is a “stain” of guilt. People are born with a guilt that needs to be washed away as soon as possible.

What is good about it is that it avoids stating that the guilt is inherited, or that it is Adam’s guilt that is inherited.

What it lacks is merely an explanation of what this “guilt” is. But I think we can forgive him since the purpose of the site is not to explain the Western view, but the Eastern view.

For anyone interested in an explanation of the “guilt” that Mr. Dragani speaks of:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=6762961&postcount=98

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[5Loaves]

But then, why do we need baptism, or at least infant baptism?

Baptism/Chrismation/Eucharist are the Holy Mysteries of initiation into the Church, the Body of Christ. We want babies to join “the family”, which they are received into by these Holy Mysteries.

 

[Vico]

Below is the Latin statement from Trent on baptism and original sin, showing the phrase “reatum originalis peccati”. Note that there is no word culpa there. People have been translating the word reatum as “guilt of” which is not correct. See The Biblical Doctrine of Sin By James Stuart Candlish, p. 88, which states that the English word guilt is used by theologians to represent two words culpa and reatus but in English literature guilt only corresponds to culpa. Reatus means liability or obligation to suffer punishment. He states that this practice of translating reatus as guilt has lead to confusion and misunderstanding.

Sacrosanctum Concilium Tridentinum
Sessio V. De Peciato Originali. p. 16

1. Si quis per JESU Chirsti Domini nostri gratiam, quae in Baptismate confertur, reatum originalis peccati remitte negat; aut etiam afferit non tolli totum id, quod veram & propriam peccati rationem habet: sed illud dicit tantum radi, aut non imputari; anathema sit.

Latin Catechism (CCC): “404 …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. … Baptism, by imparting the life of Christ’s grace, erases original sin [a state and not an act] 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."

And we can see what effect of death occurred from Adam’s action.

1. On whatever day you eat from the forbidden tree you will certainly die.
   – So Adam experienced the death of his soul immediately.
2. Earth will be cursed because of what you do, it will produce thorns and thistles for you.
   – So all sorts of death and suffering ensued.

Catholic: each is born into a condition of spiritual death and alienation from God such that each is conceived into an orientation directed away from God. So baptism is needed to spiritually restore to them the life of grace.

Orthodox: sin is inevitable because of our inherited mortality. Romans 5:12 “As sin came into the world through one man and death through sin, so death spread to all men; and because of death, all men have sinned …”

These statements are not contradictory.

 

[WetCatechumen]

Below is the Latin statement from Trent on baptism and original sin, showing the phrase “reatum originalis peccati”. Note that there is no word culpa there. People have been translating the word reatum as “guilt of” which is not correct. See The Biblical Doctrine of Sin By James Stuart Candlish, p. 88, which states that the English word guilt is used by theologians to represent two words culpa and reatus but in English literature guilt only corresponds to culpa. Reatus means liability or obligation to suffer punishment. He states that this practice of translating reatus as guilt has lead to confusion and misunderstanding.

Sacrosanctum Concilium Tridentinum
Sessio V. De Peciato Originali. p. 16

1. Si quis per JESU Chirsti Domini nostri gratiam, quae in Baptismate confertur, reatum originalis peccati remitte negat; aut etiam afferit non tolli totum id, quod veram & propriam peccati rationem habet: sed illud dicit tantum radi, aut non imputari; anathema sit.

Latin Catechism (CCC): “404 …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. … Baptism, by imparting the life of Christ’s grace, erases original sin [a state and not an act] 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."

And we can see what effect of death occurred from Adam’s action.

1. On whatever day you eat from the forbidden tree you will certainly die.
   – So Adam experienced the death of his soul immediately.
2. Earth will be cursed because of what you do, it will produce thorns and thistles for you.
   – So all sorts of death and suffering ensued.

Catholic: each is born into a condition of spiritual death and alienation from God such that each is conceived into an orientation directed away from God. So baptism is needed to spiritually restore to them the life of grace.

Orthodox: sin is inevitable because of our inherited mortality. Romans 5:12 “As sin came into the world through one man and death through sin, so death spread to all men; and because of death, all men have sinned …”

These statements are not contradictory.

Bingo. I don’t get why Orthodox don’t understand this. We don’t believe that each of us are born guilty of Adam’s sin. However, we do believe that each of us has to deal with the consequences of it.

 

[mardukm]

Reatus, not reus.

Got it. Thanks! 90% of what I write is based on memory, which needs correction sometimes.

It should be noted that it is Protestant, not Catholic, soteriology which claims that we inherit reatus and culpa from Adam. Read Calvin, van Mastricht, Zanchius, etc. (do a Google search on those names with the terms culpa and reatus)

Blessings

 

[Marc_Anthony]

I’m bumping this because I’m interested in finding out an answer to my question about infant damnation.