The "guilt" original sin

[Prayer_Warrior]

There is another thread on the forum about the difference between what the Orthodox call ancestral sin and the Catholic teaching on original sin. I was doing some research on the matter and time after time I found Orthodox websites saying that the Catholic Church teaches that we are held “guilty” for original sin. This is something I had never heard before. So, I went to the Catechism. I found, it seemed, quite the opposite of what these Orthodox sites were saying. In fact, CCC 404 and 405 seem to directly contradict their claims saying:

… 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.

and

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.

So, at first I just thought that the Orthodox sites I was researching were making false claims…until I looked up this site which is supposedly a record of what the Council of Trent had to say about original sin. There was a statement that didn’t seem to jive with the current CCC, which makes me wonder about the doctrine of original sin. Did we change it? To me the CCC is telling us we are not “at personal fault” for original sin. We suffer its effects because we have a fallen nature. But Trent seems to use the word “guilt” where the Catechism doesn’t.
The paragraph in question on the Trent document says

1. If anyone denies that by the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ which is conferred in baptism, the guilt of original sin is remitted, or says that the whole of that which belongs to the essence of sin is not taken away, but says that it is only canceled or not imputed, let him be anathema.

I have seen accusations on this forum (by Orthodox) that we have changed our doctrine on original sin. I would love to have a clear explanation on the seeming difference between what was taught at the Council of Trent and what is in our present Catechism. Can anyone shed some light on this?

 

[capablanca911]

When Trent said ‘guilt’ they meant guilt **only **in an **analogical **sense. We should agree with our Eastern brethren that it was sloppily worded, and we’ve made the fact of the matter plain in our Catechism.

Your OP already had your answer.

 

[ellzeena]

Well, gee, according to some on this site I am a “heretic” but actually I’m a thinker, a prayer, a person who has spent a literal lifetime considering these things on a daily basis.

I do not think that the Council of Trent was correct in its assessment (oh boy here it comes!)

I think whatever choice was made by “Adam and Eve” corrupted the Human relationship with God but does not bring a deadly spiritual blight upon the entire of humanity unless it is not addressed. Now: does infant baptism address it? Yes I think so because it is the will and intention of the parent(s) to free this infant from any and all attachment to blame and punishment due to an ancestral act (and what do we really KNOW about that act anyway)? And then it is up to the parents to instruct the children,lovingly and with care and prayer, in the ways of Jesus. Ultimately, it is then up to the adult child to make his/her own choice.

I do not, I will not, I cannot accept a God who condemns the “innocent unborn” or “newly born” to damnation because of the flaw that HE SAW WOULD OCCUR. Sorry, folks, just can’t do it. And if you tell me that every soul is “adult” no matter its status, I tell you that is absurd. Have you ever raised a child? Have you ever held an infant? There’s intelligence there, there is a HUMAN PERSON there, this is an identifiable SOUL and there is pure innocence: no intention to sin, no knowledge of what sin even is! So I think Baptism gives the human infant a clean slate and then it is up to the parents to finish the task (of course, ultimately, up to the Holy Spirit).

These Councils, these pronouncements, they come from a specific time in human history with a unique environment and I do not believe for one moment that such is binding on God, who is all powerful, all knowing, all merciful. Here I go down the rabbit hole again but this is the result of a lifetime of trying, or praying, of failing, of struggling, of suffering, while under the great and abundant blessing of the Blessed Mother and my personal and very real attachment to the Lord Jesus.

 

[rcwitness]

Well, gee, according to some on this site I am a “heretic” but actually I’m a thinker, a prayer, a person who has spent a literal lifetime considering these things on a daily basis.

I do not think that the Council of Trent was correct in its assessment (oh boy here it comes!)

I think whatever choice was made by “Adam and Eve” corrupted the Human relationship with God but does not bring a deadly spiritual blight upon the entire of humanity unless it is not addressed. Now: does infant baptism address it? Yes I think so because it is the will and intention of the parent(s) to free this infant from any and all attachment to blame and punishment due to an ancestral act (and what do we really KNOW about that act anyway)? And then it is up to the parents to instruct the children,lovingly and with care and prayer, in the ways of Jesus. Ultimately, it is then up to the adult child to make his/her own choice.

I do not, I will not, I cannot accept a God who condemns the “innocent unborn” or “newly born” to damnation because of the flaw that HE SAW WOULD OCCUR. Sorry, folks, just can’t do it. And if you tell me that every soul is “adult” no matter its status, I tell you that is absurd. Have you ever raised a child? Have you ever held an infant? There’s intelligence there, there is a HUMAN PERSON there, this is an identifiable SOUL and there is pure innocence: no intention to sin, no knowledge of what sin even is! So I think Baptism gives the human infant a clean slate and then it is up to the parents to finish the task (of course, ultimately, up to the Holy Spirit).

These Councils, these pronouncements, they come from a specific time in human history with a unique environment and I do not believe for one moment that such is binding on God, who is all powerful, all knowing, all merciful. Here I go down the rabbit hole again but this is the result of a lifetime of trying, or praying, of failing, of struggling, of suffering, while under the great and abundant blessing of the Blessed Mother and my personal and very real attachment to the Lord Jesus.

I once heard a discription of original sin not so much of a stain, but an absent hole. Because of the fall, God was cast out of man’s heart. He did not abandon us, however! But fashioned our salvation into a community who freely chooses Him. We are forever tied to each other in a very profound way. I think much more than we realize…Catholicism having the hidden reality through Christ’s body given to her.

When it comes to children, you are basically saying you can see into their souls and judge that they are pure. I dont think the Church has said these are destined to hell who die as unbaptized youth. She has left it into the hands of the almighty, who judges the hearts of men. I think you are interpreting some things wrong. Sorry, I have not read all of the Trent teachings, but some…and will try to get back to more.

Limbo was an un official attempt to “classify” something we just dont know, by some individuals in the past.

Just because we are born with the emptiness of original sin, doesnt mean that God does not know how to offer His grace to infant souls. We are judged on what we know. We are judged on what we have done, and we are judged by our hearts.

Mankind was created with a new Spirit through Jesus. Some are tested with many trials, and others are taken without any evidence of any opportunity. We as a Church pray for all souls. Is our heavenly Father mercy? Jesus is evidence of that.

 

[Nita]

The paragraph in question on the Trent document says

1. If anyone denies that by the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ which is conferred in baptism, the guilt of original sin is remitted, or says that the whole of that which belongs to the essence of sin is not taken away, but says that it is only canceled or not imputed, let him be anathema. …

Note the words “essence of sin”. The “essence of sin” is separation from God - which therefore means separation from His supernatural life of grace in our soul. This is what happened with Adam and Eve. They were **personally guilty **of choosing to reject - separate from - God, committing the first/original sin of the human race. This sin put their human nature in a state separated from God and His life of grace.

We do not personally commit that sin (or any other mortal sin) at conception, and Trent is certainly not saying that we do. But we are conceived with souls that are in the state that resulted from Adam’s personal original sin - souls without the life of sanctifying grace present in them.

This is what Trent is saying and it’s the same thing the Catechism teaches in the paragraphs you cited.

 

[StrawberryJam]

Note the words “essence of sin”. The “essence of sin” is separation from God - which therefore means separation from His supernatural life of grace in our soul. This is what happened with Adam and Eve. They were **personally guilty **of choosing to reject - separate from - God, committing the first/original sin of the human race. This sin put their human nature in a state separated from God and His life of grace.

We do not personally commit that sin (or any other mortal sin) at conception, and Trent is certainly not saying that we do. But we are conceived with souls that are in the state that resulted from Adam’s personal original sin - souls without the life of sanctifying grace present in them.

This is what Trent is saying and it’s the same thing the Catechism teaches in the paragraphs you cited.

If God gave the first two souls to only Adam and Eve, then there must be a reason why.
Whatever could it be?

 

[Prayer_Warrior]

Thank you for responses. I found some further information on this blog which I am still digesting, but for the most part, I feel better about our position. I really wish an Orthodox poster would comment because I’m telling you that EVERY single Orthodox website makes this claim about Catholic teaching on original sin. With the wording from the Council of Trent, I guess I don’t blame them. And, in truth, I think there are more writings from various saints who talk about guilt in reference to original sin (those writings are not necessarily binding, but may show that this was a line of thinking in the Church at one time.) I am completely comfortable with the explanations of the CCC and the summary that Blessed JPII did in 1986 which speaks of the privation of grace and its effects. But the thought of inheriting “guilt” definitely does not sit well with me.

 

[grannymh]

If God gave the first two souls to only Adam and Eve, then there must be a reason why.
Whatever could it be?

God also promised the Divine Reconciler.

In His wisdom, God knows that humans, because of their nature, would always have the free choice to live in harmony with our Creator or to deny the existence of our Creator. God also knows that Satan would continue his temptations, one of which is the lie that some humans are not worthy of the salvation of Jesus Christ. Satan even tempted Jesus Christ.

In His love for each and every person (John 3:16), God made sure that each one of us, you and me, knows with certainty that we are deeply loved to the point that Jesus hung bleeding on a cross. So that we stay firm in the belief that Jesus conquered death for us as worthy individuals, God blessed Adam and Eve so that all humans would descend from the couple receiving God’s first announcement of salvation.

In other words, there is no doubt in our minds that we are worthy of a relationship with God Himself. This is because all of us are the direct descendants of the first human couple who started their life in harmony with God the Creator. Even though our human nature is wounded as an effect of Adam’s Original Sin, it is still the same basic human nature of our first human parents. It is the same human nature, body and soul, as that of the first two people lovingly created by God.

Considering our destiny of living in joy eternal with our Creator, it does not really matter what recipe God used to form the material anatomy of Adam. What matters is that because we are descendants of Adam, we, too, are material body and spiritual soul. Therefore, we know for sure that God’s personal invitation to Adam and Eve, which was to share in His life because of their spiritual souls, is also a personal invitation to us. There is no doubt that we belong at the foot of the cross, which Jesus, by His obedience, used to open the gates of heaven. Opening the gates of heaven is another way of saying that Jesus, being True God and True Man, repaired the damage caused by the first man.

This is why we turn to the Catholic Church – because Jesus is truly present in the Catholic Eucharist. He did not leave us orphans. Jesus remains with us, no matter what are our daily struggles. We are the children of Adam and Eve, whom God loved so much that He sent His only Son…

 

[Nita]

If God gave the first two souls to only Adam and Eve, then there must be a reason why.
Whatever could it be?

??? If you’re being facetious, I’m totally missing it.

If you’re being serious, it’s pretty obvious why. God desired humans to exist – beings with the capability of loving (which required a human soul with an intellect and will). And He wanted them to be able to take part with Him in the experience of bringing new humans into the world. Thus in bringing a new human being into existence there is a shared participation between 3: a male parent and a female parent from whom come the material part of the new human, and God from whom comes the immaterial soul which He infuses into the material part giving it life.

God not only gave the first 2 souls to the first 2 humans, He’s given the souls to every human that has existed ever since. And, He’ll keep on doing it as long as He wants new humans to come into existence.

 

[Lochias]

I have heard a priest describe our fallen human condition as the remnants of an illness; we may not be guilty, per se, of the same exact sin that Adam and Eve committed, but their actions had lasting ramifications on our souls that can be likened to the weakness and lingering effects of a serious illness. The inclination to sin is more readily accepted in a soul that has not been baptized, for example.

Where the souls of unbaptized children go is beyond our knowing, as is the actual state of their souls; that is why we trust in the mercy and justice of God to do what is right and best for them.

 

[thistle]

Well, gee, according to some on this site I am a “heretic” but actually I’m a thinker, a prayer, a person who has spent a literal lifetime considering these things on a daily basis.

I do not think that the Council of Trent was correct in its assessment (oh boy here it comes!)

I think whatever choice was made by “Adam and Eve” corrupted the Human relationship with God but does not bring a deadly spiritual blight upon the entire of humanity unless it is not addressed. Now: does infant baptism address it? Yes I think so because it is the will and intention of the parent(s) to free this infant from any and all attachment to blame and punishment due to an ancestral act (and what do we really KNOW about that act anyway)? And then it is up to the parents to instruct the children,lovingly and with care and prayer, in the ways of Jesus. Ultimately, it is then up to the adult child to make his/her own choice.

I do not, I will not, I cannot accept a God who condemns the “innocent unborn” or “newly born” to damnation because of the flaw that HE SAW WOULD OCCUR. Sorry, folks, just can’t do it. And if you tell me that every soul is “adult” no matter its status, I tell you that is absurd. Have you ever raised a child? Have you ever held an infant? There’s intelligence there, there is a HUMAN PERSON there, this is an identifiable SOUL and there is pure innocence: no intention to sin, no knowledge of what sin even is! So I think Baptism gives the human infant a clean slate and then it is up to the parents to finish the task (of course, ultimately, up to the Holy Spirit).

These Councils, these pronouncements, they come from a specific time in human history with a unique environment and I do not believe for one moment that such is binding on God, who is all powerful, all knowing, all merciful. Here I go down the rabbit hole again but this is the result of a lifetime of trying, or praying, of failing, of struggling, of suffering, while under the great and abundant blessing of the Blessed Mother and my personal and very real attachment to the Lord Jesus.

The Church does NOT teach that unbaptised babies (born/unborn) go to Hell. Have you actually read the Church teaching on this?

 

[Genesis315]

As others have said, there is no change in teaching on this point, just a reformulation. That being said, the Orthodox making such an accusation is like the pot calling the kettle black.

The modern EO Churches have changed their teaching on original sin. They tend to now teach the foremost effect of original sin is merely bodily death. However, they used to teach that the foremost effect of original sin was liability to eternal punishment. For example, the pan-Orthodox Council of Jerusalem in 1672 taught the following (Decree 16):
Council of Jerusalem:

And since infants are men, and as such need salvation, needing salvation they need also Baptism. And those that are not regenerated, since they have not received the remission of hereditary sin, are, of necessity, subject to eternal punishment, and consequently cannot without Baptism be saved.​

And the effects of Baptism are, to speak concisely, firstly, the remission of the hereditary transgression, and of any sins of any kind that the baptized may have committed. Secondly, it delivers him from the eternal punishment, to which he was liable, as well for original sin and for mortal sins he may have individually committed.

crivoice.org/creeddositheus.html

 

[Genesis315]

The Church does NOT teach that unbaptised babies (born/unborn) go to Hell. Have you actually read the Church teaching on this?

It’s important to point out the distinction between those dying “unbaptized” and those dying in original sin–they can be the same, but it is not necessarily so. The Church does definitively teach that those who die in original go to Hell, but with less pain (or no pains, which is the state of “limbo,” the “outskirts” of Hell) than those who die in actual sin.

What the Church does not teach is that the sacrament of baptism is absolutely the only way God can remit original sin in a soul. It’s possible that he could grant such a privilege to an infant dying unbpatized, and we are free to hope and pray for such a thing, we just can’t presume it since He hasn’t promised it.

There are also many other possibilities theologians have proposed (the faith of the parents maybe imputed to the child (as it is for sacramental baptism), the soul is given a kind of illumination where it chooses God or rebellion, God forsees what the disposition of the soul would have been had he lived to the age of reason, etc., etc.).