Trent on Original Sin

[dcointin]

I would like to know how Eastern Catholics reconcile the Orthodox doctrine of ancestral sin, which I assume they also hold, with the doctrine decreed by the Council of Trent. Since the selection is short, I will quote it here in its entirely (bold mine). I will respond with objections related to the bolded sections:

"1. If any one does not confess that the first man, Adam, when he had transgressed the commandment of God in Paradise, immediately lost the holiness and justice wherein he had been constituted; and that he incurred, through the offence of that prevarication, the wrath and indignation of God, and consequently death, with which God had previously threatened him, and, together with death, captivity under his power who thenceforth had the empire of death, that is to say, the devil, and that the entire Adam, through that offence of prevarication, was changed, in body and soul, for the worse; let him be anathema.

1. If any one asserts, that the prevarication of Adam injured himself alone, and not his posterity; and that the holiness and justice, received of God, which he lost, he lost for himself alone, and not for us also; or that he, being defiled by the sin of disobedience, has only transfused death, and pains of the body, into the whole human race, but not sin also, which is the death of the soul; let him be anathema:–whereas he contradicts the apostle who says; By one man sin entered into the world, and by sin death, and so death passed upon all men, in whom all have sinned.
2. If any one asserts, that this sin of Adam,–which in its origin is one, and being transfused into all by propogation, not by imitation, is in each one as his own, --is taken away either by the powers of human nature, or by any other remedy than the merit of the one mediator, our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath reconciled us to God in his own blood, made unto us justice, santification, and redemption; or if he denies that the said merit of Jesus Christ is applied, both to adults and to infants, by the sacrament of baptism rightly administered in the form of the church; let him be anathema: For there is no other name under heaven given to men, whereby we must be [Page 23] saved. Whence that voice; Behold the lamb of God behold him who taketh away the sins of the world; and that other; As many as have been baptized, have put on Christ.
3. If any one denies, that infants, newly born from their mothers’ wombs, even though they be sprung from baptized parents, are to be baptized; or says that they are baptized indeed for the remission of sins, but that they derive nothing of original sin from Adam, which has need of being expiated by the laver of regeneration for the obtaining life everlasting,–whence it follows as a consequence, that in them the form of baptism, for the remission of sins, is understood to be not true, but false, --let him be anathema. For that which the apostle has said, By one man sin entered into the world, and by sin death, and so death passed upon all men in whom all have sinned, is not to be understood otherwise than as the Catholic Church spread everywhere hath always understood it. For, by reason of this rule of faith, from a tradition of the apostles, even infants, who could not as yet commit any sin of themselves, are for this cause truly baptized for the remission of sins, that in them that may be cleansed away by regeneration, which they have contracted by generation. For, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
4. If any one denies, that, by the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, which is conferred in baptism, the guilt of original sin is remitted; or even asserts that the whole of that which has the true and proper nature of sin is not taken away; but says that it is only rased, or not imputed; let him be anathema. For, in those who are born again, there is nothing that God hates; because, There is no condemnation to those who are truly buried together with Christ by baptism into death; who walk not according to the flesh, but, putting off the old man, and putting on the new who is created according to God, are made inno-[Page 24]cent, immaculate, pure, harmless, and beloved of God, heirs indeed of God, but joint heirs with Christ; so that there is nothing whatever to retard their entrance into heaven. But this holy synod confesses and is sensible, that in the baptized there remains concupiscence, or an incentive (to sin); which, whereas it is left for our exercise, cannot injure those who consent not, but resist manfully by the grace of Jesus Christ; yea, he who shall have striven lawfully shall be crowned. This concupiscence, which the apostle sometimes calls sin, the holy Synod declares that the Catholic Church has never understood it to be called sin, as being truly and properly sin in those born again, but because it is of sin, and inclines to sin."

 

[dcointin]

Bold One: Orthodoxy teaches the man did not die because God punished him with death, but because death is the natural consequence of sin since it separates us from the grace of God, who is the source of life. The idea of the wrath of God, while not strictly denied, is considered secondary to the primary problem, which is sin and death. The incarnation of Christ as the means of appeasing the wrath of God was formulated most fully by St. Anselm of Canterbury in “Cur Deus Homo” (“Why the God Man?”), which strongly influenced western theology, but was never accepted in the east.

Bold Two: Orthodoxy teaches that man did not inherit sin as such from Adam, but the consequences of sin, namely death and birth into a corrupt world. The world which we now live in is one of struggle and pain where survival becomes difficult and death is a constant concern. It is the fear of death which entices men to sin in fearing that we won’t have enough for our own survival and hoarding all that we can, viewing our fellow man as competition against our own survival, jealousy and envy that results, etc.

Bold Three and Five: The translation used here “in whom all have sinned” is a mistranslation of the Vulgate of the Greek which actually reads “because all have sinned.” The Catechism of the Catholic Church corrects this mistranslation in its section on original sin, stating: “sin came into the world through one man and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all men sinned.” This mistranslation makes it appear that in Adam all men sinned, that is, we are guilty of the sin of Adam because we are his children, which was influential in the development of the western idea of original sin. The east, reading the original Greek, never suffered from this problem.

Bold Four: As stated previously, Orthodox teaches that man did not inherit a destruction of the image of God, but sins by imitation and due to his circumstance. Man inherits corruption and death, but not the guilt of Adam’s sin. The western doctrine of original sin treats it almost like a genetic disease propogated by sex and childbirth, which I believe is not taught in the east.

Bold Six: As also stated previously, Orthodox does not teach that we inherit the guilt of Adam’s sin, but rather corruption and death, which is its consequence.

I would like to hear if my Eastern Catholic brothers and sisters share my objections to these statements by Trent, and if so how you reconcile them with the dogmatic necessity of submitting to its decrees, and if not how your beliefs differ. Please also feel free to correct me if I have mischaracterized Orthodox beliefs in any way.

I would also like to repeat that I’m not posting this to be a controversialist, but out of a genuine desire to come to grips personally with Catholic teaching. God bless!

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Don,

Though I’m not an Eastern, I’ve studied this topic thoroughly, so I hope you don’t mind my presumption at responding.

As an Oriental, I have absolutely no problem with #1 through #4. It is what I was taught in the Coptic Orthodox Church, and I know for a fact it is the same theology, based on the Justice of God, that all the Churches in the Oriental Orthodox communion share.

The only theological problem I, as an Oriental, had while not yet in communion with Rome was the theological phrase “guilt of original sin” mentioned in #5. But my studies have led me to a proper understanding of this Latin theological language. The problem is merely one of semantics. In effect, the problem is really just the English translation from the original Latin (it is the same with the apparent differences with the Easterns on #1 thru #4, which I will explain later - it is a matter of semantics).

What is objectionable about the phrase “guilt of original sin” is the idea that we have inherited the blame for Adam’s original sin, for this is the most common connotation of “guilt” in the English language. But the original Latin actually does not contain the idea of “blame.” Latin distinguishes between culpa and reatus. The term culpa is the actual word in Latin that denotes the English word “blame.” But the Decree of Trent does not use the term culpa that is translated as “guilt” in the phrase at issue. Rather it is the term reatus. So Trent is not teaching that we inherit the culpa (i.e., blame) of Adam’s original sin, but rather that we inherit the reatus of Adam’s original sin.

The difference between culpa and reatus can best be explained by the following analogy. Imagine that your rich father damaged someone else’s property. Because of that act, your rich father has acquired both a culpa (blame) and a moral/legal consequence for that act referred to as reatus (a state of obligation to recompense). Now suppose your father dies and you inherit your father’s estate. But suppose your father died without having compensated for the damaged property. Having inherited his estate, you have also inherited the moral/legal consequence of his act to recompense for the damage, even though you are yourself not to blame for your father’s act. In other words, while you have not inherited his culpa, you have inherited his reatus. At this point, I understood that the Latin teaching was perfectly consistent with the Oriental Tradition.

So what is this “reatus of original sin” that is remitted by Baptism? Trent explains that it is the STAIN OF ORIGINAL SIN, which is a specific term that refers to the spiritual consequences of original sin, not its physical consequences.

As far as the Eastern Tradition is concerned, the key to the resolution is in understanding what the term “sin” means according to Trent. The theological distinction lies in the normative Eastern understanding of sin as ACTUAL sin. But when Trent refers to “sin,” whether actual or original, it is not referring to an act, but to THE STATE OF SEPARATION FROM GOD (i.e., what Trent explicitly called “the death of the soul”). So wherever Trent asserts that “we inherit sin from Adam.” it is to be understood ONLY to mean that we inherit the death of the soul from Adam, not that we inherit the actual sin of Adam so as to acquire blame for it.

On issues premised upon Original Justice, as the Oriental Tradition is in agreement with the Latin Tradition, I should only hope our Eastern brethren are willing to cut the Latins some slack. I mean since many EO are obviously not willing to consider that an issue to separate EO and OO, they should likewise not be willing to make that an issue to separate EO and Latins - unless they are willing to be hypocrites in the eyes of God (and we know what God thinks of hypocrites).

I hope that helps.

Blessings,
Marduk

I would like to know how Eastern Catholics reconcile the Orthodox doctrine of ancestral sin, which I assume they also hold, with the doctrine decreed by the Council of Trent. Since the selection is short, I will quote it here in its entirely (bold mine). I will respond with questions related to the bolded sections:

 

[JohnJFarren]

Dear Brothers and Sisters in Jesus Christ – 26 July 2011
I am a devout Roman Catholic. I have been studying Theosis, Divinization, as understood both in the Orthodox Church and thre Roman Church. I am knowledgeable about theological matters.

Is it possible among you who are posting in this thread or topic … to discuss “Adam and Eve … Garden … Original Sin itself” in a way that goes beyond, rises above, thinking of Adam and Eve as the literally first man and women from whom all us have originated?

I am convinced – as is also Pope Benedict – that the Church is in great need of a much better understanding of Original Sin AND a fresh, new, form in which to present this understanding. Both “new wine” and “new skins” are desperately needed.

I have long thought in these areas and find that fresh ways are indeed possible … keeping in complete accord with the ESSENCE of the Church’s teachings.
John (JohnJFarren) Trinity5635@aol.com

 

[ConstantineTG]

Dear Brothers and Sisters in Jesus Christ – 26 July 2011
I am a devout Roman Catholic. I have been studying Theosis, Divinization, as understood both in the Orthodox Church and thre Roman Church. I am knowledgeable about theological matters.

Is it possible among you who are posting in this thread or topic … to discuss “Adam and Eve … Garden … Original Sin itself” in a way that goes beyond, rises above, thinking of Adam and Eve as the literally first man and women from whom all us have originated?

I am convinced – as is also Pope Benedict – that the Church is in great need of a much better understanding of Original Sin AND a fresh, new, form in which to present this understanding. Both “new wine” and “new skins” are desperately needed.

I have long thought in these areas and find that fresh ways are indeed possible … keeping in complete accord with the ESSENCE of the Church’s teachings.
John (JohnJFarren) Trinity5635@aol.com

Blessed Pope John Paul II’s Theology of the Body I think fits the bill. Plus a lot of it surprisingly is Eastern in flavor, especially it touches a lot on Theosis.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Don,

I hope my prior explanation of “sin” as death of the soul settles most of your concerns. I would like to address this final one:

Bold Four:…The western doctrine of original sin treats it almost like a genetic disease propogated by sex and childbirth, which I believe is not taught in the east.

This would not be a proper understanding, according to Catholic Magisterial sources.

If anyone says that original sin is formally concupiscence, or that it is a physical or a substantial disease of human nature, or if he says that the privation of sanctifying grace is not of the essence of original sin: Let him be anathema.
Constitution De Fide, Vatican 1

Do you have any objections to or concerns about the above from Vatican 1?

I’d also add that while it is a heresy according to Catholic teaching to think of Original Sin as a genetic disease, it is acceptable to think of it as a disease that needs to be healed. Trent itself taught that the merits of Christ are the REMEDY for Original Sin, in agreement with Pope St. Cyril of Alexandria’s imagery of Original Sin as a disease.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Is it possible among you who are posting in this thread or topic … to discuss “Adam and Eve … Garden … Original Sin itself” in a way that goes beyond, rises above, thinking of Adam and Eve as the literally first man and women from whom all us have originated?

I’m not sure I understand what you mean. This is the dogmatic teaching of the Church united. I don’t see how it can change.

What do you think is problematic about the above teaching?

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[marlo]

Man, i hope you could write an essay on how to understand original sin, just the way you explained it here, who knows, your work might just be the translator of different understanding of original sin.

Dear brother Don,

I hope my prior explanation of “sin” as death of the soul settles most of your concerns. I would like to address this final one:

This would not be a proper understanding, according to Catholic Magisterial sources.

If anyone says that original sin is formally concupiscence, or that it is a physical or a substantial disease of human nature, or if he says that the privation of sanctifying grace is not of the essence of original sin: Let him be anathema.
Constitution De Fide, Vatican 1

Do you have any objections to or concerns about the above from Vatican 1?

I’d also add that while it is a heresy according to Catholic teaching to think of Original Sin as a genetic disease, it is acceptable to think of it as a disease that needs to be healed. Trent itself taught that the merits of Christ are the REMEDY for Original Sin, in agreement with Pope St. Cyril of Alexandria’s imagery of Original Sin as a disease.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Alexander_Roman]

And I also thought the Latin West’s “original sin” was the Filioque . .

JUST KIDDING!!

Aleex