Latin/Orthodox Catholic: Original Sin (Jesus Christ, priest, moral, reject)

[Scott1]

Linus7 had this quote in another thread about Mary, the Mother of God:

Originally Posted by Linus7

Of course, there is the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, but that is really a problem that arises from the Western misunderstanding of Original Sin and not an example of the near-deification of Mary.

I was wondering if any of my Orthodox brothers or sister may shed some light on this particular area of misunderstanding: Original Sin.

Thanks,
Scott

[No*s]

Originally Posted by SOGFPP

Linus7 had this quote in another thread about Mary, the Mother of God:


I was wondering if any of my Orthodox brothers or sister may shed some light on this particular area of misunderstanding: Original Sin.

Thanks,
Scott

To become the mother of the Savior, Mary "was enriched by God with the gifts appropriate to such a role." The angel Gabriel at the moment of the annunciation salutes her as "full of grace." In fact, in order for Mary to be able to give the free assent of her faith to the announcement of her vocation, it was necessary that she be wholly borne by God's grace.

Through the centuries the Church has become ever more aware that Mary, "full of grace" through God, was redeemed from the moment of her conception. That is what the dogma of the Immaculate Conception confesses, as Pope Pius IX proclaimed in 1854:

The most blessed Virgin Mary was, from the first moment of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege of almighty God and by virtue of the merits of Jesus Christ, Savior of the human race, preserved immune from all stain of original sin

Catechism of the Catholic Church 490-91

For us, this view is in error (to put it mildly). It, first, compromises Mary's humanity. It needed to be restructured so that it wasn't like ours: tainted by original sin. This, in its turn, affects the Incarnation.

The doctrine of original sin:

All men are implicated in Adam's sin, as St. Paul affirms: "By one man's disobedience many [that is, all men] were made sinners": "sin came into the world through one man and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all men sinned..." The Apostle contrasts the universality of sin and death with the universality of salvation in Christ. "Then as one man's trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one man's act of righteousnes leads to acquittal and life for all men.

Following St. Paul, the Church has always taught that the overwhelming misery which oppresses men and their inclination toward evil and death cannot be understood apart from their connection with Adam's sin and the fact that he has transmitted to us a sin with which we are all born afflicted, a sin which is the "death of the soul." Because of this certainty of faith the Church baptizes for the remission of sins even tiny infants who have not committed personal sin.

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." By this "unity of the human race" all men are implicated in Adam's sin, as all are implicated in Christ's justice. -- CCC 403-404.

This view of sin is foreign to Orthodoxy. We do not accept that we are "implicated" in Adam's sin (and thus, guilty of Adam's transgression). Rather, Adam's sin (Grk: ἁμάρτημα) spawned corruption in his descendants (ἁμαρτία) that passed down from generation to generation. While the ἁμαρτία may be used in a manner synonomous with ἁμάρτημα, it can also denote the condition. Death reigns from Adam to Moses, because we transmit ἁμαρτία, and we sin individually because our natures and wills have been corrupted.

In this view, there is no implied guilt that is passed down, no implication. Without that, there is no need for Mary to have been Immaculately conceived, and so, the doctrine has never been known in the East and was known in the West only after widespread adoption of the Western view of sin. In the sense outlined in the CCC, the East has no concept of original sin.

The view originates with Augustine, who in reading Romans 5.12 had a mistransation: in quo omnes peccaverunt, "in him [Adam] we all sinned." This translation passes on Adam's guilt, and Augustine surmised that the guilt was physically passed down from generation to generation (in the semen IIRC). The proper translation of the verse went: eo quod omnes peccaverunt, "because we all sinned."

In our view, Christ came to meet and assume the corruption upon Himself, and so needed our full nature (including the inherited corruption, ἁμαρτία, which is also rightly translated "sin"). To this effect, Mary was a vessel chosen by her compliance with God. If her humanity were different by removing the results of Adam's transgression, Christ could not accomplish His work, and thus, has a direct bearing on salvation as Orthodoxy understands it.

I hope that clears some of it up .

[Scott1]

Originally Posted by No*s

For us, this view is in error (to put it mildly). It, first, compromises Mary's humanity. It needed to be restructured so that it wasn't like ours: tainted by original sin. This, in its turn, affects the Incarnation.

Why?

The doctrine of original sin:
-- CCC 403-404.

But you then skip 405:
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".

Sounds a bit Orthodox to me

I hope that clears some of it up .

I hope this does.

[No*s]

Originally Posted by SOGFPP

Why?

Because Christ assumes His humanity from her. If the nature of Mary's humanity is different, then so also is the nature of Christ's humanity. Any change to Mary affects Christ. If Mary's humanity had to be changed by her being conceived wholly by grace so that she could carry the Christ, the changes also carry down into Christ's flesh. She safegaurds and defines the Incarnation in the same way that the Deity of Christ is safeguarded by homoousia.

Originally Posted by SOGFPP

But you then skip 405:
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".

Sounds a bit Orthodox to me;)

Your quote says that we have no "personal fault" with original sin. However, it doesn't affirm that there is no inherited fault. That quote, taken alone, would be Orthodox, but it doesn't contradict the concept that we are "implicated" with Adam. That term is used for guilt, and the idea that humanity is implicated in Adam's sin is rather foreign to Orthodoxy.

This is further illustrated by what follows your quote ;).

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). -- 406

Augustine's formulation is precisely what I mentioned a corporate guilt (as opposed to personal). The classifications used in the document are used by Augustine here:

When it is said, "The male who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin, that soul shall be cut off fromhis people, because he hath broken my covenant," some may be troubled how that ought to be understood, since it can be no fault of the infant whose life it is said must perish; nor has the covenant of God been broken by him, but by his parents, who have not taken care to circumcise him. But even the infants, not personally in their life, but according to the common origin of the human race, have all broken God's covenant in that one in whom all have sinned. The City of God Book 16 chapter 27

The division between personal and corporate guilt is clear in that passage. He baltantly states that children are guilty and condemned for the sin of their parents, and then, proceeds to explain how this is like our relationship with Adam. He specifies that we all are guilty of Adam's sin, because we all sinned "in him," but we are not guilty "personally."

Here's another where he explains more on his view:

For God, the author of natures, not of vices, created man upright; but man, being of his own will corrupted, and justly condemned, begot corrupted and condemned children. For we all were in that one man, since we all were that one man, who fell into sin by the woman who was made from him before sin. For not yet was the particular form created and distributed to us, in which we as individuals were to live, but already the seminal nature was there from which we were to be propagated; and this being vitiated by sin, and bound by the chain of death, and justly condemned, man could not be born of man in any other state. And thus, from the bad use of free will, there originated the whole train of evil, which with its concatenation of miseries, convoys the human race from its depraved origins, as from a corrupt root, on to the destruction o fthe second death, which has no end, those only being excepted who are freed by the grace of God. City of God Book 13 chapter 14

Augustine is pretty explicit. We all sinned corporately in Adam, and his guilt is passed down, because "we all were in that one man, since we all were that one man, who fell into sin." This is also the definition cited by the CCC 406; they are Augustine's "reflections."

It isn't accepted in Orthodoxy. We stop short of saying guilt, and will not go to that point. As the CCC says, this view was "expressed" in the fifth century. We go further and say that it had its origin then, and its gaining prominence in the West is a point of separation now.

Originally Posted by SOGFPP

I hope this does.;)

Not quite yet ;).

[Scott1]

No*s,
Thanks for the well written reply.

First of all, let me address one thing: Augustine is not the the Catholic Church, but a part of the Church. A Doctor of the Church, yes..... but hardly infallible. In fact, SEVERAL Augustinian teachings are rejected as it relates to sin and its consequences. Augustine tought that some people were born destined for damnation..... a view rejected by the Church...... we have taken his best, and rejected what was not orthodox (to borrow a phrase )... so your quotes from the City of God, although the book (in my opinion) is one of the greatest works in history (especially in its time)... does not "teach" Catholic dogma.

Originally Posted by No*s

Because Christ assumes His humanity from her. If the nature of Mary's humanity is different, then so also is the nature of Christ's humanity. Any change to Mary affects Christ.

That make no sense to me..... Christ DID inherit his humanity from Mary..... he is like us in every way, EXCEPT for sin..... the fact that Mary was without sin only supports the nature of Christ, it does not contradict it..... (more in my next reply.)

If Mary's humanity had to be changed by her being conceived wholly by grace so that she could carry the Christ, the changes also carry down into Christ's flesh. She safegaurds and defines the Incarnation in the same way that the Deity of Christ is safeguarded by homoousia

Mary's humanity DID NOT have to be changed to carry Christ.... that is a common misconception. One has NOTHING to do with the other. A clearly overlooked part of this is explained (again) in Lumen Gentium:
53. The Virgin Mary, who at the message of the angel received the Word of God in her heart and in her body and gave Life to the world, is acknowledged and honored as being truly the Mother of God and Mother of the Redeemer. Redeemed by reason of the merits of her Son and united to Him by a close and indissoluble tie, she is endowed with the high office and dignity of being the Mother of the Son of God, by which account she is also the beloved daughter of the Father and the temple of the Holy Spirit. Because of this gift of sublime grace she far surpasses all creatures, both in heaven and on earth. At the same time, however, because she belongs to the offspring of Adam she is one with all those who are to be saved.

Mary needed salvation just like the rest of us..... but Mary was saved before she sinned, while we are saved after we have sinned. It is like one person being saved from a disease by an inoculation to prevent it... and another person being saved from the same disease by an operation to cure it ......... by the same "doctor" = Christ.

Your quote says that we have no "personal fault" with original sin. However, it doesn't affirm that there is no inherited fault.

You are grasping at straws my friend..... let me affirm for you: there is not inherited fault.
Look closely:
404: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.
Kenneth, dear friend.... you may just have to realize that we are orthodox in this regard.... contrary to what you may have been taught. The proof is right in front of you.... look no further.... quit reading Augustine and looking for errror.... this is what we teach... take my word for it.

Not quite yet .

I pray that we are now.

Your brother in Christ,
Scott

[No*s]

I believe you on what you're saying, but there's something still different between us.

Something I'd like clarified is what relation does the teaching of Augustine have to the RC doctrine of original sin? The CCC cites him as clarifying the official doctrine, and it being done so again in response to Protestantism. Augustine's opinions on the matter are the problem. To wit, it says, "The Church's teaching on the transmission of original sin was articulated more precisely in the fifth cnetury, especially under the impulse of St. Augustine's reflections."

Augustine's reflections are the problem between us on this issue. The CCC has his language (which I cited above) and cites him as one of the principle people who clarified things. In what way does the CCC mean then? (I assume you know what you're talking about on your own faith, but this definately needs further clarification, because I've actually heard the opposite before, even from a priest).

We definately need some clarification on that point, because I believe you on your own faith. How Augustine's take on this is accepted and used needs to be clarified. The CCC uses his language and cites him as especially clarifying the issue in the fifth century. In the East, Augustine's teachings here are frowned on to say the least. I accept you at your word, but this is one point that needs to be better clarified, because the CCC indicates his teachings are accepted here even though they deviate elsewhere.

Now on Mary, it would help more to explain the Orthodox soteriology. The sin inherited from Adam equates to corruption and death in Orthodoxy, nothing more. Christ had to be born into our corrupt flesh, die, and rise again conquering it for salvation to work. So, if Mary and then Christ were without this inherited problem, then it destroys Orthodox soteriology. If she still has corruption, but is without sin, then the concept of what our inherited sin is here is different than that of Orthodoxy, and I'm assuming this latter is not the case based on what you're saying.

We believe Mary inherited the consequences of Adam's sin, but she is without sin in that she never chose to sin. Christ had to be able to bear our sin, have contact with the corruption that it engenders. Without it, the entire Orthodox ecclessiology falls apart. So, for us, Mary needed that inherited sin to give Christ the flesh which He was to divinize.

[Scott1]

Originally Posted by No*s

Something I'd like clarified is what relation does the teaching of Augustine have to the RC doctrine of original sin?

I don't have the time or expertise to answer this.... I simply can't compare ALL of Augustine's teachings on the subject and then compare and contrast them with current teachings.... that sounds like a good PhD paper, though... All I can tell you is learn what we teach now.... that is what we are talking about..... maybe another day we can talk about this subject in relation to history, but for now, forget Augustine and read the Catechism.

Now on Mary, it would help more to explain the Orthodox soteriology. The sin inherited from Adam equates to corruption and death in Orthodoxy, nothing more.

It means nothing more in the Roman Church, either.

Christ had to be born into our corrupt flesh, die, and rise again conquering it for salvation to work.

Now.... when I first read this, I almost lost my lunch..... .... really.....

WHERE DID YOU LEARN THIS?

Holy heresy batman...... this is NESTORIAN!

Christ was not born in corrupt flesh!

EPISTLE OF CYRIL TO NESTORIUS from the Council of Ephesus
Anathema X. Whosoever shall say that it is not the divine Word himself, when he was made flesh and had become man as we are, but another than he, a man born of a woman, yet different from him (idikos anthropon), who is become our Great High Priest and Apostle; or if any man shall say that he offered himself in sacrifice for himself and not rather for us, whereas, being without sin, he had no need of offering or sacrifice: let him be anathema.

Read ALL of it here..... PLEASE!
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3810.htm

I am stunned and horrified..... I pray that somehow I am reading this wrong.

Please get back to me ASAP!

Scott