Original sin

[Robert Mahoney]

The Lord be with you.

I have a question, I have been studying Orthodox theology and how it differs from Western. The question I have is in regards to Orthodoxy and Original Sin.

As I understand it (please correct me if I am wrong) Orthodoxy believes that we inherit Adam's fallen nature but not his guilt whereas Rome and Protestants believe we do inherit Adams nature and guilt.

Now, if infants only have Adams nature, why are they baptized for the forgiveness of sin if they are not guilty of any? This is a question of a friend of mine who is Presbyterian.

Thank you in advance.

In Christ.

Robert

[Heather Morinelli]

Dear Robert---

These are a couple of things that I read in the past year about this subject. I have also had to answer this question, not only to myself because I'm having my children baptized shortly, but to my family who are Protestants. I think, in fact, that my aunt doesn't agree at all with what I'm doing by having them baptized, that somehow I'm taking away their "freedom".

First of all about the ancestral sin---I read in "A Monk of Mount Athos" by Archimandrite Sophrony on pg 63 it says: "Many of us cannot, or do not want to, accept and suffer of our own free will the consequences of Adam's original sin. 'Adam and Eve ate forbidden fruit-but what has that to do with me?' we protest. 'I am ready to answer for my own sins but certainly not for the sins of others.' And we do not realize that in arguing thus we are repeating within ourselves the sin of Adam, making it our own personal sin, leading to our own personal fall. Adam denied responsibility, laying all the blame on Eve and on God who had given him his wife..."

I know this doesn't answer the baby part of the question, but I found it pretty interesting.
In the book "Life After Death" by Metropolitan Heirotheos, in the chapter entitled The DEath of Infants pg 101: "There is the problem of what happens at Holy Baptism. That is to say, since infants have a pure nous which is in a state of illumination, why do we baptize them?

The answer, as we see in the whole patristic tradition, is that by holy Baptism we are not getting rid of guilt from ancestral sin, but we are being grafted on to the Body of Christ, the Church, and are acquiring the power to conquer death. This is how we understand the baptism of babies. We baptise them so that they may become members of the Church, members of the Body of Christ, that they may pass over death, overcome the garments of skin, decay, and mortality. That is to say that as they grow, whenever the nous becomes darkened by passions and the darkness of the surroundings, they may have the ability to conquer in Christ, to overcome the passions and to purify the noetic part of their souls once more."

I don't know if this will help because you also may get into differences with how people view the soul and how sin affects us.

I read somewhere also that by denying a child baptism, and if they die (God forbid), that you may possibly be denying them their full glorification on the final day of Judgement. That baptism awakens our spiritual senses that will enable us to fully experience the glory of Christ, and those not baptised (such as children born of pagans) will be much like a blind man or one who cannot hear etc.

I don't know if that is true....but it kinda makes sense anyway.

Hope this helps
heather

[Alvin Kimel]

With regards to the Catholic position on Original Sin, consider the following from the Catholic Catechism (http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p1s2c1p7.htm):


Although it is proper to each individual, 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.

Does Orthodoxy find itself in disagreement with this?

[Richard Leigh]

Hi Robert,

Simply put the human problem as far as the East is concerned is that we sin because we are mortal, i.e., going to die. For the West, the problem is that we are going to die becasue we sin. I.e., death is punishment for sin.

Orthodoxy sees everything in terms of "what things are" (i.e., essence) plus something energizing them to be whatever they are. Original Sin (to Catholicism) Ancestral Sin to Orthodoxy is all about what was lost at the fall to give us the need for baptism.

Orthodoxy sees that for Man to be created in the "image" of God was the "thing" he was and for him to be created in the "likeness to God" was the engerization of the image he was. Thus Orthodoxy recognizes that it was the energization of Man's imageness of God that he lost to the point of making the image ineffectual. It may sound like the image is gone (what the Western chruch in general thinks) but it isn't. The "image of God" remains, i.e., what Man has in common with God, reason etc., but the energy that turns this to be for God and unto God is lost, so, human reason (and any other way he may resemble God) is ineffectual in getting him to God. This is also spoken of as the "darkening of the nous", so, not even an infant is born with an enlightened nous, enlightening comes with Baptism or chrismation, I am pretty sure (i.e., the enlightening of the Holy Spirit).

In either case, both the East and West confess together in the creed that we believe in One Baptism for the remission (?) if sins.

Scripture teaches us that Baptism places us into the Body of Christ, into his death and resurrection.

Orthodoxy baptizes infants so that they will have Christ's life, and be free from having to sin.

Catholicsm in particular and the West in general do not distinguish essences and energies, Image and Likeness, so, for us Westerners both were lost (both being the same thing to us, of course).

By the same token, Orthodoxy, I think, sees "death" as what energizes sin, so Christ frees from sin by defeating death.

The West, not making such a distinction, sees death as the punishment for sin, such that Christ frees from death at the crucifixion by dying in punishment for Sin he did not commit.

In both scenarios, we understand ourselves to be being baptized into Christ, and to receive remission of sins thereby.

Catholics know their infants are at risk for death and surmise that it must be for something they are guilty of, so it must be Adam's sin.

I am a bit confused as to how, according to the Catechetical quotation Fr. Alvin gave they do not consider that this concupiscence or sinful tendency something to be guilty of, and Lutheranism has retained the idea that this tendency itself is sin. It might be that the Catholics mean that since the origninal sin is washed away at baptism they no longer are guilty, I don't know. Lutherans teach that we always retain the sinful nature (not the nature we were created with, but the one we fell into)even after baptism, that what baptism provides is a palpable personal event attached to God's promise of forgiveness on account of Christ.

Yours,

Richard

[Marie Quirk]

Here is another quote from the Catholic Catechism: "By Baptism all sins are forgiven, original sin and all personal sins, as well as all punishment for sin. In those who have been reborn nothing remains that would impede their entry into the Kingdom of God, neither Adam's sin, nor personal sin, nor the consequences of sin, the gravest of which is separation from God. Yet certain temporal consequences of sin remain in the baptized, such as suffering, illness, death, and such frailities inherent in life as weaknesses of character, and so on, as well as an inclination to sin that Tradition calls concupiscence. or metaphorically, "the tinder for sin" (fomes peccati); since concupiscence is left for us to wrestle with, it cannot harm those who do not consent but manfully resist it by the grace of Jesus Christ. Indeed, an athlete is not crowned unless he competes according to the rules.

...The Most Holyn Trinity gives the baptized sanctifying grace, the grace of justification...THus the whole organism of the Christian's supernatural life has its root in Baptism"

Perhaps this may be helpful.

[Owen Jones]

But none of this apart from faith, or a community of the faithful, and a faith that is more than just lookwarm.

[Fr Averky]

Dear all,

Why, may I ask, are we being given the answers of the Catholic Church to these questions? What is it that Orthodoxy always has to be viewed in the light of Roman Catholic errors? If you want to give an anwer from the richness of the Tradition of the teachings and the Fathers of the Orthdox Church fine, but it is rather tedious to tackle questions like the view of the Eucharist or any of the Sacraments from the distorted view of the Romans. For some reason it seems to be a weakness of the Anglican community to still hang onto the coat tails of the Latins. It all seems to come down to some sort of intellectual speculation rather than a real search for the Faith or Truth. I don't care what the Roman's definition of anything is - they may have their views, but I do not think that it is of any value to constantly give definitions from the Roman Catechism, which has changed its definitions several times over the centuries as if the truth can be changed at whim. For the longest time, the Pope of Rome was termed "Christ's Vicar on Earth, " or simply, "Christ on Earth," now the new wording is something like "Christ's Representative on earth," but does that really change the meaning -not at all, and if you have any doubts, ask Pope John Paul II, the autocrats's autocrat. I have nothing against Rome per se, but I think it rather silly to be saying that Orthodoxy ought to compare its teachings to that of the Church of Rome.

[Alvin Kimel]

Dear Father Averky,

With all due respect, this thread was started with an honest query about how the Orthodox understanding of original sin differs from Western understandings.

There was a very good reason to cite a passage from the Catholic Catechism, namely, to accurately represent the Catholic view, which in my experience is often misunderstood, misconstrued, and misstated, especially on Orthodox newsgroups.

I do not understand why such a posting should provoke your polemical and unhelpful reaction. Instead of responding with a diatribe against Catholicism and Anglicanism, why did you not simply answer Robert's question?

Perhaps it would be helpful for Matthew to create a separate area expressly for discussion of East/West issues.

[Richard Leigh]

Dear Father Averky,

I at first wondered the same thing you did about the need for Father Alvin's (and then Marie Quirk's) quotation from the Roman Catechism.

OTOH, Robert had asked:

"Now, if infants only have Adams nature, why are they baptized for the forgiveness of sin if they are not guilty of any? This is a question of a friend of mine who is Presbyterian."

Also to be noted is that we are answering him as a community of sorts, not as individuals each thinking one has the whole answer or all the answers (and if any of us should slip into thinking that, pride has oportunity to quickly bite the dust). So, we each are really only contributing partially.

Since Robert's question was how he, an Orthodox believer might answer questions of his Presbyterian neighbor, I would think he would want to hear "his side" as it compares to "his neighbor's side".

Robert summarized the difference between Orthodox, vs. Western views of the fall pretty well, and I myself thought to develop that into how each of those views is used to justify infant baptizm (for those Protestant Churches that retain that ancient rite, Anglicans, Lutherans and Presbyterians, in alphabetical order). I forgot to mention specific referrence to the Presbyterian usage, that their own rationale for infant baptism is its analogy to the covenant sign of the Old Testament, circumcision (St. Paul calls Christ's crucifixion, among otherthings our "circumcision" comparing the flesh, i.e., whole body of Christ to etc. etc." Noting that the covenant sign was applied on the eighth day of life, they willingly place their children into the New Covenant of Baptism into this "spiritual circumcision."

But, to get back to what I was saying, to show differences between Eastern thought on the subject and Western, false as they may appear and even be (people still have them for good reason) we need to know what they are accurately, lest we look the fool shooting at straw men (not that we're shooting anyone, of course, but we are admonished to have a sure defense against the opposition, and it is a good and God Glorifying witness to share the truth truly.

So I hope we all haven't overburdened Robert with more information than he needs, but even so, the rest of us at least get the chance to learn more about the Faith we've been given.

Let us then thank Robert for the questions which give us all such an opportunity, and everyone else, Fr. K, Marie Q, Owen and yourself for what light the Lord can shed on this matter through all of you.

May God truly be praised
(and be truly prased!)

Richard

[Richard Leigh]

Dear all, and especially Fr. A,

I so inadvertently forgot to mention Heather M, whose response to Robert, I thought, most excellent! My appologies to her for my oversight in my most recent post.

Richard

[Heather Morinelli]

Dear Richard L---

Thank you for remembering me. I'm just glad anyone reads my posts!! I don't know anything, so usually I just try to refer to what I've been reading....

Which reminds me...I still haven't found that passage I was looking for that I mentioned in a different post...I'll look for it tonight.

----heather

[Fr Averky]

Dear Robert, Alvin, and all,

Sincere apologies - I was feeling rather billious at the time, and was completley out of line in my remark. I suppose that it is a reaction to my own former days as a Roman Catholic, when every "question" was already answered by Rome. God, and His Truths, is not always to be found just in the mind. All of the heresies and divisions which have shaken the Church over the centuries have come about becuse men began to devise their own views of what the Church teaches. While many of these men have been sincere, their conclusions have only led to the dividing and dividing again of Christianity.

In this case, the question was entirley valid, and my reaction was inappropriate. I do usually try to be helpful, but my sinfulness and pride gets the best of me at times -so sorry!

Father Averky

[Richard McBride]

Doctrine and Theology >> ORIGINAL SIN thread // MESSAGE ONE

I am so thankful to God and to the Mother of God for struggling with me until I could accept the true faith of Orthodoxy. What unbelievable Grace has been showered upon this undeserving sinner. And as a teacher I know there is a certain responsibility to pass on some of these hard won lessons, always praying that I do not garble them with my own vain imaginations. But then, the Paraclete either transmits them in preferred form, or hits me with a 2X4 to shut me up. I have had ample experience of both, so I know there is no real need to worry.

Yet, I (as I believe many Orthodox) tend to be cautious at questions as this one:

"Now, if infants only have Adams nature, why are they baptized for the forgiveness of sin if they are not guilty of any? This is a question of a friend of mine who is Presbyterian. "
Robert Mahoney 1 Posted on Sunday, 11 May, 2003


These types of questions seem to come packaged with an argument, and I cannot help but wonder if the questioner will really hear anything in the earnest replies -- anything, that is, beyond that with which he is already prepared to argue?
It is an argumentative question, and it is not offered in a humble and questioning manner. Yet, everyone who makes such an assumption (as I am doing) is in danger of passing judgments based upon mere suspicions. It may be that thinking in this vein (at all) is committing the sin of judgment, which is better left to God.

I pray that I am wrong about Robert's question and ask forgiveness for my wrong-headedness. Nevertheless, a stubborn resistance to the Truth -- that Truth which is to be found in Orthodoxy -- does in habit some unhappy souls. We have seen them come and go. I think I mentioned sometime ago an incident concerning my then father confessor. We were told that a certain person was waiting for Father, whereupon he sent back the reply that he would not meet with at that time. I was surprised, and asked Father why he refused the audience. Father's simple answer was, "All he wants to do is argue."
.................................................. .....

In a second message following this one, I have cut and snipped some of the previous messages to this thread begun by Robert, laying emphasis upon certain portions in bold type. There are many very good versions of excellent Truth to be had from them. For those who see these issues in an unorthodox and argumentative way, I beg them to pray before their Cross prior to and after reading Orthodox works, seeking enlightenment and discernment, praying earnestly for humble perception and above all, pray to be rid of the awful demons of pride. Orthodox too should pray and fight to purge the demons of pride: Pride at hearing nice things said about them; pride at seeing their messages published; pride at having someone else agree with their viewpoint. These vanities are unseemly and will only cloud the glass through which they view the world and God. Rather, be glad and thank God that someone as Father Averky is able to offer the beautiful balm of correction to your life.

Most importantly, to all questions as the one at hand, I select a couple of quotations from Father Averky as an epigraph to this thread:

"It all seems to come down to some sort of intellectual speculation rather than a real search for the Faith or Truth."

"God, and His Truths, is not always to be found just in the mind."

If everyone who reads this thread has eyes to see and ears to hear, it will because they have been successful in dismissing the pride which is the mother to all other sins.


[Re. THE FOLLOWING MESSAGE FOR A SYNOPSIS OF SUBMITTED MSGS.]

[Richard McBride]

[Cf. the prefious message for an introduction to the following synopses;]

MESSAGE NUMBER TWO: to the question:

"Now, if infants only have Adams nature, why are they baptized for the forgiveness of sin if they are not guilty of any? This is a question of a friend of mine who is Presbyterian. "
Robert Mahoney 1 Posted on Sunday, 11 May, 2003

************************************************** ***



"'I am ready to answer for my own sins but certainly not for the sins of others.' And we do not realize that in arguing thus we are repeating within ourselves the sin of Adam, making it our own personal sin, leading to our own personal fall. Adam denied responsibility, laying all the blame on Eve and on God who had given him his wife..."

From: "Life After Death" by Metropolitan Heirotheos, in the chapter entitled The DEath of Infants pg 101:
"There is the problem of what happens at Holy Baptism. That is to say, since infants have a pure nous which is in a state of illumination, why do we baptize them?
The answer, as we see in the whole patristic tradition, is that by holy Baptism we are not getting rid of guilt from ancestral sin, but we are being grafted on to the Body of Christ, the Church, and are acquiring the power to conquer death. This is how we understand the baptism of babies. We baptise them so that they may become members of the Church, members of the Body of Christ, that they may pass over death, overcome the garments of skin, decay, and mortality. That is to say that as they grow, whenever the nous becomes darkened by passions and the darkness of the surroundings, they may have the ability to conquer in Christ, to overcome the passions and to purify the noetic part of their souls once more."
Heather Morinelli 8 Posted on Sunday, 11 May, 2003


"With regards to the Catholic position on Original Sin, consider the following from the Catholic Catechism
Alvin Kimel 34 Posted on Sunday, 11 May, 2003


"Orthodoxy sees that for Man to be created in the "image" of God was the "thing" he was and for him to be created in the "likeness to God" was the engerization of the image he was. Thus Orthodoxy recognizes that it was the energization of Man's imageness of God that he lost to the point of making the image ineffectual. It may sound like the image is gone (what the Western chruch in general thinks) but it isn't. The "image of God" remains, i.e., what Man has in common with God, reason etc., but the energy that turns this to be for God and unto God is lost, so, human reason (and any other way he may resemble God) is ineffectual in getting him to God. This is also spoken of as the "darkening of the nous", so, not even an infant is born with an enlightened nous, enlightening comes with Baptism or chrismation, I am pretty sure (i.e., the enlightening of the Holy Spirit). "
Richard Leigh 52 Posted on Sunday, 11 May, 2003



"Here is another quote from the Catholic Catechism: "
Marie Quirk 3 Posted on Sunday, 11 May, 2003



"It all seems to come down to some sort of intellectual speculation rather than a real search for the Faith or Truth. I don't care what the Roman's definition of anything is - they may have their views, but I do not think that it is of any value to constantly give definitions from the Roman Catechism, which has changed its definitions several times over the centuries as if the truth can be changed at whim."
Hieromonk Averky 128 Posted on Monday, 12 May, 2003


"...this thread was started with an honest query about how the Orthodox understanding of original sin differs from Western understandings."

[And Fr Kimel rather feels that this:]
:...was a very good reason to cite a passage from the Catholic Catechism, namely, to accurately represent the Catholic view, which in my experience is often misunderstood, misconstrued, and misstated, especially on Orthodox newsgroups."
Alvin Kimel 35 Posted on Monday, 12 May, 2003


"...to be noted is that we are answering [Robert Hanoney] as a community of sorts, not as individuals each thinking one has the whole answer or all the answers (and if any of us should slip into thinking that, pride has oportunity to quickly bite the dust). So, we each are really only contributing partially. "
Richard Leigh 53 Posted on Monday, 12 May, 2003



"This is a comment on original sin by Fr. John Matsutiak
"... In the Orthodox Faith, the term "original sin" refers to the "first" sin of Adam and Eve. As a result of this sin, humanity bears the "consequences" of sin, the chief of which is death. Here the word "original" may be seen as synonymous with "first." Hence, the "original sin" refers to the "first sin" in much the same way as "original chair" refers to the "first chair."

· In the West, humanity likewise bears the "consequences" of the "original sin" of Adam and Eve. However, the West also understands that humanity is likewise "guilty" of the sin of Adam and Eve. The term "Original Sin" here refers to the condition into which humanity is born, a condition in which guilt as well as consequence is involved. "
Euterpe Ganatsios 39 Posted on Monday, 12 May, 2003


"God, and His Truths, is not always to be found just in the mind. All of the heresies and divisions which have shaken the Church over the centuries have come about becuse men began to devise their own views of what the Church teaches. While many of these men have been sincere, their conclusions have only led to the dividing and dividing again of Christianity."
Hieromonk Averky 132 Posted on Monday, 12 May, 2003

[Owen Jones]

after reading the above, I'm more confused than ever on the subject of infant baptism. I'm thrown back to that great theologian, Mark Twain, who, when asked if he believed in infant baptism responded, "believe it! I've SEEN IT!"

[Marie Quirk]

Dear All,

I tryed to post this message earlier but I must have done something wrong. I have a question about Baptism that does not answer the original question of this thread. I have searched the site and do not know where else to put it. So please forgive me if this question interrupts the flow of this thread.

How and why is it that priests baptise adult Christians who convert to the Orthodox Church and have already been baptised in another Church? I spent some time in a monastery in Greece and I witnessed many adult baptisms. I was also supposed to be baptised (or rebaptised) depending on how one looks at it. I was baptised as an infant in the Roman Catholic Church. I think it has something to do with economia and I've read a little about it on an Orthodox website. But it is still not clear to me and I would appreciate if someone could explain it to me.

ANd please forgive me for offending some of you by quoting the Cath. Catech. That was not my intention. I have a copy of it and was hoping to be helpful.

Prayers to all as I beg you to pray for me a poor sinner,
AMAQ

[Owen Jones]

Dear Marie,

I was chrismated into Orthodoxy. I was baptized as an infant in the name of the Holy Trinity. Later, I came to find that some jurisdictions do not accept my protestant baptism and will not permit me to receive communion, or treat me as in any sense Orthodox. For example, at a Greek monastery in Arizona, I would not be permitted even to venture beyond the narthex.

I figure I'm not going to figure out that problem, and I'm not likely to get baptized, any more than I am likely to go through an Orthodox marriage service with my wife of 25 years. Sometimes you just do the best you can and leave the rest up to Him.

[Richard Leigh]

Hi Marie,

They don't all. The Russian Orthodox convert from Lutheranism St. Elizabeth was, I am pretty sure, accepted without what we Lutherans would call "re" baptism, only chrismation was added.

But the short answer to your question is that the Orthodox cannot actually "recognize" (or see) The Church other than in Orthodoxy, and it is the orthodoxy of Christ's church that "validates" a baptism (to use a Western conceptualization of the matter). Hence, an Orthodox priest is only baptizing someone "truly" into the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.

This causes some of us "heteros" to balk, because we were taught (in true western fashion :-) that it is "the Word" that makes baptism "valid" (i.e., what it is: entrance into the Body of Christ). This, BTW is not what all protestants are taught, but it is what Lutherans are taught. We do, in fact believe we are in Christ's true Body, the Church, because of our Faith in him through the gospel and properly administered baptism.

Richard

[Robert Mahoney]

Richard stated:

"These types of questions seem to come packaged with an argument, and I cannot help but wonder if the questioner will really hear anything in the earnest replies -- anything, that is, beyond that with which he is already prepared to argue?"

No arguments here my friend, just honest questions. I am studying Orthodoxy, especially the doctrine of theosis....truly beautiful, and I consider myself Anglo-Orthodox. I am a Postulant for holy orders in the Anglican Church and have a very sweet place in my heart for Orthodoxy.

I do not desire to get into "Why don't I leave Anglicanism for Orthodoxy" at this time, so please resist the temptation =)

I have been on the road for two days, so I will reread the posts and soak them up.

Thanks to everyone who has replied.

Robert

[irineu]

Actually I have always thought that ok we do cannot be personally responsible for what adam and Eve did, but also I do not think that we carry within us results of the first sin simply because we are descendands of Adam and Eve.

I think that each one of use had we been in Eden we would have done the same what the first couple did.
It is in this mystical untity and unanimity of humanity that I see it justified for us to carry the results of the first sin, although not directly involved or responsible for it.

On the other hand, Salvation also through Christ becomes our own potentiality, so through Him we can be victorious as well, and is not simply that Christ won the Victory for us.


I remember we have had these discussions in our seminary, and I also remember that we were taught about the catholic teaching on original sin is quite different from what we see today in catholic cathecism as above.

And also, orthodoxinfo.com as good orthodox answers on all these topics.

[marley]

how is new chirstan compar to a new born baby
mah.

[Rebecca]

Quotes from some Orthodox hymns:

"All ye that are baptized in Christ have been clothed in Christ, Alleluia"

"I see Thy Bridal Chamber adorned, O my Saviour, and I have no wedding garment that I may enter therein: O Giver of Light, make radiant the vesture of my soul and save me"

[M.C. Steenberg]

I am currently 'catching up' on some older threads/messages. I noticed the following, posted on 22nd September by 'Marley', a guest visitor:


How [does a] new Christian compare to a new born baby?

If you are interested in following up this parallelism between a newborn child and the life of the Christian person, the source bar-none for deep insight is the second-century St Irenaeus of Lyons. It was the belief of St Irenaeus that Adam and Eve were children in the Garden, set for the course of growth into maturity and perfection that is the full course and destiny of every human life. Not only can the individual life of each Christian person be paralleled to that of Adam and Eve in growth from childhood to adulthood, but so too can the entirety of the human race.

It is especially interesting that this question was posed in the 'Original Sin' thread (whether intentionally or not I do not know!), as the ramifications of such a belief on the notion of sinfulness, fallenness and redemption are immense.

INXC, Matthew

[Fr John Wehling]

Matthew,

Can you post the reference -- just the location is fine, I can look it up myself -- in St Irenaeus? Thank you in advance.

Also, St John of Damascus says a similar thing when he writes:

“It was necessary, therefore, that man should first be put to the test (for man untried and unproved would be worth nothing), and being made perfect by the trial through the observance of the command should thus receive incorruption as the prize of his virtue.” (St John of Damascus, The Orthodox Faith, 2.30)

While he does not refer to Adam and Eve as children, the implication is there, I believe. Created in the image of God, they (and we) must attain to the likeness of God through testing and through the keeping of the commandments.

Fr John

[Daniel Jeandet]

I have been thinking, and maybe this is a stupid or vain thought, but does anyone know if the Fathers have said anything about how Eve, having eaten the fruit, possibly then knew the consequences of this, but did not prevent Adam from suffering also, but, knowing the effect, willingly offered it to him as well?

Am I clear? After she ate, was there a time after that, before Adam ate, when Adam was unaware of the meaning of it, but she was?

Maybe I am bad to ask. I hesitate to mention it because I just dont know if I should by prying itno it. I havent read aything in the Fathers on this, but I havent read everything I could have, and I dont want to speculate or anything, but now I am tempted to try to work it out with my brain.

This is one of my special intrests, Genesis and the Fall and the life and state of the first people. I hope someone can point me to a Father or quote someone on this topic.

[M.C. Steenberg]

Can you post the reference -- just the location is fine, I can look it up myself -- in St Irenaeus? Thank you in advance.
Dear Fr John and others,

I post a few examples here of the kind of language St Irenaeus employs with regard to Adam and Eve as children:


"Therefore, having made the man lord (kyrios) of the earth and of everything that is in it, God secretly appointed him as lord over those angels who were servants (douloi) in it. They, however, were in their full development, while the lord, that is, the man, was very little, for he was an infant, and it was necessary for him to reach full development by growing." (Irenaeus, Epideixis, 12)

Here Irenaeus has described the setting of primal man in the Garden: the angels are set as the stewards, set below man; yet these are fully mature, wholly complete. Man, however, is but a child, a child who must grow, a child who shall one day be an adult and greater than in his initial state. Irenaeus elsewhere addresses himself to the question, asked by some, as to why God could not have created Adam perfect from the very beginning:


'If, then, anyone say, “What then? Was not God able to have made man perfect from the beginning?” let him know that, as far as God is concerned, inasmuch as He is always the same and ingenerate, all things are possible to Him. But those things made by Him, because they have a later beginning of creation, must for this reason be inferior to Him who created them. For it was not possible for things recently created to be uncreated; and since they are not uncreated, on this account do they fall short of the perfect. And since these things are of a more recent origin, so are they infantile; and since they are infantile, so are they unaccustomed to and unexercised in perfect discipline. For certainly it is in the power of a mother to give strong food to her infant, yet she does not do so, since the child is not yet able to receive stronger nourishment. So, too, it was in the power of God Himself to grant perfection to man from the beginning; but the man, on the contrary, was unable to receive it, since he was still an infant. And for this reason our Lord, recapitulating all things in Himself, came unto us in these last times, not in such a manner as He Himself was able to come, but in such a manner as we were able to behold Him. He could have come to us in His ineffable glory, but we were not able to receive the greatness of that glory. Therefore, as if to infants (quasi infantibus), He who was the perfect bread of the Father offered Himself to us as milk, since His coming was in keeping with a man. This He did so that we, being nourished, as it were, from the breast of His flesh, and from such a course of nourishment becoming accustomed to eat and drink the Word of God, might be able to contain in ourselves Him who is the bread of immortality: the Spirit of the Father.' (Adversus haereses 4.38.1)
Irenaeus also writes:


'For Eve, having a husband, Adam, nevertheless was a still a virgin – for “they were both naked” in Paradise, “and were not ashamed,” since they had been created only a short time before and possessed no understanding of the procreation of children. For it was necessary for them first to grow, and only thereafter to multiply.' (Adversus haereses 3.22.4)

'Adam and Eve […] “were naked and were not ashamed,” for there was in them an innocent and infantile mind, and they thought or understood nothing whatsoever of those things that are wickedly born in the soul through lust and shameful desires. For at that time, they preserved their nature intact, since that which was breathed into the handiwork was the breath of life; and while the breath remains in its order and strength, it is without comprehension or understanding of what is evil. Thus “they were not ashamed,” kissing and embracing each other in holiness in the manner of children.' (Epideixis 14)

INXC, Matthew

[irineu]

Children - in a spiritual sense, of course! This is what my dear saint, Irenaus is talking about.

And actually this is the very same teaching of the church (orthodox of course).

Dogmatics will speak clearly of how man created in image and likeness of God, for created in the image man has to grow into the likeness of God, which in other words is called "theosis".

I have heard a teacher of mine speaking of how Origen as well spoke of two different paradises.

The first one, in Genesis, is described as being made up of grass, trees and other things that grow, bloom, i.e develop

whereas the paradise of Apokalypse is described os of being made of stones, gold and other things of a permanent, stable and unchangeable nature.


That means that the first although a perfect, i.e fully paradise was a paradise of people in development, growth, fulfillment

whaeras the second is the fulfillment of the first.


__________

I humbly expect any correction if I am wrong.

[M.C. Steenberg]

Children - in a spiritual sense, of course! This is what my dear saint, Irenaus is talking about.

Dear Ireneu,

Actually, this is not so certain as you may assume. There is no evidence apart from modern presupposition to suppose that Irenaeus meant his references to Adam and Eve as 'children' to be taken in a 'spiritual sense'. Indeed, his larger point in many instances is best made only if Adam and Eve are genuinely children, youths, or 'prepubescents' as one scholar has read him.

The issue is one of great curiosity among patristics scholars. I am personally convinced that Irenaeus meant children as children, in a mental as well as physical sense, and not analogically. (For those who are intersted in all the support and details, an article entitled 'Children in Paradise: Adam and Eve as "infants" in Irenaeus of Lyon' will be appearing in the Journal of Early Christian Studies sometime next year, authored by yours truly.)

INXC, Matthew

[irineu]

Hi Mathew

Ok, it might be! However, I could also think that Apostel Paul spoke also of spiritual childhood, and that believers had to grow up in Christ.

I dont see at the moment why would be important to represent the first couple as physical children as well, on the contrary it sounds as if it makes them irrensponsible for what they did.

We learn from the Church that man was created perfect so far as to be able not to sin, that means he was neither sinful nor perfect to te point of not being capable to sin at all, also he was neither imortal, but capable to stay/ remain imortal...

greetings....

ps: you know, here at westminster cathedral the books about patristic are quite expensive, and one doesnt know which one he should buy! I will search the net for the writings of st. irinaus!

[M.C. Steenberg]

Irenaeu wrote:


I dont see at the moment why would be important to represent the first couple as physical children as well, on the contrary it sounds as if it makes them irrensponsible for what they did.

We learn from the Church that man was created perfect so far as to be able not to sin, that means he was neither sinful nor perfect to te point of not being capable to sin at all, also he was neither imortal, but capable to stay/ remain imortal...

You have actually hit upon the key issue St Irenaeus seeks to address, and, I imagine, the reason for which the question of 'childhood' was at first brought up in this thread on original sin.

The question we must ask ourselves in such a context is this: does the Church teach us that 'man was created perfect so far as to be able not to sin'? If so, what does the Church mean by this? Since the time of Augustine (and it is neither reasonable nor desireable to 'blame' him for this, since it was true of many) a view has predominated which interprets 'perfect' as implying absolute perfection in the fullest sense. Adam and Eve in the garden could not possibly ever become more than what they were at that time. We hope only to become what they were.

Irenaeus, for his part, would have been horrified by this. Adam and Eve were indeed perfect, but they were created 'perfect' as a newborn baby is 'perfect': there is nothing 'wrong' or 'at fault' with a newborn baby, but only a fool would suggest that remaining a baby forever is the goal of human life, or that returning to baby-dom is our ultimate potential. Humans are meant to grow. God makes us to become more in the present day than we were in the past, and promises us an eternity in which we will be more still.

The implication is then that Adam and Eve as children were perfect in the sense that God fashioned them perfectly, without fault, without hindrance, fully capable of growth into the life of union with Him which is the reality of the divine vision (of which Irenaeus makes much); but they were not perfect in the sense that perfection implies having reached one's fullness, having attained to the telos of his or her destiny. Adam and Eve, as all of humankind, were meant to grow.

The implication is also precisely what you have mentioned: that the fault of the transgression in Eden is in some sense less horrific than it is made out to be in other (e.g. 'Augustinian' or post-Augustinian) interpretations of the Genesis account. Irenaeus specifically says that they sinned 'wickedly', but 'understandably, since they were children'. It is worth noting that this is exactly what is said by Theophilus of Antioch a generation earlier, though with less elaboration. Justin the Martyr similarly thinks along the same lines.

The question thus begged is, how much is the 'perfect Adam: horrific fall: return to Adam' schema, in the way that the majority of people understand it, a distortion of what the Church truly teaches? The fact that many people think this way does not make it so.

INXC, Matthew

[Richard Leigh]

Dear Matthew,

I think the problem is in whether or not there is a distinction between "image" and "likeness" in the creation of the Human being. If one is potential to reach the goal and the other is the goal, then that there is a distinction is important. If they are not distinct, then they have to become the goal.

But, I think it is even more important that in a doctrine of "original" or "ancestral" sin the church is explainng how it is that creations of a Good God can not only be prone to evil, but relish it's practice; not to mention pointing up the need for remedy.

Richard

[Rebecca]

explainng how it is that creations of a Good God can not only be prone to evil, but relish it's practice

volumes written on this by Orthodox Saints...wondering if you've yet had opportunity to delve into these writings? (just curious for context of discussion and not attacking...thought I should add that given recent events http://www.monachos.net/mb/clipart/happy.gif

Best regards...

[Richard Leigh]

Rebecca,

LOL!!! Thanks for adding that.

Yes, I have, read them I mean

Richard

[irineu]

I remember to have learned this point in dogmatic, which means that is a official teaching of the orthodox church, that the first couple was created as perfect as to be able to remain in communion with God, and also to stay immortal, out of free will.

The point is that I still do not really see the point why should the first couple be imagined as having been physicaly children, whereas a spiritual childhood/maturity is quite explainable.

The first couple has more importance then simply their story of falling into disobidience, since they also are the first perfect representants of humanity; family sample; society; unity etc, which are to be for grown counscious people.

Apart of that there are fathers, one of them saint Siluanos of Athos, who wrote how the Adam repented after the sin in a way that fits only to mature and grown people.

I see the fall of the first couple as very dramatic, and not as a normal expected event, and this can be seen by the results it had on them and their descendands.

Again this doesnt exclude at all their way in sinning in a, so to say, innocent way, according to their not yet mature counsciousness, and I do believe that is God on His side who lessenes the responsibility of the first sin out of His love and not because the first couple didnt have any chance to overcome that temptation.

However, Adam and Eve were of course created and set in Eden not simply to rest in God and enjoy the goods of live but they apart of that were to develop, grow and fulfill themselves in God.

I think saint Irenaus speaks also of that the fruit wasnt bad at all but that was to strong to be eaten at the wrong time from still not grown (spiritually!!) people.

Apart of that, one of the point that has remained less discussed regarding sin, death, punishment and redemption through christ, is that actually the coming of christ as man was well part of the course of humanity even if humanity wouldnt have fallen into the deaths power.
Christ' coming probably was part of the fulfillment that humans would have needed, nevertheless, to fully unite to the devine to the ful degree that is possible to them, remaining humans at the same time.

In this sense and case, Christ, then, didnt come simply because man sinned, because He would have come anyway, but he was crucified because of the fall of the man to redeem him from the power of death and sin!

__________________

am i going to far with this last paragraph?

[M.C. Steenberg]

Dear Ireneu,

Thank you for your comments. You are right to note that the fall of Adam and Eve was 'very dramatic', but the question is how or in what sense the advance into sin effected Adam and Eve and the whole of human nature.

The Church certainly does teach that Adam and Eve were 'created as perfect as to be able to remain in communion with God, and also to stay immortal, out of free will' (I quote your words here); however, as I attempted to show in my previous message, such a statement of itself does not explain the manner and type of this perfection. The early Fathers read it as implying that they were flawless, perfectly formed, deficient in nothing as respects the manner of their creation. They do not, however, suggest that this means they were teleios, 'perfect' (keeping in mind that the Greek word for 'perfect' means 'having reached one's telos or end-point, destiny). It is absolutely reasonable, for these Fathers, to suggest that Adam and Eve were created 'perfectly' (i.e. flawlessly), yet were still ateleios, 'imperfect' in the sense of the Greek as 'not yet at their telos'. Indeed, it is Irenaeus' point time and again that a belief that Adam and Eve were perfect (teleioi) in this sense is not only blasphemous but impossible, 'since nothing which is recently created can be perfect at first' (cf. Adversus haereses 4.38).

Irenaeus is still happy to admit, of course, that there was no flaw or defect in the creation of man. Moreover, he says quite explicitly at least twice that Adam and Eve would have remained ever immortal, had they not sinned. One must understand the context of his statements, though, if they are to make sense in his overall thought. Adam and Eve would have stayed immortal, in union with God, in precisely the same way that a young infant may remain always in the good and in union with his or her parent, assuming that they do not sin in dividing and destroying that relationship. However, this potential for unending union does not equate to a sense of 'perfection' as one of 'having reached one's telos'. We all expect a child to grow, and in that growth to discover new depths to his or her relationships with parents and others. Irenaeus suggests exactly the same with regard to Adam and Eve: they were created in union with God that need never be broken. This union, however, was one that would grow and develop over time, such that at the end Adam and Eve (and thus all humankind) would have a deeper, stronger, more fulfilled relationship to God then ever they had in Eden. Irenaeus is emphatic on this point in Adversus haereses 4.39, as elsewhere. 'Why do men want to be gods at the first, when they have not yet even become men?' But the point is, in the end, to 'be gods' (i.e. to partake fully of union with God's life). The notion of 'going back to Eden', or returning to the state of Adam and Eve at creation, would be entirely counter-productive in Irenaeus' understanding.

All this lies right at the heart of the notion of 'original sin', which itself is built upon a specific notion of the 'state' in which humanity was created in Eden. It is often stated that the Orthodox Church 'has no doctrine of original sin'. This is only partially accurate: there is certainly a doctrine of a fall wrought by sin, but this is properly a very different doctrine indeed than that of the post-Augustinian era, which saw the 'perfection' of Adam and Eve in the garden as fully ontological, telos-implying fulfilment, which was subsequently lost when Adam and Eve ate of the tree. This kind of emphasis is foreign to Orthodoxy.

INXC, Matthew

[Richard Leigh]

Dear Daniel,

You are clear.

I don't know what any fathers say in specific answer to your question but it seems clear to me that anything Adam knew before his wife's creation ("construction" really) was known by her afterwards as a function of having been "built" from a rib of his since the rib cage guards, protects, and contains the heart and lungs, originally perceived as organs of thought and feeling. It is also therefore obvious why the serpent would address the woman rather than the man regarding what God had said.

Marriage is depicted here as the one-flesh union of husband (man) and wife (woman), a single entity of head and body. This, it turns out, parallels God's planting of two trees in the middle of the Garden, one of which, the Tree of Life, was in the set of all trees of which the couple were permitted to freely eat, the other, the Tree of Knowledge (given to the mental/emotional faculties), was forbidden.

Other places in Scripture state that knowledge of the difference between right and wrong comes with maturity (e.g., the many people in Nineveh who didn't know their right hand from their left in Jonah are still young children, maybe even babies). This may be where Ireneus is getting the hint that our first parents may have been at least young enough to be innocent of such an ability as to know that difference, and he no doubt believed that there would later have been a time when the couple would be mature enough to be able to handle such knowledge. As it happened, disobediently eating the fruit at the stage they were in rather embedded them in the sinister tendency to follow the bad rather than the good when the distinction was known, something God knew would happen. At that point, if eaten, fruit of the Tree of Life would prove damnably fatal (the reason for which I will explain later), so they were spared the chance of that ever happening by being removed from its vicinity, with the entrance to it barred by (I imagine, two) seraphim and a spinning fiery sword, an image not unlike that of the shekinah over the mercy seat in the Holy of Holies!

The reason the fruit of the Tree of Life is damnably fatal to those so immature as to tend toward the evil over the good when the choice is given is that such a tendency is a time bound twist of flaw in the organism which had been created without it. This flaw can be (is) thought of as an illness. The fruit of the Tree of Life is an existence with the Timeless or Eternal One, the Supreme Good. The Supreme Good is exclusive of any bent toward its opposite, and therefore destructive to it. Out of love for His creation, God does not want this destruction to occur.
Thus the "eviction" from the Garden, the admonision regarding seeing (or not to see) the Face of God (but His back parts, or glory), and the need to veil the face of Moses after being on Sinai (at least one of the reasons, the other of course Moses' own pride over the continual diminishment of that "glory")

And on it goes till we come to Christ and Him crucified, the fruit of the Tree of Life, now available to us all!

Richard

P.s., the Woman isn't given the additional name "Mother of All Living" (Havah, or Eve) until after the curse and blessing which follows the fall. This in itself may indicate having come to puberty on the part of the two, so that they could then actually be a procreative couple (such that a woman is "saved" [i.e., from infertility] by the bearing of children)---RL

P.p.s., Having said that last, I hasten to add, the only way a man is "saved from infertility" obviously is by a fertile marriage. Of course it was married Peter who brought that to our attention, Paul "would that [we] all be..." celibate, like him. This "saves" from the distracting social necessity of home and family life. ---R.

[Richard Leigh]

Ooops,

I see it was Paul (who thought celibacy was so important) who told us that women are saved by childbearing (1 Tim. 2:15).

Richard

[Fr Averky]

Dear All,

Thank you for your interesting comments, for why you may be disagreeing on some points, all of your responses are very helpful to those who might never have considered them.

Admitting that I myself never have gone into this question past seminary, I recall that one important fact concerning Adam and Eve is that as we know they were endowed with Free Will. Thus, even though they were "youthful" in the sense that being the first people, they had had virtually no life experiences as a point of reference, such as in their Fall, for they had never had an opportunity to learn from their mistakes. In this respect since thev never had had any experiences they were indeed "children," just as small children today.

As Richard mentions,how we Christians view and relate spiritually to the Fall has a great deal to do with our view of man's propensity towards evil.

As we know, Roman Catholicism teaches that every person when he comes into the world bears in his soul Adam's "Orginal Sin," depriving him of Sanctifying Grace, and thus barring him from heaven until he has been Baptised. We further know that from the Orthodox view, man does not inherit Adam's sin, but its consequences, a natural inclination towards evil (which is called "concupiscience" by the Latins, but in their case, that status is resulultant).

Later, as we know, that distortion was to give rise to the notion of the "Immaculate Conception," in which the Mother of God was granted to be born without "Original Sin", and some went so far as to say "she could not sin," which would have rendered her some sort of a demi-godess, or even a godess in her own right. This strange idea can be confirmed by the attempt in 2000 by Pope John Paul II to proclaim the Mother of God as "Co-Redemptrix," and "Mediatrix of All Graces," in honor of the Millenium. Even his most loyal Cardinals warned that this new "dogma" would be scandoulous and disruptive to relations with other Churches, especially the Orthodox. Had he been able to so, he would have in fact, declared a new and dangerous heresy.

While it can be supposed that Adam and Eve were perfect, and for the first week in Paradise did not know sin, they, because of the free will which had been given to them, were quite capable of falling into sin. As numerous Fathers have told us, the Fall was caused by Pride, and since then pride has been the major cause of almost every sin.

The Fathers further state that if Adam would have begged mercy from God, who asked him what he had done when he and Eve had covered their nakedness, experiencing shame for the first time. Had he acknowleged his guilt and would have sought God's mercy, he and Eve would have been allowed to remain in Paradise; but instead, he tried to avoid God's judgement by attempting to put the blame on Eve. Of course, this too has become a common scenario-our attempts to blame others for our sinfulness.

Imagine, Adam and Eve were only in Paradise for one week before they were tempted and fell. One wonders if we could have lasted even for that week.

As Irineu points out-Paradise and Heaven are two different places. Paradise was the beautiful garden composed of things of the earth given to Adam and Eve as their dwelling place. And it turned out to be limited in time. Here they had all they desired-to eat to drink, and they were surrounded by peace and tranquility; even the animals, named by Adam himself, lived in harmony and safety, for they were herbivors. Only one other person experienced time in Paradise, and that was St. Dismas the Good Thief for it was promised to him by our Saviour Himself. Heaven had not yet been opened, but he was allowed to esxperience its wonders.

Heaven is a different place in that it is not of this world, eternal, and has wonderous things, such as fruits and flowers never seen on this earth. As is related in the life of the Saint Ephrosinios the Cook, he was given a piece of fruit from heaven by an angel, and he tasted its heavenly flavour for many years. If anyone has read "Eternal Mysteries Beyond the Grave," they will have read a description given of Heaven.

Just a few thoughts on this matter.

Love,

Fr. A.

[Byzcath1]

The Orthodox View of original sin is that we inherit the "Effects" of it not the actual stain of sin am i correct?

How does that revolve around the catholic dogma of the immaculate conception? And what part does original sin play in baptism.

In Christ +
Daniel

[M.C. Steenberg]

'Byzcath1' wrote:


How does that revolve around the catholic dogma of the immaculate conception? And what part does original sin play in baptism.
Perhaps you might have a look at a post I recently made in another thread for a beginning on this.

INXC, Matthew

[Rebecca]

Marley asked:

how is new chirstan compar to a new born baby
mah.

Also, in the traditional icon of the Dormition of the Theotokos, Christ is holding the soul of the Theotokos, which is shown as a baby in pure white swaddling clothes:

link to icon of Dormition of Theotokos (http://www.sspeterpaul.org/dormition.htm)

I remember asking my dad why the icon showed a little baby, and dad's answer was becuase it was Jesus holding Mary's soul, and her soul was pure, like a little baby.

[M. Rallis]

"Mary's soul was pure, like a little baby."

Here is a link to a sermon by our holy father, Saint Gregory Palamas, on the Entry of the Theotokos into the Holy of Holies.

http://www.oca.org/pages/orth_chri/Feasts-and-Saints/November/Nov-21.html#2

[Fr Averky]

Dear All,.

I really do not know what threads are being viewed by a lot of members, for looking them over, I see few of the usual member's names.

At any rate, realizing that Monachos has it ups and downs, I find myself looking at the threads and having little that I can respond to.

My health has taken a turn for the worse, so my energy levels are down.

I would just like to say that at this point it would be better for me to talk to any of you who would wish by e-mail or private message.

I find this better all the way around, for I have time to think before I respond, and now with the new limitations, I no longer feel that I can express myself, which might be for the better.

Please know that you are all in my prayers, and I would be happy to hear from all of you privately, as I have been of late from many of you.

I will try to come on from time to time, but this is not the Monachos I once knew.

God bless all of you, and thank you for everything, Matthew.

With much love to all,

Fr. A.

[Owen Jones]

Dear Matthew, et al.

On the subject of our first parents as children, let's not forget that there is likely an experiential basis for Irineaus' thinking in the matter. For when one undergoes the transformation that we traditionally speak of in Orthodoxy as the three-fold path of purification, illumination and sanctification, one tends to experience this as a going back to ones child-like state of purity of thoughts and wonderment (before anger and anxiety set in). We naturally posit this as our natural state of beginnings, and not something that is totally new and alien to our nature. Or at least someone who is firmly grounded will understand this. Now, someone not properly grounded, as is the case in many of our contemporaries who have a like spiritual experience, is likely to posit this experience as something unique to them without precedent, because of their pride and ignorance, and therefore proclaim themselves as some kind of new paradigm of existence for others. They will then try to build an ideology out of it.

But still, it is a common experience. As Rush Limbaugh said on his first day back on the air, he felt as if he had been reborn, and returned to the first grade to begin learning life all over again. He did not treat this as some kind of curse, but as an opportunity, although he did not describe this opportunity as God's Grace.

[Effie Ganatsios]

I have a question.
We Orthodox read Psalm 50 (Psalm 51 in the King James Version) every day. Can someone please explain the meaning of the following verse :


Greek : Éäïõ ãáñ åí áíïìéáò óõíåëçöèçí, êáé åí áìáñôéáéò åêéóóçóå ìå ç ìçôçñ ìïõ.


King James translation : Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.

This translation is not very accurate though. If you translate directly from the Greek it means :

Because I was conceived in iniquities and in sin did my mother carry me (in her womb).

How does this relate to the Orthodox view of original sin in contrast to that of the Roman Catholic?

Forgive my ignorance as I am sure that I am misunderstanding what I am reading but reading this verse this morning was not the first time that this has troubled me.

Effie

[Richard Leigh]

Dear Effie,

This is very interesting. I note that The LXX translation of The Psalter According to the Seventy by Holy Transfiguration Monasery, Boston, Mass. has exactly the same as Brenton does in his, "For behold, I was conceived in iniquities, and in sins did my mother bear me." while Father Lazarus Moore's, The Holy Psalter (The Psalms of David from the Septuagint) India '61 (reprinted '71) has, "For, lo, in iniquities was I conceived, so in sins did my mother bear me," like your own. (I hadn't been using Moore's but I see I'd better get to it!)

Remember that the KJV translates from the Hebrew for which the Jewish Publication Society has "Indeed I was born with iniquity; with sin my mother conceived me." And there might be some significance to the fact that Augustine uses a Latin translation, but I don't know that he was necessarily using the Vulgate of his contemporary Jerome, but the western church certainly did later. It would be interesting to research the use of that verse as defense for the Catholic doctrine of Original Sin. Jews certainly don't take that verse to teach anything about a sinful condition of humanity (which they reject totally, as the Moslems do).

I had hoped my Grace for Grace: The Psalter and the Holy Fathers (Monatery Books, Menlo Park CA, '92) would comment on this verse but it did not. So I eagerly await the answer to your question with you.

Richard

[Fr Averky]

Dear Effie and Richard,

I recall reading an answer to this question, because this line always struck me as being obscure as well. When Fr. Lazarus Moore did the original translation of the Jordanville Prayer Book, he translated the line, "for in sin did my mother desire me." We have changed it to the more familiar form which Richard has given.

I believe Effie, that this has nothing to do with Original Sin per se, but that after the Fall, mankind "multiplied" in the way we do now, which is part of our fallen nature. Of course, we have no idea what God originally had in mind.

In a thread earlier this year we disussed this matter at length, that is, that God had not originally intended Mankind to continue itself in a way we will never know, at least, not in this life. This has always been a source of a rather difficult discussion, because there are those who have tried to "sanctify" the marriage act, while there are those who see it quite the opposite. One recent writer attempterd to explain the conjugal act in terms likening it to the love that God the Father has for God the Son, but that analogy does not work at all.

As we discused earlier, Virginity has always been held as the highest state, but of coursae, if we had all been virgins, we would not be having this discussion.

Thus, I would say that the line simply indicates that we are conceived in a manner which is an aspect of man's loss of Paradise. As we also discussed before, we do not have the concept of Original Sin, but that which could be termed more like the Catholic word "concupiscence," which means "a natural inclination towards evil," which is to say, while we do not bear the sin of Adam on our soul, we have inherited its lasting effect, a fallen nature, so our conception and our bith is a result of that "sinfulness." Forgive me if this does not make sense-perhaps someone can explain it better than I. As one Orthodox prayer puts it, "for the seed of corruption is in Me." This is what I can come up with, but I certainly will stand corrected.

When we were discussing the conception of the Theotokos earlier, from our Orthodox point of view, the real marvel is that the Mother of God was born into the same state as we are, but by her own will and out of her intense desire to serve God she rejected any form of sin her entire life. For us, today was the Feast of the Entrance of the Entrance of the Theotokos into the Temple, and the verses say


"Today the living Temple of the holy Glory of Christ our God, she who alone among women is pure and blessed, is offered in the temple of the Law, that she might make her dwelling in the sanctuary, Joachim and Anna rejoice with her in spirit, and choirs of virgins sing to the Lord, chanting psalms and honouring His Mother.
Thou, O Virgin Mother of God, art she whom the prophets proclaimed, Thou art the glory of the apostles and the pride of martyrs, the restoration of all who dwell on earth: for through thee we are reconciled to God. Therefore we honour thy coming into the temple of the Lord; and saved by thine intercession, with the angel we all cry to thee, "Hail Most Holy."

And again in the ikos of the sixth ode of the canon:

Seeing the grace of the secret mysteries of God made manifest and clearly fulfilled in the Virgin, I rejoice; and I know not how to understand the strange and secret manner whereby the Undefiled has been revealed as alone chosen above all creation, visible and spiritual. Therefore, wishing to praise her, I am struck dumb with amazement in both mind and speech. Yet still dare proclaim and magnify her: She indeed is the heavenly Tabernacle."

By her spotless purity the Most Most Holy Theotokos is the reversal of that inclination, she is the New Eve, the Woman who crushed the head of the Serpent. She is our example of sanctity and of the possibility of defeating the Devil through love of God, for having been born as all of us, she remained pure and free from sin. She overcame that fallen nature and so found favour with God, and through her the Saviour of mankind, our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ would become Man.

This Feast is a bright yet gentle consolation at the beginning of the Fast, showing that even as we repent, God's promise of salvation is ever before us. Let us turn from our inclination towards evil, and ask the most Pure Motheer of God to pray for us that we too will be inclined not to sin, but to struggle to be with her and her Divine Son forever. Her purity, her obedience, her love of God is an example for all of us, so let us during this Lent turn from evil and do good.

Forgive me, I got a little carried away. In monasteries, the feasts of the Mother of God gives a particular grace, and a gentle peace settles into the hearts of all in the community. Everyone I spoke to today mentioned what a good and peaceful day they had had. Most Holy Mother of God save us, and lead us to your Son!

Fr. A.

[Effie Ganatsios]

Thank you Richard and Father Averky.

Father, your comments have helped me a lot. Thank you also for sharing your thoughts and feelings concerning the
Feast of the Entrance of the Theotokos into the Temple. For us today, the 6th of December is St. Nicholas Day and as he is the patron saint of my city, everything is closed. There will be a special service this morning in St. Nicholas Church – the oldest church in Kozani.

I found the following excerpt explaining the different versions of Verse 5 of Psalm 51 at

http://www.holy-trinity.org/liturgics/nrsv.html
“An Orthodox Critique of English Translations of the Bible”

“The SEPTUAGINT (LXX) is a 3rd-century B.C. translation of the Old Testament by Hebrew scholars into then-contemporary Greek, so that the Jews of the day could understand the Scriptures. (They no longer spoke nor understood Hebrew.) The LXX was the O.T. text most often (but not exclusively) quoted by the writers of the New Testament. The LXX was the version of the O.T. most widely used by the early Christian community. It was also the usual (but not exclusive) edition of the O.T. used by the Fathers of the Church in their writings and homilies. So the LXX, rather than the Hebrew Bible, became the authoritative version of the O.T. for Orthodox Christians. In the places where the wording of the LXX differs from the Hebrew (and this is frequent), the Church maintains that of the two, the LXX was made under the inspiration and revelation of the Holy Spirit. For example, see Psalm 51:5, Isaiah 26:17-18, or Isaiah 7:14 (and then Matthew 1:23) in various versions of the Bible. (See also T. Ware, THE ORTHODOX CHURCH, p. 208)
Neither the KJV nor any of its descendents mentioned in this article used the LXX as a primary text for the translation of the O.T. The LXX was a secondary reference, used only when the Hebrew or Aramaic Bible needed clarification. Thus, from the standpoint of the Eastern Orthodox Church (which considers the LXX as the official, authorized text of the O.T.) each version of the Bible cited here perpetuates a number of omissions, inaccuracies, and deficiencies. “
The full article is very interesting and worth reading.

Effie

[Kosmas Damianides]

Dear All
I have a question: what do we Orthodox believe of the unbaptised children who do not receieve aero-baptism and those who do. I know we don't have a 'place' called Limbo, nor of Purgatory.

I have a friend who lost their baby a long time ago and they were not aware that they had to give the child an Aero-Baptism so, after it died shoirtly after birth, they were told by a priest to go bury it in the garden and a priest didn't even give the child a propper burial. What's that all about...?????? I am quite concerned since I was under the impression that we do not believe in the guilt of original sin. I also remember St Gregory of Nyssa saying that newly born children are without the guilt of sin but still require baptism as infants for their protection from sin.


Limbo
(Late Lat. limbus) a word of Teutonic derivation, meaning literally "hem" or "border," as of a garment, or anything joined on (cf. Italian lembo or English limb).

In theological usage the name is applied to (a) the temporary place or state of the souls of the just who, although purified from sin, were excluded from the beatific vision until Christ's triumphant ascension into Heaven (the "limbus patrum"); or (b) to the permanent place or state of those unbaptized children and others who, dying without grievous personal sin, are excluded from the beatific vision on account of original sin alone (the "limbus infantium" or "puerorum"). NEW ADVENT CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA

Yours in Christ
Glory to God
KD

[Juliana Lerman]

Brother Kosmas,
Could you please explain what an "aero-baptism" is?

Thanks, Juliana

[Owen Jones]

Adult baptism was the norm in the early Church. Infant baptism was instituted as a pastoral response to the demands of parents, and not for any "objective" theological reason. At least this is my understanding of the history. I think we must guard against a kind of thinking that reduces baptism to a kind of works righteousness. Just as the Church was merciful to parents who feared the death of an unbaptized child, we should practice mercy regarding the death of the unbaptized and not take an unqualified position that somehow the death of an unbaptised person automatically leads to damnation. While we should avoid the modernist notion of baptism as nothing more than an initiation rite, we should not revert to the counter-proposition that objectivizes baptism and elminates its symbolic and mystical meaning. Baptism does not stand alone. Remember, a proper baptism includes an exorcism rite. And baptism is not to be understood apart from the liturgy, and the life of the faithful as a whole. This is why Orthodoxy does not have private baptisms or priest's masses. Bpatism and eucharist are not an inoculation against sin, in the way a small child is given a polio vaccine. We receive the eucharist and then we gossip during coffee hour, immediately spilling out the grace we receive! Yet it is something that we are commanded to do, as part of our life in imitation of Christ. It is medicine for our sick bodies and our sick souls, but like food it must always be replenished, and like the food we eat, it must be properly prepared and received so as not to cause sickness. When it becomes too mechanical, it is worse than meaningless.

[Kosmas Damianides]

Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these. Matthew 19:14

[Kosmas Damianides]

Sister Juliana,

Baptism of Air is what I meant. This is done during the birth of a sickly child who may seem to be about to die. Anyone can do this but preferably a male Orthodox person.

The child is raised up into the air three times while the 'temporary priest' says "the Servant of God _____ is baptised in the name of the Father the Son and the Holy Spirit. Amen"

Afterwards (if the child lives) the Child is baptised in a Church by a real priest.

This emergency baptism of air is also used for grown up people who are about to die after converting (ie theif on the Cross). We also have the baptism of blood of those who are martyred without having the chance to be baptised. Many chatechumens fit in this category after being tortured and finally killed in order to deny Christ.

IC XC NI KA

KD

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

A point of clarification- anyone may do an emergency baptism for a child if there is concern of imminent death. One simply baptises the child with some water saying "in the Name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit."

If the child was to survive after this then when they were brought to church the Baptism would not be done but rather the parts that had been left out- eg Chrismation. So the baptism of the parent is a 'valid baptism' & thus does not need to be repeated by the priest later on.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Kosmas Damianides]

Thank you Fr Raphael

Your Blessing and pray for me to understand.

Do you or anyone else have any info. on why we do not have proper burials for unbaptised children? Isn't it up to God to decide what will happen to the souls of these innocent babies and children?

The general concensus in the Catholic Chhurch as I understand it has changed (very very nmuch)whereby children are now buried and given propper funerals despite previous beliefs in pain, suffereing and penalty of damnation for these un-baptised children. They used to be in the same 'place' as the damned called Limbo.

Why is the Orthodox Church doing what the Catholic Church used to do, since we truly don't believe in the damnation of children? This seems very hard for me to comprehend.

- Kosmas

[Leandros]

Dear friends,

The question that was asked by brother Kosmas Damianides is very important.

St Nephon, Bishop of Constantian, had a vision of the Last Judgment. He described the future events in vivid images as they were presented to him by Christ.

His vision can be found in this Greek site (http://www.oodegr.com/oode/swthria/krisis1.htm). Unfortunately it is not translated in English.

St Nephon narrated his vision to his hypotactic, who has written it down.

During this vision, says St Nephon, after the entrance of the martyrs into heaven, “a great number of non-Christians entered in Heaven that had never known the law of Christ, but by being faithful to their nature had been obedient to their conscience too. They were very big crowds, shining like the sun from their pureness and from their spotlessness. And the Lord grant to them the Paradise and joyfully wreaths from roses and lilies. However, because they went without the Holy Baptism, they were “blind”. They were absolutely unable to see the Glory of God, because the Holy Baptism is the Light and the Eye of the soul. Thereby, if someone lives a life of good works while being without the Holy Baptism, he inherits the Paradise comfort and in a way he is capable to experience the aroma of Paradise and the sweetness of Paradise but he is not capable to see, he sees nothing.”

Unfortunately, some scholastic priests believe that they represent God on earth and they refuse their ministry to non baptized infants or to baptized suicides, regarding the burial service.

In such cases, the issue must be brought to the Bishop and if he refuses too then the issue must be brought to the local synod.

There is no Canon of the Orthodox Church for refusal of burial Orthodox service in these cases. Burial service is not an Orthodox Sacrament.

Orthodox Sacraments are: Sacrament of the Baptism, Sacrament of the Chrism, Sacrament of the Holy Communion, Sacrament of the Confession, Sacrament of the Marriage, Sacrament of the Holy Unction, and Sacrament of Priesthood.

Over the years, the curse of secularization made some people to think that Church is like a club and that there is actually a directory of members that provides the authorization to the registered persons to enter the club and to enjoy club’s services. In this context, priests following invented norms would keep the directory updated by inscribing new members and by writing off members that “break” club’s rule.

What a distortion of Church is this?

This is also the result of theological influence from roman-catholic doctrines and the strange thing is that some “orthodox” theologians follow these false doctrines even when the roman-catholic church is abandon them!

How thousands of martyr’s of Christian faith are saved without baptism? Were they registered first in Church’s directory and then died for Christ? But, the “bureaucracy “of the Church responds that, “martyrs did not have the time for registration”. So, the same thing is valid for non-baptized dead infants: “THEY DID NOT HAVE THE TIME TO REGISTER”.

My friends, do not let the “bureaucracy” of the Church to “kill” the Spirit. Even embryos lost by miscarriage or abortion are entitled to a Christian burial service and the anaphora of their “names” in Liturgy, before Sacrament of the Holy Communion. Our prayers for the salvation of the world are not restricted among Christians. We MUST pray for everyone and particularly for non-Christians – dead or alive.

Priests are responsible for making preparations in order to present a person before Christ, so that he may receive His Grace. They are not holding the keys of heaven; they are not in power to prohibit Church prayers for an individual no matter how he lives/lived his/her life.

By making a burial service we do not open the gates of Paradise for the asleep brother/sister. We merely ask for the mercy of God on behalf of him/her and we present our pleasure to be with him/her in paradise. Paradise is, for us, his/hers presence before God.

Of course, a burial service and prayers are quite different for a baptized and for a non-baptized. But in both cases Church has the same attitude: “Christ is risen from the dead, by death He has trampled down death, and on those in the tombs He has bestowed life.”

Christian faith is freedom from forms and necessity, in Christ.

(No, I do not imply that Holy Sacraments are to be offered inconsiderately. But we can not experience the Life of Sacraments in isolation from non-baptized. Our relation with the others, baptized and non-baptized, is the Life of Sacraments)

(Message edited by lpap on 10 July, 2005)

(Message edited by lpap on 10 July, 2005)

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

From The 18 of Timothy, Archbishop Alexandria (C.372).Question 14: If anyone having no control of himself lays violent hands on himself or hurls himself to destruction, whether an offering ought to be made for him, or not?

Answer:The clergyman ought to discern in his behalf whether he was actually and truly out of his mind when he did it. For oftentimes those who are interested in the victim and want to have him accorded an offering and a prayer in his behalf will deliberately lie and assert that he had no control of himself...It is incumbant therefore, upon the clergyman in any case to investigate the matter accurately, in order to avoid incurring judgement.

It is the well known practice of the Church from ancient times to deny a Church burial (ie: the standard service for the departed) to those who commit suicide. The reason for this is due to its especially profound rejection of God's mercy as it acts through our lives. Of course though it can happen that someone takes their life from sort of depression or mental derangement and in this case as the above canon shows provision is made. Even in this case however it does not necessarily follow that the funeral service for the departed is done. When a similiar situation tragically arose in our parish for example our bishop instructed us that a service could be done. But our bishop instructed us to read Psalm 50 followed by the 17th Kathisma & this was to be done at the funeral home not in the church. What was striking about this was how many people came up to us afterwards to comment about how beautiful & moving the service was.

I think these comments point to an extremely important fact about the prayer of the Church which was brought up previously. To not say the standard service for the departed (or a memorial service- panichida) does not at all imply that the Church acts thus as if denying the departed God's mercy. This is simply not so. Rather how we pray is a sign of how God's mercy works in that particular circumstance. To offer the standard prayer for all of the departed regardless of whether they rejected God's mercy in a openly conscious and obviously life-shattering way is precisely to imply that at the end of the day it is irrelevant what choices we made. Surely this is not an Orthodox or Christian view. So we pray for the departed. Not in a way that would seem to say that "it all turned out alright in the end." But in a way that leaves us with pain and a deep concern for the salvation of someone who strayed in a very profound way. In this way we show a real love and not a false love that instead covers up the wound.

Our prayer is a central aspect of our responsibility for others & so it must be for the real person before us- no matter how frightening this may be at times considering the choices they made. And the prayer of the Church reflects both the reality of love and the reality of the person we pray for.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Herman Blaydoe]

Adult baptism was the norm in the early Church. Infant baptism was instituted as a pastoral response to the demands of parents, and not for any "objective" theological reason. At least this is my understanding of the history.

I must say, your view is much different than mine. I have always been taught the infant baptism was practised from the earliest times. When St. Peter escaped prison, the guard and his "whole household" were baptised. It is a fairly safe assumption (I am told) that the household included children. The other example that I hear used is the Old Testament. Isn't the Isrealites crossing the Red Sea a typos of baptism? Wheren't the children carried across by their parents? Did the parents leave the children on the shore and tell them "we'll be back for you when you are old enough to decide for yourself"? I would like to see where Owen gets his history from.

[Owen Jones]

Let's not deal in absolutes. By saying that adult baptism was the norm, is not the same as saying that infants were never baptised. In fact, by my saying that it was the norm, it implies that there were exceptions. But the writings that we have in actual defense of infant baptism are from the 3d and 4th century, implying that after three centuries of church history, there was still a debate about it. And we know that Constantine, who is a saint of the Church , was not baptised until his death bed. I am not taking a position against infant baptism, or in defense of baptism only in which there is adult consent. My only point is that baptism should not be understood apart from the entire life of the Church. If, for example, a man can be sanctified by a holy, faithful spouse, then an infant can be sanctified by the Church, sans baptism. Baptism is not, ipso facto, a pre-requisite to salvation.

[Vasilis Kirikos]

> Am I correct in my understanding that baptism is a sacrament? And if it is a sacrament, doesn't the word "sacrament" come from the Greek meaning "mystery". And if it is a "mystery/sacrament" how can one fully understand it? I fail to see why infant baptism is an issue. If baptism is beyond the understanding of an adult; i.e., what is actually happening, what difference does it make if an infant doesn't understand what happening since no one truly knows? Am I correct that the actual history of infant baptism came about because some "adults" wanted to live a life of total debauchery? It is my understanding that many people waited until they came near their end and faced death before consenting to be baptized. They did this so to be cleansed of all their past sins. And it is for one such reason The Church began infant baptism as a rule, and not the exception. But there are other obvious reasons. Many years ago, due to the high rate of infant/child mortality families didn't even bother to name their children until they reached a certain age. So in the face of the possibility of early, or infant/child death baptism early in life was and still is a good idea; because who knows what blessings the mystery of baptism bestows on a soul in the next life? Only God knows absolutely . Vasilis

Let's not deal in absolutes. By saying that adult baptism was the norm, is not the same as saying that infants were never baptised. In fact, by my saying that it was the norm, it implies that there were exceptions. But the writings that we have in actual defense of infant baptism are from the 3d and 4th century, implying that after three centuries of church history, there was still a debate about it. And we know that Constantine, who is a saint of the Church , was not baptised until his death bed. I am not taking a position against infant baptism, or in defense of baptism only in which there is adult consent. My only point is that baptism should not be understood apart from the entire life of the Church. If, for example, a man can be sanctified by a holy, faithful spouse, then an infant can be sanctified by the Church, sans baptism. Baptism is not, ipso facto, a pre-requisite to salvation.

>

[Leandros]

The Oration on Holy Baptism, by Saint Gregory Nazianzen (http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF2-07/Npnf2-07-52.htm#P5093_1680093)

"Have you an infant child? Do not let sin get any opportunity, but let him be sanctified from his childhood; from his very tenderest age let him be consecrated by the Spirit. Fearest thou the Seal on account of the weakness of nature? O what a small-souled mother, and of how little faith! Why, Anna even before Samuel was born promised him to God, and after his birth consecrated him at once, and brought him up in the priestly habit, not fearing anything in human nature, but trusting in God. You have no need of amulets or incantations, with which the Devil also comes in, stealing worship from God for himself in the minds of vainer men. Give your child the Trinity, that great and noble Guard."


The Great Catechism, By Saint Gregory of Nyssa (http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF2-05/Npnf2-05-39.htm#P3799_2491354):

Chapter XL.

But, as far as what has been already said, the instruction of this Catechism does not seem to me to be yet complete. For we ought, in my opinion, to take into consideration the sequel of this matter; which many of those who come to the grace of baptism overlook, being led astray, and self-deceived, and indeed only seemingly, and not really, regenerate. For that change in our life which takes place through regeneration will not be change, if we continue in the state in which we were. I do not see how it is possible to deem one who is still in the same condition, and in whom there has been no change in the distinguishing features of his nature, to be any other than he was, it being palpable to every one that it is for a renovation and change of our nature that the saving birth is received. And yet human nature does not of itself admit of any change in baptism; neither the reason, nor the understanding, nor the scientific faculty, nor any other peculiar characteristic of man is a subject for change. Indeed the change would be for the worse if any one of these properties of our nature were exchanged away for something else. If, then, the birth from above is a definite refashioning of the man, and yet these properties do not admit of change, it is a subject for inquiry what that is in him, by the changing of which the grace of regeneration is perfected. It is evident that when those evil features which mark our nature have been obliterated a change to a better state takes place. If, then, by being "washed," as says the Prophet, in that mystic bath we become "clean" in our wills and "put away the evil" of our souls, we thus become better men, and are changed to a better state. But if, when the bath has been applied to the body, the soul has not cleansed itself from the stains of its passions and affections, but the life after initiation keeps on a level with the uninitiate life, then, though it may be a bold thing to say, yet I will say it and will not shrink; in these cases the water is but water, for the gift of the Holy Ghost in no ways appears in him who is thus baptismally born; whenever, that is, not only the deformity of anger, or the passion of greed, or the unbridled and unseemly thought, with pride, envy, and arrogance, disfigures the Divine image, but the gains, too, of injustice abide with him, and the woman he has procured by adultery still even after that ministers to his pleasures. If these and the like vices, after, as before, surround the life of the baptized, I cannot see in what respects he has been changed; for I observe him the same man as he was before. The man whom he has unjustly treated, the man whom he has falsely accused, the man whom he has forcibly deprived of his property, these, as far as they are concerned, see no change in him though he has been washed in the laver of baptism. They do not hear the cry of Zacchaeus from him as well: "If I have taken any thing from any man by false accusation, I restore fourfold". What they said of him before his baptism, the same they now more fully declare; they call him by the same names, a covetous person, one who is greedy of what belongs to others, one who lives in luxury at the cost of men's calamities. Let such an one, therefore, who remains in the same moral condition as before, and then babbles to himself of the beneficial change he has received from baptism, listen to what Paul says: "If a man think himself to be something, when he is nothing, he deceiveth himself". For what you have not become, that you are not. "As many as received Him," thus speaks the Gospel of those who have been born again, "to them gave He power to become the sons of God". Now the child born of any one is entirely of a kindred nature with his parent. If, then, you have received God, if you have become a child of God, make manifest in your disposition the God that is in you, manifest in yourself Him that begot you. By the same marks whereby we recognize God, must this relationship to God of the son so born be exhibited. "He openeth His hand and filleth every living thing with His good pleasure." "He passeth over transgressions." "He repenteth Him of the evil." "The Lord is good to all, and bringeth not on us His anger every day." "God is a righteous Lord, and there is no injustice in Him;" and all other sayings of the like kind which are scattered for our instruction throughout the Scripture;-if you live amidst such things as these, you are a child of God indeed; but if you continue with the characteristic marks of vice in you, it is in vain that you babble to yourself of your birth from above. Prophecy will speak against you and say, "You are a `son of man,' not a son of the Most High. You `love vanity, and seek after leasing.' Know you not in what way man is `made admirable126 '? In no other way than by becoming holy."

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Kosmas asked on Saturday:


Do you or anyone else have any info. on why we do not have proper burials for unbaptised children? Isn't it up to God to decide what will happen to the souls of these innocent babies and children?

I asked a senior priest about this. He said that denying a church burial to an unbaptised child is not a statement about their salvation but relates simply to the fact that they are not members of the Church. In like manner he said, people who were never baptised could not be married in the Orthodox Church.

In any case if one was to encounter the situation of the death of an unbaptised infant pastoral discernment would be needed. Because one does not do the standard service does not at all mean that nothing would be done. As with the above example of the young man who took his own life it could very well be that the bishop would instruct that an 'abbreviated service' of some sort be done.

To repeat the point which is so crucial. For the most part the different ways in which the Church prays for a person is not an ultimate statement about their salvation. The Church prays in hope of a person's salvation relying on the mercy of God. Just as it is not proper to take the prayer of the Church as implying that a person is already saved (do we really pray with this in mind though?!)so it is not proper to take this prayer as if it implied that a person has already perished. There is a very important point here that even though the person may have died this is not the end of their existence and they still stand before Christ in hope. Thus the type of Church service does somehow correspond to the actual state of the person the Church prays for. But what is common to all of the ways in which the Church prays- what ties together all types of prayer & services- is hope in the mercy of Christ.

A final point this senior priest made is also very important. Both parents & priest must remember that if the child's life is in danger then an 'emergency Baptism' must be done. If we keep this firmly in mind (and most do) then the situation rarely arises of unbaptised children (and it also rarely does).

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Kosmas Damianides]

Thank You very much Father for clearing that one up,

There is also something else I hope you may be able to explain; what exactly did St Paul mean by the following verse?


"Now if there is no resurrection, what will those do who are baptized for the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, why are people baptized for them?" 1Corinthians 15:29. & "If the dead are not raised at all, why are people baptized for them?"

Was there perhaps a type of baptism for the dead in the ancient Church wich we do not know or have forgotten about today?

In Christ,
KD

[nurse-aid]

if only HE who from HIS own sinleness was/is able to recodnise if it is sin...then we are not able ever to see ourselves others to do such a things...and do not consider adam and eve did such a thigs...and being told by someone...or see it with own body and spirutual sight is diferent...so when you able to 'see' this you are suffere...like when it stinks next to you...doesn't meter if you are who stinks or somebody ealse does...stinky is stinky...and that's how we have desire then to have a bath...or simply offere our own to person next to you...but extrim case of liking own stinkness...it is kinda scank type...is always deadly...so do the math and what i mean by it...

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Go to this homily of St John Chrysostom about Baptism of the Dead (http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf112.iv.xli.html).

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Kosmas Damianides]

Dear brother Leandros,


There is no Canon of the Orthodox Church for refusal of burial Orthodox service in these cases. Burial service is not an Orthodox Sacrament.

Orthodox Sacraments are: Sacrament of the Baptism, Sacrament of the Chrism, Sacrament of the Holy Communion, Sacrament of the Confession, Sacrament of the Marriage, Sacrament of the Holy Unction, and Sacrament of Priesthood.

To my understanding, the Sacraments or Mysteries of the Orthodox Church had never been numbered until the Cartholic church did it in the middle ages.


"This approach has come under fire from historical and biblical studies. The idea of a general category of "sacrament" is relatively late in the description of how we are saved, and the fixing of the number of sacraments either to seven (which became official doctrine only in the thirteenth century) or to two is a peculiarly Western and juridically colored phenomenon. In Eastern Orthodoxy, the central category was, and is, that of the mystery of God's being for humanity in saving ways, all of which may be considered to be means of participating in the divine life in our midst. In the West, however, a decisive turn was made when Tertullian regularized the use of the term sacramentum to translate the word mysterion.4 Sacramentum originally referred to the oath and action which a soldier or a citizen took in pledging allegiance to a new commander. Tertullian's use of the term avoided some of the connotations which would have made the Christian faith appear to be another of the many mystery religions of the ancient world, and vigorously underlined the shift of loyalty involved in becoming and struggling to remain a Christian. The chief disadvantage of Tertullian's word usage was that it tended to encourage conceiving of Christian living in legal and transactional terms. There is, of course, no inevitable connection between the use of the term "sacrament" and a juridical propensity in understanding the Christian life. In fact, the Western church sought to develop, in its sacramental system, a pastoral instrument which would nurture and care for human souls and bodies at the crucial junctures of this earthly pilgrimage. - "Sacraments of the Visible World", by David Willis.

I can however see your frustration and disillusionment on certain issues in the Orthodox Church and our tendency to become more Westernised.

It is very difficult since most of us live in the Western world and our language and culture is now Western our whole life has now become Westernised.

In Peace
KOSMAS

[Matthew Panchisin]

The text below is found in a good article at this link:

http://www.myriobiblos.gr/texts/english/constantelos_4_asp_5.html

(The Greek Church never made a clear distinction between sacraments (mysteria) and sacramentalia (hieraiakolouthiae). All were intended to consecrate some aspect of life and, indeed, the totality of the cosmos. The daily life of the people, whether city dwellers as those of large cities like Constantinople, Thessalonike, Nicaea, Ephesos, Trapezous or provincial towns and rural populations such as Corinth, Kastoria and the people of the islands, included daily religious services and the Divine Liturgy proper. The ecclesiastical calendar includes daily commemorations of celestial and earthly beings -members of the Church triumphant and the Church militant. Angelic hosts, prophets of the old dispensation, apostles, church fathers, martyrs, saints of the desert-male and female, unmercenary physicians, the ancestors of Christ on the side of his mother, other members of the congregation "who have fallen asleep in the hope of resurrection to eternal life" and, of course, for the health and spiritual growth of the members of the visible Church are commemorated as participants in the prayer life of the faithful.)

Also Matthew Steenberg has addressed the subject in the past;

Dear Fr Averky,

You wrote:

quote:
As far as I know, we do have the same seven sacraments although we commonly call them "Mysteries."


You will forgive, I hope the interjection of a personal emotion here, but I rather avidly 'dislike' this numeration of 'seven sacraments' as regards the Orthodox Church. There is a certain degree to which this listing of the 'principal mysteries' of the faith, gleaned (as a listing) from the Roman Church in the middle ages, is helpful. But in the larger sense, such a categorisation suggests a vision of the mysteries as rather scientifically defined, rigidly determined. This is foreign to Orthodoxy. The holy mysteries are vivid and cardinal points of encounter with The Mystery: the self-revealing God in Trinity. Each of those listed in 'the seven' is surely unique and cardinal to the Christian life. Yet the great Mystery of the faith is encountered 'sacramentally' -- i.e., mysteriously, directly -- in so much else: blessing with holy water, anointing with oil at Matins; these are surely sacramental. So is each and every act of veneration of an icon, or a homily.

We are the Church of 'infinite mysteries', or perhaps better, of only one Mystery that makes all of life into mmoments of mystery.

INXC, Matthew

[Vasilis Kirikos]

> Now that is one I would love to know the answer. The Mormons do indeed baptize by proxy those who died before them. That is expressly why the Mormons have the most concise records of genealogy than anyone. They look up their ancestors long ago dead and baptize them by proxy. I do not, however agree with their theology. I find it very difficult to believe that Jesus is "A"God; and that the Lord Jesus Christ and Satan are brothers; that the god of this world is actually Adam. The Mormon belief is that when Adam died he put on a tabernacle body; got a wife (I presume it's supposed to be Eve) . In this new existence Adam and Eve live in a house; sleep and have breakfast in the morning (they are flesh and blood creatures). And I guess during the day Adam is supposed to rule this world as god. Among the children the new Adam and Eve (?) had (all of which are themselves gods) were Jesus and Satan. In other words, Mormons are polytheists. Their theology further teaches that when one dies they too become gods of their own solar system! Hmmmmmmm! I would hate to think of some whom I know and others I have read about as gods of some solar system! Vasilis

There is also something else I hope you may be able to explain; what exactly did St Paul mean by the following verse?

* Quotation: *

"Now if there is no resurrection, what will those do who are baptized for the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, why are people baptized for them?" 1Corinthians 15:29. & "If the dead are not raised at all, why are people baptized for them?"



Was there perhaps a type of *baptism for the dead *in the ancient Church wich we do not know or have forgotten about today?

In Christ, KD

[Kosmas Damianides]

Thank you for clarifying that Fr Raphael.

Obviously this could easily be misinterpeted by those who do not know about or overlook the writings of the Fathers. Baptising someone for the dead is a bit unusual anyway.