Consequences of 'original sin'

[Adrian Martin]

I'm sorry if this topic has been done to death, but recent blog posts such as this (http://catholica.pontifications.net/?p=2252) claiming that the Orthodox have no clue about what Catholics believe concerning original sin is starting to exasperate me, in that I know intuitively that there is a difference, but I'm not exactly sure what it is.

The Catholics insist that they believe that, like the Orthodox, that Adam's descendants are not responsible for Adam's sin as a personal sin, but rather suffer the consequences of Original Sin. According to the old Catholic Encyclopedia:


Our dogma does not attribute to the children of Adam any properly so-called responsibility for the act of their father, nor do we say that original sin is voluntary in the strict sense of the word. It is true that, considered as "a moral deformity", "a separation from God", as "the death of the soul", original sin is a real sin which deprives the soul of sanctifying grace. It has the same claim to be a sin as has habitual sin, which is the state in which an adult is placed by a grave and personal fault, the "stain" which St. Thomas defines as "the privation of grace" (I-II:109:7; III:87:2, ad 3), and it is from this point of view that baptism, putting an end to the privation of grace, "takes away all that is really and properly sin", for concupiscence which remains "is not really and properly sin", although its transmission was equally voluntary (Council of Trent, Sess. V, can. v.). Considered precisely as voluntary, original sin is only the shadow of sin properly so-called. According to St. Thomas (In II Sent., dist. xxv, Q. i, a. 2, ad 2um), it is not called sin in the same sense, but only in an analogous sense.

In what way would you respond to this? It seems to me to be a case of obfuscation. If a relative dies, and I inherit his estate, and I find that I have also inherited several millions of dollars in debt due to his incorrigible gambling, I'm not guilty of excessive gambling, but I might as well be because I still have to owe the bank this ridiculous sum. Catholics can say that unbaptized babies are not guilty of original sin, but that does not change the fact that they believe that if a baby dies before baptism, he goes to Limbo, or, post-Vatican II, "entrusted to the mercy of God."

[Mina Soliman]

I think this is an important topic that needs to be addressed.

The words "Original Sin" and "Original Guilt" that we "inherit," these words are considered to be used, as the article says, "in an analogous sense."

In this case, I as an Orthodox find no reason to disagree with the "Catholic concept of Original Sin." It then leads me to wonder why so many Orthodox question something in the RC Church that doesn't even exist?

Perhaps, they question ancient writings, to which probably needs clarification from the RC Church to explain, i.e. to clarify what the ancient fathers mean or to totally reject certain things that the ancient fathers said. For example, recently, the RC Church rejected the doctrine of "limbo" which probably puts so many Catholics into a reassessment of their own beliefs into what the Catholic Church actually believes and helps us non-RC's to look at the Catholics more objectively rather than accuse them of something they never believed in the first place.

Sooooo, if you ask me, there are issues like the "juridical concept of salvation" that needs to be reassessed in the Orthodox Church as well as the Catholic Church in ancient times. I certainly wish that the RC Church would make clear about certain beliefs like "infinite sin" or "robbing God's glory" that Anselm held that sound extremely distasteful in theology (I for one cannot bring myself in agreement with these terms/concepts).

God bless.

Mina

[Antony Solomon]

There is a discussion going on here about it:
http://energeticprocession.wordpress.com/2007/04/21/not-yet-ecumenical/#more-110

[Rick H.]

There is a discussion going on here about it:
http://energeticprocession.wordpress.com/2007/04/21/not-yet-ecumenical/#more-110

There *is* some good stuff going on there Antony--thanks!

[Mina Soliman]

There is a discussion going on here about it:
http://energeticprocession.wordpress.com/2007/04/21/not-yet-ecumenical/#more-110

I've read the article, didn't read the discussion though. One has to understand that what the author says about Fr. Kimel goes both ways, especially with Orthodoxy sometimes defining herself not ideally by the merits of her beliefs, but by the oppositions of so-called "Western" beliefs.

I started to realize a sense of "anti-Western" reactions from Orthodox writings like Fr. John Romanides when I read Fr. Seraphim Rose's book on defending St. Augustine. Then I also started looking at words like "Original Sin" and "Original Guilt" in a different light and in the light of the Catholic Catechism.

I do feel that salvation by Christ regards a twofold process, a judicial and an ontological process. The judicial is tricky because unlike the reaction of a "bloodthirsty God" that one might perceive, it is really I believe the preservation of God's consistency with that of lifting the specific curse of death held against us, while at the same time uniting the divine and the human for purification, sanctification, and deification (theosis).

Looking at it this way, man is born from a man who sinned and thus caused himself and all subsequent generations separation from God. The separation is a curse that is condemnable (Original Sin and Guilt), even though man being born into it is not really guilty and have not sinned (as St. Paul said in Romans, everyone did not sin in the same likeness of Adam).

Christ being the first fruits was God Himself united to humanity, therefore, this "Original Sin" and "Guilt" does not exist in Him. In fact, many people, like Leo the Great, spoke of the Holy Spirit's role in the womb of the Theotokos not only as that of Incarnational purposes, but even "purification and sanctifying" the womb for the Incarnation to occur. What exactly is there to purify (I usually like to use this particular Leonian belief as a fork against the Mariology of Immaculate Conception)?

As for "corrupt nature," we must be very careful with our definitions, so as not to introduce Christological errors like partial docetism (Julianism), which is a totally separate discussion on itself. We know any thing created is corruptible, but by special grace, man escaped natural laws in unison with God to be "in incorruption". But since man sinned, they have become "victims of corruption." It is believed strongly that even though Christ voluntarily submitted His flesh to mortality and death, His flesh on account that it is God's flesh, was not a "victim to corruption," which reiterates His "innocence" in an figurative sense from "Original Sin". It's even thought that St. Maximus the Confessor retracted from thinking that Christ had a gnomic will because that would indicate that He was indeed victim to a corruption, and not the Athanasian idea that He is in total control of all situations even when incarnate.

So, really, if Catholics truly believe in this form of "Original Sin," then I find it Orthodox. But then again, there's always the question of Anselm and his dogma on "robbing God's glory" and "Infinite Sin." These, I feel, are incompatible to proper Orthodox soteriology. So, I don't say that this blogger may be incorrect, or our stand against RC soteriology is incorrect. I'm only giving the possibility of its incorrectness and to have open ears to listen on their own terms as the blogger rightfully said.

God bless.

[Herman Blaydoe]

Regardless of what "modern" Catholics may say, their theology flows from Anselmian concepts that are NOT in symphonia with Orthodoxy, making "necessary" such wedges as the "immaculate conception" and "limbo" which now even they are realizing are simply accomodations to "shim" bad theology. As they discard these add-on prosthetics they come closer to Orthodox theology.

[Antony Solomon]

This is getting away from the OP, but the judicial aspects need to be appreciated in the hebraic context of Israel, not alien systems imposed on it. The Hebraic system is about vindication and liberation, not vindictive punishment. The Hebrew system is about calling out to someone to save us from our enemies, even if we are justly set upon for our sins: just read the Psalms! The modern western view is about rooting out sin and punishing it. This is what separates East from West, and gives the West an unhealthy interest in rooting out sins, and casting out sinners; I find the Eastern view (as exemplified in Dostoyevsky) much more in line with the Biblical view. The West says we are guilty for Adam's sin, whatever revisionists might tell us; the West says Christ was punished for that guilt, he made satisfaction, he was rooted out. The East says we are under powers, disabled, and Christ came into our situation to free us, and restore us. The West says God is angry with us, and must be placated, his wrath assuaged by shed blood. The East, in my learning of it so far, says different. For the West, 'corruption' is moral corruption, with a tinge of somatic corruption thrown in, cf Augustine's thoughts about original sin being sex; it seems to me that for the East 'corruption' is thanatic: it leads to death, away from life; it's noetic, a distortion and an enslaving to passions within and powers without.

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Over time the west begins to develop its own language in description of how sin relates to our human nature and how Christ's Incarnation and economia relates to this. But there is not such a radical divide between east & west in the early period of the Church as is often described.

For example in the Great Catechism of St Gregory of Nyssa we find the following:



22. now that we had voluntarily bartered away our freedom, it was requisite that no arbitrary method of recovery, but the one consonant with justice should be devised by Him Who in His goodness had undertaken our rescue. Now this method is in a measure this; to make over to the master of the slave [ie the devil] whatever ransom he may agree to accept for the person in his possession.

23. —what would he [ie the devil] accept in exchange for the thing which he held, but something, to be sure, higher and better, in the way of ransom, that thus, by receiving a gain in the exchange, he might foster the more his own special passion of pride?

The Enemy, therefore, beholding in Him such power, saw also in Him an opportunity for an advance, in the exchange, upon the value of what he held. For this reason he chooses Him as a ransom for those who were shut up in the prison of death

What St Gregory describes here is how original sin is an enslavement to the evil one as a result of our willingly having given ourselves over to sin. St Gregory is providing not a formula to describe sin but rather a way (set within the larger framework of an already developing tradition of description) of describing how through our voluntary giving of ourselves over to sin we have in real sense lost our freedom to extricate ourselves from this. Yes the will is still crucial for salvation. But in another sense much more than this is needed since really we are slaves (ie not free) to sin. Only Christ as God can free us from such a slavery.

This is where the description of ransom comes in, not as a literal payment to the evil one, but rather as referring to that which external to ourselves is needed to release us from slavery to sin & death. In other words ransom according to Patristic meaning refers to the means by which we are released from bondage by Christ. And in this sense this ransom is a substitution of Christ paying this ransom for us since we were not capable of freeing ourselves by our own means.

I think the mistake we make is in not understanding that according to the Patristic understanding the focus of this image is meant to center on the predicament of our sin. It is not meant as an accurate description of how we are freed from this predicament for then in a real sense the evil one is God Whom Christ must literally pay the debt of sin to.

In a way I think this last point describes what the west eventually fell into. For whatever reason- the substitution of philosophy for theology or of justice as a cosmology- the problem in medieval theories of atonement is that original sin is an offense to God's honour. Thus it is to God that the debt or ransom is paid by Christ which shifts the focus in how sin and even potentially in how human nature is defined.

In Christ- Fr Raphael





This is getting away from the OP, but the judicial aspects need to be appreciated in the hebraic context of Israel, not alien systems imposed on it. The Hebraic system is about vindication and liberation, not vindictive punishment. The Hebrew system is about calling out to someone to save us from our enemies, even if we are justly set upon for our sins: just read the Psalms! The modern western view is about rooting out sin and punishing it. This is what separates East from West, and gives the West an unhealthy interest in rooting out sins, and casting out sinners; I find the Eastern view (as exemplified in Dostoyevsky) much more in line with the Biblical view. The West says we are guilty for Adam's sin, whatever revisionists might tell us; the West says Christ was punished for that guilt, he made satisfaction, he was rooted out. The East says we are under powers, disabled, and Christ came into our situation to free us, and restore us. The West says God is angry with us, and must be placated, his wrath assuaged by shed blood. The East, in my learning of it so far, says different. For the West, 'corruption' is moral corruption, with a tinge of somatic corruption thrown in, cf Augustine's thoughts about original sin being sex; it seems to me that for the East 'corruption' is thanatic: it leads to death, away from life; it's noetic, a distortion and an enslaving to passions within and powers without.

[Father David Moser]

For example in the Great Catechism of St Gregory of Nyssa we find the following:

22. now that we had voluntarily bartered away our freedom, it was requisite that no arbitrary method of recovery, but the one consonant with justice should be devised by Him Who in His goodness had undertaken our rescue. Now this method is in a measure this; to make over to the master of the slave [ie the devil] whatever ransom he may agree to accept for the person in his possession.

23. —what would he [ie the devil] accept in exchange for the thing which he held, but something, to be sure, higher and better, in the way of ransom, that thus, by receiving a gain in the exchange, he might foster the more his own special passion of pride?

The Enemy, therefore, beholding in Him such power, saw also in Him an opportunity for an advance, in the exchange, upon the value of what he held. For this reason he chooses Him as a ransom for those who were shut up in the prison of death


This quote is really wonderful in describing Christ's death on the cross as our redemption. He gave Himself into the power of the evil one so that mankind might be freed. But don't stop here - call to mind the Paschal Homily of St John Chrysostom:


Let no one grieve at his poverty, for the universal kingdom has been revealed. Let no one mourn that he has fallen again and again; for forgiveness has risen from the grave. Let no one fear death, for the Death of our Savior has set us free.
He has destroyed it by enduring it.

He destroyed Hades when He descended into it. He put it into an uproar even as it tasted of His flesh. Isaiah foretold this when he said, "You, O Hell, have been troubled by encountering Him below."

Hell was in an uproar because it was done away with. It was in an uproar because it is mocked. It was in an uproar, for it is destroyed. It is in an uproar, for it is annihilated. It is in an uproar, for it is now made captive. Hell took a body, and discovered God. It took earth, and encountered Heaven. It took what it saw, and was overcome by what it did not see.

O death, where is thy sting? O Hades, where is thy victory?

Christ is Risen, and you, O death, are annihilated! Christ is Risen, and the evil ones are cast down! Christ is Risen, and the angels rejoice! Christ is Risen, and life is liberated! Christ is Risen, and the tomb is emptied of its dead; for Christ having risen from the dead, is become the first-fruits of those who have fallen asleep.

The evil one demanded and received a ransom - but the "ransom" turned out to be the One Whom he could not hold. The "Ransom" defeated him, the "Ransom" chained him, the "Ransom" destroyed his power, the "Ransom" was stronger than death which tried to hold Him.

God gave Himself as a "ransom" for our sins, not to appease the demands of the evil one - but to destroy his power over us.

Had God simply overpowered the evil one (which He could have easily done) there would have been no chance of redemption for those in thrall to sin (all of mankind) would have been destoyed along with their master. Rather God presented Himself as a ransom for us so that He might destroy the power of the evil one while preserving those who had been enslaved by that power.

Oh the beauty and glory of our Lord!

Fr David Moser

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Fr David wrote:



The evil one demanded and received a ransom - but the "ransom" turned out to be the One Whom he could not hold. The "Ransom" defeated him, the "Ransom" chained him, the "Ransom" destroyed his power, the "Ransom" was stronger than death which tried to hold Him.

God gave Himself as a "ransom" for our sins, not to appease the demands of the evil one - but to destroy his power over us.

Had God simply overpowered the evil one (which He could have easily done) there would have been no chance of redemption for those in thrall to sin (all of mankind) would have been destoyed along with their master. Rather God presented Himself as a ransom for us so that He might destroy the power of the evil one while preserving those who had been enslaved by that power.

Oh the beauty and glory of our Lord!

So ultimately then the ransom is Christ offering Himself.

It is said I think that Christ offers Himself to the His Father. But then, following from what is said above, this is an offering of love and not of justice.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[John Hammond]

I think the RC's ar catching up . If I readit right there is no more RC LIMBO.

[Mina Soliman]

I must reiterate that we have to be careful in not reducing Christ's salvation to just because His love. It's also a preservation of God's consistency that Christ came to become Incarnate. If it was merely God's Love, His Love would have been manifest in many other ways. I think a reading on St. Athanasius' "On the Incarnation" is necessary to find that the doctrine of Salvation is not just ontological resulting from God's love to man, but also from God's consistency in His commands.

The reason I say this "reiteration" is that the issue of the "judicial system" complaints that came from Eastern Orthodoxy did not come up until late 19th Century, early 20th. Vladimir Moss writes a whole book complaining about how we Orthodox are easy to dismiss the "judicial concept" as something solely Western:

http://www.romanitas.ru/eng/The%20Mystery%20of%20Redemption.htm

The whole issue of "God's wrath" and "God's love" is something that is very biblical, and should not be taken in an anthropological sense, even though these are anthropological words. It's like saying God has "ears," He "smells," or we're protected under His "wings," even though God doesn't literally have these things.

Therefore, I ask those who are researching "Eastern view" to not look at it as if the "Western view" got it all wrong. They may have got it all wrong in some of their saints, but what really matters is their Catholic Catechism. I haven't seen anything in their catechism that totally agrees with Anselmian thought, and the RC Church could perhaps reject some of Anselmian thoughts, as I have said, like "robbing" or "insulting" God's glory and infinite sin (I would even venture to say that the former may also be taken not literally, since we can sin against God, even though nothing is taken away from God or changed in God, and I'm sure the RC Church wouldn't be so stupid theologically to believe in a mutable God).

God bless.

Mina

[Antony Solomon]

Over time the west begins to develop its own language in description of how sin relates to our human nature and how Christ's Incarnation and economia relates to this. But there is not such a radical divide between east & west in the early period of the Church as is often described.

For example in the Great Catechism of St Gregory of Nyssa we find the following:



What St Gregory describes here is how original sin is an enslavement to the evil one as a result of our willingly having given ourselves over to sin. St Gregory is providing not a formula to describe sin but rather a way (set within the larger framework of an already developing tradition of description) of describing how through our voluntary giving of ourselves over to sin we have in real sense lost our freedom to extricate ourselves from this. Yes the will is still crucial for salvation. But in another sense much more than this is needed since really we are slaves (ie not free) to sin. Only Christ as God can free us from such a slavery.

This is where the description of ransom comes in, not as a literal payment to the evil one, but rather as referring to that which external to ourselves is needed to release us from slavery to sin & death. In other words ransom according to Patristic meaning refers to the means by which we are released from bondage by Christ. And in this sense this ransom is a substitution of Christ paying this ransom for us since we were not capable of freeing ourselves by our own means.

I think the mistake we make is in not understanding that according to the Patristic understanding the focus of this image is meant to center on the predicament of our sin. It is not meant as an accurate description of how we are freed from this predicament for then in a real sense the evil one is God Whom Christ must literally pay the debt of sin to.

In a way I think this last point describes what the west eventually fell into. For whatever reason- the substitution of philosophy for theology or of justice as a cosmology- the problem in medieval theories of atonement is that original sin is an offense to God's honour. Thus it is to God that the debt or ransom is paid by Christ which shifts the focus in how sin and even potentially in how human nature is defined.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

Amen to that Father. And it perhaps expalins the constant in-fighting over whether we believe in the right model of atonement, as if that saves us!

[Antony Solomon]

I think the RC's ar catching up . If I readit right there is no more RC LIMBO.

Yes, but it should be borne in mind that Limbo was never an 'official' doctrine, merely a time-honoured opinion, hence they could drop it easily.

[Rick H.]

Amen to that Father. And it perhaps expalins [sic] the constant in-fighting over whether we believe in the right model of atonement, as if that saves us!




Dear Antony,

In your writing [above], as you give the 'amen' to Father, I see that you refer to "in-fighting" and to what "we believe." I see that you are a Baptist, and what you have asserted is interesting to me; however, I am wondering who the "we" is that you speak of (as well as the 'us')?

In Christ,
Rick

[Antony Solomon]

Dear Antony,

In your writing [above], as you give the 'amen' to Father, I see that you refer to "in-fighting" and to what "we believe." I see that you are a Baptist, and what you have asserted is interesting to me; however, I am wondering who the "we" is that you speak of (as well as the 'us')?

In Christ,
Rick

The We and the Us refer to Protestants. Sorry, I forget this is an Orthodox site, I am more used to a general, broadly Evangelical Protestant forum, having been there for 4 years, but new to this one.

[Rick H.]

The We and the Us refer to Protestants. Sorry, I forget this is an Orthodox site, I am more used to a general, broadly Evangelical Protestant forum, having been there for 4 years, but new to this one.

Thanks Antony. And, I will apologize to you. I'm not so sure that I'm not just channeling my inner Owen ;) on this rainy morning, or possibly providing an illustration of the title of this thread (just as an example of course :)

In Christ,
Rick

PS Am I the only one who hears the theme from the movie "Jaws" when reading Owen's postings? (yes, I know . . . you, and sane people everywhere sincerely hope so! :)