www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Orthodox objections to Original Sin ?

Marduk,

Thank you for your reply. I concur with you that much of your assessment concerning Eastern Catholicism and Western Catholicism is talking past each other on the issue of OS.

However, not to be nit-picky, I would decline to affirm that both concepts (Protestant and Catholic) are in Augustine (or that they both can be faithfully extracted from him). If we were to say that both concur that man is "guilty," sure, but the question of how they are "guilty" is completely opposite. For the protestant, the precence of concupiscence is the reason man is guilty (at least when we are talking about the classical Protestants like Luther and Calvin, most modern protestants wouldn't affirm this). These premises lead to exasperating conclusions for the human will. For Luther, the servum arbitrium is a consequence of man�s creatureliness, rather than a consequence of sin. It is the whole man (totus homo) who serves the law of God and the law of sin at one and the same time, and exists under a double servitude. The one and the same man is spiritual and carnal, righteous and a sinner, good and evil. Iustus et peccatur simul. (See Alister McGrath, Iustitia Dei, section on Luther.) Everything man does in and of himself and his being is sin. For Augustine and Western Catholics, it is the absence of justice that makes man "guilty." One is a faithful Augustinian teaching, the other is a distortion.

This might have been what you were driving at, but I felt the need to get a little more specific as to avoid confusion.

Daniel

Dear Augustini,

I agree with you. I should have been more concise in my terminology. Both Protestant and Catholic understanding of original sin are SUBJECTIVELY obtained from St. Augustine. However, there is only one OBJECTIVELY correct interpretation. I daresay that it belongs to the Catholics.

Blessings,
Marduk

Hey, Augustini!

Your presence here is awesome. You say all the things that I would if I were capable.

LatinTrad

"Ama et fac quod vis"

Mardukm, LatinTrad,

Thank you for your kind words. I hope to be of some benefit. My goal is to clarify the Latin position to the best of my ability and to promote a conciliatory attitude towards our Eastern brothers, that encourages their spirituality, theology, heritage, and liturgy (as I promote the tradition of my own Tridentine Liturgy within the Western Theological tradition). I pray that I'm extended the same gesture of hand.

Daniel

Dear Okosteenos (as we say in Armenian),

I too appreciate your presence here. We've had many knowledgeable Latin Church members on this forum, but many have come here for argument. You seem to come for the purpose of enlightenment. Since you have such a grasp and understanding of such a controversial a figure as St. Augustine please allow me to ask you some questions.

You state:
So first off it should be recognized by all that the Latin Church indeed has historically taught (following St. Augustine) that Original Sin conveys an inherited guilt to all mankind. I hope all can finally agree on this as you have clearly stated.

Yet you say that the question should be "how are they guilty" according to St. Augustine and the Catholic Church. To me, the question should be not "how are they guilty" but "what are they guilty of?" In other words, if one is found guilty it must be due to some wrong doing, right? Yet you stated that man is guilty of an "absence of justice." How could a new born baby be found guilty for that??? Questions abound, based on what you have written, but I'll stop there and allow you to explain.

Trusting in Christ's Light,
Ghazar

Ghazar,

Thank you for your response.

I think part of your question is answered in my first post of this thread. I will try and clarify, so here goes...

If you have noticed, I have put the word "guilt" in quotations in reference and relation to original sin. First, because the term is used by the western Church so I needn't ignore it. Secondly, I put it in quotes because it has another connotation that is often foregin to Eastern Christianity. You are absolutely correct that the true sense of guilt presupposes a personal offense. Paragraph #1 of the Council of Trent on its decree of Original Sin (Session 5) states:

[/QUOTE]1. If anyone does not confess that the first man, Adam, when he transgressed the commandment of God in paradise, immediately lost the holiness and justice in which he had been constituted, and through the offense of that prevarication incurred the wrath and indignation of God, and thus death with which God had previously threatened him, and, together with death, captivity under his power who thenceforth had the empire of death, that is to say, the devil, and that the entire Adam through that offense of prevarication was changed in body and soul for the worse, let him be anathema. [QUOTE]

Now this "guilt" shall we say of infants is not some personal guilt of Adam's sin that he committed freely on his own, but is the loss of the holiness and justice that was a part of our nature that Adam would've passed onto the whole human race had he not sinned. St. Paul is clear that this brought condemnation for us, in the first part Rom 5:18 he writes, "Therefore, as by the offence of one, unto all men to condemnation." And in the first part of Rom 5:19 he says, "For as by the disobedience of one man, many were made sinners." Notice that we were actually made sinners by Adam's offence. We lost that holiness that he had, and hence, every infant is born in the condition that Adam has after this transgression. Now, "guilt" is very juridical language, so how do we understand this? To stand before a righteous God and enter into his presence, one must have the "righteousness of God." Now since infants are born in the condition of Adam's nature that he possessed after the fall, they no longer have this righteousness, and thus, do not stand justified before Him. I understand that this is very juridical language that might be foreign to an Eastern framework, but it is very much the language of Romans 4-5. So why are we born in this condition that we cannot stand before Him? Rom 5:12 states that by one man sin entered into this world. After Adam sinned, he was deprived of these righteous gifts, and can no longer pass, what is needed, along to posterity. The only relationship of "guilty" between Adam and his descendents is a unique one: Adam because he committed a personal sin, and the infant because he was deprived of the gifts that Adam would have passed on to the him.

I hope this helps. Thank you for the courtesy to further my explanation.

Daniel

Daniel-Augustini,

Thank you for your thoughtful explanation. What it appears you are saying is that although the Latin Church Tradition has always employed the word "guilt" they never really meant it.

The dearly departed Fr. John A. Hardon, S.J., a man steeped in the Tradition of the Latin Church, in his "Modern Catholic Dictionary" defines guilt as follows: "A condition of a person who has done moral wrong, who is therefore more or less estranged from the one he offended, and who is liable for punishment before he has been pardoned and has made atonement." According to you the Latin Church does not at all mean this when it speaks of the guilt of original sin.

As for Romans 5, I understand you are saying much of what the Latin Church teaches is based on St. Augustine's and other's interpretation of this chapter. But it must be pointed out that this interpretation does not necessarily follow. We already know that Romans 5:12 is translated and understood very differently by the East. The same could be said of those passages you quote relating to our condemnation. The Latin Church may understand this condemnation referring to damnation or something else, but the East understands the condemnation to refer to our inherited mortality (as the entire context of that passage keeps reiterating, Rom 5:12-21).

As for we being "made sinners": Adam passed on this condemnation of mortality to us all. This mortality and the fear of it (as says St. Paul in Hebrews) is what makes us sinners.

St. Paul to the Hebrew Christians:
"Since all the children share the same human nature, he too shared equally in it, so that by his death he could set aside him who held the power of death, namely the devil, and set free all those who had been held in slavery all their lives by the fear of death" (2:14-15, NJB).

and St. Paul states to the Church in Corinth:
Just as all die in Adam, so in Christ all will be brought to life; but all of them in their proper order: Christ the first-fruits, and next, at his coming, those who belong to him. (15:22-23)

This is summed up with the simple sentence of St. Paul: "The sting of death is sin..." (1 Cor 15:56).

None of this supports any notion of our being born guilty. Yet, if what you write is true and the Latin Church never really meant that due to original sin we are born guilty, then this is good as it is one less obstacle between our Churches. Perhaps the East has misunderstood the Latin Church not so much because of Protestants (as some suggest) but rather based on the incorrect witness of Latin writers themselves. Example: the way the translators of the New Jerusalem Bible translated Psalm 51:5 "remember I was born guilty, a sinner from the moment of my conception." Who can blame the East for getting the perception that Catholics teach we are all born guilty in the true sense of the word? Anyway thanks for your clarification. I hope you are correct.

Trusting in Christ's Light,
Wm. Ghazar Der-Ghazarian

p.s. Why do think the Papal definition on the Immaculate Conception specifically names "fault" as one aspcet of Original Sin? The Papal definition states that the "formal active essence" of Original Sin passed on to us all includes: "fault, all depraved emotions, passions, and debilities." These are what St. Mary was exempted from in Latin teaching. Is "fault" like "guilt" to be taken not according to its definition? If so, why did St. Mary need to be exempted from it? Or did the Pontiff goof by using the word "fault"? Thanks for your continued explanations.

It may be that you are focusing too much on the semantics of the word �guilt� and not grasping the context of how it is being used in some places. I am aware this is unintentional.

Just as Eastern theology recognizes that some word are not exactly fitting - but must be used anyway - if we are going to talk about some theological subject - the West also has these words. Both theologies are forced to use words which have a material meaning - in order to indicate what is not material. Moses spoke with God - face to face - but of course the Godhead has no �face�.

The meaning of many words and phrases shift over time - depending upon social use and cultural use. While I am not sure, it may be that the assumed definition of guilt may be a bit different to an Eastern use (coming from the Greek definition of the word) and a Western use (coming from a Latin definition of the word). Such differences between language and culture must often be accounted for.

I would suggest that in the meaning of guilt - often used in association with the concept of Original Sin - it is often used to indicate the effects of sin which effects are passed on. While at other times it may be used to indicate a personal guilt.

When we dive into these very theological concepts which used current vocabulary of philosophy - it helps to be aware of how these words were used at the time. It sometimes trips us up if we assume the modern definition (the one we natural tend to want to use).

The trick - is that we must try to enter into the mind of the author and the directly intended reader. You, and I, of the 21st century - are not the reader that Augustine has in mind to reach clearly. His duty - was to speak clearly to learned men of his own time - his own culture. That is the duty of all who preach the gosple - the duty to make it clear as possible to his contemporaries. To do that one must use the language and meanings that were common at the time.

So in final, I submit that Augustine sometimes uses the word guilt by falling to the side of its meaning of a personal responsibility and a judgment of personal actions or choices. At other times he uses the word by falling to the side of guilt being an effect to our psyche-soma nature� in other words an effect which tends the mind and emotions of the body toward sin - and effect and tendency which is passed on in some way.

I am always reminded of the case of Origen when I stumble onto this type of thing. He was brilliant, he was bold, and almost single handedly he trasfered ancient the ancient language of Semitic cosmogony - over into the terms of (the then modern) terms of Greek philosophy. Philo also did this but Philo was too wordy - Origen did it in a much simpler way and Oigen became the foundation of Church theology. He united the church dispersed in the Greek speaking world in such a way - that his foundation still stands today. Yet - not soon after his death - he was faulted for not doing it perfectly. His place of honor for what he did do - was overturned by those who mistakenly felt that all theology stopped at the - words. The words do not contain theology - they are simply pointers - symbols - which indicate meaning - meaning which resides within the mind.

Those who are familiar and at home with Latin based theology automatically understand, without any thought, that guilt is a two sided coin. It is judgment and sentence. While Adam was the object of judgment - the sentence is passed on to his children in as much as the sentence was applied to the whole - Adam - spirit (mind) and body. In as much as it is true that Adam�s human nature (spirit and body) generated us (his children) we also carry the applied sentence. In as much as any seed of any nature produces itself through the act of generation. The judgment of personal guilt is not passed on but the effects of the sentence - are.

We are guilty in as much as we carry the sentence of Adam (not the personal judgment) which can rightly be said is also a judgment placed indirectly upon us also. We all - have fallen to this tendency and have all gained our own personal guilt. It was our choice. We join - Adam - in his sin - voluntarily.

Original sin is not a particular sin - it is the root of all sin. It is preferring to do one�s own self-providence - instead of cooperating with God�s Providence. Adam�s particular sin is not named (only a fundamentalist and someone who does not know how to read a cosmogony would believe that it was taking an apple and eating it). Adam sin - is named - it is disobedience and self-provision in place of cooperation with God�s providence. Early Council documents and writing of early fathers - clearly state that Genesis is the �cosmogony of Moses�. A cosmogony - not a historical record as for example Exodus or Numbers might be considered.

So rather than judging Augustine by our own insistence of what he words mean to us today - we should rather make efforts to understand the meaning that his older words and use - indicate.

This is my opinion Ghazar, and you are well aware that I have all the respect in the world for you and your thoughts. Your good intentions and enlightened spirit are recognized by all.

If I have misunderstood you I am sorry - I did not read the entire thread.

Please mention me in your prayers.

-ray

Dear Ray,

You know I respect what you are saying and have the highest regard for you as a truly enlightened brother in Christ. What you say about understanding an author's words in the sense he meant them is very true. But isn't it also true that we must keep the Gospel in an understandable language to each generation? Ofcourse, you have argued as much in your last reply. Perhaps it could be said that the Latin Church has been consistent in doing this by getting away from the language of "inherited guilt." But a part of me senses a reluctance and almost a concerted denial by many Latin Church members to at least admit that some in their Church have surely taught the erroneous doctrine that children are born guilty (in the common sense of the word). If this has just been a case of an erroneous minority within the Latin Church, then fine. Why don't some people just say that. But it seems to me that everyone is denying that anyone ever taught such a thing as "babies are born guilty and without Baptism are doomed to hell." I know a Latin Church member, very pro-papal and very steeped in Latin Church Tradition and history who affirms St. Augustine taught as much. I quoted from the great Fr. John A. Hardon (spiritual director of Mother Teresa of Calcutta) who clearly writes that the Latin Church understands guilt just as we in the East do (and he's certainly no modernist). I even provided an explicit quote from a mainstream, popular Roman Catholic Bible which states "remember I was born guilty, a sinner from the moment of my conception." This is not to mention the Papal reference to our inherited "fault" in the Encyclical of 1854. And yet everyone is still denying that anyone ever taught such a thing in the Latin Church. To be honest with you Ray, I find this denial a bit frustrating. I'm trying to understand it, but right now, it just doesn't make sense to me. I'll try to think more about this and about what you and the others have written. Thanks for taking the time to respond.

Trusting in the Holy Spirit's Illumination,
Wm. Ghazar Der-Ghazarian

p.s. It'd be an honor to pray for you. Please also do so for me as well, brother.

Dear Brother Ghazar,

May I attempt to answer your questions?

I think we can actually work off of Fr. Hardon's definition, and still come to agreement with the CC. Fr. Hardon's definition explicitly defines "guilt" as that attached to something "done" that is morally wrong. Your question seems to focus on the "guilt" of newborn infants (correct me if I'm wrong)- how that is to be defined, and which may BE the decisive factor in this discussion (again, correct me if I'm wrong).

I am of the opinion that since newborn infants do not actually commit moral wrong, Fr. Hardon's definition cannot be correctly applied to the question of the "guilt" of newborn infants, and, concurrently, nor can it be used to define the "guilt" of original sin. In fact, Trent actually states that original sin is NOT in the nature of a "personal fault." Thus, Fr. Hardon's FULL definition of guilt is excluded from this discussion, because his definition is exactly regarding the guilt of a personal, actual sin that is committed (or, concurrently, a "personal fault").

I stressed "FULL" because I think we can still imply a working defintion of the guilt of original sin from a PART of Fr. Hardon's definition of the guilt of personal sin. Namely, if we remove all terms associated with actual, personal sin from Fr. Hardon's definition, we are effectively left with:

the condition of a person more or less estranged from God.

I think this definition of the guilt of original sin (as opposed to personal, actual sin) can be successfully interpreted as "orthodox."

In light of this definition, if we substitute "guilt" (or all papal mention of "fault") with "estranged from God" in the other quotes you provided from Catholic sources, I believe rapprochement is inevitable:

Psalm 51:5
remember I was born ESTRANGED FROM GOD, a sinner from the moment of my conception."

"babies are born ESTRANGED FROM GOD." (BTW, I excluded the next clause in this quote from you because I think the CC actually officially teaches that she does not know the lot of babies who die without baptism).

What do you think of my interpretation? Is it too sophistic? By this post, I pray you do not view me as being excessively Latin in my thinking (no insult to my Latin brethren). I am just trying to promote understanding.

Blessings,
Marduk

I have been told by Orthodox clergy that the biggest problem the Orthodox church faces in the United States - is ex-protestants coming into the Orthodox church and dragging thier bible-belt anti-Catholic bias with them.

Can I make a correction? I stated that Trent does not think of original sin as a personal fault. Rather, it is the Catechism of the Catholic Church that states that.

Marduk

Dear Marduk,

Before we get started let me say one thing. There were some subtle accusations being thrown around in this thread. Some on the pro-Latin side stated that the Orthodox just were confused in their thinking and sadly mistaken to accuse Latin Christianity of such a thing as associating "guilt" in the transmission of Original Sin. So then it became a question of just those poor ignorant Orthodox who don't even try to understand Latin Catholic teaching but ignorantly lump them in with the Protestants. Then it became "well the Latins do teach transmitted guilt but they don't really mean it," because they have a different traditional understanding of the word "guilt." Then I quoted an ultra-traditional Latin Catholic's understanding of the word "guilt" to show Latins don't define "guilt" in some off-the-wall fashion but just as all rational people define it.

Now, I don't think I have ever denied that the Latin Church has backed-off of at least the wording of inherited guilt (if not the concept as well). But if people are going to claim the Orthodox are just making all of this up out of thin air, or are making malicious false allegations, then all of the other evidence to the contrary needs to be dragged up to prove they are doing no such thing.

I accept that the Latin Church no longer teaches inherited guilt and probably never did "officially." But I certainly believe that the belief was very prevalent at one time. I rejoice in the teachings of the new Latin Church Catechism. I've got no problem with all of this and believe our teaching on Original Sin (per the new Catechism) are now very much agreed. But if people act like Latins never taught such a thing, don't be surprised if Orthodox attempt to show that they did.

I think Marduk's substitution of "alienated from God," instead of "guilty" would be acceptable to most on both sides.

To help clarify the point I was trying to make, we have these quotes from the Catholic Encyclopedia:

"Adam, by his fault transmitted to us not only death but also sin, 'for as by the disobedience of one man many [i.e., all men] were made sinners' (Rom., v, 19)."

"Since Adam transmits death to his children by way of generation when he begets them mortal, it is by generation also that he transmits to them sin, for the Apostle presents these two effects as produced at the same time and by the same causality."

"And yet all men are, by the influence of Adam, sinners and condemned (Rom., v, 18, 19)."

*YET*

This is all explained quite nicely by the old Catholic Encyclopedia of 1917 (which I don't usually recommend).
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11312a.htm

It is the "principal of solidarity" by which guilt is associated by the Latin Church with the transmission of Original Sin. In fact, after reading this article, I hesitated to send this post. But then there is a nice little paragraph at the end which proved my point exactly. It states:

"Several theologians of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, neglecting the importance of the privation of grace in the explanation of original sin, and explaining it only by the participation we are supposed to have in the act of Adam, exaggerate this participation. They exaggerate the idea of voluntary in original sin, thinking that it is the only way to explain how it is a sin properly so-called. Their opinion, differing from that of St. Thomas, gave rise to uncalled-for and insoluble difficulties. At present it is altogether abandoned."

Bingo. Some Latin Church theologians distorted their own tradition and thus repelled others (like the Orthodox). They neglected the point that the meaning of our being born "sinners" referred to our "privation of grace." They exaggerated the idea of every person's participation in the sin of Adam. They also exaggerated the idea that we all voluntarily sinned in Adam thus accounting for our participation in the "Sin of Adam." All of this obviously has been corrected and the true Latin / Augustinian Tradition has been restored. I encourage everyone to read the article at the above link, especially the part beginning at: "VII. HOW VOLUNTARY"

Thank you all for the dialogue and thoughtful replies.

Always trusting in the Holy Spirit's Illumination,
Wm. Ghazar Der-Ghazarian
Looys Kreesdosee
www.geocities.com/derghazar [geocities.com]