|
1 members (Richard R.),
502
guests, and
88
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Forums26
Topics35,518
Posts417,611
Members6,169
| |
Most Online4,112
Mar 25th, 2025
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,855 Likes: 8
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,855 Likes: 8 |
Another concern was raised: If none are born sinful (I find this the most unbiblical out of all the anti-IC explanations, I must confess), then, again, what has Christ accomplished? Christ saved us primarily from death, which is the cause of sin in the descendants of Adam. Sin is a personal missing of the mark, and a new born baby has committed no sins at all, and bears no guilt for his mortality. As an Eastern Catholic I can say unequivocally that I do not believe in the Roman theory of the immaculate conception, because it is theologically unnecessary for a Byzantine Christian.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 26
Junior Member
|
|
Junior Member
Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 26 |
Another concern was raised: If none are born sinful (I find this the most unbiblical out of all the anti-IC explanations, I must confess), then, again, what has Christ accomplished? Modern Catholic teaching has been explained before on the Forum as this: the Mother of God was free from the lack of original justice. Original sin is not original sin as such, it is the lack of original justice. Others will have to explain this because my head starts to spin!  I'm not fully convinced that this isn't just a twist in terms. How does this answer my question?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,855 Likes: 8
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,855 Likes: 8 |
Modern Catholic teaching has been explained before on the Forum as this: the Mother of God was free from the lack of original justice. Original sin is not original sin as such, it is the lack of original justice. Ah, Scholasticism. I do not believe in the concept of "original justice," but hold instead that Adam and Eve were created innocent with the potential to become just. Justice, like any virtue, requires willed effort in order to be actualized.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,505
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,505 |
The sermons, the hymnography (I am disappointed that this was so easily dismissed here), DoxRox, I have been singing "It is meet and right...." several times a day almost my entire life. Please allow me to believe that this prayer reverberates in my soul and the Lord and the holy Church have opened for me its correct understanding. I cannot find in it the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception. Have you asked your priest or your spiritual father or mother to explain this prayer to you? They constitute some of your primary sources and most trustworthy sources of Orthodox teaching and spiritual understanding.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,505
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,505 |
We should judge a man's work by the work itself, in this case. They are always closely allied.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,505
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,505 |
Another concern was raised: If none are born sinful (I find this the most unbiblical out of all the anti-IC explanations, I must confess), then, again, what has Christ accomplished? Modern Catholic teaching has been explained before on the Forum as this: the Mother of God was free from the lack of original justice. Original sin is not original sin as such, it is the lack of original justice. Others will have to explain this because my head starts to spin! I'm not fully convinced that this isn't just a twist in terms. How does this answer my question? In modern Catholicism we are not conceived in sin we are conceived lacking original justice. There is a major difference. The old term of Original Sin is still retained but it is given a new meaning.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 26
Junior Member
|
|
Junior Member
Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 26 |
Another concern was raised: If none are born sinful (I find this the most unbiblical out of all the anti-IC explanations, I must confess), then, again, what has Christ accomplished? Christ saved us primarily from death, which is the cause of sin in the descendants of Adam. Sin is a personal missing of the mark, and a new born baby has committed no sins at all, and bears no guilt for his mortality. As an Eastern Catholic I can say unequivocally that I do not believe in the Roman theory of the immaculate conception, because it is theologically unnecessary for a Byzantine Christian. Original sin and personal sin are two different things. What is washed away in baptism, if not original sin? "Guilt" in the traditional sense meant both what we think of the term, someone is found guilty, and the consequences of the crime, hence we are born "guilty" because we posses the consequences of the "original crime", which are: "...guilt, corruption and the depravity of our nature, the tendency and inclination towards evil and finally death." According to "Our Orthodox Christian Faith: A Handbook of Popular Dogmatics by Athanasios S. Frangopoulos" There are several Orthodox Catechisms that disagree with your explanation that no one is born sinful, including the one cited above. The others are (emphasis mine): 168. Why did not the first man only die, and not all, as now?
Because all have come of Adam since his infection by sin, and all sin themselves. As from an infected source there naturally flows an infected stream, so from a father infected with sin, and consequently mortal, there naturally proceeds a posterity infected like him with sin, and like him mortal.
169. How is this spoken of in holy Scripture?
By one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin, and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned. Rom. v. 12. " "That is original sin. And its consequences? A.) Spiritual death. That is, the separation of man from God, the source of all goodness. B.) Bodily death. That is, the separation of the body from the soul, the return of the body to the earth. C.) The shattering and distortion of the "image." That is, darkness of mind, depravity and corruption of the heart, loss of independence, loss of free will, and tendency towards evil. Since then "the imagination of man's heart is evil "(Genesis 8:21). Man constantly thinks of evil. D.) Guilt. That is, a bad conscience, the shame that made him want to hide from God. E.) Worst of all, original sin is hereditary. It did not remain only Adam and Eve's. As life passes from them to all of their descendants, so does original sin. We all of us participate in original sin because we are all descended from the same forefather, Adam. This creates a problem for many people. They ask, Why should we be responsible for the actions of Adam and Eve? Why should we have to pay for the sins of our parents? they say. Unfortunately, this is so, because the consequence of original sin is the distortion of the nature of man... " "However, if we read the text to mean ‘in whom all have sinned’, this can be understood as the passing on of Adam’s sin to all future generations of people, since human nature has been infected by sin in general. The disposition toward sin became hereditary and responsibility for turning away from God sin universal. As St Cyril of Alexandria states, human nature itself has ‘fallen ill with sin’; thus we all share Adam’s sin as we all share his nature. St Macarius of Egypt speaks of ‘a leaven of evil passions’ and of ‘secret impurity and the abiding darkness of passions’, which have entered into our nature in spite of our original purity. Sin has become so deeply rooted in human nature that not a single descendant of Adam has been spared from a hereditary predisposition toward sin. " The Scripture cited in these catechisms is why I find your proposition one of the most unbiblical. There is personal sin and original sin. We are held personally responsible for the former and ontologically responsible for the latter.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 26
Junior Member
|
|
Junior Member
Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 26 |
The sermons, the hymnography (I am disappointed that this was so easily dismissed here), DoxRox, I have been singing "It is meet and right...." several times a day almost my entire life. Please allow me to believe that this prayer reverberates in my soul and the Lord and the holy Church have opened for me its correct understanding. I cannot find in it the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception. Have you asked your priest or your spiritual father or mother to explain this prayer to you? They constitute some of your primary sources and most trustworthy sources of Orthodox teaching and spiritual understanding. The hymnography from the feasts, which you urged to be brought up, was dismissed by you because you said the conversation was detracting from the discussion. This is what I am referring to.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 26
Junior Member
|
|
Junior Member
Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 26 |
Another concern was raised: If none are born sinful (I find this the most unbiblical out of all the anti-IC explanations, I must confess), then, again, what has Christ accomplished? Modern Catholic teaching has been explained before on the Forum as this: the Mother of God was free from the lack of original justice. Original sin is not original sin as such, it is the lack of original justice. Others will have to explain this because my head starts to spin! I'm not fully convinced that this isn't just a twist in terms. How does this answer my question? In modern Catholicism we are not conceived in sin we are conceived lacking original justice. There is a major difference. The old term of Original Sin is still retained but it is given a new meaning. Unless there is an authoritative source, such as the Catechism of the Catholic Church, which backs this claim, I still do not see how this isn't an evasion. I am aware of the reasoning that original sin causes injustice, but not this.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,505
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,505 |
The hymnography from the feasts, which you urged to be brought up, was dismissed by you because you said the conversation was detracting from the discussion. This is what I am referring to. Then you would be incorrect. Fr Deacon Lance wrote the below and I thought that we should focus more specifically on your OP. ________________________ I am saying it along with hymnography for the Theotokos' Nativity and Entrance is proof that it is at least an acceptable theological opinion to believe the Theotokos was indwelt by the Holy Spirit from the moment of her Conception, ________________________
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,505
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,505 |
I'm not fully convinced that this isn't just a twist in terms. How does this answer my question? [/quote In modern Catholicism we are not conceived in sin we are conceived lacking original justice. There is a major difference. The old term of Original Sin is still retained but it is given a new meaning. Unless there is an authoritative source, such as the Catechism of the Catholic Church, which backs this claim, I still do not see how this isn't an evasion. I am aware of the reasoning that original sin causes injustice, but not this. CCC405. It [Original Sin] is a deprivation of original holiness and justice.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,505
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,505 |
I find my deepest concerns still unanswered though: If the Virgin was full of grace at the time of the Annuciation, how was this accomplished without the work of Christ? Why can't anyone else do the same thing? This concern may stem from the fact that the Latin translation of "gratia plena" or "full of grace" is NOT what the Evangelist wrote. There is no "FULL of grace" in the text of the New Testament. The Greek word used by Saint Luke means "you who have been graced", "you who have been favoured." Modern translations, including Roman Catholic ones, are now discarding this Latin error in translation (was it Saint Jerome who introduced this error?)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,855 Likes: 8
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,855 Likes: 8 |
Original sin and personal sin are two different things. What is washed away in baptism, if not original sin? You are making it sound as if the "original sin" is a thing, but it is not. Moreover, like many people you seem to be reducing the mystery of baptism to the remission of sins, but a baby has no sins, which is why it is baptized in order to confer sonship upon it (along with other graces), and not to wash away some kind of non-existent sins; for as St. John Chrysostom said: "Blessed be God, who alone does wonderful things! You have seen how numerous are the gifts of baptism. Although many men think that the only gift it confers is the remission of sins, we have counted its honors to the number of ten. It is on this account that we baptize even infants, although they are sinless, that they may be given the further gifts of sanctification, justice, filial adoption, and inheritance, that they may be brothers and members of Christ, and become dwelling places for the Spirit" [St. John Chrysostom, Third Baptismal Instruction, no. 6]. I agree with St. John Chrysostom . . . a newborn babe is sinless. "Guilt" in the traditional sense meant both what we think of the term, someone is found guilty, and the consequences of the crime, hence we are born "guilty" because we posses the consequences of the "original crime", which are: "...guilt, corruption and the depravity of our nature, the tendency and inclination towards evil and finally death." According to "Our Orthodox Christian Faith: A Handbook of Popular Dogmatics by Athanasios S. Frangopoulos" As I indicated above, I reject entirely the idea that a baby is born guilty, whether one is talking about culpa or reatum it makes no difference to me, and quoting an Orthodox source that is infected with Latin views is not going to change my mind. The Greek Orthodox Theological Review had an excellent article a few years ago about the captivity of the Orthodox theology (from the 16th century all the way to the early 20th century) to Western Scholastic ideas, but thankfully those days are over, although clearly they linger on in some circles. The idea that a new born baby is conceived or born sinful or damned is monstrous to me. Finally, it is Christologically problematic to assert that human nature is somehow sinful or depraved, because Christ assumed a nature identical to our own; for if He had assumed a nature that was somehow different from that possessed by all other men, it follows that we would not be saved. Thus, to say with Calvin, that our nature is depraved is the same as saying that Christ in His humanity is depraved, and I will never agree with that proposition. Most of your post is, from my perspective, un-biblical and un-patristic.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,505
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,505 |
"However, if we read the text to mean ‘in whom all have sinned’, this can be understood as the passing on of Adam’s sin to all future generations of people, since human nature has been infected by sin in general. The disposition toward sin became hereditary and responsibility for turning away from God sin universal. As St Cyril of Alexandria states, human nature itself has ‘fallen ill with sin’; thus we all share Adam’s sin as we all share his nature. St Macarius of Egypt speaks of ‘a leaven of evil passions’ and of ‘secret impurity and the abiding darkness of passions’, which have entered into our nature in spite of our original purity. Sin has become so deeply rooted in human nature that not a single descendant of Adam has been spared from a hereditary predisposition toward sin. " That is very naughty!! I did not expect to encounter the day when an Orthodox Christian (hopefully unintentionally) distorts what an author wrote by selecting text which suits his preferred slant and suppressing that which does not... It should have been revealed that in his catechism Metropolitan Hilarion gives TWO understandings of Original Sin; Here is the one you omitted: "The consequences of the Fall spread to the whole of the human race. This is elucidated by St Paul: ‘Therefore as sin came into the world through one man and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all men sinned’ (Rom.5:12). This text, which formed the Church’s basis of her teaching on ‘original sin’, may be understood in a number of ways: the Greek words ef’ ho pantes hemarton may be translated not only as ‘because all men sinned’ but also ‘in whom [that is, in Adam] all men sinned’. Different readings of the text may produce different understandings of what ‘original sin’ means.
"If we accept the first translation, this means that each person is responsible for his own sins, and not for Adam’s transgression. Here, Adam is merely the prototype of all future sinners, each of whom, in repeating Adam’s sin, bears responsibility only for his own sins. Adam’s sin is not the cause of our sinfulness; we do not participate in his sin and his guilt cannot be passed onto us. " Source :: http://en.hilarion.orthodoxia.org/5_1#CONSEQUENCES_OF_ADAM’S_SIN
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,505
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,505 |
ON THE FALL OF OUR FIRST PARENTS
Q. What did they suffer through the sin of disobedience?
A. 1. Their minds became darkened and they lost God. 2. Their hearts became perverted and they began to love the evil more than the good. 3. They fell into sickness and various other evils. 4. Their bodies became mortal. 5. Their souls were condemned to moral death, which is separation from God, i.e. eternal misfortune.
Q. Did only our First Parents suffer from their disobedience?
A. Unfortunately the whole human race born since has also suffered. They inherited the same evils, just as they would have inherited immortality and happiness, if our First Parents had obeyed; because just as impure water proceeds from an impure fountain so also sinful men are born of sinful ancestors.
|
|
|
|
|
