|
1 members (1 invisible),
857
guests, and
130
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Forums26
Topics35,541
Posts417,771
Members6,196
| |
Most Online4,112
Mar 25th, 2025
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 49
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 49 |
Esteemed brothers and sisters,
My understanding has been that among orthodox theologians, original sin is a "non-issue." How then does the exorcism portion of the baptismal ceremony apply to the newborn?
Thanks for your help.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 695
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 695 |
dear Prod (may I call you "Prod")  The Exorcisms (and the rest of the Baptismal rite) originally has adults in mind. And speaking for myself at least, a few prayers in that line, would not do me Any harm! Herb ps: Besides which, exorcisms deal with demonic influence not so much the "original sin" thing of the Latin Church's theology. So, I suppose, technically, one could be exorcised and still have original sin... (for those Churches that have original sin)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 49
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 49 |
Herb, thanks for your thoughts and for pointing out the crucial distinction between original sin and demonic influence. Even when the baby is a few weeks old, there has been sufficient time for a ruthless enemy to cause problems, and so the exorcism prayers are still appropriate.
And yes, you may call me Prod! But most people call me Robert:)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 49
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 49 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 2,941
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 2,941 |
Dear Prodigal: I'm not sure where you get the idea that "among orthodox theologians, original sin is a 'non-issue' ". Here's a nice essay by Archpriest Alexander Golubov that notes the centralty of this issue: http://www.stots.edu/library/rags.html Held, in general, as Orthodox teaching by both Eastern and Western Fathers, the theological concept, or doctrine, of "original sin," as the Russian theologian Fr. Michael Pomazansky points out, "has great significance in the Christian world-view, because upon it rests a whole series of other dogmas." This essay was among the sources and links on an earlier thread here on "original sin": https://www.byzcath.org/cgibin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=4;t=000756#000001 While the essay of Archpriest Alexander distinguishes between ideas of the Protestant versus Catholic West, his suggestion that the Roman Catholic position is that defined by of "augstinian scholastics" is at odds with cathechism of the Catholic church. djs
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 49
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 49 |
Point well taken. The fact that it is understood differently in the east hardly makes it a "non-issue." Thanks for the link.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 2,941
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 2,941 |
It is certainly understood differently in the East vs. West, inasmuch as "West" includes, for example, Calvinism. Finding a difference between Eastern Orthodox and Catholic doctrine, however, is, IMO, very difficult.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 4
Junior Member
|
|
Junior Member
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 4 |
I have to agree, that too much is made of the "differences" in the western "vs" eastern view of original sin. I think in this case, a great deal of the misunderstanding is on the "eastern" side. Also, a great deal of it is relatively modern (due to the "neo-patristic" revival in many Orthodox circles, which imho has not always been a good thing, since it tends to be anything but patristic.)
The "sin" which a child is born with, is not a personal sin. Rather it is a privation of grace; children are not born sons of God, they are not born in possession of His supernatural life. Thus where there is an infusion of grace, there is a remission of sins; for example, someone going to confession.
Well, the newborn infant is receiving an infusion of grace to be sure; but there is no personal sin to speak of. Thus, the only thing we can point to, is he is being loosened from Adam's sin, which unfortunately this child inherits the effects of.
I have a hard time seeing what's so controversial about this; call it "ancestral sin" if it makes one more comfortable, but this to me seems to be childish semantics, and very divisive ones at that.
Augustine
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 50
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 50 |
I agree that "childish" semantics are devisive. True Theology is not devisive. Yours in Christ, Fr Serafim www.fatherserafim.info [ fatherserafim.info]
|
|
|
|
|
