www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Original Sin and Infant Baptism

Brethren,

I am a western Christian with a belief in original sin and infant baptism. Obviously Eastern Christians also baptize their infants. However, Eastern Christians typically deny original sin and see baptism as initiation into the life of the Blessed Trinity and the inception of the process of theosis.

However, every Sunday we confess "I acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins." But if a person claims that infant baptism does remit the sin of infants then they are denying the Nicene Creed.

Isn't the East denying the Nicene Creed when they deny Original Sin? Clearly baptism remits the sin of infants. Does the East not acknowledge baptism as the remission of sin for infants?

Please don't blast me out of the water as a pompous westerner. This is a sensitive issue, I know. I'm sure the East has an answer for this that I am unaware of.

Christ is risen!!
Marshall

Dear Marshall,

How are you doing, Friend?

Well, let me take a stab at this . . .

Clearly, the Mystery of Baptism is a mystery that regenerates us spiritually.

By going into the waters of Baptism thrice, we mystically die with Christ and are resurrected with Him.

The East does NOT deny Original Sin. The entire spirituality of the East is complete with references to Original Sin.

It is just that the East understands Original Sin differently than did St Augustine in terms of an actual "stain" on one's soul that is inherited from Adam.

Original Sin according to the Eastern Fathers has to do with the morally weakened human nature that we inherit from Adam as a result of his sin.

We cannot inherit a sin that someone else has committed.

What we inherit is Adam's fallen humanity, a humanity subject to suffering, concupiscence and death.

Salvation and sanctification in Christ through the Holy Spirit is the process by which we experience regeneration through Grace by means of the Mysteries/Sacraments, prayer etc.

Baptism annuls all actual sin. Many people are baptized later in life, and so their personal actual sins are washed away by the Waters of Baptism, to be sure. Baptism remits our actual sins committed in our previous lives, as was the experience of so many people in the Roman Empire, especially when the Creed was written!

Baptism also regenerates our souls that have been harmed by Original Sin, granting us newness of Life in Christ through the Grace of the Holy Spirit, making us Temples of the Holy Spirit, enlightening us, transfiguring us.

Although our nature tends toward sin, the Grace we receive in Baptism, Chrismation and the Holy Eucharist, the Sacraments of Initiation, makes present within us what was absent before because of Original Sin, the life and presence of the Holy Trinity that saves and sanctifies us.

We are hallowed in Christ through the Spirit and are called by the Father to live a life worthy of our great calling, increasing that Grace throughout our lives, acquiring the Holy Spirit through our participation in the Body of Christ through Holy Communion, prayer, fasting etc.

Our nature, damaged by Original Sin, is enabled through Baptism and Chrismation (Confirmation) by Divine Grace to achieve its destiny in Christ.

Alexander Schmemann's book on the sacraments of initiation goes into all this in somewhat greater detail .

That's how I see it, anyway!

Alex

Though I suppose I'm as "western" as they get (being something of a Thomist), I think this is one of the many topics which gets obfuscated with a false "east" vs. "west" style of thinking.

The fact of the matter is the teaching is the same. It has to be; Eastern Catholics couldn't rightfully be called Catholics, if they did not hold the same views as "Roman" Catholics (and vice versa.) They would not be members of the same Church, which professes the one true faith (the faith without which one cannot be justified before God.)

The actual sin and origin of "original sin" is in Adam. Because he lost the habit of grace he was created with via sin, his children (being members of him) participate in his fallen state.

The only "sin" in original sin, for anyone other than Adam, is that there is a privation of grace in his soul. His soul has no supernatural life. Since whenever there is an infusion of sanctifying grace there is the remission of sins, by default the "sin" for the person born of Adam, is simply the condition of not being in the state of sanctity.

The whole subject of "original sin" I've found has been really confused in discussions over "east" and "west", typically because both parties to some degree are ignorant about what the substance of the "western" way of speaking of the doctrine amounts to. I also find this subject is particularly abused by Eastern Orthodox polemicists, who often show a profounnd ignorance of Catholic dogma on this subject.

Augustine

Augustine,

Christ is Risen!

I agree that there is often misunderstanding about the doctrine of original/ancestral sin. Often I see Eastern Christians misrepresent the traditional Western Christian manner of expression on this teaching, and show a misunderstanding of the Eastern tradition itself. They often point to Augustine as the proponent of an ill-conceived understanding of this this sin. Although the Western tradition may have reference to Augustine's teaching, the Western Church does not base all its teaching on his understanding, nor has she uncritically canonized every one of his theological theories.

Anyway, the teaching of the whole Church, I believe is represented in the Catechism of the Catholic Church: (See the CCC 402-421) "How did the sin of Adam become the sin of all his descendants? ... By this 'unity of the human race' all men are implicated in Adam's sin, as all are implicated in Christ's justice. Still, the transmission of original sin is a mystery that we cannot fully understand. But we do know by Revelation that Adam had received original holiness and justice not for himself alone, but for all human nature. By yielding to the tempter, Adam and Eve committed a personal sin, but this sin affected the human nature that they would then transmit in a fallen state. It is a sin which will be transmitted by propogation to all mankind, that is, by the transmission of a human nature deprived of original holiness and justice. And that is why original sin is call 'sin' only in an analogical sense: it is a sin 'contracted' and not 'committed' -- a state and not an act." (CCC, #404).

One last quote from the CCC: "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 depriviation of original holiness and justice, but human nature has not been totally corrupted..." (#405)

In the Easter Church, Saint Symeon the New Theologian taught: "But since the first-created Adam lost this garment of sanctity, not from any other sin but from pride alone, and became corruptible and mortal, all people also who come from the seed of Adam are participants of the ancestral sin from their very conception and birth. He who has been born in this way, even though he has not yet performed any sin, is already sinful through this anscestral sin." ("The First-Created Man").

Dear Augustine and Alex,

The reason I bring this up is that I have seen Eastern Christians on this board say things like this:

"The East doesn't believe in the Immaculate Conception of Mary as unique. As far as the East is concerned, we are all born immaculate."

This stinks of Pelagianism. In Adam we are sinful. In Christ we are righteous. You're either on one team or the other. Sacred Scripture teaches that we are born on "Adam's team" and by baptism (excluding extraordinary salvation outside the normal means) we are born again into "Christ's team".

The whole idea of regeneration unto the kingdom infers that our first generation was corrupt. If our first birth was immaculate, then why does our Blessed Lord teach that you must be born again of water and the Spirit?

Basically, I'm just trying to make sure that the East fully affirms the corruption of humanity; that we are conceived "maculate" (with stain) and that we are then baptized in order to become immaculate (without stain) through regeneration.

Thanks for your help,
Marshall

Dear Marshall,

First of all, what Augustine the Canadian said about Original Sin is, in fact, the consistent teaching of the Eastern Church Fathers on Original Sin as well.

The view ascribed to Augustine the African that we somehow inherit the "guilt" of Adam's sin was never declared a doctrine by the Catholic Church and there is no disunity in perspective about this issue today, as the CCC bears out fully. There was a time when there was.

Original Sin is seen therefore in the fact of our moral weakness, concupiscence, tendency toward sin and in the fact that we die.

In terms of the Immaculate Conception, the fact is that the Eastern Church has ALWAYS liturgically celebrated the Feast of the Conception of St Anne, a feast later adopted by England in the West from whence it spread elsewhere.

What does that mean? We know that only the feasts of Saints can be celebrated, so the Conception of St Anne means that the Mother of God was conceived sanctified by the Holy Spirit from the first moment of Her conception in the womb of Her mother, as the liturgical texts for this feast bear out abundantly.

(In fact, the Conception of John the Baptist is also liturgically celebrated and implies the same thing in the East, whereas, in the West, the Feast of the Visitation is considered the moment of the sanctification of the Baptist.)

One Roman Catholic priest I know likes to say that Our Lady was "conceived in holiness" and I think that is the best way to talk about the Conception of Our Lady.

The "Immaculate Conception" means "Pure" and "Holy." Our Lady was conceived in all holiness and purity as the Mother of God our Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ.

Augustine the Canadian has pointed out an important consideration here that bears pondering.

The "absence" of grace while not sinful in terms of "actual sin" is not the original state of man as created by God.

Grace therefore fills the "lack" we experience when we are born and so begins our life-long walk in union with Christ in the Holy Spirit.

Our nature is certainly corrupt, damaged and tends toward sin.

But Our Lady was filled with the Holy Spirit from Her first moment of Her existence in view of Her exalted role in our salvation.

In fact, I find the Eastern perspective which IS different from the Western "Immaculate Conception" historically to be more complimentary of Our Lady and honours Her more than the Western tradition.

The Western tradition emphasizes her being preserved from sin - which, by implication means the inherited guilt of Adam's sin, which is rejected by the Eastern Church.

The Eastern tradition sees her being filled and glorified by the Holy Spirit from her very beginning.

In fact, Western Catholics, as Fr. McBride and Fr. Meyendorff has said, are free to hold either view of the Immaculate Conception, since neither "version" has ever been proclaimed infallible, even though the doctrine itself has been.

There are, in fact, two understandings of the Conception of Our Lady, Eastern and Western.

The CCC has expressed a preference for the older and more Patristic-based Eastern view that was also shared widely by the West before the Augustinian view came to dominate there.

John Cassian was one of the Western Fathers who opposed Augustine on Original Sin. He is a full Saint in the East, while he is not honoured as such in the West for his opposition to Augustine.

Augustine the African himself admitted that he was always ready to change his views if found to be in error by the teaching of the Fathers.

Again, the Catholic Church today affirms the teaching of the early Greek Fathers on Original Sin.

Alex

I agree that there is really a consensus in the Eastern and Western theologies that the ever Virgin Mother of God was filled with the grace and holiness of God from the beginning of her existence.

I think that it is worth making a few more observations:

1) The Eastern Church, as reflected in her liturgical services, emphasizes more the context of the Virgin's conception (i.e., its place in the economia of salvation, prelude to the Incarnation of the Son of God) rather than on what kind of conception she had.

2) It also seems that in the Eastern tradition the Virgin's being filled with grace is considered progressive rather than static. I've heard, in Western circles, descriptions of the meaning "full of grace" using analogies such as a cup filled with grace, with no room for sin. I see this analogy lacking because it can imply that there was no need for her to grow in grace, knowledge, and virtue. Some of the Fathers noted some "imperfections" in our Blessed Lady, not in the sense of sinful or moral imperfections, but in the sense of incompleteness in knowledge, and subsequent frustration (e.g., as in the loss of Christ child in the temple, cf. Lk. 2). Even Christ "grew in wisdom and grace" (cf Luke 2:40, 53), and was "perfected" in His humanity, (cf Heb. 5:5-9).

Indeed, the Mother of God was full of grace from her mother's womb. But she was progressively filled with grace as she matured in her pilgrimage of faith. She continuously said "yes" to God, especially at the annunciation and again at the Cross.

Recall these beautiful texts from the liturgical services for the feast of the Conception of Saint Anna: (Dec. 9th [8th]):

"Today the bonds of childlessness are loosed, for God has heard the prayers of Anne and Joachim. He promised against all hope that they would give birth to a divine virgin from whom the Indescribable would be born as a man, the Same who ordered the angels to sing to her: 'Rejoice, O woman full of grace; the Lord is with you!'" (Troparion of the Feast).

It is fitting that the Second Eve be created and remain without sin in the manner of the Second Adam; for the rebirth of the human race now takes place, just as the fall came through the first Adam and the first Eve. Christ has renewed all through His new birth, and it was Mary that gave birth to Him. Glory and praise to the Lord who willed it so, the Creator of all things! (Stichera at the Litija of the Feast)

The reason I bring this up is that I have seen Eastern Christians on this board say things like this:

"The East doesn't believe in the Immaculate Conception of Mary as unique. As far as the East is concerned, we are all born immaculate."

If they say such things, it's because they're ignorant. While I know most Easterners are convinced that every aspect of their disciplines and practices are the cat's meow (which is not itself horrible, except as long as it doesn't cause them to doubt the catholicity and goodness of the Roman Church), I find they are sometimes as downright ignorant about the Roman Church as they complain about Romans being in regard to theirs.

Also I suspect the loyalties of anyone claiming to be "Catholic", but denying the Immaculate Conception. While it is one thing to have your own theological tradition and preferences in expression (indeed, such exists within the Western Church as well; Thomists as opposed to Scotists, for example, Dominican spirituality as opposed to Franciscanism), there comes a point where enough is enough, and "sensibility" is becoming heresy.

I know many Eastern Orthodox labour under the false impression that the Catholic dogma of original sin teaches each and every person born in this world is personally guilty, bearing a stain similar to actual sin. Thus, they complain, and get annoyed, with the Catholic dogma of the Immaculate Conception.

Since in their opinion we teach that everyone is born morally guilty of something, they think that the Immaculate Conception means the Mother of God is just the sole exception to that idea.

The truth of the matter is, the teaching is that the "sin" we bear, is a privation of grace. This is why Baptism is called, along with Confession, a "Sacrament of the Dead." Dead, as in devoid of supernatural life...and Baptism restores that life, when validly administered, and fruitfully when validly administered in the House of Faith (the Catholic Church.)

You are aware, I am sure, that our being born in "original sin" is not being born guilty per se, but being born members of Adam (who did commit a grave sin), and as such being born devoid of sanctifying grace. It is the condition of being born mortal exiles from Paradise.

Thus the teaching of the Church on the Immaculate Conception has nothing to do with an issue of personal guilt (actual sin, which is impossible, since the Church teaches one must be in use of the faculty of reason to do such...newly conceived children, right up until around their seventh year [or somewhere around there], do not have the full use of reason). It has to do with our belief that from Her Conception (which was itself a miracle, according to the traditions of the Church, Her being born of an aged mother) the Blessed Virgin was infused with sanctifying grace, and as such avoided the consequences of original sin (concupiscence in particular.) If Christ is the New Adam, She is the New Eve.

This stinks of Pelagianism. In Adam we are sinful. In Christ we are righteous. You're either on one team or the other. Sacred Scripture teaches that we are born on "Adam's team" and by baptism (excluding extraordinary salvation outside the normal means) we are born again into "Christ's team".

To an extent I agree with you. St.Paul teaches we are born "children of wrath." Being born without the supernatural life in us, we have no ability (nor right) to behold God for eternity. Also, sin begets sin; being born in the fallen condition of Adam, you will wind up committing other sins due to the temptations of concupiscence and a lack of the means to become sanctified.

The whole idea of regeneration unto the kingdom infers that our first generation was corrupt. If our first birth was immaculate, then why does our Blessed Lord teach that you must be born again of water and the Spirit?

As you can see, it's the ignorance of some persons (particularly the rabidly anti-Latin, "Orthodox in Communion with Rome" crowd who feel more kinship to heretics and schismatics than they do fellow Catholics of the Roman Church) that rebels against the Catholic dogma. Of course, it's scandalous for people calling themselves Catholics to desparage the dogmas of the faith (I've even seen some Eastern Catholics claim that the General Councils after the Eastern schism are not genuine, which is nonsense.)

Basically, I'm just trying to make sure that the East fully affirms the corruption of humanity; that we are conceived "maculate" (with stain) and that we are then baptized in order to become immaculate (without stain) through regeneration.

Easterners who know what they're talking about (faithful Catholics of the Eastern Churches), do not deny any of this.

Augustine

[ 04-17-2002: Message edited by: Augustine the Canadian ]

[ 04-17-2002: Message edited by: Augustine the Canadian ]

Just for clarity's sake (as I may be misunderstood by both parties), I want to make clear a couple of things.

1) While original sin IS different from actual sin, it bears the same character as the latter; thus it is sin. Thus St.Paul's teaching that "all have sinned" (Romans 5:12). There is a "guilt of sin" involved, given that we are members of Adam. However it is not to be reckoned to be the same as an actual sin, for it is a "guilt" accorded to our being members of fallen Adam. This is clearly taught by the Council of Trent.

2) Original sin does not consist of concupiscence; that is to say, original sin is not our inclination towards evil. This is one half of the Protestant error on this subject (the other being that salvation, is God simply overlooking this "original sin"/concupiscence equals "justification). Concupiscence is an effect of original sin (the loss of preternatural gifts, which are not restored by Baptism.)

If I've been unclear on either of these points, my apologies.

Augustine

Marshall, this is a totally incorrect assumption on your part. I suggest that you read Alex's excellent and ask questions to learn about how we express theology and doctrine rather than making false assumptions that you can then attack.




Anyone who calls himself Catholic should not exhibit such judgmentalism and condescension. Pope John Paul II himself has stated that even the term "schism" is too strong to describe our relationship with the Orthodox Churches.

OK, I'm now certifiably confused, even after reading things a few times over, so I've got some questions, which I'd appreciate answered somewhat in order.

What is the Eastern view of "original sin"?

What is the Western view of "original sin"?

While both sides agree that the Mother of God was conceived in holiness, should both sides thus use the terminology "Immaculate Conception", or does this terminology fit better with one perspective than another? Why or why not?

Or, to sum it up,

What's the story? I'm confused.

Mor Ephrem,

What is the Eastern view of "original sin"?

Orthodox Christians believe we inherit the CONSEQUENCE of Adam's fall, but do not share in the guilt. Baptism breaks down the walls of this inheritence and allows us to partake in eternal salvation. Only those baptised in the Church can inherit the Kingdom of God.

Since "Immaculate Conception" says only the Theotokos was born without the guilt of the sin of Adam, it is therefore true the Orthodox beleive we are all "Immaculately Conceived" since noone receives the guilt of Adam.

What is the Western view of "original sin"?

Latins, building off of Augustine, forward the philosophical notion that we inherit not only the CONSEQUENCE, but are also GUILTY OF THE SIN ITSELF. Basically then, when we are born, they beleive we receive a genetic sin. This is why it is such an emergency for Latins to baptise newborns and how the unofficial and "wrong" doctrine of "Limbo" finds a home.

I think it is also a worthwhile point that the works of Augustine were not translated into Greek until the 14th cen. Those Orthodox who understood his corruption, like St. John Cassian, fought against it.

I believe your confused because many of the posts so far, while bearing the outwards marks of the truth, try to blend the two distinctly different teachings into one so as to make it appear that there is no disagreement. A consistent effort of Eastern Latins.

[ 04-18-2002: Message edited by: OrthodoxyOrDeath ]

However it is not to be reckoned to be the same as an actual sin, for it is a "guilt" accorded to our being members of fallen Adam. This is clearly taught by the Council of Trent.

I can understand our inheriting the consequences of Adam's sin...inasmuch as they include death and the tendency toward sin, they became a part of human nature after Adam's disobedience. Right so far?

Then how does one incur guilt for the sin of Adam just by our being members of Adam, if we did not ask to be members of Adam in the first place, but that is where God has put us? Does this not smack of (Calvinist?) predestination, at least a little bit?

And thanks, OOD, for your explanation of the situation. No offence to you, friend, but I was wondering if anyone could vouch for OOD's explanation of the Western view? His Eastern answer was the one I'd learned here, so I don't question that. Thanks!

Dear Catholicos,

Actually, OrthodoxyorDeath summed it up nicely.

What I find confusing about Augustine the Canadian is that he first brings forward a beautiful exposition of Original Sin that the Eastern Fathers would agree with, and then, with another post, affirms what he himself denied regarding the inheritance of the guilt of Adam's sin which is definitely from the view of Augustine of Africa.

Aquinas' view is that of the Eastern Fathers, and of this there can be no doubt.

Augustine's view is somewhat different and I think Augustine the Canadian is having difficulty bring the two together coherently - since they really cannot be.

That death, concupiscence etc. are effects of Original Sin, the inheritance of fallen human nature from Adam, of this there is no doubt either.

Augustine the Canadian seems to have seriously compromised his own thinking on this even from his own perspective.

I'm trying to make sense of his explication, and agree with his first post, minus the nonsensical statements about the East.

For example, he first attacks Eastern Christians for supposing we inherit the guilt of Adam's sin. Then he comes back and says that "yes we do."

So his first attack is directed toward himself as well?

Does he use the discipline on himself and wear hair-shirts during Lent too?

Augustine's teaching was never made normative in the West, which is a good thing.

Augustine (of Africa) himself never said that his teaching was infallible and submitted it to the corrective of the Fathers and the Church.

I don't know if this accurately describes the views of Augustine the Canadian with respect to his theology .

That is, of course, once he decides on the issue of theological consistency.

And, FYI, Augustine of Canada, "Orthodox in union with Rome" is the original title by which even St Josaphat of Polotsk used to describe himself and his Church.

Again, you are good with Aquinas, Big Guy, but, really, your knowledge of Eastern Catholic issues really, well, stinks!

With apologies to the Administrator for using such foul language . . .

Alex

In his seven posts, Augustine the Canadian has managed to violate everything he agreed to when he registered as a participant on this Forum so his posting privileges have been revoked.

--

Might I suggest that someone post a history of the development of the theology of original sin in both the East and West? Understanding this history is crucial to understanding the theology of the Immaculate Conception. [That is, one must understand the West's theology of original sin as it was at the time the IC was proclaimed in order to understand the theology of the IC. One must also consider the shift in the West's theology from that time until now.]

OorD speaks of the Western concept that we have inherited personal guilt from Adam and Eve. This is not the case in current Western theology but a good examination of the relationship of this idea with the original school of theology behind the IC would be fruitful.