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

Dear Administrator,

Would you please apologize to me for your insults? You are not exhibiting Christian charity. I am deeply offended.

I did not make "a totally incorrect assumption" about the statement in quotes. I said that I have heard Eastern Christians say such things. I'm not assuming that this is what Eastern brothers believe. I am merely reporting what I have heard them say, and even on this Byzcath forum. I'm trying to exercise Christian charity and understand what my brothers really belive. If you read my posts in full you will see this.

I'm not making "false assumptions that [I] can then attack." You advise me to ask questions about the East views theology and doctrine. THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT I'M DOING! Why are you rebuking me for not doing so.

your offended brother in Christ,
Marshall

I would just like to thank Alex et al for a really informative and encouraging discussion here.

I have wondered about this question as well and reading that there is substantial unity between east and west on the doctrine of Original Sin is really wonderful. I already knew that the Holiness of Our Lady was a part of the Catholic Faith. I'm just tickled that I will be able to express a little bit more unity with my Roman Catholic Brethren.

And I want to say one more thing. Conversations like this are why I enjoy this forum. The understanding and charity that I find here are a testament to the special role that Eastern Catholics are able to play in the reconciliation that we all pray for. Thanks for the encouragement.

Peace,

David

Dear Administrator,

With your permission, I thought I'd give it a try.

The issue of just what Original Sin is is central to Soteriology or the theology of our salvation in and by Christ.

The Cross itself and other events in the life and passion of Christ makes sense only against the backdrop of the Fall of Adam.

The Cross is seen as the Tree of Life that brought us back to Paradise after Adam disobeyed God by eating of the spiritually poisonous fruit in the Garden of Eden.

Death, suffering and concupiscence were the enduring punishment for Adam's sin that resulted in the darkening of our minds and the weakening of our moral nature.

The entire Old Law with its myriad laws (630) was put in place by God to remind humankind of its rebellion against Him until the coming of the Messiah.

The early Fathers of the Church understood Original Sin not only as the absence of Grace but as the cause of our sentence of death, concupiscence and weakened state.

They did not see us born totally without Grace. And we did not inherit the guilt of what was Adam's Sin as if we could be held accountable for someone else's sinful behaviour.

The Eastern Feasts of the Conception of the Mother of God and of John the Baptist, following the "lex orandi, lex credendi" principle, indicate that the Church believed that God sanctified the souls of these two people who were least unworthy of God from their very beginning, as the liturgical texts indicate. Also, the fact that only the feast of someone who is sanctified (i.e. a saint) may be celebrated, indicates this as well.

The emphasis here is on the role that these two Saints were to play in the Incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ and in our salvation, without separating them from the Old Testament or turning them into "super-people." This exaltation of them by the Spirit is not to pay attention to them, but to their role in Christ's mission and our salvation. Indeed, the Conception of St John the Baptist is called the beginning of our salvation.

It was Augustine of Hippo who ventured to explain Original Sin as a kind of inherited guilt, or as later Latin theologians would say, the "stain of Original Sin."

Augustine posited that our nature was much more corrupted as the result of this sin than the Cappadocian Fathers, Basil and the Gregories, and others had thought.

Augustine was locked also in a battle with Pelagius or Morgan of Wales, a British theologian whose own views placed too much emphasis on the ability of human nature to seek salvation without the direct aid of Grace. Theological reviews of Pelagius today indicate that it was his followers, rather than he himself who said this - or so I've read.

It was St John Cassian and the Latin Bishops of Southern Gaul who opposed Augustine in his views on Original Sin.

Augustine, nevertheless, always proclaimed that God had prevented the "stain" of Original Sin, which he actually did believe was like actual sin, from ever touching the soul of the Mother of God and this was the beginning of the Immaculate Conception doctrine that was officially proclaimed doctrine in the Roman Church in the 19th century.

Cassian and his episcopal colleagues lost the argument in the Latin West, Augustine won.

In the West, Baptism was important to administer to babies to, first and foremost, wipe away the "stain" of Original Sin. This view on Original Sin was never proclaimed doctrine by the Latin Church. It is not reflected in Aquinas' work and it is no longer the popular view in the official theology of the Latin Church today.

Indeed, the CCC seems to discard what the Council of Trent had to say on Original Sin insofar as the inherited stain aspect is concerned.

As Bishop Kallistos Ware wrote, it was in response to its generally accepted view on Original Sin as a "stain" on the soul that the RC doctrine of the Immaculate Conception developed and was given a full theological treatment in the works of Blessed John Duns Scotus the Franciscan, locally venerated as a saint in Italy for centuries, but only recently beatified by the Pope.

Scotus accepted the "stain" view on Original Sin and then wrote widely on how inappropriate it would be to consider the Mother of Christ our God as having been in rebellion God, owing to her exalted status in salvation history. God certainly would have prevented His Son's Mother from every contracting sin, and the ancient Eastern Feast of the Conception of St Anne gave important credence to this as a belief of the early Church.

This feast was first accepted in England and then spread to other parts of the Western Church.

Aquinas, of course, denied the Immaculate Conception, but then again he didn't hold that the Mother of God had a real or actual "stain of sin" on her soul.

There were Catholics for and against this doctrine. The Spanish Church in the sixteenth century decreed that the Immaculate Conception was to be believed in by all Catholics living within the Spanish Empire, including Louisiana and New Orleans at the time.

Immaculate Conception Confraternities arose with Catholics taking the "bloody vow" to uphold to the death the doctrine.

Sts. Charles Garnier and Noel Chabanel, the Jesuit missionaries to North America took that vow and were martyred on the Feast of the Immaculate Conception, celebrated as a Feast of the Jesuit Order only at the time.

Even Orthodox students who travelled to Paris to study fell in love with this doctrine and devotion, wearing the special medal that is copied today in the Miraculous Medal, praying a form of the Panahia prayer: All Immaculate Theotokos, Save us! and organizing themselves into Brotherhoods of the Immaculate Conception that also took the bloody vow. Several of these were in Kyiv and St Demetrius of Rostov was a member of one and was called to St Petersburg to answer charges for heresy for his belief in the Immaculate Conception.

St Gregory Palamas, too seems to have believed in this doctrine, based on his sermon on the Dormiton of the Mother of God.

John Meyendorff quotes certain Greek theologians who also understood and accepted the Immaculate Conception doctrine.

Rev. Isidore Dolnitsky composed an Akathist to the Immaculate Conception for Eastern Catholics and this was also used by Orthodox privately.

So there is a sense in which the Immaculate Conception as a doctrine that proclaimed the complete holiness and sinlessness of the Mother of God is recognized and acknowledged as such by Catholics and Orthodox alike.

The disagreements over theology seem to have occurred only in scholastic and monastic circles, even between Catholics holding opposing views on the subject.

Even the Russian Orthodox emigres to France appear not to have been bothered over theology when they developed a strong devotion to Lourdes.

Fr. Meyendorff also admits that an Orthodox understanding of the Immaculate Conception is permissible, defined as the perpetual holiness and sanctification of the Mother of God beginning with Her Conception, without reference to the "stain of Original Sin."

Certainly, the Orthodox St Peter Mohyla accepted this in his Creed, but others say he was too influenced by scholastic theological methods and so his original Creed was "corrected" by other Orthodox Churches. The term "Purgatory" waa also dropped from his creed, although Peter himself never accepted those corrections and insisted that they remain for the Kyivan Orthodox Church.

By the time the Immaculate Conception was defined by the Roman Church, it marked the silencing of the opposing side that stated that Mary was "not immaculately conceived, and therefore she had the stain of original sin."

They idea of the Eastern Churches that denied the Immaculate Conception BECAUSE she had not the stain of Original Sin and therefore did not need to be preserved free from it was lost on the West until now.

What was more to the purpose here was to proclaim what the early Church had always believed that the Mother of God was sanctified from her Conception in view of her role in the Incarnation of the Son of God.

Anyone who feels that the Eastern Church incorrectly understood the West's understanding of the stain of original sin need only read the Council of Trent's teachings to see otherwise.

The CCC today teaches an Original Sin in terms that are more in line with what the Orthodox Catholic Church has always taught and believed.

In actual fact, as Fr. McBride also states in his CATHOLICISM, either view of Original Sin may be legitimately held by Latin Catholics, the Augustinian view has not been "done away with."

The Conception of St Anne continues to be celebrated in the East for the reasons stated above and the issue of "stain" on the soul of the MOther of God has never arisen in the East.

In fact, for centuries before this view was officially silenced, Latin Catholics could legitimately believe that the Mother of God was born with the "stain of Original Sin" on her soul, regardless of what Augustine had said on the subject himself.

That would have been unthinkable for Orthodox and Eastern Catholic Christians.

Alex

Marshall,

Please re-read your posts in this thread. Again, you stated that:

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.

and:

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?

and in a later post:
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.


You choose to start this thread with the assumption that Eastern Christians “typically deny original sin”. You did not ask what our teaching on this subject was. You then proceeded to accuse of us not acknowledging baptism as remitting sin for infants. You did not mention in your original post that you have heard one or even a few Eastern Christians state this. You simply assumed that we denied original sin and then proceeded to accuse us of denying the Creed on the basis of your false assumptions. Then, in your next post, you stated that you were here to judge our Catholicity on whether we lived up to your personal definition of corrupt humanity.

Why did you choose to make accusations before taking even the simplest steps to determine if your accusations had any basis in fact? Why did you simply not post a quote and ask for an explanation if you did not understand it?

You are the one who is not exhibiting Christian charity. We provide a warm welcome to our brother and sister Roman Catholics who come to ask questions. Is it fair to us to accuse us of something before you have done any research on the subject? Is it fair to us to assume that our theology is not acceptable to Latin Catholicism until we have proven it in a style acceptable to Latin Catholics?

Administrator

Dear David Lewis,

You are more than welcome, and it is always wonderful conversing with you in cyberspace, Friend in Christ!

I still have family members who believe that the Orthodox Church holds that the Mother of God was born with the stain of Original Sin, because Orthodoxy rejects the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception!

I think this may have been the suspicion, quite legitimate actually, of Marshall when he posed his question about the matter from the Byzantine point of view.

It is all really linked together, the Orthodox view of Original Sin, human nature, Grace and Theosis.

It is all linked together in a dynamic synthesis that is the gift to us of both Scripture and the Fathers.

There is another Celtic theologian with the same name as Bl. John Duns Scotus - John Duns Scotus Eriugena of Ireland in the 9th century.

Both he and Morgan of Wales (Pelagius) were given "rough treatment" by the Western Church for views that were actually close to the Greek Fathers, rather than to the Pelagian heresy.

Fr. Geoffrey O'Riada has a couple of articles on this view from the Orthodox standpoint on his site "Celtic Christianity" and he makes a compelling argument.

St John Cassian himself ran so afoul of the Western Church for opposing Augustine on Grace, Free Will and Original Sin that his cult as a saint is non-existent in the West, except as a local saint of Marseilles.

I visited the Monastery of St-Honoratus off the coast of Cannes in France where Cassian lived for a time.

The remains of the "Sketes" on that island on the model of the Coptic monasteries in Egypt as Cassian described in his writings are truly mystifying!

Alex

Dear Administrator,

I approached this issue with sensitivy. I admitted I didn't know the answer and that I not be treated like a pompous Westerner. And I even granted that the East has a pefectly acceptable answer as stated in my original post. I love my Eastern brethren and did mean to make any offense. As Christians we should always give the benefit of the doubt when dealing strangers. I appeal to Dave Lewis, my dear friend in Christ, to vouch for my love for the Eastern Church.

I forgive you of all your offenses. I will even forgive you for ASSUMING that I am a Latin Catholic. And I hope you will forgive me. I will withdraw from this "Original Sin" thread to show my respect for you.

yours in Christ,
Marshall

Dear Marshall,

Well, hopefully I haven't annoyed anyone - so far today .

And I can vouch for you just as much as David Lewis - or even more for that matter, who is David to you?

And I know you aren't a Latin. If you were, you'd spell your screen name "Martial." Right?

Hopefully our discussion on this important matter shed some light on what is a controversial subject in East-West theological debates.

With the greatest of respect for our Administrator, (he really is wonderful!), I took your questions in stride as I know where you were coming from and how the Eastern theology on this subject, and others, seems like a break in the continuity with historic Christian theology that is often "universalized" within Western frameworks.

Even many Byzantine Christians often don't have the opportunity for a good theological upbringing in their own patrimony.

And I was one of them - that was my "original sin."

Questions are always good and I am grateful to this Forum as a place where good questions can be asked and where good answers can be obtained!

And I continue to pray for your coming to the Eastern Church, as I know your heart is already there.

Alex

[ 04-18-2002: Message edited by: Orthodox Catholic ]

Marshall,

You clearly did not approach this issue with sensitivity. A sensitive approach does not include accusations that we “typically deny original sin”, that we deny the Creed and that we deny the effects of baptism. A sensitive approach does not distort a statement by one individual in another discussion and then assume it to be accurate for an entire Church but rather posts it and nonjudgmentally requests help in understanding it. A sensitive approach does not begin with accusations and then grant the person you are accusing a chance to come up with an explanation acceptable to the original poster as to why we believe what you accuse us of believing.

Administrator

With respect to our administrator,

I can vouch for Marshall's respect love and admiration for the Eastern Church.

In fairness to him, there are a number of Orthodox who believe that Orthodoxy denies original sin. I fear that my own experience has included examples of this in print and in conversation. I haven't got much experience, and I am not learned in these matters, but I am very thankful to have learned as a result of this discussion that there is more hope for agreement between east and west than I had thought.

At any rate, I do not believe that Marshall ever intended to assert that the denial of Original Sin is an essential part of Eastern Theology. I know that he asked the question in the first place not to accuse but to learn. I'm sorry for the misunderstanding that has arisen, but it is after all easy for misunderstandings to happen. Any time we use labels like 'East' and 'West' someone is bound to be misrepresented. But you know this much better than I. I will just stick to what I know, and that is that Marshall would not, and did not, write anything with an intention to offend, accuse, or misrepresent.

Humbly,

David

Dear David,

Without giving the impression that I want us to gang up on the Administrator (that's impossible anyway - he can wipe the floor with me any time he'd like ), I too know that there are certain caricatures of Orthodox belief that are often taken as "givens" by others, including many Eastern Catholics.

As for Eastern Catholics being sensitive about this, well, WE'RE NOT SENSITIVE, O.K.? We're not, we're not, how dare you . . . .

There, I'm glad we understand each other.

God bless,

Alex

Administrator,

Your treatment of Marshall is really inappropriate.

I am a Roman Catholic and I have also always "assumed" that Orthodox did not believe in original sin.

Why? Because my dear friend who is a convert has said to me "We don't believe in original sin."

So I could assume he is lying, assume he is ignorant or assume I could trust him. Being that he is smart, well educated, enthusiastic about learning about his faith and sharing what he has learned, I decided to trust him. Anytime I have read an Orthodox explanation for why they reject the dogma of the Immaculate Conception the rejection of original sin is the first thing brought up. So if Marshall was wrong to make that assumption it was only because he is obviously too quick to accept Orthodox at their word.

So based on what seems to me to be a perfectly understandable assumption (that Orthodox reject original sin) he asks how that fits in with the Creed because he sees potential for incongruity. Then he waits for explanations.

Seems fair to me.

He is indeed owed an apology.

-Mark

Mark A,

Thank you for your comments. I disagree that Marshall is due an apology.

If he had come to this Forum and posted: "Someone has told me that Eastern Christians do not believe in original sin. Is this true?" then that would have been an appropriate beginning point since he would have asked for a clarification. But he did not do that. Instead he assumed that we did not believe in original sin, condemned us for this belief since we were obviously also denying the Creed, and then proceeded to give us a chance to weasel out of it with some explanation. Then, after a few people have responded (including one Byzantine Catholic) he further states that he asks us these questions to "to make sure that the East fully affirms the corruption of humanity" as if he were here to judge us.

There is a huge difference between meeting someone on the street and asking them a pointed question and accepting an invitation into their house and then attacking them. If I entered into a conversation on the street with a Unitarian, I would never begin the conversation with: "I understand you deny the standard Christian definition of the Trinity. Why?" I might seek the person's permission to ask about something I don't understand, then ask them to explain their teaching on this topic, and then proceed to gently witness a correct understanding. I certainly would not accept an invitation into the household of, say a Unitarian clergyperson, and then proceed to accuse them of denying the Trinity and tell them I wanted an explanation. To do such would be to be completely lacking in Christian charity. Yet Marshall has come into our household (The Byzantine Forum) as an invited guest and proceeded to post his assumptions and conclusions about our theology, condemned us for it and then condescended to ask us to explain ourselves. The issue here is not the topic he has raised but the method in which he has raised it.

I have never seen an Orthodox explanation of why they do not hold the dogma of the Immaculate Conception that stated that it was because they reject original sin and I challenge you to post such a reference. Everything I have read has been clear to state that the Orthodox do not hold this dogma because of a different understanding of original sin.

Administrator

Administrator,

I am sorry to have taken so long to respond, things have busy as of late.

And I also apologize for the tone and some of the content of my last post. After consulting the material I was thinking of, I discovered that you are correct. Orthodox sources are always careful to say that they reject the dogma of the Immaculate Conception because of a different understanding of original sin. I should be more attentive.

-Mark

Dear Mark,

Yes, essentially the IC doctrine says that Our Lady was prevented from getting the "stain of Original Sin."

Without that idea of "stain," the IC may be seen to be: a) unnecessary or b) the positive statement that the Mother of God was conceived in holiness.

This is shown in the liturgical texts for the Conception of St Anne.

And, in addition, St John the Baptist was likewise conceived as the texts and feast of his conception demonstrate.

Alex