ok, so me and my RC apologist friend were having a discusion on the difference between the CCC definition of Original sin and I showed him the Orthodox study Bible's definition. He then questioned the part where it stated that since original sin does not carry guilt, for a person is only guilty of his or her own sins ,not those of Adam the Orthodox church does not believe that a baby who dies unbaptized is condemed to Hell.
He then asked me to show him where in the first deven ecumenical councils or a local synod or other council prior to 1054 where "infants are saved in heaven, despite recieving baptisim". He then procedded to show me several councils that accept the Latin view of inhereted guilt. but none that support the Orthodox view of ancestrial sin as we view it.
can anyone help me out on this one?
Last edited by GreekGrl; 29th September 2009 at 03:10 PM.
Which councils? Are they considered authoritative for the Orthodox Church?
Here was what he sent me: (I have not yet given my rebutle):
…”Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity and in sin my mother conceived me.”…Ps 51:5, Rom 5:12, Eph 2:3, Jn 3:6.
The Pelagian heresy is discussed here, and it appears you are teaching that infants do not have the contacted sin of original sin we all share in the fallen nature. Pelagius’s doctrines may be briefly stated thus. Adam’s sin injured only himself, so that there is no such thing as original sin. Infants therefore are not born in sin and the children of wrath, but are born innocent, and only need baptism so as to be knit into Christ, not “for the remission of sins” as is declared in the creed.
Also again, the Church decreed worldwide before schism of 1054
Council of Mileum II "[W]hoever says that infants fresh from their mothers’ wombs ought not to be baptized, or say that they are indeed baptized unto the remission of sins, but that they draw nothing of the original sin of Adam, which is expiated in the bath of regeneration . . . let him be anathema [excommunicated]. Since what the apostle [Paul] says, ‘Through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so passed to all men, in whom all have sinned’ [Rom. 5:12], must not be understood otherwise than the Catholic Church spread everywhere has always understood it. For on account of this rule of faith even infants, who in themselves thus far have not been able to commit any sin, are therefore truly baptized unto the remission of sins, so that that which they have contracted from generation may be cleansed in them by regeneration" (Canon 3 [A.D. 416]).
The Ecumenical Council of Ephesus , 431
Excursus on Pelagianism. The only point which is material to the main object of this volume is that Pelagius and his fellow heretic Celestius were condemned by the Ecumenical Council of Ephesus for their heresy. On this point there can be no possible doubt. And further than this the Seventh Council by ratifying the Canons of Trullo received the Canons of the African Code which include those of the Carthaginian conciliar condemnations of the Pelagian heresy to which the attention of the reader is particularly drawn. The condemnation of these heretics at Ephesus is said to have been due chiefly to the energy of St. Augustine , assisted very materially by a layman living in Constantinople by the name of Marius Mercator. Pelagius and his heresy have a sad interest to us as he is said to have been born in Britain . He was a monk and preached at Rome with great applause in the in the early years of the fifth century. But in his extreme horror of Manichæism and Gnosticism he fell into the opposite extreme; and from the hatred of the doctrine of the inherent evilness of humanity he fell into the error of denying the necessity of grace. Pelagius’s doctrines may be briefly stated thus. Adam’s sin injured only himself, so that there is no such thing as original sin. Infants therefore are not born in sin and the children of wrath, but are born innocent, and only need baptism so as to be knit into Christ, not “for the remission of sins” as is declared in the creed. Further he taught that man could live without committing any sin at all. And for this there was no need of grace; indeed grace was not possible, according to his teaching. The only “grace,” which he would admit the existence of, was what we may call external grace, e.g. the example of Christ, the teaching of his ministers, and the like. Petavius265265 Petav. De Pelag. et Semi-Pelag. Hær., Cap. iv. indeed thinks that he allowed the activity of internal grace to illumine the intellect, but this seems quite doubtful.
Cyprian of Carthage "Cyprian was not issuing a new decree but was keeping to the most solid belief of the Church in order to correct some who thought that infants ought not be baptized before the eighth day after their birth. . . . He agreed with certain of his fellow bishops that a child is able to be duly baptized as soon as he is born" (Letters 166:8:23 [A.D. 412]).
"By this grace baptized infants too are ingrafted into his [Christ’s] body, infants who certainly are not yet able to imitate anyone. Christ, in whom all are made alive . . . gives also the most hidden grace of his Spirit to believers, grace which he secretly infuses even into infants. . . . It is an excellent thing that the Punic [North African] Christians call baptism salvation and the sacrament of Christ’s Body nothing else than life. Whence does this derive, except from an ancient and, as I suppose, apostolic tradition, by which the churches of Christ hold inherently that without baptism and participation at the table of the Lord it is impossible for any man to attain either to the kingdom of God or to salvation and life eternal? This is the witness of Scripture, too. . . . If anyone wonders why children born of the baptized should themselves be baptized, let him attend briefly to this. . . . The sacrament of baptism is most assuredly the sacrament of regeneration" (Forgiveness and the Just Deserts of Sin, and the Baptism of Infants 1:9:10; 1:24:34; 2:27:43 [A.D. 412]). Fasting and prayer purifies the mind, calms the senses, subjects the flesh to the spirit, renders the heart humble and contrite, disperses the clouds of concupiscence, extinguishes the heat of passion, and lights up the fire of chastity.”…St. Peter Chrysologus
Council of Carthage V
"Item: It seemed good that whenever there were not found reliable witnesses who could testify that without any doubt they [abandoned children] were baptized and when the children themselves were not, on account of their tender age, able to answer concerning the giving of the sacraments to them, all such children should be baptized without scruple, lest a hesitation should deprive them of the cleansing of the sacraments. This was urged by the [North African] legates, our brethren, since they redeem many such [abandoned children] from the barbarians" (Canon 7 [A.D. 401]).
Council of Mileum II "[W]hoever says that infants fresh from their mothers’ wombs ought not to be baptized, or say that they are indeed baptized unto the remission of sins, but that they draw nothing of the original sin of Adam, which is expiated in the bath of regeneration . . . let him be anathema [excommunicated]. Since what the apostle [Paul] says, ‘Through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so passed to all men, in whom all have sinned’ [Rom. 5:12], must not be understood otherwise than the Catholic Church spread everywhere has always understood it. For on account of this rule of faith even infants, who in themselves thus far have not been able to commit any sin, are therefore truly baptized unto the remission of sins, so that that which they have contracted from generation may be cleansed in them by regeneration" (Canon 3 [A.D. 416]).
Wherein Augustine shows that Pelagius really differs in no respect, on the question of original sin and the baptism of infants, from his follower Cœlestius, who, refusing to acknowledge original sin and even daring to deny the doctrine in public, was condemned in trials before the bishops— first at Carthage, and afterwards at Rome; for this question is not, as these heretics would have it, one wherein persons might err without danger to the faith. Their heresy, indeed, aimed at nothing else than the very foundations of Christian belief. He afterwards refutes all such as maintained that the blessing of matrimony is disparaged by the doctrine of original depravity, and an injury done to God himself, the Creator of man who is born by means of matrimony.
Chapter 1 [I.]— Caution Needed in Attending to Pelagius' Deliverances on Infant Baptism. Next I beg of you, carefully to observe with what caution you ought to lend an ear, on the question of the baptism of infants, to men of this character, who dare not openly deny the laver of regeneration and the forgiveness of sins to this early age, for fear that Christian ears would not bear to listen to them; and who yet persist in holding and urging their opinion, that the carnal generation is not held guilty of man's first sin, although they seem to allow infants to be baptized for the remission of sins. You have, indeed, yourselves informed me in your letter, that you heard Pelagius say in your presence, reading out of that book of his which he declared that he had also sent to Rome, that they maintain that infants ought to be baptized with the same formula of sacramental words as adults. Who, after that statement, would suppose that one ought to raise any question at all on this subject? Or if he did, to whom would he not seem to indulge a very calumnious disposition— previous to the perusal of their plain assertions, in which they deny that infants inherit original sin, and contend that all persons are born free from all corruption? The Canons of the Council of Orange (529 AD)
CANON 1. If anyone denies that it is the whole man, that is, both body and soul, that was "changed for the worse" through the offense of Adam's sin, but believes that the freedom of the soul remains unimpaired and that only the body is subject to corruption, he is deceived by the error of Pelagius and contradicts the scripture which says, "The soul that sins shall die" (Ezek. 18:20); and, "Do you not know that if you yield yourselves to anyone as obedient slaves, you are the slaves of the one whom you obey?" (Rom. 6:126); and, "For whatever overcomes a man, to that he is enslaved" (2 Pet. 2:19).
CANON 2. If anyone asserts that Adam's sin affected him alone and not his descendants also, or at least if he declares that it is only the death of the body which is the punishment for sin, and not also that sin, which is the death of the soul, passed through one man to the whole human race, he does injustice to God and contradicts the Apostle, who says, "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).
"Every soul that is born into flesh is soiled by the filth of wickedness and sin. . . . In the Church, baptism is given for the remission of sins, and, according to the usage of the Church, baptism is given even to infants. If there were nothing in infants which required the remission of sins and nothing in them pertinent to forgiveness, the grace of baptism would seem superfluous" (Homilies on Leviticus 8:3 [A.D. 248]).
"The Church received from the apostles the tradition of giving baptism even to infants. The apostles, to whom were committed the secrets of the divine sacraments, knew there are in everyone innate strains of [original] sin, which must be washed away through water and the Spirit" (Commentaries on Romans 5:9 [A.D. 248]).
Cyprian of Carthage
"As to what pertains to the case of infants: You [Fidus] said that they ought not to be baptized within the second or third day after their birth, that the old law of circumcision must be taken into consideration, and that you did not think that one should be baptized and sanctified within the eighth day after his birth. In our council it seemed to us far otherwise. No one agreed to the course which you thought should be taken. Rather, we all judge that the mercy and grace of God ought to be denied to no man born" (Letters 64:2 [A.D. 253]).
"If, in the case of the worst sinners and those who formerly sinned much against God, when afterwards they believe, the remission of their sins is granted and no one is held back from baptism and grace, how much more, then, should an infant not be held back, who, having but recently been born, has done no sin, except that, born of the flesh according to Adam, he has contracted the contagion of that old death from his first being born. For this very reason does he [an infant] approach more easily to receive the remission of sins: because the sins forgiven him are not his own but those of another" (ibid., 64:5).
Again the Roman Church had to issue more anathema’s in the Council of Trent because of the schism of the Reformation leading those into error on the contacted sin of original sin and their grave error on infant baptism
Original Sin: Trent Canon: If anyone asserts that the transgression of Adam injured him alone and not his posterity, and that the holiness and justice which he received from God, which he lost for himself alone, and not for us also, or that he being defiled by the sin of disobedience has transformed only death and the pains of the body into the whole human race, but not sin also, which is the death of the soul, let him be an anathema: And if one denies that the merit of Jesus Christ is applied to both to adults and to infants by the sacrament of baptism rightly administered in the form of the Church, let him be an anathema. And if anyone denies that infants, newly born from their mothers’ wombs, are to be baptized, even though they are born of baptized parents, or say they are indeed baptized for the remission of sins, but they derive nothing of original sin from Adam which must be expiated by the laver of regeneration for the attainment of eternal life, whence it follows that in them the form of baptism for the remission of sins is to be understood not as true but as false, let him be anathema.
Canon III Baptism: Trent If anyone saith that in the Roman Church, which is the Mother and mistress of all churches, there is not the true doctrine concerning the sacrament of Baptism; let him be an anathema!
How can we all be mutually guilty at our birth when St. Paul says, "Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses; even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come." (Romans 5:14). Is not St. Paul not saying it is the deathly consequence of fallen creation that causes us to sin and not some total depravity which is read into St. Paul's theology and not part of it?
I dunno any council, but an analogy I heard is that it's like if a guy goes out and throws toxins into his town's water supply. not only must he live with the effects of the dumping, but everyone in the town must also deal with the effects, even though they didn't do anything.
plus, if baptisms were going on since John was baptizing, then how does the thief on the cross make it, seeing as how he was probably never baptized by John and died after the practice had started.
__________________ "Everyone capable of thanksgiving is capable of joy and eternal salvation." -Fr. Alexander Schmemann
"The time of the end, though it seems to be near, we do not know. Let us then struggle while it is still day, with the time and the weapons which our All-merciful God has given us!" -Fr. Seraphim Rose
…”Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity and in sin my mother conceived me.”…Ps 51:5, Rom 5:12, Eph 2:3, Jn 3:6.
This carries with it the sense of being born into a world full of sin. It does not necessitate the view that the sex act passes on a guilt of sin from mother to child.
The Pelagian heresy is discussed here, and it appears you are teaching that infants do not have the contacted sin of original sin we all share in the fallen nature. Pelagius’s doctrines may be briefly stated thus. Adam’s sin injured only himself, so that there is no such thing as original sin. Infants therefore are not born in sin and the children of wrath, but are born innocent, and only need baptism so as to be knit into Christ, not “for the remission of sins” as is declared in the creed.
The Pelagian heresy was that we chose salvation, rather than that God saves. St. Augustine chose to dial-in on Pelagius's view of infant baptism to illustrate the heresy, but the essential heresy dealt with whether or not we could (in essence) elect ourselves to salvation.
The infant's baptism remits future sins in the timelessness of the kingdom; it also grafts the infant into Christ, and into Christ's revelation of God's righteousness (through the death and resurrection of Christ).
Council of Mileum II "[W]hoever says that infants fresh from their mothers’ wombs ought not to be baptized, or say that they are indeed baptized unto the remission of sins, but that they draw nothing of the original sin of Adam, which is expiated in the bath of regeneration . . . let him be anathema [excommunicated]. Since what the apostle [Paul] says, ‘Through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so passed to all men, in whom all have sinned’ [Rom. 5:12], must not be understood otherwise than the Catholic Church spread everywhere has always understood it. For on account of this rule of faith even infants, who in themselves thus far have not been able to commit any sin, are therefore truly baptized unto the remission of sins, so that that which they have contracted from generation may be cleansed in them by regeneration" (Canon 3 [A.D. 416]).
Not an authoritative / ecumenical council. The fact that it agrees with Augustine only illustrates that Augustine's view is acceptable, not that it is dogmatic.
The Ecumenical Council of Ephesus , 431
Excursus on Pelagianism. The only point which is material to the main object of this volume is that Pelagius and his fellow heretic Celestius were condemned by the Ecumenical Council of Ephesus for their heresy.
Yes.
On this point there can be no possible doubt. And further than this the Seventh Council by ratifying the Canons of Trullo received the Canons of the African Code which include those of the Carthaginian conciliar condemnations of the Pelagian heresy to which the attention of the reader is particularly drawn.
I'd like to see the specific text of the canons referred to here. Also keep in mind that the seventh council affirmed the anti-Latin canons of the 7th c. council, so perhaps our interpid friend would want to exercise caution before accepting as authoritative all canons-loosely-connected-to-an-affirmation-by-a-future-ecumenical-council-called-to-address-an-unrelated-issue (CLCTAABAFECCTAAUI, for short)...
The condemnation of these heretics at Ephesus is said to have been due chiefly to the energy of St. Augustine ,
And the Holy Spirit, for St. Augustine rightly resisted the heresy of Pelagius.
Pelagius and his heresy have a sad interest to us as he is said to have been born in Britain . He was a monk and preached at Rome with great applause in the in the early years of the fifth century. But in his extreme horror of Manichæism and Gnosticism he fell into the opposite extreme; and from the hatred of the doctrine of the inherent evilness of humanity he fell into the error of denying the necessity of grace.
And so we should do the opposite, then, and affirm that even babies are guilty of sin they had no choice in whatsoever? We should affirm the the very act of sex is EVIL (as many in the West did at the time, indicated in their words giving reason to clerical celibacy) because of how it perpetuates the original sin in those it gives birth to?
The Orthodox Church condemns Pelagius. Get that straight first. But we also aren't Manichean - we don't believe the physical world to be evil fundamentally. There is evil here, but God's image in man is INTACT. It is injured, but intact. We don't inherit guilt from Adam, but we do inheret the consequences of his sin (namely a propensity to sin, a culture of sin, and the ability to die [which motivates sin]).
Pelagius may have gone too far. But is it not also possible that St. Augustine went too far in responding to Pelagius? I mean, he WAS a Manichean for a time. The residual sense of morbidity towards humanity from Manicheanism may (and seems to) have had an influence on his theology. He didn't fall into heresy, but neither we obligated to accept his views prima-facae merely because he's the mighty St. Augustine...
I know St. Gregory Nazianzus and St. Basil the Great had some thoughts on human nature that better illustrate the Orthodox view, but I don't have them handy. Perhaps someone else does.
Pelagius’s doctrines may be briefly stated thus. Adam’s sin injured only himself, so that there is no such thing as original sin. Infants therefore are not born in sin and the children of wrath, but are born innocent, and only need baptism so as to be knit into Christ, not “for the remission of sins” as is declared in the creed.
That's his starting point - not his heresy. His heresy was moving from that to the assertion that we don't need grace in order to be saved. That's the heresy.
Otherwise, I could say this: Nestorius's heresy was saying that God doesn't undergo change (as this was, indeed, his justification for his theory of the Incarnation). Therefore, all who assert that God doesn't change MUST be Nestorian. Not true!! Not true at all. Having the same presumption as a heretic doesn't make one a heretic.
Further, we disagree with his view of baptism. Infants WILL sin - and they'll be guilty of those sins - by grafting them to Christ in the timelessness of the Kingdom they are baptized for the remission of sins (their future sins).
Further he taught that man could live without committing any sin at all.
And that is the heresy. That's the part that gets point-blank condemned, although we do assert that Mary was sinless (though by God's grace, not her own will alone).
And for this there was no need of grace; indeed grace was not possible, according to his teaching.
That's the heresy. Believing that we aren't born guilty of sin doesn't mean this inevitably. Believing that babies must go to hell if unbaptized isn't necessary to refute this.
The only “grace,” which he would admit the existence of, was what we may call external grace, e.g. the example of Christ, the teaching of his ministers, and the like. Petavius265265 Petav. De Pelag. et Semi-Pelag. Hær., Cap. iv. indeed thinks that he allowed the activity of internal grace to illumine the intellect, but this seems quite doubtful.
And we, in no way, agree with that thought. We're all about God's real activity of grace through Christ (crucified and resurrected) manifested by the Holy Spirit in the sacraments and in the spiritual life. God saves. We're not Pelagian just because we disagree with the idea of Augustinian original sin.
Cyprian of Carthage "Cyprian was not issuing a new decree but was keeping to the most solid belief of the Church in order to correct some who thought that infants ought not be baptized before the eighth day after their birth. . . . He agreed with certain of his fellow bishops that a child is able to be duly baptized as soon as he is born" (Letters 166:8:23 [A.D. 412]).
Yup. And we practice infant baptism. No problem there.
"By this grace baptized infants too are ingrafted into his [Christ’s] body, infants who certainly are not yet able to imitate anyone.
Yup. That's what we think.
Christ, in whom all are made alive . . .
Bam. That's the point I've been waiting to make. The remission of sins in baptism has to do with unity with Christ. It isn't an act of appeasing a wrathful God just WAITING to dole out punishment for all those dirty little sinners. Baptism remits our sins by uniting us to Christ's death and resurrection - namely to Christ's NEW LIFE. We are made alive in Christ. An infant inherest human death and decay. Baptism remits their sins by liberating them from that death through unity with Christ. Romans chapter 6 is illustrative on this point.
gives also the most hidden grace of his Spirit to believers, grace which he secretly infuses even into infants. . . .
Yup. By why is grace exclusively associated with God being appeased and no longer wanting to torture babies? Isn't God's grace the joy and love of God by which God makes us righteous? Why can't we hold that view?
It is an excellent thing that the Punic [North African] Christians call baptism salvation and the sacrament of Christ’s Body nothing else than life. Whence does this derive, except from an ancient and, as I suppose, apostolic tradition, by which the churches of Christ hold inherently that without baptism and participation at the table of the Lord it is impossible for any man to attain either to the kingdom of God or to salvation and life eternal? This is the witness of Scripture, too. . . . If anyone wonders why children born of the baptized should themselves be baptized, let him attend briefly to this. . . . The sacrament of baptism is most assuredly the sacrament of regeneration" (Forgiveness and the Just Deserts of Sin, and the Baptism of Infants 1:9:10; 1:24:34; 2:27:43 [A.D. 412]).
Yes. We agree that these things are necessary for salvation. But salvation from what? From Adam's guilt? No! From slavery to sin and bondage. An infant who dies is not a slave to sin and bondage. But furthermore, and more to the point, even after we set up all these neat little systems of law and necessity and validity, we forget that we are dealing with GOD. God is not limited by our dunking someone in water. If God wants to save an infant, He can do so. Remember the theif on the cross - unbaptized, yet saved - or the first Gentile converts, upon whom descended the Holy Spirit before they were baptized.
This doesn't make us protestant (we agree with the sacramental necessity of baptism) but never forget that we CANNOT LIMIT GOD. Saying an infant is in hell is not only judgmental (which Christ forbids in the Sermon on the Mount) it makes a monster of God and a mockery of our faith. It is the height of pride to presume to know the fate of another's soul.
So we agree that these things are necessary. But God, in His mercy and love, transcends the necessary. He is above it.
Council of Carthage V
"Item: It seemed good that whenever there were not found reliable witnesses who could testify that without any doubt they [abandoned children] were baptized and when the children themselves were not, on account of their tender age, able to answer concerning the giving of the sacraments to them, all such children should be baptized without scruple, lest a hesitation should deprive them of the cleansing of the sacraments. This was urged by the [North African] legates, our brethren, since they redeem many such [abandoned children] from the barbarians" (Canon 7 [A.D. 401]).
Not an authoritative council, but that's beside the point as WE BAPTIZE INFANTS. I'm really not getting how this necessitates the idea that we're born guilty. Nothing he's posted so far has actually come forward and point-blank affirmed the Augustinian position. All its said is that we should baptize infants, which we do. And that Pelagius was a heretic. Which he was.
Council of Mileum II "[W]hoever says that infants fresh from their mothers’ wombs ought not to be baptized, or say that they are indeed baptized unto the remission of sins, but that they draw nothing of the original sin of Adam, which is expiated in the bath of regeneration . . . let him be anathema [excommunicated]. Since what the apostle [Paul] says, ‘Through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so passed to all men, in whom all have sinned’ [Rom. 5:12], must not be understood otherwise than the Catholic Church spread everywhere has always understood it. For on account of this rule of faith even infants, who in themselves thus far have not been able to commit any sin, are therefore truly baptized unto the remission of sins, so that that which they have contracted from generation may be cleansed in them by regeneration" (Canon 3 [A.D. 416]).
Not an authoritative council. It bases itself on the same error committed by St. Augustine (namely the passage in Romans, which here appears translated from St. Jerome's Latin Vulgate). It says "in whom all have sinned" and takes from this the assumption that we all literally were in Adam sinning. Yet it recognizes. as we do, that no infant has had opportunity to commit sin.
St. John Chrysostom comments on Romans 5:12 "How did death come in and prevail? Through the sin of one man. By what means 'for that all have sinned"
The NKJV translates Rom 5:12 this way "Wherefore, as by one man sin entered the world and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned"
In other words, we inherit DEATH from Adam - but the words "in whom" are an error of translation. They don't appear in the original Greek. This was St. Augustine's error, and the error upon which the doctrine of original sin is built. This council is merely echoing the same error, based on the same erroneous translation into the Latin.
Bi. Dimitri of the South comments: "Do all men inherit Adam's guilt? The consensus of the holy Fathers is no, they do not. St. Symeon the New Theologian admonishes us: 'Whenever, then, we fall into any kind of sin, let no one of us accuse and blame Adam, but rather himself." In other words, all men sin, and being responsible for their own works and deeds, they all die. As the Apostle will tell us later (6:23), 'The wages of sin is death."
The critical thing is this: we assert that we all sin (in agreement with St. Paul earlier in Romans). However, we DON'T get to just blame Adam for that. It is OUR will that is sick. Blaming Adam and some inherited guilt is not necessary for defending Orthodoxy from heresy (we condemn Pelagius, and have an Orthodox understanding of baptism, without Augustinian original sin). Furthermore, it is based on a faulty understanding of Romans 5:12.
Bi. Dimitri continues: "There has been much controversy about how to read Greek 'eph' (epi) here in the KJV translated correctly as "for that" or "for which" or even better "because of which," referring to death in "because of death all sinned" since eph (epi) is causal... Most Orthodox theologians, among them Fr. Michael Pomazansky... think that the basis for the Western, Roman Catholic doctrine of original sin - that is, that all men share Adam's guilt - is the mistranslation in Latin of in quo as 'in whom.'"
Wherein Augustine shows that Pelagius really differs in no respect, on the question of original sin and the baptism of infants, from his follower Cœlestius, who, refusing to acknowledge original sin and even daring to deny the doctrine in public, was condemned in trials before the bishops— first at Carthage, and afterwards at Rome; for this question is not, as these heretics would have it, one wherein persons might err without danger to the faith. Their heresy, indeed, aimed at nothing else than the very foundations of Christian belief.
I can't tell if this is your discussion partner's interpretation or some primary source. It sounds like interpretation, in which case I respectfully disagree. The error was in the assertion of free-will's relation to grace, and Pelagius's fundamental undermining of God's grace.
Furthermore, we don't deny original sin - just the peculiarly Augustinian verson of it. To us, the original sin refers to the inheritence of death and a propensity towards sin. It doesn't include GUILT for Adam's sin - that's the only difference.
He afterwards refutes all such as maintained that the blessing of matrimony is disparaged by the doctrine of original depravity, and an injury done to God himself, the Creator of man who is born by means of matrimony.
Yet the West did introduce clerical celibacy because of a sense that the sex-act defiles the sacrament. They never explicitly comdemn the marriage bed, but there can be no doubt that Augustinian original sin affected Western perspectives on sex and marriage for centuries - and it was not a positive impact. The whole immaculate conception is tied up in this perspective!
Chapter 1 [I.]— Caution Needed in Attending to Pelagius' Deliverances on Infant Baptism. Next I beg of you, carefully to observe with what caution you ought to lend an ear, on the question of the baptism of infants, to men of this character, who dare not openly deny the laver of regeneration and the forgiveness of sins to this early age, for fear that Christian ears would not bear to listen to them; and who yet persist in holding and urging their opinion, that the carnal generation is not held guilty of man's first sin, although they seem to allow infants to be baptized for the remission of sins. You have, indeed, yourselves informed me in your letter, that you heard Pelagius say in your presence, reading out of that book of his which he declared that he had also sent to Rome, that they maintain that infants ought to be baptized with the same formula of sacramental words as adults. Who, after that statement, would suppose that one ought to raise any question at all on this subject? Or if he did, to whom would he not seem to indulge a very calumnious disposition— previous to the perusal of their plain assertions, in which they deny that infants inherit original sin, and contend that all persons are born free from all corruption? The Canons of the Council of Orange (529 AD)
Not authoritative. See above (this is the same lacking distinction as above, wherein we DO accept original sin, but not the Augustinian version. We also baptize infants, so the whole point is missed.
Linear Mode
