I'm officially giving up re: Original Sin

[Servus Iesu]

The achievement of the Theotokos was not limited to her saying "yes" to God. It was in the entirety of the life she lived. The exercise of her free will was not just one act. The idea that God removed a part of the humanity we are all born with clearly does lessen what she achieved.

I agree with you in that Mary's fiat was not a one time act. The humility and virtue of Mary was exercised throughout the entire course of her life. Whether not having concupiscence somehow lessens Mary's works doesn't concern me that much. Did Jesus have concupiscence according to the Orthodox view?

There we differ, which is odd because many people from OBOB have told us we believe the same thing regarding this topic.

They said that Mary achieved holiness through ascetism and sheer will power rather than through prevenient grace?

Christ had a human and a divine will.

Christ had a human will and a divine will which were in complete accord. A divine will and a divine nature cannot sin. Can God the Father sin? Of course not. Jesus and the Father are one (consubstantial) so Jesus can't act in a way which is contrary to the nature of God. Jesus is a divine person who assumes a human nature, will, and soul.

To say that Jesus could sin in his human nature but not in his divine nature would be the error of Nestorianism.

 

[Rilian]

Whether not having concupiscence somehow lessens Mary's works doesn't concern me that much.

Having part of the humanity of the Theotokos removed is a big deal to me. It boils down to original sin though. The RC doctrine of the IC in my opinion is just the solution to a problem that doesn't exist.

Did Jesus have concupiscence according to the Orthodox view?

Concupiscence is not a term that is used in Eastern theology.

They said that Mary achieved holiness through ascetism and sheer will power rather than through prevenient grace?

They said we believe what they do.

 

[Bulldog]

Does the Eastern Orthodox rejection of original sin make sinlessness possible?

 

[Servus Iesu]

Concupiscence is not a term that is used in Eastern theology.

Fair enough. Is Christ subject to the law of sin (see Romans 7)? In other words, do the Easterns believe that there was an interior source of temptation within Christ?

Roman Catholic theology as I understand it conceives of no such possibility. No sin or temptation could be conceived of from within the human nature of Jesus. The temptation to sin would have to be something external (ie Satan coming to Jesus in the wilderness).

 

[Servus Iesu]

Does the Eastern Orthodox rejection of original sin make sinlessness possible?

That is a good question. As I understand it, what the Orthodox believe is that Mary simply chose not to sin during the whole course of her life. I do not see how Mary could succeed in this regard where every other human being in history has failed.

 

[Rilian]

Does the Eastern Orthodox rejection of original sin make sinlessness possible?

Sin is a fact of life. The idea that infants are born with the contagination of sin implanted in them is not.

 

[Rilian]

I do not see how Mary could succeed in this regard where every other human being in history has failed.

Because she was not like every other human being in history. I'm also glad someone from OBOB is finally willing to admit we view this differently.

 

[Rilian]

do the Easterns believe that there was an interior source of temptation within Christ?

Not that I'm aware of.

 

[Marjorie]

The idea that Mary just "chose" to be free of sin smacks of some form of Pelagianism to me. The belief is instead that Mary was full of the Holy Spirit so she did not sin. It was a perfect and complete cooperation of her will and God's, and she was *chosen* by God, she wasn't just the only human to successfully abide by God's terms-- as if she could do just as well without God's grace. Our difference isn't in how we view Mary's chosenness, but instead in our view of fallen humanity.

It's also not dogma that Mary was personally sinless. But this is something that shouldn't be viewed so legalistically. How many of us would coldly and shrewdly sit down to discuss our own mother's sinlessness or conception or amount of holiness? She is our Mother and we love her and she was the holiest creature of God ever to be made. She followed God and was joined to God in a way that perfectly epitomizes the Christian life. She is, as the Catholic Catechism says, the eschatological icon of the Church. Just as she was joined perfectly to Christ, so are we. And so Mary is the Church, and to follow Christ we must emulate Mary and have her as our intercessor.

But it seems greatly out of touch with the Orthodox spirit to sit down and discuss how and when she was tempted. We know that she completely gave up her will to God, and was chosen by God, filled with the Holy Spirit. She is the All-Holy.

And she is not the great exception, but the great example, as one of our theologians has said. She too was part of our fallen nature. Christ took on the fallen nature-- he took it from his mother. Her flesh was the flesh of the whole world, which he redeemed.

In IC XC,
Marjorie

 

[Servus Iesu]

Because she was not like every other human being in history. I'm also glad someone from OBOB is finally willing to admit we view this differently.

She was not like every other human being in history precisely because she was Immaculately Conceived.

I think in EO-RC discussions we need to be honest about certain facts. We are not in Communion with one another. We have very strong disagreements. No amount of wishing it were otherwise will change that.

It seems that many Catholics have been convinced by the Ecumaniacs that there are no real differences between us and the Orthodox. The more I actually speak with Orthodox the more I find out that this is not the case. It is a sad form of self-deception to allow oneself to believe that the end of the 1000 year schism is imminent.

I respect Orthodox Christians. I think on the whole they are very pious and virtuous people with laudable traditions and wonderful liturgical rites. Hopefully you can also respect me as a human being.

My point is that we should just be honest with each other. We don't need to be polemical about it but we do need to understand reality. It seems Catholics convince themselves too often that if they pretend there are no differences then there are in fact no differences.

 

[Servus Iesu]

Not that I'm aware of.

This is what we mean by concupiscence.

 

[Bulldog]

Sin is a fact of life. The idea that infants are born with the contagination of sin implanted in them is not.

Thank you.

 

[Marjorie]

She was not like every other human being in history precisely because she was Immaculately Conceived.

I think in EO-RC discussions we need to be honest about certain facts. We are not in Communion with one another. We have very strong disagreements. No amount of wishing it were otherwise will change that.

It seems that many Catholics have been convinced by the Ecumaniacs that there are no real differences between us and the Orthodox. The more I actually speak with Orthodox the more I find out that this is not the case. It is a sad form of self-deception to allow oneself to believe that the end of the 1000 year schism is imminent.

I respect Orthodox Christians. I think on the whole they are very pious and virtuous people with laudable traditions and wonderful liturgical rites. Hopefully you can also respect me as a human being.

My point is that we should just be honest with each other. We don't need to be polemical about it but we do need to understand reality. It seems Catholics convince themselves too often that if they pretend there are no differences then there are in fact no differences.

Actually, this is refreshing. I'm sick of hearing Catholics telling me that I don't really know what I believe, that I actually believe everything they do. I'd much rather hear that I'm in evident error.

In IC XC,
Marjorie

 

[Rilian]

She was not like every other human being in history precisely because she was Immaculately Conceived.

That would be true if IC were true. In this case it's true because of the reasons Marjorie very eloquently laid out.

I think in EO-RC discussions we need to be honest about certain facts. We are not in Communion with one another. We have very strong disagreements. No amount of wishing it were otherwise will change that.

It seems that many Catholics have been convinced by the Ecumaniacs that there are no real differences between us and the Orthodox. The more I actually speak with Orthodox the more I find out that this is not the case. It is a sad form of self-deception to allow oneself to believe that the end of the 1000 year schism is imminent.

I respect Orthodox Christians. I think on the whole they are very pious and virtuous people with laudable traditions and wonderful liturgical rites. Hopefully you can also respect me as a human being.

My point is that we should just be honest with each other. We don't need to be polemical about it but we do need to understand reality. It seems Catholics convince themselves too often that if they pretend there are no differences then there are in fact no differences.

You're preaching to the choir.

 

[Servus Iesu]

Actually, this is refreshing. I'm sick of hearing Catholics telling me that I don't really know what I believe, that I actually believe everything they do. I'd much rather hear that I'm in evident error.

In IC XC,
Marjorie

Amazing isn't it! Sometimes truth can bring us together more than ecumenical platitudes.

Gratia et pax Iesu Christi Domini Nostri tecum,
Ryan

 

[Rilian]

This is what we mean by concupiscence.

How I've traditionally heard this term used is not simply that it is an internal proclivity to sin, it is like choke hold on the will that stops one from being able to choose to do good at all. That's why I'm hesitent to say we go along with this specific term.

I have no problem saying it is not in Christ's nature to sin.

 

[Kripost]

If the child is not guilty, then why is he being punished with eternal seperation from God (Damnation)?

Firstly, Hell is not eternal seperation from God, but rather it is being in His presence.

So children don't need Jesus to save them? If they are not guilty of anything, why should they?

The first question to ask is: "To be saved from what or who?" As humans, children needed Christ to unite Divinity and Humanity for their salvation.

Is Orthodox Hell nicer than Catholic Hell?

It would be just as tormenting. Imagine being in room with a person you really hate, whose 'aura' fills the whole room, but you cannot escape nor get rid of the person.

So does that mean that Orthodox believe that children that die before the age of reason and that are not Baptised will still go to Heaven because they have no guilt?

Based on the revelation we have been given by God of his justice, How will God judge a person that is not within the Body of Christ (not Baptised)? Will they be found guilty of the sins of mankind?

The problem here is that the above statements rely on an judicial view of salvation and atonement, and stretching the analogy too far. God is interested mainly in the healing of soul and body, not in determining innocence or guilt.

Regarding God's justice, this is what St. Isaac the Syrian has to say:

Do not call God just, for His justice is not manifest in the things concerning you. And if David calls Him just and upright, His Son revealed to us that He is good and kind. 'He is good', He says 'to the evil and to the impious.' How can you call God just when you come across the Scriptural passage on the wage given to the workers?...How can a man call God just when he comes across the passage on the prodigal son who wasted his wealth with riotous living, how for the compunction alone which he showed, the father ran and fell upon his neck and gave him authority over all his wealth? Where, then, is God's justice, for while we are sinners Christ died for us!

 

[Servus Iesu]

How I've traditionally heard this term used is not simply that it is an internal proclivity to sin, it is like choke hold on the will that stops one from being able to choose to do good at all. That's why I'm hesitent to say we go along with this specific term.

I have no problem saying it is not in Christ's nature to sin.

The idea of a choke hold on the will is not something Catholic so far as I know Catholicism. I believe that is more in line with the total depravity teaching of the Protestant 'Reformers'.

Concupiscence is a disorder which causes our irrational urges, impulses, desires, sensuousness, etc to exercise power over the free will. In other words, concupiscence causes one to seek immediate gratification rather than consider holiness and virtue. Concupiscence does not entirely overpower the will though. Catholics believe our will and our nature is weakened and wounded, not destroyed by original sin.

As I see it, concupiscence causes all people to sin in some respect in an attritional manner. The constant demands of the flesh will cause us to sin in some way even if only venial. The will can take control but it is a battle. Apart from the graces won by Jesus Christ it is a losing battle. With the grace of the sacraments the battle can and will be won.

 

[Xpycoctomos]

Actually, this is refreshing. I'm sick of hearing Catholics telling me that I don't really know what I believe, that I actually believe everything they do. I'd much rather hear that I'm in evident error.

In IC XC,
Marjorie

I was thinking the same thing. Servus... I agree with you and the only way we can even dream of approaching reconciliation is admitting that we have irreconciliable differences (not that all of our differences are irreconciliable, but there are important ones that are) that we cannot just ignore.

This probably turned out to be one of the most productive "Original Sin" threads I have ever read.

John

 

[Servus Iesu]

I have no problem saying it is not in Christ's nature to sin.

I've always maintained that Christ could not sin. My reasons are perhaps even a little Eastern in ethos.

The argument often given for why Christ could have sinned was that he was a human with a human nature and will, therefore he could sin. However, doesn't that imply that sinfulness in some way defines what it is to be human? I believe that sin is not so much human but rather something which robs us of our humanity.

What makes humans different from animals is that they are rational creatures with immortal souls. If sin is contrary to reason (and it is) then it follows that sin is inhuman. When we act on impulse or for the sake of immediate gratification then we are behaving like animals and not men.

Therefore, I don't think it is inconsistent with Christ's human nature for him to not be capable of sin. Instead, we could say that Christ is more of a man than you or I!