Original sin

[Maryslittleflower]

Simeon the New Theologian

Therefore, if anyone, having experienced beforehand such disgrace and insignificance, shall then become proud, is he not senseless and blind? That saying that calls no one sinless except God, even though he has lived only one day on earth, does not refer to those who sin personally, because how can a one-day old child sin? But in this expressed that mystery of our Faith, that human nature is sinful from its very conception. God did not create man sinful, but pure and holy. 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 ancestral sin. - The First-Created Man: Homily 37 The Ancestral (Original) Sin and Our Regeneration by St. Symeon The New Theologian

I don't see how that differs from the Catholic view

Also here's the Council of Mileum II 416, Approved by Pope Innocent and Council of Carthage (XVI) 418, Approved by Zosimus against the Pelagians

The Second Canon states:

Likewise it has been decided that whoever says that infants fresh from their mothers’ wombs ought not to be baptized, or says that they are indeed baptized unto the remission of sins, but that they draw nothing of the original sin from Adam, which is expiated in the bath of regeneration, whence it follows that in regard to them the form of baptism “unto the remission of sins” is understood as not true, but as false, let him be anathema. Since what the Apostle says: “Though one man sin entered into the world (and through sin death), and so passed into all men, in whom all have sinned” [cf. Romans 5:12], must not to be understood otherwise than as 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.

All this sounds more like the Catholic view than what I hear from Orthodox today which makes me wonder why that is

 

[Maryslittleflower]

From the 1891 Baltimore catechism p.105 question no. 256

Q. What evil befell us on account of the disobedience of our first parents?

A. On account of the disobedience of our first parents WE ALL SHARE in their sin and punishment, as we should have shared in their happiness if they had remained faithful.

further on:

Q.265. What is the sin called which we inherit from our first parents?

A. The sin which we inherit from our first parents is original sin.

Q. 266. Why is the sin called original?

A. The sin is called original because it comes down to us from our first parents, and we are brought into the world with its guilt on our soul.

Yes I am not disagreeing with that at all! I mean that this is different from personal guilt. Catholic Church teaches about different types of guilt. We do inherit sin but we are guilty in a different way than for personal sin

 

[Maryslittleflower]

The CCC talks about sin being transmitted. It doesn't say personal guilt - but it does talk about us having the guilt of original sin from Adam's transgression. It does say we "contracted" that sin by propagation. The Council of Trent is even more explicit. We disagree with this. We don't receive guilt from original sin. We aren't automatically in a state of sin. Corruption, disease, death, yes, but not guilt.

Paul III Council of Trent-5

Catechism of the Catholic Church - The Fall

From the council of Trent:

Yes the Catholic Church teaches we have original sin and guilt of it, my point is just that it's not a personal guilt which is a different type of guilt..

So would Orthodox disagree that we have any sin or type of guilt upon conception?

How do you view the type of quotes I gave above for example from the Council in the 5th century?

 

[All4Christ]

Yes the Catholic Church teaches we have original sin and guilt of it, my point is just that it's not a personal guilt which is a different type of guilt..

So would Orthodox disagree that we have any sin or type of guilt upon conception?

How do you view the type of quotes I gave above for example from the Council in the 5th century?

We don't have guilt upon conception. The Council you quoted is not an Ecumenical Council. Also, the quotes you quoted don't talk about inherited guilt. Also, you need to look at the entirety of the writings, not single quotes. We view sin as more than just something we are culpable for. We certainly do inherit the effect of that ancestral sin, which can be considered "inheriting sin"

 

[Maryslittleflower]

Catholic Dictionary
Term
ORIGINAL SIN

Definition
Either the sin committed by Adam as the head of the human race, or the sin he passed onto his posterity with which every human being, with the certain exception of Christ and his Mother, is conceived and born. The sin of Adam is called originating original sin (originale originans); that of his descendants is originated original sin (originale originatum). Adam's sin was personal and grave, and it affected human nature. It was personal because he freely committed it; it was grave because God imposed a serious obligation; and it affected the whole human race by depriving his progeny of the supernatural life and preternatural gifts they would have possessed on entering the world had Adam not sinned. Original sin in his descendants is personal only in the sense that the children of Adam are each personally affected, but not personal as though they had voluntarily chosen to commit the sin; it is grave in the sense that it debars a person from the beatific vision, but not grave in condemning one to hell; and it is natural only in that all human nature, except for divine intervention, has it and can have it removed only by supernatural means.

This definition is from Fr John Hardon's Catholic Dictionary. It is compatible with the article in Catholic Encyclopedia. This points to the explanation of Trent - it talks of guilt but not personal guilt, and voluntary is in a different sense as described in the encyclopedia

https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/dictionary/index.cfm?id=35322

If the Orthodox disagree with ANY type of sin or guilt for original sin (by sin I mean as a state not a personal sin and NOT that Our nature is corrupted or no longer good) - then yes there is a difference in our theologies

Is there?

 

[Maryslittleflower]

If anyone wants to know the Latin view of recommend Fr Garrigou Lagrange. Probably one of the most reliable sources for the Latin view.

He said

"Original sin, therefore, is a sin of nature, which is voluntary, not by our will, but only by the will of Adam. Hence original sin consists formally in the privation of original justice, of which the primordial element is grace, which is restored by baptism. Listen to St. Thomas: "The disorder found in this or that man descended from Adam is voluntary, not by his will, but by the will of our first parent." [701].

To say it in a word, the human nature transmitted to us is a nature deprived of those gifts, supernatural and preternatural, which, without being gifts of nature, still enriched our nature as if they were gifts of nature. [702].

 

[All4Christ]

Catholic Dictionary
Term
ORIGINAL SIN

Definition
Either the sin committed by Adam as the head of the human race, or the sin he passed onto his posterity with which every human being, with the certain exception of Christ and his Mother, is conceived and born. The sin of Adam is called originating original sin (originale originans); that of his descendants is originated original sin (originale originatum). Adam's sin was personal and grave, and it affected human nature. It was personal because he freely committed it; it was grave because God imposed a serious obligation; and it affected the whole human race by depriving his progeny of the supernatural life and preternatural gifts they would have possessed on entering the world had Adam not sinned. Original sin in his descendants is personal only in the sense that the children of Adam are each personally affected, but not personal as though they had voluntarily chosen to commit the sin; it is grave in the sense that it debars a person from the beatific vision, but not grave in condemning one to hell; and it is natural only in that all human nature, except for divine intervention, has it and can have it removed only by supernatural means.

This definition is from Fr John Hardon's Catholic Dictionary. It is compatible with the article in Catholic Encyclopedia. This points to the explanation of Trent - it talks of guilt but not personal guilt, and voluntary is in a different sense as described in the encyclopedia

https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/dictionary/index.cfm?id=35322

If the Orthodox disagree with ANY type of sin or guilt for original sin (by sin I mean as a state not a personal sin and NOT that Our nature is corrupted or no longer good) - then yes there is a difference in our theologies

Is there?

We are not born with the guilt of sin, personal or otherwise. We are born with the effect of that ancestral or original sin, and are essentially "damaged" but we aren't born without God's grace. We do, however, inherit the inclination towards sin. Through Adam's sin, death was introduced to the world, causing all to be infected by sin.

From the Orthodox Study Bible: "Every person born comes into the world stained with the consequences of the sins of Adam and Eve and of their other ancestors. These consequences are chiefly: (1) mortality, (2) a tendency to sin, and (3) alienation from God and from other people. Original sin does not carry guilt, however, for a person is guilty only of his or her own sins, not of those of Adam."

 

[Lukaris]

What do you think of this quote from St Augustine? To the Pelagians

"It is not I who have invented original sin, which the Catholic Faith holds from of old, but thou, who deniest it, thou art without doubt a new heretic"

“Let the word of Christ persuade you of this, also, as He says that no one can enter into the kingdom of heaven unless he is born again of water and the Spirit. Through Him the stains of the first birth are cleansed away, through which we are conceived in iniquity and in sins have our mothers brought us forth.” (Oratio in natalem Christi.) St. Gregory Nazianzen

St. Cyprian - “[A]n infant...being lately born, has not sinned, except in that, being born after the flesh according to Adam, he has contracted the contagion of the ancient death at its earliest birth. [He] approaches the more easily on this very account to the [baptism] of the forgiveness of sins—[for] to him are remitted, not his own sins, but the sins of another.” (Letter 58, To Fidus)

St . Jerome - “Those of adult age [do penance], and it reaches to the smallest, for none is without sin, not even if their life were only one day, or the years of their life were able to be counted.”
(Commentary on Jonah 3:5, Duval 248.101-103; trans. Hegedus, 50).

St. Ambrose of Milan - “Before we are born we are stained by contagion, and before seeing the light we receive the injury of our very origin, we are conceived in iniquity…[for] there are already some sins in the one being born... The conception is not without iniquity, since the parents are not without sin, and if not even a child of one day is without sin, so much more are those days of the maternal conception not without sin. Thus, we are conceived in the sin of our parents and are born in their iniquities. But birth itself also has its own contagions, and the nature itself has not merely one contagion.” (Defense of the Prophet David 11)

From Orthodox Wiki:

"St. Gregory Palamas taught that man’s image was tarnished, disfigured, as a consequence of Adam’s disobedience.

It isn’t only that we are born in death, or in a state of distance from God, but also that we are born with disordered passion within us."

This is what the Latina call the stain of original sin. The explanation of the guilt is in the link above from Catholic Encyclopedia

Catholics also do not teach that our nature changed in essence or is no longer fundamentally good. This was explained to me in Catechism by a very knowledgeable priest. We don't teach total depravity. Our nature is weakened with concupiscence but is still good in itself. The guilt of original sin is not a personal sin guilt and any description of it being voluntary is not in the direct sense.

For these reasons I don't understand what the difference is, with the Orthodox view... except perhaps if the Orthodox see as sin only coming from environment, but I'm not sure what the Orthodox view is because you also agree there are disordered passions

I also came across information that the idea of the Immaculate Conception started in the East: Was Mary born without sin? (Immaculate Conception)

When we say that Our Lord had human nature as Adam before the fall we mean He didn't have concupiscence... It seems the Orthodox believe that we are not fully separated from grace after the fall, I've never read anything from Catholic sources on this topic but I know we always have access to actual graces. But we also have concupiscence which is what makes it so hard. So though our nature is still essentially good it is so weakened that we have a real hard time not sunning in fact without a special grace given we can't avoid venial sin... We believe Our Lady had this special grace. Without it it's not like our nature is corrupted but we can't fully avoid all sin.

Having original sin and a gnomic will is the same thing for a Catholic...

I'm beginning to wonder what is the difference here. I know many Orthodox claim we believe original sin is a personal guilt. But from everything I was taught that was not the meaning of Trent, as in traditional Catholic theology there is more than one type of guilt..

I basically agree with what you say here except that the RCC did previously teach inherited guilt which does not agree with the Orthodox understanding of inherited sin. We inherit everything Adam & Eve acquired in sin but not the guilt at birth. Neither you nor the fathers' quotes agree with guilt at birth either. Note I have added more from the 1891 Baltimore catechism in my previous post which clearly expresses inherited guilt.

Yes, we all have sinned and it is good that the RCC has seemed to dispense with inherited guilt but this was not always so.

I would also like to add from a very early letter from St. Aristides ( ca. 125 AD) that there seemed to be a rather expansive early Christian view on the innocence of children from sin.
In chapter 15 it is written, "..and when a child has been born to one of them, they give thanks to God; and moreover, if it should happen to die in childhood, they give thanks to God the more, as for one who has passed through the world without sins." The Apology of Aristides the Philosopher

 

[Maryslittleflower]

We don't have guilt upon conception.

That clarifies it for me

The Council you quoted is not an Ecumenical Council.

true enough, but perhaps it shows the Latins didn't make this up in the middle ages ?

Also, the quotes you quoted don't talk about inherited guilt. Also, you need to look at the entirety of the writings, not single quotes.

I agree with looking at the entirety of the writings, I would like to though it would be a long term project

I think guilt can be implied by calling it a sin, ie at the Council: "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" I mean, if there's sin, there's guilt, though not personal.. how would the Orthodox explain that quote? Maybe in the way you describe below?

We view sin as more than just something we are culpable for. We certainly do inherit the effect of that ancestral sin, which can be considered "inheriting sin"

Of course we view sin as more than that too.

Regarding inheriting the effects... Catholic theology distinguishes between spiritual and physical effects. Spiritual effects are disordered passions and such and that comes with original sin. Physical effects were caused by the fall but they are things like experiencing pain, hunger, etc. Our Lord had the second but not the first effect, lacking original sin. Same with Mary. I'm saying this because for us there's a difference between experiencing the effects and inheriting sin. A person might have the physical effects and yet not the spiritual effects and have no original sin that way.

I guess the issue is - do we inherit the spiritual effects with the original sin, or just the spiritual effects, which I'm guessing is the Orthodox position...?

The Council I linked above seems to support the Catholic view because it shows that infant Baptism is for remission of sins too. After Baptism, we still have the spiritual effects in concupiscence but we no longer have the original sin.. these are very related things but we can have effects without the sin, otherwise we deny Baptism.

There are also quotes like this one..

“Let the word of Christ persuade you of this, also, as He says that no one can enter into the kingdom of heaven unless he is born again of water and the Spirit. Through Him the stains of the first birth are cleansed away, through which we are conceived in iniquity and in sins have our mothers brought us forth.” (Oratio in natalem Christi.) St. Gregory Nazianzen

Baptism doesn't remove concupiscence, so this points to there being something else there besides concupiscence and physical effects like death... if it was only concupiscence, what gets removed in infant Baptism? this quote talks about conception so it's not about personal sins later in life. I understand these are just some quotes, and it's good to look at all of them, but the reason I haven't done this is just time. Maybe someday.

 

[Maryslittleflower]

We are not born with the guilt of sin, personal or otherwise. We are born with the effect of that ancestral or original sin, and are essentially "damaged" but we aren't born without God's grace. We do, however, inherit the inclination towards sin. Through Adam's sin, death was introduced to the world, causing all to be infected by sin.

From the Orthodox Study Bible: "Every person born comes into the world stained with the consequences of the sins of Adam and Eve and of their other ancestors. These consequences are chiefly: (1) mortality, (2) a tendency to sin, and (3) alienation from God and from other people. Original sin does not carry guilt, however, for a person is guilty only of his or her own sins, not of those of Adam."

I agree with 1, 2 and 3

I guess what i'm wondering then is why infant Baptism? it seems at least some Church Fathers linked infant Baptism to removing something.. can't be personal sin, or mortality, or tendency to sin... it also adds something, but if we already have grace then what? Catholics would say we have actual grace but receive sanctifying grace.. am I missing something in the Orthodox view? or do you not see these quotes as representative?

 

[Maryslittleflower]

I basically agree with what you say here except that the RCC did previously teach inherited guilt which does not agree with the Orthodox understanding of inherited sin. We inherit everything Adam & Eve acquired in sin but not the guilt at birth. Neither you nor the fathers' quotes agree with guilt at birth either. Note I have added more from the 1891 Baltimore catechism in my previous post which clearly expresses inherited guilt.

But Lukaris, I never disagreed that the Catholic Church teaches that we inherit guilt! I believe so myself but it's just not PERSONAL guilt. That's the issue that I think is getting lost here.

We inherit original sin in terms of loss of sanctifying grace/concupiscence/loss of preternatural gifts, but there are Church quotes talking about original sin being removed at Baptism, and yet after baptism we still have those effects listed above except of course we receive sanctifying grace. So what does it remove? Catholics would say the sin itself or the guilt. And spiritual death.

I understand Orthodox disagree with this.. but I'm just saying that the type of guilt that is talked about at Trent etc, is different than the guilt of personal sin. For instance, here's an explanation:

St Thomas:

"An individual can be considered either as an individual or as part of a whole, a member of a society . . . . Considered in the second way an act can be his although he has not done it himself, nor has it been done by his free will but by the rest of the society or by its head, the nation being considered as doing what the prince does. For a society is considered as a single man of whom the individuals are the different members (St. Paul, 1 Corinthians 12). Thus the multitude of men who receive their human nature from Adam is to be considered as a single community or rather as a single body . . . . If the man, whose privation of original justice is due to Adam, is considered as a private person, this privation is not his 'fault', for a fault is essentially voluntary. If, however, we consider him as a member of the family of Adam, as if all men were only one man, then his privation partakes of the nature of sin on account of its voluntary origin, which is the actual sin of Adam" (De Malo, iv, 1).

Someone could say, well how about spiritual death is removed by Baptism but there's no guilt for it. But being spiritually dead already implies something wrong in a relationship with God, not in terms of a personal sin necessarily but something "wrong" with all of us. This is the loss of sanctifying grace. The guilt is as explained above, but not in another way.

Do Orthodox believe we are born spiritually dead? that is something that I'm still not understanding to be honest

Yes, we all have sinned and it is good that the RCC has seemed to dispense with inherited guilt but this was not always so.

we haven't dispensed with it, but it doesn't mean the type of guilt people often think it does... it's the type of guilt St Thomas explains above

I would also like to add from a very early letter from St. Aristides ( ca. 125 AD) that there seemed to be a rather expansive early Christian view on the innocence of children from sin.
In chapter 15 it is written, "..and when a child has been born to one of them, they give thanks to God; and moreover, if it should happen to die in childhood, they give thanks to God the more, as for one who has passed through the world without sins." The Apology of Aristides the Philosopher

I'd have to look into it more, because we also see children as innocent as far as their own personal sins.. also it's uncertain from the excerpt if it's referring to children who die after Baptism. But even if before, they still lack personal sins and no Latin theology would say they suffer after death.. (no suffering in Limbo)

 

[ArmyMatt]

Yes the Catholic Church teaches we have original sin and guilt of it, my point is just that it's not a personal guilt which is a different type of guilt..

So would Orthodox disagree that we have any sin or type of guilt upon conception?

How do you view the type of quotes I gave above for example from the Council in the 5th century?

for us, there is no guilt, personal or otherwise, aside from our own sins.

 

[ArmyMatt]

I agree with 1, 2 and 3

I guess what i'm wondering then is why infant Baptism? it seems at least some Church Fathers linked infant Baptism to removing something.. can't be personal sin, or mortality, or tendency to sin... it also adds something, but if we already have grace then what? Catholics would say we have actual grace but receive sanctifying grace.. am I missing something in the Orthodox view? or do you not see these quotes as representative?

because babies, even though not personally guilty of anything, are still enslaved to death and must be set free and restored to life. baptism clothes them with Christ, allows the Spirit to work from within rather than without, etc.

 

[All4Christ]

because babies, even though not personally guilty of anything, are still enslaved to death and must be set free and restored to life. baptism clothes them with Christ, allows the Spirit to work from within rather than without, etc.

It also joins them and is an entrance into to the Church.

 

[ArmyMatt]

It also joins them and is an entrance into to the Church.

indeed, good one I shoulda highlighted

 

[All4Christ]

@Maryslittleflower We do teach that baptism is for the remission of sins, even though infants do not hold the guilt of sin - personal or otherwise.

Perhaps this quote will help:

We can talk about sin and guilt in three ways. First there is primordial sin, the sin of Adam. We understand this not in terms of inherited guilt, but in terms of a fallen world. Primordial sin introduced sickness, suffering, evil, and death into God’s perfect creation (1 John 5:19; Romans 5:12). We are born into Adam’s sin in that we are born into a fallen world. But without our participation, there is no guilt. Second, there is generational sin, which we see in terms of specific propensities to sin. A child of alcoholics, for example, will inherit not the guilt of his parents but the tendency to sin as they did, or other sins associated with this generational heritage. Again, we do not have to submit to this sinful heritage, we do not have to carry it on ourselves. Finally, there is personal sin, the stuff we do ourselves, whether as perpetuation of the general fallenness of this world, the generational fallenness of our parents or surroundings, or as the invention of sins of our own. A person becomes guilty when they personally sin. A child is not guilty until they make sin a personal decision, either consciously or unconsciously.

It is true that baptism is the washing away of sin, and one could say that it seems senseless to baptize a child if they have no inherited guilt to wash away. However, Christ’s sacrifice, in to which we are baptized, was a sacrifice of His whole life as a submission to God— “not My will, but Yours, be done” (Luke 22:42)—and His death on the Cross not only washed away our sins, but also destroyed death itself. When we are baptized we are baptized into His life and death (Romans 6:4), and we become co-beneficiaries of a life which finally brought God and man into a union of love and a harmony of will. The infant is initiated into that union. This initiation will include the forgiveness of their sins, but is not limited to that forgiveness. The life and death of Christ, which reverses the primordial, generational, and personal falleness of this world, is what the child enters through baptism.

 

[Maryslittleflower]

I think I understand the Orthodox position now more... thanks for the replies

I agree with the other purposes of Baptism, we believe them too.. I do wonder about this difference though, because I came across some early Church quotes and for example the one from that Council talks about a remission of original sin for infants. This points to it not being an idea that only was thought of after the Schism. It makes me wonder why there's this difference in our theology.

 

[Maryslittleflower]

because babies, even though not personally guilty of anything, are still enslaved to death and must be set free and restored to life. baptism clothes them with Christ, allows the Spirit to work from within rather than without, etc.

Do you mean a spiritual death?

Is the absence of guilt the only difference you see with the Catholic view? Do you see there being a sin of some kind, original or ancestral that is cleansed?

 

[All4Christ]

I think I understand the Orthodox position now more... thanks for the replies

I agree with the other purposes of Baptism, we believe them too.. I do wonder about this difference though, because I came across some early Church quotes and for example the one from that Council talks about a remission of original sin for infants. This points to it not being an idea that only was thought of after the Schism. It makes me wonder why there's this difference in our theology.

Remember, we do agree with baptism being for the remission of sin. We just have a different perspective of what that means with infants. Remission of the guilt of sins? They don't have that. Remission of the effect of sin on man? Yes. Look at the quote I put above. Sin does not only mean "guilt", personal or otherwise. We are all infected by that ancestral sin (it has corrupted the world), but it doesn't mean we have guilt because of that ancestral sin. The Theotokos still needed salvation, no matter her level of Holiness or theosis. Sin even goes into our physical health and the spiritual effects of that. It is related our entire body, soul and mind, but doesn't propagate guilt. Sin is missing the mark of the state God intends us to be in, even if it is not guilt or culpability. That doesn't, however, mean we are born as sinners.

ETA: I still have a hard time fully understanding the ontological holistic view of sin and how it effects humanity. I'm slowly learning @ArmyMatt explains it better than me. I just want to make sure we express that we still acknowledge that baptism is for the remission of sins, which covers much more than the guilt of sin or the state of being sinners.

 

[ArmyMatt]

Do you mean a spiritual death?

Is the absence of guilt the only difference you see with the Catholic view? Do you see there being a sin of some kind, original or ancestral that is cleansed?

no I mean physical death. Mary never sinned and she still died. the effects of sin are still cleansed (death, corruption, etc), but no guilt. you can only be guilty if you have done something wrong, and newborns have not done anything wrong and are therefore not guilty.