original vs ancestral sin

[Erose]

The purpose of this thread is to compare and contrast these two approaches concerning the first sin, and how that sin affects...well all of us. I couldn't find much on the web about ancestral sin, except in some contrast posts by Orthodox Christians, who didn't really present original sin correct to start off with. So below I will give a definition from the Compendium of the CCC which is the shortest most concise official definition I could find. I hope that an Orthodox Christian will provide a definition of the doctrine of Ancestral sin, so that we can discuss these two supposedly opposing doctrines.

76. What is original sin?

404
419

Original sin, in which all human beings are born, is the state of deprivation of original holiness and justice. It is a sin “contracted” by us not “committed”; it is a state of birth and not a personal act. Because of the original unity of all human beings, it is transmitted to the descendants of Adam “not by imitation, but by propagation”. This transmission remains a mystery which we cannot fully understand.

77. What other consequences derive from original sin?

405-409
418

In consequence of original sin human nature, without being totally corrupted, is wounded in its natural powers. It is subject to ignorance, to suffering, and to the dominion of death and is inclined toward sin. This inclination is called concupiscence.

 

[Cappadocious]

Let's clear this up in three quick points.

1. "Original sin" is taken to mean or entail "original guilt:" Namely, the doctrine that we inherit a personal or corporate guilt for Adam's sin. Furthermore, this may be taken to entail "original desert," that we inherit worthiness of divine punishment from Adam.

2. "Ancestral sin" is just original sin not taken to mean or entail original guilt or original desert.

3. Contra Fr. Romanides and friends, Original Sin doesn't have to entail original guilt or original desert. But it is often regarded as if it does, hence the confusion.

I could go into the Latin of Trent and how it talks about transmission of guilt, Catholics will say it doesn't really say that in the Latin, I'll point out that it does, they'll start pulling up EWTN commentaries... see, that route isn't worthy of humans, so we won't go down it.

The upshot is that nobody seems to know what they're talking about.

 

[Erose]

Let's clear this up in three quick points.

1. "Original sin" is taken to mean or entail "original guilt:" Namely, the doctrine that we inherit a personal or corporate guilt for Adam's sin. Furthermore, this may be taken to entail "original desert," that we inherit worthiness of divine punishment from Adam.

2. "Ancestral sin" is just original sin not taken to mean or entail original guilt or original desert.

3. Contra Fr. Romanides and friends, Original Sin doesn't have to entail original guilt or original desert. But it is often regarded as if it does, hence the confusion.

I could go into the Latin of Trent and how it talks about transmission of guilt, Catholics will say it doesn't really say that in the Latin, I'll point out that it does, they'll start pulling up EWTN commentaries... see, that route isn't worthy of humans, so we won't go down it.

The upshot is that nobody seems to know what they're talking about.

First what is the definition of ancestral sin. Lets start with that. I've given the Catholic definition as provided by the Compendium. After the terms are defined, then we can discuss.

 

[Cappadocious]

I dunno, the postlapsarian state of bads, including mortality, toil, anticommunion, predisposition to sin... that should do for now.

Read #3 above again, I think you missed it in your haste to engage in apologetics.

 

[Erose]

I dunno, the postlapsarian state of bads, including mortality, toil, anticommunion, predisposition to sin... that should do for now.

Read #3 above again, I think you missed it in your haste to engage in apologetics.

All I see is what it isn't, not what it is. I don't understand why the necessity to be snarky, if you don't know what the definition of ancestral sin is, then just say so.

 

[Erose]

Look, the attempt here isn't to disparage one's faith tradition. There seems to be a lot of confusion when it comes to the differences between certain doctrines in our Faith Traditions. When the question is ask the what is truly the difference, no one really knows, except that they are different. I want to address this and see if we can have a civil discussion that will hopefully clear up some possible misunderstandings. Personally I don't know what the differences are, and I really can't find much online concerning ancestral sin, except for that it isn't the same as original sin.

 

[Cappadocious]

All I see is what it isn't, not what it is. I don't understand why the necessity to be snarky, if you don't know what the definition of ancestral sin is, then just say so.

My point is that I'm on your side, I think this whole Original sin vs. Ancestral sin is a barbarism of terms.

As for original sin and Ancestral sin you have my definitions.

 

[Erose]

Ok. There are quite a few Orthodox who think that there are significant irreconcilable differences between the two. It shows it in quite a few lists of "differences" given. The question now is what are those irreconcilable differences?

 

[Erose]

My brain isn't working here, I went and re-read your original post, and I see what you are saying here. So the possible differences is that original sin speaks of a guilt and/or desert passed down from generation to generation, where ancestral sin does not. So I guess the question would be is what does Baptism then do, from an Orthodox perspective?

 

[~Anastasia~]

My brain isn't working here, I went and re-read your original post, and I see what you are saying here. So the possible differences is that original sin speaks of a guilt and/or desert passed down from generation to generation, where ancestral sin does not. So I guess the question would be is what does Baptism then do, from an Orthodox perspective?

You are going the same direction I had in mind.

I will add this. I have been told (whether correctly or not) that in the Catholic Tradition, an infant who dies unbaptized will not experience the Beautific Vision (which as I understand it, means the infant cannot enjoy the Presence of God; in evangelical terms, the infant is "not saved"). I have heard that Limbo as a state for such infants is no longer really taught?

So ... what is the effect of Original Sin on the infant, according to the Catholic Tradition?

In Orthodoxy, I have simply been told that we trust unbaptized infants to the mercy of God, but the implication is certainly that God would have mercy on the infant and we would not expect the infant to be condemned or withheld from God.

Baptism is one's entry into the faith, reception into the Church, the Body of Christ. It also accomplishes the washing away of any guilt for sin, and is done with Chrismation, the seal of the gift of the Holy Spirit. Baptism does NOT, in itself, guarantee salvation, especially in the case of an individual who does not keep it. Essentially - belonging to the Orthodox Church does not equal salvation in and of itself. God has said there would be tares among the wheat. That's my clumsy way of saying it, so I hope it makes sense.

 

[Erose]

You are going the same direction I had in mind.

I will add this. I have been told (whether correctly or not) that in the Catholic Tradition, an infant who dies unbaptized will not experience the Beautific Vision (which as I understand it, means the infant cannot enjoy the Presence of God; in evangelical terms, the infant is "not saved"). I have heard that Limbo as a state for such infants is no longer really taught?

The truth of the matter, is that we don't truly know. Divine Revelation is explicitly silent on the matter concerning the final destiny of unbaptized infants.

What we do know is Divine Revelation tells us that we must be baptized to enter into Christ's redemption. That we are not saved outside Christ's redeeming Sacrifice. But we also know that an infant has not committed any personal sin, and that God is a just God. So how is this all reconciled? That has been a matter of debates throughout the centuries.

So some have concluded that these infants will live in Gehenna, but will not experience the temporal pains of hellfire. Some have concluded that perhaps these children go to some other state or place where they are eternally separated from God, but live in an eternal state of natural happiness. While others have said that they will experience the beautific vision. There are probably some other positions that I haven't heard of before, but these are the most popular. Anyway the point being is that the Church hasn't taken any final position on the matter, except that we don't know.

So ... what is the effect of Original Sin on the infant, according to the Catholic Tradition?

We believe that through original sin Humanity lost its original holiness and relationship with God. That our relationship was damaged by the act of Adam. Thus Christ had to come to "reconcile" or "redeem" us back to God. All men are born in the state of original sin, and thus without that personal holiness and relationship that we were created to have. So when we baptize our infants, we not only believe that they are being adopted into the family of God, but also that the holiness (what we call sanctifying grace), that we are deprived of through Adam's sin, is also restored.

In Orthodoxy, I have simply been told that we trust unbaptized infants to the mercy of God, but the implication is certainly that God would have mercy on the infant and we would not expect the infant to be condemned or withheld from God.

Okay. That seems to be the prevalent leaning of the Catholic Church today.

 

[Cappadocious]

So I guess the question would be is what does Baptism then do, from an Orthodox perspective?

Brings us into Christ's death and Resurrection so that we can be healed by his humanity and his acts, bear witness to him in this age, share in his divine Sonship to God, do mighty works, etc.

In short baptism is given so that we can die and rise with Christ. This undoes all the bads listed in my def. of Original Sin.

 

[Erose]

Cap, I'm thinking that it is safe to say, unless something else is brought up, that there is really no real substantial differences between ancestral and original sin. It seems that the two differences are possibly language used and approach.

It also looks like our understanding of Baptism, is pretty much identical as well.

We are also having a debate on Assumption vs Dorminition of Mary; and there isn't any differences there either.

 

[Cappadocious]

If you don't think that original sin includes that Adam's guilt is transmitted via propagation to all men, then sure.

 

[tz620q]

If you don't think that original sin includes that Adam's guilt is transmitted via propagation to all men, then sure.

The full section of the Catechism on this outlines that the sin is transmitted; but not the guilt.
http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p1s2c1p7.htm#III

The consequences of Adam's sin for humanity

402 All men are implicated in Adam's sin, as St. Paul affirms: "By one man's disobedience many (that is, all men) were made sinners": "sin came into the world through one man and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all men sinned." The Apostle contrasts the universality of sin and death with the universality of salvation in Christ. "Then as one man's trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one man's act of righteousness leads to acquittal and life for all men."

403 Following St. Paul, the Church has always taught that the overwhelming misery which oppresses men and their inclination towards evil and death cannot be understood apart from their connection with Adam's sin and the fact that he has transmitted to us a sin with which we are all born afflicted, a sin which is the "death of the soul". Because of this certainty of faith, the Church baptizes for the remission of sins even tiny infants who have not committed personal sin.

404 How did the sin of Adam become the sin of all his descendants? The whole human race is in Adam "as one body of one man". By this "unity of the human race" all men are implicated in Adam's sin, as all are implicated in Christ's justice. Still, the transmission of original sin is a mystery that we cannot fully understand. But we do know by Revelation that Adam had received original holiness and justice not for himself alone, but for all human nature. By yielding to the tempter, Adam and Eve committed a personal sin, but this sin affected the human nature that they would then transmit in a fallen state. It is a sin which will be transmitted by propagation to all mankind, that is, by the transmission of a human nature deprived of original holiness and justice. And that is why original sin is called "sin" only in an analogical sense: it is a sin "contracted" and not "committed" - a state and not an act.

405 Although it is proper to each individual, original sin does not have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam's descendants. It is a deprivation of original holiness and justice, but human nature has not been totally corrupted: it is wounded in the natural powers proper to it, subject to ignorance, suffering and the dominion of death, and inclined to sin - an inclination to evil that is called "concupiscence". Baptism, by imparting the life of Christ's grace, erases original sin and turns a man back towards God, but the consequences for nature, weakened and inclined to evil, persist in man and summon him to spiritual battle.

406 The Church's teaching on the transmission of original sin was articulated more precisely in the fifth century, especially under the impulse of St. Augustine's reflections against Pelagianism, and in the sixteenth century, in opposition to the Protestant Reformation. Pelagius held that man could, by the natural power of free will and without the necessary help of God's grace, lead a morally good life; he thus reduced the influence of Adam's fault to bad example. The first Protestant reformers, on the contrary, taught that original sin has radically perverted man and destroyed his freedom; they identified the sin inherited by each man with the tendency to evil (concupiscentia), which would be insurmountable. The Church pronounced on the meaning of the data of Revelation on original sin especially at the second Council of Orange (529) and at the Council of Trent (1546).

 

[dzheremi]

This is one that has always seemed weird to me, as my church, apparently unlike the EO, does use the term original sin when speaking or writing in English, and I've seen recently in some places also ancestral sin (maybe under the influence of EO? I have no idea), but without any different definition than original sin. So I take them to be essentially equivalent, and have thus far assumed that what is being objected to is not what we call it, but any understanding that would have us be guilty of something that we didn't do, rather than being affected by something that we didn't do.

In the Coptic liturgy of St. Basil, we say that "no man is pure, even if his life be but a day", but that's a statement of the effect of sin on the world, rather than on that individual baby or whatever (read: we're not saying "that baby is guilty of sin, by virtue of being a human being"). So we don't have things like limbo, purgatory, etc., but like Cappadocious, I don't see how original sin makes belief in those things necessary (I see why some RCs may argue that they are, but their arguments are never convincing). If it was, we'd already be believing in them as a consequence of believing in original sin, but we don't.

 

[Erose]

If you don't think that original sin includes that Adam's guilt is transmitted via propagation to all men, then sure.

I guess the question would be how to define guilt.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[~Anastasia~]

Maybe considering theories of atonement would be enlightening.

It's a big question, and surprisingly one I can't answer. Does the Catholic Church teach that God's wrath at the guilt of sin was poured out on Christ in our stead - that a God cannot forgive without punishing?

 

[Cappadocious]

I guess the question would be how to define guilt.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Being blameworthy of a bad.

 

[Erose]

Being blameworthy of a bad.

The classical definition of original sin, which is the simplest in my opinion is the privation of original righteousness. Doesn't really speak of guilt.