Perpetual virginity (not a hate thread)

[prodromos]

A talk by Scott Hahn just came to mind, which I wish I had remembered earlier. He explained that Original Sin is not something, but the lack of a thing - the lack of Sanctiying Grace.

He said that most people misunderstand original sin, that using the phrase "Stain of Origonal Sin" is misleading Again, because Original Sin is not something, but the lack of a thing.

He said that Adam and Eve were created in a stae of grace, sinless. But through their sin they were DISgraced - they fell from grace. So, their children and all who have come after them are NOT born in a state of sancitying grace. THAT is what Original Sin really means. It makes a lot of sense.

Which Church Fathers or synods does he cite when giving this explanation?

John

 

[Rdr Iakovos]

A talk by Scott Hahn just came to mind, which I wish I had remembered earlier. He explained that Original Sin is not something, but the lack of a thing - the lack of Sanctiying Grace.

He said that most people misunderstand original sin, that using the phrase "Stain of Origonal Sin" is misleading Again, because Original Sin is not something, but the lack of a thing.

He said that Adam and Eve were created in a state of grace, sinless. But through their sin they were DISgraced - they fell from grace. So, their children and all who have come after them are NOT born in a state of sancitying grace. THAT is what Original Sin really means. It makes a lot of sense.

Scott Hahn echoes the New Advent entry:
(3) The absence of sanctifying grace in the new-born child is also an effect of the first sin, for Adam, having received holiness and justice from God, lost it not only for himself but also for us (loc. cit., can. ii). If he has lost it for us we were to have received it from him at our birth with the other prerogatives of our race. Therefore the absence of sanctifying grace in a child is a real privation, it is the want of something that should have been in him according to the Divine plan.
As you say, it does make sense, and here's what we are saying:
All are born damned (hello, Calvin), and baptism saves.

Interestingly, New Advent does NOT address the EO perspective at all- but instead refers constantly to the opponents of the Augustinian/Anselmian doctrine as "Pelagians."

Ironically, the Catholic doctrine calls for the 'work' (Pelagius) of baptism to save the children, all now created IMPERFECTLY. EO doctrine, to state crudely, insists that each and every human are made in God's image and likeness, but born into a sin-filled world.
In the Catholic view, sin is genetic
In the EO view, sin is cultural

Very crudely stated, of course.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Scott Hahn echoes the New Advent entry:
(3) The absence of sanctifying grace in the new-born child is also an effect of the first sin, for Adam, having received holiness and justice from God, lost it not only for himself but also for us (loc. cit., can. ii). If he has lost it for us we were to have received it from him at our birth with the other prerogatives of our race. Therefore the absence of sanctifying grace in a child is a real privation, it is the want of something that should have been in him according to the Divine plan.
As you say, it does make sense, and here's what we are saying:
All are born damned (hello, Calvin), and baptism saves.

Interestingly, New Advent does NOT address the EO perspective at all- but instead refers constantly to the opponents of the Augustinian/Anselmian doctrine as "Pelagians."

Ironically, the Catholic doctrine calls for the 'work' (Pelagius) of baptism to save the children, all now created IMPERFECTLY. EO doctrine, to state crudely, insists that each and every human are made in God's image and likeness, but born into a sin-filled world.
In the Catholic view, sin is genetic
In the EO view, sin is cultural

Very crudely stated, of course.

Greetings. I had this up on another thread and wonder if the Orthodox could give a view on it. Thanks

http://christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=51170799#post51170799

http://christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=51170799&postcount=163

I found this interesting. Here "Ancestral Sin" is used. First time I have heard of that and would like to know if perhaps the Orthodox have a study of this on the TAW board. Thanks.

http://www.antiochian.org/ancestral-versus-original-sin

The differences between the doctrine of Ancestral Sin--as understood in the church of the first two centuries and the present-day Orthodox Church--and the doctrine of Original Sin--developed by Augustine and his heirs in the Western Christian traditions--is explored. The impact of these two formulations on pastoral practice is investigated. It is suggested that the doctrine of ancestral sin naturally leads to a focus on human death and Divine compassion as the inheritance from Adam, while the doctrine of original sin shifts the center of attention to human guilt and Divine wrath. It is further posited that the approach of the ancient church points to a more therapeutic than juridical approach to pastoral care and counseling.
__________________

 

[Tu Es Petrus]

A talk by Scott Hahn just came to mind, which I wish I had remembered earlier. He explained that Original Sin is not something, but the lack of a thing - the lack of Sanctiying Grace.

He said that most people misunderstand original sin, that using the phrase "Stain of Origonal Sin" is misleading Again, because Original Sin is not something, but the lack of a thing.

He said that Adam and Eve were created in a stae of grace, sinless. But through their sin they were DISgraced - they fell from grace. So, their children and all who have come after them are NOT born in a state of sancitying grace. THAT is what Original Sin really means. It makes a lot of sense.

Which Church Fathers or synods does he cite when giving this explanation?

John

I'll do you one better: Ill give you a link to the mp3 itself so you can hear it from the horse's mouth:
http://www.bringyou.to/JHScottHahn2.mp3

I'll even save you some time: Fast forward to the 33 minute 30 second mark, and you will hear a lady ask Dr Hahn her question about Original Sin, and his response.

I suggest that everyone else give it a listen too.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

.


What does original sin (dogma in the RCC, rejected in the EO) have to do with the Dogma of Mary Had No Sex Ever?



.

 

[Uphill Battle]

I'm curious of that myself.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

LLOJ withdraws from thread........

 

[Rick Otto]

quote=Rdr Iakovos; Scott Hahn echoes the New Advent entry:
(3) The absence of sanctifying grace in the new-born child is also an effect of the first sin, for Adam, having received holiness and justice from God, lost it not only for himself but also for us (loc. cit., can. ii). If he has lost it for us we were to have received it from him at our birth with the other prerogatives of our race. Therefore the absence of sanctifying grace in a child is a real privation, it is the want of something that should have been in him according to the Divine plan.
As you say, it does make sense, and here's what we are saying:
All are born damned (hello, Calvin), and baptism saves.

Bingo! Calvin reformed, not invented. The "real privation" of "sanctifying grace" is Total Depravity (actualy saving, not sanctifying grace). The want of something that would enable him to discerrn & desire spiritual things - the want of spiritual life regenerated by saving grace.

Interestingly, New Advent does NOT address the EO perspective at all- but instead refers constantly to the opponents of the Augustinian/Anselmian doctrine as "Pelagians."

Pelagius believed that the will was undamaged in the fall and had the redeeming aspect of being able to discern & desire spiritual salvation contrary to 1Cor2:14(at least).

Ironically, the Catholic doctrine calls for the 'work' (Pelagius) of baptism to save the children, all now created IMPERFECTLY. EO doctrine, to state crudely, insists that each and every human are made in God's image and likeness, but born into a sin-filled world.
In the Catholic view, sin is genetic
In the EO view, sin is cultural

I think culture is arguably genetic to a large degree. At any rate "image & likeness" can be a wild card in a conversation. To me, that means something simple like "personality & spirituality" because God's Spirit transcends form. So "image & likeness" don't refer except peripheraly to the physical aspect of humanity.

Very crudely stated, of course.

That'd be my image & likeness. lol

 

[prodromos]

I'll do you one better: Ill give you a link to the mp3 itself so you can hear it from the horse's mouth:
http://www.bringyou.to/JHScottHahn2.mp3

I'll even save you some time: Fast forward to the 33 minute 30 second mark, and you will hear a lady ask Dr Hahn her question about Original Sin, and his response.

You incorrectly assume I have high speed internet. No thanks.

 

[Tu Es Petrus]

I'll do you one better: Ill give you a link to the mp3 itself so you can hear it from the horse's mouth:
http://www.bringyou.to/JHScottHahn2.mp3

I'll even save you some time: Fast forward to the 33 minute 30 second mark, and you will hear a lady ask Dr Hahn her question about Original Sin, and his response.

I suggest that everyone else give it a listen too.

You incorrectly assume I have high speed internet. No thanks.

Oh Then just right-click and download it. It shouldn't take that long.

 

[Rdr Iakovos]

.


What does original sin (dogma in the RCC, rejected in the EO) have to do with the Dogma of Mary Had No Sex Ever?



.

= Transparent plea to be the center of attention.

 

[prodromos]

Oh Then just right-click and download it. It shouldn't take that long.

Save me some effort. Does he cite his sources? Does he give references? You've obviously listened to it so surely you can answer my questions.

John

 

[lionroar0]

Save me some effort. Does he cite his sources? Does he give references? You've obviously listened to it so surely you can answer my questions.

John

Is it that hard to come and see, because it's Catholic?

Peace

 

[Rdr Iakovos]

Is it that hard to come and see, because it's Catholic?

Peace

Not have high speed= do have dial-up.
A 30 second video takes 15 minutes to load. Us folks in such dire states of bandwidth depravation resign ourselves to life without YouTube.

So, while you're watching your favorite (convert) apologist, we're reading thick books through thick (bifocal) lenses, or pulling out our beards as a 125 KB file takes 1 minute to load, then freezes the computer.

So, yeah, Catholic or otherwise, references and citations appreciated.

 

[Philothei]

Is it that hard to come and see, because it's Catholic?

Peace

ouch

 

[lionroar0]

Not have high speed= do have dial-up.
A 30 second video takes 15 minutes to load. Us folks in such dire states of bandwidth depravation resign ourselves to life without YouTube.

So, while you're watching your favorite (convert) apologist, we're reading thick books through thick (bifocal) lenses, or pulling out our beards as a 125 KB file takes 1 minute to load, then freezes the computer.

So, yeah, Catholic or otherwise, references and citations appreciated.

I used to be on dial up. I feel ur pain.

Peace

 

[prodromos]

Is it that hard to come and see, because it's Catholic?

There is a ton of Orthodox stuff I would love to listen to but can't because of the low speed I have. Being Catholic material has nothing to do with it.
I did start downloading the mp3 3 hours ago and it appears to have stalled about halfway. Most servers are geared to send big chunks of data at a time because the majority of the clients are on ADSL or better. Modem connections choke on these sites.

John

 

[prodromos]

OK, it finally finished downloading, I've listened to the part that was referred to and no, it does not answer my questions. He cites no Church Fathers or Synods in support of what he teaches. Thank you for wasting my time

John

 

[Philothei]

Other than the covenant site is there anywhere else any of you can direct us about IC ....then again maybe this is not the thread for this...
This is about Ever Virginity and truly not the right place... for this. If you have any other sources except the covenant and the RC catechumen books please send me a pm. Thanks.

 

[lionroar0]

OK, it finally finished downloading, I've listened to the part that was referred to and no, it does not answer my questions. He cites no Church Fathers or Synods in support of what he teaches. Thank you for wasting my time

John

I feel ur pain too.

Peace