Born Into Mortal Sin?

[Socrates]

Any reinterpretation of Church teaching is icky. I find it disturbing how the people on this board will condemn the abuses of liberals while excusing the abuses of conservatives such as Michael Voris or the SSPX.

 

 

Since when is the Baltimore Catechism a "reinterpretation of Church teaching"?  The Baltimore Catechism was the official Catholic catechism for use in the United States for many decades.  It's not some schismatic publication of the fringe right.

 

And I never said anything about Michael Voris nor the SSPX, nor did anyone else in this thread to my knowledge, but nice red herrings.

 

The Baltimore Catechism is correct in referring to original sin as "mortal," as original sin condemns us all to death, and bars those not saved by Baptism in Christ from experiencing the Beatific Vision of God in Heaven.

 

Denying the doctrine of original sin, or downplaying its effects, besides being seriously heretical in itself, renders the rest of Christian theology nonsensical.

 

I think the confusion in this thread results from the usual use of "mortal sin" to refer to mortal actual sins (individual sinful acts committed).  The difference between original sin and actual sin is also clearly explained in the Baltimore Catechism.  (This is a problem with taking a snippet from the catechism out of context, and not reading the rest of it.)  If the entire section on sin were read, i do not think there would be so much confusion on the matter.

 

A Catholic referring to an official catechism of the Catholic Church, published as the result of a Plenary Council of Bishops, as "icky" is out of line.

 

One can only imagine the outrage on here if a traditionalist called some publication of the Church's current ordinary magisterium "icky."

 

Ignoring the derailment, can we chalk this up to differing interpretations of the word "mortal" based on different contexts? 

I think it's based on confusion between original and actual sin.

 

 

?

Didn't it have an imprimatur?

 

 

 

Yes.  Its publication was the result of the Third Plenary Council of Baltimore.

Edited January 9, 2013 by Socrates

[PhuturePriest]

Any reinterpretation of Church teaching is icky. I find it disturbing how the people on this board will condemn the abuses of liberals while excusing the abuses of conservatives such as Michael Voris or the SSPX.

 

I know I will regret asking (Since this debate has been going so terribly well thus far), but what "abuses" might Michael Voris be making?

[Fidei Defensor]

Since when is the Baltimore Catechism a "reinterpretation of Church teaching"?  The Baltimore Catechism was the official Catholic catechism for use in the United States for many decades.  It's not some schismatic publication of the fringe right.

 

And I never said anything about Michael Voris nor the SSPX, nor did anyone else in this thread to my knowledge, but nice red herrings.

 

The Baltimore Catechism is correct in referring to original sin as "mortal," as original sin condemns us all to death, and bars those not saved by Baptism in Christ from experiencing the Beatific Vision of God in Heaven.

 

Denying the doctrine of original sin, or downplaying its effects, besides being seriously heretical in itself, renders the rest of Christian theology nonsensical.

 

I think the confusion in this thread results from the usual use of "mortal sin" to refer to mortal actual sins (individual sinful acts committed).  The difference between original sin and actual sin is also clearly explained in the Baltimore Catechism.  (This is a problem with taking a snippet from the catechism out of context, and not reading the rest of it.)  If the entire section on sin were read, i do not think there would be so much confusion on the matter.

 

A Catholic referring to an official catechism of the Catholic Church, published as the result of a Plenary Council of Bishops, as "icky" is out of line.

 

One can only imagine the outrage on here if a traditionalist called some publication of the Church's current ordinary magisterium "icky."

 

I think it's based on confusion between original and actual sin.

 

 

 

 

 

Yes.  Its publication was the result of the Third Plenary Council of Baltimore.

 

I think you and Apo ought to have a conversation about original sin. (I would avoid the "H" word, though)

[Socrates]

I know I will regret asking (Since this debate has been going so terribly well thus far), but what "abuses" might Michael Voris be making?

 

I believe she's referring to his haircut.

[PhuturePriest]

I believe she's referring to his haircut.

 

I kind of like his haircut nowadays. It's not as poofy and it is more distinguished.

Edited January 10, 2013 by FuturePriest387

[Fidei Defensor]

Moreover, I do not believe in the fanciful Scholastic notion of "original justice"; instead, I believe that Adam was created innocent with the potential to become just through virtuous activity.  Original sin is not a sin at all in Adam's descendants, analogical or otherwise; instead, the effect of the original sin in mankind is mortality, and it is because men are mortal that they tend to fall into personal sins (i.e., as they satiate their passions in a futile attempt to overcome death).

 

Council of Trent, Decree on Original Sin:

 

2. If any one asserts, that the prevarication of Adam injured himself alone, and not his posterity; and that the holiness and justice, received of God, which he lost, he lost for himself alone, and not for us also; or that he, being defiled by the sin of disobedience, has only transfused death, and pains of the body, into the whole human race, but not sin also, which is the death of the soul; let him be anathema:--whereas he contradicts the apostle who says; By one man sin entered into the world, and by sin death, and so death passed upon all men, in whom all have sinned.

[Apotheoun]

Council of Trent, Decree on Original Sin:

 

2. If any one asserts, that the prevarication of Adam injured himself alone, and not his posterity; and that the holiness and justice, received of God, which he lost, he lost for himself alone, and not for us also; or that he, being defiled by the sin of disobedience, has only transfused death, and pains of the body, into the whole human race, but not sin also, which is the death of the soul; let him be anathema:--whereas he contradicts the apostle who says; By one man sin entered into the world, and by sin death, and so death passed upon all men, in whom all have sinned.

 

Sadly, Trent presents a quasi-Manichaean notion that sin can be inherited.  It is important to remember that the Eastern Churches have never accepted the idea that sin can passed on through generation.  What is inherited is mortality, i.e., the dissolving of existence, for as St. Athanasios explained in his treatise entitled, The Incarnation of the Word:  "[The] transgression of the commandment was turning them [i.e., Adam and his descendants] back to their natural state, so that just as they have had their being out of nothing, so also, as might be expected, they might look for corruption into nothing in the course of time."  That said, no one, according to the Tradition of the Fathers of the East, is conceived or born sinful; instead, all men are conceived and born mortal, but mortality (i.e., death as a return to non-existence) does not involve the transmission of guilt, which is really quite impossible.

Edited January 10, 2013 by Apotheoun

[Apotheoun]

Fr. John Meyendorff gives a good summary of the Eastern Christian perspective as it concerns the original sin, and here is what he said:

 

 

 

The Greek patristic understanding of man never denies the unity of mankind or replaces it with a radical individualism. The Pauline doctrine of the two Adams ("As in Adam all men die, so also in Christ all are brought to life" [1 Co 15:22]) as well as the Platonic concept of the ideal man leads Gregory of Nyssa to understand Genesis 1:27 — "God created man in His own image" — to refer to the creation of mankind as a whole. It is obvious therefore that the sin of Adam must also be related to all men, just as salvation brought by Christ is salvation for all mankind; but neither original sin nor salvation can be realized in an individual’s life without involving his personal and free responsibility.

 

The scriptural text, which played a decisive role in the polemics between Augustine and the Pelagians, is found in Romans 5:12 where Paul speaking of Adam writes, "As sin came into the world through one man and through sin and death, so death spreads to all men because all men have sinned [eph ho pantes hemarton]" In this passage there is a major issue of translation. The last four Greek words were translated in Latin as in quo omnes peccaverunt ("in whom [i.e., in Adam] all men have sinned"), and this translation was used in the West to justify the doctrine of guilt inherited from Adam and spread to his descendants. But such a meaning cannot be drawn from the original Greek — the text read, of course, by the Byzantines. The form eph ho — a contraction of epi with the relative pronoun ho — can be translated as "because," a meaning accepted by most modern scholars of all confessional backgrounds. Such a translation renders Paul’s thought to mean that death, which is "the wages of sin" (Rm 6:23) for Adam, is also the punishment applied to those who like him sin. It presupposed a cosmic significance of the sin of Adam, but did not say that his descendants are "guilty" as he was unless they also sinned as he did.

 

A number of Byzantine authors, including Photius, understood the eph ho to mean "because" and saw nothing in the Pauline text beyond a moral similarity between Adam and other sinners in death being the normal retribution for sin. But there is also the consensus of the majority of Eastern Fathers, who interpret Romans 5:12 in close connection with 1 Corinthians 15:22 — between Adam and his descendants there is a solidarity in death just as there is a solidarity in life between the risen Lord and the baptized. This interpretation comes obviously from the literal, grammatical meaning of Romans 5:12. Eph ho, if it means "because," is a neuter pronoun; but it can also be masculine referring to the immediately preceding substantive thanatos ("death"). The sentence then may have a meaning, which seems improbable to a reader trained in Augustine, but which is indeed the meaning which most Greek Fathers accepted: "As sin came into the world through one man and death through sin, so death spread to all men; and because of death, all men have sinned..."

 

Mortality, or "corruption," or simply death (understood in a personalized sense), has indeed been viewed since Christian antiquity as a cosmic disease, which holds humanity under its sway, both spiritually and physically, and is controlled by the one who is "the murderer from the beginning" (Jn 8:44). It is this death, which makes sin inevitable and in this sense "corrupts" nature.

 

For Cyril of Alexandria, humanity after the sin of Adam "fell sick of corruption." Cyril’s opponents, the theologians of the School of Antioch, agreed with him on the consequence of Adam’s sin. For Theodore of Mopsuestia, "by becoming mortal, we acquired greater urge to sin." The necessity of satisfying the needs of the body — food, drink, and other bodily needs — are absent in immortal beings; but among mortals, they lead to "passions," for they present unavoidable means of temporary survival. Theodoret of Cyrus repeats almost literally the arguments of Theodore in his own commentary on Romans; elsewhere, he argues against the sinfulness of marriage by affirming that transmission of mortal life is not sinful in itself, in spite of Psalm 51:7 ("my mother conceived me in sin"). This verse, according to Theodoret, refers not to the sexual act but to the general sinful condition of mortal humanity: "Having become mortal, [Adam and Eve] conceived mortal children, and mortal beings are a necessary subject to passions and fears, to pleasures and sorrows, to anger and hatred."

 

There is indeed a consensus in Greek patristic and Byzantine traditions in identifying the inheritance of the Fall as an inheritance essentially of mortality rather than of sinfulness, sinfulness being merely a consequence of mortality. The idea appears in Chrysostom in the eleventh-century commentator Theophylact of Ohrida, who specifically denies the imputation of sin to the descendants of Adam, and in later Byzantine authors, particularly in Gregory Palamas. The always-more-sophisticated Maximus the Confessor, when he speaks of the consequences of the sin of Adam, identifies them mainly with the mind’s submission to the flesh and finds in sexual procreation the most obvious expression of man’s acquiescence in animal instincts; but as we have seen, sin remains, for Maximus, a personal act, and inherited guilt is impossible. For him as for the others, "the wrong choice but not inherited guilt made by Adam brought in passion, corruption, and mortality."

 

The contrast with Western tradition on this point is brought into sharp focus when Eastern authors discuss the meaning of baptism. Augustine’s arguments in favour of infant baptism were taken from the text of the creeds (baptism for "the remission of sins") and from his understanding of Romans 5:12. Children are born sinful not because they have sinned personally, but because they have sinned "in Adam;" their baptism is therefore also a baptism "for the remission of sins." At the same time, an Eastern contemporary of Augustine’s, Theodoret of Cyrus, flatly denies that the creedal formula "for the remission of sins" is applicable to infant baptism. For Theodoret, in fact, the "remission of sins" is only a side effect of baptism, fully real in cases of adult baptism, which is the norm, of course, in the early Church and which indeed "remits sins." But the principal meaning of baptism is wider and more positive: "If the only meaning of baptism is the remission of sins," writes Theodoret, "why would we baptize the newborn children who have not yet tasted of sin? But the mystery [of baptism] is not limited to this; it is a promise of greater and more perfect gifts. In it, there are the promises of future delights; it is a type of the future resurrection, a communion with the master’s passion, a participation in His resurrection, a mantle of salvation, a tunic of gladness, a garment of light, or rather it is light itself."

 

Thus, the Church baptizes children not to "remit" their yet nonexistent sins but in order to give them a new and immortal life, which their mortal parents are unable to communicate to them. The opposition between the two Adams is seen in terms not of guilt and forgiveness but of death and life. "The first man was from the earth, a man of dust; the second man is from heaven; as was the man of dust, so are those who are of the dust, and as is the man of heaven, so are those who are of heaven" (1 Co 15:47-48). Baptism is the paschal mystery, the "passage." All its ancient forms, especially the Byzantine, include a renunciation of Satan, a triple immersion as type of death and resurrection, and the positive gift of new life through anointing and Eucharistic communion.

 

In this perspective, death and mortality are viewed not as much as retribution for sin (although they are also a just retribution for personal sins) but as means through which the fundamentally unjust "tyranny" of the devil is exercised over mankind after Adam’s sin. From this, baptism is liberation because it gives access to the new immortal life brought into the world by Christ’s Resurrection. The Resurrection delivers men from the fear of death and, therefore, also from the necessity of struggling for existence. Only in the light of the risen Lord the Sermon on the Mount does acquire its full realism: "Do not be anxious about your life, what you shall eat or what you shall drink, nor about your body, what you shall put on. Is not life more than food, and the body — more than clothing?" (Mt6:25).

 

Communion in the risen body of Christ, participation in divine life, sanctification through the energy of God, which penetrates true humanity and restores it to its "natural" state rather than justification, or remission of inherited guilt, — these are at the center of Byzantine understanding of the Christian Gospel.

 

Taken from:  Fr. John Meyendorff, Byzantine Theology, (New York: Fordham University Press, 1983), pages 143-146.

[dairygirl4u2c]

Sadly, Trent presents a quasi-Manichaean notion that sin can be inherited.  It is important to remember that the Eastern Churches have never accepted the idea that sin can passed on through generation.  What is inherited is mortality, i.e., the dissolving of existence, for as St. Athanasios explained in his treatise entitled, The Incarnation of the Word:  "[The] transgression of the commandment was turning them [i.e., Adam and his descendants] back to their natural state, so that just as they have had their being out of nothing, so also, as might be expected, they might look for corruption into nothing in the course of time."  That said, no one, according to the Tradition of the Fathers of the East, is conceived or born sinful; instead, all men are conceived and born mortal, but mortality (i.e., death as a return to non-existence) does not involve the transmission of guilt, which is really quite impossible.

 

am i missing something. isn't Apo a catholic, which would mean he's required to follow the teachings of Trent? i always thought he was an eastern rite catholic who could have different rites and practices etc... but had to follow western doctrine, such as this declaration of trent.

has apo gone eastern orothodox?

or what am i missing?

[Nihil Obstat]

what am i missing?

 

Quite a lot of things.

[Fidei Defensor]

Sadly, Trent presents a quasi-Manichaean notion that sin can be inherited.  It is important to remember that the Eastern Churches have never accepted the idea that sin can passed on through generation.  What is inherited is mortality, i.e., the dissolving of existence, for as St. Athanasios explained in his treatise entitled, The Incarnation of the Word:  "[The] transgression of the commandment was turning them [i.e., Adam and his descendants] back to their natural state, so that just as they have had their being out of nothing, so also, as might be expected, they might look for corruption into nothing in the course of time."  That said, no one, according to the Tradition of the Fathers of the East, is conceived or born sinful; instead, all men are conceived and born mortal, but mortality (i.e., death as a return to non-existence) does not involve the transmission of guilt, which is really quite impossible.

 

I respect the work and knowledge you put into your belief. However, it seems to me that you are very loosely in communion with the Catholic Church. Yes, we can get into semantics (the Roman Church, the Latin rite… etc) but the point is that if you don't accept the doctrines and beliefs of a Church, you cannot in good conscience claim to be in communion with it.

[Selah]

I respect the work and knowledge you put into your belief. However, it seems to me that you are very loosely in communion with the Catholic Church. Yes, we can get into semantics (the Roman Church, the Latin rite… etc) but the point is that if you don't accept the doctrines and beliefs of a Church, you cannot in good conscience claim to be in communion with it.

 

The Melkite Catholic Church is in full communion with Rome. 

[Fidei Defensor]

The Melkite Catholic Church is in full communion with Rome. 

 

I'm not disputing that. What I'm disputing is the things Apo has said and the fact that they do not match the beliefs of the Church.

[Selah]

I'm not disputing that. What I'm disputing is the things Apo has said and the fact that they do not match the beliefs of the Church.

 

Well, the Melkite Catholic Church accepts what the Church of Rome teaches, up until the Schism. On the Melkite Patriarch's website, they affirm that they believe everything taught by the Eastern Orthodox Church. 

 

http://www.pgc-lb.org/home

 

Todd would be much better at explaining this than I, so I will wait for him to explain in further detail.

[Apotheoun]

I posted this statement, which happens to be the official position of the Melkite Catholic Church, a few years ago, but I thought I would re-post it here:

 

I am a member of the Melkite Catholic Church, which is in communion with Rome. That said, the following profession of faith was issued by the Melkite Patriarch and the Melkite Holy Synod back in the mid-1990s, and it remains in force as the official position of the Melkite Catholic Church to this day:

 

 

(1) I believe everything which Eastern Orthodoxy teaches.

 

(2) I am in communion with the Bishop of Rome as the first among the bishops, according to the limits recognized by the Holy Fathers of the East during the first millennium, before the separation.

 

 

This quote can be found in a thread called . . . Melkites