Hereditary guilt?

Azurestone

Protokentarchos
Joined
Jul 15, 2010
Messages
3,920
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
36
Website
deum-quaerens.blogspot.com
Asteriktos said:
I'm not sure how persuasive an Eastern Catholic is going to find your quotes of orthodox wikis and Greek Orthodox sites. But I've been surprised before. :)
I doubt he will. But I'm backing my statement that the Orthodox Church holds the Quinisext Council to be part of the 6th EC, as described in the 7th EC. Therefore, Carthage 419's canons are Ecumenical canons.
 

Azurestone

Protokentarchos
Joined
Jul 15, 2010
Messages
3,920
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
36
Website
deum-quaerens.blogspot.com
Apotheoun said:
Azurestone said:
Apotheoun said:
Let's face facts, no one should base his faith upon a single canon issued by an obscure council in North Africa that require him to then ignore the vast majority of the Eastern Fathers (St. John Chrysostom, St. Maximos, St. Theophylact, Theodoret, et al.), all of whom reject the idea that a man is conceived or born sinful.
Yet, the council isn't "obscure". You're trying to argue against a canon of the ecumenical councils.
I do not recognize the Trullan Synod as ecumenical, although I do honor its canons.  Be that as it may I do recognize Nicaea II as ecumenical and it approved the canons of the local synods of North Africa (and other regions) but only in so far as those canons were issued in order to promulgate the decrees of the ecumenical synods.
Under what pretext?
 

Apotheoun

OC.Net Guru
Joined
May 2, 2006
Messages
1,462
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Location
Northern California
Website
sites.google.com
Azurestone said:
Apotheoun said:
Azurestone said:
Apotheoun said:
Let's face facts, no one should base his faith upon a single canon issued by an obscure council in North Africa that require him to then ignore the vast majority of the Eastern Fathers (St. John Chrysostom, St. Maximos, St. Theophylact, Theodoret, et al.), all of whom reject the idea that a man is conceived or born sinful.
Yet, the council isn't "obscure". You're trying to argue against a canon of the ecumenical councils.
I do not recognize the Trullan Synod as ecumenical, although I do honor its canons.  Be that as it may I do recognize Nicaea II as ecumenical and it approved the canons of the local synods of North Africa (and other regions) but only in so far as those canons were issued in order to promulgate the decrees of the ecumenical synods.
Under what pretext?
The Trullan Synod was held eleven years after the close of the Sixth Ecumenical Council, so even if the bishops assembled at that synod saw there work as a continuation of the work of the God-inspired Fathers of Constantinople III - even though there is really no connection between what was done at the two synods - no one one can be made to accept their claim.  The same bishops weren't even present at the two synods, in fact the Patriarch of Constantinople who was involved in Constantinople III had died five years before the Trullan Synod convened.
 

Azurestone

Protokentarchos
Joined
Jul 15, 2010
Messages
3,920
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
36
Website
deum-quaerens.blogspot.com
Apotheoun said:
Azurestone said:
Apotheoun said:
Azurestone said:
Apotheoun said:
Let's face facts, no one should base his faith upon a single canon issued by an obscure council in North Africa that require him to then ignore the vast majority of the Eastern Fathers (St. John Chrysostom, St. Maximos, St. Theophylact, Theodoret, et al.), all of whom reject the idea that a man is conceived or born sinful.
Yet, the council isn't "obscure". You're trying to argue against a canon of the ecumenical councils.
I do not recognize the Trullan Synod as ecumenical, although I do honor its canons.  Be that as it may I do recognize Nicaea II as ecumenical and it approved the canons of the local synods of North Africa (and other regions) but only in so far as those canons were issued in order to promulgate the decrees of the ecumenical synods.
Under what pretext?
The Trullan Synod was held eleven years after the close of the Sixth Ecumenical Council, so even if the bishops assembled at that synod saw there work as a continuation of the work of the God-inspired Fathers of Constantinople III - even though there is really no connection between what was done at the two synods - no one one can be made to accept their claim. 
It's not just that synod, though. It was also the Seventh EC, as well.

That the Seventh Ecumenical Council at Nice ascribed the Trullan canons to the Sixth Ecumenical Council, and spoke of them entirely in the Greek spirit, cannot astonish us, as it was attended almost solely by Greeks.  They specially pronounced the recognition of the canons in question in their own first canon; but their own canons have never received the ratification of the Holy See.
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.xiv.ii.html

The very first canon from the 7th Ecumenical Council
The Canons of the Council in Trullo.

(Labbe and Cossart, Concilia, Tom. VI., col. 1135 et seqq.)

Canon I.
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.xiv.iii.i.html
 

Apotheoun

OC.Net Guru
Joined
May 2, 2006
Messages
1,462
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Location
Northern California
Website
sites.google.com
Azurestone said:
Apotheoun said:
Azurestone said:
Apotheoun said:
Azurestone said:
Apotheoun said:
Let's face facts, no one should base his faith upon a single canon issued by an obscure council in North Africa that require him to then ignore the vast majority of the Eastern Fathers (St. John Chrysostom, St. Maximos, St. Theophylact, Theodoret, et al.), all of whom reject the idea that a man is conceived or born sinful.
Yet, the council isn't "obscure". You're trying to argue against a canon of the ecumenical councils.
I do not recognize the Trullan Synod as ecumenical, although I do honor its canons.  Be that as it may I do recognize Nicaea II as ecumenical and it approved the canons of the local synods of North Africa (and other regions) but only in so far as those canons were issued in order to promulgate the decrees of the ecumenical synods.
Under what pretext?
The Trullan Synod was held eleven years after the close of the Sixth Ecumenical Council, so even if the bishops assembled at that synod saw there work as a continuation of the work of the God-inspired Fathers of Constantinople III - even though there is really no connection between what was done at the two synods - no one one can be made to accept their claim. 
It's not just that synod, though. It was also the Seventh EC, as well.

A comment from introduction of the 7EC on ccel.org. I don't think thye make available this presentation, though I could be wrong.
That the Seventh Ecumenical Council at Nice ascribed the Trullan canons to the Sixth Ecumenical Council, and spoke of them entirely in the Greek spirit, cannot astonish us, as it was attended almost solely by Greeks.  They specially pronounced the recognition of the canons in question in their own first canon; but their own canons have never received the ratification of the Holy See.
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.xiv.ii.html
Alas, this helps to prove one thing.  The bishops of a council are not God-inspired in all their acts, that is, they can be historically mistaken.  :D

The Trullan Synod is not ecumenical.

By the way, Rome did similar things in that regard, as when the Pope Zosimus (and several of his successors) - like Patriarch Tarasius and his error in connection with the Trullan canons - ascribed one of the Sardican Canons to Nicaea I.  Lofty personages are of course not immune to making historical mistakes.
 

elijahmaria

Taxiarches
Joined
Mar 28, 2010
Messages
6,515
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Website
irenikontheskete.blogspot.com
Apotheoun said:
Azurestone said:
Apotheoun said:
Azurestone said:
Apotheoun said:
Azurestone said:
Apotheoun said:
Let's face facts, no one should base his faith upon a single canon issued by an obscure council in North Africa that require him to then ignore the vast majority of the Eastern Fathers (St. John Chrysostom, St. Maximos, St. Theophylact, Theodoret, et al.), all of whom reject the idea that a man is conceived or born sinful.
Yet, the council isn't "obscure". You're trying to argue against a canon of the ecumenical councils.
I do not recognize the Trullan Synod as ecumenical, although I do honor its canons.  Be that as it may I do recognize Nicaea II as ecumenical and it approved the canons of the local synods of North Africa (and other regions) but only in so far as those canons were issued in order to promulgate the decrees of the ecumenical synods.
Under what pretext?
The Trullan Synod was held eleven years after the close of the Sixth Ecumenical Council, so even if the bishops assembled at that synod saw there work as a continuation of the work of the God-inspired Fathers of Constantinople III - even though there is really no connection between what was done at the two synods - no one one can be made to accept their claim. 
It's not just that synod, though. It was also the Seventh EC, as well.

A comment from introduction of the 7EC on ccel.org. I don't think thye make available this presentation, though I could be wrong.
That the Seventh Ecumenical Council at Nice ascribed the Trullan canons to the Sixth Ecumenical Council, and spoke of them entirely in the Greek spirit, cannot astonish us, as it was attended almost solely by Greeks.  They specially pronounced the recognition of the canons in question in their own first canon; but their own canons have never received the ratification of the Holy See.
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.xiv.ii.html
Alas, this helps to prove one thing.  The bishops of a council are not God-inspired in all their acts, that is, they can be historically mistaken.  :D

The Trullan Synod is not ecumenical.

By the way, Rome did similar things in that regard, as when the Pope Zosimus (and several of his successors) - like Patriarch Tarasius and his error in connection with the Trullan canons - ascribed one of the Sardican Canons to Nicaea I.  Lofty personages are of course not immune to making historical mistakes.
In which graduate school classes did you learn this spin on the history of the Councils?

Is this a part of some textbook that you are planning?
 

Apotheoun

OC.Net Guru
Joined
May 2, 2006
Messages
1,462
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Location
Northern California
Website
sites.google.com
elijahmaria said:
Apotheoun said:
Azurestone said:
Apotheoun said:
Azurestone said:
Apotheoun said:
Azurestone said:
Apotheoun said:
Let's face facts, no one should base his faith upon a single canon issued by an obscure council in North Africa that require him to then ignore the vast majority of the Eastern Fathers (St. John Chrysostom, St. Maximos, St. Theophylact, Theodoret, et al.), all of whom reject the idea that a man is conceived or born sinful.
Yet, the council isn't "obscure". You're trying to argue against a canon of the ecumenical councils.
I do not recognize the Trullan Synod as ecumenical, although I do honor its canons.  Be that as it may I do recognize Nicaea II as ecumenical and it approved the canons of the local synods of North Africa (and other regions) but only in so far as those canons were issued in order to promulgate the decrees of the ecumenical synods.
Under what pretext?
The Trullan Synod was held eleven years after the close of the Sixth Ecumenical Council, so even if the bishops assembled at that synod saw there work as a continuation of the work of the God-inspired Fathers of Constantinople III - even though there is really no connection between what was done at the two synods - no one one can be made to accept their claim. 
It's not just that synod, though. It was also the Seventh EC, as well.

A comment from introduction of the 7EC on ccel.org. I don't think thye make available this presentation, though I could be wrong.
That the Seventh Ecumenical Council at Nice ascribed the Trullan canons to the Sixth Ecumenical Council, and spoke of them entirely in the Greek spirit, cannot astonish us, as it was attended almost solely by Greeks.  They specially pronounced the recognition of the canons in question in their own first canon; but their own canons have never received the ratification of the Holy See.
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.xiv.ii.html
Alas, this helps to prove one thing.  The bishops of a council are not God-inspired in all their acts, that is, they can be historically mistaken.  :D

The Trullan Synod is not ecumenical.

By the way, Rome did similar things in that regard, as when the Pope Zosimus (and several of his successors) - like Patriarch Tarasius and his error in connection with the Trullan canons - ascribed one of the Sardican Canons to Nicaea I.  Lofty personages are of course not immune to making historical mistakes.
In which graduate school classes did you learn this spin on the history of the Councils?

Is this a part of some textbook that you are planning?
In graduate school I was taught to examine the sources, and not to blindly follow a given position.  Perhaps you were taught to accept any and all claims uncritically, and if that is the case - so be it.

I see no reason why I - or anyone else for that matter - should accept a single canon from an obscure local council that speaks imprecisely about the holy mystery of baptism, and in the process reject the teaching of the God-inspired Fathers (e.g., the teaching of St. John Chrysostom).

Are babies born sinful?  No, I do not believe that they are. 

Are babies born mortal?  Yes, and that is why we baptize them, in order to impart the many gifts that St. John spoke about in his Baptismal Instruction.  That said, I do not believe it is necessary to ascribe imaginary sins, or an imaginary "original sin" (as proposed by St. Augustine), to them in order to bestow the holy mysteries upon them, but you are of course free to do that if you wish.
 

Apotheoun

OC.Net Guru
Joined
May 2, 2006
Messages
1,462
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Location
Northern California
Website
sites.google.com
Apotheoun said:
Asteriktos said:
Apotheoun said:
There is nothing in the Trullan Synod's canon, beyond a vague reference to Carthage and St. Cyprian, so the burden of proof lies with you and not with me when it comes to showing which one of the more than a dozen Carthaginian Councils is being referenced.
You are forgetting the possibility that it meant all of them. The Fathers who wrote the 2nd canon at Trullo had no issues accepting canons which contradicted each other... they basically just rubber stamped stuff without worrying much about confusion it might cause. Could be the case with this as well...
That would be interesting, a blanket statement covering every council ever held in North Africa.  The burden of proof is yours, I await your detailed and scholarly response.
The bishops at the Trullan Synod, if Asteriktos is correct, sound a lot like the Democrats in the 111th Congress who voted for Obamacare without even knowing what was in the bill.  :D
 

Wyatt

Archon
Joined
Jun 26, 2008
Messages
2,465
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
32
Location
Illinois, US
Apotheoun said:
Wyatt said:
Apotheoun said:
"Blessed be God, who alone does wonderful things! You have seen how numerous are the gifts of baptism. Although many men think that the only gift it confers is the remission of sins, we have counted its honors to the number of ten. It is on this account that we baptize even infants, although they are sinless, that they may be given the further gifts of sanctification, justice, filial adoption, and inheritance, that they may be brothers and members of Christ, and become dwelling places for the Spirit" [St. John Chrysostom, Third Baptismal Instruction, no. 6].

Baptism is not simply about the remission of sins, but about giving the person baptized a real and living participation in the divine life.
Sinless as in free of personal sin, but infants are not without original sin.
The original sin in Adam's descendants is mortality, not sin or guilt.

Adam's sin makes him subject to death, and it is the mortal condition that he passes on to his descendants.  Now because all men are mortal - in the likeness of Adam - they fall into sins as they attempt on their own power to maintain their existence without God. Baptism - in the case of an adult - washes away a man's sins, while also imparting to him the other gifts mentioned by St. John Chrysostom in his Baptismal Instruction.  While - in the case of an infant who has not sinned - the mystery of Baptism imparts the "gifts of sanctification, justice, filial adoption, and inheritance, that they may be brothers and members of Christ, and become dwelling places for the Spirit," as St. John said.  In other words, the holy mystery of Baptism gives children all the other gifts that St. John Chrysostom mentioned in his homily, but it does not remit sins in the case of a child because the child has no sins to remit.
Just to be clear, do you agree with the teaching on original sin as outlined in the Catechism of the Catholic Church?


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."289 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."290

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".291 Because of this certainty of faith, the Church baptizes for the remission of sins even tiny infants who have not committed personal sin.292

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".293 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.294 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,295 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.
 

elijahmaria

Taxiarches
Joined
Mar 28, 2010
Messages
6,515
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Website
irenikontheskete.blogspot.com
Apotheoun said:
In graduate school I was taught to examine the sources, and not to blindly follow a given position.  Perhaps you were taught to accept any and all claims uncritically, and if that is the case - so be it.
My formal theology lessons never came from a secular school.  Perhaps that is the difference.
 

Apotheoun

OC.Net Guru
Joined
May 2, 2006
Messages
1,462
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Location
Northern California
Website
sites.google.com
Wyatt said:
Apotheoun said:
Wyatt said:
Apotheoun said:
"Blessed be God, who alone does wonderful things! You have seen how numerous are the gifts of baptism. Although many men think that the only gift it confers is the remission of sins, we have counted its honors to the number of ten. It is on this account that we baptize even infants, although they are sinless, that they may be given the further gifts of sanctification, justice, filial adoption, and inheritance, that they may be brothers and members of Christ, and become dwelling places for the Spirit" [St. John Chrysostom, Third Baptismal Instruction, no. 6].

Baptism is not simply about the remission of sins, but about giving the person baptized a real and living participation in the divine life.
Sinless as in free of personal sin, but infants are not without original sin.
The original sin in Adam's descendants is mortality, not sin or guilt.

Adam's sin makes him subject to death, and it is the mortal condition that he passes on to his descendants.  Now because all men are mortal - in the likeness of Adam - they fall into sins as they attempt on their own power to maintain their existence without God. Baptism - in the case of an adult - washes away a man's sins, while also imparting to him the other gifts mentioned by St. John Chrysostom in his Baptismal Instruction.  While - in the case of an infant who has not sinned - the mystery of Baptism imparts the "gifts of sanctification, justice, filial adoption, and inheritance, that they may be brothers and members of Christ, and become dwelling places for the Spirit," as St. John said.  In other words, the holy mystery of Baptism gives children all the other gifts that St. John Chrysostom mentioned in his homily, but it does not remit sins in the case of a child because the child has no sins to remit.
Just to be clear, do you agree with the teaching on original sin as outlined in the Catechism of the Catholic Church?


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."289 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."290

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".291 Because of this certainty of faith, the Church baptizes for the remission of sins even tiny infants who have not committed personal sin.292

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".293 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.294 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,295 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.
No, I do not agree with it in its entirety, although I see it as a vast improvement over the Tridentine understanding of the fall.  I do not believe that there can be such a thing as a sin "contracted" but not "committed."  As I see it, sin is always - and by definition - personal (i.e., it is a personal act), and there can be no such thing as a "state of sin" because human nature and the natural human will remains good and complete even after the fall.  So there is no defect in human nature itself; instead, where the defect in man arises is in his personal (i.e., hypostatic) mode of willing, which is why sin is a hypostatic reality.  Moreover, because sin is a hypostatic reality (and not natural to man) it follows that Christ is sinless, because He is a divine hypostasis, and not a human hypostasis.  Christ's mode of willing in His humanity is divine and free from any form of distortion, and the nature He assumed, which is identical to our own, is also free from sin, because otherwise He would be a sinner, and we know that is a false proposition based upon the teaching of scripture itself.  It is mortality that is the end result of Adam's fall, and as Adam brought death to manking, so Christ bring life.

Nevertheless, as I already said, I do see the new teaching of the Roman Church - i.e., as presented in the 1994 catechism - as a vast improvement over the Tridentine teaching on original sin and guilt.  I hope that answers your question.
 

elijahmaria

Taxiarches
Joined
Mar 28, 2010
Messages
6,515
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Website
irenikontheskete.blogspot.com
Apotheoun said:
Wyatt said:
Apotheoun said:
Wyatt said:
Apotheoun said:
"Blessed be God, who alone does wonderful things! You have seen how numerous are the gifts of baptism. Although many men think that the only gift it confers is the remission of sins, we have counted its honors to the number of ten. It is on this account that we baptize even infants, although they are sinless, that they may be given the further gifts of sanctification, justice, filial adoption, and inheritance, that they may be brothers and members of Christ, and become dwelling places for the Spirit" [St. John Chrysostom, Third Baptismal Instruction, no. 6].

Baptism is not simply about the remission of sins, but about giving the person baptized a real and living participation in the divine life.
Sinless as in free of personal sin, but infants are not without original sin.
The original sin in Adam's descendants is mortality, not sin or guilt.

Adam's sin makes him subject to death, and it is the mortal condition that he passes on to his descendants.  Now because all men are mortal - in the likeness of Adam - they fall into sins as they attempt on their own power to maintain their existence without God. Baptism - in the case of an adult - washes away a man's sins, while also imparting to him the other gifts mentioned by St. John Chrysostom in his Baptismal Instruction.  While - in the case of an infant who has not sinned - the mystery of Baptism imparts the "gifts of sanctification, justice, filial adoption, and inheritance, that they may be brothers and members of Christ, and become dwelling places for the Spirit," as St. John said.  In other words, the holy mystery of Baptism gives children all the other gifts that St. John Chrysostom mentioned in his homily, but it does not remit sins in the case of a child because the child has no sins to remit.
Just to be clear, do you agree with the teaching on original sin as outlined in the Catechism of the Catholic Church?


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."289 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."290

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".291 Because of this certainty of faith, the Church baptizes for the remission of sins even tiny infants who have not committed personal sin.292

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".293 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.294 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,295 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.
No, I do not agree with it in its entirety, although I see it as a vast improvement over the Tridentine understanding of the fall.  I do not believe that there can be such a thing as a sin "contracted" but not "committed."  As I see it sin is always - and by definition - personal (i.e., it is a personal act), and there can be no such thing as a "state of sin" because human nature and the natural human will remains good and complete.  There is no defect in human nature, where the defect in man arises is in his personal (i.e., hypostatic) mode of willing, which is why sin is a hypostatic reality.  Moreover, because sin is a hypostatic reality (and not natural to man) it follows that Christ is sinless, because He is a divine hypostasis, and not a human hypostasis.  Christ's mode of willing in His humanity is divine and free from any form of distortion, and the nature He assumed, which is identical to our own, is also free from sin, because otherwise He would be a sinner, and we know that is a false proposition based upon the teaching of scripture itself.  It is mortality that is the end result of Adam's fall, and as Adam brought death to manking, so Christ bring life.

Nevertheless, as I already said, I do see the new teaching of the Roman Church - i.e., as presented in the 1994 catechism - as a vast improvement over the Tridentine teaching on original sin and guilt.  I hope that answers your question.
Do you believe that Jesus redeemed mankind or each human person individually one at a time, even those who were not yet conceived?
 

Apotheoun

OC.Net Guru
Joined
May 2, 2006
Messages
1,462
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Location
Northern California
Website
sites.google.com
elijahmaria said:
Apotheoun said:
Wyatt said:
Apotheoun said:
Wyatt said:
Apotheoun said:
"Blessed be God, who alone does wonderful things! You have seen how numerous are the gifts of baptism. Although many men think that the only gift it confers is the remission of sins, we have counted its honors to the number of ten. It is on this account that we baptize even infants, although they are sinless, that they may be given the further gifts of sanctification, justice, filial adoption, and inheritance, that they may be brothers and members of Christ, and become dwelling places for the Spirit" [St. John Chrysostom, Third Baptismal Instruction, no. 6].

Baptism is not simply about the remission of sins, but about giving the person baptized a real and living participation in the divine life.
Sinless as in free of personal sin, but infants are not without original sin.
The original sin in Adam's descendants is mortality, not sin or guilt.

Adam's sin makes him subject to death, and it is the mortal condition that he passes on to his descendants.  Now because all men are mortal - in the likeness of Adam - they fall into sins as they attempt on their own power to maintain their existence without God. Baptism - in the case of an adult - washes away a man's sins, while also imparting to him the other gifts mentioned by St. John Chrysostom in his Baptismal Instruction.  While - in the case of an infant who has not sinned - the mystery of Baptism imparts the "gifts of sanctification, justice, filial adoption, and inheritance, that they may be brothers and members of Christ, and become dwelling places for the Spirit," as St. John said.  In other words, the holy mystery of Baptism gives children all the other gifts that St. John Chrysostom mentioned in his homily, but it does not remit sins in the case of a child because the child has no sins to remit.
Just to be clear, do you agree with the teaching on original sin as outlined in the Catechism of the Catholic Church?


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."289 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."290

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".291 Because of this certainty of faith, the Church baptizes for the remission of sins even tiny infants who have not committed personal sin.292

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".293 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.294 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,295 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.
No, I do not agree with it in its entirety, although I see it as a vast improvement over the Tridentine understanding of the fall.  I do not believe that there can be such a thing as a sin "contracted" but not "committed."  As I see it sin is always - and by definition - personal (i.e., it is a personal act), and there can be no such thing as a "state of sin" because human nature and the natural human will remains good and complete.  There is no defect in human nature, where the defect in man arises is in his personal (i.e., hypostatic) mode of willing, which is why sin is a hypostatic reality.  Moreover, because sin is a hypostatic reality (and not natural to man) it follows that Christ is sinless, because He is a divine hypostasis, and not a human hypostasis.  Christ's mode of willing in His humanity is divine and free from any form of distortion, and the nature He assumed, which is identical to our own, is also free from sin, because otherwise He would be a sinner, and we know that is a false proposition based upon the teaching of scripture itself.  It is mortality that is the end result of Adam's fall, and as Adam brought death to manking, so Christ bring life.

Nevertheless, as I already said, I do see the new teaching of the Roman Church - i.e., as presented in the 1994 catechism - as a vast improvement over the Tridentine teaching on original sin and guilt.  I hope that answers your question.
Do you believe that Jesus redeemed mankind or each human person individually one at a time, even those who were not yet conceived?
I believe, as St. Maximos taught, that Christ redeemed all of human nature by His assumption of our humanity in the incarnation and in the process He gave everlasting existence to everyone who has lived, lives, or will live; and that each and every man - in synergy with God - is working out his own individual salvation, so that ever-well-being (heaven) or ever-ill-being (hell) is left to the free choice of each man.  In the former case (i.e., the blessed) the choice is made in cooperation with God, while in the latter case (i.e., the damned) it is made by man alone.
 

elijahmaria

Taxiarches
Joined
Mar 28, 2010
Messages
6,515
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Website
irenikontheskete.blogspot.com
Apotheoun said:
I believe, as St. Maximos taught, that Christ redeemed all of human nature by His assumption of our humanity in the incarnation and in the process He gave everlasting existence to everyone who has lived, lives, or will live; and that each and every man - in synergy with God - is working out his own individual salvation, so that ever-well-being (heaven) or ever-ill-being (hell) is left to the free choice of each man.  In the former case (i.e., the blessed) the choice is made in cooperation with God, while in the latter case (i.e., the damned) it is made by man alone.
I see.  We are redeemed by the Nativity.  Well that fits with the rest of your theology.
 

Apotheoun

OC.Net Guru
Joined
May 2, 2006
Messages
1,462
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Location
Northern California
Website
sites.google.com
elijahmaria said:
Apotheoun said:
I believe, as St. Maximos taught, that Christ redeemed all of human nature by His assumption of our humanity in the incarnation and in the process He gave everlasting existence to everyone who has lived, lives, or will live; and that each and every man - in synergy with God - is working out his own individual salvation, so that ever-well-being (heaven) or ever-ill-being (hell) is left to the free choice of each man.  In the former case (i.e., the blessed) the choice is made in cooperation with God, while in the latter case (i.e., the damned) it is made by man alone.
I see.  We are redeemed by the Nativity.  Well that fits with the rest of your theology.
We are redeemed by the incarnation, which includes everything that Christ is, and everything that He has done.  I know it is hard, because today we like to specialize in things, but the Fathers did not speak that way, and so when they speak about the mystery of the incarnation they include everything that is connected to the Christ event.
 

Apotheoun

OC.Net Guru
Joined
May 2, 2006
Messages
1,462
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Location
Northern California
Website
sites.google.com
If you wish to turn this into a general discussion about soteriology and predestination that is fine with me.

To put it simply, all of human nature is predestined to ever-being by the incarnation [1] of the eternal and uncreated Logos; while ever-well-being (i.e., heaven) or ever-ill-being (i.e., hell) is determined by the free will activity of each man in cooperation with, or the failure to cooperate with, the divine activity (i.e., grace).


Note:
[1]  By the term "incarnation" I include the paschal mystery, and everything else in Christ's life.
 

Wyatt

Archon
Joined
Jun 26, 2008
Messages
2,465
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
32
Location
Illinois, US
Apotheoun said:
Wyatt said:
Apotheoun said:
Wyatt said:
Apotheoun said:
"Blessed be God, who alone does wonderful things! You have seen how numerous are the gifts of baptism. Although many men think that the only gift it confers is the remission of sins, we have counted its honors to the number of ten. It is on this account that we baptize even infants, although they are sinless, that they may be given the further gifts of sanctification, justice, filial adoption, and inheritance, that they may be brothers and members of Christ, and become dwelling places for the Spirit" [St. John Chrysostom, Third Baptismal Instruction, no. 6].

Baptism is not simply about the remission of sins, but about giving the person baptized a real and living participation in the divine life.
Sinless as in free of personal sin, but infants are not without original sin.
The original sin in Adam's descendants is mortality, not sin or guilt.

Adam's sin makes him subject to death, and it is the mortal condition that he passes on to his descendants.  Now because all men are mortal - in the likeness of Adam - they fall into sins as they attempt on their own power to maintain their existence without God. Baptism - in the case of an adult - washes away a man's sins, while also imparting to him the other gifts mentioned by St. John Chrysostom in his Baptismal Instruction.  While - in the case of an infant who has not sinned - the mystery of Baptism imparts the "gifts of sanctification, justice, filial adoption, and inheritance, that they may be brothers and members of Christ, and become dwelling places for the Spirit," as St. John said.  In other words, the holy mystery of Baptism gives children all the other gifts that St. John Chrysostom mentioned in his homily, but it does not remit sins in the case of a child because the child has no sins to remit.
Just to be clear, do you agree with the teaching on original sin as outlined in the Catechism of the Catholic Church?


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."289 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."290

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".291 Because of this certainty of faith, the Church baptizes for the remission of sins even tiny infants who have not committed personal sin.292

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".293 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.294 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,295 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.
No, I do not agree with it in its entirety, although I see it as a vast improvement over the Tridentine understanding of the fall.  I do not believe that there can be such a thing as a sin "contracted" but not "committed."  As I see it, sin is always - and by definition - personal (i.e., it is a personal act), and there can be no such thing as a "state of sin" because human nature and the natural human will remains good and complete even after the fall.  So there is no defect in human nature itself; instead, where the defect in man arises is in his personal (i.e., hypostatic) mode of willing, which is why sin is a hypostatic reality.  Moreover, because sin is a hypostatic reality (and not natural to man) it follows that Christ is sinless, because He is a divine hypostasis, and not a human hypostasis.  Christ's mode of willing in His humanity is divine and free from any form of distortion, and the nature He assumed, which is identical to our own, is also free from sin, because otherwise He would be a sinner, and we know that is a false proposition based upon the teaching of scripture itself.  It is mortality that is the end result of Adam's fall, and as Adam brought death to manking, so Christ bring life.

Nevertheless, as I already said, I do see the new teaching of the Roman Church - i.e., as presented in the 1994 catechism - as a vast improvement over the Tridentine teaching on original sin and guilt.  I hope that answers your question.
The teachings in the Catechism of the Catholic Church are not "teachings of the Roman Church," they are teachings of the entire Catholic Church and that includes the Eastern Catholic Churches.
 

JLatimer

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Jan 29, 2010
Messages
1,202
Reaction score
0
Points
0
elijahmaria said:
Apotheoun said:
Azurestone said:
Apotheoun said:
Azurestone said:
Apotheoun said:
Azurestone said:
Apotheoun said:
Let's face facts, no one should base his faith upon a single canon issued by an obscure council in North Africa that require him to then ignore the vast majority of the Eastern Fathers (St. John Chrysostom, St. Maximos, St. Theophylact, Theodoret, et al.), all of whom reject the idea that a man is conceived or born sinful.
Yet, the council isn't "obscure". You're trying to argue against a canon of the ecumenical councils.
I do not recognize the Trullan Synod as ecumenical, although I do honor its canons.  Be that as it may I do recognize Nicaea II as ecumenical and it approved the canons of the local synods of North Africa (and other regions) but only in so far as those canons were issued in order to promulgate the decrees of the ecumenical synods.
Under what pretext?
The Trullan Synod was held eleven years after the close of the Sixth Ecumenical Council, so even if the bishops assembled at that synod saw there work as a continuation of the work of the God-inspired Fathers of Constantinople III - even though there is really no connection between what was done at the two synods - no one one can be made to accept their claim. 
It's not just that synod, though. It was also the Seventh EC, as well.

A comment from introduction of the 7EC on ccel.org. I don't think thye make available this presentation, though I could be wrong.
That the Seventh Ecumenical Council at Nice ascribed the Trullan canons to the Sixth Ecumenical Council, and spoke of them entirely in the Greek spirit, cannot astonish us, as it was attended almost solely by Greeks.  They specially pronounced the recognition of the canons in question in their own first canon; but their own canons have never received the ratification of the Holy See.
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.xiv.ii.html
Alas, this helps to prove one thing.  The bishops of a council are not God-inspired in all their acts, that is, they can be historically mistaken.  :D

The Trullan Synod is not ecumenical.

By the way, Rome did similar things in that regard, as when the Pope Zosimus (and several of his successors) - like Patriarch Tarasius and his error in connection with the Trullan canons - ascribed one of the Sardican Canons to Nicaea I.  Lofty personages are of course not immune to making historical mistakes.
In which graduate school classes did you learn this spin on the history of the Councils?

Is this a part of some textbook that you are planning?
LOL  :laugh:
 

JLatimer

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Jan 29, 2010
Messages
1,202
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Apotheoun said:
elijahmaria said:
Apotheoun said:
Wyatt said:
Apotheoun said:
Wyatt said:
Apotheoun said:
"Blessed be God, who alone does wonderful things! You have seen how numerous are the gifts of baptism. Although many men think that the only gift it confers is the remission of sins, we have counted its honors to the number of ten. It is on this account that we baptize even infants, although they are sinless, that they may be given the further gifts of sanctification, justice, filial adoption, and inheritance, that they may be brothers and members of Christ, and become dwelling places for the Spirit" [St. John Chrysostom, Third Baptismal Instruction, no. 6].

Baptism is not simply about the remission of sins, but about giving the person baptized a real and living participation in the divine life.
Sinless as in free of personal sin, but infants are not without original sin.
The original sin in Adam's descendants is mortality, not sin or guilt.

Adam's sin makes him subject to death, and it is the mortal condition that he passes on to his descendants.  Now because all men are mortal - in the likeness of Adam - they fall into sins as they attempt on their own power to maintain their existence without God. Baptism - in the case of an adult - washes away a man's sins, while also imparting to him the other gifts mentioned by St. John Chrysostom in his Baptismal Instruction.  While - in the case of an infant who has not sinned - the mystery of Baptism imparts the "gifts of sanctification, justice, filial adoption, and inheritance, that they may be brothers and members of Christ, and become dwelling places for the Spirit," as St. John said.  In other words, the holy mystery of Baptism gives children all the other gifts that St. John Chrysostom mentioned in his homily, but it does not remit sins in the case of a child because the child has no sins to remit.
Just to be clear, do you agree with the teaching on original sin as outlined in the Catechism of the Catholic Church?


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."289 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."290

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".291 Because of this certainty of faith, the Church baptizes for the remission of sins even tiny infants who have not committed personal sin.292

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".293 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.294 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,295 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.
No, I do not agree with it in its entirety, although I see it as a vast improvement over the Tridentine understanding of the fall.  I do not believe that there can be such a thing as a sin "contracted" but not "committed."  As I see it sin is always - and by definition - personal (i.e., it is a personal act), and there can be no such thing as a "state of sin" because human nature and the natural human will remains good and complete.  There is no defect in human nature, where the defect in man arises is in his personal (i.e., hypostatic) mode of willing, which is why sin is a hypostatic reality.  Moreover, because sin is a hypostatic reality (and not natural to man) it follows that Christ is sinless, because He is a divine hypostasis, and not a human hypostasis.  Christ's mode of willing in His humanity is divine and free from any form of distortion, and the nature He assumed, which is identical to our own, is also free from sin, because otherwise He would be a sinner, and we know that is a false proposition based upon the teaching of scripture itself.  It is mortality that is the end result of Adam's fall, and as Adam brought death to manking, so Christ bring life.

Nevertheless, as I already said, I do see the new teaching of the Roman Church - i.e., as presented in the 1994 catechism - as a vast improvement over the Tridentine teaching on original sin and guilt.  I hope that answers your question.
Do you believe that Jesus redeemed mankind or each human person individually one at a time, even those who were not yet conceived?
I believe, as St. Maximos taught, that Christ redeemed all of human nature by His assumption of our humanity in the incarnation and in the process He gave everlasting existence to everyone who has lived, lives, or will live; and that each and every man - in synergy with God - is working out his own individual salvation, so that ever-well-being (heaven) or ever-ill-being (hell) is left to the free choice of each man.  In the former case (i.e., the blessed) the choice is made in cooperation with God, while in the latter case (i.e., the damned) it is made by man alone.
Why would Christ need to redeem human nature if, as you said, postlapsarian human nature remained "good and complete", without "defect"?
 

JLatimer

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Jan 29, 2010
Messages
1,202
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Apotheoun said:
Nevertheless, as I already said, I do see the new teaching of the Roman Church - i.e., as presented in the 1994 catechism - as a vast improvement over the Tridentine teaching on original sin and guilt.  I hope that answers your question.
You mean this (from the council of Trent):


1. If any one does not confess that the first man, Adam, when he had transgressed the commandment of God in Paradise, immediately lost the holiness and justice wherein he had been constituted; and that he incurred, through the offence of that prevarication, the wrath and indignation of God, and consequently death, with which God had previously threatened him, and, together with death, captivity under his power who thenceforth had the empire of death, that is to say, the devil, and that the entire Adam, through that offence of prevarication, was changed, in body and soul, for the worse; let him be anathema.

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.

I don't see how it differs significantly from the 1994 definition.
 
Top