|
0 members (),
375
guests, and
134
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Forums26
Topics35,542
Posts417,786
Members6,198
| |
Most Online4,112
Mar 25th, 2025
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 26,405 Likes: 38
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 26,405 Likes: 38 |
Dear Brendan,
Forgive me, but I fail to see the distinction between inheriting the sin of Adam and inheriting the "stain" of his sin.
It is the same thing, is it not?
What is this "stain" then, if not the sin itself?
Again, if Roman Catholicism doesn't believe that we inherit Adam's sin - that is excellent!
We inherit the effects of Original Sin and this involves no "stain" at all. Our nature is weakened and darkened in the Fall.
But we cannot be held morally culpable for the actual sin of disobedience committed by our Forefather, Saint Adam.
Alex
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 2,941
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 2,941 |
Alex  If you fail to see the difference then let me repost: https://www.byzcath.org/cgibin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=4;t=000756 From the Catholic Encyclopedia
This principle is developed by St. Anselm: "the sin of Adam was one thing but the sin of children at their birth is quite another, the former was the cause, the latter is the effect" (De conceptu virginali, xxvi). In a child original sin is distinct from the fault of Adam, it is one of its effects. But which of these effects is it? We shall examine the several effects of Adam's fault and reject those which cannot be original sin:
Death and Suffering.- These are purely physical evils and cannot be called sin. Moreover St. Paul, and after him the councils, regarded death and original sin as two distinct things transmitted by Adam.
Concupiscence.- This rebellion of the lower appetite transmitted to us by Adam is an occasion of sin and in that sense comes nearer to moral evil. However, the occasion of a fault is not necessarily a fault, and whilst original sin is effaced by baptism concupiscence still remains in the person baptized; therefore original sin and concupiscence cannot be one and the same thing, as was held by the early Protestants (see Council of Trent, Sess. V, can. v).
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. If this favour is not merely something physical but is something in the moral order, if it is holiness, its privation may be called a sin. But sanctifying grace is holiness and is so called by the Council of Trent, because holiness consists in union with God, and grace unites us intimately with God. Moral goodness consists in this that our action is according to the moral law, but grace is a deification, as the Fathers say, a perfect conformity with God who is the first rule of all morality. (See GRACE.) Sanctifying grace therefore enters into the moral order, not as an act that passes but as a permanent tendency which exists even when the subject who possesses it does not act; it is a turning towards God, conversio ad Deum. Consequently the privation of this grace, even without any other act, would be a stain, a moral deformity, a turning away from God, aversio a Deo, and this character is not found in any other effect of the fault of Adam. This privation, therefore, is the hereditary stain. we cannot be held morally culpable for the actual sin of disobedience committed by our Forefather We sustain a penalty for it.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 26,405 Likes: 38
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 26,405 Likes: 38 |
Dear djs,
Thank you!
However, Anselm is hardly a spokesman for the universal Church's view of Original Sin.
"Stain" is, at best, an unfortunate terminology, as it truly does imply more than what is intended.
The Eastern Church truly would disagree with Anselm and state that the effects of the sin of Adam are what constitute "Original Sin" - not only the lack of grace, but also death, concupiscence et al.
These are all "effects" of Original Sin and the scholastic gymnastics aimed at trying to define an effect of Original Sin in terms of something that resembles "actual sin" is interesting, but hardly traditional in patristic terms.
The absence of grace (and the Eastern Fathers NEVER maintained that we are completely bereft of such grace at birth) cannot possibly be a "stain of sin" of any kind as it is not willful on our part.
Again, we suffer the effects of Adam's sin of disobedience. Death, concupiscence and the lack of grace are all alike in that we have contracted them from the impact of Adam's sin on his human nature - a nature we share with him and therefore inherit that impact.
The notion of "stain" here is COMPLETELY irrelevant and adds nothing to our understanding of that impact - it is yet another Latin scholastic term that obfuscates rather than illumines.
There are other aspects of Anselm's theology that would be at variance with the Eastern Fathers as well.
Alex
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 339
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 339 |
Glory to Jesus Christ!
So, because Adam screwed up, we are all born without grace? Shouldn't we all therefore cease to exist -- immediately?
In Christ,
Theophilos
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 769
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 769 |
Alex -- Um, was I participating in this discussion? Brendan
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 26,405 Likes: 38
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 26,405 Likes: 38 |
Dear Brendan, Actually, "Scotus" is also a "Brendan" although I disagree with his particular theological navigating.  We are all blessed by having you lurk here and post here occasionally. Feel free to jump in to defend me at any time! Alex
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 2,941
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 2,941 |
Alex, The entire article on "original sin" gives a better sense the relative importance of St Anselm in the overall teaching. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11312a.htm I simply began the excerpt with the one-line quote form him because of the nice distinction made. Whether or not you find the terminology, which clarifies the sense of "sin" in "original sin", relevant or illuminating is not an issue. The term is often used, however, and its usage should be informed by its actual meaning. The absence of grace cannot possibly be a "stain of sin" of any kind as it is not willful on our part. Actually the full text addresses, in a way that you won't like, "How Voluntary?". But I think we would agree anyway that sins can be involuntary.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 2,941
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 2,941 |
We also talked about the degree of deprivation on the prior thread. I posted some excerpts from Orthodox sites that use similar language (bold added): "The sin committed by our progenitors in paradise, with all its consequences, passed and passes from them to all their posterity. What the first people became after the Fall, such also till now are their descendants in the world. "Adam begat a son in his own likeness, after his image" (Genesis 5:3, KJV). Estrangement from God, the loss of grace , the distortion of God's image, the perversion and weakening of the bodily organism, which ends with death - here is Adam's sad legacy, received by each of us at our very appearance in the world. "As from an infected source there naturally flows an infected stream," teaches the Orthodox catechism, "so from an ancestor infected with sin, and hence mortal, there naturally proceeds a posterity infected with sin, and hence mortal." http://www.stjohndc.org/Homilies/9609a.htm "In the East, then, the concept of original sin has come to mean, as Fr. Michael Pomazansky very succinctly defines it, "the sin of Adam, which was transmitted to his descendants and weighs upon them."[5] Or, as John Karmiris puts it in an expanded definition, original sin is " 'sin-sickness,' the of human nature which deprived man of Divine Grace , and subjected him to death, to departure from the Divine life, [and] has been transmitted by means of natural heredity to all of the descendants of the first-born, along with the stigma, the consequences, the fruits of that Original Sin."[6] Indeed, Karmiris reminds us, "it was for this reason that the ancient Church instituted the Baptism of infants, specifically that they might be freed from the stigma of sin of their ancestors, although the infants possessed no guilt of 'actual sin.'"[7] http://www.stots.edu/library/rags.html "That is original sin. And its consequences? Spiritual death . That is, the separation of man from God, the source of all goodness. B.) Bodily death. That is, the separation of the body from the soul, the return of the body to the earth. C.) The shattering and distortion of the "image." That is, darkness of mind, depravity and corruption of the heart, loss of independence, loss of free will, and tendency towards evil. Since then "the imagination of man's heart is evil "(Genesis 8:21). Man constantly thinks of evil. D.) Guilt. That is, a bad conscience, the shame that made him want to hide from God. E.) Worst of all, original sin is hereditary. It did not remain only Adam and Eve's. As life passes from them to all of their descendants, so does original sin. We all of us participate in original sin because we are all descended from the same forefather, Adam." http://www.gocanada.org/Catechism/catorsin.htmAnd OrlaPubs, always writing with exquisite attention to language, uses the phrase "ontological deficit". As to whether or not the the estrangemen/deprivation/loss/separation is complete, the catholic cathechism uses language like the above, and talks about a deprivation of original (pre-fall) holiness, rather than a complete absence.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 26,405 Likes: 38
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 26,405 Likes: 38 |
Dear djs, I'm simply trying to adhere to our Eastern understanding of Original Sin, without saying that Western understandings aren't legitimate or even quite similar. As far as I know, the Eastern Church hasn't condemned Augustine as a heretic  . There is no argument that we are born into a state of moral weakness that tends toward sinfulness. But this is all more than what the limited notion of "stain" implies. Stains can be wiped away. And unfortunately there are those who think that Original Sin as "stain" is wiped away at Baptism. And it is not, according to the Fathers. What Original Sin did to our nature is something that Grace can begin to conquer in us with Baptism, followed by a life of constant transfiguration in the process of Theosis in Christ by the Holy Spirit. Alex
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 1,696
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 1,696 |
Dear Teen, Good to hear from you. I read your posts and insightful comments and hope that you will continue to be blessed and to be a blessing to others on your journey of faith. You posted some statements and questions about something that I posted. I'd like to address them if that's ok. First, there's no need to apologize for misunderstanding me. That's easy to do. :rolleyes: I misunderstand lots of things. In fact, I may be misunderstanding what the Church teaches about Papal infallibility. If that is so, I apologize. I would certainly not want to add confusion based on what I've said to your efforts to understand the Faith. Let me say that I am posting what I understand to be the teaching of our Faith/Tradition. I make no claim to infallibility. What went before and what follows is my attempt to understand the charism of infallibility as it pertains to the Pope. It is one part of what constitutes God's actions to sustain His Church in Truth. It seems to me that it is important to make some distinctions. The Pope teaching infallibily is an extraordinary part of the teaching authority of the Church. In fact it's called the extraordinary magisterium. Using this authority the pope is charged with sustaining the Faith of his brothers and sisters as part of his Petrine Ministry. He can exercise it only in a carefully circumscribed set of circumstances. He must, for example, be teaching about matters of faith or morals. He must intend to invoke his extraordinary teaching authority in the particular situation. Since Papal infallibility was infallibly taught at Vatican I, few popes have used this extraordinary teaching authority. So, we're not talking about a historic happening that casts disrepute on the teaching itself. We are discussing a hypothethical situation. We are using it in an attemp to understand the nuances of Papal infallibility are. Here's the hypothetical situation. A hypothetical pope attempts teach about the meaning of some aspect of Tradition which needs to be clearly explained. He intends to teach the Truth/Tradition using his extraordinary teaching authorit. For whatever reason, he ends up "teaching" something which is NonTruth and NonTradition. For purposes of discussion, if the hypothetical pope believed that the nontruth was Truth but did not attempt to use his extraordinary teaching authority, he personally is in error. The Church continues in its understanding of what the Tradition is. He remains the pope. There are those who claim that this has happened in history. If, however, that pope attempted to use his extraordinary teaching authority to teach error as truth, he would cease acting as the sustainer of the faith of his brothers and sisters. He would be leading his brothers and sisters into error. In short, he would have stopped doing the work that he was charged to do in the Petrine Ministry. That "pope" stopped acting as pope. He would not have defined an untruth. A pope cannot do that. That is part of our Traditional belief. If, in the hypothetical situation, the bishop of Rome has ceased to act as pope, that is to fulfill the Petrine Ministry, the bishops and people have a right to act. The bishops, as a body and not as individuals, share in the charism of infallibility. The people of the Church exercise their part of the charism of infallibility by receiving the truth taught. It would be appropriate for them to exercise rights and responsibility to call the bishop of Rome to repentance. They would have the right to charge him to return to truth or at the extreme to depose that bishop from his role as "pope". Teen, any pope, can say lots of things that are wrong or even believe an error to be true. What no pope can do, in our belief, is use his extraordinary teaching authority to teach that an error is truth. He cannot do so and be pope. That's a kind of oxymoron, it seems to me. I need to say again that this is what I have come to understand about this matter as it is expressed now. I do not believe that the current teaching about the pope's extraordinary teaching authority is the final word about what Tradition contains on teaching authority in the Church. I, personally, do not believe that the Spirit will allow such a hypothetical situation to come to reality. I can't begin to conceive how the body of bishops in that hypothetical church would permit things to reach the stage where a hypothetical heretic would teach a hypothetical heresy as pope, for example. At any rate, I certainly pray that He will spare Christ's Body such an agony. Above all, I believe that the Spirit will sustain the Petrine Ministry of service to the Church. I believe that He will see to it that it is exercised as He wills it so that we will continue to be confirmed in faith. After all, He charged Peter to confirm his brothers and sisters. In the Church of today (and even in such a hypothetical Church) believers are Peter's brothers and sisters in faith. One final point, you suggested that anyone is infallible unless he or she is wrong. What that translates to for me is that your're not wrong if you're right. I don't know bout you, but just because I'm sometimes not wrong about some aspects of something doesn't mean doesn't mean that I am going to be right about some others. If, I've expressed a theological opinion about what the Church teaches accurately, that doesn't mean that I'm infallible. It just means that I'm not wrong about that opinion. At any rate, that's not what the teaching on papal infallibility is about, is it? Thanks for hearing me out. Now, excuse me while I look for my personal  infalliblity wand! Steve I'm a bit rushed right now, so my writing may not express what I mean with crystal clarity. I hope that the high points come through. One final point, like it says on the forum home page, the opinions expressed here are those of the posters. Check with your pastor or bishop. They are the authorized teachers among us. We're simply brothers and sisters sharing relatively informed opinion.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 4,225 Likes: 1
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 4,225 Likes: 1 |
Good post Brother Steve, Just some of us are infallible in our minds though. In Christ, james
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 4,678 Likes: 1
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 4,678 Likes: 1 |
I like it, Logos Teen. You should consider seminary someday. LOL, thanks, Andrew. I'll have to play it by ear. Dear Teen Logo,
Well, I think that Steve has made a profound contribution here that is worth pondering.
"The pope is infallible unless he's wrong."
The fact is that a pope can indeed make a heretical statement... I agree so far... at which point he would no longer be pope, no Catholic would owe him allegiance and he would have to be dethroned. I don't really see the sense in this. Who cares if the pope's a heretic, as long as he's not making an ex cathedra statement which support his errors (which is impossible as taught by the Catholic Church). What popes have said has been contradicted with what their successors did. Pope Pius XII said it was wrong for Catholics to want to change the liturgy etc. Yes, but so what? They weren't ex cathedra statements. And irrespective of whether Pope Honorius was a formal heretic or not, the fact is that he was condemned as such by his successors until the 12th century.
And Pope Liberius was the first pope not to be entered into the calendar of the Saints of Rome for an impropriety that was not altogether his fault (he is a full saint in the East and is venerated locally in the West). Still, so what if Pope Honorius was a heretic? He didn't make any heretical ex cathedra statements. I just don't see how this relates. In short, by leaving open the possibility that a pope could pronounce heresy By "pronounce" do you mea define by an ex cathedra statement? I think there's a lot of confusion regarding whether or not we are talking about ex cathedra statements or not. If we are not, then I have no problem with what anyone has written. If we are, I don't understand the logic. Our nature is weakened and darkened in the Fall. Isn't that what a stain is? Dear Teen,
Good to hear from you. I read your posts and insightful comments and hope that you will continue to be blessed and to be a blessing to others on your journey of faith. Thanks. Always a pleasure talking with you. The Pope teaching infallibily is an extraordinary part of the teaching authority of the Church. In fact it's called the extraordinary magisterium. Using this authority the pope is charged with sustaining the Faith of his brothers and sisters as part of his Petrine Ministry.
He can exercise it only in a carefully circumscribed set of circumstances.
He must, for example, be teaching about matters of faith or morals. He must intend to invoke his extraordinary teaching authority in the particular situation.
Since Papal infallibility was infallibly taught at Vatican I, few popes have used this extraordinary teaching authority. So, we're not talking about a historic happening that casts disrepute on the teaching itself. Okay...I'm with you so far. A hypothetical pope attempts teach about the meaning of some aspect of Tradition which needs to be clearly explained. He intends to teach the Truth/Tradition using his extraordinary teaching authorit.
For whatever reason, he ends up "teaching" something which is NonTruth and NonTradition.
For purposes of discussion, if the hypothetical pope believed that the nontruth was Truth but did not attempt to use his extraordinary teaching authority, he personally is in error. The Church continues in its understanding of what the Tradition is. He remains the pope.
There are those who claim that this has happened in history. How? It is impossible for a pope to make a heretical ex cathedra statement, so this can ONLY be hypothetical. If, however, that pope attempted to use his extraordinary teaching authority to teach error as truth, he would cease acting as the sustainer of the faith of his brothers and sisters. He would be leading his brothers and sisters into error. In short, he would have stopped doing the work that he was charged to do in the Petrine Ministry. That "pope" stopped acting as pope.
He would not have defined an untruth. A pope cannot do that. That is part of our Traditional belief. If, in the hypothetical situation, the bishop of Rome has ceased to act as pope, that is to fulfill the Petrine Ministry, the bishops and people have a right to act. The bishops, as a body and not as individuals, share in the charism of infallibility. The people of the Church exercise their part of the charism of infallibility by receiving the truth taught. It would be appropriate for them to exercise rights and responsibility to call the bishop of Rome to repentance. They would have the right to charge him to return to truth or at the extreme to depose that bishop from his role as "pope". I understand what you are getting at. I think the sticker here is that we may disagree over when the pope stops being pope. Are you saying that if the "pope" teaches error (ex cathedra), then he is not actually pope? I can understand this hypothetically, but when does his "popeship" stop? The pope cannot be dethroned. I am saying that the person occupying the Chair of Peter, the Bishop of Rome, Primate of Italy, Patriarch of the West, in his role as Supreme Pontiff, cannot at any point define a heresy ex cathedra. I know this is what you are saying as well, I just think we may disagree over the mechanics of it all, ie., when/how does the pope stop being pope? Sorry, I would finish my reply but I have to go. If not clarified, I can come back later and continue on. Thanks. Dominus tecum, Logos Teen
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 1,301
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 1,301 |
As regarding the use of �heretic� and �heretical��
These terms are sometimes used too loosely.
There is no such thing as a heretical statement - per se.
A heretic must be a specific person or group� named and so declared to be a heretic by the proper authority of the church according to its cannons. Without that declaration - all labels of �heretic� applied by anyone else are empty.
A heretical statement belongs to the heretic and shares that intention to be misleading according to the intention of the heretic. All other statements may be - in error - but are not heretical unless joined to the intention of the person (or group) which has been officially declared a heretic by the church authority according to cannon law.
A Pope may say �There is no such thing as the Trinity� and that would be error - unless or until the time that that Pope is officially declared a heretic (mmmm� which I am not sure can be done because I believe finding and declaration would require approval by the Pope).
Being a heretic does not reside in a statement - it resides in the - will.
For example� let us say that Thomas has been teaching that there is now a Duality in place of the Trinity. The Holy Spirit died or something and only the Father and Son are left. This would be - error. The cannons outline that the local bishop must call an investigation. It is to be determined if Thomas has the mental capacity to understand the Trinity - if Thomas has been properly taught the Trinity - if Thomas is being coerced (the life of his wife or children has been threatened) and a few more points. If Thomas passes all these tests - then the bishop calls a local small council in order to confront Thomas and determine what Thomas means to say through his words. If Thomas needs further catechism - it is offered. If Thomas persists - he must be clearly informed of his error. Once he has been clearly informed of his error and understands his error - he is asked to cease and desist or to retract - if Thomas refuses (an act of will) the case is booted upstairs to be investigated by a higher council. Presuming the same results - the church now officially asks Thomas to cease and desist or retract� if Thomas now refuses (and act of will and intention to do harm to the church) he may them be declared a heretic and his statements on the �Duality� as heretical.
Let us take it further. Suppose Thomas teaches his heresy to a congregation. Thomas, being now declared an official heretic through his knowing willfulness not to submit to a direct request of the church to cease - Thomas continues to teach his �Duality�� and Bobby (a member of his congregation - goes out and tells someone else of this Duality - if Bobby does this out of not knowing that Thomas and his Duality have been officially declared heretical - then Bobby is not participating in the heresy but has instead made a personal error. If Bobby does know about the declaration and goes out and teaches the Duality despite the request of the church to cease - Bobby is not a heretic (unless the declaration covered Thomas� group as well as Thomas) but he is knowingly participating in the spreading and harm to the church of a heretical statement.
Let us go further. If a non-member of the church teaches that God is not a Trinity - that person - in as much as he is not a member of the church and is not subject to church authority - is in error but he is not a heretic.
A heretic must be a member of the church and must be properly catechumed and must knowingly and willfully refuse submission to a direct and official request to cease (brought about as I have outlined). And a heretical statement must be joined to the harmful intention of the heretic.
Bottom line is that only proper church authority, following the steps of cannon law - may declare anyone a heretic and statements joined to that heretic - as heretical. All else is - error - and not heresy.
Since the steps of cannon law can not be applied to a dead person (keep in mind that a willful refusal to submit to a direct command of the church to cease must be present) then someone who had already died cannot be declared a heretic but it may be declared he was in error.
Since a Papal bull is necessary to seal these things - it would seem that there is no way to declare a Pope - a heretic - nor his statements as heretical. Upon his death - the next Pope may declare the former Pope as having been in error but cannot declare the former Pope as a heretic.
All this assumes that God - through the actions of Providence - preserves the Petrine office from heresy and error under certain circumstances. It seems it is just not possible that the Petrine office can fall into heresy - Providence prevents and preserves it. But it does seem possible that a Pope (the individual man acting outside of his circumstances of infallibility) may fall into error.
Since these things require the approval of the office (any declarations) then it is that a majority opinion or even vote of bishops and whomever - does not replace or over ride the Petrine office when acting according to its authority and in accord with cannons nor Providence which has designed and authored and guaranteed this arrangement.
The problem that the Orthodox have with the Petrine office - does not lay with the office - but with a widespread misconception of that office and its authority.
-ray
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 564
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 564 |
Dear Ray,
Very interesting explanation and please correct me if I'm wrong. If what you say is true than it's not heretical because "heretical" doesn't exist.
Lauro
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 26,405 Likes: 38
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 26,405 Likes: 38 |
Dear Lauro, RayK, like other great Latin theologians, makes it difficult to determine "heresy" in a formalistic modality that contravenes the abstractionist bases for an institutional expression of judgement that a human has willed to conceive of a statement of theological doctrine that directly contradicts the established canonical predilections of ecclesial determinations of creedal foundations. I couldn't resist! Alex
|
|
|
|
|
