The Byzantine Forum
Newest Members
Galumph, Leon_C, Rocco, Hvizsgyak, P.W.
5,984 Registered Users
Who's Online Now
1 members (1 invisible), 246 guests, and 50 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Photos
St. Sharbel Maronite Mission El Paso
St. Sharbel Maronite Mission El Paso
by orthodoxsinner2, September 30
Holy Saturday from Kirkland Lake
Holy Saturday from Kirkland Lake
by Veronica.H, April 24
Byzantine Catholic Outreach of Iowa
Exterior of Holy Angels Byzantine Catholic Parish
Church of St Cyril of Turau & All Patron Saints of Belarus
Forum Statistics
Forums26
Topics35,389
Posts416,722
Members5,984
Most Online3,380
Dec 29th, 2019
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 2 of 3 1 2 3
Joined: Jun 2009
Posts: 275
P
Member
Offline
Member
P
Joined: Jun 2009
Posts: 275
Originally Posted by StuartK
I don't believe we inherit any such stain from Adam, but only the curse of mortality. As Mary died, it does not seem she escaped from the ancestral curse.

There's more to original sin than mortality.

"He who believes and is baptized will be saved; he who does not believe will be condemned" (Mark 16,16).

Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 7,309
Likes: 2
S
Member
Offline
Member
S
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 7,309
Likes: 2
That citation does not support your assertion.

Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 450
D
Member
Offline
Member
D
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 450
One of the wonderful things about the catholicity of the Church is that it contains fullness everywhere at every time so that what is proposed by the part, is given for the whole.
There is no reason to insist that "only" the west's tradition or "only" the east's tradition cotntains the fullness of understanding, but that each contributes to the whole.

Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 978
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 978
I think that this passage from John chapter 9, at least in my mind, supports Stuartk on the Eastern View of original sin.

"Now as Jesus passed by, He saw a man who was blind from birth.
And His disciples asked Him, saying, 'Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?' Jesus answered, 'Neither this man nor his parents sinned, but that the works of God should be revealed in him.'" Later in the passage the Pharisees say to the healed man born blind, "You were completely born in sins, and are you teaching us?" The Lord rebukes this idea earlier in the passage when speaking to his disciples.

I think that this verse speaks against the idea that sins from the past are passed on to the next generation. We can use this same logic to original sin. The result of original sin is our separation from God and death but not some stain or passing down of past sins to the next generation.

Blessed Feast of the Maternity of St. Anne.(or post-feast for us whom celebrated it yesterday) smile

Last edited by Nelson Chase; 12/09/10 06:36 PM.
Joined: Jun 2009
Posts: 275
P
Member
Offline
Member
P
Joined: Jun 2009
Posts: 275
Originally Posted by StuartK
That citation does not support your assertion.

Oh yes, it makes clear that we are born separated from God.

Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 699
Likes: 2
J
jjp Offline
Member
Offline
Member
J
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 699
Likes: 2
Originally Posted by PeterPeter
Originally Posted by StuartK
That citation does not support your assertion.

Oh yes, it makes clear that we are born separated from God.

I only see a contrast between belief and non belief. Where do you see anything about birth?

Joined: Jun 2009
Posts: 275
P
Member
Offline
Member
P
Joined: Jun 2009
Posts: 275
Originally Posted by Nelson Chase
I think that this verse speaks against the idea that sins from the past are passed on to the next generation.

Sins from the past can be transmitted to next generations not as a personal guilt, but as consequences (see how babies of alcoholic mothers look like, they're not guilty of anything, and yet they're born deformed). This separation from God, mortality, passions, all this what makes the fallen state is precisely this "guilt" or "stain". It's just arguing about words.

Joined: Jun 2009
Posts: 275
P
Member
Offline
Member
P
Joined: Jun 2009
Posts: 275
Originally Posted by jjp
Originally Posted by PeterPeter
Originally Posted by StuartK
That citation does not support your assertion.

Oh yes, it makes clear that we are born separated from God.

I only see a contrast between belief and non belief. Where do you see anything about birth?

People are born unbaptized. They need to be baptized to be saved. To be saved means to be united with God. Therefore simply being born is not enough to be united with God.

Last edited by PeterPeter; 12/09/10 06:53 PM.
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 978
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 978

I don't disagree that the consequences of sin is passed on (the consequence of original sin is death) just that I wouldn't want to use the terms "guilt". The stain of original sin in my mind is death. So yes if my mother was a drug addict and it effected the way I looked that is a consequence.

But I do think that my parent’s sins before my birth have nothing to do with my own sinfulness. My sinfulness is due to the fall not the unmoral or amoral life of my parents. Now after birth is a different story since I could immolate my parent’s sins and follow in their footsteps but that is a free choice not something I am born with.

The Pharisees believed that the man born blind was born blind because his parents (or some past generation) had done some great sin and now he was being punished for it. Clearly the Lord rebukes this idea.

Last edited by Nelson Chase; 12/09/10 07:14 PM. Reason: spelling
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 978
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 978
Quote
People are born unbaptized. They need to be baptized to be saved. To be saved means to be united with God. Therefore simply being born is not enough to be united with God.


Of course people need to be baptized into the Saving Mysteries of Christ. But baptism is no guarantee of salvation.

Following you logic then would an infant who dies before baptism not be saved since he/she died before baptism? I strongly dislike that idea!!

Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 699
Likes: 2
J
jjp Offline
Member
Offline
Member
J
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 699
Likes: 2
Originally Posted by PeterPeter
Originally Posted by jjp
Originally Posted by PeterPeter
Originally Posted by StuartK
That citation does not support your assertion.

Oh yes, it makes clear that we are born separated from God.

I only see a contrast between belief and non belief. Where do you see anything about birth?

People are born unbaptized. They need to be baptized to be saved. To be saved means to be united with God. Therefore simply being born is not enough to be united with God.

While this may or may not be, it's not in the verse you cited.

Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 978
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 978
Originally Posted by Nelson Chase
I don't disagree that the consequences of sin is passed on (the consequence of original sin is death) just that I wouldn't want to use the terms "guilt". The stain of original sin in my mind is death. So yes if my mother was a drug addict and it effected the way I looked that is a consequence.

But I do think that my parent’s sins before my birth have nothing to do with my own sinfulness. My sinfulness is due to the fall not the unmoral or amoral life of my parents. Now after birth is a different story since I could immolate my parent’s sins and follow in their footsteps but that is a free choice not something I am born with.

The Pharisees believed that the man born blind was born blind because his parents (or some past generation) had done some great sin and now he was being punished for it. Clearly the Lord rebukes this idea.

I meant to say emulate not immolate, which my spell checker told me to use. Sorry about that!!

Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 450
D
Member
Offline
Member
D
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 450
Originally Posted by Nelson Chase
Following you logic then would an infant who dies before baptism not be saved since he/she died before baptism? I strongly dislike that idea!!
Yet, this is what many of the Fathers taught.
Tertullian, Cyril of Jerusalem, Augustine, Pope Leo I are some that taught that salvation for anyone is impossible without baptism.

Last edited by danman916; 12/10/10 03:05 PM.
Joined: Oct 2010
Posts: 38
D
Member
Offline
Member
D
Joined: Oct 2010
Posts: 38
Well, IMO, the doctrine of Immaculate Conception is kind of redundant to the Byzantines at least. And, the Roman Church has her feast of the Nativit of the Mother of God on September 8th.

Joined: May 2006
Posts: 802
Likes: 2
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: May 2006
Posts: 802
Likes: 2
The Latin Church does not teach the transmission of the "guilty", not at least as we understand that. See what I said about in a late post:

Quote
About the sense of "culpa" (guilty) early discussed, in the field of the original sin, I was thinking about the distinction the Brazilian Law make between "dolo" and "culpa". You are accused of "dolo" when you do a bad act, with clear intention. But of "culpa" when you haven't had a precise will to do the act, being moved by imprudence, negligence or inability.

So "culpa" in Law have a different meaning than the usual sense of "culpa", guilt, we have. And as I have just found, "culpa" and "dolus" seem to appear in English Law as either.

Maybe it has nothing to do with the discussion, but at least it confirms "culpa" in Latin must not have the sense we usually think. So as to remember, I brought a text saying Trent used the Latin word "reatum" to express the "guilt" we inherit of Adam, not a "guilt" in the sense of being responsible, but of being affected by the act of someone really "guilty".

Immaculate conception - eastern view?
(confer the 10th page to a broader explanation)

Last edited by Philippe Gebara; 12/10/10 05:33 PM.
Page 2 of 3 1 2 3

Moderated by  theophan 

Link Copied to Clipboard
The Byzantine Forum provides message boards for discussions focusing on Eastern Christianity (though discussions of other topics are welcome). The views expressed herein are those of the participants and may or may not reflect the teachings of the Byzantine Catholic or any other Church. The Byzantine Forum and the www.byzcath.org site exist to help build up the Church but are unofficial, have no connection with any Church entity, and should not be looked to as a source for official information for any Church. All posts become property of byzcath.org. Contents copyright - 1996-2024 (Forum 1998-2023). All rights reserved.
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5