www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Ecumenical Councils

Dear Andrew,

I know the Administrator would want to answer on behalf of us all!

Alex

All,

After looking at the quotations from Trent that "stlouisx" has posted, I find myself equally confused along with Andrew (AMM). In writing this post, then, I suppose I'm asking for someone else to do the explanatory work that I am currently having a very hard time doing myself. Almost everything that stlouisx has posted from Trent seems to be in accord with the Eastern view, with the exception of a few small portions that I'm having trouble with. Let's look at the following, from Trent (with my emphasis added to indicate where there's confusion):

Now, a lot of people here are saying that the Eastern and Western views of original sin are really compatible, and that the statements of Trent need to be taken in their proper context. However, I haven't seen much of an attempt to actually demonstrate this. So far (and I don't mean this to be insulting), there hasn't been much other than the simple assertion that there is a compatibility here and that Trent can be interpreted in a way consistent with Eastern teaching. My question, then, is: how?

From what I know (and it's really not that much), the Eastern teaching on original sin is that, through Adam's sin, death and corruption entered the world and infected humanity, to the extent that each of us -- as one of Adam's descendants -- inherits this death and corruption from our ancestor. This "corruption" includes an enslavement to the "law of sin" which has infected our humanity, and that enslavement entails an original estrangement from God and also a tendency toward committing actual sins and toward turning inward rather than toward divinity. In the sense that we have all inherited this estrangement from God, and (because of that) "miss the mark" and fall short of God's glory (which, I believe, is one of the core meanings of "sin"), we have all sinned in or through Adam. However, on the Eastern view, while all of this still results in our estrangement from God and thus our proper condemnation (prior to baptism), this does not amount to actual guilt on our behalf because it is an inherited sin rather than one personally committed. Furthermore, I believe that the Eastern view is that death was not a vengeful punishment enacted upon Adam by an angry and wrathful God, but rather a simple consequence of Adam's sin about which God lovingly warned him. On the Eastern view, as far as I understand it, it was not as if God told Adam, "If you eat of the fruit of this tree, I will kill you [or: I will enact the punishment of death upon you]" but it was rather that God said, "If you eat of the fruit of this tree, I'm telling you, you're going to die; don't do it." I don't believe -- though I could be wrong -- that the Eastern view countenances anything like the view that God was threatening Adam or that he was offended and indignant because of his sin and thus punished him; it [the Eastern view] certainly doesn't seem to suggest anything like the "satisfaction model" of atonement (often attributed to Anselm), whereby God was considered to be infinitely offended by man's original sin, to the point that He had to punish him infinitely and could not be satisfied in His punishment until Christ the God-man died on the cross to satisfy that infinite desire. Yet the statements above from Trent, written in a context that was likely heavily influenced by Anselm's atonement theology, among other things, seems to disagree with the Eastern view on all of these points. How does one reconcile these things?

To make it clear, so that we may be precise: (1) Trent seems to say that each of us is actually guilty for the original sin, yet the Eastern tradition seems to not say this; (2) Trent seems to say that the punishment of death was a threat that God made to Adam, whereas the Eastern tradition seems to say that it was a loving warning of the consequence of sin; (3) Trent seems to suggest that God was offended by the sin of Adam to the point of wrath and indignation toward him and his progeny, and then sentenced him to death because of that. I'm curious what you all are doing with these facts, i.e., how you're reconciling them.

Thanks very much for your help in these matters.

Maximos (Jason)

stlouisix:

This is patently false and is not supported by any Church teaching. It is based upon the false premise that there is such a thing as a "dogmatic council" and a "pastoral council." There isn't. All Ecumenical Councils (from a Western perspective) hold the same weight. From an Eastern perspective, of course, most of what came from the last 14 councils primarily deal with the West, especially in areas of discipline, although all definitions are accepted as binding on all the faithful. If, however, one takes your post at face value then the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church from the First Vatican Council would have far more weight than the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church from the Second Vatican Council -- and this is not the case as is evident by the teaching of the Church herself.

On the contrary, my statement recognizes the "development of doctrine" (which is what we are talking about here). Even the formulation of dogma can change, provided that we don't change the understanding.

With that in mind, let's look at Original Sin. What is it and how does it affect us? Original Sin is the action of Adam and Eve which caused them to lose Original Justice and Original Holiness. Their "fall from grace" caused them to lose the relationship they had with God. They could no longer "walk and talk" with God in the garden but were, instead, expelled. They had to earn their living "by the sweat of [their] brow." They would die.

We, who are the descendents of Adam and Eve, have inherited this condition. We do not walk and talk with God. We do not have that relationship with God. We aren't as smart as we could be; we have a tendency to sin; we die. In short, we have inherited the "fallen nature" of Adam and Eve.

In the Catechism of Trent, the section on Baptism we read: Note that it doesn't say we inherit the guilt, just that we inherit "original sin" -- a rather general statement. Since we did not commit the sin, we do not inherit "actual sin" and, therefore, cannot incur the guilt associated with actual sin. Therefore, we inherit the results of the sin. In the East we speak of this as the "image of God" (Imago Dei) being "deformed" that is restored through baptism. The Catechism of St. Pius X is euqally nebulous on what aspect of Original Sin we have received.

But no one has found any errors in the definition of Original Sin or its affects. The French and the Latin versions are in full agreement on wording here, and the English is a reasonable translation of the Latin (at least, the most current version is, the prior English version was a translation of the French working document). Thus, to discount the catechism in this section becuase of some questionable verbiage.

Ah, but when you make claims like Vatican II was "only a pastoral council" or that Trent taught fully -- those are your interpretations since they are in conflict with the teaching of the Church today as has been pointed out.

Now, having said that, and having had several complaints I'm going to ask that you take a breather; stop and reflect on what you have posted here and do a little more research on what the Church teaches. This is more than a request from one involved in the "dialog" -- it's a request from the moderator.

BTW, academic credentials aren't necessarily meaningful. I was involved in ASW work in the 60s and 70s (e.g., the transducers used in the Mark IV torpedo, various transducers used in sonar). I don't do that anymore, but my BS in physics was sufficient. I also hold a Masters in Religious Studies and in Computer Science and a Doctorate in Sacred theology (S.T.D.). So what?

Fr. Deacon Edward

Dear Fr. Deacon Ed:

Your post reminds me of what my unlettered grandfather (may he rest in peace!) used to quip, and I paraphrase:

"It matters not whether you have accumulated more degrees than the thermometer; what matters is how many bowls of rice (in this case, platters of pirohy) you have ingested!"

Amado

What matters even more is how many bowls of rice we have given to the poor. I grieve to acknowledge that my own record is deplorable by that standard.

Incognitus the Inquisitive Inquisitor

May I just mention to St.LouisIX to remember, please, that brevity is the soul of wit, and that if he wishes to compose an epic, let him retire and set it to verse?

Gaudior, grown weary with "words, words, words"

And as my dear husband says - some degrees are given out with packets of Typhoo tea

Amado, I love what your grandfather had to say. My kids (who have accumulated a few degrees) used to say that "mom has more degrees than a thermometer." Actually I have only two but attempted about four and my big brother thought I would always be a perpetual student. [in a sense he is right about that ] Anyway, whenever anyone gets carried away with their degrees or I think of mine this scripture comes to mind. I think it applies to many things in which we may be tempted to boast.

If I speak in the tongues of mortals and of angels, but do not have love, I am a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal. And if I have prophetic powers, and understand all myseries and all knowledge, and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing. If I give away all my possessions, and if I hand over my body so that I may boast, but do not have love, I gain nothing. ( I Cor. 13:1-3)


Bless you, brother in Christ, and thanks again for posting about baby, Akai Antonio, on the prayer thread.

Porter (Mary Jo)

amado,

We Melkites are not strong on pirohy -- although the ladies of my parish will tell you that I am partial to baklava (except during Great Lent when falafel comes into its own).

Fr. Deacon Edward

Amen! As I am always quick to remind people, God has already given us a "take home exam" for getting into heaven. It's found in Mt 25:31-46.

Fr. Deacon Edward

Fr. Deacon Edward:

I hesitate to write again now that the discussion seems to be turning away from a discussion of the statements at Trent, but one particular part of your reply to "stlouisx" sparked my interest. Speaking on the Catechism of Trent, you say:

This question may be a bit forward (forgive me), but regardless of what the Catechism there says, what do you do with the actual definitions of Trent which do use the word "guilt" (cited in the original post I made immediately preceding your most recent response to stlouisx) and say that guilt is remitted by baptism?

Thanks much,

Maximos (Jason)

Dear Jason,

The Catholic Church has always taught that Original Sin, its stain and even guilt, is founded upon the principle that we are conceived in the "privation of sanctifying Grace."

In the view of the Eastern Fathers, this is the privation of Theosis.

The privation of sanctifying Grace, as St Thomas Aquinas also taught, is the essence of Original Sin that is passed on to us through the fault of Adam, his rebellion against God and its impact on us for all time.

Privation of sanctifying Grace further means the "death of the soul" - as well as that of the body through death and concupiscence.

Such a privation is a moral deformity and even a stain and guilt, to be sure.

At no time has the Catholic Church ever said that we inherit the actual fault of Adam, by any stretch of the imagination that we may exercise when reading the canons of Trent or anything else.

And the privation of sanctifying grace in Original Sin in us is something that both Churches have always agreed on.

The emphasis on "guilt" and "stain" at Trent and again at the definition of the Immaculate Conception is, like the Filioque, something that sends out a signal that alarms the Christian East.

It need not.

I promise not to over-react to these things and I'm having a much better day than yesterday.

To say that we inherit Adam's fault, his actual sin, is not to state Catholic doctrine.

It is to state something other than.

Alex

Jason,

I see Alex has answered your question, and done a better job than I could have done.

Suffice it to say that the fall of Adam and Eve has left us all in the state of beggers at the Master's door.

Fr. Deacon Edward

Fr. Deacon Edward, and Alex,

Thank you both. Alex, I agree that your response to me was a very good one; something like what you said was drifting around in the back of my mind when I asked my question, but I couldn't express it as you have so ably done. Well said.

The question of "guilt" aside, what do you all do with the other fact I noted previously: namely, that Trent seems to suggest that the "death" of Adam was something that God used as a "threat" and was a punishment inflicted directly upon him by God because God was offended by his sin and was therefore wrathful and indignant? As far as I've understood it, the Eastern view has been that death was not really a threat of direct punishment from God, but really was a consequence of Adam's sin, about which God had lovingly warned him. On the Western view, it seems, death is a punishment inflicted by an angry God; in terms of Anselmian satisfaction theory, then, God's wrath toward man cannot be satisfied until the God-man receives our "punishment" on the cross (as far as I understand it). This seems to be nothing like the Eastern view, where death is the law of the enemy, the consequence of Adam's sin, but a tragedy that God in His love ultimately condescends to save us from by undergoing death for our sake and then trampling it under His feet in the Resurrection. The viewpoints seem very different (and I know that many Orthodox would say: yes, indeed they are). Could you suggest how these might be reconciled as well?

Thanks very much. This has so far been edifying.

God bless,

Maximos (Jason)

Dear Jason,

You raise an excellent question.

In fact, the Soteriology or Salvation theology of the West where Christ satisfies the offence of the Father is one that is legitimate and was always considered as legitimate by the East - even though the East did not subscribe to it.

In fact, Western Soteriology even proved quite useful during the Eastern Christological controversies over the Person of Christ.

I think that both Churches agree that Original and Actual sin radically harms humanity's relationship with God as well as our state of soul etc.

For the East especially, God the Word took on our humanity to "recreate" what was harmed by Original and actual sin via Theosis.

This means that God's integral Presence and link with us through the Sacred Humanity of the Divine Son of God, that lived on earth, died on the Cross and rose from the dead, is what heals and transfigures (divinizes) us in Christ through the Holy Spirit.

At His Ascension, Christ not only sat down at the Right Hand of God the Father Himself, but He also enthroned our Humanity there, the Humanity that He took from the Most Holy Virgin Mary.

God sent His Son to die on the Cross and rise from the dead for our salvation.

If that is "anger," then may we all learn to be so "angry!"

Alex