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

Definitions are important. What exactly is original sin? Is the Original Sin we inherit exactly the same as Adam�s or it is qualitatively different?

What Augustine called �original sin� was known in the East as �ancestral sin�. It holds that Adam and Eve alone bear the guilt of their sin. We do not inherit the specific guilt of the Adam and Eve�s sin but rather the original sin we inherit is the broken world and death because of Adam and Eve�s sin together with the guilt for our own sins. St. Cyril of Alexandria speaks of mankind becoming �diseased� because of the sin of Adam and Eve. For us the original sin that is passed on is not the guilt of the sin of Adam and Eve but the disease. This disease does not destroy the image of God within man, but it does damage it (think of this damage to the image of God within man as looking at a mirror that is so covered with grime that you can barely seem the image within it). Through His birth, death and resurrection, Jesus makes it possible to �cleanse� the mirror, if only we are willing to cooperate by following Him.

Is death unjust? One might say that death for the guilt of the sin of Adam and Eve is unjust but what about the guilt for our sins? But such a question almost suggests that the expulsion of Adam and Eve from Paradise was more a punishment rather then a gift of compassion so that He could prepare the way for His Son. Death (and suffering, etc.) is not God�s will. Death is the natural result of a turning away from God. But we know that Christ has destroyed death�.

Andrew, I don't understand your post. I'm not trying to sink anyone. What I am doing is witnessing to the Truth that is Christ and the Church that He founded upon the Rock who is Peter. And it is showing love to tell that Truth. To not do so would be hateful! I am a Vietnam Era Navy Veteran doing research for the Navy in underwater acoustics applications.

As far as the battleship goes, today with the Catholic Church rife with confusion as a result of the dissidents being given carte blanche to destroy it from within with impunity, the Barque of Peter needs to be prepared to defend the faith, put on the Armor of God, and fight the good fight.

Discipline is one of the highest, if not the highest, forms of love, which is something that the modern Church does not understand believing that error is self-correcting. Sed contra, per history. What any responsible Catholic parent must clearly come to grips with; else, the parent ceases to be Catholic, is not understood by the hierarchy of the Church, which is why we see the moral aberrations of the day spawned by the aforementioned unchecked dissent.

In regard to Original Sin, this is a Byzantine CATHOLIC website. Accordingly, the dogmatic teaching of the Catholic Church as previously referenced is applicable. There is no western or eastern understanding of Original Sin dogmatically per the clear teachings of the aforementioned references on Catholic dogma, but rather only that which has been dogmatically declared by the Teaching Magisterium of Holy Mother Church for the Church Universal. Thus, it is a grave error, per the aforementioned dogmatic references, to continue to hold that we do not inherit the Original Sin of Adam. That is not what the ONE CATHOLIC CHURCH dogmatically teaches. If one persists in saying otherwise, then the Nicene Creed is worthless in regard to professing belief in the ONE HOLY CATHOLIC AND APOSTOLIC CHURCH! At the last Divine Liturgy that I attended that specific profession was still included in the Nicene Creed. There is no reference in that creed to simultaneous belief in two diametrically opposed dogmas arising from a difference in interpretation. There could not be because the principle of non-contradiction would be violated. It cannot be violated if we're talking about CATHOLICISM, and not something else.

There is a lot of misinformation about original sin on this website. The Roman Catholic Church does not slavishly hold to Augustinian theory as some claim. The RC's don't, for example, teach that all inherit the personal guilt of Adam and Eve.

It is the orthodox & catholic faith of the Church that we inherit effects of Adam's sin: deprivation of grace (yet not absolutely), woundedness in mind and will, and physical wounds: sufferings/weakness of body and death itself. Original/ancestral sin is not merely physical death. This is not what the Church, east and west, has ever taught.

For a summary of Catholic teaching on original sin I recommend reading the Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraphs 385 to 421. Don't be hasty to write off the Catechism as merely a Roman document for Roman Catholics. One can look up the sources, scriptural and traditional, for a fuller understanding.

A particularly important passage from the Catechism: <<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, 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.>>

For the Catechism's full presentation on original sin, see:
http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p1s2c1p7.htm#III

What the Roman Catholic Church teaches on Original Sin has been dogmatically presented on this website.

It is NOT true to say that we only inherit the effects of Original Sin, and not sin itself. It is incredible that one holds to this position in the face of what clearly has been presented as Church dogmatic teaching on Original Sin. There is no room for discussion. You either assent to this dogmatic teaching, or you don't.

Theologians can discuss and interpret all they want prior to such dogmatic pronouncements with their accompanying anathemas. Post them, they can only clarify. And it is not clarification to say that the Catholic Church dogmatically teaches that Original Sin itself is not inherited.

That is NOT the Catholic teaching. And it does not matter one whit what any father of the Church said prior to the Dogmatic pronouncements as presented on this site for all to see since none of those fathers was infallibly protected by the Holy Ghost in their opinions.

This misinformation on this site is directly to due a confusion of what some have termed Eastern teachings with what the Catholic teaching dogmatically is. The Byzantine Catholic Church is in Communion with Rome. As such, it is bound to adhere and defend the dogmatic teachings of the Faith. And the CCC paragraphs have already been discussed.

Btw, there have already been a considerable amount of corrections to the original version of the CCC which came out in French, an ambiguous language, before the official Latin version was issued. Bottom line, Catechisms, no matter how revered they are, have to reference dogma when specifically talking about dogma. And the Catholic dogma on Original Sin is clearly declared for all to see. Those declarations are the root refs that must be examined. The CCC talks explicity about Original Sin, which some in this thread did not want to talk about, preferring instead to talk only about its effects. The problem here has been discussed. If we're not talking about the Original Sin and Guilt of Adam inherited by his posterity, and just the concupiscence toward sin, i.e., the effects, why did Christ have to die on the Cross to open the Gates of Heaven? Concupiscence does not necessarily apply that sin has been committed, i.e., the temptations to sin can be fought. The answer is obvious. Original Sin and its guilt have been transmitted to Adam's posterity.

Also, there has been a contention in this thread that doctrine and dogma are not synonymous, which is contrary to one of Webster's meanings.

You cannot have it both ways, saying something is Catholic when it clearly isn't. This most certainly applies to dogma.

I do not care what any other teachings are on this issue. I repeat, this is a Byzantine CATHOLIC website. As such, it should be concerned with an unadulterated presentation of the CATHOLIC Faith. And it is NOT the Catholic Teaching that the Original Sin of Adam is not inherited but rather just its effects, which is very clear from the dogmatic declarations of Trent.

If one looks up the sources Scriptural and Traditional, one clearly sees why the Church has made the declaration that it did on Original Sin.

I repeat the following Dogmatic declaration from Trent on Original Sin, which was previously posted. Note in particular, the use of "guilt" as applied to Original Sin.

5. If any one denies, that, by the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, which is conferred in baptism, the GUILT of original sin is remitted; or even asserts that the whole of that which has the true and proper nature of sin is not taken away; but says that it is only rased, or not imputed; let him be ANATHEMA. For, in those who are born again, there is nothing that God hates; because, There is no condemnation to those who are truly buried together with Christ by baptism into death; who walk not according to the flesh, but, putting off the old man, and putting on the new who is created according to God, are made inno-[Page 24]cent, immaculate, pure, harmless, and beloved of God, heirs indeed of God, but joint heirs with Christ; so that there is nothing whatever to retard their entrance into heaven. But this holy synod confesses and is sensible, that in the baptized there remains concupiscence, or an incentive (to sin); which, whereas it is left for our exercise, cannot injure those who consent not, but resist manfully by the grace of Jesus Christ; yea, he who shall have striven lawfully shall be crowned. This concupiscence, which the apostle sometimes calls sin, the holy Synod declares that the Catholic Church has never understood it to be called sin, as being truly and properly sin in those born again, but because it is of sin, and inclines to sin.

A very good treatise in understanding the Catholic dogma on Original Sin can be found at

http://www.catholic.net/rcc/Periodicals/Faith/11-12-98/Sin.html

Some excerpts follow.

"As a consequence of the sin of our first parents, original sin has been inherited by the human race as a whole; in Adam all men sinned. This is the de fide teaching of the Church (cf. Catechism 402-406)

"Many signs bear witness to original sin, especially the moral and intellectual aberrations of mankind, such as polytheism and atheism, homosexuality and abortion. A soul in which there was no �principle of sin� would naturally love God, just as man is naturally inclined to love those who do good to him. A soul in which there was no scar of sin would equitably love other men by nature. None of this is or has ever been borne out in the world of experience.

"In fact, denying the existence of a fundamental condition of sin passed on from generation to generation necessitates a denial of the commonness of human nature inherited from the first parents. Assuming that something is radically wrong with humanity in the state in which it is presently found�an assumption which only a blind optimist would be unwilling to make�either one must admit that each child inherits his nature in the same degraded condition as it has endured from Adam, its ultimate origin, down to the child�s parents, its proximate origin; or one must deny the continuity of the human race and therefore the unity of the species, and try to explain the unfortunate state of mankind in a completely different way. It is no surprise that many moderns, charmed by the demythologizing voice of anthropology and psychology, have chosen the latter option, perhaps without a full consciousness of its ramifications. And since so many people do reject original sin, we should pause a moment to consider whether what they say makes any sense.

"Yet even with probable arguments on its behalf, the doctrine of original sin is not easily penetrated by reason. There is an element of obscurity in seeing how Adam stands as the definitive font of the human race. The doctrine of original sin is thus in a situation similar to that of the doctrine of the Blessed Trinity. Christian authors from every age adduce many probable arguments on behalf of the existence of the Trinity, but in the end it is necessary to admit that there is no way to prove this dogma philosophically. Original sin is especially difficult to understand because it is hard to see, first, how it could have happened at all, if our first parents were endowed with original justice and holiness, and second, how this sin, once it happened, is subsequently transmitted from Adam, through all generations, down to ourselves and our descendants. In this article, we are interested in the second question.

" ... St. Thomas Aquinas advances a clear and reasonable explanation, and it is this that we shall follow. Our goal is to shed light mainly on the role matter has in this transmission, and how the function of material defect helps to explain the woundedness of human nature.

"Adam as the Head of Mankind

"The most important truth to understand in connection with our topic is the way in which Adam is the font of humanity, the origin and repository, in a sense, of human nature. St. Thomas explains that a human being may be considered either in himself alone, or in relation to a whole community (collegium) of which he is a member. Because man is a social animal indebted for his existence and well-being to various communities, both of these considerations, the individual and the communal, indicate some aspect of what man truly is. Thomas argues that an act can be attributed to man in either way:

"for that act which a man does by his own choice and of himself is attributed to him insofar as he is a particular person, but an act is attributable to him insofar as he is part of a community, which act he does not do of himself or by his own choice, but which is done by the whole community or the majority of the community or by the head of the community, just as that which the ruler of the state does the state is said to do, as the Philosopher says. For such a community of men is regarded as one man, such that different individuals appointed to different offices are as it were different members of one natural body. . .2

"Thomas then applies this analysis, resting on the distinction between personal and collegial, to the status of the individual descendants of Adam, the first parent, in whom the nature of man was precontained, and by whom the whole of mankind was existentially represented. The multitude of descendants are considered to be one in their ultimate specific origin, Adam, just as many effects of the same kind are traced back to their first specific cause. �Adam, inasmuch as he was the principle of all human nature, fulfilled the function of a universal cause, and so by virtue of his act all human nature propagated from him is corrupted.�3 Thus the collegium spoken of here is the collegium of human nature, whose first member is, in a unique way, at once the head and the body of the community, and whose first act of rebellion therefore causes guilt and the consequences of sin to be communicated to all who share the same human nature. In Thomas�s words: �the whole multitude of men receiving human nature from the first parent is to be considered as one community, or rather as one body of one man, in which multitude each man, even Adam himself, can be considered either as a single person, or as a particular member of this multitude which is derived from one man by natural origin.�4

"Adam is the head of mankind insofar as his voluntary decision to disobey God affects the progeny who will inherit his nature in the state in which he left it; Adam is the body of mankind insofar as the material principle derived from his nature by means of the seed in the act of generation, and thereafter in every act of generation conditioned by this first, contains virtually in itself the disorder which impedes the bestowal of God�s gifts upon man in the way that He would have bestowed them if Adam had not fallen. �Original justice was superadded to the first man out of divine liberality. But that it is not given to this [postlapsarian] soul by God is not on His part but on the part of human nature in which there is an impediment incompatible with it.�5 Thus the guilt of original sin, as well as the substance and manner of its transmission, are traced back to Adam as to a principle and sufficient cause. As Ludwig Ott states: �Adam was the representative of the whole human race. On his voluntary decision depended the preservation or loss of the supernatural endowment, which was a gift, not to him personally but to human nature as such. His transgression was, therefore, the transgression of the whole human race.�6 St. Thomas explains this idea more fully:

". . .at his creation God had endowed man with a supernatural gift, namely, original justice, by which his reason was subject to God, his lower powers to reason, and his body to his soul. But this gift was not given to the first man as to a single person only but as to a principle of all human nature, namely, so that from him by way of origin it would be transmitted to his descendants. Now the first man sinning by his free judgment and choice lost this gift he had received in that same tenor, i.e., in the precise sense, in which it was given to him, namely, for himself and for all his descendants. The lack then of this gift accompanies the whole of his posterity, and thus this defect is transmitted to his descendants in that manner in which human nature is transmitted, which [nature] is transmitted not according to the whole [of man] but according to a part of it, namely, the flesh, into which God infuses the soul.7

"For St. Thomas, the matter involved in fleshly generation provides an explanation. Thomas asks the following question: Is it possible for a damaged human nature, along with the guilt consequent upon it, to be transmitted by the material means of the seed of the generator? The point of departure for his answer is an analysis of how humanity as a nature is communicated in the act of generation, even though a soul is not transmitted to the offspring by its parents. �This [original] sin accompanies all human nature; consequently the subject of this sin is the soul according as it is a part of human nature. And therefore, just as human nature is transmitted although the soul is not transmitted, so also original sin is transmitted although the soul is not transmitted.�15 In other words, the matter contained in the seed is a partial principle of human nature coming-to-be�a principle on the side of matter or the body�and thus partly constitutive of the person. The matter so communicated is therefore virtually, though partially, causative of human nature itself. �The flesh is not a sufficient cause of actual sin, but it is a sufficient cause of original sin, just as also the transmission of the flesh is a sufficient cause, though in a material way, of human nature.�16

"Under this aspect, then, the transmission of flesh through generation can be seen as the proximate cause, though certainly not the singular cause, of the transference of human nature from the begetter to the begotten. On the human side, ex parte generatoris, generation materially causes human nature to come to be in the generatum. It follows from this that original sin cannot be construed as a sin belonging to the newly-conceived person qua individual; it can only be regarded as a peccatum natur� (sin of the nature), of which the offspring is guilty because of its essential share in the human nature first contained in Adam, the common father of the human race.17 Yet it must be added that the sin so inherited is not merely imputed as a dishonor to the child, for then the guilt of sin would belong, properly speaking, only to the generator and not to the offspring, as is the case with the guilt of the fornicator who generates a child innocent of the guilt of fornication. Indeed, qua individual the child is innocent of original sin because he did not commit it in propria persona; only qua member of the collegium of human nature is he guilty of the sin, because in Adam, i.e., in the nature of which Adam is the principle, all human beings committed the same act of rebellion. Adam�s sin is a �sin of the nature� for which each subsequent member of the race is held guilty.18"

"St. Thomas states that the contamination of original sin is transmitted materially, through the seed. One may then wish to know how a material cause can produce a moral defect. Original sin is held to be genuine guilt in the offspring, not merely an imputed or derivative fault; and guilt has the soul as its generic subject and the will as its specific subject. Thus by maintaining that the offspring is genuinely guilty, we also maintain that it bears this materially inherited evil in its soul after the manner of a moral defect.

"To answer this question, one should first distinguish a principal cause from an instrumental cause, in order to distinguish between human nature, which in the generator acts in virtue of its own form, and the carnal seed, which in the act of generation functions as an instrument moved by the agent to cause the nature materially to come-to-be in a new subject. �Cause is twofold: one, principal, which acts in virtue of its own form; and this cause is more noble than the effect, inasmuch as it is the cause. The other is the instrumental cause, which does not act in virtue of its own form, but inasmuch as it is moved by another; and this need not be more noble than the effect, as a saw is not more noble than a house,� St. Thomas explains. �And in this way carnal seed is the cause of human nature in the offspring and also of original fault in the offspring�s soul,� even though the soul is nobler than the seed or instrumental cause.19 Armed with this distinction it becomes possible to see how the seed works on behalf of the nature, in such a way that whatever pertains principally to the nature pertains instrumentally or virtually to the seed, as that by which the nature is communicated materially in the act of generation.

"Having made this distinction, Thomas then argues that the seed, as an instrumental cause in which the motion of the generating soul and the reality of human nature is present �intentionally,� i.e., in a way that transfers the nature in a lesser or inferior mode, is capable of transmitting to the offspring the defect of the principal cause (the generator qua child of Adam and part of Adam�s collegium), in the manner of a moral defect adhering to that common nature. �An agent is �in act� in many ways: in one way according to its own form, which either contains the form of the effect according to a likeness of species, as fire generates fire, or according to power only, as the sun generates fire; in another way as moved by another, and in this way an instrument acts like a being in act,� Thomas notes, concluding: �And in this way too the seed is in act inasmuch as the motion and intention of the generating soul is in it. . .and by reason of this it has the power to cause both human nature and original sin.�20"


End Notes
1 As St. Thomas says, �peccati originalis in humano genere probabiliter quaedam signa apparent� (Summa contra gentiles IV.52).
2 De Malo (DM) 4.1 corp. Texts are taken from Disputed Questions on Evil, trans. Jean Oesterle (Notre Dame, Indiana: University of Notre Dame Press, 1995).
3 DM 4.1 ad 18.
4 DM 4.1 corp.
5 DM 4.1 ad 11.
6 Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, trans. Patrick Lynch, ed. James Bastible (Rockford, Illinois: TAN Books and Publishers, 1974), 112.
7 DM 4.1 corp.
8 �The Problem of Evil� in God and the Supernatural (London: Sheed & Ward, 1954), 109-110.
9 �Problem of Evil,� 111.
10 From concupiscere, to desire strongly, usually in reference to goods of the senses.
11 The main thing to bear in mind is that it is not wrong or sinful for the sense appetites to desire sensible goods simply speaking; for that is what those appetites are �built for,� in man no less than any other animal.
12 Substantial forms admit of no degrees. A certain creature is either fully a man, or not a man at all; there is no in-between. The ability of a nature to act can be damaged, but not the nature itself.
13 DM 4.1 corp. As Thomas says: �every man who begets transmits original sin inasmuch as he generates as Adam, not inasmuch as he generates as Peter or Martin, that is, in virtue of what he has from Adam, not in virtue of what is proper to himself� (DM 4.1 ad 8).
14 DM 4.1 ad 19.
15 DM 4.1 ad 2.
16 DM 4.1 ad 3.
17 Ott summarizes: �As original sin is a peccatum natur�, it is transmitted in the same way as human nature, through the natural act of generation. Although according to its origin it is a single sin (D790), that is, the sin of the head of the race alone. . .it is multiplied over and over again through natural generation whenever a child of Adam comes into being� (Fundamentals, 111).
18 Thomas notes: �The defect contracted by way of origin has the formal aspect of being from another if it be referred to the person, but not if it be referred to the nature, for in this way it is, so to speak, from an intrinsic principle� (DM 4.1 ad 5).
19 DM 4.1 ad 15.
20 DM 4.1 ad 16.
21 St. Thomas was aware of the provisional character of his explanation, noting in the body of Summa Theologiae qu. 81 art. 5 that �in the opinion of the philosophers, the active principle of generation is from the father, while the mother provides the matter.� The Catechism of the Catholic Church speaks mostly of Adam�s sin (No. 402-405), but in No. 417 refers to �Adam and Eve.�
22 �As Dionysius says, good results from a whole and integral cause, but evil from any single defect. And therefore a defect on the part of the body is sufficient to deprive human nature of its integrity� (DM 4.1 ad 13).

Repetitio mater studiorum! The preamble to the previous article bears repeating!

"Original sin is a mystery taught as a revealed doctrine, a reality which cannot be fully understood by the power of our minds, although the effects of original sin in the world furnish evidence for its existence.1 That it is possible for a man in this life to disbelieve in God, when it can be known with certainty that God is responsible for his being and his life and that God alone can satisfy his soul, seems to be clear evidence that the soul itself is damaged or wounded. Many signs bear witness to original sin, especially the moral and intellectual aberrations of mankind, such as polytheism and atheism, homosexuality and abortion. A soul in which there was no �principle of sin� would naturally love God, just as man is naturally inclined to love those who do good to him. A soul in which there was no scar of sin would equitably love other men by nature. None of this is or has ever been borne out in the world of experience."

Bottom line - The Catholic Church has definitely declared (De fide), as an article of faith to be believed by the Church Universal, the dogma of Original Sin. This dogmatic declaration has the infallible protection of the Holy Ghost since the gates of hell cannot prevail against Holy Mother Church. Pity that the world refuses to see the Truth of what the Church has consistently taught on matters of faith and morals, i.e., dogma. The world is worse than Pontius Pilate. He, at least, asked the question "What is truth?" albeit Perfect Truth was staring directly at him. The world today is not even interested in asking the question because it finds the answer in its mirror.

During Holy Week the attacks on Christianity always increase because Christianity is unpalatable to those selfish individuals whose only god is the "pantheistic god of pluralism" as a function of the reflection in their mirrors. They have the unmitigated gall to decry believers who understand that, historically, a civilization devoid of Christian moral principles is a civilization staring at anarchy leading to its destruction, something already prevalent in a Godless America due to the dictatorship of an activist judiciary devoid of reason. They hypocritically accuse the �religious right� of coercion while concurrently demanding that their �religion� of �secular humanism� be the enforced law of the land to the extreme of demanding that society redefine marriage to make them comfortable with their unnatural vices, rendering procreation impossible. So much for survival of the species! They refer to �abhorrent� moral Christian principles as �hubris� while offering no reasonable alternative other than an amoral �anything goes� mentality where vice is redefined as virtue - to heck with the common good of society! They have no answers when the inevitable consequence of their illogic asks �What do you appeal to in the absence of universal moral absolutes rooted in God�s Natural Law when the �unlimited rights� of your neighbor conflict with yours?� They recoil from the ONLY possible answer, God Incarnate, the Savior of the World, Who preached selflessness instead of selfishness for the sake of a Kingdom not of this world, giving His life for man�s redemption, which is the ultimate manifestation of love so that man might have a chance at eternal life. Such an ultimate sacrifice is too radical for Christianity�s critics because the word �sacrifice� is not in their selfish vocabulary.

Why should those who disagree with the Godless feel obliged to check their faith at the door before entering public life? Moreover, why should those who know that faith enables reason and reason reinforces faith have to �abandon� their faith in order to placate their critics who are having temper tantrums because they are hysterically enraged by it? And these critics have the audacity to accuse believers of being the �aggressors�! To witness to the Truth Who is Christ for eternity�s sake is an act of love, as without truth there is no love!

Dear Friends,

I've read and re-read carefully all that stlouis has presented here on Original Sin.

At no time has the Latin Church ever pronounced that we inherit the ACTUAL sin of Adam and Eve.

That, in fact, would be unjust. How can we share in the guilt of an ACTUAL sin committed by someone else?

Is this not extreme Augustinianism? Is this not the foundation upon which Protestantism later based its conujectures about predestination?

Original Sin is truly a "sin" and we truly do inherit "sin."

What is passed down to us by generation is death, concupiscence - but most of all, the propensity to rebel against God and the impact of that rebellion that rests on us when we are born.

What Dr. Otto has said and also what the Catechism of the Catholic Church has said on this subject should be sufficient for us on the matter.

Again, the subject of "sin" is something that bears more than one meaning.

The notion that we inherit the actual sin of Adam is simply not the intended meaning of the pronouncements of the Holy Catholic Church on this subject, not at Trent and not in her Catechism published under His Holiness Pope John Paul II.

Stlouis, it would seem to me, is not interested in discussing this matter, but only in imposing a host of texts presented in uncritical fashion while demanding submission to them in the name of the Catholic Church that he feels he is qualified to speak on behalf of.

This is a discussion board. If someone is not interested in discussing, but in rather setting one's views up as a standard of orthodoxy and is ready to hurl anathemas when one disagrees with that standard, then one should not participate in it, but rather seek fellowship with like-minded colleagues on boards where an exact understanding of the Mind of the Church, according to them, is to be had.

I've also reviewed the above poster's website and must say I find it critical of the Catholic Church and therefore cannot recommend it to any Catholic loyal to Rome and the Church's Magisterium.

Alex

Alex is in error when he says that the Catholic Church does not teach that Original Sin is inherited. He is in denial, as clearly shown by any objective reading of what has been dogmatically presented. Trent is most certainly talking about inheritance, as is reflected in the pre-Conciliar (Vatican II) catechisms.

As for the comment about my website, understand that well over a hundred kudos have been received thanking me for that website to include praise for its content from many priests and an Archbishop. Moreover, the director (priest) of the Newman Center at a major midwestern University thanked me personally for it.

One can be critical of teachings that are counter to what the Church has traditionally taught. Saint Paul corrected Saint Peter, I seem to recall.

Dear stlouis,

I have never said that Original Sin is not inherited.

I dispute your understanding of what Original Sin is on the basis of church documents - that is all.

The Eastern Churches asceticism and perspectives on spiritual struggle shows how seriously it takes the matter of our human nature that has been violated by Original Sin.

I am not in denial, I accept this wholeheartedly.

You have also confirmed my suspicion that your "traditional" site is anything but loyal to the Holy See by your reference to what comes before Vatican II.

As for your comparison of yourself to St Paul - well, friend, you are no St Paul.

If you were traditional as you say you are, you would have remembered St Ignatius Loyola's counsel against comparing ourselves to saints in any way in his Spiritual Exercises.

"Traditional" Catholics are often ones to tell the Church today how wrong it is.

And they are wont to affirm as doctrine certain theological traditions, such as Augustinianism, that have NEVER been declared as infallible systems.

Alex

Quotes from Alex on this thread who has a short memory. And Vatican II was a pastoral, not a dogmatic council, by admission of the convening Pope and the Council fathers. It is widely recognized that many documents, at the very least, need clarification. Paul VI recognized this himself when he included a nota explicativa in Lumen Gentium due to an erroneous impression of what collegiality meant which gave the impression that each bishop or council of bishops could be their own authority exclusive of Rome, which ultimately reduces to Congregationalist Protestantism when taken to the extreme of dissenting bishops such as Thomas Gumbleton who says Catholicism allows for the promotion of homosexual acts.

Quotes from Alex. My commentary in brackets.

�The Immaculate Conception and the Assumption, for example, are two papal doctrines that have absolutely no application to the East.�

[These are not papal doctrines Alex, as if they are the just the opinion of a pope. Rather, they are dogmatic teachings of Holy Mother Church, which you have a problem with. How dare you say that these two doctrines have no applications to the East when they are Holy Days in the Byzantine Catholic Church? Your comments are not Catholic, Alex, and they need to be recognized as such.]

�The Byzantine East has never accepted any �stain� of Original Sin in the sense of a passing on of the actual sin of Adam to humanity. What was passed on was the impact of the actual sin of Adam - which is how we understand �Original Sin.�

[The actual sin of Adam is Original Sin, which is passed on to humanity � meaning inherited, which is dogmatic Catholic teaching as shown on this thread. How you understand Original Sin is not how the Catholic Church understands it, Alex.]

�There was no �sin� for our Lady to be made immune from.�

[This is an utter and abject heretical statement in light of the Catholic dogma of Original Sin. This is not the statement of a Catholic.]

�As for the Byzantine East, none of this applies when it comes to Mariology.�

[You cannot be speaking for Catholics here, because that would be heresy. Do not confuse the Orthodox Church with the Catholic Church. This is a Byzantine CATHOLIC website, and in terms of Mariology, I don�t know any Byzantine Catholic cleric that could be in agreement with you; else, they would cease being Catholic in denying the Marian dogmas.]

�In that sense, a Pope could say something along these lines and we BC's would accept it.�

[How can you refer to �we BC�s� given that what you�ve said on this thread is diametrically opposed to Catholic dogma applying to the Universal Church? The Byzantine Catholic Church is in Communion with Rome.]

�While the Immaculate Conception is a papally-proclaimed dogma, the nature of Original Sin is not. The East has always affirmed that no actual stain of the sin of Adam himself is contracted by the rest of humanity, but only the impact on our human nature (concupiscence etc.)�

[The evidence of Alex errors here could not have been presented more clearly as they were on this thread. The nature of Original Sin is proclaimed Catholic dogma per Trent. The stain comments here have been refuted many times over.]

�Also, can you point to a document that states the Pope has pronounced infallibly on how we are to understand Original Sin?� [This has been clearly done.]

I am not Saint Paul, Alex. And you are not the Dogmatic Teaching authority of Holy Mother Church, whose dogmas I quoted verbatim that are completely counter to your assertions which are not Catholic!

Dear Administrator,

I would ask you to intervene here since this person is claiming that you and I are not Catholic.

I, however, affirm that stlouisix is not Orthodox!

Alex