www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Original sin

Dan,

"Do infants have the guilt of sin. I.e., are they worthy of hell if not baptized? This is what one anti-Catholic writer is suggesting that the RC position is saying. He rejects this position. I'm wondering if this is really what the Latin Church believes."

They lack the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. But even before the Catholic Church's current formulation below the Latin Church informally taught that unbaptized infants went to limbo, a state of natural happiness although denied the beatific vision. The current teaching is much more in line with the Gosepl.


From the Cathechism of the Catholic Church:

"1261 As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus' tenderness toward children which caused him to say: "Let the children come to me, do not hinder them,"64 allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism. All the more urgent is the Church's call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy Baptism."

Fr. Deacon Lance

Yes, that is an informal teaching, if even that. Limbo is theological speculation and the Church has never taught it officially. If I remember correctly, when the arguments for Limbo were submitted to the particular Pope ( I don't remember which one), the Pope said something to the effect that the arguments were logical, but that God could mercifully take the infants into heaven. So the whole thing is an unknown that hasn't been defined. What a shock that the Latin Church missed defining something

Dear Friends,

I think the fundamental point of disagreement on this issue between East and West does indeed centre on how the two understand the IMPACT of Original Sin in our lives.

Both sides DO affirm that the Theotokos NEVER had any stain of actual, personal sin in her whatever and that she was sanctified by the Divine Spirit from her very Conception.

But while the East affirms this (and began celebrating the liturgical feast of the Conception of the Theotokos in the seventh century), the East AT THE SAME TIME affirms that the Theotokos was not EXEMPT from Original Sin.

For the East, IF the Mother of God had indeed died, then she was not exempt from Original Sin - understood in terms of the impact of Adam's sin of disobedience on our nature which is, first and foremost, the experience of death.

So when Orthodox theologians are confronted with the West's dogma of the Immaculate Conception and the way it is worded, they cannot help but understand it to be saying that the Theotokos was somehow OUTSIDE of the condition of humanity after Adam's fall.

They do NOT see it as primarily affirming that she was All-Holy from her Conception - as they have always believed that according to the "lex orandi, lex credendi" principle.

The East affirms that the indwelling of the Spirit from her conception MITIGATED the effects of Original Sin in the life of the Theotokos.

Thus, she felt no pain when giving birth to Christ and her death was so light as to be called a "Dormition" or "Falling Asleep."

Irrespective of how the Roman Catholic Church understands "Original Sin," the dogma of the Immaculate Conception affirms that the Theotokos was preserved free from it.

The difference between the two perspectives is a weighty one therefore.

For the West, for the Mother of God to be said to be conceived in holiness means that she was "free of the stain of Original Sin."

For the East, that definition is nonsensical as it has NO impact on the fact that the Mother of God was conceived in holiness and was and is, in fact, All-Holy and Ever-Immaculate. Furthermore, as she died, she can NOT be said to have been exempt from Original Sin.

For her role in Soteriology to be meaningful, God would have had to maintain her connection to us vis-a-vis Adam and the condition of Original Sin which Her Son came to liberate us from.

So the fundamental difference between East and West centres around two separate understandings of how her holy conception is related to Original Sin.

The East sees it as mitigating the effects of Original Sin such as her death.

The West sees it as exempting her from Original Sin as a whole.

Alex

Alex,

I think it is again a problem of terminology and explanation. I think the best thing both sides could do is toss the term Original Sin as it is a confusing and ultimately meaningless term.

Man is conceived and born with out the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. The Mother of God did not suffer from this defect. Because of the indwelling of the Spirit she was able to avoid sinning during her life. Inspite of this, however, she was subject to death, as was her Son, but not to corruption, like her Son, and so her body was translated to Heaven and soul and body being reunited she is the first to be resurrected, befitting the one from whom the Resurrection and Life took flesh.

Both the East and West agree on this and it is the essence of what both teach. East and West must cease arguing over what metaphors and tools each has chosen to employ and focus on the fundamental truth.

Fr. Deacon Lance

Dear Reverend Father Deacon Lance,

And a happy weekend to you too!

Alex

Dear Ghazar,

Sorry I made a few typos that garbled the inconsistency. You quote an individual from the West who focuses on the act of conception rather than personal qualities, and take the quotation as evidence for a different emphasis between East and West. But when you begin to summarize offical pronouncements from the West, what you present is all about her person, not the act of conception, at odds with your prior generalization.


Hi Alex,
Certainly they can.

Let me use a different example. Some Orthodox eschew the use of the word transubstantion, and prefer "transmutation". I know that "transmutation" refers to nuclear chemistry in which, for example, the number of protons in the nucleus of atoms are changed, thus they are converted from one element to another. Can I help myself from attaching this meaning to to Orthodox uses of "transmutation".

Certainly.

Dear djs,

I think you are wrong on the Immaculate Conception point, but entirely correct on the Transmutation point.

Have a great weekend!

Alex

But Alex, they are mutatis mutandis the same point!
You have a great weekend too.

Dan here's a nice summary on our point.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/limbo.htm

Dear Ghazar:

You wrote:
I am not that well read make conclusions about the far majority. Interestingly, when I googled around I found that Orthodox writers are consistently asserting a difference, but typically the difference was rooted in erroneous impressions of Catholic teaching, typically involving the problem in translating concepts from one system to the other that was discussed earlier.

I had a hard time finding any writings in which Catholics were claiming a different teaching - lnot to mention anything approaching a far majority. Got some links?

I've believed for a long time that at the heart of all the divisions is Christianity is ego. Too much turf to give up. I wonder if all Christians would just refuse to listen to the talk of divisions emanating from some divisive hierarchs if they would simply change their tune. Perhaps a sit down strike is in order.

Dan L

Dear Djs,

You make a good point here. The difference isn't so much the point of St. Mariam's purity and spotlessness (which we both agree on). It is just that in addition to this commonality the Latins go a couple steps further by stating dogmatically the exact moment she received this spotlessness and what exactly the Mystery of St. Mariam's spotlessness entails. We simply accept this Mystery and celebrate it "as is." Thanks for helping me to realize this, I have adjusted the essay to make this point more clearly.

As for my other point which you say you are not as well read on to agree with me, allow me to put it this way: I know of no Orthodox writer (and I have read many) who state that we are in full agreement with the Latin definition of the Immaculate Conception. If you know of Orthodox writers who teach that we are in full agreement, please share them with us. As for the Latin Church side, I have read many Roman Catholic authors who try to convince the Orthodox that the Latin teaching is correct. But I know of none who state that Orthodox and Catholics teach the identical teaching regarding St. Mariam's Conception. Do you?

Dear Dan,

I agree with you to a point. This is why in the above mentioned essay, I tried to as it were, "cut through the crap" and really understand what each side is affirming regarding original sin and St. Mariam. Yet for every ten Churchmen on divisive ego trips, you've got at least one trying sweep our real differences under the rug in the name of unity. Rather than ignoring and denying them, I'm for admitting them and seeing how they can either be harmonized or seen as complimentary. I believe this is the best approach to resolving our differences.

Ghazar,

I've read and re-read your article.

I'm still baffled by the objection.

I understand the Catholic position to be:

Mary's holiness was a gift from God and that she was never apart from that grace. All her life she did God's will.

Is that objectionable?

The approach that "splits hairs" on how East and West understand original sin seems like listening to lawyer talk to me. (I'm referring to both Churches here.)

Not meaning to offend...It's just that I don't see why that can't be where our Churches could agree on this subject.

reply: You know what Dave, I think it is a little disingenuous to reduce one's teaching to a simple sentence and then accuse the other side of "splitting hairs" because they may or may not agree with that one simple sentence. Catholic Apologists do this all the time, and its not fair. The doctrine of the Immaculate Conception carries more than that sentence you summarized it with. The Orthodox objection is not to your simple sentence but to all of the historical trappings that went along with that doctrine and how it was pronounced. You have reformulated it, simplified it, and then accused the other side of splitting hairs because they don't agree with your simple little summarization. If Rome herself, simplified, reformulated it in such a way, perhaps our theologians would be able to accept this modified form. But to my knowledge this has not yet happened, so you can't blame Orthodox for not accepting your simplified form. The same goes for the doctrine of original sin. Anyone who says we don't have historical differences here (albeit perhaps reconcilable ones) are just turning a blind eye to our real differences in the name of a feigned unity. I believe this approach, contrary to what they think they are accomplishing by doing this, is detrimental to unity because it is not doing justice to reality. It is better to admit our real differences and deal with them (like the Vatican has done with the Filioque). Much more progress can be accomplished in this manner. You may say you really don't see differences and this is just myself splitting hairs. But, again, the far majority of East and West recognize we teach differently on St. Mariam's Conception. So this is not deriving from myself. In my essay, I am simply taking heed, recognizing fact, and trying to understand the real differences. I do this not in the name of disunity but in order to recognize our differences so we can address them. But you call this splitting hairs. Now who is being the real hinderance to progress?