Why not Eastern Orthodoxy?

Pontifications ^ | 6/09/2005 | Al Kimel? uncertain

[Hermann the Cherusker]

"I happen to remember there is an Orthodox church in your neighborhood. Why not stop in and ask these questions yourself and in person?"

Maybe I already have.

And maybe I want to reconcile what you are claiming here in light of that.

[kosta50]

As you say, your belief is that all men are conceived in union with Christ and thus able to enter into the Kingdom of Heaven if they die before actually sinning...This is what I understand by the denial of the guilt of original sin.

I would never say such a thing.

We are born mortal. From Adam's personal sin that changed human nature and made it mortal we inherit death -- a consequence of a wrong choice. Where is our guilt? What have you done against God when you were conceived that makes you guilty?

God loves us unconditionally. He even loves those who hate Him. It is not God Who damns us but it is our choosing that does. The only guilt we should feel is over our wicked doings.

I feel for anyone who goes around his entire life telling others they should feel guilty for being alive. He should look into his own heart and find out why he is a slave to guilt.

I am a sinner of my own choice, and I am more sinful every day. That is my "stain." Not my being alive.

Whether it is possible for unbaptized babies go to heaven is up to God. I don't preoccupy myself with such silly questions for one moment.

Non-Christian people also know God in their own way, incomplete as it may be, impersonal perhaps, but they have recognized His goodness, mercy and love trough the Spirit. Are they doomed to never see His Glory too?

We shouldn't worry about our "guilt" for being alive, but more how Christ-like we can become by living the faith, if we could just quit playing lawyers for God.

[Hermann the Cherusker]

"The question becomes, “What then is the inheritance of humanity from Adam and Eve if it is not guilt?” The Orthodox Fathers answer as one: death."

As long as you refuse to understand us by what we mean when we say the guilt (culpa) or stain (macula) of original sin, you will continue to insist that we have created a new doctrine. And it is quite difficult to grasp why you insist on interpreting our doctrines by your own understanding of terms, rather than accepting our understanding of terms.

By the inherited "guilt" or "stain" of original sin, we mean the inheritence of death of the soul. It is a stain, because the God did not create us to die, therefore our death is an imperfection caused in what He has done, and imperfections are referred to as staining the desired perfection. It is guilt since guilt implies a fault, and a soul is only devoid of the life of God inasmuch as it has the guilt of sin and therefore the absence of unity with and love of God. The guilt or stain is not however a personal fault but an inherited fault. It is not a personal demerit but a personal defect caused by the transmission of a faulty human nature - one devoid of justice and holiness, and filled with disordered sensible desires that are out of the control of the rational mind absent the presence of grace in the soul.

"Before holy baptism, the soul, being covered by the darkness of the ancestral sin, does not see clearly. But after holy Baptism the soul becomes all light, reflecting the supernatural light of divine grace." (St. Nicodemos of the Holy Mountain, A Handbook of Spiritual Counsel, p. 68)

Change the words "darkness of ancestral sin" to "guilt/stain of original sin" and you have precisely what we believe in our own theological language as opposed to Orthodox theological language St. Nicodemos spoke and which you speak in here.

[Hermann the Cherusker]

From the linked article: "As we have seen, for the early Church Fathers and the Orthodox Church the Atonement is much more than a divine exercise in jurisprudence; it is the event of the life, death and resurrection of the Son of God that sets us free from the Ancestral Sin and its effects. Our slavery to death, sin, corruption and the devil are destroyed through the Cross and Resurrection and our hopeless adventure in autonomy is revealed to be what it is: a dead end."

Another misrepresentation of western doctrine.

A simple antidote might be to look at the Exultet, the ancient Latin song of the Easter Vigil the Deacon sings to commence the service. Orthodoxy loves to use the Liturgy to point to doctrine, so let me do the same. The Exultet is at least 1400 years old, being present in Gallican service books of the 7th century.

"Qui pro nobis aeterno Patri Adae debitum solvit et veteris piaculi cautionem pio cruore detersit." - "Who paid for us to his eternal Father the debt of Adam: and ransomed us by his sacred blood from our ancient sin."

"O mira circa nos tuae pietatis dignatio! O inaestimabilis dilectio caritatis: ut servum redimeres, Filium tradidisti!" - "O how admirable is thy goodness towards us! O how inestimable is thy love! Thou hast delivered up thy Son to redeem a slave."

http://praiseofglory.com/exultetlatin.htm

[kosta50]

"Before holy baptism, the soul, being covered by the darkness of the ancestral sin, does not see clearly....Change the words "darkness of ancestral sin" to "guilt/stain of original sin"..."

Oh Hermann, you have outdone yourself here! The answer is no. Darkness of a blind soul is not the same as guilt over our imperfection for which neither you nor I nor anyone else on this earth is responsible but Adam.

It was Adam who broke God's perfect cup that God gave him. As children of Adam, we inherit his broken cup and have to live with it, and pass it on to our children. No one but Adam is guilty of breaking that cup in a fit of pride and arrogance. We only have to live with it. However, in His infinite mercy, God not only lovingly offers us a new cup, but even assumes Adam's guilt for breaking it!

I really feel sorry for anyone who lives his or her life in constant guilt over something neither of us have done. The only guilt I feel is my own ingratitude to God, but not for inheriting a broken cup.

[stripes1776]

Similarly, it is difficult to understand how the Council of Chalcedon (rejected by the nearly the entire patriarchates of Alexandria and Antioch, as well as all of Armenia and Ethiopia, but accepted by Nestorius) has any authority whatsoever even to this day, since the schism persists, with much of the East Christian world rejecting it still.

That is a good piece of criticism. It brings out a contradiction in an idea that I have held to be true for a long time. And you stated it without personal attack.

I don't have a rejoinder just yet, but I don't think that issuing anathemas to your criticism is helpful or thoughtful.

[gbcdoj]

I would never say such a thing.

My apologies. I understood this from "we are not concerned that God would see an infant as his enemy. Only +Augustine, in his troubled soul, could come up with something like that, and not see God's mercy". This appeared to me to state that you were unconcerned about the possibility of an infant not being a friend of God (i.e., "all men are conceived in union with Christ and thus able to enter into the Kingdom of Heaven if they die before actually sinning"). This doctrine seems to be held by the other Orthodox here - that before an infant sins by some act of the will, he has no fault preventing his entry into the kingdom.

It is not a question of worrying about guilt, but of understanding the real need to bring Christ to all men, even those who die in infancy.

[kosta50]

I understood this from "we are not concerned that God would see an infant as his enemy

We are not, because God loves even His enemies.

It's not that an infant is an enemy of God; the infant is born in almost complete darkness, which is not of his or her doing.

The infant is sure to sin should he or she live, but at conception the infant is not guilty of any transgression. He or she merely inherits the cup (our nature) that Adam broke.

The important thing in Orthodoxy is to honestly try, even if we honestly fail. Our Lord commands us to baptize, but if an infant dies before we can bring him or her into the Church, we trust in God's mercy and do not speculate what options God exercises in His just and merciful judgment.

[gbcdoj]

I feel for anyone who goes around his entire life telling others they should feel guilty for being alive. He should look into his own heart and find out why he is a slave to guilt.

On a side note, I just ran across this...

19. Man ought to do penance during his whole life for original sin.

Condemned and prohibited as rash, scandalous, evil-sounding, injurious, close to heresy, smacking of heresy, erroneous, schismatic, and heretical respectively. (Decree of the Holy Office, under Pope Alexander VIII, Dec. 7, 1690)

[Hermann the Cherusker]

"Before holy baptism, the soul, being covered by the darkness of the ancestral sin, does not see clearly....Change the words "darkness of ancestral sin" to "guilt/stain of original sin"..."

Oh Hermann, you have outdone yourself here! The answer is no. Darkness of a blind soul is not the same as guilt over our imperfection for which neither you nor I nor anyone else on this earth is responsible but Adam.

No again, its not the same in your theological language, but it is in ours. That is my point. When evaluating our language, you cannot use your own concepts.

The word translated as "guilt" from Latin is "culpa". indicating that the correct definition which should be thought of here is "culpability", i.e. "deserving of blame", and not "the fact of having comitted a specific offense" or "the feeling of the same". Another word used for "guilt" is "reatus", which has the classical meaning "the state or condition of an accused person".

I really feel sorry for anyone who lives his or her life in constant guilt over something neither of us have done. The only guilt I feel is my own ingratitude to God, but not for inheriting a broken cup.

I'm not aware of a single western Christian who takes the concept of "guilt of original sin" as something we need to be personally sorrowful about, or feels that "guilt of original sin" means that we are personally responsible for what Adam did. It refers to the defect of our soul we are born with (i.e. its being spiritually dead), and the condition that places us in vis-a-vis God.

[kosta50]

Condemned and prohibited as rash...

Interesting.

[kosta50]

When evaluating our language, you cannot use your own concepts...The word translated as "guilt" from Latin is "culpa". indicating that the correct definition which should be thought of here is "culpability", i.e. "deserving of blame"

The Latin word culpa means fault or error, mistake. The Slavonic word for sin is greh, which comes from the verb greshiti -- to err. The Greek word hamartia means to miss the mark, but also to be mistaken or to err.

In all three instances, in all three liturgical languages, the word "sin" means one and the same thing: fault, error, mistake.

The modern English word cupability is applied to every day life -- where our actions or omissions place us at fault and therefore make us blameworthy or cupable.

To use a legal term in the context of the "original sin" is in itself off the mark, because the only error made was by Adam: his error of judgment. He and Eve made a grave error, and instead of repenting blamed God. His choice was an error which corrupted our nature. His action was a mistake -- his mistake, not ours. So, the only guilt of the ancestral sin is Adam's.

As a result of his mistake, we inherit death from our parents, and pass it on to our children. We inherit that broken cup and give it to our children, because we can not on our own fix it. We need God's help.

And, God made it clear that he offers us a new perfect cup and that, in His forgiveness, He takes the blame for Adam's transgression, so that we may live.

The problem, again, is legalism that has enslaved the West -- for inheriting the consequences ouf our parent's mistakes does not make us legally or morally culpable for their transgressions. The Germans of today do not share the culpability of their gradparents' Nazi past.

[Hermann the Cherusker]

The concepts of sin, guilt, and punishment are all tightly intertwined in ecclesiastical Latin. It is impossible to imagine one without the others.

Here's some of the words you might run into, and their ecclesiastical and classical definitions:

culpa - fault, guilt, sin (ecclesiastical); to blame, find fault with, accuse, disapprove, lay blame on (classical)

reatus - guilt, fault (ecclesiastical); the state or condition of an accused person (classical)

picaulum - sin, crime (eccleisasitcal); any means of expiating sin or appeasing a deity, an expiatory sacrifice, a sin-offering, any means of healing, remedy, punishmeny, that which renders an offering necessary, a sin, crime, evil deed (classical)

peccatum - sin (ecclesiastical); a sin, crime offence, fault (classical)

delictum - crime, sin, dishonor (ecclesiastical); a fault, crime, delinquency (classical)

noxa - crime, sin, harm, offense (ecclesiastical); harm, injury, damage, a crime, fault, offense, punishment (classical)

noxius - harmful, hurtful, sinful, guilty (ecclesiastical); noxious, hurtful, injurious, criminal, culpable, guilty (classical)

vitium - fault, sin, vice (ecclesiastical); a fault, defect, blemish, imperfection, moral fault, crime, vice (classical)

sceleratus - wicked (ecclesiastical); polluted, profaned by guilt, impious, wicked, profane, infamous, accursed (classical)

macula - stain, blemish (ecclesiastical); a spot, mark, blot, stain, blemish, fault (classical)

You seem to be thinking of the human soul soiled by original sin having guilt in the sense of "sceleratus", where the soul is profaned and polluted and wicked. We don't think of it that way at all, nor do we use that word.

[kosta50]

Hermann, whatever the English rendition of culpa is, the word was used to translate the Greek word hamartia, which means error, just as the Slavonic word greh means -- all of them meaning one and the same thing: sin. To sin is to err against God. In order to err, one must do something. Being born with a defective soul is not our error or fault. The original sin is Adam's.

Our faiths are 99% the same. The 1% that we don't agree on is small but essential. You are of course free to feel and interpret any way you want. It all goes back to my previous statement that we have reached the core of our differences and that this core will not be broken without one side yielding to the other. So, no complete reunion is possible. Let's just stick to the issues we agree on and at least be 99% on the same page, and recognize that our core differences are something we should know but not touch.

Remember, what counts is the intent. If our intent is good, maybe the good Lord will have mercy on our inability to come to terms.

[Hermann the Cherusker]

Hermann, whatever the English rendition of culpa is, the word was used to translate the Greek word hamartia, which means error, just as the Slavonic word greh means -- all of them meaning one and the same thing: sin. To sin is to err against God. In order to err, one must do something. Being born with a defective soul is not our error or fault. The original sin is Adam's.

All well and good if you actually had the Latin words correct. But the common word for sin in Latin is "peccatum", not "culpa".

For example, St. Matthew 18.15, Douay-Rhiems: "If thy brother sin (harmatia) against thee, go and rebuke him, between thee and him alone." - Vulgate: "Si peccaverit in te frater tuus, vade, et coripe eum inter te, et ipsum solum."

You will find if you work your way through the Greek New Testament and compare it to the Vulgate, that "peccatum" is used in every instance to translate "harmatia". As I noted previously, the definition is:

peccatum - sin (ecclesiastical); a sin, crime, offence, fault (classical)

Original Sin in Latin is "peccatum originale".

"Culpa" is used only in a few specific circumstances in the Vulgate. For example:

Hebrews 8.7, Douai: "For if that former had been faultless (amemptos), there should not indeed a place have been sought for a second." - Vulgate: "nam si illud prius culpa vacasset non utique secundi locus inquireretur"

Genesis 31.36, Douai: "And Jacob being angry, said in a chiding manner: For what fault (pesha - Hebrew, adikema - Greek Septuagint) of mine, and for what offense on my part hast thou so hotly pursued me" - Vulgate: "tumensque Iacob cum iurgio ait quam ob culpam meam et ob quod peccatum sic exarsisti post me"

"Reus", a word derived from "reatus", which is sometimes used to describe what is translated as "guilt" of original sin is used more frequently:

1 Corinthians 11.27, Douai: "Therefore whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of (enochos) the body and of the blood of the Lord." - Vulgate: "itaque quicumque manducaverit panem vel biberit calicem Domini indigne reus erit corporis et sanguinis Domini"

James 2.10, Douai: "And whosoever shall keep the whole law, but offend in one point, is become guilty of (enochos) all." - Vulgate: "quicumque autem totam legem servaverit offendat autem in uno factus est omnium reus"

St. Matthew 5.21-22, Douai: "You have heard that it was said to them of old: Thou shalt not kill. And whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment. But I say to you, that whosoever is angry with his brother, shall be in danger of the judgment. And whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council. And whosoever shall say, Thou Fool, shall be in danger of hell fire." - Vulgate: "audistis quia dictum est antiquis non occides qui autem occiderit reus erit iudicio ego autem dico vobis quia omnis qui irascitur fratri suo reus erit iudicio qui autem dixerit fratri suo racha reus erit concilio qui autem dixerit fatue reus erit gehennae ignis"

St. Matthew 26.66, Douai: "What think you? But they answering, said: He is guilty of (enochos) death." - Vulgate: "quid vobis videtur at illi respondentes dixerunt reus est mortis"

St. Mark 3.29, Douai: "But he that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost, shall never have forgiveness, but shall be guilty of (enochos) an everlasting sin." - "qui autem blasphemaverit in Spiritum Sanctum non habet remissionem in aeternum sed reus erit aeterni delicti"

Now, the actual use of "guilt" in regards to sin is very straightforward. St. Thomas Aquinas, in commenting on Psalm 50, for example, gives us an excellent text to explore the proper meaning of these words:
http://faculty.niagara.edu/loughlin/Psalms/Psalm_50.html

"Yet more. Here he asks that the uncleanness of guilt (culpae) be removed. The man who has a well-disposed conscience abhors more the uncleanness of the guilt (culpae) than the severity of the punishment, and therefore says: Wash me yet more, as if he were saying: I ask that you blot out the punishment, but I ask yet more that you cleanse the stain (maculum)."

The guilt (culpae) of sin is seen as a stain (macula) on the soul.

Also in the same Commentary:

"First therefore he asks that the charge (reatum) of punishment be removed; and therefore he says: Wash me yet more from my iniquity. It should be known that in Jeremias 17 it is said that 'The sin of Juda is written with a pen of iron, with the point of a diamond:' in the likeness of a judge who writes a punishment (culpam) which so long as it is preserved written, thus lon godes it have the spirit of punishing."

The word "reatum" is seen as a charge and the "culpa" is also seen as liability to punishment. And further on:

"For behold. Here he sets forth the root of guilt (culpae). The root of all actual guilt (culpae actualis) is original sin which is contracted from parents tainted with that sin. This tainting was in the father of David himself, and in his mother. As to has father, he says: I was conceived in iniquities, not in actual sins, for not of adultery, but of marriage, and he was born to, or sprung from, the hold Jesse, as it is said in the final chapter of Ruth; but in original sin: for in this sin all are born. Romans 5: 'By one man sin entered this world.'

"But since there is one original sin, why does he say: I was conceived in iniquities?

"It must be said that original sin is one in essence, as it thus may be said, many, however, in power: for it furnishes opportunity for all other sins. Romans 7: 'The sin which is in my flesh is effectual.' And this lessens guilt, as if he were saying: It is not astonishing if I sin, for I was conceived in them."

Here we see "culpa" connected to original sin, and used in the sense of its second meaning in classical Latin, "the cause of error or sin" - in this case being the inherited disorder of the soul seperated from God caused by the transmission from Adam of a fallen human nature. So he continues:

"It must be said that baptism and circumcision clease the soul of original guilt (culpa originali), but so far incitement remains; and circumcision was done in the flesh, and man engenders fleshly children according to the flesh: and therefore it was necessary again that a son having been born should be circumcised; as now one born of baptized parents is baptized."

"Original guilt" - "culpa originali" is a shorthand for "guilt of original sin", as may be seen by other uses in the text of the word "originali" to mean "original sin". St. Thomas Aquinas is claiming that Baptism (and Cricumcision in the Old Covenent) cleanse the soul of the "culpa" of Original Sin.

As we have seen from previous portions of his commentary, this "culpa" or "guilt" is not to be understood as a personal fault or guilt for something we have actually done, but as a stain on the soul which is the cause of actual sins.

In the soul, the "culpa" is the absence of grace. The absence of grace is adjoined to the disorder of the concupiscible appetites (these are the sensitive appetites which crave pleasurable goods). The correction of the absence of grace through Baptism also allows man to control concupiscence, by subjecting his desire for pleasureable goods to the rational ends of these desires intended by God through the strength provided by the divine energies. But when a man ignores this divine help, and allows his latent disordered desires to take hold, by not subjecting the sensitive appetite to reason through grace he falls into the excess of sin.

[Hermann the Cherusker]

The problem, again, is legalism that has enslaved the West -- for inheriting the consequences ouf our parent's mistakes does not make us legally or morally culpable for their transgressions. The Germans of today do not share the culpability of their gradparents' Nazi past.

The "culpa" of original sin is not a sharing in collective guilt with Adam and Eve, but a liability on our part for the consequences of our existence as received from them without union with God prior to reception of Baptism. It is not as though we are "guilty" of or "culpable" for what Adam and Eve did. It is that we are born fated for doom unless we are reborn in grace. The "culpa/guilt" is our liability for exclusion from the vision of God forever barring a change of the condition of our soul. It is not a personally caused problem, but rather a problem of our person.

[kosta50]

peccatum - sin (ecclesiastical); a sin, crime, offence, fault (classical)

Ergo the same as culpa in its original usage.

[kosta50]

The "culpa/guilt" is our liability for exclusion from the vision of God forever barring a change of the condition of our soul. It is not a personally caused problem, but rather a problem of our person

Why are we culpable for being born in the darkness? We are simply given a broken cup that won't hold water and we can't fix it without God's help.

[johnb838]

I think we can all agree though that Anglicanism is white bread, tastes good, but no nutritional value.

[johnb838]

infinite satisfaction for His offended pride.

We only have to take a look at our selves, not even that deep a look to realize that this is a backhanded slap at God. Our fallen nature is on display for everyone to see, it isn't some abstract theological construct based on Genesis 1.