NEW: Original Sin/Immaculate Conception

Dear Father,

Your quotations from JPII’s explanation regarding the original sin that is passed on to generations is, as usual, eisegetic. For all who may not know the origin of this discussion, I had originally asked Father for proof from any official Church document stating that what is passed on to man is Adam’s actual sin and Adam’s actual guilt for his sin – this latter being the Orthodox accusation. This is in the context of his claim that the Church has changed her teaching and is now only coming closer to the Orthodox conception of Original Sin. In contrast, I have asserted that the Church has never changed her teaching on Original Sin, though indeed some theologians taught a rather Protestant view of original sin for at most 200 years in the history of the Church. However, this popular preaching never supplanted the official teaching of the Church. Having said that, I challenged Father to provide any official documentation to validate his accusation that the Catholic Church teaches the Protestant view that Original Sin consists of Adam’s actual sin and actual guilt, and that this is what is passed on as “original sin.”

And this is where we are at in the discussion. Father Ambrose provided excerpts from JPII’s explanation of original sin as supposed proof for his accusation. Namely:

“Now it is in no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled with that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the Teaching Authority of the Church propose with regard to original sin, which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam and which through generation is passed on to all and is in everyone as his own.”

“4. The biblical texts on the universality and **hereditary nature of sin as through “congenital” in nature in the state in which everyone receives it at the moment of conception from one’s parents, **lead us to examine more directly the Catholic teaching on original sin. (Also quoted: Ps 50, Rom 3:9, 19; Eph 2:3)”

“2. In this regard, the Tridentine Decree states first of all**: Adam’s sin has passed to all his descendants, that is to all men and women as descendants of our first parents and their heirs in human nature already deprived of God’s friendship.**” (bold-face by Father A)

The first quote is from Pius XII’s Humanii Generis, and the next two are from JPII’s explanation of Original Sin. Father, your use of the first quote does not make sense. It clearly differentiates between original sin, and the “sin actually committed by an individual Adam.” Really, Father. It is a disservice to your post that you are not more discerning.

(continued)

(continued)

As noted, the other two are simply pulled out of context. But before presenting excerpts from JPII’s explanation to invalidate Father’s claim, I would like to point out that the entire matter consists merely in this statement by Father Ambrose:

“I don’t buy the contrived equation between ‘sin’ and ‘death.’”

It is the way of the non-Catholic polemicist to disregard official explanations by the Catholic Church and continue in their misinformed beliefs about her. I pursue this exercise of presenting proof against Father’s accusation not for his sake, who seems to be steeled in his hard-heartedness on this issue (though that will prayerfully change), but for the sake of those who may be misled by his statements. Thus:

As regards the second quote, first I want to point out that the “through” is a typo and should be “though.” This is clearly attested in 3.7 of the document where it states that the adjective “congenital” is not to be taken literally, but only “in a certain sense.”

As regards the third quote, the crux of the matter is an identification of “Adam’s sin” of which it speaks. Rather dishonest of Father A, but the explanation is in the very next paragraph of the text from which the third quote is taken and states:

“The Tridentine Decree (DS 1512) explicitly states that Adam’s sin tainted not only himself but also all his descendants. Adam forfeited original justice and holiness not only for himself but also for us (nobis etiam). Therefore, he transmitted to the whole human race not only bodily death and other penalties (consequences of sin) but also sin itself as the death of the soul (peccatum quod est mors animae.)”

Anyone who reads the entire explanation by JPII will readily perceive that Original Sin is not equated with the personal sin of Adam and Eve. Rather it is defined as and relates specifically to the CONSEQUENCES of those sins. The explanation is redolent with language of “consequences” of the first actual sin of our first parents, so only one who comes to the table with an eisegetic mentality will miss it.

As one sees, there is no honest basis for Father A or any Orthodox to accuse the Catholic Church of having ever changed her teaching on Original Sin. It has been as our Fathers have passed on to us. But in this, the Orthodox are not heretics for they share the same basic teaching as us – it is just that they do not want to admit it. Their sin is not heresy, but hard-hearted pride.

God bless,

Greg

P.S. Father, you had presented a lengthy statement about the Immaculate Conception in the other thread and I had asked you what is it from that statement with which you disagree. Let us discuss those points in this thread. Thank you.

The New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia which has an Imprimatur, has an extensive section of ORIGINAL SIN.

newadvent.org/cathen/11312a.htm

Greg,

Father Ambrose is just a product of a schismatic Orthodox Church. Why listen to his suppose “teachings” about original sin? He is not even a bishop. His views are twisted since he always view Catholic teachings as “imperfect.” It is no wonder why he will make assumptions and take it seriously and say “this is the Catholic teaching.” He is not a Catholic so he can’t interpret what belongs to the Catholic Church. Otherwise he will be Catholic. He will always make it to a point that Catholic teaching goes “in line” with Orthodox Church. Why believe the schismatics?

Pio

The topic of Original Sin has already received extensive coverage on this Forum.

You could do a search to discover the relevant threads. Also threads which discuss the Immaculate Conception have a great amount of material about Original Sin.

Hope that this information will help your discussions…


Here is one thread
forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=11290&highlight=original

What is the difference between the Eastern Orthodox definition of Original Sin, and the Catholic definition?

Also, what exactly is the difference between the dogma of the Immaculate Conception, and the Eastern belief that Mary is Immaculate?


“Until the day breaks and the shadows flee, I will go to the mountain of *myrrh * and to the hill of incense.” ~ Song of Solomon 4:6

For what it’s worth in this discussion, I’ll just go by the Blessed Virgin Mary’s own words (as spoken to St. Bernadette at Lourdes) “I am the Immaculate Conception.”

If it’s good enough for her, then it’s good enough for me.

Now, as for original sin, I was wondering what the Orthodox make of John 1:29:

The next day, John saw Jesus coming to him; and he saith: Behold the Lamb of God. Behold him who taketh away the sin of the world.

Not to get bogged down with another discussion on subsitutionary atonement (like in that other thread), but what exactly is the sin (singular) which the lamb takes away?

Thumbing through a Frank Sheed book the other day, he seems to associate this with original sin, not to mention a tie-in with Psalm 51:5 (speaking of the other thread…).

Furthermore, I have yet to receive an anwer to a question I asked on the papal primacy thread (at least I think it was that thread).

If the Orthodox profess the Nicene Creed which states:

“I/We confess one baptism for the remission of sins…”

What sin is being remitted/forgiven when the Orthodox baptize infants? From what I gathered from Myrrh before her suspension it seemed like she was suggesting that adult baptism was for the remission of sins, but infant baptism was to receive the Holy Spirit.

As far as I can tell, that implies 2 different baptisms, and is clearly in opposition to the Creed. However, if there really aren’t 2 different baptisms in the Orthodox Churches, then there must be some kind of sin remitted in infant baptism. What is it, if not original sin?

Hello everyone,

I was on a forum at www.christianityforums.com, and they were discussing the relationship between the EO and the OO (Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox) churchs and the following text was posted about original sin:

"CATECHISM OF THE GREEK ORTHODOX CHURCH
Original Sin And Its Consequences
The disobedience and transgression of Adam and Eve is called Original Sin. What happened? As we have previously said, God gave Adam and Eve permission to eat the fruit of all trees except the fruit of the tree “of the knowledge of good and evil.” Here is what the Bible says: “You may freely eat of every tree of the Garden; but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it, you shall die”(Genesis 2:16-17). In other words, God said to Adam and to Eve, "You may eat the fruit of all of the trees that are in the Garden and that are edible; it is only the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil that you should not eat. On the day that you do eat it, you shall die."
A guilty person wants an accomplice. Satan, who had been an angel and had disobeyed God, becoming Satan, felt guilty and terribly alone. He could keep company only with the other Satans, the demons. His nature had been perverted; he was unable and is unable ever to think about goodness. He always thinks and desires evil. He always seeks evil for others. He was jealous of man. He saw that he was so very happy in Paradise in the company of God. So he put his evil plans into action. As the spirit that he is, he entered the body of a snake. Then he climbed the tree of “the knowledge of good and evil.” He waited there. Eve came and peered at the tree. Satan intruded upon her curiosity. He asked her, “Tell me, Eve, is it true that God told you not to eat the fruit of all of the trees?” Eve answered, “No. He told us to eat the fruit of all the trees except the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, because if we did we would die.” The serpent said, “You shall not die. God knows that on the day that you eat of that fruit, your eyes will open and you will become as gods. You will know good and evil.” Eve liked Satan’s sweet and slanderous words. She stretched out her hand. She took a fruit from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. She ate some, and she also gave some to her mate, Adam. They ate together. Immediately, “their eyes were opened” and they realized that they were naked (Genesis 3:1-7).

continued

Because many people say that the Bible is being metaphorical and that by the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil the Bible refers to the sexual relationship of Adam and Eve, we repeat here that this is not true. God had decreed the sexual relationship of Adam and Eve when he told them to “increase and multiply.” Then what shall we say is the original sin? It is the denunciation of God. If you will, it is the attempt of man to disenthrone God and to enthrone himself in His place, to become God in the place of God. It is not merely that he ate fruit from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. St. John Chrysostom says about Eve, “She was filled with grandiose imaginings, hoping to be equal to God.” Hoping to be equal to God, she lost her senses.

That is original sin. And its consequences? A.) Spiritual death. That is, the separation of man from God, the source of all goodness. B.) Bodily death. That is, the separation of the body from the soul, the return of the body to the earth. C.) The shattering and distortion of the “image.” That is, darkness of mind, depravity and corruption of the heart, loss of independence, loss of free will, and tendency towards evil. Since then "the imagination of man’s heart is evil "(Genesis 8:21). Man constantly thinks of evil. D.) Guilt. That is, a bad conscience, the shame that made him want to hide from God. E.) Worst of all, original sin is hereditary. It did not remain only Adam and Eve’s. As life passes from them to all of their descendants, so does original sin. We all of us participate in original sin because we are all descended from the same forefather, Adam. This creates a problem for many people. They ask, Why should we be responsible for the actions of Adam and Eve? Why should we have to pay for the sins of our parents? they say. Unfortunately, this is so, because the consequence of original sin is the distortion of the nature of man. Of course, this is unexplainable and belongs to the realm of mystery, but we can give one example to make it somewhat better understood. Let us say that you have a wild orange tree, from which you make a graft. You will get domesticated oranges, but the root will still be that of the wild orange tree. To have wild oranges again, you must regraft the tree. This is what Christ came for and achieved for fallen man, as we shall see in the following sections.

Our Creator and Maker, ours is the fault. Adam and Eve, listening to Satan, blasphemed. Out of egotism, they allowed themselves to be misled. They distorted the “image.” They darkened the beauty of the soul. They weakened the nature of mankind. Because of them, we became unrecognizable. “The imagination of our heart is evil.” We constantly think of evil. We feel so guilty. We are so far away from You. We have been grafted to evil. We have lost our self-control and our free will to do good. We thank You for Your love, and for sending Your Only-begotten Son to regraft us to goodness. For giving us the possibility of returning to You. You, Lord “want every man to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.” Do not deprive us of this. Do not deprive anyone of salvation. We thank You Lord"

What do you all think?

In christ,
Aloy

Dear Aloy,

Thank you so much for this very informative post. The GO Catechism is perfectly aligned with Catholic orthodoxy. I guess Father Ambrose would consider the text heterodox if he thinks something wrong with the Catholic understanding of Original Sin.

It is dramatically relevant that this text uses language with which Father Ambrose and others have charged against the Catholic Church:

“E.) Worst of all, original sin is hereditary. It did not remain only Adam and Eve’s. As life passes from them to all of their descendants, so does original sin. We all of us participate in original sin because we are all descended from the same forefather, Adam. This creates a problem for many people. They ask, Why should we be responsible for the actions of Adam and Eve? Why should we have to pay for the sins of our fist parents?”

This problem that the GO Catechism mentions is the problem that Father himself has, according to his misperception of the Catholic doctrine. But, like all official CC documents, the GO Catechism rightly explains that our “responsibility” rests completely not on imputation of Adam’s actual sin and guilt on us, but on the “distortion of the nature of man.” But Father does not seem to be the kind of fellow who will read Catholic documents contextually.

This has brought a question to mind. What can we make of Father’s Orthodoxy, if he is willing to effect disunity with the CC for matters which the GO Catechism agrees with the CC? Perhaps we need to remind ourselves that Father is from a currently schismatic Orthodox Church, and therefore may not completely reflect the teachings of the Orthodox Church which we normally associate with Patriarch Bartholomew. I recall that Father Ambrose regards the Oriental Orthodox as Monophysites, but official Christological concord has been achieved between the OO and the Orthodox/ Catholic Churches. Thus, there seems to be more than one matter with which Father, or his particular Church, disagrees with the rest of the Orthodox world. If Father is willing to agree with the GO Catechism on the issue of Original Sin, then he can do naught but agree with the CC’s teaching on Original Sin.

I assume he will do the necessary penance for the times he has borne false witness against the Catholic Church in this matter.

God bless,

Greg

P.S. Father, thanks for the link. I will look them up and will, if necessary, re-present points in this thread which were not sufficiently resolved in the older threads. It seems MTR has indeed recalled something which was unresolved for him, which I pray you will take the time to answer. There may be other points that require further explanation or resolution. Off hand, it certainly seems that there are still some unresolved issues, especially if you, Father Ambrose, despite the text of the GO Catechism, still finds something wrong with the Catholic teaching on Original Sin.

P.P.S. Father, does the GO Catechism hold any official status for the Orthodox Churches, particularly yours? What indeed do you make of its text of Original Sin? Looking forward to your answer.

[quote=onye]Because many people say that the Bible is being metaphorical and that by the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil the Bible refers to the sexual relationship of Adam and Eve, we repeat here that this is not true. God had decreed the sexual relationship of Adam and Eve when he told them to “increase and multiply.” Then what shall we say is the original sin? It is the denunciation of God. If you will, it is the attempt of man to disenthrone God and to enthrone himself in His place, to become God in the place of God. It is not merely that he ate fruit from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. St. John Chrysostom says about Eve, “She was filled with grandiose imaginings, hoping to be equal to God.” Hoping to be equal to God, she lost her senses.

That is original sin. And its consequences? A.) Spiritual death. That is, the separation of man from God, the source of all goodness. B.) Bodily death. That is, the separation of the body from the soul, the return of the body to the earth. C.) The shattering and distortion of the “image.” That is, darkness of mind, depravity and corruption of the heart, loss of independence, loss of free will, and tendency towards evil. Since then "the imagination of man’s heart is evil "(Genesis 8:21). Man constantly thinks of evil. D.) Guilt. That is, a bad conscience, the shame that made him want to hide from God. E.) Worst of all, original sin is hereditary. It did not remain only Adam and Eve’s. As life passes from them to all of their descendants, so does original sin. We all of us participate in original sin because we are all descended from the same forefather, Adam. This creates a problem for many people. They ask, Why should we be responsible for the actions of Adam and Eve? Why should we have to pay for the sins of our parents? they say. Unfortunately, this is so, because the consequence of original sin is the distortion of the nature of man. Of course, this is unexplainable and belongs to the realm of mystery, but we can give one example to make it somewhat better understood. Let us say that you have a wild orange tree, from which you make a graft. You will get domesticated oranges, but the root will still be that of the wild orange tree. To have wild oranges again, you must regraft the tree. This is what Christ came for and achieved for fallen man, as we shall see in the following sections.

Our Creator and Maker, ours is the fault. Adam and Eve, listening to Satan, blasphemed. Out of egotism, they allowed themselves to be misled. They distorted the “image.” They darkened the beauty of the soul. They weakened the nature of mankind. Because of them, we became unrecognizable. “The imagination of our heart is evil.” We constantly think of evil. We feel so guilty. We are so far away from You. We have been grafted to evil. We have lost our self-control and our free will to do good. We thank You for Your love, and for sending Your Only-begotten Son to regraft us to goodness. For giving us the possibility of returning to You. You, Lord “want every man to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.” Do not deprive us of this. Do not deprive anyone of salvation. We thank You Lord"

What do you all think?
[/quote]

The Catechism is correct. It tells us that we do not inherit any sin from Adam and Eve but we are afflicted with the **consequences ** of the first sin of our first ancestors.

Is this what Catholicism teaches also?

That no sin is transmitted…

That *only * the consequences of our first parents’ sin is transmitted…

If this is so, then the Catholic Church’s doctrine may possibly be very similar to the Orthodox doctrine. But I doubt if this has been the perennial teaching of the Church of Rome, or why would they have struggled and fought for centuries with the Orthodox on this point?


“I have perfumed my bed with myrrh, aloes and cinnamon.” ~Proverbs 7:17

[quote=GAssisi]Perhaps we need to remind ourselves that Father is from a currently schismatic Orthodox Church
[/quote]

Schismatic? Oh dear, a little knowledge…often just enough to draw incorrect conclusions!!

The Moscow Patriarchate has published a new catechism called “Questions and Answers on Faith and Salvation” by the very popular author Archimandrite Amvrosy Yurasov.

Q: How should one view the Russian Church Abroad?

A: Over 3.5 million Orthodox faithful and 34 Bishops
left Russia after the revolution. Their departure was
providential. They form a canonical but temporary
church administration which has been preaching the
holy faith in the West, and up until this day are working
for the conversion of heterodox and unbelievers.
The Church ought to recover its health. Everyone who
wakes up from sin, who comes to repentance, to prayer,
is on his way to recovery. We have to be true, living
Christians, to bring goodness and light to the world: that’s
what is demanded from us. That is what will bring about
reunification with the Russian Church Abroad.

                +      +      +

I recall that Father Ambrose regards the Oriental Orthodox as Monophysites, but official Christological concord has been achieved between the OO and the Orthodox/ Catholic Churches. Thus, there seems to be more than one matter with which Father, or his particular Church, disagrees with the rest of the Orthodox world

Once again, a little knowledge… quite enough to lead one astray.
forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=11909&page=2&pp=100&highlight=shenouda

For any who doubt that the Copts are Monophysites, or who want to know what the term means, you can read a book “The Nature of Christ” by Pope Shenouda. This book is an apology for the Monophysite position and the rejection of Chalcedon. Reading this book makes it clear that Pope Shenouda does not consider the problem to be the result of a linguistic misunderstanding, but rather that the Council of Chalcedon and the Tome of Leo are heretical. In fact, Pope Shenouda in this book is simply repeating the same arguments that were used by the Monophysites in the 5th century:

copticchurch.net/topics/theology/nature_of_christ.pdf

I include a long quote from the book. Please note that Pope Shenouda does not reject the term “Monophysite” and substitute it with “Miaphysites” but only says it has been misused by the “Diophysites” (most of the rest of us):

"The Divine nature (God the Word) was united with the human nature which He took of the Virgin Mary by the action of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit purified and sanctified the Virgin’s womb so that the Child to whom she gave birth would inherit nothing of the original sin; the flesh formed of her blood was united with the Only-Begotten Son. This Unity took place from the first moment of the Holy Pregnancy in the Virgin’s
womb. As a result of the unity of both natures-the Divine and the human-inside the Virgin’s womb, one nature was formed out of both: “The One Nature of God the Incarnate Logos” as St. Cyril called it.

"The Holy Church did not find an expression more reliable, deep and precise than that which was used by St. Cyril the Great, and which St. Athanasius the Apostolic used before him. Both of them were true leaders in the theological field worldwide. When I participated in the dialogue arranged by the Pro-Oriente group in Vienna, Austria in September 1971 between the Roman Catholic Church and the ancient Oriental Orthodox Churches concerning the Nature of Christ, the point of discussion was St. Cyril’s expression “One Nature of God the Incarnate Logos” (Mia Physis Tou Theou Logou Sesarkwmene).

continued…

"After the schism which took place in the year 451 A.D., when the Coptic Orthodox Church rejected the motions of the Council of Chalcedon and its theological struggles, we were called “Monophysites” that is, those who believe in the “One Nature”. Sharing our belief are the Syrians, the Armenians, the Ethiopians and the Indians; who were also called “Non-Chalcedonian” Orthodox Churches. On the other hand, the Chalcedonian Catholic and Creek Churches “The Roman Orthodox” believe in the two natures of Christ; the Protestant Churches also hold this belief.

"Consequently, these churches are known as “Diophysites” - believers in the two natures of Christ.

"The Roman - or Chalcedonian - Orthodox Churches include those of Constantinople, Greece, Cyprus, Russia, Romania, Hungary and Serbia as well as the Roman Orthodox Churches of Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, America and the St. Catherine Monastery in the Sinai desert.

"The term “Monophysites” used for the believers in the One Nature has been intentionally or unintentionally misinterpreted throughout certain periods of history. Consequently, the Coptic and the Syrian Churches in particular were cruelly persecuted because of their belief, especially during the period which started from the Council of Chalcedon held in 451 A,D. and continued to the conquest of the Arabs in Egypt and Syria (about 641 A.D.).

"This misinterpretation continued along history as though we believed in one nature of Christ and denied the other nature. We wonder which of the two natures the Church of Alexandria denies?

"Is it the Divine nature? Certainly not, for our Church was the most fervent defender against the Arian heresy in the Council of Nicea, held in the year 325 A.D., as well as before and after that. Or is it The Lord’s human nature that the Church of Alexandria denies? St. Athanasius of Alexandria resolved this entirely in the oldest and greatest book on this subject The Incarnation of the Word,

"The expression “One Nature” does not indicate the Divine nature alone nor the human nature alone, but it indicates the unity of both natures into One Nature which is “The Nature of the Incarnate Logos”.

"The same applies when we speak about our human nature which comprises two united natures: the soul and the body. Thus, man’s nature is not the soul alone nor the body alone, but their union in one nature called human nature. We will discuss this point in detail later on.

"St. Cyril the Great taught us not to talk about two natures after their unity. So we can say that the Divine nature united hypostatically with the human nature within the Virgin’s womb, but after this unity we do not ever speak again about two natures of Christ. In fact, the expression “two natures” implies in itself division or separation, and although those who believe in “the two natures” admit unity, the tone of separation was obvious in the Council of Chalcedon - a matter which prompted us to reject the Council and caused the exile of St. Dioscorus of Alexandria.

“…Following the same trend, Leo, the Bishop of Rome, accordingly declared his famous Tome which was rejected by the Coptic Church. But the Council [Chalcedon] accepted and voted for it, thus confirming that two natures existed in Christ after their unity: a Divine nature performing its functions and a human nature carrying out its role.”

I recommend this book by Pope Shenouda, no mean theologian in his own right, to any who doubt that his theological position is monophysitism.

[quote=GAssisi]I recall that Father Ambrose regards the Oriental Orthodox as Monophysites, but official Christological concord has been achieved between the OO and the Orthodox/ Catholic Churches.
[/quote]

In that case it should be no imposition to ask you to find for us the *official * Statements of agreed Christology between the Orthodox Church and the Oriental Orthodox.

The Catholic Church has always taught that original sin is the privation of original justice and that causes concupisence. Aquinas teaches that original sin is the privation of original justice.

I answer that, There are two things in original sin: one is the privation of original justice; the other is the relation of this privation to the sin of our first parent, from whom it is transmitted to man through his corrupt origin. As to the first, original sin has no degrees, since the gift of original justice is taken away entirely; and privations that remove something entirely, such as death and darkness, cannot be more or less, as stated above (73, 2). In like manner, neither is this possible, as to the second: since all are related equally to the first principle of our corrupt origin, from which principle original sin takes the nature of guilt; for relations cannot be more or less. Consequently it is evident that original sin cannot be more in one than in another.

The guilt he speaks of in the above passage is the guilt you feel, not a guilt for sins commited like guilt which a judge would declare.

I answer that, Everything takes its species from its form: and it has been stated (Article [2]) that the species of original sin is taken from its cause. Consequently the formal element of original sin must be considered in respect of the cause of original sin. But contraries have contrary causes. Therefore the cause of original sin must be considered with respect to the cause of original justice, which is opposed to it. Now the whole order of original justice consists in man’s will being subject to God: which subjection, first and chiefly, was in the will, whose function it is to move all the other parts to the end, as stated above (Question [9], Article [1]), so that the will being turned away from God, all the other powers of the soul become inordinate. Accordingly the privation of original justice, whereby the will was made subject to God, is the formal element in original sin; while every other disorder of the soul’s powers, is a kind of material element in respect of original sin. Now the inordinateness of the other powers of the soul consists chiefly in their turning inordinately to mutable good; which inordinateness may be called by the general name of concupiscence. Hence original sin is concupiscence, materially, but privation of original justice, formally.

Original sin is taught by the Catholic church to be exactly what Aquinas taught it to be, Concupiscence and the loss of Original Justice.

ccel.org/a/aquinas/summa/FS/FS082.html

Father,

What is the oldest record you have of the Orthodox “struggling and fighting” against the Catholic Church on this point? I am not aware of it being “centuries old.”

Greg

What I think is what I wa taught by a veyr fine Catholic theologian: the sin of Lucifer and of Adam and Eve is the same: It is not "I cannot serve, it is “I will not serve”. That pithy sentence always summed it up rather well for me.

Dear HagiaSophia,

I’ve always thought that understanding is a good way of interpreting statements that say something to the effect that we have Adam’s sin. We don’t have Adam’s sin formally, but we have it materially in the sense that all sin is the same - i.e., disobedience to God.

God bless,
Greg

[quote=hlgomez]Greg,

Father Ambrose is just a product of a schismatic Orthodox Church. Why listen to his suppose “teachings” about original sin? He is not even a bishop. His views are twisted since he always view Catholic teachings as “imperfect.” It is no wonder why he will make assumptions and take it seriously and say “this is the Catholic teaching.” He is not a Catholic so he can’t interpret what belongs to the Catholic Church. Otherwise he will be Catholic. He will always make it to a point that Catholic teaching goes “in line” with Orthodox Church. Why believe the schismatics?
[/quote]

We ARE supposed to listen to one another: the pope does. If it’s good enough for him, I dare say it’s good enough for me. We are one body of Christ – over the centuries we have let cultures, traditions, misunderstanding, mutual excommunications and anathema’s, hard feelings and suspicion cloud that body. The Holy Father has called upon us all to do a better job of not just listening “but hearing” one another. Each of us bring things to the table of faith, all of us through the centuries of these ancient and venerable faiths has attained a wisdom, a distilling of our experiences good and bad. True and false - sometimes simply , different ways of expressing ourselves.

This forum as I understood it was a place where those of differing beliefs, differing groups could come together and talk mutually about what we believe and why and what we don’t believe and why. In order to attain that, we need to show respect for one another.

Civil discourse and mutual forebearance will win nothing but an enlarged understanding, a wider circle of friends and a depth of insights into God, man and our mutual relationship. We may never solve all the problems of the past in this forum, we can however, lend ourselves to such behavior, that even those who disagree with us, will speak highly of us in the way we comport ourselves, represent our beliefs and share what we know and feel.

I do not know about you, but I am very grateful to those I have met on this forum by and large for their kindness, their explanations, their often spirited debate, their hard questions, their seeking understanding although they don’t agree, of what I believe and why I believe it.

I should like to take this opportunity to thank them one and all, particularly those who in the face of insult, disrespect and unkindness continue to try to share with us the experience of their churches.

Originally Posted by GAssisi
I recall that Father Ambrose regards the Oriental Orthodox as Monophysites, but official Christological concord has been achieved between the OO and the Orthodox/ Catholic Churches.

I regard the above as a bit of a wild cannon statement, although no doubt spoken honestly (although erroneously) from a heart that longs to see the Churches achieve unity.

It should be easy enough for Greg to provide us with references to the official Statements of concord on the agreed Christology between the Orthodox Church and the Oriental Orthodox.

But it has been several days now since he was asked to offer the evidence and nothing has been produced. :confused:

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.