73
edits
Changes
m
→Ryan Close's deletion
I propose that we change the name of this article to "Controversy over the doctrine of original sin" and then create a new article on original sin. An article about original sin does not need to tell the reader all the things that original sin is not and be constantly in a defensive attitude. Just plainly state what the doctrine is, some of the theological justification behind it, quote and and reference tertiary sources. If I knew nothing about Christianity, after reading this article I would come away believing that original sin is considered a heretical doctrine by Orthodox Churches and is being covered by orthodoxxwiki as it covers other heresies such as Arianism or Palegianism. Look at the first sentence describing the doctrine, it contains the word "not" to inform the reader what the doctrine is not. And what the doctrine is "not" is a red hearing, as I have stated elsewhere. No one, except some extreme Calvinists, believes that original sin is defined as "inherited guilt." As it is, this article is so deeply flawed, it should probably be deleted and be replaced by one by a competent scholar. It fails to meet even the basic definition of an encyclopedia article and instead comes across as the ramblings and ravings of a conspiracy theorist.
Then there is the problem with the last section, which is basically a series of extended quotes from a Vatican document on the Limbo of the Infants that the previous editor claims sheds light on historical development concerning original sin. DoI Do I even need to say that orthodoxwiki is not a storehouse for quotes from the Vatican website. And the conclusions that the editor leaves at the end of the quotes constitute original research and speculation.
Is this all Orthodoxy has to offer? When people want to know what Orthodox Christian believe and how to we present themselves ourselves to the world, if they come here they will get some of the most poorly written and rambling content which contains less information than '''confusion , nitpicking, falsehood, and nitpickingincompetence'''. Just give a simple explication of the facts in an encyclopedic style.
--[[User:Ryan Close|Ryan Close]] ([[User talk:Ryan Close|talk]]) 15:10, March 30, 2018 (UTC)
I rolled back the recent revision because the argument was not clear with regard to "only Adam was personally responsible for his own sin" in Catholic teaching. It seems like an attempt to reassert a polemic, but is not well-enough rooted in actual RC teaching. — [[User:FrJohn|<b>FrJohn</b>]] ([http://www.orthodoxwiki.org/User_talk:FrJohn&action=edit§ion=new talk])
== Ryan Close's deletion ==
I am not in favor of these changes. Ryan seems to conflate what is in the current Catechism of the Catholic Church with what it has taught historically. I am not at all convinced that the article has historical error. --[[User:Fr Lev|Fr Lev]] ([[User talk:Fr Lev|talk]]) 15:59, March 30, 2018 (UTC)
From the Baltimore Catechism:
Q. 265. What is the sin called which we inherit from our first parents?
A. The sin which we inherit from our first parents is called original sin.
Q. 266. Why is this sin called original?
A. This sin is called original because it comes down to us from our first parents, and we are brought into the world with its '''guilt on our soul'''.
Q. 267. Does this corruption of our nature remain in us after original sin is forgiven?
A. This corruption of our nature and other punishments remain in us after original sin is forgiven.
--[[User:Fr Lev|Fr Lev]] ([[User talk:Fr Lev|talk]]) 16:13, March 30, 2018 (UTC)
From the Council of Trent V:
"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." I would ask that the slander against St John Maximovitch one removed. --[[User:Fr Lev|Fr Lev]] ([[User talk:Fr Lev|talk]]) 16:33, March 30, 2018 (UTC)
I undid Ryan's change. The Latin text of the papal bull defining the dogma of the Immaculate Conception clearly indicates it is related to keeping the Theotokos free from the '''guilt''' of original sin.
"We declare, pronounce, and define that the doctrine which holds that the most Blessed Virgin Mary, in the first instance of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege granted by Almighty God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Savior of the human race, was preserved free from all stain of original sin, is a doctrine revealed by God and therefore to be believed firmly and constantly by all the faithful." But here "stain" is translating culpae (guilt).
See the Latin: Declaramus, pronuntiamus et definimus doctrinam quae tenet beatissimam Virginem Mariam in primo instanti suae conceptionis fuisse singulari Omnipotentis Dei gratia et privilegio, intuitu meritorum Christi Jesu Salvatoris humani generis, '''ab omni originalis culpae labe praeservatam immunem''', esse a Deo revelatam, atque idcirco ab omnibus fidelibus firmiter constanterque credendam.
:Thank you Father, your frank and honest assessment is welcome. Thank you for backing up your refutation with clear examples. Very respectful! You are very right. However, the word "guilt" did not actually appear in the definition of the IC, it said stain. I thought "culpas" meant defect, fault, liability, or guilt. So one of the meanings of the word can be stain. It would be kind of conspiratorial to assume the English translation was being intentionally misleading.
:Furthermore, it should not be surprising that a theological school of thought within the Church might have once said something that was problematic from the point of view of the whole Church and then be corrected in the course of time. Such was the case with Saint Cyril's phrase "Mia physis tou theou logou sesarkomene" which was remediated by the formula of the Council of Chalcedon when the whole Church came to a consensus that the words "Mia physis" had the potential to be misinterpreted in a way that was unfaithful to the Christian Faith. I wonder if the word "guilt" in relation to the doctrine of original sin, even if used analogically, has gradually been removed because it has not been accepted by the Church. As the quotes in the article say, the western fathers and the eastern fathers were using the words sin and guilt in different ways. I personally have no problem with western fathers who used the word "guilt" in association with the doctrine of original sin because I know this does not mean "personal actual sin." But the word has been removed and the meaning of the doctrine clarified to exclude the problematic interpretation. The consensus of the whole Church seems to be having a clarifying effect. Now, I don't think we have to excise history of the fact that these problematic views were once the norm within the Roman Catholic Church. I'm not in favor of historical revisionism. However, I don't see why the Roman catholic Church's latter authoritative clarification isn't significant.
:I did not delete any content. I attempted to improve content. The only thing that was removed was reference to the Council of Orange. Do you think that the Orthodox Council of Orange contained the idea of "inherited guilt"? I think it talks about an inherited fallen condition that affects each person on both the physical and spiritual level. So according to the fathers of Orange, original sin does not just causing physical death, as Fr Romanedies says, but also a spiritual condition necessitating prevenient grace. Failure to admit this is tantamount to pelagianism.
:Lastly, what about the problems with the last section. Is orthodoxwiki supposed to be a storehouse for quotes from the Vatican website? If this information could be rewritten so that it did not need to be quoted from directly and could be made to better suit the purposes of this encyclopedic article that would be good. I did not delete this content because I think wiki's work better when community consensus can be built. Some people believe that offending or poorly written content should be deleted quickly to avoid confusion or misinformation and maintain high quality standards. I'm more moderate, preferring to keep badly written material around for a while with hopes that the community can improve the content. So, I'm not saying that there is not good information in this section, it is just not adequately incorporated into the article. '''High quality encyclopedia articles do not, as a rule, have extensive amounts of quoted material like this'''.
:For a good website that promotes the "anti-original-sin" position, see: http://www.stmaryorthodoxchurch.org/orthodoxy/articles/ancestral_versus_original_sin. This article, though I don't necessarily agree with it, '''is more organized and coherent'''. I personally don't care if it is called ancestral sin or original sin. That's just terminology. The question is, what is the Orthodox doctrine of "whatever you want to call it"? Because reading this article doesn't seem to help. If I read it to my kids, do you think they would come away with a good clear and easy to understand explication of the biblical and patristic doctrine?
:Thanks again. --[[User:Ryan Close|Ryan Close]] ([[User talk:Ryan Close|talk]]) 22:05, March 30, 2018 (UTC)
::164. What came of Adam's sin?
::The curse, and death.
::165. What is the curse?
::'''The condemnation of sin by God's just judgment''', and the evil which from sin came upon the earth for the punishment of men. God said to Adam, Cursed is the ground for thy sake. Gen. iii. 17.'''
::166. What is the death which came from the sin of Adam?
::It is twofold: bodily, when the body loses the soul which quickened it; and spiritual, when the soul loses the grace of God, which quickened it with the higher and spiritual life.
::167. Can the soul, then, die as well as the body?
::It can die, but not so as the body. The body, when it dies, loses sense, and is dissolved; the soul, when it dies by sin, loses spiritual light, joy, and happiness, but is not dissolved nor annihilated, but remains in a state of darkness, anguish, and suffering.
::168. Why did not the first man only die, and not all, as now?
::'''Because all have come of Adam since his infection by sin, and all sin themselves. As from an infected source there naturally flows an infected stream, so from a father infected with sin, and consequently mortal, there naturally proceeds a posterity infected like him with sin, and like him mortal.'''
::169. How is this spoken of in holy Scripture?
::By one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin, and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned. Rom. v. 12.
::(From the Orthodox Catechism, popularly used in the early 20th century, which Saint Tikhon had translated and published in the Americas.)
I'll tend to this as soon as I get past our Holy Week! --[[User:Fr Lev|Fr Lev]] ([[User talk:Fr Lev|talk]]) 13:16, April 2, 2018 (UTC)
:Awesome! I'm excited. I'm not in favor of making any changes to the article until we build community consensus. My position on this would be adequately summarized by Fr. Vladimir Moss, especially in his critique of Fr. John Romanides & Kalomiros. See: http://www.orthodoxchristianbooks.com/books/downloads.php?book_id=718
I think the article should be re-written, but here are my observations. (1) While Fr John Romanides work early work, Ancestral Sin, is clearly relevant to the article, his later work and Vladimir Moss’s attack on him is not particularly relevant. (2) Fr John’s view on ancestral vs. original sin is hardly unique. One finds the same position expressed by Orthodox theologians across the board – Metropolitan Kallistos Ware, Metropolitan Hilarion Alfeyev. Fr John McGuckin, Fr Andrew Louth, etc. (3) The article should be titled “Ancestral Sin” and any distinctions drawn between the traditional Orthodox viewpoint and those of Roman Catholicism and Protestantism should be secondary. (4) It is simply a fact that the Roman Catholic Church, from shortly after the time of St Augustine through the late 20th century did teach a doctrine of original guilt, i.e., a view of original sin where all humans are born guilty with the guilt of original sin, and that such guilt is sufficient to warrant eternal damnation. In the case of babies who die unbaptized, there was a mitigating doctrine of limbo that was not proclaimed as a dogma of the Roman Church but was nonetheless understood to be official teaching. (5) It is also true that this played a role in the proclamation of the Roman dogma of the Immaculate Conception in 1950 – a feast which began in the Orthodox East but which did not include any notion that the Theotokos was conceived without original sin. (6) While one may certainly rejoice that official Roman teaching on original sin has been moderated in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, it is anachronistic to read that teaching back into the last two millennia and to impute error to Orthodox theologians and saints such as St John of Shanghai because their teaching reflected the Roman teaching of their day. St John reposed in 1966, and the Catechism was not promulgated by Pope John Paul II until 1992. Having said all this, I do not want to re-write the article. --[[User:Fr Lev|Fr Lev]] ([[User talk:Fr Lev|talk]]) 21:26, April 9, 2018 (UTC)
:Father Lev, thank you. "Let us call brothers even those who hate us and forgive all by the Resurrection."
:Concerning the history of the doctrine in the Western tradition: I will agree to concede to most of what you say for now. I have been told by Roman Catholics and Anglicans that while Saint Augustine believed this, it was never dogmatized by the Extraordinary Magisterium. As such, even if it was taught by individuals it was never accepted by the entire Church as an irreformable part of the Regula Fidei. The Baltimore Catechism, being a tool of the local hierarchy in the exercise of their teaching office, is not an expression of an infallible dogma, but rather a potentially fallible exercise of the ordinary magisterium and therefore reformable. The examples that you give provide reason enough to doubt the certainty of my previous hypothesis. I will make a serious inquiry into the references you provided.
:Concerning the terminological discussion: Provisionally granting that the "caricature" of Original Sin was widely believed and taught as part of the Western tradition, wouldn't this constitute an aberrant view of or an erroneous teaching of the actually doctrine? Not a different doctrine all together? To my mind there are not two doctrines, an incorrect one called "Original Sin" and a correct one called "Ancestral Sin." Rather there is one doctrine, understood in a variety of ways, some of which are highly problematic or flat out wrong. Again, whatever you choose to call it, "Original Sin" or "Ancestral Sin", I don't care. As far as I can tell they are two names for the same thing. I acknowledge, as you have pointed out, that the term "Ancestral Sin" is not new or unique to Fr Romanides, but is there any actual grammatical or etymological justification for distinguishing the two terms so concretely?
:Concerning Fr Romanides: If Fr Vladimir Moss is correct, then Fr Romanides' version of "Original / Ancestral Sin" is itself a significant departure from the traditional doctrine. That means we are potentially dealing with three views, not just two: (1) the Orthodox Doctrine of Original / Ancestral Sin, (2) the incorrect western version of the same, and (3) the incorrect Romanides version of the same. And since Fr Romanides called his version "Ancestral Sin" most people may have become confused, assuming that (1) is accurately described by (3). Obviously (3) can be compared with (2), but (1) can be compared with both (2) and (3), and is most correct.
:Concerning the Immaculate Conception: I don't think a detailed discussion of this is relevant to this article, but in as much as it is referenced in connection with Original Sin #2, what versions of the doctrine were held by Saint Thomas Aquinas and Saint [[Gennadius Scholarius]]? Saint Thomas obviously taught #2 but he denied the Immaculate Conception. Saint Gennadius, who loved Thomas and adopted his methodology, nonetheless defended the Immaculate Conception against Thomas. What does any of this say about the supposed implications of #2 supposedly necessitating the IC? Thomas didn't draw that conclusion.
:Lastly, concerning Re-writing: I believe that the focus of the article should be primarily to accurately describe the Orthodox Doctrine of Original / Ancestral Sin. Secondarily, it should make necessary comparisons and describe relevant historical disputes and controversies in subsequent sub-sections. As such, the first section need not be polemical at all, but rather a straightforward description of the doctrine in positive terms, the way you would describe it to my children or to the average lay person.
:--[[User:Ryan Close|Ryan Close]] ([[User talk:Ryan Close|talk]]) 20:43, April 18, 2018 (UTC)
