So, you do not know why the book, Never Ceese, fits the worldview of Roman Catholic Christianity? Well, let Father Orthoduck tell you. But, let Father Orthoduck warn you that there is some heavy theology ahead.
OK, here is the theology. All Christians agree that the Fall has damaged humanity, but they do not agree on what it all means. Both the East and the West agree that Free Will has been damaged, as versus the Pelagians who insisted that Free Will was undamaged. The West, by and large, has gone with Saint Augustine of Hippo’s version of what the Fall has meant. The West has a conception of Original Sin which the East has nicknamed Original Guilt. Now, the details are not important for the purposes of this post. Suffice it to say that the transmission of Original Sin, or hereditary guilt, was physical transmission. The transmission of this hereditary guilt is a form of traducianism:
In Christian theology, traducianism is a doctrine about the origin of the soul (or synonymously, “spirit”), in one of the biblical uses of word to mean the immaterial aspect of man (Genesis 35:18, Matthew 10:28). Traducianism means that this immaterial aspect is transmitted through natural generation along with the body, the material aspect of man. That is, an individual’s soul is derived from the souls of the individual’s parents. This implies that only the soul of Adam was created directly by God (with Eve’s substance, material and immaterial, being taken from out of Adam), in contrast with creationism (not to be confused with creationism as a belief about the origin of the material universe), which holds that all souls are created directly by God (with Eve’s substance, material and immaterial, being taken from out of Adam).
Thus, in traducianism, the act of begetting a child transmits a body that is composed of both the father and the mother (and this was pre-genetics, too). It also transmits a soul, “derived from the souls of the individual’s parents,” but, in the West, it also transmits sin. Let Father Orthoduck be clear, in the West, it is not simply a damaged human nature that is transmitted, sin and guilt are transmitted. (This is not the way in which either Eastern or Oriental Orthodoxy explain it.) This means that, for the West, the child is a sinner from the day of its conception, while it is still in the womb, before it has done anything right or wrong, and is deserving of hell. This is why the Roman Catholic doctrine of limbo developed. The thought of a baby who is stillborn or dies within a few days of birth being condemned to hell was repugnant to many theologians, and so limbo was a place where a baby (and others, but that is another discussion) could live out eternity in happiness but never be able to experience the joy of God’s presence. (All Protestants have a different explanation for babies. Some Calvinists are willing to say that babies of non-believers may indeed go to hell. Eastern and Oriental Orthodox do not have that problem since they do not believe in Original Guilt.)
SPOILER ALERT DO NOT READ IF YOU PLAN TO READ NEVER CEESE
OK, with that background, let’s look at the transmission of either vampirism or lycanthropy on the book Never Ceese. In the book, both vampirism and lycanthropy are the result of a two fold process. On the physical side, part one of the process appears to be the transmission of pluripotent cells which become or are stem cells of different types and do the physical job of transforming the genetics of the affected person into either werewolf or vampire. A vampire has more pluripotent cells than a werewolf. But, the transmission is not merely that of physical characteristics. Rather, as in traducianism, there is a transmission of an immaterial aspect, and that is what is labeled the “curse” in the book. And, just like in the Western conception of Original Sin, the person who has been attacked is automatically guilty of sin and worthy of hell despite the fact that they have personally done nothing to deserve this punishment. (Neither Eastern nor Oriental Orthodoxy would agree with this conception.) This is a very Augustinian conception.
Father Orthoduck will say that there is a twist to the book Never Ceese that is neither Orthodox nor Roman Catholic nor Protestant. And that is the idea that the curse becomes permanent if you pass on the curse. This means that passing on the curse is the equivalent of the unforgivable sin. Matthew 3 says, “But whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven, but is guilty of an eternal sin.” This is the only twist in the book that slightly disappoints Father Orthoduck. He would have preferred that the book would have been written in such a way that passing on the curse would have required a much stronger act of abnegation rather than being unforgivable. On the other hand, Father Orthoduck must admit that it certainly adds some significant dynamic tension to the book to realize that once one curses someone else one is going to hell with no hope of reprieve. But . . . but . . . but, uhm, that is not a very Christian conception of sin and forgiveness.
There are other touches in the book that put it in the realm of an Eastern Orthodox or Roman Catholic conception of how the world works. These are touches that would not be present in Protestantism. Nevertheless, Father Orthoduck will not cover those in this post.
Deep indeed! 😉 Very perceptive that you would pick up on the slight unforgivable sin thread in my story. I believe you are the first. This will play a very important part in Cyn No More or at least that is my plan. Do keep in mind however that while the vampire and the werewolf (in my stories anyway) have some very small understanding that cursing another would be catastrophic as far as having a choice about where they end up eventually, they’re really not certain. The information is there. The hope is there but the temptation to curse another is so great, many don’t realize their is a way out. Many don’t want to realize it. They simply see the draw of what is in front of them at the moment.
Now that’s deep and confusing. LOL
One small correction: while it would seem that Augustinian “original guilt” would logically entail traducianism and/or vice-versa, the RCC explicitly denies traducianism, maintaining that each human soul is created separately and independently by God at the moment of conception.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15014a.htm
Now I find that very interesting. I did not realize that they specifically deny traducianism. This means that God creates each soul separately and independently and then . . . uhm . . . how does that soul become stained with Original Sin? If it is by “contact” with flesh, then that is still a form of traducianism in which the clean unstained soul is “infected” and damaged by the physical body. If God deliberately stains the created soul (or creates it impaired) because of Adam’s sin, then, uhm, does that not make God the author of evil? It would also make Federal Theology the only possible way to understand salvation. If God imputes the created soul with evil, well, that is one of the big arguments that the East has with the West.
I do notice that they do point out that Generationism is more common in the East, though I will point out that New Advent has the tendency to vastly minimize any viewpoints with which they do not agree. The Popes, etc, that they cite against Generationism are, uhm, not exactly major citations, but individual letters and private opinions. This is a long way from a condemnation of generationism.
Now, don’t shoot the messenger, Father. This is what is known as “common teaching” of the RCC. See also:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04475a.htm
And, as I said, it would SEEM that Augustinian “original guilt” would entail traducianism or vice-versa. Since I am not RC, I take no responsibility for the coherence of RC teaching, or lack thereof. 😉
Ahh, the frustration of writing. It is deficient in expressing moods. I actually am genuinely interested. Your post had and has me doing research and thinking wondering whether I need to alter some of my theological thoughts. My response was an out loud thinking through the issues that creationism of the soul can raise.
Since I wrote it, I read that the Roman Catholic Church gets around those issues by saying that the created soul is deficient in the added grace that Adam and Eve should have received had they obeyed God. Thus, the deficient soul will not be able to resist sin. But, that still does not answer the question of “original guilt.” Remember that though the Roman Church no longer talks about limbo and it was never exactly formally defined, it was widely taught precisely because every human being after Adam was guilty of sin, even while a baby, even before any actions had been taken.
Thus, you have honestly put an itch in my mind. 😉
It IS interesting. One thing I noticed in the Catholic Encyclopedia article on “original sin” what the difficulty of reconciling the Augustinian account with the notion they have that all sin must in some sense be voluntary.
To a large extent, I think the whole thing revolves around this question of sin as primarily crime vs. sin as primarily disease.
I’m a Protestant (Presbyterian, basically) and traducianism seemed like the most compelling, biblically-defensible explanation for the mechanics of original sin. People who affirm to original sin (or “original guilt”) are almost required to affirm traducianism unless they don’t care if God is directly responsible for creating a human soul that is then immediately corrupted by sin. Saying that a created human soul lacks the sufficient added grace to resist temptation doesn’t seem to be more than a plea to jargon since the Augustinian definition of evil is that it is a privation of “good” seems as though, ironically, traducianism does more to avoid God being the author of evil than the creationist account of the origin of the soul.
That is some deep thought indeed! I suppose I’d never really considered at what point the soul actually becomes stained with sin if it indeed is not that way from the beginning. I agree that I’m not fond of the idea of thinking that someone incapable of rational thinking, as with a very young child, might be taken before reason sets in and they’re able to decide between believing or not believing. I suppose in that instance I’ve always erred toward the rationale that God knows what he’s doing and that all we can do as Christians is present the facts to those who ask and let God work. I wonder what kind of “ism” that’s called. LOL I mean that respectfully. Ya’ll are talking waaaaay over my head but it’s certainly interesting and educational and that can only be good. 🙂
Father,
I just wish to thank you for what to me is a clearer explanation of eastern vs. western thought on the soul and sin, especially in with the unborn and infants. I am a Protestant with leanings towards Orthodoxy and have always been fuzzily confused on what I will agree with Sue are way over my head.
Having taken the path to Orthodoxy through more than one Protestant denomination and through the RC church, I can just tell you that despite whatever official or private writings there might be, my experience both the Protestant denominations (some major, some minor) and the RC church, the feeling I got by and large reinforces the born into sin concept–or as Father put it–original guilt. I remember a Black Baptist preacher shouting “You are born a sinner…..” and “hell bound from your mother’s womb.” Pretty scary stuff–and I could never get anyone to explain the dichotomy of a loving and merciful God “who don’t make junk” and the thought that I was damned automatically no matter what. This was preached to me at a Baptist Sunday School that a friend took me to at the tender age of about 7 or so along with a rather vivid depiction of the tortures of hell. Talk about nightmares for days–my mother never let me go there again!! I was terrified as I was a rather imaginative and sensitive and somewhat over-scrupulous young child who had not done much beyond not eating my peas or getting dirty when I was told to stay clean. It was damaging and horrifying and had me afraid to go to sleep because I might wake up and be in hell and not know why I was there. Through all the winding pathways that brought me to Orthodoxy, that underlying fear lurked and the questions. When I was studying I read that this was not an Orthodox concept, I all but ran through the streets shouting Hallelujah–at last!!
Alix
There is no question that the Augustinian concept of orginal sin is “original guilt”.
I was brought up Southern Baptist with a Grandfather who was an ordained Southern Baptist Minister. I was spared most of the fire and brimstone messages for the sake of the more loving God you speak of. Had some of those same nightmares anyway though and probably of my own doing. I tend to think that while we’re all sinners or capable of sinning from the get go, it’s difficult to judge just what sin is when you’re incapable of reason as is the case with a small child. Don’t know if that constitutes a belief but it’s what I think. I suppose I should dig some scripture up to support that as I don’t generally go about making things up . . . well, except when I’m writing fantasy. LOL
Hmm, see tomorrow’s post and see what you think.
An interesting analysis, but with all respect, Father, the analysis is critically flawed and ends up seriously misrepresenting the authoritative teaching of the Catholic Church. What does the Catholic Church teach about original sin? A good place to begin would be the Catholic Catechism: http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p1s2c1p7.htm#402. Orthodox folk need to read and re-read the sections very carefully. And then read Pope John Paul’s catechetical address on original sin: http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/audiences/alpha/data/aud19861001en.html. Does anything in the Catechism or the Pope’s teaching sound anything close to what you have described in your article as “original guilt,” Father?
I bring your attention to two key points in the Catechism:
(1) “Original sin does not have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam’s descendants.” Whatever original sin means, it does not mean that we are “guilty,” and therefore condemned by God, for crimes and sins that we have never committed, including Adam’s sin.
(2) “[Original sin] is a deprivation of original holiness and justice.” This “deprivation” has a very precise meaning in Catholic theology. It is a deprivation of supernatural grace or what is typically called sanctifying grace. This deprivation has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with what you have described as a physically transmitted vampiric curse that makes us worthy of eternal condemnation and Hell. As has already been noted, the Catholic Church emphatically rejects the Traducian explanation of original sin. Original sin, in Catholic understanding, is a deprivation; it’s an absence. We are born missing “something,” with the result that ever human being inevitably fails to seek God and his Kingdom as his final and ultimate good.
What is this “something” that we are missing? Orthodox theology does not have a category of created grace, so it’s difficult to translate into Orthodox terms. But ultimately, what the deprivation of sanctifying grace means is that each individual is born missing the Holy Spirit as a vital, regenerating, divinizing power. This is why Holy Baptism is deemed as necessary: we need to be reborn in the Spirit and made capable of seeking and attaining the Kingdom of God.
Whatever St Augustine may have taught about original sin, the simple fact remains that his teaching was corrected in significant ways by subsequent Western theologians, beginning in the scholastic period. Yes, the language of “guilt” continued to be used, but not in the sense as this has been popularly caricatured by Orthodox theologians and apologists.
If Orthodox believers would make some effort to really understand the authentic Catholic teaching on original sin, perhaps the Catholic doctrine of the Immaculate Conception would not seem quite so bizarre. I bring to your attention what Cardinal Newman wrote to Fr Pusey on original sin and the Immaculate Conception:
‘It is indeed to me a most strange phenomenon that so many learned and devout men stumble at this doctrine; and I can only account for it by supposing that in matter of fact they do not know what we mean by the Immaculate Conception; and your Volume (may I say it?) bears out my suspicion. It is a great consolation to have reason for thinking so,—reason for believing that in some sort the persons in question are in the position of those great Saints in former times, who are said to have hesitated about the doctrine, when they would not have hesitated at all, if the word “Conception” had been clearly explained in that sense in which now it is universally received. I do not see how any one who holds with Bull the Catholic doctrine of the supernatural endowments of our first parents, has fair reason for doubting our doctrine about the Blessed Virgin. It has no reference whatever to her parents, but simply to her own person; it does but affirm that, together with the nature which she inherited from her parents, that is, her own nature, she had a superadded fulness of grace, and that from the first moment of her existence. Suppose Eve had stood the trial, and not lost her first grace; and suppose she had eventually had children, those children from the first moment of their existence would, through divine bounty, have received the same privilege that she had ever had; that is, as she was taken from Adam’s side, in a garment, so to say, of grace, so they in turn would have received what may be called an immaculate conception. They would have then been conceived in grace, as in fact they are conceived in sin. What is there difficult in this doctrine? What is there unnatural? Mary may be called, as it were, a daughter of Eve unfallen. You believe with us that St. John Baptist had grace given to him three months before his birth, at the time that the Blessed Virgin visited his mother. He accordingly was not immaculately conceived, because he was alive before grace came to him; but our Lady’s case only differs from his in this respect, that to her the grace of God came, not three months merely before her birth, but from the first moment of her being, as it had been given to Eve.
‘But it may be said, How does this enable us to say that she was conceived without original sin? If Anglicans knew what we mean by original sin, they would not ask the question. Our doctrine of original sin is not the same as the Protestant doctrine. “Original sin,” with us, cannot be called sin, in the mere ordinary sense of the word “sin;” it is a term denoting Adam’s sin as transferred to us, or the state to which Adam’s sin reduces his children; but by Protestants it seems to be understood as sin, in much the same sense as actual sin. We, with the Fathers, think of it as something negative, Protestants as something positive. Protestants hold that it is a disease, a radical change of nature, an active poison internally corrupting the soul, infecting its primary elements, and disorganizing it; and they fancy that we ascribe a different nature from ours to the Blessed Virgin, different from that of her parents, and from that of fallen Adam. We hold nothing of the kind; we consider that in Adam she died, as others; that she was included, together with the whole race, in Adam’s sentence; that she incurred his debt, as we do; but that, for the sake of Him who was to redeem her and us upon the Cross, to her the debt was remitted by anticipation, on her the sentence was not carried out, except indeed as regards her natural death, for she died when her time came, as others. All this we teach, but we deny that she had original sin; for by original sin we mean, as I have already said, something negative, viz., this only, the deprivation of that supernatural unmerited grace which Adam and Eve had on their first formation,—deprivation and the consequences of deprivation. Mary could not merit, any more than they, the restoration of that grace; but it was restored to her by God’s free bounty, from the very first moment of her existence, and thereby, in fact, she never came under the original curse, which consisted in the loss of it. And she had this special privilege, in order to fit her to become the Mother of her and our Redeemer, to fit her mentally, spiritually for it; so that, by the aid of the first grace, she might so grow in grace, that, when the Angel came and her Lord was at hand, she might be “full of grace,” prepared as far as a creature could be prepared, to receive Him into her bosom.’ (http://www.newmanreader.org/works/anglicans/volume2/pusey/section3.html)
Please carefully note how Newman describes original sin, i.e., as the deprivation of that supernatural grace originally possessed by Adam and Eve. Once again I ask, Does this sound anything like the popular caricature of “original guilt” denounced throughout the Orthodox blogosphere?
For what they are worth, I also bring to your attention my own very fallible reflections on original sin: http://pontifications.wordpress.com/original-sin/.
Father, I hope you will write a new article on original sin that will correct the mistaken caricature of “original guilt.” I for one would like to read an Orthodox response to the authentic Catholic teaching.
Well, that is why I made sure that paragraph 1261 of the catechism was quoted in the post of 09 February 2010. Please note that it mentions that:
“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,’ 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.”
I would point out that if the Roman conception of Original Sin does not entail some remnants of the original guilt of Saint Augustine, then there would be no need to be worried about unbaptized infants. Despite being deprived of original holiness and justice, nevertheless, if there is no original guilt, then there is no need to worry about an unbaptized infant. Only if there is some concern that the child may have punishable sin on its soul would one worry about unbaptized infants.
In the document, “The Hope of Salvation for Infants Who Die Without Being Baptized” limbo is mentioned several times. It is worthy of note that then Cardinal Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI was part of the commission that produced this document. The document was only approved by the Holy Father in 2007. In it it mentions:
“The idea of limbo, which the church has used for many centuries to designate the destiny of infants who die without baptism, has no clear foundation in revelation even though it has long been used in traditional theological teaching. Moreover, the notion that infants who die without baptism are deprived of the beatific vision, which has for so long been regarded as the common doctrine of the church, gives rise to numerous pastoral problems, so much so that many pastors of souls have asked for a deeper reflection on the ways of salvation.”
Let’s look at some more quotes from that document:
“Very few Greek Fathers dealt with the destiny of infants who die without Baptism because there was no controversy about this issue in the East. Furthermore, they had a different view of the present condition of humanity. For the Greek Fathers, as the consequence of Adam’s sin, human beings inherited corruption, possibility, and mortality, from which they could be restored by a process of deification made possible through the redemptive work of Christ. The idea of an inheritance of sin or guilt – common in Western tradition – was foreign to this perspective, since in their view sin could only be a free, personal act.”
Please note that the above paragraph acknowledges a difference between the Eastern and the Western view and says that the inheritance of guilt is “common in Western tradition.” But, let’s go on:
“As for the expression limbo of infants, it was forged at the turn of the 12th-13th century to name the “resting place” of such infants (the “border” of the inferior region). Theologians could discuss this question, however, without using the word limbo. Their doctrines should not be confused with the use of the word limbo.
The main affirmation of these doctrines is that those who were not capable of a free act by which they could consent to grace and who died without having been regenerated by the sacrament of baptism are deprived of the vision of God because of original sin, which they inherit through human generation.”
And further in that document:
“Augustine’s thought enjoyed a revival in the 16th century and with it his theory regarding the fate of unbaptized infants, as Robert Bellarmine, for example, bears witness. One consequence of this revival of Augustinianism was Jansenism. Together with Catholic theologians of the Augustinian school, the Jansenists vigorously opposed the theory of limbo.
During this period the popes (Paul III, Benedict XIV, Clement XIII) defended the right of Catholics to teach Augustine’s stern view that infants dying with original sin alone are damned and punished with the perpetual torment of the fire of hell, though with the ‘mildest pain'”
Now, let’s go on with this document:
“Gregory the Great asserts that God condemns even those with only original sin on their souls; even infants who have never sinned by their own will must go to ‘everlasting torments’. He cites Job 14:4-5 (LXX), John 3:5, and Ephesians 2:3 on our condition at birth as ‘children of wrath’.
Augustine was the point of reference for Latin theologians throughout the Middle Ages on this matter. Anselm of Canterbury is a good example: he believes that little children who die without Baptism are damned on account of original sin and in keeping with God’s justice. The common doctrine was summarized by Hugh of St. Victor: infants who die unbaptised cannot be saved because (1) they have not received the sacrament, and (2) they cannot make a personal act of faith that would supply for the sacrament. This doctrine implies that one needs to be justified during one’s earthly life in order to enter eternal life after death. Death puts an end to the possibility of choosing to accept or reject grace, that is, to adhere to God or turn away from him; after death, a person’s fundamental dispositions before God receive no further modification.”
Father, I could go on with this document, but please do not tell me that the taught view of the Roman Catholic Church has always been what you state. I am glad that the Roman Catholic Church appears to be finally rejecting Saint Augustine’s view on this issue. But, please note that the Catholic Catechism, which you cite, is equivocal and the document which I cited is only from 2007. I am glad to see the development of a clearer understanding which appears to finally be bringing the Roman Church closer to the Orthodox viewpoint, and I do hope for the reunion for which the Holy Father and our Ecumenical Patriarch also hope. But, there was and has been good reason for the Orthodox to speak of the Catholic view as original guilt as even the 2007 document acknowledges.
Father, I’m glad you raised the question of limbo; but I think you may have misunderstood WHY Catholic theologians have posited the necessity of limbo for children who die without baptism. It is not because unbaptized children have inherited a sinful something that incurs God’s wrath: it’s because they have not inherited that supernatural grace that makes it possible for them to enjoy the beatific vision. All they are constitutionally possible of enjoying is natural beatitude. It’s a question of capacity, not guilt.
The question of limbo is raised, for Catholics, because of the salvific necessity of baptism. Baptism is the remedy that has been entrusted to the Church to restore life in the Holy Spirit. Infants who die without baptism pose a special challenge: they do not merit punishment, because they are not guilty of personal sin, yet they have died in a state of deprivation. They lack the supernatural life that would enable them to fully participate in the heavenly life of the Holy Trinity–hence the speculative “invention” of an intermediate state, limbo. What has changed in recent decades, as exemplified in the document you cite, is the willingness of Catholic theologians to entertain the possibility that God might/will spiritually regenerate unbaptized children who die apart from the divinely ordained sacrament event.
I certainly do not deny that the Augustinian view of infant damnation experienced a resurgence of sorts in the post-Tridentine Church and was defended as a permissible opinion; but that does not make it THE Catholic view. The mere fact that three Popes had to defend the right of individual Catholic theologians to defend the Augustinian view demonstrates how unpopular it had become. In any case, the resurgence of infant damnation was short-lived, and the scholastic view of limbo won the day, until the mid-20th century.
Returning to my first comment, the critical point is that the Catholic understanding of original sin is inaccurately described as one of “original guilt.” Perhaps that may have been true for St Augustine and some of the other Western Fathers, but that view ceased to be the dominant Catholic view in the second millennium. Original sin, according to authoritative Catholic teaching, is the privation of original justice or sanctifying grace; it is this privation that is “forgiven” by the sacrament of baptism. This is not a Vatican II innovation. It’s been the Catholic view for centuries and centuries. Don’t take my word for it–check out St Thomas Aquinas.
FYI, I refer you to my own fallible reflections on limbo: http://pontifications.wordpress.com/limbo/.
Father, I realize that, currently, what you state is the apparent position of the Roman Catholic Church. However, the reason that I cited the 2007 document is precisely because in its opening paragraph it points to the lack of mention of limbo in the Catechism, and then goes on to do a full study on it. Thus while this document does not contradict the Catechism per se, it certainly is a rethinking and a further expansion on the issue of babies, limbo, and therefore on the conception of Original Sin. Its approval by the Holy Father gives this document explanatory authority over any apparently unclear passage in the Catechism as regards the subject matter covered by this document. Further, this document is also post Pope John Paul II’s address, which makes it a further clarification on both the Catechism and John Paul’s catechetical address.
In the opening paragraphs it says:
“When the question of infants who die without baptism was first taken up in the history of Christian thought, it is possible that the doctrinal nature of the question or its implications were not fully understood. Only when seen in light of the historical development of theology over the course of time until Vatican II does this specific question find its proper context within Catholic doctrine.”
Coupled with the earlier quotes in my earlier post, it points to development in Roman Catholic doctrine over most of Church history. The current teaching of the Roman Catholic Church on infants (and therefore on original sin) is a very late development. As late as the famed Baltimore Catechism, the teacher’s version makes it clear that a baby who dies without being baptized will never see the beatific vision and will never experience true happiness or be with its baptized family. While this already shows the change in terminology and the conception of super added grace that reaches some fruition in the current Catechism, on the other hand the 2007 document shows that the subject is still in flux. Paragraph 41 of the document explicitly states that limbo is still a possible theological option.
The pronouncements of various post-Tridentine popes is taken as proof that the theology was changing in your earlier post. But, pardon us Orthodox if we take the pronouncements of Popes and the Magisterium through most of Western history (as documented in the 2007 document) as being rather authoritative (not dogmatic, but certainly authoritative). Thus, at most it would only have been very recently in Church history that the Roman Catholic Church began to definitively say that unbaptized infants have a hope of heaven. For instance, at the end the 2007 document says:
“Before Vatican II, in the Latin Church, there was no Christian funeral rite for unbaptised infants and such infants were buried in unconsecrated ground.” That is, the Roman Catholic Church, up until Vatican Council II, gave no visible hope of heaven to an unbaptized infant, thereby recognizing liturgically, by the burial in unconsecrated ground, that the unbaptized baby had the same theological place as those who had died in mortal sin.
Thus, the Orthodox do not misrepresent the Roman Catholic viewpoint of Original Sin over 95% of its history as expressed in the sample case of the unbaptized infant. I will admit that we appear to be misrepresenting the current view of Original Sin. Nevertheless, given the constant flux in liturgics, practices, and theological commissions since Vatican Council II, we may perhaps be excused for taking a wait and see attitude on where the theology will settle in this area.
Oh my! Look what Never Ceese has done. *Sue places hands over head to protect herself from falling theology* LOL. Just a side note. Any doctrine in Never Ceese or my Thirsting for Blood Series stems mostly from a somewhat protestant missionary father in the 1800’s who instilled in his children his beliefs. Each character brings to the table the ability to show how certain theologies have shaped them . . . or not? Theology is sort of a backdrop for much of the drama. But, I dare say, the drama going on here is quite exciting! I’m enjoying learning so much about Catholic theology to be sure though I feel ill equip to add anything! LOL
Father, I think you and your fellow Orthodox bloggers are faced with a choice: to learn about the Catholic Church from primary sources or to simply regurgitate the polemics you have learned from Orthodox sources. A blogger, especially a priest, has a responsibility to understand something about Catholic theology before criticizing it. When I point out to you that you have misrepresented the authoritative and long-standing teaching of the Catholic Church on original sin (going back to Aquinas), and I point you to some authoritative sources like the Catholic Catechism and the catechetical teaching of Pope John Paul, you tell me that you prefer to take a wait-and-see attitude and see how theology will settle. This is neither helpful nor honest, Father. You need to read the authoritative sources and correct what you have written in light of them. If you want to critically engage the teaching of the Catechism, for example, please do so. Then we might be able to have a constructive discussion. Then we might be able to discern the authentic differences between Orthodoxy and Catholicism, rather than the imagined ones.
Even if it were true that the Catholic Church taught “original guilt” just up until Vatican II (and that is not true), the simple fact is, she does not teach it presently, and all one needs to do is to read the Catechism to confirm this. Why not engage the Catholic Church as she exists today, rather than as she existed a thousand years ago?
We both know why Orthodox bloggers prefer to present the Catholic position as “original guilt”: it makes an easier target to shoot down by way of exalting the “superior” Orthodox view. But that is just polemics. I have no desire to play polemics or score polemical points. I am not commenting on your blog to attack Orthodoxy but simply to correct your (hopefully unintentional) misrepresentations of the teaching of the Catholic Church. I hope you will give me the courtesy of knowing a bit more about the Catholic Church and her teaching than you do.
I’m not sure why you have suddenly shifted the discussion into limbo and the eternal fate of unbaptized infants. It’s a fascinating topic, but before we are in a position to discuss this topic, we need to first understand what Catholics teach about original sin as the privation of sanctifying grace. That’s what we need to be talking about in this thread.
But if you want to talk about the salvation of unbaptized infants, then one question we need to ask is, What have Eastern Christians taught about this through the centuries? Do you know the answer to this? I don’t. I have yet to find a scholarly historical discussion of this subject. When I wrote my short blog articles on limbo, I contacted several of my Orthodox friends and asked them if they knew what Orthodox Christians in the 19th or 14th centuries believed about the fate of the unbaptized, and they had to admit that they did not know. They assume a continuity of teaching, but that is simply unproven assumption. Either Orthodox theologians have not written much about this topic, or what they have written is unavailable to us. So much of second millennium Eastern theological reflection remains untranslated and therefore inaccessible to 99% of us.
According to Orthodoxy, in one what sense is baptism necessary for salvation? What does baptism accomplish for the infant? How is the baptized infant different from the unbaptized infant?
Hmm, I was very careful to quote from the 2007 document approved by the Holy Father as being the latest statement on RC thinking. I was also very careful to quote how the document itself points out that the “common” conception of original sin used to be that of inherited guilt as well as a damaged nature. In both Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism, we are so old that one can always find Fathers that support one or another statement. That is why I cited the document’s conclusion about the “common” belief. It was the document itself that used the Latin phrase lex orandi, lex creendi and pointed out the discrepancy up until Vatican Council II in that there was no liturgy for children who had died unbaptized and they were buried in unconsecrated ground. I was actually quite careful to use a document approved by the current Holy Father and that is currently posted on the Vatican website. It is the Vatican document’s own words that document that the change, though it may have been slowly growing, was actually a rather late change.
I realize that the current common conception is no longer the one that was common all the way through the Baltimore Catechism teacher’s edition, and liturgically through Vatican Council II. I promise to carefully word my future statements to point out the change in conception. But, it is your own document that points out that the Orthodox were not wrong in saying that until recently the “common conception” was some form of inherited penalty that was more than simply a lack of grace.
““Very few Greek Fathers dealt with the destiny of infants who die without Baptism because there was no controversy about this issue in the East.” You asked why there are little Orthodox writings on non-baptized infants. Your own documents point out that it was because there was no controversy in the East. They are not in any danger of hell nor of being unable to see the beatific vision. No one writes where there is no controversy, and our anthropology was united on this one point.
In passing, why did I use infants and limbo when speaking of original sin? Because that is where the issues are clearest. Everyone past infancy sins. Therefore, to use the case of a non-infant to talk about Original Sin would lead to a lack of clarity in the discussion. Regardless of one’s Christian anthropology, both East and West agree that such a person needs to repent and be born again of water and the Spirit. In practice, differences over Original Sin are of little matter when dealing with a person who has sinned voluntarily. But, the difference become rather large when one talks about infants. Burial practices (up until Vatican Council II) were distinctly different between the two Churches as concerning unbaptized infants. Pastoral comfort would also have been different between the two Churches. That is why I used unbaptized infants as my discussion point for Original Sin.
In fact, I have been careful and cautious to use the latest primary sources direct from the Vatican website, by way of the Theological Commission and with the approval of the Holy Father, and it is those sources that actually confirm the Orthodox claim, at least prior to Vatican Council II. Again, I promise to be more careful in my wording with respect to the Catholic Church post Vatican Council II. But, frankly, I cannot say other than what your own documents state was the “common practice” for many centuries.
Fr. Kimel, you have a point.
HOWEVER, it is also clear that there is a very fine line between the development of doctrine and change of doctrine in Roman circles. I will accept, based on my own reading, that the Roman Church is moving away from “original guilt” and it MAY be true that the Augustinian account of “original guilt” was never the teaching of [Roman] Catholic Church in the fullest sense, but darn, there are plenty of older documents which present it as such. Consider the following, for example, from the online “Catholic Encyclopedia” article on original sin:
“There can be no sin that is not voluntary, the learned and the ignorant admit this evident truth’, writes St. Augustine (De vera relig., xiv, 27). The Church has condemned the opposite solution given by Baius [prop. xlvi, xlvii, in Denz., n. 1046 (926)]. Original sin is not an act but, as already explained, a state, a permanent privation, and this can be voluntary indirectly — just as a drunken man is deprived of his reason and incapable of using his liberty, yet it is by his free fault that he is in this state and hence his drunkenness, his privation of reason is voluntary and can be imputed to him.”
But no one becomes drunk completely involuntarily so I fail to see the analogy and, unlike Augustine, I, and both strains of Orthodoxy, would dispute the notion that all sin must be voluntary. But if not voluntary, then there is no “guilt” or even resonsiblity for the action, but the opposite is also true. However, it IS clear that I can be placed in such a postion that I must repair damage that I did not cause. THAT is the Orthodox position.
Fr Greg, it first needs to be stated that the Catholic Encyclopedia does not enjoy any authoritative status within the Catholic Church. It is not a source for Catholic theology. However, it is usually a reliable snapshot of the views of mainstream Catholic theological opinion at the time it was written (1905-1914).
When we turn to the Catholic Encyclopedia’s exposition of original sin, we note its approving affirmation of the scholastic notion of original sin as privation of sanctifying grace, precisely as taught in the Catechism of the Catholic Church:
‘Original sin is the privation of sanctifying grace in consequence of the sin of Adam. This solution, which is that of St. Thomas, goes back to St. Anselm and even to the traditions of the early Church, as we see by the declaration of the Second Council of Orange (A.D. 529): one man has transmitted to the whole human race not only the death of the body, which is the punishment of sin, but even sin itself, which is the death of the soul [Denz., n. 175 (145)]. As death is the privation of the principle of life, the death of the soul is the privation of sanctifying grace which according to all theologians is the principle of supernatural life. Therefore, if original sin is “the death of the soul”, it is the privation of sanctifying grace.
‘The Council of Trent, although it did not make this solution obligatory by a definition, regarded it with favour and authorized its use (cf. Pallavicini, “Istoria del Concilio di Trento”, vii-ix). Original sin is described not only as the death of the soul (Sess. V, can. ii), but as a “privation of justice that each child contracts at its conception” (Sess. VI, cap. iii). But the Council calls “justice” what we call sanctifying grace (Sess. VI), and as each child should have had personally his own justice so now after the fall he suffers his own privation of justice.’
Original sin as the privation of supernatural grace is not a post-Vatican II innovation. It’s not something new that the Magisterium has only recently sprung on the Church. It’s been around for centuries. So why do Orthodox continue to describe the Catholic view as one of “inherited guilt”? You cite the Encyclopedia article as evidence for the inherited guilt interpretation, but when carefully read in its entirety it in fact proves just the opposite.
Like you, I do not find the analogy of drunkeness at all helpful as a way of understanding original sin, but that is an inconsequential point. The section on the voluntariness of original sin is simply trying to find a way to justify the application of the word “sin” to our (involuntary) inheritance of our fallen condition. The next-to-last paragraph is clear that the descendants of Adam are not morally responsible for the sin of Adam. Original sin can only be described as “sin” in an analogous way:
‘”Your dogma makes us strictly responsible for the fault of Adam.” That is a misconception of our doctrine. Our dogma does not attribute to the children of Adam any properly so-called responsibility for the act of their father, nor do we say that original sin is voluntary in the strict sense of the word. It is true that, considered as “a moral deformity”, “a separation from God”, as “the death of the soul”, original sin is a real sin which deprives the soul of sanctifying grace. It has the same claim to be a sin as has habitual sin, which is the state in which an adult is placed by a grave and personal fault, the “stain” which St. Thomas defines as “the privation of grace” (I-II:109:7; III:87:2, ad 3), and it is from this point of view that baptism, putting an end to the privation of grace, “takes away all that is really and properly sin”, for concupiscence which remains “is not really and properly sin”, although its transmission was equally voluntary (Council of Trent, Sess. V, can. v.). Considered precisely as voluntary, original sin is only the shadow of sin properly so-called. According to St. Thomas (In II Sent., dist. xxv, Q. i, a. 2, ad 2um), it is not called sin in the same sense, but only in an analogous sense.’
Do you not agree that the continued dissemination of the caricature of “inherited guilt” by the Orthodox blogosphere is a scandal? Orthodoxy doesn’t need to misrepresent Catholicism in order to vigorously advance its own beliefs.
St. Gregory of Nazianzus (circa 329 – circa 390) commented in Orat., XL, 23 that infants dying without baptism “will neither be admitted by the just judge to the glory of Heaven nor condemned to suffer punishment, since, though unsealed [by baptism], they are not wicked.”
I understand that quote, however, let me give you a quote from a Vatican document:
“Gregory of Nazianzus does not write about the place and status after death of infants who die without sacramental Baptism, but he enlarges the subject with another consideration. He writes, namely, that these children receive neither praise nor punishment from the Just Judge, because they have suffered injury rather than provoked it. ‘The one who does not deserve punishment is not thereby worthy of praise, and the one who does not deserve praise is not thereby deserving of punishment.’ The profound teaching of the Greek Fathers can be summarized in the opinion of Anastasius of Sinai: ‘It would not be fitting to probe God’s judgments with one’s hands.'”
A fuller look at the Eastern Fathers show that several of them did say that they, personally, could not conceive of an unbaptized infant being present in the glory of Heaven. But, in every case, when one reads the full writing, they make two conclusions. One, infants are not wicked; “they have suffered injury;” they are not deserving of punishment. In other words, there is a rather strong rejection of anything resembling original guilt. On the other hand, regardless of their thoughts on where the infant might end up, they all agreed that they truly did not know. That is, they might have speculated but would end up saying that we cannot say for certain. So, whether they thought the infant would be in the glory of Heaven or in some other place (which they could not and would not define), their final united conclusion was that such knowledge was beyond their ability to “probe God’s judgments.”
That is why the Vatican document is able to speak about their united stance and their lack of writings as regards infants. They were united in that they had no way to really know. Thus, their tendency was to not speculate. Even when they did, they would almost end up retracting what they had written in another part of their writing.