FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums
next time Eastern Orthodox complain of 1204, remind them of 1182 - Printable Version

+- FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums (https://www.fisheaters.com/forums)
+-- Forum: Church (https://www.fisheaters.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=2)
+--- Forum: Catholicism (https://www.fisheaters.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=10)
+--- Thread: next time Eastern Orthodox complain of 1204, remind them of 1182 (/showthread.php?tid=51229)

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9


Re: next time Eastern Orthodox complain of 1204, remind them of 1182 - TrentCath - 02-03-2012

(02-03-2012, 11:47 AM)Melkite Wrote:
(02-03-2012, 10:58 AM)TrentCath Wrote: Just no, you haven't read the documents.

Lets look at it again shall we '2. If any one asserts, that the prevarication of Adam injured himself alone, and not his posterity; and that the holiness and justice, received of God, which he lost, he lost for himself alone, and not for us also; or that he, being defiled by the sin of disobedience, has only transfused death, and pains of the body, into the whole human race, but not sin also, which is the death of the soul; let him be anathema:--whereas he contradicts the apostle who says; By one man sin entered into the world, and by sin death, and so death passed upon all men, in whom all have sinned. '

It's quite clear then that original sin is not death alone, now if you don't accept the Council of Trent then quite obviously this won't serve as evidence to you but what you can't is twist the plain and ordinary meaning of the text in order to deny that it censures the opinion you hold.

As for believing the vulgate is wrong 'Moreover, the same sacred and holy Synod,--considering that no small utility may accrue to the Church of God, if it be made known which out of all the Latin editions, now in circulation, of the sacred books, is to be held as authentic,--ordains and declares, that the said old and vulgate edition, which, by the lengthened usage of so many years, has been approved of in the Church, be, in public lectures, disputations, sermons and expositions, held as authentic; and that no one is to dare, or presume to reject it under any pretext whatever. ' (Council of Trent)

Again if you are not Catholic it does not serve as evidence, if you are it is sufficient to show what the Catholic teaching is.

Again, I haven't stated that original sin IS death.  I have said death is Adam's curse.  If Trent and the Bible contradict eachother, then Trent is wrong, not the Bible.  I can't help it if Trent has said the Vulgate is error free, but it's not.  The Latin understanding of Original Sin is in part based upon a translation in the Vulgate that is not what the original Greek said.  The error pre-exists Trent, and so Trent's declaration does not undo the error, or somehow make a faleshood all of a sudden true.

You very much did say that and now you are contradicting yourself. Trent does not contradict the bible, it cannot being an ecumenical council, furthermore one would then have to believe that all the fathers that thought the same as Trent likewise contradicted the bible and such a belief is simply untenable/


Re: next time Eastern Orthodox complain of 1204, remind them of 1182 - TrentCath - 02-03-2012

(02-03-2012, 12:50 PM)Melkite Wrote:
(02-03-2012, 11:12 AM)TrentCath Wrote: Wrong, no babies are guilty of any personal sin but they have still inherited original sin, as such if they die in a state of original sin they will be deprived of the beatific vision. I am afraid that whether you agree with it or not this teaching is De Fide
Ludwig Ott in the ' Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma states 'Souls who depart this life in the state of original sin are excluded from the Beatific Vision of God (De Fide)
The 2nd General Council of Lyons (1274) and the Council of Florence (1438-45) declared:..... 'the souls of those who die in original sin as well as those who die in actual mortal sin go immediately into hell, but their punishment is very different)
The dogma is supported by the words of Our Lord: "Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God"
The spiritual re-birth of young infants can be achieved in an extra-sacramental manner through baptism by blood (cf. the baptism by blood of the children of Bethlehem) Other emergency means of baptism for children dying without sacramental baptism, such as prayer and desire of the parents or the Church (Vicarious baptism of desire- Cajetan), or the attainment of the use of reason in the moment of death, so that the child can decide for or against God (baptism of desire- H.Klee), or suffering and death of the child as quasi-Sacrament (Baptism of suffering - H.Schell), are indeed possible, but their actuality cannot be proved from Revelation. C.f. D712
In the punishment of Hell theologians distinguish between the " poena damni" which consists in the exclusion from the Beatific vision of God, and the " poena sensus" which is caused by external means, and which will be felt by the senses even after the Resurrection of the body. While St Augustine and many Latin fathers are of the opinion that children dying in original sin must suffer "poena sensus" also, even if only a very mild one (mitissima omnium poena: Enchir. 93), the Greek Fathers (for example, St Gregory of Nazianus, Or. 40, 23), and the majority of the Schoolmen and more recent theologians, teach that they suffer "poena damni" only. The declaration of Pope innocent III, is in favour of this teaching, D. 410. A condition of natural bliss is compatible with "Poena damni". Cf. St Thomas, De Malo, 5,3 ; Sent. II d. 33q.2.a.2
Theologians usually assume a special place or state for children dying without baptism which they call limbus puerorum (children's limbo). Pope Pius VI adopted this view against the synod of Pistoia.
' P 113-114

You should go back and re-read what I wrote.  I didn't say the unbaptized can enter heaven.  It is you who fail to differentiate between circumstance and guilt.  Infants are not guilty of ANY sin.  They are not guilty of any personal sin, and the inheritance of original sin carries no guilt with it.  God, however, does not owe heaven to anyone, so if a baby is not unbaptized and dies, he is not owed heaven merely because he has no personal guilt.  If I don't owe you something, then it is not a punishment to you if I do not give you what I do not owe you.  Therefore, the loss of heaven for original sin only is not a punishment per se, just the circumstances of a fact, that the child died without baptism, without entering the ark.  He has suffered the illness of fallen humanity, but is not personally guilty of it.  This is why many of the early fathers referred to the Eucharist as the medicine of immortality.  We are born into a diseases state.  We are baptised, thereby entering the ark of salvation, and are able to receive the medicine that heals our fallen nature and makes heaven possible for us.  We do not receive a punishment for being born into a diseases state over which we had no choice.  Hell is a punishment, or, in your terms, poena sensus.  Merely failing to attain heaven, in and of itself, is not a punishment.

Infants are not guilty of any personal sin that much I agree with, they have however inherited original sin, not achieving the beatific is a punishment in as much as it frustrates mans last end, which is God. Furthermore as man is born in a state which rebels against God, man is punished for this. I have stated the teaching of The Church, if you do not wish to accept it then state so clearly.


Re: next time Eastern Orthodox complain of 1204, remind them of 1182 - Melkite - 02-03-2012

(02-03-2012, 12:59 PM)TrentCath Wrote: You very much did say that and now you are contradicting yourself.

Point it out.  Where did I specifically type "original sin IS death"?


Re: next time Eastern Orthodox complain of 1204, remind them of 1182 - TrentCath - 02-03-2012

(02-03-2012, 01:10 PM)Melkite Wrote:
(02-03-2012, 12:59 PM)TrentCath Wrote: You very much did say that and now you are contradicting yourself.

Point it out.  Where did I specifically type "original sin IS death"?

'Quote from: newyorkcatholic
what is Adam's Curse if not original sin?'


'Death.'

In that context it makes little sense to make the distinction you are trying to make, namely that you meant adam's curse and original sin are two different things.


Re: next time Eastern Orthodox complain of 1204, remind them of 1182 - newyorkcatholic - 02-03-2012

(02-03-2012, 01:17 PM)TrentCath Wrote:
(02-03-2012, 01:10 PM)Melkite Wrote:
(02-03-2012, 12:59 PM)TrentCath Wrote: You very much did say that and now you are contradicting yourself.

Point it out.  Where did I specifically type "original sin IS death"?

'Quote from: newyorkcatholic
what is Adam's Curse if not original sin?'


'Death.'

In that context it makes little sense to make the distinction you are trying to make, namely that you meant adam's curse and original sin are two different things.

Actually that's how I interpreted Melkite ... that he is saying Adam's Curse (a phrase seen often in the lex orandi of the East) is death, it is not original sin, which is something else, a problematic Western idea.


Re: next time Eastern Orthodox complain of 1204, remind them of 1182 - TrentCath - 02-03-2012

(02-03-2012, 01:23 PM)newyorkcatholic Wrote:
(02-03-2012, 01:17 PM)TrentCath Wrote:
(02-03-2012, 01:10 PM)Melkite Wrote:
(02-03-2012, 12:59 PM)TrentCath Wrote: You very much did say that and now you are contradicting yourself.

Point it out.  Where did I specifically type "original sin IS death"?

'Quote from: newyorkcatholic
what is Adam's Curse if not original sin?'


'Death.'

In that context it makes little sense to make the distinction you are trying to make, namely that you meant adam's curse and original sin are two different things.

Actually that's how I interpreted Melkite ... that he is saying Adam's Curse (a phrase seen often in the lex orandi of the East) is death, it is not original sin, which is something else, a problematic Western idea.

In which case adam's curse and original sin would be two entirely separate things, such a thesis seems well to say the least a little strained.

As for original sin being a western idea, it is not, that is just one of many PR jobs the Orthodox have done on history.


Re: next time Eastern Orthodox complain of 1204, remind them of 1182 - newyorkcatholic - 02-03-2012

(02-03-2012, 01:26 PM)TrentCath Wrote:
(02-03-2012, 01:23 PM)newyorkcatholic Wrote:
(02-03-2012, 01:17 PM)TrentCath Wrote:
(02-03-2012, 01:10 PM)Melkite Wrote:
(02-03-2012, 12:59 PM)TrentCath Wrote: You very much did say that and now you are contradicting yourself.

Point it out.  Where did I specifically type "original sin IS death"?

'Quote from: newyorkcatholic
what is Adam's Curse if not original sin?'


'Death.'

In that context it makes little sense to make the distinction you are trying to make, namely that you meant adam's curse and original sin are two different things.

Actually that's how I interpreted Melkite ... that he is saying Adam's Curse (a phrase seen often in the lex orandi of the East) is death, it is not original sin, which is something else, a problematic Western idea.

In which case adam's curse and original sin would be two entirely separate things, such a thesis seems well to say the least a little strained.

As for original sin being a western idea, it is not, that is just one of many PR jobs the Orthodox have done on history.

I agree, but I still think Melkite is advancing that idea.  That original sin is a separate western idea that we should not accept, but that Adam's Curse and the transmissio nof death is a biblical idea handed down by the Fathers.


Re: next time Eastern Orthodox complain of 1204, remind them of 1182 - Melkite - 02-03-2012

(02-03-2012, 01:17 PM)TrentCath Wrote:
(02-03-2012, 01:10 PM)Melkite Wrote:
(02-03-2012, 12:59 PM)TrentCath Wrote: You very much did say that and now you are contradicting yourself.

Point it out.  Where did I specifically type "original sin IS death"?

'Quote from: newyorkcatholic
what is Adam's Curse if not original sin?'


'Death.'

In that context it makes little sense to make the distinction you are trying to make, namely that you meant adam's curse and original sin are two different things.

But that is exactly what I did mean.  I can't help it if you fail to distinguish between original sin and Adam's curse.  I even repreatedly said I was referring to Adam's curse, not original sin.  So there's no reason for you to say I said death is original sin, even if you can't understand how the sin and the curse are different.


Re: next time Eastern Orthodox complain of 1204, remind them of 1182 - Parmandur - 02-03-2012

I have seen Easterners state that they don't believe in Original Sin, just the darkening of the intellect, weakening of the will and concupiscence.  :LOL:

I think y'all are talking past each other here, particularly when you start playing Doctors of the Church against each other as if they are n competition rather than agreement.


Re: next time Eastern Orthodox complain of 1204, remind them of 1182 - Parmandur - 02-03-2012

Melkite, does this make sense to you at all:

St. Thomas Aquinas Wrote:Article 1. Whether original sin is a habit?

Objection 1. It would seem that original sin is not a habit. For original sin is the absence of original justice, as Anselm states (De Concep. Virg. ii, iii, xxvi), so that original sin is a privation. But privation is opposed to habit. Therefore original sin is not a habit.

Objection 2. Further, actual sin has the nature of fault more than original sin, in so far as it is more voluntary. Now the habit of actual sin has not the nature of a fault, else it would follow that a man while asleep, would be guilty of sin. Therefore no original habit has the nature of a fault.

Objection 3. Further, in wickedness act always precedes habit, because evil habits are not infused, but acquired. Now original sin is not preceded by an act. Therefore original sin is not a habit.

On the contrary, Augustine says in his book on the Baptism of infants (De Pecc. Merit. et Remiss. i, 39) that on account of original sin little children have the aptitude of concupiscence though they have not the act. Now aptitude denotes some kind of habit. Therefore original sin is a habit.

I answer that, As stated above (49, 4; 50, 1), habit is twofold. The first is a habit whereby power is inclined to an act: thus science and virtue are called habits. In this way original sin is not a habit. The second kind of habit is the disposition of a complex nature, whereby that nature is well or ill disposed to something, chiefly when such a disposition has become like a second nature, as in the case of sickness or health. In this sense original sin is a habit. For it is an inordinate disposition, arising from the destruction of the harmony which was essential to original justice, even as bodily sickness is an inordinate disposition of the body, by reason of the destruction of that equilibrium which is essential to health. Hence it is that original sin is called the "languor of nature" [Cf. Augustine, In Ps. 118, serm. iii].

Reply to Objection 1. As bodily sickness is partly a privation, in so far as it denotes the destruction of the equilibrium of health, and partly something positive, viz. the very humors that are inordinately disposed, so too original sin denotes the privation of original justice, and besides this, the inordinate disposition of the parts of the soul. Consequently it is not a pure privation, but a corrupt habit.

Reply to Objection 2. Actual sin is an inordinateness of an act: whereas original sin, being the sin of nature, is an inordinate disposition of nature, and has the character of fault through being transmitted from our first parent, as stated above (Question 81, Article 1). Now this inordinate disposition of nature is a kind of habit, whereas the inordinate disposition of an act is not: and for this reason original sin can be a habit, whereas actual sin cannot.

Reply to Objection 3. This objection considers the habit which inclines a power to an act: but original sin is not this kind of habit. Nevertheless a certain inclination to an inordinate act does follow from original sin, not directly, but indirectly, viz. by the removal of the obstacle, i.e. original justice, which hindered inordinate movements: just as an inclination to inordinate bodily movements results indirectly from bodily sickness. Nor is it necessary to says that original sin is a habit "infused," or a habit "acquired" (except by the act of our first parent, but not by our own act): but it is a habit "inborn" due to our corrupt origin.

and from another article a little ways down, a definition:
Quote:I answer that, Everything takes its species from its form: and it has been stated (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.

http://www.newadvent.org/summa/2082.htm#article3

Remember that the main comparison of Original Sin is illness, and Christ is the physician who heals our wounded nature.