Joseph Smith's Library with Terryl Givens
To Support this Blog:
Email for Amazon Gift
card: ScripturalMormonism@gmail.com
Email for Logos.com Gift
Card: IrishLDS87@gmail.com
Friday, January 3, 2025
Joseph Smith's Library with Terryl Givens
Charles Cardinal Journet on the Participation of Mary and John at the Sacrifice of the Cross
The
Participation of the Blessed Virgin and St. John at the Sacrifice of the Cross
1. Christ is the Head, the Church His Body. He does not evacuate
the Church; He pulls it along in HIs wake. What He does in a sovereign
manner as Head, she must do in dependence on Him, vivified by Him, carried by Him
as His Body.
a) The Blessed Virgin and St.
John prefigure the Church at the foot of the Cross. To His infinite theandric
offering Christ unites their created finite offering. He envelops, sustains and
raises up finite beings. “Christ being the Head of the Church, grace was given
to Him not only as an individual person, but also in view of overflowing onto
His members, such that the works of Christ have value for Him and for His
members, as the works of a man who possesses grace, have value for himself.”
Certainly, this does not mean that the offering of the Blessed
Virgin and St. John could add anything intensively to Christ’s offering; but it
could be expanded, deepened, vivified, sanctified by this contact. This offering,
united to a supplication of Jesus, represents the unspeakable distress of very
loving creatures, torn by the spectacle of evil which seems to drown the world.
It can, from then on, become a coredemptrix for the world—no doubt to various
degrees. For the Blessed Virgin, her offering is coredemptive of all that is
Christ’s the Redeemer; her intercession is universal. The offering of St. John
is more restricted.
b) At the same time that He
pulls them along in the offering of His ascending mediation, Christ pours out
on the Blessed Virgin and St. John—that is, on the heart of the Church of that
time—the treasures of a definitive and fully Christ-conforming grace. “The
human nature of Christ,” says St. Thomas, “is the instrument of the divinity;
consequently, all the actions and passions of Christ act instrumentally, under
the motion of the divinity, in order to procure men’s salvation. The Passion of
Christ is thus the efficient cause of our salvation.”
2. At the moment when the drama of the world’s redemption
is completed on the Cross, Christ desires that the Church, the Church of that
time, be engaged in it in the measure that she is capable. The participation in
the oblation of the Cross, which is at once liturgical, bloody, and loving,
happens then by immediate contact, that is, without recourse to sacramental
signs and an unbloody rite.
At the Last Supper and at the Mass it is, on the
contrary, under sacramental signs and an unbloody rite that the entrance
into the sacrificial drama is proposed, first to the Apostles, then to
Christians of future ages.
One must remember, therefore, two manners by which the Church
participates fully in the redemptive drama: one of them, passing, by immediate
contact with the bloody sacrifice—that of the Church at the very foot of the
Cross, that of the Blessed Virgin and of St. John; the other, permanent bringing
to us the bloody sacrifice in the envelopment of the unbloody sacrifice,
instituted at the Last Supper by the Savior in order to be reproduced by His
disciples—that of the Church is waiting for the return of Christ. (Charles
Cardinal Journet, The Mass: The Presence of the Sacrifice of the Cross [trans.
Victor Szczurek; South Bend, Ind.: St. Augustine’s Press, 2008], 26-27)
To Support this Blog:
Email for Amazon Gift
card: ScripturalMormonism@gmail.com
Email for Logos.com Gift
Card: IrishLDS87@gmail.com
Charles Cardinal Journet (1891-1975) on the Mass and the Multiplication of the Presences of the One Sacrifice in Catholic Theology
The Mass multiplies not the one sacrifice, but the
presences of the one sacrifice. This is misunderstood by Protestant
commentators, who since Luther and Calvin, avail themselves of this verse [Heb
10:27] in order to condemn the mass. (Charles Cardinal Journet, The Mass:
The Presence of the Sacrifice of the Cross [trans. Victor Szczurek; South
Bend, Ind.: St. Augustine’s Press, 2008], 22 n. 27; comment in square brackets
added for clarification)
If the unbloody sacrifice of the Last Supper
sacramentally contains the reality of Christ and His bloody sacrifice already
begun, it must be said for that same reason that it is a true and proper
sacrifice—not another sacrifice than the unique sacrifice but another presence
of this unique sacrifice. TO speak formally, the notion of presence is
analogous: fir a natural presence, then a sacramental presence of the one sacrifice;
the notion of Christ’s sacrifice is not analogous but rather univocal.
We ought to speak of the Mass as we do of the Last Supper: it is a true and
proper sacrifice if it is a real presence of Christ and His one sacrifice. (Ibid.,
49)
The Eucharistic presence is, in fact, a presence of
Christ’s Body in a place, but not by way of place or dimension. It
is a real and true corporal presence, but of a new character. Before the consecration
the substance of bread, which sustains the species or appearances of the bread,
is found in the place by reason of its dimensions, directly, by way of place
or dimension After the consecration the substance of the Body of Christ,
along with the Word Who is united to it personally, is contained under the
species or appearances of bread in an essentially different manner. Now
it no longer sustains these appearances and thus enters into direct contact
with the place; but rather, it assumes the veil of these borrowed appearances
in order to enter thus into indirect contact with the place—now no
longer by manner of place, of dimension, of co-extension of each of the
parts of its proper expanse with the corresponding part of the surrounding body,
but in a more secret manner, the entire undivided Body of Christ (and
consequently Christ Himself, the Word made Flesh) being present under each
divided piece of species or appearances, and each divided piece of species or
appearances containing the entire undivided Body of Christ. This is what is
called the corporeal presence is a place, not by way of place, but by way of
substance. Between these two corporeal presences there is an analogy, a
proportion: just as before the consecration the bread is in the place by manner
of dimension and by means of its proper dimension, so proportionately after the
consecration the Body of Christ, without having undergone any change in itself,
is in the place by manner of substance and by means of the borrowed and assumed
dimensions of bread. (Ibid., 163-64)
To Support this Blog:
Email for Amazon Gift
card: ScripturalMormonism@gmail.com
Email for Logos.com Gift
Card: IrishLDS87@gmail.com
Lawrence R. Farley (EO) on Regeneration
We miss the richness of this concept of rebirth [spoken of in Titus 3:5], however,
if we see it in strictly individualistic terms. There is a cosmic element in
our regeneration. Christ referred to the age to come as the “rebirth” (Gk. paliggenesia)
in Matthew 19:28, where it is sometimes translated as the “new world” (RSV). IN
the coming age, the whole cosmos will share in Christ’s glory and will be
reborn. Even now we Christians share in these powers of the age to come and
experience this rebirth and glory. We are reborn (or “born again”) in that we experience
even in this age the newness of the age to come. (Lawrence R. Farley, The Epistle
to the Hebrews: High Priest in Heaven [The Orthodox Bible Study Companion Series;
Chesterton, Ind.: Ancient Faith Publishing, 2013], 70, comments in square brackets added for clarification)
To Support this Blog:
Email for Amazon Gift
card: ScripturalMormonism@gmail.com
Email for Logos.com Gift
Card: IrishLDS87@gmail.com
Dieter F. Uchtdorf on the meaning of "After all we can do" (2 Nephi 25:23)
AFTER ALL WE CAN DO
Now we come to the language from the title of this book, “after
all we can do” (2 Nephi 25:23). The prophet Nephi made an important
contribution to our understanding of God’s grace when he declared, “We labor diligently
. . . to persuade our children, and also our brethren, to believe in Christ,
and to be reconciled to God; for we know that it is by grace we are saved,
after all we can do” (2 Nephi 25:23; emphasis added).
However, I wonder how often we misinterpret the phrase “after
all we can do.” We must understand that “after” does not equal “because.”
We are not saved “because” of all that we can do. We
choose to receive Christ’s grace; we don’t earn it. Salvation cannot be bought
with the currency of obedience; it is purchased by the blood of the Son of God
(Acts 20:28). Have any of us done all that we can do? Does God wait
until we’ve expended every effort before He will intervene in our lives with His
saving grace?
Many people feel discouraged because they constantly fall
short. They know firsthand that “the spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is
weak” (Matthew 26:41; see also Romans 7:19). They raise their voices with Nephi
in proclaiming, “My soul grieveth because of mine iniquities” (2 Nephi 4:17).
I am certain Nephi knew that the Savior’s grace allows
and enables us to overcome sin (see 2 Nephi 4:19-35; Alma 34:31).
This is why Nephi labored so diligently to persuade his children and brethren “to
believe in Christ, and to be reconciled to God” (2 Nephi 25:23). After all, that
is what we can do! And that is our task in mortality!
All we can do is choose to receive grace as the Savior
offers it to us. We can choose to receive hope, and ultimately to receive joy! (Dieter
F. Uchtdorf, After All We Can Do: Embracing Hope, Grace, and Joy [Salt
Lake City: Deseret Book, 2024], 7-8, italics in original)
Unlocking the Gates of Heaven
Because we have all “sinned and come short of the glory
of God” (Romans 3:23) and because “there cannot any unclean thing enter into
the kingdom of God” (1 Nephi 15:34), every one of us is unworthy to return to God’s
presence (see also 1 Nephi 10:21; Moses 6:57).
Even if we were to serve God with our whole souls, it
would not be enough, for we should still be “unprofitable servants,” as King
Benjamin taught (Mosiah 2:21). We cannot earn our way into heaven; the demands
of justice stand as a barrier, which we are powerless to overcome on our own.
But all is not lost.
The grace of God is our great and everlasting hope.
Through the sacrifice of Jesus Christ, the plan of mercy
appeases the demands of justice “and [brings] about means unto men that they
may have faith unto repentance” (Alma 34:15). Our sins, though they may be as scarlet,
can become white as snow (see Isaiah 1:18). Because our beloved Savior “gave
himself a ransom for all” (1 Timothy 2:6), an entrance into His everlasting kingdom
is provided unto us (see 2 Peter 1:11).
The gate is unlocked!
But the grace of God does not merely restore us to our
previous innocent state. If salvation means only erasing our mistakes and sins,
then salvation—as wonderful as it is—does not fulfill the Father’s aspirations
for us. His aim is much higher: He wants His sons and daughters to become like
Him. With the gift of God’s grace, the path of discipleship does not lead
backward; it leads upward.
It leads to heights we can scarcely comprehend! It leads
to exaltation in the celestial kingdom of our Heavenly Father, where we, surrounded
by our loved ones, receive “of his fulness, and of his glory” (Doctrine and
Covenants 76:56). All things are ours, and we are Christ’s (see Doctrine and
Covenants 76:59). Indeed, all that the Father hath shall be given unto us (see
Doctrine and Covenants 84:38).
To inherit this glory, we need more than an unlocked
gate; we must enter through this gate with a heart’s desire to be changed—a change
so dramatic that the scriptures describe it as being “born again; yea, born of
God, changed from [our worldly] and fallen state, to a state of righteousness,
being redeemed of God, becoming his sons and daughters” (Mosiah 27:25).
Opening the Windows of Heaven
Another element of God’s grace is the opening of the
windows of heaven, through which God pours out blessings of power and strength,
enabling us to achieve things that otherwise would be far beyond our reach. It
is by God’s amazing grace that His children can overcome the undercurrents and
quicksands of the deceiver, rise above sin, and “be perfect[ed] in Christ”
(Moroni 10:32).
Though we all have weaknesses, we can overcome them
through His grace. Indeed, it is by the grace of God that, if we humble
ourselves and have faith, weak things can become strong (see Ether 12:27).
Throughout our lives, God’s grace bestows temporal
blessings and spiritual gifts that magnify our abilities and enrich our lives.
His grace refines us. His grace helps us become our best selves.
HOW DO WE RECEIVE GRACE?
In the Bible we read of Christ’s visit to the home of
Simon the Pharisee. Outwardly, Simon seemed to be a good and upright man. He
regularly checked off his to-do list of religious obligations: he kept the law,
paid his tithing, observed the Sabbath, prayed daily, and went to the
synagogue.
But while Jesus was with Simon, a woman approached,
washed the Savior’s feet with her tears, and anointed His feet with fine oil.
Simon was not pleased with this display of worship, for he knew that this woman
was a sinner. Simon thought that if Jesus didn’t know this, He must not be a
prophet or He would not have let the woman touch Him.
Perceiving his thoughts, Jesus turned to Simon and asked
a question. “There was a certain creditor which had two debtors . . . one owed
five hundred pence, . . . the other fifty.
“And when they [both] had nothing to pay, he frankly
forgave them both. Tell me therefore, which will love him most?”
Simon answered that it was the one who was forgiven the
most. Then Jesus taught a profound lesson: “Seesth thou this woman? . . . Her
sins, which are many, are forgiven, for she loved much; but to whom
little is forgiven, the same loveth little” (Luke 7:36-50; emphasis added).
Which of these two people are we most like?
Are we like Simon? Are we confident and comfortable in
our good deeds, trusting in our own righteousness? Are we perhaps a little
impatient with those who are not living up to our standards? Are we on
autopilot, going through the motions, attending our meetings, yawning through Sunday
School class, and perhaps checking our cell phones during sacrament service?
Or are we like this woman, who thought she was completely
and hopelessly lost because of sin? She was the one who “loved much” (Luke
7:47).
DO we love much?
Do we understand our indebtedness to Heavenly Father and
plead with all our souls for the grace of God?
Christ’s parable of the Pharisee and the tax collector
also illustrates this point clearly. These two men went into the temple to
pray. The Pharisee prayed: “God, I thank thee, that I am not as other men are,
extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this publican. I fast twice in the
week, I give tithes of all that I possess.”
The other man, a hated publican, stood “afar off, [and]
would not lift up so much as his eyes unto heaven, but smote upon his breast,
saying, God be merciful to me a sinner.”
And Jesus said, “I tell you, this man went down to his
house justified rather than the other” (Luke 18:9-14).
In truth, we “all have sinned and come short of the glory
of God” (Romans 3:23). We are all in need of mercy. In that last day when we
are called to the judgment bar of God, do we not hope that our many
imperfections will be forgiven? Do we not yearn to feel the Savior’s embrace?
When we kneel to pray, it is to replay the greatest hits
of our own righteousness, or is it to confess our faults, plead for God’s
mercy, and shed tears of gratitude for the amazing plan of redemption?
Salvation cannot be bought with the currency of obedience; it is purchased by
the blood of the Son of God (see Acts 20:28). Thinking that we can trade our good
works for salvation is like buying a plane ticket and then supposing we own the
airline. Or thinking that after paying rent for our home, we now hold title to
the entire planet earth.
WHY THEN OBEY?
If grace is a gift of God, why then is obedience to God’s
commandments so important? Why bother with God’s commandments—or repentance,
for that matter? Why not just admit we’re sinful and let God save us? This is
what some might call “easy grace.”
Or, to put the question in Paul’s words, “Shall we
continue to sin, that grace may abound?” Paul’s answer is simple and clear: “God
forbid” (Romans 6:1-2).
So why then do we obey? We obey the commandments of God out
of love for Him!
Trying to understand God’s gift of grace with all our
hearts and mind gives us all the more reason to love to love and obey our Heavenly
Father with meekness and gratitude. As we walk the path of discipleship, it
refines us, it improves us, it helps us to become more like Him, and it leads
us back to His presence. “The Spirit of the Lord [our God]” brings about such “a
mighty change in us . . . that we have no more disposition to do evil, but to do
good continually” (Mosiah 5:2).
Therefore, our obedience to God’s commandments as a
natural outgrowth of our endless love and gratitude for the goodness of God.
This form of genuine love and gratitude will miraculously merge our works with
God’s grace. Virtue will garnish our thoughts unceasingly, and our “confidence
[will] wax strong in the presence of God” (Doctrine and Covenants 121:45).
Living the gospel faithfully is not a burden. It is a
joyful rehearsal—a preparation for inheriting the grand glory of the eternities.
We seek to obey our Heavenly Father because of spirits will become more attuned
to spiritual things. Vistas are opened that we never knew existed.
Enlightenment and understanding come to us when we will do the will of the
Father (John 7:17).
Grace is a gift of God, and our desire to be obedient to
each of God’s commandments is the reaching out of our mortal hand to receive
this sacred gift from our Heavenly Father.
NEPHI AND ALL WE CAN DO
As we discussed in the introduction toward the end of 2
Nephi, we encounter this verse: “We labor diligently . . . to persuade our
children, and also our brethren, to believe in Christ, and to be reconciled to
God; for we know that it is by grace that we are saved, after all we can do”
(2 Nephi 25:23; emphasis added). Reconcile is the word that Jacob and
Nephi use when talking about the Atonement of Jesus Christ (see 2 Nephi 10:24;
33:9; Jacob 4:11). We find this same language in the New Testament (see Romans 5:10;
2 Corinthians 5:18-19; Colossians 1:20-21).
Sometimes we quickly read this single verse and forget
everything else Nephi, Jacob, and Lehi have taught us about grace. Remember, “after
all we can do” does not mean “because of all we have done.”
Although the scriptural phrasing might be unfamiliar to
us and perhaps is misunderstood in the twenty-first century, it was language familiar
to Joseph Smith as he translated the Book of Mormon. In the language of his
time, “after all we can do” more closely meant apart from what we can do or in
spite of all we can do.” (See Brigham Young, “Discourse,” February 3, 1867, Deseret
News, March 13, 1867) As one scholar explained, “Another acceptable
paraphrase of the sense of the verse might read, ‘We are still saved by grace,
after all is said and done.’” (Stephen E. Robinson, Believing Christ [Salt
Lake City: Deseret Book, 1992], 92; see also Robert L. Millet and Gerald R.
McDermott, Claiming Christ: A Mormon-Evangelical Debate [Grand Rapids,
MI: Brazos Press, 2007], 188)
We are not saved “because” of all that we can do.
President M. Russell Ballard phrased it as, “It is through His grace that we
are saved even after all we can do.” He taught, “As we embrace His
teachings, we give up all of our sins, we repent, and we do all that is in our
power to do to come unto Him in a true spirit of discipleship, knowing
perfectly well that it is through His grace that we are saved, even after all
that we can do. And as we give ourselves to Christ, fully and completely, we
find safety, peace, joy, and security in Him.” (M. Russell Ballard, “That We May
Know,” BYU-Hawaii devotional, January 25, 2001)
With Nephi, “we talk of Christ, we rejoice in Christ, we
preach of Christ, we prophesy of Christ.” And we “believe in Christ” (2 Nephi
25:26, 29). He is the one who offers us His grace and offers us salvation. In
Alma’s words, “all we can do” is enter the covenant and repent (Alma 24:11). All
we can do is receive what Christ has offered us. We rely on hope and grace that
stems from Christ. If we accept His offering, we will “repent and harden not
[our] hearts, [and] immediately . . . the great plan of redemption [will] be
brought about” for us (Alma 34:31).
GRACE IS AVAILABLE TO ALL
We acknowledge that “all have sinned, and come short of
the glory of God” (Romans 3:23), but we also declare with firmness that
repentance and forgiveness can be as real as sin. The Atonement of Jesus Christ
causes each person to be accountable for his or her individual sins. We will
overcome the consequences of individual sin by claiming the blessings and
benefits of the Atonement.
As Elder Quentin L. Cook instructed, “None can return to
God by his or her own good works alone; we all need the benefit of the Savior’s
sacrifice. All have sinned, and it is only through the Atonement of Jesus
Christ that we can obtain mercy and live with God.” (Quentin L. Cook, “Be True
to God and His Work,” Liahona, November 2022) Likewise King Benjamin
testified, “For salvation cometh to none . . . except it be through repentance
and faith on the Lord Jesus Christ” (Mosiah 3:12).
It is not repentance per se that saves mankind. It is the
blood of Jesus Christ that saves us. It is not by our sincere and honest change
of behavior alone that we are saved, but “by grace that we are saved, after all
we can do” (2 Nephi 25:23). When King Lamoni’s people were converted, they knew
that it was “all [they] could do to repent” and rely on Christ (Alma 24:11).
True repentance is the condition required to that God’s forgiveness can come
into our lives. As President Russell M. Nelson has taught, true repentance “allow[s]
the Savior to transform us into the best version of ourselves.” (Russell M.
Nelson, “We Can Do Better and Be Better,” Ensign, May 2019)
When I think of that the Savior did for us, I want to
lift up my voice and shout praises to the Most High God and His Son, Jesus
Christ!
The gates of heaven are unlocked!
The windows of heaven opened!
Today and forevermore, God’s grace is available to all
whose hearts are broken and whose spirits are contrite (see 3 Nephi 9:19-20). Jesus
Christ has cleared the way for us to ascend the heights incomprehensible to
mortal minds (see 1 Corinthians 2:9). Let us consider what Jesus taught us
about our dependence on God and the importance of our relationship with Him. (Dieter
F. Uchtdorf, After All We Can Do: Embracing Hope, Grace, and Joy [Salt
Lake City: Deseret Book, 2024], 39-48)
To Support this Blog:
Email for Amazon Gift
card: ScripturalMormonism@gmail.com
Email for Logos.com Gift
Card: IrishLDS87@gmail.com
"Original Sin" in Encyclopedia of Ancient Christianity
II.
Original sin. The expression “original sin” indicates both
the personal sin of Adam (the original sin) and the state of sin transmitted to
every person from birth (derived original sin). Even if the doctrine of
original sin is not formally contained in Scripture, there are nevertheless
several texts that establish a biblical foundation for the slow development of
the doctrine of original sin: we are referring in particular to Gen 3:1–20 (the
account of Adam’s sin and its consequences) and Rom 5:12–21 (the necessity and
universality of Christ’s redemption), but also to other passages such as Ps
51:7 (50:7 LXX), Job 14:4 and Eph 2:3. Neither can we ignore the ancient
liturgical practice of infant baptism and the theological notion of the
universality of salvation accomplished by Christ. From these foundations, the
patristic tradition before Augustine adhered to the conviction that humanity
inherited corruption and death from Adam.
Before
Augustine. The typological relationship described by the apostle
Paul, i.e., Adam–Christ, as well as Eve–Mary, respectively the cause of death
and life, frequently appears in the writings of the early Fathers (Justin, Dial. 100, 4–6; Irenaeus of Lyons, Adv. haer. 3, 22, 4; 5, 19, 1). Melito
of Sardis developed this position and maintained that people as a consequence
of Adam’s sin inevitably sin and spoke of the “sin that stamps its mark on
every soul and those on whom it stamps are destined to die” (Peri Pascha 54). Even the principle of
the solidarity of every person with Adam and Christ is present and frequently
appears already in the writings of Irenaeus, who for the first time introduced
into theological literature the explicit statement: “In the first Adam we
offended God by not observing his commandment; but in the second Adam we have
been reconciled, having become obedient until the point of death” (Adv. haer. 5, 16, 3; see also 3, 18, 7).
In the West, Tertullian, though unfavorable to the baptism of newborns (Bapt. 18, 5), recognized sin as a vitium originis, which, through the
devil’s work, has become naturale
quodammodo, and explained its transmission with a theory of traducianism (De anima 40–41). And even if it is not
easy to determine the connection of transgression (collegium transgressionis) that connects the nonbaptized with Adam
(De res. 49, 6), this, however,
indicates a participation in the Fall that occurred in the Garden of Eden.
Cyprian, however, maintained the necessity of baptism for children through
which sins are remitted “which are not their own, but that of another,” because,
even if they have not sinned personally, by being born from Adam they contract
“the disease of the ancient death” (Ep.
64, 5). For each theologian, therefore, every person is born into a sinful
condition, from which baptism liberates.
In the East, Origen, recalling the tradition of baptizing
children, affirms that the apostles themselves were aware of that stain of sin
which had to be washed away with water and the Holy Spirit (Comm. Rom. 5:9; Hom. Lev. 8:3; Hom. Luc.
14:5). It was this Alexandrian father who drew the connection between Job
14:4–5 an Ps 51:7 (50:7 LXX) to demonstrate that every person, born in the
flesh, is stained by sin. (*Basil depended on him for the same idea,
using the same texts: see Bapt. 1, 2,
7–9.)
Likewise in the East, in the following century, several
testimonies in favor of original sin come from Syria (Aphraates, Tract. 6, 14; 23, 3; Ephrem, Hymni 4, 1) and the Alexandrian
tradition: Athanasius, though never emphasizing our participation in Adam’s
guilt, declared that “when Adam sinned, sin was transmitted to all people” (Contra Ar. 1, 5); and Didymus the Blind
explicitly declared that human generation was the means of the transmission of
the ancient sin of Adam, from which Christ alone has been exempted because he
was born of a virgin (Contra man. 8).
In sum, the East, which had a more optimistic vision than
the West and was more attentive to emphasizing humanity’s freedom and
responsibility, seems to have excluded a true and proper doctrine of original
sin, in particular the concept of our solidarity with Adam and therefore our
participation in his sin, even though there are not lacking clear testimonies
regarding the transmission of Adam’s sin and its consequences.
But in general, before Augustine, the condition of
humankind was seen more as a state of corruption that led toward sin, and there
only rarely emerged the idea that every person was in some way involved in the
same disobedience of Adam. The appearance of the affirmation that we have all
sinned in Adam gradually increased in the writings of the Fathers, with
specific reference to Rom 7:9–10 and 1 Cor 15:22 (Tertull., De res. 49, 6; Orig., Hom. Jer. 8, 1; Meth. Olymp., De res. 2, 24; Hil. Arles, Comm. Matth. 18, 6; Basil, Hom. Sal. 94, 3; Greg. Naz., Serm. 19, 14; 38, 4; Cyril Jer., Cat. 2, 4–5; Ambr., Exp. Luc. 7, 234, often cited by Augustine). Through his
grammatically imprecise translation of Rom 5:12, where ἐφʼ ᾧ was
translated as in quo omnes peccaverunt,
Ambrosiaster would make a definitive contribution to the formation of that
doctrine on original sin, which was subsequently developed in the West with
greater precision.
Augustine.
Only with Augustine did the theology of original sin obtain its own formulation
and its own terminology, even if he himself had to admit that there is nothing
more difficult to understand than the nature of the “ancient sin” (De moribus Eccl. I, 40). He was the one
to create the ancient expression “original sin”: it seems to have appeared for
the first time around 395 in the De div.
quaest. ad Simpl. 1, 1 to refer to the sin of Adam, but only in the book De peccatrum meritis et remissione (1,
9–10), written in 411–412, does he refer to the sin transmitted as a result of
Adam’s offense.
In any case, it is certain that Augustine gradually
developed his reflection on the matter, even in conjunction and as a
consequence of the development of various other theological themes (the origin
of evil, the efficacy of the sacraments, the necessity of grace, anthropology
and soteriology). Moreover, Augustine was convinced that he stood within the
church’s tradition, which through great thinkers had defended and maintained
the truth of original sin. On several occasions he collected patristic testimonies
on the topic, citing the most representative authors of the East and West:
Irenaeus, Cyprian, Hilary, Ambrose, Gregory of Nazianzus, Basil, John
Chrysostom and Jerome (Contra Iul. 1,
3, 5–10; 1, 4, 13–6, 27; 1, 7, 30–34; 2, 10, 33.37; 3, 17, 32; Contra Iul. opus imp. 4, 72–73).
Already during the period of the Donatist controversy,
Augustine, when defending the doctrine of the efficacy of the infant baptism (Bapt. 4, 24), referred to the
ecclesiastical practice of maintaining that baptism given in remissionem peccatorum implies that they too are in some way
sinners, because, even though morally innocent (Pecc. merit. 1, 17, 22; 35, 65; Retract.
1, 13, 5), without Christ’s redemption their entrance into the kingdom of
heaven is denied (Sermo 294, 3).
But it was primarily in the controversy with the
Pelagians that he was led to emphasize and develop the theological meaning of
humanity’s corruption and the absolute and universal necessity of the
redemption, without which Christ’s cross would be emptied (De natura et gratia 7; 9; 19).
To defend the integrity of humanity’s free choice and
will even after the Fall, Pelagius rejected the idea of a transmission of an
original sin, thus reducing it to an evil example, which would certainly have
had disastrous consequences with the introduction of death and a habit of
disobedience, but it did not intrinsically corrupt human nature. As a result,
baptism is a therapeutic and regenerative sacrament, a simple blessing for
children. Grace is only an exterior help and consists fundamentally in the revelation
of the divine law.
Against Pelagius, Augustine defended the absolute
necessity of grace, affirming that all are born with a “sin,” in the sense that
the situation in which every person is born is truly similar to that in which a
person commits a personal sin, deprived of grace and with a will perverted by
the control of concupiscence. His firm belief in the sinful condition in which
every descendant of Adam lives led Augustine to thus devote himself to the
theme of concupiscence, understood as the inheritance from Adam and the origin
of personal sin and, in this perspective, considered to be the cause of sin in
the nonbaptized. One understands, then, why the theology of Augustine
concentrated on developing his anthropology, precisely during the most mature
period of his reflection on original sin. At the center of the question was the
category of freedom: the free will of Adam, whether a sinner or not, was
capable of authentic freedom, i.e., of a choice on the level of being well
deserving of eternal life (the true human end), only if supported by the grace
of God.
The Augustinian notion of original sin therefore includes
three interrelated aspects: the existence of concupiscence, the privation of
grace or the death of the soul, and the moral solidarity of each person with
Adam’s sin, the transmission of which in a certain sense makes all his children
guilty (De nupt. 2, 28, 42; Pecc. merit. 1, 10, 11; Contra Iul. opus imp. 1, 47; Civ. Dei 13, 14). Hence the absolute
need of being saved by Jesus Christ.
The results of Augustine’s doctrinal reflection were
accepted by the ecclesial magisterium. After the interventions of the Council
of Diospolis (Palestine) in the year 415, which, though absolving Pelagius,
condemned the claims of his disciple Caelestius (Aug., De gestis Pel.: NBA 17/2, Appendix,
502–507), and the African Synods of Carthage and Milevis in 416, which were
approved by Pope Innocent (Sermo 131,
10; Contra duas litt. Pel. 2, 3, 5),
the “plenary Council of all Africa,” held at Carthage in 418, confirmed the
doctrine of original sin (DS 222–223), and Pope *Zosimus’s Epistula Tractoria (a few fragments are
found in Augustine’s writings, Ep.
190, 23; Grat. Chr. 2, 21, 24; De anima 2, 12, 17; DS 231) during the
same year renewed the council’s condemnation of Pelagian teachings and those
who had devised them. The Council of *Ephesus (431) ratified the Acts of the Roman synod for this
condemnation (Mansi 4, 1338; for the letter of Pope Celestine, see Mansi 4,
1026). A subsequent intervention took place a century later at the Council of
Orange (529), which reaffirmed the doctrine of original sin (DS 371–372). In
that circumstance, *Caesarius of Arles assumed the duty of resolving
the controversy between Faustus of Riez and Fulgentius of Ruspe. The former,
who tended to be anti-Augustinian, maintained that original sin, connected to
the concupiscence of the procreative act, represented a factor in death only
for the body and not the soul. Fulgentius opposed him, insisting on the truly
sinful character of original sin. The decisions of Orange were approved by Pope
Boniface II (DS 398–400), who made sure to insist that free choice, after sin,
is certainly fallen but not extinct.
Augustine’s theology on original sin was frequently
reiterated both in the theological literature of the West and in the documents
of the ecclesiastical magisterium. As a result, his theology of original sin
would pass into the teaching of scholasticism and its core confirmed by the
Council of Trent. (Pier Franco Beatrice, Agostino Trapè, and Luigi Longobardo,
“Sin,” in Encyclopedia of Ancient Christianity, ed. Angelo Di Berardino
and James Hoover, trans. Joseph T. Papa, Erik A. Koenke, and Eric E. Hewett [Downers
Grove, Ill.: IVP Academic; InterVarsity Press, 2014], 596–598)
To Support this Blog:
Email for Amazon Gift
card: ScripturalMormonism@gmail.com
Email for Logos.com Gift
Card: IrishLDS87@gmail.com
"Original Sin" in The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church,
Original
Sin.
In Christian theology, the state of sin in which mankind has been held captive
since the *Fall (q.v.). Catholic theologians hold that its essential element is
the loss of sanctifying grace. (It is also held by RCs that the BVM was by a
special dispensation preserved from the stain of original sin: see immaculate
conception.)
The scriptural foundation of the doctrine is the Pauline
teaching that ‘through one man [i.e. Adam] sin entered into the world’, so that
‘by the trespass of the one the many died’ (cf. Rom. 5:12–21 and 1 Cor. 15:22).
The doctrine, the significance of which was obscured by other preoccupations in
the age of the *Apostolic Fathers and the *Apologists, began to be developed in
the struggle against the *Gnostic errors by St *Irenaeus. As against the
dualist systems of the heretics, he defended the teaching that evil came into
the world through the sin of Adam. *Origen has the conception of man’s fallen
state, but in him it is bound up with speculations on the prenatal sins of
souls. St *Athanasius in his treatise ‘De Incarnatione’ anticipated later
developments by teaching that the chief result of the sin of Adam, which
consisted in the abuse of his liberty, was the loss of the grace of conformity
to the image of God, by which he and his descendants were reduced to their
natural condition (εἰς
τὸ κατὰ φύσιν) and became subject to corruption (φθορά) and death (θάνατος). The Greek Fathers emphasized the
cosmic or metaphysical dimension of the Fall—men since Adam are born into a
fallen world—but at the same time they held fast to the belief that man, though
fallen, is free, seeing in any encroachment on man’s freedom the threat of
*Manichaeism. The Pseudo-*Macarian Homilies, however, paint a vivid picture of
fallen man’s bondage to sin.
The precise formulation of the doctrine was reserved to
the W. Here *Tertullian, St *Cyprian, and St *Ambrose taught the solidarity of
the whole human race with Adam not only in the consequences of his sin but in
the sin itself, which is transmitted through natural generation, and the
so-called ‘*Ambrosiaster’ found its scriptural proof in Rom. 5:12, translating ἐφʼ ᾧ by in quo and referring it to Adam, ‘in
whom all have sinned’. In this he was followed by St *Augustine, who in his
‘Quaestiones ad Simplicianum’ (396–7) and other pre-Pelagian writings taught
that Adam’s guilt is transmitted to his descendants by concupiscence, thus
making of humanity a massa damnata
and much enfeebling, though not destroying, the freedom of the will. In the
struggle against *Pelagianism the principles of the Augustinian doctrine were
confirmed by many Councils, esp. the Second of *Orange (529).
With the existence of Original Sin firmly established the
medieval theologians were particularly occupied with its nature and
transmission. St *Anselm of Canterbury was the first to open up new ways of
thought, in which he was followed by the great 13th-cent. Schoolmen. He defines
Original Sin as the ‘privation of the righteousness which every man ought to
possess’, thus separating it from concupiscence, with which the disciples of St
Augustine had often identified it. It is transmitted by generation, because the
whole human race was present in Adam seminaliter.
His ideas were not immediately taken up. Whilst *Abelard was condemned by the
Council of Sens (1140) for refusing to recognize Original Sin as guilt, other
12th-cent. theologians, e.g. *Peter Lombard, identified it with concupiscence.
This latter conception was rejected in the next century by *Alexander of Hales
and *Albert the Great, who distinguish a formal element, namely privation of
original righteousness, from the material element of concupiscence. All of them
hold that it is transmitted by the concupiscence accompanying the conjugal act.
St *Thomas Aquinas, who treated the subject five times (esp. in ‘De Malo’ and
in ‘Summa Theol.’ II (1), qq. 81–4), brought in a new element by
distinguishing, in the state of Adam before the Fall, ‘pure nature’ (pura naturalia) from the supernatural
gifts which perfected it. Hence Original Sin consists in the loss of these
supernatural privileges which had directed man to his supernatural end and
enabled him to keep his inferior powers in submission to reason, a rectitude
not natural to a being compounded of soul and body such as man. This conception
entails a more optimistic view of man than that of St Augustine and his
successors in that it leaves to the reason, will, and passions of fallen man
their natural powers. Acc. to St Thomas, Original Sin is transmitted not as the
personal fault of Adam but as a state of human nature, yet constituting a fault
inasmuch as all men are regarded as members of one great organism of which Adam
was the first mover. Thus through his sin his descendants incur a culpability
similar to that of the hand which executes a murder, moved by the human will.
The instrument of transmission is generation, regardless of the accompanying
concupiscence.
The Thomist synthesis was not at once accepted
everywhere. The old rigorous Augustinianism persisted among the *Franciscans,
and esp. in the religious family of St Augustine, whereas, on the other hand,
the rationalist tendencies of Abelard were voiced by others who denied the
guilt (reatus culpae), recognizing
only its punitive consequences (reatus
poenae). The more prominent Scholastics, however, such as *Duns Scotus,
*William of Ockham, and their disciples, accepted the Thomist principles, but
while defining Original Sin exclusively as lack of original righteousness (carentia justitiae originalis debitae),
tended to eliminate the element of concupiscence.
In the subsequent controversy with the Reformers the
teaching was made increasingly precise; to the exaggerated pessimism of M.
*Luther and J. *Calvin, who equated Original Sin with concupiscence and
affirmed that it completely destroyed liberty and persisted even after Baptism,
the Council of *Trent opposed the teaching of the Schoolmen, without, however,
pronouncing on points still disputed by Catholic theologians. In restating the
doctrine of St Thomas, Dominic *Soto eliminated the element of concupiscence
altogether from the definition and identified Original Sin with the loss of
sanctifying grace. His views had a far-reaching influence, being accepted by
authorities like F. *Suárez, R. *Bellarmine, and the *Salmanticenses. But the
official decisions of the RC Church followed the teaching of the older
theologians. In his condemnation of M. *Baius (1567), Pope *Pius V, going
beyond Trent, sanctioned the Thomist distinction between nature and supernature
in the state of Paradise, condemned the identification of Original Sin with
concupiscence, and admitted the possibility of the right use of the freedom of
the will in the unbaptized. In the 17th and 18th cents. the *Jesuits developed
the doctrine along the lines of moderated optimism traced by the Schoolmen,
whereas the French theologians of *Jansenist leanings, such as the circle of
*Port-Royal and J.-B. *Bossuet, inclined towards the old Augustinian pessimism.
From about the 18th cent. there has been a tendency for
the dogma of Original Sin to become increasingly attenuated. It conflicted with
the *Enlightenment’s confidence in human progress, and the accompanying
individualism made the idea of being punished for the sins of another seem
morally intolerable. The theory of evolution both cast doubt on the historicity
of Gen. 2, and at the same time suggested that man’s evil propensities might
derive from his evolutionary origins. None the less, the doctrine of Original
Sin in some form persisted. I. *Kant reaffirmed it in his conception of
‘radical evil’; F. D. E. *Schleiermacher explained the state of sin and
separation from God into which men are born as due to social heredity; G. W. F.
*Hegel regarded Original Sin as evidence of the emergence of moral
consciousness; and S. A. *Kierkegaard found it in man’s Angst (dread or anxiety) in the face of moral possibility. The
traditional doctrine has been strongly reaffirmed by K. *Barth and his
followers. Modern treatments of Original Sin, however, tend to regard it as
belonging to the nature of man rather than to the individual person; they
derive it less from heredity than from the inescapably social character of man.
This tendency is reflected in the emphasis of the Second *Vatican Council on
the corporate aspects of sin and redemption. (The Oxford
Dictionary of the Christian Church, ed. F. L. Cross and Elizabeth A.
Livingstone [Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005], 1202–1204)
To Support this Blog:
Email for Amazon Gift
card: ScripturalMormonism@gmail.com
Email for Logos.com Gift
Card: IrishLDS87@gmail.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)