러시아 정교회가 '유아세례'를 보는 관점

The Doctrine of Original Sin and its Infuence on the

Theology and Practice of Baptism

Petru-Mihail Pruteanu^*

In the 20th century, both in the East, but mostly in the West, a genuine movement

of patristic and liturgical renewal took shape, aiming to establish as to what degree

the theological discourse and the liturgical life of the Church today corresponds to the

spirit and the practice of the Church of the !rst centuries. In this spirit, the question

was often asked if the generalization of infant baptism in the West (5th century),

but also in the East (6th century), was in"uenced by the theory of “original sin”

and the Augustinian “bogeyman” concerning the inevitable condemnation to hell of

all who die unbaptized. In his book “Of Water and the Spirit”, Father Alexander

Schmemann brie"y touches, but does not fully develop the subject, and fails to reach

any clear conclusions. In the current study we tried, as much as was possible, to

follow the roots and dogmatical consequences of this theory, and also to discern its

ensuing consequences on baptismal rites and texts, as well as other practical and

canonical implications, like the importance of baptismal immersion.

Keywords: Baptism, Immersion, Infants, Liturgy, Original Sin

Introduction

In the writings of the late Father Alexander Schmemann (1921−1983), I

was able to identify three passages addressing “original sin” in the context

of Baptism.1 Each time the matter is discussed brie#y, without ample

dogmatic or historical background, rather a sad account of its implica-

tions on both the theological and the common understanding of Baptism:

For a long time, the theological and spiritual interest in baptism was

virtually disconnected from its cosmic signi$cance, from the totality of

man´s relation to the world. It was explained as “man´s liberation” from

“original sin”. Both original sin and the liberation from it were given an

* Petru-Mihail Pruteanu, docent at the &eology Faculty of the Portuguese Catholic

University, Bishop of the Russian Orthodox Church in Western Europe, Rua Padre

António Farinha Martins 74, Vivenda Santo António 1º andar, Alto dos Gaios, Estoril

2765-078, Portugal, s-mpruteanu@ucp.pt.

1 One of the texts is cited below, and the others are taken from Alexander Schmemann’s

book Of Water and the Spirit. A Liturgical Study of Baptism (New York: St Vladimir’s

Seminary Press, 1974), 54 and 63. &ere are other places where the author uses the

expression “original sin” as a “technical formula” or with an allegoric sense, but these

passages do not serve the current study in any meaningful way.

RES 15 (1/2023), p. 81–104

DOI: 10.2478/ress-2023-0105

Petru-Mihail Pruteanu

extremely narrow and individual meaning. Baptism was understood as

the means to assure the individual salvation of man´s soul. No wonder

that such an understanding of baptism led to a similar narrowing of the

baptismal liturgy.²

Father Alexander never stated that there is no “original sin,” in

its Augustinian understanding, unlike his contemporaries Fr. John

Romanides³or Fr. John Meyendor'⁴. Rather he deplored the in#uence of

western baptismal theology focused almost exclusively on the forgiveness

of the “original sin”⁵and the “necessity of grace” (which, in western the-

ology, is “gratia creata”⁶), putting aside biblical meanings such as: the like-

ness and the participation in Christ’s death and Resurrection (Romans

6:3−4, 11), the spiritual grafting (Romans 6:5), the death to sin and the

foretasting of eternal life (Romans 6:6−10), the anointing of the Holy

Spirit (1 John 2:20), the birth from above from water and the Spirit and

being born again (John 3:3−5; 1 Peter 3:20), the birth from God and

the seed of grace (1 John 3:9), the gift of adoption (Galatians 4:5−6) and

the brotherhood with Christ (Hebrews 2:11−12). Out of all these, the

concept of “grafting” (Romans 6:5) most profoundly explains the healing

of human nature⁷, while all the other gifts of Baptism are regarded as an

“earnest of the eternal blessings.”

2

A. Schmemann, For the Life of the World, 6^thedition (New York: St. Vladimir’s

Seminary Press, 1998), 67.

3

Fr. (Ioannis) John Romanides dedicated his doctoral thesis #e Ancestral Sin: A

Comparative Study of the Sin of Our Ancestors Adam and Eve According to the Paradigms

and Doctrines of the First and Second-Century Church and the Augustinian Formulation of

Original Sin ($rst published Athens, 1957) to this subject. in 2001 (New Jersey: Zephyr

Publishing), it was published in English and in 2017 it was translated into Romanian.

4

John Meyendor', Byzantine #eology. Historical Trends and Doctrinal #emes (New

York: Fordham University Press, 1987), 143−46.

5

Understood by Augustine and his followers as a “culpa communis” and as a “massa

perditionis et damnata.” See also: Alessio Peršič, “Da soggetto di colpa a oggetto di

misericordia: uomo e ‘peccato d’origine’ nella comprensione degli aquileiesi Vittorino,

Cromazio e Ru$, Annali di Scienze Religiose 9 (2004) [Milano 2005]: 299−324.

6

As &omasius & Neve observed, the Easterners were not preoccupied very much by

subjects as “original sin” and the relationship between grace and freedom, as was the case

in western theology (Romanides, #e Ancestral Sin, 33).

7

&is is like a wild tree, which brings forth bad fruits (but brings something, neverthe-

less), but, through grafting, becomes a tree that could bring good fruit (see Rom. 11:17,

24). &is contradicts the Augustinian idea of the total perversion of Adam’s nature and

only speaks of an alteration, which is healed through the cooperation with the saving

grace.

82

&e Doctrine of Original Sin and its In#uence

In our observation, western theology, overly preoccupied with the

“validity of the sacrament,” has ignored even the symbolic meaning⁸of

the immersion, which is viewed as a mere question of “form,” as opposed

to the “essence” of the sacrament.⁹

!e !eory of “Original Sin”

According to some researchers on the subject,¹⁰the idea of “original sin”

(not the actual phrase) is rooted in Tertullian’s (150−220) traducianist

theory, addressing the origin of souls.¹¹Later scholastics attempted to

forcibly include Irineus of Lyon (130−202) and Cyprian of Carthage

(200−258) among the protagonists of this theory, but we should rather in-

clude Ambrose of Milan (340−397), the spiritual mentor of Augustine¹².

Like any other doctrinal idea, this theory followed a certain evolu-

tion, but the actual context of its formulation is linked with the dissem-

ination of the heresy of Pelagius (354−420)13, which has received an

8

For Eastern theolog, symbolon is not opposed to reality, but is a visible expression of

an unseen reality. Important are also Fr. A. Schmemann’s observations on this subject

and on the slippages that took place, even in the Orthodox space, due to the incorrect

understanding of the liturgical and theological symbol. (see Alexander Schmemann,

Liturgy and Tradition. #eological Re"ections of Alexander Schmemann, eds. &omas

Fisch, &omas J. Fisch (New York: St Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1990), 115−28.

9

Schmemann, Of Water and the Spirit, 57−58.

Beatrice Pier Franco, #e Transmission of Sin: Augustine and the Pre-augustinian

10

Sources, trans. Adam Kamesar (Oxford: University Press, 2013).

11

Salvador Vicastillo, “El pecado original en el pensamiento de Tertuliano,” Revista

Agustiniana, no. 140 (Mayo − Agosto 2005).

12

We don’t have comments of Ambrose to Rom. 5:12 (they belong to pseudo-Am-

brose/Ambrosiaster), but the texts from Ps. 50:5 (the words “iniquity” and “sin” in

singular form) were already interpreted by the Milanese bishop in a juridical key, using

expressions such as “guilt” and “o'ense”, but not “original sin.” “Adam ergo in singulis

nobis est. In illo enim conditio humana deliquit quia per unum in omnes pertransit

peccatum” (Apol. Prof. David, II,71). For an Orthodox commentary of this verse from

the psalm see Eftimie Zigaben and Nicodim Aghioritul, Psaltirea în tâlcuirea S!nţilor

Părinţi vol. 1 (Galați: Ed. Egumeniţa, 2019) 601−04. Other interpreters of this verse are

Athanasius the Great, Gregory of Nyssa, Cyril of Alexandria, Maximus the Confessor,

Ephtymius Zygabenus, Melethios Pigas, Nikodemos of Mount Athos and others.

13

John H. Beck, “&e Pelagian Controversy. An Economic Analysis,” American

Journal of Economics and Sociology, no. 66 (April 2007): 681−96; Ali Bonner, #e

Myth of Pelagianism (Oxford: University Press, 2018); &omas P. Scheck, “Pelagius’s

Interpretation of Romans,” in A Companion to St. Paul in the Middle Ages, ed. Steven

Cartwright (Leiden: Brill, 2012), 79−11; Peter Brown, “&e Patrons of Pelagius. &e

Roman Aristocracy Between East and West,” #e Journal of #eological Studies, no. 21

(January 1970): 56−72; G. Maschio, “L’argumentazione patristica di S. Agostino nella

83

Petru-Mihail Pruteanu

excessively juridical and reductionist response. At that time at least, west-

ern theology, with limited access to Greek theology and philosophy, and

without an o,cial translation of the Bible into Latin¹⁴, could not other-

wise articulate the “cause and e'ect” link between the mistake and the

death of Adam, on one hand, and the mistake and death of all of us (even

those baptized), on the other. More so, Cappadocian Fathers’ expressions

such as: we are all “inheritors of sin (κληρονόμοι τῆς ἁμαρτίας)”¹⁵trans-

mitted from Adam (τὴν παρέπεμψεν)¹⁶, were not understood as involun-

tary consequences inherited through birth, as Maximus the Confessor¹⁷

and Photius of Constantinople¹⁸will explain later, but as the personal

guilt of every descendent of Adam, which can be forgiven (justi$ed) only

through baptism, and later paid through death. (Romans 6:23)¹⁹.

&e decisive step in the deviation of the Orthodox doctrine regarding

the consequences of the ancestral sin was made by Ambrosiaster, who

erroneously translated and explained the text from Romans 5:12²⁰, by

prima fase della controversia pelagiana,” Augustinianum no. 26 (1986), 459−79 and

412−18; Alfons Fürst, “Zur Vielfalt altkirchlicher Soteriologie Augustins Berufung auf

Hieronymus im pelagianischen Streit,” in Philophronesis für Norbert Brox, ed. J. B. Bauer

(Grazer &eologische Studien 19, Graz: 1995), 119−85.

14

&e full translation of the Bible into Latin was made by Blessed Hieronymus, be-

tween the years 391−406, at the initiative of pope Damasus I. Initially, this translation

was even contested by many Western theologians, and only begun to be used more

frequently during pope Gregory the Great (590−604), becoming normative for the

Western Church in the 8th to the 9th centuries. &e name Vulgata was generalized in

the 13th century.

15

Gregory of Nyssa, In bapt. Christi (PG 46). St. Gregory also says that “all who partic-

ipate in the nature of Adam, also participate in his fall” (Gregory of Nyssa, De oratione

Dominica, 5).

16

Ὡς γὰρ Ἀδὰμ, κακῶς φαγὼν, τὴν ἁμαρτίαν παρέπεμψεν, οὕτως ἐξαλείφομεν ἡμεῖς τὴν

ἐπίβουλον βρῶσιν, ἐὰν χρείαν ἀδελφοῦ καὶ λιμὸν θεραπεύσωμεν (Basílio, De tempore famis

hom. 7: PG 31, 324).

17

Capita de Caritate, IV:90 in PG 90, 1069; Quaestiones ad #alassium, 61, in PG 90,

628−41.

18

Photius, Bibliotheca, cod. 84−185, ed. R. Henry, Photius, Bibliothèque (Paris: Les

Belles Lettres, 1960), vol. II, 177−82.

19

&e teaching about justi$cation is also found in Origen and Gregory of Nazianzus,

but takes juridical expressions in Ambrose of Milan and especially in Augustine, where

the role of human freedom is basically suppressed, favoring rather predestinationist in-

terpretations; Isidoro Lamelas, “A «invenção» do pecado original segundo Agostinho,”

Didaskalia XLII (1/2012), 55−134, here 108.

20

“Διὰ τοῦτο ὥσπερ δι’ ἑνὸς ἀνθρώπου ἡ ἁμαρτία εἰς τὸν κόσμον εἰσῆλθεν καὶ διὰ τῆς

ἁμαρτίας ὁ θάνατος, καὶ οὕτως εἰς πάντας ἀνθρώπους ὁ θάνατος διῆλθεν, ἐφ’ ᾧ πάντες

ἥμαρτον” was translated in Vulgata as such: “propterea sicut per unum hominem in

84

&e Doctrine of Original Sin and its In#uence

understanding the Greek construct ἐφ ὦ, not as a reference to death, as

the Greek Fathers have understood it, but as a reference to Adam “unto

which/ in quo” we all die.²¹

It is signi$cant to recall that, between 387−397 (1^stphase), Augustine

was still reiterating the traditional doctrine regarding the consequences of

ancestral sin, with the legalistic accents speci$c to western theology (see:

De Libero arbitrio voluntatis, III). Already between 390−411 (2^ndphase),

the bishop of Hippo begins to distance himself from the formulations

of his predecessors and, after 412 (3^rdphase), when he is involved in the

$ght against Pelagius, and, being convinced that his mentor, Ambrose of

Milan (actually Ambrosiaster²²) understood the text from Romans 5:12

in the same way, Augustine writes a series of studies in which he intro-

duces both the expression “peccatum originale”, as well as other related

ideas²³, which would leave a mark upon all of later western theology, even

though, in time, it would su'er more clari$cations, which will diminish

the Augustinian extremism. ²⁴

Summarizing Augustine’s teaching, aimed at combating Pelagius²⁵

Adam concentrates within himself all of humanity and his mistake is

hunc mundum peccatum intravit et per peccatum mors et ita in omnes homines mors

pertransiit in quo omnes peccaverunt.”

21

Paolo Ciampoli, “Ambosiaster e o «Commentarius in Epistulam ad Romanos»,”

Itinerarium, no. 202 (January 2012), 117−41.

22

Ernesto Buonaiuti, “Agostino e la colpa ereditaria,” Ricerche Religiose vol. 2 (Roma:

1926); Pier Franco Beatrice, Tradux peccati. Alle fonti della dottrina agostiniana del

peccato originale (Milano: Vita e pensiero, 1978); Jesse Couenhoven, “St. Augustine´s

Doctrine of Original Sin,” Augustinian Studies 36 (2/2005), 359−96.

23

Athanase Sage, “Péché originel. Naissance d’un dogme,” RevEtAug 13 (1967); idem,

“Le péché originel dans la pensée de saint Augustin, de 412 à 430,” RevEtAug 15 (1969);

Emmanuele Testa, Il peccato di Adamo nella Patristica (Gen. III) (Gerusalemme: PP.

Francescani, 1970), 183−92; Herbert Haag, Dottrina biblica della creazione e dottrina

ecclesiastica del peccato originale (Brescia: Libreria Città Ideale, 1970).

24

Romanides, #e Ancestral Sin, 25−28. More recently, there is even an attempt to read

Augustine “in an Orthodox key,” seeing in his theories (not just the one about “original

sin”) certain problems of expression and his lack of knowledge in regards to the Greek

language and philosophy, but without seeing any bad intentions and, even less, any sup-

port for heresies that the Church has o,cially condemned and Augustine would have

continued to confess. See George E. Demacopoulos and Aristotle Papanikolaou, eds.,

Orthodox Readings of Augustine (Crestwood, New York: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press,

2008).

25

According to the canons 109 and 111−13 of Carthage (419) Pelagius was seemingly

denying that the death of Adam and all men is a consequence of sin and not a natural

end to life, and that divine grace is absolutely necessary, not just for salvation, but for

the struggle with sin and the accomplishment of good deeds.We $nd more details about

85

Petru-Mihail Pruteanu

the mistake of every man born from Adam. Consequently, man inherits

by birth not only the mortal nature of Adam, but also the guilt for his

mistake. &is Adamic culpability (“original sin”), hereditarily transmitted

because of concupiscence, is washed away only through baptism, and,

those who are not baptized, even if they are babies without personal sin,

are condemned to hell, because they fail to meet the condition of the

“birth from water and the Spirit”, without which no one can enter in

the Kingdom of Heavens (John 3:5)²⁶. Augustine also maintains that the

will of man was not only weakened through sin, but was annihilated,

and human nature was completely corrupted. &erefore, our salvation is

exclusively dependent upon the work of divine grace, which is not only

“free”, but also “irresistible.” Taking further the idea of the imperative of

grace, the North African theologian arrives at the theory of predestina-

tion²⁷, later picked up by certain branches of Protestant theology.

&e Link between “original sin” and baptism is re#ected in the 2^nd

and 3^rdCanons of the Synod of Carthage of 418. A year later (419), when

“Codex Canonum Ecclesiae Africanae”²⁸was composed, the texts of the

two canons were united into one, number 110 (CX)²⁹, while in the Greek

the doctrine of Pelagius in Augustine’s work, “De gestis Pelagii”, cap. 11−23, in PL 44,

33−348.

26

De peccatorum meritis et remissione et de baptismo parvulorum ad Marcellinum,

1.16.21, in PL 44, 120-121; Contra Julianum pelagianum 5.11.44, in PL 44, 809−810.

27

Augustinus, De praedestinatione sanctorum ad Prosperum et Hilarium, in PL 44,

960−992; De dono perseverantiae, in PL 45, 993−1036.

28

&e city of Carthage in North Africa was the place for many local synods, but in the

Greek canonical tradition only two collections are recognized: the one from the Synod

in 256 (during Cyprian of Carthage) and that of the Synod in 419 (presided by Bishop

Aurelius of Carthage) who systematized the canons of many Carthaginian synods held

between the years 348 and 418, putting together between 133 and 148 canons, of

which many are confessions of faith, which explains why they are missing from certain

collections. See Philip Scha', #e Canons of the CCXVII blessed Fathers who assembled

at Carthage. Commonly called the Code of Canons of the African Church, Nicene and Post-

Nicene Fathers (collection) seria II, vol. XIV (collection) (Edinburg: T&T Clark, 2009).

29

Hermann &eodor Bruns, ed., Canones apostolorum et conciliorum veterium selecti

(Berlin: Nabu Press, 1939), 155−202. Here is the original text of Canon 110, 188−89):

“Quod parvuli in peccatorum remissionem baptzentur − Item placuit, ut quincunque

parvulos recentes ab uteris matrum baptizandos negat, aut dicit in remissionem quidem

peccatorum eos baptizari, sed nihil ex Adam trahere originalis peccati, quod lavacro

regenerationis expietur, unde sit consequens ut in eis forma baptismatis in remissionem

peccatorum non vera, sed falsa intelligatur, anathema sit. Quoniamn non aliter intelli-

gendum est quod ait Apostulus: «Per unum hominem peccatum intravit in mundum,

et per peccatum mors, et ita in omnes homines pertransiit, in quo omnes peccaverunt.»

(cf. Rom 5:12); nisi quemadmodum Ecclesia catholica ubique di'usa semper intellexit.

86

&e Doctrine of Original Sin and its In#uence

translations of the same collection it appears as number 112, 121 or 124,

according to each edition. Here it what this canon says:

Likewise it seemed good that whosoever denies that infants newly

from their mother’s wombs should be baptized, or says that baptism is

for remission of sins, but that they derive from Adam no original sin

(originalis peccati / προγονικῆς ἁμαρτίας), which needs to be removed

by the laver of regeneration, from whence the conclusion follows, that

in them the form of baptism for the remission of sins, is to be under-

stood as false and not true, let him be anathema. For no otherwise can

be understood what the Apostle says, “By one man sin is come into

the world, and death through sin, and so death passed upon all men in

that all have sinned” (Romans 5:12), than the Catholic Church every-

where di'used has always understood it. For on account of this rule of

faith even infants, who could have committed as yet no sin themselves,

therefore are truly baptized for the remission of sins, in order that what

in them is the result of generation may be cleansed by regeneration.³⁰

As we can see, the biblical and theological source of the canon is the text

from Romans 5:12, in the translation of Ambrosiaster. &e words: “for

no otherwise can be understood what the Apostle says (Rom. 5:12), than

the Catholic Church everywhere di'used has always understood it,” does

not refer only to the universal understanding of the teaching about the

corruptibility of the nature of Adam, but associates with it the idea of

“original sin,” as Augustine and his followers understood it. On the other

hand, the canon does not cast anathema on those who delay baptism for

the sake of a better preparation, but only on those who deny the very idea

that children can be baptized and that the baptism is useful to them.³¹

&e necessity of baptism was also confessed by St. Cyprian of Carthage

(see Epistle 58/64, V:2)³², but he saw baptism more like a covenant with

God (a “spiritual circumcision” − Colossians 2:11−15) and a communion

Propter hanc enim regulam $dei etiam pravali, qui nihil peccatorum in seipos adhuc

committere potuerunt, ideo in peccatorum remissionem veraciter baptizantur, ut in reis

regeneratione mundetur, quod generatione traxerunt.“

30

Philip Scha', #e Canons of the CCXVII blessed Fathers who assembled at Carthage,

497−98.

31

Waclaw Eborowicz, “La misère des enfants d’après les Confessions de St. Augustin et

ses écrits anti-pélagiens,” Studia Patristica 14 (1976), 410−16.

32

See Epistle (58)64 to Fidus, in Ciprian episcopul Cartaginei, Scrisori (Bucharest: Ed.

Sophia, 2011), 294−98.

87

Petru-Mihail Pruteanu

of grace, which, as a consequence, also yields the remission of sins,³³with-

out actually touching on the necessity of the washing of the sin of Adam,

inherited by every man.

&e popes Zosimas (417−418) and Boniface I (418−422), although

familiar with the heresy of Pelagius and were even condemning it, were

not in a hurry to promote Augustine’s ideas. Only pope Celestine I

(422−432) started to circulate them and even insisted that Pelagianism

be condemned at the 3^rdEcumenical Council of Ephesus (431), however

without implying the acceptance of the theory of the “original sin” by the

Universal Church.

&e Liber Ponti$calis informs us that pope Sixtus III (432−440) had

built an octagonal epistyle in the Lateran Baptistery with verses com-

posed by him or by Leo I, when he was a deacon before he succeeded

Sixtus as bishop of Rome. &e inscription is divided into eight elegiac

couplets distributed on each side of the octagon. Here is the text of the

inscription:

Gens sacranda polis hic semine nascitur almo,/ quam foecundatis spi-

ritus edit aquis;/ Virgineo foetu genitrix Ecclesia natos,/ quos spirante

deo concipit, amne parit./ Caelorum regnum sperate, hoc fonte rena-

ti;/ non recipit felix vita semel genitos./ Fons hic est vitae, qui totum

diluit orbem/ sumens de Christi vulnere principium./ Mergere, pec-

cator sacro purgande #uento:/ quem veterem accipiet, proferet unda

novum./ Insons esse volens isto mundare lavacro,/ seu patrio preme-

ris crimine seu proprio./ Nulla renascentum est distantia, quos facit

unum/ unus fons, unus spiritus, una $des./ Nec numerus quemquam

scelerum nec forma suorum/ terreat: hoc natus #umine sanctus erit.³⁴

33

“If, in the case of the worst sinners and those who formerly sinned much against

God, when afterwards they believe, the remission of their sins is granted and no one

is held back from baptism and grace, how much more, then, should an infant not be

held back, who, having but recently been born, has done no sin, except that, born of

the #esh according to Adam, he has contracted the contagion of that old death from his

$rst being born. For this very reason does he [an infant] approach more easily to receive

the remission of sins: because the sins forgiven him are not his own but those of another”.

St. Cyprian’s usage of the plural “sins” (see note above) refers, most probably, not to

a concrete “original sin,“ but to the sins inherited from the ancestors, because, in the

understanding of the ancients, even the social status (slave/free/noble) was not earned,

but it was inherited, and this determines, from the start, the fate of everyone, even from

a spiritual perspective.

34

Robin Jensen, Living Water. Images, Symbols, and Settings of Early Christian Baptism

(Leiden, Boston: Brill, 2011), 187−88.

88

&e Doctrine of Original Sin and its In#uence

Despite some hastening to see in this 5^thcentury inscription a late adop-

tion of the concept of “original sin,” even by the pope of Rome³⁵, the

expression: “you are burdened by ancestral sin or your own”, as we saw in

the case of the Epistle 58/64 of St. Cyprian of Carthage, the text of Pope

Sixtus’ the 3^rdnot only fails to use the expression “peccatum originale”,

but rather alludes to the sins inherited from one’s ancestors.³⁶

Eastern Echoes of !e Controversy

Pelagianism became known in the East around the year 412, as Pelagius

himself lived for a while in Palestine. At a local synod of 414, Bishop John

the 2^ndof Jerusalem condemned the teachings of Pelagius, but not their

author, which prompted some to a,rm that there was a friendly relation-

ship between John and Pelagius.³⁷In order to force bishop John towards

a more categorical rejection of Pelagius, blessed Hieronymus, who was

living at the time in Bethlehem and was translating the Bible into Latin,

made known the Augustinian arguments against this heresy, but they

seemed unacceptable to the Easterners.

Soon enough, at an synod in Antioch in 424, bishop &eodot of

Antioch (420−429) condemned both Pelagianism and those who were

a,rming that “man is sinning because of his fallen nature and not by

his own will” (in reference to the theory of “original sin”), and called it

a heresy.³⁸Even though the synod of Ephesus (431) was called mainly

35

Everett Ferguson, Baptism in the Early Church. History, #eology, and Liturgy in the

First Five Centuries (Cambridge: Eerdmans, 2009), 769.

36

Although, at a $rst read, this concept contradicts the text from Deut. 24:16, it agrees

with the texts from Exod 20:5 or Ezek 18:2 and was widespread in the Middle Ages,

when “patrio crimine” was the simplest solution to explain the cause of illness or death

of a child. &e best-known example is the expression of “Nec quisquam patrio crimine

liber erat” from Carminum libri quattuor (Roma, 1590).

37

Bishop John was a rather prudent theologian and he avoided the condemnation of

persons, which attracted the discontent and even the anger of Epiphanius of Salamis and

Blessed Hieronymus, who wanted to get out of John a formal condemnation of Origen

and those who, in one way or another were sympathetic with Origen. It is precisely

because of these accusations (which did not escape even John Chrysostom) that “&e

Mystagogical Catecheses” of John of Jerusalem were reattributed to Cyril of Jerusalem,

who only wrote the “Catechetical Lectures”, preceded by a “Procatechesis”. For details

on these aspects see Juliette Day, #e Baptismal Liturgy of Jerusalem. Fourth- and Fifth-

Century Evidence from Palestine, Syria and Egypt (Ashgate: Routledge, 2007), 17−21.

38

&e work of &eodot is not preserved, but St. Photius the Great, Patriarch of

Constantinople (9th century), speaks about it in Bibliotheca, cod. 84−185, 177−82.

&e Synod of Antioch of 424 is known through Marius Mercator and the same Photius.

89

Petru-Mihail Pruteanu

to condemn again Pelagianism, theologians like Cyril of Alexandria³⁹,

&eodoret of Cyrrhus, and &eodore of Mopsuestia etc.⁴⁰felt it necessary

to also oppose Augustine’s ideas, although not mentioning his name nor

quoting his writings, as those began to be more widely known in the

Greek language only near the end of the 13^thcentury, chie#y through the

contributions of Maximus Planudes.

&e truth is that the Easterners, who had no problem with the un-

derstanding of the text of Romans 5:12 nor with the relationship between

grace, free will and personal asceticism in the work of salvation, have

reacted in a very balanced and neutral way in this dispute. Only after the

Synod of Chalcedon (451), certain monophysite groups, who wished to

maintain links with the West, have assimilated, for the most part, the the-

ory of Augustine⁴¹, but the Antiochian groups, the Orthodox as well as

39

“What has Adam’s guilt [πταίσματα] got to do with us? Why are we held responsible

for his sin when we were not even born when he committed it? Did not God say: «&e

parents will not die for the children, nor the children for the parents, but the soul which

has sinned, it shall die» (Deut. 24:16). How then shall we defend this doctrine? &e

soul, I say, which has sinned, it shall die. We have become sinners because of Adam’s

disobedience in the following manner (…). After he fell into sin and surrendered to

corruption, impure lusts [ἡδονή τε καί ἀκαθαρσίας] invaded the nature of his #esh and

at the same time the evil law of our members was born. For our nature contracted the

disease of sin because of the disobedience of one man, that is Adam, and thus many be-

came sinners. &is was not because they sinned along with Adam, because they did not

then exist, but because they had the same nature as Adam, which fell under the law of

sin. &us, just as human nature acquired the weakness of corruption in Adam [ἐν Ἀδὰμ]

because of disobedience, and evil desires invaded it, so the same nature was later set free

by Christ, who was obedient to God the Father and did not commit sin”. (Commentary

to the Epistle to the Romans PG 74, col. 788−89).

40

It is remarkable that the theologians of the Antiochian school, but also Cyril of

Alexandria, who opposed them in many aspects, were not accepting the idea of “origi-

nal sin,” while the monophysites (mostly from the Alexandrian school) did accept it

later on, when the Roman Catholic Church has decreed the dogma of the Immaculate

Conception (the birth of Virgin Mary without “original sin”), this actually meant “a sort

of monophysitism or at least a marian monothelism.” For details see John Meyendor',

“Eph ho chez Cyrille d’Alexandrie et &eodoret,” Studia Patristica 4 (1961), 157−61;

Jerónimo &omaz, Os teólogos ortodoxos e o dogma católica da Imaculada Conceição

(Figueiró dos Vinhos: Lusortodoxia, 2022), 8−10.

41

Julian of Halicarnassus (527), who invented the heresy call “aphtaradocetae,” was the

$rst Eastern theologian to a,rm the radical corruption of human nature as a conse-

quence of Adam’s sin. &is idea, with all its Christological implications, was condemned

not only by Orthodox theologians, but also by moderate monophysites as Severus

(465−538) see: René Draguet, Julien d’Halicarnasse et sa controverse avec Sévère d’An-

tioche sur l’incorruptibilité du Corps du Christ − Étude d’histoire littéraire et doctrinale,

suivie des Fragments dogmatiques de Julien (texte syriaque et traduction grcque) (Universitas

Catholica Lovaniensis, 1924), 42 and 46−51.

90

&e Doctrine of Original Sin and its In#uence

the so-called Nestorian, have followed the line called “semi-Pelagianism”

in the West, which, in truth, was the traditional teaching of the Church

in the East.

It’s true that some “Orthodox Catechisms” of the 17^thcentury have

adopted the Augustinian terminology around “original sin”, in an e'ort

to give it a more Orthodox understanding. &us, Orthodox theologians

would avoid references to Augustine while referencing saints like Irenaeus

of Lyons, Athanasios the Great, Gregory of Nyssa, John of Damascus

etc., although they didn’t use the “original sin” expression per se, but only

spoke about the corruptibility of Adam. In recent decades, more and

more Orthodox theologians have renounced the scholastic terminology,

reverting to the eastern patristic approach of man’s fall and salvation.

In the West as well, more and more theologians have arrived at

conclusions similar to those of the Orthodox Church, a,rming that

Augustine’s teachings are but a personal opinion, which even the likes of

Anselm of Canterbury and &omas Aquino have tried to balance out.⁴²

Of course, the theory of the “original sin” is re#ected not only in the

Catechism of the Roman Catholic Church (§§ 385−421), but also in its

Compendium (§§ 76−77), which clearly states:

Original sin, in which all human beings are born, is the state of depri-

vation of original holiness and justice. It is a sin “contracted” by us not

“committed” by us; it is a state of birth and not a personal act. Because

of the original unity of all human beings, it is transmitted to the de-

scendants of Adam “not by imitation, but by propagation.⁴³

&is transmission remains a mystery which we cannot fully understand.

In consequence of original sin, human nature, without being totally

corrupted, is wounded in its natural powers. It is subject to ignorance, to

su'ering, and to the dominion of death and is inclined toward sin. &is

inclination is called “concupiscence.” However, modern formulations are

more moderate in nature, and they say nothing of the condemnation to

hell of the unbaptized, while the “limbo” theory does not $nd its place

anymore in the current theological discourse.⁴⁴

42

See the pastoral Constitution „Gaudium et Spes” of the 2nd Vatican Council, prom-

ulgated by Paul the 6th in 1965.

43

#e Compendium of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, https://www.vatican.va/

content/benedict-xvi/en/speeches/2005/june/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20050628_

compendium.html.

44

“&e Hope of Salvation for Infants who Die Without Being Baptized,” https://

www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_con_cfaith_

91

Petru-Mihail Pruteanu

For a long time though, the authority of Augustine remained ab-

solute, and any teaching that was not exactly aligned with his juridical

interpretation, would have been suspected of Pelagianism. &is is why,

the 2^ndCouncil of Orange 529 considered the writings of St. Cassian

the Roman, Vincent of Lerin, and especially those of Fauste de Riez, to

be semi-pelagian, while the doctrine of Augustine about “original sin” is

the “catholic faith”.⁴⁵In his letter to bishop Césaire de Arles in 521, pope

Boniface the 2^ndcon$rmed the decisions of the Council of Orange, clos-

ing, for a while, the debates on this subject.

Orthodox Re"ections on Romans 5:12 and a critique of the theory of

“Original Sin”

As we saw in the case of Ambrosiaster and Augustine, Romans 5:12 and

especially the end of this verse − for that all have sinned (KJV) (ἐφ᾿ ᾧ πάντες

ἥμαρτον) − presents serious problems of translation and interpretation.

&e construction ἐφ᾿ ᾧ is a contraction of the preposition ἐπί with the

relative pronoun ᾧ. Translated as “because”, as a causal conjunction, −

which from a grammatical point of view makes the most sense, as it is

also found in other places in the epistles (cf. 2 Cor. 5:4; Phil. 3:12; 4:

10) − makes St. Paul’s expression to be understood as if death, which for

Adam was the “wage of sin” (Rom. 6:23), would also be the wage of all

those who sin like him.⁴⁶&e majority of Greek speaking Eastern Fathers

understood it in this way.⁴⁷&ey have understood in the Apostle’s text a

doc_20070419_un-baptised-infants_en.html. O,cial document of the International

&eological Commission of Vatican, approved for publication by pope Benedict XVI

on January 19, 2007 and available on the congregation site in several languages. To

facilitate the reading and the identi$cation of each idea, we will mention the paragraph

number (a total of 103§), §§ 90−5.

45

Jaroslav Pelikan, Credo. Historical and #eological Guide to Creeds and Confessions of

Faith in the Christian Tradition (Yale: University Press, 2005), 433.

46

St. Photius the Great: “For this, he says, we also die with Adam (συναποθνήσκομεν

τῷ Ἀδάμ), because (ἐφ’ ᾧ) we also sin; because he has set the beginning, and we, taking

cause from it, did not stop evil, but we cooperated with it and, by receiving it in our-

selves for a long time, we have cultivated it,” in: Fragmenta in Epistolas Sancti Pauli: I. In

Epistolam ad Romanos (Ex Catena Crameriana), in PG 101, 1233−36.

47

Origen (SC 539, 371), Chiril al Alexandriei (PG 74, 784C); &eodoret al Cirului (PG

82, 100B), Fotie al Constantinopolului (PG 101, 553D). For more details see: David

Weaver, “&e Exegesis of Romans 5:12 among the Greek Fathers and its Implication

for the Doctrine of Original Sin. &e 5th−12th Centuries,” St Vladimir’s #eological

Quarterly 29, (2/1985): 133−59 and 231−57.

92

&e Doctrine of Original Sin and its In#uence

moral resemblance between Adam and the other sinners, death being the

natural wage of sin.

Most of Fathers refer to Romans 5:12 as in a strong relationship with

1 Cor. 15:22 (KJV): “For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be

made alive”; meaning that there is a solidarity “in death” between Adam

and his descendants just as there is a solidarity “in life” between Christ

and those baptized.⁴⁸&us, the Greek Fathers give a relative value to the

pronoun ᾧ, which refers either to the noun “death” , or to the entire frag-

ment it precedes,⁴⁹resulting in the translation “for that all have sinned.”

Another translation variant of Romans 5:12, also based on interpre-

tation of certain Greek language Fathers, was proposed by Father John

Meyendorf, who considers that the verse could also be translated: “As sin

came into the world through one man and death through sin, so death

spread to all men; and because of it (= death), all men have sinned.”⁵⁰

&eodore of Mopsuestia explains the idea like this: “by becoming mortal,

we acquired greater urge to sin,” while &eodoret of Cyre adds: “Having

become mortal, [Adam and Eve] conceived mortal children, and mortal

beings are necessarily subject to passions and fears, to pleasures and sor-

rows, to anger and hatred.”⁵¹

Taking further the analysis of our fragment of Chapter 5 of Romans,

we observe a clear di'erence between the deed of Adam and the sinful

condition inherited by his descendants. St. Paul calls Adams deed trans-

gression, (παραβάσις − 5:14), lapse/slip-up/mistake (παράπτομα − 5:15)

and disobedience (παρακοή − 5:19) − all holding a certain juridical con-

notation, but without implicating the descendants, while the condition

inherited by all humanity is called sin (ἁμαρτία 5:12), which in eastern

thought is understood as disease or helplessness, rather than guilt (culpa),

as perceived in western thought.⁵²According to St. Cyril of Alexandria,

Adam “got sick with corruption (φθορά)”⁵³, and the devil “has obtained

48

Meyendor', Byzantine #eology, 144.

John Chrysostom (PG 60, 473), John of Damascus (PG 95, 477), Gennadius of

49

Constantinople (PG 85, 1672 BC) etc.

50

Meyendor', Byzantine #eology, 144.

Ibidem.

Justin Popovich, Dogmatika Pravoslavnoy Tserkvi (Moscow: Palomnik, 2006), vol.

51

52

II, §§ 36−41, 227−58; here: 242. So in Orthodox language, peccatum ≠ culpa, but =

corruptibilitas, meaning corruptibility (same origin with the juridical corruption), which

means ontological decadence and depravity.

53

PG 74, 789B.

93

Petru-Mihail Pruteanu

through sin an open avenue to the mind (διάνια) of man.”⁵⁴&us, man,

created for eternity and in$nite⁵⁵, looks to quench his thirst innate to the

biological life of the body.⁵⁶However, this is the way of lying, misguid-

ance and idolatry, in other words: “the law of sin and death” (Rom. 8:2),

whose servant and master is Satan.

Consequently, in the view of the Greek Fathers, every man inherits

the nature and the condition of fallen Adam, with all its consequences:

the weakening of will, the distortion of the relationship with God by dis-

obedience, but mainly through the loss of uncreated grace, which leads

to the impossibility of avoiding sin and death.⁵⁷&us, “we inherit death

because we are born from mortals,”⁵⁸but not because we are carrying the

guilt for the sin of the $rst man, whose descendants we are. &erefore,

death belongs to nature, while sin belongs to each person, particularly.⁵⁹

&e restoration of this fallen essence/nature is possible through Christ,

Who “became in all just as we are, yet without sin” (Heb. 4:15), assumed

death and overcame it through His Resurrection from the dead, but each

person gets to enjoy this restoration of nature only to the degree that one

becomes a partaker in Christ − the New Adam (Rom. 6:3−5).

According to Father Ioannis Romanides⁶⁰, the Augustinian theory

hides in itself the accusation that God would be the author of death, and

Satan would be a punitive instrument in the Creator’s hands. Orthodox

&eology however, has always confessed that death is a natural conse-

quence of sin and not a divine punishment for sin. On the contrary, God

54

PG 74, 784B.

55

Even St. Augustine, in his Confessions (Book 1, cap. 1) was saying: “You made us for

Yourself, Oh Lord, and troubled is our soul until we shall rest in You.”

56

As Fr. Dumitru Staniloae explains in Ascetică şi Mistică (Cluj: Casa Cărţii de Ştiinţă,

1993), 67, the passions, as irrational manifestations of the rationally created man, are

the product of a twisted impulse of nature, which, loosing it’s natural and rectilinear

impetus, creates a knot of contradictions, which although it looks for the in$nite, ends

up with nothingness.

57

Chiril al Alexandriei, PG 68, 149A−B.

An idea picked up by Athanasius of Sinai, and developed by Ioannis Karmiris, Σύνοψις

58

της δογματικής διδασκαλίας της Ορθοδόξου Καθολικής Εκκλησίας (Athens: 1957), 38.

59

According to St. Maximus, man’s sin can only be personal, being linked with the

disposition of will [γνώμη] and the free will [προαίρεσις], which are attributes of the

person, not of nature, while nature in itself is not free of guilt, being subjected to the

consequences of sin, but not to sin itself.

60

Romanides, #e Ancestral Sin, 172.

94

&e Doctrine of Original Sin and its In#uence

allowed death out of love for mankind and in order to put an end to sin⁶¹,

especially because it encompasses only the visible part of man, without

being able to touch the very image of God in man.⁶²&is was yet unclear

in the Old Testament, while humankind was waiting for its liberation,

but it became evident through the incarnation and the resurrection of

Christ.

Baptism and !e Forgiveness of Sins

&e 10^tharticle of the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed, (“I confess

one Baptism for the forgiveness of sins/ Ὁμολογῶ ἕν βάπτισμα εἰς ἄφεσιν

ἁμαρτιῶν”) summarizes the purpose of Baptism as to the forgiveness of

sins. &e preposition “for/ εἰς” clearly illustrates why Christians confess

and receive Baptism. Of course, a liturgical and symbolical text (like the

Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed), which had to be studied and under-

stood by each catechumen, could not express the entire wealth of baptis-

mal theology, creating the impression that the “forgiveness of sins” would

be the sole purpose of Baptism. More so, the reductionist understanding

could also favor the initiation and dissemination of Pelagianism, especial-

ly the idea that infants, being sinless, wouldn’t need Baptism either.

First, we have to point out that the expression “for the forgiveness

of sins/ εἰς ἄφεσιν ἁμαρτιῶν,” is taken directly from the Gospel (Matt.

26:28), as the Savior Himself uses it at the Mystical Supper referring to

His sacri$ce, and it doesn’t even remotely render that “forgiveness of sins”

would be the only purpose of the sacri$ce of Christ or of the Eucharist,

since the Savior Himself uncovers many other reasons as to why we need

to commune with His Body and Blood (John 6:35−58).

Second, if we analyze the context in which these words are placed

in the Creed, i.e., articles 9, 10, 11 and 12⁶³, we observe that the con-

fession of Baptism is linked with the faith in the “One, Holy, Catholic

and Apostolic Church” (article 9), but also with the “expectation of the

resurrection of the dead” (article 11) and of the “life of the age to come”

(article 12). &us, if we were to consider the entire biblical teaching about

61

Sf. Maximus the Confessor clearly states: “death came because of sin, but for its de-

struction”; Quaestiones ad #alassium, 58 in PG 90, 596−601.

62

Gregory of Nyssa, #e Great Catechism VI, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers (collec-

tion), Series II, vol. 7 (Edinburg: T&T Clark, 2009), 480−81.

63

Even St. Augustine, in his interpretation of the Creed, (De !de et symbolo − PL 40),

analyzes these articles together, as a whole.

95

Petru-Mihail Pruteanu

baptism,⁶⁴we would see that articles 11 and 12 of the Creed have to be

considered themselves as an eschatological purpose of baptism, superior

to the immediate one, which is “forgiveness of sins” and doesn’t hold a

value per se.⁶⁵

&e theoretical and practical interpretation of article 10 of the Creed

did not occur as a problem for the Eastern Fathers, especially in the $rst

four-$ve centuries, as they preferred a more literal interpretation of the

text. As such, the general tendency in the East was to delay baptism as

much as possible, closer to the moment of death, while the Baptism of

infants and children, at least until the 6^thcentury, was practiced very

seldom,⁶⁶and then mainly for those severely ill, with a risk of death.⁶⁷

&ere was also the opinion, chie#y in Syria, that carnal relations between

a husband and a wife would taint Baptism, thus it had to be delayed

until an old age.⁶⁸Standing against this notion, many Eastern Fathers,

encouraged not to delay Baptism, which did not automatically mean a

promotion of infant Baptism, since even these Fathers of the Church did

not get baptized before adulthood.⁶⁹

Other commentaries of church writers, regarding the age for Baptism,

are directed more at unveiling and censuring extremes than making clear

age recommendations. &us, in the East, St. Gregory the &eologian ad-

vises neither the excessive delay of baptism, nor the practice of it before

the age of three.⁷⁰In the West as well, Tertullian recommends the delay

64

See the aforementioned biblical typologies in the introduction of this study.

We can also talk about the Eucharist, comparing Matt. 26:28 vs John 6:35−58.

André Benoit, “Le Problème du pédobaptisme,” Revue d’Histoire et de Philosophie re-

65

66

ligieuses, no. 28−29 (2/948): 132−41; Joachim Jeremias, Le baptême des enfants pendant

les quatre premiers siècles (Lyon: Xavier Mappus, 1967); David F. Wright, “At What Ages

Were People Baptized in the Early Centuries?,” Studia Patristica 30 (1997): 389-94.

67

&is is indirectly found in Canon 12 of Neocesarea (315) and 47 of Laodicea (343),

but directly only in the 26th Canon attributed to St. Nicephorus the Confessor (†828).

68

It was a Marcionite in#uence, which imposed celibacy after baptism and in$ltrated

even certain more rigorous circles in eastern Syria; see T.V. Philip, East of the Euphrates:

Early Christianity in Asia (Tiruvalla, India: CSS & ISPCK, 1998), 17−33.

69

Basil the Great and John Chrysostom were baptized at approximately 20 years of age,

and Gregory the &eologian only at 30, although he was a bishop’s son. For the Eastern

Christians, the age of 20 was rather considered an exception, in the sense that it was too

early, as the majority preferred to postpone baptism until after 40 years of age. &ere

was even a desire to imitate emperor Constantine the Great, who, although he professed

himself a Christian, was building churches and even presided over the 1st Ecumenical

Council, and was only baptized on his deathbed.

70

Oratione 40, in PG 36, col. 400.

96

&e Doctrine of Original Sin and its In#uence

of Baptism until reaching, as close as possible, an age of consciousness⁷¹,

especially because in North Africa, already in the 3^rdcentury, infant and

child Baptism tended to become a norm even for healthy children −

which, according to the mentality of the epoch, was considered a #agrant

exaggeration.

&e problem of the death of the unbaptized was approached in a

rather optimistic manner, without doom and gloom⁷², in the East, while

even the Roman Catholic⁷³theologians were reaching similar conclu-

sions, after having to, more or less delicately, deconstruct the Augustinian

theory of “original sin” and the impossibility of salvation without being

erased through Baptism.⁷⁴

It is interesting to see the degree to which this Augustinian theory has

penetrated the conscience of Christians and to what measure it has in#u-

enced the generalization of child Baptism, not so much out of the desire

to make them partakers in the saving grace that is imparted through the

Sacraments of the Church, but, chie#y, to guard them from the risk of

eternal condemnation in case they die before baptism.

In addition to these theological re#ections, more or less prevalent in

the Christian conscience, I think we should also consider the anti-pagan

civil legislation, which in the time of Emperor Justinian I (527−565)

reached its peak, with no tolerance for ancient Hellenism or other pagan

religions, and minimal tolerance for Jews.⁷⁵&us, according to Justinian’s

Civil Codex, those who refused Orthodox baptism and adherence to the

Catholic Church were stripped of all property (according to Book I, ch.

11.10).⁷⁶To prevent such disputes, the citizens of the Empire, including

71

De baptismo, 18.

72

Grigore din Nazianz, Oratio XL − In sanctum baptisma, 23 (PG 36, 389 B−C);

Grigore de Nyssa, De infantibus praemature abreptis libellum (PG 46, 161−92); Anastasie

Sinaitul, Quaestiones et responsiones Bruce W. Frier, ed. and Fred H. Blume, trans., Qn.

81 (PG 89, 709C). See also Panayiotis E. Papageorgiu, “Chrysostom and Augustine on

the Sin of Adam and its Consequences,” St Vladimir’s #eological Quarterly 39 (4/1995),

361−78.

73

“&e Hope of Salvation” (2007), §§ 24, 79, 86.

Ibidem, §§ 26, 32, 37, 83, 88.

Demetrios J. Constantelos, „Paganism and the State in the Age of Justinian,” in #e

74

75

Catholic Historical Review, Vol. 50.3 (Catholic University of America Press: 1964),

372−380.

76

Bruce W. Frier ed. & Fred H. Blume (trans.), #e Codex of Justinian - 3 Volume

Hardback Set: A New Annotated Translation, with Parallel Latin and Greek Text

(Cambridge University Press, 2016), 237−47.

97

Petru-Mihail Pruteanu

the newborn infants, were ordered to be baptized as soon as possible after

birth, without any delay.⁷⁷Of course, such legal pressure on citizens was

a much more powerful fear than Augustine’s view that the ones dying un-

baptized were condemned to hell. &erefore, especially in the East, polit-

ical pressure may have been a much more important factor in the spread

of infant baptism than Western theological views which, until the 13th

century, were not even known and did not follow the Eastern Christian

mentality.

!e Presence of “Original Sin” in the Baptismal Rite in !e West

Over time, many Western theologians have tried to demonstrate the pres-

ence of the “original sin “teaching in western baptismal rites” (not just in

the Roman rite)⁷⁸, and “the most ancient and clear” argument invoked is

the inscription from the Lateran Baptistery of pope Sixtus the 3^rd, which

we have already analyzed.

&e most well-known scienti$c work on this subject is the doctorate

thesis of Gerard M. Lukken⁷⁹, who analyzes not only the western baptis-

mal rites of the 4-5^thcenturies (the declared focus of his study), but also

the Christmas and Paschal services, as well as the penitence rites, the

consecration of virgins, wedding and even the blessing of fruits. In this

complex approach, which reaches even the late Middle Ages, practical-

ly any liturgical reference to sin, death, demonic possession, de$lement,

corruptibility, (including the expression: “garment of incorruptibility”),

pleasure or concupiscence, but also theological themes like the fall of

Adam and Eve, the expulsion from Paradise, the redemption through

77

Frier and Blume, #e Codex of Justinian, 244−247. Here is a small excerpt from

Justinian’s Novena of 529: „&is too We enact: that their children of tender age shall im-

mediately and without any delay receive saving baptism (ὥστε καὶ τὰ τούτων τέκνα μικρᾶς

ἡλικίας ὄν τα καὶ δίχα τινὸς ἀναβολῆς τυγχάνειν τοῦ σωτηριώδους βαπτίσματος), while

those already past that age must attend the most holy churches according to the divine

canons and be instructed in the divine scriptures…”. &is text was also adopted in the

Basiliacals of Leo VI the Philosopher (§ 20), and Patriarch Photios of Constantinople,

referring to an Epistle of St. Cyril of Alexandria to the Bishops of Libya and Pentapolis,

in the Canonical Syntagma title IV.6, writes something similar: „Θέλει τοὺς Ἕλληνας

βαπτίζεσθαι καὶ τὰ τέκνα αὐτῶν χωρὶς ἀναβολῆς μικρὰ ὄντα, τὰ δὲ τέλεια προδιδάσκεσθαι

κατὰ τοὺς κανόνας καὶ τὰς γραφάς” (cf. PG 104, col. 620).

78

Adrien Nocent, “Christian Initiation in the Roman Church from the Fifth Century

UtilVatican II”, in Handbook for Liturgical Studies, vol. IV − Sacraments and Sacramentals,

ed. Anscar J. Chupungco (Minnesota: A Pueblo Book, 1997), 49−90.

79

Gerard M. Lukken, Original sin in the Roman liturgy. Research into the theology of orig-

inal sin in the Roman sacramentaria and the early baptismal liturgy (Leiden: Brill, 1973).

98

&e Doctrine of Original Sin and its In#uence

Christ etc. − all are interpreted as indirect and abstract references to “orig-

inal sin”, although the expression as such in never encountered in the

Roman order. Other expressions as “felix culpa” and “necessarium pec-

catum” are considered by Lukken as the clearest arguments of the early

re#ection (5^thcentury) of “original sin” in the Roman order, even though

they are found only in the Paschal rite of the light called “Exulter”.⁸⁰

As for the actual baptismal rites, Lukken considers that the theology of

“original sin” is manifested through allusions (just as indirect and ab-

stract) to the theory of “debitum solvere Deo”, which Anselm was to use

in his theology of atonement.⁸¹In this context, the summary of Roger E.

Reinolds is of note:

On examining the liturgy itself for a doctrine of original sin Lukken

$nds very little evidence outside the baptismal rite. &ere are, to be sure,

a few direct references in the ancient Roman sacramentaries to the fall of

mankind in a collective sense and oblique references to the transmission

of original sin through human generation, but these references do not

give the impression of an explicit consciousness of original sin in the

ancient Roman liturgy. Lukken attempts to explain the paucity of direct

expressions of original sin in the liturgy by pointing to the conservatism

in liturgical formulae and the tendency of the liturgy to use concrete

forms of thought rather than more abstract concepts. One wonders,

however, about these explanations since compilers of liturgical texts were

generally able to innovate even within the conservative limits of liturgical

tradition and could express the most abstract and complex mysteries and

concepts.⁸²

To conclude, we could imagine that the dissertation of Lukken, de-

fended in 1967, but published in 1973, had to justify the appearance of

the expression “original sin” in the new baptismal rite for children, (Ordo

baptismi Parvulorum), developed by the liturgical committee of arch-

bishop Annibale Bugnini, and approved by pope Paul the 6^th, in 1969,

80

See also „teodicea felix culpa” of Alvin Platinga, God, Freedom, and Evil (Grand Rapids:

Eerdmans,1974) 49.

81

Lukken, Original sin in the Roman liturgy, 223−24.

Roger E. Reynolds, “Reviewed Work: Original Sin in the Roman Liturgy. Research

82

into the &eology of Original Sin in the Roman Sacramentaria and the Early Baptismal

Liturgy, by Gerard M. Lukken,” Speculum 51, (April 1976): 761−63.

99

Petru-Mihail Pruteanu

then again in 1973 with more revisions, mentioned in the introduction

to the 2^ndedition⁸³, of which we are interested in two:

(1) n. 5: post verbum «homines», additur: “ab omni culpæ labe,

tum originali tum personali, abluit eosque (...)” (“of every

stain of sin, both original and personal”)

(2) n. 221: loco “a potestate tenebrarum” (“out of the power of

darkness”); dicitur “ab originalis culpæ labe nunc” (“now

from the stain of Original Sin”).⁸⁴

From this we draw three important conclusions:

a) No direct and clear references to “original sin” are to be

found in the Eastern Baptismal Rites, and neither in the old

western rites nor in the rite approved in 1969 after the 2^nd

Vatican Council;

b) &e only two references to “originalis culpae” appear in the

1973 edition: the $rst − in the introductory catechism “Dig-

nity of Baptism”, and the second (of interest to us) − in an

alternate exorcism prayer (Nr. 221), but only in the children

baptismal rite and not in the one for adults.

c) &e Latin expression “originalis culpae” has been translated

in some languages as “original sin”, while in others as: “origi-

nal stain”, although the Latin “culpa” means rather “fault” or

“guilt”.

Practical Consequences of !e !eory Of “Original Sin”

&e teaching on “original sin” has been perceived di'erently in the East

than in the West and this is re#ected even in the form of Baptism. For

example, the Didache (chapter VII) says the following:

83

Prot. N. 516/73: “De editione typica altera,” in #e Roman Ritual. #e Order of

Baptism of Children, ed. United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (Collegeville:

Liturgical Press, 2020).

84

[221: Another Prayer of Exorcism] “Almighty ever-living God, who sent your Son

into the world to drive out from us the power of Satan, the spirit of evil, and bring the

human race, rescued from darkness, into the marvelous Kingdom of your light: we

humbly beseech you to free these children from Original Sin, to make them the temple

of your glory, and to grant that your Holy Spirit may dwell in them. &rough Christ

our Lord.”

100

&e Doctrine of Original Sin and its In#uence

Having $rst said all these things⁸⁵baptize into the name of the Father,

and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit⁸⁶, in living water. But if you

have not living water, baptize into other water; and if you can not in

cold, in warm. But if you have not either, pour out water thrice upon

the head into the name of Father and Son and Holy Spirit.⁸⁷But be-

fore the baptism let the baptizer fast, and the baptized, and whatever

others can; but you shall order the baptized to fast one or two days

before.⁸⁸

&e 50^thApostolic Canon (4^thcentury) also underlines the importance

of the thrice immersion at baptism, without admitting exceptional sit-

uations where the thrice immersion could be replaced with pouring or

sprinkling. More so, the 7^thcanon of the 2^ndEcumenical Council (381)

recognizes the heretics’ baptism performed by triple immersion, but

doesn’t recognize the one performed by less radical heretics, but who

practiced one immersion or none.

In the West, however, although the rule of immersion was observed

for a long time, already in the 6^th−7^thcenturies, we see a weakening of this

rule in favor of pouring.⁸⁹&e Baptistries built in the West were not very

deep and they did not necessarily suggest a complete immersion, but,

on the other hand, they were built close to live streams⁹⁰or employed

certain systems to keep the water moving, emulating a water #ow. For

the Easterners, the full immersion is linked with the baptismal symbol-

ism of the participation into the death, burial and resurrection of the

Lord (Rom. 6:3−11), even if the water in the baptistry was stagnant.

For Westerners, however, the practice of baptism by pouring, ignoring

(not necessarily declaratively, but especially in liturgical practice) the

85

It is a short catechism and a pledge of the candidate to take “the yoke of the Lord”

(cap. VI).

86

Matthew 28:19.

87

Meaning that when there is not enough water or when the candidate cannot be im-

mersed due to health reasons. Clearly, these are extraordinary situations, which cannot

be perceived as ordinary.

88

#e Didache: #e Lord’s Teaching #rough the Twelve Apostles to the Nations, https://

www.newadvent.org/fathers/0714.htm.

89

Wolfred Nelson Cote, #e Archeology of Baptism (London: Yates and Alexander,1896);

Iorio Ruggero, Battesimo e battisteri (Firenze: Nardini,1993).

90

&e famous Lateran Baptistery (from the old cathedral in Rome) was built during

emperor Constantine the Great on a live water spring. In most cases, it was sought that

the water spring be as close as possible to the baptistry in order to provide enough #ow-

ing water. Other times, certain miraculous wells were transformed into baptistries, as is

the case of the baptistries of Tourin (5th century) and Tours (6th century).

101

Petru-Mihail Pruteanu

symbolism of death and resurrection, rather underlines the cleaning as-

pect of the Sacrament⁹¹, relating to the new theory about “original sin.”

&erefore, the abandonment of baptismal immersion in the West could

be a direct consequence of the exaggeration of the cleansing function of

baptism, at the expense of the other aspects of the mystery, even if they

continued to be mentioned both in dogmatic treatises and in liturgical

texts.

&e Christian East, without neglecting the importance of the for-

giveness of sins through baptism − confessed even in the Symbol of Faith

(article 10) − sees it not as a purpose in itself, but as a natural conse-

quence of the blessing of the water of baptism. &erefore, “the forgiveness

of sins” (plural), mentioned in the 10^tharticle of the Symbol of faith, does

not refer to “original sin” (singular), but to the personal sins committed

by men before baptism, especially because the majority of people in those

times were baptized as adults, and their baptism was preceded by repent-

ance (Acts 2:38) and meant a radical change of life. On the other hand,

as the 111^thcanon⁹²of “Codex Canonum Ecclesiae Africanae” states, the

forgiveness of sins at baptism should not be understood only as an erasing

of the past, but also as a spiritual power to $ght sin over the course of

one’s life, to the extent of one’s cooperation with divine grace. &us, even

if we detach from the theory of “original sin,” the Creed article is perfect-

ly valid even in the case of child baptism, because the Creed doesn’t refer

to “original sin,” but to personal sins (from the past and even from the

future).

Conclusion

1. &e &eory of “original sin,” appearing in the West at the beginning

of the 5^thcentury, has come, unfortunately, to be considered “Orthodox”

in some Eastern Catechisms of the 17^thcentury, remaining until today in

some Orthodox manuals. However, the “neopatristic movement” of the

20^thcentury, which included also the liturgist Alexander Schmemann,

has pointed out the inconsistency of this teaching. Beginning in the 60s

until the 1980s of the 20^thcentury, even Roman Catholic dogmatists

91

Cyril of Jerusalem, On the Mysteries II (20), Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers (collec-

tion), Series II, Volume 7, (Edinburg: T&T Clark, 2009) 148−49.

92

“It has been decided also, that anyone who says that the grace of God, by means of

which one moves towards Jesus Christ, has power only for the forgiveness of sins already

committed, but does not give assistance as not to commit others, let there be anathema!”

102

&e Doctrine of Original Sin and its In#uence

have begun to reformulate and to bring Augustinian theory within the

limits of Orthodoxy. Yet, on the other hand, in 1973, for the $rst time,

the Vatican included liturgical references to “original sin” in the western

baptismal rite, nonexistent until that time.

2. We don’t know what “original sin” is and how it is forgiven at

baptism, especially since Orthodox theology understands sin as a disease,

cured through pre- and post baptism repentance (μετάνοια), and not as a

guilt (culpa) of which you are absolved in a juridical sense once and for

all. If men would inherit the “original sin” and this would be forgiven

through baptism, it would mean that the consequences of baptism should

disappear along with it, meaning the proclivity towards sin, disease and

death, but they do not disappear and we don’t even know to what extent

they are weakened, continuing to work in us (Rom. 7:14-25). &erefore,

in order to break the vicious cycle of western theological polemics, I be-

lieve it is better to return to the eastern patristic theology, which, without

giving scholastic answers regarding the nature and the consequences of

the ancestral sin, concentrates on the healing of human nature “in Christ

and the Church” (Eph. 5:32).

3. Without a doubt, in the Christian West, the theory of “original

sin” hastened the practice of child baptism, and the bogeymen of the

condemnation to hell of those who died unbaptized functioned very ef-

fectively for the baptism of the masses. In the East however, contrary to

all neo-protestant accusations, this process happened a little later, with no

link to the theory of “original sin” but as virtue of the fact that around the

6^thcentury the majority of Christians belonged at least to the 3^rdgenera-

tion, while the discipline of the catechumenate has already disappeared.

Hence, the reason why many were hastening baptism was based on su-

perstitions and fears related to earthly life, but also on the fear of expro-

priation of personal property (according to Justinian’s Law of 529). &e

hierarchy of the Eastern Church, instead of respecting the freedom and

conscience of each individual, when it realized that legal pressures had

ceased to work, resorted to introducing the Western theory of original sin

with all its fear mongering, without promoting a positive baptismal the-

ology, which does not scare people with hell, but aims to make them sons

and daughters of the Kingdom of God.

4. An Orthodox anthropology and soteriology that goes beyond the

scholastic ideas on “original sin” should in no way lead to a revision of the

practice of infant baptism (this is not the purpose of the research in this

103

Petru-Mihail Pruteanu

area), but are meant to help us properly understand the purpose and the

e'ects of baptism, as well as to create new bridges of theological dialogue

between East and West.

104

[기독교 사회 한정]왜 악한(나쁜) 리더가 있을까? - 정교회 관점 중 하나 (1)	2024.01.12
근현대교회사 - 15~20세기(로마 가톨릭교회 중심, 개신교회와 동방정교회 신학자 포함, 곽승룡 신부) (0)	2023.09.15
고해성사란? - 곽승룡 신부 강의(cpbc) (0)	2023.08.21

교부와개혁신학목회연구소(with 열린개혁교회)

러시아 정교회가 '유아세례'를 보는 관점 - 교부들을 중심으로

'신학 자료 > 로마교회 & 정교회 & 유대교' 카테고리의 다른 글

'신학 자료/로마교회 & 정교회 & 유대교'의 다른글

티스토리툴바

러시아 정교회가 '유아세례'를 보는 관점 - 교부들을 중심으로

'신학 자료 > 로마교회 & 정교회 & 유대교' 카테고리의 다른 글

'신학 자료/로마교회 & 정교회 & 유대교'의 다른글

관련글

티스토리툴바