For those of you in Melbourne who would like to join us, we are starting a new course on “Reading Paul: Romans” tonight at Mary Glowrey House at 6:30pm. $15 a night, the course will run through to the end of the year. Full details here.
Your Host:
- David Schütz Melbourne, Australia Peccator apud peccatores, et insanus apud insanos
Email
Other Stuff
- First time Commentators click here before posting!
- Other Stuff
- Catholic priesthood crisis
- Catholic Theological College Bible Lands Study Tour 2012
- Extracts from the Manual on Indulgences (2006)
- MacKillop-Woods Way Pilgrimage 2016-2021
- My Anima Education course notes
- My Articles
- “How to live best alongside Muslims in Australia”
- “The Very Heart of the Gospel” – Pope Francis, Evangelii Gaudium
- Council of Christians and Jews: “Same-Sex Marriage” Panel – Presentation by David Schütz
- Ecumenism, Interfaith Dialogue and the New Evangelisation
- Evangelisation and Proselytisation
- Passover meets Easter
- Response to a further enquiry on “How Jesus the Faithful Jew became the Christ of Christian Faith”
- Response to Paul Forgasz on “How Jesus the Faithful Jew became the Christ of Christian Faith”
- The Christian Hope and Christian Dialogue with Jews (2013)
- The New Evangelisation – Presentation to the National Conference of the Catholic Women’s League of Australia
- The Schütz Model for a Elective Australian Constitutional Monarchy
- What is the Gospel? Some analytic thoughts
- My Aussie Camino – The Inaugural MacKillop-Woods Way Pilgrimage (April 2014)
- My Essays On Liturgical Music and Song
- My Interviews
- My Reviews
- Prayers for the Burial of a Pet
- The Aussie Camino
- To the Holy Door: A Pilgrimage of Mercy (December 13)
- Who is Schütz?
Disclaimer
All opinions on this page expressed by the blog owner are those of the blog owner alone, and are in no way to be taken as the opinions of the Catholic Archdiocese of Melbourne or its agencies.
Any opinion on this page expressed by a visiting commentator is the opinion of that commentator alone and is in no way to be taken as the opinion of the blog owner.
I hope that is clear enough for everyone?
About This Blog
Sentire Cum Ecclesia began years ago back when blogs were the latest thing. They are a bit passe now, and I spend most of my time on twitter (@scecclesia) but from time to time, I do add new things on this ‘ere website. Mostly I use it as a place for journaling about my Pilgrimage experiences.
The motto of the blog is:
“Maior autem his est spes”Subscribe to Email Updates
Archives
I’d be interested in how you handle Romans 6:12, David. In light of Trent and all that.
Yeah, OK, I’ll bite. Just briefly.
The issue is whether sin remains in the Christian after baptism, or, more technically, whether concupiscence may (properly speaking) be called “sin”.
In short, it hinges on what you mean when you use the word “sin”.
Council of Trent, Session Five, Section Five said:
This is a little like the argument about what is a “Church” in the proper sense (and look at where that got us!), but is dealt with fairly well by Chris Burgwald in his thesis “Sin in the Justified” (I did send you a copy of that, didn’t I?). Chris’s final conclusion is that Trent works with a narrow definition of “sin in the proper sense”, as acts of ommission or commission done willfully and knowingly in disobedience to God’s express command.
As Chris points out, in this sense, even “original sin” is not “sin in the proper sense”, and the Church shows that in her attitude toward children who are below the age of reason. Yes, they are born affected by original sin, that’s why we baptise them. But no, they don’t have to go to Confession after baptism until they reach the age of reason, because without the faculty of reason they cannot actually commit sin “in the proper sense”.
So the word we use instead is “concupiscence”, which Lutherans call “sin” and Catholics (following Trent) do not. But really the point is not that we disagree about what concupiscence is, but rather we are using the word “sin” differently. Using a broader sense of the word “sin”, yes, it is conceivable that (as Trent acknowledges the Apostle does in Romans 6), concupiscence CAN be called “sin” – but since it is not ACTUAL sin, it is not culpable unless one gives in to it. (Just as it is NOT sin to be tempted, but rather to GIVE IN to temptation).
Looking beyond both Trent, the Apologia, and Augustine, to what Paul actually says, he uses “sin” in Romans 6:12 in a particular way. He is not talking about actual sinful acts, but rather he is talking of “sin” as if it were a personified power at work in the world – rather akin to the way he uses the word “the flesh”.
Paul is using Exodus imagery in this passage (as 6:15ff shows). The issue is slavery, and the question is: Who is your Master? In Romans 1:1 he introduced himself as a “slave” of Jesus Christ. Christ is King and Lord. Christ reigns in him. The alternative to letting Christ be your Master is to let sin be your master, to return to Egypt after crossing the Red Sea of Baptism (Rom 6:2ff). (Nb. No one can serve two Masters at the same time!). Using this analogy, the one who is baptised has been entirely freed from the “Egyptian bondage” – they have crossed the Red Sea and are now bonded to the Lord. Nevertheless, even the Israelites in the desert were tempted to look back to the flesh-pots of Egypt!
To warn his readers not to let “sin reign in your mortal body, unto the obedience of its desires” is to warn them not to go back to what they have left behind. In this context, it is interesting to note that the Catechism cites Romans 6:12 only once, and that is when it quotes St Cyril of Jerusalem at p. 2819:
You might well ask, why would anyone who had been completely freed from original by baptism even be tempted to return to the slavery of sin? Indeed Augustine and the theologians who followed him DID ask this question, and their answer was that
You might like to take a look at this comment on a post on the “Called to Communion” Blog by Bryan Cross. Very interesting stuff from Augustine.