One of the apparently false conceptions we Protestants have is that Roman Catholictheology is both static and monolithic. As I do my imperfect and incomplete research, I find
that there have been many people saying many things at different times, and it is only through
natural accretion or authoritative pronouncement that anything approaching unanimity has
been achieved. Consensus aside, I have found that at some time a Roman Catholic authority
has said something genial to my own developing views. This eclectic approach is somewhat
unfair, in that no sooner do I site someone as supportive they say something I do not accept.
So in the interest of furthering ecumenical rapprochement and perhaps truth, bear with me.
They say that if you have to eat some frogs, start with the biggest one. For me, that’s
the doctrine of Original Sin, something not mentioned in the Bible, in so many words. What
concerns me is not whether or not humans have a generic problem, which is demonstrably
true, the question is whether or not it’s an ontological presence or simply a lack. There is
abundant evidence that most RC theologians regard it as an actual presence in our souls,
something transmitted from Adam down to us in some manner, often understood as through
sexual union or concupiscence. This has the advantage of explaining universal human frailty
as well as the truth that Jesus, who lacked a human father, was himself without sin. It has the
disadvantage, however, in that it makes Mary sinful in spite of the fact that she was the mother
of Jesus, who was himself sinless. How can a sinful person bear a sinless child with infecting it
in the way of all humanity? This has led to all the speculation about Mary, and how she herself
was conceived immaculately, a notion not supported by Scripture, but by later traditions. John
of Damascus argued for her sinlessness as theotokos, and a feast of her immaculate
conception is encountered as early as the 7th century. It was not endorsed by all, including
Thomas Aquinas and other Paris theologians. It was not until the Papal Bull Ineffabilis Deus in
1854 that it became official dogma.
There is, however, another explanation of human depravity arising from time to time
over the centuries, which I think needs to be revisited. Again, original sin per se is not
mentioned in Scripture, and thus is a later emendation subject to review. If it is not an actual
stain or presence, might it not be a lack due to loss? Names associated with this view include
St. John Chrysostom, John Cassian, Duns Scotus, Alexander of Hales, and St. Bonaventure.
The prime advantage of viewing congenital human sin as a lack is that it obviates any attempts
to delve into Mary’s status as the mother of our Lord. She is not passing something on to
Jesus, she is simply subject to spiritual limitations that are common to Man and affect her, not
her child. Scripture is clear that on her acceptance of her mission as mother of our Lord, she
was accorded a unique gift of the Holy Spirit well before the general Pentecost. If we were
three part people in the Garden, mind, body and spirit, capable of communion with God, it
follows that at the Fall we lost the spiritual dimension and became two part people. A body
and a mind, and as we can observe, the body speaks loudly and tends to render all people
irrational: they act, then they rationalize. There is abundant evidence for this approach in RC
theology, where we encounter the terms “loss of original righteousness” as per St. Thomas,
William of Ockham, and “deprivation of supernatural gifts,” as per Dominic Soto. Thomas
Aquinas argues cogently that evil as such does not exist, but is merely a complete lack of
goodness, hence existence. “No being can be spoken of as evil, formally as being, but only so
far as it lacks being.” (Summa I,5,3) Clearly, as of the Fall Man has two problems. First, we are
morally guilty; we lack righteousness which if it is to come at all, must come from God. This is
what Paul was so eager to proclaim. Secondly, we have lost essential gifts: we have no power
to amend ourselves and bear fruit. We can know what is right, but as Paul affirms, we cannot
do it. God’s plan for Man that we be holy has not been altered, however, and if our own spirit
is disabled, why not put the Spirit of his Son in to restore us to our status as three part people,
capable of renewed communion with God?
At the risk of taking liberties with Hebraic expression, I find Scriptural justification for
the idea that since the Fall, humanity is afflicted with a lack. When Adam and Eve were ejected
from the Garden, it says that the way back to the Tree of Life was guarded by cherubim, and a
flaming sword flashed back and forth. Understanding that the Tree of Life represents union
with God, our spiritual component was now lost and beyond recovery by human initiative.
Thus, Original Sin is a function of location, not essence. When Jesus challenged the faithless
in parables about the Kingdom of God, he said not only, “I don’t know you,” but would add, “I
don’t know where you come from.”
The next frogs would be the concepts of merit and grace. It appears as though the
logic is as follows: when we are accorded merit, we receive grace in some measure, either as a
reward or debt. Thomas makes a distinction between merit that is congruent, or evinced by an
individual before the conferral of grace, and that which is condign, granted in recognition of
God’s own work in the life of the individual. Such distinctions appear as mere casuistry if you
can abandon the idea of merit in the first place, which you can do if you redefine grace, that
which God ostensibly grants in recognition of merit. If there is any merit to be granted, it’s
along the lines of condign merit. Man has no merit with regard to God; except that of
damnation. We can add nothing to God’s account that was not given us in the first place. To
the extent that we do bear fruit that is pleasing to God, it is not we who do it, but Christ who
does it in us. Now let us leave Pelagius altogether; It is not as though we have to DO
something, Scripture tells us that we have to STOP doing something, everything. When Adam
was sought by God in the Garden, he was running from him, hiding. His knowledge that he
was naked is another Hebraism for Adam’s realization that he was bereft of any righteousness
or power of his own. What God wants is for us to stop running, stop prevaricating, and
confess that we really are naked and without hope. There is no merit in this; it is the
confession that persuit of merit is impossible. Our role is not positive; we bring nothing to the
table. Our role is negative, to confess our emptiness and accept God’s plan that we play host
to his Son in the person of the Holy Spirit. Then he can bear fruit through us, that is not to our
credit or merit, but to his own honor and glory. This brings us back to grace, which is a who
and not a what. Grace is both God’s willingness and actual fact of dwelling in the soul of
everybody who admits they have no merit of their own.
Such a view also simplifies and rationalizes the role of the sacraments in our
redemption. Sacraments were not established for God’s benefit, but for ours. And they are not
to circumscribe God and make him do our bidding, they are intended to destroy the illusions of
time and place and make that which is permanent and spiritual accessible to people in every
time and place. Baptism is to take us back to the Cross, and convince us that we were there,
and are obligated to identify with his death that we abjure all our own intentions and agenda in
favor of his. He is our Savior; all righteousness comes from God to us through Good Friday.
The Eucharist is not to be understood as a re-sacrifice of Christ that merit and grace might
emanate anew to our favor, but rather a recapitulation of the Last Supper, where we are made
present that we might partake of the same loaf and the same cup as the Disciples. The five
chapters of the Gospel of John that follow that Last Supper were Christ’s summary of what we
need to know about the coming life in the Spirit who would be conferred in 50 days. As Jews,
the Disciples would have understood the New Covenant as replacing the Old Covenant, which
was ratified in Genesis 15, where animals were flayed and the testators walked between the
halves in their shed blood. Jesus is saying, “We no longer use animals, this covenant is based
upon MY broken body and MY poured out blood, that it might be summary, final, and need no
emendation or repetition.” Thus, the Eucharist is intended by the One who instituted it to feed
his life in us; it is the repeated key to an on-going charismatic, Pentecostal experience in the
life of every believer. It is nothing less than re-inviting Christ to enter into our souls, be
preeminent in all things, and be Lord as well as Savior. Wonderfully expressed in the BCP
Prayer of Humble Access; an interpenetration of Christ and us.
This doctrine of Baptism and the Eucharist is no less fantastic or miraculous than that
of transubstantiation, yet it conforms to a rigorous exegesis of the words of institution. It also
explains the ability of the unbaptized to hear God’s call and respond to it, without the
knowledge or approbation of the Church.
