Original sin-orthodox原偏差-东正教

The term Original Sin (or first sin) is used among all Christian churches to define the doctrine surrounding Romans 5:12-21 and 1 Corinthians 15:22, in which Adam is identified as the man whom through death came into the world. How this is interpreted is believed by many Orthodox to be a fundamental difference between the Eastern Orthodox Church and the Western Churches. In contrast, modern Roman Catholic theologians would claim that the basic anthropology is actually almost identical, and that the difference is only in the explanation of what happened in the Fall. In the Orthodox Church the term ancestral sin (Gr. προπατορικό αμάρτημα) is preferred and is used to define the doctrine of man's "inclination towards sin, a heritage from the sin of our progenitors" and that this is removed through baptism. St. Gregory Palamas taught that man's image was tarnished, disfigured, as a consequence of Adam's disobedience.

所有教会都用术语原偏差（或第一次偏差）来定义罗马书5：12-21 和哥林多前书15-22，此两处描述了死如何通过一个人进入了世界。东方东正教会与西方（天主教）教会在解读上有根本的不同。现代罗马天主教的神学家认为双方在基本人类学的看法是几乎一致的，仅在对始祖堕落时发生了什么解释不同。东正教会喜欢用“始祖的偏差”这个术语，及习惯用“人有出偏差的倾向，这倾向从始祖的偏差遗传得来”来描述有关人的教义，这偏差会通过洗礼被除去。圣Gregory Palamas教导说，人的形象因亚当的悖逆被玷污，损毁。
Discussion
讨论
In the Book of Genesis, Chapter 3, Adam and Eve committed a sin, the original sin. The Eastern Orthodox Church teaches that no one is guilty for the actual sin they committed but rather everyone inherits the consequences of this act; the foremost of this is physical death in this world. This is the reason why the original fathers of the Church over the centuries have preferred the term ancestral sin. The consequences and penalties of this ancestral act are transferred by means of natural heredity to the entire human race. Since every human is a descendant of Adam then 'no one is free from the implications of this sin' (which is human death) and that the only way to be freed from this is through baptism. While mortality is certainly a result of the Fall, along with this also what is termed "concupiscence" in the writings of St Augustine of Hippo -- this is the "evil impulse" of Judaism, and in Orthodoxy, we might say this is our "disordered passion." It isn't only that we are born in death, or in a state of distance from God, but also that we are born with disordered passion within us. Orthodoxy would not describe the human state as one of "total depravity" (see Cyril Lucaris however).
创世记第三章记载，亚当和夏娃出了偏差，就是原偏差。东正教会认为没有后人因为始祖实际所出的偏差而有罪，但是每个后裔都受他们行为的后果影响，最重要的就是肉体在这世界里的死亡。这就是早先的教父乐意用“始祖偏差”的缘故。始祖行为的后果和惩罚被自然遗传给整个人类。因为每个人都是亚当的后裔，每个后裔都不能逃脱此次偏差的影响（就是死），只有通过受洗才能摆脱死亡。人类必死的命运是因为始祖的这次堕落，而且随之产生了“私欲”，圣奥古斯丁这样称，就是犹太教里所称的“邪恶的冲动”，在东正教里，我们称“错乱的情欲”，它不仅使我们生下来就要死，与神隔绝，而且我们一生下来，在里面就有“错乱的情欲”。东正教不认为人类的状态是一种“完全的败坏”


Orthodox Christians have usually understood Roman Catholicism as professing St. Augustine's teaching that everyone bears not only the consequence, but also the guilt, of Adam's sin. This teaching appears to have been confirmed by multiple councils, the first of them being the Council of Orange in 529. This difference between the two Churches in their understanding of the original sin was one of the doctrinal reasons underlying the Catholic Church's declaration of itsdogma of the Immaculate Conception in the 19th century, a dogma that is rejected by the Orthodox Church. However, contemporary Roman Catholic teaching is best explicated in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, which includes this sentence: ""original sin does not have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam's descendants. It is a deprivation of original holiness and justice, but human nature has not been totally corrupted" (§405).

In 2007, the Vatican approved a document called, The Hope of Salvation for Infants Who Die Without Being Baptized, see link below under Sources and further reading. This document is actually very helpful both in tracing the history of the doctrine of Original Sin within the Roman Catholic Church and in reading a reasonable summary of the teaching of the Greek Fathers. While the document deals with infants, nevertheless it must incorporate a doctrine and definition of Ancestral or Original Sin in order to talk about the salvation of infants. Among the helpful comments in the document are:

"Very few Greek Fathers dealt with the destiny of infants who die without Baptism because there was no controversy about this issue in the East. Furthermore, they had a different view of the present condition of humanity. For the Greek Fathers, as the consequence of Adam's sin, human beings inherited corruption, possibility, and mortality, from which they could be restored by a process of deification made possible through the redemptive work of Christ. The idea of an inheritance of sin or guilt - common in Western tradition - was foreign to this perspective, since in their view sin could only be a free, personal act. . ."

"Alone among the Greek Fathers, Gregory of Nyssa wrote a work specifically on the destiny of infants who die, De infantibus praemature abreptis libellum. The anguish of the Church appears in the questions he puts to himself: the destiny of these infants is a mystery, 'something much greater than the human mind can grasp'. He expresses his opinion in relation to virtue and its reward; in his view, there is no reason for God to grant what is hoped for as a reward. Virtue is not worth anything if those who depart this life prematurely without having practiced virtue are immediately welcomed into blessedness. Continuing along this line, Gregory asks: 'What will happen to the one who finishes his life at a tender age, who has done nothing, bad or good? Is he worthy of a reward?' He answers: 'The hoped-for blessedness belongs to human beings by nature, and it is called a reward only in a certain sense'. Enjoyment of true life (zoe and not bios) corresponds to human nature, and is possessed in the degree that virtue is practiced. Since the innocent infant does not need purification from personal sins, he shares in this life corresponding to his nature in a sort of regular progress, according to his capacity. Gregory of Nyssa distinguishes between the destiny of infants and that of adults who lived a virtuous life. 'The premature death of newborn infants does not provide a basis for the presupposition that they will suffer torments or that they will be in the same state as those who have been purified in this life by all the virtues'. Finally, he offers this perspective for the reflection of the Church: 'Apostolic contemplation fortifies our inquiry, for the One who has done everything well, with wisdom (Psalm 104: 24), is able to bring good out of evil'. . . . The profound teaching of the Greek Fathers can be summarized in the opinion of Anastasius of Sinai: 'It would not be fitting to probe God’s judgments with one's hands'. . . ."

"The fate of unbaptized infants first became the subject of sustained theological reflection in the West during the anti-Pelagian controversies of the early 5th century. St. Augustine addressed the question because Pelagius was teaching that infants could be saved without Baptism. . . . In countering Pelagius, Augustine was led to state that infants who die without Baptism are consigned to hell. . . . Gregory the Great asserts that God condemns even those with only original sin on their souls; even infants who have never sinned by their own will must go to “everlasting torments”. . . ."

"But most of the later medieval authors, from Peter Abelard on, underline the goodness of God and interpret Augustine's “mildest punishment” as the privation of the beatific vision (carentia visionis Dei), without hope of obtaining it, but with no additional penalties. This teaching, which modified the strict opinion of St. Augustine, was disseminated by Peter Lombard: little children suffer no penalty except the privation of the vision of God. . . ."

"Because children below the age of reason did not commit actual sin, theologians came to the common view that these unbaptized children feel no pain at all, or even that they enjoy a full natural happiness through their union with God in all natural goods (Thomas Aquinas, Duns Scotus). The contribution of this last theological thesis consists especially in its recognition of an authentic joy among children who die without sacramental Baptism: they possess a true form of union with God proportionate to their condition. . . . Even when they adopted such a view, theologians considered the privation of the beatific vision as an affliction (“punishment”) within the divine economy. . . ."

As one continues to read the document, one realizes that there was a swing back towards Saint Augustine's opinion on the 16th century such that it again began to be stated that unbaptized babies go to hell, though only with the mildest of punishments. By Vatican Council I, opinion has begun to switch away from this hardened a view towards "natural happiness." By the 20th century, it begins to be argued more strongly that unbaptized infants may indeed receive "Christ's full salvation." This actually appears to be a partial return towards the Pelagian doctrine that Saint Augustine so hated.

As one reads the document, one can see that the Eastern and Western Fathers shared the idea that baptism was a necessity for salvation. However, all the Church Fathers had to deal with the problem of the unbaptized infant, whether of Christian or non-Christian parents, and in dealing with that they let us see their understanding of Ancestral or Original Sin.

In Saint Gregory of Nyssa, one can see what becomes the Eastern thought on Ancestral or Original Sin. On the one hand, the infant needs no cleansing for personal sins and is thus not to be thought of as one who will be sent to punishment. On the other hand, neither has the infant either received baptism or tried to live a virtuous life, so the infant does not merit heaven. Yet God is able to bring good out of evil. Thus, it is clear in Saint Gregory of Nyssa that Ancestral or Original Sin contains no imputation of personal guilt, but rather a certain damage to the likeness of God, a damage so widespread and deep-seated that one must labor and rely on the overflowing grace of God and the Mysteries in order to begin to conquer the damage inherited from Adam and Eve.

The Roman Catholic doctrine of Ancestral or Original Sin is harder to pin down because of the development and pendulum swings of its development. It is clear from the Vatican's own documents that Ancestral or Original Sin did include both the imputation of the guilt of Adam and Eve's sin and a widespread and deep-seated damage to the imagio dei, at least during a good part of its history. Thus the infant is worthy of punishment in hell according to both Saint Augustine and St. Gregory the Dialogist. In the medievalists, this is ameliorated to a deprivation of the beatific vision, which is still considered a punishment, though the infant will only experience happiness. At the time of the Enlightenment, there is a return to a more Augustinian and Gregorian definition of Ancestral or Original Sin. But, by the time of Vatican Council I, the change is in full swing, and Ancestral or Original Sin begins to be seen as the deprivation of original holiness. This change in the definition of Ancestral or Original Sin is found in documents such as the aforecited Catechism of the Catholic Church and in the Hope of Salvation document.

--Orthocuban 20:26, March 4, 2010 (UTC)
Sources and further reading
The Hope of Salvation for Infants Who Die Without Being Baptized
The Original Sin/Consequences of the Original Fall - by HG Bishop Kallistos Ware
ORIGINAL SIN ACCORDING TO ST. PAUL - by the late V. Rev. Fr. John S. Romanides
Original Sin/St. Augustine & Original Sin - Teachings of Orthodoxy - by Fr. John Matusiak, OCA: [1], [2], [3]
Concerning the Original Sin - the current Coptic Orthodox viewpoint by HE Metropolitan Bishoy of Damietta (Arabic), and an Eastern Orthodox reply (Arabic)
Original Sin, a short historical note - by Dr George Bebawi
What are the differences between Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism? - by Father Michael Azkoul
CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Original Sin
Original Sin - Wikipedia
Banishment and Repentance of Adam and Every Christian by Saint Simeon the New Theologian
Original Sin by Fr Alvin Kimel
The First-Created Man: Seven Homilies by St. Symeon the New Theologian, trans. Seraphim Rose [ISBN:0938635115]
Ancestral Versus Original Sin: An Overview with Implications for Psychotherapy by V. Rev. Antony Hughes, M.Div.

http://orthodoxwiki.org/Original_sin

St. Augustine & Original Sin

Question

Is it true, as I have been told, that the Orthodox Church does not celebrate Augustine of Hippo as a Saint and has no doctrine of original sin.

Surely human sufficience is at the root of secularism.

Answer

While the Orthodox Church does accord Augustine of Hippo the title “saint” and recognizes the vast number of theological works he produced, Augustine was not as well known in the Christian East. His works were not translated into Greek until the 14th century; as such, he had little or no influence on mainstream Orthodox thought until 17th century Ukraine and 18th century Russia, primarily through the influence of western clergy and the establishment of theological schools which relied on Latin models with respect to curricula, text books, etc.

With regard to original sin, the difference between Orthodox Christianity and the West may be outlined as follows:

In the Orthodox Faith, the term “original sin” refers to the “first” sin of Adam and Eve. As a result of this sin, humanity bears the “consequences” of sin, the chief of which is death. Here the word “original” may be seen as synonymous with “first.” Hence, the “original sin” refers to the “first sin” in much the same way as “original chair” refers to the “first chair.”

In the West, humanity likewise bears the “consequences” of the “original sin” of Adam and Eve. However, the West also understands that humanity is likewise “guilty” of the sin of Adam and Eve. The term “Original Sin” here refers to the condition into which humanity is born, a condition in which guilt as well as consequence is involved.

In the Orthodox Christian understanding, while humanity does bear the consequences of the original, or first, sin, humanity does not bear the personal guilt associated with this sin. Adam and Eve are guilty of their willful action; we bear the consequences, chief of which is death.

One might look at all of this in a completely different light. Imagine, if you will, that one of your close relatives was a mass murderer. He committed many serious crimes for which he was found guilty—and perhaps even admitted his guilt publicly. You, as his or her son or brother or cousin, may very well bear the consequences of his action—people may shy away from you or say, “Watch out for him—he comes from a family of mass murderers.” Your name may be tainted, or you may face some other forms of discrimination as a consequence of your relative’s sin. You, however, are not personally guilty of his or her sin.

There are some within Orthodoxy who approach a westernized view of sin, primarily after the 17th and 18th centuries due to a variety of westernizing influences particularly in Ukraine and Russia after the time of Peter Mohyla. These influences have from time to time colored explanations of the Orthodox Faith which are in many respects lacking.

http://oca.org/questions/teaching/st.-augustine-original-sin

O Happy Guilt, O Joyful Sorrow: An Orthodox Understanding

By Fr. George Morelli

In the Orthodox Christian tradition, The Philokalia ranks as the authoritative compilation of teaching about Christian life and discipline by the Fathers of the Church. In the reference work The Philokalia: Master Reference Guide, author B.S. Stapakis notes there is no reference to "guilt" in the first four volumes of The Philokalia. The reason for this absence is that the Western Christian concepts about how guilt factors into salvation differs markedly from the Christian East.

The late Orthodox historian Fr. John Meyendorff wrote:

The development of penitential practice and theology in the Byzantine world was distinct from its Western counterpart in that it never knew the influence of legalistic interpretations of salvation.... Byzantine theologians never succumbed to the temptation of reducing sin to the notion of a legal crime, which is to be sentenced, punished or forgiven.

He goes on to say that the prevailing view sees penance as "liberation and healing rather than that of judgment."

Contrast Meyendorff's conclusion with the Catholic Encyclopedia where guilt is described as liability to punishment incurred by transgressing a law. The process that pronounces a person guilty of transgression is compared to a "court of law," and that "in the Christian life, guilt has this primary objective sense." The subjective ramification of this objective decree is psychological remorse, or from the other direction, psychological remorse is the evidence of objective guilt.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church approaches the matter a bit differently. It does not have a specific entry for "guilt" but states that in the confession or disclosure of sin, "man looks squarely at the sins he is guilty of, and takes responsibility for them" (1455).

Nevertheless, despite this softening of the juridical motif where the pronouncement of transgression is likened to a court of law, the theme of psychological remorse remains. This is evident in the belief that "a temporal punishment for sin remains" even when sins are forgiven as well as the subsequent practice of granting indulgences that continues even today. Indulgences, "Opens...the treasury of merits of Christ and the saints to obtain from the Father of mercies the remission of temporal punishments due for their sins" (1478).

Orthodox Christianity does not hold to the notion that guilt is a punishment for sin. Guilt certainly exists as an indicator that sin has occurred, but confession and repentance are understood in more therapeutic terms, as a means by which the sinner is restored to communion with God and through which spiritual healing is affected and not as the process by which punishment is imposed.

One exception to the Orthodox understanding occurred among some teachers who came under the influence of the western ideas in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. A prime example is St. Tikhon of Zadonsk (1724-1783) who "borrowed heavily from the west," according to Bishop Kallistos Ware. St. Tikhon "... drew upon German and Anglican books of devotion; his detailed meditations upon the physical sufferings of Jesus are more typical of Roman Catholicism than Orthodoxy." St. Tikhon's prayer life was influenced heavily by St. John of the Cross' Dark Night of the Soul.

St. Theophane the Recluse, a student of St. Tikhon wrote a magnum opus, The Path to Salvation, a reinterpretation of True Christianity written by his beloved teacher. "Judge and condemn yourself, and only yourself...your bad will alone is to blame (guilt of your sin). So blame yourself," wrote St. Theophane.

St. Theophane's western approach to guilt is demonstrated by his view of the majority of Christians as "...people who are more or less depraved in their present lives..." wrote Bishop Ware. The problem here is not acceptance of responsibility within which St. Theophane is in total conformity with the spiritual fathers of the Church. Rather the problem is in his emphasis on the depravity of the individual as such as a "state of being" that functions as a component of guilt and is only realized through the experience of guilt.

Understanding Guilt Today

Modern society holds back no barriers discussing guilt. Barnes and Nobel lists no less that 1,143 titles dealing with guilt. Some psychologists posit that guilt is a developmental stage that a person may pass through (Erickson 1950). Dealing with the deleterious effects of guilt is also a focus of clinical research psychologists. Bandura (1974) argues that guilt, shame or dissatisfaction occurs when an individual compares their behavior to their internal standards and finds that it either violates or falls short of those standards.

Cognitive-behavioral psychology has done much to define the meaning of guilt and distinguish between the functional and dysfunctional uses of the term. One of the basic premises of the cognitive-behavioral approach is to distinguish between the individual (their being, so to speak) from what they do (their thoughts, feelings and actions). From the outset patients are taught this important distinction. Treatment focus starts with the evaluation of the thoughts, emotions and actions without evaluating the "self" (Morelli, 2001, 2004). The value of the individual is simply they are "human" and humans can do good or bad things.

This view is congruent with the Christian view although the Christian view goes further. The scriptures teach that we are created in God's image and called to be like Him. Further, "...God saw everything that he had made, and behold, it was very good. (Gen. 1:31). The things we do may be wrong or even evil but our actions cannot negate the existential truth that we are made in God's image and thus good remains.

St. Isaac of Syria stated, God "...has created all for man and has given him mind and word, by which, rising on high, he can enter into communion with God, contemplating and glorifying Him." From the Christian perspective the value of the human being rests in this capacity to contemplate, commune with, and ultimately glorify, God.

Humans made in God's image are called to be like Him and experience theosis, or God dwelling in them. St. Maximos the Confessor wrote that, "Deification is an enhypostatic and direct illumination which has no beginning but appears in those worthy as something exceeding beyond their comprehension. It is indeed a mystical union with God, beyond nous and reason in the age when creatures will no longer know corruption." Bishop Hierotheos Vlachos (1994) concluded that "...the vision of the uncreated light is man's deification."

Guilt and Human Psychology

How, then, do we properly understand and deal with guilt? The first step is to frame any experience of guilt in the broader context that the penitent was created good, and his essential goodness rests in the capacity to experience the life of God.

One of the major components of guilt is the cognitive construct of "badness" (Burns, 1980, Ellis, 1962). The first cognitive distortion (Morelli, 2004) that leads to guilt is to perceive the "self" as bad instead of the "thought, feeling or action" as bad. In psychological terms this is a fundamental breakdown in reality testing. In spiritual terms, this demonstrates a lack of knowledge about our divine value and potential at best; at worst it broadcasts hopelessness and despair.

Psychologically speaking, a person is still a human despite bad things they have done. This is true no matter what the horror of actions committed from a societal viewpoint.

Spiritually speaking, no matter how darkened the mind or evil an act, cleansing is still possible. The strongest example in scripture is King David who had an affair with a colleague's wife and then had the colleague killed but still obtained forgiveness (2 Samuel 11). The affair and murder did not consign King David to a state of unredeemable darkness (a perpetual state of "badness" to use the psychological terminology). The Psalmist in reference to David's sin wrote:

Have mercy on me O God, according to thy steadfast love: according to thy abundant mercy blot out my transgressions. Wash me thoroughly from my iniquity, and cleanse me for from my sin (Psalm 50: 1,2).

From a cognitive-psychological viewpoint the next step is to evaluate the "badness" of the thoughts, emotions and behaviors. There are basically two options. The first is to assess if the thought or action is objectively bad, immoral and/or unethical. The second option is to assess if the thought or action is cognitively distorted, that is, not bad at all or not as bad to the degree that it is being perceived. The psychologically healthy response is to assume responsibility for the thought or action commensurate with an objective assessment of the transgression.

Once again this was beautifully expressed by the Psalmist, "For I know my transgression and my sin is ever before me" (Psalm 50:3). A transgression should not be denied, but acknowledged.

A common theme in distorted evaluations is that they have a "demand" and "over-evaluation" factors. Feelings of guilt are often accompanied by "should statements" such as "I should not have done this bad thing," "I am worthless, others will look down on me," and "I thought I could never do such a thing." Individuals see themselves as above being able to do or say bad things.

One of the prayers in the Eastern Church funeral service gets it right, "...there is no man who is alive and does not sin." The denial of the capability to fall short and do bad things is actually a subtle form of pride, and pride is sin.

Even the greatest of saints had a sense of falling short and would turn around through the gift of tears (Staniloae, 2003). Peter, for example, wept after denying Our Lord three times (Matthew 26:75). Should these tears be understood at as psychological self-deprecation? No! The "gift of tears" is really penthos - the "mourning for the loss of God's presence" (Chryssavgis, 1990). They constitute a "joyful sorrow" through which a person is transformed by the grace of God.

Dealing With Guilt

Burns, (1981) describes the "guilt cycle" that often follows a transgression. A person's cognitive processes are trapped in an endless loop: "I am bad, I am worthy of condemnation, I am guilty thus I deserve to suffer." Emotional reasoning is the fuel that feeds this loop: "Because I feel guilty I amguilty; I am inherently bad, I deserve punishment."

Challenging and restructuring this error in thinking is critical at this stage. Ask the person if feelings are fact. Use this example: People once strongly felt that the world was flat. Today we know today the world is round and revolves around the sun. No matter how strongly we might feel about something, feelings are not facts!

The key to dealing with 'guilt' from this point on is again found in the words of the Psalmist: "thou desires truth in the inward being; therefore teach me wisdom in my secret heart....Then I will teach transgressors thy ways and sinners will return to thee" (Psalm 50: 6,13). Clinically and pastorally I use the term "debriefing" to describe this process of dealing with guilt.

Debriefing is a neutral term that is action oriented. It has no surplus meanings that might evoke irrational interpretations and strong emotions. The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) debrief astronauts after a space flight. The military debrief units after operations. Police and fire units debrief their personnel after incidents. The focus on debriefing is to understand the causes of events, the effectiveness of interventions, the consequences, suggestions, and plans for improvement.

The Church Fathers obviously used different terms. The term examination of conscience covers some of the meanings. The purpose of debriefing is to set the groundwork for a more successful operation in the future. Focusing on self-downing and punishment interferes with this process. The church calls for a metanoia which the Shepherd of Hermas defines as a call for great understanding and discernment (Chryssavgis 1990). Metanoia means a fundamental change of mind; a transformation of outlook.

Moreover, a change of mind indicates a change in emotion and a change in behavior which further indicates a plan of action to bring about this change. Here is where understanding and discernment can be married to behavioral plans. For example, it is folly for a person who has an alcohol problem to continue working as a bartender. A major change, a new plan is needed -- a metanoia of mind, heart, feeling and action.

One issue that usually arises is how do I make up for my past badness, transgressions and sins? The answer is again found in the words of the Psalmist: "Then I will teach transgressors thy ways and sinners will return to thee." To make up for the past put all effort on the present and future. Teach transgressors -- first ourselves and, in humility, others. The past cannot be changed; it can only serve as classroom to learn what to do in the present and future.

As our Lord taught us: While it is still time, fill our lamps with oil.

"And while they went to buy, the bridegroom came, and those who were ready went in with him to the marriage feast; and the door was shut. Afterward the other maidens came also, saying, 'Lord, lord, open to us.' But he replied, 'Truly, I say to you, I do not know you.' Watch therefore, for you know neither the day nor the hour" (Mat. 25: 1-13).

Behavioral psychology can be useful in planning. Instead of using vague abstract terms, like "I will try and do better," I recommend concrete, specific pinpointed tasks along the order of: I resolve to ____________ (with the concrete action written in). I give specific behavioral homework assignments and require the penitent or patient to report if and when they are completed. For example, an alcoholic may be assigned to list, call and make an appointment at treatment center by, say, noon the next day and report back to me with the exact list, people he spoke with, the time he called, and more. Obviously the homework assignments are targeted to the specific problems (or sins) the individual struggles with.

If repentance changed Peter who denied Christ into a leader of the apostles, the disciples who fled from the Cross into founders of the Church, or Saul the Pharisee who martyred Christians into Paul the great missionary, so too can we, despite our failures and sins, become zealous disciples of Christ for the rest of our lives. Jesus told us that he who has been forgiven much loves much (Luke 7:47). This is love in action, not self-flagellation, and can be the greatest and most joyful way to overcome sin. "O Happy Guilt" encompasses the true meaning of guilt that can be the source of our liberation, healing and deification.

REFERENCES

Bandura, A. (1974). Behavior Theories and Models of Man. American Psychologist, 29, 859-869.
Burns, D. (1980). Feeling Good: The new mood therapy. New York: Avon
Catechism of the Catholic Church. (1996). Washington, DC: National Conference of Catholic Bishops.
Chryssavgis, J. (1990). Repentance and Confession. Brookline, MA: Holy Cross Press.
Ellis, A. (1962). Reason and emotion in psychotherapy. New York: Lyle Stuart.
Erickson, E. H. (1950). Childhood and Society. New York: Norton
Meyendorff, J. (1974). Byzantine Theology. New York: Fordham University.
Morelli, G. (2001). Response to Faros In J. Chirban (Ed), Sickness or Sin? Spiritual discernment and differential diagnosis. Brookline, MA: Holy Cross Orthodox Press.
Morelli, G. (2004). Christian Asceticism and Cognitive Behavioral Psychology. In S. Muse (Ed.), Raising Lazarus: Integrating Healing in Orthodox Christianity. Brookline, MA: Holy Cross Orthodox Press.
Staniloae, D. (2003). Orthodox Spirituality. South Canaan, PA: St. Tikhon's Seminary Press.
Stapakis, B.S. (2004). The Philokalia: Master reference guide. Minneapolis: Light & Life.
Stravinskas, P. M. J. (1991). The Catholic Encyclopedia. Huntington, IN: Our Sunday Visitor
Vlachos, Bishop Hierotheos, (1994). Orthodox psychotherapy: The science of the fathers. Levadia, Greece: Birth of the Theotokos Monastery.
Ware, T. (1984). The Orthodox Church. London: Penguin.

Article link: http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/articles6/MorelliGuilt.php

http://www.antiochian.org/1141352351