A THESIS ON THE CONCEPT OF HEREDITARY SIN

[MCVDK 1583]

[x]

 

A THESIS ON THE CONCEPT OF HEREDITARY SIN

Thesis de Conceptu Peccati Haereditarii

 

 

AUTHORED BY ACOLYTE CYRUS OF RUDR

( @MCVDK )

 

 

---

 

i. AUTHOR’S NOTE

“Nobody ever outgrows Scripture; the book widens and deepens with our years,” Bl. Father Fabien the Lesser 

 

Please note, prior to the perusal of the thesis below, that the concepts and ideas described hereunder remain fallible interpretations (both of the Holy Scrolls as well as the altogether catechism of the Church) of my own and do not constitute scripture nor principle of the Church of the Canon. 

 

Furthermore, the contents hereunder are not in the conceptualisation of heresy, but in the ethos of discussion and discernment of the Holy Scrolls and our churchly principles. It is a vivid hypothesis that the known scripture, on which our belief has been constructed, calls for constant and continuous interpretation to further the thoughts and beliefs of the flock. We must openly and courteously discuss concepts that hold justification displayed in the scripture to ensure the furtherment of faith and growth of our devotional beliefs.   

 

In the id of the above, I do conceptualise the subsequent ideas.

 

ii. INTRODUCTION

Sin and sinful men have existed since the early rise of the Church. It is a concept known to most of clerical status as well as those of layman thought. And yet, (in the perspective of this author) a vast majority of our Church have simplified the ideas of sin and strayed from the ideas introduced in the Scrolls. 

 

It is the aim of this thesis to clarify various forms of sin, both as found in the modern Church as well as the attested concept found in the Scrolls, to allow the Church as a whole to further understand the concept of sin and the nature of the sinful man; wherefrom this author hankers that the Church might reevaluate its perspective on sin and the sin of the flock as a whole.  

 

iii. TO DEFINE: CONCEPTS OF SIN

To properly discuss the concept of sin, (or rather the concepts of sin) there must first be defined terms applicable to the various forms of sins. And it is vital to understand each form of conceptualised sin, for each concept remains as important to the discussion as the next. 

 

(VIROSI SIN)

One of the earliest concepts of sin officially described by the Church (as found in record by this author, though there remains room for this to be corrected) is the idea of Virosi sin (or simply the sin of man) dubbed as such due to its earliest appearance official appearance in the ‘Catechism of the Canonist Church’ by the then-Cardinal Fabien the Lesser and promulgated by the then-High Pontiff Daniel VI. Virosi sin can be defined as; 

an individual person actively taking an action which constitutes or results in breach of the moral laws set forth by the Scroll of Virtue.

    

(HORENI SIN)

Alternatively, as is the intention of this thesis, I propose the concept of Horeni sin (or simply hereditary sin) which constitutes the idea that each man and woman is born sinful as a result of the earliest of sins denoted amongst the Scrolls and mythos of the Church. We inherit the sin of Horen (which reasons the name) as sons and daughters of his ilk. Therefore Horeni sin can be defined as: 

    the presence of sin at the mere birth of man.

 

iv. THEOLOGICAL INFERENCE

(VIROSI SIN)

While the document of Catechism does not directly define the concept of sin, it mentions that: “The Scroll of Virtue is a set of moral laws delivered by God to Exalted Horen. These moral laws reflect the will of God, which must be obeyed by all sapient creatures.” (Catechism of the Canonist Church, Introduction: What is the Scroll of Virtue? What does it mean to be virtuous?, Bl. Father Fabien the Lesser) which (to all knowledge of religious principles and social concept) displays the ideas of virtue and in turn of sin; for it is by breaching the laws of virtue, that a man becomes sinful.  

 

Meanwhile the above also introduces one word which highlights and defines the concept of Virosi sin in its purest form. “[...] which must be obeyed by all sapient creatures.” (IBID) Obeyed displays a clear thought behind the concept: Obeyed stems from the root word ‘to obey’ which constitutes an action, a verb, and furthermore stems from the Flexio ‘obedire’ which literally translates (as far as this author is aware) to ‘listen to’ which also constitutes an action, once more a verb. Whereas to be faithful is to obey, and the notion above by no means deem obedience a sin in itself, the word utilised in the description of the laws implicates the active choice and action to obey, and therefore also to disobey. One might discard this notion as irrelevant, and yet the singular word showcases the entire concept of the Virosi sin: One must actively take an action which constitutes or results in breach of the moral laws set forth by the Scroll of Virtue. Virosi sin is a chosen action by the individual person of faith. 

 

Another example of the concept of Virosi sin is found in the document labeled as ‘Dogma and Principles of the Church’ by an unknown author. Herein the author puts forth the idea of repentance (an action taken after a sinful one) wherein it is described that: “In religious contexts it usually refers to confession to God, ceasing sin against God in order to gain forgiveness or absolution. It typically includes an admission of guilt, [...]” (Dogma and Principles of the Church, The Dogmatic Tenets: Mercy of the Creator, author unknown) and once more the focus is set onto specific words of this author's thoughts. Firstly “[...] ceasing sin against God [...]” (IBID) which is the present participle of ‘to cease’, another verb; an action taken. Secondly “[...] admission of guilt, [...]” (IBID) which stems from the Flexio ‘admissionem’ which translates roughly to ‘a letting in’ which once more describes present participle of the action ‘to let [in]’. 

 

As such it becomes evident once multiple accounts of the modern understanding of sin, of which I have dubbed Virosi sin, that the description of these sins are active in nature. Words used to describe the concept of sin are verbs, actions taken by the individual man, and so are the words used to describe the removal of sin. Virosi sin is a chosen action by the individual person of faith. 

 

(HORENI SIN)

Horeni sin heavily relies on the clear understanding of the first sin of Iblees the Denier. The Scroll of Gospel reads unto us: 

“14 But among all the Daemons, the chiefest was Iblees, and he was very proud to reign over his kind. 15 And he doubted GOD’s strength, for it was given to the Daemons to rule what is not. 16 And Iblees desired to rule without the Lord. 

17 So he descended the emanations of glory, and drew farther from GOD, until he reached the Void. 18 And lo, he was cursed by its touch. 19 And GOD was wroth. 

20 For when GOD bore witness to the bounty of His Immortals, He was pleased. 21 But when He saw the bounty of Iblees, which was sin, He was wroth with the Daemon. 22 And He spoke to Iblees ‘Why have you done that which I have forbidden?’ 

23 And Iblees replied ‘For you name us as servants, and I shall devise of no virtue until I am your equal. 24 And now my touch is the touch of the Void, and it is with all things in your creation.’” (Gospel 1:14-24)

 

It is evident through the above that the first sin of Iblees the Denier was the distance from God. Iblees The Denier drew away from God and so the virtue of Iblees perished and the Void began to influence the Denier. In a very similar way the Scroll of Gospel describes: “14 But like Iblees, Horen also felt the separation of GOD from man.” (IBID 2:14) which shows the fallibility of Horen, his imperfection as mentioned earlier in the Scrolls, and therefore an evident ability to sin. This fallibility of the brothers is further shown later in the Scrolls: “64 All were overcome with the desire to sin, and they feared to falter.” (IBID 2:64). On top of this, it was the people of Horen, and therefore by extension Horen, who first fell to the wickedness of Iblees the Denier: 

“28 It came that one of Horen’s people, a man called Saul, had ignored the warning of Julia and left the camp. 29 He wandered into the iniquity which Iblees wrought and coveted the gold and sweet food, and he spoke at length with the Denier.

    30 Iblees was cunning and guised Saul with the appearance of Horen, and sent him into the camp of his folk with a message.

    31 Saul went among the people of Horen in his guise, and he began to work Iblees’ iniquity.

[...]

33 Thus Saul worked Iblees’ iniquity in Horen’s camp, and it came that a great many there were corrupted.” (IBID 2:28-31,33)

 

In the knowledge of Horen’s, as well as his peoples’, ability to sin, we can derive from the Scrolls, as shown earlier, that Horen had been close to the sinful throghouta vast majority of his time in the Scrolls. This is firstly accounted for in his emerging distance from God, which Horen nonetheless fixed shortly afterwards, and secondly by extension of his people murdering one another after falling into the hands of Iblees’ the Deniers’ wickedness. And knowing this, as well as carrying the belief of Horens earlier sin(s), the Scroll of Spirit mentions that: “11 Even in our time we bear the failure of Horen, for the corruption of Iblees lasts.” (Spirit 1:11) and so (this author believes) an evident indication of the hereditary nature of the sin of Horen is shown. 

 

However, one might argue the above merely refers to the curse cast onto Horen (akin to his brothers) by Iblees the Denier. Whereas this could be true, there are two aspects which persuades this author towards the belief of Horeni sin. Firstly, and more simply, if the curse was cast onto Horen as mentioned in the ‘Book of Availer’ (please refer to the ‘Thesis on the Theological Importance of the Book of Availer’ as this author believes the work of the late Fr. Ailred proves the relevance of its reference in relation to this thesis): “Horen, you wish immortality? I will curse you with the opposite, early death for you and your kin. You shall age quickly and die before you experience the fruits of your useless labour.” (Book of Availer) then for which reasons would God deem it “[...] the failure of Horen, [...]” (Spirit 1:11) rather than merely the curse of Horen? Secondly, the Scroll of Gospel states: “69 But at the command of GOD, Aeriel did not alleviate Horen’s pain, which was his mortality.” (Gospel 2:69) which (in the belief of this author) showcases the intention of God for Horen to remain marked by the curse of Iblees, perhaps (and this remains mere speculation) as a punishment for the sins discussed earlier. 

 

God, one way or another, clearly shows through the Scrolls of Spirit and Gospel, that the sons of Horen have inherited his failure (interpreted by this author as his sins) and yet intentionally allowed for the so-called failure to continue, whereas the others were alleviated of the pain.

 

v. CONCLUSION

It is in the understanding of the above ideas, that this author has been led to believe (through the process of the creation of this thesis) that the concept of sin is currently understood by a majority of the Church (that of the Virosi sin) is a faulty understanding of the true scale of sin as intended by God. 

 

It is reasonable to believe that Virosi sin and Horeni sin play into one another. We are born with sin as a result of Horen, that is the concept of Horeni sin, and to alleviate ourselves of the sin of our forefathers, we must seek repentance within the Church. However if a man breaches the laws of the Scroll of Virtue, he is a sinful man and has chosen to commit a sinful action. One can be born in sin, and therefore attempt to alleviate oneself of sin through the Church, and yet still choose to sin through actions of their own. 

 

---

[argonian 12838]

"Our own mortality, the premature passing of our parents, reminds us of our sin. Likewise, the elves would never have suffered infertility, the dwarves greed, nor the orcs bloodlust, had our Fathers obeyed God's Virtue. To deny that these sins and their effects have passed down to us would be to deny that a man dies young. To any such naysayer, I say, remind me of my foolishness when either of us reach our three-hundredth birthday. It ought be easy, if Iblees' curse died with our Father Horen," Stanimar remarks.

[Lojo613 1420]

1 hour ago, argonian said:

"Our own mortality, the premature passing of our parents, reminds us of our sin. Likewise, the elves would never have suffered infertility, the dwarves greed, nor the orcs bloodlust, had our Fathers obeyed God's Virtue. To deny that these sins and their effects have passed down to us would be to deny that a man dies young. To any such naysayer, I say, remind me of my foolishness when either of us reach our three-hundredth birthday. It ought be easy, if Iblees' curse died with our Father Horen," Stanimar remarks.

“JA-Rv1-Z” Father Stor spoke to his Automaton assistant. “Remind me in 220 years to comment on Stanimar’s foolishness during his 300th birthday. Oh, and to get him a cake.” The lector returned to reading conspiracy theories about King Fredrick and Sutican lizard men.

Spoiler

 

[argonian 12838]

Just now, Lojo613 said:

“JA-Rv1-Z” Father Stor spoke to his Automaton assistant. “Remind me in 220 years to comment on Stanimar’s foolishness during his 300th birthday. Oh, and to get him a cake.” The lector returned to reading conspiracy theories about King Fredrick and Sutican lizard men.

  Hide contents

 

Stanimar lives in fear of the Lector who discovered Klones and therefore eternal life, but he will nevertheless be dead by the time the Lector is ready to dunk on him, so it's whatever, really.

[Petsch2k 1097]

[!] It was a cloudy day in Vienne, the civil war was reaching it's peak and soon a major battle will unfold.

 

Petch von Minitz found himself walking the streets to Vienne, he'd rarely come to the capital as he felt safer and more at home in the humble lands of Minitz. So why is Petsch in Vienne? To go pray in the church of Vienne of course. He was practicing sounding out the words from a prayer book a priest gave him one day. He thought he'd pray for men about to do battle, he'd wanted to pray for Minitz, he wanted his brothers, his Chieftain, his Lord to be safe under GOD's protection. 

 

Before he entered he'd dip his right hand into the holy water font next to the entrance and signed the Lorraine. As he entered he noticed a board of papers nailed to it, one caught his eye as he read "Concept of. . . Sin" he smiled proudly as he sounded out three words. He then took the thesis and folded it into his uniform to read later. He continued to walk down before taking a seat and began praying.