Editing Original sin (section)

=== Reaction of the Church to Augustine ===
Opposition to Augustine's ideas about original sin, which he had developed in reaction to [[Pelagianism]], arose rapidly.{{sfn|Wallace|Rusk|2011|pp=284–285}} After a long and bitter struggle several councils, especially the [[Second Council of Orange]] in 529, confirmed the general principles of Augustine's teaching within Western Christianity.{{sfn|Cross|1966|p=994}} However, while the Western Church condemned Pelagius, it did not endorse Augustine entirely and, while Augustine's authority was accepted, he was interpreted in the light of writers such as [[John Cassian]], who rejected Pelagius but believed that fallen man could still choose to follow God of his own free will, although it is God who guides his progress.{{sfn|González|1987|p=58}} Some of the followers of Augustine identified original sin with [[concupiscence]] in the psychological sense, but [[Anselm of Canterbury]] challenged this identification in the 11th century, defining original sin as "privation of the righteousness that every man ought to possess", thus separating it from concupiscence. In the 12th century the identification of original sin with concupiscence was supported by [[Peter Lombard]] and others,{{sfn|Cross|1966|p=994}} but was rejected by the leading theologians in the next century, most notably by [[Thomas Aquinas]]. Aquinas distinguished the supernatural gifts of Adam before the fall from what was merely natural, and said that it was the former that were lost, privileges that enabled man to keep his inferior powers in submission to reason and directed to his supernatural end. Even after the fall, man thus kept his natural abilities of reason, will and passions.{{sfn|Cross|1966|p=994}} Rigorous Augustine-inspired views persisted among the [[Franciscans]], though the most prominent Franciscan theologians, such as [[Duns Scotus]] and [[William of Ockham]], eliminated the element of concupiscence and identified original sin with the loss of sanctifying grace.{{sfn|Cross|1966|pp=994-995}} Eastern Christian theology has questioned Western Christianity's ideas on original sin from the outset and does not promote the idea of inherited guilt.{{sfn|McGuckin|2010|p=}}

In ''[[Cur Deus Homo]]'', Anselm of Canterbury explained that after the original sin of Adam and Eve, the sacrifice of Christ's passion and death on the cross was necessary for the human race to be restored to the possibility of entering Paradise for eternal life. Indeed, a life of infinite duration required infinite merits of salvation that only the infinitely valuable blood shed by the Lord could purchase.{{sfn|International Theological Commission|1995}} [[Thomas Aquinas]] maintains "that Christ is the head of the Church, and that the grace that he possesses as head is passed on to all the members of the Church because of the organic conjunction that obtains within the Mystical Body." Quoting {{bibleverse|1 John|2:2}}, Aquinas declares that the passion of Christ satisfied superabundantly for the sins of the whole world. The death of Christ was necessary only as a result of God's free decision to redeem humankind in a suitable manner, showing forth both the justice and the mercy of God.{{sfn|International Theological Commission|1995|loc=18}}