Adams sin and also atonement

[Maragal]

Do eastern catholics in communion with the west believe in inherited sin? Also, what are the views of the atonement? As a Catholic of the western rite, can I hold eastern theology?

Thanks!!!

 

[Vico]

Do eastern catholics in communion with the west believe in inherited sin? Also, what are the views of the atonement? As a Catholic of the western rite, can I hold eastern theology?

Thanks!!!

Yes, Catechism of the Ukrainian Catholic Church - Christ - Our Pascha

148 … As a consequence of the Fall, that is of the sin of the first parents (original sin) , humankind lost Paradise. …

442 … “You know that you were ransomed from the futile ways inherited from your ancestors, not with perishable things like silver or gold, but with the precious blood of Christ, like that of a lamb without defect or blemish.” (1 Pet 1: 18, 19)

A faithful Catholic can holy any theology that is not in conflict with the assent of faith and to the magisterium.

 

[Maragal]

Thanks so much! Ill be honest Im very drawn to the orthodox understanding of Adams sin and atonement. I wasnt sure if the Eastern Catholics held to a more Orthodox understanding or a more western understanding. It seems from what you posted the issue of Adam is more in line with Orthodox? (No mention of inherited sin)

 

[Phillip_Rolfes]

It depends on what you mean by “inherited sin.”

The biggest problem that the Orthodox have with the idea of “original sin” is the notion of inherited guilt (as if I as an individual am at fault for Adam’s sin). This, of course, is a misunderstanding of the Western teaching of inherited guilt - the Catechism of the Catholic Church points this out quite explicitly, although I’m at a loss for the exact reference as I’m not at home and don’t have a Catechism on hand right now.

The general Eastern understanding is that we don’t inherit the fault or guilt for Adam’s sin, but we do inherit the consequences of that sin - i.e. we inherit fallen human nature or a fallen state.

Not sure what the Eastern view of atonement is. I mean, it’s biblical… But the East doesn’t focus exclusively on Christ’s death as an act of atonement. In fact, there are strains of thought in the East that speculate Christ would’ve become incarnate and died for us even if we hadn’t fallen. Christ’s incarnation and death, from this perspective, is seen as the ultimate act of love, not just/merely an act of atonement. The East, from what I’ve seen, doesn’t reject the idea of atonement, so much as balk at the Western tendency to over-emphasize atonement.

 

[TK421]

As the world has become more globalized the distinction between “eastern” and “western” theology has somewhat diminished anyway, as more and more lay theologians and clergy are reading each other. In the past people used to be far more isolated.

There doesn’t appear to be any critical difference between Original Sin (western term) and Ancestral Sin (eastern term) apart from attempts to describe it. Conventionally, over the generations, eastern churches had a tendency to analogize sin with sickness and western churches tended to analogize sin with crime. They are both right and both wrong because sin is its own unique thing and as human beings we do our best to understand spiritual realities with our limited abilities.

Also, as others have said: the CC doesn’t consider Original Sin to be personal sin. That’s a misunderstanding.

 

[Maragal]

Thank u all for pointing out that misunderstanding about individual/inhereted guilt! I do a lot of theological reading, and run across places that present it that way or seem to anyway! I need to go back to my RC Catechism…

 

[Maragal]

Also - there are some western traditions that definitely believe the incarnation would have happened with or without the fall. Scotus, the fransiscans, many Jesuits. So maybe we all are closer together than its sometimes presented.

 

[Vico]

Thanks so much! Ill be honest Im very drawn to the orthodox understanding of Adams sin and atonement. I wasnt sure if the Eastern Catholics held to a more Orthodox understanding or a more western understanding. It seems from what you posted the issue of Adam is more in line with Orthodox? (No mention of inherited sin)

Also:

147 … The sin of our first parents resulted in severing humankind from God, the Source of life – humankind them became mortal. “As the body becomes a corpse when the soul leaves it destitute of its own vital energy, so also does the soul then becomes a corpse when the Holy Spirit leaves it destitute of spiritual energy.” (St. John Chrysostom, Homilies on Ephesians, 18, 3: PG 62, 124.)

In the same catechism we read of baptism for the grace of salvation:

413 In the Rite of Baptism, the Church prays that “the grace of salvation and the blessing of the Jordan” descend upon the water. We pray that in this baptism, that which was revealed at the river Jordan will be realized now. There, the Father, through the Holy Spirit, declared Jesus to be his beloved Son. That which was manifested in Christ – being the Son of God – becomes the reality of all who are baptized. …

… to you belongs “has now become,” since you do not possess the sonship by nature, but receive it by adoption. He is Son eternally, but you receive that grace by advancement.

 

[dochawk]

. I wasnt sure if the Eastern Catholics held to a more Orthodox understanding or a more western understanding.

It depends upon the particular EC.

The most common I’ve seen for EC is the same as EO–we inherit the fallen state, but not an individual “smudge” (to avoid the dispute over which technical term) of sin that needs to be forgiven.

It fits in with the other bits on the spectrum: the RCC has more emphasis on the Paschal Sacrifice, and the East on the Resurrection. Both sides are very big on both, but the emphasis is different.

 

[HesyCath]

The biggest problem that the Orthodox have with the idea of “original sin” is the notion of inherited guilt (as if I as an individual am at fault for Adam’s sin). This, of course, is a misunderstanding of the Western teaching of inherited guilt - the Catechism of the Catholic Church points this out quite explicitly, although I’m at a loss for the exact reference as I’m not at home and don’t have a Catechism on hand right now.

Yes. Byzantine Catholics don’t have to believe that we have inherited personal guilt. In fact, we can hold the Orthodox position on “ancestral sin” without being in conflict with any Catholic dogmatic teaching.

Not sure what the Eastern view of atonement is. I mean, it’s biblical… But the East doesn’t focus exclusively on Christ’s death as an act of atonement. In fact, there are strains of thought in the East that speculate Christ would’ve become incarnate and died for us even if we hadn’t fallen. Christ’s incarnation and death, from this perspective, is seen as the ultimate act of love , not just/merely an act of atonement. The East, from what I’ve seen, doesn’t reject the idea of atonement, so much as balk at the Western tendency to over-emphasize atonement.

You are right to say that Christ’s death is first an act of love, and secondarily an act of atonement. The best way to learn the Byzantine teaching on the Crucifixion and death of Christ is to read the liturgical texts from Great Friday:

Kontakion (Plagal of the Fourth Tone):
Come, let us all praise Him Who was crucified for us; for Mary beheld him on the Tree, and said: Though Thou endurest the Cross, yet Thou art my Son and my God.

Troparion (Fourth Tone):
Thou didst ransom us from the curse of the Law by Thy precious Blood. Nailed to the Cross and pierced with the lance, Thou didst pour forth immortality for men. O our Saviour, glory be to Thee.