I went to a Roman Catholic Pontifical University to study within a program devoted to Eastern Christian Studies. While most of my professors (who were 99% of the time priests) were Eastern Catholics (I did have a few Orthdox ones), ancestral sin was always presented as the position of the East, and the concept of original sin was always presented as being incompatible with it. I would, therefore, say that many Eastern Catholics agree more with the doctrine of ancestral sin, especially since these people often considered themselves to be “Orthodox in unity with the Pope.”
From what I remember learning in my courses, years ago, the East believes that we have inherited the fallen death-nature and death-reality from Adam (the condition of mortality), but individuals after Adam do not bear, in any way, any of Adam’s guilt in his own sin. They also rejected the idea of a “macula” or stain present on each human being’s soul that is to be washed away by Baptism. The understanding of the East, on the matter, goes much further than this, however, because the manner in which it explains the Faith is, I guess the best word would be, all-encompassing or holistic (every part of the Faith is related to every other part of the Faith). The West, it is argued, took a more systematic approach (there’s dogmatic theology, mariology, pneumatology, Christology, pastoral theology, etc). The East never makes these distinctions or divisions…it’s all the same reality, all inter-related.
I think the question underlying the distinction between original sin and ancestral sin is why a non-saved person, upon complete death, cannot go to Heaven. Original sin, from what I remember, answers that this is because that non-saved person bears the guilt of Adam’s sin. Ancestral sin would answer differently, arguing that that non-saved person cannot inherit the Kingdom of Heaven Triumphant because he cannot be anything other than what he was, a corruptible, fallen, death-filled man, and, therefore, must proceed only further according to his own death-nature even further away from God.
Regardless, I’m pretty sure that the Roman Catholic Church takes a more softened original sin approach in comparison to the earlier more extreme Augustinian position.
Concerning whether the non-Baptized have a “window of light” in them, I remember that we danced around the topic, not using that language of course, always around the understanding that God is everywhere present and immanent in all things, through his Energies. The conclusion that I personally reached in the manner was that God’s Grace, which is his Life-giving Presence, is in all things, and in all non-Baptized people, but is “locked-up” away from us, so to speak, because of what Adam, as our original head, chose.
I hope this helps.
of knowing, which ones on Vico’s list you don’t hold to, Axios? 