Could someone help clarify EOs position on original sin

[Vico]

The title says it all, I was doing some reading on Eastern orthodoxy and their position on original sin and i seem confused. Could somebody help clarify for me, does Eastern Orthodox Christians believe in the concept of original sin? If not, why?

Key concept: the west had the second Council of Orange (529 A.D.) that determined that death resulting from the original sin of Adam, was twofold – physical and spiritual. The west expressed that each human is liable (reatus) for a fault (culpa) of Adam. This is a different phrasing than the Orthodox that each human inherits the consequences. Now the Catechism of the Catholic Church states that the inherited original sin is “transmission of a human nature deprived of original holiness and justice” (Catechism 404).

 

[ziapueblo]

I think concept is easy to grasp. Valid Eucharist does not equate unity

The Churches were never in “unity” but rather communion with one another.

Have you read Unitatis Redintegratio and Ut Unum Sint?

ZP

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

Is not communion equal to unity in this regard? Church is One/“Unum”/United as per one of her four marks. At the same time, valid Eucharist does not equate communion either.

 

[Isaac14]

Is not communion equal to unity in this regard? Church is One/“Unum”/United as per one of her four marks. At the same time, valid Eucharist does not equate communion either.

In your view, are the Orthodox patriarchates of Alexandria and Antioch one church or two? If they are two, what does that mean with regard to their unity given they are most definitely in communion with each other?

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

I would present them as being in one Church- while heading different parts of one Church (those parts being referred to as Autocephalous Churches) they are most definitely in communion and hence, united.

 

[Isaac14]

I would present them as being in one Church- while heading different parts of one Church (those parts being referred to as Autocephalous Churches) they are most definitely in communion and hence, united.

I think this is a good example of how Orthodox and (Latin) Catholics say the same thing in different ways.

I would answer (as I think most orthodox would) they are two churches, while also saying they both individually and collectively are the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. Which is, I think, another way of saying what @ziapueblo is saying.

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

I would answer (as I think most orthodox would) they are two churches, while also saying they both individually and collectively are the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church

Yes, in Orthodox sense this would be Catholic understanding of a “Church of Christ”.

Which is, I think, another way of saying what @ziapueblo is saying.

I disagree. What he calls Church of Christ are things with no communion between each other, including at least Eastern Orthodoxy, Oriental Orthodoxy, Catholic Church (East + West), Sedevacantism, Sedeimpedism, Conclavism, Nestorianism and perhaps some other communions- all of which can actually celebrate Eucharist validly. By that logic, if I go and get ordained Bishop, start my own Church which seriously impedes any theology whatsoever except one needed to validly ordain clergy and celebrate Eucharist, I am part of Church of Christ and at that authentic one. This thinking is seriously flawed as it reeks of indifferentism in the very least. Valid celebration of Eucharist has historically never been grounds for communion with the Bride of Christ.

 

[Isaac14]

Estrangement between two siblings doesn’t change the fact that they are indeed family.

It’s interesting you throw all sorts of groups into the mix that @ziapueblo did not. His point, it seems to me, is that the Orthodox and Catholics, being siblings, are by necessity of one church, even if estranged. And let me be clear when I say this, I am only including canonical groups - not whatever offshoot you want to throw in.

It’s a pretty strong accusation to call Zia (or anyone else here) indifferent. We’re all fully aware, even painfully aware, of the consequences of that break between siblings.

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

It’s interesting you throw all sorts of groups into the mix that @ziapueblo did not.

I supposed he based that on premise that there is valid Eucharist and Apostolic Succession in both Churches. Based on what premise do we exclude Oriental Orthodox while including both Eastern Orthodox and Catholicism?

I am only including canonical groups

Canonical in what sense? I am pretty sure most groups listed above consider themselves canonical.

It’s a pretty strong accusation to call Zia (or anyone else here) indifferent.

Glad I did not do that. I judged action, not the actor.

We’re all fully aware, even painfully aware, of the consequences of that break between siblings.

So neither of you regard Church as already united, practice intercommunion nor do they skip in between Churches? Now I don’t mean visiting another Church with and because of your spouse, of course.

Estrangement between two siblings doesn’t change the fact that they are indeed family.

Except that this is not a parable that could be used. Estrangements between Jews and Christians in first century did not change they are siblings. Are Jews part of the Church now, or were they… or what? If we do use parable of kingdom, those who leave kingdom and separate with the king or his appointees are no longer part of that kingdom.

 

[Isaac14]

I supposed he based that on premise that there is valid Eucharist and Apostolic Succession in both Churches. Based on what premise do we exclude Oriental Orthodox while including both Eastern Orthodox and Catholicism?

I simply wrote “Orthodox and Catholic” while I’m EO and know we’re not in communion with the OO, i include both in my thinking. I realize that wouldn’t be apparent unless you knew me.

Canonical in what sense? I am pretty sure most groups listed above consider themselves canonical.

When I (and most Orthodox) speak of canonical we mean those in communion with the 14 Autocephalous churches. In the context of this thread, canonical Catholics would be those in communion with Rome and I would also include the OO. Although offshoot groups may think of themselves as “canonical” it doesn’t matter if they’re outside of communion with the church they off-shot from.

Glad I did not do that. I judged action, not the actor.

You said Zia’s thinking reeks of indifferentism.

So neither of you regard Church as already united, practice intercommunion nor do they skip in between Churches? Now I don’t mean visiting another Church with and because of your spouse, of course.

I won’t speak for Zia, but for myself, the answer is NO. We’ve been trying to explain the break between churches using certain analogies, not trying to convince you or anyone else that a break doesn’t actually exist.

Except that this is not a parable that could be used. Estrangements between Jews and Christians in first century did not change they are siblings. Are Jews part of the Church now, or were they… or what? If we do use parable of kingdom, those who leave kingdom and separate with the king or his appointees are no longer part of that kingdom.

I wasn’t referring to any parable. I’m simply saying that siblings don’t cease to be siblings even if they refuse to speak to each other. You’re trying to debate me on points I’m not making.

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

You said Zia’s thinking reeks of indifferentism.

I stand behind that. Thinking does to me, not saying he himself is indifferent or that he is not for that matter. I simply said that such line of thought does reek of indifferentism to me.

I won’t speak for Zia, but for myself, the answer is NO.

Alright then.

I wasn’t referring to any parable. I’m simply saying that siblings don’t cease to be siblings even if they refuse to speak to each other. You’re trying to debate me on points I’m not making.

I am debating on fact East and West are not like siblings in this regard, which I called parable.

When I (and most Orthodox) speak of canonical we mean those in communion with the 14 Autocephalous churches. In the context of this thread, canonical Catholics would be those in communion with Rome and I would also include the OO. Although offshoot groups may think of themselves as “canonical” it doesn’t matter if they’re outside of communion with the church they off-shot from.

I see. Though on what grounds do we exclude Nestorians then? If we do actually do base our distinction on “is not regarded as heretical by Catholic Church” then perhaps OO, EO and CC might be distinguished from others. What about Eastern Orthodox Churches not recognized by other Autocephalous Churches? Are they included in Church of Christ? If yes, we need to think of Catholics not recognized by Rome as heretical but not in communion with Rome (such as Sedevacantists) as it would be unfair to exclude them and include Orthodox not in communion with other Eastern Orthodox Churches.

 

[Isaac14]

I am debating on fact East and West are not like siblings in this regard, which I called parable

What, then, would be a better analogy?

Are they included in Church of Christ?

Honestly, I don’t know, and I don’t think it’s relevant to the point that was being made.

 

[twf]

The Catholic Church is the one true Church of Christ. There are literally a few thousand valid, particular Churches in the world. Those particular Churches that are in full communion with Rome are in a “perfect” communion with the Catholic Church. Those that are not are in an imperfect, but still real, communion with the Catholic Church.
As you rightly said, the sacraments cannot exist outside of the Catholic Church… thus the EO and OO must not be completely outside it.

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

What, then, would be a better analogy?

I do not like splitting things solely into East and West, as it is simply not accurate. There were numerous Churches in the East, not just Eastern Orthodox. Traditions are similar in the East, but they are not same. I hold view compatible with tradition of my Church, that Eastern Orthodox Church is compromised of people of good faith who deny Papacy as instituted by Christ, which separates them from full unity with His Church. Notice I am saying they are not in “full” unity- they are in unity in sense which provides them with Sacraments and also in some way protection of Holy Spirit against errors, as their tradition which comes from time when they were Catholic, protects them too. I find division unfortunate yet real, and I hold that Eastern Orthodox who accepts Papacy and Catholic teaching in it’s fullness (again, in Eastern way) is part of Catholic Church and hence Body of Christ. This is my view.