Difference between the Augustinian/Aquinan view of Original sin, and eastern view?

[Formosus]

Could someone who understands the issue very well please explain the primary differences between the Western view of Original sin and the Eastern view of Original sin?

 

[jimmy]

Could someone who understands the issue very well please explain the primary differences between the Western view of Original sin and the Eastern view of Original sin?

Thomas had a different view than Augustine. Thomas viewed Original Sin as the loss of Original holyness or the loss of original justice. Augustine had a more substantial understanding of Original Sin. According to Augustine it would have been more similar to an actual sin. Both of them taught that it led to the loss of the beatific vision. That is why they would have said that a child does not go to heaven.

The east says they do not believe in Original Sin. THey say original sin is just an attachment to sin. But I think that they would say that it leads to the loss of the beatific vision so really I do not know what the difference is between the two.

 

[Genesis315]

I don’t think it’s possible to say Baptism (or at least the desire for it) is necessary for salvation unless one acknowledges Original Sin as taught by the Catholic Church.

Orthodox baptise babies and believe it makes them members of the Church–members of the Body of Christ. There has to be a difference then of the situation of one united to the Body and one not. That difference when one has never been joined is original sin.

Likewise, it seems that at the previous councils that were attempts at reunion (Lyons II and Florence), Original Sin was not a controverted issue (unlike papal authority, purgatory, and the Filioque clause).

 

[Ghosty]

Could someone who understands the issue very well please explain the primary differences between the Western view of Original sin and the Eastern view of Original sin?

As Jimmy points out, Aquinas and Augustine had notably different views of Original Sin. Augustine’s view influenced Aquinas a little bit, as it influenced all Latins, but ultimately the core of it was rejected, and not just by Aquinas.

St. Augustine’s view is often called “massa damnata”, which is that humanity is a damned mass by nature following the Fall, and God saves some to show forth His Glory. The Fall so corrupted us that we’re personally evil, and must be remade by God through Grace.

St. Thomas Aquinas’ view was that our human nature is deprived of Original Justice, the Grace which balanced our nature, and that this absence of Grace is Original Sin. This absence leads to a corruption of our nature, including an inclination to personal sin. We’re not a damned mass in the sense of being personally evil by nature, but humanity is damned because 1 ) it naturally falls into corruption without Grace, and 2 ) the absence of Grace is the spiritual absence of the Life of God, which is needed for Glory.

The Latin tradition has favored Aquinas’ view, even going so far as to use it to define Original Sin at the Council of Trent and in the Roman Catechism and the Catechism of the Catholic Church. St. Augustine’s view is permitted in a moderate form, but the extremes of it that led to Calvinism and Jansenism are explicitly forbidden.

As for the Eastern view, you’ll find a lot of different answers here. I’ll leave them to those with a more vested interest in the potential food fight that might erupt

Peace and God bless!

 

[chrysostom15]

The primary difference is that the Western view is more defined, and the Eastern view is more mystical.

 

[The_Augustinian]

For an accurate presentation of Orthodox theology, I recommend the sites Energetic Procession and the late Bishop Alexander’s website.

I was going to say something about the ancestral sin, but it is not my place to do so; I leave it to my elder brothers in the faith to continue the discussion. Nevertheless, I’ll have to add one thing: to claim that Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism share the same view on Original Sin is wishful thinking.