Differences in Eastern Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism

[azerty]

Of course there is “original sin”, they just call it differently. (And btw St Maximus the Confessor had a vision of nature even more pessimistic than St Augustin.)
This is the problem i have with orthodoxes, they are like “because this is latin we will call it differently”"

 

[Marybeloved]

The problem here is I’m reasoning using the Eastern Praxis. You’re reasoning with the Western. In the East there is no original sin. The nature of man and all of creation was altered by the sin of Adam. Therefore all who enter this world are part of that nature. Mary and Christ included. That is why Christ brought his perfect nature to combine with our nature so that we may be restored to what God intended us to be, His image and likeness.

I’m sure you’re a bit off here- Easterners believe in the ancestral sin- They believe that our very nature is fallen, not just that the world around us is fallen (A Jewish concept)- They also believe that Christ’s nature was NOT fallen- That it was what human nature is supposed to be (unaffected by the fall)- So I’m not an expert in Eastern thinking, but I know that they believe that all human nature is fallen by the consequences of Adam’s sin except Christ’s human nature. To believe otherwise is heresy, Western or Eastern Christian!

Q:Are you saying that man does not have a fallen human nature? That is, a tendency to sin or what St. Paul calls the old man or the law of the members?
Q:Are you saying that Jesus suffered from these same defects in his own human nature?
Q:If Yes to any of the above or both, are you saying that this is Eastern Orthodox and Eastern Catholic belief?

 

[Swiss_Guy]

I’m confused when people are saying original sin “changed” our nature. That sounds a lot like Lutheranism. I thought that our nature is good because we are created in the image of God, but because of original sin, we are deprived of sanctifying grace, and therefore our nature is “wounded”.

 

[truthsave]

I’m confused when people are saying original sin “changed” our nature. That sounds a lot like Lutheranism. I thought that our nature is good because we are created in the image of God, but because of original sin, we are deprived of sanctifying grace, and therefore our nature is “wounded”.

I would describe it as a changement of state.
I liked a lot a passage I have red in the Orthodox cathechism where is written that death is the consequence of the fall but also its remedy against the evil. It avoyd evil to become eternal. For this reason the access to the paradise had been blocked: The first man and woman already had eaten fro the tree of the knowledge of the good and the evil, and if thry would have gotalso a fruit fro the trhee of life the evilwould be eternal.

 

[Marybeloved]

I’m confused when people are saying original sin “changed” our nature. That sounds a lot like Lutheranism. I thought that our nature is good because we are created in the image of God, but because of original sin, we are deprived of sanctifying grace, and therefore our nature is “wounded”.

Original sin affected us in many ways- You’re right about the loss of grace- That is the hole/lack that Catholics name “the stain of original sin” which is taken away at baptism, when we are infused with sanctifying grace and gain a communion with the Blessed Trinity, now living in our souls. It’s what Catholics believe happened to Mary at conception who was made full of grace, I suppose you could call it a one of a kind, special “baptism” instituted only for her in view of Christ’s merits (I think of it as a loan of sanctifying grace from God, to be paid for by Christ’s sacrifice yet to come)

But original sin did more than this- The evidence is in Saint Paul’s complaint about the law of sin in his nature at a point when he was obviously in the state of sanctifying grace, and free of “the stain of original sin”. Adam was not made with a tendency to evil or selfishness in his will- He had only a tendency to good; Neither was he ruled by his passions, they perfectly obeyed his reason and will, so he suffered from no attachments to the flesh, the world etc- These are effects of original sin that do not constitute the stain of original sin discussed above, but are also realities in our nature. These effects in our very nature remain long after we are baptized and have been following Christ. They are the reason why we still sin when we don’t really want to sometimes, why we have to struggle against ourselves, the flesh, the world, even the Devil (who through these weaknesses in us has gained a manipulative power over us) even when we are living in Grace.

None of these belonged to man’s nature as he was created by God originally, so our very nature is not as it was, it’s fallen, though still good- crippled, but not totally corrupted, which is why it’s redeemable. Catholics believe that Mary was filled with Grace to the point that affected her entire nature, so that the flesh that she passed on to Christ was totally integral, like Adam & Eve before the fall. Ours takes stages of grace working in us to get to what happened in Mary.

 

[Swiss_Guy]

Original sin affected us in many ways- You’re right about the loss of grace- That is the hole/lack that Catholics name “the stain of original sin” which is taken away at baptism, when we are infused with sanctifying grace and gain a communion with the Blessed Trinity, now living in our souls. It’s what Catholics believe happened to Mary at conception who was made full of grace, I suppose you could call it a one of a kind, special “baptism” instituted only for her in view of Christ’s merits (I think of it as a loan of sanctifying grace from God, to be paid for by Christ’s sacrifice yet to come)

But original sin did more than this- The evidence is in Saint Paul’s complaint about the law of sin in his nature at a point when he was obviously in the state of sanctifying grace, and free of “the stain of original sin”. Adam was not made with a tendency to evil or selfishness in his will- He had only a tendency to good; Neither was he ruled by his passions, they perfectly obeyed his reason and will, so he suffered from no attachments to the flesh, the world etc- These are effects of original sin that do not constitute the stain of original sin discussed above, but are also realities in our nature. These effects in our very nature remain long after we are baptized and have been following Christ. They are the reason why we still sin when we don’t really want to sometimes, why we have to struggle against ourselves, the flesh, the world, even the Devil (who through these weaknesses in us has gained a manipulative power over us) even when we are living in Grace.

None of these belonged to man’s nature as he was created by God originally, so our very nature is not as it was, it’s fallen, though still good- crippled, but not totally corrupted, which is why it’s redeemable. Catholics believe that Mary was filled with Grace to the point that affected her entire nature, so that the flesh that she passed on to Christ was totally integral, like Adam & Eve before the fall. Ours takes stages of grace working in us to get to what happened in Mary.

Ok Good.

This is what I believe, but from earlier discussion it seemed like you and Constantine were saying that Christ’s nature was different, which would mean he wasn’t human. I got confused for a sec.