Eastern Catholic view of Original Sin

[Luvs2Learn]

Hi folks,
I have a question. Do the Eastern or more specifically “Byzintine” Catholics view Original sin as we Roman Catholics do or as Eastern Orthodox do? and can you explain the difference.

 

[Luvs2Learn]

oh, and also, is there a Cathechism of the “Eastern Catholic” church" I understand they have their own cannons, that compliment the Latin ones.

 

[militantsparrow]

Hi folks,
I have a question. Do the Eastern or more specifically “Byzintine” Catholics view Original sin as we Roman Catholics do or as Eastern Orthodox do? and can you explain the difference.

Thank you for asking this. I was wondering the same thing myself.

 

[Cluny]

oh, and also, is there a Cathechism of the “Eastern Catholic” church" I understand they have their own cannons, that compliment the Latin ones.

The Ukrainian Catholic Church is publishing a Catechism called CHRIST OUR PASCHA.

I don’t know if it is available in English yet.

 

[mardukm]

Dear Luvs2Learn,

Hi folks,
I have a question. Do the Eastern or more specifically “Byzintine” Catholics view Original sin as we Roman Catholics do or as Eastern Orthodox do? and can you explain the difference.

The Oriental understanding of original sin is practically identical to the Western understanding, and I have had occasion to discuss this difference when I was not yet in the Catholic communion. So I hope you don’t mind my (name removed by moderator)ut in this thread.

There are three main distinctions between the EO concept of Original Sin (popularly termed “Ancestral Sin” by the Easterns) and the OO/Latin concept of original sin.

First, the OO/Latin concept asserts that the loss of Original Justice is an inherent and important aspect of Original Sin. The Byzantine concept either downplays this aspect or neglects it completely.

Second, the OO/Latin concept understands that the primary consequence of Original Sin is spiritual death or separation from God. The Byzantine concept understands physical death and corruptibility as the primary consequence of Original Sin.

Third, in close relation to the second, the Byzantine concept views physical death/corruptibility as a curse brought on by the sin of the first parents. In the OO/Latin concept, death is merely inherent in human nature (i.e., God made Adam and Eve naturally mortal, and were immortal by Grace, a Grace which was lost by the sin of our first parents). This latter distinction is even more profound in the Syrian Tradition (e.g. St. Ephrem et al) where physical death is rather viewed in a positive sense as a doorway to immortality.

Now, these distinctions are not hard and fast. There are some even within EO’xy who understand that these distinctions did not occur before the 19th century, and that before that, everyone shared the same basic understanding of Original Sin. Since the Eastern Catholic Churches came into communion with the Latin Catholic Church beginning in the 16th century, I assume that the more primordial understanding still exists within Eastern Catholicism, though the newer understanding is certainly present as well.

These distinctions are not considered divisive within Catholicism. The distinctions are viewed merely as emphases on different aspects of the same topic of Original Sin.

To be clear, I am not a Byzantine Eastern, but a Coptic Oriental, so if I have misrepresented the Byzantine position, I am open to correction.

I hope that helps

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Luvs2Learn]

I’m still a bit confused?? Is the Eastern Catholic view in step with the Latin view or the Orthodox view? is this a stumbling point for the Orthodox church and for the Catholic church with regards to full communion with each other? I guess what I’m trying to find out is does the Catholic church view the Orthodox position as false or is their view accepted and shared along with the Easter Catholic brethren?

 

[Formosus]

Dear Luvs2Learn,

Now, these distinctions are not hard and fast. There are some even within EO’xy who understand that these distinctions did not occur before the 19th century, and that before that, everyone shared the same basic understanding of Original Sin. Since the Eastern Catholic Churches came into communion with the Latin Catholic Church beginning in the 16th century, I assume that the more primordial understanding still exists within Eastern Catholicism, though the newer understanding is certainly present as well.

"DECREE VI

We believe the first man created by God to have fallen in Paradise, when, disregarding the Divine commandment, he yielded to the deceitful counsel of the serpent. And hence hereditary sin flowed to his posterity; so that none is born after the flesh who beareth not this burden, and experienceth not the fruits thereof in this present world. But by these fruits and this burden we do not understand [actual] sin, such as impiety, blasphemy, murder, sodomy, adultery, fornication, enmity, and whatsoever else is by our depraved choice committed contrarily to the Divine Will, not from nature; for many both of the Forefathers and of the Prophets, and vast numbers of others, as well of those under the shadow [of the Law], as under the truth [of the Gospel], such as the divine Precursor, and especially the Mother of God the Word, the ever-virgin Mary, experienced not these, or such like faults; but only what the Divine Justice inflicted upon man as a punishment for the [original] transgression, such as sweats in labour, afflictions, bodily sicknesses, pains in child-bearing, and, in fine, while on our pilgrimage, to live a laborious life, and lastly, bodily death." - Synod of Jerusalem 1672

It would appear the distinction below occured well before the 19th century.

Second, the OO/Latin concept understands that the primary consequence of Original Sin is spiritual death or separation from God. The Byzantine concept understands physical death and corruptibility as the primary consequence of Original Sin.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Formosus

"DECREE VI

It would appear the distinction below occured well before the 19th century.

I’m sorry I wasn’t clearer. All I meant was that the distinciton was not used as a polemic against the Catholic Church until the 19th century. For certainly, the Catholic Church admitted those same physical consequences resulted from Original Sin in the Decrees of Trent against the Protestants. Perhaps it was the Dogma of the IC that inspired the polemic use of the distinction.

As stated, these distinctions are not regarded as divisive within Catholicism, but EO generally (though certainly not all) do see the distinction as divisive.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Luvs2Learn]

I have scrolled this site a bit and tried to find other responses to this question. Does anyone know of any specific sources that I can use to research this further? (not wikkipedia please).

 

[mardukm]

Try this one:

razilazenje.blogspot.com/2006/12/ancestral-vs-original-sin-false.html

Blessings

 

[mardukm]

I’m still a bit confused?? Is the Eastern Catholic view in step with the Latin view or the Orthodox view? is this a stumbling point for the Orthodox church and for the Catholic church with regards to full communion with each other? I guess what I’m trying to find out is does the Catholic church view the Orthodox position as false or is their view accepted and shared along with the Easter Catholic brethren?

In summary:

1. The Catholic Church does not view the Orthodox position on Original Sin as false.
2. Some Eastern Orthodox may view the Latin Catholic position as false.
3. Catholic apologists see this latter view as a matter of misunderstanding the Latin Catholic position.

The misunderstanding rests in this: some EO think that the Latin Church teaches that we inherit the actual personal guilt of Adam. As a Latin, you should already know that this is not what the Latin Catholic Church teaches.

Blessings

 

[Luvs2Learn]

In summary:

1. The Catholic Church does not view the Orthodox position on Original Sin as false.

is this statement supported by the Pope or can I find that on the Vatican website or somewhere authorative?

 

[gamesport]

Luvs2Learn

here is a link that you might find interesting:

pontifications.wordpress.com/original-sin/

 

[Luvs2Learn]

thanks for the interesting links. I was wondering if there are any"official" statements issued or anything like that saying “original sin” is not an obstacal to full reunion with the easteren orthodox. I thought I read somewhere but can not find where that the Latin view and eastern differing view were always different even when the 2 sides where unified. but I can’t seem to find where I read that. Any one else familiar ?

 

[mardukm]

thanks for the interesting links. I was wondering if there are any"official" statements issued or anything like that saying “original sin” is not an obstacal to full reunion with the easteren orthodox.

The proof is in the pudding. Why do you think there are Eastern Catholic Churches?

I thought I read somewhere but can not find where that the Latin view and eastern differing view were always different even when the 2 sides where unified. but I can’t seem to find where I read that. Any one else familiar ?

Whoever said that would need to offer proof that the topic of Original Sin was ever a matter of debate among the Easterns and Westerns in the first millenium. I’m open to correction, but no such debate existed in those days. As stated earlier, the use of this distinction as a cause for separation did not come about until the 19th century, perhaps due to the dogmatization of the IC.

Blessings

 

[Luvs2Learn]

I was told by an RC apologist (not one from CAF) that the Eastern catholic define “Original sin” the same as the Latin. and that the Eastern Orthodox view is heretical. I don’t agree. and am trying to find supporting evidence of this with in cannons or vatican documents etc, etc.

 

[Ghosty]

I was told by an RC apologist (not one from CAF) that the Eastern catholic define “Original sin” the same as the Latin. and that the Eastern Orthodox view is heretical. I don’t agree. and am trying to find supporting evidence of this with in cannons or vatican documents etc, etc.

You won’t find any documents that specifically “don’t condemn” the Eastern Orthodox on this matter. Or, to put it another way, you will only find documents that don’t condemn. You won’t find anything addressing this matter because there is no matter to address; this other person should provide some kind of official support for his statement first.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Merrick]

I am trying to follow along and read the links posted here. I have also read about this in the Catechism of the Catholic Church and want to make sure I understand correctly. So when we were born in original sin, we did not share in Adam’s personal fault, but an inclination to sin?

Does this mean that Mary as the Immaculate Conception was born without an inclination to sin? Could she be tempted by the devil without original sin like Jesus was?

 

[Zekariya]

We believe that we inherit death: physical and spiritual. The Mother of God did not give into temptation just as Christ did not. In the East, we do not teach that man cannot have grace because of the fall, therefore, we have no need to teach the immaculate conception.

 

[Anthony86]

We believe that we inherit death: physical and spiritual. The Mother of God did not give into temptation just as Christ did not. In the East, we do not teach that man cannot have grace because of the fall, therefore, we have no need to teach the immaculate conception.

What’s the difference between inheriting spiritual death and being born lacking grace? If the East were to understand the Immaculate Conception as teaching that Mary was conceived in a state of spiritual life, how would that be different from Latins teaching she was conceived in a state of grace?