Eastern Catholic view of Original Sin

[GaryTaylor]

GaryTaylor,

According to the teachings of Mar Timothy II, a 14th century Patriarch of the Church of the East, a similar question was posited in his treatise on the Holy Mysteries (Sacraments):

If baptism is for the remission of sins why do we baptize infants and children although they do not have sin? In fact, children are brought to baptism although they are without sin ?].

Here is how he responds:

(1) We say: Through the aberration from God men brought down and placed upon their freedom the yoke of servitude of sin. By transgressing the command all the children of Adam became servants of sin like the one who is born of a slave is a slave until he receives emancipation from slavery.

(2) When therefore, the way of God was manifested to men through heavenly light, the wall before them was brought down by their reconciliation with God. And because of their reconciliation with Him they became worthy to be brought for the adoption of sons; because they are freed from their servitude they are worthy of the adoption of sons.

(3) Baptism for the freedom of life is given in the glorious name of the Trinity. Because it is improper that (children) receive the name of the sons of God when they are slaves of sin, they are first set free from the yoke of servitude of sin and then they become worthy of the adoption of sons that they may receive the inheritance of God in their freedom. It is because of this that those who are without sin, like infants and children, are also brought to baptism. The gift for them is not meaningless, because they are born in servitude and they are slaves of the sin of the first man which reigned over all mankind by the transgression of the law (of God). But in baptism they receive their liberation and through the adoption of sons their union takes place. Therefore, we baptize infants although they are without sin, that they be freed from the servitude (of sin) and may become the sons of God.

Taken from Mysteries of the Kingdom: The Sacraments of the Assyrian Church of the East by Bishop Mar Awa Royel, pages 149-150.

God bless,

Rony

Beautiful Rony! My point is emphasized here in (1); “By transgressing the command all the children of Adam became servants of sin like the one who is born of a slave is a slave until he receives emancipation from slavery”

What it does is elaborate on the disconnect of Sin/Grace. Which I believe we become often distracted with East/West in how we elaborate thus communicate.

Thus redemption being the further thought after Baptism. Though the sacrament of Baptism is instituted by Christ, there is no redemption till the Cross. So how is there a difference between Ancestral and Original but in points of emphasis and communication?

 

[ronyodish]

So how is there a difference between Ancestral and Original but in points of emphasis and communication?

I often take the perspective that the theological differences among Apostolic Christians, particularly among Catholics, are differences in emphasis, terminology, and expression, and that such differences are complementary with one another. None of these differences touch upon the essence of the Faith itself.

So, I don’t believe there is any real and substantial contradiction in Faith between the so-called “original” versus “ancestral” sin. No side is in heresy over how they choose to express the mystery of the sin of the first man, and how this affected all of mankind.

I am content to say, following my forefathers, that we baptize children so that they may be liberated from the servitude of sin, and so they may become the children of God. This is enough for me as an expression of the Apostolic Faith on this point.

God bless,

Rony

 

[QNDNNDQDCE]

It is important to distinguish between different meanings of “sin.” We speak of sin as a an act of moral transgression, such as murder or fornication. Then there is sin as a condition,namely the death of the soul. It seems that a lot of people misunderstand this and, rightly rejecting that infants have any actual sin, they deny that infants have sin in any sense.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Then there is sin as a condition,namely the death of the soul. It seems that a lot of people misunderstand this and, rightly rejecting that infants have any actual sin, they deny that infants have sin in any sense.

Worth a I’ve found this to be very true in general.

 

[GaryTaylor]

I often take the perspective that the theological differences among Apostolic Christians, particularly among Catholics, are differences in emphasis, terminology, and expression, and that such differences are complementary with one another. None of these differences touch upon the essence of the Faith itself.

So, I don’t believe there is any real and substantial contradiction in Faith between the so-called “original” versus “ancestral” sin. No side is in heresy over how they choose to express the mystery of the sin of the first man, and how this affected all of mankind.

I am content to say, following my forefathers, that we baptize children so that they may be liberated from the servitude of sin, and so they may become the children of God. This is enough for me as an expression of the Apostolic Faith on this point.

God bless,

Rony

Thanks Rony. I agree.

 

[Zekariya]

Sure it is, though, its a fact, and using your final paragraph would be sufficient for me, I like it.

The Fathers condemned those who refused to call Mary the Mother of God because it divided the one person of God the Son into two persons: one human person and one divine person. The divine nature has no mother but, Mary is the Mother of God. The divine nature cannot die but, the Son of God is fully human and died a human death (separation of soul and body). To say that “God [the Son] never died” or “God [the Son] has no mother”, is to divide the one person of Christ into two persons. We can make such statements about the divine nature but never about God the Son. Christ is just as fully human as he is fully divine.

 

[GaryTaylor]

The Fathers condemned those who refused to call Mary the Mother of God because it divided the one person of God the Son into two persons: one human person and one divine person. The divine nature has no mother but, Mary is the Mother of God. The divine nature cannot die but, the Son of God is fully human and died a human death (separation of soul and body). To say that “God [the Son] never died” or “God [the Son] has no mother”, is to divide the one person of Christ into two persons. We can make such statements about the divine nature but never about God the Son. Christ is just as fully human as he is fully divine.

Amen, also…

The Confession of Chalcedon provides a clear statement on the human and divine nature of Christ:

“We, then, following the holy Fathers, all with one consent, teach people to confess one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, the same perfect in Godhead and also perfect in manhood; truly God and truly man, of a reasonable [rational] soul and body; consubstantial [co-essential] with the Father according to the Godhead, and consubstantial with us according to the Manhood; in all things like unto us, without sin; begotten before all ages of the Father according to the Godhead, and in these latter days, for us and for our salvation, born of the Virgin Mary, the Mother of God, according to the Manhood; one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, only begotten, to be acknowledged in two natures, inconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably; (ἐν δύο φύσεσιν ἀσυγχύτως, ἀτρέπτως, ἀδιαιρέτως, ἀχωρίστως – in duabus naturis inconfuse, immutabiliter, indivise, inseparabiliter) the distinction of natures being by no means taken away by the union, but rather the property of each nature being preserved, and concurring in one Person (prosopon) and one Subsistence (hypostasis), not parted or divided into two persons, but one and the same Son, and only begotten God (μονογενῆ Θεόν), the Word, the Lord Jesus Christ; as the prophets from the beginning [have declared] concerning Him, and the Lord Jesus Christ Himself has taught us, and the Creed of the holy Fathers has handed down to us.” (Wiki-Pedia for quick reference)

Zekariya I’ve noticed in discussing Ancestral and Original sin this has come up with the hypostatic union and council before on several threads. This may be just do to emphasis east to west. But your right.

I wanted to comment on uncreated energy, perhaps another thread.

 

[Zekariya]

Amen, also…

The Confession of Chalcedon provides a clear statement on the human and divine nature of Christ:

“We, then, following the holy Fathers, all with one consent, teach people to confess one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, the same perfect in Godhead and also perfect in manhood; truly God and truly man, of a reasonable [rational] soul and body; consubstantial [co-essential] with the Father according to the Godhead, and consubstantial with us according to the Manhood; in all things like unto us, without sin; begotten before all ages of the Father according to the Godhead, and in these latter days, for us and for our salvation, born of the Virgin Mary, the Mother of God, according to the Manhood; one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, only begotten, to be acknowledged in two natures, inconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably; (ἐν δύο φύσεσιν ἀσυγχύτως, ἀτρέπτως, ἀδιαιρέτως, ἀχωρίστως – in duabus naturis inconfuse, immutabiliter, indivise, inseparabiliter) the distinction of natures being by no means taken away by the union, but rather the property of each nature being preserved, and concurring in one Person (prosopon) and one Subsistence (hypostasis), not parted or divided into two persons, but one and the same Son, and only begotten God (μονογενῆ Θεόν), the Word, the Lord Jesus Christ; as the prophets from the beginning [have declared] concerning Him, and the Lord Jesus Christ Himself has taught us, and the Creed of the holy Fathers has handed down to us.” (Wiki-Pedia for quick reference)

 

[ByzantineHeart]

So if the Immaculate Conception as a concept based in Latin understandings of original sin is foreign to Byzantine Catholics (as to EO), do BCs celebrate Dec 8 as a holy day of obligation? Thank you.

 

[Zekariya]

Here is the list (note that in Eastern practice we do not have the Western notion of “days of obligation”) from the USCCB website:

In the Eastern Catholic Churches, besides Sunday, the following are Holy Days:
Christmas, Epiphany (Jan. 6),
Ascension, Dormition (Aug. 15)
and Apostles Peter and Paul (Jun. 29).
Like the Code of Canon Law, the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches provides that each Eastern Church may have particular law Holy Days and also, with the approval of the Holy See, suppress some on the universal list.

 

[ByzantineHeart]

If this belongs in a different thread, forgive me. I can start one. I have no desire to stray from the main topic here. But given that EC’s differ with Latins’ definition of original sin, I’m also assuming they (like EO) have issues with the satisfaction and substitution theories of atonement, namely that Jesus had to die to appease God the Father’s wrath, and the Father couldn’t forgive/save us unless He was given an (ultimate) blood sacrifice?

(As a former Orthodox this is repugnant to me.)

 

[GaryTaylor]

The idea that Jesus “had” to die is incorrect. Fact is God didn’t have to do anything. In fact if we count the items on the list of what God had to do we wouldn’t be here.

I can’t see anything but grace and love. What exactly are you saying?

 

[Zekariya]

If this belongs in a different thread, forgive me. I can start one. I have no desire to stray from the main topic here. But given that EC’s differ with Latins’ definition of original sin, I’m also assuming they (like EO) have issues with the satisfaction and substitution theories of atonement, namely that Jesus had to die to appease God the Father’s wrath, and the Father couldn’t forgive/save us unless He was given an (ultimate) blood sacrifice?

(As a former Orthodox this is repugnant to me.)

You assume correctly. St John Chrysostom’s Paschal Homily summerizes the Byzantine view of the Atonement quite well:

Let no one fear death, for the Saviour’s death has set us free.
He that was taken by death has annihilated it! He descended into hades and took hades captive! He embittered it when it tasted his flesh! And anticipating this Isaiah exclaimed, “Hades was embittered when it encountered thee in the lower regions.” It was embittered, for it was abolished! It was embittered, for it was mocked! It was embittered, for it was purged! It was embittered, for it was despoiled! It was embittered, for it was bound in chains!
It took a body and, face to face, met God! It took earth and encountered heaven! It took what it saw but crumbled before what it had not seen!
“O death, where is thy sting? O hades, where is thy victory?”
Christ is risen, and you are overthrown!
Christ is risen, and the demons are fallen!
Christ is risen, and the angels rejoice!
Christ is risen, and life reigns!
Christ is risen, and not one dead remains in a tomb!
For Christ, being raised from the dead, has become the First-fruits of them that slept.
To him be glory and might unto ages of ages. Amen.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Beautiful, Doesn’t address the proposed question though. Why Jesus Christ the Second person Trinity becomes man thus the Cross?

How does this aspect go Zekariya? I don’t use Thomas Aquinas here as I have used Scotus and Ockham for some time. Though the sequence of events from antiquity is pretty much as St Athanasius explains. Admittedly the reformation took on a different perspective with fear and trembling and a angry God etc.

newadvent.org/fathers/2802.htm

 

[Zekariya]

Why Christ had to die on the Cross, from St Athanasius, On the Incarnation of the Word:

And thus much in reply to those without who pile up arguments for themselves. But if any of our own people also inquire, not from love of debate, but from love of learning, why He suffered death in none other way save on the Cross, let him also be told that no other way than this was good for us, and that it was well that the Lord suffered this for our sakes. 2. For if He came Himself to bear the curse laid upon us, how else could He have “become Galatians 3:13 a curse,” unless He received the death set for a curse? And that is the Cross. For this is exactly what is written: “Cursed Deuteronomy 21:23 is he that hangs on a tree.” 3. Again, if the Lord’s death is the ransom of all, and by His death “the middle Ephesians 2:14 wall of partition” is broken down, and the calling of the nations is brought about, how would He have called us to Him, had He not been crucified? For it is only on the cross that a man dies with his hands spread out. Whence it was fitting for the Lord to bear this also and to spread out His hands, that with the one He might draw the ancient people, and with the other those from the Gentiles, and unite both in Himself. 4. For this is what He Himself has said, signifying by what manner of death He was to ransom all: “I, when John 12:32 I am lifted up,” He says, “shall draw all men unto Me.” 5. And once more, if the devil, the enemy of our race, having fallen from heaven, wanders about our lower atmosphere, and there bearing rule over his fellow-spirits, as his peers in disobedience, not only works illusions by their means in them that are deceived, but tries to hinder them that are going up (and about this the Apostle says: “According to the prince of the power of the air, of the spirit that now works in the sons of disobedience”); while the Lord came to cast down the devil, and clear the air and prepare the way for us up into heaven, as said the Apostle: “Through Hebrews 10:20 the veil, that is to say, His flesh”— and this must needs be by death— well, by what other kind of death could this have come to pass, than by one which took place in the air, I mean the cross? For only he that is perfected on the cross dies in the air. Whence it was quite fitting that the Lord suffered this death. 6. For thus being lifted up He cleared the air of the malignity both of the devil and of demons of all kinds, as He says: “I beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven;” and made a new opening of the way up into heaven as He says once more: “Lift up your gates, O you princes, and be lifted up, you everlasting doors.” For it was not the Word Himself that needed an opening of the gates, being Lord of all; nor were any of His works closed to their Maker; but we it was that needed it whom He carried up by His own body. For as He offered it to death on behalf of all, so by it He once more made ready the way up into the heavens.

 

[GaryTaylor]

"The angels were informed that God was to create a human nature and reasoning creatures lower than themselves, in order that they too should love, fear and reverence God, as their Author and eternal Good. They were informed that these were to stand in high favor, and that the second Person of the blessed Trinity was to become incarnate and assume their nature, raising it to the hypostatic union and to divine Personality; that therefore they were to acknowledge Him as their Head, not only as God, but as God and man, adoring Him and reverencing Him as God-man. Moreover, these same angels were to be His inferiors in dignity and grace and were to be His servants. God gave them an intelligence of the propriety and equity, of the justice and reasonableness of such a position. For the acceptation of the merits foreseen of this Man-God was exhibited to them as the source of the grace which they now possessed and of the glory which they were to obtain. They understood also that they themselves had been, and all the rest of the creatures should be created for His glory, and that He was to be their Head. All those that were capable of knowing and enjoying God, were to be the people of the Son of God, to know and reverence Him as their Chief. These commands were at once given to the angels. (n. 89)

To this command all the obedient and holy Angels submitted themselves and they gave their full assent and acknowledgment with an humble and loving subjection of the will. But Lucifer, full of envy and pride, resisted and induced his followers to resist likewise, as they in reality did, preferring to follow him and disobey the divine command. This wicked prince persuaded them, that he would be their chief and that he would set up a government independent and separate from Christ. So great was the blindness which envy and pride could cause in an angel, and so pernicious was the infection that the contagion of sin spread among innumerable other angels. (n.89)"

absoluteprimacyofchrist.org/

I haven’t read the Revelation/Lucifer/fall sequence from an Eastern perspective. I’m assuming its the same?

 

[Zekariya]

Hebrews 1:14 Are they not all ministering spirits sent forth to minister for those who will inherit salvation?

FWIW, I have always heard that Satan fell because, in his pride, he did not want to minister to man.

Angels were created before man and, when man was created, they had to choose to obey or disobey God’s command. This was their “Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil” so to speak. God gave them one command to choose their fate just as he have man one command to choose their fate. Man being body and soul is able to change because he cannot make a definitive one time choice. Angels being pure spirit, choose and and by their nature cannot and will not change.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Sounds good as usual. Predestination, it could be no other way, all done in love and grace.

Free-will, everyone had and has it. The difference being the inclination to sin and to what degree this effected, Angels, Adam and Eve. and then mankind post fall. Also the BVM since sanctifying Grace is given to Her slightly different than us.

When we say Christ had to die, it comprehension of the sequence in time talked about, not predestination. God already “knew” all from the beginning. So what we are then saying is God did what He chose to do from the start in love and grace. He didn’t have to do anything.

John 6 “It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life.”

So then would you say there’s a difference in emphasis? How?

 

[Zekariya]

The idea that the Father’s wrath had to be appeased by Christ’s voluntary death is not Byzantine (and actually Protestant I assume?). The idea that the Father’s justice had to be satisfied by Christ’s voluntary death is not Byzantine (we do not do penance to satisfy anything; penance is used as spiritual medicine to fight the passions of the flesh).

Man was subject to death and hades and Christ became man and destroyed the power of death and hades and he freed us.

 

[GaryTaylor]

The idea that the Father’s wrath had to be appeased by Christ’s voluntary death is not Byzantine (and actually Protestant I assume?). The idea that the Father’s justice had to be satisfied by Christ’s voluntary death is not Byzantine (we do not do penance to satisfy anything; penance is used as spiritual medicine to fight the passions of the flesh).

Man was subject to death and hades and Christ became man and destroyed the power of death and hades and he freed us.

Sounds good, right I think there are various views especially since the reformation. Puritans for example.