Eastern Catholics, Western Catholics, Original Sin, and the Immaculate Conception

  • Thread starter Thread starter The_Iambic_Pen
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
T

The_Iambic_Pen

Guest
According to my understanding, the Western Catholic view of original sin is that each of us is conceived in a state already meriting Hell, even before we commit any personal sins or do anything at all of our own will. Mary, by the grace of God, was conceived in a state free from original sin, and thus did not merit eternal damnation while still in the womb.

The Eastern Orthodox view, as I understand it, is that each of us inherits death and the tendency to sin from Adam, but we have nothing (or lack nothing) in our souls which would put us in the “this guy’s going to Hell if he dies right now” column. As such, Orthodox have no need to believe Mary was conceived in a different state from any other person.

I believe the previous paragraph is a fairly accurate portrayal of the Orthodox view. I may have to go to a different forum and ask some Orthodox Christians to verify this for me.

So, do Eastern Catholics hold to the Western Catholic understanding of original sin, the Eastern Orthodox understanding of original sin, or some understanding of their own? Personally, I see a very clear contradiction between the Western Catholic and Orthodox views; it’s not simply a matter of different expressions of the same truth.

I have truly no desire whatsoever to bash Eastern Catholics. They get enough of that from some Eastern Orthodox and some Latin Catholics as it is. However, I see the possibility that Eastern Catholics hold something as true that Western Catholics hold to be not true. Very confusing. :confused:

I have been studying Catholicism and Orthodoxy for some time now, and there is much I admire about both. Others have suggested that Eastern Catholicism would be a way to have the best of both. However, these apparent contradictions are troubling. Of course, if there are contradictions in matters of dogma between Eastern and Western Catholicism, then Western Catholicism is just as suspect. I’m certainly not going to automatically assume the West is right in all disputes.

I thank everyone in advance for any information. God bless!
 
From internet mavens you will get all sorts of opinions on the differences between Eastern and Western Catholic perspectives on Original Sin. A recent discussion over at Mere Comments was a refreshing departure from the usual. The highlight was a long essay by James A. Altena. (The discussion on OS in the East and West is a tangential component of a long thread, so some patient fishing is required.)

Go to this link and search for this text
The other point I wish to discuss with regard to the Aristotelian/Christian concept of nature is the disagreement between East and West over original sin.
Click to expand...
to find the beginning of Altena’s essay. He clarifies the differences in Eastern and Western thought, but they are somewhat esoteric. I am not so sure that the differences are especially meaningful except to academics (and polemicists).
 
The_Iambic_Pen said:
According to my understanding, the Western Catholic view of original sin is that each of us is conceived in a state already meriting Hell
Click to expand...
Incorrect, this is erroneous. Your understanding is defficient.
Mary, by the grace of God, was conceived in a state free from original sin, and thus did not merit eternal damnation while still in the womb.
Click to expand...
Nope, again your erroneous understanding is based on your incorrect understanding above.
So, do Eastern Catholics hold to the Western Catholic understanding of original sin, the Eastern understanding of original sin
Click to expand...
They hold the Eastern Theological viewpoint, but not the erroneous concept that you proponed.
Personally, I see a very clear contradiction between the Western Catholic and Orthodox views;
Click to expand...
That is because of the misunderstanding of the Theology as pointed out above.

Here is the Catholic discussion of Original sin.
Original sin
God had given to Adam and Eve, our first parents, three levels of gifts: 1) basic humanity, consisting of a body and soul, with mind and will. Each has within it certain natural drives and needs. No one of these is evil in itself, but without the help of some added gift to coordinate them, they tend to get out of order, to rebel. 2) God gave to our first parents an added gift, which is just such a coordinating gift, which made it easy to keep each drive in its place. (It is sometimes called the gift of integrity). When Adam and Eve sinned, the lower flesh began to get out of line, to rebel. Hence Adam felt the need of cover; before the fall, he did not feel that, for the flesh was easily docile. God gave them also exemption from physical death, which otherwise would be natural to a being composed of parts, body and soul, which can come apart, and so die. 3) He gave them the life of grace, a share in His own life, which made the soul basically capable of the vision of God in the life to come.
God clearly intended they should pass on all thee gifts to their children, including us. Through the narrative of the forbidden fruit, however, the Sacred author tells us that God gave our first parents some kind of command, whether it was about a tree or something else. Whatever it was, they violated His orders, and fell from His favor, losing sanctifying grace and the coordinating gift. Hence they transmitted to us only that basic humanity, without the other gifts.
Except for Jesus and Mary, all the descendents of Adam and Eve were conceived without sanctifying grace.

A thread where the East and West aspects is more correctly representing is going on here: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=209001.

The best place to go for a correct understanding of Latin Catholic Teaching, after the bible of course, is The Catechism. Of course even this needs to be read with the Mind of the Church, to sincerely understand what is intended if one is to understand the Authentic Catholic teaching. You can find it on line here: vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_INDEX.HTM
 
Thank you for the information! Is it not true, however, that many Catholic theologians have taught that those who died in the womb, not having yet been baptized, would go to Hell? I also believe it is true that some taught that the condition of these damned, though not perhaps having the pain of sense, would still be in Hell (perhaps this is where Limbo might exist). I understand that the Catechism says we may have hope for the unbaptized infants who die, but the traditional teaching seems a bit more harsh.
 
The_Iambic_Pen said:
Thank you for the information! Is it not true, however, that many Catholic theologians have taught that those who died in the womb, not having yet been baptized, would go to Hell? I also believe it is true that some taught that the condition of these damned, though not perhaps having the pain of sense, would still be in Hell (perhaps this is where Limbo might exist). I understand that the Catechism says we may have hope for the unbaptized infants who die, but the traditional teaching seems a bit more harsh.
Click to expand...
I believe there was a teaching on limbo. But apparently this has been recently retracted. 🤷
 
Mickey said:
I believe there was a teaching on limbo. But apparently this has been recently retracted. 🤷
Click to expand...
No it was not. A theological comission has stated that Limbo is an unecessary doctrine and may in fact not be true. However, the Magesterium has said nothing on the matter. The Church is in the same state it has always been regarding limbo.
 
East_and_West said:
No it was not. A theological comission has stated that Limbo is an unecessary doctrine and may in fact not be true. However, the Magesterium has said nothing on the matter. The Church is in the same state it has always been regarding limbo.
Click to expand...
I was told that limbo was never a doctrine, but a theological concept of sorts and that it is no longer taught in the Church. I apologize for my ignorance on this subject.
 
Mickey said:
I was told that limbo was never a doctrine, but a theological concept of sorts and that it is no longer taught in the Church. I apologize for my ignorance on this subject.
Click to expand...
Well, I used the term doctrine loosley and not according the appropriate theologcial definition. It is a theological concept which the Church has never ruled one way or the other on. Some believe that it does, in fact, carry some level of theological certainty though. The point is, though, that since the Church has never ruled on the matter, and continues not to rule on it, the Church cannot be charged with changing it mind on Limbo.
 
No matter how commonly Limbo was taught in the Church, it has always been, at most, a theological speculation. It is still a permissible belief but not encouraged. Hope for the salvation of children who die without baptism and trust in God’s mercy is more emphasized now, but theologically nothing has essentially changed. By the way, Limbo would mean a state of natural happiness, not a dreary inbetween world or hell.

The Limbo of the Fathers, however, is still a doctrine of the Church (the idea that those righteous men and women who died before Christ awaited the coming of the Messiah in a “prison” of sorts or Abraham’s bosom or Sheol or Hades).
 
davidmammola said:
No matter how commonly Limbo was taught in the Church, it has always been, at most, a theological speculation. It is still a permissible belief but not encouraged. Hope for the salvation of children who die without baptism and trust in God’s mercy is more emphasized now, but theologically nothing has essentially changed. By the way, Limbo would mean a state of natural happiness, not a dreary inbetween world or hell.

The Limbo of the Fathers, however, is still a doctrine of the Church (the idea that those righteous men and women who died before Christ awaited the coming of the Messiah in a “prison” of sorts or Abraham’s bosom or Sheol or Hades).
Click to expand...
Actually, limbo is a part of hell according to latin theology. As Florence said, all those who die in mortal sin or original sin only descend immediately to hell. They suffer a different punishment but it is still hell. The only pain they would have would be the pain of the loss of communion with God.
 
I have concluded that the concept of Original/Ancestral Sin is not something that truly divides East from West. Where the division lies is in terms. Many Orthodox theologians speak of death, rather than sin, being passed from Adam and Eve to humanity. Many assume this death to be physical alone, yet most of the Eastern Fathers believe it to be two-fold: physical and spiritual. On the other hand, Catholics believe Original Sin to be sin in an “ontological sense.” It is a stain insofar as the soul lacks sanctifying grace, so it is in a sense void of GOD.

The problem for many Orthodox (going back to Photios), is this concept of a sin of nature. Again, this is because of a misunderstanding of what Catholics mean by sin and Original Sin. It doesn’t mean we are born guilty of Adam and Eve’s sin as though it were our own. It doesn’t even mean a personal sin. It simply means that we are deprived of sanctifying grace in our souls. When Adam and Eve sinned against GOD, they lost the Original Justice they had before GOD. GOD decreed that, “On the very day that you eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, you will surely die.” As we know, Adam and Eve lived for hundreds of years before death took them. But is that really what GOD meant? No, for they died spiritually on that very day–they lost that Original State–that grace which allowed them to grow in communion with GOD. Not only for them, but for us as well. To this end, I do not see any difference between East and West. Unfortunately, many recent polemicists have made an issue of a non-issue. Certainly, there are things which divide Orthodox and the Church of Rome, but this is not really one of them.

Prayers and petitions,
Alexius:cool:
 
Limbo is just a theologoumenon, and has never, ever been officially taught as truth by the Church. Same state as always, as East and West points out.
 
Limbo is irrelevent to the topic, th eproblem for all believers either EAST or WEST is what happens to thse who are not baptised, in real terms not to many have come ack to tell us, so we are ultimatley left with speculation associated with the teachings of the Church.

Simple fact. The early undivided Church wanted to baptise babies as quickly as possible due to the very real fear that without baptism a baby MAY suffer eternal damnation, becasue no where in scripture does it specifically say that anyone is exempt as such from baptism.

There is no other reason for wanting to baptise children so urgently.

Certainly it has been taught that as adults, no baptism, no salvation, that is the general rule, with few exceptions.

The problem for both Catholics and Orthodox is that both positions have a problem.

Obvioulsy not to many babies are baptised in the womb, so therefor any baby who dies in the womb does so without baptism and we generally speaking find it inconceivable that God would allow such babies to go to hell.

Scripture is very clear that no one is exempt from Baptism. So with that in mind the Catholic Church has said that those who die without personal sin, but in a state of original sin could go to limbo where in reality they are in a minor type of paradise.

This theory was developed due to the fact that historically speaking it has been the undivided Churche’s view to baptise as early as possible to secure the soul of the baby.

Yet what do we do for those who have no personal sin but who have original sin.

Now the Orthodox view as the undivided Church was the same, baptise early to secure the souls of the young, yet if I believe what I have been educated to believe on this site by Orthodox, they do not believe that Adam and Eve’s sin, puts us at risk of hell without baptism. As such there is no need to baptise babies.

The problem this presents is that if babies definately have no need whatsoever of baptism, for the salvation of their souls then in reality how can an adult need baptism for salvation.
 
The truth is, that by lacking the grace necessary for sanctification (and therefore justification), one is “separated” from GOD. Another thing to consider is that the infant is free from personal sin. IN MY OPINION, the infant does not merit hell, but that is simply me. The child is in GOD’s merciful “arms…” Orthodox have come to the opinion from time to time that infants who are not baptized go to hell (I think of Dositheus and a few others). Again, neither East nor West have dogmatized such a view. The fate of infants is left to GOD and his mercy…

Prayers and petitions,
Alexius:cool:
 
Alexius said:
The truth is, that by lacking the grace necessary for sanctification (and therefore justification), one is “separated” from GOD. Another thing to consider is that the infant is free from personal sin. IN MY OPINION, the infant does not merit hell, but that is simply me. The child is in GOD’s merciful “arms…” Orthodox have come to the opinion from time to time that infants who are not baptized go to hell (I think of Dositheus and a few others). Again, neither East nor West have dogmatized such a view. The fate of infants is left to GOD and his mercy…

Prayers and petitions,
Alexius:cool:
Click to expand...
Catholics have come to that same conclusion though as the council of Florence mentions.
 
The_Iambic_Pen said:
Thank you for the information! Is it not true, however, that many Catholic theologians have taught that those who died in the womb, not having yet been baptized, would go to Hell? I also believe it is true that some taught that the condition of these damned, though not perhaps having the pain of sense, would still be in Hell (perhaps this is where Limbo might exist). I understand that the Catechism says we may have hope for the unbaptized infants who die, but the traditional teaching seems a bit more harsh.
Click to expand...
The Eastern belief would be that in Hades/Sheol the baby would most likely be able to attain Salvation just as the many souls in Purgatory did. The Western belief would be that the baby would be damned to Hell, or in some people’s view Limbo.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top