Eastern view on Original Sin

[ConstantineTG]

Since I’ve been very satisfied with the wonderful responses in my thread “Purgatory”, I’d like to learn more now about Original Sin. What I know is that the East doesn’t define Original Sin the same way. Adam and Eve sinned, and this sin brought death. We already inherit the effects of their sin which is death. There is no Original Sin that will condemn us to hell if we don’t get baptized, is this the correct Eastern view? What else am I missing?

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother ConstantineTG,

I can’t speak for the Easterns, but what you have described is not the Oriental understanding. To Orientals, spiritual death - a natural separation from God - is the primary effect of the Original Sin that humanity must overcome.

Eastern Orthodox are more inclined to the belief that physical death is the primary effect of the Original Sin.

From what I’ve read, I think Eastern Catholics accept both views - not insisting dogmatically on either, in true apophatic fashion.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[ConstantineTG]

Dear brother ConstantineTG,

I can’t speak for the Easterns, but what you have described is not the Oriental understanding. To Orientals, spiritual death - a natural separation from God - is the primary effect of the Original Sin that humanity must overcome.

Eastern Orthodox are more inclined to the belief that physical death is the primary effect of the Original Sin.

From what I’ve read, I think Eastern Catholics accept both views - not insisting dogmatically on either, in true apophatic fashion.

Blessings,
Marduk

I did get that view when I was reading on Eastern Orthodoxy a year ago.

So you believe that we are born spiritually dead, and that is why baptism is being born again because we are born spiritually then?

 

[mardukm]

I did get that view when I was reading on Eastern Orthodoxy a year ago.

So you believe that we are born spiritually dead, and that is why baptism is being born again because we are born spiritually then?

Definitely. We are born again as children of God in Baptism. Terms such as the “New Birth” or the “New Creation” don’t make any sense otherwise.

I think the Oriental Tradition is more sympathetic to the legal aspects of Baptism than is the Eastern Tradition. What I mean is that the Oriental Tradition more readily focuses on the idea that Baptism is an adoption into sonship, into the family of God. The Eastern Tradition seems to be more focused on the role of Baptism in theosis.

So do infants who die before baptism go to Hell? There is no dogmatic teaching in the Oriental Tradition on the matter, but Orientals will generally agree that such infants are definitely not in Hell. That is because Hell is only for those people who have committed sin - and infants don’t (or rather can’t) commit sin.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[ConstantineTG]

I guess that makes the West more consistent now that they’ve abandoned the idea that Limbo continues to exist after the Resurrection. It was never a dogma anyway.

 

[Evan]

I guess that makes the West more consistent now that they’ve abandoned the idea that Limbo continues to exist after the Resurrection. It was never a dogma anyway.

I don’t see the idea of limbo being abandoned. As the most recent (I believe) statement on limbo on the vatican web site reads:

It is clear that the traditional teaching on this topic has concentrated on the theory of limbo, understood as a state which includes the souls of infants who die subject to original sin and without baptism, and who, therefore, neither merit the beatific vision, nor yet are subjected to any punishment, because they are not guilty of any personal sin. This theory, elaborated by theologians beginning in the Middle Ages, never entered into the dogmatic definitions of the Magisterium, even if that same Magisterium did at times mention the theory in its ordinary teaching up until the Second Vatican Council.** It remains therefore a possible theological hypothesis**.

 

[Fr_Kyrillos]

Definitely. We are born again as children of God in Baptism. Terms such as the “New Birth” or the “New Creation” don’t make any sense otherwise.

I think the Oriental Tradition is more sympathetic to the legal aspects of Baptism than is the Eastern Tradition. What I mean is that the Oriental Tradition more readily focuses on the idea that Baptism is an adoption into sonship, into the family of God. The Eastern Tradition seems to be more focused on the role of Baptism in theosis.

So do infants who die before baptism go to Hell? There is no dogmatic teaching in the Oriental Tradition on the matter, but Orientals will generally agree that such infants are definitely not in Hell. That is because Hell is only for those people who have committed sin - and infants don’t (or rather can’t) commit sin.

Blessings,
Marduk

Hello all,

First post…I am a priest in the Coptic Orthodox Church and I just thought I would add to my brother Marduk’s post about Baptism by posting some select quotes I gathered from the Coptic text for the Liturgy of Baptism.

God bless,
Fr. Kyrillos

---

LITURGY OF HOLY BAPTISM

“freedom from servitude of corruption”

“may he/she be filled with Your divine power and be like Your Only-begotten Son…and become one with Him”

“Bestow on him/her a clean heart and pure mind”

“shine upon him/her with the light of knowledge”

“bestow…eternal salvation”

“cause to be born again by the washing of regeneration for the remission of sins”

“prepare him/her to be a sanctuary for Your Holy Spirit”

“may he/she be worthy of the washing of rebirth, the incorruptible garment, and remission of sins”

“accept the light, the seal of Your Christ and the gift of Your Holy Spirit”

“become like a cloak of light and wear the garment of salvation and shield of faith”

“become a sheep in Your flock, a son/daughter of Your heavenly inheritance and heir of Your incorruptible eternal Kingdom in Jesus Christ…”

“deliver from the servitude of the enemy”

“uproot all unclean spirits”

“invite your servant into pure light”

“cast away their old nature and renew their birth through eternal life”

“fill them with power of Your Holy Spirit and the knowledge of Your Christ”

“so that they may receive the pure baptism of the new birth for the remission of their sins”

“transform them, convert them, sanctify them, and strengthen them so that through this water and this oil, all the evil powers may be abolished”

“baptism of the new birth…eternal life….incorruptible vestment…grace of filiation (adoption)…renewal by the Holy Spirit”

“so that they be reborn by Your Divine Power”

“give it (the water) power to become life-giving…pure water…water to cleanse sins…water for baptism of the new birth…water of filiation (adoption)”

“cast away the old nature which corrupts, like evil desires, and put on the new nature which restores him to the image of this Creator and makes him illuminated…”

“may this oil and water be blessed and filled with glory and purity”

“this water has become for your servants cleansing for the new birth, freedom from the old sin and enlightenment by Your divinity”

 

[ConstantineTG]

I don’t see the idea of limbo being abandoned. As the most recent (I believe) statement on limbo on the vatican web site reads:

The way I see it, Jesus destroyed the doors of Limbo and lead the souls up to heaven on Holy Saturday. Since the path to heaven has been reestablished by the death of Christ, why is there need for a “holding area” for souls who await rescue from Christ? On the other hand, they could be awaiting final judgment at the Second Coming.

 

[Evan]

The way I see it, Jesus destroyed the doors of Limbo and lead the souls up to heaven on Holy Saturday. Since the path to heaven has been reestablished by the death of Christ, why is there need for a “holding area” for souls who await rescue from Christ? On the other hand, they could be awaiting final judgment at the Second Coming.

Yes. Jesus destroyed the Limbo of the Fathers. The limbo - the fringe spoken of as a theological option is the limbo up those who never made a choice for good in their life (thus unworthy under the justice of God to enter the beatific vision) and never incurred a personal sin (thus unworthy of eternal damnation). So under justice several mechanisms are available for God to render both mercy and justice. One of these is described as limbo. Living forever in a state of natural happiness. Which is short of supernatural joy in communion with God and far superior to eternal punishment.

Some would put such a limbo in hell as [Heaven = full communion with God]
Some would put such a limbo in heaven as [Hell = place of eternal punishment]
Some would put limbo in a 3rd place.

{ Note: There are other theological options[one of which I find more convincing], but none are definitively taught by the Church }

 

[Vico]

Since I’ve been very satisfied with the wonderful responses in my thread “Purgatory”, I’d like to learn more now about Original Sin. What I know is that the East doesn’t define Original Sin the same way. Adam and Eve sinned, and this sin brought death. We already inherit the effects of their sin which is death. There is no Original Sin that will condemn us to hell if we don’t get baptized, is this the correct Eastern view? What else am I missing?

That which is lacking at birth is the “stain of original sin” in the Latin terms, or the lack of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit in other words. The consequences of “the original sin of Adam and Eve” inherited by being human still remain (we are inflicted), and there is no personal sin in the infant (Latin or Eastern belief).

Infants are baptized, although sinless, for they are lacking something brought by death, true in Latin or Eastern Catholic or Orthodox theology; They need the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, as St. John Chrysostom explains, they receive: “sanctification, justice, filial adoption, and inheritance”. These are what we have lost through the effects of the ancestral sin, and are one dimension of death.

“You have seen how numerous are the gifts of baptism. Although many men think that the only gift it confers is the remission of sins, we have counted its honors to the number of ten. It is on this account that we baptize even infants, although they are sinless, that they may be given the further gifts of sanctification, justice, filial adoption, and inheritance, that they may be brothers and members of Christ, and become dwelling places of the Spirit.” – John Chrysostom, Baptismal Instruction 3:6.

 

[5Loaves]

Christ is among us!
Bless, Father

Hello all,

First post…I am a priest in the Coptic Orthodox Church and I just thought I would add to my brother Marduk’s post about Baptism by posting some select quotes I gathered from the Coptic text for the Liturgy of Baptism.

God bless,
Fr. Kyrillos

---

LITURGY OF HOLY BAPTISM

Welcome to CAF and the EC section!

Thank you for providing this perspective. Our liturgy is always the best catechesis!

 

[Vico]

Yes. Jesus destroyed the Limbo of the Fathers. The limbo - the fringe spoken of as a theological option is the limbo up those who never made a choice for good in their life (thus unworthy under the justice of God to enter the beatific vision) and never incurred a personal sin (thus unworthy of eternal damnation). So under justice several mechanisms are available for God to render both mercy and justice. One of these is described as limbo. Living forever in a state of natural happiness. Which is short of supernatural joy in communion with God and far superior to eternal punishment.

Some would put such a limbo in hell as [Heaven = full communion with God]
Some would put such a limbo in heaven as [Hell = place of eternal punishment]
Some would put limbo in a 3rd place.

{ Note: There are other theological options[one of which I find more convincing], but none are definitively taught by the Church }

The American Heritage dictionary definition of limbo:
Roman Catholic Church The abode of unbaptized but innocent or righteous souls, as those of infants or virtuous individuals who lived before the coming of Christ.
…
Limbo in Roman Catholic theology is located on the border of Hell, which explains the name chosen for it. The Latin word limbus, having meanings such as “an ornamental border to a fringe” and “a band or girdle,” was chosen by Christian theologians of the Middle Ages to denote this border region.
So that seems to indicate the third place for limbo. Christ descended into hades or sheol to free the souls. If the dictionary is correct, then limbo is hades or sheol (not to be confused with Hell or Gehenna). Pope John Paul II wrote referring to the Apostle’s Creed:
It should also be mentioned straight-away that the word “hell” does not mean the hell of eternal damnation, but the abode of the dead which is in Hebrew and in Greek (cf. Acts 2:31).
– Pope John Paul II General Audience given on January 11, 1989 ‘He Descended Into Hell’
vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/audiences/alpha/data/aud19890111en.html

 

[yaHalyna]

I did get that view when I was reading on Eastern Orthodoxy a year ago.

So you believe that we are born spiritually dead, and that is why baptism is being born again because we are born spiritually then?

You may have answered your own question here. Eastern Orthodoxy may think differently as they are NOT Catholic.
However, Eastern Rite Catholics do believe the same as Roman Catholics re original sin. In the olden days, just as soon as the baby is born, the father takes the baby and baptizes the child (immediately upon birth).
Even now-a-days, a woman is not supposed to leave the house with the baby until the baby was baptized (e.g. should there be an accident and the baby die, the mother was responsible for the child’s soul). As a matter of fact, quite often EC women will themselves baptize their babies right in the hospital room (just in case) and then schedule the baptism with the priest at a later date.

 

[Dan-Man916]

So do infants who die before baptism go to Hell? There is no dogmatic teaching in the Oriental Tradition on the matter, but Orientals will generally agree that such infants are definitely not in Hell. That is because Hell is only for those people who have committed sin - and infants don’t (or rather can’t) commit sin.

This begs the question, then, where are they?
Can they be in Heaven if, as you say, they are spiritually dead?
Is not baptism necessary for salvation?

Not trying to be argumentative, just trying to understand your position.

 

[5Loaves]

However, Eastern Rite Catholics do believe the same as Roman Catholics re original sin.

See earlier posting from mardukm who although OC in a nut shell describes what I was taught. Although our first parents did commit the first, “original” sin, we do not understand that in the same way in the East as does the Latin Church.

As a matter of fact, **quite often EC women will themselves baptize their babies **right in the hospital room (just in case) and then schedule the baptism with the priest at a later date.

I’m unfamiliar with members of Eastern Catholic Churches “re-baptizing” babies. I look forward to others confirming the this quite often happens. Perhaps you are referring to places in crises in the world where the baby’s and mother’s life are in constant peril and danger of death. In the ECCs/OCCs the Sacred Mysteries of Baptism, Chrismation and Holy Eucharist are to be administered at the same time for an infant or any non Christian.

CCEO Canon 676 In a case of urgent necessity, baptism can be licitly administered by doing only those things which are necessary for validity.
Canon 30 Anyone to be baptized who has completed the fourteenth year of age can freely select any Church sui iuris in which he or she then is enrolled by virtue of baptism received in that same Church, with due regard for particular law established by the Apostolic See.

CIC Can. 845 §1. Since the sacraments of baptism, confirmation, and orders imprint a character, they cannot be repeated.

 

[mardukm]

This begs the question, then, where are they?
Can they be in Heaven if, as you say, they are spiritually dead?
Is not baptism necessary for salvation?

Not trying to be argumentative, just trying to understand your position.

For an Oriental, the best and sufficient answer is “they are with God.” Personally, I partly agree with St. Thomas Aquinas’ view that they have perfect natural happiness. Only partly, because I also believe that they can obtain Grace through the prayers of the Church - just as they would have acquired that Grace at Baptism through the agency of their parents and the Church. They have never willfully disobeyed God, and so are in a different category than those who die unbaptized with the use of reason.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[ConstantineTG]

See earlier posting from mardukm who although OC in a nut shell describes what I was taught. Although our first parents did commit the first, “original” sin, we do not understand that in the same way in the East as does the Latin Church.

I’m unfamiliar with members of Eastern Catholic Churches “re-baptizing” babies. I look forward to others confirming the this quite often happens. Perhaps you are referring to places in crises in the world where the baby’s and mother’s life are in constant peril and danger of death. In the ECCs/OCCs the Sacred Mysteries of Baptism, Chrismation and Holy Eucharist are to be administered at the same time for an infant or any non Christian.

CCEO Canon 676 In a case of urgent necessity, baptism can be licitly administered by doing only those things which are necessary for validity.
Canon 30 Anyone to be baptized who has completed the fourteenth year of age can freely select any Church sui iuris in which he or she then is enrolled by virtue of baptism received in that same Church, with due regard for particular law established by the Apostolic See.

CIC Can. 845 §1. Since the sacraments of baptism, confirmation, and orders imprint a character, they cannot be repeated.

In the CIC its forbidden for lay people to baptize outside of necessity, and it is also forbidden to baptize in the hospital without necessity as well. Is this the same in the CCEO?

 

[Aramis]

In the CIC its forbidden for lay people to baptize outside of necessity, and it is also forbidden to baptize in the hospital without necessity as well. Is this the same in the CCEO?

Yes.

 

[Gregory_I]

AS regards the Oriental/Eastern View:

I agree with the Orientals that man is born spiritually dead and does not naturally exist in a state of salvation.

Adam’s Sin caused spiritual death, because it created a spiritual vacuum, which we all know nature abhors:

As long as Adam chose God, who is infinite, he chose to be fulfilled by an infinite good. Therefore, he could experience real satisfaction and fulfillment, for the source he chose was unlimited to meet the eternal desire of the Human soul.

But when Adam chose disobedience, he essentially sought fulfillment in HIMSELF, HIS judgements, HIS decisions. This was like a cosmic explosion of Death because when he chose to be fulfilled by a lesser good which is naturally (even in paradise) incapable of bringing the infinite fulfillment he was formerly seeking in God, he essentially violated the rules of spiritual nature and Material nature. He created a snake eating its own tail, eventually to be self-consumed.

This ushered in Man’s spiritual death. The consequence of which is physical death, for it is the soul that gives life to the body. So Adam ushered in death as a principle, the principle of decay and degeneration that began in the spiritual world and trickled into the physical world via domino effect.

So physical death is also the cause of sin, because we sin because of our fear of death. And our fear is rooted in our spiritual death already. So, like I said, Adam ushered Death as a principle which was first introduced by Lucifer, and Adam allowed it to root itself in this world.

NOW, if we say the Theotokos died…
See how the immaculate conception grates on eastern ears? She died. Therefore she was subject to the effects of original Sin, and being subject, she must have fought the proclivity to sin at MINIMUM, or perhaps sinned only very minorly , maybe only once.

Yet, I am Catholic and believe the Panagia Theotokos was exactly that: Pan-Agia: All-Holy. She was not born spiritually dead. She did die, but so did Christ. And he DEFINITELY was not prone to Sin, although he himself was subject to death.

 

[yaHalyna]

I do not understand what you mean when you said:
NOW, if we say the Theotokos died…
See how the immaculate conception grates on eastern ears? She died. Therefore she was subject to the effects of original Sin, and being subject, she must have fought the proclivity to sin at MINIMUM, or perhaps sinned only very minorly , maybe only once.

We believe Mary was born without Original sin. We believe she did die and at the very moment of death was taken up to heaven body & soul.