A
Augustus24
Guest
Can someone help me to understand the difference between the Latin Church, and the Eastern Catholic Churches definition of Original Sin and the Atonement?
Thank you.
Thank you.
- Status
C
ConstantineTG
Guest
The difference is Latins believe in Original Sin and atonement. Eastern Catholics believe in neither 
F
Farmer88
Guest
This is very true. Eastern Catholics and the Orthodox don’t believe that sin is inherited. Their entire salvation system is pretty different. I’m reading about it right now, it is fascinating.The difference is Latins believe in Original Sin and atonement. Eastern Catholics believe in neither
I
I_Thirst
Guest
Whatcha reading?
F
Farmer88
Guest
The Truth: What Every Roman Catholic Should Know About the Orthodox Church by Clark Carlton. I was recommended it by an Anglican convert to Orthodoxy. Carlton’s books are supposed to be very good, he himself is a Protestant convert to Orthodoxy and he wrote another book about Orthodox appeals to Protestants as well as a third book that is like a catechism of Orthodox beliefs. It’s clearly biased towards the Orthodox Church and is trying to win converts, but it appears to be a great book to just get a good sense of Orthodox versus Catholic.Whatcha reading?
T
twf
Guest
It may be a great source for Orthodox doctrine, but it doesn’t sound like a great source for Catholic doctrine. Latin Catholics don’t beleive that we inherit sin. This issue has been discussed countless times on this board - there are many threads if one does a quick search. Fellow posters Marduk or Ghosty would, I’m sure, be more than happy to demonstrate once again that there is no fundamental conflict between the Latin and Eastern understanding of “original/ancestral sin”. In terms of the atonement - this is something shared by both Latins and Orientals (eg. Copts) - it is only Byzantine Christians who, in some cases, seem to take issue with the concept.
V
Vico
Guest
Both east and west teach atonement. The eastern expression is that we are in bondage to Satan.
St. Athanasius, “Incarnation of the Word,” Chp. 20, writes:
“But since it was necessary also that the debt owing from all should be paid again: for, as I have already said , it was owing that all should die”
St. John Chrysostom, 6th homily on Colossians:
“…he means that the devil held possession of it, the bond which God made for Adam, saying, “In the day thou eatest of the tree, thou shalt die.” (Genesis 2:17.) This bond then the devil held in his possession. And Christ did not give it to us, but Himself tore it in two, the action of one who remits joyfully.”
Christ, by his death, has conquered Death. We see Christ pulling Adam and Eve from the grave in one popular icon.
The western expression is that we are bound to make reparation for Adam’s sin (this is an imputed guilt, or consequence) for moral injury (injustice). This reparation is called satisfaction, which Christ by his sufferings and death, has expiated.
CCC 2020 “Justification has been merited for us by the Passion of Christ. It is granted us through Baptism. It conforms us to the righteousness of God, who justifies us. It has for its goal the glory of God and of Christ, and the gift of eternal life. It is the most excellent work of God’s mercy.”
M
mardukm
Guest
Dear brother Constantine,
Orientals generally understand sin in BOTH senses.
So when Latins or Orientals say we inherit Original Sin, we don’t mean we inherit ACTUAL sin. This is the source of the misunderstanding on the matter (at least between Easterns and Latins). Easterns, interpreting sin to mean ACTUAL sin, think that when Latins say that we inherit the Original Sin from Adam, Latins are saying that we are inheriting Adams’ ACTUAL sin, and thereby inheriting his personal guilt for that sin that he alone committed. But that would be a false understanding. If you see it from the Latin perspective (which should be easy for you as you were once Latin - I am assuming your question is merely rhetorical, in order to advance the dialogue - iow, I am hardpressed to believe that you do not already know what I am about to say), according to the LATIN understanding of “sin,” you will see that the only thing that the Latin Church is teaching is that we inherit SEPARATION FROM GOD.
Can any Eastern deny this teaching? Can any Eastern deny that we are conceived in a NATURAL state of spiritual separation from God? If no Eastern can deny this teaching, how can one say that there is a difference between the Eastern and Latin understanding?
As far as your question on atonement, I think your question somewhat misses the mark. You ask,"…what are we atoning for?" Let’s get back to the first things. It is CHRIST who performed the Atonement, for He is the ONLY ONE capable of Atoning for the world. What WE do is PARTICIPATE in the Atonement by our own acts of penance (or, according to Latinspeak, reparation) for our sins. Without Christ’s perfect Atonement, none of our actions could possibly have any “atoning” efficacy.
So what is Christ atoning for? THAT is the real question. The answer is that Christ is Atoning for (1) the natural separation of this world from God, which is an offense to God (not the world, but the state of spiritual separation from Him), brought about by the ACTUAL sin of our first parents, and (2) each person’s ACTUAL sin, from the sin of Adam, to the sin of the last human being on earth.
I hope that answers your (rhetorical?) question.
Blessings,
Marduk
The difference between the Latin and Eastern is the definition of sin. It appears that to Easterns, sin is understood to mean only ACTUAL sin. But to the Latins, it means something different - it means SEPARATION FROM GOD (the definition is from the Council of Trent).
Orientals generally understand sin in BOTH senses.
So when Latins or Orientals say we inherit Original Sin, we don’t mean we inherit ACTUAL sin. This is the source of the misunderstanding on the matter (at least between Easterns and Latins). Easterns, interpreting sin to mean ACTUAL sin, think that when Latins say that we inherit the Original Sin from Adam, Latins are saying that we are inheriting Adams’ ACTUAL sin, and thereby inheriting his personal guilt for that sin that he alone committed. But that would be a false understanding. If you see it from the Latin perspective (which should be easy for you as you were once Latin - I am assuming your question is merely rhetorical, in order to advance the dialogue - iow, I am hardpressed to believe that you do not already know what I am about to say), according to the LATIN understanding of “sin,” you will see that the only thing that the Latin Church is teaching is that we inherit SEPARATION FROM GOD.
Can any Eastern deny this teaching? Can any Eastern deny that we are conceived in a NATURAL state of spiritual separation from God? If no Eastern can deny this teaching, how can one say that there is a difference between the Eastern and Latin understanding?
As far as your question on atonement, I think your question somewhat misses the mark. You ask,"…what are we atoning for?" Let’s get back to the first things. It is CHRIST who performed the Atonement, for He is the ONLY ONE capable of Atoning for the world. What WE do is PARTICIPATE in the Atonement by our own acts of penance (or, according to Latinspeak, reparation) for our sins. Without Christ’s perfect Atonement, none of our actions could possibly have any “atoning” efficacy.
So what is Christ atoning for? THAT is the real question. The answer is that Christ is Atoning for (1) the natural separation of this world from God, which is an offense to God (not the world, but the state of spiritual separation from Him), brought about by the ACTUAL sin of our first parents, and (2) each person’s ACTUAL sin, from the sin of Adam, to the sin of the last human being on earth.
I hope that answers your (rhetorical?) question.
Blessings,
Marduk
F
Formosus
Guest
I would disagree only inasmuch as I do not think we are conceived in a natural separation from God. It is a degeneration of our nature to be separate from God, so our conception in a state of separation is an unnatural one.
The rest of your post I have no issues with.
The below may be a bit over simplistic but,
I would say the main points of difference on the Atonement are matters of emphasis rather then actual difference. The East focuses more on the Incarnation of Christ and how our human nature is brought back into communion with God, where the West focuses more on the sacrifice of the Cross and how Christ saved us from our sins through his sufferings.
A
Augustus24
Guest
From my reading, Latin Catholics believe that we inherit the GUILT derived from Adam’s sin by virtue of our birth, that is why babies need to get baptized, in order to remove that original GUILT, and why Mary had to be immaculately conceived. Eastern Catholics and Eastern Orthodox believe that since our ancestor Adam sinned, we are born in a world where its simply easier to choose ourserlves over God.
Regarding the Atonement, from my understanding, Latin Catholics, and Protestants beleive that since humanity sinned by transgressing God’s Law, a debt has been incurred. Since humanity cannot make recompense for that dept, God sent his son, Jesus to make recompense for that debt that we owe by being tortured and killed. Eastern Catholics and Eastern Orthodox believe that Jesus simply conquerd the power of death by death.
Is that an accurate assesment of the two?
How do Eastern Catholics remain in full communion with the Latin Church, when they disagree about these two important doctrines?
M
mardukm
Guest
Dear brother Formosus,
When I used the word “Natural,” part of me held back because “natural” can be understood in three senses:
(1) something inherent;
(2) something that is not supernatural.
(3) something that has ALWAYS been that way, or meant to ALWAYS be that way.
I was using it in the first two senses, but it could easily be understood in the third sense. I am definitely not using it in the third sense. We were not meant to be separated from God. It is indeed UNnatural in this third sense of the term. That is why Pope St. Athanasius of Alexandria called the original sin, or sin in general, a “blemish.” Other Fathers refer to it as a “spot.” Latins commonly speak of it as a “stain.”
It is a spot, or blemish, or stain on our nature precisely because it is UNnatural.
At this point, there is a nuance in the teaching of the Catholic Church on Original Sin that I think many Easterns miss. Read the dogma of the IC carefully (and if anyone has the time, compare it to the documents of Trent on Original Sin). The dogma of the IC does not say that Mary was preserved from “Original sin.” It states, specifically, that Mary was preserved from the STAIN of Original Sin. This is a sure indication - for those who fully understand this nuance - that the dogma of the IC is not making any reference to the PHYSICAL effects of Original Sin such as death or sickness or mental illness, etc. Rather, in line with the multitude of Fathers in the early Church, the dogma is referring to the SPIRITUAL effects of Original Sin - the separation from God. As noted earlier, the Fathers used the term “spot” or “blemish” or “stain” to refer specifically to that thing about human nature that is UNnatural - spiritual separation from God. This is the same sense that the dogma of the IC, in accord with the patristic witness, uses the term “STAIN.” The dogma of the IC is specifically referring to that unnatural separation from God. The dogma is not saying, and never intended to say, that Mary was preserved from physical death (thus contradicting Eastern Tradition). The only thing that the dogma is saying is that Mary not for one instance in her entire existence was separated from God. Can ALL Easterns (and Orientals, for that matter) agree to this teaching? I believe so. Can any Eastern or Oriental deny this teaching? I don’t believe so, for it would contradict their own liturgical and patristic sources.
Blessings,
Marduk
You must have read my mind.
When I used the word “Natural,” part of me held back because “natural” can be understood in three senses:(1) something inherent;
(2) something that is not supernatural.
(3) something that has ALWAYS been that way, or meant to ALWAYS be that way.
I was using it in the first two senses, but it could easily be understood in the third sense. I am definitely not using it in the third sense. We were not meant to be separated from God. It is indeed UNnatural in this third sense of the term. That is why Pope St. Athanasius of Alexandria called the original sin, or sin in general, a “blemish.” Other Fathers refer to it as a “spot.” Latins commonly speak of it as a “stain.”
It is a spot, or blemish, or stain on our nature precisely because it is UNnatural.
At this point, there is a nuance in the teaching of the Catholic Church on Original Sin that I think many Easterns miss. Read the dogma of the IC carefully (and if anyone has the time, compare it to the documents of Trent on Original Sin). The dogma of the IC does not say that Mary was preserved from “Original sin.” It states, specifically, that Mary was preserved from the STAIN of Original Sin. This is a sure indication - for those who fully understand this nuance - that the dogma of the IC is not making any reference to the PHYSICAL effects of Original Sin such as death or sickness or mental illness, etc. Rather, in line with the multitude of Fathers in the early Church, the dogma is referring to the SPIRITUAL effects of Original Sin - the separation from God. As noted earlier, the Fathers used the term “spot” or “blemish” or “stain” to refer specifically to that thing about human nature that is UNnatural - spiritual separation from God. This is the same sense that the dogma of the IC, in accord with the patristic witness, uses the term “STAIN.” The dogma of the IC is specifically referring to that unnatural separation from God. The dogma is not saying, and never intended to say, that Mary was preserved from physical death (thus contradicting Eastern Tradition). The only thing that the dogma is saying is that Mary not for one instance in her entire existence was separated from God. Can ALL Easterns (and Orientals, for that matter) agree to this teaching? I believe so. Can any Eastern or Oriental deny this teaching? I don’t believe so, for it would contradict their own liturgical and patristic sources.
I think that is a good summary. I will only add that Orientals, as with many other things, are believe in a combination of the two.
Blessings,
Marduk
D
dvdjs
Guest
Actually is it a very poor book. He holds ideas about the Catholic faith that are terribly misinformed. And his ideas Orthodoxy are not especially well grounded either. He is a polemicist, not a thinker.
C
Cavaradossi
Guest
I’m not so sure if I agree with that. For the Eastern Orthodox (and presumably the Eastern Catholics who share our theology), sin is simply that which ‘misses the mark’. It is a very broad and encompassing conceptualization where things which are a sign of our fallen nature are sinful, even if they are unintentional or impossible to control (hence the nightly prayers which ask for forgiveness of intentional and unintentional sins). It ties somewhat into the idea that we are all wounded icons of God in need of restoration. Things which damage the image of God within us are inherently sinful, and this is how sins can be unintentional, as not all acts that damage our image of God are performed by choice. Then again, perhaps I misunderstand what you meant by ‘Actual sin’, as the definition is a little self-referential.
M
mardukm
Guest
Well, no. That’s not what the Latins teach. It is unfortunate that the word “guilt” is the term used to translate the original Latin. When we English speakers see the word “guilt,” our most common reaction is to associate it with the idea of BLAME. But in the original Latin, the word that can be transliterated as “blame” is not actually the word that the Council of Trent used when issuing its dogmatic definition on Original Sin. The Latin word for “blame” is culpa. But the Latin word used in Trent’s definition that is (unfortunately) translated as “guilt” is not culpa, but another word - reatus (or some other derivative of it - I forget offhand). Reatus is not “blame,” but (for lack of a better description) a state of indebtedness due to an action that one did not perform.
To explain, imagine a rich man damages someone’s property, and he (and he alone) has the guilt or the blame (culpa) for that action. He has to recompense for the damage. But he dies, and the recompense is not yet complete. So his son, upon inherting his estate, inherits his debt, but NOT the blame or guilt (culpa) for the action that resulted in that debt. That is the concept of reatus.
Similarly, Adam’s action resulted in a certain unnatural state. All his descendants inherit this unnatural state (reatus), but Adam and Adam alone possess the blame/guilt (culpa). We have inherited Adam’s reatus (according to the dogmatic definition of Trent), but NOT his culpa.
I hope that clears it up.
Maybe because the hierarchy of the Eastern Catholic Churches have a better understanding than their EO brethren of what the Latins actually mean in what the Latins teach?
Blessings,
Marduk
A
Augustus24
Guest
Thanks that helps a lot. Why does english have to be so imprecise?Well, no. That’s not what the Latins teach. It is unfortunate that the word “guilt” is the term used to translate the original Latin. When we English speakers see the word “guilt,” our most common reaction is to associate it with the idea of BLAME. But in the original Latin, the word that can be transliterated as “blame” is not actually the word that the Council of Trent used when issuing its dogmatic definition on Original Sin. The Latin word for “blame” is culpa. But the Latin word used in Trent’s definition that is (unfortunately) translated as “guilt” is not culpa, but another word - reatus (or some other derivative of it - I forget offhand). Reatus is not “blame,” but (for lack of a better description) a state of indebtedness due to an action that one did not perform.
To explain, imagine a rich man damages someone’s property, and he (and he alone) has the guilt or the blame (culpa) for that action. He has to recompense for the damage. But he dies, and the recompense is not yet complete. So his son, upon inherting his estate, inherits his debt, but NOT the blame or guilt (culpa) for the action that resulted in that debt. That is the concept of reatus.
Similarly, Adam’s action resulted in a certain unnatural state. All his descendants inherit this unnatural state (reatus), but Adam and Adam alone possess the blame/guilt (culpa). We have inherited Adam’s reatus (according to the dogmatic definition of Trent), but NOT his culpa.
I hope that clears it up.
Maybe because the hierarchy of the Eastern Catholic Churches have a better understanding than their EO brethren of what the Latins actually mean in what the Latins teach?
Blessings,
Marduk
C
ConstantineTG
Guest
So if we cannot recompense for the debt ourselves, why do we need to atone?
The Eastern view is this. God created man in His image and likeness. Adam and Eve sinned, changing the very nature of man created in the image and likeness of God. We are now subject to sin and death. Christ, conquered death by death. He became man so that men can become gods. By partaking in our nature, Christ opened the nature of God to us that we may partake in it. Sin is every action that fails to accomplish this. If we do not do what God would do, then we do not become closer to God. We fail, therefore we sin. Baptism opens us up to the graces of God, by dying with Christ we are reborn through Christ. By the graces of God through the Sacraments, we are given the strength to fight out tendency to sin and live as God lives. In Eastern theology, there are such things as involuntary sins.
Communion means we agree, it doesn’t mean we believe in the same exact thing, word for word. We agree that we believe in the same thing even though from the outside they are different. The same thing in being in communion with God. We cannot be of the same divine nature as God, but as long as we live accordingly to the live of God, then we become partakers of God’s divine nature.
F
Farmer88
Guest
Well, the man wasn’t a Catholic. He readily admits to that and that he doesn’t understand Catholicism as well as he does Protestantism, considering he was a Protestant before his conversion. I’m not advocating for him either, just stating the obvious. And I would have to say that it IS possible to be both a polemicist and a thinker, it’s not like they are exclusive.
G
Ghosty
Guest
I have to admit that it really, really bothers me when Eastern (Byzantine) people say we don’t believe in Original Sin, especially since such comments are almost immediately followed by a description of nothing else but Original Sin.
We are born in a state of damage and distance from God (sin) by virtue of our origins in Adam and Eve (original). We inherit this fallen, damaged state from our first parents, and we are brought back to God (at one) through the saving actions of Christ, and this Grace is imparted to us through a new birth, a new origin, in Baptism.
If there is no Original Sin, then there is no need for Christ’s death, and Baptism is a lie. If we are separated from our intended relationship with God, then there must be atonement, which simply means to bring together what has been separated, to reconcile.
Peace and God bless!
We are born in a state of damage and distance from God (sin) by virtue of our origins in Adam and Eve (original). We inherit this fallen, damaged state from our first parents, and we are brought back to God (at one) through the saving actions of Christ, and this Grace is imparted to us through a new birth, a new origin, in Baptism.
If there is no Original Sin, then there is no need for Christ’s death, and Baptism is a lie. If we are separated from our intended relationship with God, then there must be atonement, which simply means to bring together what has been separated, to reconcile.
Peace and God bless!
- Status