Original Sin - Catholic and Orthodox

  • Thread starter Thread starter Guyonthestreet
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
G

Guyonthestreet

Guest
If Im correct, catholics believe we are all born stained with original sin, and we live with the consequences of a fallen world.

Orthodox believe we live with the consequences of the original sin, but NOT that each individual is personally stained with original sin.

As Orthodox claim to not have changed or developed doctrines since the times of the apostles, what was the belief of the early church fathers regarding original sin, and what sources do catholics under the auspices of Rome and Orthodox christians cite to support their position.
 
I think a significant amount of EO on here are not properly representing our actual position on ancestral sin and are even advocating views that strike me as Pelagian.

We do believe that each individual inherits ancestral sin. And this does involve a loss of communion with God, a loss of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit that the Adam and Eve originally had, a spiritual death, and a loss of sanctifying grace. The only real difference between the EO and RC understanding of ancestral sin is that the RCC teaches that with ancestral sin comes a corporate participation in the injustice of Adam and an inheritance of the moral stain that came with it, whereas the EOC generally rejects the idea that ancestral sin comes with this.
 
agiosotheos said:
The only real difference between the EO and RC understanding of ancestral sin is that the RCC teaches that with ancestral sin comes a corporate participation in the injustice of Adam and an inheritance of the moral stain that came with it, whereas the EOC generally rejects the idea that ancestral sin comes with this.
Click to expand...
So what is this based on - would it be right to say this must be the position that was taken by the ECF’s as this is the Orthodox view?

Can you point to some documents for me to read that would support this.
 
Guyonthestreet said:
If Im correct, catholics believe we are all born stained with original sin, and we live with the consequences of a fallen world.

Orthodox believe we live with the consequences of the original sin, but NOT that each individual is personally stained with original sin.

As Orthodox claim to not have changed or developed doctrines since the times of the apostles, what was the belief of the early church fathers regarding original sin, and what sources do catholics under the auspices of Rome and Orthodox christians cite to support their position.
Click to expand...
That sounds about right. Orthodox sources may say though that it would be a more complete understanding using the term “Ancestral Sin” vs. “Original Sin”. It was the sin of our ancestors and Genesis explained what those consequences were.

In Genesis 2 God gives the warning that sinning will bring death.

In Genesis 3 the Serpent says that sinning would open the eyes Adam and Eve to know good and evil. In Genesis 3 what the Serpent said, happened - their eyes were opened. Later in Genesis what God’s original warning was fullfilled, Adam and Eve did indeed die.

In Genesis 3:16 - 19 God more specific on the consequences of their sin: 16 To the woman He said: “I will greatly multiply your sorrow and your conception; In pain you shall bring forth children; Your desire shall be for your husband, And he shall rule over you.” 17 Then to Adam He said, “Because you have heeded the voice of your wife, and have eaten from the tree of which I commanded you, saying, ‘You shall not eat of it’: “ Cursed is the ground for your sake; In toil you shall eat of it All the days of your life. 18 Both thorns and thistles it shall bring forth for you, And you shall eat the herb of the field. 19 In the sweat of your face you shall eat bread Till you return to the ground, For out of it you were taken; For dust you are, And to dust you shall return.”

The negative consequences are: 1. Knowing Evil 2. Physical Death (turning to dust) / Illness 3. Pain 4. tendency towards Passions 5. Domination 6. Cursed ground/animals (all of nature was affected in other words) 7. Toil/Sweat (hard work)

Each of us born after the Fall of Adam and Eve are born with into a world with this consequences. Jesus was no exception and neither was Mary. We know that they both experienced, at the very least, pain and death, as it is recorded specifically in the New Testament. The difference between them and us in this matter is the fact that they both chose to never sin! This is why Mary, who is only human, is so greatly honored by the Orthodoxd!!! Not because she was some “Great Exception” to humanity but because she is a “Great Exemplar”! Because she was born with/into the same Ancestral Sin Consequences as we all are, yet she conquered Sin by never giving herself over to it!!!
 
SingleMomMonica said:
This is why Mary, who is only human, is so greatly honored!!! Because she was born with/into the same Ancestral Sin Consequences as we all are, yet she conquered Sin by never giving herself over to it!!!
Click to expand...
Is it right to say then that Orthodox do not accept that Mary was immaculately Conceived, ie saved before she was born, rather she was born just like you and I but chose not to sin.

So she wouldnt have needed a Saviour before she was born, in order to bear Christ, because like all of us, she was born into a fallen world, but not individually ‘‘stained’’ with the sin of Adam and Eve but was given the grace not to sin?
 
Church Fathers: Baptism
Recognitions of Clement
Click to expand...
But you will perhaps say, ‘What does the baptism of water contribute toward the worship of God?’ In the first place, because that which has pleased God is fulfilled. In the second place, because when you are regenerated and born again of water and of God, the frailty of your former birth, which you have through men, is cut off, and so . . . you shall be able to attain salvation; but otherwise it is impossible. For thus has the true prophet [Jesus] testified to us with an oath: “Verily, I say to you, that unless a man is born again of water . . . he shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven” (Recognitions of Clement 6:9 [A.D. 221]).
Click to expand...
Church Fathers: Hell
Theophilus of Antioch
Click to expand...
Give studious attention to the prophetic writings [the Bible] and they will lead you on a clearer path to escape the eternal punishments and to obtain the eternal good things of God… [God] will examine everything and will judge justly, granting recompense to each according to merit. To those who seek immortally by the patient exercise of good works, he will give everlasting life, joy, peace, rest, and all good things. . . , For the unbelievers and for the contemptuous and for those who do not submit to the truth but assent to iniquity, when they have been involved in adulteries, and fornications, and homosexualities, and avarice, and in lawless idolatries, there will be wrath and indignation, tribulation and anguish; and in the end, such men as these will be detained in everlasting fire (To Autolycus 1:14 [A.D. 181]).
Click to expand...
 
Guyonthestreet said:
Is it right to say then that Orthodox do not accept that Mary was immaculately Conceived, ie saved before she was born, rather she was born just like you and I but chose not to sin.

So she wouldnt have needed a Saviour before she was born, in order to bear Christ, because like all of us, she was born into a fallen world, but not individually ‘‘stained’’ with the sin of Adam and Eve but was given the grace not to sin?
Click to expand...
I just edited that post of mine you’re quoting here. Please re-read it so you can get my complete thought there.

Right. Orthodox have always believed that Mary was not conceived any differently than you and I. She was born into the same consquences as you and I. You are right again that she chose never to sin - that’s what makes her a “Great Exemplar” of the Human Race. Catholics see her more as a “Great Exception” to the Human Race - just read the Papal Bull announcing she is the Immaculate Conception.

Right again, she didn’t have a Saviour “before” she was born, but she did certainly need a Saviour! Just as all humanity needed one. She received the Saviour first as she received Him into her Womb.

Grace in Orthodox eyes is the Divine Energy of God Himself. Grace is participation in the very Life of God. The Theotokos remained continuously of her own free will participating in His Divine Energies. At 3 years old she entered into the Temple never looking back at her parents to live until she was betrothed to St. Joseph as a gift from her parents back to God. She was the only female ever recorded to enter the Holy of Holies unharmed (even the high priests entered that space with rope tied around there ankle to get pulled back out if they died in the presence of God).
 
Keep in mind though that Clement was never considered a Saint in the Church - could be because of that teaching?

Christ did say that “unless one is born again of water and spirit he shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.”

The kingdom of heaven is the Church.

Being “born again of water & spirit” directly refers to Baptism and Confirmation which one needs to received in order to be considered a “Christian” or a member of the Church.

The normal way to get to heaven is through the Church, but God is Love and is Merciful and as such will likely allow non-Christians into heaven…but if I was a non-Christian, I would become one since God didn’t establish the Way for Himself, but for our benefit.
 
agiosotheos said:
The only real difference between the EO and RC understanding of ancestral sin is that the RCC teaches that with ancestral sin comes a corporate participation in the injustice of Adam and an inheritance of the moral stain that came with it, whereas the EOC generally rejects the idea that ancestral sin comes with this.
Click to expand...
I don’t remember ever hearing the part that I underlined before. But if a Catholic said that, then I would imagine it was meant spiritually, like saying that we all participate in the Passion of Christ. Here is the closest thing I see to that statement from the Church’s dogma on Original Sin: “this sin of Adam,–which in its origin is one, and being transfused into all by propagation, not by imitation, is in each one as his own” (Trent, Ses. V, 3). But this simply means that we all inherit an actual sin that must be washed away by Baptism, “or the desire thereof”, in order to be justified. There is nothing in the dogma that says we “participated” in Adam’s sin. So I guess we see it the same way. 🙂 God bless.
 
Guyonthestreet said:
Is it right to say then that Orthodox do not accept that Mary was immaculately Conceived, ie saved before she was born, rather she was born just like you and I but chose not to sin.

So she wouldnt have needed a Saviour before she was born, in order to bear Christ, because like all of us, she was born into a fallen world, but not individually ‘‘stained’’ with the sin of Adam and Eve but was given the grace not to sin?
Click to expand...
  1. Yes, we generally reject the Immaculate Conception and say that Mary was born with the fallen nature.
  2. Yes, she was born in a state identical to our own, but because of the corporate asceticism that Israel was taught throughout the years by God, and the private asceticism that Mary possessed throughout her life, she simply chose to follow God’s will and never commit sin (at least this is a popular view in the EOC).
  3. The only reason Mary was not individually “stained” is because the inheritance of ancestral sin does not involve the transmission of a stain. In the Eastern mentality, ancestral sin is actually better conceived of as an emptiness rather than as a stain. We come to lack communion with God, indwelling of the Holy Spirit, sanctifying grace, etc. These are all points of what we lack, and thus give a feeling of being empty rather than stained. Mary was likewise born with this emptiness that we call the fallen nature.
  4. No, Mary was not initially given some special grace to not sin.
  5. At the time of the Annunciation, after about 16 years of serving the Lord single-mindedly in perfection, the Holy Spirit descended upon Mary and “overshadowed” her, resulting in her purification even from ancestral sin. The Word who now dwelt in her took an instance of humanity from her as His own. It is in result of this that we call Mary “Panagia”, meaning All-Holy.
 
Guyonthestreet said:
So what is this based on - would it be right to say this must be the position that was taken by the ECF’s as this is the Orthodox view?

Can you point to some documents for me to read that would support this.
Click to expand...
I believe a prominent document describing our understanding of the fallen nature is Athanasius the Great’s On the Incarnation.
 
SingleMomMonica said:
Each of us born after the Fall of Adam and Eve are born with into a world with this consequences. Jesus was no exception and neither was Mary. We know that they both experienced, at the very least, pain and death, as it is recorded specifically in the New Testament. The difference between them and us in this matter is the fact that they both chose to never sin! This is why Mary, who is only human, is so greatly honored by the Orthodoxd!!! Not because she was some “Great Exception” to humanity but because she is a “Great Exemplar”! Because she was born with/into the same Ancestral Sin Consequences as we all are, yet she conquered Sin by never giving herself over to it!!!
Click to expand...
Mary was born with ancestral sin. Jesus was not.
 
SingleMomMonica said:
Grace in Orthodox eyes is the Divine Energy of God Himself. Grace is participation in the very Life of God. The Theotokos remained continuously of her own free will participating in His Divine Energies.
Click to expand...
Mary’s participation in the divine energies was not complete until the Annunciation because before that time she was in ancestral sin.
 
agiosotheos said:
Mary’s participation in the divine energies was not complete until the Annunciation because before that time she was in ancestral sin.
Click to expand...
But at the Annunciation when the angel Gabriel called Mary “Kecharitomene”, it meant that she was graced in the indefinite past, that grace continues in the present, and will continue into the indefinite future. And God said, in the Garden of Eden, that Mary, like Jesus, would be at “enmity” with Satan. And we know that our Lord Jesus was always at enmity with Satan, and that no sin could ever stain His soul. So by God’s own analogy, Mary likewise was never stained with any sin - she, like the Ark of the Covenant, was “made” like “pure gold inside and out” (Exodus 25:10-11).
 
Luke65 said:
But this simply means that we all inherit an actual sin that must be washed away by Baptism, “or the desire thereof”, in order to be justified.
Click to expand...
If an infant is not born guilty then how does Baptism involve for them a justification?
 
Luke65 said:
But at the Annunciation when the angel Gabriel called Mary “Kecharitomene”, it meant that she was graced in the indefinite past, that grace continues in the present, and will continue into the indefinite future. And God said, in the Garden of Eden, that Mary, like Jesus, would be at “enmity” with Satan. And we know that our Lord Jesus was always at enmity with Satan, and that no sin could ever stain His soul. So by God’s own analogy, Mary likewise was never stained with any sin - she, like the Ark of the Covenant, was “made” like “pure gold inside and out” (Exodus 25:10-11).
Click to expand...
It really isn’t that wise to try to apply chronology to the Annunciation in that way. On top of that, it doesn’t appear that “full of grace” is an agreed upon translation. So no, I don’t believe that Mary was full of sanctifying grace before the Annuciation.

Ancestral sin doesn’t involve any stain. Thus, Mary was without stain but was with the ancestral sin.
 
agiosotheos said:
Mary was born with ancestral sin. Jesus was not.
Click to expand...
You’re trying to say that Jesus did not experience pain during His passion, that He didn’t die on the cross? That’s heresy! He did feel the pain and He did die!!! These are some of the affects of Ancestral Sin.
 
SingleMomMonica said:
You’re trying to say that Jesus did not experience pain during His passion, that He didn’t die on the cross? That’s heresy! He did feel the pain and He did die!!! These are some of the affects of Ancestral Sin.
Click to expand...
I didn’t say Jesus did not suffer the consequences of ancestral sin. I’m saying He did not inherit ancestral sin itself. The fact that my saying He did not inherit ancestral sin made you think I was saying He did not suffer pain and death is again making me wonder if you have a Pelagian understanding of ancestral sin.

What is ancestral sin to you?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top