Original Sin: Differences b/w RC and EO

[belgianwaffles9]

May the Good Lord forgive me for staring a thread which can only end in horrendous and uncharitable arguments…

For a while now, I have been wondering about the precise difference between the view of original sin taught by the Catholic Church and that of the Orthodox Church.

I know that there are some differences, and I have seen many Eastern Orthodox posters cite the Roman beliefs pertaining to original sin as a “post-schism heresy” which led to other heresies such as the Assumption and the Immaculate Conception.

As with all of the doctrinal disputes between the Catholic and Orthodox Church, It seems to me that both churches teach the exact same essentials, and that the disagreement is over issues of translations, linguistics, and semantics (terms dont translate from one language to the other, or seem heretical when they do, etc).

I have done some research on both the Catholic and Orthodox position on original sin; I know the Orthodox and Catholics agree that a fallen nature is passed on from generation to generation as a result of Adam’s original sin. But I have heard Orthodox say that Catholics believe that guilt for that sin is also passed down. I know St Augustine seemed to believe that. But the Catechism seems to be in line with orthodox teaching:

FROM THE CATECHISM:

404 How did the sin of Adam become the sin of all his descendants? The whole human race is in Adam “as one body of one man”.293 By this “unity of the human race” all men are implicated in Adam’s sin, as all are implicated in Christ’s justice. Still, the transmission of original sin is a mystery that we cannot fully understand. But we do know by Revelation that Adam had received original holiness and justice not for himself alone, but for all human nature. By yielding to the tempter, Adam and Eve committed a personal sin, but this sin affected the human nature that they would then transmit in a fallen state. It is a sin which will be transmitted by propagation to all mankind, that is, by the transmission of a human nature deprived of original holiness and justice. And that is why original sin is called “sin” only in an analogical sense: it is a sin “contracted” and not “committed” - a state and not an act.

**405 ** Although it is proper to each individual, original sin does not have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam’s descendants. It is a deprivation of original holiness and justice, **but human nature has not been totally corrupted: it is wounded in the natural powers proper to it, subject to ignorance, suffering and the dominion of death, and inclined to sin - an inclination to evil that is called concupiscence". **Baptism, by imparting the life of Christ’s grace, erases original sin and turns a man back towards God, but the consequences for nature, weakened and inclined to evil, persist in man and summon him to spiritual battle.

…

416 By his sin Adam, as the first man, lost the original holiness and justice he had received from God, not only for himself but for all human beings.

**417 **Adam and Eve **transmitted to their descendants human nature wounded by their own first sin **and hence deprived of original holiness and justice; **this deprivation is called “original sin”. **

**418 ****As a result of original sin, human nature is weakened **in its powers, subject to ignorance, suffering and the domination of death, and **inclined to sin (this inclination is called “concupiscence”). **

**419 **"We therefore hold, with the Council of Trent, that original sin is transmitted with human nature, “by propagation, not by imitation” and that it is. . . ‘proper to each’" (Paul VI, CPG § 16).

This seems to square with the Orthodox teaching (Its hard to find specific quotes since they lack a "catechism’ of sorts, and Its a bit impracticle to read through every council right now).

So…What are the subtle differences that i seem to be missing? Do the Orthodox believe that Catholics believe in Protestant notions such as Total Depravity which we actually condemn?

(please try to keep it academic and just explain the differences… I’m not interested in apologetics from either side, and I certainly want no arguing… That being said, let the arguing begin… )

 

[ralphinal]

I am looking forward to this thread, assuming it stays civil. This is a topic that I, too, am interested in but was afraid to bring up.

 

[belgianwaffles9]

…i seriously can’t believe this thread isnt past 10 pages by now…

Isn’t there anyone out there who can explain the differences?

 

[reen12]

Whatere the differing points - in the teaching of two Chrisitian churches,
the teaching on original sin, itself, is a great error.
The entire Christian faith [no matter which ecclesial entity speaks of same]
is based on this construct.

The CCC testifies to the criticality of this teaching: #389

**"…**we cannot tamper with the revelation of original sin without undermining the mystery of Christ."

Saul of Tarsus pulled a verbal sleight of hand. He said that:

‘If Christ is not risen, then our faith is in vain.’

Oh no, Saul. That does not distract attention [sleight of hand] from a claim,
asserted by you…further upstream, theologically.

You were brilliant enough to recognize that an ‘ontological’ sin was required -
or no need for a savior from same.
You asserted that there is sin, in man’s very being [an ‘ontological’ reality]

In conclusion, just as through one transgression condemnation came upon all, so through one righteous act acquittal and life came to all. Romans 6: 18

Highly trained - in Judaic thought, you knew, Saul, that there was no basis - whatsoever -
in the Hebrew scriptures, for this assertion.

sullivan-county.com/z/os.htm

reen12

 

[reen12]

While you were at it, Saul, you distorted Torah - making it seem a burden.
Read the psalms…and a much different reality is to be found.

Those who love Your law have great peace, And nothing causes them to stumble. Ps. 119

You arrogantly depicted Torah as having had a propaedeutic function.

The author of the article [linked to, as well, in the above post] well notes that Saul’s
main success was with those who knew nothing, whatever, of the Hebrew scriptures.

sullivan-county.com/z/os.htm

There is not now - nor ever was - an ontological sin.
[A sin in man’s very being, at birth.]

reen12

 

[belgianwaffles9]

Whatere the differing points - in the teaching of two Chrisitian churches,
the teaching on original sin, itself, is a great error.
The entire Christian faith [no matter which ecclesial entity speaks of same]
is based on this construct.

The CCC testifies to the criticality of this teaching: #389

**"…**we cannot tamper with the revelation of original sin without undermining the mystery of Christ."

Saul of Tarsus pulled a verbal sleight of hand. He said that:

‘If Christ is not risen, then our faith is in vain.’

Oh no, Saul. That does not distract attention [sleight of hand] from a claim,
asserted by you…further upstream, theologically.

You were brilliant enough to recognize that an ‘ontological’ sin was required -
or no need for a savior from same.
You asserted that there is sin, in man’s very being [an ‘ontological’ reality]

In conclusion, just as through one transgression condemnation came upon all, so through one righteous act acquittal and life came to all. Romans 6: 18

Highly trained - in Judaic thought, you knew, Saul, that there was no basis - whatsoever -
in the Hebrew scriptures, for this assertion.

sullivan-county.com/z/os.htm

reen12

And just what are you hoping to accomplish?

…So, anyone actually have an answer?

 

[reen12]

This teaching, on original sin, ended up generating speculation on limbo -
which was a very official ‘unofficial’ teaching, that was taught for…700 years.

To read Augustine’s tender thoughts, on the fate and destination, of an
unbaptized infant, chills the heart. Augustine, at one point, speculated
that an unbapitzed infant would be subject to the ‘positive misery of the damned.’

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

I reference a Catholic source, on Augutine’s speculation on limbo.
[beginning at: “As to the difficulties…” about 80% down the page]

newadvent.org/cathen/09256a.htm

It will be said that this was Augustine’s thought, alone.
The fact that a Father of the Church could have even speculated on this, sickens.

A far cry, indeed, from the dominant teaching of Judaism, that each human being enters this world, in innocence.

reen12

 

[josephdaniel29]

May the Good Lord forgive me for staring a thread which can only end in horrendous and uncharitable arguments…

For a while now, I have been wondering about the precise difference between the view of original sin taught by the Catholic Church and that of the Orthodox Church.

I know that there are some differences, and I have seen many Eastern Orthodox posters cite the Roman beliefs pertaining to original sin as a “post-schism heresy” which led to other heresies such as the Assumption and the Immaculate Conception.

As with all of the doctrinal disputes between the Catholic and Orthodox Church, It seems to me that both churches teach the exact same essentials, and that the disagreement is over issues of translations, linguistics, and semantics (terms dont translate from one language to the other, or seem heretical when they do, etc).

I have done some research on both the Catholic and Orthodox position on original sin; I know the Orthodox and Catholics agree that a fallen nature is passed on from generation to generation as a result of Adam’s original sin. But I have heard Orthodox say that Catholics believe that guilt for that sin is also passed down. I know St Augustine seemed to believe that. But the Catechism seems to be in line with orthodox teaching:

FROM THE CATECHISM:

This seems to square with the Orthodox teaching (Its hard to find specific quotes since they lack a "catechism’ of sorts, and Its a bit impracticle to read through every council right now).

So…What are the subtle differences that i seem to be missing? Do the Orthodox believe that Catholics believe in Protestant notions such as Total Depravity which we actually condemn?

(please try to keep it academic and just explain the differences… I’m not interested in apologetics from either side, and I certainly want no arguing… That being said, let the arguing begin… )

I’m no scholar on Catholic theology but it seems to me that since Vatican II the Catholic Church had changed the way She speaks about a number of things, including original sin that seems to bring Her more in line with Orthodoxy. Contrast what you cited from the CCC above with this from the Council of Trent.

If any one asserts, that the prevarication of Adam injured himself alone, and not his posterity; and that the holiness and justice, received of God, which he lost, he lost for himself alone, and not for us also; or that he, being defiled by the sin of disobedience, has only transfused death, and pains of the body, into the whole human race, but not sin also, which is the death of the soul; let him be anathema:–whereas he contradicts the apostle who says; By one man sin entered into the world, and by sin death, and so death passed upon all men, in whom all have sinned.

And…

If any one denies, that, by the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, which is conferred in baptism, the guilt of original sin is remitted; or even asserts that the whole of that which has the true and proper nature of sin is not taken away; but says that it is only rased, or not imputed; let him be anathema. For, in those who are born again, there is nothing that God hates; because, There is no condemnation to those who are truly buried together with Christ by baptism into death; who walk not according to the flesh, but, putting off the old man, and putting on the new who is created according to God, are made innocent, immaculate, pure, harmless, and beloved of God, heirs indeed of God, but joint heirs with Christ; so that there is nothing whatever to retard their entrance into heaven. But this holy synod confesses and is sensible, that in the baptized there remains concupiscence, or an incentive (to sin); which, whereas it is left for our exercise, cannot injure those who consent not, but resist manfully by the grace of Jesus Christ; yea, he who shall have striven lawfully shall be crowned. This concupiscence, which the apostle sometimes calls sin, the holy Synod declares that the Catholic Church has never understood it to be called sin, as being truly and properly sin in those born again, but because it is of sin, and inclines to sin.

Just because you’ve changed the language you use to make your teachings more palpable to us it doesn’t mean you have fundamentally changed what you believe. I suspect if you were to ask an older Catholic their beliefs would line up much more with the Council of Trent than with the modern CCC.

As to the Orthodox understanding we believe no personal guilt is imparted as is stated in the above passages. Only the consequences of Ancestral Sin are passed on to Adams descendants. I’ll give you a quick analogy. If your father commits murder and is sentenced to prison you as a child are not personally responsible for you father’s crime but you surely suffer the consequences of a broken family nonetheless. We are all part of Adam’s family and it is broken because he choose to turn away from God, taking all of his descendants with him. In Christ we now have the opportunity to turn back to God, restoring us to the communion we lost with Adam’s sin.

Yours in Christ
Joe

 

[reen12]

quote: belgianwaffles9

And just what are you hoping to accomplish?

Noting the true ‘good news.’ God creates human beings in innocence.

Not at all addressing those who are sure and certain
that an infant is born - with a soul awash in the ‘sin of Adam.’

Addressing those, following the thread - who may never even have considered - that this critically necessary teaching, of Christianity, was nothing but a ‘construct’ of Saul of Tarsus.

No wonder he was the apostle to the gentiles, who would have known not a thing…about Torah and oral tradition.

Now I am speaking to you Gentiles. Inasmuch then as I am the apostle to the Gentiles, I glory in my ministry in order to make my race jealous and thus save some of them. [Romans 11 13-14]

A critique of Saul’s teaching is to be found here:

sullivan-county.com/z/os.htm

reen12

 

[TriuneUnity]

quote: belgianwaffles9

Noting the true ‘good news.’ God creates human beings in innocence.

Not at all addressing those who are sure and certain
that an infant is born - with a soul awash in the ‘sin of Adam.’

Addressing those, following the thread - who may never even have considered - that this critically necessary teaching, of Christianity, was nothing but a ‘construct’ of Saul of Tarsus.

No wonder he was the apostle to the gentiles, who would have known not a thing…about Torah and oral tradition.

Now I am speaking to you Gentiles. Inasmuch then as I am the apostle to the Gentiles, I glory in my ministry in order to make my race jealous and thus save some of them. [Romans 11 13-14]

A critique of Saul’s teaching is to be found here:

sullivan-county.com/z/os.htm

reen12

Yeah…studying under Gamaliel, the most influential rabbi of the ancient world… I am sure Paul knew not a thing about the Torah.

 

[reen12]

As I’ve seen noted, here and there, there is the saying:

‘God writes straight with crooked lines.’

The tangles of Christian theology amaze. Yet God uses these honestly held,
erroneous beliefs to good [original sin, triune deity, ‘fullness’ of revelation…]

Despite the oftimes acrimonious debates - between various ecclesial entities,
the true good news - that there is one God - has been brought to countless billions of
human beings, over 20 centuries.

Through the thickets of error, God calls still, to the human heart.

reen12

 

[fhansen]

We are all part of Adam’s family and it is broken because he choose to turn away from God, taking all of his descendants with him. In Christ we now have the opportunity to turn back to God, restoring us to the communion we lost with Adam’s sin.
Yours in Christ
Joe

I’ve just recently been learning of the east/west differences in this area but in any event I believe it would be correct to say that in Catholic theology the “turned-away-state” is the original sin which resides in man. In other words, we didn’t inherit from Adam solely a world of pain/suffering/death (which would seem to be a rather harsh penalty anyway if God didn’t hold all humankind accountable for OS in at least some way) but we also inherited a twisted attitude towards God within ourselves-rebellious, distrustful, unloving. And being freed from death doesn’t by itself return us to friendship with God; we must also experience interior conversion; the winning, with His grace, of the struggle within ourselves against anything which raises itself up to compete with Him for godhood.

Adam didn’t begin in a fallen state but we do. If man didn’t lose holiness and justice at the fall, then why is sin so prevalent now?

The point that we are to learn here in this world where death unnaturally reigns is that separation from God and separation from His knowledge of right order for His creation can only bring death while love for and obedience to Him brings life-we need to come to know what Adam didn’t-that God is worthy of our love and obedience and that we simply need Him in order to live-that without Him there is no life-at least not one worth living.

I don’t know that any of this is irreconcilable with the Orthodox position-much of it may be the same-but in any case I think our understanding of human nature stands to suffer loss if we ignore the Roman Catholic doctrine on Original Sin.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Joe,

With regards to portions of your posted texts that were highlighted:

1. I take it you don’t believe that spiritual death, i.e., separation from God, is a result of Adam’s sin? You complained about the items that you highlighted. The first one defines sin as spiritual death which is separation from God. Why would you complain about that particular statement? If the EO do not believe that, then that is a HUUUGE difference from the apostolic Faith, and the EO need to reject that heresy as a condition of reuniting with the Catholic Church.
2. The guilt of original sin IS NOT the guilt for ADAM’s sin. Where did you get that idea, aside from reading non-Catholic books? Please show us concretely that when the document states “the guilt of original sin,” it means “the guilt for Adam’s own disobedience.” Guilt in this second excerpt from you is not the same thing as blame or culpability for a sin that has been committed. It simply means the absence of something from the Divine perspective that must be restored. With that PROPER understanding, I don’t know how you can object to the clause “the guilt of original sin.”

Basically, it seems you have had a misconception of what the Catholic Church taught prior to Vatican II, and think that there has been a change closer to Orthodox teaching. That is the furthest thing from the truth. The Catholic Church has always preserved the patristic teaching on original sin. But Easterns and Westerns often use different language to mean the same thing.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Milliardo]

Dear brother Joe,

With regards to portions of your posted texts that were highlighted:

1. I take it you don’t believe that spiritual death, i.e., separation from God, is a result of Adam’s sin?

The Orthodox understanding is that the consequences of sin is given to man, which includes death (both physical and spiritual); however, that does not mean that Adam’s sin is also our sin, since what Adam did is his sin alone. The fruits of that sin, however, is what we have as a result of their (Adam and Eve’s) banishment from Paradise.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Milliardo,

The Orthodox understanding is that the consequences of sin is given to man, which includes death (both physical and spiritual); however, that does not mean that Adam’s sin is also our sin, since what Adam did is his sin alone. The fruits of that sin, however, is what we have as a result of their (Adam and Eve’s) banishment from Paradise.

Thanks for the explanation. WHEW! I’m glad you cleared that up. I thought that was going to be another hurdle to unity.

I hope brother Joe comes back online to explain what he found objectionable about that portion.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[belgianwaffles9]

The Orthodox understanding is that the consequences of sin is given to man, which includes death (both physical and spiritual); however, that does not mean that Adam’s sin is also our sin, since what Adam did is his sin alone. The fruits of that sin, however, is what we have as a result of their (Adam and Eve’s) banishment from Paradise.

That is also the Catholic teaching. After hearing from both sides, i still don’t see any differences in belief.

 

[inJESUS]

A far cry, indeed, from the dominant teaching of Judaism, that each human being enters this world, in innocence.

reen12

Indeed I was born with iniquity, with sin my mother conceived me. (Pslam 51)

(Jeremiah 17:9)-
The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately sick; who can understand it?

 

[josephdaniel29]

Dear brother Joe,

With regards to portions of your posted texts that were highlighted:

1. I take it you don’t believe that spiritual death, i.e., separation from God, is a result of Adam’s sin? You complained about the items that you highlighted. The first one defines sin as spiritual death which is separation from God. Why would you complain about that particular statement? If the EO do not believe that, then that is a HUUUGE difference from the apostolic Faith, and the EO need to reject that heresy as a condition of reuniting with the Catholic Church.

Take a second and read what I highlighted and underlined again. It clearly says

or that he, being defiled by the sin of disobedience, has only transfused death, and pains of the body, into the whole human race, but not sin also, which is the death of the soul; let him be anathema

Meaning that if you don’t believe actual sin is transmitted you are anathema. How can we inherit actual sin from our fathers? A just God would not allow that. In fact holding us accountable for the sins of another is the height of injustice. That is why we oppose Catholic teaching on this matter. It teaches a vengeful and hateful God that has no basis whatsoever in Apostolic Tradition. You can see the final product of Catholic thought on this subject in Calvin and his total depravity.

1. The guilt of original sin IS NOT the guilt for ADAM’s sin. Where did you get that idea, aside from reading non-Catholic books?

I got that idea from reading pre Vatican II documents. Apparently what I thought was the unchanging rock of Catholic doctrine is in fact maleable depending on the situation you find yourselves in.

Please show us concretely that when the document states “the guilt of original sin,” it means “the guilt for Adam’s own disobedience.”

I think the onus is on you to prove to me that the plain language of the text doesn’t mean what it says. Show me from period documents or writings that it doesn’t mean what it says.

You people are impossible to figure out. Why don’t you just say what you mean? So now “guilt from original sin” doesn’t actually mean guilt it means “absence of justice.” Proceeds from the Father and the Son doesn’t actually mean “from the Father and the Son” it means from the Father through the Son. No salvation outside the Catholic Church doesn’t actually mean no salvation outside the Catholic Church is means that everyone who has been baptized is “mysteriously” part of the Church and may indeed be saved.

The problem for you guys is eventually the truth comes to the surface. In the middle ages you abandoned the Apostolic Faith making all these heretical doctrinal pronouncements on the supposed “infallibility” of the papacy. Now you have no way to turn back to the truth without admitting that you were wrong for so many centuries. The Catholic Church stands or falls on the supposed infallibility of the Pope and if you go back and change your position on these issues the “rock” of the papacy crumbles and everything you hold so dear goes with it. So instead you go back and change the definitions and the plain meaning of the terms you use and berate us for not “really” understanding Catholic teaching.

This whole discussion is pointless because no matter what writings or documents I produce using your logic they can be twisted to mean almost anything you want them to mean. I am weaponless and defenseless and so I’ll leave it to you and whoever else may want to engage you in discussion.

Yours in Christ
Joe

 

[Morwenna]

That is also the Catholic teaching. After hearing from both sides, i still don’t see any differences in belief.

I agree, belgianwaffles; it seems to be a distinction so fine as to be almost indistinguishable … at least to me.

I’m hopeful that as the thread develops further, someone will be able to explain it simply enough to get it through my (apparently) thick skull.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

I am personally exhausted from discussion this issue for the time being. There are a big thread in the Eastern Catholic section on this issue just last week:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=257069
this thread was a spin-off from this thread that same week:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=254497

May the Good Lord forgive me for staring a thread which can only end in horrendous and uncharitable arguments…

For a while now, I have been wondering about the precise difference between the view of original sin taught by the Catholic Church and that of the Orthodox Church.

I know that there are some differences, and I have seen many Eastern Orthodox posters cite the Roman beliefs pertaining to original sin as a “post-schism heresy” which led to other heresies such as the Assumption and the Immaculate Conception.

As with all of the doctrinal disputes between the Catholic and Orthodox Church, It seems to me that both churches teach the exact same essentials, and that the disagreement is over issues of translations, linguistics, and semantics (terms dont translate from one language to the other, or seem heretical when they do, etc).

I have done some research on both the Catholic and Orthodox position on original sin; I know the Orthodox and Catholics agree that a fallen nature is passed on from generation to generation as a result of Adam’s original sin. But I have heard Orthodox say that Catholics believe that guilt for that sin is also passed down. I know St Augustine seemed to believe that. But the Catechism seems to be in line with orthodox teaching:

FROM THE CATECHISM:

This seems to square with the Orthodox teaching (Its hard to find specific quotes since they lack a "catechism’ of sorts, and Its a bit impracticle to read through every council right now).

So…What are the subtle differences that i seem to be missing? Do the Orthodox believe that Catholics believe in Protestant notions such as Total Depravity which we actually condemn?

(please try to keep it academic and just explain the differences… I’m not interested in apologetics from either side, and I certainly want no arguing… That being said, let the arguing begin… )