Original Sin

[Fr_Ambrose]

Matt16_18:

There are no differences in the essentials between what the Catholic Church teaches about the original sin of Adam and its consequences for the human race, and what the Orthodox Church teaches.

I think that there must be serious differences. I’ve written in earlier posts that the doctrine of the Orthodox is what the West calls Semi-pelagianism (termed the doctrine of “synergy” in the East.)

Semi-pelagianism was taught in the West by Saint John Cassian.

Now Semi-pelagianism was anathematized by the Council of Orange in 529.

According to the Catholic Encyclopedia " The acts of the council, which were signed by the bishops, the pretorian prefect Liberius and seven other distinguished laymen, were forwarded to Rome and approved by Boniface II on 25 January, 531 (see BONIFACE II). They consequently enjoy œcumenical authority and are printed in Denzinger’s “Enchiridion Symbolorum.”
newadvent.org/cathen/11266b.htm

So the teaching of the Orthodox Church on grace and original sin has been anathematized and this has been accepted as being of ecumenical authority by the Popes of Rome.

How can we say that there is no difference in essentials? The Eastern beliefs and those who hold them have been anathematized. This indicates serious discrepancies between the two doctrines.

 

[GrzeszDeL]

I would be hesitant to endorse Matt’s claim that there are no differences in essentials between the Catholic and the Orthodox views of original sin; as I have said many times before, I am skeptical that they are as different as some have made them out to be, but frankly the Orthodox views on the subject are not nearly as clear and defined, so it is hard for me to say that they are or are not essentially the same as the much more precisely stated Catholic claims.

For all that though, I could hardly blame Fr. A for being confused about what the Catholic Church teaches on this subject. There has been quite a lot of dust kicked up on this thread - enough to obscure even a bright light. For my part, I would say that the answer to the question

Are you saying that the teaching of the Catholic Church is that we DO NOT inherit sin and guilt from Adam?

would be two fold: 1) nobody “inherits” guilt and 2) the answer to the question of inheriting sin depends on what you mean by the word “sin.”

It is important to remember that, according to Augustine, evil has no objective existence. God created the world and saw that it was good. All things are good, because all things are created by God and God only creates good. When we speak of “evil” or “injustice” or “sin,” we are speaking of good things that are nonetheless not quite as good as they were meant to be. In other words, “evil” is just a manner of speaking that we use to talk about a less-than-perfect good.

Adam and Eve were created in perfect holiness, possessed by origin of the beatific vision which the Saints now behold. By their fall, they lost this holiness. Had they retained it, it would have passed to us, their descendants, by natural generation - in the same way, for instance, that I am an American by virtue of the fact that my parents are Americans. Because they lost this holiness, however, they no longer had it to transmit to their progeny, and so we their descendents are born deprived of this natural holiness - just as if my parents had been banished from this country before I was born, such that the American citizenship which would otherwise have been mine by birth could not pass to me by virtue of their loss of citizenship. In other words, the sin of our first parents considered as the offense which lost them their holiness is not passed on to us, but the consequent deprivation of holiness is (in a sense) inherited. This is the sense in which we “inherit” the “sin” of Adam. I hope to clarify on this point further as soon as the library gets me the copies of the Tridentine canons, but they seem to be taking their own sweet time about it, so one will have to be patient.

 

[GrzeszDeL]

Fr Ambrose:

According to the Catholic Encyclopedia " The acts of the council, which were signed by the bishops, the pretorian prefect Liberius and seven other distinguished laymen, were forwarded to Rome and approved by Boniface II on 25 January, 531 (see BONIFACE II). They consequently enjoy œcumenical authority and are printed in Denzinger’s “Enchiridion Symbolorum.”
newadvent.org/cathen/11266b.htm

That just goes to show that you cannot trust everything you read on the internet. There are plenty of complete lists of ecumenical councils acknowledged by the Catholic Church scattered around the internet, and I assure you that none of them (including the one in the Catholic Encyclopedia itself) lists Orange among them. I would not wish to diminish the value of Orange, which is a fine council, but it is not regarded by anyone (Catholics included) as ecumenical, and thus its canons, however orthodox they may be, are not to be taken as definitive or binding except insofar as they are confirmed by other definitive and binding authorities (like Florence or Trent).

 

[Matt16_18]

grz

Please clarify what you mean in this sentence: Adam and Eve were created in perfect holiness, possessed by origin of the beatific vision which the Saints now behold.

Are you saying that you believe that Adam and Eve beheld the beatific vision in the Terrestrial Paradise?

Here is a link for you:

The Council of Trent
The canons and decrees of the sacred and oecumenical Council of Trent,
Ed. and trans. J. Waterworth (London: Dolman, 1848)

 

[GrzeszDeL]

Matt16_18:

Please clarify what you mean in this sentence:
Adam and Eve were created in perfect holiness, possessed by origin of the beatific vision which the Saints now behold.

Are you saying that you believe that Adam and Eve beheld the beatific vision in the Terrestrial Paradise?

I can see how that sentence is not clear. I do not know that I mean to say that Adam and Eve beheld the beatific vision in the Garden (although I would not rule that out unless there is some compelling reason to do so of which I am yet ignorant). Rather, I simply mean that Adam & Eve were headed for such bliss by default. Not so for us; we are created as native citizens of the Kingdom of This World (Jn 12:31, 14:30, Eph 6:12), and we must be made citizens of the Kingdom of Heaven (Jn 3:5, Rev 11:15) by means of baptism (in re aut voto, of course). I hope that helps to clarify what I meant. Meanwhile, I thank you for the link to the Tridentine decrees, but I am looking for the canons in the original Latin. That is why I am waiting on the library.

 

[Matt16_18]

Fr. Ambrose

I think that there must be serious differences. I’ve written in earlier posts that the doctrine of the Orthodox is what the West calls Semi-pelagianism (termed the doctrine of “synergy” in the East.)

I certainly wouldn’t want to claim that I am positive that I understand what the Orthodox mean by “synergy”, but I did read the article that you gave me to help me understand what the Orthodox mean by Divine Energy and synergy:ENERGY IN THE NEW TESTAMENT AND IN LATER THEOLOGY
This is the first article I have ever read that was written by an member of the Orthodox Church on this topic that I could comprehend. The author definitely does not understand the Catholic theology of grace, and he can get a little “New Age” in some of his speculations about Divine Energy. But when the author keeps to what he knows about the Orthodox understanding of grace, and gives the quotes from scriptures that reference “energy”, I can see that this is good stuff. It is nothing that I am unfamiliar with, but its is a way of explaining grace in a language that was different than I am used to.

 

[Matt16_18]

Fr. Ambrose

Also I have to admit that I have not a clue what is meant by the “deprivation of… original justice”? What does this mean?

Original Justice is the state of being that Adam and Eve had before the Fall. In the state of Original Justice, they possessed the preternatural gifts of bodily immortality, lack of concupiscence, infused knowledge of God, and the sanctifying grace that made them holy. The Orlapubs author speaks of the “Assimilation to God”, which is a holy gift from God that gave Adam and Eve the preternatural gifts and the gift of holiness. Basically, the Orlapubs author is just speaking about original justice with different terminology.

The Orlapubs author says that the “Assimilation to God” was lost by Adam’s sin; lost not only for himself, but for all of his children. Adam’s progeny were not guilty of personal sin, but they suffered the deprivation of the “Assimilation to God” because of Adam’s sin. Which is exactly what the Catechism says once you understand that the “Assimilation to God” = Original Justice:

CCC 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”.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.

“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.”

Compare that to what the Orlapubs author says:

Adam lacked theosis or he would not have sinned; but before sinning he remained as he had been created—according to the “Assimilation” to God (Gen. 1:26). … Our first ancestors were, unlike us, not subject to death and decay prior to their sinning because they had the “Assimilation to God.” This was lost at the Fall; the Icon of God was not lost, for the loss of its powers of reasoning and free-choice would have reduced our first ancestors to animals.

Two ways of saying the same thing - no real differences in the essentials.

 

[GrzeszDeL]

Matt16_18:

CCC 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”.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.
“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.”

Compare that to what the Orlapubs author says:

Adam lacked theosis or he would not have sinned; but before sinning he remained as he had been created—according to the “Assimilation” to God (Gen. 1:26). … Our first ancestors were, unlike us, not subject to death and decay prior to their sinning because they had the “Assimilation to God.” This was lost at the Fall; the Icon of God was not lost, for the loss of its powers of reasoning and free-choice would have reduced our first ancestors to animals.

Two ways of saying the same thing - no real differences in the essentials.

Provided that one can say for sure that the Orlapubs author speaks for Eastern Orthodoxy in general and not just himself. Of course, as with so many other aspects of Eastern Orthodoxy, who’s to say whether this is Church teaching or private opinion?

 

[Myhrr]

Matt16_18:

Genesis doesn’t say that the tree in the center of the Garden is the tree of immortality,

Yes it does.

"And God made to spring up also out of the earth every tree beautiful to the eye and good for food, and the tree of life in the midst of the garden, and the tree of learning knowledge of good and evil.

it says that there are two trees in the center of the Garden, the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, and the tree of life.

No it doesn’t, see above verse. Out of the three creations mentioned only the tree of life is described as being in the midst of the garden.

What is God’s commandment to Adam concerning the tree of knowledge of good and evil?

And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, “You may freely eat of every tree of the garden; but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall die.”
Gen. 2:16-17

MIne says:

“And the Lord God gave a charge to Adam, saying, Of every tree which is in the garden thou mayest freely eat or eat for food], but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil - of it ye shall not eat, but in whatsoever day ye eat of it, ye shall surely die or die the death].”

You are saying that Adam was going to die even if he obeyed God’s commandment to avoid eating the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

They hadn’t eaten of the tree of life which would have given them everlasting life.

So then why did God even bother telling Adam not to eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil? You can’t answer that question.

I’m not trying to answer that question.

It is your theology that does not compute, and that is why neither the Orthodox nor the Catholics accept your spin on Genesis.

I’m not asking you to accept my spin since I’m not giving it, as a definition. I’m saying you haven’t proved your case that Adam and Eve were immortal before eating of the tree of learning knowledge of good and evil, it’s your theology that doesn’t compute.

To remind you, the Orthodox don’t have a definition of Original Sin, the RCC do.

 

[Matt16_18]

grz

I can see how that sentence is not clear. I do not know that I mean to say that Adam and Eve beheld the beatific vision in the Garden (although I would not rule that out unless there is some compelling reason to do so of which I am yet ignorant). Rather, I simply mean that Adam & Eve were headed for such bliss by default.

There is a compelling reason to say that Adam and Eve did not behold the beatific vision. They could only see the beatific vision if they had been completely “divinized”. The Orlapubs author makes this point: …. (one may tentatively suggest), we must think of a gradient of more and less Grace, or rather of omoíosis as a vectorial form of théosis, a vector of being energized with more and more uncreated Grace that eventually eventuates in complete théosis. Adam lacked theosis or he would not have sinned …The Orlapubs author is correct, an angel or a human that beholds the beatific vision would be incapable of sinning. The Catechism agrees with you that Adam and Eve were* headed * for complete théosis:
CCC 398 …. Constituted in a state of holiness, man was destined to be fully “divinized” by God in glory. Seduced by the devil, he wanted to “be like God”, but “without God, before God, and not in accordance with God”.

Not so for us; we are created as native citizens of the Kingdom of This World (Jn 12:31, 14:30, Eph 6:12), and we must be made citizens of the Kingdom of Heaven (Jn 3:5, Rev 11:15) by means of baptism (in re aut voto, of course). I hope that helps to clarify what I meant.

It does indeed, and I agree. I think that the Orlapubs author also agrees with us:Our first ancestors were, unlike us, not subject to death and decay prior to their sinning because they had the “Assimilation to God.” This was lost at the Fall; the Icon of God was not lost, for the loss of its powers of reasoning and free-choice would have reduced our first ancestors to animals. …

The uncreated Grace of omoíosis received in Baptism and partaking of Christ’s Body and Blood in the Holy Communion undergoes those set-backs that every cognizant adult experiences through sinning prior to the ultimate theosis of those in Christ.

 

[GrzeszDeL]

Matt16_18:

The Orlapubs author is correct, an angel or a human that beholds the beatific vision would be incapable of sinning. The Catechism agrees with you that Adam and Eve were* headed *for complete théosis:

Ach, how foolish I feel. Yes, I suppose that does constitute a compelling reason to deny that Adam & Eve were able to behold the beatific vision in the garden. Well, in any case, the central thrust of my earlier explanation still stands.

 

[Matt16_18]

GrzeszDeL:

Provided that one can say for sure that the Orlapubs author speaks for Eastern Orthodoxy in general and not just himself. Of course, as with so many other aspects of Eastern Orthodoxy, who’s to say whether this is Church teaching or private opinion?

Exactly!

Myhrr disagrees with the Orlapubs author that Adam’s sin brought death and decay to the world, but Myhrrs position is refuted by scriptures. I have already shown her in this thread that Paul explicitly says that physical death came to humans because of Adam’s sin. Paul also says that death and decay came to creation because of Adam’s sin.
… the creation waits with eager longing for the revealing of the sons of God; for the creation was subjected to futility, not of its own will but by the will of him who subjected it in hope; because the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to decay and obtain the glorious liberty of the children of God.
Romans 8:19-21
If creation was “subjected to futility” at some point in time, then there must have been a time when nature was NOT subjected to the futility of death and decay. The Orlapubs author at least has a scriptural basis that supports his beliefs that the Terrestrial Paradise really was a paradise. And he certainly can find support for his beliefs in the writings of the Fathers.

Myhrr’s position is just plain goofy. Disease and decay were already present in the Garden before Adam and Eve committed their sin. Adam and Eve possessed the indwelling of the Holy Spirit in the Garden, and their sin did not make them lose the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. Being cast out of the Garden is no big deal because they were already subjected to disease and decay in the Garden, and they did not lose the indwelling of the Holy Spirit by their sin. All humans are born with the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, because we are all born in grace, and grace can only be understood as the Indwelling of the Holy Spirit. Of course Myhrr avoids answering why the Orthodox believe that baptism and chrismation bestow the gift of the Holy Spirit! Her beliefs contradict so much of what the Orthodox confess, that I hardly think that she speaks for the voice of Orthodoxy.

I have hope that the Orlapubs author is a little more orthodox in his Orthodoxy than Myhrr. Too bad the Orthodox don’t have the equal of the Catechism of the Catholic Church posted online – it would be nice to be able to look up what the Orthodox believe in a comprehensive Catechism.

 

[Myhrr]

---

I’m not sure whether to throw this into the mix, but it is what prompted me to investigate the differences between RCC and Orthodox in light of Paul VI changes.

wandea.org.pl/sacrament.htm

The post-conciliar changes in the form

When we come to the new rite of Confirmation as established by Paul VI’s Apostolic constitution Divinae consortium naturae (15 August, 1971), we find the following statement: ‘The Sacrament of Confirmation is conferred through the anointing with chrism on the forehead, which is done by laying on of the hand and through the words ‘accipe signaculum doni Spiritus Sancti.’'Officially translated as ‘Be Sealed with the Gift of the Holy Ghost.’

Paul VI tells us that he has adopted this formula from the Byzantine Rite, stating, 'We therefore adopt this formula, rendering it almost word for word… by which the Gift of the Holy Spirit Himself is expressed and the outpouring of the Spirit which took place on the day of Pentecost is recalled. He is of course correct, for the Greek form, as noted above, is signaculum doni Spiritus Sancti. Why however did he add Accipe which changes the meaning of the words from the active sense of something the Bishop imposes on the recipient, to the passive request for him to accept what is offered?

The answer is that by the use of this one word, the recipient is merely asked to receive the gifts of the Holy Ghost, and this is a purely subjective act on the recipient’s part. By doing this Paul VI introduced a formula which is much more acceptable to the Protestants who would be horrified at the idea that an indelible character is imprinted ex opere operato on the recipient.

There is yet a further problem with Paul VI’s Divinae consortium naturae. In it he states that the rite of Confirmation ‘recalls’ what took place on Pentecost. This is a faulty notion of a Sacrament. The gifts of the Holy Ghost are bestowed once again through the rites of the Church, and not simply ‘recalled.’

Also, why can’t I get rid of this bold??? Matt posted a link to the Sanctifying Grace article in Advent, but it didn’t work, this one might:

newadvent.org/cathen/06701a.htm

Also, the Council of Orange is instrinsic to the doctrine of Original Sin as I showed earlier, this is clear in the CCC

**

406 The Church’s teaching on the transmission of original sin was articulated more precisely in the fifth century, especially under the impulse of St. Augustine’s reflections against Pelagianism, and in the sixteenth century, in opposition to the Protestant Reformation. … The Church pronounced on the meaning of the data of Revelation on original sin especially at the second Council of Orange (529)296 and at the Council of Trent (1546).297

Note the use of the words, precisely and especially.

**

 

[RBushlow]

[Catholics believe that we receive the Real Presence in the Eucharist - i.e. we receive the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Christ.

Catholics have never believed that the divinity of Christ is something that is created.

Thanks Matt, but I was hoping the get an understanding the Orthodox view or the Eucharist. Myrr can you clarify this? Thank you.
[/quote]

 

[RBushlow]

Myhrr:

Also, why can’t I get rid of this bold???

When you are composing the text Highlight the portion of the text that you would like to remove the Bold from, for instance this section**, and click the bold “B” in the format menu. Assuming it started out as bold, The text will then be unbolded.**
May the peace of Jesus Christ, the Love of God the Father and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you.

 

[Matt16_18]

Myhrr:

I’m not trying to answer that question.

Because you can’t.

Adam and Eve possessed bodily immortality before they fell, but they did not have complete theosis, which is a participation in the divine life of God. The fruit of the tree of life would have given them the grace they needed for complete theosis, but once they sinned, they defiled their temples, and they were unfit to receive this great gift. The Holy Spirit cannot dwell in a temple defiled by abomination, so they were cast out of the Garden, and sent to live in the Kingdom of Satan, the Kingdom of their new master.

Once Adam and Eve lost the sanctity of the “Assimilation of God”, they could not receive the gift of the Indwelling of the Holy Spirit. They had to be banished from the Garden until the perfect sacrifice for sin could be offered by the Son to the Father. Only then could they be cleansed in the blood of the Lamb and be washed clean of their defilement.Blessed are those who wash their robes, that they may have the right to the tree of life and that they may enter the city by the gates.
Rev. 22:14

Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world, have mercy on us.

 

[Myhrr]

RBushlow:

Thanks Matt, but I was hoping the get an understanding the Orthodox view or the Eucharist. Myrr can you clarify this? Thank you.

The Orthodox believe that the Eucharist is the body and blood of Christ.

Some history of why there’s this confusion around now:

home.it.net.au/~jgrapsas/pages/Eucharist.htm

What are you views on this?

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

Originally Posted by Fr Ambrose
According to the Catholic Encyclopedia " The acts of the council, which were signed by the bishops, the pretorian prefect Liberius and seven other distinguished laymen, were forwarded to Rome and approved by Boniface II on 25 January, 531 (see BONIFACE II). They consequently enjoy œcumenical authority and are printed in Denzinger’s “Enchiridion Symbolorum.”
[newadvent.org/cathen/11266b.htm](http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11266b.htm)
**

GrzeszDeL:

That just goes to show that you cannot trust everything you read on the internet. There are plenty of complete lists of ecumenical councils acknowledged by the Catholic Church scattered around the internet, and I assure you that none of them (including the one in the Catholic Encyclopedia itself) lists Orange among them. I would not wish to diminish the value of Orange, which is a fine council, but it is not regarded by anyone (Catholics included) as ecumenical, and thus its canons, however orthodox they may be, are not to be taken as definitive or binding except insofar as they are confirmed by other definitive and binding authorities (like Florence or Trent).

The Canons of the Council of Orange were adopted into the Canons of the Council of Trent

This site will take you to the source material, the Canons of both Councils.
cin.org/ftpcounc.html

 

[Matt16_18]

Can Myhrr’s understanding of Original Sin be reconciled with Orthodox teaching?

ORTHODOX CATECHISM

Basic Teachings of the Orthodox Faith
by Metropolitan Archbishop Sotirios

The disobedience and transgression of Adam and Eve is called Original Sin.
**
Original Sin And Its Consequences **

A.) Spiritual death. That is, the separation of man from God, the source of all goodness.

B.) Bodily death. That is, the separation of the body from the soul, the return of the body to the earth.

C.) The shattering and distortion of the “image.” That is, darkness of mind, depravity and corruption of the heart, loss of independence, loss of free will, and tendency towards evil. Since then "the imagination of man’s heart is evil "(Genesis 8:21). Man constantly thinks of evil.

D.) Guilt. That is, a bad conscience, the shame that made him want to hide from God.

E.) Worst of all, original sin is hereditary. It did not remain only Adam and Eve’s. As life passes from them to all of their descendants, so does original sin. We all of us participate in original sin because we are all descended from the same forefather, Adam. This creates a problem for many people. They ask, Why should we be responsible for the actions of Adam and Eve? Why should we have to pay for the sins of our parents? they say. Unfortunately, this is so, because the consequence of original sin is the distortion of the nature of man.

How it this different that what it found in the Catechism of the Catholic Church? This is all much ado about nothing. The Orthodox Church and the Catholic Church agree on the essentials.

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

Matt16_18:

Can Myhrr’s understanding of Original Sin be reconciled with Orthodox teaching?

ORTHODOX CATECHISM

Basic Teachings of the Orthodox Faith
by Metropolitan Archbishop Sotirios

The disobedience and transgression of Adam and Eve is called Original Sin.

**Original Sin And Its Consequences **

A.) Spiritual death. That is, the separation of man from God, the source of all goodness.

B.) Bodily death. That is, the separation of the body from the soul, the return of the body to the earth.

C.) The shattering and distortion of the “image.” That is, darkness of mind, depravity and corruption of the heart, loss of independence, loss of free will, and tendency towards evil. Since then "the imagination of man’s heart is evil "(Genesis 8:21). Man constantly thinks of evil.

D.) Guilt. That is, a bad conscience, the shame that made him want to hide from God.

E.) Worst of all, original sin is hereditary. It did not remain only Adam and Eve’s. As life passes from them to all of their descendants, so does original sin. We all of us participate in original sin because we are all descended from the same forefather, Adam. This creates a problem for many people. They ask, Why should we be responsible for the actions of Adam and Eve? Why should we have to pay for the sins of our parents? they say. Unfortunately, this is so, because the consequence of original sin is the distortion of the nature of man.

How it this different that what it found in the Catechism of the Catholic Church? This is all much ado about nothing. The Orthodox Church and the Catholic Church agree on the essentials.

If the Catholic Church’s teaching is all of the above and NO MORE - no additional teaching of the transmission of sin and guilt - then yes, your teaching is orthodox.

One blessed result of your agreement with all the above would be the elimination of the Catholic teaching of substitutionary Atonement. Glory to God!