Orthodox and Original Sin

[mardukm]

I was debating an Orthodox priest about the Immaculate Conception.

I told him that the dogma of the Immaculate Conception does not mean that Mary did not have the Fallen State (i.e., a human nature liable to death and corruption), but that her soul was pure and holy in the eyes of God - by the Grace of God - from the first moment of her existence.

He replied that it is the Catholic definition of Original Sin that is the cause of the error of the IC. He then quotes from St. Thomas Aquinas stating that “Jesus Christ did not have Original Sin.” From that the priest concluded, “that means that Jesus did not have our Fallen State, and that is an error.”



I seriously could not believe what I was hearing. Is Orthodox polemics against the IC so bad that even priests will argue that Jesus had Original Sin?

Or is it really just misunderstanding that separates us on this issue?

Blessings

 

[Spencerian]

I was debating an Orthodox priest about the Immaculate Conception.

I told him that the dogma of the Immaculate Conception does not mean that Mary did not have the Fallen State (i.e., a human nature liable to death and corruption), but that her soul was pure and holy in the eyes of God - by the Grace of God - from the first moment of her existence.

He replied that it is the Catholic definition of Original Sin that is the cause of the error of the IC. He then quotes from St. Thomas Aquinas stating that “Jesus Christ did not have Original Sin.” From that the priest concluded, “that means that Jesus did not have our Fallen State, and that is an error.”



I seriously could not believe what I was hearing. Is Orthodox polemics against the IC so bad that even priests will argue that Jesus had Original Sin?

Or is it really just misunderstanding that separates us on this issue?

Blessings

Hi.

Based on my catechism and some research, the priest is upholding the Orthodox concept of original sin, or ancestral sin as they might prefer.

Catholics believe that Adam’s sin changed the nature of the world where humans are born into, which gives us a sinful nature, while not giving us any faults of Adam, per se.

Orthodox, on the other hand, believe that Adam’s sin was a inherited act that was passed down (as you would any genetic trait) throughout all of man.

By the priest’s reasoning, he appears to say that Jesus would have ancestral sin because he was a man, and all men inherit ancestral sin.

Two points are against him, theologically:

One: Mary was blessed not to have original sin. If we translate that as Mary lacking ancestral sin, it means that Mary could not have given Christ what her body did not possess. The Orthodox would disagree, as they see Mary as sinless, but as a matter of her behavior once born, not of any matter that God had done.

Two: Since Christ was sired of the Holy Spirit and not a human father, it is dogmatically impossible for the Holy Spirit, which is God and not human, to possess original/ancestral sin. Thus, Christ could not have received a sinful nature through this path.

Thus: Christ could not have had received a sinful nature through either Mary or the Holy Spirit.

I used several sources on this but I suspect I didn’t get the nuances of the Orthodox view on ancestral sin. It makes for an interesting topic. I invite any Orthodox friends to comment and correct me.

 

[Bluegoat]

I was debating an Orthodox priest about the Immaculate Conception.

I told him that the dogma of the Immaculate Conception does not mean that Mary did not have the Fallen State (i.e., a human nature liable to death and corruption), but that her soul was pure and holy in the eyes of God - by the Grace of God - from the first moment of her existence.

He replied that it is the Catholic definition of Original Sin that is the cause of the error of the IC. He then quotes from St. Thomas Aquinas stating that “Jesus Christ did not have Original Sin.” From that the priest concluded, “that means that Jesus did not have our Fallen State, and that is an error.”



I seriously could not believe what I was hearing. Is Orthodox polemics against the IC so bad that even priests will argue that Jesus had Original Sin?

Or is it really just misunderstanding that separates us on this issue?

Blessings

I don’t think he was saying Christ had original sin, but rather in the Western understanding, he would have to have it if he truly wanted to take on man’s nature. That is, he was saying that the Western position led inevitably to impossibilities of one kind or another.

 

[Contarini]

Hi.

Based on my catechism and some research, the priest is upholding the Orthodox concept of original sin, or ancestral sin as they might prefer.

Catholics believe that Adam’s sin changed the nature of the world where humans are born into, which gives us a sinful nature, while not giving us any faults of Adam, per se.

That is not the traditional Catholic view.

Orthodox, on the other hand, believe that Adam’s sin was a inherited act that was passed down (as you would any genetic trait) throughout all of man.

I think you may have this the wrong way round.

One: Mary was blessed not to have original sin.

So says your Communion, officially since 1854 and more or less universally since the later Middle Ages. But both Bernard and Aquinas–two of the greatest theologians of the Western Middle Ages–are on the other side.

Obviously this is the point of contention. The rest of your argument consists of the fallacy called “petitio principii”–you assume the point that needs to be argued (that Mary lacked original/ancestral sin).

The Orthodox do not believe that sin is passed down from Adam–they believe that a curse is passed down from Adam which causes us to be mortal and corruptible, and to have disordered passions.

Edwin

 

[josephdaniel29]

I was debating an Orthodox priest about the Immaculate Conception.

I told him that the dogma of the Immaculate Conception does not mean that Mary did not have the Fallen State (i.e., a human nature liable to death and corruption), but that her soul was pure and holy in the eyes of God - by the Grace of God - from the first moment of her existence.

He replied that it is the Catholic definition of Original Sin that is the cause of the error of the IC. He then quotes from St. Thomas Aquinas stating that “Jesus Christ did not have Original Sin.” From that the priest concluded, “that means that Jesus did not have our Fallen State, and that is an error.”



I seriously could not believe what I was hearing. Is Orthodox polemics against the IC so bad that even priests will argue that Jesus had Original Sin?

Or is it really just misunderstanding that separates us on this issue?

Blessings

I think you misunderstood what the priest meant. In Orthodox understanding (not sure about Catholics) one of the primary reasons, if not the primary reason the Son of God became flesh was so He could deify our fallen human nature and lift it up with Himself to the right hand of the Father. The argument goes that if Mary did not have a fallen human nature just like the rest of us then that fallen nature could not have been assumed and deified by Christ.

In Christ
Joe

 

[dnu]

Eastern Orthodoxy makes so much more sense the Catholicism sometimes.

 

[mardukm]

I don’t think he was saying Christ had original sin, but rather in the Western understanding, he would have to have it if he truly wanted to take on man’s nature. That is, he was saying that the Western position led inevitably to impossibilities of one kind or another.

I don’t understand. He was the one equating original sin with a fallen human nature, not St. Thomas Aquinas.

Blessings

 

[mardukm]

I think you misunderstood what the priest meant. In Orthodox understanding (not sure about Catholics) one of the primary reasons, if not the primary reason the Son of God became flesh was so He could deify our fallen human nature and lift it up with Himself to the right hand of the Father.

I understand that, of course, and that is what the Catholic Church teaches as well, but the Catholic Church teaches that He took on everything of our Fallen human nature except sin, which includes Original Sin. Obviously, the Catholic understanding is that “Original Sin” is not perfectly equivalent to “fallen human nature.” The Catholic teaching is that the fallen human nature - i.e., mortality and corruptibility - is just one element of “Original Sin” - the other element is what is called the stain of original sin, which is separation from God.

But, if you look at what the Father said, he is perfectly equating “Original Sin” and “fallen human nature.” That seems to be an error on his part (or perhaps the Orthodox Church is actually teaching that now?)

The argument goes that if Mary did not have a fallen human nature just like the rest of us then that fallen nature could not have been assumed and deified by Christ.

I agree. If she did teach that, I wouldn;t have become Catholic. What the Catholic Church teaches with the IC is simply that Mary was preserved from the stain of Original Sin (i.e., the state of separation from God). The IC does not teach, nor claim to teach, that Mary did not have our fallen human nature. Mary was indeed mortal and corruptible. The IC was spiritual blessing, and did not affect her physically. We get the exact same blessing at our Baptism that Mary received at her conception - to repeat, a spiritual, not physical blessing.

In any case, was it an error for that priest to perfectly equate “original sin” with “fallen human nature,” or does the Orthodox Church now teach that Jesus had original sin.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Eastern Orthodoxy makes so much more sense the Catholicism sometimes.

Maybe, but that particular priest was not making sense at all, ISTM.

Blessings

 

[josephdaniel29]

In any case, was it an error for that priest to perfectly equate “original sin” with “fallen human nature,” or does the Orthodox Church now teach that Jesus had original sin.

Blessings,
Marduk

I’m not exactly sure what you mean by original sin.

When Adam ate the fruit he broke the image and created a rift between man and God. By assuming our fallen nature Christ restored the image and closed the gap. If you are asking if Jesus had sin of course the answer is no. Did Jesus have a fallen nature? The answer again is no because He took our fallen nature and perfected it.

Yours in Christ
Joe

 

[mardukm]

I’m not exactly sure what you mean by original sin.

“Original sin,” in Catholic teaching, consists of three things:

1. Physical death and corruptibility resulting from the loss of the Grace of Immortality/Incorruptibility;
2. Concupiscence, as much the result of our animal nature as the loss of the Grace of Original Holiness;
3. Separation from God, resulting from the loss of the Grace of Original Holiness and the Grace of Original Justice.

#3 is theologically termed “the stain of Original Sin.” #1 is what is known as our “fallen human nature.”

At Baptism, it is this stain that is removed from us, and we are no longer separated from God, but are His children. However, #1 (our fallen human nature) remains. And since the stain has actually touched our human nature, even though the stain is removed by Baptism, it has damaged our human nature, and thus #2 (concupiscence) also remains,

When Adam ate the fruit he broke the image and created a rift between man and God. By assuming our fallen nature Christ restored the image and closed the gap. If you are asking if Jesus had sin of course the answer is no. Did Jesus have a fallen nature? The answer again is no because He took our fallen nature and perfected it.

I don’t understand your last sentence. You say Jesus did not have our fallen human nature because He took it on and perfected it? I have always believed that Jesus took on our fallen human nature from Mary, so he had it all His life. He did not perfect our fallen human nature until the Resurrection. Are you saying that He perfected our fallen human nature at the Incarnation, and not at the Resurrection?

Isn’t that a heresy?

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[steve_b]

I was debating an Orthodox priest about the Immaculate Conception.

I told him that the dogma of the Immaculate Conception does not mean that Mary did not have the Fallen State (i.e., a human nature liable to death and corruption), but that her soul was pure and holy in the eyes of God - by the Grace of God - from the first moment of her existence.

He replied that it is the Catholic definition of Original Sin that is the cause of the error of the IC. He then quotes from St. Thomas Aquinas stating that “Jesus Christ did not have Original Sin.” From that the priest concluded, "that means that Jesus did not have our Fallen State, and that is an error."



I seriously could not believe what I was hearing. Is Orthodox polemics against the IC so bad that even priests will argue that Jesus had Original Sin?

Or is it really just misunderstanding that separates us on this issue?

Blessings

Hi Marduk

I’m stunned with that one also. Are you sure you understood him correctly?

 

[steve_b]

“Original sin,” in Catholic teaching, consists of three things:

1. Physical death and corruptibility resulting from the loss of the Grace of Immortality/Incorruptibility;
2. Concupiscence, as much the result of our animal nature as the loss of the Grace of Original Holiness;
3. Separation from God, resulting from the loss of the Grace of Original Holiness and the Grace of Original Justice.

#3 is theologically termed “the stain of Original Sin.” #1 is what is known as our “fallen human nature.”

At Baptism, it is this stain that is removed from us, and we are no longer separated from God, but are His children. However, #1 (our fallen human nature) remains. And since the stain has actually touched our human nature, even though the stain is removed by Baptism, it has damaged our human nature, and thus #2 (concupiscence) also remains,

I don’t understand your last sentence. You say Jesus did not have our fallen human nature because He took it on and perfected it? I have always believed that Jesus took on our fallen human nature from Mary, so he had it all His life. He did not perfect our fallen human nature until the Resurrection. Are you saying that He perfected our fallen human nature at the Incarnation, and not at the Resurrection?

Isn’t that a heresy?

Blessings,
Marduk

From the 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.

**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.

**467 **the fourth ecumenical council, at Chalcedon in 451, confessed:

Following the holy Fathers, we unanimously teach and confess one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ: the same perfect in divinity and perfect in humanity, the same truly God and truly man, composed of rational soul and body; consubstantial with the Father as to his divinity and consubstantial with us as to his humanity; “like us in all things but sin”. He was begotten from the Father before all ages as to his divinity and in these last days, for us and for our salvation, was born as to his humanity of the virgin Mary, the Mother of God.

**654 **The Paschal mystery has two aspects: by his death, Christ liberates us from sin; by his Resurrection, he opens for us the way to a new life. This new life is above all justification that reinstates us in God’s grace, “so that as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life.” Justification consists in both victory over the death caused by sin and a new participation in grace. It brings about filial adoption so that men become Christ’s brethren, as Jesus himself called his disciples after his Resurrection: “Go and tell my brethren.” We are brethren not by nature, but by the gift of grace, because that adoptive filiation gains us a real share in the life of the only Son, which was fully revealed in his Resurrection.

475 Christ possesses two wills and two natural operations, divine and human. They are not opposed to each other, but cooperate in such a way that the Word made flesh willed humanly in obedience to his Father all that he had decided divinely with the Father and the Holy Spirit for our salvation. Christ’s human will does not resist or oppose but rather submits to his divine and almighty will.

Look at #405 in particular. Did Jesus, God incarnate, take on these characteristics? No.

Look at #467. The council called Jesus human nature perfect, i.e. NOT fallen.

 

[steve_b]

When Adam ate the fruit he broke the image and created a rift between man and God. By assuming our fallen nature Christ restored the image and closed the gap. If you are asking if Jesus had sin of course the answer is no. Did Jesus have a fallen nature? The answer again is no because He took our fallen nature and perfected it.

Yours in Christ
Joe

Jesus took on human nature BEFORE the fall, just as it was created. Jesus human nature was perfect. And He maintained that perfection all His life, just as Adam should have done.

if the disobedience of one caused all humanity to be seperated from God, then the perfect obedience of one caused all of humanity to be reconciled to God…true?

 

[CatholicGuyNY]

Jesus took on human nature BEFORE the fall, just as it was created.

What do you mean by this? That before Jesus Incarnated, in His pre-mortal existence, He took on human nature? Maybe I’m misunderstanding you.

 

[mardukm]

Hi Marduk

I’m stunned with that one also. Are you sure you understood him correctly?

Here is exactly what he said so you and other readers may judge for yourselves:

**Let me quote from a serious Catholic paper on Original Sin…

Thomas Aquinas, on the other hand, finds that Jesus Christ, by virtue of his conception, would not be subject to original sin. Aquinas found that original sin passed to men since they were *one body*'' with Adam (Summa Theologica IaIIae.81.1; New Advent). But Christ was not part of this body. As Aquinas notes, original sin is only contracted by those who are descended from him [Adam] through seminal power’’ (Ibid. IaIIae81.4; New Advent). In other words, only those properly of the seed of Adam would be subject of original sin. Thus Aquinas concludes that ,’‘If anyone were to be formed by God out of human flesh, it is evident that the active power would not be derived from Adam. Consequently, he would not contract original sin’’ (Ibid.; New Advent). Thus, Aquinas finds that Jesus Christ would have no need to cleanse his body of original sin, since his conception, by its independence from carnal generation, would have been without sin.

This cannot be reconciled with the Orthodox view. It teaches that Christ, being born of a Virgin, escapes the state in which we find ourselves. If he escapes the state in which we find ourselves then he cannot save us.**

From what I see, he is directly criticizing St. Thomas’ statement that Christ did not have original sin, interpreting it to mean that Christ did not have our fallen nature.

Hence, he is claiming that Christ must have had original sin in order to have a fallen human nature.

DId I miss something, or is this priest just way off base?

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[steve_b]

What do you mean by this? That before Jesus Incarnated, in His pre-mortal existence, He took on human nature? Maybe I’m misunderstanding you.

Jesus received in the incarnation, a rational soul and body from Mary. His human nature is perfect, NOT fallen.

Here’s how Irenaeus discusses the incarnation

Irenaeus Against Heresies Bk 3, Ch 21, paragraph 10 says it this way

1. For as by one man’s disobedience sin entered, and death obtained [a place] through sin; so also by the obedience of one man, righteousness having been introduced, shall cause life to fructify in those persons who in times past were dead. Romans 5:19 And as the protoplast himself Adam, had his substance from untilled and as yet virgin soil (for God had not yet sent rain, and man had not tilled the ground Genesis 2:5, and was formed by the hand of God, that is, by the Word of God, for all things were made by Him, John 1:3 and the Lord took dust from the earth and formed man; so did He who is the Word, recapitulating Adam in Himself, rightly receive a birth, enabling Him to gather up Adam [into Himself], from Mary, who was as yet a virgin. If, then, the first Adam had a man for his father, and was born of human seed, it were reasonable to say that the second Adam was begotten of Joseph. But if the former was taken from the dust, and God was his Maker, it was incumbent that the latter also, making a recapitulation in Himself, should be formed as man by God, to have an analogy with the former as respects His origin. Why, then, did not God again take dust, but wrought so that the formation should be made of Mary? It was that there might not be another formation called into being, nor any other which should [require to] be saved, but that the very same formation should be summed up [in Christ as had existed in Adam], the analogy having been preserved.

Irenaeus is saying that Jesus took on human nature from Mary, with respect to Adam’s nature at it’s origin before Adam’s fall… And Jesus preserved that nature perfectly, free from ALL stain of sin and rebellion just as God created it to be.

And Jesus redeemed His mother in advance, from her conception, in anticipation of His incarnation through her. If Mary’s nature was fallen she would have passed that fallen nature onto Jesus, which didn’t happen because of the IC.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Steve,

Jesus took on human nature BEFORE the fall, just as it was created. Jesus human nature was perfect. And He maintained that perfection all His life, just as Adam should have done.

I can’t speak for the Easterns. When Orientals say Christ had a “fallen human nature,” we mean that it was subject to death and corruption, not that it was sinful.

You say “human nature before the Fall,” but in the Oriental understanding human nature before the Fall was mortal. Before the Fall, man was immortal by Grace, not by nature. So, at least from the Oriental perspective, “human nature before the Fall” would mean the same thing as “fallen human nature” - i,e, a nature that is mortal and corruptible, not necessarily a nature that is sinful…

Apparently (and I use the word strongly since I am not sure), the Easterns interpret the phrase “Fallen human nature” much more generally, equating Original Sin and all its effects (whether spiritual or physical) with the phrase “Fallen human nature.” If what I stated is correct (and hopefully brother Joe or another Eastern can advise us), then the Eastern teaching presents some problems with Christology.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Bluegoat]

OK, I think I see what he might be getting at. His problem is with the idea that being fallen becomes part of our nature - that is, what is essential to us as being human. If falleness is part of our nature in this way, than we become a different thing than we were before. If Christ then only takes on un-fallen human nature, it is not useful - he has not become truly man because what man is includes a fallen nature.

In the Eastern view, as I understand it, human nature does not change, and so this is not an issue.

 

[steve_b]

OK, I think I see what he might be getting at. His problem is with the idea that being fallen becomes part of our nature - that is, what is essential to us as being human. If falleness is part of our nature in this way, than we become a different thing than we were before. If Christ then only takes on un-fallen human nature, it is not useful - he has not become truly man because what man is includes a fallen nature.

In the Eastern view, as I understand it, human nature does not change, and so this is not an issue.

That statement highlighted is not correct. Human nature in the beginning was perfect. There was no sin, no death. There was no nature prone to rebelion. Was Adam truly man truly human before the fall? Absolutely. Did he become MORE human, more man, AFTER the fall? NO. I think one could argue he became less of a man. He corrupted what was pristine. As a result, he lost plenty by his fall. And as a result, he could only pass on to us a less than perfect human nature. But that’s NOT the nature Jesus took on. He took on nature that was perfect and remained perfect. He kept man fully man as intended from the beginning.

Jesus ushered in a new Genesis. The new Adam, who is perfect from beginning to end. Just as the 1st Adam should have done. But because of Adam’s rebellion, death entered the world.

No one could take Jesus life. Jesus gave His life freely. He chose to die for us in order to reorder the consequences of Adam’s sin even though He had NO sin of any kind in Himself. And through his resurrection and ascention, His work of reordering is done perfectly.